NucNews May 17, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Australia Nuclear Update Wednesday, May 17, 2006 NEI Nuclear Notes http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/05/australia-nuclear-update.html Aussie Prime Minister John Howard was in Washington this week to talk nuclear energy with top officials of the U.S. Government: "It may be desirable that Australia in the future builds nuclear power plants," Mr Howard told reporters in Washington, after meetings with US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman and the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. Mr Howard's enthusiasm for a possible nuclear future came after he told Mr Bodman that Australia wanted to be fully consulted over plans for the big six nuclear-power countries - the US, France, China, Britain, Russia and Japan - to forge a new informal trading bloc. But Mr Howard poured cold water on suggestions Australia could become a waste dump for nuclear material from other countries, arguing that this was never contemplated. "What I indicated to (Mr Bodman) is that we would want to be kept fully informed of how this proposal developed. At this stage, Australia is a willing seller of uranium subject to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and our own separate safeguards," he said. "We would continue to want to be in that position, but we would want to be kept informed of any progress towards formation of what could be regarded as a fuel reprocessing group." Of course, Prime Minister Howard is referring to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and it only makes sense that a nation that is the world's second leading supplier of uranium ought to be part of that conversation. Meanwhile, back home, an official with WWF-Australia is challenging a recent report that claimed their top man was urging his WWF compatriots to change their minds about nuclear energy. -------- britain UK's Blair Says Nuclear Power Back on Agenda Story by Katherine Baldwin and Jeremy Lovell REUTERS UK: May 17, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36400/story.htm LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair provoked outrage on Tuesday by saying the replacement of Britain's ageing nuclear power plants was back on the agenda due to global warming and rising reliance on imported energy. Environmentalists said the remarks in a speech to business chiefs showed Blair had decided to back nuclear power even before the government's own energy review had been completed. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance," Blair told the Confederation of British Industry. His remarks, in the middle of a wide-ranging speech covering globalisation, education, pensions and public sector reform, followed a private briefing by the energy minister on the progress of the review which is due to be concluded by July. Britain's nuclear power stations supply one-fifth of the nation's electricity. However, all but one are scheduled to close by 2025 as are a number of old, coal-fired power plants. Altogether, the plants set for closure account for one-third of generating capacity. Environmentalists have long complained that the energy review is a shroud to cover a decision they say Blair has already taken in secret to back building new nuclear plants. "Increasingly it looks like the energy consultation has been a complete sham. It's clear that Tony Blair is fixated with nuclear power and is determined to oversee a new generation of nuclear reactors," Friends of the Earth chief Tony Juniper said. Not only do Blair's remarks appear to pre-empt the energy review, they also come before a final decision has been taken on how to deal with existing nuclear waste and months ahead of a key Treasury report into the economic costs of climate change. ENERGY GAP It is not just the energy gap that is facing the government. It admitted in March that it is set to miss its own pledge to cut emissions of carbon dioxide -- the main global warming culprit -- by 20 percent by 2010. It has also seen energy prices surge as dwindling domestic supplies force reliance on imports. "We will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-90 percent self-reliant to being 80-90 percent dependent on foreign imports of gas, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia," Blair said. Blair, whose popularity has slumped and who is under pressure from parts of his Labour Party to step down, is aware of deep-rooted opposition within Labour to more nuclear power. But he was adamant: "If we do not take these long-term decisions now, I believe we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Most scientists say global warming is due mainly to carbon gases from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, and that it will cause cause floods, famines and epidemics. Advocates of nuclear power, who have seen interest in new plants surge in the global search for clean power, say it is a carbon-free source of power and therefore the key to the future. Environmentalists, however, say it is dirty, expensive and dangerous and the real answer lies in renewables like wind, solar and waves as well as in greater energy efficiency. "Nuclear power presents a real terrorist threat, costs a stupid amount of money, doesn't help in the fight against climate change and certainly won't plug the energy gap," said Stephen Tindale of Greenpeace. "To put this hazard back on the agenda is recklessly incompetent." ---- Livingstone fears new generation of nuclear power stations Publisher: Ian Morgan 17/05/2006 24dash.com http://www.24dash.com/news/58/5878/index.htm Mayor of London Ken Livingstone says a decision to build a new generation of nuclear power stations would be an expensive and dangerous mistake. He pointed to a poll which showed over two thirds of Londoners opposed to the transport of nuclear waste and nearly three quarters opposed to building nuclear power stations in their locality. Commenting on press reports indicating a shift in government thinking in favour of nuclear power, Mr Livingstone said: "It will be the great misjudgement of our generation to go back down the nuclear road, which would saddle our children and grandchildren with the consequences. "I would say to Tony Blair and every politician who has the ability to influence the future energy strategy of our country that giving the green light to nuclear power would be an expensive and dangerous mistake that is simply not the solution to the problem of climate change. 'The government will get it disastrously wrong if it reactivates the nuclear option. We need a solution to climate change that protects the environment not damages it. 'There is already huge public opposition to nuclear, with the most recent poll of Londoners showing sixty seven per cent against nuclear waste being transported through densely populated areas like London. "Seventy two per cent of Londoners say they oppose the building of a nuclear power station in their local area and I am sure these figures would be substantially higher in areas where nuclear power stations might actually be built. "The reason for the massive opposition to nuclear power is that it is a proven threat to our environment, as the nuclear fall-out from Chernobyl continues to show. The world's best engineers have yet to find a safe method of dealing with nuclear waste. Fall-out from Chernobyl is still claiming lives and contaminating land, twenty years on. "It is not even the case that nuclear power will solve the problem of climate change. "Even if we doubled the number of nuclear power stations over the next twenty years - a barely credible proposition - it would cut carbon emissions by just eight per cent. According to the best scientific evidence we need cuts of three or four times this. "After a decade of fine words the government needs to take steps that will really tackle climate change - moving from inefficient centralised power generation to decentralised combined heat, power and cooling; a massive programme of energy efficiency in homes and offices; real investment in renewable energy; and serious measures to reduce pollution from transport. "These are the environmentally-friendly solutions to climate change that unlike nuclear power do not represent a massive threat to our environment." ---- Blair Rocks Britain With Pro-Nuclear Vow Wednesday, May 17, 2006 NEI Nuclear Notes http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/05/blair-rocks-britain-with-pro-nuclear.html As you might expect, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech last night backing new nuclear build in the U.K. is stoking conversation across the Atlantic. Here's Peter C. Glover: Though nuclear power is not the whole answer, until a sensible alternative comes along - and 'renewables' are about as sensible an answer as lighting a match under water - then nuclear power will have to produce around 20% of our future needs, at least - and cut carbon emissions to almost nil. The environmentalists would soon go quiet once the blackouts, failure of cold water, cold houses and aged deaths started to occur under their crackpot schemes. Actually, that's pretty tough on renewables. Here at NEI, we believe new nuclear build will make the electric grid safe for intermittent power sources like renewables. Here's Tim Sewell: Tony Blair has outraged elements of the green movement with his speech last night putting energy diversification back on the agenda Â?with a vengeanceÂ?. Why would this be? Because he sees a resurgence in nuclear generation capacity as a central plank of any such programme, which would also include a major push on energy efficiency and renewables. I can see his point. As he said, we will soon move from being 80-90% self-sufficient in gas (which on present trends will become our main source of energy very soon, for electricity generation, at least) to being dependent by a similar proportion on imported supplies from those noted areas of incorruptible political stability, Russia, the Middle East and Asia. This canÂ?t be allowed to happen for two main reasons. If you're a regular reader, you'll familiarair with the arguments that he makes. Check them out right now. As it turned out, just as Blair was giving his CBI speech, climate scientist James Lovelock was delivering his own in support of nuclear energy at the 2006 Brighton Festival. Click here for an account from Donald Clark. As you might imagine, there's plenty of impassioned opposition. One good example comes from The Low Carbon Kid: The Low Carbon Kid says: politics and nuclear power make an explosive combination. When they are in bed together you can be sure, as wrong decisions can be taken for the right reasons, it will end in tears. So many have told you Mr Blair that nukes - for reasons of timing, security, the long view and expense - are that wrong decision. Listen, for once.... or leave - and turn the light off as you go. For more carping, visit Peter Black in Wales. Our new friends at Potential Energy have started an open thread on the speech and are inviting comments. Be sure to stop by and add yours. http://www.potentialenergyuk.com/?p=16 ---- Blair Says Nuclear Power Back on the Agenda with a Vengeance LONDON, UK, May 17, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-17-01.asp Prime Minister Tony Blair says new British nuclear power plants are needed to deal with the "twin pressures of climate change and energy security." Environmentalists reacted angrily to Blair's suggestion that his government is ready to rely on nuclear energy. In remarks to the Confederation of British Industry on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said the government will publish an Energy Review before Parliament takes its summer recess, but he has seen a first draft that puts "replacement of nuclear power stations... back on the agenda with a vengeance." Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper said, "Increasingly it looks like the energy consultation has been a complete sham. It's clear that Tony Blair is fixated with nuclear power and is determined to oversee a new generation of nuclear reactors rather than investing in clean and sustainable options that already exist." Thirty-three nuclear units are in operation in the United Kingdom, generating almost 25 percent of the country's electricity. All but one are scheduled to close by 2025 as are several older, coal-fired power plants, totaling one-third of Britain's generating capacity. Blair told the industrialists that the first draft of the energy review, headed by Department of Trade and Industry Minister Malcolm Wicks, shows that, "By 2025, if current policy is unchanged, there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions." "We will become heavily dependent on gas," said Blair, "and at the same time move from being 80/90 percent, self-reliant in gas to 80/90 percent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East and Africa and Russia." Blair also said these "stark" facts also mean there should be "a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers," but these points did not upset environmentalists, who agree that renewables and efficiency are important. "The UK could be leading the world in the development of a low carbon, nuclear free economy," said Juniper. "But rather than backing safe solutions for tackling climate change and meeting our energy needs, he seems intent on trying to waste yet more taxpayers money on a discredited and dangerous nuclear dinosaur." Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, called Blair's announcement "the latest act in the long running farce that is the Energy Review." Tindale accused the Prime Minister of repeating claims made by the nuclear industry its recent public relations campaign. "Tony Blair positioned nuclear power as part of the solution to climate change and the UK's energy gap. But the claims are disingenuous," Tindale said. "Building 10 new nuclear reactors would only deliver a four per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2024, even at the most optimistic build rate: far too little, too late to help combat climate change." "Nuclear power presents a real terrorist threat, costs a stupid amount of money, doesn't help in the fight against climate change and certainly won't plug the energy gap," Tindale said. "To put this hazard back on the agenda is recklessly incompetent." Recently shuffled out of the Blair Cabinet, former environment minister Elliot Morley said environment ministers were not involved enough in the energy review. Morley told "The Guardian" newspaper, "If nuclear power was so great then you would have the private sector willing to invest in it." "The reality is that economically the risks are great and the returns are low," he said, due to "the cost of decommissioning, the storage, reprocessing and the responsibility for the waste." Juniper says that even before the final draft of the energy review is tabled, the Prime Minister has decided to rely on nuclear power, and is rearranging his government to support that position. "It's probably no coincidence that a number of nuclear skeptics were removed from key Cabinet posts earlier this month," Juniper said. In the May 5 Cabinet shuffle, one day after the Blair government took a pounding at the polls, David Miliband became environment secretary, replacing Margaret Beckett, who was viewed as a nuclear skeptic. Beckett took the post of foreign secretary, replacing Jack Straw. ---- Blair Presses the Nuclear Button · New generation of atomic stations endorsed by PM · Failure to act would be 'a dereliction of my duty' by Patrick Wintour and David Adam Published on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 by the Guardian / UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776499,00.html Tony Blair ignited a political storm, including within his own cabinet, by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations last night. Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the country. Effectively pre-empting the outcome of the government's energy review due to be published in July, Mr Blair, in a speech to the CBI, said the issue of a new generation of stations was back on the agenda with a vengeance, alongside a big push on renewables and a step change in energy efficiency. Mr Blair's spokesman said the prime minister was speaking after reading "a first cut" of the Department of Trade and Industry-led review on Monday. He said the country could not rely on one new source to meet the coming energy gap, pointing out that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, had technical problems. Ministers believe a new generation of nuclear stations will require an extension of the current renewables subsidy to nuclear electricity and some form of pre-licensing agreement to speed up planning permission for new stations. In his speech last night Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. "The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80% to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country." Although Mr Blair has warned before -in a speech to the CBI last November - that energy policy was back on the agenda with a vengeance, his remarks yesterday were significant since his considered judgment comes after viewing the initial findings of the energy review. His aides said he was convinced that improved energy efficiency and renewables were not enough to fill the energy gap caused by the phasing out of the current set of ageing stations. His spokesman insisted: "There is no one club solution." Mr Blair has been heavily influenced by the government chief scientist, Sir David King, who believes nuclear power could in future provide 40% of electricity supply, double the current figure. Mr Blair's move will open up divisions inside the cabinet, on the Labour backbenches and provide the first serious test of the nature of David Cameron's green credentials. The Liberal Democrats are firmly opposed to nuclear. Some environmentalists regard nuclear as a renewable option, and Mr Cameron's colleagues have been looking at making the investment climate more favourable to nuclear without actually endorsing new stations. Mr Blair has also decided there will not be a separate white paper after the energy review, suggesting there will be no legislation to bring in nuclear stations - reducing the opportunities for a focused backbench rebellion in the Commons. He will face familiar questions on the cost and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and strong criticism from his own Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt. The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the prime minister's remarks, saying they came at a "crucial time". Keith Parker, NIA chief executive, said: "Nuclear energy is a large-scale, low-carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of energy supply." The French company Areva said last night its reactors could be up and running by 2017 - if the planning procedures were streamlined and decisions made on long-term waste storage. Resolutely anti-nuclear environmental groups were less enthusiastic. Greenpeace said Mr Blair's nuclear embrace was "recklessly incompetent". Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, said: "This is not a chance comment it is a political set-piece. He's trying to soften the ground and get us all angrily running about in the hope that by the time the final report comes out in July we'll all be bored of arguing about it. We won't." Polls show that Mr Blair is pushing the right buttons to convince a traditionally equally split public on the issue of new reactors. A survey of 1,491 people this year, carried out by Mori and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, found 60% of people would support new atomic power stations as long as renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply. But 74% said that nuclear power should not be considered as a solution for climate change before all other energy options had been explored. 17.05.2006: Ex-minister Morley says figures are a fix http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776514,00.html 17.05.2006: Blair decision challenges Cameron's green agenda http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776521,00.html 17.05.2006: New reactors can be ready by 2017, says industry http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776411,00.html Special report The nuclear industry http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/0,,181325,00.html Useful links British Energy http://www.british-energy.com/ Department of Trade and Industry http://www.dti.gov.uk/ British Nuclear Fuels Ltd http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament http://www.cnduk.org/ Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/ HSE nuclear glossary http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm Come Clean WMD awareness programme http://www.comeclean.org.uk/ UK atomic energy authority http://www.ukaea.org.uk/ National Radiological Protection Board http://www.nrpb.org.uk/ Friends of the Earth http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuclear/index.html World Nuclear Association http://www.uilondon.org/ World Nuclear Transport Institute http://www.wnti.co.uk/ ---- Nuclear battle with Wales looms as Blair puts N-power plants back on agenda May 17 2006 Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail IC Wales / Trinity Mirror http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/tm_objectid=17088806&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=nuclear-battle-with-wales-looms-as-blair-puts-n-power-plants-back-on--agenda---name_page.html TONY BLAIR last night set the scene for a nuclear showdown with Wales as he gave his strongest endorsement yet for the controversial technology. He told business leaders nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance" as Ministers prepare for a wide-ranging energy review in the summer. Critics say Mr Blair has already made up his mind to back more nuclear power stations, but he faces stiff opposition in Wales, where the Assembly Government and Welsh Secretary Peter Hain have both taken a firm anti-nuclear stance. Any future building programme would see the existing Wylfa and Trawsfynydd nuclear sites in north-west Wales as prime candidates for new reactors. In his speech Mr Blair said, "Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. "Yesterday I received the first cut of the (energy) review. The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80-90% self-reliant in gas to 80-90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia. These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance." His words were not enough to prompt a change of tack from the staunchly anti-nuclear First Minister Rhodri Morgan and his Cabinet. A spokesman for the Assembly Government said last night they were sticking to their "clear and consistent" position that there was no case for a new generation of nuclear power stations. A first draft of the energy review has been completed and is expected to suggest a feasibility study is carried out on a barrage across the river Severn, an idea backed by Mr Morgan. Mr Blair's remarks prompted a storm of protest, with Kate Hudson, chairwoman of CND, saying new nuclear power stations would be "incomprehensible". Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth said, "He [Mr Blair] seems intent on trying to waste yet more taxpayers' money on a discredited and dangerous nuclear dinosaur." ---- Nuclear power won't need tax cash JOHN BOWKER DEPUTY CITY EDITOR Wed 17 May 2006 The Scotsman http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=733262006 BRITISH Energy claimed yesterday that it would not need any more taxpayers' money to build a fleet of new nuclear power stations, saying that all that was required from the government was greater certainty over planning consent and the carbon trading market. Robert Armour, the energy giant's general counsel, promised a cross-party group of MPs that BE was "not looking for subsidies" to help build new stations - a plan widely expected to be given the green light as a result of the current Energy Review. However, it warned that private-sector backing would be needed for the new-build, and therefore the government would have to "create a framework" for outside investors. This would include a reliable long-term price structure for carbon, and a simplification of the planning and pre-licensing processes. Nuclear power currently accounts for more than a fifth of the UK's electricity, yet all but one of BE's eight plants are set to be decommissioned in the next two decades. Their replacement is at the heart of the Energy Review, which aims to establish how the UK can off-set the decline in North Sea oil and gas reserves. Last night, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, all but confirmed that the review would come out pro-nuclear, even though the deadline for responses has only just passed. He told the CBI dinner: "I [have] received the first cut of the [energy] review. The facts are stark. [They] put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency back on the agenda with a vengeance." Livingston-based BE was giving evidence to the trade and industry select committee on the challenges facing new nuclear build. The company had to be bailed out by the government two years ago - but is still expected to play a significant part in any future nuclear programme. Armour was joined by Peter Spence, BE's head of strategy, and Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. Parker laid out the body's demands of the government, in an argument later echoed by Armour. "The government has to identify the desirable outcomes of energy policy - understood to be security of supply and a reduction in carbon emissions," he said. Armour noted that the current European emissions trading scheme - which creates a market for carbon - had proved unreliable in recent weeks and is not set to last beyond 2012. "We need a framework up until 2050 if we are to build nuclear power stations," he said. A key issue in the debate is who will pay for the clean-up process, but Armour said BE itself would set up a fund. "For each megawatt of electricity generated, we will pay a levy into a fund," he said. However, it was that liability on its current stations that the government was forced to shoulder in rescuing BE in 2003. In a debt-for-equity deal, it insured the decommissioning fund in return for a 65 per cent stake in the company, which it has since announced it will sell. ---- New reactors can be ready by 2017, says industry · French firm says UK could reap benefits of its designs · Timetable ignores waste disposal issue, say critics Terry Macalister and David Adam Wednesday May 17, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776411,00.html The nuclear industry promised last night to have new reactors up and running in Britain by 2017 - as long as the planning process is streamlined and a final decision is made on long-term waste storage. Areva, the French company which has already seen one of its designs adopted for new plants in Finland and in its home country, said its reactors were ready for adoption in the UK. "We believe that we can have one of our third-generation reactors ready within five years of the first concrete being poured," a spokesman for the company said last night. With all the different stages of a new plant being taken into account Areva says 2017 is a realistic timetable by which electricity could be generated. That date does not take into account any unforeseen problems; the backers of the new Finnish plant at Olkiluoto recently admitted they were running nine months behind schedule, barely one year into construction. Neither does it take into account the logistics of constructing many plants at the same time, nuclear insiders admit. It is generally accepted that the UK could build no more than two plants simultaneously - due to skills and other capacity shortages - and yet between six and 10 at least will be needed because all but one of the existing plants, which provide over 20% of UK electricity, will be phased out by 2023. The final decision to build a new generation of plants will not come from the designers, such as Areva, but from power companies. It would be up to the large electricity suppliers such as France's EDF or Germany's E.ON and RWE or even British Energy to go for more nuclear. Subsidies Engineering companies, such as Washington Group International, have declared their interest in being involved in newbuild as they also line up with others to manage the billions of pounds worth of clean-up work. Some power companies have already clearly indicated they would be willing to go nuclear and say they would not need subsidies, although environmentalists opposed to this form of energy remain sceptical. What the industry does fear, however, is the drawn-out planning inquiries that delayed for so long the Sizewell B nuclear plant in Suffolk and, more recently, Terminal 5 at Heathrow airport. "We want to ensure that planning approval processes are faster," one industry figure said. He pointed to the US, where public campaigns against various new plants caused a "nuclear winter" in the 1980s and 90s, when investors refused to back new facilities because there was no guarantee they would be completed. The US president, George Bush, made rejigging the planning process a key part of his energy plans last year. Since then up to five new plants have been proposed and are expected to be connected to the electricity grid there by 2015. The US, Finland, and France are among a number of countries that have moved back into nuclear in an attempt to meet energy supply concerns and CO2 targets after a long period when no plants were built. China is looking to build as many as 30 reactors in the expectation that nuclear will provide 4% of its electricity by 2020, compared with just 1% now. Britain will be able to choose from a range of other designs - all of them in the hands of companies based abroad. These would include products engineered by Westinghouse, which has been sold to Toshiba of Japan. Westinghouse used to be controlled by the state-owned operator of Sellafield, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, but the government wanted to avoid big future financial commitments or potential liabilities. General Electric in America and AECL in Canada could also be expected to put forward designs for new British plants, each costing about £2bn. Although anti-nuclear groups question the figures and methodology, the atomic engineering companies say the industry does not need subsidies. The nuclear industry says its calculations about the viability of atomic plants take into account dealing with waste. Deep-earth burial But the new British atomic pioneers are also determined that the waste legacy now in the hands of the newly formed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - is also dealt with. "There must be no uncertainty," said a member of the industry who asked not to be named. "A decision must be taken by the government - and supported by the British people - about storage so there is total clarity." The government has been advised by its waste adviser body that it should go for deep-earth burial while the energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, has also looked at speeding up planning and regulation. The nuclear industry has been saying that some of Britain's past problems were caused by the insistence of UK operators to build their own unique plants. Areva, which has constructed 98 of the world's 443 reactors, says there is no need to reinvent the wheel. "Britain can benefit from standardisation of technology and the experience of nuclear companies in Europe, the US and Asia leading to a more predictable cost and build time," it says. But the British public remains sceptical about the safety record and secrecy of the nuclear industry, despite the fact there have been no major accidents here. Bold solution or dangerous problem? What will nuclear new build involve? Most analysts believe Britain would need to order a fleet of between six and eight new reactors to fill the looming energy gap and make the technology affordable. Officially, no decision has been made on where to put them, most likely are the sites of existing nuclear power stations, such as Sizewell in Suffolk. It would take at least a decade to get them up and running - perhaps even longer because of likely planning problems and possible delays in sourcing key components. Are they safe? The pro-nuclear lobby claims that new reactors are much safer than older designs but the shadow of the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 and the Windscale fire of 1957 still lingers. Anti-nuclear campaigners highlight the new terrorist risk, but the industry says reactors are not an easy target because they sit low on the horizon and are spherical, making a direct hit from an aircraft difficult. What about the waste? A fleet of new reactors would add only about 10% by volume to the UK's mountain of nuclear waste over their lifetime, but would increase fivefold the amount of the deadliest, longest lasting type. Government experts concluded that Britain should build an underground bunker for the waste that stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years. That would take decades and the waste from new reactors will probably be kept on sites where it was produced in the interim. The spent fuel from new reactors is unlikely to be reprocessed. Will they help tackle climate change? Yes, up to a point. Nuclear reactors generate electricity without burning fossil fuels and so do not produce lots of carbon dioxide. Building and dismantling the facilities, as well as mining uranium fuel all do. Nuclear power currently supplies about 20% of UK electricity, but just 3.6% of energy demands. Replacing existing reactors with coal and gas stations would raise emissions by 4-8%. What about renewables? Ministers have repeatedly said the energy review is not a straight fight between nuclear and renewable sources, to which they say they remain committed. Others say government support for nuclear will damage confidence and investment in these fledgling technologies. A new fleet of reactors would run for 40 to 50 years, by which time sources such as hydrogen may be realistic options. Will the public approve? Polls are usually evenly split on the issue - one for the Guardian/ICM at Christmas showed 48% against new reactors with 45% in favour. A more recent survey by Mori and the Tyndall Centre showed 60% of people supported new reactors as long as renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply. ---- Blair decision challenges Cameron's green agenda Will Woodward, chief political correspondent Wednesday May 17, 2006 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,,1776521,00.html Tony Blair's decision to go nuclear creates a major challenge for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who has been basking in positive publicity about his green credentials. Mr Cameron has been sitting on the fence until now, appointing a declared opponent of nuclear power, Zac Goldsmith, to co-chair his "quality of life" review, with John Gummer, the former environment secretary who has Sizewell A and B in his Suffolk Coastal constituency. Mr Goldsmith and Mr Gummer are said to be willing to be flexible and Mr Gummer has criticised nuclear power in the past. But one source close to the review predicted the party would ultimately come out in favour of limited replacement of nuclear stations, in conjunction with extra investment in renewable energy. Mr Cameron's "Vote Blue, Go Green" slogan served him well at this month's local elections. But although nuclear power leaves a smaller carbon footprint than coal-fired stations, the environmental lobby has traditionally been vociferously "no-nukes". Alan Duncan, the shadow trade and industry secretary, who is carrying out his own, separate, review of energy policy, issued a splenetic statement last night. But he, too, is on the horns of a dilemma. "It just proves that the energy review has been a smokescreen all along," Mr Duncan said. "[Mr Blair] has humiliated his new secretary of state for trade and industry and he has irresponsibly broken this down to a pro- versus anti-nuclear argument. He should be looking at all generating methods with equal vengeance. "What on earth is the point of an energy review, when all he ever wanted to do was to say that you will be having nuclear power whether you like it or not?" But Mr Duncan's response itself indicated the nervousness the party faces on the issue. He added: "The Conservative party is committed to an open-minded energy review and a belief that tackling climate change is the most important issue on the political agenda today." The Tory review will be published in the summer. Mr Blair has not been able to erode Labour's traditional suspicion of nuclear power. The leftwing Labour MP John McDonnell said last night that the prime minister had decided to pre-empt the energy review and try to "bounce the government into a decision on behalf of the nuclear industry". He added: "This announcement, made not to parliament or the parliamentary Labour party but at a dinner of New Labour's friends in the City, flies in the face of all consultations and democratic procedures and completely ignores the widespread opposition within the party." Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesman, told Channel 4 News: "He [Mr Blair] has bounced his own ministers into this decision. This doesn't smack of proper leadership, it smacks of desperation. Clearly the prime minister under pressure wanted to create some sort of legacy for himself. The danger is it will be a legacy of a high nuclear tax for every family in the country because we all know nuclear is not economic." Industry was supportive. Sir Digby Jones, director-general of the CBI, said: "The prime minister is absolutely right to put nuclear power firmly on the agenda for the future. The government must take brave decisions as a result of its energy review, to help deliver to business and consumers secure and affordable power for the long term that doesn't come at the expense of the environment." -------- business GE building plant to make new line of nuclear reactors Associated Press Wed, May. 17, 2006 http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/14601595.htm WILMINGTON, N.C. - GE Energy, which moved its nuclear business headquarters from California to Wilmington three years ago, has broken ground here on a plant here that will focus on developing a new line of nuclear reactors for the international market. The high price of oil is one trigger behind the rush to tap the fast-growing market overseas, especially in China and India, GE officials said. Nuclear energy has a real opportunity to help the "developing world get on with its business," David Calhoun, GE infrastructure president and CEO, said during Tuesday's groundbreaking. Along with GE, Areva and Westinghouse are also looking abroad. The nuclear powerhouses are also counting on billions of dollars in federal subsidies, global warming concerns and rising energy costs to bolster the construction of nuclear plants in the U.S. Two North Carolina-based utilities also are moving forward with nuclear projects to meet rising energy demand in their service areas. Combined, Raleigh-based Progress Energy and Duke Power in Charlotte plan to license a total of six new reactors in the Carolinas and Florida. A nuclear renaissance could translate into hundreds of new jobs in North Carolina. GE's 2003 investment in Wilmington includes the promise of 400 jobs in return for more than $11 million in state and local incentives at its 1,650-acre Castle Hayne nuclear facility, which makes fuel rods and parts for nuclear reactors. So far, it has hired 250 engineers, project managers and support staff toward that goal and still plans to hire the remaining 150 workers. The latest project, a 40,000-square-foot complex that's expected to open this November, could bring hundreds more jobs than required by the incentive program, said Andrew White, GE's chief executive of the nuclear energy business. "If this nuclear reactor business takes off in the United States, we could be talking about 500 to 1,000 new jobs here," White said. Neither Progress Enery nor Duke Power have selected GE's advanced reactor design. They both have picked Westinghouse's competing model that has the advantage of already being approved by the NRC. While the GE model isn't expected to gain regulatory approval in the U.S. for another year or two, other utilities plan to license the GE model at three sites. "We're assuming we'll get new orders for plants that will pay back this huge investment," White said. "A company like GE has the wherewithal to take this kind of swing." The renewed effort put into nuclear energy has attracted opposition from groups that say they'll focus public awareness on the problems of the first generation of American nuclear plants. For instance, N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network contends that Progress Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County is one of the nation's most dangerous nuclear facilities. That's despite the site's high safety rating from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Utilities say the new reactors are different than the mechanical operating systems in plants built in the 1970s and 1980s. The new reactors are all fully digitized and highly automated, officials said. ---- GE Energy’s nuclear business breaks ground on new technology center New Facility Key Part of GE’s Wilmington Site Expansion May 17, 2006 Electric Energy http://www.electricenergyonline.com/IndustryNews.asp?m=1&id=50869 Wilmington, N.C. –– Demonstrating its commitment to the global nuclear industry, GE Energy’s nuclear business formally began construction Tuesday on a two-story, 40,000-square-foot advanced reactor technology center at its Wilmington, N.C. headquarters. Upon completion, the building will house more than 200 engineers, project managers and support staff dedicated to advanced reactor technology. The new building is one of several ongoing projects at the new Nuclear Headquarters in Wilmington, N.C.In September of 2005, GE and North Carolina Governor Mike Easley announced the expansion plans that includes an overall investment of $77 million in the GE Wilmington site.The advanced reactor center is to be completed in November 2006. GE Infrastructure President and CEO David Calhoun, GE Energy President and CEO John Krenicki, and Andy White, President and CEO of GE Energy’s nuclear business, were among those on hand for the building’s groundbreaking ceremony. GE’s executives cited the project’s importance to the continued growth of the nuclear business, a leading provider of light water reactor technology and services. “This investment underscores GE Energy’s commitment to helping serve the needs of the global nuclear industry in the coming decades,” said Krenicki. “As we prepare for fulfilling new orders, the new facility will serve as GE’s nerve center for advanced reactor technology.” GE’s advanced ESBWR technology, one of only two “Generation III +” designs available to customers, has already been selected for three potential U.S. reactor projects. While no U.S. utilities have decided to formally place what would be the first reactor orders in 25 years, several could submit applications for federal construction and operating licenses (COLs) in 2007 or 2008. If approved, construction could begin by 2010 or 2011. Beyond North America, the ESBWR also is being considered for installation by a number of other utility customers and national governments. “We are optimistic that our new ESBWR technology center will play a crucial, supporting role as we compete for new reactor orders both in the United States and around the world,” White said. “It is imperative we have the most extensive and advanced engineering, design and production capabilities to meet all customer requirements.” These partnerships compliment GE’s existing global supply chain capability, which has been fully developed for ongoing projects in Japan and Taiwan.Combined together, these relationships provide tremendous certainty of cost, schedule and capacity for new plant delivery. GE Energy’s nuclear business develops advanced light water reactors and provides a wide array of technology-based products and services to help owners of both boiling and pressurized water reactors safely operate their facilities with greater efficiency and output. About GE Energy GE Energy (www.ge.com/energy) is one of the world’s leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technologies, with 2005 revenue of $16.5 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy works in all areas of the energy industry including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy; renewable resources such as water, wind, solar and biogas; and other alternative fuels. Numerous GE Energy products are certified under ecomagination, GE’s corporate-wide initiative to aggressively bring to market new technologies that will help customers meet pressing environmental challenges. For More Information Contact Dennis Murphy GE Energy +1 678 844 6948 dennis.murphy@ps.ge.com Ken Darling Masto Public Relations + 1 518 786 6488 kenneth.darling@ps.ge.com -------- depleted uranium Confident U.S. generals commit war crimes Uranium as a force multiplier by Bob Nichols May 17, 2006 San Francisco Bay View http://www.sfbayview.com/051706/warcrimes.shtml Photo: BBC This 4-year-old Iraqi boy is suffering from a tumor growing in his eye. http://www.sfbayview.com/051706/images/Iraqiboytumor.jpg It always pays to listen, and to listen exactly, to what the senior U.S. military officials say about fighting wars. In 1991, Gen. Colin Powell sent 500,000 men with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, lots of 70-ton Abrams Tanks and other soldier equipment for a 100-hour war against a weak third world country – Iraq. It was called the Powell Doctrine and required a quick enemy defeat by “overwhelming force,” “defined goals” and an “exit strategy.” Another George Bush, George Bush the second, sent only 145,000 troopers for the much more ambitious conquering and occupation of Iraq 12 years later. What changed? Why send 355,000 fewer troopers for a much larger, tougher, sure to get you killed job? The American war policies did not change. The answer is that the Americans had millions of pounds of a deadly microscopic “helper” called depleted uranium as a “force multiplier” deployed in Iraq. A force multiplier is a technological method to multiply the aggressiveness and lethality of an armed force. Dr. Katsuma Yagasaki of Ryukyus University in Okinawa, a physicist, stated publicly that the atomicity equivalent of the weaponized uranium gas deployed in Iraq by U.S. military forces is hundreds of thousands of times the radioactivity of the Nagasaki atomic bomb. Marion Fulk, who started working on nuclear weapons more than 60 years ago during the Manhattan Project, says, “I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.” A leading scientist, Leuren Moret, speaking out on the use of depleted uranium today, says flatly, “Iraq is uninhabitable,” due to widespread radiation poisoning. Uranium weapons are criminal violations of international and U.S. federal law in at least four ways. That is exactly what the U.S. military and politicians demanded be used in Iraq and Central Asia. Noted humanitarian and war crimes lawyer Karen Parker gives a simple four point test to determine that DU is illegal and a war crime and a crime against humanity. However, using the four point test as a weapons spec gives the Pentagon the super weapon they wanted. War crimes lawyers, in many ways, wrote the spec for Washington’s latest genocidal wonder weapon. A weapon that: * strays off the field of battle. * lasts after the battle is over. * causes cancer and other major devastating diseases. * causes lethal harm to people and the environment, is an illegal weapon as determined by a U.N. body. In short, its use is a war crime. DU, or so-called depleted uranium, fits the profile perfectly. The senior American military and political leadership had their super weapon. They then determined that the Iraqi people and others in Central Asia’s resource rich lands were in the way, had no right to live and had to go. They would be nuked by uranium munitions. The American war planners knew and assumed that the U.S. soldiers were expendable commodities, like bullets. They would be nuked, too. As the famous American secretary of state, His Excellency Henry Kissinger, said, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” The American expeditionary forces purposefully used a long lasting genocidal weapon, uranium gas, in Iraq to decimate the Iraqi civilization. The Americans are still using this genocidal weapon more than 15 years later. It’s estimated that more than a million Iraqis died during the past 15 years from wars and sanctions. There were only about 24.4 million Iraqis to start with in 1991. The extermination minded American senior politicians and military leaders are nothing if not determined, ruthless and relentless. As the brutal American Marines say, “Kill their ass and steal their gas.” The American privates and corporals, the so-called grunts, do not know they are included in the soon to be dead or maimed, because poison gas weapons are not controllable. The poison flies everywhere with the changing wind. Poison gas is very unpredictable. The grunts are “throw away soldiers.” The Pentagon reported 320 tons of deadly, radiation-dispersing weaponized ceramic uranium oxide gas weapons were deployed on the nearly defenseless Iraqis in 1991. Cancers and other diseases soared. Ever since the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in August 1945, radiation dispersing uranium weapons have been war crimes and illegal. Since the Americans are the world’s only “super power,” the world is in a quandary, wondering what to do to stop the Americans? The American generals and senior politicians are addicted to the incredible lethality and force multiplier properties of depleted uranium. Uranium weapons deliver death and illness in a big way, forever. That makes non-nuclear countries fear the United States. The American politicians love it because they know fear is a great motivator. Thousands of nuclear missiles remain on hair trigger alert, even today. The lethal nuke birds can fly in 15 minutes. All world leaders know it. Just like that, they could die in a global thermonuclear war in which everybody dies or wishes they were dead. After the U.S. nuked Japan in 1945 with large depleted uranium bombs wrapped around a tiny core of A-Bomb and H-Bomb devices, it did not take long for the U.S. monopoly on global thermonuclear weapons to evaporate into thin air and for nukes to proliferate like fleas on a dog. As the famed scientist Albert Einstein said, “There are no secrets.” Sure enough, soon Russia, China, France, England, Israel, Pakistan, India and probably others also possessed thermonuclear weapons. A country has to have a nuclear reactor to start a nuclear weapons program. Big American companies were very anxious to peddle the multibillion dollar Goliaths or little baby “research” reactors all over the world. The only difference in them is how much atomic bomb making material each can produce in a year when set up right. The big megawatt reactors can make the stuff for about 40 atom bombs a year. Indeed, that is their primary purpose. The highly subsidized, very expensive, very dirty “electrical power” the reactors heat water to make is effective political cover. The couch potato – dumbed down American public – does not see the reactors’ true purpose: atom bomb production. More than 40 countries now have 430 reactors around the world. That means more than 40 countries can produce, or already have produced, global thermonuclear weapons. The Pentagon wanted to be able to use radioactive uranium to kill and cause deadly cancers without the very noticeable boom of an actual atom bomb. The entire world was really down on the big atom bomb blasts on human populations. Still, the Americans exploded 1,200 atom bombs before Dr. Ernest Sternglass and others convinced the United States Senate to approve the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1962. The amount of radiation released by the atomic bombs pales in comparison to the huge amount of permanent killing radiation released in Iraq. The total radioactive life span of uranium weapons is a majestically creepazoid 45 billion years. The Iraqis have a right to ask, “Why do the Americans hate us so? Why do the Americans want to exterminate us?” Ordinary use of the big atom bomb was out. What were the U.S. political and military leaders to do? Answer: Go directly to the major radiation dispersing element in the atomic bombs and use it for radioactive munitions: dirty bullets, dirty shells and dirty bombs – depleted uranium. Problem solved. The military-industrial-congressional complex had their force multiplier back. But, with budgetary battles and contending with those within the military who opposed Radiation Dispersing Weapons, it took decades to craft and develop the uranium munitions. Keep in mind that these are not “uranium covered” or “uranium tipped” or “weakly radioactive” weapons as Pentagon apologists, propagandists and other war promoters say they are. They lie. Uranium weapons in use today are machined from solid uranium. The most plentiful metal in the atom bombs used to devastate Japan and warn the world about the trigger happy senior American leadership was so-called “depleted uranium.” It was five feet thick and only fractionally less radioactive than the feedstock uranium it came from. DU would be ideal as a killer weaponized radioactive uranium gas fired in conventional weapons. A vanishing small percentage of the radioactive uranium in a hundred pounds of uranium is deadly enough to make atomic bombs; but it is all radioactive. Take one half of the tiny amount of bomb making stuff out and it is called “depleted uranium.” What a con, and hundreds of millions of Americans fell for it! Thus, depleted uranium rounds, including bombs, were born. They were tested in various wars – field tests for new weapons – and configurations before the new genocidal munitions were ready for prime time in the 1991 Iraq “war” turkey shoot. The Pentagon admitted to using 320 tons of DU – of weaponized uranium gas, aerosols and fragments – that left Iraq a cancer ridden radioactive wasteland. The genocide embracing American forces were not through with Iraq yet, though. They would be back. The Americans have spent billions of dollars to set up and maintain a huge industrial operation to produce nuclear weapons of all kinds. This ranges from the publicly understood atomic bombs like those used on two Japanese cities’ civilian populations to the nuclear radiation dispersing bullets, shells, land mines, missiles and bombs. The uranium weapon as a force multiplier is alive and well. Today, this vast industrial strength nuclear weapons establishment maintains four ammunition storage dumps in the U.S. and an unknown number around the world. Each of the U.S. ammo dumps in the U.S. is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have 22,000,000 pounds of actual uranium on hand in uranium munitions. When these huge war material centers move into high gear, they are a wonder of lethal industrial killing efficiency. To maintain “Class 1” status, the ammo dumps must be able to ship 3.2 million pounds of weapons a day for 30 days. That can total 384,000,000 pounds of radioactive weaponized ceramic uranium oxide poison gas dispersing weapons per month. George Bush the Second launched the “shock and awe” uranium bombing campaign against Baghdad and the remainder of Iraq in March of 2003. Within nine days, microscopic radioactive uranium oxide particles were detected in special high volume air filters in Aldermaston, England, some 2,700 miles away. Millions of pounds of uranium gas contaminated Baghdad yet again. Government and university scientists estimated the five week uranium bombing campaign exposed hundreds of millions of people in Europe and Britain to tiny radioactive particles at the adult male lung dose rate of 23 million particles. Cancers and other illnesses will follow, of course. For the first time in 41 years, the infant neonatal death rate is inching up. The tiniest babies die first. Tony Blair, the English prime minister, tried to ride the tiger too many times to no effect. The berserker Americans were uncontrollable. This is Bush’s true legacy. Now, we really must listen to the war criminals in the senior American political and military leadership. The purpose of the illegal uranium weapons is to multiply the effectiveness of a smaller force by killing or maiming the enemy continuously, after the initial battle is over. The millions of pounds of radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust all over Iraq are a deadly virtual army – killing and maiming civilian Iraqi men, women and children continuously. People have always thought wars against children are particularly gross. That is not a problem for the American war machine planners at the Pentagon. Just look at what they do. The radioactive virtual army secures the Iraqi homeland. The American war criminals are free to “redeploy” or ship the now radioactive, dying, constantly replaced American Army veterans to whatever little country is next – Iran, Syria or North Korea. “Only” about 2,300 American troopers were sacrificed in the past three years in Iraq. Those deaths are acceptable to the American leadership. So were those of 250,000 Iraqis. They will move on and turn yet another country into radioactive rubble. The only real question is: “Who’s next?” Some Americans think that all this just could not happen in America. Foolish American intellectuals think that mere words without acts will deter the in-control American fascists. They simply do not understand that the old American Republic is dead and gone. Now, in 2006, the United States is the most successful fascist empire, with the most lethal military, in the history of the world. The fascist government of war criminals and crooks must be put out as soon as possible, certainly before they invade Iran and use global thermonuclear weapons as promised and nuclear munitions again to do so. Words do not count in this arena, though, only actions. Because, ultimately, these senior American generals and politicians must be cast out of office, tried and appropriately punished for committing these war crimes. It is the right thing to do. What America is doing to the world is wrong and criminal. All Americans are war criminals. We all bear responsibility – all 300 million of us. There are at least six individuals, probably hundreds more, affiliated with the DOD, the CIA and the DOE who aggressively argue for the God given right of the American Expeditionary Forces to use deadly uranium weapons. These public relations masters work hand in glove with their programming counterparts in the big media to maintain the lie. Since this article will only be seen in the SF Bay View newspaper, which goes all over the U.S. and the world, and on the Internet, it is fairly easy for these despised characters to publish continuous “feel-good” articles about these nuclear munitions. Already this series of anti-nuclear munition articles is sent by you, the readers, all over the country and the world. You must do more – always more. Feel outraged? Helpless? Upset? Powerless? I do! Do you want to stop these Americans from committing these war crimes? Then you must “be the media.” Do the only thing you can control. Tell your friends and neighbors about this. Just say, “The U.S. is using radioactive weapons and is destroying the world. What can we do to mess with them? Let’s do it.” Working together, you will be able to figure out all manner of wildly inventive and cool things to do to stop this worldwide menace. The generals and politicians don’t stand a chance against a righteously angry American public. Just go ahead and do it. Don’t wait for permission. You are right! Don’t be timid! The whole world is watching. Thank you for your time. Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner. He is a correspondent for the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a frequent contributor to various online publications. Nichols is completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear war in Central Asia. He is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. You are encouraged to write him at bob.bobnichols@gmail.com or DUweapons@gmail.com. ---- Few signs yet of Iraq war sickness May 17, 2006 Reuters http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19158244-2703,00.html LONDON: British soldiers who served in Iraq are showing few signs of the Gulf War Syndrome that troubled veterans of the conflict in 1991. Scientists examined whether there had been an increase in ill health in soldiers returning from Iraq and compared the mental and physical health of forces who had been deployed and those who had not. They found only slight increases in symptoms but reserve forces experienced more mental health problems than regular forces. "Is there an Iraq war syndrome? The answer is no, at least not yet, but at the moment certainly not," said Simon Wessely, of the King's Centre for Military Health Research at King's College London. Veterans of the first Gulf War complained of symptoms such as respiratory and digestive problems, nerve damage, fatigue, pain, numbness and memory and psychological problems. The cause of the syndrome has been linked variously to the immunisations the veterans received, pesticides, smoke from burning oil wells, stress and organophosphates - chemicals that have been shown to affect the human nervous system. "As we don't really know what the cause of Gulf War Syndrome was, we can't be absolutely certain why we have this different result," Professor Wessely said. The use of depleted uranium and pesticides and stress were common to both conflicts so are more unlikely to be the cause of the ill health experienced by the Gulf veterans, according to Professor Wessely, who reported the findings in The Lancet medical journal. But he said the combination of vaccines given to soldiers going to Iraq was different and there was more of a time lag between immunisations. The scientists analysed the physical and mental health from questionnaires completed by 3642 men who were sent to Iraq and 4295 men who were not deployed, and compared the results with information from soldiers who had served in the Gulf War. They found slight rises in common symptoms in the Iraq group but nothing on the scale seen after the Gulf War. Another study, which looked at the health of soldiers who had gone to Iraq and those who had not, or who were subsequently deployed, showed reservists in Iraq had more mental health problems when they returned than regular forces. "There is a big difference in the health according to whether you are a regular or a reservist," said Matthew Hotopf, also of King's College. Sixteen per cent of reservists who stayed at home reported anxiety and depression compared to 26 per cent for those who were deployed. -------- europe Nuclear industry urged to win over EU public May 17, 2006 Financial Times http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060517&ID=5729836 The nuclear energy industry needs to work harder if it is to persuade the public of the benefits of building new plants, Europe's top energy official believes. Andris Piebalgs, EU energy commissioner, said the sector should do more to address concerns about costs, safety and waste treatment. Mr Piebalgs said: "I believe the nuclear industry should be more active in this situation. The industry should provide some answers." The debate over nuclear power has re-emerged in the face of tighter power supplies, higher oil and gas prices, and global warming concerns. Mr Piebalgs was speaking before Tony Blair, British prime minister, on Tuesday signalled that he wanted the UK to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. Some countries, such as Germany, propose phasing out ageing reactors, while others such as Finland are building new ones. The EU's 25 member states, rather than the Commission, the Brussels-based executive, decide on whether to use nuclear energy, which accounts for 15 per cent of the power consumed in the EU. Mr Piebalgs must steer the EU in its efforts to diversify power sources and bolster competition in its internal market for electricity and gas. EU competition authorities on Tuesday ran dawn raids on power companies in six countries, amid suspicions that the groups had broken anti-trust rules. The commissioner must also manage relations with Russia, which supplies a quarter of Europe's gas needs. Moscow's reliability as an energy partner was called into question after Russia cut gas supplies to Ukraine in January in a price dispute, temporarily affecting deliveries to the EU. Mr Piebalgs warned that a particularly cold Russian winter could trigger gas shortages in Europe. The commissioner believes Moscow is a reliable partner that wants to meet its export commitments, but that it could struggle to maintain exports in the face of increased Russian domestic demand for gas. He thinks the country needs to invest in production capacity to be certain that it can deal with strong demand if a winter was as cold as the last. In an interview with the Financial Times, he said: "If a winter is going to be like this winter, I ask myself how they will honour the contracts. If a winter is going to be very cold, they will need more gas for internal consumption." Gazprom, the Russian energy group, on Wednesday dismissed such concerns. "Even last winter, which was the coldest in 30 years, Gazprom showed it can cope with demand pressures," said Sergei Kupriyanov, a spokesman. He said had it not been for Ukraine taking gas intended for Europe, there would have been no disruptions in supplies last winter. Speaking ahead of an EU-Russia summit next week, Mr Piebalgs said there had been misunderstandings between the two sides. "Russian gas is necessary for Europe. I do not see a huge contradiction between Europe and Russia concerning the energy sector." Additional reporting by Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow and Andrew Bounds in Brussels -------- india Bush administration to meet lawmakers to push Indian nuclear deal Wed May 17, 2006 by P. Parameswaran WASHINGTON (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060517/wl_asia_afp/usindianuclear_060517011335 US President George W. Bush's administration will lobby lawmakers to push through a civilian nuclear deal with India which lacks crucial support in Congress, a senior official said. "We have great respect for the leadership and role of Congress and separation of powers and we are happy to talk to Congress about the various ideas about how to arrive at a satisfactory positive vote in the House and Senate to approve the deal the administration has put forward," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said. He will kick off a series of meetings with key lawmakers Wednesday, beginning with Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives International Relations Committee. Lantos unveiled a proposal last week to give new momentum in Congress to the landmark nuclear deal clinched on March 2 by President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The deal would allow India, which is not a signatory of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its atomic reactors under international safeguards. But it does not have the wide and bipartisan backing in the legislature amid fears by some in the Bush administration that a crowded Congressional year and mid-term legislative elections in November could stymie the deal. Republican and Democratic legislators want to first have a look at a set of safeguards under which India and the United States would implement the nuclear agreement as well as a bilateral agreement that would capture all the key ingredients of the deal. The safeguards are still being negotiated between India and the global atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) while moves to frame the bilateral agreement reportedly hit a snag after India refused to accept a provision barring it from conducting atomic tests. Under compromise legislation proposed by Lantos, US lawmakers would explicitly welcome the deal but would not immediately make amendments to US law to implement the agreement until all details were worked out. "With so few legislative days left in this crowded Congressional year, there is not enough time to develop the consensus necessary to accomplish all the administrations objectives," Lantos said. "We need to come up with a legislative compromise that will keep the momentum for this important agreement moving forward," he added. Burns refused to divulge any counterproposals by the administration to legislators. "We think we have put our best foot forward and now it is up to Congress and we will be meeting with members of Congress to try to gain as much support as we possibly can," he said. Burns said he spoke to Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran over the phone on Tuesday and that they had scheduled a meeting in London next week to further discuss the deal. "We agreed to meet, to go over all aspects of the US-India agreement so that we can move this along on both sides," he said. The Bush administration says the deal offers a crucial energy alternative to rapidly-growing India and would elevate relations between the world's largest and oldest democracies to a new strategic height. But several American weapons experts have warned that forging a civilian nuclear agreement with non-NPT member India would not only make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades Iran and North Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent to other countries with nuclear ambitions. -------- iran Iran rejects potential European incentives Tehran refuses to quit uranium enrichment; key London meeting postponed May 17, 2006 Associated Press http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12816148/ TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday rejected a possible European offer for incentives, including a light-water nuclear reactor, in return for allaying fears about his country’s nuclear program by giving up uranium enrichment. “Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?” Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in a speech in central Iran. European nations have weighed adding a light-water reactor to a package of incentives meant to persuade Tehran to permanently give up uranium enrichment — or face the threat of U.N. Security Council sanctions. Talks postponed Senior diplomats and EU government officials said Tuesday that the tentative plans were being discussed among France, Britain and Germany as part of a possible package to be presented to representatives of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany at a meeting in London. All spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the information. The London talks were postponed Wednesday until next week to allow more time for phone discussions of what should be included in the package of incentives and penalties to be offered to Tehran, a diplomat, requesting anonymity for the same reason, told The AP. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to say Tuesday whether a light-water reactor would be offered in the package. But he insisted that Iran would be required to halt its program of enriching and reprocessing uranium on Iranian soil, saying the United States and others “do not want the Iranian regime to have the ability to master those critical pathways to a nuclear weapon.” Iran 'won’t accept any suspension' to enrichment In his speech broadcast live on state television Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said Iran “won’t accept any suspension or end” to its uranium enrichment activities. He said Iran trusted the European Union in 2003 and suspended its nuclear activities as a gesture to boost negotiations over its nuclear program, only to have the Europeans eventually demand Iran permanently halt its uranium enrichment program. The 2003 deal called for guarantees that Iran’s nuclear program wouldn’t diverge from civilian ends toward producing weapons. Iran agreed to the request, but negotiations collapsed in August 2005 when the Europeans said the best guarantee was for Iran to permanently give up its uranium enrichment program. Iran responded by resuming uranium reprocessing activities at its uranium conversion facility in Isfahan. “We won’t be bitten twice,” Ahmadinejad said. “We recommend that you not sacrifice your interests for the sake of others,” he said in an apparent warning to the European Union about supporting the position advocated by the United States. Ahmadinejad reiterated his threat to pull out of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if international pressure to give up uranium enrichment continued. “Don’t force governments and nations to renounce their membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,” he said asserting that Iran had the right to a civilian nuclear power program. U.S. tries to toughen up resolution With Iran’s nuclear program now before the Security Council, the United States is at the forefront of efforts to introduce a council resolution that would demand Iran give up enrichment or else face the threat of sanctions. Washington seeks to make such a resolution militarily enforceable, something opposed by Russia and China, which continue instead to favor talks meant to persuade Tehran to compromise. In the latest sign of persisting differences, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that Beijing and Moscow will not vote for the use of force in resolving the nuclear dispute. In a gesture to Tehran, Lavrov also said Ahmadinejad will attend a summit next month in Shanghai, China, of leaders from Russia, China and four Central Asian nations. “We cannot isolate Iran or exert pressure on it,” Lavrov told reporters. “Far from resolving this issue of proliferation, it will make it more urgent.” A light-water reactor is considered less likely to be misused for nuclear proliferation than the heavy water facility Iran is building at the city of Arak, which — once completed by early 2009 — will produce plutonium waste. Still, light-water reactors are not proliferation-proof, because they are fueled by enriched uranium, which can be processed to make highly enriched “weapons-grade” material for nuclear warheads. -------- u.s. nuc facilities Fears over new generation of nuclear power stations 17/05/2006 Ian Morgan 24dash.com http://www.24dash.com/news/58/5848/index.htm Investing in a new generation of nuclear power stations would mean wasting taxpayers' money on a "discredited and dangerous" form of power, according to Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper. One of the by-products of nuclear power is radioactive waste, which can be highly toxic and its disposal presents a problem. To date, the only solution suggested has been storing the most radioactive waste underground for millennia, until it has decayed to safe levels. Earlier this week, Australia's prime minister John Howard hit the headlines over comments he made regarding the possibility of his country agreeing to store nuclear waste from the uranium it sells overseas. This policy is known as nuclear fuel leasing. But according to Australian publication The Age, Australia has now all but ruled this out. More than four million cubic metres of toxic waste is produced in the UK each year, while radioactive waste amounts to only about 1% of this. Nuclear waste comes from a number of different sources including the operation and decommissioning of nuclear power stations and is disposed of according to its level of its radioactivity. Low-level waste such as slightly contaminated material such as gloves, overalls or laboratory equipment accounts for 94% of all the UK's radioactive waste. Accordingly to the Department of Trade and Industry's website, this type of nuclear waste is mainly disposed of at a 300-acre purpose-built disposal centre at Drigg in Cumbria. The waste is packed into containers and placed in concrete-lined vaults which are subsequently sealed. Medium or intermediate-level waste accounts for about 6% of all radioactive waste. It is stored, mainly at the sites of production. High-level, or heat generating, waste constitutes about 0.3% of nuclear waste and arises only from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. It has to be stored in special tanks. In the UK this is done at Sellafield and Dounreay, where it is allowed to cool for at least 50 years before being disposed of. The UK used to dispose of some low and intermediate-level wastes in drums at selected sites in the sea. The Government stopped this policy in 1982 and in 1993 accepted an international ban on sea disposal of radioactive wastes. -------- delaware Positive Report for Nearby Nuclear Plants The Salem and Hope Creek power plants get a passing grade from nuclear regulators By Joe Backer Wednesday, May 17, 2006 http://www.wdsd.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=118659&article=489343 Residents of southern New Jersey and northern Delaware get a good report concerning the safety of the Hope Creek and Salem 1 and 2 nuclear power plants. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan says most performance indicators were green for good. "In general, we found that the performance was good. We look at our inspection findings, and we look at performance indicators for the plant, those are things like number of unplanned shutdowns, number of radiation exposures to workers, etc. We take all that information and try to put it into context." Sheehan says any problems the plants may have had in 2005 were considered minor or were quickly resolved. The NRC inspects nuclear plants at least once a year. -------- nevada US Lawmakers Fret Over Yucca Waste Dump Delays Story by Chris Baltimore REUTERS US: May 17, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36406/story.htm WASHINGTON - A key GOP lawmaker warned Tuesday that the opening of a nuclear waste dump in the Nevada desert that is already 10 years behind schedule may be further delayed because the US government has no plans to recycle waste from 103 nuclear power plants. Republican Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and a vocal nuclear industry proponent, complained at a hearing that "confusion is rampant. Timeframes are all out of whack." The administration wants to store about 132,000 tons of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, an underground waste dump about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But the project is still plagued by scientific foul-ups and political stonewalling. Congress approved Yucca Mountain as the site for the nation's radioactive waste in 2002, but the Energy Department has yet to publish a schedule for opening it. Energy Department officials told Domenici's panel that they plan to unveil a schedule for sending a building application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this summer. But Domenici said the Bush administration's legislative proposal to speed up Yucca Mountain "has a big vacuum in it" because it does not address what will happen to the waste while Yucca Mountain makes its way through the many regulatory and legal steps that remain. Spent fuel from the nation's nuclear plants -- which supply about 20 percent of US electricity -- is piling up, with over 50,000 tons of it stored at over 120 temporary locations in 39 states. Domenici also said he favors a legislative plan to recycle nuclear waste instead of putting fuel rods from nuclear reactors into Yucca Mountain. "I think we're going to have to put recycling into the legislative process that involves Yucca Mountain," Domenici told reporters. "I think I'm telling you that everything is delayed a long time." Domenici opposes storage of spent fuel rods because only about 5 percent of their available energy is spent when they are removed, his spokeswoman said. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying group, said the government should meet its obligation to store the industry's waste. Some nuclear operators have sued the Energy Department for failing to meet its obligation to begin accepting waste in 1998, and liability will be up to US$3 billion through 2010 for failing to open Yucca Mountain on schedule, according to Justice Department estimates. Paul Golan, acting director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the administration lacks the authority to proceed with an interim storage plan while it waits for Yucca to get built. Meanwhile, the Energy Department has already begun a process to select a second repository as required by law, even though Yucca Mountain is far from complete. Golan said he assembled a selection team Monday, which will make an initial report in July. Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, said Yucca Mountain will be virtually full from the waste that is waiting to be shipped there. "Give me a break - that is not even feasible," Bunning told Golan. "Now you're talking about a second repository. Do you know how foolish that looks to the American people?" -------- new york Nuclear facility needs assessment May 17, 2006 The NY Journal News http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006605170340 The Indian Point nuclear power plant site has one of the worst safety records of any nuclear facility in the United States. For the last several years, Indian Point has been leaking radioactive water. Can owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast really tell us how much material is leaking, how long it has been going on, where the radioactive material is going or even how many leaks there are? Sen. Hillary Clinton asked both Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an independent safety assessment of Indian Point. This is the same type of independent safety assessment that was run on another nuclear plant — Maine Yankee — that was subsequently shut down. Both Entergy and the NRC said no to the request for an independent safety assessment at Indian Point. It's clear why: Profits over safety. Sen. Clinton, Rep. Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, and others have introduced bills in Congress that would mandate Indian Point undergo an independent safety assessment. We, who live in the danger zone, deserve no less. -------- tennessee Union employees at Erwin nuclear facility strike Workers 'overwhelmingly' reject benefit plan changes By Associated Press May 17, 2006 http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/business/article/0,1406,KNS_376_4703708,00.html ERWIN, Tenn. - Union workers at a nuclear fuel facility in Erwin went on strike after rejecting a proposed contract in a dispute over employee benefits. Nearly 370 members of the United Steelworkers union at Nuclear Fuel Services listened to the proposed six-year contract offered by the company, but workers "overwhelmingly" voted against it, said Roger Birchfield, union president. Birchfield declined to release the vote tally. The proposed contract would have changed workers' retirement and health insurance plans. "The company basically, for new employees, would eliminate our pension plan," Birchfield said. "That's a very big issue for us. Our pension and our insurance are near and dear." The insurance proposal included raising co-payments from retirees. "The company believes it made a fair and reasonable offer to the union on benefits and wages," Doug Buck, vice president of human resources, said in a statement. "The company is hopeful that once the union employees have fully reviewed and evaluated the offer, they will also agree that it's a positive and constructive proposal." No additional bargaining sessions have been scheduled. The facility has held contracts to supply nuclear fuel for military and commercial uses. It is converting highly enriched uranium into fuel used at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Alabama. NFS spokesman Tony Treadway said the privately held company's 344 salaried workers would run the facility, but he could not say how that would affect operations. The last strike at the facility in 1985 lasted for 11 1/2 months, but neither the company nor the union would speculate on how long this strike would last. The union's previous four-year contract expired Monday night, and Birchfield said the workers planned to picket Tuesday outside the company's headquarters. -------- washington Congress weighs slowdown of Hanford work By LISA STIFFLER P-I REPORTER Wednesday, May 17, 2006 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/270520_hanford17.html?source=rss After publicly expressing disapproval over the numerous setbacks and cost overruns plaguing the Hanford cleanup, members of Congress are proposing $1.8 billion for the project next year -- but with strings. Lawmakers want the Energy Department to abandon its potentially risky, accelerated approach that has construction of a treatment facility under way while the overall design is just 70 percent completed. Instead, they want to adopt a more conservative, though possibly slower, process for building the multibillion-dollar complex to clean up nuclear waste. The budget proposal puts the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in charge of monitoring and confirming the safety of the plant being erected near the banks of the Columbia River. The commission, which oversees commercial facilities, would bolster the weaker oversight offered by the federal board currently tracking the effort. Congress also is calling for revisions in the agreement between the Energy Department and the contractor for the treatment plant, Bechtel National Inc., to ensure better performance. The House budget proposal says the project to turn into glass millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste being stored in leak-prone underground tanks "has a long and sordid history," including "cost overruns and mismanagement." "Years of revolving door DOE officials, continual promises to improve management controls and oversight, and skyrocketing costs have led the committee to the point where it no longer has confidence in the department's estimates in the (waste treatment plant) nor in the department's ability to manage its way back on this project," the proposal states. The budget is expected to be passed out of the House Appropriations Committee today and will go to the full chamber for a vote. The Senate is working on its own budget. "We couldn't be happier," said Tom Carpenter, director of nuclear oversight for the Government Accountability Project, a citizen watchdog group. "We think they got it right; they're right on target. We're big supporters of this plant, but it has to be done right." The price tag for the tank waste facility mushroomed from $4.3 billion when Bechtel won the contract in 2000 to a recently released estimate of more than $11 billion. The plant was expected to start operating in 2011, but now won't be running until 2017 or later. The waste was generated over decades of plutonium production at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, near the Tri-Cities. A baseball-sized chunk of the radioactive material was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, on Aug. 9, 1945. Since the early 1990s, the site has been focused on cleanup. The cost inflation for the treatment plant is blamed on factors that include reviews of plans to make sure the plant can withstand potential earthquakes, problems with the quality of the engineering work and an increase in the cost of raw materials such as concrete and steel. Building has stopped on large parts of the project because of engineering problems. Over the years, critics have attacked the project's "design-build" approach, which means that construction started before engineers had finished the facility's blueprints. The buildings needed to treat the tank waste are about 70 percent designed, state officials said Tuesday. The proposed House budget orders construction to stay on hold until the plans are 90 percent done. It's unclear what that means to the timeline for completion. "It sounds like an easy question, but it isn't," said John Britton, a Bechtel spokesman. "We don't have the resources to spare to chase that down right now." Government officials were largely mum on the budget proposal, but the state Ecology Department expressed concerns. "We don't want this to result in more costs because it resulted in delays," said Joye Redfield-Wilder, an Ecology spokeswoman. Carpenter cautioned that the tremendous challenges and risks posed by the endeavor require patience. "I understand the need for speed, but this is a complicated, one-of-a-kind facility," he said. "It's worth taking the time to do it right." P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com. -------- MILITARY -------- africa U.S. Secretly Backing Warlords in Somalia By Emily Wax and Karen DeYoung Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, May 17, 2006; A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia's interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu. The latest clashes, last week and over the weekend, were some of the most violent in Mogadishu since the end of the American intervention in 1994, and left 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. Leaders of the interim government blamed U.S. support of the militias for provoking the clashes. U.S. officials have declined to directly address on the record the question of backing Somali warlords, who have styled themselves as a counterterrorism coalition in an open bid for American support. Speaking to reporters recently, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would "work with responsible individuals . . . in fighting terror. It's a real concern of ours -- terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don't want to see another safe haven for terrorists created. Our interest is purely in seeing Somalia achieve a better day." U.S. officials have long feared that Somalia, which has had no effective government since 1991, is a desirable place for al-Qaeda members to hide and plan attacks. The country is strategically located on the Horn of Africa, which is only a boat ride away from Yemen and a longtime gateway to Africa from the Middle East. No visas are needed to enter Somalia, there is no police force and no effective central authority. The country has a weak transitional government operating largely out of neighboring Kenya and the southern city of Baidoa. Most of Somalia is in anarchy, ruled by a patchwork of competing warlords; the capital is too unsafe for even Somalia's acting prime minister to visit. Leaders of the transitional government said they have warned U.S. officials that working with the warlords is shortsighted and dangerous. "We would prefer that the U.S. work with the transitional government and not with criminals," the prime minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, said in an interview. "This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a stable place and we want the U.S. in Somalia. But in a more constructive way. Clearly we have a common objective to stabilize Somalia, but the U.S. is using the wrong channels." Many of the warlords have their own agendas, Somali officials said, and some reportedly fought against the United States in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead. "The U.S. government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told journalists by telephone from Baidoa. "This cooperation . . . only fuels further civil war." U.S. officials have refused repeated requests to provide details about the nature and extent of their support for the coalition of warlords, which calls itself the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism in what some Somalis say is a marketing ploy to get U.S. support. But some U.S. officials, who declined to be identified by name because of the sensitivity of the issue, have said they are generally talking to these leaders to prevent people with suspected ties to al-Qaeda from being given safe haven in the lawless country. "There are complicated issues in Somalia in that the government does not control Mogadishu and it has the potential for becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorists," said one senior administration official in Washington. "We've got very clear interests in trying to ensure that al-Qaeda members are not using it to hide and to plan attacks." He said it was "a very difficult issue" trying to show support for the fledgling interim government while also working to prevent Somalia from becoming an al-Qaeda base. A senior U.S. intelligence official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was a "Hobbesian" situation -- that the transitional government operating from Kenya was in its "fifteenth iteration" and that it, too, was a "collection of warlords" that played both sides of the fence. The official said that it presented a classic "enemy of our enemy" situation. The source said Somalia was "not an al-Qaeda safe haven" yet, adding, "There are some there, but it's so dysfunctional." U.S. officials specifically believe that a small number of al-Qaeda operatives who were involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania are now residing in Somalia. Analysts said they were convinced the Bush administration was backing the warlords as part of its global war against terrorism. "The U.S. relies on buying intelligence from warlords and other participants in the Somali conflict, and hoping that the strongest of the warlords can snatch a live suspect or two if the intelligence identifies their whereabouts," said John Prendergast, the director for African affairs in the Clinton administration and now a senior adviser at the nongovernmental International Crisis Group. "This strategy might reduce the short-term threat of another terrorist attack in East Africa, but in the long term the conditions which allow terrorist cells to take hold along the Indian Ocean coastline go unaddressed. We ignore these conditions at our peril." "Are we talking to them and doing some of that? Yes," said Ted Dagne, the leading Africa analyst for the Congressional Research Service. "We fought some of these warlords in 1993 and now we are dealing with some of them again, perhaps supporting some of them against other groups. Somalia is still considered by some as an attractive location for terrorist groups." The issue of U.S. backing came to the forefront this winter when warlords formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism after a fundamentalist Islamic group began asserting itself in the capital, setting up courts of Islamic law and building schools and hospitals. Soon after, the coalition of warlords were well-equipped with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and antiaircraft guns, which were used in heavy fighting in the capital last week. It was the second round of fighting this year, following clashes in March that killed more than 90 people, mostly civilians, and emptied neighborhoods around the capital. In a report to the U.N. Security Council this month, the world body's monitoring group on Somalia said it was investigating an unnamed country's secret support for an anti-terrorism alliance in apparent violation of a U.N. arms embargo. The experts said they were told in January and February of this year that "financial support was being provided to help organize and structure a militia force created to counter the threat posed by the growing militant fundamentalist movement in central and southern Somalia." In March, the State Department said in its terrorism report that the U.S. government was concerned about al-Qaeda fugitives "responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the November 2002 bombing of a tourist hotel and attack on a civilian airliner in Kenya, who are believed to be operating in and around Somalia." The United States relies on Ethiopia and Kenya for information about Somalia. Both countries have complex interests and long-standing ties and animosities in the country. In December 2002, the United States also established an anti-terrorism task force in neighboring Djibouti, with up to 1,600 U.S. troops stationed in the country. Africa researchers said they were concerned that while the Bush administration was focused on the potential terrorist threat, little was being done to support economic development initiatives that could provide alternative livelihoods to picking up a gun or following extremist ideologies in Somalia. Somalia watchers and Somalis themselves said there has not been enough substantial backing for building a new government after 15 years of collapsed statehood. "If the real problem is Somalia, then what have we done to change the situation inside Somalia? Are we funding schools, health care or helping establish an effective government?" Dagne said. "We have a generation of Somali kids growing up without education and only knowing violence and poverty. Unless there is a change, these could become the next warlords out of necessity for survival. That's perhaps the greatest threat we have yet to address." Somalis far from the factional fighting in Mogadishu said they were waiting for anyone to help ease their destitute lives during the worst drought in a decade. In Waajid, a dusty town about 200 miles northwest of the capital, thousands of villagers have left their farms for squalid camps, searching for water and living in open, rocky fields under low-lying, fragile shelters of sticks and rags that look like bird's nests. Many people here say they feel that the United States has ignored Somalia since the failed 1993 military intervention. Today many Somalis said they regret that chapter in their history and thank the United States, the largest donor of food and funding for water trucks during this season's drought. However, they said that news that the U.S. government was talking with warlords has awakened feelings of resentment. "George W. Bush, we welcome the Americans. But not to back warlords. We need the U.S.A. to help the young government," said Isak Nur Isak, the district commissioner in Waajid. "We won't drag any Americans through the street like in 1993. We want to be clear: We don't want only food aid, but we do want political support for the new government, which is all we have right now to put our hopes in. We can't eat if everyone is dead." Wax reported from Waajid, Somalia, and Nairobi. DeYoung reported from Washington. -------- israel / palestine Pentagon denying Israelis security clearances New York Sun reports State Department citing AIPAC leak case as basis for denying employees with dual Israeli-American citizenship security clearances. In one case, government lawyers argued Israel was 'actively spying on United States' to justify withdrawing clearance from worker Ynetnews (05.17.06, 21:53) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3252213,00.html The Pentagon is citing a leak affair involving Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin and two pro-Israel lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, as a basis for stripping security clearances from government contractor employees who have dual Israeli-American citizenship or family in Israel, The New York Sun reported Wednesday. The two former AIPAC officials and the Pentagon analyst were indicted in August 2005 on charges they conspired to pass classified information to persons not entitled to receive it, including Israeli officials and members of the press. According to the Sun, Defense Department attorneys have used the AIPAC leak indictments in at least three cases, to justify withdrawing or denying security clearances. The paper quoted Virginian Lawyer Sheldon Cohen who has been tracking these cases, as saying: "The only reason to possibly use it (the dual citizenship issue) is to implicate anybody with a connection to Israel, to imply they cannot be trusted. There is no other conceivable reason to bring it up." A study conducted by Cohen on the subject of Israel-related security clearance cases, found that "an unusually large number" of cases involving foreign influence concerns seem to relate to Israel. 'Israel actively spying on US' The Sun reported that in one case, an Israeli-born mechanical engineer who has worked as a major defense contractor and has been living in the United States for over 25 years, faced an attempt by government lawyers to revoke his security clearance because of his dual citizenship, his possession of an Israeli passport and the fact that he has relatives in Israel. "There was some basis for McCarthyism. Here there's nothing, just this dual loyalty business," David Schoen, the employee's attorney, told the Sun. "It really strikes me as un-American." "His wife is American. His kids are American," the lawyer said. "He has never had a problem at Lockheed (where he worked)," Schoen added. According to the attorney, at a hearing on the case a few weeks ago, a government attorney tried to submit the leak indictment as an exhibit, arguing that it showed Israel was actively spying on America. Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, a leader of the Jewish community in Washington, told the Sun he was disturbed by the growing number of similar incidents. "People around the country are turning to us and telling us of ongoing cases where people are stripped of their livelihoods just because they're Jewish," he said. -------- latin america Colombians Stage Massive Blockade Over US Trade Deal Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/158215 In Colombia, thousands of indigenous Colombians blocked a major southern highway Tuesday to protest a pending trade agreement with the United States. Organizers said the blockade drew more than 30,000 people. At least 30 people were reported injured when police used tear gas on the crowds. Government officials accused the demonstration of being a front for the rebel group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – FARC. Indigenous leader Jose Antonio Catome had this response: “Here they are attacking us with helicopters. They are attacking also with bullets, that is, they are attacking in different ways as if we were an illegal group, and it is totally false that this was encouraged by the FARC. We take responsibility for this.” ---- Bolivia Reveals Details of Land Redistribution Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/158215 In Bolivia Tuesday, the government released details of plans to distribute unused land to the country’s poor peasants. Officials said over 12 million acres of land would initially be given out. Bolivian Vice President Alvaro García Linera said privately-owned productive farmland would not be affected and called for a public dialogue: "With the farmers, with the indigenous, with all the social sectors involved in the issue of land, it is necessary to bring together points of conflict, to talk about them at the table, look at them from one side, look at them from the other and at the end of a month, two months or three months, we will begin to make decisions again." -------- prisoners of war [Note there are several 18 year olds, one 19, several 21. These have been in Gitmo several years. How old were they when arrested? 14, 15? What are they doing in an adult prison?] Full list of Guantanamo detainees Published: 17 May 2006, UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article485410.ece HICKS, DAVID, Australia, 34. RUHANI, GHOLAM, Afghanistan, 31. WASIQ, ABDUL HAQ, Afghanistan, 35. AL MATRAFI, ABDALLAH AIZA, Saudi Arabia, 41. NOORI, MULLAH NORULLAH, Afghanistan, 39. FAZL, MULLAH MOHAMMAD, Afghanistan, 39. RASOUL, ABDULLAH GULAM, Afghanistan, 33. YASSER, HIMDY, Saudi Arabia / USA, 26. SATTAR, ABDUL, Pakistan, 24. NAFEESI, ABDUL SATAR, Pakistan, 35. USMAN, SHABIDZADA, Pakistan, 24. MOHAMED, FAHED NASSER, Saudi Arabia, 24. IQBAL, ZAFAR, Pakistan, 23. UL SHAH, ZIA, Pakistan, 30. AL-DEEN, JAMAL MUHAMMAD, Pakistan / Bangladesh, 39. KHAN, MUHAMMED IJAZ, Pakistan, 29. SAYED, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 33. ALIKHEL, SHA MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 25. ISHAQ, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 23. HUDIN, SALAH, Pakistan / Afghanistan, 24. HAMIDUVA, SHAKHRUKH, Uzbekistan, 22. KHAN, ISA, Pakistan, 31. ABASSI, FEROZ ALI, United Kingdom, 26. AL JOUDI, MAJEED ABDULLAH, Saudi Arabia, 39. GHAZI, FAHED ABDULLAH AHMAD, Yemen, 24. UTHMAN, UTHMAN ABDUL RAHIM MOHAMMED, Yemen, 27. AL ALAWI, MUAZ HAMZA AHMAD, Yemen, 29. AL ANSI, MUHAMMAD AHMAD ABDALLAH, Yemen, 31. AL HIKIMI, AHMED UMAR ABDULLAH, Yemen, 34. ABD AL MUJAHID, MAHMOUD ABD AL AZIZ, Yemen, 28. AHMED, FARUQ ALI, Yemen, 22. AL EDAH, MOHAMMED AHMAD SAID, Yemen, 44. AL YAFI, AL KHADR ABDALLAH MUHAMMED, Yemen, 36. QADER IDRIS, IDRIS AHMED ABDU, Yemen, 27. IDRIS, IBRAHIM OTHMAN IBRAHIM, Sudan / Yemen, 45. ABD AL WAHAB, ABD AL MALIK, Yemen, 27. AL YAZIDI, RIDAH BIN SALEH, Tunisia, 41. ISMAIL, ALI HAMZA AHMED SULAYMAN, Yemen, 37. AL MUDHAFFARI, ABDEL QADIR HUSSEIN, Yemen, 30. AHMAD, MAJID MAHMUD ABDU, Yemen, 25. SHALABI, ABDUL RAHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 30. MOQBEL, SAMIR NAJI AL HASAN, Yemen, 28. ABU GHANIM, MOHAMMED RAJAB SADIQ, Yemen, 31. AL RAHIZI, ALI AHMAD MUHAMMAD, Yemen, 26. ABDALLAH, SAYF BIN, Tunisia, 32. ULLAH, ASAD, Pakistan, 25. 47, ALHAMIRI, ABDULAH, United Arab Emirates, 26. AL AASMI, ASSEM MATRUQ MOHAMMAD, Palestinian territories / Saudi Arabia, 26. AL HUSAYN, ZAID MUHAMAMD SA'AD, Jordan, 32. BARAYAN, MAJID AL, Saudi Arabia, 33. AL MURBATI, ISSA ALI ABDULLAH, Bahrain, 41. AL MAHAYAWI, SAUD DAKHIL ALLAH MUSLIH, Saudi Arabia, 29. AL QOSI, IBRAHIM AHMED MAHMOUD, Sudan, 45. AL ZAYLA, MUHAMMED YAHIA MOSIN, Saudi Arabia, 28. AHMAD, ABDULLAH TABARAK, Morocco, 50. AL HARBI, SALIM SULIMAN, Saudi Arabia, 37. AL WAHAB, MUSA ABED, Saudi Arabia, 28. AL UWAYDHA, SULTAN AHMED DIRDEER MUSA, Saudi Arabia, 30. AL WADI, ADIL KAMIL ABDULLAH, Bahrain, 41. KARNAZ, MURAT, Turkey, 24. AL JUHANI, MUHAMAD NAJI SUBHI, Saudi Arabia, 38. AL QAHTANI, MUHAMMAD MANI AHMED AL SHAL LAN, Saudi Arabia, 27. SEBAII, ABDEL HADI MOHAMMED BADAN AL SEBAII, Saudi Arabia, 34. AMIN, OMAR RAJAB, Kuwait, 38. AL SULAMI, YAHYA SAMIL AL SUWAYMIL, Saudi Arabia, 27. 'ABD AL-RAZAQ 'ABDALLAH HAMID IBRAHIM AL-SHARIKH, Saudi Arabia, 22. AL BAWARDI, KHALID SAUD ABD AL RAHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 29. ISMAIL, SADEQ MUHAMMAD SA ID, Yemen, 24. HOUARI, ABDUL RAHAM, Algeria, 26. AL-SHEDOKY, MISH'AL MUHAMMAD RASHID, Saudi, 24. IKASSRIN, LAACIN, Morocco, 33. NUR, YUSIF KHALIL ABDALLAH, Saudi Arabia, 24. AL RASHID, MESH ARSAD, Saudi Arabia, 26. LAHASSIMI, NAJIB MOHAMMAD, Morocco, 27. (SHARIPOV), RUKNIDDIN FAYZIDDINOVICH, Tajikistan, 33. FAZROLLAH, MEHRABANB, Tajikistan, 43. AL HANASHI, MOHAMMAD AHMED ABDULLAH SALEH, Yemen, 28. AL HARAZI, FAHED, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL-SHABANI, FAHD ABDALLAH IBRAHIM, Saudi Arabia, 23. ALI, WALID MOHAMMAD HAJ MOHAMMAD, Sudan, 31. KAFKAS, ABDULLAH D,, Russia, 22. NABIED, YUSEF, Tajikistan, 42. BATAYEV, ILKHAM TURDBYAVICH, Uzbekistan, 32. NASEER, MUNIR BIN, Pakistan, 28. RASUL, SHAFIQ, United Kingdom, 33. IQBAL, ASIF, United Kingdom, 25. AWAD, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI, Yemen, 24. TSIRADZHO, POOLAD T, Azerbaijan, 31(VAKHIDOV) SOBIT (ABDUMUKIT) VALIKHONOVICH, Tajikistan, 36. AL SALEH, ABDUL, Yemen, 27. SHAH, SAID MOHAMMED ALIM, Afghanistan, 28. AL ZAHRANI, YASSER TALAL, Saudi Arabia, 21. AL SEHLI, IBRAHIM DAIF ALLAH NEMAN, Saudi Arabia, 40. AHMED, ABDUL RAHMAN UTHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 32. AL UTAYBI, MUHAMMAD SURUR DAKHILALLAH, Saudi Arabia, 22. KHAN, TARIQ, Pakistan, 28. SAEED, HAFIZ IHSAN, Pakistan, 27. RAZIQ, ABDUL, Pakistan, 34. ASHRAF, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 26. IRFAN, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 23. MOHAMMED, NAG, China, 31. MAHMUD, ARKIN, China, 41. ACHEZKAI, HAJI MOHAMMED KHAN, Afghanistan, 29. ALI, ADNAN MOHAMMED, Saudi Arabia, 28. RAZ, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 37. BARAKZAI, JON MOHAMMAD, Afghanistan, 39. ALIZA, ABDUL RAUF, Afghanistan, 25. AL RABIESH, YUSEF ABDULLAH SALEH, Saudi Arabia, 25. AHMED, RHUHEL, United Kingdom, 25. TAYEEA, ALI ABDUL MOTALIB AWAYD HASSAN AL, Iraq, Unknown. AL KHALDI, ABDUL AZIZ SAAD, Saudi Arabia, 26. AHMED, SAR FARAZ, Pakistan, 40. AL SHIHRI, YUSSEF MOHAMMED MUBARAK, Saudi Arabia, 20. SALEH NASER, ABDUL RAHMAN MOHAMED, Yemen, 26. ABULWANCE, YAMATOLAH, Afghanistan, 29. AL WARAFI, MUKTAR YAHYA NAJEE, Yemen, 32. KAHM, ABDUL RAHMAN ABDULLAH MOHAMED JUMA, Afghanistan, 37. SHAH, SOLAIMAN DUR MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 29. RASOOL, HABIB, Afghanistan, 51. MOHAMMED, SALMAN SAAD AL KHADI, Saudi Arabia, 24. AL ATABI, BIJAD THIF ALLAH, Saudi Arabia, 34. HASSAN, MUHAMMAD HUSSEIN ALI, Morocco, 39. KHAN, JANAN TAUS, Afghanistan, 24. ZAHRANI, FAWAZ ABD AL-AZIZ AL-, Saudi Arabia, 28. SAID, SALAM ABDULLAH, Saudi Arabia, 25. SHILI, IBRAHIM RUSHDAN BRAYK AL-, Saudi Arabia, 25. AL BIHANI, GHALEB NASSAR, Yemen, 26. AL-MARWA'I, Toufiq Saber Muhammad, Yemen, 30. SULTAN, FAHA, Saudi Arabia, 34. HADI, SALEM AHMED, Yemen, 30. GHETAN, ABDUL SALAM, Saudi Arabia, 21. AWZAR, MOHAMED IBRAHIM, Morocco, 26. SAFOLLAH, GHASER ZABAN, Pakistan, 27. KHAN, EJAZ AHMAD, Pakistan, 31. MOHAMMAD, TARIK, Pakistan, 34. TARIQ, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 33. AYUBI, SALAHODIN, Pakistan, 32. MANZU, HAFICE LEQEAT, Pakistan, 29. ALI, SAID SAIM, Pakistan, 29. AYUB, HASEEB, Pakistan, 32. FAZALDAD, FNU, Pakistan, 24. SANGHIR, MOHAMMAD, Pakistan, 54. ILYAS, MOHAMMAD, Pakistan, 64. KHAN, HAMOOD ULLAH, Pakistan, 35. KHAN, MOHAMMAD KASHEF, Pakistan, 27. RAZA, MOHAMMED ARSHAD, Pakistan, 26. BIN HAMIDA, ADIL MABROUK, Tunisia, 35. HAM DAN, SALIM AHMED SALIM, Yemen, 36. BOUJAADIA, SAID, Morocco, 38. HASHEM, MUBARAK HUSSAIN BIN ABUL, Bangladesh, 28. AL KHALAQI, ASIM THAHIT ABDULLAH, Yemen, 38. SULEIMAN, FAYIZ AHMAD YAHIA, Yemen, 32. AL AWFI, MAZIN SALIH MUSAID, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL HUBAYSHI, KHALID SULAYMANJAYDH, Saudi Arabia, 31. ABD AL RAHMAN ABD, ALLAL AB ALJALLIL, Yemen, 30. AL MALKI, SAED KHATEM, Saudi Arabia, 37. AL HARBI, MAJID ABDALLAH HUSAYN MUHAMMAD AL SAMLULI, Saudi Arabia, 25. AL NOAIMI, ABDULLAH, Bahrain, 24. BEN MOUJAN, MUHAMMAD, Morocco, 25. BENCHELLALI, MOURAD, France, 24. AL TAYS, ALI HUSAYN ABDULLAH, Yemen, 28. AL QADASI, KHALID ABD JAL JABBAR MUHAMMAD JUTHMAN, Yemen, 38. ACHAB KANOUNI, IMAD, France, 29. AL BUSAYSS, ADIL SAID AL HAJ OBEID, Yemen, 33. GHEZALI, MEHDI MOHAMMAD, Sweden, 26. AL RIMI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, Yemen, 23. HKIML, ADEL BIN AHMED BIN IBRAHIM, Tunisia, 41. AL AM RANI, AYMAN MOHAMMAD SILMAN, Jordan, 28. MASUD, SHARAF AHMAD MUHAMMAD, Yemen, 28. ALAHDAL, ABU BAKR IBN ALI MUHHAMMAD, Yemen, 27. MOHAMMED, ALI MUHAMMED NASIR, Saudi Arabia, 23. KHALID, RIDOUANE, France, 38. SLITI, HISHAM BIN ALI BIN AMOR, Tunisia, 40. SAID, HASSAN MUJAMMA RABAI, Algeria, 30. AL QURAYSHI, MAJID AYDHA MUHAMMAD, Saudi Arabia, 33. AL JUTAYLI, FAHD SALIH SULAYMAN, Saudi Arabia, 23. BAADA, TAREK ALI ABDULLAH AHMED, Yemen, 28. AL JUAID, ABDUL RAHMAN OWAID MOHAMMAD, Saudi Arabia, 25. AL SHIMRI, MAJI AFAS RADHI, Saudi Arabia, 32. AL JABRI, BANDAR AHMAD MUBARAK, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL JAYFI, ISSAM HAMID AL BIN ALI, Yemen, 26. AL OMAIRAH, OTHMAN AHMED OTHMAN, Yemen, 33. TURKI MASH AWI ZAYID AL ASIRI, Saudi Arabia, 31. BALKHAIR, RASHED AWAD KHALAF, Saudi Arabia, 28. MAKRAM, MURTADHA AL SAID, Saudi Arabia, 30. AL FAYFI, JABIR JUBRAN, Saudi Arabia, 31. GHEREBY, SALEM ABDUL SALEM, Libya, 45. AL MISHAD, SHARIF FATI ALI, Egypt, 29. JAID AL KHATHAMI, SALEH ALI, Saudi Arabia, 25. ARBAYSH, IBRAHIMJ SULAYMAN MUHAMMAD, Saudi Arabia, 26. MOQBILL, MUHSIN MUHAMMAD MUSHEEN, Yemen, Unknown. AL RIMI, MUHAMMAD ABDALLAH MANSUR, Libya, 37. AL SHUMRANI, MOHAMMAD AL RAHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 31. AL AMRI, ABD AL RAHMAN MOAZA ZAFER, Saudi Arabia, 27. SHOKURI, YUNIS ABDURRAHMAN, Morocco, 38. AL ASADI, MOHAMMED AHMED ALI, Yemen, 26. AL AMRI, ABDUL RAHMAN MA ATH THAFIR, Saudi Arabia, 33. QAHTANI, SAID MUHAMMAD HUSYAN, Saudi Arabia, 28. TOURSON, AHMAD, China, 35. BIN ATEF, MAHMMOUD OMAR MOHAMMED, Yemen, 26. GUMAROV, RAVIL SHAFEYAVICH, Russia, 43. AL ZAHRANI, SAID IBRAHIM RAMZI, Saudi Arabia, 25. AMTIRI, NASSER NAJIRI, Kuwait, 29. ABDEL AZIZ, ABDULLAH MUHAMMED, Saudi Arabia, 38. ALHABIRI, MISHAL AWAD SAYAF, Saudi Arabia, 26. SALEHOVE, MAROOF SALEEMOVICH, Tajikistan, 28. SHARIPOV, ALMASM RABILAVICH, Russia, 35. IQBAL, FAIK, Pakistan, 23. ODIJEV, RUSLAN ANATOLIVICH, Russia, 32. AL MUTAYRI, KHALID ABDULLAH MISHAL THAMER, Kuwait, 30. AL KURASH, MUHAMMAD ABD AL RAHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 29. AL SHARIF, FAHD UMR ABD AL MAJID, Saudi Arabia, 30. AL KABI, JAMIL ALI, Saudi Arabia, 33. AL SHAMARI, ABD AL AZIZ SAYIR, Kuwait, 32. AL FOUZAN, FAHD MUHAMMED ABDULLAH, Saudi Arabia, 22. RAZAK, ABDUL, China, Unknown. AL AJMI, ABDALLAH SALEH ALI, Kuwait, 27. SALIH, ALI MOHSEN, Yemen, 25. AL KUNDUZI, UMAR ABDULLAH, Afghanistan, 27. SULAYMAN, ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL ABU GHITYH, Yemen, 27. MUHAMMAD, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH ALI, Yemen, 24. AL SHULAN, HANI ABDUL MUSLIH, Yemen, 27. AL NURR, ANWAR, Saudi Arabia, 29. AL BALUSHI, SALAH ABDUL RASUL ALI ABDUL RAHMAN, Bahrain, 24. KAMEL, ABDULLAH KAMEL ABUDALLAH, Kuwait, 32. AL DEHANI, MOHAMMAD FINAYTAL, Kuwait, 40. HUMUD DAKHIL HUMUD SA'ID AL-JAD'AN, Saudi Arabia, 33. AL SHARAKH, ABDULHADI ABDALLAH IBRAHIM, Saudi Arabia, 23. AL AWDA, FOUZI KHALID ABDULLAH, Kuwait, 29. SALIH, ABDUL AL RAZZAQ MUHAMMAD, Yemen, 33. AL ZAHARNI, KHALID MOHAMMED, Saudi Arabia, 34. JARABH, SAEED AHMED MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SAREM, Yemen, 30. MUSTAFA, KHALED BEN, France, 34. SOULEIMANI LAALMAI, MOHAMAD, Morocco, 30. HADJARAB, NABIL, Algeria, 26. AMI, SHAKIR ABDURAHIM MOHAMED, Saudi Arabia, 37. AMAR, ABU, Saudi Arabia, 28. QASIM, KHALED, Yemen, 29. AL UTAYBI, ABDULLAH ALI, Saudi Arabia, 34. NASIR, ABDUL LATIF, Morocco, 41. AL BALUSHI, SALAH ABDUL RASUL ALI ABDUL, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL KHALIFA, SHEIKH SALMAN EBRAHIM MOHAMED ALI, Bahrain, 26. FIYATULLAH, KAY, Pakistan, 23. AL OSHAN, SALEH ABDALL, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL HAMIRI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, Yemen, 24. ANVAR, HASSAN, China, 31. BIN SALEM, MUHHAMMAD SAID, Yemen, 31. BASARDAH, YASIM MUHAMMED, Yemen, 30. AL ANSARI, FARIS MUSLIM, Afghanistan, 22. KHNENAH, MUHAMMED ALI HUSSEIN, Yemen, Unknown. HATIM, SAID MUHAMMED SALIH, Yemen, 30. AL RADAI, RIYAD ATIQ ALI ABDU AL HAJ, Yemen, Unknown. ABDULAYEV, OMAR HAMZAYAVICH, Tajikistan, 27. IBRAHIM, NAYIF ABDALLAH IBRAHIM, Saudi Arabia, 24. HINTIF, FADIL HUSAYN SALIH, Yemen, 37. ADIL, AHMED, China, 33. AL DOSARI, JUMA MOHAMMED ABDUL LATIF, Bahrain, 32. AL WAFTI, ABDULLAH ABD AL MU'IN, Saudi Arabia, 39. SULTAN, ASHRAF SALIM ABD AL SALAM, Libya, 34. AL BADDAH, ABDUL AZIZ ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUL AZIZ, Saudi Arabia, 24. AL HARBI, TARIQE SHALLAH HASSAN, Saudi Arabia, 23. SALEH GANMI, ABDULLAH MUHAMMAD, Saudi Arabia, 32. AHMAD, AHMAD ABD AL RAHMAN, Spain, 31. AL HATAYBI, ABDUL RAHMAN NASHI BADI, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL QARANI, MUHAMMED HAMID, Chad, 20. ZEMMORI, MOSA ZI, Belgium, 27. AL NASIR, IBRAHIM MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, Saudi Arabia, 24. IL BHAWITH, ZAID BINSALLAH MOHAMMED, Saudi Arabia, 24. AL NASIR, ABD AL AZIZ MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL SAMIRI, BADER AL BAKRI, Saudi Arabia, 29. ABBAS, YUSEF, China, 26. BASIT, AKHDAR QASEM, China, 32. MAHNUT, BAHTIYAR, China, 30. MAMUT, ABDUL HELIL, China, 29. AYUB, HAJI MOHAMMED, China, 22. KHALIK, SAIDULLAH, China, 28. ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDUL GHAPPAR, China, 33. ABDULGHUPUR, HAJIAKBAR, China, 32. QASIM, ABU BAKR, China, 37. AL QADIR, MOHAMMED ABD AL, Algeria, 30. ABDULQADIRAKHUN, ABDULLAH, China, 26. JAHDARI, ZIAD SAID FARG, Saudi Arabia, 27. ALLAITHY, SAMI ABDUL AZIZ SALIM, Egypt, 49. SAYAB, MUTIJ SADIZ AHMAD, Algeria, 29. ABDUREHIM, DAWUT, China, 31. BEL BACHA, AHMED BIN SALEH, Algeria, 36. CELIK GOGUS, YUKSEL, Turkey, 38. FEGHOUL, ABDULLI, Algeria, 45. ABDULHEHIM, ADEL, China, 31. MIZOUZ, MOHAMMED, Morocco, 32. ABDULAHAT, EMAM, China, 28. SEN, MESUT, Belgium, 26. SEN, IBRAHIM SHAFIR, Turkey, 25. UYAR, SALIH, Turkey, 25. RAZA, ABID, Pakistan, 25. SULTAN, ZAHID, Pakistan, 25. HAFEZ, KHALIL RAHMAN, Pakistan, 22. IJAZ, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, Unknown. AHMED, ALI, Pakistan, 24. ANSAR, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 25. MOHHAMED, HANIF, Pakistan, 24. ZAEEF, ABDUL SALAM, Afghanistan, 39. KHANTUMANI, ABD AL NASIR MOHAMMED ABD AL QADIR, Syria, 46. AL NUSAYRI, ADIL UQLA HASSAN, Saudi Arabia, 32. ABD AL SATTAR, MUIEEN A DEEN JAMAL A DEEN ABD AL FUSAL, United Arab Emirates, 30. AMEZIANE, DJAMEL SAIID ALI, Algeria, 39. FARHI, SAIID, Algeria, 45. KHANTUMANI, MUHAMMAD ABD AL NASIR MUHAMMAD, Syria, 24. MIRMUHAMMAD, SHARGHULAB, Afghanistan, 34. KHAN, EZAT, Afghanistan, 40. MUST, YARASS ALI, Afghanistan, 34. GHULADKHAN, Afghanistan, 26. DOKHAN, MOAMMAR BADAWI, Syria, 33. AL TAIBI, RAM I BIN SAID, Saudi Arabia, 25. SEBAI, MOHAMMED JAYED, Saudi Arabia, 23. PAR HAT, HOZAIFA, China, 35. SAID KUMAN, AHMED YASLAM, Yemen, 25. AL BARAKAT, KHALID HASSAN HUSAYN, Saudi Arabia, 31. ABDERRAHMANE, SLIMANE HADJ, Denmark, 32. AL SABRI, MASHUR ABDALLAH MUQBIL AHMED, Yemen, 28. SASSI, NIZAR, France, 26. AHJAM, AHMED ADNAN, Syria, 29. SHAABAN, ALI HUSEIN, Syria, 24. MOHAMED, AHMED, China, 28. FARAJ, ABD AL HADIO OMAR MAHMOUD, Syria, 25. MOUHAMMAD, MAASOUM ABDAH, Syria, 34. AL SHURFA, OHMED AHMED MAHAMOUD, Saudi Arabia, 30. AL TAYABI, ABDULLAH, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL HARBI, MOHAMED ATIQ AWAYD, Saudi Arabia, 32. AL MARRI, JARALLA SALEH MOHAMMED KAHLA, Qatar, 32. MOHAMMED, KAHLID SAAD, Saudi Arabia, 32. AL FRIH, MAJED HAMAD, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL BIDNA, SA AD IBRAHAM SA AD, Saudi Arabia, 28. WASIM, Saudi Arabia, 42. AL MORGHI, KHALID ABDALLAH ABDEL RAHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 36. AL DUBAIKEY, BESSAM MUHAMMED SALEH, Saudi Arabia, 28. AL FAR H A, SAID AL I, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL QURBI, MOHAMMED MUBAREK SALAH, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL RUSHAYDAN, ABDALLAH IBRAHIM, Saudi Arabia, 39. QA ID, RASHID ABD AL MUSLIH QA ID AL, Saudi Arabia, 46. AL HAJJ, SAMI MOHY EL DIN MUHAMMED, Sudan, 37. SHAYBAN, SAID BEZAN ASHEK, Saudi Arabia, 25. MOHAMMADULLAH, Afghanistan, 32. ZUMARIKOURT, AZIZ KHAN ALI KHAN, Afghanistan, 44. SADIQ, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 93. EHSANULLAH, Afghanistan, 33. GHOFOOR, ABDULLAH, Afghanistan, 35. SAYED, ABDUL HADI MUHAMED RASUL, Afghanistan, 33. WAHEED, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 34. GHANI, NABU ABDUL, Afghanistan, 54. MALANG, NASSIR, Afghanistan, 34. RAZAQ, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 35. RAHMAN, ABDUL 4, Afghanistan, 30. SARGIDENE, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 29. EDMONDADA, ABDULLAH, Afghanistan, 46. RAHMAN, MURTAZAH ABDUL, Afghanistan, 30. TORJAN, SHAIBJAN, Afghanistan, 29. GHAFOOR, SHAI JAHN, Afghanistan, 37. KAKAR, MOHAMMED RAZ-MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 29. LAYAR, SABIT, Afghanistan, 25. KHAN, HAZRAT SANGIN, Afghanistan, 29. YAQUB, MOHAMMED YUSIF, Afghanistan, Unknown. HAWSAWI, AMRAN BAQUR MOHAMMED, Saudi Arabia, 31. ALGAZZAR, ADEL FATTOUGH ALI, Egypt, 40. AL HIZANI, ABD, Saudi Arabia, 30. YADEL, BRAHIM, France, 35. SA ID ALI JABIR AL KHATHIM AL SHIHRI, Saudi Arabia, 32. SADKHAN, JAWAD JABBER, Iraq, 38. AL SHAMYRI, MUSTAFA ABDUL QAWI ABDUL AZIZ, Yemen, 27. ABDUL SAID, HASSAN, Iraq, 30. AL USAYMI, NAYIF FAHD MUTLIQ, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL NASIR, FAIZAL SAHA, Saudi Arabia, 26. AL KHALIF, HANI SAIID MOHAMMAD, Saudi Arabia, 34. AL GHATANI, KHALID MALU SHIA, Saudi Arabia, 23. BWAZIR, MOHAMMED ALI ABDULLAH, Yemen, 26. AHMED, ABDUL RAHMAN, Yemen, 27. MOWLA, ABDUL, Pakistan, 37. KHAN, JUMA, Afghanistan, 34. WALI, JIHAN, Pakistan, 39. JAMALUDINOVICH, ABU BAKIR, Uzbekistan, 32. NASIM, MOHAMMAD, Afghanistan, 33. ADAM, MOHAMMED SADIQ, Uzbekistan, 33. HAMIDULLAH, ALI SHER, Uzbekistan, 31. HAMDULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 32. GUL, MOHAMMAD, Afghanistan, 44. SARAJUDDIN, ABIB, Afghanistan, 64. ZAMAN, GUL, Afghanistan, 35. ZAMAN, KHAN, Afghanistan, 44. QYATI, ABDUL RAHMAN UMIR AL, Yemen, 30. JANKO, ABD AL RAHIM ABDUL RASSAK, Syria, 27. AL HARITH, JAMAL MALIK, United Kingdom, 39. TURKISTANI, SADIK AHMAD, Saudi Arabia, Unknown. VAHITOV, AIAT NASIMOVICH, Russia, 29. BUKHARY, ABDUL HAKIM, Saudi Arabia, 51. NOORALLAH, HAJI, Afghanistan, 35. RAFIQ, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 26. RAHMAN, FIZAULLA, Afghanistan, 28. SUBII, NASIR MAZIYAD ABDALLAH AL QURAYSHI AL, Saudi Arabia, 35. HAIDEL, MOHAMMED AHMED SAID, Yemen, 28. AL SHAKOURI, RADWAN, Morocco, 34. TURKASH, EMDASH ABDULLAH, Turkmenistan, 65. AL OTAIBI, NAWAF FAHAD, Saudi Arabia, 33. OURGY, ABDUL BIN MOHAMMED BIN ABESS, Tunisia, 40. AL ZUBA, SALEH MOHAMED, Yemen, 51. AMIN, AMINULLA, Pakistan, Unknown. AL MURI, KHALID RASHD ALI, Saudi Arabia, 30. AL DHUBY, KHALID MOHAMMED SALIH, Yemen, 25. AL ANAZI, SULTAN SARI SAYEL, Saudi Arabia, 32. RABEII, SALMAN YAHYA HASSAN MOHAMMED, Yemen, 26. KHUSRUF, MOHAMMED NASIR YAHYA, Yemen, 56. NASSERI, RIYAD BIL MOHAMMMED TAHIR, Tunisia, 39. AL NAHDI, SULAIMAN AWATH SULAIMAN BIN AGEEL, Yemen, 31. SADIK, MAHMUD, Afghanistan, 54. KHOWLAN, ABDUL RAHMAN MOHAMMED HUSSEIN, Saudi Arabia, 34. THAN I, ABDALLAH FAR IS AL UNAZI, Saudi Arabia, 26. UL HAQ, ISRAR, Pakistan, 26. AL HARBI, GHANIM ABDUL RAHMAN, Saudi Arabia, 32. MOHAMMED, SULTAN, Afghanistan, 30. KHIRULLAH AKAH, Afghanistan, Unknown. AL QUWARI, MAHRAR RAFAT, West Bank, 41. KARIM, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 24. KERIMBAKIEV, ABDULRAHIM, Kazakhstan, 23. ISMAIL, YASIN QASEM MUHAMMAD, Yemen, 27. EHSSANULLAH, Afghanistan, 29. ANWAR, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 25. ADAM GUL, ATAULLAH, Afghanistan, 24. ABAHANOV, YAKUB, Kazakhstan, Unknown. DAOUD, MOHAMMAN, Afghanistan, 27. MAGRUPOV, ABDULLAH TOHTASINOVICH, Kazakhstan, 23. KHAN, BACHA, Pakistan, 34. GUL, DAWD, Afghanistan, 26. HANAN, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 48. SHARIF, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 30. ZUMIRI, HASSAN, Algeria, 38. DERGOUL, TAREK, Morocco, 28. AL SAWAH, TARIQ MAHMOUD AHMED, Egypt, 48. AL HARBI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL ALI, MAHMUD SALEM HORAN MOHAMMED MUTLAK, Syria, 32. ALIKOZI, AMANULLAH, Afghanistan, 31. ALLAH, NOOR, Afghanistan, 35. OMAR, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 20. NOMAN, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 29. ABAS, MOHAMMAD, Pakistan, Unknown. MART, MAHMUD NURI, Turkey, 34. URAYMAN, SAJIN, Pakistan, 22. MUHIBULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 24. MOHAMMED, WALI, Afghanistan, 42. RAHMAN, ABDUL 12, Yemen, 30. ZAID, WALID SAID BIN SAID, Yemen, 28. AL RABIA, FOUAD MAHOUD HASAN, Kuwait, 46. AL KANDARI, FAIZ MOHAMMED AHMED, Kuwait, 30. AL BEDANI, ABDUL KHALED AHMED SAHLEH, Saudi Arabia, 23. AL SANI, FAHMI SALEM SAID, Yemen, 29. MUHAMMED, ABDUL MAJID, Iran, 27. KHAN, ABDULLAH MOHAMMAD, Uzbekistan, 34. BIN QUMU, ABU SUFIAN IBRAHIM AHMED HAMUDA, Libya, 46. BEGG, MOAZZAN, United Kingdom, 37. BADR, BADRUZZAN, Afghanistan, 35. MOHAMMED, HAJI WALI, Afghanistan, 40. MUSLIMDOST, ABDUL RAHIM, Afghanistan, 46. PEERZAI, QARI HASAN ULLA, Afghanistan, 29. MOHHAMED, SOHAB MAHUD, Iraq, 24. AWAD, JALAL SALAM AWAD, Yemen, 33. AL MOUSA, ABDUL HAKIM ABDUL RAHMAN ABDUAZIZ, Saudi Arabia, 29. QATTAA, MANSOOR MUHAMMED ALI, Saudi Arabia, 24. BARRE, MOHAMMED SULAYMON, Somalia, 41. AL-ZAMEL, 'ADEL ZAMEL 'ABD AL-MAHSEN, Kuwait, 42. AL SHARABI, ZUHAIL ABDO ANAM SAID, Yemen, 29. AL QURASHI, SABRI MOHAMMED EBRAHIM, Yemen, 36. AL AZMI, SA AD MADI SA AD, Kuwait, 26. AL ZABE, SLAH MUHAMED SALIH, Saudi Arabia, 34. AKHMYAROV, RUSTAM, Russia, 26. AL WADY, HAMOUD ABDULLAH HAMOUD HASSAN, Yemen, 40. AZANI, SAAD MASIR MUKBL AL, Yemen, 27. HAMDOUN, ZAHAR OMAR HAM IS BIN, Yemen, 26. MAR'I, JAMAL MUHAMMAD 'ALAWI, Yemen, Unknown. AL SUADI, ABDUL AZIZ ABDULLAH ALI, Yemen, 31. KHAIRKHWA, KHIRULLAH SAID WALI, Afghanistan, 39. AHMAD, NOOR, Afghanistan, 33. RAHMAN, SHED ABDUR, Afghanistan, 41. NOORANI, ABDUL RAHMAN, Afghanistan, 33. NOORI, ADEL, China, 26. UMAR, IBRAHIM UMAR ALI AL-, Saudi, 23. KHAMSAN, KARAM KHAMIS SAYD, Yemen, 37. SHAKARAN, IBRAHIM BIN, Morocco, 26. AL TABI, MANA SHAMAN ALLABARDI, Saudi Arabia, 30. ABDUL WAHAB AL ASMR, KHALID MAHOMOUD, Jordan, 42. RASHIDI, AHMED, Morocco, 40. ESMHATULLA, QARI, Afghanistan, 22. BAMARI, BAKHTIAR, Iran, 25. MEHMOOD, MAJID, Pakistan, 27. ULLAH, NOOR HABIB, Afghanistan, 26. BATARFI, AYMAN SAEED ABDULLAH, Yemen, 35. ALIZAI, NEMATULLAH SAHIB-KHAN, Afghanistan, 48. ALIKHAN, MAHNGUR, Afghanistan, 48. RAHMAD, NISAR, Afghanistan, 26. WAZIR, PADSHA, Afghanistan, 34. AKHTAR MOHAMMED, ROSTUM, Afghanistan, 26. FAROUQ, MOHAMMED NAYIM, Afghanistan, 46. MOHAMMED, ALI 2, Pakistan, 54. AKHBAR, MOHAMMAD, Afghanistan, 50. GHUL, NATHI, Afghanistan, 26. INSANULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 26. WALI, BADSHAH, Afghanistan, 29. BISMILLAH 2, FNU, Afghanistan, 38. WALI JAN, NEYAZ, Afghanistan, 44. IRGASHIVE, ABDUL KARIM, Tajikistan, 41. HAMIDULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 26. TAHIR, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 31. MOHAMMED, MIRZA, Afghanistan, 42. KABEL, MOHAMED, Afghanistan, 43. ASEKZAI, AZIZULLAH, Afghanistan, 26. AL SHAMAREE, ZABAN THAAHER ZABAN, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL TAMIMI, HAYDAR JABBAR HAFEZ, Iraq, 32. MUHAMMED, HAJI, France, 44. AL QAHTANI, JABIR HASAN MUHAMED, Saudi Arabia, 28. KABIR, USAMA HASSAN AHMED ABU, Jordan, 36. AL QAHTANI, ABDULLAH HAMID, Saudi Arabia, 27. AL KARIM, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL, Iraq, 30. AL GHAZZAWI, ABDEL HAMID IBN ABDUSSALEM IBN MIFTAH, Libya, 43. DAD, KHUDAI, Afghanistan, 49. BAQI, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 64. MOHAMMED, HAJI FAIZ, Afghanistan, Unknown. BISMILLAH, Afghanistan, 54. ABDENOUR, SAMEUR, Algeria, 33. LAGHA, LUFTI BIN SWEI, Tunisia, 37. HABIB, MAMDOUH IBRAHIM AHMED, Australia, 50. SULEYMAN, AHMED HASSAN JAMIL, Jordan, 44. AL-WALEELI, FAEL RODA, Egypt, 40. UWAYDAH, RASHID AWAD RASHID AL, Saudi Arabia, 30. LNU, SADEE EIDEOV, Tajikistan, 53. HEZBULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 25. SARWAR, KARI MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 28. ANDARR, ABDUL AL-HAMEED MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 39. AHMED ZAID SALIM ZUHAIR, Saudi Arabia, 33. HEKMAT, ABDULLAH, Afghanistan, 34. ABAS IN, SAID, Afghanistan, 24. ASAM, ZAKIRJAN, Russia, 32. KHAN, ALIF, Afghanistan, 38. ISHMURAT, TIMUR RAVILICH, Russia, 30. KASIMBEKOV, KAMALLUDIN, Uzbekistan, 28. KURD, MOHAMED ANWAR, Iran, 27. GHUL, WAZIR ZALIM, Afghanistan, 29. MAHDI, FAWAZ NAMAN HAMOUD ABDULLAH, Yemen, 26. TAHAR, MOHMMAD AHMAD ALI, Yemen, 26. HASSAN, EMAD ABDALLA, Yemen, 26. HASSEN, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED, Yemen, 23. AL SHARBI, GHASSAN ABDULLAH, Saudi Arabia, 31. AHMED, FAYAD YAHYA, Yemen, 29. TAHAMUTTAN, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, West Bank, 26. ABDELRAHMAN, ABDELRAZAK ALI, Libya, 35. HAKIM, ABDEL GHALIB AHMAD, Yemen, 27. AL NOOFAYAEE, ABDALAZIZ KAREEM SALIM, Saudi Arabia, 30. AHMED, FAHMI ABDULLAH, Yemen, 29. SALAM, MOHAMMED AHMED, Yemen, 25. QADER, Ahmed Abdul, Yemen, 23. SALEM AL ZARNUKI, MOHAMMED ALI, Yemen, Unknown. ALEH, ALI BIN ALI, Yemen, 23. AHMED, ALI ABDULLAH, Yemen, 29. BARHOUMI, SUFYIAN, Algeria, 32. ABU BAKR, OMAR KHALIFA MOHAMMED, Libya, 34. AL QAHTANI, JABRAN SAID WAZAR, Saudi Arabia, 29. FARHAD, DIN MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 30. MAHJOUB, MUHAMMED AL GHAZALI BABAKER, Sudan, 32. KIYEMBA, JAMAL ABDULLAH, Uganda, 27. MINGAZOV, RAVIL, Russia, 38. HUSSEINI, ABDALLAH, Algeria, 48. ABDALLAH, MUHAMED HUSSEIN, Somalia, 23. HAMLILY, MUSTAFA AHMED, Algeria, 47. MOHAMMAD, MOHAMMAD LAMEEN SIDI, Mauritania, 24. MUHAMMAED, NOOR UTHMAN, Sudan, Unknown. AL BAKUSH, ISMAEL ALI FARAG, Libya, 37. ABU AL QUSIN, ABDUL RAUF OMAR MOHAMMED, Libya, 41. BANI AMIR, SALIM MAHMOUD ADEM MOHAMMED, Sudan, 48. ABDUL HAMID, HASSAN KHALIL MOHAMOUD, Jordan, 44. GADALLAH, HAMMAD ALI AM NO, Sudan, 36. AL ZAHRANI, MUHAMMED MURDI ISSA, Saudi Arabia, 37. RAHEEM, AL RACHID HASAN AHMAD ABDUL, Sudan, 40. HUSSEIN, ABDUL QADIR YOUSEF, West Bank, 53. SALEEM, ALLAH MUHAMMED, Egypt, 39. BIN HADIDDI, ABDUL HADDI, Tunisia, 37. BOUCETTA, FETHI, Algeria, 42. AL HASSAN, MUSTAFA IBRAHIM MUSTAFA, Sudan, 49. AL AMIR MAHMOUD, AMIR YAKOUB MOHAMMED, Sudan, 35. OMAR, ABDULLAH BIN, Tunisia, 49. DIYAB, JIHAD AHMED MUJSTAFA, Lebanon, 34. AL HENALI, MENHAL, Syria, 43. DEGHAYES, OMAR AMER, Libya, 36. NASSIR, JAMIL AHMED SAID, Yemen, 36. HOMARO, MOYUBALLAH, Tajikistan, 25. FAUZEE, IBRAHIM, Maldives, 27. MAZHARUDIN, FNU, Tajikistan, 26. GHAFAR HOMAROVICH, SHIRINOV, Tajikistan, 32. MADNI, HAFEZ QARI MOHAMED SAAD IQBAL, Pakistan, 28. NAJI, AZIZ ABDUL, Algeria, 31. ZAHIR, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 34. AZIZ, AHMED ABDEL, Mauritania, 36. AL NAELY, ABBAS HABID RUMI, Iraq, 37. SLAHI, MOHAMEDOU OULD, Mauritania, 35. ZIDAN, IBRAHIM MACHD ACHMED, Libya, 29. OBAIDULLAH, Afghanistan, 26. KHADR, OMAR AHMED, Canada, 19. AL DARBI, AHMED MUHAMMED HAZA, Saudi Arabia, 31. GUL, AWAL, Afghanistan, 43. ULLAH, SHAMS, Afghanistan, 20. WAKIL, HAJI SAHIB ROHULLAH, Afghanistan, 44. MELMA, SABAR LAL, Afghanistan, 44. SHAH, QALANDAR, Afghanistan, 33. BELMAR, RICHARD DEAN, United Kingdom, 26. KHAN, OSMAN, Afghanistan, 54. YOUSEF, MOHAMMED HAJI, Afghanistan, 39. ASLAAM, NOOR, Afghanistan, 24. SALAAM, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 31. KHAN, TILA MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 26. KADIR, KHAN DAN, Afghanistan, 37. OMARI, MOHAMMAD NABI, Afghanistan, 38. SHAHEEN NAQEEBYLLAH, SHAHWALI, ZAIR MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 29. MOHAMMED, RASOOL SHAHWALI ZAIR MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 28. SALEH, AYOUB MURSHID ALI, Yemen, 28. AL MARWALAH, BASHIR NASIR ALI, Yemen, 26. BALZUHAIR, SHAWKI AWAD, Yemen, 24. AL MADOONEE, MUSAB OMAR ALI, Yemen, 26. AL MAYTHALI, HA IL AZIZ AHMED, Yemen, 29. NASHIR, SA ID SALIH SA ID, Yemen, 32. AHMAD, SULTAN, Pakistan, 21. AHMED, SAGHIR, Pakistan, 31. MOHAMMED, AKHTAR, Afghanistan, 36. ULLAH, AMIN, Afghanistan, 50. NASIM, MOHAMMED 2, Afghanistan, 26. HASHIM, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 30. BARAK, FNU, Afghanistan, 34. NASIR, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 25. NASRULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 27. ESMATULLA, FNU, Afghanistan, 29. SANGARYAR, RAHMATULLAH, Afghanistan, 38. AL HAMI, RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN JALUD, Tunisia, 37. AL BIHANI, TOLFIQ NASSAR AHMED, Saudi Arabia, 33. RAHMAN, MOHAMMED ABDUL 2, Tunisia, 41. FAR HUDDINE, BAR, Afghanistan, 29. RAHIM, ABDUL 6, Afghanistan, 31. SHAH, ZAKIM, Afghanistan, 23. KHAN, SHAWALI, Afghanistan, 43. JAWAD, MOHAMED, Afghanistan, 21. MOHAMMED, TAJ, Afghanistan, 25. ELBANNA, ABDUL LATIF, Jordan, 54. AL RAWI, BISHER AMIN KHALIL, Iraq, 36. RAHMAN, HABIB, Afghanistan, 24. MUHAMMED, PETA, Afghanistan, 21. KHAN, MOHABET, Afghanistan, 34. KHAN, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 24. SAMAD, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 24. ULLAH, ASAD, Afghanistan, 18. ULLAH, NAQIB, Afghanistan, 18. KHAN, SHARDAR, Afghanistan, 24. ULLAH, FAIZ, Afghanistan, 50. RAZZAQ, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 42. GUL, KHI ALI, Afghanistan, 43. QUDUS, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 18. ISMAIL, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 22. KUCHI, HAJI NIAM, Afghanistan, 66. KHAN, SWAR, Afghanistan, 36. GHANI, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 34. AMEUR, MAMMAR, Algeria, 47. HASSAN, ADEL, Sudan, 48. DIN, JUMA, Afghanistan, 33. RAZZAK, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 67. GHANI, ABDUL 2, Afghanistan, 23. LNU, SHARIFULLAH, Afghanistan, 26. JAN, SAID AMIR, Afghanistan, 26. KHAN, ANWAR, Afghanistan, 39. ZAHOR, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 42. KHAN, ABDULLAH, Afghanistan, 50. NASIR, ALLAH, Afghanistan, 59. SHAHZADA, HAJI, Afghanistan, 47. HAMMDIDULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 33. GHAFOUR, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 44. QUASAM, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 29. AHMAD, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 52. NASIM, MOHAMMED 3, Afghanistan, 44. BISMAULLAH, FNU 2, Afghanistan, Unknown. WAHAB, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 38. BAGI, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 34. RAHMATULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 25. HAFIZULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 32. BAR I DAD, Afghanistan, 53. NASERULLAH, FNU, Afghanistan, 26. BISMULLAH, HAJI, Afghanistan, 27. MOHAMMAD, AKHTAR 2, Afghanistan, Unknown. LNU, AMANULLAH, Afghanistan, 43. YAR, KUSHKY, Afghanistan, 43. MOHAMMED, ALIF, Afghanistan, 60. BULLAR, MOHI, Afghanistan, 25. KARIM, BOSTAN, Afghanistan, 36. WAZIR, ABDULLAH, Afghanistan, 27. NASRAT YAR, HIZTULLAH, Afghanistan, 36. KANDAHAR I, KAKO, Afghanistan, 36. GHALIB, HAJI, Afghanistan, 43. KHADR, ABDUL, Canada, 25. WAZIR, HAJI MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 63. HASAN, MIRWAIS, Afghanistan, 26. KHAIL, HAFIZULLAH SHABAZ, Afghanistan, 60. MATIN, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 41. AHMED, SHABIR, Afghanistan, 35. YACOUB, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 30. AHMAD, BASHIR, Pakistan, 30. IRFAN, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 27. SADIQI, ABDUL HALIM, Pakistan, 38. SOHAIL, MOHAMMED MUSTAFA, Afghanistan, 25. KHAN, HAJI NASRAT, Afghanistan, 71. SHAH, NAHIR, Afghanistan, 33. AKBAR, MOHAMMED, Pakistan, 33. TUKHI, AMINULLAH BARYALAI, Afghanistan, 34. AHMED, FEDA, Afghanistan, 29. SHAHIR, WALID MOHAMMED, Yemen, 27. MOHAMMED, HUSSEIN SALEM, Yemen, 29. HUWARI, SOUFIAN ABAR, Algeria, 36. AL RAMMAH, OMAR MOHAMMED ALI, Yemen, 31. AHMAD, OSAM ABDUL RAHAN, Jordan, 30. LNU, NASIBULLAH, Afghanistan, 39. CHAMAN, GUL, Afghanistan, 43. HAFIZ, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 45. GHAFAAR, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 48. JAN, SAIDA, Afghanistan, Unknown. MOHAMMAD, AKHTIAR, Afghanistan, 53. GUL GHAMAN, NASSER, Afghanistan, 26. NOOR, HABIB, Afghanistan, 38. RAZAK, ABDUL, Afghanistan, 48. KAMIN, MOHAMMED, Afghanistan, 28. AZIMULLAH, Afghanistan, 24. SHARBAT, Afghanistan, 33. RAHMAN, MAHBUB, Afghanistan, 21. MOHAMMED, SAID, Afghanistan, 29. AMAN, Afghanistan, 49. KHAN, KAKAI, Afghanistan, 35. PARACHA, SAIFULLAH, Pakistan, 58. JAN, JUMMA, Tajikistan, 28. MUJAHID, Afghanistan, 35. ZAHIR, MOHOMMOD, Afghanistan, 53. RAHIM, MOHAMED, Afghanistan, Unknown. JALIL, HAJI, Afghanistan, 36. HAMIDULLAH, Afghanistan, 43. SHAH, ALI, Afghanistan, 47. HUKUMRA, Afghanistan, 32. YAKUBI, Afghanistan, 40. BIN HAMLILI, ADIL HADI AL JAZAIRI, Algeria, 30. AL KAZIMI, SAN AD YISLAM, Yemen, 36. ALI BIN ATTASH, HASSAN MOHAMMED, Saudi Arabia, 21. SHARQAWI, ABDU ALI AL HAJI, Yemen, 31. BINYAM, MOHAMMED AHMED, Ethiopia, 27. ABU RAHMAN, ABDUL RABBANI ABD AL RAHIM, Pakistan, 37. RABBANI, MOHAMMED AHMAD GHULAM, Pakistan, 36. AL HILAL, ABDUL AL SALAM, Yemen, 38. BELKACEM, BENSAYAH, Algeria, 43. LAHMAR, SABIR MAHFOUZ, Algeria, 37. NECHLE, MOHAMMED, Algeria, 38. AIT IDR, MUSTAFA, Algeria, 35. BOUMEDIENE, LAKHDAR, Algeria, 40. AL HAJJ, BOUDELLA, Algeria, 41. MUBANGA, MARTIN JOHN, United Kingdom, 33. -------- spies Church Committee Counsel Frederick Schwarz on Corporate Involvement in Government Spying Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/159236 In the 1970s, the Church Committee, led by Senator Frank Church, conducted a major investigation of the country’s intelligence agencies. The Committee criticized the government for conducting widespread surveillance of citizens inside the country and it led Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to establish some form of oversight over domestic surveillance programs. During its investigation the Church Committee uncovered that several major corporations – including Western Union, ITT and RCA Global – helped the NSA spy on Americans in a secretive program known as Project Shamrock. To talk about the Church Committee we are joined by attorney Frederick Schwarz. He served as chief counsel to the Church Committee in the mid 1970s. He is now senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and co-author of the forthcoming book "Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror." - Frederick Schwarz , chief counsel to the Church Committee in the mid 1970s. To talk about the Church Committee, we are joined right now by attorney Frederick Schwarz. He served as Chief Counsel to the Church Committee in the mid-‘70s. He's now Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law and co-author of the forthcoming book, Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror. We welcome you to Democracy Now! FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Nice to see you. AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Tell us what happened then. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, actually, it started in 1946, when all these major companies started turning over all their cables, every single cable that went out of the country to the NSA. Initially, the government looked at those to see encrypted or coded messages coming from foreign embassies, but they began during the ’60s and ’70s to look at cables and other messages from people opposing the war in Vietnam and civil rights leaders. That was just one example of all the excessive surveillance and action that the government agencies were taking against people who were dissidents in the United States during the Cold War. AMY GOODMAN: Explain Project SHAMROCK. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, SHAMROCK was the codename -- they give all the things codenames -- for the handing over of every single cable that left the country for every day from 1946 until it was discovered in 1975, when it was stopped. AMY GOODMAN: And what happened? How was it used? How did they actually do it then? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, I don't know the technology, but they would use electronic devices to check messages they wanted to look at. And it started, as I said, with a relatively benign purpose, one that most people would say is perfectly proper: looking at foreign embassies sending coded messages back to their home countries. But then it was shifted to looking at American anti-Vietnam War protesters and civil rights leaders to examine their communications. So, it's an example, one of many, of how, when you've got a secret program and inadequate laws governing it, it's going to spread, and it's going to start perhaps in an appropriate way, and then it will spread into something that's totally contrary to the First Amendment. AMY GOODMAN: Could you talk about the cooperation of these companies in spying on Americans? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, they were asked to do it, and they did it. AMY GOODMAN: Which ones? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: It was the companies you mentioned. AMY GOODMAN: ITT, RCA Global. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: And the other one, whatever it was. AMY GOODMAN: Western Union. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Western Union, yeah. And, you know, frankly, they then actually were less culpable than today. Then, they simply were violating the privacy rights of their customers, but today, the FISA law, which was passed in 1978 as a consequence of the Church Committee's revelations, makes clear that the government is not meant to get messages from United States citizens without a warrant, except for a three-day emergency period when they can proceed without a warrant, or when a war is declared, when they have a period of 15 days. But the law is very clear. Beyond that, it's criminal for the government to obtain messages without a warrant. AMY GOODMAN: There was a fierce debate within the Church Committee about whether to name these companies that had cooperated with the government and spied on Americans. Talk about that debate. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, that's true. There was. I mean, everybody thought it was wrong, and the question was whether to name the companies. And ultimately, the Church Committee decided that it was the right thing to do, and I supported that view. It was the right thing to do, because these companies knowingly had violated the rights of their customers. AMY GOODMAN: The President weighed in through his attorney. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Yeah. President Ford did. And they made a big fight about not disclosing those names, just as they had made a big fight about not disclosing the fact that the CIA had used the Mafia to try and kill Fidel Castro. In both cases, the committee ultimately decided to release the information. AMY GOODMAN: It wasn't common for the White House Counsel to personally go to the committee, and he did on this issue, said it would compromise national security? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Yeah, it wasn't the White House Counsel; it was the Attorney General, but he was basically a good guy, Ed Levi, and he issued guidelines that began to curb the FBI, so he was on the side of reform. And in this case, he took a position that we disagreed with. AMY GOODMAN: And said it would compromise national security. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Yeah, but of course, that's silly. It doesn't compromise national security. I mean, most issues that really come to public attention, the government wants to conceal something because it's embarrassing, not because it compromises national security. Take torture today, you know, or sending people to be tortured in Egypt and Syria and so forth. That's not compromising national security to have it exposed. It's exposing wrongdoing that's embarrassing. AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, for the companies, it's very embarrassing and it could open them up to lawsuits. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Yeah. It didn't back then, and it has now, and who knows how those lawsuits are going to come out? AMY GOODMAN: Well, I wanted to play for you a comment made last week by New York Times reporter, James Risen. He, of course, broke the story about the NSA's domestic surveillance program and wrote the book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. He spoke also at the forum on the NSA sponsored by the New York Public Library and the Century Foundation. JAMES RISEN: I've never confirmed this, but I've heard that within the NSA, among the very few people who knew about this program, there were some serious concerns. Some people considered resigning. Some people refused to participate in the program. And what I heard was that the people who were the most concerned were the people who had lived through the whole Church Committee period, and that it was the young people who said, “Oh, yeah. Let's do that, you know.” AMY GOODMAN: So it was the young people, he said, were the ones who said let's go ahead and do that -- FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Yeah. AMY GOODMAN: -- in the modern controversy. The older ones, remembering Church, went a different route. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: It’s interesting. I think the Church Committee did teach lessons to people, that if you -- you shouldn't violate the law. You shouldn't use secrecy to cover up things, merely because they're embarrassing. Another thing that I know he said at that conference was about General Hayden. I should say for a minute, the NSA is a very important agency for the United States. It has done and it does do very important things through their electronic intelligence work. But with respect to General Hayden, in the book, I've looked in the draft of the book, which is coming out next winter -- I've looked at General Hayden's comments, and I think in his confirmation hearings, the Senate Intelligence Committee really needs to look very carefully at whether he was candid or honest in the comments he made after 9/11. You know, to make a fair judgment on that, you have to know not only what he said, but exactly what was being done when. But I think there's a credibility issue. AMY GOODMAN: Candid about? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: About whether the government -- I think -- see, the comments by both President Bush and General Hayden reassured the public that they were always getting warrants, but we now know they weren't. So there's a credibility issue there. AMY GOODMAN: Going back to President Ford and the Church Committee, didn't Ford try to extend executive privilege to the private companies? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: I don't know if they used that label. I don't think they did. They were really saying it's unfair to the private companies, more than the use of the label “executive privilege,” which really wasn't being used back then, by the way, that label. Nixon began to use it, but it wasn't as common as it now is. We have a greater problem with secrecy today than we did back then. AMY GOODMAN: In what way? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Because it's being used more often, I think, to try and cover up and keep secret things, simply because they're embarrassing. AMY GOODMAN: You think Congress needs to form a new Church Committee? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, whether Congress should do that or it should be done like the 9/11 Commission was by a private group, yes, I think it should be done. Congress now and the country now is much more partisan, much more divided than it was in 1975-76, and that makes a fair investigation much harder. AMY GOODMAN: How concerned are you about what's happening today? FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Well, you know, what I really think, what I'm really concerned about is the theory that Dick Cheney first voiced many years ago and he's continued to voice and Bush's lawyers have voiced, which is the theory that the President has the right to break the law. Now -- and indeed that the Constitution gives the President the right to break the law. That's never been suggested before. It's being suggested now, and if it's not put down and defeated, we are in a slippery slope moving toward a much more totalitarian government that's like the monarchy which we supposedly -- we tried to put behind us when we had the revolution 200 years ago. AMY GOODMAN: Frederick Schwarz, I want to thank you very much for being with us. FREDERICK SCHWARZ: Okay. Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Senior Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, served as the Chief Counsel to the Church Committee 30 years ago and is co-author of the forthcoming book, Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror. Thanks for joining us. ---- China broadens espionage operations 5/17/2006 By John Diamond, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-17-china-espionage_x.htm WASHINGTON — China is running aggressive and wide-ranging espionage operations aimed at stealing U.S. weapons technology that could be useful against U.S. forces, according to the nation's top spy-catchers. U.S. counterintelligence officials have also detected an expansion of spy networks run by Russia, Cuba and Iran targeting the U.S. government and, in the case of Iran, U.S. military technology, according to Timothy Bereznay, assistant director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. China, however, has emerged as the leading espionage threat, Bereznay and Stephen Bogni, a senior investigator for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said in separate interviews. China has "put out a shopping list" of weapons and components it is seeking to arms dealers and middlemen, Bogni said. These middlemen, often ethnic Chinese, operate out of shell companies in the USA, he said. The list includes night-vision gear, radar-evading and radar- and communications-jamming equipment, missile-guidance systems and torpedoes. On Wednesday, one accused Chinese spy, Taiwanese businessman Ko-Suen "Bill" Moo, pleaded guilty to charges he tried to buy military parts and weapons, including an F-16 fighter jet engine and cruise missiles. ESPIONAGE: A growing business ICE officials said Moo attempted to buy from undercover agents an AGM-129 cruise missile, which can carry nuclear warheads 2,300 miles. The possibility of a U.S.-Chinese military confrontation over Taiwan looms in the background of the espionage, said Ronald Guerin, the FBI's East Asia section chief. In a nightmare scenario, China could use U.S. technology to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier positioned to block a Chinese move against Taiwan, Guerin said. "We have to really worry about our technology being used against our (own) warfighter. That's a losing proposition," Guerin said. "This is a threat to the national security of the United States." A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy did not return a call seeking comment. Counterintelligence is a highly secret sector of intelligence and law enforcement, involving criminal investigations and classified or sensitive information. Bereznay and other officials said they were willing to discuss it on the record to draw attention to what they regard as an emerging national security threat. The FBI has arrested 25 Chinese nationals or Chinese Americans in cases involving the targeting of U.S. technology in the past two years, an unprecedented level of espionage compared to prior years, Guerin said. Most of the cases involve alleged theft of sensitive technology. ICE has initiated more than 400 investigations since 2000 involving illicit export of U.S. arms and strategic technology to China, according to agency statistics. The emerging espionage threat involves business people, trade representatives and academics in the USA ostensibly for legitimate purposes, Bereznay said. Sometimes the technology they target is highly sensitive but not yet classified, requiring the government to prosecute export violations rather than espionage "Foreign collectors don't wait until something is classified," Bereznay said. "They're targeting it at the R&D (research and development) phase." -------- venezuela Venezuela Says Arms Embargo An Attempt At De-Stabilization Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/158215 A new arms embargo on Venezuela is heightening tensions between the Bush and Chavez governments. On Monday, the US announced it is banning arms sales to Venezuela because it has not cooperated with the Bush administration’s so-called anti-terrorism efforts. Venezuelan officials said the ban is laying the political groundwork for a possible attack. On Tuesday, State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack responded to the allegation: "Look, it is just a attempt to obscure the issue, but what they should be focusing on instead is co-operating in the war against terrorism, the UN resolutions that should be a guide for every country's efforts in that regard. I think that instead of throwing up diversionary rhetoric, overheated rhetoric, they should focus instead on taking steps to fight terror." In response to the arms embargo, Venezuela says it would consider sending its fleet of US-made F-16 fighter jets to Iran. -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Ex-NSA Head Bobby Ray Inman on the National Security Agency’s Domestic Surveillance Program: “This Activity Was Not Authorized” Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/159213 Admiral Bobby Ray Inman has become the highest-ranking former NSA official to speak out about the domestic spy program. “There clearly was a line in the FISA statutes which says you couldn’t do this,” said Inman last week in remarks that have received little attention. [includes rush transcript] On Thursday the Senate Intelligence Committee will open its confirmation hearing for General Michael Hayden to become the next director of the CIA. Hayden is the former head of the National Security Agency who authorized the agency in 2001 to begin monitoring the phone calls of U.S. citizens without legally required court warrants. While Hayden and the Bush administration have defended the secret domestic surveillance program, it is now being criticized by an unlikely source – a former director of the NSA. Last week Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who headed the NSA from 1977 to 1981, spoke in New York at a forum sponsored by the New York Public Library and the Century Foundation. It was part of the library’s Live at the NYPL series. Besides an article at the website Wired News, Inman’s statements have received almost no media attention even though he is believed to the highest ranking former NSA official to speak out about the program. At the forum he disputed the Bush administration's claim that Congress authorized the secret spy program when it authorized the president to use force following the Sept. 11 attacks. Inman also said the program clearly contradicts the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which Congress passed in 1978 – at the time he was head of the National Security Agency. * Bobby Ray Inman, Former Director of the National Security Agency, speaking at a forum sponsored by the New York Public Library and the Century Foundation. - Full transcript of forum available RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Last week, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who headed the NSA from 1977 to 1981, spoke in New York at a forum sponsored by the New York Public Library and the Century Foundation. It was part of the library’s “Live at the NYPL” series. Besides an article at the website wirednews, Inman's statements have received almost no media attention, even though he's believed to be the highest ranking former NSA official to speak out about the program. At the forum, he disputed the Bush administration's claim that Congress authorized the secret spy program when it authorized the President to use force following the September 11th attacks. Inman also said the program clearly contradicts the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in 1978, at the time he was head of the National Security Agency. BOBBY RAY INMAN: My own view, this activity was not authorized by a resolution to use whatever force you need to do. There clearly was a line in the FISA statutes, which says you couldn't do this. AMY GOODMAN: Former NSA Director Bobby Ray Inman also said Congress should consider rewriting the FISA Act to account for changes in technology, but to prevent the administration from continuing to do what it's doing. BOBBY RAY INMAN: In carefully crafting legislation, you should leave the prospect of an emergency situation and a limited response to that emergency situation to then be followed by getting it by, because we -- just as I didn't envision in 1978 some of the things that popped up, that might happen again. What you want is to get away from this idea that they can continue doing it. AMY GOODMAN: Bobby Ray Inman served as head of the NSA in the late 1970s. ---- About Bobby Ray Inman May 17, 2006 Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Ray_Inman Bobby Ray Inman (born April 4, 1931 in Rhonesboro, Texas) is a retired U.S. admiral who held several influential positions in the US Intelligence community. He served as Director of Naval Intelligence from September 1974 to July 1976, then moved to the Defense Intelligence Agency where he served as Vice Director until 1977. He next became the Director of the National Security Agency, during which time he claimed that the United States had developed public key cryptography a decade before Diffie and Hellman [1]. Inman held this post until 1981. His last major position was as the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, a post he held from 12 February 1981 to 10 June 1982. He is known publicly as President Bill Clinton's first choice to succeed Les Aspin as Secretary of Defense in 1993. He withdrew from consideration in a televised conference in which he complained about a "conspiracy" to attack his character. Among those he named were Senator (and future presidential candidate) Bob Dole, and neoconservative pundit William Safire. He has also been influential in various advisory roles. Notably, he chaired a commission on improving security at U.S. foreign installations after the Marine barracks bombing and the April 1983 US Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. The commission's report has been influential in setting security design standards for U.S. Embassies. Since 1987, Inman has also served as the LBJ Centennial Chair in National Policy at The University of Texas at Austin Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs [2]. He graduated from Texas with a bachelor's in history in 1950. Inman has also served on the Board of Directors of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations. Inman has links to International Signal and Control which was acquired by Ferranti in 1987 which collapsed in 1993 due to the debts of its new subsidiary. In 2006, Inman criticized the Bush administration's use of warrantless domestic wiretaps, making him one of the highest-ranking former intelligence officials to criticize the program in public -------- propaganda wars Baghdad ER: Documentary On US Military Hospital in Iraq Gets Cold Reception From Army Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/1510218 A new documentary film on the emergency room of a US military hospital in Iraq is being met with resistance by the US Army. The film "Baghdad ER", which airs Sunday on HBO, chronicles life in the emergency room of the 86th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad’s Green Zone during a two-month period last year. The Army surgeon general has warned military-personnel it could cause post-traumatic stress disorder, while the Secretary of the Army asked HBO to delete some footage from the final cut. We play excerpts of the film, and speak to the film’s directors, as well as a military doctor depicted in the film, and a mother of a soldier whose death is chronicled on screen. [includes rush transcript] The Army surgeon general has issued an unusual warning about an upcoming film that airs this Sunday on HBO. In a memo to military personnel, Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley writes that watching the documentary could result in symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as flashbacks or nightmares. The film "Baghdad ER" chronicles life in the emergency room of the 86th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad’s Green Zone during a two-month period last year. It examines the daily lives of doctors, nurses, chaplains and soldiers who work at one of the busiest hospitals in Iraq. "Baghdad ER" was screened on Monday night at the National Museum of American History and is scheduled to be shown at 22 military installations around the country. But it has already caused controversy because of it’s graphic footage of soldiers reeling from, and in some cases dying, from their war wounds. HBO screened the film in March for Senior Army officials including Undersecretary of the Army Pete Green. HBO’s executive Vice President Richard Pleper said the film received an enthusiastic response. But then last week, the Army suddenly seemed to withdraw support for the film. HBO’s offer to co-sponsor a screening of the film this week at Fort Campbell, Kentucky where the 86th is based- was turned down by the Pentagon. And last week the Army suddenly declined to attend Monday’s screening. In addition, none of the highest ranking officers or senior medical personnel attended the screening. After the screening, Shelia Nevins, President of HBO’s documentary unit, told the Washington Post, "Maybe people at the Pentagon feel the truth will discourage people from backing the war. The film certainly tells you what could happen in a war, but it’s also about the heroism, courage and dedication of our troops.” * Jon Alpert, award-winning filmmaker and founder of Downtown Community Television. Produced and Directed "Baghdad ER" which airs on HBO on Sunday, May 21st. * Matthew O’Neill, a producer at Downtown Community Television. He Produced and Directed "Baghdad ER" which airs on HBO on Sunday, May 21st. * Dr. James Hill, flight surgeon in aviation medicine at Fort Rucker in Alabama. He spent a year as an emergency medical physician in the Combat Support Hospital in Baghadad. * Paula Zwillinger, her son, U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Robert Mininger was killed in Iraq on June 6, 2005. He was 21 years old. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is an excerpt of Baghdad ER ARMY SURGEON: What all do we have to do to save his arm? What are our options? ARMY SURGEON: It doesn't look good. ARMY SURGEON: He's just got a massive injury to his arm. He's going to lose it. ARMY SURGEON: Hey, can you grab me an amputation set? Thanks, John. ARMY MEDICAL PERSONNEL: You’re welcome. ARMY SURGEON: Alright, let's get this thing off. MAJ. MARTIN HARNISH: This war and the number of lives it's affecting is just unbelievable. I have to think that the people in this country are in a better place for it or will be in a better place for it. I have to believe that, because otherwise, this is just sheer madness. AMY GOODMAN: That was an excerpt of the film, Baghdad ER, which will be shown on HBO this Sunday. We're joined now by the filmmakers who produced and directed the film: our colleagues Jon Alpert and Matt O'Neill, both award-winning filmmakers here at Downtown Community Television. Between them, they’ve won 14 national and local Emmy Awards. We're also joined from Alabama by Dr. James Hill, the flight surgeon in aviation medicine at Fort Rucker in Alabama. Dr. Hill spent a year as an emergency medical physician in the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad. And on the phone with us is Paula Zwillinger. Her son Marine Lance Corporal Robert Mininger was killed in Iraq on June 6, 2005, 21 years old. We welcome you all to Democracy Now! We're going to begin with Jon Alpert. Jon, tell us about the mission you went on to Baghdad, you and Matt O'Neill. JON ALPERT: We spent two months in the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad. It’s the main Army hospital, the most sophisticated facility that we have in Iraq. And when you're wounded and your life is on the line, that's where you're taken. And the Army gave us complete access. We were embedded, and I was really quite surprised when we got there that the army completely facilitated our access to the facility. They're extraordinarily proud of this facility. I've never seen doctors so dedicated. I've never seen miracles like this, and I've never seen horrors like this before. AMY GOODMAN: Matt O'Neill, what most stands out for you as you were embedded in this unit in the emergency room? MATTHEW O’NEILL: For me, it's the relentless pace that the doctors are working under day after day. I mean, we spent two months there, and we came out exhausted and rattled by what we saw. And the doctors who were there, like Dr. Hill, were there for a year, and spending 12 months under those conditions working the enormously hard shifts that they worked is unbelievable. AMY GOODMAN: Let's go to Dr. Hill in Alabama. Your response to this film, Baghdad ER? Do you feel it captures what you went through, spending a year in the emergency medical unit at Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad? DR. JAMES HILL: Well, I don't think there's any film that can capture a whole year's worth of footage within an hour, but I definitely think that Jon Alpert and Matt O'Neill hit a home run with this production. It was sensational. It gave me flashbacks, and I'm a person who was trained at one of the best trauma centers in the country down in Miami. And I thought I saw everything before I went to Baghdad. And within six hours, the facility showed me that I just saw the beginning, the tip of the iceberg, and after a year, I did feel like I was beat down, I mean, just run over. AMY GOODMAN: What was hardest for you, Dr. Hill? DR. JAMES HILL: The hardest thing for me, and I believe it was for all the medical providers, was the difficulty in taking care of so many soldiers and at the same time having to take care of the Iraqi people that actually injured them. They'll be in one bed, the Iraqi person that shot four or five soldiers, and three of those soldiers may have died, and we still had to deal with our personal feelings and the medical ethics of taking care of that individual, so they can stand trial. So, we have a very big test of our morality of saving these people that want to hurt us, that are definitely against us, and then also taking care of our American heroes. AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to another clip of the HBO documentary that's going to air Sunday called Baghdad ER. MAJ. AL WEED: So this guy's obviously been shot in several places. He's got some fractures, and we're just looking at his films here. He's got a lot of shrapnel in his legs and stuff. ARMY MEDICAL PERSONNEL: Man, it's a rubber knee. ARMY MEDICAL PERSONNEL: You should feel it. Very unstable fracture. He'll probably end up losing that limb. MAJ. AL WEED: These guys have injuries all over the place, and so you have to prioritize which injuries take precedence. Life over limb. ARMY SURGEON: I'm just a good West Texas boy, and back in West Texas, we thought we were seeing some stuff, but out here it's all -- whole 'nother ball game. AMY GOODMAN: Another excerpt of Baghdad ER. So, Jon Alpert, what happened? You were embedded. You had the full support of the unit and the Army. They knew you were there, obviously. I mean, the images of just the two of you with your cameras right in there in the surgeries. What happened? JON ALPERT: What happened in terms of the latest reaction to this? AMY GOODMAN: The support, and then now as this film is coming out, the Army pulling back. JON ALPERT: The support from the people who were there on the ground, the people in the hospital, the people who every single day are there saving American lives has not wavered at all. Everybody that we've spoken to feels honored by this film, is proud that they're part of it, and they want everybody in the United States to see it. It's been universal. There are people in some offices in the Pentagon that have had objections to this, but it's certainly not anybody who is in Iraq helping to keep Americans alive. AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about the top brass? What happened? They originally did support what you're doing, and then at the Washington screening, where many of them were going to be -- can you talk about the memos? Can you talk about what has turned around? JON ALPERT: There certainly was an attempt at one point from the Secretary of the Army to see if HBO would change this film or alter it, and a phone call was made, and this is very sensitive. All these large media organizations are affected by Congressional legislation. There is a bill going through Congress that you've been talking about on your show that has certain language in it. It's billions of dollars for Time Warner one way and billions the other way if the language is changed, and when somebody makes a phone call, it's intimidating. And to HBO'S credit -- you know, I've been in this situation before in the first Gulf War. Our reports came back, and the news organizations wouldn't play it. And HBO basically looked back and said, “You know, this is the truth, and it's going on the air.” And I'm really proud to be associated with HBO on this, because they didn't buckle. AMY GOODMAN: The call that was made, the Secretary of the Army called the president of HBO? JON ALPERT: Not president. He called a vice president of HBO? AMY GOODMAN: Who was it? JON ALPERT: I don't know. I'm not privy to the conversation, but I do know that he wondered whether certain things in the program could be changed, and HBO said, "Hell, no." MATTHEW O’NEILL: I think it's important to understand that every person that wears a uniform that's spoken to us, including the top people in the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army, have nothing but respect for this film, and they've told us directly that they think that it accurately captures the truth of what's happening over there and the heroic efforts that the soldiers, the doctor soldiers are making every day in Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Hill, why do you think this film has become so controversial, if it simply captures what you did on a daily basis in the Baghdad ER? DR. JAMES HILL: That's a really difficult question to answer. I'm more of a medical professional, emergency medicine physician, if you would. What we did there was just to save as many people as we possibly could. Our commander took care of the logistics. I took care of the medical expertise, as well as Dr. Pembrey, who you'll see in the movie, and as well as many other doctors that were there every single day just getting bloody and doing what we do. AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn now to another clip from Baghdad ER that Major Hill is in, as well. ARMY CHAPLAIN: Lord, you brought him to us. We tried everything we could to save his life. But it was not our -- not up to us. Lord, we pray that his life and even his death might be used to hasten peace and end this terrible war. DR. JAMES HILL: Another crummy day in Baghdad. ARMY SURGEON: Very young, very young. P.F.C. hasn't been in very long, and the specialist could have been in a few years, but could have come in as a specialist. A lot of young kids over here getting hurt. AMY GOODMAN: Major Hill, you were there as the person is dying, saying, "Another crummy day in Baghdad." Your feelings when someone dies? DR. JAMES HILL: I feel a personal loss, because it's my patient. I take responsibility for each one of my patients, whether they end up in the morgue or they end up in the O.R. and make it back to their families. It feels like a triumph when we get them back to their families, and they give us a call and say, “Thanks a lot. I really appreciate everything you did for me.” And to tell you the truth, I don't do anything that I don't normally do. This is what I was trained to do. This is what I love to do, and I just love to see our American guys getting back to their families. AMY GOODMAN: We're also joined on the phone by Paula Zwillinger. Her son U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Robert Mininger was killed in Iraq June 6, 2005. He was 21 years old. This film has to bring back memories for you. First of all, condolences on the loss of your son, Paula. PAULA ZWILLINGER: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. AMY GOODMAN: How important do you think it is for people to see these images? PAULA ZWILLINGER: I think it's very important. It brings the reality of the war into the home. Right now, as we've talked about previously, what is the public really seeing nowadays? They're seeing a paragraph on the second page of a newspaper saying that, you know, we lost X number of lives today, whether it be an I.E.D., whether a tank rolled over, and it's just a little paragraph, and you don't really get the visual image of really what war is about until you see the movie. It's very easy to read it in the paper. There's no getting around it. It's a little cold. It's not detailed. You know, you never get details in the newspaper, but when you see the documentary it really hits home, because it's reality. What you're going to see is war, and it's the outcome of war, whether it be positive or negative. AMY GOODMAN: And your feelings now about the Army seeming to pull back, withdraw support from showing this film, saying it's going to cause post-traumatic stress and even putting pressure on HBO to change this film, to delete scenes? PAULA ZWILLINGER: Well, you know, I have an opinion and, you know, the more I think about it, as Jon mentioned that, you know, it does have political ties to it, but you know, everybody has to take from this documentary their own feelings, and right now with -- everybody has an opinion about the war. Of course, with the polls and everything showing, you know, where the American public really resides as to our opinion as to whether we should be there or not and how things have changed, I mean, that's an ever ongoing situation, but it definitely has a strong image of what war is about. AMY GOODMAN: Paula, Matt and Jon brought you to New York, because they had filmed the death of your son in the Baghdad ER. PAULA ZWILLINGER: Correct. AMY GOODMAN: You, alone, watched this with your husband. PAULA ZWILLINGER: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: What were your feelings? PAULA ZWILLINGER: Well, you have to understand that I initially had 17 hours where I knew nothing. It was, in essence, a black hole. I had many questions that I thought I would never get the answers to, and five months later, after, you know, losing Bob, Matt called me and told me about the documentary that they were working on, and for me to see this footage again of my son literally puts me at his bedside, and I think that is a precious gift that any parent would take, to literally be there at your son's bedside. You know, it's -- you have to wonder, timing of it and everything, as to why they were there when Bob came through the door, you know, all those little coincidences and things of that nature, but in reality it has given me peace. It has given me closure. It has answered some of my questions that I've had. It has given me the opportunity to talk with the doctors and the nurses who took care of him. Not every parent gets those answers in a time of war when their child is, you know, injured or killed overseas. And again, you know, I am very fortunate that I have that now, so I look at it as a gift. AMY GOODMAN: Jon Alpert? JON ALPERT: And on our part, it was an honor to meet Paula. It was an honor to meet the doctors who tried to save her son's life and people like Dr. Hill who every single day were working in ways that just made me so proud to be with them. And I'm actually appreciative to the Army, because the Army did everything they could to help us capture this. It's my firm belief that the soldiers in uniform want every American to see this film, and they're proud of it, and I'm proud to have been part of it, and I want to thank all the military people that helped us. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it will be shown in Fort Campbell? JON ALPERT: It was shown in Fort Campbell last night to a very enthusiastic response. We've talked to the soldiers, right? You talked to some of the soldiers. MATTHEW O’NEILL: I talked to some of the soldiers who saw the film yesterday in Fort Campbell in a closed screening, just for people in the C.A.S.H. who were involved with the film, and one major called me up and she said, "I don't understand what the warnings are about. You guys only showed the tip of the iceberg. They were saying this was gruesome, and you showed nothing.” AMY GOODMAN: On that note, I want to thank you very much for being with us. The film will air on Sunday night on HBO, Baghdad ER. Matt O'Neill, Jon Alpert, the filmmakers; Paula Zwillinger, thank you for being with us; and Dr. Hill in Alabama, thank you so much. -------- us politics Dick Cheney, Dove [???] The Vice President’s changing tune Wednesday, May 17, 2006. By Ken Silverstein. Harpers Magazine http://harpers.org/sb-cheney-3020932092.html A few months ago, in an interview with Jim Lehrer, Vice President Dick Cheney—who has been leading the call for tough action on Iran—said that the country has been “a problem for a long time.” Not that long, apparently. Go back to March 1996. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which was eagerly seeking to win energy business in Iran. The Clinton Administration had imposed sanctions on Iran a year earlier. “I think,” said Cheney, “we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to . . . get everybody else to live the way we would like.” Cheney argued that a unilateral approach would backfire and urged the United States to follow the lead of European countries that were seeking to expand business and trade with Iran. According to a Reuters account, Cheney said history “proved that international influence was derived from economic activity and clout”—not from threats and provocations. “We seem now to have exactly the opposite idea,” he was quoted as saying. “We basically are going to shut you out and close the door and turn off the relationship and that will force you to do what we want you to do.” Two years later, in a speech at the Cato Institute, Cheney was even more scathing toward American sanctions on Iran. He said that in 1997 America's partners in the Middle East had refused to allow U.S. military forces to be based on their territory in anticipation of taking “military action against Iraq in order to get [it] to honor the U.N. resolutions.” And why were our friends being so recalcitrant? In part, Cheney explained, because the United States “had been trying to force the governments in the region to adhere to an anti-Iranian policy, and our views raised questions in their mind about the wisdom of U.S. leadership. They cited it as an example of something they thought was unwise and that they should not do . . . The nation that's isolated in terms of our sanctions policy in that part of the globe is not Iran. It is the United States. And the fact that we have tried to pressure governments in the region to adopt a sanctions policy that they clearly are not interested in pursuing has raised doubts in the minds of many of our friends about the overall wisdom and judgment of U.S. policy in the area.” “The good Lord,” he told the crowd at Cato, “didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.” -------- ENERGY Blair's Energy Review is just a smokescreen Wednesday May 17, 2006 UK Conservative Party http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=129845 Tony Blair has sidelined his Government's energy review and come out in favour of nuclear power in a desperate bid to rescue his discredited regime from collapse, Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Duncan has claimed. And he declared: "The Prime Minister wasn't trying to put nuclear power back on the agenda with a vengeance. He was trying to put himself back on the agenda with a vengeance - and he's failed, because his Labour government is going down the plug hole." In a speech to industry bosses, Mr Blair effectively pre-empted his Government's own energy review by declaring that the provision of new nuclear power stations in Britain was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". The Premier said stressed the case for new nuclear power stations in order to meet future UK energy needs and reduce reliance on foreign fuel imports. But commenting on the speech Mr Duncan said: "Tony Blair's announcement is no surprise. It just proves that the energy review has been a smokescreen all along. He has humiliated his new Trade and Industry Secretary, and he has irresponsibly broken this down to a pro versus anti-nuclear argument. He should be looking at all generating methods with equal vengeance." The Conservative spokesman declared: "What on earth is the point of an energy review, when all he ever wanted to do was to say that you will be having nuclear power whether you like it or not? The Government has failed to meet its own targets on carbon emissions and it has not agreed policy for dealing with nuclear waste. Yet still its solution is a headline grabbing announcement which ignores the fundamental concerns of the British public." Stressing that the Conservative Party is committed to an open minded energy review and a belief that tackling climate change is the most important issue on the political agenda, Mr Duncan said it was crucial to properly examine all the options, including the use of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and renewable sources of power. "This is all about detail and danger. How are you going to have new investors in nuclear if they don't know where the waste is going. The money side of things needs to be clear, open and honest. We don't want taxpayers having to pay for this in the future." He said: "The Liberal Democrats have ruled out nuclear. Now the Prime Minister has ruled it in. The Conservatives are the only ones who are being open minded. You have to look at the big environmental picture and ask is it sustainable, will it reduce emissions, and is it affordable. We want green growth and emissions reductions. We're not going to reduce the whole story about electricity generation into a pro or anti nuclear debate." -------- OTHER -------- environment FACTBOX - Major Hazards From Volcanic Eruptions INDONESIA: May 17, 2006 REUTERS NEWS SERVICE http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/36395/newsDate/17-May-2006/story.htm May 16 - Lava streamed down the slopes of Indonesia's Mount Merapi on Tuesday and vulcanologists say the nearly 3,000 metre (10,000 feet) volcano is in its final eruption phase. Here are some of the major hazards to people and the environment from a volcanic eruption: VOLCANIC GASES - The most dangerous gases released during an eruption are sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen fluoride. High concentrations of sulphur dioxide injected into the atmosphere by large explosions can result in lung ailments, acid rain, lower surface temperatures and depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer. When carbon dioxide, which is heavier than air, settles in low-lying areas or collects in the soil, it can be lethal to people and animals. ERUPTION COLUMNS - Billowing clouds of gas and debris can reach more than 12 miles (20 km) above a volcano, posing a serious threat to aviation. Some commercial jets have nearly crashed after flying into clouds of ash. Large rock fragments falling to the ground can kill people and destroy property. ASH FALL - Large volumes of ash can settle on buildings, resulting in their collapse. High levels of ash particles can cause increased coughing and irritate the eyes and skin and sometimes result in serious lung conditions. When the acid coating on ash is removed by rain, it can pollute local water supplies and damage vegetation. On the other hand, ash deposits can be beneficial by improving the fertility of soil. PYROCLASTIC FLOWS - An avalanche of hot ash, rock fragments and gas can flow down the side of a volcano at speeds of up to 150 miles an hour (240 km) during explosive eruptions, burning everything in its path. People on the margins of the flows can suffer serious injury or even death from burns and inhalation of hot ash and gases. LAHAR - Lahar is an Indonesian term describing a mixture of mud, water and rock fragments that flows down the slopes of a volcano. One of the deadliest volcano hazards, they can bury buildings and farmland, destroy roads and bridges. LAVA FLOWS - Lava flows are streams of molten rock that ooze from an erupting vent and destroy everything in their path. While lava flows usually don't travel far from the vent and are easy to avoid, deaths can result from asphyxiation caused by inhaling accompanying toxic gases. Sources: United States Geological Survey (www.usgs.gov); International Volcanic Health Hazard Network (www.ivhhn.org) -------- ACTIVISTS FBI Launches Criminal Civil Rights Investigation of NYPD Over RNC Protests Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/17/158253 Democracy Now has learned the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation of the New York Police Department over the NYPD”s treatment of protesters during the Republican National Convention. Last week the FBI sent the New York Civil Liberties Union a letter asking the group for assistance in what it described as a “pending criminal civil rights investigation into the New York City Police Department's arrest of certain individuals in connection with their protest activity at the Republican National Convention in August of 2004.” The letter went on to state “We are attempting to determine if any police officers” conduct violated federal civil rights statutes.” During the week of the 2004 convention, police arrested some 1800 protesters – more than at any previous political convention in the country’s history. It is unclear as to the extent of the Justice Department”s criminal investigation of the NYPD, but the FBI appears to be focusing on the arrest of Dennis Kyne, a Gulf War veteran turned anti-war activist. Kyne was arrested on the steps of the New York Public Library on multiple charges including inciting a riot. His case went to trial but it was dismissed after his legal team presented videotaped evidence that proved the police lied to the court. As part of the criminal investigation, the FBI is seeking to interview other protesters whose constitutional rights have been violated by the police. The police department has acknowledged it has opened its own investigation into the arrest of Kyne and is cooperating with the FBI. The announcement of the FBI investigation of the NYPD comes just week after the city’s own Civilian Complaint Review Board issued a report criticizing the actions of two deputy police chiefs during the convention. We are joined now in our Firehouse studio by attorney Gideon Oliver who is representing Dennis Kyne and other protesters arrested during the convention. * Gideon Oliver , attorney for Dennis Kyne and other protesters arrested during the convention. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now in our Firehouse studio by attorney Gideon Oliver. He's representing Dennis Kyne and other protesters arrested during the convention. Welcome to Democracy Now! GIDEON OLIVER: Good morning. Thanks so much for having me. AMY GOODMAN: It’s very good to have you with us. So, the Bush administration Justice Department is launching an investigation into the New York Police Department's activities during the Republican Convention. Can you explain how you found this out and what you think? GIDEON OLIVER: Certainly. Well, the first I heard of this -- the first I heard of an FBI investigation was yesterday, late yesterday afternoon, actually, although I understood that as a result of a letter that John Conyers and several other House Judiciary members sent to Attorney General Gonzales last year, that the Department of Justice would be launching some kind of investigation. So, this is the first I've heard that something is actually going on, so it was really only yesterday. AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened to your client, to Dennis Kyne. GIDEON OLIVER: Dennis, on August 31, 2004, went to the steps of the New York Public Library at around 6:00 p.m., was there for a few minutes before police began -- before a large number of NYPD officers began searching people's backpacks and arresting people, which caused many of the folks who were at the library to get upset and to chant and do other entirely peaceful things, as a result of which the police officers gave dispersal orders. And Dennis was arrested as he was walking away and leaving and yelling at the police. And as he was being placed under arrest, when he was on his knees with his hands behind his back, the then Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, the top lawyer for the Police Department, came over to him and pointed to him and said, “This one is discon and resisting.” AMY GOODMAN: Discon? GIDEON OLIVER: Disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. AMY GOODMAN: And who was the officer? GIDEON OLIVER: The deputy then, it was Stephen Hammerman, was then -- he's no longer the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters. Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters Hammerman then walked over to a Legal Bureau lieutenant who was nearby and said, “We've got one of the troublemakers from Pataki’s the other night,” referring to Dennis. So it was very eerie, because at least he knew who Dennis was from a protest several days before and referred to him as a troublemaker, was pleased he had been arrested and ordered that he be charged with something he was absolutely not doing, which was resisting arrest. AMY GOODMAN: You had this on film? GIDEON OLIVER: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: This is what broke this case? GIDEON OLIVER: Well, what happened is that the District Attorney, based on Officer Matthew Wohl's sworn accusatory instrument in Dennis's case, prosecuted him. It was the first jury trial to result from the RNC. And Officer Wohl testified that he observed Dennis resisting arrest by kicking and screaming like a little child. When asked how he was moving around, he said, “Well, his heart was moving, his chest was moving.” AMY GOODMAN: His heart was moving? GIDEON OLIVER: Yes. And after Officer Wohl testified, we turned over some videotape to the District Attorney one evening, and then the next morning they sort of pulled us into the hallway and said, “Why didn't you show this to us earlier?” They obviously understood very quickly that the officer hadn't told the truth, and, you know, we said, “Well, why didn't he tell the truth? Why didn't you dismiss the case?” AMY GOODMAN: So, this Officer Wohl is being investigated by the FBI? GIDEON OLIVER: Well, it appears so. I know, as a matter of fact -- AMY GOODMAN: They name him in the letter that we saw. GIDEON OLIVER: Yes. They spell his name wrong, but yes, they do name him. AMY GOODMAN: How do you spell his name? GIDEON OLIVER: It's “W-o-h-l” and they spell it “W-h-o-l.” Perhaps a minor detail, but it's a very, very long time -- I mean, Dennis's trial was in December of 2004, so this is a real long time to have waited to investigate what is really a flagrant, I think, example of what was a much larger problem during the RNC, which is to say the Police Department had a policy of clearing the streets and then kind of sorting everything out in criminal court, in terms of making it sound as though the arrests were legitimate later, which is an enormous problem that's frankly ongoing in terms of the Police Department's policing of protest activities, certainly. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Gideon Oliver, attorney representing Dennis Kyne, arrested at the Republican National Convention, and others. These cases leading to the Justice Department, the FBI sending a letter to the New York Civil Liberties Union, saying they're investigating the Police Department over criminal civil rights violations? Criminal violations. Can you describe other cases that you know about? We have some video, and you know some of that video. GIDEON OLIVER: Certainly. Well, during the RNC, five was the golden number. That is to say, arresting officers were to arrest, the Police Department says, up to five individuals in a mass arrest situation, and in fact, Officer Wohl swore that he arrested five individuals that day at the library. And as it turns out, we have video of the arrests of all five of those individuals, and Officer Wohl doesn't appear anywhere near them at any time. It appears that he was at the back of a prisoner transport vehicle. And so, the first arrest that occurred at the library that day were of two French Canadian men and a woman from Portland, who were arrested for attempting to hang a banner. They didn't even hang it. They just held it up. A police captain came up to them and said, “You can't hang a sign on Parks Department property. You can hold it, but you can't hang it.” And then, within four or five seconds, a number of other captains and officers swept in and simply arrested them, which seemed to, you know, just flabbergast the crowd, the people who were there. AMY GOODMAN: We're going to show for our radio listeners some of the videotape on our website at democracynow.org. Now, the John Conyers letter to the Justice Department pointed out that 91% of the protesters arrested had their charges dropped. 91% had their charges dropped or were found to be not guilty after trial, and that about 400 protesters were let off the hook after video evidence emerged proving that the protesters had been wrongly accused as a result of police perjury, the tampering of evidence or other deceptions. That's quite astounding. GIDEON OLIVER: Yes. AMY GOODMAN: 91%. GIDEON OLIVER: Absolutely. And it's also, I think, important to note that what we're talking about in terms of the violations of law or alleged violations of law we're talking about, we're talking about things like disorderly conduct or parading without a permit, and when a police officer swears out an accusatory instrument that initiates a criminal proceeding, it's a misdemeanor to tell a lie in a document like that. And many, many of the police officers who swore out these instruments during the convention simply did not tell the truth. It's a huge, huge problem. So I'm very interested to see what comes of this FBI investigation. If it's, you know, just did Officer Matthew Wohl tell a lie when he was on the stand in Dennis's case? That's open and shut. But if it's how could this have been such a widespread practice, that would be a very interesting question to have a more definitive answer to. AMY GOODMAN: And on Democracy Now!, we showed the videotape that was doctored by the Police Department, that was proved in court when the longer video was brought out that showed precisely the opposite of what they supposedly said happened. GIDEON OLIVER: I believe that was in connection with Alexander Dunlop’s case. He was arrested on August 27, allegedly in connection with the Critical Mass bike ride. It turned out he had lived in the neighborhood and was going to get some sushi, and he was a guy with a bike, and they were arresting people with bikes. And in connection with his case, the District Attorney's office turned over one videotape that did not show him acting, you know, completely reasonably and trying to figure out how to get out of the police trap, and Eileen Clancy from I-Witness video discovered that the video was incomplete, comparing it to another copy that had been turned over in another case. It's extremely troubling. These are extremely troubling practices. AMY GOODMAN: Does this go to an issue of conspiracy? GIDEON OLIVER: Well, I think it depends what you mean by “conspiracy.” I think certainly at this point the fact that Commissioner Kelly and Paul Browne are so adamant about defending all of the practices of the Police Department in connection with the convention, despite really overwhelming evidence that there were serious problems, certainly points toward premeditation and post hoc rationalization, so I would certainly call it a conspiracy, at least in the technical legal sense. AMY GOODMAN: So 1,800 people arrested, largest in any convention in the history of conventions. Over 1,600 of them, these cases were dropped or shown in trial, acquitted, etc. We want to thank you very much for being with us, Gideon Oliver, attorney representing protesters arrested at the Republican National Convention. We'll certainly continue to follow the story, and we’ll also link to the stories we covered at the Republican Convention, including Alex Dunlop and the video we showed there of the man who went out to buy sushi and was arrested for protesting.