NucNews August 16, 2006



-------- NUCLEAR 


-------- accidents and safety

Official says no threat from water leak at San Onofre reactor

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 North County Times

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/16/news/coastal/13_02_077_15_06.txt

SAN ONOFRE ---- A spokesman for the San Onofre nuclear power plant said today that a leak of about 10,000 gallons of radioactive water from a retired reactor hasn't threatened public safety.

The water containing tritium from nuclear fission was discovered last week in soils under a containment building as the reactor was being dismantled, said Ray Golden. High levels of tritium can cause cancer.

Golden said preliminary testing showed the concentration amount was lower than the maximum annual discharge allowed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"It's not an active leak that's going on now," the spokesman said. "These are very low levels of radiation exposure. It's not a surprise that this is there. We've operated a nuclear plant there for 24 years."

Golden said the contaminated water was dumped into the Pacific Ocean about 1 1/2 miles from the coastal plant, which is about a quarter mile from San Onofre Beach in the Camp Pendleton area.

"It will mix with the ocean water, and not appreciably change the ocean," Golden said.

The nearest drinking water is an uphill well about two miles away on Camp Pendleton, Golden said.

"We've tested the well, and we have not found anything at the well," he said.

The reactor was retired in 1992. Crews began taking it apart in 1999.

It isn't known when the leak began. Golden said the earliest it could have started was 1992.

Attempts are being made to find where the tritium came from, and the plant operator is going forward with a groundwater effort to find out about leaks and document them, the spokesman said.

Although the plant is about 150 yards from the ocean, no recreational activity is allowed on the beach in front of San Onofre.

Crews are removing all water, soils, sands and other materials from the retired reactor area for proper disposal of radioactive material, Golden said.



-------- australia

PM’s nuclear dreaming: enriching Australia?

Jim Green
From Green Left Weekly, August 16, 2006. 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/679/679p11.htm

Recently, the prime minister has become fond of likening a domestic industry for enriching uranium to building factories to knit garments from Aussie wool. It’s a cosy argument for value-adding, but it masks the security and environmental threats of a domestic uranium enrichment industry.

Unlike enrichment plants, garment factories don’t generate large volumes of radioactive waste in the form of depleted uranium, and they don’t have the potential to destabilise the region.

We can safely assume that the Lucas Heights nuclear plant in Sydney never operated a secret program to knit woollen garments. But in 1965, Lucas Heights, then known as the Atomic Energy Commission, did begin a secret uranium enrichment program. It was known as the “Whistle Project”, so named because workers would whistle as they walked past Building 64, where the basement housed the secret enrichment program.

There can be no doubt that the Whistle Project had a military agenda. Indeed, in the archives of the University of New South Wales, you can find hand-written notes by the then chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, Sir Philip Baxter, in which he calculates how many nuclear weapons could be produced if the enrichment work proceeded as he hoped it would.

As it happens, the enrichment work was publicly revealed in the 1967-68 Annual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, and the project proceeded in fits and starts until the Hawke Labor government put an end to it in 1984.

Other countries proceeded with their “peaceful” uranium enrichment programs. More precisely, they proceeded to build nuclear weapons using highly enriched uranium from their “peaceful” enrichment programs. This is how Pakistan and South Africa developed their arsenals of nuclear weapons.

The Iraqi regime was pursuing uranium enrichment until its nuclear weapons program was terminated during and after the 1991 Gulf War. North Korea claims to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons which use enriched uranium as their fissile material. There is enormous controversy over the current uranium enrichment program in Iran.

The simple fact is that “peaceful” enrichment plants can produce low-enriched uranium for power reactors, and they can produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons of mass destruction.

Further, the depleted uranium tailings waste produced in large volumes at enrichment plants can be used in munitions, such as those used by the US and NATO in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Australia could not credibly oppose uranium enrichment programs in North Korea or Iran if it had the same capacity to produce fissile weapons material. Nor could it credibly oppose Indonesia’s current plans to build facilities for the production of plutonium — oops, I mean peaceful power reactors.

In the June 6 Bulletin, Max Walsh discusses the “elephant in the room” in the current nuclear debate — the possibility that it is being driven by a military agenda. Could it be that PM John Howard is interested in uranium enrichment precisely because of its military potential?

Does Howard subscribe to the “fortress Australia” views that led former Liberal prime minister, John Gorton, to approve the construction of a facility for plutonium production, or reactor, at Jervis Bay in the late 1960s?

The PM is undoubtedly aware of widespread concern that the international non-proliferation regime could collapse because of the recalcitrance of the major nuclear weapons states and the ambitions of would-be weapons states. As the UN Secretary-General’s 2004 report “High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change” noted: “We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation”.

The PM has argued that in the emerging nuclear world order, countries supplying nuclear fuel might also take responsibility for spent nuclear fuel disposal. If Australia is to supply not just raw yellowcake but enriched uranium or fuel rods, the pressure to host an international high-level nuclear waste dump will continue to build.

As Professor John Veevers from Macquarie University wrote in the Australian Geologist in August 1999, when Pangea Resources was attempting to foist a nuclear dump on Australia, such a dump would pose serious public health and environmental risks. “[T]onnes of enormously dangerous radioactive waste in the northern hemisphere, 20,000 kms from its destined dump in Australia where it must remain intact for at least 10,000 years. These magnitudes — of tonnage, lethality, distance of transport, and time — entail great inherent risk.”

Instead of pursuing his nuclear dreaming, the PM should focus on adding value to benign and clean energy resources. Australia was once a leader in solar power, an industry that his government has left to wither on the vine as capital and brains take flight overseas.

In May, a confidential CSIRO report was released which argued that solar thermal technology “is poised to play a significant role in baseload generation for Australia” and will be cost-competitive with coal within seven years.

But this potential won’t be realised unless the federal government can be persuaded to shift its nuclear ambitions from enrichment plants and power reactors to the nuclear fusion power supplied by the sun at a safe distance of 150 million kilometres.

An expanded renewable energy target, like those recently announced in Victoria and South Australia, would provide jobs and energy security while cutting greenhouse emissions. And it won’t upset the neighbours.

[Dr Jim Green is an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.]



-------- britain

Nuclear clean-up costs likely to soar beyond £70bn, MPs warn

Mark Milner, industrial editor
Wednesday August 16, 2006
The Guardian

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1850983,00.html

The escalating cost of cleaning up Britain's civil nuclear legacy is expected to be significantly higher than the current estimate of £70bn, according to a report out today.

The House of Commons trade and industry committee has expressed concern about the rising cost of nuclear decommissioning in the report and warned the government over any further changes to the structure of the agencies involved in the industry.

The committee concluded that the final cost of decommissioning was "still unclear", noting that the estimated public liability had risen from £48bn in 2002, to £56bn in 2004 and to £70.2bn in 2006.

"Given the history of rapidly increasing estimates, the committee thinks it likely that the overall costs of £70.2bn will rise significantly, both as further investigative work is done at the most difficult sites within Sellafield and Dounreay, and because the nuclear industry appears to be reluctant to continue reprocessing spent fuel while this remains more expensive than buying new stocks of uranium."

The committee also expressed concern that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body set up to oversee the clean-up, will have to be funded increasingly by the taxpayer.

The authority was given a series of assets to fund its clean-up work, including Britain's ageing fleet of Magnox reactors, and the "trouble-prone" Thorp and Mox fuel reprocessing plants at Sellafield. But the committee is worried the plants will not generate enough cash.

The committee also believes the establishment of the NDA and changes to the responsibilities and status of the UK Atomic Energy Authority have caused "uncertainties and difficulties" and warned against further restructuring. "Reorganisation is not the best way to retain and attract skills or to give stability and confidence to the wider public, including private sector investors at a time when new build is being discussed," the committee said.

"The safe and cost-effective decommissioning and clean-up of a 60-year legacy of civil nuclear operations will not be easy," committee chairman Peter Luff said. "We remain concerned about the continuing uncertainty over the type and scale of waste in the most problematic sites at Sellafield and Dounreay. We are also sceptical about the ability of the NDA's assets to generate as much income as the government appears to assume."

The committee backed the continued funding of the UKAEA's work on nuclear fusion at its JET facility at Culham in Oxfordshire, a far more environmentally friendly technology than conventional nuclear energy. It argued that the incentives to overcome the remaining difficulties were higher than ever.

"Nuclear fusion may or may not deliver its promise, but the relatively small sums of money required to keep the UK fully engaged in the possible development of commercially viable fusion must be found," Mr Luff said. "Nothing in the restructuring and the financing of the UKAEA must prevent or inhibit the UK's full participation in what is, potentially, an inherently safe and virtually unlimited source of power."



-------- business

Output concerns hit nuclear firm

British Energy wants to make its output more reliable

Wednesday, 16 August 2006 (BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4797137.stm

British Energy has reported a huge rise in quarterly profits, but its shares have dipped on concerns that it might miss its output goal this year.

The nuclear power generator saw first quarter profits rise 85% to £210m after supply shortages forced up electricity prices earlier this year.

But the firm said it was worried about lost output from unplanned stoppages.

As a result, its aim for annual output of 63 terawatt (TWh) hours now looked "very challenging", it said.

Losses from unplanned stoppages rose to 3.4 TWh in the quarter from 2.3 TWh for the same period last year.

This amounted to 20% of total generation output over the period.

British Energy shares ended Wednesday trading down 33.5 pence, or 4.5% to 718p.

Price boost

British Energy's share price

The firm pledged to focus on improving reliability at its plants, which include eight nuclear stations in the UK.

The company was financially restructured in 2004 after facing collapse, and relisted on the stock market in 2005.

Soaring demand for electricity over the winter and spring boosted the firm, with achieved prices rising £11.20 per megawatt hour to £35.90.

In the three months to the end of June, the firm's revenues rose to £729m from £521m for the same period last year.

'Unpredictable'

"I am pleased with our financial results benefiting from strong electricity prices," said chief executive Bill Coley.

"However, I am not pleased with the level of unplanned losses. We are sharply focused on improving losses over the remainder of the year."

One analyst said the profit increase was impressive but that this had much to do with the rise in wholesale prices.

"What the results do remind investors of is the unpredictable operational nature of nuclear power, unpredictability which sits uneasily with equity investors particularly in the utility sector," said Keith Bowman, equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown stockbrokers. 



<a name="du"></a>

-------- depleted uranium

Pentagon may be own deadliest enemy

Sherwood Ross
Middle East Times
August 16, 2006

http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060816-064753-5278r

WASHINGTON --  When it comes to making war, the Pentagon may be its own deadliest enemy. Of the nearly 700,000 American troops dispatched to fight in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein's forces killed 148 and wounded 467. But more than 200,000 veterans of that blitzkrieg - about a third of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's army - filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pensions based on combat-related injuries and illnesses.

Either those vets have organized themselves into the world's biggest Liar's Club or, possibly, something went down in the Gulf War that the Pentagon is not anxious to disclose.

As of May 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) classified 168,011 Gulf War soldiers as "disabled" due to service-connected "exposures," and 8,306 of them had died. That's roughly three times the number of Americans killed in the current Iraq fighting.

According to Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire and the principle source for this column, the culprit is depleted uranium (DU). He says that the Gulf War casualty rate may actually be a shocking 29 percent.

The cause of the GIs' ailments, he says, points to uranium-238, a nuclear reactor waste recycled into US tank shells said to be like "shooting radioactive waste at your enemy."

This view is strongly disputed by Pentagon researchers who claim that DU could not be the cause of Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). They say that it is more likely to stem from dust and debris scattered by destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons factories and nerve gas bunkers and/or from polluted air from burning oilfields, etc.

Here's how it works: From three to 10 pounds of DU is inserted into tank shells because it is nearly twice as dense as lead, burns as it flies, penetrates armor easily, and vaporizes on impact, Johnson says. What happens when it explodes inside a tank can only be described as hell. Over 300 metric tons of DU were scattered in Iraq I fighting and 1,700 have been shot off to date in Iraq II. But does it cause GWS?

One study of Gulf War vets showed "their children had a higher possibility of being born with severe deformities, including missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems, and fused fingers," Johnson writes.

Parallel findings are reported about Iraqi children. The Miami Herald's John Donnelly wrote April 6, 1998, "The number of childhood leukemia patients at hospitals in Basra, Amara, and Baghdad's central cancer treatment center is double or triple what it was before the Gulf War." Coincidental, yes, but what does it prove?

Doug Rokke, a former US Army colonel who was on the spot in Iraq, sees a connection. Assigned by the Pentagon to create a DU instruction manual, Rokke believed that the deadly DU-tipped artillery shells would lower troops' combat risk. He authored US Army Regulation 700-48 to minimize DU hazards and urged its meticulous observance. But as he realized DU's dangers, he opposed its use and was fired. Rokke asserts that the army is not properly warning troops about DU's hazards.

In an interview appearing in the July Giraffe News, published in Langley, WA, by the nonprofit society to honor gutsy folks who stick their necks out, Rokke says, "We must take care of the men and women who have been harmed by these weapons, and we must stop using them forever."

"Members of his [Rokke's] research team have died slow and painful deaths from 'mysterious' illnesses, joining thousands of other veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, as well as civilians who have worked in weapons plants or lived near testing ranges," Giraffe News noted. Rokke told The Miami Herald's Donnelly that, of 100 servicemen assigned to help him clean up US equipment hit by DU, 18 have died from DU exposure. Rokke suffers from abnormally high uranium levels, cataracts, rashes, joint pain, and has difficulty breathing.

While conceding "depleted uranium does have some danger, like any heavy metal has," Pentagon spokesman Major Tom Gilroy told The Herald, the more likely cause of Gulf War illness was the release of chemicals from Iraqi bunkers during the fighting.

If it seems incredible that the Pentagon would expose its troops and Iraqi civilians to DU, recall the post-World War II era when the Pentagon and CIA exposed millions of Americans "to large clouds of possibly dangerous bacteria and chemical particles," investigative reporter Bill Blum ["Rogue State"] reminds.

"They did so without informing the potentially affected populations, without taking any precautions to protect the health and safety of these people, and with no follow-up monitoring of the effects," Blum said.

"The army has acknowledged that between 1949 and 1969, 239 populated areas from coast to coast as well as US territories were blanketed with various organisms during tests designed to measure patterns of dissemination in the air, weather effects, dosages, optimum placement of the source, and other factors," he noted.

For example, in September 1950, the army sprayed Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens from a ship in San Francisco Bay where it wafted inland. At Stanford University hospital, 11 patients became infected from them and one died, Blum said.

Three years later, the military released "highly toxic" zinc cadmium sulfide in Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Leesburg, VA, and in 1955 the CIA released whooping-cough bacteria near Tampa Bay. In February 1956, a CIA-army team sprayed New York streets and subways with Bacillus subtilis variant niger, Blum says. Chicago straphangers got similar guinea pig treatment later.

Also, between 1963 and 1969, the army sprayed Navy warships in the Pacific with a variety of CBW agents, germ agents, and even deadly Sarin nerve gas. Dr. Robert Williscroft, a Navy veteran who monitored the operation, concluded: "the navy exposed a relatively large number of American fighting men to biological and chemical toxins, with potentially serious long-term effects, without their knowledge or consent."

What to make of all this? Well, the Pentagon has an established track record for dumping poisons on people, including American citizens, including its own personnel. So are Pentagon denials that DU doesn't cause GWS credible? If DU was the cause, why is the Pentagon still using it?

I can't be sure. What I do know for certain is if I were to gad about strewing cancer-causing toxins on the public streets wouldn't visitors to my jail cell have the right to ask me, "How could you do that to your fellow Americans? Are you crazy?"

Sherwood Ross writes for newspapers and magazines. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com 



-------- india 

Manmohan Singh pacifies scientists, Left on Indo-US nuclear deal

India News, Aug. 16 2006

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=7751

New Delhi: Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh on Wednesday assured scientists that he was aware of their concerns in relation to the July 18, 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, and would take steps to safeguard the nation's interests.

According to Minister of State for External Affairs, Anand Sharma, Dr. Singh has also assured leaders of the Left that their concerns over the deal will be addressed in Parliament.

"This country is very proud of its nuclear scientists who have worked against a very difficult backdrop of nuclear denial and discriminatory regime and virtual apartheid to make India nuclear capable and they in fact welcome, if you read their statement on the July 18 th agreement, India's quest for full civilian nuclear cooperation and if there are any concerns they will be addressed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is aware of that. If the nuclear scientists or the past chairmen of they have any concerns, the government takes note of that," Sharma told reporters here.

Terming the Left's criticism of the deal as unwarranted and unfair, Sharma said: "Our Communist friends have demanded a discussion and we welcome the discussion. This is an integral part of our democracy and the government has no problems with it."

"This criticism (of the Left) is unwarranted and unfair. The Prime Minister and the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) Government have while demonstrating utmost respect for the institution of parliament have been transparent in their approach and taken the parliament repeatedly into confidence and the issue has been discussed twice earlier in both the houses and tomorrow it will be third occasion. We pursue and independent foreign policy. What has happened that warrants such observation?" he added.

Dr. Singh's assurances came at a meeting between Singh and members of the country's nuclear establishment after senior scientists wrote a joint letter to him saying changes to pact could hurt India's ability to develop nuclear technology.

The civilian nuclear cooperation deal gives nuclear-armed India access to U.S. atomic fuel and equipment despite New Delhi not having signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In return, New Delhi has agreed to international inspections of its civilian nuclear reactors and segregation of its civilian and military programmes.

The deal won an overwhelming approval of the U.S. House of Representatives last month and is due to be considered by the Senate next month. The two houses then have to vote together after negotiations on technical details of the pact.

But critics say Washington is moving the goal posts to surreptitiously curb India's nuclear arms programme through changes to the legislation before Congress.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly tried to allay these fears by saying he would not compromise on national security and the deal would have to conform to its original parameters.

The deal has also come in for strong criticism from U.S. non-proliferation legislators who say Washington has blown a hole in the NPT by making an exception for India.

And though Washington has also sought to reassure New Delhi on this count, in India few are impressed.

The Communists, who shore up the federal coalition, have said they could pull out of a key government coordination panel if New Delhi compromises on a nuclear deal with the United States.

Sitaram Yechury, a senior figure in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), in an interview to a news agency recently said Dr.Singh's coalition Government would come under strong pressure if he was not more "transparent" about the landmark pact.

The CPM has 44 deputies in the 545-member lower house of parliament and provides the government with support from outside the ruling coalition.

Some changes proposed by U.S. lawmakers include a clause that would make it mandatory for the U.S. administration to certify every year that India is sticking to the deal's terms.

Other amendments proposed by Congressmen include the end of nuclear cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test as well as caps on using spent nuclear fuel.



-------- missile defense

US turns back to Britain as its base for Son of Star Wars

From Tom Baldwin in Washington
UK Times, August 16, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2315036,00.html

THE Pentagon is turning to Britain once again as a site for its controversial missile defence system, The Times has learnt.

British officials have said that “discreet inquiries” are being made by American defence planners about whether the Government would accept the ten interceptor units, designed to knock out a ballistic missile fired by terrorists or states such as Iran before it reaches the US. America’s preferred option is to site the interceptors in Poland or the Czech Republic, but opposition within those countries has forced the Pentagon to look again at Britain.

The prospect will alarm Downing Street because Tony Blair has paid a heavy political price for being seen by voters as too close to George Bush over the Iraq war and unable to turn down any request from the US. One senior British source said: “A few weeks ago it looked like we were out of the woods on this one. That has changed because Central Europe no longer looks like such an easy option.”

Critics of the so-called Son of Star Wars system, a scaled-down version of the ambitious plan envisaged by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, say that the base for the interceptor units will inevitably become a target for America’s enemies and a magnet for terrorists and the host country would receive no protection from the shield.

Britain has agreed to upgrade the Fylingdales early warning system in North Yorkshire to help the Pentagon to track incoming ballistic missiles and the US electronic surveillance base at Menwith Hill is also expected to be a key part of the system.

Lieutenant-General Trey Obering, the director of the US Missile Defence Agency, told a conference in Washington this year that the final shortlist of possible sites included Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic. John Reid, who was then the Defence Secretary, later denied that there had been any request from the US for Britain to accept the missiles and added that he did not expect the topic to be raised.

US sources said that a Central European location made more sense for intercepting missiles coming from the Middle East. They also suggested that Mr Blair’s precarious political position meant that for once the US’s most loyal ally might not be able to help.

The Pentagon said yesterday that it had no plans to place interceptors in Britain, but it is understood that inquiries have been made in Washington at a “sub-ministerial” level.

Riki Ellison, president of the Missile Defence Advocacy Alliance, a pressure group with close ties to the US Defence Department, said he knows that Britain is still in the frame “if things go wrong for us in Central Europe”. He said: “The UK has always been the fall-back option and there is some concern about whether Poland and the Czech Republic will turn out to be stable partners in the same way that you guys have been.”

The US has ruled out Hungary as a possible host country because its Government is too close to Russia, which objects strongly to the prospect of a US military presence in Central Europe.

Opposition is now growing, however, within Poland and the Czech Republic. Lech Kaczynski, the right-wing and populist Polish President, has objected publicly to the US establishing a sovereign military installation that would not be subject to local legal scrutiny. “I approach this problem with reserve, I won’t hide that,” he said recently. Almost two thirds of voters oppose the idea of the first foreign troops on Polish soil since the Soviet Army departed 15 years ago.

Polls suggest that a large majority of Czechs are also opposed to the idea. Jiri Paroubek, the Prime Minister, has expressed doubts about the scheme, suggesting that it should be subject to a nationwide referendum.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, has also raised concerns about whether a system that protects only America might further undermine the creaking founding principles of an organisation committed to mutual defence.

Although there remain doubts about the operational effectiveness of the US missile defence system, pressure to go ahead with it has increased in the past year with North Korea obtaining nuclear capability and Iran apparently hell-bent on following suit.

Interceptor sites have been established in Alaska and California, and Congress recently approved $56 million (£30 million) in preliminary funding for a European base. 

----

US plans Europe anti-missile site

Wednesday 16 August 2006, Reuters

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DDDB149B-2A1A-48BE-B6CC-BE3D5949A01C.htm

The Pentagon's missile defence agency, concerned about a potential threat from Iran, plans to recommend a European site to host the first ground-based interceptor missiles outside of the United States.

On Tuesday, the agency named Poland, the Czech Republic and Britain as possible candidates to help bolster a fledgling US missile-defence shield against any missiles shot from the Middle East.
   
The initial configuration of the ground-based leg of the system, put together by Boeing, is aimed at thwarting ballistic missiles fired from North Korea.
  
Henry Obering, the air force lieutenant-general, told reporters after a speech to an annual missile-defence conference in Alabama, on Tuesday: "We will have a recommendation with respect to sites and alternative sites" in Europe in the next several months.

But he said he did not know when the so-called third site would be chosen.

The site would join Vandenberg air force base in California and Fort Greely, Alaska, as home to silos housing US interceptor missiles.
       
Obering said the United States planned to install 10 ground-based interceptors at the European site by the end of 2011. By then, up to a total of 43 interceptors are due to have been installed in Alaska and California.

Threats
   
Asked to describe the selection criteria, he spoke of optimising protection for both the United States and its European allies from any Middle Eastern warheads. In addition, he cited the positioning of radar systems that would support the new site, infrastructure considerations and soil make-up.
   
Obering said that the Pentagon's missile defence agency has begun working with Israel to help find ways to counter enemy rockets, a much shorter-range threat than the "Star Wars" mission to block ballistic missiles for which it is known.
   
Asked about the missile threat from Iran, Obering said: "We're concerned about them. That's one of the reasons why we have designed our system to be able to handle threats from that region."

----

How do you hit a target that fast?

By Mark Henderson and Lewis Smith
August 16, 2006 UK Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2315039,00.html

EVER since the advent of ballistic missile technology it has been a dream of Pentagon hawks to create an impenetrable shield over the US.

The less outlandish theories of how best to knock out an enemy warhead, described by many as akin to shooting down a bullet, have ranged from lasers through space-based wire meshes to missiles.

Efforts to realise the dream have, however, largely foundered on the technical difficulty of locating, tracking and hitting a target moving several times faster than the speed of sound. Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars project envisaged space-based laser defences, but current technology makes anti-missile missiles the system the most likely to work.

The closest the US has come to creating its protective umbrella are the National Missile Defence (NMD) interceptor bases in California and Alaska. In tests the system has had some success but with only 20 silos and an inconsistent hit rate critics doubt that it could be relied upon to destroy a single warhead. It is thought to be easily beaten by the use of decoys and chaff.

Like most of the schemes designed to provide the shield it relies on missiles to knock out enemy warheads before they reach their target. The first attempt to build such a missile shield, the Nike-Zeus project deploying nuclear warheads, was cancelled in 1961 after it failed to find a way of tracking Soviet missiles and distinguishing them from decoy balloons and chaff.

Missile defence networks work on one of three models, depending on the flight phase of the enemy missile in which interception should occur. Boost-phase interception seeks to destroy the missile during launch, midcourse interception attacks it while it is gliding towards its target and terminal-phase interception aims to stop it as it descends.

The US is developing all three, but the interceptors of its headline NMD project are all designed to target enemy missiles during midcourse.

----

US to double anti-missile ships in Pacific

Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:16 PM ET
By Jim Wolf (Reuters)

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-17T001646Z_01_N16322306_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-PACIFIC.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-9

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama - The United States, concerned about North Korea, will double to six by the end of the year the number of its ships in the Pacific capable of shooting down enemy ballistic missiles, the head of the Pentagon missile-defense project involved said on Wednesday.

"I think it gives the nation more options," Rear Adm. Alan Hicks, program manager for Aegis ballistic missile defense, told reporters here after speaking to a conference on the fledgling U.S. shield.

In coming years, a growing number of ship-based interceptor missiles will be deployed on 18 Aegis cruisers and destroyers as part of a multibillion-dollar U.S. defense push stoked by fears of North Korea and Iran.

The six ships due to be available this year will carry a specialized Aegis combat system developed by Lockheed Martin Corp. as well as Standard Missile SM-3 interceptors built by Raytheon Co., Hicks said.

As such, they will be able to defend against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles as well as against any threats to themselves, he said.

Longer-range, intercontinental missiles travel faster than the current generation of ship-based interceptors, or about 6,000 miles an hour, he said. Japan and the United States are co-developing an advanced model, dubbed SM-3 Block 2, to tackle the long-range threat, with plans to deploy it by 2015.

North Korea test-fired a barrage of seven missiles starting on the U.S. July 4 Independence Day holiday, including a long-range Taepodong 2 with an estimated range that includes the United States. It failed about 40 seconds after launch.

The six shorter-range shots marked successful test flights, showing North Korea's "intent to build out," Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, told reporters here on Tuesday.

None of the three U.S. Aegis ships then capable of shooting down ballistic missiles was on station during the North Korean launches, though other Aegis ships helped track them as part of the layered U.S. anti-missile shield, Hicks said.

The United States has taken other steps to meet the perceived threat of North Korean missiles, which could be tipped with nuclear, chemical or germ weapons.

It is sending Lockheed Martin Corp./Raytheon Co. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 surface-to-air interceptors to Kadena Air Base on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa from September and plans to make them partly operational by the end of the year, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said last month.

----

Northrop to get $2.5 bln more for missile defense

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:54pm ET168
By Jim Wolf (Reuters)

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=&storyID=2006-08-16T215442Z_01_N16413626_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-MISSILE-USA.XML&pageNumber=0&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage2&sz=13

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama, Aug 16 - The U.S. Missile Defense Agency plans to award Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) two contracts totalling $2.5 billion over the next 14 months for the kinetic energy interceptor, a prototype high-speed rocket designed to knock out enemy missiles in their boost phase, the Pentagon's program director said Wednesday.

The first, to be awarded this fall and totalling about $1.5 billion, covers costs of restructuring and stretching out the project, Carlton Brewer, the director, told reporters at an annual missile-defense conference here.

The second, to be awarded by Sept. 30, 2007, would total about $1 billion and add a capability to shoot down targets in the middle of their flight paths, he said.

The Missile Defense Agency plans to demonstrate the booster capabilities of the kinetic energy interceptor, or KEI, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008 in a test that may decide whether to continue or kill the project, an add-on to the fledgling U.S. missile defense shield.

The project backs up Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research)'s Airborne Laser, a directed energy system aboard a modified 747 airliner also aimed at thwarting ballistic missiles shortly after they are launched, their most vulnerable point.

The Airborne Laser is likewise scheduled for a 2008 intercept test that will help decide whether it survives.

Pamela Rogers, a Missile Defense Agency spokeswoman, said the $2.5 billion increase to the Northrop Grumman contract was being made with funds already in the KEI budget and was "a previously programmed increase to the existing KEI contract."

Northrop Grumman Mission Systems of Reston, Va., is the prime contractor for the KEI effort under a six-year, $4.5 billion deal awarded in December 2003.

Brewer contrasted it with the ground-based mid-course defense (GMD), developed by Boeing, that forms the backbone of the U.S. missile shield and requires fixed silos for anti-missile missiles. "Think of it as putting GMD on wheels," he said of the project.

Brewer said he was uncertain what would happen to the projected new Northrop Grumman contracts if the project were cancelled afte the planned 2008 booster demonstration.

A KEI battery consists of a mobile launcher, an interceptor and a battle management and communication system housed in a transportable trailer. It would be deployable anywhere in the world using U.S. military aircraft. Initially a land-based defensive capability, KEI is being built for swift transition to sea-based platforms.

Brewer estimated the cost of a KEI battery at $500 million. He declined to say how many might be required if the program goes ahead.

The Pentagon's current goal is to deploy the Kinetic Energy Interceptor by the end of 2015. President Bush asked Congress for $406 million for the project in the current fiscal year, but both the Senate and House of Representatives Armed Services committees have proposed trimming it. Their differences must be ironed out in a House-Senate conference. 



-------- security

Radioactive injection causes Vancouver man to trip border alarm

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_Canada_Radioactive_at_the_Border.html

WHITE ROCK, British Columbia -- A man who had been injected with radioactive material for a medical procedure triggered alarms at the Peace Arch border crossing, authorities said..

Stanley Smith of Surrey, a World War II veteran, said he was heading for a casino in Ferndale, Wash., about 100 miles north of Seattle, last Friday when he found himself suddenly surrounded by heavily armed U.S. border personnel who accused him of potentially trying to make a bomb.

After half an hour of intense questioning, Smith's explanation was accepted.

Smith said he had been injected with radioactive dye for a diagnostic scan of his heart following a recent heart attack.

A Fraser Health Authority official said patients receiving radioactive injections are warned about the potential of trouble at the border.

----

Report: X-Rays Don't Detect Explosives
Homeland Security Department Report Says X-Rays Don't Detect Explosives in Shoes

By LESLIE MILLER
The Associated Press, August 16, 2006

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=2314340

WASHINGTON - The government's new order that all airline passengers put their shoes through X-ray machines won't help screeners find a liquid or gel that can be used as a bomb.

The machines are unable to detect explosives, according to a Homeland Security report on aviation screening recently obtained by The Associated Press.

The Transportation Security Administration ordered the shoe-scanning requirement as it fine-tunes new security procedures.

Those procedures were put in place after British police last week broke up a terrorist plot to assemble and detonate bombs aboard as many as 10 airliners crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to the U.S.

Among the new procedures are a ban on liquids and gels in airline passenger cabins, more hand searches of carryon luggage, and random double screening of passengers at boarding gates.

On Sunday, the TSA made it mandatory for shoes to be run through X-ray machines as passengers go through metal detectors. They were begun in late 2001, after the arrest of Richard Reid aboard a trans-Atlantic flight when he tried to ignite an explosive device hidden in his shoe. The shoe scans have been optional for several years.

In its April 2005 report, "Systems Engineering Study of Civil Aviation Security Phase I," the Homeland Security Department concluded that images on X-ray machines don't provide the information necessary to detect explosives.

Machines used at most airports to scan hand-held luggage, purses, briefcases and shoes have not been upgraded to detect explosives since the report was issued.

TSA spokeswoman Yolanda Clark said putting shoes on the X-ray machines makes the screening process more efficient and eliminates confusion. "We do not have a specific threat regarding shoes," Clark said. "In an abundance of caution we require all shoes to be removed and X-rayed to mitigate a variety of threats," such as potential weapons.

The Homeland Security report said that "even a 1/4-inch insole of sheet explosive" could create the kind of blast that reportedly brought down Pan Am flight 103, the airliner that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988, killing 270 people in the air and on the ground.

The Homeland Security report recommends that explosives trace detection, or ETD, be used on the shoes and hands of passengers when the screeners determine they must be checked more thoroughly.

"To help close this gap, the percentage of shoes subjected to explosives inspection should be significantly increased," the report said.

"Within the current state of the art, they afford the only meaningful explosives detection capability at the checkpoint," the report said.

ETD involves a screener using a dry pad on the end of a wand to wipe a surface baggage, shoes, clothing and then putting the pad into a machine called an ion mobility spectrometer. The machine can detect tiny particles, or traces, of explosives.

Screeners do use ETD on passengers who have been selected to be screened a second time after going through the checkpoint.

TSA chief Kip Hawley recently acknowledged that the threat from liquid explosives isn't going away and new security measures designed to thwart the threat may be around for awhile.

The agency is testing equipment to detect liquid explosives at six airports, Hawley said, and he called the technology "very promising."

But, he said, "with a million and a half to 2 million passengers every day, it is not practical to think that we are going to take every bottle and scan it through these liquid scanners."

"We are not going to wait for the perfect device to be deployable," Hawley said in an interview Friday. "We're going to look for a total system to be at the level to make us comfortable."

The agency wants to make better use of a limited resource airport screeners, whose numbers have been capped by Congress at 45,000. The TSA handles security for 450 commercial airports.

Among the changes the TSA is considering, according to TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe:

Hire more people to take baggage-handling responsibilities from screeners so the screeners can focus on security responsibilities.

Have screeners, instead of contract employees hired by airlines, check IDs and boarding passes.

Expand a program that trains screeners to look for unusual behavior in passengers that might indicate malicious intent. Called SPOT Screening Passengers by Observation Technique it's used in at least 12 airports, Howe said.

Those changes may require approval by Congress and agreement with airports and the airline industry, which might have to bear some of the cost, Howe said.

The airlines might go along with the plan, an industry spokesman said.

"We favor this proposal provided it doesn't add costs to the carriers," said David Castelveter, spokesman for the Air Transport Association.

On the Net:

Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov



-------- u.s. nuc facilities


-------- texas

AEDC seeking company to bring nuclear plant to city

Posted: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 KVII Online

http://www.kvii.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=15121

AMARILLO -- Amarillo Economic Development Corporation board members voted 4-1 Tuesday on a memorandum of support for bringing a nuclear power plant to the city.

The memorandum says the board will discuss AEDC financial support with the first company that meets a specific set of requirements.

However, there is a big catch.

Meeting those requirements essentially means getting a government license, which costs millions of dollars, and takes several years.

The AEDC began talking with Amarillo Power, led by local developer George Chapman, long before Tuesday night’s vote.

An initial memorandum of agreement was drafted, that loosely spelled out the details of both sides involvement in the project, including a request by Amarillo Power for up to $50 million in assistance from the AEDC.

But before signing the agreement, the board wanted advice.

They retained a law firm from Denver to help them "develop the issues to be considered... for a project of this magnitude."

Working with the firm, they drafted a letter, dated March 6, which asks about three dozen very specific questions of Amarillo Power and the company's plans.

Through their attorneys, Amarillo Power responded to those questions, in a seven-page letter dated March 20.

However, Pronews 7 sources say the AEDC wasn't satisfied with those responses. In fact, the AEDC lobbied Amarillo Power for more specific answers but never got them.

Two months later, the AEDC sent another letter to Amarillo Power trying to get those answers.

The letter, dated May 19, asked Amarillo Power to demonstrate several things, among them: Amarillo Power is a financially viable entity capable of seeing this project through, Amarillo Power owns or controls a suitable site for the project, the proposed site has an adequate infrastructure to support, and Amarillo Power owns or controls an adequate water supply to meet the needs of the project.

The AEDC believes these demonstrations would assure "complete responses to all their questions."

And only then would the AEDC be prepared to negotiate any financing deals.

And that's exactly why at Tuesday's board meeting, the AEDC approved opening the door to discussions with any company, provided they meet all of the board's conditions.

There are four nuclear energy plants in Texas that supply 10 percent of the electricity generated here.

There are two types of plants - one is a boiling water reactor and the other is a pressurized water reactor.

And supporters say nuclear energy does provide clean-air benefits because the plants don't emit any harmful gases into the environment.



-------- virginia

Lake Anna plan draws pros, cons

Opponents cite environmental worries, say impact of construction hasn't been examined.

By RUSTY DENNEN
Date published: 8/16/2006
Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star

http://fredericksburg.com//News/FLS/2006/082006/08162006/214360?rss=local

About 200 people turned out last night to weigh in on Dominion Power's revised plans to cool a possible third reactor at its nuclear power station at North Anna.

The occasion was a public hearing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on changes Dominion made to a draft environmental impact statement to switch from using water from Lake Anna to a cooling-tower method to save water. The company also wants to increase the power rating for a third reactor from 4,300 to 4,500 megawatts. The commission staff has concluded that the revisions will not harm the environment.

The hearing, preceded by an informal information session, was held at Louisa Middle School. Several dozen people signed up to speak.

Melissa Kemp, with Public Citizen, an environmental group which opposes the reactor plan, said Dominion's plan to use a closed system of wet and dry cooling towers was inadequate, would increase lake temperatures, and use more energy to operate than the original plan.

Lisa Stiles-Shell, a spokeswoman for the North American Young Generation in Nuclear, asked for show of hands of those in the audience who supported Dominion's plans. More than half raised their hands. The pro-nuclear group, many of whose members work for Dominion, had about 75 members on hand.

Last night's session, and another public hearing scheduled for tonight, have triggered a lively round of politicking by various interest groups.

Dominion on Monday purchased full-page ads in several newspapers, including The Free Lance-Star, addressing concerns about the effects of a possible third reactor at the plant.

The main arguments have centered on plans to cool the reactor, water use, and affects of a massive construction project should another reactor be built.

In the ad, Dominion says a combination of wet and dry cooling towers would use little lake water, and operate with low noise and with little visible exhaust.

The company says it will work with planners to ease traffic on Kentucky Springs Road, which leads to the plant, and that an influx of construction workers would not cause overcrowding in the school system.

Opponents of any new reactors at North Anna raised those and other concerns again last night and at previous public hearings, arguing that the impact of construction and operation have not been adequately examined.

And, Friends of Lake Anna, a citizens' group formed last summer to monitor the project, and Louisa County Supervisor Eric Purcell have been firing off accusatory e-mails.

Last week the friends' group e-mailed 2,600 supporters with a primer on Dominion's reactor plans.

The group has consistently said it is not a NIMBY--not in my back yard--advocate, and not opposed to nuclear power per se.

Purcell took issue with that in an e-mail response, saying the group is clearly anti-nuclear and is fighting a company that has provided millions of dollars in tax revenue to the county.

The Friends of Lake Anna fired back, saying that Purcell was mistaken on those counts and got his facts wrong on some other issues.

With that backdrop, Dominion's application for an early site permit is wending its way through the federal regulatory system. The permit, good for up to 20 years, addresses site safety, environmental protection and emergency response plans.

The NRC could make a decision on that permit by the end of next year. If that is approved, Dominion would then apply for a combined license to build and operate a new reactor.

The company has said it has no immediate plan to build any new reactors, but wants that option for generating new electricity.

Dominion appears to be moving in that direction. It notified the NRC last month that it intends to file an application for a combined license next fall.

There are currently two reactors at North Anna. Unit 1 went online in 1978, Unit 2 in 1980.

Tonight, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing on whether Dominion's plans are consistent with Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Plan.

That will also be held at Louisa Middle School, from 7 to 10 p.m., with an informational meeting beginning at 6 p.m.

To reach RUSTY DENNEN: 540/374-5431
Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com



-------- MILITARY 


-------- arms 

British Arms Merchant With Passport to the Pentagon

By LESLIE WAYNE
New York Times
August 16, 2006

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/nyt391.html

LONDON — It is hard to tell whether BAE Systems should be flying the Union Jack or waving the Stars and Stripes.

BAE, the British military contractor, manages top-secret programs in England and the United States and makes weapons for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the world’s fourth-largest military contractor and the seventh-biggest in the United States, the only foreign Pentagon supplier to crack the top 10.

BAE says it is neither British nor American, but a new breed of military contractor — a trans-Atlantic supplier. Its American subsidiary, based in Arlington, Va., has operations in 36 states as well as England, Sweden, Israel and South Africa. The company is listed on the London Stock Exchange, but nearly 50 percent of its shares are held by American investors.

The chief executive, Mike Turner, has even hinted he might move the company to the United States if he gets more Pentagon business, a goal that is central to his strategy for growth.

“It’s been the absolutely right strategy for BAE to enter the American market,’’ said Alexandra Ashbourne, head of Ashbourne Strategic Consulting, a London research firm. “Although others are trying to do the same, BAE has been more successful. No doubt they will be looking for more in the U.S. It’s where the defense spending is.”

Of course, BAE’s ability to get Pentagon business is, in large part, the result of a special relationship between Britain and the United States that allows BAE to bid more easily on Pentagon business than companies from other foreign companies. BAE has capitalized on that advantage by moving boldly and quickly. It has acquired American businesses worth more than $7 billion since 1999 and wants even more.

But BAE’s ambitious plans hit a stumbling block a few weeks ago. To free up cash for acquisitions, BAE announced in April that it would sell its 20 percent stake in Airbus to its parent, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, or EADS. At the time, financial analysts conservatively valued the Airbus stake at $4 billion to $5 billion.

But in June, Airbus said that technical glitches would delay deliveries of its new commercial plane, the A380, and, last month, it announced a costly redesign of its midsize A350. These twin problems pushed down the value of BAE’s stake in Airbus to $3.5 billion. Once transaction costs and loan repayments are accounted for, BAE said, it expects to net $2.1 billion, at most.

“It’s a challenge,’’ said Alison Wood, a member of the BAE executive committee, in an interview in BAE’s offices here. Ms. Wood is also director of BAE’s strategic development group and oversees the company’s global business strategy, including that in the United States.

Nonetheless, Ms. Wood, British-born and Harvard-educated, said the lower valuation would not crimp the American acquisition plans.

“We have to be realistic, but we will proceed,’’ she said. “The challenge will be to find the right quality of deals. I’m more worried about finding deals to do than having money to do them.”

BAE is conducting an independent audit of Airbus to help the BAE board decide whether to accept the price or keep the shares and hope for better days. A board decision is expected in September. Under terms of the deal, the $3.5 billion price cannot be renegotiated, only accepted or rejected.

The reason BAE is so attracted to the United States, the company says, is obvious. Pentagon spending is reaching $500 billion a year. This is more than twice the $230 billion a year spent by all 25 members of the European Union combined.

Last year, BAE made headlines when it spent $4.1 billion to buy United Defense Industries, makers of the Bradley tanks used in Iraq. It was the largest foreign takeover of an American military company.

But even before that, BAE was acquiring American companies at a steady clip — more than a dozen in the last six years. BAE’s first move was a bold one: the 2000 acquisition of the Sanders unit of Lockheed Martin, which does top-secret electronics work for the Pentagon. Once that barrier was broken, other acquisitions came more easily.

“The BAE Systems strategy was unique,’’ said Suzanne D. Patrick, former deputy under secretary of defense for industrial policy. “BAE set out to buy Lockheed Sanders, a firm providing some of the most sensitive electronic countermeasures. The U.S. government demonstrated its trust in BAE, and BAE was able to acquire other less sensitive defense equities with relative ease.”

By contrast, other foreign military contractors are more cautious, either selling more basic goods to the Pentagon or, most frequently, working as subcontractors to large American military suppliers.

In recent years, EADS, a French-German company, as well as Finmeccania of Italy and Thales of France, have gained a slice of Pentagon business. But none have made the big-dollar acquisitions that propelled BAE into the top ranks.

Mr. Turner, BAE’s chief executive, emphasized the company’s longstanding American ties in a speech in May in Washington, even noting that the “rockets’ red glare” cited in the national anthem referred to rockets produced by Royal Ordnance, now part of BAE. (Britain and the United States, however, were at war at the time.)

Michael Richter, co-president of Jefferies Quarterdeck, a Los Angeles aerospace investment bank, said, “English companies, above all, are received with open arms by the Pentagon and the U.S. government because of the tight relationship between the countries.”

BAE operates in sensitive national security areas under the terms of a special security agreement that provides that the American business is run under American law and by American citizens. While this permits BAE’s American operations to have the same access to classified Pentagon programs as domestic defense contractors, many areas of sensitive technology are not visible to BAE executives, including Mr. Turner.

Mark Ronald, an American citizen, heads the BAE operations in the United States and is a member of BAE’s executive committee. On top of that, the American subsidiary’s board includes former government intelligence and Pentagon officials, including Anthony C. Zinni, a former Marine general who headed United States Central Command; Kenneth A. Minihan, a retired Air Force general who was director of the National Security Agency; and Lee H. Hamilton, a former representative in Congress who was co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

In the same May speech in Washington, Mr. Turner took pains to stress BAE’s dedication to American security: “I really want to reiterate that our record of keeping U.S. secrets is immaculate.”

That still has not silenced some in Congress concerned about foreign purchases of American military companies. After the firestorm over the efforts by DP World, based in Dubai, to take over operations at six American ports, measures have been introduced in Congress to make it harder for foreign companies, BAE included, to buy American military contractors.

And BAE faces some challenges of its own in Washington. It has invested more than $1 billion and is the largest foreign investor in the Joint Strike Fighter program, a $276 billion program to build the next-generation fighter jet. A high-level battle between Britain and America over sharing technologies that go with the planes has opened new trans-Atlantic tensions.

But BAE’s sale of its Airbus shares could help the company in Washington, said Nick Fothergill, a military analyst with Lehman Brothers in London, especially among those who fear that foreign companies might leak Pentagon secrets and technology to China.

“If BAE sells the Airbus shares, it would be dropping its German and French exposure in the event that EADS does something with the Chinese on defense,’’ Mr. Fothergill said. He predicted BAE would sell its Airbus stake because “BAE is angry enough at EADS that they will just want to get rid of the shares.’’

Ms. Ashbourne agreed. ”Even if it is several billion lower, I think BAE will swallow its pride and take it.”

From her office, Ms. Wood is looking for potential takeover candidates — a task made more complicated because many American military companies are selling at a premium.

Ms. Wood said she was not looking for a mega-merger like the United Defense acquisition, but wanted companies in the $400 million to $700 million revenue range. She also said she was “widening the aperture” from military companies to those in commercial aerospace, homeland security and federal information technology.

One much-discussed candidate has been L-3 Communications, based in New York. The L-3 board is assessing the company’s future after the death in June of its chief executive and founder, Frank C. Lanza. Rumors were so strong that BAE even issued a denial.

“People have tried to link L-3 and BAE and I don’t know what will happen,’’ Ms. Wood said. “There are parts of the company that we’ve coveted. But that’s far from saying we will go for it.”

If Ms. Wood’s acquisition binge continues as planned, the bulk of BAE’s revenue might come from the United States, which would raise questions of where the company should be domiciled.

“It’s a tricky issue,’’ Ms. Wood said. “And not to be too Union Jack and British about it, I’d expect our Ministry of Defense would have something to say about it.”



-------- israel / palestine 

Israel orders war inquiry
More than 100 Israeli soldiers were killed in the war

Wednesday 16 August 2006, Agencies 

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1EE2DB85-37C4-4222-8546-72B04A3937AB.htm

The Israeli defence minister has ordered an inquiry into the army's handling of the war in Lebanon.

The inquiry, to be led by Amnon Lipkin Shahak, a former chief of staff, will examine the army's preparation and conduct during the war.

"[Amir] Peretz informed chief of staff Dan Halutz of the creation of the external inquiry panel," an official at the defence ministry said on Wednesday.

The Israeli army and government have come under heavy criticism for failing to defeat Hezbollah before a fragile UN-backed ceasefire took effect on Monday.

Halutz has also been criticised for selling shares hours before launching the offensive in Lebanon.

At least 842 people were killed in Lebanon during the 34-day campaign, most of them civilians.

The conflict also left 160 Israelis dead, including 41 civilians.

----

Church body condemns Israel
The group said Israel had planned the war, not reacted

Wednesday 16 August 2006, 21:20 Makka Time, 18:20 GMT  

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/53B1D728-7AF1-4883-8EB2-D82AD9AE8080.htm

Israel's assault on Lebanon was planned before Hezbollah attacked and was aimed at driving a wedge between the different faiths in the country, a delegation from the World Council of Churches says.

"We came back from Lebanon sharing the impression that this destruction was planned. And if the action by Hezbollah was the trigger, this was a planned operation all ready to go," Jean-Arnold de Clermont, president of the Conference of European Churches, said in Geneva on the delegation's return from a visit to Beirut and Jerusalem.

The Israeli Mission to the United Nations in Geneva declined to comment on Wednesday afternoon because they had yet to see a written statement from the council.

"The representatives of Lebanon's various communities with whom we met had all agreed that the destruction was both deliberate and planned," the council's statement said.

De Clermont, a retired pastor of the Reformed Church of France, was part of a three-member delegation made up of Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy and an official of the World Council of Churches who met religious leaders and senior Lebanese and Palestinian officials.

They regretted that the Israeli government did not receive them, but they did meet with one of Israel's two chief rabbis, Yonah Metzger. T

The trio, which intended to show solidarity with the people in Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories, visited Beirut, Jerusalem and Ramallah in the West Bank during the five-day trip.

De Clermont, who spoke for the two other delegation members who joined him at a news conference in the world council's headquarters, said Israel would not want the existence of a democratic Lebanon where Jews, Christians and Muslims were peacefully living side by side, because it does not want to see its neighbour succeeding in what Israel is unsuccessful in achieving.

De Clermont said Hezbollah was a scapegoat.

"It is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not the role and actions of Hezbollah that is at the heart of the present crisis," the council's statement said.

"All the religious leaders in Israel and Palestine, as well as Mahmoud Abbas [the Palestinian president] told us that the time has come to accept sitting down and negotiating with everybody," he said, adding that it was necessary to "demilitarise the thinking" of political leaders.



-------- mideast

Hezbollah helps Lebanese rebuild
Hezbollah says Israeli raids destroyed 15,000 housing units

Wednesday 16 August 2006, 19:40 Makka Time, 16:40 GMT  

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E08DBD49-9620-4AB0-A69B-E12F962FDC36.htm

Hezbollah has begun to help thousands of people whose homes have been damaged or destroyed in the conflict with Israel.

Tens of thousands of people have returned to villages in eastern and southern Lebanon as well as Beirut's southern suburbs to find their homes either damaged or totally destroyed by the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel.

Hundreds of people visited a registration centre set up in a Beirut secondary school on Wednesday to report the damage to their homes.

Salim Kenaan went into one of the rooms at the Haret Hreik Public High School and gave his name, address and telephone number to a Hezbollah official.

"We will contact you soon," the Hezbollah member who took the information told Kenaan.

"My house was totally destroyed. After I heard Sheikh Nasrallah's speech, I started looking for an apartment," Kanaan said.

Nasrallah's promise

Hours after the ceasefire began on Monday, the leader of the Shia Muslim group, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, appeared on television and promised to help Lebanese civilians rebuild, pledging money for civilians to pay rent and buy furniture.

Lebanese have been returning to their devastated homes Nasrallah did not say where the money would come from, but Iran has been the group's primary source of finance and weapons in the past. Hezbollah already operates many charity and social welfare programmes in Lebanon which are believed to be financed by Iran.

Nasrallah said that 15,000 housing units had been hit during the war.

The rebuilding programme could further boost Hezbollah's standing after it declared victory over Israel.

Tyre devastated

In the southern city of Tyre, Nabil Kaouk, Hezbollah's commander in south Lebanon, also promised on Wednesday to rebuild the devastated region and compensate those whose homes had been destroyed.

"We want to bring south Lebanon back to its real life and to rebuild it better than it was before the war," the cleric said as he stood in front of the demolished building that used to house his office before it was destroyed in the fighting.

Hundreds of workers were in the streets of Dahiyeh on Wednesday, clearing streets and removing rubble. Some areas were closed by Hezbollah members to protect the building from theft and only residents were allowed to enter after getting special passes.

----

Lebanon Ceasefire Holds As Negotiations Continue

Wednesday, August 16th, 2006
Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/16/148228

The ceasefire in Lebanon continues to hold in its third day but there are growing questions over how long it will last. Negotiations are under way to form the United Nations peacekeeping force planned to back up the agreement. We go to Lebanon to speak with American University in Beirut professor, Amal Saad-Ghorayeb and Declan Walsh, a Guardian reporter in Bint Jbeil. [includes rush transcript] The ceasefire in Lebanon continues to hold in its third day but there are growing questions over how long it will last. Negotiations are under way to form the United Nations peacekeeping force planned to back up the agreement. The UN hopes to get thirty five hundred troops on the ground in southern Lebanon within two weeks. Meanwhile, thousands of displaced Lebanese are returning home from the north despite the continuing Israeli presence and unstable truce.

    * Declan Walsh, correspondent for the London Guardian. He joins us on the line from southern Lebanon.
    * Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a professor at the American University in Beirut. She is the author of " Hizbu'llah: Politics and Religion", and is currently on the line from Beirut.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: We go now to Beirut to Amal Saad Ghorayeb. She’s a professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut and the author of Hizbu’llah: Politics and Religion. We welcome you to Democracy Now! Amal, are you there?

AMAL SAAD GHORAYEB: Hello. Yes, I can hear you. Sorry.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the ceasefire, as it stands right now?

AMAL SAAD GHORAYEB: Well, I think contrary to what, you know, a lot of people expected here, that it does seem to be holding, relatively so. The main sticking point was that Israel had refused to withdraw until those foreign troops arrived and Hezbollah had refused to stop fighting until the Israelis left, but in fact what we've witnessed over the past two days is that there’s been a great number of refugees who have returned to their homes, and I think, therefore, it's not in the interest of either side to escalate the situation.

AMY GOODMAN: We are also joined from southern Lebanon by Declan Walsh, who’s a correspondent for the British newspaper, The Guardian, as well as The Independent, reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan, now in south of Lebanon. Where exactly are you, Declan? Declan, can you hear us?

DECLAN WALSH: I can hear you, yes. I said I’m in a town called Bint Jbeil, near the Israeli border.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you describe it to us, describe your trip to the south of Lebanon and what you have seen?

DECLAN WALSH: What I’ve been seeing in Tyre, which is the main town in southern Lebanon which had been effectually besieged during the fighting over the last number of weeks, now the roads have opened up and people are returning to their homes. And the village that I’m in at the moment is one of the worst affected areas. I’ve just been speaking with officials who’ve told me they estimate that over half of the buildings in town have been destroyed, and it's something that's very easy to see when you walk down the main street and there’s hardly a building left standing, rubble everywhere, [inaudible] cars and a small trickle of residents [inaudible] and assessing their houses and trying to figure out where their lives go from here.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the people who have returned or who have stayed, the stories they have told you?

DECLAN WALSH: Among most of the people, they say that a lot of people left after a couple of weeks of fighting. They’ve stayed with relatives, in schools or other public buildings in the north for the last number of weeks, waiting for the conflict to be over. Now they're coming back, and really they're finding their livelihoods and their homes absolutely destroyed, and they're starting to wonder where to start from now. Having said that, you also get from people an enormous sense of defiance --

AMY GOODMAN: We're losing you a little bit. Go ahead.

DECLAN WALSH: Alright. But on the other hand, you get from people a quite amazing sense of defiance. People, particularly the Shia population, are --

AMY GOODMAN: I think we're going to --

DECLAN WALSH: Hello?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, go ahead. Keep talking. It's just because of your satellite phone and our system, it's a little hard to hear. But keep on describing what you see.

DECLAN WALSH: People are incredibly proud of what they see as the achievement of Hezbollah in taking on what they call the most powerful army in the Middle East and defeating it. So even though, you know, I’ve spoken to numerous families standing in the rubble of their homes, having suffered great loss, but they will tell you that for them, this is victory. They feel that despite all this great destruction, this is a price that they think is worth paying.

AMY GOODMAN: In one of your pieces in the Guardian, you write about Ayta ash-Shab, the place where it all began, where the Hezbollah fighters stole across the border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Can you describe that community and how people felt returning?

DECLAN WALSH: We arrived in Ayta ash-Shab a couple of hours after the ceasefire took effect, and at that point, there were relatively few residents who had returned [inaudible] by the fighting. They were largely [inaudible] and otherwise, we met Hezbollah fighters who were emerging from the rubble. You know, these were people who were still covered in dust, exhausted after a month of fighting, and they certainly had also quite a triumphant tone. They were waving flags. They started broadcasting prayers from the mosque for the first time in two weeks, and they really felt that, you know, they had, if you like, started to take a place in the local mythology here, if you like, that the Israeli soldiers had tried to eject them from that town, and despite almost, as far as we could see, a blitz of bombing over several weeks, they had failed to dislodge the Hezbollah fighters from the town.

AMY GOODMAN: So you see many Hezbollah fighters as you travel in the south?

DECLAN WALSH: Yes, you do. You generally see them clustered, you know, in the center of many of the towns. Some of them seem to be participating in the efforts to clean up southern Lebanon. [inaudible] almost impossible due to rubble spilling over from destroyed buildings, have now been cleared. I passed through the town of Qana earlier, where we saw teams of people out with sweeping brushes, cleaning the rubble off the ground, and that's something you’re seeing all across southern Lebanon.

Otherwise, in areas where there's still an Israeli presence, and in some points here, you can see Israeli tanks in the distance moving about. And there, you still see, close to those points, you see Hezbollah fighters standing on hilltops watching the Israelis were wearily. Even though the ceasefire certainly is holding, against many people's expectations, but in some places, it's a very intense ceasefire, and both sides are eyeing each other very wearily, I think.

AMY GOODMAN: Today in the news, we reported about the numbers of bodies people are finding and digging a mass grave in Tyre for more bodies. What do you see when it comes to casualties?

DECLAN WALSH: Yesterday, in this town, Bint Jbeil, I saw two bodies being taken from the rubble and driven away by the Lebanese Red Cross, and on the roads you occasionally see Red Cross or Hezbollah ambulances [inaudible] either the wounded or the dead away from this area. So it's difficult to assess exact numbers. There's a mass burial taking place today in Tyre of, I understand, over 140 people, is what local officials told me, and however, about 100 of those bodies in fact have been there for several weeks, and the government hospital was unable to bury those people because they were afraid being attacked by Israeli warplanes, even though the cemetery, [inaudible] cemetery, is only half a mile from the hospital. And so now, those bodies, if you like, have been in storage in a fruit and vegetable -- refrigerated vegetable truck over the last couple of weeks. And now, finally, [inaudible] --

AMY GOODMAN: Declan Walsh, I want to thank you for being with us, writes for the British newspapers, The Guardian and The Independent, speaking to us from the south of Lebanon in Bint Jbeil. Also on the line with us from Beirut, Amal Saad Ghorayeb, teaches at Lebanese American University. The claim by both sides that they have won, Amal, can you respond?

AMAL SAAD GHORAYEB: Yes. Well, I think that's really basically Olmert. I mean, the Olmert government is claiming that it's won. The rest of Israel doesn't appear to think that way, and if that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have seen this immense pressure on Olmert now. I think if we want to measure it objectively, just in objective terms -- I know it's very much also a matter of perception -- but, in fact, from day one, Israel had laid out very high goalposts for itself, and it didn’t actually succeed in achieving any one, whereas Hezbollah, from the very beginning, had merely said it wanted a prisoner exchange. So if we measure it by those standards, I think we'll see that it was definitely time to amount to an Israeli defeat, which translated here is a resounding military victory.

AMY GOODMAN: And the feeling of people right now in Beirut, as people come out of shelters in southern Beirut, as people see exactly the situation?

AMAL SAAD GHORAYEB: Yes, I think it's really quite surprising, because I’ve been watching especially on television the reaction of people who just found out that their homes have been completely pulverized. I mean, yes, there is a certain astonishment, sadness and what have you, but there's such a strong sense of defiance and also faith in Hezbollah's pledge to rebuild for them. So I think it really, you know, is seen as something that isn't an irreversible loss, and if anything, they feel buoyed by this victory.

It’s a very interesting political culture you’ve got in these Shiite strongholds. I think they're very much used to being targeted by Israel. And they're also, as I said earlier, they have full confidence that their homes will be restored, and they feel an incredible sense of pride and dignity, and I think that's really what underlines this entire conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: Amal Saad Ghorayeb, I want to thank you for being with us from Lebanese American University in Beirut. She is author of the book, Hizbu’llah: Politics and Religion, speaking to us from Beirut. 



-------- prisoners of war

Afghan prisoner abuse case at impasse

Updated 8/16/2006 (AP) 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-16-cia-prisoner_x.htm

RALEIGH, N.C. — A jury reached a partial verdict Wednesday in the case of a former CIA contractor charged with beating an Afghan detainee who later died, but a judge immediately sealed the decision because the panel had hit an impasse on other charges.

U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle told the jury to continue deliberating on the unsettled charges. He sent them home for the day at 6:30 p.m. with instructions to return Thursday morning.

The jury began considering the case of David Passaro shortly before noon. Jurors returned to the courtroom twice with questions for Boyle before sending him a note about 5 p.m. saying more time wouldn't help them reach a verdict.

During closing arguments earlier in the day, prosecutor Jim Candelmo told the federal jury that David Passaro beat detainee Abdul Wali with a flashlight "to inflict pain to get him to talk."

But defense lawyer Joe Gilbert told the jury Passaro only tapped Wali with the flashlight and was being unfairly charged because the man later died.

"Basically, Dave lost the game of musical chairs," he said. "We wouldn't be here if this terrorist hadn't died."

Passaro, 40, is accused of beating Wali during questioning about rocket attacks on a remote base where Passaro was stationed in 2003 along with U.S. and Afghan troops. He is not charged in Wali's death. He could be sentenced to 40 years in prison if convicted.

"Dave did not intend to hurt Abdul Wali," Gilbert said. "Dave's intent was to find (Wali's) associates. ... Dave's intention was to save the United States. They didn't prove Dave did anything other than serve his country."

Passaro is the first American civilian charged with mistreating a detainee during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is standing trial in his home state under a provision of the USA Patriot Act allowing charges against U.S. citizens for crimes committed on land or facilities designated for use by the U.S. government.

Candelmo told the jury that fingerprint evidence links Passaro to the flashlight that the government believes was used to hit Wali.

Wali's head was covered with an empty sandbag and his hands were bound when Passaro kicked "him with sufficient force to lift him off the ground," the prosecutor said.

"That's extreme physical pain," Candelmo said.

Gilbert denied the government's contention that Wali was beaten mercilessly for 48 hours and argued that photos taken of the body "disprove the government's case."

Pathologists testifying for the prosecution and the defense disagreed over whether photos of Wali's body and testimony from guards show that the prisoner probably died from beatings. No autopsy was conducted; a CIA investigator said Wali's father wouldn't even tell them where he is buried.



-------- us

Pentagon buying handheld biometric devices

Aug. 16, 2006 (UPI)

http://washtimes.com/upi/20060815-103728-6907r.htm

The Pentagon is to spend $10 million on mobile biometric readers that can scan fingerprints and irises to check people's identity.

      Visage Technology Inc. announced last week that the Defense Department was buying its Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment, which it said was a "rugged ... multimodal device" that could be used to check identities against biometric ID cards or watch-lists, using facial recognition, iris scans or fingerprints.

      The device can be can be used as a mobile handheld system or connected to a host computer or network, the company said in a statement. It could be used for "mobile identification of people on the battlefield, at border checkpoints, in airports, in detention centers and for checking people against watch lists."

----

Fearing Prosecution, Bush Admin Tries to Change War Crimes Act

Wednesday, August 16th, 2006 Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/16/148250

The White House recently proposed changes to the War Crimes Act that would narrow the scope of punishable offenses under the Geneva Conventions. The new list would exclude humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners. We host a debate with attorneys Scott Horton and David Rivkin. [includes rush transcript] Ten years ago the Republican-led Congress approved legislation to make it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions.

The Bush administration now fears the War Crimes Act of 1996 could be used to prosecute civilians involved in the mistreatment and torture of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

The White House recently proposed changes to the War Crimes Act that would narrow the scope of punishable offenses. The new list would exclude humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners. Military law experts believe the Bush administration is effectively re-writing parts of the Geneva conventions.

According to the New York Times, President Bush wants Congress to make the United States the first country to repudiate the language of the Geneva Conventions.

    * Scott Horton, adjunct law professor at Columbia University and the former chair of the Committee on International Human Rights at the City Bar Association in New York.
    * David Rivkin, a partner in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler. He served in the Department of Justice and the White House in the Reagan and George HW Bush Administrations.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: To discuss this international issue, we're joined by human rights attorney, Scott Horton, here in New York, an adjunct law professor at Columbia University and the former chair of the Committee on International Human Rights at the City Bar Association, New York. David Rivkin joins us in Washington, D.C. He's a partner with the Washington law office of Baker & Hostetler, served in the Department of Justice and the White House in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

DAVID RIVKIN: Good to be with you.

SCOTT HORTON: Good to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you both with us. David Rivkin, let's begin with you. What do you understand the Bush administration is doing now with this 1996 law?

DAVID RIVKIN: Actually, exactly the reverse than what's being claimed by the New York Times and, sorry to say, what you mentioned in your lead. The real effort by the Bush administration here is driven by the desire to make this law workable. The ’96 law unfortunately tracks vague and overly capacious term of Common Article III. Nothing wrong with that if you're interested in symbolism.

If you're interested in criminal prosecutions, which this administration is interested -- we're in the middle of a war; there are people who, because they’re not uniformed military, cannot be prosecuted under the UCMJ, somebody like a CIA agent or contractor -- and you cannot, because of our constitutional system, because of a “void for vagueness” concept, you cannot successfully prosecute anybody criminally with words like “outrages against personal dignity.”

That's why the ’96 statute has not been used once -- once -- to prosecute anybody, because any prosecutor would look at it and say it’s unenforceable. So, all the administration is doing, instead of being supposedly animated by a desire to give immunity to people, is come up with a scheme where you can go after people, civilians who tortured, killed, raped somebody and bring those people to justice. It's a good thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, your response.

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think whenever lawyers put forward a draft that takes a statute that's a model of clarity and brevity and propose to substitute for it something that is three times as long and filled with really quite grotesque ambiguities, we can question legitimately whether it's designed to clarify.

I think the purposes that exist here are twofold. They're first to grant immunity or impunity to certain individuals. And these are mostly decision-makers within the government. And secondly, it's designed to provide an okay to certain techniques which fall just short of torture that are being used by the CIA and also by USSOCOM units today, and that includes techniques like waterboarding, longtime standing and hypothermia, techniques which have been linked to severe injuries and fatalities already in the course of the war on terror.

And to go back to the first, I think David's correct when he says there's been no prosecution under this statute. That's because, of course, we focus, with respect to war crimes, principally on service personnel. And as a matter of well-established, longstanding U.S. policy, service personnel are prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which provides a comprehensive basis for the prosecution of war crimes. In fact, we've already had more than 30 prosecutions brought since the commencement of the Iraq war, and there are a number of them, very important prosecutions, pending. So, service personnel are not really covered by it.

Then, with respect to CIA personnel and Department of Defense civilians and contractors, there is a memorandum of understanding that was entered into by Michael Chertoff, when he was the head of the criminal division, that covered a series of hyper-coercive interrogation techniques and undertook the Department of Justice would not prosecute personnel if they used these techniques, which in fact explains why there have been no prosecutions.

AMY GOODMAN: These techniques include?

DAVID RIVKIN: Let me just say one thing very briefly. Let me ask my good friend Scott, and I don't know, Scott, if you practice criminal law as a prosecutor or as a defender. Do you really think in this country you can bring criminal charges and get an indictment, but also a conviction, for somebody for, quote, “committing outrages against personal dignity”? Can you think of any other criminal statute that includes such ambiguous and capacious words?

SCOTT HORTON: I think it would depend on the acts that are charged. But in this case, “outrages against personal dignity” is hardly the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter are very specific techniques that are being used, which is to say waterboarding, hypothermia, longtime standing. And under the heading of “offenses against human dignity,” I think what would really be called into question are formerly approved sexual humiliation techniques, which have been applied, were used in Guantanamo, were also used in Iraq and in other places, that clearly violate Common Article III.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, we're going to end -- David Rivkin, we're going to come back to this after break. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guests, Scott Horton, adjunct law professor at Columbia University, former chair of the Committee of International Human Rights at the City Bar Association in New York; and in Washington, D.C., we're joined by David Rivkin, who served in the Department of Justice and the White House under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Washington Post piece just a few days ago: “The Bush administration's drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners.” This, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendment. Scott Horton, you were talking about sexual abuse.

SCOTT HORTON: Right. I think that, you know, we're really coming to a focus here on Common Article III, and of course, the Supreme Court in its Hamdan decision, handed down a little bit more than six weeks ago now, made clear that Common Article III did apply pretty much across the board here, and I think that's one of the things that has spurred the administration to put forward this legislation.

AMY GOODMAN: And for us mere commoners, again, Common Article III?

SCOTT HORTON: Common Article III is a sort of mini-convention within the Geneva Conventions that applies to people other than prisoners of war and creates a sort of humanitarian baseline, as it were, providing a minimum standard of conduct. And I think, as David Rivkin has pointed out, there are a number of terms in here that this legislation, this draft or proposed legislation, is attempting to define down.

AMY GOODMAN: David Rivkin?

DAVID RIVKIN: A couple of things. First of all, I would suggest we all keep our cool until early September, once the administration formally introduces the legislative proposal, and we'll be able to read. There have been a lot of drafts floating around Washington. But I think, Scott, in good faith, we should all wait and see what it introduces. I think you'll find the range of offenses, the definition of offenses, to be quite robust -- point number one.

Point number two, and this is a fundamental divide between human rights lawyers and international law aficionados, whom I greatly admire, and criminal prosecutors. The bottom line is this: the terms used in provisions like Common Article III, and permeate almost every international instrument, are not the terms that can give rise to successful prosecution in the United States district courts because, again, in a context of our constitutional system, particularly when you're dealing with criminal prosecution, you have to define terms with a great deal of precision, a great deal of specificity.

If you do not, you run the risk that your charges will be thrown out or the jury would not convict the defendant, and that is the reason -- again, the notion -- to me, it's topsy-turvy -- the notion that the administration is doing it to protect somebody. They actually want to prosecute people. And they, as Scott himself pointed out, the administration has an excellent track record, with nothing to be ashamed of. This administration and this country has prosecuted more people, more aggressively, for violations of laws of war -- which unfortunately happens in the best trained military -- than any other military, including the British in Northern Ireland. And they have not been as successful prosecuting contractors, because we all know that the UCMJ is very well defined, well structured. The definition doesn't apply. So this is the effort to actually go prosecute some people, not to give immunity to people, but let's reserve judgment on that. Let's wait and see what -- how things read.

And the last thing I would say, this is only one aspect, one tool available to the government. And I’ve had a lot of debates, particularly with the Europeans, about -- they're anticipating that things like Scott mentions, sexual humiliation, like putting underwear on somebody's head, may not be chargeable under this new statute. I don't know if it is the case or not. But let's say that it isn't. It doesn't mean that people cannot be prosecuted administratively, and with all due respect, while I certainly don't condone putting women's underwear on people, isn't there is a fundamental difference between that or forcing somebody to eat pork when it's against that person's religion -- offensive, to be sure, but not the same as rape or murder or torture?

And again, in criminal prosecution, every prosecutor knows that if you overcharge the person, if you simultaneously charge the person with murder and spitting on the sidewalk, chances are very high that your jury would be disagreeable and may acquit the person on all charges. So people really do not understand what is driving this definitional exercise and don't understand that there are other ways to punish people who engage in degrading and humiliating behavior.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton?

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think one thing -- you know, I agree with several of the things that David just pointed out here. One thing that we should all focus on is that this is an American criminal statute, and discretion in bringing charges and in prosecuting is going to be exercised by American prosecutors. And as is usually the case, prosecutors bring a charge when they believe they've got a strong basis to do it and they're going to get to a conviction, which means that there are all sorts of things that they very well might not prosecute.

And in a case like this, dealing with Common Article III, we've got to deal with the fact, of course, that the President made the determination that Common Article III did not apply and, of course, officers of the government may very well have relied upon that. That makes it less likely that prosecutions will be brought. I really think, you know, the focal question comes down to much less one of the actors on the ground, the interrogators, military, CIA, and others, and it comes to much more a question of the policymakers, and that's the area where the real exposure exists here.

AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned, Scott Horton, that you are bringing more prosecutions. What? And would this change and the War Crimes Act in this country change what you do?

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I don't bring other prosecutions. I mean, in fact, my involvement in criminal law has been mostly on the defense side. You know, I have studied them all around the world, and, of course, war crimes are different from most of the balance of criminal law, because they're subject to a potential exercise of universal jurisdiction. We have seven significant countries around the world that embrace and apply the Universal Jurisdiction Statute. There have already been prosecutions brought in at least two countries I can think of, Belgium and Germany, relating to the war on terror, focusing on American officials, and I think it's safe to say that there will be future prosecutions of this sort. Of course, this is something that is beyond the scope of the debate now about the modification of the American War Crimes Act.

AMY GOODMAN: David Rivkin, I have a question. In the changes that the administration would like to make to this ten-year-old law, the War Crimes Act, it includes excluding such practices as forced nakedness, use of dog leashes, wearing of women's underwear, as seen at Abu Ghraib. I remember at the beginning of the invasion when -- I think it was Donald Rumsfeld, was saying that it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions for showing photographs of prisoners if they were American. Now we're talking about these other practices. So if an American was taken hostage and was made to go naked, was put on a leash, you don't think that this law should apply?

DAVID RIVKIN: Let me say a couple of things. First, again, we have to see how the language reads, point number one. Point number two, I can assure you, despite what I said, there will be nothing in the legislation that condones or legitimizes infliction of degrading measures on somebody. Point number three, look, to me, frankly speaking, we should do a variety of things that produce humane treatment, primarily because of who we are as a society. So I personally do not condone torture, certainly no degrading and humiliating treatment.

But with all due respect, the notion that we should be doing it, as you seem to suggest, because of concerns about reciprocity, facts don't bear it out. American soldiers have not gotten Geneva-level protections in any war in which we've been involved since Geneva Conventions were adopted. Kind of Korea’s straddling the fence, because, of course, Korea happened after the conventions were drafted, but before they were ratified by many countries; not in Vietnam; not in Kosovo, when we had a few soldiers captured; not in first Gulf war.

And look, if I’m an American soldier and I know what happens to soldiers who are being captured by jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are being tortured, and I mean tortured in an medieval way and have their throats cut, and the choice was between that and being paraded naked, sign me up. I'll be paraded naked. I would vote for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo before enduring those type of treatments. So, let's not pretend that we're talking about protecting our soldiers.

That does not mean that anything goes. We have to provide the level of protection that's required by international law and, frankly, by human decency, but I’m really, frankly, very impatient about the argument, “Gee whiz, let's protect GIs.” The GIs haven't been protected at all. And do you really think that the likes of jihadis would be swayed by the intricacies of compliance with Common Article III, when they reject any -- any, repeat -- precept of international law of war as something that doesn't apply to them because it's too Judeo-Christian? Come on.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton.

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think the Geneva Conventions were initially adopted in 1864, and certainly the United States has gotten the benefit of those conventions --

DAVID RIVKIN: Not since 1949.

SCOTT HORTON: -- and the tradition that they started -- that's the latest iteration, of course -- has gotten the benefit of those conventions in wars for decades. I mean, certainly, the First World War, certainly the Second World War, it mattered a lot to American soldiers. In fact, my mentor described to me his interment in the Second World War and said he was sure he would have been killed had it not been for the Geneva Conventions.

What we're doing is we're trying to establish principles that govern the conduct of nations, particularly, and I think, of course, it's true that we're now dealing with criminal bands that don't give much attention to niceties of international law, but we establish these traditions to set out who we are and the values we live by and also to establish the rules of play for interaction with other nations in the future, and we have to be thinking about conflicts that are coming down the road in two years, five years, ten years.

AMY GOODMAN: The Uniform Code of Military Justice applies to the military. This would apply to Bush administration officials. It would apply to the CIA. Why now?

SCOTT HORTON: It would not apply to anyone other than uniformed members of the Armed Services. So the Uniform Code of Military Justice is just uniformed service personnel. It does not apply, for instance, even to Donald Rumsfeld or Stephen Cambone or to people in the White House. So it's, you know, the War Crimes Act that spreads the application of the Geneva Conventions the next level up to civilians, and particularly to civilian policymakers, and I think here, you know, there's a specific focus really on policymakers. And the prosecutorial focus in applying the War Crimes Act, I think, from the beginning was intended to provide deterrence at that level. So we're not really talking about soldiers in the field.

DAVID RIVKIN: Let me just --

AMY GOODMAN: Right, right. That's Uniform Code of Military Justice, but this would apply --

SCOTT HORTON: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: -- to Bush administration officials, to CIA?

SCOTT HORTON: Absolutely.

DAVID RIVKIN: Can I just inject one factual observation? I honestly don't think that Scott would disagree with me. Things worked until after World War II. Scott, you know as well as I do. Not just the jihadis. The Serbs, who took two American soldiers prisoners, didn't torture them, but certainly humiliated. The Saddam's military in First Gulf War tortured and actually raped at least one female aviator. We're dealing with rogue states. We're dealing with people who would not be bound by any respect for the rule of law.

Again, my point is not that we should not emulate them. God forbid. But let's not pretend that what we're talking about is something that would protect our soldiers. We should structure our behavior entirely unilaterally, driven by a respect for international law and our own morality. But let's not pretend, again, that we're going to impact the guys we're fighting.

AMY GOODMAN: But that issue of, is the Bush administration running scared right now before leaving office to change this ten-year-old law?

DAVID RIVKIN: There is absolutely no basis for it.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me just ask Scott Horton that question

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think, first of all, you know, it's very, very clear that there are not going to be any prosecutions brought by this administration, by this Justice Department. And I think the quick movement on this comes from two things. One, very, very clear ruling in Hamdan by the Supreme Court recognizing the application of Common Article III and discussing it -- two points, in fact, in Kennedy's opinion, the criminal law implications of this for those on the American side, and secondly, a realization that the Bush administration will not be at the helm of power forever. In fact, of course, Bush cannot run for reelection.

DAVID RIVKIN: Scott, with all due respect, you're vastly over-reading Hamdan. If you read it carefully, all Hamdan opinion does is incorporates Common Article III through the medium of UCMJ for one narrow purpose: the composition and functioning of military commissions. The court did not -- repeat, did not -- find that Common Article III applies across the board, nor could the court ever find such a thing, because in this country, courts do not issue broad advisory opinion. They're dealing with specific cases and controversies in the context of a case that was given to them, and none of those issues were before the court.

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, last words.

SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think that's absolutely technically correct, and it's nevertheless also true that the Supreme Court told us very clearly how they will view this question and that they will apply Common Article III.

DAVID RIVKIN: They didn't even reach the question of what the Convention is [inaudible].

AMY GOODMAN: We're going to have to leave it there. Scott Horton, thanks for joining us, former chair of the Committee on International Human Rights at the City Bar Association, New York; and David Rivkin, joining us from Washington, was in the Department of Justice and the White House under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 

---- 

The Money Pit
Can the Pentagon pay for the war and its new toys?

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006, at 1:30 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2147823/

If you think the invasion of Iraq was poorly planned, take a look at the Pentagon budget.

The appalling extent of the problem is spelled out in the July 28 edition of a little-known online newsletter called Budget Bulletin, published once a month or so by the Senate Budget Committee's Republican staff.

Drawing on the Defense Department's own data, the GOP staffers conclude that, over the coming decade, the military will fall drastically short of the money it needs to buy, operate, and maintain all the weapons systems churning through the pipeline. And though the newsletter doesn't say so explicitly, the main sources of this crisis are clear: the service chiefs' extravagant taste for more, new, complex weapons; the Pentagon managers' failure to set priorities; and Congress' tendency to pile on even more money than the military requests in order to swell the payrolls of local arms manufacturers.

It comes down to this: Since 2001, the defense budget has been growing by an average of 11.1 percent a year (adjusting for inflation and not including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). This year, owing to fiscal pressures brought on by the skyrocketing deficit, the Pentagon pledged to scale back its growth rate through the end of the decade to 3.4 percent a year.

However, during their flush years, the Army, Navy, and Air Force started up or expanded so many new weapons programs—and so many of these programs have suffered such steep cost overruns—that the Pentagon budget will have to grow at a far higher rate. The GOP Senate staffers calculate that by next decade, the budget, now at around $400 billion (not including the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars), will have to grow by about one-third, to $530 billion (not including either the wars or the effects of the overall economy's inflation).

Unless, of course, several big-ticket weapons programs are slashed or killed. But this isn't likely to happen for a number of reasons. The service chiefs will fight for the programs in order to retain their share of the budget. Powerful congressional chairmen will fight for them in order to retain constituents' contracts. Finally, there's no great incentive to kill weapons anyway because the short-term savings are so paltry; and, in politics, the short term is all that matters.

The Republican staffers draw particular attention to an annual Defense Department document called Selected Acquisition Report. The SAR, as it's known to insiders, lists all of the Pentagon's R&D programs that cost at least $365 million and all procurement programs that cost at least $2.19 billion. The problem is, this list is swelling.

The SAR of September 2001 included 71 programs that were projected to cost, from start to finish, a total of $790 billion. The SAR of December 2005 (the most recent edition available at the time of the Budget Bulletin's analysis) contained 85 programs with a total projected cost of $1.58 trillion—20 percent more weapons programs costing twice as much money.

Since the Bulletin was published, the Pentagon has released its latest quarterly SAR, which lists the data as of June 30, 2006. The list now contains 87 programs projected to cost $1.61 trillion. In other words, the estimated cost of the Pentagon's big-ticket items has gone up by $30 billion in just the past six months.

And the cost is likely to grow higher still. Of that $1.61 trillion, $909 billion—or 56 percent—has yet to be spent. In other words, a lot of these weapons programs are still in their early stages.

Here's another way to look at the picture. Of those 87 weapons programs, 11 have already exceeded their cost estimates by 30 percent to 50 percent—and 25 have done so by more than 50 percent. This latter group includes some of the most expensive programs—the F-22 Stealth fighter plane, the Army's Future Combat System, and the V-22 vertical-lift aircraft.

In the past, the Pentagon chiefs have offset cost overruns by cutting back on operations, maintenance, and personnel. Not this time, though. There are a couple of wars going on, and it's very expensive to recruit and retain personnel—costlier still to keep a steady line of spare parts, ammo, fuel, and so forth. Military manpower costs have gone up from $84 billion in 2001 to $121 billion in 2005. Operations and maintenance have risen from $127 billion to $179 billion.

Military health care will be consuming vast sums of money for years to come. From 1988 to 2003, the Pentagon cut the size of the active-duty armed forces by 38 percent. Yet the cost of their health care doubled, from $14.6 billion a year to $27.3 billion. And notice, that was in 2003—before the disabilities incurred in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, the Pentagon and Congress can't cut personnel, operations, and maintenance. They won't cut major weapons systems. Yet a huge budget crunch is looming. That leaves two choices: Elect leaders who aren't afraid of making choices, or plunge the country still deeper into debt.



-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE



-------- drug war

Parks fall victim to Colombia drug war

AP Wednesday 16 August 2006, 15:43 Makka Time, 12:43 GMT  

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0F9E4663-3436-4CB7-B37E-AFA6AC04D2C3.htm

The US says Colombian rebels run the world's largest drug cartel

Colombian authorities have for the first time used US-supplied aircraft to spray a pristine national park used by rebels to grow coca - the raw ingredient for cocaine - despite environmental concerns.

Anti-narcotics police chemically fumigated the Sierra Macarena national park last week, clearing its entire 4,600 hectares of coca.

The spraying destroyed coca capable of producing 16 metric tonnes of cocaine and was probably a big blow to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).

But environmentalists complain that the spraying of herbicides harms the environment and causes health problems for those living in the area.

Local groups have promised a court battle to prevent any spraying in 11 of Colombia's other 50 protected reserves known to have coca.

Still others say the entire spraying strategy, a cornerstone of the war on drugs, is flawed and ineffective - even in record use - at stopping a sharp rebound in coca production.

Fumigated

Alvaro Uribe, the Colombian president, announced that the park would be fumigated by air after a 100kg bomb planted by rebels exploded on August 2, killing six peasants hired by the government to uproot the coca by hand.

The "world will have to understand that we must fumigate", he said.

Uribe said he wants to double aerial spraying, and his top military advisers want to expand the practice to the 11 other parks known to have coca.

"Those who think fumigating La Macarena, and perhaps other parks, will wipe out coca production are wrong"

Colombian newspaper El Tiempo

"It's the most efficient way to do our job," General Jorge Baron, head of the anti-narcotic police, said.

In addition to those killed by the bomb, 26 workers, soldiers, and police guards have been killed at the Sierra Macarena park since December, when the government launched a manual eradication drive there involving 3,000 troops - its biggest ever. About 200 other workers quit, fearing for their lives.

Washington has long urged Uribe to extend spraying to parks and provided the glyphosate herbicide, as well as Black Hawk helicopters used for protection, during the missions.

Manual eradication

The US said in a March indictment of Farc leaders that the rebel group is the world's largest drug cartel, responsible for more than half of the cocaine produced in the world.

"If the Farc thought the government would allow coca to grow untrammelled in its national parks, they've obviously miscalculated," said James O'Gara, deputy director of supply reduction for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy.

But the chemical fumigation of a park in one of the world's most biodiverse countries drew sharp criticism from environmentalists and others.

"Those who think fumigating La Macarena, and perhaps other parks, will wipe out coca production, are wrong," the normally pro-government newspaper El Tiempo said last week.

Steep rise

"Instead, there will be more coca, and less park, as rebels destroy more forests, deeper inside the park, to continue planting."

The editorial echoed the belief of a growing number of Colombians and key US congress members that aerial spraying is failing.

Despite a record fumigation of 140,000 hectares last year in Colombia, the latest US government survey found that 26% more land was dedicated to coca production - a rise due in part to a near doubling of the satellite survey area on which the estimate was based.



-------- POLITICS


-------- propaganda wars

Fox News Producer Resigns Over Middle East Coverage

Wednesday, August 16th, 2006
Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/16/148232

Two weeks ago, two producers working for Fox News in Amman, Jordan resigned in protest of the network's coverage. In their resignation letter, Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadsheh wrote "We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that." We go to Amman to speak with producer Serene Sabbagh. [includes rush transcript] As the ceasefire in Lebanon enters its third day, the Middle East crisis continues to be one of the top news stories in the US press. But the coverage of the conflict in the corporate media has come under criticism from some quarters.

Two weeks ago, two producers working for Fox News in Amman Jordan resigned in protest of the network's coverage. In their resignation letter, Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadsheh wrote "We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that." They went on to write "Not only are you an instrument of the Bush White House, and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency, nor professionalism."

One of the two authors of that letter joins us on the line from Amman, Jordan.

    * Serene Sabbagh, freelance TV producer who has worked with CNN, ABC News, Al Jazeera and Fox News. She joins us on the line from Amman, Jordan.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Two weeks ago, two producers working for Fox News in Amman, Jordan resigned in protest of the network's coverage. In their resignation letter, Serene Sabbagh and Jomana Karadsheh wrote, "We can no longer work with a news organization that claims to be fair and balanced when you are so far from that." They went on to write "Not only are you an instrument of the Bush White House and Israeli propaganda, you are war mongers with no sense of decency, nor professionalism."

One of the two authors of that letter joins us on the phone right now from Amman, Jordan. Serene Sabbagh is a freelance TV producer who has worked with CNN, ABC News, Al Jazeera. She worked with Fox News for three years until her resignation. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Serene.

SERENE SABBAGH: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your concerns? What work did you do for the networks and particularly for the one that you resigned from, Fox?

SERENE SABBAGH: Well, for CNN and the rest, I produced for a while. I was their unit manager producer here in Jordan. And for Fox News, we basically handled logistical support for their operation in Baghdad. And up to the start of the war in Lebanon, we were also handling that end of the conflict. So basically, my work, I covered also the hotel bombings for them in Amman back in November. So it was basically logistical unit manager producer type of work.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you leave Fox?

SERENE SABBAGH: After three years and watching their coverage, I thought I could make a difference working with them. I could influence some of the people that are coming into the region, because they have recently just, you know, come into this part of the world. I thought that I could give them an insight of how things are run here, the politics of -- the complicated politics and history of politics in this part of the region.

But from the onset of the war in Lebanon, I was devastated at the way that Fox was handling the coverage from Lebanon in the U.S., and I felt there was bias, the slant, the racist remarks, the use of the word “we” meaning Israel, and it was just unbearable up until basically the massacre at Qana. And as a mother of three, watching the images, the raw images of children being pulled out of the rubble, and then I switched to Fox News to hear some of their anchors claiming that these little kids that were killed, these innocent victims that were killed, were human shields used by Hezbollah. And one of the anchors went as far as saying they were planted there by Hezbollah to win support in this war. And it was unbelievable. For me, that was the breaking point, and this is when I decided, me and my colleague Jomana, to hand in our resignation.

AMY GOODMAN: Did you try to have conversations with them, though you talk about this as a sort of breaking point, over the three years?

SERENE SABBAGH: When I signed with Fox News, when I started working with them, I knew that they were very pro-Israel, that the coverage of the Middle East was very slanted. And I did have conversations with reporters that I worked with and producers that I also worked with. I got to know a couple of people from management who came to visit in Amman and who went on to Baghdad, and we sort of had conversations. We never had a direct conversation regarding their coverage, all in all, but they all knew what we felt like in Amman in the Amman bureau.

AMY GOODMAN: Serene, two Fox -- reporter and photographer, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, look like they've been kidnapped in Gaza. Can you talk about what you understand has happened, and do you know the reporter, Steve Centanni, and Olaf Wiig, the photographer?

SERENE SABBAGH: Olaf Wiig actually is a cameraman. I’ve met Olaf on a couple of runs for him in Baghdad. He's a freelance cameraman that's worked with Fox News in Baghdad. He's a very nice man. Steve Centanni, I met very briefly also on his way to Baghdad. They are both good people, and they are both doing their job.

I think that I don't have the details. I know what you people know, that they were kidnapped and they were taken against their will. I think if, for any reason, it had anything to do with the fact that they were foreigners or that they worked with Fox News, I do not know, but I believe that what happened was completely wrong, and if somebody was trying to send out a message, this is the wrong way of sending it out.

AMY GOODMAN: How often does this happen, from your experience of covering this, the capture of these two men, the kidnapping of these two men?

SERENE SABBAGH: Well, in the past six to eight months, it has happened in Gaza and the West Bank, that some foreigners were taken for 48 to 72 hours, and then they were released. Some of them were taken for political reasons, some of them for financial reasons, not asking for a ransom or anything, just putting pressure on the Palestinian National Authority, on the PNA, because there were delays in paying salaries of their employees. So usually things like that are not as dangerous as they are in Iraq. And I’m hopeful that these two journalists will be released eventually.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you know what kind of negotiations are going on behind the scenes to free them, and do you know -- is there any discussion about who took them?

SERENE SABBAGH: I have no information regarding that, and I don't think Fox News is going to discuss it with me or anybody else. I think it's just direct negotiations between Fox, probably, and the Palestinians and Israeli authorities on ways to release these two men.

AMY GOODMAN: Serene Sabbagh, I want to thank you very much for being with us, freelance TV producer, has worked with CNN, ABC, Al Jazeera and Fox for three years. She recently quit Fox with a letter announcing her resignation from Amman, along with her colleague Jomana Karadsheh. 



-------- ENERGY 


-------- alternative energy

Malaysia Approves 52 Biodiesel Plants So Far

Story by Naveen Thukral
REUTERS MALAYSIA: August 16, 2006

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37685/newsDate/16-Aug-2006/story.htm%5C

PASIR GUDANG, Malaysia - Malaysia, the world's top producer of palm oil, has approved licences for 52 biodiesel plants with a combined capacity of more than 5 million tonnes each year, the prime minister said on Tuesday.

Biofuel plants are sprouting at a dizzy rate as nations from Europe to Asia seek ways to cut dependence on soaring crude oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost agriculture. Oil has rallied 20 percent this year on supply worries.

"Some of these plants have commenced construction and are well on the way to coming onstream soon," Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said at the launch of a biodiesel plant in Malaysia's southern state of Johor.

"My government has carefully controlled the issuance of biofuel manufacturing licences and will be monitoring the situation to avoid a glut in manufacturing capacity as well as to ensure sufficient supply of palm oil both for food and non-food purposes."

Traditionally, palm oil supplies have remained at comfortable levels, with buyers not worrying about stockpiling to make their products that range from sponge cakes to soap. But that has begun to change as demand for biodiesel pushes up palm-oil prices.

Malaysia is due to start selling a blend of 5 percent palm oil and 95 percent diesel at domestic pumps in October.

Malaysian palm oil surged 3 percent in a few hours of trading on one day last month when Malaysia and Indonesia pledged 40 percent of their output to make biodiesel.

Since then, daily volumes have nearly doubled, with open interest on certain days touching 65,000 lots of 25 tonnes each. Spot prices have risen about 15 percent so far this year.

On Tuesday, the benchmark October contract was trading at around 1,642 ringgit a tonne, or $446.

Abdullah said the rising price of palm oil would benefit many poor workers on Malaysian plantations.

"It is not only the biofuel producers who will benefit but also the plantations and the 100,000 oil-palm small-holders in the country," he said. (US$1=3.6815 ringgit)



-------- OTHER


-------- environment

Japan Tanker Spills Crude Oil in East Indian Ocean

Story by Ikuko Kao and Osamu Tsukimori
REUTERS JAPAN: August 16, 2006

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37679/newsDate/16-Aug-2006/story.htm

TOKYO - A tanker on its way from the Middle East to Japan spilled about 4,500 tonnes of crude oil in the eastern Indian Ocean, tanker owner Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. said on Tuesday.

The leak from the tanker Bright Artemis on Monday afternoon occurred some 290 miles (470 km) west of India's Great Nicobar Island.

The Singapore-flagged tanker, a 260,000-tonne single-hull crude carrier, was transporting about 250,000 tonnes of crude oil from Mina al Fahal port in Oman and Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia, Mitsui O.S.K. said in a statement.

It was rescuing crew members from a cargo vessel that had caught fire and its oil tanks were damaged when the two ships came into contact.

Mitsui said the spill had been contained and there was no risk of further leaks. The impact on the environment should be limited because the spill occurred far from land, it said.

There was no plan for any cleanup as the oil should disperse naturally in the sea, the company said.

Indian Coast Guard ships were on alert but officials said since the spill was outside India's exclusive economic zone they did not expect any environmental fallout in the country's waters.

"We hope the oil will churn and disintegrate in the high seas, but we are watching closely," S.P. Sharma, a senior Indian Coast Guard officer, told Reuters by phone from Port Blair, the capital of the archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar.

Great Nicobar is the southernmost of the island chain.

A Mitsui spokesman said the tanker's engine was undamaged and it was continuing eastward with the remaining crude.

The spokesman said the tanker would stop at a port for repairs to its damaged tanks, though he did not know where it would stop or how long the repairs would take.

The buyer of the crude oil was Cosmo Oil Co., Japan's fourth-largest oil refiner, and the tanker had been scheduled to deliver it to Chiba, near Tokyo.

The spokesman said the company has not yet determined whether it can deliver the crude oil to the buyer. (Additional reporting by Bappa Majumdar in Kolkata, India)



-------- ACTIVISTS

Israel out! An open letter from Australian students

From Green Left Weekly, August 16, 2006. 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/679/679p9b.htm

We join with people from across the world in condemning Israel’s brutal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza as outright acts of state terrorism. Israel has carried out a reign of terror against the people of Lebanon and Palestine that has targeted civilians and infrastructure.

Hundreds of people have been murdered, overwhelmingly civilians, and the death toll is rising constantly. Over one-third of the dead are children. There are reports of Israel using chemical weapons and depleted uranium bombs. The Red Cross has claimed Israel is deliberately targeting ambulances attempting to assist the wounded.

The brutality of Israel’s war was brought home by the Qana massacre. Over 60 civilians, the majority of them children and many having fled Israeli bombing in southern Lebanon, were murdered by an Israeli bomb. The outrage against this war crime was so great that Israel was forced to order an investigation. However, Israel has continued to ignore growing calls for a cease-fire, continuing to carry out bombing raids against civilian targets.

Meanwhile, Israeli attacks on the occupied Palestinian territory of Gaza have continued, with 150 Palestinians murdered over the last month. Israel has transformed Gaza into a massive prison.

We join with people from across the world in calling on Israel to immediately halt its military attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, and to withdraw its troops. We insist that the United States government cease its support for the Israeli war machine, without which it could not carry out its murderous war against the Lebanese and Palestinian people.

We call on the Australian government to stop backing Israel’s aggression and to join in the calls for Israel to stop its military attacks.

We urge students across Australia to participate in emergency protests being organised calling for Israel to stop its war.

Signed by: Resistance, socialist youth organisation; Federation of Australian Muslim Students and Youth; Muslim Student Association (national), Muslim Student Association, Sydney University; Rachel Evans, National Union of Students queer officer; Jess Moore, president, Wollongong Undergraduate Students Association; Nicholas Kafer, honorary secretary, Wollongong Undergraduate Students Association; Simon Cunich, Global Solidarity Officer, University of Sydney; Alby Dallas, International Solidarity officer, University of Tasmania.

To add you name or organisation, email .