NucNews September 19, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR First Global Fissile Material Report From: Sukla Sen Date: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:30 pm 19 September 2006 International Panel on Fissile Materials releases first Global Fissile Material Report The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), a group of independent nuclear experts from 15 countries, will release its first annual report in Ottawa, Canada on September 27, 2006. The Global Fissile Material Report 2006 summarizes the best available information on global stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, the key nuclear-weapons materials, and discusses initiatives to secure and to sharply reduce and consolidate them. The report is at the IPFM website, www.fissilematerials.org. At present, there are roughly 1700 tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and 500 tons of separated plutonium in the world, enough for more than 100,000 nuclear weapons. Virtually all of the HEU and about half of the plutonium is a legacy of the Cold War nuclear arms race. The other half of the plutonium has been separated from spent nuclear power-reactor fuel – mostly in the U.K., France and Russia. The report highlights three critical obstacles to efforts to greatly reduce these fissile material stocks. One is the large uncertainties in the size of the stockpiles held by various countries. The panel calls for all nuclear-armed states to declare publicly their stocks (the U.K. and U.S. have already done so) and agree on greater transparency measures with regard to the history of their production and disposition. A second problem pointed out by the panel is the large stock of weapons-usable highly enriched uranium set aside by the U.S., Russia and U.K. for their naval reactors. The U.S. alone has declared a naval reserve of weapon-grade uranium large enough to make more than 6,000 nuclear warheads. Countries employing highly enriched uranium naval fuel should move to naval reactors fueled with non-weapon usable low-enriched uranium (France has already done so). An international effort is already underway to convert civilian research reactors from highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium, The growing global stockpile of civilian plutonium separated from power reactor spent fuel is another serious issue. This problem could worsen because of the Bush Administration’s endorsement of reprocessing as part of its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, ending 30 years of U.S. opposition to reprocessing because of proliferation concerns. The panel also examines proposals to limit further production of fissile materials, including the UN-sponsored effort to negotiate a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). This long sought after global ban on the production of fissile materials for weapons would extend to the weapon states an obligation that has already been accepted, along with IAEA verification, by the 183 non-nuclear weapon states party to the Nonproliferation Treaty. The panel concludes, contrary to the Bush Administration’s position, that an FMCT could be effectively verified. In addition to Global Fissile Material Report 2006, the International Panel also released two topical reports today (also available at the IPFM website): Fissile Materials in South Asia: The Implications of the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal by two Pakistani and two Indian analysts, Dr. Zia Mian and Professors Abdul Nayyar, M.V. Ramana and R. Rajaraman, assesses the potential increase in India’s production of weapons plutonium that could result from the July 2005 U.S.-India deal. India is estimated to be currently producing about 30 kilograms of weapon plutonium per year. The proposed deal would allow India to increase this production several-fold. The report urges India and Pakistan to join the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China in suspending all further production of fissile materials for weapons pending the negotiation and entry into force of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. Japan's spent fuel and plutonium management challenge by two Japanese analysts, Drs Tadahiro Katsuta and Tatsujiro Suzuki, examines Japan’s growing stockpile of separated plutonium. Japan currently has more than 40 tons of separated plutonium (enough for more than 5,000 nuclear weapons), most of it stored in Britain and France where it was sent to be reprocessed. Thi stockpile will grow rapidly now that Japan is starting-up its own large reprocessing plant at Rokkasho. The authors conclude that there is enough potential spent-fuel storage capacity in Japan so that operation of the new reprocessing plant could be delayed for one or two decades and suggest that Japan use this time to re-consider its plutonium and spent-fuel management policies. About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), which was founded in January 2006, is an independent group of arms-control and nonproliferation experts from both nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. The Panel is co-chaired by Professor José Goldemberg of the University of São Paulo, Brazil and Professor Frank von Hippel of Princeton University. Its members are listed below. The IPFM mission is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable policy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is crucial to nuclear disarmament, to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security (PS&GS) provides administrative and research support for the IPFM. PS&GS is part of the University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. IPFM’s initial support is provided by a 5-year grant to Princeton University from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation of Chicago. IPFM members (by country): Brazil: Prof. José Goldemberg China: Professors Li Bin and Shen Dingli (shared seat) Germany: Prof. Martin Kalinowski and Dr. Annette Schaper (shared seat) India: Prof. R. Rajaraman and Dr. M.V. Ramana (shared seat) South Korea: Dr. Jungmin Kang Japan: Prof. Tatsujiro Suzuki Mexico: Prof. Miguel Marin Bosch Netherlands: Ambassador (ret.) Arend Meerburg Norway: Dr. Morten Bremer Maerli and Ole Reistadt (shared seat) Pakistan: Professors Pervez Hoodbhoy and Abudul H. Nayyar (shared seat) Russia: Prof Anatoli Diakov South Africa: Jean du Preez Sweden: Ambassador Henrik Salander United Kingdom: Prof. William Walker United States: Prof. Frank von Hippel -------- accidents and safety Nuclear oversight is blasted in report Industry admits lapses, says improvements made Tuesday, September 19, 2006 John Mangels Plain Dealer Science Writer http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1158654623210350.xml&coll=2 Passive, sometimes inept, government oversight of America's nuclear plants has allowed serious safety lapses to multiply, often requiring reactor shutdowns that take a year or more to correct, a new report concludes. Lengthy safety-related outages like the recent two-year closing of Ohio's Davis-Besse reactor have occurred 51 times during the four decades of the commercial nuclear power era, according to research made public Monday by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group. For an industry that supplies 20 percent of the nation's electricity, the shutdowns carried a heavy financial toll, the UCS study found. Since 1966, nuclear plants have had 135 years of cumulative downtime and at least $82 billion in lost revenue. Beyond the monetary losses, the outages signal that the regulatory system meant to protect the public repeatedly has failed to recognize the warning signs of a plant in decline before the problems reach critical mass, the report said. As the government prepares to license a new generation of reactors, and considers extending existing plants' licenses and allowing higher electricity output, it is important to improve and expand the regulatory process, the study's author said. The large number of year-plus reactor shutdowns "suggests just how far safety levels have fallen," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and industry veteran who now directs the UCS nuclear safety project. An effective regulator should be able to detect problems and intervene before a multi-year outage is needed to make fixes, Lochbaum said. The engineer acknowledged that none of the conditions necessitating extended shutdowns caused injury or physical harm to the public, although Davis-Besse was as close as 60 days to a catastrophic accident. The findings still merit action, he said. "Just because a [safety] decline didn't lead to a meltdown doesn't mean it was OK." Neither the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nor the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group, had seen the report when asked for comment. Based on a description, however, officials with both organizations said the study appeared to neglect the impact of recent improvements in the NRC's inspection process, and the industry's heightened safety focus, especially in the wake of Davis-Besse. "Davis-Besse certainly wasn't our finest hour," said Stuart Richards, deputy director of the NRC's inspection division. "But I think we've learned quite a bit from that." In 2000, two years before the incident at Davis-Besse, the agency made major changes in its inspection regimen to concentrate on safety-significant equipment and processes. This summer, the NRC adopted new guidelines that allow inspectors to consider "safety culture" - whether workers and managers show a commitment to putting safety ahead of production - when evaluating a reactor. Marvin Fertel, the industry group's chief nuclear officer, noted that Davis-Besse has been the only nuclear plant to undergo an extended safety-related shutdown in the past six years - a sharp decline from previous decades. During that period, the rest of the nation's 104 reactors averaged 90 percent of their peak electricity output, Fertel said, which indicates they are reliably and safely operated. "I think what we saw in the past was an artifact of the era, not indicative of what you should project for the future," he said. "What you have now are plants that are performing extremely well, and are much more focused on the safety oversight process." Davis-Besse is one of 10 reactors with two year-plus shutdowns in their history. The plant was inactive from June 1985 to December 1986 after a design flaw - complicated by maintenance and testing lapses - caused the sudden cutoff of water that keeps the reactor cool. The second outage, from February 2002 to March 2004, began when workers making routine repairs stumbled upon a pineapple-size rust hole in the reactor's protective lid that had been undetected since at least 1998. Investigations by owner FirstEnergy Corp. and the NRC found widespread problems, from lax safety attitudes and poor supervision to major defects in emergency systems meant to prevent a meltdown. If the rust hole hadn't been accidentally discovered and the pressurized reactor was restarted, the damaged lid would have burst in as little as two months, an NRC analysis found. The mandatory shutdown to correct Davis-Besse's extensive problems cost FirstEnergy more than $660 million in repairs, replacement power purchases and government fines. What worries Lochbaum, the engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is that FirstEnergy, the NRC and industry inspectors all failed to recognize Davis-Besse was in trouble, a trend repeated at other plants before their extended shutdowns. A year before the rust hole's discovery, NRC inspectors reported that Davis-Besse "effectively identified, evaluated and corrected plant problems." Lochbaum's report suggests the agency supplement its post-Davis-Besse changes with additional reforms. Among them: Require that reactor owners dig deeper to understand why they've missed safety-related problems. Nuclear plants' quality-assurance programs are supposed to prevent equipment breakdowns and safety lapses. When NRC inspectors, rather than plant personnel, identify problems, that shows the utility's efforts didn't work. The agency should direct plant owners to not just fix the equipment, but to analyze and correct the quality-assurance breakdowns that allowed the problem to remain undetected. When one reactor in a utility's fleet has major problems, scrutinize its other plants. The NRC treats each plant as an individual case, even though most nuclear utilities own multiple plants in different locations. Lochbaum contends significant safety program flaws at one reactor should trigger broader oversight. That's because the flaws may stem from a corporate-level problem spread among a utility's sites - if not at the outset, then later, when the offending reactor saps management attention and staff from the company's other holdings. FirstEnergy's Perry, Ohio, reactor underwent a string of safety-related equipment problems as Davis-Besse was restarting, but the NRC and the utility insist there was no connection. Expand the scope of alerts the NRC provides to plant owners. Currently, the agency warns reactor operators when there are equipment breakdowns that may recur at other plants. It has not issued such cautions when breakdowns involve safety programs or practices, rather than hardware. Widely communicating those lapses may help others learn the lessons of Davis-Besse and prevent protracted, costly shutdowns, Lochbaum said. To read the report, go to www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/unlearned-lessons-from.html To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 -------- britain British Energy says cracked pipes to cut its output The Associated Press TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/ap/2006/09/19/business/EU_FIN_Britain_British_Energy.php LONDON Shares of British Energy, the U.K.'s largest electricity producer, dropped Tuesday after the company cut its production forecast because of cracked pipes at one of its nuclear power stations. The damage will slow maintenance work and British Energy cut its forecast for nuclear energy output for the year to between 61 terawatts and 63 terrawatts, the company said in a statement on Monday. The company didn't provide comparative figures for the year-ago period. The work is ongoing and "this will require the repair of a significant number of the defective tubes during the current outage which may reduce available capacity," the company said in a statement. British Energy shares dropped 7.5 percent to 591 pence (US$11.10; €8.77) on the London Stock Exchange. -------- depleted uranium WHEN WAR MAKES SOLDIERS SICK By JUAN GONZALEZ Tue, Sep. 19, 2006 Philadelphia Daily News http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/15553206.htm EIGHT IRAQ War veterans sat in a federal courtroom in Manhattan last week and demanded answers from the Pentagon and the White House about why and how they became sick. The men, most of them Hispanic, include former Army sergeants Ray Ramos, Agustín Matos and Jerry Ojeda and specialist Gerard Matthew, who is the lead plaintiff in a pioneering lawsuit that has exposed to the public how American soldiers have been endangered by one of the Pentagon's little-known favorite weapons - depleted uranium artillery. As you might expect, the plaintiffs in this case are not easily intimidated. Several are street-hardened ex-New York city cops and correction officers. They all served in two National Guard units stationed into Iraq during the first months of the war. I first met them in late 2003, in Fort Dix, N.J., following a tip that a bunch of returned soldiers were suffering from illnesses that Army doctors could not explain. The men I met that day were furious at the way Army doctors were ignoring their persistent symptoms of blurred vision, migraine headaches, blackouts, fatigue, a burning sensation when they urinated as well as blood in their urine, and other ailments, all of which they said began while in Iraq. A few months later the independent tests arranged by the New York Daily News indicated that four of nine in one National Guard unit, as well as Matthew, who served in another unit, had all been exposed to depleted uranium, probably from radioactive dust from exploded shells. The Pentagon has used the low-level radioactive metal since the 1991 Persian Gulf War to harden artillery shells so they can penetrate enemy tanks. My Daily News reports created a firestorm that reached Congress and received coverage around the world, especially when the men, who were then still on active duty, publicly accused military doctors of refusing to test them for depleted uranium, or losing or delaying their test results. Since then, the Pentagon has tightened its testing procedures and some two dozen state legislatures have either passed or are considering bills to require testing for depleted uranium for troops returning from Iraq. The lawsuit is the first to reach a courtroom from Iraq soldiers who claim they were harmed by the weapon. In a two-hour hearing before Manhattan Federal Judge John Koeltl last week, lawyers for the former soldiers argued that the Army caused their illnesses when it violated its own safety protocols and exposed them to radioactive dust. Army doctors also covered up information about their exposures and failed to provide proper medical treatment, the lawyers claimed. But Assistant U.S. Attorney John Cronan, representing the Army, urged Koeltl to dismiss the lawsuit immediately. A 1950 Supreme Court decision, commonly known as the Feres Doctrine, prohibits soldiers from suing the government for injuries "incident to [military] service," Cronan said. As the government's lawyer spoke, Matthew sat with his wife, Janise, in a courtroom packed with supporters and quietly shook his head. Less than 10 months after Matthew returned from Iraq, his wife gave birth to a girl, Victoria. Their baby was missing three fingers on one hand. By his dogged questioning of both sides, it appeared that Koeltl was giving the soldiers' claims serious attention. He gave no hint how he might rule. Juan Gonzalez, a columnist for the New York Daily News, speaks at a Latino leaders lunch tomorrow at the Union League Club sponsored by Al Dia newspaper in collaboration with the Philadelphia Daily News. Reservations required: 215-569-4666, ext. 136. -------- europe Serbia transports nuclear waste to Russia United Press International September 19, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/newscom/1240886170169417630616970816740969870748 The Serbian government signed an agreement with three Russian companies Tuesday to transport spent nuclear fuel from Belgrade to Russia. The agreement on the waste from the Serbian Institute for Nuclear Research at Vinca, outside Belgrade, to Russia was signed at a general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Belgrade's B92 radio reported. A consortium of three Russian companies is to pack and transport the nuclear waste from the Vinca institute, which was closed in 2003. Three years ago, the United States, Russia and the Vienna agency agreed to transport 2.5 tons of nuclear waste to Russia, the country of the fuel's origin. Serbia, with financial assistance from the Vienna atomic agency, plans to complete transporting nuclear waste to Russia by the middle of 2008, the report said. -------- iran France Splits With US Over Iran Nuke Program Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1347258 French President Jacques Chirac has split with the Bush administration’s stance on Iran. Chirac now says the UN Security Council should not take action while negotiations continue over Iran’s nuclear program. Chirac is the first European leader to back Iran’s call to negotiate without pre-conditions. The Bush administration wants Iran to freeze nuclear activities before it comes to the table. It’s pushing UN Security Council sanctions if Iran does not agree. ---- Iran’s president says Bush pushing for war In NBC interview, Ahmadinejad claims U.S. still stuck in Cold War mindset SNBC and NBC News Updated: 8:03 p.m. ET Sept 19, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14911603/ President Bush’s policies in the Middle East are “moving the world toward war,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday, maintaining that Iran was a peaceful nation that merely wanted to be left alone to “stand on its [own] feet.” “The U.S. government thinks that it’s still the period after World War II,” Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor of “NBC Nightly News,” a mindset that led Bush to believe that he “can rule, therefore, over the rest of the world.” But “the world has changed,” he said. “Nations are awakened now. They want their rights — equal rights, and fair ones. The time for world empires has ended.” The diplomatic confrontation between Washington and Tehran dominated Tuesday’s session of the United Nations, which was to hear from both presidents. Ahmadinejad, who was to address the United Nations later in the day, did not attend Bush’s address Tuesday afternoon. Bush likewise avoided seeing Ahmadinejad during his New York visit, in line with the U.S. policy not to engage with the Iranian government until Tehran abandoned its attempts to enrich uranium, which Washington believes is the first step toward Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. “Why is the U.S. government so against our people?” Ahmadinejad, speaking through a translator, asked in the interview with NBC News. “They speak of war so easily, as if it’s on their daily agenda. We never speak of war.” Nuclear program called peaceful Ahmadinejad reiterated that Tehran’s uranium enrichment was intended to support a peaceful nuclear power program. “We are against the atomic bomb,” he said. “We believe bombs are used only to kill people. And we are against killing people.” And he accused Bush of hiding behind the nuclear issue to mask the U.S. government’s grudge for the overthrow of the shah in 1979. “We all know that Iran’s nuclear issue is an excuse,” he said. “It’s been 27 years now that we've faced the hostility of the U.S. administration in various forms.” “We thought we might be able to have friendly relations with the United States,” he added. “But the American government chose the wrong path, a path which is still continuing.” Referring to America’s own nuclear arsenal, Ahmadinejad said, “We think that people who produce the atomic bomb cannot, in fact, speak of supporting world peace.” Ahmadinejad calls U.S. leaders hypocrites Ahmadinejad portrayed himself as a simple man who was plucked from the obscurity of academia to face the might of an American monolith. And he repeatedly accused the United States of hypocrisy in calling for other nations to dismantle their weapons while it maintained the largest military arsenal in the world. “Again, I ask, who has the nuclear bomb and has used it before?” he asked. “Which one is a bigger danger? One that’s trying to develop a fuel for peaceful purposes? Or the one that made a nuclear weapon?” ---- President's speech at UN General Assembly Address by His Excellency Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Before the 61st Session of the General assembly New York, 19 September 2006 http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1385/06/29/index-e.htm Madam President, Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Distinguished Heads of Delegation, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community. I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues. Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed. And longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing. Madame President, Excellencies, What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery. Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger. Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble. Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice? A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem. A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren’t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others. People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake. Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use? The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations? B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife. There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers. It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice? Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard? Consider the situation in Palestine: The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a Diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland? The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes. Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime. Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why? At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community. Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps? Let me here address Lebanon: For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why? In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities? C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community Excellencies, I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity. Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries? The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern. Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security? Excellencies, A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression. - Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful; - Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility; - For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights. - Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers. - Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries? - The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order. Excellencies, The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security. Excellencies, How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies. The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity. Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council. Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live? Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations. Madame President, Excellencies, It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed. Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety. Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away. Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect. No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the “international community”. Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world. It is for this reason that we state: Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity. All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice. All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world. We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations. Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future. Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue. The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption. He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship? I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet. O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause. -------- israel Expert: Tactical nukes needed to blast Iranian defenses RYAN NADEL, THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 19, 2006 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913657029&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter Tactical nuclear weapons would be required to penetrate the defenses Iran has constructed around its nuclear facilities, according to Col. (res.) Shlomo Mofaz, an international consultant on terrorism and intelligence and a research fellow at the Institute of Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. Mofaz argued that any preemptive action - not necessarily launched by Israel - against Iran's nuclear facilities would need to employ tactical nuclear weapons. "The Iranians have invested a lot of money to hide their weapons and infrastructure underground. The most sensitive items are below the surface," he said. "American experts have said they are not sure that conventional weapons would be able to infiltrate these sites," he said. "Based on information from public sources, any attack should use tactical nuclear weapons." As reported in Time magazine on Monday, a recent Pentagon report outlining US military options to the Iranian threat mentions the difficulty of locating all targets. It also states that Iran's reinforced facilities constitute a strategic challenge to any military action. The report suggests that repeated air strikes using laser and satellite guided missiles would be necessary. Mofaz added that the Iranians have studied US and Israeli techniques for destroying infrastructure and weapons stores, and therefore have built these bunkers as a response. As the UN Security Council begins the process of bringing potential sanctions against Iran to a vote, Mofaz stressed that the Iranian strategy in relation to the UN was one of foot-dragging, an attempt to buy time while the nuclear drive advances. "The Iranian administration is gaining more time to push forward to finish its program," said Mofaz, adding that the sanction moves had come too late. According to Mofaz, there are two essential aspects to an Israeli response to the threat from Iran: The need to deploy the Arrow antimissile system - which would be effective only if Teheran were to employ a small number of missiles, but not against larger volleys - and to develop a second-strike capability. "Second-strike capabilities are based on the assumption that Israel has nuclear weapons," he noted, "something which has not been confirmed by the Israeli government." Regarding a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, Mofaz said that according to the principles of the IDF, as first set out by David Ben-Gurion, "Israel must have full capability to defend itself; there must be a program and plan to deal with the Iranian threat... The IDF needs to have the capability to eliminate this threat." Mofaz warned, however, that both the appropriate timing for such a strike and whether the IDF was capable of destroying Iran's nuclear program were unknown. "The difficulty of such a strike stems from the possibility that there are many unidentified nuclear development sites and the limited usefulness of conventional air strikes against nuclear facilities," he said. -------- japan Koizumi's heir apparent worries Japan's neighbours with his hawkish agenda By David McNeill in Tokyo Published: 19 September 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1619203.ece Japan's most important election in years will not be especially democratic; it will be closed to the general public and we already know the winner. But, for better or worse, by the end of this month the world's second-largest economy will have a new leader, and he is already causing political waves. Tomorrow, a million members of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party select a new party head who will, thanks to the LDP's dominance of the Diet, step into the giant shoes of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi next week. The public will not have their say until a general election next year. Although technically a three-way race, the clear election front-runner and the man anointed by Mr Koizumi as his heir apparent is Shinzo Abe. Unlike Mr Koizumi, who was once considered too much of an oddball to lead the country, nobody can call Mr Abe a dark horse. The 51-year-old Chief Cabinet Secretary is a well-known conservative with an impeccable political pedigree and a history of making provocative, right-wing statements. With his droopy, teddy-bear eyes and weak chin, Mr Abe is an unlikely looking hawk. But since coming to national prominence in 2002 when he began a tough-talking campaign against North Korea, he has championed a staunchly conservative agenda that includes reviving the military, revving up patriotism and changing the 60-year-old pacifist constitution. After five years of the unpredictable Mr Koizumi, who wound up his term with a valedictory visit to the Yasukuni Shrine war memorial, China and South Korea desperately want relations with Japan to improve. But with Mr Abe, there is little reason for optimism. Beijing's official mouthpiece, The China Daily, said last week: "Those who aspire for better Sino-Japanese ties feel nothing but ... worried." Once again, it is the pall of history that drives these concerns. Mr Abe has kept quiet on whether he too will make a pilgrimage to Yasukuni, although he supports prime ministerial visits and went in secret in April. As a rising political star, Mr Abe chaired a group of right-wing LDP policymakers who backed a campaign to revise high school textbooks and delete references to Second World War war crimes by the Japanese military. Last year, he was at the centre of a censorship scandal when he admitted leaning on Japan's state broadcaster, NHK, to change a 2001 documentary on wartime "comfort women": sex slaves abducted by the military from Korea and other countries. Mr Abe's political colours have long been nailed to the mast, as have his twin policy obsessions: rewriting the 1947 constitution and reforming the education system. And although he is being hailed in some quarters as a political breath of fresh air, both policies have been on the LDP wish-list since 1955. Written while Japan was under US occupation, the constitution and its war-renouncing Article Nine, which allows Japan to maintain "self-defence forces" but not an "army", has always sat uneasily with conservatives. Parts of the document, such as Japan's expressed determination to "trust in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world" have caused particular ire; Mr Abe calls them a degrading "signed deed of apology" which he, backed by US hawks who want Japan to square up to China, is determined to change. Even more worryingly, Mr Abe ducks the issue of whether he will abide by Tokyo's 1995 apology to the rest of Asia, issued on the 50th anniversary of Japan's official surrender. "Japan has already apologised [for the Pacific War] more than 20 times," Mr Abe said last year. "How long do we have to keep apologising?" As the Korean Times put it: "His political success stems from a hawkish, not conciliatory, approach to his Asian neighbours. Will he be able to swallow his pride for the sake of Japan's future?" Abe's CV * 1954: Born into high-profile family. Father is Shintaro Abe, a former foreign minister, and grandfather former prime minister Nobusuke Kishi, a suspected war criminal. * 1977: Graduates in political science from Seikei University before studying politics at the University of Southern California. * 1982: Begins low-level political career. * 1993: Wins first seat in Diet, representing home prefecture of Yamaguchi. * 2003: Appointed secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. * 2005: Appointed Chief Cabinet Secretary. -------- korea US urges others to follow Australian, Japanese sanctions on NKorea NEW YORK (AFP) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060919144348.qihphzur.html The United States on Tuesday welcomed financial sanctions slapped by Japan and Australia on nuclear-armed North Korea and called on other countries to follow suit. Earlier Tuesday, the two US allies blacklisted companies and an individual for alleged links to weapons programs in North Korea, in line with a UN Security Council resolution on July 15, after Pyongyang test-fired seven missiles in the Sea of Japan (East Sea). The actions by Canberra and Tokyo "will help protect the Japanese and Australian financial systems from exploitation by WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile proliferators and their facilitators," US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a statement. "We strongly encourage other states to undertake similar actions" as a way to implement the UN resolution, he said. The United States had imposed financial sanctions on North Korea even before the missile tests in retaliation for alleged US dollar counterfeiting and money laundering by Pyongyang. The US sanctions on a Macau-based bank accused of laundering and counterfeiting money for the North led to a boycott by Pyongyang of the six-nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons drive. Aside from the United States and North Korea, the other participants at the nuclear talks were China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. The five parties had offered economic and diplomatic incentives to North Korea in exchange for giving up its drive to develop nuclear weapons. To date, the United States has designated 12 entities and one individual "for contributing to proliferation or providing support for proliferators associated with North Korean WMD and missile programs," McCormack said. "The US currently is reviewing additional steps the US may need to take to comply fully with Resolution 1695," he said. The United States is leading an effort to hold a 10-nation ministerial meeting Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on the Korean nuclear crisis, but China, North Korea's main benefactor, is reluctant to attend amid the sanctions pressure on Pyongyang. McCormack had said Monday that China's participation at the meeting of foreign ministers would "send an important signal to the North Koreans." In July, Washington expanded the moribund six-party diplomatic effort to include Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and New Zealand, creating the five-plus-five forum. Last year, North Korea said it had nuclear weapons and has hinted that it may be preparing to test one. ---- China Will Not Attend New Talks On North Korea Nuclear Program by Staff Writers Beijing (AFP) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Will_Not_Attend_New_Talks_On_North_Korea_Nuclear_Program_999.html China said Tuesday it did not plan to attend a 10-nation meeting in New York on how to draw North Korea back to talks on its nuclear program, and reiterated its opposition to sanctions against Pyongyang. "China has no plan to attend such a meeting," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regular briefing when asked about the 10-nation conference, scheduled for Thursday in New York. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Monday China's participation at the 10-way meeting of foreign ministers would "send an important signal to the North Koreans." The meeting will come almost a year to the day since a breakthrough agreement on September 19, 2005, that brought North Korea into multinational talks on nuclear disarmament. Washington and its partners in those talks -- South Korea, China, Japan and Russia -- offered economic and diplomatic incentives to North Korea in exchange for giving up its drive to develop nuclear weapons. But Pyongyang began boycotting the six-nation process two months later in protest at US financial sanctions aimed at halting alleged money-laundering and other practices by the cash-strapped government. In July, Washington expanded the moribund diplomatic effort to include Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and New Zealand, creating the five-plus-five forum. Qin, the foreign ministry spokesman, also criticized a move Tuesday by Japan to slap financial sanctions on North Korea. "The Chinese government has always advocated that this issue should be resolved by dialogue and we are opposed to sanctions," he said. "All parties concerned should focus on how to resume the talks as soon as possible and avoid any actions that may further complicate the situation." Japan, along with Australia, blacklisted companies and an individual for alleged links to weapons programs in North Korea. Last year, North Korea said it had a nuclear bomb and has hinted that it may be preparing to test one. ---- North Korean Defectors Take Refuge In US Mission In China About 8,700 North Koreans have defected to the South to avoid hunger and political oppression in their communist homeland since the Korean War ended in 1953. About 6,000 of the total arrived over the past four years. by Staff Writers Seoul (AFP) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/North_Korean_Defectors_Take_Refuge_In_US_Mission_In_China_999.html Two North Korean defectors who had been staying at a South Korean consulate in China climbed into the neighbouring US diplomatic mission in an apparent asylum bid, Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday. The agency, quoting diplomatic sources, said the pair got into the US consulate in the northeastern city of Shenyang early this month after scaling a wall. South Korean and US officials have been discussing how to handle the case, the sources said. If sent to the United States, Yonhap said the pair would be the third group of North Korean asylum-seekers accepted by Washington since President George W. Bush signed the North Korean Human Rights Act in 2004. In May four North Korean defectors staying at the same South Korean mission climbed into the US consulate, and three were later allowed to go to the US. The fourth was rejected because he was found to have worked for a North Korean state intelligence agency, Yonhap said. Earlier in May six North Koreans staying in Southeast Asian countries were also allowed to enter the United States with refugee status. About 8,700 North Koreans have defected to the South to avoid hunger and political oppression in their communist homeland since the Korean War ended in 1953. About 6,000 of the total arrived over the past four years. A US embassy spokesperson in Beijing refused to comment on the report, saying the practice is not to comment on asylum applications. "The United States has long been concerned about the suffering of the North Korean people, including those who have fled into other countries," the spokesperson added. "We are interested in finding a humanitarian solution to their plight." China refused to confirm the report saying it would follow "the principles of domestic and international laws, as well as humanitarian principles," in handling North Korean refugees. "I don't know if the two people you mentioned are in the consulate in Shenyang but I want to point out that those people crossing the border illegally due to economic reasons are not refugees," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said. "We'll continue to properly handle those issues." -------- missile defense 26 Nations Begin The Building of Missile Defense to Defend Europe Tuesday 19 September 2006 ACDN http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/breve.php3?id_breve=195&lang=en London, England. It was announced today by the Assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment of NATO, Mr. Marshall S. Billingslea, that the 26 member countries of NATO have begun building a 75 million euro over 6 years command and control system for missile defense as well as an integrated test bed for the security of all its 26 member countries. This marks a significant event as NATO has completed its feasibility studies coming to the conclusion that Missile Defense for Europe is feasible and that it is desirable. The Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense program will put in place an interoperable and integrated command/control center that provides individual member country’s missile defense assets to be used for the common protection of NATO and her territory. The Honorable Marshall S. Billingslea concluded his comments by stating that the decision is driven by the development of the world where terrorists are sponsored by states that have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic delivery means as well as the proliferation of these technologies to those terrorist states. As the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Sir Winston Churchill stated, "This is not the end, this is not the beginning of the end, it is the end of the beginning." Respectfully, Riki Ellison President and Founder Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance COMMENT Not at all. In fact, this is really the beginning of the end of Humanity - including Europe. It is quite stupid to imagine that such a Missile Defense Shield could protect Europe from non-conventional, nuclear or other attacks. Would Al Qaeda, for instance, need "ballistic delivery means" to introduce into Europe some nuclear or radiological device? Certainly no. Actually, this extraordinarily expensive "Missile Defense" is just a new way for military companies making more and more money and being sponsored by citizens’ taxes. -------- pakistan Son of Mubarak eyes succession (and favors nuclear power) By Michael Slackman The New York Times Published: September 19, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/19/news/egypt.php CAIRO Gamal Mubarak, the son of the Egyptian president, proposed that his country pursue nuclear energy in a speech to the nation's political elite on Tuesday. The speech drew strong applause while raising expectations that the younger Mubarak is being positioned to replace his father, Hosni, as president. The carefully crafted political speech heralded two potentially embarrassing developments for the White House at a time when the Middle East is awash in crisis: firstly, a nuclear program in Egypt, recipient of about $2 billion a year in military and development aide from the United States; and secondly, Gamal Mubarak succeeding his father without a substantial political challenge. As he stood before the members of the governing National Democratic Party gathered in this city, Gamal Mubarak called for nuclear power, while taking an indirect swipe at Washington. "The whole world is looking at alternative energy - so should Egypt - including nuclear," he said. "We will not accept any initiatives made abroad," he added. When President George W. Bush called for promoting democracy in the Middle East, he looked to Egypt as a leader in that effort. He has since seen the country move in the opposite direction, arresting political opposition figures, beating demonstrators, arresting bloggers, blocking new political parties and postponing local elections by two years. In his speech, Mubarak, who holds one of the most senior positions in the party, did not give specifics on what he envisioned for a nuclear program, and he and his father have previously said he is not interested in the presidency. But political analysts said that Egypt was serious about nuclear energy, and even party members said that it appeared the younger Mubarak would likely be the party's candidate for president. "Egypt, and especially the NDP, is a strategic ally of the U.S., it does not seek confrontation with the U.S. over its nuclear program, instead it seeks cooperation," said Dr. Hassan Abu Taleb, an analyst with the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "Why should the U.S. assist India in its nuclear program and not Egypt?" But Mubarak's words sounded a challenging to the United States. Simply raising the topic of a nuclear program at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's activity was received as a calculated effort to raise the young Mubarak's profile and show defiance toward Washington, foreign affairs experts said. Egyptian officials have calculated that Washington currently needs Cairo as a strong ally in the Middle East and has resisted pressing for democratic change. "Gamal's announcements may be perceived as being confrontational" by the United States, said Hala Mustafa, a political analyst and former member of the National Democratic Party. "Yet it is too early to gauge America's response to his announcements. Egypt is often confrontational, and does not always abide by U.S. policies in the region." Distance from Washington and pursuing nuclear power are actions which could help counteract two of Mubarak's perceived shortcomings: that he would be the first president since the revolution ousted the monarchy who was not a military officer, and he and his father are often perceived as tools of Washington. The nuclear program might help him win support among the military and the swipes at Washington might help him restore some credibility with the public. "It certainly seems that President Mubarak is setting the stage for Gamal's succession," said Steve Cook, of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, on Tuesday. Speaking in Cairo, he said the National Democratic Party conference was "geared toward highlighting Gamal's role." Hosni Mubarak has said that Egypt, unlike Syria, will not allow the presidency to be inherited. He was recently elected to a six-year term as president that is expected to be his last. He is 79. Even party members close to the younger Mubarak acknowledge that at the present time there are no other candidates on the horizon, either in the party, or in what remains of a crushed and disorganized opposition. The constitutional amendment pushed through by the president opens presidential elections to multiple candidates but sets such tough standards that at the moment no one qualifies from any opposition parties. -------- terrorism Soon a major non-conventional attack of Al Quaeda against New York and Washington? Tuesday 19 September 2006 ACDN http://acdn.france.free.fr/spip/breve.php3?id_breve=194&lang=en According to Guysen Israel News, in a short news published yesterday, 09.18.06, on its Website homepage and no more available today, "An official of the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda has called upon Muslims living in the United States to leave the country. Al Qaeda claims to have finalised preparations for a large scale non conventional attack on New York and Washington." The Israeli French language press agency did not give any further detail and did not indicate it’s source nor the identity of the Al Qaeda official. Our commentary : Given its imprecise character and its two sources, both of which could have an interest in provoking a movement of panic and one being only presumed, this information should be treated with great caution. The Guysen agency is well established but cannot be considered to be neutral. However, there is nothing improbable about Al Qaeda wanting to carry out non conventional (nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical) attacks or that it has acquired the means to do so. We can only hope that it isn’t the case. There is only one certainty : they will not be dissuaded from it by nuclear arms, quite the opposite in fact. -------- treaties Duma Ratifies Nuclear Treaty Combined Report (AP, SPT) Tuesday, September 19, 2006 http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=18850 MOSCOW — The State Duma on Friday ratified a global treaty intended to prevent nuclear terrorism, a year after President Vladimir Putin became the first leader to sign the pact. Lawmakers voted 424-0 in favor of ratification, following remarks by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. "Ratification of this document answers the interests of Russia and the entire international community," Lavrov said. The Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism makes it a crime to possess radioactive material or weapons with the intent of committing a terrorist act, or to damage a nuclear facility with the intent of killing or seriously injuring someone, or substantially damaging the environment. Russia sponsored the seven-year effort leading to the treaty's adoption by the United Nations General Assembly in April 2005, and Putin was the first leader to sign the treaty last September, followed swiftly by U.S. President George W. Bush, in a display of solidarity amid persistent fears that terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons. Lavrov said five countries had ratified the treaty, signed by 107 nations, and that ratification by a total of 22 was needed for it to go into force. Russia's backing of the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism highlights the importance of the global struggle to keep nuclear weapons out of terrorists' hands, said Matthew Bunn, nuclear security scholar at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Bunn added, however, that the convention should be complemented by "a fast-pace global effort to ensure that every nuclear weapon and every kilogram of potential nuclear bomb material worldwide is secured and accounted for." Groups based in Chechnya have actively sought weapons of mass destruction and technology needed to stage acts of catastrophic terrorism in the past. During the first Chechen war they acquired radioactive materials, threatened to attack domestic nuclear facilities, plotted to hijack a nuclear submarine and attempted to put pressure on the national leadership by planting a device containing radioactive materials in Moscow and threatening to detonate it. Since armed conflict resumed in Chechnya in 1999, the rebels have scouted nuclear facilities and tried to contact an insider at one such facility. Many scholars argue that groups of militant Islamists and other ideologically driven extremists based in the North Caucasus crossed the moral threshold between conventional and catastrophic terrorism when they seized School No. 1 in Beslan in 2004, leading to the deaths of more than 300 people. ---- N-deal should abide by NPT: China tells India, US Tuesday, 19 September , 2006, 18:08 India News Portal, Sify.com http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14294082 Beijing: Reluctant to back the historic Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, China on Tuesday asked the two countries to abide by rules of the non-proliferation regime and fulfil their international obligations. All countries can conduct cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy on the premise of honouring their commitment to the international obligations, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang, said, when asked to comment on Beijing's stance on the Indo-US deal. China believes international nuclear cooperation can be carried out on a basis of peaceful use, Qin said. Cooperation in the nuclear sector should be conducive to the international efforts of non-proliferation and the concerned sides should fulfil their international obligations, he added. In the past, China had expressed reservations on the India-US civilian nuclear deal, saying India has not yet inked the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The state-run Chinese media and some Chinese experts had criticised the Indo-US nuclear deal in the past, saying it would jeopardise the international community's non-proliferation efforts. -------- u.n. IAEA grapples with nuclear fuel supply assurances Tuesday, 19 September 2006 Nerve News of India http://www.nerve.in/news:25350015761 "As a possible first step, ElBaradei has been putting forward the idea of an IAEA-administered 'fuel bank,' as one of the several proposals under consideration." Vienna, Sep 19 (DPA) A special event on the sidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference beginning in the Austrian capital Vienna Tuesday will attempt to resolve international differences on how to give countries assurances of nuclear fuel supply. Experts from 140 IAEA member states will attempt to agree on a roadmap towards multilateral approaches to nuclear fuel supply. With nuclear energy currently undergoing a renaissance, fears are growing that the demand for sensitive nuclear technologies may spread. Uranium enrichment, one of the key technologies for producing reactor fuel, can also be employed to produce material for nuclear weapons. Similar concerns exist over plutonium reprocessing, another fuel-related technology. Because of these realities, a new framework for the nuclear fuel cycle needs to be developed, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said in his opening statement to the conference Monday. The 'establishment of a framework that is equitable and accessible to all users of nuclear energy acting in accordance with agreed nuclear non-proliferation norms' is a complex endeavour, best addressed in several phases, ElBaradei told the conference. As a possible first step, ElBaradei has been putting forward the idea of an IAEA-administered 'fuel bank,' as one of the several proposals under consideration. All proposals are intended as measures of last resort, in case a state is denied nuclear fuel on the international market for reasons other than proliferation concerns. ---- Seven-nation meeting in New York Friday on nuclear non-proliferation UNITED NATIONS (AFP) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060919145544.tbxy5qvj.html Seven nations representing all the world's continents will hole a ministerial meeting in New York Friday to pursue a global campaign for nuclear non-proliferation, diplomatic sources said Tuesday. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will take part in the meeting on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly, along with the foreign ministers from Australia, Britain, Chile, Indonesia, Norway, Romania and South Africa, the sources said. The countries are part of the "Seven Nations Initiative" created around Norway in September 2005 after the international community failed to agree on ways to revive nuclear disarmament measures at the World Summit in New York. The issue of nuclear disarmament was not even mentioned in the summit's final communique. That setback came after the failure of a May 2005 meeting on the Non-Proliferation Treaty to strengthen action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. The seven governments have since been seeking ways to counter the spread of nuclear arms and Norway's foreign minister, Jonas Gahr-Store, is due to present a status report to his six colleagues here on Friday, a Norwegian official told AFP. The meeting is not expected to produce any formal statement or documents, however, he said. The Seven Nation gathering comes at a time when the major powers are locked in a standoff with Iran over its suspected program to develop nuclear weapons. The United States will press its allies at a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday to press ahead with sanctions against Iran over its failure to comply with a UN resolution requiring it to suspend the enrichment of uranium. ---- UN nuclear watchdog to discuss fuel supply scheme VIENNA (AFP) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060919122540.blawo6yi.html Former US senator Sam Nunn said Tuesday that new answers to fighting the spread of nuclear weapons must be found urgently, as the UN atomic agency proposed running a nuclear fuel bank to help curb weapons technology proliferation. "Are we prepared to live in a world where dozens of countries have the capability and key ingredients to make nuclear weapons," Nunn, a champion of non-proliferation during his 24 years in the US Senate, said about strategic atomic fuel work. "We are well past the time when we can take satisfaction with a step in the right direction. A gazelle running from a cheetah is taking steps in the right direction. It's no longer just a question of direction. It's a matter of speed," Nunn told a meeting in Vienna of the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA was Tuesday in a special session of its 140 nations discussing how to avoid crises like the one over Iran by guaranteeing nuclear reactor fuel to countries that need it while keeping atom bomb know-how from spreading. Enriched uranium is fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors, but it can also be used to make the explosive core of atom bombs. The IAEA has proposed running a nuclear fuel bank so that countries would not need "to develop their own uranium enrichment technologies at a time when concerns about nuclear proliferation are growing," the IAEA said in a press release. "I want to make sure that every country that is a bona fide user of nuclear energy and that is fulfilling its non-proliferation obligations is getting fuel," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said. Nunn, a co-founder along with media magnate Ted Turner of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank, said the NTI would contribute 50 million dollars (40 million euros) to help create a nuclear fuel bank, provided that one or more IAEA states put in an additional 100 million dollars in funding. Nunn told reporters a fuel bank with 150 million dollars of low-enriched uranium, which is not weapons-grade, would be "substantially below one percent of annual (world civilian uranium) use," a correct amount for what is supposed to a "last-resort mechanism" rather than a replacement for the market. Nunn said he hoped "this would be an additional tool in the overall arsenal of those institutions and countries that are trying to find a way to basically deal with the Iranian challenge." He added that this could also apply "to a lot of other countries that may be making decisions in the next couple of years on this subject." ElBaradei said that with nuclear energy an attractive alternative to fossil fuels since it creates fewer greenhouse gases and with concern growing over terrorists or rogue states getting their hands on strategic atomic technology, there is a clear "need for the development of a new, multilateral framwork for the nuclear fuel cycle." The United States charges that Iran is using what Tehran maintains is a peaceful nuclear program to hide the development of atomic weapons. Washington wants Iran to stop enriching uranium and is seeking UN sanctions against Tehran if the Islamic Republic refuses to do this. Iran however is pushing ahead with enrichment, saying it has a right to make nuclear fuel under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said here Monday that a fuel bank would not disrupt the world market for nuclear fuel but be a back-up mechanism to guarantee supply, and so convince countries they did not need to do the costly enrichment work themselves. ElBaradei stressed that nations would still be free to decide whether they wanted to do fuel work. Both the United States and Russia have said they are ready to make nuclear material available for a fuel bank. But Iranian Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said here Monday that Iran must resist any constraints on the right of nations "to exercise their inalienable rights to develop and pursue peaceful nuclear activities." ---- World powers propose nuclear fuel scheme to avoid proliferation VIENNA (AFP) Sep 19, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060919171029.vhblmbd8.html World powers said Tuesday that making nuclear reactor fuel available through UN-controlled supply centers could keep nations from enriching uranium themselves and learning how to make atomic weapons, a main concern in the Iran crisis. Russia, Germany and the United States each backed the idea of setting up such centers under the control of the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), at a meeting in Vienna Tuesday of the IAEA's 140 member states. Enriching uranium for the U-235 isotope is the key process in producing fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. But it is also the key process in making atom bombs, and nations that master this technology are considered to have a "break-out capacity" for manufacturing nuclear weapons. Germany plus France, the Netherlands, Russia, Britain and the United States had in June proposed "a concept for assurances for a reliable supply of enrichment services or enriched uranium," German economics and technology ministry state secretary Joachim Wuermeling said. The idea was to get countries "to refrain from developing indigenous sensitive fuel cycle capabilities," he told the week-long IAEA general conference. Former US senator Sam Nunn told a special session at the conference that new answers to fighting the spread of nuclear weapons must be found urgently. "Are we prepared to live in a world where dozens of countries have the capability and key ingredients to make nuclear weapons?" Nunn, a champion of non-proliferation during his 24 years in the US Senate, said. "I want to make sure that every country that is a bona fide user of nuclear energy and that is fulfilling its non-proliferation obligations is getting fuel," at a time when concerns about nuclear proliferation are growing, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said. ElBaradei stressed that nations would still be free to decide whether they wanted to do fuel work. Germany is proposing a site run by the IAEA on what would be territory with international status, like at United Nations headquarters in New York, while Russia wants to set up an enrichment center in Siberia that would be on Russian territory but run by the IAEA. Russian atomic energy chief Sergei Kirienko told reporters that the differences between the proposals were not important. "What is important here is that dual-use technology should not be spread around the world," said Kirienko. William Tobey, a non-proliferation official at the US Department of Energy, said that while it could be years before such sites were set up, there still was a lesson for the current Iranian crisis. "The various proposals should make clear to the government of Iran that there are concrete alternatives that would allow for assured fuel supply for states that are in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations," he said. "The proposals that were made to the government of Iran earlier this summer offered two alternatives and it should be clear that the positive alternative is real and that they should consider it carefully." The United States charges that Iran is using what Tehran maintains is a peaceful nuclear program to hide the development of atomic weapons. Washington wants Iran to stop enriching uranium and is seeking UN sanctions against Tehran if the Islamic Republic refuses to do this. The five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany are offering Iran talks on trade and other benefits if it suspends enrichment first. Iran however is rejecting this path by pushing ahead with enrichment, saying it has a right to make nuclear fuel under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nunn, a co-founder of the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank, said the group would contribute 50 million dollars (40 million euros) to help create a nuclear fuel bank, provided that one or more IAEA states put in an additional 100 million dollars in funding. ---- Transcript: Bush accuses Iran of funding terror at UN RAW STORY Published: Tuesday September 19, 2006 http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_accuses_Iran_of_funding_terror_0919.html United States President George W. Bush has used part of his appearance before the United Nations to address the Iranian people, accusing their leaders of funding terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons RAW STORY has learned. "You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future," Bush told the people of Iran. "The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons." Bush also praised the push for democracy in the middle east, referring to the goal as "the calling of our generation." A full transcript of Bush's remarks follows: Mr. Secretary-General, Madame President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for the privilege of speaking to this General Assembly. Last week America and the world marked the fifth anniversary of the attacks that filled another September morning with death and suffering. On that terrible day, extremists killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, including citizens of dozens of nations represented right here in this chamber. Since then, the enemies of humanity have continued their campaign of murder. Al Qaeda and those inspired by its extremist ideology have attacked more than two dozen nations, and recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon. At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear and moderate people who work for peace. Five years ago, I stood at this podium and called on the community of nations to defend civilization and build a more hopeful future. This is still the great challenge of our time. It is the calling of our generation. This morning I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority. This world can be ours if we seek it and if we work together. The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world. One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become president of this assembly. Mr. Malik insisted that these principles apply equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home. In the nearly six decades since that document was approved, we have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents. Sixty years after a terrible war, Europe is now whole, free and at peace, and Asia has seen freedom progress and hundreds of millions people lifted out of desperate poverty. The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written. As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace. And we're seeing that bright future begin to take root in the broader Middle East. Some of the changes in the Middle East have been dramatic, and we see the results in this chamber. Five years ago, Afghanistan was ruled by the brutal Taliban regime, and its seat in this body was contested. Now this seat is held by the freely elected government of Afghanistan, which is represented today by President Karzai. Five years ago, Iraq's seat in this body was held by a dictator who killed his citizens, invaded his neighbors, and showed his contempt for the world by defying more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now Iraq's seat is held by a democratic government that embodies the aspirations of the Iraq people, represented today by President Talabani. With these changes, more than 50 million people have been given a voice in this chamber for the first time in decades. Some of the changes in the Middle East are happening gradually, but they are real. Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the military remained neutral. The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half of its seats in the Federal National Council will be chosen by elections. Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time. Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, and parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain, and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt. These are important steps, and the governments should continue to move forward with other reforms that show they trust their people. Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions. But the destination is the same: a free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world. Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region. This argument rests on a false assumption that the Middle East was stable to begin with. The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage. For decades, millions of men and women in the region have been trapped in oppression and hopelessness, and these conditions left a generation disillusioned and made this region a breeding ground for extremism. Imagine what it is like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government. While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings. And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom. For many across the broader Middle East, this is the dismal choice presented every day. Every civilized nation, including those in the Muslim world, must support those in the region who are offering a more hopeful alternative. We know that when people have a voice in their future, they are less likely to blow themselves up in suicide attacks. We know that when leaders are accountable to their people, they are more likely to seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens rather than in terror and conquest. So we must stand with democratic leaders and moderate reformers across the broader Middle East. We must give them voice to the hopes of decent men and women who want for their children are the same things we want for ours. We must seek stability through a free and just Middle East, where the extremists are marginalized by millions of citizens in control of their own destinies. Today, I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East. My country desires peace. Extremists in your midsts spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam, but we will protect our people from those who pervert Islam to sow death and destruction. Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promotes the peace. To the people of Iraq, nearly 12 million of you braved the car bombers and assassins last December to vote in free elections. The world saw you hold up purple ink-stained fingers, and your courage filled us with admiration. You've stood firm in the face of horrendous acts of terror and sectarian violence, and we will not abandon you in your struggle to build a free nation. America and our coalition partners will continue to stand with the democratic government you elected. We will continue to help you secure the international assistance and investment you need to create jobs and opportunity, working with the United Nations and through the International Compact with Iraq, endorsed here in New York yesterday. We will continue to train those of you who step forward to fight the enemies of freedom. We will not yield the future of your country to terrorists and extremists. In return, your leaders must rise to the challenges your country is facing and make difficult choices to bring security and prosperity. Working together, we will help your democracy succeed, so it can become a beacon of hope for millions in the Muslim world. To the people of Afghanistan, together we overthrew the Taliban regime that brought misery into your lives and harbored terrorists who brought death to the citizens of many nations. Since then, we have watched you choose your leaders in free elections and build a democratic government. You can be proud of these achievements. We respect your courage and your determination to live in peace and freedom. We will continue to stand with you to defend your democratic gains. Today, forces from more than 40 countries, including members of the NATO alliance, are bravely serving side by side with you against the extremists who want to bring down the free government you've established. We'll help you defeat these enemies and build a free Afghanistan that will never again oppress you or be a safe haven for terrorists. To the people of Lebanon, last year you inspired the world when you came out into the streets to demand your independence from Syrian dominance. You drove Syrian forces from your country and you reestablished democracy. Since then, you have been tested by the fighting that began with Hezbollah's unprovoked attacks on Israel. Many of you have seen your homes and your communities caught in crossfire. We see your suffering, and the world is helping you to rebuild your country, and helping you deal with the armed extremists who are undermining your democracy by acting as a state within a state. The United Nations has passed a good resolution that has authorized an international force, led by France and Italy, to help you restore Lebanese sovereignty over Lebanese soil. For many years, Lebanon was a model of democracy and pluralism and openness in the region, and it will be again. To the people of Iran, the United States respects you. We respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture and your many contributions to civilization. You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential. The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace. To the people of Syria, your land is home to a great people with a proud tradition of learning and commerce. Today your rulers have allowed your country to become a crossroad for terrorism. In your midst, Hamas and Hezbollah are working to destabilize the region, and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran. This is increasing your country's isolation from the world. Your government must choose a better way forward by ending its support for terror and living at peace with your neighbors and opening the way to a better life for you and your families. To the people of Darfur, you have suffered unspeakable violence. And my nation has called these atrocities what they are -- genocide. For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union Peacekeeping Force, yet your suffering continues. The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid, and we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work. But it's not strong enough to protect you. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support. The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act. Your lives and the credibility of the United Nations is at stake. So today I'm announcing that I'm naming a -- a presidential special envoy, former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, to lead America's efforts to resolve the outstanding disputes and help bring peace to your land. The world must also stand up for peace in the holy land. I'm committed to two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. I'm committed to a Palestinian state that has territorial integrity and will live peacefully with the Jewish state of Israel. This is the vision set forth in the road map, and helping the parties reach this goal is one of the great objectives of my presidency. The Palestinian people have suffered from decades of corruption and violence and the daily humiliation of occupation. Israeli citizens have endured brutal acts of terrorism and constant fear of attack since the birth of their nation. Many brave men and women have made the commitment to peace, yet extremists in the region are stirring up hatred and trying to prevent these moderate voices from prevailing. The struggle is unfolding in the Palestinian territories. Earlier this year, the Palestinian people voted in a free election. The leaders of Hamas campaigned on a platform of ending corruption and improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and they prevailed. The world is waiting to see whether the Hamas government will follow through on its promises or pursue an extremist agenda. The world has sent a clear message to the leaders of Hamas: serve the interests of the Palestinian people, abandon terror, recognize Israel's right to exist, honor agreements, and work for peace. President Abbas is committed to peace and to his people's aspirations for a state of their own. Prime Minister Olmert is committed to peace and has said he intends to meet with President Abbas to make real progress on the outstanding issues between them. I believe peace can be achieved, and that a democratic Palestinian state is possible. I hear from leaders in the region who want to help. I've directed Secretary of State Rice to lead a diplomatic effort to engage moderate leaders across the region to help the Palestinians reform their security services, and support Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their efforts to come together to resolve their differences. Prime Minister Blair has indicated that his country will work with partners in Europe to help strengthen the governing institutions of the Palestinian administration. We welcome his initiative. Countries like Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, and Egypt have made clear they're willing to contribute the diplomatic and financial assistance necessary to help these efforts succeed. I'm optimistic that by supporting the forces of democracy and moderation, we can help Israelis and Palestinians build a more hopeful future and achieve the peace in the Holy Land we all want. Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed, it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom. And the nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice as well. Will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change across the Middle East, or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists? America's made its choice. We will stand with the moderates and reformers. Recently, a courageous group of Arab and Muslim intellectuals wrote me a letter. In it, they said this: "The shore of reform is the only one on which any lights appear, even though the journey demands courage and patience and perseverance." The United Nations was created to make that journey possible. Together we must support the dreams of good and decent people who are working to transform a troubled region, and by doing so, we will advance the high ideals on which this institution was founded. Thank you for your time. God bless. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- michigan Emergency exercise at Palisades nuclear plant September 19, 2006 - WWMT NEWS 3 http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=30302&template=breakout_local.html A planned emergency exercise at the Palisades nuclear plant today will involve different agencies, and last most of the week. The emergency preparedness exercise at the plant in Covert south of South Haven will simulate an emergency situation. A state of Michigan Joint Public Information Center will be set up in Benton Harbor. They will hold mock news conferences throughout the day. On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold another meeting in Paw Paw. -------- new hampshire NRC to review NH nuclear plant By Shir Haberman shaberman@seacoastonline.com September 19, 2006 Portsmouth Herald / Seacoast Online http://www.therockinghamnews.com/news/09192006/nhnews-ph-sea-plant.inspection.html SEABROOK -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a special inspection at the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant Monday to assess an event that occurred at the facility on Aug. 31. On that day, the plant was shut down after two emergency diesel generators experienced problems with their voltage controls. Those generators supply emergency power to the plant's safety systems in the event of an outage at the power plant. Plant spokesman Alan Griffith said that while it was appropriate for the NRC to get involved in any incident that led to the shutdown of the plant, Seabrook officials have full confidence in their two large diesel generators and the four other redundant safety systems designed to keep the plant systems operational. "We're fully confident that our generators work and work well, and that they are well maintained," Griffith said. NRC Public Affairs Officer Neil Sheehan said this is not the first time the nuclear plant has had trouble with its back-up generators, but could not give specific dates or problems. Throughout this latest event, all off-site power lines and a pair of smaller supplemental diesel generators were available. "The NRC has clear-cut criteria for special inspections," Sheehan said. "We do a risk analysis to determine what are the safety consequences of the event." After repairs were made and the generators were returned to service, the reactor was restarted on Sept. 3 and returned to power operations on Sept. 4. The special inspection team includes two specialists from Region I supported by the NRC resident inspectors at the plant and regional risk analysts. One phase of the inspection started Monday at the Seabrook site. The inspectors will be tasked with evaluating the circumstances associated with the Aug. 31 event. Among other things, they will independently assess the apparent causes that contributed to the failure of the emergency diesel generators and review the company's root-cause evaluation of what took place. Nuclear power plants produce electricity which is fed into the grid. However, they also take back some of that power for the operation of safety systems. In the event that off-site power is lost, the plant would turn to its back-up sources of energy, including its emergency diesel generators, to shut down the plant. As such, the generators play an important role in plant safety. "The company is in the process of completing its root-cause analysis, so this will take some time," Sheehan said. There will be an exit meeting (between NRC and plant officials) following the completion of the inspection and a report will be issued within 45 days after the exit meeting of the inspection. Asked if there could be enforcement actions taken against the nuclear plant, Sheehan said, "Nothing is off the table." The Seabrook plant was recently fined by the NRC for failing to identify that a perimeter security fence had not been operational since its installation over a year ago. -------- new york Mock assault to test Indian Point defenses By JORGE FITZ-GIBBON THE NY JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: September 19, 2006) http://www.nyjournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060919/NEWS02/609190334/1214 BUCHANAN — The Indian Point nuclear power plants this week will face "a significant armed attack with sophisticated weaponry and explosives," said officials yesterday at Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the plants. But the plants' neighbors, who may hear gunfire and explosions, need not worry: The mock attack is an exercise overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assess Indian Point's defenses in the event of an armed assault. "The exercise provides us an opportunity to demonstrate our security officers' skills, as well as our security program," said Entergy spokesman Jim Steets. "Clearly, it's a real good opportunity for us. I know our security force is confident and proud, and has worked really hard over several years to meet the additional requirements following 9/11." The exercise is the first at the Buchanan nuclear reactors since August 2003, when federal regulators staged a similar assault on the plants. In that mock assault, then-NRC Chairman Nils Diaz concluded that Indian Point "has a strong defensive strategy and capability." That exercise was carried out in secrecy, as this week's will be. "It's unfortunate that we can't demonstrate it for the general public through the eyes of the media," Steets said. "I wish we could, but understand how important it is that the security program not become familiar to the general public." Steets said the assault will test the Indian Point security force's sharpshooting abilities and physical endurance, and the security program itself. The fake combatants will use laser weapons and vests with laser-detection devices to duplicate the sound and effect of actual gunfire. The information will be transmitted through a wireless system to a central computer, which will help the NRC to assess the effectiveness of the defenders. To keep the plants' defensive strategies and tactics secret, only people with federal security clearances are allowed to witness the exercise. Local law enforcement agencies have been notified, and residents are asked to stay away from the plants. "The exercise, which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will evaluate, provides us an opportunity to demonstrate for the regulators our security and defense capabilities and look for areas to improve," said Fred Dacimo, site vice president at Indian Point. Indian Point has undergone $50 million in security upgrades since the Sept. 11 attacks, and boasts what is likely the second-largest police force in Westchester County, Entergy says. -------- north carolina Shearon Harris nuclear plant shuts down By John Murawski, Staff Writer Sep 19, 2006 Raleigh News Observer http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/488211.html Progress Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear plant unexpectedly shut down today at about 10 a.m., its first unplanned outage in more than a year. The nuclear plant, about 25 miles southwest of Raleigh, turned itself off automatically when the plant’s generator short-circuited. Plant personnel are trying to determine the cause of the malfunction and expect to have the plant operational again by Wednesday, said spokeswoman Julie Hans. During the outage, the company also plans to fix a leaky valve in a cooling pump that would feed water to the reactor during an emergency, she said. Nuclear plants are designed to shut down automatically under certain circumstances as a safety precaution. Most outages are quickly corrected and aren't considered dangerous. The previous unplanned outage at Shearon Harris was in May 2004, lasting 14 days. The reactor was taken offline for refueling in March, a planned outage that lasted 37 days. Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or murawski@newsobserver.com. -------- ohio Nuclear oversight is blasted in report Industry admits lapses, says improvements made Tuesday, September 19, 2006 John Mangels Plain Dealer Science Writer http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1158654623210350.xml&coll=2 Passive, sometimes inept, government oversight of America's nuclear plants has allowed serious safety lapses to multiply, often requiring reactor shutdowns that take a year or more to correct, a new report concludes. Lengthy safety-related outages like the recent two-year closing of Ohio's Davis-Besse reactor have occurred 51 times during the four decades of the commercial nuclear power era, according to research made public Monday by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group. For an industry that supplies 20 percent of the nation's electricity, the shutdowns carried a heavy financial toll, the UCS study found. Since 1966, nuclear plants have had 135 years of cumulative downtime and at least $82 billion in lost revenue. Beyond the monetary losses, the outages signal that the regulatory system meant to protect the public repeatedly has failed to recognize the warning signs of a plant in decline before the problems reach critical mass, the report said. As the government prepares to license a new generation of reactors, and considers extending existing plants' licenses and allowing higher electricity output, it is important to improve and expand the regulatory process, the study's author said. The large number of year-plus reactor shutdowns "suggests just how far safety levels have fallen," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer and industry veteran who now directs the UCS nuclear safety project. An effective regulator should be able to detect problems and intervene before a multi-year outage is needed to make fixes, Lochbaum said. The engineer acknowledged that none of the conditions necessitating extended shutdowns caused injury or physical harm to the public, although Davis-Besse was as close as 60 days to a catastrophic accident. The findings still merit action, he said. "Just because a [safety] decline didn't lead to a meltdown doesn't mean it was OK." Neither the Nuclear Regulatory Commission nor the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group, had seen the report when asked for comment. Based on a description, however, officials with both organizations said the study appeared to neglect the impact of recent improvements in the NRC's inspection process, and the industry's heightened safety focus, especially in the wake of Davis-Besse. "Davis-Besse certainly wasn't our finest hour," said Stuart Richards, deputy director of the NRC's inspection division. "But I think we've learned quite a bit from that." In 2000, two years before the incident at Davis-Besse, the agency made major changes in its inspection regimen to concentrate on safety-significant equipment and processes. This summer, the NRC adopted new guidelines that allow inspectors to consider "safety culture" - whether workers and managers show a commitment to putting safety ahead of production - when evaluating a reactor. Marvin Fertel, the industry group's chief nuclear officer, noted that Davis-Besse has been the only nuclear plant to undergo an extended safety-related shutdown in the past six years - a sharp decline from previous decades. During that period, the rest of the nation's 104 reactors averaged 90 percent of their peak electricity output, Fertel said, which indicates they are reliably and safely operated. "I think what we saw in the past was an artifact of the era, not indicative of what you should project for the future," he said. "What you have now are plants that are performing extremely well, and are much more focused on the safety oversight process." Davis-Besse is one of 10 reactors with two year-plus shutdowns in their history. The plant was inactive from June 1985 to December 1986 after a design flaw - complicated by maintenance and testing lapses - caused the sudden cutoff of water that keeps the reactor cool. The second outage, from February 2002 to March 2004, began when workers making routine repairs stumbled upon a pineapple-size rust hole in the reactor's protective lid that had been undetected since at least 1998. Investigations by owner FirstEnergy Corp. and the NRC found widespread problems, from lax safety attitudes and poor supervision to major defects in emergency systems meant to prevent a meltdown. If the rust hole hadn't been accidentally discovered and the pressurized reactor was restarted, the damaged lid would have burst in as little as two months, an NRC analysis found. The mandatory shutdown to correct Davis-Besse's extensive problems cost FirstEnergy more than $660 million in repairs, replacement power purchases and government fines. What worries Lochbaum, the engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, is that FirstEnergy, the NRC and industry inspectors all failed to recognize Davis-Besse was in trouble, a trend repeated at other plants before their extended shutdowns. A year before the rust hole's discovery, NRC inspectors reported that Davis-Besse "effectively identified, evaluated and corrected plant problems." Lochbaum's report suggests the agency supplement its post-Davis-Besse changes with additional reforms. Among them: Require that reactor owners dig deeper to understand why they've missed safety-related problems. Nuclear plants' quality-assurance programs are supposed to prevent equipment breakdowns and safety lapses. When NRC inspectors, rather than plant personnel, identify problems, that shows the utility's efforts didn't work. The agency should direct plant owners to not just fix the equipment, but to analyze and correct the quality-assurance breakdowns that allowed the problem to remain undetected. When one reactor in a utility's fleet has major problems, scrutinize its other plants. The NRC treats each plant as an individual case, even though most nuclear utilities own multiple plants in different locations. Lochbaum contends significant safety program flaws at one reactor should trigger broader oversight. That's because the flaws may stem from a corporate-level problem spread among a utility's sites - if not at the outset, then later, when the offending reactor saps management attention and staff from the company's other holdings. FirstEnergy's Perry, Ohio, reactor underwent a string of safety-related equipment problems as Davis-Besse was restarting, but the NRC and the utility insist there was no connection. Expand the scope of alerts the NRC provides to plant owners. Currently, the agency warns reactor operators when there are equipment breakdowns that may recur at other plants. It has not issued such cautions when breakdowns involve safety programs or practices, rather than hardware. Widely communicating those lapses may help others learn the lessons of Davis-Besse and prevent protracted, costly shutdowns, Lochbaum said. To read the report, go to www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/unlearned-lessons-from.html To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 -------- washington Wash state requests EPA fine for spill at Hanford nuclear site The Associated Press By SHANNON DININNY September 19, 2006 http://www.topix.net/content/ap/3733316613351644019714371845222543167946 Typically, when we encounter an anomaly, we shut down work, secure the site and prepare a new plan. And sometimes that requires more investigation Washington state issued a notice of violation Tuesday to the U.S. Department of Energy for leaking a highly toxic and potential cancer-causing agent into the ground at the heavily contaminated Hanford nuclear reservation. The leak of sodium dichromate occurred as workers were digging up an old pipeline near a nuclear reactor, about a half-mile from the Columbia River. The concentrated material potentially endangered workers, as well as the already contaminated groundwater and the spawning salmon and other fish species in the river, said Jay Manning director of the Washington Department of Ecology. The notice alerts the Energy Department that the state believes the agency and its contractors violated the Tri-Party Agreement, the legal cleanup pact signed by the state, Energy Department and federal Environmental Protection Agency, Manning said. The state also asked the EPA, which regulates cleanup at that part of the site, to issue a fine. 'They should have known what they were getting into. They should have been prepared. They weren't,' Manning said, noting that contractors at the site have generally performed well. 'This was a notable and very disappointing exception.' The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Over the next 40s years, nine reactors were built to produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Contractors have been working to 'cocoon' those reactors, which involves demolishing nonradioactive portions of the buildings and sealing the reactor cores in concrete shields. They also must dig up ancillary pipes and so-called 'burial grounds,' where contaminated equipment and junk were buried. When the leak occurred, workers were using heavy equipment to remotely dig up a pipe that carried sodium dichromate near the D Reactor, which operated from 1944 to 1967. Sodium dichromate is considered to be a carcinogenic, or cancer-causing compound. It was used to inhibit corrosion of the reactor's cooling system pipelines that carried Columbia River water into the reactor core to cool it. An estimated 30 gallons of sodium dichromate leaked into the ground during one excavation project June 15. Another 3 gallons leaked into the ground from the same pipeline in another spot June 19. Sampling of the liquid sodium dichromate showed concentrations of 44,000 parts per million, 22,000 times the limit considered safe for direct contact with humans. Todd Nelson, spokesman for contractor Washington Closure Hanford, said workers immediately halted the excavation June 15 after the first leak, digging up the contaminated soil. They pinched off the ends of the pipe so nothing else could leak out, and covered the area with uncontaminated soil to protect the site until a new work plan could be established. In trying to determine where else material may have collected in the pipe, the second leak occurred, Nelson said, and workers immediately halted excavation. 'Typically, when we encounter an anomaly, we shut down work, secure the site and prepare a new plan. And sometimes that requires more investigation,' Nelson said. 'All of that was done in this case.' Washington Closure officials, in tandem with the Energy Department and the state Department of Ecology, agreed upon a new plan and restarted cleanup in the area in August, he said. One worker was in the immediate area of the leaks, working inside a piece of heavy equipment. No workers were contaminated, and all contaminated soil has been collected, Nelson said. The EPA will review the Department of Ecology's request, conduct an additional investigation as necessary and determine if any other action is required, program manager Nick Ceto said in a statement. 'It is essential that all cleanup work be completed in a way that is protective of both workers and the environment,' he said. Cleanup at the 586-square-mile site is expected to continue through 2035. That includes treatment of an estimated 80 square miles of groundwater contaminated when 1.7 trillion gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste leaked into the soil. -------- MILITARY -------- arms FAS Obtains a Copy of U.S. Arms Sales Report Posted by Matt Schroeder on September 19, 2006 Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/09/fas_obtains_a_copy_of_us_arms.php The Arms Sales Monitoring Project has obtained, via the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of the Defense Department’s contribution to the annual “Section 655” report* on U.S. arms transfers and military assistance. The report contains data on the five main U.S. security assistance programs: the Direct Commercial Sales Program (administered by the State Department), and the International Military Education and Training Program, Defense Drawdowns, the Excess Defense Articles Program, and the Foreign Military Sales Program (administered by the Defense Department). While much of the data is available elsewhere, the “655 report” is unique in that it provides detailed information on the type of defense articles and services licensed through the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program and delivered through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program to a particular country, not just the aggregate dollar value of these sales. The DCS and FMS sections are arranged by country (or international organization), and describe the category of defense articles/services licensed or delivered, the quantity, and the dollar value. Data on certain countries (Australia, Finland, Japan, and Taiwan), and on most missile transfers, has been redacted in the FMS section. Data sources like the 655 report are important because transparency is essential for proper public and Congressional oversight - the sine qua non of an effective arms export control system. Scrutiny of U.S. arms export programs helps to ensure that they do not run afoul of U.S. law and that they promote the full range of America’s interests abroad, not just the narrow agendas of the White House or the implementing agencies. Without clear, complete and timely data, systematic Congressional and public oversight of U.S. arms transfers would be impossible. The 655 report is one of several public data sources on arms sales compiled by the U.S. Government that, together, provide arguably the most complete picture of national arms sales made available by any country. Indeed, the U.S. consistently ranks No. 1 in the Small Arms Survey’s Transparency Barometer for small arms trade data. Yet the report is far from perfect. For example, many of the item/service descriptions in the Foreign Military Sales section are vague to the point of being meaningless. Category descriptions such as “OTHER WPNS + ORDNANCE EQP” and “OTHER AMMO AND COMPONENTS” – with no explanation as to what items are included in these categories – are common throughout the section. The other big problem with the Defense Department’s sections is that they are made available to the public only in response to FOIA requests filed by the FAS. The processing time for such requests is six months or more, during which time the public is unnecessarily deprived of the data. More importantly, if the FAS were to get out of the arms trade monitoring business, the data might not be released at all. The State Department’s report on Direct Commercial Sales is better than the FMS section in some ways and worse in others. Its category descriptions are much clearer and more specific, and State is very good about posting the report on its website shortly after delivering it to Congress. It suffers from two significant shortcomings, however. The first is its subject matter. The data in this section is for licenses issued, not items delivered. Since not all licenses result in actual deliveries, or deliveries in the amount specified in the license, the data is of limited utility to many researchers. Secondly, the Government Accountability Office has identified reliability problems with the data on Direct Commercial Sales. In a 2005 study, the GAO found coding errors, database limitations, and inaccurate reporting practices that raise “…questions about the accuracy and reliability of data in State’s Section 655 reports to Congress.” It should be noted that this study did not examine FMS data, only DCS. A similar analysis of the FMS section might be warranted given the egregious typo that made it into last year’s report. Under India, the report logged the delivery of $3.038 billion in “radar air search EQP,” an error that was carried over not only into the country total for India but also the worldwide total. As a result of the error, the worldwide total was off by nearly 25%. To view the 655 reports for FY05 and previous fiscal years, visit our “Government Data” page. For more GAO reports on U.S. arms sales and arms sales reports, visit our “Government Documents” page. *Section 655 is the section of the Foreign Assistance Act that requires the report. -------- business Ex-Workers Testify About Halliburton Responsibility Questioned at Hill Hearing By Griff Witte Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 19, 2006; A06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801154_pf.html Edward V. Sanchez, a truck driver for Halliburton, had just passed under a bridge near Baghdad on April 9, 2004, when another truck in his convoy hit a mine and "all hell broke loose." "We began taking rounds of small arms fire from both sides," Sanchez said at a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday. "The shots were coming like a hail storm." By day's end, seven civilians from the fuel convoy were dead and seven more were injured. Surviving convoy members and the families of the dead now claim the incident could have been prevented. Halliburton, they argue in a suit filed in federal court, had ample warning the route was unsafe to travel because of reports of a running battle between insurgents and the U.S. Army. That allegation was at the center of a Democratic Policy Committee hearing that renewed attention on Halliburton Co., which has come under intense scrutiny as the largest U.S. contractor in Iraq. Past criticism has focused on accusations that the firm, once run by Vice President Cheney, is squandering taxpayer money. Testimony by two former Halliburton truck drivers yesterday raised the question of whether the company was protecting its workers. The firm's KBR subsidiary has lost 91 employees and subcontractors to violence in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. In response to the lawsuit, the company has said decisions about convoy activity are out of its hands. "The U.S. military has command and control of all KBR convoys in Iraq . . . and is required to provide security for KBR's employees through the company's contract with the Army," the company said in a statement. Halliburton has sought to have the suit thrown out, arguing the company is immune from litigation related to its work in Iraq for the U.S. government. The drivers did sign liability waivers before heading to Iraq. But T. Scott Allen Jr., the attorney representing the drivers and their families, said yesterday that Halliburton should have to answer for sending the convoy despite knowing the roads were the scene of "active combat, that the areas were closed and off limits to civilian personnel." Sean A. Larvenz, a former Halliburton driver who was traveling in another convoy on the day of the attacks, said he had to turn his truck around that morning because he saw insurgents firing at vehicles ahead of his. He said he notified his bosses at Halliburton. Sanchez's convoy was sent later that day. Larvenz said he believed financial motivations had guided the firm's decision. "As long as the trucks rolled," he told senators, "they got paid." Also testifying was Julie McBride, a former Halliburton employee who alleged the company inflated its profit by overstating the number of soldiers using Halliburton recreation facilities. Halliburton has a multibillion-dollar contract to provide the Army with logistics support, including gyms and computer clusters. McBride, who helped run those facilities at an Army base in Fallujah, said the firm lied about the number of soldiers who used them because it got reimbursed for its costs and then received a percentage for profit. "Under its contract, the more facilities, equipment, staff and administrators Halliburton can show a need for, the more profit Halliburton makes," she said. "As the mantra at Halliburton camps goes, 'It's cost-plus, baby.' " In a statement, Halliburton denied McBride's allegations and said they "clearly demonstrate a complete misinterpretation of facts." The Army said this summer that it would not renew Halliburton's contract for another year, and instead would divide it up among three firms following a new bidding competition. The hearing yesterday was the latest in a series held by Democrats who say they feel Republicans have failed to aggressively oversee spending on the war. "There's something dreadfully wrong with the way that money has been spent and the lack of accountability," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who chaired the hearing. -------- iraq Kurdish witness in Saddam trial shows court body burns Posted 9/19/2006 Saddam Hussein By Marco Di Lauro, AP http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-19-saddam-trial_x.htm BAGHDAD (AP) — A Kurdish security officer testifying in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial on Tuesday showed the court body burns he allegedly received when Iraqi troops attacked his northern village in March 1988. "A squadron of planes hovered in the sky. They began bombing the area and the bombs were two types — some had loud explosions, while some were somewhat silent," said Maj. Iskandar Mahmoud Abdul-Rahman, 41. "We took the floor; white smoke covered us, it smelled awful," said the man, who wore Western-style gray suit with a Kurdistan flag pin. He said after several minutes, he escaped to another area where his health worsened. "My heart beat increased. I started to vomit. I felt dizzy. My eyes burned and I couldn't stand on my feet," he added in Kurdish through an Arabic translator. The witness said he was moved to two hospitals in Iran for treatment. In the second hospital, he said he lost consciousness for 10 days. "The doctors were frequently giving me injections and medication, including eye drops. They cut the burned skin with scissors. I can show the court my scars that are still visible on my body," he said, adding that his eyesight is still poor. Sitting in the witness stand, Abdul-Rahman took off his blue shirt to show his body burns. But he insisted to do so off camera. A reporter who watched in the courtroom said there were several dark scars, roughly 8 inches long, on his back. Saddam Hussein's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi, and prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon went up to take a closer look. Tuesday's hearing was the ninth since Saddam's trial resumed Aug. 21 on charges of committing atrocities against Kurds during the Operation Anfal crackdown in northern Iraq in the late 1980s. The prosecution alleges some 180,000 people died in the campaign, many of them killed by poison gas. Saddam, his cousin "Chemical" Ali al-Majid and five other co-defendants are standing trial. All seven could face death by hanging if convicted. Another witness, farmer Raouf Faraj Abdullah, 55, spoke of poor living conditions he endured with his family in a detention camp in the northern city of Irbil, which was run by Saddam's forces during the Operation Anfal. "We stayed without food. Our condition was poo.r The local people of Irbil began hurling us food over the barbed wire," said the man, who had a thick black mustache and wore the traditional Kurdish headdress. He said he was later moved to another camp, where he was separated from his 2-year-old son and his wife, who later gave birth in her prison cell. "When I went to see her, I found out that my newborn baby had died," he said. He said 28 people were killed in attacks on his village. "I saw them all with my own eyes," he asserted when he was cross-examined by a defense lawyer if he saw the dead people. He also demanded compensation for his dead son and the belongings he lost. Saddam — dressed in a dark suit with a white handkerchief in his chest pocket — sat silently, taking notes. Tuesday's hearing also saw a fiery exchange between senior prosecutor, Jaafar al-Moussawi, and defense lawyer Badee Izzat Aref, who demanded that the prosecution be questioned for "deliberately misleading" the court by presenting a witness who allegedly had a forged passport. He was referring to a Kurdish Iraqi witness, who told the court Monday that he sought asylum in the Netherlands where he acquired a Dutch passport in 1994. Saddam and his defense team argued that Iraqi law barred citizens from being dual nationals and asked that the Dutchman's testimony be thrown out because it was allegedly in violation of the law. Al-Moussawi rejected Aref's remarks Tuesday. "Such violations by this lawyer must be stopped," he said. The chief judge gave Aref a "final" warning, threatening to take legal action against the attorney. Aref is the lawyer of Farhan Mutlaq Saleh, who headed a regional military intelligence office during the Anfal operation. Saddam is still waiting a verdict on Oct. 16 in the first case against him — the nine-month-long trial over the killings of 148 Shiites in Dujail after a 1982 assassination attempt against him there. He and seven other co-defendants could face the death penalty in that case. -------- landmines Land-Mine Conference Calls for Limits on Cluster Bombs Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1347258 In Geneva, the annual conference for a global ban on land-mines opened Monday with calls for new limits on the use of cluster bombs. The Swiss Foundation for Mine Action says new rules are needed in light of Israel’s recent bombardment of Lebanon. * Swiss Foundation for Mine Action Director Hansjorg Eberle: "In Lebanon unfortunately from what we know, in the last few days of the war, Israel must have used massive amounts of cluster bombs, so Lebanon already has a residual landmine problem from previous wars, but on top of it now it also has a massive cluster bomb problem." The conference is also calling on forty remaining countries to sign the international treaty banning line mines, including China, Russia and the United States. ---- Countries Need Faster Landmine Clearance: Red Cross Story by Laura MacInnis REUTERS SWITZERLAND: September 19, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38154/story.htm GENEVA - Countries must speed efforts to meet a key deadline on clearing anti-personnel weapons, which maim and kill thousands of people every year, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Monday. Philip Spoerri, the ICRC's director for international law, said the clock was ticking for heavily mined countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mozambique and Nicaragua, which pledged to remove all mines by 2009. "In just two and a half years, the first of the convention's deadlines for clearance of anti-personnel mines will have passed," Spoerri told a meeting of signatory states to the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, also known as the Ottawa Convention. "Better planning, renewed political commitment and more resources will be required" for the first wave of countries to meet the obligations, he said. Some 151 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty, which was signed in the Canadian capital in 1997. The United States is among 44 states which have not joined. Activists say it is critical that momentum not be lost in the drive to abolish landmines, estimated to have killed or injured more than 7,000 people last year, mostly children. "We expect states to make every effort to ensure that mine clearance deadlines are met," said Stuart Maslen of the Landmine Monitor mine action team. "If all mines are not taken out of the ground in the shortest possible time, the world envisaged by the mine ban treaty will remain a promise on paper for all those whose lives are blighted by the presence of landmines," he said. Some 22 countries -- among them Croatia, Jordan, Yemen, Peru, Uganda and Thailand -- are committed to the 2009 target. Others face later deadlines, depending on the date they signed up to the treaty. Macedonia announced on Monday that it has fully complied with the treaty's clearance requirements ahead of schedule, an ICRC spokeswoman said. Signatory states meeting at the UN's European headquarters will this week discuss progress to date in clearing mined lands and ensuring adequate help for surviving mine victims, many of whom are maimed after stepping on the hidden weapons. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a network of more than 1,200 non-governmental groups, said it hoped that if any clearance extensions were necessary, they would only be for the shortest time possible. -------- latin america Argentina dirty-war criminal gets life sentence Tue Sep 19, 2006 (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-20T004728Z_01_N19449026_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARGENTINA-RIGHTS.xml&archived=False BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - A retired police commissioner was sentenced on Tuesday to life in prison for murder, torture and kidnappings during Argentina's "dirty war," in one of the first sentences since amnesty laws were scrapped last year. Miguel Etchecolatz, 77, ran clandestine detention centers as Buenos Aires' provincial police commissioner during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship, in which an estimated 11,000 to 30,000 people were killed in a crackdown on leftists in the South American country. The reading of the sentence in a federal court in provincial capital La Plata was interrupted when someone in the courthouse threw red paint on Etchecolatz, who kissed a crucifix. Inside the courtroom dozens of family members of victims and human rights activists wept, applauded and jumped up and down. Outside, hundreds more cheered. Local television said the sentence was unprecedented in Argentina because the judge said Etchecolatz was guilty of crimes against humanity. "I don't think satisfied is the right word, but this is what this man deserves and finally justice is done," said Chica Mariana, founder of the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, a group of relatives of disappeared people. Etchecolatz was sentenced to 23 years in 1986 for forced disappearances -- illegal arrests carried out by the military regime. But he was freed a year later under an amnesty that shielded all but the former military government's commanders. Dozens of witnesses testified during the three-month Etchecolatz trial this year, including former President Raul Alfonsin, who defended his 1980s amnesty program saying it was necessary to avoid uprisings in the armed forces. Last year the Supreme Court overturned the amnesty law and courts have reopened hundreds of human rights cases. Etchecolatz is already serving a long sentence for stealing babies of victims of the military regime, a crime that was not covered by the amnesty. His defense argued he followed orders in a wartime situation. Etchecolatz told the court on Tuesday that he was a prisoner of war. "I know you will convict me. I also know you aren't ashamed of convicting a sick, poor, powerless old man ... I was part of a war that we won with weapons but we lost politically," he said. -------- prisoners of war Canadian Inquiry Finds Torture Survivor Maher Arar Completely Innocent, Criticizes U.S. For 'Rendition' to Syria Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1348206 The Canadian government has acknowledged for the first time that one of the most well-known victims of CIA 'extraordinary rendition' is a completely innocent man. On Monday, a judge concluded a major investigation into the case of Maher Arar. The Syrian-born Canadian was detained nearly four years ago by U.S. authorities at JFK airport and was sent to Syria where he was jailed for a year and repeatedly tortured. We speak with Arar's attorney, Maria LaHood. [includes rush transcript] Four years ago this month, a Canadian citizen named Maher Arar was on his way back to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia. The Syrian-born man had a stopover at JFK airport in New York. The date was September 26, 2002. He wouldn't see his family for another 374 days. After being questioned at the airport, U.S. officials took him to an immigration facility in New York. Two weeks later he was secretly flown to Jordan aboard a Gulfstream Jet. Maher Arar ended up in Syria where he was held in a cell, the size of a grave. He was repeatedly tortured. For weeks his family didn't even know where he was. On Monday, the Canadian government admitted for the first time that Arar was a completely innocent man. Justice Dennis O'Connor released the findings of a two-year major investigation into the disappearance of Arar. The judge wrote, "I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada." The official inquiry said that there is no evidence that Canadian officials played a direct role in his detention or deportation. However Justice O'Connor found that the U.S. government's decision to send Arar to Syria was likely based on inaccurate and misleading information provided by Canadian authorities. The judge also criticized the Bush administration's actions. The judge wrote, "They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there." * Maria LaHood, lawyer for Maher Arar. She is an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Maher Arar's attorney, Maria LaHood, joins us on the phone right now. She's a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights and she is in Canada. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Maria LaHood. MARIA LAHOOD: Thanks, Amy, for having me on. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. You have spent the last few days with Maher Arar. Can you talk about his reaction to the judge's finding? And clearly lay out what this report says. MARIA LAHOOD: Maher is really relieved. He’s certainly happy to have his name finally cleared and to try to move on with his life. The inquiry, as you mentioned, it's been a two-year process. You know, the judge, commissioner looked at over 20,000 documents. There were over 70 witnesses. There was in-camera testimony. He looked at all of the national security documents. And he basically found that, as you said, there was no evidence implicating Maher in terrorism. There had been a long investigation by law enforcement agencies here, and it actually even continued after Maher got back from Syria, and the investigation included U.S. cooperation. The justice said, the commissioner said that the U.S. never provided Canada with its own information to support that Maher had al-Qaeda ties and that it likely would have given the close cooperation if it had had it. So all of this incorrect information, this inflammatory information that Canada provided to the U.S. was what was used in the U.S.'s designation of him as an al-Qaeda member and to send him to Syria to be tortured. Some of that information -- you know, first of all, the RCMP here gave information to the U.S. saying that Maher and his wife Monia were Islamic extremists with al-Qaeda ties. That was just false. Everyone -- I guess every witness that the inquiry interviewed said that that was false and that there was no reason to say that, no basis at all. There was evidence or there was statements given to the U.S. government saying that Maher was in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. on 9/11. That was false. They said that when they requested an interview with Maher, that he refused to be interviewed and suddenly left to Tunisia. That was patently false. So this is the information that the U.S. government used to determine that he was an al-Qaeda member and to send him to Syria to be tortured. And now, this is the information that they claim, I imagine, is a state secret, which prevents him from seeking justice in the United States for what they did to him. AMY GOODMAN: I first interviewed Maher Arar in 2003. It was November, just a few weeks after he was sent back to Canada from Syria. He described what happened to him there. MAHER ARAR: Really, I mean, when I arrived there, I just couldn't believe it. I thought first it was a dream. I was crying all the time. I was disoriented. I wished I had something in my hand to kill myself, because I knew I was going to be tortured, and this was my preoccupation. That's all I was thinking about when I was on the plane. And I arrived there. I was crying all the time. So, one of them started questioning me, and the others were taking notes. And the first day it was mainly routine questions, between 8 to 12. And the second day, that's when the beatings started, because, you know, on the first day they did not find anything strange about what I told them. And they started beating me with a cable, electrical threaded cable, and they would beat me for three, four times. They would stop again, and they would ask questions again, and they always kept telling me, “You are a liar,” and things like that. So, the beating continued for the first two weeks. The most -- the most intensive -- the intensive beating was really the first week, and then after that it was mostly slapping, punching on the face and kicking. So, on the third day when they didn't find anything, third or fourth day, they -- in my view, they just wanted to please the Americans, and they had to find something on me. So, because I was accused of being an al-Qaeda member, which is nowadays synonymous with Afghanistan, they told me, “You've been to a training camp in Afghanistan.” And I said, “No.” And they started beating me. And I said -- well, I had no choice. I just wanted the beating to stop. I said, “Of course, I've been to Afghanistan.” I was ready to confess to anything just to stop the torture. AMY GOODMAN: That was Maher Arar speaking to us in November of 2003 just after he had been released from the Syrian jail and was back in Canada. We spoke to him again just months ago, talking about the psychological effects of that year's detention. This is Maher Arar again. MAHER ARAR: I’m completely a different person. I still have fears. I don't take the plane anymore. I don't fly. I lost confidence in myself. I feel overwhelmed. My -- there is some kind of emotional distancing between me and my kids and my family. They ruined my life. They ruined my life, and I have not been able to find a job. People try to -- you know, some people I know, they try to distance themselves from me. It's -- you know, I don't know how to describe it. I don't think there is any word I could use to describe what I am going through. And I thought when I came back it would take me a month or two months or a year or two years to get back to normal life. It’s been two years and four months since I came back to Canada, and there are things that are improved a little bit, but I’m still not the same person, and I’m still suffering psychologically. AMY GOODMAN: That is Maher Arar, speaking to us in February of this year. This is years after his year detention in Syria, after he was tortured. He was sent there through the CIA's extraordinary rendition, as it is called. Maria LaHood is with us in Ottawa. She has been with Maher Arar. Maria, can you describe what it was like when the judge handed down his findings? MARIA LAHOOD: Well, it was, you know -- these findings are over -- it’s three volumes and it’s over 1,200 or almost 1,200 pages. So, you know, we were given the reports to look through. So everyone was furiously trying to look for information. And, you know, we were all thrilled to see that Maher's name was cleared. There was some information in there that came out that was new information, like this false information that the RCMP gave the U.S. that was really troubling. There was also information that Maher’s -- you know, not only Maher’s wife was put on a list, but actually his children were put into intelligence databanks. You know, they are nine and four now. They were one years old and five years old before. And so, it was really troubling to see that, but really quite a relief and exciting to have a public inquiry in this country, to have people applauding Maher for the hero that he is, you know. Today it's on the front page of all the newspapers. It's amazing, especially in comparison to what happens in the U.S., where they still claim he's an al-Qaeda member and won't let anything be released. AMY GOODMAN: The Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O’Neil, her home was broken into by the authorities in Canada. She was one of those who had reported on what happened to Maher Arar. MARIA LAHOOD: Right. There was a lot -- a big part of the investigation has to do with what happened after Maher got back and the fact that there were government leaks. There was, you know, not only just government incompetence, but what seems to be, you know, an effort to ruin his reputation, to claim he wasn't tortured, to sort of stain his name. And I think that's the same thing that's being done in the U.S., basically. By keeping secrets and saying he's a member of al-Qaeda, you know, you can cast doubt on the unlawful atrocious behavior of the government. And I think that's what's been done. But now, at least there is a clear record and a clear statement by the commission that Maher has been cleared. I mean, of course, these findings have to be accepted by the Canadian government, along with all the findings. I mean, you know, one of the findings is that the Canadian government should register its objections with the U.S. government for what happened to Maher, for how he was treated, like you said, for the fact they sent him to Syria despite his objection, despite the fact that he said he would be tortured, the fact that the U.S. officials were less than forthcoming with the Canadian officials about what they were going to do. They didn't let them know that Syria was an option until the day before they sent him. They breached the Vienna conventions on consular relations by not contacting the Canadian consulate for five days. These are all findings in the report. AMY GOODMAN: And so, what happens now? I mean, you have the judge in the United States, David Trager, who wrote in response to your lawsuit, Maher Arar's lawsuit here in the United States, he wrote in the judgment, “One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar’s removal to Syria.” MARIA LAHOOD: Exactly. This commission finding completely alleviates that concern, by finding that Canadian officials were not complicit in Maher's detention in the United States or in his removal to Syria. I mean, the reason that the judge dismissed this case, he claimed that national security and foreign policy considerations precluded him from holding the federal officials liable, even if what they did violated customary international law and violated our treaties. And what you said, that was one of the reasons, that he was concerned about relations with Canada, because if it came out that Canadian officials were complicit. And this report says they are not complicit. They were not complicit in his rendition to Syria. I mean, I think another -- AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. MARIA LAHOOD: Okay. The other -- I mean, you know, even after -- I mean, we're appealing the dismissal now on these grounds, and we hope that that will be successful. I mean, we still face the government's state secrets assertion, which is where they say that the reason they deemed him a member of al-Qaeda is a state secret and the reason we sent him to Syria instead of Canada is a state secret. Well, here, we now know, you know, that it's very likely that the reason they deemed him an al-Qaeda member is this incorrect information from Canada. And the fact that more information has become public undermines the state secrets privilege, the fact that other governments are investigating this and the U.S. won't will hopefully put pressure, you know, pressure on the government to actually investigate, pressure to actually disclose information about what happened to Maher. AMY GOODMAN: And in Canada right now, what about compensation for Maher Arar? His Canadian lawyer, Julian Falconer, saying they’re recommending some kind of compensation and Maher Arar's separate civil suit against police services and federal agencies. Is the government quietly negotiating with him right now upon the release that completely vindicates him of this report? MARIA LAHOOD: Well, the commissioner did put in his recommendations that the government should assess Maher's claim for compensation, in light of his findings, and respond accordingly. So, you know, there will be, I’m sure, some discussions of how that's going to happen. It hasn't been decided yet how it will be done. AMY GOODMAN: And any evaluation going on in the press of how the media was used by the government to smear, to tar Maher Arar? MARIA LAHOOD: You know, I haven't seen that, but, you know, it's a very good point. And I think, you know, there were a lot of people who were complicit in what happened to Maher. It doesn't just stop with the high government officials. There were people in low-level positions in the INS. There were people in -- you know, there were the private jets. There were the people who didn’t get the information out. There were the people who got the misinformation out. And there are people that continue to be complicit in what happened to him. And hopefully, again, the more information that comes out, the more we will find out, and eventually I hope that Maher will be cleared in the U.S., as well. AMY GOODMAN: Maria LaHood, I want to thank you for joining us from Vancouver. Maria LaHood is the attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights representing Maher Arar, who has just been completely vindicated by a Canadian report. He had been the subject of what's called extraordinary rendition by the U.S. government, taken off a plane at Kennedy airport and sent off to Syria where he was tortured. When we come back, we'll be joined by the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, to talk not only about this case, but what's going on in Washington, D.C. and the Republican revolt on the issue of torture. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- justice Gonzales calls for law to require Internet companies to preserve customer data Posted 9/19/2006 By Hope Yen, The Associated Press http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-19-gonzalez-net-records_x.htm WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require Internet service providers to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography. Testifying to a Senate panel, Gonzales acknowledged the concerns of some company executives who say legislation might be overly intrusive and encroach on customers' privacy rights. But he said the growing threat of child pornography over the Internet was too great. "This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told the Senate Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps us makes cases." He called the government's lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle to deterring child porn. "We have to find a way for Internet service providers to retain information for a period of time so we can go back with a legal process to get them," he said. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller have met with several Internet service providers, including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Comcast Corp., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. The law enforcement officials have indicated to the companies they must retain customer records, possibly for two years. The companies have discussed strengthening their retention periods — which currently run the gamut from a few days to about a year — to help avoid legislation. At Tuesday's hearing, Gonzales said he agreed with the sentiment of 49 state attorneys general who in a June letter to Congress expressed support for a federal law that would require longer retention of customer records. "We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information," he said. The subject has prompted some alarm among Internet service provider executives and civil liberties groups after the Justice Department took Google to court earlier this year to force it to turn over information on customer searches. Civil liberties groups also have sued Verizon and other telephone companies, alleging they are working with the government to provide information without search warrants on subscriber calling records. Justice Department officials have said that any proposal would not call for the content of communications to be preserved and would keep the information in the companies' hands. The data could be obtained by the government through a subpoena or other lawful process. ---- Attorneys Argue Senate Bills Would Allow for Lifelong Detention Without Trial, Torture Without Accountability Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1348212 As the debate on Capitol Hill continues over the Bush administration's plan for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, we take a look at what is not being discussed: how both proposed bills in the Senate strip away the right to habeas corpus and cut back the ability of rape survivors of to hold their perpetrators accountable. We speak with Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights. [includes rush transcript] New details have been revealed on the Republican divide over the Bush administration's plan for the treatment of prisoners in US custody. Newsweek magazine reports the administration wants to maintain at least seven existing CIA interrogation methods for use against high-level detainees. The techniques include induced hypothermia; long periods of forced standing; sleep deprivation and so called "attention slapping." The administration is facing resistance from three key Republican Senators on the Armed Services Committee: John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner. The three helped pass a measure last week affirming Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits inhumane treatment. * Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: New details have been revealed on the Republican divide over the Bush administration's plan for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody. Newsweek magazine reports the administration wants to maintain at least seven existing CIA interrogation methods for use against high-level detainees. The techniques include induced hypothermia, long periods of forced standing, sleep deprivation and so-called attention slapping. The administration is facing resistance from three key Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee: John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner. The three senators helped pass a measure last week affirming Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits inhumane treatment. To talk about this debate over interrogation tactics, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, joins us in our studio in New York. Welcome, Michael, to Democracy Now! MICHAEL RATNER: Welcome, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Talk about this debate that’s going on within the Republican Party. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, what's extraordinary about everything that’s going on now in Washington -- you know, you just covered the Maher Arar case, and sadly none of it, none of it, would really stop what happened to Maher Arar, which is the taking of someone, outsourcing torture to another country, sending him to a place where he could be tortured. So I want to just start, that this is an important debate in Washington, but it’s not going to stop the tragic cases like Maher Arar, of which I think there's many, many cases. I just want to make that clear. The debate is really in Washington on three issues. One of them has not been covered at all. The first issue is what kind of interrogation techniques can be used. Can torture be used? Can you violate Common Article 3? Can you use those techniques you spoke about, including, I think, waterboarding, which is the mock drowning of somebody? And on those issues, McCain, Warner and Graham have taken a position that they don't want those used. And so, we're at loggerheads between two factions of the Republicans right now. I don't know how it will come out. I certainly hope that McCain and Warner stick, and Graham, to their position on that. But there’s two other issues going on, one of which has not been covered at all. One is, of course, the military commissions, and again the McCain bill, which is not the administration bill, is better on that as well. It doesn't allow you to use evidence from torture. It makes sure that the defendant in a military commission is present at trial and gives a person more rights at a military commission. But the third issue, which has not been covered, is, to me, very critical and is in both of the pieces of legislation. In both the administration bill and in the McCain-Graham-Warner bill, in both cases you abolish the writ of habeas corpus. The government, the Congress, is abolishing the writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus writ is the right to challenge your detention once you’re picked up by the United States. It would apply to Guantanamo. It would apply to everybody in Bagram. And it basically says that anybody picked up, now or in the future or who is there now, no longer has the writ of habeas corpus. For some reason, for some peculiar reason, nobody is really covering this in the media. Yes, they’re covering the McCain debate over waterboarding and torture and somewhat on the military commissions, but not really the denial of the abolishment of the fundamental writ. If we look at Maher Arar, his is one of the cases. I mean, there may be Maher Arars -- or are, as I know -- in places like Guantanamo and other places in the world, and without an ability to bring those cases to court, the United States can continue or the administration can continue doing what it did to Maher Arar. AMY GOODMAN: Now, again, maybe part of the reason we don't hear much about this is a lack of understanding of writ of habeas corpus. I mean, it's not even in English. Explain, Michael. MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it actually comes initially out of the Magna Carta in 1215. And it had to do with when the king just believed he could pick up people anywhere in the world, throw them into a dungeon, never give them a court hearing, and you’d never hear from them again, essentially disappear them. Out of a long struggle for peoples’ rights, the writ of habeas corpus emerged. Then, when we wrote our Constitution in the United States, it was considered the fundamental right essentially against a police state and can only be suspended in cases of rebellion or things like that. And what it really says is that if a king or the president picks me up anywhere in the world, that I have a right to go into court and say, “What are your reasons for detaining me?” It doesn't say you have to be freed. But it says you have to come up -- government -- come up with a legal reason for detaining me. In other words, it takes detentions, disappearances and puts them into the light of a courtroom, where the government has to justify the detention. That's the fundamental right that we at the Center for Constitutional Rights won for those people at Guantanamo and which this congress and this president have continuously tried to beat back. We won it in 2004. We got a legislation that Congress had passed to try and get rid of it. We won that again in 2006. And now they’re trying to get rid of it again. It's really, Amy, the fundamental right that protects us against just arbitrary arrest and disappearance. It's absolutely crucial. And so far, unfortunately -- I just want to emphasize this -- both the administration bill and the McCain bill abolish the writ of habeas corpus. And there should be a massive, massive public campaign about that. People can go to the Center's website and get information about that and get to their senators and say, “Don't abolish the writ.” This is the protection that will protect the Maher Arars in the world, that protect our Guantanamo detainees and protect people who are really disappeared all over the world. AMY GOODMAN: No Democrats have stood up to defend habeas corpus? MICHAEL RATNER: Oh, no. There are some. It's happening. I mean, it's just not in the public dialogue or discourse right now. But certainly within the Senate, there are Democrats who are extremely, extremely concerned by the abolishment of the writ of habeas corpus. The problem is, right now, of course, in an election year, Democrats feel they don't want to necessarily oppose the administration on that issue. They are happy to see the Republicans and the Democrats fight about, you know, the use of torture, and they’re not really raising this issue. But let me just say, abolishment of the writ, those who abolish it will really go down in infamy as really taking away the fundamental constitutional right, a right that goes back to 1215. I still believe that we have a chance of sustaining and allowing that writ to continue, but we are at an extremely serious juncture. This administration does not want courts examining what it does to people like Maher Arar or our clients at Guantanamo or what it's doing around the world to detainees. And that's why it wants to get rid of the writ. And it's really a legal and political and moral outrage. You know, I couldn't -- in your story on Maher Arar, big tears -- I have to tell you -- just rolled down my eyes for him and what we did to this human being. And sadly, sadly, that's only one of the cases. There are scores, if not hundreds, of cases right now, where people who are innocent or people who have not made any kind of attacks against the United States, but were picked up on flimsy evidence, like Arar was, are in detention and are unable to get any hearings in federal court. It's really an outrage. And that Congress would now give this authority -- would take this authority for habeas away is just a remarkable -- it’s breathtaking when you think about it. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, I asked Maria LaHood about this, your colleague at the Center for Constitutional Rights, but now that this Canadian report has come out, that has to be such an incredible embarrassment to both the Canadian government, but also the U.S. The only thing the U.S. government has protecting it now is that the U.S. press hardly picks up on this, right? Maher Arar was the Time newsmaker of the year in Canada. That was Canadian Time. His name is hardly known in this country. But the judge threw out the case here. Can you reinstate it? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, we’re going on appeal on this case, so I would hope that the Court of Appeals sees through what this judge did. I mean, Maria's point, that essentially they argue now that somehow this is going to hurt our relations with Canada is absurd. Canada has said exactly what happened. There was never really a threat there. It was an excuse to get rid of this case. But I would imagine that the circuit is going to reinstate this case. This really is the case that brings to the fore and to the foreground the illegality and the harm and the torture that is caused by our detention policies. You know, one of the things about the Maher Arar case, when it came into the lower court, the district court, the judge in part of his opinion actually wrote that it may be okay or not unconstitutional to torture in the name of terrorism. This, to me, is how far this country has gone, that people, even federal judges, are willing to say that. We are so far away from what I consider to be civilized norms of a society right now, that Maher Arar's case really stands for just the real terror that this country is now imposing, sadly, on people all over the world in detention. AMY GOODMAN: Is it just the Republican debate that has opened up this discussion in the press around the issue of torture? MICHAEL RATNER: Well, no. It's not just the Republican debate. It's certainly been helpful, because, you know, despite the fact that we have all been saying -- everybody knows from the Rumsfeld techniques at Guantanamo to everything we've brought out, to many reports, that torture is, you know, the coin of the realm right now in this country, that sadly the Democrats and the press have been unwilling to take it on and label it what it is and really nail the people from Rumsfeld and others, who have approved it. And so, only now that the Republicans are standing up -- a few of them -- a little bit are we getting some courage in the press and some in the Democrats to stand up and say, ‘Hey, guys. You know, we’re torturing people. We've been doing it for five years. Maybe we shouldn't.” But let me say, I have been appalled that for five years I’m living in a country that is openly torturing people and essentially proud of it. And despite that, there has been basically pipsqueaks out of the press and out of Congress. You don't see them saying, “Stop this. Stop this. Stop this.” AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, we just have ten seconds. But whatever comes out, with the bill out of the Senate, out of the Congress, couldn't President Bush just sign a signing statement, as he's done more than 800 times, and not abide by whatever it was that was passed? MICHAEL RATNER: He could certainly do a signing statement, like you said, and say, “I’m not going to enforce this bill. I’m still going to torture people.” It would be unconstitutional. It would be illegal. It would be essentially a war crime to do it, in my view. But the way this president has gone, my belief is that he has committed war crimes. AMY GOODMAN: Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, thank you for joining us. -------- prisons / prisoners Study: Prisons breed homegrown terrorists Posted 9/19/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-19-prisons-terrorists_x.htm WASHINGTON — U.S. prisons are becoming major breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists, but state and local authorities are too cash-strapped to prevent or track recruiting, a new report concludes. The report, to be released Tuesday, found there aren't enough legitimately trained Muslim religious leaders to counsel an estimated 9,000 U.S. prison inmates who want Islamic services. That allows Islamist extremists to target their vulnerable prison-mates with distorted versions of the Quran and other Muslim readings that urge radicalization and violence. "Radicalized prisoners are a potential pool of recruits by terrorist groups," concludes the joint study by George Washington University and the University of Virginia. "The U.S., with its large prison population, is at risk of facing the sort of homegrown terrorism currently plaguing other countries." Additionally, state and local prison officials struggle to track radical behavior changes of inmates or religious counselors. And staff and funding shortages limit preventative programs, the report found, noting that California officials "report that every investigation into radical groups in their prisons uncovers new leads, but they simply do not have enough investigators to follow every case of radicalization." An estimated 2 million people are imprisoned in the United States; 6% of them are Muslim, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prisons have long been considered recruiting stations for gangs and, more recently, terrorists, but little has been done throughout government to combat them. The report, which will be released at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, comes as law enforcement and intelligence officials focus on finding out how and why extremist sympathizers cross a line to become operational terrorists. The report cited several high-profile cases of terrorists who became radicalized while incarcerated, including British shoe bomber Richard Reid. It also noted what authorities call a foiled plot of a potential shooting rampage against California military facilities, synagogues and the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles by followers of Kevin James, who founded the radical group Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh, or JIS, as an inmate at California State Prison in Sacramento. Researchers interviewed federal, state and local prison officials, religious counselors and counterterror authorities in four states — California, New York, South Carolina and Ohio — and the District of Columbia. They concluded that federal prison authorities have made significant strides in collecting and sharing information to help monitor whether inmates are becoming radicalized. But state and local prison officials have largely relied on contractors and volunteers to lead Islamic services because of a lack of well-trained Muslim chaplains, the report found. In New York, that led to several cases of "imams espousing violent views," it said. The report noted a 2004 study that found that about half of 193 prisons surveyed supervised religious services or monitored them with video or audio recorders. "In the absence of monitoring by authoritative Islamic chaplains, materials that advocate violence have infiltrated the prison system undetected," it found. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism consultant, said "chilling" interpretations of the Quran were given to prison inmates when he worked for the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, an international charity that served as a major al-Qaeda financier. The readings urged Muslims "to wage war against non-Muslims who have not submitted to Islamic rule," Gartenstein-Ross said in prepared testimony to the Senate panel, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. "I know of only a few instances in which prisons rejected the literature we attempted to distribute — and it was never because of the literature's radicalism," said Gartenstein-Ross, who left the charity and converted to Christianity before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Al-Haramain also created a database of names, release dates and forwarding addresses of 15,000 inmates considered to be ripe for recruitment, but it was never used, he said. -------- OTHER -------- environment Ivory Coast Charges Two in Toxic Waste Scandal ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, September 19, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-19-02.asp Two French executives of a Dutch-based commodities trading firm have been charged in connection with the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. Seven people have died and thousands have become ill in recent weeks after inhaling toxic fumes from the waste. The two executives of Trafigura Beheer were charged under toxic waste and poisoning laws and remanded in custody, officials with the Ivory Coast's Justice Ministry said Monday. The company said in a statement that it was "very shocked" by the arrests of Claude Dauphin, the company's director, and Jean Pierre-Valentini, manager of the company's West African operations. Trafigura chartered the Panamanian-registered ship that delivered 400 metric tons of petrochemical waste to the port city of Abidjan. Dutch authorities are also investigating an alleged attempt by the ship to unload the waste in Amsterdam in July. waste The waste, which contained a mixture of gasoline, water and caustic washings, was unloaded in Abidjan on August 19 and then dumped in open air sites throughout the densely populated city. Fumes from the waste have killed seven people, including four children, and forced more than 40,000 individuals to seek medical treatment for intestinal and respiratory ailments, including vomiting, nausea and nose bleeds. Tests have shown the waste contains hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas that smells like rotten eggs. Trafigura has denied any wrongdoing and contends it informed port authorities of the shipment. The company said it had a legitimate contract with an Ivorian company to legally dispose of the waste. Eight other individuals, including officials who oversee customs and operations at the port as well as individuals from the companies that unloaded the waste, were arrested and charged last week with violations of toxic waste laws. Trafigura said Dauphin and Pierre-Valentini had traveled to Abidjan as part of a "humanitarian mission" to help victims of the tragedy and cooperate with clean up efforts.. When they went to board a plane on Saturday, the company said, they were stopped and asked to meet with authorities as witnesses in the ongoing investigation of the scandal. The subsequent arrest "follows a voluntary meeting with the judge, which they had arranged in order to help with the ongoing investigations," according to Trafigura's statement. The arrests come as the war-torn African nation continues to struggle with the health and social impacts of the toxic waste tragedy. The country has been divided since a civil war in 2002, with the government controlling the south and a rebel group holding the north. The toxic waste crisis prompted the Ivory Coast's prime minister to dissolve his 32-member cabinet and the city has been rocked by protests over the government's handling of the tragedy. Angry residents set fire to the home of the Abidjan port director and attacked the country's transport minister. waste The country's health system has been severely disrupted by the tragedy and the massive influx of patients at hospitals in Abidjan, according to the World Health Organization. "This has put a double burden on the already weak health system," the WHO said in a statement, adding that the crisis "has shown that the country does not have the capacity to deal with such an emergency." On Sunday, a French firm began clean up at 11 sites, a process that will take several weeks to complete. Health officials with the United Nations said the threat from the toxic fumes has dissipated, even though the stench has not. Furthermore, Ivorian officials said there is no evidence that the city's drinking water has been contaminated by the waste. At the request of the Ivory Coast, the United Nations Environmental Program is investigating reports that the toxic waste may have been illegally exported. Under the terms of the 1989 international hazardous waste treaty, known as the Basel Convention, the any nation exporting hazardous waste must obtain prior written permission from the importing country, as well as a permit detailing the contents and destination of the waste. If the waste has been transferred illegally, the exporter is obliged to take back the waste and pay the costs of any damages and clean-up process. ---- Pacific Coast Governors Commit to Ocean Protection LONG BEACH, California, September 19, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-19-01.asp The governors of California, Oregon and Washington announced a new agreement Monday to cooperate on efforts to protect the Pacific Ocean and to lobby the federal government on ocean issues. The three governors said they would push for the federal government to expand efforts to safeguard the nation's coastal waters from pollution and environmental degradation and would oppose efforts to allow oil and gas drilling in waters off their coasts. "It is harder for the federal government to ignore us if we speak with one voice," said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. Schwarzenegger made the announcement at an oceans conference in Long Beach. He was joined by the governors of Oregon and Washington via satellite. "Our oceans provide critical economic, environmental and social benefits to the Pacific Coast states," said Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "Today's historic agreement will mean clean water, healthy oceans and a better future for our children." The agreement is based on the recognition that the three states "share a rich and diverse bounty of ocean and coastal resources that provide enormous economic, environmental, and social benefits." "Yet our citizens' continued use and enjoyment of coastal and ocean resources is at risk," according to the agreement. "Polluted waters, declining populations of fish and other marine life, degraded nearshore habitats, risks of severe storms and tsunamis and climate disruption are but a few examples of serious threats to the continued vitality of our ocean-dependent states." pacific The agreement is built on many of the recommendations laid out by U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commissions - both panels called for better coordination of federal, state and local ocean policies and for the adoption of an ecosystem-based management approach. "Our growing understanding of our relationship with the marine environment and its living and nonliving natural resources is leading us to explore ecosystem-based approaches to managing our coasts and oceans," according to the agreement. The regional agreement will forge a long-term partnership to tap experts in each state and aims to ensure clean coastal waters and beaches and to protect and restore healthy ocean and coastal habitats. The governors also plan to pursue efforts to reduce adverse impacts from offshore development, expand ocean and coastal research and monitoring. The pact will include programs to boost ocean awareness and literacy among residents of the three states and to foster sustainable economic development in coastal communities. The governors said they expect to announce initial recommendations and initiatives for regional action by early 2007. "We know that isolated local efforts cannot adequately address the breadth of degradation to our oceans," said Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, a Democrat. "By cooperating, our three states will combine our resources and influence to make a real difference in the fight to clean and protect the oceans." The governors have directed their respective agencies and staffs to work throughout this fall with representatives of business, environmental, governmental, educational, and academic communities to develop recommendations for this historic regional partnership. Ocean advocates praised the deal and said collaborative regional approaches are crucial to successfully managing the problems plaguing the nation's coastal waters. pacific "This innovative collaboration stands as a model for how to bring together all ocean and coastal stakeholders-users, managers, scientists, and others-to effectively manage our oceans, coasts, and their resources," said Leon Panetta, a former California Congressman and cochair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. The initiative was formed by members of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission to try and accelerate ocean policy reform. Speaking at the oceans conference, Panetta expressed disappointment with the federal government's reaction to the landmark reports issued by the two commissions. "Three years ago the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy sounded the alarm on the state of our oceans," said Panetta. "While we did a good job helping everyone understand that oceans and coasts are in serious trouble, we are having difficulty transforming that insight into sustained momentum to achieve a new framework for ocean policy." "One of the major hurdles hampering progress is the lack of action at the national level," Panetta added. "The only way ocean policy reform will be addressed by our nation's leaders is if it is driven by demands from local, state, and regional stakeholders. The governors' coordinated collaboration demonstrates a serious commitment and investment to address critical ocean and coastal management issues that other state, regional, and national leaders should follow." -------- ACTIVISTS Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentlemen: Lieutenant Ehren Watada Charged Again for Refusing to Deploy to Iraq Tuesday, September 19th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/1348217 Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq, has been charged again by the military, this time for 'conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen.' We speak with Watada about the latest charges. [includes rush transcript] Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen. That is the latest charge that Lieutenant Ehren Watada was hit with on Friday by the Army. Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq. On June 22nd, Watada refused to deploy with his Fort Lewis based unit and he was subsequently charged with one count of missing troop movement, two counts of speaking contemptuously of the president and four counts of acts unbecoming an officer. Army spokesman Joe Piek said that this latest charge is based on Watada's remarks last month at the national convention for Veterans for Peace. At that convention Watada attacked the Bush administration for waging a war "for profit and imperialistic domination" and urged soldiers to refuse to fight. Watada faces eight years in prison. I spoke to Lieutenant Watada on Saturday night at the Seattle Town Hall. I began by asking him his response to the latest charges. * 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada, first officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Watada faces eight years in prison. I spoke to him on Saturday night in Seattle at Town Hall. I began by asking him his response to the latest charge. 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: On Friday, yesterday, I was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, another count that was added onto the charges already that the military has referred to me based on the speeches that I had made kind of saying why I was not deploying, my beliefs on what the administration was doing. And I made another speech recently at the Veterans for Peace conference. And because of that speech, they then charged me again. AMY GOODMAN: What is your response to that charge, conduct unbecoming an officer? What did you say at the Veterans for Peace convention? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: I said many things. Basically I was talking to the peace activists, people who I believe are on the frontlines working for an end to this war and for peace and justice in general. And I was speaking to them generally to say that all Americans have a responsibility to support those service members who are trying to do the right thing. And I was basically saying why I believe this and telling them how they can help out soldiers, service members, who are resisting this war. AMY GOODMAN: How did you come to the conclusion -- you are the first officer to resist deploying to Iraq. How did you come to the conclusion that it was wrong? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: For me, there were many things. The most important thing for me is that in our democracy, according to our constitution, one person, one man, cannot hold absolute power, hold himself above the law, including in actions in declaring war or waging war on another country. And it is my belief that in deceiving the American people, through which a majority of us now know to be true, the leaders of our country were violating their oath to this country and violating constitutional law. That was the main reason. Other things that led me to this decision was the rampant abuses of American and international law and the conduct of the occupation and then the conduct of this war. And I just felt that the policies that were made were forcing soldiers, including myself, to commit actions that violated international and domestic laws. AMY GOODMAN: So what happens to you now? How many counts, how many charges have been brought against you? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: Basically, there’s one count of missing movement, which has a maximum penalty of two years; two counts of contempt against officials, which is another two years, specifically contempt against the President of the United States; and now four charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, all total about eight-and-a-half years. AMY GOODMAN: Will you be court-martialed? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: That remains to be seen. It's entirely up to the commanding general of Fort Lewis and also the political forces that are swirling around him. We certainly hope not. We certainly hope that the military will see that it is the duty of every service member to refuse unlawful orders and to speak out against leadership, which is not held to account, which is not held accountable. AMY GOODMAN: You live in Olympia. Are you allowed to leave the state of Washington now? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: No. I cannot leave the state of Washington. I have tried to request to go home to visit friends and family, for which will probably be the last time I will see them if I’m incarcerated. And they have restricted me from going anywhere outside of the state on the basis that they don't want me making any speeches that will incite people or inspire people. But they have not put any limitations on what I can do in the state of Washington. AMY GOODMAN: You've got a tremendous response here at town hall of over 1,000 people. What is your response to that? And are you ready to go to jail? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: First of all, I think with the response of the people in general, I’m eternally grateful. There has been so much warm, encouraging words of support from all over the country, all over the world and even within the military itself. And that strengthens me, and it gives me more courage to do what I’m doing. Certainly I don't think anybody is ready for prison, but I feel it's a necessary sacrifice, if that's what it comes down to, and one that I’m willing to make, and to do whatever I can to bring democracy back to this country. AMY GOODMAN: Have people in the military expressed their support to you publicly or privately? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: Not publicly. I think a lot are taking a risk in using the military email servers to communicate to me their words of support and encouragement. But, yes, all over -- I don't know about the other services, but I know in the Army, there has been tremendous support from all ranks, from soldiers all around the country, all around the world, even veterans just coming back from Iraq, and certainly not in the majority, I would assume, in the military, but they are out there, many of them. AMY GOODMAN: And specifically, the charge, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and the charge, expressing contempt towards the President of the United States, can you address this conduct? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: The charges -- or that article that they charged me with is very arbitrary. They basically list and quote things that I have said, to wit, as they say. And they say that it's conduct unbecoming, because those words are disgraceful and dishonorable. But those terms are so ambiguous, and they could mean different things. The ACLU has really -- has come out to my defense publicly, and they’ve even written an amicus brief, which we presented at the Article 32 hearing, saying that past instances of which officers have been charged with conduct unbecoming really have no jurisprudence for this case in regarding free speech. Usually things like if an officer fails to pay child support or they commit adultery or they’re caught stealing, those are really what they have charged or what they used to charge officers with. Something concerning your free speech is unprecedented. AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Ehren Watada, what gives you your strength? 1ST LT. EHREN WATADA: The opportunity to make a difference. I see the path that our country is taking is so wrong and so destructive, all from the conduct and the ideology of our leadership. And I just think anything I can do to put a stop to this, to make things right, I’ll do it. AMY GOODMAN: Lieutenant Ehren Watada, speaking on Saturday night. We were in the back of Town Hall, the historic site in Seattle, Washington. ---- Thousands demonstrate against Iraq war and against Iran The Associated Press September 19, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/19/america/NA_GEN_US_NYC_Protests.php NEW YORK Thousands of Iraq war protesters marched Tuesday to the United Nations, where President George W. Bush was presenting his vision for the Middle East to skeptical world leaders. Marchers chanted "Hey hey, ho ho, the Bush regime has got to go" and hoisted signs that said, "Bush lies, who dies?" Several hundred more demonstrators rallied in front of the U.N. later Tuesday in opposition to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was to speak there. "I am more passionate than ever about the Iraq War because it has ruined our economy," said Thomas Brinson, 63, a Vietnam veteran from Long Island. "It's killing innocent civilians, and the National Guard was deployed in Iraq and they weren't here for natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina." The anti-war march, organized by the group United for Peace and Justice, started in the garment district on the city's West Side and stretched along a dozen blocks to the United Nations on the East Side, where there were speeches. A contingent of a dozen "Raging Grannies" wore colorful hats and dresses. "After Vietnam I thought the U.S. had learned a lesson," said Lillian Pollack, 91, a retired city schoolteacher. "But Bush was planning this war for two years. He tried to make it look like it was legitimate. But it backfired." Bush, in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, told world leaders. "My country desires peace," and said to Iraqis, "We will not abandon you in your struggle to build a free nation." Iran, he said, "must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions." Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak to the body later Tuesday, but he was not at the country's table in the hall when Bush spoke. Protesters against Ahmadinejad included Alireza Jafarzadeh, who heads the Washington-based Strategic Policy Consulting think tank and is credited with having aired Iranian military secrets in the past. "This is going to remain as a shame on the United Nations for providing a red carpet welcome to Ahmadinejad," Jafarzadeh said in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza near the U.N. Protesters chanted, "Ahmadinejad is a terrorist," and some wore skeleton costumes and wielded skulls on sticks to symbolize what they said were the deaths of 120,000 political prisoners in Iran since 1979. Gabriel Buoc, a former judge from Sudan now living in Canada, hoisted a sign that said, "Stop Mullahs' nukes. U.N. Sanctions Now." Buoc said he flew to New York to join the protest because Iran and Sudan are allies. "Iran has a totalitarian regime," he said. "And the regime at home is an ally of Iran. ... Both the United Nation and the United States should work for a regime change in Iran."