NucNews November 16, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- canada Canada dismisses report it may sell nuclear firm Thu Nov 16, 2006 TORONTO (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061116/wl_canada_nm/canada_energy_canada_nuclear_col_2 Canada denied a newspaper report on Thursday that it might sell Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the government-owned nuclear technology company. The Globe and Mail, citing numerous sources, said Ottawa was mulling restructuring AECL, which builds the Candu nuclear reactors. One option could see its reactor construction and servicing units sold off, the paper said, while another option would be to sell AECL entirely. The office of the Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn, denied the report. "AECL is not for sale," said spokeswoman Kathleen Olson. She declined to speculate on whether an eventual sale of all or part of AECL's assets was an option being studied for the future. The paper said potential bidders for AECL included Ontario's Bruce Power Inc., whose main partners are Cameco Corp. and TransCanada Corp.; French-based Areva NP; and Team Candu, an AECL-led group of companies including SNC-Lavalin Group, General Electric Canada and Hitachi Canada. "There's obviously a lot of interest in nuclear these days," a federal official is quoted as saying by the newspaper, adding a deal was not imminent. Earlier this week, Japan's Hitachi Ltd. said it would join forces with U.S.-based General Electric Co. and combine their nuclear power operations in two joint ventures to expand business overseas. As well as building Canada's commercial heavy-water reactors, AECL has built reactors in Argentina, China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Romania. (Additional reporting by Louise Egan) -------- depleted uranium The U-word Did Israel use uranium munitions in Lebanon, and if so what are the potential hazards? In Beirut, Serene Assir reports on a controversial scientific debate 16 - 22 November 2006 AL-AHRAM http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/820/re72.htm A Lebanese bulldozer demolishes a building damaged by Israeli strikes in the southern Lebanese village of Hannawiye As seen from Lebanon, it's been an intriguing few weeks in the debate on radiation. Questioning intensified regarding what kind of weapons Israel had used during its massive summer bombing campaigns in Lebanon, and whether that list included any illegal weapons. All throughout, chief amongst the concerns were the use of uranium-based munitions. Pending the release of a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report on the effects of the recent 34-day war on the Lebanese environment -- expected to detail, for instance, the magnitude of the now notorious oil spill from the Jiyye power plant -- very little information has been imparted by the agency on its findings. But after the London Independent newspaper published the findings, on 30 October, of a top radiation scientist, Chris Busby, British scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, indicating it was likely that uranium-based -- possibly enriched uranium -- weapons had been used, UNEP responded by issuing a statement in which it indicated that its team had found no evidence of any such thing. "The samples taken by the UNEP scientists show no evidence of penetrators or metal made of DU [Depleted Uranium], nor enriched uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples," reads the 7 November statement, attributable to UNEP Executive Director and UN Undersecretary General Achim Steiner. It also indicates that all remnants of weapons found by the UNEP team visiting Lebanon were of well-known design. "The team had 32 samples analysed at a reputable laboratory in Switzerland," it adds. Both Busby and Lebanese radiation safety officer at the American University of Beirut Azmi Imad warn that for a thorough, conclusive investigation into whether or not uranium-based munitions have been used in a given area, time is required. "Teams doing this kind of investigation need at least three months," said Imad. On this point, worthy of note is the fact that the team's work in Lebanon began 30 September and was completed 21 October, according to the UNEP statement. "Teams also require sophisticated equipment, lots and lots of samples, and, crucially, they need to know where to get them from. In Kosovo, for instance, maps were provided to search teams by those who had fired them, enabling searches to be focused," added Imad. In this case, the likelihood of such maps being provided is extremely small, given the fact that Israel has denied reports of the use of uranium-based weapons in Lebanon. As it is, it took Israel almost three months to admit it used white phosphorus weaponry in Lebanon -- though, given the nature of burns in casualties in south Lebanon, the matter had become almost blindingly obvious. Farmers interviewed by Al-Ahram Weekly -- for instance in Aayta Shaab -- regularly point out areas where rockets filled with phosphorus powder were used, weeks before any admission was made by Israel. UNEP's statement indicates that Israel did indeed use phosphorus weapons. For lack of more leads perhaps, following information imparted by a wartime Daily Star article claiming that a uranium- containing bomb had been used in Khiam, Busby's team indeed found a soil sample taken from the very same bomb crater containing "significant amounts of enriched uranium". His preliminary report, co-authored by Dai Williams adds that "enriched uranium is not natural and does not exist in the environment, unless it has been put there by human activity." According to Imad and Busby, while uranium is found in the environment, it is the ratio of different uranium isotopes to each other in a given sample or area that determines an anomaly. "The existence of a high amount of total uranium and the enrichment signature in the sample LS6 [taken at Khiam] must be a consequence of its use in the weapon that made the crater," Busby's report reads. As for the mutually contradictory nature of the information on the possible use of uranium-based weaponry in Lebanon, UNEP's communications department declined to answer further questions on the matter pending the release of the final report due in mid-December. According to Imad, the problem may be related to scientific approach. "My son was asked in science class not long ago whether, if he found dead cells on another planet, he could assume there was life on the planet. He answered by saying he would need more time to investigate before being able to conclude," he said. "The teacher told him he was wrong. He had wanted him to focus on the fact that the cells were dead to say that there was no life on the planet." Perhaps the second approach -- the teacher's approach -- is comparable to UNEP's, not because it hasn't found samples containing abnormal uranium isotope ratios, but rather because it has chosen to make conclusions based on a fieldwork study that lasted less than a month. Unlike cluster munitions or even phosphorus, part of the problem with uranium is that it is invisible, and that any effects it may have in future will take time to surface. For Busby, "It is normal in military related science to have such contradictions since the contamination of civilians, if proved, would lead to massive political repercussions and possible war crimes trials and at the least litigation." Should uranium in unnatural quantities be found in areas of south Lebanon and not cleared, then the likelihood of it causing eventual serious damage to civilians living in the vicinity of where a given rocket has launched could be great. A World Health Organisation report (dating to 2001), says that depleted uranium would have to be ingested in very large quantities for it to cause any harm, "The report is fairly accurate," says Imad, "but it needs to be understood that people living in the vicinity of high uranium radioactivity should be concerned because the longer you are exposed to it day in day out, the greater the health hazard." In Kosovo, a clean-up followed detection. In Lebanon, a clean-up, which is all the more expensive for a country lacking the necessary facilities, is unlikely if no further international pressure is brought to bear on the matter. The continued existence of questions is, in this case, simply unacceptable when so much material indicating a likely link between elevated levels of cancer and birth defects in Iraq and heavy United States and British use of DU bombs there in 1991, for instance -- never mind the possibility of new, untested weapons based at least in part on enriched uranium. It would surely do Israel good too to request the file be reopened internationally, given that dust particles of uranium don't tend to respect borders and would, if they have indeed been dropped in Lebanon in bomb form, readily be swept back across, southwards with the wind. ---- Scott Taylor to speak on campus today Ontario, Canada Western News Nov 16th, 2006 http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=22296 Award-winning Canadian journalist Scott Taylor will deliver this year's Clissold Lecture titled From Belgrade to Baghdad today at 5 p.m. in Western's Conron Hall. Formerly a professional soldier, Taylor is now the editor and publisher of Esprit de Corps, a military magazine based in Ottawa. He has reported on military conflicts around the globe, although he is perhaps best known for his coverage of Iraq. Since August 2000, he has made 20 trips there to report on the effects of the UN sanctions, the ravages of depleted uranium following the 1991 Gulf War, and the heightening tensions with the United States. In 2004, he and a colleague were kidnapped while in Iraq. He was beaten and threatened with death before being released five days later. The talk is free and all are welcome to attend. The Clissold Lectures commemorate the life and work of Edward Clissold (1833-1915), one of London's most important early editors and journalists. Clissold retired in 1910 as editor of the London (Ontario) Advertiser after 33 years on its staff. The lectures are made possible by a bequest from the Clissold family. -------- india US Senate approves India nuclear deal By Jo Johnson in New Delhi and Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad and Edward Luce in Washington Published: November 16 2006 Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b7e346e-75ab-11db-aea1-0000779e2340.html The US Senate on Thursday night approved the Bush administration’s historic deal to legalise nuclear trade with India, an important step in the ending of a 30-year-old technology denial regime. The deal was approved in a 85-12 vote after the Republican-led Senate defeated several amendments that India had said would kill the deal, including a requirement that New Delhi end military cooperation with Iran. Several more critical approvals - by Congress, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group - are needed before the agreement can take effect. But the Senate vote means India is getting closer to being able to purchase US nuclear fuel, reactors and related technology. The approval came despite concerns that the deal would encourage India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal and spur a regional arms race with nuclear rivals Pakistan and China. Washington is especially concerned that China’s President Hu Jintao will give the green light to an ambitious expansion of Beijing’s controversial nuclear co-operation with Pakistan during his visit to Islamabad next week. The delicacy of south Asia’s nuclear balance was underscored on Thursday as Pakistan test-fired a nuclear capable medium-range missile, a day after peace talks with New Delhi. The medium-range missile, which can hit targets at a distance of 1,300km, was launched to mark the end of military exercises being held at an undisclosed location, an army statement said. Pakistani army chiefs described the test as routine. Under the US-India accord, reached during President George W.Bush’s visit to India this year, New Delhi would be allowed access to US civilian nuclear technology in return for a pledge to open its non-military nuclear facilities to international inspections. However, Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, on Thursday reiterated New Delhi’s concern that elements of the bill would be unacceptable to New Delhi. The bill would allow members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to provide nuclear fuel to India in exchange for India agreeing to submit most of its civil nuclear plants to international safeguards. Washington has rejected Pakistan’s requests for similar treatment to India, with Mr Bush describing the two rivals as “different countries with different needs and different histories”. Islamabad has been pushing for a similar deal from China for well over a year, but there remain doubts as to whether Beijing will risk international goodwill by supplying fresh technology to a country with the weakest of proliferation records. China has helped Pakistan build two nuclear energy reactors at Chashma in the Punjab province, while an older Canadian-supplied nuclear energy reactor exists in Karachi, the southern port city. Western officials say Pakistan has successfully built up other nuclear facilities near Islamabad, the capital and at locations in the Punjab, where it produces fissile material for use in nuclear warheads. A Pakistani official said future supplies of nuclear reactors from China would come with safeguards according to international standards applied by the Vienna based International Atomic Energy Agency. “If the US can supply nuclear energy reactors to India under what it says are adequate safeguards, why can’t that logic apply to Chinese reactors for Pakistan,” the official said, on condition of anonymity. When Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf visited Beijing in February, both sides announced they would “continue strengthening co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy”. -------- pakistan Pakistan fires nuclear-capable missile Thu Nov 16, 2006 by Rana Jawad Agence France Presse http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061116/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanmilitary_061116155049 ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan test fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile, a day after concluding peace talks with India where the South Asian rivals agreed to fresh atomic safety measures. The medium-range Hatf V, or Ghauri missile, which can strike targets 1,300 kilometers (812 miles) away, was fired from an undisclosed location and the test was successful, the Pakistani military said. "The missile is already in service and the test was conducted to check technical parameters," military spokesman Major General Shaukat Sultan told AFP. India had been informed about the missile launch in advance, in keeping with a prior agreement, the foreign ministry said. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz witnessed the launch along with defence chiefs, scientists and engineers from Pakistan's missile programme, a military statement said. "Pakistan can be justifiably proud of its defence capability and the reliability of its nuclear deterrence," the statement quoted Aziz as saying. Aziz said Pakistan "believed in peace that comes from a position of strength and operational readiness. The defence of the country was non-negotiable." The premier added Pakistan's nuclear capability had now "matured." The Ghauri missile is named after a 12th-century Muslim conqueror of India, who came from Afghanistan. It was test fired as part of a training exercise and hit its target, the statement said. Regional rivals Pakistan and India have routinely conducted missile tests since carrying out tit-for-tat nuclear detonations in May 1998, alarming the world. Top Indian and Pakistani diplomats concluded two days of talks in New Delhi Wednesday where they agreed to create a panel to share intelligence on terrorism and move to cut the risk of nuclear weapon "accidents." The talks rekindled a peace process put on hold since July's Mumbai train bombings, where 189 people died. Indian officials said Pakistan's spy agency was linked to the blasts, a claim Pakistan denied. The two countries "expressed satisfaction over the implementation of the agreement on pre-notification of flight testing of ballistic missiles" at the talks, they said. They also agreed on the "early signing" of an agreement to reduce the risk of "accidents relating to nuclear weapons," without giving a specific time frame. The two sides are to meet next in Islamabad in February. Pakistan, an Islamic republic, and mainly Hindu India have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947. Two of those conflicts, plus a major skirmish in 1999, have been over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir, which India and Pakistan control in part, but claim in its entirety. The Delhi talks failed to make any headway on the Kashmir issue. -------- MILITARY -------- arms United States Rides Weapons Bonanza Wave Frida Berrigan | November 16, 2006 Editor: Emily Schwartz Greco, IPS Foreign Policy In Focus http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3715 War, instability, and high oil prices have created a perfect storm of profit for the world's weapons manufacturers. This year, military analysts predict the biggest arms bonanza since 1993 … which is saying something because in the aftermath of the first Gulf War the global industry reaped the benefits of a $42 billion arms race. As the world's largest producer and exporter, the United States is riding the wave. For fiscal year 2006, which ended on September 30, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency churned out notices for $21 billion in arms sales offers. In most cases, that agency is required to notify Congress of all potential major arms deals worth more than $14 million. In one typical day—September 28—the DSCA issued notification on $5.5 billion in agreements. South Korea would get $1.5 billion in Patriot missile equipment and other hardware, Turkey was offered a $2.9 billion package including 30 F-16 fighter planes, while Jordan and Chile were also offered weapons packages. While not all deals are finalized with arms deliveries, these notifications are a way of taking the pulse of the weapons market … and it is racing. U.S. a rms sales offers for 2006 appear to be roughly twice the levels of any other year during the Bush administration. Noteworthy among these are the $5 billion deal for F-16s to Pakistan and a $5.8 billion agreement to completely re-equip Saudi Arabia's internal security force. The Perfect Storm In the case of Pakistan and other allies in the war on terrorism, sales are booming as sanctions and embargoes imposed because of human rights concerns or nuclear proliferation are being lifted. For Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations, the price at the pump (which topped $3 a gallon this summer) freed up cash for weapons. Finally, war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in corners of the globe where the war on terrorism is being waged more quietly, allows foreign militaries to see some of the most advanced weapons systems in action. As one U.S. government source told The Times of London in August: “Conflicts act like a customer demonstration show and we tend to see an upsurge in sales because other countries [are] … impressed by what is available.” This storm equals rainbows and pots of gold for the defense industry. For example, Lockheed Martin, the world's largest weapons manufacturer, stands to reap more than $11 billion in possible new offers. U.S. weapons companies may have patriotic slogans (Lockheed Martin's is “We Never Forget Who We're Working For”), but foreign sales mean the biggest bucks because they involve systems where research and development costs were covered by the Pentagon. Also, they are often accompanied by lucrative deals for accessories, spare parts, and eventual upgrades. But, what means money in the bank for Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and other defense corporations, often means misery where the weapons are shipped. Despite having some of the world's strongest laws regulating the arms trade, almost half of U.S. weapons end up in countries plagued with ongoing conflict and governed by undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records. According to analysis done by the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Center, using Pentagon and State Department arms transfer figures, the United States provided countries in the developing world with more than $12.6 billion in arms in Fiscal year 2005. Of these 25 countries, all had human rights problems according to the State Department's Human Rights Report, and 10 (including three of the top five) were “undemocratic” in the sense that citizens of those nations “did not have a meaningful right to change their government” in a peaceful manner. According to the Congressional Research Service’s “Conventional Weapons Transfers to Developing Nations” report, the United States led in global arms deliveries for the eighth year in a row. The United Kingdom trailed in second with $3.1 billion and Russia was a close third, at $2.8 billion in arms deliveries. Together, these three weapons exporters where responsible for almost 70% all arms delivered worldwide last year. In late October, the United Nations began work on the Arms Trade Treaty, which is aimed at curbing arms transfers to major human rights abusers and areas of conflict. The treaty would also urge weapons suppliers to limit weapons sales likely to undermine development in poor nations. The United States was the only country to vote against the resolution, while 24 (including many other major weapons suppliers) abstained. The General Assembly will take the next step, but without the active participation of the world's largest weapons producer and exporter, this important mandate will not be strong enough to counter the perfect storm of profiting from war. FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan is a senior research associate at the New School. -------- us Military may ask $127B for wars Posted 11/16/2006 By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-iraq-costsx.htm WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is preparing its largest spending request yet for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a proposal that could make the conflict the most expensive since World War II. The Pentagon is considering $127 billion to $160 billion in requests from the armed services for the 2007 fiscal year, which began last month, several lawmakers and congressional staff members said. That's on top of $70 billion already approved for 2007. Since 2001, Congress has approved $502 billion for the war on terror, roughly two-thirds for Iraq. The latest request, due to reach the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress next spring, would make the war on terror more expensive than the Vietnam War. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who will chair the Senate Budget Committee next year, said the amount under consideration is "$127 billion and rising." He said the cost "is going to increasingly become an issue" because it could prevent Congress from addressing domestic priorities, such as expanding Medicare prescription drug coverage. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., who put the expected request at $160 billion, said such a sizable increase still "won't solve the problem" in Iraq. Bill Hoagland, a senior budget adviser to Senate Republicans, said: "At a minimum, they were looking at $130 (billion). If it goes higher than that, I'm not surprised." The new request being considered for the war on terror would be about one-fourth what the government spends annually on Social Security — and 10 times what it spends on its space program. The White House called the figures premature. "They don't reflect a decision by the administration," said budget office spokeswoman Christin Baker. "It is much too early in the process to make that determination." Before the Iraq war began in 2003, the Bush administration estimated its cost at $50 billion to $60 billion, though White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey had suggested in 2002 that it could cost as much as $200 billion. Growing opposition to the war contributed to Democrats' takeover of the House and Senate in this month's elections. Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, an early critic of the war who lost his bid Thursday to be the House Democratic leader, vowed to use his clout as chairman of the House panel that reviews the Pentagon budget "to get these troops out of Iraq and get back on track and quit spending $8 billion a month." "The war's been an extraordinarily expensive undertaking, both in lives and in dollars," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. The new request is top-heavy with Army and Air Force costs to replace and repair equipment and redeploy troops, Hoagland said. That's why the 2007 cost is likely to top the war's average annual price tag. Overall, he said, "we're easily headed toward $600 billion." That would top the $536 billion cost of Vietnam in today's dollars. World War II cost an inflation-adjusted $3.6 trillion. Leon Panetta, President Clinton's former chief of staff and a member of a bipartisan panel studying recommendations on Iraq for President Bush, said the Pentagon needs $50 billion to $60 billion to "restore the units that are being brought back here, to re-equip them and get them back to a combat-readiness status." ---- Violence in Iraq at almost satanic levels, says CIA director The World Today - Thursday, 16 November, 2006 Australia Broadcasting Reporter: Michael Rowland http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1790056.htm ELEANOR HALL: In the United States, the top spy says violence in Iraq has reached almost satanic levels, and he fears the Iraqi Government is not capable of bringing it under control. General Michael Hayden, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, gave a grim assessment of the security outlook in Iraq during an appearance before a key Senate committee in Washington. But while he's worried about the big increase in killings, General Hayden says the situation will get much worse if US troops start leaving the country. Washington Correspondent Michael Rowland reports. MICHAEL ROWLAND: At a time when the Bush administration is reviewing its limited options in Iraq, General Michael Hayden has delivered a reality check. MICHAEL HAYDEN: In Iraq today there is criminality and lawlessness on a broad scale. In Iraq today there are rival militias competing for power. Any Iraqi leader, no matter how skilful, is going to be hard-pressed to reconcile the divergent perspectives that I've mentioned. Divergent perspectives that Shi'a and Sunnis and Kurds bring to the table and also unfortunately very often bring to the streets. And to deal with that, against a backdrop of an intentional al-Qaeda campaign of almost satanic terror. MICHAEL ROWLAND: The CIA chief believes progress is being made in Iraq, but the gains are very slow. Any positive political developments are usually drowned out by the violence on the streets. General Hayden was one of several top military and intelligence figures appearing today before the Senate's powerful Armed Services Committee. It was the first public hearing on the war since the Democrats' big win in last week's congressional elections, a victory helped in large part by intense anger over the war. Earlier in the day, the top US military commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid told the committee the security situation in Iraq, while still bad, had improved in recent months. Lieutenant General Michael Maples, the head of the Defence Intelligence Agency, told the Senators the outlook was still exceedingly grim. MICHAEL MAPLES: Despite ongoing Iraqi Government and Coalition operations against terrorists, Sunni Arab insurgent groups and Shi'a militias, violence in Iraq continues to increase in scope, complexity and lethality. MICHAEL ROWLAND: Democrat Senators pressed the intelligence chiefs on the likely fate of the US mission in Iraq. Deputy Chairman Carl Levin had this telling exchange with General Maples. CARL LEVIN: What is your current assessment of the course that we're on? Are we on a course of success currently in Iraq? MICHAEL MAPLES: A very difficult question because it's a very complex, a very complex issue and there are many variables that will determine our success or failure, I think, in Iraq. MICHAEL ROWLAND: One of the big variables is the ability of al-Qaeda to make life even more dangerous for US and Coalition troops. CIA Director Michael Hayden says the terror group has proven itself to be enormously resilient. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The loss of a series of al-Qaeda leaders since 9/11 has been substantial, but it's also been mitigated by what is frankly a pretty deep bench of low-ranking personnel capable of stepping up to assume leadership positions. Although a number of these people are new to the senior management, they're not new to jihad. My point here, Senator, is this threat has taken a long time to build. It will take some time to unravel it. MICHAEL ROWLAND: As if to underscore the point, the US military announced six more American soldiers had been killed in Iraq. The US death toll since the March 2003 invasion now stands at 2,859. In Washington this is Michael Rowland reporting for The World Today. ---- Milton Friedman, RIP Thursday, November 16th, 2006 in News by Matt Barganier Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/11/16/milton-friedman-rip/ Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has died. He was 94. I know our readers have a wide range of views regarding his economics, but Friedman deserves the thanks of everyone opposed to conscription. A long-time opponent of the draft, Friedman served on the presidential commission that finally abolished what he forthrightly called a form of slavery. At a conference on the War on Drugs, which he also opposed, Friedman recalled the anti-draft movement as a source of hope for anti-prohibitionists: Back in the 1940s and 1950s we had a military draft. And I may say, I was just as opposed to the military draft as I now am to the prohibition of drugs. It looked as if you couldn’t get rid of it. It was politically unfeasible to get rid of the draft. We had a conference like this at the University of Chicago; I have forgotten the exact date – sometime in the fifties or early sixties. It was one of the few conferences in which opinions were changed. I hope this will be another. We took a poll at the beginning of the draft conference. We had, just as here, people in favor of the draft, people opposed to the draft-a much wider group than here, including politicians, academicians, and so on. At the beginning of that conference the vote was one-third in favor of the volunteer army and two-thirds in favor of the draft. After three days of the conference, the vote was precisely reversed. Two-thirds expressed themselves in favor of the volunteer army and one-third still in favor of the draft. I believe that was a major factor in starting the ball rolling, which ultimately got rid of the draft in 1973. 1 believe that this is the same kind of an issue. The evidence is highly persuasive to those who are willing to look at it from the point of view not of one extreme or the other, but of the sensible middle that everybody is looking for. We must change the present policy. I am not without hope that something will happen. At least, the vigor of the attempt at enforcement will lessen. When specifically asked about foreign policy in a 1995 interview, Friedman was somewhat ambivalent: Reason: Do you consider yourself in the libertarian mainstream on foreign policy issues? Friedman: I don’t believe that the libertarian philosophy dictates a foreign policy. In particular I don’t think you can derive isolationism from libertarianism. I’m anti-interventionist, but I’m not an isolationist. I don’t believe we ought to go without armaments. I’m sure we spend more money on armaments than we need to; that’s a different question. I don’t believe that you can derive from libertarian views the notion that a nation has to bare itself to the outside without defense, or that a strong volunteer force would arise and defend the nation. Reason: What did you think about the [First] Gulf War? Friedman: I always had misgivings about the Gulf War, but I never came to a firm decision. It was more nearly justified than other recent foreign interventions, and yet I was persuaded that the major argument used to support it was fallacious. After all, if Iraq took over the oil, it would have to do something with it. If they don’t want to eat it, they’d have to sell it. I don’t think the price of oil would have been much affected. The more important consideration was the balance of power with Iran and Iraq. I have mixed feelings about that war; I wouldn’t be willing to write a brief on either side. Yet, as our own David Henderson noted earlier this year, Friedman’s economic insights, when applied to foreign policy, yield decidedly noninterventionist conclusions. And in a July conversation with the Wall Street Journal, the still spry gentleman was flatly opposed to the latest attack on Iraq: “What’s really killed the Republican Party isn’t spending, it’s Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.” Mrs. Friedman – listening to her husband with an ear cocked – was now muttering darkly. Milton: “Huh? What?” Rose: “This was not aggression!” Milton (exasperatedly): “It was aggression. Of course it was!” -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE Police state roundup! Joshua Holland, November 16, 2006 Alternet http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/44386/ Joshua Holland: Dispatches from the frontlines of the War on … oh, whatever we're at war with. Let's see what we have in the hopper today … Via the AP, here's our first taste of how the Bushies see the imperial powers vested in them by the Torture Bill, AKA the Military Commissions Act: Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees. In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States. The government has always had the ability to hold foreigners suspected of crimes, including terrorism, without trial. This is about denying those prisoners the right to contest the factual basis of that detention in front of a judge -- it's court-stripping. Now, the government just needs to say you're suspected of terrorism without offering even a shred of evidence. Habeus corpus, shmabeus shmorpus; message to the world: Just trust us. Glenn Greenwald gives us a peek at this new, improved and more Kafka-esque judicial system with the case of one Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a graduate student at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, where he lived with his wife and five children: In December, 2001 he was detained as a "material witness" to suspected acts of terrorism and ultimately charged with various terrorism-related offenses, mostly relating to false statements the FBI claimed he made as part of its 9/11 investigation. Al-Marri vehemently denied the charges, and after lengthy pre-trial proceedings, his trial on those charges was scheduled to begin on July 21, 2003. But his trial never took place, because in June, 2003 -- one month before the scheduled trial -- President Bush declared him to be an "enemy combatant" ... Thus, right before his trial, the Bush administration simply removed Al-Marri from the jurisdiction of the judicial system -- based solely on the unilateral order of the President -- and thus prevented him from contesting the charges against him. Al-Marri was given the "Padilla Treatment" -- kept in solitary confinement, denied all contact with the outside world, including even his own attorneys, not charged with any crimes, and given no opportunity to prove his innocence. That's exactly what Congress legitimized last month in the Torture Bill. Whatever happens to detainees in the Long War Against Violent Extremism is, of course, a closely guarded matter of national secrecy (or, what happens in Gitmo stays in Gitmo): The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk. The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." A bit of CYA, that. After all, a Fox News "reporter" recently gave waterboarding a shot, broadcasting all the fine details to a worldwide audience. And while outgoing RNC Chair Ken Mehlman says that Democrats have "concern for terrorist civil liberties" (despite the fact that according to all credible reports the majority of those caught up in our global network of detention centers are not actually guilty of terrorism), many of us out here in liberal-land are pretty darn frustrated that more Democrats aren't talking about doing something about this. The reason? Politics: Most Americans do not believe the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties as part of the war on terror, a new CNN poll released Thursday suggests. While 39 percent of the 1,013 poll respondents said the Bush administration has gone too far, 34 percent said they believe the administration has been about right on the restrictions, according to the Opinion Research Corp. survey. Another 25 percent said the administration has not gone far enough. According to an October Gallup poll, a slim majority (47-43) also don't want the PATRIOT Act repealed. I blame the media, who can't seem to get it through their little heads that we have no idea whether people swept up by the Bush Administration and denied due process are "terrorists," and can't seem to grasp the concept of "Dearborn Syndrome."* On Friday, the "Pentagon Five" go to trial. Who now? On September 9th, 2006 four Iraq veterans and an anarchist activist were arrested whille taking a tour of the Pentagon for allegedly passing out fliers on depleted uranium. The five are being charged with "Posting of Materials" and "Disobeying a Lawful Order" and could be facing a $6,000 fine and six months in federal prison. Elsewhere, the ACLU is asking a federal appeals court to uphold an "Eastern Michigan District Court ruling on Aug. 17 that had stated the Bush administration's warrantless National Security Agency wiretapping program was illegal." Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to get a new domestic surveillance bill through the lame-duck Congress that would legalize the whole shebang. Speaking of terrorists, you may be one yourself if the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" passes the House, as Nicole Belle explained at Crooks and Liars: That's right, PETA is now a terrorist organization. In my college days, I protested (along with other students) the biology department of my university when some of the animal experiments they did and their treatment of lab animals came to light. By this definition-so purposefully vague, except for the use of the word "terrorist"-I would be considered a terrorist for my participation. Conflating "vandalism" with "terrorism" is all the rage at the right-wing state advocacy group ALEC, which has developed model legislation outlawing "eco-terrorism" as well, defined, of course, broadly enough that it would "effectively ban environmental and animal rights advocacy." Who here believes we'll see a similar redefinition of terrorism for property damage at abortion clinics? [pause for obligatory sound of crickets chirping] I guess vandalism is the least of their problems anyway. Let's see … Sara Robison notes: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed a system which will in essence make it mandatory for you to have permission before leaving or entering the country, effectively putting everyone on a no-fly list unless the government says otherwise. Go read the whole post for a troubling story of a marine who got on a no-fly list because he had explosive residue on his combat boots -- imagine that! -- and couldn't get his name off it. After he returned from a tour in Iraq, airport security kept him from flying home for hours while they tried to straighten the whole mess out. While nothing has happened to the New Jersey public school teacher who told his kids they'd go to hell if they weren't Baptists, two Florida substitutes were banned from teaching in Lee County schools for criticizing the district at school board meetings. Both had been on the job for five years without complaint. The ACLU is looking into the case. The New York CLU said that a review panel that monitors allegations of police brutality didn't meet for 6 months in 2005, creating a back-log of 800 cases. It then dealt with them all in a day -- a thorough case-by-case review no doubt. The NYCLU is also offering activists training in how to request their own files from the FBI, CIA, etc. A few years ago, I asked the FBI if they had a file on me -- I wanted to see if an interview I had done with a Havana radio station was on there -- and they came up empty. Later, I was consulting with an ACLU attorney about suing the city of Miami for some very nasty stuff that went down during the FTAA meetings in 2003, and I recounted the story to her. "Well, Honey," she told me, "you sure have one now." Apparently requesting a file makes you a suspicious character and they automatically start one for you if they didn't already have one -- and I admit a certain logic exists there, even if it's perfectly circular. We do have a few positive items … After a suit was filed by the ACLU, the CIA acknowledged the existence of two "torture memos" -- a pair of smoking guns that tie the White House to the policy. They are, of course, "too sensitive to release to the public." Maybe the German prosecutors preparing war-crimes charges against Rummy can get their hands on them. Also, one of those small victories in Louisana: A court order issued Monday allows a man to protest in front of a Wal-Mart store here, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana said. Edwin Crayton was chased away by a Natchitoches police officer from the front of the Wal-Mart store in early October when he tried to protest what he believes is the company's stand on gays, according to the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit on his behalf. Let's go international to finish out the round-up, shall we? From the department of So Fucking Obvious It Hurts, we get confirmation of what so many of us have been saying for so long: Some countries try to refute criticism over their treatment of prisoners by saying they are only following the U.S. example on handling terror suspects, a U.N. human rights expert said on Monday. Manfred Nowak, the U.N. investigator on torture, told a news conference that "all too frequently" governments respond to criticism about their jails by saying they handled detainees the same way the United States did. He said nations like Jordan tell him, "We are collaborating with the United States so it can't be wrong if it is also done by the United States." Ugh. That might explain why some geniuses in Queensland, Australia's Police Service got the bright idea to test the benefits of placing hoods over prisoners' heads "to protect its officers." Appropriate outrage ensued. Meanwhile, Bush's Poodle introduced his final legislative package, which naturally included a host of new "anti-terror" laws: Six home office bills - including new powers to combat serious and organised crime - were unveiled today. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, lambasted the legislative programme as "empty soundbites" which would erode civil liberties. "Not a word about allowing fair terrorist trials with the aid of intercept evidence. Not a word about proper compensation for the victims of terrorist atrocities abroad. Just more executive power and a little more freedom ebbing away." Richard Garside, the acting director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, highlighted the "eye-watering" number of crime-related pieces of legislation [Blair's] governments have introduced since 1997. All this seems to be making the Lib Dems a bit frisky. Good for them. Which brings us to the last item on our tour. A few weeks ago, Haaretz reported on an Israeli Defense Ministry study it called "political dynamite." It found "rampant illegal construction in dozens of settlements and in many cases involving privately owned Palestinian properties," despite a promise made that same month to Condi Rice, in writing, that Israel would make halting illegal construction of Israeli settlements a top priority. How did our government react to this news, you ask? According to AIPAC, on the same day as news of the study became public, the House unanimously passed a bill "opening new opportunities for the United States and Israel to strengthen their joint homeland security efforts." The Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act creates an office in the Homeland Security Department to develop and share counterterrorism technology and strategies with U.S. allies, including Israel. The bill was led by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-NY) and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Emergency Preparedness and Science and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Ranking Member Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ). The act authorizes private American and Israeli companies to receive federal funding to jointly research and commercialize security products, offers grants to scientists from U.S. and Israeli universities known for high-tech ingenuity and provides funding for quasi-governmental collaboration between federally funded laboratories and their Israeli counterparts … Oh what joys there are in an endless war against "extremism." If you see stories for the next round-up, e-mail 'em to me. *Dearborn Syndrome: "when criminal charges are portrayed as terrorism-related because of the defendants' Middle Eastern origin. Dearborn is the heart of southeastern Michigan's large Arab community." -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Trent Lott Returns to Senate Leadership Thursday, November 16th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/16/1451242 Here in the United States, Senator Trent Lott was voted back into the ranks of the Republican leadership in Congress Wednesday with his election as Senate Minority whip. The position is the Republicans second-highest in Congress. The vote comes nearly four years after Lott was forced to resign as Senate majority leader after making what many considered racially insensitive remarks. The comments came at a 100th birthday celebration for the late former Senator Strom Thurmond in which Lott endorsed Thurmond's run for president in 1948. Thurmond ran his campaign on a pro-segregation, anti-civil rights platform. One of the slogans for his campaign was Segregation Forever. These were Lott’s remarks. Sen. Trent Lott, December 5th 2002: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Lott’s return is already coming under criticism. Democratic Congressmemebr Melvin Watt, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said: "For many African Americans the sting of Trent Lott's hurtful words are unlikely to expire anytime soon." When asked Wednesday whether he had any further comments to make about the 1948 Presidential race, Senator Lott replied: “No, no, not at all.” -------- ENERGY France's Royal Says Nuclear Share Should be Lowered REUTERS FRANCE: November 16, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39011/story.htm PARIS - France's socialist presidential hopeful Segolene Royal on Wednesday said the high share of nuclear power in the French electricity mix should be gradually lowered to allow a place for more renewable energy. France is the world's second most nuclear-reliant nation after the United States and nuclear production makes up almost 80 percent of its total power output. The socialist party holds a primary ballot on Thursday to select their candidate for next year's presidential election and polls suggest Royal will become the official socialist candidate. Royal was environment minister in 1992-1993. "I find excessive the share of nuclear in the French electricity production," Royal said in a letter answering questions from the French anti-nuclear group "Sortir du Nucleaire". "It is therefore essential to reduce it gradually, in reasonable delays and to diversify our electricity production modes...," she said, adding the share of renewables should reach 20 percent by 2020. Royal also questionned the need for the new European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), work on which is expected to start in 2007. "I deplore that the decision to build the EPR was taken hastily and without any preliminary debate," she said. Royal also pledged to make the French nuclear sector more open. "All the decisions related to nuclear will be subjected to a public debate fed by undeniable scientific studies," she said. -------- ACTIVISTS Nuns' canned-food offer isn't up to prosecutor's palate By Diane Carman Denver Post Staff Columnist Article Last Updated: 11/16/2006 http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4668314 As a stand-up comic, Robert Brown makes a great deputy U.S. attorney. Then again, for everyone but a prosecutor, the threat of federal prison is usually not very funny. On Wednesday, Brown met on the sidewalk outside his Denver office with the three media darlings who have haunted him for four years - the anti-nuke nuns. "You look great," he teased. "Prison was good for you." The Dominican sisters, Ardeth Platte, 70, Carol Gilbert, 59, and Jackie Hudson, 72, had come to town in yet another attempt to fulfill the gnarliest part of the sentences imposed on them by U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn when they were convicted of damaging government property and obstructing the national defense in 2003. They are trying to pay off $3,082 in restitution to the U.S. Air Force - in canned goods. They are collecting food for military families on public assistance. Now, all this is about as funny as a cluster bomb, but the sisters have kept their spirits high through trials, prison terms and travel bans, and they're not about to lose their sense of humor now. When they arrived at Brown's office, they delivered cans of food, and, as with every aspect of their lives, their choices were rich with symbolism. Hudson brought pork and beans to represent the pork-barrel nature of the military-industrial complex, and a can of corn "because this case has been so corny from the beginning." Platte delivered canned clams - saying the American people have "clammed up long enough. It's time to speak truth to power" - and a tin of beef stew. "With the massive numbers of people who have been killed in this war, I don't want to stew over this any longer." Gilbert selected sweet peas - "To give peas a chance" - and cream of mushroom soup, representing the radiation cloud from a nuclear bomb, a weapon that has been used by only one country in the world, she said - the U.S. The sisters put the word out about the food drive via the Internet, enlisting help from around the world. The way they calculate it, they would need about 4,000 cans of food to fulfill the required restitution. Boxes of food began arriving Wednesday morning, and the prosecutors were none too happy when the office decorum was insulted with cans of beans for indigent soldiers' families. "Take it four blocks down to the Catholic mission," said an exasperated Brown, who insisted the only way the restitution will be accepted is in cash. "We're not rich. You know that," said Gilbert. Moments later a written statement was delivered to the nuns on the sidewalk. "The U.S. Attorney's Office cannot accept food in lieu of restitution in this case," it said. The food drive is "a tremendously thoughtful act," but the nuns were directed to send assistance to a military facility or charitable agency. Not ones to be discouraged - especially when they've got government officials looking like heartless cheapskates - the nuns held their ground, rallying antiwar groups to coordinate food collection and delivery to military bases. They remain hopeful that Blackburn can be persuaded to accept the canned-food payment plan even though last month he rejected their first attempt at making restitution. That one offered hundreds of hours of community service as well as $600,000 raised in their names for literacy programs, soup kitchens and victims of disasters. "This is a grace-filled holy action," said Gilbert. "Our conscience doesn't allow us to participate in war by providing any money for bombs or violence." Brown told the nuns to take it up with the judge. Then he leaned back, took a long look at the gray-haired women in their long underwear, wool scarves, heavy socks and thick gloves, and smiled. "I have more fun with you guys," he said. As he turned to walk toward his office, Gilbert called to him one last time. "We'll keep you in our prayers," she said. It was not a joke. Diane Carman's column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 303-954-1489 or dcarman@denverpost.com.