NucNews November 17, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR Nuclear Weapons, War and the Media From: "Bill Smirnow" Date: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:26 pm Beyond the Bomb Conference Pace University New York City November 4, 2006 Karl Grossman Professor, State University of New York, College at Old Westbury In examining the interplay between nuclear weapons, war and the media, it is instructive to examine how The New York Times, the paper of record in the United States, gave direction to press coverage in this country as the so-called "nuclear age" opened. It's a shocking story. As Beverly Deepe Keever, a reporter for Newsweek, The New York Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor before becoming a professor of journalism at the University of Hawaii, details in her important book, News Zero: The New York Times and The Bomb, "from the dawn of the atomic-bomb age, [William L.] Laurence and The Times almost single-handedly shaped the news of this epoch and helped birth the acceptance of the most destructive force ever created." Who was William L. Laurence? He was the granddaddy of embedded reporters­plus. A science reporter for The Times, he was hired by the Manhattan Project, the World War II crash program to build an atomic bomb and, while working for the government remained on The Times payroll, his Times weekly salary going to his wife while he also was paid by the government. The arrangement was made by the Manhattan Project's head, General Leslie Groves, with the publisher and editor of The Times. Keever writes: "To sell the bomb, the U.S. government needed The Times...and The Times willingly obliged." At the Manhattan Project, Laurence participated in "the government's cover-up of the super-secret Trinity shot." Held a month before the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the Trinity test a nuclear device was exploded for the first time. Laurence prepared a press release to "disguise the detonation and resulting radiation." The "fake news" claimed there had been a "jumbo detonation of an ammunition magazine filled with high explosives at the 2000-square mile Alamogordo Air Base." The Timesman didn't stop with this deception. He prepared a 10-part series at the Manhattan Project glorifying its making of atomic weapons­and all but ignoring the dangers of radioactivity. And after the bombs fell on Japan, The Times itself ran the series and "on behalf of the government" distributed it free "to the press nationwide." Laurence's avid pro-nuclear writings continued when he returned to The Times this becoming an institutional stance of the publication. The Times, writes Keever, "became little more than a propaganda outlet for the U.S. government in its drive to cover up the dangers of immediate radiation and future radioactivity emanating from the use and testing of nuclear weapons." The Times, she writes, "tolerated or aided the U.S. government's Cold War cover-up that resulted in minimizing or denying the health and environmental effects arising from the use in Japan and later testing of the most destructive weaponry in U.S. history in Pacific Islands once called paradise..The Times aided the U.S. government in keeping in the dark thousands of U.S. servicemen, production workers and miners, even civil defense officials, Pacific Islanders and others worldwide about the dangers of radiation." Other Times writers who participated in the pro-nuclear spin included its military editor, Hanson Baldwin. Writes Keever: "In editorials and articles, The Times clearly favored Operation Crossroads," a major nuclear test in the Pacific, and when President Truman "postponed the first scheduled dates for the test, Baldwin complained that 'well-meaning but muddled persons, in and out of Congress, are proposing the permanent cancellation of the tests.'" The atomic dysfunction at The Times went on and on. The nuclear testing-caused tragedy "from 1947 to 1991 unfolding in the faraway Marshall Islands," for instance, was "largely untold by The Times." And the dysfunction continues today as The New York Times leads U.S. media in pushing for a "revival" of nuclear power. Notes Keever, "A huge outcry followed the revelation of a breach of reporting ethics by a single individual when the Times in mid-2003 exposed the plagiarism and fraud committed.yet the issues raised" by her research "are far more pervasive and more importantly condoned and institutionalized as part of media management policies and practices. This investigation serves as a wake-up call for journalists of today and tomorrow." It's more than a wake-up call for journalists today. It could be a critical to the lives and survival of millions. I helped Keever with her book sharing with her the work of Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, the author of Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, and Kenneth Libo, author and curator. Beyond Belief is about how much was known about the Holocaust­as hundreds of thousands and then millions of Jews were being killed in the 1930s and 1940s­and this was intensely covered by the Jewish press. Yet The Times, Lipstadt writes in Beyond Belief, downplayed the horrible news coming out of Europe. Lipstadt writes that if The Times had done solid journalism about the situation, "it is possible that other American papers would have followed suit"­and what was happening could have been widely exposed­and efforts made to stop it. Libo was responsible for exhibits on this issue including one at the National Museum of American Jewish History which featured enlarged photocopies of small, back-page Times articles on the shipping off of Jews to concentration camps placed alongside the major stories on this which ran in Jewish papers. A sign at the exhibit, Keever notes, quoting an article by me, read: "Setting the tone for coverage in the general press" of the Holocaust was The New York Times which "downplayed" the news. Keever ends her book stating that "history might have unfolded quite differently if The Times had reported the Holocaust more prominently and vigorously," and, likewise, "History might also have unfolded quite differently if The Times had given more than News-Zero coverage of the effects" of the "nuclear holocaust" of our time. What should The Times and other media be reporting? First and foremost, that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are two sides of the same coin­that there is no "peaceful atom." Then it should examine the proposition that the only real way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout this world today is to also put a stop to nuclear technology. Radical? Yes, but consider the even more radical alternative: a world in which scores of nations will be able to construct nuclear weaponry because they possess nuclear power technology. There are major parts of the Earth­Africa, South America, the South Pacific, and others­that have now been designated nuclear-free zones. If we are really to have a world free of the horrific threat of nuclear weapons, the goal needs to be the designation of this entire planet as a nuclear-free zone­no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power. Radical? Yes, but consider the alternative­trying to keep using carrots and sticks, juggling on the road to inevitable nuclear disaster. A nuclear-free world is the only way, I believe, through which humanity will be free of the specter of nuclear warfare. Some will say putting the atomic genie back into the bottle is impossible. I say: anything people have done, other people can undo. Especially if the reason is good. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of reasons. As Amory and Hunter Lovins wrote in their book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: "All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions." "Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball." "A large power reactor," they noted, "annually produces.hundreds of kilograms of plutonium; a large fast breeder reactor would contain thousands of kilograms; a large reprocessing plant may separate tens of thousands." Civilian nuclear power technology, they say, provides the way to make nuclear weapons­furnishing the materiel and trained personnel. That's how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a reactor for "peaceful purposes" and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons. Where have media been in examining the operations of the International Atomic Energy Agency­the global nuclear-pusher? The IAEA was formed as a result of President Eisenhower's 1953 "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly. Eisenhower proposed the creation of an international agency to promote civilian applications of atomic energy and, somehow at the same time, control the use of fissionable material­a dual role paralleling that of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In 1974, the AEC was abolished after the U.S. Congress concluded that, in theory and practice, it was in conflict of interest. But the IAEA­in the AEC's image­remains with us. The IAEA's mandate: "To accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world." From its outset, the IAEA has been run by atomic zealots. Its first director general was Sterling Cole, who, as a U.S. congressman was an original member and then chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, as extreme in its promotion of nuclear technology as the AEC. Later, Hans Blix became IAEA director general­after, his official IAEA biography stresses, leading a move in his native Sweden against the effort to close nuclear power plants there. Blix was outspoken in insisting nuclear technology be spread throughout the world­calling for "resolute response by government, acting individually or together as in the [IAE] Agency." Blix's long-time IAEA second-in command: Morris Rosen­formerly of the AEC and before that the nuclear division of General Electric. After the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, he rendered this advice: "There is very little doubt that nuclear power is a rather benign industrial enterprise and we may have to expect catastrophic accidents from time to time." As for the current IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, he too, is a great nuclear booster. "There is clearly a sense of rising expectations for nuclear power," he told a gathering in Paris last year organized by the IAEA entitled "International Conference on Nuclear Power for the 2lst Century." The IAEA has been doing everything it can to fuel those expectations­scandalously downplaying the public health consequences of nuclear accidents including the Chernobyl disaster, promoting all sorts of atomic technology and, with its nearly $300 million annual budget, encouraging the spread of nuclear power around the globe. The War & Peace Foundation has wisely proposed that the IAEA be replaced with a World Sustainable Energy Agency which would promote the use of safe, clean, non-lethal energy technologies. Meanwhile, true nuclear non-proliferation, as Amory and Hunter Lovins state, requires "civil denuclearization." Even Admiral Hyman Rickover, the "father" of the U.S. nuclear navy and manager of construction of the first commercial nuclear plant in the U.S., in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in the end came to the conclusion that the world must­in his words­"outlaw nuclear reactors." Rickover, in a farewell address, told a committee of Congress in 1982: "I'll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth: that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn't have any life­fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some for some form of life to begin." "Now," Rickover went on, "when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible.Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it's far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." As for nuclear weaponry, the "lesson of history," said the retiring admiral, is that in war nations "will use" whatever weaponry they have. Where have media been on focusing on these realities? In the case of The New York Times and most of mainstream media: in league with a power structure archly pro-nuclear.at News Zero. Now, positively, the media revolution of our time and what it can mean to get the truth out­in Q&A. *** Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and coordinator of its Media & Communications Major. A major concentration for decades has been nuclear technology. Among the six books he has authored are: Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed To Know About Nuclear Power; The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat To Our Planet; Power Crazy; and Weapons in Space. Grossman has given presentations on nuclear issues around the world. He has long also been active on television. He narrated and wrote the award-winning documentaries: The Push To Revive Nuclear Power; Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens; and Three Mile Island Revisited, all produced by EnviroVideo (www.envirovideo.com). For the past 15 years, Grossman has hosted Enviro Close-Up, aired nationally on Free Speech TV, the DISH satellite network (Channel 9415), and on more than 100 cable TV systems and on commercial TV. His magazine and newspaper articles have appeared in numerous publications. He is a charter member of the Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace of the International Association of University Presidents and the United Nations. He is a member of the boards of directors of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service-World Information Service on Energy and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and board of advisors of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He can be reached at kgrossman@hamptons.com or Box 1680, Sag Harbor, NY 11963 -------- britain Blair backs new generation of nuclear power stations Fri Nov 17, 2006 Agence France Presse http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061117/wl_uk_afp/britainpoliticsnuclear_061117093849 LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed a new generation of nuclear power stations here, saying the industry has a "very bright future". On a tour of the Sellafield nuclear site, on the northwest English coast, Blair said Thursday he believed "there will be a new generation of nuclear power stations in the country." The issue of nuclear power has been a divisive one in Britain in recent months after an energy review published by the government in July said that nuclear power "could" make a significant contribution to Britain's energy needs. Blair wants Britain to rely more on nuclear power rather than expensive and dirty carbon fuels in a bid to combat climate change and reduce the country's dependence on often volatile foreign energy imports. Environmental groups argue that there are better ways to do this, such as greater investment in renewable energy and a reduction in consumption. "The nuclear industry is an industry of the future, just as it has provided us with a lot of power and electricity in the past," Blair said on Thursday. "In the next ten to fifteen years we are going to decommission most of our existing nuclear power stations. "We need a new generation of nuclear technology to provide our energy security." Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s. They provide around 25 percent of the country's electricity. ---- Blair hints at Sellafield's nuclear future 17/11/2006 Whitehaven-News http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=436079 TONY Blair gave his strongest indication yet that new nuclear power stations will be built in Britain - and that Sellafield will have a key role in a nuclear industry renaissance. The Prime Minister also reiterated the Government’s commitment to a new hospital for west Cumbria when he visited the nuclear plant yesterday following an invitation from the site’s GMB union convener Peter Kane. He told workers that the nuclear industry does have a solid future - and that means a “tremendous opportunity for Sellafield.” Mr Blair, who was accompanied on a tour of the site by Copeland MP Jamie Reed and Sellafield MD Barry Snelson, met with the ‘future’ of the nuclear industry - apprentices and graduates; a cross-section of workers, who he thanked for their work, which he said was important not only for Sellafield and Cumbria, but the whole of the UK; a panel of community leaders and the site’s trade unions. It was his second visit to Sellafield - he had visited in 1987 when he was shadow energy secretary, and he said he remembered at the time how he was “absolutely staggered at the sheer scale of it and the work that was being done there.” MP Jamie Reed said yesterday’s visit was particularly significant as the PM’s first after the Queen’s Speech on Wednesday, making it, he said, “very, very high profile.” He thanked Mr Blair for being the man who has put nuclear back on the agenda and said he wants west Cumbria to become the international centre for excellence for the nuclear industry. “I would like us to become an energy valley for the whole of the Uk, like a Silicone Valley,” he added. The Prime Minister gave a public address at the British Technology Centre at Sellafield, where Britain’s first National Nuclear Laboratory, announced by Trade & Industry Secretary Alistair Darling last month, will be based. He told a gathering of 200 workers: “The National Nuclear Laboratory is an indication of our faith in Sellafield. “There are very, very powerful reasons to do with energy security as to why we have to go back nuclear. It is not just something in the past but something in the future and I think it is a tremendous opportunity for Sellafield. That is why I have come here today.” He said he wanted to educate people about what the nuclear industry has been about, what it is today and what it can be in the future, and said he wants to clear up misconceptions about nuclear issues. He also told workers that the skills they had were invaluable and need to be treasured. He added: “There are a lot of changes going on here but there is really a very solid future for this industry. Mr Snelson said the visit was a great boost and a fillip for the morale of the Sellafield site and that he wants to ensure that any renaissance of nuclear power includes Sellafield in a major way as it has the people, the technology and the skills. Mr Blair also met with a community panel and has invited a delegation down to Number 10 in the New Year to discuss the West Cumbria Master Plan, which is being drawn up to secure the area’s future amid the threat of 8,000 job losses at Sellafield in the next 10 years. The plan is a blueprint for bringing in future investment and the Prime Minister said that the area’s infrastructure was important, as well as health services. “There is a very strong case and a commitment to a new hospital,” he added. Copeland leader Elaine Woodburn said his visit gave her a lot of promise and hope. Mr Blair said he wanted his visit to send out the message that west Cumbria has a great future and that the nuclear industry is an industry of the future as well as having provided a lot of power and electricity to the country in the past. “I believe there will be a new generation of new nuclear power stations in this country and I think Sellafield has a very bright future particularly when you are going to have the new National Nuclear Laboratory here.” He said other countries were focussing on nuclear, with 60-70 new power stations being built this year. “Sellafield has a lot of experience in this industry - this is an opportunity and we just need to have the confidence to move forward. “If I am right and say nuclear industry is going to have something of a rebirth, not just here but round the world, then Sellafield, which has the history of the industry behind it, well, it has very obvious opportunities” -------- business GE Goes Nuclear Posted on Nov 17th, 2006 Seeking Alpha http://www.topix.net/r/04cYFSNgzWhGlDOKuEPUCbT816O71wgL9uhhr5g6=2Fg7Gjd0JoJk2GLZsyUAgsNAxAlvWltoxET01dbUpOujLZcxpPt=2FoA5xhRO74MpKzVUEI=3D James Fraser submits: General Electric (GE) and Hitachi (HIT) are joining forces in a $2 billion deal that will produce nuclear power ventures in the U.S. and Japan. Through this venture, they hope to capture more contracts as power suppliers gear up to build a new generation of plants. The two companies, which have previously shared a joint venture in nuclear fuels, are planning to bid on a nuclear power plant that merchant power company NRG Energy Inc. (NRG) aims to build in Texas. This plant could be among the first constructed in the U.S. in three decades. The consolidation will be formed in the wake of both companies losing out in a bidding war for Westinghouse Electric Company, the world's largest designer of nuclear reactors, which was purchased for $5.4 billion by rival Toshiba (TOSBF.PK) earlier in the year. In addition, France's Areva, the world's largest maker of nuclear reactors, and Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. said they would cooperate in this sector. Hitachi and GE expect to build around 100 new reactors in the next 20 years to keep up with the growing demand for nuclear energy. The deal will create two operations, one dealing with Japan and 80 percent owned by Hitachi, and another controlled by GE and providing services worldwide. The companies are expected to sign the contract by June of 2007. The GE and Westinghouse deals are of great importance if U.S. industry is to maintain its market share in the nuclear business. -------- depleted uranium Turkish commander in Lebanon dismisses radioactive danger Friday, November 17, 2006 Turkish Daily News http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=59388 ANKARA - Maj. Serdar Fatih Y?lmaz, commander of the Turkish division deployed in southern Lebanon as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force, has denied earlier press reports that radioactive remains have been found in areas where Turkish troops are deployed. Turkish peacekeepers who were deployed in the village of Ech Chaatiye in southern Lebanon nearly one month ago opened their headquarters to the press for the first time on Thursday. During a press briefing at the headquarters, Y?lmaz was reminded of earlier news reports saying that both a British and an Italian science academy have proven that there were radioactive remains in Khiam, Lebanon, which is close to where Turkish troops have been deployed. Samples were collected in the vicinity of the Turkish deployment, Y?lmaz responded, adding, ?There is no evidence [of radiation].? Last week, a member of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) submitted a written inquiry to the Parliament Speaker's Office questioning recent reports on the issue. In his inquiry, Attila Emek asked Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül to state whether his ministry had been informed of the research by the British and Italian academies and whether the government plans to ask the United Nations to be informed on the issue. Also last week, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) said that U.N. experts have found no sign that depleted uranium weapons were used in Lebanon during the war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas. Yet, Flaviano Masella, an Italian journalist following the issue, told the Anatolia news agency in Rome that research he and two other Italian journalists had conducted has proven that Israeli bombs have deposited radioactive matter in Khiam. -------- india Next U.S. vote on India nuclear deal may be December Fri Nov 17, 2006 By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-11-17T070321Z_01_N16198106_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-INDIA-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=PolNewsHome_C2_politicsNews-1 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress, following a strong Senate vote, aims to complete work in early December on legislation to allow nuclear cooperation with India for the first time in three decades. An overwhelming majority has now endorsed separate versions of the bill in both the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, although different wording, including on nuclear-armed India's ties to Iran, could cause problems. Still, supporters are optimistic the bills can be reconciled in negotiations between the two chambers and given final passage before the "lame duck" Republican-led Congress surrenders power to Democrats in January. "I am confident that we can now work closely with our colleagues in the House to get this important measure to the President (George W. Bush) as swiftly as possible," Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in a statement after Thursday's 85-12 Senate vote. The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency still have to approve the agreement that would allow New Delhi to purchase U.S. nuclear fuel, reactors and related technology. The U.S. Congress gets another chance to vote on the deal, probably next year, because it must approve technical details. Bush and his administration argue nuclear cooperation is essential to relations between the world's largest democracies that will be pillars of security in the 21st century. Opponents contend the agreement harms U.S. security by allowing New Delhi to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal, by fostering an arms race in Asia among India and nuclear rivals Pakistan and China and by undermining decades of U.S. non-proliferation policy. CONTAINING IRAN Thursday's vote approved changes in U.S. law to allow nuclear cooperation with India, which never signed the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The House had voted last July. Rep. Jim Crowley, a New York Democrat who expects to be a House negotiator with the Senate, said New Delhi is unhappy with a Senate provision requiring Bush to certify that India is "fully and actively" participating in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before U.S.-India nuclear cooperation could proceed. The House version addresses the issue in a way that is "less offensive to the Indians and yet serves the same purpose," he told Reuters. But, he added: "I think we will be able to work something out." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she looked forward to the House-Senate negotiations "when remaining issues of concern to the U.S. government can be addressed." She did not specify those concerns. "This initiative will help India meet its growing energy needs, enhance cooperation on energy security and nonproliferation, and increase economic investment opportunities," she said in a statement. She also stressed the need for both sides to fully meet their commitments. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and a leading opponent of the nuclear deal called the Senate bill a "great mistake for security and non-proliferation policy." But the Senate version is better than the House version because it bars transfers of technology related to uranium enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, which can aid nuclear weapons production, he told Reuters. He said the nuclear agreement still faced substantial hurdles. "This is far from over." Kimball said. ----- India presses Australia for uranium Friday, November 17, 2006 Reuters http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\11\17\story_17-11-2006_pg4_14 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39041/story.htm SYDNEY: India's finance minister on Thursday pressed Australia's prime minister to give India access to the country's uranium, arguing it needs nuclear power if it is to reduce carbon emissions. India has sought previously to buy Australian uranium, but Canberra earlier this year stood by its policy of not selling to countries, such as India, that have not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. India's finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, said he paid Australian leader John Howard a courtesy visit on Wednesday ahead of a weekend G20 conference in Melbourne. Australia has more than 40 percent of the world's known reserves of uranium. "I did mention that India would expect Australia to support India's case in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and that we should be allowed access to uranium," Chidambaram told a briefing, adding that he believed Howard understood the Indian position. India has agreed a deal with the United States under which it will receive US nuclear technology in return for separating its military and civil nuclear operations and opening civilian plants to inspections. The agreement, which has been delayed in the US Senate, requires a rule change by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which oversees nuclear exports and is divided over the deal. Chidambaram said India needed to pursue rapid economic growth, but was willing to accept its obligations to control emissions. "For that I suggest we be given access to technology, especially clean coal technology and we be given access to uranium so that a significant proportion of our energy requirements can be met by nuclear energy," he said. India currently generates about 3 percent of its total energy production through nuclear power, and hopes to raise this level to 10 percent, he said. Australia has 20 nuclear safeguards agreements covering 37 countries and Howard has long said Australia was keen for further uranium sales. -------- 7-step towards formalisation of Indo-US nuke Bill Nov 17, 2006 Zee News http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?rep=2&aid=336236&sid=NAT&ssid= Washington, After the passing of the US-India civil nuclear energy cooperation by an 'overwhelming' (85-12) vote in the US Senate, the next stages involved in the final formalisation of the Bill into an Act includes the conference committee report, Presidential assent and a nod from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The steps involved are as follows: 1.The differences in the two versions of the Bill that have been passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives must be reconciled in a Conference Committee, which is an ad hoc committee including both Senators and Representatives, not necessarily in equal numbers. 2.The conference committee would then produce a conference report that would be a kind of melding the work of the House and Senate. With regard to the 123-agreement also known as the nuclear deal, both the House and the Senate have added new amendments that must be reconciled. 3.Once the report is finalised, the conference committee draft the language of the Bill, which goes directly to the floor of both the House and the Senate for a vote, and it is not open to further amendment. 4.New amendments could also be added by the Conference Committee that are sometimes a significantly departure from both the House and the Senate versions. President Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear." 5.However, a member of the house where the new 'reconciled' Bill is first taken up may move to recommit the Bill to the Conference Committee. But once the first House has passed the conference report, the Conference Committee is dissolved, and the second house to act can no longer recommit the Bill to Conference. 6.Both the houses again vote the new draft of the Bill, if it is passed then the Bill is sent to President for his assent, otherwise the Bill fails. 7.For the Indo-US nuclear deal, 45-member nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency would also have to ratify the Indo-US civil nuclear energy cooperation agreement. ---- Senate Approves US-India Nuclear Deal Friday, November 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/17/1454222 In other news from Capitol Hill, the Senate approved legislation Thursday to begin nuclear cooperation with India. The measure received bi-partisan support to pass 85 to 12. Dissenting Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota argued the agreement would increase nuclear proliferation and worsen tensions between India and Pakistan. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota): "Any nuclear deal, any relationship we have with another country that deals with nuclear power and nuclear issues should be judged, in my opinion, on whether it reduces the number of nuclear weapons. Does it reduce the number of nuclear weapons that exist, or decrease them? It's quite clear that what we're debating today will result in an increase of nuclear weapons in India. I don't think there's much doubt about that. This bill fails that test in my judgment." ---- India cautiously welcomes US Senate nuclear pact approval by Elizabeth Roche Fri Nov 17, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061117/wl_afp/usindiacongress_061117153923 NEW DELHI - India has welcomed the US Senate's passage of a landmark civilian nuclear deal with the energy-hungry country, but said it would await the final version of the legislation before celebrating. India, which feared the bill might get sidelined during the "lame duck" session of Congress, especially after the Democrats -- staunch advocates of nuclear non-proliferation -- won control, said further hurdles still needed to be cleared after the Senate massively approved the measure by 85 votes to 12. "I welcome the decision of the US Senate to approve the bill. Before that, the House of Representatives has done a similar thing," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in New Delhi. "But we still have a long way to go before nuclear cooperation between India and the US becomes a living reality." Singh said that President George W. Bush had assured him that he would ensure that the final version of the legislation would conform to the agreement the two leaders signed in July 2005. The agreement is the centrepiece of India's new relationship with Washington after decades of Cold War chill and is part of the energy import-dependent nation's bid to increase its fuel sources to sustain its booming economy. Nuclear power supplies around three percent of the fuel needs of the country of more than one billion people, but India hopes the figure will rise to at least 20 percent within two decades. Earlier, Bush hailed the Senate passage, saying it would bring India into the "non-proliferation mainstream". "As India's economy continues to grow, this partnership will help India meet its energy needs without increasing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions," Bush said he said as he left Singapore for a summit in Vietnam. Under the pact, India, a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would get access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing its atomic reactors under global safeguards. The agreement still needs approval by Congress after the two houses reconcile several amendments each made to the legislation. The Senate and the House will meet in December to reconcile the changes. Premier Singh said he hoped India's concerns would be addressed. "I sincerely hope in this process, ideas and areas where we are concerned with the structures of the bills as they stand will be taken into account," Singh said. "I have the assurance of President Bush that the US administration is aware of our concerns." Congress will also have to consider a US-India accord on technical elements of the deal, including nuclear safeguards. India will split its closely entwined civilian and military nuclear facilities and put some reactors under international inspection. This must be followed by approvals from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. A senior government official, who did not wish to be named, said it was a "positive sign that the Senate rejected several 'killer amendments' which would have meant New Delhi could not have accepted the legislation". India's military establishment had expressed fears the deal could hurt the defence capability of the country, which has fought three wars with nuclear rival Pakistan. US ambassador to India David Mulford was upbeat on prospects for the deal, noting its strong bipartisan support. "We can now can move forward to the next phase with a great deal of optimism," Mulford told reporters. "This will open up a new source of energy for this country to help and promote its economic growth." The agreement has been viewed as controversial because the US Congress had to exempt India from the requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act, which bans nuclear sales to non-NPT signatories. US weapons experts had warned such a deal would make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades Iran and North Korea and set a dangerous precedent for other nations with nuclear hopes. -------- japan Aso, Rice to put missile shield on fast-track status The Japan Times Friday, Nov. 17, 2006 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20061117a6.html HANOI (Kyodo) Foreign Minister Taro Aso told reporters Thursday the he and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed to speed up their ballistic missile defense quest to secure regional security. During their meeting on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Hanoi, the two also agreed it is important to see concrete achievements at the six-party talks on denuclearizing North Korea that are expected to resume next month, Aso said. Aso and Rice confirmed that five nations involved in the multilateral talks -- China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States -- need to maintain their solidarity to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear arms program, he said. "I also made clear that Japan will not respond to any negotiations to provide support to North Korea unless the issue of abductions of Japanese nationals is resolved," Aso said. ---- Navy to deploy Aegis destroyer in Japan Associated Press Fri, Nov. 17, 2006 http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/16037980.htm TOKYO - The U.S. Navy said Friday that it will deploy its guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell at Japan's Yokosuka naval base, taking over from frigate USS Gary as the navy moves to replace some of its aging fleet. The Aegis destroyer is scheduled to arrive in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, in June, and USS Gary will return to the U.S., the navy said. The deployment of McCampbell is to increase missile defense capabilities around Japan. The U.S. Navy will have nine Aegis-equipped vessels at Yokosuka, Kyodo News agency said. On Thursday, the U.S. and Japan agreed to speed up deployment of a missile defense system amid concerns over North Korea's weapons program. The agreement came at a meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Vietnam, Japanese officials said. Missile defense has been a major issue for Japan's military in the months since North Korea test-fired a long-range ballistic missile in July. Those concerns intensified with the North's test of a nuclear device on Oct. 9. Japan is home to some 50,000 U.S. troops and is considered a prime target of communist North Korea's weapons programs. -------- korea Blix: N. Korea will perfect nuclear bomb Posted 11/17/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-17-blix_x.htm TOKYO — Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Friday that North Korea would one day master nuclear weapons technology despite its apparently less-than-successful atomic test, and he warned that the world must avoid striking a quick disarmament deal that lacks effective verification measures. Blix said verification would be the key to ensuring compliance in any nuclear accord with Pyongyang, as the country returns to six-nation talks on its weapons program. "I have no illusion it will be easy," he said. President Bush, speaking Friday in Vietnam at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, urged other nations to take a tough line on enforcing U.N. sanctions against North Korea, adopted after the communist nation's Oct. 9 test that may have only partially detonated. "It's important for the world to see that the Security Council resolutions which were passed are implemented" against North Korea, Bush said. "So part of my discussions will be how we fully implement those sanctions that the world has asked for." North Korea is also taking a hard line in advance of the six-party talks on its nuclear arms programs, which will include the United States, Russia, China, the two Koreas and Japan. The North walked away from the negotiating table last year after the U.S. campaigned to cut off the North's access to foreign banks over alleged money laundering and counterfeiting. Kim Myong Gil, deputy chief of North Korea's mission to the United Nations in New York, told The Associated Press that progress at the negotiating table depends on whether the United States "has a sincere attitude and has willingness to improve its relations" with his country, a signal North Korea is unlikely to make opening concessions. Pyongyang's nuclear test triggered international condemnation and U.N. sanctions. Three weeks later, North Korea agreed to resume talks after Washington said it would discuss its financial sanctions. Kim said that discussions on easing sanctions would make "a good start" for the talks, scheduled to resume in December. Choe Thae Bok, the head of the North's rubber-stamp parliament, said in remarks reported Friday by the official Korean Central News Agency that Pyongyang remained committed to denuclearization through dialogue but that "it was compelled to conduct the nuclear test by the U.S." Choe told a conference in Iran on Monday that the Bush administration bore the historic responsibility "for having torpedoed the process of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula." Washington, meanwhile, has said it agreed to consider easing sanctions only as a side issue to North Korea's nuclear disarmament. In Japan, Blix said verification of North Korea disarmament would be especially tough given the secretive nation's history of restricting access by foreigners to much of the country. North Korea has limited the activities even of U.N. officials distributing food aid, he noted, and foreign weapons experts would likely be far less welcome. The former chief weapons inspector warned against the temptation to sign a deal that doesn't guarantee full cooperation. "Cosmetic inspection is worse than none because that can lull states into a confidence that is false, and you can have very unpleasant surprises" he said. Blix, who questioned the Bush administration's assertions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war, noted that most experts believe North Korea's test was only a partial success because it produced a relatively small blast. But the world should not be "complacent" about North Korea's nuclear capability, he said. "If they didn't succeed this time, how much time will it take them before they perfect it?" he said. Blix called the Oct. 9 test was "a demonstration" of what the small, highly-militarized nation could ultimately achieve. Blix was in Japan as part of an international tour to discuss recommendations from a report issued in June by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, which he heads. The 227-page report highlights the dangers of nuclear weapons and presented 60 steps that countries and disarmament organizations should take, mindful of a goal to one day ban and eliminate all nuclear arms. -------- russia Russian Nuclear Strategy: In Search Of Amendments by Sergei Kortunov Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Nov 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Nuclear_Strategy_In_Search_Of_Amendments_999.html Since the U.S. State Department, three months after 9/11, said America was going to quit the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - which it did half a year later - Moscow's response has been conspicuous by its nearly total absence. At that point, no one among Russia's political elite offered a viable perspective of a future international nuclear arms control regime, heavily undermined by the U.S. unilateralism. Then, on May 26, 2002, the Russian and U.S. presidents signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, a move that sent a very clear signal - at least, to security experts' community - that bilateral and probably multilateral nuclear arms control, in its previous shape, was history. From that point on, a new national nuclear strategy has been a most urgent imperative. Similarly to what we witnessed four years ago, we can see now that the Bush Administration is apparently not going to have its hands tied by any arms limitation or reduction treaties whatsoever. The U.S. military policies are being significantly reshaped - not so much by the war on terror but for other, deeper reasons. The Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, has not been ratified. Now both look completely forgotten. The Pentagon gets nearly $100 billion more a year than before. A recently adopted U.S. nuclear doctrine includes the upgrade of strategic offensive arms, the development of small nuclear munitions to be used together with smart weapons, and a premise that Washington might resort to nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Many Russian experts believe the recent changes to the U.S. military policy do not mean that Russia's national security is going to be under threat, at least for 10 to 15 years to come, when the full deployment of the national missile defense system is expected. However, the abandonment of the ABM Treaty, in combination with other changes, puts the international arms control regime under question and probably sets the stage for a new international arms race. The U.S. is making strategic moves that - naturally - call for strategic nuclear responses. In fact, the new U.S. strategy says that unprecedented terrorist attacks and a new prioritization of threats may well lower the go-nuclear threshold, which means that a nuclear capability, once used, can easily spiral out of control. The continuing proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction, as well as of means of delivery, and growing regional instability add little comfort. Amid utterly unpredictable political momentum, the U.S. has chosen to further upgrade its nuclear force, to retain the means to quickly build up its nuclear capability in time of need, and to effectively put off the table any binding and verifiable agreements with Russia on the inconvertible reduction of strategic offensive arms. On the other side of the equation, recent tests and general U.S. technological potential suggest that a workable and consistently upgradable missile defense system could be deployed already in the medium term. All this demonstrates that the only option for Russia is to retain a great nuclear power status for at least 15 to 20 years to come - which means to rethink its nuclear plans. What we have right now was drawn up on the assumption that both START II and ABM would be in place, and that the naval and air legs, like in the U.S. nuclear triad, will grow, while the ground component will be largely reduced. The new strategic reality suggests that we should instead maintain our ground nuclear force as long as possible, while shaping the naval and air legs so that they could fulfill both nuclear and conventional tasks. Old plans, drawn up in response to radically different challenges, are no more viable - economically as well as militarily. In his State of the Nation Address earlier this year, the President radiated confidence on a new nuclear reality. Let's hope it is really there. Sergei Kortunov is chairman of the Foreign Policy Planning Committee. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. ---- Putin Calls for Strong Nuclear Forces By Vladimir Isachenkov The Associated Press November 17, 2006 http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/11/17/011.html Vladimir Putin and Sergei Ivanov attending a meeting of senior military officials in the Defense Ministry on Thursday. The country's nuclear forces must remain capable of guaranteeing the destruction of any potential aggressor, President Vladimir Putin said Thursday. "Maintaining a strategic balance means that our strategic deterrent forces must be capable of destroying any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapons systems it has," Putin said at a meeting of senior military officials. He said Russia needed to build "principally new strategic weapons systems" to maintain the balance of forces. "We're not going to keep comparing quantities of strategic forces in nuclear powers as we have been doing for decades, although it still makes some sense," Putin said in televised remarks. "In the modern world, it's the quality of weapons that is more important than the number of nuclear warheads." He said that along with a strong nuclear deterrent, the military should also preserve efficient conventional forces. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said a strong military power was essential for Russia to "protect the nation's security and territorial integrity, firmly defend our national interests and, if necessary, adequately respond to any attempts of political pressure and blackmail," Itar-Tass reported. In his state-of-the-nation address in May, Putin emphasized that Russia needed a strong military to resist foreign pressure. Windfall oil revenues over recent years have allowed the government to increase weapons purchases and fund the development of new weapons. "The period of patching holes and elementary survival is over," Putin said Thursday in a reference to a cash shortage that followed the Soviet collapse. "The Army and the Navy are again acquiring power and self-confidence." Ivanov said that of the military's budget of 820 billion rubles ($30.7 billion) next year, 300 billion rubles would be spent on new weapons, including 17 new intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is a significant increase over recent years, when the military was buying just several new strategic missiles per year. Ivanov added that a state weapons program for 2007 to 2015 envisaged spending the total of 5 trillion rubles ($188 billion) on the development and production of new weapons. In response to broad criticism of poor conditions and rampant bullying of young conscripts by older soldiers, Ivanov pledged Thursday to punish officers who allowed abuses and open the military to more public scrutiny. Ivanov said there were 473 noncombat deaths in the military in the first 10 months of the year, compared with 876 during the same period last year. Of that number, 20 deaths resulted from bullying compared with 26 during the same period last year, and 167 were suicides, compared with 206 in 2005, he said. He said the military this year would disband all construction battalions, notorious for the most vicious bullying and other abuses. He added that three generals were fired this year for assigning to soldiers tasks unrelated to service. ---- Russia To Buy 17 ICBMs In 2007 by Staff Writers Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Nov 17, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_To_Buy_17_ICBMs_In_2007_999.html Russia will buy 17 intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2007, the defense minister said Thursday. Sergei Ivanov's words were in line with President Vladimir Putin's statement that Russia's armed forces must maintain a strategic balance to guarantee their ability to neutralize any potential aggressor. "Maintaining a strategic balance will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapons systems he possesses," Putin told top military officials. He said Russia has enough, though not unlimited, funds to maintain a modern nuclear deterrent, as well as general-purpose forces without which the country would not be able to cope with local conflicts effectively. He called for the creation of cutting-edge strategic weapons, emphasizing their quality. "We must meet schedules to create new strategic weapons to secure a balance of forces in the world. This means that we will not indulge in comparing the quantitative data of our strategic nuclear deterrent forces as we used to do earlier, although it is not senseless," Putin said. "It is not the quantity but the quality of warheads that matters," he added. As of January 1, Russia possessed 927 nuclear delivery vehicles and 4,279 nuclear warheads for strategic offensive weapons, Nikolai Artyukhin, head of the Defense Ministry's department for contract compliance control, said earlier. Over $11 billion will be allocated from the federal budget for the acquisition of modernized equipment for the armed forces in 2007. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada No notice over hauling of radioactive waste worries Vegas 17-NOV-06 By MARK HANSEL Las Vegas Sun http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=RADWASTE-11-17-06 LAS VEGAS -- Motorists traveling along Interstate 15 might want to give that tractor-trailer in the next lane a little extra room. Especially if they notice it sporting a diamond-shaped placard saying "Radioactive 7." There's a good chance it's hauling one of the roughly 1,200 annual shipments of low-level radioactive waste that travels near, and occasionally through, the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Although low-level waste in the past was generated from nuclear weapons production and testing, more recently it has originated primarily from cleanup activities at sites throughout the country. Much of the waste that has passed through Nevada in recent years has come from plants nearly 2,000 miles away, at facilities in Ohio and Kentucky. "It typically consists of personal protective clothing, dirt and debris," said Darwin Morgan, public affairs director at the Nevada Test Site. Tons of it, all contaminated to some degree, come through the valley on a regular basis on its way to disposal at the Test Site, about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The trucks typically cross into Nevada on I-15, then head west on State Route 160 (a portion of which is known as Blue Diamond Road) southwest of Las Vegas and travel that road north to the Test Site. Although an accident damaging the contaminants' sealed containers is not considered life threatening, there are risks, says Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects. "You would likely have to come in direct contact with it or hold it," Loux said. "That's not to say there aren't dangers from prolonged exposure. If it got in the air, there could be safety issues." City, county and state officials, while acknowledging the shipments' inevitability, would like to at least know in advance when a truckload is headed through the valley. They don't, however. Only the Energy Department and trucking companies know the shipments' schedule. The reason they don't pass along the information to local or regional officials is not a matter of national security or because of a potential terrorist threat. It's simply because they don't have to. Morgan points out that companies transporting other hazardous materials that routinely pass through the valley are not required to submit schedules. "Is there a reason that we should?" Morgan said. "The trucks are marked." That answer displeases Las Vegas officials. "I have a hard time swallowing that," Councilman Steven Ross said. "I feel like we're in a battle with another country and it's the DOE." Since 1973, there have been only four accidents across the country that resulted in the release of radioactive material during the transport of low-level waste, according to the Energy Department. None of the accidents resulted in death or serious injury, federal officials said. That, however, is of little comfort to Las Vegas leaders, who stress that when it comes to accidents involving radioactive waste, even one can be too many. "This is an accident waiting to happen," Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said, arguing that the city is entitled at a minimum to know of the shipments in advance. Energy Department officials' reluctance to provide information about low-level shipments at a time when they are lobbying to bring more dangerous waste into the state for disposal at Yucca Mountain _ a plan that, even if it wins congressional approval, is at least a decade away _ disturbs many. "Frequently the DOE is its own worst enemy in these things," Loux said. The advantages of advanced notification, Loux said, include being able to provide emergency personnel with routing information and the ability to independently monitor drivers to ensure route compliance. Currently the only monitoring is done by Nevada Highway Patrol troopers, who sometimes call the Agency for Nuclear Projects if they see a truck coming through, Loux said. (Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service, www.shns.com.) -------- new york Indian Point 2 returns to service 15 hours after shutdown November 17, 2006 By GREG CLARY THE JOURNAL NEWS http://www.nyjournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061117/NEWS02/611170355/1017 BUCHANAN - Indian Point 2 went back online about 7 a.m. yesterday, less than a day after it was automatically shut down because a low-voltage electrical connection to the plant's 1,000-megawatt generator failed. "To their credit, the workers brought the plant back quickly," said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point. "It may have been the fastest turnaround ever at the site." Company and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said neither plant workers nor the public faced exposure to radiation during the shutdown. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the outage went as it should have. "It was an uncomplicated shutdown, very straightforward," Sheehan said. "The operator handled it appropriately." Sheehan said the agency would be able to follow up on any review with inspectors already onsite. The 2 p.m. stoppage Wednesday was the third such event for the nuclear reactor since December, and the fifth time in a year that Indian Point had to operate with only one of its two reactors working. Indian Point 3 shut down twice in July for a few days because of separate electrical problems. The shutdown came about 24 hours after the completion of a biennial emergency planning exercise with a mock radiation release wafting over the lower Hudson Valley. Federal officials are due to release their preliminary report on that today at a meeting on Charles Point. There was no impact on the region's power supply, said Ken Klapp of the New York Independent Service Organization, which is responsible for maintaining the state's electricity grid. Though the individual nuclear plants at Indian Point produce about 1,000 megawatts of power, the equivalent of one million homes, NYISO maintains an 1,800-megawatt reserve for shutdowns and other interruptions in production. -------- texas Uranium mining prospect worries neighbors Nov. 17, 2006 (UPI) http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20061117-13361900-bc-us-uranium.xml SAN ANTONIO -- A company wanting to mine for uranium in south Texas said a strike would be an alternative fuel dream while opponents said it's an environmental nightmare. Uranium Energy Corp. is seeking operation permits to explore for uranium that the company said would meet the area's energy needs for 4,000 years, KENS-TV, San Antonio, said. The company leased about 2,000 acres of open land and is drilling more than 60 test wells in search of uranium. Company officials said that, drinking water is safe for the area around San Antonio, despite drilling through the Gulf Coast Aquifer to reach the uranium below. Meanwhile, Craig and Luann Dunderstadt are testing their wells, creating a baseline of what's in the water. The move, they said, is their insurance against possible contamination. "If they do decide to mine over there, we won't be able to live here. I would not feel safe living here," Luann Dunderstadt told KENS-TV. The mining process uses water to release uranium from its deposits, drawing it to the surface for collection. Wastes, such as arsenic, radium and other heavy metals, are pumped to an underground storage area. -------- MILITARY -------- china China's military development 'outsized', Rice says Fri Nov 17, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061117/pl_afp/apecsummituschina_061117152145 HANOI - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice voiced concern over China's rapid military expansion, calling it "outsized" in comparison to Beijing's role in the Asia-Pacific region. In an interview with CNBC Asia, Rice offered a list of US "concerns" about China -- its rapidly-growing economy, the value of the Chinese yuan, human and intellectual property rights and the size of the Asian giant's military. "Those are the kinds of concerns we have. And of course there are concerns about Chinese military build-ups; it sometimes seemed outsized for China's regional role," she told the cable television network. "China is a country that's in transition, and of course its record on human rights, its record on issues of religious freedoms, continue to be issues that we discuss," said Rice, in Hanoi for a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders. "But by and large, it's a good relationship and it is very much in the interest of the world that China's energies, China's growth be channeled in a way that is stabilizing for the international system." The Pentagon said this week that a Chinese submarine came within several kilometers of a US aircraft carrier last month in international waters, near the Japanese island of Okinawa -- a claim denied by Beijing. "China and US military relations enjoy good momentum in the development of ties," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a press briefing on Thursday. -------- nato NATO Trains ISAF for Possible Nuclear Attack in Afghanistan By Cihan News Agency Friday, November 17, 2006 Zaman http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20061117&hn=38380 NATO has launched training courses for International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Afghan police in the case of a possible nuclear strike in their vulnerable country. ISAF Special Forces Commander Dave Tomas said that terrorist attacks had increased recently in Afghanistan, particularly in the southern part of the war-torn country. According to intelligence, Taliban and Al-Qaeda members might use nuclear weapons in an attack against ISAF forces or Afghan police, he stressed. Tomas remarked that ISAF officials and 55 Afghan police had attended the course, which instructs officials on how to defend themselves in the event of a nuclear attack. The ISAF Commander underlined that the reason for the training was the threat of a possible nuclear attack, adding that they worried much about the issue. For further information please visit http://www.cihannews.com -------- prisoners of war Bush Admin Plans Gitmo “Mini-City” for Military Commissions Friday, November 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/17/1454222 The Miami Herald is reporting the Bush administration is planning construction of a massive new “mini-city” at Guantanamo Bay to hold military trials for prisoners. The one hundred twenty-five million dollar compound would be the largest single construction expenditure since the prison opened four years ago. The administration wants to begin the military commissions by July of next year. Ex-Gitmo Prisoner Alleges Torture Meanwhile, a recently-freed prisoner from Guantanamo Bay has come forward with allegations of torture at the hands of the US military. In an interview from his home in Turkey, the former prisoner, Murat Kurnaz, said he was beaten, given electric shocks, submerged in water, starved, and chained to a ceiling for days. He said he saw several people die and often thought he would die himself. Kurnaz was held for four years before his release in August because of a lack of evidence against him. ---- U.S. military plans new compound at Guantanamo to hold war-crimes trials Posted 11/17/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-17-guantanamo_x.htm SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The U.S. military on Friday said it plans to build a $125 million compound at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base where it hopes to hold war-crimes trials for terror suspects by the middle of next year. The compound, designed to accommodate as many as 1,200 people, would include dining areas, work spaces and sleeping accommodations for administrative personnel, lawyers, journalists and others involved in trials at the isolated detention center in southeast Cuba. It would create a total of three courtrooms on the base to allow for simultaneous trials, and a separate high-security area to house the detainees on trial. "We need to build more courtrooms, and we want to do multiple trials," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, a Pentagon spokesman. He said the government hopes to begin construction as soon as possible to be ready for trials no later than July 1. Human rights groups and foreign governments have called on the Bush administration to close Guantanamo, saying detainees are being held illegally, but the planned construction of new facilities underscores its permanence. "This is a huge waste of taxpayer money," said Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo detainees. "They've been trying to try people for five years, and until they try somebody according to the Constitution, nothing's going to happen there." The project, which has not yet been submitted for congressional approval, represents one of the largest upgrades to the detention center since it began taking in suspected enemy combatants in January 2002. Among the terror suspects expected to face war crimes trials at Guantanamo are 14 "high-value" detainees who were recently transferred from secret CIA custody. They include Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and Abu Zubaydah, believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells. Plans for the compound are provided in a "presolicitation notice," dated Nov. 3 and posted on the Internet for potential government contractors. It was first reported by The Miami Herald. The contractor will be required to complete work by July on the compound including "a secure perimeter," a garage for 100 government vehicles and a closed-circuit video transmission center, according to the notice. The new compound will be located in a field overlooking the bay and near the existing courtroom, which sits on a hill. The U.S. government is drafting new rules for the trials under the Military Commissions Act, which President Bush signed last month. The Supreme Court had declared that previous efforts to try Guantanamo detainees were unconstitutional. Previously, 10 detainees were charged with crimes. A total of some 70 detainees are expected to be charged under the new law, military officials have said. There are currently some 430 detainees at Guantanamo. Defense lawyers have challenged the validity of the new law, which bars detainees from using the civilian court system. If a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court rules in their favor, it could strike down the military trials. -------- us US Soldier Sentenced to 90 Years in Iraq Rape, Murder Case Friday, November 17th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/17/1454222 A US soldier has been sentenced to ninety years in prison for his role in the rape of an Iraqi girl and the killing of her and her family. The soldier, Specialist James Barker, was sentenced one day after pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against four other suspects. Barker has admitted he raped the girl -- Abeer Kassem Hamza al-Janabi – while her parents and five-year old sister were herded into an adjoining room of their home and shot dead. Two other suspects –former soldier Steven Green and Sgt. Paul Cortez – raped Abeer before shooting her and burning her body in an effort to cover up their crime. At his hearing Thursday, Barker wept as he delivered a statement to the court. Barker said: "I want the people of Iraq to know that I did not go there to do the terrible things that I did. I do not ask anyone to forgive me today." Barker will be eligible for parole after twenty years. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars US military too strong to lose Iraq war -Rumsfeld 17 Oct 2006 Reuters By Kristin Roberts http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17268972.htm WASHINGTON, Oct 17 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday the U.S. military is too strong to lose the war in Iraq, but ultimately political solutions will be needed to win. "You've got a situation where it's not possible to lose militarily," Rumsfeld said. "It's also going to require more than military power to prevail." Rumsfeld, in comments to reporters at the Pentagon, said U.S. training of security forces in Iraq had been "rushed" but that placing U.S. trainers within the Iraqi police force would gradually boost Iraq's ability to reduce violence on its own. Still, he said, Iraq's parliament needs to resolve the issue of federalism and create a unity government to squash the violence that plagues much of Iraq and has frustrated U.S. efforts to begin withdrawing troops. "It's going to take all those things together," Rumsfeld said. U.S. military commanders say violence in Iraq, which has killed 2,750 American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis, remains contained within five of the 18 provinces. Those areas, however, include Baghdad and much of the surrounding metropolitan area. American officials regularly accuse Iran and Syria of supporting the insurgency, and Rumsfeld on Tuesday declined to comment on suggestions that the United States should seek those countries' help to reduce violence in Iraq. "Neither Iran nor Syria have been helpful," he said. Rumsfeld also declined to comment on a statement from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a key Republican from Virginia, that the United States might have to consider a change of course if the Iraqi government fails to restore order within two or three months. -------- us politics Americans' approval of Bush's Iraq policy drops to lowest level yet Updated 11/17/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-17-iraq-poll_x.htm WASHINGTON — Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped to the lowest level ever, increasing the pressure on the commander in chief to find a way out after nearly four years of war. The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found just 31% approval for Bush's handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at the polls by defeating Republicans and handing control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos polling was 33% in both June and August. Erosion of support for Bush's Iraq policy was most pronounced among conservatives and Republican men — critical supporters who propelled Bush to the White House and a second term in 2004. A month ago, approval of the president on the issue certain to define his presidency was 36%. ON DEADLINE: Ratings dip "I'm completely frustrated," Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C., said this week during a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Hayes' district includes part of Fort Bragg, and he supports the U.S. effort but favors pushing Iraqi troops to take more responsibility for the fighting. Bush's low numbers underscore the high expectations for the report by the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and one-time Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The demand for an exit strategy comes as the number of U.S. dead from the conflict exceeds 2,850. Violence in Iraq, much of it between religious sects, continues unabated. Dozens of employees at Iraq's Higher Education Ministry were kidnapped this week and some were reportedly tortured before they were released; bombings and shootings claim Iraqi lives daily. "Hopefully the Baker-Hamilton commission can offer a face-saving measure for the White House that can put the beginning of the end in sight," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who is in line to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Two options under discussion — greater cooperation with Iran and Syria, and a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops — would require a major policy shift by the Bush administration Almost by default, the poll showed Bush approval on handling the economy his strongest issue — at 43%, according to the poll of 1,000 adults taken Monday through Wednesday. The poll, which has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, also found: • 34% think the country is headed in the right direction; Democrats are more optimistic while Republicans are more pessimistic since the election. • 36% approve of the job being done by the president; this is close to the results in early October. • 26% approve of the job being done by Congress, also close to approval levels in early October. The decline in support on Iraq was the most notable change. Anger about Iraq also was a strong theme for voters, according to exit polls taken for The Associated Press and the television networks on Election Day. BUSH: Be patient A majority of voters disapproved of the war in Iraq, thought the war had not made the United States more secure and wanted to see troops start coming home, those exit polls found. "The president recognizes that the American people are understandably concerned about the violence in Iraq," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore. "He shares their concerns but believes that our policy in Iraq must be determined by victory in the war on terror, not public opinion polls." Some people question whether victory is achievable. "Now it's a total mess and I don't have the faintest idea how they're going to get out," said Arthur Thurston, a Democratic-leaning independent from Medina, Ohio. "Iraqis are fighting each other now. But the U.S. troops can't just walk out." Bush has met with Democratic leaders since the election, though Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada says he thinks the president will need to be pushed to change his stance on Iraq. "I agree that we need to stay over there and finish what we started. I don't like that our people are over there dying. But if we don't finish it, it will come back over here," said Kelly Mangel, an independent from Sedalia, Mo. The public divisions over the war have left the Iraq Study Group with a difficult job. "If there's any hope," said a Democratic member of the blue-ribbon panel, Leon Panetta, "it's that our recommendations can help pull the country together — if Republicans and Democrats can agree on a common strategy." Panetta said the group hopes to offer recommendations in December but "that will depend on when we reach consensus." "We've certainly covered a great deal of territory," he said. "And now we're getting down to the hard work of looking at options." -------- voting Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked November 17, 2006 at 10:59:41 OpEdNews Exclusive by Rob Kall http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence_2006_.htm Results Skewed Nationwide In Favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in U.S. House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization. http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment. "We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure--of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7. "The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA. "This is a nothing less than a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!" "The numbers tell us there absolutely was hacking going on, just not enough to overcome the size of the actual turnout. The tide turned so much in the last few weeks before the eleciton. It looks for all the world that they'd already figured out the percentage they needed to rig, when the programming of the vote rigging software was distributed weeks before the election, and it wasn't enough," Castleman commented. Election Defense Alliance data analysis team leader Bruce O'Dell, whose expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems for major financial institutions, stated, "The logistics of mass software distribution to tens or even hundreds of thousands of voting machines in the field would demand advance planning�"at least several weeks--for anyone attempting very large-scale, systematic e-voting fraud, particularly in those counties that allow election equipment to be taken home by poll workers prior to the election. "The voting equpment seems to be designed to support two types of vote count manipulation--techniques accessible to those with hands-on access to the machines in a county or jurisdiction, and wholesale vulnerabilities in the underlying behavior of the systems which are most readily available to the vendors themseleves. Malicious insiders at any of the vendors would be in a position to alter the behavior of literally thousands of machines by infecting or corrupting the master copy of the software that's cloned out to the machines in the field. And the groundwork could be laid well in advance. For this election, it appears that such changes would have to have been done by early October at the latest," O'Dell explained. In a reprise of his efforts on Election Night 2004, Jonathan Simon captured the unadjusted National Election pool (NEP) data as posted on CNN.com, before it was later "adjusted" to match the actual vote counts. The exit poll data that is seen now on the CNN site has been adjusted already. But Simon points out that both adjusted and unadjusted data were instrumental to exposing the gross miscount. Simon, surprised that unadjusted polling data was publicly revealed, given the concerns after the 2004 election about the use of exit polls, downloaded as much of the data as he could in real time. Scheduled and planned revisions on the CNN site took place throughout the evening and by the following morning, the unadjusted exit poll data had been replaced with data that conformed with the reported, official vote totals. This was the planned procedure as indicated by the NEP's methodology. Adjusting the exit poll data is, by itself, not a troublesome act. Simon explained, "Their advertised reason to do the exit polls is to enable analysis of the results by academic researchers--they study the election dynamics and demographics so they can understand which demographic groups voted what ways. As an analytic tool, the exit poll is considered more serviceable if it matches the vote count. Since the vote count is assumed to be gospel, congruence with that count is therefore assumed to give the most accurate picture of the behavior of the electorate and its subgroups. "In 2004 they had to weight it very heavily, to the point that the party turnout was 37% Democrat and 37% Republican, which has never been the case--leading to the claim that Rove turned out the Republican vote. This was nowhere witnessed, no lines in Republican voting places were reported. As ridiculous as that was, the distortion of actual turnout was even greater in 2006. The adjusted poll's sample, to match the vote count, had to consist of 49% 2004 Bush voters and only 43% 2004 Kerry voters, more than twice the actual margin of 2.8%. This may not seem like that much, but it translates into more than a 3,000,000 vote shift nationwide, which, depending on targeting, was enough to have altered the outcome of dozens of federal races. "It should be very clear that weighting by a variety of carefully selected demographic categories, which yields the pre-adjustment exit polls, presents a truly representative electorate by every available standard except the vote count in the present election. So you have a choice: you can believe in an electorate composed of the correct proportions of men and women, young and old, rural and urban, ethnic and income groups, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--or you can believe the machines. Anyone who has ever wondered what is really in a hot dog should be aware that the machines are designed, programmed, deployed, and serviced by avowedly partisan vendors, and can easily be set up to generate entirely false counts with no one the wiser, least of all the voters." Simon concluded, "These machines are completely and utterly black box. The idea that we have this enormous burden of proof that they are miscounting, and there's no burden of proof that they are counting accurately--that, first and foremost, has to change." Election Defense Alliance issued the following statement As in 2004, the exit polling data and the reported election results don't add up. "But this time there is an objective yardstick in the methodology which establishes the validity of the Exit Poll and challenges the accuracy of the election returns," said Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance. The Exit Poll findings are detailed in a paper published today on the EDA website. The 2006 Edison-Mitofsky Exit Poll was commissioned by a consortium of major news organizations. Its conclusions were based on the responses of a very large sample, of over ten thousand voters nationwide*, and posted at 7:07 p.m. Election Night, on the CNN website. That Exit Poll showed Democratic House candidates had out-polled Republicans by 55.0 percent to 43.5 percent -- an 11.5 percent margin †in the total vote for the U.S. House, sometimes referred to as the "generic" vote. By contrast, the election results showed Democratic House candidates won 52.7 percent of the vote to 45.1 percent for Republican candidates, producing a 7.6 percent margin in the total vote for the U.S. House�"3.9 percent less than the Edison-Mitofsky poll. This discrepancy, far beyond the poll's +/- 1 percent margin of error, has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring by chance. By Wednesday afternoon the Edison-Mitofsky poll had been adjusted, by a process known as "forcing," to match the reported vote totals for the election. This forcing process is done to supply data for future demographic analysis, the main purpose of the Exit Poll. It involved re-weighting every response so that the sum of those responses matched the reported election results. The final result, posted at 1:00 p.m. November 8, showed the adjusted Democratic vote at 52.6 percent and the Republican vote at 45.0 percent, a 7.6 percent margin exactly mirroring the reported vote totals. The forcing process in this instance reveals a great deal. The Party affiliation of the respondents in the original 7:07 p.m. election night Exit Poll closely reflected the 2004 Bush-Kerry election margin. After the forcing process, 49-percent of respondents reported voting for Republican George W. Bush in 2004, while only 43-percent reported voting for Democrat John Kerry. This 6-percent gap is more than twice the size of the actual 2004 Bush margin of 2.8 percent, and a clear distortion of the 2006 electorate. There is a significant over-sampling of Republican voters in the adjusted 2006 Exit Poll. It simply does not reflect the actual turnout on Election Day 2006. EDA's Simon says, "It required some incredible distortions of the demographic data within the poll to bring about the match with reported vote totals. It not only makes the adjusted Exit Poll inaccurate, it also reveals the corresponding inaccuracy of the reported election returns which it was forced to equal. The Democratic margin of victory in U.S. House races was substantially larger than indicated by the election returns." "Many will fall into the trap of using this adjusted poll to justify inaccurate official vote counts, and vice versa," adds Bruce O'Dell, EDA's Data Analysis Coordinator, "but that's just arguing in circles. The adjusted exit poll is a statistical illusion. The weighted but unadjusted 7 pm exit poll, which sampled the correct proportion of Kerry and Bush voters and also indicated a much larger Democratic margin, got it right." O'Dell and Simon's paper, detailing their analysis of the exit polls and related data, is now posted on the EDA website, . The Election Defense Alliance continues to work with other election integrity groups around the country to analyze the results of specific House and Senate races. That data and any evidence of election fraud, malicious attacks on election systems, or other malfunctions that may shed more light on the discrepancy between exit polls and election results will be reported on EDA's website. This controversy comes amid growing public concern about the security and accuracy of electronic voting machines, used to count approximately 80 percent of the votes cast in the 2006 election. The Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy, in a September 2006 study, was the latest respected institution to expose significant flaws in the design and software of one of the most popular electronic touch-screen voting machines, the AccuVote-TS, manufactured by Diebold, Inc. The Princeton report described the machine as "vulnerable to a number of extremely serious attacks that undermine the accuracy and credibility of the vote counts it produces." These particular machines were used to count an estimated 10 percent of votes on Election Day 2006. A separate "Security Assessment of the Diebold Optical Scan Voting Terminal," released by the University of Connecticut VoTeR Center and Department of Computer Science and Engineering last month, concluded that Diebold's Accuvote-OS machines, optical scanners which tabulate votes cast on paper ballots, are also vulnerable to "a devastating array of attacks." Accuvote-OS machines are even more widely used than the AccuVote-TS. Similar vulnerabilities affect other voting equipment manufacturers, as revealed last summer in a study by the Brennan Center at New York University which noted all of America's computerized voting systems "have significant security and reliability vulnerabilities, which pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state, and local elections." The most prudent response to this controversy is a moratorium on the further implementation of computerized voting systems. EDA's O'Dell cautioned, "It is so abundantly clear that these machines are not secure, there's no justification for blind confidence in the election system given such dramatic indications of problems with the official vote tally." And EDA's Simon summarized, "There has been a rush by some to celebrate 2006 as a fair election, but a Democratic victory does not equate with a fair election. It's wishful thinking at best to believe that the danger of massive election rigging is somehow past." EDA continues to call for a moratorium on the deployment of electronic voting machines in U.S. elections; passage of H.R. 6200, which would require hand-counted paper ballots for presidential elections beginning in 2008; and adoption of the Universal Precinct Sample (UPS) handcount sampling protocol for verification of federal elections as long as electronic election equipment remains in use. The Exit Poll analysis is a part of Election Defense Alliance's six-point strategy to defend the accuracy and transparency of the 2006 elections. In addition to extensive analysis of polling data, EDA has been engaged in independent exit polling, election monitoring, legal interventions, and documentation of election irregularities. *The sample was a national sample of all voters who voted in House races. It was drawn just like the 2004 sample of the presidential popular vote. That is, precincts were chosen to yield a representative (once stratified) sample of all voters wherever they lived/voted--including early and absentee voters and voters in districts where House candidates ran unopposed but were listed on the ballot and therefore could receive votes. As such, the national sample EDA worked with is exactly comparable to the total aggregate vote for the House that we derived from reported vote totals and from close estimates in cases of the few unopposed candidates where 2006 figures were unavailable but prior elections could be used as proxy. It is a very large sampling of the national total, with a correspondingly small (+/-1%) MOE. There were four individual districts sampled for reasons known only to Edison/Mitofsky ABOUT ELECTION DEFENSE ALLIANCE The purpose of EDA is to develop a comprehensive national strategy for the election integrity movement, in order to regain public control of the voting process in the United States. Its goal is to insure that the election process is transparent, secure, verifiable, and worthy of the public trust. EDA fosters coordination, resource-sharing, and cohesive strategic planning for a nationwide grassroots network of citizen election integrity advocates. Jonathan Simon , Co-founder, Election Defense Alliance. He is an attorney whose prior work as a polling analyst with Peter D. Hart Research Associates helped persuade him of the importance of an exit poll-based election "alarm system." 617.538.6012 jonathan@electiondefensealliance.org Bruce O'Dell is head of the Election Defense Alliance Data Analysis Team. His expertise is in the design of large-scale secure computer and auditing systems for major financial institutions. 612.309.1330 bodell@electiondefensealliance.org Sally Castleman, National Chairperson, Election Defense Alliance. She lends her skills in conceptualizing, designing, implementing and managing programs as well as her experience as a strategist. She has a long career in grassroots political activism. SallyC@ElectionDefenseAlliance.org 781.454.8700 -------- ENERGY The truth? 'Nuclear is not the answer' The climate change campaigner and former US vice-president Al Gore preaches his gospel in Melbourne yesterday. Leon Gettler November 17, 2006 The Age http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=456b885fcff5f01d&ei=EDdrRc-SEsvWHLWjyZsN&url=http%3A//www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-truth-nuclear-is-not-the-answer/2006/11/16/1163266712885.html&cid=0 NUCLEAR energy is not the panacea for tackling global warming, says one of the world's most celebrated climate change campaigners, former US vice-president Al Gore. Mr Gore also shrugged off Prime Minister John Howard's recent claim that his film An Inconvenient Truth showed "a degree of the peeved politician". "It may be one of those elements that's in the eyes of the beholder," he told The Age yesterday.# Mr Gore said nuclear power was unlikely to play a significantly bigger role in the climate change battle. "Even if you set aside the problem of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult," he said. The first problem was one of economics. "Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in only one size — extra large." The second was nuclear weapons proliferation. "For eight years when I was in the White House, every problem of weapons proliferation was connected to a reactor program," he said. The Prime Minister has recently talked up the prospects of nuclear power plants being built in Australia, arguing the country could not afford to "sacrifice rational discussion on the altar of anti-nuclear theology and political opportunism". Next week an inquiry into nuclear power headed by former Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski is due to deliver its findings. Mr Gore said it was extremely important that Mr Howard had now acknowledged the damage from carbon dioxide emissions. "Let me say I want to be respectful of the Prime Minister's change in rhetoric. "It's not easy to do something like that and … this position might be a way station for him on the real road to Damascus where he actually joins the world community," he said. "And he may. I don't know, I can't look into his heart." Mr Gore said that Australia and the US should sign the Kyoto Protocol but he acknowledged that this presented Mr Howard and US President George Bush with big political problems given that they had previously "demonised" it. Of Australia's promotion of a new global climate change pact he said: "Obviously neither Australia nor the United States can write its own little treaty and be separate from the rest of the world." But there was, he said, a third path: "To join the world discussion now in Nairobi on how to strengthen Kyoto and how to make whatever changes Prime Minister Howard wants to advocate and join the rest of the world community. That's the test." Mr Gore, now chairman of investment firm Generation Investment Management, yesterday met with Premier Steve Bracks and his deputy John Thwaites. He described Victoria as forward thinking on climate change and said he would take a number of local initiatives back to the United States. He was particularly impressed with the Bracks Government's "black balloons" advertising campaign, which links household energy usage with the amount of carbon dioxide it releases into the air. "I'm going to take that ad back and show it to some folks there, maybe put it on YouTube," he said. With MATHEW MURPHY and LIZ MINCHIN -------- alternative energy Scientists Want More Ethanol Research November 17, 2006 — By Amy Lorentzen, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11680 DES MOINES, Iowa — To ensure there's enough corn to fuel humans as well as vehicles, scientists are urging more research into boosting corn yields and improving ethanol production. Many key issues related to expanding the nation's ethanol industry aren't being studied under current government programs, said Kenneth G. Cassman, director of the Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "It's the core issue to ensuring that we don't come up short in food supply, and don't have high consumer prices, and can still maintain expansion of the ethanol industry," he said. Cassman is co-author of "Convergence of Agriculture and Energy: Implications for Research and Policy," a study released Tuesday by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, an international consortium of 38 scientific and professional societies. "The main thing that we all have to be aware of is the complexity of the feed, food and fuel interaction, and how policy and research have to be conducted in a very conscientious fashion, or we are going to have ourselves out of balance," said John M. Bonner, director of the Iowa-based consortium. Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, and a vocal opponent of ethanol, said many of the poorest countries around the world that use corn as a food staple will have to compete for supplies gobbled up by ethanol production. They'll also pay more because of increases in corn prices, which he said have climbed 40 percent this year. For U.S. consumers, Brown said, the price of animal products -- meat, eggs, cheese and dairy products -- will increase if livestock operations have to pay more for feed. "We used to have a food economy and an energy economy. Now you can't draw a line between them anymore," he said. Since January 2001, U.S. ethanol production has grown dramatically, climbing from 1.7 billion gallons to 4.8 billion gallons in June 2006, according to the report. "Some in the corn industry believe it will be possible to produce 16 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015 while also meeting corn grain requirements for human food and livestock feed," the report said. But in some areas, including northwestern Iowa, the ethanol industry is already using up much of the available corn, Bonner said. In turn, that can pressure the livestock industry. "It puts quite a strain on the livestock industry ... because of the amounts they can use and the sensitivity to corn price," he said. A byproduct of ethanol production called distiller's grains can be used as feed, but experts say it isn't the best source of food for some livestock, including poultry and swine. Other considerations, the scientists say, are the effects of ethanol production on the economy and the environment. "We have abruptly entered a new era for agriculture that no one predicted," Cassman said. "That is an era where the value of agriculture and its commodities are being determined more by the price of energy than by the value of commodities for food or feedstock." Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, said the industry is very aware of the food versus fuel debate, "but believe it is a false choice." "American farmers can and will do both," he said. "There is a lot of room for growth in the corn-to-ethanol industry, as the National Corn Growers have pointed out." -------- ACTIVISTS Blood-Pouring Anti-Nuke Clowns Sent to Prison Weapons of Mass Destruction Protected by Bill Quigley Friday, November 17, 2006 by CommonDreams.org http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1117-08.htm BISMARCK, North Dakota - Three men protesting the presence of weapons of mass destruction in North Dakota were sentenced Thursday to federal prison terms of over three years and ordered to pay $17,000 in restitution by a federal judge in Bismarck. The three dressed as clowns and went to the Echo-9 launch site of the intercontinental Minuteman III nuclear missile in rural North Dakota in June 2006. They broke the lock off the fence and put up peace banners and posters. One said: "Swords into plowshares - Spears into pruning hooks." They poured some of their own blood on the site, hammered on the nuclear launching facility and waited to be arrested. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares activists arrived at missile silo E-9 on the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation in North Dakota on the morning of June 20, 2006. They dressed as clowns to show that humor and laughter are key elements in the struggle to transform the structures of destruction and death. Carl used the bolt cutter to obtain entrance to the E-9 missile silo, so that they could begin to disarm the missile. (Jonah House Photo) The Minuteman III missile has over 20 times the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and can reach a target within 6000 miles in 35 minutes. The men called their action the "Weapons of Mass Destruction Here Plowshares." Dressed in faded black striped prison uniforms and blue cloth slippers, they appeared before the federal court for sentencing. Fr. Carl Kabat, 73, a catholic priest from St. Louis with a life-long history of resistance to nuclear weapons was sentenced to 15 months in prison. Greg Boetje-Obed, 52, a former Navy officer living with his family in the Catholic Worker community in Duluth Minnesota was given a 12 month and one day prison sentence. Michael Walli, 58, also with the Loaves and Fishes Catholic Worker in Duluth received 8 months. All were ordered to pay $17,000 restitution. During their trial, the men openly admitted try to disarm the nuclear weapon. They pointed out to the jury that each one of these missiles was a devastating weapon of mass destruction, a killing machine precisely designed to murder hundreds of thousands. Testimony by experts about the illegality of these weapons of mass destruction under international law and their effects were excluded by the court and never heard by the jury. The 40 ton Minuteman III site they damaged lies deep in rural North Dakota, at a site called Echo-9 about 100 miles north of Bismarck. Coiled beneath the surface of a bland concrete bunker, it is clearly visible from the gravel road. In fact, the otherwise pastoral countryside of farms and silos is full of nuclear weapon silos. One nuclear weapon launching site lies just across the road from a big farmhouse, another just down the road from a camp for teens. There are 150 other such nuclear launching facilities in North Dakota alone. At the sentencing, Father Carl Kabat, who has already spent 16 years in prison for peace protests, spoke simply and directly to the court and prosecutor. "I believe that you, brother judge and brother prosecutor, know that the Minuteman III at E-9 is insane, immoral and illegal, but your actions protected that insanity, that immorality and that illegality. Brother judge, you could have possibly been a Rosa Parks, but your actions said "no." We all can openly and publicly condemn North Korea for nuclear bombs. We can openly and publicly condemn Iraq for nuclear weapons and go to war with them. We can openly and publicly condemn Iran for nuclear buildup, but we do not publicly condemn the United States for the same?" Fr. Kabat then challenged all of us, "What is the use of post marking our mail with exhortations to "Pray for Peace" and then spending billions of dollars on atomic armed submarines, thermonuclear weapons and ballistic missiles?" Michael Walli reaffirmed his continuing conviction of the illegality and immorality of these weapons. He pointed out that Irish Courts allowed juries to hear about international law. Recently, after learning that US jets were stopping at Shannon Airport to refuel on their way to bomb Iraq, the Pitstop Plowshares went onto the runway, poured their blood on it and started to take up the tarmac to prevent additional flights. After two mistrials, these peace protestors were acquitted on all counts earlier this year by an Irish jury who heard an expert on international law and other witnesses explain the illegality of the U.S. actions. To conclude his sentencing statement, the Peace Prayer of St. Francis was read into the record. Greg Boetje-Obed appealed to the judge to consider the testimony of the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki about the horrific effects of a tiny nuclear weapon on their communities, testimony the court would not allow the jury to hear. He asked the judge to re-consider expert testimony from Professor Francis Boyle about the criminality of nuclear weapons under international law and the UN resolutions calling for nuclear disarmament, evidence also kept from the jury. The judge challenged Greg Boertje-Obed's decision to take actions that risked a year in prison instead of staying home with his family. "Why would one leave a wife and daughter at home to engage in juvenile acts of vandalism to protest nuclear weapons? I would think your commitment to your family should far outweigh your calling to such actions." Greg's wife, Michelle Naar Obed, was in the courtroom during this exchange. After the sentencing was over, Michelle shook her head and said, "If Greg had left us his for a year and risked his life to go to war to kill people, no one would question him - they would call him a hero! But, because he risked time in jail to act out his convictions for peace, people question his commitment to his family. That is a tragic." What does it say about our society that personal sacrifices to go to war to kill people in war are praised, while personal sacrifices for peace are condemned? What does it say that intentional destruction of cities and communities and families and individuals are considered totally legal, while actions trying to dismantle weapons of mass destruction send people to prison? Until those interested in peace are willing to make the same sacrifices as those interested in war, peace will not prevail. These three men have proven they are willing to pay the price for peace. Their courage and sacrifice challenges us all. While these men serve their time in prison, one hundred fifty weapons of mass destruction sit peacefully free and protected in the fields of North Dakota. The law protects these weapons and finds those who try to protect the world from their holocaust criminals. If the weapons are ever used, the people of North Dakota will not need the news to tell them. The thunderous fiery launch of these weapons will signal the failure of justice and the end of life as we know it. For more information about the men contact the Loaves and Fishes Community in Duluth at 218.728.0629 or Nukewatch at 715.472.4185. Copies of some pleadings in the case, pictures, updates and addresses for the men are posted on the Jonah House website. Bill is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He helped the defendants in their trial. He can be reached at Quigley@loyno.edu ---- Antiwar Protest Flick Will Open Sundance Fri, November 17, 2006 By AP http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/Weekend/2006/11/17/2391375-sun.html LOS ANGELES -- Chicago 10, a documentary about the antiwar protests at the Democratic National Convention in 1968 and the activists prosecuted in the aftermath, will open January's Sundance Film Festival. "It seems fitting to me that a film about the importance of taking a stand should launch" the festival, said Chicago 10 director Brett Morgen. "For the past five years, I have laboured to bring this story into focus, and with each passing day, the film becomes increasingly relevant. I can't think of a more appropriate time and place to unleash this beast." Chicago 10 examines the clashes between protesters, police and the National Guard at the convention, with such notable activists as Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seale put on trial in 1969 over the violence. The title reflects the original eight defendants, known as the Chicago 8, and their two lawyers, who were cited for contempt during the trial. Morgen's previous films include The Kid Stays in the Picture, a documentary about Robert Evans, the legendary studio boss at Paramount. Sundance, the top U.S. showcase for independent film, runs Jan. 18-28 in Park City, Utah. ---- Police remove protesters from speech on Iraq By Charley Bruce Minnesota Daily November 17, 2006 http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/11/17/69946 police removed more than 20 protesters from a speech Maj. Gen. Michael J. Diamond gave Wednesday about the wars in the Middle East. Diamond, the deputy director of logistics from U.S. Central Command, focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his presentation at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. The speech began as planned, but the protesters entered the auditorium and began rapidly shooting questions at Diamond. Edward Goetz, associate dean of academics at the Humphrey Institute, warned protesters they may be escorted out if they did not allow the speaker to proceed. He said there would be time for questions at the end of the presentation, but the protesters continued to interrupt Diamond. About five minutes into the discussion, Goetz directed University police to escort protesters out of the auditorium, an act that received applause from the 75-member audience. The protesters chanted, "Out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq, out of the 'U' and don't come back," as they were ushered out. Before the speech, about 50 protesters from the student group Anti-War Organizing League and a community group called the Anti-War Committee gathered outside the building and called the war in Iraq "racist" and said it needed to end. Tracy Molm, women's studies senior and protest organizer, said AWOL was there to voice opposition to the war. "We're here to stand up against the war in Iraq," she said. Kyle Johnson, a first-year visual arts student, said he was attending the event with AWOL to question Diamond. He said he was frustrated that his hard-earned tax dollars are going to a war instead of other areas. "Instead of educating people, I guess it's more important to kill people," Johnson said. Molm said it is hard to trust the military because they initially lied to the public when they justified going to war in Iraq. Johnson said the government first told the public the war in Iraq was about controlling weapons of mass destruction, then it was about taking Saddam Hussein out of power and now it's about controlling terrorism. Molm said her organization is against war, not the soldiers. "The best way to support the troops is to bring them home," she said. When the presentation restarted, Diamond described the role of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, saying the agency was created during President Jimmy Carter's administration and has evolved since then. The agency has been involved in the Desert Storm operations and the current war in Iraq. CENTCOM is one of five geographically defined command units. Their area of responsibility includes much of Northeast Africa, Southwest and Central Asia and Seychelles, an island nation. He defined terrorists as fourth-generation warriors, a transnational enemy often capitalizing on weak states and using technology and the media as "terrain." The media and the Internet are large challenges the United States faces in the fight against terrorism, Diamond said. Terrorists feed these outlets video, which trickles down to other transnational media, he said. But some of the video is inaccurate and by the time the military can expose the false information, it's too late to dampen the negative impact on the United States, Diamond said. He showed a Web site created by al-Qaida that portrayed the 100-year goal of the organization. The webpage had a picture of the entire globe colored green. The green represented territory al-Qaida wants to control. "This is going to be a long war," Diamond said. He said he blamed unemployment levels for some of the terrorists' recruits. Diamond said 20 percent to 40 percent of the population in Iraq is unemployed. This leads to frustration and these are the people planting improvised explosive devices and killing U.S. soldiers. He said this problem is only worse in Afghanistan and estimated about 60 percent of Afghans are unemployed. During the question period, a member of the audience asked Diamond when the military plans to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan. Diamond said no time table has been set. Coincidentally, this happened on the same day that Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of CENTCOM, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iraq is not ready for a timetable for troop withdrawal. He also said more troops could be necessary.