NucNews January 12, 2007 -------- NUCLEAR Heads up! The following News Advisory was issued by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and is intended for reporters. "DOOMSDAY CLOCK" HAND TO BE MOVED, REFLECTING WORSENING NUCLEAR, CLIMATE THREATS TO WORLD Fri. 12 Jan 2007 The Bulletin -- Washington, D.C. and London News Advisory for January 17, 2007 -- Simultaneous Announcement to be Made from Washington, D.C. and London; Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to Underscore "Most Perilous Period Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki." NEWS ADVISORY//January 17, 2006///The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) will move the minute hand of the "Doomsday Clock" on January 17, 2007, the first such change to the Clock since February 2002. The major new step reflects growing concerns about a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks. The BAS news event will take place simultaneously on January 17th at 9:30 a.m. ET at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., and at 2:30 p.m. GMT in London at The Royal Society. News event speakers will include: - Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of The Royal Society; - Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists; - Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, and professor of cosmology and astrophysics and master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge; - Lawrence M. Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University; and - Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the International Crisis Group. A live, two-way satellite feed (with full Q&A) will connect the Washington, D.C., and London news events. TO PARTICIPATE IN PERSON: You can join us for the simultaneous, two-site news event taking place on January 17, 2007 -- 9:30 a.m. ET, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Auditorium, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.; and 2:30 p.m. GMT, The Royal Society, Wellcome Trust Lecture Hall, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London. Please RSVP in advance by contacting Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266, or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com. CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN PERSON?: In the U.S., reporters can join this live, phone-based global news conference at 9:30 a.m. ET on January 17, 2007 by dialing 1 (800) 860-2442. (Media in and around London should dial 0800-028-0531. All other reporters outside of the U.S. and the London area should dial 001-412-858-4600, which is not a toll-free line.) Ask for the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock" news event. A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org as of 6 p.m. ET/11 p.m. GMT on January 17, 2007. CONTACT: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com. BACKGROUND The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project and were deeply concerned about the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. In 1947 the Bulletin introduced its clock to convey the perils posed by nuclear weapons through a simple design. The "Doomsday Clock" evoked both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). In 1949 Bulletin leaders realized that movement of the minute hand would signal the organization's assessment of world events. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. The Bulletin's "Doomsday Clock" has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to nuclear weapons and other threats. Additional information is available on the Web at http://www.thebulletin.org. --- Doomsday Clock Will Move Closer to Midnight WASHINGTON, DC, January 12, 2007 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-12-05.asp The minute hand of the Doomsday Clock will be moved closer to midnight on January 17, the first such change to the clock since February 2002. The Doomsday Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to nuclear weapons and other threats. The move was announced today by the Board of Directors of the magazine "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." It reflects growing concerns about what the board calls a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, and the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia. The board also cited "escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks." The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clockface that the Bulletin has maintained since 1947 at its headquarters on the campus of the University of Chicago. It uses the analogy of the human race being at a time that is a "few minutes to midnight" where midnight represents destruction by nuclear war. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. Officials from the Bulletin will move the minute hand on January 17 simultaneously in two places at two different local times - at 9:30 am ET at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC, and at 2:30 pm GMT in London at The Royal Society. Speakers at the event in Washington will include Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a member of the board and co-chair of the International Crisis Group; and Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University. Speakers at the London event will be Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, and professor of cosmology and astrophysics and master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge; and Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, a fellow of The Royal Society, and a member of the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors. The "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project and were deeply concerned about the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. The magazine is published six times per year. In June 1947 the Bulletin introduced its clock to convey the perils posed by nuclear weapons through a simple design. The first representation of the clock was produced in 1947, when artist Martyl Langsdorf, the wife of a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, was asked by magazine cofounder Hyman Goldsmith to design a cover for the June issue. The Doomsday Clock has appeared somewhere on the cover of each issue of the Bulletin since its introduction. The nontechnical magazine covers global security and public policy issues related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. History of the Doomsday Clock The clock's minute hand has been moved 17 times in response to international events since its initial start at seven minutes to midnight in 1947: # 1949 - The Soviet Union tests its first atomic bomb. Clock changed to three minutes to midnight - four minutes closer to midnight. # 1953 - The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within nine months of one another. Clock changed to two minutes to midnight - one minute closer, its closest approach to midnight to date. # 1960 - In response to a perception of increased scientific cooperation and public understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons, clock is changed to seven minutes to midnight - five minutes further from midnight. # 1963 - The United States and Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty, limiting atmospheric nuclear testing. Clock changed to twelve minutes to midnight - another five minutes further. # 1968 - France and China acquire and test nuclear weapons - 1960 and 1964 respectively - wars rage on in the Middle East, Indian subcontinent, and Vietnam. Clock changed to seven minutes to midnight - five minutes closer to midnight. # 1969 - The U.S. Senate ratifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clock changed to ten minutes to midnight - three minutes further from midnight. # 1972 - The United States and the Soviet Union sign the SALT I - Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Clock changed to twelve minutes to midnight - two minutes further. # 1974 - India tests a nuclear device - Smiling Buddha - SALT II talks stall. Clock changed to nine minutes to midnight - three minutes closer to midnight. # 1980 - Further deadlock in US-USSR talks, increase in nationalist wars and terrorist actions. Clock changed to seven minutes to midnight - two minutes closer. # 1981 - Arms race escalates, conflicts in Afghanistan, South Africa, and Poland. Clock changed to four minutes to midnight - three minutes closer. # 1984 - Further escalation of the arms race under the U.S. policies of Ronald Reagan. Clock changed to three minutes to midnight - one more minute closer. # 1988 - The U.S. and the Soviet Union sign treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear forces, relations improve. Clock changed to six minutes to midnight - three minutes further from midnight. # 1990 - Fall of the Berlin Wall, success of anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe, Cold War nearing an end. Clock changed to ten minutes to midnight - four minutes further. # 1991 - United States and Soviet Union sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Clock changed to seventeen minutes to midnight - seven minutes further, its greatest distance from midnight so far. # 1995 - Global military spending continues at Cold War levels; concerns about post-Soviet nuclear proliferation of weapons and brainpower. Clock changed to fourteen minutes to midnight - three minutes closer to midnight. # 1998 - Both India and Pakistan test nuclear weapons in a tit-for-tat show of aggression; the United States and Russia run into difficulties in further reducing stockpiles. Clock changed to nine minutes to midnight - five minutes closer. # 2002 - Little progress on global nuclear disarmament; United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces its intentions to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; terrorists seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Clock changed to seven minutes to midnight - two minutes closer. ---- World's first thermonuclear reactor Yury Zaitsev, for RIA Novosti Friday January 12, 2007 http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070112/1201302.htm On November 21, 2006, Russia, South Korea, China, Japan, India, the European Union and the United States signed an agreement on building the world's first International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The overall cost of the project is 13 billion Euros. The "small Sun" (as the reactor is referred to) will be sited in Cadarache near Marseilles. Russia will finance part of the project and contribute its technologies and know-how. Unlike conventional nuclear power plant reactors utilizing the nuclear radioactive decay principle, ie fission of heavy elements, the ITER unit generates power through thermonuclear fusion, that is, when two light atomic nuclei fuse together to form heavier ones. Scientists want to imitate physical processes inside the Sun and to use them for building commercial power units. Chemically inert helium is created through the fusion of hydrogen isotopes -deuterium and tritium - inside the Sun. This unique process generates hundreds of times more energy than uranium-powered nuclear reactors. The Earth has a virtually unlimited amount of fuel for future thermonuclear reactors. Both deuterium and tritium can be obtained from water; this process is much simpler, safer and cheaper than the conventional nuclear fuel cycle. Moreover, "clean" thermonuclear reactors will not damage the environment even in case of major accidents and can therefore be built in densely populated areas. The principles of thermonuclear fusion were formulated over 50 years ago. However, scientists faced enormous problems as they tried to ignite and control thermonuclear plasma. Lev Artsimovich, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said thermonuclear fusion had become the most formidable science and engineering challenge of the 20th century. But at that time scientists failed to build a thermonuclear reactor, and interest in this problem gradually began to wane after a period of unsuccessful attempts. In the last decades works on this problem have resumed all over the world and international cooperation in this sphere has grown stronger because it is very important to harness controlled thermonuclear fusion. Work on the first experimental TOKAMAK (Toroidal Chamber in Magnetic Coils) reactor began in 1988 on the Soviet Union's initiative. The reactor's basic principle of operation is as follows. A powerful electric current flows through toroidal-chamber plasma, and its magnetic field merges with that of the toroidal solenoid to create the required magnetic field needed to maintain a well-balanced and insulated plasma configuration. The Soviet Union and later Russia, the United States, the EU and Japan established an agency that promptly designed the TOKAMAK reactor. This project largely owed its success to Russian research involving pre-nuclear TOKAMAK reactors, which studied related problems and were used to test different engineering solutions, namely, large-scale superconducting magnetic systems and powerful high-frequency units for creating and maintaining stable reactor plasma. Russia's Federal Nuclear Power Agency (Rosatom) is proud to say that Russian scientists were the first to develop TOKAMAK systems for the ITER project. The Cadarache reactor is expected to prove that thermonuclear power plants are feasible. If successful, it will serve as a basis for more powerful and advanced units for completely solving mankind's energy problems. However, this goal cannot be achieved overnight. Vladimir Fortov, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said thermonuclear power will be harnessed completely only by 2040. Yevgeny Velikhov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and President of the Kurchatov Institute Russian Research Center, said Japan, which faces huge energy shortages and which has no hydrocarbon deposits, would build the first commercial thermonuclear power plant in 2030. "We hope that thermonuclear fusion will account for a considerable share of global energy output by the middle of the 21st century," Velikhov said. Russia's involvement in the ITER project is the only chance to preserve its potential in the most advanced science-and-engineering spheres. Moscow has completely fulfilled its R&D commitments. Although the project's technical aspects have been implemented, scientists will continue to study the physics of thermonuclear plasma for a long time to come. An ad hoc commission comprising EU government advisers and many authoritative international experts said the controlled thermonuclear fusion project is proceeding too slowly against the backdrop of major energy shortages facing humankind, and all the countries involved must step up joint efforts in this sphere. -------- business Mike McConnell, Booz Allen and the Privatization of Intelligence Friday, January 12th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/151224 Mike McConnell, the man President Bush tapped to replace John Negroponte as National Intelligence Director, has been a leading figure in outsourcing U.S. intelligence operations to private industry. McConnell is a former director of the National Security Agency and the current director of defense programs at Booz Allen. We take a look at McConnell and the privatization of intelligence with journalist Tim Shorrock. [includes rush transcript] National Intelligence Director John Negroponte warned Thursday that al-Qaeda poses the gravest threat to the United States and is rebuilding its strength from secure hideouts in Pakistan. His comments were made in written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee as part of his annual threat assessment. Negroponte also said that Iraq was at a violent and "precarious juncture," he stressed concern over an increasingly confident Hizbollah and outlined a series of other threats to the United States, including from Somalia, Iran and Syria. Negroponte became the first National Intelligence director in April 2005 but is shortly due to move to the state department where he will become Condoleezza Rice's deputy. President Bush last week named retired Navy Vice Admiral Mike McConnell to replace Negroponte as the new chief of intelligence. McConnell said he would work to increase the coordination between the nation's 16 different spy agencies. * Vice Admiral Mike McConnell: I plan to continue the strong emphasis on integration of the community to better serve all of our customers. That will mean better sharing of information, increased focus on customer needs and service, improved security processes, and deeper penetration of our targets to provide the needed information for tactical, operational and strategic decision-making." McConnell is a former director of the National Security Agency and the current director of defense programs at Booz Allen -- one of the nation's biggest defense and intelligence contractors. Under his watch, Booz Allen has been deeply involved in some of the most controversial counterterrorism programs run by the Bush administration, including the infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme. McConnell has also been a leading figure in outsourcing U.S. intelligence operations to private industry. * Tim Shorrock, independent journalist who has been closely following this story. He is currently working on a book about the privatization of intelligence. His reports have appeared in The Nation, Mother Jones and Harpers. Read Tim's article "The spy who came in from the boardroom" RUSH TRANSCRIPT JUAN GONZALEZ: President Bush last week named retired Navy Vice Admiral Mike McConnell to replace Negroponte as the new chief of Intelligence. McConnell said he would work to increase the coordination between the nation’s 16 different spy agencies. MIKE McCONNELL: I plan to continue the strong emphasis on integration of the community to better serve all of our customers. That will mean better sharing of information, increased focus on customer needs and service, improved security processes, and deeper penetration of our targets to provide the needed information for tactical, operational and strategic decision-making. JUAN GONZALEZ: McConnell is a former director of the National Security Agency and the current director of defense programs at Booz Allen, one of the nation's biggest defense and intelligence contractors. Under his watch, Booz Allen has been deeply involved in some of the most controversial counterterrorism programs run by the Bush administration, including the infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme. McConnell has also been a leading figure in outsourcing US intelligence operations to private industry. AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock is an independent journalist who’s been closely following this story. He’s currently working on a book about the privatization of intelligence. He joins us here in Memphis, where he lives. Welcome to Democracy Now! TIM SHORROCK: Thank you very much. AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about Mike McConnell and Booz Allen. TIM SHORROCK: Well, it was interesting that Juan mentioned that he is into -- talks about integration of intelligence services, because that’s exactly what Booz Allen does. Booz Allen is one of about, you know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50% of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector contractors like Booz Allen. And Booz Allen Hamilton plays a very integral role in intelligence. It has a very close relationship, as you mentioned, with the National Security Agency. They advise them on their systems integration and things like this. They help bring intelligence together with other intelligence agencies. And I think this particular appointment is sort of an acknowledgment of how much -- of the role that contractors play, but it's also very dangerous to have somebody from the private sector who’s basically been a Yes man to the intelligence agencies all this -- you know, for the last ten years. If you’re a contractor, you do what the government says. So, I mean, where is our oversight? We basically don’t have any oversight of intelligence. And I think this is a very bad direction to be going in. JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, some of the programs that they’ve been involved with with the federal government have not worked out well, right? There’s some called Trailblazer and Groundbreaker. Could you talk about those? TIM SHORROCK: Right. Well, the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead agency in terms of outsourcing, and this began long before 9/11. It began in the late -- you know, 1998, 1999, when they realized they were getting very behind the commercial world in technology. And so, you know, basically, the NSA has been leading this. Trailblazer was a very large program that they contracted to a company called Science Applications International Corporation, SAIC. And their job was basically to, as you said before, data mining. They wanted to get all the intelligence they get from the phone intercepts, satellites, and get it into a form that their analysts can read and understand and analyze. And that’s what SAIC has been doing. The project has cost about $4 billion, and it basically hasn't worked at all. There are all kinds of problems with it. And this is an example of the kind of -- you know, they give contractors control over huge programs, and then they subcontract. But it's just not done very well. I mean, the government has done a very bad job of managing these programs, and, you know, Booz Allen has been involved in some of the most badly managed of these programs. JUAN GONZALEZ: And McConnell, not only has he been involved in contracting, but isn’t he the chairman of the alliance of contractors that do business -- TIM SHORROCK: Yeah. Over the last year, he became the chairman of this organization, the INSA, which represents the largest NSA and CIA contractors. So he’s very involved in all levels of the contracting world, in terms of promoting the contractors and in terms of, you know, talking -- pushing their interests in the government, within Congress. And so, you know, a guy like this running our intelligence services, as I said before, really is a serious problem. AMY GOODMAN: What do you expect from the confirmation hearing? TIM SHORROCK: I think that there’s going to -- they’re going to ask him some pretty sharp questions, because -- I mean, you mentioned this TIA program. I mean, they have about -- they had millions of dollars worth of contracts on this Total Information project, you know, which was basically spying on American people, American citizens, antiwar protesters. And so, I think, you know, some of the senators -- Senator Feingold, others -- have been very interested, you know, want to know what exactly happened in this program. And as I had been working on this subject, writing this book and doing the reporting, I find that, you know, through the corporations you can learn a heck of a lot about the intelligence operations and communities, because they’re so involved in it. AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, you write about the fact that Booz Allen is likely involved with the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. TIM SHORROCK: Right. Well, basically any large corporation that’s contracting with the National Security Agency has been involved in this. We talked earlier about Trailblazer. They were one of the subcontractors on this. SAIC ran the whole thing. But Booz Allen was a chief advisor to another program, which was the NSA’s internal communications. This was a program called Groundbreaker. And all of these programs are analyzing, you know, the phone calls that they intercept, the government communications from abroad they intercept. And when they’re intercepting phone calls between US citizens and people abroad, the corporations are involved. They have people there working not only as just technical advisors, but also doing analysis. And so, if the NSA is listening in on our phone calls, you can bet that Booz Allen is participating in that. JUAN GONZALEZ: And I would think that most Americans are worried enough about the fact that the government is eavesdropping on so many of these phone calls, but that it’s also actually being done by private contractors for the government would be even more worrisome to most folks. TIM SHORROCK: Right. And, you know, I think equally worrisome is the fact that in the last year, when this became a big issue after the New York Times broke the story about the NSA, some Republicans in the Congress tried to introduce legislation to make sure that corporations would not be affected if it was deemed illegal, that they would basically be given a free pass and, you know, not prosecuted. So, you know, I think there’s a real question here about legal liability for these companies if this program is ever deemed illegal. AMY GOODMAN: To get a sense of how large Booz Allen is, where Mike McConnell comes from, “Information Week,” you write, “reports Booz Allen had more than 1,000 former intelligence officials on its [payroll]” and that it “employs more than 10,000 TS/SCI cleared personnel.” What does that mean? TIM SHORROCK: Well, that's the highest level clearance that you can possibly get. And so that means they have basically an army of, you know, private -- AMY GOODMAN: 10,000. TIM SHORROCK: 10,000 people. This was one contract that they had with the Defense Intelligence Agency, which I actually found on their website, you know, looking into different pages. But that 1,000 figure was the people actually on their payroll. And that was three years ago. And when I called them about this, they said, “We don't confirm or deny numbers. We won’t tell you any numbers, but that number sounds reasonable.” So I think they have at least 1,000 on staff. And then, when they put together these projects, that was where their 10,000 number came from, so -- AMY GOODMAN: Who are some names we might recognize? TIM SHORROCK: Among the corporations? AMY GOODMAN: Among the top 1,000 officials that Information Week says are on the staff. TIM SHORROCK: Oh. Well, we all know about James Woolsey, who is the former director of the CIA. He works at Booz Allen, a very well-known neoconservative who was one of the people who really pushed the Iraq war for years. They have all kinds of people that have come -- names that most Americans won’t recognize. AMY GOODMAN: George Tenet, they do. TIM SHORROCK: Tenet’s not with Booz Allen, but Tenet is an intelligence contractor now. He just joined up, in fact, with a Carlisle company called Kinetic, which is one of the UK’s largest intelligence companies now here. AMY GOODMAN: But, Joan Dempsey? TIM SHORROCK: Joan Dempsey is the former executive director for Tenet, and she was hired last year by Booz Allen. They have all kinds of high-level officials working for them. JUAN GONZALEZ: And what are the expectations, in terms of what McConnell will do in the position differently? TIM SHORROCK: I don't think he’ll be very much different. You know, what I’ve heard from people -- and most of my sources are people inside the industry, inside the corporations -- and they basically tell me he's a Yes man. He’s somebody who’s -- they got him in because basically they want him to push their own programs. But I think it's very important for your listeners to know and to understand that when talking about the intelligence office, 85% of the intelligence budget is controlled by the Pentagon. So we’re talking about a military program here. Everything -- the NSA is under the Pentagon. The National Geospacial-Intelligence Agency, which does mapping and imagery, they’re under the Pentagon. The National Reconnaissance Office, which launches satellites, they’re under the Pentagon. And when the budget -- when the Intelligence Reform Act passed, you might remember, there was a big fight. You know, the 9/11 Commission wanted to have these national agencies put under the DNI and taken out of the Pentagon, but there was a fight led by people in Congress, who basically represented the contractors, who didn't want to be taken out of the Pentagon. AMY GOODMAN: So, is there a huge exodus of people from within government intelligence to these private contractors? TIM SHORROCK: Oh, absolutely. It's been going on, you know, since the '90s, you know, ever since, when in the early ’90s, they cut the intelligence budgets. Lots of people left, and they went into the contracting world. And then -- AMY GOODMAN: Because it pays more. TIM SHORROCK: It pays three or four times more. And a lot of these people -- they call them “green badges,” because a contractor has to wear a green badge when they work inside the agency -- they go in the agency, and they’re sitting next to someone making, you know, $45,000, $50,000 a year, and they’re making $200,000, $250,000, $300,000. And it became such a problem that the last year the DNI actually put out a report saying, ‘We’re in trouble, because we’re in competition with the contractors for our own jobs.’ AMY GOODMAN: Where is the accountability? TIM SHORROCK: Where is the accountability? Hopefully, the Democrats are going to do some real oversight in this congress, and I think they’re talking about it, and I think that’s going to happen. AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Tim Shorrock is an independent reporter. His articles have appeared in The Nation and Mother Jones and Harper’s, currently working on a book on the privatization of intelligence. -------- depleted uranium Declaration from World Uranium Summit by jimstaro Fri Jan 12, 2007 http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/1/12/18503/4755 The following was posted on a VFP group board by a very dedicated Activist as to the use of Uranium and Depleted Uranium. I really feel this should be seen by many and is reason enough to post it up in hopes others will sign on and pass along, and get involved! Check out, consider to sign and forward the petitions in the end of the message, thank you! DECLARATION OF THE INDIGENOUS WORLD URANIUM SUMMIT Window Rock, Navajo Nation, USA December 2, 2006 Commentary :: :: We, the Peoples gathered at the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, at this critical time of intensifying nuclear threats to Mother Earth and all life, demand a worldwide ban on uranium mining, processing, enrichment, fuel use, and weapons testing and deployment, and nuclear waste dumping on Native Lands. Past, present and future generations of Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately affected by the international nuclear weapons and power industry. The nuclear fuel chain poisons our people, land, air and waters and threatens our very existence and our future generations. Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. Uranium mining, nuclear energy development and international agreements (e.g., the recent U.S.-India nuclear cooperation treaty) that foster the nuclear fuel chain violate our basic human rights and fundamental natural laws of Mother Earth, endangering our traditional cultures and spiritual well-being. We reaffirm the Declaration of the World Uranium Hearing in Salzburg, Austria, in 1992, that "uranium and other radioactive minerals must remain in their natural location." Further, we stand in solidarity with the Navajo Nation for enacting the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005, which bans uranium mining and processing and is based on the Fundamental Laws of the Dine. And we dedicate ourselves to a nuclear-free future. Indigenous Peoples are connected spiritually and culturally to our Mother, the Earth. Accordingly, we endorse and encourage development of renewable energy sources that sustain - not destroy - Indigenous lands and the Earth's ecosystems. In tribute to our ancestors, we continue centuries of resistance against colonialism. We recognize the work, courage, dedication and sacrifice of those individuals from Indigenous Nations and from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, India, Japan, the United States, and Vanuatu, who participated in the Summit. We further recognize the invaluable work of those who were honored at the Nuclear-Free Future Awards ceremony on December 1, 2006. And we will continue to support activists worldwide in their nonviolent efforts to stop uranium development. We are determined to share the knowledge we have gained at this Summit with the world. In the weeks and months ahead, we will summarize and disseminate the testimonies, traditional Indigenous knowledge, and medical and scientific evidence that justify a worldwide ban on uranium development. We will enunciate specific plans of action at the tribal, local, national and international levels to support Native resistance to the nuclear fuel chain. And we will pursue legal and political redress for all past, current and future impacts of the nuclear fuel chain on Indigenous Peoples and their resources. -- Jamie Kneen Communications & Outreach Coordinator ofc. (613) 569-3439 MiningWatch Canada cell: (613) 761-2273 250 City Centre Ave., Suite 508 fax: (613) 569-5138 Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6K7 e-mail: jamie@miningwatch.ca Canada Mining Watch -------- treaties Rogue state threatens nuke attack against Iran Rohan Pearce 12 January 2007 From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #694 http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/694/36055 It seems like an overly cliched script with a plot so tired that even Hollywood’s dross-marketing machine might think twice about touching it: a Mid-East nation led by an aggressive regime with a record of violating human rights whenever it feels like (which turns out to be often) threatens countries in the region with its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But, in a twist unlikely to make it into the next blockbuster, according to a January 7 article in London’s Sunday Times, it’s the Israeli military that’s planning to use nuclear weapons, not the “mad Arabs” that are the more conventional WMD-toting movie villains. The paper reported that two Israeli air force squadrons are “training to blow up an Iranian [nuclear] facility using low-yield nuclear ‘bunker-busters’”, according to “several Israeli military sources”. An Israeli source told the paper: “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished.” The article stated: “Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt [uranium] enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.” The article offered detail of the alleged plan. It claimed that Israeli pilots “have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets”, that Israeli air force commander Major General Eliezer Shkedi had overseen the preparations, and that three targets inside Iran had been chosen. The targets would be the uranium enrichment facility located some 70 kilometres from the small town of Nantanz, a facility near Isfahan that converts uranium into uranium hexafluoride gas for enrichment into nuclear fuel (low-enriched uranium), and a heavy-water nuclear power plant in Arak. The paper reported that “conventional laser-guided bombs would open ‘tunnels’ into the targets. ‘Mini-nukes’ would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.” A January 7 Associated Press article reported Israeli denials of the Sunday Times’s claims, although gave no direct quotes of outright rejections of either the use of nuclear weapons or of the use of military force against Iran. The wire service noted: “Some view Israeli officials’ occasional implied threats as a means of pressuring the world community to take action, building on the recent United Nations Security Council decision to impose some economic sanctions on Tehran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment … Ephraim Kam — a former senior intelligence official now at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies — also suggested the report should not be taken literally. ‘No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times’, he said.” (In 1986, Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu revealed details of Israel’s development of nuclear weapons to the Sunday Times.) It is clear that even if Iran chose to develop nuclear weapons (the existence of which would present serious difficulties for any future US military efforts at “regime change” in Tehran) it would take years. In August 2005, the Washington Post reported that, according to the US’s National Intelligence Estimate, Iran would be unlikely to produce enough highly enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon before “early to mid-next decade”. However the Sunday Times reported an alleged assessment by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad that Iran is “on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years”. Regardless of whether the Israeli regime is seriously considering a nuclear strike and/or whether the “leak” of such plans is a propaganda move aimed at pressuring the less enthusiastic supporters, like Russia and China, of the US efforts on the UN Security Council to internationally isolate Iran, the spotlight has once again been placed on Washington’s nuclear hypocrisy. So far, neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor the White House have produced proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or that its nuclear program, dubious as it may be from an environmental standpoint, has any purpose other than power generation, a permitted application of nuclear technology under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Iran is a signatory). Israel’s government, unlike Iran’s, has actually overseen the bloody and illegal invasion of another country, and is known to have played a past role in nuclear proliferation, aiding Apartheid-era South Africa’s nuclear weapons program. A July 1999 report by the US Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that Israel, which is not an NPT signatory and has a policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of its nuclear arsenal, possesses 60-80 nuclear weapons. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that Israel’s nuclear program could have produced enough plutonium to construct up to 200 weapons. The fact that Washington hasn’t even batted an eyelid in the face of claims that Israel may use the “nuclear option” against Iran is hardly a surprise — the Bush jnr White House has led the charge to publicly rehabilitate nukes as a “legitimate” weapon of war. On March 9, 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported that the White House had “directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations”. The article was based on a copy of the classified Nuclear Posture Review by the US Defense Department, submitted to Congress in January 2002, obtained by the LA Times. An analysis by the Nuclear Reduction/Disarmament Initiative noted: “The adaptive planning described in the NPR expands the role of nuclear weapons beyond the primary role of deterring a nuclear attack and suggests that nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack or in retaliation for use of biological or chemical weapons … This approach contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of US ‘negative security assurances’, first made in 1978. These state that the US will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty … unless they attack the US in alliance with a nuclear-weapon state.” -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arkansas Tests show no leaks at Nuclear One plant BY BILL W. HORNADAY Friday, January 12, 2007 Arkansas Democrat Gazette http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Business/178663/ Recent groundwater tests at Arkansas Nuclear One found no signs of elevated radioactivity as the nuclear power industry responds to a series of tritium leaks found nationwide since 2003. At least seven of the nation’s 103 nuclear reactors, which provide about one-fifth of the nation’s electricity, have had radioactive water seep into groundwater undetected. Similar leaks also surfaced at two idled facilities. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists some leaks were undetected for up to 12 years. As a result, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s lead policy group, has agreed to make regular groundwater checks at all plants and report its findings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since July, no new reports of tritium contamination have surfaced nationwide, NRC spokesman Scott Burnell said. Tritium is one of the weakest forms of radiation, but scientists disagree on its health risks to humans. The first tests at Arkansas Nuclear One, near Russellville and owned by Entergy Corp., concluded last month, plant spokesman Phil Fisher said. “Last summer, we completed a geohydrology study to determine whether the water flow beneath the plant is the same [volume and direction ] as when it was constructed in the late ’ 60 s and early ’ 70 s. We found that it was, and, based on that, wells were drilled in late November to conduct groundwater sampling,” he said. “One was drilled upstream from the plant, with three drilled downstream. We sampled all four for tritium in late December and none was detected. Going forward, we’ll do similar analyses quarterly. But for now, we’re in good shape.” So far, all U. S. nuclear plants have plans to monitor both groundwater and drinking water pathways for tritium, Burnell said. About 87 percent have “specific” groundwater programs on-site, while the rest must complete their evaluations before monitoring begins, Burnell said. “In terms of industry reports, they must keep us up to date,” Burnell said. Nuclear Energy Institute officials were not immediately available for comment. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. It occurs naturally when the sun’s rays hit the atmosphere and is a byproduct of nuclear reactors that generate electricity. Because its most common form is in water, tritium ends up in water used to cool nuclear reactors. Tritium is commonly used in exit signs in buildings, luminescent paint, watch dials and aircraft gauges. For plants like Arkansas Nuclear One, the regulatory limit for tritium in discharged water is 0. 003 microcuries per milliliter. If a person drank tritiated water at the NRC limit nonstop for a year, they would ingest about 50 millirems of radiation, plant officials have said. By comparison, a coast-to-coast airline flight exposes people to about 12 millirems of radiation, while a chest X-ray involves about 2 millirems, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Radiation Protection Office. Even so, scientists have long debated how even small doses of radiation affect human health. In June, a National Academy of Sciences panel found that the slightest exposure to radiation brings the risk of cancer and that the risks increase with repeated exposure. While low doses usually carry low risk, the panel concluded it is unknown exactly how much risk comes with such everyday procedures as X-ray imaging. High tritium doses carry an increased risk of cancer or leukemia, but only if ingested, according to a 1995 study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. So far, the worst case of tritium contamination involves the Braidwood Generation Station, about 60 miles south of Chicago. Owned and operated by Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the plant has seen at least six occurrences since 1996 in which more than 6 million gallons of tritiated water have oozed from an underground pipe that leads to a discharge point on the Kankakee River. Some of it seeped into groundwater used by the nearby villages of Godley and Braidwood, which have a combined population of about 5, 800. Two leaks are cited in a lawsuit by Illinois’ attorney general that seeks more than $ 36 million — including penalties for alleged failure to report some of the leaks until December 2005. Exelon also owns three other Illinois plants — Dresden, Byron and its idled Zion facility — where tritium leaks have been discovered. Officials at Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center near Buchanan, N. Y., also are still trying to pinpoint the source of radioactive leakage near a spent-fuel storage tank. In October, the NRC stated that no public health impact has come from unmonitored radioactive releases at any commercial nuclear plant since 1996. -------- california Anti-nuclear crowd questions plant safety from airliner attack By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer Friday, January 12, 2007 North County Times http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/13/news/coastal/21_38_471_12_07.txt OCEANSIDE ---- A recent letter calling for new nuclear plants to be designed with potential attacks from commercial airliners in mind has caused the anti-nuclear activist community to ask fresh questions about the safety of the nation's 101 existing nuclear plants, including the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station north of Oceanside. Rochelle Becker, a founding member of the California-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility activist group, said she believes that the nuclear industry's call for new plant design guidelines to consider commercial aircraft attack is an admission ---- whether intentional or unintentional ---- that current plants are vulnerable. "That's what the public has been saying for six years since (the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks)," Becker said. She said the alliance, and other national anti-nuclear groups, will compare notes in a conference call Wednesday and will determine whether to file a fresh request with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, calling for better protection against intentional commercial airliner attacks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rebuffed previous proposals from anti-nuclear activist organizations calling for a range of safety enhancements, including the suggestion to shield each plant with a giant steel cage. Representatives from both the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's lobbying arm which wrote the letter that has riled the anti-nuclear community, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency in charge of making sure plants are safe, said they disagree with any attempt to link the design process for new plants with safety at existing plants. Tony Pietrangelo, vice president for regulatory affairs at the energy institute, said the letter, mailed to nuclear regulators Dec. 8, was simply meant to make sure that all potential security threats are considered during new plants' design phases, not after the fact ---- such as what was done at existing plants in the wake of 9/11. Pietrangelo said the institute harbors no uncertainties about existing plants' abilities to withstand a direct strike from a commercial airliner. "I think we convinced ourselves that the containment buildings and the fuel pools are adequate," he said. Becker said she and many others see the fuel pools as the weak link in most reactor systems. Each of San Onofre's two operating reactors has a 45-foot-deep pool that stores hundreds of highly radioactive spent uranium fuel assemblies. According to Southern California Edison, the assemblies must be stored under water for seven to 10 years before they are cool enough to be moved to dry storage in nearby concrete vaults near the plant's twin containment domes. Though today Edison will not specify the exact dimensions of San Onofre's spent-fuel pools, the company told the North County Times in 2002 that they are below ground. Company spokesman Ray Golden said the pools are surrounded by a reinforced concrete wall that is "several feet thick" and that those walls are capped by a concrete roof of similar heft. Golden added that the pools are tucked between the plant's tall containment domes and its metal electrical distribution lines, making a direct plane strike more difficult. Golden said that Edison has conducted its own technical review of the pools and is confident they could withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner. Scott Burnell, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dismissed any attempt to link new plant design guidelines to existing plant security as tenuous at best. He said that the commission's governing board has long shied away from addressing attacks from commercial aircraft in its official design guidelines, because defending from such a threat requires more resources than a private plant owner could muster. "The commission has repeatedly said that commercial aircraft are outside the realm that a private facility should be required to defend against," Burnell said. He added that the commission believes, like Edison and the nuclear institute, that the nation's plants can withstand the large explosions and fires that such a strike could generate. Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or psisson@nctimes.com. -------- nevada Second possible route for Yucca Mountain rail line to get study Associated Press Fri, Jan. 12, 2007 http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/16446821.htm LAS VEGAS (AP) — The government has set aside a 130-mile stretch of land through central Nevada so the Energy Department can study whether it wants to use it to build a rail line to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, officials said. The federal Bureau of Land Management withdrew the mile-wide corridor from Hawthorne to Goldfield from public use and withdrew an additional 107 square miles of property along portions of a previously designated study route from Caliente to the Yucca Mountain site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The moves became official with a Wednesday posting in the Federal Register in Washington, D.C. There is no rail line to the Yucca Mountain site, which Congress and the Bush administration picked in 2002 as the place to entomb 77,000 tons of radioactive waste now being stored at nuclear reactors in 39 states, including at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near Avila Beach. The project has been stalled by funding shortfalls and questions about quality control during site selection. Setting aside 140,000 acres along the so-called 130-mile Mina corridor means no new mining or property claims can be made, said Dennis Samuelson, a BLM realty specialist in Reno. It forbids the government from selling or trading the land. Grazing and other public access are not restricted. The land withdrawals will allow the Energy Department to conduct environmental studies of the rail routes to the proposed national nuclear repository. The Mina route would run north-to-south, and could cost less than a 319-mile east-west rail line proposed from Caliente, near the Utah border, across rural Nevada to the nuclear dump site. The Energy Department had said it favored the Caliente route, but the cost has been estimated at $2 billion. -------- new york Indian Point owner wants more time on emergency sirens By GREG CLARY THE NY JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: January 12, 2007) http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070112/NEWS01/701120365/1017 BUCHANAN - The owners of Indian Point have asked for an extra 75 days to finish installing emergency sirens in communities around the nuclear plants, saying engineering and permit delays have slowed the project too much to meet the Jan. 30 federal deadline. Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said after receiving the request yesterday that they would move quickly to determine its validity and make a ruling. "We will carefully evaluate this request to ensure that Entergy has taken reasonable steps to complete installation and has provided good cause for any relaxation of the order," said Jim Dyer, the NRC's director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Local officials and opponents of the nuclear plant generally supported the application, noting that getting the project right was more important than having it completed on time. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point's two working nuclear reactors, had agreed to deliver a new emergency notification system by the end of this month after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton got Congress to include wording in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that required a backup power system to ensure that the sirens wouldn't fail during a power outage. The act was passed in August 2005, and Congress allowed 18 months for the changes to be made. The company has spent about $10 million to replace the old system and Entergy officials said all along it expected to meet the 2007 deadline. "This has been a very ambitious and challenging schedule, and while I'm disappointed that we could not bring the system online this month, I am very appreciative of the efforts of our project managers and the support we have received from the counties," said Mike Slobodien, Entergy's director of emergency planning. The company told the NRC in its letter yesterday that engineers expect the system to be fully working by April 15, including worker training and a comprehensive testing of the equipment. The siren system being used now was tested in November and met required operating standards. It will remain in use until the new sirens are ready, company officials said. But this is the the latest setback for an emergency system that has failed under numerous tests in the past two years, sometimes causing gaps in coverage that lasted days. The new system will include 150 sirens with more features than the 25-year-old models they're replacing, including the ability to sound in a 360-degree area without having to rotate. Fewer moving parts mean fewer maintenance problems, company officials have said. Each will have its own backup power as well. Entergy engineers have said putting in more reliable sirens with a greater coverage of the plant's 10-mile, four-county emergency evacuation zone has brought more problems than anticipated, primarily with an existing 470-foot radio transmission tower on Westchester County's Grasslands property. There is still one municipal permit to be resolved for a location near Old Post Road and Riverside Avenue under the joint jurisdiction of the state Department of Transportation and the village of Croton-on-Hudson, Entergy officials said. There was difficulty determining right-of-way authority because of old land records, Slobedien said. The main delay, however, has come from work required to bolster the radio tower enough so it will hold additional equipment, according to Entergy. The company projects that it will take five to eight weeks to strengthen the tower once final construction documents are provided to the county, work is authorized and contracts are issued. "The emergent work to repair the tower was not contemplated when the project schedule was established in June 2006," Entergy's extension request noted. Clinton's office, after learning of the delay request, urged all parties to move quickly. "I am disappointed to hear that there may be a delay, and I urge Entergy and local governments to work together to get the new siren system up and running as soon as possible," Clinton said in a statement. "It has been nearly 18 months since my legislation became law, and the community deserves to know that there are backup systems in place to ensure that the sirens will work, no matter what." Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, was less forgiving. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should deny Entergy's request to delay installing a backup power system for the emergency warning system," Engel said. But county officials said it was more important to get it right than to have it done on time. "You want to make sure you measure twice before you cut once, to use the old carpenter's adage," said Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "We've waited this long. You don't want to rush them on this and have it be a problem later because they were rushed." Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano, said the county supports the request. "We want to get everything we were promised," Tolchin said. "That's more important than having it done on time." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. -------- MILITARY -------- britain 3,000 British troops to pull out of Iraq by May The number of British troops in Iraq will be cut from 7,200 to 4,500 By Thomas Harding in Basra and Toby Harnden in Washington 12/01/2007 UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/11/wiraq11.xml Thousands of British troops will return home from Iraq by the end of May, The Daily Telegraph can reveal today. Tony Blair will announce within the next fortnight that almost 3,000 troops are to be cut from the current total of 7,200, allowing the military to recover from four years of battle that have left it severely overstretched. In what will be the first substantial cut of British troops serving in southern Iraq, their number will drop to 4,500 on May 31. The announcement will be made by the Prime Minister before he steps down from office as an intended signal of the achievements the British have made in Iraq — albeit at the cost of 128 dead. The plans for the British withdrawal were revealed as President George W Bush announced that he was sending an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq. The primary objective of the five brigades and two US marine battalions is to curtail sectarian violence in Baghdad and target Sunni insurgent strongholds in western Anbar province. His high-stakes, prime-time television address to Americans last night signalled a stark divergence of policy on Iraq with that of his British allies. The long-awaited "surge" strategy, bitterly opposed by Democrats and many Republicans, was to be accompanied by a massive influx of American cash for reconstruction and a commitment from the Iraq government to send three brigades into Baghdad. A senior British officer serving in Iraq said yesterday: "The US situation appears to be getting worse because they are sending more troops while the British are getting out of Basra. But the situation is different, with the Americans facing a gargantuan problem of sectarian violence." Although British politicians and senior commanders have speculated on the timing and number of soldiers to be withdrawn from southern Iraq, the precise timetable for the UK withdrawal has been disclosed to The Daily Telegraph. Unless there are "major hiccups" in the next few months, 1 Mechanised Brigade will enter Iraq with a much reduced force when it replaces 19 Light Brigade in June for its six-month tour. Military planners are drawing up force levels for when Basra comes under "provincial Iraqi control" at the end of spring, when all security will be handed over to the Iraqi police and army. The British Army will then position its troops at a major base that is being expanded at Basra air station, five miles west of the city, where they will be on standby. A small force of 200 men will be left in central Basra. By the end of February the volatile Maysan province, patrolled by the 600-strong battle group of the Queen's Royal Lancers, will be handed over to the local authorities. Mr Bush's speech represented an effective rejection of the independent Iraq Study Group report presented last month. He faces deep scepticism from Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, who could eventually cut off money for the war. Senator Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, said: "The president and his team need to explain what objectives we are trying to achieve if forces are expanded." -------- iraq Iraqis not ready to lay down arms Militias are their best protection, they say, and Bush's new plan is a recipe for disaster By Molly Hennessy-Fiske Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 12, 2007 http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes725.html BAGHDAD — Hours after President Bush announced his latest plan to shore up Iraq's beleaguered government, some Iraqis were hoarding weapons, prepared to fight additional U.S. troops alongside the militias they say protect them. Among the militiamen in the capital on Thursday was a man who asked to be identified as Abu Karrar. Affiliated with the Al Mahdi militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr, Abu Karrar refuses to lay down his weapons until militia leaders give the word. "This can be done only when there will be some guarantees, and only when security has improved," he said. Abu Zahraa, 35, a Shiite who works as a building foreman in Baghdad, said he was not ready to trust the government, divided as it was into powerful Sunni Arab and Shiite factions. "If the situation would remain like this, then we will never give up our weapons, because we are skeptical that there is a … side that is able to provide us with security," he said. Sheik Abdul Razzaq Naddawi, an aide to Sadr, said Al Mahdi members, particularly those in the sprawling Shiite slum of Sadr City, had been forced to arm themselves for protection against Al Qaeda in Iraq members and other fighters. "The Sadr City residents say that they are targeted by Al Qaeda and the like, who have announced that they are launching a war against the Shiites," Naddawi said. He said militiamen continued to carry weapons. "If these groups are attacked, they will defend themselves," he said. The remarks from Sadr's camp and street-level sympathizers contradicted a renewed promise Thursday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to disarm the militias and ban them from the streets. Iraqi government officials approached Sadr this year and asked him to disarm his militia, but he asked for guarantees that Shiites in Sadr City would be protected, Naddawi said. Then a series of coordinated car bombs rocked Sadr City on Nov. 23, killing at least 215 people. Any chance of a cease-fire evaporated with the bombings. "Things reached a level that one could not keep silent against," Naddawi said. "The situation exploded." Even those who oppose the militias said Bush's plan would not work. Khalid Furajee, 31, a Sunni grocery store owner, said he lived in fear of Shiite militias, and added that U.S. troops would only anger them. "We don't want them to increase the number of the American troops; we want the contrary," he said. "When the Americans leave, tranquillity and friendship between Sunni and Shiite will return." Haydar Hasoon, 36, a Shiite bus driver, said Iraqi security forces, not U.S. troops, should take control of the country's borders to stop foreign fighters from entering to reinforce the militias and the insurgency. "They are outsiders coming from Iran and Syria," he said of the militias. "I doubt the new [strategy] will succeed. There were many attempts in the past where large numbers of forces were deployed, checkpoints established, and look at the situation now — it's getting worse. Unidentified bodies are being discovered, not to mention false checkpoints everywhere to kidnap or kill people." Critics have accused Maliki, a Shiite, of protecting Sadr and his militia in exchange for political support. Bush's plan will require Maliki to take a different approach and allow U.S. troops to secure Sadr City and other militia strongholds. Many people think Maliki, who began his four-year term in May and has said he will not seek reelection, does not have the courage to stand up to Sadr and his army. "The new strategy that Bush has worked on will serve America's interests alone. It will not serve the interests of the Iraqi people," said Mohammed Diani, a Sunni member of parliament who called Maliki "weak" and unable to confront Shiite militias. "In coming days, Iraq will witness great chaos," Diani said, warning that "many Americans will be killed, and those who are coming will also be killed." A spokesman for Maliki said the government would crack down on militias and U.S. troops would follow the lead of the Iraqi army. But many argue that the Iraqi army has become disproportionately Shiite since the purging of Sunni officers loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein. Bush's plan unifies Iraqi security forces under one commander and pairs them with some of the 21,500 planned U.S. troops. Together they will patrol beleaguered neighborhoods in the capital. "The new vision now for the troops is more coordination — more coordination for the safety of the Iraqis and the international troops," Maliki spokesman Ali Dabbagh said at a news conference in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. Some Iraqis said Bush's plan sounded less like a timetable for disarming militias and more like a timetable for U.S. withdrawal that was designed to reassure a troubled American public that its military hadn't failed. "I think the militias are now stronger than the government," said Ammar Fadhil, 32, a Shiite business owner who hoped Maliki would respond to U.S. pressure and develop the "political will" to stand up to the militias. "Ending militias would in the end benefit all Iraqis," he said. "Because a state with militias is not considered a real state." He called Bush's speech "a light of hope" but said he had no illusions that progress would be rapid, even with $1 billion in new reconstruction money that Bush pledged to help undercut the insurgency in impoverished areas such as Sadr City. "A billion dollars will not solve the unemployment or the deteriorated services," Fadhil said. "However, the citizens are sensing that there is seriousness regarding America's policy and reputation." Bush also wants to better integrate into the government former members of Hussein's Baath Party. Haider Abadi, a leader of Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party, said a new law was in the works that would reduce the number of Baathists excluded from government jobs and pensions to 2,000 from 30,000. But critics said Bush's proposal, which also calls for a plan to share oil revenue, could not will away a litany of long-standing disagreements. The sectarian divide, they cautioned, cannot be solved on the battlefield. "Forces alone cannot solve it," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker. "There should be political agreement and reconciliation…. The only way to make an improvement is willingly between Iraqi political and religious leaders." Talks on militias, oil revenue and de-Baathification have yielded few results, he said. "We have to be frank about it: The Iraqi government has not been able to deliver on these issues," Othman said. But this time, Abadi said, the stakes are much higher for Maliki and the rest of Iraq's leaders. "This represents the last chance for salvation," Abadi said. "If this plan fails, everyone will fail, and the temple will collapse on our heads." -------- israel / palestine US seeks 86 million dollars in military aid to Palestinians Fri Jan 12, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070112/pl_afp/mideastpalestinian WASHINGTON - The administration of President George W. Bush has asked Congress to authorize 86 million dollars in military aid to boost security forces loyal to moderate Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, a senior US official said. "Eighty-six million is the figure we're looking at with Congress, that's our starting point," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. He said the aid would be "non-lethal assistance" including communications gear, vehicles and uniforms as well as training. "It's needed, and we think it's an important part of helping to build up responsible security forces that report directly to president Abbas," he told reporters. McCormack released the figure hours before US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was due to leave Washington for talks with Abbas and Israeli leaders at the start of a weeklong tour of the Middle East and Europe that will also take her to Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Britain. Rice has said the talks are unlikely to yield any kind of a breakthrough in the long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Last month, Egypt, with Israel's consent, sent a large quantity of automatic weapons and ammunition to Abbas loyalist forces and Washington has been pressing the Jewish state to allow a Jordan-based Palestinian militia linked to Fatah deploy in the Gaza Strip, a Hamas stronghold. Rice has been seeking ways to strengthen Abbas and his secular Fatah party in an increasingly violent power struggle with the radical Islamic movement Hamas. Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, gained control of the Palestinian self-rule government following elections a year ago, prompting a financial and diplomatic boycott of the administration. Abbas attempted for months last year to negotiate a power-sharing deal with Hamas that could produce a government willing to recognize Israel and formally renounce violence -- conditions set down by the international community for an end to the aid boycott and resumed negotiations with Israel. Those talks broke down in November, and Abbas subsequently announced that he would call new elections for both the legislature and his presidential office. The move was risky, since Fatah is not assured of beating Hamas in new polls, and sparked violent clashes between the two sides' rival security services that have threatened to degenerate into a civil war. McCormack denied suggestions that beefing up Fatah-led security forces could fuel the factional violence. "We think that we are building up those responsible forces that will help provide security for the Palestinian people," he said. A key task of the enhanced Fatah forces would be to counter militant attacks on Israel, leading to an easing of travel restrictions in the occupied territories and at crossings into Israel which have badly harmed the local economy, he said. "These are forces that will also be committed to fighting terror and to preventing terrorist attacks," he said. -------- un China, Russia cast rare veto against U.S. on Myanmar By Evelyn Leopold Fri Jan 12, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070113/ts_nm/myanmar_un_dc UNITED NATIONS - China and Russia on Friday vetoed a U.S. resolution calling on Myanmar's military junta to stop persecution of minority and opposition groups, killing the measure in the The vote was 9-3 in favor of the resolution, with three abstentions. But two of the negative votes came from permanent members with veto rights. Both Russia and China, which had not cast a double veto since 1972, made the point the United States needed to listen to their complaints carefully. They argued that human rights violations were not the purview of the Security Council unless they endangered regional or international peace and security, which Myanmar did not. "I hope some of our partners also learned some lessons in the course of this entire process," Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said. China's envoy, Wang Guangya, told reporters the United States acted like it was the only permanent council member. South Africa also voted "no," while Qatar, Indonesia and Congo Republic abstained. Voting with Washington were Britain, which co-sponsored the draft, France, Belgium, Italy, Ghana, Peru, Panama and Slovakia. To supporters of the failed resolution, pressure from the United Nations and elsewhere has had little effect on the junta, which cooperated a bit more with the world body only after the Security Council put Myanmar on its agenda. The measure urged Myanmar, formerly Burma, to release all political prisoners, move toward democracy and stop attacks against minorities, many of whom are used for forced labor. "The people of Burma should not feel disheartened by this. This was an effort to bring the situation to the attention of the world community and to send a clear signal that we have not forgotten you. And we won't forget you," Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff told the council. He argued that refugees were pouring over the border, the trafficking of people had increased and AIDS was spreading. Myanmar's U.N. ambassador, Kyaw Tint Swe, said cooperating with the United Nations was the cornerstone of Myanmar's foreign policy. Ibrahim Gambari, head of U.N. political affairs, visited Myanmar twice last year and met with Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest or in prison since her National League for Democracy won elections in 1990. "There are many issues that deserve -- in fact, demand -- the immediate and undivided attention of the Security Council," he said. "Myanmar by no stretch of the imagination is among them." 'MATTER OF PRINCIPLE' The military has run Myanmar in various forms since 1962 and no one has denied its abusive policies, which have been condemned by the 192-member General Assembly. At issue was whether the Security Council had the mandate to deal with the issue rather than the assembly and other U.N. bodies, whose resolutions carry less weight. "Myanmar must respond to the imperative of restoring democracy and respect for human rights -- that is a matter of principle," Indonesian Ambassador Rezlan Ishar Jenie said. "But it is a matter of principle ... whether this council is the appropriate body to address the problem of Myanmar." Beijing has only used its veto four times in the past, the last time in February 1999 on extending a peacekeeping force in Macedonia because of the Balkan's nation's ties with Taiwan, over which China claims sovereignty. Russia last used its veto in April 2004 on a Cyprus resolution for technical reasons. Britain's U.N. ambassador, Emyr Jones Parry, who co-sponsored the resolution, told reporters he could look himself in the mirror for pushing the measure. "I want tomorrow morning to be able to reassure myself that we did the right thing, the right thing by the people of Myanmar," he said. "They have had 50 years of the most abject misery." -------- us Bush borrows 'McMaster' plan from British By Damien McElroy in Camp Ali Al Salem, Kuwait UK Telegraph 12/01/2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/11/wiraq114.xml When Col H R McMaster was deployed to Tal Afar in north-west Iraq in 2005, the city was an insurgent hotbed. Today it is the model for President George W Bush's new blueprint to rescue America's mission in Iraq. The decision to pledge extra troops and resources announced last night will be vindicated if the successful tactics employed in Tal Afar can be replicated in trouble spots around Iraq. It is an approach that owes nothing to American military manuals but to a 1950s British operation to crush the Maoist uprising during the Malayan emergency. Arriving in Tal Afar with his 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Col McMaster decided to purge the city of enemy fighters. After retaking the city, the cavalry showered it with rewards to hold it. Two years later soldiers serving in Tal Afar report that the city is at peace. A US army specialist serving there said yesterday he looked forward to returning after brief R&R. "It's not a tough mission," he said. "It's quiet, just the way I like it." In October, Col McMaster, who has a doctorate in history, was recalled to the Pentagon from secondment to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He was one of the small group of military high-fliers charged with fleshing out the new plan presented by Mr Bush. Crucially, his thinking was shared by Gen David Petraeus, the new commander of multi-national forces in Iraq. Gen Petraeus is also an admirer of the strategies pursued by British forces in Malaya. The general now has the chance to emulate Gen Sir Gerald Templer, who was empowered by Churchill to implement a "clear and hold" counter-insurgency against an insidious enemy. Like today's Sunni Muslim Iraqis, Malaya's Chinese communists moved at will among an embittered minority. Ruthless terrorists capable of perpetrating massacres, the Maoists appeared to be unstoppable. Sir Gerald acted ruthlessly to separate terrorists from the civilian population, knowing this would starve the organisation of support and resources. Whole Chinese settlements were forcibly moved to new locations where the authorities then sought to prevent insurgent infiltration. Strict policing twinned with better living standards offered civilians incentives for switching loyalties. Col McMaster's first step was to ring Tal Afar with a 12-mile, 9ft high wall. Once he had control of everyone entering and leaving the city, he contacted tribal leaders. Residents were advised to move temporarily to a new camp and the military took back Tal Afar after a short fight. There has been relative calm ever since. This week a new city hall opened. Significantly the gates of the bright, colourful complex are open to all. There are no blast barriers or metal detectors to prevent bomb attacks. "It makes the Iraqis feel good," said Col McMaster's successor as ground commander, Lt Col Malcolm Frost. "It makes them proud that they are moving forward, can do things on their own and are in charge of their future." America has flirted before with the Malaya approach, most notably in Vietnam, where it failed to carry the project through. Those involved with Tal Afar worry as well that Gen Petraeus has not been granted sufficient troops. But now that extra resources have been found, the clear and hold approach will at least gain new momentum. Washington's allies will be hoping that a Churchill dictum holds true: That America can be counted on to do the right thing — after it has exhausted every alternative. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars As Thousands Gather in Memphis for National Media Reform Conference, A Look at the State of the U.S. Media Friday, January 12th, 2007 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/151235 We broadcast from Memphis, Tennessee where several thousand people are gathering for the National Conference on Media Reform. Speakers include Bill Moyers, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Phil Donahue, Jane Fonda, Helen Thomas and scores of others. We take a look at the state of the U.S. media with FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and Free Press co-founder Robert McChesney. [includes rush transcript] Several thousand people are gathering here in Memphis this weekend for the National Conference on Media Reform. Speakers include Bill Moyers, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Phil Donahue, Jane Fonda, Helen Thomas and scores of others. The conference comes just weeks after media activists won a victory in the fight over the future of the Internet. The telecom giant AT&T recently agreed to adhere to net neutrality - the concept that everyone, everywhere, should have free, universal and non-discriminatory access to the Internet. AT&T made the pledge as part of its efforts to win FCC approval for its merger with Bell South. The two Democratic commissioners on the FCC agreed to back the merger after AT&T's pledge. This year's National Conference on Media Reform is also taking place as the FCC considers rewriting the nation's media ownership laws to allow major corporations to purchase more radio/TV stations and newspapers. To talk about these issues two guests join us here in Memphis: * Jonathan Adelstein, commissioner of the FCC. He has served on the Federal Communications Commission since 2002. * Robert McChesney, co-founder of the group Free Press which runs the National Conference on Media Reform. He is a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Robert's most recent book is "Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy." RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: To talk about these issues, we’re joined by two guests here in Memphis: Jonathan Adelstein, commissioner of the FCC, he’s served on the Federal Communications Commission since 2002; and Robert McChesney, the co-founder of the group Free Press, which runs the National Conference on Media Reform. He’s a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Bob McChesney’s most recent book is called Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell War, Spin Elections and Destroy Democracy . We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Bob, start off by talking about the significance of this conference. ROBERT McCHESNEY: Well, there’s a reason why the right to assemble is in the First Amendment. It gives people extraordinary power to come together and see other people, share their concerns, talk to them, and map strategies to deal with the problems they have. And I think with media, that's what's happening here. We have literally 3,500 people coming from all 50 states to talk about their concerns about the decline of journalism, about corporate-concentrated power over the media system, about the commercialization of everyday life, and what we can do about it, what the policy options are, because our media system isn’t natural. It’s not a free market system. It wasn’t ordained by the Constitution. It’s a result of policies that have been made in our name, but generally without our informed consent. And this movement is all about democratizing the policy-making process, putting sunlight on it, letting people get involved. And we think the more people that are involved in media policy-making, the more likely we’re going to have policies that serve our interests and not the interests of powerful lobbyists behind closed doors. JUAN GONZALEZ: And what about the growth of this movement? I know this is like the third such conference now organized. Compared to the others, how do you see the growth of the movement? ROBERT McCHESNEY: It never ceases to amaze me. And I’m a participant, and I’m amazed. I can only imagine what it looks like from the outside. The first conference was three years ago, and we blew our minds with 1,700 people coming almost out of nowhere to Madison. The second conference was 2,300 people in St. Louis. This one will be 3,500 people. Also, the entire conference will be streamed at the freepress.net website, and we’re expecting at least 100,000 or 200,000 people who will be participating online over the course of the weekend. The growth is simply tremendous. And what’s really been striking about it -- and I think that’s why we’re doing it in Memphis -- this is not sort of a stereotypical cliché sort of progressive community, strictly, that’s coming out and organizing. This is all 50 states. One of the striking communities that’s going to be at this conference, that wasn’t really at the first conference, is the journalist community. There’s a crisis in journalism in this country today, as commercial interests, corporate interests, big media owners basically have said journalism doesn’t make sense to our bottom line. And working journalists across the country are alarmed at this. They’re saying, “We’ve got to do something about this,” and they’re in the front ranks of this movement now. JUAN GONZALEZ: Commissioner Adelstein, obviously there has been a lot going on at the FCC recently. Could you talk a little bit about the victory that was won in terms of net neutrality and what the fault lines were on the Commission itself? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Well, Juan, they said it couldn't be done. The big telecommunications companies said they couldn’t live with net neutrality. They told us they’d rather walk and not do their merger than do net neutrality. And then, all of the sudden, a miraculous thing happened. We have a three-two margin, Republican over Democrat, on the Commission. I’m one of the Democrats. The Republican member, the newest member, used to work for a trade organization that was involved in this, so he recused himself. The chairman tried to bring him back in, but when he announced that he wasn’t going to participate, lo and behold, AT&T came back to the table and said, “Let's talk. Let’s talk tonight. Let’s talk right now.” We said, “Well, let’s talk net neutrality.” And all of a sudden, they were open to negotiations. We worked through the -- over the holidays and Christmas, and right up until New Year’s Eve, when we got the deal cut, right before the end of the year, which was a real breakthrough on net neutrality. They actually agreed -- no discrimination -- from the backbone all the way to the home, which is something they said they wouldn’t do. AMY GOODMAN: For people who are not quite that literate in this web jargon, what exactly do you mean by “net neutrality”? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: What we mean is that we’re going to preserve the open nature of the internet that has been its hallmark and what’s made it so powerful. We are going to ensure that these big companies -- in this case, just one, AT&T, the only one beholden to this agreement -- can’t basically change the speed at which things travel over the internet from an applications provider, like a Google, to your home, or even some small application coming out of somebody’s garage. They want to send something out, it’s going to go from that company, YouTube or wherever else, and it’s going to come right to your home without AT&T charging them or saying that ‘we’re going to change those bits around,’ or you can’t get an internet phone service, because they’re going to mess it up so that it doesn't work for you. We’re going to make sure that you can navigate wherever you want to go on the web, so that its power as a tool of the free flow of information in this country can’t be inhibited by the gatekeepers, the companies that control the pipes. JUAN GONZALEZ: There already were companies like Cisco Systems that had developed applications to be able to break the delivery systems into sort of premium, first class, second class or third class on the internet, very much like the airlines. They wanted to make the internet function that way, as well, right? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: That’s right. It would be like toll lanes on the internet, and we said there can be no toll lanes. We said that information has got to flow freely, like the interstate system: let the traffic go, let it move, no stopping, no lights, nobody goes faster than anybody else, everything moves at the speed that it should. AMY GOODMAN: Bob McChesney, Free Press participated in this negotiation. And what does it mean to say it's for two years? I mean, AT&T, BellSouth -- I don't know if it's a marriage forever -- but they are planning to make a lot of money, and they are very big. What’s two years to them? ROBERT McCHESNEY: In merger deals, you don’t make permanent conditions, as I understand it, so it’s always time-dated, what conditions you put on it. So it’s -- two years is the condition we were able to get. That means we’ve got a two-year window now to go to Congress and force Congress to basically put this into writing, that we will not allow the big cable and telephone companies -- there are only a handful now that deliver internet access to the vast majority of Americans, pushing 99%. This is basically an effort to privatize the internet, for them to say, ‘We pick which websites you can see and which ones go on the dirt path,’ and take away its entire public character, which is responsible for its genius and its growth. And I think that's our challenge now and one of the tasks of the Media Reform Conference here in Memphis. A lot of our energy is going to talking about the strategy to organize a popular campaign to absolutely demand Congress to pass a law making net neutrality forever the law of the land to keep the internet open and free, so to make the First Amendment a living document for everyone, not just for media owners. JUAN GONZALEZ: And the net neutrality issue is obviously only one of the many that you’re facing. You’ve been going all around the country with Commissioner Michael Copps and holding town hall meetings and unofficial hearings on the whole issue of the rewriting of the ownership rules that the FCC is now considering. Where is that right now? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Well, we went all across the country back in 2003, when the chairman, Michael Powell, tried what was the most destructive rollback of media ownership protections in the history of American broadcasting. He rolled that over us, over me and Mike Copps, on a three-two vote. And miraculously, the public responded in droves. 3 million people contacted the FCC. There was an uprising across the country. And the courts actually threw it out and sent it back to the FCC. So now we’re back at square one. Starting from scratch, we have the opportunity to rewrite the rules. Hopefully we learned the lessons of the public uprising that we had. The law says we’re supposed to follow the public interest, not the interests of the companies that we regulate. Too often, I think, that’s forgotten in Washington. So that’s why we go out to the people, we talk to them, and we try to make sure that we operate these media companies in ways that benefit the public. AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Jonathan Adelstein, who is an FCC commissioner, one of two Democratic commissioners now. It’s got the full roster of five commissioners -- three are Republican. And Bob McChesney, who is co-founder of Free Press, that is running this third National Conference on Media Reform. Juan is the past president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. The whole issue of media consolidation and who owns the media, where people of color, women fit into that ownership? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Right now, I think the levels of ownership by minorities, including Hispanics, blacks, are at the lowest levels we’ve ever recorded in American history. The problem is that as these media companies get bigger and bigger, it gets harder for small business people, people without access to a lot of capital, to own their own outlets. And so, you see, they can’t communicate with their own communities. They can’t find that their issues of concern are addressed. They find that there’s stereotyping going on, that the kind of images that are portrayed on the news and in the programming isn't reflective of the contributions of the African Americans to American society, or Hispanics. And we have to turn this around. We’ve got to make it so that there can be more minority ownership, so they can have their own unique voices heard. And the last thing you want to do is allow more media consolidation to let that happen. JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Bob McChesney, Free Press recently did a report, because the FCC wasn’t tracking this. The Department of Commerce has stopped doing reports on minority ownership. And you -- what was it -- in September -- ROBERT McCHESNEY: That’s right. JUAN GONZALEZ: -- issued a new report on the state of minority ownership. ROBERT McCHESNEY: Yeah, we did. Free Press, our research staff, put together a report. We crunched the numbers that were -- the government had the data. They just weren’t dealing with it. And we discovered that, as the commissioner said, African American and women ownership of broadcast media is plummeting in this country in the past decade. I think it’s almost arguable, that you could say there’s less African American ownership in media today than there was during the Jim Crow era. I mean, we’re really at a nadir in terms of that. It's an outrage. And it’s part of a broader pattern, too, that I think the commissioner is wise to bring up, which is, just small ownership, local ownership is basically being wiped out in this country. And I think if the rules changes proposed by Kevin Martin, are being discussed by the FCC now, go through, we will see the end of local ownership entirely. We’re going in the exact opposite direction. We need a popular campaign to say, no, we want local owners, we want owners from minority communities in this country, we want women owners. We want a diverse ownership, because it’s a diverse country. That's not a negotiable demand; that's a necessary demand in a free society. And right now, as a matter of fact, on Tuesday, January 16 is the deadline for people to make that statement to the FCC. They’re taking public input, and the deadline is coming this Tuesday. And I urge everyone that’s concerned about this issue, if you go to stopbigmedia.com -- it’s the coalition website of all the community groups that care about this issue – they’ll have just one-stop shopping: you can go there, see where you go to punch in your message, send to the FCC. As the commissioner will be the first to tell you, when you get a lot of these in, it makes a huge difference, not only with the FCC, but as importantly with Congress and the courts, eventually, because these always end up in the courts. JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Commissioner Adelstein, I’d like to ask you about another issue: the cable systems. Obviously, cable has become a huge force in terms of supplying entertainment and news to the American people. But there’s been a big battle now, as the phone companies get into delivering video service that the cable systems want to get out from under all of these municipal agreements, where they have to provide certain public service channels to local municipalities and to local public interest groups. What’s the status of that whole issue of the battle with the cable systems? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Well, the good news is that the big telephone companies, like AT&T, want to get into the video business and they want to compete with the cable companies. Cable prices just keep going up and up. We’re hoping that some competition will keep a lid on those prices. But what price does that competition come at? Unfortunately, there’s been an effort to use this positive development to roll back all the local community control of the media, including access by public, educational and governmental channels in local communities that provide good local content that communities really crave, because they don't get it on their local news anymore. They say, “Well, let’s get rid of that. There’s going to be competition now. We don’t need that anymore.” So, the FCC, just at the end of last month, rolled back the rules, basically had the Republican majority override us to say that ‘We’re going to federalize this. We’re going to take control from local communities. They shouldn’t have control of their own systems. And we’re going to do it in the federal government. And, of course, at the federal level, we’re not going to require the same level of PEG access. We’re not going to require them to really serve their community's needs in that way.’ AMY GOODMAN: And PEG access -- public, education, government -- the public access TV channels. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Right. That’s going to be undermined. The kind of contributions to local governments are going to be undermined. And the ability of local governments to make sure that there’s a build out to the entire community is something that we also weakened on a three-two vote overriding our votes on that. So it's a big concern going forward. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, when you say “federalize” it, in essence then, when someone in New York City or Los Angeles has a problem with their local cable company, they’re no longer going to be able to go to their own municipality to deal with this; they’re going to have to go to the FCC? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Well, they could try, but the fact is that the power is being brought more to Washington, and Washington is telling the local governments how they can operate the franchise agreements. You see, you can’t operate a cable system in a community without getting a franchise. And Congress set up the system where the franchise comes to the local communities, and that’s why the local communities negotiate for this kind of public access and the kind of fees that will be charged, and making sure that these companies build out and actually serve low-income communities, serve minority communities. Well, we said, at the FCC level, you don't have to worry about that so much anymore, because if they don't allow you to have a franchise -- big phone company -- we’re basically going to force them to hand it to you. That really undercuts the local government’s ability to protect their own citizens and make sure that all their citizens are properly served. AMY GOODMAN: And for who are wondering, the history of this, the media activism that led, for example, to public access, that these cable companies that come into a community, they get the monopoly to dig up the public roads in a town, and in exchange, the cable company has to give back. And this is what media activists won, and that is that the cable company has to support these public interest channels that the community runs. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: The argument by the phone companies is “We’re a new entrant. We’re brand new competition. We don’t need all that,” which may have some merit to it, but even if it does, the cable company is now ready to jump onboard and say, “Great! Get rid of requirements for the new entrants, and we don’t want the old requirements on us anymore.” And pretty soon, nobody’s accountable. And some communities, especially underserved and low-income, are going to be left unattended. JUAN GONZALEZ: So then, the FCC’s decision does mean that the local cable companies will no longer have to do municipal contracts, or not? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: We haven’t made that decision yet, actually. That was a debate that we had. And we decided -- the chairman agreed within six months to revisit the issue and tentatively concluded that he would let the cable companies off the hook, as well, just as he let the new entrants, the phone companies, off the hook at last month’s meeting. JUAN GONZALEZ: And that will be decided in six months. JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Yeah, by June. AMY GOODMAN: What about the FCC studies that were suppressed? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: Well, there were some studies made by the FCC that showed, for example, that local-owned television stations show more local news, which isn’t particularly surprising. AMY GOODMAN: Now, these were commissioned by Michael Powell, the previous chair of the FCC? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: That’s right. They were internal studies that were done by FCC staff. And for some reason, apparently, our staff was told by somebody to deep six them, to make sure that they never saw the light of day. But some enterprising reporters got a hold of them, and they ended up seeing the light of day. And it turns out that if there is research that doesn't meet the interests of the companies that we regulate, for some reason, that gets buried. AMY GOODMAN: Did you know about the original commissioning of these studies? JONATHAN ADELSTEIN: I wasn’t aware that they were going on. I knew there was a radio study. There was another study of the radio industry showing enormous concentration in radio, that we suddenly stopped doing the report. And later on, a reporter found out that somebody at the FCC said, “Why should we continue putting out these reports? They don't help our case; they just hurt it. And so, let’s just stop doing them entirely.” But one of them had been completed and never released, and that came to light, as well. The research we’re doing is supposed to be independent. We’re the expert agency. Instead, we only take those studies that meet the interests of the very companies that we regulate, and those are the ones that get taken into consideration, and the ones that don’t meet their views don’t. JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Bob McChesney, obviously after the elections in November, there’s an expectation now that there may be some change in the Congress. What do you see now as the ability of a Democratic-controlled congress to be able to effect the media policy and some of the issues that the FCC is grappling with? ROBERT McCHESNEY: We’re very optimistic in certain respects. On issues like net neutrality and media ownership, the Democrats have a very strong record. The ones who are currently running committees, in particular, are being very positive on these issues, being very strong. At the same time, I shouldn’t exaggerate the power, because AT&T, for example, or the commercial media lobby are very powerful. And they don’t only make donations to Republican politicians. And when there’s a lot of money at stake, it’s always a difficult fight. And it just means we have to redouble our efforts to put popular pressure on members of Congress, let them know the people of this country are watching them. And Democrats need that pressure every bit as much as Republicans. JUAN GONZALEZ: Because there was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who got the Telecommunications Act passed. ROBERT McCHESNEY: Absolutely. JUAN GONZALEZ: And it was a Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, who allowed our commercial radio system to come into being. ROBERT McCHESNEY: It’s a bipartisan system, and I think -- you know, our movement, the media reform movement, is not a partisan movement. We view ourselves as like the environmental movement. We think that whoever is in office, we want the people of this country to speak to them and make demands upon them to serve the people of this country. And we’re not picking one party over the other. We think both parties should be addressing these issues. All political parties should be addressing these issues. AMY GOODMAN: Cross-ownership of television and newspaper in a town. ROBERT McCHESNEY: Disaster. I mean, to my view -- AMY GOODMAN: Explain, in lay terms, what it means. ROBERT McCHESNEY: You know, basically, the rule has been in the law for 30 years, that if a company is given a monopoly license to have a radio or TV station in a community, which is historically a license to print money, you couldn’t take your profits, then gobble up, buy the local daily newspaper. So the fear would be, you’d only have one newsroom in a community that would then have one newsroom serving the daily monopoly newspaper, TV station and a radio station. They thought for a healthy democracy, you wanted multiple newsrooms, multiple owners in a community, so you have different newsrooms competing to get stories, that that would be a healthy thing for a free society, for local journalism. Well, everyone loves that in this country, except for one very small group of people -- media owners -- because they look at the idea, “If I can own -- have a monopoly, have a company town media, where I have one newsroom, I own the newspaper, I own three TV stations, I own eight radio stations, I own the cable provider, I’ve got the ISP in town -- and I can have only one newsroom, and no one else is covering stories, my costs go way down. My leverage over advertisers and customers goes way up.” It's -- the cash register plays like Beethoven’s symphony in their minds. That's our crisis, and that’s what they want. That’s the fight right now. Media ownership is primarily over their effort to get rid of the ban, so they can have company town-owned media. JUAN GONZALEZ: And obviously the impact on journalism is huge. ROBERT McCHESNEY: Devastating. JUAN GONZALEZ: Knight Ridder, which was arguably the chain with the highest quality newspapers in commercial newspapers, now is gone. And there’s cutbacks in every -- and they’re gone even though their profit level was about 20% a year. It wasn’t enough. ROBERT McCHESNEY: This has been a scandal that’s been going on. We’ve seen it with the Tribune Company at the LA Times. We’ve seen it at the San Jose Mercury News, some of our most distinguished newspapers, where principled editors and publishers in the last few years have resigned their jobs or had been fired under protest, because they’re saying, “We’re making lots of money, yet you’re asking me to lay off 20% of our staff. You’re asking me to cut into the quality of what we’re doing, but we’re making profits that any investor would be delighted with.” This is an outrage. AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us. We have been talking with Jonathan Adelstein, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, as well as Bob McChesney, who is the co-founder of Free Press, that is running this National Media Reform Conference this weekend here in Memphis, Tennessee. Thousands are expected to attend. It begins this morning with a keynote address by Bill Moyers. And we will certainly bring you that in the coming days on Democracy Now! -------- us politics Cheney enters the twilight of his career By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 12, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_s_twilight WASHINGTON - One by one, the hardline conservatives like Donald H. Rumsfeld and John Bolton who stood shoulder to shoulder with Vice President Dick Cheney in pushing President Bush's decision to invade Iraq have left the administration. Yet while Cheney himself is in the twilight days of his political career, he's still there, with little evidence that his influence with Bush has waned. Bush's decision to boost troops in Iraq and to continue to challenge Iran and Syria runs counter to recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the new Democratic majority in Congress and many Republicans — yet reflects Cheney's long-held hawkish views. The vice president, who generally has kept a low public profile since the midterm elections, is about to get some unwanted exposure in another area. He's expected to be a witness in the perjury and obstruction trial of his former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, in the CIA leak case. Jury selection starts Tuesday. Cheney did not resist being called as a defense witness. Once viewed as adding an air of gravitas to an inexperienced president, Cheney, 64, is now seen by many Americans as a driving force behind Bush's most divisive initiatives: the Iraq war, the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program, harsh detention and interrogation policies and an aggressive push for expanded executive authority. Bad as Bush's poll numbers are, Cheney's are worse. And while he's still beloved by conservatives, it seems unlikely he will be a big draw on the 2008 campaign circuit. None of that seems to matter to Bush. "Cheney and Bush have a quite personal relationship. Cheney has been loyal from the beginning and is loyal to this day. And the Bush family, if they have any family trait, is to return loyalty," said GOP consultant Rich Galen. Cheney is expected to be an active salesman for Bush's new Iraq policy, which includes sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq. The plan, which Bush announced this week in a speech to the nation, has drawn wide condemnation from Democrats and many Republicans. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose increasing U.S. troops in Iraq. Cheney appears ready for the fight, his health holding up despite a long history of heart disease. In the meantime, his fellow hard-liners in the administration are, for the most part, gone. Rumsfeld resigned as defense secretary under pressure. Bolton, unable to win Senate confirmation, had to give up his temporary assignment as U.N. ambassador. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz left some time ago to head the World Bank. Douglas Feith, a former deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, a former Pentagon adviser, have gone on to other things. Cheney is the only member of Bush's original national security team still holding the same job. "The neo-cons are gone. Cheney is the last one, and you can't get rid of him," said Paul C. Light, a New York University professor of public service. Still, "his influence has never been more at the mercy of the president than today," said Light. "For his first four years perhaps, maybe even a little bit longer, when he spoke the president listened. Now the president speaks and Cheney must listen. And it's the president who is setting the vice president's agenda and not vice versa." Both parties have been freshly reminded of Cheney's constitutional duties as president of the Senate as control of that chamber has continued to ride on the health of Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record). The South Dakota Democrat remains hospitalized four weeks after surgery for a brain hemorrhage. If Johnson cannot complete his term, the Republican governor of South Dakota would be likely to appoint a Republican, effectively creating a 50-50 Senate and allowing Republicans to regain control by virtue of Cheney's tie-breaking vote. Cheney played a lightning-rod role as a leading advocate for invading Iraq and has continued to call for an aggressive stance there, even after last November's midterm elections stripped Republicans of control of both House and Senate. "Some in our country may believe in good faith that retreating from Iraq would make America safer. Recent experience teaches the opposite lesson," Cheney said in a speech to a conservative group several weeks after the election. When Bush decided to replace the controversial Rumsfeld with Robert Gates at the Pentagon, Cheney said at a farewell ceremony last month for his old friend, "Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had." "I think Cheney remains a powerful force within the administration and there's no indication he's changed his views," said Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon defense strategist now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "That said, the president is still the president," she said. "But there's not a lot of indication the president's changed his views, either," Flournoy said. She said the net effect is that "the two leaders at the top are still driving the train in the same direction despite calls for them to change course." Bush still clearly values Cheney's counsel. The vice president traveled to Saudi Arabia in late November to sound out the Saudis on the conflict in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. And he was at Bush's side as the president met with various groups to help reshape his Iraq policy. "Cheney's role is back to what it was at the beginning, which is the behind-the-scenes organizer, the guy who gets things done," said GOP pollster Frank Luntz. "And Cheney is so much a man of principle and so not a man of polls. So for him, it's not that he's going the other way (from more moderate voices on Iraq). He is sticking to principle." Luntz said it doesn't really matter that Cheney may be losing political influence among other Republicans and may be a liability with the new Democratic Congress. "Now that the last campaign is done, there's not much for him to do politically." ---- Libby Trial May Show Cheney's Role in Run-Up to War By Cary O'Reilly and Holly Rosenkrantz Jan. 12, 2006 (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aysa4JuacDb8&refer=home The perjury trial of I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, may provide ammunition for Democrats looking to attack the White House for its conduct in the run-up to the Iraq war. Libby, 56, is charged with perjury and obstruction for lying to a grand jury probing the leak of a CIA agent's name. He faces as many as 30 years in prison if convicted. The trial starts on Jan. 16 in Washington. Defense lawyers say they'll call Cheney as a witness to bolster claims Libby was too busy with security matters to accurately remember events. His testifying is risky for both men. What Cheney recalls may undermine Libby's too-busy defense while exposing the vice president to probes by Congress of how the Bush administration promoted the war, legal experts said. ``Litigation begets litigation,'' said Stanley Brand, a former U.S. House counsel who specializes in representing public officials accused of wrongdoing. ``Every time you haul someone to court, it makes it more likely someone else is going to haul him to court. It's the Martha Stewart problem. Once you're under oath, people can take pot shots at you about what you said.'' Ted Wells, a Paul Weiss Rifkind attorney representing Libby, told U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton during a hearing last month that he plans to call Cheney to the stand. He and co- counsel William Jeffress of Baker Botts did not return telephone calls this week seeking comment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Ann McBride declined to say whether a subpoena has been received. ``We have cooperated fully with the investigation and will continue to do so,'' McBride said. Rare Testimony If Cheney takes the stand, he would be the first sitting vice president to testify in a criminal case in at least 100 years, according to Joel Goldstein, a vice presidential scholar at St. Louis University. Rulings by Walton may limit the scope of Cheney's testimony, though he is likely to discuss events in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the period in which prosecutors say Libby committed perjury and obstruction. ``The suggestion has been that Vice President Cheney's office has really almost created an alternative national security council,'' Goldstein said. ``To that extent, the trial may be indicative in showing how the vice president's office has been involved in the planning and selling of the war.'' Libby was Cheney's closest adviser, having served as the vice president's national security adviser as well as his chief of staff. He worked with Cheney at the Pentagon during the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Not First on Trial Libby is one of the highest-ranking White House officials ever to be tried, though not the only member of the Bush administration. David Safavian, the former head of the Office of Management and Budget, was sentenced to 18 months in prison in October for lying and obstructing justice during the corruption investigation of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, now in prison for fraud. Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Zeidenberg, who won a conviction of Safavian, is a working with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the chief prosecutor in the Libby case. Fitzgerald, normally based in Chicago, would probably handle any cross-examination of Cheney. He ``is the special prosecutor in the Libby case, and he is personally responsible and more involved in that case, than in any of his Chicago cases,'' said Robert Kent, a former federal prosecutor in Fitzgerald's office who left two months ago to join the Baker McKenzie law firm. Fitzgerald's cases include the prosecution of Conrad Black, the former Hollinger International Inc. chairman charged with looting the company. Plame's Name Libby was indicted in October 2005 on charges of lying to investigators and a grand jury probing whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to reporters, a violation of federal law. Plame's name was published by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly accused President George W. Bush of twisting intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Libby is accused of lying and obstructing the probe. No one has been charged with the leak of Plame's name. In September, ex- U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he was the person who first told Novak that Plame was a CIA officer. Court papers filed in the Libby case portray Cheney as having a central role in events during the period in 2003 that the administration was defending itself against critics of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Cheney told Libby on June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA, according to the indictment. Libby told investigators that he believed Cheney learned it from the agency. `No Control' Cheney's testimony may undermine Libby's argument that he was too focused on national security matters by showing, for example, how often he discussed Wilson and Plame with his boss, according to Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor. ``This is Libby's trial,'' she said. ``He's on trial for perjury and false statements, so Cheney is not going to be able to control anything. It's not completely wide open, but there's quite a bit of leeway in questioning him on matters leading up to the disclosure'' of Plame's name. News organizations including Bloomberg News asked Walton Jan. 4 to ensure media access to the jury selection process, and to release audio recordings of the proceedings. Walton denied the latter request in a Jan. 9 order and will allow only two journalists in the courtroom. He said the court has taken extraordinary steps to ensure public access. Other reporters and members of the public can observe the proceedings in a second courtroom that will have live audio and video of the proceedings, he said. ``At no time in the history of this courthouse have such accommodations been provided to the public and the press in a criminal case,'' Walton said in the order. The case is U.S. vs. Libby, 05-394, U.S. District Court, the District of Columbia. To contact the reporter on this story: Cary O'Reilly in Washington at caryoreilly@bloomberg.net ; Holly Rosenkrantz in Washington at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Only Environmental Bill in First 100 Hours Up for Vote WASHINGTON, DC, January 12, 2007 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-12-09.asp#anchor1 The last of the six designated bills up for consideration during the House Democrats' first 100 legislative hours is the legislative program's only environmental measure. Introduced today with 199 cosponsors, H.R.6 will shift roughly $13 billion in oil industry subsidies toward renewable energy and energy efficiency. The House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 6 on January 18. Specifically, the measure ensures oil companies that were awarded the 1998 and 1999 leases for drilling paid their fair share in royalties. It also closes loopholes and ends giveaways in the tax code for Big Oil, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says on her website. The bill creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve to invest in clean, renewable energy resources, promoting new emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency and improving energy conservation. Over the last several years, profits and subsidies for Big Oil have climbed, as has our dependence on foreign oil, Pelosi says. In 2006, the big five oil companies made $97 billion - nearly five times their profits in 2002. Gas prices have topped $3 per gallon at the pump. The United States now has a record dependence on foreign oil, which has climbed to 65 percent, and the country is sending about $800 million per day to the Middle East and other oil producing countries. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil is critical to bolstering our national security and creating good-paying new jobs. American farms abound with crops that can be used to fuel our cars and trucks - from corn to soybeans to switchgrass," Pelosi points out. In 2005, the ethanol industry supported the creation of more than 150,000 jobs in all sectors of the U.S. economy, boosting U.S. household income by $5.7 billion, according to a report for the Renewable Fuels Association. Pelosi says that the President's current budget funds renewable energy and energy efficiency at below the 2001 level, in real terms, and provides nearly 50 percent less for research on renewable energy than was promised in the energy law. The Independent Petroleum Association of America, IPAA, is opposed to the measure. "If the goal is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, then this bill falls far short," said IPAA President Barry Russell today. "The American oil and natural gas industry is our most precious and primary defense against increased oil imports," Russell said. "This is a time to encourage American investment in energy projects here at home, not discourage it. This bill takes capital from U.S. oil and natural gas companies that otherwise would be spent on domestic energy exploration." The IPAA represents more than 5,000 oil and natural gas companies, most of them small, independent businesses, who drill 90 percent of the oil and natural gas wells in the United States. But there is broad bipartisan support for ending the addiction to oil by investing in clean renewable fuels, Pelosi says, quoting an Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll taken last August that found 52 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. government should invest in alternative energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The measure is popular with conservationists. "In a 180 degree shift from energy policies that line the pockets of polluting industries, the introduction of H.R. 6 is clear signal that Congress is ready to start solving our energy problems," said Kate Johnson of U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups. "We also commend Speaker Pelosi’s commitment to building a new energy future, and look forward to working with Congress to continue to move America’s energy policy in this new direction well beyond the first 100 hours," said USPIRG. The House has already passed four of the six bills scheduled for the First 100 Hours - anti-terrorism measures, a minimum wage increase, expanding federally funded stem cell research, and a bill to make the government negotiate for lower Medicare prescription drug prices. -------- ACTIVISTS Poll: 71% Oppose Iraq War Escalation Friday, January 12th, 2007 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/150246 The Bush administration’s escalation of the Iraq war drew a harsh reaction Thursday with Congress, protests, and public opinion polls all showing growing signs of opposition to sending more troops to Iraq. A new AP-Ipsos poll shows public opposition to a troop surge has reached 71 percent -- ten percent more than from earlier this week. The President’s overall job approval rating is hovering around its lowest mark at just 32 percent. Protests were held in several cities, including New York, San Francisco and Boston in what peace activists called a prelude to a major rally in Washington, DC two weeks from Saturday. Gates: No Timetable on Troop Surge Top administration officials were sent to Capital Hill in a push to build political support for its escalation of the war. Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates rejected calls to set a timetable on the new deployment of more than 21,000 troops. Defense Sec. Robert Gates: “I don't think anybody has a definite idea of how long a surge would last. I think for most of us in our minds we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years. We will know in a couple of months whether that strategy will bear fruit.” GOP Sen. Blasts “Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Blunder Since Vietnam” Meanwhile in the Senate, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Foreign Relations Committee the Iraqi government is living on “borrowed time.” She also declined to call the troop surge an escalation but rather an “augmentation.” Rice heard criticism from both sides of the aisle. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska had harsh words for the administration’s plan. Sen. Chuck Hagel: “So, Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam -- if it's carried out. I will resist it.” At least fifteen Republican lawmakers have now come out against sending more troops to Iraq. Across the aisle, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold called the troop increase “quite possibly the greatest foreign policy mistake in the history of our nation.” Democratic Senator Joseph Biden also spoke. Sen. Joseph Biden: “I fear that what the president has proposed is more likely to make things worse. We hoped and prayed we would hear of a plan that would have two features: to begin to bring American forces home and a reasonable prospect of leaving behind a stable Iraq. Instead, we heard a plan to escalate the war, not only in Iraq but possibly into Iran and Syria as well. I believe the president's strategy is not a solution, Secretary Rice. I believe it's a tragic mistake.” Republicans say the President risks a major defeat if House Democrats proceed with a non-binding resolution on the president’s troop surge. Republican Congressmember Ray LaHood of Illiinois said: “The White House will have to work 24 hours a day to find people on our side who aren’t going to jump ship.” ---- Protests Worldwide Call for Gitmo Closure Friday, January 12th, 2007 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/150246 Protests and vigils were held around the world Thursday to mark the International Day to Shut Down Guantanamo. In Cuba, the American peace activist Cindy Sheehan led a march of fifty people to the military barrier surrounding the Guantanamo prison. Here in the United States, hundreds of people gathered outside the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. Close to one hundred protesters were later arrested inside the courthouse after raising signs with slogans including “Stop Torture” and “Shut Down Guantanamo.” Amnesty International organized rallies outside US embassies around the world. In London, more than 400 people dressed in orange jumpsuits like those worn by Guantanamo prisoners. In Madrid, protestors delivered embassy officials a petition calling for Guantanamo’s closure. Amnesty International member Jerry Saderes: “Many governments don't want to talk about it because they think that terrorism is more important than civil rights. We are not defending terrorism, we are defending those who are not involved.” Meanwhile at the United Nations, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon joined the calls to shut down Guantanamo. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon: ‘I would say that [on] today's 5th anniversary of the Guantanamo prison, like my predecessor, I believe that the prison at Guantanamo should be closed.’ Opposition was also heard from Afghanistan, where most Guantanano prisoners were captured. Afghan Human Rights Commissioner Ahmad Nader Nadery: “Of course we join all those human rights organizations mainly the human right high commissioner for human rights in her call for closing the facilities in Guantanamo Bay. We do hope that this happens in relation to the Afghan detainees, that the Afghan detainees to be transferred to the Afghan authority if the decision was made.” ---- Anti-war activists protest Bush plan to send more troops to Iraq By Jason Dearen ASSOCIATED PRESS 1:08 a.m. January 12, 2007 http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070112-0108-ca-iraq-protests.html SAN FRANCISCO – A man wearing a large, papier-mFachDe President Bush mask walked among hundreds of anti-war demonstrators angered by President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq, toting a sign that read, “I'm obviously insane. Impeach Me.” The sentiment was shared by many others in the crowd of several hundred marching through the city's downtown Thursday, including Jan Rogers, who said she watched Bush's televised speech the night before and said he “doesn't seem to get it.” “The rest of the country is shouting, 'Stop this insanity,' and I think he's just trying to save his presidency and his legacy. But he's just on the wrong path,” Rogers, 58, said. Activists here, as in several other major cities, gathered Thursday to protest that the troop buildup will cause more bloodshed and give insurgents new American targets. Law student Zahra Billoo, 23, advocated an immediate troop withdrawal. “I think our only presence at this point needs to be humanitarian aid. No more armed soldiers – they're not wanted there,” she said. In New York, Tony Palladino protested in Lower Manhattan's Foley Square with a pair of anti-war signs. The former Air National Guardsman said the new troops would just give insurgents “20,000 extra targets.” Hundreds of demonstrators crammed onto a traffic island in Times Square, chanting “Stop the funding, stop the war” as drivers in one of the world's most famous intersections honked in support. Some demonstrators held signs depicting the president as a monkey. Others sold buttons that said “Peace.” A band of pro-war protesters on the other end of the island yelled for passers-by to ignore the anti-war rally. The group held a large sign that said “Warning – Leftist protesters trying to demoralize our tr