*****************************************************************
09/28/02 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 10.249
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 N Korea, IAEA begin talks on nuclear inspection
2 Give Inspectors Time to Act, Kennedy Urges
3               Las Vegas SUN: Resolution to Give Inspectors Access
4 U.S. Wants 7-Day Deadline for Iraq
5 US: Bush Team's Case Vs. Iraq: Glance
6 International Nuclear Industry Exhibition Opens in St. Petersburg
7 US: Cheney, GAO Clash in Court over Energy Records 
8 US: Democrats push for more diplomacy in Iraq face-off - 
9 Japan: State's nuclear policy faces big hurdle: regaining public tru
10 US: NRC approves TVA production of tritium
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
11 Chernobyl Uranium for Sale
12 Sensation: Chernobyl Uranium On Sale! 
13 US: Illinois: Defending Nuclear Power Plants
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
14 Turkey: Police arrest two in uranium seizure*
15 Iraq bought uranium from Portugal (in early 80's)
16 US: Experts ready workers for 'dirty bombs' 
17 Japan: Nuclear safety chief hit for leaking whistle-blower's identit
18 US: Tenn. Hydroelectric Plant on Fire (nuclear power source)
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
19 [generalnews] Vieques/  We need help from our Texas friends.... plea
20 [generalnews] Schroeder party MP accuses US of interference in
21 [generalnews] Iraq Calls British Report Baseless
22 Anti-War March in London (est. 350,000 people) 
23 Greens Warn of Bush Policy for World Domination.
24 US MEDIA BEGINS PREPARING THE PUBLIC FOR MASS SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ
25 US: now-action-list Tell Congress No to War on Iraq
26 [southnews] Aussies protest Iraq war
27 [southnews] France resists US pressure on Iraq
28 Editorial: *Make DCG meaningful
29 U.S. to Resume Pakistan Military Aid
30 Scientists Have Next Move on Chessboard That Is Iraq
31 CIA Snubbed Saddam's Nuke Chief*
32 Pakistan Editorial: Make DCG meaningful
33 US: Iraq: Hawk Spin Agenda
34 US: U.S. Sources Hedging on Iraq Facts
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
35 Judge dismisses claims over toxins released from Oak Ridge 
36 Agreement reached on workers' records
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
37 The New New World Order
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 N Korea, IAEA begin talks on nuclear inspection

Saturday, September 28, 2002 at 09:30 JST

TOKYO ? 

North Korea and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 
have entered into detailed talks on conducting inspections of 
nuclear facilities in North Korea, a senior Japanese Foreign 
Ministry official said Friday.

The talks between Pyongyang and the IAEA came after North Korean 
leader Kim Jong Il told Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi 
at a summit meeting in Pyongyang on Sept 17 that his country is 
ready to abide by all international agreements related to nuclear 
development. 

(Kyodo News)



      Japan Today Discussion

*****************************************************************
 2 Give Inspectors Time to Act, Kennedy Urges

Los Angeles Times - latimes.com 

</> Miller Lite

September 28, 2002
 
* Iraq: Democratic senator sees no 'imminent threat.' Bush, 
moving to build public support, says he's 'willing to give peace 
a chance.'

By RICHARD SIMON and ESTHER SCHRADER, TIMES STAFF WRITERS

WASHINGTON -- Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy 
stepped up their campaign Friday for more diplomacy before 
military action is launched, while the administration battled to 
build public support for a potential confrontation with the 
Baghdad regime.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), in presenting a comprehensive 
case against armed intervention, called for the United States to 
give U.N. inspectors a chance to find and disable Iraq's weapons 
of mass destruction.

"The administration has not made a convincing case that we face 
such an imminent threat to our national security that a 
unilateral, preemptive American strike and an immediate war are 
necessary," he said in a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of 
Advanced International Studies in Washington.

Kennedy's speech came as three House Democrats--including one 
from California--spent the day in Baghdad to seek Iraq's 
cooperation with inspections.

The heightened activity by the Democrats underscored the 
increasing difficulty facing the White House in its push for a 
congressional resolution that would authorize force against Iraq. 
The resolution ultimately is expected to pass, but Democrats are 
becoming more assertive in raising concerns about its wording.

Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld took to the road to 
dispel doubts about the worthiness of waging war on Iraq.

"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work," Bush said at a 
Republican fund-raiser in Denver. "I want the United Nations to 
work." But he said he wanted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to 
"do what he said he would do," a reference to Hussein's pledge in 
1991 to allow weapon inspectors open access.

"But for the sake of our future, now's the time.... We must make 
sure this madman never has the capacity to hurt us with a nuclear 
weapon or to use the stockpiles of anthrax that we know he has or 
... the biological weapons which he possesses."

Later in the day, during a fund-raiser in Phoenix, Bush referred 
to Hussein as "a man who loves to link up with Al Qaeda."

As it pushes for congressional backing for a tough stance toward 
Iraq, the White House also wants the U.N. to approve a resolution 
that would allow the use of "all necessary means" to deal with 
Hussein's regime if it balks at U.N. demands that it eliminate 
weapons of mass destruction.

At the United Nations on Friday, diplomats said the United States 
and Britain are demanding that Hussein be given a seven-day 
deadline after passage of a tough new Security Council resolution 
to accept its terms for immediate disarmament or face severe 
consequences. The conditions in the draft resolution include a 
call for full and unfettered access of U.N. weapon inspectors to 
Hussein's palaces and other sensitive sites that previously have 
been inaccessible.

The proposed resolution also requires Hussein to hand over a list 
of all materials that can be used for weapons of mass destruction 
within 30 days of the resolution's passage, and calls for "all 
necessary means" to be used against Iraq if it continues to defy 
the U.N.

A Security Council diplomat described the resolution as "very 
tough and very detailed."

The draft resolution is proving a hard sell with other key 
nations--such as Russia, France and China--and growing dissent on 
the home front can only complicate the administration's 
international lobbying efforts.

In Atlanta, Rumsfeld drove home the message that the 
administration will continue its push against Iraq. "No thinking 
person wakes up in the morning wanting to go to war," he told 
business leaders. "But the American people must weigh the risk of 
not acting."

Friday's developments capped a week when what had been a muted 
discussion on Iraq erupted into a louder debate, with more 
Democrats complaining that the administration is not allowing 
enough options to war.

Former Vice President Al Gore, Bush's 2000 election opponent, 
assailed the White House's position in a speech Monday in San 
Francisco. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle 
(D-S.D.) angrily accused Bush of trying to politicize the debate 
on Iraq.

"Democratic efforts are now aimed at modifying the wording" of 
the congressional resolution, said Ross Baker, a political 
scientist at Rutgers University. "They want Democratic 
fingerprints on it in the event the military campaign, when it 
comes and is successful, they can claim partial credit. If it 
runs into trouble, they will be able to say they sounded the 
cautionary note."

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush was 
optimistic the nation's "resolve to deal firmly with Saddam 
Hussein will soon be echoed in the Congress."

Congressional leaders and White House officials reported progress 
on changes in the wording of a war resolution that would draw 
strong bipartisan support.

Some Democratic senators, including Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein 
(D-Calif.), were drafting alternative resolutions that would give 
Hussein a last chance to comply with a U.N. disarmament effort 
before the United States used any military force. A Feinstein 
aide said that the senator has received about 15,000 phone calls 
and 3,500 letters on the Iraq issue, with the overwhelming 
majority against a unilateral, preemptive U.S. strike.

The Democratic-led Senate is expected to begin debating the 
resolution next week, culminating in a vote the following week. 
The Republican-controlled House is expected to take up the 
resolution the week after next.

In his speech, Kennedy cautioned that a unilateral U.S. attack on 
Hussein could embolden Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an 
escalation in terrorist attacks.

"A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in 
the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen, not lessen, 
the threat of terrorism," he said.

In urging the Bush administration to wait to see whether the U.N. 
succeeds in requiring Iraq to submit to unconditional weapon 
inspections and the destruction of any weapons of mass 
destruction, Kennedy said: "What is to be lost by pursuing this 
policy before Congress authorizes sending young Americans into 
another, and in this case perhaps unnecessary, war?"

He warned that a U.S. attack on Iraq, rather than stabilize the 
region, could escalate, "spiraling out of control" and drawing 
the Arab world into a "regional war in which our Arab allies side 
with Iraq against the United States and against Israel."

"And that would represent a fundamental threat to Israel, to the 
region, to the world economy and to international order," he 
said.

Rumsfeld argued that Hussein's weapon program is a threat worth 
striking down first.

He said that weapon inspections would never be an adequate 
deterrent to Hussein's ambitions to build a nuclear, chemical and 
biological arsenal.

Such inspections were "not really designed for a hostile 
environment," Rumsfeld said.

Saying preemptive action against a threatening foe had precedent, 
he compared the situation to that facing President Kennedy during 
the Cuban missile crisis. He said that just as Kennedy's blockade 
of Cuba then may have forestalled a nuclear confrontation, so 
would a military strike on Iraq.

"Kennedy prevailed because he did take preventive action," 
Rumsfeld said. " ... The last thing we should want is a smoking 
gun. A gun doesn't smoke until it's been fired."

Ironically, Sen. Kennedy also cited his brother's handling of the 
Cuban missile crisis. "The United States prevailed without war in 
the greatest confrontation of the Cold War," he said. "Now on 
Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, 
pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict."

The three Democratic congressmen who traveled to Iraq--Reps. Mike 
Thompson of St. Helena, Calif., David E. Bonior of Michigan and 
Jim McDermott of Washington--said they hoped to convince Iraqi 
leaders to submit to U.N. weapon inspections.

"I'm a combat veteran of the Vietnam War," Thompson said on CNN. 
"I don't want us to use war as the first option ever."

"We want every diplomatic effort made to resolve this without 
war," McDermott told CNN.

Meanwhile, former President Clinton, on a trip through Africa, 
said the United States should give Hussein a last chance to 
comply with a U.N. disarmament effort before using military 
force.

"I think we ought to go to the United Nations," Clinton said on 
CBS' "The Early Show." "I think we ought to get a tough 
resolution, which basically says, 'OK, we'll take Saddam Hussein 
up on his commitment to free and open and unfettered inspections 
and ultimately to disarmament of these weapons of mass 
destruction.' And if he doesn't comply in the beginning or 
somewhere down the road, then the international community is 
authorized to use force."

In contrast, Clinton argued, there could be "an enormous price" 
if the United States and Great Britain invade Iraq without 
international sanction. "Does this justify ... [the] Chinese 
someday taking action against Taiwan?" he asked on NBC's "Today" 
show.

Like Gore and Kennedy, Clinton also said that pursuing Al Qaeda 
should remain America's top national security priority.

But he hinted he was less concerned that a war with Iraq would 
unacceptably distract from that effort.

"I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time," he said on 
ABC's "Good Morning America."

*

Times staff writers Ronald Brownstein, James Gerstenzang, Maura 
Reynolds and Tyler Marshall contributed to this report.

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times
*****************************************************************
 3               Las Vegas SUN: Resolution to Give Inspectors Access
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Las Vegas SUN
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 27, 2002 
Resolution to Give Inspectors Access
 By DAFNA LINZER
 ASSOCIATED PRESS 



UNITED NATIONS- The draft of a tough U.S. resolution calls on Iraq to reveal
all materials relating to weapons of mass destruction and to give U.N. weapons
inspectors unfettered access to presidential sites, according to American
officials and Security Council diplomats. 
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would have seven days to agree to the U.N.
resolution calling on him to disarm and then he would need to quickly present
the council with a list of banned materials in Iraq's possession. 
If he fails to comply, the resolution would threaten the use of "all necessary
means" against him, officials told The Associated Press on condition of
anonymity. 
The language in the draft is borrowed from a previous Security Council
resolution and appeared aimed at winning the support of France, Russia and
China. 
The three, who are permanent members of the Security Council and hold veto
power, have said they didn't want a resolution that would threaten force
before inspectors returned to Baghdad. 
The draft resolution, to be jointly proposed by the United States and Britain
- the other permanent members of the Security Council - has not been made
public. But details were disclosed Friday, three days before the chief U.N.
weapons inspector was to discuss preparations for his staff's return with
Iraqi experts in Vienna. 
According to officials, the draft resolution gives the inspectors the right to
designate "no-fly" and "no-drive" zones in Iraq. Currently, "no-fly" zones in
the north and south of the country are patrolled by U.S. and British
warplanes. 
The resolution also would nullify assurances U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
gave Saddam in 1998 that restrict inspections of presidential sites, including
Saddam's palaces. 
According to the deal between Annan and Iraq, inspectors were not allowed to
spring surprise inspections on any of the eight so-called presidential sites,
which encompass a total of about 12 square miles and include several palaces. 
The resolution also envisions an end to the Iraqi practice of assigning
government guides to accompany inspectors as they moved through the streets of
Baghdad and elsewhere around the country. 
It also would detail Iraq's violations and specify what Baghdad must do to
correct them, especially "full, final and complete destruction" of weapons of
mass destruction. 
In the meantime, Britain and the United States continued to lobby for support
from France, Russia and China. 
Bush called French President Jacques Chirac to try to win his backing for the
U.S.-British proposal. But Chirac resisted, telling Bush he opposed
threatening Iraq with military force upfront. 
Chirac, instead, urged Bush to back a French approach for two resolutions - a
first one calling for full compliance and cooperation with inspectors, and a
second one authorizing force should Iraq fail to comply. 
Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who shared the U.S. draft with French
officials in Paris on Friday, was bound for Moscow for more meetings Saturday.
Grossman was accompanied by British diplomat Peter Ricketts, and London sent a
second envoy to Beijing for talks with senior Chinese officials. 
Describing the draft resolution as tough and detailed, a U.S. official in
Washington said Iraq would be accused of being in "material breach" of U.N.
Security Council resolutions and told it must agree to "full, final and
complete destruction" of its weapons of mass destruction. 
While Secretary of State Colin Powell and other U.S. diplomats strive to gain
approval for the resolution, the Bush administration is struggling to persuade
Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq. 
Bush said he was willing to wait and see if the United Nations could force
Saddam to disarm before the United States acts on its own. 
"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work. I want the United Nations to
work," Bush said at a Republican fund-raising event in Denver. 
But Bush said action must come quickly. 
"Now is the time," he said. "For the sake of your children's future we must
make sure this madman never has the capacity to hurt us with a nuclear weapon,
or to use the stockpiles of anthrax that we know he has, or VX, the biological
weapons which he possesses." 
--- 
EDITORS: AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report. 
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Las Vegas SUN main page
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Questions or problems? Click here.

 
                All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
                                        

*****************************************************************
 4 U.S. Wants 7-Day Deadline for Iraq

Las Vegas SUN: 

September 28, 2002 By DAFNA LINZER ASSOCIATED PRESS 

UNITED NATIONS- The draft of a tough U.S. resolution calls on 
Iraq to reveal all materials relating to weapons of mass 
destruction and to give U.N. weapons inspectors unfettered access 
to presidential sites, according to American officials and 
Security Council diplomats. 

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would have seven days to agree to 
the U.N. resolution calling on him to disarm and then he would 
need to quickly present the council with a list of banned 
materials in Iraq's possession. 

If he fails to comply, the resolution would threaten the use of 
"all necessary means" against him, officials told The Associated 
Press on condition of anonymity. 

The language in the draft is borrowed from a previous Security 
Council resolution and appeared aimed at winning the support of 
France, Russia and China. 

The three, who are permanent members of the Security Council and 
hold veto power, have said they didn't want a resolution that 
would threaten force before inspectors returned to Baghdad. 

The draft resolution, to be jointly proposed by the United States 
and Britain - the other permanent members of the Security Council 
- has not been made public. But details were disclosed Friday, 
three days before the chief U.N. weapons inspector was to discuss 
preparations for his staff's return with Iraqi experts in Vienna. 

According to officials, the draft resolution gives the inspectors 
the right to designate "no-fly" and "no-drive" zones in Iraq. 
Currently, "no-fly" zones in the north and south of the country 
are patrolled by U.S. and British warplanes. 

The resolution also would nullify assurances U.N. 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave Saddam in 1998 that restrict 
inspections of presidential sites, including Saddam's palaces. 

According to the deal between Annan and Iraq, inspectors were not 
allowed to spring surprise inspections on any of the eight 
so-called presidential sites, which encompass a total of about 12 
square miles and include several palaces. The resolution also 
envisions an end to the Iraqi practice of assigning government 
guides to accompany inspectors as they moved through the streets 
of Baghdad and elsewhere around the country. 

It also would detail Iraq's violations and specify what Baghdad 
must do to correct them, especially "full, final and complete 
destruction" of weapons of mass destruction. 

In the meantime, Britain and the United States continued to lobby 
for support from France, Russia and China. 

Bush called French President Jacques Chirac to try to win his 
backing for the U.S.-British proposal. But Chirac resisted, 
telling Bush he opposed threatening Iraq with military force 
upfront. 

Chirac, instead, urged Bush to back a French approach for two 
resolutions - a first one calling for full compliance and 
cooperation with inspectors, and a second one authorizing force 
should Iraq fail to comply. 

Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who shared the U.S. draft 
with French officials in Paris on Friday, was bound for Moscow 
for more meetings Saturday. Grossman was accompanied by British 
diplomat Peter Ricketts, and London sent a second envoy to 
Beijing for talks with senior Chinese officials. 

Describing the draft resolution as tough and detailed, a U.S. 
official in Washington said Iraq would be accused of being in 
"material breach" of U.N. Security Council resolutions and told 
it must agree to "full, final and complete destruction" of its 
weapons of mass destruction. 

While Secretary of State Colin Powell and other U.S. diplomats 
strive to gain approval for the resolution, the Bush 
administration is struggling to persuade Congress to authorize 
the use of force against Iraq. 

Bush said he was willing to wait and see if the United Nations 
could force Saddam to disarm before the United States acts on its 
own. 

"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work. I want the United 
Nations to work," Bush said at a Republican fund-raising event in 
Denver. 

But Bush said action must come quickly. 

"Now is the time," he said. "For the sake of your children's 
future we must make sure this madman never has the capacity to 
hurt us with a nuclear weapon, or to use the stockpiles of 
anthrax that we know he has, or VX, the biological weapons which 
he possesses." 

EDITORS: AP Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this 
report. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 5 Bush Team's Case Vs. Iraq: Glance

Las Vegas SUN: 

September 27, 2002 By The Associated Press ASSOCIATED PRESS 

A look at some assertions made by the Bush administration in its case against
Iraq, and intelligence findings regarding those matters: 

-Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, on Wednesday:
"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented;
there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important
contacts and that there's a relationship here. ... And there are some al-Qaida
personnel who found refuge in Baghdad." 

U.S. intelligence sources indicate that evidence of direct channels between
Baghdad and al-Qaida is tenuous. At least one midlevel to high-level member of
al-Qaida might be in Baghdad. 

-Bush, on Thursday: "The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to
terrorist organizations." 

The Iraqi government has supported Palestinian and other regional terrorist
groups, although not as actively as Syria and Iran, intelligence experts in
and outside government say. 

An organization devoted to the overthrow of the Iranian government is
supported both by Iraq and by some U.S. members of Congress. 

-Bush, on Thursday: "There are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." 

U.S. intelligence believes al-Qaida operatives have been moving through Iraq
en route to their home countries and in many cases are in areas outside the
control of Saddam Hussein. 

-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on Sept. 18: "So, there clearly is a
role in our world for inspections, but it tends to be with a cooperative
partner, and we've seen the situation with Iraq where they've violated some 16
U.N. resolutions, and finally threw the inspectors out. " 

Iraq did not throw out the weapons inspectors. The inspectors left on their
own, in December 1998, because Iraq was not cooperating with them and because
they knew U.S. airstrikes were coming. 

-Vice President Dick Cheney, on Aug. 29: "On the nuclear question, many of us
are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon." 

The CIA indicated in a January report to Congress that it did not regard Iraqi
possession of a nuclear weapon to be imminent. "We believe that Iraq has
probably continued at least low-level theoretical R (research and development)
associated with its nuclear program," the report said. Other intelligence
suggests Iraq could have a nuclear weapon within a year of acquiring
fissionable material. 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 6 International Nuclear Industry Exhibition Opens in St. Petersburg

Pravda.RU 

  17:26 2002-09-25
 
 The second international Nuclear Industry exhibition opened in 
St. Petersburg on Tuesday as part of the sixth international 
Russian Industrialist forum. It is organised by the Russian 
Atomic Energy Ministry and will run until September 27. 

According to the regional public information centre of the Atomic 
Energy Industry, the exhibition's aim is to demonstrate the 
potential of Russian and foreign firms to manufacture complex 
industrial products. The exhibition will feature a wide spectrum 
of technologies and services for ensuring full-scale radiation 
safety in Russia and her neighbouring states. 

The fifth international Radiation Safety: Dealing with 
Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel conference is being held 
today in St. Petersburg at the Atomic Energy Ministry's Regional 
State Education Centre. Participants in the meeting will try to 
find a way to solve the problems of ensuring the nuclear and 
radiation safety of the population in Russia, problems arising 
from the use of nuclear energy and radioactive materials, and in 
dealing with radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The 
conference will be attended by deputy Russian Atomic Energy 
Minister Valery Lebedev, the head of the Atomic Energy Ministry's 
Safety and Emergency Department, Alexander Agapov, and the 
president of Rosenergoatom, Oleg Saraev. 

� RosBalt

Articles on the same subject on News.Google.Com: 	 

*****************************************************************
 7 Cheney, GAO Clash in Court over Energy Records 


By Susan Cornwell 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney on 
Friday pressed his case to keep energy policy documents secret 
from the investigative arm of Congress and a federal judge said 
he would rule on the matter as soon as possible. 

In an unprecedented courtroom clash between the executive and 
legislative branches of government, attorneys for Congress' 
General Accounting Office argued the White House should not be 
making the "breathtaking assertion" that it was exempt from 
congressional oversight. 

Comptroller General David Walker, the head of the GAO, filed suit 
in February demanding that Cheney hand over a list of executives 
from Enron Corp and other companies who were consulted as a task 
force headed by Cheney drafted the Bush administration's energy 
policy last year. 

Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing Cheney's case, 
called the lawsuit "incredibly intrusive" into the work of the 
government's executive branch. 

He warned that if the courts tried to settle such disputes, there 
would be no end to them. 

"No court has ever done it before," Clement declared. "No court 
has ever ordered the executive branch to turn over a document to 
a congressional agency." 

But Carter Phillips argued for the GAO there was no case law that 
said "that the president and vice president are utterly protected 
from the oversight responsibilities of Congress." 

"I will consider this as quickly as I can," U.S. District Court 
Judge John Bates said after hearing over two hours of argument in 
a federal courthouse near the Capitol. 

LOOKING OVER THE WHITE HOUSE'S SHOULDER 

Phillips said the information the GAO sought was mundane: a list 
of energy industry executives the administration consulted as it 
formulated its energy policy, as well as the subjects of the 
meetings, when they took place and the cost involved. 

"It's difficult for me to imagine," Phillips said, that for the 
White House to hand over the information "is going to bring the 
republic to its knees." 

But not to force the White House to release it could put the GAO 
out of business, Phillips argued, saying it was the agency's job 
to "look over the shoulder" of the executive branch to make sure 
it was spending taxpayers money properly. 

He suggested the White House might have avoided a courtroom 
confrontation if it had formally asserted executive privilege for 
the papers. 

Clement argued the GAO had no more right to the information than 
if it had asked who the president consulted before making a 
judicial nomination. Even if the GAO's request was legitimate, 
Congress had other ways to get the information -- such as through 
a congressional committee subpoena, he added. 

But the lawmakers who asked the GAO to investigate the energy 
task, Reps. Henry Waxman of California and John Dingell of 
Michigan, are both Democrats in the Republican-run House of 
Representatives. This would have made it difficult for them to 
get support to subpoena the Republican White House. 

Some information about White House contacts with failed 
energy-trader Enron has been released under subpoenas to a 
committee of the Senate, where Democrats have a majority. Cheney 
has also acknowledged meeting former Enron president Kenneth Lay 
in April 2001, while the energy policy was being drafted and 
California was in the throes of an energy crisis. 

Dingell and Waxman asked the GAO to investigate after 
environmentalists complained they had been largely left out of 
the consultations that produced the White House energy policy 
announced in May 2001 and sent to Congress. 

The plan called for more oil and gas drilling and a revived 
nuclear power program, but it has stalled on Capitol Hill. 

Walker's pursuit of the task force documents gained momentum 
after Enron, which had numerous links to the Bush administration, 
went bankrupt in December 2001. 

A series of other lawsuits by environmental and citizens' legal 
groups have already compelled the release of many task force 
papers from some departments, but not the White House. 

The documents that have been released showed many administration 
meetings with top executives from energy firms like Duke Energy 
Corp., UtiliCorp United and Exelon Corp., as well as industry 
groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute and the National 
Association of Manufacturers 

                              <b>Energy Policy</b> 
[http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/US%2FEnergy_Policy/*http://story.news.yahoo
               .com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=Energy_Policy] 
  
  Related News Stories  
  �    Negotiators Near Agreement on Energy Bill
[http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/US%2FEnergy_Policy/Related%20News%20Stories
/Negotiators%20Near%20Agreement%20on%20Energy%20Bill/*http://www.washingtonpost
.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17330-2002Sep28.html]  Washington Post (Sep 29, 2002)   

  �    Cheney-GAO Showdown Goes to Court
[http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/US%2FEnergy_Policy/Related%20News%20Stories
/Cheney-GAO%20Showdown%20Goes%20to%20Court/*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy
n/articles/A13276-2002Sep27.html]  Washington Post (Sep 28, 2002)   

  �    Cheney Argues Against Giving Congress Records
[http://dailynews.yahoo.com/r/fcweb/US%2FEnergy_Policy/Related%20News%20Stories
/Cheney%20Argues%20Against%20Giving%20Congress%20Records/*http://story.news.yah
oo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20020928/ts_nyt/cheney_argues_against_giving_cong
ress_records]  NY Times/Yahoo! News (Sep 28, 2002)   


    Copyright � 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
 8 Democrats push for more diplomacy in Iraq face-off - 

detnews.com] 

Saturday, September 28, 2002               
  
The Detroit News. 

By Richard Simon and Esther Schrader / Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- Democratic critics of President Bush's Iraq policy 
stepped up their campaign Friday for more diplomacy before 
military action is launched, while the administration battled to 
build public support for a potential confrontation with the 
Baghdad regime. 

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., in presenting a comprehensive 
case against armed intervention, called for the United States to 
give U.N. inspectors a chance to find and disable Iraq's weapons 
of mass destruction. 

"The administration has not made a convincing case that we face 
such an imminent threat to our national security that a 
unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are 
necessary," he said in a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of 
Advanced International Studies in Washington. 

Kennedy's speech came as three House Democrats spent the day in 
Baghdad to plead for restraint. 

The heightened activity by the Democrats underscored the 
increasing difficulty facing the White House in its push for a 
congressional resolution that would authorize force against Iraq. 
The resolution ultimately is expected to pass, but Democrats are 
becoming more assertive in raising concerns about its wording. 

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld took to 
the road to dispel doubts about the worthiness of waging war on 
Iraq. 

"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work," Bush said at 
Republican fund-raiser in Denver. "I want the United Nations to 
work." But he said he wanted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to 
"do what he said he would do," a reference to Hussein's pledge in 
1991 to allow weapons inspectors open access. 

"But for the sake of our future, now's the time. We must make 
sure this madman never has the capacity to hurt us with a nuclear 
weapon or to use the stockpiles of anthrax that we know he has or 
the biological weapons which he possesses." 

Later in the day, during a fund-raiser in Phoenix, Bush referred 
to Hussein as "a man who loves to link up with al-Qaida." 

As it pushes for congressional backing for a tough stance toward 
Iraq, the White House also wants the United Nations to approve a 
new resolution that would allow the use of "all necessary means" 
to deal with Hussein's regime if it balks at U.N. demands that it 
eliminate weapons of mass destruction. 

At the United Nations Friday, diplomats said the United States 
and Britain are demanding that Hussein be given a seven-day 
deadline after passage of a tough new Security Council resolution 
to accept its terms for immediate disarmament or face severe 
consequences. The conditions in the draft resolution include a 
call for full and unfettered access of U.N. weapons inspectors to 
Hussein's palaces and other sensitive sites that previously have 
been inaccessible. 

The proposed resolution also requires Hussein to hand over a list 
of all materials that can be used for weapons of mass destruction 
within 30 days of the resolution's passage, and calls for "all 
necessary means" to be used against Iraq if it continues to defy 
the United Nations. 

A Security Council diplomat described the resolution as "very 
tough and very detailed." 

The draft resolution is proving a hard sell with other key 
nations -- such as Russia, France and China -- and growing 
dissent on the home front can only complicate the 
administration's international lobbying efforts. 

In Atlanta, Rumsfeld drove home the message that the 
administration will continue its push against Iraq. "No thinking 
person wakes up in the morning wanting to go to war," he told 
business leaders. "But the American people must weigh the risk of 
not acting." 

Friday's developments capped a week when what had been a muted 
discussion on Iraq erupted into a louder debate, with more 
Democrats complaining the administration is not allowing enough 
options to war. 

Former Vice President Al Gore, Bush's 2000 election opponent, 
assailed the White House's position in a speech Monday in San 
Francisco. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, 
D-S.D., angrily accused Bush of trying to politicize the debate 
on Iraq. 

"Democratic efforts are now aimed at modifying the wording" of 
the congressional resolution, said Ross Baker, a political 
scientist at Rutgers University. "They want Democratic 
fingerprints on it so in the event the military campaign, when it 
comes and is successful, they can claim partial credit. If it 
runs into trouble, they will be able to say they sounded the 
cautionary note." 

Congressional leaders and White House officials reported progress 
on changes in the wording of a war resolution that would draw 
strong bipartisan support. 

Some Democratic senators, including Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein, 
D-Calif., were drafting alternative resolutions that would give 
Hussein a last chance to comply with a U.N. disarmament effort 
before the United States used any military force. A Feinstein 
aide said that the senator has received about 15,000 phone calls 
and 3,500 letters on the Iraq issue, with the overwhelming 
majority against a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. strike. 

The Democratic-led Senate is expected to begin debating the 
resolution next week, culminating in a vote the following week. 
The Republican-controlled House is expected to take up the 
resolution the week after next. 

In his speech, Kennedy cautioned that a unilateral U.S. attack on 
Hussein could embolden al-Qaida sympathizers and trigger an 
escalation in terrorist attacks. 

"A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in 
the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen, not lessen, 
the threat of terrorism," he said. 

Kennedy warned that that a U.S. attack on Iraq could escalate, 
"spiraling out of control" and drawing the Arab world into a 
"regional war in which our Arab allies side with Iraq against the 
United States and against Israel." 

Rumsfeld argued that Hussein's weapons program is a threat worth 
striking down first. He said that weapons inspections will never 
be an adequate deterrent to Hussein's ambitions to build a 
nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal. 

Such inspections were "not really designed for a hostile 
environment," Rumsfeld said. 

Saying pre-emptive action against a threatening foe had 
precedent, he compared the situation to that facing President 
Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. He said that just as 
Kennedy's blockade of Cuba then may have forestalled a nuclear 
confrontation, so would a military strike on Iraq. 

Ironically, Sen. Kennedy also cited his brother's handling of the 
Cuban missile crisis. "The United States prevailed without war in 
the greatest confrontation of the Cold War," he said. "Now on 
Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, 
pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict." 

The three Democratic congressmen who traveled to Iraq -- Mike 
Thompson of California, David Bonior of Michigan and Jim 
McDermott of Washington -- said they hoped to convince Iraqi 
leaders to submit to U.N. weapons inspections. 

*****************************************************************
 9 Japan: State's nuclear policy faces big hurdle: regaining public trust*

 Saturday, September 28, 2002  **

ARE ADVISORY PANELS UP TO THE TASK

By AKEMI NAKAMURA Staff writer

With the nuclear-hazard coverup scandal continuing to swirl 
around Tokyo Electric Power Co., two advisory panels set up by 
the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry are stepping up their 
efforts to douse the controversy.

But experts say the task at hand -- to help the government and 
utilities regain public trust and put Japan's nuclear power 
policy back on track -- presents a significant hurdle.

On Friday, one of the panels announced a final draft of its 
interim report. It calls on METI's Nuclear Industrial Safety 
Agency to set up a system to smoothly handle alleged accusations 
about trouble at nuclear plants.

The suggestion takes aim at the fact that the agency took more 
than two years to investigate and disclose Tepco's falsification 
of 29 voluntary inspections.

The second committee will finalize a proposal next week for the 
government to audit utility firms' voluntary checks as well as 
set up standards for allowable reactor defects.

Based on these proposals, METI plans to submit bills to revise 
laws governing nuclear plants to the next extraordinary Diet 
session, slated to begin in October.

Even with these proposals, it will take a long time to persuade 
local residents to support nuclear power, said Koichi Okamoto, a 
social psychology professor at Toyo Eiwa University, who serves 
as a member of one of METI's advisory panels.

"The shock caused by the nuclear scandal is huge because it 
involves the largest utility, which people expected to have high 
standards," he said.

Yasuhiro Fujii, director of Tokyo Institute of Technology's 
Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors, also urged the 
government to implement proposed preventive measures.

"It is natural that (minor) troubles happen (at nuclear plants), 
so the system should be changed to handle them appropriately," he 
said. "With the establishment of allowable defect standards, 
people will be able to learn more about the reality of nuclear 
plant operations."

The Tepco scandal broke Aug. 29, when the agency disclosed that 
the utility falsified its voluntary inspection reports of damage 
and repairs at its three plants between 1986 and 2001. In 
addition, Chubu Electric Power Co. and Tohoku Electric Power Co. 
recently admitted similar coverups at their plants.

Fueled by public anger, the revelations are likely to deal a 
severe blow to the promotion of pluthermal energy, a core 
component of the nation's nuclear policy.

The pluthermal project is part of efforts to promote nuclear 
recycling, secure stable energy supplies and reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions. The plan involves using uranium-plutonium 
mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, obtained from spent nuclear fuel, at 
light reactors.

The operators of the country's 52 nuclear reactors, which supply 
one-third of the nation's electricity, currently plan to 
introduce the pluthermal program to 16 to 18 reactors by 2010, 
but this is likely to be delayed.

Niigata Gov. Ikuo Hirayama announced his decision earlier this 
month to scrap Tepco's pluthermal plan in the Kashiwazaki Kariwa 
plant despite approval by three local governments in the 
prefecture.

Fukushima Gov. Eisaku Sato made a similar decision Thursday to 
can the prefecture's 1998 approval of Tepco's pluthermal plan, 
saying the government failed to establish a system to ensure the 
safety of nuclear power generation even after a series of 
nuclear-related scandals.

In 1999, for example, the nation's worst nuclear accident 
occurred at JCO Co.'s uranium processing facility in Ibaraki 
Prefecture. Two people were left dead.

Kansai Electric Power Co.'s pluthermal plan was stalled the same 
year due to a British firm's falsification of data related to MOX 
fuel shipped to Kepco's Takahama plant in Fukui Prefecture.

The central government, meanwhile, remains adamant.

"(The government) doesn't need to change the basic line (of its 
energy policy)," said METI Vice Minister Seiji Murata. 
"Considering Japan's poor energy resources and the fact that the 
project is a viable solution to environmental problems, we will 
pursue the policy."

If the pluthermal project stalls for a significant length of 
time, the government is likely to face a serious problem.

Haruki Madarame, a nuclear engineering professor at University of 
Tokyo, said that in such a case, the government may need to find 
ways to deal with increasing volume of spent fuel.

"Japan has no choice but to depend on nuclear power generation 
(as a major energy resource) in the 21st century," he said.

"Increasing storage for spent nuclear fuel is an option that 
enables one to promote the pluthermal project."

*The Japan Times: Sept. 28, 2002* (C) All rights reserved 
*****************************************************************
 10 NRC approves TVA production of tritium

By Rebecca Ferrar, News-Sentinel business writer September 27, 
2002

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave its approval today for TVA 
to produce tritium at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant for use in 
making nuclear weapons. The NRC approved an amendment to TVA�s 
operating license of the Watts Bar plant at Spring City to allow 
the process. 

Tritium is a short-lived gas that boosts the power of nuclear 
weapons. TVA already has approved a $6 million contract with 
Westinghouse to prepare the Watts Bar plant for tritium 
production. The plant is at Spring City about 50 miles south of 
Knoxville. 

The tritium production is being done at the behest of the 
Department of Energy, which oversees the nuclear weapons 
stockpile for the Department of Defense. 

The license amendment gives TVA permission to use 
tritium-producing burnable absorber rods at Watts Bar. The rods 
will be installed in the Watts Bar nuclear reactor. The tritium 
is produced using lithium. 

Once the rods are irradiated, they will be shipped to the 
Savannah River site near Aiken, S.C., where DOE will extract the 
tritium. 

TVA put 32 burnable absorber rods in the Watts Bar reactor in 
1997 to test the technology and irradiated the rods until 1999. 
DOE confirmed that the process worked. 

The amendment allows TVA to install up to 2,304 rods into the 
Watts Bar reactor and irradiate them for one fuel cycle or about 
18 months. Then the rods will be shipped to Savannah. DOE plans 
to have TVA repeat the process for the life of the Watts Bar 
plant. 

There is some controversy over the process revolving around 
whether the government is permitted to mix defense and commercial 
operations. Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357 or 
ferrarr@knews.com.                             
 				
Copyright 2002, Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.                                                     
*****************************************************************
 11 Chernobyl Uranium for Sale
 
[NewsMax.com]     

Andrey Mikhailov Pravda

Saturday, Sept. 28, 2002 The court of Minsk, the Belarus capital, 
is in the midst of a sensational and horrifying case: several 
people have been charged with selling radioactive uranium rods, 
which likely came from the Chernobyl nuclear plant. 

The newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussiya (Soviet Belarus) reported 
Thursday that the investigation department of the National 
Security Committee (KGB) for Minsk and the Minsk region is 
looking into crimes committed by an international criminal group. 
The investigation revealed that a group of criminals attempted to 
sell about 1.5 kilograms of uranium dioxide 235 and 238 in 
Belarus at the beginning of the year.

 Numerous tests on the uranium dioxide failed to determine its 
origin, because the identification numbers had been removed from 
the uranium rods. However, the investigation revealed that the 
radioactive metal originates from Ukraine - the Chernobyl nuclear 
plant, to be precise. 

There are five people charged with this dangerous crime: one 
Ukrainian, Veselovsky, and four Belorussians: Kurdesov, 
Bankalyuk, Volchenko, and Gurinovich. It is because of the 
involvement of the Ukrainian, Veselovsky, that the uranium is 
said to originate from the Chernobyl nuclear plant. 

The investigation discovered that Veselovsky came to Chernobyl in 
1987 and was appointed chief foreman in the reactor shop where 
radioactive elements were processed. Before the appointment, he 
worked at a nuclear power plant in Russia. Therefore, it is 
evidently he who had access to the uranium. 

In addition, zirconium tubes with uranium dioxide, similar to 
that brought to Belarus in 2002, was stolen from the Chernobyl 
nuclear plant in 1993. A criminal investigation was opened, but 
no results were achieved. The investigation failed to determine 
who was involved in the theft. It is astonishing that the same 
Veselovsky was a key witness in that case. 

The Ukrainian origin of the uranium is also confirmed by the fact 
that the dangerous substance was brought to Belarus in a train 
Chernigov (Ukraine)� Iolcha (Belarus) through the railway 
checkpoint of Novaya Iolcha, where border security is weak. 

In other words, there is much evidence of the Ukrainian origin of 
the uranium, and it is highly likely that Veselovsky is connected 
with the theft in 1993. It is quite natural that the man decided 
to wait for some time for the scandalous theft to be forgotten, 
and then he decided to sell the stolen uranium.

 Veselovsky denies the charges and says it was Kurdesov who 
obtained the uranium. The latter lays the blame on Veselovsky and 
says it was he who had stolen the tubes. The investigation still 
failed to unravel the closed circle. The Belarus Internet site, 
www.sb.by, reported details of the unique case. According to the 
conclusion of the investigation, Kurdesov lived in Ukraine for 
many years and then moved to Mogilev (Belarus). At the end of 
2001, he told an acquaintance of his, a supplier at the Minsk 
bearing plant, Bankalyuk, that he was looking for a client to 
sell a batch of uranium. Bankalyuk agreed to help him, and soon 
established contact with Gurinovich, who in his turn found 
Volchenko. 

In addition, a criminal case was initiated against Gurinovich in 
Belarus in January 2002 for an attempt to sell precious stones. 

The KGB learned about some people wishing to sell uranium at the 
end of 2001. The committee decided to place its officer into the 
criminal group as a potential client.

 However, Volchenko and Co. checked the man and his contacts 
several times before they agreed to have dealings with him. The 
KGB officer performed his role wonderfully: he asked the 
criminals to sell him only one rod at first to examine the 
quality of the uranium. 

Kurdesov brought a piece of uranium tube to Minsk on Dec. 28, 
2001 and delivered it to Bankalyuk. The latter handed the rod 
over to Gurinovich, who in his turn contacted Volchenko and 
arranged a meeting. It was Volchenko who was the last link in the 
criminal chain and who met with the "client." The KGB paid 
$10,000 for the purchase, but it was worth it. A test on the rod 
determined that the criminals actually offered uranium dioxide 
235 and 238 for sale. It was decided to conclude the operation 
and seize the whole batch. A special operation was held which 
resulted in all the members of the criminal group being arrested; 
5 zirconium tubes with uranium dioxide 290-300 mm long, one tube 
50 mm long, and the $10,000 paid for the first purchase were 
found during the operation. 

It may be incorrect to label the people who participated in this 
crime an organized criminal group, as each of them was just a 
link in a chain of people pursuing their own objectives. 

For instance, Kurdesov and Veselovsky offered the uranium tubes 
for $250,000. At the same time, Volchenko planned to sell the 
same goods for approximately $800,000. The criminals didn't 
realize what a high price the innocent population would have to 
pay if the dangerous transaction hadn�t been prevented. It is not 
yet clear to what extent the court's decision will affect the 
republic that has suffered so much from the Chernobyl tragedy. 

Translated by Maria Gousseva

*****************************************************************
 12 Sensation: Chernobyl Uranium On Sale! 

Pravda.RU 

Sep, 27 2002   

The court of Minsk, the Belarus capital, started a sensational 
case, which is at the same time extremely horrifying: several 
people charged with selling radioactive uranium rods, which 
highly likely came from the Chernobyl nuclear plant. 

The newspaper Sovetskaya Belorussiya (Soviet Belarus) reported 
yesterday that the investigation department of the National 
Security Committee (KGB) for Minsk and the Minsk region 
investigated crimes committed by an international criminal group. 
The investigation revealed that a group of criminals attempted to 
sell about 1.5 kilograms of uranium dioxide 235 and 238 in 
Belarus at the beginning of the year. Numerous tests on the 
uranium dioxide failed to determine its origin, because the 
identification numbers had been removed from the uranium rods. 
However, the invesitgation revealed that the radioactive metal 
originates from Ukraine, the Chernobyl nuclear plant, to be 
precise. 

There are five people charged with this dangerous crime: one 
Ukrainian, Veselovsky, and four Belorussians, Kurdesov, 
Bankalyuk, Volchenko, and Gurinovich. It is because of the 
involvement of the Ukrainian, Veselovsky, that the uranium is 
said to originate from the Chernobyl nuclear plant. The 
investigation discovered that Veselovsky came to Chernobyl in 
1987 and was appointed the chief foreman in the reactor shop 
where radioactive elements were processed. Before the 
appointment, he worked at a nuclear power plant in Russia. 
Therefore, it is evidently he who had access to the uranium. In 
addtion, zirconium tubes with uranium dioxide, similar to that 
brought to Belarus in 2002, was stolen from the Chernobyl nuclear 
plant in 1993. A criminal investigation was opened, but no 
results were achieved. The investigation failed to determine who 
was involved in the theft. It is astonishing that the same 
Veselovsky was a key witness in that case. 

Th Ukrainian origin of the uranium is also confirmed by the fact 
that the dangerous substance was brought to Belarus in a train 
Chernigov (Ukraine)� Iolcha (Belarus) through the railway 
checkpoint of Novaya Iolcha, where border security is weak. In 
other words, there is much evidence of the Ukrainian origin of 
the uranium, and it is highly likely that Veselovsky is connected 
with the theft in 1993. It is quite natural that the man decided 
to wait for some time for the scandalous theft to be forgotten, 
and then he decided to sell the stolen uranium. Veselovsky denies 
the charges and says it was Kurdesov who obtained the uranium. 
The latter lays the blame on Veselovsky and says it was he who 
had stolen the tubes. The investigation still failed to unravel 
the closed circle. 

The Belarus Internet site, www.sb.by, reported details of the 
unique case. According to the conclusion of the investigation, 
Kurdesov lived in Ukraine for many years and then moved to 
Mogilev (Belarus). At the end of 2001, he told an acquaintance of 
his, a supplier at the Minsk bearing plant, Bankalyuk, that he 
was looking for a client to sell a batch of uranium. Bankalyuk 
agreed to help him, and soon established contact with Gurinovich, 
who in his turn found Volchenko. In addition, a criminal case was 
initiated against Gurinovich in Belarus in January 2002 for an 
attempt to sell precious stones. 

The KGB learnt about some people wishing to sell uranium at the 
end of 2001. The committee decided to place its officer into the 
criminal group as a potential client. However, Volchenko and Co. 
checked the man and his contacts several times before they agreed 
to have dealings with him. The KGB officer performed his role 
wonderfully: he asked the criminals to sell him only one rod at 
first to examine the quality of the uranium. 

Kurdesov brought a piece of uranium tube to Minsk on December 28, 
2001 and delivered it to Bankalyuk. The latter handed the rod 
over to Gurinovich, who in his turn contacted Volchenko and 
arranged a meeting. It was Volchenko who was the last link in the 
criminal chain and who met with the �client." The KGB paid 10,000 
USD for the purchase, but it was worth it. An test on the rod 
determined that the criminals actually offered uranium dioxide 
235 and 238 for sale. It was decided to conclude the operation 
and seize the whole batch. 

A special operation was held which resulted in all members of the 
criminal group being arrested; 5 zirconium tubes with uranium 
dioxide 290-300 mm long, one tube 50 mm long, and the 10,000 USD 
paid for the firse purchase were found during the operation. 

It may be incorrect to label the people who participaged in this 
crime an organized criminal group, as each of them was just a 
link in a chain of people pursuing their own objectives. For 
instance, Kurdesov and Veselovsky offered the uranium tubes for 
250,000 USD. At the same time, Volchenko planned to sell the same 
goods for approximately 800,000 USD. The criminals didn't 
realized what a high price the innocent population would have to 
pay if the dangerous transaction wasn�t prevented. It is not 
clear yet to what extent the sentence passed will affect the 
republic that has suffered so much from the Chernobyl tragedy. 

Andrey Mikhailov PRAVDA.Ru Minsk 

Translated by Maria Gousseva 

Read the original in Russian: http://pravda.ru/main/2002/09/27/47652.html
[http://pravda.ru/main/2002/09/27/47652.html] 


*****************************************************************
 13 Illinois: Defending Nuclear Power Plants

TOMPAINE.com - 

Experts Say Plans Moving Too Slowly
 
  Lester Graham reports for the Great Lakes Radio Consortium

This past year has seen wide speculation about possible terrorist 
scenarios, such as crashing a jet into a nuclear power plant. The 
Great Lakes Radio Consortium's Lester Graham reports that 
progress in determining what other kinds of threats the plants 
might face has been slow and unfocused. The idea of a radioactive 
release from a nuclear power plant is chilling. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has always required plant operators to keep 
security tight and the plant owners generally thought of the 
security requirements as a necessary evil -- a costly regulatory 
requirement. That changed on September 11th.               

The government used to conduct mock attacks -- so-called 
force-on-force tests -- against plants to test security. Since 
September 11th, there have been no force-on-force drills.                                   
    				 	 	 
Jack Skolds is the President of Exelon Nuclear, which operates 17 
reactors in the United States. He says the nuclear power 
industry's opinions about security have changed. Now, it's seen 
as not just a regulatory requirement, but as absolutely essential 
for the safety of the plants. 

"And I didn't believe this necessarily before September 11th. I 
believe that there are people out there who want to inflict some 
kind of harm to nuclear power plants somewhere in the world. And 
one of those plants might be one of ours. So, we take this very 
seriously and we're going to do everything that we need to do to 
protect the security of the plants." 

Exelon, just as other nuclear power plant operators, has 
increased spending on security by about 25 percent. Security 
guards are better armed. There are more inspections of people and 
cars going in and out of plants. Barricades have been put up. 
But, Skolds concedes that nuclear power plants can't defend 
against everything. 

"I wouldn't call anything impenetrable. I think that would be a 
stretch. But, I would tell you I know of no other civilian 
industry that has as high a degree of security as the nuclear 
power industry does." 

But no one is testing that security. The government used to 
conduct mock attacks -- so-called force-on-force tests -- against 
plants to test security. Since September 11th, there have been no 
force-on-force drills. 

The government says it's still trying to figure out what kinds of 
threats a group of terrorists might present. So, the nuclear 
power plants are waiting. They're waiting for the government to 
come up with likely terrorism scenarios and strategies to defend 
against them. Once that's complete, then there will likely be a 
discussion about who pays for those defenses, the nuclear power 
industry or the government. 

David Lochbaum is the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of 
Concerned Scientists. He says that if there's an attack against a 
plant, the nuclear power industry and government need to be able 
to tell the public that they did everything they could to prevent 
it. The Union of Concerned Scientists says that should start with 
bringing back force-on-force drills, and then focus on the 
possibility of insider sabotage by giving lie detector tests to 
nuclear power plant employees. But, those things aren't 
happening. 

"So, we think there are shortfalls that would prevent officials 
from reassuring the American public that everything that can 
reasonably be done has been done." 

Lochbaum adds that the government needs to work faster to develop 
likely attack scenarios and defenses so that the nuclear power 
plants know the best ways to beef up security. 

The power plants are not the only ones waiting for those 
scenarios. Agencies responsible for evacuating areas around a 
plant are also waiting. Thomas Ortciger is the Director of the 
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.

Illinois has more reactors than any other state. He says while 
his staff is trying to come up with plans to react to the most 
likely situations and looking for federal government guidance, 
they're getting pressure to do something, or actually, to do 
everything, and do it right now.                   

State and local emergency agencies and the nuclear industry are 
all waiting for the same thing: information.                                                 
					     				 	 	 	 
"There are various outside groups, particularly "anti-" groups 
that have developed scenarios that are absolutely bizzare. I 
mean, there are so many things that would have to happen at a 
plant. I mean, this is hysteria at its best. You know, cut it out 
guys. Let's talk in real terms. Let's try to help one another 
make this thing work." 

Ortciger says the evacuation plans already in place appear to be 
enough, but it's difficult to know. These plans weren't designed 
with terrorist attacks in mind. 

"What we need to see is whether or not there are any credible 
scenarios where the time we believe we have to implement an 
evacuation would be shortened. But we have not seen a credible 
argument for that yet." 

And so state and local emergency agencies and the nuclear 
industry are all waiting for the same thing: information. Exelon 
Nuclear's Jack Skolds says he doesn't know where or how or even 
if they should increase security further. "So, whether we have 
enough or not, I can't answer because we haven't reached a 
conclusion yet on what the perceived threat is." 

Recent studies by the National Research Council, the Electric 
Power Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission all look at perceived threats, 
especially the threat of a jet crashing into the reactor 
containment building. The studies only look at what kind of 
damage such a crash would likely cause. They agree it would cause 
a lot of disruption, but probably would not cause a melt down. 
But none of the studies looks at what to do to stop an air 
attack. 

David Lochbaum at the Union of Concerned Scientists says that's 
the problem. Study and planning to defend against a terrorist 
attack are just going too slowly.                          
	 	 	   
"Things aren't looking real good that we're going to be able to 
beat the next terrorist attack."                                               

"Things aren't looking real good that we're going to be able to 
beat the next terrorist attack. We're still trying to figure out 
where the lines are drawn, who does what, who pays for the 
problems. We haven't responded with a lot of urgency to this 
challenge." 

Given that the worst case scenario in the back of every expert's 
mind is something like the Chernobyl plant radioactive release. A 
similar release from a nuclear power plant such as Exelon's 
Braidwood plant, just 50 miles from Chicago, is haunting. 
Lochbaum says it's clear that the challenge of securing nuclear 
power plants from a terrorist attack is significant and should be 
urgent. But the studies take time, and it could be one to three 
years before defense plans are outlined. 

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham. 

Published: Sep 27 2002

*****************************************************************
 14 Turkey: Police arrest two in uranium seizure*

Ananova </>

Paramilitary police in Turkey have seized 15.7 kilogrammes of 
uranium in Turkey.

They arrested two Turks who they said planned to sell the 
weapons-grade substance, the Anatolia news agency reported today.

Police, acting on a tip, stopped a taxi near the south-eastern 
city of Sanliurfa, Anatolia said.

They found the uranium in a secret compartment under one of the 
car seats.

Police in Sanliurfa confirmed the arrests but refused to give 
further information.

Anatolia said the uranium was enriched for use in weapons. Police 
believe it was smuggled from an eastern European country.

The agency did not say when the arrests were made.

Sanliurfa, 480 miles from the capital Ankara, is close to the 
Syrian border.

Story filed: 11:44 Saturday 28th September 2002

Copyright � 2002 Ananova Ltd
*****************************************************************
 15 Iraq bought uranium from Portugal (in early 80's)

Pravda.RU 

Sep, 27 2002   

IAEA report and TV station RTP make shock revelations

The Portuguese state TV station RTP broadcast a programme on 
Thursday in which it is declared that Portugal sold uranium to 
Iraq in the 1980s. 

The accusation is backed up by International Atomic Energy Agency 
documents. It is claimed that in 1980 and 1982, uranium was 
shipped from Portugal to Iraq for the new atomic energy programme 
to be developed. 

The first shipment was made in June 1980, when the Defence 
Minister was Adelino Amaro da Costa, who was killed in an 
accident with a small aircraft the same year, together with 
ex-Prime Minister Sa Carneiro. The second shipment was made in 
may and June 1982, when the Defence Minister was Diogo Freitas do 
Amaral, later to become President of the General Assembly at the 
United Nations in new York. 

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY PRAVDA.Ru


  Copyright �1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When 
reproducing

*****************************************************************
 16 Experts ready workers for 'dirty bombs' 

09/28/02
 
092802 metro 4 Jacksonville.com 

An attack from a radioactive "dirty bomb" might create more panic 
than injuries, but officials should prepare for both in today's 
climate, experts said yesterday. --> Saturday, September 28, 2002 

Workshop covers radiation threats 

By P. Douglas Filaroski Times-Union staff writer 

An attack from a radioactive "dirty bomb" might create more panic 
than injuries, but officials should prepare for both in today's 
climate, experts said yesterday.

 "I truly believe the effects would be more psychological than 
they are radiological," said Kevin Nelson, a former government 
physicist who spoke at a workshop in Jacksonville for rescue 
workers and emergency planners. 

With a "dirty bomb," commonly found radiation -- from stolen 
industrial gauges or medical devices -- is encased and then 
exploded to spread radiation. Unlike nuclear weapons, the purpose 
is not to kill with a massive burst, but to create localized 
areas of heavy radiation contamination, Nelson said.

 "I truly believe the 'worried-well' will be one of our biggest 
challenges," Nelson told emergency responders and hospital 
personnel who attended the workshop.

 The event covered emergencies caused by accidents at nuclear 
power plants and from overturned trucks carrying nuclear waste, 
but interest focused on terrorism.

 Henry Everett, an expert on weapons of mass destruction for the 
FBI in Jacksonville, said occasional thefts of construction 
devices containing radiation create suspicion.

 Still, the likelihood of a dirty bomb attack ranks behind 
biological or chemical weapons attacks because radioactive 
materials are less available, Everett said.

 The threat received attention after U.S. officials gathered 
intelligence about dirty bombs from al-Qaida members being held 
at Guantanamo Bay, he said. Everett said the seriousness of the 
threat could take months or years to determine. But he told 
rescue workers to take precautions in emergencies that could 
involve radiation because odds of an attack could increase if 
terrorists perceive authorities are not on guard.

 "I'm not trying to make you paranoid, but people might be 
watching how you roll up on a scene," Everett said.

 Duval County Emergency Preparedness Director Chip Patterson said 
the workshop was part of an ongoing effort to ready workers for 
terrorists events.

 Earlier this year, Gov. Jeb. Bush ordered potassium iodide pills 
from the federal government. Evacuation and sheltering is the 
best protection in a radiation emergency, but potassium iodide 
guards the thyroid from cancer.

 State health officials showed emergency workers equipment that 
tests for radiation, how to decontaminate victims and gear to be 
worn in contaminated areas.

 Nelson reminded hospital workers that workplace devices are now 
desirable material for weapons.

 "Since 9/11, we should all be aware of the increased threat," 
Nelson said. "Hopefully, all of us have taken a look at the 
security of our radioactive sources."

 Staff writer P. Douglas Filaroski can be reached at (904) 
359-4509 or

 � The Florida Times-Union 
*****************************************************************
 17 Japan: Nuclear safety chief hit for leaking whistle-blower's identity*

  Saturday, September 28, 2002  **

Industry minister Takeo Hiranuma on Friday reprimanded the chief 
of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and five other 
officials after the agency admitted it leaked to Tokyo Electric 
Power Co. the identity of a Tepco-related worker who blew the 
whistle on the company's coverups of nuclear plant faults.

Hiranuma also said he will return one-fifth of his monthly salary 
for two months to take the blame for the agency having failed to 
disclose the scandal for more than two years.

Yoshihiko Sasaki, the agency chief, was reprimanded under the 
National Public Service Law and has offered to return 10 percent 
of one month's salary. The other four agency and Ministry of 
Economy, Trade and Industry officials received lighter 
admonishments.

Another official, who is now on loan to the Defense Agency, will 
be punished in a similar fashion, Hiranuma said, adding that METI 
has no discretion to censure retired officials.

The agency, which operates under METI, admitted having leaked the 
name during a meeting of a ministry panel tasked with compiling a 
draft interim report on the matter.

The report slams the agency for taking more than two years to 
expose the coverup.

"Our explanation might have been misleading," remarked an agency 
official, retracting the agency's earlier denial that it had 
given Tepco the whistle-blower's name.

The incident is expected to provoke further criticism of a system 
in which an agency affiliated with the ministry that promotes 
nuclear power is in charge of monitoring the industry's safety 
procedures.

The whistle-blower's tipoff led to revelations that Tepco had 
falsified reports regarding multiple fractures found in a large 
number of reactors.

It was alleged this week that Tepco also manipulated the way in 
which reactor containers were checked during government 
inspections.

In its draft report, the panel described the agency's conduct in 
leaking the whistle-blower's name as "hardly appropriate." It 
said the agency should not have spent two years conducting a 
secret investigation before exposing the scandal in late August.

According to the panel, the agency wasted four months after the 
tipoff in July 2000 before ordering Tepco to investigate the 
allegations. It wasted a further eight months between December 
2000 and August 2001 before convening an investigative committee.

The agency admitted it gave Tepco documents featuring the name 
and other personal information relating to the whistle-blower.

The whistle-blower quit his job before informing the agency of 
the coverups.

He asked the agency to refrain from disclosing his name so as not 
to adversely affect his future job prospects.

*The Japan Times: Sept. 28, 2002* (C) All rights reserved 

*****************************************************************
 18 Tenn. Hydroelectric Plant on Fire (nuclear power source)

Las Vegas SUN: 

September 27, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS 

SPRING CITY, Tenn.- A fire burned Friday at a hydroelectric plant 
that supplies backup power to a nuclear power facility about a 
mile away, Tennessee Valley Authority officials said. 

TVA spokeswoman Barbara Martocci said the fire posed no threat to 
the Watts Bar nuclear station. 

The blaze started around 8:30 a.m. in the plant's power house and 
firefighters were working to contain it, said TVA spokeswoman Pat 
Becker. Three plant workers were treated for smoke inhalation, 
she said. 

The hydroelectric plant on the Tennessee River about 50 miles 
south of Knoxville provides electricity to the entire TVA power 
grid. It was not immediately clear how extensive power 
disruptions were. 

The plant is a backup supplier to the Watts Bar nuclear station. 
The nuclear station was operating normally under its primary 
power supply, Martocci said. 

TVA filed a notice of "an unusual event" with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and state emergency officials. 

TVA is the country's largest public utility providing electricity 
to some 8.3 million people through 158 distributors in Tennessee, 
Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and 
Mississippi. 

On the Net: Tennessee Valley Authority: http://www.tva.gov/ 
[http://www.tva.gov/] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 19 [generalnews] Vieques/  We need help from our Texas friends.... please
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:03:01 -0500 (CDT)


 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Home Selling? Try Us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Saludos desde Puerto Rico to our friends in Texas,

There is an ongoing campaign to get Bush to put his words about ending 
miltiary use of Vieques Puerto Rico IN WRITING, through an executive order. 
Some 31 congressmembers have recently written him to do just that. The Navy 
recently finished its 23 days of September bombing in  Vieques. There is a 
serious health and environmental crisis in the island which the bombing 
only makes worse. there is no better time than now to call, email and fax 
the White House or write your own congressperson to join the 31 
congresspersons that have already written a letter to Bush.  Please do so, 
and urge others to do so as well.

Here are the e mails of two Texas congresspersons that we are concentrating 
on.

Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee of the 18th congresional district in 
Houston.  her contact person for Vieques is Mr. Ravi Sawhney.  His e mail 
address is Ravi.Sawheny@mail.house.gov

Congressperson LLoyd Doggett of Austin.
He does not have a staffer in charge of Vieques so you can send a groupo e 
mail.

michael.mucchetti@mail.house.gov, 
indy.eichenbaum@mail.house.gov,abe.breehey@mail.house.gov, 
julie.davis@mail.house.gov,
ron.eritano@mail.house.gov, anant.murthy@mail.house.gov

We include below a sample letter, which Vieques advisor  Dr. Deborah Berman 
Santana faxed to her congressperson. When you write the congressperson 
please send us an e mail with the persons name so that the pro Vieques 
group in Washington D.C. can do follow up.

Yours for peace and justice,

Mayaguezanos con Vieques
----------------------------------------------------------

Date

Congressman/WOMAN..(NAME)............

Dear Congressman/woman:

I am writing to you on an issue of utmost importance to me and many other 
people in Puerto Rico, the United States, and worldwide: the use of 
Vieques, Puerto Rico by the United States Navy for bombing and other 
military training.

Since World War II, the people of Vieques have lived in fear of the bombing 
that takes place only eight miles from their homes while enduring the 
social, environmental, economic and health impacts of these military 
exercises.  I applaud President Bush for his public statements that the 
Navy should cease training in Vieques by May 2003.  Yet continued bombing - 
even for a short time - will exacerbate the serious health and 
environmental problems and have a negative political impact.  The Navy is 
planning to bomb Vieques for nearly the whole month of September, as part 
of exercises that it can and does already carry out in other, less risky 
locations.  Radiation levels in the civilian area of Vieques  more than 
double during bombings - an extremely dangerous situation which you should 
address.

Therefore, I urge you to urge to ask President Bush to issue an Executive 
Order for an immediate and permanent cessation of bombing and other 
military training exercises on  this island.   An Executive Order 
concerning Vieques follows the procedures used under President Ford in 
terminating training on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico in 1975 and 
President Bush Sr. in ending bombing practices in Kaho'olawe, Hawai'i in 
1990.  Your action on this matter would be a positive and constructive step 
forward for the people of Vieques, Puerto Rico, and would have a positive 
political impact without harming military readiness.

Sincerely,

________________________________________________
Grassroots International News Association (GINA)
4909 El Molino Ave
Riverside CA 92504
media@ccsi.com
http://www.geocities.com/rootmedia

*Articles forwarded by GINA are for informational purposes only.
Any views expressed in any article is that of the interviewer or/ and 
person being interviewed and not the views of GINA or any of it's members.

Join our news lists for daily news articles:
To subscribe: Send a message to media@ccsi.com with your name, and e-mail 
address and the name of the list(s) you would like to be added to.

General News
News for general broadcast and distribution.

Environmental News
News about environmental issues and causes.

Immigrant News
News articles about immigration and migration.

Labor News
News about Union struggles and labor issues.

Latino News
News about Latino issues and struggles.

Queer News
Articles about Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Trans issues.

Anti-Racism News
Articles about racism and struggles against oppression.

World Black News
World news about African peoples and issues.

Women's News
Articles about Women's liberation.

*Caution: News lists may have heavy traffic.

Grassroots International News Association
http://www.geocities.com/rootmedia

o unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
generalnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

*****************************************************************
 20 [generalnews] Schroeder party MP accuses US of interference in
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:04:02 -0500 (CDT)


 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sell a Home with Ease!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Schroeder party MP accuses US of interference in German elections

  Berlin, Sept 24, IRNA -- The deputy head of the ruling Social
Democratic Party (SPD) in Parliament, Gernot Erler, here Tuesday
accused the US of interfering in the German elections which incumbent
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder won by a slim majority, media reports
said here Tuesday.
     "It was not all in accordance with international norms how clearly
the Americans ... took sides in this election campaign and stated this
very frankly," Erler pointed out.
     "America really did everything possible to support the opposition
here in the German election campaign. They were clearly banking on
(the loosing conservative chancellor challenger Edmund) Stoiber ...."
     German-US ties have hit absolute rock-bottom over deep strategic
disagreements on Iraq and recent remarks by Germany's justice
minister, comparing the policies of the American president with
Hitler.
OT/HZ/AH
________________________________________________
Grassroots International News Association (GINA)
4909 El Molino Ave
Riverside CA 92504
media@ccsi.com
http://www.geocities.com/rootmedia

*Articles forwarded by GINA are for informational purposes only.
Any views expressed in any article is that of the interviewer or/ and 
person being interviewed and not the views of GINA or any of it's members.

Join our news lists for daily news articles:
To subscribe: Send a message to media@ccsi.com with your name, and e-mail 
address and the name of the list(s) you would like to be added to.

General News
News for general broadcast and distribution.

Environmental News
News about environmental issues and causes.

Immigrant News
News articles about immigration and migration.

Labor News
News about Union struggles and labor issues.

Latino News
News about Latino issues and struggles.

Queer News
Articles about Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Trans issues.

Anti-Racism News
Articles about racism and struggles against oppression.

World Black News
World news about African peoples and issues.

Women's News
Articles about Women's liberation.

*Caution: News lists may have heavy traffic.

Grassroots International News Association
http://www.geocities.com/rootmedia

o unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
generalnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 21 [generalnews] Iraq Calls British Report Baseless
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:04:40 -0500 (CDT)


 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-iraq-britain0924sep24(0,548695).story 

Iraq Calls British Report Baseless
By SAMEER N. YACOUB
Associated Press Writer

September 24, 2002, 10:11 AM EDT

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq branded as baseless British allegations Tuesday that 
President Saddam Hussein is pursuing weapons of mass destruction

"The British prime minister is serving the campaign of lies led by Zionists 
against Iraq," Iraqi Culture Minister Hammed Youssef Hammadi told reporters 
during the opening of a painting exhibition in Baghdad.

In Cairo, Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told reporters the dossier 
"aims to justify the unjustifiable ... the aggressive intentions against 
Iraq."

According to the dossier, Iraq has military plans for the use of chemical 
and biological weapons, and has tried to acquire uranium from Africa. It 
also said the country has extended the range of its ballistic missiles.

"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he (Saddam) 
has made progress on (weapons of mass destruction), and that he has to be 
stopped," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an introduction to the 
dossier.

Blair has been a key backer of the United States, which accuses Iraq of 
stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists and has 
said Saddam should be toppled.

Hammadi called the British claims "totally baseless."

Sabri, who was in Cairo as Saddam's envoy to Egyptian President Hosni 
Mubarak, said Iraq is clear of any weapons of mass destruction or 
activities to reproduce them.

"Weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons cannot be hidden in a 
pocket," Sabri said, adding that Blair did not respond to an Iraqi 
challenge for British experts to come to Iraq and expose these weapons.

Sabri, who spoke at Cairo airport as he was leaving, earlier delivered a 
message to Mubarak from Saddam as the region's leaders continued to work to 
ward off a U.S.-Iraq war.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher told reporters Saddam confirmed Iraq 
was prepared for the unconditional return of weapons inspectors and that 
Mubarak stressed the importance of cooperating with the inspectors.

Mubarak, a close U.S. ally, has joined other Arab leaders in warning a U.S. 
strike on Iraq could destabilize the region.

Egypt, which fought alongside the United States in the 1991 Gulf War that 
forced Iraq out of Kuwait, has said it would support a U.S. strike on Iraq 
if it were done under U.N. auspices.

Egypt also had pleaded with Iraq to permit U.N. weapons inspectors in order 
to defuse the crisis.

On. Sept. 16, Iraq sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan 
agreeing to accept inspectors without conditions. But the United States is 
skeptical Iraq will keep that promise. Annan said at the United Nations 
Monday that he has not heard anything from Iraq since the letter was 
delivered.

Iraq, in an attempt to rally regional support, has portrayed itself as the 
only Arab country willing to stand up to Israel and the United States.

The United Nations imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq after its 1990 invasion 
of Kuwait. The sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify 
that the country's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed.
Copyright ) 2002, The Associated Press
________________________________________________
Grassroots International News Association (GINA)
4909 El Molino Ave
Riverside CA 92504
media@ccsi.com
http://www.geocities.com/rootmedia

*Articles forwarded by GINA are for informational purposes only.
Any views expressed in any article is that of the interviewer or/ and 
person being interviewed and not the views of GINA or any of it's members.

Join our news lists for daily news articles:
To subscribe: Send a message to media@ccsi.com with your name, and e-mail 
address and the name of the list(s) you would like to be added to.

General News
News for general broadcast and distribution.

Environmental News
News about environmental issues and causes.

Immigrant News
News articles about immigration and migration.

Labor News
News about Union struggles and labor issues.

Latino News
News about Latino issues and struggles.

Queer News
Articles about Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Trans issues.

Anti-Racism News
Articles about racism and struggles against oppression.

World Black News
World news about African peoples and issues.

Women's News
Articles about Women's liberation.

*Caution: News lists may have heavy traffic.

Grassroots International News Association
http://www.geocities.com/rootmedia

o unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
generalnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 22 Anti-War March in London (est. 350,000 people) 
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:19:31 -0500 (CDT)


 
---------- Forwarded message ----------

Historic Anti-War March in London

On-the-spot report

by Bob Wing

*Bob Wing is the editor of War Times. He is currently in
London in transit to Palestine.

London, Sept. 28

Tony Blair may be President Bush's only European ally in his drive for war
on Iraq. But the people of the UK today forcibly demonstrated their
opposition to forcible regime change.

This afternoon, at least 350,000 people from all over the United Kingdom
descended upon the corridors of power for a massive and peaceful "Don't
Attack Iraq/Freedom for Palestine" march and rally.

As I file this report at 4 p.m., less than half the march, which commenced
at 12:30 p.m., has arrived at the Hyde Park Rally.

The action was the largest of its kind in the UK in 30 years. It was
dramatic, and so large that it was truly impossible to guage its size.
Certainly it numbered in the hundreds of thousands of people of every
ethnicity, age and class.

Recent polls show that 70 percent opposed Britain joining a U.S.-led
military action. "There is not just opposition to the prospect of
war--there is boiling anger," asserts Andrew Murray, chair of the Stop the
War Coalition.

The turnout was a shot across the bow of Prime Minister Tony Blair and a
preview of next weeks Labor Party Conference.

The demonstration was jointly sponsored by the Stop the War Coalition and
the Muslim Association of Britain. It was endorsed by 12 national trade
unions, numerous Muslim and anti-racist organizations, Members of
Parliament and the Mayor of London.

Organizers have called for another massive "Don't Attack Iraq Day" for
Oct. 31.

"Opposition to this war in this country is the most incredible coalition I
have ever seen," says Jeremy Corbyn, a Labor MP.

"Since Sept. 11, Islamophobia has spread across the UK and activated the
Muslim and South Asian populations," said Asad Rehman, national organizer
for the Stop the War Coalition and chairman of the Newham Monitoring
Project. South Asians are the largest group of color in the UK, numbering
about 15 percent in London alone.

"I didn't go on earlier demonstrations but I am now because the countdown
to war has started and I find it terrifying," explained march Jemma
Redgrave.

Robert "3-D" Del Naja of the pop group Massive Attack says "I am marching
because I feel very disheartened about our government and the way it
reacts to America and American foreign policy."

Meanwhile, in Parliament, Labor Party members are staging a revolt against
Blair's Iraq policy. They warn that the 56-strong rebellion of this week
is just a warm up. Blair also faces powerful opposition at next week's
national Labor Party conference.

Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, the third largest
in the UK, declared his opposition to what he called the U.S.'s
"imperialist" policy.
*****************************************************************
 23 Greens Warn of Bush Policy for World Domination.
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:35:13 -0500 (CDT)


 
   News Release - Friday, September 27, 2002
   
   Ideology of 'World Dominance' Behind Plans to Invade Iraq.

   THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
   Contacts:
   Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, nallen@acadia.net
   Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, scottmclarty@yahoo.com
   
   GREENS WARN OF A CHENEY-RUMSFELD IDEOLOGY OF 'WORLD DOMINANCE' BEHIND
   BUSH'S PLANS FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ
   
   The Bush Administration misleads the U.S. and world about the need for
   preemptive strikes, charge Greens; Congress urged to vote NO on giving
   Bush war powers
   
   WASHINGTON, DC -- Greens today warned that the likely U.S. attack on
   Iraq is part of the Bush Administration's ideology of global military
   dominance and disregard for international law.  The Green Party of the
   United States, taking the lead as a national party in opposing
   President Bush's planned invasion, adopted a statement last week
   condemning the invasion and demanding measures based on multilateral
   cooperation and re-admittance of U.N. inspectors to Iraq.
   
   "The invasion of Iraq can only be understood if we look past Bush's
   shifting and implausible stated justifications, and instead recognize
   the anti-constitutional, imperialist designs of Bush's Cabinet and
   closest advisors," said John Rensenbrink, U.S. Green Party
   Representative to the Global Greens Conference in 2001.
   
   Ironically, Greens agree with conservative Republican opponents of the
   invasion who foresee a collapse of civil liberties and constitutional
   law under the Bush plan for world order, but Greens also warn of a
   looming humanitarian and environmental disaster.
   
   "Many Democrats have fallen over themselves in their zeal to endorse
   the Bush Administration's plan to violate constitutional and
   international law and the U.N. Charter," said Tim Harthan, Iowa Green
   candidate for the U.S. Senate. "These Democrats are quite comfortable
   with Bush's quest for U.S. global military domination and disregard
   for law. The vote in Congress on giving Bush war powers will show the
   extent to which the Democratic Party has embraced the Cheney-Rumsfeld
   ideology. Bush is relying on Democrats, since the main opposition he
   faces comes from conservatives within his own party."
   
   "Bush officials base their arguments on misinformation, just as
   then-Secretary of Defense Cheney misinformed Congress and the American
   people in 1990 when he falsely warned that Iraqi forces were lined up
   and ready to invade Saudi Arabia," said Dick Kaiser, Green candidate
   for Congress in Wisconsin's 8th District.
   
   Greens cited the following evidence of Bush Administration's
   obfuscation, deception, and destructive ideology of global
   domination:

     * Ex-Inspector Scott Ritter doubts that Iraq is capable of
       effectively producing and deploying chemical, biological and
       nuclear weapons. "The truth is Iraq is not a threat to its
       neighbors and it is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone
       outside its borders," Ritter has said. "Military action against
       Iraq cannot be justified." Ritter's assessment disputes Bush's
       mention of Iraqi weapons capability as a reason for the U.S. to
       invade. It's unlikely that Saddam would (or could) attempt
       anything as suicidal as an assault on the U.S. or its allies,
       except in the cause of his own survival; Saddam's own willingness
       to allow new inspections hasn't slowed Bush's zeal for an
       invasion.

     * The White House lied in accusing Saddam of aiding Al Qaeda and
       supporting anti-U.S. terrorism. Bush has offered no credible
       evidence of meetings between Iraqi representatives and Al Qaeda.
       Osama bin Laden considers Saddam, a Muslim moderate running a
       secular government, an infidel to be deposed.

     * Little discussion has taken place on possible outcomes of an
       invasion: numerous U.S. and civilian Iraqi casualties in the
       ground war; a retaliatory attack by Saddam on Israel that could
       escalate into an exchange involving weapons of mass destruction;
       motivation for thousands of Iraqis and other Arabs to join
       terrorist networks like Al Qaeda; destabilization of the region,
       from Palestine and Israel to Pakistan and India, and probable
       collapse of the Jordan government; likely installation of a
       post-Saddam regime headed by military thugs with bloody resumes
       comparable to Saddam.

     * The Bush Administration refuses to admit responsibility by its own
       officials and by past U.S. administrations in aiding Saddam.
       Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld served as special envoy
       promising secret military assistance to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq
       War under Reagan, even though it was known that Saddam was using
       chemical weapons to wipe out entire populations. The Halliburton
       Company, under Cheney's reign as CEO, did $23.8 million worth of
       business with Iraq between 1998 and 2000, in violation of U.S.
       law.

     * Bush's future cabinet drafted plans to invade Iraq even before
       Election Day 2000, according to a policy blueprint titled
       "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources
       For A New Century," drafted in September 2000 by the think tank
       Project for the New American Century.  The blueprint called for
       U.S. control over the Persian Gulf region to protect U.S.
       interests (i.e., oil), and also favored government takeover of the
       Internet, possible U.S. use of bio-warfare, and 'regime changes'
       in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Among those
       involved in its draft were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and advisor Paul
       Wolfowitz. The call for U.S. global military supremacy by threat
       of pre-emptive strike was reaffirmed in Bush's 33-page national
       security policy paper submitted to Congress on Friday, September 20.

     * The "Defense Planning Guidance" series of policy reviews from the
       Defense Departments of both Bush Administrations shows an evolving
       post-Cold-War doctrine of global 'full spectrum dominance' by the
       U.S. Drafted variously by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz,
       Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other ideologues, the
       documents outline an ideology based on the protection of global
       corporate interests, such as oil in the Persian Gulf.

     * The Cheney-Rumsfeld ideology expressed in "Defense Planning
       Guidance" embraces global military superiority that gives the U.S.
       coercive power over friends and enemies alike; abandonment of
       treaties, arms control agreements, and international law (e.g.,
       the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; the International Criminal
       Court); unilateralism and disregard for coalitions and alliances;
       preemptive invasion of sovereign nations; national missile defense
       ('Star Wars'); and possible use of nuclear weapons.

     * "We in the U.S. have our own dangerous extremists, and some are in
       the White House," said Annie Goeke, co-chair of the Green Party's
       International Committee and a member of the NGO Women's Caucus
       delegation on the International Criminal Court who was present
       when the court was signed into effect at the U.N. on September 10,
       2002. "We shudder to think about what they'll do next, and what
       the backlash against Americans might be."
       
   MORE INFORMATION
   
   The Green Party of the United States
   http://www.greenpartyus.org
   National office: 1314 18th Street, NW
   Washington, DC 20036
   202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN
   
   Green Party Statement in Opposition to U.S. Plans
   to Invade Iraq
   http://www.greenpartyus.org/press/pr_09_20_02.html
   
   "The Case Against War"
   By Stephen Zunes, in The Nation, September 12, 2002
   http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=zunes
   
   "Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before
   becoming President"
   The Sunday Herald (Scotland, UK), September 15, 2002
   http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
   
   "Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies,
   Forces And Resources For A New Century"
   Project for the New American Century, September 2000
   http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm
   
   "Dick Cheney's Song of America: Drafting a plan
   for global dominance"
   By David Armstrong, in Harper's Magazine, October, 2002
   
   "The dishonest case for war on Iraq"
   (Counter-Dossier disputing Prime Minister Blair's
   Dossier on the threat of Iraqi Aggression)
   By Alan Simpson, MP, Chair of Labour Against the
   War, and Dr Glen Rangwala
   http://www.traprockpeace.org/counter-dossier.html
   
   "Unveiled: the thugs Bush wants in place of Saddam"
   The Sunday Herald, September 22, 2002
   http://www.sundayherald.com/27877
   
   Index of Green Party candidates in 2002
   http://www.greens.org/elections
   

   Page link
   http://www.greenpartyus.org/press/pr_09_27_02.html
*****************************************************************
 24 US MEDIA BEGINS PREPARING THE PUBLIC FOR MASS SLAUGHTER IN IRAQ
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:38:28 -0500 (CDT)


 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/iraq-s28.shtml

World Socialist Web Site
	

28 September 2002

In  the midst of the Bush administration's drumbeat for an invasion of 
Iraq,  the  government  and  the  media  have  begun to prepare public 
opinion  for  a massive slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as 
substantial American military casualties.

For  the  most  part,  both the Bush administration and the media have 
portrayed  an  invasion  as  a  simple  matter  of taking out" Saddam 
Hussein  and  "liberating"  a grateful Iraqi people. Such a feat, they 
maintain,  will  be accomplished with satellite-guided precision bombs 
destroying  a  few presidential palaces and bunkers, while leaving the 
general population largely unscathed.

A  few  retired  senior  military officers -- undoubtedly expressing deep 
misgivings  within  the Pentagon's uniformed command -- have attempted to 
throw  cold  water  on this scenario, warning that the war could prove 
protracted  and  bloody.  Testifying  before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee  September  23,  Gen.  Joseph  Hoar,  who  was the senior US 
commander  in  the  Middle  East  after  the  1991  Persian  Gulf War, 
cautioned  that  US  invaders could confront 100,000 Iraqi troops with 
thousands of artillery pieces defending Baghdad.

Affirming  that  US  forces  would  ultimately  conquer the city, Hoar 
continued:  "But  at  what  cost?  And at what cost as the rest of the 
world  watches  while  we  bomb  and have artillery rounds exploded in 
densely populated neighborhoods?"

In   house-to-house  fighting,  he  warned,  "you  could  run  through 
battalions  a  day  at  a time ... because of casualties," adding that 
such  combat  would  resemble  "the  last 15 minutes of Saving Private 
Ryan."

Articles  appearing  in  three  of  the  most  influential national US 
newspapers  Friday  took  up the question of a "nightmare scenario" of 
urban  warfare  in  Iraq.  With  the  Bush administration preparing to 
launch  the  most  powerful  military machine on the face of the earth 
against  a  backward  and  relatively  defenseless  country, all three 
papers  sounded  a  remarkably  similar  theme: if slaughter does take 
place, the blame will rest with the Iraqis.

A USA Today article based on sources in the Pentagon cited plans for a 
"lightening" war against Iraq involving massive air power, air-dropped 
troops  seizing  key  facilities,  and  the wholesale surrender of the 
Iraqi military.

The  article  cautions,  however:  "[I]t's  possible  that  the  Iraqi 
leadership would try to create the conditions for ... street-by-street gun 
battles."

The  Washington  Post similarly warns in its article: "Iraq's military 
likely  would  respond to a US invasion by attempting to lure American 
forces  close  to  Baghdad  and  other large population centers, where 
Iraqi  commanders  believe  their soldiers would be less vulnerable to air  
strikes  and  civilians  would  be  more willing to fight for the 
government,  according  to  senior  government officials and diplomats 
here."

The  idea  that  the  Iraqi  military  is  setting  out "to create the 
conditions"  for  street fighting or "to lure American forces close to 
Baghdad"  is  curious,  to  say  the least. The Bush administration is 
loudly  demanding  UN  and  congressional  approval  for an unprovoked 
"preemptive"  invasion  of  Iraq  for  the purpose of overthrowing its 
government and assassinating its president. Clearly, such goals cannot be 
achieved without storming, occupying and subduing Baghdad and other major 
cities.

The  Post  claims  that  the danger of urban warfare arises from a new 
"strategy"  that  the Iraqi military devised based upon the experience of  
the 1991 Gulf War. "During that war, US ground forces were able to easily  
overrun  Iraqi  troops,  whose  trenches  and bunkers provided little  
cover  from American artillery and bombs," the article states. "Now  Iraqi  
officials  have  indicated  that  they would fight a very different war by 
shielding their soldiers in cities and trying to draw US forces into 
high-risk urban warfare."

Iraq's generals would be criminally irresponsible if they placed their 
forces  in  the open desert so that they could be slaughtered from the 
air.  But  the  principal  change  in strategy from the first Gulf war 
stems  from  Washington's military objectives. In 1991, the US war was 
conducted  for  the  ostensible purpose of expelling Iraqi forces from 
Kuwait.  The  war  now  being prepared is aimed at conquering Iraq and 
establishing a US protectorate to rule that country and administer its oil  
wealth. Such a "regime change" is virtually inconceivable without urban 
warfare.

The  story  goes  on  to  quote an unnamed diplomat as saying that the 
Iraqi  army  preferred  to stay in the cities so that it "can mix with the  
civilian  population."  The  diplomat  added:  "If soldiers start sniping  
from  apartment  buildings  filled  with people, what can the Americans 
do? They can't very well blow them up."

The obvious implication is that Iraq's military is prepared to use the 
population  of  Baghdad  as  "human  shields," taking advantage of the 
Pentagon's  supposed  principled  aversion to inflicting casualties on 
civilians.

Similar  assertions were made in a column by Nicholas Kristof entitled 
"Fighting  Street  to  Street"  published in the New York Times on the 
same  day.  "American  restraint  is  Iraq's  ace going into the war," 
Kristof  writes.  "Iraq  knows  that  the  United  States  cannot bomb 
schools,  mosques  and residential neighborhoods, and so it has plenty of  
places  to  hide  its  army. In the last gulf war, we were able to destroy  
an  enemy that was out in the open desert, but this time Iraq seems intent 
on a different approach."

The  same theme was featured on that evening's NBC news report, with a 
former  general  warning  that Saddam Hussein planned to deploy 15,000 
crack  Republican  Guard  troops  for urban fighting in Baghdad, and a 
reporter  predicting  that  such  combat  would  unavoidably result in 
thousands  of  Iraqi  deaths,  military and civilian alike, as well as 
heavy US losses.

This  is  war  propaganda, pure and simple. Those who write such lines 
know that they are turning reality inside out to further the predatory 
aims of the US government.

Who  says  that  the  US "cannot bomb schools, mosques and residential 
neighborhoods,"  or that if American units are fired upon from Baghdad 
apartment  buildings,  they  won't  just  "blow them up"? Avoiding the 
slaughter  of  civilians  at  all  costs is not part of the Pentagon's 
military doctrine; avoiding casualties among your own forces is.

Every  major  intervention  by the US military has involved deliberate 
attacks  on  defenseless civilian populations. From the carpet-bombing of  
Hanoi  to  the My Lai massacre, the US waged a war in Vietnam that claimed  
the  lives  of  two  million  people,  most  of  them unarmed civilians.  
In  the  1989  invasion  of  Panama -- improbably cited by US officials  
as  a model for the "regime change" they hope to accomplish in  Iraq -- as  
many  as 4,000 civilians were killed when the US bombed a crowded working 
class neighborhood.

In  the  1999  NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, thousands of civilians were 
killed   and  wounded.  Targets  included  passenger  trains,  farming 
villages and non-military factories.

The  last  gulf war saw the targeting of a bomb shelter in the Baghdad 
district  of Al-Amariya, killing 288 civilians, most of them women and 
children.  And,  the  more  recent  invasion  of  Afghanistan has seen 
repeated war crimes against the civilian population.

There  is  little  doubt  that  in  the  first  days  of an assault on 
Baghdad -- the  best  efforts  of military censors notwithstanding -- 
images will  be  broadcast  of distraught people digging for their loved 
ones through  the  rubble  of apartment buildings demolished by US bombs 
or cannon fire.

The  stories  appearing  in the press today are aimed at preparing for the  
horror  and  revulsion that will be felt in the US and around the world  
over  the inevitable carnage that will accompany an invasion of Iraq.  The  
press  is  seeking to convince people in advance that they should  not  
believe  what  they will see with their own eyes -- the mass murder of 
Iraqi civilians by the US military.

When  these  killings  take place, the coordinated line from the White 
House,  the Pentagon and the media will be that it is Saddam Hussein's 
fault,  not that of the US invaders. The civilians were killed because 
they were used as "human shields." Or, it was not US bombs at all, but a  
misfired Scud missile or Iraqi anti-aircraft shells that caused the 
devastation. Everyone knows that "American restraint" would not permit 
such  atrocities, but "the Iraqis do not place the same value on human 
life  as we do." These are the shop-worn and racist lies used in every war 
of aggression.

The  media  is deliberately misleading the public on every issue, from the  
real  aims  that  are  being  pursued  in the war buildup against Iraq -- 
oil,  not  "weapons  of mass destruction" -- to the criminal methods that  
will  be  used  to  accomplish  them.  This campaign of lies and 
misinformation  is  the  surest  indication that the war that the Bush 
administration  wants is aimed at benefiting only the ruling corporate 
elite at the expense of the vast majority of working people in America and 
all over the globe.

======================

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the
original source. ***
*****************************************************************
 25 now-action-list Tell Congress No to War on Iraq
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:12:24 -0500 (CDT)


 
Please feel free to forward the following to activists:

From the National Organization for Women Action Center:

Tell Congress No to War on Iraq

September 27, 2002

Action Needed:

Congress is expected to vote soon on a resolution giving the Bush 
administration extremely broad authority to use military force against 
Iraq. Please contact your senators and representatives and urge them to 
stand firm against the Bush administration's warmongering.

Click here to take action:
http://www.now.org/congress/issues/alert/?alertid=583001&type=CO

Background:

For the past few weeks, the nation and the world have focused on what 
appears to be an impending war on Iraq. The Bush administration now seems 
poised to turn its saber rattling into action. However, while Bush & Co. 
prepare to rush off to war, questioning voices grow louder and louder: Why 
war? Why now?

Bush's war rhetoric is particularly incomprehensible when we look at the 
facts. The White House has failed to show that war is the only way at this 
time to deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. It has also failed to 
demonstrate that Saddam Hussein aided and abetted Al-Qaeda's Sept. 11 
attacks. Furthermore, Iraq has offered to readmit U.N. inspectors. It is 
widely believed that U.N. inspections would forestall any Iraqi attempts to 
develop and produce weapons of mass destruction, at a fraction of the 
monetary and human cost of an invasion. While Saddam Hussein cannot be 
trusted or respected, the Bush administration should pursue the U.N. 
inspections to avoid further alienation from our allies, as well as the 
loss of life and the enormous monetary cost that would result from military 
action.

Moreover, women would be greatly affected if Congress gives a blank check 
to the Bush administration to invade Iraq with a unilateral, preemptive 
strike. As has happened during previous wars, funds will be diverted from 
education, health, welfare and other vitally needed social programs from an 
already downsized budget. Women disproportionately bear the brunt of any 
decrease in funding in order to finance war.

For Iraqi women, the war carries the danger that their nation will 
degenerate into a militarized society, like the "Kalashnikov culture" that 
overtook Afghanistan after years of fighting with the Soviets and amongst 
themselves. This militarized culture gave rise to a life of violence and 
oppression for women in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq will similarly 
entail grave dangers for the safety and rights of Iraqi women.

Click here to take action:
http://www.now.org/congress/issues/alert/?alertid=583001&type=CO

==================================================
now@now.org
To unsubscribe, send a message to mailto:majordomo@now.org with the text:
     unsubscribe now-action-list
or visit http://www.now.org/actions/unsubscribe.html
Please *do* unsubscribe before cancelling an e-mail account.

Visit the NOW Web site at http://www.now.org/ where you can support these
efforts by joining NOW or purchasing from our catalog.

Visit our Legislative Action Center at http://www.now.org/congress

*****************************************************************
 26 [southnews] Aussies protest Iraq war
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:41:01 -0500 (CDT)


 
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

  ----------

Aussies protest Iraq war

AAP SYDNEY|Published: Saturday September 28, 6:06 PM

Opposition to Australian involvement in any war with Iraq found voice in
Sydney when 1,000 protesters hit the streets.

The No War On Iraq Rally, staged to coincide with similar protests in
London and Washington, hoped to gain the attention of the federal
government, organisers said.

"We're basically trying to send a message ... to the Australian government
that they should under no circumstances support a first strike against
Iraq," rally spokesman John Hallam said.

The procession of protesters blocked two lanes of traffic and stretched
more than the length of a city block as it moved from Sydney Town Hall to
Central Railway Station.

The three-hour protest, that began at midday Saturday (AEST), heard
speakers from unions, state government, church groups and human rights
organisations.

Organisers said the large turnout reflected the growing tide of community
opposition to any Australian involvement in the looming US conflict with
Iraq.

Citing a Newspoll published on August 13, they said the government must
realise how committed the community was to preventing Australian
involvement.

The poll of 1,200 Australians found 50 per cent against military action in
Iraq, 39 per cent in favour with the rest uncommitted.

The US has been involved in a tense stand-off with Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein over his failure to comply with UN resolutions related to weapons
of mass destruction.

US President George W Bush has not sought Australia's military support, but
the federal government has not ruled out accommodating such a request.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 27 [southnews] France resists US pressure on Iraq
 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:41:01 -0500 (CDT)


 
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/7gSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

  ----------

France resists US pressure on Iraq

BBC NEWS Friday, 27 September, 2002, 19:04 GMT 20:04 UK

French President Jacques Chirac has resisted US and British attempts to win
his country's support for a tough new draft UN resolution on Iraqi
disarmament.

Despite intensive lobbying in Paris on Friday, Mr Chirac told US President
George W Bush by telephone that he still opposed a new UN resolution that
would provide for the automatic use of force if Iraq fails to co-operate
with UN demands.

The US and Britain have launched a joint diplomatic offensive to win the
support of France, Russia and China - the three other permanent members of
the UN Security Council - for the draft resolution.

Mr Chirac restated France's preference for a two-step process - one
resolution on the return of UN weapons inspectors and a second one
authorising force if Iraq failed to comply.

Mr Chirac told President Bush that France favoured a resolution that was
"simple and firm, showing the unity and determination of the international
community," according to his spokeswoman Catherine Colonna.

Mr Chirac "reiterated that France remains more than ever in favour of a
two-step approach and that this is the view of the majority of the
international community, given the seriousness of the decisions to be taken
and their consequences," she added.

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman held talks
at the French Foreign Ministry on Friday, before heading on to the
presidential palace to discuss the terms of the draft resolution further.

The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Paris says the difference between the US and
the French approaches is a tactical one, and a compromise form of words is
likely to be reached that would keep France on board.

Moscow mission

The US-British delegation moves to Moscow on Saturday to attempt to win
over the Russians, who are also opposed to the proposed resolution. Another
British official is travelling to Beijing over the weekend.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov expressed further doubt over US policy
on Iraq on Friday.

He said there was as yet "no clear proof" that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

But he added that it would be an "unforgivable error" to delay the return
of UN weapons inspectors.

Chinese warning

China also reiterated its opposition to any military strike on Iraq which
did not have UN authorisation.

Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji said that "if the weapons inspections do not
take place, if we do not have clear proof and if we do not have the
authorisation of the Security Council, we cannot launch a military attack
on Iraq - otherwise, there would be incalculable consequences".

He was speaking after meeting French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

The draft resolution - sponsored by the US and Britain - is believed to
contain clauses that could provide the legal backing for possible military
action against Baghdad.

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has offered to re-admit UN weapons inspectors
unconditionally. But the US administration dismissed the offer as a ploy
and says a new UN resolution is needed.

US stiffens resolve

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that the US is prepared to go
it alone if it cannot get the UN's backing.

And US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday condemned Saddam Hussein
as a "butcher" who "tortures people, kills them personally".

Saddam Hussein's son Uday appeared on Iraqi television to voice Baghdad's
defiance of the US pressure.

He accused Washington of acting like an "arrogant cowboy" seeking to
control Iraq's oil reserves.

"Do not imagine that they [Americans] will let you alone, because you are
sitting on the [world's] number one oil reserve," he said.

US Congressmen in Iraq

Meanwhile, three US Congressmen have arrived in Iraq to assess the
humanitarian situation after a decade of sanctions and urge Baghdad to give
weapons inspectors unfettered access.

"We came over here because we do not want war," Democratic Representative
Jim McDermott told reporters on his arrival in Baghdad.

"We want to see what the circumstances are for the Iraqi people and to see
what the consequences of another war might be."

Mr McDermott is accompanied by his Democratic colleagues, David Bonior and
Mike Thompson.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
*****************************************************************
 28 Editorial: *Make DCG meaningful

The Pakistan-US Defence Cooperation Group (DCG) has finally met 
after a hiatus of four years. It became defunct after the United 
States cut off all defence ties with Pakistan and also slapped 
sanctions on it in the wake of its nuclear tests in May 1998. The 
DCG was revived (and the sanctions lifted) last year during 
General Pervez Musharraf?s visit to the US after Islamabad joined 
the Washington-led coalition against the war on terrorism.

In the last round of consultations Thursday in Islamabad, the two 
sides agreed to work on improving defence cooperation. They have 
also agreed on the need to institutionalise cooperation in this 
regard. All this may sound good, but is it?

We may be excused for some scepticism. While praising Pakistan?s 
role in the war on terrorism, the United States has, 
nevertheless, shown no enthusiasm in helping its sagging 
conventional capability. The last two visits to the United States 
by General Musharraf have yielded little in terms of new military 
hardware sales to Pakistan. Not only that, the US has not shown 
any inclination to reconsider its earlier decision not to supply 
F-16s to Pakistan, despite the fact that General Musharraf raised 
it for the nth time when he visited Washington earlier this 
month. While it is debatable whether the old model F-16s could 
boost the air arm of the Pakistan military (forget the state of 
the art models), the principle of the issue and the US response 
in that regard cannot be ignored.

Contrast this with the US attitude towards India. Reports suggest 
that the Departments of Defence and State have cleared a list of 
21 weapon systems that manufacturers can sell to India. Earlier 
this year the US struck a US$140 million deal with India for 
eight weapon-locating radars (Fire Finders) and its support and 
sub-systems. This is the biggest such sale from the US in the 
last thirty years. Additionally, the US has approved Israeli 
sales to India of different weapon systems and sub-systems, 
including the highly sophisticated Phalcon AWACS (airborne 
warning and control systems). These sales will evidently enhance 
India?s already superior conventional capability. By increasing 
the asymmetry, this could lead to a lowering of the nuclear 
threshold, which, given the nature of the conflict-prone 
relations between India and Pakistan, can only be dangerous.

The US representatives on the DCG would do well to appreciate 
these facts and make defence cooperation between Pakistan and the 
US more meaningful. There is need to move to something more 
concrete.

*_Musharraf is badly advised_*

The four draft Press Laws recently passed by the federal Cabinet 
have infuriated the journalistic community. While the government 
has dismissed criticism of the laws by claiming that it had 
involved representatives of the APNS (All Pakistan Newspapers 
Society) and CPNE (Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors) 
throughout the deliberations, the APNS-CPNE have pointed to the 
various amendments the government has unilaterally made in the 
laws after an agreement was reached between the two sides.

Thus while the APNS has called the laws ?draconian? and rejected 
them because they curb press freedoms, the government continues 
to flog them as forward-looking laws. The government spokesperson 
admits that some ?minor amendments? were introduced to 
?rationalise? the text in the laws, especially those relating to 
a government sponsored and funded Press Council to reign in 
?errant? media, but says the press is making a mountain out of a 
molehill. But the press believes that these ?minor amendments? 
may just become the cutting edge of these laws in terms of 
government-media relations in the future and the 
?rationalisation? of the Press Council?s membership by the 
government may come to determine how effectively the government 
is able to control that body and, by extension, the media.

Moreover the government is making too much of its Freedom of 
Information Ordinance. The fact is that the language of the 
ordinance is vague and gives the government much room to put 
large areas of its activity out of the purview of the press. 
?National interest?, unless concretely defined, can be extended 
to mean anything. By ensuring secrecy and using its authority 
under the new laws to ban publications and employ the device of 
defamation, the government is clearly planning to put the press 
in a nutcracker situation.

This government has generally stayed on the right side of the 
press so far and put up with its healthy criticism of its 
shortcomings. But there is much evidence to prove that it hasn?t 
suffered the press gladly. In fact, its ?benign? attitude is owed 
mainly to its desire to present a ?liberal image? to the West. 
Therefore we, the press, cannot and will not allow this or any 
future government to wrest back the freedoms for which we have 
long fought and suffered. That is why the government should scrap 
the ?molehills? it has tried to heap on the press unilaterally. 
Failure to do so will lead to a total loss of hard-earned 
credibility on this score. General Musharraf deserves better 
advice than the one which the cabinet is giving him. Indeed, when 
the ?dirty? politicians return, he will need the press as never 
before to act as a ?watchdog? over them rather than over him as 
in the past.

 
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by 
WorldCALL Internet Solutions <http://www.wcis.com.pk>
*****************************************************************
 29 U.S. to Resume Pakistan Military Aid

By MUNIR AHMAD Associated Press Writer

September 27, 2002, 11:41 AM EDT

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- A top U.S. defense official said Friday 
that the Bush administration will soon restore military aid to 
Pakistan to bolster the country's military capabilities -- a deal 
Islamabad hopes will include new F-16 fighter jets.

"The United States has an interest in having Pakistan's 
capabilities enhanced," U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. 
Feith said. "We have an interest in working together with the 
Pakistani armed forces on common security issues."

Feith spoke at the end of four days of talks between U.S. and 
Pakistani defense officials in Pakistan's capital, the first 
high-level meetings held since the United States imposed 
sanctions following Pakistan's nuclear tests in 1998.

The talks focused on the release of weapons and equipment already 
earmarked for Pakistan but withheld after the nuclear tests. The 
meeting -- known as the Defense Consultative Group -- also 
discussed the purchase of new weapons and the possibility of 
restarting joint military exercises.

Feith said Pakistan's participation in the U.S.-led war on 
terrorism had led U.S. authorities to reconsider the four-year 
ban on military assistance.

"We are interested in creating a security environment in which 
Pakistan and the United States can work together to the maximum 
against the threat of terrorism and dealing with this very 
serious problem of al-Qaida and Taliban," he said.

Pakistani Defense Secretary Gen. Hamid Nawaz expressed interest 
in buying new arms and submitted a list of defense equipment that 
included new F-16 fighter jets to patrol the borders with 
Afghanistan and India.

In recent months, U.S. and Pakistani security forces have been 
carrying out raids on suspected al-Qaida hide-outs in remote 
areas along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.

Feith also said officials from both countries were working toward 
a resumption in joint military exercises.

"We are looking at what training we can do together," he said.

A second round of talks are expected to be held in Washington as 
early as March, officials said.

U.S. military aid to Pakistan was cut off in 1990 to punish the 
country for its growing nuclear program, but Pakistan later 
received special U.S. administration permission to buy spare 
parts for its existing weapons and aircraft.

Further sanctions were imposed and the defense group meetings 
were scrapped after the 1998 nuclear tests, but since then, 
Pakistan has become one of Washington's most important allies in 
the war on terrorism.

Copyright � 2002, The Associated Press
*****************************************************************
 30 Scientists Have Next Move on Chessboard That Is Iraq

Los Angeles Times - latimes.com </>

September 28, 2002
 
By ALISSA J. RUBIN, Times Staff Writer

VIENNA -- In the high-stakes game of political chess underway 
over the U.S. and U.N. showdown with Iraq, the next move belongs 
to the scientists.

On Monday and Tuesday, in a austere high-rise building here, 
Iraqi officials will meet with chief United Nations weapons 
inspector Hans Blix and Mohammed Baradei, the director of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, to discuss the 
return of the first monitors as early as Oct. 15.

Once they hit the ground, the key to a productive weapons 
monitoring program in Iraq, say past and present inspectors, will 
be a simple-sounding phrase: free and unfettered access.

"You can't do effective inspection without access, you have to 
have the right to go anywhere, any time," said Garry Dillon, who 
led the IAEA's Iraq inspection team from 1997 to 1999. "If that 
right is denied, you can't do your job."

It also means access to Iraqi researchers, government officials 
and documents to figure out how far along the Persian Gulf nation 
might be in designing and building weapons. Valuable information 
often comes from face-to-face interviews with scientists.

Without that human intelligence, say former and present 
inspectors, the international monitors' technical expertise, 
laboratory analysis and more sophisticated technology are 
useless.

Next week's meeting here at the IAEA's headquarters, while 
cloaked in the neutral language of diplomacy and technicalities, 
will be the first real indicator of Iraq's intentions. If the 
meetings go well, it could bolster those who argue for delaying 
military action until the weapons inspectors have a chance to do 
their job.

The United Nations imposed the weapons inspection program after 
the 1991 Persian Gulf War to ensure that Iraq was disarmed of any 
weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's 
regime complied to some extent during the 1990s but became 
increasingly obstructionist before it barred the monitors 
altogether nearly four years ago.

"The frustrations we had were enormous," said Richard O. 
Spertzel, the chief U.N. biological weapons inspector from 1994 
to 1998.

Information from intelligence sources, scientists, commercial 
satellites and intercepted procurement efforts suggests to 
Western officials that Iraq has attempted to revive its three 
major weapons programs--biological, chemical and nuclear--since 
1998.

* *There is little question that Hussein's regime would try to 
hide at least some, if not all, of any weapons program it has 
managed to rebuild. Knowing that, the inspectors say they have 
tried to map out a plan that would allow them to determine if and 
when the Iraqis are lying to them and to what degree.

"We are going in well prepared, with a plan, and we never take 
anything at face value," said Jacques Baute, the Iraq Action Team 
leader for the IAEA. "We are thorough and suspicious. We expect 
that the Iraqis have learned lessons from the 1990s and will do 
things differently. But we will try a few new things as well."

That said, how do the weapons inspectors proceed, what 
limitations do they face and how successful can they be at 
finding well-hidden programs?

The last time inspectors were in Iraq, they believe that they 
uncovered and destroyed much of the country's nuclear weapons 
program but were less successful at uncovering its biological and 
chemical weapons stores and labs.

Interviews with people familiar with the inspection program 
acknowledge that there are particularly daunting obstacles in the 
biological and chemical fields.

If the inspectors return, there will be two teams. The IAEA 
includes 15 scientists with expertise in all aspects of nuclear 
weapon production. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification 
and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC, is responsible for 
disarming Iraq of any chemical or biological weapons and 
ballistic missiles with ranges of more than 93 miles.

* *The two teams coordinate their activities. However, their 
ability to locate weapons varies widely. Nuclear material leaves 
what scientists call a "footprint" that can be picked up with the 
increasingly sensitive equipment available for measuring 
radioactive substances. Samples of air and water often carry 
telltale signs.

New X-ray systems for identifying the presence of metals that are 
characteristic of nuclear substances are now portable. That means 
inspectors can do analyses in the field and quickly decide 
whether more thorough follow-up inspections are necessary, said 
officials at the IAEA.

The chemical and biological lab technology similarly has been 
miniaturized so that much of it is portable, but biological 
agents and chemical weapons leave little in the way of 
footprints.

Iraq is roughly the size of California, and although a full-scale 
uranium enrichment plant would be hard to hide from a satellite 
photograph, a lab used for manufacturing the smallpox virus or 
anthrax could be concealed in a hospital basement. It likely 
would only be found if someone alerted inspectors to its 
presence.

"We hope if someone knows something, they will let us know," said 
Ewen Buchanan, UNMOVIC's spokesman.

Information can come from defectors, tips or interviews with 
scientists. Often, it takes a combination of all of those to find 
a site. The previous biological and chemical inspectors combed 
apparently innocent institutions--university labs, hospitals, 
veterinary centers--to piece together a picture of a major 
weapons program.

"Without good human intelligence you can't do it; spies in the 
sky won't do you a bit of good," said former biological weapons 
inspector Spertzel.

* * "You have to rely on clues, on interviews, on import 
information; we interviewed suppliers of some of the raw growth 
material" for infectious agents, Spertzel said. "But those 
sources have been milked dry. So you're really dependent on 
intelligence information unless you just get lucky."

The predecessor U.N. agency to UNMOVIC had access to intelligence 
from the world body's member nations. However, some information 
also went back to the inspectors' own countries, and Iraq accused 
the monitors of being spies for the United States.

UNMOVIC was set up after inspectors left Iraq in 1998, with the 
understanding that it would not give information it obtained to 
individual governments. However, some former inspectors believe 
that, as a result, less information is being exchanged between 
governments and the United Nations.

The significance of intelligence was evident this week when 
British Prime Minister Tony Blair released information alleging 
that the Iraqis are using mobile labs to manufacture biological 
agents.

"These could look like a large semitruck; there'll be no 
signature on it--they could be parked at a warehouse. What are 
you going to do, open every semitruck? I don't think so," 
Spertzel said.

If the inspectors are to be completely effective against such 
tactics, they will need time. However, an initial assessment of 
the Iraqis' willingness to cooperate could be made quickly.

One thing is certain: The presence of inspectors impedes weapons 
development.

"Inspectors in the country make life very difficult for people 
trying to pursue a weapons program," said Melissa Fleming, senior 
information officer for the IAEA.

/ Times staff writers Tyler Marshall and Maggie Farley at the 
United Nations contributed to this report.

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times By visiting this site, you are 
*****************************************************************
 31 CIA Snubbed Saddam's Nuke Chief*

NewsMax.com

*With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff*

*Friday, Sept. 27, 2002 9:43 p.m. EDT*

The one-time chief of Iraq's nuclear program, who's now a key 
U.S. source for intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass 
destruction, was initially dismissed as a joke by Clinton-era 
intelligence agents who rejected his initial plea for asylum in 
1994.

Dr. Khidir Hamza finally made contact with the CIA in 1994 after 
risking his life to escape from Baghdad to Iraq's northern 
"no-fly" zone, now under Kurdish control.

But in a dramatic account of the episode in his 2000 book 
"Saddam's Bombmaker," Dr. Hamza says Clinton-era intelligence 
operatives first seemed to laugh him off, then tried to get him 
to talk without making any commitment to protect his family.

"I started the Al-Atheer nuclear weapons site," Hamza told a CIA 
agent based in Washington. The agent had contacted him via 
satellite phone to ascertain his bona fides.

"Nuclear weapons at Al-Atheer?" the CIA man asked, sounding 
incredulous.

"Earlier, I'd started the uranium enrichment by diffusion. I 
worked with Jaffar Dhia Jaffar on the establishment of the 
uranium program," Hamza revealed.

"Right," the CIA agent responded, in what the top Iraqi nuke 
scientist says was an "amused" tone.

"Now I heard the unmistakably sounds of a snicker," Hamza 
reported, saying he suddenly feared he had placed his family's 
life on the line to get to the U.S. - only to be rebuffed by 
uninformed Clinton bureaucrats in Washington.

Later in his book, the now key U.S. intelligence source 
summarized his treatment at the hands of the CIA. "They not only 
ignored me, they rebuffed and even ridiculed my pleas for help in 
1994," he complained.

Recently, Dr. Hamza's initial revelation to the CIA about 
Saddam's plans to manufacture enriched uranium was confirmed in 
spades.

"Ultimately, Hamza's intelligence seems to have been borne out," 
notes the Sept. 23 issue of The New Republic. "Just last week, 
the New York Times published an article reporting that 'in the 
last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially 
designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were 
intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.'"

According to TNR, the CIA's initial decision to dismiss Hamza (he 
later persuaded the agency of his importance) emanated from the 
fact that his first contacts were arranged by the Iraqi National 
Congress, a dissident group the CIA distrusted in the 1990s.

"The CIA's antipathy toward the INC dates back to Clinton-era 
efforts to topple Saddam," reports the magazine, noting that the 
agency suspected a leading INC figure leaked information that 
resulted in the deaths of several anti-Saddam coup plotters in 
1996.

Clinton holdovers at the agency have also dismissed accounts from 
multiple Iraqi defectors and a former UNSCOM weapons inspector 
who point to Saddam's direct involvement in a Baghdad-area 
terrorist training school 

All Rights Reserved � NewsMax.com
*****************************************************************
 32 Pakistan Editorial: Make DCG meaningful

Daily Times - Site Edition

The Pakistan-US Defence Cooperation Group (DCG) has finally met 
after a hiatus of four years. It became defunct after the United 
States cut off all defence ties with Pakistan and also slapped 
sanctions on it in the wake of its nuclear tests in May 1998. The 
DCG was revived (and the sanctions lifted) last year during 
General Pervez Musharraf�s visit to the US after Islamabad joined 
the Washington-led coalition against the war on terrorism.

In the last round of consultations Thursday in Islamabad, the two 
sides agreed to work on improving defence cooperation. They have 
also agreed on the need to institutionalise cooperation in this 
regard. All this may sound good, but is it?

We may be excused for some scepticism. While praising Pakistan�s 
role in the war on terrorism, the United States has, 
nevertheless, shown no enthusiasm in helping its sagging 
conventional capability. The last two visits to the United States 
by General Musharraf have yielded little in terms of new military 
hardware sales to Pakistan. Not only that, the US has not shown 
any inclination to reconsider its earlier decision not to supply 
F-16s to Pakistan, despite the fact that General Musharraf raised 
it for the nth time when he visited Washington earlier this 
month. While it is debatable whether the old model F-16s could 
boost the air arm of the Pakistan military (forget the state of 
the art models), the principle of the issue and the US response 
in that regard cannot be ignored.

Contrast this with the US attitude towards India. Reports suggest 
that the Departments of Defence and State have cleared a list of 
21 weapon systems that manufacturers can sell to India. Earlier 
this year the US struck a US$140 million deal with India for 
eight weapon-locating radars (Fire Finders) and its support and 
sub-systems. This is the biggest such sale from the US in the 
last thirty years. Additionally, the US has approved Israeli 
sales to India of different weapon systems and sub-systems, 
including the highly sophisticated Phalcon AWACS (airborne 
warning and control systems). These sales will evidently enhance 
India�s already superior conventional capability. By increasing 
the asymmetry, this could lead to a lowering of the nuclear 
threshold, which, given the nature of the conflict-prone 
relations between India and Pakistan, can only be dangerous.

The US representatives on the DCG would do well to appreciate 
these facts and make defence cooperation between Pakistan and the 
US more meaningful. There is need to move to something more 
concrete.

Musharraf is badly advised

The four draft Press Laws recently passed by the federal Cabinet 
have infuriated the journalistic community. While the government 
has dismissed criticism of the laws by claiming that it had 
involved representatives of the APNS (All Pakistan Newspapers 
Society) and CPNE (Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors) 
throughout the deliberations, the APNS-CPNE have pointed to the 
various amendments the government has unilaterally made in the 
laws after an agreement was reached between the two sides. 

Thus while the APNS has called the laws �draconian� and rejected 
them because they curb press freedoms, the government continues 
to flog them as forward-looking laws. The government spokesperson 
admits that some �minor amendments� were introduced to 
�rationalise� the text in the laws, especially those relating to 
a government sponsored and funded Press Council to reign in 
�errant� media, but says the press is making a mountain out of a 
molehill. But the press believes that these �minor amendments� 
may just become the cutting edge of these laws in terms of 
government-media relations in the future and the 
�rationalisation� of the Press Council�s membership by the 
government may come to determine how effectively the government 
is able to control that body and, by extension, the media. 

Moreover the government is making too much of its Freedom of 
Information Ordinance. The fact is that the language of the 
ordinance is vague and gives the government much room to put 
large areas of its activity out of the purview of the press. 
�National interest�, unless concretely defined, can be extended 
to mean anything. By ensuring secrecy and using its authority 
under the new laws to ban publications and employ the device of 
defamation, the government is clearly planning to put the press 
in a nutcracker situation. 

This government has generally stayed on the right side of the 
press so far and put up with its healthy criticism of its 
shortcomings. But there is much evidence to prove that it hasn�t 
suffered the press gladly. In fact, its �benign� attitude is owed 
mainly to its desire to present a �liberal image� to the West. 
Therefore we, the press, cannot and will not allow this or any 
future government to wrest back the freedoms for which we have 
long fought and suffered. That is why the government should scrap 
the �molehills� it has tried to heap on the press unilaterally. 
Failure to do so will lead to a total loss of hard-earned 
credibility on this score. General Musharraf deserves better 
advice than the one which the cabinet is giving him. Indeed, when 
the �dirty� politicians return, he will need the press as never 
before to act as a �watchdog� over them rather than over him as 
in the past.
 
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved [http://www.wcis.com.pk] 
*****************************************************************
 33 Iraq: Hawk Spin Agenda

For veteran defense analysts, the debate over whether to invade 
Iraq has a familiar ring. In Pentagon parlance, it's called 
gap-ology. Time and again in military preparations, fears are 
raised that later prove unfounded. Some skeptics wonder whether 
the same game is being played now. 

In July, 1955, there was the bomber gap. The Soviets flew Bison 
bombers repeatedly in a loop over visitors at an air show, giving 
an exaggerated notion of their numbers. A worried U.S. military 
proceeded to build up its air-defense system. Eventually, a U-2 
spy-plane pilot who flew over what was known as the Engels 
airfield in Russia saw scores of Bisons and thought he had 
confirmed the bomber gap. It turned out that what he saw was not 
a portion of the Bison inventory but all of it. The bomber gap 
didn't exist. 

In the 1960 Presidential election, John F. Kennedy brought 
Americans the missile gap. He charged that the Eisenhower 
Administration had allowed the U.S. nuclear arsenal to fall 
behind the Soviet stockpile and vowed to beef up U.S. strategic 
capability. After the election, evidence of a gap emerged -- but 
it turned out that it was the U.S. arsenal that was larger. That 
didn't stop Kennedy from launching a nuclear-arms buildup. 

HYPOTHETICAL RATIONALE.  The late 1970s saw the "window of 
vulnerability." According to a group of conservative defense 
analysts, the Soviets had the ability to knock out America's 
land-based nukes in a first strike, leaving the U.S. the 
unacceptable choices of annihilating Russia with sea-based 
missiles or surrender. The claims were based on faulty 
assessments of the Soviet weapons' power and accuracy -- to say 
nothing of Moscow's intentions. But Washington spent gobs of 
money trying to figure out whether to harden existing missile 
silos or build mobile missiles to close the alleged window. 

This time around, the gap is between what Saddam Hussein might be 
capable of doing in the future and America's ability to deter or 
defeat it. Whether a gap really exists is unknowable. But it puts 
critics in the unenviable position of having to prove not one but 
two negatives: "That something unknowable will not exist, which 
is logically impossible," says Pentagon analyst Chuck Spinney. 

Some skeptics go even further and compare the current debate to 
the Soviet war scare of 1948. These experts believe the Truman 
Administration's calculated talk about a Soviet invasion of 
Germany was intended to win the election, boost the defense 
budget and the economy, and persuade Congress to pass the 
Marshall Plan. Intelligence at the time clearly indicated the 
Soviets had no intention to invade. 

ECONOMIC DRAG.  My own take is a bit different. For starters, 
some Bush Administration officials, such as Deputy Defense 
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, have been arguing for years that Saddam 
is a threat. This isn't mere election opportunism for them. But 
when President Bush wonders out loud whether Democrats are really 
interested in the security of America, it does make you wonder 
how pristine his motives are. His comments smack of politics, 
pure and simple. There's a touch of McCarthyism in that kind of 
accusation. 

And this time, talk of war isn't aiding the economy. If anything, 
it's a drag. The defense industry isn't likely to be a big 
winner. Any war in Iraq is going to require more smart munitions 
and fuel -- not new tanks or planes or ships. If the war is over 
fast, little money will find its way to the industry. If it takes 
more time, the focus is likely to be on urban warfare, which 
again is no bonanza for the defense business. 

All that said, is the threat real? There's simply no way of 
knowing. Intelligence can't categorically prove or disprove what 
Saddam might do in the future. That makes it impossible to refute 
the Administration's argument but also deprives it of a smoking 
gun. 

KEY QUESTION.  Should the U.S. do something about Saddam anyway? 
The Administration says it's better to be safe than sorry, better 
to be Churchill than Chamberlain. The other side notes that 
Saddam isn't young, is in ill health, and constantly worries 
about being assassinated. He could pass from power before he's an 
imminent threat. And, of course, political and military downsides 
must be considered -- such as possibly alienating allies in the 
Arab world, causing a sharp hike in oil prices, and solidifying 
resistance to the U.S. among European leaders. 

Forcing Saddam into exile may be the best solution. It would 
avoid the diplomatic and military risks of an attack on a 
desperate, brutal ruler while still effecting regime change. 

For me, whether or not Washington should attack depends on the 
answer to one complicated question: Is that approach the best way 
of achieving the goal? That's a key issue not just for America's 
own course of action but for the precedent it sets. Bush's 
rationale for attack cannot be distinguished on principle from 
what, say, India might consider against Pakistan. 

The only difference may be tactical: Does the move bring you 
closer to your goal of peace and security or further from it? 
That's the fundamental question Washington must grapple with now. 

[ width=] [stan_crock@businessweek.com] covers national security 
and foreign affairs for BusinessWeek from Washington. Follow his 
views in Affairs of State twice a month, only on BusinessWeek 
Online Edited by Douglas Harbrecht
 
BusinessWeek Online story. 

[http://www.mcgraw-hill.com] Copyright 2002, by The McGraw-Hill 
Companies
*****************************************************************
 34 U.S. Sources Hedging on Iraq Facts

Las Vegas SUN
 
September 27, 2002 By CALVIN WOODWARD ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON- In making the case for war, the Bush administration 
has delivered a bill of particulars against Saddam Hussein that 
includes al-Qaida terrorist links yet to be demonstrated and 
weapons he may or may not have within reach. 

Publicly, President Bush's officials are touting reports that 
al-Qaida operatives have found refuge in Baghdad and that Iraq 
once helped them develop chemical weapons. Privately, government 
intelligence sources are hedging on that subject, suggesting 
there might be less than meets the eye. 

Did Iraq really kick out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, as 
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said? No. "We made the 
decision to evacuate," says Charles Duelfer, who was deputy 
chairman of the U.N. inspection agency at the time. 

And might Iraq really have nuclear weapons "fairly soon," as Vice 
President Dick Cheney alleges? That depends on the definition of 
soon, Cheney acknowledges, and no one outside Iraq really knows 
how close Baghdad is to that point. 

"I haven't heard any real howlers," Duelfer said of the Bush 
administration's assertions about Iraq. But some appear to have 
been made with more passion than proof. 

Bush's case for war probably would be a slam-dunk with Americans 
and an easier sell to the world if a firm relationship were 
established between the terrorist group that mounted the Sept. 11 
attacks and the Iraqi leader he wants ousted. 

It would be helped, too, by showing that Iraq's biological, 
chemical and nuclear weapons programs are sufficiently advanced 
to pose a direct threat to the United States if placed in the 
hands of al-Qaida or any agents out to harm America. 

But Rumsfeld says all the United States can do is present the 
risks as best they can be determined, not nail them down beyond a 
reasonable doubt. "Our goal is not to go into a court of law and 
try to prove something to somebody," he said. 

Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, 
took the case on Iraqi-al-Qaida links several strides forward 
this week by alleging that al-Qaida operatives have had a direct 
relationship with the Iraqi government. "There clearly are 
contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented," she 
said. 

She did not document them. 

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated 
the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying 
reliability. 

The subject of Iraqi weapons is also murkier than has been 
presented. The U.N. chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said last 
month he had no proof that Iraq possesses weapons of mass 
destruction. 

Any such accounting necessarily depends on what inspectors found 
before they left four years ago and spotty intelligence since. 

Bush warned the United Nations that Saddam could have nuclear 
weapons within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney 
said: "On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that 
Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon." The CIA's own 
forecasts have not conveyed that much alarm. 

"We believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level 
theoretical R (research and development) associated with its 
nuclear program," it said in its latest report to Congress, in 
January. 

Duelfer doesn't make much of the mischaracterization of his 
inspection team's pullout in December 1998, noting that while 
Iraq did not eject the inspectors, it had stopped dealing with 
them and then would not let them back in. 

And the Bush administration appears to be "sort of in the 
ballpark" with its estimates on when Iraq might possess nuclear 
weapons, he said. 

As part of its case that Iraq is a threat that must be dealt 
with, and quickly: 

-The administration characterizes Saddam as a supporter of 
terrorism generally. "Iraq's ties to terrorist networks are 
long-standing," Rumsfeld told Congress. 

Those ties are complex. One group the U.S. government brands as a 
terrorist outfit has been favored not only by Iraq but by many 
members of the U.S. Congress. That group, the National Council of 
Resistance of Iran, advocates the violent overthrow of the 
religious government of Iran. It recently held a news conference 
two blocks from the White House. 

In the region, Syria and Iran are widely considered to be more 
active sponsors of terrorism than Iraq is. 

-The administration alleges al-Qaida operatives, including senior 
figures, have been in Iraq. 

But U.S. intelligence sources have said al-Qaida members are 
believed to be simply moving through Iraq en route to their home 
countries. They have not offered evidence these sojourners are 
putting down roots in Iraq, setting up camps or making contact 
with Saddam's government. 

Most are believed to be in areas outside the reach of the Iraqi 
government. Some are thought to be ensconced with anti-Saddam 
Kurds in parts of northern Iraq cut off from his control by the 
continual U.S. and British air strikes in the no-flight zone. But 
at least one midlevel to high-level al-Qaida figure may be in 
Baghdad, according to the latest intelligence. 

-The administration, as evidence of Saddam's venality, has 
repeatedly noted he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in 
the late 1980s - an event that barely elicited a response from 
Washington at the time. 

On the Net: White House background papers on Iraq: 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html 
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html] 

All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35 Judge dismisses claims over toxins released from Oak Ridge 
nuclear weapons complex - 

9/27/2002 - ENN.com
		   
 Friday, September 27, 2002 By Duncan Mansfield, Associated Press 
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. � A federal judge has thrown out two lawsuits 
seeking compensation for potentially hundreds of thousands of 
people over toxins released from the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons 
complex. 

Some plaintiffs allege pollution from the complex has given them 
cancer and other illnesses, but U.S. District Judge James Jarvis 
said their lawsuits came too late to meet Tennessee's one-year 
statute of limitations. Jarvis also said there was not enough 
common interest between the plaintiffs to support a class action. 

Jarvis granted a summary judgment Sept. 17 in favor of the 
University of Chicago, Union Carbide Corp. and 11 other companies 
or institutions sued for operating the Department of Energy's Oak 
Ridge complex since it opened in 1943 as part of the 
atomic-bomb-building Manhattan Project. 

Plaintiffs' attorney Ted Kerry said an appeal was likely. He said 
the January 2001 lawsuit would have been filed earlier if the 
government "had not tried to keep what happened at these plants 
secret for so many years." 

Defense attorney Kevin Van Wart said Thursday that the court 
reached the right result. "This case was an attempt to revive 
claims that had no merit and were very, very old and long-known 
to anybody who, if they had the inclination to sue, could have 
done so years ago," Van Wart said. 

The lawsuits listed more than a dozen cancers and other illnesses 
residents and workers might have contracted through exposure to a 
variety of toxins, from mercury to plutonium. 

"It is sort of what I expected," Fannie Ball, 61, said of the 
ruling. The retired Oak Ridge worker has had thyroid cancer, lung 
cancer, and other ailments. "So many people are sick and dying. 
We do not understand," she said. "We have been told so many 
different things." 

Copyright 2002, Associated Press
*****************************************************************
 36 Agreement reached on workers' records

Omaha World Herald <http://www.omaha.com/>

September 28, 2002

MIDDLETOWN, Iowa (AP) - A tentative agreement has been reached 
between the Army and its operations contractor at the Iowa Army 
Ammunition Plant for the release of former workers' medical 
records so researchers can determine whether the workers were 
harmed from exposure to hazardous materials.

"There is an agreement with the Army," said Dr. Lar Fuortes, 
director of the University of Iowa's team of researchers. Fuortes 
recently accused the plant of stonewalling requests from workers 
and researchers.

Tony Noll, business development director for American Ordnance, 
said that the details still were being negotiated but that the 
Army and the company had worked out the major provisions of an 
agreement.

Earlier, American Ordnance had expressed concerns about the 
possible loss of patient and worker confidentiality.

The health surveyors, from Iowa's College of Public Health, for 
the past two years have been collecting the medical records of 
former IAAP nuclear weapons workers under contracts with the 
Department of Energy.

The records and X-rays, along with interviews and medical testing 
of the workers or their survivors, are being used to determine 
whether workers suffered illnesses or deaths from exposure to 
hazardous materials such as radium, beryllium and silica.

Fuortes said a major source of concern is worker exposure to 
beryllium dust, which had been discovered in several areas and 
buildings on the plant.

The dust can cause chronic beryllium disease, which can cripple 
the lungs.

The Atomic Energy Commission assembled, test-fired and 
disassembled components of nuclear weapons from the late 1940s to 
the mid-1970s, when its nuclear operations were moved from 
Middletown to its Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas.

�2002 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright 
*****************************************************************
 37 The New New World Order
 

Two new realities of life -- terrorism and American military 
dominance -- are restructuring the global order. Containment and 
mutually assured destruction, cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy 
during the Cold War, can't work when suicidal terrorist groups, 
rather than rational states, are the major threat to the nation. 
And traditional balance-of-power tactics are meaningless when the 
U.S. spends more on defense than all of the next 20 nations. 
Indeed, by 2005, America's military budget will be greater than 
the rest of the world's combined. 

Given this radically changed era, the opportunity to set forth a 
new American foreign policy -- as required by Congress from each 
President -- is a welcome event. Unfortunately, The National 
Security Strategy of the United States of America, a 31-page 
report to the Congress by President George W. Bush, is not just 
disappointing -- it's disparaging to friends and allies around 
the globe. Disdainful arrogance is hardly the right posture for 
the leader of the free world, but that is the tone of much of the 
report. 

UNDERMINED INSIGHTS.  The tragedy is that the Texas-style swagger 
and go-it-alone message of the document overwhelm its many keen 
analytical insights and intelligent policy suggestions. The 
National Security Strategy paper could create the foundation for 
a new set of international standards to replace those that 
governed the Cold War. But its braggadocio undermines the 
seriousness of its suggestions. 

Despite loose talk today about a benign new Pax Americana, many 
Americans and many more people overseas are uncomfortable with 
the image of an America acting unilaterally around the world, 
breaking treaties at will, giving lip service to allies and 
international institutions while claiming for itself the sole 
legitimate use of force anywhere, anytime it feels threatened. 
That is the text and subtext of much of the National Security 
Strategy report. 

There certainly have been moments in U.S. history when 
imperialism has been in vogue. Nineteenth century Manifest 
Destiny is the most striking example. But the overall arc of U.S. 
history, from the birth of the nation in revolution against the 
British to battles against Spanish, German, and Soviet empires, 
has been to oppose the concept. Imperialism, even compassionate 
imperialism, just isn't part of this country's DNA. 

POWER OF CONSENSUS.  The Bush Doctrine laid out in the National 
Security paper threatens to unravel the fabric of international 
community at a time when that community is needed to combat 
terrorism and restore health to a deteriorating world economy. 
Ironically, this international community is the very one the U.S. 
has spent decades building to spread American values of 
rule-of-law, democracy, and free markets all over the globe. It 
is the community U.S. corporations and consumers rely on as they 
turn increasingly to China for high-tech and consumer goods. By 
working through institutions ranging from NATO to NAFTA, from the 
International Monetary Fund to the World Trade Organization, the 
U.S. has been able to expand its power and influence via global 
consensus, not intimidation. Yet this system is threatened by a 
global backlash against perceived American unilateralism and 
arrogance. 

As expressed in the report, the Bush Doctrine has three basic 
tenets. First, the U.S. is free to take preemptive action against 
terrorists and states that have weapons of mass destruction. 
Second, no country or combination of countries will ever be 
allowed to challenge U.S. military superiority. Third, unilateral 
measures are better than international treaties and organizations 
in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. In short, the Bush 
Doctrine declares that America will no longer be constrained by 
the traditional norms and rules of the international community. 

Each of the three policy prescriptions has its own logic -- and 
its own problems. Every nation assumes it can use preemptive 
action on rare occasions to thwart attacks or even to further the 
national interest. French and Belgian paratroopers have 
intervened in Africa for years. Britain went into the Falklands. 
But preemption as a core security doctrine wreaks havoc with 
traditional norms of self-defense. Even Israel's destruction of 
the French-built Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, probably 
preventing Iraq from having nuclear weapons during the Persian 
Gulf War, brought howls of condemnation from U.S. Ambassador to 
the U.N. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick and British Prime Minister Margaret 
Thatcher. Placing preemption at the center of security policy 
leaves the world wondering what the clear-cut rules for war are. 
The Bush Doctrine doesn't detail any new rules of engagement. 

WEAKENING STABILITY.  Nations are already rushing to create their 
own. Russia is reformulating its war rationale against Chechnya 
in terms of preempting terrorists. China is adopting the language 
of preemption in battling Muslim separatists. Will India follow 
in Kashmir or against Pakistan? And what of Israel? An American 
strategic policy of preemption without internationally 
agreed-upon rules could increase global violence and instability. 

The notion of conditional sovereignty, introduced by the National 
Security Strategy paper, may undermine stability as well. Since 
the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, the sovereignty of states has 
been sacrosanct. There is international agreement that nations 
are open to attack only when they do something that threatens or 
harms others. Under the Bush Doctrine, however, nations that 
simply amass weapons of mass destruction forfeit their 
sovereignty. 

Iraq, of course, is the first example of this policy. Its case is 
relatively clear, having violated no fewer than 19 U.N. 
resolutions to disarm. But who is the second? And what about 
nations whose citizens help finance terrorism, such as Saudi 
Arabia? The rules are fuzzy. 

FREEZING CHINA.  The second tenet of Bush's new U.S. security 
policy -- to freeze current U.S. global superiority in place 
forever -- is problematic, too. Here, the focus is on China, 
which is seen in Washington as the next rival to America. China 
already has intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear 
warheads, and its arsenal is sure to grow larger. Every rising 
economic power in the past has bulked up militarily as well. The 
Bush Doctrine would attempt to freeze China's position in the 
world pecking order -- a policy sure to be resisted in Beijing. 

Indeed, it's hard to see how two countries as integrated 
economically as China and the U.S. can be governed in their 
international relations by a policy designed to keep one inferior 
militarily. Here again, the Bush Doctrine could generate more 
instability, not less. 

So could the tearing up of treaties. This policy, of course, is 
of a piece with previous Bush Administration actions in 
unilaterally walking out of the Kyoto Accords on global warming, 
abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and putting the 
U.S. above the International Criminal Court. Certainly, all such 
international agreements have flaws. But America, as a world 
power, is obliged to make them better, not simply dump them. The 
U.S. has often disagreed with its friends and allies. But it has 
rarely shown them the disrespect of just stalking out. In 
fighting the Persian Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush 
understood that leadership requires persistence and quiet 
strength, not intemperate impatience. 

CLARIFY AND CODIFY.  To its credit, the Bush National Security 
Strategy document for the first time explains why a new foreign 
policy is needed to confront the realities of the day. It rightly 
points out that failed states, states that harbor weapons of mass 
destruction, and states that shelter terrorists are the greatest 
dangers to peace today. The report raises two key questions: What 
threats permit a nation to take preemptive action? And what is 
the threshold of bad behavior that causes a country to lose its 
sovereignty? 

Unfortunately, the National Security paper assumes that only 
America is permitted to ask and answer these critical questions. 
A better way would be for the Bush Administration to lead an 
international effort that engages America's friends and allies in 
this discussion. The document rightly sets out principles for a 
new international standard of conduct. We now need to clarify and 
codify them. An international consensus on preemption and 
sovereignty would greatly reduce uncertainty and anxiety about 
U.S. intentions and actions. It would make U.S. foreign policy 
more understandable, predictable, and sustainable. 

America has historically found it projects power best by 
exercising it through international institutions operating with 
shared values and goals. Much has changed since September 11. 
This hasn't. 

BusinessWeek magazine, 

[http://www.mcgraw-hill.com] Copyright 2002, by The McGraw-Hill 
Companies
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************