Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani (shown in a March photo) has warned that some Iranian officers support conducting a pre-emptive strike against U.S. forces (AFP photo/Atta Kenare). Iranian Official Warns of “Preventive Operations” to Counter Perceived U.S. Threats to Nuclear Sites Iran’s defense minister has said that some of his country’s generals believe they should initiate a pre-emptive attack against U.S. forces if they sense an imminent strike, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 18). “We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us,” Ali Shamkhani told al-Jazeera, answering questions about how Iran might respond to a U.S. attack on its nuclear installations. “There are differences of opinion among military commanders (in Iran). Some commanders believe preventive operations is not a model created by Americans ... or is not limited to Americans. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that,” he added...Full Story

Rumsfeld: No Date Set for Missile Defense Deployment By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday there is no firm deadline for deploying components of a national missile defense system this year, responding to a question of whether he had set an Oct. 1 goal...Full Story

FDA Plans Use of Unapproved Drugs in WMD Events By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun preparing for the use of otherwise unapproved vaccines and treatments in the event of a WMD emergency...Full Story

	Thursday, August 19, 2004

Eight Suspected Terrorists Appear in British Court Eight suspected terrorists appeared in a London court yesterday on charges of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit a public nuisance by using radioactive materials, toxic gases, chemicals or explosives to cause “disruption, fear or injury,” the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 18). The eight men, included a suspected al-Qaeda operative linked to a possible terrorist plot in the United States, did not enter pleas and were ordered held until their next scheduled court appearance on Aug. 25, according to AP. Prosecutor Sue Hammond said the suspects had been prepared to commit “extreme acts” for their “strong and deeply held beliefs.” None of the defense lawyers sought bail for their clients, AP reported. One of the lawyers, Kirsten Johnson, said that the charges “will be fully contested” (Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, Aug. 18). Meanwhile, intelligence experts have said that the Aug. 1 announcement by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge of possible terrorist plots against U.S. targets could have jeopardized the arrest of the eight suspects, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Ridge named the New York Stock Exchange and International Monetary Fund in Washington among the potential targets. Suspected al-Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot has been charged in the United Kingdom with possessing plans for potential attacks on those and other sites.  “For reasons not so far satisfactorily explained, the U.S. authorities decided to broadcast specific intelligence material upon which they must have known a vitally important future U.K. arrest operation would be based,” said Charles Shoebridge, a former British counterterrorism intelligence officer. “The broadcast would have inevitably compromised that operation and by implication the actual security of the United States itself,” he added. Barot and the other suspects were arrested on Aug. 3. British police acknowledged that the raids occurred earlier than planned, according to the Monitor. A British police spokesman, though, said that Ridge’s announcement did not affect the arrest operation. “The operation was in place well before that weekend,” the spokesman said. “There was an operational decision on when to move,” he added (Mark Rice-Oxley, Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 19). Back to top

Former U.S. Chief Weapons Inspector Lashes Out at NSC, CIA for Failures in Prewar Iraq Intelligence By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq David Kay yesterday strongly criticized the National Security Council and the CIA for their roles in the failure to correctly assess the status of prewar Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts (see GSN, Aug. 12). In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Kay called the council “the dog that did not bark.” “Where was the National Security Council when apparently the president expressed his own doubt about the adequacy of the case concerning Iraq’s WMD weapons that were made before him? Why was the secretary of state sent out to the CIA to personally vet the data that he was to take to the [U.N.] Security Council in New York, and ultimately left to hang in the wind for data that was at least misleading, and in some cases absolutely false — and known by parts of the intelligence community to be false?” Kay said. “Where was the NSC then?” he added. Kay also criticized what he described as an increasing reliance by presidents on the National Security Council to evaluate intelligence information. “Every president who has been successful, at least that I know of, in the history of this republic, has developed both informal and formal means of getting checks on whether people who tell him things are in fact telling him the whole and full truth,” he said.  “I think this is particularly crucial and difficult to do in the intelligence area. The recent history has been a reliance on the NSC system to do it. I quite frankly think that has not served this president very well,” Kay added. Following in the footsteps of the Senate intelligence committee, which issued its own harsh assessment of the CIA’s performance regarding prewar Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts, Kay yesterday added to the criticism that has been leveled against the agency. He outlined for lawmakers what he described as nine “principal failings” by the agency, including a poor culture of management, poor analytic tradecraft, a lack of U.S. human clandestine agents within Iraq, a failure to properly question non-American sources of information, a lack of scientific expertise within the directorate of intelligence and a “refusal” to employ the scientific expertise in other sections of the government. “Iraq was an overwhelming systemic failure of the Central Intelligence Agency,” Kay said. The CIA today offered an equally strong reply to Kay’s criticisms, questioning the former weapons inspector’s qualifications to comment on broader intelligence issues. “Dr. Kay, an expert in some of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, now sees himself as qualified to make sweeping judgments on national intelligence as a whole,” agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano said. “That is unfortunate.  Because we welcome informed, constructive criticism, we could not welcome much of what Kay had to say,” he added. Back to top       National Guard Assembles WMD Response Task Forces By Marina Malenic Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Ten of 12 regional WMD rapid-response task forces have been assembled and fully trained by the U.S. National Guard, a spokesman for the service said yesterday. The Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear or High-Yield Explosives Enhanced Response Force Packages (CERFP) are assembled from existing National Guard units that have been trained to provide mass casualty, decontamination and medical triage capabilities at a WMD incident site, according to Maj. John Toniolli, a National Guard spokesman (see GSN, March 10). Each team undergoes a training evaluation conducted by the U.S. Army Forces Command to determine readiness, Toniolli said. Ten state units — California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia — have passed their evaluations. Washington and Hawaii are expected to undergo assessments in the next few weeks. The training involves the response to a mock attack using weapons of mass destruction, according to Toniolli.  The Florida task force underwent a final training evaluation on Aug. 4 involving an attack simulation in which about 3,000 people were exposed to sarin gas and the radioactive isotope cobalt 60 in a crowded terminal of the Jacksonville International Airport, the National Guard’s state headquarters there announced. The team of nearly 50 airmen was called in to set up a triage and decontamination station in a nearby parking lot, according to Senior Airman Thomas Kielbasa. “The team rolled up to the exercise site and in a flurry of activity under bright floodlights, unloaded their equipment from a tractor-trailer,” Kielbasa said in an Aug. 5 press release. “Within an hour their decontamination site was ready to treat victims,” he added. Last year, the National Guard completed the fielding of 32 WMD Civil Support Teams (CSTs), Toniolli explained. The teams would provide the initial National Guard response to a WMD attack and assist the incident commander by assessing the nature of the incident, providing advice and supplying follow-up support.  That support includes the nearest CERFP unit, which would provide personnel based on the nature of the incident, according to Toniolli. Civil Support Teams are made up of full-time National Guard soldiers on call 24 hours a day, while the CERFP units consist of traditional National Guard personnel who would be recalled from their homes or workplaces in order to respond to an incident, he added. The new CERFP units are to serve their entire Federal Emergency Management Agency regions, which could cover several states, according to Toniolli. Back to top       U.S. Increases Canada Border Security The United States is increasing surveillance along its border with Canada, in part to head off potential smuggling of weapons of mass destruction, Canada Press reported yesterday (see GSN, March 24). A high-tech unit of 69 U.S. federal law enforcement officers is set to begin operations in Bellingham, Wash., near the border with British Columbia, according to U.S. officials. The unit is to operate a surveillance aircraft, helicopters and at least one high-speed boat. “It is the first of five such border units that will be established from Bellingham over to Plattsburg, N.Y.,” said Gary Bracken, communications director for the U.S. Office of Air and Marine Operations. The New York unit is expected to be assembled later this year and teams in Montana, North Dakota and Michigan are to be established in subsequent years, according to Canada Press. In addition to stemming drug trafficking, Bracken said the units would be concerned with various other security threats. “Along the (Canadian) border we are also faced with the smuggling of migrants, weapons, currency in both directions, as well as the possibility of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction crossing the border using traditional smuggling routes,” he said (Scott Sutherland, Canada Press/CNews, Aug. 19). Back to top

Iranian Official Warns of “Preventive Operations” to Counter Perceived U.S. Threats to Nuclear Sites Iran’s defense minister has said that some of his country’s generals believe they should initiate a pre-emptive attack against U.S. forces if they sense an imminent strike, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 18). “We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us,” Ali Shamkhani told al-Jazeera, answering questions about how Iran might respond to a U.S. attack on its nuclear installations. “There are differences of opinion among military commanders (in Iran). Some commanders believe preventive operations is not a model created by Americans ... or is not limited to Americans. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that,” he added. “The moment the great Satan (America) decides to take military action against us, that moment will be the end of all our nuclear obligations,” Shamkhani said, referring to Iran’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Shamkhani also mentioned potential Israeli action against the Islamic republic. “It’s certain to us that Israel won’t carry out any military action without a green light from America,” he said. “So, you can’t separate the two,” he added (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 19). Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister said yesterday that the U.N. nuclear watchdog should close its investigation of Tehran’s nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported. “If the case is not closed, it intensifies the suspicion about interference of political motives and pressures within the agency. And this is what the Americans are looking for,” Kamal Kharazi said. “To show its independence, IAEA, as a professional, technical and nonpolitical organization, should naturally insist on its own technical criteria and principles and quickly announce the issues have been resolved, if they have been resolved,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 19). Back to top       Downer Wraps Up North Korean Visit; No Progress Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said yesterday that North Korean officials responded negatively to U.S. incentives aimed at persuading Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear programs, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Aug. 18). Downer ended a two-day visit to Pyongyang Wednesday. “Their response to the U.S. package is pretty negative,” said Downer, speaking from Pyongyang prior to his late-night departure. Downer said that officials there also would not commit to attending a new round of six-nation talks on the nuclear issue (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Aug. 19). Back to top       No Classified Materials Missing at Oak Ridge Officials at the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have said that an inventory has found no missing classified items, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 12). The Energy Department ordered all facilities to conduct inventories of their “classified removable electronic media” last month after the reported disappearance of two computer disks from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.  The Oak Ridge classified material inventory found no missing media, and other reviews at the site are set to be completed within the next few days, Energy spokesman Walter Perry said (Associated Press/USA Today, Aug. 19). Back to top

FDA Plans Use of Unapproved Drugs in WMD Events By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun preparing for the use of otherwise unapproved vaccines and treatments in the event of a WMD emergency. The agency is drafting guidelines on an emergency-use capability authorized in the Project Bioshield law signed a month ago by President George W. Bush, FDA Assistant Commissioner for Counterterrorism Margaret Glavin said last week (see GSN, July 21). “You can’t anticipate every possible situation, so what we’re trying to do is to lay out a thought process, rather than specific procedures and specific decision rules,” Glavin said in an interview. The agency, which takes an average of 12 years to approve drugs for use in the United States, is developing the emergency-use guidelines in consultation with other bodies that would be involved in administering the unapproved drugs. The goal, Glavin said, is for the agencies to reach a “common understanding of what the boundaries are.” The best-publicized component of Bioshield is the creation of a government-guaranteed market for otherwise unprofitable WMD countermeasures, which drug makers do not currently produce in quantities sufficient for a large attack. A separate provision of the new law allows the health and human services secretary to declare a one-year emergency, in the event of a WMD attack on the United States, during which drugs that lack FDA approval or are approved for other purposes may be used to combat biological or chemical agents or radiation. Although the health secretary is responsible for formally declaring any emergency under the provision, the determination that the declaration is needed can also originate with the defense or homeland security secretary. The health secretary must also consult with the heads of the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before authorizing any specific unapproved product for use in a given emergency. Glavin said her agency would be central in any emergency-use decisions. “We see the authorizations as coming from the [FDA] commissioner under existing … authority. … We would be the operating entity within HHS to do the work on it,” she said. Liability Questions Remain Unresolved Even though Bioshield is now law, the legal status of emergency-approved drugs under the legislation remains unclear, potentially limiting the law’s effectiveness in sparking drug development (see GSN, July 26). “Bioshield II” legislation planned for later this year by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) would address matters including manufacturers’ concerns about legal liability for damages from Bioshield-related drugs. Meanwhile, the FDA is considering the creation of a new regulatory category for otherwise unapproved drugs that are potentially useful in a WMD emergency, according to Bioshield expert Stephen Prior, who directs the National Security Health Policy Center at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Providing such a status to certain drugs could ease liability concerns and smooth the emergency-authorization process in time of need. The usefulness of a new drug category is clear, Prior said yesterday in an interview. If an attack warranting an emergency-use authorization occurred tomorrow, he said, the current legal uncertainty could necessitate a presidential order accepting total government liability for damages. “That’s not a good way to go for the government, to just take on unwarranted levels of indemnification, but they will do that in an emergency if there’s no other recourse,” Prior said. Bioshield stipulates that the health secretary “may” impose conditions on emergency use that include informing patients of the option and possible consequences of refusing emergency-authorized drugs. Such measures would probably be less cumbersome than those commonly taken for medicines granted an existing investigational new drug status, which allows activities such as transporting unapproved drugs across state lines and testing them on consenting subjects. Bioshield stipulates that authorizing drugs for emergency use does not grant them investigational new drug status. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci last year told a House of Representatives subcommittee that, although investigational new drugs could sometimes be used in emergencies under existing laws, the amount of paperwork they required would prevent large-scale use. “If you have to vaccinate 10 million people,” Fauci said, “there isn’t a chance that you’re going to be able to do that under an investigational new drug, so what the [Bioshield emergency-use] proposal says is that [there can be] something between a full licensure and something that is an investigational drug.” According to Prior, the Bioshield emergency-use authorization could lead to storage of unapproved drugs in the Strategic National Stockpile of emergency countermeasures, potentially resolving a long-standing debate over the legality of including investigational new drugs in the stockpile. FDA rules that govern distribution of drugs should not apply to the stockpile, Prior said, since the stockpile “is only used under specific authorization” and “is not a general distribution system.” “The purpose of the Bioshield legislation is to create an environment in which those products which could become part of the Strategic National Stockpile could be developed and, if necessary, purchased,” Prior said. Glavin said Bioshield’s usefulness is in providing options for “circumstances where doing something is better than doing nothing.” Existing FDA powers such as the conferral of investigational new drug status, she said, would be of limited use in a large-scale emergency. “They really don’t contemplate a mass-casualty situation,” she said, “and they don’t contemplate what Bioshield contemplates, which is an act of terror in which some larger number of individuals could be affected and in which time is of the essence.” A drug authorized in an emergency could carry risks, Glavin said, but the scenario implies that a greater and more immediate danger is already present. An unproven drug could be the only hope in such a situation, she said, “and it might be better to use it than not.” Back to top       Target of FBI Anthrax Searches Loses Job The doctor who had his homes searched by the FBI as part of its investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks has lost his job at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 9). Kenneth Berry will be on leave from the center until his employment as an emergency room doctor ends on Nov. 8, a spokesman for the medical center said. He would not discuss the reason for Berry’s termination. Berry friend Rev. Richard Helms alleged that Berry lost his job because of the FBI searches, AP reported. “They made up all kinds of reasons for it, but you know as well as I do why they let him go,” Helms said (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Aug. 19). Back to top

Chemical Agent Leaks Detected at Aberdeen, Umatilla Chemical agent leaks were detected this week at facilities in Maryland and Oregon, officials said (see GSN, Aug. 13). An alarm sounded at 12:45 p.m. Tuesday at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, indicating a low level of mustard agent vapor inside a sealed storage structure, officials said. No vapor escaped the building, according to a press release. Workers determined that the source of the vapor was the same leaking container that was responsible for a leak on June 23 (see GSN, June 29). The Army plans to seal the container with a specialized device prior to transporting it to the nearby Aberdeen Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, according to officials (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Aug. 18). Workers at the Army’s Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon detected a trace amount of VX nerve agent inside a weapons storage structure yesterday afternoon, officials said in a press release The structure, according to the statement, has a “passive” filter system, which prevents vapor from escaping. However, a powder filter system was installed for additional protection. Workers are expected to take additional readings today, officials added (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Aug. 18). Back to top

Rumsfeld: No Date Set for Missile Defense Deployment By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday there is no firm deadline for deploying components of a national missile defense system this year, responding to a question of whether he had set an Oct. 1 goal. Speaking to the press at an annual missile defense conference in Huntsville, Ala., Rumsfeld said he did not believe there was a sense of urgency within the government to deploy the system, and that no identified threat from North Korea currently motivates putting it on alert (see GSN, Aug. 3). Rumsfeld appeared to acknowledge that the anticipated deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system may have been scheduled for a particular date, as has been reported. He said, though, that such schedules are made to be broken. “Someone has a schedule they put out and they change it. Events occur that causes them to change it,” he said. “But I can’t imagine anyone who is dumb enough to set a firm date,” he said. The Washington Post reported today that Rumsfeld is still developing the rules dictating when and under whose authority the system might be fired in defense and is awaiting a final assessment about its readiness for operations. President George W. Bush in December 2002 signed a directive requiring the military to “proceed with plans to deploy a set of initial missile defense capabilities beginning in 2004.” Bush said in a speech Tuesday that the system, including a missile placed in a silo last month in Alaska, would offer a defense against future threats. “We’re going to do what’s necessary to protect this country,” he said. A Planning Goal Rumsfeld was asked to comment on whether he signed a so-called “warning order” last year, directing the military to prepare for deploying the GMD system on Oct. 1 of this year, as reported by Global Security Newswire in July (see GSN, July 13). Such an order would not set a fixed date for an event, but rather would be “a preliminary notice of an order or action which is to follow,” according to a Defense Department definition. A warning order is further defined as “A planning directive that describes the situation, allocates forces and resources, establishes command relationships, provides other initial planning guidance, and initiates subordinate unit mission planning.” A Democratic congresswoman this year criticized the administration for scheduling the deployment a month before the national elections on Nov. 2. A senior official denied the charge (see GSN, March 26). Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (Mass.) has also said a deployment now would be premature. Army Maj. Gen. John Holly, who directs the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, said in an interview yesterday that the program is focused on making components of the system ready for deployment by Sept. 30 because that is the end of the fiscal year. “That’s when the money to accomplish this has been delivered and appropriated and authorized by the Congress to execute the mission,” he said. Both houses of Congress have preliminarily approved language this year that would authorize administration-requested expenditures for fiscal 2005 beginning Oct. 1 for deployment operations. A spokesperson for Rumsfeld has refused to discuss whether the defense secretary signed a warning order. Spokespeople for various military commands have generally referred all questions on the topic back to the Rumsfeld’s press office. Rumsfeld yesterday said he could not recall giving such an order. “I have no idea, I doubt if I signed something like that,” he said. Frequently Cited Senior officials, however, have on occasion said Oct. 1 was set as the goal, as did Air Force Maj. Gen. William Shelton, director for policy, resources and requirements of the U.S. Strategic Command, in comments yesterday to Global Security Newswire (see GSN, Aug. 18). Shelton said he did not know who set the goal. U.S. Pacific Command Commander Adm. Thomas Fargo testified to Congress in March that Navy forces and hardware “will be ready to support Missile Defense Initial Defensive Operations on or before 1 October.” An Air Force Space Command official last October delivered a slide-show briefing that said that Rumsfeld and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) had chosen Oct. 1 for the deployment or Initial Defensive Operations (IDO). “SECDEF and MDA decided upon 1 Oct 04 as IDO date,” according to the presentation. It said the date set an “ultra aggressive timeline,” presenting issues of “poorly defined roles for and responsibilities of key organizations” and “unfunded requirements.” Developmental Strategy to Deployment Rumsfeld said yesterday the administration’s plans to deploy the system are driven by a desire to use the fielded system for testing and the belief that the technology would “evolve more rapidly” as a result. “I think there are any number of things that benefit from getting it out there,” he said. The planned deployment would also help the U.S. military “get better cooperation from our friends and allies,” he said. Officials have said recently, however, that regardless of any goal, a final decision to deploy would be made only after a determination by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Strategic Command and other commands of the system’s utility and suitability against probable threats. It would be done “pending completion of standard military utility assessments now under way … as would be done for any new weapon system,” according to Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner. The Strategic Command’s Shelton said yesterday “we’ve got a long way to go” before the system is ready for operation. No Current Security Motivation Military officials have said they could face a challenge in keeping the vast and complex system on alert while simultaneously using it for testing. The difficulty involves, at least in part, separating operator involvement in the test from concurrent real life operation of the system so that the system does not mistakenly perceive the country is under attack, according to Holly of the Missile Defense Agency. “What you don’t want to do is accidentally launch a live interceptor because of a test input. That would be rather embarrassing I would say,” he said, adding that a software solution is being developed to allow concurrent operation. Rumsfeld suggested that given today’s likely threats, the system would not need to be always on alert once deployed. “If someone came to me and said the world is roughly like it is today and we’ve got a choice, either we keep the alert capability up or take the alert capability down and go ahead and do some more adjusting and evolving, I would say do the latter,” he said. “Because that’s what’s really important, unless we have a threat warning of some kind,” he said (see GSN, Aug. 18).  While defense against potential North Korea capabilities has been previously citied as the target of deployment by U.S. officials, Rumsfeld suggested the communist nation does not pose any immediate threat. “I don’t feel there is urgency about deploying, [based on] what we know,” he said.     Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.