U.S. Response:  Senator Byrd Faults Bush on Homeland Bill

By Brody Mullins and Kirk Victor

CongressDaily

WASHINGTON — In an ominous sign for homeland security legislation, the Senate’s senior Democrat accused President George W. Bush today of undermining the Constitution’s most fundamental doctrines while a senior Republican blasted Democratic delaying tactics and urged Bush to play hardball on the issue.

In a harangue on the Senate floor that ended in a rare round of applause, Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said the Bush administration’s proposal to create the Homeland Security Department guts the system of checks and balances by giving the department’s secretary the authority to spend money and reorganize without congressional advice.

While administration officials have said the proposed department needs managerial flexibility to combat terrorists, Byrd said although al-Qaeda “may not be encumbered by constitutional limitations on its powers … I would scarcely argue that al-Qaeda sets an example for this government to follow.”  Byrd, who is considered to be the fiercest defender of congressional prerogatives, continued, “This administration shows little appreciation for the constitutional doctrines and processes that have preserved those freedoms for more than two centuries.”

Byrd urged the Senate to put the brakes on the legislation in order to fully digest its impact.

“If ever there was a need for the Senate to throw a bucket of cold water on an overheated legislative process that is spinning out of control, it is now,” he said. Other senators also believe Congress is moving too quickly on the legislation, Byrd said.

“We’re all talking about this in the privacy of our offices, behind the closed doors of elevators and in our hideaways … We are rushing ahead to pass legislation, which many of us think is bad policy,” he added.

Byrd also took aim at Bush’s claim that the department would not cost any more money, saying: “That sounds like a neat trick … This massive governmental reorganization is going to be costly.  It is going to require the investment of real money.  It cannot be done with the kind of creative accounting gimmicks you might expect to find at Halliburton Co. and Harken Energy Corp.”

Separately, Senate Banking ranking member Phil Gramm (R-Texas) urged Bush to send a message to Senate Democrats by refusing to compromise on the homeland proposal, particularly on personnel issues.

“I think the Democrats deserve a good blow upside the head on this issue,” Gramm told National Journal in an interview Monday. “They are letting the status quo and the government employee unions dictate their policy, and basically they are denying the president the tools he needs to do the job he has been asked to do.”

Gramm added that the president should stick up for himself. “If I were the president, I would go to war over this homeland security [issue] — I think the Democrats are putting special interests and status quo in front of homeland security — I think it is intolerable,” he said. “I have suggested to more than a few people in the administration that they are not being treated right.”

Back to top

British Response:  Denying Trial to Foreigners Unjustified, Judges Say

A British panel of three judges yesterday ruled in favor of nine Muslim detainees who challenged a British anti-terrorism law passed in December (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2001).

The law allows authorities to detain noncitizens without trial if they are suspected of involvement in international terrorism.  The nine will remain in detention, pending the government’s appeal.

The judges said the threat that terrorists might pose to the country justifies detaining terrorism suspects without trial, but they ruled that the law is unfair because it applies only to people who are not British citizens (Glenn Frankel, Washington Post, July 31).

The judges, led by Justice Collins, said, “The U.K. is a prime target, second only to the United States of America, and the history of events both before and after Sept. 11, 2001, as well as on that fateful day, does show that if one attack were to take place it could well occur without warning and be on such a scale as to threaten the life of the nation.”

Collins added, however, “It is quite clear that there are British citizens who are likely to be as dangerous as non-British citizens and who have been involved with al-Qaeda or organizations linked to it.”

The British Home Secretary is expected to appeal the judges’ decision.  If the appeal fails, authorities would have to give up the anti-terrorism law’s powers or extend them to cover British citizens, according to the London Times.

The United Kingdom opted out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which bans internment, to allow for the anti-terrorism law, according to the Times.  The country did not, however, opt out of Article 14, which prohibits racial or national discrimination, the Times reported (London Times, July 31).

Botched Extradition

Meanwhile, a British court Monday freed Yassir Sirri, an Egyptian man whom the United States has accused of providing funds for imprisoned Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, spiritual leader of the group responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  British authorities said the United States did not provide all the evidence necessary for extraditing Sirri.

U.S. prosecutors were unable to meet last-minute British demands for technical information that is unrelated to the substance of the case, U.S. attorney James Comey said.  The Justice Department plans to correct any technical defects and refile for extradition “as soon as possible,” he said (Frankel, Washington Post).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Coast Guard Chief Says WMD Key Mission

By Bryan Bender

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States Coast Guard plans to play a growing role in preventing illicit delivery of weapons of mass destruction into the United States, its top officer said yesterday.  The force is undertaking specialized training, acquiring detection equipment and introducing tighter screening procedures for vessels headed for U.S. ports, he said (see GSN, Dec. 7, 2001).

With new focus on homeland defense — half of its resources are expected to be dedicated to the mission — the Coast Guard now places the threat of weapons of mass destruction at the top of its list of threat priorities, Adm. Thomas Collins said at a forum sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  The Coast Guard, the nation’s maritime safety and security force, will be moved from the Transportation Department into the proposed homeland security department under current Bush Administration plans (see GSN, July 22).

Security officials consider the maritime domain as highly vulnerable to terrorist activities, including the illicit delivery of chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological materials.  It is also a means of entry for terrorists themselves, while ports make an attractive target because of their economic value.  The United States is placing heavy emphasis on improving its monitoring of its 95,000 miles of shoreline, with a primary objective of identifying what is entering the country.

“Containers are an indispensable but vulnerable link in the chain of global trade; approximately 90 percent of the world’s trade moves by container,” according to the Homeland Security Strategy, published last month.  “Each year, nearly 50 percent of the value of all U.S. imports arrives via 16 million containers.  The U.S. must “establish security criteria to identify high-risk containers; pre-screen containers before they arrive at U.S. ports; and develop and use smart and secure containers.”

An estimated 90 percent of all imports in the United States enter by sea and Collins outlined a series of new initiatives he said the Coast Guard has undertaken or will soon implement to strengthen its ability to prevent catastrophic weapons from being smuggled into the United States or used to disable a major U.S. port of entry.

Collins said the Coast Guard plans to cooperate with the U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Customs Service — both of which are also expected to be folded into the new homeland security department — in “pushing the borders out” so threats can be neutralized “as far from our shores as possible.”

One way it is doing that is through what Collins called “controlled movement of high-interest vessels.”  As part of its homeland security efforts, the Coast Guard has already begun screening all seagoing vessels over 300 gross tons, requiring them to provide crew and passenger lists and at least 96 hours notice before arriving at a U.S. port of entry.  Other measures include more frequent boarding of vessels farther from U.S. shores (see GSN, June 7).

Collins said the Coast Guard is also acquiring a variety of chemical, biological and radiological equipment and personnel highly trained in such areas, including purchasing detection equipment to be used when boarding ships at sea and at port facilities, currently being considered for nationwide security standards and regulations in the Port Security Act now being considered in Congress (see GSN, March 21).

The Coast Guard has already re-trained its three so-called strike teams, located on the east and west coasts of the United States and one responsible for the Gulf of Mexico, so they can shift from environmental protection missions to WMD detection at ports of entry and along U.S. shores.

Another possible change in the Coast Guard WMD preparedness might be changes to the Deepwater Project, a multibillion-dollar investment in ships, aircraft and upgraded communications over the next decade and beyond.   “We may have to do some tweaking in terms of chemical, biological and radiological” capabilities, he said of the Deepwater effort.

The Coast Guard is particularly suited for the WMD mission, according to Collins, because of its dual role as a domestic maritime security force and member of the armed force in times of war.  The WMD problem is one place where both missions intersect, he said.

He added that Coast Guard’s expanded role in intelligence — it is now included in government-wide deliberations — will sharpen its expanded homeland security duties.

“We can add value as an [intelligence] collector,” Collins said.

Still, the Coast Guard will have to defend the homeland, while fulfilling its numerous other responsibilities, Collins said, including national defense, maritime safety, maritime mobility, and protection of natural resources.

Back to top

Iraq:  Senate Hearings Open; Rumsfeld Questions U.N. Inspections

Iraq is continuing to actively pursue development and acquisition of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, a panel of experts testified this morning before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Furthermore, evidence is emerging that Iraq has had extensive contact with al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, one expert said (see GSN, July 29).

Iraqi programs are active and well concealed, said former U.N. Special Commission on Iraq Chairman Richard Butler and former Iraqi nuclear weapons engineer Khidir Hamza.  For example, one Iraqi nuclear weapon design facility is located within a hospital, Hamza said (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001).

Hamza also reported that Iraqi officials met frequently with bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, in the 1990s (Greg Webb, GSN, July 31).

This morning’s testimony opened two days of scheduled hearings to examine the Iraqi threat and possible U.S. responses.  Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and the committee’s leading Republican Senator Richard Lugar (Ind.) said they hope to address several key objectives, including assessing the threat posed by Iraq, exploring a wide range of possible U.S. response policies and forecasting the regional and global effects of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (Biden/Lugar, New York Times, July 31).

With more hearings planned for later this year, the current set will not include witnesses from the Bush administration, committee spokeswoman Lynne Weil said (George Edmonson, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 31).

Military Plans Undecided

Although President George W. Bush has repeatedly reaffirmed the U.S. policy of seeking an end to Hussein’s leadership — and several developing military plans have been leaked to the press recently — he has not yet decided that an invasion is the proper course of action, Biden said (see GSN, July 26).

“I’m convinced the administration has not made up their mind yet,” Biden told the Associated Press.  “Now they may have made up their mind about a regime change, but I’d be very, very, very surprised if the president has made a decision on how to attempt to change that regime” (Associated Press/New York Times, July 31).

Rumsfeld Ruminates

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicated yesterday that Iraq’s WMD capabilities have become increasingly difficult to detect as Baghdad has buried or mobilized many facilities (see GSN, July 30).

“They move around a lot of things to avoid detection or, if not detection, at least to avoid having them attacked,” Rumsfeld said at press briefing.  Asked whether Iraq has developed mobile biological weapons laboratories, he replied, “That’s a reasonable conclusion.”

Rumsfeld questioned the value of restarting U.N. inspections in Iraq.

“It would take such a thoroughly intrusive inspection regime, agreed to and then lived up to by Iraq, that it’s difficult to comprehend — even begin to think that they might accept such a regime,” he said (see GSN, April 16).

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld acknowledged that the United States has not pursued the same policy toward Iraq as it has toward the other countries — Iran and North Korea — that Bush identified within an “axis of evil” (see GSN, Jan. 30).

“The policy of the government of the United States has been to regime change for Iraq.  That’s the Congress and the executive branch both.  It has not been that for some other countries.  And I guess life’s just untidy,” he said (Defense Department release, July 30).

Europe Is Reluctant

Although British Prime Minister Tony Blair has suggested that the United States would not require U.N. approval to initiate military action against Iraq, two of his European counterparts disagreed yesterday (see GSN, July 25).

“I do not want to imagine an attack against Iraq, an attack which — were it to happen — could only be justified if it were decided on by the (U.N.) Security Council,” said French President Jacques Chirac following a meeting in Germany with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (Geir Moulson, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, July 31).

Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said he opposes any U.S. military action — U.N.-approved or not.

“We are trying to deter the United States administration from a military operation,” Ecevit told the newspaper Sabah today.  His comments followed two days of diplomatic activity in Ankara, including two visits to the Foreign Ministry today from the U.S. ambassador to Turkey (Reuters, July 31).

For further information, see:

UNMOVIC

U.N. Resolution 687 (Sanctions Regime)

U.N. Resolution 1409 (“Smart Sanctions”)

Back to top

CTBT:  Top U.S. Science Panel Defends Treaty

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty can be verified effectively and would not harm the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, says a study released today by the National Academy of Sciences.  Although the United States signed the pact in 1996, the Bush administration has said it will not seek to ratify the agreement, largely due to concerns over the issues addressed in the study.

The report, Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, indicates that the “main technical concerns raised about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty when the Senate refused to ratify it in 1999 are all manageable,” an academy press release said today.

Prepared by an 11-member panel of top scientists, arms control experts, and former national laboratory and industry executives, the report addresses purely technical questions and refutes concerns that undermined the treaty when the Senate voted it down in 1999.

The analysis also serves to address Bush administration opposition to the pact.  President George W. Bush said he opposed the treaty during his presidential election campaign, saying it was unverifiable and could undermine U.S. nuclear deterrence.

Today, the Bush administration has no intention of ratifying the treaty and has withdrawn some financial support for the treaty’s verification mechanism.  There have also been reports some Bush administration officials may push for the United States to withdraw its signature.

The study also challenges an assertion in the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review released in January that the United States might need to resume testing at some point in the future to maintain the nuclear stockpile.

“Increasingly, objective judgments about capability in a nontesting environment will become far more difficult,” the Nuclear Posture Review said.  It also called for spending money to shorten the preparation time for resuming testing (see GSN, Jan. 8).

“Remanufacture to original specifications is the preferred remedy for the age-related defects that materialize in the stockpile,” the report said.  It called for enhancing manufacturing and remanufacturing capabilities and improving surveillance for defects.

The administration also has requested funding for the Energy Department to study options for developing a new low-yield nuclear warhead for striking deeply buried and hardened targets (see GSN, Feb. 20).  The United States has adhered to a self-imposed moratorium on testing since 1992, but has conducted at least 17 subcritical tests since then (see GSN, June 10).

The report “concludes that verification capabilities for the treaty are better than generally supposed, U.S. adversaries could not significantly advance their nuclear weapons capabilities through tests below the threshold of detection, and the United States has the technical capabilities to maintain confidence in the safety and reliability of its existing weapons stockpile without periodic tests,” according to the release.

Possible Withdrawal

Recent reports have suggested that some officials are seeking U.S. withdrawal of its signature.  Such a move would amount to a major reversal of U.S. policy regarding the treaty.

During the 1990s, the United States spearheaded efforts to ban nuclear weapons testing through the treaty and President Bill Clinton signed the treaty on the day it was opened for signature in 1996.

The treaty’s signature created the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization in Vienna, which, among other things, has been building an International Monitoring System, a network of several hundred facilities spanning the globe using various technologies to detect possible nuclear explosions. 

The organization provides funds to countries to create seismological, hydroacoustic, infrasound, and radionuclide stations, which when completed transmit data back to Vienna for processing, archiving and distribution to member states. 

The Bush administration has continued to provide funding for these activities, making the overall largest contribution to the organization in 2002, $16.5 million (see GSN, March 19).  The administration has, however, withheld funds for some CTBTO activities, specifically on-site inspections.

Arms control advocates have said they believe that U.S. support for the treaty remains in jeopardy.

“In light of other administration positions with respect to the ABM Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention protocol and so many other issues, we still have a major fight on our hands, not so much that this treaty will be ratified, but whether it will withdraw the U.S. signature from the treaty,” said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control lobbying organization.

“The one positive note is that the Secretary of State [Colin Powell, then the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,] was one of those who endorsed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when it was before the Senate,” Isaacs said.  In his confirmation hearing in early 2001, Powell referred to “flaws” in the treaty, but did not specify them.

In 1999, top U.S. military leaders said they supported ratification of the treaty, viewing the network of capabilities it offered a valuable addition to the U.S. global nuclear test detection system.

“This treaty provides one means of dealing with a very serious security challenge, and that is, as Secretary [of Defense William] Cohen has outlined, nuclear proliferation,” said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Henry Shelton in congressional testimony in February 1999.  “The CTBT will help limit the development of more advanced and destructive weapons and inhibit the ability of more countries to acquire nuclear weapons.”

His predecessor, Gen. John Shalikashvili, then in retirement, published a report of findings and recommendations on the treaty in January 2001, in which he concluded, “It is very much in our national interest to secure (certain) benefits through entry into force of the Test Ban Treaty.  If this opportunity is lost, the United States’ ability to lead an effective global campaign against nuclear proliferation will be severely damaged.”

Supplement to U.S. Capabilities Seen

The National Academy of Sciences report suggests the system could be an important improvement over current U.S. capabilities for monitoring any clandestine Russian testing.

On October 3, 1999, the Washington Post reported, “The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded it cannot monitor low-level tests by Russia precisely enough to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” writing the agency could not distinguish very low-level nuclear explosions from conventional tests or seismic activity.  The story cited a series of Russian tests at the site U.S. officials suspected were conducted to develop new low-yield nuclear warheads.

The CTBT system, combined with some intelligence collection, should allow for detection of nuclear weapons explosions with yields as small as 1 kiloton “with high confidence in all environments,” the NAS report said.  In some locations of interest, such as Russia’s Novaya Zemlya test site, the capability would extend down to very low levels of .01 kilotons or 10 tons, the report said.

Back to top

North Korea:  Powell Meets Pyongyang Counterpart

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun today in Brunei in the highest-level contact between the two countries since then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited North Korea in 2000 (see GSN, July 29).

During the “15-minute informal chat” on the sidelines of a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Powell reaffirmed the Bush administration’s interest in dialogue and its insistence that any talks “emphasize a variety of matters, including proliferation, mutual commitment made under the [1994] Agreed Framework and conventional forces,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

U.S.-North Korean dialogue has been mostly frozen since Bush took office, but Boucher said statements by North Korean officials have prompted the administration to consider a U.S. visit to North Korea.

In addition, South Korea yesterday said it would hold talks with the North this coming weekend in an attempt to restart reconciliation efforts.  The weekend’s talks are intended to set an agenda for new negotiations to begin in mid-August.

Yesterday’s events followed North Korean statements expressing regret last week for a June naval clash with South Korea that killed five of the South’s sailors (see GSN, July 3; Purdum/Kirk, New York Times, July 31).

Powell is scheduled to meet today with South Korean Foreign Minister Choi Sung Hong and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

Meanwhile, the 10 ASEAN members have developed framework agreements to increase intelligence sharing and cooperation to fight terrorism (Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, July 31).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

Anthrax:  Postal Service Works to Reopen Facilities

The anthrax-contaminated Hamilton postal facility near Trenton, N.J., will probably reopen in spring 2003, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Cleanup crews plan to begin fumigating the facility with chlorine dioxide gas in October or November, said Tom Day, U.S. Postal Service vice president of engineering.  Once it is decontaminated, officials plan to renovate the facility and install a system to detect and vacuum toxic substances, he said.  Authorities plan to install such systems in 292 U.S. postal facilities, he added (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, July 30).

Brentwood

In Washington yesterday, workers in protective suits began collecting bacteria-coated test strips from inside a tent in the Brentwood postal facility to determine whether Monday’s fumigation of anthrax-tainted equipment has been successful (see GSN, July 29).

Workers had erected the tent over three machines — including one that processed tainted letters sent to Capitol Hill during last fall’s anthrax attacks — and pumped in five pounds of chlorine dioxide gas.

Analysts plan to examine the test strips over the next several weeks to determine whether the gas successfully decontaminated the facility.  If the strips indicate that all the bacteria have been killed, crews could begin fumigating the entire Brentwood facility a few weeks later.  If some of the bacteria survived, however, another preliminary test would be necessary, said D.C. Health Department Senior Deputy Director Theodore Gordon (Monte Reel, Washington Post, July 31).

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions About Anthrax

FBI Amerithrax Investigation

Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Anthrax

GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)

Back to top

Europe:  Involvement Will Probably Be Minor, Analyst Says

Recently announced missile defense partnerships between European and U.S. contractors will probably trigger only minor activity, Aerospace Daily reported last week (see GSN, July 23).

U.S. contractor Boeing announced July 23 that it has entered into agreements with the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, Alenia Spazio and BAE Systems to cooperate on missile defense development.  European countries, however, do not perceive an immediate need for a missile defense system and are unlikely to devote large amounts of money to it, said Steven Zaloga, senior missile analyst with the Teal Group.

The European companies probably want to develop some technical expertise on missile defense in case European countries decide to pursue missile defense in the future, Zaloga said.

“It’s the classic case of keeping the technology base warm,” he said.

European officials are spending a “tiny” amount for missile defense research and development, Zaloga said.  For example, France plans to buy some Aster surface-to-air missiles to replace the HAWK missiles that most NATO members use.  Additionally, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have considered buying the U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile defense system (see GSN, July 15).

Europe, however, does not consider the missile threat very “ominous,” Zaloga said.  The European perspective might change if Libya were to deploy No Dong medium-range ballistic missiles or if Iran were to develop the Shahab 4 to reach Europe, but both countries are far from being fully capable of striking Europe, he said (see GSN, July 10).

European countries “want to position themselves for the future so that if the situation changes, they do have some missile defense background,” Zaloga said.  “But I think the bottom line is that we’re not going to see the Europeans throw big bucks into missile defense unless the situation changes.”

Even without large European financial contributions, the United States and Boeing could benefit from the involvement of European companies in missile defense, said Larry Dickerson, senior missile analyst with Forecast International/DMS.  One potential benefit would be that the United States might gain a partner country that would agree to host missile defense bases and facilities on its territory.  Business cooperation could also benefit European countries, Dickerson said.

“The Europeans, if they get involved in the U.S. missile defense program, could develop that expertise for their own theater missile defense system,” he said (Nick Jonson, Aerospace Daily, July 25).

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Missile Defense System

PAC 3 Fact Sheet

U.S. Missile Defense 2002 Budget

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  Irradiation Workers Get No Background Checks

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not require criminal or security background checks for technicians with access to irradiation equipment, U.S. Representative Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said in press release yesterday.

“The NRC does not require background checks for personnel with access to these materials or the facilities in which they are stored and has done nothing to permanently upgrade their security,” he said as he released a letter from the commission with the information.

Markey also expressed concern that terrorists might use conventional explosives to blow up a truck carrying irradiation equipment or a facility with such equipment (Markey press release, July 30).

Operators use irradiation equipment to disinfect food and other substances, according to the Boston Globe.  Hospitals, universities and facilities that disinfect food imported from other countries often have irradiators, the Globe reported.  Markey said terrorists might take advantage of the lack of security around industrial irradiation equipment and attempt to obtain radioactive material from the equipment to use in a dirty bomb — a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material (see GSN, July 11).

“The NRC, … when faced with the reality that irradiation facilities are vulnerable to attack, have said essentially ‘please stand by.’  But the terrorists are not going to stand by,” Markey said.

The NRC has “no immediate comment” on Markey’s statements, an NRC spokesman said (Robert Schlesinger, Boston Globe, July 31).

Back to top