This is a story of the needle that wasn't found. For some time now, I'm been referring to the Homeland Security war on terror effort as searching for needles in haystacks that haven't yet been built. That's how the whole rigamarole at the airports and screening at the entrances of public buildings, in addition to the electronic home invasions and surveillance, come across when I consider the matter objectively.
But now I'm thinking of the three nations in the "axis of evil" whose possession or yearning for nuclear weapons of mass destruction was the motivation for our search and destroy mission into Iraq; as well as some apparently fruitless negotiations with South Korea and Iran. Because now that we know there were no weapons to find in Iraq, it raises the question of what recourse anyone has when a search and destroy mission not only comes up empty, but was actually undertaken with full knowledge that the search would be fruitless.
It also raises the question of motivation. Why search when you know there's nothing there?
I'm always looking for the thing left out. So, it struck me as peculiar that, despite two of the major presidential candidates being based in Western states with a long-standing interest in uranium mining and processing and the proper disposal of nuclear wastes still waiting to be resolved, all things nuclear received nary a mention either during the primary or the general election campaign. Bill Richardson didn't address the Reliable Replacement Warheads the Los Alamos Laboratory had been hoping to build; nor did the LEU (low-enriched uranium) plant that New Mexico had recently permitted in Eunice, NM come up for discussion. It struck me as a strange ommission, especially since McCain's colleague, Pete Domenici was retiring from the Senate, leaving many things nuclear hanging fire.
Maybe, in the excitement of the moment on November 4, 2008, McCain just forgot that the Supreme Court was considering an appeal from a lower court ruling on the pricing of LEU on behalf of the sole U.S. manufacturer--i.e. monopolist--of the stuff.
USEC Inc. Statement on Oral Arguments Before the U.S. Supreme Court
BETHESDA, Md. - USEC Inc. (NYSE: USU) and the Solicitor General of the United States presented oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court today urging that all imports of low enriched uranium (LEU) should be subject to the U.S. antidumping law regardless of the type of contract under which the uranium is imported. The Supreme Court is expected to render a decision in United States v. Eurodif S.A. and USEC Inc. v. Eurodif S.A. in the first half of 2009.
In their oral arguments, USEC and the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court to reverse the March 2005 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that imports of LEU under SWU (separative work unit) contracts fall outside the scope of the U.S. antidumping law.
....
. The United States Enrichment Corporation, a subsidiary of USEC Inc., runs America’s only operating uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Ky., and does contract work for the U.S. Department of Energy in Piketon.
Clearly a matter that's been brewing for some time and one that the former Secretary of Energy (now to be Secretary of Commerce) might have been keen, had he been asked, to provide some back-ground on. Senator Domenici, it seems had been working on it via an amendment to the U.S. Enrichment Corp. Privatization Act.
USW BACKGROUNDER ON RUSSIAN URANIUM IMPORTS
Immediate Need for Amendment to U.S. Enrichment Corp. Privatization Act
September 2008
Controls on Russian Imports of LEU
Right now, imports of low-enriched uranium (LEU) from the Russian Federation are controlled by two government-to-government agreements.
The Highly-Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement calls upon Russia to down blend 500 metric tons of nuclear warheads into LEU and to sell that through an exclusive U.S. agent, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC).1 It is in effect from 1993 through 2013. These Russian imports now account for about 50 percent of U.S. demand. By the end of 2013, said imports will account for about 40 percent of U.S. demand.
The second agreement is a suspension agreement entered into under our trade laws arising from an antidumping case that the USW brought against Russian imports of LEU in 1991. It places quotas on imports of Russian LEU. That suspension agreement was amended in February of 2008 as a result of the final court decision (described below). The agreement now allows for import quotas of up to 20% of U.S. demand starting in 2014 after the HEU Agreement ends and continuing through 2020. This is intended to provide a transition from the substantial imports under the HEU Agreement while providing time for building of new enrichment plants in the U.S.2
Call me naive, but something seems to be missing here. Where's the free market in this arrangement? And, if I read this right, "Russian Imports" are not the issue. The nuclear fuel is a Russian export, which, presumably U.S. courts aren't entitled to regulated. It's U.S. energy companies that are importing fuel, apparently at a lower price than USEC expects to be able to meet. But, phrasing it like that doesn't make it sound like a Russian threat, does it?
The Loophole Created by a Court Ruling:
In the fall of 2007, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in an antidumping case brought against European uranium enrichers, was made final.3 It created a legal loophole that permits the Russians to export unlimited amounts of LEU to our market. The CAFC found a particular type of enrichment contract – a "SWU contract"4 – to be a sale of a service and not a sale of a good. Because imports of LEU were not deemed goods, they are not legally subject anymore to the antidumping trade law.5 Simply by selling LEU under SWU contracts the Russians can legally evade the 20 percent quota agreed to by the Russian Federation under the suspension agreement.
Russia the Unintended Beneficiary
Russia is the unintended beneficiary of the CAFC decision. The legal loophole leaves Russia free to capture an even larger share of our market because SWU contracts are typical in the industry and usually entered into long-term; thus the threat is immediate and must be addressed immediately.
Well, I don't know about unintended beneficiaries. I thought the whole idea behind getting the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle their nuclear weapons and turn them into fuel was to make us all safer. Besides, it was my understanding that the Russian company, with which, btw, Iran was supposed to agree to do business (purchase its fuel and return the spent rods for reprocessing) is actually a subsidiary of USEC, Inc.
The backgrounder continues:
Russia is well-aware of the loophole and intends to take advantage of it. An amendment to the USEC Privatization Act sponsored by Senator Domenici closes that legal loophole by including LEU sold under SWU contracts in the quota limits. Under the amendment, Russia will have the 20 percent quota it agreed to in the suspension agreement and an additional five percent if it chooses to enter into a new HEU agreement in 2014. It eliminates the unintended windfall resulting from the CAFC decision.
Impact on USW Workers and Domestic Industry if Loophole Not Addressed Now
The USW represents over 1,300 workers at USEC plants in Paducah, KY and at Piketon, OH where USEC intends to build a new state-of-the-art centrifuge enrichment plant. Unrestrained LEU imports from Russia jeopardize these high-skilled, good paying middle-class jobs and threaten the viability of our fragile domestic commercial uranium industry.
Maintaining and increasing our domestic uranium enrichment capacity is critical to our energy security and to reducing our dangerous dependence on Russian LEU.
Other companies prepared to build enrichment plants here like Louisiana Energy Services, and General electric also want Russian LEU sold under SWU contracts covered under a quota as they face the same threat.
How quotas on something the United States doesn't actually produce itself complies with our commitment to free trade, is a bit unclear. However, what I'm getting is that the "rule of law" is being interpreted here as an alternative to the use of force--a variant of the message to Iran that they should purchase their enriched uranium from Russia or expect to be attacked, like Iraq.
And therein, I would venture to guess, lies the answer to the question of why the search and destroy mission was aimed at Iraq even though it was known there was nothing to find. It would send a message to the neighborhood without interfering with the desired trade, which would, of course, be regulated by the law.
But, what's to be done about this manipulation of the law to gain an unfair advantage. That's the question that's hard to answer.
It's become painfully obvious during the last eight years that the apparent guarantees of rights enumerated in the Constitution of the United States are fairly toothless when the agents of government are determined to violate them. That's because, when an unlawful search or seizure is undertaken under color of law, the only practical consequence is that the fruits of the search can't be used as evidence in a prosecution. If there are no fruits, that goes without saying.
And if there is no expectation of finding fruits going in, what then? Shall we just dismiss the violation of human rights and the jeopardy to life and limb as an unfortunate mistake?
What about the intent to put the neighborhood on notice? Shall we dismiss that too? Or is the aftermath of the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia a proper precedent to follow?
What the Confrontation With MOVE Has Cost the City
61 homes, interior/exterior construction, $16,346,368
warranty repairs, architect and miscellaneous costs
Buy-out settlements for homeowners4,950,000
Restoring utilities, demolition391,809
Repairs to nearby homes, legal and consultant3,191,349
fees, MOVE commission, and MOVE children's tutoring
Personal-property replacement, temporary4,265,866
shelter for residents, and professional fees
Settlement of lawsuits for MOVE deceased 5,976,180
Private developer and city Redevelopment 741,192
Authority administrative costs
Construction legal services982,010
City wages5,627,356
TOTAL$42,472,130
Average cost per home$696,264
(Does not include $12,720,000 to cover last month's federal jury award of $530,000 each to 24 homeowners who filed suit against the city.)
Source: City Controller's Office
Evidence of frivolous lawsuits? I had forgotten that the group against which the anti-urban guerrilla action was directed in 1985 went by the name MOVE. Perhaps some people heard an echo in MoveOn.
I guess what I'm asking is whether the storming and occupation of Iraq was motivated by a desire to "protect" America's fragile domestic commercial uranium industry, by securing the USEC monopoly, in the same way that the Philadelphia neighborhood was "protected" by bombing MOVE.