UK CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES (CAAB)

Dear friends

We were working on this newsletter when the terrible news of the terrorist attack on America flooded the news. The full extent of the horror is only just being pieced together as we write. By the time this issue reaches you we will know much more about the appalling effects of this devastating attack.

We are horrified at the desperate lengths people are prepared to pursue in order to bring to the world’s attention their particular, and we have to say, often legitimate grievances. The attacks were deliberately focused on the symbols of American power.
Since his ‘election’ George W Bush and the US government have unilaterally pushed through policies which have upset and angered many countries. These include the dismantling by the US of any hope of a peaceful solution in the Middle East; the tearing up of the Kyoto Agreement; the refusal to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the relentless bombing of Iraq with draconian sanctions etc etc……...

America rides roughshod over the world community, intent on its own interests ….. and then there is the crazy and dangerous American Missile Defense/Offense system; in other words ‘full domination of space’ by America

Immediately after the terrorist attack in America Tony Blair announced that Britain would ‘stand shoulder to shoulder with America’. NATO stated that an attack on ONE of its members was an attack on ALL its members. It sounds terrifyingly like a prelude to war.

Because of their vital and strategic roles the vulnerability of Menwith Hill and US bases as a focus for terrorist attack has been highlighted by CAAB for many years.

The events in America chillingly bring home the stark realisation that the US Missile Defense system cannot possibly ‘protect’ America or any other country from determined and fanatical attack. The path of revenge and retaliation is not the way to settle the inequalities and injustices in the world. We urge all countries to seek peaceful ways to resolve conflict and violence by way of international cooperation and dialogue with one another. What is desperately needed now is an imaginative and courageous step by Tony Blair.

Planning Applications:
The latest MHS planning application to date was for 2 temporary portacabins for security purposes i.e. for use by the extra MOD police that are being drafted in from around the UK since the July 3-4 Greenpeace action.

Independence from America Day – 4 July 2001:
We cancelled the annual demonstration after Menwith Hill was declared (about two weeks before) to be within an infected ‘foot and mouth’ area. We hastily organised a CAABalcade of vehicles with a North Yorkshire police escort and drove from Menwith Hill to Whitby via Fylingdales to join the Fylingdales Action Network demonstration. The purpose of the CAABalcade was to link Menwith Hill with Fylingdales in the ‘Star Wars’ system.

We publicly read the Declaration of Independence from America, gave out leaflets about the American Missile Defense plans and helped on an information stall. FAN had made an impressive model of the phased radar structure at Fylingdales which was later processed to the beach and burnt. We also wrote a huge ‘Stop Star Wars’ message in the sand.

It was disappointing that we could not have the annual Independence from America demonstration at Menwith Hill as usual.

(See CAAB report)

Greenpeace demonstration on 3-4 July 2001:
We had met Andy Tait (Greenpeace ‘Star Wars’ worker) and others on several occasions at different locations in the months before. We thoroughly briefed them with information about all aspects of the base including the history, the security, the law, where and when to enter and what to focus on (ie the two Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS) radomes, the water tower and the antennae masts). We were pleased to be able to help.

Menwith Hill was caught ‘napping’ and overwhelmed by about 120 people during this highly successful action which cost Ł30,000. The world’s press picked this up and for a time Menwith Hill was headline news.

We had been assured by the local and Ministry of Defence police (MDP) that we would be able to read the Declaration of Independence From American Militarism (as we have done for several years) just inside the base. When we arrived however we were met with solid wall of MDP and informed that we would not be permitted to enter the base due to the Greenpeace action. We read the Declaration at the Main entrance to the base in front of the media instead.

We drove past Fylingdales where extra MDP had been brought in and a helicopter hovered overhead. Many of the workers at Fylingdales had climbed on to the top of the phased array structure to view the CAABalcade as we passed – hooting loudly!

We have since met Andy Tait to discuss some of the concerns arising out of the Greenpeace action in the sincere hope that similar problems might be avoided for other groups in future. In the end the combination of both actions was very effective and once again raised the issue of the crucial role of Menwith Hill in George W Bush’s dangerous American Missile Defense system.

Security matters:
On 5 July after the Greenpeace action Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence) visited Menwith Hill to review MPD security at the base. As a result MDP officers have been ‘bussed’ in from all over the UK for short term duties of 12 hour shifts. The extra MDP on duty at Menwith Hill are staying at the Crown Hotel in Harrogate. We have asked Norman Baker MP to ask PQs about who is paying for the extra policing, accommodation and travel expenses [is this paid for by the US or the taxpayer?].

Since the terrorist attack on America security at all US bases has been stepped up to one level below a ‘war footing’ (according to the news).

Tuesday evening (7-9 pm ) protests against ‘Star Wars’:
CAAB and friends have been at the Main entrance at MHS every Tuesday evening. The US flag is always used now with the exception of 13 August when, in the early hours a young man was driven over by a Ministry of Defence police patrol on the B6451 near Menwith Hill. An inquest was opened and adjourned.

… When we arrived on 12 July for the protest we noticed that a ‘yellow line’ had been painted on the road across the Main entrance. We understand that this was an attempt to define the boundary of the base. This area has been the subject of much conflict and disputes (re the boundary between the highway and the land belonging to the Secretary of State for Defence).

Anni was arrested and charged under the byelaws for having two wheels of her wheelchair over the 'yellow line'. Lindis was reported to the High Court for an alleged breach of her permanent injunction for having the width of her two feet over the 'line'. Lindis later received a letter from the Treasury Solicitor that 'on this occasion no further action would be taken'. The CPS once again dropped the byelaws charge against Anni saying that it was 'not in the public interest' to pursue.

…On 28 August Lindis was reported twice for an alleged breach of her permanent injunction although no-one was reported for any byelaws offence in the same area. About 16 new byelaws signs had been suddenly put up around the base.

Several of these have now been removed and are being kept safely until the MDP and the Crown Prosecution Service uphold the integrity of the law. They will then be returned to the Secretary of State for Defence (as have many others in the past).

…There have been many spurious arrests under the byelaws over the years in this area - sometimes a matter of inches over an 'imaginary' line. CAAB does not recognise this line. In 1995 Lindis went to the High Court to seek a ruling over the extent of her permanent injunction asking the Judges to define 'blade by blade of grass' the boundary and was informed by the Judges that it was not possible to draw a legal line on the ground.

The 'policing' of the 'yellow line' continues to be inconsistent from week to week.

…On 4 September as a mark of respect, we decided to immediately postpone the demonstration after being informed by the MDP that an American from the base had been killed a few hours before in a road traffic accident on the A59.

…We gave much thought as to whether we would continue the demonstration on the night of the terrorist attack on America. We came to the conclusion that we would continue but decided not to use the US flags with STOP 'STAR WARS' written on them. We wore black arms and stood quietly at the Main entrance holding one banner which read 'ALL OUR SECURITY IS PUT AT RISK'. The night after we placed some flowers at the Main gate and handed in a card addressed to all the American people.

14 July 2001:
CAAB and friends were at the Main entrance at MHS to protest against the fourth US interceptor missile test. As usual US flags with 'STOP STAR WARS' written on were used (see CAAB newsletter 17 re the case of the US flag at Menwith Hill and the American Deep and Near Space Tracking Facility at Feltwell). We gave letters to the MDP urging them to defect (copy reproduced below) with a short briefing on 'Star Wars'.

To all Ministry of Defence police officers

The US Air Force Space Command states that the Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS) is their 'number one mission priority'. 'SBIRS will replace the aging Defense Support Program System constellation and provide missile warning, missile defense, battlespace characterisation, and technical intelligence. SBIRS will be able to give theater missile warning to a specific area rather than an entire geographic region…..SBIRS will play a key role in target acquisition and cueing [in the American Missile Defense programme]………'
As some of you know NSA Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are crucial to the American Missile Defense (Star Wars') system. At Menwith Hill two Space Based Infra Red System radomes have been built and the base is to become the European Relay Ground Station for the AMD system. George W Bush and the US government have stated that this system will be deployed.
To become a legitimate Ministry of Defence police officer you should have attested under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. Your duty clearly states that you must 'uphold the law and protect life and property and to keep the Queen's peace' (we paraphrase the attestation). By working and protecting the functions and activities of NSA Menwith Hill you are violating those duties and undermining the trust and integrity that has been bestowed upon you.
We urge you to question and challenge with your senior officer the impossible task that you are being asked to pursue.
We ask you to explore your justification of continuing to work for the Ministry of Defence police. Your presence at NSA Menwith Hill and Fylingdales cannot be justified if you are to openly and honestly carry out the duties which you attested to do.
Above all we ask that you examine your conscience in continuing to work for the Ministry of Defence police. AMD affects us all and by attempting to protect the role and function of NSA Menwith Hill you are in breach of your duty 'to uphold the law and protect life and property'. We need your help not hindrance and collusion in the growing campaign to STOP 'STAR WARS'.

SBIRS Low contract to double:
LOGAN, Utah - The Pentagon intends to nearly double the value of the $275 million study contracts it awarded two years ago to TRW and Spectrum Astro for early work on a proposed constellation of missile tracking satellites, according to industry sources.

Under the Pentagon proposal, TRW Space & Electronics Group, Redondo Beach, Calif. And Spectrum Astro Inc., Gilbert, Ariz., each would receive a nine-month extension of their work on the Space Based Infrared System Low (SBIRS Low).

The value of the extension to each company will be $230 million. That would bring the Pentagon's total expenditure on the early development phase of the program to slightly more than $1 billion.

As currently envisioned, SBIRS Low would be a constellation of 24 satellites in low Earth orbits capable of tracking missiles in mid-flight after their rocket motors have burned out.

Sources said the purpose of the extension is to reduce the program's technical risk by giving each of the competing contractors additional time and money to build engineering test models of the infrared sensors they are proposing. That testing will be conducted on the ground.

The extension will delay the selection of a winning prime contractor by nine months, but the industry sources said the new work is not expected to delay deployment of the system, which is scheduled to begin in the 3rd quarter of 2006 and end five years later. The original study contracts were awarded in August 1999 and were set to expire in October.

The extensions as currently proposed would cost the Pentagon a total of $460 million with $60 million of that amount paid to the contractors in the 2002 budget cycle with the remainder coming out of the 2003 budget.

[Since the events in America on 10 September the Democrats have voted for the increase in the Missile Defense/Offence budget asked for by Donald Rumsfeld - US Secretary of State.]

Latest on ECHELON:
STRASBOURG, Sept 5 (AFP) - Virtually no satellite-bounce communication ie e-mail, phone or fax is immune to the US-run Echelon global spying network, the European Parliament was told Wednesday after a year-long probe.

The good news, according German MEP Gerhard Schmid, rapporteur of the enquiry report, is that "the extremely high volume of traffic makes exhaustive, detailed monitoring of all communications impossible in practice".

Parliament accepted the 138-page report and its resolution of 44 recommendations by a vote of 367 to 159, with 34 abstentions.

The globe-girding Echelon system involving the US, Canada, Britain,Australia and New Zealand - a quasi alliance dating to World War II sucks up airborne data "much like a vacuum cleaner," Schmid told parliament in presenting the report.

"Then it uses search engines that filter for key words relevant to intelligence services" he said. "We're not asserting this. We've got evidence, a link of indices which would stand up in court under oath.

"We can assure you," he said, "that if there was anything really wrong (with the report) the intelligence services in the (Echelon) countries would have enjoyed pointing that out. But they haven't. And that speaks for itself".

But he said most industrialized nations, including many in the EU itself, have comparable, if inferior spying systems and that it is basically a case
of spy-versus-spy.

"Let's be honest," said Schmid. "The intelligence services in most of the EU member states use strategic telecommunications control...The purpose is usually relevant: fighting organized crime, terrorism, trafficking in drugs, human beings. That's fair enough".

And he said Echelon, with some asides for commercial spying, appears to be doing essentially the same.

The US justifies electronic spying to gain contract procurement advantage for its firms "on the grounds of combatting attempted bribery" by the
European firms, he said.

Working largely unnoticed for some six months, the Echelon committee got sudden attention last March after a European Commission official told it that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had tested the encryption System that Brussels uses to communicate with its foreign missions.

The EU's executive branch said afterwards that the 10-year-old system's supplier - the German engineering group Siemens - had claimed in its sales pitch that the NSA had tried but failed to crack its codes.

Last May, the EU sent a delegation to Washington to meet with the state and commerce departments, the CIA, and NSA, but those meetings were abruptly cancelled by the US side.

Schmid said other meetings would probably be held this fall - in Europe - in an effort to coordinate electronic surveillance and set ground rules, but provided no details.

The Echelon report called on EU states "to negotiate with the USA a code of conduct similar to that of the EU" concerning data security.

It called on EU institutions and public bodies of member states "to systematically encrypt" sensitive communications "so that encryption becomes the norm."

And it urged the European Commission, the EU's executive, to ensure its own data is protected and to update its encryption systems, and recommended member states do likewise.

The report had little to say about Britain, which as an Echelon partner harbors satellite listening stations on its soil.

But German MEP Christian von Boetticher, who headed the investigating committee, told parliament, "Our British friends, because of their EU membership, are asked to put an end to American espionage activities and control the ones carried out on their land.

"Otherwise," he said, "they are contravening European legislation."

Schmid earlier said that not a single European company had come forward during the investigation to complain about being spied upon by the
Americans.

"One explanation for this is that companies, when they find they are being spied upon by the competition, don't want to talk about it. It's a question of prestige of … embarrassment."

"Imagine," von Boetticher told parliament, "that you are a policeman investigating a crime. There are five victims, and five suspects, but nobody will say anything and nobody knows exactly what happened.

"This was our situation when we began our enquiry. One year later we have ascertained that the weapon was not a bomb but high precision technology.
And there was only one perpetrator. The victims gave us evidence, but were not willing to testify. And that's not enough for a court sentence."

Council for National Parks
Council for National Parks: As part of their efforts to raise the profile of the Fylingdales/NMD issue from a National Park perspective CNP have written to Stephen Byers MP (Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) and sent him a copy of a legal opinion that they have obtained. Although CNP is taking a non-political stand and objecting only to the idea of siting NMD inside a National Park we feel that both their letter and the legal opinion should be more widely read and we reproduce both below:

20 July 2001
Rt Hon Stephen Byers MP
Secretary of State, Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions, Eland House Bressenden Place,London SW1E 5DU
Dear Secretary of State

US Missile Defence System and the North York Moors National Park

The Council for National Parks is concerned that the integrity of the North York Moors National Park is threatened by the potential redevelopment of RAF Fylingdales as part of the US Missile Defence system. The British Government is urged to take full account of the location of any proposed infrastructure relating to the Missile Defence system and give due weight to the protection of the special qualities of the North York Moors National Park. To this end we have obtained a legal opinion on the procedure which should be followed to ensure proper account is taken of the potential impacts of the development. A copy of that opinion is enclosed.

The Council for National Parks (CNP) is the national charity that works to protect and enhance the National Parks of England and Wales, and areas that merit National Park status, and promote understanding and quiet enjoyment of them for the benefit of all.

It is understood that the US Missile Defence system is likely to involve the construction of an X-band radar alongside the existing radar at RAF Fylingdales. If this radar was to be the same as the prototype already constructed in Hawaii it would be at least 14 storeys high. CNP urges the Government fully to consider, in the event of agreeing to the deployment of the US Missile Defence system in the UK, whether there are less damaging locations where the existing radar station and new equipment could be put. This would be in the spirit of the existing legislation and guidance that protects the National Park.

In any event CNP seeks reassurance that any proposed redevelopment of Fylingdales is considered in an open way with rigorous public examination, including full consideration of National Park purposes as outlined in the enclosed Opinion.

Yours sincerely

Angus Lunn
Chairman
cc Lord Falconer, DTLR
Sally Keeble MP, DTLR
Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, DEFRA
Enc. Legal Opinion

IN THE MATTER OF FYLINGDALES

OPINION

You have asked me to advise on the "planning" procedures which would need to be followed in relation to proposals to build new radar installations at Fylingdales in the North York Moors National Park.

I assume that the development would take place under the auspices of a government department. The ordinary requirements of the 1990 Act (i.e. for planning permission) do not bind the crown: see, for example, MAFF -v- Jenkins [1963] 2 QB 317.

The requirements of Circular 18/84 and Paragraph 56 of Circular 12/96

Circular 18/84 describes (in its part 4) the arrangements by which Government Departments consult local planning authorities about their developments. It establishes the Notice of Proposed Development (NoPD) regime and makes it clear (para 25) that the precise procedures will depend on the circumstances of the case (some will be dealt with by written representations, others through a non-statutory public inquiry). Those arrangements have been promoted by the Secretary of State for the Environment as providing, and (subject to any new arguments under the Human Rights Act 1998, below) accepted by the Court as providing, the same protections to objectors as does the statutory planning system: Hillingdon -v- SSE 30th July 1999 (unreported).

Given that the development would be in a National Park the provisions of paragraph 56 of Circular 12/96 would also be in play. That paragraph states that:

"… the Government … is … committed to ensuring that new, renewed or intensified use of land in the National Parks for defence purposes should be subject to formal consultation with the National Park Authorities and the Countryside Commission and to an environmental impact assessment, and should be tested against any provisions set out in planning policy guidance."

That in effect makes clear that the NoPD process applies to new, renewed or intensified military use of National Parks. It would apply here. It embraces three elements:
a. consultation
b. environmental impact assessment
c. application of PPGs

As to b, the language of the circular does not directly tie the "environmental impact assessment" in question to the formal requirements of an ES under the EIA Directive or the domestic implementing regulations.

However (in relation to a, b and c), the statement in the circular is expressly a commitment on the part of government to behave in a particular way (either in process terms or in terms of the tests to be applied in deciding whether to proceed).

Its effect, in combination with Circular 18/84, has been demonstrated recently in relation to the proposals to build infrastructure for MLRS and AS90 training in the Northumberland National Park. In that case, the MOD produced an ES which complied with (or at least purported to comply with) the formal requirements of the statutory EIA regime. Moreover, the MOD proceeded on the basis that the policy tests under, for example, PPG 7 would be in play.

In my opinion, the Circulars and their operation in practice give rise to a "legitimate expectation" that (1) an ES which complied with the requirements of the formal EIA regime would be produced, (2) that the policies of (say) PPG 7 would be applied, and (3) at least the written representations, and probably public inquiry, process would apply.

In my opinion, a failure on the part of the Secretary of State to follow that approach in relation to the proposals at Fylingdales would be an unlawful failure to give effect to that legitimate expectation (see, thus: R -v- North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2000] 3 All ER 850). In my opinion, such a failure could be challenged by way of a judicial review which would have a good prospect of success.

The EIA Directive

In any event, in my opinion, the formal requirements of the EIA Directive would appear to apply directly to this case (i.e. regardless of the effect of the Circulars, above). In particular, the Directive applies to all projects unless they are specifically excluded from its terms. The only potentially relevant exception is that in Article 1(4) of the Directive:

"Projects serving national defence purposes are not covered by this Directive"

If the Article 1(4) exclusion does not apply, then an EIA would be needed. The fact that the domestic regime (1990 Act and EIA regs) would not require an EIA is irrelevant because the EIA Directive is "directly effective": see Aannemersbedrijf P.K. Kraaijeveld BV -v- Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland [1996] E.C.R. I-5403, E.C.J. ("the Dutch dykes case"). In other words, its obligations bite independently of the domestic regime. See thus, for example, R -v- North Yorkshire ex parte Brown [1999] 2 WLR 452 in which the requirement for an ES under the EIA Directive was held to apply to the application of conditions on IDO mineral consents (even though not required by the applicable domestic rules).

The question then is whether this project serves national defence purposes. My understanding is that the project involves the construction of radar installations by the US which would then be run by the US and form part of the early warning elements of a missile defence system which protects the US but not the UK. As such, although the project clearly serves a "defence interest", it is not a "national defence interest". Clearly, it would be for the applicable Secretary of State (who was considering permitting the project) to justify reliance on the Article 1(4) exclusion by demonstrating that the defence interest served is a "national" (i.e. UK) interest.

On the information presently available to me, in my opinion, a judicial review challenge to a failure to comply with the requirements of the EIA Directive (through the production of a compliant ES) would have a reasonable prospect of success.

There is also a high chance that, in such a judicial review, I consider that the court would feel itself unable to resolve the question of whether the Directive applied with "complete confidence"; accordingly, per R -v- International Stock Exchange ex parte Else [1993] QB 534 at 545, the "appropriate course" would be to refer that question to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg for consideration. Indeed I note that, in WWF -v- Bozen [1999] ECR I-5613, the similar question of whether Article 1(4) excluded from the Directive a project to develop an airport which had joint military and civilian use. The effect would be a delay of several years while the ECJ considered the matter.

The Human Rights Act

Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires public authorities, including therefore the Secretary (Secretaries) of State involved in this matter to act compatibly with "Convention rights".

The Convention right potentially in play here is Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which, so far as is relevant, states:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. …" [underlining added]

The first question is whether a decision to allow the US to proceed with the project would determine civil rights. Clearly, it would not determine CNP's civil rights. However, there is a strong case for saying that it would determine the civil rights of neighbours given that (as I understand the position) the project would be likely to have environmental and property price impacts: Ortenberg -v- Austria (1994) 19 EHRR 524.

Such neighbours could thus rely on section 6(1) of the 1998 Act to say that the Secretary of State would act unlawfully if he did not provide an Article 6 compliant procedure for deciding whether or not to permit the project.

The House of Lords has recently considered the implications of Article 6 ECHR for "call in" applications and appeals in the planning (and other land development) regimes in Alconbury [2001] UKHL 23,9th May 2001. The House of Lords held that the Secretary of State was entitled to determine such matters; indeed, that it was appropriate for matters of policy and planning judgment embraced within such cases to be determined by the Secretary of State. However, critically for present purposes, in each of those cases, a public inquiry had been held, or would be held, under the auspices of a planning inspector who would determine factual disputes and made recommendations on policy and discretion matters. Whether or not that inspector would be sufficiently "independent" in dealing with issues arising from government policy, he or she would be, so the House of Lords held, sufficiently independent for dealing with factual contentions. See thus, Lord Hoffman at paras 108-110, 122 and 128; also Lord Clyde at para 157; also Lord Hutton at para 189. The effect of this for the present case is clear: the Secretary of State could decide to permit the development of Fylingdales, as contemplated. However, he could not do so unless factual disputes (which are inevitable) had first been considered and determined by an inspector following a public inquiry. That process of inquiry and inspector must thus now be seen as a legal prerequisite to a lawful determination by the Secretary of State, particularly where (as here) the applicant for development is another government minister/department, or the land is owned by such a person/department.

Thus, in my opinion, there are strong arguments for saying that the Fylingdales project must, at the very least, be subject to the NoPD and the subsequent process (written reps or a public inquiry). In my opinion, on the present state of the law, a judicial review challenge made by a neighbour materially affected (as above) in relation to the Secretary of State's failure to subject the project to at least those processes would have a good prospect of success.

Overall

Overall, in my opinion, for the reasons above it would be unlawful for the proposals at Fylingdales to go ahead:
a. without being the subject of an ES within the formal terms of the EIA directive; or
b. without being assessed by reference to the relevant parts of PPGs including, in particular, PPG 7; or
c. without a public inquiry being held under the auspices of an inspector who would determine factual disputes.

David Wolfe
MATRIX

Friday 20 July 2001

Appeal against conviction:
Lindis is due to appear at York Crown Court on 3-5 October for the Appeal against her conviction of alleged 'assault' on Sgt. Barry Frost during a peaceful action at Fylingdales [see CAAB 17 for details of the original trial]. We will again be challenging the legality of this officer.

Lindis would very much welcome support from Ffriends in court.

…On 16 July Lindis passed MDP security and walked up the Main approach road to Main gate (mindful of 'foot and mouth' infected area). MDP presence has also increased at Fylingdales since the Greenpeace action at MHS and since the fateful events in America.

…18/19 October: Lindis on trial at Pickering Magistrates' Court concerning an alleged 'obstruction of a police officer in the execution of his duty' at Fylingdales last year.

…1 September: The regular Quaker Meeting for Worship was held at the entrance to the approach road.

A small demonstration organised by local people was held at the same day and time.

New RAF Liason Officer:
A local man Squadron Leader Mike Turner, has recently arrived as the 48th Fighter Wing 'RAFLO'. He comes from Bury St Edmunds, has been in the RAF for 17 years and previously served at RAF Marham in Norfolk with GR4 Tornadoes.

Threat Con Delta:
A friend who lives very near the base emailed on 12 September to say that USAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall had raised their security to level D (Threat Con Delta) which according to the news is one level below a 'war footing'. During the afternoon a 3 mile exclusion zone was created and some of the roads near the bases were closed. Our friend said 'it is eerily quiet here today with no flights and hardly any road traffic' because of the tighter security.

[As we said in the Editorial much of this information will be superceded by the time this is read].

Case stated:
It is likely that the appeal by way of 'case stated' re the use in protest of the US flag will be heard in the High Court at the end of November. [See CAAB 17].

Roof-top protest against Star Wars:
CAAB staged a peaceful roof-top demonstration for nearly 4 hours holding the US flag with STOP STAR WARS on at the American base at JAC Molesworth. The demonstration was to witness and protest at the possible involvement of this base with the American Missile Defense programme.

Lindis was threatened with arrest under section 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act if she did not come down from the roof. After careful negotiations with the Ministry of Defence police Lindis decided to come off the roof of a building. She was not arrested. She was however again warned under s 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act by the Ministry of Defence police. The fire crew on base had been called and were on standby. However their services were not required.

USAF Fairford is undergoing a major redevelopment costing $1000 million. "It's good to be talking to airplanes again," said Master Sgt. Chris Ausdenmoore, an air traffic controller with the 424th Air Base Squadron.

About 200 airmen work at the base and their mission is to maintain it in the event of a large mission such as Operation Allied Force the air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. The renovations are three-fold, with the runway project which also includes new lighting, drainage and a taxiway as the first phase. The refurbished runway will be able to take B-52s and B-1 bombers.

The improvements needed were identified in the late 1980s but work was delayed after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. NATO will fund 96 percent of the work. Operation Allied Force probably helped revive the project because it spotlighted the need for improvements at a base NATO has designated a "principal deployment operating base" .

Subsequent construction will include fuel storage tanks, taxiways and aircraft hardstands. The entire project,which began May 29,2000 is scheduled to be complete next April.

The U.S. provided $4 million. It is NATO's largest post-Cold War construction project and will include enough pavement to build more than seven miles of a six-lane highway.

When finished, the base will be able to handle any aircraft in NATO's inventory, said Lt. Col. Martin Lewis, U.S. Air Forces Europe regional civil engineer. When the work is completed the base will be able to hold 30 heavy bombers. Personnel will still maintain the base and train for a contingency. There will continue to be one major exercise each year.

The massive project which has so far included more than 30,000 deliveries by heavy trucks with 15,000 more planned also created worries about small things. The great crested newt, a protected species of lizard in England had established a colony in a water storage facility on base. They were successfully moved to a new pond. Archaeolgists are investigating two skeletons believed to be of Roman origin which were uncovered during the re construction of the base.

CAAB was present at USAF Alconbury on 20 August 2001 to protest against the American Missile Defense plans. We again used the US flag with the words STOP STAR WARS on. Anni went someway into the base and held up the flag for about three quarters of an hour. After declining to leave a Ministry of Defence police officer eventually warned Anni under section 69 (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act) that if she returned within three months she would be arrested.

Lindis has a permanent injunction at the base (one of five) and protested at the entrance of USAF Alconbury with the US flag with 'STOP STAR WARS' in large letters.

Protest at USAF Croughton, Northants - 28 August 2001 In protest at the proposed American Missile Defense system Lindis took down the official US flag that was flying at USAF Croughton. She informed the American security 'police' of her action and wrote a note to the new Base Commander (who arrived on Monday) - Lieutenant Colonel Dickinson.

However the two US security 'police' would not receive the note. She has since written to the Base Commander informing him of her actions and intentions. Lindis took the flag down openly and honestly and has no intention to permanently deprive the owner (the Keeper of the US flag is the US Ambassador) of his property. She continues to ask for an appointment with the US Ambassador so that she can return the flag taken down at USAF Barford St John last year and now this flag from USAF Croughton. She wished to return the flag in person to the US Ambassador with a letter of protest concerning George W Bush's crazy AMD plans.

Later Lindis was followed by an American man in a black 'people carrier' from the base down the M40 for someway and was eventually prevented by him from leaving a service station area. The man informed Lindis that the flag was his 'personal property' and that he wanted to give it to a friend. This alarming situation was resolved when another driver insisted that the American move and stop obstructing the free movement of himself and Lindis.

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) US and (b) UK (i) military and (ii) civilian personnel are deployed at RAF Menwith Hill. [4176]

A: Mr. Ingram: As at 13 June 2001, at RAF Menwith Hill there were 459 US military, 1,012 US civilian, five UK military and 404 UK civilian personnel (excluding GCHQ staff). I am withholding the numbers of GCHQ staff under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [16.07.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Space Based Infra- Red System radomes to come on line at RAF Menwith Hill. [4175]

A: Mr Ingram: At present there is no firm date for when the European Relay Ground Station for the Space Based Infra-Red System located at RAF Menwith Hill will come on line. [16.07.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the legal status is of the United States personnel stationed at RAF Menwith Hill. [4180]

A: Mr. Ingram: The US personnel stationed at RAF Menwith Hill are there at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, and are members (or dependants of members) of a visiting force or the civilian component of a visiting force to which Part 1 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 applies. [16.07.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason US Menwith Hill was renamed RAF Menwith Hill. [4173]

A: Mr. Ingram: The base was renamed RAF Menwith Hill in February 1996 bringing it into line with other sites made available to United States visiting forces in the UK. [16.07.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date a Minister from his Department last visited (a) RAF Menwith Hill and (b) RAF Fylingdales. [4174]

A: Mr. Ingram: RAF Menwith Hill was visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 July 2001. RAF Fylingdales has not been the subject of a ministerial visit since 1 May 1997. [16.07.2001]

We asked Norman Baker a list of other Parliamentary Questions just before Parliament recessed for the summer and await the answers.

Thank you to everyone who generously sent contributions which have enabled us to buy and install a new computer. We also thank everyone who has sent donations and banker's orders. We could not do this work without this help.

NSA Menwith Hill

Saturday 6 October 2001 and Saturday 1 December 2001 from 2pm-3pm
outside Main Entrance NSA Menwith Hill

‘RAF’ Fylingdales

Saturday 3 November 2001 from 12pm-1pm
outside the Approach Road Entrance at Fylingdales Nr Pickering North Yorkshire Moors.

Contact numbers for both Meetings:
Anni: 01943-466405 or
Lindis: 01482-702033