-Caveat Lector- Thursday, 27-May-1999 00:01:24 CDT Laser Incident Sheds Insufficient Light WASHINGTON, DC--Cover-up. Fishy. Suspect. That's how the news media characterized an April 4 incident off the coast of Washington state when a US Navy intelligence officer flying onboard a Canadian helicopter was evidently injured by a laser onboard the Russian trawler Kapitan Man. The confrontation wasn't revealed until The Washington Times reported it on May 14. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns then disclosed that the United States had "protested" the incident "forcefully" to the Russian government. "I would be concerned any time there might be a violation of agreements pertaining to the use of lasers," Secretary of Defense William Cohen said, pledging a renewed investigation. Cohen's order went out because six weeks after the incident the particulars of what happened remain ambiguous. An authoritative source who was involved in examining the helicopter crew reports that the Navy lieutenant received "mild retinal injury" characteristic of laser exposure. The source called the injury "minimal but conclusive." (The crew was examined by a Canadian doctor the day of the incident and then flown to Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX.) Search finds no laser Yet when the Coast Guard conducted a standard search of the ship on April 7 after it anchored in Tacoma, WA, no laser turned up. And according to a US Navy officer intimately involved in the crisis, though there was photographic evidence of a "red spot" on the bridge of the Russian ship, some interpreted it as the port running light rather than a laser. "It happened, because the guy is injured," a State Department lawyer says. "But it's not the Cold War, we have to look at other expla-nations, and because we can't prove anything, it's hard to know what agreements apply." Maybe the Russians threw the laser overboard, sources say, or even transferred it to another Russian ship moored adjacent to it in Tacoma. As part of the protest lodged by Washington, Moscow is being urged to cooperate in an investigation. Background The Soviet use of lasers to thwart American surveillance was a staple of Cold War cat-and-mouse games during the 1980s. The worst illuminations occurred in October 1983 and October 1989, according to a heavily censored report of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The hazardous illuminations led in part to the Agreement on Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities (DMA), concluded in 1989 during a period of unprecedented military-to-military cooperation. One of four dangerous military activities it identifies is "using a laser in such a manner that its radiation could cause harm to personnel . . . " However, the DMA only applies to navies. Similarly, the 1973 Incidents at Sea Agreement, which says that ships "shall not simulate attacks," only applies to the high seas and may not cover ship-against-aircraft incidents. Though Pentagon spokesmen hinted to the media that the 1995 protocol banning the use of lasers to permanently blind was somehow applicable, there is no connection. Only the general seagoing rules of the road and the law-of-the-sea admonition against creating hazards cover both the circumstances and geography. Though Russian trawlers are not known to carry lasers, lasers are finding increasing civilian applications at sea. The April 4 incident, if it indeed involved a laser being shot from a Russian ship, is an example of what falls through the cracks. Recognizing loopholes, the USA is already involved in quiet discussions with the Russian government to strengthen incidents-at-sea restrictions, including discussions regarding lasers. Military lasers, because they signify futuristic capabilities, also tend to be cloaked in secrecy. This fact, and the Cold War history of potentially dangerous laser incidents, ultimately fueled speculation and distrust in the news media. Ultimately, human safety suffers.--William Arkin, Contributing Editor http://www.laserfocus.com/lfw/archive/1997/06/0623news.html Bard Visit me at: The Center for Exposing Corruption in the Federal Government http://www.xld.com/public/center/center.htm Federal Government defined: ....a benefit/subsidy protection racket! DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
