US govt publishes confidential report

In a major goof-up the US government has mistakenly made public a "highly confidential," report, which gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation's civilian nuclear sites and programmes, media reports said today.

The publication of the 266-page document, said The New York Times, was revealed Monday in an official online newsletter. It has triggered off a debate among nuclear experts about danger posed by the disclosures. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public, the Times said.

After enquiry from the paper the document was withdrawn from the website, yesterday. "These screw-ups happen," said John M Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defence. "It's going further than I would have gone but doesn't look like a serious breach, he said.

But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group tracking nuclear proliferation, said that the information "can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out."

The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the IAEA as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise, the Times said.

President Obama sent the document to Congress on May 5 for review and possible revision, and the Government Printing Office subsequently posted the draft declaration on its website. On its cover, the document attributes its publication to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

But Lynne Weil, the committee spokeswoman told the Times the committee had "neither published it nor had control over its publication." Gary Somerset, a spokesman for the printing office, said it had "produced" the document "under normal operating procedures" but had now removed it from its website pending further review, the paper reported.