By George Bryson / Anchorage Daily News

The Army should be ordered to grant conscientious objector status to Michael Barnes, a Fort Richardson-based paratrooper who had that request denied by the Army last year, U.S. Magistrate John D. Roberts ruled today. In a 26-page decision, Roberts concluded that the government failed to show any "basis in fact" for denying Barnes' request to be honorably discharged due to his religious beliefs. The government has four days to respond to the decision.

A native of Portland, Ore., Barnes, 26, enlisted in the Army in February 2005 and served in Iraq in 2006 and 2007 with the 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

Fort Mill Times

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A Fort Richardson soldier is seeking an appeal in federal court of the Army's decision denying him conscientious objector status.

Pfc. Michael Barnes is a paratrooper who served as a radio operator in the 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team. His is the first case of its kind in Alaska since the war in Iraq began.

Federal Magistrate John D. Roberts is expected this week to decide whether to allow the case to proceed to a civilian hearing.

Barnes, 26, didn't testify Monday during the hourlong hearing while sitting alongside Anchorage attorney Sam Fortier. In paperwork filed with the court, he declared that his Christian faith, which became clear as he watched events in Iraq unfold, now prohibits him from waging war.

"Spending my time on this earth killing or supporting killing others is unacceptable to me," Barnes wrote. "Serving Jesus is doing the opposite of participating in war. It is loving your enemy, avoiding conflict, being humble and living peacefully. I am unable to serve the Lord and support war."

Barnes was baptized at New Hope Community Church in Portland, Ore., in 2001.

The Army not only denied Barnes' request for conscientious objector status but also rejected his petition to be honorably discharged. The Army Conscientious Objector Review Board in Alexandria, Va., in September found Barnes failed to make a convincing case.

"I do not believe that Pfc. Barnes ... is sincerely opposed to participating in war, in any form, due to his religious faith," wrote the staff judge advocate in recommending the request be denied.

Army officials found that Barnes' request was at odds with him saying previously he wanted to serve in Iraq. They also noted that the request came three months after his deployment to Iraq. And they said officers in his chain of command were never made aware of his objections to the war until he was reassigned in December 2006 to serve as a gunner.

"Persons around him were surprised by his decision to become a conscientious objector," said Maj. Josh Toman.

But Barnes' lead attorney, Steven Collier, addressing the court by telephone from San Francisco, noted that his client did in fact share his misgivings with fellow soldiers as well as an Army doctor, who treated him for clinical depression, and an Army chaplain, who testified on his behalf.

"Three people testified that his Christian religious faith was growing at that time," Collier said.

Watching the proceedings in the courtroom were a half dozen representatives of the Alaskans for Peace and Justice organization as well as the soldier's wife, Pearl Barnes, and the couple's two children, Noah, 4, and Kylee, 1.

If the request for a full hearing in a civilian courtroom is upheld, the case will go before U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick in Anchorage federal court. A final decision is expected by June.

By Matti Friedman / Associated Press

JERUSALEM - One of the most important Dead Sea scrolls is going on display in Jerusalem this week -- more than four decades after it was last seen by the public. The 24-foot scroll with the text of the Bible's Book of Isaiah had been in a dark, temperature-controlled room at the Israel Museum since 1967. It went on display two years earlier, but curators replaced it with a facsimile after noticing new cracks in the calfskin parchment.

The museum decided to put the scroll back on show for three months as part of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations.

The priceless manuscript, written by a Judean scribe around 120 B.C., was in a long glass case Tuesday, its neat rows of Hebrew letters distinct and legible. President Bush, visiting Israel this week for the anniversary celebration, will be one of the first to view it.

The Isaiah manuscript was the only complete biblical book discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, one of the great archaeological finds of the 20th century. The ancient documents, which include fragments of the books of the Old Testament and treatises on communal living and apocalyptic war, have shed important light on Judaism and the origins of Christianity.

The Book of Isaiah is traditionally attributed to a prophet who lived in the 8th century B.C.

In the book, he calls for repentance, warns of impending doom, and -- in one of the most famous passages ever written -- offers an idyllic vision of the future: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

Curator Adolfo Roitman called the Isaiah manuscript the "gem of the Dead Sea scrolls." It is "one of the most important treasures of the Jewish nation, if not the most important," he added.

A far smaller fragment of another Dead Sea scroll will be on display at the Jerusalem convention center where Bush will be speaking along with other dignitaries.

The segment, also rarely shown, contains the text of Psalm 133, which reads: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity."

By Sheigh Crabtree / Los Angeles Times

Michael Moore is plotting a follow-up to his 2004 documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Although the film is being kept under wraps, it is said that Moore plans to pick up where he left off four years ago, to examine the fallout from eight years of the Bush administration's policies.

Moore is beginning production on the documentary "immediately," according to studio reps, although he is expected to attend the Cannes Film Festival to support the project and promote it to buyers at the market on Friday.

The French festival is a welcoming venue for Moore, who was the first documentary filmmaker to win the Cannes Film Festival's Palme D'Or in five decades with "Fahrenheit 9/11" in 2004.

Moore also lovingly documented the French healthcare system in last year's "Sicko" which was warmly received on the Croisette last spring.

The film's financiers, Overture Films and Paramount Vantage, plan to co-produce and co-finance the sequel, with Overture releasing it in the U.S. and Vantage overseeing international rights and release.

Moore's follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," referred to informally in some circles as "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2," is expected to be released in mid-2009.

LOS ANGELES, May 13 (UPI) -- Paramount Vantage and Overture Films have announced they will co-finance and distribute U.S. filmmaker Michael Moore's next documentary.

The film is to be a follow-up to his 2004 "Fahrenheit 9/11" and is scheduled for release in 2009.

Paramount Vantage will handle international distribution in all media and Overture will handle domestic distribution in all media. Paramount Vantage said it will be launching the film into the international marketplace this week in Cannes.

The announcement was made Tuesday by Moore; Nick Meyer, president of Paramount Vantage; John Lesher, president of Paramount Film Group, and CEO Chris McGurk and COO Danny Rosett of Overture Films.

"It's great to be working again with Chris McGurk and John Lesher," Moore said in a statement. "Both of them have been exceptional to work with in the past and I look forward to their assistance in this new project."

"We are thrilled to be working with Michael again," McGurk and Rosett said in a joint statement. "His fearless filmmaking has become an important catalyst for challenging mainstream thoughts and values regarding the important critical issues facing this country and the world. Everyone on the Overture team is delighted to be involved with Michael's exciting new film."

REARDAN, Washington (AP) -- Small service stations are running into a problem as gasoline marches toward $4 a gallon in the United States: Thousands of old-fashioned pumps can't register more than $3.99 on their spinning mechanical dials.

The pumps, throwbacks to a bygone era on the American road, are difficult and expensive to upgrade, and replacing them is often out of the question for station owners who are still just scraping by.

Many of the same pumps can only count up to $99.99 for the total sale, preventing owners of some sport utility vehicles, vans, trucks and other gas-guzzlers to fill their tanks all the way.

As many as 8,500 of America's 170,000 service stations have old-style meters that need to be fixed -- about 17,000 individual pumps, said Bob Renkes, executive vice president of the Petroleum Equipment Institute of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

At Chip Colville's Chevron station in this eastern Washington town, where men in the family have pumped gas since 1919, three stubby, gray pumps were installed when gas was less than $1 a gallon. They top out at $3.999, only 30 cents above the price of regular gas at the station.

"In small towns, where you don't have the volume, there's no way you can afford to pay for the replacements for these old pumps," Colville said. "It's just not economically feasible."

The problem is worse in extremely rural areas, where "this might be the only pump in town that people can access," said Mike Rud, director of the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association.

Demand for replacements has caused a months-long backlog for companies that make or rebuild the mechanical meters -- and that is just for stations that can afford the upgrade.

For many station owners -- who, because of a relatively small profit margin on gas, aren't raking in money even though gas prices are marching higher -- replacing the pumps altogether with electronic ones is just not an option.

"The new ones run between $10,000 and $15,000 apiece," Colville said. "It's an expense that's not worth it."

Mechanical meters can be retrofitted with higher numbers when pump prices climb another dollar. The last time that happened was in late 2005, when gas went over $3 a gallon, and owners of the older pumps installed kits that went to $3.999.

The price of fixing the meters jumped in the past three years because old pumps are being phased out for new electronic pumps and demand for refurbished meters is down, Al Eichorn, vice president of PMP Corp., which makes the mechanical meters.

The Avon, Connecticut, company has hired extra employees, who are working overtime, but still has a 14-week backlog of orders, Eichorn said.

To deal with the problem, some state regulators are allowing half-pricing -- displaying the price for a half-gallon of gas, then doubling the price shown on the meter.

In North Dakota, regulators recently told service stations their mechanical pumps could use half-pricing, provided they use signs to alert costumers and find a permanent solution by April 2009.

South Dakota is preparing similar rules, officials say. And in Minnesota, rural service station owners whose pumps cannot display the right price are being told to cover up the incorrect numbers.

Across the United States, the average price for a gallon of gasoline rose past $3.70 Sunday, while diesel was selling for an average of $4.33 a gallon, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service.

The price does not compare with what many people in Europe pay, but with Americans accustomed to paying some of the lowest gasoline prices among developed nations, the price spike has come as an unwelcome surprise.

Small stations are struggling to make a profit on gas, even as the price rises. The small profit margin makes gas less lucrative than snacks and other products the stores sell inside.

"If gas is the profit driver and you are one of those guys with the old pumps, you're either evolving or getting out," said Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores, a trade group that represents about 115,000 stores that sell gasoline.

"If you're just that kind of image of the '50s gas station where you have a conversation, fill up and have a cup of coffee, that's in the movies."

Results Give Democrats Edge

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz / Washington Post

Americans are gloomier about the direction of the country than they have been at any point in 15 years, and Democrats hold their biggest advantage since early 1993 as the party better able to deal with the nation's main problems, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Despite more than eight in 10 now saying the country is headed in the wrong direction, coupled with growing disaffection with the Republican Party, Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, remains competitive in a hypothetical general-election matchup with Sen. Barack Obama, the favorite for the Democratic nomination, and he runs almost even with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Those findings indicate that McCain continues to elude some of the anger aimed at his party and at President Bush, whose approval ratings dipped to an all-time low in Post-ABC polling. Maintaining a separate identity will be a key to McCain's chances of winning the White House in November. Overall, Democrats hold a 21-percentage-point advantage over Republicans as the party better equipped to handle the nation's problems.

As the Democratic race nears the end of its primary season, with the next round of voting happening today in West Virginia, this new national poll shows Obama with a 12-point advantage over Clinton as the preferred choice for the nomination.

More than six in 10 Democrats now say Obama is the one with the better shot at winning in November. Although Clinton retains her wide advantage as the more experienced candidate, for the first time Obama has the edge on being considered the stronger leader.

But there is no groundswell of public pressure for Clinton to quit the race, despite trailing in pledged delegates, the popular vote and now superdelegates. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said she should stay in the race.

One reason is that few Democrats seem concerned that the protracted nomination battle will hurt the party's chances in November. Only 27 percent said they thought it had done the party long-term damage. Most said the drawn-out contest has had no impact on the party's prospects (56 percent) or that it has been helpful (15 percent).

And most Democrats said they are confident that the party would rally around Obama should he become the nominee, although fewer than half said they are very confident. African Americans are somewhat more confident than whites, and nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters expressed doubt that the party would find unity once the nomination is settled.

In a hypothetical general-election head-to-head, Obama leads McCain by a slim 51-to-44-percent margin, with the public split 49 percent for Clinton to 46 percent for McCain. Against McCain, Obama does better than Clinton among voters who are African American, college-educated and younger. Clinton draws more support than Obama does against McCain among white voters who are older or female and those whose family incomes are less than $50,000 a year.

Age could be a significant obstacle for McCain. Only three in 10 said they were "entirely comfortable" with the prospect of a 72-year-old new president, about half as many as those who said they would be similarly comfortable with an African American or female president.

McCain romps against Obama among the 16 percent who think the country is headed in the right direction, but among the near-record 82 percent who hold a pessimistic view, Obama runs more than 20 points ahead of McCain. Similarly, about seven in 10 of those who disapprove of Bush said they would back Obama over McCain, while McCain picks up most of those who are still behind the president. The trouble for McCain is that Bush's approval has slipped to 31 percent, and has been lower than 50 percent for 38 consecutive months.

The economy remains the biggest issue on Americans' minds, although its importance dipped for the first time since last fall. In the new survey, 36 percent cited the economy and jobs as their top voting issue; 21 percent named the Iraq war. All other issues remained in single digits, including health care and the price of oil and gasoline.

Obama holds double-digit advantages over McCain on health care, gas prices and the economy. McCain has a 21-point lead on handling the U.S. battle against terrorism, which proved the marquee issue of the 2004 presidential contest. Obama and McCain run almost even on managing the war in Iraq and on immigration.

And on candidate attributes, Obama has a substantial lead as the one who is more likely to bring needed change to Washington, as well as sizable advantages on temperament, empathy and clarity of vision. McCain has a whopping advantage on experience and is widely seen as having greater knowledge of world affairs.

Obama and McCain are more evenly matched on leadership and "personal and ethical standards." In early March, McCain had an advantage as the stronger leader, while Obama had an edge on ethics.

Overall, Americans are evenly divided on whether a steady hand or a new direction and new ideas are more important, which is one big reason the general election would be closer today than generic impressions of the two parties suggest. McCain handily beats either Democrat among those prioritizing experience, while Clinton and Obama outpace McCain among those looking for a new course for the country.

Independents will be a key voter group in the fall, and currently they split 51 percent for Obama to 42 percent for McCain. In a Clinton-McCain matchup, 49 percent would back McCain, 46 percent Clinton.

McCain's relative strength among independents is a primary reason he outperforms the broader GOP. While more than four in 10 independents choose him against either Democrat, they prefer Democrats over Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin to cope with the country's central concerns.

At the same time, while McCain has made considerable progress in consolidating support within his party, only 47 percent of conservatives said they would definitely back him over Obama. A higher percentage of liberals, 56 percent, said they would be firmly behind Obama.

Much of the focus in the Democratic race has been on Obama's difficulty in winning the votes of working-class whites. Against Obama, McCain is ahead among whites without college degrees by 52 percent to 40 percent, not that different from McCain's advantage over Clinton in this new poll.

On another racially tinged issue, about six in 10 Americans said Obama has distanced himself about the right amount from his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., but 27 percent said he has not gone far enough. These findings are little changed from April, even though Obama offered a much stronger denunciation of Wright after the earlier poll was taken.

Should Obama be the Democratic nominee, Clinton is by far the most popular choice to be his running mate. On an open-ended question, about four in 10 Democrats named her as their choice for the vice presidential nomination, with former senator John Edwards a distant second, at 10 percent.

But most Americans, including a slim majority of Democrats, said putting Clinton on the ticket would not have much effect on their vote in November.

Among Republicans, the sweepstakes appear to be even more wide open. Asked their preference for vice president, 12 percent said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and 7 percent named former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. But nearly half, 47 percent, expressed no opinion.

The findings are based on telephone interviews with a random national sample of 1,122 adults from May 8 to 11. Results for the full survey have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Error margins for subgroups are larger.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A woman, a child and two gunmen were killed by U.S. forces conducting a military operation targeting al Qaeda in northern Iraq, the military said on Sunday.

It said U.S. forces fired on a car carrying suspected militants that refused to stop near the northern city of Mosul on Saturday.

"Coalition forces fired three warning shots, but the driver refused to stop and one man made threatening movements from inside the vehicle," the military said in a statement.

"Coalition forces responded to the perceived threat and engaged the vehicle."

It said a woman and a child in the vehicle were killed, along with the two armed men.

The military said it regretted the deaths of civilians.

Iraqi and U.S. troops launched a major offensive in northern Iraq on Saturday against al Qaeda militants in the region.

(Writing by Dean Yates, Editing by Sami Aboudi)

Baghdad (AP) -- Iraqi authorities lifted a curfew Monday in northern Nineveh, allowing people to leave their homes three days after a military offensive was launched in the province.

Driving is still prohibited but the curfew on vehicles will be gradually lifted, the Nineveh operations command said in a statement carried by the Voices of Iraq news agency.

'People can open their shops and do their business and move around on foot,' the statement said.

The curfew has been in force since Friday evening.

The Iraqi government has deployed an armored brigade of army troops, launching an offensive codenamed Lion's Roar against al-Qaeda militants in Mosul, the provincial capital of Nineveh.

More troops are to move into the area backed by thousands of local Sunni tribesmen, who are taking part in the onslaught on the terrorist network.

Many of these tribesmen were once allies with al-Qaeda but turned the terrorist network and joined forces with the government.

Insurgents loyal to the al-Qaeda in Iraq group have over the last year lost their foothold in Baghdad and Anbar province in the west of the country and have been regrouping in Mosul, 400 kilometres north of Baghdad.

In north-western Baghdad, a US soldier was struck by a homemade bomb while on a routine clearance patrol, the US military said Monday.

The attack occurred at 9:20 pm on Saturday.

The soldier died of his wounds. His death brings the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq since March 2003 to 4,076.

By Tim Johnson / Burlington Free Press

The anti-war movement at the University of Vermont showed flashes of both the old and the new in the semester just ending.

The old was a sit-in that occupied the president's office one afternoon last month. Some sit-ins -- like the four-day version 20 years ago in which students took over the executive offices in the Waterman Building to protest "institutional racism" -- hold out for action on various demands. The one staged by Students Against War on April 25, which reportedly lasted about an hour, held out simply for a hearing.

A hearing is what they got, first in a talk with UVM President Dan Fogel, then in a meeting where they made their initial pitch for the new tactic in opposition to the Iraq war: pushing the university to withdraw, from its endowment-fund portfolio, investments in companies the students characterized as "war profiteers."

Divestment campaigns are nothing new. UVM, like many universities, has gone along with several such efforts over the last three decades -- most recently, pulling investments from companies that do business with the government of Sudan, which has pursued policies linked to genocide in Darfur.

What's novel about the most recent divestment campaign, still in its early stages, is the focus on the Iraq war. If the target companies simply were those that hold U.S. Defense Department contracts, that would cover a substantial share of the UVM endowment fund's portfolio.

That's not what Students Against War are demanding. Their focus appears to be on companies they perceive as the most egregious "war profiteers," although they have yet to define the standard they'd like the university to apply. They'll have to come up with that definition before they're in a position to make a formal divestment proposal, probably by fall.

"We're hoping this is the start of something that will turn into a national movement," said Julie Villar, a UVM student and member of the group. She said the group, started when the Iraq war began five years ago, has come into its own over the last year, with status as a recognized student club and 20-25 members showing up for weekly meetings.

The group co-sponsored a "Winter Soldier" symposium at UVM, and makes a point of setting up a competing table when military recruiters show up on campus. The divestment effort, however, is a more complicated undertaking.

Not a simple matter

The market value of UVM's endowment fund Dec. 31 was $370.7 million, according to Bonnie Cauthon, associate vice president for finance. A national survey for the 2007 fiscal year by the National Association of College and University Business Officers ranked UVM's fund 191st, having increased 19 percent from the previous year.

The top three were elite private universities: Harvard ($34.6 billion), Yale ($22.5 billion) and Stanford ($17.1 billion). The University of Michigan topped individual public institutions ($7.1 billion, ranked eighth). Middlebury College was among the better-endowed private colleges ($936 million, ranked 84th).

As stock values dropped over the first three months of the year, so did the value of UVM's portfolio -- to $349.9 million on March 31. A share of the endowment -- much of which is restricted for uses specified by donors -- pays for a small share (less than 10 percent) of university's operating expenses.

UVM's assets are held in at least 15 accounts: Three are equity accounts managed by separate financial advisers exclusively for UVM, accounting for about 23 percent of the total. These accounts include stocks in dozens of companies, from Abbott Laboratories to Zimmer Holdings. Among them are many major defense contractors and six companies singled out by the student group as "war profiteers," but there are also many companies to which others at UVM might take exception. For example, a student group is waging a campaign against Coca-Cola, which has a campus contract; UVM owns stock in Coca-Cola. UVM also has stock in Monsanto (genetic engineering), Exxon Mobil (big oil) and Entergy (nuclear power), all companies that some students might find ethically repellent.

Four accounts commingle UVM assets with those of other partners, so UVM doesn't have sole authority over choosing those investments. Those four account for about 58 percent of the portfolio's value.

There are other investments in eight hedge funds, accounting for about 19 percent of the total. Hedge funds are largely unregulated private investment funds with relatively well-to-do clients; hedge fund managers typically do not disclose their holdings, purportedly for competitive reasons.

In the case of Sudan, after students made a persuasive case to trustees in 2006, UVM sent a divestment list of 20 companies to its three equity account managers, and a letter recommending divestment to the managers of the joint accounts.

The ultimate responsibility for managing the endowment fund falls on UVM's trustees. The university's "policy statement on moral, social and ethical considerations in investment and shareholder resolutions" says in part: "The primary objective of investment by the University is to provide a satisfactory return on investment for the support of University operations based upon the Prudent Investor Rule. However, this policy of fiscal prudence shall not preclude the University from considering moral, ethical and social criteria in determining companies in which to invest."

Apart from Sudan, UVM has divested from companies doing business in South Africa (during the apartheid years, starting in 1985) and tobacco companies (1992). Trustees have also agreed to vote in favor of shareholder proposals that discourage land mines (1998), tobacco advertising and Internet sales to minors (2004) and employment discrimination based on sexual orientation (2004).

Another shareholder proposal, formulated by a student consortium concerned about climate change, is likely to go before the trustees at their quarterly meeting this week. Trustees will likely be asked to support shareholder resolutions that, among other things, press companies to disclose and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

That proposal passed through the Socially Responsible Investment Work Group, a committee the trustees set up to vet all such proposals. Led by trustee John Snow, the panel includes students, faculty and staff as well as trustees. It reviews student proposals and decides whether to pass them on to trustees, but it doesn't do anything on its own initiative to define "socially responsible" in the context of UVM investments.

Students Against War met with Snow for the first time last week to learn about the decision-making process and the precedents.

Tyler Platt, a member, said students hope to meet again with the work group in the summer or fall.

He said Snow advised them to come up with clear guidelines defining the companies from which the groups seeks divestment.

War profiteers?

Last spring, when Students Against War circulated a divestment petition (which last week had more than 400 signatures) and a pamphlet titled: "UVM Students: Do you know where your school's money is going?"

The pamphlet characterized several companies in UVM's endowment portfolio as "war profiteers" -- defined as "any person or organization that profits from warfare or international conflict."

Among the companies listed in the brochure were Halliburton, in which two of UVM's accounts held 8,768 shares, valued at about $330,000 on March 31; General Dynamics (1,012 shares, about $848,000) and Raytheon (5,603 shares, about $357,000).

At their regular meeting last week, members of the anti-war group contended that these and other companies violate UVM's professed values. The most commonly cited statement of UVM values is "Our Common Ground," a one-page declaration affirming the importance of such virtues as respect and integrity, justice and responsibility. The "justice" paragraph has UVM uniting "against all forms of injustice ... We reject bigotry, oppression, degradation, and harassment, and we challenge injustice toward any member of our community."

How that statement might be applied to U.S. companies involved in the Iraq war is a matter of interpretation. Halliburton, General Dynamics and Raytheon were asked last week to respond to their characterization as "war profiteers."

Raytheon did not reply. Halliburton, long a target for Iraq war foes because of its connection to Vice President Dick Cheney (a former CEO) and scandals enveloping one of its subsidiaries working in Iraq (Kellogg Brown and Root), called the characterization "a misconception."

"Halliburton Company has never been contracted for services by the U.S. government," said Melissa Norcross, manager of public relations. "Also, Halliburton and its subsidiaries have no employees or work in Iraq or Afghanistan."

As for Kellogg Brown and Root, which is now a stand-alone company called KBR, Norcross said, "KBR has not been part of Halliburton for over a year."

General Dynamics, which employs about 480 people at the Burlington Technology Center, has been an intermittent target for anti-war rallies. The center is home to General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products' advanced product-development, design and engineering staff, according to company spokesman Rob Doolittle.

"General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products designs, develops and produces high-performance armament systems, a full range of high-performance composite products for the aerospace industry, biological and chemical detection systems, advanced sensor and vision-enhancement systems, and mobile shelter systems," Doolittle said.

As for the "war profiteering" label that has entered UVM's endowment discussion, Doolittle said: "We don't comment on investors' decisions about General Dynamics."