'Draft dilemma'

They are going to reintroduce the draft in the US. But it's such a vote loser, no one wants to mention it

By John Sutherland, The Guardian

Last Wednesday, the American public was officially instructed to panic. Attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller - brows furrowed, faces grim - took over primetime TV to deliver a spine-chilling message to their fellow citizens: "Al-qaida attack imminent."

When, where, and what form the outrage will take, is unknown. But something very, very awful is going to happen very, very soon.

Cynics will be sceptical. Was this another attempt by the administration, like those "orange alerts" last year, to divert attention from Iraq, the soaring price of gasoline, and Abu Ghraib?

On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap. Check it out at www.congress.org. For some reason no major news networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If these bills go through, the only thing between me and military service is my asthma."

He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.

There already exists a Selective Service System (SSS). All young Americans are obliged to "register for the draft". It has been a mere formality since conscription was abolished three decades ago, after Vietnam, together with the loathed (and much burned) draft card. SSS will be reactivated imminently. A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget. The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.

Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.

All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and continues not to do its job.

The American public just wants the war to go away. One thing that would get their attention (but not their votes) would be their children being sent off to die in foreign lands. Best not disturb the electorate until after November, seems to be the thinking. There are, after all, more important things than wars: getting your man into the White House, for example. Kerry has clearly calculated that, as president, he too may have to bring in the draft. So his lips are also sealed.

And, of course, the strategic case for the draft is overwhelming. If, as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who will do the slogging? If others follow the Spaniards, and Tony Blair goes, the US may find itself a coalition of one. What then if something blows up in North Korea?

On how many fronts can America fight its global war on terror with a "professional" army of half a million? Half a million and shrinking fast. Reservists are not re-enlisting. They signed up for the occasional weekend playing soldiers and some useful income, not death or glory.

Panic Stations (which is where Ashcroft has placed America this summer) serves two purposes. It distracts the electorate and, like any state of emergency, it sanctions tough measures - like the draft. The advice to my student? Work on the asthma.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Reprinted from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
Story/0,2763,1228331,00.html

Read more!

Video of wedding attack shows survivors sifting through debris

From Associated Press

BAGHDAD(AP) — Fragments of musical instruments, tufts of women's hair, and a large blood stain are among the scenes in Associated Press Television News film of a destroyed house that survivors say U.S. planes bombed during a wedding party.

It is the first known footage of the aftermath of Wednesday's attack, which killed up to 45 people, mostly women and children from the Bou Fahad tribe in Mogr el-Deeb, a desert village on the Syrian border.

The U.S. military has said the target was a suspected safehouse for foreign fighters from Syria and denied Friday that children were killed in the airstrikes.

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad that U.S. troops who reported back from the operation "told us they did not shoot women and children."

"There were a number of woman, a handful of women, I think the number was four to six, caught up in the engagement. They may have died from some of the fire that came from the aircraft," Kimmitt said.

But an Associated Press reporter in the Ramadi area, at least 275 miles east of Mogr el-Deeb, was able to identify at least 10 of the bodies as those of children.



At the Bou Fahad cemetery outside Ramadi, where the tribe is based, each of the 28 fresh graves contain one to three corpses, mostly of mothers and their young children.

Relatives said they include those of 2-year-old Kholood and 1-year-old Anoud, daughters of Amal Rikad, who was killed; of 2-year-old Raad and 1-year-old Ra'ed — whose headless body was found near his house — sons of Fatima Madhi, who was killed; of Saad, 10, Faisal, 7, Anoud, 6, Fasila, 5, Kholood, 4, and Inad, 3 — children of Mohammed and Morifa Rikad, who were killed.

There also are photo images of dead children, but it was not possible to determine if those victims were already accounted for by relatives.

Bou Fahad tribesmen denied there were foreign fighters among their community. They consider the desolate border area part of their territory and follow their goats, sheep and cattle there to graze. In the springtime they leave spacious homes in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, and roam the desert.

Smuggling livestock into Syria is also part of a herdsman's life, although no one in the tribe acknowledged that.

Weddings are often marked in Iraq with celebratory gunfire, but survivors insisted no weapons were fired Wednesday — despite speculation by Iraqi officials that this drew a mistaken American attack.

The first bomb hit the huge goat-hair tent — where male guests were said to be sleeping — at about 2:45 a.m. Wednesday. The barrage didn't stop until sunrise, witnesses said. Women and children were in an adjacent one-story house and the men went to their nearby homes, they said.

After the first missile, Hamdan Khalaf ran in panic and hid in a grassy area.

"In the morning, we went back to the hill and saw people torn apart, attacked by the plane," Khalaf, who was not wounded, told APTN Thursday.

"We pulled them out of here," another man told APTN, standing on a pile of stones as he picked up a stained green cloth that looked like part of a young man's shirt. A severed arm lay in the rubble. "We took them to hospital — straight to the fridge," the unidentified man said.

An angry voice in the background of the tape denounced President Bush. "This is his terrorism," the voice said.

The body of what survivors said was the wedding's cameraman was pulled out of the debris Thursday.

The footage also showed women in colorful clothes sifting through the wreckage and carrying away blankets and other goods. Pieces of rockets and bullet casings were strewn across the sandy plain, as were pots and pans and a satellite dish. Partly charred pickup trucks and a water tanker stood in the desert.

The attack left few survivors. About a dozen wounded were taken to the town of Qaem, about 140 miles northwest of Ramadi and 130 miles north of Mogr el-Deeb.

Witnesses, interviewed Thursday by AP in Ramadi, said revelers at the wedding party began worrying when they heard aircraft overhead at about 9 p.m. Tuesday. Then came military vehicles, which stopped about two miles away from the village and switched off their headlights. The planes were still overhead at 11 p.m, so the hosts told the band to stop playing and everyone went to bed.

About four hours later, airstrikes began and continued until dawn when two helicopters landed and about 40 soldiers searched the house where the women had stayed and a second, vacant house. Soon after, the two houses were blown up. Some witnesses said the houses were attacked by helicopters; others said Americans detonated them with explosives.

Kimmitt confirmed that the operation was an air and ground assault. "Those people on the ground identified no children as part of that location that were killed," he said, adding that they reported only adult deaths.

He also referred to the APTN video and separate APTN footage from Wednesday in Ramadi that showed a headless body of a child and other bodies of children.

"What we saw in those APTN videos were substantially inconsistent with the reports we received from the unit that conducted the operation," Kimmit said. "We're now trying to figure out why there's an inconsistency.

"We're keeping an open mind as to exactly what happened on the ground. That's why we're continuing to try to gather all the facts; that's why we're not ruling out anything based on information coming forward," he added.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.

Read more!

Suspicious sanctions

George Bush's recent moves against Syria will play well at home but have little effect on President Assad's regime, writes Brian Whitaker
Brian Whitaker
Monday May 17, 2004

The Guardian
President Bush finally got round to imposing sanctions on Syria last week, much to the delight of Israel. "This is an important decision that proves, once again, the resolve of the United States to wage all-out war - not just against terrorist groups, but also against the countries that harbour them," a statement from the Israeli foreign ministry said.

Whatever the foreign ministry may think, the sanctions are scarcely "all-out war" and will probably harm the US more than they harm Syria. They are unlikely to have much impact on Damascus apart from making the regime dig its heels in - the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

For the US, meanwhile, they will add further to its image problem, providing yet another example of double standards in foreign policy. They also conflict with one of the main principles of the so-called Greater Middle East Initiative, which argues that trade and economic development - rather than sanctions - should be used to promote democracy and to counter terrorism.

On paper, the sanctions look quite tough. They include a ban on direct flights between Syria and the US, and a ban on all US exports apart from food and medicines. In reality, though, there are no scheduled flights between Syria and the US anyway, and the small quantity of goods that Syria buys from the US will probably continue to arrive via neighbouring Lebanon.

The sanctions result from a daft piece of legislation known as the Syria Accountability Act, which was inspired by an alliance of Israelis, American neo-conservatives and wild-eyed Lebanese Christians, and originally put to Congress in 2002 by Senator Rick Santorum, a self-caricaturing anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-guns Republican.

This, of course, was before the invasion of Iraq, when neo-conservatives in the US were still riding high and eager to tackle Syria once they had "liberated" Baghdad. The usual suspects in the Pentagon even got as far as making preliminary plans for war.

President Bush, though, was less enthusiastic and his secretary of state, Colin Powell, declared the sanctions plan "unhelpful". "We are working closely with all parties to the [Arab-Israeli] conflict and must be perceived as even-handed in our approach," Mr Powell wrote in a letter to key members of Congress.

Legislation of the kind proposed against Syria, he said, would "have a negative effect on our efforts to bring down the violence, avoid the outbreak of regional war, and help the parties back to a path to comprehensive peace".

That was not the only consideration. The Syrian regime, for its own reasons, had always kept a close watch on Islamic extremists and was quietly passing information about them to the Americans. Furthermore, Syria had the capacity to hamper US efforts in neighbouring Iraq if it felt inclined to do so.

In addition, American sanctions would be at odds with EU policy, which favoured cajoling Syria towards reform through "critical and constructive engagement". This was one area where the British prime minister, Tony Blair, did not diverge from his European colleagues: Blair was developing quite a good rapport with President Bashar al-Assad, who had studied in London and had a British-born wife. In the run-up to war with Iraq, the congressional plans for sanctions against Syria were quietly shelved - only to re-emerge in April last year.

This time, despite the Bush administration's misgivings, Congress was almost unanimous in approving the Syria Accountability Act: only four Senators and eight members of the House of Representatives opposed it. Such was the unanimity that leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties agreed not to let any witnesses give evidence against the sanctions plan in the House international relations committee.

The attitude of Congress seems to have had little or nothing to do with the merits - or otherwise - of the case for sanctions, but a lot to do with the re-election prospects of its members. For American politicians there is no mileage in being sensible about Syria, and much to lose.

The Accountability Act's main complaints against Syria are that it supports terrorism, is occupying Lebanon and is developing weapons of mass destruction. The trouble with this is that it appears - especially in the Arab world - highly discriminatory.

The Act simplistically treats Syria as one of the "evildoers" that President Bush often talks about and ignores the all-important political background. It is basically using the issues of terrorism, Lebanese sovereignty and weapons of mass destruction as a pretext to further Israel's regional agenda.

Despite official denials, Syria is widely believed to have chemical weapons and possibly an embryonic biological weapons programme, though this does not place the country in breach of any international treaties or security council resolutions. In any case it is small beer compared with the 200-or-so nuclear weapons that neighbouring Israel is believed to possess.

Given that Israeli forces have been occupying a significant stretch of Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) for the past 37 years, it is not difficult to see why Syria might want some form of deterrent. But by addressing the question of Syrian weapons while ignoring Israeli arms, the US only damages its credibility in the region.

Syria, meanwhile, says it favours dismantling all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East region but this must include Israeli nuclear warheads - a not unreasonable way to proceed.

The terrorism issue is also closely tied to the conflict with Israel. Syria - unlike Libya in its wilder days - does not give generalised support to terrorism and, indeed, strongly opposes al-Qaida and related groups. It does allow various militant Palestinian groups to have a presence in Syria, which it says is for political (non-military) activities. Together with Iran, Syria also exercises considerable influence over Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Rightly or wrongly, it regards these as legitimate groups resisting Israeli occupation of Arab lands. Essentially, Damascus views them as levers towards its main foreign policy goal - the return of the Golan Heights - and Syrian officials maintain that once that has been achieved and there is peace with Israel, there will be no reason to continue supporting such groups.

Syria's "occupation" of Lebanon, according to the Accountability Act, is a breach of UN security council resolution 502, which dates back to 1982 and the Lebanese civil war.

A look at resolution 502 shows that it refers to - and condemns - Israel by name but makes no mention of Syria. The historical context of the resolution is that, in September 1982, following the assassination of the Lebanese president-elect, Bashir Gemayel, Israeli forces in Lebanon advanced to new positions in West Beirut.

Resolution 502 demanded an immediate pull-back of Israeli forces to their previous positions, as a first step towards a complete withdrawal from Lebanon. (In the event, Israeli forces remained in Lebanon for a further 18 years but faced no American sanctions as a consequence.)

How, then, can Syria be in breach of this resolution? The answer lies in clause four, in which the UN - without naming anyone - "calls again for the strict respect for Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence under the sole and exclusive authority of the Lebanese government through the Lebanese army throughout Lebanon".

Syrian troops were in Lebanon at the time, having originally entered as part of an Arab League peacekeeping force, so the resolution can be interpreted as referring to them. It is debatable, though, whether the 20,000-or-so Syrian troops in Lebanon today are "occupying" the country as the Accountability Act claims.

The Syrian presence in Lebanon differs, for example, from the US-led occupation of Iraq and the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights in that it was legitimised (technically, at least) at the end of the civil war by a series of agreements with the Lebanese government. Although these were signed under some duress, since the Lebanese government didn't have much choice in the matter at the time, it can be argued that the Syrian forces did help to provide much-needed stability in the aftermath of the civil war, even if they have now outstayed their welcome.

Fully restoring Lebanon's sovereignty is certainly a good idea in principle, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the issue is being stirred up for other reasons. If members of Congress are so concerned about sovereignty, then what about Israel's partial occupation of Syria or, indeed, the American-led occupation of Iraq?

A curious twist in this tale is that, while the US was preparing to impose sanctions on Syria, Syria was negotiating with the EU for special trade privileges under what is known as an "association agreement".

But just as the details were being finalised there was a last-minute hitch. At the behest of Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, the EU decided that partners in its association agreements must denounce weapons of mass destruction.

This, the EU said, would become a standard clause in all such agreements - but the timing suggests it was inserted specially for Syria. Whether this was the result of pressure from the US is still unclear.

Interestingly, though, the "standard" clause about denouncing weapons of mass destruction will not be applied to countries that already have association agreements with the EU: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Tunisia ... and Israel.

Read more!

Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move
The Jesus Landing Pad
by Rick Perlstein

It was an e-mail we weren't meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that "the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level"—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we're not supposed to know the National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.

But now we know.

"Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice.

The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth.

Abrams attempted to assuage their concerns by stating that "the Gaza Strip had no significant Biblical influence such as Joseph's tomb or Rachel's tomb and therefore is a piece of land that can be sacrificed for the cause of peace."

Three weeks after the confab, President George W. Bush reversed long-standing U.S. policy, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank in exchange for Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

In an interview with the Voice, Upton denied having written the document, though it was sent out from an e-mail account of one of his staffers and bears the organization's seal, which is nearly identical to the Great Seal of the United States. Its idiosyncratic grammar and punctuation tics also closely match those of texts on the Apostolic Congress's website, and Upton verified key details it recounted, including the number of participants in the meeting ("45 ministers including wives") and its conclusion "with a heart-moving send-off of the President in his Presidential helicopter."

Upton refused to confirm further details.

Affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church, the Apostolic Congress is part of an important and disciplined political constituency courted by recent Republican administrations. As a subset of the broader Christian Zionist movement, it has a lengthy history of opposition to any proposal that will not result in what it calls a "one-state solution" in Israel.

The White House's association with the congress, which has just posted a new staffer in Israel who may be running afoul of Israel's strict anti-missionary laws, also raises diplomatic concerns.

The staffer, Kim Hadassah Johnson, wrote in a report obtained by the Voice, "We are establishing the Meet the Need Fund in Israel—'MNFI.' . . . The fund will be an Interest Free Loan Fund that will enable us to loan funds to new believers (others upon application) who need assistance. They will have the opportunity to repay the loan (although it will not be mandatory)." When that language was read to Moshe Fox, minister for public and interreligious affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, he responded, "It sounds against the law which prohibits any kind of money or material [inducement] to make people convert to another religion. That's what it sounds like." (Fox's judgment was e-mailed to Johnson, who did not return a request for comment.)

The Apostolic Congress dates its origins to 1981, when, according to its website, "Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door to Apostolic Christians into the White House." Apostolics, a sect of Pentecostals, claim legitimacy as the heirs of the original church because they, as the 12 apostles supposedly did, baptize converts in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ronald Reagan bore theological affinities with such Christians because of his belief that the world would end in a fiery Armageddon. Reagan himself referenced this belief explicitly a half-dozen times during his presidency.

While the language of apocalyptic Christianity is absent from George W. Bush's speeches, he has proven eager to work with apocalyptics—a point of pride for Upton. "We're in constant contact with the White House," he boasts. "I'm briefed at least once a week via telephone briefings. . . . I was there about two weeks ago . . . At that time we met with the president."

Last spring, after President Bush announced his Road Map plan for peace in the Middle East, the Apostolic Congress co-sponsored an effort with the Jewish group Americans for a Safe Israel that placed billboards in 23 cities with a quotation from Genesis ("Unto thy offspring will I give this land") and the message, "Pray that President Bush Honors God's Covenant with Israel. Call the White House with this message." It then provided the White House phone number and the Apostolic Congress's Web address.

In the interview with the Voice, Pastor Upton claimed personal responsibility for directing 50,000 postcards to the White House opposing the Road Map, which aims to create a Palestinian state. "I'm in total disagreement with any form of Palestinian state," Upton said. "Within a two-week period, getting 50,000 postcards saying the exact same thing from places all over the country, that resonated with the White House. That really caused [President Bush] to backpedal on the Road Map."

When I sought to confirm Upton's account of the meeting with the White House, I was directed to National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones, whose initial response upon being read a list of the names of White House staffers present was a curt, "You know half the people you just mentioned are Jewish?"

When asked for comment on top White House staffers meeting with representatives of an organization that may be breaking Israeli law, Jones responded, "Why would the White House comment on that?"

When asked whose job it is in the administration to study the Bible to discern what parts of Israel were or weren't acceptable sacrifices for peace, Jones said that his previous statements had been off-the-record.

When Pastor Upton was asked to explain why the group's website describes the Apostolic Congress as "the Christian Voice in the nation's capital," instead of simply a Christian voice in the nation's capital, he responded, "There has been a real lack of leadership in having someone emerge as a Christian voice, someone who doesn't speak for the right, someone who doesn't speak for the left, but someone who speaks for the people, and someone who speaks from a theocratical perspective."

When his words were repeated back to him to make sure he had said a "theocratical" perspective, not a "theological" perspective, he said, "Exactly. Exactly. We want to know what God would have us say or what God would have us do in every issue."

The Middle East was not the only issue discussed at the March 25 meeting. James Wilkinson, deputy national security advisor for communications, spoke first and is characterized as stating that the 9-11 Commission "is portraying those who have given their all to protect this nation as 'weak on terrorism,' " that "99 percent of all the men and women protecting us in this fight against terrorism are career citizens," and offered the example of Frances Town-send, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, "who sacrificed Christmas to do a 'security video' conference."

Tim Goeglein, deputy director of public liaison and the White House's point man with evangelical Christians, moderated, and he also spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage. According to the memo, he asked the rhetorical questions: "What will happen to our country if that actually happens? What do those pushing such hope to gain?" His answer: "They want to change America." How so? He quoted the research of Hoover Institute senior fellow Stanley Kurtz, who holds that since gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavia, marriage itself has virtually ceased to exist. (In fact, since Sweden instituted a registered-partnership law for same-sex couples in the mid '90s, there has been no overall change in the marriage and divorce rates there.)

It is Matt Schlapp, White House political director and Karl Rove's chief lieutenant, who was paraphrased as stating "that the Presidents Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level."

Also present at the meeting was Kristen Silverberg, deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy. (None of the participants responded to interview requests.)

The meeting was closed by Goeglein, who was asked, "What can we do to assist in this fight for these issues and our nations [sic] foundation and values?" and who reportedly responded, "Pray, pray, pray, pray."

The Apostolic Congress's representative in Israel, Kim Johnson, is ethnically Jewish, keeps kosher, and holds herself to the sumptuary standards of Orthodox Jewish women, so as to better blend in to her surroundings.

In one letter home obtained by the Voice she notes that many of the Apostolic Christians she works with in Israel are Filipino women "married to Jewish men—who on occasion accompany their wives to meetings. We are planning to start a fellowship with this select group where we can meet for dinners and get to know one another. Please Pray for the timing and formation of such." Elsewhere she talks of a discussion with someone "on the pitfalls and aggravations of Christians who missionize Jews." She works often among the Jewish poor—the kind of people who might be interested in interest-free loans—and is thrilled to "meet the outcasts of this Land—how wonderful because they are in the in-casts for His Kingdom."

An ecstatic figure who from her own reports appears to operate at the edge of sanity ("Two of the three nights in my apartment I have been attacked by a hair raising spirit of fear," she writes, noting the sublet contained a Harry Potter book; "at this time I am associating it with witchcraft"), Johnson has also met with Knesset member Gila Gamliel. (Gamliel did not respond to interview requests.) She also boasted of an imminent meeting with a "Knesset leader."

"At this point and for all future mails it is important for me to note that this country has very stiff anti-missionary laws," she warns the followers back home. [D]iscretion is required in all mails. This is particularly important to understand when people write mails or ask about organization efforts regarding such."

Her boss, Pastor Upton, displays a photograph on the Apostolic Congress website of a meeting between himself and Beny Elon, Prime Minister Sharon's tourism minister, famous in Israel for his advocacy of the expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli-controlled lands.

His spokesman in the U.S., Ronn Torassian, affirmed that "Minister Elon knows Mr. Upton well," but when asked whether he is aware that Mr. Upton's staffer may be breaking Israel's anti-missionary laws, snapped: "It's not something he's interested in discussing with The Village Voice."

In addition to its work in Israel, the Apostolic Congress is part of the increasingly Christian public face of pro-Israel activities in the United States. Don Wagner, author of the book Anxious for Armageddon, has been studying Christian Zionism for 15 years, and believes that the current hard-line pro-Israel movement in the U.S. is "predominantly gentile." Often, devotees work in concert with Jewish groups like Americans for a Safe Israel, or AFSI, which set up a mostly Christian Committee for a One-State Solution as the sponsor of last year's billboard campaign. The committee's board included, in addition to Upton, such evangelical luminaries as Gary Bauer and E.E. "Ed" McAteer of the Religious Roundtable.

AFSI's executive director, Helen Freedman, confirms the increasingly Christian cast of her coalition. "We have many good Jews, of course," she says, "but they're in the minority." She adds, "The liberal Jew is unable to believe the Arab when he says his goal is to Islamize the West. . . . But I believe it. And evangelical Christians believe it."

Of Jews who might otherwise support her group's view of Jews' divine right to Israel, she laments, "They're embarrassed about quoting the Bible, about referring to the Covenant, about talking about the Promised Land."

Pastor Upton is not embarrassed, and Helen Freedman is proud of her association with him. She is wistful when asked if she, like Upton, has been able to finagle a meeting with the president. "Pastor Upton is the head of a whole Apostolic Congress," she laments. "It's a nationwide group of evangelicals."

Upton has something Freedman covets: a voting bloc.

She laughs off concerns that, for Christian Zionists, actual Jews living in Israel serve as mere props for their end-time scenario: "We have a different conception of what [the end of the world] will be like . . . Whoever is right will rejoice, and whoever was wrong will say, 'Whoops!' "

She's not worried, either, about evangelical anti-Semitism: "I don't think it exists," she says. She does say, however, that it would concern her if she learned the Apostolic Congress had a representative in Israel trying to win converts: "If we discovered that people were trying to convert Jews to Christianity, we would be very upset."

Kim Johnson doesn't call it converting Jews to Christianity. She calls it "Circumcision of the Heart"—a spiritual circumcision Jews must undergo because, she writes in paraphrase of Jeremiah, chapter 9, "God will destroy all the uncircumcised nations along with the House of Israel, because the House of Israel is uncircumcised in the heart . . . [I]t is through the Gospel . . . that men's hearts are circumcised."

Apostolics believe that only 144,000 Jews who have not, prior to the Second Coming of Christ, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah will be saved in the end times. Though even for those who do not believe in this literal interpretation of the Bible—or for anyone who lives in Israel, or who cares about Israel, or whose security might be affected by a widespread conflagration in the Middle East, which is everyone—the scriptural prophecies of the Christian Zionists should be the least of their worries.

Instead, we should be worried about self-fulfilling prophecies. "Biblically," stated one South Carolina minister in support of the anti-Road Map billboard campaign, "there's always going to be a war."

Don Wagner, an evangelical, worries that in the Republican Party, people who believe this "are dominating the discourse now, in an election year." He calls the attempt to yoke Scripture to current events "a modern heresy, with cultish proportions.

"I mean, it's appalling," he rails on. "And it also shows how marginalized mainstream Christian thinking, and the majority of evangelical thought, have become."

It demonstrates, he says, "the absolute convergence of the neoconservatives with the Christian Zionists and the pro-Israel lobby, driving U.S. Mideast policy."

The problem is not that George W. Bush is discussing policy with people who press right-wing solutions to achieve peace in the Middle East, or with devout Christians. It is that he is discussing policy with Christians who might not care about peace at all—at least until the rapture.

The Jewish pro-Israel lobby, in the interests of peace for those living in the present, might want to consider a disengagement.

Read more!

UK forces taught torture methods

David Leigh
Saturday May 8, 2004
The Guardian

The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing, according to British military sources.

The techniques devised in the system, called R2I - resistance to interrogation - match the crude exploitation and abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad.

One former British special forces officer who returned last week from Iraq, said: "It was clear from discussions with US private contractors in Iraq that the prison guards were using R2I techniques, but they didn't know what they were doing."

He said British and US military intelligence soldiers were trained in these techniques, which were taught at the joint services interrogation centre in Ashford, Kent, now transferred to the former US base at Chicksands.

"There is a reservoir of knowledge about these interrogation techniques which is retained by former special forces soldiers who are being rehired as private contractors in Iraq. Contractors are bringing in their old friends".

Using sexual jibes and degradation, along with stripping naked, is one of the methods taught on both sides of the Atlantic under the slogan "prolong the shock of capture", he said.

Female guards were used to taunt male prisoners sexually and at British training sessions when female candidates were undergoing resistance training they would be subject to lesbian jibes.

"Most people just laugh that off during mock training exercises, but the whole experience is horrible. Two of my colleagues couldn't cope with the training at the time. One walked out saying 'I've had enough', and the other had a breakdown. It's exceedingly disturbing," said the former Special Boat Squadron officer, who asked that his identity be withheld for security reasons.

Many British and US special forces soldiers learn about the degradation techniques because they are subjected to them to help them resist if captured. They include soldiers from the SAS, SBS, most air pilots, paratroopers and members of pathfinder platoons.

A number of commercial firms which have been supplying interrogators to the US army in Iraq boast of hiring former US special forces soldiers, such as Navy Seals.

"The crucial difference from Iraq is that frontline soldiers who are made to experience R2I techniques themselves develop empathy. They realise the suffering they are causing. But people who haven't undergone this don't realise what they are doing to people. It's a shambles in Iraq".

The British former officer said the dissemination of R2I techniques inside Iraq was all the more dangerous because of the general mood among American troops.

"The feeling among US soldiers I've spoken to in the last week is also that 'the gloves are off'. Many of them still think they are dealing with people responsible for 9/11".

When the interrogation techniques are used on British soldiers for training purposes, they are subject to a strict 48-hour time limit, and a supervisor and a psychologist are always present. It is recognised that in inexperienced hands, prisoners can be plunged into psychosis.

The spectrum of R2I techniques also includes keeping prisoners naked most of the time. This is what the Abu Ghraib photographs show, along with inmates being forced to crawl on a leash; forced to masturbate in front of a female soldier; mimic oral sex with other male prisoners; and form piles of naked, hooded men.

The full battery of methods includes hooding, sleep deprivation, time disorientation and depriving prisoners not only of dignity, but of fundamental human needs, such as warmth, water and food.

The US commander in charge of military jails in Iraq, Major General Geoffrey Miller, has confirmed that a battery of 50-odd special "coercive techniques" can be used against enemy detainees. The general, who previously ran the prison camp at Guantلnamo Bay, said his main role was to extract as much intelligence as possible.

Interrogation experts at Abu Ghraib prison were there to help make the prison staff "more able to garner intelligence as rapidly as possible".

Sleep deprivation and stripping naked were techniques that could now only be authorised at general officer level, he said.

Read more!

US diplomats launch Bush attack

By Jon Leyne
BBC state department correspondent
Around 50 retired US diplomats have written to President Bush to complain about America's Middle East policy, the Reuters news agency has reported.

The letter is similar to one written by 52 two former British diplomats to the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair last week.

The former US diplomats complained that President Bush's policy is losing the US credibility, prestige and friends.

They criticised what they say is Washington's unabashed support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

They cite Mr Sharon's policy of extra-judicial assassinations and what the diplomats describe as Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier.

The American diplomats say they were deeply concerned by Mr Bush's endorsement last month of Mr Sharon's plan to withdraw unilaterally from Gaza.

One former diplomat, who is still considering whether or not to sign the letter, said that as a result of the policy, "We're not the good guys any more."

Those in the Bush administration who do support Mr Sharon might well point out that the state department has always been a more sceptical supporter of Israel.

Mr Sharon himself has always made a point of dealing directly with the White House.
Story from BBC NEWS

Read more!