Quaker House of Fayetteville NC

Agent Orange: A Half century Of Pain

2011-08-10T21:22:00.000-07:00

Agent Orange.

One of the many terms associated with the Vietnam War that evoke strong and often angry reactions.
Why mention it now, and risk stirring those responses again?
Partly, it's the calendar: August 10 will mark fifty years since the first load of powerful defoliant was sprayed by US forces on the Vietnam landscape in 1961. It was the beginning of what was initially called Operation Hades, then was soon renamed and expanded into Operation Ranch Hand.

The name came from the color of the label on thebarrels; other defoliant ”Agents” used were coded Blue, White, Purple, Pink, and Green. But Agent Orange made up sixty per cent of the sprays.
The idea was that by withering the jungle, Agent Orange would deprive Ho Chi Minh's guerillas of cover. And by withering crops, it would help move rural farmers into towns under the control of the South Vietnamese government.
Over the ten years of Operation Ranch Hand, planes and trucks sprayed some 20 million gallons of such defoliants across parts of Vietnam that added up to an area as large as Massachusetts.

Yet Agent Orange is not only about the painful past. It remains a present specter hanging over many of those who served in the Vietnam War -- and the generations since.

Hundreds of thousands of US troops camped, marched and fought their way through areas heavily sprayed with it. Airmen and sailors handled thousands of barrels of it. And soon after their return home, many veterans began experiencing illnesses, often fatal, that they believed were related to that exposure.
They had good reason for their fears. Most of the defoliant chemicals were contaminated with dioxin, one of the most potent toxic chemicals around. Dioxin has been linked to diabetes, spina bifida and other birth defects, along with various cancers and nerve disorders.

In the US, dioxin made national news in 1978. The Love Canal area of Niagara Falls, New York was found to have been built on a toxic waste dump laced with dioxin.

Surveys showed that as many as half the children born in the neighborhood suffered birth defects or serious childhood illnesses and cancer. Afteryears of local denial, President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency there. More than 800 houses were demolished and the families relocated. Love Canal resulted in creation of the federal Superfund program, aimed at cleaning up such toxic sites.

As Love Canal showed, the effects of Agent Orange use in Vietnam were not limited to those who had served there. Among their children, and now grandchildren, there have been higher rates of birth defects and other congenital conditions.
The struggle of these veterans and their families for recognition, treatment, and compensation for Agent Orange-related conditions has been a lengthy and often bitter one. Nor is it over.

But what about the people of Vietnam, who have had to live with the legacy of Agent Orange at close quarters?

Dioxin is a long-lasting toxin. After the rain washes it off the plants, it settles in the soil and the sediment of rivers. There it enters the food chain via fish and ducks, frequent items in the Vietnamese diet.
Their government estimates that up to five million of its people were exposed to long-lived toxic elements of Agent Orange, with up to three million suffering physical symptoms. Many are children and grandchildren of the war generation.

The Vietnam War ended thirty-six years ago. The U.S. Established diplomatic relations with Vietnam sixteen years ago. In 2010, trade between the two nations totaled nearly $19 billion dollars.
In this state of relative amity, Vietnamese support groups have visited the U.S., seeking help from private groups and Congress, and filing lawsuits against the manufacturers.

The lawsuits did not succeed. But their lobbying efforts may have begun to show results. In June, a joint U.S. And Vietnamese government cleanup project waslaunched at the site of the Da Nang airfield, where large quantities of Agent Orange were stored. Da Nang is one of dozens of "hot spots" in Vietnam where wartime toxic contamination lingers at high levels.
Such cleanup efforts have a long way to go -- as does the work of coping with the impact of Agent Orange on US veterans and families.
It has been fifty years since Operation Hades began. For both its American and Vietnamese victims, there has recently been some positive steps taken. But the story of Agent Orange is far from over.

A New Stage in Local Work Against Torture

2011-04-07T15:49:00.000-07:00

I've mentioned here before, I think, about how I've been visiting and bearing witness at the monthly Johnston County Commission meetings here in North Carolina, for more than two years now.

Their Johnston County airport is home to Aero Contractors, of "torture taxi" infamy. More on Aero here.
(The company is still going strong BTW.)

This is a very conservative area, and the Commissioners are all Republicans, who usually run without opposition.
Well, something remarkable has happened there, and it came into clear focus during and after last Monday's meeting with the Johnston County Commissioners (JCC).

A colleague who has been there often with me agreed that we seem to have reached a new stage there,
which should offer some new opportunities, and perhaps this "case study" could be of some use to other accountability workers in other parts of the country.

The nub of it is that after two-plus years of monthly visits and careful, polite but pointed colloquies, we appear to have established a high degree of rapport there. Such that when I came in last Monday, some of the commissioners smiled and called me by name, and made cordial small talk. And when the time came to speak, they were both interested and friendly. None seemed to bridle at my clear statements against torture and the JC connections to it.

At the end, it was as if we were leaving a party with old friends. (Actually, it was a bit dis-orienting.)

One Commissioner, who has in the past been very hostile, even said that he had decided the Afghan war was awful and the US should bring all the troops home now and that he was ready to "be a pacifist like Fager."

I think this comment was somewhat in jest (but not entirely: it was sparked by his mention of the awful killings in the wake of the Quran burning in Florida. He didn't seem able to decide which was more awful.) Yet this came from a former Commission Chairman who once told us torture was just fine (as long as the US did it), and that he loved to watch "24."

One other telling statement was from the current Chairman, that if "we gave them something they could do something about, they don't mind acting and doing."

I think this is important because they used to say they WOULDN'T do anything about this, period, no matter what. And while what the Chairman said could be partly another form of an old excuse, I think there's more involved: suppose some of them have heard our cries, and have come to feel that torture IS wrong, and something bad MIGHT be happening at their Johnston County airport?? What in practical terms could they do about it?

The answer is not as easy as it might seem from our perspective ("Investigate Aero!" has been our refrain.) That's because as a practical matter, the county airport largely runs itself, makes its own money. AND it deals with agencies (Aero/CIA) which dwarf the resources of the JCC, and could produce instant blowback if the JCC tried to mess with them directly.

So I sensed a certain subtext to the comment, almost a plea, maybe like this: "We really have much less power than you think, even in our own county; so what else might we do?"

Considering how effective the Torture Establishment has been in closing down the courts, stopping the White House from closing Gitmo or pursuing any accountability, etc., etc., such a sotto voce plea seems quite credible to me.

If some at JCC are starting to question the rightness of torture and Aero's involvement, they must also be feeling trapped: the power structure of which they are a relatively minor, low-level part, is committed, all the way to the top, to upholding the torture system. This is true informally as well as officially: the big local churches, the area banks, all their political cronies, the people they socialize with, have all accepted it. So if our two-plus years of preaching has sown any doubts, how do they get out of this web, this quicksand?

Please don't anybody think I am suggesting that we now give the JCC a pass because they have recently been cordial and friendly to me. Not at all. It's just that we're now at a place where it seems we could present ideas and get a real hearing, and have a real conversation about them. And we've been asked for some options to our traditional "investigate Aero" slogan; so let's step up. (And BTW, I'm still all FOR getting Aero investigated, one way or another.)

They have also shown that they can step outside the box, at least a little. Last month I was at the March JCC meeting, but did not get to speak, because the room and the hallway outside was jammed solid with NRA supporters, up in arms (figuratively, this time) because the JCC was considering a very minor restriction on how close to homes people could fire their weapons.

I stood outside and heard all the stuff about the Second Amendment and fighting crime and the first step toward tyranny, yada yada, some of it from some pretty creepy-looking folks. But after listening carefully and making some adjustments, the Commission faced them down and adopted the restriction unanimously.

During these two-plus years, the visits were often uncomfortable for me; the Commissioners were hostile for a long time. More than once I was angrily denounced by other local folks, and once came close to getting beat up.

That seems to have changed, at least with the Commission members. So in this more open environment, what else can we as accountability activists think of to suggest to them? It looks like a new opportunity is open. How do we make the most of it?

And are there other local authorities where some kind of ongoing witness of dialogue could be undertaken?

A Visit To America

2011-03-08T15:21:00.000-08:00

Last Monday night in SmithfIeld, North Carolina I spent two hours in the hallway outside the session of the Johnston County Commission. The chamber itself was packed, and the hall around it bulged with 50-75 more folks, mostly SRO.

I was there to talk about torture. Johnston County's airport is home to a notorious CIA front company that makes "torture taxi" flights. You remember, the ones where people are kidnapped and taken to very bad places and have evil things done to them for years, after which most are released without being charged with anything, all courtesy of us US taxpayers.

(Oh, did you think that unpleasantness was all over with, Citizen? Sorry; the company's still in business in this dawning spring of 2011-- in fact it's growing. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.)

Anyway, I've been visiting the Commission's monthly meetings for more than two years. They have a public comments at the close of their sessions, and I take my turn, to remind them about the company, and urge them to take action to end their county's complicity with war crimes.

Very politely, of course; but persistently. So far, they have declined to heed this advice; but they listen, and I'm still trying. That makes me perhaps an optimist or perhaps a fool. (We report, you decide.)

Most Commission meetings deal with humdrum zoning changes--a convenience store here, a used car dealer there-- and the typical turnout is no threat to American Idol TV ratings.

Last Monday night was different. The TV news truck outside was my second clue; the jammed parking lot was the first. I figured they hadn't all come to listen to me. And once I saw the abundance of NRA caps and tee shirts, I hoped not, and
began to think that perhaps mailing in this month's comments might be the better part of valor. But I stayed, waiting to see.

The crowd had gathered because the Commission was considering a rather minimalist ordinance aimed at slightly reining in the wild shooting that goes on in many places in this once almost entirely rural, gun-oriented county. Their uncaged, free range shooting tradition is becoming a problem because a steady stream of suburbanites is moving in, spilling over from the nearby Triangle region.

Along with these newcomers have come plenty of reports about stray bullets crashing through windows, semi-automatic bursts splitting the night, and other unsettling and dangerous incidents, producing hundreds of alarmed calls to the Sheriff's office. But deputies say they had no regulatory leg to stand on.

So the County Commissioners had to do something. Now, they are all conservative Republicans, who are not about to take anybody's guns away. In fact, everybody who spoke Monday swore fealty to the Second Amendment, sacred gun rights and yada yada. Besides which, the county attorney read out a long list of exceptions just added to the ordinance, which to this layperson's ear made it sound as if its mild restrictions only applied during weeks without a Tuesday in them.

Still, amid this overwhelmingly unsympathetic crowd, the ordinance did have a few fans. Early on a young woman spoke passionately of how her husband was killed by somebody's accidental gunshot about a year ago; "my little boy will never know his daddy." Then there were locals who didn't appreciate having to offer kevlar along with baked beans at backyard barbecues. Another couple described the young hotshots who blew thru many of the big clips at a homemade "range" right next door every weekend, waving the guns in all directions.

All three of these speakers, even the bereaved widow, were avowedly "pro-gun," probably loved the cowboy president from Texas. None of which carried any weight with the crowd in the hallway.

One opponent told the Board he had been a scout in Iraq, was wounded in combat there, and warned that the Commission mustn't get in the way of the needed gun training for the 1 per cent like him who make life safe for the rest of us. (You got that? He got a round of applause.)

He was countered by a Korean veteran who also loves his guns, yet dared to speak up in favor of the ordinance after his grown daughter acquired an unplanned bullet hole in her new porch. He spoke firmly, while many in the crowd murmured their unease.

And right behind him was a hardliner who said a flat NO! to any new gun regulations at all, period. (LOUD applause.)

And on it went, till the Commission Chairman patiently said the Commissioners had heard enough and were ready to vote.

They didn't waste time either: the ordinance passed unanimously.

At this the crowd surged from the room, into the hallway and out the door, with much talk about running against the commissioners (who are usually re-elected without opposition). This was my opportunity to slip in behind them and get a seat, torture updates in hand, ready for my cameo.

But when the smoke has just about cleared, the Clerk spots me and says the Board had adjourned the meeting, and I notice that at least three of the seven Commissioners are halfway out the door.

Several others are quite apologetic when they see me, saying they were looking for me but didn't see me. No surprise, given the wall-to-wall crush. After an evening like this one, I might have offered a spell of almost-comic relief, with my novel focus on rendition, torture, and other easy-to-ignore matters.

But I say, no problem. And I mean it quite sincerely. They saw that I came; I'll put the updates in the mail, and be back next month, God (and the NRA) willing.

Am I sorry that the now-vanishing defenders of the iconic gun rights missed the chance to hear me expounding, however briefly, on some other human rights?

Only the tiniest bit. Call me chicken if you want, but hey -- kevlar just makes me look fat. Or fatter. Whatever.

DADT Repeal: Its Double-Barreled Significance

2010-12-20T11:57:00.000-08:00

Ahem, Ladies and Gentlemen of the press, thank you for coming today. I have a statement from the Director for you regarding the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Then we'll be happy to take your questions and comments.

Statement by Chuck Fager, Director of Quaker House, Fayetteville NC, on the repeal of DADT:

I've been calling for repeal of DADT for some time, and welcome it.

This change has two important effects, I think:

First, it will enable thousands of present and future soldiers to pursue their careers on their merits, which is only as it should be.

Second, beyond these individual cases, repealing DADT strikes an important blow to the identification of war with masculinity, with heterosexuality, with America, and all three with God.

This identification is idolatry, pure and simple. But it is all too widespread in American Christianity, and it is way past time for it to be broken up.

Ending DADT will move that breakup forward.

Thanks be to God, the Congress, and the White House.

(And a special thank you to the one reporter who actually did call, and keeps this from being 100 per cent self-indulgent.)

And in another vein, a few days ago a Friend wrote:

Chuck, Am I the only Quaker who is conflicted about this legislation to eliminate Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell so that it will be easier to recruit and keep non heterosexuals for the US military machine?

My reply, which I'd like to share:

I haven't heard from any other Quakes about this recently, but I expect you're not alone. Indeed, I feel some of this ambivalence too, but come out clearly in favor of repeal.

Sure, I'd prefer that nobody signed up. But beyond the matter of respecting personal choices, and believe me, some people (gay & straight) really love being in the military - there looms the issue of the military as one of the major cultural (and religious) bastions and icons of American homophobia.

Breaking through that, in my view, has implications far beyond whether a few thousand LGBT folks get to sign up openly. It punches a gaping hole in the institutional support system for religious and cultural systems that identify masculinity with war, hetero with masculinity (yes, I think this is 99% about males), America with both, and God with all three. To me this is a big freaking deal.

So I can understand your ambivalence, but at the end of the day for DADT, all I can say is:

Onward Christian LGBT soldiers. In Quaker parlance, if thee feels thee must wear that sword, then wear it as long as thou canst, and as what thou really are: out and proud. Be ALL that thou can be.

But one thing more: when thee has second thoughts about WAR, as distinct from being gay, give us a call at the Quaker House GI Rights Hotline, 1-877-447-4487. We've been there for you during DADT, and we'll be there after it's gone.

Female GI Likely Homicide Victim

2010-11-24T12:48:00.000-08:00

The Good News is: it's been awhile since a female GI from Ft. Bragg was murdered by her peers.
The Bad News: It's apparently happened again.
The Predictable additional bad news: looks like another Army coverup has been in play.

Fayetteville NC Observer - November 17, 2010 .

Murder in Iraq? -- Soldier’s death not an accident

By John Ramsey, Staff writer

The death in July of a Fort Bragg paratrooper in Iraq was originally considered an accident, but investigators say they’re now treating it as a homicide.
Spc. Morganne Marie McBeth, 19, died in Asad, Iraq, on July 2, according to Army news releases that first announced her death.
Investigators were first told the death was accidental, said Chris Grey, a spokesman for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, also known as CID.
“However, as the criminal investigation progressed, our special agents came to disbelieve the report of an accident,” Grey said in an e-mail response to questions. “We take the death of this soldier very seriously and are investigating it as a homicide.”
McBeth deployed to Iraq in August 2009 as a combat medic assigned to the 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division. During its yearlong deployment, none of the brigade’s soldiers died in combat.
McBeth’s parents, Leonard and Sylvia McBeth of Fredericksburg, Va., said they’re frustrated that authorities have been slow to charge for their daughter’s death.
Sylvia McBeth said she’s now been told three different stories about how their daughter died.
The first soldiers who notified the McBeths told them that Morganne McBeth had accidentally stabbed herself while playing with a knife in a tent.
Later, they were told she was tossing a knife against a board with two other soldiers. The knife got lodged in the board, and one of the soldiers accidentally stabbed McBeth when pulling out the knife.
Finally, Slyvia McBeth said, investigators told them she was murdered. The suspects were friends of McBeth’s, Sylvia said.
Sylvia McBeth said investigators told them one soldier will be charged with murder, conspiracy and obstruction of justice while another will be charged with conspiracy and obstruction.
Those soldiers may be at Fort Bragg.
Soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team returned to Fort Bragg in August.
An 82nd Airborne Division spokesman confirmed that no arrests have been made and directed all other questions about the investigation to CID.
“As far as we know, these individuals are not arrested, they are not charged with any crime. They told us they are not a danger to anybody or themselves and they are not a flight risk,” Sylvia McBeth said. “We don’t know what the problem is, why they’re not being charged or why they’re not being held accountable for what they did.”
She said investigators haven’t updated the family in more than two months. That’s why she and her husband decided to start talking to reporters.
McBeth said she spoke to her daughter days before her death. She said McBeth was unhappy with her unit and planned to seek another assignment after the deployment ended.
McBeth joined the Army on July 9, 2008, and had been stationed at Fort Bragg since Feb 25, 2009.
Sylvia McBeth said investigators told her that her daughter was able to give a full statement to military police before she died. She said she hasn’t been told what her daughter said, except that there was some type of struggle.
Grey, the CID spokesman, said family members are kept in the loop on investigations, but for investigative purposes he couldn’t discuss details of what they were told.
He said the first death notification to the family would have come from Army notification officers, not crime investigators. Grey said he has no way of knowing what those soldiers told the McBeth family.
As the criminal case progressed, Grey said, the reports to family members would have changed to reflect new findings.
“Keep in mind that only at the conclusion of the investigation will there be conclusive findings based on final lab results, witness statements and other issues that significantly affect a death investigation of this importance,” Grey said.

Wikileaks & Torture: Hold The Mayo?

2010-11-04T09:58:00.000-07:00

Our local paper published this piece today. Feel free to pass it on if you are so moved.

Fayetteville NC Observer –Thursday November 4, 2010
Op-ed: An order of war news, hold the mayo
By Chuck Fager 
Fayetteville NC

Tom Ricks was a heckuva war reporter in his Washington Post days. He's
the furthest thing from a peacenik, but his book, "Fiasco," told the awful truth about the Iraq occupation's disastrous early years, and earned him mountains of respect.

Now he runs his own influential blog, "The Best Defense," where he's still telling it like he sees it.

And what Rick saw in the big Wikileaks document release [about the Iraq War] was, in a word, "crap."

"Maybe I'm going soft," he wrote recently, "but the Wikileaks dump kind of makes me ill."

Why? "If the leaks brought great revelations," he wrote, "I might think
differently, but so far I don't think I have been surprised by a single thing I've read."

But that's too mild. Tom's ultimate verdict is that "adding mayonnaise doesn't turn chicken [poop] into chic
ken salad. Here's my test: Tell me one thing we didn't know last week that we know now about the Iraq war."

Well, I hate to differ with one of my war reporter heroes, but here I have to stop and ask: Just who is included in this "we" you're talking about, Tom? Who knew all this already?

No doubt war-weary veteran reporters such as Ricks know tons more about what's happened "dow
nrange" than I ever will.

But I have been paying attention these last eight years. And since the Wikileaks cascades, I've learned many things I didn't know before. To judge by the reaction of informed observers in many places, a lot of other people learned things, too, beyond what Ricks shrugged off as an "Iraqi version of a dog bites man story."


Here's a short list of some items this other "we" just learned, from the Wikileaks disclosures:

-- That U.S. forces were keeping detailed track of civilian casualties, even while loudly denying it. Which makes the denials a pack of lies, Tom. (OK, there were lots of such packs.)

-- That these civilian casualties were much higher than previously reported. So much higher that eve
n the Iraq Body Count, always very conservative in its estimates, is adding more than 15,000 to its total. Is that truly a so-what, Tom? Fifteen thousand extra dead civilians, and counting?

-- Then there's the documentation of massive torture and murder of civilians, not by insurgents but by U.S. "allies," including many women and children. And that U.S. commanders turned the victims over wholesale to Iraqi units notorious for such barbarous savagery.

-- More, we learned that this neglect of torture was a matter of policy, with top-down instructions for U.S. troops to ignore the carnage.
Torture
But wait a minute - could that mean it wasn't just a few low-rank "bad apples" such as the hapless Lynndie England and the sadistic Charles Graner, who were responsible for "abuses"? Really? Did Ricks know that, too?

Which brings us to the subject of power drills. No doubt Tom was aware of their deployment as instrum
ents of torture and murder.

Actually, I knew about them too, since the months of 2005-06 when I monitored dozens of obscure news reports every night for news of my doomed hostage friend, Tom Fox. I recall that particularly, because it was also when the Pentagon was consistently denying that there was a civil war raging around Baghdad.

But those were the bad guys, right? The ones our forces were there to stop? Only now I learn that the power drills were widely in use by U.S. "allies" against thousands of Iraqis, mainly civilians.

OK, I admit it: homicide-by-power drill gives me the creeps. Maybe I'm going soft.

If so, that Wikileaks video of the laughing helicopter massacre had something to do with it. Sure, people get killed in war, and trigger judgments are often split-second. But face it - the laughter is what pushed that video past horrible to shameful.

So maybe the U.N. torture investigator's call for a U.S. investigation of all this is just showboating. But then again, maybe not.

Ricks worries that "great newspapers are getting played" by all the Wikileaks fuss. And no doubt many documents do no more than confirm the adage, "War is hell."

But that chestnut can be a truth, or it can be an excuse.
For my part, dismissing the new hellish depths Wikileaks exposed sounds more like an excuse. No amount of mayonnaise will sweeten that verdict.

And by the way, what does mayonnaise do to a power drill?


Chuck Fager is director of Quaker House in Fayetteville NC.

The New Lavender Peace Movement??

2010-10-31T11:06:00.000-07:00

The New Lavender Peace Movement?

October 31, 2010

[Fayetteville/Fort Bragg NC]--For antiwar folks and peaceniks, there was a welcome, if hidden surprise in the weekend’s news.

You had to dig for it, though. It was buried in a letter about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT), which was sent in September but just surfaced in an Associated Press report out of Raleigh NC.

The letter to the president and the Pentagon was signed by 66 retired military chaplains. It urged the officials to maintain the DADT policy.

DADT has led to the expulsion of 13000-plus servicemembers since 1993, and the policy has been targeted for repeal, by the courts, Congress and the White House, and seems likely to succumb to whichever actually has the nerve to pull the trigger first.

The chaplains’ letter, along with a whole cache of other pro-DADT and anti- gays-in-the-military materials, have been usefully collected on this website:

It was among this collection that the good news for peace folks was unearthed.
This news is not about the arguments over DADT itself; those have been pretty well laid out, to the point of tedium.

No, what caught my eye were a couple of solemn prophecies by some of these military weighties on the probably effects of DADT’s repeal.

Taken together, these add up to the best news this peacenik has heard in a long time.

The first piece was in a letter from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay litigation group based in Kansas. (The full letter is here: )

“Historically, the values taught by chaplains-like honor, duty, self-sacrifice, courage, sexual fidelity, and complete commitment to goals and truths that are bigger than anyone person-directly supported those of the military. Perhaps the only recent example of tension between the combat arms and the chaplaincy was during the later phases of the Vietnam War, when a few chaplains aligned with pacifistic teachings were perhaps overly enthusiastic in facilitating the discharge of conscientious objectors. But a far more serious conflict will arise if homosexual behavior is officially normalized by the military: For the first time in American history, the military's moral policies on sexual conduct would directly conflict with the official doctrines, moral teaching, and ethical standards of every major faith group in the chaplaincy--Christian, Jewish, and Islamic.”(Emphasis added.)

Wait a minute: some chaplains during the Vietnam war were “overly enthusiastic in facilitating the discharge of conscientious objectors”? And “a few” of them were even “aligned with pacifistic teachings”???

That’s news to me; tell me more!

Sure, I’m aware that there were lots of COs during Vietnam; and why not, when an immoral war and the military draft combined to bring tens of thousands of thoughtful young men up close and personal with the moral canyon that yawned between their values (such as honor and courage) and the pointless carnage they were expected to join?

So that’s no surprise. But pacifistic chaplains helping them out with enthusiasm, excessive or otherwise? I want to know more about that, right now.

For the letter’s authors, however, this unsubstantiated reference to troublesome peacenik chaplains is but the lead-in to the prophecy, that ending DADT will create “a far more serious conflict” within the chaplaincy corps and the military itself.

(Does it leap out at you, as it did me, that the private sexual behavior of a small segment of loyal troops is seen here as a much more serious problem than the impact of an immoral war on a much larger segment of the force, not to mention millions of innocent civilians the war left dead and maimed? But for now we can only take note of the incongruity.)

What will this ostensibly cataclysmic change mean for the DADT-free military? Here’s where the prophecies come in. One is from Roy L. Bebee, a retired Navy chaplain and “Executive Director/Endorsing Agent” for the “Evangelical free Church of America.” Bebee says,

“I foresee the day when the military may have problems retaining some of its best chaplains if the repeal is approved. Furthermore, I will be reluctant to endorse chaplains to serve within an institution that embraces and affirms immoral conduct. Approximately 60-75% of all 3300+ of military chaplains and chaplain candidates align themselves with evangelical churches and their beliefs and values. Most chaplains have serious concerns for any Repeal of DADT; I represent nearly 102 of them within our endorsing body and the 1,460 sending churches.”

If DADT goes, Bebee predicts, so will a sizable chunk of the two-thirds plus of chaplains who are doctrinally committed to the anti-gay version of biblical teachings. This prediction (threat?) has been echoed by some other denominations as well.

But that’s not all. Next up is that largest of U.S. Protestant denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which last June adopted a “Keep DADT” resolution. This declaration included the assertion that if DADT goes,

“Military recruiting will be crippled because:
(1) those segments of the American population most represented in the armed services are also those segments most likely to have moral convictions against homosexual behavior,
(2) a great many of those who have served in the military since 1993 say they would not have served if required to live on intimate terms with open homosexuals,
(3) should current law be repealed, a large percentage of currently serving military personnel say they will not reenlist or will end their careers early, and
(4) should current law be repealed, many parents will not entrust their sons and daughters to superiors who require them to live on intimate terms with open homosexuals . . . .”

So there is it. If Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed, we are advised, not only will much of the most conservative military chaplains leave, the military itself will shrivel drastically.

Now I ask you, for a peacenik, in all of this, what’s not to like?

Some of us have been laboring for decades to find ways of shrinking the military, and rolling back the crusader mentality joined with biblicist homophobia in an ever-growing chunk of the chaplaincy and officers corps.

And suddenly, here it is: kill DADT, and presto, job done, or almost.

Where anti-DADT advocates merely thought they were reaching for equality of service in a hazardous occupation, according to these veteran seers, it will turn out that they were actually the vanguard who dealt the Military Industrial Complex a nearly mortal blow. What all our petitioning and mass marches and civil disobedience and tax resistance couldn’t accomplish, the Lavender brigades will achieve by a stealth attack.

Well, if that’s how it turns out, I say, Here's to Irony, and God bless every gay or lesbian who ever hit on a recruiter.

[Sigh.] But what these letter-writers see as a guaranteed nightmare scenario evokes a pleasant daydream that keeps me smiling – for about fifteen minutes.

Then an artillery blast out on Fort Bragg rattles the windows for the nth time today, and snaps me back awake. With that, realism sets in again.

Alas, almost all of this huffing and puffing is just that. Trust me: there will be no US military collapse if DADT goes. Nor will the chaplain corps be emptied out.

The reason none of this will happen is quite simple; in fact, it reduces to a single four-letter word:

J-O-B-S.

Chaplaincy slots are jobs. The pay is good, the bennies generous; pensions beckon after as few as twenty years. And preachers, when you get past the motley of clerical garb and the jumble of doctrines, share one key ecumenical feature: they are all people who need jobs. As too many of us have noticed, jobs are hard to come by today.

So maybe a few will toss away their chaplain’s officer perks and head off to the mission fields. But I confidently predict their numbers will be few -- and that for every one who leaves, many equally evangelical but currently underemployed preachers will be waiting in the wings to take their places, and paychecks.

The same goes for the troops themselves. Overwhelmingly, new recruits come from places where decent civilian jobs are scarce, a fact which happens to overlap heavily with Southern Baptist territory. Recruiters there are still exceeding their quotas this year, even with reduced budgets, given the boost of the unemployment rate.

Besides which, the Southern Baptist resolution made me laugh out loud with its prissy harumphing about “many parents will not entrust their sons and daughters” to a post-DADT military.

Did they think the army is a scout troop, or a Bible camp? Had no one told them that a Baptist youth of only seventeen, though unable to legally vote, drink, get a driver’s or marriage license, can still enlist in the military to kill or be killed, without parental consent? (And once in, Mom, there's no do-overs. Well, unless you want to call our GI Rights Hotline at 1-877-447-4487; then we’ll talk.)

Post-DADT, the more affluent Baptist kids will go off to college, as usual. For the less affluent, unfortunately, military recruiters will still have considerable appeal, until and unless the job outlook gets a whole lot better.

As for the chances of a gay and lesbian “invasion” vanquishing a US military that no force, from the British in 1776, to Al Qaeda in 2010, has able to destroy -- this scenario reads like a bad movie script, and not one from Mel Gibson. More like Mel Brooks.

Oh well; it was nice while it lasted. Back to the grind.

Torture Accountability Update - June 2010

2010-06-09T14:28:00.000-07:00

Each month for over a year, I've been visiting the meetings of the Johnston County NC Commission. This body has oversight of the Johnston County Airport, home to Aero Contractors, the notorious "torture taxi" company.

I've been urging the County Commission to investigate the allegations of involvement in torture, kidnapping and other war crimes.

Needless to say, they have been refusing. But I'm not giving up.

In recent months, I've prepared a printed update for the Commissioners, highlighting the important developments on the accountability front during the previous weeks.
This month, I'm putting this update here as well, with links to the full articles excerpted in it.

The work of accountability is moving slow. That's as we expected. But even so, much is happening. This summary is by no means comprehensive.

Here we go:

England:

Torture and rendition:
Inquiry expected to expose officials who colluded
Disclosures made by press about the way British facilities used
during US programme of extraordinary rendition

Ian Cobain
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 May 2010

The judicial inquiry announced by the foreign secretary into Britain's role in torture and rendition since September 2001 is poised to shed extraordinary light on one of the darkest episodes in the country's recent history.
It is expected to expose not only details of the activities of the security and intelligence officials alleged to have colluded in torture since 9/11, but also the identities of the senior figures in government who authorised those activities.
William Hague's decision follows a series of reports in the Guardian and other media over the last five years about the manner in which British intelligence officers were told they could interrogate terrorism suspects they knew were being tortured, and the way in which that secret policy was used in effect to subcontract torture to overseas intelligence agencies.
There has also been a steady drip of disclosures about the way in which British territory, airspace and facilities have been used during America's programme of extraordinary rendition and about orders that led to British special forces in Iraq handing over detainees to US forces, despite fears they were to be tortured.
Finally, the British army has been forced to admit that at least eight people died in its custody in Iraq, including a number who were being interrogated using illegal techniques including hooding.
Those who have been most bitterly resisting an inquiry – including a number of senior figures in the last government – may have been dismayed to see the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed, as this maximised the chances of a judicial inquiry being established.

More here

'Second jail' at Afghan air base
By Hilary Andersson
BBC News – May 11, 2010
The US airbase at Bagram in Afghanistan contains a facility for detainees that is distinct from its main prison, the Red Cross has confirmed to the BBC.
Nine former prisoners have told the BBC that they were held in a separate building, and subjected to abuse.
The US military says the main prison, now called the Detention Facility in Parwan, is the only detention facility on the base.
However, it has said it will look into the abuse allegations made to the BBC.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said that since August 2009 US authorities have been notifying it of names of detained people in a separate structure at Bagram.

More here

More on Afghanistan:

From The Atlantic Online:

What We Know About Now-Confirmed 'Black Site' Prison at Bagram

By Max Fisher on May 11, 2010

In November, the New York Times and Washington Post reported the existence of a secret "black site" prison at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. The site, unconfirmed by the military and separate from the main prison at Bagram, was reported based on interviews with human-rights workers and people who claimed to be former detainees.

Now the BBC reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross has confirmed the site's existence with the military. The U.S. official in charge of Afghanistan detention, Vice Admiral Robert Harward has denied that the prison, reportedly called the Tor Jail after the Urdu word for "black," exists. What do we know?
Tor Jail Conditions BBC's Hilary Andersson reports, "In recent weeks the BBC has logged the testimonies of nine prisoners who say they had been held in the so-called 'Tor Jail'. They told consistent stories of being held in isolation in cold cells where a light is on all day and night. The men said they had been deprived of sleep by US military personnel there." The cells are filled with a constant noise and guards regularly wake prisoners to prevent them from sleeping.
Tor Jail Detainee Speaks Andersson records an account from one detainee. "Mirwais was watering his plants one night when American soldiers came to get him. He is still missing half a row of teeth from the beating he says he got that night and he says he cannot hear properly in one ear. US troops accused him of making bombs and giving the Taliban money."

More here

SPAIN:

From the “No Comment” blog
By Scott Horton
May 12, 12:39 PM
Arrest of 13 CIA Agents Sought in Spain
Prosecutors attached to the Audiencia Nacional in Madrid are reportedly requesting that Judge Ismael Moreno issue an order for the arrest of thirteen CIA agents involved in an extraordinary rendition operation from 2004, the newspaper El País reports this afternoon, citing sources within the court.
The case relates to Khaled El-Masri, a greengrocer from Neu-Ulm, Germany, seized by the United States as a result of mistaken identity while he was on vacation in the former Yugoslavia. El-Masri was placed on a CIA-chartered jet that arrived in Macedonia from Palma de Majorca in January 2004, en route ultimately to Afghanistan. It appears that Majorca was used regularly as a refueling and temporary sheltering point for the CIA, with the knowledge of the prior conservative government. While held in the notorious CIA prison known as the Salt Pit, El-Masri was apparently tortured during extensive interrogations before intelligence officers realized that they had seized the wrong man.

More here

US:

Washington Post SpyTalk Blog May 14, 2010
How will the CIA deal with 'rendition' supervisor?

The CIA is apparently standing by the counterterrorism official who supervised the “extraordinary rendition” and harsh treatment of an innocent man six years ago, even as Spanish prosecutors stir up new interest in the case with their request for the arrest of 13 of her underlings.
The woman, whose identity is being withheld at the CIA’s request, has been promoted twice since the abduction of Khaled el-Masri, a Muslim of Lebanese descent who had become a German citizen in 2003, according to intelligence sources.
Masri was picked up at her urging in 2004, when she was the CIA’s “hard-charging” al-Qaeda unit chief, and bundled off to a secret prison in Afghanistan, according to published accounts in The Washington Post and elsewhere.
But right away, the CIA rendition team “had a strange feeling about Masri,” according to an account by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer in her book, “The Dark Side.”
“He wasn’t acting like a terrorist.”
The CIA’s Kabul station chief “was incensed” that he’d been handed “an innocent person” and protested to the Counterterrorism Center, Mayer wrote in an account that echoed earlier reporting by The New York Times and others.
“But the CTC officials sent back word that the head of the Al Qaeda Unit wanted Masri held and interrogated. She thought he seemed suspicious.”
“She always did these cases based on her gut,” a CIA counterterrorism veteran told SpyTalk, with disdain. "She'd say, 'this guy's bad, that guy's dirty,' because she had a 'feeling' about them."

More here

Check back for more Accountability updates.

Ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell" - An Exchange

2010-06-03T15:14:00.000-07:00

I don't recall ever seeing an article in our local paper, the Fayetteville Observer, that was affirmative of GLBT issues, or in particular, supported the pending repeal of the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy.

This doesn't mean that the paper is a font of homophobic verbiage; but when anti-gay articles do appear, they usually go unanswered.

That silence is consistent with the general atmosphere of the community. Racial integration has been the policy of the military for sixty years, and federal law for almost fifty; racism surely still exists here, but it skulks in corners and speaks in code.

Homophobia is another matter. I am acquainted with a number of gays and lesbians here, some of whom are quite active in the community. But there is no visible gay presence in the city. No "Gay Pride Day," no vocal organizations, and the gay bars keep a very low profile.

Hence when an Op-Ed appeared in the Observer a couple of weeks ago, the chances were that it would go unanswered. The text of that commentary, by retired Chaplain Ronald Crews, is below, for reference.

But this communal closeting has long been a burden to me, and I decided to speak up for my own convictions, and perhaps those of some others who did not feel safe to speak.

My Op-Ed response was published in the Observer on Thursday June 3. It is posted here as well.

As advocacy goes, my piece is pretty mild. that reflects an effort to take the immediate audience into account. A couple of the online comments for the paper's website are also pasted in here, to give an idea of the response.

So, here first is the original piece, by Ronald Crews, published May 26, 2010:

Let military decide gay issue
By Ronald A. Crews

President Barack Obama announced early in his administration his desire to repeal the law commonly known as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate to accomplish the president’s desire and make a 180-degree change in military policy.
The Pentagon asked for a year to review the impact of repealing the policy that has been codified since the Clinton administration. Without waiting for this review, Congress has already begun hearings on the bill to fast-track this legislation.
As part of the Pentagon review, endorsing agents, those responsible for providing chaplains to our armed forces, were asked to submit information about the impact of this repeal on chaplains and their ministry. Grace Churches International currently endorses 14 chaplains on active duty with others in the pipeline to become chaplains.
As a retired Army chaplain, having served 29 years on active duty and in the reserve system, I am concerned about how the repeal of this policy will affect not only the ministry of chaplains, but also the morale and welfare of our soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
We believe that military leaders, not politicians, should make this decision. This decision should be based on military needs and not a political agenda or payback to a special- interest group. Our military should not be used as a social experiment.
Further, this push is a distraction from providing the resources needed by our fighting forces as they continue one of the longest continual combat missions of our nation’s history. This is not the time for such a radical change. We propose that Congress should be debating ways to support our men and women in uniform, not debating whether to make this radical change.
Grace Churches International chaplains, along with chaplains from other faith groups, serve the men and women of our armed forces regardless of their faith background or sexual practices. However, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will impose a policy of how they serve a certain portion of the military population. This raises the following questions.
Preaching/teaching sound doctrine regarding sinful conduct: Like other Evangelical Christians, we believe that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle. Our chaplains must be able to address sin as they see it, knowing that sinful behavior is harmful to individuals and to society at large. Chaplains must be able to speak against sin from the pulpit, as well as within a counseling session. Chaplains must also remain free to use the scripturally accurate depiction of the sinful nature of homosexual relations when necessary. Impact: Will chaplains be free to preach and counsel their convictions?
Counseling of soldiers who are affected by the conduct of homosexual personnel: Chaplains must feel free to validate a soldier’s faith-based view of homosexuality as sin within the counseling environment. Chaplains must also be free to advise commanders in addressing the needs of soldiers who feel such conduct has violated their rights. Impact: Will chaplains be free to advise soldiers that they can maintain their convictions concerning homosexual behavior? Will chaplains be free to advise commanders of how soldiers have been adversely impacted by the homosexual behavior of peers and/or supervisors?
Strong Bonds: Strong Bonds marriage retreats are part of the commander’s program for assisting married soldiers after deployments. Commanders will be required by law to protect the rights of homosexuals in their command to have equal access to the programs and services that a chaplain provides, leaving a chaplain’s ministry vulnerable to Equal Opportunity violations. Impact: Will chaplains be required to include cohabiting homosexual couples in Strong Bonds events? If chaplains refuse to include homosexual couples, will they be guilty of Equal Opportunity violations?
Chaplains are often given chapel duties that require working with persons of different faith groups. One of the strengths of the Chaplain Corps has been the collegiality and respect for chaplains from other faiths. That said, chaplains often find themselves not able to share pulpit responsibilities with chaplains from faith groups they deem inconsistent with their belief system. Impact: Will chaplains be required to share pulpit duties with homosexual chaplains or lay-leaders?
Other considerations:
Adultery: Since most states and federal law still define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, will homosexuals living together open the door to the legitimization of adultery among all ranks in the military?
If homosexual soldiers can share rooms together in a barracks, will the same accommodation be afforded to heterosexual men and women?
If the Department of Defense maintains that same-sex relationships have the same value, dignity and honor as heterosexual relationships, will DoD seek to restrict or limit the recruitment of clergy from denominations that embrace the traditional teachings of Judaism and Christianity on this subject?
Will tolerance and promotion of same-sex relationships become a discriminator on officer and NCO efficiency reports?
Grace Churches International will not endorse chaplains who hold hatred toward any person, regardless of lifestyle. We believe in the commandment to love and serve all people. But muzzling chaplains and forcing them to preach a politically correct gospel would ultimately violate that commandment, and so we oppose replacing the military’s current policy with special protections for homosexual behavior. May God grant His wisdom to our political leaders as they consider this radical change to military policy.
Ronald A. Crews, the executive director of Grace Churches International in Fayetteville, is a retired Army chaplain.

Now for my response:

Op-Ed: Policy's death a boost for morale

By Chuck Fager
Fayetteville

Ronald Crews ("Let military decide gay issue," May 26) decries the likely end of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and fears the impact of the change upon certain evangelical chaplains.
I'm all for ending DADT, for many reasons - and one of them is that Crews has much less to worry about than he thinks.
Crews insists that the military "should not be used for a social experiment." But isn't this much the same objection raised to desegregating the military 60 years ago? And didn't that "experiment" turn out rather well?
Crews also is worried about "the morale and welfare" of the troops, and calls DADT repeal a "distraction from providing the resources needed" for them.
Actually, repealing DADT will improve the morale and welfare of the troops. Especially that of the thousands of homosexual servicemen and women.
They're an important "resource," too. It will improve their welfare by removing an unnecessary risk from their lives - so they can better face the real ones, of which there are plenty.
For that matter, it will also improve the morale of many commanders. Enforcing DADT is a useless "distraction" they don't need. No question, the sooner DADT is gone, the better off all the services will be.
Chaplain conundrum
Yet, Crews wonders whether ending DADT will prevent some chaplains from preaching what they regard as "sound doctrine." Especially regarding the "scripturally accurate depiction of the sinful nature of homosexual relations when necessary."
But don't various churches already differ about many other issues? Are chaplains "muzzled" when it comes to, say, the hotly disputed issue of abortion? Or evolution? This should be no different.
But maybe there's a point here that needs a closer look. The doctrinal statement of Crews' Grace Churches International asserts that the whole Bible is "free from error in the whole and in the part," and I'm sure that is part of their preaching.
I note, however, that in both the Old Testament (Leviticus 21:9) and the New (Romans 1:32) it teaches that homosexuals deserve to be put to death. And we know that in Uganda, for instance, there's currently an effort to enact those commandments into law.
On principle, I support the free speech of any military chaplain who feels obliged to uphold such "scripturally accurate" doctrines.
I swallow hard when saying that, but I do.
Even so, I hope the chaplain would add that acting on these "scripturally accurate" strictures is against U.S. military and civil law today, and could lead to a long prison sentence or even capital punishment. Full disclosure.
Crews asks whether post-DADT chaplains will "be free to advise commanders of how soldiers have been adversely affected by the homosexual behavior of peers and/or supervisors?"
The answer is that, post-DADT, sexual harassment and assaults, regardless of orientation, will still be crimes.
But if one of Crews' flock simply dislikes serving alongside open homosexuals, there's another adage which is applicable. It is not biblical, but I'm told it has something of scriptural weight in military circles.
It is: "Suck it up and drive on, soldier. Follow your orders."
Yet, as it also says in 1 Corinthians 12:31, there is a "more excellent way."
Crews himself pointed to it, when he stated that one of the "strengths of the Chaplains Corps has been the collegiality and respect for chaplains from other faiths."
This is good to hear, especially when we consider that several large U.S. Protestant denominations already accept homosexuals as members and clergy. Two of the three largest Jewish communities do, too. All are represented in the chaplaincy.
I suggest that the solution for the evangelical chaplains Crews is concerned about is straightforward: simply extend the "collegiality and respect" accorded to these other chaplains to all the troops, whether homosexual or not.
Or to put it another way: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7).
That should take care of it, really.

Chuck Fager is director of Quaker House in Fayetteville.

And finally, here are a few of the comments from the paper's blog:

Lumbee Against La Razists Chuck,
using the Bible, of all things to validate the queer lifestyle and trying to normalize this behaviour that was once medically considered an abnormality of the brain is deplorable and cheap.
Let's consider the following medical conditions that will have to be addressed in a deployment, as if there aren't enough serious injuries that need the attention of the physician in the field. Come, let us reason together. Isn't that in the Bible too?
Check this out. A doctor wrote it. I copied and pasted it for you. All facts. All medical conditions that accompany this lifestyle that heterosexuals do not encounter on a regular basis. I feel that an open policy will greatly destroy the cohesive nature of military duty, especially in the field. I feel that resources that would be better used on injury caused by enemy fire will be wasted on injury caused by the promiscuity that defines this "gay" sick lifestyle. Please read the following carefully. Again, these are medical facts:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
(A long listing of awful diseases, all seen as consequences of gay sex; text deleted here for brevity)

- - - - - - -

Rev. Jeffrey C. Long Another bad idea. But coming from Mr. Fager and Quakerhouse, this is not at all surprising.

It is an especially cheap shot to try and equate "homosexual rights" with the Civil Rights movement and the opening of military service to Black Americans. As has been stated, this is of another category entirely. After all, being born dark skinned is what you are...being a homo is "what you DO," some of which as has been amply and disgustingly described above for us--lest we forget!

Furthermore, Mr. Fager, et al., most Black Americans take special umbrage at gays forever presuming to stow away on the Selma "freedom train." I will remind you that Seventy percent of them voted against prop 8 in California. Don’t play the “race card” where it in no way remotely applies!

As a former Army officer I am appalled enough the way it is WITH DADT!

Open homosexuality is a threat to the morale, morals, and cohesion (not to mention the physical AND mental health) of any social unit and this is particularly true in a military unit. The corruption of the German Armed Forces by homosexual cadres is well documented and should serve as a warning to us in America today.

Unfortunately, Obama and most Democrats are hell bent to defy the lessons of history, believing they can escape their consequences, and this all as a matter of political payoff to extremist groups who have given them their support.

It is NOT being “Christian” to witness the pending destruction of men and women -- which would be the inevitable entailment of such a ill-begotten policy—without raising a voice against it.
- - - - - -

Virginia
It's 2010 people, grow up! You're making an arguement about diseases and sexual practices which apply to BOTH homosexuals and heterosexuals. Besides, whether gay or straight these people are fighting for your freedom. How dare you criticize and judge someone who lays their life on the line so that you can live your life of ignorance.

2010-05-10T16:13:00.000-07:00

A Letter to the Next Director of Quaker House

A Note from the Quaker House Board: This past year, Quaker House celebrated its 40th anniversary in Fayetteville/Fort Bragg, NC. But now another milestone for QH is quickly approaching. Chuck Fager, QH director for the past 8 years, informed us three years ago that his work at QH will conclude at the end of November 2012.

We're grateful that Chuck has given us plenty of notice to plan for QH’s next chapter. It is a formidable task to find qualified leadership for this historic Friends peace witness. We know it will take time to find a successor with Chuck's tenacity, vision, and the fundraising skill that has kept QH viable even in hard economic times.

In his letter to the “Next Director of Quaker House” below, Chuck lays out for prospective director candidates the many challenges of the job. His letter is an earnest call for those who want to do significant work in the peace movement to look long and hard at this opportunity.

Our call, too, is for a new Director who will be aligned with and dedicated to the Quaker peace witness, and who can see the potential and significance of upholding this light in a U.S. military town. We look forward to the upcoming search.

From Chuck Fager

Dear Friend,

My work with Quaker House will conclude by the end of November 2012. So in a few months, we'll start looking for you in earnest. I'm relieved that the Quaker House (QH) board plans to give this search plenty of time, because frankly, I think it will be a challenge. Carrying out the QH mission is a unique and grueling task.

Here's the job description in a nutshell: as the next Director of Quaker House, besides managing a small non-profit, you will be called on to continue a protracted, hand-to-hand combat with the Spirit of War, operating behind the lines of one of its main strongholds, far from most Quaker bastions, and largely on your own.

Where in Quaker circles are Friends being prepared to take on such a mission? Frankly, I don't know, so the QH Board will be casting the net far and wide.

Let's break down the Director's job description a bit. Many of the routine tasks are familiar, basic to small nonprofits: designing and running the program; reporting to the board; keeping the supporters informed; supervising a small staff; and of course, raising the budget.

All necessary, but not the heart of the matter.

The central skills grow out of the unique setting of Quaker House, and have a lot to do with temperament as well as actual capabilities.

Topping the list is the ability to live for extended periods outside one's cultural comfort zone (or CCZ).

It's a truism that American society has become balkanized along cultural, political, religious and other lines; more and more we hang out with people who talk and think like ourselves, we stay in our CCZ. And among these divergent “zones,” no chasm is deeper or wider than that between Civilian America and Military America.

Friends, particularly liberal Quakers, are no exception to this trend; and in this particular respect, we are almost all located deep in the heartlands of the civilian side of the gap, culturally if not geographically.

This is not said to criticize, but to underline a fact: to live at Quaker House, on the doorstep of Fort Bragg, is to leave that Quaker milieu behind. In place of a pacifist heritage and a culture of civilian quiet, you'll step directly into the maw of the war machine: it's all around, not only outside, but rattling the windows when you're inside. War is the main industry in this company town. Goodbye, cozy Quaker CCZ.

Is there any other domestic Quaker project that's similarly situated? Not that I'm aware of.

And the specter of war is more than a matter of uniforms or equipment; you will also have to confront the human cost of war on a daily basis. Its victims haunt the streets, fill the news columns, huddle in the bars and churches.

Speaking of churches, there are 300+ Christian congregations in the Fayetteville area, some quite large and visible. Among these, Quaker House is the only one willing to declare in public that when Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," maybe he meant it. This is said less as a point of pride than an indicator of isolation.

To be sure, it's just as possible to see and speak to the Inner Light in military folks as in any other children of God. Our motto here is “YES to the troops, NO to the wars,” and as Director you will have ample opportunity to practice it. Plus there is a remnant of peace-minded folks in Fayetteville who can offer support; I have found good friends here. And Fayetteville Meeting is a tiny but tenacious Quaker bastion.

So the isolation is not total. But make no mistake: Quaker House is a mission outpost in foreign territory. So much so that you will soon find that very few Quakers from outside are prepared to venture from their CCZs to come to Fayetteville and ease your marginal status.

Indeed, there is a grim joke here, about how the distance from any of the region's established Meetings to Fayetteville must be much, much farther than that from Fayetteville to them.

Nevertheless, Quaker identity and connections are critical to QH and its mission. So if few Friends will come to you, then you will plan to go to them. Expect to spend much time on the road, especially in summer, visiting yearly meetings, monthly meetings and other gatherings.

More than spiritual support depends on these connections. They are also important to one of the Director's make-or-break practical capabilities, namely fundraising.

Apart from visits, our fundraising is mainly done on paper, via newsletters and appeals; so an effective Director will be a good writer. The internet is encroaching on print, so some web facility is also appropriate; but ink on paper will still be central to the fiscal health of QH for a long time to come.

Now, as to program: for as small an operation as we are, QH has fingers in many pies. This should be no surprise; militarism has seeped into every corner of our culture. No matter how much we do here, we can't keep up.

So as Director you'll be learning about some of the hundreds of regulations and policies involved in our GI Hotline counseling. Then there's the military recruiting apparatus to monitor. It's formidable and ubiquitous. It is abundantly financed and deploys top-flight marketing talent with great flexibility.

Recruiters also work hard -- many of them too hard, in ways that put their families and even their lives at risk. Witness the four suicides in one unit in 2007-2009.

This data points up another piece of the QH workload, one we did not seek but could not escape: what we now call Violence Within the Military.

It first came to my notice as an epidemic of domestic violence, especially shocking spousal murders. In the past year or so, these have receded, but only to be replaced by a surge of soldier suicides, which in 2009 exceeded the number killed in actual combat. These and associated phenomena are military-wide, with the heaviest toll in the Army.

In addition, there is another, even more ominous side of the military centered around Ft. Bragg: what we call the Torture Industrial Complex. Most of the known "rendition" flights that carried victims to secret prisons and Guantanamo took off from near here. The brutal and illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques" were taught here to the masters of Gitmo, and "migrated" from there to Abu Ghraib, Bagram and elsewhere. Further, several of the military's most secret and lethal units -- Delta Force and the Joint Special Operations Command -- are based and trained here.

As if all this isn't enough, there's one more important unit at Ft. Bragg, less colorful perhaps but very important nonetheless: the 4th Psychological Operations Group, a centerpiece of the Army's far-flung campaigns of "psychological warfare."

This unit's motto, "Words Conquer," points to a lot more than simply dropping leaflets on a battlefield urging enemy soldiers to surrender. It applies as much or more to the "homeland" as to any foreign adversary, and its principal, abiding "target" is us: the US citizenry, thee and me.

After all, Americans do not automatically start each new year resolved to spend more than half their tax money, and the lives of thousands here and abroad, to support a vast war machine: we need to be persuaded of that "necessity" and nobility, again and again.

Furthermore, when "Words Conquer" at home, the conquest depends as much on which words can be prevented from becoming part of public discourse as it does on inserting particular terms into it.

Many examples of such domestic psychological warfare could be listed here. Some of the most intensive skirmishes, however, involve issues that are close to our work: the tide of violence within the military (it must be downplayed at all times) and the programs of torture (which must never be admitted as such).

In my years here, this concentrated, relentless propaganda effort has had a major wearing effect. As much a course of self-deception as one of misleading others, it at once conceals, justifies and promotes the organized destruction and self-destruction that is our "military industrial complex."

And here we have named our principal adversary, and a formidable one it is: this “complex,” combines reinforcing elements of massive destruction, secrecy, torture, propaganda and deception into a machinery so vast and entrenched that it seems almost to run by itself. Indeed, the most useful image or metaphor for it to me is that of the biblical "principalities and powers." That is, forces that operate within and yet behind the visible components and institutions, moving the parts and the people within them.

As individuals, those caught in this web are as personally virtuous, or not, as anyone else. Yet this power encompasses all their individual wills (and in large measure ours too). And it bends the whole ineluctably in the direction of war and death.

This "Spirit (or Power) of War" is a metaphor, surely, and one drawn from a two-millennium old myth. And yet, at Quaker House this “myth” feels as tangible as the huge oak tree at the foot of the front lawn. For if its mechanisms have worldwide reach, many of the key cogs mesh and grind right here in eastern North Carolina. It can be heard rumbling through the woods; its priests and acolytes carry on their rituals in the open; its sacrificial victims stare out from the pages of our local paper.

At Ft. Bragg, for instance, more than three hundred soldiers had been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2009, and several thousand gravely wounded. In addition, dozens more have killed themselves or their spouses, and untold numbers bear the psychic wounds of what they have done in combat.

And how many Iraqis and Afghans have been killed, maimed or made homeless as these troops carried out their orders? Hundreds of thousands at least. In the CCZs, this appalling toll of death can be kept at a safe abstract distance. In Fayetteville, the windows rattle and one foregoes that luxury.

Now we approach what has been the most challenging part of the Director's mission, which brings together all the elements previously mentioned: namely, the call to see, name, and challenge this "spirit of war." Not just once, as amid the camaraderie of a springtime Washington peace march; but day in and day out, week in and year out. Thus the job demands both tactical skill and stamina.

Stamina: one of the most glaring defects of recent US wars is the near-total ignorance of our forces, from top to bottom, of the nations and cultures they are fighting. It takes time and commitment to develop the cultural competence for effective operations in a different society.

The same goes for peace work and Quaker House: it takes time for a Director to learn the “language” of a military town; it takes time to become established as a credible actor on the local scene. In my view, this means a new Director needs to stay for at least five years, and preferably longer. This is not a position for job-hoppers, or the unseasoned.

Nor, for that matter, for the faint of heart. Taking on this Spirit of War is what the same biblical texts which speak of such powers call "spiritual warfare" against them. And while this is another old metaphor, it too evokes an all-too-real combat.

In much popular religious writing, such "spiritual warfare" is typically reduced to calls for lots of prayer, and/or donations to some melodramatic preacher's ministry. Without disparaging either prayer or donations, taking on the "spirit of war" at Quaker House is a much more concrete contest. In taking it up, you will have more to learn from Sun Tzu than Pat Robertson.

I've written elsewhere of the value of studying classical military strategy and developing long-term planning and tactical agility in Quaker peace work; all this is intensified in Fayetteville. If the language, and still more the grim reality of such concepts and the struggles they signify are difficult for you, it will be advisable to look elsewhere for opportunities.

One other aspect of this strategic task is to regularly re-assess and recalibrate Quaker House's relationship to what is called the "peace movement." In 2002-3, for instance, we were happily a mere dot in a vast tide of antiwar protest. A couple of years later, QH and Fayetteville became movement focal points. Such occasions put dealing with police and press as additional items on the Director's skills list.

Since then we have watched this movement tide recede virtually out of sight, leaving Quaker House flashing our stubborn beacon like a lonely lighthouse across a deserted beach.

Yet if there's a lull elsewhere, QH is still plenty busy. And a broader surge may someday rise again. How will Quaker House relate usefully to it? The answer will be up to you, the next Director, and the QH board.

Ideally, the Board hopes to pick you from among a number of highly qualified Friends. And this is where the work of finding you could get tough. There are many places to pick up the basics of non-profit management and fundraising. But when it comes to learning to live outside the CCZ, up-close-and-personal with the war machine for extended periods, I don't know where in Quaker circles such training is available. Volunteer service projects once provided a path toward it, but this function was tragically abandoned a generation ago, and only a few now remain.

Nevertheless, there is much about the work of the Spirit among the Society that is beyond our ken. So during the many months of seeking that lie ahead, we can hope not only that you are in fact out there, but that our paths will cross, and the unique ministry of Quaker House can continue, in a manner that upholds "the Reputation of Truth."

I look forward to welcoming you to Quaker House.

In Friendship,
Chuck Fager

March 20 Peace Vigil/Rally a Rousing Success

2010-03-22T17:42:00.000-07:00

March 20 marked seven long bloody years since the US invaded Iraq. Bloodshed and instability continue there even as some US troop are pulled out, most shifted to Afghanistan.

There was a march and rally in Washington to mark this tragic anniversary, but little public notice was taken in this region.

Not so in Fayetteville, where Quaker House organized a vigil and rally downtown. Quakers from Durham joined in, as did Vets for Peace, and just plain veterans; NC Stop Torture Now and Code Pink were also represented.

In recognition of National Women's Month, the event featured woman participants reading the names of the more than 120 women US servicemembers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far.

There was also special notice taken of the death toll among civilians in these wars: plausible estimates for Iraq range from a low of 95,000 to over a million. (Not counting about four million Iraqis made refugees, half inside and half outside the country.)

The vigil was favored with wonderfully warm and sunny weather. This combined with the infectious and insistent rhythms of Original Nature, a renowned local drumming group, to attract many newcomers from the surrounding downtown area.

“We faced a lot of hostility when we started our vigils about Iraq, seven years ago,” Quaker House Director Chuck Fager said. “But now we get many more positive responses from people going by than negative ones. A great many people here are sick of these wars. The troops and their families have paid a terrible price – and for what?”

The rally ended with a loud chorus of “War –What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing!” joined in lustily by those on hand.

News of the rally turned up in a photo in the Sunday Fayetteville Observer, and on Channels 11 and 14 news shows. Not bad for our small but intrepid band.

Here's the URLs to the TV clips and transcripts:
Channel 14 News Carolina.

and Channel 11 ABC News.

And next March? Roberta Waddle, president of the Fayetteville NOW chapter, said she hoped to hold another rally, to mark a definite end to the war.

For Heaven's Sake-- Join Us On March 20!

2010-03-18T18:29:00.000-07:00

March 20 Peace Rally: Come As you Are!

2010-03-18T18:25:00.001-07:00

Exciting drum group "Original Nature" to highlight Fayetteville Peace Rally Saturday March 20.
1-4 PM at the Market House downtown -- Spread the Word!

Favorites of Fayetteville's "Fourth Friday" evening festivals,ORIGINAL NATURE makes music for the heart, the mind, and the soul. This “eclectic orchestra” utilizes drums, flutes, blocks, chimes, and a variety of other indigenous instruments to invoke the ’natural ’ spirit of music.

ORIGINAL NATURE’S performances are enlightening, motivating, and inspiring, with each song being created in tune with the moment and emotions of the group. Therefore, each performance is different, and each song has the distinction of being made just for you---the audience. The nature of the performance is presented in its purest form, thus the performance is truly “Original.”

Great Weather, great music, and standing up for peace.

March 20: A Tragic Anniversary

2010-03-17T14:53:00.000-07:00

A shameful photograph

It was before dawn on March 20, 2003 when the US invasion of Iraq began.

Seven years ago.

We will mark this tragic anniversary with a vigil & rally at the Fayetteville Market House on Saturday March 20, 2010, 1-4 PM, rain or shine (but the weather forecast is for sunny & warm). We invite all sympathetic persons to join us.

Since then, more than 4400 US troops have been killed. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war vary widely; but none is small. Here are some of them:

Iraqi casualties March 2003 to...

Iraq Family Health Survey: 151,000 violent deaths. June 2006

Lancet survey: 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006

Opinion Research Business survey: 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007

Associated Press: 110,600 violent deaths. April 2009

Iraq Body Count: 94,902 – 103,549 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict.
December 2009

(Source: wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War )

Approximately 4 million Iraqis have been made refugees, about half inside and half outside Iraq.

The cost of the war to the US Treasury is estimated to be at least $1.9 trillion

Our position has been that this war is illegal and immoral. The best support for US troops is to bring them home now.

Peace Vigil/Rally March 20, 2010 - Fayetteville

2010-03-03T12:43:00.000-08:00

Who Says the Peace Movement Is Dead??

Not Here!

Quaker House announces a vigil-rally for peace:

March 20 2010, 1-4 PM
At the Market House, Market Square, Fayetteville.

Rain or SHINE!
(The Market House has a covered atrium to keep us dry if need be.)

Spread the WORD!
REAL Support for the Troops -- Bring them HOME Now!

On the 7th Anniversary of the Iraq Invasion
Call for an end to the Iraq Occupation & the Afghanistan-Pakistan war

Join a Peaceful, legal vigil/rally at Market Square-Fayetteville NC
Bring Your Friends, Your Spirit, Your Signs,
Your Demand for Peace --
(Leave the Teabags at home)

Plenty of parking nearby. See a MAP here.

Visit our Facebook page here

See you there -- and
Spread the WORD!

Two Toms In The Times On Torments in Iraq

2010-02-24T10:30:00.000-08:00

Tom Friedman, the globe-trotting, incessantly name-dropping NY Times columnist, who was a big cheerleader for the US Iraq invasion. Now, after his latest hobnob with various poohbahs there, he's worried. From his Feb. 24 column:

"Alas,” he writes, ”some seven years after the U.S. toppled Saddam’s government, a few weeks before Iraq’s second democratic national election, and in advance of the pullout of American forces, this question still has not been answered. Will Iraq’s new politics triumph over its cultural divides, or will its cultural/sectarian divides sink its fledgling democracy? We still don’t know.”

This question arises, he says, because “we gave Iraqis a chance to do something no other Arab people have ever had a chance to do: freely write their own social contract on how they would like to rule themselves and live together.”

To be sure, we “gave” the Iraqis that “chance” to be like us unbidden, under a rain of bombs and artillery shells, and at the cost of a million or so civilians dead, several millions made homeless, a civil war there, the legitimization of torture here, and a few other bumps in the road.

What does one call this in Friedman-speak? “Tough-love philanthropy” maybe? How hollow this kind of commentary must ring in the ears of so many of its putative "beneficiaries"!

I see the situation a bit differently, with the help of Scripture, specifically the harsh words of the prophet Hosea 8:7. In Iraq the US has amply “sown the wind,” but in typical American fashion, are hoping we can yet avoid “reaping the whirlwind” there, by sliding out, having our victory parades, re-electing whoever is in power here, and then forget the whole thing -- before the bloody consequences of this orgy of destruction become too obvious.

This is more cynical than Friedman would cop to, but it's not that far from what he is hoping for. Yet he's very worried that the whole thing will blow up first.

And he's not alone. Tom Ricks, former ace Washington Post reporter, shared similar anxieties on the same OpEd page the day before, on Feb. 23:

In 2006 Ricks published “Fiasco,” one of the best, most honest, and hence most disturbing books about the manifold early horrors of the Iraq invasion/occupation. But honest reporting of a disaster didn't make Ricks an antiwar activist, and since then he has come to feel that the occupation might turn out better than anyone imagined.

Or maybe worse.

His OpEd piece in the New York Times was a plea for US fores to stay there longer. Ricks is worried about the pace at which the current administration is withdrawing US troops from Iraq

His main fear, similar to but more starkly stated than Friedman's, is that, “An Iraqi civil war would likely be a three- or four-sided affair, with the Shiites breaking into pro- and anti-Iranian factions. It could also easily metastasize into a regional war.” Further, he fears that “A regional war in the middle of the world’s oil patch could shake the global economy to its foundations and make the current recession look mild.”

So he hopes the administration will keep 50,000-plus US troops there, essentially indefinitely, to stave off this outcome until – until what? Until a miracle happens, I guess.

Nevertheless, the real kicker in his piece comes very near the end:

“The best argument against keeping troops in Iraq,” he says, “is the one some American military officers make, which is that a civil war is inevitable, and that by staying all we are doing is postponing it. That may be so, but I don’t think it is worth gambling to find out.”

But evading this "gamble" means keeping a major US troop force there indefinitely, as in generations.

I too wish I knew a way for the US to escape these awful consequences of our illegal and immoral invasion of that country. But I don't. Sooner or later those chickens will be coming home to roost. But like Ricks, I think they will look a lot more like buzzards.

God forgive us for this monumental folly, which is still unfolding.

Op Ed Re: Gitmo "suicides"/Homicides

2010-01-31T00:05:00.000-08:00

Fayetteville NC Observer – Published, Sun Jan 31, 2010

Latest Gitmo shocker makes waves

By Chuck Fager
Fayetteville

Who would have guessed it?

The case of the three Guantanamo prisoners found dead in June 2006, who were originally called suicides but maybe weren't, has many angles.

And one unexpected twist is that it might bring long-parted schoolmates together again.

In the early 1970s, "Billy" McRaven and Scott Horton were students at Theodore Roosevelt High School in San Antonio.

I talked with Horton in New York City last week. He explained that he and Billy were both from military families. McRaven wound up in the Navy while Horton went to law school. Each advanced in his profession.

Today, McRaven is an admiral. And he's commander of the Joint Special Operations Command.

JSOC, as it's called, may be the most secretive of the many secret groups based at Fort Bragg.

JSOC reputedly brings together such units as the Army's Delta Force, the Air Force's combat controllers and other clandestine units for missions the rest of us are never supposed to hear about.

Keeping busy

While details are few, indications are that, in recent years, JSOC has been particularly busy.

And how are they doing? Well, when the Washington Post's Bob Woodward asked the former president in his book, "The War Within," the reply was simply, "JSOC is awesome."

Whatever that means operationally, JSOC has also been extremely adroit in avoiding media or congressional scrutiny.

But could that start to change? This is where Adm. McRaven's old schoolmate enters the story.

Since high school in Texas, Scott Horton has successfully practiced international law, including human rights cases in many countries.

But he is no radical. When the "war on terror" began after 9/11, he told me, he was not an antiwar skeptic or a pacifist.

In fact, he had friends in both the military and intelligence agencies.

It was the off-the-record, uneasy reports from these contacts that got his attention - alarmed talk of disappearances, torture, secret prison sites, a disregard for all the laws and rules of war. A cascade of deeds to make any honorable American soldier ashamed.

"This wasn't a question of occasional abuse," Horton told me. "In any prison system, you'll have some abuses. But this was a matter of torture as policy. Policy coming down from above."

And torture, as has been noted in this paper before, is a federal felony. It's also a war crime under international law.

These informal reports were followed by one public shock after another. There was Abu Ghraib, torture flights (most taking off from North Carolina), "black site" prisons, coverups (Pat Tillman, anyone?).

Following up these and other cases turned Scott Horton into one of the most determined and tenacious human rights attorneys and investigators working the ongoing "torture beat."

Dropping a bombshell

You ask me, we need more like him. The official probes of torture, such as they may be, are proceeding at a languid crawl behind tightly closed doors. Either that or they have yielded reports most notable for coverups, blackouts and whitewash.

Then earlier this month, Horton dropped a triple-barreled investigative bombshell into this set of polite croquet matches.

It came in a detailed report for Harper's Magazine, charging that the 2006 deaths at Guantanamo were not suicides at all.

Instead (Bombshell No. 1), the three prisoners had been murdered, probably during torture.

Furthermore (Bombshell No. 2), the killings likely occurred at a previously undisclosed "black site," on the edge of Gitmo itself. It's been dubbed "Camp No," as in, "No, it does not exist." But it does.

And not least, as for where the culpability lies, Horton says all fingers of available information point at (Bombshell No. 3) JSOC.

Which brings us around to Adm. McRaven, Horton's old classmate.

Horton's report has been featured in hundreds of papers around the world (including this one). But so far it has been met with shifty "non-denial-denials" in Washington, and the SOP of stony silence from JSOC itself.

Horton's charges were backed up by the testimony of conscience-stricken soldiers, former Gitmo guards. They knew about Camp No, and they also knew that the original suicide story was false.

Horton told me he's since talked to more potential witnesses.

But despite this persistence, will Horton's new report get any real traction?

So far, the U.S. torture impunity express has been chugging along without a bump, scarcely noting the change of conductors a year ago this month.

To Congress?

Horton says he's hoping for public hearings in Congress. If his witnesses had the chance to tell their version of what happened, it might break through the coverup. And JSOC might even be obliged to answer some uncomfortable questions in public.

If it did, though, and abuses were uncovered, Horton told me he would want them fixed. He's not out to get JSOC abolished. "There's a proper place for it in limited, very dangerous wartime situations," he insisted.

"But it looks as if JSOC's been shielded from scrutiny and accountability, so when mistakes have been made, they haven't been corrected."

Congress seems a weak reed to lean on these days, but Horton is not giving up.

I wish him luck. But maybe a more direct approach would also be worth a try. Here's my scenario:

"Adm. McRaven, your old homey Scott Horton is on the line. Yes, that Scott Horton.

"Sure, he's got some issues. But like your former commander in chief, he too says that JSOC is awesome.

"It's just that the truth, especially about Camp No - that, sir, would be awesomer."

Chuck Fager, the director of Quaker House in Fayetteville, is the author of the books "Selma 1965: The March That Changed The South" and "Eating Dr. King's Dinner: A Memoir."

GI Resister Cliff Cornell: Free At Last!

2010-01-16T17:34:00.000-08:00

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Sunrise at Camp Lejeune, NC. Quaker House board member Curt Torell and I (Chuck Fager, QH Director)are here to make a pickup.

It's cold, freezing. We're headed for the brig, to pick up Cliff Cornell, who is due to be released at 0730.

We arrive on time, at the side gate. Cliff isn't there yet, so we wait, huddling into ourselves against the cold.
Turning around I notice a pickup truck parked a few feet away.

What's this? A close look is in order . . . .

I see. And there's more . . . .

John Wayne? Oh, wait . . .

Intriguing. But enough of that, because there's action at the gate:

One more step . . .

And Cliff is Free! (That's him in shorts.)

Shorts? It's what he came in with. Fortunately, Curt brought him some long pants and a jacket.

Then it's on the first tastes of freedom: breakfast at Bojangles, a Pepsi, and a cigarette.(We didn't take a picture of the cancer stick.)

By lunchtime we're passing by Quaker House enroute to the next level of enjoyment . . .

. . .namely a look at the smash new film "Avatar." Cliff is a sci-fi/fantasy fan, and afterwards his review of the film, in full, is: "Awesome."

Around 4 PM Friends and friends gather for a welcoming reception at Quaker House.

A highlight was watching the YoutTube video just posted by folks from the War Resisters Support Committee in Toronto. It brought tears to Cliff's eyes, and you can watch it too, right now:

As things were winding down, Cliff made a brief YouTube appearance of his own, greeting all who have been supporting him through these long months (and years). It's here:

Cliff will head out for home in Arkansas in a day or so, and get on with his life. We wish him the best in this continuing journey, and want to add or thanks to all who have helped out with the support of his difficult stand of conscience.

Merry Wartime Christmas Eve . . .

2009-12-24T07:22:00.000-08:00

Afghanistan Bomb kills paratrooper

Fayetteville NC Observer December 23, 2009
A Fort Bragg soldier on his second deployment to Afghanistan was killed Friday when his vehicle struck a homemade bomb, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
Sgt. Albert D. Ware, 27, of Chicago, died in the Arghandab River Valley in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan.
He is the 10th soldier from the 82nd Airborne Division’s 4th Brigade Combat Team killed since the brigade went to Afghanistan in the summer.

Canadian Soldier Killed In Afghanistan . . . .

Washington Post - ‎2 hours ago‎
AP KABUL -- The NATO-led military mission in Afghanistan says a Canadian soldier has been killed in the southern part of the country. ...

Afghanistan: Latest British Casualty Named . . . .

Telegraph.co.uk - ‎2 hours ago‎
UK Special forces comrades have paid tribute to Lance Corporal Tommy Brown, the Paratrooper who became Britain's fourth fatality in four days in Afghanistan. ...

NC-Based Marine killed in Afghanistan . . . .

San Jose Mercury News - ‎1 hour ago‎
AP CAMP LEJEUNE, NC—The Department of Defense has identified a North Carolina-based Marine from California killed in Afghanistan.

US admits failure in curbing drugs in Afghanistan....

Thu, 24 Dec 2009 Press TV
The US administration has admitted that Washington has failed to curb narcotics production and trafficking in Afghanistan.
The US State Department on Wednesday criticized Washington's 2-billion-dollar plan to combat the drug trade in Afghanistan for poor oversight and lack of strategy.

Afghan police mistakenly kill parliament member . . .

Lo Angeles Times, Dec. 24
The lawmaker and his son are killed in an ambush that had been set to find a wounded insurgent commander in Baghlan province, in Afghanistan's north.

National police hunting for a wounded insurgent commander mistakenly ambushed a vehicle carrying a member of the Afghan parliament, killing him and his son, provincial officials said Wednesday.

President Hamid Karzai ordered an investigation of the incident, which took place overnight in Baghlan province in Afghanistan's north.

Taliban fighters and other insurgents have made significant inroads in the province over the last year. A new NATO supply route runs through the area, making it a magnet for militant strikes.

The lawmaker, Mohammad Yunos Shirnagha, was returning home after a late-night meeting with constituents when the shootout with police erupted, said Gen. Kabir Andarabi, the provincial police chief.

The War At Home . . . .

Baltimore police locate where Fort Bragg soldier was shot

Fayetteville NC Observer
Baltimore police have located the crime scene where a Fort Bragg soldier was fatally shot Sunday night while home on leave from Afghanistan.
Detectives initially were unable to determine exactly where Pfc. Clifford J. Williams, 22, was shot in a sport utility vehicle because of the weekend's huge snowstorm, police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Wednesday.
"It's premature to speculate on any type of motive," Guglielmi said.
Police said Williams was shot on the way home from grocery shopping.
Williams' wife was at the crime scene but not in the vehicle as earlier reported, he said.
News reports said investigators believe a single gunman approached the vehicle and shot Williams through the driver's-side window. . . .
Williams went to Afghanistan in April and was scheduled to return to Fort Bragg in April 2010. The deployment was his first.

U.S. steps up special operations mission in Afghanistan

By Julian E. Barnes
December 16, 2009

Reporting from Washington - The U.S. military command has quietly shifted and intensified the mission of clandestine special operations forces in Afghanistan, senior officials said, targeting key figures within the Taliban, rather than almost exclusively hunting Al Qaeda leaders.

As a result of orders from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, the special operations teams are focusing more on killing militants, capturing them or, whenever possible, persuading them to turn against the Taliban-led insurgency.

The number of raids carried out by such units as the Army's Delta Force and Navy's SEAL Team Six in Afghanistan has more than quadrupled in recent months. The teams carried out 90 raids in November, U.S. officials said, compared with 20 in May. U.S. special operations forces primarily conduct missions in eastern and southern Afghanistan.

A welcome Message: Saying NO to the Af-Pak "Surge"

2009-12-03T15:30:00.000-08:00

We held a vigil on December 3 2009 in downtown Fayetteville NC, near For Bragg, to express dissent from the Afghanistan-Pakistan "surge" announced earlier this week.

Turnout peaked at ten, not bad for here, especially since we haven't had one in months. Most peace folks in town have been quiet for awhile, in the wake of last year's election.

But we had a BIG surprise when we lined up and showed our signs: they were POPULAR.

Traffic was busy around the traffic circle where we gather, and the cheers, thumbs up, smiling honks and waving peace Vs overwhelmingly outnumbered the few thumbs down from passersby. Even a couple carloads of GIs in uniform joined in the acclaim.

The conclusion? It looks like there is VERY LITTLE enthusiasm for this "surge," even among the troops here.

To be sure, soldiers at Ft. Bragg will follow orders; that's what they do. But could this lack of enthusiasm result in an uptick of GI resistance??

Stand by for updates . . .

Take Up Obama's Burden--With Apologies to Kipling

2009-10-05T19:16:00.000-07:00

Apropos of the Afghanistan escalation plans, I recently re-read Kipling's 1899 poem "The White Man's Burden."
Much of it still rings eerily true compared to what's being pressed on Obama today. So I prepared this humble update, which is offered herewith.
Beneath it are some stanzas of Kipling, which show his prescience, even 120 years, and several versions of political correctness later.
If this doggerel speaks to you, please pass it on, link to it, spread it around!

Chuck Fager

The New Person’s Burden, 2009

(with apologies to Kipling)

No more the White Man’s Burden,
That phrase won’t fly today.
It has to be re-packaged
If we’re to make it play.

Let’s speak of “the Imperative,”
And “nation-building” too,
A bow to Nine-Eleven
Should help to push it through.

Be sure to mention brand-new schools,
Young girls who shed the veil;
The sacred war for “hearts and minds’ --
How could we let that fail?

The Afghans, they can’t help themselves,
Else they’d be done by now.
But Bagram and Guantanamo,
Will help to show them how.

So take up Obama’s burden,
Send our best of every hue
To a fruitless war in a distant land --
Say they died for me and you.

The drone strikes here, the rockets there,
The Rangers’ slashing blade;
The bodies in a village square
Mark progress that we’ve made.

What if it takes a score of years
A flood of casualties?
At tunnel’s end a light will show
Our exit strategies.

We’re sure to win this Afghan war,
Our generals know it well.
But what’s the toll, the price-tag there?
On that, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

So fie on the poppy-growing warlord,
The scheming Taliban.
Where England stumbled, Russia failed–
We’ll triumph: Yes, we can.

-- By Chuck Fager
[As read on the Mike Malloy radio show on October 5, 2009. Thanks, Mike!
One correction: Mike Malloy described me as a Vietnam Veteran;
I am not. But I say YES to the troops who served there, as I also say NO to that war.]

- - - - - - - - - -

The White Man’s Burden, 1899

Rudyard Kipling

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Holder-Prosecutor Update #1

2009-07-13T08:37:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald of Salon is on top of the Holder/prosecutor story (or more likely, trial balloon):
He says:

. . .such an approach -- targeting low-level interrogators while shielding high-level policy-makers from prosecution -- would be "something close to the worst of both worlds." That's true not only because it would replicate the disgraceful whitewashing of the Abu Ghraib prosecutions. It would do that, but even worse, it would bolster the principal instrument of executive lawlessness -- the Beltway orthodoxy that any time a President can find a low-level DOJ functionary to authorize what he wants to do, then it is, by definition, "legal" and he's immune from prosecution when he does it, no matter how blatantly criminal it is.

. . . just as was true for the Abu Ghraib abuses, many of the worst instances of detainee abuse cannot be extricated from -- but rather are directly attributable to -- the torture policies authorized at the highest levels of the government. To target low-level interrogators while shielding high-level policy makers would further bolster America's two-tiered system of justice, in which ordinary Americans are subjected to merciless punishment while the most powerful elites are vested with virtual immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking. . . .

Prosecuting only obscure "rogue" interrogators while immunizing powerful, high-level officials would not be an act of courage but of cowardice. It would not strengthen the rule of law but would pervert it further. And rather than deter future lawbreaking, it would signal -- yet again -- that our most powerful political officials are free to break the law with impunity.

However, Scott Horton, one of the top accountability activists, is more hopeful that such a probe would not be as narrow:

One source told me that he would be surprised if Holder “set blinders” on the special prosecutor. Still, the scope of the investigation would clearly be limited to the authorization and use of Bush-era “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding, longtime standing, stress positions, and prolonged sleep deprivation. Moreover, President Obama’s assurance to CIA officials who relied on the opinions of government lawyers in implementing these programs, an assurance that Holder himself repeated, would have to be worked in. That suggests that the focus would likely be on the lawyers and policymakers who authorized use of the new techniques.

Yet Horton is also restrained and tentative about the prospects:

Observers caution that even if a special prosecutor is appointed, actual indictments would still be far off. The Bush torture policy was implemented with the advice of lawyers well skilled in the ways of Washington bureaucracy. Any prosecutor would face considerable legal obstacles in bringing charges. A review of the torture memoranda themselves shows that a consuming concern was thwarting the possible bringing of charges by a future prosecutor. Now, perhaps, the defenses they devised may be put to the test.

How is this report going over in the MSM? Here's the blogger Digby on its reception on the major Sunday Beltway pundit show "This Week":

Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie [Roberts] complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the ru le of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at cocktail parties, but it was a close thing.

Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.

George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.

They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.

And then they talked about Michael Jackson. >>

Greenwald comments:
That's a major reason why we have such a depraved and lawless political class.

Maybe a Special Prosecutor for Torture??

2009-07-13T08:33:00.000-07:00

    From the NY Times on July 13. Some comments follow:

New York Times -- July 13, 2009
NEWS ANALYSIS
Obama Faces a New Push to Look Back
By SCOTT SHANE


President Obama is facing new pressure to reverse himself and to ramp up investigations into the Bush-era security programs, despite the political risks.

   Leading Democrats on Sunday demanded investigations of how a highly classified counterterrorism program was kept secret from the Congressional leadership on the orders of Vice Presid ent Dick Cheney.

  Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Fox News Sunday called it a “big problem.” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, on “This Week” on ABC, agreed that the secrecy “could be illegal” and demanded an inquiry.

  Mr. Obama said this weekend that he had asked his staff members to review the mass killing of prisoners in Afghanistan by local forces allied with the United States as it toppled the Taliban regime there. The New York Times reported Saturday that the Bush administration had blocked investigations of the matter.

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is also close to assigning a prosecutor to look into whether prisoners in the campaign against terrorism were tortured, officials disclosed on Saturday.

    And after a report from five inspectors general about the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping said on Friday that there had been a number of undisclosed surveillance programs during the Bush years, Democrats sought more information.

  That makes four fronts on which the intelligence apparatus is under siege. It is just the kind of distraction from Mr. Obama’s domestic priorities — repairing the economy, revamping the health care system, and addressing the long-term problems of energy and climate — that the White House wanted to avoid. . . .

 The attorney general would prefer to keep such an inquiry narrowly focused and assign it to a line prosecutor, if possible, rather than appoint a special prosecutor, the person [an inside source] said. >>


This last sentence flashes with warning lights, I believe, for two reasons:
    A. Such a "narrowly focused" inquiry could well end up going after no more than the 2010 version of Lynndie England, small-fry underlings, while letting the bigger fish skate. Definitely a BAD idea. And
    B. A "line prosecutor" can be more easily controlled and quieted than an independent prosecutor, who would be, at least to some extent, "independent."
   So this report contains some potentially very good news, but needs to be treated guardedly. High stakes stuff, and even if Holder pulls the trigger, our task will not be lessened, because pressure needs to continue on many fronts, if there's to be any hope of actually dismantling the TIC (Torture Inductrial Complex), rather than giving a few low-level spooks a slap-on-the-wrist and leaving the overall structure and operation in place.
Note that 
<<>Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Fox News Sunday called it a “big problem.” >>
Feinstein is a big player in this; she's already conducting a secret inquiry. She's also Establishment all the way; but maybe her probe has uncorked such a seething bottle of liquid poop that it's more than even she can handle behind closed doors.
The fact that the article identifies four separate investigations underway is also encouraging: to avoid the smokescreens and pierce the coverups, we need to press for numerous investigations. The Times failed to mention al the foreignprobes underway too, from the UK to Poland. The MSM may not pay them much attention, but they are NOT irrelevant.
More to come on this.

Understatement of the Day. The Month. The Year.

2009-03-23T17:27:00.000-07:00

From an AP Dispatch today, March 23, 2009:

US officials said earlier this month that Iraq was experiencing its lowest levels of violence since 2003.

But since then there have been several major bombings.

The AP dispatch told of a suicide bombing in Diyala province, which killed 25. earlier, in the Abu Ghraib district, another bombing killed 8. And, AP added--

Another attack in Abu Ghraib on 10 March killed 33 people.

In the same week, more than 30 people died in an attack on a police recruitment centre and another 10 were killed in an explosion at a cattle market in Babel province.

Six years Too Long - End the War

2009-03-19T15:12:00.000-07:00

I'm feeling more than a little embarrassed as I write this post. Six years ago tonight, bombs and missiles began crashing down on Baghdad and other targets, in what was arrogantly billed as the "Shock & Awe" opening to the Iraq war.

Each year since, we've had some kind of protest or vigil. From 2004 through 2007, we helped organize sizeable peace rallies here in Fayetteville.

But this year, the anniversary crept up on me, and as I write we are scrambling to put on a small vigil downtown tomorrow. It's bound to be small; but as far as I can tell, it will be pretty much all the local action there is.

We're still pretty busy otherwise: our GI Rights Hotline is taking lots of calls; our "Sgt. Abe" character is still working to bring more Truth into Recruiting; and we're pressing for

accountability for the torture that so

disgraced the nation in recent years.

Yet there's no denying that the peace movement in March 2009 is in deep disarray. National groups are fading; uncertainty is widespread about how to project a strong peace message given the changes in Washington. And it seems that everything, even wars and rumors of war, is being swept from our field of vision by the noise and impact of the economic collapse.

No wonder it's been hard to stay focused lately. But here it is, the beginning of Year Seven of the Iraq war, and at Eugene O'Neill wrote in "Death of a Salesman," Attention must be paid.

So tomorrow I'll be carrying the poster I made in the summer of 2003, when the number of US casualties was about 250, a figure that was updated for each new vigil.

The sign is scuffed, smudged and battered now, held together with tape. But the message still appplies, the numbers are current, and the totals are depressingly familiar: 4200+ US troops killed; 500,000+ Iraqi civilians dead.

And there are more unhappy numbers that don't fit on the sign:

-- Five million Iraqis turned into homeless refugees in their own homeland;

-- More than 50,000 US troops seriously wounded;

-- Hundreds more dead by suicide, in Iraq and afterward;

-- Un-numbered military families torn apart by the stresses of repeated deployments;

-- The financial costs of the war are well into multiple trillions of dollars (which

used to be a lot of money), with no end in sight.

And despite announced plans to pull out some troops from Iraq, there's another war in afghanistan waiting to claim them.

Which reminds me -- I was against the Afghanistan war first, all the way back in late 2001. And now, more than seven years later, this response has not dimmed: Afghanistan is a quagmire. Despite the skill and courage of US troops, I agree with military columnist and Vietnam veteran Joseph Galloway, who recently wrote:

"The Taliban insurgents now have a chokehold on as much as 70 percent of Afghanistan, and they're proving to be flexible and adaptive in their attacks on American, NATO and Afghan forces.

If the new American team has some new ideas about how to succeed in Afghanistan, now would be the time to lay them out. Nothing that Alexander the Great, Queen Victoria or Leonid Brezhnev tried in their attempts to subdue the quarrelsome Afghan tribes worked, and nothing we’ve tried in the last eight years has, either.

While we're waiting for a new strategy, perhaps we should break out some old Kipling:

"When wounded and left on Afghanistan's plain

"And the women come out to cut up your remains . . . ."

Etc., etc."

Current plans call for leaving at least 50,000 US troops in Iraq for the indefinite future. To me, that suggests that there may well be many more such anniversaries to mark, before the sentiment we saw on this Welcome Home banner at Camp Lejeune is fulfilled.

Accountability Curtain-Raiser: First "Truth Commission" hearing led by Sen. Leahy

2009-03-04T12:49:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the March 4 2008 US Senate hearing chaired by Pat Leahy on a Truth Commission (or TC), to me at least, was the preview it offered of the legal fights that are almost certain to surround the accountability movement’s efforts. It also gave viewers glimmpses of some of some figures who will likely be central to the upcoming battles.

The four supportive witnesses laid out arguments familiar to most of us who have been following this debate: torture and other crimes disgrace the US in the eyes of the world, make our soldiers less safe, and undermine the Constitution. They have also very likely involved actual violations of numerous existing US and international laws – i.e., crimes. We need to get the truth, all the truth.

I won’t repeat these arguments in more detail here, as they are likely familiar to most readers. (The list of favorable witnesses is at the end of this post.) And a more detailed summary of the testimony and questioning is here.

And if you missed the hearing, you can watch a video of the whole thing -- about two hours-- here .)

Much more interesting were the challenges to a TC, as laid out by the two witnesses added to the panel at the request of Republican Senators: lawyer David Rivkin and law professor Jeremy Rabkin.

Rivkin has already published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post blasting any “truth commission” idea as a constitutional travesty.

He has also vigorously defended the overall Bush “war on terror” approach to prisoners, insisting that “detainees in U.S. custody today enjoy the most fulsome due process procedures of any detainees or prisoners of war in human history.”

Hmmm. “Fulsome”?? What does that mean?

Webster’s offer an intriguing range of definitions:

1: characterized by abundance : copious. (This is probably how Rivkin meant it.)

But Webster’s also offers more. "Fulsome":

2: aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive.

3: exceeding the bounds of good taste : overdone.

In line with #3 above, Rivkin fulsomely called the Leahy TC proposal a “profoundly bad idea,” and “a dangerous idea,” He said it would involve an extra-constitutional “out-sourcing” of law enforcement functions that properly belong to regular government agencies such as the Department of Justice. He also contended that the TC’s investigations would encroach upon the civil liberties and privacy of the former officials who would be investigated.

Significantly, Rivkin also asserted that the TC’s work would be bad in another way: even if it did not result on prosecutions, he argued – or perhaps especially if it did not – its findings would encourage foreign prosecutors to ramp up potential criminal cases against former US officials in their countries. This risk would be the greater, he correctly noted, because some of the potential criminal charges – such as torture – are subject to claims of “universal jurisdiction” under international law.

Such foreign prosecutions, Rivkin insisted, would amount to a “soft form of rendition” for those implicated. He speaks with some knowledge in this area: besides working for the Reagan and first Bush administrations, his experience includes defending the government of Croatia against war crimes charges in the International Criminal Tribunal.

Jeremy Rabkin, the other Republican witness, is a law professor at George Mason University near Washington. As a writer he has been especially vocal in denouncing international legal efforts, as two titles of his articles suggest: “Global Criminal Justice: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed,” and “The Case Against the World Court.”

He declared that a Truth Commission is what a government does with war criminals when for various reasons it is unable to prosecute them. Despite Leahy’s protestations that he only wants to get at the facts, Rabkin said the supporters of the TC idea see it as a forum for branding former Bush administration officials as war criminals, while leaving them no way of defending themselves, as in a real court proceeding.

Rabkin said that if there needed to be actual prosecutions, there are agencies already available to undertake the prosecutions. Congress should not be involved in setting up platforms for “shaming people.”

Between the two hostile witnesses, Rivkin’s points were the ones most likely to end up entangling accountability efforts in years of delaying litigation. Rabkin’s main complaint, that it would be an exercise in public humiliation, is not a legal objection; shaming someone, so far as I know, is not a crime.

I expect to hear Rivkin's assertions again: that a TC would be unconstitutional and illegitimate; that its proceedings would violate the civil liberties of those called before it; that its conclusions would promote foreign meddling in matters of US law. (And behind these legalities is Rivkin’s stated belief that the Bush administration did nothing wrong in its “war on terror.”)

Leahy did not really debate Rivkin and Rabkin at any length. Instead, he remarked dismissively that the largest hayloft in his home state of Vermont could not produce as many straw men as this pair had presented. (Scott Horton has also posted a more nuanced but more scathing analysis of their line of argument. )

Most impressive to me at the hearing was the performance of Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse is my pick to become the star of the congressional accountability process. His statement on February 25, announcing the hearing with Leahy, was easily the most eloquent declaration on the topic I have seen from an elected official.

Whitehouse took on Rivkin and Rabkin with a combination of controlled fury and cool mockery. After dissecting what he called Rivkin’s “gallery of horribles,” he rebuked their fallback “everybody does it” line of defense with, “Until you know and we all know what was actually done, do not be so quick to throw other generations under the bus and assume they did worse.”

We shall hear more from Whitehouse, and doubtless Rivkin too. Indeed, as the accountability process picks up momentum, I expect it will supply Rivkin and his right-wing lawyerly ilk with plenty of high-ticket billings for years to come – both, as Rivkin noted, in this country and others.

Other witnesses: Thomas Pickering, a retired career diplomat.

Admiral Lee Gunn(ret.): former Inspector general of the Navy.

John J. Farmer Jr., former Attorney general of New Jersey and Senior Counsel to the 9-11 Commission.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr. Chief Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice and chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activity (1975-1976), widely known as the Church Committee.

Back from the Dark Side: Hello, Johnston County: Torture Accountability Is Coming. Time to Get Ready.

2009-03-03T17:14:00.000-08:00

I joined our partners in NC Stop Torture Now Monday night to visit with the Johnston County Commissioners at their monthly meeting. Stop Torture NOW is a terrific group, which all concerned with this issue could well learn from.

Johnston County is home to Aero Contractors, the notorious CIA front company that has been linked to many of the "torture taxi" flights called "extraordinary rendition" in official euphemistic parlance.

The report in the March 3 edition of the Clayton NC Star-News makes it sound like our mission was a failure:

"Despite impassioned pleas and warnings of irreparable damage to Johnston County’s image, the county’s Board of Commissioners on Monday refused to ask for an investigation of a local company accused of participating in the kidnapping and transportation of suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogations that allegedly include torture . . . ."

This report was entirely accurate in a journalistic sense. Yet despite the board's official refusal to act on our proposal, I came away feeling almost triumphant. That's because I felt able to read between the factual lines, and somehow take the temperature of the group before us.

And what I think I read was an underlying nervousness and unease.

That's because, while they could easily say no to us last night, there's just no question that after so many years of a cozy connection to Aero and its shadowy patrons, which has yielded many millions of dollars of income for a poor county, the ground has suddenly shifted, the winds have changed.

The Clayton Star summed up this perception well:

"Other speakers warned the commissioners that investigations currently being lobbied for in Congress could lead back to Johnston County, with dire results for this area’s public image in the rest of the nation and world. “The engine of accountability is gearing up in Washington,” Fayetteville resident Charles Fager said. “What we’re offering you is the opportunity to get out in front of that train before it runs you over.”

I'm almost certain that there were those among the Commissioners who have an increasingly ominous sense that just such unsettling changes are getting underway. In fact, a high county official approached me at the end of the session to express a kind of sotto voce agreement with this assessment.

Another hint of this came when the Chairman, Wade Stewart, who had earlier said he approved of waterboarding and thought that torture was often effective, agreed that he would take up the matter of possible future accountability actions with the U.S. Representative from that district, Robert "Bobby" Etheridge.

Members of Stop Torture Now have approached Etheridge on several occasions, trying to raise questions about Aero, and have been met with stonewalling and anger.

But if Etheridge responds to Commissioner Stewart (who said he talks with Etheridge "all the time"), the Congressman will speak of such items as:

>>the fact that the U.S. Senate is beginning hearings on a "Truth Commmission" (scheduled for Wednesday March 4);

>>the fact that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, is also readying a plan for an investigation;

>>the fact that there is a growing stream of shocking public revelations about illegalities and torture being planned and carried out by previous high officials, many of which implicate such entities as Aero Contractors. And

>> last but hardly least, there is likely to be much more of this to come.

No one has spoken of this prospect more tellingly than U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a former prosecutor who is deeply involved in the burgeoning accountability work in Congress. Read this excerpt from his statement of February 25, 2009, announcing plans for the Senate investigation:

We also have to brace ourselves for the realistic possibility that as some of this conduct is exposed, we and the world will find it shameful, revolting. We may have to face the prospect of looking with horror at our own country's deeds. We are optimists, we Americans; we are proud of our country. Contrition comes hard to us.

But the path back from the dark side may lead us down some unfamiliar valleys of remorse and repugnance before we can return to the light. We may have to face our fellow Americans saying to us, "No, please, tell us that we did not do that, tell us that Americans did not do that" - and we will have to explain, somehow. This is no small thing, and not easy; this will not be comfortable or proud; but somehow it must be done.

(Emphasis added.)

The engine of accountability for torture is indeed gathering steam. And it will soon have in its sights what has gone on, not only at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, but also what has happened at Aero Contrators in Johnston County North Carolina.

I hope Bobby Etheridge will speak plainly to Wade Stewart about this. And for the good of the county they have in trust, I hope Stewart and his colleagues will reconsider and get out in front of of this process while there is still time.

What The President Can See at Camp Lejeune

2009-02-26T15:33:00.000-08:00

When top officials come to bases like Camp Lejeune, they are usually treated to a rigmarole of miitary ceremony: parades, demonstrations of boom-boom war tools, powwows with base and area notables, and of course, press conferences. It's a drill that may be new to this president, but will soon become familiar, even routine.

Yet when our new President comes to Camp Lejeune on February 27, he has a chance to see something different.

At Camp Lejeune there's a custom that is different from what happens here at Fort Bra

gg. When marine units return from combat

deployments, family members are encouraged to make "Welcome Home" banners for them, mainly on bed sheets.

These banners are hung on a fence that runs along North Carolina Route 24, a public highway that crosses a piece of Camp Lejeune. The returning Marines land at a nearby airfield, then are bused to the base, down NC 24 and in clear sight of these banners. They are an obvious boost to morale for the war-weary.

Many of these colorful displays hang for weeks, until wind and weather bring them down. They are visible enough to those who drive past the base, but are likely to be missed by someone coming in by helicopter, as

the Commander In Chief is likely to do.

I've been taking photos of some of these banners for several years. They are a form of ephemeral public folk art and shared storytelling that often pack a lot of meaning into a small space.

A group of several hundred Marines returned home earlier in February, and fortunately they did not suffer any fatal casualties. The president could do well to see and reflect on the batch of banners that was put up to welcome them back. So could other Americans.

As a public service, this post offers him and others several examples.

NOTE: There are more photos of these Marine banners inn a special section of our website, here.

NEW On Our Site: Newsletter & Book Information

2009-02-21T19:19:00.001-08:00

Two new items have just been uploaded to our website.

First is our latest Newsletter, which you'll find on the Newsletter page.

a description of and excerpts from our new book, YES To The Troops, NO To The Wars.

The book is part of our 40th anniversary observances. Yep, Quaker House has been witnessing for peace since 1969.

From the street, Quaker House is merely a modest bungalow on a quiet residential street.

But looks are deceptive.

Since 1969, Quaker House has been a persistent and visible witness for peace, close by Fort Bragg, one of the largest US military bases:

More than fifty thousand GIs have called its GI Hotline for help getting out of the m

ilitary.

And under its traditional cedar shingle roof, two generations of activists have hatched peace protests large and small, quiet and noisy, with more to come.

When it started during the Vietnam War, there were dozens of similar projects near military bases. But Quaker House is the only one that’s still going.

Fire-bombing couldn’t stop it.

Military spying didn’t intimidate it.

Even fallow periods “between” wars haven’t withered it.

Now, on its 40th anniversary, a new book: YES TO THE TROOPS – NO TO THE WARS, tells the exciting and improbable Quaker House story.

YES TO THE TROOPS – NO TO THE WARS describes how Quaker House not only survived next door to one of the largest US military bases, but in 2009 is still going strong.

It's been quite a ride. Jane Fonda came and went. So did Sixties radicalism, and official harassment. Founding organizers died in a car wreck. Money was often so tight it squeaked. Many staff didn't want to live in a tough military town. The Board repeatedly wondered if the venture was still needed or useful. The roof leaked.

But Quaker House stayed afloat.

One reason was because Quakers can be stubborn. Harassment toughened their resolve.

But another was that, after Vietnam, other wars followed: Central America. Desert Storm. Iraq again; Afghanistan. (And new wars are waiting: Iran? Pakistan?)

So while dozens of similar projects died out, Quaker House stayed alive and kept working.

Since September 11, it's been busier than ever:

The GI Rights Hotline. Iraq. Afghanistan. Torture flights from nearby airports. GI resisters and AWOLS. Violence and suicide within the military. Truth In Recruiting. You name it.

The recent changes in Washington haven’t ended the wars. So there's still need for an active, long-term peace witness "up-close and personal" with a military hub like Fort Bragg. That's why, with 2009 marking its 40th year, Quaker House is looking back i

n order to look ahead. Its anniversary slogan is: Forty Years of Front-Line Peace Witness – And Just Getting Started.”

Author Chris McCallum and Editor Chuck Fager spent nine months researching and writing YES TO THE TROOPS – NO TO THE WARS.

This remarkable saga of persistent, creative peace action is full of implications for future work to end war and find alternatives to militarism.

For more about the book, including excerpts, you can find them here.

A Shining Testimony Against Torture

2009-02-21T17:51:00.000-08:00

Here's an Op-Ed column I submitted to the Fayetteville Observer. It was published there on February 18, 2009.

Anti-torture stand deserves recognition

By Chuck Fager

Fayetteville

OK, so the Observer won a bunch of awards recently, from the North Carolina Press Association. Mostly seconds and thirds.

Congratulations, I guess.

But, if you ask me, the NCPA dropped the ball. They missed one at their rubber chicken confab. And it was a biggie.

A real biggie.

They forgot to hand the Observer the Special Citation for Editorial Courage and Excellence in the Fight to End Torture.

That’s one award the editors earned, in spades. It should be hanging on the office wall right now, in a big shiny frame, in front of God and everybody.

Why? Do the math: Since 2005, this newspaper has published 10 — count ’em — editorials denouncing torture in the now obsolete “war on terror.”

They have also printed a batch of anti-torture op-ed pieces, including two very powerful columns by Vietnam vet and military writer Joe Galloway, who knows what he’s talking about.

That makes a dozen, and there were more. (Full disclosure: I wrote a couple of

the other op-ed pieces, so we won’t include them in the tally.)

How could the NCPA have missed out on recognizing this amazing record? Not only were the Observer’s editorials consistent, they were eloquent as heck.

Recall just a few of these headlines:

“Our View: The only good policy regarding torture is zero tolerance” (Sept. 29, 2005).

“Our View: Americans can win wars without becoming what they despise” (Sept. 17, 2006).

“Our View: It’s water torture, not an ‘enhanced technique’” (Feb. 12, 2008).

“Our View: ‘Abstinence only’ is the sole honorable torture policy” (April 18, 2008).

There’s lots more, but you get the idea.

This stunning achievement required more than mere eloquence and clear moral vision. In the America of working “the dark side, if you will,” sneering at the Geneva Convention, and “All Hail Jack Bauer, Superstar,” it took guts.

How lonely a stand was it? Well, for three years now, I’ve been making jaws drop on all my anti-torture activist buddies from the Triangle and other big cities, as I’ve shown them these clearly reasoned cris de couer, one after another, after another, after another.

You see, in those bigger, supposedly more sophisticated, cultured, and, well, “progressive” N.C. towns, the editorial voices against torture in their bigger, supposedly more sophisticated, etc., dailies have been mighty few and far between. One would think that for them, challenging torture was right up there with dissing NASCAR, basketball, barbecue and other timeless Tar Heel taboos.

So, maybe I can understand the NCPA’s reluctance to honor the Observer’s principled consistency; to do so would show up too many of their colleagues around the state as the moral midgets they’ve been on this issue. For years.

And besides, that’s all behind us now anyway, right? The New Order in Washington has declared torture off-limits, thank goodness. Let’s move on, folks — nothing to see here. Especially not that pesky “accountability” aspect that Joe Galloway wrote about so forcefully in these pages just weeks back.

So no citation for the Observer. Oh, well. Yet, there is one consolation: If their fellow editors haven’t been listening, maybe someone else has.

Come to think of it, those ringing declarations from the new White House resident about how America will no longer tolerate torture sound ed like they were cribbed from the editorial columns of a small-city daily in the Sandhills. If they weren’t, they sure could have been.

These echoes from the White House of what our paper has been saying for years ought to make local folks swell with pride.

And make a lot of other editors hang their heads in shame.

For that matter, maybe the NCPA isn’t the Observer’s last chance to get its props.

Hello, Pulitzer Prize jury? Take note.

The Torture Accountability Spectrum – A Summary of Current Views

2009-02-21T16:53:00.000-08:00

As the first month of the new administration passes,

discussion of efforts at achieving accountability for torture and other crimes is both extensive and intensive, inside and

outside of Washington. It has also gained momentum from recent po

lls results showing broad public support for an inquiry into

possible torture and other abuses.

Here’s a brief overview

of the range of views on

accountability, as best I’ve been able to determine it. While I’ll not conceal my own

preferences here, the purpose is not to argue for them. Rather the hope is that this sketch c

an help participants keep their bearings as this

rapidly-unfolding debate unfolds.

I’ve found four major positions on this spectrum:

First, at one end, are those we might call the “Do Nothings.” They argue that no action regarding torture or war cri

mes should be taken. Their case appears to be based on one of two rationales: either that whatever the previous administratio

n did was right, or at least justified; or, that it would be impossible to make a cas e that would convince a jury, and henc

e the result would only be years of divisive rancor, and thus a waste of time.

Champions of the “Do Nothing” view include som

e prominent figures, such as Jack Goldsmith, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel which prod

uced the infamous “torture memos.” Of the various proposals for investigation or prosecution he says flatly,

“These are all bad ideas.”

Others include a distinguished father-son duo. The pere is federal appeals

court judge Richard Posner, whose 2006 book, “Not A Suicide Pact, The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency,” justifi

ed all the previous regime did, and more.

The fils is Eric Posner, law professor at the University of Chicago, who is convinced th

at no convictions would be possible, and prosecutions are unnecessary.

The second definable position could be dubbed “Investigate & Move On.” Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy and retired Army General Anthony Taguba are

among those who advocate for such an inquiry. The specific form and mandate of this type of probe could vary from a

Congressional panel to a White House-appointed independent commission. But the outcome, beyond some form of a detailed report, would specifically not

include any effort at prosecutions, except possibly for perjury before the commission itself. Many nonprofit advocacy

groups appear to be lining up behind this idea.

The third position is more forceful; these are the “Investigate and T

hen Prosecute” proposals. Rep. John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is

the most visible champion of such an effort. He argues that official investigations should not rule out in advance the prosecution

of those responsible for what are very serious offences. If we prosecute “petty” crimes, it would be hypocritical to fail t

o prosecute war crimes and torture. Scott Horton, a well-known human rights attorney, has also

strongly supported this approach.

The fourth and most assertive position on the current spectrum is the call

to “Prosecute Now.” One way to do this would be for the US Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor, right away,

regardless of what happens on the investigation/commission front.

This is the demand of Michal Ratner, Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, (at right) which is representing some Guantanamo prisoners. It has also been advanced by David Swanson, formerly an impeachment activist, who ha

s a petition at Democrats.com calling for the new US Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor immediately. (The

petition had almost 43000 signatures as of February 21)

A variation of this approach is that of former prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi author and former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has made a case for prosecuting G eorge W. Bush for murder based on taking the US into the Iraq War under false pretenses. The murder victims would be any US soldier killed in Iraq; and as murder is mainly a state offense, the charges would be brought by a local District Attorney.

Bugliosi has sent his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder,” to all 2200 local district attorneys around the country, hoping to find one or more to bring a case. More information about this effort is at the website: http://www.prosecutegeorgebush.com/

That’s the current accountability spectrum as I see it. The outcome of this debate is impossible to predict, but it does seem that momentum is building for some kind of accountability effort, and the “Do Nothing” stance is, at this point at least, losing ground.

The New President vs. Torture: Great Start, Much More To Do

2009-02-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

First, credit where it is due: on torture, the new president has changed the game and the

momentum. His executive orders are landmarks, and their repudiation of the lawbreaking that’s been going on for the past eight years is historic.

But who’s perfect? There are some holes in the orders; and even in the best case scenario, there’s plenty more to be done. On this continuing agenda, four tasks are top priorities.

First, plug up the holes: Two stick out: a “special task force” will decide if there is to be “additional or different guidance” (e.g., exceptions to the anti-torture rules) for “depar

tments or agencies outside the military” (e.g., the CIA and its ilk). Will this result in some kind of “Jack Bauer” loopholes? It shouldn’t, but it’s distinctly possible; stay tuned.

Also, the president is evidently keeping “rendition,” which means a green light to continued covert kidnapings, particularly in foreign countries.

This does not surprise me. Working next door to Fort Bragg NC, we’re smack in the middle of what can be called the “Torture Industrial Complex.” Two reputed CIA front co

mpanies, Centurion Aviation Services in Fayetteville , and Aero Contractors in nearby Smithfield , have been linked to many, if not most of the “torture taxi” flights.

Over the past year, local anti-torture activists have watched both these companies e

xpand their facilities, with more growth on the boards. So while most other sectors of the economy here are collapsing, the rendition flight industry’s outlook seems quite sunny, thank you very much; new executive orders or no.

To be sure, we are told that future “renditions” will not include, or culminate in, torture or “black sites” imprisonment. Yet in the new executive orders, there is another exception, permitting captives to be held in foreign safe houses “on a short-term, transitory basis.” (But there’s no definition of “short-term” or “transitory” either.)

Thus the first priority is to keep these chinks of wiggle room from being stretched into actual loopholes.

This points us to the second major concern. How will we know if these good new policies are

adhered to? More important, how will the president know?

Take the notorious “black sites,” secret CIA prisons. The one thing we know about them for sure is that they exist, because the president has ordered them to close, along with Gitmo.

But we don’t know how many of these prisons there are. We don’t know where they are. And we don’t know how many prisoners are being kept in them. (My guess: thousands since 2002.)

The chances are that very few people in Washington know either. Will that number include the President?

Keep in mind that we’re talking about a group of people (not just the CIA, but a whole sub-culture of “OGAs” -- Other Government Agencies) that encompasses an undetermined number of private contractors.

Secrecy is their reason for being. Concealment and deception are basic tools of their trade. And keeping higher-ups as ignorant as possible

is standard procedure, either with their superiors’ connivance (“plausible deniability”), or not (Bay of Pigs).

So Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will check to make sure – really sure – that all these hellholes have been shut down (and not replaced with others) and their inmates – all of them, living or (maybe more important) dead – are accounted for? The CIA? The OGAs? The contractors? Can they be trusted to clean up their mess and own up to any “issues” such as, say, war crimes?

As a practical matter, my nominee for this watchers’-watchman-and-cleanup role would be the FBI. The record as we now know it indicates that the Bureau steered clear of the torture business, hence they may be the only outfit with clean enough hands to do a reliable job.

And of course, the chance to really stick it to the arch-rival CIA after years of being sidelined would be a spur to the FBI getting as close to the bottom of this bottomless pit as may be bureacratically possible. Creative tension; checks and balances. What a concept.

Making sure torture has stopped; that’s the second priority. The third is accountability. Will there be any?

At this point, the jury is still out. From my perch in the boondocks, it seems the new president is torn: on the one hand, his conscience tells him there has to be consequences for war crimes, else the ability to torture with impunity will become an established White House perk, which is intolerable.

Yet doing the necessary investigations and then even the minimum number of prosecutions will surely set off a political firestorm, which at best will be a huge distraction from the work of pulling us out of the second great depression.

Let me not discount or dismiss this dilemma. I don’t blame him for hesitating. Still, while ready to cut him some slack for timing, accountability is a bullet I believe the president must eventually bite. In the eyes of the world, it’s a make-or-break question, and I think he knows that.

Numerous weighty inside-the-beltway pundits have already been pleading the case for doing nothing, and letting their governing class buddies walk. Such defenses of the indefensible are beneath contempt, and to my mind were definitively discredited by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.

Yet even a round of war crimes trials would not be the end. Imagine that the black sites had been closed; the accountability probes were complete, and at least a handful of the main perps had been shipped off to Club Fed, or perhaps even the Hague. What will remain?

The victims will remain.

Hundreds. No, thousands. And their families.

What of them? They would doubtless find a measure of vindication-by-prosecution if some infamous ex-politicians and apparatchiks wound up wearing stripes. But that would hardly be sufficient.

The victims deserve a formal apology from the US government. They need compensation – reparations, restitution, damages, pick your term. And they require treatment.

These are the practical manifestations of justice, and the last is the one area in which the US may in fact already be equipped to do its duty. Numerous centers for the treatment of torture victims are already in operation. (A directory is here. ) This network may need to be expanded, however, if we ever do something like justice to the scale of victimization that has been involved.

In sum: the first crucial blows have been struck against the odious and criminal “Torture Industrial Complex,” and kudos to the new president for that.

Now let’s continue to press him – and Congress – to make good on the necessary followups:

-- to slam shut any creeping loopholes;

-- to make sure it has stopped;

-- to get to the truth and require accountability; and

-- to offer practical justice for the many victims and their families scarred by these atrocities.

In the past couple weeks, I’ve heard numerous comments to the effect that, “Thank god torture is over with; great work, folks!”

The new president certainly has begun a great work; even so, those of us concerned to uproot and eradicate torture from the American system expect to be busy for awhile yet.

Quite busy.

Thinking About Spring – Ready to March?

2008-12-19T16:42:00.000-08:00

Friends,

It appears that an early spring national protest schedule is taking shape.

United for peace & Justice (UFPJ) is calling for a 3 month antiwar campaign, with LOCAL ACTIONS on Thursday March 19th, and a culminating national rally in New York City on April 4 2009. More information about the campaign outline is here.

Meanwhile, the rival ANSWER coalition is calling for A NATIONAL MARCH on the Pentagon on Saturday March 21. Their information is here.

A couple of comments: Lots of deja vu all over again here. The two big names of the national peace scene are not co-operating; so what else is new? There’s no mention of April 4 in NYC on the ANSWER site, and UFPJ says zilch re: March 21 at the Pentagon.

But there’s more involved here than the old leftie sectarian competition. On the one hand, UFPJ’s Call for action notes that last fall it urged planning for a big DC rally next March. But given the economic crisis and Obama’s election, they say they feel a need to “change gears.”

They say that much of their constituency will likely not want to be protesting the new president only two months after he’s inaugurated. (I think they’re right.) They don’t say, but there is reason to believe, that ANSWER has once again scooped up all the permits for DC sites on March 21, so they’d have to join them to do something in DC, and they don’t want to do that.

One other internal item is also significant: UFPJ’s longtime national coordinator Leslie Cagan is stepping down. A “help wanted” notice for her successor is on their site.

My view: both these groups are very weak. Neither has organized a successful large action since January 2007. And UFPJ is right that many activists will want to “wait and see” what the new president will do, and March will feel too soon to know.

Plus, the fact is that another BIG chunk of progressive folks worked their hearts out and their butts off for that same new president as the hope

of change. And these and other folks already seem bound to put on what will be the biggest “rally” and “demonstration” maybe ever seen in DC on Jan. 20.

The notion that lots of those folks will then turn right around and go protest the object of all that adulation in mid-March – well, I wouldn’t bet on it.

It will take some mental adjustment for some of us to not have the man in the White House as the object of rage the way so many of us have (with reason) gone after the current lame duck resident these past eight years. But it’s an adjustment we need to start making, if only to avoid splintering our own base.

Here I’m recalling what I’ve read about when FDR came in. The New Deal sucked the air (and the mass base) out of the socialist groups, and the key struggles of those years went on in other, more specific contexts – such as union organizing. Not that FDR was

beyond criticism (far from it). But the political situation had changed dramatically with his arrival. I wonder if we’re entering into a similar period now.

Anyway, unless something big changes, my prediction is that the Pentagon march will be no big deal. NYC could be somewhat different, because the city is so large one can gather a hundred thousand without drawing from much beyond the suburbs. Yet what would be a huge crowd anywhere else will be merely respectable in NYC, and media attention will likely be tepid.

I would see the NYC rally as a kind of holding action, something to do that keeps UFPJ on the game board, but not much more, til maybe there’s a turn against the new administration. It might be interesting, if the weather is good.

So, several options seem possible for local groups like those here in North Carolina (or wherever you are, Friend).

1. Ignore all these machinations entirely, do our own thing here, when we want, with whom we want, focused on the issues we want.

2. Or maybe pick Thursday March 19 for some local-regional event (s).

3. Or even do a local-regional action on Saturday March 21, ignoring the Pentagon march.

4. & 5. Buy train/bus/plane tickets for DC on March 21 and NYC on April 4.

What do folks think?

The Rise of the Torture "Accountability Movement": New York December 4, 2008

2008-12-06T18:36:00.000-08:00

Here's a first-cut report on “After Torture: A Harper’s Magazine Forum on justice in the post-Bush era, held at the New York University Law School Center on Law & Security in Manhattan, December 4, 2008. I rode up on Amtrak from Fayetteville to be there.
The occasion of this forum was the publication of an article by humans rights attorney Scott Horton, “Justice After Bush,” in the December 2008 issue of Harper’s Magazine.

Key topics: An “Accountability Movement”? A special Commission? Pardon Poker playing? Opening Up Victim Lawsuits? And What can This Mean for Anti-torture activists??

The Harper's article is not online, but has been widely discussed. (Transcripts of two interviews with Horton about the piece are here and here ; an online video conversation with Horton and fellow panelist Michael Ratner is here .)
In sum, Horton argues for creation of a special federal commission to investigate torture and related crimes in the past eight years, and thus lay the groundwork for later accountability actions, including prosecutions. The commission’s structure and selection process would be complex, and this complexity became a point of contention, but I won’t try to tease out those technicalities here.
The forum brought together a number of major players in what might be called the “accountability movement,” including, besides Horton: Michael Ratner of the Center on Constitutional Rights, US Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which would have a major role in any congressional action; Retired Army general Antonio Taguba, who led the investigation o the Abu Ghraib torture scandal; Former US Rep. And prosecutor Elizabeth Holtzman; Burt Neuborne, Legal Director, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University.
Heavyweights all, but not ponderous, and all articulate.

A summary of the discussion could best begin with Neuborne, because he put the accountability movement vividly in historical context. He argued that in practice, the US has had a “folding chair” attitude toward our constitution and bill of rights. Especially in times of real or perceived crisis, our rulers have “folded up” these guarantees and put them away for quieter times:

The jailing of dissidents under the Alien & Sedition Acts in the John Adams administration (1798-1800); Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War;
Persecution of war critics and Conscientious Objectors during World war One; and
The internment of Japanese-Americans in World War Two ; etc.

Moreover, those who carried out these policies of repression generally got away with it, Neuborne noted. In line with this history, such impunity is clearly what the current perpetrators expect to maintain. So the current accountability movement is among other things an effort to interrupt this long line of unhappy precedents.

To achieve such a reversal, Neuborne contended that the movement will need an overall accountability strategy, which is likely to encompass a range of initiatives. I’ll say more about some ideas he mentioned later.

Special Commission: Regarding Scott Horton’s special commission proposal, Michael Ratner’s response was the most critical, insisting that a special prosecutor and early indictments were the most urgent priority. Jerrold Nadler, as might be expected from a member of Congress, argued that Congressional hearings were also important, and perhaps a better way to find out the hidden facts needed for further action.

Burt Neuborne was ambivalent; one the one hand, he said the record of such commissions is that they can be used to cover up the truth as much as to reveal it. But on the other hand, he recalled the work of the US Civil Rights Commission in the 1950s, when it held highly-publicized hearings in various states and cities, where both the practices and key protagonists of racism and segregation were exposed and shamed.
Such “shaming,” he said, was an important non-criminal tool for accountability, and needed to be part of the accountability strategy.
And let me put in an oar here briefly: While I’m unsure about the practicality of Horton’s specific commission model, I do agree with him on its purpose. It is the proper preliminary to prosecution, by getting the facts of the torture regime, making them known in an official way in the glare of the media, and thereby educating the public about the extent and depth of the lawbreaking and general evil of it all.
Call this Overcoming the “24" effect, the glamorization of torture --by US agents--in popular media over the past several years. Such a process will be needed to make prosecutions of former high officials publicly and politically acceptable. And it will take time, a few years I would guess.
I differ from Horton in that I don’t want to see inquiries limited to one avenue, such as a commission. I say, let a dozen investigative flowers bloom, in Congress, a commission, the courts, inspectors general, even the states (Hello, NC Attorney General Roy Cooper? Paging Roy Cooper!) If one investigation is a whitewash, another can rinse the whitewash off.
Now, about pardons: Horton said he believes a high stakes “poker game” is underway about pardons for torturers. On the one hand are the recent statements by AG Mukasey that no pardons are needed ) , because no crimes were committed by administration officials. Horton noted that it’s highly improper for an Attorney General to be speaking in such a way, publicly pre-judging the merits of potential future prosecutions. So why was Mukasey doing it?

Horton thinks Mukasey and his masters are trying to goad Obama and his team into making some kind of calm-the-waters statement about letting bygones be bygones, looking forward and not backward, and ruling out prosecutions too. There have been reports that some Obama insiders are pushing just this line .Which would put Obama in the no-prosecutions camp too.
Neuborne, by the way, agreed such a move was possible. He said he had voted for Obama with pleasure – but that every president is forced to make political compromises. Thus, Neuborne said, he had also filed civil liberties lawsuits against every president since LBJ (that’s forty-plus years and eight presidents, for those who forgot the math), and he fully expected to end up filing suits against the Obama administration too.
But Horton said he figured Obama for a smart poker player too, and expected him to make no clear statement at all about the possibility of prosecutions. That way, his options remain open, and he avoids taking flak about any specific plan.
There was also division among the panelists about the extent of pardons. Neuborne said he thought GWB would issue pardons, but aim them “too low,” mainly at those who had actual involvement in carrying out torture programs, in the CIA, military, etc. Neuborne figured GWB would buy Mukasey’s argument about higher-ups not needing pardons and would skip them. This would, Neuborne felt, be a boon to the accountability movement, by leaving high officials more vulnerable to future enforcement actions.
To Michael Ratner, this was wishful thinking. GWB will pardon everybody including himself, Ratner predicted. Horton added that he did not expect any pardons to be announced until the last possible minute, the morning of January 20 itself.
One other reason for Obama to stay cool about prosecutions and pardon talk, Horton argued, is that when the pardons come, there is likely to be a big uproar in the media and Congress, and if Obama has steered clear, all this negative attention will fall on GWB and the other conspirators.

A Brief Sidebar on Victim Lawsuits: During the Q&A, I asked Horton and Ratner about lawsuits and the “state secrets” defense. Could the Obama administration open the courts to lawsuits by victims like Khaled el Masri by simply NOT raising the “state secrets” defense? GWB has used this consistently to squash any such redress.
It seemed to me that this would be an easy thing politically for the new team – NOT doing something rather than taking some big initiative. Obviously, though, there ought to be pressure for the administration to stop raising the state secrets defense, or to sharply limit its use; and if that happens, then we can call for more victim lawsuits to be filed and supported.
To my gratification, both Horton and Ratner responded that this indeed could be done, and it WOULD open the US courts to victims. But also in response to my query, Elizabeth Holtzman, ever the prosecutor, dismissed this matter as irrelevant. Prosecuting GWB was what she felt was important. (She has even published a book on the topic.)
While I admire Holtzman’s go-for-the-jugular instincts, and I’m fine with prosecuting GWB, I still think the victim lawsuits concern has much merit. For one thing, as Rep. Nadler had said earlier, torture victims need and deserve redress; that’s simple justice. But for another, as these lawsuits proceed to discovery, many documents will come to light. What is learned in one case can be useful to another, and to the larger effort to get the truth which a commission, and other investigations will also be seeking. The information-gathering will be cumulative. Every revelation will help.
Now what does any of all this brilliant talk mean for those of us on the ground, in my case here in North Carolina, and the groups I work with, Quaker House and NC Stop Torture Now? Here are a few early ideas that have occurred to me; but clearly all this needs more discussion. Readers from other areas can make appropriate adjustments.

1. Add the phrase “Accountability Movement”to our action vocabulary. I’m not sure now whether someone on the panel used this phrase as such, or it just emerged; but I believe it’s now “in the air.”
Maybe it was spoken by Karen Greenberg, the Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at NYU, in her introduction to the panel. She did say that in her view the discussion of torture had shifted in recent weeks from whether the US had engaged in torture, and whether that was bad, to an assumption that it had happened, it was wrong, and the issue now was HOW to institute a process of accountability for it.
I think Greenberg is right, but this shift has only begun, and I believe we can assist it, in particular by speaking about the “accountability movement,” and identifying our work as part of it.
2. Join the chorus against the pardons. I hope we’ll get ready to help raise hell about the pardons, to increase the pressure for an investigative response, in Congress and elsewhere. This ought to be a big opportunity.
3. Ramp up state and local-level actions. Most on the panel seemed to see only the federal courts and agencies as potential venues for the accountability movement. For such heavy hitters, that’s their typical milieu. But it’s not the only one. For instance, for three years now we’ve been productively active here protesting the presence of “torture taxi” planes used for rendition, as well as other aspects of the system , and we’re not about to stop. There are many other localities where similar parts of the “Torture Industrial Complex” are located, that could likewise be targets for local and state action.
After the session, I approached Michael Ratner, identified myself as working with STN and against Aero Contractors, the NC-based CIA shell company that is the main torture taxi outfit. He knew Aero instantly – and I asked if there were any possibilities for state-level action. He expressed interest in exploring this side of possible accountability action, and I hope some collaboration will develop.
If I have one criticism of the nascent accountability movement, it is that thus far it is too Washington and New York centered. Of course, the brainpower and institutional weight of the NYU panel will be indispensable to its success. But I think they will also need active support from below as well, the sort of action being spearheaded by NC Stop Torture Now.

Addendum: Here are a couple points I didn't get to in the initial report, about the military aspect, and some legislative possibilities:
#1. Panel member Gen. Antonio Taguba. He is or should be a hero to "accountability movement" folks, not only for his pioneering probe of Abu Ghraib, which he carried out even though it cost him the end of his military career, but also his clear declaration last summer of the truth of war crimes by the current administration, and a call for accountability .

He spoke at the panel on behalf of military folks, and pointed out that, however incomplete, there HAS been corrective and punitive action in the military, in response to cases of torture; upwards of 200 soldiers have been disciplined for involvement in torture, and their current orders are not to do it. (This does not apply to the CIA and other secret outfits.)
Sure, there are more soldiers, especially generals, who should face such action; when I spoke to him about this after the panel, he agreed, and mentioned a couple of names of retired generals as potential candidates for legal action.
But his point was that while some accountability action has been taken within the military, the civilian higher-ups are scrambling to avoid the same thing. He mentioned in this connection an executive order by GWB which, in the same order, declared administration officials exempt from any penalties for violating the Geneva Convention, while directing the military to follow it, or else.
He added that we are in a time of "persistent conflict" (kudos to him for NOT calling it the "war on terror") when US troops will frequently be in danger, so one of the things they deserve is a single standard of behavior and accountability, from top to bottom.
So another way of putting this would be: "Support the troops: hold civilian torturers accountable, too!” (As a slogan, that may need some work, but you get the idea.)

#2. Some legislative possibilities.
Much of this came from Rep. Nadler, and it's not entirely clear which things he DEFINITELY plans to introduce, and which ideas are in the "thinking out loud" stage.
First, Nadler repeated the point about how the new administration will come under lots of pressure from many of its "friends" and allies to leave all this accountability stuff alone. (After all, many high muckety-muck Dems are complicit to varyng degrees.) So pressure FOR accountability needs to continue. Nothing new there, but it was good to hear him say it.
As to specific proposals, here are some Nadler mentioned; keep in mind that he did not go into many technical details, and those are mostly above my pay grade anyway, so think about following up with him . And for brevity I'll refer to Nadler as "N" below:

A. Reviving the Special Prosecutor law, which lapsed after the disgraceful Ken Starr impeach Clinton fiasco. N wants to revive it with limits to prevent another unlimited Starr-type witchunt.

B. State Secrets doctrine: he wants to put limits on its use, particularly as a tool for completely shutting down court actions. N said he already had a state secrets reform bill, but didn't mention a bill number or name.

C. Pardon power: N said he plans to offer a Constitutional amendment limiting the president's pardon power, especially regarding high members of the incumbent administration, and to prohibit pre-emptive pardons for persons not yet charged with a crime. Alaso, no pardons could be given in the last 6 months of an administration. There was more, that I didn't catch.
One other call for new legislation came from Elizabeth Holtzman. She noted that the War Crimes Act of 1996 made much of what the current gang did criminal. She said Gonzalez warned GWB about this in a memo that has been uncovered.
So to protect themselves, they put a section into the Military Commissions law which gutted the War Crimes act, and did so RETROACTIVELY so that everything they've done was NO LONGER A CRIME.
(Makes me wanna barf.) This section, she said, was unnoticed amid all the hubbub about habeus corpus. So Holtzman is calling on Congress to repeal that change and REINSTATE the War Crimes Act.
Listening to all this legislative stuff, and weighing all the difficulties it will face, made me think favorably of the idea of shaming the perps, lawsuits, other state-level initiatives, and foreign actions as avenues for folks like us to keep exploring.

Reporting on the Work of Ending Torture

2008-12-03T07:44:00.001-08:00

Friends--

Here are some excerpts from a piece in the Washington Post of December 3 2008 about the hazards facing the new administration in attempting to dismantle the Torture Industrial Complex.

I assume that all such pieces, and there have been several others recently in prominent news outlets, are as much trial balloons as they are hard reporting, since few actual decisions are being reported.

In the balloon context, this piece seems to me more hopeful than some earlier ones. It speaks more favorably of several issues, like closing Guantanamo and stopping rendition flights.

But it is very weak and wobbly on the matter of secret prisons, and whether to permit torture in "special" circumstances. The comments by Senator Dianne Feinstein, for instance, also indicate that such wobbliness extends to many in Congress as well.

Such weakness should be no surprise. Most Democrats on the Hill went along with all this torture mess, and at least a few cheered for it.

But no one should be fooled by such concern for loopholes. The secret agencies have a record of driving trucks (and renditions airplanes) through every such allowed exception.

Certainly the prospects for reform now are more promising than they were before the election. But as this piece and others should make clear, those who want to REALLY end torture have our work cut out for us, and plenty of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Washington Post December 3, 2008

After Sharp Words on C.I.A., Obama Faces a Delicate Task

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — For two years on the presidential campaign trail, Barack Obama rallied crowds with strongly worded critiques of the Bush administration’s most controversial counterterrorism programs, from hiding terrorism suspects in secret Central Intelligence Agency jails to questioning them with methods he denounced as torture.

Now Mr. Obama must take charge of the C.I.A., in what is already proving to be one of the more treacherous patches of his transition to the White House.

One of the first issues Mr. Obama must grapple with is the future of C.I.A. detention: will the agency continue to hold prisoners secretly, question them using more aggressive methods than allowed for military interrogators, and transfer terrorism suspects to countries with a history of using torture?

During the presidential campaign, a constant theme for Mr. Obama was the need to restore “American values” to the fight against terrorism. He pledged to banish secret C.I.A. interrogation rules and require all American interrogators to follow military guidelines, set out in the Army Field Manual on interrogation.

In a speech last year, Mr. Obama cast the matter as a practical issue, as well as a moral one. “We cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side,” he said. “But because the administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies.”

On Wednesday, a dozen retired generals and admirals are to meet with senior Obama advisers to urge him to stand firm against any deviation from the military’s noncoercive interrogation rules.

But even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules. Her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.

Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying: “The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them.”

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

C.I.A. officials have long argued that publishing a list of interrogation techniques only allows Al Qaeda to train its operatives to resist them. But they say the secrecy has led to exaggeration and myth about the agency’s detention program. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama’s aides said he would consider allowing the C.I.A to continue holding prisoners in overseas jails, but would insist that inspectors from the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed to visit them.

They also said he would end the practice of “rendering” terrorism suspects to countries that have used torture.

One of the retired generals meeting with the Obama team on Wednesday, Paul D. Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces for the Army in 2003 and 2004, said in an interview Tuesday that it was crucial for leaders to send the right message on the treatment of prisoners.

General Eaton pointed out that Vice President Dick Cheney once dismissed waterboarding, the near-drowning tactic considered by many legal authorities to be torture, as a “dunk in the water” and said such statements influenced rank-and-file soldiers to believe that brutality was not really prohibited.

“This administration has set a tone problem for the military,” General Eaton said. “We’ve had eight years of undermining good order and discipline.”

The flap over Mr. Brennan, who served as a chief of staff to George J. Tenet when he ran the C.I.A., was the biggest glitch so far in what has been an otherwise smooth transition for Mr. Obama.

Some C.I.A. veterans suggest that the president-elect may have difficulty finding a candidate who can be embraced by both veteran officials at the agency and the left flank of the Democratic Party. . . .

The Torture Debate: Laying Out the Terms

2008-11-26T13:21:00.000-08:00

Friends,

You may or may not follow "Talking Points Memo"
<< http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ >> which is one of the most widely-read political blogs.
Anyway, under a recent report about the president-elect naming a Department of Justice transitional chief, the first two comments seemed to me to be important background items as we look ahead, because they lay out the terms of an ongoing debate.
Here they are.
First Comment: I realize I'm in the minority, but I believe it is of the utmost importance that the DOJ go after any and all that worked to undermine our civil rights. The acts of spying on Americans without a warrant, among many other criminal acts need to be investigated and brought to trial. That includes Torture and the murder of prisoners in our custody. The violation of the Geneva Convention cannot be allowed to go unpunished . . . no matter how politically dangerous it may be.

Second Comment: <<< "The violation of the Geneva Convention cannot be allowed to go unpunished .no matter how politically dangerous it may be." >>>
No. People want to move on. They shouldn't want to...they should be hungry for blood, for justice, to right the wrongs and all that, but half the country was (voting-wise) complicit in the madness of the last regime, and folks don't like having their noses rubbed in it.
The bureaucratic purification should occur, but quietly. The focus should be on nuts 'n bolts stuff: antitrust, securities, and the like. There are lots of good antitrust lawyers out there who have been twiddling their thumbs since 1978. Give 'em some work, especially now that the spotlight is on corporate malfeasance.>>
These two comments lay out concisely the ongoing debate over what to do about torture in the coming years: Forget It and Move On, versus Enforce the Law Come What May.

My own personal view is that, while there are certainly plenty of other critical problems to be dealt with (see under: "Economy, Collapse"; "Iraq, Quagmire," etc.), giving impunity to those who planned, carried out, and justified torture creates a problem of a different, and very grave magnitude. It cuts at the very root of our constitutional order.Impunity (which is the outcome of the "Move On" approach) will accelerate what I have dubbed "The Torture Transition," the extremely dangerous shift from regarding it as a shocking anomaly to accepting it as a regrettable but tolerable precedent. This concern has occurred to others involved in this issue as well.
This "Torture transition" should be resisted and stopped. I’ve written about this task in more detail in an article, ‘Torture & Impunity," just published in Friends Journal’s December 2008 issue. That article is available online here: Torture & Impunity.

"The Torture Transition." How do we stop it? This question is also part of the basis for the "START NOW" program for ending torture discussed below.

Got It Goin' On In Carolina!

2008-11-19T19:55:00.000-08:00

These are my homeys, kicking torture-complicit derriere last Monday night. . . .

From the [North Carolina] Independent Weekly website

POSTED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2008:

Johnston County Airport: Stop what torture?

By Bob Geary

For three years, the activist group N.C. Stop Torture Now has blanketed the Johnston County Airport with vigils, reports that CIA rendition flights may originate there and warnings about a half-dozen planes implicated in "torture flights" that are operated by a private carrier based there.

The group wants the county-owned airport to investigate. Start paying attention, members say. Adopt a policy against abetting torture. Call in the sheriff or the State Bureau of Investigation to help.

Airport Authority Chairman John Bullock's latest response,: Investigate what?

"We have no facts," Bullock told Stop Torture Now members who attended the authority's Nov. 17 meeting in Smithfield. Aero Contractors, the private carrier, he added, "is a good tenant, good client; they've been here for years."

At the authority's meeting a month ago, Stop Torture Now members distributed a thick packet of information, including accounts from The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, about the CIA's secret renditions and the role private air carriers, including Aero Contractors, play. According to the reports, terrorism suspects captured in countries where torture is outlawed are "rendered" to other countries—Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan—where torture is practiced.

One case, involving a German citizen mistakenly arrested in Macedonia and tortured in Afghanistan, resulted in the indictment of three Aero pilots on charges of kidnapping by a German grand jury.

In another, the Swedish government agreed to pay $450,000 to an Egyptian citizen seeking asylum who was rendered back to Egypt, allegedly by Aero pilots, and imprisoned and tortured.

"Did you find [the information] compelling?" Allyson Caison, a county resident, asked Bullock.

"I found it interesting," Bullock said, smiling uncomfortably. "I'm not in favor of torture."

Ironically, the 30-minute meeting Monday was dominated by Airport Director Ray Blackmon's revelation that folks are driving too fast around the hangars, where airplanes have the right-of-way. Lest the county be sued for negligence if there's an accident, the authority voted to reduce the speed limit from 20 mph to 10.

"I was happy to hear Ray mention his concern about negligence and liability," Caison told authority members. She urged them to think hard, however, about the liability of allowing a company to use the airport in the commission of kidnappings and torture.

"Winds of change blew through this country on Nov. 4," she said. "There may soon be congressional and international investigations of the rendition program. Johnston County needs to get on the right side of history before these investigations shine the spotlight on us. At that point, it will be too late to claim we didn't know what was going on here."

Bullock said he asked the county attorney for advice but hasn't gotten any yet.

N.C. Stop Torture Now received an "Indy Citizen Award" for its work in 2007. AND An ACLU Award this year.

For more about protests at Aero Contractors, the primo Torture Taxi company: http://www.quakerhouse.org/torture-background.htm

To End Torture: START NOW

2008-11-18T10:16:00.000-08:00

Friends--

I've been reflecting on how most of the proposals I've seen for opposing torture in the coming years seem too narrow and oriented to one or another "silver bullet" idea.

The problem is more complex, and more entrenched, it seems to me. So I've been drafting an outline that I think is more comprehensive. The working title is "START NOW," an acronym for the main elements.

The current draft is pasted below for your review. It's a working document now, but when it's finalized, and with approval of our board, I hope it could be published as a flyer or brochure, as well as posted online.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Chuck Fager

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
President-Elect Barack Obama, November 16, 2008:

“I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture.
And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture.”

To Make Sure: START NOW

START NOW is a comprehensive outline of steps toward eradicating torture from the United States government and military system:

START:

1. S = The first step is to STOP IT. Issue a presidential executive order, banning "enhanced interrogation techniques" in all U.S. agencies and facilities. Re-establish the restrictions in the Army Field Manual, apply to all military and intelligence services.

– Follow up to see that the order is followed.

– Identify and specifically revoke all secret memos and orders from the White House and agencies that authorize torture or inhibit investigations of torture allegations.

– Dismantle the torture infrastructure. Close Guantanamo. Identify and close other secret detention facilities. Terminate arrangements with third countries for torture-by-proxy. Cancel contracts with Aero and other CIA torture flight front companies. Follow up with investigations to ensure compliance.

– Preserve all relevant records, by impoundment if necessary.

2. T = TRUTH. Find and make public the actual record of U.S. agencies and contractors relating to abuse and torture. To do so, launch investigations into allegations of torture, other war crimes, and conspiracy to commit these acts. The principal investigative focus would be the period since the beginning of 2002; but relevant earlier events will be included.These investigations to proceed on numerous fronts, to include:

– Inspectors General in the relevant intelligence and federal agencies;

– The Government Accountability Office;

– The Justice Department, including independent counsels where advisable;

– Congressional hearings and probes, using subpoena power;

-- Specially-created investigative bodies ("Truth Commission")

– State-level reviews into possible violations of state laws by front companies and contractors.

– Cooperate with investigations by international agencies and other governments

– Encourage journalists and independent investigators in their fact-finding efforts.

3. A = ACCOUNTABILITY. Initiate enforcement actions for alleged war crimes and torture committed by U.S. citizens, agents or contractors. To this end:

– Rescind all exemptions for private contractors from applicable U.S. and international laws against torture and abuse.

– Convene grand juries in affected jurisdictions.

– In the military, initiate disciplinary procedures for those who took part in, gave orders for, or drafted policy guidance that permitted torture and abuse in contravention of the applicable field manuals, US laws and treaty obligations. Such procedures to begin at the top of the relevant commands.

– State officials to follow up when torture and conspiracy allegations involve violations of state laws.

4. R = RESTITUTION/COMPENSATION for victims of US torture, kidnaping, imprisonment without trial, and other related abuses, inflicted either directly by U.S. agents, contractors, or by proxy states. The cases of Maher Arar in Canada, who was granted $9 million in compensation by the Canadian government, and Ahmed Agiza in Sweden, of $377,000, are early examples of restitution payments.Open US courts to such claims. Withdraw or severely restrict the doctrine of "state secrets" as a way of avoiding this litigation.

5. T = TREATMENT: Medical, psychological, and social welfare services to be provided to victims and their families, at government expense. This may be the one part of this program where the country is already reasonably well-prepared. A network of treatment centers for torture survivors is already in place. To meet the scale of the need, this network may require expansion.

NOW – ACTIONS:

1. NEVER let up: ending torture is a long-term project. Stay informed about torture issues.

2. ORGANIZE: Keep the issue of torture in the public arena:

– Form or join local committees and coalitions to pursue the end-torture agenda.

– Conduct public witness: vigils demonstrations, protests

– Organize forums and conferences

– Write letters to the editor; Op Eds, articles in local/regional media. Blog!

– Work in churches and professional groups for statements and actions to end torture.

– Press local and state officials for action at these levels

3. WORK on the government: Lobby Congress, the White House, and federal agencies to eradicate the roots and legacy of official torture

– Find supportive organizational partners among national groups; collaborate.

– Stay in touch with your US. Representatives & Senators; don’t let them evade the issue.

– Monitor international efforts, support and join with them when practical.

Lots of Bad News

2008-10-21T17:57:00.000-07:00

"Welcome Home" banners at Camp Lejeune, NC Marine base.

Maybe you've seen the items cited here, but they could easily be overlooked among all the hullabaloo of the campaign.

All of them relate to the military situation that the new president will confront as of January 20.

And all of them, in my view, are gloomy clouds on the new administration's horizon. They point to an American future likely to be marked by more war and a bigger military.

How so? Let's take a look:

First, from Congressional Quarterly comes news that

Pentagon officials have prepared a new estimate for defense spending that is $450 billion more over the next five years than previously announced figures.

The new estimate, which the Pentagon plans to release shortly before President Bush leaves office, would serve as a marker for the new president and is meant to place pressure on him to either drastically increase the size of the defense budget or defend any reluctance to do so, according to several former senior budget officials who are close to the discussions.

Experts note that releasing such documents in the twilight of an administration is a well-worn tactic, and that incoming presidents often disregard such guidance in order to pursue their own priorities.

"Pursue their own priorities." Sure he will. But these priorities will be pressed from several directions, all pointing toward more war and a bigger military.

One example came last spring, when a retiring army general told Congress about the size and condition of our army. Here's part of what he testified, as reported in the New Yorker:

General Richard A. Cody graduated from West Point in 1972, flew helicopters, ascended to command the storied 101st Airborne Division, and then, toward the end of his career, settled into management; now, at fifty-seven, he wears four stars as the Army Vice-Chief of Staff. This summer, he will retire from military service.

[In April], the General appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and testified that this method of engineering has failed. "Today's Army is out of balance," Cody said. He continued:
The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply, and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies. . . . Soldiers, families, support systems and equipment are stretched and stressed. . . . Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.

Cody spoke last spring. Last week [0ctober 14], his estimate was echoed by a batch of strategic consultants. The Christian Science Monitor's Gordon Lubold had that story:

Is US fighting force big enough?

Washington - American's armed forces are growing bigger to reduce the strains from seven years of war, but if the US is confronting an era of "persistent conflict," as some experts believe, it will need an even bigger military.

A larger military could more easily conduct military and nation-building operations around the world. But whether the American public has the appetite to pursue and pay for such a foreign-policy agenda, especially after more than five years of an unpopular war in Iraq, is far from clear.

The Army currently has about 540,000 active-duty soldiers and is expected to attain its goal of 547,000 by 2011. The Marine Corps, also tapped to expand, should top 202,000 within the next couple of years. The total American force – including active-duty, reserve, and guard – is about 2.2 million.

John Nagl, a counterinsurgency expert and a retired Army officer, says in coming years the Army should grow to 750,000 and the Marine Corps to 250,000. Demand for troops is already high, and it won't abate anytime soon even if substantial numbers of troops return from Iraq, he recently said at the Center for a New American Security, a think tank in Washington.

Meanwhile, the top US commander in Afghanistan has asked for more American troops that the US simply can't produce until more leave Iraq.

"We don't have enough brigades to fight – that is an inconvertible fact," says Mr. Nagl.
If the US is to remain a superpower in a world in which weak nations, not strong ones, are the big threats, then it must expand its forces so it won't again enter a conflict using too few troops, as it did in Iraq, say other experts. America must stay engaged in nations with weak or nonexistent governments to prevent extremism from taking root and threatening the US.

"This is not a prediction of conflicts to come, but a recognition that the potential for stabilization and reconstruction missions remains high," writes Fred Kagan, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a think tank here, in a book he cowrote called "Ground Truth." Mr. Kagan and Thomas Donnelly argue for a total force of about 2.8 million, which includes an active Army of about 800,000 and a Marine Corps of about 200,000.

"We may not want these missions, but they might be thrust upon us; and they certainly might appear to a future president as the least-bad outcome," Kagan writes.

Where are all these additional troops supposed to come from? Recruiters haven't been having an easy time in recent years, despite huge budgets for ads and signup bonuses

But not to worry. Now they've gained a crucial ally, as a Pentagon bigwig explained to Robert Burns, military writer for the Associated Press:

For military, bad economy aids recruiting

WASHINGTON—The tough economy could make it easier to sign up soldiers.

Fewer civilian jobs mean less competition for military recruiters.

"We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society," David Chu, the Pentagon's personnel chief, told a news conference Friday. "I don't have the Dow Jones banner running up behind me here this morning, but that is a situation where more people are willing to give us a chance."

For several years, as the Army in particular struggled to meet its recruiting needs, military officials have cited a strong economy as one obstacle to attracting young people looking at their employment options. It is one reason that over the past year the Army and Marine Corps felt compelled to pay more than $600 million, combined, in bonuses and other financial incentives to entice recruits.

Another negative factor: Parents and others who influence the decisions of enlistment-age men and women have, since the outset of the Iraq war, become less inclined to recommend military service.

In announcing that the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force all met their recruiting goals for the budget year ended Sept. 30, Chu said the economic downturn offers new possibilities for recruiters.

"What more difficult economic times give us, I think, is an opening to make our case to people (potential enlistees) that we might not otherwise have," Chu said. "And if we make our case, I think we can be successful."

The military needs any break it can get on recruiting, particularly since it is in the midst of a push to substantially increase the size of the nation's ground forces—a decision driven by an urgent need to reduce the strain on troops and their families from repeated deployments to Iraq.
And one more item. Here are snippets from some reports that will be delivered to the new occupant of the Oval Office about rising military challenges, as leaked to McClatchy Newspapers:

A new National Intelligence Estimate concludes that Pakistan is "on the edge."

Washington - A growing al Qaida-backed insurgency, combined with the Pakistani army's reluctance to launch an all-out crackdown, political infighting and energy and food shortages are plunging America's key ally in the war on terror deeper into turmoil and violence, says a soon-to-be completed U.S. intelligence assessment.

A U.S. official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as "very bad." Another official called the draft "very bleak," and said it describes Pakistan as being "on the edge."

The first official summarized the estimate's conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: "no money, no energy, no government."

Six U.S. officials who helped draft or are aware of the document's findings confirmed them to McClatchy on the condition of anonymity because NIEs are top secret and are restricted to the president, senior officials and members of Congress. An NIE's conclusions reflect the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

The NIE on Pakistan, along with others being prepared on Afghanistan and Iraq, will underpin a "strategic assessment" of the situation that Army Gen. David Petraeus, who's about to take command of all U.S. forces in the region, has requested. The aim of the assessment - seven years after the U.S. sent troops into Afghanistan - is to determine whether a U.S. presence in the region can be effective and if so what U.S. strategy should be.

The findings also are intended to support the Bush administration's effort to recommend the resources the next president will need for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan at a time the economic crisis is straining the Treasury and inflating the federal budget deficit.

The Afghanistan estimate warns that additional American troops are urgently needed there and that Islamic extremists who enjoy safe haven in Pakistan pose a growing threat to the U.S.-backed government of Afghan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.

The Iraq NIE is more cautious about the prospects for stability there than the Bush administration and either John McCain or Barack Obama have been, and it raises serious questions about whether the U.S. will be able to redeploy a significant number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan anytime soon.

Together, the three NIEs suggest that without significant and swift progress on all three fronts - which they suggest is uncertain at best - the U.S. could find itself facing a growing threat from al Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups, said one of the officials.

So where does this leave the US as we look ahead to a new year and a new administration?

Facing a need for more troops – and not just a few more, but hundreds of thousands. Recruiters are counting on the coming depression to fill the ranks. Will it be enough?

And what will all these additional troops face? How about:

Trouble in Iraq. Big trouble in Afghanistan. And the threat of even bigger trouble in Pakistan. (And Iran? Russia? Don’t ask.)

I don’t know about you, but here at Quaker House, this data indicates that we’ll continue to be busy.

But beyond all this, there is yet another important aspect of this situation to consider, namely the impact of the current US financial decline on its international military-strategic standing.

We’ll look at that in another post.

(A reminder: Quaker House depends on your contributions. There is a "Donate Now" link on our home page.)
Photos copyright by Chuck fager.

Struggling to End Domestic Violence &Sexual Assaults in the Military

2008-10-11T22:06:00.000-07:00

Working against domestic violence has not traditionally been a program priority for Quaker House. We already have plenty to do with the GI Rights Hotline, the succession of peace events, and Truth In Recruiting.

But living in this military community, some other issues have forced their way onto our agenda. Torture is one. And domestic violence is another.

In the summer of 2002, the first year I was here, there were seven domestic murders and suicides in as many weeks. And as we surveyed the carnage, the reality that these were but the top of an iceberg of family trouble became impossible to ignore.

So we wrote a report on that experience, here: http://quakerhouse.org/DV-Military.htm
And while sticking to our main priorities, we’ve still stayed mindful of the steady toll taken by this "war at home."

In early autumn 2007, Christine Horne (that's her, by the display in our dining room) read our 2002 report and called Quaker House. Her mother, Beryl Mitchell, had been murdered in 1974 by her Green Beret officer father, at Ft. Bragg, when Christine was a child.

Now, as part of her healing, she was coming to Fayetteville to pay a proper tribute to her mother, and the other victims like her. Could we help?

We did, and the resulting memorial drew extensive media and community response. (See the report in our fall Newsletter at: http://quakerhouse.org/Newsletter-10-2007.pdf .org/Newsletter-10-2007.pdf rhouse.org/Newsletter-10-2007.pdf ter-10-2007.pdf )
Unfortunately, the toll of family violence and sexual assault continues: four women soldiers have been murdered in North Carolina in the past nine months.
(They are, from top to bottom below: Maria Lauterbach, murdered in December 2007 at Camp lejeune; Megan Touma, killed in Fayetteville in June 2008; Holley Wimunc, an Army nurse murdered in Fayetteville in July; and Christina Smith, stabbed to death in Fayetteville in October 2008. All four were soldiers, and in all cases, male soldiers have been charged with the crimes.)
And last month, our phone rang again. This time, it was from retired Army Col. Ann Wright. We knew Ann from her participation in our peace rally in 2007.
But Ann was not calling about an antiwar action. She was concerned about the murders of female soldiers. Could we help with a public action about that?
Of course. The outcome was a vigil, luncheon discussion, and wreath-laying memorial, on October 8, 2008. Again the press came out in force. The Fayetteville Observer hit the right note about the vigil, held outside one of the main gates to Fort Bragg:

The crowd hovering outside one of Fort Bragg’s gates Wednesday was a protest of sorts.

But it was not the anti-war kind that Fayetteville sometimes sees.

This was a protest with purple ribbons and signs about soldiers killed by their husbands or boyfriends, not by insurgents.

In a way, it was a protest against the military. But not against the people who serve. Against the military culture that, the protesters think, makes it difficult for a woman in the military to tell her commanders that her soldier husband is threatening her. Against the military bureaucracy that, the protesters think, hides sexual assault complaints and brushes victims to the side.

"I am here to say that our military must address this," said retired Army Col. Ann Wright, who served 29 years in the Army and now speaks around the country about violence against women in the service.

The response of an army press spokesman was dismissive:

Fort Bragg officials say the military’s programs to prevent sexual assault and domestic abuse work.

They do? Tell that to the families of the four women who won’t be coming home.

"Nothing could be further from the truth that we don’t attempt to be proactive in reducing domestic violence," said Tom McCollum, a Fort Bragg spokesman.

McCollum said when soldiers and families come to Fort Bragg they are told about the different places on post they can get counseling. He said soldiers preparing to deploy are briefed about stress and domestic violence as part of the things they receive. Those same soldiers are briefed again before they return to the U.S. and again after they come home.

"They can go to our chaplains, Womack Army hospital and to the Army Community Services," McCollum said. "We are sometimes baffled — why would someone do that and especially with all the help that is available? A divorce is so much easier."

Unfortunately, this statement mainly rebutted assertions that the vigilers hadn’t made. Ann Wright laid out the concerns in an OpEd column for the same newspaper on October 3rd:

In 2002, four Army spouses were murdered here by their military husbands after they returned from Afghanistan. But Fort Bragg, even aside from these infamous cases, has had a "disproportionately high number of domestic homicides, the highest in the country", according to "Murder in the Military," a July 20, 2008 article in this newspaper.

The sad roster of such victims stretches back over the decades. Thus we’ll also be laying a wreath at the grave of Beryl Mitchell, murdered here in 1974 by her Special Forces officer husband.
Rape is a parallel plague. Veterans Administration statistics reveal that one in three women servicemembers are raped or sexually assaulted while in the military. Further, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff of Personnel recently told Congress that of the reported rapes in the Army in 2007, ten percent were reported by male victims.

Nor are wives the only victims. In 2004 the North Carolina Child Advocacy Center issued a shocking report, "Reducing Collateral Damage on the Home Front," which showed that in a sixteen year period, the rate of fatal violence against children was twice as high in the counties around Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune as in the rest of the state.

In short, however much the Army is doing, it isn’t enough.

Keeping Up the Pressure on Torture

2008-10-11T21:50:00.000-07:00

If I seem preoccupied with torture, that's due to two factors above all:

First, Fayetteville-Fort Bragg is surrounded by major components of what I call the "Torture Industrial Complex." So it's hard to ignore.

And second, in my study of this gruesome subject, it's become clear that legitimizing torture is a key step in the creation of a police state.

Anyway, here's another OpEd on the topic that I sent to the local paper.

Fayetteville NC Observer – published Sunday, September 28, 2008 in the Opinion category.

Don’t forget Torture Migration Day
By Chuck Fager
Fayetteville

In this military town, much attention is given to important dates in military history: June 6, D-Day; Nov. 11, formerly Armistice, now Veterans Day; Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day.

Earlier this month, another major anniversary passed, with no notice but of huge importance, especially locally: Sept. 16. Migration Day. Torture Migration Day.

On Sept. 16, 2002, a conference began at the Special Warfare Center on Fort Bragg. At the session, the staff of the rapidly filling detention camp at Guantanamo were treated to detailed "demonstrations" of the Special Forces’ SERE techniques.

SERE: Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. It’s the part of Special Forces training where aspiring operators are "captured" and then abused, under controlled conditions, to see how long they can resist breaking down and signing false confessions.

Reports are that the techniques, which grew out of the abuse of U.S. prisoners of war in the Korean War, can include waterboarding, religious assaults, sensory and sleep deprivation, and extremes of heat and cold. Reports also say they are extremely effective at breaking down the trainees’ will to resist, usually quickly.

The goal of the Bragg demonstration, according to Army investigators and the important new book, The Dark Side, by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer, was to show the Guantanamo officials how to get their prisoners to talk. Until then, the complaint was that the hundreds of detainees there were producing very little useful information.

From that fateful Sept. 16 meeting here, the SERE techniques, say investigators, "migrated" to Gitmo. And then to Afghanistan and Iraq, at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. And then to the "black sites" operated by various OGAs, or Other Government Agencies — read CIA.

With this "migration," evidently many detainees started to talk, and didn’t stop.

That’s not surprising because these techniques really are not about interrogation. They’re about torture. So yes, those subjected to them talked. And talked. They spewed reams of "confessions" and detailed "intelligence."

But over time, as numerous investigations have shown and Jane Mayer’s book chillingly summarizes, little of this "intelligence" has proven authentic or useful.

And hundreds of the detainees, after such abuse, were released without charges — because they had no involvement with terrorism.

That is, they were not only innocent, they also were ignorant of the details of terror. Their confessions were mostly fabricated, to get the torture to stop.

Also in The Dark Side, Mayer recounts that numerous administration officials — solid anti-terror conservatives and high military officers — came to see this "migration" as a tragic wrong turn and tried to stop it.

Without success.

There are many reasons to deplore the torture migration that was launched Sept. 16, 2002. Some, such as respect for the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution, U.S. federal anti-torture laws, and God, can be dismissed as the cavils of bleeding hearts such as myself.

But others come from battle-seasoned military leaders.

One of these was former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili. He said that such practices "fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world."

That’s right: torture or "enhanced interrogation" by U.S. authorities endangers American troops.

This is "the Golden Rule" argument: if it’s OK for the U.S. to torture and abuse detainees and prisoners — that makes it OK for our adversaries to do the same to our forces. "Do unto others ..."

Shalikashvili also states what can be called "the Bad Seed" argument:

Remember all those hundreds — more like thousands — of released detainees who weren’t part of al-Qaida or other terror groups when they came in? Whose side do you suppose they’re on now?

Right again: Torture helps recruit new terrorists and sympathizers. Which means, torture not only increases risks to our soldiers. It also endangers our national security.

While I hope the tide is beginning to turn against torture and so-called "enhanced interrogation," it’s clear that this matter is far from over. The efforts to root it out will likely take years.

So while those efforts continue, I propose we add Sept. 16 to the calendar of unhappily memorable days on the military history calendar.

Torture Migration Day.

Let it not be forgotten.

And may it never happen again.

Dodging a Bullet – For Now

2008-10-11T21:47:00.000-07:00

Private Jeremy Hinzman was one of the first soldiers I worked with after arriving at Quaker House at the end of 2001. He filed an application for conscientious objector status, which was turned aside, and he was deployed to Afghanistan. Several months after his return, in December 2003, he was ordered to head for Iraq.

Instead, he, his wife and infant son went to Canada, where they have been fighting ever since to stay. Last summer, a second child, a daughter, joined their family.
We’ve published numerous reports in our newsletters on this struggle. In sum, Jeremy has lost all his legal battles, and was issued a deportation order, to leave Canada on September 23, 2008.
But with one day to go, Jeremy won a round, as the newsclip below indicates. So this story is far from over.

Judge grants U.S. deserter's last-ditch effort to stave off deportation
Canadian Press -- 4:10 PM Monday September 22, 2008
TORONTO — A high-profile American deserter has won a last-minute stay of deportation.
A [Canadian] Federal Court judge says Jeremy Hinzman can stay in Canada for now. Hinzman was due to get the boot to the U.S. Tuesday morning, where he would face prosecution for fleeing to Canada rather than deploying to Iraq. Ottawa has refused his family's application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The 29-year-old Hinzman, his wife and two young children asked for the stay while the courts decide if they will review that decision.
His lawyer argued today that deserters who have been publicly critical of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq have received harsher punishment.

Good news for Psychologists, and their Clients

2008-10-11T21:39:00.000-07:00

Among the many shocking realities that emerge as one studies the evolution of the US torture system, one of the most shocking to me was to learn of the deep, and decades-long involvement of psychologists in the process.

And not just a few obscure practitioners here and there – this roll of shame included presidents of the American Psychological Association. (An eye-opening summary of these facts is here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00253.htm )

Professor Alfred McCoy of the University of Wisconsin has also detailed the history in his indispensable book, A Question of Torture: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805082484/sr=1-2/qid=1223767994/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1223767994&sr=1-2&seller=

But in late September, there was finally a piece of good news on the psychological front. This release tells the story:

American Psychological Association Members Pass Historic Ban on Psychologist Participation in U.S. Detention FacilitiesWednesday, September 17, 2008Today, the membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a referendum banning participation of APA member psychologists in U.S. detention facilities, such as Guantanamo or the CIA’s secret "black sites" operating outside of or in violation of international law or the Constitution.Dan Aalbers, one of the referendum’s authors, stated: "This is a decisive victory for the membership of the APA and for human rights advocates everywhere. This new policy will ensure that psychologists work for the abused and not the abusers at places like Guantanamo Bay and the CIA black sites. We expect that the APA’s leadership will immediately take action to ensure that psychologists are removed from the chain of command at places where human rights are violated or said not to apply."

More on this at the blog of Stephen Soldz, a Boston psychoanalyst who was at the UNC Torture Symposium last week, and has been a strong anti-torture activist in the APA:http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/09/17/apa-members-change-associations-interrogations-policy/

The Greening of Quaker House

2008-10-11T21:36:00.000-07:00

At Quaker House, we’re an outpost of peace witness, not an environmental demonstration project. But in all the repairs and renovations of the past few years, we’ve tried to do our bit to moderate our carbon footprint. Here are some of the changes we’ve made:

– In 2003, when we had to replace our HVAC system, we paid extra to get a system rated at 93 per cent efficiency.
– In 2007 the old water heater went kaput, and we replaced it with a tankless model, which saves energy and water. It turned out to be one of the first tankless heaters installed in the city!
– All but a few of our incandescent light bulbs have been replaced with low-energy flourescents.
– Our new toilets are low-water usage types.
–We installed more storm windows and beefed up the insulation in our attic, to save energy in both summer and winter.

As we said, our main mission here is peace work. And while none of this is radical, we think the combination is significant. And we’ll be watching for other ways to enhance this effort.

Read Our Latest Newsletter!

2008-10-11T21:32:00.000-07:00

Our Quaker House newsletter for early Autumn is now uploaded on the newsletter page, here. It features a review and report on two new books, which strike very close to home for us: The Dark Side, by New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, and Never Surrender, by retired army General William G. "Jerry" Boykin. (That's him, with the flag, in a Fayetteville megachurch.)

Mayer’s book brings together the pioneering work she has done over the years since 2001, lifting the curtain on the developing U.S. government-sponsored torture program. Much of the supporting apparatus of this "Torture Industrial Complex," is located around the Ft. Bragg-Fayetteville area. We have been actively joining in protests aimed at exposing and dismantling this apparatus.

Boykin’s role in this project is still shrouded in secrecy, but it was likely significant. He served as a founding member and then commander of the fabled, super-secret, Ft. Bragg-based Delta Force, and later in a very high Pentagon position involved with missions targeting suspected jihadist leaders in Iraq and elsewhere. He describes a number of his combat missions in the book.

Boykin also attracted public attention for giving fiery, controversial sermons in uniform to large churches, hailing the divinely-sanctioned American role in leading the fight against evil in Islam, and declaring that our current chief political officeholders were placed in office by special divine intervention. In Never Surrender he tells his side of the story.

Boykin returned to Fayetteville to rally the troops in this ongoing apocalyptic battle. As the newsletter tells in detail, we were there, watching and reading and listening.

There’s more in the issue. Check it out.

Election Talk Across the Pond

2008-10-11T21:15:00.000-07:00

Another piece of commentary dealt with the 2008 election, and was published across the pond, in a British Quaker weekly, The Friend, of London, in its August 8, 2008 issue.
Here’s a slightly edited version:

Qpinion - - Dismal predictions: a commentary on the US election

In the US, it’s the season for election predictions, so here are mine.

Not about the horse race. We all read the same polls and I have nothing to add.

And not about endorsements: make up your own minds, Friends.

Instead, this forecast is about some post-election developments, events I consider highly likely, regardless of who is inaugurated next January.

Three such developments, to be exact. First the list, and then the explanation.

One: The war-swap. We’ll start getting out of the ‘bad’ war (Iraq) to make more room for the ‘good’ one (Afghanistan).
Two: A return to conscription, on the salami plan - a slice at a time, disguised as ‘national service’.
Three: The torture transition: It will appear to be ‘stopped’, but behind the scenes will gain acceptance as a ‘last resort’ tactic of American statecraft.

No doubt the rhythm and character of these events will differ depending on the election outcome. But that said, I still see them looming on the horizon after the campaign hoopla dissipates.

Why? Because of a maxim which sums up many years of experience, observation and study, namely: in the US, our militarism affects politics more than politics affects our militarism.

For me this principle manifested in 1964 - my first election. One candidate told us he would not send American ‘boys’ to Vietnam to do what those ‘boys’ should do for themselves, as his rival threatened.

As one of those American ‘boys,’ I said, "That’s for me!" I wasn’t alone: that candidate was swept into office, winning all but four states.

But within a year of his huge landslide victory, this same president had us in exactly the war he’d promised to avoid. The war lasted ten years, and it was just as bad as - nay, worse than - we had imagined.

In 2008, this principle is galloping toward re-verification in the current contest. Look closely and you will see that both candidates are in substantial agreement on each of these matters.

There’s not much mystery as to why. The momentum of our military industrial complex is massive, pervasive, non-partisan - and it hates failure.

Iraq has become the template and archetype of military failure; so we are being prepared to trade it in for a promised victory in Afghanistan. This ‘forgotten war’ has been sold much more successfully, not only to Americans but to many other governments as well.

Nevertheless, the transition will be difficult, because in truth the US combat forces are desperately over-stretched worldwide. The gap between supply and demand is huge and growing. (See the chart at left) Shifting some divisions from Iraq will hardly close the gap. The relentless demands of imperial adventurism, even without Iraq, require a massive rise in US troop strength. And both major candidates are promising such expansion.

Where will such an increase come from?

Recruiting, contractors, immigrants - none has filled the gap.

Enter the draft - renamed, repackaged and with the usual unobtrusive escape hatches for the more affluent.

As for torture, I fully expect the new president to denounce it and pledge that the US will not let it happen again.

But then I also expect we will be told that we must look ahead, there’s no time for recriminations, so there will be no penalties for those who created our gulags; nor, beyond symbolism (closing Guantanamo?), will the system be dismantled or even closely examined.

In other words, this most repulsive of weapons will be put on the shelf - but kept handy for use the next time a ‘ticking bomb’ scenario or some other temptation of power becomes irresistible. Torture will be rejected rhetorically, but accepted as precedent.

I find this last prospect the most odious on this gloomy list.

Let’s hope I'm mistaken. And hey - I’m a Christian, so I do believe in miracles.

But short of that, the rule still applies: In the US, our militarism affects politics more than politics affects our militarism.

I don’t see that changing this year.

Speaking Against Torture -- A Continuing Series

2008-10-11T20:51:00.000-07:00

For part of the period of renovations, I was able to travel in Europe, speaking about torture. One outcome of that journey was a commentary published in our local daily paper, the Fayetteville Observer.

The Observer has editorialized strongly against torture, not once but several times. This is remarkable in itself; it’s more remarkable because of the paper’s military locale; and it’s downright distinguished given the stony silence on this subject in the editorial columns of larger papers in this state.

So kudos to them for speaking the truth. And below, slightly edited, is my first OpEd chiming in:

Fayetteville NC Observer– Thursday, July 10, 2008 in the Opinion category.

Torturers may see justice
By Chuck Fager

What are the chances that those responsible for torture in the so-called U.S. "war on terror" will escape punishment?

According to Dick Marty (that's him below), right now the chances are good.

Very good, in fact.

And Dick Marty should know. He’s the Swiss equivalent of a U.S. senator — and the chief anti-torture investigator for The Council of Europe, that continent’s official human rights monitoring group.
Marty produced two groundbreaking investigative reports that disclosed loads of hidden details about illegal U.S. torture flights to and across Europe. They also named Poland and Romania as the sites of similarly unlawful secret U.S. prisons.

The CIA shrugged off Marty’s reports, and they got little notice in the U.S. But elsewhere they are recognized as landmarks, and haven’t exactly burnished the U.S. image abroad.

I visited Europe last spring, giving talks to church groups, urging international action to stop torture. While there, I sought an appointment with Dick Marty. Having done investigative reporting myself, I wanted to give him props for a superb job, and talk about how he pulled it off.

More important, I hoped to get his candid view about the road ahead. I interviewed him in Lugano, his home town.

Knowing what he knows, I asked, is there any way to stop the perps from skating into the sunset on rollerblades of impunity?

Pardon the amateur crime-fighter argot, but it fits. Before Marty was elected to the Swiss parliament, he was a tough prosecutor who bested mobsters and drug barons in his home canton of Ticino, which adjoins Italy.

Marty’s English was limited, but his response was unmistakable: "That’s exactly the right question to be asking," he said.

After that, he didn’t have much immediate encouragement to offer. But then, he’s not in the optimism business.

Sure, he agreed, torture is already outlawed under both international and national laws. But, he added, at a secret NATO meeting in Athens in late 2001, the U.S. demanded and got assurances from all other member nations of impunity for its military and intelligence agencies, for any actions related to the "war on terror" on their territories. Several non-NATO nations, such as Ireland, later signed on as well.

Meanwhile, in U.S. courts, repeated assertions of the doctrine of "state secrets" have thus far stymied efforts, even by certifiably innocent torture victims like Khaled El Masri, to gain any redress.

So right now, it looks pretty well sewn up: tough luck, torture victims. And as for us lily-livered lovers of the Bill of Rights, better luck next time.

But that’s the short-term view. Marty wasn’t suggesting I go home and give up. "This will be a long work," Marty said. "It will require patience and determination."

Which means that the current forecast for torturers may be sunny, like Fayetteville weather. But that can change.

How? In a lot of ways, mostly a bit at a time. Public pressure could continue to build, investigations begin, half-hearted at first, but picking up steam as the depth of the problem became clearer.

And eventually, prosecutions — most likely these would start outside the United States. (Reliable reports are that cases are already being prepared in several countries, to surface in January.) And maybe a different U.S. president might just decide to keep out of their way.

Where would such a buildup of public pressure in the U.S. come from?

Believe it or not, the most likely place is American churches.

That’s what happened, by the way, in the most famous anti-impunity case so far: the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998. That bust took 10 years of persistent work, and the Catholic Church was a major factor.

There are already several inter-church, anti-torture coalitions at work in the U.S. And they include more than the usual liberal suspects. An evangelical conference against torture is planned for Atlanta in September.

I’ll be there. I figure it’s the least a follower of Jesus could do.

Any other Fayetteville Christians care to come along?

We can send Dick Marty a postcard.

How do you say "patience and determination" in Swiss-accented Italian?

Return of the Exiles

2008-10-11T18:42:00.000-07:00

The highlight of the summer here was not a dramatic peace action, but something much more homely: moving back into Quaker House.
"Exile" in this case was a house across town, to which we moved in mid-April, so that extensive renovations could begin on Quaker House. And in late July, we returned.

The pre-renovation house is shown here, upper left, with the old (very leaky) roof and blue-grey paint job.

Having to pack up completely and move out, then completely move back in, all in the space of five months, was a traumatic experience for me as a resident and staffer. I’m immensely grateful to the dedicated board members and friendly volunteers who helped to make it possible.

The renovations, long overdue, were aimed at fixing many neglected problems, such as dangerously obsolete wiring, foundation work, new coats of paint inside and out. The overall goal was to get the house in shape for another generation or more of service for peace.
The "New" house, with its organic (and watertight) cedar shingle roof, and the new deep green paint, is below.

The work was made possible by generous gifts from many donors, and again to all of you we say THANK YOU, and pledge that your investment will yield strong returns of continued witness and service.