Some Jewish officials are more concerned about the US authorities' apparent interest in snaring two America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) staffers in an alleged spy scandal than with the future of AIPAC or their own efforts in Capitol Hill.

"There are a lot of questions to ask: Why all this energy, all this effort?" said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), relating to the disclosures that Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin allegedly shared top secret intelligence information with two high-level AIPAC staffers. "It's a very broad investigation in terms of the persons interviewed. Why engage in a sting vis- -vis Jewish institutions? There are a lot of questions unanswered."

Foxman suggested that the FBI's interest in AIPAC may point to underlying bias, and a suspicion among US authorities that Jews in America are more loyal to Israel than to the US. That is especially troubling to the ADL, because the dual-loyalty charge carries with it anti-Semitic overtones for many American Jews.

"One out of three Americans believes that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than the United States. That's a classic anti-Semitic attitude," Foxman said. "Washington is not immune."

Indeed, Foxman and Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations suggested, this might factor into decisions to reject US Jews for foreign-service jobs – something American Jews have complained about for some time.

Hoenlein said he gets complaints all the time from Jews claiming they've been denied access to security-sensitive posts because they are Jewish.

"There have been reports of people being denied security clearance again, and whether it's related to this or not we can't tell," Hoenlein said.

FBI spokeswoman Debbie Weierman said the bureau had no comment.

When AIPAC brought 5,000 supporters to its annual policy conference in Washington three weeks ago, the organization sought to demonstrate publicly that its work would not be hampered by the controversy surrounding the two ex-AIPAC officials caught up in a spy scandal.

And to all outward appearances, it seemed that the group was not suffering much fallout from the disclosure that Franklin allegedly handed over intelligence information to AIPAC research director Steven Rosen and Iran analyst Keith Weissman.

AIPAC moved quickly to fire the two, paid for lawyers to defend them against any possible espionage charges and announced to conference delegates that, in the words of executive director Howard Kohr, "Your presence here today sends a message to every adversary of Israel, AIPAC and the Jewish community that we are here and here to stay."

But behind this veneer of strength, officials at Jewish groups that work with Capitol Hill say they are monitoring closely a situation that could change if Rosen and Weissman are indicted. There is some concern that if they are criminally charged, a high-profile espionage trial, similar to the Johnathan Pollard case, could stoke fears among some in America, including US officials, that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the US.

"Things did not turn out exactly as predicted," said Neil Goldstein, executive director of the American Jewish Congress. "They said there is nothing to it; it'll all go away. Clearly, they've taken actions now that belie that, and clearly there are things that are still going on."

"What can I tell you? It has us all nervous," said David Zweibel, executive vice president for government and public affairs at Agudath Israel of America.

"It is in general a time of some nervousness about our relationships on Capitol Hill and, more generally, in federal Washington," Zweibel said. Nevertheless, he allowed, "There has not yet been any tangible sign of pulling back or reluctance or anything in terms of ongoing relationships."

For now, Jewish organizational officials insist that AIPAC's troubles have not really affected them or their work.

"We have not been impacted, to the best of our knowledge," said Foxman. "Nothing has changed vis-a-vis Congress. We meet on many issues, including the Middle East."

Hoenlein echoed that sentiment. "Operationally, I would say that it has not impacted in any way that we can discern," he said. "I think the community should stand by AIPAC and Rosen and Weissman, who have served the community and made great contributions."

Even if the two are indicted – which some news reports based on anonymous sources have suggested is imminent – that should not change anything, he said.

"Indictments are not convictions," Hoenlein said. "From what we know, it would be very hard to convict somebody for what has been said so far."

Underlying Jewish groups' continued support for AIPAC is the conviction many share that Rosen and Weissman were set up in an FBI sting operation that hinged upon the cooperation of a Pentagon analyst who already was in trouble with the law for disclosing top secret information related to America's national defense.

The analyst, Franklin, was arrested in May, posted bond and had a preliminary hearing in his case on Thursday.

He is charged with leaking top secret information to two men – said to be the AIPAC staffers – at an Arlington, Virginia restaurant on June 26, 2003, as well as with breaking FBI rules on the handling of classified documents. The information Franklin allegedly shared with the AIPAC staffers – who are not mentioned by name in any of the indictments against Franklin – related to potential attacks on US and Israeli agents in Iraq by Iranian-backed forces.

While Franklin, a 25-year veteran of the Department of Defense, seems to have broken the law by disclosing classified information that could be used "to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation," it is not at all clear that Rosen and Weissman broke any laws by receiving it.

Even though they reportedly relayed that information to an Israeli Embassy official – so far, the most damning piece of information against them – they also notified the White House and reportedly have said that they were unaware the information was classified.

AIPAC officials say they have been reassured that the organization is not being investigated.

"It's been told consistently it's not a target of this," said Nathan Lewin, the Washington lawyer AIPAC hired to deal with the case. "Whatever the government does with regard to this investigation, it is not directed at AIPAC."

WASHINGTON - A Pentagon analyst has been indicted on charges of passing classified information and documents about a Middle Eastern country to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group and a diplomat from an unnamed country, court documents show.

Lawrence Franklin, who worked on the Pentagon's Iran desk, was charged on four counts of communicating national defense information to persons not entitled or authorized to receive it, and two counts of conspiracy.

The indictment details a series of contacts in 2003 and 2004 in which Franklin allegedly divulged classified information about an unnamed Middle Eastern country to two employees of a Washington lobbying firm and a foreign diplomat.

It gives no names other than Franklin's but officials had previously identified the lobbying firm as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The indictment did not say what country the diplomat was from. Israel denied any involvement in the case after Franklin's arrest in May.

Franklin conspired and "did deliver, communicate and transmit classified national defense information in an effort to advance his own career, advance his own personal foreign policy agenda, and influence persons within and outside the United States government," the indictment read.

It said Franklin had "reason to believe that such information could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation."

At a June 26, 2003 meeting, he allegedly passed "classified information obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communication of a foreign government," according to the indictment.

But it was unclear from the indictment how damaging the leaks were.

Franklin, 58, appeared to have done little to hide his activities.

He faxed classified documents from his office, called his contacts on his office phone, and met in plain view at the Pentagon with the foreign official who received some of the classified information.

His meetings with AIPAC officials have been widely reported. The indictment alleges he provided them with a classified internal policy paper that he had written, discussed with them top secret information related to potential attacks on US forces in
Iraq, and classified information related to the intelligence reporting activities of a foreign nation.

The court documents provide new details about his contacts with a diplomat at an unidentified foreign embassy in Washington between August 15, 2002 and June, 2004.

After an initial meeting at a Washington restaurant on August 15, 2002, Franklin and the diplomat exchanged phone calls at their offices for several months and then met again in person near the embassy on or about January 30, 2003, the indictment said.

"The subject of the discussion at this meeting was a Middle Eastern country's nuclear program," it said.

They met on May 2, 2003 at the Pentagon's Officer's Athletic Club adjacent to the Pentagon, where they discussed foreign policy issues and senior US officials, it said.

On May 23, 2003, they again met at the Pentagon's Officer's Athletic Club.

"At this meeting, the two discussed issues concerning a Middle Eastern country and its nuclear program and the views held by Europe and certain United States government agencies with regard to that issue," the indictment said.

Franklin later drafted an "action memo" to his superiors incorporating suggestions made by the foreign official, it said.

There followed a series of meetings between the two at the Pentagon Officer's Athletic Club and at a sandwich shop near the State Department.

During a meeting February 13, 2004, the foreign official suggested a meeting with someone who had previously been associated with his country's intelligence services. He also gave Franklin a gift card, the indictment said.

Franklin met with the man with intelligence connections a week later in the Pentagon cafeteria "and discussed a Middle Eastern country's nuclear program."

On June 8, 2004, Franklin met with the foreign official at a Washington coffee house.

"At this meeting, the defendant provided the FO (foreign official) with classified information he had learned from a classified United States government document related to a Middle Eastern country's activities in Iraq. The defendant was not authorized to disclose this classified information to the FO," the indictment said.

The indictment also alleges that sometime between December 2003 and June 2004, Franklin disclosed to the foreign officer classified information related to a weapon test conducted by a Middle Eastern country.

JERUSALEM - Israel's usually rock-solid relations with the United States were taking a battering as a row over arms sales to China escalated ahead of a crucial visit to the region by Washington's top diplomat.

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee and an ally of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said ties were now at crisis point but stressed that Israel must fight to retain a measure of independence from its its key ally.

The comments came after the Pentagon confirmed on Monday that the Bush administration had raised concerns with Israel about its sales and transfer of military equipment and technology to China.

The formal indictment of a Pentagon analyst on charges of passing classified information to a pro-Israel lobby group served as a further reminder that all was not well in the relationship.

The support of US President George W. Bush has been vital for Sharon in his efforts to secure approval for his controversial plan to pull troops and settlers out of the Gaza Strip, an issue that will top the agenda of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to Jersualem this weekend.

Sharon has been trying to play down the China sales row, declining to make it a major issue on recent trip to the United States, seemingly fearful of upsetting Washington with the start of the Gaza pullout now just two months away.

But Steinitz said there was no denying the seriousness of the situation.

"There is a crisis. It has been going on for about a year, and to my great regret, even Sharon's visit to Washington didn't resolve this crisis," he said.

"There is no doubt that relationship with the United States is critical to Israel. But, with all the enormous importance of US diplomatic, economic and military help, Israel must keep its independence and also some reciprocity in this relationship," he said.

Two months ago, Washington imposed a series of sanctions on Israel's defence industry following a controversial weapons deal in which Israel was to upgrade a consignment of drones it had sold to China. [...]

The defence ministry would not comment on reports that its director general Amos Yaron was being forced to step down as a result of US pressure, but said there had been no formal request from Washington to remove him.

While acknowledging that Israel cannot simply ignore Washington's views, the Maariv daily said "perhaps the time has come for somebody -- the prime minister for example -- to put a stop to the grovelling which has recently been forced upon the Israeli defense establishment." [...]

Editors' Note: Thomas Donnelly is a paradigm neo-con. These days he shuttles between the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute His CV traces his ascent, from that seedbed of militarism, Sidwell Friends Quaker School, through flack work for Lockheed Martin, a Congressional Committee, the Army Times, The National Interest, and now the AEI and the Project for the NAC. Last Friday, Donnelly, in a talk at the AEI, launched his new pamphlet "The Military We Need". The session was in the appropriately named Wohlstetter Room, named for the Godfather of the Neocons. CounterPunch's Winslow Wheeler was there, to hear the neo-con vision of the shape of things to come. AC / JSC

It was shall we say, an interesting experience. I would not call it mind-expanding, but there definitely were many stretched neurons in the Wohlsetter Conference Room at AEI that day.

The pretext was the coming forth of a pamphlet by Donnelly, "The Military We Need," available for free at http://www.aei.org/books/ The UPI review of this work handed out at the event says Donnelly "transcends easy labels" including "neo-conservative," "nationalist," and "neo-imperialist." While the terminology may seem a bit too polite, it is also incomplete.

In his pamphlet, Donnelly cites his goals for Bush Administration policy. These I see as surrogates for what the neo-conservatives (for lack of a better term, right now) as a group see as the next stage of their policy advocacy. Given what Donnelly called Bush's "rapid success" in Afghanistan and the "last legs" on which Vice President Cheney now sees the insurgents in Iraq so wobbily staggering, what, do you wonder, have these authors of American policy for the last five years mapped out for us in the future?

Donnelly wants five things:

* "Build new alliances," meaning bag Europe, embrace India, which will be needed in the confrontation with China.

* "Expand active duty army by at least 125,000 soldiers," but given the active Army's current shrinkage given its recruitment problems ­ driven by current policy ­ he didn't breath the "d" word, which would seem to be an essential component.

* "Create naval and air forces that reflect a "high-low" mix of capabilities," meaning gun boats (Littoral Combat Ships) for the Navy and more air transports for the "expeditionary land forces."

* "Increase 'baseline' defense spending by $100 billion per year," meaning in excess of $600 billion for DoD per year (baseline plus Iraq) and build on that as unfolding operations pose additional requirements. (They haven't gotten off the percent of GDP measure of defense spending for the Cold War and can't stand it that we're nowhere near 8-10%.)

And, here's my favorite,

"Create new networks of overseas bases," which is explained as a "semipermanent ring of 'frontier forts' along the American security perimeter from West Africa to East Asia." Plus, as Donnelly explained in his verbal comments, the US "homeland" (not to be confused with the above mentioned "American security perimeter" from Morocco to Japan) includes the area defined in the Monroe Doctrine, i.e. the Caribbean and Central America.

While the "frontier fort" terminology may be intended to give this thinking a homey American connotation, I think the use of the term more useful in its being revealing. It invokes not just some of the saddest chapters in domestic American history in the form of the ethnic cleansing of native Americans away from the path of others seeking living space (which Donnelly no doubt recalls as Hollywood, not history) but it also speaks to the messianic, manifest destiny quality ­ a sense of righteous entitlement ­ that these people ooze through every pore. Add to that the Monroe Doctrine, in truth applied to the rest of the world except Europe and Russia, i.e. against almost exclusively non-white races and cultures, and you have it all.

I had only one uplifting moment as I listened to Donnelly preach. Earlier that same week, national newspapers were carrying poll results showing a continuation of the trend toward collapse of American popular support for the war in Iraq, collapse in the belief that that the war "against terror" is being led competently, collapse in support for the President in general. The Democrats didn't do much better either. Small "d" democratic support for Donnelly's strategic vision is nowhere to be found and shrinks the more Americans hear about its impact. If we remain a functioning democracy, it is a plan for action that may bring more regime change to America than to China and other neo-con enemies in the making.

Indeed, neo-con does not even begin to describe the genre. UPI's "nationalist" and even "neo-imperialist" seems completely inadequate. "Lunatic" or even "dangerous menace" comes to mind but falls into the excessive rhetoric of these times. I'll be positive and an optimist and call them "a past embarrassment of the future."

Gore Vidal is certainly correct - the United States of America is more rightly deemed the United States of Amnesia. Our political memory lasts about thirty minutes, or until the next television programming slot. Some of us, however, are elephants when it comes to political memory. Otherwise ephemeral events stick in our craw and emerge later to make sense.

For instance, Richard Perle.

Most Americans have no idea who Richard Perle is, even though he "served" as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004, that is until he was booted from that Strausscon-infested committee for shady business dealings at the expense of the American people. Although Perle kept a more or less low profile after his sacking, he wandered into the media spotlight briefly last year when he spoke on behalf of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) at the Washington Convention Center. MEK is an anti-Iranian mullah "opposition group" listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization. "MEK may have an interest in this event or may attempt to use the event to raise funds," the Treasury Department told the Washington Post. Perle claimed innocence, although the keynote speaker at the event was MEK leader Maryam Rajavi, who addressed the audience via videophone from Paris. A few of us paying attention at the time - for this was truly a two minute news item - saw smoke and fire: in essence, Perle was bestowing Strausscon laurels on the terrorist MEK.

As Laura Rozen wrote last December, MEK serves "the political agenda of the Bush administration… it's no wonder that hawks in the Bush administration are lobbying for the MEK as a means to promote their goal of regime change. Some Iran watchers say that a mutual working relationship between Washington and [MEK] has already been agreed to, one which includes the U.S. debriefing of MEK members at Camp Ashraf in Iraq for Iran intelligence information." Dan Byman, a former Middle East analyst at the CIA now affiliated with the Brookings Institution, told Rozen the Bushites "will use them, but not de-list them [as terrorists]… We have control of MEK facilities in Iraq… and we are taking advantage of it, and not shutting them down."

In then, earlier today, bombs mysteriously explode in Ahvaz, Iran, near the Iraqi border, and Tehran, killing nine people a few days ahead of the Iranian elections. "The Ahvaz bombs appeared to be placed outside official buildings or the homes of senior officials, while the Tehran blast was near a public square," reports CBC News. "There is no explanation for the attacks, but an Iranian official suggested the bombs were linked to the presidential elections set for Friday."

"The terrorists of Ahvaz infiltrated Iran from the region of Basra (in southern Iraq)," Ali Agha Mohammadi, a top national security official, told AFP. "These terrorists have been trained under the umbrella of the Americans in Iraq."

"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign," a former high-level intelligence official told Seymour Hersh and The New Yorker earlier this year. Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."

"No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks, the deadliest in the Islamic Republic in more than a decade and a rarity since the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988," notes Knight Ridder. "But Iranian television, which is controlled by Iran's conservative powerbrokers, accused the bombers of trying to disrupt this coming Friday's presidential elections."

Is it possible the MEK - with a track record for violence against not only Iranians but Americans as well - is responsible for the deadly attacks inside Iran? Nobody knows for sure but with the Strausscon's well-advertised desire to foment chaos and bring down the mullahocracy, it should not be overlooked.

It should also not be overlooked that Scott Ritter and others have predicted something would happen in Iran this month. Ritter, appearing at the Capitol Theater in Olympia, Washington, in February "held up the specter of a day when the Iraq war might be remembered as a relatively minor event that preceded an even greater conflagration."

Is it possible the opening salvos of that conflagration were fired this weekend?

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is 'bogus,' saying it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling," said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it's 'next to impossible' that 19 Arab Terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9/11.

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7," said Reynolds this week from his offices at Texas A&M. "If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."

However, Reynolds said "getting it right in today's security state' remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was removed by FEMA prior to independent investigation.

Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover-up the evidence and the recent 9/11 Commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9/11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning..

--When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower's flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

--The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the firs could have been easily controlled.

--FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

--Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."

-- Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

-- The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

-- WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

-- WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

-- In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that. "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

-- It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has brushed aside or basically ignored any and all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

Further complicating the matter, hard evidence to fully substantiate either theory since evidence is lacking due to FEMA's quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. Even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9/11 attacks at New York's Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named "Tripod II."

Besides FEMA's quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

In a detailed analysis just released supporting the controlled demolition theory, Reynolds presents a compelling case.

"First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened.

"On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that 'beams and girders sagged and twisted, but despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.' Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC."

After considering both sides of the 9/11 debate and after thoroughly sifting through all the available material, Reynolds concludes the government story regarding all four plane crashes on 9/11 remains highly suspect.

"In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground," said Reynolds. "Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes."

For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.

WASHINGTON, June 12 - Lawyers representing detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, say that there still may be as many as six prisoners who were captured before their 18th birthday and that the military has sought to conceal the precise number of juveniles at the prison camp.

One lawyer said that his client, a Saudi of Chadian descent, was not yet 15 when he was captured and has told him that he was beaten regularly in his early days at Guantánamo, hanged by his wrists for hours at a time and that an interrogator pressed a burning cigarette into his arm.

The lawyer, Clive A. Stafford Smith, of London, said in an interview that the prisoner, who is now 18 and is identified by the initials M.C. in public documents, told him in a recent interview at Guantánamo that he was seized by local authorities in Pakistan about Oct. 21, 2001, a few months shy of his 15th birthday, and taken to Guantánamo at the beginning of 2002.

Barbara Olshansky, a senior lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which is coordinating a program to match volunteer lawyers with detainees, said she believed he may be one of six current detainees who were imprisoned at Guantánamo before their 18th birthday.

Military authorities say the only juveniles at the detention center were the three who were kept in a separate facility from the main prison camp with more freedom and activities. They were released in January 2004.

The dispute is clouded by two issues: military authorities define a juvenile as someone younger than 16 years of age, not 18, as do most human rights groups. Further, the ages of the detainees brought to Guantánamo as enemy combatants cannot be determined with certainty, leaving officials to make estimates.

"They don't come with birth certificates," said Col. Brad K. Blackner, the chief public affairs officer at the detention camp. Col. David McWilliams, the chief spokesman for the United States Southern Command in Miami, which runs the prison operation, said that the authorities were fairly confident of their estimates. "We used bone scans in some cases and age was determined by medical evidence as best we could," he said.

As to the mistreatment that M.C. reported, Colonel McWilliams said the military tried to investigate all credible accusations where possible, but he would not discuss the prisoner's specific complaints.

The details of M.C.'s accusations are contained in a 17-page account prepared by Mr. Stafford Smith, in which the prisoner said that he was suspended from hooks in the ceiling for hours at a time with his feet barely missing the floor, and that he was beaten during those sessions. M.C. said a special unit known as the Immediate Reaction Force had knocked out one of his teeth and later an interrogator burned him with a cigarette. Mr. Stafford Smith said he saw the missing tooth and the burn scar.

Some of M.C.'s descriptions match accounts given not only by other detainees, but also by former guards and interrogators who have been interviewed by The New York Times.

He describes being shackled close to the floor in an interrogation room for hours with music blaring and lights in his face. He also said he was shown a room with pictures of naked women and adult videos and told he could have access if he cooperated. His description fits the account of former guards who described such a room and said it was nicknamed "the love shack."

The three detainees released in January 2004 were thought by officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross to have been ages 12 to 14 at the time. [...]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into a dispute over President Bush's power to detain American terror suspects and deny them traditional legal rights.

It would have been unusual for the court to take the case of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla now, because a federal appeals court has not yet ruled on the issue. Arguments are scheduled for July 19 at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

A year ago, the court ruled the Bush administration was out of line by locking up foreign terrorist suspects at the Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers and courts.

But justices declined to address a separate issue: whether American citizens arrested on U.S. soil can be designated "enemy combatants" and held without trial.

Padilla has been in custody since 2002 when he was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after returning from Pakistan. The government views him as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a dirty bomb radiological device, and has said he received weapons and explosives training from members of al Qaeda.

A federal judge sided with Padilla and ruled that an endorsement of indefinite detentions would be a "betrayal of this nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties."

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the lower court ruling "marks a substantial judicial intrusion into the core presidential function of determining how best to ensure the nation's security."

Padilla's lawyers had wanted to jump over the appeals court and have the Supreme Court intervene.

"Delay increases the chance that Padilla could be faced with an unconstitutionally coerced choice -- for example, whether to plead guilty to a crime or to give up other rights in order to avoid further months of detention as an enemy combatant," his lawyers told justices in a filing.

The court is already familiar with Padilla's case, which they debated last fall but then threw out on grounds that Padilla's lawsuit had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

The latest round comes from South Carolina, where Padilla is in a Navy brig.

Padilla, a New York-born convert to Islam, was one of two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants, a designation that allows indefinite detention without charges for al Qaeda suspects and their associates.

The other one, Yaser Esam Hamdi, was released last fall after winning a Supreme Court appeal. The justices said Hamdi, a U.S.-born suspected Taliban foot soldier captured in Afghanistan, could use American courts to argue that he was being held illegally.

The Monday case is Padilla v. Commander C.T. Hanft, 04-1342.

George W. Bush is in no danger of being ranked among the nation's pre-eminent commanders in chief. Not only has he been unable thus far to win the war in Iraq, but on his watch significant sectors of the proud U.S. military have been rapidly deteriorating.

The Army reported on Friday that it had fallen short of its recruitment goals for a fourth consecutive month. The Marines managed to meet their recruitment target for May, but that was their first successful month this year.

Scrambling to fill its ranks, the Army is signing up more high school dropouts and lower-scoring applicants.

With the war in Iraq going badly and allegations of abuse by military personnel widespread, young men and women are increasingly deciding that there's no upside to a career choice in which the most important skills might be ducking bullets and dodging roadside bombs.

The primary reason the U.S. went to an all-volunteer military in 1973 was to ensure that those who did not want to fight wouldn't have to. That option is now being overwhelmingly exercised, discretion being the clear choice over valor. Young people and their parents alike are turning their backs on the military in droves.

The Army is so desperate for even lukewarm bodies that it is reluctant to release even problem soldiers, troops who are seriously out of shape, or pregnant, or abusing alcohol or drugs. And it is lowering standards for admission to the junior officer ranks. For example, minor criminal offenses that previously would have been prohibitive can now be overlooked.

At the same time Army recruiters have been chasing high school kids with such reckless abandon that a backlash is developing among parents who, in many cases, want the recruiters kept out of their children's schools.

"To the extent that we think students are threatened by recruiters, it's our job to intervene," said Amy Hagopian, a co-chair of the Parent-Teacher-Student Association at Garfield High School in Seattle. Ms. Hagopian, who has an 18-year-old son, complained that recruiters too often put the hard sell on impressionable high school youngsters without informing them of the potential dangers of a life in the military.

Recruiters with the gift of gab go into the schools with a glamorous pitch, bags full of goodies for the kids (T-shirts, donuts, key chains) and a litany of promises they often can't keep. The kids don't hear much about their chances of being maimed or killed, or the trauma that often results from killing someone else.

(A soldier's job is to kill. I can still hear the drill sergeants in basic training screaming at us decades ago: "What are you? What are you?" And we'd scream back: "Killers! Killers!" And the sergeants would say, "What is your purpose?" And we would shout: "To kill! To kill!")

The Army, frantically searching for solutions, is offering enlistments as short as 15 months and considering bonuses worth up to $40,000. But it may be facing a problem too difficult for any amount of money to overcome. Americans are catching on to the hideousness and apparent futility of the war in Iraq. Five marines were killed in a single bomb attack in western Iraq on Thursday. On Friday, a front-page Washington Post headline described the effort to rebuild the Iraqi military as "Mission Improbable."

A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, and 60 percent believe the war was not worth fighting.

There's something frankly embarrassing about a government offering trinkets to children to persuade them to go off and fight - and perhaps die - in a war that their nation should never have started in the first place. It's highly questionable whether most high school kids are equipped to make an informed decision about joining the military, which is exactly why they're targeted. The additional knowledge and maturity gained in the first few years after high school make it easier for a young man or woman to make a wiser, more meaningful choice, pro or con.

The parents of the kids being sought by recruiters to fight this unpopular war are creating a highly vocal and potentially very effective antiwar movement. In effect, they're saying to their own children: hell no, you won't go.

The United States will "have to face" a dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties in Iraq result in persistent shortfalls in military recruitment, a top US senator has warned.

Joseph Biden, the top Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months.

"We're going to have to face that question," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" television show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft.

"The truth of the matter is, it is going to become a subject, if, in fact, there's a 40% shortfall in recruitment. It's just a reality," he said.

The comment came after the Department of Defence announced on Friday that the army had missed its recruiting goal for May by 1661 recruits, or 25%. Similar losses have been reported by army officials every month since February.

But experts said even that figure was misleading because the army has quietly lowered its May recruitment target from 8050 to 6700 people.

That has prompted charges that the real shortfall was closer to 40%, which in turn has led to questions about the future viability of the army as a force, if it continues to be plagued by lack of new recruits.

Monthly shortfall

Since October, the army has recruited more than 8000 fewer people than it had hoped to, which amounts to a loss of about a modern brigade.

The army, navy and marine corps reserves also fell short of their monthly goals by 18%, 6%and 12% respectively, according to the figures.

Recruitment at the Army National Guard was down 29% while the Air National Guard fell short 22%.

The United States abandoned the military draft in 1973, following mass protest during the Vietnam War, and switched to an all-volunteer force.

Registered draftees

Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but resumed in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men are currently registered with the US government as potential draftees.

During the 2004 election campaign, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry repeatedly accused President George Bush of planning to re-instate "a back-door draft," charges the president vehemently denied.

But while admitting that restoring the draft would be politically "very difficult," Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said something will have to be done because the situation with recruitment was not likely to improve.

Severe problems ahead

"If you think you have trouble getting recruits today, you're going to have far more trouble six months from now," Leahy predicted on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "It is not going to get better. That's going to get worse."

Republican Representative Curt Weldon called the recruitment shortfalls "troublesome" and "unacceptable."

But he urged the military "to find ways to fix the current system" and to attract more recruits with the help of new incentives.

Nearly 1900 US troops have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere since the beginning of the war on terror in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

It had been the worst of blind dates; the no-show. Eventually, just before 2 a.m., Tommy Hook conceded defeat and slunk away from the gaudy strip bar. As he traipsed across the neon-bathed parking lot of Cheeks nightclub, he would have wondered what became of his non-committal partner.

Hours earlier Hook, 52, had received a call from a fellow employee at the Los Alamos National Laboratory imploring him to head to the Santa Fe nightspot and hover by the bar. An excited, hushed voice had promised to corroborate Hook's explosive findings into massive financial irregularities at the birthplace of the nuclear bomb and proposed site for the Bush administration's new generation of atomic weapons.

Instead it is the brutal events that followed Hook's short walk that have plunged the top secret home of the U.S. weapons project into fresh controversy.

The attack was ferocious; a group of up to six men stomped on the head of Hook, a former internal auditor at Los Alamos, with such intensity that footprint marks were still visible on his swollen face days later. A witness claimed that without the intervention of the club's bouncer, Hook would have been murdered. His wife Susan later alleged that the assailants told her husband during the beating that "if you know what's good for you, you'll keep your mouth shut".

The attack last week came 48 hours before U.S. government investigators were scheduled to arrive at Hook's home and scrutinize audits detailing financial irregularities amounting to millions of taxpayer dollars at the New Texas laboratory. Now he has been silenced.

His shattered jaw remained wired shut throughout his 30th wedding anniversary on Friday. The incident at Cheeks has reopened a trail of unsolved murders, harassment and ongoing death threats that continues to plague America's controversial nuclear weapons program.

The Observer has tracked down former whistleblowers and U.S. congressional investigators who claim that people are risking serious harm by exposing flaws in the U.S. atomic project at a time when the Bush administration is intent on resuming nuclear weapons production for the first time in 15 years. The attack has even wider ramifications, coinciding with new evidence revealing Britain's close involvement with the Los Alamos laboratory.

Peter Stockton spent last Thursday scrutinizing the Cheeks car park for clues. Claims of a row over a parking accident and an altercation at the bar were soon dismissed. Neither Hook's wallet nor his red Subaru sedan was stolen. Stockton, a former congressional investigator, was deeply troubled by the similarities of the Hook beating and a case that has haunted him for almost 30 years.

In 1974, he investigated the death of Karen Silkwood, the nuclear company employee who died in an unexplained one-car crash many suspect was deliberately caused by her employers. Having spent months gathering evidence of corruption and contamination at the Kerr McGee site (in Oklahoma), Silkwood drove to meet a New York Times journalist with the proof. She never arrived. Subsequent investigations found that tracks were consistent with her car being forced off the road. The evidence that Silkwood was carrying with her has never been found. Her story became a Hollywood movie.

Hook too, was about to expose allegations of misconduct against the powerful nuclear lobby. He had been scheduled to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee this month on his allegations. A first meeting with government investigators was arranged for last Wednesday.

Stockton said that the public's largely favorable reaction to the recent unveiling of Deep Throat's identity in the Watergate affair was unusual. "Whistleblowers have been harassed or fired. It is still a dangerous game, particularly in the nuclear sector", he told The Observer.

Greg Mellor, who has been leading the Los Alamos Study Group for 13 years, has observed the mood in the remote outpost turning increasingly belligerent against those prepared to speak out about goings-on at the laboratory."

A lot of people have been threatened, including myself," he said. "Los Alamos used to be full of liberal scientists, it was predominantly democratic with a lot of partying. Now it is very conservative. People feel that if you take a swipe at the labs you are taking a swipe at them."

One Los Alamos employee created a political storm recently after being sacked for exposing large-scale theft at the lab. That followed the unsolved death in 1999 of Lee Scott Hall, who had uncovered a serious flaw in the troubled $1 billion (£700 million) weapons testing program at the Lawrence Livermore laboratories, close ally of its Los Alamos counterpart. The 54-year-old had been stabbed 10 times in his bedroom. No motive was established for the murder nor was anything stolen from his home. No one was ever arrested.

This weekend allies of Hook will continue wondering how his attackers remain at large. However, no allegations have been forwarded that anyone connected with the laboratory or the U.S. nuclear program ordered a hit on Hook. A spokesman for the lab denounced the beating as "senseless and brutal". [...]