Carved In Stone: By Rob Gonsalves
click here to view larger image

KC & Associates
Briefing Papers
By Craig B Hulet?
Briefing Papers are produced on an ad hoc
basis, whenever the mood strikes;
the issues are ignored;
the press reports only one side;
usually the one they already agree with.
These papers are shorter
and more polemical in style.
While there may be extensive research
involved working up a special report or a
working paper, often some aspect
may be left out of the larger piece.
If it is still important it may find its
way here -- as a shorter briefing.
These will arrive more often than the
larger reports, so check this
site more often.
Sometimes it is the little chipping away
at liberty and life
that causes the most harm.
Always conformity to club opinion,
the getting in-line,
doing what you are told,
how to think and speak
destroys as surely as raw violence.


Bush Reform of Immigration Policy has a Hidden Agenda

Hispanics and all immigrants beware!

By Craig B Hulet?

January 9, 2004

It was reported in the Washington Post that “President Bush proposed allowing millions of illegal immigrants to work temporarily in the United States in an election-year overture to the nation’s 39 million Hispanics.”

What has been discussed in the press:

Bush’s plan to grant three-year temporary work permits seeks to balance a variety of concerns: politically important Hispanic groups seek to legalize immigrants’ status, major employers want workers for low-paying jobs and conservatives worry about security amid an alleged sea of illegal immigrants. The Bush plan would offer a renewable three-year temporary legal status to the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants nationwide, and offer a chance at this guest worker status to immigrants internationally. Participating immigrants would be enrolled in Social Security and be able to immediately apply for a green card; waiting periods for green cards can stretch for longer than 10 years.
It would be the biggest change in U.S. immigration policy since 1986, but critics called the proposal a political ploy that falls short. Not the administration though:

"We're addressing an important economic need (and) we're being compassionate to those undocumented workers who are here now ... many of (whom) are probably being abused and exploited,... part of this policy will help make America more secure because we'll know who's here." --White House spokesman Scott McClellan 01/08/04.

Many of the estimated 8 million to 14 million illegal immigrants in the United States have been smuggled across the Mexican border. America’s 39 million Hispanics are the largest U.S. ethnic group and a key target of Bush’s re-election strategy in states such as Florida and California. (Sources: Bush proposes temporary work plan for immigrants By Randall Mikkelsen Washington, Reuters); Immigration Nation? By Marcelo Ballve, pacificnews.org --January 8, 2004)

What has not been discussed in the press:

Aliens are required to register for the U.S. military draft which the administration has quietly put on the table for a post election year strategy to alleviate pressure on ground forces in our over-stretched Pentagon footprint. Those required to register for the draft fall into several categories: Permanent resident aliens; Special (seasonal) agricultural workers (Form I-688); Refugee, parolee, and asylee aliens; Undocumented (illegal) aliens; dual nationals of the U.S. and another country are required to register, regardless of where they live, because they are U.S. nationals. (Note: Lawful non-immigrants on visas (e.g., diplomatic and consular personnel and families, foreign students, tourists with unexpired visas (Forms I-94, I-95A), or those with Border Crossing Documents (Forms I-185, I-186, I-444) and Special agricultural workers (Form I-688A) do not have to register).

This may seem premature but this office has tracked the return of the Selective Service Board’s requests for new volunteers to serve on these boards which decide who should receive a deferment from the draft, which has not been operational for almost three decades. The new call came during 2003; would the Selective Service be looking to fill these 1,200 vacancies across America if there was no plan to utilize their services? Not likely. Other reasons for an upcoming draft have been outlined in three articles on our offices’ website. (See: www.kcandassociates.org The Upcoming Draft)

The present administration’s Machiavellianism is becoming well-known all over the world; but part ’n parcel of Machiavellian rhetoric is both to 1) lie and deceive at will; but also 2) to mask and veil real intentions with moral imperatives. We are becoming familiar with the first, it is the second that is harder to grasp while it is going on.

The masses rarely catch-on until it is way too late in the game to go back. Every alien, illegal or not, denoted immediately above, that registers for the new three year immigration status will be simultaneously (though likely without knowledge of it) be registering to be selected for service in the United States Army or Marines. They will, along with other Americans chosen, be selected by a lottery system most are familiar with. Their tour of two years minimum will lighten the load on America’s Reserves and National Guard forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan presently, and it seems likely in Syria and Iran (but anywhere U.S. forces are deployed) later on in 2004-2008.

This would have the dual effect of seeming to be a more fair system to Americans (especially white American males) not wanting to serve (and fewer will should the millions of registered aliens make up part of the load) and an entirely orchestrated affair to the aliens who are not going to be told of their new found citizen “obligations” to the American system known the world over as the American dream. One can already hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity squealing “they want the benefits of the American dream they have to accept the obligations which come with these freedoms.” Of course nearly every single talk show host in America has never served their country either and will not be subject to the new draft as they will fall over the 25 year age limit (initially at least).

I would think all will be as surprised as the Hispanics and Puerto Ricans and even some few young men from the island of Guam I served and trained with from 1968 on until 1975 when the military went all-volunteer. Those that couldn’t speak any English at all were the most surprised of all. Bush’s “compassionate” electoral “overture” to the Hispanic community is a little less forgiving when fully understood.

After writing this article I received the following news report from a client in Arizona:

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing war and terrorism concerns, said Monday that he is ordering all undocumented immigrants currently in jail to register for the draft...."My point is if you come here illegally and you are going to receive benefits from this great country, the United States of America, you should follow the law and register for the Selective Service. And if you get called up, you should fight for this country,"Arpaio said. ...There are about 500 undocumented immigrants housed in the county's jail system who have not complied with a 1980 federal law that requires all young men between 18 and 26 to register for the draft, regardless of their immigration status, Arpaio said. An additional 2,300 inmates, out of 8,700 total inmates, will also be ordered to register because they failed to do so earlier, Arpaio said. Arpaio will begin registering the inmates Wednesday at Tent City...."I can't say that I've ever heard anything like this, but we do appreciate any effort toward compliance," said Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System in Washington, D.C...Arizona's compliance rate is about 83 percent, compared with 90 percent nationally, Amon said....The country's draft ended 30 years ago and was replaced by an all-volunteer military. Although some members of Congress have proposed reinstating the draft, the Department of Defense recently concluded the draft was not needed to fight the war on terrorism or the war in Iraq, Amon said. Technically, Arpaio cannot force inmates to register because federal law exempts prison inmates from registering for the draft until after they are released, Amon said. ....Nevertheless, Amon said, "I think your sheriff may be doing these individuals a favor because registering for the Selective Service is tied to a number of benefits including (citizenship). If they are illegals and they want to (legalize) their status, the first thing they would be asked is whether they registered for the Selective Service." ...Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox agreed, saying, "This could be a pathway to permanent residence." (Source: Register for draft, jailed migrants told, The Arizona Republic Daniel González, Jan. 13, 2004)

It couldn’t be clearer the path the United States is on in the name of Empire.

Subject: question
Craig: I read your article on the link between immigration reform and military service. Is it true to your knowledge that green card status or residency now means automatic draft registration? On another matter, the article may give some people the impression that registering for selective service automatically results in 2-years of service in the military because it's not clear that any draft would have to be preceded by passage of induction authorization legislation in Congress. This is the sort of confusion that is being used by military recruiters to fool recent immigrants into thinking military enlistment is mandatory.
Thanks, J. M. (Project YANO)

Answer: Please see the full article on the Draft eleswhere on this website: There is another longer one from the one linking immigrant's registration; there are other reasons, other problems in American culture, though military needs are of a first order, that require the military draft to solve them. But in short it is already a violation of Federal Law to "not register" for the draft; it is mandatory for all immigrants and American citizens, not just those with green cards to register with Selective Service: i.e., an Indian or Pakistani working in California's Silicon Valley as much as a Mexican migrant worker picking grapes. On the other matter, no, it is not automatic that anyone is individually and automatically placed in the military, they still must re-institute the process of selective service which is then run as a lottery pick of who gets drafted, at least that is the plan at this moment (it could change and revert to the original process of selecting Birth Dates of those of selected age groups which is how I was drafted in 1968); enabling legislation would come more likely after an Executive Order from the president under any national emergency situation and we are presently living under some 400 plus emergency decrees going back to 1933. No Executive Order from the president has ever been rejected by Congress. But your closing question regarding the military recruiters "fooling immigrants," is posed somewhat odd, but that is probably me, but to answer it thusly: it is mandatory that immigrants register; if the President orders the draft re-instated, and the lottery picks you, immigrant or American born white Texas sod-buster, you are subject to arrest (five years in prison) if you do not report for the two year duty, and the same if caught having not registered for the draft to begin with. It falls to the FBI to track you down, not some County Sheriff.

I hope that answers your questions. CBH (January 19, 2004 9:19 AM)

(End 01/09/04)
Copyright 2004 Craig B Hulet & The Artful Nuance
(Craig B Hulet was Special Assistant for Special Projects to Congressman Jack Metcalf (R. Ret.) and is periodically consultant with ATF&E US Dept. Justice Homeland Security; Hulet is author of The Hydra of Carnage: Bush's Imperial War-making and the Rule of Law, 2002)


American workers, blue-collar and now white-collar, are sitting ducks for Globalization's American-led Empire

By Craig B Hulet? August 21, 2003

For decades, Americans watched as manufacturing plants set up shop overseas to capitalize on cheap labor. Ross Perot immortalized the anger many workers felt, vividly terming the potential exodus of jobs to Mexico that "giant sucking sound."


Now a growing number of U.S. firms are sending coveted high-tech and service jobs "offshore" in a move that's reviving a debate about the future of the American workforce. No longer is it just Disney toys and Nike shoes made in Haiti and Indonesia. It's software engineering, accounting, and product development being "outsourced" to India, the Philippines, Russia, and China.


The result is a growing backlash from unionists, contract workers, and erstwhile techies with time on their hands. More broadly, the trend raises a pointed question in an age of globalization: Is sending certain jobs offshore - even high-tech ones - better for the US economy, or does it just amount to more pink slips for American workers?
"Manufacturing is a small slice of the economy, and when people saw globalization creating instability there, a lot said, 'It's not my problem,' " says Josh Bivens, an economist at Washington's Economic Policy Institute. "Now white-collar workers are feeling it."


The number of such jobs now outsourced - from information technology (IT) to architecture - is less than half a percent of the US workforce. But it may grow fast:


• Half a million IT jobs - roughly 1 in 20 - will go abroad in the next 18 months, according to Gartner, a research firm in Stamford, Conn.
• Nearly 5 percent of human- resources jobs have moved offshore in the past year, and by 2007 that number will climb to at least 15 percent, says Jay Whitehead, publisher of HRO Today magazine, which tracks outsourcing.
• By 2015, 3.3 million US high-tech and service-industry jobs will be overseas, according to Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass. That's 2 percent of the entire workforce, and $136 billion in US wages. Oracle, for instance, already has 2,000 employees in India and expects to move 2,000 software-development jobs, plus accounting, payroll, and customer-service positions.


Competition or a zero-sum game?
Granted, projecting to 2015 is risky. And even if these numbers pan out, some say there's no reason to panic: By staying competitive, the theory goes, companies will strengthen their positions in the new global order.
"If you look at history, we create new jobs in new areas to make up for what is outsourced," says Richard Hundley, lead author of a recent report by RAND's National Defense Research Institute. North America will still lead the technology revolution, the report says, partly because of a willingness to engage in "creative destruction" to stay on the innovative edge.

But others - particularly those whose jobs are lost - see overseas outsourcing as a zero-sum game, with US workers sacrificed for corporate profits. "America's leading companies are sending our best-paying jobs to cut labor costs.... I don't buy the idea that new jobs will be created," says Marcus Courtney, organizer of the Washington Alliance of Technical Workers (WashTech) in Seattle, an affiliate of the Communications Workers of America.
In the past six months, as his union has led protests against offshoring plans at Microsoft and elsewhere, its e-mail list has grown from 2,000 to more than 15,000. Last week, the group publicized a recording - received from an IBM employee - of IBM senior executives on a conference call in March, talking of the need to send more jobs overseas, though acknowledging that it would upset domestic workers.

India: land of spices and IT jobs
It's unclear how much offshoring contributes to job cuts, despite anecdotes of techies who now work at Starbucks, pouring lattes with the precision of an engineer's eye. Mr. Hundley of RAND attributes job loss to the current economic doldrums, and says it will ebb. But Gartner's July 15 report estimates that through 2005, fewer than 4 out of 10 IT workers whose jobs go overseas will be redeployed by their own companies. And the potential that some jobs are gone for good raises the question of how the economy can weather what seems, in turns, a boon and a blow. Critics caution that while executives are under extreme pressure to cut costs, some of them may be too quick to outsource jobs higher up on the spectrum of creativity and skill. Companies are training developing nations' workforces to become America's competitors, says Basheer Janjua, CEO of Integnology Corp in Santa Clara, Calif., which offers domestic IT outsourcing.
"What's going to be the incentive for our future generations to get a degree in electrical engineering?" he asks. "We have to ask if we're ready to give up our pioneering position in the world."


Even offshoring's proponents agree that its real effects on US jobs need to be analyzed. WashTech recently persuaded two of the state's US representatives to call for a study by the General Accounting Office.
But people shouldn't be concerned about the best jobs leaving the country, says Mary Jo Morris, president of the Global Transformation Solutions Group at Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), an IT outsourcing firm in Falls Church, Va. Offshoring, she says, is an irreversible trend, but "roles that create a lot of value will not go overseas, and more of those will develop as the industry matures."

Globalization's thorn in the side
Corey Goode, for one, has become a self-proclaimed thorn in Microsoft's side. Since June, when he watched his $40-an-hour contracting job sail to India and learned that the jobs of permanently employed colleagues in Las Colinas, Texas, would probably do the same, he's launched a website to protest offshoring and the use of skilled foreign labor in the US through special visas. Mr. Goode insists he's not out to stir up xenophobia. But he wants companies to see American employees as more than numbers. "Globalization is here to stay, and we're experiencing the growing pains," he says.


His is just one voice in a chorus gaining strength - and numbers - as offshoring gains steam. About half a dozen states are considering laws to make sure state contract work is performed within US borders. "If you want to enjoy the benefits of an unfettered free market, you can try to cushion the downside as well," says Mr. Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. Goode - and plenty of others - will clamor for government to do just that.


(Source: White-collar jobs moving abroad A spate of new studies points to an exodus of skilled labor, from high-tech to financial services. By Stacy A. Teicher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 07/02/03)



Domestic CIA and Military operations planned


Craig B Hulet?

Two things are taking shape in America that do not bode well for Americans as citizens of a free republic, a nation-state based on democratic principles. These things manifesting themselves are reported as the mundane stratagems of old fashioned governance; not to be alarmed. But look a little deeper at the reasons why the one happens then the other, each announced within days of each other. In the swirl of redundant mass media reporting it is lost on most viewers of “nineteenth century FOX” news (as was so eloquently said by actor Tim Robbins).

The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans have sought to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations, officials said. The proposal, first reported in the New York Times, was beaten back, but would have given the C.I.A. and the military the authority to issue administrative subpoenas - known as national security letters - requiring Internet providers, credit card companies, libraries and a range of other organizations to produce materials like phone records, bank transactions and e-mail logs. That authority now rests largely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the subpoenas do not require court approval. The article explained how this proposal was placed before the Senate:

The surprise proposal was tucked into a broader intelligence authorization bill now pending before Congress. It set off fierce debate in a closed-door meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee, officials said. Democrats on the panel said they were stunned by the proposal because it appeared to expand significantly the role of the C.I.A. and the Pentagon in conducting domestic operations, despite a long history of tight restrictions, officials said. After raising objections, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats succeeded in getting the provision pulled from the authorization bill, at least temporarily, Congressional officials said. (NYT)

In a closed vote, the committee passed the bill unanimously without the proposal. But Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the intelligence committee, indicated to panel members that he wanted to hold further hearings on the idea.

There was some disagreement over exactly how the provision originated. Several Senate aides active in the debate said that Senator Roberts had included it in the authorization bill. But a senior Congressional official said the Bush administration had initiated the proposal and that Senator Roberts had not objected. A C.I.A. official said the provision had come from the Bush administration, after the White House's Office of Management and Budget signed off on it.

The official said that Congressional leaders had asked the Bush administration whether there were any additional powers needed to help combat terrorism. The administration responded with the proposal to give the C.I.A. and military the power to use the national security letters, the official said. Another Congressional official said the move came at the urging of the C.I.A. The White House had no comment last night.

In a recent article on this site this office pointed out the contradictions of the State Department's latest Terrorism Report. The report supposedly makes a case for there having been fewer terrorism incidents than that of last year. So why the need for the CIA and Pentagon to begin operating domestically? Because the F.B.I. now has primary responsibility for domestic intelligence operations, the C.I.A. and the military must currently go to the F.B.I. to request that it issue a national security letter to get access to financial and electronic records. Probable cause would remain the criteria for issuing such a security letter. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act has forever forbidden the military and thus the CIA from operating domestically. But as this author has written extensively since 1985 on the Drug War, so-called, Posse Comitatus has been generally de-clawed, the military operates on a grand scale (Ruby Ridge, Waco, Arizona drug war with US Marines dressed-up as cactus to capture drug runners, etc.). Under Executive Order 12333 the entire intelligence community was given a greater role in the drug war and “joint task forces” abound nationwide with both military, Special Forces and intelligence personnel operating alongside police.

That is not sufficient for the White House. Given the enormous centralization of police powers under Homeland Security, I would argue the Bush team are not comfortable with these other intelligence agencies still not under total Presidential control. The Bush administration believes that giving the C.I.A. and the military direct authority to demand the records would cut down on the lag time in the process and give those organizations more flexibility to combat terrorism, according to a senior Congressional official quoted in the New York Times.

Administration officials played down the significance of the proposal, maintaining that it would not give the C.I.A. or the military access to any information that they cannot already get through the F.B.I.; but without probable cause as criteria of course. But Democrats and civil liberties advocates said they were alarmed by the idea that the C.I.A. and the military could begin prying into Americans’ personal and financial records.


They said that while the F.B.I. was subject to guidelines controlling what agents are allowed to do in the course of an investigation, the C.I.A. and the military appeared to have much freer reign. The F.B.I. also faces additional scrutiny if it tries to use such records in court, but officials said the proposal could give the C.I.A. and the military the power to gather such material without ever being subject to judicial oversight. That is of course key, without oversight who oversees these agencies?

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal “dangerous and un-American.” Mr. Edgar said that “even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the C.I.A. such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens.” A Congressional Democratic aide said the measure appeared to go well beyond even hotly debated antiterrorism measures that the Justice Department has been considering in past months. “This is a very odd and very far-reaching idea that came out of nowhere,” said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It raises a whole series of questions about what the C.I.A.’s mission has really become.”

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the C.I.A. and the military have assumed greater authority overseas over what were once law enforcement terrorism investigations, and the traditional lines between domestic and overseas operations have become increasingly blurred. A new terrorism center, led by the C.I.A., started operation May 01, 2003 in an effort to better coordinate the activities of different federal agencies. Civil liberties groups said they were worried it would give the C.I.A. authority to conduct domestic operations.
The proposal to allow the C.I.A. and the Pentagon authority to demand domestic records comes at a time when both Democrats and Republicans have voiced growing concerns about the government’s expanded powers to fight terrorism. One doubts the White House is listening nor cares. Mr. Bush’s unilateralism in the face of the UN, multilateralism and numerous treaties makes it clear Mr. Bush and his Cabinet care little for the rule of law as it exists, writing new law administratively as it sees fit.

New figures released May 6 also showed that the Justice Department is relying with increasing frequency on secret warrants that allow the officials to go to a secret court to get approval for surveillance and bugging warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations without notifying the target. This is supported because the war on terrorism has the public terrified. The May 11, 2003 TopOff2 exercise is meant to accomplish two things 1) terrify an unwitting public as to what a massive terrorist attack might look like, and 2) attempt to demonstrate to that terrified public that the Feds are in control, not to worry. Billed in private communications as a “War of the Worlds” scenario, the Feds make no bones about the fear they intend to induce. The TopOff2 exercise on May 11, at noon, is to take place in Seattle (Renton), WA and simultaneously in Chicago, Il (DuPage County).

Attorney General John Ashcroft said in an annual report that the Justice Department used secret warrants a record 1,228 times last year, - an increase of more than 30 percent over the year before. The court that governs the warrants did not turn down any of the Justice Department’s applications! (Source: Broad Domestic Role Asked for C.I.A. and the Pentagon, By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN, WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003)

Jim Hightower has written in the recent past “I'll tell you what's terrifying me these days - our so-called anti-terrorism officials! These people never met a liberty that they wouldn't bludgeon with a nightstick.”...

“Jumping Johnnie” Ashcroft, the loopiest and spookiest attorney general of all time (and that’s really saying something), never lets up. He’s the father of the now-infamous USA PATRIOT Act, a 342-page “little shop of horrors” that gave federal agents sweeping new powers to spy, enter, intercept, tap, search, seize, detain, incarcerate, and prosecute - mostly on executive whim.” Most know by now that Patriot Act was put before Congress only hours after the September 11 terrorist attack on our country, so there was a political urgency to “do something.” That most members didn’t even read the thing before it was crammed into law is also well known. Hightower stated “Indeed, a frothing-at-the-mouth Ashcroft demanded that it be passed within three days with no amendments and practically no debate.” (April 29, 2003 Ashcroft's Latest Assault on Liberty, Alternet.com)

However, enough members detected a sickening stench of repression wafting from down inside this bill that they were able to add a “sunset” amendment requiring some of the worst surveillance provisions to expire within four years. They were right to do this, for it turns out that the PATRIOT Act is thoroughly un-patriotic, a catch-all law that gives government autocrats unbridled power to spy not just on foreign terrorists, but also on ordinary citizens who have no connections whatsoever to terrorists, but whose politics might not be popular with the reigning authorities, Hightower argued. Because of the sunset amendment, we would be rid of some of the act’s most dangerous intrusions in just a couple more years... except that Bush’s Cabinet are now maneuvering in Congress to repeal the sunset provision - a legislative sneak attack that would make all of the PATRIOT Act’s intrusive, anti-democratic powers permanent. This is going on while the Administration seeks broader powers for the CIA and Pentagon in case the sunset provision is repealed which would leave us, the citizen, with the same mess. This is going on while PATRIOT Act II is being quietly brought into play as well.

Date: May 08, 2003


Copyright 2000-2014 K C & Associates Send site questions or comments to Katie711a@kcandassociates.org