KC & Associates
Crime & Injustice
Theory and Practice: Legal Systems: A Theory of Right
By Craig B Hulet?
With Bush back in office, although he is but
the Junior, the War on Drugs,
Crime Bills, Base Closure and Realignment Commission
and the law and order state
shall all return.
Many will hail the return.
Not even the progressive left understood,
for years since it all began in 1988,
it was never about ending drug usage, but
a war on civil liberties, gun rights
and property rights.
Only years after this office had reported on all this
from 1988 onward, did the left catch on.
But only about their version of
civil liberties and lost rights.

Bush is back: and the War begins anew.

(Note the above was written pre-9/11, 2000 before Bush Junior was elected!)


Donald Trump can barely read,

he is illiterate in the broadest sense; on issues that matter,

utterly ignorant and often confused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR7cQAjZsJI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52yOdl9_oZ4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd79UsXSLWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXGuJlTVXfw





The Act of Criminal Editing With The Enemy, Act

Iran's Ali Khameini put a stop to ‘reform’
and leaks on Iran’s alleged Nukes, and their supposed ties to Al Qaida.
(Source: World Tribune .com, February 28, 2004)

By Craig B Hulet?
March 1, 2004

The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1933 as amended allowed specific companies to trade with Hitler’s Germany throughout the war, later the same process allowed specific licensed firms to trade with and build-up the Soviet regime during the Cold War; all that was needed was the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury; at the time of WW II it was Henry Morgenthau, which then granted the companies in question special license. The Act remains in force today. Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root then was operating within the law when it traded with Saddam Hussein’s regime while American sanctions were still in place. This trading with the enemy’s of America (supposed enemies) is now too well-known to argue against; how it was accomplished legally remains a mystery to most who fail to study proper history.

GENERAL LICENSE UNDER SECTION 3(A)
OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT

By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me by sections 3
and 5 of The Trading with the Enemy Act as amended, and by virtue
of all other authority vested in me, I , Franklin D. Roosevelt, Presi-
dent of the United States of America, do prescribe the following:

A general License is hereby granted, licensing any transaction or act
proscribed by section 3 (a) of The Trading with the Enemy Act, as
amended, provided, however, that such transaction or act is author-
ized by the Secretary of the Treasury by means of regulations, rul-
ings, instructions, licenses or otherwise, pursuant to the Executive
Order No. 8389, as Amended.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT


THE WHITE HOUSE,


December 13, 1941


H. MORGENTHAU, JR.
Secretary of the Treasury
FRANCIS BIDDLE
Attorney General of the United States
______________________________________________


Chase Bank, Morgan Bank, Brown Brothers, Harriman; National City Bank, Standard Oil, ITT, RCA, General Electric and a host of other American corporations and banks all traded with Hitler’s Germany throughout the war years, in fact without much of this specific effort by these corporations Germany would not have been able to continue the war effort much past 1942-43. The Bank for International Settlement, often touted as the precursor to a world Federal Reserve Bank, based on the U.S. Federal Reserve System’s New York Fed, was up to its eyeballs in Nazi leadership and Hitler appointees. According to Charles Higham, “The BIS was completely under Hitler’s control by the outbreak of World War II. Among the directors under Thomas H. McKittrick were Herman Schmitiz, head of the colossal Nazi industrial trust I.G. Farben, Baron Kurt von Schroeder, head of the J.H. Stein Bank of Cologne and a leading officer and financier of the Gestapo; Dr. Walter Funk of the Reichbank, and of course Emil Puhl. These last two figures were Hitler’s personal appointees to the board....The BIS’s first president was the smooth old Rockefeller banker, Gates W. McGarrah, formerly of the Chase National Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank, who retired in 1933.” (Trading with the Enemy, C. Higham, Delacorte press, 1983, p.2)

The Bank for International Settlements was a joint venture of all the main industrialized world’s Central Banks including the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Inspired by Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, Nazi Minister of Economics and president of the German Reichbank, with a Brooklyn, NY upbringing, he had powerful Wall Street connections. He was seconded by the all-important banker Emil Puhl, who continued under the regime of Schacht’s successor Dr. Walther Funk. According to the records uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act, by Higham, “It was to be a money funnel for Americans and British funds to flow into Hitler’s coffers and to help Hitler build up his war machine.”

One bank of interest that was investigated by the FBI and Treasury for financing and trading with the enemy was Brown Brothers, Harriman, Merchant Bankers, whose board included Averell Harriman, later Ambassador to Russia and Commerce secretary, and U.S. Senator Presscott Bush, George Bush Senior’s father and George W, Bush’s grandfather. Financing Hitler and later the Soviet Union has been a sticky thorn in the side of the United States government for years. Though the better read public, growing smaller each year, knows some of this background, the vast majority simply do not care, not then, not now. That American multinational corporations and government officials have for a century supported the worst right-wing, and surprisingly, often the worst left-wing, regimes of the entire 20th century comes as no surprise to Europeans and Asians, Latin Americans and other nation’s peoples. Only in America, with its 70 percent functional illiteracy rate among adults and a worsening rate among the youth, is this subject met with indifference.

But now comes the irony of history and history is full of ironies: “Writers often grumble about the criminal things editors do to their prose. The federal government has recently weighed in on the same issue - literally.... It has warned publishers they may face grave legal consequences for editing manuscripts from Iran and other disfavored nations, on the ground that such tinkering amounts to trading with the enemy.” The argument goes like this... “Anyone who publishes material from a country under a trade embargo is forbidden to reorder paragraphs or sentences, correct syntax or grammar, or replace ‘inappropriate words,’ according to several advisory letters from the Treasury Department in recent months....Adding illustrations is prohibited, too. To the baffled dismay of publishers, editors and translators who have been briefed about the policy, only publication of ‘camera-ready copies of manuscripts’ is allowed. ...The Treasury letters concerned Iran.”
(Source: Treasury Department Is Warning Publishers of the Perils of Criminal Editing of the Enemy By ADAM LIPTAK New York Times Published: February 28, 2004)

The report goes on to add, “But the logic, experts said, would seem to extend to Cuba, Libya, North Korea and other nations with which most trade is banned without a government license.” The key here in this NYT’s report is “without a government license.” Take the Cases of Iraq and Libya: “U.S. oil executives are arriving over the weekend in Libya to discuss a resumption of business. Industry sources and Libyan officials said representatives from several oil companies will begin streaming into the North African state over the next week. They include Amerada Hess, ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil and Occidental Petroleum (Averell Harriman’s firm, CBH). All of these companies were operating in Libya before U.S. sanctions froze their operations in 1986.
The return of the U.S. oil executives was facilitated by the lifting of the U.S. travel ban on Libya.” What comes after Mr. Bush is re-elected is the rub:

The sources said they expect the Bush administration to lift the ban on energy investments later in 2004, Middle East Newsline reported. ‘While the ban on travel by U.S. persons is being lifted today,’ a U.S. Treasury Department statement said on Thursday, ‘the prohibitions on transportation-related activities, such as flights to Libya by U.S. air carriers, will remain in place at this time.’ The administration has already allowed U.S. oil firms to negotiate lease renewals of holdings in Libya, many of which were scheduled to expire in 2005. Washington has also granted permission for companies to conduct technical inspections of properties in Libya. (Source: U.S. oil execs rush to renew ties with Libya SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM Saturday, February 28, 2004)

You see what is happening here don’t you? Had Iraq’s Saddam Hussein opened Iraq’s oil fields and resources to the “private investment” opportunities of American and British oil monopolists, thus changing the regime in the “preferred way,” Saddam’s sons would be alive and Saddam would be, once again as before, our key ally in the Middle East right along with Israel. And now, it would seem, Libya. Libya, with Muammar Qadhafi,* and his notorious bombers ** of Lockerbee Flight 104 over Scotland; enemy of the U.S.; tyrant personified? (* I have used the spelling from the Statesman’s Year-Book, 38th edition, CBH) (** Still “alleged bombers” Qadhafi turned over to western authorities?)

No, ‘ole “Sad-aam,” as Bush Senior liked to call him (which in Arabic means something like a guy who repairs shoes or something) wanted to keep “their oil” in the hands of the Iraqi people though in the brutal hands of Saddam as well (he was after-all their tyrant not ours). He even made the classic Machiavellian error of daring to trade oil in Euros, not U.S. Dollars at a time when the Dollar is in a steep decline! Big mistake. I have long argued that our war in Iraq and Afghanistan (look at a map) was more about Iran than either of the other two nations. They need to be militarily occupied to encircle Iran.

Laws and regulations prohibiting trade with various nations have been enforced for decades, throughout the entire century as we pointed out above; generally these laws are applied to resources like oil, wheat, nuclear reactors and, sometimes even tourism, as in the case of the old Soviet Union. As the NYT’s reporter aptly pointed out, “Applying them to grammar, spelling and punctuation is an infuriating interpretation, several people in the publishing industry said. “It is against the principles of scholarship and freedom of expression, as well as the interests of science, to require publishers to get U.S. government permission to publish the works of scholars and researchers who happen to live in countries with oppressive regimes,” said Eric A. Swanson, a senior vice president at John Wiley & Sons, which publishes scientific, technical and medical books and journals. Nahid Mozaffari, a scholar and editor specializing in literature from Iran, called the implications staggering. “A story, a poem, an article on history, archaeology, linguistics, engineering, physics, mathematics, or any other area of knowledge cannot be translated, and even if submitted in English, cannot be edited in the U.S.,” she said.
"This means that the publication of the PEN Anthology of Contemporary Persian Literature that I have been editing for the last three years,” she said, “would constitute aiding and abetting the enemy.” (Ibid.)

Allan Adler, a lawyer with the Association of American Publishers, said the trade group was unaware of any prosecutions for criminal editing. But he said the mere fact of the rules had scared some publishers into rejecting works from Iran. Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, questioned the logic of making editors a target of broad regulations that require a government license.

 

“There is no obvious reason why a license is required to edit where no license is required to publish,... They can print anything as is. But they can’t correct typos?” In theory - almost certainly only in theory - correcting typographical errors and performing other routine editing could subject publishers to fines of $500,000 and 10 years in jail. (Ibid.)

Almost certainly only in theory? “Such activity,” according to a September letter from the department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “would constitute the provision of prohibited services to Iran.” Tara Bradshaw, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, confirmed the restrictions on manuscripts from Iran in a statement. Banned activities include, she wrote, “collaboration on and editing of the manuscripts, the selection of reviewers, and facilitation of a review resulting in substantive enhancements or alterations to the manuscripts.” She did not respond to a request seeking an explanation of the department’s reasoning.

Maybe the reasoning these critics are looking for is the wrong set...the wrong questions are being asked because the real reasoning has nothing to do with grammar except by those asking the wrong questions. It has to do with oil; Iran’s oil.

It was recently reported that Iran’s Ali Khameini put a stop to ‘reform’ and leaks on Iran’s alleged Nukes, and their supposed ties to Al Qaida. (Source: World Tribune .com, February 28, 2004) We have heard this drum beat before. Libya is no longer a target or even one of the “evil empire of three, (recall, it used to be four)”-- not any longer, not a rogue state, not a threat to U.S. interests... suddenly. Why? Qadhafi opened his country’s resources (i.e., oil) to “private investment opportunities” for American and British oil firms, we call this “free trade,“ that’s why in a nut shell.

As this writer pointed out some time ago, the plan to invade Iraq and bring about regime change was predicated on the private investment opportunities in Iraq. Not any specific threat to U.S. Security interests, just oil interests. Quoting from the James A Baker study that became the White House’s Strategic Energy Plan, I noted this:

“The real problematic was that the sales of Iraqi oil were controlled by Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and that due to the U.N. imposed sanctions regime, “American private firms” were not allowed to “invest” in the oil production capabilities in Iraq. In other words, Exxon/Mobil/ Chevron/Texaco, Unocal, etc., etc., were not making the money on the sale of Iraqi oil and that was unacceptable. The report put it this way:

Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. (Source: Ibid., Section titled “e. Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions.” p.46)

The title of the section makes it clear, we need to “Set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions.” So American firms can dominate the region’s oil, purportedly in behalf of the poor Iraqi people.” (Source: KC & Associates: The Cheney/ Baker Strategic Energy Plan: History and Illusion We already have the names of nearly everyone Cheney sought advice from for the Strategic Energy Plan! January 1, 2004 By Craig B Hulet?)

What will likely be the excuse to attack Iran? Nuclear reactor programs of course. Ah-ha WMD! ; it still works on the American Right-eous. Iran must be seen as posing a strategic threat to American national interests in the region. Look at this photograph being circulated in the American press and its headline:

Iranian Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant in Natanz

In closeup 2, the group of five white buildings comprise the pilot plant. The large rectangular construction sites (center) are where underground buildings will house thousands of centrifuges. "http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/feb_natanzimage.html"

Reported simultaneously in the Washington Times and reposted all over the Internet was this:

 

A senior Iraqi scientist who had been involved in Iraq’s nuclear program was found murdered in Baghdad recently, according to U.S. officials. It was the ninth assassination of Iraqi scientists in the past four months. The last killing was that of Iraqi aeronautical scientist Muhyi Hussein. Majid Hussein Ali, a professor at the College of Science at Baghdad University, was found dead in the Raghibah Khatun. He had been shot twice in the back. The assassins are believed to be former members of Saddam Hussein’s government. The killing appears to be part of an effort to systematically eliminate Iraqi scientists and technicians involved in Saddam’s nuclear program. The scientist had been involved in nuclear physics research, notably nuclear centrifugal force. (Source: Nine Iraqi scientists murdered in past four months, BACKGROUNDER: Compiled by Bill Gertz, February 28, 2004)

Congress has tried to exempt “information or informational materials” from the nation’s trade embargoes. Since 1988, it has prohibited the executive branch from interfering “directly or indirectly” with such trade. That exception is known as the Berman Amendment, after its sponsor, Representative Howard L. Berman, a California Democrat.
Critics said the Treasury Department had long interpreted the amendment narrowly and grudgingly. Even so, Mr. Berman said, the recent letters were “a very bizarre interpretation.... It is directly contrary to the amendment and to the intent of the amendment,... I also don’t understand why it’s not in our interest to get information into Iran.” Dear Mr. Berman, it isn’t about your Berman Amendment, nor is it about informational materials as suggested. What the new “pressure” about Iran is about is Iranian oil resources in the Middle East not being open to the private investment opportunities of American and British oil monopolies. Just like they weren’t “open” to “free trade” in Iraq; like they are now becoming “open” in Libya to “free trade.” Get it?

Kenneth R. Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, said the government had grown insistent on the editing ban. “Since 9/11 and since the Bush administration took office,” he said, “the Treasury Department has been ramping up enforcement.” Publishers may still seek licenses from the government that would allow editing, but many First Amendment specialists said that was an unacceptable alternative.
“That’s censorship,” said Leon Friedman, a Hofstra law professor who sometimes represents PEN. “That’s a prior restraint.” Esther Allen, chairwoman of the PEN American Center’s translation committee, said the rules would also appear to ban translations. “During the cold war, the idea was to let voices from behind the Iron Curtain be heard,” she said. “Now that’s called trading with the enemy?” (Ibid., NYT)

In an internal legal analysis last month, the publishers’ association found that the regulations “constitute a serious threat to the U.S. publishing community in general and to scholarly and scientific publishers in particular.” Mr. Adler, the association’s lawyer, said it was trying to persuade officials to alter the regulations and might file a legal challenge.


These days, journals published by the engineering institute reject manuscripts from Iran that need extensive editing and run a disclaimer with those they accept, said Michael R. Lightner, the institute vice president responsible for publications. “It tells readers,” he said, “that the article did not get the final polish we would like.” (Ibid.) Can you see just how far off-track the arguments get? That is the two-fold intent: One, turn up the pressure on Iran to reform itself along U.S. Strategic Energy lines as Libya is now doing, call it the ‘free trade route,” threaten them over any issue that “works,” a nuclear uranium enrichment facility “works,” and two, keep Americans fighting over the periphery issues used to turn up the heat. Misdirection is one of the easiest things in politics to do, its all the easier when the public is as dumb politically as Americans most certainly have become.

“Nothing happens in government by accident.” Franklin D. Roosevelt said that. The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1933, as amended section (3a) makes clear, the act was not to keep American and British firms from trading with the enemy at all, not as the title would suggest to the unwary, but to allow “certain firms” connected politically to what Charles Higham referred to as The Fraternity, what I have called “the Grey men,” what others call the elite or the oligarchy, or whatever one chooses to call them.

End: March 1, 2004


Does the Rule of Law apply to the Rulers and the Ruled?

Craig B Hulet?
February 18, 2004

Everybody is looking for a little hope these days. Especially Democrats and the American left. They are hoping that somehow, someone will suffer for all the deals made in the recent past, in the back rooms, and the sweetheart corporate deals of the deeper past. The Bush family and Dick Cheney are especially targeted for this kind of “hopeful” coming retribution. So many want to see someone “go down,” in this administration, if for no other reason that they seem utterly impervious to critical analysis, Teflon-like in their demeanor, free of any possible retribution.

In an article in London’s The Evening Standard, it was reported that “U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s old company, battling against perceptions that it is too close to the White House, has hired a law firm previously used by the Bush family to conduct an investigation into allegations of illegal payments on Cheney’s watch.” Millions of Americans see this as being “sign that the Bush gang are finished.”

Halliburton has appointed Baker Botts to conduct the investigation into $180m (£95m) in illegal payments between 1995 and 2002 in connection with the construction of a $4.9 billion gas plant in Nigeria. Cheney was Halliburton’s chief executive at the time. The Baker of the law firm’s name is James A. Baker III, former-Secretary of State under George Bush Senior. The man sent to negotiate with China, Russia, France and Germany to renegotiate Iraqi debt if not write it off outright. Baker Botts, who was the legal firm of record for United States Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce, whose work in part led to the pre-determined policy for the invasion of Afghanistan. Baker is known as Bush Senior’s bulldog; he gets things done.

The firm’s lawyer, James Doty, also acted for George W. Bush when he bought a stake in the Texas Rangers basketball team in the 1980s amidst some unseemly real estate and tax deals that George W. Bush was able to avoid, making a tidy sum as usual, using Dad’s Rolodex. The Standard reported that “Despite the apparently "cosy" relationship, however, there are signs that relations between Halliburton and the Pentagon may be deteriorating rapidly.” That is of course what the above mentioned Americans “want to believe,” they hope it is true. And the press keeps the idea and the hope alive by just such ambiguous reporting... “relations, may be, deteriorating rapidly,” sounds good to a hopeful nation hoping the rule of law applies to our rulers as well as the ruled.

 

Halliburton has announced that it is suspending a further $140 million in billing to the U.S. military pending corruption investigations. The suspension by Halliburton follows an earlier delay involving $35million of charges. (Source: Halliburton calls in Bush lawyer, Richard Thomson, The Evening Standard, 17 February 2004) All this is good news to the faint of heart democrats.

Unfortunately this office tracks the going’s on of Halliburton, KBR, and Bechtel (which was just awarded an additional contract worth $1.82 billion on top of the first $680 million), etc., and other such monopoly multinationals using different and often better sources than the regular press bothers with. During January 22, 2004 the very expensive Iraq Reconstruction Report reported that, “Despite the move by the Pentagon’s audit agency to expand a probe of Halliburton Co.’s work in Iraq, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded the Houston company the larger of two contracts to restore Iraq’s oil fields.”

 

The Army Corps gave Halliburton the benefit of the doubt in awarding the oil-field and defense conglomerate a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq’s southern oil fields.....‘If they are doing something wrong, they will be caught,’ said spokesman Ross Adkins. “In the presentation, they gave us maximum for our dollars” (Source: Iraq Reconstruction Report is produced in association with DowJones Newsletters and The World Trade Executive; See 01/22/04 issue, p.17)

The decision came on a chaotic day at the Pentagon in which Democratic lawmakers said the Halliburton probe was a criminal investigation. The Pentagon reminded the lawmakers that the Pentagon had not decided if that was the course, of course.

Unlike the first contract now worth $2.3 billion, the oil-field contract awarded to Halliburton last Friday was competitively bid. The Army Corps, some observers noted, was likely to be criticized regardless of its decision....But by picking Halliburton, the Army Corps ‘leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths,’ said Keith Ashdown, vice president for public policy as the non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense. He said the 'decision was troubling because of the investigative cloud hanging over Halliburton’s current [$2.3 billion] contract.' (Ibid., my emphasis, p.18)

For months Army Corps’ officials have been steadfast in defending Halliburton, first from criticism over the non- ompetitive nature of the initial award, and recently, and clearly still, over a preliminary Pentagon audit that said the company may have overcharged $61 million to import fuel into Iraq. (Ibid.) That now “Halliburton has announced that it is suspending a further $140million in billing to the U.S. military pending corruption investigations,” (Ibid. above The Evening Standard) ...after they have received an additional $1.2 billion contract on top of its original $2.3 billion (valued at $3.5 billion total). Not billing for a miserly “$140 million,” seems rather like a pittance by comparison; pocket change, slush-fund amounts.

Sounding like a proud parent when, Chief Executive Dave Lesar states gleefully, “We believe the award of this [new] contract validates the decision of the Army Corps of Engineers last year....We were chosen because we were the best qualified with a track record of ability to perform.” (Ibid. p.18)

We were chosen. Yes, I fear that word, “chosen,” may be construed in its multiplicity of usages; “best qualified” may be construed as best able to defeat any legal intrusion into its dealings precisely because of the “cosy relationship with the White House” after all.

End 02/18/04


We found this on the Department of Defense News Website during mid-November 2003:


Serve Your Community and the Nation

Become a Selective Service System Local Board Member

The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board.

Prospective Board Members must be citizens of the United States , at least 18 years old, and registered with the Selective Service (if male). Prospective Board Members may not be an employee of any law enforcement occupation, not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces, and not have been convicted of any criminal offense.

Once identified as qualified candidates for appointment, prospective Board Members are recommended by the Governor and appointed by the Director of Selective Service, who acts on behalf of the President in making appointments. Each new member receives 12 hours of initial training after appointment, followed by 4 hours of annual training for as long as he or she remains in the position. They may serve as Board Members for up to 20 years, if desired.

Local Board Members are uncompensated volunteers who play an important community role closely connected with our Nation's defense. If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines.

The agency has over 10,600 uncompensated, volunteer board members serving on more than 2,100 boards. Spread throughout America, there are three types of SSS Boards-local, district appeal, and civilian review. They are diversely representative of the communities and districts they serve. In a draft, local and district Appeal Board Members decide who among the registered young men filing claims in their communities or districts will receive deferments, postponements, or exemptions from military service, based on national guidelines, regulations, and a review of each registrant's circumstances and beliefs. Civilian review board members would deal with claims filed by men whom the local and district appeal boards have classified as conscientious objectors and ordered to perform 24 months of "alternative service" in lieu of military service. (Source: http://westsidenewsonline.com/OldSite/westside/news/2001/0709/briefly/selectiveservice.html

Positions are available in many communities across the Nation. If you believe you meet the standards for Selective Service Board Membership, and wish to be considered for appointment please visit our web site at: http://www.sss.gov/fslocal.htm

Note: Would they be quietly seeking "volunteers" to "serve" on the Selective Service Boards (which haven't been active in this regard since 1973) if they were not intending to utilize them in the coming draft? The evidence suggests further the Mr. Clark (like Mr. Bush) is fully aware that these Boards are now being activated.

If a draft were held today, it would be dramatically different from the one held during the Vietnam War. A series of reforms during the latter part of the Vietnam conflict changed the way the draft operated to make it more fair and equitable. If a draft were held today, there would be fewer reasons to excuse a man from service.Before Congress made improvements to the draft in 1971, a man could qualify for a student deferment if he could show he was a full-time student making satisfactory progress toward a degree. Under the current draft law, a college student can have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior can be postponed until the end of the academic year.If a draft were held today, local boards would better represent the communities they serve.
The changes in the new draft law made in 1971 included the provision that membership on the boards was required to be as representative as possible of the racial and national origin of registrants in the area served by the board.A draft held today would use a lottery to determine the order of call. Source: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/bldrafthistory.htm )


WOMEN AND THE DRAFT

Women Aren't Required to Register
Here's why:
THE LAW
Selective Service law as it's written now refers specifically to "male persons" in stating who must register and who would be drafted. For women to be required to register with Selective Service, Congress would have to amend the law.

THE SUPREME COURT
The constitutionality of excluding women was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision in 1981, Rostker v. Goldberg, held that registering only men did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
At President Clinton's request, the Department of Defense reviewed this issue in 1994. DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view. Although no conclusions were reached, DoD recognized that policies regarding women need to be reviewed periodically because the role of women in the military continues to expand.

The Selective Service System, if given the mission and additional funding, is capable of registering and drafting women with its existing infrastructure. (Source: http://www.sss.gov/FSwomen.htm )


Mr. Bush, It Is A Crime To Make False Statements To Congress

By Craig B Hulet? August 10, 2003

I am not about to rehash the fact that Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address misled, lied or deceived the entire world on a number of accounts to make his very personal case for war with Iraq. (Never mind that any pre-emptive attack against any other nation-state is illegal and a crime under international law.) The list of deceptions and lies is long and it is well known. He and many members of his circle of friends made the same false statements on many other occasions as well. Mr. Bush and the media are simply trying to ignore it to death as the public has a very short attention span.

Mr. Bush and his coterie of neo-conservatives are stonewalling because, to put it simply so that even a neo-con can understand, it is a crime to give false information to Congress. It is a felony under the False Statements Statute:

S. Code as of: 01/22/02 Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.
(Source: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001".)

This 1934 provision makes it a serious offense to give a false information to Congress. The State of the Union address is given to Congress and the public gets to hear it on TV and radio. But the point isn’t so much that Bush lied or deceived “us” as that he lied to Congress! The statute is rarely used, but has been actively available since 1955. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in U.S. V. Bramblett that the statute could be used to prosecute a Congressman who made a false statement to the Clerk of the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives. Congress comes under the term “department” as used in the statutes. See the statute excerpt at the end of this piece.* (Source: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=348&page=503", )

The past Bush Senior administration found this out the hard way. Admiral John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, learned about this false statements law during the Iran Contra investigation. Abrams and Robert McFarlane pled guilty to two misdemeanors for false statements to Congress. (Both were pardoned by the gracious President George Bush Senior.)

One of McFarlane’s lawyers, Peter W. Morgan, wrote a law journal article about using the false statements statute to prosecute executive officials appearing before Congress. Morgan was troubled by the breadth of the law. It does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. It does not require that statements be written or that they be sworn. Congress is aware of the law’s breadth and has chosen not to change it.

Morgan noted that the false statements statute even reaches “misrepresentations in a president’s State of the Union address.” Some coincidence given where we stand today with Bush Junior. If Mr. Bush continues to evade the issues himself he may discover it is also a crime to commit a criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress. Others at the Bush White House are complicit and could also be prosecuted under a separate statute, which makes it a felony to conspire to defraud the government. This may only apply to those within the Executive Branch that gained by the lies the several appointees told, such as Halliburton Brown & Root and Mr. Cheney. These are legal questions which need to addressed in any case. The statute reads as follows:

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02 Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
(Source: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371")

Can Mr. Bush be impeached? That would require an act of will the present two Houses of Congress have shown an entire lack of. Indeed, this Congress has about the backbone of that of Weimar Germany’s Parliament during the glorious years from 1933 through 1935. The Democratic presidential hopefuls is the saddest pack of dowdies we have seen in a long time. Not one of them will say to Mr. Bush and his cabal “bring ‘em on.” I can well envision an act of terrorism on the American soil sometime next year, prior to the elections, or an escalation of the present two wars, or yet another war against another evil regime so as to guarantee Mr. Bush’s reelection.

If there is a major terrorist attack sometime next year prior to the elections, making George Bush Junior once again our much admired Warrior Leader, guaranteeing his reelection, this would not surprise too many Americans. Should Mr. Bush demand Congress allow him to run for another third term at his second term’s finale because of the ongoing national state of emergency (Roosevelt remember?) would they acquiesce? I think...maybe.

(End 8/5/03)

________________________________________________
*
U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. BRAMBLETT, 348 U.S. 503 (1955)
348 U.S. 503
UNITED STATES v. BRAMBLETT.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
No. 159.
Argued February 7, 1955.
Decided April 4, 1955.


The Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives is a "department or agency" of the United States within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1001, which forbids the willful falsification of a material fact "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States." Pp. 503-510.
(a) The legislative history of this section shows that it was the intention of Congress to make it applicable to the legislative and judicial branches of the Government. Pp. 504-508.
(b) A different result is not required by the definitions of "department" and "agency" in 18 U.S.C. 6. Pp. 508-509.
(c) The development, scope and purpose of 1001 shows that "department," as used in this context, was meant to describe the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government. P. 509.
(d) That criminal statutes must be construed strictly does not mean that every criminal statute must be given the narrowest possible meaning in complete disregard of the purpose of the legislature. Pp. 509-510.
(The balance of the statute can be viewed at: "http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=348&page=503", )


The Great American Problematic:

The Youth and Imperial Justification

By Craig B Hulet? 08/21/03

There are a collection of problems facing this newest form of empire, American-led though it may be. The problems facing the nation-state of America are just those that impair the empire’s ability to grow. It shall grow at the expense of the American people, their prosperity, their future and their children’s future’s. America will slowly drift to a level of living standards well-below what even our parents dreamt of; below everything the present generation (say the 17-47 year olds) had hoped for. “The American standard of living must drop...” Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker proclaimed when he took office under Jimmy Carter during 1979. Less than a generation later, we are about to see the bottom fall out of it. Here is but a taste of what the American regime as nation-state faces because of its manipulated misdirection into an all encompassing global regime: the American-led corporate global empire -- Imperium in Imperio.

1. American illiteracy increasing in youth;
2. unemployment increasing quarterly (especially minority youth);
3. excessive college student enrollments (some remain in school 8 years);
4. student loans not repaid;
5. record personal bankruptcies;
6. record business bankruptcies (causing more unemployment);
7. aging demographics (Social Security, etc., Trust Fund broke);
8. retirement accounts insufficient, savings eroded (interest rates at or near zero);
9. foreign bond holdings disappearing (foreigners holding U.S. debt, etc.);
10. Europeans & oil producers threatening to go to Euro for oil purchases;
11. Europeans talking of Euro as reserve currency;
12. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in out-year deficits;
13. federal tax base eroding;
14. further layoffs anticipated;
15. most states in deficit fiscal crises;
16. record personal debt;
17. jobs, white collar and manufacturing going overseas;
18. further monopoly mergers and acquisitions;
19. further centralization of major industries;
20. housing bubble;
21. stock market speculation returning (bubble);
22. interest rates unrealistically low;
23. U.S. federal deficit (military spending soaring) heading for record highs;
24. the Fed increasing (record) money supply;
25. U.S. dollar in crisis;
26. U.S. military engagements planned globally;
27. planned larger deployments (footprint) of U.S. Military;
28. Army Reserves and National Guard deployments;
29. Reserves and Guard recruitment off (resignations imminent);
30. two or more intractable guerrilla wars in Middle East & Central Asia;
31. recession or worse (deflation) anticipated by all knowledgeable observers;
32. present administration’s imperial perspective (neo-cons neo-empire);
33. and finally, the potential escalation of the drug war in Latin America (which is on the table presently though the other two AOs dominate the news.

These are just a few of the real problems within and without the American-led empire under the current George W. Bush Junior regime. Given these problems, the administration knows they must be addressed in fundamental ways immediately in the aftermath of the next presidential elections; provided the current White House resident remains in office. This is less problematic than most want to admit. The primary reasons why Mr. Bush will be likely reelected are three fold: 1) The Republicans (primarily Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush) have raised a record $250 million for the race; twice that of all Democrats taken together (another less speculative reason inherent is also the weakness of the Democrats running; 2) the “economy stupid” rhetoric on the left Democratic side is a fallacy; Bush Senior was unaffected by the same scenario when he ran for his second term in office. The realty isn’t that the economy brought him down -- it was Ross Perot who took 21 percent of the vote in 37 states to hand Clinton a victory (twice Perot performed this function granting the unpopular Clinton two victories with less than half the votes counted, a mere 43 percent the first time). The economy is being manipulated by the Federal Reserve system’s Chairman Alan Greenspan who (clearly) has agreed to “float” another false speculative boom which gives the illusion of recovery because the American people, given the 1st “problem” set out above, simply do not understand economics 101; 3) Mr. Bush will be running as the war president once again as both fronts (Iraq and Afghanistan) escalate and more Americans die. And should a terrorist attack of some level occur on American soil prior to the election’s vote, something which would surprise nobody, Mr. Bush will be a “shoe-in.”

Therefore, what will Mr. Bush’s top advisors, Machiavellian neo-conservatives to a man, advise he do to alleviate the situations outlined above. It becomes clear there are but a few rather distasteful decisions which must be made and policies implemented few would wish to be part of. But the current crop of neocons have an inherent belief system which allows for just such Machiavellian approaches to be drafted.

And that, the draft, is one of the only solutions that in fact encompasses almost all of the 33 points noted above. But let us look at what is being discussed in the press right now during the last week of August, 2003:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday that American military commanders in Iraq believed that the size of the force there was adequate, even in the aftermath of Tuesday's deadly bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad....Rumsfeld told a news conference in the Honduran capital that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had spoken with commanders in Iraq "and they reiterated their belief that the size of the force in Iraq is appropriate today."..."And at the moment the conclusion of the responsible military officials is that the force levels are where they should be," Rumsfeld said. (Source: Rumsfeld Says Current Troop Level in Iraq Adequate, Wednesday, August 20, 2003; TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras [Reuters] )

Mr. Rumsfeld, has been wrong on so many counts, regarding Pentagon policy and the deployments in both Areas of Operations (AOs), that one must be cognizant of his reasoning why he states these kinds of things (above) knowing full-well they are quite untrue. The truth is not held in high esteem by neo-conservatives as is well-known by now. He does protest too much. The matter is addressed by others more straight forward. Indeed, what follows should be understood as an attempt to prepare the public for the inevitable actions of those in power, but without stating the actual reasons. Here is groundwork for a future policy already being set out at the highest levels of government.

THE leading Republican Senator John McCain said yesterday that the United States needed additional troops in Iraq to deal with increasingly more sophisticated attacks against U.S. forces and strategic targets. ...Mr. McCain, a member of the armed services committee, said from Baghdad - where he met the US civilian governor, Paul Bremer, and US generals - that troops had a tough time ahead and needed help.... "I don’t think any of us - including them [U.S. troops] - anticipated the amount and sophistication of these attacks," the Arizona senator said. ... "I think they may need more people, both in the military overall and perhaps here on the ground. That’s one of the things, I think, we will be looking at." Mr. McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, did not specify how many more troops he thought were needed. According to the Pentagon, there are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. While most Iraqis were relieved Saddam Hussein had been ousted, Mr. McCain said they were frustrated at the level of services such as electricity and water. "Then when you layer on top of that, a group of criminals, Baathists and outright terrorists, and we have a significant problem here. We cannot afford to lose this. We need to do whatever is necessary," he said. He believed the American people had been misled over how tough the job was in Iraq. (Source: Senator says more troops needed; MARGARET NEIGHBOUR, The Washington Post, August 20, 2003)

Senator McCain is a supporter of this president’s war-making and proposals for enhancing the U.S. military footprint globally. As he put it, the American people have been "misled." And we must do whatever it takes to win the situation over there in Iraq and Afghanistan, as “We cannot afford to lose this.” While this is simply untrue on the face of it, there are reasons why Mr. McCain is putting this before the public in this manner. His closing statement is where the truth is imbedded, like some hack journalist during Operation “whatever.” It was this: “We need to do whatever is necessary.”

What do we need to do that “is necessary”? Before I get to that let us hear what the problem is “structured as and sold to” the American people as being. Getting wider play is that America, or the American-led empire, whichever is closer to the truth, is getting spread thin, imperial over-reach is what it is called in International Relations language (IR). The recent UN bombing in Iraq has begun to bring home the point.

THE deadly bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad has come on the heels of reports that Islamic militants from several countries have been moving into Iraq to join battle with American forces. A UK-based Saudi dissident, Saad al-Fagui, claimed this week that up to 3,000 men had gone "missing" from Saudi Arabia amid a crackdown on Islamic extremists. "The government assumption is that they have fled to Iraq," he said.... Daniel Neep, the head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Royal United Services Institute, said of the UN bombing: "I would very much suspect that this is not an isolated incident. It is part of a wider trend." Mr Neep added: "The US is already very thinly stretched, and the expanded targets will make it even more stretched."

(Source: "http://www.news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=913812003"
Saudi rebels cross the border to help bleed US forces to death TIM CORNWELL DEPUTY FOREIGN EDITOR The News Scotsman, Wed 20 Aug 2003)

The problem is addressed yet again within just days of each other is various press reports. This next article reproduced here in its substantial original form is important as these are the discussions going on within the Republican Party and yet refuted by the administration's Rumsfeld; refuted, in my opinion disingenuously. I would suggest that this is precisely what the Administration’s elite are speaking to currently, quietly, not to be discussed publicly yet...until after the election is won. Then the gloves come off.

"You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life - but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud." ... Those words, written nearly 40 years ago by my good friend T.R. Fehrenbach in the definitive work on the Korean War, "This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness" - still ring true today. Our recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq reinforce those very lessons. We prosecuted a very successful war, but if we are going to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi and Afghan people while preserving the peace elsewhere, we will need young men and women with their boots on the ground. I am increasingly concerned we don't have enough soldiers and Marines to do all the jobs that must be done. ...Shortly before he retired, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki advised that postwar Iraq might require several hundred thousand soldiers and Marines to keep the peace. Gen. Shinseki commanded peacekeeping operations in both Bosnia and Kosovo, and he knows what it takes to get the job done right. But if we were to place several hundred thousand troops in Iraq, the unfortunate truth is that the Army may be stretched too thin elsewhere. Indeed, the man nominated to take his place, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, is another who apparently doesn't shy from offering his frank opinion. He recently said, "Intuitively, I think we need more people. It's as simple as that."
When the first Gulf War ended, the Department of Defense cashed in a peace dividend from the end of the Cold War when it lowered the strength of the U.S. Army active forces from 750,000 to 535,000 troops. That cut was necessary, but then they cut more and in doing so, reduced the Army's active strength to 491,000 - too low for our current requirements. Today, in addition to the 491,000 active-duty Army soldiers, there are 550,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard. In order to keep 370,000 of our soldiers deployed to more than 100 countries, we have called to active duty an unprecedented 136,000 members of the Reserve and National Guard.... There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence of the toll this overuse is taking on our troops. Recently, I talked to family members of some reserve units who have seen their loved ones deployed again and again. They are proud of their service but made it clear that, when their tour of duty is over, they will be hanging up their boots and leaving the Reserve. This is not an isolated view. Many senior members of our military have candidly expressed concerns that we are asking our Reserves to deploy too often. They believe it may hurt our efforts to recruit new reservists and retain the ones we have. The Army recently announced a sound plan to replace units in Iraq with a mix of active-duty and reserve forces. When our units in Kosovo, Bosnia and the Sinai Peninsula complete their six-month rotations, they will be replaced with National Guard units. There is no question they can do the job. But should they? This rotation plan only serves as a tacit admission that we need more force structure. Our guard members and reservists signed up to defend our nation in times of national emergency and stand ready to do just that. They never expected to augment the day-to-day missions of active-duty forces.
In the months ahead, the Pentagon promises numerous studies to examine the impact of answering the calls worldwide. But these studies are addressing the symptoms and not the illness. ...We must not balance the tempo of how and when we use Reserve units on the backs of active-duty units, and vice versa. We need more troops or fewer missions. Before we lose too many trained and qualified reservists, I hope we address the critical issue: Do we have enough Army and Marine active- duty members for the post-September 11 era of national security? My view is: We do not.
(Source: Washington Times, August 20, 2003, Stretched too thin, By Kay Bailey Hutchison: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.)

Mr. Bill Clinton has already proposed one thing for the future and Mr. Bush is likely going to put it before Congress before his second term is up: He would like to amend the Constitution so he can run for a third and maybe a fourth term in office. But the other “solution” to many of the problems outlined above at the beginning of this piece can only be solved by one (today, pre-election year) unsavory solution; after the election is won it will be tabled and likely passed overwhelmingly by both Houses under the “created crises” of military deficiency. Not that our “military over-stretch” is not one of the problems and could be easily reversed if we didn‘t have an imperial presidency leading an American-led empire. But let us understand why this one signal “solution” is going to be sold to the American people. Is it as, Senator McCain argued, “[We] cannot afford to lose this.” Is this true at all? Of course it is not. (See my article On Strategy and Tactics (www.kcandassociates.org website/Globalization page; August 25, 2003) It is the one solution that will solve all or most of the problems outlined the present regime faces is present; if not solve outright, ameliorate to some extent most of them. That solution is the Selective Service, the universal draft of all the youth between the ages of 17 and 32 years of age. Whether the use of a lottery system, or an outright numerical count, the youth must be drafted according to the administration’s Machiavellian authorities. It answers each problem the following way, taking each one in its specificity:

1. American illiteracy increasing in youth; The MTV consumer culture has left us with an unprecedented level of illiteracy among the adult population and the youth in particular; nobody believes more education is what is needed, but where to put these people to “make” them productive can be answered: The United States Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy. A civilian kind of selective service may be harder to sell to the public but there are places in the military such as the Army Corp. of Engineers that can act as part of a civilian-type structure that can accomplish nation-building in both foreign and domestic contexts. As such, it will be construed to mean exactly this throughout the remainder of this piece: stright-out military service and civilian-type “Job-Corp.” or “Peace-Corp.” Whether selective service requires some to be placed in civilian structures or to accomplish the same but remain within the military structure is moot. Getting productivity out of the youth which today are highly unproductive for many reasons, illiteracy but one and the most significant, is the ultimate goal here. How they go about this is less relevant.
2. unemployment increasing quarterly (especially minority youth); Employment can be ameliorated most effectively by the draft. Now empoloyed they also pay taxes.
3. excessive college student enrollments (some remain in school 8+ years); Moving these people off-campus and into productive work is an easy answer to long-term stagnating productivity.
4. student loans not repaid; Given their new job prospects garnishment of their wages returns unpaid debts to the government through confiscation.
5. record personal bankruptcies; Those losing-out in the marketplace find refuge and security in the military reducing the burden on the rest of the economy by those filing Chapter Elevens.
6. record business bankruptcies (more unemployment); More business failures causes further unemployment.
7. aging demographics (Social Security); As the American population becomes older, at some point in the very near term there will be more individuals not working, retired, drawing Social Security and other benefits, that the new generation must be taxed to cover, so as to pay for the non-productive aging population; the draft puts these younger people on the payroll tax system most effectively.
8. retirement accounts insufficient, savings eroded (interest rates at or near zero); Interest rates must return to a significantly higher level for many reasons; just one is that those expecting to live on their savings and the interest off their capital saved are losing millions and having to go into their capital to live on. Interest rates must be increased if this cycle is to be broken -- no matter that the cost might be a recession.
9. foreign bond holdings disappearing (foreigners holding U.S. debt, etc.); Interest rates must be returned to a higher level if foreign entities are to expected to continue to buy the American debt as has been the norm for decades.
10. Europeans & oil producers threatening to go to Euro for oil purchases; That the dollar is under attack and in a potential free-fall crisis can only be resolved through higher interest rates, which will cause, if not another full recession or worse, certainly further unemployment prospects especially in the youth and minorities: See unemployment above.
11. Europeans talking of Euro as reserve currency; Europeans and others, especially in the oil producing nations, are arguing that the only way to off-set American hegemonic ambitions is to strengthen the Euro agaisnt the dollar if not making the Euro the reserve currency of the world. Many American investors are already placing their wealth in the Euro/dollar/Asian currencies/and gold (25% in each) because of the Dollar’s critical status. This trend will continue unless interest rates are significantly increased.
12. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid out-year deficits; Again, in the near future there will not be enough younger people working and covering this single combined largest item in the governments’ debt (next to Defense) to pay the projected amounts; the youth must become part of the tax base through productive mandatory work. The draft accomplishes this.
13. federal tax base eroding; Same symptom as above but applies across the board for all services and appropriations at the federal and state levels.
14. further layoffs anticipated; The globalization process continues unabated; higher interest rates to solve other problems must take precedence; creating yet another round of unemployment.
15. States in deficit fiscal crises; Same as above only at a more localized level: expect property taxes to be reviewed and increased on an annual basis in all fifty states. Other arbitrary taxes will be introduced (sin-taxes, value-added, etc.) and those existing raised.
16. record personal debt; The American people will be restrained in their profligate consumer spending which has created the highest personal debt in history; most adult (and even rather young people) Americans are bankrupt already. That is to say, they owe more than they are worth. See above.
17. jobs, white collar and manufacturing; The process of globalization and U.S. corporations moving entire facilities overseas seeking lower wages and fewer employees’ benefits packages will accelerate rather than slow in the next ten years. U.S. military occupation of foreign countries and the attendant nation-building will, as well, accelerate, taking even more jobs overseas, but creating new openings in (for but one instance) the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers. And many corporations such a Halliburton, Brown & Root will be hiring, but only into overseas expansion. The brain drain may seemingly mean more jobs domestically, but for most, at substantially lower wages. This job attrition will continue exacerbating unemployment figures further as well as the tax base.
18. further mergers and acquisitions; Globalization implies Corporatism which implies further concentration in every major industry; which implies further attrition in the areas outlined above.
19. further centralization of major industries; (Airlines, Defense Contractors, etc.) Same as above.
20. housing bubble; The absurd housing bubble, where prices have no relationship to real value, is concentrated in the western states, but the nation over, and must come to an end. Higher interest rates and further job losses through overseas brain drain and business failures can be expected to one day burst that bubble.
21. stock market speculation returning (bubble); Mr. Greenspan of the Fed, is keeping interest rates artificially low for political motivations. These motives must end sooner rather than later (after the elections of course) and the expectant rate hikes will bring about further corrections in the stock market, housing and further unemployment and worsening tax revenues.
22. interest rates unrealistically low; Same as above.
23. U.S. federal deficit heading for record highs; The imperial vision of those now in power will not alter one bit; the future is clear, and this administration like no other has ebraced this expansive point of view: Empire will expand, one way or another.
24. the Fed increasing (record) money supply; The increasing money supply (the monetization of the federal debt) will continue unabated to pay for the expansion of Empire and its imperial war-making/ nation-building.
25. U.S. dollar in crisis; All the above has placed an ever increasing pressure on a detereorating value of the dollar. At some point America, in the persons of the elite and Bush administration, will defend the dollar through interest rates and tax increases causing further layoffs and bankruptcies.
26. U.S. military engagements planned globally; There is no end in sight with the administration’s global view, using the war on terrorism, WMD, and other contrivances, the military footprint will grow exponentially in the decades to come.
27. planned larger deployments (footprint) of U.S. Military; See my article on our website/Globalization page, and a recent piece in Foreign Affairs September/October 2003.
28. Army Reserves and National Guard deployments; Already planned is the increased usage of the U.S. Army Reserves and National Guard; this is only a short term solution given the need and an election coming-up. Every time one deploys these organs there is a correspondence in unemployment and reduced tax revenues as those earning more than what they receive during their active duty phase is often quite considerable.
29. Reserves and Guard recruitment off (resignations imminent); There is a massive decline in both organizations as nobody joins the reserves and Guard hoping to be deployed; it is clear now to all, there is deployment in that future. Resignations and end of tour commitments are already taking place as those who can leave these units are quitting rather than see Iraq in their future.
30. two or more intractable guerrilla wars in Middle East & Central Asia; Both of these wars promise to draw down even more troops from the reserves and Guard until it is no longer feasible. The draft solves this problem first and foremost.
31. recession or worse (deflation) anticipated by all knowledgeable observers; Given each scenario above, or any combination of several, will bring about a correction in an entirely mismanaged economic system exacerbated by globalization and imperial burdens. A correction is a different way of saying everyone will face living within their means: a day of reckoning, it is often called.
32. present administration’s imperial perspective (neo-empire); Since 9/11 there has never been a clearer imperial vision put forward. That it is not new at all is now a moot point, that it is articulated means it will accelerate.
33. and finally, the potential escalation of the drug war in Latin America (which is on the table presently though the other two AOs dominate the news. This last burden is a Bush family project decades old; it is being pursued in a full military deployment which one day may make Afghanistan seem mild. That it is “on our own borders” bodes ill for DEA and Border Patrol efforts to stem the tide. Want to end drug usage on the streets of America, draft them and place the burden of civil strife in the able hands of Military Justice: Military Justice is to Justice what Military Music is to Music.

And there you have it, albeit in short shrift as each section would require a treatise. But one gets the point. There are only so many treatments for the diseases needing a cure; when one discovers one treatment which has the potential of curing so many ailments the resident physician does not belabor the point for long. The prescritption which ameliorates so many infections is administered although the patients are told it is but for the one severe disruption: i.e., in this case, to save the troops under siege in a just and honorable cause of liberty and justice. That the truth lies elsewhere, or the lie elsewhere, matters not. The universal draft of a major proportion of the youth, between the ages of 18 (17?) and 32 (36?) and covering both males and females (equity and the women’s movement wins yet another victory for equality) is that one universal magic bullet. It is the only one thing, used in combination with other remedies, which cures many of the Empire’s imperial ills. It has precedent, purpose and support. What will all those patriots waving Chinese made American flags and wrapping yellow ribbons ‘round the ole Oak tree...say? Being proper American patriots, proper parents too, which support their president...they will send their children off to war. They always have.

End 08/25/03


Taking care of U.S. military personnel wasteful and unnecessary?

"I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," a sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team Headquarters referring to the Administration deck of most wanted Iraqis, told ABC News' Jeffrey Kofman.
"The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz,"

According to Army Times, proposals that would have added “various pay-and-benefits incentives to the 2004 defense budget” are now considered “wasteful and unnecessary” by the Republican-controlled Congress. The June 30th Army Times editorial said the troops were getting the “nickel-and-dime treatment” from the Republican-controlled Congress. Some might call it getting the shaft. According to Army Times, the GOP-controlled Congress has:

· Canceled a "modest proposal" to increase the benefit from $6,000 to $12,000 to families of soldiers who die on active duty;
· "Roll[ed] back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones";
· Refused to consider "military tax relief... that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others";
· Passed pay raises for "some [higher] ranks," but "cap[ped] raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent";
· Accepted a $1.5 billion cut in the military construction request for 2004: A proposal by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, to restore $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut by "cover[ing] that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year... [who would receive $83,500] instead of... $88,300," was defeated.

Army Times: “Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale - especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.” (Source The Army Times, June 30, 2003)

Wounded billed for hospital food

By Bill Adair, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times: September 11, 2003

WASHINGTON - After a grenade exploded inside his Humvee in Iraq, Marine Staff Sgt. Bill Murwin was treated at a military hospital in Germany and spent four weeks at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Part of his left foot was amputated. His medical care was free, but the government billed him $243 for the food. Then, just three days after he received his first bill for the hospital food in Germany, he got a stern letter saying the bill was overdue. It warned that his account would be referred to a collection agency.

Murwin, like thousands of other military personnel hospitalized every year, is expected to reimburse the government $8.10 per day for food. That's standard procedure because of a law Congress passed in 1981. But it has angered many military families over the years.

When Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo, and his wife, Beverly, heard about the problem, they personally paid Murwin's tab. Then the congressman introduced a bill to change the rules. Rep. Young said Wednesday that the soldiers "were sent to war by their country. Many of them will be handicapped for the rest of their lives - and we're asking them to pay $8.10 a day for their food! There's something really wrong with that." The practice is especially egregious, Young said, because "the food probably isn't that good."

The rule was established because most military personnel receive $8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are double-dipping.Military officials have long disliked the rule but felt they had to enforce it because of the 1981 law. "If I could be king for a day, I'd stop it in a minute," said Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who commands the Army hospitals in the eastern United States.

The government already bends the rules for soldiers in combat. They are allowed keep the $8.10 even though they are also getting free food, according to Young's office. Murwin, 31, a sheriff's deputy in Nevada with 10 years of active duty in the Marines and three years in the Reserves, says he was flabbergasted the government would bill him. "Holy smokes," he said. "I'm in the hospital - and they're going to charge me for my food?"He says he was willing to pay but thinks it's unfair that young soldiers get billed. "What made me so hot is that (it applies to) privates and lance corporals - guys who barely make enough money to pay for their own food, let alone take care of this," Murwin said. Kiley, the Army medical commander, said the costs can add up. "If you're here for a couple of months, you could rack up a thousand dollars," he said. Young, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he was unaware of the law until his wife heard about it from Murwin's father-in-law. He has quickly lined up support for his bill, which would reverse the rule so military personnel do not have to pay.

His staff hasn't had time to estimate the cost of the bill, Young said, but the government has an obligation to pay for the food of injured soldiers. The bill has 96 co-sponsors and has been endorsed by associations that represent enlisted personnel. Because of the strong support, the bill is likely to sail through Congress in the next few weeks.

Kiley said that he is glad to see the bill and that it has wide support in the military. But he disagrees with Young's unfavorable assessment of the hospital cuisine. "It really is pretty good food," Kiley said. "It's not the same as a four-star restaurant. But we work pretty hard at it." Murwin concurred, but said his taste buds had been dulled by weeks of eating field chow - called MREs (for Meal, Ready to Eat) - in Iraq. "I was expecting the worst" from the hospital food, he said. "I was pleasantly surprised. I actually got a steak dinner one night."

- Bill Adair can be reached at 202 463-0575 or adair@sptimes.com

Troops dig into own pockets to pay for gear


By Tara Copp and Jessica Wehrman, Scripps Howard News Service
September 11, 2003


Last Christmas, Mike Corcoran sent his mother an unusual Christmas list: He wanted night-vision goggles, a global positioning system and a short-wave radio. Corcoran, then a Marine sergeant in Afghanistan, wanted the goggles so he could see on patrols. They cost about $2,000 each.
According to an Army internal report released earlier this summer, many ground troops like Corcoran decided to dip into their own pockets to get the equipment they needed to fight in Afghanistan and in Iraq. "There were a lot of reports of that prior to the war, people would go out and buy their own gear," said Patrick Garrett, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org. "The Army ran out of desert camo boots, and a lot of soldiers were being issued regular black combat boots. Soldiers decided that wasn't for them, so they paid for new boots with their own money."


According to the Pentagon's "Operation Iraqi Freedom Lessons Learned" draft report, soldiers spent their own money to get better field radios, extra ammunition carriers to help them fight better and commercial backpacks because their own rucksacks were too small. Senior Airman Joe Harvey, based at McGuire AFB in New Jersey, said his clothing allowance is $200 a year from the Air Force, and that most aspects of the uniform, including four sets of combat and dress uniforms are provided. "But of course with all the wear and tear they don't always last that long," said Harvey, who deployed to Iraq for the war. "Now with some of the units if you rip a pair of bdu's (battle dress uniform) they will give you a new pair. But for the most part you are responsible for buying any new uniform you need except for boots. Your unit will always supply with a free pair of boots." Harvey said the costs stack up during promotions, when each airman has to purchase new stripes and get them tailored on.


Corcoran, who has since left the Marines, purchased a bunch of items before he deployed. One necessity: baby wipes, because as he said, "a lot of the places you'll go, you won't be taking a shower."
Corcoran also bought his own rucksack, and modified a sling for his M-16 so he was better prepared for patrols. He bought an electric shaver to remove stubble that would keep his gas mask from sealing correctly.
Corcoran got all the items on his Christmas list, including the $2,000 goggles. The short wave radio was meant for entertainment, but he ended up hearing messages urging jihad, and he picked up intelligence from enemy fighters.
And there is one item many soldiers purchased and carried into the desert that wasn't part of the regular equipment. "Another cool thing to bring with you is an American flag," Corcoran said. "Just in case you plan on conquering anything."


Tara Copp can be reached at coppt(at)shns.com. Jessica Wehrman can be reached at wehrmanj(at)shns.com


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