Category: Uncategorized

“While state officials in Texas and New Mexico said this week that National Guard soldiers assigned to border duty would be armed, officials in California and Arizona said very few soldiers there would carry weapons,” writes El Paso Times Reporter Brandi Grissom, who reports on Use of Force guidelines attached to last week’s Operation Jump Start memo.

The agreement the states signed requires soldiers to use the minimum force needed to control a situation and to defend themselves or others.

It calls for the use of deadly force as a last resort, does not allow soldiers to fire warning shots and requires a soldier to file detailed reports if deadly force is used.

Under the agreement, automatic weapons and shotguns are not to be used unless the state’s National Guard leader expressly orders them.

Soldiers are to “respect the human rights of all persons,” the rules of use of force state, and the soldiers are to carry the rules with them at all times.

Emmanuel Pacheco, a spokesman for the federal National Guard Bureau, said all four states will follow those general guidelines but will have specific orders about how many soldiers are armed and with which weapons.

“These are four separate state-run missions,” Pacheco said. “Every state will be little different.”

We don’t know about the missions being “state-run”, but we can understand why the federal office is emphasizing the term. Instead, we prefer the accuracy of Guard Chief Gen. Blum, when he tells the American Forces Press Service that:

“The National Guard will support federal law enforcement agencies that have responsibilities for the security of our borders. What we will be doing is bringing military skills, military equipment, military expertise and experience to assist at the request of the Department of Homeland Security.”

But even here we quibble. It is not the Department of Homeland Security as such that makes “requests” under Operation Jump Start. It is a specific bureau of DHS (Customs and Border Protection) that is charged with “requesting” Guard help. The difference is important when evaluating who gets to stand toe-to-toe with Rumsfeld whenever these “requests” get submitted for DoD approval.

Source: Article Launched: 06/09/2006 12:00:00 AM MDT, Guard on border in Texas, NM to be armed, By Brandi Grissom / Austin Bureau, El Paso Times.

The New Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) W. Ralph Basham toured the border with Mexico this week. He heads the agency that will be in charge of initiating formal “requests” for Guard involvement at the border, although the first big request was apparently made (by acting commissioner Deborah J. Spero) before Basham took office on June 6, 2006 as second commissioner of the CPB.

“Under heavy security, Basham gave a short speech thanking CPB agents and Valley law enforcement for their cooperation,” writes McAllen Monitor reporter Andres R. Martinez about one stop at the Anzalduas County Park in Mission. “I felt very strongly if I was going to be effective I needed to get a first-hand look at the challenges and needs of the Border Patrol,” said Basham. “This gives me an opportunity to go back to Washington and be an advocate for your needs.”

At the official CBP website, the President is reported to “know Commissioner Basham well after previously appointing him to head the Secret Service.”

“He’s a decent man,” Bush said about Commissioner Basham. “I trust him deeply, and he’s going to be a superb leader for Customs and Border Protection.”

Here’s the official CBP bio:

W. Ralph Basham was sworn in by President George W. Bush on June 6, 2006 to serve as the second Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for managing, controlling, and securing our Nation’s borders.

Mr. Basham brings a distinguished record of public service in law enforcement to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He has served as the Director of the United States Secret Service, since 2003. A 28-year veteran of the Secret Service, Basham also served as Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and Chief of Staff of the Transportation Security Administration.

Mr. Basham’s began his career with the Secret Service in 1970 when he was appointed as a Special Agent in the Washington Field Office. He rose rapidly to the managerial level while serving in a variety of assignments reflecting the Service’s diverse interests and responsibilities. Mr. Basham has served in supervisory positions in both protective and investigative assignments, serving as Special Agent in Charge of the Cleveland Field Office, the Washington Field Office and the Vice Presidential Protective Division. Basham also served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Training and as Assistant Director of the Office of Administration, where he was responsible for the management of the agency’s administrative division.

In January 1998, Mr. Basham was appointed Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). The center, located in Glynco, Georgia and Artesia, New Mexico, provides training for nearly all of the nation’s federal law enforcement officers, including Secret Service recruits. The FLETC also serves the state, local and federal law enforcement communities with training programs tailored to their specific needs.

Mr. Basham was named Chief of Staff for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in January 2002. Among his responsibilities at TSA, Mr. Basham oversaw the hiring of federal security directors for the nation’s 429 airports.

A native of Owensboro, Kentucky, Basham received a Bachelor’s Degree from Southeastern University in Washington, D.C. Mr. Basham’s numerous honors include the 1992 and 2000 Meritorious Presidential Rank Awards.

By Greg Moses

UrukNet / OpEdNews / CounterPunch

The Guard operation at the border has an air of legal peculiarity about it. Obviously it has been initiated by federal powers, but care has been taken to leave troops under command of the Governors, sort of. If the legal finesse of Operation Jump Start offers a vulnerability de-militarization activists can exploit, it also presents features worth worrying about.
Let’s not forget that the memo was released at the very end of the work week during the first week of the summer season. In Texas, it was distributed by the Governor’s office after five. And there has yet to be any public discussion of its wisdom. Doesn’t this sound too familiar?

A plain reading of the operation’s structure suggests that the Pentagon has vastly strengthened its hand in the conduct of domestic affairs. And citizens of the USA often express well-founded concerns that we would not want our military doing what it does best in the neighborhoods where we live. Military professionals also have a right to be nervous about the situation this makes for them.

On the level of pure formality, the Memorandum of Understanding indicates that Guard missions should be “requested by, coordinated with, and undertaken in support of the USCBP” (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.) But the initiative for Operation Jump Start seems to come from forces well beyond the control of USCBP.

For example, the missions are to be “pre-approved by the DoD (Department of Defense) and the Governor of the Supported State, and consistent with the implementing instructions communicated by the National Guard Bureau.” It is then up to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to “coordinate the provision of resources to the Supported States in furtherance of the border enforcement effort.” In terms of policy direction, the paper trail of Operation Jump Start begins in an office of law enforcement, but it ends with “implementing instructions” mobilized by the Guard. In fact, before the DoD approves any “request”, it will already have to be consistent with how the guard will implement it.

Thus, any Operation Jump Start mission formally “requested” by USCBP will activate a Pentagon line of power that goes from mission approval to mission deployment, flipping the switch toward a conduit of border affairs that runs from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, to the National Guard. This raises serious legal issues about the militarization of domestic law enforcement, and suggests why such a show had to be made about the roles of various Governors. But clearly, this operation was commenced with little display of pride or initiative from the Governors (even if it might give them what they secretly want this election year.)

Furthermore, in terms of formal bureau alignments, there is a mismatch beteen USCBP and DoD that further seems to weaken the actual power of the domestic bureau, because nowhere in the memo is the director of Homeland Security given the kind of formal power that falls into the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

Of course, one could argue that the Director of Homeland Security, although invisible in the memo, retains formal chain of command control over USCBP, but it is not the DHS director who has been assigned to produce the mission requests. Simply comparing levels of power between the formal partners of the memo (CBP and the Pentagon) the simple lines of the memo seem to strengthen the Pentagon’s muscle in border strategies.

And why shouldn’t this literal structure make us very nervous, given the obvious pattern of strategic muscle exercised by this particular Secretary of Defense? It is a question you may ask nearly anyone in the USA, since very few seem very nervous.

That the federal administration of the USA also represents an apex of corporate types and tokens reminds us as well that a huge border contract is about to enter the awarding phase. The literal structure of the memo gives the DoD some power to push a nose or two into that process (for which readers of the Texas Civil Rights Review are so far predicting a contract for Northrup Grumman.)

This afternoon, the Texas Civil Rights Review filed records requests with the offices of Governor, Attorney General, and Texas National Guard in order to begin an archive of key documents pertaining to the militarization of the border, because the peculiar paper flow mandated by Operation Jump Start is well worth reading closely.

Note: Agency names and acronyms have been scrubbed up from earlier versions, i.e.: CBP, Customs and Border Protection.

By Greg Moses

“History has shown that there is nothing contradictory or incoherent with an approach that has as one of its components a discussion of human rights. Speaking with clarity on this issue does not prevent or even discourage progress on immediate security concerns.”

We like this quote from Jay Lefkowitz, speaking in April to the Asia Society in New York. Lefkowitz has recently been dispatched on a human rights tour of the North Korean maquilas in Kaesong, an enclave of South Korean industry, but just across the border. Whether to call goods from that area South Korean or North Korean is one of the issues on the table in the recently started FTA negotiations.

Border-conscious negotiators from the USA will not agree to label the goods as South Korean. But according to facts stated by a Korean labor organizer, if you look closely at who owns what, South Korea might better be known as Western USA:

… presently 60 percent of South Korean financial and manufacturing industries are in the hands of U.S. corporations.

Some 86 percent of Kook-Min Bank, the largest South Korean bank; 54 percent of Samsung Electronics, a world-class corporation; 70 percent of POSCO—the cream of the crop of South Korean corporations are owned by U.S.-based transnational corporations.

In a speech translated and transcribed by Workers World, Oh Jongryul, co-chair of the Korean Alliance talked about a need for worker unity in an age of neo-liberalism.

Since NAFTA, U.S. workers are competing with oversupplied Mexican migrant workers in a labor market that has heightened the intensity of labor and job insecurity and worse working conditions. Imperialism sees no border. It also victimizes its own people.

Under neoliberalism, the new economic imperialism, we are one. Workers from Korea, the U.S. and Mexico are one.

If human rights are consistent with security, then we might ask Mr. Lefkowitz to remind Washington that the USA has not yet signed the 1990 Convention on Rights of Migrants.

A December 18 movement, named after the day the UN General Assembly passed the migrant convention, is being organized in the USA by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (NNIRR).

In Texas, the NNIRR lists two organized events for the past Dec. 18 commemorations. In El Paso, there was a Dec. 10 Walk for Human Rights (catching two human rights anniversaries with one net) organized by the Border Network for Human Rights.

And in San Antonio the Southwest Workers Uni-n (SWU) also doubled up their migrant rights action with a celebration of Día de la Virgen de Guadalupe on Dec. 15.

Back in November, Ruben Solis of the SWU, wrote a report about his participation at the US-Human Rights Network (USHRnetwork) conference in Atlanta.

SWU took the position that the focus should not just be on human rights as a UN framework but a more inclusive strategy to human rights i.e., peoples struggles, workers and communities fighting environmental racism , military toxics, racism etc. SWU gave the example of our work with the University without Borders (Universidad Sin
Fronteras) as a University without walls concept that develops and trains for human rights work. Ruben made emphasis in the need for developing popular
education curriculum for human rights education at the grassroots level. The people centered human rights focus prevailed amongst all of the participants
throughout the day.

Solis reported that the SWU was looking into filing a complaint against the Minutemen with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

At the Worker Caucus meeting, Solis met up with Trevor Palacios from ‘Voices of the Future’ from Houston, TX. They talked about a Southern Human Rights conference for August 2006.

We definitely need to give this guy a call. Stay tuned.

As for Fernando Garcia, the El Paso organizer, you can talk with him by telephone June 15 at 3pm EST as he facilitates a conference call on “Rights and Immigration.” Register online for free.

Also coming up soon is the Southern Girls Convention in Houston (June 23-25). So far, I don’t see immigration or migrant rights on the menu there, but they are inviting workshops, etc. http://southerngirlsconvention.org/2006/

It’s a real fine piece of writing done by Colleen Kenney of the Lincoln Journal Star, talking to migrant workers on the day the President passes through town.

“One man said he’d ask the president to adopt him. That made the other men laugh,” writes Kenney, reporting from a day-labor site.

“I definitely would benefit (from Bush’s immigration proposal),” says a grocery worker from El Salvador who hasn’t seen her five children in five years. “I would appreciate that opportunity. It’s a good objective — so all people without papers can get jobs.”

About eight blocks north on 24th Street is the NPDodge office where Jose Correa sells homes.

Jose, 46, came to the United States in 1977 unable to speak English. He loaded coffee from railroad cars at the Beechnut plant downtown, making $2.65 an hour. Then he got a job making $3 an hour at a south Omaha meatpacking plant, rising to superintendent. He taught himself English by reading free newspapers at the plant.

In 1986, he said, everything changed economically for him and other Hispanics when President Reagan signed an immigration reform law that made immigrants like him legal.

After that, instead of buying land in Mexico as he’d planned, he bought a house in south Omaha for $12,000. He asked his agent a lot of questions. He didn’t know of any bilingual real estate agents, so he decided to study it.

It paid off. He doesn’t want to reveal how much money he makes.

“He makes a lot!” fellow agent Estela Torres shouted from her desk.

Nice work.