From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #108 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, April 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 108 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 07:45:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: RE: Excellent Analysis Of Rush Limbaugh (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 21:22:01 -0400 From: Mayor Loz Reply-To: act@efn.org To: Bruce S Subject: RE: Excellent Analysis Of Rush Limbaugh Topic: White Water G-Man Outruns Rush Essay April 8, 1998 Nick Schuessler While Rush Limbaugh still holds the edge in the conservative talk radio host ratings, G. Gordon Liddy has wrested away the title as "the cutting edge of societal evolution." It's been a long, interesting tale. Along the way we can also see how conservatives carry the seeds of betrayal in their own success. Rush's decline began back in 1992 with an overnight stay in the Bush White House. From his debut in 1988 until 1992, Rush's program grew to a major force in conservative politics. With the 1992 presidential elections, the Bush camp faced a major problem: could they keep Rush quiet in light of the "read my lips" betrayal? During that spring, Rush had already toyed with Pat Buchanan, so the concern was real -- especially in light of a strong challenge from the (then obscure) Democrat Bill Clinton. Co-opting Rush would seem to be a difficult problem. He was beyond bribery or threats, and his radio program was huge and influential. In fact, Bush needed Rush much more than vice versa. Rush was not, however, beyond flattery. In his youth, L:imbaugh had been the quintessential nerd -- chubby, socially inept, craving peer acceptance to please his upper middle-class parents. It was very nearly textbook. Now, through his own talents and a series of accidents, he was suddenly of interest to the same people who teased and dismissed him 30 years earlier. It must have been a thrill for somebody like Rush to be treated like an important insider. No matter that in their private moments Bush, Baker, and the others still saw him basically as a parking valet. It worked. Bush's feigned hospitality turned Rush, even though George lost the election. Afterwards, the Republican establishment continued to carefully cultivate Rush. The effort wasn't to generate criticism of Clinton; Rush was already on track with that. The goal was to make sure that Rush didn't use his influential soapbox to criticize the Republican sellouts -- like John Kasich's help in gun confiscation legislation, or the FBI massacre at Waco. Again it worked, but at some cost to Limbaugh's credibility. As he made excuse after excuse for Republicans, he watched his audience growth stop, then turn around, and then decline. Callers who tried to discuss the change were dismissed. The name-dropping in the monologue increased and grated. The insider friendships even affected his political analysis. Example: we're still not sure what's going on when Rush talks about TWA800. Is it Rush? Or is it his good friend, Jim Kallstrom, who conducted the investigation? The technique here isn't all that difficult. You can almost write the scenario yourself. Just construct a good cover story that admits to some lesser explanation, then appeal to Rush's good nature to help. "Rush, Rush. You're a smart guy. I'm not going to try to scam you. I'm going to come clean with you. There was something funny going on with TWA800. We've pulled our hair out trying to figure out what it was. We don't have anything solid, but the crazies out in Montana are saying 'terrorist' or 'aliens' or whatever. Now the pressure is on me to get out a report; it is going to say 'mechanical failure.' You and I know better, but we have to give them something right now. Should we destroy the careers of a bunch of good, honest FBI agents over this? Including mine? Can you help us out on this one, Rush?" It was a brilliant strategy by the Republican elite. While Rush is worrying about Clinton's zipper, Newt is passing a minimum wage increase and a new telephone tax. Dr. Laura is currently within striking distance of grabbling first place, and G. Gordon Liddy is the fastest growing political talk show. In light of these ratings reversals, it was interesting to watch Rush's consternation. He still denies that he changed his tone after the Bush subordination. During the Dole campaign, Rush embarrassed himself carrying water for the man Newt called "the tax collector for the welfare state." Newt himself turned Rush's show into the Gingrinch Hour. (Rush claims a "no guest" policy, but Newt could seemingly appear at will.) During this same time, Liddy was outing "Confidential Witness" in a nasty surprise for the FBI's Foster cover-up. Fortunately for the FBI, Ken Starr was willing to continue the Fisk fairy tale. Liddy was also hammering Kasich and the other turncoat Republicans, doing serious commentary about Waco and Ruby Ridge, and getting out in front on the real Clinton scandals. Rush was still parroting the establishment Republican line and losing audience in the process. In fact, recently there's been a hint of confusion and hurt in his voice. He's obviously been reassured by Newt and the others that all is well. But he keeps seeing Clinton's agenda enacted. He's not devious enough to believe that his "friends" would deliberately betray him. Instead, he turns on his fans, claiming they obviously don't have his "insider's" perspective to see that patience is the key to everything. "Just hang on. Just wait for [fill in the blank]." Starr's report, the mid-term elections, the next poll, the impeachment hearings, etc. As Rush fades, we should show some genuine gratitude for his contribution. He single-handedly pioneered the whole conservative talk radio movement. When he says that he brought AM back from the dead, it's not hyperbole. In the early days, skits like the "caller abortion" and the Kennedy sinking were brilliant parodies of the left. After the Bush disaster, he was the only real voice in the wilderness. In the end, Rush fell victim to the Buckley Syndrome. From the 1950's to the 1970's, Bill Buckley was also the only conservative game in town. He was co-opted by New York liberals, and Buckley conservatism was henceforth defined as what Bill could say and still get invited to the fashionable cocktail parties on the upper West Side. With Rush it's cigars instead of cocktails (or maybe both), but the result is the same. In some moments of pure irony, Rush talks about the need for excellence, about how Gates is afraid of the newcomers, about how Letterman knows how elusive the edge is. He's never able to apply this to himself. Whether it's a misdirected sense of loyalty, or just a blind spot, he's unable even to this day to see the manipulation. Let's hope that he never hears his handlers laughing at him. G. Gordon Liddy seems to show more staying power than Rush. Liddy never expected to end up as a convicted felon and radio talk show host. His character wasn't formed from teen worries about acceptance. So G-Man has a better set of tools to deal with the Republican types trying to subvert him. The Stacked and Packed calendars are just as outrageous as the caller abortions, and Liddy has the occasional interesting guest. He's already moved ahead of Rush in the conservative edge -- Foster, Waco, the IRS and other major government abuse. He's rapidly closing the distance on the political analysis as well -- Rush's last remaining strength. G-Man isn't quite as available on as many stations as Rush, but then there was the time when Rush, too, was hard to find on the AM dial. The Host is Dead. Long live the Host. Posted by: Nick_S (nicks@delphi.com) * 04/08/98 12:10:59 EDT - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:33:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Law vs. executive order - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Law vs. executive order PTR The U.S. Constitution long ago became a dead document in Washington, D.C. But that didn't stop President Clinton from giving it another kick Monday. By executive order, Mr. Clinton blocked the import of 1.6 million military-style rifles from American shores as an extension to the 1994 congressional ban on "assault weapons." With the stroke of a pen, the president permanently banned 58 semi-automatic weapons, most of them cosmetic variants of AK-47 rifles, that he decided had no sporting use on American soil. "They were never meant for a day in the country and they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets," he said. The president is right on both counts. Hunting a deer with an AK-47 would leave very little edible venison to store in the freezer and such a weapon in the hands of criminals who prowl at night is indeed a troubling thought. But, as usual, Mr. Clinton's clever sound bites miss the point. The Second Amendment states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says nothing about the government having the right to qualify certain firearms for the public's use, or to release a list of approved hunting weapons. Further perusal of the Constitution reveals that the executive branch does not have the power to legislate by whim through executive orders. The National Rifle Association promised to pressure Congress to overturn Clinton's gun ban. A legislative branch with an understanding of constitutional law should not require the prodding of the NRA to do its duty and thwart Clinton's attempt to exercise absolute power over the citizenry. =============================================== =============================================== [16] Grand Jurors Shown Photos Of Truck Before Bombing 04/09/1998 By Judy Kuhlman TO An Oklahoma City attorney brought with him pictures he took after the federal building bombing as he went to testify Wednesday before the Oklahoma County grand jury investigating the bombing. Russell B. Fister, 61, showed reporters and photographers one of the pictures. He said the picture proves the Oklahoma County bomb squad truck was in downtown Oklahoma City minutes before the bomb exploded at 9:02 a.m. April 19, 1995. Other grand jury witnesses have said they saw the bomb squad truck downtown minutes before the explosion. They believe the presence of the bomb truck before the explosion proves the government had prior knowledge. Bill Grimsley, an Oklahoma County deputy and bomb squad truck driver, said he drove the truck from the sheriff's training center at NE 36 and Air Depot Boulevard, where he was when the bomb exploded, to the downtown area. Fister's picture shows the truck traveling north on Harvey toward the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Grimsley said Harvey was one of the streets he traveled. Harvey is a north-south street that runs past the bomb site on the west side. The picture shows no debris swirling in the air. The large black cloud of smoke that appeared immediately after the blast does not appear in the picture. There is a smaller smoke cloud in the picture. No time or date appears on the picture. Fister said he took the picture immediately after the blast. Since it began meeting at the Oklahoma County jail on June 30, the grand jury has heard testimony from 99 witnesses and read the deposition of a witness who died before he had could testify. Meanwhile, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, is seeking a congressional inquiry into the attack that resulted in the deaths of 168 people. Convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh, 29, was sentenced to death last summer. Convicted conspirator Terry Nichols, 43, is awaiting sentencing for his role in the attack. Key, who spearheaded the petition drive to call the grand jury, said he has gone to Washington, D.C., and talked to an Oklahoma congressional representative about a possible inquiry. Key would not name the representative. He said the representative is willing to sponsor the inquiry, but is not ready to say so publicly. "Yeah, I just still don't want to talk about who it is or isn't until we get down the road, until they are ready for that," Key said. Representatives of six of the eight members of Oklahoma's congressional delegation denied talking to Key. Some denied knowledge of any request for an inquiry. Key also said he has new evidence that shows the government had prior knowledge of the bombing. But Key would not say what the evidence is. He also said the evidence is not ready to be presented to the grand jury. Key said he wants the congressional inquiry, regardless of the outcome of the grand jury. Grand jurors have been investigating larger conspiracy theories, including prior knowledge by the federal government. On a short-wave radio talk show Monday, Key said he believes some of the 12 grand jurors are hostile toward him. He doubts grand jurors will return an indictment. "We feel very strongly that there is a half dozen that are very serious and not controlled or influenced by some ideology or the government's position on this," Key said during the talk show. An indictment would require nine jurors. Key told The Oklahoman on Thursday he was only assuming that some of the grand jurors were hostile. "I was just playing the numbers game," he said. Key's Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee also is running radio advertisements criticizing Oklahoma County District Attorney Bob Macy. The ads accuse Macy of not supporting the grand jury investigation and of not seeking "the truth or justice" in the bombing. Macy said Wednesday he assigned two "outstanding attorneys" and a veteran investigator from his office to the grand jury. "We have done everything in our power to find out what the truth is," the district attorney said. =============================================== [33] World Court Urges a Stay In Virginia Capital Case Associated Press WSJ [Editors Note: We better term limit a bunch of politicians and get in some people that will reduce the size of the UN by about 98% and tell them to tend to their own business.] THE HAGUE -- Intervening in a death-penalty case for the first time, the World Court requested a stay Thursday in Tuesday's scheduled execution of a Paraguayan man in Virginia. It was unclear what affect, if any, the ruling would have in Virginia, which condemned Angel Francisco Breard for a murder and attempted rape in 1992. The World Court, the highest judicial body of the United Nations, has no enforcement powers and relies on countries to comply voluntarily with its decisions. Its final decision could take years, though the 15-judge court promised to speed up its deliberations. "The court orders the United States to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision of the court," the court said in a unanimous decision. Paraguay had fought for the stay of execution, contending that Mr. Breard was not informed of his right to consular assistance after his arrest, as required by the 1963 Vienna Convention. "It is a vindication of international law. It is a decision we were waiting for," said Manuel Caceres, Paraguay's representative at the court. Paraguay has claimed that if Mr. Breard had been able to seek advice from consular officials, he likely would have pleaded guilty in a pretrial plea bargain and escaped the death penalty. The U.S. says it has no dispute with Paraguay over the Vienna Convention and that the World Court therefore has no jurisdiction in the case. Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore has said he will follow U.S. court decisions. Mr. Breard has a clemency appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. In January, a U.S. federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit Paraguay had filed against Virginia. A three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was disturbed that Virginia failed to follow the Vienna Convention but ruled that the Constitution prohibits foreign governments from suing states. Mr. Breard, 30, was convicted of stabbing Ruth Dickie, 39, five times on Feb. 17, 1992, in Arlington. He told police he intended to rape her, but ran away when he heard someone knock on the door. =============================================== The POLITICAL DIGEST is essentially an Internet "Clipping Service." We gather many "Political News Articles" and "Political Columns and Editorials" that are on the Internet and combine them into one text file, just as a "Clipping Service" does for people with "Hard Copies" of newspapers. We do NOT charge for the material. NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. To subscribe to TPD and/or TPDP mail Cash, Check, or money order to: Wayne Mann 1079 Farroll Arroyo Grande, Ca. 93420-4136 To receive THE POLITICAL DIGEST LITE just send an e-mail message with the word subscribe TPDL in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net. To stop receiving the TPDL just send an e-mail message with Unsubscribe TPDL or in the subject line to tpd@callamerica.net. Thank you. No Charge, it's FREE. ============================================= - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:56:20 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: A Mysterious Case of Executive Privilege - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 23:20:34 -0500 From: "Brenda C. Jinkins" Subject: CAS: IM: A Mysterious Case of Executive Privilege For education and discussion. Not for commercial use. Insight Magazine Online (http://www.insightmag.com) April 8, 1998 Jamie Dettmer By Jamie Dettmer Arlington: A Mysterious Case of Executive Privilege . . . . From being loath to invoke executive privilege because of inevitable comparisons to Richard Nixon, the White House isn't half making up for lost time. Not only is President Clinton using executive privilege to shield his conversations with top aides such as Bruce Lindsey, Sidney Blumenthal and John Podesta about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he now has invoked it to block congressional investigators from securing memorandums concerning waivers he granted for burials at Arlington National Cemetery. One of the memorandums being held back from the House Veterans Affairs Committee relates to the controversial waiver granted by Clinton for Ambassador Larry Lawrence's interment at the national cemetery. According to what is called a "privilege log," sent to the committee by White House counsel Charles Ruff, the blocked memo -- numbered ANC 000018 -- is a letter "from Deputy Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs regarding Ambassador Lawrence's burial." The others -- numbered ANC 000019 to ANC 000023 -- consist of a cover letter related to the Lawrence burial and "a list of persons buried at Arlington Cemetery." A congressional GOP source says committee investigators were taken aback when they received the privilege log from Ruff. "The White House hasn't explained why it is invoking privilege," says the source. "The vets committee folks are astonished. What could the White House be trying to cover up?" Lawrence's body was dug up shortly after Insight published a series of articles reporting on the alarming number of waivers granted by the Clinton administration for burials at the military's most hallowed final resting place. The State Department's inspector general has made a criminal referral to the Justice Department concerning the late ambassador, whose body was removed from the cemetery after it was discovered his World War II record had been faked. Historically, presidents have invoked executive privilege only on rare occasions when the disclosure of presidential communications might undermine national security. Following Nixon's failed assertion of privilege over the Watergate tapes, presidents of both parties have been cautious about resorting to executive privilege. "How these memos involved national security, heaven only knows," says a Capitol Hill source. "I suppose they'll argue they are protecting the 'deliberative process' in the White House." ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 10:38:04 -0500 From: Bill Nalty Subject: CAS: SAFIRE: End the Secrecy http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/09safi.html The New York times April 9, 1998 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE End the Secrecy WASHINGTON -- Never in modern constitutional history has the Federal judiciary so undermined the First Amendment. Six weeks ago, the President made a sweeping assertion in court to create a new privilege of executive secrecy on matters having nothing to do with national security -- and the court let him do it in secret. For the first time, a judge is considering extending this claim of being above the criminal law beyond the President himself, to his wife and everybody on his staff -- in secret. And the legal arguments protesting the closure of hearings surrounding this change in the public access to the official operations of our government have been filed and answered - - -- in secret. Here we have a great constitutional issue involving the usurpation of power. It deserves scholarly debate and a thorough airing. But Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson -- a Carter appointee insecure about public scrutiny of her peremptory rulings on the most profound matters affecting our system of government -- has sealed the constitutional pleadings and, in the President's delighted interpretation, sealed all lips. Judicial secrecy is being used to cloak a reach for greater executive secrecy. The President claims (1) he may delegate, and need not take responsibility for, asserting executive privilege; (2) that the First Lady is a Federal official who may make that claim for herself against criminal investigators; and (3) that his claimed immunity from investigation covers personal wrongdoing as never before contemplated in law. Yesterday, attorneys for a dozen of America's leading news organizations including The Times were at last permitted by a Court of Appeals panel publicly to protest this government in the darkness. Judge Johnson's reason for an iron curtain is to protect grand jury secrecy. But the truth is that the news organizations are not seeking access to proceedings into criminal matters properly guarded by rule 6(e). On the contrary, they want to put on the record substantive legal arguments about the principle of executive privilege -- in which the public has an indisputable right to participate. The judge fears that an occasional need to clear the courtroom to uphold rule 6(e) would be "too disruptive." That's some excuse for subverting the Bill of Rights. The appeals panel, mirroring the widespread hostility toward the media, yesterday seemed to defer to that fear. Who besides the judge opposes public debate about the expansion of Presidential power? Not the Independent Counsel, who we now learn has urged that the court release documents prepared by White House lawyers detailing the President's claims. One party seeking to block serious public discussion of a principle of law affecting the whole American people is the publicity-hungry lawyer for Monica Lewinsky. The other party urging that the public be barred at least until transcripts are delayed and sanitized by the White House is President Clinton, despite his pretense that he knows nothing about the privilege claim only he can make. His lawyers argue that debate about the power claim is inextricably intertwined with Rule 6(e) material. That's a smokescreen. Not only can this constitutional argument be "bifurcated" from the rest of the case, as lawyers say about separation, but capable Federal judges know how to hold trials without divulging genuine national secrets. Grand jury proceedings have long been protected without "disruption" and without denying public access to ancillary hearings dealing with fundamental issues. This usurpation is being kept out of sight because a judge is not prepared to wield a gavel in open court. Forget Clinton; forget sex; forget lying; where are the civil libertarians and strict constructionists who care about equal justice, the separation of powers, the right of the people to have a voice in the great decisions that affect our future? It's been 42 shameful days since the President's secret claim to be more than an ordinary citizen under the law. The last President to claim executive privilege did it in open court. All the briefs were on the record. Judge John Sirica polled the grand jury in open court without "disruption" and the media reported the decision instantly. But that was in another country. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:24:18 -0700 From: Boyd Kneeland Subject: Law vs. executive order Here's my take on the first bit of this message "Law vs. executive order" as sent to my friend Jim. Thought I'd fwd that to the list for heat value. >Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:21:10 -0700 >To: Jimb@wrq.com >From: Boyd Kneeland >Subject: Law vs. executive order >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >Jim, > >>Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 16:33:55 -0500 (CDT) >>From: >>To: restore our constitution , >> against constitutional terrorist >>Subject: Law vs. executive order >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Sender: owner-roc@lists.xmission.com >>Precedence: bulk >>Reply-To: roc@lists.xmission.com > >Paul is a regular on this list, ROC stands for restore our constitution. > > >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>Law vs. executive order >>PTR > >Dunno what either of those mean, exec orders are law BK > >> The U.S. Constitution long ago became a dead document >> in Washington, D.C. But that didn't stop President Clinton >> from giving it another kick Monday. >> >> By executive order, Mr. Clinton blocked the import of 1.6 >> million military-style rifles from American shores as an >> extension to the 1994 congressional ban on "assault >> weapons." With the stroke of a pen, the president >> permanently banned 58 semi-automatic weapons, most of >> them cosmetic variants of AK-47 rifles, that he decided >> had no sporting use on American soil. > >Sporting use is a standard first raised in the gun control act of 32, >there are credible (IMHO) references indicating it was first used as a >"standard" by wich some types of firearms could be regulated and banned in >post Weimar Germany. It became interesting to me last week, when I read an >opinion issued by the BATF that International Practical Shooting >Confederation and specifically it's US sanctioning body the United State >Practical Shooting Association is not "officially" a "sport" recognized by >the Federal Government of the United States (as of that date). > >> "They were never meant for a day in the country and >> they are certainly not meant for a night on the streets," he >> said. The president is right on both counts. Hunting a deer >> with an AK-47 would leave very little edible venison to >> store in the freezer > >Proving that "allies" of the pro gun movement can be it's worst enemies. >AK47's like most military calibers fire small fast bullets that do leave >tissue damage but typically have much -less- energy then the larger (.308 >etc) calibers typically used in hunting. Like hunting has anything to do >with anything. > >>and such a weapon in the hands of >> criminals who prowl at night is indeed a troubling thought. > >Obvious bullshit. Wich would you rather face on a street at night, a doped >up teen swaggering across the street shouting at you, or a doped up teen >swaggering across the street shouting at you carrying a gun that cannot >possibly be concealed? Give me the blood with the rifle -any- day. He's >not gonna know how to hit the broadside of a barn and -I'm- gonna have >plenty of warning of his intentions. This is -typical- of the "regulation" >of firearms in this country. The first GCA was an emotional response to >the St. Valentines day "massacre" and pushed thugs into more accurate >heavier duty weapons (from the wimpish thompson sub gun to colt 45 >handguns and italian sub guns). The Brady law instituted the fastest >buying craze on the publics part in history (before passage) and moved the >buying "fashion" from large (harder to conceal) small caliber high cap >guns back to larger caliber handguns that were extremely concealable after >its passage. Now we hear about laws proposed banning guns as "saturday >night specials" (a racist term) simply on -size-, they couldn't be any >more obvious. > >> But, as usual, Mr. Clinton's clever sound bites miss the >> point. The Second Amendment states that the "right to >> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It says >> nothing about the government having the right to qualify >> certain firearms for the public's use, or to release a list of >> approved hunting weapons. >> >> Further perusal of the Constitution reveals that the >> executive branch does not have the power to legislate by >> whim through executive orders. The National Rifle >> Association promised to pressure Congress to overturn >> Clinton's gun ban. A legislative branch with an >> understanding of constitutional law should not require the >> prodding of the NRA to do its duty and thwart Clinton's >> attempt to exercise absolute power over the citizenry. > >'Course the Birchers would argue about the legislation by whim thing (SA >the martial conspiracy of '33) But I think anyone interested in Liberty of >any kind should be worried about the unconstitutional use of Exective >orders, or Presidential directives as they're now called. >Boyd > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Apr 98 18:58:44 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Fratrum: Plans for Emergency Military Powers and Domestic Control (fwd) On Apr 09, Eugene W. Gross wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Hi Folks, This comes from Gary North's page (http://www.garynorth.com). The actual piece has other links built into the article that I was not able to reproduce here. So, here is the link to the original itself so you can go over and follow the other links contained in the article. I think that this is one that we must pay attention to!! http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/1319 En Agape, Gene The following article appreared in PARAMETERS, the scholarly publication of the Army War College. It appeared in Autumn, 1997. The author is a member of the Judge Advocate General's office.=20 The recent moves to consolidate the National Guard and the Army Reserves into domestic control units are consistent with what appears here.=20 The legal basis of this transformation of the Army is the Stafford Act (1984; amended, 1988). Since 1993, it has been incorporated into Army strategy under the acronym OOTW: operations other than war.=20 Note the importance of FEMA: the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The full text of the Stafford Act is found on FEMA's Web site.=20 The author warns us: "Civilian and military leaders need to expect an increase in domestic deployments of US military forces."=20 Pay careful attention to these words:=20 "Strategic leaders can take solace in the lessons learned from military participation in domestic disaster relief, for the record indicates that legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern. The exigencies of the situation seem to overcome legal proscriptions arguably applicable to our soldiers' conduct. Pragmatism appears to prevail when American soldiers help their fellow citizens."=20 If these words bother you as much as they bother me, why, then, you're obviously an alarmist. And if you pass this information on, you'll become a scaremonger.=20 There's nothing like the fear of becoming a scaremonger that will silence a computer programmer working on y2k who figures out that the problem is systemic, it can't be fixed, and that y2k will create crisis conditions. The programmers' unofficial guild will excommunicate him for raising these questions in public.=20 Given what's coming, this threat should not be perceived by anyone as anything significant. But it is. So, I have wound up as John the Baptist, crying in the wilderness. But it's sure a lot better than crying in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago, where most mainframe programmers live in the U.S.=20 * * * * * * * * *=20 Disaster Relief Operations=20 The US Army had a remarkable experience in responding to the devastating onslaught of Hurricane Andrew in south Florida in August 1992; Hurricane Iniki on the island of Kaui in Hawaii one month later evoked a similar response. Both instances provide ample evidence that there is a reliable mechanism to facilitate the employment of active-duty Army units in times of great national disaster. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1984, as amended in 1988 (42 US Code Section 5121 et seq.), commonly referred to as the Stafford Act after its legislative author, is the authority under which such assistance is provided. The Stafford Act is applicable only within the United States and its territories, and comes into play when a state, usually through its governor, requests a presidential declaration of a state of emergency following a natural disaster. Once a state of emergency is declared, active-duty soldiers can be employed to respond to the crisis under the direction of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These situations present unique legal issues. . . .=20 The unprecedented destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on 19 April 1995, raised another important legal issue affecting disaster relief operations. As one might imagine, all the resources of local, state, and federal government agencies were mobilized to deal with this shocking act of domestic terrorism. FEMA served as the primary focal point of relief operations, and Army assets were provided under the terms of the Stafford Act. FEMA officials were on the scene within hours of the explosion, and specialized rescue teams followed closely. The entire reaction has been categorized as a masterful melding of state and federal resources. However, the internal FEMA report[15] underscores a natural tension between the rescue effort and the FBI which may be increasingly important in the future. The FBI, as part of the Department of Justice, determined that the entire area was a crime scene for the purposes of apprehending and successfully prosecuting the perpetrators of the bombing. The rescue effort's only goal was recovering survivors or their remains. This natural conflict must be resolved in order to facilitate the nation's response to the increasing threat of similar incidents.=20 Strategic leaders can take solace in the lessons learned from military participation in domestic disaster relief, for the record indicates that legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern. The exigencies of the situation seem to overcome legal proscriptions arguably applicable to our soldiers' conduct. Pragmatism appears to prevail when American soldiers help their fellow citizens.=20 Civilian Law Enforcement=20 Military support to law enforcement agencies seemingly will present more problems for senior leaders than those encountered in disaster relief. At first blush, this entire area appears to be outside the scope of military operations. As previously mentioned, the Posse Comitatus Act provides a broad proscription against soldiers enforcing the law. However, subsequent congressional acts granting exceptions to the original prohibition of Posse Comitatus have significantly altered the manner in which the armed forces may assist law enforcement. Congress began to carve out these exceptions in response to the perceived increase in importation and use of destructive illegal drugs. Under more recent legislation, the Army can provide equipment, training, and expert military advice to civilian law enforcement agencies as part of the total effort in the "war on drugs." In addition, troops of the active Army are authorized to provide a wide range of support along the borders with the caveat that a "nexus" be established between illegal drugs and the support given. The principle example of the contentious nature of such support can be found in a review and analysis of the support provided to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) by the Army under the operational control of Joint Task Force 6 (JTF 6), during the siege and assault of David Koresh's Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas. . . .=20 The specter of members of the Army's special operations forces accompanying BATF agents storming a religious compound, however misguided its leader, could have seriously compromised public support of the US Army. Had the initial request been approved (it was) and acted upon (it wasn't), this could easily have been the single most debilitating event to occur within the Army since the tragedy at My Lai. In fact, this occurrence could have been even more egregious because it would have taken place on American soil, would have been a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and would have raised the issue of military involvement in a case of alleged religious freedom. . . .=20 Finally, leaders can take heart from the fact that the training and experience of today's soldiers allow them to make the right decisions in situations fraught with career and personal implications. Granted, in this instance the soldiers were mature commissioned and noncommissioned officers with substantial operational experience. . . The next area of consideration focuses on those discrete instances when the President of the United States relies on his constitutional and statutory authority to maintain public order and domestic tranquillity. Those who consider the Posse Comitatus Act a giant bulwark preventing the Army from enforcing the law will be surprised to learn that the relevant enabling mechanism is fairly straightforward. The language of the act itself specifies that activities expressly authorized by the Constitution or by statute are exempt from the act's restrictions. One such exception is the statutory authority of the President to use federal troops to quell domestic violence. Upon receipt of a proper request for assistance from a state governor, the President issues a proclamation identifying that a breakdown in public order has occurred, and orders the intransigent individuals to disperse. Once it is clear that the order to disperse is not being followed, the President then orders the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, to quell the insurrection and restore public order. This presidential authority to use federal troops is plenary and not subject to judicial review. . . .=20 Counterterrorism=20 The second series of lessons related to the military helping civil law enforcement agencies to maintain public order and domestic tranquillity is derived from the FBI experience at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. It should be noted that the incident at Ruby Ridge was classified as a generic hostage-barricade situation and not a terrorist incident. . . .=20 The UnitedStates has for many years fielded military units specifically equipped and trained to deal with terrorist threats throughout the world. With the growing prospect of terrorism in our own country, the probability of domestic employment of the US military to counter terrorism has grown substantially. The FBI experience at Ruby Ridge provides lessons for such employment. . . .=20 =95 There is a growing awareness that many US law enforcement agencies are ill equipped to deal with heavily armed terrorist organizations. The spectacle of police rushing to a local gun store to borrow high-performance weapons in March 1997 during a shoot-out in California defines the nature of the threat and a possible response to it by the average local police department. We can expect a degree of asymmetry between terrorists and law enforcement personnel that will almost inevitably trigger an intervention by the military. Our police are neither constituted, nor trained, nor equipped to deal with paramilitary assaults on our citizens. Simply stated, the scope of a terrorist action may be beyond the capability and resources of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the preeminent civilian law enforcement entity trained and equipped for this role.=20 =95 The introduction of military units into such situations adds to the difficulty of applying law enforcement standards of self-defense or defense of other agents in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm before using deadly force. If the military is deployed to eliminate terrorists and restore a situation, they must be employed as they have been trained. That training is intended to succeed with minimum friendly casualties using military rules of engagement. Hence any member of a group participating in such an incident on this specific form of battlefield could by definition be considered a threat and subject to attack. . . .=20 Commanders of any unit likely to be committed in aid of domestic law enforcement agencies confronting terrorists will want to ensure that our soldiers are the most capable, best equipped, and best trained they can possibly be. The operational plan will have to be developed, coordinated, and approved at the highest level of government. The final requirement will be for the government to stand behind its decisions and acknowledge errors without attempting to make scapegoats of those at the tactical level. This course of action will allow the United States to apply its military resources successfully in support of civilian law enforcement to meet a very real and growing terrorist threat. . . .=20 Civilian and military leaders need to expect an increase in domestic deployments of US military forces. They need to recognize that each instance of use is accompanied by new and possibly unprecedented challenges. America's leaders should recognize that the relationship between America's Army and the American people is strong but may be compromised. Public confidence in the military can best be maintained by strict adherence to the legal underpinnings governing domestic operations of the armed forces. Applying the lessons learned from the early 1990s will maintain the excellent relationship between the people and the military well into the next century.=20 Link:=20 http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97autumn/lujan.htm [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #108 *************************