2.
NAFTA
on steroids
C
oupling the perennial issue of security
with Wall Street’s measures of
prosperity, the leaders of the three North
American nations convened the Security
and Prosperity Partnership. The White
House–led initiative — launched at a
March 23, 2005, meeting of President
Bush, Mexico’s then-president Vicente
Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul
Martin — joins beefed-up commerce with
coordinated military operations to promote
what it calls “borderless unity.”
Critics call it “NAFTA on steroids.”
However, unlike NAFTA, the SPP was
formed in secret, without public input.
“The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even
a signed agreement,” Laura Carlsen wrote
in a report for the Center for International
Policy. “All these would require public
debate and participation of Congress,
both of which the SPP has scrupulously
avoided.”
Instead the SPP has a special workgroup:
the North American Competitiveness
Council. It’s a coalition of private
companies that are, according to the SPP
Web site, “adding high-level business input
[that] will assist governments in enhancing
North America’s competitive position and
engage the private sector as partners in
fi nding solutions.”
The NACC includes the Chevron
Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
General Electric, Lockheed Martin
Corporation, Merck & Co. Inc., New York
Life Insurance Co., Procter & Gamble Co.,
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
“Where are the environmental council,
the labor council, and the citizen’s council
in this process?” Carlsen asked.
A look at NAFTA’s unpopularity
among citizens in all three nations is
evidence of why its expansion would need
to be disguised. “It’s a scheme to create a
borderless North American Union under
U.S. control without barriers to trade and
capital fl ows for corporate giants, mainly
U.S. ones,” wrote Steven Lendman in Global
Research. “It’s also to insure America gets
free and unlimited access to Canadian and
Mexican resources, mainly oil, and in the
case of Canada, water as well.”
3.
community, asking them to tip off the feds
in exchange for preferential treatment in
the event of a crisis. “The members of this
rapidly growing group, called InfraGard,
receive secret warnings of terrorist threats
before the public does — and, at least on
one occasion, before elected offi cials,”
Matthew Rothschild wrote in the March
2008 issue of The Progressive.
InfraGard was created in 1996 in
Cleveland as part of an FBI probe into
cyberthreats. Yet after 9/11, membership
jumped from 1,700 to more than 23,000, and
now includes 350 of the nation’s Fortune
500 companies. Members typically have a
stake in one of several crucial infrastructure
industries, including agriculture, banking,
defense, energy, food, telecommunications,
law enforcement, and transportation. The
group’s 86 chapters coordinate with 56
FBI fi eld offi ces nationwide.
While FBI Director Robert Mueller
has said he considers this segment of the
private sector “the fi rst line of defense,”
the American Civil Liberties Union issued
a grave warning about the potential for
abuse. “There is evidence that InfraGard
may be closer to a corporate TIPS program,
turning private-sector corporations — some
of which may be in a position to observe
the activities of millions of individual
customers — into surrogate eyes and ears
for the FBI,” it cautioned in an August
2004 report.
“The FBI should not be creating a
privileged class of Americans who get
special treatment,” Jay Stanley, public
education director of the ACLU’s
technology and liberty program, told
Rothschild.
4.
T
ILEA: training
ground for
illegal wars
he School of the Americas earned an
unsavory reputation in Latin America
after many graduates of the Fort Benning,
Ga., facility turned into counterinsurgency
death squad leaders. So the International
Law Enforcement Academy recently
installed by the U.S. in El Salvador —
which looks, acts, and smells like the SOA
— is also drawing scorn.
The school, which opened in June 2005
before the Salvadoran National Assembly
approved it, has a satellite operation in Peru
and is funded with $3.6 million from the
U.S. Treasury and staffed with instructors
from the DEA, ICE, and FBI. It’s tasked
with training 1,500 police offi cers, judges,
prosecutors, and other law enforcement
agents in counterterrorism techniques per
year. It’s stated purpose is to make Latin
America “safe for foreign investment” by
“providing regional security and economic
stability and combating crime.”
ILEAs aren’t new, but past schools
located in Hungary, Thailand, Botswana,
and Roswell, N.M., haven’t been terribly
controversial. Yet Salvadoran human rights
organizers take issue with the fact that, in
true SOA fashion, the ILEA releases neither
information about its curriculum nor a list
of students and graduates. Additionally,
the way the school slipped into existence
without public oversight has raised ire.
As Wes Enzinna noted in a North
American Congress on Latin America
report, when the U.S. decided it wanted
a training ground in Latin America, El
Salvador was not the fi rst choice. In 2002
U.S. offi cials selected Costa Rica as host
— a country that doesn’t even have an
army. The local government signed on
and the plan made headlines. But when
citizens learned about it, they revolted
and demanded the government change
the agreement. The U.S. bailed for a more
discreet second attempt in El Salvador.
“Members of the U.S. Congress were
not briefed about the academy, nor was
the main opposition party in El Salvador,
the Farabundo Martí-National Liberation
Front (FMLN),” Enzinna wrote.
Now, after more than three years in
operation, critics point out that Salvadoran
police, who account for 25 percent of the
graduates, have become more violent. A
May 2007 report by Tutela Legal implicated
Salvadoran National Police (PNC) offi cers
in eight death squad–style assassinations
in 2006.
5.
Seizing
protest
P
rotesting war could get you into big
trouble, according to a critical read of
two executive orders recently signed by
President Bush. The fi rst, issued July 17,
2007, and titled, “Blocking property of
certain persons who threaten stabilization
efforts in Iraq,” allows the feds to seize
assets from anyone who “directly or
indirectly” poses a risk to the U.S. war in
Iraq. And, citing the modern technological
ease of transferring funds and assets, the
order states that no prior notice is necessary
before the raid.
On Aug. 1, Bush signed another
order, similar but directed toward
anyone undermining the “sovereignty of
Lebanon or its democratic processes and
institutions.” In this case, the secretary of
the Treasury can seize the assets of anyone
perceived as posing a risk of violence,
as well as the assets of their spouses and
dependents, and bans them from receiving
any humanitarian aid.
Critics say the orders bypass the right to
due process and the vague language makes
manipulation and abuse possible. Protesting
the war could be perceived as undermining
or threatening U.S. efforts in Iraq. “This is
so sweeping, it’s staggering,” said Bruce
Fein, a former Reagan administration
offi cial in the Justice Department who
editorialized against it in the Washington
Times. “It expands beyond terrorism,
beyond seeking to use violence or the
threat of violence to cower or intimidate a
population.”
PAT KINSELLA
Brutality during these house searches
has been documented by returning soldiers,
Iraqi civilians, and independent journalists
(See #9 below). Schwartz suggests the
aggressive “element of surprise” tactics
employed by soldiers is likely resulting
in several thousands of deaths a day that
either go unreported or are categorized as
insurgent casualties.
A February 2007 AP poll showed
Americans gave a median estimate of 9,890
Iraqi deaths as a result of the war, a number
far below that cited in any credible study.
InfraGard
guards itself
T
he FBI and Department of Homeland
Security have effectively deputized
23,000 members of the business
WWW.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM • BLOGS.EUGENEWEEKLY.COM
EUGENE WEEKLY JANUARY 8, 2009 13