<H1 class=firstHeading>Bush Administration War Crimes in Iraq</H1><H3 id=siteSub>From SourceWatch</H3>Jump to: navigation, searchBush Administration War Crimes in Iraq

"A Society of Sheep must in time beget a Government of Wolves" -- Bertrand de Jouvenal The War Crimes Roundtable consists of the following Iraq and International Law scholars: Francis A. Boyle, Michael Mandel, Liz Holtzman, H. Victor Conde, and author Mark Levine.[1]

NB: The following is non-copyrighted and edited material with supplementary contributions relating to discussions on the potential culpability re war crimes committed by the Bush administration in Iraq: The specific legal definition of a war crime is most simply a criminal act in violation of the international Law of War. Conceptually, a war crime is derived from the limitation on the use of force by states and other parties to preserve a certain amount of humanity in armed conflict. For example, the Law of Armed Conflict is an attempt to preserve balance between the needs of military leaders to effectively carry out their military operations, what is called "military necessity" on the one hand, and the horrors of war and protection of humanity. War crimes are thus violations of the principle of humanity, including inflicting unnecessary suffering and harm, and interfering with normal functioning of a society during a military occupation, all of which are not accepted as legitimate actions by a combatant or a belligerent occupier. What we're talking about here also involves the principle of reciprocity: We want our civilians and soldiers who are captured to be treated in a humane manner. Thus, it's in our interest to do the same to captured enemy combatants and civilians, as we have increasingly seen more civilians than soldiers taken. Moreover, history has proven that when a state's military acts within the confines of international law, it makes for a more efficient military force - you waste fewer resources than when it gets chaotic, excessively harmful savage and brutal. Subsequently, you leave a less destructive aftermath, making it easier for the countries or groups involved to return more quickly to normal lives. Commission of war crimes is important because such acts cause more death, more destruction, more suffering, and more waste of resources, seldom with any significant military benefit.

In my own research on war crimes committed by US forces in Iraq, I counted at least two-dozen classes of offenses systematically committed by the Occupation administration and US or US-allied military forces in the invasion and subsequent period of CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) rule. This includes violations of articles and 17, 18, 33, and 147 of the Geneva Convention covering the killing, hostage-taking and torturing of civilians.[2] Subsequent to these acts the so-called insurgency has become more aggressive brutal in all types of hostilities, including incidents that the United States would simply brush off as "collateral damage".

1. The President and senior administration and/or government officials could be subject to the death penalty for war crimes committed by US personnel in Iraq assuming that they directed or authorized murder, torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners or, if they permitted such conduct to continue after they became aware of the abuse. The statute applies to "any US national" and there is no other limitation with regard prosecution. But getting these ‘high officials’ prosecuted would be no easy matter, even if their conduct fell well within the ambit of the statute.

Under the War Crimes Act of 1996[4] there are two sets of questions to determine potential criminal liability of high government officials, including the President: 1. What did they specifically order or authorize regarding interrogations of Iraqi prisoners and 2. Assuming they did not order or authorize murder, torture or inhuman treatment, what actions did they undertake once they knew of murder, torture and inhuman treatment; under international law, once a government official is aware of profound abuses of human rights, then that official has every duty to effectively act to stop them.

The Bush Administration has failed to release any information about the President's (and other high officials) orders with regard to the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Questions concerning what Bush knew about the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, when did he know it, and what did he do to stop it have never been addressed in any public forum. We know for example that Colin Powell advised the President on International Red Cross complaints re prisoner abuse, and the questions arise: when did that briefing occur? What was the President told about the Red Cross complaints and what did he do in response? This information must be disclosed by President Bush since the Fourth Geneva Convention directly addresses the matter of Red Cross access to prisoners and verification by the Red Cross that prisoners are treated humanely. [3]

But the most important issue is, legally and morally, who initiated the unlawful invasion of Iraq and why. We think we know the answers, but the reasons must be formally documented and entered into testimony by witnesses such as George Bush. Bush is certainly a key witness for deposition and if the Special Prosecutor rule had not lapsed after the excesses of Kenneth Starr then we might have a chance at prosecuting George Bush and others, or at least submit Bush to a discovery process as a witness to these crimes.

So we return to the fact that the invasion of Iraq was a "crime against peace", which is the number one count and criteria in the Nuremberg Charter for indictment of the Nazi war criminals:

..'planning, preparation, initiation [and] waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties' - international treaties just like the Charter of the United Nations. It's what the Nuremberg Tribunal called "the supreme international crime." The President was made aware of this by a great number of international lawyers around the world before the invasion, and even if he claimed ignorance, I'm sure he's heard that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Bush and his administration and the US commanders involved are all guilty of this supreme crime. Since the war was unlawful, the many thousands of deaths predictably resulting from it are also crimes, murder in fact, for which Bush and his officials and commanders are certainly guilty in flagrante.

The Bush administration charges that the Iraq War was authorized by the US Congress, but the military action in Iraq is still illegal under international law. So what does that really mean? Right now there is no institution capable of punishing this supreme crime, a state of affairs that the Bush regime continues to exploit. Even the International Criminal Court (of which the United States opted out) left out the supreme crime against peace of waging an aggressive so-called ‘pre-emptive’ war without qualification. So how do we enforce the law with regard to Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith and the other perpetrators of these Iraqi war crimes?

When Belgium tried to prosecute Ariel Sharon as a war criminal, and then Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld and then Bush himself, the US government forced Belgium to repeal its 'universal jurisdiction' law -- and in fact Belgium’s law was repealed and replaced by a watered-down version. When Spain tried to apply its law of universal jurisdiction against Pinochet, the UK ignored its extradition treaties and sent him home to a safe retirement.

The United States already has a statute on the books relevant to US criminal acts in repeated abuse of Iraqi prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions; the question is, how can that statute be made to work, particularly in light of inhuman treatment of so many Iraqi prisoners in US custody - in some cases resulting in death.

Legal scholars and experts in International Criminal Law are presently researching the idea of a legal brief that sets forth the potential for criminal/legal liability on the part of top Bush Administration officials including President Bush himself. Such a brief will define the need for an independent, non-Justice Department-led investigation which will educate the press, the public, and Congress to the point where enough pressure builds for serious investigations to begin. Members of Congress, for example, could call on disclosure of information about the President’s knowledge and authorization of illegal Iraqi interrogations. For example, when was Bush informed about the Iraqi prisoner abuses, and what did he do to stop the abuse, and did he ever authorize the torture of prisoners.

Congress could also call upon the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the President. Under such auspices key members of the Bush administration will be questioned about non-disclosure on Bush’s authorization of illegal Iraqi interrogations; likewise the Attorney Generally will be formally questioned about the appointment of a Special Prosecutor and the official's own statements concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in tandem with questions concerning prisoner abuse in Iraq and other oustanding questions relating to International Criminal law.

2. According to US Army Field Manual 27-10 the chain of command itself determines accountability for war crimes, with the highest participating officer to be held most accountable. Specifically, paragraph 501 in the manual states that commanders who order criminal abuse (or who knew about such criminal abuse and then consequently failed to stop or report it) are then guilty of war crimes. If you look at the public record it is clear that Gens. Sanchez and Miller ordered war crimes and both should be relieved of their command immediately: abuse of prisoners is in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

As for General Abizaid, the overall commander of US forces in Southwest Asia, he admitted in his Senate hearings that he should have known about the war crimes being committed at Abu Ghraib, so he has incriminated himself under the rules of the US Army Field Manual 27-10. In addition, Abizaid's superiors Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz certainly knew about the abuses at Abu Ghraib. So, by any reading of the public record (including the Taguba and Red Cross reports) it can be shown that this group of high officials either knew about the crimes at Abu Ghraib or should have known about them.

If you read the ICRC report (which has never been contradicted) at the Mejia court-martial proceedings, the widespread and systematic nature of these abuses rise to the level of crimes versus humanity, escalating throughout the chain of command. Culpability also extends to Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence General William G. Boykin and Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone, who reports directly to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. And through this line it appears that Rumsfeld is ultimately culpable, because he witnessed the abuses at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003. Hersch's New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib claims with substantiation that Rumsfeld was totally aware of the abuse and he even signed off on the use of torture techniques. Rumsfeld was given a tour by Brig. General Janet Karpinski, who was supposed to be in charge of the prison (even though she said nothing when she was prohibited access to certain parts of the prison) and so Karpinski is accountable.

It is important to understand that the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations of 1907, and the U.S. Army Field Manual all mandate that a criminal investigation must be opened with regard to ongoing prisoner abuses. [2] President Bush, as Commander in Chief, is equally accountable under Field Manual 27-10 precisely because of his position. If you read White House Counsel's (Alberto Gonzales) memo on prisoner abuse and interrogation in Afghanistan, he specifically exempts the US from the Geneva Conventions for Guantanamo and Afghanistan, so it is clear that the President was - and is - aware of this exposure. Gonzales was apparently concerned about Bush's future exposure when held accountable for Iraqi prisoner abuse under the terms of military law.

The potential commission of war crimes in Iraq calls for due diligence and a criminal investigation of the President and high officials. An impeachment venue is not appropriate since impeachment involves a political process and Bush's alleged war crimes have not been perpetrated in isolation; ultimately George W Bush's crimes are collective crimes versus humanity involving at least as many Defendants as appeared at the Nuremburg trials. The Iraq fiasco and mistreatment of prisoners certainly qualify as "high crimes" in which President Bush and/or his staff may be implicated, the only doubt concerns the manner in which President Bush and his co-conspirators might be investigated, indicted and tried for their crimes versus humanity as the alleged proponents of an unlawful and brutal war resulting in war crimes. If proven, President Bush could only perpetrate his crimes with the assistance of others, while he aided and abetted others in a collective conspiracy to commit crimes versus humanity. So once again we must consider that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and others bear an equal brunt in the stakes for accountability.

3. The US did not exempt itself from the Geneva Conventions with regard to the Iraq war and there is no question that US activities in Iraq are governed by the Geneva Conventions. Once the Geneva Conventions apply, so does the War Crimes Act of 1996 [4] which is a US criminal statute and not an international statute. Like bank robbery, murder on federal property and many other crimes listed in Title 18 of the federal statutes, committing a war crime is a federal crime which may be prosecuted in US federal courts. This point is clear, from the language of the War Crimes Act itself, and from White House Counsel Gonzales' January 2002 memo to President Bush - that memo was premised on the idea that so long as the Geneva Conventions applied to conduct in any country, then the War Crimes Act also applied. Opting out of the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales thought, might allow top US officials to argue that the War Crimes Act didn't apply, and allow them to escape prosecution. (The validity of the "opt out" gimmick has yet to be tested.)

Under the terms of the War Crimes Act of 1996,[4] any US national who engages in war crimes is subject to imprisonment, and if death results, subject to the death penalty. A war crime is defined in the statute as a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, which in turn means "murder, torture or inhuman treatment" of prisoners or detainees. Thus, theoretically at least, everyone up the chain of command, including the President, could be liable under the War Crimes Act for ordering or engaging in murder, torture or the inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq. Because there is no statute of limitations in death penalty cases, prosecutions of those who authorized or engaged in murder or authorized or engaged in torture or inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners that resulted in death could be commenced at any time in the future.

The question remains as to how an executive Special Prosecutor may actually be appointed to begin his or her investigations of President Bush with immediate effect. Since the United States government is now a quasi-Corporate entity itself and since mega-Corporations control the media and not the people, it is unlikely that calls for a Special Prosecutor and/or Bush's indictment [if applicable] will originate with the media; certainly as a political act in a Congress controlled by Republicans the odds that Congress may appoint a Special Prosecutor become very slim. Another idea is to convene an international war crimes tribunal, however it is unlikely that any foreign nation[s] would undertake a perceived political action with potentially negative long-term political effects since Bush is now a lame duck/temporary executive.

It is possible that a US-based war crimes tribunal could be undertaken within the context of the judicial branch review with military participation in a venue most similar to courts-martial. This is a precedent-setting case and a theoretical situation where such legal action would require precedent-setting actions in a spectrum spanning legal scholars [and experts in international law] to the Supreme Court and the military courts-martial for all participants from the President on down. In other words, such action would take place behind closed doors in a sealed Grand Jury type of venue. The possibility of such action depends upon applicability of the War Crimes Act of 1996. [4]

The American people must be informed that there is a War Crimes Act[4] that applies to the President and his top officials with respect to prisoner abuse in Iraq, and the American people must determine that everyone who violated the War Crimes Act and other laws with regard to Iraqi abuses must be held accountable and punished if convicted. The principle that no one is above the law, including the President (and especially the President) was established with the Watergate conspiracy. If there is a serious investigation of wrongdoing with respect to Iraqi abuses it will have a limiting effect on the willingness of future administrations to engage in the kinds of abuses that the Bush administration has already, apparently, perpetrated.

The Iraq war is illegal, and the US Congress did not have the right under international law to authorize a preemptive, aggressive war without any justification. All citizens should read, inter alia, the preamble and Articles 2.4, and 51 of the UN Charter. The preamble states that:

“We the Peoples of the United Nations, Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person,..., and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, ..., and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest...Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims,....” Article 2.4 of the Charter states that “All [UN] members shall refrain in their international relations from the treat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Article 51 of the Charter says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

The idea to indict Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and others for their war crimes may seem fantastic now, but in 1985 who could have known that the corrupt Soviet leadership would be out of business merely six years later? We must begin our preparations and groundwork to bring President Bush and his cohorts to justice by a jury of their peers in a legal venue that does not rely upon the impeachment of one individual in this collective matter, and we must begin the preparations now.

[edit]
Cited References

• [1] War Crimes Roundtable:

Mark Levine: Professor, Dept. of History, UC Irvine, author of Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the ‘Axis of Evil’. Francis A. Boyle: Professor of Law, University of Illinois, is author of Foundations of World Order, Duke University Press, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, and Palestine, Palestinians and International Law. Michael Mandel: professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law. Liz Holtzman House of Representatives, D-NY. H. Victor Condé teaches International Human Rights Law at Trinity International University in California and at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

• [2] From the 4th Geneva Convention:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ( taking of hostages; © outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

• [3] Article 11 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions:

If protection cannot be arranged accordingly, the Detaining Power shall request or shall accept, subject to the provisions of this Article, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.

• [4] War Crimes of 1996, US House of Representatives Legislation.

TBC.

[edit]
Related SourceWatch Resources

• Abu Ghraib: Accountability
• Abu Ghraib: Interrogation Methods and Legal Issues
• Abu Ghraib: The Rumsfeld Factor
• Abu Ghraib: What Did 'They' Know and 'When' Did They Know It?
• Afghanistan detainee abuse scandal
• Iraqi detainee abuse scandal
• Legal Arguments for Avoiding the Jurisdiction of the Geneva Conventions
• Office of Military Commissions
• President's Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism

[edit]
Related External Links

• Greg Moses, <A class="external text" title=http://counterpunch.org/moses08042005.html href="http://counterpunch.org/moses08042005.html" rel=nofollow>"A Cell in Huntsville, Texas. Bush Teaches Intelligent Design in Prison," CounterPunch, August 4, 2005.
• Paul Craig Roberts, "Bush Turns His Terror War on the Homeland. Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecution," CounterPunch, August 29, 2006.
• Marjorie Cohn, "Donald Rumsfeld: The War Crimes Case," The Jurist, November 9, 2006. re former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
• Adam Zagorin, "Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse. A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo," TIME Magazine, November 10, 2006.
• "Rumsfeld, others sued for 'war crimes'," UPI, November 14, 2006.
• Patrick Cockburn, "The Waco of Iraq? US 'Victory' Against Cult Leader was a Massacre," CounterPunch, January 31, 2007.
• "Media uncritically reported Bush's statement touting Iraqi success in Najaf," Media Matters for America, January 31, 2007.
• "Doubts over battle with messianic cult," UPI, January 31, 2007.
• Dahr Jamail and Ali Al-Fadhily, "Government Lies Over Najaf 'Cult' Battle Exposed," Inter Press Service (AlterNet), February 2, 2007.

Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Crimes_in_Iraq"Categories: War/peace | War crimes | War in Iraq | Scandals | Civil liberties (U.S.)

The formal war in Iraq has ended, and most of the big guns have fallen silent. Yet the death toll continues to rise, not merely because of the brutality of occupation and the resistance, but because of one of the most heinous, unpredictable weapons of modern war-the cluster bomb.

All over Iraq, unexploded cluster bombs, originally dropped by U.S. troops in populated areas, are still killing and maiming civilians, farm animals, wildlife-any living thing that touches them by accident.

Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

A cluster bomb is a 14-foot weapon that weighs about 1,000 pounds. When it explodes it sprays hundreds of smaller bomblets over an area the size of two or three football fields. The bomblets are bright yellow and look like beer cans. And because they look like playthings, thousands of children have been killed by dormant bomblets in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq. Each bomblet sprays flying shards of metal that can tear through a quarter inch of steel.

The failure rate, the unexploded rate, is very high, often around 15 to 20 percent. When bomblets fail to detonate on the first round, they become land mines that explode on simple touch at any time.

Human Rights Watch reports that 1600 Kuwaiti and Iraqi civilians have been killed, many more injured, by explosive duds following the Persian Gulf war.

Under the Geneva Conventions, cluster bombs are criminal weapons because it is impossible to use them in significant numbers without indiscriminate effects.

In the war in Bosnia in 1995, Major General Michael Ryan recognized the inherent danger to civilians and, out of respect for the laws of war, prohibited the use of cluster bombs in the European theatre. According to Air Force reports, "The problem was that the fragmentation pattern was too large to sufficiently limit collateral damage and there was also the further problem of potential unexploded ordinance."

A U.N. clearance expert said that "our experience in Kosovo showed us that children and youths are highly susceptible to the submunitions."

There is a humanitarian crisis in every country where the U.S. dropped cluster bombs-in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions on Civilians, the Occupying Power has a responsibility to return evacuated personnel to their homes at the end of hostilities-a responsibility which live cluster bombs make impossible to fulfill. Thousands of displaced persons in Afghanistan cannot return to their homes because their farms, houses and villages are replete with unexploded bomblets.

Before the invasion of Iraq, Human Rights Watch called for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs. Human Rights director Steve Close predicted that "Iraqi civilians will be paying the price with their lives and limbs for many years." A U.N. weapons commission described cluster bombs as "weapons of indiscriminate effects."

In defiance of U.N. reports, Air Force studies, and repeated warnings from Human Rights Watch, Rumsfeld reauthorized the expanded use of cluster bombs with full knowledge of their indiscriminate and treacherous results.

The consequences of his war crime, as reported by international journalists and photographers, are appalling.

On April 10th Asia Times described the carnage of U.S. cluster bombs. "All over Baghdad, the city's five main hospitals simply cannot cope with an avalanche of civilian casualties. Doctors can't get to the hospitals because of the bombing. Dr. Osama Saleh-al-Deleimi at the al-Kindi hospital confirms the absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of...shrapnel and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs. 'They are all civilians, ' he said. 'The International Committee of the Red Cross is in a state of almost desperation...casualties arriving at hospitals at a rate of as many as 100 per hour and at least 100 per day.'"

Anton Antonowicz reported in The Mirror (U.K.) from a hospital in Hillah: "Among the 168 patients I counted, not one was being treated for bullet wounds. All of them, men, women, children, bore the wounds of bomb shrapnel. It peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reported that 'All the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs...The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside.'"

Reporting from Baghdad March 27th, Doug Johnson wrote: "I'm overwhelmed and tired. For three days now I've concentrated on visiting injured civilians in hospitals and seeing bombed sites. This morning we interviewed an extended family of 25 that had been living in six houses together on one farm just outside of Baghdad. At 6:00 p.m. yesterday, B-52s dropped cluster bombs on their farm destroying all six houses, killing four and severely injuring many others. Even the farm animals were killed. We were told that the yellow cylinders landed in their yard, and when they and the animals crept closer to investigate, the bombs detonated."

During the invasion of Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld lauded the accuracy of stealth bombers and missiles-a boast met with mockery in the streets of Baghdad. But whatever we think about Rumsfeld's humanitarian missiles, he cannot plead ignorance about the traits and effects of cluster bombs. Ever since the Vietnam catastrophe, from the hospitals of Saigon to the clinics of Afghanistan, into the wailing hospitals of Iraq, doctors have been digging shrapnel out of the maimed bodies of once-playful children all around the world. Cluster bombs were always known for their inaccuracy, their indiscriminate and unpredictable nature.

Regarding the use of cluster bombs, among other war crimes--the use of depleted uranium, "the wanton destruction of cities and towns," collective reprisals against civilians in Operation Hammer--the U.S. media is still silent. Years ago in the midst of France's brutal war in Algeria, the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre admonished the French intelligentsia: "It is not right, my fellow-countrymen, you who know very well all the crimes committed in our name. It's not at all right that you do not breathe a word about them to anyone, not even to your own soul, for fear of having to stand in judgment of yourself. I am willing to believe that at the beginning you did not realize what was happening; later, you doubted whether such things could be true; but now you know, and still you hold your tongues."

<DIV class="clear knockdown"><script type=text/javascript> var stats_project_image_src = "http://entry-stats.huffingtonpost.com/?95305&" + Math.random().toString(16).replace('0.','') + '&'; if (document.referrer != '') { stats_project_image_src += escape(document.referrer); } document.write('

Nice job bonehead, that one didnt work

There has been some discussion in the media lately about a North American Union to replace the USA.

www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965

Or you can google "North American Union."

Associated with such an alleged agenda is the plan to replace the Dollar with the 'Amero.'

www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017

Google "The Amero."

Predictably, certain individuals are alarmed by the prospect of replacing the Dollar with another currency called the Amero.

www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27266405.shtml

As a line in the above National Ledger article reads, "Our currency will be replaced with the "Amero." And, we'll be one giant step closer to the U.N.'s perverse dream of a one-world government."

Whether or not there is any truth that some individuals or groups would like to economically or politically unify Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the peripheral alarm regarding the replacement of the Dollar with a currency named the "Amero" is worth exploring.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the expression, "Our currency...." That is an interesting choice of words. This phrase implies that the currency of the Federal Reserve System is ours, yet, somehow the Amero currency of the North American Union would not be ours and therefore be objectionable.

The second thing that jumps out at me is the expression, "...will be replaced...;" My choice of words would have been, "has been replaced."

Let's hypothesize that Federal Reserve System currency is already not ours.

Let's hypothesize that our currency has long since been replaced.

Here is how it was done.

THIS WAS OUR CURRENCY. Figure 1 is a picture of what certainly used to be our currency, our current coin, before it was switched with Federal Reserve debt. Below is ONE DOLLAR of silver.





Figure 1.

The coin pictured above is exactly what the U.S. Constitution mandates we citizens of the United States of America use as money. The laws, and the code, of the United States of America at that time sustained the circulation and use of this piece and others like it as money. Does anyone bother to respect the Constitution anymore? Our money was not debt. It was wealth. It was born of nature and worked by the National mint into what it is. It was an asset which was not simultaneously someone else's liability. Debt freedom, once achieved, was much closer to absolute under such a money system. It bore no interest except when its owner consented to lend it to a borrower for a rate of return. When it was spent, it was considered at common law that a debt was paid. And it respected the tradition from time immemorial that in exchange, value would be exchanged for value; it was equitable. When it was saved, instead of spent, it preserved the wealth of the saver, who could reasonably expect prices to be within reasonable range of what they were when the coin was saved.

"As banker Vince Rossiter has pointed out, 'from 1814 to 1913, the U.S. fought four wars, enjoyed greater increases in population than any other nation in the world, suffered significant short-term inflation and deflation at intervals, and still it was possible to buy substantially the same basket of food in 1913 for approximately the same price that it cost in 1814, 100 years earlier.' " (1.)

Try and do that now, with the base year of 1974, for example. You'll find it takes multiples the money to buy the same item.

Our currency enjoyed the protection of the law and counterfeiters faced capital punishment. Coin clipping, shaving, sweating, mixing with base metals, all being ways in which kings and princes cheated the public, even our own government was prohibited from such activities.

And Figure 2 is another picture of what used to be our currency, our current coin. Below is one dollar of gold.





Figure 2.

Paper money was in use and that was acceptable as long at the paper promised to pay gold or silver coin on demand. If the paper circulated, then the coin it represented was on deposit; if the coin was circulating, then the paper was not circulating. The silver and gold certificate was a token, but a lawful claim on the real coin. See Figures 3 and 4.





Figure 3.

It is not easy to see but it reads, "This Certifies That There Has Been Deposited In The Treasury Of The United States Of America Payable To The Bearer On Demand One Silver Dollar." This was our money. And so was the following. It is accurate enough to call this a "promise to pay" because it does indeed promise to pay something, dollars in coin. It was an evidence of debt only in the sense that the Treasury owed the bearer the specified coin, on demand. See Figure 3.





Figure 4.

Again, it is not easy to see but it reads, "This Certifies That There Has Been Deposited In The Treasury Of The United States Of America Payable To The Bearer On Demand Twenty Dollars In Gold Coin." This was our money. It is indeed a promise to pay. Spending a silver or gold certificate was acceptable because, although it was a money substitute, it was a reliable and dependable proxy for coin. See Figure 4.

By law, the SUBSTANCE of OUR money was gold and silver bullion, and the LAWS of money in the United States made gold and silver coin LAWFUL MONEY.

Where do you find such specimens of money today? In coin shops and personal collections.

What we had then (gold, silver coin) was replaced with what is today in your pocket and your bank account. Today, we use THEIR money. You cannot tell me that Federal Reserve Notes are our money. The Constitution does not contemplate them. The First Money Act of April 2, 1792 does not contemplate them. The code of the United States for most of our history does not contemplate them. It is not our money. It doesn't matter that it has been around since granddad was a young man. Crime has been around for a long time too. The long lived perpetration of a wrong does not lend it legitimacy. It is alien to the Constitution, and our money is effectively in exile. Their money resembles ours, more or less, if you need glasses or don't read; there are pictures of our dead Presidents on it. Many Americans simply believe it is our currency because that is the way it has been since their birth, and they don't know what they are looking at. Or they do and do not distinguish between real value and debt. We, including those of us who know better, begrudgingly use it mainly because our own government refuses to follow the Constitution on the money issue. And we must use something so we use this. Our government has long since bought into central banking with debt-based irredeemable paper. If you want to read why, look up Alan Greenspan's essay, "Gold and Economic Freedom," which gives as good an explanation as any: it is the easiest way to set up and maintain a socialist welfare state.

There is no SUBSTANCE associated with their money. It may read X Dollars on the face, but dollars of what? Above you saw a dollar of gold and a dollar of silver. Above you saw gold and silver certificates that promised on demand to pay a dollar of silver or ten dollars of gold. A Dollar was a unit of value that related precious metal to a weight measured in grains.

"The central idea of the American money system is the 'dollar.' What is a dollar? This question has been the subject of volumes of discussion. The answer to the question has become involved in a wilderness of theory---lost in a maze of abstractions---as a result of which the reader is led to believe that there is great difficulty in understanding just what a dollar is. Fortunately, we do not have to read all this literature and wrestle with all the hypothetical problems propounded. The whole matter is settled by one section of the United States statutes. The Act of February 12, 1873 (Sec. 14), establishes "25.8 grains of gold" 900/1000 fine (or 23.22 grains of fine gold), which bears the required stamp and impress. The statute says that this is a dollar---not that it resembles a dollar, or that, for the purposes of discussion, it may be considered a dollar, but that it is a dollar. Furthermore, the statute again cuts off all controversy regarding the worth of a dollar; for it says that the dollar (the printed piece of gold containing 25.8 grains of gold 900/1000 fine) 'shall be the unit of value' in our money system." (2.) This is our money.

But a Federal Reserve Note is not that which was just described; it doesn't even come close. It is not a dollar. It is not any number of dollars. It is a mere slip of paper signifying nothing more than a way by which to discharge your tax liabilities, with the right to spend your surplus slips of paper on other things as if they were lawful money of gold and silver. So the One Dollar Federal Reserve Note, for example, is not one dollar, but claims to be on its face. Is that a lie? In my world it is. Thou shall not bear false witness. Even if the Act of February 12, 1873 wasn't perfect, and needed revising or fine tuning, who can imagine how we in this nation went from a dollar of the above description, to throwing it all out and then adopting the current fiat paper dollar of no legal description other than the vague, "it is an obligation of the United States," as the new central idea in the American money system?

The Federal Reserve Note, which is their money is not even a promise to pay. It makes no promise at all. Read any bill, you will not find any promise. What is in your pocket or your bank account is debt. As a nation, we have borrowed our own tax coupons and in commerce we accept and use them as if they were money. You do not own your currency free and clear. Borrowed first by the national government, it automatically arrives to the American people with interest due. It is a fiduciary asset which is absolutely simultaneously someone else's interest-bearing liability. It bears interest for the benefit of its issuer and creator, the central banks and their stockholders, the instant it goes into circulation. The central bank, which supplanted the existing system---which was unique and American---was modeled after the Bank of England. "The Creature From Jekyll Island," by E. G. Griffin, explains how that happened. Does that sound like our system? Yet when you lend your own money today, as a private lender, you are lending someone else's debt. And when you spend it, you are discharging your immediate debt. When you accept it someone else's immediate debt to you is discharged. But our collective perpetual debt remains. All debts become relative with our government being a first-level debtor, and we citizens being second-level; third-level debtors depending on how our borrowing is structured. The game we play is to cleverly move debts around until we have what we want and hopefully don't find ourselves insolvent at some point. Even if you are technically debt free, all mortgages paid off and car loans too, you are responsible, in the eyes of the government, for your share of the national debt. Your debt freedom is relative, not absolute. How do you know they won't come to you at any time to call for the principal, or principal and remaining interest? Do you have that guarantee? And being on the hook for a share of the national debt; and knowing that your children will also be so burdened; and knowing that all the currency that we use is borrowed, how could anyone refer to the currency we use today as our currency?

You may not be directly paying interest on the national debt, but you are, now, indirectly paying interest on our unpayable perpetual national debt to our creditors by way of your taxes. And you will continue to pay, to an even greater degree, to the one world government if and when it gets here. One final observation about their money, it has the tendency to lose its purchasing power relatively fast. Not as fast as some inflations, to be fair. However, nickel's worth of American money in 1913 could buy approximately what a paper fiat dollar buys today. And next year, the inflation calculators on the internet will have even worse to report about the purchasing power of their money. Savers who save in terms of their dollars lose more wealth over time. This loss of wealth to savers is a continuation, as of 1913, of the tradition of coin clipping and shaving.

"....Henry VIII debased the coins. In those days they didn't have computers, so the rascal prince simply shaved the coins when he wanted to cheat the public. Nowadays we punch a few figures into a giant computer at Culpepper, Virginia and create federal notes, bills, and bonds, and float these out into the financial community so reserves can follow a certain formula, and money can be created via the creation of loans. When you create money this way you inflate to the extent this money isn't answered by earned income. This is our modern method of shaving coins." (3.)

It is difficult to imagine the level of intrigue that must have gone on as they, the early central bankers, the financiers to the world, persuaded our government to incrementally dismantle the Constitutional monetary system that was working as it should have, and replace it with a system entirely based on debt.

What we have today (their money) is exactly what the Amero would be except it would have different printing on the paper and it would be intended to circulate among three nations, or substates, whereas the paper of the Federal Reserve System is more or less designed for the United States. The printing, "The United States of America," the portraits of the dead presidents, at worst makes Mexicans and Canadians who handle US Dollars feel they are handling another nation's or central bank's currency, and they are. Yet, changing the name to the "Amero" and putting other faces than our dead presidents or, emulating the Euro, no face at all on the bills would only allow our neighbors to believe the currency is of their nation, or Union if that is what is coming. Nothing will have changed in the nature of the money. It will still signify a debt to the central bank monopoly. And, should such a Union succeed, you might imagine that it would be even harder to repair the damage done and return to a Constitutional money system, if such a thing were not already impossible.

In the final analysis, no one should be worried about our money being replaced with the Amero, because (A) the coin money of the Constitution as already been replaced and we have been using their irredeemable debt-based money for a long, long time. We are using exactly the money that the bankers, not the founding fathers, would have us use. The move from the above shown coin money of the Constitution, to that of the Federal Reserve System was unimaginably VAST in terms of its legal, financial, and sovereignty implications. And ( we are not really being threatened with a second replacement, but only a cosmetic alteration to make it psychologically acceptable to this so-called "Union."

To rephrase substantially the line in the National Register article that started all this inquiry: The plan to replace gold and silver coin with central bank debt was the necessary giant step closer to socialism's perverse dream of a one-world government. Socialism is not new. It goes back to the mid 1800's. They've had since their beginning, their agenda for the supremacy of the state and the limitation of individual property rights and individual liberties. A depreciated paper currency and State control of credit has always been part of their agenda. It is pointless to be alarmed about the Amero today with no way to go back to the gold and silver coin of the U.S. Constitution as the national money. It is as insignificant as changing the designs that appear on our copper quarters.

Home » Personal Finance
Europe has the Euro. Are you ready for The Amero?
31 comments

Posted April 4, 2007 - 09:47 by Paul Michael

Filed Under: Personal Finance



Hold onto your hats. (Or should that be dollars?) The Amero is coming. I’ve heard a lot of talk over the last few years about a new currency called the Amero that will replace dollars and pesos.

I thought at first it was just conjecture and gossip, but the more I have researched it, the more I believe it is not only real…but coming soon. And as a writer who has your best monetary interests at heart, I feel you need to know at least a little about this.

A North American Union (NAU) with a common currency is not a new idea. Herbert G. Grubel, a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute, came out with a book entitled “The Case for the Amero” in September of 1999. But the mass media has largely ignored it, with both the supporters and critics of the plan being relegated to obscure talk radio and Internet sites (hopefully, this one doesn’t fall into the latter).

However, since 1999 a case has been building for the new currency, and some believe the current administration is setting the stage for the introduction of the Amero very soon, as soon as 2010 some believe. The lack of serious intervention on illegal immigration coupled with the continued devaluation of the dollar and its weakness in the world economy is in fact the perfect place to set the foundation for a new currency. Or so I’ve been told by various economists with far more smarts than myself.

The Security And Prosperity Partnership Of North America.
This is where many people believe the Amero will stem from. This is not a phantom organization or conspiracy theory, the SPP exists and you can view it yourselves at www.spp.gov . It was a 'dialogue' (some say agreement) between President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox to enhance security and prosperity among the three nations (prosperity for whom is obviously debatable).

What you’ll notice is that the SPP is a trilateral partnership established to keep North America a safe and secure place to live and work. So why the open borders and lack of serious control on illegal immigration? Surely such a plan would involve tighter security, not weaker.

Well, it comes down to this. If there is a plan in the works to create a union of Canada, the USA and Mexico, the last thing you’d want to do is close the borders. Quite the opposite. You want open borders. It’s good for business. And as we all know, big business and large multi-national corporations are always looking for new ways to make a profit. The NAU and the Amero is one such way.

The AMERO – who benefits?
That’s the big question. Now, in Europe the Euro was not such a bad idea (although I know many people who disagree). The countries of Europe are all fairly well matched economically. So, it made sense to simply create a Euro and encourage cost-effective trade between all the separate nations (of course my home country Great Britain is still being difficult…as we always are). It also reduced a whole bunch of costs associated with exchange rates, fees and so forth.

However, Canada, the USA and Mexico are hardly the same economically. For a world super-power like the USA to consider diluting its economy with that of Canada and a ‘third world’ nation like Mexico, rife with corruption, seems at first ill-conceived. Unless, of course, the ultimate goal is to create “corporatism” – the merger of big business with big government (and something Mussolini referred to as the foundation of fascism).

Basically, with the NAU, multinationals are dealing with one currency (the Amero), one controlling entity (government) and one set of rules for all. And the benefit? Simple. To enable the sale, purchase and movement of goods across the former three nations effortlessly and cheaply. And let’s not forget the creation of a super-cheap workforce and the eventual destruction of the middle class (which is already happening).

As you can tell, I’m clearly not a supporter of the NAU. But I’m not a supporter of any policy that seeks to make the rich even richer, and make a profit at the expense of the public. As Tom DeWeese wrote in his article for the American Policy Center, “The SPP is not about free trade. Its use of public/private partnerships creates an elite of certain, chosen global corporations which basically become part of government at the expense of their competition and our national independence.”

The NAFTA Super Highway.
Also known as the Trans Texas Corridor, this is another huge benefit to big corporations that would be made possible by the NAU and the Amero.



It is basically a massive super-highway, ten lanes wide, with rail lines, utility corridors and natural gas and oil power lines running down the center. It’s purpose? To transport containers loaded in foreign lands (Indonesia, China etc) from Mexican ports, through the USA and up to Canada with massively reduced transportation costs. Such a move would only decrease the security of America, to such an extent that the borders would literally be wiped out. And the flood of Mexican trucks using the highway would not be required to meet current US standards of safety. Getting the picture? At the end of the day, the Amero is a move to will make a select few so rich, they’ll make Bill Gates look like a welfare case. Money is power…and ultimately, that’s what this is all about.

What can you do about it?
Well, keeping yourselves informed is the first step. I haven’t even scratched the surface here. So far, the public has been kept in the dark about the Amero and the NAU, and before you get a chance to protest you’ll be spending you new, devalued currency and wondering what happened.

Here are the links to several sites you can read. I have included information that’s both for and against the NAU and Amero, you are all smart people, you can chew the facts over and make up your own minds.

More reading.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017

http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/about/about.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/cri...ues/1999/amero/

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/security.htm

http://www.spp.gov/security_agenda/index.a...security_agenda

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=50618

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/buildi..._community.html

http://www.spp.gov/report_to_leaders/index...port_to_leaders

http://www.canadians.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497

http://www.answers.com/topic/security-and-...f-north-america

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna9.htm

http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo06/850105007_e.html

http://www.prosperitypartnership.org/

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/tag/borders-and-immigration/page/2/ ://http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/...ration/page/2/

http://www.american.edu/TED/dollar.htm

digg_url = 'http://www.wisebread.com/europe-has-the-euro-are-you-ready-for-the-amero';digg_title = "Europe has the Euro. Are you ready for The Amero?";digg_bodytext = "Hold onto your hats. (Or should that be dollars?) The Amero is coming. I’ve heard a lot of talk over the last few years about a new currency called the Amero that will replace dollars and pesos. ";digg_skin = 'standard';

It's gonna take more than a few long ass articles to kill the endless thread.
In the mean time...

The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries' leaders, but the NAU's central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.

If you haven't heard about the NAU, that may be because its plotters have succeeded in keeping it secret. Or, more likely, because there is no such thing. Government officials say a continental union is out of the question, and economists and political analysts overwhelmingly agree that there will not be a North American Union in our lifetimes. But belief in the NAU - that the plans are very real, and that the nation is poised to lose its independence - has been spreading from its origins in the conservative fringe, coloring political press conferences and candidate question-and-answer sessions, and reaching a kind of critical mass on the campaign trail. Republican presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul has made the North American Union one of his central issues.

As fears of the mythical NAU grow, they appear to be subtly shaping more mainstream debates about immigration and trade. Paul's fellow Republican congressman Virgil Goode introduced a congressional resolution early this year to block the creation of the NAU and the "NAFTA Superhighway System." Similar resolutions have been introduced in several state legislatures - in Montana's case, the resolution passed nearly unanimously. And back in July, the US House of Representatives easily approved a measure that would cut off federal funds for an existing trade group set up by the three countries.

The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan, and gives a glimpse of where, politically, many Americans are right now: alarmed over immigration, worried about globalization, and - on both sides of the partisan divide - suspicious of the Bush administration's expansive understanding of executive power.Continued...

The belief in an imminent North American Union, says Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of a 2001 book on conspiracy theories, "reflects the particular ways in which Americans feel besieged economically, powerless politically, and alienated socially."

. . .

As a social anxiety, the NAU's roots run deep. Global government and elites who secretly sell out their own citizenry have long been staples of conspiracy theories, thanks in part to the Book of Revelation's warning that world government will be an early indicator of the Apocalypse. Over the centuries, the world's puppeteers have been thought to be, in turn, the Bavarian Illuminati, the Freemasons, the pope, the Jews, international bankers, the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Rockefellers, and the Communist International.

For most of the 20th century, American conspiracy theories tended to focus on communist infiltration of the upper echelons of the US government. The founder of the John Birch Society, a leading source of such imagined schemes, accused President Dwight Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, among many others, of being communist agents.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union, the one country that has actually challenged American global preeminence in the postwar period, forced a conceptual adjustment among the conspiracy-minded. In the past two decades, the United Nations and trade groups like the World Trade Organization have figured more prominently in their dark visions. "In the 1990s in particular, with the militia movement, you had all the rumors of black helicopters and jackbooted UN troops," says Chip Berlet, an analyst at the liberal, Somerville-based think tank Political Research Associates. "There was this sense that the secret elites behind the UN were the same secret elites who had been behind the Soviet Union."

Recently, other threads have emerged. The 1994 birth of NAFTA gave new strength to worries that free trade would cripple the American middle class. In the past two years, immigration has once again thrust itself into the national political discussion. And the once-mighty dollar has entered a steady decline that shows no signs of ending - in sharp contrast to the strength of the euro, the new currency of an economically united Europe.

In March 2005, those seemingly disparate worries found a banner under which they could unite. President Bush, along with then-President Vicente Fox of Mexico and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, held a summit in Waco, Texas, and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a framework for greater continental cooperation on trade and security issues.

Alarmed at the fact that the United States had entered into the arrangement without explicit congressional approval, and by what they saw as a lack of public detail about the meetings, a few conservative activists became convinced that the SPP was the first step in a secret plan to dissolve the three nations into one continental unit. Their suspicions were further inflamed when, two months later, a working group at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank long viewed with suspicion by the conspiratorial fringe, published a report called "Building a North American Community." The report recommended the establishment of a common North American security perimeter, the development of biometric North American border passes, and the adoption of a common North American tariff.

One of the vice chairs of the council's working group was a political science professor at American University and former Carter administration official named Robert Pastor. In 2001, Pastor had written a book arguing for greater economic integration between the three North American nations - and specifically discussed the possibility that the nations could jointly adopt an amero currency.

A fully realized theory was born. In the fall of 2006, Phyllis Schlafly, along with the conservative author Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips, founder of an organization called the Conservative Caucus, started a website dedicated to quashing the coming North American "Socialist mega-state."

If the anti-NAU cause has a prophet, it is Corsi. In 2004, Corsi was a leading spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; last year, he co-wrote a book on the Minuteman Project with its founder, Jim Gilchrist. Earlier this year Corsi published a book, "The Late Great U.S.A.," and it was here - and in his columns on the conservative websites WorldNetDaily and Human Events - that the NAU conspiracy theory emerged in full flower.

A new continental government will grow out of the tri-national working groups set up by the SPP, complete with bureaucratic agencies outranking the three national legislatures, and a North American Court able to overrule national courts. There is talk, Corsi writes, of issuing North American passports, and of meshing the three nations' militaries. And the infrastructural backbone of the sprawling new superstate is already being built: The NAFTA Superhighway, a "four-football-fields wide" Mississippi of concrete and rail along which goods, cheap labor, narcotics, terrorists, and pandemics will flow unimpeded from Mexico (and, via Mexico's Pacific ports, from China) into the United States and on to Canada.

Corsi said in an interview that his belief in the NAU stemmed from his realization that it was the only logical explanation for the Bush administration's refusal to police the US-Mexico border adequately. "I kept asking myself why, six years into the war on terror, was Bush not securing the border?" he said.

When he heard about the SPP, he had his answer: Bush, bent on creating the NAU, saw the border as a near-anachronism, fated for irrelevance in a North American superstate.

"He's creating a fait accompli," said Corsi. "First you change the North American reality, then you can change the regulations."

Corsi's warning cry and gift for detail have given the theory traction in circles where anxieties about immigration and corporate oligarchy intersect. Lou Dobbs, whose CNN show portrays both free trade and increased immigration as sops to multinational corporations and body blows to the middle class, has devoted investigative segments to the NAU, the amero, and the NAFTA Superhighway. The John Birch Society a month ago devoted an entire issue of its magazine to the NAU.

The coin designer Daniel Carr, who created the New York and Rhode Island state quarters, has minted a series of copper and silver ameros, in denominations from one up to one thousand, and is selling them online to raise awareness of the issue. And a year ago on CNBC, a financial analyst named Steve Previs, from the investment bank Jefferies International, caused a minor stir when he called the amero "the one thing that nobody's talking about that I think is going to have a big impact on everybody's life in Canada, the US, and Mexico." (Asked about his comments recently, he said that, while he was happy to "get the message out," what he said had also been "not a joke, exactly, but a way of deflecting a hard question about the behavior of the dollar.")

. . .

So how real is the NAU? In the literal sense, not very. Its underpinnings turn out to be a hodgepodge of mostly unconnected facts and suppositions. But the very existence of the theory is starting to have an influence of its own, and the concerns it represents suggest a new kind of anxiety that crosses traditional political boundaries.

The SPP does exist, and its tri-national task forces continue to meet, but its members consider it a way for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to collaborate on issues such as customs, environmental and safety regulations, narcotics smuggling, and terrorism. The amero, on the other hand, appears to be purely theoretical. It was first proposed in 1999 by a Canadian economist named Herbert Grubel, when the euro was first entering circulation. Grubel says he did manage to interest Vicente Fox in the idea, but whenever he brought up the topic with American officials, he recalls, he got nowhere. "There wouldn't be very much benefit for the United States" in an amero, he concedes.

The NAFTA Superhighway has a more complicated origin. One piece is a nonprofit organization, called the North America's Supercorridor Coalition, or NASCO, dedicated to ensuring the efficiency and safety of some of the country's major truck trade routes - a map from the organization's website has shown up on NAU watchdog websites, erroneously labeled the blueprint for the NAFTA Superhighway. Another is a controversial toll highway that Texas is considering building to accommodate the sharp increase in freight traffic brought by NAFTA.

These constituent parts are a long way from the many-tentacled conspiracy that Corsi and other see. But the theory still has managed to make itself felt.

Frank Conde, the director of communications for NASCO, believes that fears of an NAU are preventing the North American countries from having long-overdue discussions. US-Mexico trade has quadrupled since 1993, and at $540 billion, the US-Canada trading relationship is the largest in the world. He argues that making economic relations among the three nations more efficient is no more than responsible stewardship.

"This country has never really had a national strategy to service the huge increase in trade that came about as a part of NAFTA," he says. "The worst damage that [anti-NAU activists] are doing is distracting political leaders at all levels, and preventing us from putting together that policy."

In a deeper sense, the apprehension and anger that sustain the NAU rumors are quite real. For all their talk about national threats, national sovereignty, and national strength, conspiracy theories are usually more about individual powerlessness, says the University of Florida's Fenster. They are a form of political populism, with its suspicion of concentrations of control and its sense that ordinary people are being shut out of the decision-making process. And the issues around which those theories grow up are as good a Rorschach as any, not so much of people's concern about their country overall, but about their own place in it.

The surprising prevalence of NAU suspicions also suggests a desire for fresh thinking from America's two major political parties. In the United States, trade and immigration divide more along class lines than party lines: wealthy Democrats and Republicans tend to support free trade and more immigration, poorer Democrats and Republicans don't. In neatly linking free trade and increased immigration together into one international plot, the NAU has the potential to appeal to both left and right.

Indeed, while the threat of a continental merger is, in the United States, primarily a conservative concern, in Canada it has its greatest resonance on the left, where it is seen as an attempt by American business interests to take over our northern neighbor, dismantle its social services, and privatize its abundant natural resources. The Council of Canadians, a progressive advocacy group that claims more than 100,000 members, has made the threat of "deep integration" with the United States one of its central causes.

To some analysts, it's a sign of how far apprehension about globalization - whether of money or people or goods - has spread. "It's easier to blame the North American Union, or some world government, than an increasingly globalized market," says Pepper Culpepper, an associate professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

With US trade projected to grow even faster in the coming years, the economic dislocations, and the resulting anxieties, are likely to increase. So while the North American Union may not exist, we surely haven't heard the last of it.

Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

No way...never...I wouldn't lay one of those double entendres on you for free.

Biography of Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Vice President Richard B. Cheney has had a distinguished career as a businessman and public servant, serving four Presidents and as an elected official. Throughout his service, Mr. Cheney served with duty, honor, and unwavering leadership, gaining him the respect of the American people during trying military times.

Mr. Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, on January 30, 1941 and grew up in Casper, Wyoming. He earned his bachelor's and master's of arts degrees from the University of Wyoming. His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.

Jurors convict Libby on four of five charges

Cheney’s ex-aide faces jail time in CIA leak case; sentencing set for June
Jason Reed / ReutersI. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, arrives at court in Washington on Tuesday.getCSS("3088867")Video: Libby verdict TODAYEyes on White House after Libby verdict
March 7: The White House is facing a barrage of questions following the conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying and obstructing justice in the CIA leak case. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.Russert discusses Libby guilty verdict'Scooter' Libby found guiltyDrama inside the courtroom'It seemed like he was the fall guy''We are gratified by the jury’s verdict'Libby to appeal guilty verdict'This is a stunning verdict'The cloud over Dick CheneyLibby found guilty on 4 countsgetCSS("3088874")Interactive Decision ’08 leaderboard
See who’s leading in the delegate count in the race for the presidency.NBC News

getCSS("3053751") CartoonsThe week in political cartoons

getCSS("3053751")Bill pitches popular voteClinton argues Native rights, electabilityDay in Delegates: Obama 1-0getCSS("6228225")PRIMETIME VIDEO: LIBBY VERDICTJuror says Libby should be pardonedJuror No. 10 speaksFree Scooter?Joe Wilson reacts to verdictThe big pictureCloud over CheneyWhat’s next?Libby’s defense to ask for new trialJudith Miller's attorney reactsHow Libby will be rememberedReporter Matt Cooper on Libby verdictReporter Matt Cooper’s atty. reactsFallout for Dick Cheneyvar tcdacmd="dt";NBC News and news servicesupdated 6:18 p.m. PT, Tues., March. 6, 2007 function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633088306878200000'); WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing a leak investigation that reached into the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Libby is the highest-ranking White House official to be convicted of a felony since the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s. The case brought new attention to the Bush administration's much-criticized handling of weapons of mass destruction intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

The verdict culminated a nearly four-year investigation into how CIA official Valerie Plame's name was leaked to reporters in 2003. The trial revealed that top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.

<H2 class=title>White House staff looking to depart ‘sooner rather than later.’»</H2>U.S. News reports, “[M]any senior and midlevel White House and administration officials are looking to land private-sector jobs sooner rather than later. And some officials report having a hard time recruiting replacements for those who are leaving. ‘I guess it’s just not attractive enough or they don’t see the value in it for your résumé,’ says a senior administration official who works for a top cabinet department.”

White House Offices



Advance
The Office of Presidential Advance coordinates all logistical arrangements for Presidential visits.

Cabinet Liaison
The Office of Cabinet Liaison is the primary point of contact between the White House, Cabinet members and executive agency heads.

White House Counsel
The Counsel's office advises the President on all legal issues concerning the President and the White House.

Communications
The Communications Office is responsible for the planning and production of the President's media events.

Correspondence
The Office of Presidential Correspondence receives, responds to, and processes all correspondence addressed to President George W. Bush.

Domestic Policy Council
The Domestic Policy Council coordinates the policy-making process with respect to domestic issues and ensures that domestic policy decisions and programs are effective and consistent with the President's stated goals.

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) coordinates efforts to empower community and faith-based organizations working to confront poverty and social needs. The OFBCI focuses on both policy development and community outreach.

Fellows
The White House Fellows Office oversees the application, selection, and placement process of each class of White House Fellows, and the day-to-day operation of the program. The office also plans, coordinates, and hosts activities that comprise the White House Fellows Education Program.

Intergovernmental Affairs
Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) serves as the President's liaison to state, local, and tribal governments.

Legislative Affairs
The Office of Legislative Affairs serves as the President’s liaison to the United States Congress.

Mrs. Bush's Office
This office promotes Mrs. Bush's initiatives and projects, publicizes events involving the First Lady to the national and international media, assists Mrs. Bush in planning her schedule of activities, and assists with her correspondence with the public.

National Economic Council
The National Economic Council coordinates the economic policy-making process with respect to domestic and international economic issues. This office ensures that economic policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President's stated goals, and ensures those goals are effectively pursued.

Office of the Vice President
The Vice President's Office assists and advises the Vice President in his executive and legislative duties. The Vice President's staff provides support on domestic policy, national security affairs, legislative affairs, communications, scheduling, and advance.

Political Affairs
The Office of Political Affairs ensures that the executive branch and the President are aware of the concerns of the American citizen.

Public Liaison
The Office of Public Liaison promotes Presidential priorities through outreach to concerned constituencies and public interest groups. This includes planning White House briefings, meetings, and large events with the President, Vice President, and other White House staff.

Photo Office
The White House Photo Office photographically documents and maintains an archive of official events of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Mrs. Cheney.

Presidential Personnel
The Presidential Personnel Office recruits, screens, and recommends qualified candidates for Presidential appointments to Federal departments and agencies.

Scheduling
The Presidential Scheduling Office is responsible for the planning, organization, and implementation of the President's daily and long-range schedules. All requests for appointments, meetings, or events with the President are directed through this office.

Speechwriting
The Office of Speechwriting is charged with crafting the President's message in formal speeches and other remarks.

Strategic Initiatives
The Office of Strategic Initiatives plans, develops, and coordinates a long-range strategy for achieving Presidential priorities. The office conducts research and assists in message development.

Travel Office
The Travel Office provides logistical travel support for the President, First Lady, Vice President, and the White House Press Corps (when they accompany). This office works closely with the Office of Presidential Advance, White House Press Office and members of the White House Press Corps.

USA Freedom Corps
USA Freedom Corps encourages Americans to answer President Bush's Call to Service, works to strengthen national service programs, and helps establish new volunteer initiatives to serve community needs. www.usafreedomcorps.gov

White House Management
The White House Management Office manages the daily operations and administration for the White House Offices. This includes budget, purchasing, facility and asset management, travel and other administrative support for the White House staff.

White House Personnel
The Personnel Office manages placement, benefits, and other employment matters concerning White House staff. In addition, this office oversees the White House Intern Program. Visitors Office
The Visitors Office coordinates White House Tours and other special events at the White House for thousands of guests annually.

Mexican press attache caught stealing pocketful of White House staff BlackBerry handsets
Posted by Will on Friday, April 25th, 2008 at 2:06 pm under Random

Alleged handset theft happens all the time, it's the reason we should all keep our precious mobile phones guarded at all times. But, that bit of common sense seems to have been too much for the White House. Apparently, heightened security measures required that White House staff leave their sensitive-data-filled BlackBerries on an unattended table outside a conference room where the Mexican delegation was meeting with President Bush. The opportunity to make off with a few of these handsets was just too much for Rafael Quintero Curiel, who left the conference early and swiped said BlackBerries.

Rafael Quintero Curiel, lead press attache for the Mexican media delegation, was caught on camera stuffing his pockets with as many BlackBerry handsets as would fit. He promptly headed to the airport before the Secret Service intervened.

Curiel was apprehended and confronted by the Secret Service, upon which the Mexican press attache claimed it was all an accident - he thought the phones were left behind and was merely trying to return them to their rightful owners. Curiel was released on diplomatic immunity and sent on his way south of the border. The Mexican Embassy has issued a statement that Curiel was to tender his resignation upon returning to Mexico City.

[Via: FOX News]

Former Bush chief strategist Karl Rove deliberately declined to deny his involvement in the controversial prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Alabama Governor whose arrest on grounds of corruption appeared politically motivated.

In an at times dismissive interview with ABC's "This Week" Rove said that he would not respond to a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee imploring his testimony in the Siegelman case. Asked if he had ever made contact with the Justice Department, the man known as Bush's brain said:

"I read about -- I'm going to simply say what I've said before, which is I found out about Don Siegelman's investigation and indictment by reading it in the newspaper."

"But that's not a denial," said the host George Stephanopoulos.

"I've -- you know, I read - I heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper," Rove replied.

Siegelman was sentenced to more than seven years in prison in 2006 under a bribery conviction. But his case had heavy hints of political motivation. Recently, a Republican campaign volunteer issued sworn testimony that she overheard a phone conversation suggesting Rove was linked to his case.

Rove's refusal to explicitly deny an involvement in the Siegelman affair was not his only newsworthy moment Sunday. Earlier in the interview, he denied that he was serving as an "informal adviser" to Sen. John McCain, saying, simply, that he and the candidate exchanged "chit chat."

Later, he was asked to explain why his vision for an "endurable" Republican majority - a political game plan that he helped put in place following George Bush's election in 2000 - had sputtered so miserably. Acknowledging that the GOP was "in a bad place today," Rove nevertheless refused to bear any burden for the party's woes, chalking it up to historical cycles and an overeager press hell bent on ginning up scandal.

"Let's go back to 2006 for just a minute since this was your jumping off point. Remember, this is an average off-year election. If you look at the second midterm elections of presidents, the White House party loses an average of 29 seats in the house and five seats in the senate. We lost 30 in the house and six in the senate. And we lost them by awful slim numbers. Out of over 80 million votes cast in U.S. house races the Republicans... lost by 85,000 votes. We lost control of the Senate by 3,562 votes in Montana. Now, we lost. I don't disagree, we lost. But let's put it in proper context. This was a very narrow defeat. In fact, if you look at it the Democrats were very smart. They ran culturally conservative candidates and accentuated one issue for the house. Scandals... The war, if you take a look at people who voted Republican in '04 who voted Democrat in '06 for congress, the number one issue was scandals."

"You're just not going to look backward, are you?" asked a somewhat flummoxed Stephanopoulos

"Well, look, elections are about the future," Rove replied. "And the answer -- the question -- the answer to your question is what do you do in order to put yourself in a better place in and the way you put yourself in a better place is to talk about the things that got you there in the first place."

IntradeIowa ElectronicNews FuturesCandidatePriceChangePriceChangePriceChangeBarack Obama 91.40-0.10091.20+0.00196.00-1.000Hillary Clinton 7.70-0.3006.00-0.0075.00+1.000Al Gore 2.10-0.500n/an/a1.00+0.000John Edwards 0.20+0.0000.30+0.0001.00+0.000Bill Richardson 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aBrian Schweitzer 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aChris Dodd 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aDennis Kucinich 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aEd Rendell 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aEvan Bayh 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aHarold Ford 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aHoward Dean 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aJoe Biden 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aJohn Kerry 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aJon Corzine 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aJoseph Lieberman 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aMark Warner 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aMike Easley 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aPat Leahy 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aPhil Bredesen 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aRod R Blagojevich 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aRuss Feingold 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aTom Daschle 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aTom Vilsack 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aWesley Clark 0.10+0.000n/an/an/an/aNote: Click a market name in the above table to see a graph of those movements (which are updated once an hour).