Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stanley Scoop 09 July 2004 Morning Edition

Expand Messages
  • rick@stanley2002.org
    Rick Stanley Constitutional Activist Phone: 303-329-0481 Email: rick@stanley2002.org Stanley Scoop 09 July 2004 Morning Edition
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 9, 2004
      Rick Stanley
      Constitutional Activist
      Phone: 303-329-0481
      Email: rick@...

      Stanley Scoop 09 July 2004 Morning Edition
      ** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org **
      ** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! **
      In This Issue:
      1: The Constitution of No Authority No Treason: XIX
      2: The Constitution of No Authority No Treason: APPENDIX.
      3: Crossing the threshold (continued)
      4: Why We Need Martial Law ??????
      5: Crossing the threshold p3
      6: Court rejects request for ID checks at tent city
      7: Swiss Government moves to stamp out moonlighting
      8: The Hitler Project - Astonishing Revelations!
      9: Crossing the threshold p4
      10: Using RFID to Manage Evacuations wink-wink
      11: Ethics of Liberty
      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      1: The Constitution of No Authority No Treason: XIX

      The Constitution of No Authority.

      No Treason: XIX

      Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The
      difference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no
      visible, permanent head, or chief, of these robbers and murderers, who call
      themselves "the government." That is to say, there is no one man, who calls
      himself the state, or even emperor, king, or sovereign; no one who claims
      that he and his children rule "by the Grace of God," by "Divine Right," or
      by special appointment from Heaven. There are only certain men, who call
      themselves presidents, senators, and representatives, and claim to be the
      authorized agents, for the time being, or for certain short periods, of all
      "the people of the United States"; but who can show no credentials, or
      powers of attorney, or any other open, authentic evidence that they are so;
      and who notoriously are not so; but are really only the agents of a secret
      band of robbers and murderers, whom they themselves do not know, and have
      no means of knowing, individually; but who, they trust, will openly or
      secretly, when the crisis comes, sustain them in all their usurpations and

      What is important to be noticed is, that these so-called presidents,
      senators, and representatives, these pretended agents of all "the people of
      the United States," the moment their exactions meet with any formidable
      resistance from any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like
      their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders of
      blood money, for the means to sustain their power. And they borrow their
      money on the same principle, and for the same purpose, viz., to be expended
      in shooting down all those "people of the United States"--their own
      constituents and principals, as they profess to call them--who resist the
      robberies and enslavement which these borrowers of the money are practising
      upon them. And they expect to repay the loans, if at all, only from the
      proceeds of the future robberies, which they anticipate it will be easy for
      them and their successors to perpetrate through a long series of years,
      upon their pretended principals, if they can but shoot down now some
      hundreds of thousands of them, and thus strike terror into the rest.

      Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the
      globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are
      the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives;
      that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and
      representatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of,
      or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to
      lend their money for the war. In proof of all this, look at the following

      Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have got rid of all that
      religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood in
      Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their authority directly from
      Heaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the
      people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments
      could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the voluntary support,
      of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have known
      long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the
      maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we had
      professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity
      and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of
      Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of
      priests and kings.

      Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed,
      for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series
      of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the
      slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and
      justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices for a
      purely pecuniary consideration, to wit, a control of the markets in the
      South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders
      themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and
      merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war).
      And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of
      blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the
      slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary consideration. But the
      slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or
      feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without
      Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men
      demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future--that is, to
      monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and
      commercial control over the South--that these Northern manufacturers and
      merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war,
      in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the
      future. These--and not any love of liberty or justice--were the motives on
      which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said
      to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of
      your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the
      same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against
      you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the
      control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that
      purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may.

      On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty,
      or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates
      of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of
      the war were accomplished.

      And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government,
      so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to
      extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the
      South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and
      unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest--enormous as the
      latter was--are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be
      paid still further--and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid--by such
      tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize
      enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking
      as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the
      industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In
      short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the
      people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders
      of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in
      return for the money lent for the war.

      This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their
      sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war, and charge him to
      carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says:
      "Let us have peace."

      The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we
      have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist,
      the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the
      South, will furnish the means again to subdue you.

      These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few
      exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people.

      The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been,
      and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to
      monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency,
      and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the
      laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today
      the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know
      that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their
      credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in
      the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon
      them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and their
      crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they
      have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they
      have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National
      Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to
      be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting
      it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"

      By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves,
      open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith
      with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the
      great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate,
      from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all
      their loans, principal and interest.

      The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or
      justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of
      "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and
      murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one
      resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of
      maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any
      love of liberty in general--not as an act of justice to the black man
      himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his
      assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had
      undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and
      industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the
      people, both white and black. And yet these impostors now cry out that they
      have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man--although that was not
      the motive of the war--as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone
      for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate,
      and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There
      was no difference of principle--but only of degree--between the slavery
      they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to
      preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for
      the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ
      from each other only in degree.

      If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or
      justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who
      want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not
      want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they
      said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war
      would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever
      had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of
      free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over,
      if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers,
      robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and
      destroy them.

      Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now
      establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of
      consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a
      government of consent, is this--that it is one to which everybody must
      consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was
      carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called

      Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our
      Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them
      they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power
      over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an
      enslaved and subjugated people--or as if any people kept in subjection by
      the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter)--could be
      said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious
      Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious,
      that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union
      between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are

      All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the
      country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of
      consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross,
      shameless, transparent cheats--so transparent that they ought to deceive no
      one--when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that
      has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of
      the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not

      The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue
      to pay "national debts," so-called--that is, so long as they are such dupes
      and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and
      murdered--so long there will be enough to lend the money for those
      purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be
      hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay
      for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease
      to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money
      loan-mongers for masters.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      2: The Constitution of No Authority No Treason: APPENDIX.

      The Constitution of No Authority.

      No Treason: APPENDIX.

      Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody,
      as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon
      nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be
      expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point
      of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning,
      as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that,
      in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally
      been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked
      usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and
      almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports
      to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to
      prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one
      thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such
      a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either
      case, it is unfit to exist.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      3: Crossing the threshold (continued)


      ON THE MORNING of June 10, 2002, criminal-defense attorney Donna Newman was
      driving to work. In the Manhattan federal courthouse where she was headed,
      Judge Michael Mukasey’s calendar indicated that her client Jose Padilla, a
      Brooklyn-born US citizen who had been jailed for nearly a month as a
      "material witness" for a federal grand jury, would appear for a hearing the
      next day, in which Mukasey would consider whether Padilla’s continued
      detention was justified. Then Newman’s cell phone rang: late the night
      before, military officials had come to Padilla’s cell and — without
      informing Newman — spirited him away to a Naval brig in Charleston, South
      Carolina, where he was being held incommunicado. Newman later told Time
      magazine she was incredulous — "This has never happened to anybody before"
      — and couldn’t help thinking it was a joke. But in a press conference later
      that day (broadcast, with insufficient attention to appearances, from
      Moscow), Attorney General Ashcroft announced that the president had
      classified Padilla an enemy combatant because he was "a United States
      citizen who had joined the enemy" by conspiring with Al Qaeda officials to
      detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" somewhere in the United States.

      After unsuccessfully seeking information about Padilla’s status from the
      Department of Defense, Newman hastily drafted a petition for a writ of
      habeas corpus on Padilla’s behalf, arguing that this military detention
      violated his constitutional rights and asking the court to order him
      released from military custody and returned to New York. The following
      morning, still denied information about her client’s status beyond what she
      could get from news reports, she filed the petition with Judge Mukasey.

      Holding civilians in military custody is not entirely new, but it is
      extremely rare. In the past, it has also been limited in duration and
      subject to oversight by the courts. But grabbing both foreign nationals and
      US citizens, placing them in military custody, denying them access to
      friends, family, and attorneys, and then attempting to shield their jailers
      from judicial (and public) scrutiny is simply unprecedented.

      The Justice Department has argued that Padilla’s detention is a matter for
      military decision-making and that respect for the separation of powers
      requires the courts to avoid inquiring too deeply. In words reminiscent of
      Orwellian Newspeak, the DOJ responded to Padilla’s habeas corpus petition
      this way: "The Court owes the executive branch great deference in matters
      of national security and military affairs, and deference is particularly
      warranted in respect to the exceptionally sensitive and important
      determination [of enemy-combatant status] at issue here." In other words, a
      constitutional right that only Congress can suspend and that assures an
      arrestee judicial review can be thwarted solely on the say-so of the branch
      holding him prisoner — and that for the judiciary to second-guess the
      jailer is a violation of the separation of powers! According to Ashcroft,
      the respect that one branch of government owes another goes in only one

      The DOJ initially also responded to Newman’s habeas petition by making the
      Catch-22 argument that Newman had no standing to bring the petition on
      Padilla’s behalf because she — denied access to her client by the military
      authorities holding him — had failed to consult him. Making matters worse,
      it attempted "forum shopping" — seeking to be heard by the court most
      favorable to one’s side — by requesting that the case be transferred some
      700 miles south, to the District of South Carolina, where the prisoner was
      being held and where any appeal would go to the notoriously pro-government
      US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond. Judge Mukasey,
      however, refused the transfer and ordered the government to provide Padilla
      with access to attorney Newman so that the two could respond to the
      government’s claims. The burden placed on the government was quite modest —
      all it had to do to keep Padilla locked up was show that there was "some
      evidence" supporting the enemy-combatant classification.

      The Justice Department was not satisfied. It asked Mukasey to reconsider,
      arguing that Padilla should not be permitted to respond, because the only
      question was whether the government did indeed have "some evidence" to hold
      him; Padilla’s response to that evidence was irrelevant. And what was that
      evidence? A government declaration asserting little more than that the
      president had reason and authority to designate Padilla an enemy combatant.
      Revealingly, the DOJ decided to supplement that cursory justification with
      a second declaration, written by Vice-Admiral Lowell Jacoby, head of the
      Defense Intelligence Agency, which asserted that to provide Padilla access
      to a lawyer would "substantially harm national security interests" by
      offering him some hope of freedom: "Padilla is unlikely to cooperate if he
      believes that an attorney will intercede in his detention.... Providing him
      access to counsel now would create expectations by Padilla that his
      ultimate release may be obtained through an adversarial civil-litigation
      process. This would break — probably irreparably — the sense of dependency
      and trust that the interrogators are attempting to create."

      Usually, when the government wants to convince a court not to grant a
      prisoner a right, it merely argues that the prisoner doesn’t need the
      right. Here, for the first time in memory, the government seeks to justify
      squashing a constitutional right (access to legal counsel) precisely
      because denying that right would further an improper goal (namely, using
      isolation to break Padilla’s will) — and it has the audacity not only to
      admit this to a court, but to seek the court’s assistance in preserving
      that coercive environment. This turns the rationale for granting
      constitutional rights on its head. The rule of law exists to prevent, not
      promote, such a sense of hopelessness in the face of unrestrained
      governmental power.

      Judge Mukasey refused to be swayed, again ordering the military to grant
      Padilla access to Newman. Padilla, he said, should be permitted to learn
      some facts and to challenge the government’s evidence. Undaunted, the
      Department appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York,
      which had jurisdiction because Judge Mukasey had blocked the DOJ’s effort
      to move the case to the more compliant Fourth Circuit. The Second Circuit
      was even less persuaded than Judge Mukasey. Its 2-1 decision rejected the
      claim that the president has authority to detain those he alone defines as
      enemy combatants. In addition, the court said that the military detention
      of US citizens as enemy combatants violates the Non-Detention Act of 1971,
      which states: "No citizen shall be imprisoned or detained by the United
      States except pursuant to an act of Congress." Congress has not passed any
      kind of enemy-combatant statute. The New York panel of judges, on December
      18, 2003, ordered Padilla released within 30 days to face criminal charges
      in the civilian justice system — the order that the Supreme Court agreed to
      review on an expedited basis so that it could be decided along with the
      Guantánamo and Hamdi cases.

      As the New York arm of the Justice Department chafed against both the
      Manhattan trial judge’s and the Second Circuit’s exercise in judicial
      independence, their colleagues to the south were, predictably, having
      better luck with Hamdi’s case, which was being heard by the
      executive-friendly Fourth Circuit. In this case, the Justice Department
      went a step further than it did in Padilla and argued that the courts
      should give total deference to executive judgments: "A court’s inquiry
      should come to an end once the military has shown ... that it has
      determined that the detainee is an enemy combatant." In other words, the
      government did not want to have to produce any evidence, other than the
      circumstances of his capture, to justify detaining Hamdi. This argument was
      based on the fact that Hamdi, unlike Padilla, was captured by the military
      outside the territorial limits of the US. The DOJ claimed that the courts
      simply have to accept the military’s conclusion that, based on that
      circumstance alone, the prisoner is an enemy combatant. A three-judge panel
      of the Fourth Circuit agreed, ruling that a lone document asserting that
      Hamdi was captured while in a "zone of active combat operations"
      (regardless of his purpose for being there), submitted by a government
      official who was not even a direct witness to the capture, was sufficient
      to end the inquiry.

      That Hamdi’s case was heard by the Fourth Circuit, widely considered the
      most pro-government of all the federal courts, gave the government an
      advantage. Interestingly, however, even the Fourth Circuit was not as
      united and deferential as the DOJ might have wished in Hamdi’s case. In
      deciding not to reconsider the three-judge panel’s decision, the full
      Fourth Circuit split eight to four. The dissent penned by Judge Diana
      Gribbon Motz drove to the heart of the issue, expressing alarm that "a
      short hearsay declaration by ... an unelected, otherwise unknown,
      government ‘advisor’" was sufficient basis for deciding the court had no
      power to question this exercise of executive authority, and hence no
      further habeas role. But Judge Motz was in the minority, and the attorney
      general thus effectively circumvented Representative Sensenbrenner’s
      refusal to consider including the suspension of habeas corpus in the
      Patriot Act.

      In addition to Padilla and Hamdi, the court will consider the rights of the
      nearly 700 noncitizens detained at the US military base in Guantánamo Bay,
      Cuba. This site — a broad expanse of cell blocks hastily welded out of
      stacks of shipping containers turned on their sides, surrounded with razor
      wire, draped with green plastic sheets, and placed under the glare of
      outdoor halogen lamps — was selected for a very deliberate reason. The
      curious legal status of the land at Guantánamo — occupied by the US under a
      long-term lease granted by the Cuban government in 1903 — means that
      although it’s under US control, it is technically not part of the sovereign
      territory of the United States. American power controls Guantánamo, but
      American justice does not prevail.

      In Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, the two habeas corpus
      petitions brought on behalf of several Kuwaitis, Australians, and Britons
      held at Guantánamo, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit used this lease
      status, together with the noncitizen status of the detainees, as grounds to
      refuse to assert jurisdiction — and therefore to deny the right of review:
      "[N]o court in this country has jurisdiction to grant habeas relief ... to
      the Guantanamo detainees, even if they have not been adjudicated enemies of
      the United States." When the prisoners sought Supreme Court review, the DOJ
      objected with the remarkable argument that the law "does not establish that
      aliens detained by the military abroad are without any rights or process,
      but rather that the scope of those rights or procedures are to be
      determined by the Executive and the military, and not the courts." In other
      words, argued the DOJ, the president — not the Supreme Court — gets to
      determine the rules. The US Supreme Court, rising to this challenge to its
      authority, agreed to hear arguments on the question of the judiciary’s role
      and power.

      Some Guantánamo detainees will soon be tried in the executive branch’s new
      military tribunals, which (if the DOJ has its way) will have the power to
      impose capital punishment free of any civilian judicial review of the
      penalty, the verdict, or even the grounds for declaring the condemned to be
      enemy combatants in the first place. This marks a huge departure from both
      normal courts-martial and the World War II tribunals that the DOJ claims
      are its model. According to rules recently issued by the Department of
      Defense, tribunals can now block defendants and their lawyers from
      obtaining any evidence — classified or unclassified — that prosecutors deem
      "protected information" for unspecified "national security" reasons,
      including evidence of innocence. Defense lawyers are required to report to
      the government certain types of "national security" information learned
      from their clients, and attorney-client conversations may be monitored for
      "intelligence purposes" — provisions that violate both legal ethics and the
      attorney-client privilege. Defense lawyers are barred from hiring outside
      consultants or experts. And prisoners have no right of appeal to civilian
      courts — a provision to which even military defense lawyers have objected.
      Even if a Guantánamo detainee manages to win an acquittal from a military
      tribunal under these circumstances, it could be a Pyrrhic victory; the
      government has reserved the power to hold military-tribunal defendants
      indefinitely, even if they are found not guilty. There is an old lawyers’
      quip that military justice is to justice what military music is to music,
      but these new rules — particularly those barring civilian-court review —
      force military justice a huge step further down into the dungeon.

      Some have attempted to justify these secret proceedings as a way to protect
      sensitive national-security information from falling into the wrong hands.
      In effect, they argue that any FBI agent or military official with an
      executive-branch security clearance is more trustworthy than a federal
      judge appointed for life by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
      Whatever the real reasons why the administration seeks to keep judges’
      noses out of the darker corners of these military prisons, surely fear that
      judges cannot be trusted to keep secrets in the name of national security
      cannot seriously be one of them.

      Unless the Supreme Court rejects the DOJ’s arguments in these three cases,
      the department will have effectively emasculated the Great Writ, and done
      so not by defying the court, but with its acquiescence. Ashcroft will
      accomplish indirectly what Sensenbrenner warned him against trying directly
      in the Patriot Act.

      On June 5, 2003, Ashcroft told the House Judiciary Committee: "When a
      person is part of a war against the United States as a combatant against
      the United States, that person is subject to detention under the power of
      the president to protect the United States. And the courts have not
      interfered with that in any significant way. And I don’t think courts
      will." If Ashcroft is correct, and the Supreme Court bows to the government
      in the three enemy-combatant cases now under review, then the most
      fundamental underpinning of liberty will have all but disappeared in the
      hard cases for which the writ was designed, and no one will be able to
      claim that the president either suspended the writ or otherwise acted
      lawlessly. Tyranny will be clothed in the garments of legitimacy.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      4: Why We Need Martial Law ??????


      Why We Need Martial Law
      Criminal Government Is Destroying America - Military
      Must Step In To Restore The Constitution
      By John Kaminski

      Our government is out of control. The elections are rigged. The Congress is
      completely bought off. The White House administration is a gang of
      criminals who are stealing the nation blind. There is no proper
      accountability from any department of government. And the United States is
      conducting two major wars, irresponsibly squandering the lives of our young
      people, for reasons that everyone in the world knows are lies.

      Be clear about this: no government official, nor any major media outlet, is
      objecting to two wars the United States is conducting that everyone knows
      the reasons for are lies. Tens of thousands of people have been killed for
      lies, and no one in a position of public responsibility is condemning it.

      America has become a nation of monstrously perverted mass murderers. And if
      you're an American and are not condemning it, then you are complicit in it.
      You're supporting needless mass murder, you pig!

      People are being jailed for no reason, illegally tortured while in custody
      and deprived of due process. Innocent families around the world are being
      humiliated and killed for no legitimate reason. Our law enforcement
      apparatus - corrupt courts and cops - are failing to stop obvious crimes
      committed by the very rich, and assaulting ordinary citizens trying in a
      lawful manner to protest these injustices.

      I repeat, rich corporations are allowed to commit crimes, and ordinary
      people are being put in jail for committing no crime.

      Legitimate law enforcement in the United States has completely broken down.
      The biggest criminal in the country right now is John Ashcroft, the top man
      in America's law enforcement hierarchy, who is guilty of thousands of
      counts of obstruction of justice by failing to investigate and prosecute a
      titanic list of crimes committed by those who gave him his job.

      The Supreme Court, the highest law panel in the land, assisted in a coup
      d'etat in 2000 by failing to investigate thousands of people who were
      illegally prevented from voting that changed the outcome of the election.

      The upcoming election promises no relief from the murderous tyranny that
      now grips Washington. Both candidates are privileged children of the rich
      who are members of a satanic fraternity at Yale University and won't talk
      about their perverted rituals. No matter who is elected, America's future
      is more wars, more deaths, more destruction.

      An irrational president and his demonic accomplices keep talking about a
      new terror attack they are expecting any day. Legitimate researchers have
      pointed out the worldwide terror threat known as al-Qaeda is actually a
      deceptive construction of the U.S. CIA and Israel's Mossad.

      The terror attacks that threaten us are actually coordinated by Washington
      and Tel Aviv. There exists legitimate evidence that the bombings in New
      York, Madrid, Bali, Istanbul, Yemen and elsewhere were actually the work of
      CIA/Mossad operatives, as are the murders of thousands of innocent people
      in Iraq. The anthrax murder investigation was stopped when the trail led
      back to the White House.

      In 2001, terror attacks by this same organization created by White House
      speechwriters and CIA recruiters killed more than 3,000 Americans in New
      York and Washington. The government had steadfastly impeded an
      investigation of the events of 9/11, and the commission it has empaneled to
      conduct a probe has consistently failed to address the major questions
      asked by thousands of researchers around the world.

      Specifically, billions of dollars were made in profits from insider trading
      in the days before 9/11. The FBI has investigated and said there was
      nothing suspicious about these profits. How the American people can accept
      this blatant lie is a preposterous example of the soporific stupor that has
      engulfed the U.S. populace. The identity of the perpetrators of the
      treasonous attacks of 9/11 is known by those investors, yet the government
      refuses to pursue those criminals.

      Plentiful photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony exists that the
      World Trade Center was brought down by explosions. The evidence was carted
      off and disposed of without an adequate investigation. The Air Force failed
      to defend the nation against the air attacks on 9/11. The people in charge
      of our air defenses were promoted, because they were complicit in the crime
      of the century.

      The mainstream media has for years failed to report on crimes by the
      federal government. It has failed to report that the ingredients of major
      soft drinks puts holes in your brain with extended use. Mainstream media
      conducted a powwow after the last election to review the voting process,
      concluded the election had been stolen, but then decided to cover up the

      Most people agree that Senator Paul Wellstone was murdered after an
      argument with Vice President Dick Cheney. There was no real investigation.
      A woman in Texas who filed a lawsuit against the president for rape and
      torture was found shot to death. It was ruled a suicide. No one is
      investigating. Bush reportedly dated the woman in high school and
      speculation is that he was using the woman as his sex slave because he is
      above the law.

      Virtually all members of the Congress, shortly after 9/11, voted to pass
      legislation that nullified most of the basic protections in the
      Constitution for the American people. Few Americans protested. Additional
      legislation has further eroded the rights of Americans.

      The right to privacy in America has all but disappeared. The government
      operation to deprive Americans of their privacy, once guaranteed by the
      Constitution, was headed by a known felon, who lied to Congress and was
      convicted for it during the reign of Ronald Reagan.

      American citizens are being infected with unknown diseases by strange
      practices called chemtrails that appears in our skies. Doctors in league
      with evil pharmaceutical companies are forcing mind-numbing drugs on both
      children and adults, and after paying off politicians are granted legal
      immunity from mistakes they may make, from outright poisons they choose to

      The American government is criminal enterprise, and American law
      enforcement is complicit in the crime. The only way to stop the continuing
      crime spree is by a military takeover and a declaration of martial law.
      Hundreds of cops, attorneys and judges need to be in jail.

      We need a new government, one that sees to the needs of people, not to the
      needs of bankers and corporations.

      Ordinary citizens might be worried about such a move, but they shouldn't
      be. The purpose of this martial law situation would not be to curtail
      American liberty, but to restore it.

      The thrust of a military takeover should be directed at the people
      committing the crimes, primarily government officials, executives of the
      petroleum and pharmaceutical industries, and bankers and stock traders. All
      officials of the Federal Reserve Board, Council on Foreign Relations and
      Trilateral Commission should be immediately jailed for future
      interrogations concerning their crimes against humanity.

      And investigation needs to be conducted into the FBI and CIA for their
      creation of the terror apparatus known as al-Qaeda, which has been blamed
      for innumerable instances of terror around the world. A good place to start
      would be the Philippines, where American agents have fomented revolution
      against that government and exported terrorist double agents around the
      world as part of a devious plan to increase profits for American defense

      The entire Congress needs to be indicted for treason, simply for their vote
      on the Patriot Act, but for plenty of other corrupt actions as well.

      The entire Bush administration, and many officials from previous
      presidential adminstrations, need to be arrested for corruption for taking
      bribes from corporations and then promptly passing laws advantageous to
      those corporations.

      Thousands of investment bankers, securities dealers, and stock traders need
      to be arrested for theft. Kenneth Lay, George Bush's top contributor, needs
      to be in jail immediately for his theft of a billion dollars from the
      people of California.

      In addition, the military needs to take an immediate hard look at Israel,
      whose agents have penetrated virtually all aspects of the operation of the
      American government and American society as well. Next to the United
      States, Israel is the greatest threat to peace in the world, as it has
      already admitted it has missiles aimed at all the capitals of Europe, and
      it continues to conduct its heartless genocide against the hapless
      Palestinian people.

      Ordinary people should not be affected at all by martial law. The military
      should leave them and their families alone. Ordinary Americans have not
      broken the law, but have been the victims of governmental leaders who have.

      First of all, the military needs to bring as many troops home as possible,
      immediately. Arrangements can be made with other grateful countries to stem
      the needless bleeding America has caused in so many places around the
      world. Our continuing commitment to Iraq should not be to fatten the
      coffers of corporations, but to apologize to the Iraqi people that
      Americans have committed in the name of so-called democracy.

      The military needs to investigate virtually every law enforcement operation
      in America. Every town, city, county and state in America is afflicted by
      criminal behavior in its law enforcement and court apparatus.

      And first and foremost, as a new government of the United States is
      reconstituted in a democratic way guided by the principles of the
      Constitution, America needs to regain control of its money supply from the
      international bankers who control the world. Most of those international
      bankers need to be in jail, too, in orange jumpsuits at Guantanamo
      alongside the whole Bush family, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Myers, Rice,
      Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Scalia, Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Tenet, Freeh,
      and all those other corrupt law enforcement officials and judges, corporate
      presidents, and corrupt Congressmen.

      I know, the prospect of a military takeover is scary. But consider the
      choice: do you want men in control who are sworn to defend the
      Constitution, as is the military, or those who are sworn to make money for
      the super-rich, as are both Bush and Kerry and practically anybody else who
      runs for office.

      Consider what will happen is this DOESN'T happen. It's really no
      exaggeration to say we likely are looking at the end of the world as we
      know it. At the very least, we are headed toward a slave society in which
      many Americans will starve to death if Bush and Kerry are allowed to
      continue on their merry way.

      In addition, there is another important reason for a military takeover, and
      that is to redeploy our forces to defend our country, rather than to misuse
      and abuse them by plundering innocent nations for the criminal corporations
      who control so many of our politicians.

      I really trust our people in uniform, because I really am an American. And
      as an American, I am terribly ashamed of my country for the horrific things
      it has done, both to people around the world and its own citizens. It's the
      criminals in Washington who have no allegiance to any country who have
      ordered our military to do all those bad things. The Bush family and their
      criminal sidekicks are not really Americans, they're murderous crooks who
      lie about everything and whose only allegiance is to their own wallets,
      their own sexual perversions, their own sick visions of the world which
      decent people want no part of.

      Martial law now. Military tribunals for Bush, Cheney and the rest of those
      sick sociopaths.

      It's the only way we're ever going to find peace again. And the only way
      we're really ever going to be able to defend our country.

      Otherwise, it's curtains for everyone.

      John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of
      his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world. In
      addition, he has more recently written "The Day America Died: Why You
      Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11,
      2001," a 48-booklet written for those who still believe the government's
      version of that say day. A second collection of his essays, titled "The
      Perfect Enemy," will be published later this summer. For more information,
      or to make a badly needed contribution to his work, please visit

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      5: Crossing the threshold p3


      THE EVISCERATION of habeas corpus, creating a shadowy network of military
      brigs and prison camps, would also have a profound impact on the part of
      the justice system the public does see. It would turn those trials into
      show trials rather than true adversarial legal proceedings in which
      defendants and their lawyers can actually question the government’s
      evidence and present evidence of their own.

      In Arthur Koestler’s powerful novel Darkness at Noon, set during the Soviet
      show trials of the 1930s, the protagonist is accused of crimes against the
      state and is given a choice by his jailers. If he signs a confession and
      admits wrongdoing, he will receive a public trial. But if he refuses to
      cooperate, his case will be dealt with "administratively" and out of sight.
      This two-track justice system, in which "problem" cases were whisked from
      view and dealt with in secret while public trials merely paraded the
      coerced guilt of the "accused," converted the Soviet Union’s justice system
      into an appalling masquerade. And it is this kind of two-track system that
      habeas-free enemy-combatant detentions threaten to create. The American and
      Stalinist Soviet justice systems are, of course, far from identical, but it
      is dangerous to adopt a device that totalitarian governments have found so

      This pernicious process begins prior to the trial, when the prosecutors
      seek a confession. In the past, prosecutors could use the threat of long
      prison sentences or even the death penalty to convince defendants to plead
      guilty rather than risk a trial. With the threat of enemy-combatant
      detention hanging over plea negotiations, however, prosecutors now have a
      far more potent coercive tool to use against those suspected of
      terrorism-related crimes. By merely declaring a person an enemy combatant,
      the government can detain a citizen or noncitizen with minimal, if any,
      judicial review and without having to prove anything. For the defendant who
      is offered a plea bargain, the implicit choice is thus no longer between a
      plea bargain and a public criminal trial in accordance with the Bill of
      Rights, but rather between a plea bargain and the legal black hole of
      indefinite detention. Under this paradigm, there will be few, if any,
      public trials of terror arrestees, but more plea bargains and, for those
      who don’t recognize an offer that cannot be refused, more enemy-combatant
      detentions. Two recent cases — a plea bargain achieved under the threat of
      enemy-combatant status, and a criminal prosecution that became an
      enemy-combatant detention in lieu of trial — illustrate how this
      Soviet-style system operates.

      Consider the case of Iyman Faris. In March 2003, federal prosecutors
      secretly arrested the 34-year-old Faris, a naturalized US citizen from
      Kashmir accused of plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and derail a
      train in Washington, DC, held him incommunicado for two months, and then
      made him an offer: he could cop a plea and cooperate with the FBI, or they
      would designate him an enemy combatant. Faced with disappearing into the
      black hole of indefinite military detention, he accepted the certainty of a
      plea bargain and a long sentence. Faris’s lawyer, J. Frederick Sinclair
      (himself a former federal prosecutor), cooperated with prosecutors to draft
      a plea agreement in which Faris pled guilty to "material support of
      terrorism," signed a five-page "statement of facts" regarding the alleged
      plot, and waived all rights to obtain his case records under the Freedom of
      Information Act or to appeal his sentence or conviction. These waivers make
      it nearly impossible for anyone to determine whether the statement Faris
      signed is true. Indeed, Faris told interrogators in June that the "facts"
      were a lie. Jail authorities then medicated him with antidepressants and
      antipsychotics. Nevertheless, Faris stood up during his sentencing hearing
      in October to insist that he had pled guilty because of pressure by
      prosecutors and federal agents. He was sentenced to 20 years.

      Within days of announcing Faris’s plea bargain, the Justice Department
      showed what happens to those who refuse to cooperate. Qatari student Ali
      Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, accused of lying to the FBI and engaging in
      allegedly terrorist-related credit-card fraud, tried to call the
      prosecutors’ bluff by pleading not guilty, presumably believing he would be
      able to defend himself successfully before a jury of ordinary Americans in
      a public trial. His lawyer, Lawrence Lustig, was optimistic, telling the
      New York Times that he and his client "thought he had a powerful defense."
      But one month before al-Marri’s scheduled trial, the Justice Department
      announced that "national security interests" required that he be held as an
      enemy combatant. He is now in military custody, with no access to his lawyer.

      This pair of cases illustrates how prosecutors can use the threat of
      enemy-combatant detention to condition a prisoner’s access to the civilian
      justice system upon the prisoner’s agreement to plead guilty and read a
      government script. What kind of trial is it when the alternative to going
      along with the script is rotting in an enemy-combatant twilight zone?
      Before 9/11, prosecutors were assumed to have no such power over anyone,
      either American citizens or foreign nationals.

      Absent a trial, the government is never forced to produce evidence
      supporting its accusations. As they did with both Faris and al-Marri,
      prosecutors can publicize sensational accusations, issue dark hints about
      secret evidence, declare another victory in the war on terror, and then
      move on to the next prosecution without ever having to substantiate anything.

      Indeed, prosecutors have another incentive to evade courts and juries: not
      all "terrorism" accusations to date have survived the scrutiny of
      dedicated, impartial jurors. Take, for example, one of the few recent cases
      of alleged terrorism to reach a jury, in which federal prosecutors accused
      four Arab immigrants in Detroit of providing material support for terrorism
      and conspiring to engage in fraud or misuse of visas, permits, and other
      documents. During the trial, prosecutors had little hard evidence, instead
      depending on hazy suggestions of terrorist ties. They made much of the
      fact, for example, that the defendants’ apartment contained 100 audiotapes
      of lectures by a Muslim cleric, which they described as extremist advocacy
      for holy war, and of home videos and sketches that they claimed were
      attempts to case sites like Disneyland and the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.
      However, according to one juror quoted in the New York Times, the jury did
      not allow this cloud of vague suspicion to affect its deliberations: "We
      totally separated 9/11, the war on terrorism, from what we were doing."
      This showed in the verdicts: of the four defendants, the jury acquitted one
      entirely, found one guilty only of document fraud, and found the other two
      of guilty of both document fraud and the terrorism-related charges. When
      DOJ officials try to steer terrorism cases away from jury trials, they
      claim that public trials might compromise national security and
      intelligence-gathering methods. But it is hard to ignore the suspicion that
      their real concern is that ordinary, conscientious jurors might not buy the
      DOJ line uncritically. After all, the courts have many years of experience
      conducting public jury trials of cases with national-security implications,
      in which closed sessions are used only for the presentation of evidence
      that the judge rules too sensitive for public display.

      Of course, sometimes even the scrutiny of jurors is not enough to assure
      the triumph of truth. In the Detroit case, the two terrorism convictions
      have been tainted by prosecutors’ apparent efforts to stretch the facts
      further than ethically possible. Revelations surfaced in December that
      during the trial, prosecutors withheld from the defense important evidence
      that cast doubt on the reliability of the government’s key witness, a scam
      artist from Morocco who was a former roommate of the defendants. According
      to a letter from the witness’s cellmate in jail, intercepted by
      prosecutors, the witness described to his cellmate "how he lied to the FBI,
      how he fooled the Secret Service agent on his case." That prosecutors felt
      it necessary to stoop to such misconduct indicates that many of these
      "terror" prosecutions are so flawed and lacking in real evidence that the
      government has a huge incentive to avoid the criminal-justice system.

      Full-dress trials are already becoming rare in terror cases. Even before
      the Faris case, prosecutors were pursuing plea bargains rather than trials.
      Three of the most prominent terrorism cases — Richard Reid (the "shoe
      bomber"), John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"), the "Lackawanna Six"
      (described by prosecutors as a sleeper cell), and James Ujaama (a Seattle
      man accused of ties to Al Qaeda) — ended when the defendants agreed to
      plead guilty. And, like the Faris plea bargain, some of these earlier plea
      bargains were struck under coercive threats of imposing "enemy combatant"
      status. When discussing the Lackawanna case with the Washington Post, US
      Attorney Michael Battle said that although his office never explicitly
      threatened the defendants with "enemy combatant" status, all sides knew the
      Defense Department had a "hammer" on the table: "We are trying to use the
      full arsenal of our powers," he told the Post.

      Moreover, for the few cases that do not end in a plea bargain, prosecutors
      retain the right to yank the case from public view and return the defendant
      to military detention, even after the trial has already begun. Take, for
      example, the ongoing case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th
      hijacker" in the September 11 plot. When Moussaoui requested access to
      three potential witnesses who are in US military custody, prosecutors
      balked, refusing to obey the court order granting Moussaoui such access
      because, prosecutors asserted, it would "necessarily result in the
      disclosure of classified information." Unless the prosecutors are permitted
      to continue the trial without producing the witnesses, government officials
      have indicated that they may abandon the criminal prosecution and instead
      subject Moussaoui to a military tribunal.

      Besides, there is nothing under this new system to stop prosecutors from
      re-imprisoning the defendant even after a trial in which the defendant has
      prevailed. In civilian criminal prosecutions, the Fifth Amendment’s
      prohibition against double jeopardy would prevent such an abuse. But no
      such prohibition exists for post-acquittal enemy-combatant" detentions.
      Thus, a terror suspect could stand trial and be acquitted by a jury, but
      subsequently be forced back into military custody as an enemy combatant.
      This power to re-arrest after acquittal recalls one particularly noxious
      historical example: in Nazi Germany, on the rare occasions when the
      Volksgerichtshof ("People’s Court") failed to find a defendant guilty, the
      Gestapo would often take the prisoner into "preventive detention"
      immediately after the verdict — sometimes even before the defendant had
      left the courtroom. A nation need not be as deeply evil as Nazi Germany to
      make a mockery of justice by embracing such a device.

      This is the broader consequence of the assault on habeas corpus. The
      Justice Department is creating a two-track justice system that renders the
      normal criminal-justice process largely irrelevant for terrorism
      defendants, shunting difficult defendants into secret, unreviewable
      military custody and reserving increasingly rare public trials for those
      few cases in which conviction or, more likely, a coerced and scripted
      guilty plea, is almost certain because the DOJ has rewritten the rules.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      6: Court rejects request for ID checks at tent city


      By BRAD WONG

      A King County Superior Court judge rejected yesterday a city of Bothell
      request for residents of a homeless camp to show identification cards so
      that police can conduct arrest-warrant and sex-offender checks on them.

      That decision and the rejection of a $1 million insurance bond, the hiring
      of security guards and payment of police overtime were discussed at a
      hearing before Judge Steven Scott.

      The camp, known as Tent City 4, is being run with support from a Seattle
      advocacy group called SHARE/WHEEL. It opened last month on St. Brendan
      Catholic Church property in Bothell.

      For police background checks to be conducted, Scott said, a compelling
      reason is needed. He also said his court was not the appropriate venue to
      consider the requests for the bond, security guards and payment of overtime
      from the city.

      Those issues, though, may resurface as the city continues with the
      permitting for the camp. The city asked for the measures to ensure security
      in the church's neighborhood, which has three elementary schools.

      Last week, Scott said, the city needed to be involved in the permitting
      process. Yesterday, Manny Ocampo, Bothell's interim city manager,
      reiterated his pleasure with that decision and said the permitting will go
      into next month.

      "A permit must be obtained that gives us the opportunity to talk about, and
      for the (city) council to decide, what is the best way to ensure the
      health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Bothell, including those at
      tent city," he said.

      In May, the city said the camp needed a permit and sued, saying it was
      violating Bothell's municipal code. The church cited a federal law as its
      justification in opening the camp without city approval.

      Yesterday's news brought temporary relief to tent city residents, who were
      concerned about invasions of their privacy.

      While some camp members, including one sex offender, have been arrested or
      asked to leave because of their behavior, all residents would have been
      required to show identification cards for police background checks.

      "I think justice was done," said Leo Rhodes, 39, a camp resident and
      SHARE/WHEEL member.

      In Seattle, which has a tent city in the Central District, the city does
      not require the extra security steps that Bothell wants, said Kathryn
      Harper, a spokesperson for the Seattle City Attorney's Office.

      "They all seem to be based on some presumption of guilt. It's blatantly
      unfair," she said.

      Although the church has the ability to cover an insurance bond and provide
      private security guards, the Rev. Lawrence Minder said such requirements
      could bar smaller congregations from hosting future homeless camps.

      He noted that his church is open to discussing financial compensation with
      the city. Key safety decisions from the hearing, which started Thursday,

      Public health officials, the Bothell police and fire departments and city
      inspectors can have access to the camp without prior notice.

      SHARE/WHEEL and the church will tell the police if an individual is asked
      to leave or is rejected from the camp.

      Children are not allowed to live at the tent city, except in emergencies.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      7: Swiss Government moves to stamp out moonlighting

      STANLEY NOTE: Illegal working... soon to be at a neighborhood near you in


      Government moves to stamp out moonlighting

      swissinfo June 15, 2004 6:59 PM

      Many illegal workers are employed in farming (Keystone)
      Illegal working is on the rise in Switzerland and now accounts for
      almost ten per cent of Switzerland’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

      The government wants to crack down on so-called moonlighting with a raft of
      tough measures and penalties, which are due to be debated in parliament on

      The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco) estimates that illegal
      workers earn SFr37 billion ($29.5 billion) each year. The government misses
      out on millions through lost taxes and welfare contributions.

      It is estimated that the number of illegal workers in Switzerland grew by
      75 per cent between 1999 and 2002. They predominantly find employment in
      the building, catering and agricultural sectors.

      Both politicians and the business community agree that illegal working is a
      serious problem and that more needs to be done. But the government’s
      proposal has taken more than four years to reach parliament.

      After lengthy discussions and political squabbling between the Right and
      Left as to how far the measures should go, a key parliamentary committee
      finally found a compromise.

      Politicians from the Left were especially concerned that a crackdown on
      moonlighting should not become a vehicle for targeting illegal immigrants.

      “Most illegal workers are Swiss,” parliamentarian and trade union leader
      Hugo Fasel told swissinfo. “But the discussion very often centres on
      foreign workers.”

      Illegal workers

      The Left registered strong objections to the government’s plan to create a
      network through which federal and cantonal authorities could exchange
      information about illegal workers.

      It said employees without a work permit should be allowed to pay social
      insurance without being reported to the authorities.

      The current proposal is more flexible and does not oblige officials to
      check whether or not a person making payments is an illegal worker.

      But the final draft also goes some way towards satisfying demands by the
      Right to reduce the amount of red tape.

      It makes it easier for casual workers earning low wages, such as gardeners
      and cleaners, to register with a social insurance scheme.

      Scare tactics

      However, the main thrust of the government’s proposal is to make
      moonlighting in Switzerland as unattractive as possible.

      It includes fines of up to SFr1 million ($800,000) for employers who hire
      illegal workers. Offenders will also be banned from applying for public

      The cabinet also wants cantons and authorities to step up cooperation in
      the fight against moonlighting.

      Some cantons have already introduced stricter controls. In canton Zurich,
      random inspections are carried out on building sites – a third of them were
      found to have breached regulations in 2003.

      But experts are divided as to whether clamping down on illegal working will
      really solve the problem.

      “We are just scratching the surface and this doesn’t go deep enough into
      the actual causes [of illegal working],” said St Gallen economics professor
      Franz Jaeger.

      swissinfo, Andreas Keiser

      Key Facts

      - Up to one million people work illegally in Switzerland, according to a
      - An estimated SFr37 billion ($29.5 billion) – or 10% of GDP – is earned by
      illegal workers.
      - Switzerland is among the top ten of countries with fastest increase of
      illegal employment.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      8: The Hitler Project - Astonishing Revelations!


      By Ted Lang © 2004

      June 16, 2004

      In my previous column, I identified a monumental investigative effort, a
      cyber book that can be downloaded to your computer. Webster G. Tarpley and
      Anton Chaitkin collaborated on George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, an
      astonishing and heavily referenced effort that can be found at:
      <http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm>http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm .

      Chapter two of that book is en<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.