Category: Uncategorized

Following the spaghetti trails of binational and international policy groups in the Americas, we find a “Declaration of San Carlos” adopted on March 24, 2006 by the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE). Venezuela’s footnotes to the declaration suggest some discomfort with the emerging anti-terrorism category of “emerging threats.”
This is an international, rather than multinational initiative, since it falls under the Organization of American States (OAS).

Interesting to find are three objections in the form of footnotes from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The first objection concerns wording of a paragraph that connects terrorism to “illicit drug trafficking, illicit trafficking in arms, money laundering, and other forms of transnational organized crime.” Such wording, says Venezuela, “is geared toward pointing out a direct and permanent connection between terrorism and transnational organized crime, as that entails a repudiation of the norms of due process and the presumption of innocence—universally recognized principles in the area of human rights.”

The second objection concerns the category of “Emerging Threats.” Venezuela refuses to support the framework of this category, “because no common definition is given of emerging threats and because it introduces elements that are not consistent with the realities of the Hemisphere and that are disproportionate with regard to one another, by their nature and according to the provisions of the Declaration on Security in the Americas.”

Concerns embraced by the category of “emerging threats” do seem to be “disproportionate to one another” if you compare security for the 2007 Cricket World Cup alongside weapons of mass destruction. As for its reference to “elements that are not consistend with the realities of the Hemisphere” it is more difficult to see what Venezuela intends. Perhaps this is a reference to the category’s preoccupation with cyberterrorism. Perhaps it has more to do with the issues that surround nuclear materials (see below).

One interesting phrase under “emerging threats” defers to “each state” to define “emerging threats” according to its own laws. We read in this language the influence of the USA.

In objection three, Venezuela returns to the category of “emerging threats” in order to single out disapproval of the reference to UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004). The resolution pertains to “proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons”. This category rings familiar as a motivation (or pretext) most vigorously applied by the USA to Iraq and Iran. Does Venezuela worry that such powerful linkages between emerging threats, nuclear and chemical materials, and pre-emptive warfare may soon go South?

Instead of viewing nuclear issues in terms of “emerging threats”, Venezuela’s footnote encourages a framework established in 1967 by the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean in the form of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, a self-adopted prohibition of nuclear weapons from the region.

Dear Friends:

This letter from Ramsey Muniz describes the
violation of his constitutional rights for
the past eleven years. We continue to make
this information known, and have received
encouraging support from congressmen.
Please distribute. — Irma L. Muniz

4/7/06

Violation of my Constitutional Rights Under the Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Before reading this constitutional opinion,
it is important that you first examine the attached
medical narrative (exhibit A), sent by
Dr. Pete E. Garcia, in charge of the Orthopedic
Surgery and Sports Medicine Clinic, to the Warden
at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth,
on February 1, 1995. If necessary, one will be able to find in
my federal sentencing transcript where
unmistakably I be confined in a Federal
Correctional Institution (FCI), and not in a
hard core federal penitentiary. The Bureau of
Prisons and the United States Marshall’s Office
disregarded the legal intentions of the federal
judge, and instead confined me in the Leavenworth
Federal Penitentiary.

From the commencement of my incarceration,
I was suffering from my physical disability and
medical conditions. I constantly complained to
the institutional medical authorities about my
physical condition to the conclusion that I could
not levitate from my bunk bed for days, suffering
extreme spasms, arthritic pain, inflammatory
rheumatism, distress, agony, and affliction.
This cruel and unusual punishment continued for
a period of over eleven (11) years.

On or about 1996, due to the weakness and
physical disabilities of my knees, I incurred a
most drastic fall and injured my left hip. After
various days confined to my bunk bed, several
inmates provided assistance in carrying me to the
institutional medical facility. The result was the
same as before. X-rays were not taken, a full
medical examination was not provided, and the only
remedy was aspirin and a cane, which I use to this
very day. The continuous denial of proper medical
attention and care for the last ten (10) years
pertaining to my hip was a violation of my
constitutional right – cruel and unusual punishment.

On August 22, 2005, I became extremely ill to
the point that I was carried on a stretcher to the
institutional medical facility in Leavenworth.
After four hours of examinations, they finally
decided that I be submitted to St. John’s Hospital
in Kansas City, Kansas. What was to be a simple
overnight operation resulted in a near death
medical situation. From St. John’s Hospital I
was transferred to Pawnee Hospital, and In turn
I was transferred to Providence Hospital for
surgery once again. Only five days after the
operation, I was chained, shackled, and transferred
to this present medical facility for federal
prisoners in Springfield, Missouri.

I continue to complain about my existing
physical condition – knees, left hip, and back
condition due to a large herniated disc. I persist
with the assistance of my family and attorney that
x-rays be initiated of my left hip and knees. After
performing an x-ray of my hip, they found that it
had to be replaced and should have been medically
attended to years ago.

Since my severe illness of August 22, 2005,
I have been on a liquid diet because of my dentures.
Only two weeks ago I began to eat properly, but
I continue to be extremely physically weak and not
in a medical position to undergo an immediate hip
surgery.

An attorney, my family, and others have
respectfully requested that my hip operation be
delayed for a reasonable time so that I may recover
my physical, emotional, and mental strength.

It is of record that the Springfield medical
staff authorities have not yet shared with me the
medical evaluation report submitted by Dr. Pete Garcia, Orthopedic Surgeon of Corpus Christi, Texas, nor have they taken x-rays of both my knees. To continue denying full medical evaluation and proper professional care at this medical facility is a continuous violation of my eighth amendment — cruel and unusual punishment.

As a graduate of Baylor School of Law and a
practicing attorney for many years (prior to my
unjust confinement), it is my legal opinion and
position that I be remain confined to this United
States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in
Springfield, Missouri, until I am medically
examined and treated for both my knees. To do
otherwise or attempt to confine me once again
in a United States penitentiary instead of a
low level institution (FCI) would be a blatant
violation of my constitutional rights pertaining
to cruel and unusual punishment.

How much more must I suffer after more than
ten years of extreme and severe punishment. I am
63 years old and in pursuit of justice in the
United States of America’s constitution.

In exile,

Ramsey R. Muniz

*****************************

www.freeramsey.com

The Syracuse University public information project TRAC has just released a pair of articles about deportation of immigrants for “aggravated felony” charges. This process applies to legal immigrants only.

TRAC says sometimes an “aggravated felony” under immigration law can be quite a low-level crime. Two cases cited by TRAC involved shoplifting. Yet the consequences can be severe: the immigrant loses rights to contest deportation before immigration authorities or courts, may not apply for other legal immigration status, is subject to mandatory detention, and may be permanently barred from the USA.
Although the frequency of “aggravated felony” determinations has fallen in recent years (from a high of 25,842 in 1998 to 11,133 in 2005) TRAC says record-keeping practices make it difficult to determine the basis of “aggravated felony” charges. About a third seem connected to some sort of drug charges. Pending legislation may further expand the net of this category, further eroding human rights of migrants in the USA.

View the TRAC reports online.

The first web report from today’s press conference at Camp Mabry, headquarters of the Texas National Guard, comes from Lee McGuire of Austin’s KVUE-TV (with video clip online).

“Yesterday, we just found out, was a deadline the President set to have 800 members of the National Guard on the border already, and today we learned that that deadline has been met,” says McGuire in his live report.
When and how did the President set that deadline? A review of online sources turns up an AP story of May 24 that references “a first wave of 800” that “will head to the US-Mexico border next week” (or by June 1).

Of the eventual force of 6,000 planned for the border, McGuire reports that half will be spending anywhere from two weeks to two years “making sure that folks do not cross illegally.”

“They will be armed, but they will be not allowed to shoot anybody. They will only be allowed to fire in self defense, if that is the case,” says McGuire, blinking into the camera.

“That is one concern that the Mexican government had had, that folks along the border would be armed and providing some kind of military presence along the border. Again, the National Guard will be armed, but they will not be ‘militarized’,” says the messenger, who we would prefer to have said “say officials” at that precise point.

Armed miltary will not be militarized, say officials.

“The rest of the folks there will kind of be watching cameras and also looking at what is happening along the border trying to learn about where folks are coming across, and supporting the border patrol in their existing mission along the border.”

Reuters splits the remaining half in two: with a quarter helping to gather intelligence, while the other quarter will build “roads and metal barriers.”

More coming at five and six. “We learned a lot of facts today.” Thanks Lee for being there. But let’s call militarization for the fact it is, pretty please. Just give us a little space to think clearly while we try to figure out why today we are learning for the first time about yesterday’s Presidential deadline.