Category: Uncategorized

A Texas Civil Rights Review Editorial

UrukNet

Without any debate or policy study, the USA has quickly moved toward a militarized border with Mexico. Yet, with only one tenth of the expected deployment actually in position, it is not too late to say wait a minute.

One way to slow down the momentum toward militarization would be to call on Governors of the forty states who have not yet pledged troops to Operation Jump Start, and ask them to delay their troop authorizations.

From the ten Governors who have authorized troops, including the four Governors whose states share borders with Mexico, we should ask for troop recalls.
The Governors of the various states should not cooperate with a national policy of militarization. It is a bad idea to patch political policy with military solutions on an ad hoc basis. Yet this is what is being done in the case of the border deployment.

As far as the public has been told, the plan to militarize the border was hatched in haste, and motivated by political needs during an election year. Military troops have been ordered in large numbers to a place where no military crisis exists. Yet, the very presence of troops along a crucial international border can only escalate risks of violence and further militarization.

Operation Jump Start is being presented as a temporary and background use of military troops, but that doesn’t make it a better idea. In fact, connecting troops to the issue of immigration is a bad idea. Immigration issues are matters of civil and criminal law, and the USA has vast bureaus under the Department of Homeland Security that enjoy legitimate authority over these issues. Our political impatience with the structures of immigration should not be exploited through military solutions.

Already, the press is reporting anecdotes that troops volunteering for border duty see their service along the Rio Grande in terms of their service in Iraq. But this is a dangerous analogy to draw, and warns us that military motives are already being deployed to situations best left to law enforcement powers.

It is worse than ironic that the deployment of military troops to assist with domestic tranquility is most enthusiastically supported in Texas, one of the former confederate states for which the principle of Posse Comitatus was enacted into federal law after Reconstruction.

Posse Comitatus makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress. Yet the Memorandum of Understanding for Operation Jump Start gives to the Secretary of Defense the power to decide when and if troops will cross the Posse Comitatus line. For this reason alone, the legal basis of the operation should be questioned.

If there is any doubt about which chain of command is calling the shots here, consider that one public affairs officer for the border patrol told a South Texas reporter that “the Department of Defense has asked that the exact number of Guardsmen posted in the Del Rio Sector not be released.” As if the guard are facing a battlefield situation?

In order to paper over its obvious contradictions with Posse Comitatus, Operation Jump Start requires that Governors “pre-approve” missions and retain command of their troops, but at least in the case of Texas, the Governor’s Office has yet to produce a documentary record of “pre-approval” or orders of command. The legal structure of the operation was developed in cooperation with states Attorneys General, but again in the case of Texas, the AG is refusing to release documents related to legal planning. Thanks to Operation Jump Start, civil procedures of policy development are being militarized under our noses.

Immigration is not a military issue, and we are already seeing the consequences of making it one. Troops are already speaking of parallels between Laredo and Baghdad. Secrecy surrounds the mission and its legal history.

Zooming out from serious questions of domestic policy, there is also the crucial question of what militarization means for international relations on the North American continent.

Corporate interests have been well served by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Mexican people have suffered the consequences. Their agricultural economy has been undermined, their currency has been devalued, and they have responded with their feet. The presence of Mexican peoples in the USA has neither military causes nor consequences. In the new common market, the people are in fact learning to live in peace. Under these conditions, is it not a sign of aggression to invoke military solutions?

Emergency initiatives are called for, but they belong to education, health care, and speedy adoption of the treaty for migrant rights. There is no plan for a wall between Canada and the USA, say headlines. And there should be no plans to militarize the USA border with Latin America, either. If the American dream means anything, we must insist on civil relations between free peoples. The policy of creeping militarization at the USA-Mexico border must be immediately reversed.

---

Editorial – Original Version

Without any debate or policy study, the USA has quickly moved toward a militarized border with Mexico. Yet, with only one tenth of the expected deployment actually in position, it is not too late to say wait a minute.

One way to slow down the momentum toward militarization would be to call on Governors of the forty states who have not yet pledged troops to Operation Jump Start, and ask them to delay their troop authorizations.

From the ten Governors who have authorized troops, including the four Governors whose states share borders with Mexico, we should ask for troop recalls.

The Governors of the various states should not cooperate with a national policy of militarization, period. It is simply a bad idea to patch political policy with military solutions on an ad hoc basis. And this is what is being done in the case of the border deployment.

As far as the public has been told, the plan to militarize the border was hatched in haste, and motivated by political needs during an election year. Military troops have been ordered in large numbers to a place where no military crisis exists. Yet, the very presence of troops along a crucial international border can only escalate risks of violence and further militarization.

Operation Jump Start is being presented as a temporary and background use of military troops, but that doesn’t make it a better idea. In fact, connecting troops to the issue of immigration is a bad idea. Immigration issues are matters of civil and criminal law, and the USA has vast bureaus under the Department of Homeland Security that enjoy legitimate authority over these issues. Our political impatience with the structures of immigration should not be exploited through military solutions.

Already, the press is reporting anecdotes that troops volunteering for border duty see their service along the Rio Grande in terms of their service in Iraq. But this is a dangerous analogy to draw, and warns us that military motives are already being deployed to situations best left to law enforcement powers.

It is worse than ironic that the deployment of military troops to assist with domestic tranquility is most enthusiastically supported in Texas, one of the former confederate states for which the principle of Posse Comitatus was enacted into federal law after Reconstruction.

Posse Comitatus makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress. Yet the Memorandum of Understanding for Operation Jump Start gives to the Secretary of Defense the power to decide when and if troops will
cross the Poss
e Comitatus line. For this reason alone, the legal basis of the operation should be in question.

In order to paper over the obvious contradictions between Posse Comitatus and Operation Jump Start the Governor of Texas assures us that he is the real commander of his troops. But this is a technicality that is not supported by the Governor’s own documentary records. On June 8, the Texas Civil Rights Review requested from the Governor documents that would demonstrate his administrative command of the troops in his state, but the Governor said no such documents exist.

On June 30, when asked again for documentary evidence that he authorized 2,300 Texas troops for Operation Jump Start, the Governor’s Office indicated it had nothing on file but a pdf of the operation’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a memorandum which in fact requires the very “pre-approval” of the mission that the Governor says he cannot document.

Immigration is not a military issue, and we are already seeing the consequences of making it one. Troops are already speaking of parallels between Laredo and Baghdad. Secrecy surrounds the mission.

Zooming out from serious questions of domestic policy, there is the crucial question of what militarization means for international relations on the North American continent. High-powered corporations are busy pushing for quick and open trade policies that will virtually eliminate national borders. The peoples of South and North are in fact learning to live together. If any emergency initiatives are called for, they belong to education, health care, and speedy adoption of the treaty for migrant rights.

Corporate interests have been well served by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Mexican people have suffered the consequences. Their agricultural economy has been undermined, their currency has been devalued, and they have responded with their feet. The presence of Mexican peoples in the USA has neither military causes nor consequences. In the new common market, the people are learning to live in peace. Under these conditions, is it not a sign of aggression to invoke military solutions?

There is no plan for a wall between Canada and the USA, say headlines. And there should be no plans to militarize the USA border with Latin America, either. If the American dream means anything, it must insist on civil relations between free peoples. The policy of creeping militarization of the USA-Mexico border must be immediately reversed.

Compare this to the same-day story about prison beds.–gm

Straining to serve, Texas mental health system is at a crossroads
Possible budget cuts, effect of state official’s exit worry advocates

By Andrea Ball
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, July 02, 2006

It’s standing room only at Austin’s crisis center for people who are mentally ill.

Two young girls sit on the gray speckled tile floor. A muscular, tattooed man walks outside for a smoke. An old woman with a big hat and a garbage bag full of possessions mumbles to herself. This is Psychiatric Emergency Services, the last resort center for people who are poor, desperate and mentally ill. They come here depressed, delusional, psychotic or suicidal. And because they have nowhere else to go, they’re coming here more often.

“We’re seeing not only more people, but more of the same people over and over again,” said Jim Van Norman, medical director for the Austin Travis County Mental Health Mental Retardation Center, which runs the crisis center.

Visits to the crisis center have almost doubled since 2003. More than a quarter of the prisoners in the Travis County jail system are on psychotropic drugs. People can wait six to eight months just to get an appointment with MHMR.

“A six- to eight-month waiting list?” said King Davis, executive director of the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, a University of Texas-based organization focused on mental health issues. “That’s extraordinary. That’s a very serious matter.”

Advocates say Travis County is a microcosm of a state mental health system that is overwhelmed and underfunded. Although the system has made progress over the past few years, garnering more state money, more public attention and new efforts to revamp services, there is uncertainty ahead.

The Legislative Budget Board and Gov. Rick Perry’s office recently told state agencies to assume a 10 percent funding cut when making budget requests to lawmakers. Legislators say that request is more of a planning tool than an actual threat. Two years ago, agencies were told to start off assuming a 5 percent cut, but by the end of the session, legislators increased state spending by $5 billion.

Mental health advocates still worry that any funding decrease could derail the momentum. And adding to the anxiety is the impending departure of Texas Department of State Health Services Commissioner Eduardo Sanchez, a certified family practice physician who has championed the cause of the uninsured.

“We think Texas is, in many ways, at a crossroads,” Davis said. “Where does it want to go with its mental health system? That’s part of the question, and it’s open right now.”

Texas ranks 47th nationally in per capita funding of mental heath services. As part of its work, the state pays community mental health centers to treat poor and uninsured people with medication, therapy and rehabilitation programs. It also runs 10 psychiatric hospitals.

In 2004, motivated by budget constraints and a desire to bring consistency to treatment practices, the state started rationing care. Instead of trying to serve everyone, policymakers decided to concentrate on those who are the most severely ill: people with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and major depression. Thousands of people with other ailments, such as panic, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders, were phased out of the system. New patients with those disorders are denied treatment unless they are in a crisis.

Exactly what is happening to those now-ineligible people remains unclear. Advocates say they are behind the rise in people showing up in emergency rooms, crisis centers and jails, but no one really knows because there is no way to track everyone.

However, even many people who still qualify for services can’t get them. Under the current budget, 596,000 Texans are eligible, but the state can serve only 16 percent of children and 24 percent of adults, according to the Mental Health Association in Texas, a nonprofit mental health advocacy and education group.

“I think people should be outraged at how few people are being served,” said Lynn Lasky Clark, executive director of the association.

A system checkup

Assessing the state of mental health in a place as geographically and economically diverse as Texas can be difficult. Some mental health centers operate emergency crisis centers; others do not. Some have waiting lists; others keep up with need.

Yet, it is possible to assess the system’s vital signs by spot-checking demand for mental health care in jails, crisis centers and hospitals.

For example, by the end of April, more than 1,300 people across the state were on waiting lists for help at community mental health centers — up 16 percent since August. Meanwhile, about 200 prisoners across the state are sitting in jails waiting for a bed at one of the state’s psychiatric hospitals.

In the Austin area, indicators show:

•Visits to Psychiatric Emergency Services, the 24-hour public mental health crisis center, increased 84.8 percent from Sept. 1, 2003, to Aug. 31, 2005.

•Mental health visits to 20 nonmental health providers, including Seton Family of Hospitals facilities and nine City of Austin health clinics, have increased 17 percent since 2004, according to the Indigent Care Collaboration, a nonprofit group that tracks medical care for poor people in Travis, Hays and Williamson counties.

•In Travis County, where the waiting list for nonemergency care currently hovers around 475, people who are not in crisis, coming from jails or recently released from a psychiatric hospital can wait six to eight months to get an appointment to see a psychiatrist. Two years ago, there was no waiting list.

•Twenty-six percent of the inmates in the Travis County jail system are on psychotropic medications for everything from anxiety to bipolar disorder, up from 15 percent in September 2004. Inmates who have been declared incompetent to stand trial usually wait a month for a bed at a state psychiatric hospital.

“They’re just sitting in the jail, eating up jail resources,” said Sgt. Kitty Hicks of the Travis County sheriff’s department.

At Austin’s Psychiatric Emergency Services, the crowds come in cycles. Some days are quiet, others chaotic.

After sitting in the waiting room for two hours on a recent day, a young woman with bipolar disorder got in to see social worker Robert Dole. The woman had run out of medication two months earlier, she told him. Consequently, she was seeing figures and shadows that she suspected didn’t exist. She heard things — a constant chorus of voices she couldn’t understand — and was sleeping two hours a night.

She said she was drinking a bottle of rum a day to dull the voices.

“Is that a lot?” she asked.

“I think it’s fair to say most people don’t drink a bottle of rum a day,” Dole answered.

The center set her up with an appointment for long-term services through MHMR. After urging the woman to stop drinking, the center psychiatrist wrote her a prescription for medication.

Despite gaps, gains

Despite the challenges currently facing the state’s mental health system, the past few years have had gains.

Last year, under health commissioner Sanchez, the Legislature restored cuts made in 2003, such as therapy benefits for Medicaid recipients. In February, the state approved $13.4 million for extra beds at its psychiatric hospitals.

The health department is revamping the way it provides crisis services to people with mental illnesses. Private grant providers such as the Hogg Foundation have increased their funding for community programs.

Then last month, citing family reasons, Sanchez announced his retirement. He will step down in
October, leaving the future of mental health services in new hands.

“It’s like things were looking good and we were making progress,” said Robin Peyson, executive director of NAMI Texas, a mental health advocacy and support group. “Now, there’s Sanchez leaving and this 10 percent thing.”

Advocates are rallying against potential budget cuts, revving up supporters with e-mail blasts, contacting legislators and telling anyone who will listen that Texas’ overwhelmed mental health system can’t take another blow.

Davis says state officials and advocates need to take a broad, long-term look at the kind of models and levels of service the state eventually wants to provide.

“There are huge gaps in the system, and I think everyone realizes that,” he said. “But there is no overall planning on what to do about it.”

Joe Vesowate, the state assistant commissioner for mental health and substance abuse services, remains optimistic about the future of Texas’ mental health services. He says he thinks the momentum will continue into the 2007 legislative session, which will begin in January.

Sanchez did a good job of educating people about the importance of mental health services, so the learning curve for legislators won’t be as steep, he said.

Mounting community pressure for better services will also work in advocates’ favor, Clark said.

“It’s our time,” she said. “Everyone is talking about it: law enforcement, judges, ER doctors. This is a very critical time.”

84.8%

Increase in visits to Austin’s 24-hour public mental health crisis center from Sept. 1, 2003, to Aug. 31, 2005.

17%

Increase in mental health visits to 20 Austin area nonmental health providers since 2004.

6 to 8 months

Waiting time to get nonemergency care in Travis County.

26%

Portion of inmates in the Travis County jail system who are on psychotropic medication.

Don’t say we wuzn’t warned. For example, is there any discussion here about what might make the rise in prison population less inevitable? A same-day story about a mental health crisis places these two issues in separate compartments. But what about the prison population attributable to mental illness? What would first-class mental health mean for prison demand?–gm

As prisons fill, state hunts for scarce beds
Growing convict population raises questions about future housing

By Mike Ward
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, July 01, 2006

While the state is paying $40 a day to house more than 1,000 state convicts in county jails, it is paying some private lockups as little as $20 a day to hold several thousand others. It is a difference that state officials are examining closely as they scramble to find new beds to supplement overflowing state prisons.

Why the difference in cost?

“Well, the answer is not simple,” said state Rep. Jerry Madden, a Richardson Republican who leads the House Corrections Committee, which monitors the prison system. “These inmates are all basically the same type, just the price is much higher.”

County jail beds are more expensive than some private lockups’ because their bunks are maximum-security and their costs are higher, prison officials said. However, most of the inmates who are housed outside state prisons are minimum-security, they said.

So why not lease more of the cheaper bunks and save money?

A state law enacted years ago limits the number of state convicts that can be held in any one private prison to 1,000, Madden said. He has promised to try to change that law when the Legislature convenes in 2007 if that is what it takes to save money.

Even then, enough bunks may not be available in either kind of jail to go around. In recent months, state officials said, federal officials have been leasing hundreds of empty jail beds at a higher price than the state pays. That is heightening fears that sometime next year, when the state may need hundreds more bunks for its prisoner overflow, there may not be enough.

“With fewer beds out there, that means we’re going to be tighter for space,” Madden said. “No question about it.”

In all, officials said they are budgeted to spend up to $43.8 million during the fiscal year that ends in August to lease prison beds.

To house a convict in a state-run prison costs Texas taxpayers about $40 a day. Most counties charge the same rate, officials said. But the rate of private lockups is much less, ranging from about $20 to $30 a day, Madden said.

“By contract, they don’t have the medical costs because if an inmate gets sick, they transfer him back to the state,” he said. “Their personnel costs are less. Their overhead is less. But in some cases, their programs are better than the ones offered in the county jails.”

That, prison officials said, is by design: Private prisons include space for programs — vocational instruction and treatment programs, among others — as part of their contract with governments that house inmates there. County jails, however, are built with little or no space for programs because they are generally limited to holding prisoners.

“The counties have no guaranteed minimum number of inmates who will be housed there, like the contract guarantees the private companies get, so there’s more of a financial chance involved in the county operations,” Madden said. “One day they might be full of state inmates; the next day they might not.”

Prison officials said Friday that they are hoping to lease 300 to 400 more beds in coming months; 1,418 prisoners are already housed in county jails.

More than 4,000 state inmates are housed in privately run prisons under long-term contracts with the state. One houses 1,000 inmates, the rest 500 — and all seven are full.

State prisons Friday were about 97 percent full, holding 152,526 convicts.

“The projections are that we’ll need about 3,100 (overflow) contract beds” by the end of August 2007, said Michelle Lyons, a Huntsville-based spokeswoman for the prison system. “That’s more than twice what we contract for now.”

In May, reports show, the prison population grew by 334 convicts — an upward trend that has been demonstrated in three of the first five months of the year.

Officials at the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, the agency that oversees county jails and private lockups, said about 2,900 felons were in county jails in June awaiting transfer to a state prison. Statewide, county jails had about 3,900 empty beds.

Of the 81,000 prisoners in county and private jails across Texas, 13,710 were so-called “contract” inmates June 1, including state and federal prisoners, as well as inmates from eight other states.

Considering Texas’ growing prison population, expected to fill state prisons by sometime early next year, Madden said he is pushing prison officials to review their contracting policies — to take advantage of cheaper beds and to ensure that Texas has enough available bunks to hold all its inmates during the coming year.

As part of their interim studies, both the House and Senate committees that oversee prisons are examining ways to slow the flow of convicts into prisons, including diverting more first-time offenders to probation, releasing more nonviolent offenders onto more intensively supervised paroles and even bolstering educational and vocational programs in prisons to cut recidivism.

Madden, a conservative GOP House leader, said he is also supporting expansion of drug- and alcohol-treatment programs championed years ago by Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat, and then drastically scaled back by Republicans who replaced her. They blamed the cutbacks on budget belt-tightening.

“Some of those programs appear to be working,” Madden said. “We should look at expanding them.”

Unisys is a partner to the SBInet bidding team led by Boeing.–gm

Unisys and Immigration in $50m border security project

By Stan Beer

iT Wire

Sunday, 02 July 2006

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) has entered into a partnership with systems integrator Unisys as part of a $50 million program designed to strengthen border security through biometric technology.
Unisys will deliver the technology – which allows immigration officials to authenticate an individual’s identity through facial images and fingerprinting – over the next four years. This complements DIMA’s investment in systems to store and manage these images.

Biometrics will be used at key points in the immigration process including airports and immigration detention centres. The information will be stored in a central database – the Identity Services Repository – for future identity verification.

“I want to make it clear that all personal information collected by this program is strictly protected by government legislation,” the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Robb, said.

“The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been involved since the process began to ensure that the department met all the necessary requirements of the Privacy Act.”

This tender is part of the wider biometrics program and identity management strategy to strengthen border security through an improvement in the integrity of non-citizen identity information and a reduction in identity fraud.

“DIMA plays a crucial role in establishing the identity of non-citizens and ensuring the integrity of documents, such as visas, that people later use to access everyday services such as banking and utilities, so initiatives such as this are essential,” Mr Robb said.

Detention facilities will be the first to roll out these systems with other areas to follow over the course of the contract.

Subject to successful tender negotiations, a contract was expected to be in place by the middle of next month but if DIMA and Unisys cannot agree on appropriate terms, then DIMA may negotiate with one or more of the other tenderers.