Free Republic

No that is not a declaration of war. It is a Joint Resolution for use of force only.

The joint Resolution..... only gives the President authority to use force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks that occured on Sept, 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..

It referes to the War Powers Resolution and it specificaly points out the War Powers Resolution Requirment (1)SPECIFIC Statutory Authorization, consistant with section 8 (a)(1) of the War powers Resolution, and that is not a declaration of war as you can see from the War Powers Resolution below

Also in the War Powers Resolution they make the distinction between DECLARATION OF WAR and SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION such as the Joint resolution for use of force you are referring to in Section 6(c)

Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

As it stands now Congress can take back its authorization anytime it wants to and end the authorized use of force.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution". PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization,

or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or

(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

SEC. 5. (a) Each report submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1) shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate on the same calendar day. Each report so transmitted shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate for appropriate action. If, when the report is transmitted, the Congress has adjourned sine die or has adjourned for any period in excess of three calendar days, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, if they deem it advisable (or if petitioned by at least 30 percent of the membership of their respective Houses) shall jointly request the President to convene Congress in order that it may consider the report and take appropriate action pursuant to this section.

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of Untied States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR JOINT RESOLUTION OR BILL

SEC. 6. (a) Any joint resolution or bill introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its recommendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a joint resolution or bill passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out not later than fourteen calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). The joint resolution or bill so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays. (d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution or bill passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such resolution or bill not later than four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in section 5(b). In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than the expiration of such sixty-day period.

CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY PROCEDURES FOR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

SEC. 7. (a) Any concurrent resolution introduced pursuant to section 5(b) at least thirty calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period specified in such section shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, as the case may be, and one such concurrent resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

(b) Any concurrent resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents), and shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(c) Such a concurrent resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the committee of the other House named in subsection (a) and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted on within three calendar days after it has been reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

(d) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a concurrent resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such concurrent resolution within six calendar days after the legislation is referred to the committee of conference. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports in the Record or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within 48 hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

INTERPRETATION OF JOINT RESOLUTION

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

(2) from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.

(b) Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to the date of enactment of this joint resolution and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.

(c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities. (d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this joint resolution.

Thanks for adding that link Pete

Hey newbie...member since June 11, 2002 If you have nothing to add to the topic of discussion and can only attack the poster of the thread....go back to DU

I just can not keep up with it anymore :-)

Good question

Mineta and Mcgaw should have been out of there the first day Bush took office.

Magaw was brought back and given this new job by BUSH and was put into the office as a recess appointment by BUSH.

We raised hell around here about Magaw while he was the head JBT of the ATF under Clinton and very few here had much to say when BUSH brought him back.

It should be very interesting to see what else this jerk comes up with. If this is our first clue, he is going to be worse than he was while running and covering up for the ATF

Once again, Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) makes me proud!

That is called setting 'the precedent' as I learned when Reno was AG.

Sunday, March 4, 2001

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle

Article link

Altar Desert, Mexico -- Editor's Note: This week, the Bush administration is required by NAFTA to announce that Mexican long-haul trucks will be allowed onto U.S. highways - where they have long been banned over concerns about safety - rather than stopping at the border. The Chronicle sent a team to get the inside story before the trucks start to roll.

It was sometime way after midnight in the middle of nowhere, and a giddy Manuel Marquez was at the wheel of 20 tons of hurtling, U.S.-bound merchandise.

The lights of oncoming trucks flared into a blur as they whooshed past on the narrow, two-lane highway, mere inches from the left mirror of his truck. Also gone in a blur were Marquez's past two days, a nearly Olympic ordeal of driving with barely a few hours of sleep.

"Ayy, Mexico!" Marquez exclaimed as he slammed on the brakes around a hilly curve, steering around another truck that had stopped in the middle of the lane, its hood up and its driver nonchalantly smoking a cigarette. "We have so much talent to share with the Americans - and so much craziness."

Several hours ahead in the desert darkness was the border, the end of Marquez's 1,800-mile run. At Tijuana, he would deliver his cargo, wait for another load, then head back south.

But soon, Marquez and other Mexican truckers will be able to cross the border instead of turning around. Their feats of long-distance stamina - and, critics fear, endangerment of public safety - are coming to a California freeway near you.

Later this week, the Bush administration is expected to announce that it will open America's highways to Mexican long-haul trucks, thus ending a long fight by U.S. truckers and highway safety advocates to keep them out.

Under limitations imposed by the United States since 1982, Mexican vehicles are allowed passage only within a narrow border commercial zone, where they must transfer their cargo to U.S.-based long-haul trucks and drivers.

The lifting of the ban - ordered last month by an arbitration panel of the North American Free Trade Agreement - has been at the center of one of the most high-decibel issues in the U.S.-Mexico trade relationship.

Will the end of the ban endanger American motorists by bringing thousands of potentially unsafe Mexican trucks to U.S. roads? Or will it reduce the costs of cross-border trade and end U.S. protectionism with no increase in accidents?

Two weeks ago, as the controversy grew, Marquez's employer, Transportes Castores, allowed a Chronicle reporter and photographer to join him on a typical run from Mexico City to the border.

The three-day, 1,800-mile journey offered a window into a part of Mexico that few Americans ever see - the life of Mexican truckers, a resourceful, long-suffering breed who, from all indications, do not deserve their pariah status north of the border. But critics of the border opening would also find proof of their concerns about safety:

-- American inspectors at the border are badly undermanned and will be hard- pressed to inspect more than a fraction of the incoming Mexican trucks.

California - which has a much more rigorous truck inspection program than Arizona, New Mexico or Texas, the other border states - gave full inspections to only 2 percent of the 920,000 short-haul trucks allowed to enter from Mexico last year.

Critics say the four states will be overwhelmed by the influx of Mexican long-haul trucks, which are expected to nearly double the current volume of truck traffic at the border.

-- Most long-distance Mexican trucks are relatively modern, but maintenance is erratic.

Marquez's truck, for example, was a sleek, 6-month-old, Mexican-made Kenworth, equal to most trucks north of the border. But his windshield was cracked - a safety violation that would earn him a ticket in the United States but had been ignored by his company since it occurred two months ago.

A recent report by the U.S. Transportation Department said 35 percent of Mexican trucks that entered the United States last year were ordered off the road by inspectors for safety violations such as faulty brakes and lights.

-- Mexico's domestic truck-safety regulation is extremely lax. Mexico has no functioning truck weigh stations, and Marquez said federal police appear to have abandoned a program of random highway inspections that was inaugurated with much fanfare last fall.

-- Almost all Mexican long-haul drivers are forced to work dangerously long hours.

Marquez was a skillful driver, with lightning reflexes honed by road conditions that would make U.S. highways seem like cruise-control paradise. But he was often steering through a thick fog of exhaustion.

In Mexico, no logbooks - required in the United States to keep track of hours and itinerary - are kept. Marquez slept a total of only seven hours during his three-day trip.

"We're just like American truckers, I'm sure," Marquez said with a grin. "We're neither saints nor devils. But we're good drivers, that's for sure, or we'd all be dead." -- -- --

Although no reliable statistics exist for the Bay Area's trade with Mexico, it is estimated that the region's exports and imports with Mexico total $6 billion annually. About 90 percent of that amount moves by truck, in tens of thousands of round trips to and from the border.

Under the decades-old border restrictions, long-haul trucks from either side must transfer their loads to short-haul "drayage" truckers, who cross the border and transfer the cargo again to long-haul domestic trucks. The complicated arrangement is costly and time-consuming, making imported goods more expensive for U.S. consumers.

Industry analysts say that after the ban is lifted, most of the two nations' trade will be done by Mexican drivers, who come much cheaper than American truckers because they earn only about one-third the salary and typically drive about 20 hours per day.

Although Mexican truckers would have to obey the U.S. legal limit of 10 hours consecutive driving when in the United States, safety experts worry that northbound drivers will be so sleep-deprived by the time they cross the border that the American limit will be meaningless. Mexican drivers would not, however, be bound by U.S. labor laws, such as the minimum wage.

"Are you going to be able to stay awake?" Marcos Munoz, vice president of Transportes Castores jokingly asked a Chronicle reporter before the trip. "Do you want some pingas?"

The word is slang for uppers, the stimulant pills that are commonly used by Mexican truckers. Marquez, however, needed only a few cups of coffee to stay awake through three straight 21-hour days at the wheel.

Talking with his passengers, chatting on the CB radio with friends, and listening to tapes of 1950s and 1960s ranchera and bolero music, he showed few outward signs of fatigue.

But the 46-year-old Marquez, who has been a trucker for 25 years, admitted that the burden occasionally is too much.
"Don't kid yourself," he said late the third night. "Sometimes, you get so tired, so worn, your head just falls."

U.S. highway safety groups predict an increase in accidents after the border is opened.
"Even now, there aren't enough safety inspectors available for all crossing points," said David Golden, a top official of the National Association of Independent Insurers, the main insurance-industry lobby.

"So we need to make sure that when you're going down Interstate 5 with an 80,000-pound Mexican truck in your rearview mirror and you have to jam on your brakes, that truck doesn't come through your window."

Golden said the Bush administration should delay the opening to Mexican trucks until border facilities are upgraded.

California highway safety advocates concur, saying the California Highway Patrol - which carries out the state's truck inspections - needs to be given more inspectors and larger facilities to check incoming trucks' brakes, lights and other safety functions. -- -- --

Marquez's trip started at his company's freight yard in Tlalnepantla, an industrial suburb of Mexico City. There, his truck was loaded with a typical variety of cargo - electronic components and handicrafts bound for Los Angeles, and chemicals, printing equipment and industrial parts for Tijuana.

At the compound's gateway was a shrine with statues of the Virgin Mary and Jesus. As he drove past, Marquez crossed himself, then crossed himself again before the small Virgin on his dashboard.
"Just in case, you know," he said. "The devil is always on the loose on these roads."

In fact, Mexican truckers have to brave a wide variety of dangers.

As he drove through the high plateaus of central Mexico, Marquez pointed out where he was hijacked a year ago - held up at gunpoint by robbers who pulled alongside him in another truck. His trailer full of canned tuna - easy to fence, he said - was stolen, along with all his personal belongings.

What's worse, some thieves wear uniforms.

On this trip, the truck had to pass 14 roadblocks, at which police and army soldiers searched the cargo for narcotics. Each time, Marquez stood on tiptoes to watch over their shoulders. He said, "You have to have quick eyes, or they'll take things out of the packages."

Twice, police inspectors asked for bribes - "something for the coffee," they said. Each time, he refused and got away with it.
"You're good luck for me," he told a Chronicle reporter. "They ask for money but then see an American and back off. Normally, I have to pay a lot." -- -- --

Although the Mexican government has pushed hard to end the border restrictions, the Mexican trucking industry is far from united behind that position. Large trucking companies such as Transportes Castores back the border opening, while small and medium-size ones oppose it.

"We're ready for the United States, and we'll be driving to Los Angeles and San Francisco," said Munoz, the company's vice president.
"Our trucks are modern and can pass the U.S. inspections. Only about 10 companies here could meet the U.S. standards."

The border opening has been roundly opposed by CANACAR, the Mexican national trucking industry association, which says it will result in U.S. firms taking over Mexico's trucking industry.

"The opening will allow giant U.S. truck firms to buy large Mexican firms and crush smaller ones," said Miguel Quintanilla, CANACAR's president. "We're at a disadvantage, and those who benefit will be the multinationals."

Quintanilla said U.S. firms will lower their current costs by replacing their American drivers with Mexicans, yet will use the huge American advantages - superior warehouse and inventory-tracking technology, superior access to financing and huge economies of scale - to drive Mexican companies out of business. Already, some U.S. trucking giants such as M.S. Carriers, Yellow Corp. and Consolidated Freightways Corp. have invested heavily in Mexico.

"The opening of the border will bring about the consolidation of much of the trucking industry on both sides of the border," said the leading U.S. academic expert on NAFTA trucking issues, James Giermanski, a professor at Belmont Abbey College in Raleigh, N.C.

The largest U.S. firms will pair with large Mexican firms and will dominate U.S.-Mexico traffic, he said.

But Giermanski added that the increase in long-haul cross-border traffic will be slower than either critics or advocates expect, because of language difficulties, Mexico's inadequate insurance coverage and Mexico's time- consuming system of customs brokers.

"All the scare stories you've heard are just ridiculous," he said. "The process will take a long time." -- -- --

In California, many truckers fear for their jobs. However, Teamsters union officials say they are trying to persuade their members that Marquez and his comrades are not the enemy.

"There will be a very vehement reaction by our members if the border is opened," said Chuck Mack, president of Teamsters Joint Council 7, which has 55, 000 members in the Bay Area.

"But we're trying to diminish the animosity that by focusing on the overall problem - how (the opening) will help multinational corporations to exploit drivers on both sides of the border."

Mexican drivers, however, are likely to welcome the multinationals' increased efficiency, which will enable them to earn more by wasting less time waiting for loading and paperwork.

For example, in Mexico City, Marquez had to wait more than four hours for stevedores to load his truck and for clerks to prepare the load's documents - a task that would take perhaps an hour for most U.S. trucking firms.

For drivers, time is money. Marquez's firm pays drivers a percentage of gross freight charges, minus some expenses. His three-day trip would net him about $300. His average monthly income is about $1,400 - decent money in Mexico, but by no means middle class.

Most Mexican truckers are represented by a union, but it is nearly always ineffectual - what Transportes Castores executives candidly described as a "company union." A few days before this trip, Transportes Castores fired 20 drivers when they protested delays in reimbursement of fuel costs.

But Marquez didn't much like talking about his problems. He preferred to discuss his only child, a 22-year-old daughter who is in her first year of undergraduate medical school in Mexico City. Along with paternal pride was sadness.

"Don't congratulate me," he said. "My wife is the one who raised her. I'm gone most of the time. You have to have a very strong marriage, because this job is hell on a wife.

"The money is OK, and I really like being out on the open road, but the loneliness . . ." He left the thought unfinished, and turned up the volume on his cassette deck.

It was playing Pedro Infante, the famous bolero balladeer, and Marquez began to sing.
"The moon of my nights has hidden itself.
"Oh little heavenly virgin, I am your son.
"Give me your consolation, "Today, when I'm suffering out in the world." Despite the melancholy tone, Marquez soon became jovial and energetic. He smiled widely and encouraged his passengers to sing along. Forgoing his normal caution, he accelerated aggressively on the curves.

His voice rose, filling the cabin, drowning out the hiss of the pavement below and the rush of the wind that was blowing him inexorably toward the border.

How NAFTA Ended the Ban On Mexico's Trucks The North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect in January 1994, stipulated that the longtime U.S. restrictions on Mexican trucks be lifted.

Under NAFTA, by December 1995, Mexican trucks would be allowed to deliver loads all over the four U.S. border states - California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas - and to pick up loads for their return trip to Mexico. U.S. trucking firms would get similar rights to travel in Mexico. And by January 2000, Mexican trucks would be allowed throughout the United States.

However, bowing to pressure from the Teamsters union and the insurance industry, President Clinton blocked implementation of the NAFTA provisions. The Mexican government retaliated by imposing a similar ban on U.S. trucks.

As a result, the longtime status quo continues: Trucks from either side must transfer their loads to short-haul "drayage" truckers, who cross the border and transfer the cargo again to long-haul domestic trucks.

The complicated arrangement is time-consuming and expensive. Mexico estimates its losses at $2 billion annually; U.S. shippers say they have incurred similar costs.

In 1998, Mexico filed a formal complaint under NAFTA, saying the U.S. ban violated the trade pact and was mere protectionism. The convoluted complaint process lasted nearly six years, until a three-person arbitration panel finally ruled Feb. 6 that the United States must lift its ban by March 8 or allow Mexico to levy punitive tariffs on U.S. exports. -----

COMPARING TRUCKING REGULATIONS

The planned border opening to Mexican trucks will pose a big challenge to U. S. inspectors, who will check to be sure that trucks from Mexico abide by stricter U.S. truck-safety regulations.

Here are some of the differences:

Hours-of-service limits for drivers: In U.S.:

Yes. Ten hours' consecutive driving, up to 15 consecutive hours on duty, 8 hours' consecutive rest, maximum of 70 hours' driving in eight-day period.

In Mexico:

No Driver's age

In U.S.: 21 is minimum for interstate trucking

In Mexico: 18

Random drug test In U.S.: Yes, for all drivers

In Mexico: No Automatic disqualification for certain medical conditions

In U.S.: Yes

In Mexico: No

Logbooks In U.S.: Yes. Standardized logbooks with date graphs are required and part of inspection criteria.

In Mexico: A new law requiring logbooks is not enforced, and virtually no truckers use them.

Maximum weight limit (in pounds) In U.S.: 80,000

In Mexico: 135,000

Roadside Inspections

In U.S.: Yes

In Mexico: An inspection program began last year but has been discontinued.

Out-of-service rules for safety deficiencies

In U.S.: Yes

In Mexico: Not currently. Program to be phased in over two years.

Hazardous materials regulations

In U.S.: A strict standards, training, licensure and inspection regime.

In Mexico: Much laxer program with far fewer identified chemicals and substances, and fewer licensure requirements.

Vehicle safety Standards

In U.S.: Comprehensive standards for components such as antilock brakes, underride guards, night visibility of vehicle.

In Mexico: Newly enacted standards for vehicle inspections are voluntary for the first year and less rigorous than U.S. rules.

Chronicle Graphic Sources: Public Citizen, California Department of Transportation and Chronicle research

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle   Page A - 1

BUMP for a great reply

In Phoenix, We're Terrorists

"There is something corrupt about spreading inuendo and pretending it's truth that is EXACTY what we're fighting against. You have proof, anti up! Let's see your proof."

Justice Department veteran front-runner for FBI post, sources say

The BCCI Affair A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate

by Senator John Kerry and Senator Hank Brown December 1992 102d Congress 2d Session Senate Print 102-140>{? A snip:

Over the past two years, the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has been criticized in numerous editorials in major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, reflecting similar criticism on the part of several Congressmen, including the chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Kerry; the chief Customs undercover officer who handled the BCCI drug-money laundering sting, Robert Mazur; his superior at Customs, Commissioner William von Raab; New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau; former Senate investigator Jack Blum, and, within the Justice Department itself, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Dexter Lehtinen.

Typical editorials criticized Justice's prosecution of BCCI as "sluggish," "conspicuously slow," "inattentive," and "lethargic." Several editorials noted that there had been "poor cooperation" by Justice with other agencies. One stated that "the Justice Department seems to have been holding up information that should have been passed on" to regulators and others. Another that "the Justice Department's secretive conduct in dealing with BCCI requires a better explanation than any so far offered."

In response to all these critics, the Justice Department has suggested that their comments are ill-informed, their motives suspect, and that in time, the wisdom and probity of the Justice Department's approach would emerge. As Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Mueller III stated to the Subcommittee in prepared testimony on November 21, 1991:

We are responsible, ethical prosecutors. We will not indict simply to get favorable press coverage or to quiet our critics. We require evidence sufficient to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will not indict if that evidence does not exist . . . It is premature to assess our performance. We cannot even respond fully to criticism, because we cannot reveal grand jury proceedings or the details of our investigations. Our record when the investigations and prosecutions have concluded will speak for itself. . . a fair review of the available facts will show that the Department of Justice has done an excellent job on the BCCI investigations, and that the criticisms of the Department are fundamentally unfair.

Unfortunately, as time has passed it has become increasingly clear that the Justice Department did indeed make critical errors in its handling of BCCI prior to the appointment of Attorney General Barr in October, 1991, and moreover masked inactivity in prosecuting and investigating the bank by advising critics tat matters pertaining to BCCI were "under investigation," when in fact they were not.

These critical strategic errors, which arose in the earliest stages of the Justice Department's handling of the Customs sting, Operation C-Chase, in 1988, were compounded by the Justice Department's attempts to hinder other legitimate investigative efforts, and by the Justice Department's inability to admit that it had made any of these mistakes.

______________

War on Crime Expands U.S. Prosecutors' Powers; Aggressive Tactics Put Fairness at Issue

By Jim McGeeWashington Post Staff Writer

Public pressure to combat rising crime, together with 12 years of conservative administrations and a "law and order" Supreme Court majority, has transformed the U.S. criminal justice system and vastly expanded the powers of federal prosecutors over the past decade.

The changes can be measured in numbers: The Justice Department's budget grew from $2.3 billion in 1981 to $9.3 billion today, while the number of attorneys, including those who prosecute on behalf of the government, has nearly doubled, to 7,881.

At the same time, Justice Department policies and Supreme Court rulings have given prosecutors more flexibility than ever before in pursuing convictions, and made it increasingly difficult for courts or aggrieved individuals to hold federal prosecutors accountable for tactics that once were considered grounds for case dismissal or disciplinary action.

These tactics include manipulation of grand juries; failure to disclose evidence favorable to a suspect or defendant; government intrusion into the relationship between defense attorneys and clients; intimidation of witnesses; and blitzkrieg indictments or threats of indictment designed to force capitulation without the need for a trial.

Polls show that many Americans believe their federal court system still coddles criminal defendants. But a growing minority of federal judges and other legal experts say that the system has tilted too far in the other direction, and they have complained, in court opinions and journal articles, of a rising official tolerance for prosecution maneuvers they see as unfair, abusive and manifestly improper.

Often sounding "procedural" or like "legal technicalities" to the layman, such tactics can result in a "radical skewing of the balance of advantage in the criminal justice system in favor of the state," as law professor Bennett L. Gershman put it in a recent law review article that he called "The New Prosecutors." "First, prosecutors wield vastly more power than ever before," Gershman wrote. "Second, prosecutors are more insulated from judicial control over their conduct. Third, prosecutors are increasingly immune from ethical restraints." /snip

In the District of Columbia in 1988, a prosecutor obtained a bribery-conspiracy indictment against a prominent businessman with grand jury tactics that were later criticized by an internal Justice Department review. The review acknowledged that the prosecutor had exercised "poor judgment" in his handling of a grand jury witness. The businessman was quickly acquitted by a judge who said there was no direct evidence against him. But his reputation and business suffered severely from the indictment, and he continues to seek redress in thecourts.

In Los Angeles two years ago, a U.S. district judge threw out a major payola-racketeering case because, he said, the federal prosecutor did not disclose evidence that tended to exonerate a defendant. In May, an appeals court agreed that the government's conduct was "intolerable," but reinstated the case, saying that recent Supreme Court rulings left it powerless to do otherwise. The prosecution is still pending.

In 1991, a federal judge in California dismissed a government drug case because "overzealous government agents and prosecutors" had allowed a defendant to retain an attorney who was actively working with the government against him. While pretending to be honestly representing the accused, the attorney was setting him up for the government. In December 1991, a racketeering case against one of Miami's most notorious criminal suspects was thrown out because a judge determined that prosecutors had plotted to provoke the target into breaking a plea bargain agreement they had made with him.

/snip

"By reason of focusing on a number of individual cases, whether they are right or wrong," said Assistant Attorney General Robert S. Mueller III in an interview, "you are going to tar any number of prosecutors out there who have dedicated their lives to what they feel is participating in the criminal justice system in a way that is fair and just.

"You are going to paint us . . . as being some form of Hessians that will trample over rules without any restraints in order to put somebody away," said Mueller, who heads the department's Criminal Division. "That bothers me. That disappoints me."

____________________

WHO IS ROBERT MUELLER III? 

  MUELLER WAS A LOYAL HANDLER OF SEVERAL OF  THE DOJ'S  BIGGEST PANDORA'S BOXES DURING THE BUSH PRESIDENCY.

Mueller was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the BCCI investigation during the Bush Administration.  In 1992 he was the Assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 investigation. Read Mueller's views about Lockerbie at:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1992/8925150-8926640.htm

Between 1995 and 1998, Mr. Mueller was senior litigation counsel and then chief of the homicide section in the United States Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. Previously, he was a senior partner in a private Washington, DC, law firm, where he practiced both criminal and civil law.  (Which private law firm employed Mueller  from 1993 to 1995?  Where exactly did he work?  This may be a gap in his official resume.)

From 1990 until 1993, Mr. Mueller held the position of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, supervising 800 attorneys and overseeing broad and significant federal criminal investigations. Prior to that appointment, he served as Assistant to the United States Attorney General for law enforcement issues and criminal matters. From 1988 to 1990, 1988 Mr. Mueller served as a partner with the law firm of Hill and Barlow in Boston, MA. Prior to this, he served in the Office of the U.S. Attorney, District of Massachusetts, in several capacities: Deputy U.S. Attorney, 1987 - 1988; U.S. Attorney, 1986 - 1987; First Assistant U.S. Attorney, 1985 - 1986; and Chief of the Criminal Division, 1982 - 1985.

In addition, Mr. Mueller served in the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of California, in several capacities: Interim Chief of the Criminal Division, 1981 - 1982; Chief of Special Prosecutions Unit, 1980 - 1981; Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division, 1978 - 1980; and Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division, 1976 - 1977.  (It appears that Mueller may have served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, in the Northern District of California, for approximately one year when Joseph Russoniello was the U.S. Attorney (Russoniello's term ran from 1982-1990.) 

 

"At no time, to my knowledge, has anyone from the CIA, or any agency, attempted to obstruct or interfere with the Department of Justice's investigation and prosecution of BCCI." Robert Mueller, III, now U.S. Attorney, Northern District San Francisco, then Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Bush Administration. who led the investigation of BCCI looting in 1991 and 1992. From Mueller's testimony before Senate Subcommittee, Hrg. 102-350 Pt. 3, p. 789.

____________________

The same phrases and actions keep happing and Mueller is involved in many where this happens, it does not take a rocket scientist to see what the truth.

"No one is accusing him of being responsible for the investigation "SNAFUs" prior to 9/11. Agent Rowley is pointing out in her memo that there were SNAFUs, and that his testimony before congress about that was inaccurate. She then goes on to name some of the problems encountered in the investigation and suggests some ways they could be remedied."

Exactly right. I will add though that Mueller has a history of covering up 'snafu's'for the governemnt.

Everyday it is drip drip drip with information about what they did know. The government has admitted they didnt connect the dots and that more attacks ar going to happen and there is nothing that can be done. All this while incompetent people are still in high places.

It does not take a kook to figure out something is very wrong.

When you and others have to sink to questioning peoples loyalty and patriotism to this country when questions are asked and have proven time and time again you will put politics over conservative principle and will protect your guys at all costs, that makes you no better than the liberals that do the same.

I am not a liar, you know it and I know it.

I cant find it at the moment and will continue to search for it and the second I do I will post it. It is a little hard with all the threads that have been deleted to find some things around here anymore.