Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Militarizing the Border

Why Operation Jump Start Worries Me

by GREG MOSES

The Guard operation at the border has an air of legal peculiarity about it. Obviously it has been initiated by federal powers, but care has been taken to leave troops under command of the Governors, sort of. If the legal finesse of Operation Jump Start offers a vulnerability de-militarization activists can exploit, it also presents features worth worrying about.

Let’s not forget that the memo was released at the very end of the work week during the first week of the summer season. In Texas, it was distributed by the Governor’s office after five. And there has yet to be any public discussion of its wisdom. Doesn’t this sound too familiar?

A plain reading of the operation’s structure suggests that the Pentagon has vastly strengthened its hand in the conduct of domestic affairs. And citizens of the USA often express well-founded concerns that we would not want our military doing what it does best in the neighborhoods where we live. Military professionals also have a right to be nervous about the situation this makes for them.

On the level of pure formality, the Memorandum of Understanding indicates that Guard missions should be "requested by, coordinated with, and undertaken in support of the USCPB" (U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Department of Homeland Security.) But the initiative for Operation Jump Start seems to come from forces well beyond the control of USCPB.

For example, the missions are to be "pre-approved by the DoD (Department of Defense) and the Governor of the Supported State, and consistent with the implementing instructions communicated by the National Guard Bureau." It is then up to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to "coordinate the provision of resources to the Supported States in furtherance of the border enforcement effort." In terms of policy direction, the paper trail of Operation Jump Start begins in an office of law enforcement, but it ends with "implementing instructions" mobilized by the Guard. In fact, before the DoD approves any "request", it will already have to be consistent with how the guard will implement it.

Thus, any Operation Jump Start mission formally "requested" by USCPB will activate a Pentagon line of power that goes from mission approval to mission deployment, flipping the switch toward a conduit of border affairs that runs from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, to the National Guard. This raises serious legal issues about the militarization of domestic law enforcement, and suggests why such a show had to be made about the roles of various Governors. But clearly, this operation was commenced with little display of pride or initiative from the Governors (even if it might give them what they secretly want this election year.)

Furthermore, in terms of formal bureau alignments, there is a mismatch beteen USCBP and DoD that further seems to weaken the actual power of the domestic bureau, because nowhere in the memo is the director of Homeland Security given the kind of formal power that falls into the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

Of course, one could argue that the Director of Homeland Security, although invisible in the memo, retains formal chain of command control over USCBP, but it is not the DHS director who has been assigned to produce the mission requests. Simply comparing levels of power between the formal partners of the memo (the Border Patrol and the Pentagon) the simple lines of the memo seem to strengthen the Pentagon’s muscle in border strategies.

And why shouldn’t this literal structure make us very nervous, given the obvious pattern of strategic muscle exercised by this particular Secretary of Defense? It is a question you may ask nearly anyone in the USA, since very few seem very nervous.

That the federal administration of the USA also represents an apex of corporate types and tokens reminds us as well that a huge border contract is about to enter the awarding phase. The literal structure of the memo gives the DoD some power to push a nose or two into that process of neo-liberal privatization (for which readers of the Texas Civil Rights Review are so far predicting a contract for Northrup Grumman.)

Thursday afternoon, the Texas Civil Rights Review filed records requests with the offices of Governor, Attorney General, and Texas National Guard in order to begin an archive of key documents pertaining to the militarization of the border, because the peculiar paper flow mandated by Operation Jump Start is well worth reading closely.

GREG MOSES is editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review and author of Revolution of Conscience: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Philosophy of Nonviolence. His chapter on civil rights under Clinton and Bush appears in Dime’s Worth of Difference, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. He can be reached at: gmosesx@prodigy.net.