February 2, 2007

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Judicial Watch Releases Pentagon Records from “North American Forum” Meetings

 

Judicial Watch continues to push for transparency regarding high-level meetings between officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico under the auspices of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).”  

 

You may recall, this partnership was launched on March 23, 2005 by President Bush, former Mexican President Vincente Fox and former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during a meeting in Waco, Texas, with the expressed goal of “a safer, more prosperous North America.”  Since that time, high level meetings have taken place between officials from all three nations, making some people very anxious.  Congress and many in the media don’t seem much interested in figuring out what the SPP is all about, so Judicial Watch has launched an investigation to get the facts.

 

Earlier this week, Judicial Watch released documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) that don’t exactly calm the nerves.  The documents concern the participation of NORTHCOM Commander Admiral Timothy Keating, NORTHCOM Political Advisor Deborah Bolton, and Plans, Policy & Strategy Director Major General Mark Volcheff in a meeting of the “North American Forum” at the Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Canada on September 12-14, 2006.  (A similar request for records concerning forum participation by then-Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his entourage is still pending with the Pentagon.)

 

The records we obtained include: 1) Proposed comments for Admiral Keating’s speech to the North American Forum; 2) Presentation outlines with handwritten marginal notes and comments from Ms. Bolton; 3) Policy papers; 4) Biographic sketches of participants; and 5) Notes from Major General Volcheff.

 

Presentations during the meeting focused on immigration and border enforcement; full economic and energy integration, including infrastructure and transportation; a North American investment fund; and common customs and duties.  The idea of a carbon tax was raised as a means to combat so-called global warming.  References to the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” occur throughout the documents.

 

Notes of the presentations note that at least one speaker was concerned about the need to overcome popular opposition to North American integration:  “To what degree does a concept of North America help/hinder solving problems between the three countries?…While a vision is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on-board (‘evolution by stealth’).”

 

I’ve said all along there’s nothing wrong with neighboring nations working together to address areas of common interest.  But when I see phrases such as “evolution by stealth” used in association with the development of international policies and agreements, it is off-putting.  All the more reason why Judicial Watch will continue to bring transparency to the Security and Prosperity Partnership discussions.

 

Stay tuned…

 

Court Rules Against ACLU and Protestors in Military Funeral Lawsuit

 

This week, a U.S. District Court in Missouri denied a request by ACLU lawyers to prevent the state from enforcing rules that limit protests near funeral services.  The ACLU filed the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law on behalf of protesters who were picketing and disrupting military funerals.

 

As you may remember, in November, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief arguing, among other things, that funeral attendees have a right to mourn those who died defending our country without being disrupted by protesters. 

 

The court order, issued by federal Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. adopts an argument made by Judicial Watch that Missouri’s “funeral protection law” is well-grounded in Eighth Circuit judicial precedent and is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.  On another point, Judge Gaitan specifically cites Judicial Watch’s brief in his ruling, writing:  “…amicus Judicial Watch notes that Missouri also has an interest in protecting funeral attendees’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.” 

 

So what spurred this lawsuit?

 

After protesters began picketing outside the August 2005 military funeral of Army Spec. Edward L. Myers in St. Joseph, Missouri, state lawmakers decided to take action by passing a “funeral protection law.”  The law does not ban picketing altogether, and does not delineate what kind of “speech” it seeks to regulate.  As Judicial Watch argued in its brief, it is a “narrowly tailored law” that merely regulates the time and place of protests without specifying the type of behavior that is disruptive and disrespectful.  Nonetheless, one of the protesters found a willing legal partner in the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit on her behalf.

 

Fortunately, Judge Gaitan ruled that the ACLU’s client did not demonstrate a “likelihood of success on the merits” of her arguments and denied her request for preliminary injunction.

 

Unlike the ACLU, most Americans believe that mourners should be able to engage in quiet and reflective prayer at funerals.  As the court noted, “…picketing soldiers’ funerals and belittling the sacrifices made by soldiers are intolerable actions…”  I couldn’t agree more.

 

Just Which “Evil Men” Was Hillary Clinton Talking About?

 

What did Hillary Clinton say the other day that had her audience laughing hysterically?  This may be one of those "had to be there" moments to get the joke, but here goes:

 

Hillary was engaging in a town hall style discussion when a man from the audience asked her what in her background qualified her to be commander-in-chief, given that the world is full of "evil" leaders, many of whom "happen to be men."

 

Hillary replied, "The question really is, we face a lot of dangers in the world, and in the gentlemen's words, we face a lot of 'evil men.'  People like Osama bin Laden comes to mind.  And what in my background equips me to deal" - she then waited a second, allowing a wry smile to emerge before finishing - "with evil and bad men?"  The audience laughed for half-a-minute before Clinton could continue.

 

Obviously, they found something amusing about the reference.  But which "evil and bad" men was Hillary referring to?  Some thought Bill Clinton.  To me, her "bad men" reference echoed the "vast right wing conspiracy" argument she fabricated in the 1990's.  Nice that she seems to jokingly compare those who sought to hold the Clinton gang accountable to terrorists.  I'm not laughing.

 

Until next week… 

 

Tom Fitton
President

Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. To make a tax-deductible contribution in support of our efforts, click here.