Thursday, December 15, 2011

Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Trial

The Trial of the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators
by Doug Linder (2009)


APRIL 14, 1865
For President Abraham Lincoln, things looked brighter on Friday, April 14, 1865 than they had for a long time.  Five days earlier, General Robert E. Lee effectively ended the long nightmare of the Civil War by surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia, and just the previous day, the city of Washington celebrated the war's end by illuminating every one of its public building with candles.  Candles also burned in most private homes, causing a city paper to describe the nation's capital as "all ablaze with glory."  The President decided he could finally afford an evening of relaxation: he would attend a performance of Our American Cousinat Ford's Theatre in downtown Washington. 
About eight-thirty, the President and Mrs. Lincoln, accompanied by Major Henry Rathbone and his date, Clara Harris, arrived in a carriage at Ford's Theatre on Tenth Street.  As the presidential party entered the theatre, the play was stopped and the band struck up "Hail to the Chief."  The audience stood to give the President a rousing standing ovation.
The presidential party took their seats in a specially-prepared box on the left side of the stage.  During the second scene of the third act of the play, John Wilkes Booth, a southern-sympathizing actor, climbed the stairs to the mezzanine.  He showed a card to Lincoln's valet-footman and was allowed entry through a lobby door leading to the presidential box.  Reaching the box, Booth pushed open the door.  The President sat in his armchair, one hand on the railing and the other holding to the side a flag that decorated the box, in order to gain a better view of a person in the orchestra.  From a distance of about four feet behind Lincoln, Booth fired a bullet into the President's brain as he shouted "Revenge for the South!"  (according to one witness) or "Freedom!" (according to another).  Major Rathbone sprang up to grab the assassin, but Booth wrested himself away after slashing the major with a large knife.  Booth rushed to the front of the box as Rathbone reached for him again, catching some of his clothes as Booth leapt over the railing.  Rathbone's grab was enough to cause Booth to fall roughly on the stage below, where he fractured the fibula in his left leg. 
Rising from the stage, Booth shouted "Sic semper tyrannus!" and ran across the stage and toward the back of the theatre.**  Ed Spangler, a Ford's theater stagehand, opened a rear door as Booth rushed out to a horse being held for him by Joseph Burroughs (better known as "Peanuts").  Booth mounted the horse and swept rapidly down an alley, then to the left toward F Street--and disappeared into the Washington darkness.
About 10:15, the same time as Booth fired his fatal shot, two men well known to Booth, Lewis Powell and David Herold, approached the Washington home of Secretary of State William Seward, where the Secretary lay bedridden from a recent carriage accident.  Powell knocked on the door of Seward's home as Herold waited outside with his horse.  Powell told the servant who answered the door, William Bell, that he had a prescription for Secretary Seward from his doctor.  Over Bell's objections, Powell began walking up the steps toward the Secretary's room.  One of the Secretary's sons, Frederick Seward, confronted Powell.  Seward told Powell he would take the medicine, but Powell insisted on seeing the Secretary.  When Seward continued to refuse him entry to the bedroom, Powell clubbed him violently with his revolver (fracturing Seward's head so severely that he would remain in a coma for sixty days), then slashed the Secretary's bodyguard, George Robinson, in the forehead with a bowie knife.  Finally reaching the Secretary in his bed, Powell--shouting, "I'm mad, I'm mad!"--stabbed him several times before he could be pulled off by Robinson and two other men.  Powell raced down the stairs and out the door to his bay mare. 
Sometime after 10:30, Booth approached the Navy Yard bridge leading over the Potomac to Maryland.  Questioned by the sentry guarding the bridge about his purposes, Booth said he was "going home" to his residence "close to Beantown."  The sentry allowed Booth to pass.  Five to ten minutes later a second rider, David Herold, approached the bridge.  Herold told the sentry his name was "Smith" and had been "in bad company" and wanted to get home to White Plains.  The sentry decided to let Herold pass.  Shortly thereafter, Booth and Herold met up. 
Booth and Herold arrived around midnight in Surrattsville, where they proceeded to a home and tavern kept by John Lloyd.  Herold burst into Lloyd's home shouting, "Lloyd, for God's sake, make haste and get those things!" Lloyd, without replying, turned to get two carbines that had been delivered three days earlier by Mary Surratt, owner of the tavern.  Herold took the carbines and a bottle of whiskey.  He gave the whiskey bottle to Booth, who drank from it while sitting on his horse.  In less than five minutes, they were off again, heading south.
Meanwhile, in Washington, the President lay dying in a private home across the street from Ford's Theater.  Without ever regaining consciousness, he would live for seven more hours.
INVESTIGATION AND ARRESTS
Less than six hours after the attack, investigators--under the direction of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton--already began to focus on the 541 High Street home of Mary Surratt, a house where Booth was known to have stayed during his frequent visits to Washington.  Rousing Surratt from bed about four in the morning, investigators questioned her about Booth's whereabouts.  When the investigators left, Surratt exclaimed to her daughter (according to Louis Weichmann, a boarder in Surratt's house), "Anna, come what will, I am resigned.  I think J. Wilkes Booth was only an instrument in the hands of the Almighty to punish this proud and licentious people." 
On April 17, shortly after eleven at night, a team of military investigators again arrived at the Surratt home to interview her and other residents about the assassination.  While they were doing so, Lewis Powell, carrying a pick-axe, knocked on the door.  Powell--at the unlikely late-night hour--claimed to have been hired to dig a gutter.  Mary Surratt refused to back up his story.  Surratt told investigators, "Before God, sir, I do not know this man, and have never seen him, and I did not hire him to dig a gutter for me."  While in the Surratt home, investigators uncovered various pieces of incriminating evidence, including a picture of John Wilkes Booth hidden behind another picture on a mantelpiece.  Facing arrest, Surratt asked a minute to kneel and pray.  Surratt and Powell were taken into custody, where William Bell, Secretary's Seward's servant, identified Powell as the man who had stabbed the Secretary. 
The investigation, directed by Lafayette Baker of the National Detective Police, produced three more arrests on the 17th.  Investigators picked up Edman Spangler after gathering reports from theater-goers and nearby residents that Booth had yelled for Spangler in the hours before the assassination and that Spangler had told a theater worker who witnessed Booth's escape, "Don't say which way he went."
Samuel Arnold was arrested at Fortress Monroe in Virginia.  Investigators determined Arnold to be the author, "Sam," of a vaguely incriminating letter found in a search of a trunk in Booth's hotel room following the assassination.  In his March 27 letter to Booth, Arnold wrote, "You know full well that the G[overnmen]t suspicions something is going on" and that "therefore the undertaking is becoming more complicated."  He declared, however, that initially "None, no not one, were more in favor of the enterprise than myself." 
Arnold's arrest proved especially helpful because he identified a number of individuals he said had met in March to plan the kidnapping of the President.  According to Arnold, at a meeting at the Lichau House on Pennsylvania Avenue in March, seven men developed a plan to abduct Lincoln at a theatre, take him to Richmond, and hold him there until the Union agreed to release Confederate prisoners.  Arnold said his part was to have been "to catch the President when he was thrown out of the box at the theatre."  In addition to himself and Booth, Arnold told investigators that men at the meeting included Michael O'Laughlen, George Atzerodt, John Surratt, a man with the alias of "Moseby," and another small man whose name he did not know. 
Two of the men identified by Arnold as part of the original kidnapping plan soon were in custody.  One, Michael O'Laughlen, voluntarily surrendered himself in Baltimore.  O'Laughlen, wearing black clothes and a slouch hat and claiming to be a lawyer, had allegedly (this contention would later be hotly disputed by his defense attorney) entered the home of the Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, on the night before the assassination and inquired about the Secretary's whereabouts.  At the time of the attacks the next night, however, O'Laughlen was not fulfilling his suspected assignment of assassinating Stanton, but was instead drinking at the Rullman's Hotel. 
George Atzerodt's arrest came on April 20 at the home of his cousin in Germantown, Maryland.  Atzerodt had aroused suspicion by asking a bartender on the day of the assassination at the Kirkwood Hotel in Washington about the Vice President Andrew Johnson's whereabouts.  (The Vice President had taken a room at the hotel.) The day after Lincoln's assassination, a hotel employee contacted authorities concerning a "suspicious-looking man" in "a gray coat" who had been seen around the Kirkwood.  John Lee, a member of the military police force, visited the hotel on April 15 and conducted a search of Atzerodt's room.  The search revealed that the bed had not been slept in the previous night.  Lee discovered under a pillow a loaded revolver, a large bowie knife, a map of Virginia, three handkerchiefs, and a bank book of John Wilkes Booth. 
Meanwhile, efforts to apprehend Lincoln's assassin continued. Military investigators tracking Booth's escape route south through Maryland reached the farm ofDr. Samuel Mudd home on April 18.  Mudd admitted that two men on horseback arrived at his home about four o'clock on the morning of April 15.  The men, it turned out, were John Wilkes Booth--in severe pain with his fractured leg--and David Herold.  Mudd said that he welcomed the men into his house, placed Booth on his sofa for an examination, then carried him upstairs to a bed where he dressed the limb. After daybreak, Mudd helped construct a pair of crude crutches for Booth and tried, unsuccessfully, to secure a carriage for his two visitors.  Booth (after having shaved off his mustache in Mudd's home) and Herold left later on the fifteenth.  Mudd told investigator Alexander Lovett that the man whose leg he fixed "was a stranger to him." He also misled Lovett about Booth's escape route, telling the investigator that the two men had headed south, when they actually had departed to the east.
Lovett returned to the Mudd home three days later to conduct a search of Mudd's home.  When Lovett told of his intentions, Mudd's wife, Sarah, brought down from upstairs a boot that had been cut off the visitor's leg three days earlier.  Lovett turned down the top of the left-foot riding boot and "saw the name J Wilkes written in it."  Mudd told Lovett that he had not noticed the writing.  Shown a photo of Booth, Mudd still claimed not to recognize him--despite evidence gathered from other area residents that Mudd and Booth had been seen together the previous November.  Mudd became the seventh conspirator to be arrested. 
Near the banks of the Rappahannock River in Virginia, investigators closed in on their prey on April 26.  Everton Conger and two other investigators pulled Willie Jett out of a bed in a hotel in Bowling Green to demand, "Where are the two men who came with you across the river?"  Jett knew that Conger meant Booth and Herold.  When Jett had talked with the two conspirators they had made no effort to hide their identity.  Herold had boldly declared, "We are the assassinators of the President.  Yonder is J. Wilkes Booth, the man who killed Lincoln."  Jett told Conger that the men they sought "are on the road to Port Royal" at the home of "Mr. Garrett's."
Reaching Garrett's farm, the government party ordered an old man, Garrett, out of his home and asked, "Where are the two men who stopped here at your house?"  "Gone to the woods," Garrett answered.  Unsatisfied with Garrett's response, Conger told one of his men, "Bring me a lariat rope here, and I will put that man up to the top of one of those locust trees."  One of his sons broke in, "Don't hurt the old man; he is scared; I will tell you where the men are--...in the barn."
Finding the suspects to be in the Garrett barn, Conger gave Booth and Herold five minutes to get out or, he said, he would set fire to it.  Booth responded, "Let us have a little time to consider it."  After some discussion in the barn, Booth proposed that if the capturing party were withdrawn "one hundred yards from the door, I will come out and fight you."  When his proposal--and a second one for a withdrawal to fifty yards--was rejected, Booth said in a theatrical voice, "Well, my brave boys, prepare a stretcher for me."  As Conger ordered pine boughs placed against the barn to start a fire, Booth announced, "There's a man who wants to come out." After being called "a damned coward" by his partner, David Herold stepped out of the door of the barn and into the hands of his capturers.
Conger lit the fire minutes later.  With flames rising around him, Booth, carrying a carbine, started toward the door of the barn.  A shot rang out from the gun of Sergeant Boston Corbett.  Booth fell.  Soldiers carried Booth out on the grass.  Booth turned to Conger and said, "Tell mother I die for my country."  Moved into Garrett's house, Booth revived somewhat.  Repeatedly he begged of his captors, "Kill me, kill me."  Booth again weakened. Two or three hours after being shot, he died.
One suspected conspirator would elude investigators for more than a year and would not stand trial with the other eight: John Surratt, Jr., the son of Mary Surratt.  Surratt fled to Canada after the assassination. In September, Surratt traveled to England and later to Rome. Finally arrested in Egypt on November 27, 1866, Surratt was brought back to the United States for trial in a civilian court in 1867.
TRIAL BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION
The Decision to Try the Conspirators Before a Military Commission
Secretary of War Edwin Stanton favored a quick military trial and execution.  According to Secretary of Navy Gideon Welles, who favored trial in a civilian court, Stanton "said it was intention that the criminals should be tried and executed before President Lincoln was buried." (Lincoln was buried on May 4, before the start of the conspiracy trial.)  Edward Bates, Lincoln's former attorney general, was among those objecting to a military trial, believing such an approach to be unconstitutional.  Understanding the use of a military commission to try civilians to be controversial, President Johnson requested Attorney General James Speed to prepare an opinion on the legality of such a trial.  Not surprisingly, Speed concluded in his opinion that use of a military court would be proper.  Speed reasoned that an attack on the commander-in-chief before the full cessation of the rebellion constituted an act of war against the United States, making the War Department the appropriate body to control the proceedings.
While debates continued in the Johnson Administration as to how to proceed with the alleged conspirators, the prisoners were kept under close wraps at two locations.  Mary Surratt and Dr. Samuel Mudd first were jailed at the Old Capitol Prison, while the other six were imprisoned on the ironclad vessels Montauk andSaugus.  Later, as their trial date approached, authorities confined  prisoners to separate cells in the Old Arsenal Penitentiary.  Four of the male prisoners (Herold, Powell, Spangler, and Atzerodt) were shackled to balls and chains, with their hands held in place by an inflexible iron bar.  Most strikingly, from the time of their arrest until midway through their trial, all the prisoners except Mary Surratt and Dr. Mudd--under orders from Secretary Stanton--were forced to wear canvas hoods that covered the entire head and face. 
On May 1, 1865, President Johnson issued an order that the alleged conspirators be tried before a nine-person military commission.  Some, such as former Attorney General Bates, complained bitterly: "If the offenders are done to death by that tribunal, however truly guilty, they will pass for martyrs with half the world."
The Military Commission convened for the first time on May 8 in a newly-created courtroom on the third floor of the Old Arsenal Penitentiary in Washington.  The voting members of the Commission were Generals David Hunter (first officer), August Kautz, Albion Howe, James Ekin, David Clendenin, Lewis Wallace, Robert Foster, T. M. Harris, and Colonel C. H Tomkins.  Judge Advocate General Joseph Holt served in the problematic dual roles of chief prosecutor and legal advisor to the Commission.  John A. Bingham (later an influential member of Congress) served on the Commission as Special Judge Advocates and handled examination of witnesses and gave the government's summation.  H. L. Burnett was the third member of the prosecution team.  
On the evening of May 9, General John Hantranft visited each prisoner's cell to read the charges and specifications against them.  Hantranft later wrote: "I had the hood [of each prisoner] removed, entered the cell alone with a lantern, delivered the copy, and allowed them time to read it, and in several instances, by request read the copy to them, before replacing the hood." 
Testimony began in the Lincoln assassination conspiracy trial on May 12, just three days after the prisoners were first asked if they would like to have legal counsel.  The rules of the Commission made the position of the defendants even more grave: conviction could come on a simple majority vote and a majority of two-thirds could impose the death sentence. Over the course of the next seven weeks, the Commission would hear from 371 witnesses.  As the witnesses paraded to the stand, spectators lucky enough to get admission passes from Major General Hunter would move in and out of the nonchalant atmosphere of the courtroom.
Confederate Terrorism on Trial
The War Department saw the trial as an opportunity to prosecute not only the eight charged conspirators, but also the already-dead Booth, Jefferson Davis, and the Confederate Secret Service.  Prosecutors suggested that as the war turned in favor of the federal government, the Confederacy became increasingly willing to support dubious enterprises that would have been rejected under less desperate circumstances. Witnesses told of Confederate plots to destroy public buildings, burn steamboats, poison the public water supply of New York City, offer commissions to raiders of northern cities, mine a federal prison, starve Union prisoners-of-war, and even mount a biological attack. 
The Confederate Congress appropriated five million dollars to support a clandestine campaign of subversion in February, 1864.  Two months later, Jefferson Davisappointed Jacob Thompson (Secretary of Interior in the Buchanan Administration) and Clement Clay (a former United States Senator from Alabama) to head the operation.  Both men would spend, along with a dozen or more other Confederates, most of the duration of the war in Canada coordinating and funding terrorism, according to over a dozen prosecution witnesses. 
One of the most frightening plots--called by Special Judge Advocate (prosecutor) John A. Bingham "an infamous and fiendish project of importing pestilence"--hatched by the Confederate Secret Service working out of Canada was believed at the time to have been the cause of 2,000 military and civilian deaths.  The attack, according to witness Godfrey Hyams, came in the form of clothing "carefully infected in Bermuda with yellow fever, smallpox, and other contagious diseases." Some of the infected goods were to be placed in a valise intended for presentation to President Lincoln, while others were to be given or sold to Union troops.  Hyams testified that the Confederate Government appropriated $200,000 for carrying out the attack, and that he was promised at least $60,000 (but received only $100) for his role in distributing nine trunks of the infected goods.  Hyams said that the operation's mastermind, Dr. Luke P. Blackburn, who he met in Halifax, told him that trunk "Big Number 2" "will kill them at sixty yards distance." Hyams testified that he refused to deliver an infected trunk "as a donation to President Lincoln," but did place the others in channels of distribution near concentrations of Union soldiers.  For his work, Hyams testified, he received congratulations from Clement Clay. Some of the infected goods were auctioned near a Union base of operations by New Bern, North Carolina shortly before nearly 2,000 citizens and soldiers died there during a yellow fever outbreak.  Bingham attributed the epidemic to the Confederate plot, not knowing (as was discovered in 1901) that mosquitoes--not people--cause yellow fever. 
The Assassination Conspiracy's Link to the Canadian Clique and Jefferson Davis
The prosecution offered evidence to show that the conspiracy against Abraham Lincoln and other high government officials began sometime after the battle at Gettysburg--probably in the summer of 1864.  Witness Sanford Conover (whose real name later turned out to be Charles Durham) reported Confederate Secret Service head Jacob Thompson as identifying the goal of the conspiracy as to "leave the government entirely without a head" by killing not only Lincoln, but also Vice President Johnson, Secretary of War Stanton, Secretary of State Seward, and General Grant.  Conover, a former employee of the Rebel war Department, in what is widely believed to be perjurious testimony quoted Thompson as saying there was "no provision in the Constitution of the United States by which, if these men were removed, they could elect another President." 
Henry Van Steinacker, a Union soldier convicted of desertion, testified that while on a long horse ride in Virginia with John Wilkes Booth in late summer of 1863 Booth opined, "Old Abe must go up the spout [be killed], and the Confederacy will gain its independence."  (Steinacker, whose real name was Hans Von Winklestein, was released from prison shortly after his testimony, causing many to question his credibility.) Several witnesses testified that by the fall of 1864 a proposal to assassinate or abduct Union leaders, presumably made by Booth, was under active review by Confederate officials in both Canada and Richmond.  Witnesses told of frequently seeing Thompson and Clement Clay in Montreal in the company of of conspirators John Wilkes Booth, John Surratt, and Lewis Powell. 
Richard Montgomery, a Union double agent in Canada, testified (perjuriously, again, according to many historians) that Thompson as saying in January 1865 that it would be a "blessing" to "rid the world" of Lincoln, Johnson, and Grant.  Montgomery testified that Thompson revealed that a "proposition" had been made by a group of "bold, daring men" to do just that. 
Samuel Chester testified that beginning in November 1864 Booth tried to recruit his participation in a plot to abduct Lincoln and take him to Richmond, where he would be held until he could be exchanged for Confederate prisoners-of-war.  Initially, it seems, the proposal (either to abduct or assassinate Lincoln) was rejected in Richmond, as Montgomery quotes Montreal clique member Beverly Tucker as complaining that it was "too bad that they boys had not been allowed to act when they wanted to."
Henry Finegas testified as to overhearing a conversation, made in "a low tone of voice" in Montreal in mid-February between Confederate clique members George Sanders and William Cleary:
Sanders: If the boys only have luck, Lincoln won't trouble us much longer.
Cleary:  Is everything going well?
Sanders: Oh, yes.  Booth is bossing the job.
Key government witness Louis Weichmann-- a boarder at Mary Surratt's and a friend of Booth, Powell, and other conspirators--testified that on March 27, 1865 John Surratt visited Richmond and conferred with Confederate Attorney General Judah Benjamin and President Jefferson Davis.  Surratt returned from Richmond to Washington, before heading north out of the Capital on April 3.  On April 6, John Surratt arrived in Montreal carrying with him--according to the prosecution's theory--final approval for Booth's assassination attempt.  Sanford Conover, a former employee of the Rebel War Department, testified that he was present at a meeting in the Montreal hotel room of Jacob Thompson when dispatches brought by Surratt from Richmond, including a letter in cipher from Jefferson Davis, were discussed.  According to Conover's testimony--strongly attacked by latter-day supporters of Davis--"Thompson laid his hand [on the dispatches from Richmond] and said, "This makes the thing all right."  A Canadian banker testified that Jacob Thompson withdrew $184,000 from the over $600,000 in his private Montreal account on April 6.  Special Judge Advocate John Bingham, in his summation for the government, found the evidence against Jefferson Davis damning:
What more is wanting?  Surely no word further need be spoken to show that John Wilkes Booth was in this conspiracy; that John Surratt was in this conspiracy; and that Jefferson Davis and his several agents named, in Canada, were in this conspiracy....Whatever may be the conviction of others, my own conviction is that Jefferson Davis is as clearly proven guilty of this conspiracy as John Wilkes Booth, by whose hand Jefferson Davis inflicted the mortal wound on Abraham Lincoln. 
Bingham found further confirmation of Davis's guilt in a letter of October 13, 1864, discovered in the possession of Booth after the assassination of Lincoln.  The ciphered letter, which notified Booth that "their friends would be set to work as he had directed," was proven to have been typed on a cipher machine recovered from a room in Davis's State Department in Richmond.  Finally, Bingham found incriminating Davis's reaction in North Carolina upon learning of the President's assassination: "If it were to be done at all, it were better that it were well done."
Evidence Concerning the Eight Prisoners
As each of the eight defendants played different roles in the assassination conspiracy, the evidence of guilt varied as well.  The connection of Lewis Powell and David Herold to the conspiracy was clear almost beyond question, while the case against others--notably Dr. Samuel Mudd and Mary Surratt--was considerably more circumstantial, but nonetheless ultimately convincing.
Many trial observers found Lewis Powell, the handsome young defendant who maintained a posture of studied indifference to the proceedings, to be the most intriguing of the prisoners.  The case against Powell was overwhelming.  Even Lewis Powell's attorney, William Doster, recognized his complicity in the plot was beyond question.  Identified as Seward's attacker by Seward's servant, found with blood on his shirt and the initials of John Wilkes Booth in his boots, and identified by Louis Weichmann as the man who called himself "Wood" and who--claiming to be a Baptist preacher and wearing a large false mustache-- frequently called at Mary Surratt's home, where he would sometimes engage in two or three hour private conversations with Booth and John Surratt, Doster was left to argue that Powell's life should be spared because he suffered from a fanaticism that bordered on insanity.  "I say he is the fanatic, and not the hired tool," Doster told the Commission.  "He lives in that land of imagination where it seems to him legions of southern soldiers wait to crown him as their chief commander."  Doster said that when he asked Powell why he did it, he replied, simply, "I believed it was my duty." Doster described Powell as an innocent farmboy turned assassin by circumstances beyond his control: "We know now that slavery made him immoral, that war made him a murderer, and that necessity, revenge, and delusion made him an assassin."  Doster ended his remarkably eloquent plea (but obviously hopeless) for Powell's life by asking the Commission to "Let him live, if not for his sake, for our own."
David Herold's position was equally precarious.  Apprehended with the President's assassin and having bragged about the crime--telling one prosecution witness, Willie Jett, as he crossed the Rappahannock, "We are the assassinators of the President"--Herold's attorney, Frederick Stone, placed whatever slender hopes for saving Herold's life on his client's simple-mindedness and youth.  One defense witness called Herold "a light and trifling boy" who was "easily influenced,"  while a second said of Herold:"In mind, I consider him about eleven years of age." Stone argued to the Commission that Herold "was only wax in the hands of a man like Booth." 
Unlike Lewis and Herold, the guilt of Ford's Theatre stagehand Edman Spangler was not beyond question, but prosecutors presented several witnesses who testified that Spangler played a critical--although minor--role in Booth's escape from the theatre.  Joseph Burroughs, better known as "Peanuts," a Ford's employee given the duty of guarding the stage-door during plays, testified that between nine and ten o'clock on the night of the assassination Spangler "told me to hold [Booth's] horse."  Burroughs told the Commission that when he replied that "I had to go in to attend my door" Spangler said he should hold the horse anyway and "if there was any thing wrong to lay the blame on him."  Other witnesses reported seeing Booth around seven-thirty that evening, standing at the back door of the theatre and holding his horse and calling for "Ned" Spangler.  John Sleichmann, a property man for the theatre, testified that he saw Booth enter the back door of the theatre and ask Spangler, "Ned, you'll help me all you can, won't you?"  According to Sleichmann, Spangler replied, "Oh, yes."  Joseph Stewart, a theatergoer with a front orchestra street who ran after Booth across the stage yelling, "Stop that man!," testified that he was "satisfied" that Spangler was the person he saw near the rear door who was in a position to block Booth's exit if he had been so inclined. Finally, John Miles, a Ford's employee, testified when he asked Spangler who it was he saw holding Booth's horse before his escape, Spangler replied, "Hush, don't say anything about it."  Spangler's defense attorney, Thomas Ewing, argued that while the prosecution evidence might suggest Spangler agreed to assist Booth on April 14, it failed to prove that Spangler was aware of Booth's guilty purposes in requesting his assistance.
letter from Samuel Arnold to Booth, dated March 27, 1865, and found in Booth's possession after the assassination provided compelling evidence that Arnold had willingly agreed to participate in the original plan to kidnap Lincoln and take him to Richmond.  In his letter, Arnold wrote that "None, no, not one were more in favor of the enterprise than myself."  Arnold's attorney, Walter Cox, argued that Arnold "backed out from this insane scheme of capture" and it was "abandoned somewhere about the middle of March."  Arnold, he argued, left Washington for Maryland about March 20 and that there "is no evidence that connects" Arnold with the "dreadful conspiracy" of assassination.  Cox told the Commission that Arnold's participation in the "mere unacted, still scheme" of abduction was "wholly different from the offense described in the charge."
Michael O'Laughlen, who boarded at the same home in Washington as Arnold, might qualify as the most forgotten of the eight conspirators on trial.  The key evidence against O'Laughlen also links him to Booth's abandoned plan to abduct Lincoln.  On March 13, Booth sent to O'Laughlen, then in Baltimore, a telegram from Washington: "Don't fear to neglect your business.  You better come at once."  Twelve days later, Booth sent another telegram to O'Laughlen: "Get word to Sam.  Come on, with or without him, Wednesday morning.  We sell that day for sure.  Don't fail."  Prosecutors suggested that the "business" referred to in Booth's telegraph was the kidnapping of Lincoln and that the "Sam" referred to in the second dispatch was Samuel Arnold.  Bernard Early, an acquaintance of O'Laughlen's, testified that he rode into Washington with O'Laughlen from Baltimore on the day before the assassination.  Early said that the next day he waited with O'Laughlen at the National Hotel, where Booth had taken a room, for forty-five minutes before sending "up some cards to Mr. Booth's room for O'Laughlen" and leaving.  Most incriminating, perhaps, was the testimony of Major Kilburn Knox, who testified that about ten-thirty on the night of April 13 O'Laughlen, wearing black clothes and a slouch hat, entered the home of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and inquired of the Secretary's whereabouts.  Knox said that O'Laughlen remained in the hall for a few minutes before being asked to leave.  Two other witnesses also reported seeing O'Laughlen at the Secretary's home.  Defense attorney Walter Cox argued that the prosecution witnesses were mistaken, and that on the night in question O'Laughlen innocently strolled the streets of the nation's capital enjoying the "night of illumination," the celebration of the Union victory that saw every public building in Washington lit with candles.   Cox also argued that the evidence showed persuasively that O'Laughlen did nothing to further the assassination on the night of the fourteenth, which he spent drinking at Lichau House before departing for Baltimore the next day.
The prosecution argued that Booth assigned George Atzerodt the job of killing Vice-President Andrew Johnson.  Colonel W. R. Nevins testified that on  April 12 at the Kirkwood Hotel in Washington, Atzerodt asked him where he might find Vice President Johnson.  Police investigator John Lee testified that he searched Atzerodt's room at the Kirkwood (the same hotel that the Vice President was then staying at) on the day after Lincoln's assassination and discovered under a loaded revolver, a bowie knife, a map of Virginia, three handkerchiefs, and a bank book of John Wilkes Booth. The prosecution also showed that Atzerodt had met frequently with Booth in front of the Pennsylvania House in Washington.  John Fletcher, an employee of J. Naylor's livery stable testified that on April 14 Atzerodt showed up at the stable with co-defendant David Herold, bringing with them a dark-bay mare. Another witness told of Atzerodt's late night check-in (after midnight) on the night of Lincoln's assassination at the Pennsylvania House, his leaving again and returning around two, and then his checking out of the hotel between five and six in the morning. 
George Atzerodt's attorney, Captain William E. Doster, argued that his client's cowardice made it unlikely that he played any significant role in the assassination conspiracy.  "I intend to show," Doster told the Commission, "that this man is a constitutional coward; that if he had been assigned the duty of assassinating the Vice President, he could never have done it; and that, from his known cowardice, Booth probably did not assign to him any such duty."  Doster presented defense witnesses who described Atzerodt as a "notorious coward"and as a man "remarkable for his cowardice." 
President Andrew Johnson considered Mary Surratt the keeper of "the nest that hatched the egg."  Numerous witnesses reported Booth, Herold, Powell and other conspirators as frequent visitors to Surratt's boarding house in Washington.  Evidence of association with conspirators would, of course, not by itself sustain a conviction.  Prosecutors produced witnesses who showed convincingly that Surratt lied when she told authorities, when asked if she knew Lewis Powell, "Before God, sir, I do not know this man."  The most incriminating evidence against Surratt came, however, from two witnesses, Louis Weichmann and John Lloyd.  Weichmann, a boarder in Surratt's home, testified that Booth gave him $10 on the Tuesday before the assassination which he was to use to hire a buggy to take Surratt to her tavern in Surrattsville to collect--according to Surratt--a small debt.  Weichmann also told the Commission that on the day of the assassination, Mary Surratt sent Weichmann to hire a buggy for another two-hour ride to Surrattsville. Surratt and Weichmann arrived sometime after four at Surratt's tavern.  According to Weichmann, Surratt went inside while Weichmann waited outside or spent time in the bar.  Surratt remained inside about two hours.  Between six and six-thirty, shortly before the began their return trip to Washington, Weichmann saw  Surratt speaking privately in the parlor of the tavern with John Wilkes Booth. At nine o'clock, Weichmann saw Booth again when he came to the Surratt home for a last time.  After the visit, according to Weichmann, Surratt's demeanor changed--she became "very nervous, agitated and restless." 
The most damning evidence of all against Surratt came from Surrattsville tavern keeper John Lloyd.  Lloyd told the Commission that five to six weeks before the assassination John Surratt, David Herold, and George Atzerodt came to Surrattsville to drop off at his tavern two carbines and ammunition. Lloyd testified that three days before the assassination, Mary Surratt told him that "the shooting irons" left at his place by the men weeks ago would be needed soon.  Then on the day of the assassination, Surratt again brought up the subject, according to Lloyd:
On the 14th of April I went to Marlboro to attend a trial there; and in the evening, when I got home, which I should judge was about 5 o'clock, I found Mrs. Surratt there. She met me out by the wood-pile as I drove in  with some fish and oysters in my buggy. She told me to have those shooting-irons ready that night, there  would be some parties who would call for them. She gave me something wrapped in a piece of paper, which I took up stairs, and found to be a field-glass. She told me to get two bottles of whisky ready, and that these things were to be called for that night.
Surratt's attorney, Frederick Aiken, argued that Lloyd's evidence should be disbelieved because he was "a man addicted to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors" and was motivated to "exculpate himself by placing blame" on Mary Surratt.
The prosecution based its case against Dr. Samuel Mudd on the testimony of several witnesses that suggested a much closer relationship between the doctor and John Wilkes Booth--and other conspirators-- than Mudd would admit.  Several witnesses testified that they saw Mudd with John Wilkes Booth on November 13, 1864 in Maryland.  Witnesses said that Mudd during that November visit helped Booth buy a horse--a horse that he most likely used in his flight from Ford's theatre.  Louis Weichmann testified that in late December he was walking with John Surratt  near the National Hotel in Washington when Mudd, walking with Booth, called out "Surratt! Surratt!"  According to Weichmann, the three men later excused themselves for private conversation over what Mudd claimed to be Booth's interest in purchasing real estate in Maryland.  Attorney Marcus Norton testified that in early March, when he was in Washington to argue a case before the Supreme Court, a man he now recognized as Mudd excitedly burst into his room at the National Hotel.  Norton said the man apologized for his entry, saying that he thought the room belonged to a man named "Booth"--who actually had rented the room directly above Norton's. A minister, William Evans, testified that he saw Mudd go into the home of Mary Surratt in early March of 1865.  The evidence concerning Booth's prior dealings with Booth strongly suggested that Mudd lied to investigators when he denied having recognized Booth when he treated his broken leg on April 15.  Alexander Lovett told the Commission that Mudd appeared suspicious from the start of his investigation:  "When we first asked Dr. Mudd whether two strangers had been there, he seemed very much excited, and got pale as a sheet of paper and blue about his lips, like a man frightened at something he had done." 
Prosecutors also produced witnesses who testified concerning certain statements Mudd allegedly made about President Lincoln and the federal government.  Daniel Thomas testified that he heard Mudd state in early 1865--whether jokingly or not, he couldn't tell--that "the President, Cabinet, and other Union men" would "be killed in six or seven weeks."  Mary Simms, a former slave of Mudd's, testified that during the war Mudd complained that Lincoln "stole [into office] at night, dressed in women's clothes" and if "he had come in right, they would have killed him."  Another slave, Milo Gardiner, testified that he overheard a friend of Mudd's, Benjamin Gardiner, tell Mudd that "Lincoln was a goddamned old son of a bitch and ought have been dead long ago" and that Mudd replied "that was much of his mind." 
Mudd's attorney, Thomas Ewing, argued that Mudd's only prior encounter with Booth had been the one in November and that all the later alleged meetings were fabrications of prosecution witnesses.  Ewing contended that it was no crime to fix  a broken leg, even if it were the leg of a presidential assassin and even if the doctor knew it was the leg of a presidential assassin.  Ewing argued that the prosecution must prove more: that Mudd actually furthered the conspiracy in some way.  Prosecutors responded by arguing that the evidence showed more than the defense admitted.  They contended that Mudd furthered the conspiracy by, for example, pointing out to Herold the route that he and Booth should take upon leaving his farm. 
SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS
On June 29, 1865, the Military Commission met in secret session to begin its review of the evidence in the seven-week long trial.  A guilty verdict could come with a majority vote of the nine-member commission; death sentences required the votes of six members.  The next day, it reached its verdicts.  The Commission found seven of the prisoners guilty of at least one of the conspiracy charges, and Spangler guilty of aiding and abetting Boooth's escape.  Four of the prisoners (Mary Surratt, Lewis Powell, George Atzerodt, and David Herold) were sentenced "to be hanged by the neck until he [or she] be dead."  Samuel Arnold, Dr. Samuel Mudd and Michael O'Laughlen were sentenced to "hard labor for life, at such place at the President shall direct." Edman Spangler received a six-year sentence.
The Commission forwarded its sentences and the trial record to President Johnson for his review.  Five of the nine Commission members, in the transmitted record, recommended to the President--because of "her sex and age"--that he reduce Mary Surratt's punishment to life in prison.  On July 5, Johnson approved all of the Commission's sentences, including the death sentence for Surratt.
The next day General Hartrandft informed the prisoners of their sentences.  He told the four condemned prisoners that they would hang the next day. 
Surratt's lawyers mounted a frantic effort to save their client's life, hurriedly preparing a petition for habeas corpus that evening.  The next morning, Surratt's attorneys succeeded in convincing Judge Wylie of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to issue the requested writ.  President Johnson quashed the effort to save Surratt from an afternoon hanging when he issued an order suspending the writ of habeas corpus "in cases such as this."
Shortly after one-thirty on the afternoon of July 7, 1865, the trap of the gallows installed in the courtyard of the Old Arsenal Building was sprung, and the four condemned prisoners fell to their deaths.  Reporters covering the event reported that the last words from the gallows stand came from George Atzerodt who said, just before he fell, "May we meet in another world."
EPILOGUE AND THE CONSPIRACY AS NOW UNDERSTOOD
In the summer of 1867, John Surratt, having been captured in Egypt, faced trial in a civilian court for having participated in a conspiracy to assassinate the president.  The jury was unable to reach a verdict, with eight jurors voting "not guilty" and four voting "guilty."  In August, 1867, Surratt was released from prison.  Three years later he began a public lecture tour describing his association with the conspirators and proclaiming his innocence.
Military personnel escorted Dr. Samuel Mudd, Michael O'Laughlen, Edman Spangler and Samuel Arnold to Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas, Florida.  Two years later, a yellow fever epidemic swept the prison, killing O'Laughlen and the prison's doctor, among many others.  Upon the death of the prison doctor, Mudd assumed duty as chief medical officer at the prison.  On March 1, 1869, Mudd and the other three imprisoned conspirators received an eleventh-hour presidential pardon from President Johnson.
The last surviving convicted conspirator was Samuel Arnold, who died in 1906 after writing a detailed confession of his role in the conspiracy to kidnap President Lincoln.
Over the years, critics have attacked the verdicts, sentences, and procedures of the 1865 Military Commission.  These critics have called the sentences unduly harsh, and criticized the rule allowing the death penalty to be imposed with a two-thirds vote of Commission members.  The hanging of Mary Surratt, the first woman ever executed by the United States, has been a particular focus of criticism.  Critics also have complained about the standard of proof, the lack of opportunity for defense counsel to adequately prepare for the trial, the withholding of potentially exculpatory evidence, and the Commission's rule forbidding the prisoners from testifying on their own behalf. The critics have a point: The 1865 trial of the Lincoln conspirators did fall short of commonly accepted norms of procedure and the verdicts--by modern standards--seem harsh. 
There does seem little question, however, that four of the convicted conspirators participated--in ways either large or small--in Booth's plan to assassinate key federal officials.  Lewis Powell clearly attempted to stab to death Secretary Seward.  David Herold, Dr. Samuel Mudd, and Edman Spangler aided Booth's escape from Washington.  Herold and Mudd provided aid to Booth with full knowledge of his crime--and Spangler most likely did as well.
The four other convicted conspirators--and Jefferson Davis--undoubtedly supported at least Booth's original plan, to kidnap Lincoln and take him to Richmond.  George Atzerodt, in a confession made shortly before he was hanged, admitted to have willingly agreed to play an important role in the planned abduction, but claimed not to have supported the assassination--and to have first heard of the plan to assassinate Lincoln just two hours before Booth fired his fatal shot.  Arnold also admitted his initial willingmess to participate in the kidnap plot.  The evidence with respect to O'Laughlen's and Mary Surratt's complicity in the scheme is only slightly less compelling.  Recent scholarship has strengthened the already strong evidence that approval for the kidnapping came directly from Jefferson Davis.  William Tidwell's Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln shows that large numbers of Confederate troops had massed in March of 1865 in the northern neck of Virginia along what must have been a planned route to take Lincoln to Richmond.  Apart from a planned abduction of Lincoln, there was no plausible strategic reason for their placement in that area.
The prosecution fairly can be faulted for intentionally obscuring the fact that there were two conspiracies involving Lincoln in 1865: the original abduction plan, developed in the fall of 1864 and supported by all eight conspirators and top Confederate leadership, and Booth's assassination plan, conceived only after the original plan fell through when Lincoln cancelled plans to attend a play at the Campbell Hosptial on the outskirts of Washington on March 17.  (The plan had been to intercept the President's carriage as it returned from the matinee performance.) 
After the failure of the March 17 plot, and abandonment as infeasible of another plot to kidnap Lincoln at Ford's theatre, Booth's thoughts turned to assassination.  Shooting Lincoln seems to have been on Booth's mind by April 7 when, after some hard drinking with his friend Samuel Chester in New York, Booth slammed the table and said, "What a splendid chance I had to kill the President on the fourth of March!" Booth's April 7 visit to New York was one of several in the weeks leading up to the assassination, leading some historians to speculate that New York was the location of his Confederate Secret Service control--possibly Confederate underground insider Roderick Watson.  George Atzerodt's confession revealed that Booth learned during his last New York visit of a plot by his Confederate associates to kill the President by blowing up the Executive Mansion: "Booth said he had met a party in New York who would get the prest. [president] certain.  They were going to mine the end of the pres. [president's] House.  They knew an entrance to accomplish it through."  The dispatch from Richmond that reached Montreal on April 6, carried by John Surratt and Sarah Slater, most likely authorized activation of the bombing plot. The capture of the Confederate explosives expert assigned the task of planting the bombs the Executive Mansion, Thomas Harney, on April 10 must have prompted Booth to begin planning his own attempt on Lincoln's life.  By April 11, his mind was made up.  After to listening to Lincoln speak from the balcony of the Executive Mansion on his plans for reconstruction, Booth--according to Thomas Eckert who interviewed Powell in prison--turned to Lewis Powell and said, "That is the last speech he will ever make!" By April 13, Booth was casing both Ford's Theatre and Grover's National Theatre, anticipating that the President would soon take a night out--his last.
At Garrett's farm, Colonel Everton Conger found on the body of John Wilkes Booth a small red book, which Booth kept as a diary.  In an entry written sometime between the assassination and his capture, Booth wrote: "For six months we had worked to capture, but our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done. But its failure was owing to others, who did not strike for their country with a heart."  The prosecution did not introduce Booth's diary into evidence in the 1865 trial.  In 1867, it turned up in a forgotten War Department file with eighteen pages missing.

Note:
**In Booth's diary, he insisted he shouted 
"Sic semper tyrannus!" ("Thus to tyrants!") before he shot Lincoln.  Most accounts of the assassination report that Booth broke his leg upon landing on the stage.  Eyewitnesses, however, did not report that Booth limped across the stage and one historian, Michael Kaufmann, argued that Booth injured his leg in his hurried attempt to mount his horse after exiting Ford's theater.
*************************************************************************************

FOR PERSONS DESIRING ANOTHER OVERVIEW OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE EFFORTS TO TRACK DOWN AND TRY THOSE INVOLVED, A LINK TO THE ACCOUNT OF H. L. BURNETT--ONE OF THOSE WHO SERVED WITH THE MILITARY COMMISSION THAT TRIED THE CONSPIRATORS--IS PROVIDED:
Account of assassination, investigation, trial and aftermath by Brig. Gen. H.L. Burnett
The Conspiracy Trial: Questions for Discussion
 
Lincoln Assassination 
Conspiracy Trial Home

The Assassination of Lincoln, The Pursuit of Booth and the Plots on Others

Saints Lincoln and Kennedy

The Assassination of Lincoln is well known but few know the whole truth behind the death of the president, and others...

Lincoln returned to Springfield, IL by train at his wife's wishes.

John Wilkes Booth - he admitted to killing Lincoln.

Its a thriller about the night Lincoln was shoot.

Senator Hale's daughter was engaged to JWB.

Robert Todd Lincoln.  Edwin Booth had saved RTL on a train platform.

The Booth family was at danger in their home because the mob started to watch them.

DC to Virginia - North to South escape.

Fredrick Douglass was chosen as the poet to describe Lincoln.

Trial of the Conspiracy

Military Tribunal for Conspiracy Trial of Lincoln's Assassination - tried to prove it was a grand conspiracy all the way back to Jefferson.

Booth's original kidnapping plot.

8 people,  Mary Serat 1st woman sentenced to hang.

4 hung to death - July 7 Judgement Day 0 Hang the convicted conspirators.  Had to have tickets to see the execution.  The soldiers stood on the high wall

The military hid the records because they were ashamed.

Mudd - The killed the doctor that attended JWB's leg.  They didnt have TV back then. He had no idea that someone had killed the president so he had no reason to

Shock and Grief Would Linger

Attempts to Steal Lincoln's Body,
A boy slept with Lincoln for 6 months
http://crazyhorsesghost.hubpages.com/hub/Stealing-Lincolns-Body

Then the Lincoln Memorial

MLK gave the I have a dream speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial

Gives a sense of purpose and continuity

Lincoln's Inaugurla Address - the four score speech

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Cultural Change is Needed for US Transportation, Energy, and Foreign Policy - We Need Conservation and Efficiency #peakoil #energy

great article.

Amplify’d from culturechange.org




Culture Change
e-Letter

#32

Ration oil during war 

— Or is this a War on Conservation?

by Jan Lundberg

If the U.S. is waging a "War on
Terrorism," federal energy policy would reflect that the war is
not a "war for oil."  Even if what we've had is a war of terror
(nothing new, if you ask Indo-Chinese victims of U.S. shock-n-awe),
that's not exactly a war for oil.

As oil is a strategic commodity essential to the
present economy and military, then policies should be geared toward conserving
oil.  Everyone knows they are not; little conservation has happened since
Jimmy Carter's tentative efforts.  A national paving moratorium was
proposed in 1990 in part to stop the lengthening of the nation's (oil) supply
lines in time of war (Operation Desert Storm).

If the U.S. is truly not in Iraq and Afghanistan
mainly for petroleum, and petroleum in that part of the world is meant for those
countries and the whole world, then Gosh, the U.S. has to start rationing oil
now.  (Forget for a moment the main reason to cut back: global
warming is caused in large part from petroleum emissions.) 
One
could point out that U.S. trade partners need oil too, or else the U.S. goes
down the tubes economically.  But the U.S. felt a domestic and world
crisis, to insist on war on Iraq.  Some say it was to keep Iraq from
accepting Euros instead of dollars for oil.
Approximately 20 million barrels a day of oil
and refined products are being sucked unsustainably from the finite Earth just
for the USA's burning and spilling the stuff.  Neither the oil industry nor
its White House acknowledges the impossibility of maintaining this rate. 
Because of free-market economists' ideology about the "creation" of
supply, the future is never more than ten years off in their practical
planning.  As for an oil crisis hitting hard in the first decade of this
century, this is not real to the oil fraternity because (1) it implies great
change in an industry that's not generally about energy; petroleum is unique and
specialized, and (2) it's the next quarterly report that really counts in big
business.
World War II was a war for oil, in large
measure, considering Axis and Allied aims and strategies.  And the Axis -
which happened to ultimately lose the war - was finally cut off from sufficient
supplies of oil.  But the U.S. had to ration oil and other products so that
it would not run out during war.  What have we learned from our history?

Critical oil stats

The number of days of supply of immediately
marketable crude oil for
the nation is only about 17 (seventeen), in terms of total supply already pumped
out in the U.S. and having been imported.  This is a typical level.  That statistic is derived from knowing there
are about 278 million barrels of crude now on hand, out of the ground, and almost 16
million barrels are used per day.   There is also about a month's
worth of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which could be brought to
surface, refined and distributed.  All the SPR oil cannot be
brought to market at once; the idea is that an orderly drawdown could keep
supply and demand in balance for several months.  (The commonly assumed SPR
scenario does not solve a serious long-term shortage such as from declining
global reserves.)  As for petroleum products, mostly
gasoline and diesel, there is only about a week and a half supply in the U.S.  

Add
the maximum available crude and refined products together, and you have a little over
two months of
oil supply for driving, some heating, and a few lesser energy uses in the U.S., if we assume
the crude is refined into fuels (over half of it is).  

The bigger
assumption is that domestic pumping and especially importing will keep going "forever." 
Fifty-eight percent is the level of oil importation today - another reason for
the attack on Iraq?

U.S. gasoline consumption is well over 9 million
barrels (or over 400 million gallons) per day in summer.  Almost nothing is
currently being done to decrease this.  To the contrary, conservation is
anathema to the "conservatives" in control of the government. (See San
Francisco Chronicle
op-ed "
And
when cheap oil runs out... Enter the Age of Conservation
"
by
Jan Lundberg, May 6, 2001.)

Vice President Cheney's and George
Bush's opposition to the environmental form of conservation is the key to
understanding why rationing is unthinkable to them today.  But if
conservation were
thought of as war-oriented, it might have a chance to
fly.  This way the White House could also meet popular goals such as
cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing smog.  They can save face by
saying the rationing is just because of the never-ending war "on
terrorism."  Emergencies are also attractive to besieged rulers. 
Not primarily because of petty politics, Nixon put in oil price controls, and
Bush could respond that way to today's record gasoline prices.  Voila,
never-ending rationing?

WWII rationing

The rationing system that worked in
World War II was sensible: an "A" sticker on most cars allowed only
three or four gallons to the driver per week.  Privileged and critically needed drivers
such as doctors got other stickers and more gasoline coupons.  Feds busted people wasting
fuel, such as nailing them at concerts or night clubs.  There was black
market abuse of
the system, but rationing worked to a large degree.  Speed limits were
lowered to 30 miles per hour on highways.  Rubber was suddenly unavailable from
plantations in Southeast Asia, so the U.S. was rushing to refine petroleum into
synthetic rubber before completely running out; hence, make those tires last.

The nation during World War II had some sensible
leadership in regard to oil policy, assuming the whole system of government and
industry was legitimate and
evolving to something sustainable and compassionate.  (That assumption runs
up against realities such as the oil-facilitated U.S. killing of 5 million
Indo-Chinese.)  How does
WWII policy compare with today?  The
flag waving leaders today certainly have the flag - and the weapons of mass
destruction, the big money, and all the oil they want (us) to guzzle.

What else was a hallmark of successful,
patriotic conservation in WWII?  Victory Gardens and recycling!  New
urban
gardens enabled depaved and ex-lawn spaces to become food production
zones.  Waste reduction featured reusing materials and parts instead of
trashing them.  Things could be fixed more easily than today, due to
encroaching computerization in cars, for example. 

These conservation measures went in and
stuck for the duration of the war because of the threat to the nation
Well, supposedly we are threatened now!  So where's the conservation? 
If there's no conservation, what does that imply?  

Why is the modern "conservative"
- and even the liberal - usually against conservation?  The main factor is individual "need,"
for not just consuming all the oil that's convenient, but for profiteering on
oil-related, oil-fueled business.  Somebody wants a big motor vehicle
regardless of fuel economy, and the powers-that-be want that car-buyer to
succeed in that want!  The world almost has a gun to its head to buy new motor vehicles.  In the U.S., this has by now translated to
more operable vehicles than drivers - a ratio of 1.9 personal cars in the
average household of 1.75 drivers.  Most consumers will not face the fact that
propaganda, brainwashing and employment policies do much to rob us of free will
and independent thinking.

On the other hand, if the Iraq War is
really for oil and the "right" to guzzle oil to no end, then it makes
sense that the proponents of today's war for oil would be in denial over any need for
conservation.  With no conservation or rationing, even though the White
House and "intelligence community" know the global peak in oil
production is upon us, we can with certainty say we are in a war for oil
gluttony.  What a noble purpose!  But lest we be too hard on them,
these folk - counting any of your neighbors too - can't imagine living simply
and creating love and peace, in their fearful and aggressive mind-set in the
dominant materialist culture.

When WWII rationing and speed reduction
kicked in, highway
crash deaths dropped by about two-thirds!  This kind of
life-saving opportunity, that President Bush doesn't yet seem to be aware of, could save 25,000
lives a year on U.S. roads today.  Does this not compare favorably with the 3,000
American citizens killed on Sept. 11, 2001.  Hello?  Are we
about reducing casualties of the oil war or not?  Iraqi civilians
deaths this year have hit just over 37,000 (Village Voice Sept. 3-9,
2003).  That's almost as many U.S. citizens who die in highway crashes
every year.  Those Iraqis can't be brought back, but future U.S. and other
peoples' deaths can be avoided.

With some significant energy conservation in the
U.S., many people around the world wouldn't hate the U.S. and its citizens so much.  Oil use is
equated to wealth.  The more oil we use the more the impoverished of the world
have violent feelings for U.S. citizens and targets of U.S.
corporate and military property.  These feelings are strongest among those deprived of their ancestral lands in part because of U.S. interventions.

But the response by a George Bush (either one)
and his supporters is, in effect, "Never!  Gimme more oil!" 
With this kind of honesty (unlike the Democrats), and such absence of sense and
equity, shall we try something else than muttering intellectual logic that calls
for peace and driving higher-tech cars (the sell-out enviros' big solution)?  Talk is cheap.

It is time for grassroots action to
conserve.  Almost as much as advocating car-free or minimized-car living,
rationing would not be popular.  But a one-term or lame-duck president could
try rationing as an Emergency measure.  At the rate George Bush is going,
he could be on his way to becoming a lame duck.  Despite his Enron scandal-taint, he got a
boost in popularity after 9-11 and attacked two countries with devastating
force which included depleted uranium.   However, what with the
growing backlash against the White House's/EPA's suppressing toxic exposure-risk data in the Twin Towers' debris;
what with the Iraq guerrilla war; the record budget
deficit of half a trillion dollars next year; mistreatment of soldiers regarding their pay and occupation conditions,
constitutional rights being infringed, etc., Bush could lose the 2004 election, assuming he is not impeached first.

If President Bush and his executive colleagues can
keep being as audacious and brazen as they have been - and they have gotten pretty far with
it - rationing of
oil is on the same order of audacity and extreme action.  Yet, saving lives
and the atmosphere is admittedly a bit radical to come of out Washington
D.C. - DC stands for District of Crooks, but anything's possible.  Only
a lame duck or one-termer would try serious conservation in times of plenty - plenty of oil,
for now, and plenty of oil-related death in both hemispheres.  Will oil
profligacy only
stop when oil gets really tight in supply?  Judge for yourself as to
timing:

It is a world on the dawn of an historic oil
crisis, perhaps the greatest and final one.  The oil industry's M. King
Hubbert bequeathed to us all the oilfield extraction curve named after
him.  We're at the global peak, and the downhill slide will not be like the
easy climb: when the market reacts and goes berserk, not even radical rationing will
work.  So, let's slash petroleum dependence beginning now, if the modern
world is to transition to the future of a lot
less energy.  

Energy alternatives are not ready and won't be, as long as oil is
still quite subsidized to
be priced low.  Also, alternatives don't compare to petroleum's energy punch
and molecular flexibility.  (To understand peak oil and how new oil
discoveries and improved renewable energy technology won't change basic trends
that these conclusions are based on, see Sustainable Energy Institute's webpages
such as The Fall
of Petroleum Civilization
and alternative
energy
.)

It's unlikely that the average north
American, here in oil pig-out heaven, will realize on his or her own that the oil war has been
taking place in our own homeland.  But, a few more of us can heed the call
to Can the car.  Let's also unplug our energy-wasting luxuries
and go outside into the natural world.  If it's not there, take the asphalt
up and plant some fruit trees.  And please watch the cat population which
is decimating the vanishing songbirds.  Peace!

The author formerly provided the U.S. Defense Fuel Supply
Center, the biggest oil consumer in the world, price information for its purchasing.  Jan Lundberg formerly
ran Lundberg Survey Incorporated which once published "the bible of the oil
industry."  He has run the Sustainable Energy Institute since 1988. 
It can use your assistance and generous help.

Read more at culturechange.org
 

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

In depth look at Inflation and Why We Need a NEW Economic Model

CPI, PPI, Oh my! The Austrians appear to be on to something that the Americans and Brits continue to ignore.

Inflation: What the heck is it?







Inflation has at least 8 distinctly different definitions that I can readily find, and probably a whole lot more that I have not yet found.

Commonly Used Definitions

  1. Decline in purchasing power of the currency held
  2. Rising prices in general (essentially the same as #1 although some might disagree)
  3. Rising consumer prices (CPI)
  4. Rising producer prices (PPI)
  5. Rising prices due to expansion of money supply
  6. Rising prices due to expansion of money supply and credit
  7. Expansion of money supply
  8. Expansion of money supply and credit
Four of those definitions refer to money supply. That brings up another issue. When one refers to "money supply" are they talking about M1, M2, MZM, Money AMS (Austrian Money Supply), or simply the amount of money they have in their bank account or wallet at the time of the conversation? Definitions 5 and 6 refer to "rising prices" yet fail to distinguish between consumer prices, producer prices, or simply prices in general. It seems we could easily add a lot more definitions.

Furthermore, some people make no distinction between money and credit but others do as noted by choices 5 thru 8. Still others insist than in the fiat world we are in, the web is so tangled between money and credit that this mess is not even worth bothering to figure out. Those folks simply hold gold and wait for "The Crash".

The thing is, it is simply impossible to argue about inflation (or anything else) unless one can agree on a definition. Like it or not, we live in a fiat world. Therefore we must attempt to have sound definitions that best describe the fiat world we are in.

A Dictionary Definition

Dictionary.com defines inflation as: A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

One might commend dictionary.com for making the distinction between money and credit, but others might take exception to "consumer prices" vs. "prices in general", and still others might argue endlessly about what "purchasing power" means. The real problem with the definition however, is that it puts the cart before the horse.

The Cart before the Horse

The problem with definitions that have a "because of" clause is that it impossible to know exactly why prices are rising or falling. Should rising oil prices due to peak oil, geopolitical concerns, hurricanes, or other supply disruptions really constitute inflation? More to the point: Is there any possible way to decide what % of the increase in the price of oil (or anything else) was "caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services"?

The answer to that latter question is easy: of course not. Furthermore, the natural state of affairs is decreasing prices because of increasing productivity (more goods produced by less labor) thereby causing a drop in prices over time. One farmer today produces as much wheat or corn as did 20 or even 100 farmers not that long ago. Unions strive to protect jobs even though one worker today produces more cars than several workers a decade ago.

Dictionary.com thus proposes a definition of inflation that simply can not be measured. The problem is the "because of" clause that puts the cart before the horse.

Is Price all that Matters?

Of course those in the "price is all that matters" camp have no such problems. To them, prices of a basket of goods and services rose, therefore inflation rose. A big problem for those in this camp is that rising asset prices (such as stock market equities) are not properly accounted for in any known basket of goods and services.

Some might argue that that problem can be solved by including stock market prices in the basket of goods and services. Unfortunately that further compounds the problem by orders of magnitude. How does one decide which stocks to include in the basket as well as the relative weighting of those stocks? Furthermore, is it really valid to call genuine improvements in business conditions "inflation"?

Even without the problem of equity assets, there is a huge problem of selecting a basket of goods and services that works for both consumers and producers. Not only is it impossible to accurately pick a representative basket of goods an services that properly measures "purchasing power", it is also impossible to make accurate quality judgments about the prices of goods in that basket.

For example: double pane insulated argon gas filled windows are now common. How does one measure the price of those windows with windows thirty years ago when such a thing did not even exist? How does one accurately measure the relative values of such windows vs. the windows of yesteryear? It simply can not be done! Practically speaking, the price drop is 100% because one could not get those windows at any price if you go back far enough.

How long ago was it that PCs, Gore-Tex, and Teflon did not exist? How does one accurately account for that? Backward price measurement comparisons are simply hopeless because of a continuous array of new product and service offerings. Some even look at such quality improvements to make a claim that the CPI is actually overstated! The ranges for overstatement that I have seen are generally 1-2% and understatement by as much as 6-7%. Can a definition of inflation that includes enormously subjective measures possibly be of use to anyone?

Is a basket that relies solely on producer prices (PPI) the answer? If so how does one properly account for rising consumer prices but not producer prices and vice versa? Obviously this line of reasoning is hopeless.

The problem of accounting for stock market fluctuations is even worse for those in the "price increases caused by an increase in available currency and credit" camp because they have to decide if stock market prices are rising or falling because of general business conditions or because of expansion of money supply, risk taking, speculation, or time preferences.

A Look Back at the New Economy

Let's take a step back from all this madness and consider the decade of the 1990's. In the mid to late 1990's money supply rose dramatically by any commonly used measure yet the folks in the "price is all that matters" and "purchasing power" camps were not alarmed because the price of oil and gold and copper and computers were falling as Greenspan became a cheerleader for the "New Economy". Can a definition of inflation that ignores such problems possibly be right?

The fatal flaw made by Greenspan and the "price is all that matters" camp is that productivity improvements led by an internet revolution, along with global wage arbitrage and outsourcing to China and India, lowered costs on manufactured goods and kept the lid on wage increases in the manufacturing sector. Those factors all helped mask rampant inflation in money supply. The Greenspan FED further compounded the problem by injecting massive amounts of money to fight a mythical Y2K dragon that simply did not exist. Those monetary injections helped fuel a massive bubble in the stock market in 2000.

Everyone in the "price is all that matters/purchasing power" camp either has to ignore equity distortions or account for them by adding equity prices to the basket of goods and services. Either way is problematic.

The Role of Government

Those in the "because of" camp also need to take account of the fact that rising prices in a basket of goods and services as well as rising equity prices often happen because of "government imposed solutions to nonexistent problems".

One can even logically argue that government itself is the primary cause of rising prices. Look no further than Y2K, a Medicaid Bill that legislates against mass purchases of drugs, congressional action that impose tariffs on crops and lumber, congressional actions that prevents drug imports from Canada, builds bridges to nowhere in Alaska, and other such nonsense.

There are now more than 200 governmental bills designed to make housing affordable. The worst of the lot were bills authorizing creation of the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Lenders eventually figured out how easy it is to dump the riskiest loans onto those quasi government agencies. Credit standards then went downhill and home prices sky rocketed.

As reported in the Washington Post article FHA Alternatives To Subprime Loans Alphonso Jackson, Housing and Urban Development Secretary actually went so far as to send this message to private sub-prime lenders: "We need to reach out to African-American, Hispanic and other first-time buyers with better loan concepts, more flexible guidelines and quicker service. I am absolutely emphatic about winning back our share of the market that has slipped away to subprime lenders."

A government desire to win back market share from private lenders is most assuredly pure insanity. Indeed, promotion of the ownership society itself is at the very heart of this mess. Supposedly the government wants "affordable housing" yet it puts into practice anti-free market policies that absolutely ensure the opposite.

Let's briefly discuss Medicare/Medicaid. Government policies prohibit negotiation of bulk discounts. Those policies also prohibit imports from Canada and other nations willing to provide drugs at a cheaper cost. The most recent boondoggle is a process whereby recipients can only change providers once a year while providers can add or drop coverage with a mere 60 days notice. Someone signing up for benefits specifically because a needed drug was covered may find out after 60 days they have to eat the entire cost. What kind of sense does any of that make?

Somehow entitlement programs always have enormous cost overruns. The Medicare/Medicaid bill is no exception. Before the bill was even passed, its costs were known to be understated by at least $139 billion dollars. The Washington Post article White House Had Role In Withholding Medicare Data notes that Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs was threatened with firing if he disclosed the true costs of the bill to Congress. The bill passed by an extremely slim margin. Had the true costs been disclosed it is doubtful the bill would have passed.

If you are looking for a source of inflation, there is no doubt that Greenspan, the FED, and government policies are all a huge part of the problem. What is interesting is that Greenspan is now finally starting to make sense for the first time in his entire career with his recent warnings about Fannie Mae, government spending, and trade deficits. For 18 years everyone listened to "The Maestro" even though most of what he said was totally unintelligible. Now the ultimate irony is that no one is paying attention just as he is finally starting to make some sense.

We will leave this matter for another time except to point out the following: The government and the FED are both always fighting some sort of mythical dragon. That is a huge problem over time.

A Use for the CPI

Let's now return to a question I asked earlier: Can a definition of inflation that includes enormously subjective measures such as the CPI possibly be of use to anyone? Actually it can, but not to any private citizen's benefit. The basket of goods and services as well as subjective measures of quality improvements can indeed be used by the government to underpay holders of inflation protected securities like TIPS, as well as understate cost of living adjustments to social security recipients.

How many believe the government's basket of goods and services is overweight computers and appliances and underweight heating bills, medical expenses, gasoline, insurance, and housing? Even if one believes the government was honest about the makeup of the basket, is the government biased about subjective measures of quality improvement of items in that basket? The problem of baskets and weightings is simply impossible to solve. The cynical will propose it is impossible to solve on purpose.

Money vs. Credit

Because of cart before the horse problems, basket selection problems, PPI vs. CPI problems, asset price problems, and government manipulation problems, we can easily discard the first 6 widely used definitions of inflation. That leaves us with a choice between the following:
  1. A net expansion of money supply
  2. A net expansion of money supply and credit
Given the current government policies that allow tremendous leverage via the fractional reserve lending, the most logical conclusion is that it is indeed necessary to distinguish between money and credit.

Fortunately the work in this area has already been accomplished by Austrian economist Frank Shostak. In The Mystery of the Money Supply Definition Shostak makes note of the difference between money supply and credit, while making a solid case that Money Supply (elsewhere called Austrian Money Supply or Money AMS) is Cash+demand deposits with commercial banks and thrift institutions+government deposits with banks and the central bank. The difference between Money AMS and other published "money supply" figures such as M1, M2, M3, or MZM is therefore either credit, over-counting, or pure nonsense.

Before making a final decision between the two remaining definitions let's first consider a real world example: Japan 1982-2004. Some argue that Japan never went through deflation. One basis for that argument is that "money supply" as measured by M1 never contracted over a sustained period. The other argument is that prices as measured by the CPI never fell much. Once again we have a flawed argument about consumer prices and a flawed argument that only looks at money and not credit.

Although Japan was rapidly printing money, a destruction of credit was happening at a far greater pace. There was an overall contraction of credit in Japan for close to 5 consecutive years. Property values plunged for 18 consecutive years. The stock market plunged from 40,000 to 7,000. Cash was hoarded and the velocity of money collapsed. Those are classic symptoms of deflation that a proper definition incorporating both money supply and credit would readily catch. Those looking at consumer prices or monetary injections by the bank of Japan were far off the mark.

Frank Shostak nicely describes the end of such economic booms in Making Sense of Money Supply Data:

As prices of financial assets begin to rise, in order to keep their growth momentum intact the money supply rate of growth must expand. Any slowdown in the money supply rate of growth will slow the growth momentum of financial assets' prices.

Once the rate of growth slows down false activities encounter trouble. Since the diversion of real resources toward these activities slows down, a fall in the money rate of growth strangles them. It follows then that rising growth momentum of money leads to an expansion in nonwealth generating activities (also known as an economic "boom") while a fall in growth momentum undermines false activities and results in an economic bust.


Note that it was a continued collapse in credit as opposed to a collapse in government monetary printing that eventually sealed the fate in Japan. The lesson to be learned from Japan is that once the ability and/or desire of consumers and corporations to take on more debt is reached, the party is over barring and out and out hyperinflationary expansion of money. For a discussion of Ben Bernanke's hyperinflationary "helicopter drop" solution to deflation, please see Robert Blumen's article Bernanke: Foreign Savings Glut Harms the US.

In practice, a helicopter drop of money would bail out consumers at the expense of the FED. Furthermore such actions would eventually destroy the FED's own power and wealth. Logic would therefore dictate that the helicopter drop threat would not be carried out in actual practice. No doubt there will be further endless debate on this subject, one way or another, until the final collapse is at hand.

Conclusions

The logical outcome of the above discussion is that a proper definition of inflation or deflation must be built on the foundation of a sound definition of money supply that distinguishes between money itself and credit. The definition should also ensure that the horse and the cart are in their proper places.

With the above in mind:
  1. Inflation is best described as a net expansion of money supply and credit.
  2. Deflation is logically the opposite, a net contraction of money supply and credit.
  3. Government mandated solutions to problems best left to the free market is the root cause of money supply expansion.
  4. With no enforcement mechanism such as a gold standard to keep things honest, and with no desire to raise taxes, governments simply approve programs with no way to fund them. The FED has been all too willing to play along by printing the money needed for those government programs. To make matters worse, the fractional reserve lending policies of the FED allows an even greater expansion of credit on top of the money printed. Eventually those actions result in a crack-up-boom and debasement of currency.
  5. Changes in "Purchasing power" required to buy a basket of goods and services can not be accurately measured because of the need to continuously add new products to the basket, because the measurement of quality improvements on existing products is too subjective, and because it is impossible to pick a representative and properly weighted basket of goods, services, and assets in the first place. Furthermore, such measurements are highly prone to governmental manipulation at private citizen expense. Endless bickering over the CPI numbers every month should be proof enough of these allegations.
  6. Measurement of equity price fluctuations poses a particularly difficult problem for those bound and determined to put the cart before the horse as well as those that think such assets belong in any sort of basket.
  7. Price targeting by the FED is doomed to failure because a representative basket of goods and services can not be created, because prices can not properly be measured, and because price targeting puts the cart before the horse.
  8. Expansion of money supply (typically to accommodate unfunded government spending) and expansion of credit (via GSEs, fractional reserve lending, and other unsecured debt issuance) are two of the biggest problems. Targeting the outcome (prices) can not possibly be the solution.
  9. Ludwig von Mises describes the endgame brought on by reckless expansion of credit: "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
  10. The FED should have been listening to Mises all along. Instead they have put their faith in "productivity miracles", "new paradigms", and their own hubris. Those actions have accomplished nothing other than delay the eventual day of reckoning.
Mike Shedlock / Mish
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
Read more at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
 

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Humanity Controlled and Enslaved by Network of US Military and the American Global Empire

Can anyone argue with these maps, this data? This has the British Empire beat hands down. We have taken colonialism well beyond the capacities of the European settlers who just over 200 years ago fought for independence. This is what American looked like in 1776.



http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/us1776.pdf

Amplify’d from www.globalresearch.ca
The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel
by Prof. Jules Dufour
The Worldwide control of humanity's economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultmately consist in a process of global subordination.  

Where is the Threat?

The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined "the State of the World" by focussing on so-called  "level of threats" which might negatively influence or undermine US interests.

Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualised the greatest fraud in US history, namely "the Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext  constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the "free market" has unfolded. 


 


Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to: 

1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets,

2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy).
The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations.

Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases

The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.


 


Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and  the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.


 


The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control  of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including  the United Kingdom, France and Russia.


 


I. The Military Bases

Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :

a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);

b) Army or Land Bases;

c) Navy Bases and

d) Communication and Spy Bases.


 


 





Photo 1. Air Base of Diego Garcia located in the Indian Ocean


Image:Diego Garcia (satellite).jpg 


 



Reference : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diego_Garcia_%28satellite%29.jpg


 


 


 


Photo 2. Diego Garcia. An Aerial View of two B-52 and six Kc-a135


 


 


 



Reference : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego-garcia-ims7.jpg  


  






II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations


 


The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.


 


In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing's 2002 Map 1 entitled "U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of 'Permanent War'", confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries. 

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. 

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).


 





Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data



 


 





















Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884


 



 


Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)


 


Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm 

 


Click here for Peace Pledge Union website 


 



Source : http://www.nobases.org


 


Map 3 US Military Bases Click here to see Map 3 



The Map of the World Network "No Bases" (Map 3) reveals the following:


Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are being used for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases and Satellite-related Spy Bases.


The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield

These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into five spatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit is under the Command of a General.

The Earth surface  is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.  


Map 4. The World and Territories Under the Responsibility of a Combatant Command or Under a Command Structure


 


 Map-the World With Commander' Area of Responsibility


 



Source : http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/


 


Territories under a Command are: the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado), the Pacific Command (Honolulu, Hawaii), the Southern Command (Miami, Florida – Map 5), The Central Command (CENTCOM) (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the European Command (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany), the Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, Virginia), the Special Operations Command (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the Transportation Command (Scott Air Force Base, Illinois) and the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska).


 


Map 5. The Southern Command


 


 


 



Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapabases.htm


 


NATO Military Bases  

The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe:

Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy,
Tirana in Albania,
Incirlik in Turkey,
Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and
Ali al Salem in Koweit (http://www.terra.es/actualidad/articulo/html/act52501.htm )


 


 


III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel


 


There are 6000  military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007). 

Total Military Personnel is of the order of  1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries: 

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.


 


In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.


 


Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.


 


IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network


 


US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008.

(Figure 1 and http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php ).

These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of-the_United_States).


 


 


Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998


 


At 2007 prices, 1998 military spending was $364.35bn. 2008’s is approximately $643.9bn 


 


Source : http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp


 


According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increase compared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was more than half of the total of the US discretionary budget.

Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, according to the National Priorities Project, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars.

(http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml), 


 


(http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 ).


 


Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Book for FY 2007 are of the order of  440 billion dollars.
(http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/index.html )

Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the "Global World on Terrorism" (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to the regular Defense budget. 

A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 Budget Favors Defense», wrote about this topic:

"Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to during the past half-decade: building up military capacity and defenses against terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expenditures for many domestic areas, from education programs to train service" 

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html ).


 


 


V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources


 


In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Other countries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington's directives including Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked for possible US military intervention.

Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made a quick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «to promote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbing and restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. .

(http://www.voanews.com/spanish/2007-03-08-voa1.cfm)


 


The same braod approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC):

"The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. For example, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent of the world's proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality."

(http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157 ).


 


The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call "VICTORY". According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of-the_U.S.-Military), American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000.  The "Enduring Freedom" Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 military personnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the US sponsored "Mission". About 20,000 more could join other contingents in the next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiers participate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).


 


Map  6.  Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia


 


 


 


Source : Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, 2003 


 


 


Map 7. American Bases Located in Central Asia


 


 The Centro Asia Ring


 


Source : http://www.heartland.it/map_centro_asia_ring.html


 


 


Map 8. Oil Fields in Latin America


 


 


 


Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm


 


 


VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources


 


US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy. There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).


 


In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf.

It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs  of the order of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and the use of about ten bases in Central Asia.

The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number of military bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B., 2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France.

Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of an overall plan to install a series of military bases geographically located in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in South America, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as the Philippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American are related to the control and access to the extensive natural biological , mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (Delgado Jara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10). 


 


Map 9. The Biological Wealth of Latin America




 


 


Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm


 


 


 


Map 10. Freshwater Resources in Latin America


 


 


 


Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm


 


 


VII. Resistance Movements



The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources of energy. This military presence has brought about political opposition and resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists.

Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many other countries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directed against US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.


 


The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases.


 


Such networks' objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US military bases in foreign countries. 

The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion.  It also works to rehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe. 


 


These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.
 
The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that "much can be gained from greater and deeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements across the globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit from sharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other"

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )


 


"The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globally coordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale of the resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With the trend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force around the world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish and strengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, and movements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign military presence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system of peace»

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )


 


The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of the movement to close down US military bases in foreign countries:

"At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a global anti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorize among global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»  (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).


 


Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled (nousbases@lists.riseup.net  and nousbases-info@lists.riseup.net ) that permit the diffusion of the movement members experiences and information and discussion exchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48 countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Network members. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoing activities around the World.

http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en


 


In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized various conferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forum held in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the the America’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the Mediterranean Social Forum in Spain in 2005.

One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125 participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinated global campaign.

Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming from the existence of US military bases. The Network also held four discussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One of those pertained to the financing of the Network's activities.


 


It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have  become more sensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.  



 


 Map 11. Social and Resistence Movements in Latin America


 


 


 


Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm  


 


The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007


 


A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007

(
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SmEvQwFUeiAJ:www.abolishbases.org/pdf/CalltoEcuadorFlyer-Francais.pdf+R%C3%A9seau+mondial+des+bases+militaires&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_fr ).
 
The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to make known the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and to formally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans. The main objectives of the Conference were the following:



-           Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and other features of military presence associated to the global dominance strategy and their impacts upon population and environment;



-           Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Bases around the World;



-           Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of a Global Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and of all other expressions of military presence; and



-            Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are being coordinated at the international level.


 


Conclusion


 


This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power. 

The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits the World up into geographic command units vividly illustrates this underlying geopolitical reality.

Humanity is being controlled  and enslaved by this Network of US military bases. .


 


The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of US interventionism  in different regions of the World.

This militarisation process is charactersied by armed aggression and warfare, as well as interventions called "cooperation agreements". The latter reaffirmed America's economic design design in the areas of trade and investment practices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturization or the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources are thereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to be effective, particuarly  in regions which have a strategic potential in terms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidate the Empire's structures and functions.


 


The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to oppose the miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensable and its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World. It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built up by the Network among its constituant resistence movements are a positive element, which is ultmately conducive to more cohesive and coordinated battle at the World level.



The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and was endorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the major issues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a major peace initative. It establishes  international solidarity in the process of  disarmament. .

 (http://www.csotan.org/textes/texte.php?type=divers&art_id=267 ).  

Read more at www.globalresearch.ca