Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, May 27, 2005

War Crimes: Flight Risk

Update: One down.

Managing the risk of personnel accused of or related to war crimes from leaving the United States.

Anticipate Special Collection Service Beltsville, Maryland using "training missions" as cover, as was Operation Falcon.


One of the problems following the Allied Occupation of Europe was the problem of Nazi flight. Germans and other Axis personnel who significantly contributed to the Nazi war machine would break through enemy lines, flee Germany with the hopes of avoiding capture.

This was done not simply because they were enemy combatants, but they knew they had committed crimes. It's taken many years following WWII for some of the Nazi to get hunted down and brought to justice.

Stickers here:

What is noteworthy is that during the 1940s citizens were encouraged to join the "Ten Percent Club". This was an effort to get citizens to buy war bonds so that the enemy was stopped overseas, before they arrived at the door. Well, they've arrived at the door. SO much for the Ten Percent Club. Thanks anyway.

This note explores the risk that American military and political leaders who have substantially supported aggressive war would also hope to avoid capture.

The objective of this note is to outline concerns related to this risk, and formulate some preliminary strategies to mitigate war crimes flight risk.

Joint Staff Fissures

At this juncture it is clear that there are fissures in the Joint Staff. They have already allowed to be released misleading statements about what they know about the misconduct in Guantanamo.

The Joint staff was informed through 6th Group Military Police in 2002 that there was misconduct amounting to war crimes and violations of human rights. This information is contained in a CID report.

Also, Joint Staff was also briefed through NAVY IG of the findings from the FBI at Guantanamo.

It appears there are 4 emerging groups within the Joint Staff:

Group A. This group is hoping to create a crisis or distraction attention from current problems. This group is fully aware of the scope of the allegations that could unfold.

Group B. This group hopes to exploit a bogus crisis overseas, and are fully aware that there is not enough manpower in the military. They may or may not be willing to support a military draft. [Leaky brains in DoD.]

Group C. These are the individuals who see the circle closing faster than a draft or ruse can be created. These are the highest risk of feeling.

Group D. In terms of the Constitution, this is the most reliable and loyal group. They understand fully what is going on, and are getting very annoyed at the lawlessness going on inside the Pentagon and White House. This group is marked by a loyalty to the Constitution; and they are deciding when is the best time to transition from open loyalty to the Executive to one that is fully and openly loyal to the Constitution even if it means defying unlawful presidential orders. This group knows that it has supported wars of aggression.

Given the above four groups, they will soon face the ultimate test: Does their oath of office to the Constitution mean anything.

  • Will they really put their interests second to the Constitution?

  • Can the Congress and Citizenry trust these personnel to come forward and accept responsibility for their war crimes?

  • Will the ruses and distractions continue to avoid accountable?

  • Will the military submit to lawful civilian control which may or may not be those they are presently assigned?

    VIP Security

    One of the problems with discussing this issue is the reality that VIPs do engage in short notice travel. At all times they are afforded understandable security.

    This note does not question the need for discretion and security. Rather, it raises the prospect that this discretion system could be abused to avoid justice.


    Congress needs to review the statements that VIPs and other military personnel make when asserting the purposes of travel. Although the legitimate travel may be related to programs which Congress isn't going to find out about. All personnel need to be reminded that their travel need only relate to lawful purposes.

    This note proposes a two prong approach. First that all personnel be required to re-read the constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and recertify that they are in full compliance with their oath of office; and second certify that they will only travel for lawful purposes.

    This will do two things: First, ensure all personnel understand that their oath of office is the Constitution; remind personnel of the laws of war; and second ensure that they document in writing their understanding of the statutes related to the laws of war, the constitution, Geneva Convention; and also certify to Congress that they understand that government and private funds may not be used to avoid capture in re war crimes.


    I wanted to spend some time reviewing the current situations and the various forms of VIP Travel that could potentially be abused to avoid capture in re war crimes.

    Also, I hope to bring to the Attention of Congress the need to carefully supervise through appropriate measures mechanisms that will ensure the personnel realize the gravity of the situation.

    Ideally, personnel should encouraged to voluntarily come forward to set the records straight.

    My specific concern at this time is that VIPs are known to mysteriously disappear from Washington and appear unannounced in various locations. Understandably, this is for security reasons when traveling to a hostile combat zone.

    However, in my view, it is foreseeable that the system that supports this travel could be abused.

    Moreover, I am concerns that in light of the misleading statements in re MI6 memo and what the Joint Staff knew/when in re Guantanamo abuse, that there will be similarly misleading statements before Congress.

    In other words, despite the Congressional rules/laws that prohibit false statements to Congress, in my view VIPs have already abused this restriction in launching this aggressive war.

    Thus, it appears that VIPs would also mislead Congress in re the purpose of their travel in order to avoid capture, arrest, or detention in re war crimes allegations.

    Existing VIP Security Plans

    It would be appropriate at this juncture to look to the future and imagine a time when VIPs are traveling, but Congress is not aware of the details.

    My concern is that Congress, despite its authority to wage war, was effectively undermined and baited into voting for a war of aggression.

    Bluntly, although VIPs are afforded specific protections and liberties with travel, I do not remain confident that Congress has the requisite staff or oversight authority to ensure the Executive remains responsive.

    Bluntly, the lengthy court proceedings in re Guantanamo Prisoners and the Energy Commission Task forces have been largely private civil matters.

    I ask you: Where are the lawyers in Congress checking the executive?

    Why is it taking this long to get the lawyers to bring the disputes between Congress and the Executive to lawful resolution?

    In my view, it should not be the responsibility of private citizens to step in and ensure Congress is Checking the Executive.

    perhaps the statutes need to be strengthened so that the Constitutional Checks and Balances actually ensure government ranches check each other. Ideally, I would prefer that the government put more weight on checking the other branches than they do in detaining innocent civilians exercising their constitutional rights.

    In my view it is absurd that there are many lawyers running around, but it was only the private action that was the catalyst for the JAGs to step in and say we have a problem in Guantanano.

    Again, I ask you: Where are the lawyers; why are the silent during this period. In my view, it is foreseeable, given the Commander in Chief's misleading statements that others could engage in the same misleading conduct about their travel arrangements.
    Flight Risks: Travel Options

  • TDY: Temporary Duty

  • Commercial: Personnel travel

  • GulfStreams, private contract: CIA Express

  • Military Transport: Official military transport

  • Other: To be determined

  • Each of these modes of travel required certain clearances. However, Delta Force is not unknown to appear out of the blue, guns in hand, and require flight crews to sign confidentiality agreements about the final destination.

    Also US civilian charter transports are used to unlawfully transport detainees to countries that commit torture.

    Personnel do get travel orders to fly to overseas conferences.

    And military transport is used to move VIP's from Haiti to other locations.

    At this juncture, it appears as though what is most likely is that NSA-CIA assets will be used. It is hoped that Congress, despite the wink-wink of black programs, will outline a series of steps that trumps all these black programs.

    Currently, Congress knows that there are black programs. And the CIA also has a private airline system that moves personnel. At the same time, CIA also uses commercial aircraft to support embassies around the globe.

    It is hoped that the needed security arrangements for these lawful objectives are balanced against the risk that assets could be used for purposes of avoiding arrest or questioning in re war crimes.


    My concern at this juncture is that as we get closer to finding out the details of what actually happened, senior Joint Staff Officers are going to feel the Pressure. They have the ability to quickly move using VIP transports.

    Although I recognize that there are numerous existing checks in place, laws, and paperwork that must be signed/approved, there are still loopholes permitting the CIA express to move detainees in violation of the law.

    The question for Congress is: What is to be done about the real possibility that personnel could exploit the existing system for unlawful purposes.

    I do not have the answer. Nor do I want to speculate on the specific security arrangements required.

    however, I do want to encourage the Congress to ensure that military personnel who are on air crews or former government officials now flying on CIA contract to he mindful of where we are: There is emerging evidence that the President ha launched an aggressive war and committed war crimes; Senior Joint Staff personnel are subject to increasing pressure.

    I would hope that flight crews are given the support that they need if in their judgment the objective of the VIP travel is not to engage in lawful activity but to avoid capture.

    I would also hope that the existing DHS watch list also include variations of names of VIPs so that personnel can be on the look out for them.

    My hope is that in the event Congress fails, personnel around the globe who are aircraft spotters will know to look for VIP transports like Gulfstreams and carefully document the aircraft tail numbers. It will be important to match the aircraft landings-numbers with the takeoffs-numbers. I suspect there will be number changes to confuse the ultimate destination of the VIP travel.

    At this juncture I am concerned that the same type of VIP-transport-system that unlawfully supports torturing detainees could very well move below the radar. Whether this actually happens or not remains to be seen.

    At the same time, there could very well be legitimate security reasons to simply let personnel leave. I shall not second guess those decisions.

    however, we have already seen the president lie about the reasons for going to war. I would hope that the "concern with security" isn't trumped up as a ruse to avoid accountability for war crimes.

    Going forward

    I would like the Congressional leadership to come to some understanding of the gravity of the allegations been made. These are not political issues; they are matters of criminal law.

    I would also like the Congressional leadership to take a step back and review the current decision to delay the Bolton vote. I believe that is appropriate. More information is needed.

    I would hope that the leadership make similar decisions to carefully oversee the Patriot Act 2. Bluntly, I am concerned that the same body that has the oversight of the VIP security is also the same intelligence oversight system being lobbied to water down the IV Amendment.

    It seems clear form the vantage point that the needed Congressional independence has been compromised. The Executive has already given misleading information about WMD; I would image more misleading information used as a pretext to water down the IV Amendment in the Patriot Act 2.

    In turn, I fully expect the Executive to paint a very rose picture of 'that would never happen' while fully preparing plans to do the opposite. Further, I am skeptical Congress will respond. The very people in the Senate and House that the Executive would have to "inform" are the same personnel who are seriously discussing watering down the 4th Amendment. The same people who can be convinced, once again, without evidence that there is a "threat" to justify ignoring the law, are in no position to credibly challenge the Executives statements in re plans to travel abroad to avoid war crimes liability.

    It is too late to say after the fact, "nobody thought of this." The time to close these holes is now. The Executive is not to be trusted; he's already lied about war crimes. It would be noting to lie again about the present threat to divert attention or explain away needed Congressional oversight in re managing war crimes flight risk.

    The Congress was ramrodded with the Patriot Act. We now know that the legislation in may cases is unconstitutional. The courts have already adjudicated on that matter.

    In my view, the time to debate this issue isn't in court after the private citizens are abused; rather, the time for the real debate is before the legislation is passed.

    Yet, more broadly, in my view, there ha already been a debate about the 4th Amendment. That debate was in the wake of a successful combat operation called the Revolutionary War.

    It pains me to see civilians having to wage this war each day before law enforcement. I would hope that the country recognize that in the wake of the 9-11 and the Patriot Act, the government has tilted unfairly to require private citizens to prove their innocence.

    That is wrong. What is needed is a rebalancing. In my view, the Senate Intelligence Committee is being fed more nonsense *-, just as we got nonsense about WMD.

    Thus, I remain hopeful that despite the allegations of political bickering, that the Senate leadership rise above the issues and remember why you're there: To protect the Constitution.

    This means that, just as the Bolton vote was delayed for purposes of gathering more information, so too must the decisions in re Patriot Act 2.

    Bluntly, I see no credible argument for justifying destroying the 4th Amendment. No amount of handwaving and threats of bogeyman coming from the Executive are going to convince me that the Constitution needs to be destroyed.

    What I want

    I want to see the Congress work with the state legislatures to being an effort to transition power from the Executive to non-Executive powers.

    I want to see a system in place that will support flight crew commanders should they need assistance in denying VIPs travel when the purpose of that travel appears to be avoid war crimes accountability.

    I want military personnel to recertify they have read the constitution; the oath of office; the wars of aggression finding from the Nuremberg Treaties; and self-certify where they stand in terms of war crimes under penalty of perjury.

    Congress needs to remind the Executive that the full mechanisms in place to hunt down innocent civilians remain in full force to track personnel who hope to avoid capture: The DHS TSA personal personnel rosters will have the names of all military personnel who are missing and suspect of war crimes; also the Patriot Act provisions which permit tracking of funds will be used to monitor the funds flows of personnel who are suspected of being associated with War crimes.

    It my is my goal that the war crimes investigations be completed after a thorough review of the facts.

    It is my hope that the investigation be transparent, unlike the 9-11 hearing. I would hope that as evidence is discovered it be immediately posted for the world to see. That way people can provide additional information. In other words, as you find more information, post it to the internet so that bloggers can do research and help fill in the gaps.

    Bloggers need to watch for takeoff locations; be mindful of colors changes; note takeoffs of tail numbers which do not match landing numbers. There are some reasonable estimates to how long it takes to change a tail number. If aircraft disappear behind buildings, but never reappear; they've either taken other routes back to the flightline, or they have changed the tail numbers.

    Also, I would like to see the military personnel recertify their oaths of office after having read the constitution, their oath of office and the Geneva Conventions.

    Also, I would like to see Congress ensure that information related to travel be something that is subject to the false claims act. If VIPs issue orders for travel on a ruse, then are transported to alternate locations, that may be appropriate for security arrangements. However, I would like there to be some provisions that if that travel is for purposes that are related in any way to avoid war crimes then that conduct be subject to further penalties.

    I would also like to see Congress appropriate the necessary funding to support the Echelon data transcription required to monitor all traffic related to VIP transport; funding to ensure that funds can be tracked so that private or government funds cannot be used to evade capture; and have appropriations available so that if it is deemed appropriate that personnel who are hoping to avoid accountability for war crimes are timely recovered within an order of magnitudes of hours [not decades].

    I would like to see some measures to strengthen the legal checks and balances between government branches. Specificity, I would like to see more government legal action taken in court, rather than require civil actions to check the government. I would like to see the legal community be more outspoken about these issues. I do not wish for this to be a matter which victims of government abuse are required to do the checking and balancing. Self-government means the government should be self-checking; private citizens should not be required to "rewage" [figuratively] 1776-like campaigns merely to remind the government what they've already sworn and oath to defend.

    Issues to discuss

    The problems with monitoring parolees is not a new one.

  • What will be done to ensure black operations do not turn into measures to hid personnel liable for war crimes?

  • Will congress pass laws preventing money and resources to be used to hide, transport, or assist military personnel in avoiding accountability for war crimes/

  • Will US government through Echelon work with its allies to track military and civilian personnel accused of war crimes?

  • Will the existing holes in the charter-contract system supporting the CIA Express in transporting detainees to countries that permit torture be remedied;

  • How will the existing oversight functions be strengthened to ensure the flaws in the system that "permitted" personnel to be unlawfully transferred to face torture is not exploited to move personnel to evade capture in re war crimes?

  • What will be done to ensure that personnel are not allowed to attend overseas conferences that are actually ruses to permit travel outside the United States?

    Congressional Actions in re Travel Clearances

    Congress needs to be involved through reliable law enforcement procedures to ensure the travel clearances are for lawful purposes. Congress needs to be kept informed through reliable law enforcement the flight plans; full manifests; and there need to be procures in place to have military personnel pre-checked and have their ID cross checked against approved and lawful travel.

    There also need to be override mechanisms in place so that if flight crews voluntarily disengage tracking mechanisms or are forced to turn off tracking systems, that there are alternative methods in place to find and location these fleeing personnel.

  • Should there be special procedures to track joint staff departures on VIP transport; and

  • What would be the appropriate criteria to evaluate flight risk among the Joint Staff;

    In my view, once personnel disappear they should be related no different than anyone who is being monitored under the proposed FISA-AlQueda procedures. In my view, personnel who are fleeing should be presumed to be guilty of war crimes and treated as such.

    It remains to be understood whether countries who are signatories of the Geneva Conventions will support the US in the rendition program to recapture military and civilian personnel accused of war crimes.

    I would like Congress to presume that there is an extensive network in place to support military and civilian personnel to evade capture and accountability for are crimes. I would like Congress to review the current plans US military have to hunt down those accused of war crimes; and determine whether these plans are appropriate for retrieving civilian personnel similarly accused of war crimes.

    I would like the Patriot Act to be fully used to track their names, bank accounts, credit cards and all other financial support that would likely be used in a post-departure lifestyle. In other words: Those who have supported the Patriot Act are going to enjoy the full benefits of having that system now imposed on them and have it fully coordinated with the Echelon and NSA in brining them back to justice. They're not going to hide.

    I do not want to have the air crews second guessing legitimate VIP security or travel. However, I also want flight crews to be afforded immunity in cases where they, like law enforcement, make a reasonable judgment that the proposed travel is not for a lawful purposes or it is for something to support evading accountability for war crimes.

    In other words, because law enforcement has enjoyed largely unquestioned oversight despite their testilying, I would like the flight crews to have Congressional support to challenge those who have already shown they have no regard for the rule of law and will commit perjury in our courts. The balance would be appropriate and would serve the interest of both the criminal justice system and the larger objective of protecting the constitution.

    if it comes down to a decision between whether someone who shows up with a weapon and threatens a flight crew, I would hope the flight crew have the full support of Congress in denying that takeoff, especially in cases where we have two military personnel in a standoff. On one hand, a flight crew that has a good faith reason to question the motives of the security team and purposes of the VIP travel; while at the same time protecting the safety and security of the VIP.

    There needs to be a clear message to law enforcement that because they've abused their "special trust" they no longer can wave their guns around and expect others to blindly obey their orders that contribute to a post-crime conspiracy to insulate the accused from accountability.

    I would also like a straight story:

  • How are Gulfstreams able to fly around without tacking?

  • What's going to be done to prevent the Joint Staff from slipping away as was done in the CIA Express and GulfStreams?

    It is curious that people are getting "more used to" VIPs mysteriously leaving DC and showing up unannounced in unusual locations, yet nobody knows about this.

    It remains to be seen who might give asylum to the leadership; and whether the Joint Staff would really extract military personnel from detention if they were held for war crimes. The Congress has already stated that military personnel detained in the Hague would be liberated; does Congress plan to support other efforts by the military to ensure that civilians also avoid accountability for war crimes?

    We've seen in the wake of the patriot Act that Congress will pass many things without thinking. Yet, recently the Senate has shown remarkable restrain when it comes to the Bolton Nomination. I would hope that as Congress gathers more information on Bolton, it exercises the same restrain and gathers more information about the Proposed Patriot Act. I would like to see Congress show a much interest and concern about the Constitution as they have about Bolton's bullying; and I would like to see Congress gather more information from the DoJ that they are gathering from the Senate.

    If DoJ is not responsive, or they refuse to provide their certifications in writing under express penalty of perjury, then I would presume two things: The data "backing up" the claims to justify destroying the 4th Amendment are bogus; and that there is a real possibility of flight risk as the pendulum swings.

    More broadly, Congress and the public need to begin a serious open debate as to how these unlawful crusades are going to be nipped in the bud. Going back to the days of the magna Carta, it is clear that Executives can be forced to submit to the rule of law.

    Some have argued that the Congress can't do anything because the Republican Majority. This is not true. The States also have the power to act through a 3/4 vote with A constitutional Amendment. The Congress needs to be reminded by the collective states that where the Congress refuses to act, the Stats can modernize the Constitution.

    It would also be disappointing, but not surprising, to find that DoD seeks revenge on those Congressman who support greater oversight of the Executive. Just as there are sanctions on law enforcement for providing false evidence, or in suppressing evidence that was gleaned through unlawful methods, so too should DoD be sanctioned in a meaningful way by exerting unlawful pressure to avoid accountability for war crimes.

    It remains to be understood to what extent Congressmen have been targeted because they oppose unlawful wars of aggression; or stand as a potential roadblock to DoD and CIA efforts to quickly move to avoid accountability for war crimes.

    More broadly, recall the literature called Mein Kampf. Today we have a similar body of knowledge called the PNAC. Just as Hitler was propelled by an ideology, so too has PNAC propelled this nation into an unlawful war of aggression. This does not presume that PNAC has committed any violations of law as such a claim would be defamatory.

    Rather, this is to suggest that there need to be some effective methods in place to ensure that a similar ideology in the future doesn't once again corrupt a nation's leadership and "justify" wars of aggression. We remain hopeful that the Constitution can be amended to remedy these self-evident defects. Where Congress refuses to act, the States are free to agree on their own. Perhaps as the abuses and war crimes become self-evident, the states will realize they need to act in the form of a Constitutional Convention.

    What's really needed are some mechanisms that are going to prevent individuals like Hitler and Bush from subverting the system and taking a nation to war to wage wars of aggression. There need to be updates in the Constitution that checks the Executive.

    I'm not persuaded by Mr Cheney or Mr. Libby's arguments that the Executive is "under attack" I'm not clear that checks and balances is necessarily an attack; its merely the needed check to ensure that leaders do not do what this Executive has done: Undermine the rule of law; ignore the Geneva Conventions; and wage a war of aggression. At best, the Executive needs to come under attack from the Constitution and the appropriate lawful mechanism that would restrain the abuses no different than the British Red Coats and the British Monarchy.

    For those of you who have missed it, I would hope that the Congress gather more information about the war crimes, and also ensure that the decision to water down the 4th Amendment gets special letters of inquiry. I would prefer that the DoJ personnel testifying not simply certify under oath, but also make those statements a formal delivery to Congress in the form of a signed letter with full knowledge that false statements would credible and timely sanctions for perjury. DoJ needs to get the full message: They have no credibility and they have a long row to hoe to get it back.

    I would also prefer that as the inquiry dives into the details and discovers m ore things, that these findings are timely revealed. We've seen in the wake of various public discussions how effective bloggers can be in providing useful information.

    I do not want to see the Congress hiding behind the 'we have an ongoing investigation and cant talk about that' kind of mantra we had with the 9-11 commission. Rather, I want to see the information released, available for public review and comment in real time. You're not going to spend years reviewing something, and then hide it behind a wall of secrecy.

    These are public allegations of criminal conduct; so too should there be a public accounting for what is known and a public fully engaged in knowing how their leadership is being held to account to eh constitution.

    More broadly, the President publicly stated there were reasons for going to war; that was his choice. To do so in a public forum.

    So too should the review of those matters be public. He should not be afforded any "greater right to privacy" than those he currently mocks like Saddam Hussein or those his law enforcement have detained and abused in DoJ prisons or the RNC hearings.

    In other words, those leaders who want to engage in public abuses need to also realize that they will subject themselves to the same public scrutiny they have imposed on others. There are no double standards, despite the excuses to the contrary.

    Let us review once again what happened in the post 9-11 world. Despite DOJ previously drafting the Patriot Act and the intelligence community having advance warning of 9-11, nothing was done.

    Yet the "crisis" and "need to act fast" was the "excuse" to swiftly move. So too should that standard be applied. The States should remind Congress that the Stats too can move quickly to organize a constitutional convention and similarly ran down both the Congress and the executives throats substantive amendments to the constitution that will take away power from the Federal Government.

    At this juncture, I see it fitting an appropriate, given the abuses and abysmal failure of Congress to check the Executive, that some sort of state-level oversight system be strengthened to ensure another Execuctive doesn't similarly concoct a ruse to engage in another unlawful war of aggression.

    DoJ and the Executive have worked will to intimidate Congress. There need to be mechanisms in place to ensure that more states are part of that "body of targets' which DoJ has to intimidate; and at the same time, there need to be some swiftly-moving mechanisms like Attorney General Spitzer's Securities-Fighting mechanisms that go after abusive law enforcement, something more responsive than DoJ's OPR. Again, the State-level check on the Federal Government abuses and arrogance needs to be constitutionality strengthened.

    I'm sure there are many other things that could be done. But the Congress and Executive need to get a wake up call. That the current nonsense about "social security accounts" and "how will be the next judge" pale in comparison to the larger constitutional issues facing us in the wake of these war crimes allegations.

    Recall many assert we cannot 'afford' the distraction. Those calls are unpursuasive as we cannot afford "NOT" to deal with these issues. The Federal Government is not a machine to be fed; it is a small rodent that needs to be carefully managed and contained.

    The states need to exert their power and remind the Federal Government that the Constitution remains in full force, regardless the ruses or inaction of 9-11; or the lies perpetuated to pass unconstitutional legislation or wage wars of aggression.

    No matter what is ultimately done, what needs to be a clear message to the Executive, as was in the wake of the Watergate hearings, was that there will be reforms in place to make sure this doesn't happen. If the Federal Government refuses to take action, the states can collectively act through a constitutional convention.

    I grow tired hearing the arrogant Senators parade themselves, threatening to cut off debate on issues that need to be debated. It is absurd that if Senators decide to discuss issues and filibuster the sanction is a loss of that privilege. This is the actual use of intimidation in the future in order to secure acquiescence today. That is not appropriate.

    In turn, there can be no "agreement" to rubber stamp or "not debate" something that needs debate. Again, the States may require a larger body of evidence to justify action; but the Senate needs to get the support of the States in saying, "You cannot cut off debate when there are important issues at hand."

    It is foreseeable that the risk of war crimes is real. Those who are accused of war crimes have few options. We might hope that they voluntarily come forward to state what they know. But in the wake of the Cheney Energy Commission and Ambassador Wilson's wife's-name-outing, I have little confidence the Executive is going to cooperate.

    Rather, I believe the executive looks at this situation as being one with although few options, something that can be gamed and that he has nothing to lose. All the information the Executive has by way of feedback is that he can do what he wants and nobody can challenge him.

    Indeed, he's already mislead the Congress and been "punished" by getting more off budget appropriations. Where's Congress in using the power of "we will not appropriate money" to prevent wars of aggression from continuing?

    Indeed, this executive has shown that he will get the funds 'somehow' even lying, making up stories, and rallying the manipulated to his defense.

    Remember the lesson of the Nazis. They ran. It took many years to hunt them down. The nation need not be insulted once with a phony reason for war; then asked to celebrate war crimes; then say nothing when history is rewritten over who invaded and who did the 'inviting' to Iraq.

    Rather, although the constitution is slow to take away rights [or should be], it should be quick to protect itself and the citizenry. Not the other way around.

    So it is fitting that just as this Executive has chosen on his own to quickly move to do nothing in re 9-11; and quickly chosen to distract attention from war crimes with social security; that he too be given little deference other than that which is constitutionally and minimally required.

    This executive has already lied. What will be done to ensure that his travel is for lawful purposes; how do we balance the legitimate security and personal safety issues with the desire to ensure they are available for a proper accounting of these alleged war crimes; what will be done to ensure those who are at high risk of fleeing are actually brought to justice; is the threat of impeachment enough, or should the United Stats submit to the ICC so that others can intervene where Congress and the Executive self-evidently refuse to act?

    What if the Senate rules to act and hold the executive accountable; does this mean that the nation, by choosing to do nothing, 'assents' and "endorses" this unlawful war of aggression?

    DoJ cannot say "we need to shut down the investigation" as crimes against humanity have not statute of limitation. DoJ and the Attorney General needs to explain why he wants to shot down an investigation into something he no longer has the power to decide whether it will end or continue.

    This was his choice. He choice to write those memos. He chose to imply that torture was justified. And he chose not to resign. He chose to continue supporting what is arguably a criminal enterprise; and he failed to heed the example of the British lawyers who resigned when it was decided and known that there was no lawful evidence or lawful reason to justify this war which amounts to a war of aggression.

    The only thing Gonzalez wants at this point is to end the investigation and "move on" to to other things. To redraw the line. To raise the mark. No. We have the mark where it already is, thank you: It's called the Constitution. And you're not going to send you minions out of the US Attorney's office to once gain lie to the Congress about "the threat' and 'why it's a good idea to ignore the 4th Amendment."

    No. DoJ and the White House have no credibility. Rather, DoJ and the White House need to start certifying under penalty of perjury and in writing that they:

  • Understand the US transport and travel system is only to be used for official and lawful purposes

  • TDY and leave cannot be used to leave, avoid accountability for war crimes.

    If they do flee, they're going to be hunted down using the same infrastructure they helped create under the Patriot Act and FISA system: Echelon and the financial tracking databases.

    DoJ and the White House also need to know that if they do leave, and they do violate these certifications about "understanding fully and have consulted with an attorney of their choice about the Geneva Convention, oath of office, constitution, and Article VI of the US Constitution" that they know they are subject to timely consequences: Namely jail time.

    These *There should be no be no deals for them. The information needed already exists in open sources and is contained in Echelon. That information is public properly; it can be gleaned through discovery.

    We already can show that DoD and White House spokesmen are lying; and that they speak with a direct connection to the President through an earpiece. They are not to be trusted. There should be no "deals" to get "better information" as the information coming out of the White House is already worthless.

    There are other sources and methods. It's contained in the overseas archives and repositories.

    There are two fundamental problems: Personnel have ignored the Geneva Convention despite 5100.77 requirements and the flight risks.

    The remedies to this problem is to require all personnel associated with these decisions to recertify their oaths; and certify in writing to the Congress under penalty of perjury and the false claims act that they understand their oath, the constitution, the laws of war, and the liability that attaches to civilians should they be found to have substantially contributed to an unlawful war of aggression.

    Also, personnel need to certify that they understand that travel and leave is only for lawful purposes; they may not travel nor threaten flight crews nor commandeer aircraft through CIA contractors for purposes of avoiding accountability and they need to certify in writing under penalty of perjury and a false claim to Congress that they will not do so; and if they do, they will be another charge during the criminal justice proceedings.

    Congress needs to review the existing plans related to VIP travel and methods to capture personnel fleeing accountability for war crimes. The State legislators need to get spun up and involved and work with their counterparts in Congress and the Executive branch to figure out how personnel security issues will be preserved, while at the same time ensuring that those security systems are not exploited to avoid accountability for war crimes.

    Congress also needs to work with the states, outside direct contact with the Executive on plans to back up this primary system. If the Executive violates agreements about turning over personnel, there needs to be a backup plan to bring these personnel to justice.

    The international community and public at large needs to continue spotting the aircraft worldwide. Continue monitoring the location, takeoffs, landings, and records the tail numbers.

    Remember, the White House has already lied about WMD, waged an war of aggression. DoD has also falsely claimed that they didn't know about the abuses in the prison systems. Small problem: Their personnel were at meetings. CID from the Army's 6th Group have already briefed the Joint Staff on the 2002 findings.

    Further, the FBI have already used the NAVY IG templates as part of their reports. NAVY IG has a duty to report findings to both the Congress.

    Marion E. "Spike" Bowman has a track records of being part of both the DoJ, NSC, and Navy systems. He is a critical resources and it will be important to track his communications through Echelon.

    Also, NSA and Echelon have intercepts of the FBI data.

    A credible flight risk plans needs to be developed. Please review the existing plans In light of the MI6 memo. VIPs are lying and making misleading statements to Congress. It is likely that abusive SES conduct will continue and flight crews need the support to decline requests by military personnel or civilians to avoid accountability for war crimes.

    We have moved out of politics. These are matters of criminal law. DoJ, DoD and the Executive Branch freely chose this course of action.

    They wished for this.

    Of interest

    Double speak

    Beware the leader!

    Outrage is boiling; thoughtful Americans knew surprises were on the way.

    Heed their example. Use your voice. It is your constitution.

    Double speak