Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Online citizens ridiculed by government

The arrogant American government officials like to talk about the constituents.

How quaint.

They always say, "Be careful what you e-mail, it might land on Constant's blog.
Assemblyman Willis Stephens says he thought he was sending the e-mail to an aide. Instead, he sent the note to nearly 300 people on an online discussion group that focuses on the community of Brewster.

The message included the comment that he was "just watching the idiots pontificate."
Let's talk about the legislators. Have you ever noticed how stupid legislators like to pretend they know what is going on?

I mean, these buffoons get lied to. We have people who are associated with MI5 who now confirm what the government has long denied: That 9-11 was an inside.

We've got multiple reports showing that things weren't being looked at; and all sorts of evidence showing that too many inconvenient facts get explained away.

So why are we to sit here and take legislatures seriously? These bozos in the legislature threw out the Constitution, blindly believed the lies about WMD, and approved legislation that undermines the Constitution.

So who's the one that needs a good lecture? The Legislative branch!

And who's in a position to give the legislatures a good, swift kick in the pants? The voters!

And who's getting lectured to? The voters!

So it should come as no surprise that we find that a legislator from New York are sitting around at their desk surfing the internet, all the while they could be focusing their attention on the real issues in the White House: War crimes, unlawful war, and threats and intimidation.

  • What's the New York State Assembly going to do about issuing a proclamation against this unlawful war on terror? No answer form the arrogant New York legislators.

  • Where's the plan of the New York State assembly to ensure that their state's citizens are only engaged in lawful wars? No answer form the New York State Assembly.

  • What's the plan for the state of New York to look into whether it is legal for the federal government to federalize state employees to be used in an unlawful occupation of Iraq? No answer from the legislature.

    Why? Because they're surfing the internet!

    But what do the legislators do? Besides the fact that they sit on their ass, and are afraid of calling the PNAC and RNC what they really are [brownshirts, Nazis], these guys like to sit around and blame the public.

    Wow, this is the same arrogant approach law enforcement takes to those who dare raise a point about an issue in law enforcement. Sure, government especially DoD and DoJ likes to put on a pretty face when it comes to public relations.

    But look at what they actually do: they abuse people, treat their own employees like shit, and then have the gall to actually blame the public that dares talk about the systemic legitimacy issues facing the legislature.

    How many arrogant legislators are out there talking this kind of bullshit about the public?

    What is the public to think when a legislature votes away the bill of rights, and then outrageously has the gall to call the public-on-the-net as "pontificating."

    The talking hasn't started! You guys still don't get it, do you?

    You morons in the legislatures were convinced, through the ruse of 9-11, to give up the Constitution. And you have the audacity, after than bungling-stupidity, to dare to insult those who can see what is self-evident:

  • The legislature is worthless

  • The legislature is no better than AlQueda

  • The legislature knows about the fascism and is afraid

  • The legislature has no plans to find real solutions

  • The legislature likes to talk about problems, but doesn't list

  • The legislature takes actions that are at odds with the Constitution

  • The legislature is a threat to the Constitution

  • The legislature votes for unlawful wars of aggression and, after finding out about that unlawful war of aggression continues to fund that war of aggression.

    Who deserves a good swift wake up call by the voters?

    New York State Assemblyman Willis Stephens!

    How many people in New York and the Congress are saying the same thing about the voters as this idiot is doing?

    Stephens, why don't you go run back to your cradle and suck on your milk bottle here. All the ilk like you in New York are doing is sending a bad signal: That despite the legitimacy problem with the entire US and state government system you guys still act like you "know better."

    Well, if you "know everything," why are you bothering to surf the internet reading chat room stuff?

    Oh, that's right. You must be addicted to those who dare speak out, because that's where you get your ideas; and then you turn around and have the gall to insult them.

    What's up with your head? And are you actually qualified to be a state-level legislator?

    Look America! The New York voters, as all of America, have voted people into office who like to talk down to you.

    But your President, despite his arrogance over 9-11, likes to negotiate with the freedom fighters in Iraq.

    Why do government official treat their own citizens with disdain, and treat the opposition with respect?

    It must have something to do with believing they can get away with doing it.

    America, it's time to send a signal: It is not safe for these fascists in the government to continue their reckless conduct.

    They will be exposed. The evidence continues to be collected.

    And in the end, despite their non-sense, they are going to be brought to justice.

    Game on!

    Read more . . .

  • Thursday, June 23, 2005

    Karl Rove enjoys monitoring Al Jazeera

    What's worse than a war criminal in the White House?

    It's an enabling lap dog.

    Karl Rove made a telling comment.

    He said, "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words . . . "

    Karl, why do you rely on Al Jazeera over US media sources?

    This isn't the first time Karl has shown he's out of touch with the main stream.

    When discussing the freedom fighters in Iraq, Karl calls them jihadists and AlQueda.

    Karl, why are you mixing up the Bathists with AlQueda? Karl has no answer. He's just hoping to confuse himself more.

    Curious, when the President and his cronies come under the spotlight about war crimes in 2002, what do they do?

    Run back to the 9-11-Reichstag and tell the world to rally around the burning inferno.

    Karl, didn't you get the memo? That's right Karl, the 52 FAA warnings were there.

    Who didn't you respond? Your master said to do nothing about the intelligence.

    It is curious when the warnings came in that the White House exercised more than moderation and restraint. The White House did nothing.

    Karl hopes to wrap himself so tightly in the American flag that it will be the needed kevlar protection from a war crimes indictment.

    The White House failed. And the White House wants to brow-beat opponents into joining them in more war crimes and failures around the globe.

    The nation sees the White House for what it is. It calls the most right wing conservative hawks "liberals" for simply saying what is self-evident: Bush is delusional, out of touch, and looking for more diversions.

    The Constitution is far more powerful than any attempt to hide behind symbols.

    We saw at Nuremburg that "greater causes" do little to destroy the evidence. Even if you have the FBI working on your side to cover-up what really happened on 9-11.

    Read more . . .

    Tuesday, June 21, 2005

    DSM: Durbin signals a threat to the RNC construct

    Update: Durbin embraces the construct. Speech morrored here and analysis. Videos

    Bush hopes to defend a self-eviently failed policy. He hopes the world will embrace an illusion to support more fantasy.

    The RNC has no secure foundation. Many are subject to accountability for their contributin to an unlawful war of aggression.

    How the Republicans “handle” Durbin is a good indication of how they are approaching the Downing Street Memo.

  • Should Durbin have apologized; did his apology signal a capitulation; what use is history if we can't talk about it?

  • How do you learn from history if you're not allowed to talk about it or contrast and compare current conditions with it? It's not possible.

  • Why don't you just burn all the records and pretend the bad things didn't happen?

  • What use is it to have "free speech," if every time we dare have a different perspective on something we are compelled to apologize for sharing a different perspective?

    The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

    RNC aplogies: Where are they?

    Using Stalin to explain away 150 photographs: "No problem!"

    "a form of McCarthyism where you attack anybody who criticizes ... anybody who suggests that maybe Tom DeLay is not the only person in the Congress of the United States who has all the truth . . ." -- Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif

    "Leader Pelosi and the Democratic leadership should support our troops instead of spreading inflammatory statements" -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.,

    "Shameful' does not begin to describe this heinous slander against our country" -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn

    "premeditated and monstrous attack against America's military" -- Tom DeLay, R-Texas

    Why Durbin's Comments are a threat to RNC

    Bush and PNAC approach their world as an overall system. They create a specific construct. Then fix facts to meet that construct.

    The weakness of this approach is that even when the construct proves illusory, unworkable, or dangerous, they remain aligned with the construct.

    They are more concerned with maintaining personally loyalty to a construct, than they are in ensuring the construct takes second seat to both prudent and meaningful results.

    In the case of Durbin, the RNC construct is simply that all comments questioning the construct are to be eliminated. Small problem. Most republicans haven’t read the entire Durbin speech, nor do they understand Durbin’s goal. It wasn’t to compare the Americans to Nazis; Durbin’s goal was to show that surprising conduct occurs in a Democracy.

    This is at the heart of why the world detests America. Not only is its conduct at odds with its values, but it fails to see the deviation, nor does it create credible and prudent strategies to both adjust and move forward. Rather, Americans are more concerned with staying with a construct.

    If we understand the flaws in the RNC approach to the Durbin speech, we’ll have a greater appreciation for their devotion to sub-optimal constructs.

    In turn, we can apply this understanding about the RNC Constructs and look at how the President is going about his road shows.

    In short, the defects of the RNC approach need to be understood not simply for exploitation, but also so that systems are put in place to ensure debate occurs, counter productive constructs are replaced by more workable approaches, and so that the country can move forward to more prudent results.

    It will take time. Not simply to fix the problem, but first to educate the public on what is going on and why their interests are at risk if they stay on the current path.


    When I talk about a “construct” I’m speaking of a metaphorical approach to problem solving. It is not simply an idea. But it is an overall framework for defining the world.

    Fighter Pilot in a Bomber

    Not all fighter pilots can be bomber commanders. Some recklessly continue to act as if they are a fighter pilot, although the situation is different. The analogy is a useful construct.

    Downing Street Memo: Understanding the RNC Approach to Durbin

    If we compare how Durbin is treated, we’ll have a better understanding of how the RNC is approaching the Downing Street Memo.

    The key point of the comparison is that both the Downing Street Memo and the Durbin speech require the audience to let go of old assumptions, change, and then embrace new context to the information.

    This means abandoning the RNC construct. The interesting point is that even if the new information is true or the question is valid, there is greater perceived risk associated with abandoning the construct than there is in embracing the new question.

    The heart of the Downing Street Memo and the Durbin speech is that both require a reversal of the construct. If the public reasonably evaluates both sets of information, they must engage in conduct [thinking, open mindedness] that are, in themselves, at odds with the construct.

    RNC and Bush Construct is simply that there is a perceived or set way of how the world works. Their world view is to be imposed on reality. And reality is required to submit to that world view.

    This is the flaw of the construct. Because as time and events progress, they are more likely to diverge from the construct.

    Thus, there is required greater effort to not only maintain the construct, but greater effort to corral a civilian population into both embracing the construct, accepting the construct, and using the construct without thinking.

    The construct is now more valuable to the RNC and Bush. Because, up until now, it has served as a useful method to both rally support against opponents, and maintain discipline within the ranks.

    Both the Durbin Speech and the Downing Street Memo challenge not only the construct, but the underlying principles behind the Construct: Unquestioning devotion to Bush; blind faith in the construct; and a willingness to put aside personal concerns to serve the higher construct.

    There is one small problem. The construct demands that people not explore and question on their own. Rather, the construct commands that people remain focused on their jobs, and defer to the media and others to interpret the world around them in terms of the construct. It is a symbiotic relationship.

    Small problem. If someone were to go outside the construct, and simply read the information on their own, it would be apparent that the construct and the actual information are at odds.

    Meaning: It takes greater effort to move outside the construct, than to submit to the interpretation of others as to what the construct is.

    Thus, when someone like Durbin or something like the Downing Street Memo shows up, the initial reaction is to mobilize the existing support for the construction to find flaws with the new information.

    This approach failed in both the Downing Street Memo and the Durbin speech. Plain readings of both pieces of information raise new questions, which the existing construct cannot tolerate. At best, the existing construct looses not only credibility but context given the new information.

    This is to say that by simply taking the new information as it is, one would have to engage in two decisions: Free themselves of the blind devotion to the construct; and openly accept the new information neither has true nor false, but something that is just that: New information.

    Neither of these two decisions is consistent with the construct; nor are those who are under the umbrella of the construct well trained to abandon the construct, even for a moment, and approach information.

    Downing Street Memo

    What does the Downing Street Memo do? Some say there’s no new information. That it is old information. This is true.

    The problem is that the old information is now contrasted with a construct that is less valid than when the information is now out.

    This is to say that the Downing Street Memo, in itself is not news. What is news is that we now are asking new questions about the the original construct.

    In other words, because the Downing Street Memo is a challenge to the original construct, the easiest way to maintain the viability of the construct is to simply explain away the memo as being old. And in doing so, then induce the civilian population to stop: No more questions, nor more discussion, move on and work in harmony with the construct.

    What does the Downing Street Memo actually do? If one were simply to accept the construct as it is [neither as false nor true], and put it aside, that fundamental step is what is most threatening to the RNC and existing construct. The construct depends not simply on accepting it, but to “know” that there are no alternatives.

    The Downing Street Memo, in order for it to take on its full significance, must be accepted as simply being a new perspective on old information. Yes, the Downing Street Memo is old. What is new are the new questions we have.

    This is why the RNC is going after Durbin. Because Durbin in his own speech did the very thing that is most threatening to both the RNC and the construct. He starts in one direction, mentions fairly benign information, and then contrasts what one might expect with reality.

    The open mindedness of Durbin is a threat.

    The surprise is a threat.

    The open question is a threat.

    The contrast between expectations and reality is a threat.

    The willingness to speculate as to the source of the information is a threat.

    Each of these threats goes after both the RNC and the construct in one important way: they require one to embrace new information as plausible and requires a reversal of point of view. This is a threat to the construct.

    Because up until now, the RNC and construct have enjoyed public acclaim. They have escaped accountability. Blind devotion to the construct has meant that they can avoid questions, avoid a contrast, and avoid a reversal of perceptions.

    Durbin throws all that into doubt. And the “problem” isn’t Durbin. The problem is that Durbin has simply said what is self-evident. In doing so, he threatens the construct in that he begins to open the zipper.

    For Durbin’s reversal and contrast within his speech is the same contrast within the Downing Street Memo.

    If you read the entire Durbin speech, you’ll see that he reasonably raises a question: If we were from Mars, having just arrived on earth, and we were to find this information blowing around on a piece of paper, where might it come from?

    Durbin doesn’t immediately answer the question. This is the point.

    Let me say that again. The answer is not the issue. What the construct and the RNC are most threatened by is the logic train: That someone has taken some benign information and raised a question.

    That is all Durbin did. But to let that simple act go unchallenged, would require all the other benign information to face similar questions.

    What Durbin has done is set into motion the momentum to look at fairly innocuous information, and reasonably ask: What is going on here?

    Durbin doesn’t ask the audience to accept that it is or is not related to something specific. Rather, he simply asks that the public approach the new information with an open mind and reasonably ask, “Where in history might we turn to if we wanted to know where this information came from?”

    A plain reading of the information would lead someone from Mars to look first in authoritarian regimes. They would look for material and documents from repressive regimes to find out where this information came from.

    Then, this is the surprise! After spending all that time hunting through tablets and paperwork, the Martians would find nothing.

    That is the heart of the problem for the RNC and the construct. Because the current momentum would as that we assume that a piece of information would fit into the existing construct in a given way.

    What Durbin has done is shown that the existing construct doesn’t work. It can’t explain this information. The information doesn’t fit.

    And this is why the RNC and construct are most fearful of the 150 photos that are about to be released. Time and time again, soldiers from CID in Afghanistan mentioned that there could be public outrage over public knowledge of the abuse.

    The objective at this point is to discredit reality so that the public maintains confidence in the construct.

    This has failed. Because both Durbin and the Downing Street Memo require the public to embrace the notion that there is a disconnect between what we believe and what is true; between what is required and what is done; between what is prudent and what we have been told is needed.

    Both the RNC and construct have up until now successfully explained devotion to the construct by implying that anyone who disagrees with the construct is the enemy. This only works so long as reality and the construct are in harmony.

    Small problem. Both Durbin and the Downing Street memo show that the construct no longer is explainable by the existing information.

    Rather, the new information requires a reversal. No longer do we blindly accept that the war was just; or that we’re doing the right thing. Rather, the Downing Street Memo requires new questions about what we originally told.

    In short, what the RNC is doing is saying that the information is old [which it is], so that they can avoid the further discussion about the real issue: The disconnect between this old information and reality.

    The Downing Street Memo is just the first hint that there is a big discontinuity between this old information and reality.

    Again, by dismissing the Downing Street Memo as old, the RNC and construct have been served. Because they have baited the proponents of the Constitution to discuss the Downing Street Memo.

    This is a flaw. For the issue isn’t the Downing Street Memo. The issue is the disconnect between reality and the construct.

    By forcing the proponents of the Constitution to “fight to stay focused on the Downing Street Memo,” what the republicans have done is change the debate over whether the construct is viable, and put the proponents of the Constitution in a defensive mode.

    This is not to say that focusing on the Downing Street Memo is bad or good. Rather, the issue is to take a step back and put the Downing Street memo in the context of the real issue: The difference between what we were originally told and what reality is.

    This is the threat. This is why the RNC is outraged. This is why Durbin must be stopped. Not because he’s done anything wrong. But because he will show that a reasonable question can be embraced, but that the implications of that question will raise doubts about not only the original construct, but also the efforts to hide the disconnect between the construct, what we’ve been told, and reality.

    In other words, RNC has three problems:

  • The original construct doesn’t work
  • The original information doesn’t match reality
  • The new questions raise doubts about the viability of the construct in adequately managing a way forward

    Something has to give. But the RNC and the Construct are putting more effort into stopping the zipper from budging than they are in maintaining a viable system.

    In short, the RNC and the construct have both been rewarded by blind devotion; and this habit is what has ensured the survival of the RNC and the construct up until now.

    Rather, the new situation we have before us is someone asking new questions about old information. The questions about the Downing Street memo are at odds with the interests of the construct and RNC because they call into question the following:

  • Was there any lawful foundation for war;

  • Did the President lie, mislead Congress, and issue a false statement to Congress in contravention to the law;

  • Did the Government pump propaganda onto US citizens in violation of the Smith-Mundt Act;

  • Was Bolton sent to intimidate the General Assembly to prohibit a UN inquiry into the unlawful war in Iraq; and

  • Did the US fix information to wage a war of aggression both aboard on the battle field, in the courtrooms against detainees, and against American citizens for exercising their rights?

    Each of the above questions are only the start.

    The issue is not the Downing Street Memo. The issue is the RNC effort to frame the issue around the Downing Street Memo so as to avoid having the other questions seriously raised.

    Durbin throws all this aside. He dared to ask an open question: How might we explain this?

    RNC and the construct cannot stand the open question. And the objective in going after Durbin is to avoid the questions, contract, and reversal.

    Applying the Durbin Approach to the Downing Street memo

    The issue with Durbin isn’t whether he is talking about the truth. The real issue is that the truth will get people to question the construct.

    To avoid this, RNC has mobilized the nation to paint any discussion of the Durbin situation as being support for the enemies of the United States.

    Clearly, they have not read the entire Durbin speech. Nor do they want the public to think for themselves. Rather, the construct is served by simply doing what the construct does: Simplistically approach the issue and imply the original discussion is beyond reasonable consideration.

    RNC is not concerned about the truth of the Durbin statement. The issue is not truth. The issue is whether Durbin’s comment will undermine support for the construct; and get people to react in an unexpected way.

    Up until now the construct has been a useful framework to organize and rally the nation. Things are predictable. The construct has maintained some sort of unquestioned guiding force. All silently march to this construct. It remains unquestioned.

    The concern RNC has is that Durbin’s speech now starts the discussion. The RNC fears two things: That the public reaction will not be manageable; and that the open minded approach to the Durbin speech would then get applied to the Downing Street Memo.

    Such a chain of events is a threat to the construct.

    What is also going on is that the RNC is also preparing the public for the 150 photos that are going to be released. The goal in stepping on Durbin is to get the public conditioned to accept the construct, not question, and contrast the US actions with others.

    In fact, by changing the debate from an open question to something that is closed, the RNC has done something else. They’ve forced people to explain the differences between the United States and “those other dictatorships.”

    This is exactly Durbin’s point: The US is not expected to be within this group of countries that might do this. The traveler from Mars would think lastly that a democratic country would do this.

    RNC has, in twisting the Durbin speech around, forced the proponents of the Constitution to explain the Durbin speech to an audience that has already made up its mind: That Durbin is a threat, that he is not to be listened to.

    The solution? Encourage people to read the entire speech. Encourage them to see the issue: That Durbin was hoping to contrast the conduct in the “most probable list of sources of this kind of memo” with the true source of the memo: A democratic nation.

    RNC will then take the bait. Because their flaw is then to explain away the conduct as being “what goes on all the time in the US” and “nobody would think that the memo was from anywhere else but a democratic nation.’

    In other words, what is going on is the RNC is now attempting to contrast the public’s perception of tyranny [6M Jews killed in the Holocaust] against the “humane treatment in the US.”

    Small problem. Recall that this “human treatment” only occurred after the ICRC report and the photographs were made public. The “human treatment” isn’t something the US embraced. It was from outside pressure.

    Also, the RNC is attempting to paint Durbin’s comments as being “nothing more than what goes on in US prisons all the time.” This is an effort to suggest that no reasonable person would believe that it was from an authoritarian regime.

    How do they explain this? They leave out the entire 302, and focus only on the music. They say that the GITMO was a party. That the United States had invited guests. They then mock those who question the treatment as saying, “They want these people to be treated as a house guest at a party. How they were treated was not how you would treat a guest.”

    This misses the point. The United States is a nation of laws. The RNC and current Administration waived those rules.

    This is at the heart of the construct.

    Because reality is irrelevant. The most important thing is the construct. The rule of the construct is that reality and standards can be twisted to suit the situation.

    Which is at the heart of the Downing Street Memo: Reality and laws can be twisted to serve the construct.

    In this case the construct says to invade. Without regard to method, standard, or reality. That was the command of God.

    The construct justified all efforts to achieve that outcome. The Downing Street Memo shows this to be true.

    And when they got caught, what did they do? What they have always done, twist the facts to suit their objective.

    When those facts did not support that outcome? They then found a scapegoat. And divert attention from the flawed construct.

    Applying the Downing Street Memo and Durbin to the Iraq Invasion

    The point of this analysis is to show how a construct will be asserted to an absurd point. In short, what is going on is that because the original facts were illusory, the subsequent explanations are not primarily raised to resolve the disconnect between reality and facts.

    Rather, the purpose of the defense is to serve the higher cause: The construct.

    Thus, when we found no WMD in Iraq, the solution wasn’t to say, “We made an error.”

    Rather, the solution was to put the construct first and come up with another way to twist the facts to justify what God had commanded.

    How to do this? If there are no WMD to be found, then the construct and God command you to say that the WMD was moved.

    Sounds reasonable right?

    Small problem. If this is the case [that the WMD was moved], then there’s no imminent threat from Iraq.

    See how that is? In order to justify their construct, RNC has to embrace more absurd justification for the original unlawful act.

    But that justification, when contrasted with the laws of war, self evidently shows the invasion was unlawful. Not only was there no WMD and no imminent threat, but all the possible alternatives require us to see that there was no imminent threat.

    Small problem. All this was known in 2002 before the planned the invasion. They knew there was nothing there. There was no imminent threat.

    The construct commanded using any method to do what God commanded: Change the régime. Then fix the facts to justify that outcome.

    The Downing Street memo shows us that the facts were fixed. Not to do the right thing. But to maintain the momentum of the construct.

    Applying Durbin Speech and Downing Street memo to Intelligence

    Let’s apply the Durbin speech to the issue of the intelligence. Again, Durbin simply asks us to approach the issue from a new perspective.

    This is a threat to RNC and the construct.

    Notice what they did with Iraq. They said the intelligence was there. But when they couldn’t find the weapons [that they knew were not there], what did they do?

    They blamed someone. Who? The intelligence community.

    Now, in 2005 they want everyone to believe that the Downing Street Memo was something that “everyone knew about.”

    Let’s accept that absurd statement as true for the moment.

    What they’re asking the world to do is embrace the exact opposite of reality in order to maintain confidence in the construct.

    The construct commands through God that the war was justified because the intelligence was there.

    However, the Downing Street memo raises the prospect that the facts were fixed, and there was no intelligence to justify the action.

    If this is true, this means the construct’s validity is in question. Because if there are not facts to justify the action, then how can the action be justified?

    The answer is to shift attention from the fundamental construct and commandment of God, and focus on someone to blame. Who to blame?

    The very people who were not cooperative in framing and embracing the construct: The intelligence community.

    Small problem. This is the same dynamic used in the 9-11.

    Big problem: Unlike Iraq where there was no intelligence supporting concerns about WMD; in 9-11 there was the opposite – plenty of overseas intelligence and information.

    So how does the construct explain this? The answer is not to allow the question to be asked.

    Rather, the solution is to imply that war is to be avoided if they are aligned with the construct.

    This is circular reasoning. Because it requires someone to put aside prudence and embrace absurdity; it requires the world to put aside facts and focus on a construct that doesn’t work.

    This is the battle. Between prudence and the constitution on one hand; and imprudence and the construct on the other.

    The fundamental problem for the RNC is that they have mobilized their base to not think when thinking is needed; and when the Downing Street Memo and Durbin show up, there is the real risk that someone might do what Durbin did: Raise a question.

    Nothing adds up because the construct no longer is viable. In fact, it never was. It just required the catalyst of a major disconnect in Iraq [between reality on the ground and the construct and will of God talking about freedom] for the discussion to occur.

    But RNC’s approach is to shut off the debate. To stop the comparison. To discredit those who dare embrace reality.

    Notice how the Senators in the RNC are approaching the collapse of the construct. They seem timid. They are embarrassed. Their “leader” has taken them down this road. War crimes have been committed.

    By following the construct, they have put the construct at risk. It is self evident.

    Now it is not whispered. There are people openly staying what is self evident. RNC’s approach is to silence the discussion. To stop the debate. Avoid the contrast. And force those who dare use their mind to apologize.

    No apology is needed. RNC needs to apologize, but they will not. Because in their world, the construct and word of God are all important. They are right. All questions and deviations from the construct are illusory.

    Small problem. The real deviations are important and they are real. And the construct is shown for what it is: Tired, unworkable, poorly adaptable.

    Applying the Construct to GITMO

    RNC and the construct have survived because they have gotten away with blaming scapegoats.

    Despite the clear warnings of problems prior to 9-11, the blamed the intelligence.

    Despite having no information about WMD, they blamed intelligence.

    Despite no evidence of WMD, they blamed intelligence for not tracking the changes.

    But, the end result is that without WMD being there in Iraq, there was no imminent threat.

    How can intelligence be blamed when it was spot on in re 9-11?

    The construct commands that all surprises are to be blamed on a scapegoat. The goal is not to face reality, nor is it to solve problem. The goal is to serve the construct.

    Some have argued that if Bush knew there was no WMD in Iraq, then he would get found out. They argue that because he would get caught, he wouldn’t do it.

    This reasoning is flawed. Bush’s approach when caught is to blame.

    I argue there are other memos out there that would show the president not only knew there was no WMD, but that he was also fully prepared to execute a plan that would assign blame on a scapegoat for not finding those weapons.

    I also argue that the President knew the war was unlawful and there was no evidence supporting a lawful war and that the president knew this. In turn, there is a series of memos and plans related to executing a polity that would shift attention from the war crimes and assign blame on the intelligence community.

    It remains a matter of fact and evidence to find these plans. We have some evidence these plans were real in the way that Bolton was used to intimidate the inspectors; how there was a lot of attention not only on Scott Ritter but also David Kelly and the BBC and the inspectors at large.

    For discovery purposes, my recommendation is for the House of Commons to look at the funds transfers from the Number 10 FCO to the Salsbury, UK training facilities where UK weapons inspectors were trained. This is the evidence that will show that UK inspectors were adequately trained; that the UK knew they were adequately trained; and that despite this training the UK Prime Minister with the US President jointly agreed on a common plan to discredit the inspectors despite their successful training.

    It remains to be understood why, despite Number 10 funding this training through the FCO and the personnel meeting the training objectives, that the Prime Minister would then coordinate with the United States president to discredit those UK personnel his office was responsible for training at Salisbury, UK and ensuring were ready to do their job in Iraq.

    Downing Street Memo and fixing facts to justify GITMO treatment

    One of the conditions of the construct is that all people obey the construct. When war is waged, all actions to support that objective are to be obeyed without regard to the laws of war.

    We have evidence that the troops did not get trained on how to treat prisoners of war. In Afghanistan, the CID reports who that the troops, despite 5100.77 requirements, did not k now the procedures on how to handle enemy forces.

    One of the ruses being perpetuated is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Small problem. The Conventions have many shades.

    This is to say that the condition of the Conventions applying or not applying is not simply a matter of the detainees’ status.

    There is a larger issue. What is the holding-nation status?

    In other words, the RNC has successfully sidestepped the Geneva Convention issue by pointing to another scapegoat. But this is a read herring.

    The Geneva Conventions are not waived simply by defining someone as being outside the Conventions.

    Rather, the Conventions apply also to the holding nation.

    This is another way of saying that the Geneva Conventions are not either “on or off” by looking solely at the detainee.

    The other shade is to look at the status of the holding nation, in this case the Status of the United States.

    Let me say that again. One cannot explain away the Geneva Conventions simply by looking at the detainee. You also have to look at the status of the holding nation.

    There is support for this in how the United States treated the Viet Cong. The US said that Viet Cong troops, although not in uniform and not regular forces, were to be afforded the protection of the Geneva Convention. Even though the Viet Cong may have violated them in the way they treated US prisoners.

    Let’s put aside for the moment the issue of whether the US is or is not under the Geneva Conventions.

    But there is another problem for the United States. One ruse floating around is that the detainees aren’t wearing uniforms.

    The Geneva Conventions covers this. There is a principle called the levee en masse. This principle is that a people, when invaded, cannot be expected to rally their nation, create uniforms.

    This applies not just to Afghanistan. But also to Iraq.

    Arguably, it remains a matter of law for the court to decide whether the Geneva Conventions do or do not apply to a given combatant.

    But the US may not say that it is “doing the right thing in GITMO” if its treatment is only a function of outside pressure. In short, it is only through the public knowledge of wrong doing that the United States is now violating the Conventions less.

    I argue that just as the Downing Street Memo shows us the US fixed facts and legal foundations to justify war, so too are the facts and laws fixed to justify mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan.

    The RNC uses the construct to twist reality to suit their objectives. Their goal is not to deal with the consequences. But find someone to blame

    The US twists the facts and laws to justify whatever it wants. The US changes the status of people to “justify” mistreatment; the US ignore the principle of levee en masse to justify assigning a status.

    RNC uses the focused debate on Guantanamo as the excuse to distract attention from the United States. This is why Durbin’s comments are so painful.

    Rammer, Durbin isn’t talking about comparing US troops to Nazis. He’s talking about a 302, not knowing who wrote it, then speculating whether an authoritarian régime was the source.

    Durbin’s point isn’t that the US troops are or are not a certain way. Durbin’s point is that the 302 as written could be a product of an authoritarian régime.

    But the surprise is that the information in the 302 isn’t from an authoritarian régime. It is from a democracy.

    Because the United States is the source of this document, the RNC should not be surprised why the world speaks out. RNC then uses “their speaking out” as evidence that they are not aligned with the construct, and are therefore the enemy.

    But notice what is happening. The RNC self evidently shows that its construct is contrary to the US constitution. It only values ‘free speech” when that free speech does not ask a question, raise a contrast, or raise doubts about the construct.

    This is what Durbin did. And this is what people within the RNC are now doing.

    You can hear it in their voices. Even the President is frustrated. He knows his construct is failing. He knows his world view is unreal. But he continues to remain devoted to something that he swore turned his life around.

    The construct has become and end to itself, even with it is no longer useful. In short, an addiction to alcohol has become an addiction to a construct, even when the construct is no longer a healthy addiction.

    There is an internal battle going on inside the President. He is fighting his addiction to his addiction. He is also trying to run the country.

    The two are not compatible. He has already shown that he will justify his addiction to the construct as the excuse to lie, betray, violate the laws, and selectively twist facts and the law to serve not the Constitution but the construct.

    The way the RNC approaches issues is that it changes status of people to put them outside protection; then uses that “new baseline” as the excuse to assign them as being guilty. This is what they did in NYC at the RNC convention; what they do when someone takes a photograph of a public space; and how they deal with people who dare exercise their independent thinking like a US Senator on the floor of the Senate.

    What is the RNC’s solution? Not to assert the rule of law. Not to call for more debate. The RNC approach is to threaten to shut down debate, silence the dissenters, and abuse those who are not in 100% harmony with a failed construct.

    The RNC also changes facts of a situation to justify ignoring the law. They did this in how the prisoners were treated at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan.

    The RNC was behind the effort to find a new definition for “fixed”. Personnel aligned with the RNC are in high positions of influence within those organizations that said that “fixed” meant something else.

    The RNCE also changes expectation on WMD. When the evidence [that doesn’t exist, and they knew didn’t exist] cannot be found, then blame someone else.

    The White House and RNC are devoted to the Construct. They twist information to serve the construct. They twist information into the desired way. This is called propaganda. Then they blame the intelligence community when the public’s expectations are not fulfilled. This is not leadership. It is blind devotion to failed constructs. It is not adaptable. It is not flexible. It is imprudent.

    The RNC now knows, in light of the Downing Street Memo, that the public now knows. The RNC also knows that the public now knows the construct has failed.

    The RNC also knows there is no solution within the existing construct. They have to make a choice: How much more non-sense will they ask the country to embrace in order to maintain the viability [through illusions] of a construct that is actually failing?

    We have seen they will go after those who dare use their mind. Those who ask reasonable questions like a US Senator are the target.

    The world should take notice. Free thinking is not welcome in the United States.

    When they ask you to enjoy America, it is only if you do so in a manner that is consistent with the construct, not reality.

    If you come to America as a worker, you are expected to celebrate all that is consistent with the image. But if you point out something that is obvious and true, you are expected to keep it to yourself.

    America today cannot handle any deviation from the Construct. If you travel to America, know that the managers will say, “Tell us about your concerns.”

    But they do not mean that. This is a false gesture. For it you actually share your views, and those views are contrary to their construct, then you will be blamed as being the “one with the problem.”

    Today, in America you can be threatened with deportation. And this abuse is explained away as a joke. But the threat is still there. The intended effect is there.

    The goal of the RNC is to preserve the construct. And the population has been dumbed down to accept this is the natural order of things.

    Durbin’s speech is a potential threat to the construct. Not simply because of what it requires people to do. But because, taken to it logical next step requires the public to then apply this open mindedness to the Downing Street Memo.

    Listen to Bush’s words: The quiver and exasperation is his struggle with his addiction

    Bush is struggling. He is under a lot of pressure. His construct is falling apart for all to see. As Bush travels around the country he has one goal: To get the public to buy into an illusion.

    Bush has no specifics. Just as he has no specific with social security. The goal of this road show is not to adjust, nor is it to listen.

    The objective of this road show is for Bush to convince himself that he is in charge. But the construct has already consumed him.

    Bush has fallen victim to the addiction again. Rather than sit down and adjust, he hits the road. To pound his feet. To march. To get into a rhythm that will remind the President that the construct is sound, and that all deviations from that construct are to be dealt with harshly.

    Bush enjoys the traveling. His secret service detail gets to throw people around. Tell the locals what to do. It is a very exciting time to see the blue aircraft swoop low over the horizon.

    Indeed, under the dazzle of the POTUS signs carefully affixed upon wooden stages quickly built the President’s entourage shakes up the locals. And this is by design.

    The president likes to engage. He likes to stir things up. Especially when the locals, if they dare speak out, can be convinced to abuse their fellow brethren.

    Each time the President ravels, he commands the RNC local organizers to do more to assert the primacy of the construct over the locals. And the anticipated reaction is that the local swill resist.

    Bush knows that the resistance is a sign of progress. Bush will use this road show about Iraq not simply to share his construct, but to heighten the excitement. The more excited you are, the less you are thinking.

    Those who speak out and oppose a failed construct are dealt with harshly. But the problem Bush has is that his treatment is not confined to the vocal opposition. He now has to content with the forces awakening in his own ranks.

    The Durbin speech threats discipline within the RNC. The Downing Street Memo asks the conflicted lawyers in the Department of Justice to ask why there is a contrast between the laws of war and the legal foundations for this war.

    RNC knows that it can put into video images that will get the public to buy into the construct. But there is something unusual with Durbin. His speaking out is an unusual amount of concern for the RNC.

    The issue just isn’t to do with the imminent release of 150 photos; nor is it the prospect that he Downing Street Memo is causing trouble; nor is it the fact that the freedom fighters in Iraq continue to make gains despite wishes to the contrary.

    The reality is that Durbin is speaking of issues that raise questions about the construct, at the very time the President is using his construct to justify negotiating with the freedom fighters.

    Let me say that again. The construct is best served when the construct is first. In order to maintain the addiction to the construct, one must deal with threats to the construct. Durbin can be dealt with by smearing him; but unlike a single person, a national movement in Iraq cannot be managed.

    Self-evidently, even the threat and actual use of force is not effectively managing the threat from the Iraqi freedom fighters. Rather, unlike how the president deals with threats t the construct in the United States [using intimidation, abuse], the President is now treating the enemy with greater respect than he shows to both his own citizens and those within the ranks of the RNC.

    The RNC is not a group of fools. They know when something isn’t’ working. But hey are most outraged that anyone would dare treat the RNC worse than an enemy. This is an insult to the RNC devoted.

    But the construct must be serviced. RNC is not so sure.

    Especially in light of the Downing Street Memo. Because now Bush is caught. The RNC now knows that there is a disconnect between the promise of the construct, what is actually going on, and how they are facing [or not facing] reality.

    But the prospect of problems is not isolated to Durbin or The Downing Street memo. The other lines of evidence showing the facts are fixed come in the form of the changed words in the EPA memo on global warming [climate change is the RNC-spin]; the prospects that votes were fixed in Ohio; and the prospects that the story on 9-11 was also spun.

    IN each case, there’s always been a scapegoat. But now, the only way to find more scapegoats is to go after those closest to the President.

    Those closest to the President have a problem. They are closets to the implications of the downing Street Memo [part of a group that conspired to violate the laws of war] at the same time that they are also close to influence policy; and at the same time that they are most knowledgeable of the disconnect between the construct, reality, and what the President is doing.

    Those closest to the President now know that the public knows the Emperor has no clothes. But those closest to the president also know that if they give up, they could be subject to subpoena. Not simply over a speculative issue like illegal campaign contributions or violating the constitution to deliver arms in violation of the law.

    The real issue is that they’ve got the real prospect of being indicted for war crimes, the construct isn’t going to save them, and no matter what way they turn they’re going to fight.

    This means a good thing for the investigators. Because the RNC and Bush advisors have greater loyalty to a flawed construct, it means they are going to justify in their own mind excuses to obstruct justice.

    Remember, the construct is above the law. Bush and the RNC, in serving the construct, have put themselves above the law. They also have a habit of twisting facts and laws to suit their goals.

    This is what is falling apart within the RNC. The RNC knows that blind devotion to this momentum is going to mean greater abuses, heightened public acknowledgement of the construct’s failures; and a growing public awareness that the momentum of the construct is not only against the constitution, but against their personal safety.

    Bush has a pattern of fixing facts, twisting reality, and focusing exclusively on the construct. Not because he believes or has faith in himself. It is because he has a higher faith in the construct.

    Those around him are forced to rely on more absurd lines of arguments to explain what is going on. Again, one of the arguments goes like this:

  • 1. Why would Bush make up WMD?
  • 2. Bush knew there was no WMD.
  • 3. We all knew there was no WMD.
  • 4. This is not news
  • 5. We are the good guys.
  • 6. When there was no WMD, Bush would have gotten caught.
  • 7. A good guy would not lie knowing he would get caught.
  • 8. Bush told the truth.
  • 9. Bush knows where WMD is.
  • 10. Because Bush wouldn’t lie and knew he would get caught, there’s no reason he would make it up.

  • 11. Conclusion: The Downing Street memo is a fake; there was WMD; and the war was for a just cause.

    See how that works?

    One problem. The entire argument presumes that Bush would not make something up because when he got caught he would be found out.

    Small problem. Bush’s pattern when serving in support of the construct is to find a scapegoat. Bush already knew the facts weren’t there. The construct and God were telling him that the war was justified.

    Never mind the law, Geneva Conventions, or the laws of war.

    The issue isn’t what the President world rationally think. The President actions need to be compared to what the standards are.

    Those standards are not on the basis of not getting caught. Nor can we evaluate the reasonableness of the actions on the assumption that Bush would only act prudently; nor can we presume that Bush would take responsibility when he got caught; nor can we presume that Bush ever expected to get caught.

    Rather, the evidence tells us the contrary: That Bush fully expected not to get caught; that when he was caught he would find anther excuse; and when the evidence wasn’t there justifying his original position, he would claim another explanation consistent with the construct.

    In this case, where there was no evidence and the Downing Street Memo confirmed the illusion, the approach has been to suggest [despite the fine intel of 9-11 saying attacks were on the way] that the intelligence failed; and that the WMD have been moved.

    Small problem. The Downing Street Memo tells us that the intelligence was correct; there was no WMD; it was not moved; it never existed.

    Moreover, putting all that aside, if we were to presuppose that the WMD was in fact moved, we have yet to get a clear story of why the Office of Special Plans had “Such superior intelligence” that it was able to inject its “findings” into the UK dossier, override the CIA, and yet missed the bubble on the movement to Syria,

    Surely, if the construct were valid, then it would have been self-evident the WMD was already being moved out, and there would be no reason to invade Iraq.

    But they didn’t do that. They did invade. They knew the invasion was unlawful. And they knew there was no intelligence or facts to justify what they did.

    So what did they do? They asked themselves how to spin the facts. Twist the law. Not to do the right thing. But to serve the construct. To justify the validity of the construct in terms that were sellable.

    But the world doesn’t work on the basis of some sort f construct. We are a world of laws derived form specific laws, treaties, and man.

    This is why Durbin is a threat. Because he reminds us that free thinking men can ask questions. Can raise the point. Can openly ask themselves: “What do we make of this?”

    Such a question is contrary to the interests of the construct. Do not look at what Bush did or didn’t do.

    Do not look at what justification Bush is using to rationalize not looking.

    Ignore the arguments why Bush would or wouldn’t make it up.

    Bush fully expected and planned for there being no evidence by finding someone to blame.

    Rather, the real issue is to explore the difference between the construct and the laws of man.

    That is all that Durbin asks the nation to do. Contrast what is reasonable in terms of norms and standards; and contrast that with what is going on and the evidence.

    A very simple proposition. But one that is a threat to the construct.

    Because when you compare the construct with the laws of man, the construct is seen for what it is: A ruse, imprudent, unworkable, lawless, and motivating criminal conduct.

    Moreover, the construct then validates and authorizes additional lawless conduct not to serve man, but to serve the construct. Look at how the USMC recruiters are interacting with the public. Telling them to lie about their age; showing teens how to fake drug tests; giving people rides to drug stores to buy medication to make the evidence disappear; teaching people how to fabricate documents to show they have certain credentials.

    The construct is sending a green light that it is OK to violate the laws of the land. The construct is saying that all the problems can be solved in any lawful or unlawful way.

    That is not a civil society. That is a nation fed by an addiction and remains lawless.

    Self evidently, this is what the Downing Street Memo tells us. That the leadership embarked on a course of conduct without regard to the rule of law; and then used that higher construct as the excuse to ignore the laws of man.

    But what has the construct given us? We have soldiers deployed in combat who are not adequately equipped [still, despite promises to the contrary]; we have personnel engaged in unlawful combat [and confused by the domestic population didn’t get their little American flags from Rendon to wave and throw lovely rose petals to the invading occupiers].

    In short, the Iraqis have simply done what the Americans did in 1776. They said we don’t buy that.

    All the Iraqis have done is do what the Vietnamese did: Turn to the principles in the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, made them their own, and said we are going to stand up for ourselves.

    The Americans are docile sheep. Can be easily fooled and manipulated. They are stupid. If you yell at them enough they will believe anything. They will embrace a false reality. They will back down. They will assent to absurdity. They will celebrate being treated like dog.

    Why? Because with a construct, they can go with the flow. They can be taken care of. They get a world view that explains away all problems.

    Andy one who dares show up with contrary information, they are dealt with. Abused. Yelled at. Threatened with deportation.

    Self evidently, all this harmony must be because of the construct. So all those who speak out about the United States or raise questions obviously must not be happy.

    The problem is not the construct. The problem likes with those who notice reality, raise questions, and upset the apple cart.

    Never mind that the apple cart is fully of rotten apples has broken wheels, and the price of the apples is denominated in a currency that deserves to be mocked as worthless.

    Bush is worriedl

    Bush is very concerned. You can hear it in his voice. He doesn’t believe what he is saying. His voice is quivering. He’s growing tired.

    The phrases he keeps repeating do not change reality. He talks of peace, but he wages war. He talks of freedom, but wants to enslave minds. All to serve the construct.

    Bush refuses to face the reality that the public knows his construct is an illusion. To avoid defending his construct, he won’t talk about what is going on in 2002.

    He continues to focus on 2005.

    What happened to those three years since 2002? The construct says to ignore all questions, issues, and other information that is contrary to the construct.

    Listen to Bush’s road show on Iraq. He talks about safety, a just war.

    H speaks of the deaths of hundreds as if they were for a noble cause. Indeed, they died for the construct.

    Bush speaks of getting the nation to continue. To complete the mission. The Construct doesn’t care about the mission; the construct cares only about itself.

    To Bush, the mission can be changed and twisted. One day, the mission is completed; the next day it is just starting; the next day the mission is a generational commitment.

    One day the mission is war against WMD; the next day it is against terrorists; the next day it becomes a war against extremists. The war is actually a war to perpetuate the construct. Nothing more. The enemy is just an excuse for war.

    War is being waged on Americans. Peace is being negotiated with the enemies.

    The Construct respects nothing, but valid alternatives to the construct. This is why they speak out about Durbin and the Downing Street Memo.

    The Memo and Durbin are a reminder that there are alternatives. But rather than turn to some debate and fruit of reasoned planning, the construct only has itself to turn to has the alternative.

    The Construct has been deprived of the needed battle to be a sweet fruit. The Construct is lazy, slothful, and caught up with its own existence.

    The construct doesn’t fight for anything. The construct is something that fights only to advance itself, and consume all with it. The construct mobilizes a nation to fight itself; then uses those it has just energized to distract attention from the construct.

    But the Downing Street Memo and Durbin raise questions about the construct. The only way to defend the construct is with more absurdity. And this absurdity is getting magnified by the bloggers, more questions about the Downing Street memo, and within the ranks of the RNC.

    The RNC is now realizing that the construct is failing. This war isn’t about safety, justice, continuing a mission, nor ensuring they complete a mission to justify others sacrifice.

    The Downing Street Memo tells the RNCe that those abused should not be treated this way; that the war is unlawful; the war should never have been started; it was based on illusions; Bush is not telling the truth; the mission is unlawful; and the troops deaths have been in vain for they only support one thing: A lie called the construct.

    Every excuse used to justify the construct requires more absurdity. The public knows there is no WMD.

    Why didn’t we find WMD? The construct tells us an answer that invalidates the original reasons for war.

    The answer undermines the foundation with respect to the UN Definition of aggression.

    In short, no matter what they argue, once they start down an unlawful war, all justifications for that war require more contrasts to the fundamental principles.

    If there is no WMD, the construct commands us to believe that the weapons have been moved. But don’t do what Durbin did: Don’t dare contrast the “lack of WMD that have been moved out of theater” with the reasonable question of, “How can we justify a war where there is no imminent threat.”

    If there was no lawful reason for war, then who will they blame? Those who dared to oppose the construct.

    The next step is to crate a new fiction. Blame the intelligence. But don’t do what Durbin did. Don’t ask about the contrast in intelligence: The intelligence was good enough to know that the facts had to be fixed; but not good enough to track what wasn’t there?

    Indeed, the same intelligence that told us about 9-11 and was ignored; told us enough to show in the Downing Street Memo that there were problems.

    The facts are always fixed to serve the construct. If the evidence cannot be found, then the people are to blame; if the people are above reproach, then the evidence is distorted to make them in contravention to some illusory standard.

    Indeed, the construct asks us to embrace absurdity solely to serve the construct. If the evidence in Africa doesn’t support the desires conclusion [that supports what God and the construct have commanded] then the evidence and those who check on that evidence must have been flawed or unreliable.

    Yet, if everything that is contrary to the construct is unreliable, by what measure is this assessed?

    If the construct is always right, how do we explain a flawed result?

    Answer: The construct is always right. The foundation of policy and lawlessness is service to the construct.

    It doesn’t matter whether the policy was reasonable or the action was lawful. The only objective is that the construct be served.

    However, Durbin and the Downing Street Memo require us to contrast the construct with the laws of man.

    RNC and the President know that his cannot be allowed to happen. All efforts to compare existing reality must be thwarted. No question can be asked. All answers must support the construct. In fact, the answer must be unspoken adherence to the construct.

    The construct commands full faith in the path. The source of security and the solution is the blind devotion to the construct.

    This is why people get addicted to going to AA meetings. Replacing one addiction for another.

    In the case of Bush he’s replaced his addiction for alcohol with his addiction to this construct. Now Durbin and the Downing Street Memo threaten to awaken all to this addiction. To the realities of the construct.

    The construct commands using any and all excuses, diversions, and sidestepping to explain away holes in the original construct.

    This is the flaw of the construct before the court of law. Because by defending the construct, they must engage in legal defenses that are not consistent.

    For example, if they argue these combatants are without uniforms, the laws of war ask us to look at why they have no uniforms.

  • Were they invaded unlawfully so as to not have time to create uniforms?

    The construct doesn’t want to hear about levee en masse. Nor does the construct want to hear about the contribution ones unlawful conduct is doing to contribute to the reasonable response. Durbin shows us that reasonable responses are contrary to the construct.

    The construct has no regard for rights. It is only when the construct is threatened, that the construct will feign care or regard for rights.

    The US only treats people humanely when the ICRC inspected. But if these combatants were truly “outside the Conventions” why did the US allow the ICRC in to begin with?

    The construct does not allow for such questions. Do not look behind the prison door. For the construct does not allow having its own formulations compared to the Geneva Convention.

    The convention only is to be shaded in terms of the combatants, not the occupier; only in terms of the accused, not the accuser.

    The construct commands attention n the Downing Street memo to avoid the contrast between reality and the construct.

    The Downing Street Memo is an easy target to explain away. It is treated as all threats are to any construct.

    The problem Durbin poses for the construct is that the Downing Street Memo requires the public to question the legacy of the construct against the legacy of the laws of war.

    The essential contrast between the construct and the laws of war are self evident: The laws of war are real, the construct is an illusion. It is faith. Hope. Belief in something that is not real.

    But it is beyond comprehension. It is revered as it if were greater than God. When called to account, the construct demands all in the RNC to rally to its cause.

    Now the Downing Street Memo and Durbin have raised the issues of the construct:

  • Why should we believe this

  • What is a reasonable view of this result

  • How did we get here

  • What are the standards

  • What was done

  • What should guide our conduct

    The construct has replaced the Constitution as the guiding force to guide government conduct.

    The construct has been the unifying force to rally the public in blind subservient to the construct; and for the public to defer to the construct, RNC, and Bush for answers that people could get on their own by simply reading the downing street memos, Hutton Report, ACLU FOIA information, and the Durbin Speech.

    They key to unlock the construct is to read the entire Durbin speech. All of it. Every word. You will understand why the construct is falling apart. Why the masses have been mobilized to speak out.

    They speak out against Durbin because they are afraid of the words. Afraid of the implications: The construct days are numbered.

    The construct cannot stand reversals. Nor does the RNC want to be associated with reversals.

    The RNC and the construct both want loyalty without questions. Neither can tolerate questions association the construct with misconduct.

    Why? Because that is reality. The construct cannot tolerate reality. Thus, Durbin’s questions are a threat.

    Problem with sovereign governments

    Sovereign nations in the UN can freely choose to hold the US and UK accountable. The goal of Bolton is to shut down the General Assembly look into the US and UK war crimes and unlawful war.

    However, there is a problem with sovereignty. The UK and the downing street memo are from locations outside the construct. They are not controllable.

    The rules and norms in the UK are not quite consistent with the construct.

    The goal of the spin is to align the UK and US. It is to dissuade a review of the whole Durbin Speech and full content.

    To dissuade open mind. To deny reality and comparison. To imply the US is above blame. To continue to do what they want.

    Construct falls apart

    There are two shades of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. One is the relationship between the protocols with the detainee.

    The second is the relationship between the holding force and the protocols. The two are not the same.

    Someone asserting the relationship does or does not exist in one thing; it is a second notion to suggest that the relationship is somehow is lost or over.

    For if the protocols are to be waived by a detaining power, then the protocols cannot be reasonably be applicable to how that detaining power is treated.

    The construct cannot handle such lines of logic. Especially when there are photographs of detainee abuse. Then things get corrected.

    The construct then commands the leadership to rewrite history. Pretend that this is how the pardoners were always treated.

    The construct commands that the most adverse treatment be displayed, and then compared with the current misconduct. This is shown as evidence that the conduct is not “all that bad.”

    The construct requires you to make extreme comparisons so that the current abuses are considered “minor” in comparison. When you accept it is “minor,” then you must accept that “we need not worry with what is minor.”

    You have successfully assented to more abuse. Congratulations, you did so willingly. Good doggie. Here’s a slap in the face to remind you how much your work is serving the construct. Did you like that? If not, we can do it again. To get in line. Get on board. If you’re not happy, you can always be dealt with.

    The construct commands that you say the rules do not apply; that this is a special situation.

    The construct commands you to ignore your duties to comply with the rules; the service to the construct commands you to beat those who refuse to assent to the construct.

    Remember, if they are not cooperating, it is because the construct knows it is a threat. The only way tot protect the construct is to defend yourself against the threat.

    Thus, when Durbin speaks out or the Downing Street Memo surfaces, those who think about the memo are the threat.

    Those in the RNC who dare to question the construct are a threat. The RNC must now allow those who dare speak out and question the construct to gain any leadership.

    The construct is above all.

    How does the construct handle problems? It denies reality. Then slow rolls access to the court.

    What happen when the court asserts the rule of law is over the construct? When the construct is caught, the construct commands that all prior conduct has been acceptable. There have been no problems.

    The construct commands that when there is no room to hide, lash out against those who raise the point. Speak ill of those who ask questions.

    The US Supreme Court ruled that the detainees do have rights and they are not animals. Then what is to be said of the memos that permit torture?

    That is the problem with memos like the Downing Street memo and Durbin’s mentioning the FBI 302. Because although the conduct is focused on a memo. The construct commands that any who compare the misconduct to anything other than some lovely image are source of problems.

    What’s happened is the RNC has shifted the discussion from whether the conduct is appropriate in the US; to whether it is appropriate to question that conduct.

    The Supreme Court has already said these detainees are humans, entitled to access to the court. So why are they being treated as dogs, not humans?

    The construct asks the world to believe that this is how democracies do things. That state prisons do this all the time.

    Is that so? Perhaps we have a problem that is wider that we thought. For if a such treatment is considered “typical” for US prisons, then why should we be surprised why people exit more outraged than when they entered?

    The US Supreme Court has already ruled the prisoners have rights. The US approach has been to assert that there has been no problem.

    When asked about the ICRC admittance, and the only reason that the US changed was because o outside pressure, the answer has been to blame the ICRC as a threat to the construct.

    But by allowing the ICRC in, the holding power then has assented to the UN Definition of Aggression in that it states the holding power has responsibilities.

    With respect to the detainees’ status, it is a separate issue whether the personnel did or did not follow the rules. Self evidently, by the photographs and many 302s the standards were not only ignored but the deviations were not remedied in a timely way.

    This is a sign of an undisciplined army. And that the USMC has to lower the standards to attract hoodlums into its own ranks is more of a sign that the public at large is losing confidence in the force of power behind the construct.

    With respect to the prisoners, it is a separate matter whether the detainees are given a favorable or unfavorable court ruling. Thus, there’s no basis to argue that “they might get let out, so we can’t have a trial.”

    We know that some of the detainees were targeted solely because of bounties. A trial may find that they are not being lawfully held.

    But to use the hypothetical future risk of something being a potential challenge to a construct, as the excuse to ignore the laws of war to day is absurd.

    But that is what the construct commands: To impose fear of the future if one dares standard up today; to create the illusion that exercising ones rights will bring great harm; that if someone dares speak out on the Senate Floor they are a threat to liberty.

    Huh? Since when is someone raising a question on the Senate floor the grounds for censure?

    The construct demands it. There is no tolerance for independent thinking. Questions are not allowed.

    The problem the American shave is that they are asserting the detainees’ status based on allegations. This is known as a conclusory allegations. It has no legal foundation.

    Indeed, the construct demands that the potential people who dare assert themselves such as Durbin be labeled without regard to the specific facts or words in the speech given; without regard to their actual conduct.

    When we contrast the conclusory remarks of the detainees [“they’re terrorists”] and contrast it with the actual information [that they were sold], we ask as Durbin has done:

  • What is going on here?

  • How did we get here?

  • What could explain this?

    These are questions the construct does not allow. Because the reverse and appropriate question is: If the detainees have not committed any wrong [other than being unfortunate to having been sold for bounty], then what does this say about the nation that continues to hold them?

    The construct commands that enemies, however we define them, are held without trial, on the basis of accusations.

    Who’s being the terrorist?

    Durbin and the Downing Street Memo ask us to contrast what is going on, with what the laws are. The answer is that the conduct is not of a civilized nation. It is the handiwork not even of barbarians.

    It’s simply the fruit of people blindly serving a construct without regard to rules, norms, laws. The construct only defers to others when the construct is faced with a challenge that the construct cannot defeat on the battle field, in the court, or with threats of death and imprisonment.

    Durbin correctly outlined the concentration of power. I encourage you to read his entire speech. You’ll see that his concerns are valid, especially so in light of this treatment after the speech.

    But the wise people within the RNC are not blind. They know what is going on. And they are mindful that the public is seeing through the cloud of the construct.

    The support is waning. The people are tired of the non-sense delusion. They simply want to be rid of this construct.

    Those in the RNC who have attached themselves too closely to the construct are trying to distance themselves. Don’t let them walk away. They need to be reminded of their contribution. What they did or failed to do.

    This is where the law is placed side by side with the jury instructions: To compare what they did against what the norms are.

  • Where they present at meetings where unlawful war was discussed?

  • What did they know about the efforts to terrorize a civilian population into assenting to the Patriot Act?

  • To what extent was DoD and DoJ part of a larger effort to twist not just the facts for war, but to create illusory defenses to accountability for violations of the laws of man?

    With time, more people like Durbin will speak out. But they are not going to be simply speaking. They will be screaming.

    For they will suddenly realize that unless they speak out, they may be forced to give up their new insight and awareness. How far the construct has swayed. To what extent the construct no longer serves as a useful mechanism to guide behavior.

    The widening gap between the construct’s legacy and the requirements of the Constitution will be wide.

    This is the only reason why the RNC is worried. Not because the construct is falling apart.

    But because the only way to maintain the construct is to use greater pressure that will only further alienate their base, the RNC, and the population that knows all to well what has happened.

    There is going to be a showdown. And the public should not be intimidated. You will be asked to face a very violent and outrageous conduct. But do not be afraid.

    Simply remain calm. For the outage you are facing is the fear of the RNC in believing that you cannot be swayed to their side.

    The trap for you will be to believe that for you to be free you must assent to their abuse. Do not take the bait. Stand your ground. And simply ask them why you are being treated that way.

    Do not expect an answer that makes sense. Rather, the issue will be thrown on to you. You have to decide now: How do you want to interact with those who find it fitting to yell, scream, and demean you simply because you notice what is going on.

    Their misconduct will be a cause for celebration. Because it will be self-evident what they are doing. Other notice.

    You need to be ready for this conflict. And ensure that the public is there. Fully present. And able to see their misconduct. As recorded and memorialized.

    Remember their abuse service many purposes. First it is to move first before you are ready with the hopes of surprising you; second it is a message that your efforts are making progress; and third, despite their fear they feel safe enough to vent on you.

    Your job is to remind them that they are not safe where they are. Their construct is failing. Their entire value system is falling apart.

    The relationship between you and the construct shall forever be changed. The goal is to learn to replace your current dysfunctional relationship with the construct [whether you agree with it or not] with a healthy one – a healthy relationship with the Constitution.

    It will take time. As we have seen in the former Yugoslavia, it will take time for people to embrace what really happened, what they did, and what is to be done.

    People will deny their contribution, say it was somewhere else, or made up. Or that it wasn’t really as bad as it seems.

    We are at that juncture. The construct is failing. But the bargaining continues. People are pretending that history is something other than it is.

    Durbin and the Downing Street memos remind them that history is not forgotten. The reason they keep talking about the Downing Street memo as “history,” is that’s a history they hope you forget.

    Rub their nose in it. Their frustrated because they know that you know there is a divergence between the construct and reality; that the appropriate benchmark to evaluate their conduct is not the construct but the constitution.

    Remember, their entire world paradigm and approach to life has been about a relationship with a construct that is dysfunctional.

    Your job is to realize that they’re going to have to go through a process to let go of this bad relationship; rebuild a new life with the existing laws; and then feel safe and recover in under the constitution.

    The problem is also the solution. Because in their mind, accountability is not needed. They view the “needed solution” as something that is a threat: Accountability.

    That’s when the obstruction of justice will be self-evident. All the more reason to transition this public debate into a formal lawful inquiry. To compare the conduct against the laws of war; and laws of the land.

    Those who resist are in need of special assistance. They can either be asked to cooperate, or they can be, under threat of obstruction of justice, be compelled to cooperate.

    But before thy think that they can get away with not cooperating, they need to remember there are more memos. More evidence. And an energized public.

    The public now knows. It has less tolerance of the abuses, but is being asked to intellectually accept a new standard making the abuses permissible or minor.

    The public needs to take the time to read the Durbin speech. Not the synopsis. But every word.

    The public needs to look at eh reasons people are saying “This conduct reasonably should be expected in the United States.”

    For if someone in the US would defecate on themselves in order to throw it at the guards, how could this possibly occur if the prisoner was shackled?

    Oh, the miracles of defying the laws of physics.

    Know that the RNC and Bush will twist the existing construct and suit its own design. Those of you, who are closest to Bush, beware. He is about to change the rules on what the construct is.

    If you fail to keep up with him, you will be shown the door. Is this where you want to live? In a place where the rules change without notice; where you are always apparently getting second guessed?

    Of course, you have learned the hard way that “to be disoriented” and “insecure” is what comes with being “security in employment.”

    There are other ways. One could simply have a rational leader that conducts himself in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

    Durbin asks that we look at what is going on and contrast that with the standards we reasonably expect to be applied to a Democracy.

    Bush wants to reframe Durbin and make it look as though speaking out is a problem. Bush has already shown he will twist the laws and facts to suit his needs.

    He is not above twisting facts, laws, and people to suit his own ends. Even if they threaten the construct.

    That is where Bush finds himself. He may have to abandon his own construct and create something new. But who will be there for him?

    Bush’s job right now is to recreate a new construct that the public can be convinced is something they willingly embraced.

    This is a construct where people ignore the past, only embrace the current situation as Bush defines it, and then blindly wait to be told by Bush what to do in service of this construct.

    Thus, the Iraqis understandably say non-sense to that. And they fight those who have invaded their country.

    Bush is now explaining away misconduct by saying it happens all the time, it’s minor, and that those ho are questioning this are not on the right time.

    Their goal is to contrast their most egregious conduct with something that is far more awful so that, by comparison, you agree “it’s not all that bad.” Instead of beating you with a metal hammer, they’re only using a wooden one. So be happy you are in a free country where you get to choose your hammer.

    What is most absurd is that in order for the public to buy Bush’s characterization of the Durbin speech, one ha to engaged in the very debate and discussion which Durbin is denied.

    Moreover, the issue behind Durbin’s point is that in order to find out more about what is going on, one has to ask a question. Which is what Durbin did.

    But the apologists for the RNC, in ridiculing Durbin, like to engage in speculation about “what the 302 means”. Curious, this is exactly the point Durbin was making: That we don’t know the answer; that one could presume something; but the facts are contrary to that.

    This is the same logical thinking which the RNC throws back and implies that the conclusions are contrary to reason; and that if we look at the 302 this way . . . we’ll come up with a different conclusion.

    “It happens all the time in the US, so there’s no reason to even believe this is authoritarian.”

    Remember, that says more about the US than it does about Durbin: All Durbin has asked is the question. The RNC reaction has been to shift attention from the misconduct, get people to accept the misconduct as the norm [thereby changing the basis of relevance], then go on some wonderful speculative discussion about what the 302 could or could not mean in terms of comparing it to the US prisons

    IN other words, RNC wants the right to interpret the 302 in their way, but wants to deny that right to others.

    Why the double standard RNC? Why do you want the exclusive right to say that the 302 “if interpreted correctly” would “arrive at a conclusion about the US prisons” and “not be correctly interpreted to mean something else”?

    Answer: This is how the construct survives. Through double standards.

    RNC dangerous momentum

    The bad momentum from the construct continues. The flaw is that there is greater devotion to an ideology and idea that to adjusting to what is needed.

    Bush’s flaw is that he is more devoted to his construct that he is to popular support or prudence.

    The public knows the emperor has no clothes:

  • The existing construct and polices are not working

  • Bush’s solution is to repeat louder without choice

  • Like social security, his Iraq road show is just a show without substance

    Bush’s only solution is to shorten his phrases and make more statements without adjusting.

    A fighter pilot trying to run a bomber squadron

    Fighter pilots can fly bombers. But they must remember that one cannot turn the same way.

    Unlike a fighter that is easily revectored, a bomber is slightly larger, less quick to turn on a dime.

    Bush is a hot-dogging fighter pilot in a new situation.

    He’s already in a stall. He has insufficient lift. He has an excessive angel of attack, And he’s too low to recover.

    Bush’s only act is to show off. To accomplish his objectives he has to defy the laws of reality.

    The RNC will only act when they realize: It is too late to get out. There is no hope of recovery. Their safety and security are doubtful and staying with Bush means that all will be destroyed.

    It doesn’t matter whether RNC believes this or not. This is trajectory he is taking them.

    Bush is taking everyone of them with him to this new construct. His plans are at odds with reality. It looks and sounds neat. But if you look closely, you’ll see that the plans can only be executed if you ignore reality.

    Every solution Bush has that would ensure victory for him as a fighter pilot will destroy the constitution and country.

    He places his own personal safety above that of the Constitution. His own wealth, prestige and interests are now in direct conflict with the very construct he has used.

    The problem is that Bush in order to transition to this new construct has to continue to squander wealth, prestige, and national resources.

    His plans are a solution in name only without substance. He may look good seeing himself as a fighter pilot. But the real work rests with those he treats poorly.

    Going forward

    How did we get into this mess? The adversarial system of debate was corrupted. The moment we have someone devoted blindly to a construct and refusing to adjust his plans, and moves without regard to the laws of man, then we have a disaster in the making.

    The benefits of an adversarial system are lost on those who use the courts not as a forum to service justice, but as a forum to manipulate the world to assent to their construct.

    We are where we are because many assented to go along with a construct that was at odds with the laws of man. One man corrupted the construct he crated and twisted the laws and facts for his own objective.

    The Downing Street memo shows the US and UK to approach truth is contrary to the public safety.

    The needed debates were without effect.

    The purpose of a real debate is to see what fails, identify ways to improve, and identify what needs to be clarified and answered.

    When we debate we identify our own weaknesses and shore up our defenses. Sometimes the prudent action is not to do anything, but let things go on their course so we can see how things settle.

    Debates serve one thing: To see truth in what is most reasonable and prudent. But this isn’t simply to celebrate ideas and nice words, but to ensure we use the existing standards and plans as guides and lessons to achieve improved results.

    But we cannot focus solely on the result without regard to the laws and standards we have agreed to follow.

    The issue is not simply ends and means. But whether the prudent path leaves us better or worse off.

    I am not persuaded that the situation in Iraq required immediate action. Apparently things had bee allowed to forever for many years. Why another month or year or two would have made a difference is not all that persuasive.

    IN other words, if we’ve glacially arrived at a situation where there was no evidence to justify war, but the only way to justify wart was to twist reality, then we knew there was no legal foundation for war.

    That remains a burden on those who were a part of this. The leadership. Their solution is to blame the public, rewrite history, make it seem like we all went along with this.

    On the contrary, it was their choice. They fixed the facts. They knew they were violation the law. And they knew they were spewing forth propaganda to manipulate the civilian population.

    The public needs to closely follow the President’s road show. The goal is to show how his construct has failed.

    But one cannot simply point to problems. There also needs to be an effort to be specific with credible plans, execution, accountability, and a demonstration of those results.

    One cannot simply deride poor leaders without coming up with a solution.

    This will take time. To understand the scope of this mess, what the facts are, and how things are to be adjusted.

    That is why an inquiry is needed. To understand what has really been going on.

    As you put your plans together and create a more viable system, think in terms of the US Constitution.

    Many had their doubts. The public will want to know the plan. Think about the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

    These were open debates and discussions, but they were in writing.

    The solutions going forward need to openly discuss the various aspects of the plan. Just as the Iraqis are debating their constitution, so too should the US openly debate what is to be done in the wake of this tyrant.

    There needs to be a formal structure of the plan going forward. And the public needs to know that things are going to get better.

    The plan needs to be linked with reality, not some failed construct.

    The final plan needs to be broken down into chucks the people can relate to.

    A place to start for this structure is the Nuremburg Indictment. This will place the issues in the context of a public debate in terms they can relate to. This will give them some context to the matters unfolding

    Also, as we move forward, we need to look at Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11 and identify the gaps. Are there things in the film that need to be explored?

    How adequately does the film cover the issues of the Downing Street Memo, unlawful war, and US war crimes?

    The public needs to have a simple them within this story. Something they can understand.

    The audience needs to be given time to comprehend what has happened. Most have no real understanding of the Downing Street Memo as it relates to the laws of war, legal advice from Attorney General Goldsmith; nor how the conduct in prisons contrasts with the Geneva conventions.

    The appropriate example to compare the United States is the denial that the former Yugoslavia took a while to emerge. There were many abuses. But many took some time to get over the feelings of “it’s not us,” or “it didn’t happen” or “it was foreigners” or “it’s just isolated.”

    what is going to happen is that we’re going to see some fantastic-absurd stories to explain away the 150 photographs form Guantanamo. People are already getting ready to explain away the conduct.

    Remember, these are real photos. Americans did this stuff. And up until now, the matters have been treated as trivial.

    But it is time to carefully contrast what the government has said they did, versus what would be reasonable for a government to have done.

    Were the investigations timely?

    Were the reforms adequate?

    Just as Durbin asked new questions about the United States, so too will the 150 photographs ask us to revisit what we’ve been led to believe.

    The downing Street Memo is just the first step in asking the nation to reconsider old information, ask new questions, and dare to compare the conduct with the standards that we have always meant to be measured: By the US Constitution and the treaties to which we all swear an oath through Article VI to preserve, protect, and defend.

    It is clear these treaties were not only ignored, they were explained away. The facts and laws were twisted to service another goal.

    What is needed is a road show by those who want to put the Downing Street Memo in context.

    There needs o be efforts to educate the public on what the standards are; what we know at the time; and what we know today.

    What does not change are the standards. What does change is how we couch the pre-invasion planning.

    We were led to believe certain facts. Those facts have turned out to be illusions.

    The answer is not to crate more fanciful tales, but to compare the 2002 conduct against the 2002 standards, not the 2002 conduct against some new standards created in 2005.

    The public needs to know what did happen; and they want a plan of what is going to happen.

    The plan needs o be consistent with the constitution, not some fairy tale.

    The public needs to learn that open debate and questioning is not going to “aid enemies.” It’s going to strengthen the viability of the solution.

    It is absurd for this country to invade Iraq and then celebrate marginal steps toward Democracy, all the White those same actions in the US are treated as if they are threats.

    Durbin’s words deserve to be reviewed closely. Those who want to silence him need to ask themselves what they really hope to accomplish in Iraq.

    Self evidently, it is not democracy or freedom, but another outpost of citizens to serve a broken contrast.

    With time, the RNC will wither realize or have imposed on them the reality that the White House is serving nothing but non-sense and deviating from core principles.

    The issue is not publications. And this is the flaw of the Bush road show about Iraq.

    One does not put on a prettier face to rationalize an entrenched construct that is inflexible.

    The time has come to see that actions have deviated from standards.

    In time, we will come to realize how far that divergence has brought us.

    The issue is not whether we are for or against war. It is a question of how far a tyrant will be allowed to roam before he is forced to grovel at the foot of the Constitution.

    The US Actions in Iraq have been contrary to the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Charter on Aggression.

    With time the evidence will be collected. We will realize that the US is the bad guy. There was no just war. There was no imminent threat from Iraq.

    The only imminent threat remains within the White House. And he is about to unleash his new construct on the slow moving Republican Party.

    Framing the Downing Street Memo

    What is the Downing Street memo for Americans?

    It is a catalyst to question the RNC and government approach

    It is evidence of campaigns tied to future events.

    Downing Street Memo reminds us that if you don’t get clear on what is going on, the government is going to give you their solution

    The goal of focusing on the Downing Street memo is to preserve the Constitution, treaties, Article IV and the oath of office.

    The Downing Street memo is a coordinated effort to justify unlawful war.

    There are various issues of timing. Things were supposed to have been resolved, decided, and clear prior to starting combat operations. Today in 2005, three years after invading, these issues remain unaddressed. On des not retroactively legalize something that had no legal foundation to begin with.

    Downing Street memo also represents effort to stifle inquiry, change definition sot include unlawful conduct as being permissible; and distract the prosecutor and investigators.

    The goal of the RNC in re the Downing Street Memo is to tamper with the jury and dissuade them from looking at all the evidence.

    RNC goal in re DSM is about shifting attention from the implication of the memo onto those speaking out.

    DSM shows that a complex argument needs to be clarified with inquiry, not explained away as being to complex to deserve attention.

    Downing Street Memo shows how a failed leadership without a legal foundation will shift 180 to openly assert that all violations were acceptable; that all misconduct was the fault of those who are raisin the issue; and to overtly state that the observers are the ones who are the cause of the problems. These are failed distractions by bullies who lack a legal foundation for their unlawful wars.

    The Downing Street Memo requires us to ask what we really signed up to do.

    Downing Street Memo shows us how a nation will align unlawful actions with a “good image” in a ruse to distract attention from the initial violations.

    Downing Street Memo is the basis to show troops engaging unlawful war of aggression; that American troops do obey unlawful orders; and will continue to volunteer to obey unlawful orders in a continuing illegal occupations.

    Downing Street Memo shows that leaders who are in charge of unlawful campaigns of aggression will hitch their ‘defense” to the image of troops dying for causes. Yet, the only reason they are dying for “a cause” is that they fight for an illusory reason in an unlawful war.

    Downing Street Memo is the catalyst for action to get clear on what happened; and chart a better course.

    The goal of the Downing street memo is show how failed leaders will pretend problems do not exist; and explore what facts are at odds the illusions.

    The Downing Street memo is about getting clear on the holes between the standards of conduct and what was actually done. To show that both the standards and the leadership failed and the country launched an unlawful war without any legal foundation and actually believed it was immunity to accountability.

    Downing Street Memo and Durbin in the Context of Nuremburg

    To go forward from the Downing Street memo there needs to be a coordinated strategy and purpose.

    The justice system can still gather evidence of ongoing communications designed to avoid accountability. These NSA communications are monitored worldwide. Evidence can get gleaned from non-US sources to evaluate the extent to which personnel in the US government are engaged or planning to engage in obstruction of justice.

    The objective needs to be to monitor the extent to which personnel in the United States are engaged in on ongoing efforts to stifle collection of facts. Whether this be by overt acts of violence against reporters or inspectors remains t be understood.

    It remains to be understood to what extent the ongoing effort to bring accountability turn into an excuse to attack those seeking to impose justice. The attacks on Durbin are the first sign that they want to remain above the law, not subject to any questions, and devoid of accountability.

    We learned through Nuremburg that even the most horrendous machines can be brought to justice. A war crimes tribunal can be well planned, understood, and fully in control of the proceedings. There is no reason to believe that an ongoing criminal enterprise would continue to exert influence when justice is the standard not the excuse or tool.

    It remains to be explored to what extent personnel were dissuaded from holding themselves or other to standards of conduct, treaties or conventions.

    We have yet to understand the scope of the 2002-legacy. How widespread are the effort in 2005 to avoid accountability for the misconduct that started well before 2002 but continues today.

    It is reasonable that given the stakes of the situation, we would expect more non-sense to avoid accountability. As the abuses surface and we learn more, the seriousness of the charges will loom. We should fully expect greater efforts to avoid accountability. Indeed, it is likely they will pretend there were no violations; that there has never been any misconduct; and those who speak of violations are brining discredit upon those who committed the violations.

    It is likely that there remain in place efforts and organizations and plans to ensure that there remains fully emerged staffs and effort to change standards, create unlawful exceptions and rewrite more rules.

    It remains a matter for the court to decide to what extent the RNC and the White House have engaged in efforts to stifle accountability or obstruct justice.

    Read more . . .