Constant's pations

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

Monday, June 06, 2005

Impeachment: The Executive freely chose unlawful options

No one forced him to lie to Congress. There were other options. He fails to demonstrate that he exhausted all options.

It is a separate issue, whether the enemy was real or imminent. Self-evidently they too, were illusions, as was the foundation for war and the efforts to "exhaust options".

In other words, despite having clear authority to use the United Nations, the President chose war.

This is inconsistent with the laws of war requiring that there be an imminent threat [there was none] and that the laws of war be respected [there was no respect].

By attempting to hitch their defense to "what Congress did," the more fractured the White House foundation:

* There were other options

* The other options were legal

* The Congress fully supported the legal options

* The President, should he have relied on those legal options, would be in compliance with his oath of office.

However, the President, despite the requisite talent from White House Counsel Gonzalez recklessly chose a course of conduct that was both contrary to the laws of war, and inconsistent with his oath of office.

Moreover, in choosing to misrepresent to Congress, the President willfully chose to ignore the laws of war; and he made a deliberate effort by intimidating a Brazlian inspector to silence any discussion about the facts on the ground.

It remains a matter for the court to decide inter alia:

* Unlawful use of intelligence

How was Bolton's reliance on NSA intercepts contrary to law and an unlawful use of goverment resources to intimidate a civilian population?

* Intimidating those exercising their rights

To what extent were the RNC demonstrators targeted and imprisoned on the base of knowingly false evidence and doctored video evidence by the Manhattan DA?

Orchestrating attacks on RNC offices

To what extent was the White House directly or indirectly involved in attacks on their own offices in order to "justify" threatening letters to unions?

* Assistance and guidance to fabricate evidence

To what extent, if any, did the White House through DoJ and the Joint Terrorist Task Force and Counter Intelligence Field Activity [JTTF, CIFA] provide direction, assistance, and advice in re doctoring video evidence in re the RNC demonstrators?

* Misleading statements to the Congress

What information has the White House provided through the DoJ Legislative Liaison that is knowingly false on the domestic "threat" posed by AlQueda in order to similarly intimidate Congress into passing legislation that undermines the 4th Amendment and is contrary to public policy in having judicial oversight of the warrant process?


To what extent, if any, was the White House directing intelligence resources against citizens exercising their lawful rights with the hopes of:

- Dissuading voting
- Energize voters to vote 'against' an illusory enemy
- The make the Congress believe there was an imminent threat when the threat was actually from the RNC, White House, DOJ [JTTF, CIFA]?

Operation Falcon

How many US military personnel were assigned from Quantico, and were incorporated into the Operation Falcon as a "training mission," just as NSA spies on Americas for "training purposes"?


There is no need to trust the White House. They have lied. They have killed witnesses and victims.

Their goal it to defend the President, not the Constitution.


Delay any vote on the "update" to the Patriot Act so that the public can fully understand the basis for taking away the 4th Amendment protections.

Some argue that 'there is no evidence' and 'there has never been a case of abuse'. However, they are blind:

* The abuse in Guantanamo

* JTTF, CIFA, NSA, and FBI misconduct

Congress will show they are against the constitution by giving up the 4th Amendment.

If there is no "instance of abuse," then there certainly is no basis to believe that the proposed changes have actually been used or are needed.

Recall, it is the abuse of the British Monarchy that was the catalyst for these amendments. They are the document to which the President swore an oath. Freely. No one forced him.

But once he took that oath, he had a larger loyalty than to either PNAC or the RNC. His duty was to the Constitution and the rule of law.

The questions are:

When will the President begin to submit all documents to Congress under penalty of perjury?

What reforms are needed to modernize the oversight of the reckless, undisciplined, and unresponsive government?

To what extent, if any, are we to believe that the Department of Justice is to be trusted given their legacy of abuse, intrusions, illusions, half-truths, and misleading statements about what they knew, where they were?

At this juncture, the burden of proof lies with the Administration:

* Why should we believe you?

* What is the foundation for your argument?

* Where is your legal authority to wage a war of aggression?

They have no answers, only distractions. To that end, they no longer should be trusted to respond to questions.

They should simply be shown what they are: Unfit to govern, and a threat to the Constitution.

All who have sworn an oath to the Constitution must now choose: Between your constitution and a tyrant.

If you cower, you will be forced to live in fear. That is no way to live. We are free people with a constitution.

We already fought this battle in 1776. There is no reason we should have to fight this battle again.

But if there is to be battle, strike now. For I would rather stand for the Constitution and be free, that to submit to a Tyrant who knows no bounds but threats of death and torture has his "inspiration" from God.