Constant's pations

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

Saturday, December 10, 2005

ICRC cannot be credibly barred from secret detention centers

The US State Department Attorney appears to have had a problem in law school: Making non-sense, irrelevant arguments that didn't get challenged.

How did he pass the DC bar?

Stupid people and stupid organizations make for wonderful defendants in a war crimes trial.

* * *

The State Department Attorney says the ICRC cannot get access to the detainees held in Eastern Europe/Africa on the grounds, "The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to AlQueda."

Small problem, their status in re Geneva is irrelevant: The US has already let the ICRC get access to detainees in Guantanamo. One cannot assert they are "going the extra mile" when they fail to cross the mile marker.

* * *

Let's see the e-mails showing who organized these detentions in Eastern Europe; what they were trying to accomplish; what information they were referencing; how they justified their actions; and what they were thinking.

The public can "handle" the Katrina e-mails. We can handle the truth about the war crimes in Eastern Europe. Let's see the e-mails!

American officials are unable to agree on "what caused the problems" in the jails; why should we believe they can agree "whether they are or are not following the laws of war"?

The reason we have a judicial branch is to make these decisions. We see what happens when we "leave it up to" to American jailers to decide -- they can't agree, and there's no resolution.

Do we need to see more spoof videos from other "government officials" to find out the full issues surrounding the American's detention centers in Eastern Europe and Africa?

* * *

If you want to see how undiciplined American interrogators are, look at this debate: America's "law enforcement" are debating each other, in public over a video depicting officers engaging in acts of racism.

Here is the full press release provided for your reference and research purposes. We do not necessarily endorse the contents of the videos; the sites linked; nor the specific news release.

It is provided for your information only.

Begin News Release


Prison Violence Video Sparks Sheriffs Debate on Internet

Full Disclosure Network™ takes on “Prison Violence” with L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona regarding the causes of jail house violence. Featured on the URL: is exclusive video footage of prisoners rioting in the L.A. County jail system.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) December 8, 2005 -- Full Disclosure Network™ takes on “Prison Violence” in a video blog debate between L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona over the causes of prison unrest. This free six minute video blog can be found on the URL: and features exclusive video footage of prisoners rioting in the L.A. County jail system. Inmates are shown fighting fiercely, throwing mattresses, chairs, bed frames and makeshift weapons. The Video Blog is available free, on demand, 24/7.

Also featured in the video blog is the late Sherman Block who served as Sheriff of L.A. County prior to the administration of Lee Baca. All three Sheriffs go on record as to what they feel is responsible for massive over-crowding of jails and racial unrest among the inmates.

Reasons cited by the Sheriffs for the violence are:
• Budget/staffing shortfalls
• Influx of criminal illegal immigrants
• Conflict of local and U.S. Immigration law enforcement
• Revolving door policies allowing 70% of illegal criminal aliens to return to U.S.

Emmy Award winning host Leslie Dutton is the moderator of this Full Disclosure Network™ video blog. Video clips for this debate were selected from full-length interviews with the Sheriffs and which have been shown on 40 cable television systems and video streamed from website.

Over the past thirteen years Full Disclosure Network™ programs have explored police policies, politics, corruption and reform, interviewing all the LAPD Chiefs from Ed Davis to William Bratton as well as the Southern California County Sheriffs. Cable channels are listed by community and air times on the website.


American officials are willing to debate issues related to inappropriate use of official resources -- there's every reason to believe a similar debate is occurring in re the abuse of people in Guantanamo and Eastern Europe.

Let's see the e-mails and discussions from the arrogant American law enforcement who like to abuse people, then brag about it.

* * *

The border patrol has an accountability report: Why don't we have the same thing for America --

  • does it follow the laws of war;

  • does it respect human rights;

  • does the American CIA make excuses to violate human rights

    Oh, wait -- guess who already does that -- the ICRC -- the very agency the Americans are denying access.

    You know what they say . . . when the defendant fails to provide the evidence that should be retained, you can make adverse inferences.

    Look at the core values in the Border Patrol, as actually practiced:

    Core Values

    Vigilance is how we ensure the safety of all Americans – just don’t ask us to be vigilant about ensuring those we detain are treated with respect. We like to take photographs of them being abused, then spend endless hours litigating the issue, and smearing those who dare talk about the problems along the border, in the airports, and along our coasts.

    We are continuously watchful and alert to deter, detect, and prevent threats to our Nation – just don’t ask us to apply our alertness to detecting threats to the American Constitution from within the Border Patrol – some of who have been involved in other abuses, cover-ups in Eastern Europe, Iraq, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan. Maybe even Miami.

    We demonstrate courage and valor in the protection of our Nation – and we run away from Congressional audits.

    Service to Country is embodied in the work we do, just don’t ask us to show you the photographs of the prisoners we have detained. Some of them – possibly Americans, we’re not sure and don’t care -- are missing in Eastern Europe and Africa.

    We are dedicated to defending and upholding the Constitution of the United States; but we are not dedicated to ensuring the Constitution, as a fundamental feature of our society, is preserved when it comes to issues of treatment of detainees. We talk about principles and values, but we do not value them.

    The American people have entrusted us to protect the homeland and defend liberty; it is unfortunate that they are naïve in assuming we are there to protect their liberty.

    Integrity is our cornerstone, and that building has many fissures in it.

    We are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles, and we do the opposite when it comes to issues of ensuring our conduct is consistent with the rule of law.

    Our actions bring honor to ourselves and to our agency, not the American constitution.

    * * *

    So intent were the Americans, evidently in obedience to orders, to wipe out the incriminating evidence of the abuse, that they even tried to move the detention centers from America to distant places, then bar the ICRC from inspecting.

    So intent was Blobel, evidently in obedience to orders, to wipe out the incriminating evidence of the killings, that he even tried to destroy the corpses by means of dynamite.Ref

    * * *

    The reason the Nazis burned the Jews was to get rid of the evidence.

    The reason the Americans have moved the centers is to get rid of the evidence.

    * * *

    The Nazis thought it was ideal to kidnap Jews:
    Yet, he saw nothing unidealistic about invading the office of his superior, the General Commissioner of White Ruthenia, kidnapping seventy Jews employed there and spiriting them away for cold execution.Ref

    Nazis kidnapped then abused.

    Americans are doing the same -- kidnapping and abusing -- but pretending they are doing it for "Freedom."

    The Nazis invaded Poland to "liberate" them.

    Americans wonder why the world rallies to anothers' cause.

    Stupid Americans.

    * * *

    Oh, the "rule of law" and "accountability" only falls on those who have tormented the Jews, but not those who do the same as the Jews' tormentors?

    How can we have a just world where the atrocities committed against the Jews are forever "something we cannot talk about"?

    Surely, to have a just world, we must hold those who torment and abuse others accountable, just we held the Nazis to account for the abuse inflicted upon the Jews.

    Or, why do some only want accountability when it comes to the infliction of abuse against Jews, but not against those who commit other types of abuse?

    The rule of law, as is justice, must be equal for all. All who commit abuse, should be punished. Those who commit greater abuse, should be punished more severely.

    Those who order the abuse, or fail to stop it, must also be held to account.

    The lesson of Nuremburg was that for us to live in a just world, there must be justice. One cannot claim to bring a civilized society through uncivil action.

    * * *

    To successfully plead, "We were just following orders" is a burden on the defense: Prove that you did not know the orders were illegal. Ref

    You have specific rules which say, "Do not abuse." You cannot rely on unlawful orders to do what is unlawful.

    It is not up to the American public to prove you knew the orders were illegal; it is presumed that orders which call for abuse of anyone are illegal, especially when they are far removed from the combat zone.

    The Nuremburg Defense shall fail for the war criminals in America.

    * * *

    Rather than "ensure the standards meet minimal standards of detention," the Americans want to shed crocodile tears saying, "How dare you compare us to the Nazis."

    Yet, the Nazis did the same:

  • Created non-sense excuses to abuse people;

  • Crafted legal "justifications" to justify abuse; and

  • Held people without good cause and abused them.

    At least the Nazis kept records! Yet, either way, the US has a problem: Either,

  • A. The US has records and this evidence is available to show there has been abuse; or

  • B. The US has no records and is failing to ensure that the record retention policy is in place, as required.

    The Americans are saying, "We don't have to keep records" despite the foreseeable litigation that has already been announced and started.

    * * *

    Here's a crockpot of bullshit: "The American system of openness works. . . "Ref They using non-sense to "justify" non-sense. Circular!

    We don't have "openness" -- we have fabricated lies, non-sense, and idiotic statements. It's a cess pool.

    It's not a system that's open, nor does it work.

    Look how much time, effort, and energy the Americans spending hiding reality in secret detention centers. How many years do we have to wait to get to the truth?

    "Oh, we can't really talk about the lies about Vietnam, someone in 2005 might put 2 and 2 together, and realize we've done the same with Iraq."

    * * *

    Vendors have to assert the status of their operations to the government.

    Yet, the government would have us believe, "We don't have to assert to anything. We can do what we want."

  • Why is one set of people, groups, organizations, and entities required to attest to standards; but the US, despite that requirement, says it doesn't have to meet that standard?

  • Has the US provided any evidence to suggest "the standard doesn't apply"?

    The US only offers "trust us" in the form of videos, images, and stills depicting abuse.

    Businesses that can't do business because they "fail to disclose as required," are barred from doing business; why aren't those in power who "fail to disclose as required to the ICRC" barred from positions of leadership?

    The Nazis were the ones who said, "God is with us" and "The rules of humanity and civility do not apply." How can God be for the side of those who inflict abuse, lie to the courts, and fail to heed their legal responsibilities?

    * * *

    The "right" of the ICRC isn't simply symbolic. It relates to ensuring the conditions meet international standards.

    Also, the US has the ~Duty to Preserve Evidence~ which means it must ensure there are appropriate records kept on the detainees in re: Their conditions, and to show that they are meeting the standards.

    The information is not only kept for "the sake of internal oversight," but in the event that plaintiffs/defendants/detainees might bring suit.

    In the case of the detention centers, and the US failure to comply with the disclosure requirements, it is foreseeable that there would be litigation. Thus, it is likely, given the pattern of secrecy, there has been a failure by specific to-be-named officials to comply with their duty to preserve evidence.

    The US cannot "move these people to nowhere" on the expectation that "nobody will hold the US to account" for the standards, or the requirement that all evidence be preserved.

    Again, the US, by keeping the centers secret, is not simply violating the laws against abuse, but it is setting itself up to be cross-claimed/counter-sued by the detainees for the failure to timely review the information; ensure the centers met reasonable standards.

    This liability extends not simply in a civil suit, but to a criminal one: To what extent were the supervisors aware of the conduct/failure to preserve information/evidence; and to what extent were the governing officials, despite their access to legal counsel, deliberately failing to ensure the minimal standards of detention were reasonably adhered.

    The solution isn't to say, "The law doesn't apply" but to throw this entire situation into a war crimes trial against the President, Vice President, SecDef, and Director of the CIA, and the to-be-named defendants who transported, abused, and otherwise failed to meet minimal/reasonable standards.

    * * *

    The issue becomes: Will the United States agents, personnel, and individuals in their official capacity be found to have engaged in "Fraudulent Concealment":

  • Failing to make information known that should be known;

  • Providing false, misleading information to deny agencies like the ICRC and EU to have access to legitimate areas of interest, concern, and part of their lawful mandate;

  • Providing false, unreliable, and deliberately erroneous information to avoid complying with lawful requirements.

    Someone is giving someone some legal advice on "how to avoid complying with the law."

    Interesting that the "US defendant-agents" have the right to "bring malpractice suits" against those attorneys who provide this arguably defective legal advice; but the underlying cause of action/cause [the original people being held] are sidelined.

    America is the land where the accused-government-agents-officials are given "Due process" when it comes to their war crimes trial over abuse; but the people who were originally abused are told to fend for themselves.

    What's outrageous is the US already has laws against abuse, torture -- yet they are not sufficiently and robustly enforced or investigated by an independent judiciary that has timely access. In theory, the rule of habeas corpus is designed so to remedy this problem -- force the tyrant/king/executive/jailer to bring to detainee before the court, explain why they are being held, and see if there is a problem.

    The Americans have assented to a centralized system, one that bars independent review. The current model, as put into practice, fails to credibly show that the system of checks and balances works, or is above mischief making by the very legal profession "sworn to protect the Constitution."

    It's time the American Bar Association and the legal community seriously ask themselves, "Are we truly meeting our mandate to ensure the rule of law prevails?"

    It's been 4 years since 9-11, and the American public has been forced to fend for itself. What's going to happen when they start jailing the lawyers? Oh, wait they already started doing that.

    The longer the lawyers sleep, the longer the ABA has to spend trying to dig out of this mess they find themselves. Is the ABA going to ask their peers in other countries to save them?

    * * *

    Here's a sample of someone who was innocent being detained: Habeas corpus, judicial review, and "outside observers" were the ones that ensured the error was corrected.

    America's Constitution has three branches of government to divide power. However, the Americans have currently consolidated all power into a single branch. America's government under the RNC-PNAC is tyranny and UnConstitutional.

    * * *

    The Nazis were nice enough to let the ICRC enter their camps.

    The US and the Nazis should be compared:

  • Who is following the rules

  • Whether the rules are recognized

  • Do leaders make excuses

  • How credible and consistent are the legal arguments

  • Are the standards changed when convenient

    * * *

    Further, the issue of one's "detention status in re Geneva" was not relevant to whether the ICRC can get access -- the ICRC, because it has a role in overseeing detentions worldwide, should have no restriction. Whether the US chooses to apply or not apply the standards is irrelevant; the issue is whether the US will freely, or under force, comply with the rule of law.

    Yet, the Americans want to argue other irrelevant issues:

  • That the US is in a "new war"

  • That the US law "doesn't apply"

  • That the Geneva Conventions "do not apply"

  • That the Detainees are not "lawful combatants"

    All of these points are irrelevant, and fail. None of them stood as a barrier to the ICRC entry to Guantanamo.

    Further, the status of the detainees in re "membership in AlQueda" is irrelevant.

    Moreover, there are people the US has admitted are "mistakenly" held. There is a reasonable suspicion that not all the detainees are necessarily linked with terrorism or have committed acts which the US can prosecute.

    Indeed, Rice confirmed on her European trip that there are situations where "we're not sure what to do."

    In that ambiguity, the US cannot claim an absolute right to do anything; nor an absolute bar to the ICRC.

    * * *

    It appears the greater threat to our collective security and Constitution remains the White House.

    Balancing "policy and practice" does nothing to address the real balance: How does one defense oneself against war crimes after having denied all people the right to due process? They have no answer.

    The US simply asserts, "Trust us," yet we have already seen the fruit of trust: Photographs, indictments, and war crimes. The US government has the burden to justify any trust. They fail to make their case. They are unreliable as any corrupt regime is.

    * * *

    The US government uses red herrings and irrelevancies to deny ICRC access to the non-secret Eastern Europe/African detention centers.

    There is no basis for the ICRC to be barred.

  • The status of the detainees is unclear, ambiguous

  • There is no basis to deny the ICRC access

  • The ICRC has been given access to AlQueda-suspects in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan

  • US courts have already said the US laws apply to Guantanamo; and afford the detainees the right to appeal -- their status in re Geneva is irrelevant to whether the ICRC got access to the detainees at Guantanamo.

    * * *

    The ICRC should be given access. It is irrelevant whether the Geneva Conventions apply, or the detainees status, or whether AlQueda is or is not a lawful combatant

    The ICRC has been given access to detainees:

  • who may or may not have been AlQueda;

  • while it was uncertain whether the Geneva Conventions applied;

  • while the US failed to take action in determining their status; and

  • while it remained unclear whether the detainees were or were not AlQueda.

    For purposes of ICRC access, there is no difference between holding a detainee in Guantanamo, Eastern Europe, Africa, or anywhere else.

    The situations are indistinguishable. The US cannot credibly allow ICRC access to only some of the detainees that are held under substantially the same conditions.

    If there is no torture going on, then the US cannot distinguish between what may be going on in US detention centers where the ICRC also gets access; therefore, there is no basis to deny access to the ICRC.

    * * *

    In the self-evident ambiguity and asserted mistakes, how can the US assert they are not "not enemy combatants"?

    Rather, it is possible they are innocent civilians.

    * * *

    Does America want to expose its civilian population to the same abuses because, they too, are "not enemy combatants?"

    The self-evident detention and execution of civilian contractors in Iraq shows the enemy is already deciding, "Non enemy combatants are not protected."

    * * *

    A "new" war, and neither side respects civilized norms.

    This "war of unconventional warfare" is not new; and AlQueda has been around for more than 10 years.

    This isn't new. What is new is the American's decision to say, "We are no longer willing to meet and perform at the standards of civility we once paraded as evidence of our supremacy."

    * * *

    America's problem is that its "leadership" can only rely on non-sense.

    We should not be surprised why the Americans assent to this non-sense -- they will blindly defer to idiot lawyers who are unable to make consistent arguments.

    If the ICRC has had access to AlQueda anywhere, then there is no reason they can be barred anywhere.

    Yet, the Americans fail to make a consistent argument. No wonder they have failed to create credible plans for leadership, reconstruction, or post-invasion in Iraq.

    Just more hand waving.

    The flies never left.