Constant's pations

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

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Libby relying on Alito?

The strategy appears consistent with the NSA-defenses: "Inherent authority"-non-sense and presidential power.

One problem: 1988 Morrison case.

Libby's defense team appears to be relying on Bush's Judicial Appointments, hoping to have the Fitzgerald indictments thrown out. [ WaPo: Ref ]

Libby argues that the Fitzgerald appointments are not lawful, so the indictment's have to be thrown out.

However, the Morrison case reviewed this matter and the Supreme Court stated:
"Congress may, consistent with the appointments clause, authorize interbranch appointments, in which an officer of one branch is appointed by officers of another branch;" [487 U.S. 654 ] Ref ]

It remains to be seen whether Libby is doing what South Dakota is doing on abortion -- challenging precedent, relying on Bush's appointments to overturn the Morrison Case, relying on Scalia's 1988 dissent.

Read more . . .

DoD Smoke Screen Fails -- NSA Unlawful Activity Obvious

If only the RNC was as "concerned" about the legal issues, oversight, and outside reporting agencies with the NSA as they "are" with UAE, I might believe they were actually concerned about anything of substance. Click

Bush is a weenie. This leadership proves if you can't get people to back off on the NSA issue, all they can do is talk about the threat of terrorism. That's DoD-speak for, "Hay, we know we're caught; the only way we can defend ourselves is to accuse you of being in bed with those we trained to do 9-11." [More: Key word: [ Thesis ] ]

DoD is worried about war crimes tribunals. DoD is sure motivated to violate the laws, and distract attention. It would be interesting if DoD put as much "concern" into following the law, as they do with pointing to things other than the Constitution.

DoD Propaganda: Confirmed in High Gear

DoD is generating disinformation. Here's the confirmation that DoD is part of this NSA-diversion game, and hoping to distract attention from the unlawful NSA activity..

It’s all here. If you want to read about the "either or" options, look at the latest from DoD:
"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

Key points:

  • Constitution: All other things are distractions

    The Constitution and their oath are what is important. RNC is pretending that "the big scary story" is the reason that all things happen. That's non-sense.

  • Excellence: This crew is incompetent

    Those who can, are. RNC sews the seeds of doubt. They can't be for things, they just undermine what they cannot credibly compete with.

  • Standard setters: This crew faces indictments

    There are consequences. RNC is paranoid -- and they should be, given the war crimes, Fitzgerald indictment, and the fact that Libby is a lawyer and still got indicted. These guys are screw ups.

  • Lawful: That’s the standard

    Law abiding conduct inspires confidence. Being islationist is preferable to unlawful invasions -- hear hear!

  • Required: What is to be done

    The law is there to remind you of the lessons of history. It is required to follow the laws of war -- Now we're talking. Why is it so hard to follow the law? These people are lawyers, can't they read the [ wait for it ] . . . law?!?!

  • Responsibility: To make sure it is done

    You do what should be done. The leadership has no option other than to assert the rule of law -- that's why DoD is spewing forth non-sense.

  • Accountability: To resign when it is not done

    It’s something you do, not blame others for. It doesn't matter what the "big scary story is," this leadership has a responsibility to account for the unlawful NSA activity with as much vigor as they are "shedding tears" over the UAE issue.

    * * *

    The RNC has one goal: To distract attention from the Constitution, and sew seeds of mistrust. AlQueda and the RNC are from the same seed.

    The RNC is already paranoid; all the DoD is doing is distracting attention from their paranoia, and making it appear as though "anyone who talks about reality, and distractions from the NSA unlawful activity . . . "[blah blah]

    "We cannot allow that to happen" is asking the world to rally behind the failed RNC.

    The RNC has no credibility. When people speak out about "what the RNC is pointing at," then the RNC complains.

    The RNC is not happy because the world knows how to organize war crimes trials, and lawfully execute civilians who commit war crimes.

    Read more . . .

  • Containers: How to do 100% search

    1. There's been some talk about containers and ports. One problem has been the sheer volume of containers, and limited inspection facilities.

    2. There is a solution. Each container could have a monitoring system embedded in the container wall. The detection system would monitor the cargo, and report problems to the ships bridge and Joint Staff.

    More details on this 100% search after this editorial . . .

    * * *

    Editorial on the UAE, RNC, and the NSA unlawful activity

    Why the inconsitent approach on overights, rule of law, and accountability?

    I view this Container issue as a distraction from the NSA issue. It's curious the "RNC concerns" over the UAE revolve around issues of accountability, oversight, and reviews -- the same things with the NSA.

    The RNC cannot explain why they are "alarmed, calling for investigations" over the UAE issue, but are silent on the President's unlawful NSA activity. The inconsistency makes me believe the "concern" is not genuine but a red herring to focus attention on non-Constitutional issues -- to the linking of the RNC. [ Click ]

    I don't view the UAE issue with much confidence that the RNC is serious about reviewing the legal issues: They've fallen down on Phase II and the NSA. This UAE appears to be more of a distraction from the important impeachable offenses with the many NSA programs.

    [ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]

    End Editorial

    * * *

    How to do 100% searches on containers

    The 100% search approach is simple. Instead of inspecting the container, use the container to inspect the cargo. This involves placing sensors inside each container, and reporting the results to external monitors.

    There is an important shift. The approach would change the sampling approach from [a] reviing smoe of the the container cargo; to [b] determing whether the communication system is or is not accurately communicating the cargo contents.

    Ongoing System Test and Verification

    3. Random, no-notice tests can be sent through the container pipeline to verify the detection, communication, and sampling plans.


    4. This approach would free up port based sampling systems, reduce container download time, expedite cargo transshipment to land-based systems, and increase the cargo sampling from 5% to 100%.

    System Features

    5. These are the features of this container monitoring system.

    1. Container mounted monitoring system

    6. The cargo container would have a container-mounted monitoring system. The system would be attached to the container. The monitoring system would be small in size, easily installed, and detect the presence of suspect materials.

    2. Software to adjust detection

    7. Specific threats, chemicals can be focused using adjustable detection system.

    3. Installation kit for the containers

    8. The program would develop, fabricate, and install a prototype on a container system.

    4. Solar powered monitoring system

    9. The energy to support the container-monitoring would be self-contained. Solar powered cells would be embedded on the container, located in the ribs/low points for protection.

    5. Array-umbrella detection system

    10. Detection system inside the container would be similar to that use to monitor presence of nuclear chemicals at an IAEA facility. If the detection system was faulty or tampered with this would prompt an alert.

    6. Proximity detection system

    11. This feature ensures nearby containers check whether this detection system is or is not working. If there is no response, nearby containers transmit a "non-response" message to the ships bridge. During download, this container is checked.

    7. Trouble report to ship bridge

    12. Ships bridge receives status, and immediate report. Nearby container detection system can be adjusted to confirm problem.

    8. External monitoring feature

    13. Joint Staff intelligence can adjust the focus, and type of chemical monitored, searched for.

    9. Automatic transmission to Joint Staff

    14. Results provide a JPATS-like real time battle management display to Joint Staff.


    15. One of the problems with port security is the sheer volume of containers. One approach has been to randomly sample containers. This has caused some concern: Not enough equipment to check the container.

    16. An alterative approach is to change the monitoring model. Rather than screen containers, the model should use the container to do the monitoring.

    17. This is similar to an Identification Friend or Foe [IFF] system used on private, commercial, and military aircraft. A similar system could be developed for containers.

    Development Criteria

    18. The container reporting system will be self-contained, and have a self-check feature. The system will self report cargo contents and allow external monitors to adjust setting to increase or decrease attention on items of interest.

    19. Reporting would be on an alert-basis to the ship's bridge. Joint Staff would have the ability real-time to know which containers have a positive alert for Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical weapon.

    20. The approach will transition from a detection system at port of entry or exit, and move to an ongoing monitoring system within each container. sampling would transition from cargo contents to whether the reported contents does match what is inside the container. Periodically, containers would be randomly picked to verify the system is or is not correctly reporting cargo contents

    21. The containers will have a self-check feature permitting nearby containers to verify that the system is or is not working. Results would be transmitted to the bridge and port authority.

    22. System would have the ability to detect presence of cloaking agents, chemicals, or other material that may raise suspicious. Detection system will find and detect lead possibly used to cloak presence of nuclear weapons.

    23. Detection and communication system will be small in size like a cell phone, and be compatible with laptop computers and hand held cell phones. There would be a scrambling feature which would prevent external monitoring equipment from detecting alerts.

    Read more . . .

    Wednesday, February 22, 2006

    RNC Propaganda Checklist: Mobilizing your disloyal base and opposition to unite on an irrelevant issue

    The goal is simple: When your base is collapsing because the Presidents unlawful NSA activites, get the rumbling base to unite with the opposition on an irrelevant issue. They will assert principles, but fight for the wrong cause.

    You do not have to win, you merely have to avoid being defeated.

    This is the same as victory.

    * * *

    [ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]

  • This is how the UAE propaganda is created: [ Click ]

  • For a sample of this approach, look here [ Click ]

  • For additional RNC propaganda samples, check the blue box at this link: [ CLick ]

  • For a sample checklist, and other links on RNC propaganda [ CLick ]

    * * *

    RNC Propaganda: Shifting the outrage from misconduct over the unlawful NSA activities

    The trick to this approach is twofold:

  • 1. Embrace all the valid arguments about the White House unlawful NSA activity; and

  • 2. Create an illusory situation where they can focus these concerns.

    When all is said and done, people will have made their points, and the world will believe that the RNC is waking up. Actually, the world hasn’t woken up: We haven’t changed. We’re still not taking responsibility for the NSA unlawful activity.

    This Campaign Has Four [4] Themes

    Theme 1: Law

    Accept: The public and your disloyal RNC members know there are widespread legal violations in re the NSA issue..

    Goal: Focus the outrage over these violations on an irrelevant issue. This will tie up Congress, and diffuse attention from the NSA.

    Theme 2: Government Competence

    Recognize there is a lack of confidence in the government’s ability to effectively oversee and organize.

    Goal: Channel the public’s outrage about this incompetence on an irrelevant issue.

    Theme 3: Our Agenda

    The success of this ruse depends on framing themes one and two in terms of what will support our greatest asset.

    Them 4: Pummel and Manipulate

    We will impose discipline on those to assent to our non-sense.


    Avoid: Do not mention the following:
  • Benefits of following the laws at all times;

  • Lack of NSC vigilance in protecting the Constitution;

  • Legal risks or threats to the Constitution;

  • American soldiers failed to protect our Constitution; or

  • Funds are going to unlawful NSA programs.

  • Theme 1: Legal Issues

    [ ] Appropriateness: Argue whether something should or should not be done – but make no mention that that debate of “what should or should not e done” was not done in the NSC on the matters of the law over the unlawful NSA issue.

    [ ] Conflicts: Argue over a conflict of interest, but make no mention that the leadership has a conflict with the Constitution.

    [ ] Fictional problems Keep getting the public to focus on “the problem” -- but distract attention from the NSA.

    [ ] Themes: Change the issue from whether or not the US government is or is not violating the law; and focus on the flames of that “big scary story.” It doesn’t matter if we make up facts.

    [ ] Dissent: Get the RNC leadership to argue with the President on issues that are unrelated to the Constitution or the rule of law.

    [ ] Cavalier attitude toward Constitution: White House treated the NSA illegal activity like it was routine.

    * * *

    Due Diligence: Problem: Continuing Lack of RNC due diligence on the unlawful NSA programs

    [ ] Change the issue from whether or not the President can justify his unlawful NSA activity to whether or not the critics can justify whether or not there is a basis to question whether or not these was due diligence on an irrelevant issue.

    Solution: Distract attention from the NSA unlawful programs

    [ ] Refocus the issue on whether or not a deal is stopped, not whether the law is followed.

    [ ] Create independence on issues unrelated to NSA and the illegal programs.
    Assert the issue is neutral – do so in a way that does not appear t o be partisan

    * * *

    Debate: Use the issues related to the NSA, but recast these principles in the irrelevant issue

    [ ] Get people to ask questions unrelated to the Constitution, and frame the questions in terms that are focused on issues outside the rule of law. Emphasize themes.

    [ ] Oaths: Surprising, “we can’t guarantee” is a standard that should apply to the US approach to the Constitution: They should guarantee their oath, but they do not.

    [ ] Point to the agreement – but ignore the real agreement that has been ignored: The oath to the Constitution. Where was the outrage over that? There was none.

    [ ] Law Who controls the law; who controls the Constitution? Why wasn’t that brought up?

    [ ] Compromise: Get them to talk about the compromises that could have been made--make no mention that Gonzalez could have compromised on something, and talked to the Congress about what he should not have compromised on.

    [ ] Arguments: Say people are or are not making a “good case” on this irrelevant tissue.

    [ ] Evidence: Point to disagreement as evidence of something; ignore all mentions whether this disagreement is relevant to a review of the unlawful NSA program.

    [ ] Relevance: Change the subject from whether the FISA is or is not relevant; and get the public to debate on whether the other irrelevant issue is or is not relevant. Bait them to:
    Debate over irrelevant issues.

    [ ] Point to incomplete information related to irrelevant issues.

    [ ] Argue over facts that are irrelevant.

    [ ] Assert ignorance about whether irrelevant things are irrelevant.

    [ ] Argue over irrelevant definitions and distractions on irrelevant issues.

    [ ] Tell people what they should or should not do on this unrelated issue. They’ll debate that, and forget the NSA illegal activities. Maybe not.

    [ ] Say that this “irrelevant issue” is wrong – but make no mention why this wrongness is “more wrong” than the violations of the constitution.

    [ ] Participation: Change the issue from the FISA court “being locked out” to whether or not the Cabinet was or was not involved, or locked out.

    [ ] History Point to history as the basis for review, but do not mention that the same historical period is the time that FISA was brought into being.

    [ ] Legislative changes: Focus on amendments to irrelevant issues, but ignore the FISA amendments which Gonzalez didn’t raise until 2004, three years after 9-11.

    [ ] Inquiry: Focus on whether the inquiry did or did not occur on an irrelevant issue – but do not examine whether this inquiry did or did not occur on the NSA issue.

    [ ] Use emotion and passion that should be put toward the Constitution

    [ ] Act shocked over the RNC defections, but do not let them talk about the defections to impeach the President over the unlawful program

    Theme 2: Government Competence

    This has to do with Congressional oversight, and our internal problems. The goal here is to give the public irrelevant issues to focus on.


    [ ] Have speedy inspections and reviews of issues unrelated to the Constitution.

    [ ] Ignore what the NSA and White House did not brief to the Committees. Change the issue to whether the US did or didn’t focus on the right briefing, not the law.

    [ ] Change the issue from whether the NSA is or is not obeying the law, to whether or not this Congress is or is not being fair, kind, or friendly.

    [ ] Get Congress to investigate irrelevant things. Why weren’t the lawful options explored with the NSA? NO answer on that.

    [ ] Change the subject from the cursory review of the NSA program, to a cursory review of an unrelated, irrelevant issue: The world will mobilize, agree, and unite on an irrelevant issue.

    [ ] Get people to talk about whether unrelated issues were or were not rubber stamps; and make no mention that the US government expected the FISA to rubber stamp things. When the FISA Court should not rubber stamp, we ignored the FISA court.

    [ ] Reviews: Act shocked about what is or is not reviewed; never mind that there was no shock over the similar lack of review given to the FISA or the Constitution.

    [ ] Interagency: Get people to talk about interagency panels, but make no mention that there is another interagency panel called the Joint Staff which assented to the illegal NSA program, and has waged unlawful war.

    [ ] Assert management and oversight, without connecting it to the Katrina issue

    [ ] Change the subject from whether or not the NSA issue was or was not lawful or effectively overseen, to whether or not the “process” to “oversee” an irrelevant issue was or was not followed. Avoid all mentions of the Katrina debacle; then tackle it head on.

    [ ] Procedure: Discuss whether or not procedures were or were not followed – make no mention that the White House ignored the procedures when it came to NSA acquisition.

    [ ] Approval Argue over approvals, but ignore the lack of lawful programs inside the NSA Appeal to ignorance over who did or did not approve the irrelevant issue.

    [ ] Authority: Pretend that the review was or was not done at the wrong level. This will insulate the President, and make others think that there is a problem inside his department. This is a ruse. Notice, they’re not talking about who was or was not involved.

    [ ] Leadership:
    Act confused about who was involved, not involved in the unrelated issue; this will distract attention from the NSA issues.

    [ ] Debate over who can or cannot address these irrelevant issues. Make no mention that there was no debate on dissimilar issues related to the NSA. There was no discussion on whether the problems with the NSA compliance were or were not address.

    [ ] Trust: Get the public to raise questions about who to trust – and apply that doubt to an irrelevant issue.

    [ ] ResponsibilityMake the problems of the White House everyone else’s problem.

    [ ] Concern: Assert that the public has reason to be worried, but make no mention whether that worry is related to anything relevant to the NSA. Give the public a chance to voice concern, but do not let them voice concerns about their liberties. They are only allowed to voice concerns about your issues, which are irrelevant to the Constitution.

    [ ] Focus: Point out what people haven’t noticed – but make this “lack of notice” related to something that does not matter.

    [ ] Clear focus on irrelevancies: Say that things are clear, even though it is not clear: Why are there so many boneheads in Congress who like fascism and NSA unlawful activity?

    [ ] Seriousness: Argue whether they are or are not taking something seriously, -- never mind that they’re not taking the issue of the Constitution seriously.

    [ ] Competence:
    Accuse the leadership of suffering from things which they suffered from in the NSA issue: Inability to follow the law, but don’t mention the NSA

    [ ] Imply the underling failed, but do not explain why they cannot be identified. They do not exist. This is a sham. The underlings take orders, they do not think or caret policy.

    [ ] Point to illusions of who is or is not able to do something, band make no mention that the NSA should have been able to do their job. The issue is who got in the way.

    [ ] Standards Who should or should not follow the standards?

    [ ] Compliance Why is it OK to say that people should or should not follow the law on irrelevant issues, but make no mention of whether the law does or doesn’t apply.

    [ ] Options: Do not discuss that they are discussing rejecting options related to irrelevant issues.

    [ ] Limitations: Acknowledge we can’t do everything, then make than the DNC’s problem: they cannot do what we cannot do. Lower the standards for all on an irrelevant issue.

    [ ] Decision Criteria: Make the basis for the decision on our favorite theme, even though this factor is unrelated to anything meaningful, and the issue is irrelevant.

    [ ] Solutions Celebrate solutions, but ignore the fact that the solutions were ignored when addressing the impeachment of the President: Why hasn’t he resigned?

    [ ] Accomplishments Point to all that has been done, and make the world believe they are being unreasonable: They didn’t stand up for or against this irrelevant issue.

    [ ] Point to problems in the area that you just said was doing well. This will make you think that you’re being critical, but make no mention of the real issue you should have been critical about: The NSA program.

    [ ] Mystery: Get the leadership to refrain from making comments – this will suggest there is a cover-up; but this is a ruse. It is merely an opposite of approach of what failed with the NSA issue: Openly bragging what was or was not done. We made an error. Oops!

    [ ] The White House cannot explain why the President was well involved with the NSA issue, but is not pretending that “lower level “people are the blame in this unrelated issue.

    [ ] On one hand he takes responsibility for the illegal act – but Congress does nothing; then when it comes to time to find out, Congress finds out – only if they do not have to point the finger at the President on a real issue related to the Constitution.

    [ ] Argue over whether the form and substance of the irrelevant issue is or is not appropriate.

    [ ] Rewrite history on whether the President is or is not involved

    [ ] The goal is to raise doubts

    [ ] Change the subject form the assertion that a program is legal, to the opposite: That this president has no clue. The President made fatal admissions that he ordered the NSA unlawful activity; in this case, simply make him appear to be uninvolved. This will raise doubts about whether or not he was or was not actually involved in the NSA issue.

    [ ] Create in the mind of the public the impression that the leadership is out of touch; the public will believe that the same “out of touch” attitude/approach is what is behind the NSA unlawful activity. This is the desired conclusion: "How can this crew possibly be held accountable for something they are so clueless about?"

    [ ] Contrast the organized, NSA approach with the bungling; this will make the public believe that there is confusion about the NSA program. In fact, it is well managed to engage in illegal things, unlike Katrina which was poorly managed to do legal things. The problem is even when they give them selves the power to violate the law; they can’t follow the procedures on how to violate the law. They undisciplined criminals.

    Theme 3: Our Agenda

    [ ] Repeat our themes.

    [ ] Argue over issues which the RNC cannot explain: But couch them in a positive way.

    [ ] Acknowledge the non-sense, and make the DNC responsible for it all.

    [ ] Use themes which have been discredited: Mushrooms clouds, Iraq WMD.

    [ ] Include Iran in the scapegoat list.

    [ ] Make a reference to small animals. Create an image. Induce shock. It will be personal.

    [ ] Argue over perceptions, how things are received, whether or not someone’s judgment is good.

    [ ] State risks in terms that are consistent with our themes. Why is it good to control things that are illegal, but bad to control things that are irrelevant?

    [ ] Blame: Any problems with RNC and White House integrity – blame the democrats. If there’s a negative label about the White Houser on the NSA issue, accuse the DNC of suffering from that.

    [ ] Time Use slogans. Refer to summer themes. They’ll think it’s beyond Spring an almost summer. Then they’ll give up, “Not enough time to do anything before the election.” But it’s really still winter. Oh, well – remind them of global warming, and they’ll think it’s November, and nothing can be done.

    [ ] UrgencySay this is a crisis. But don’t explain why the same problems in the NSA were not also a crisis.

    [ ] Slogans: Debate over the unrelated issue. Emphasize favorable slogans consistent with our strong points.

    [ ] Katrina: Debate things which failed during Katrina. Boost the moral of those who failed during Katrina.

    [ ] When cornered: Say they are with AlQueda for not singing the White House tune on this non-sense.

    Theme 4: Recasting and Pummeling

    [ ] Recast the rebels as supporters

    Claim those who do not support the President are against him; make no mention that those who are standing up for the Constitution have to be against those who are against the rule of law.

    [ ] Recast the supports of the Constitution as rebels

    State those who are in the RNC who are standing up for this irrelevant issue are bold, even though they are not bold when it comes to preserving our system of checks and balances and Bill of Rights.

    [ ] Berate those who do not embrace the non-sense diversion

    Pretend those who are getting sucked into this non-sense are “reluctant to wake up”
    Complain about lack of oversight and vetting, but distract questions from whether this vetting was or was not done on the unlawful NSAS program

    Band wagon
    [ ] Blame those who do not join your band wagon. Point to their inconsistencies on this irrelevant issue – frame it in terms that focus on our themes, not theirs.

    [ ] Reframe the DNC discussion on the NSA program in terms of a scolding – say they missed the boat on “our issue.”

    [ ] It’s time to join the bandwagon on the non-sense issues. But why?

    [ ] Say that the bandwagon is speaking for all those who have not joined. Don’t ask, just go with it.

    [ ] Say things don’t matter. Imply we all agree.

    [ ] Say the “new non-sense” is obvious. If it is, why bother pointing it out?

    [ ] Make the problem/issue whether or not the DNC does or does not buy into your non-sense.

    Media: The convenient scapegoat -- we used them in Iraq WMD, let's use them again.

    [ ] Blame the media for missing the point – on issues that are irrelevant. Accuse the media of doing what the White House does: Slander, being mean, and just being all that exhaustive. Make up irrelevancies.

    [ ] Argue over whether the media does or does not have the “appropriate” reaction to the irrelevant event.

    [ ] Make additional references to the media on the unrelated issue. This will exhaust your audience.

    Read more . . .

  • How to review the hidden NSA programs

    This is a guide. It is not intended to "the answer." It is merely a place to start. This will show you how to review the hidden NSA programs.

    The approach is simple, and easy to understand. After you are done reviewing the material, be sure to let others know what you find.

    [ For your convenience, there is an NSA Hearing Archive; Click here to read other content in the NSA Hearing Archive.]

    What I'll do is show you where to look, how to review the information, and what you can do. I'm sure you'll see it's fairly simple to understand.

    Then I'll show you some examples of how this is done, and show you some finished reports that you can write yourself.

    Then I'll walk you through some simple steps and examples of how you can do this on your own. You'll be impressed with how quickly you'll be able to do this on your own, and you'll have other ideas on how this can be done.

    * * *

    Executive Summary

    The methodology outlined below can be summarized in the following reports.

    Summary findings:

  • NSA's modernization and spiral acquisition efforts are inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulations; prior to 9-11, NSA programs used unlawful capabilities inconsistent with FISA [ Click ].

  • POTUS is independently confirmed to have violated the law by failing to notify Congress of unlawful activities [ Click ].

  • DoD Statute review confirms SecDef has violated the law: [ Click ].


  • The President, Joint Staff, National Security Council, DoJ, NSA, CIA, civilian contractors and others in and out of the US Government have conspired to violate the laws of the United States; and

  • There is no effective oversight of the Executive Branch, DoJ, DoD, or NSA by the Inspector General, NSA Independent Oversight Board, or Congress.


    Discussion on Options: [Click ]

    If Congress fails to respond, the States are prepared to compel the Congress to investigate: [ Click ]

    The deadline for Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings/order an investigation is 1 March 2006. If there is no action, the States are poised. Choose wisely

  • * * *

    Let's get into the guide. This Guide will help you see how to examine public information to find out what is or is not going on inside the NSA.

    Part One: Where to start

    Step 1 Let's start here: [ Click ]

    Step 2: Then type in: "National Security Agency" "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"; you can also type in this second search string, "Department of Justice" "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"

    Step 3: Start reading.

    Step 4: Ask these types of questions:
    A. If this is the standard, how do we explain what we have?

    B. If this is possible, why wasn’t it done?

    C. If this is the standard, how do we explain the other conduct?

    Let's review some examples

    Here are some sample reports of how this works, and what you can learn.

    Notice how simple it is to contrast the standards with what we publicly know: Click.

    Here is a sample line of questions based on a simple review of public information. [ Click ] Notice all we're doing is comparing what we know, to what we have been told.

    It's fairly simple, anyone can do it.

    Let's work through some examples together

    I'll show you some sample questions, and then we'll walk through how to review these types of issues using the open information.

    Again, you'll see how easily this can be done.

    1. Who isn't doing their job?

    2. Where are the audit checklists?

    3. Why does the Inspector General not doing this?

    4. How has this been reported to the Congressional Committees?

    For now, and demonstration purposes here are two general areas we want to look at in the US Code. one is the US Department of Justice. The Second is the Department of Defense.

    Let's start with the DoJ, and focus on something interesting with the FISA and IG responsibilities. Again, this isn't magic, it's all there for you to read.

    The issue is when we compare [a] the standards with [b] what we know, there is a problem. Let me show you an example.

    Part A

    First, let's start with what we know: something is going on, but Congress is playing stupid. Also, the President keeps talking about these programs.

    I. Step 1: Hit this link, Click

    II. Step 2: Look for this quote:
    (D) a certification that
    the Inspector General has had full
    and direct access to all
    information relevant to the
    performance of his functions;

    This tells us something interesting things:

    1. The Inspector General [IG] has the power to review things

    2. When the IG has to certify something -- this means there has to be a document of that certification

    3. The IG has to attempt to do something

    4. If the IG cannot do what they hope to find, they have to notice whether they have been given full access to the information or not.

    Part B

    Let's do the same thing, but with a different clause.

    I. Hit this link: [Click ]

    II. Look for this clause:
    (d) Semiannual reports;
    immediate reports of serious or
    flagrant problems; reports of
    functional problems; reports to
    Congress on urgent concerns

    (1) The Inspector General
    shall, not later than January 31
    and July 31 of each year, prepare
    and submit to the Director of
    Central Intelligence a classified
    semiannual report summarizing the

    activities of the Office
    during the immediately preceding
    six-month periods ending December 31 (of
    the preceding year) and June 30,

    What do we know

    This is important. It tells us the IG has to file a report. It also tells us this report is periodic. And it tells the IG what they're supposed to put in that report.

    This is the basis to request this information -- and/or ask why those in Congress who have clearance to review this report have not read the report; or they didn't receive the report.

    Again, it doesn't matter what their reason it -- the point is that we can simply point to the standard and ask, "What is going on?" That's it.

    Part C

    The next step is to follow the logical step. We have to look at what is going on in Congress.

    I. Hit this link:

    II. Look for this clause:
    (3) The Director may
    prohibit the Inspector General from
    initiating, carrying out, or
    completing any audit, inspection,
    or investigation, or from issuing
    any subpoena, after the Inspector
    General has decided to
    initiate, carry out, or complete
    such audit, inspection, or investigation
    or to issue such subpoena, if the
    Director determines that such
    prohibition is necessary to protect
    vital national security
    interests of the United States.

    The question becomes: Was it reasonable to assert that these programs which violate the law should "not be reviewed" because of [a] national security; or was the actual intent of the "do not review order" -- if that exists -- related to a simple goal of preventing Congress from finding out about the FISA violations?

    Given that violations of the law are not "in the interests of national security" but crimes, then the issue becomes: Who should have probed further, but failed to or was dissuaded?

    Again, the point of this clause is to show you what might be going on:

  • A. What is the reason that this activity is occurring, but nobody in Congress knows about it;

  • B. Is there are requirement to do or not do something that someone hasn't complied with

    The issue at this point isn't what is actually going on with the NSA: But was there a memo from the DCI to the IG to say, "Do not review this"? There should be, otherwise the IG has to explain why -- despite this mess -- he apparently couldn't figure out that there were massive programs in violation of the law.

    Again, the point is that the problem rests with either the IG or the DCI. One of them has to convince us they should be trusted. They can do that by letting Congress review a memo.

    However, if this has already been done -- as what appears likely -- the issue becomes, what prevented Congress from ordering a broader review in 2002?

    Again, the issue for the IG, Congress, and DCI to explain is: Why was this conduct occurring, who knew about it, and why weren't the reports provided to Congress.

    We do know that in 2002 the DCI and Joint Staff received through the investigators in Guantanamo information about abuse. That was four years ago. What's happened since then, and where has the IG been for the last for years? IT doesn't look good for the Joint Staff, IG, Congress, or the DCI.

    Part D

    Here's where we can get answers to these questions. There is another clause that is also very interesting.

    I. Click this link: Click

    II. This is a combination. Look for two clauses, and we'll talk about both of them:
    Clause 1
    (4) If the Director
    exercises any power under
    paragraph (3), he
    shall submit an appropriately
    classified statement of the reasons
    for the exercise of such power
    within seven days to the
    intelligence committees.

    . . . .

    Clause 2: DCI message to IG

    The Director shall advise the
    Inspector General at the time such

    report is submitted, and, to the
    extent consistent with the protection

    of intelligence sources and
    methods, provide the Inspector General
    with a copy of any such report.

    The point of these two clauses is simple: It tells us where Congress should have looked, and there should be a Congressional note asking to review this information. Again, just because this is classified doesn't matter. We're simply relying on the public standards, and inquiring into what should have been done.

    These two clauses tell us several things: There is a sender and a receiver of this message. There are four options, all of them within the scope of understanding. Things will have to be consistent with one of these. People who are lying will not be consistent with what actually happened. The truth can be understood.

    Let's break these clauses down into two halves: Sender and Receiver.

    First Half: Sender

    A. The clauses tells us the conversation was documented

    There is a classified message from DCI detailing the reasons why the IG was refused permission to investigate the issues; [Either the message exists, or it does not. There is not other option. IF the message exists, then there are documents showing when it was created, who reviewed it, and what they did or didn't say in response; if the message does not exist, then there is a question: Why is there no message, and who can we find who read the message that "no longer exists"?]

    B. Alternatively, if there was no documentation, there is a violation

    If the Intelligence Committee has no record of the message, this is a separate/subsequent violation. [This expands the scope of the conspiracy to others, who will either cooperate, or be found in violation.]

    Second half: Receiver

    C. The clauses tell us the other half of the story: Someone received the document

    The IG has a copy of this message [And this should be available for review, along with the access list of who reviewed it, and memoranda they created/distributed to document their concerns;

    D. Alternatively, if there is no receipt, then this is a violation

    If there is no copy then this is a subsequent violation. [This expands the liability to other parties.]

    The issue isn't whether someone is or isn’t cooperating. The issue is how long do they want to go before they make another violation. They have one option, but to admit reality, they have to admit subsequent violations. So, they're in a trap.

    The key is simple: NO matter what happens, there has to be either:

    A. Compliance with the rules; or

    B. Deviation from the rules.

    Those are the only two options. Something has to be documented: Either the order not to review; or the declination to review; or the comments about what was going on.

    Part E

    But there's more. Once DCI and the IG disagree on a matter, and the IG wants to peruse something, they have an obligation to report to the Committee.

    Let's review the clauses.

    I. Hit this link: Click

    II. Look for this clause:
    In such cases, the Inspector
    General may submit such comments
    to the intelligence committees that
    he considers appropriate.

    This tell us several things: The IG can submit information to Congress.

    It raises a number of questions, all which will help see who is or is not doing their job, cooperating, or following the rules. The reason for asking these questions is to inquire into what happened, what can be proven, and who is or is not doing what they promised to do.

    Here are some sample questions which need answers:

    A. What comments, if any, did IG attach to the classified message from DCI to the intelligence Committee; if there is no message, why not; if there is a message, what action did the intelligence committee take, if any?

    B. Was there a reason for the IG in not commenting; how could the IG "not comment" on something that was not consistent with statute?

    C. What was the reason for including the remarks that were included; but not including the other concerns we are led to believe may have existed at the time; what is the basis to exclude comments, is this exclusions consistent or it out of the ordinary?

    D. Was there something the DCI said, communicated, or implied would happen if these IG concerns were or were not communicated in the format, manner, and order that was
    finally submitted or not submitted; was this speculative future result clear, or was it merely assented to without discussion; what should the IG have done?

    Part F

    Let's consider some more details.

    I. Hit this link: [ Click ]

    I. Look for this clause:

    (5) In accordance with
    section 535 of title 28, the

    General shall report to the
    Attorney General any information,

    allegation, or complaint
    received by the Inspector General

    to violations of Federal
    criminal law that involve a
    program or

    operation of the Agency,
    consistent with such guidelines as
    may be

    issued by the Attorney General
    pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of

    such section. A copy of all
    such reports shall be furnished to
    the Director.

    This tells us there is a communication flow between the IG and the Director. This is a given. The issue is whether there is a reasonable story on why documents are or are not provided; and whether the communications are or are not consistent with what we know: There are illegal programs.

    The issue is simple:

    A. Were there roadblocks between the AG and DCI; or were these just imaginary;

    B. Was there something that prevented the IG and/or DCI from providing information to the AG?

    It remains to be understood whether these communication roadblocks between the DIC and AG were real, imagined, implied, believed, or something else.

    Part G

    Next we have to consider the standards the IG uses to review. They use something Government Accounting Standards, or GAGAS. This means, "Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards," and others call it "Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards." They're not the same, but sometimes people mix them up.

    I. Hit this link: [ Click ]

    II. Look for this clause:
    (4) in the execution of his
    responsibilities, to comply with
    generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    This tells us several things:

    A. The IG knows how the audits are supposed to be done

    B. There are reasonable standards that the IG has to comply with

    C. These standards are well known throughout the government

    D. It is not a surprise for the IG to use these procedures

    E. it is not out of the ordinary for the IG to follow these rules

    Why does this matter? Because in order for someone to be hired, nominated, and appointed to the IG positions they have to have a track record of being able to follow procedures in management, law, auditing, or some other field.

    The issue falls back on Congress: If the IG's aren't able to do their job -- despite their appointment -- why hasn't Congress started an investigation into the IG?

    Part H

    Now we start to bring the above together. You'll see how this fits.

    I. Hit this link: [ Click ]

    II. Look for this clause about communicating urgent concerns:
    (d) Semiannual reports;
    immediate reports of serious or
    flagrant problems; reports of
    functional problems; reports to
    Congress on urgent concerns

    This tells us a few things: There is a process which Congress understands and is not surprised by when the IG submits an urgent concern. There are several questions:

    A. Was there something in the way that prevented DoJ IG from reporting urgent concerns about what was going on?

    B. Where are these reports, concerns?

    C. Who reviewed them, and what were their comments, if any?

    D. How can the IG explain this many problems in the DoJ and NSA, but they don't seem to be able to explain [1] Why Congress can't seem to find any message or comment about these concerns; and/or [2] There is no apparent Congressional order to work with the IG to expand the scope of the audit?

    Again, the issue here isn't to pin them down -- the point is that no matter what they do, they're showing that there were broad scale violations of the law, they failed to do their jobs per GAGAS, and a reasonable IG would have known and reported this information to Congress. The issue is simple: Either:

    A. Congress knows about eh problem and has done nothing; OR

    B> The IG's are not reliable and cannot be trusted to compare clear standards with reality, and fails to keep the Committee aware of problems and urgent matters.

    There are no other options.

    Part I

    It gets worse. There is a 7-=day reporting requirement on matters that are very clearly laid out. In other words, the IG doesn't have to guess, "Is this urgent," but the guide tells them in detail what types of things they need to report.

    I. Hit this link

    II. Look for this clause
    (3) In the event that -

    (A) the Inspector General
    is unable to resolve any

    with the Director affecting
    the execution of the Inspector

    General’s duties or

    (B) an investigation,
    inspection, or audit carried out
    by the

    Inspector General should
    focus on any current or former

    official who -

    (i) holds or held a
    position in the Agency that is
    subject to

    appointment by the
    President, by and with the advice
    (!1) and

    consent of the Senate,
    including such a position held on

    acting basis; or

    (ii) holds or held the
    position in the Agency, including

    a position held on an
    acting basis, of -

    (I) Executive Director;

    (II) Deputy Director
    for Operations;

    (III) Deputy Director
    for Intelligence;

    (IV) Deputy Director
    for Administration; or

    (V) Deputy Director
    for Science and Technology;

    (C) a matter requires a
    report by the Inspector General to

    Department of Justice on
    possible criminal conduct by a

    or former Agency official
    described or referred to in

    subparagraph (B);

    (D) the Inspector General
    receives notice from the Department

    of Justice declining or
    approving prosecution of possible

    criminal conduct of any of
    the officials described in

    subparagraph (B); or

    (E) the Inspector General,
    after exhausting all possible

    alternatives, is unable to
    obtain significant documentary

    information in the course of
    an investigation, inspection, or


    the Inspector General shall
    immediately notify and submit a

    on such matter to the
    intelligence committees.

    III. Look for this second clause
    (2) The Inspector General
    shall report immediately to the

    Director whenever he becomes
    aware of particularly serious or

    flagrant problems, abuses, or
    deficiencies relating to the

    administration of programs or
    operations. The Director shall

    transmit such report to the
    intelligence committees within

    calendar days, together with
    any comments he considers

    Here's the point: Not only do we know the Congress has a duty to review, but when there are this many problems that were known in 2004, the problem is why wasn't the IG brought into the picture?

    Again, the point is that the NSA has violated the law; and the Congress has shown it cannot adequately check the President's power.

    There is no other explanation.

    Part J

    Here's the kicker. This is the rule that gives the Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee -- Senator Rockefeller -- the power to have ordered an IG investigation. IN other words, the fact that he's in the DNC or a minority party member is irrelevant. That's non-sense.

    I. Hit this link [ Click ]

    II. Look for this clause:
    [ That the RNC controls the
    committee is irrelevant]
    [ Where’s the DNC request for
    audit that was not done?]

    (4) Pursuant to Title V of
    the National Security Act of 1947

    U.S.C. 413 et seq.], the
    Director shall submit to the

    committees any report or
    findings and recommendations of an

    inspection, investigation, or
    audit conducted by the office which

    has been requested by the
    Chairman or Ranking Minority
    Member of

    either committee.


    This is just an example. The problem is this is across the board in all the guides and regulations, but horizontally across all the departments, and vertically within the departments; and across both branches -- the Legislature and Executive.

    In other words, this is a huge problem with internal reviews, audits, and personnel in both branches not doing their jobs.

    It doesn't matter why. The point is this is a huge problem, and neither Party has demonstrated they can effectively follow clear rules.

    This is information voters need to discuss and debate: What is to be done to adequately bound this problem, and compel both branches to do their jobs.

    Neither branch, nor party appears to be willing despite their oath to do so.

    Part Two: Statutes

    You can also do the same with the Statutes

    The neat thing about the above is that you can pick and choose where you want to start, and ask questions. No matter what the NSA and COngress do, they're going to trip themselves up.

    We can also do the same thing with SECDEF, the NSC, and the Joint Staff.

    To illustrate this, I'm going to use statutes, and show you how to trip them up on the NSA issues. Remember, their problem is they are not in alignment with the statutes. That's what makes this funny: They can't do anything to change reality, excpet give you non-sense.

    Here's a sample report: Comparing public knowledge to the statutes, to find a new problem: [ Click ]

    Start here: [ Click ]

    This is title 10, it relates to the DoD. Click around on these links for a couple of seconds, and get used to what's in there. Don't worry about the content, just get an idea of how they are organized.

    Home Base for SecDef

    We're going to do things a little differently than we did with the copy and paste above. This time, we're going to jump around to the links. The key is to move fast, and see there are many reuqirements, but SEC Def didn't do his job.

    OK, let's jump into the OSD Section where Sec Def is: Click. We'll call this "home base."

    Your job is to keep up with what I'm talking about. I'm not going to link to each item, but I'm going to jump back and forth between these statutes.

    135 is the responsibility of Sec Def to keep Congress informed.

    137 is the role SecDef plays in intelligence, and his link to the NSA.

    141 is the DoD IG role in reviewing things

    138b5 is the DoD legislative liaison role, they act as the interface between DoD and the Congress.

    Here are the statutes covering NSA: Click

    421b1 is the key one: No money can be used for things Congress denies -- which is what Congress said in FISA: this is how you are supposed to follow the rules; and if you don't do that, it's not lawful.

    426 is the one that documents the meetings. There should be agendas discussing the NSA activity. This group is the ISR.

    Here's the problem: 435 says the conduct can only be for lawful purposes.

    OK, stop. Remember from above -- way above -- and also on this page -- there's the issue of legality. The procedures can only be lawful. That's important to realize. There's two separate mentions that there can only be legal activities; and the conduct which the IG has to look into has to detect this illegality.

    So the question becomes; How could all this be occurring, and there be clear rules of what to do, but nobody detected anything; yet there were clear rules against it?

    The answer is simple: Alot of people know.

    Here is 437 -- that means Congress has to know what is going on. Read part B.

    See how this works? Not only is there a requirement to follow the law, but there's a requirement SEC DEF certify to Congress that things are OK.

    No we know otherwise: The DoD-NSA activities violated the law. So there are two options: Either,

    A. SEC DEF lied and didn't disclose to Congress, and violated the law; OR

    B. Congress knew and did nothing.

    Given what we know about he President and the NSA activities -- he say's they're lawful, it's more likely that SEC DEF didn't keep Congress up to date.

    So the issue isn't whether Congress is or isn't given "enough information" or whether the White House does or does not agree to "keep Congress involved." The issue is why despite the SEC DEF failure to comply with the statute, isn't the Congress ordering an investigation?

    That's the big mystery: Why is Congress not willing to enforce the law? The voters can understand.

    229 c 2 B also is clear: SEC DEF has to report the differences between what the Congress told him to do; and how he actually spent the money. Again, SEC DEF has a problem -- money was used for unlawful purposes, but he didn't tell Congress about the differences between [a] what Congress told him -- spend on legal programs; and [b] where the money went -- illegal programs. Either,

    SEC DEF violated the law on the delta-reporting per 2298 c 2 B; and/OR

    Congress knows about the problem and has done nothing to impose sanctions for violations of the law.

    193d2 tells us SECDEF fully coordinated with NSA's Hayden on these programs; and 192c2 shows us SECDEF reviews the NSA budget.

    Part Three: Combine the Guide and Statutes

    Digging into DoD, SecDef and NSA with this combination

    Let's do what we did above with the Guide, and post some text for you to see. YOu'll see that we can figure out what the NSA is violating and what SEC Def hasn't done.

    I. Click: Click

    II. Look for this clause:
    (11) Prescribing, within its
    field of authorized operations,

    security regulations covering
    operating practices, including the

    transmission, handling and
    distribution of signals
    intelligence and

    communications security
    material within and among the

    under control of the Director
    of the NSA, and exercising the

    necessary supervisory control
    to ensure compliance with the


    Issues: This clause tells us that the Reviews about activities must be
    consistent with authorized
    operations -- only authorized operations can be part of the governance process.

    Question: How do they explain activities, planning related to unlawful activities? They can't.

    The President also has a prompt reporting requirement on illegal activities and corrective action: [ Click ] He didn't do that.

    This means that the performance awards are a problem. [ Click ]

    We have to ask: How were "illegal domestic activities" incorporated into the
    performance plans, bonuses, and assessments that "things were really efficient"?

    Problem with Procurement

    we already know that the 9-11 is irrelevant: NSA already had the capability to do this illegal activity. There was no time to modify the hardware. Rather, this capability already existed prior to 9-11; and was already used prior to 9-11.

    Here's the problem: [ Click ] The procurement/acquisition/"process to buy stuff from contractors" is messed up.

    Look at this clause:
    "(f) Applicability of
    Existing Law. - Nothing in this

    shall be construed to exempt
    any program of the Department of

    Defense from the application
    of any provision of chapter 144 of

    title 10, United States Code,
    section 139, 181, 2366, 2399, or

    of such title, or any
    requirement under Department of

    Directive 5000.1, Department
    of Defense Instruction 5000.2, or

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
    of Staff Instruction 3170.01B in

    accordance with the terms of
    such provision or requirement.

    Note: 10 USC 2366 includes a waiver for wartime; but this is irrelevant given the NARUS STA 6400-like systems were designed before Sept 2001. [ CLick ]

    This tells us that the process is Supposed to comply with Federal laws -- and only make things that are lawful.

    But here's the problem: We know the activity violates FISA. That means they made something that wasn't legal; and it was allowed to keep operating -- gathering information without a FISA warrant -- despite a requirement that the monitoring stop after X-hours.

    In other words, FISA wasn't adequately incorporated into the design, or the systems requirements list which NSA program managers issued. This is well known inside NSA and the telephone companies.

    There is something called "spiral" acquisition which you can read more about here. [ Click ] There are special procurement regulations which the Joint Staff knows about, and these fit with the NSA. This fits into the what the NSA calls the modernization program [ Click ] -- this means we know that NSA and NSC are aware of technology inside the US that they cannot decrypt, and there are ongoing efforts to acquire, decrypt, analyze and develop counter measures for.

    One small problem: The modernization efforts aren't simply about breaking into new things; they're also about doing things without getting caught. And this is why the NSA managers are talking to lawyers in New York and why the telephone companies are having a problem, panicking to their friends on the Joint Staff. Their problem is they have no clue who can access their ongoing illegal activities.

    Here's the surprise. All this NSA-monitoring is ongoing, and the NSA cannot stop it. This is why Q2 goes after their own NSA people so harshly: The NSA Q2 is the internal security. They do polygraphs. They also know that there are people inside NSA who know how to use the equipment which NSA cannot decipher. That's what's been going on, and how NSA has been set up. NSA cannot detect how the information about their illegal activities is flowing outside the building. Here's a hint: Orange.

    Here's what's been going on. Remember those SedDef meetings with the Joint Staff with agendas, well DCI is the one who directs the monitoring.

    I. Hit this slink: [ Click ]

    II. Look for this phrase:
    (3) Collection of signals
    intelligence information for

    foreign intelligence purposes
    in accordance with guidance from

    Director of Central
    It appears DCI has been told a whopper of a story why certain people are or are not being monitored. Small problem, they never verified that the monitoring was or was not consistent with FISA; rather, they just did it. Big mistake.

    Political Appointees

    here's where the President has a problem. There's something called the IOB. This is the body that works with the NSA IG, and they review -- or are supposed to -- problems with fraud and illegal activity.

    I. Click this link: Click

    II. Look for this clause:
    Sec. 2.2. The IOB shall:

    (a) prepare for the
    President reports of intelligence

    activities that the IOB
    believes may be unlawful or
    contrary to

    Executive order or
    Presidential directive;

    (b) forward to the
    Attorney General reports received

    intelligence activities that
    the IOB believes may be unlawful or

    contrary to Executive order
    or Presidential directive;

    (c) review the internal
    guidelines of each agency within

    Intelligence Community that
    concern the lawfulness of

    intelligence activities;

    (d) review the practices
    and procedures of the Inspectors

    General and General Counsel
    of the Intelligence Community for

    discovering and reporting
    intelligence activities that may be

    unlawful or contrary to
    Executive order or Presidential

    directive; and

    (e) conduct such
    investigations as the IOB deems
    necessary to

    carry out its functions
    under this order.

    The question is:

    A. Was the IOB reviewing illegal activities?

    B. Why not?

    C. Did they communicate with the IG?

    Recall what we learned above from the DoJ IG -- there's an IG reporting requirement to Congress. This obviously broke down.

    Here's the problem:
    Inspectors General and General

    Counsel of the Intelligence
    Community, to the extent permitted

    law, shall report to the IOB,
    at least on a quarterly basis and

    from time to time as necessary
    or appropriate, concerning

    intelligence activities that
    they have reason to believe may be

    unlawful or contrary to
    Executive order or Presidential


    A. The Guidelines confer responsibility on NSA IG to consult with IOB; it does not appear the IOB-IG discussions were based on anything real

    B. Where are the meeting minutes of these discussions;

    C. How could all this illegal activity be occurring inside NSA< but the IOB, NSA IG, and others who made presentations at these briefings for the IG-NSA had no clue what was going on?

    The answer is simple: They're playing stupid. The lack of timely cooperation -- and failure to timely review the issues after they knew the NYT was reviewing the matter raises reasonable doubts about their ability to do their jobs.

    The next President needs to fire the NSA IG and the entire IOB, and start with a new crew that can read. This crew has failed.


    IOB has to review these matters. Like the IG, they have to take action when they have a reason to believe that the activity is unlawful.

    Also, the Presidential directives -- as we learn from Youngstown -- cannot violate the law; rather the President has to assent to the rule of law. This is not a power, but a ministerial act. This means the FISA is a direction to the Executive -- which the President must comply with because it is a ministerial requirement, not something he can ignore because he has "power". There i no implied power in the Constitution -- it's either there, or it's reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment.

    This means specific FISA language trumps the very generalized -- and arguably unconstitutional -- AUMF.

    372 is the clear provision that Congress has the power to regulate the NSA -- NSA is a facility, and this is consistent with Article 1 Section 8.


    All I've done is show you how by looking at the standards, its easy to see that something isn't working. what we know is that the laws clearly prohibited the activities, and many people -- including in the IG and IOB -- know about eh problems.

    It doesn't matter why they didn't. The fact is that this activity -- that should have been detected and reported as illegal -- continued. The issue is this Congress because of the unfavorable weather is not interested in ensuring the Executive follows the laws.

    This guide is here to show you that the laws are understandable, they can be easily reviewed, and everything that we publicly know tells us one thing: The entire NSA acquisition process is designed to create products that support unlawful programs; and Congress and the IG process have ineffectively overseen this continuing illegal activity.

    The problem the telephone companies, the NSA employees, and SETA contactors have is that not only do the voters know, but all you message traffic has been secured in an offsite location outside your control.

    Congratulations, you have been set up and there is nothing you can do to stop the voters from digesting what they now know:

    A. NSA and Joint Staff leadership are in violation of the law, and have unlawfully supported illegal acquisition programs;

    B. The internal auditing and Congressional oversight process has message traffic indicating that reviews and audits should be shut down, but they should have been expanded;

    C. DoD SEC DEF has violated the law by failing to report the differences between what Congress authorized, and what was actually going on

    D. The President violated the statutes by failing to timely inform Congress of the illegal activities that he knew about, and he has failed to provide any corrective action.

    E. All NSA contracts related to unlawful activity are not enforceable; and all telephone companies which have unlawfully supported these illegal activities have non basis to ask for any reimbursement. They knew well the FISA requirements, and ignored them.

    Part Four: Writing up your conclusions

    The next part is to share your results.

    Here's a sample report of findings: [Click ]

    Here s a sample line of evidence, and how this compares with the Standards: [ Click ]


    Here's how you can apply the skills you're learning right now to the blogosphere: [ Click ]

    What we just did

    Notice we haven’t done anything mysterious. All we’ve done is compare the standards to what we know. The public information and the standards are like two railroad tracks. They move together. Sometimes there are where they should be, other times they are not. That’s all you have to know.

    The right answer is always the standard. The easy part is to see how far the public information is from the standard.

    Also, think of the standards as being like music scores: The sheets of music that tell you what notes to play. That is what you’re supposed to do. The problem is when the notes are played, recorded, rebroadcast, or spoken about differently.

    For example, if we take a sheet of music, that is what is known – but when someone talks about how someone else is playing – that is like a public commentator talking about someone playing the music. The problem is when the person playing the music cannot read music; and the person who is talking about the music player is paid to promote the musician, not ensure the music is enjoyable.

    That’s what’s going on in the country right now.


    That's it. You can see it's fairly simple. All you have to do is look at what is available and then think about it.

    You don't have to have access to "classified" information. You can figure out things using open material.

    Your job is simple:

  • 1. Look at what you are being told;

  • 2. Compare what you are hearing with the statutes and guides;

  • 3. Ask yourself what is reasonable;

  • 4. Record your questions and comments for others to review.

  • You'll notice that it's not all that hard. And the surprising thing is you'll have other ideas on how to do this.

    Share this with your friends. Let them know: There's a way that this can be done, and it's very simple to understand.

    After you are done reviewing the material, be sure to let others know what you find.

    Read more . . .

  • Tuesday, February 21, 2006

    American Renditions: Where's the CIA IG memo to the Intelligence Committee

    How many US citizens have been forcibly removed from the US?

    Here's a list of stop-overs: Click

    Notice the start and stop locations are often in the US. You can only wonder how many times they move from the US -- they're carrying US citizens on board.

    Be curious to find out when the US government will "get tired" of transporting people -- like the German Nazis got "tired" of transporting the Jews -- and start disposing of the detainees.

    Or has that already happened?

    Someone inside CIA and DOJ knows; and the Inspector General is in a position to find out. Here are the procedures -- what the Ranking Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, can do -- that should get looked into: [ Click ]

    Or did the intelligence committee get briefed on the program, and told, "This is for national security reasons, and we can't tell you any more."

    That's a crock. They have a duty to investigate the issue, find facts, and report whether they were or were not able to find out what is going on.

    All this transportation in and out of the US – doesn’t that seem a little odd – makes one wonder, “If this is only related to foreigners overseas, why are they bothering to fly the jets back and forth between the US.” That makes no sense. It would save time and money – if they are only moving non-Americans – if they based the aircraft overseas or used foreign aircraft.

    The fact that they’re making many stops in the US, and not basing the activity overseas suggests the aircraft are moving US citizens out of the US, and moving them to places where the US court “has no jurisdiction.”

    But this is a non-sense argument: The laws apply to US government personnel, regardless whe3ther they are in or out of the US. IT doesn’t matter what the status of the detainee is.

    It looks like the US government has created legal non-sense so that the US government employees will feel better about their war crimes. Stupid Americans.

    Read more . . .

    Scooter Libby: Indicted -- He has no blog, but wants money -- Lazy!

    For those who haven't figured it out, Scooter Libby has been indicted.

    Here's his website [ Click ] -- he doesn't have a blog, but he's asking for money. What a crock!

  • Comstock linked to the website: [ Raw ]

  • Other blogspots about indicted-perjurer Libby: Click

    His legal team is artificially using the 9-11 as a rallying cry. But his legal team cannot explain why the President and Vice President have violated the laws.

    The United States Code says the conduct is illegal. I don't know about you, but a hero is someone who resigns when they are part of something that is illegal.

    Scooter Libby decided to keep working. Now he wants you to give him money. That's kind of rotten.

    The only reason he's even getting space on the internet is that he is no longer an employee. He got indicted. That means they found evidence to take him to trial for lying to a grand jury.

    Is it "diligent" work?

    Is it "countless"

    Are his effort "noble contributions"? Personally, I think -- and this is just my personal opinion -- that he's a wanker.

    To me, someone who "contributes" something is someone who does that: Contributes. But this Administration is known for one thing: Destroying.

    They've destroyed the Constitution, public confidence in the NSA, and have contempt for the laws of our land. This "leadership" has destroyed our military.

    That's nothing to be proud of.

    Is it a "critical issue" for Scooter to be proud of his service? I think it's a farce.

    The life and death issues this country faces are irrelevant -- the issue is what is the law, and why has this man apparently felt he could lie to Grand Jury.

    It doesn't matter where he worked, or what he did while in office. All you have to know is that this man mislead the Grand Jury and Patrick Fitzgerald by allegedly lying to them under penalty of perjury. If what he was doing was "so great," why did he have to lie; why not come right out and say, "Hay, the Vice President can declassify anything -- I was just following orders like one of Hitler's poodles."

    But he didn't do that.

    Someone who is an "advisor" should know the law: Don't lie. But this man did lie, according to the indictment.

    "Selfless service" is a crock. This man allegedly lied, that's self-serving. And what makes it worse, the conduct was illegal: Leaking the name of a CIA employee. Someone had to do it.

    Note the real issue: Because of what Libby did, he has resigned. Nobody made him, nobody forced him -- rather it was his decision to mislead the grand jury.

    IT is fitting he is off the political stage.

    He does not have a good name: It is one thing -- An alleged perjury who has been lawfully indicted.

    Notice what his legal team is doing on the website: They are trying to make it sound like Libby is "under attack". That’s a crock: Libby is attacking the law and has no respect for the rule of law. The indictment is clear: This man is a perjurer. He has only himself to blame.

    The public contempt for him is well deserved.

    It is questionable whether Libby's "service" to the country is anything to be proud of. Anyone who has to lie to a grand jury can't be proud of much.

    It doesn't matter what kind of names you read on Libby's website. Look at the name on my website: Does that make me something?

    We know what "friends" can do -- they can make poor choices. It doesn't matter whether he knows the President or Vice President -- Scooter should shove off.

    It's not clear why anyone should bother giving money to help this man.

    Is Libby in Rebellion?

    What kind of relationship did he have with the NYT?

    Why all this non-sense about the Iraq war, but there was no evidence of WMD?

    IT will be a cold day in Hades before you or anyone else should consider giving money to this indicted perjurer. He appears to have caused this nation great harm, launched this nation on an illegal occupation and invasion of Iraq, and did little to stop the abuses in Iraq or Guantanamo.

    I can't think of a better man to throw into a slimy cess pool.

    Scoot Libby: You're indicted for perjury.

    Kiss my ass.

    I hope you can support your effort in puckering up your soft lips and tasting the cess pool under your feet. You're a disgrace, and any indicted perjurer is a piece of maggot food that belongs in a waste heap.

    I hope your relatives see you for who you are: You're an indicted perjurer.

    I don't see your parents’ names on your list of "supporters"? Does that mean they disowned you, or are you just embarrassed not to include your family; or are they "not distinguished enough" to be associated with an indicted perjurer?

    Great service, ha!

    Good name, ha!

    Distinguished friends, ha!

    Recent charges: No, indicted for perjury!

    I'll join you the day you start to sing the words to the US constitution, maggot!

    Read more . . .

  • Bush threatens to hold Congress to standards -- ha!

    Bush said, Congress needs to "'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.'" [ Ref: Click ]

    Maybe this Executive can "step up" to my rear end and kiss it -- that's a good standard.

    This comes as no surprise--The President of the United States:

  • Changes the subject from his NSA unlawful activity;

  • Holds Congress to "standards" that he ignores -- the standard of consistency;

  • Demands other public officials "explain" -- despite his refusals to explain why he has not resigned for violating the laws against his NSA illegal activity;

  • Tells others to "step up" to do something -- but he fails to step up to the Constitution, much less read it;

    Bush can’t credibly tell anyone anything. He ignores his own orders which require all conduct to be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the land.

    Maybe when Bush starts following the laws and being obedient to the Constitution, he might have some credibility to tell someone else or another institution of Government to do or not do something.

    It's clear why Bush is expecting Congress to do something -- Bush will not be happy until others react. Bush is a weasel and a criminal. He brings discredit upon himself, his family, and he is not to be trusted.

    He thinks he's President, but we'll see how long he's President before Congress lawfully removes him from office. It's time for Bush to react -- to the Constitution -- and resign.

    Read more . . .

  • NSA Hearing: DNC ranking member on Intelligence Committee can trigger IG audits

    The new President needs to fire the DoJ and NSA Inspector Generals. They are not reliable and have not credibly asserted their power.

    The White House and RNC arguments are absurd, and inconsistent with all orders and codes passed in the wake of 9-11. The problem doesn't rest just with the RNC and White House. Rather, the DNC ranking member on the Intelligence Committee also has a problem.

    The US Code clearly gives the Ranking Member power to do something. It remains to be understood why, despite the well known "concerns" and "lack of information," why the DNC failed to assert their power.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee has message traffic from the DCI showing information, but the Ranking Member Senator Rockefeller cannot explain why he did not ensure a follow-up investigation was done, nor can the IG explain why conduct which violated the statute and orders were not discovered or communicated by message to the intelligence committee.

    A plain reading of the US code shows that all post 9-11 language is inconsistent with the President's conduct. He openly admits the conduct is going on, yet the standard is at odds with what he is doing. Here is it in plain English:
    Electronic surveillance,
    as defined in the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance
    Act of 1978

    [50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.],
    shall be conducted
    in accordance with
    that Act
    , as well as this Order.

    [ 50 USC Sec. 401 , 01/19/04]

    These are illegal activities. There is nothing in any statute or code passed after 9-11 that allows the National Security Council, DoJ Attorney General, or NSA to make rules contrary to the Constitution or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Nothing!

    Here it is, in plain English:

    Nothing in this Order shall
    be construed to authorize
    in violation of the
    Constitution or statutes
    of the United States

    [ Ref: 50 USC Sec. 401 , 01/19/04 ]

    There are widespread statutory violations. Neither the DoJ AG, NSA, or NSC may approve any program, procedure, or conduct that is inconsistent with statute or the Constitution. The defense of "there is a disagreement" does not allow NSC or NSA to make rules that violate the law.

    Each of the Cabinet officers -- CIA, NSA, NSC, and Attorney General -- are to ensure that the directives they pass, and procedures they oversee are lawful. Period.

    This order applies in wartime. These are ministerial duties imposed on the Executive Branch, and this is not the same as "power." If the Executive had a problem with this, it should have said something to change the law. This executive has taken an oath to ensure these laws are faithfully executed. This order carries out this statute. Again, here is the order in plain English:


    The NSC, the Secretary of
    , the Attorney General, and
    the Director of Central
    issue such
    appropriate directives
    and procedures as are necessary
    to implement this Order.

    [ 50 USC Sec. 401 , 01/19/04 ]

    The only thing that is "appropriate" is something that is lawful. Period.

    You may not pass directives and procedures that violate the order; nor is any order or procedure that violates the order a lawful order.

    You were trained on this. This is why they send you to school. They pay you to travel to attend courses to learn these rules, and you have ignored them. It doesn't matter why. You violated the law, and you have violated your written orders that prohibit this conduct. Period.

    If you need to have the Echelon transcripts of what happened while you were traveling, what you said while you were in your classrooms, and who was involved in the training, keep it up. That can be arranged. If you want the world to know about the what happened when you were on TDY, and who you slept with while you were attending these conferences and training programs -- that you obviously cannot remember -- keep it up!

    Telephone contractors are in no position to demand reimbursement. Nor is there any rule that allows the AG to reimburse the telecoms for any conduct outside FISA.

    * * *

    We've heard alot of song and dance about the "boo, hoo the Republicans control Congress, there's nothing we can do."

    Small problem. The Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee has the power to trigger an IG investigation; and under the 1947 Act DCI has to respond.
    (4) Pursuant to Title V of the National
    Security Act of 1947 [50 U.S.C. 413 et
    seq.], the Director shall submit to the
    intelligence committees any report or
    findings and recommendations of an
    inspection, investigation, or audit
    conducted by the office which
    has been requested
    by the
    Chairman or Ranking Minority
    of either committee.
    [ 50 USC Sec. 403q , 01/19/04 ]
    Issues and Concerns

  • The IG process has been compromised. Reports are made when the IG is or is unable to pursue a matter. There is nothing that prevents an IG from doing anything. Rather, when they are barred, they are required to provide reports to the Intelligence Committee. Either the IG didn’t look into matter; or the intelligence committee is lying about whether they did or didn’t know about problems. Why should the public have any confidence that the IG GAGAS audits were unfettered?

  • There are reasonable grounds to review Congressional malfeasance. Nothing in any order, rule, or statute gives anyone the power to engage in any activity that violates FISA or the Constitution. How does anyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee – on both sides of the aisle -- justify any public confidence that the FISA was complied with; or that anyone on the committee did what they should have done?

  • The explanations the intelligence committees is not convincing. If we are to believe that Rockefeller and others in the DNC had some "really big concerns" about the NSA program -- for whatever reason -- how did they communicate these concerns, if at all, to the DoJ IG?

  • There are gaps in the message traffic which the White House and Intelligence Committee cannot explain. Was the letter sent via classified message; and how did DCI respond; what comments, if any did the DoJ IG attach to the DCI message back to the Ranking Member?

  • There are reasonable questions about what interfered with the IG comments to the intelligence community. Once DCI responds, NSA/DoJ Inspector Generals have the opportunity to comment. Why are the DNC members on the intelligence committee "in the dark" given the IG's ability to provide comments?

  • A memo in a locked safe is not the same as a request for an IG audit. What evidence can the DNC Ranking Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee provide that -- despite the "boo hoo, we're not in the RNC" -- they actually got off their ass and did what they were allowed to do -- compel an IG investigation?

  • The malfeasance and unlawful conduct is not isolated to the White House, DoJ, NSA, or the inspector generals. Where is the DCI audit report after these “really big concerns”; or, are we to believe that “National security” was the smokescreen to avoid questions over why the conduct was inconstant with statute?

    * * *

    Crossposted: [ Click ]

    Call Bush what he is: Rebel, he is in rebellion against the Constitution.

    You can argue all day about labels, the bottom line is that [a] clear terms in the US Code do not match [b] NSA, NSC, and DoJ procedures; and these do not match/are at odds with [c] what was going on. Yes, they made procedures that violated the law; and then they violated these unlawful procedures.

    There is nothing that allows the Congress, President, or anyone in government to violate FISA. Click The Intelligence Committee and the IG process are only part of the problem. There is message traffic that shows, or should show when the Intelligence Committee knew or should have known there was a problem.

    The problem with the NSA issue is that it crosses both sides of the aisle, is not isolated to the Executive Branch. Clear ministerial duties are imposed on the executive; and the Congress has the power to order IG investigations -- even if they are in the minority.

    It's time for an outside special counsel to be brought into the issue to find out why the White House and NSA conduct violated the law; and what broke down in the IG and Senate Intelligence Process. At this juncture, its clear the Congress has enough information to impeach the President. It remains to be understood why the DNC Ranking Members in all the committees continue to whine about "we can't do anything," when it is clear under the 1947 Act they can trigger IG audits.

    This Federal Government has failed, and they've done nothing for the last three months -- since the NYT disclosure of the unlawful activity, that the IG should have known about -- to warrant confidence in this American system of checks and balances.

    The problem rests with the failed crew in DC. Once again, we learn that the American public has to know the laws and jobs of those who are in power better that the crappy legal advisors who have no clue about the rule of law. You have well shown your legal training is worthless and should be disbarred for justifying illegal torture, abuse, unlawful wars, and have failed to remove yourself from the conspiracy to violate the American Constitution and laws of these United States.

    The American legal community is a cess pool, and is no different than the swine that wandered the halls of Hitler's bunker.

    * * *

    The real issue: Despite the Constitution and clear statutes which prohibit this activity, the cess pool called America likes to have debate over what is or is not in the constitution.

    You idiots! We already had that debate: It's called the 1789 Constitution -- and the 1978 FISA statute. Those are the will of the people. This is not debatable.

    The fact that you are actively debating this issue is a major problem. It's time to draw the line in the sand: "Enough." No more discussion. The time for prosecutions has arrived.

    All the RNC is doing is making it self-evident: They have no intention of honoring their oaths; they cannot read their oaths of office; they've well known what was going on; and they're trying to find an excuse.

    Big problem: There is no excuse. You cannot "negotiate" your way out of this like you might think. The line was clearly drawn: That shall not do this. You did it. And you want to make it appear like it's "everybody else's problem."

    No! It's your problem, your mess, and you're the one that's going to have to clean up this cess pool you call America. The law and Constitution are fine as they are, there is no "debate" over what the law does or does not say. If you have a problem with what the law says, please point to the Congressional records where it shows that the above codes were trumped, or somehow "negated."

    You can't. You're wasting your time. This was your choice. You freely chose to go along with this rebellion. You're wasting your time pretending you have a legal justification for this. There is none.

    Zip. Nada. Nuckte. So quit your bullshit excuses, and quit calling those in the RNC who dare assert the rule of law "liberals," and start calling yourselves what you really are: Rebels against the rule of law and American Constitution.

    This attaches to you clear consequences under the 14th Amendment: The denial of any right to hold any public office. Period.

    So quit your bullshit.

    You have an instruction booklet called the US Code that tells you what to do, how to do it, and what you are supposed to read. You morons can't figure that out.

    What the hell is going on with America? Answer: They're living in a cess pool and they love it.

    Drink it up, Sepis! [ CLick to read about the Sepis in America. ]

  • Read more . . .