Constant's pations

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

Sunday, March 05, 2006

UAE, Echelon and Congress: The big distraction from White House, NSA unlawful activity

Summary: This information explores the disconnect between the Congressinal interest in the UAE port deal, and the NSA. What's curious is that the so-called "basis for Congressinal concern over the UAE deal" is the same as that at the heart of the NSA: Issues of oversight, reviews, and statues. We explore the disconnect, and conclude the UAE port deal is designed as a distraction from the Constitutional issues, and part of an impeachment-defense ruse. Possibly well-orchestrated like 9-11.

* * *

Linked: 11 Mar 2006 What can be done to protect the Constituton, and ensure the rule of law is asserted: Proposed Constitutional Convention Agenda Item: Stripping Members of Congress abosolute immunite in selected cases; changing Article 1 SEction 5 to transfer Chamber rule making/enforcement power from the Congress to the States.

. . . .

Addition: 08 Mar 2006 [ Use this; Backup ]

Addition: 07 Mar 2006 [ Use this; Backup ]

Addition: 06 Mar 2006 [ Use this; backup ]

Your government is lying to you over this UAE port deal. Tell your friends. There is a problem. You need to know details before the November 2006 election.

Let's go over the details why:

  • A. the NSA knew/should have known something; and

  • B. Congress is playing stupid and/or not doing what it should do.

    * * *

    JTTF: Unable to intercept NSA communications

    America's domestic "security" service has a problem. They are unable to figure out how to intercept the NSA's communications systems. Bluntly, there are ongoing NSA communications with non-NSA assets that the NSA, NSC, and White House cannot control.

    This isn't a matter of discipline or oversight. There are people inside the NSA and GCHQ that have a higher loyalty to their oath of office and Constitution than they have to the White House or the RNC.

    There are two issues:

  • 1. The White House and RNC are in rebellion against the Constitution; and

  • 2. The NSA employees know there is unlawful activity going on; and know how to communicate outside the NSA using methods the NSA, White House, and RNC cannot detect.

    * * *

    Inside the NSA are the ongoing modernization efforts. The problem JTTF has is that they can't figure out how the NSA employees are communicating with the outside. [ Ref ]

    Isn't it rather odd that the NSA -- the big agency that supposedly monitors everything -- can't trace those who are supposedly discussing the illegal activities.

    This was the same problem with the Lebanese Prime Minister Assassination. Supposedly the NSA "had no clue". Get real.

    Kind of makes you wonder why the NSA didn't pick up the "big secrets" about the UAE deal.

    NSA proves they have a communication problem with Congress

    You'd think this many months after the UAE started "negotiating" over the ports, that the NSA would have communicated the "upcoming big scary plan" to Congress.

    We are asked to believe three absurd possibilities:

  • 1. NSA "didn't know" about something that was occurring; or

  • 2. NSA was aware of something that Congress wasn't told about in a timely manner; or

  • 3. Congress was privately briefed, but they are now publicly playing stupid so they can all rush to Karl Rove's "topics unrelated to the NSA unlawful activity"?

    Someone is not telling you the straight story.

    * * *

    But the problem isn't simply notification. NSA has to explain
    "why, if they have this big super secret monitoring capability, they can't figure out what is going on with the UAE port deal or why Congress was 'surprised'."

    Strange, that's the same non-sense we heard over 9-11: "All that monitoring, but we had no clue." Get real.

    Here's a hint: When you really look at this UAE-NSA issue, the issues with 9-11 are going to unravel. If you want to know more about the link between UAE, 9-11, and the NSA, you're going to have to hit this link again for an update.

    Here's another hint: Think about a "big story" that doesn't add up. Consider what you believed about the Pentagon. Suddenly "the big plausible story" changed once we noticed tiny problem: The hole in the side of the building was smaller than the alleged aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon.

    Yes, it's the same thing with the UAE-NSA issue. The story does not add up. The more you look at it, the more problems there are. Just like 9-11.

    But the "basis to believe" the UAE story hinges on the same faulty assumptions with the 9-11 explanations. That's the issue.

    In other words, not only is the UAE-NSA issue a distraction, but the distraction itself leads us to answers about other things which the White House doesn't want you to closely examine.

    Small problem: It is March 2006, eight [8] months before the election. The remainder of this note is going to get updated with additional discussion on the problems with the UAE-NSA issue.

    You're going to read more about inter alia:

  • Why the NSA story doesn't add up;

  • Problems with the NSA IG communication with Congress;

  • Why Congress hasn't done something it should have done;

  • Problems with Congress not following up with the NSA IG on this glaring problem over the UAE-NSA issue; and

  • Why the UAE deal puts Gonzalez in a worse position, and raises new questions about his Feb 6, 2006 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    And alot more.

    Bluntly, the closer you look at this -- just like 9-11 -- the worse it gets. There are more questions. That is a sign of a plan that was no well planned. It is a classic sign of a black operation, disinformation, or a ruse that is designed to make you believe something that is false. The voters need to know this.

    * * *

    With time, we'll get the real answers. The issue is that there are many questions which the public needs to make "adverse inferences about."

    We make "adverse inferences" in court when the defendant refuses to cooperate, or they fail to provide information.

    The American voters need to be taught about adverse inferences; and how to make informed adverse inferences about the NSA-UAE deal in the context of RNC reliability and fitness for government.

    Your job is to spread the word: The UAE-NSA story, like 9-11, doesn't add up.

    But do so well before the November 2006 election.

    * * *

    Here's a taste of what you're about to read in the coming days and the big hint on the NSA unlawful activity:

  • 1. They have monitoring capabilities inside the Middle East;

  • 2. When there are discussions between the Echelon Allies, the NSA knows. UK is an Echelon ally;

  • 3. The port deal supposedly involves a UK firm and the UAE.

    Question: Why didn't NSA tell Congress about something involving MI6 and an Echelon Ally?

    The alleged transfer is between an Echelon ally and "someone else." [We say alleged because the entire UAE Port Deal could very well be a transfer between two DoD-commercially owned assets, as permitted under statute.]

    But we are asked to believe, "Nobody knew" about the port deal.

    For this "big scary port deal" to have been a surprise, the UK-UAE discussions would have been "unknown" to the NSA; and the NSA didn't tell Congress about the "upcoming event."

    Sure. That's non-sense, putting it politely.

    There are three options:

  • 1. NSA knew what was going on; and failed to notify Congress; or

  • 2. If "NSA and Congress had no clue," then we have to conclude that the entire port deal is a fabrication; or

  • 3. Congress was told, and is now playing stupid.

    None of these are getting the attention they need. The answers destroy the White House credibility on 9-11 and the NSA unlawful activities.

  • What's the point of having a "monitoring capability" that you're not using?

  • Why is the White House violating the law to chase ghosts; but when a "really important issue" surfaces, they cannot point to anything to assist Congress before the decision is made?

    These issues and other questions will be forthcoming. On this site. At this link.

    Tell your friends: There's a major problem with the NSA-UAE deal. And the needed questions aren't getting asked.

    We had the same problem prior to the Iraq invasion. The media failed. Also the same thing prior to the 2004 election: The media knew things about the NSA unlawful activity but sat on it.

    Not this time. You're going to get the full story. It's easy to understand, and the questions are clear. NSA, the White House and Congress have no straight answers.

    You need to let your friends know this is designed to be a mess: To distract you from the unlawful NSA activity.

    * * *

    Here's a sample of what you're going to read about in the coming days. Here's the problem:

  • The timelines do not match;

  • there were too many activities that should have been underway that NSA would have known about; but

  • the time to review this planned transfer from the UK to UAE is at odds with the timeline in the Coast Guard and NSA reviews.

    Here's the problem. NSA should have picked up the pre-transfer pricing discussions. Congress would have us believe they are clueless.

    OK, let's play Congress' game. If this transfer is not between DoD-owned commercial activities, then there are too many plans and estimates that would have been required before the deal actually was discussed inside DoD. But NSA would have picked up these discussion; and NSA would have -- or should have -- triggered DoD and Congress to evaluate the risks.

    Summary Issue: The timelines to do not match. The only way for the Coast Guard could do a credible review was if they started the review before the UAE port deal was supposedly started; but the pre-transfer discussions would have been picked up by NSA, triggering Congressional knowledge.

    That is the problem: What "should have happened" didn't:

  • Pre-transfer pricing discussions;

  • NSA intercept of that pre-transfer planning activity

  • NSA discussions with Congress on the potential issue

    But that's only the start of it. If this was actually a surprise -- and that remains questionable -- then, after the deal supposedly was "public," we have to ask a number of questions about what wasn't done:

  • Lack of Congressional concern after the UAE issue surfaced to get a straight story from NSA IG why NSA failed to provide information on the pre-transfer pricing negotiations which NSA should have intercepted

  • Lack of Congressional emphasis to get a straight story on why an Echelon Ally -- in the UK, and linked with the MI6 -- failed to give the NSA and/or Congress information related to a contract transfer from an Echelon ally to another entity.

    The point isn't that we do or do not know. The issue is that we have two conflicting states of reality: If this was a "surprise" then the NSA IG should have been directed by the Senate Intelligence Ranking Member to explain why NSA failed to intercept something -- a question which Phase II failed to find out over the Iraq WMD ruses.

    * * *

    Let's explore the Coast Guard angle a bit. The Coast guard reported back that there was a "concern."

    Guess when they started that review of the UAE "port deal"? You're right: Before the UK-UAE port deal was officially underway, according to information NSA provided to Congress. We have several questions:

  • How did the Coast Guard "know" to review their port deal at a time before the NSA told the Congress about what they had picked up?

  • Why wasn't Congress "in the loop" on this "upcoming" transfer which the Coast Guard knew about?

    It remains to be understood who the Coast Guard was coordinating with someone that "an upcoming plan/review" is needed; but Congress was not on the same page as they would like us to believe they now are.

    We question:

  • A. Whether the Coast Guard review was as comprehensive as it should have been;

  • B. The date the Coast Guard review started;

  • C. The basis for the decision to "review" the matter;

  • D. Which triggering event actually triggered the Coast Guard review;

  • E. How the Coast Guard would know to review this matter, but the Congress was not informed as required under the guidelines covering the NSA IG.

    We judge the following:

    If this is a bonafide transfer between non-DoD commercial entities

  • A. NSA should have detected the UK pre-transfer pricing discussions many months ago, not just a few short weeks ago as Congress, NSA, and the White House would have us believe;

  • B. MI6 would have confirmed to NSA that they were well aware of the proposed transfer;

  • C. Coast guard reviews of this transfer were based on NSA-provided information;

  • D. The Congressional intelligence Committee knows more about the nature of the UAE port deal that they pare publicly stating

  • E. Congress knows that the timelines do not match, but are not directing the needed attention on the "failure" of the NSA to provide this information/warning to the White House because Congress knows that the White House was fully aware of the activity, contrary to what the White House and Congressional leadership would have the public believe.

  • F. The timing of the information related to the UAE port deal is not related to NSA intercepts of the pricing information, but the problems Gonzalez had before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    * * *

    The public is asked to believe fiction--the same with 9-11 and Iraq WMD.

    This is not a "communication" problem between NSA and the external world. It is absurd to believe NSA only told the DHS, but not the Congressional Intelligence Committee.

    Rather, the communication "problem" is between [a] the White House, RNC NSA and [b] "those why do or do not like." But this is contrary to statutory reporting requirements. NSA IG and the Intelligence Oversight Board have the job to report to Congress issues which the Committee needs to know about: Apparent failure of NSA to provide information on issues Congress should know about.

    But we have nothing. No action from Congress.

    That's not something the public should have explained away; nor is it something that can get covered up by having bogus investigations. Rather, it's important information the voters need to know about well before the 2006 election:

  • What's the selective "problem" the NSA has with intercepting information;

  • Why, if Congress has the power to order an NSA IG investigation, hasn't the Ranking Member of the Senate intelligence committee so ordered one?

  • Given the FISA violations, why hasn't the Congress taken up the issue of impeachment over FISA?

    * * *

    Let's think big picture. At the time that Gonzalez was testifying to Congress about the unlawful NSA activity, the UAE-UK were supposedly involved in a negotiation.

    Small problem for Gonzalez: Remember what he said about the data mining.

    We are asked to believe that the NSA "didn't know" about a discussion between the UK and UAE -- in time to tell the DoD/Joint Staff. That's non-sense.

    So here's the problem and major disconnect:

  • A. The NSA is monitoring domestic people -- who the NSA and JTTF know aren't related to AlQueda because the AlQueda uses couriers not phones -- something that "may not be real", but

  • B. The NSA "has no clue" about the upcoming transfer, an "actual event."

    That makes no sense.

    In other words, the US government would like to spend "alot of time" focusing on non-sense, but do nothing about things that are actually "provable": A supposed transfer of contract-management functions from the Echelon ally-UK to the UAE.

    Get real.

    That disconnect is at the heart of the NSA and White House credibility problem over the port deal.

    In other words, the issue isn't what Karl Rove is talking about -- and getting others to argue over -- but why this port deal wasn't something the NSA already told Congress about.

    That's the issue.

    We had the same thing happen with the 52 FAA warnings over 9-11: Supposedly the President knew something -- which "justified the unlawful NSA activity prior to 9-11 -- but Congress claimed "it didn't know.”

    See the similarity between the UAE-NSA deal and the 9-11?

    Again, in summary the more you look at the UAE-NSA issue, the greater the similarities there are between the 9-11 issue: Things do not add up; simple things are not asked; and the entire story collapses.

    That's why you're going to hear more details in the coming days. You need to know. You have the right to get straight answers.

    There is no reason for anyone to face what we did prior to the 2004 election: The New York Times knew something, but said nothing.

    The time to openly discuss this problem is now, not after the election or "after" the Congress "gets around to" reviewing the matter. We saw the same thing with Phase II.

    It's not going to happen this time. Tell your friends: 9-11 and this UAE-NSA port deal are from the same government. You're going to hear the details and what questions to ask and what to lawfully do:

  • The NSA programs that are involved;

  • The Congressional members who should have been told; and

  • What this Congress and NSA IG have failed to do as required.

    The problem the NSA and US Attorney have: This is all open source material. The only difference is that what we'll do is put all the pieces together and show you there is a problem, what needs to happen, and what you can do to protect your Constitution.

    You will be given specific files and addresses of where to look; which questions to ask; guidance on whether the answers you get are reasonable; and whether you should make adverse inferences.

    * * *

    The next problem is why the Congressional Staffers aren't picking up on this. Bluntly, the purpose of this UAE-NSA distraction is to do what is going on: Avoid the fundamental questions -- about why this makes no sense--and distract attention from the real issue: The impeachable offenses.

    It is irrelevant that the DNC is a "minority." The Statues give Congress -- namely the Ranking Member in each Committee, or the Senior DNC person -- the power to order the NSA IG to conduct a review.

    It's bad news for the Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member. Let me say this again: Under the Statutes, the Ranking Member is allowed to direct the NSA IG to look into the matter.

    If the UAE port deal is to believed as "real," then the NSA should have picked up something. Here are the questions that the Ranking Member needs to ask the NSA IG to look into:

  • Why didn't the NSA pick up the UK-UAE discussions?

  • Why wasn't Congress informed of the NSA intercepts of this pending transfer from a UK company to the UAE?

  • Is there something going on inside the UK's MI6 that is preventing them from telling the CIA/NSA about potential transfers of US-contract-management-interests from the UK to the UAE?

    The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't asked the NSA IG to review the matter. Why?

    That's the issue, and something the voters need to get a straight answer to immediately, not when "Congress feels like" it. Congress -- even the RNC controlled one -- has the power to force the NSA to explain itself, but is doing nothing.

    The Congressional inaction is the issue, not the port deal.

    * * *

    It gets worse. If you want to know more, have you friends review this and share it with the morons in the JTTF and NSA. They’re going to flip out when they read this. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the US Attorney assigned to review the NSA unlawful activity need to review this information.

    Bottom line: There’s a problem with the NSA story over the UAE port deal and what the UK and UAE were discussing. The story does not add up.

    This port deal appears to have been deliberately accelerated to act as a distraction from the original NSA problem inter alia:

  • Unlawful conduct in re FISA, and impeachable offenses;

  • Illegal warfare in Iraq – which the Joint Staff knows about – and violations of the UCMJ; and

  • Fraud upon the DC court – White House/DoJ failure to provide truthful information to the US District court over information related to unlawful warfare in Iraq.

    * * *

    If you want to read more, you're going to have to visit this link again. Tell your friends. You'll be able to read about:

  • Problems with the UAE-NSA story

  • Questions which cannot be answered

  • Holes in the statements before Congress

  • Which issues to make adverse inferences about

  • Issues you can look into and discuss with your friends

  • How this information relates to the unlawful NSA activities

  • Things to think about well before the November 2006 election

  • How the problems with the story fits in with the need to impeach the President for high crimes

  • Reforms that the States need to discuss to ensure the government officials in DC assert their oath of office and protect the Constitution.

    * * *

    Addition: 06 March 2006

    The White House, Joint Staff, NSA, and Congress have a problem: Nothing about the UAE port deal adds up. It appears the entire story is designed to distract attention from the NSA violations of FISA; war crimes in Iraq; Joint Staff liability for war crimes; and the impeachable offenses.

    Going forward, the public has eight months from March 2006 to discuss these issues. The Federal government has already missed the 1 March 2006 deadline on impeachment.

    The people the public is dealing with on this UAE-NSA issue are war criminals. They are abusing and taking advantage of the freedoms in the Constitution. They are reckless. They are threats. They are not your friends.

    The SES in America has failed to honor their oaths. The GM-15s, Congressional Staffers, American Ambassadors, members of NSA and JTTF have proven themselves inept in asserting their oaths or protecting the Constitution.

    The message is simple. If the American officials do not voluntarily stop and remove themselves from this unlawful rebellion against the Constitution, it is only going to get worse. The public can see the inconsistencies. More people inside the RNC and Executive branch are jumping ship.

    The real issue is you in the Executive Branch know you have a problem: The lawful judicial remedy for war crimes could be a court imposed sanction of death. That remains a matter for the court to decide. Yet, make no mistake: Those inside the Executive Branch who know this potential consequence have no restraint to commit more abuses. This is why Americans need to understand what is happening in America. The problem is with the UAE port deal – it is a fabrication.

    The White House has proven itself unreliable. It lies about Iraq WMD, the reasons for war in Iraq, and over 9-11. Public confidence in plummeting. The voters know what is going on. The burden on the White House is rising. The public has fewer reasons to trust this leadership – they have a higher burden of proof to justify confidence in what they are saying about Iran or the NSA issues.

    This White House has a problem. It has too much time between March 2006 and the November 2006 elections. It cannot create enough fiction to distract America from the NSA unlawful activity. There is too much time, and not enough excuses. The voters know.

    It is clear the White House stories over the UAE-NSA issue have no credible foundation. As with all statements from DC – including the Congress – the stories about 9-11, Phase II, Iraq, and the excuses not to impeach are frivolous. You are not leaders. You are criminals. You refuse to assert your oaths; you assent to violations of the law. You have brought discredit upon yourselves.

    Your problem is that your stories and excuses unravel faster than you can write staff packages. You cannot handle simple things. There is no prospect you can handle something complicated.

    We have eight months to explore these issues. We can make adverse inferences. We know how to make informed judgments – even about issues you refuse to cooperate. Attorney Fitzgerald’s words deserve repeating: “Remain calm.” We shall remain calm, but the problem and responsibility for this mess lies with the failed leadership in DC.

    Sedition is an easy charge, especially by those who have failed to honor their oaths. Clearly, it is easy to accuse someone of inciting violent overthrow. We do not propose that. Rather, we will be relentless in grinding you down for the next eight months – in the open media, using open sources, and defying your threats to silence Americans.

    The voters know. The following discussion will outline the problems with the NSA-UAE port deal. We will show how there is a link between the non-sense over Iran, 9-11, the NSA unlawful activity, and the ruses about the UAE port deal.

    It is clear what is going on. This NSA-UAE port deal is a ruse to distract attention from the malfeasance over the NSA unlawful activity: Both within the Executive Branch in reporting unlawful conduct to Congress; and in Congress failing to timely require the NSA IG to respond to reasonable questions about the NSA intercepts related to Phase II, Iraq WMD, 9-11, and the UAE port deal.

    A reasonable person can make adverse inferences. Congress has the power to oversee the Executive. Your job in Congress is to oversee. Unfortunately, because of the unfavorable weather, Congress has seen fit to assent to lawlessness and put off taking a stand on the rule of law – as they did with 9-11, Iraq WMD, the Iraq war, and the torture issues.

    A reasonable person after this much malfeasance and inaction would have to conclude Congress is part of the problem. It doesn’t matter why Congress fails to assert its oath – the results are clear: This Executive is getting a green light to engage in more abuse, threats, and lawlessness.

    The public has options. We can and are continuing local level efforts to bring articles of impeachment. Congress will have to vote up or down: Whether you are for or against the rule of law. This approach cannot be buried in Committee. It doesn’t matter that the RNC controls Congress. This approach will force Congress to publicly vote on whether they want to assert the rule of law, or join the President’s rebellion against the Constitution. Choose wisely.

    The local efforts are also coordinating a State Constitutional Convention. The results are obviously to be determined. Let all know the goal of this Constitutional Convention is clear: What is to be done when the Federal Government refuses to assert the rule of law. Impeachment is not simply a political tool. It is a tool to impose the rule of law. Whether Congress chooses to assert that power remains to be seen. But the public needs to explore lawful means to protect the Constitution when Congress fails to lawfully assert its oath.

    Another issue is what is to be done when Congress joins with the Executive in rebellion against the Constitution. The issue is what is to be done to strip those in rebellion of their legal immunity and compel them to assent to the rule of law. Congress, because of the unfavorable weather, is not interested in the law. It is interested in “getting along” with criminals. The public knows the standard: Congress fails to meet this standard.

    Going forward, if you get nothing out of this discussion, know one thing – there are people in America who get it – they can see what is going on. The voters now that this UAE deal is a ruse to distract attention from the NSA violations and the war crimes. The malfeasance in Congress is clear. Congress continues to vote for an unlawful war, assent to lawlessness, and refuses to compel this Executive to assent to the rule of law. Congress is part of the problem. The local level voters and states are mobilized to act.

    Also, keep in mind as you read the following this in not legal advice. Rather, it is merely a view of concern about the direction of this country, the rule of law, and the disconnect between [a] what the rule of law and Constitution require; and [b] what the Congress and Executive have chosen to do: Engage in rebellion against this Constitution. At no time should you walk away with any notion that this discussion advocates unlawful activity; nor that there be any violence used to change the outcomes.

    It is clear the Executive and Congress have already assented to using these unlawful methods as we have seen in the unlawful wars in Iraq, the abuse committed against detainees, and the threats and actual deprivation of rights in the demonstrations against the war. Congress has not stood up for the rule of law; rather, it is the private citizen – as always – that has to take this battle to the court room and compel the Government to assent to the rule of law. It is curious, this many years after 1776 the country has to be reminded once again what the Bill of Rights is all about.

    Also, keep in mind we are not accusing the firms associated with the UAE of committing fraud. Rather, we are raising reasonable questions about the issues which Congress, the NSA, and the Executive have not reasonably addressed. Moreover, we are not impugning the integrity of the leadership in UAE or Dubai; rather, we merely raise questions about what is happening at home in America. We shall leave it for another day to debate whether or not the UAE leadership or corporations do or do not have integrity.

    * * *

    The following is simply an open letter to the blogosphere. Your job is not to accept what I am saying. Rather, the goal of this letter is simply to express the observations and encourage you to think about the issues.

    As you read the following, keep in mind there are many questions which do not have answers; and there are many problems with the explanations. It is not our job to explain the mess – this is up to Congress and the Executive.

    However, the problem is simple. Congress and the Executive appear to be more inclined to not dig into the NSA unlawful activity, and hope to delay the revelations about the issues until after the 2006 Election. Our goal is to trump this stonewalling and give you the information you need to see that there are reasonable questions that need to be answered.

    However, the voters in America are not idiots. They’ve already been through this in 2004 over the NSA issue. We were told in December 2005 that the New York Times [NYT] had the information about the unlawful NSA activity. This is information that was known, but not formally reported in the NYT.

    Today, know that your fellow citizens are going to take a stand and put together the pieces that will help you make some important decisions. Bluntly, the 2006 election isn’t simply about choosing new leadership; it’s about choosing a new President. Yes, I mean just what I said: The 2006 election will likely choose the replacement for President Bush. Here’s how it works. Think back to the days of Nixon and where President Ford originally came from: The House of Representatives. Your vote in November 2006 is as important as any other time: But tell your friends – someone from the House of Representatives is likely going to be chosen in 2007 to replace President Bush.

    * * *

    Let’s give you an overview of where this discussion – my information to you -- is going. There is a simple message: The UAE port deal story does not add up.

    But take a step back. Think about the NSA and the UAE port deal from another perspective. There is something called pre-contract pricing. This is a phase whereby a business will research a company and explore things. This is not something that happens overnight. Rather, if done correctly, can take many months.

    That is the key: Many months. Because we are told – rather, asked to believe – that the UAE port deal suddenly appeared out of the blue. But in order for UAE to review the port prices of the UK firm, they would have had to do some research, look at data, ask questions, and do something that Congress and the Executive do not want you to think about: Make site visits.

    This means someone physically had to visit the Ports to do an inspection to make sure that the price the UAE was paying was linked to something on the ground. This doesn’t mean that the UAE was buying the port. Rather, they had to physically look at something on the ground to know whether the price they were proposing to win the contract was reasonable.

    Here’s the problem. Someone from the UAE had to have visited the United States, looked at some of the facilities, and made a report. In order to enter the US, they had to make a record. This means that the FBI counter intelligence agents would have to know they were here.

    The issue is: When did the FBI know about these site visits by the UAE; and how was the Senate intelligence Committee briefed on this ongoing activity. Recall, the UAE was linked to 9-11 and the Taliban; so if the FBI “didn’t know” about the UAE site visits to the US ports – in preparation for the bid – then we have to ask what happened to the lessons of 9-11.

  • Is the FBI aware of something that they didn’t investigate;

  • Is the NSA aware of something they didn’t tell the FBI about;

  • Was the Executive aware of something that it didn’t tell Congress?

    Keep that in mind. But now think about something else when you review the UAE port deal. After 9-11 we were told that the National Security Council was “in the dark” and that the “wall” between the FBI and CIA “got in the way.” After 9-11, the patriot Act and other legislation knocked down that wall – so if there is something the FBI and NSA knew about, this should have been jointly collected within the NSC and brought to the attention of the President.

    That’s the problem. The President claims – arguably implausibly – that he didn’t know about the UAE deal. Well, if that is true, then what about the “big lessons” that the country embraced after 9-11: Knocking down the wall.

    That’s the problem: If the President still “doesn’t know” then – if this is true -- it would appear the “big lessons” of 9-11 didn’t amount to much: We still have a President feigning ignorance about issues he should reasonably know about because of the reforms Congress endorsed.

    Do you see the problem? Before 9-11, we now know that the President was actually ordering the NSA to engage in unlawful surveillance. We know this because the technology used in the wake of 9-11 could not have possibly been upgraded; rather the capability already existed prior to 9-11. Also, we know that the President was ordering unlawful NSA activity prior to 9-11 because of his open admissions about wiretaps: They were engaging in conduct that was done without warrants.

    The issue at this point isn’t what the law is; rather, the issue is that despite the President’s claim after 9-11 that “he had no idea,” the FAA had 52 warnings of problems, and there was a PDB on 8 August 2001 which contradicts what the President says. The issue is simple: What did the President really know; and if there was a “problem with communication related to 9-11” why wasn’t that “solution” fixed so that the President was “briefed” on the NSA intercepts related to the UAE port deal.

    The point isn’t that the President is or isn’t lying. The point is that there’s a disconnect between what we’ve been told happened “prior to the UAE port deal” and what actually happened.

    Bluntly, in the wake of 9-11, and the Congressional mandates to fix things, a reasonable person should expect the President to have greater ability to get NSA intercepts related to national security – as the UAE port deal arguably is – and an easier time getting access. If this is not the Case, then Congress cannot explain why – despite its rubber stamping of the “big solution to the big scary problem” we still have a President who is “in the dark.”

    Bluntly, given the “big scary 9-11 and Congressional assent to solutions” it is not plausible that the President remains in the dark. He’s already used those excuses; and Congress has given him the power – arguably unlawful power – to engage in activity to get information.

    That’s the problem with the UAE port deal: The President cannot claim that he “didn’t know” – if that is true, then the “big solutions” that Congress debated have failed once again.

    Nope, not buying that non-sense a second time. Because the information we do have before us is clear: Despite no legal foundation, this President violated the law to get access to information; so it makes no sense that – despite his arguably unlawful exercise of power and violation of FISA – that he would not then use this capability to monitor what was going on in the UAE.

    Let’s think about the UAE-UK port deal. The UK is an Echelon ally, which means that the NSA can get fast information out of GCHQ in the UK.

    Think about the firm that the UAE is acquiring the port contract from: It is a firm that supposedly is located in the UK. This means that MI5/6 would have been in a position to monitor the discussions, and back brief the NSA. If the port deal was actually between a UK firm – and related to the US, another Echelon Ally – and the UAE, MI5/6 would have ensured that the NSA targeting was directed at finding out more about the UAE discussions: Who has involved; what their motivations were; and so on.

    Think about what the President has said: That he was surprised. But this is absurd – the NSA was monitoring the UK and UAE. Prior to the formal announcement – if this was a bonafide contract pricing effort – the NSA would have already had the information about the UAE-UK, and then provided this for analysis. This analysis report goes to one place: The President.

    Again, think back to 9-11 and the Congressional solutions: Supposedly this “stove pipe problem” was solved. If the President’s assertions are true – which they are arguably not – then Congress is asking us to believe that they’ve spent the last 4 years since 9-11 assenting to a system of NSA intercepts-briefings-Joint Staff plans that are devoid of information.

    That may be true, but that’s a problem the public needs to discuss: Why are we paying Congress to assent to this non-sense; and why, despite the 9-11 “findings” do we still have a problem with the president “not knowing” what is going on?

    Congress is part of the problem. They have the power under the statutes to order the NSA IG to provide answers. The fact that the Congress doesn’t want to order the NSA IG to review the matter is important; but we also have to look at why the Ranking Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee supposedly has “concerns” about the NSA unlawful activity, but does nothing when faced with “yet another reminder that the NSA isn’t able to do its job.”

    Bluntly, the DNC ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee appears to have bungled: He’s kept a memo stating his concerns about the NSA activities, but kept it in the safe. The public has to ask: Has he written another memo about his “concerns” that the NSA isn’t intercepting information about the UAE-UK deal?

    We can only speculate. But the wrong answer is to say, “Well, they’re not going to cooperate in answering that, so let’s take it off the table.” Wrong. It’s time to make some adverse judgments:

  • Is Congress assenting to Presidential non-sense [Appears so, and they are not asserting their oversight responsibilities in re the NSA IG];

  • Did the NSA not intercept the information related to the UAE-UK pre-contract award pricing [Not likely];

  • Is Congress continuing to fund the NSA which cannot provide information [Congress is appropriating funds for unlawful NSA activity, but cannot explain how the funds are generating information for the President];

  • Which post 9-11 implemented-solutions have failed and what are the alternatives? [The solutions were not needed – the existing mechanisms were working just fine]

  • Is the President lying about his surprise over the UAE-UK port deal? [It appears so]

    * * *

    Not to worry, the above questions are only the tip of the iceberg, and the above questions are not intended to be complete. Rather, they’re just a hint of what is on the way.

    Let’s consider the answers to the above questions and rearrange them in a new pattern:

  • 1. The Congress is not asserting oversight responsibilities over the NSA IG

  • 2. The Congress appropriated fund for unlawful NSA activities

  • 3. It doesn’t matter whether the UAE-UK transfer was real or an internal DoD transfer.
    A. If this was a bonafide transfer between the UK and UAE, the NSA would have intercepted the pre-contract award discussions and site visits to the US. The FBI counter intelligence would have known.

    B. If this was actually a transfer between DoD commercial entities in the UK and UAE, then DoD knew internally what was going on.

  • 4. Congress has failed to ensure that the President is held to account for supposed problems with the post 9-11 reforms – reforms that are “getting in the way” of him getting NSA intercepts related to national security issues.

    There are three options: Either

  • Option A. Congress knows about the problems and has done nothing; or
  • Option B. The problems are not real; or
  • Option C. Congress doesn’t know.

    But the problem for Congress is, even if they “didn’t know” about the NSA intercepts, and the post 9-11 solutions appeared to have failed, there’s nothing stopping the Congress from ordering the NSA IG to review the matters over intercepts and information t to the President. This means that the only possible result is for either Congress to demand answers [Option C]; or Congress does nothing [Option A]; or the UAE port deal is not real [Option B].

    See what we have? Unless Congress takes action [Ignoring option A; or taking action C], we have to conclude the UAE port deal is bogus.

    In other words, when Congress chooses to do nothing they are saying, “We assent to this non-sense because w know the UAE port deal is bogus; otherwise, Congress would be saying the opposite: “We know there is a problem and are doing nothing.”

    This leads us back to the power of Congress and the Rockefeller memo: If they are concerned about something – as they should be if they are “surprised” – then they need to take action. But what do we have? No public calls for the NSA IG to provide an audit report on what is going on – or not working – with the NSA’s solutions to address the 9-11 problems.

    The only option – if we are to believe that Congress is really doing their job – is that there is an ongoing review of the NSA IG oversight. But Phase II results show this is implausible.

    We can only conclude that the Congress knows there is a problem – or should reasonably conclude there is one, if they are listing to the President – but are not asserting oversight as they should in response to indications that the post 9-11 reforms are not working. This is at the heart of malfeasance.

    * * *

    You can argue all day long about what is or isn’t happening. The problem Congress has is that we’ve already been through this once before with 9-11: Supposedly there is a solution in place. We should not be going through it a second time with the UAE port deal.

    Congress has a credibility problem. They failed to ensure there was a communication system in place; and the Executive is relying on the same non-sense as he did prior to 9-11. On both counts, the Congress isn’t doing squat.

    * * *

    The issue becomes: Why is Congress going through the same non-sense as it did with 9-11, and not expecting a credible challenge? This is what the voters are going to have to publicly decide between now and the November 2006.

    It is our view that there is a big problem which the Congress and President know about, and are hoping to distract voter attention from. What this issue is unclear – it may relate to Congressional knowledge of the unlawful NSA activities; or the problem the Congress has in continuing to assent to the Presidential violations of the Constitution.

    Either way, Congress has assented to this non-sense story over the UAE, would have us believe that the NSA missed the details, and that the same problems we had with 9-11 are still occurring, but Congress isn’t demanding a full review of the NSA and the NSA Independent Oversight Board. It really doesn’t matter why. The real issue is what is to be done to mandate Congress enforce the law.

    There is a simple way to find out where Congress stands on the law: Are they willing to vote to impeach the President. And this is where the State proclamation come is: This will force the Congress to tip their hand.

    In other words, all the above discussions about what the NSA-Executive-Congress did or didn’t know simply becomes a parlor game: The real test is what is the Congress willing to do; and when will the voters translate the Congressional vote on impeachment into adverse inferences about:

  • Who do we trust to solve problems;

  • Who is enforcing the law;

  • Who is protecting the Constitution;

  • Who needs to be put in jail.

    We have eight months to watch the Congress and Executive dance around. But know this: Their dancing is no different than the non-sense we saw over 9-11. But the problem is bigger: Rather than pointing the finger at the President, now the problem and responsibility rests with Congress:

  • 1. Once they knew about the problem with the NSA intercepts over the UAE-UK discussions, what was done, if anything;

  • 2. After the Congress heard the same stories from the President over the 9-11 issue and they repeated themselves in the UAE deal – “Oh, I had no idea” – did Congress actually take timely action to find out what was going on inside the NSA and order the NSA IG to review the matter;

  • 3. What effort, if any, did Congress take to look at the Phase II issues, NSA, and UAE-UK port deal in terms of “Is there a real problem with intelligence or is the real issue that the problems were well known, but the Executive and Congress are acting stupid.”

    If we work backwards, and use the example of Katrina, it appears we can answer the questions:

    Answer 1: They ignored the apparent breakdown in the NSA and failure to timely report information to Congress;

    Answer 2: Congress did not timely review the issues in light of 9-11 nor did it challenge the President as it should have done over the recurring problems which were supposedly solved.

    Answer 3: Congress failed to complete Phase II, and is playing stupid.

    All three answers send a clear message to voters: Your leadership is not reliable. If there was any reliability in Congress, they would be pressing for answers. But we have the opposite. Rather, all the attention is on the UAE port deal, not the apparent problem with the NSA communications to the President.

    Again, at this juncture it doesn’t matter what the real story is: The issue is that Congress isn’t putting any effort into following up on what a reasonable leadership should do – find answers, outline a plan, and keep the voters informed of what is being done to resolve issues that are supposedly brewing. This country has spent a lot of time and money implementing “big solutions” to the “big things that supposedly failed on 9-11” – but when we have more indications of problems, Congress isn’t focused on the recurring problem. Rather, it appears Congress is focused on the non-sense; and this appears to be by design. This is what voters need to know before they cast their ballots in November 2006, and their questions become inter alia:

  • If the current crew isn’t doing their job what is to be done;

  • What is to be done when the Congress joins the President in rebellion against the Constitution;

  • What is to be done to ensure that Congress is held to performance standards that are meaningful catalysts to assert their oath, solve problems, and tame a wayward executive who continues to spew forth nonsense.

    Congress can’t simply say, “Oh, it’s just politics.” These are matters of criminal law. Whether Congress chooses to do or not do something is irrelevant. The issue is whether the laws which prohibit these deceptions to Congress are or are not going to be enforced. The issue doesn’t become, “Well, we don’t like what we might have to do, so we’re going to change the law.” Rather, its time to lawfully change the crew in DC.

    * * *

    For those of you who are lost, the issue is simple: Before the UAE port deal was finalized, the UK and UAE had to engage in pre-contract pricing discussions and reviews. These communications, visits, and studies would have been picked up by NSA.

    The problem Congress and the President have is they want the public to believe nobody knew. If that is true, then the solutions to 9-11 have failed, but Congress has no interest in looking at this failure. Why? Because it didn’t fail – NSA and DoD knew well in advance of the official port deal what was going on and should have informed Congress of what was supposedly underway: Transfer of contract management responsibilities from the UK to the UAE.

    Whether Congress did or didn’t know is the secondary concern; the real issue is why despite this “Congressional surprise” is there no action to force the Executive to explain why the “big solutions after 9-11” apparently failed.

    Without information we have to make adverse judgments:

  • 1. Competence: Congress is not interested in ensuring the “lessons” of 9-11 are working;

  • 2. Oversight: The NSA and DoD knew long ago about the “transfer” from the UK to the UAE, but failed to ensure Congress was publicly aware of something that would become public;

  • 3. Oversight: Congress and the President are engaged in a charade of “surprises” but they are both in a position to find things out, but have failed to use their lawful authority to mandate information be provided to them on a timely basis.

    These are matters of criminal law:

  • 4. Obstruction: Who is getting in the way of providing information to Congress that they have a lawful duty to provide;

  • 5. Indicators: Once Congress gets the information related to alleged malfeasance or recurring problems with the 9-11 solutions, what investigations did the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence fail to direct the NSA IG to produce, but failed to ensure this issue was reasonably investigated;

  • 6. Inducement: What promises has the Vice President made to Senator Roberts [R-Kansas, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee] to not review the issues related to the NSA “problem” with reporting information to the President and Congress?

  • 7. State Constitutional Convention: If “nothing can be done” and “there is no statutory requirement” what use is it to have a Congress that faces no consequences for failing to do what should be done to ensure the laws are followed, and that needed action is taken; what solutions do the states need to mandate to ensure that the mechanisms to provide information are working and that the system of checks and balances is actually checking and balancing?

    * * *

    We’ve seen the mess with Katrina. We’ve seen the well known discussions. There were many concerns. Nothing was done.

    The issue for the voters to decide is: Do we require the catalyst of a Katrina-like disaster to once again remind us of the problems?

    Arguably, we’ve already had that disaster, but the same crew keeps getting back into power. What’s up with that: Why is this nation expecting different results from the same failed crew?

    * * *

    The issue with the NSA knowing something – or should have known something – is not new. We saw this issue pop up with the Assassination in Lebanon. There were too many events that had to have occurred – which the NSA would have intercepted, but did not – for NSA to have missed the information.

    The issue isn’t that NSA missed the data – but there was no data to justify the baseless US Assertions over who was responsible, as was the case with Iraq WMD. Notice how that kind of fizzled after the public raised concerns with Mehlis? I no longer hear the US demanding an invasion of Syria.

    The lessons applies to Iran. If there is a bonafide “program” in Iran, then the NSA needs to offer this up. But it hasn’t done so. Bolton’s assertions are without merit. For someone to “mandate a response” one has to demonstrate that they are worthy of a response. The US, especially Bolton, shows he has one goal: Assert the RNC agenda, as he did with the NSA intercept data on US citizens.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the DoJ-DoD-OMB contracting process. Arguably, if the DoD and NSA are aware of the UK-UAE discussion on transferring responsibilities, then someone inside DoD should have compared “what the US does” and reviewed ‘whether the proposed UK-UAE transfer” was reasonable.

    The point isn’t that there was or wasn’t something done. The point is that for a thorough review of the UK-UAE effort, DoD would have had plenty of time to review the matters. Bluntly, the time required for the UK and UAE to review the contracting terms is much longer than what we’re asked to believe occurred. The problem is that it appears the timeline for the review was related to something else other than the UK and UAE.

    It appears the real catalyst for the bid by UAE and attention on the UK ports was the catalyst of the NSA unlawful activity.

    Think about the following issues. This is supposedly a hostile takeover bid by the UAE of the UK contract efforts. The pricing reasonableness had to be established. The issue is what other ports around the world did the UAE visit to conclude, “These UK-managed ports are the ones we want to go after.” NSA and the FBI would have detected the discussion and site visits, but Congress and the President are pleading ignorance.

    We have to consider why the UAE did not bid earlier than it did; and what factors “suddenly arrived” that mandated the bid process, timing, selection of the ports, and how these factors compared to other ports. The point is that the NSA would have known for a while.

    We have to consider why the UAE considered this a ‘great deal” – did they look a profit margins; were they offered a better deal; and what was the relationship between the UA bids and the potential utility in launching strikes on Iran?

    Also, other factors to consider: Why did the UAE choose the UK ports; what was the basis for the bid price; did they look at this as an investment.

    It remains to be understood how much money DoD has in this deal and how much knowledge DoD-NSA-Joint Staff had of this UAE-UK port deal. Whether it was picked up by NSA or was a DoD-contracted effort is not important at this point. The issue isn’t whether the Joint Staff knew, but whether they fabricated the Port Deal in order to protect themselves from a needed Congressional inquiry into their war crimes.

    If this deal is as rushed as it appears to be, and supposedly NSA and the President “didn’t know,” then we have to conclude that the UAE rushed the bid, moved without detection by either the NSA or FBI, and simply threw down a load of cash. If that is true, why the rush, why now, what’s the urgency to secure this deal in 2006?

    It appears the UAE, if they’ve rushed the deal and the NSA didn’t know, really have a poor basis to argue that these ports are better or worse than what they could have bid on elsewhere. Bluntly, if this is true, then there is no basis for the price, which raises the issue: Isn’t it convenient that the UAE port deal surfaces at the very time that Gonzalez gets tripped up before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Yes, an adverse judgment would conclude:

  • A. The White House fabricated/accelerated this deal in order to distract attention from the NSA unlawful activity;

  • B. The entire ruse is designed to distract Congressional focus on the rule of law, and get them to ignore things Karl Rove likes to ignore: The Constitution, checks and balances, and the rule of law;

  • C. The deal was rushed simply as a ruse to protect the President and Joint Staff from serious Congressional questions over issues related to war crimes, violations of FISA, and impeachable offenses.

  • D. This DC leadership has engaged in war crimes, unlawful war, torture, abuse, and other misconduct warranting a war crimes tribunal. They’ve lied about Yellow Cake, Iraq WMD, and whether or not the troops are in Iraq for reasons related to 9-11. It is nothing for them to fabricate a story to get Congress to focus on something that is a ruse.

  • E. There was no real UK-UAE analysis on the pricing; if there was NSA should have provided information to the President and Congress, however, the President and Congress are playing stupid. Congress refuses to review the implications in light of the 9-11 reforms because they have an interest in not being associated with what has failed a second time: The reforms they supposedly endorsed.

    * * *

    There’s an issue with timelines. When we think of a timeline, think about two horizontal lines. One line corresponds to the supposed UAE-UK discussions; the second line is the NSA intercept and information to Congress and the President.

    NSA: - - - - - - - -

    UK-UAE - - - - - - - -

    These timelines are parallel and roughly stacked on top of each other because they show us two activities occurring at the same time.

    Here’s the problem with the timeline. In order for the Coast Guard to “review” the issues related to the UAE port deal, they had to have had access to the deal.

    This means someone would have to notify the Coast Guard there was something going on before Congress was “officially” told.

    However, the White House would have us believe “they didn’t know” or “the reviews were started before December 2005.”

    Here’s the problem: In order for the Coast Guard review to have started, and been completed before the White House claimed “we didn’t know,” the Coast Guard would have had to start the review before this review in the agencies.

    If not, then we get into the problem with the UAE and UK: The reviews by the UK and UAE were superficial, which raises the questions:

  • A. Why are they throwing this much money around on something they know so little about;

  • B. What’s the real timeline they’re working on

  • C. What event, besides the Port deal, triggered the Coast Guard Review

  • D. What was going on in the UK-UAE that should have triggered the NSA to report something to the Joint Staff

  • E. Who would have to have coordinated on the UAE-UK port deal – either based on NSA information or actual involvement in the FBI oversight and Coast Guard analysis -- before the White House stated that the activity and reviews had started?

  • F. If we are to believe the White House timeline, what explains the earlier reviews on an event that had not occurred – how can the Coast Guard credibly review something that the White House and NSA [say/assert/ask us to believe/imply/leave the unqualified impression ] didn’t know about?

  • G. What is the real deadline they’re working on

  • H. How long does it take for the Coast Guard to do an assessment; when were they notified of the changes; does the date the Coast Guard was notified square with the White House timeline, action, or reviews?

    The problem is that the time to do the review – either the UK-UAE review, or the Coast Guard or the FBI counter intelligence or the NSA monitoring – is at odds with the reviews the White House says “we didn’t know about.” There’s too much activity that had to occur, but “nobody knew.” Again, this is the same non-sense we heard with 9-11.

    So, we go back to making adverse judgments:

    Answer A: The reason the firms are throwing this much money around without the proper site visits which the FBI would have known about is that they’re being compensated in other ways, and DoD has another contract with the UAE to support the Iran-attack.

    Answer B: The timeline they’re working on is twofold linked with the 2006 election and the revelations about the NSA unlawful activity. The problem they have is that the information about the NSA unlawful activity has no legal foundation, so they are moving quickly to create more non-sense. They hope to delay Congressional attention on the NSA issue, as they did with Phase II, until after the 2006 election. We can expect more non-sense distractions between now and then.

    Answer C; The event that triggered the Coast Guard review was something the White House knew about related to the NYT revelations over the NSA is the actual report and Coast Guard analysis is as reliable as the UK-UAE pricing data: A load of paper that sends a desired message: Look here, not at the NSA unlawful activity or the war crimes committed by the Joint Staff.

    Answer D: The events that supposedly were occurring in the UAE-UK port deal that should have triggered the NSA to know what was going on -- and subsequently brief the Joint Staff, NSC, and White House – never occurred. They are fictional.

    Answer E: The people who coordinated on the UAE-UK port deal are the same people who manufactured the Iraq WMD issues, the Niger Cake stories, and the fabricated Iranian nuclear program laptop: The DoD’s Office of Special Plans.

    Answer F: The Coast Guard was able to review something the NSA and White House didn’t know about because the Coast Guard didn’t do as thorough of a review as they might have done; and the details within the plan were known before the White House acknowledges the details existed.

    Answer G; The real deadline is the November 2006 election: Stretch things out, distract attention from the unlawful activity, and focus on issues unrelated to the rule of law. Their goal is to induce the DNC to accept the non-sense as the “best way forward”. If they can induce the DNC to accept the White House legal arguments – however absurd they are – the DNC leadership will eventually assert these arguments as excuses for “why nothing can be done.” However, the DNC leadership cannot stop the state proclamations calling for a vote on impeachment.

    Answer H. The time for the Coast Guard do the assessment is longer than what the NSA can explain as a “window of not knowing”. NSA would have picked up the Coast Guard review and provided this to the Joint Staff. The Coat Guard appears to have been notified of the changes as they were still being “figured out” by the US, rather than let this adverse view surface, it was held back, but then disclosed because it added more non-sense to the discussion.

    The Coast Guard appears to have been notified of the changes to the UAE-UK port deal in a haphazard manner, and it does not appear as though the UAE discussions with other US-based ports occurred. It appears the focus was on the UK because the US and UK were cooperating on this distraction from the NSA violations.

    The date that the Coast Guard was notified does not square with the White House timeline – a timeline including other to-be-understood options and ruses. The White House would have us believe that they didn’t know anything, but there was too much coordination required in too little time to credibly believe that the window required to review the activities is consistent with what the White House and Congress both know are reasonable.

    Clearly, the problem is: How can they successfully orchestrate non-sense, but bungle the most simple things. Curiously, this is the dilemma we run into with 9-11, and Katrina. This White House shows us they will well plan something that they want to succeed; and when that fails, they’ll find a convenient distraction.

    The problem as we’ve seen with Iraq is when they can no longer hide reality and the facts smack the RNC in the face: If you unlawfully invade a sovereign nation, you will fail to impose a democracy – rather, you’ll just have a Banana Republic like Haiti, or Honduras, as Mr. Negroponte and his Battalion 316 know all too well. A crafty criminal will feign incompetence to distract attention from the bigger crimes. You only get a pardon if you’re alive; if they catch you committing war crimes and are lawfully put to death by a war crimes tribunal, no Presidential pardon will help you after the sentence is imposed.

    * * *

    There’s a problem with Congressional oversight. Let’s look at the Coast Guard review from the perspective of Congress.

    We are asked to believe that Congress was surprised; yet, the Coast Guard had reservations and these were subsequently revealed.

    The White House would have us believe that they bungled the UAE port deal and didn’t provide full information to Congress on the deal.

    Here’s the issue Congress isn’t looking at: Why is Congress having a hearing on the port deal, but not looking at the NSA’s failure to report on something – to either the Congress and or President – which the Coast Guard supposedly well knew?

    Again, the timelines do not match, and the focus in wrong: Congress is looking at the port issue, not the NSA. The Coast Guard was doing something which the NSA should have well coordinated with the Joint Staff; but we hear nothing from Congress on why this repeated-9-11-like-indicator is getting no attention before Congress.

    Looking at this Coast Guard issue from the perspective of Congress:

  • A. What is the reluctance of Congress to look at the issues which appear to match what we still do not know about Phase II;

    Adverse Judgment: The issues are the same, and they are what would result in the RNC losing the 2006 election. This is material information; if it was good news, the RNC would be trumpeting the “big plan that is evidence of their ability.”

  • B. What is the incentive of Congress to not review the similar conduct as we saw during 9-11;

    Adverse Judgment: The RNC does not like reality, as evidenced by Katrina and Iraq.

  • C. With respect to reviews and information, why is Congress not seeing that there is a disconnect between [a] what the Coast Guard supposedly was doing; [b] what the UK-UAE should have been doing if this was real; and [c] what the NSA was chartered to do;

    Adverse Judgment The reason there is not connection is that they are making this up as they go along. However, the statutes prohibiting war crimes, unlawful war, and violations of FISA are criminal law which the RNC is favorably disposed to violate not follow or admit is applicable

  • D. Why is there a problem with the Congress reviewing the UK-UAE pricing data, site visits, and reports from the FBI counter intelligence and apparent rush – as evidenced by the NSA’s failure to detect these speedy reviews

    Adverse Judgment: The RNC controlled Congress has joined the President in rebellion against the Constitution. The States need to discuss this issue, and formulate a plan to protect this Constitution.

  • E. Why is there a problem Congress looking at the Coast Guard review – in that it had to have occurred on the basis of information and data which is at odds with the White House timeline

    Adverse Judgment: Once it is known that the timelines do not match, and Congress has not acted on this glaring error – Congress will have to face the questions on why they failed to find answers on the same timeline-related-issues in re 9-11, Iraq WMD, and the AUMF. Bluntly, it all falls apart. The RNC goal is to intimidate the media to be quiet about these issues until after the 2006 election.

    * * *

    Let’s review what we’ve done. At this juncture, you’re well positioned to say, “Hay you can’t know all that.”

    Sure, you’re right. The problem is: What is a more reasonable conclusion? Feel free to make a more compelling case for why the NSA didn’t pick something up that supposedly was well researched. If one thing – that we do not know – is true, then something else has to be false.

    Hopefully you’ll see that the issue at this point isn’t the truth, but what problems each or the assertions presents for Congress and the Executive: Nothing adds up to a clean story. If it was a real story, things would be matching. We have the opposite. This is a sign of a major problem. We’ve only touched the surface. The same problem occurred with 9-11, Iraq WMD, and the NSA unlawful activity: More questions lead to more questions. That’s not how the law, fact finding, or self-governance works. Rather, that’s evidence of malfeasance, poor oversight, and criminal conduct.

    Yes, based on the above discussion, there is enough information for the State Proclamations and Constitutional Convention to include language that compel the US Congress to vote on whether they do or do not want to be subject to a US Attorney and Special Counsel review. The short answer: they have no choice.

    The real issue for the states to discuss: What is to be done when the Congress is in rebellion against the Constitution, and they refuse to timely order investigations into matters related to their agreement with the Executive to ignore the Constitution and not engage in oversight as they took an oath to do?

    The solution going forward is that there needs to be some sort of non-Federal government trigger – just as there is the state proclamation effort – the allows the States to lawfully intervene. This is at the heart of the needed reforms in the US Constitution and the subject of the Constitutional Convention: What are the states lawful options that they need to have to check the Federal Government when all branches fail to assert their oaths, and are engaged in joint rebellion against the US Constitution.

    The only answer: To lawfully preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Perhaps there should be a method by which the States jointly agree to lawfully raise legal militias to put down this unlawful rebellion by the Congress and President.

    Recall the lessons of the 14th Amendment: Each of the Federal officers in the Federal Government know they face potential sanctions if they are found to be in rebellion. The problem is that this finding of “rebellion” is recognized as something that only the Congress can decide. The issue becomes: What can the states inject into the Constitution that would give the States a trump card and say, “Well, now that ¾ of the states agree that Congress is in rebellion, we can lawfully take action to defend the Constitution.”

    Maybe the number of States required to make this finding is 3/5th or 5/6th. That is the issue before the States at the Constitutional Convention: What’s the reasonable number of states required to lawfully trump the Federal Government’s rebellion against the Constitution.

    There has to be a lawful solution, one that is consistent with the rule of law and Constitution--one that preserves the document when the Congress and President have joined in rebellion against the Constitution.

    * * *

    Let’s take another look at the UAE port deal. Again, at this point what we’re doing is simply looking at what must be false is something is asserted to be true. However, let’s take a slightly different approach.

    Rather than say “if this is false, then this is true, or vice versa” let’s consider a balancing issue. What I mean is to contrast the level of effort put into similar efforts.

    Simplistically, this is like saying, “If we can do this easily, then we should be able to do something similar just as easily.” Conversely, if something is presented as being a certain level of difficulty, we would expect a certain range of success; if the success along two similar activities is different, we have to ask what changes, and whether the activities were actually similar.

    Again, the issue at this point isn’t to define the answer, but to point out the problems this UAE port deal has in this balancing approach.

    Let’s consider something we touched on above: The apparent contradiction between easily doing complex things; but having a hard time doing simple things.

    With respect to the UAE port deal, there is a curious problem. It relates to the balancing issue. Notice how well coordinated the RNC and Congress were in their responses to the UAE, but they were not well coordinated on the NYT revelations about the NSA.

    Again, think in general terms. Recall what happened in December 2005: The revelations surfaced, and every argument the White House gave was destroyed. But notice what happened with the UAE deal: Congress rallied to the firm assertion: “It’s a matter related to Karl Rove’s Agenda: Security.”

    Strange, if this was “truly a surprise” – as was the NYT revelations – why is there an imbalance over the RNC-White House-congressional responses?

    In general terms it appears as though the Congressional responses were far more streamlined, well focused, and quite on the mark, unlike what we saw over the NSA issue. That’s the problem: We have two apparent “surprises” but a disconnect in how Congress reacted.

    A smooth reaction and consistent message on the UAE – “this is a national security issue not related to the NSA” – is at odds with the bungled approach taken on the NSA issue – “Oh, no . . . let’s spew forth non-sense and see if they bite.”

    It appears that many people in Congress are hanging their hats on the clean construction over the UAE deal: “This is what the problem is” – while the same cannot be said for the unlawful NSA activity: “We have no clue, but we don’t really want to know, but if you make us, we’ll just go through the motions.”

    Again, the issue is to notice the disconnect in the approaches on the same issues within the UAE and the NSA. Both the UAE and NSA issues revolve around issue of oversight, questions, and procedures. Notice the contrast: The NSA and UAE issues both failed to consistently address issues of oversight.

  • NSA: Oversight was something that was deferred to the White House, and not challenged well before the Senate Judiciary Committee. There’s a big yawn over whether or not the FISA court is or is not relevant.

  • UAE: Suddenly, Congress is upset with oversight. Strange, why not the same concern with the “oversight” with the NSA and FISA court?

    You can go down the list of comparisons and see the disconnect between the UAE and NSA issues: On one hand Congress is “upset” about issues related to the UAE; but if you look at the same issues in the NSA, there’s a big yawn.

  • A. Notice the incentive to not focus on something. Why is there a disconnect between the UAE and NSA issues; why are the same issues getting unequal interest?

  • B. Notice whose election Agenda is getting the most support. Why is the Congress quickly agreeing that this is a “national security issue” but they do not have the same agreement over the NSA that this is a “criminal law issue”?

  • C. Notice the disconnect on the messages about the issues. Why is there an inconsistency between how the White House and Congress are focusing on the UAE as opposed to the NSA issue?

    * * *

    There’s another way of looking at the UAE issue. This involves simply looking at the Echelon and UAE alone.

    Let’s presume that the UAE port deal is true, but view this in terms of the balancing construct, namely: Notice what they do or do not do in each situation, and how this compares with other efforts in similar situations.

    For example: If the UAE port deal is true, what the White House would have us believe is not consistent:

  • Case A. Echelon: They do collect and disseminate NSA information on the EU firms to compete with EU firms;

  • Case B. Abuse, torture: They do violate the law to get non-sense information

  • Case C. Domestic surveillance: They do violate the FISA to get information without warrants

    . . . but, despite the above, they do the opposite:

  • Case D. UAE: NSA did nothing, the information was suppressed, and the UAE was unknown to everyone.

    Again, the issue isn’t what is true, but why are Cases A, B, and C so willing to use any means to get information; but we are asked to believe the opposite with the UAE is case D: “Nobody knew.”

    Bluntly, the balancing test fails to justify confidence that they didn’t know. Rather, if there was an excuse to make up something, this White House would proffer it – as they did with the Iraq WMD – in order to advance their agenda.

    Which brings u back to the UAE issue: How is this in the RNC agenda to disclosure this? The only reasonable answer is that it advances the RNC agenda at the expense of something else. Bluntly, what the UAE issue does is get everyone in Congress to agree “the 2006 election is about national security” – which it is not, it’s actually about the rule of law, impeachment, and protecting the Constitution.

    So how do we explain this disconnect: On one hand after the NSA issue surfaced, the White House can’t explain anything coherently; but boom! . . .UAE surfaces as a “similar surprise” but everyone is parroting the same RNC-message: “Yes, it’s about national security.”

    Far too convenient.

    Adverse Judgment The UAE issue is designed to advance the RNC agenda and get Congress to chime, “The 2006 election is about national security” – exactly what Karl Rove wants. Strange, why isn’t the “concern” with oversight, procedures, and rules – that supposedly is at the heart of the UAE concern – not striking a chord with the same crew in Congress?

    Adverse Judgment Congress if focusing their “outrage” over the impeachable offenses – violations of FISA, failure to provide information to Congress as required by statute – but they’re doing so on the wrong issue. By design.

    The thinking inside the RNC is this: With respect to the NSA unlawful activity, we know there’s a problem with oversight, rule of law, and procedures – we ignored FISA. So let’s marshal the RNC outrage over those NSA-related issues – that are impeachable offenses – on an issue that will give the voters the impression that the Congress is “concerned” with issues of oversight, rules, and requirements.

    Small problem: Why isn’t Congress then going back to the NSA issue and saying, “Hay, we were “really concerned” about these issues with oversight, rules, and procedures with the UAE issue – why aren’t we now putting that emphasis on the NSA unlawful activity with respect to things like the FISA court, FISA procedures, FISA rules, and information the president is supposed to provide to Congress about known unlawful NSA activity.

    The short answer is that Gonzalez was the sacrificial lamb, and the way forward is to rally the Congress on the UAE – totally unrelated to the impeachable offenses. By the time the Congress wakes up, they’ll be on yet another recess, and the voters will get nothing. Then, before you know it the November election will roll around.

    Small problem. The voters have woken up. The state level impeachment effort is rolling along, and the voters are asking questions. There’s too much time, and not enough excuses.

    What’s the solution? Well, if you’ve got a disaster on your hands in Iraq, and you have no troops or evidence, what would be the most absurd thing to do? That’s right – threaten Iran; stir up locals to riot over cartoons in Syria but not Egypt; and continue doing what you’ve always done: Intimidate the media to be silent, and get everyone to repeat the Rove mantra, “It’s not about the rule of law, we are the law, and the laws are what we say, not what we follow.”

    Yes, there are 8 months to go, and that’s plenty of time for Congress to get baited with other non-sense to distract their attention from the unlawful NSA programs – plural.

    * * *

    The UAE port deal can also be looked at in terms of what it does for Tony Blair. Recall, Blair is in the UK, he’s an Echelon Ally, and he’s the one that went with Bush into Iraq to commit war crimes.

    We know in 2002 that Bush and Blair agreed to invade regardless reality, and the Downing Street Memo confirms there were many DoD personnel involved in the unlawful war crime planning.

    The point with the UAE deal is that at a time when Blair is under attack for potential war crimes, a firm from his country is getting attention: They’re part of the deal.

    How convenient. So the issue becomes, as we asked before,

  • A. Did the UAE really look at non-UK firms?

    Adverse Judgment No, UAE had they looked at “many non-UK firms” would have well-advertised what they were doing, triggering NSA and the FBI to review the matter. Congress and the President claim ignorance

  • B. Is there a benefit for DoD to stir up a distraction and help out Blair?

    Adverse Judgment Sure, especially if Blair and Bush have jointly agreed to this ruse, ad they did with the decision to invade Iraq without evidence of WMD. They’ve already agreed to back each other up over issues of war crimes; it’s nothing for them to do the same over unlawful NSA activity that is violating both US and UK laws.

    Yes, that’s the other part of this NSA activity that the Parliament isn’t looking at: What did the NSA do in the UK that supported unlawful rendition of UK personnel to Eastern Europe and Africa. The US and UK have detained people at black sites based solely on accusations and the fact that people in Pakistan were paid bounties.

  • C. Is there anything that would stop the Joint Staff from supporting this ruse?

    Adverse Judgment Not at all, rather the Joint Staff could be convinced to go along with this in that if they do not cooperate they’ll lose their job, and get left to hang out to dry as did Sanchez and the other flag officers who dared to discuss reality when it came to issues of insurgency, Iraq, and the possibility of civil war.

    * * *

    If the UAE-UK contract pricing were real, then we should have something in the MI5/6 files and exchanged notes with the NSA on this deal.

    The same crew lied about WMD, Downing Street Memo, MI6 Mass Appeal, and abuse/black sites. It’s nothing for them to lie about a contract.

    This means there were meetings, transcripts of the NSA-GCHQ intercepts, and some sort of coordination between the NSA and GCHQ on what not to report to their respective legislatures despite the “big lessons” of 9-11.

    Curious the intelligence agencies spend a lot of time sharing non-sense, but when it comes to real information – as was the case with 9-11 and the NSA unlawful activity – the story is, “We’re not sure.” That fails the balancing test – same efforts, but disjointed in execution. There’s only one reasonable explanation: It’s a choice.

    * * *

    Let’s dive into the GCHQ-NSA connection more deeply. Again, we’re dealing with a UK firm, GCHQ does monitoring, there “should have been” pre-contract pricing discussions, and site visits, and some sort of exchange between GCHQ and NSA.

    One tiny problem: Gaps in the intelligence files and analysts statements. Again, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Presidential Daily Briefings summarize intelligence issues.

    If the President and Congress were “surprised” as they would have us believe they are over the UAE issue, then despite the GCHQ-NSA joint monitoring of a UK-connected entity on a US port management issue on the Atlantic Seaboard, miles from the site of 9-11 and DC -- it is implausible to believe “nobody knew.”

    Yet, just as we were asked to believe prior to 9-11 – “nobody knew”, only to find out later that everyone was talking about it – the same goes with the UAE deal: The US and UK are asking the world to believe, as they did with the Lebanese Prime Minister Assassination: “We have this capability, but nobody knows any facts.” That is the same argument that falls down over the Iraq WMD and the Iranian nuclear efforts: NSA has nothing, but the RNC agenda is mandating action on the basis of non-imminent issues. That’s called a war crime.

    The issue over the UAE and intelligence analysts – as it was with 9-11 – was how all this activity over the UAE-UK was occurring, but “nobody knew.” The analysts in the US and UK share information and assessments; there is a cross flow of intelligence between the US and UK. The players in the US and UK aren’t new.

    What appears more likely is that it is impossible to “illegally monitor” an activity which is non-existent, fabricated, and a ruse.

    Here’s where we get to the paradox, none of which Congress or the President can address.

  • If this UAE deal true, what should GCHQ have notified that it did not?

  • If this UAE deal is false, what should the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee have done?

    The issue for the states to discuss is: What is to be done when we have yet another round of non-sense related to issues in Phase II, and Congress refuses to investigate. These are matters of criminal law, and relate to the House Ethics rules.

    As we’ve seen with FISA and the Executive, just because Congress votes to not enforce the law doesn’t mean that the law doesn’t exist. You can’t make a law after the fact to prosecute someone; nor can Congress credibly pass a law after crime was committed to immunize the Executive: That is inconsistent with the notion of the rule of law, nor is it debatable. The law is what the law is at the time of the misconduct, not when it is discovered.

    Unfortunately, the Congress appears to have taken another view: That the law is debatable after it is violated. This is the same as letting the defendant take control of the court room. We need some discipline.

    Part of this “big Constitutional idea” is that in exchange for us giving up our right to use force to have our way; the Federal Government was going to be there to protect our rights. It’s kind of like an agreement. No, not “kind of” – it is: We give up power to the Government, and in exchange they agree to protect our rights.

    The problem we have before us is what happens when the Federal Government demands we continue to defer to it’s authority – but the Federal government isn’t keeping its end of the bargain? That’s the issue the States need to lawfully discuss.

    The issue for the states to consider: Should there be a mechanism to use the 10th Amendment power and modify the Article 1 section 5 rule which says the House may create rules, and permit the States to – by lawful agreement consistent with the constitution – assert some sort of State-level check on the failure of Congress to review these matters of criminal law and apparent Congressional assent to war crimes.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the UAE and NSA connection another way. Once the NSA intercepts something, the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be able to get access to samples of the intercepts to review how things are going.

    Isn’t it curious that despite the UAE-UK port deal – and supposed NSA monitoring – that NSA didn’t consult with the “big Congressional leadership.”

    If the UAE deal is real, there are three options:

  • Option A. The Congressional leadership was aware, and did nothing;

  • Option B. The Congressional leadership was not aware, and the minority party/ranking member refused to order an NSA IG investigation; or

  • Option C: The Congressional leadership was never told

  • Option D. The entire ruse was made up, and Congress could not have been told about something that was not real.

    At this point, it appears more likely that there’s a disconnect between what NSA should have been detecting, and what the President should have known; and this makes it far more likely that there was some sort of illusory activity that was not correctly reported. Rather, it’s more likely that the DoD knew well of what was unfolding.

    If this was a real event, the National Security Council would have known long ago, not recently.

    * * *

    Let’s consider this UAE deal in light of the NSA unlawful domestic surveillance. Here’s the problem for the White House. Rather than

  • A. Stop the illegal activity or investigate who was reviewing the unlawful NSA programs with the NYT

    The White House did the opposite:

  • B. Waited until the NYT broke the story to notify congress; [Oversight]

  • C. Permitted the UAE to bid on the UK deal without required coordination; [Review process]

  • D. Suppressed concerns with the deal [Risks]

    The curious contrast is that Option A implies the White House knew what was going on, but didn’t timely take action – to its detriment – while Options B, C, and D are the opposite: Inaction was to the benefit of their agenda – distract attention from the illegal activity, malfeasance, and failure to timely notify Congress.

    Option A is what is desired; B, C, and D is what we are getting. The issue for the states to discuss is how to we create mechanisms to compel the government to do A, not B, C, or D.

    Also, notice in brackets after B, C, and D the terms: Oversight, review process, and risks. These are factors that are supposedly “concerns” of Congress over the UAE deal.

    Here’s the balancing test: Why aren’t the same concerns – oversight, review, and risks – also applied to the NSA?

    That’s the problem. There’s an imbalance, and the disconnect shows us there’s a problem with emphasis. Congress is looking at the UAE deal differently than what the Statute currently requires relative to the FISA, NSA, and the lessons of the 1970s – the Church Committee.

    The issue for the states to discuss is: What is to be done when the lessons of the past – as promulgated in statute – are ignored by Congress, not enforced, and not investigated?

    Notice how quickly the Congress jumped – in curious harmony – on the UAE deal – what can the states do to mandate a similar Congress response on Constitutional issues? Again, this is what Congress is there to do: Check and balance, not “maybe, if they feel like it” check and balance.

    On those days that Congress “doesn’t feel like it, but they need to do so, but aren’t” what are the lawful options of the states to compel Congress to remove themselves from the President’s rebellion, and mandate action to assert the rule of law?

    If there was a “statutory solution within Federal law” I’m not seeing this working. The House rules appear to be meaningless; Congress knows the laws; but is focusing on non-NSA issues.

    A Constitutional Convention is needed to remedy this problem: What is to be done when the Congress knows the clear issues of risks, oversight, and requirements, but fails to uniformly hold the Executive to these standards.

    It doesn’t matter what the Congressional excuses are. The only answer is to preserve the Constitution, not explain it away as a “debatable” issue. In this case, the Congress isn’t debating – they’re simply not doing what they agreed to do in the Constitution and statutes: The supreme law of the land, to which they took an oath to uphold, not explain away.

    The way forward is to discuss what the States can do – in the vacuum of Congressional leadership – to compel the Federal Government to do what they’ve agreed to do. It’s that simple.

    In the meantime, the voters need to decide: Are you with the Congressional rebellion or are you for the Constitution? You have to make a choice. If you choose to assent to this non-sense, you’re going to vote for a dictatorship. That is not an option.

    The way forward is to discuss this with your friends and do what Congress refuses to do: Provide leadership, debate the issues, and formulate a plan. Someone can impose this on you and compel you to vote on it – as was done in Iraq, and you may not be happy with it – or you can discuss what is to be done.

    You have eight months to decide: Are you going to assert the rule of law and come up with a Constitutional way forward to remedy these self-evident defects; or are you going to require more abuses between 2006 and 2008? We’ve had too many. And the Iraqis see the absurdity of this failed system: Imprudent planning, illegal wars, and absurd decisions. And the American public has what the framers designed the system to prevent: Spiraling war debts, unlawful activity, and disregard for the Constitution.

    You have to choose: Between [a] the current Congressional-Executive Rebellion against the Constitution and [b] the Constitution. The issue going forward is what is to be done to lawfully protect the document which this Federal Government holds with disdain.

    * * *

    Let’s consider some implications of this apparent “gap in the NSA-GCHQ intercept” data base. If the data related to the UAE-UK deal was “not intercepted”:

  • A. what other gaps are there is US knowledge in the region?

  • B. what gaps are there in information about Iran?

  • C. What gaps are there in information about UAE links to the “convenient enemy of the week”?

    The point is that if we are led to believe that “the President and Congress didn’t know” what was going on, then we have to ask “what else they don’t know.”

    Conversely, the lesson of Iraq WMD is clear: “not knowing something” is not the same as an imminent threat, nor proof that there is something. We cannot appeal to ignorance, despite what Karl Rove, PNAC, and Bolton would prefer.

    Let’s consider something Gonzalez said at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Feb 6, 2006. He talked about data mining.

    Theoretically, had the NSA programs – that Gonzalez would not talk about – were ongoing as they should have been during the period that the UAE-UK deal was getting finalized – then the President’s justification for these programs – regardless their legality – would have us believe that the programs were ongoing, justified, and producing some sort of result.

    But we get back to the balancing issue: Why are they spending so much time chasing ghosts – using unlawful means – but information not requiring a warrant – related to the UAE – gets missed?

    Again, the chain of events that would have had to have broken are orders of magnitude similar to what failed on 9-11. Here’s a brief summary of what would have had to have failed if the NSA “didn’t know” about the UAE deal. The UAE deal should have triggered inter alia

  • A. Advance notice on UAE negotiations in the PDB; [Process]

  • B. A heads up to Congress [Oversight]

  • C. Pre-contract discussions fro NSA, Joint Staff to evaluate the risks [Statute].

    Notice the three terms I placed after each option: Process, oversight, and statute – these are the issues at the hear of the UAE and NSA activity.

    Again, the balancing test forces us to notice that there is a high level of concern with these factors in the UAE, but the same factors get a yawn from Congress on the NSA unlawful domestic surveillance.

    The issue is that this balancing approach is also useful when comparing the House Intelligence Committee approach to Able Danger. Hoekstra [R-MI, Chairman House Intelligence] made inconsistent statements on whether he was or was not going to investigate.

  • A., Should there be something within the Constitution that mandates a reasonable standard of oversight; or

  • B. Is this something that should merely be included by incorporation within the House rules after the States have input?

    The problem with Option A is that despite clear statutory requirements to do something, Congress doesn’t enforce the law. The issue becomes what is to be done when the “failure of Congressional enforcement” is not simply an issue of convenience but habit. Again, the Congress – in theory – should be inspired by their oath to do what must be done. Self-evidently, this oath is meaningless in that there are no sanctions for failing to do what should be done – enforce the law – and rewards for doing what is happening: Openly defying the Constitution and statutes.

    The issue is not a new one. In the wake of the Civil War, the issue of the oath of office surfaced: What is to be done to those who had already engaged in rebellion – can they be trusted; and how can they be trusted to make an oath to something that they’ve already ignored?

    That’s where we find ourselves: How can we make the oath of office mean something; and how can we strip legislators of their absolute immunity when they openly defy the laws of the land and refuse to ensure that the appropriations they make are for lawful purposes?

    There has to be an answer. Think back to the days of the Magna Charta. Before the document was created, there were problems.

    Also think about the Declaration of Independence. The list of abuses became the template to verify the Constitution solved these problems.

    Today, the same is needed: A solution. And that solution is the Constitution.

    The issue becomes: How do the people compel the Congress and President -- who remain in rebellion against the Constitution – to assent to the rule of law?

    That is for the states to debate:

  • B. What will trigger this action;

  • A. What is to be done to lawfully force them to do what they have promised to do;

  • C. What can the people lawfully assert or make lawful as a possible solution when the current system refuses to assent to the oath.

    * * *

    We’ve looked at how Congress in general has or hasn’t done something; and what the NSA has or hasn’t done.

    Let’s take a look at the UAE deal in a slightly different way. One thing we haven’t done is explore the relationship between the NSA and the Congressional Committee that supposedly oversees the NSA and the post 9-11 solutions.

    Again, the issue before us is what is to be done when this system of self-regulation fails. Rather than focus on the apparent failures in the NSA – in not providing information or following the law – the focus has shifted to the UAE.

    We need to explore what is to be done with the Committees:

  • How do we ensure that the Congress is provided the information they need to check the Executive, and that information actually checks the executive not assent to a Presidential rebellion against the Constitution.

  • How do we ensure that the Congress is getting real, timely information

  • How do we ensure that the Congress provided information on a timely basis, not retroactively briefed on illegal activity the White House hasn’t been able to suppress?

  • What is to be done to ensure Congress has the questions to ask, and is not forced to “not talk to legal experts”?

  • How will Congress be part of the information loop -- not at the whim of Executive discretion but by statutory requirement?

  • What will be done when Congress fails to ensure/mandate/require the Executive meet this statutory reporting obligation?

  • How do we make sure that the audit reporting and Congressional findings – theoretically the responsibility of an independent branch -- are consistent with reality and facts not political agendas of a party that controls all branches of government?

  • What happens when the nation’s electorate votes into office those who ignore the laws and the system has no credible system of checks and balances?

    Arguably, one solution is to have an NSA-like program for the Congress to look at the Executive and sample the reports, comparing whether the information the Executive is giving Congress is consistent with the data Congress is getting independently.

    The problem is that this disconnect is already known without the NSA-like capability, so it is clear that having “more information” about a problem – that Congress isn’t paying attention to – isn’t the credible solution.

    In the end, an NSA-like capability may be needed, desired, and the real way forward. But we’re not there yet. What’s needed is a mechanism that is going to require Congress to do something.

    At this point, blogs, media, faxes, and open discussions have had no effect. Nor do the House Rules work to trigger this.

    There needs to be something inherent in the Congress that self-triggers this action – something that mandates the Constitution is first, not simply given lip service with the current meaningless oath.

    Another approach is to put the Judicial Branch in charge of the Congress and Executive when the States make a decision that the Congressional and Executive rebellion mandates that the third branch be given special weight.

    At this point, the problem is that the Judicial Branch is reluctant to allow itself to be put in such a position: It effectively becomes a trump card over the other two branches. But what if the States agreed that such a trumping was needed because the Congress and President were in rebellion?

    Another approach would be to permit the States – as a single body – to appear as a party before the courts – and have as the defendants the Members of Congress and President – and the issue before the Court would be to address the States’ collective grievances against the Federal Government.

    Alternatively, perhaps there could be a special master who would oversee all three branches of government – for a predetermined time up to the states to debate – that would ensure the three branches of government we recalibrated. Some call this a dictatorship; I prefer to call it what it is – the State’s asserting the 10th Amendment to force the Federal Government to do their jobs. A dictatorship tells the people what to do; this approach would do the opposite wake the federal government up to do their job.

    Clearly, there is a way forward. What’s needed is some sort of discussion on what types of events would trump the Federal Government’s rebellion and bring the wayward back under the umbrella of the Constitution. Something needs to be done. The current Congressional inaction and assent to this Presidential rebellion is not only unacceptable, it’s simply stupid.

    * * *

    The problem we have is that the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman – as reported by Ambassador Wilson – appears to be cooperating with the Vice President to essentially slow roll the Phase II investigations and reviews of the NSA unlawful activity.

    Regardless why this inaction and agreement occurs, there needs to be something that mandates a loyalty to something higher than one’s political party. In theory, the oath of office does this; in practice the oath is secondary to party interests.

    The states need to discuss this. What are the criteria the states can use to lawfully trump the Federal-level rebellion when

  • A. the Federal government refuses to follow the statutes; and

  • B. the Federal Government will not pass legislation that bars conduct that puts the oath behind the party.

    These are issues of standards of evidence; and at what point a state-level Constitutional Convention will clearly define the types of statutes that will be imposed on Members of Congress and Executive Officers – essentially trumping Article 1 Section 5.

  • Even if loyalty to party over loyalty to the oath was criminalized, how would you measure that conduct for purposes of convincing a grand jury that a crime had been committed?

  • What is to be done when the Congress refuses to pass or enforce rules that mandate the oath be put before Party Loyalty;

  • How do we collect evidence when the majority party agrees to remain silent about the real loyalty to party not the oath;

  • What types of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to prompt an independent investigation;

  • If we can’t get the Congress to work with the existing ethics and House rules, and the rules are not changed, do the States need to have a voice that trumps the House rules and compels them to do what must be done?

    * * *

    Let’s consider what we know about the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Intelligence Estimate related to Iraq.

    Published reports in Foreign Affairs Magazine suggest the number of Senators who read the classified NIE on Iraq was six [6]. This suggests that their decision to vote was not related to classified information, but what they were told was or was not in the report.

    The curios thing is the contrast between the NSA issue and the UAE. There’s a high level of interest on the UAE issue and Rove’s agenda, but a big yawn on the NSA.

    * * *

    Let’s consider the balancing issue on media strategy to manage the NSA and UAE issues. Let’s compare the NSA and UAE along three factors: Congressional oversight, reviews, and formal review bodies.

    You’ll notice a curious contrast in speed and uniformity of the message.

  • NSA: All the factors indicate slothiness.

    The White House knew a long time the NYT was looking into the matter; did nothing to investigate; and was surprised in that the arguments were still absurd despite this lead time. FISA was ignored as was the FISA court.

  • UAE: All three factors are the opposite with the UAE: There was a fast reaction, and outrage.

    The change is important. This simply indicates that something has changed in behavior, but the standards remain the same: In one case they are asserted; in another case they are ignored.

    * * *


    Let’s deal with the particular individual in the UAE review: [ Negropante, Negroponte, Negraponte ] The problem is this guy is an intelligence person, was brought in by the President, and was confirmed at some point by the Senate for his Ambassadorship to Honduras.

    We’re asked to believe that what he was or was not doing was something the President “didn’t know about.” For the sake of argument, let’s presume the President’s assertion is true; the issue becomes why the Congress isn’t asking the following question:

  • Why are we having the same problems as we did with 9-11: Experts in the intelligence community not coordinating with those they ultimately report to. If the answer is that the President “trusts them,” the issue is: Trusts them to do what – keep their mouth shut about war crimes, and do nothing when the prosecutor shows up?

    Let’s presume the President’s assertion is false – and that he did know what Negraponte was doing – we would have to presume the President was talking to Cheney and indirectly to Roberts on the Senate Intelligence Committee – apparently the same people involved in the discussions over Ambassador Wilson, Iraq WMD, and Phase II. In this nexus is also the NY law enforcement leadership who has prior links to the CIA Operations, and the DHS Security Personnel, passing what appears to be fabricated information gleaned from the abuse in Morocco.

    The issue before us: What are we most likely to presume is true:

  • A. The President is lying – and that there were many players involved

  • B. The President is telling the truth – and that there was a small group.

    The lesson from Katrina, Iraq WMD, and 9-11 show us the circle of those involved is substantially larger than what we are to presume. In fact, it appears as though the number of people involved in the pre Iraq invasion planning was large – all chiming the same non-sense; as was the circle of people actually involved in the pre 9-11 planning and exercises.

    This leads us back to the Senate Intelligence Committee on the UAE deal: Why, despite the many discussions between the White House and the intelligence community, is the White House asserting it is in the dark; and who in the Intelligence Committee feigning shock, horror, and disbelief.

    Actually, the answer appears to be quite simple: The RNC is not feigning shock over something they are surprised over. Their response is too well coordinated; the media appears to have been intimidated to be quiet about some particular issues which insiders are discussion; and it is not reasonable to presume the intelligence community – namely Negraponte is doing something that is not consistent with what the President wants.

    Bluntly, the available evidence before us – albeit incomplete -- continues to tip in the favor of believing that the RNC public statements about the UAE are exactly consistent with what Rove wants: Discussions on issues unrelated to the NSA unlawful activity, and diversions away from the Constitution, FISA, and required Congressional checks and balances.

    It is not credible to believe that the Congress is in the dark on this issue – the speed of their combined response appears to be too well harmonized, completely at odds with the apparent “shock” over the NYT revelations. IF we are to believe the White House, they had plenty of time to prepare for the NYT revelations on the NSA, and have failed to harmonized their message; the best we could expect from the “equally shocked Congress” is something that is haphazard. The results demonstrate otherwise, leading us to believe there is something else going on.

    Also, given the MI6, NSA, and other domestic observations by the FBI over this issue, it’s not credible to believe – especially given the “solutions” of the 9-11 era – that Congress was kept out of the loop. Rather, it appears as though Cheney and Roberts well discussed this issue.

    Now we have to look at the issue in the context of the NSA and Congress: Either

  • A. NSA knew and did nothing – not credible, given they have toads in the SES that will do what the White House wants, even violate the law to throw innocent people in black sites and torture them;

  • B. NSA did not know – not credible since NSA can go where it wants, and invade reporters’ homes without warrants;

  • C. NSA made it up – possible

  • D. Congress is excited over the wrong issue – equally possible.

    In short, all the requirements for the “President not knowing” are at odds with the solutions Congress has been asserting are “well in place” and “they’re on top of things.” Again, we know the 9-11 recommendations are well in place – the issue is whether those recommendations are or are not generating improved results than what supposedly failed on 9-11. We argue that nothing really failed on 9-11: Rather, the entire response did exactly what it was supposed to do: Feign disorder, then rally the nation.

    In other words, the red herring in this entire discussion is whether Congress is or is not going to “get around to” doing Phase II. We already know what’s in Phase II: The issues that they’re reviewing is bad news, just as the verbal statements Gonzalez made about the domestic data mining programs, Operation Falcon, and the use of military personnel for unlawful purposes – both at home and abroad.

    Roberts and Cheney have made a critical error. They believe that if they can suppress information about Phase II, the public won’t know. On the contrary, the public doesn’t need to know the results – we can make adverse judgments about Phase II:

  • A. Congress is well aware of the problems;

  • B. Congress is more concerned with protecting the RNC majority than the Constitution;

  • C. Congress assents to the President’s rebellion against the Constitution;

  • D. Congress has no interest in asserting checks and balances or honoring its oath.

    We don’t need to “wait for” Congress to admit – through the Phase II report – that the problem rests with Congress and its failure to compel NSA and CIA IGs to review the matters. The problem isn’t in the intelligence community: The problem is in the White House in their use of non-sense, intimidation, abuse, and threats to induce others both in Congress and the Executive Branch to violate the law and suppress evidence of that activity.

    Supposedly Congress is “surprised” by the UAE deal, but we have no public statement by the Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee calling for the NSA IG to review “why the president is in the dark.” We can only conclude that the Ranking Member doesn’t know what he’s allowed to do – raising questions why there is no credible alternative – or he’s been dissuaded from doing something he’s allowed to do: Direct NSA IG to do an audit.

    We have no audit. Congress has the power to act. The issue isn’t whether the RNC does or doesn’t control Congress; rather, the issue is whether – despite a minority – the DNC is going to unite and use the tools it has to compel answers.

    Congress may choose to do nothing; but the public can and will make adverse judgments:

  • A. Congress is in rebellion with the President against the Constitution;

  • B. There are lawful changes to the Constitution that the states can discuss to mandate loyalty to the Constitution over the political party;

  • C. The states can pass proclamations – which are privileged under House rule 603, and cannot be tabled – calling for members of Congress who are in rebellion against the Constitution and their oaths to be expelled from Congress.

    There is no excuse for Congress not to know what is going on; nor for it choosing to “not find out” what is going on. There are issues over 9-11 which are recurring, but the MI6 and NSA are in a position to explain to Congress what changes have occurred – if any – since 9-11.

    Also, Congress – if it is truly “surprised” by the issues with the UAE – cannot explain why it is not similarly concerned with the same issues in the NSA: Oversight, procedures, and statutory requirements. The imbalance is noteworthy.

    We don’t have to wait for Congress to “get around” to figuring this out. We can make adverse judgments:

  • A. Cheney knows he has a problem;

  • B. The President and Vice President know they’ve unlawfully ordered the US military to engage in an unlawful war;

  • C. The Joint Staff knows it has failed to remove itself from something it should have reasonably known – given the NSA reports that there was no WMD – that the imminent invasion of Iraq in 2002-3 was illegal;

  • D. Members of the media are well aware that the RNC leadership is under direct NSA and GCHQ monitoring over these issues of war crimes, and that the Special Prosecutor has access to information through non-US sources showing who is in support of the unlawful activity;

  • E. Libby’s attorney in NY well knows there are non-US assets currently monitoring his communications with Libby and he can no longer provide assurances to anyone that his concerns with the FBI I-drive and Brady Requests have not been monitored; nor can he say with any certainty that non-US citizens have not reviewed the documents showing the plan and information to acquire documents Libby’s attorney believes others are not aware he has reviewed.

    This leads us back to the media: What’s the problem – do you believe that the American public is not going to figure this out, and realize that the US Sources inside the US government are orchestrating a plan – as they did with the Iraq WMD – to guide the American media away from the impeachable offenses. All American communications in and out of the US are monitored and intercepted; the archives are in locations outside the US control; there are transcripts; and personnel outside US control are waiting to provide this information.

    The RNC knows this, and the RNC knows its personnel inside the White House, OSD Staff, and NSA can no longer be trusted to not already cooperate with the US Attorney as undercover informants. Bluntly, the RNC personnel need to make a choice: Are you going to require additional pressure and evidence of your crimes; are you going to resign; or are you going to bet that the people you are working with have not already been given approval to violate the same laws you are violating in order to remain close and gather more evidence. You cannot change history. But you do have a choice about the future: Whether you remove yourself from this unlawful rebellion against the Constitution; or whether the US Attorney has to throw the book at you with indictments. Either way, you’re going to lose: The Constitution has not left, nor is it debatable – it will smother you. If you require the system of justice to remind you that you cannot mess with the Constitution, then keep it up – you are not needed, and the public does see through your non-sense intimidation of the media. The public can make adverse judgments and lawfully discuss legal alternatives to the failed system of checks and balances:

  • A. State proclamations calling for members of Congress to be disbarred;

  • B. Local discussions to organize a Constitutional Convention to strengthen the system of checks and balances, and mandate all federal officials are recertified on their oath of office;

  • C. State discussions on lawful ways for the States to intervene when the Federal Government becomes a clear threat and is in active rebellion against the Constitution.

    Again, the Magna Charta and Declaration of Intendance have given us the Constitution – that is the starting and ending point of this discussion. Your failure has been the gross, absurd, and arrogant assumption that that foundation is debatable. Wrong. Period.

    The courts have already adjudicated on this matter in the wake of the civil war: There is no “implied” authority; and no reasonable person in the Executive or Legislative branch can reasonable argue before any court that they “honestly” though that the Constitution permitted torture, abuse, unlawful war, or assent to violations of the Constitution. Rather, Congress’ failure has been to create rules that protect the Constitution.

    Article 1 Section 5 does not give the exclusive power to the House to make rules; rather the key phrase is “May” – meaning that power – through the 10th Amendment – may be rescinded by the States with a lawful change to the Constitution. In other words, when the Federal Government’s “rules” prove to be in effective in ensuring your oaths are something you actually follow, then the States through the 10th Amendment may lawfully do what Congress refuses to do: “The States Shall Enforce Rules Which Congress refuses to enforce when it comes to matters of protecting the Constitution.”

    It remains a matter of debate whether this “regulation” and “shall enforce” options are exclusively remedied through elections; or whether the States can lawfully introduce at a Constitutional Convention specific language promulgating that the States shall have the final power as to whether the House – in Article 1 Section 5 – can be trumped when they fail to enforce the rules of the house, or when Congress unlawfully continues to appropriate money for unlawful wars; and to what extent legislative immunity shall be stripped when no reasonable person could justify rebellion against the Constitution – as is this Congress.

    This Federal System has broken. This Federal Government has failed. The States need to lawfully act to inject some adult leadership. The guide is clear: The Constitution. This “leadership” has violated the laws of war; continues to spend money on unlawful wars; and then wants to hide evidence.

    The time for debate and discussion within the Senate Intelligence Committee is over: The time for the States to lawfully debate this issue, and find a lawful alternative to this failed system of Committees in Congress is at hand. Whether that “new solution” is merely an assertion that ‘the existing rules need to e enforced” – so be it – enforce them! But do not have this sham “oversight” system – one that mocks the FISA court, and then does nothing to investigate the issue.

    The problem is clear. This Congress knows the President has violated the law. This RNC continues to arrogantly believe they can simply hide the Cheney-Roberts discussions. Yet, how can the RNC explain why the NSA personnel appear to be able to communicate, but the Q2 cannot figure out how this breaches are occurring? Clearly, the NSA leadership and White House can’t figure this one it.

    Congratulations! Your entire rebellion has been penetrated by people loyal to the Constitution, not the RNC and they remain in your offices, staring you in the face, and you continue to believe the enemy is “out there”. Wrong. The enemy is in your mirror – it’s you – you are the threat to the Constitution; and that is why you spend so much time chasing ghosts in Guantanamo, the Black Sites, and the media – the entire world knows what’s going on. The only problem is you believe you can remain hidden.

    If you refuse to cooperate, we can make more adverse judgments:

  • 1. You remain in unlawful rebellion against the Constitution;

  • 2. You continue to violate the Posse Comitatus Act and use US troops and CIFA personnel in domestic sweeps;

  • 3. The domestic rendition program is well known, and you continue to use CIA aircraft to move US citizens out of the US and hide them in black sites;

  • 4. The military is used in under cover capacities to infiltrate non-violent groups who are simply discussing what is to be done to preserve this Constitution;

  • 5. The law is a guide you use to violate and organize plans to abuse American citizens;

  • 6. You openly defy the FISA court, lie to Congress, and make up legal non-sense to make the world believe the truth is something other than what you are doing – violating the law, ignoring your oath, and actively ignoring the Constitution.

    The American media knows this. They have your names. Those in their rolodexes are already known to the GCHQ.

    The issue is: Who do you believe you’re fooling? There’s nothing to hide. We can reasonably presume the worst: That you have plans to silence and harm Americans who dare speak the truth.

    Well done! No we know who the real threat is – and the US Attorney has already told you – you’re not going to see the rest of the files in the US DoJ control that outline in detail:

  • A. How it was determined the White House was involved;

  • B. Who within Libby’s staff is cooperating with the US Attorney;

  • C. Which specific people in the Joint Staff continue to cooperate to gather evidence to bring war crimes charges against the Joint Staff and Senior Commanders.

    Who do you think you’re fooling? The media has proven itself willing to assent to your threats. Fine! Then let’s talk about what the media isn’t doing; and why the media is followed on which specific issues.

    You say we “can’t talk” about National Security Letters – OK< we can talk about “all the other stuff” surrounding those threats to keep people silent about your unlawful conduct. What are you going to do, call your supervisors, have a meeting, and go start another war? You have no hope: You can’t point to anything specific. One day the Iranians are “reckless” – so how can the possibly do anything resembling organized activity; but then you want us to believe, “Hay, despite our ignorance, we want more specific attacks like we had in Iraq.” What – using more cruise missiles – on which targets – why weren’t these targets given to the IAEA for inspection? All the OSD and Joint Staff planners are doing is organizing the military to act like a shotgun: Blindly shooting at anything.

    Where have you been? The UN General Assembly cannot all be intimidated as they were with Iraq – the world knows you have no evidence.

    What are you asking: That we go to a “preemptive” war mode – that “someone” might do something, so we need to attack first? Curious, why isn’t that “pre-emptive litigation” applied to government officials: “You might violate the laws of war, so let’s prosecute you now.”

    Why doesn’t that work? Why isn’t the same non-sense you impose on other nations a “good enough standard” to be applied to government officials:

  • A. You might do something in the future, so let’s have a trial today based on the future

  • B. You might be a clear threat to the Constitution, so let’s have a trial today on what you might do in the future.

    The bottom line problem with this RNC “leadership” is that they want the world to embrace a “new jurisprudence” about the “nature of warmed conflict” but they do not want to have a similar “new jurisprudence” about the “nature of Constitutional government.”

    Why the inconsistency?

    Why is there “such a pressing need for new rules to permit you to pre-emptively attack others” but that same permission is not given to US attorney’s to pre-emptively litigate against Members of Congress, the Whit House and RNC over what they ‘might do” in their ongoing rebellion against the President?

    Each argument you give that says, “Congress cannot be subjected to that standard,” is the same reason the Iranians are giving for why they cannot be compelled to “not do something” about the energy problems: Nuclear fuel.

    Why is the US talking to India about “nuclear fuel” but refuses to provide similar help to the Iranians? You have no answer because you’ve already decided – in your own mind – that Iran is to be attacked, just as Iraq was. You do not care about reality – and that, arguably is why the States need to discuss new jurisprudence called “Pre-emptive Litigation Against Members of Congress When They Are Stripped of Legislative Immunity.”

    You cannot claim immunity to unlawful conduct and illegal wars; nor can you claim you are “immune” to oversight or failures to asset your oath. Yet, that’s where you are: Doing exactly what you have been given the power to “not worry about”: Violating your oath

    Well, you need to worry: There are 50 states. Local citizens have already passed within the past few weeks proclamations. There are eight more months until the November 2006 elections. It is only going to get worse. Grinding, unrelenting, and more evidence of misconduct: Do you plan to continue to align yourselves with the unlawful ones in the RNC, or do you want to start standing tall, and being proud of your Constitution?

    Either way, the Constitution remains; and those who rebel against the Constitution are going to lose.

    * * *

    This White House and Congress have a problem. There are common people in the 9-11, Iraq WMD, Phase II, NSA issues, and the UAE. People like Negroponte are common – it is not plausible to believe that the President is in the dark.

    The NSA intercepts – that confirmed there was no WMD, but the Joint Staff knowingly unlawfully issued illegal orders to wage unlawful war in Iraq – exist. The NSA intercepts about the UAE deal tell us two things: Either

  • A. The port deal was known, and the DoD was well aware of what was going on; OR

  • B. The port deal was a ruse.

    Either way, there is a problem which this Intelligence Community and Congress – like 9-11 – are not facing, and Roberts and Cheney are well aware of what the real story is.

    Fitzgerald has you. Pick – Rebellion or Constitution. There is no middle ground.

    There is specific information related to the UAE port deal showing exactly what the bid information was; when the discussions occurred; and which UAE personnel were known by the FBI counter intelligence to have personally visited the US. Congress has not credibly reviewed this information; nor can it explain why despite the “surprise” there has been no direction to the NSA IG to review why we have “another” 9-11 like failure.

    Congress already knows – Roberts and Cheney are on the same page. It remains to be understood which specific US personnel have been ordered to dissuade the media from reporting this issue, and openly discussing the problem Cheney and Roberts have: there is a problem that they have not faced, and that continues to “go beyond explanation” since the 9-11 event.

    Enough! It’s time for the States to openly debate these issues: What is to be done when

  • A. The Vice President and Senior Members of Congress refuse to assent to the rule of law, find facts, and make decisions that are consistent with lawful wars;

  • B. The Vice President and Senior Members of Congress agree to stifle lawful reviews of malfeasance within the White House, NSA, and Congress over matters related to the Constitution;

  • C. The President of the United States is well aware of the discussions and planning to wage unlawful war; and the Vice President, and Members of Congress agree to stifle lawful reviews of the unlawful war and refuse to ensure the orders given to military commanders are lawful.

    There! We’ve said it. This entire Federal Government has failed to check itself, investigate, preserve the 1st Amendment protecting freedom of the press and right to assembly; and has the audacity to believe the public can’t figure it out.

    Well, wake up! Even the most stupid person in America can figure this one out: You are in rebellion, and the States have the power to lawfully discuss lawful remedies to this self-evident attack on the Constitution by specific named individuals within the White House, Congress, Joint Staff, DoD, NSA, and the Executive Department.

    You do not have the power to wage unlawful war; nor can you write an “executive order” that violates the law; nor may you retroactively give your “friends” a “get out of jail free” card after they have waged unlawful war.

    No, the answer is the evidence has to be brought before the third branch – not Congress, not the Executive – but the Judicial Branch so they can make an informed adjudication:

  • A. Who is waging unlawful war

  • B. Which military commanders inside the Joint Staff are knowingly issuing unlawful orders directing military personnel to violate the Posse Comitatus Act and violate the laws of war in Iraq and Guantanamo;

  • C. Which specific white House staff members have refused to remove themselves from this ingoing rebellion against the Constitution;

  • D. Which members of the Executive Branch have unlawfully used illegal methods to stiffly lawful activity related to free association, communication, and open discussion of lawful remedies to self-evident attacks on this Constitution by specific named individuals in the White house, Joint Staff, DoD, and Executive Branch.

  • E. How much money or what other valuable consideration has been given, promised, implied, or withheld to induce people to assent to these violations of the law, and refuse to assert their oaths.

    Bottom line: RICO – what is to be done when the States agree and discuss at a Constitutional convention

  • the Federal Government is in rebellion;
  • clear statutes barring corruption in government are not enforced;
  • the “leadership” in Congress refuses to review matter related to recurring problems with

  • A. “another round of 9-11 lessons”
  • B. recurring NSA violations of the law
  • C. Unlawful intimidation of the media to silence discussion on public corruption
  • D. Illegal use of military personnel in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

  • These are not voting matters. These are not issues that you “wait” to “review” when you “feel like it” nor are they issues that we should ‘wait until the November election.’

    These are matters of criminal law. They are outside the power of Congress and the Executive to “debate.” The laws already exist. Had Congress intended that there be some sort of “get out of jail free card after commit war crimes” there would have been something to that in the statute to that effect.

    We see not get out of jail free card.

    There is no get out of jail free card.

    The time for the Cheney-Roberts non-sense discussion has run its course. It is time to swiftly move this discussion into the Federal Courts; and if required the States are fully prepared to continue their work to make that happen.

    If the Federal Government will not do its job – the States are fully prepared to lawfully compel you to do what is consistent with your oath; and can lawfully engage in free debates to correct the self-evident defects in this failed system of checks and balances which allows continued:

  • A. Appropriations for unlawful wars;
  • B. Non-enforcement of House rules mandating that the oath be asserted;
  • C. Passage of legislation without input from the citizenry through debate.

    Remember what happened in 1776: The world took notice – this nation put Parliament on notice that we shall not assent to abusive conduct, nor will we assent to acts of Parliament which are devoid of any prudent linkage to solving problems. That’s where we are.

    The only option we have – if Congress and the president do not voluntarily remove themselves from this rebellion – is for the States to lawfully convene at a Constitutional Convention, rewrite the Constitution and make you do your jobs.

    Hay, the Iraqis wrote a Constitution. Why can’t Americans?

    We are not going to “wait” until the “election” to “maybe” get around to “possibly” think about this. This is a matter of criminal law, it belongs in court, and well placed before the competent courts which are able to with an open mind review the laws, examine the evidence and decide:

  • A. Who should lawfully be put to death because of their unlawful wars and war crimes, consistent with the US Code;

  • B. Who should be locked away and barred from ever having any access to public office, consistent with the 14th Amendment;

  • C. Who should be sanctioned with probation because of their cooperation with the court to provide evidence.

    That’s it. Debate over.

    * * *

    Let’s speculate more about this UAE deal.

  • A. How much money is the UAE getting from DoD for bases to make up for the excessive prices management is paying to get access to US port?

  • B. Which yellow-cake like dreamed up the UAE port deal as a distraction from the NSA revelations?

  • C. Was Gonzalez distracted by the UAE port deal when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or was he just stupid and had to “rewrite” is verbal statements with narrow comments?

    Too much had to happen before the “review window” for NSA to have missed [a] the effort to collect the cost and pricing information and [b] do a credible analysis. Too much had to happen, there was no enough time – by design! This is a ruse, distraction.

    How can congress and the media explain this ‘big plan” appearing out of the blue – you mean there were “no leaks”? Surely, someone in the media knows what was going on – they always love a secret – or are we to believe that the media “knows nothing” and that the US government likes to abuse people simply because they “just happen to be there”.

    The American arrogant system prints wanted posters saying, “Hay you Afghanis – want to live like a King, we will give you big America sports car to drive on Rocks. Give us names of your friends, and we will give you money so you can live in a Rock House that collapses under an earthquake.”

    Who writes that? The same arrogant people that go after priests, lawyers, the media . . . simply because they dare to be “just around.”

    It’s time for the States to discuss this: What is to be done when the 42 USC 1983 threat is an insufficient catalyst to deter violations of the law, civil rights violations.

    Hay! We already agreed to follow the Constitution – why is this government not subjected to the same “Pre-emptive litigation threat” which the US wants to impose on Iran: Good enough for pre-emptive litigation; let’s have the same for US officials: Pre-emptive litigation because they “might” continue to violate the laws of war, or ignore the Constitution.

    If the US is going to “openly debate” new “jurisprudence” for the “preemptive litigation” against foreign nations, then we surely can discuss the same issues in the States without fear of any harm.

    But the arrogant Americans want it both ways: To impose a rule on others, that they will not assent to. Pre-emptive action against all, but no accountability at home.

    Enough! One cannot pre-emptively violate the law to “preserve” the law – supposedly that is our “way of life” that we’re protecting. Indeed, if we truly have a system that is valuable, then that system of laws must be applied both at home and abroad.

    The issue is not whether the US wants to follow the law; but what will happen when the US fails to follow the law. The States need to discuss why their personnel are used to support an unlawful war; and are not permitted to investigate matters related to violations of the laws of war.

    The US cannot have it both ways. It cannot mandate the world assent to agreements which the US does not honor; while at the same time demanding that the States not impose discipline on those who will not conduct their affairs consistent with the laws.

    If the States are the only rational actor – and they act in a manner consistent with the law – then all those who defy the law lose any standing before the court. That is why the US government is intimidating the media: The US government cannot lawfully do what it is doing – dissuading discussion about the domestic renditions; hoping to keep people silent about the well known war crimes which state personnel have been barred from investigating; and about the agreements between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the White House to take no action on malfeasance, war crimes, and failures to protect the nation as is required under Article IV.

    We are guaranteed a republic. That is not a debate. Yet, this Congress has failed as has this Executive Branch to protect this nation from an unlawful rebellion by the President, Executive Branch and Congress.

    Too many people know. There are too many intercepts. There is too much evidence – the evidence is spilling onto the streets, causing NY Attorneys working for Libby to shriek with panic because we know and have access to the documents Libby’s counsel is reading.

    The UAE port deal is the fruit of the same poisoned tree: Too many people know what is really going on, especially when it deals with a US port, and an Echelon ally can well monitor the current managers. There are auditors, estimators, and attorneys – all well within the scope of Echelon, NSA, and GCHQ to have monitored, especially given the linkage between a known supporter of the people we supposedly are fighting in Afghanistan.

    It remains a credibility problem for the media: What do they really know about this port deal, and what are they choosing to remain silent about for “fear” of losing contact with sources.

    It is time for the media to choose: Are you going to assent to more abuse; or are you going to stand up for your freedom to speak out. You cannot assent to abuse, and then credibly believe that anyone will not see that you have compromised.

    How dare you lecture anyone about “what you are doing” or “why you should be respected” or “what benefit you are giving” when you are part of the problem – you have chosen to side with those who defy our Constitution – and your right to freely print facts and news – just so you can have “access” to them.

    Why do you protect those who abuse you?

    Why do you not discuss the abuse?

    They’re already abusing you – what more do you have to fear – that they might stop doing what you love: Abuse.

    You are warped. You love the abuse – because it means you’re getting attention from power.

    Wake up! You do not have to live in that non-sense. Tell the world what you know, the abuse, the threats, and what is trigging this. But you cannot expect the world to come to your aid if you remain silent; and if you choose to remain silent – despite your protected right to speak in the media – then shame on you. You deserve to have far more competent people keep you free. You have the power and protected right to speak, think, engage in commerce and trade – and you refuse to assert that right. The right exists, but you will not use it. Shame on you! You have no credibility when you are given on a plate the very information you need to ensure the public – your consumers – are given the information they need to mobilize to protect your Constitution and your right to do what you love. You’re an idiot.

    The problem is that this situation has spiraled down. The problem is the media has failed. The problem is the media sided with the rebellion, and has stood silent as the war crimes continued to go unchecked.

    Now the media has a problem: Those who were committing abuses in Iraq, have now returned to wage war on the media at home. The media is learning the hard way – if you give in early, you cannot get out easily. This media deserves no sympathy.

    Rather, any effort to “help out the media” is simply we as Americans must take to protect ourselves. Remember, the arrogant media which did nothing to protect this country from these war crimes was not there when we need it; and there is no reason we should care when this media is retaliated against for daring to be close to power.

    But the time has come when the states must discuss: What is to be done when the very information systems we rely on to get information about the government misconduct are under threat by the very system which has waged unlawful war.

    Can we save the media? Who cares – the information exists. What’s needed is new people who will dare to speak the truth; those who will report what is going on; and those who will talk about the issues which the media refuses to cover:

  • Domestic rendition

  • White House war crimes

  • Joint Staff war crimes tribunals

  • DoD and JTTF threats against the media

    The media is the entity that failed to mobilize a debate outside Congress; and it is time for the States to debate what this Federal Government refuses to address: What is to be done when the Federal Government fails and

  • A. consume the very resources it relies on for its power – the Constitution.

  • B. engages in rebellion against the Constitution;

  • C. refuses to timely ensure that the Judicial Branch is appropriately informed of the evidence required to adjudicate matters of war crimes, violations of the law by members of Congress and the Executive.

    A nation cannot live in a fantasy land. It is time to face what is happening. This RNC and White House have no plans to freely assent to the rule of law. They plan to continue to attack the media – and that is the story that the public and voters need to know more about:

  • 1. what are the issues that are prompting the DoD and JTTF clampdown;

  • 2. What is specifically triggering the white House to lash out now at the media over which issues

    The White House has had four years since 9-11 to do this; the question is – why now, what suddenly happened, what new information does the media have that the White House fears will land on the US Attorney’s desk.

    The key is to know exactly what the White House is most fearful of and continue to encourage the media to report on the misconduct aimed at hiding revelations related to what they do not want the voters to know:

  • A. How many American citizens have been unlawfully rendered to black sites in Morocco, Eastern Europe, or other locations inside or outside the United States?

  • B. When Gonzalez called the Senate leadership to say there was no NSA monitoring, how many minutes did it take for the NSA to then restart the unlawful activity that Gonzalez had denied was occurring

  • C. Where are the videos of the Operation Falcon showing US military personnel were supporting US Marshalls as they raided houses during the operation, and were present in violation of the US statute in the Posse Comitatus Act This is a violation of the US Statutes – promise to the American people.

  • D. Which specific unlawful activity does the media suspect is occurring -- and the White house believes the media will soon report -- that is trigging JTTF, DoD and CIFA personnel to unlawfully enter US resident’s homes without a warrant to plan evidence and unlawfully place monitoring equipment to gather evidence? This is a violation of the freedom of the Press – guaranteed in the Constitution.

  • E. Which specific commercial, business, and non-government entities does DoD and the White House rely on to gather evidence about those in the media who dare to speak about the unlawful domestic surveillance, information gathering and retention -- which NSA and JTTF routinely unlawfully provide access to non-government/commercial firms for purposes of intimidating into silence/support, targeting, planting evidence, and unlawfully acquiring warrants? This is a violation of the 4th Amendment – guaranteed in the Constitution.

  • F. Which specific threats to economic interests and reputation has the White House directed or encouraged others to use as a means to get third parties to assent to and remains silent about this unlawful activity? This is witness tampering – a volition of the integrity of the court, and a threat to the US System of Laws.

    Our system of laws, Constitution, and rights are not something that are “protected” by ignoring them. The laws are there to guide government. The people have all power not specifically delegated to the government. There is no law -- nor is there any “implied” power of the president --- permitting anything otherwise. No case law supports this absurd notion. Those in the blogosphere and public life who want to believe the opposite need to be public challenged for this non-sense: Make them cite the case – there is none! Zero. Their argument fails.

    “We’re at war” is irrelevant. The Constitution is neutral on war – it covers both peace and war; “wars” do not create power, rather only the Constitution grants power that belong to the people. Period. No President has been granted any power – nor is there any “implied” power to violate the law, ignore the laws of war, or use intimidation to silence discussion about his cess pool in his office.

    Laura has already threatened to leave him. She has. Ask her. Will she dare threaten to leave him again, or will she remain silent, fearful, afraid, and weak? Ask Laura – why she threatened to leave him, and why she refuses to make a similar threat today on another important principle. There are some things that are wrong and unacceptable. Why is Laura not willing to stand her ground this time -- what changed, and why?

    American service members cannot credibly claim they are doing anything of “honor” when they wage unlawful war; and their conduct is aimed at violating the laws.

    One’s “way of life” – the rule of law – is not protected by destroying it. One cannot claim they are a leader of the free world when the people are not free.

    We are free. You are constrained by the Constitution. It is there as a leash. That leash is not a rubber band, but a tight leash which also has a shield.

    The States are prepared to continue the debate. The rule of law shall prevail.

    * * *

    It remains to be understood how the UAE cost pricing and proposal was put together without the NSA knowing about it. It will also be interesting to see why the due diligence was completed, but the FBI counter intelligence cannot provide any information to highlight what Cheney and Roberts were discussing.

    FBI counter intelligence has the information on the UAE site visits, who was there, when they arrived, and can be directed to probe more deeply into their records to find out who requested information related to the travels of UAE, UK, and US personnel. The issue, as with Yellow Cake is does America want to face facts, or does it want to support this President’s unlawful rebellion against the Constitution.

  • A. Did the UAE bid low on the UK contracts?

    Adverse inference: Yes, given NSA and the President claim stupidity about the event, it is possible the UAE bidding was so fast that even NSA did not catch what was going on.

  • B. Has DoD promised to make up any losses?

    Adverse inference Yes, DoD as with most unfinished business will defer things to the future in order to secure an agreement today. This is what they did on the Halliburton Contractures and the Lincoln Contract terms. You’ll find that there are template terms in the preliminary contracts that were not removed, and the contract terms fail to mandate credible cost controls. [See Question I on surcharges]

  • C. What arrangement is there between DoD and the UAE to cover financial expenses related to an underbid/low price/non-profitable contract arrangement by way of other DoD price deals on fighter aircraft, lease arrangement on bases, or other valuable consideration?

    Adverse inference It appears as though there has been communication between the various DoD contractors and parts suppliers to ensure that UAE – despite bans against visitors who have traveled to Israel – to secure favorable commercial consideration. With respect to Israel, it remains to be understood why Hamas is treated to one standard, and UAE another.

  • D. Which specific personnel inside the US government – and or former US government employees – used their office to create a favorable environment for such an arrangement, and are not bearing fruit from the agreements they helped create while working for the Federal Government?

    Adverse inference Self-evidently, Senator Roberts and Vice president Cheney are in an excellent position to perform this feat. It remains to be understood whether Senator Roberts has a position on the board of directs should he choose to “spend more time with family.”

  • E. For purposes of complicating discovery, what is the purpose of having the commercial entity doing business in one country, but its tech support is located in a third Echelon ally location; yet it’s operations are in a fourth location?

    Adverse inference The problem DoD has is in explaining why DoD records show the dates the information was housed, retained, and stored in North Carolina. Very stupid people in Langley and the Joint Staff will co-locate commercial and military entities. Big problem this time: You’re facing a war crimes trial, not some 6 o’clock news report with a deadline. Be careful who you talk at the hotel pool at the site visit – pool cleaning drains echo rather well, “It’s the Constitution, stupid.”

  • F. Is this deal rushed as a stepping stone to another event?

    Adverse inference RNC has eight months to create more non-sense. They don’t have enough time to plan things well. Nice backdrop, use less blue.

  • G. Why was information on the port deal not provided to the NSA directly, but Cheney and Roberts appear to enjoy heavy breathing sessions on the telephone?

    Adverse inference That’s something for the States to debate: What is to be done when two branches of government agree to compromise the lawful reporting requirements, stifle an NSA IG review, and then pretend their oath of office means something.

  • H. What is the UEA getting for this bid

    Adverse inference Spare parts, contracts, DoD support, protection by the US Navy, and domestic training against opposition to the UAE leadership. They call it counter terrorism, but it’s more of what the US DoD does: Domestic harassment. Amazing what the US will claim to get landing rights – curious that big planes have more rights than human beings. Don’t forget to check those light bulbs, they didn’t make them right on the production line.

  • I. How does UAE-US support and cooperation on the port deal fit in with the Iraq-attack plans;

    Adverse inference Very well. UAE will be used as a staging point, complicating the security issues in the Persian Gulf. Not only is there a problem with Iraq oil, but the poor planning will likely cause commercial problems, easily recouped as a “surcharge”. [See B in re Contract Term problems on cost control]

  • J. Has the UAE promised to remain silent about alleged US war crimes in Iraq;

    Adverse inference Yes.

  • K. How many black sites are located in the UAE;

    Adverse inference At least one. Curiously, the detainees have stated emphatically that they were moved from regions that were very warm to cold, humid regions of Europe. The US openly admits that the UAE is a major transfer point of US military cargo. US KIAs are routinely marked as excess baggage. It is not a leap of faith to conclude that American and Iraqis have been rendered, and transshipped through UAE; or that they’ve been offloaded to US vessels. Regardless the legal rationale, the US laws against this type of activity applies to US personnel – it is irrelevant what excuses or ruses military personnel have been told to justify this treatment. It remains to be understood how many personnel have been offloaded, transshipped, or remain in UAE; and which US Navy Frigates were involved in the transshipment. Question the Senate intelligence Committee needs to ask Negropontoon: Would you rather use a rope or a helicopter to dunk someone in the Persian Gulf? He does look rather lovely standing next to gray.

  • L. How will the proposed UAE support of the US contradict the lessons of Iraq – contracts that are not made during war time should be carefully reviewed, and Contracting Officers should be given the authority to ensure the contracting rules are followed?

    Adverse inference Congress knows, and the States need to have a plan to mitigate this problem. There are inadequate DoD auditors to ensure the contracting laws are effectively enforced or internal controls are effectively managed. It remains to be understood which specific DoD auditors have been threatened to be silent about the UAE contract problems. State officials need to discuss what is to be done when the DoD continues to demand that state personnel violate the US Constitution and unlawfully support fraudulent activity.

  • L. Why should we believe that the NSA was “caught off guard” and the President “didn’t know” what was going on with the UAE deal?

    Adverse inference The NSA knows the real story, as does the president – this is a deliberate fabrication to distract attention from the NSA unlawful conduct, the Iraqi war crimes.

  • M. What did the Senate Intelligence Committee privately know about UAE issues before the White House openly commented?

    Adverse inference Roberts knows the UAE issue is a fabricated ruse to distract attention from the NSA unlawful activity, Phase II suppressed report, 9-11 issues, war crimes in Iraq, and the impeachable offenses. Phase II shows us that Senator Roberts and the White House and Vice President are in regular contact, well coordinated, and are on the same page. Negroponte appears to have provided a special briefing to Senator Roberts and selected staff members. You may wish to ask him about the curious problem on page 3 of the presentation--do not look at the filecode.

  • N. Given the apparent discussions between the Echelon Allies, North Carolina, UK, Australia, US, and UAE, why isn’t there some sort of public trace or record of all this?

    Adverse inference The entire UAE deal is a distraction from the impeachable offenses. But let’s consider the lack of public evidence -- that is curious. All these discussions between the UAE, UK, US, Australia, NSA, GCHQ, but nobody knows anything. And how much time have you spent not looking at the NSA issue? And to those who dare ask a question, DoD has a ready, willing, and able national guard unit – overweight, poorly trained, and unfit – who are ready with their mustaches, shaved heads, and died goatees to dissuade the media from thinking. Posse Comitatus and Operation Falcon -- check you on the video splice.

    * * *

    Overall, the US lied about Iraq WMD. More lies about war crimes means nothing. It doesn’t matter if the UAE deal falls through, that’s more excitement for the media to spend time “not paying attention to the NSA over.”

    Take a look at the timelines of the UAE bids and compare it to the pre 2002 DSM timelines in preparation for Iraq invasion. You’re going to see a match when you overlay the planning for Iran.

    * * *

    The problem America has is that it has a malfeasance problem. Public officials are failing to take action when they should.

    The issue before us is the NSA unlawful activity. This Government’s problem is that demands we pay attention to the UAE red herring. Meanwhile, the Senate is trying to “debate” whether it should or should not engage in oversight of the NSA. They should spend their time debating whether they will or will not have enough money for defense lawyers at a war crimes tribunal. Remember, the longer they drag this out, the greater the possibility it will be that they’ll be caught later when the RNC does not control things. Then again, the RNC doesn’t control the law – the Constitution does. So what’s the Congress afraid of when it says, “We can wait?” Answer: Congress is doing the bidding of the RNC, taking on the RNC arguments to justify inaction, using the RNC arguments as the reason to continue doing nothing. It’s easy to justify inaction when your opponents in the RNC are screaming non-sense everyone is listening to. It doesn’t have to make sense – just the fact that everyone is paying attention is good enough. Who will bother noticing that you made a decision to not review a matter because of the information from the NSA intercepts – the things that Gonzalez aid weren’t occurring, but restarted as soon as he hung up the phone. He changed his testimony; he wants to change the Constitution. One man, one troubled wife. Will she threaten him again?

    * * *

    The States need to discuss this problem: The Congress refuses to assert power, and fails to assert their oaths. There are recurring problems with Congressional oversight; the states need to create meaningful sanctions when the Federal Government fails. Here are some examples:

  • Failure to use statutes to assert power and conduct audits -- malfeasance

    IG hasn’t been energized by the ranking members on the Committees;

    State discussion remedy There need to be performance audits on Members of congress, under the direction of the States, and ¾ of the states shall have the power to remove a member of Congress from another state.

  • Congress is buried information but claims stupidity – no plausible

    The NSA intelligence oversight board shows it does nothing when faced with clear violations of the statutes, and cannot explain “how all this is going on” but they hear nothing – meanwhile the NYT has the full story, sits on it, and discusses the matter with the President – still nothing from the IOB

    State discussion remedy; Member of Congress, when they appropriate money for unlawful wars are stripped of legislative immunity. They can be required to appear before a State-run tribunal, and forced to testify about what they have been told, what information they have, and what inducement they have to support unlawful wars and violations of the law.

  • Unlawful war, but no follow-up with the Court – no statute of limitations on war crimes, both in planning and waging war

    No congressional direction to review the 2003 court cases over Iraq – the case that said there was no basis to stop an unlawful war – or which Libby-planted evidence was used to commit fraud upon the court in 2003; or why there’s not special counsel letter calling for the court caser to be reviewed in light of what we now know about the DSM, lack of WMD, and the pattern of media-planted evidence from Libby.

    State discussion remedy: States may currently provide information to the US Attorney about allegations of fraud before the court. It remains to be debated why despite the well known unlawful war in Iraq, no Member of Congress has publicly discussed what is to be done to review the apparent fraud upon the US District court over the issue of the Iraq War.

    What is to be done when the government has no “victim,” thus no “plaintiff” to start a cause of action -- should there be times when the Stats can order a non-adversarial system of justice, and direct the Judicial Branch to engage in investigations similar to what we have in Latin America?

    For example, look back to the 2003 trial in DC over the Iraq war. Motions were filed to stop the war. We now know the truth: There was no lawful foundation for war, but the Court failed to stop the war. What is to be done in 2006?

    Specifically, if someone files a motion in court that is defeated on the basis of false information and the motion involves a matter of war crimes, should the states have the power to require the Judicial Branch to [a] independently conduct a war crimes tribunal and investigate the members of Congress and Executive Branch for the fraud committed upon the court; and [b] determine who in Congress knew of the fraud or helped suppress information which the Court lawfully ordered be made available prior to the unlawful combat?

    * * *

    Let’s consider a contrast. The US government – namely the President -- uses illegal methods to gather information. He violates the law.

    One on hand, he goes before the court, arguably lying about WMD to wage unlawful war, then ignores the FISA court, then uses illegal methods to gather information. Yet, at the same time, his agent – namely Libby – allegedly commits fraud on the court with perjury.

    Should there be a situation where – when the US officials who have violated the law – similarly have a violation committed upon them? It is curious that many in government say the law doesn’t matter when they want to wage war or abuse others; but the law is to be “respected” when they themselves become the target of the needed lawful sanction.

    Perhaps there need to be upwards adjustments in the Sentencing on US officials.

    But it is a curious contrast when one hand:

  • A. Government is not willing to subject itself with fact finding; while at the same time

  • B. Government uses unlawful methods to gather unreliable information with the NSA and torture.

    Contrast the following two points:

  • C. Why is some information protected – hidden from court -- despite its probative nature – the evidence of crimes?

  • D. While other information is relied upon – proffered as true -- despite its falsity – the fruit of torture and abuse?

    There’s a lot of

    * * *

    One would think that if we had a credible system of justice, there would be some sort of consequence for this circus on the officers of the court – namely lawyers -- and those who advise government officials would stand to lose something of value if they sit by and let this absurdity to spread like wicked goo from a septic tank.

    How do we explain this. One world think that if we had a reasonable system of justice there would not only be rules against the original misconduct, but against the disparity in how evidence was treated; and sanctions on those who spoil the evidence.

    We have such a system. It is called the rules of evidence. But the issue for the states to decide is what happens when the Executive – and the Congress assent to – fraud upon the court on issues of war crimes, investigations, fact finding, statutory compliance?

    Essentially we have a failure before the court. But the issue is there is no advocate for the Constitution – rather, both Congress and the Executive are equally devoid of responsibility before the court, and have no interest in admitting their duplicity.

    Who or what lawful mechanism is there to ensure the information is reliable; and that the unreliable information is thrown aside.

    But then we face a secondary, and fare more important question: Once this fraud is known, who or what mechanism will lawfully mandate a review – especially in cases where those who know refuse to act. Yes, even though nobody heard the tree fall, it still fell. The court may have limited knowledge, but it not blind. Lady justice may have a blindfold, but the court can make adverse judgments.

    What is to be done when the long string of abuses face no prospect of challenge.

    * * *

    We are guided by one simple phrase: Fitzgerald’s words, “Remain calm.” Behind the scenes the investigators continue to chip away at the RNC, PNAC, and the failed Congressional leadership.

    It is clear there is a problem. The issue becomes what happens when the Executive – and Congress assent to – inadequate funding for the DoJ, and there are in sufficient investigators to support what self-evidently is needed: more investigators to review the matters of evidence, the growing body of abuse.

    Do we need give the investigators bigger guns? Perhaps they need shinier bullets, and black masks. Then they can leap upon the political stage screaming, “I may suck as an actor, but I’m really the lone ranger – and this mask is because Congress really cares. I have a silver bullet to spare. Get on your knees.” Later they could be a consultant for a reality show about ex-officers who like to wear masks and dance before Simon.

    No, the lobbyists would simply throw more money, and call it management deserve – do they deserve it? Jail time, perhaps.

    The problem with the “get rid of the lobbyist money”-argument is that there’s no lobbyist getting in the way of Congress doing what it has grown fond of: Nothing.

    Where are the lobbyists that mandate the opposite: Compliance with their oaths, assent to the rule of law, and why are they silent despite the situation: There’s enough information floating around to prompt the White House and DoD to target the media; surely a spoonful of information will induce one of the lawyers – just one – to speak out.

    They are silent, perhaps waiting for more intimidating, threats, and eavesdropping. How bad does it have to get?

    The States are lawful lobbyists.

    * * *

    Here’s what’s changed. The judicial branch now assent to torture. Think about the claims the Canadian made. The Court did not want to address the constitutional and treaty issues over the claims.

    This means all three branches are infected with the absurdity. Notice the pattern.

  • Executive Branch: Gonzalez says the FISA issues in re Youngstown could not be brought to court because they’ll face difficult constitutional issues

  • Legislative Branch: Congress assent to the war crimes and is afraid of impeachment

  • Judicial Branch: The court assent to torture fearing the legal issues.

    In other words, all three branches know there is a problem, but do not want to face it because there’s ‘something bigger’ they’ll have to face.

    Curious. It’s time for the states to face the “bigger issue” and throw it back on the Federal Government: “Do your job, or do your time.”

    Avoiding an issue because of the “other implications” is not doing correctly what should be done. That is not doing ones duty. That is called malfeasance.

    This Federal Government has a mess on its hands; and the RNC has helped spread this mess. The issue before us is now to awaken the voters, unite them. But the answer isn’t simply to unite voters – the DNC needs to unite, and rally around what they are really trying to do. At this point, they are divided, fighting among themselves.

    But a lack of leadership in one party should not be a green light to tyranny by another. The States need to discuss this issue: What is to be done when a group is well organized, and the needed check on that faction is disorganized – to the point that the well organized group destroys the very foundation of its power. The Zogby poll tells us that American soldiers can be convinced of non-sense, just as the voters. What is to be done to inject rationality, and protect the Constitution.

    It is curious that so much can be done to destroy something, but when it comes to a matter as simply as following the law, we hear whines, “That is so hard.” They can easily mobilize their own to destroy and make a mess of things in Iraq and Katrina; where is the organization to do the same to protect the Constitution. What is the incentive to cause a mess, but the resistance to do what is lawful. Perhaps the RNC has a valuable message, a word of wisdom, something we should listen to. Strange, they’ve had this many years, nothing is stopping them from speaking, and they only offer the excuses of the UAE.

    The problem is that we have all three branches infected with this non-sense. They choose to assent to absurdity, fearing the “big issues” if they face the first problem.

    * * *

    Applying adverse inferences about UAE issue to NSA unlawful activity

    The way forward is to apply the above adverse inferences – things we learn about the Federal Government – and apply them to the NSA unlawful conduct, the President, FISA, and the needed inquiry.

    Let’s consider the FISA. The President claims he has monthly meetings with the NSA to go over the FISA issues. Yet, at the same time, we’re asked to believe that POTUS doesn’t know about something NSA should reasonably have been aware of.

    Adverse inference It is not credible that the President has any substantive meetings with the NSA on FISA related issues. If there were meetings, NSA would have discussed the port deal. The President by his own admission didn’t know – so we have to conclude the President has no credible FISA discussions with the NSA.

    Bluntly, this assertion doesn’t matter. FISA doesn’t recognize presidential meetings as a suitable replacement for the FISA court. But the RNC wants us to believe that it is.

    Fine, play the RNC game and throw it back on them. The problem fro the RNC, Senate intelligence Committee, and Senator Roberts is simple: Either they have one problem, or another.

  • If the President “didn’t know” about the UAE deal, then the President cannot possibly have had any credible NSA review;

  • If the President “did know” about the FISA – as he asserts he has because of his meetings, the President cannot explain why the NSA IG has not looked into the matter of “failure to review why NSA isn’t providing him all the information.”

    Rather, PDB from August 2001 shows us that the President did now there was a problem before the scary event; cannot explain the pre-9-11 training exercise and the 52 FAA warnings; while at the same time arguing “he’s fully aware of the FISA” issue in 2006.

    We know that the same failed system that botched on 9-11 is well in place – it’s still not working; so why should we believe that the failed system that didn’t work on 9-11; and failed in Katrina and Iraq is doing anything otherwise on the issue of NSA?

    That’s the problem the RNC has. Again, put aside the law for the moment and focus exclusively on the RNC argument: The President can trump FISA, ignore the FISA court, and review the matter.

    The UAE deal shows us that the President cannot – he can’t stay on top of the issues. Again, if the president and the RNC want to assert other wise – then they are in a trap – they’ll have to admit that the president “can” stay on top of the NSA oversight issue, while at the same time he “cannot” do something that is equally Presidential.

    That is the balancing issue. The Congress problem is that they have assented to the Presidential non-sense over the FISA issue – and said “OK, we think you can ignore the FISA Court, you’re doing a heck of a job, George” – while at the same time Laura makes threats and George claims he’s clueless about the UAE deal.

    Time for the RNC to consistent answer:

  • Is your leader mentally unstable

  • Does our leader have a problem in his marriage

  • Has the President’s wife threatened to leave

    There are two options

    Either the President is lying about his ability to do the NSA issue – and the reviews are not being done as they have not bee done on the UAE issue;

    Or the President is telling the truth about his ability to review the NSA issue – and knew well what the UAE was doing long ago when the plan was originally fabricated.

    The President cannot be “in contact” with the NSA – and enjoying the benefits of the post 9-11 reforms of the intelligence community – and only cover the illegal things, but ignore the real issues.

    It’s more likely the President is lying about something he knows is a sham; that the UAE deal is made up; and that the FISA reviews are not really being done, despite the assertions that “this review” can duplicate/match/do the FISA courts job.

    The issue is: Did Laura threaten to leave him after or before the NYT broke the story on the NSA.

    * * *

    Think about the body of evidence saying this UAE port deal is a problem. Forget whether the arguments for or against the deal have merit. Rather, the point is that we have emerging evidence after the unfavorable revelation of disagreement.

    That’s the same thing that happened after 9-11. Supposedly this “communication problem” was solved by “knocking down the wall.” The real answer is during 9-11, there was no “wall” to the president getting some sort of information that triggered him to order the NSA to unlawfully wiretap Americans before 9-11. Now, we are asked to believe things are fine. Well Katrina blows that out of the water.

    The issue is why are these “other views” surfacing – these are supposed to have been incorporated into the plan, as we supposedly were told happened with Iraq. What other “other views” are not getting considered:

  • A. How many legal arguments saying, “It is not lawful to target Iranian facilities that have no proven link to weapons” are ignored?

    Adverse inference DoD legal community and the NSA/CIA analysts are still under gag orders and threatened with loss of valuable consideration for saying what is self-evident: There’s no evidence of any imminent threat from Iran; and there is no legal basis to justify launching military strikes against civilian programs. The Iranian and Indian civilian programs are only different in their ability, not their intent.

  • B. If the Joint Staff is fearful of telling the truth to the President in the oval office, rather than pick straws on who is going to bring the bad news, why haven’t they resigned and/or publicly spoken on the issues that are contrary to their oath of office?

    Adverse inference The Joint Staff is a silent poodle – rather useless in its form and function, but an interesting fashion attachment for a President that has no legal foundation for unlawful war or unlawful use of the NSA in a domestic capacity. The Joint Staff enjoys access to power, even if that access is meaningless. They believe that if they wait it out, they’ll see things change. They do not realize that they are under GCHQ monitoring and their continued support for the unlawful activities cannot be suppressed or hidden. The troops know the Joint Staff is not reliable, and it is clear the Joint Staff is spewing forth propaganda about why the US military is or is not doing what it is doing: Violating the laws of war, making up non-sense to justify getting the troops to wage illegal domestic surveillance. The Joint Staff is easily ruffled by trivialities because they genuinely fear they may be lawfully put to death by a war crimes tribunal for war crimes. Nuremburg is a word they do not like to hear or be reminded of. The Joint Staff’s problem is that they are in a symbiotic relationship with war criminals, and they know if they remove themselves they will face the backlash of those who will continue with the harassment. They are like a member of a cult – looking for an escape, but the minute they hear their own words speak of the crimes, they will deny everything fearful of retribution for speaking the truth. They remain more loyal to their relationships than to reality, the rule of law, their oath, or Constitution.

    The States need to discuss what is to be done when those who take an oath to lawfully use power in support of lawful operations are in rebellion against their oath, and can no longer guarantee the constitutional system, as Article IV mandates. This Joint Staff freely chooses to engage in rebellion; and the job of the States is to lawfully formulate a plan that will lawfully compel the Joint Staff to assent to the rule of law, not fear.

    * * *

    Recall the Gonzalez testimony from 6 Feb 2006. Senator Biden asked questions about the intelligence experts. Gonzalez responded that there were experts reviewing the issues at the NSA and things were “just fine” with the NSA activity.

    What the UAE issue does it put Gonzalez in a worse light. There’s no reason to believe that the NSA analysts were well engaged; nor that the Joint Staff was surprised. Again, there is the contrast: Either,

  • A. Gonzalez lied about the “experts” – they were not fully engaged, nor briefing the President on the FISA issues; or

  • B. The Joint Staff and White House is lying about the surprises over the UAE issue.

    Both options cannot share the same space. Rather, it is more likely all are lying. We know this because Gonzalez spoke out. Recall the emphatic denial he made to Senator Feingold: Words to the effect, “There have been no violations” and “These are lawful activities.” He didn’t say the words – he blurted them. Gonzalez also had been warned that his testimony would be the subject of a Texas State Bar review. Gonzalez also lied to Senator Feinstein when he dismissed questions about the NSA activities as “hypothetical.”

    Adverse inference Gonzalez has committed perjury; Congress knows it; and the Vice President and Senator Roberts are deciding when to let Gonzalez take the fall.

    * * *

    Let’s consider Senator Biden’s observations. He mentioned the experts in the intelligence community.

  • Where are the UAE CIA analysts?

    Adverse inference: They are being sent on non-sense analysis diversions, “Go find more information about Iran.” Hey, Mr. Cheney – it isn’t there, and that laptop ruse is no more credible than Nigerian Yellow Cake in yellow snow on a Texas Highway in July.”

  • What were their views on the UAE bid?

    Adverse inference: They do have some questions and see the disconnect between 9-11 and the UAE deal. The country is being taken on a diversion to avoid a war crimes tribunal, and impeachment. Their concern is that the long this non-sense goes, the harder it will be to get people in other countries to come forward. They only have so much money to bribe people; it’s getting tiring having to torture those who can fabricate stories not provide real evidence. The CIA knows the 9-11 story does not add up, as does the UAE.

  • What type of assessments did they provide to the NIE in re UAE and the UK discussions?

    Adverse inference: Something has been rushed unreasonably.

  • What types of information did the analysts review on the notebooks about the MI6 and UAE communication intercepts – are there some strange gaps many months ago when the pricing information should have been well underway?

    Adverse inference: Curiously, the files are not complete as one might have expected had this been a real program; but the Senate Intelligence Committee is not looking at the holes in the UAE-UK intercept files, nor linking them with the similar holes in the 9-11 and Iraq WMD. Phase II would have revealed the truth about the real problem: The White House and Vice President were abusive to the analysts who dared mention reality. A reasonable member of the Senate Intelligence Committee would see there are some curious – and disturbing – similarities between Iraq WMD, 9-11, and the UAE deal – non-sense stories, and stories that do not add up. It appears Senator Roberts and Cheney are well coordinated on another rues – using the UAE to rally the RNC for Karl Rove’s plan: “Do not talk about the NSA unlawful conduct.”

    There’s no benefit to waiting on an impeachment vote. There’s every incentive to accelerate the timeline, and let the voters see: The violations of the law are well documented, provable, this President is in rebellion; and this Congress refuses to ensure the rule of law prevails.

    * * *

    The Joint Staff can issue 5100.77 guidance within a matter of minutes. It’s been 4 years since 9-11, and Congress hasn’t publicly discussed the problem with the Joint Staff classified messaging system.

    Had there been a real “concern” – as is required under 5100.77 – the Joint Staff would have immediately provided guidance through the classified systems. This goes immediately to all destinations, goes through the NSA.

    DoD personnel assigned to NSA run regular exercises using this messaging system. DoD auditors also know well whether there are or are not problems with the transmission, filing, and response times. They can also do tests, and evaluate whether the test messages are or are not working. The system works fine. The problem is leadership and the decision to assent to the rule of law.

    Congress has had four years to review this mess over the Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Iraq. We’ve heard nothing about the failure of the Joint Staff to use the NSA messaging system. Sanchez knows about it as do all the flag officers.

    If this UAE port deal were real – then Congress should be able to review the top level files of the NSA message traffic. The key isn’t the content, but the data blips. What you’re going to want to look for are the intercepts related to the UK, Australia, North Carolina, and the US files which are focused on the UK port. You’ll be able to get a confirmation from the counterparts in Parliament whether there are or are not similar gaps in the GCHQ files.

    If the UAE port deal were real, then there would have been negotiation and bid information collected; and Parliament messages would have confirmed they were or were not on the same page with the US. Blair and Bush would have also had pre-meetings and discussion points related to the issue, given that Israel and Dubai are not on the same page.

    Also, you’ll want to check with the Bolton crew and the UN to find out how the Iraq NSA intercepts are matching what is or is not happening with the same observations on the Iranian discussion.

    Couple of things you’re going to want to look for:

  • A. Timing of the messages related to the NYT article over the phony Iranian laptop;

  • B. JCS message traffic gaps that “should be there” had the FBI counter intelligence actually observed UAE personnel inside the US reviewing the US ports;

  • C. Embassy communication in and out of Israel to US in Iraq and Dubai at the time the port discussions were occurring – the Israelis appear to have raised some stink about the passport restrictions in Dubai and these were discussed.

    Here’s the problem: You’re looking for gaps

  • D. Question: Why is the JCS classified traffic not consistent with the timelines the White House and UAE are saying. You’re looking at the timelines that JCS and DHS say they were using; and then contrasting these with the message traffic related to the UAE. You’ll find that the timelines are not consistent, there are gaps where there should be messages; and there are blips at the wrong time: Around the NYT revelations, not around the actual UAE discussion. Congress knows this.

  • E. Baseline: UK

    What’s up with this MI6 message traffic – they’ve got discussions going on involving this port, but the White House claims they have no clue – yet Bush and Blair are in communication – MI6 and GCHQ memos will have Blair’s initials and dates on message traffic that is at odds with what Bush can reasonably say, “Yes I was at the NSA reviewing the FISA” or “No, I was not at the NSA, and have no clue about the UAE.” Either way, the timing of the White House visits are not going to jive with what Bush and Blair subsequently discussed about the issues GCHQ and NSA should have intercepted had this port deal been genuine. Congress knows this disconnect.

  • F. Baseline: GITMO abuse

    Also, you’re going to look for the patterns of reported abuses in 2002, and look for the spikes in the JCS message traffic after Army 6th Group Military Police and FBI provided reports of misconduct. The issue is that the required spikes – warranting confidence that JCS took action to remind the troops of 5100.77 – will not be the same levels that are reported in re the UAE port deal. Joint Staff knows that the Phase II will reveal more about what they failed to do, but should have.

    * * *

    Keep in mind that DoJ personnel related to the FISA issue know full well that the “manning challenges” are non-sense. The Statute is the statute – it’s the job of management to comply with the law; nor use “the requirements of the law” as the justification to not assign needed staff.

    SAIC and DoJ have had problems. It remains to be understood whether the DoJ SETA contractor’s data management plan is still hanging in the wind, or whether it’s actually something taken seriously when managing a contract.

    The point is that we know the DoJ personnel are not as busy as the President and Gonzalez would have us believe – as their excuse not to follow FISA. Rather, it is more likely that just as DoJ personnel are not really “overwhelmed with requirements” and DoJ fabricated non-sense over Operation Falcon, so too is the President fabricating non-sense over whether NSA is or is not providing information. The intercepts are there; the issue is whether the President is going to listen to reality, or require another threat from Laura.

    The holes in the CIA analysts files, and inconsistent spikes in the NSA and JCS message traffic lead us to conclude the UAE port deal is not a bonafide program, but a rushed activity linked more with the revelations of unlawful activity.

    Also, you’ll want to look at the GCHQ analysis and compare this to the CIA caseload on the same issue: The UAE. Recall how well the US and UK coordinated on the unlawful invasion of Iraq and the Downing Street Memo – the key will be to use the US and UK data streams as fruits of the same poisoned tree. If there’s one piece of information in one system, then the other would have the same; if there are disconnects, those need to be understood:

  • A. Why did the analysts have different views on the issues related to the UAE port deal;

  • B. How were these issues rationalized, and resolved, if at all;

  • C. How did the Congress get briefed on these early UAE NSA intercepts;

  • D. If Congress is to be believed – that they were surprised by the UAE deal – why is there no call by the Senate intelligence Committee to review the NSA IG

    * * *

    In case you can’t figure it out, the issue is that the Senate intelligence Committee is now in a trap, and Roberts is not the only one who is struck. The problem is simple.

  • 1. If Congress is surprised – and there is a “big concern” about the NSA data, and gaps in reporting to the President over the UAE as there was with the 9-11; then Senator Roberts need to explain why he is conflicted. On one hand he takes no action on Phase II; and at the same time the “same issues” are occurring in the NSA and the UAE deal – so why the reluctance to order an investigation into the NSA? If there was “nothing going on” and “everything was legal” then surely the “legal” NSA programs would have found the “legal” UEA deal. Rather than do that, Roberts wants to kick the problem to the RNC leadership and say, “Hay, let’s change the FISA rules, or the Committee, but don’t make me hold this one.”

  • 2. If Congress was not surprised – and they knew about the issue with UAE – that it was a ruse – then there should be no reason why Roberts isn’t ordering an investigation into the NSA to say, “How come you’re leaking the information about the UAE information”?

    Again, the issue is: Will Senator Roberts review the matter. No matter which way he turns, there’s a reasonable question which he refuses to answer or investigate:

  • A. Why didn’t we knew

  • B. If NSA knew, but didn’t tell us – is there a common problem between phase II, Iraq WMD, UAE, and 9-11 that we need to take a look at.

  • C. If we did know, was there something we can do to blame others or bury in a Phase II-like cover-up – something they wish they could have done with Katrina.

    * * *

    You’ll find that there’s a disconnect between the following three things:

  • 1. MI6 analysis of the UAE issues;

  • 2. FBI domestic counter intelligence monitoring of UAE visits to US ports for fact finding;

  • 3. NSA confirmations what FBI counter intelligence observed

    All the issues before us are clear: The feigned confusion over the UAE is at odds with the real problem: the NSA unlawful programs, the impeachable offenses.

    If the President’s version is true – that he didn’t know – the real problem is that this Federal Government is too lazy to follow and enforce the law, despite having plenty of people sitting in DoJ who can spend their official duty hours making updates to wikis that have nothing to do with DoJ official business.

    We are asked to believe after 9-11 that everything before 9-11 is a ‘surprise” – baloney – just as it is baloney the president “didn’t know” – there are too many matching data points between US, UK, MI6 and NSA that can confirm what was or wasn’t said; and Bush’s version defies reasonableness.

    The White House’s problem – as is the Congress which supports his rebellion – is that they have a version of reality that is at odds with what is reasonable. The White House wants us to believe three things, all of which defy what we know:

  • A. There was not enough time;

  • B. They were running around;

  • C. There was chaos

    Each of these are at odds with the physical evidence – the same problem we have with 9-11, the World Trade Center, Iraq WMD, and the reason this nation gives the troops for doing what they are doing: Waging unlawful war in Iraq.

    Prior to 9-11 this President knew enough t order the NSA to engage in unlawful surveillance; and he knew enough after 9-11 that the capability was there – there was insufficient time to change the NSA capabilities.

    Gonzalez’s story doesn’t add up. The inconsistent pacing and concern on similar issues – between the UAE and NSA unlawful activity is important.

    We need only look at the absurd contrast: They violate the law over non-sense information; but they do nothing about ‘real information” about “open activity” related to the UAE. This White House would have moved at the 1st Excuse to do something – even a lie – but he chose to wait, then get the DNC and RNC to assert the issue: “Everything but the rule of law in the NSA unlawful activity.”

    Congratulations, America! Your Congress is truly arrogant and believes you are stupid. Now you have eight months to contemplate – “Why does Congress think we’re so stupid on this that we’ll just lap it up again like we did with the Iraq WMD, the 9-11 story, and the non-sense about the NSA unlawful activity.”

    The Answer is that you continue to believe non-sense, and not make adverse judgments. The RNC goal is to delay “official confirmation about everything” until . . . .[wait for it] . . . never.

    Then you need to make adverse judgments: What is your answer given all that we know. It’s time to quit waiting for Congress to follow the law – decide – are you going to force them to follow the law, or are you going to find a crew that will do so.

    They have no option. The RNC goal is to make you believe: “This is as good as it gets.”

    Baloney. Reasonable people can simply discuss an issue – as could have been done during a Filibuster – and simply talk about what is going on. Yet, why the reluctance to discuss; why not answering questions; why not . . .?

    Answer: Quit waiting! Decide! Get the Congress to tip their hand, vote whether they are for or against the rule of law; and make them vote on impeachment – or at least force them to say, “We don’t want to take any action, and we’re going to table this.” Then do it again, but this time raise the issue at a Constitutional convention: “What is to be done when the leadership refuses to assent to the rule of law.” They’re not leaders, they’re criminals.

    * * *

    Consider this. Contrast the triggering mechanism and basis for action in two different situations. Use a balancing test: Why is there different reaction times on issues just as equally important.

    First, contrast the speed of the reaction to information related to Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the CIFA intrusions into the Quakers. They use abuse, move quickly, and do not care about facts.

    Second, contrast that speed with the inaction on the 9-11, NSA unlawful activity, and the UAE issue.

    Both involve rules, oversight, and statutes, yet, despite the real violations of the laws, we get a big yawn when it comes to misconduct; but the minute there is any question about the White House the focus gets shifted to “someone else” – In Iraq, the war criminals in the White House blamed the insurgents; in Abu Ghraib, the blamed the apple barrel; in Guantanamo, they blamed . . .

    Enough! When is this Congress going to get it: The voters get it – you’re not doing your job, the inconsistencies between the UAE and 9-11 and NSA are noteworthy, and command attention.

    There is no explanation why the US is not all over the UAE deal in the same way it was ‘all over” the 9-11, Guantanamo, Phase II, and the NSA unlawful activity.

    The Problem Senator Roberts has is that he has moved slowly on issues which command attention; and he has moved quickly on red herrings, at odds with the more pressing concerns. That’s why you need to mobilize and lawfully continue to monitor what is going on with Cheney and Roberts – why are they remaining loyal to ignoring abuses, but are willing to chase red herrings.

    They have chosen to remain loyal to their party, not the rule of law. They are outlaws, in rebellion, and are not to be trusted.

    The States need to discuss what is to be done when the leadership on the congressional committees puts their party before the Constitution: What will the States lawfully do to

  • A. mandate that the RNC assent to the rule of law, and freely disband; or

  • B. be treated as those lawfully charged at Nuremberg were: Outlaws, and it shall be illegal for them to organize, meet, and discuss any activity that will support unlawful war or rebellion against the Constitution.

    If the RNC is not willing to assent to the rule of law, they are in rebellion; if the Federal government will not subdue this rebellion, then what will the stats do to mandate that the Federal Government honor their promise to preserve the Constitution in Article IV?

    This RNC has no answer. Their only answer is to make up ruses related to the UAE, but the ruse has as many holes in it as does the 9-11 story. How long does the RNC want us to ‘wait around” for the “big investigation”? Answer: Voters need to make adverse inferences in the absence of RNC cooperation.

  • A. What is the RNC loyal to – the Constitution or the RNC?

    Adverse inference The RNC, they have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.

  • B. Is the RNC fit to govern?

    Adverse inference No, criminal are not fit to govern. They are in rebellion per the 14th Amendment and shall be denied the right to govern.

  • C. Is there a remedy to this problem?

    Adverse inference Yes, the states can have a Constitutional Convention, have state proclamations, and adjust the leadership and founding documents to lawfully compel the Federal Government to assent to the Constitution.

  • D. Is the RNC part of the solution or the problem?

    Adverse inference They are the problem.

  • E. Do we have lawful remedies?

    Adverse inference Yes, a Constitutional convention; and a state level impeachment proclamation to see how your local officials stand on the rule of law – do they require “what level of evidence” before they see a clear and present danger to the Constitution?

  • F. What is to be done?

    Adverse inference Tell your friends to plan for a Constitutional convention. This Federal Government refuses to assent to the rule of law, and they show no inclination to ever do what they have taken an oath to do: Protect the Constitution.

    * * *

    Think about this Contrast. Remember what Gonzalez was saying at the 6 Feb 2006 hearing. He complained that he didn’t go to Congress because they weren’t cooperating – almost four years after the President had violated the law. That’s rather slow.

    Yet, today, there’s nothing the way with the UAE deal. No “wall” between FBI and CIA; nor is there an “uncooperative court” – rather, the UAE deal is exactly the same as the NSA: Clear procedures, oversight, and rules that are ignored – so why isn’t the Congress interested in the NSA unlawful activity.

    Congress can’t whine about “lack of consultation” and “not following the rules” over the UAE deal – but remain silent about the same issues in the NSA.

    The fact that the Congress is “all excited” about the UAE – and not the NSA – tells us one thing: They enjoy rallying around irrelevant issues when those issues have nothing to do with the NSA unlawful activity and impeachable offenses.

    All the excuses the Congress, White House, Gonzalez and others in government offer about “interference” are non-sense excuses to distract attention from the NSA.

    This RNC has failed. It needs new leadership – ones that are going to assent to the rule of law, not ones that are going to continue to do what is in contravention to the law.

    * * *

    Addition 08 Mar 2006

    Let’s consider some political factors. First, we know the President has violated the law; and the RNC controls the Congress. However, they don’t control the Constitution or the States.

    Second, we know that Executives have publicly stated one thing, but done something else privately. For example, on veto matters Clinton publicly opposed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act [PSLRA] – to appear to support the auditors/accountants and go after the corporations -- but privately supported it, knowing full well it was meaningless, and created a shield for the auditors from accountability, and reduced their liability against securities litigation over their defective audits. The problem was the auditors were getting paid consulting fees and doing cursory audits; and the auditors wanted to limit their risk exposure. Clinton gave the wink to the DNC in Congress to override his veto.

    Bush appears to be doing the same with the UAE: Publicly acting surprised; privately giving the wink to the RNC to oppose him. But this is a little different. What the RNC is doing is setting the agenda: Notice, by focusing on the UAE, what they’re not looking at: The NSA unlawful conduct, claiming they have “other priorities” to look at besides the Constitution.

    Here’s what’s going on with the UAE issue and Frist’s efforts to lead the “opposition” against the President. By opposing the UAE issue, the RNC is doing one thing: Distancing itself publicly from Bush – who is in the mid/low 30s – and they’re asserting the White House agenda: Keeping the debate focused on non-Constitutional issues.

    Here’s the interesting part. The DNC has to choose, as they did with the “immediate” Iraq pullout resolution –

  • A. do we oppose the RNC and support the UAE, thereby sending the message – however unrelated to reality or the rule of law – that we are against the RNC agenda;

  • B. do we support the RNC agenda and oppose the President.

    The above quandary is why it appears the RNC is deliberately doing what the DNC did on the PSLRA – “breaking ranks with the President” to actually assert the President’s agenda:

  • 1. Ignore the NSA; distract attention from the Constitutional issues

  • 2. Focus on “big scary things” that will make voters think the RNC is “really out to do the right thing” – never mind they’re trashing the rule of law

  • 3. Make the DNC respond – voting to either side with the President and oppose the RNC; or support the RNC’s agenda. Either way, this does one thing: Creates the impression that the DNC, if they do not oppose the President and side with the RNC, are not “on the same page.” Again, never mind that the real issue is unrelated to the UAE or the president’s agenda and is about the Constitution.

    Like the 9-11, Patriot Act, and Iraq WMD this leadership is merely forcing votes that advance non-Constitutional agendas:

  • A. Avoid accountability for violations of FISA;

  • B. Assert that “we can agree to new oversight” by reforming the Senate Intelligence Committee – never mind that they already agreed, and ignored past agreements to assent to FISA.

    In reality before the judicial branch and court of law, the RNC is actually is a no-win legal position. The only option they have is to keep the issues out of court, sideline issues, and change the issue – what they’re very good at doing.

    Given Katrina, the voters have figured out what is going on.

    * * *

    Let’s consider a very subtle issue on the UAE and NSA nexus. One thing that is going on is the double talk on whether the Senate really is for or against the Constitution.

    It is not credible for Frist to argue he is “for” the Constitution when he refuses to direct there be any review of unconstitutional conduct. Notice Frist’s statement: He “believes” that the President’s program is constitutional. That is important to note. Someone in his position will say they “believe” something is lawful in order to act as a defense – they weren’t actually saying the conduct was lawful – only that they believed it.

    The reason they do that is so during cross examination and discovery, his letter will not be proffered as an affirmative statement of legality, nor an inducement for others to rely on his legal opinion – one that he is not qualified to make given he has no legal background other than a Medical Degree.

    Also, it’s not lawful – nor will it stand cross examination or an effort to impeach a witness – if it can be proven that Frist had publicly asserted something as a fact which a reasonable grand jury would conclude he thought was false. The role of the US Attorney before the Grand Jury will present evidence that will destroy the credibility of the leadership, and show who was or was not involved in the war crimes conspiracy, and ongoing unlawful support of illegal activities.

    It remains to be seen whether Frist:

  • A. Is convicted over the insider trading [issues related to his “blind” trust that he appears to have been well involved in ordering sales on stock he had inside information was going to fall; he has inconsistent stories on whether he did or did not have knowledge of what was in the account]; or

  • B. Remains on the political stage doing what he’s still doing: Being the White House poodle.

    Delay in Texas is instructive: Despite indictments, voters still vote to support the RNC leadership. The only thing that keeps the RNC out of office is if they are physically in jail.

    * * *

    Frist’s letter is designed to appease the wayward RNC voters and make them believe that Frist’s action on the NSA issue is “doing the right thing” even though it’s doing nothing.

    Again, rather than face the impeachable offenses, or tackle the clear FISA violations over the NSA, the Senate leadership is using the UAE as the “big thing” to focus on. Again, the key is to remember that the issues of oversight, reviews, and procedures – which the Senate says are “big problems” behind the UAE deal – are ignored when it comes to matters related to the NSA.

    Again, what’s going is simple: They’re shifting the issue away from the NSA unlawful conduct and focusing on non-Constitutional issues.

    Bluntly, Frist’s action – moving away from Constitutional issues – is completely at odds with his assertions in his letter that he is for the Constitution.

    This is just another anecdote showing us the UAE story doesn’t add up as a real issue – there should be similar “concerns” about the NSA, but the RNC isn’t really moving along those similar issues in the NSA

    * * *

    Curiously, as part of the “focus on the UAE, not the NSA crimes”-effort, we continue to hear, “There was no problem.”

    Let’s play that game. If there was “no problem with what the President was doing” why not get the FISA warrants?

    The answer is: The RNC legally cannot get out of this trap. They violated the law; and they’re convincing the Senators to ignore the violations, point to “big scary things” as “more important issues”, all the while ignoring what was going on: Violations of the FISA.

    The RNC story doesn’t add up. They can’t explain – if the program was “OK” as they assert, and the basis to do nothing about the NSA violations – why they spend so much time not addressing the issue with the lack of warrants as required by statute. Again, to argue “we’re at war” is irrelevant given that FISA specifically requires the FISA Court to continue to have oversight during both peace and war; like the Constitution, the FISA Court is neutral on whether we are in or out of war – warrants are still required.

    This brings us to the National Security Letters, the media, and the White House retaliation. JTTF has demanded internet information from members of the media to find out who is talking about the NSA issues. Capitol Hill Blue’s Doug Thompson has an interesting response: Telling the government to [his words] fuck off, letter to follow.

    Also, keep in mind the VA nurse who was investigated for “sedition” for speaking out about the war, negligence, and other problems in Iraq. Suffice it to say, she clearly was expressing a personal point of view, and was clearly intending to communicate that the RNC leadership should be lawfully removed from office using force.

    Again, when we consider what the VA nurse said – and how upset the White House was because she spoke her mind about the incompetence of the President, his negligence, and recklessness – notice the curious contrast. Her specific statements were read as they were; yet the statements in Gonzalez’s “non-sworn” testimony before Congress was subsequently revised with qualifying statements.

  • Why the inconsistency

  • Why are government officials allowed to qualify their statements

  • Why is Gonzalez allowed to get away with what he’s doing – refusing to truthfully respond – but a VA nurse that expresses a personal point of view – is not given that similar deference?

    The point is that the media and private citizens are getting smeared for expressing views and evidence of war crimes; while the DoD is planning fabricated stories through the open media, which is then picked up by DoD, NSA, and CIA analysts for “analysis.”

    In other words, DoD in the total information awareness isn’t about monitoring information to gather it, it’s using the open source collecting system to actively spew forth Propaganda designed to manipulate their own analysts. This violates the Smith Act.

    But the issue isn’t isolated to government action on private citizens; rather, the RNC is also using non-governmental bodies to silence the media. Firms engaged in the social security misinformation debate have used the “it’s a copyrighted piece of propaganda” to induce websites to remove information that the public should know about.

    There are three issues, which raise important questions:

  • 1. RNC energy suppressing information, absurdly at odds with “concern” about the Constitution;

  • 2. UAE and similar patterns of conduct to distract attention from the NSA issues

  • 3. Engaging in conduct that appears to duplicate the problems related to 9-11;

    In light of these trend we have to ask the issues which remain suppressed in Phase II and fall apart in re 9-11:

  • A. What really happened on 9-11 – if there was a “real story” – why is there so much effort on not addressing what we know:

    [1] there were explosives in the WTC
    [2] the building was wired,
    [3] there were some sort of projectiles fired/launched that hit the building before the object collided, and
    [4] the holes inside the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania are not big enough to hold the missing aircraft.

  • B. Why does this RNC need to violate the law

  • C. Why is the White House threatening journalists to be quite

  • D. Why is DoD rewriting the news?

    * * *

    Here’s the problem: The government had an open source analysis tool as early as 1997, four years before 9-11. Putting aside the ongoing NSA monitoring before 9-11, how does this government explain the malfeasance and recklessness. They have no answer, only more distractions: War, UAE, and hiding things.

    That’s not a government or a Constitutional system. That’s a dictatorship disguised as something else, sold through propaganda -- at odds with reality.

    No wonder the RNC is going after the lawyers and media: The two lawful threats to the White House are the law and facts – the White House arguments are non-starters. Their only hope is to keep the issues out of court, avoid fact finding, and focus on non-Constitutional issues.

    * * *

    Let’s dive into the Gonzalez issue a little bit. He would have us believe that the NSA conduct is “not a problem”. We also know that Gonzalez has spoken with Snowe over the NSA issue downplaying the risks.

    Again, if the NSA activity was “not a problem or a violation of the law”:

  • 1. why no warrants?

  • 2. If DoJ is “too burdened” by the requirement, how can he explain DoJ personnel having enough time to engage in non-official business during duty hours changing wikis;

  • 3. How can Gonzalez explain Bolton’s access to NSA intercepts with American civilian names; and

  • 4. How can Gonzalez explain the Ashland, Oregon case showing that privileged communication between an attorney and a client was intercepted?

  • 5. What is to be said of the lawsuits against AT&T – if there was “no problem” then how can we explain the continuing litigation?

    Nobody can credibly play the private-government litigation of:

  • [1] Point to the government inaction over the NSA issue as “proof” that there is no problem;

  • [2] And the government ignoring the civil litigation, asserting “it is unrelated”

    Rather, the adverse inferences are:

  • A. The civil litigation will have to proceed on its own, and cannot rely on any government support to achieve any remedy or outcome;

  • B. Those who may have been affected by the unlawful NSA activity are the pool of people who can be pointed to as evidence there is a problem with the Patriot Act – clearly ignored given the “big concerns” of December 2005 in the wake of the NSA revelations are ignored, and the House voted to support the illegal, warrantless searches.

  • C. Congress cannot explain why – despite getting no information over the NSA issue – why the December 2005 concerns which blocked the Patriot Act were ignored and they voted on the Patriot Act despite no real information to justify mollifying their concerns.

  • D. This government has already violated the law, their oaths, and all agreements; any suggestion that we should “rely on” subsequent agreements/promises to ‘do something else” in the Senate Intelligence Committee are without merit and cannot be relied upon. All they’re doing is promising nothing, and changing the subject from the NSA to whether someone else is or isn’t agreeing to a worthless promise.

    * * *

    The bottom line is the excuses the White House is giving to say, “There is no issue with NSA” is at odds with what they have done: Action that violates the law, is not consistent with “no problems” and the DoJ personnel are spending time on matter unrelated to the “big scary story”. Indeed, it is a problem when – despite the Bolton access to NSA data – the White House and RNC are refusing to look at the NSA issue.

    Given this problem, it’s unclear why the Ranking Member on the Senate intelligence Committee has not drafted a letter directing the NSA IG to provide an open-source discussion of the NSA issues in a briefing to Congress.

    The public needs to see the 400+ questions and answers related to the NSA-FISA issues the Senators are supposedly reviewing. This information will show us what the issues are; how they do or do not match what Gonzalez said both verbally and in writing in statements to Congress; and how these responses square with the original arguments in the 42 DoJ document; and the subsequent legal non-sense from the White House in the wake of the New York Time revelations.

    Adverse inferences The White House has known for some time that the New York Times was working on this issue. If the UAE issue is real, then we should take away from the UAE deal a measure of how quickly the White House and RNC can mobilize on a non-Constitutional issue: Very quickly. Thus, a reasonable person would expect the White House to have put as much effort into the NSA “legal arguments” when the New York Times first published the material, and the best legal “defenses” were what should have been the most compelling. Those arguments have failed. Thus, this late in the game, it is not credible that the responses to the 400+ questions really amount to any legal explanation – rather, they are designed more to confuse the Senators with non-sense technical issues, but do nothing to explain why the White House has not complied with the statute. If the public does not get the 400+ questions and answers, we can reasonably conclude they are more of the non-sense Gonzalez gave in writing to the Senate, on top of the non-sense he stated verbally. If you’re talking to a criminal in the White House, the most compelling legal arguments should have been crafted as soon as the New York Times hinted they were looking at this issue, not going on more than 2 years later. It is not credible to believe that the Senate has new information to justify FISA violations, or why the Patriot Act should have been passed. This Congress has rubber stamped the unlawful Presidential violations of the law and is using the UAE issue to refocus the country on non-Constitutional issues.

    * * *

    An NSA IG audit may provide new nuggets of information about the unlawful NSA program, and reasons why the Intelligence Oversight Board did or did not do their jobs.

    It would be prudent to press the NSA IG for another set of responses – this will give the public more information to contrast with Gonzalez’s assertions about the NSA program, and let the public review the information to find more inconsistencies.

    However, voters should be cautioned not to “wait” to make an adverse judgment should the NSA IG report get delayed. Rather, they’ll have to make some adverse judgments.

    * * *

    Sure, there are signs some in Congress are asking questions. But the questions are irrelevant when the Congress continues to vote to ignore reality. Congress cannot explain why it’s suddenly “relieved enough” over the Patriot Act issues. The White House has stonewalled. Reasonably, that should have trumped the concerns with the Patriot Act and been a catalyst to shut down funding for the NSA.

  • Will those inside the RNC who know what is going on change their mind? They’re very deep in this. The Zogby shows us that many wearing the uniform can be convinced of non-sense – Congress celebrates the military – it’s reasonable to presume the Congress celebrates non-sense.

  • Will other in the RNC speak out? That’s why there’s a clampdown on the media and RNC – to stifle discussion.

  • How many people in the RNC truly believe the NSA lawlessness is justified? All of them, otherwise they’d resign.

  • How many people in the RNC hope to get a Pardon? Those who have consulted with private counsel have decided to spend money, not hope for a pardon. They’ve got real legal issues.

    * * *

    There’s a lot with the UAE story that is at odds with PCA, 9-11, Iraq WMD: Issues of oversight, communication, and rules. No different than the NSA issues which got swept under the rug.

    The UAE-NSA problem destroys the 9-11 story along the following spectrums: Timelines, timing, knowledge, who knew, what was or wasn’t done after being notified. The same problems in 9-11 recur in the NSA and the UAE issues.

    The UAE hinges on all the 9-11 lies about the NSA, intelligence community, and who knew. These lies were destroyed with the Iraq WMD and Katrina. They’re now destroyed with the UAE issue. But the country focuses on other non-constitutional matters, and new ruses in Iran. If Iran is ‘really the big threat” why wasn’t it invaded first? Turkey didn’t cooperate, so there was only one-front from Kuwait; there is only one-front with Iran: Afghanistan. No excuse.

    Adverse inference: The US is doing the same with Iran as with Iraq, but no longer cares that the public knows. They’re violating the law, will wage more unlawful military campaigns. Bolton who admits the US violates FISA by giving him NSA intercepts, would ask that we ignore the NSA issue and focus on “big scary things”. Let’s do that: Let’s focus on the “big scary thing” called the Constitution.

    If we are to believe the President’s assertion that the UAE story is true – and there was no notification – then the 9-11 remedies fail; we have to ask, “What really got fixed?” Katrina shows us one thing – we’re going to be surprised. Nothing was “broken” – it was designed to fall apart. They planned the responses, they knew what the risks were, they ignored the 52 FAA warnings, they knew enough to order the NSA before 9-11 occurred to violate FISA.

    Nothing adds up because it’s designed to make a mess, and let the RNC “be the big hero”. Just like the Reichstag. As the UAE story collapses, so does the 9-11 and NSA. But don’t wait for the collapse to occur.

    The problem the RNC has is now that we know about the UAE ruse, they’re forced to do more absurd things. They have eight months to avoid reality and protect the White House, Joint Staff, and Blair from lawful oversight and a war crimes tribunal

    This team ha violated the laws of war. They know the lawful sanction a tribunal may impose is death. There is nothing they fear – they are willing to kill more as they have done in Iraq. The law means nothing to them.

    They are in rebellion.

    The States must act to protect the Constitution. The Federal Government has failed.

    * * *

    The question becomes: What is to be done. This is what the States need to discuss: How to assert the power of the States to check the Federal Government that refuses to assent to the rule of law; and both the Executive and Legislative branches are in rebellion. What is to be done when inter alia:

  • the issues are framed in “non-Constitutional terms” and the majority party refuses to review recurring matters that “should have” been addressed with the 9-11 commission: Oversight, reporting, and adherence to the rules;

  • the Senate leadership continues to not enforce the rules, ignores their oaths, makes up phony issues, and refuses to do what they ought to do: Review the NSA unlawful conduct;

  • the Federal Government refuses to investigate, continues to appropriate money for activities that are unlawful, and they have no interest in responding.

    The current Chamber rules are ineffective in ensuring the Constitution is protected, or that the real lawlessness in the White House is checked.

    Some have raised concerns of “What might the RNC do in response.” Well, that kind of thinking is speculative, and merely asks us to do the RNC’s work: Dream up more things to get compliance with non-sense.

    * * *

    Some are worried. They believe there is a problem. Yes, there is a problem. But there is a way forward. You’re going to be given in the coming weeks and months lawful guidance on what you can do. Remember, you’re not alone.

    Although the media is under attack, that really doesn’t matter. They’ve proven themselves unreliable over the Iraq WMD issue; they have two problems now – they have no public confidence, and the government is clamping down on them for talking about reality. Nobody really should have any sympathy for the media for their predicament. They chose to protect the criminals in the Congress and Executive Branch – the media was more loyal to their relationship than the Constitution. The media’s agreement is their problem.

    The issue before us is what is to be done and figure out why – despite the 1st Amendment protections – something is getting in the way of the fact finding. The problem isn’t isolated to the media, but extends to the IG process, Congress, and the GAO.

    Your job is to take a step back. You know what the White House is doing: they use the law as a guide of “what is to be done to violate the rights of others.” Their plan is simple: To assert their agenda, and not get caught violating the law. Their loyalty is to their peers, not their oath or Constitution. They talk about the Constitution like religion – when it is convenient to appear to be concerned with something they do not care about.

    The post 9-11 world is about one thing: The American government trumping the Constitution and getting the world to focus on “something else.” This is what is going on with the UAE. This government wants you to ignore the laws, overlook the Constitution, not think and explain away reasonable questions.

    They have convinced Congress to not hold them accountable. It is time for the voters to work with the states to have a Constitutional Convention. Yes, this may appear daunting. But keep in mind you are not alone. There are many forces working behind the scenes who are working in concert with you. You must know – even when you are crying, afraid, and have lost hope – that there are others who are doing their bit to assert the rule of law. After you are done crying, pick yourself up, and refocus: You’re doing what you can, even if you cannot see the results.

    But things are moving in the right direction. The RNC is now forced to engage in absurd non-sense; they are openly refusing to do what they should do; and the voters continue to support those who are criminals.

    Your opponent has one goal: To make you give up, to make you believe there is no hope, and to make you believe that you are outnumbered. Small problem: That doesn’t matter. The Constitution remains. It is there. And it is a real thing which is at odds with all the RNC stands for.

    Going forward, expect more news to be fabricated, in error and at odds with reality. So this is nothing new – you have nothing to be afraid of – you know exactly what is going to happen – it will be more of what you’ve already seen: Non-sense.

    Yes, their statements will be absurd. Their goal is to shock you, stun you, and surprise you. Do not wait. Your job is to find solutions and share them. Figure out how things can lawfully be done, and let others know. Spread the word.

    There is one problem this RNC has: The Constitution. Also the People. The People trump the Constitution when we lawfully meet and lawfully agree that reforms are needed to protect, defend, support, and preserve the document.

    IT is called a Constitutional Convention. That is what you should have in the back of your mind. It will take time to prepare, but the work has already started. Forces behind the scenes are laying down the plans, setting the plans, organizing, and discussing this issue. There are those who can communicate using methods the NSA and GCHQ cannot intercept, and their loyalty is to the rule of law and Constitution, not to the party. They are among you, some of the most despicable people in the RNC are actually on the DoJ payroll as under cover informants. They’re actually on the side of the Constitution waiting for the right time to surface. Things haven’t gotten as bad as they are likely to get to warrant them jumping. Yes, it is going to get worse, but do not be alarmed.

    As things get worse, you have the power of your eyes. To know. To see. To record as a witness what is happening. Yes, you will be dissuaded to speak, to observe, and be a witness. Remember, keep your mind alert, and simply accept things as they are. This does not mean embrace them as what is right – but simple accept where you are, what is happening, and do what you must do to protect yourself.

    The Constitution is not going to be destroyed; but for it to survive you will have to choose whether you are for or against the Congressional and Presidential Rebellions against the Constitution. If you choose to assent, then know you will be defeated. Yes, you may value your relationship because it is familiar, but your fear in leaving that toxic relationship will be what ultimately the fear that is exploited to manipulate and ultimately defeat you. There are forces far more powerful than the RNC that will lawfully subdue this rebellion. Those plans have already been discussed, are well coordinated, and the timing well understood.

    * * *

    Going forward, it is time to think creatively. To look for lawful ways to gather evidence, to share the news, and let the world know what is going on. Use the challenges and roadblocks as a catalyst to raise your standards, do find lawful ways to do what must be done to preserve the Constitution, and know you are not alone: There is a way.

    Going forward, know one simple quandary: The past is set, the RNC has to rely on more absurdity to hold onto power, and there are larger issues the RNC is going to have to explain away and distract your attention from. They are coming. Do not be shocked; rather, plan now for solutions and be ready to assist others with your ideas. The trick is to be able to get back up and continue with another lawful approach with speed, coordination, and surprise. Your goal is to simply use their challenge to make yourself a formidable advocate for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the values you hold dear: Results, accountability, solutions, and most of all consistency between actions, values, words, and your choices. This is at the heart of logic, self-esteem, and why the RNC has a problem: All their choices are at odds with logic. Our Constitution is based on one simple premise: that the problems of 1776 could be solved. They were. As these problems of 2006 can be solved. There is a way.

    Look for the solutions. They are there.

    Be bold with your questions. And be willing to answer them yourself. There are no leaders in America. The leader is you. America is looking to you for the answers. So be brave and admit it: You do not know everything, but neither does anyone else.

    Stop gnashing your teeth. Quiet screaming, “But I have no clue” or “If they’re listening to me, we must be in real trouble.”

    No, we’re not in trouble. We’re fine. The problem is the RNC wants you to believe there is no hope, or that there are no leaders. You can do it.

    All leaders have on thing in common: they simply figure out a way. That’s it. Anyone can do it. All you have to do is choose to remember one thing: The Constitution.

    That’s it.

    That simple.

    * * *

    Anything in defiance of the Constitution is wrong; anything that is not willing to look at facts is wrong; anything that says “we have other more important things to consider” other than the Constitution is wrong.

    Learn about adverse inferences.

    If this is happening, why didn’t the NSA brief Congress on the findings?

    Adverse inference: The UAE issue is made up to distract attention from the violations of the Constitution.

    The White House needs to reduce all its statements to writing, and lawfully present them to the public as a formal submittal under penalty of perjury. The White House cannot have us believe them. These issues are not hypothetical. Their assurances are at odds with the public facts.

    Congress assents to the absurd promises. What’s needed is an independent review of what is going on. Congress refuses to do so. Fine, they admit that they would rather rebel against the Constitution – as measured by their actions – but pretend they are doing something else – as measured by their worthless promises that they are “for” something they refuse to address: The Constitution.

    Actions: A writing which is signed; an affirmative statement without qualification in a manner that is admissible.

    Statements: Puffery, promises, assurances – all worthless.

    The States will have to simply look at what we have and review what Congress refuses to review:

  • A. The timelines

  • B. When the NSA, CIA supposedly started work on the UAE analysis

  • C. Answer why the NSA and CIA analysts’ statements are not affecting the White House

  • D. Conclude the same excuses of 9-11 are still being used about the UAE issue

  • E. Conclude the DNC minority hasn’t asked the NSA IG to review the matters for frivolous reasons

    * * *

    The Statutes permit DoD to keep commercial entities overseas for reasons of “national security.” They are used as fronts for collecting information and supporting the Joint Staff. They do things that are not nice.

    The Secretary of Defense has a problem. The voters know about the black sites, and the use of DoD support facilities and commercial entities to support unlawful violations of US treaties and laws. The issue is that the US laws exist not simply as a protection for those who might be abused, but as a leash on the US personnel. These are the laws of war, and the human rights treaties. It doesn’t matter what the US argues about whether someone is or isn’t a lawful combatant – the laws apply to those in the NSA, CIA, and DoD.

    This is at the heart of the FISA.

    It is possible in the UEA, and closely connected to the likely black site in the UAE that there is a commercial entity that is organizing the unlawful activity. Also, it is possible the UK and UAE are working with the DoD on this port deal so that the Joint Staff is given breathing space on the NSA issues.

    If this happened, then there could be another economic issue at play: There could be a financial swap occurring. This is like trading with your friends your ice cream for their candy bars – and then you have them both. You really haven’t traded ownership or control; you’ve merely engaged in a financial transaction.

    Recall the swaps that occurred to hide the Enron accounting problems. They moved things around. The hid problems. They made things appear real that were false. This is at the heart of internal controls, auditing, and financial analysis.

    The key is to know that the same type of tings happens in the White House – they look at the world through the lens of Enron: The world is to be convinced of something, and the shells are moved to support that illusion.

    But the world knows the shells are empty: Katrina, Iraq WMD, Yellow cake, the legal foundations for war, and the legal foundations for the NSA activities.

    There is one answer: Truth. Truth leads to facts, and facts lead to realty, which leads to a decision: What do we prefer. That is called a solution and progress. That’s what’s at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution – a simple acknowledgement of what was going on, and a plan to move forward.

    Today, the choice is between reality of the Constitution, and the apparent illusion of the UAE.

    What’s needed is a better understanding of the UAE in the context of how it supports the distractions from the NSA. If as w suspect the UAE deal is merely a ruse, then the pricing and bidding information is loosely connected to reality.

    They key will be to find comparisons in the similar industries and find out how far from reality the present contract is. But do not get distracted; remember, the real issue is the Constitution and the NSA unlawful activity – this leads to impeachment and the assertion of the rule of law over the Joint Staff with a war crimes trial.

    Again, know that impeachment and trials are about one thing: they are the presentation of facts before the 3rd branch. We go to court when the situation is unclear.

    This RNC wants to do one thing: Not even consider facts. They know they cannot win in court. Their goal is to point to “big scary things” as the excuse not to engage in fact finding.

    But government is a curious thing under the Constitution. The Constitution permits government to engage in peace and war at the same time: Peaceful, civil discourse in the court; and open brutal combat on the battle field. It is not either or.

    Rather, the issue is to ask: If this Constitution really is “important” to the RNC, why can they not both wage war and engage in fact finding?

    The simple answer is: They want war to avoid facts.

    The way forward is to remind the RNC that the Constitution is neutral on war – and that government is designed to function, not collapse, in the face of challenges.

    Yes, Katrina is instructive. It shows us that facts overwhelm those who move without regard to the law. This is why the justice system is so annoying to the RNC – they cannot manipulate the court unless the court chooses to give up on fact finding.

    * * *

    The way forward is to notice when the UAE work products were created. Notice how these timelines fit into the NSA oversight and the information to Congress. You’re going to want to look for holes in the data: Things that should be there that are missing; or pieces of information that appear without any explanation. They have to come from somewhere. If someone is asserting – as they did with Iraq WMD – that there is a “big scary problem” – ask them, “How do you know?” If they say, “I can’t tell you,” tell them to hit the road. They can give you reasons – but if they are not willing to let you examine their reasons, then you shouldn’t waste your time with them.

    Look at the timing of the information in the UAE memos. Is it adding up? Again, the key here is to take a big picture approach: You know there is a problem; don’t get swamped by the data. Rather, outline what you believe “should be true” if their story is true, and ask for what – truth must be confirmed, not explained away. If the story is true, then things will add up.

    In this case, we have the opposite: No matter what we ask, things collapse, and there are more questions. Just like 9-11.

    the key is to know when to shut off the debate, know when you are getting non-sense, and make an adverse inference. No Grand Jury or Court knows anything with 100% certainty. Rather, it is an approach of “what is more likely”: Is something more or less likely to be true. Every little bit of information tilts that answer a little bit each way.

    Your job is to take a step back and ask: What’s the best protection of the Constitution.

    Realistically, separation of power should.

    We’ve found that that no longer works.

    We have to admit that the problem rests with what we’ve had since WWII: We’ve had a formidable enemy – the USSR – that focused the nation to make a clear choice.

    But by focusing on that foe, we did ourselves a disservice: The needed checks and balances were not developed. Now that the Cold War is over, the secret things done to fight the USSR have been turned on the American public. This is at the heart of the NSA.

    The USSR was a convenient crutch. Today’s problem is that the needed Congressional oversight isn’t there because it was never there – rather, it was the threat of the USSR that forced the country to fight for principles. In practice we were merely fighting to defeat the USSR, not preserve the Constitution. By default, by focusing on the USSR, the threats to the Constitution were for the most part tolerated, ignored, or explained away.

    The problem we have today is that there is no USSR. We have a group of people in the White House who are still looking for an enemy. They are the enemy of the Constitution.

    * * *

    Facts will ultimately prevail. This is at the heart of why all dictatorships collapse. To sustain a dictatorship the RNC is going to have to expand its power and propaganda faster than they are capable of sustaining. Think of a chunk of pizza dough with a donut hole: As you spread the dough to make a pizza, the donut hole will get bigger.

    This donut hole represents the internal infrastructure that cannot be sustained. This is happens when interest rates are too low for to long; and when power is used to boldly abroad. The Roman Empire made the same error.

    But today, the error is in all sectors, not just the military. We have a donut economy. Some think this economic collapse was at the heart of 9-11: The country needed something to get out of debt-deflation of the 1990s. In order to mobilize society, leaders uses wars. The problem this nation has is its leadership now wages war on the founding document.

    We didn’t have to go to Iraq. We chose to. It was a waste. Huge sums of money have been squandered. To justify that war, this nation’s “leaders” have assented to lawlessness, and say it is “OK” to violate the law.

    That’s what he UAE deal is all about: To distract you from the donut hole this RNC cannot fix. Their only option is to say, “Hay you have no solution.”

    Small problem: There is a solution. It’s about building alliances and export markets in Africa. It’s about working with those we do not trust on bigger projects.

    If AlQueda is “really the big bad enemy” why isn’t the US willing to prove the AlQueda is incompetent and simply do it better?

    The US had the chance in Afghanistan.

    The US had the chance in Iraq.

    What’ have we seen? American disasters.

    The way forward is to start getting results that far exceed what AlQueda can hope to promise. That is possible.

    The key is to do so in a manner that is consistent with the law, not an American agenda that imposes “our way” on “everyone else.”

    If “our way” is better, then let “our way” speak by example. But if others choose to go ‘their way” – even when it is at the ballot box – the US has a problem when it speaks of “principles” it is not willing to recognize.

    The answer isn’t to wage war on Hamas or AlQueda. The answer is to find a bigger project of good and challenge Hamas and AlQueda to support us in that noble effort. Then the world can see: Who is willing to achieve results.

    That’s why the world has a different view about America after the Tsunami, and Katrina.

    American leadership must lead, not react or blame. The time to focus on a big vision has always been with us. We had the USSR as a convenient excuse.

    Today, we need a new vision. That vision is to simply build at home what we might have dreamed was possible abroad. It’s not “our job” to save the world from itself; it is our job to ensure our Constitution is protected, preserved, and used for lawful objectives.

    The way forward is to recognize that the law is there as a lesson of what has or hasn’t worked. Some in the wake of the USSR’s collapse chose to continue to find new outlets for our military to do other things. In spirit, that is a noble idea – but in practice, the results have been disastrous.

    Yet, we did not have to make this mistake. The same mistake was made in Germany and the USSR: they chose to export a system that was abusive and at odds with prudence.

    It is our job to recognize our system has failed. It merely limps along because there is no other animal big enough to devour it.

    Some suggest that we cannot deal with terrorists. Well, that argument fails: Israel at one time was built on the back of terrorism, as was the American Patriot movement in 1776.

    Terrorists become leaders. They even learn how to lead. Some of them are called statesmen.

    This does not mean that we appease terror or assent to lawless use of power. Rather, the aim is simple: To challenge the world to rise to the occasion, present their evidence as we present ours.

    Propaganda fails. We see through it as does the world. You can’t make someone fall in love with a principle that you do not practice. Rather, all you do is nurture new statesmen who have the misfortune of ensuring your nauseating odor.

    The RNC’s problem is they have no solution. That’s why the turn to the DNC saying, “Where’s your solution.”

    The RNC’s problem is it refuses to listen to its own members. The DNC’s problem is that it refuse to listen to the Constitution and rally the nation to come to the defense of that document.

    We have great leaders who do illegal things in the RNC; and we have bad leadership in the DNC unable to rally around noble causes.

    The way forward is to force the RNC and DNC to cooperate in a lawful manner on something that they have to join forces on.

    The wrong answer is to rally around the UAE issue; the right answer is to rally around the Constitution.

    * * *

    The key is to trust the judicial system, and also to know when that judicial system needs help as now.

    This government – all three branches – has been infected with a perverse notion that violating the law is justified.

    Some like to avoid the proverbial “slippery slope argument,” saying, “Oh, you’re being unreasonable. In this case, it’s not a hypothetical that we’re on a slippery slope. We’re sliding: Torture, abuse, war crimes, and domestic violations of the law.

    Facts are facts. It’s on tape and this nation continues to explain it away, “Hay, we’re not like the Nazis.” You’re right – you’re not like them – you are them: Using the same non-sense arguments to justify non-sense.

    On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Al Gore got it right. He wants to know as do I – what’s it going to take, how bad does it have to get, and where is Congress in their oath. He’s asked the right questions.

    This Congress yawned. The states notice. It’s time for the States to step in and lawfully recalibrate this Federal Government.

    * * *

    With time, we’re going to learn more about the other back-up plans the RNC has to

  • A. Insulate this President from lawful accountability;

  • B. Raise doubts about the competence of those with other ideas or solutions;

  • C. Assert that all efforts to impeach the President are about “personal disagreements” and distract attention from the laws, facts, and conduct;

  • D. Distract attention from the NSA impeachable offenses;

  • E. Focus on non-Constitutional issues

  • F. Delay action on issues voters need to know about

  • G. Give the RNC another “win” in the wake of poor NSA oversight.

  • H. Protect the Joint Staff from accountability for war crimes

  • I. Assert more convenient slogans and principles as a distraction from conduct at odds with those standards

  • J. Blame someone else

  • K. Rally the DNC to support the RNC agenda

  • L. Make more promises that are not to be believed

    The RNC goal is to appear to be on the side of solutions. But look at their results and real focus: Not the Constitution. They say there are “other things” – but those “other things” are not alternatives, but distractions from their primary focus: The Constitution.

    * * *

    What’s needed is a simple guide for voters to think through what is going on. The simple question is:
    If this were true
    What should exist

    For example, let’s put aside the issue of whether or not the Senate leadership in the RNC knew what was going on, and simply focus on the Gonzalez-Congress nexus.

    Consider the Gonzalez hearing on 6 Feb 2006. Recall the reaction of the Senators, not just in the DNC, but the RNC. They were not convinced.

    There was something that was going on that they didn’t know about. It wasn’t that it was ‘Secret” or “complicated” or “technical.” The issue is that it was illegal.

    The reaction f the committee members was clear: The White house, NSA, and DoJ did not brief the Congress on what was going on. There’s no excuse.

    The point is that there’s a disconnect between:

  • A. What Gonzalez said was going on – briefings to the President;

  • B. The Statute;

  • C. What Congress understood

  • D. What the FISA court reasonably was expecting.

    Gonzalez wants us to believe that things are “OK.” Ok, then if things are “just fine” with the NSA activity, why does all the available evidence show the contrary:

  • 1. The law is one thing

  • 2. The conduct is something else

    At this point in the Watergate issue, the media kept at it and the facts surfaced. We already know there’s been a violation of the law. The way forward is to couch the facts in terms that the judicial branch will see a need to act. That process has started. Those are called civil complaints.

    Out of that process may come other evidence which US Attorneys are investigating.

    In the meantime, this nation’s citizenry is being abused: The media is not having its 1st Amendment Rights protected; and the 4th Amendment is getting ignored; Congress just passed legislation “legalizing” warrantless searches; and the FISA violations aren’t getting reviewed.

    This isn’t a problem: It’s called evidence.

    The States are watching. They’re seeing the leadership problem. The issue is going to be how far the States have to be pushed before they lawfully push back.

    It only takes one state. That process has started.

    But the states are not inanimate objects; rather there are people. And they see what is going on. Also, the RNC has to keep more and more non-sense flowing to sustain its thin-crust pizza. They do not want you to look at the donut hole. It is there.

    The States are going to see more evidence; and the RNC refuses to be tamed. They hope to continue with their ruses, not get caught, and expand their power so they can continue with their abuse, protection, and unlawful activity.

    they have a small problem. They do not know how to stop. Use that to your advantage: Do not look at the upcoming non-sense as “new stuff” – it’s the same stuff we’ve seen in 1776, 1860, and in 1930. The issue this time is to realize who is in rebellion: Not the people, not a scapegoat, and not a King, but your fellow citizens. They control your government, but not your Constitution.

    The RNC problem is simple: In order to continue with the charades, they have to do more things that will generate more admissible evidence; and the states will see what is going on. This is already happening. Local proclamations are like more grains of sand on that scale that’s already been knocked over.

    The key is to think about what cannot be hidden; and what cannot be suppressed. There is a way.

    * * *

    Consider the UAE issue. What would have to be true and what available evidence would exist if the NYT revelations about the NSA precipitated

  • A. planning on the UAE port; and

  • B. sparked a plan to change the subject from [1] the NSA and impeachable offenses to [2] something else.

    Your job is to map out in your own mind what would have to be true if that were the case; and then map out whether the situation matches that, or appears to be something else. Share your results. Blog about it. Attack the premise. Even throw insults.

    Let’s presume this thesis is true – that after the White House learned the NYT was looking into the NSA issue, there was a search for something that would refocus attention on non-NSA issues. What would possibly rally the nation to support a failed RNC agenda; and how would the RNC avoid lawful oversight by the court on the FISA violations?

    If this occurred, think back to the other ruses. Consider the Downing Street Memo and the pre-Iraq planning. The same type of evidence would have to exist; and if the direct evidence is not available then there are other supporting lines of evidence which would have to exist.

    Take a broad view. Suppose this plan were real – and the UAE port deal is manufactured – does what we know support this?

    Consider the speed of the response, the efficiency of the RNC to rally around the UAE issue on matters which are far more pressing on the NSA: Oversight, rules, and procedures. Then contrast that with the failed legal arguments; contrast the efficiency of refocusing on non-sense, and the inability to achieve results in Iraq and Katrina.

    We know the Joint Staff uses planning cells to create propaganda for domestic consumption. Think of what had to have been done to organize this, who was involved. Then notice the contrast:

  • A. The Joint Staff is actively planning; yet

  • B. The President wants us to believe he had no clue – so what was the Joint Staff planning, and who were they meeting with when they were discussing the “big scary story” that the RNC and Frist are “convinced” needs attention, but do not warrant attention when it comes to the NSA.

    The key is that there are briefings out there floating around; you have to know that they exist. You don’t have to actually see them. Rather, your goal is to move with confidence that the White House wants you to not comprehend their existence.

    So talk about that! Discuss in public what would have had to have occurred – in detail – and what the briefings might have looked like. You’re going to see that things do not add up. Then couch your FOIA requests in terms that will look for other lines of evidence related to these issues: Travel requests, meeting minutes, conference reports. Sure, you can get some of the information, but it is only going to take on small sliver of evidence to lawfully break this open.

    Also think about the PDBs the President would have had to review over the Summer of 2005. Was there no mention of the UAE discussion; was the NSA “out of it” on what the President was told?

    Again, for now you may not et the PDB; the point is that if we are to believe the president – in that he didn’t have a clue – there is physical evidence that will either confirm or raise doubts. The evidence is there. You don’t have to wait for it before you make an adverse inference. This government – not you – has the burden of proof: Are they doing their jobs; are they asserting their oaths; and are they focusing on the Constitution. The answer is already clear: No.

    Rather, the point is to turn this around: If the White House wants us to believe it, then show us the PDB that “there is no mention of the UAE”.

    We already know the answer: Before 9-11 the President was told things he was denying; it is reasonable to make similar adverse inference: The NSA was well aware of something, did know about the UAE, and was well aware of what was going on.

    It doesn’t matter that the UAE deal was or wasn’t a ruse or a distraction from the NSA. The point is that what the president is telling us is at odds with what we have learned from 9-11: The NSA and PDBs tell one story; and the Executive has another version of reality.

    Fine, accept that. But the point is that there’s a PDB the White House doesn’t want you to look at – because it will confirm what the NSA did or didn’t say; and what MI6 and the CIA were reviewing from the FBI when the UAE site visits were occurring. Either the PDB has information about the UAE site visits, or it does not.

    At this point, a reasonable person would have to conclude the President is lying; if the White House wants us to believe the opposite – then it is up the White House to provide evidence that he is telling the truth. Again, in the wake of Iraq WMD, Yellow Cake, and the “big scary story” about the “LA attacks in 2002” – the burden of proof shifts. The problem is one for the White House to remedy. We do not have to argue the White house’s case – it is up to the White House to resolve the self-evident legitimacy issues.

    Give the states a reason why they should not have a Constitutional Convention.

    there is none. That is the point. The only reason this White House can give for the citizens of this country not doing what is can lawfully do – take back the power it has conferred – is to do what they’re doing: Spew forth non-sense.

    This nation is not a thing, or an object, nor is it a place. It is an idea. It is built on one thing: The Constitution.

    Yet, this RNC ignores that Constitution and points to itself as the “big thing”. That’s wrong.

    The issue is the Constitution. And when the Federal Government has refused to assent to that document, we don’t have to ask for permission to make choices. Rather, it is within our existing inherent authority and power – as recognized in the 10th Amendment – to exercise that power: The power to inquire, discussion, and meet to hold a Constitutional Convention.

    All powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and People. Period.

    We have the implied power – not the President. We have the inherent authority – no the President.

    Our power and our authority is to ourselves – the Constitution is there as our shield and sword; and we have the power and authority to make that shield better, improve it, modify it, and find a better one.

    That is where we are.

    Just as we were in 1776 and 1205.

    The problem this country has is despite the restriction against using violation and unlawful sedition, this RNC and White House has waged unlawful war, and has already unlawfully ignored the Constitution.

    This White House actively engages in Sedition, but accuses all those who state that fact as “having a problem.”

    Fine. But the facts are clear: This RNC and White House as is the Congress has no power to ignore the law.

    Our job – well within our 10th Amendment rights and power – is to stop asking, and stop waiting. The time is to simply fix this.

    The debate with the Federal Government needs to end. They aren’t listening. They aren’t willing to put their oath. This is like asking a medical doctor to “cooperate” with unlawful activities.

    That doesn’t work.

    The way forward is forward: From the 10th Amendment, and use the example of the Magna Charta and Declaration of Independence, to craft the needed solutions to fix what is self-evidently a mess: A Federal Government that is in rebellion.

    The way forward is to strip the Article 1 Section 5 power of the Chamber to “make” and “enforce” rules – and say,
    “No, we do that. You’re not competent enough to do that. There are rules, and you’re not asserting your oath. Your paying for things that are not lawful. You’re spewing forth legal non-sense that is at odds with the statutes. And you’re not assenting to the will of the power: The Statutes.”

    This is not a hard thing. The way forward is simply to lay down what we have, and then fix it. Why is that so hard?

    It’s easy. You can do it. Your job is to simply admit what is going on and then say, “OK, this is wrong, what’s a solution.” The solution isn’t to “negotiate” with those who aren’t willing to agree to comply with their agreement: The oath of office.

    Rather, the lawful way forward is to simply admit: We can build on this Constitution, and fix the problem, not simply rearrange what isn’t working.

    * * *

    Let me give you an example. Suppose we start with the premise that “Checks and balances is a good thing.”

    Let’s consider whether that approach is actually what we have. Take the issue of Rendition, torture, and unlawful wars as a single construct – “bad things happening on one branch.”

    What might a solution be? Well, checks and balances requires checking. So as a solution, what is stopping the Congress from having Congressional staffers actively involved as observers in the activities of the Executive Branch/

    Think back to the days of the Circuit Courts. They were called circuits because the judges would travel in a circuit. What if we had the same thing with Congressional Staffers: They traveled through the entire Executive Branch, watching and looking at things.

    Think of another solution. Right now, our system says there is “one person” in charge; but supposedly we have a system of divided power.

    What if – instead of a ‘single person” in charge of the branches, we had – wait for it – three people whose loyalty was to the – wait for it – Constitution.

    Supposedly, that’s what we have: But the results we have are self-evidently Imperial: There’s really only one person in charge.

    So why not apply the system of “separation of power” and divide up the power within the executive Branch: Have two additional leaders – one from the Judicial, and one from the Legislature – injected into each Cabinet Position, agency, and Embassy.

    The Executive Branch Member would be there as permanent Presidential appointment – confirmed by no-one; and the other two members would be there as principally assigned as Legislative and Judicial Ambassadors who sent reports back to the Legislature and Judicial Branches, and gathered evidence to jail the Executive Branch members who violated the law.

    In theory, this is what the IG’s are supposed to do, as are the Agency criminal investigators. Small problem: It didn’t work, and doesn’t work.

    Rather than debate “what the excuses are,’ Why not discuss what would be required to actually impose and apply the real spirit of a system of checks and balances and a separation of power.

    Again, keep in mind the idea of the Circuit Court: The rotating judges – the idea with the rotating Cabinet Concept is that you’ll have two other inputs to the Decision-making, not just one.

    Some in the Executive Branch say, “You can’t do that.” Well, guess what: You don’t have a vote – the States are going to fix your self-evident disaster and ram this back onto your plate. Your problem is you’ve collectively assented to this tyranny, and then expected the nation to assent to this, all the while writing memos about “American principles” and your “concern” with the Constitution.

    Get real. You’re an idiot if you think we can’t see through that.

    But we don’t have to keep reading your non-sense. Rather, it’s time you start to be quiet, and we’ll tell you how you’re going to do your jobs – clearly, despite the clear rules on paper, you have to actually have a member of Congress – loyal to non-Imperial Presidents – sitting in your office – reminding you of your job.

    That’s what its going to take. And you don’t get to lock your door. The people will have access, we can do audits, and we can interfere with your “job” because you’ve shown that trusting you doesn’t work.

    Congratulation! You’ve got a new management team in place. It’s called the Constitutional Convention Oversight Program! Yes, this is the roving team of randomly picked civilians who will get the privilege of you kissing their rear end, and showing them exactly what is going on – but all three branches are going to be there saying, “Yes” or “No” – Yes, this is real, or no this is complete non-sense. And if you’re lying, guess what” We’ll know.

    Why? Because part of this Constitutional convention is going to create a system – using our tax dollars that will create an NSA-like monitoring system that is going to pointed directly at your office.

    In other words, you can put a show together to make everyone think “things are fine” but then we’ll teach the most idiot of American Citizens how to do an audit, and compare:

  • A. Your non-sense to

  • B. The NSA-like intercepts

    Then we can decide: Do you belong in jail, or are we going to believe you.

    That’s it. Game over. Problem solved.

    * * *

    Here’s the problem with this entire UAE NSA issue: The “facts” don’t add up. During Gonzalez testimony, we learned they waited until after the NSA legal defense failed before they disclosed their “big concern” that they had in 2004, three years after they already started the problem.

    Frist them comes out and says, “I believe . . .” that the unlawful NSA activity is “constitutional.”

    Let’s consider what the Constitutional Convention Oversight Committee Might do: Hay, Frist, you’re lying – jail time, you lose legislative immunity!.’

    Guess who makes the rules now that we’ve changed Article 1 Section 5: That’s right – that power of “rule making” and “chamber enforcement” and “deciding who is or isn’t’ fit to be a legislator” falls back on the states: IS this Congress in rebellion or not?

    Clearly, the Framers didn’t imagine that each of the Members of Congress were going to turn into little Napoleons; each of the Members of Congress need to be subject to some sort of impeachment-like threat for their violations of their oaths, and their rebellion against the Constitution.

    * * *

    Reconsider Gonzalez testimony in light of Rove’s plan to “distract attention from the Constitution and things related to the law.

    Gonzalez had a problem. Congress was asking some really good questions. Feinstein and Feingold got Gonzalez to trip over himself. But what happened?

    Well, Gonzalez comes back with pages of additions and modifications. So much for false statements to Congress. Kind of like rewriting an affidavit after the Court says, “Liar.”

    Gonzalez comes back with a mountain of paper essentially saying, “What I really mean to do what come up with a better crafted legal excuse to justify the unlawful conduct.”

    Well, let’s consider how the Constitutional Convention might approach this. “Gonzalez, you’re an idiot. You’re a lawyer and a liar. Jail time!”

    I guess we’ll have to discuss: “If there really isn’t anything going on at the Black sites that we should be concerned with, surely Gonzalez would enjoy spending his sentence at the Black Site in the UAE.”

    * * *

    The UAE story isn’t important for what it is or isn’t; its significance is what must be false: 9-11.

    They are the same issues: Oversight, fact finding, procedures, and evidence. The same system that refuses to look at the NSA, ignored the Iraq WMD and Phase II. The same system “reviewed 9-11” – but the President claims “he didn’t know.”

    Then accept that as true, and admit: The “big solution” to 9-11 wasn’t needed: Things were fine, so fine that the President knew before 9-11 to start the NSA unlawful activity. Hay, how’s that for your OSIS file.

    Mind you, OSIS was developed prior to 9-11, and we’re asked to believe, “Hay, we’re clueless.”

    What does a Constitutional Convention have to say about that? “Liar! Jail time!”

    * * *

    Let’s think about the NSA and the NYT revelations. Suppose the UAE deal was actually something that was really being worked – even the people monitoring the deal had no clue this was a ruse.

    Was the White House hoping to delay the NYT revelations because it wanted to better “delink” the possible connection between the [a] NYT revelations about the NSA; and the [b] ruse UAE deal?

    It’s seems reasonable to speculate about the real motivations of the White House concerns. Sure, they knew for a long time the NYT was looking at the issue. But notice the small problem: The White House didn’t go into response mode – apparently – until after the public disclosure.

    That seems odd. Go back to the Summer of 2005:

  • A. We have a sitting president who’s admitting he’s violating the law with his actions and words being out of sync – but he’s done nothing to protect himself; -- not likely

  • B. The President is aware of the NYT investigation – but fails to take action against the NS “leakers” – Ok, that seems surprising, but let’s play along

  • C. We’re four years after 9-11, and the Congress has grilled this man about things in the PDB he claims weren’t there – but we find out the CIA and NSA intelligence is just fine – so he’s got good information, great!

    If the above were true, the president would have us believe “He had no clue about the UAE, and did nothing to defend what he knew “someone outside the farm” knew: War crimes, impeachable offenses, and NSA violations of FISA.

    It’s not plausible that he’d be sitting there in the Summer of 2005 – knowing the NYT was digging into things – that he’s doing nothing.

    Rather, it appears he’s doing exactly what he did on 9-11: Creating some sort of ruse distraction – the UAE.

    Remember, Gonzalez when he appeared in Feb 2006 before the Senate Judiciary Committee knew full well about the President’s problems. We’re asked to believe that the president’s chief legal advisor – the man who sate next to him over the issues of torture an abuse, “didn’t know” abut the UAE deal at the time he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006

    Unlikely. Rather, it needs to be understood: What in Gonzalez’ testimony needs to be reconsidered.

    It remains to be understood in the Summer of 2005 – when the President knew well that the NYT knew about the problem, a year after the revelations started in 2004 – what was going on:

  • Who did the President talk to about some sort of “back up plan”

    Adverse inference: Blair, “Hay, I know a country in the UAE that might want to buy something . . . “

  • How did the President and Blair discuss “get out of jail free cards” when it was known in the Summer of 2005 that the Downing Street memo was a problem, surfacing, and the world knew more about the unlawful war, illegal evidence, sham reviews, bogus Yellow Cake, and the rendition.

    Adverse inference GCHQ has copies of the transcripts.

  • What kind of discussions did the President have with the leadership in the middle east about “what could be done” to get him out of this mess – what options were explored and rejected; who attended these meetings

    Adverse inference: He hasn’t stopped talking. Can you say, “Bush in Exile in UEA to avoid war crimes trial after he leaves office”?

  • What specific “big story” was created that would shift the attention; why was it decided this company and these ports were the right ones to bid on;

    Adverse inference: The ports involve high population areas on the Atlantic Seaboard, close to DC – sure to make people imagine “big scary things.”

  • What kind of comparison was made with the other ports around the globe

    Adverse inference: Given the speed of the disclosure, and the apparent “surprise” its not credible they did a thorough review.

  • Did they look at something spectacular – like faking an Iranian attack on the US to justify a combined US-NATO invasion; did these plans get rejected; did the Iranians catch wind of the plans through illegal means, and threaten to expose the evidence unless the US backed down – both the US and Iranians agreeing to never discuss their illegal activities.

    Adverse inference: Hay, these guys have black sites. Rumsfeld covered up the big disaster in SEA in 1975. Operation Northwood could very well be his bible.

  • Why was the “deal” focused on US ports and not elsewhere; why at this time; and does it make sense to make an acquisition now, as opposed to another time; why the rush; if the UAE has so much money from oil, why do they are about port contracts;

    Adverse inference: To excite the RNC wayward and get the DNC to rally to support Karl Rove’s agenda: “things not about the Constitution”

  • if diversification is a real “interest” of the UAE, why isn’t that “diversification” standard enough for the Iranians in their quest to “diversify” their energy sources from oil, and do what the Indians are doing: Commercial nuclear power – something the UK wishes it had done now that the North Seal natural gas and oil supplies were run down faster than hoped

    Adverse inference: Evil leaders make inconsistent arguments. The same justification used to support India could easily be applied to Iran. Small problem – Iran doesn’t want to accept American gifts. Remember that CIA coup thing and the Shah? The Mullahs are an annoying lot in that they have memories. Makes you wonder about the CIA connection to the demonstrations in Egypt over the Cartoon: There were no demonstrations because the concern wasn’t related to religion, but a function of whether or not the “excitable ones” were or were not in Syria.

    * * *

    There are other backups in the works to protect the Joint Staff. These options were accelerated and started after 2003 and the problems with the Iraq WMD surfaced. It was well known in 2002 that the risks could be war crimes. They’ve had almost four years to do this; think how quickly they cleaned out/covered up the Eastern European black sites. They’re bold enough to do this in America with Operation Falcon and domestic renditions.

    * * *

    In light of the NSA and UAE, Think about four [4] factors the Joint Staff considers:

  • 1. Leadership

  • 2. Communication

  • 3. Discipline

  • 4. Ruses

    Notice the contrast. When we’re talking about the NSA, we get a curious picture:

  • 1. Leadership: Involved in violating the law, not ensuring compliance

  • 2. Communication: Focused on White house, not Congress

  • 3. Discipline: Compliant to RNC, not FISA

  • 4. Ruses: No regard

    Think about the UAE port deal, we have the opposite:

  • 1. Leadership: Bungling – despite the “big lessons of 9-11”

  • 2. Communication – in dark – despite the NSA tracing ghosts

  • 3. Discipline – Haphazard – despite the benefit of focusing on “things unrelated to the NSA violations”

  • 4. Ruses: The UAE is one of the options.

    Do this: Quickly Compare the Port deal and the NSA again.

    See the problem: Consider first the UAE port deal -- All four factors are what the RNC is claiming are “concerns” and “basis for outrage over the Committee system” – yet we hear nothing about these factors when it comes to the NSA.

    Big problem: this supposedly got addressed after 9-11; and the White House buried this in Phase II.

    Bingo: We know the Phase II likely facts.

    Constitutional Convention Committee Adverse Inference: “Liars, war criminals, jail time!”

    * * *

    There’s something we can now do: we can start applying this set of consistent adverse inferences to other non-UAE issues, and get an understanding of the nature of the NSA programs.

    For example, take domestic Rendition. Is the NSA activity designed to:

  • Identify, target and render those who are not assenting to the White House propaganda using the NSA, CIFA, and DoD personnel

    Adverse inference Yes. We now the CIA has aircraft flights in and out of the US. A fare more “effective” way to “render” non-US personnel located “in other places” would be to have a commercial entity under secret DoD control.

  • Why bother flying the aircraft multiple times to US locations?

    Adverse inference It appears that the basing isn’t located to protecting the flight, but in actually transporting people out of the US to other locations. Again, if the “personnel movement” were only “in other locations outside the US” it’s far easier to move aircraft outside the US than continuing to bring them back where they will be spotted.

  • Why aren’t they keeping the aircraft in a hidden location?

    Adverse inference Arguably, the Eastern European black sites were hidden, so why not keep the CIA fleet out of the US under control of DoD-commercial entities?

    Adverse inference You can’t argue DoD was “concerned” about the law and ‘didn’t want to associate” with this stuff – DoD is the one that doing CIFA stuff stateside and using DoD personnel in violation of Posse Comitatus. The problem isn’t a concern for the law – rather it’s what DoD believes it can get away with. Notice what they do with people who question unlawful war: Target them. What do they do with those who refuse to investigate illegal activity: Promote them.

    * * *

    Proposed Constitutional Convention Agenda Item:
  • A. Strip Members of Congress abosolute immunity in selected cases;
  • B. Change Article 1 Section 5: Transfer Chamber rule making-enforcement power from the Congress to the States

  • Constitutional Convention Oversight Committee: Revise Article 1 Section 5 –

    Proposed Constitutional Convention Agenda Item The States shall have the exclusive power to make and enforce rules about the Chambers.

    Proposed Summary Change: The People have revoked the power of Congress to make and enforce rules related to the regulation of its members. This power is assigned to a Constitutional Convention Oversight Committee that shall have the exclusive delegated power per the 10th Amendment. This Oversight Committee shall be separate from Congress and accountable directly to the State Constitutional Convention, not the Federal Government.

    Translation The proposed lawful change is clear: The States are in charge of the Congressional discipline system. The Federal Government no longer has the power to permit members of Congress to fund unlawful wars or appropriate money for activities which violate the Constitution; nor does the Federal Government have any power to act or not act while members of Congress fail to assert their oaths of office.

    Proposed statute – which the States shall have the lawful power to enforce through funds provided by Congress, and cannot be withheld --

    1. There shall be rules than make it a separate offense to reward people for violating the law. This rule shall bar all members of Congress from voting for any appropriation that is related to illegal activity, violations of statutes, and/or the laws of war.

    2. Members of Congress shall be stripped of their legislative immunity when they vote to “not investigate and/or provide funding for” something that violates the law and/or is unconstitutional. Once evidence of misconduct occurs under the promulgated statute which permits violations of the law and/or Constitution, the member of Congress who voted for that unlawful program/activity/war/appropriation becomes associated with that unlawful conduct, even if they do not actively engaged in the illegal activity. The member of congress shall be linked to the unlawful conduct and be considered a co-conspirator.

    3. The court may consider mitigating evidence related to good faith efforts by Members of Congress to [a] provide factual evidence to the court showing they were affirmatively mislead; and/or [b] demonstrate that evidence of the unlawful conduct was timely provided to the court.

    4. The federal rules of evidence apply. This statute may not be trumped by a Presidential tribunal or any Presidential Executive Order or any agreement between the Member of Congress and the Court, nor any other body. Congress has no power, authority to make any rule or pass any law that ignores, evades, trumps, or otherwise apologizes for violations of this Constitution. All Federal and State Judicial case law from this day forth shall be consistent with this new Constitutional provision.

    5. Any person relying on an Executive order or Congressional authorization or act or statute that permits, allows, directs, condones, or otherwise signals it is permissible to violate any statute, order, regulation, treaty, or Constitutional provision does so at their own risk.

    6. Failure to timely report evidence to the State Constitutional Oversight Committee is grounds for an immediate review subject to the UCMJ, not limited to a war crimes tribunal and potential judicial sanction of death fore engaging in war crimes. The Congressional Code of Conduct applies. Civilians may be lawfully tried for war crimes. All Executive, Congressional, and Judicial personnel are expected to comply with the laws of war and are responsible fro timely reporting evidence of war crimes and violations of the statutes to the State Constitutional Convention Committee.

    7. Appropriations. The Congress shall fully fund all staff required to support this ongoing Constitutional Committee. All costs related to compliance with the Constitution fall on Congress to appropriate funds for and the President to lawfully sign.

    8. Executive veto power denied. The Executive is stripped of his power to veto changes or mandated funding related to the Constitutional Convention changes.

    9. Supreme Court Trumped. Subsequent to these changes, the courts shall deny any claim or cause of action whether the House rules do or do not belong solely within the power of Congress—Congress no long has any power to make or enforce member rules. All case law and precedent related to Nixon and other Chambers rules remains in full force. The only change is the location of the Chamber rule enforcement and promulgation, not the rules’ constitutionality.

    10. Ex post facto. This change shall not confer any right or privilege or claim against the United States.

    8. Technical. All necessary changes to the Constitution to bring this statute into effect shall be lawfully debated before the Constitutional Convention and Constitutional when approved by a majority vote. All other Congressional powers in the Constitution remain granted; all powers granted to Congress that conflict with this statute are revoked and no longer enforceable nor recognized as part of the Constitution. This is not an amendment but a statutory harmonization effort; the rules governing the Amendments do not apply during a Constitutional Convention.

    SUMMATION: Proposed Way Forward

    Planning continues for a Constitutional convention to lawfully and peacefully assert the rule of law and Constitution over the Federal Government.

    The States will create a new Constitution that strengthens the current system of checks and balances, and trumps the Federal government in a timely manner when the three branches of government refuse to assent to the rule of law.

    Congress and the President are in rebellion against the Constitution. They have well demonstrated they cannot be trusted to either honor or assert their oaths of office.

    The States will revoke power once granted to Congress. The States shall have the power to make rules governing the conduct of Members of Congress.

    The States will create new tools to effectively assert checks and balances, and lawfully ensure that that power is divided along, between and within all branches of government.

    Changes to Article 1 Section 5 will strip Members of Congress of the power they have abused, and promulgate meaningful sanctions to lawfully prevent Members of Congress from funding illegal wars, assenting to violations of the law, and failing to timely review unlawful Executive conduct.

    Members of Congress have qualified immunity when it comes to matters of appropriations, authorizations, declarations, proclamations, statutory violations, war crimes, human rights violations, and government programs which violate the clearly promulgated statutes.

    * * *

    [More to follow]