Hayden's Nomination to CIA: Recommendations for House Judiciary Ranking Member

"W" for war criminals.

Inman calls it illegal. In other red herrings, they're debating the program, not the legality.

Senate Trial 2009

Hayden's nomination to the CIA is an excellent catalyst for the Bush impeachment effort.

Petition against Hayden: [Vote No against Hayden, the alleged Nazi war criminal.]

Learn the lessons of the Alito filibuster: Get your SEnators on board for a Filibuster to take the SEnate floor, and make comments on the Bush illegal NSA activities, and encourage the National Citizenry to mobilize at the local level to get impeachment proclamations submitted.

Hayden Filibuster: Plan now! "Reason to do it" -- take the floor, set the agenda, and spread the word on the rule of law. [It does matter what the House says; the House needs to encourage the public to contact the Senators for a filibusters.]

* * *

Domestic intelligence: Action item for Ranking House Judiciary Committee

In the wake of Sept 2001, we’re asked to believe there is a new threat out there. General Hayden’s nomination as CIA director raises some interesting issues.

In the wake of the Patriot Act, “the wall” between international and domestic intelligence was stripped. Also, the NYT revealed in Dec 2005 that the US was using the NSA to engage in domestic surveillance.

The primary issue is that despite it being 2006, we’re almost 5 years after Sept 2001, yet local law enforcement appears to be in the dark about guidelines, policies, training.

What needed is a better handle on what they propose to review. From this perspective it appears as though the money has flowed, but the threat isn’t clear. This seems somewhat surprising in that the Federal Government is supposedly leading a “war on terror” and “directing” some sort of NSA activity.

* * *

It may be satire, but it might as well be true: [ Click ]

* * *

What you can do:

Contact your Attorney State Bar in your state, and ask them where they stand on the Constitution and oath of office for attorneys and publi cofficials. Ask them why there is little visible, timely, and aggressive pro bono work on protecting the rule of law and Constitution under the RNC/PNAC regieme.

Work with your friends in your community to establish civilian oversight boards for your local law enforcment. This will put more eyes on the alleged misconduct and abuse of power; and put additional pressure on law enforcement to ensure their operations and policies are consistent with the rule of law. This is another tool to find out whether they are serious about their oath of office, Constitution, and the privacy rules regulating police databases.

Encourage your local audit teams in your state to increase audit scope of the law enforcement per SAS 99 -- this is a recognized audit standard that all auditors will understand. This Standard relates to the fraud indicators in the USN&WR article -- deceptions, management turnover, vague policies, disappearing data, non compliance with procedures, and violations of the law.

Encourage your State officials in the Police Office STandards and Training Board to conduct more no notice visits to the law enforcement field training officers [FTOs]. They need to get out of their board meetings and make no notice visits to FTOs to find out whether the training is actually consistent with your state procedures, or whether they are teaching new recruits to do things that violate hte law, lie, or coverup pre-textual stops.

Verify your municipal/city officials are reviewing/investigating complaints as they have promised. Get a response from them in writing. Follow-up to make sure what they promise is happening is actually occuring. Remember, they will lie in order to avoid 42 USC 1983 claims.

Let your friends know about 42 USC 1983 and 5 USC 3331. These are the tools you and your friends can use to put pressure on law enforcement. Talk to your private counsel about these statutes and find out what you need to do to successfully prevail in litigation agaist law enforcement.

Review this website for tips on how to interact with law enforcement. Discuss this with your attorney. Develop a plan of action before you are stopped: How will you contact your attorney; and what you should do while you are waiting for your attorney to provide assistance. [ Click: More ]

* * *

Based on the USN&WR article cited in this blog, Hayden's comments -- that they have too much to do -- are absurd. [ Click ] There's plenty of evidence in the USN&WR article that there are plenty of people sitting around trying to figure out what to do; theya re not busy; and they're willing to violate the law to justify grants from DoJ.

Hayden's comprehension of the law is dubious. Last thing I want is someone like him in charge of domestic CIA-operations saying, "What Constitution? The 4th Amendment isn't to be respected . . . " or "What Posse Comitatus. . ?" Or, "After 9-11, we can engage in domestic surveillance . . ." [ Remember his ignorance on the 4th Amendment probable cause standard: Click ]

Hayden linked to Cunningham Bribery scandal [ Click ] -- Usually we find these things out after they've been confirmed and have caused damage. Why is the Senate bothering?

Here's an example of a flawed argument: Click ] IN so many words, Hayden's flawed "logic" is:

A. Despite the US failing to find out who places the explosives in the WTC, Americans didn't place the explosives;

B. Rather, despite our failure to find facts, we are going to make assertions that are nt supported by reality and blame others for what the NSA knows: Who placed the explosives;

C. Because we are "against" something -- that is false -- that means our values -- taht we do not practice-- are "good"; and

D. Instead of explaining why the NSA violates these values, Hayden uses the false enemy "abroad" as the excuse to engage in violations of the law at home, thereby destroying any confidence he's serious about protecting any civil liberty, preserving privacy, or ensuring resources are linked with bonafide policy against real threats.

Leaving us to wonder: "What's an anicdote to the American war crimes"? Answer: An impeachment investigation, and war crimes trials before the Hague.

* * *

USN&WR Article

We can only make some adverse judgments, and hope the following discussion is useful in light of General Hayden’s upcoming nomination hearing.

For purposes of clarity, we highly recommend the House and Senate Judiciary, Armed Services, and Intelligence Committees review the 8 May 2006 USNews & World Report article, “The Spy Next Door” by David E. Kaplan [page 41]

As you read the article keep in mind the following things:

It is 2006, almost 5 years after we’ve started been asked to believe there is “someone” out there which needs to be watched

There is no explanation for the explosives inside the WTC towers – who put them there, when the White House in 2001 knew about the explosives

There is a cross flow of pesonnel from the Guard/reserves/Army to local first responders, but DoJ guidance isn't sufficient to provide direction on what the local intellience units should be doing. [ Lessons learned from the army are not going into the supporting JTTF units Click; raising questions about the lessons learned process in DoJ and JTTF -- does it exist, what are their objectives, why is this unclear in 2006, and what other lessons from relevant sources are ignored? ]

As you read the article, also notice a number of very problematic trends/indicators/pattern:

Despite massive amount of money, and personnel getting hired to gather information, the article makes repeated references to poor training, lack of guidelines, and loose oversight.

Despite the 42 USC 1983 liability, we continue to hear that citizens are getting picked up, subjected to warrantless interrogations based on “indicators”

Despite being told the “total information awareness” program was shut down, we find out the NSA was actually monitoring citizens; there’s little reason to believe the Matrix systems have been actually shut down.

* * *

Let’s talk big picture. It appears the US is still hunting for an enemy, and an excuse to justify this massive funding. This doesn't mean that the enemy is elusive; rather, it means the US hasn't clarified what it is trying to do. Without clarity, the US has already targeted innocent civilians. These are war crimes.

The article makes repeated references to money flows without either clear accounting or policies. From an intelligence management perspective this is stunning. When a government or intelligence gathering outfit gathers information, they – generally in America – will outline a list of scenarios, then develop parameters or indicators.

Simply put: The US looks at the existing landscape, identifies threats, and develops a range of scenarios that could post a threat to US interests, then identifies a list of indicators of conduct that which tend to support or reject those hypothesis. [ You can read more about this from the CIA IG Mary McCarthy who gave testimony on the approach in 2003 before the 9-11: Click ]

Putting aside the issue of whether this approach is or is not effective, the problems raised by the USN&WR article suggests this idealized approach – rightly or wrongly – doesn’t exist. Namely, here we are in 2006, five years after Sept 2001, and the government still hasn’t effectively linked the “big threat” and “what people are doing.” Thus, we get back to the issue with Hayden, the NSA/JTTF investigative leads, his likely role in CIA: What’s all this money going to do; and is it disconnected from reality?

Based on the NYT revelations on the NSA – and the apparent wholesale disregard for the Constitution – it appears as though the money has flowed to areas where a reasonable person should have said, “This is not lawful.” We have no confidence that the local law enforcement can effectively self-regulate. Rather, they need to find something to justify additional federal grants.

Money flowing without regard to the rule of law: A dangerous mix when talking of Hayden and the CIA

It is well known that law enforcement lies all the time; they regularly engage in pre-textual stops; and when caught they have been trained how to make up stories to avoid litigation.

The issue is: Can we have confidence that the actions in 2006 – whatever they are, regardless legality – are linked with a bonafide threat? Given the 9-11 commission findings that failed to mention the WTC explosives or their source, we can with confidence state that the US intelligence activities are wholly disconnected form bonafide threats. Rather, the "real threat" appears to be the NSA which knows full well who placed the explosives inside the WTC: Not the current "convenient enemy of the week."

More troubling is the lack of guidance that – if the threat was real – should be in place. The issue isn’t simply one of a paper exercise and filling out forms. In order to lead, one must have a goal. Given there is nothing in writing we can only conclude that the money is in search of a purpose. This is alarming.

Many of the interviewees in the USN&WR article suggested they “needed guidance.” Well, putting aside the obvious – that where there is no guidance, there is no leadership – we are troubled that the obvious guidance – the Constitution – is wholly ignored in the NSA and White House.

Some would have us believe that the DOJ can be trusted. This is absurd. They have made no credible link between the 9-11 events – that there were explosives – with the actual threat planning, intelligence gathering, or other events. Rather, they’re still – in 2006, five years later – still shooting in the dark. Rather, the US intelligence efforts -- which Hayden well knows given his connect to the NSA activity -- appears to be related more to suppressing discussion of the war crimes and open discussion of what the US knows happened in re 9-11.

We judge the NSA activity isn't connected with any real threat -- just as the USN&WR states is the problem with domestic law enforcement intelligence. Rather, the activities appear to be simply looking for a justification. Finding nothing real, they have imagined things, then used their delusion to "justify" violations of the Constitution. This warrants immediate comprehension within the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. [How to find which Americans placed the explosives inside the three towers using Hayden's Intel-Link system: Click ]

* * *

Let’s take big leap in an apparently disconnected area, but you’ll quickly see there is a problem with US leadership and statutory compliance.

Let’s take a handful of, and show you how this “failure of interline planning” is still a problem:

US statements on Russia

MI6 comments on Pakistanis to Iran

Pelosi’s comments on impeachment

Geneva inspections on the US torture

Hayden’s appointment to CIA

West Point’s trademark claims

Look at the above events as simply random events, but we’re going to tie them into this soup. Keep in mind, the goal here is to protect the Constitution.

Let’s take the Russia situation. Cheney’s been making comments that Russia is the “new bully because of the energy manipulation”. Huh? That’s absurd. The US is the bully in Iran.

West Point leadership has also claimed that a group of anti-Iraq war West point graduates have “infringed” on the copyright. In truth, West Point is lying, and hoping to stifle political speech.

In Geneva the US has been under the microscope over the torture and abuses.

Pelosi has said that it is up to the “DNC leadership” – not Conyers or the Judiciary Committee – over what happen on impeachment. This completely ignores the fact that a State Proclamation can take the leadership and Judiciary Committee out of the loop and force a vote well before the November 2006 election.

MI6 is reporting that Pakistanis are in Iran. This appears to be no different than the other MI6 mass appeal. Even if true, the issue becomes one for Pakistan to explain – why are they exploiting technology to Iran, despite being an American ally. We judge this MI6 claim is a fabrication, not timely, and unsupportable.

Now, let’s summarize where we are with Hayden: He’s Bush’s choice for replacement. Yet, CIA is getting into the domestic surveillance activities, and in light of the USN&WR article it’s clear they have no clue what they’re going after.

In light of the above events, it’s clear the US is flailing around, in need of leadership, and the existing PNAC-agendas are simply more of what was written more than 15 years ago, wholly disconnected to what is actually going on in 2006. Bluntly, it’s absurd that the RNC relies on documents from the early 1990s, but has failed to update guidance in light of the events of 2001.

We are left with the Constitution that the Sept 2001 events – however they are characterized – are not credibly linked with what the US and law enforcement is actually doing in 2006. If there was a link then the guidance would be clear. It is not. This is especially troubling. By comparison during WWII in 1941, the US was well mobilized and the combat ended within 4 years by 1945.

We’re asked to believe this is a “different kind of war.” Indeed – it is different – the war actions are disconnected from the actual events of Sept 2001: Who really placed the explosives in the WTC towers?

* * *

The Judiciary and Intelligence Committees need to realize what the date is It’s May 2006, six months before the election.

Also, keep in mind the sham about impeachment: Some say that Bush will never get removed because the RNC controls the Senate. Well, hold on. There’s not just one but two elections. In January 2009, there is a three week window where the results of the 2008 Senate changeover can occur.

If the House and Senate fail to remove the President in 2007 – as ii expected – the voter backlash is likely to grow against the RNC, and the RNC will likely lose control of the Senate. This doesn’t mean that Bush gets a free ride.

Rather, it means that in the first weeks of 2009, the Senate majority could very well convict and remove Both Bush and Cheney from office.

* * *

Again, it is 2006, six months before the election. We have two election cycles to go through before Bush and Cheney are free and clear of any threat of removal from office.

Again, keep in mind the state proclamations for impeachment: They are gaining support.

Keep in mind Pelosi’s responses to the interviews of the weekend: She’s acting as if the DNC leadership is going to decide whether or not impeachment will occur. Clearly, she’s missing the point: if the voters are sufficiently mobilized – as they appear to be – by failing to act on impeachment [by either the RNC or DNC ] this could be a big backlash for failing to protect the Constitution.

Also, given we are in mid 2006, and this issue with Cheney and Bush will not end until January 2009 – almost 2.5 years from now, that’s a lot of time for more evidence to surface on what is going on.

* * *

Back to Top

URL To Share With Your Friends The URL For This Section: Click This section is: How the White House has a problem until 2009 -- The RNC could lose control of the Senate in 2008, and there may be a trial in the first three weeks of January 2009, before Bush and Cheney leave office. Keep in mind these charts as you read this: [ Click ]

Summary Cross Posted: Raw

If the Senate does not convict Bush after the 2006 election, the backlash against the RNC will likely continue tipping the balance against the RNC in the Senate in 2008. Here's the trick: There is another election in 2008; the New DNC controlled Senate would take office in early Jan 2009, three weeks before Bush leaves office at the end of January 2009.

In light of the RNC resistance to protect the Constitution, the New DNC-controlled Senate could lawfully remove the President from office. The point: Keep the pressure on the RNC until well into 2009. They have only started to see the trashing. The RNC will have to defend itself for more than 2.5 years from now: They do not have enough energy, support, or manpower to politically protect the President or defend him in the Senate.

Emphasis: Key point about the first three weeks of 2009 and the Senate

A. RNC Excuses: There's a circular argument the RNC likes to use. They delay action; then after they have delayed, they argue, "Well, there's no time to do anything."

This isn't going to work. Here's why.

B. Solution There's an interesting quirk with the Congressional Calendar. Members of Congress take control before the President changes. This means there is a three week window of opportunity in 2009.

Let's suppose this mess with Cheney and Bush drags on and on . . .and the Senate refuses to convict. This is actually a good thing.

If the RNC continues its delaying tactics -- to avoid an impeachment and removal from office -- this will likely increase the public rage against the RNC, and could result in dramatic reversals against the RNC.

Don’t be fooled. The 2006 election isn't the only chance to do something. Rather, there's another round.

What's likely to happen is the DNC will take control of the House in November 2006. They will start investigations.

Even if the Senate refuses to convict -- based on sheer numbers of RNC Senators who refuse to assert their oath or protect the Constitution -- they are still subject to losing in 2008.

This means one thing: Let's suppose between 2006 and 2008 the House impeaches, but the Senate refuses to act. What could happen -- by the Senator's inaction -- is that the RNC in 2008 will lose more Senate seats.

This means in the Senate would shift against the President.

Then, in the first three weeks of January 2009, the House Managers -- with their investigation results -- would show up with their evidence, conduct, a trial, and then the Senate would remove them in January 2009.

Some say, "What's the point? They're almost out of office." That's the point -- even though "they're almost out of office, they are still at risk of losing their seats, being denied all retirement, and being barred from office. This also means that they can't use their power of pardon, nor can they be pardoned."

The whole point of this approach is to remind the public and government:

This isn't over based on what does or does not happen in 2006

If the Senate refuses to cooperate -- and assert their oath per 5 USC 3331 to protect this Constitution -- they may in 2008 lose their seats

This will only end when Bush resigns

As the RNC uses more non-sense to avoid accountability, investigations, and consequences, the public will have more information to make informed decisions: The RNC is not fit for government; and the Senators in the RNC are a threat to the Constitution and not fit to remain in office.

This option will provide new hope to those to remain focused, not just on 2006, but also the 2008 election -- we can work together at the local levels to tip the balance, and ensure the Senate has people in power who assert their oath

This credible threat of a trial in January 2009 will weigh heavily on the RNC -- they will realize that they have a real problem, and if they delay acting it will only get worse. Some seeing it is inevitable, may choose to vote against the President and remove him from office.

This makes it clear to the President that he has to do his job, he can't be a lame duck, and that if he continues to ignore the rule of law, he can still be held to account until the last minutes of his Presidency in January 2009.

Said another way

If the DNC takes control of the Senate in 2008, there will be three weeks after they take office to hold a trial, and remove the President from office.

Even if the DNC "doesn't control the Senate" -- after 2006 -- the 2008 election in the Senate will provide another opportunity. The Senate takes office 3 Jan 2009; then the Senate will have three weeks for a trial before Bush's term ends.

This means: Even if the RNC avoids getting trashed between now and 2008 -- ha! -- they have to still be accountable to the very last minute; the more they fail to assert power, or not assert the rule of law to protect the Constitution, the worse it is going to get. They can't simply say, "Wow, we got X-result" after the 2006 election, and breath a sigh of "relief" that "their man" is safe. Rather, they still have to worry about what happens in the 2008 election in the Senate.

Putting aside the Senate result in 2006, if the DNC fails to control the Senate, and the President is simply investigated, the RNC have a major problem. If they are seen to be a big impediment to reform, the rule of law, or transforming the country from the current mess to the "post Bush Era," there's likely to be a big backlash again in 2008, all but securing a needed margin for conviction.

Rewind Back to where we are today in May 2006. Eventually some in the RNC are going to say, "Look, if we let this non-sense go on, not only are we going to get trashed in the House, but also the Senate."

Bluntly between now -- May 2006 -- and November 2006, the voters should know one thing: There's no excuse not to investigate. The longer the "era of inaction" drags on, the worse the RNC backlash will be in November 2006 and 2008. With time, the RNC will have to impeach and convict. If they don't, then they're going to lose more seats. They'll start pressing for the DNC to take control, convict, and remove.

Bush may be a lame duck; but the RNC -- if it decides to be a lame party through 2008 -- will likely secure the 2008 RNC defeat in the Senate, and contribute to the President losing power with a conviction in the first three weeks of Jan 2009.

As is expected -- that the RNC will blow off the threat of impeachment -- the Senate remains in the balance until 2008, after which time the DNC could very well have enough leverage to convict.

Going backwards from 2009, as soon as the RNC realizes this -- that the real endgame will last until the 2008 election, and there is a three week window for conviction in January 2009 -- the RNC is going to realize that unless they impeach/convict, they're only going to lose more popular support.

* * *


Recommendations

1. Review the USN&WR article. Given the lack of guidance, require DoJ and the White House to provide a clear story on what they’re trying to do with this money they’re spending. It appears the vacuum of information from NSA is only the tip of the iceberg. We shouldn’t be this many years after Sept 2001, and still is fumbling around. Either the money is for a bonafide requirement or it is not.

2. Need a clean story on what happened with the Sept 2001 explosives, and what NSA knows about who placed them. The entire argument of “this is a different war” isn’t credible given that the apparent “real people” behind the WTC attacks had to place the explosives then choose not to do anything until a specific date. If it was a credible threat – from abroad – they would have immediately exploded the material when they had the chance. NSA cannot explain what happened to the intercepts of the pre explosive placement intercepts.

3. Need to find out how much DoD money is going to support DoJ objectives. It’s curious that NCIS is providing funds to local areas in Virginia, when this is a non-DoD requirement. Under NCIS rationale, anything – and that could include anything – around anything could be DoD-related. This raises the prospect of a Posse Comitatus.

4. Why should we believe MI6 on the Pakistani issue? MI6 lied bout WMD in Iraq. If this “development” in Iran is “true” then what’s the US plan to go after Pakistan? The issue becomes: How long has MI6 known about this; and why should we believe anything MI6 says in light of their problem with war crimes in Iraq – which they well knew was a risk based on the UK Attorney General warnings on war crimes. The lack of a plan means the US and UK are looking for an excuse to go after Iran. We’ll have to wait to see the contents of the Iranian President’s letter to Bush, which likely includes recognition of Israel.

5. DNC leadership – even if they take control of the House – will still have to contend with the state proclamations. DNC doesn’t have a choice about “not investigating”. Pelosi’s wavering on the questions are not credible; if she’s got subpoena power, but refuses to use it, or doesn’t impeachment – then what’s her basis to claim she’s going to do any cleaning? She’s being cagy, and would ask the public believe that the DNC is going to decide. They have no choice – and the States are likely going to force the Congress to face the issue before the DNC is in a position to believe it can choose.

6. DNC and country need a wake up call on Bush/Cheney conviction and removal. The three weeks after the 2008 election could very well be the time when the final trial occurs and they are removed. There’s no basis to believe, “Oh, it’s so late let’s do nothing.” Rather, the opposite is true – “Even if the country refuses to act for more than 2 years, Bush and Cheney should know they have to deal with the uncertainty of the 2008 election in the Senate.” Namely, they can’t simply slide for the next two years. Not only is it going to get worse for them – in terms of more evidence, and more crimes to cover up things – but ask the country turns against the RNC, even the Senate is likely to be lost. Cheney and Bush have a problem in that even if they are angels, the populace between 2006 and 2008 could very well turn increasingly hostile, all the while the RNC plans become less relevant.

7. All of the above needs to be dealt with now in terms of the DNC agenda: These are issues which the RNC is unable to deal with; and they are only going to get worse. Namely: What’s the plan to find out who really placed the explosives in the tower; and how does the NSA activity fit in with the USN&WR article – showing a climate of disorganization, poor guidelines, and lack of effective resource management. It’s likely this is the same kind of mess driving the NSA and local law enforcement on investigative leads.

8. The issue is going to be to determine how to make 5 USC 3331 – oath of office – have some real teeth; and how to make 42 USC 1983 more of a stick; and how to get the US legal community to more quickly mobilize to protect the Constitution. It took hears after the abuses at Abu Ghraib before the Judge Advocates in the Pentagon met with legal scholars in NY to discuss their concerns. That is an unacceptable time lag. Supposedly, the JAG was on the propaganda cells, and they appear to have been sidelined.

9. Intelligence resources are not well connected with what really happened in Sept 2001, either with the Constitutional objectives or with the supposed Sept 2001 story. When intelligence isn’t linked with an actual threat, we have to ask what they’re trying to do. Thus, this goes back to the NSA: Given all that is confusing and illegal, what reason should anyone have to believe that they really have any concern for the Constitution? There appears to be nothing there to warrant that confidence. Rather, the track record and scant evidence suggests the abuses are wide, the “shut down” programs have merely been renamed; and that the NSA is simply doing what it wants, and hoping the rest of the world “figures it out.” Well, it’s 2006 and we have state proclamations that are going to compel Congress to face the issue: You going to believe the Constitution, or the NSA? It’s up to Members of Congress whether they want to face the 5 USC 3331 realities.

10. Time for the country to start discussing a credible post-Bush/Cheney legal resolution. After WWII we had Nuremburg. What’s needed is some liaison between the DNC/Congressional Committees and the Hogue. Bluntly, the US will have to have a plan to deliver former Bush administration officials to the Hague for war crimes trial; and the US DoD Special forces on notice that they are not to interfere with rescues. This goes back to Hayden: What does he know about the intercepts of the Hague, and current CIA plans to “render” those who may be guilty of war crimes? It’s time Hayden start answering questions about what the NSA knows about the rendition program; and what will be done to ensure the US does not interfere with war crimes investigations.

11. Time to put together an impeachment timl4eine. Need to coordinate public inputs; work with feedback from the blogosphere; and remind the public that the RNC isn’t simply about what does or doesn’t happen in November, but the State proclamations broaden the window to include pre-November; and the post 2008 election is anther chance for the Senate to get turned upside down for purposes of lawfully removing the President. Time to set up your files, and plan for data collecting to support the impeachment well into 2009.

12. RNC leadership and the White House need to be remained they need to meet their obligations. Namely, can’t get away with lecturing the Russians on “obligations” all the while the US recklessly endanger lives around the globe. If the US refuses to assent to the rule of law, then other nations may lawfully enter US airspace and render US CIA and others to the Hague. There’s no legal foundation for the US to stop this as other nations may violate the same laws of war and treaties which the US ignores. Bluntly, US actions – which Hayden well knows about – subject US personnel and civilians to lawful retaliation. Hayden needs to explain who he’s going to deal with this problem, all the while not interfering with lawful inquiry. There are likely situations where domestic CIA officials will be targeted; and that CIA and their families could be removed because of their illegal activities overseas.

13. There needs to be a plan to clean up the Bush-Cheney mess. The abuses are pervasive and the misconduct well entrenched. Need to have a realistic oversight plan. Think in terms of the number of years it took to clean up Nazi Germany after WWII.

14. Need a good plan to deal with the expected election frauds in 2006. We can while all day long about the problems. The way forward is to accept these problems are going to occur, and develop solutions mitigate, report and prosecute. Can’t sit around and complain – need some viable solutions and education for the public: What to watch for, who to report problems to, and what can be done to prepare for the likely RNC intimidation.

15. US likes to tell other nations – like Russia – about the rule of law. Recently there was an acquittal in Russia. A US journalist who had reported private information about Chechens was killed. The US is claiming it has “experts” that could find out the facts. This “offer of help to the Russians” needs to be applied to the WTC site and find out who placed the explosives in the towers – all three of them, WTC 1, 2, and 7. Hayden and NSA should be able to discuss this: It was publicly discussed, the images are clear, and his failure to discuss this issue means he’s got a problem

16. West Point needs to be shut down, and the Military Commanders need to resign. They have lied about the basis for their legal issues. They are providing a poor example to the cadets. What’s needed is some attention on why the USMA has agreed to work with the White House to intermediate those who are opposed to illegal activity; and Hayden needs to discuss what information he has that shows how the White House is using illegal methods to target lawful protest against illegal war crimes by SecDef and The President. Civil litigation could backfire, and turn into a DoD IG investigation on false public statements by US Flag officers, in violation of the UCMJ, Article 134.

17. Cheney and Russia: The US needs to meet its obligations before it preaches to the world. There’s no reason to take Cheney seriously. The US military is bogged down, he’s under investigation, and his statements are puffery. He hasn’t credibly shown the US is doing anything other than what the US has already done: Been a bully. The US is just upset that it is powerless, especially given the public’s realization that the US PNAC statements are based on lies. Asking Russia to “behave” would be like for the Cubans telling the Americans to not invade: Irrelevant.

18. We judge the DNC and the Senate will not credibly review the broader issues related to Hayden, Iran WMD, or the WTC explosives. Ideally, now is the time for the subpoenas to be issued, and for the minority members of all Committees to assert their powers to call witnesses. Let’s get Ray McGovern in there to challenge what Hayden says on the NSA; and how the CIA is working with law enforcement to illegally target Americans using vague guidelines. This is a manufactured war, and Hayden knows full well that illegal war – even if supported with nifty SIGINT – is far different than using CIA domestically to target Vegans. Time for the CIA and DHS to end their warrantless interrogations and renditions of Americans – Hayden knows full well what is going on with the abuse of power and illegal CIA domestic activities which are well coordinated with JTTF and NSA.

Summary

The USN&WR article sheds light on the problems inside the US intelligence community. Activities are not linked with credible plans. This is a problem for Hayden to explain: Given the mess inside the JTTF and DoJ intelligence, what has the NSA been doing, and why should we believe that putting Hayden in the CIA is going to solve the problem? Rather, it looks like we’re simply giving the Fox the keys to the Henhouse.

Time to wake up. Hayden appears to have already violated the US Constitution. Hayden is a reckless man who shows no regard for the rule of law, and remains complicit on the deception over the Iraq WMD issues. If he’s confirmed, then we cannot be surprised when the CIA begin to be used domestically to clean up the “mess” the NSA created. CIA needs to be put on notice: You’re war criminals, and you could be lawfully rendered to the Hague, even Hayden. Hayden has two problems: While in NSA he was violating the law; and now that he’s going to be over CIA, he’s well positioned to cause chaos in American homes.. America hasn’t learned anything from Nazi Germany.