NSA: Lawfully rendering alleged American war criminals to The Hague
NSA: Telecoms make a bad faith reliance?
Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been metRef
Problem for AT&T: Why did Qwest refuse?[ Ping ]
Berenson with Sidely Austin, has also provided consulting work for ABC, and is now defending AT&T.
Guess where Berenson was when this all started? That's right -- in the White House.
Do you think the FBI is actually monitoring Berenson?
Let's consider the entire "problem" the White House faces. It keeps asserting that the people it is targeting are based on "valid reasons" and that "no warrant" is required.
Small problem: The FISA court wasn't involved after the extended period of time -- after which AG Gonzalez and the other evil-doers were still supposed to get a warrant.
Fast forward to the February 2, 2006 HEARING OF THE SENATE SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
SEN. FEINSTEIN: . . .Has any intelligence agency arrested, detained, rendered or otherwise held any American suspected to be linked to al Qaeda without a court warrant or sufficient cause for criminal prosecution?
Open discussion about Rendition, and no straight answer.
What's the basis for the "foreign agent" connection? No answer.
What's the basis for saying -- in writing, as we are asked to believe, the Attorney General has done -- that there are not warrants required, and that all the laws have been followed? No answer.
The point is that the President has already stated he's ignored the warrant requirement; but keeps asserting "it is lawful."
How can "it be lawful" when FISA requires him to go to the court to get a warrant?
Then we get into the "oh, he's the commander in Chief"-non-sense. Hay, Sidely's Berenson, "Which side of the law are you on?"
Clearly your AT&T client has a problem. Qwest rejected the request for information, meaning it's not a clear case that the "reliance" was or was no self-evident.
Rather, it remains to be understood why, despite your allegedly reckless legal advice while you were White House counsel, you can credibly be believed to be in compliance with your oath: To protect the Constitution.
If you choose to put your law firm and client loyalty before the Constitution, that is fine. But it appears the real motivation you have at this point isn't to "do justice," but to CYA your allegedly reckless disregard for the law which requires that there be a legal basis for your review.
Yet, what "legal" basis are you using? Rather, you refuse to submit this to the court. So, there has been no "legal" determination; rather the only "determination" has been that "we're not going to comply with the requirement" because we know better.
Wrong! 1978, we went through this, passed FISA.
All your arguments do not stand up. Rather, you appear to have used the non-sense excuse of "let's make a deal" with the court using the "privilege" argument, all the while failing to make any good showing why the "privilege", if absolute, can stand up.
But the court in the EFF case has said that the entire things falls apart, meaning that the case can proceed despite the claim that there is a state secret.
Now, jump over to the ACLU issue in re Rendition. Berenson was there in the White House -- apparently -- while this legal argument was going on over Rendition.
We go through the same thing: There's no evidence presented to the court over the issue of Rendition; rather the blanket, "Hay, we can talk about this. . ." all the While we hear no explanation why the "we can't talk about this"-argument wasn't invoked at the Open 2 Feb 2006 session of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
A trial can proceed despite a privilege.
The problem Berenson has is that he's caught on both sides of the issue.
Same legal team. Same evidence. Same secrets.
One court says, "No way, Berenson" and the other gets all glassey eyed.
Stunning. The problem Berenson has now is that the mess in the AT&T situation can now be used in the ACLU appeal.
And, at the same time, the evidence from Italy can be brought in, showing that Gonzalez was in violation of the law; while at the same time, the President failed to meet the full statutory requirements as Gonzalez allegedly has certified to the contrary, subjecting himself to an alleged perjury claim in re the alleged document AT&T "riled upon."
Yet, we get back to Qwest and their refusal. . .not a clear case.
Qwest smelled something.
What's worse for Sidley Austin and Berenson, we now have to ask: "If Rendition is good enough for others, and nobody will review it, should those who provide allegedly reckless legal advice be lawfully rendered to The Hague as a material witness?"
Hitler's lawyers were not immune. Civilians were tried over the Zyklon B.
Attorneys who allegedly, recklessly put their loyalty to war criminals before the Constitution may be stripped of their bar accreditation.
Is Berenson in violation of his attorney's oath to the Constitution?
Should Berenson be lawfully rendered to The Hague, since it is "no big deal"?
What might happen to Berenson if the US continues to violate the laws of war -- could Berenson lawfully be rendered as he allegedly, recklessly appears to have advocated while in the White House?
If a civilian population is subjected to illegal war crimes, may they lawfully violate the same laws and lawfully render to The Hague those who support and closely advices the President of this illegal activity?
What is the Precedent of Nuremburg for those who closely advised and provided counsel to the leadership; why were they not immune to a war crimes trial; and what is to be done when we learn that an attorney has allegedly, recklessly created a ruse to "justify" violations of the law, only to find out there way no evidence?
Berenson, let's have it:
What did you know about the placement of explosives in the World Trade center prior to Sept 2001?
You can't claim "attorney client privilege" over something that we already know: there were explosives in the building, and the basis for this "big war" is a bunch of non-sense.
Rather, as was done with Rendition, by invoking a "State Secret" claim we can make adverse judgments: You are well aware.
Let's think about the non-sense kangaroo courts going on at Guantanamo. Same thing there -- the defendants are supposed to "prove" they are not guilty. What a sham. Should that "presumption of guilt" be applied to the US legal profession?
All this cover-up, failure to cooperate, and clear war crimes -- why not make a new rule that says the legal profession must be guilty until proven innocent? Again, you can't claim a right or Constitutional amendment as protection, while denying that right to others.
You can't say that you have a superior right to be presumed innocent, all the while you've ignored that document and presumed those so targeted are guilty, and not worthy of its protection.
If the US Constitution will not be protected for Americans, then it should not be protected for Attorneys. If you want your rights to be protected in court, then you need to ensure those rights are protect for those you oppose. If you believe that some do not deserve protection because of your certainty of guilt or threat, then that assertion and presumption may be lawfully applied to you and the legal profession.
We are either all innocent, or we are all guilty. One set of rules, not two sets, with secret evidence. If you want to try people with secret evidence, or argue that information should be secrete, then we don't have to talk about the ongoing discussions with the foreign fighters in Iraq; or the secret negotiations to meet with the Taliban.
What's strange about this "big scary war," is that at the very time that the courts are being lied to -- yes, I mean that, lied to-- about the "big scary threat" that supposedly warrants this secrecy; the US government is openly discussing terms of surrender, truce, and cooperating with the insurgents.
Kind of destroys the very argument for "State secrets". If there was a true "state secret" the US wouldn't be secretly talking about of both ides of its mouth, especially when it secretly cooperates with those it tells the court, "You can't hear this." The legal community would rather enjoy the double standard: One set of rules that say it's "OK" to share information with the enemy; while a complete wall when it comes to sharing information with those at home in the court and those you supposedly serve.
It's non-sense. The problem is Americans know about the sham state secret claim, while at the same time we're fully aware of the ongoing discussions with ALQueda, the Taliban and the Insurgents. It's too bad the courts aren't "good enough" to know the real truth: State secrets are only secret if they are secret, not simply because you don't want the court to find out about the evidence of the allegedly reckless US leadership war crimes, well supported by allegedly reckless legal counsel.
That is reckless legal advice. You know anything about this, or are you going to apparently do what you allegedly do: Allegedly support illegal warfare, and violations of the US Constitution?
These are issues far deeper than criminal law, but legitimacy. The American people are going to have to decide whether they believe the non-sense from the failed legal profession; or whether they are going to say, "We need to assert the rule of law," and lawfully target the very allegedly reckless legal profession which has permitted this disastrous state of affairs to spiral into its current cess pool, to which you know well.
You have no defense when the "authority" you rely on is not lawful.
You have no basis for "reasonable reliance" when the law is clear, but you do the opposite, advocate otherwise, or create fiction to justify the abuse.
You have no credible immunity when the Constitution and Statutes clearly state the opposite of what you allegedly, recklessly said, "OK" for the President to violate, ignore, and otherwise circumvent.
The law is clear. We are a nation of laws.
The legal community has already stated that law enforcement cannot be trusted without oversight.
There is no legal basis to justify continued warrantless searches with the NSLs. These are violations of the Constitution.
Nothing you are saying is adding up.
You took an oath to the Constitution, not to your client, law firm, or your political party.
You have to decide whether you are on the side of the Constitution, or something else. If you say it is "OK" for your friends to violate the law, ignore the law, or assert "waivers" to things that are illusory, then under the laws of war -- which you allegedly, recklessly assert apply to justify this illegal activity -- then what are we left with?
Those who allegedly, recklessly advocate the state violate the law become themselves an alleged co-conspirator.
Is this what you want Americans to conclude: That you are saying "It is OK" for the President to violate the law; ignore the law; go around the law; assert powers that he does not explicitly have?
Nowhere in the Constitution does the Attorney General or the President have the "power" or "authority" to violate the law. It doesn't exist. It's illusory.
There’s no "extraordinary" situation here -- Congress hasn't declared that at all. It's fiction.
The only "extraordinary situation" is why an allegedly reckless attorney like you can credibly continue to call yourself a "professional" while this Constitution is trashed, and your "client" makes up more non-sense.
Real things, real outside knowledge. Either the US is going to assent to the rule of law, or the world is going to lawfully ignore the same laws which the US does.
The US apparently recklessly advocates that Rendition is "OK." Are you saying that the world -- in lawful response -- may render those who belong before The Hague?
If you were to say that the rendering of US citizens -- and allegedly reckless former White House counsel now working for alleged defendants in a litigation -- cannot be rendered, why should anyone else be subjected to that treatment?
What "immunity" do US citizens have to this abuse, which other people around the globe must assent to? There is no double standard.
There is the rule of law. The question remains whether that rule of law shall come from within, or has to be lawfully imposed from without.
Look at the date. It’s 2006, fully five years after this non-sense has started. Absurd! A nation of laws, ha! What is America fighting for? You’re the one who took the oath, was there in the White House, and you’re not sure, can’t answer, won’t answer, want someone else to answer?
What information do you have that "just proves" that rendition and warrantless surveillance of US citizens is "OK" without the close coordination -- as is required -- under the FISA?
Rather, if you are "so sure," that the rendering and warrantless surveillance is true, valid, and lawful, should we not subject you to the very abuses you want others to be subjected to?
Shouldn't Berenson be the one that is Rendered to The Hague; should Berenson be the one that we give the "special attention" to?
Give it up Berenson: You have no case -- anything you say, "Should be done" to others, could lawfully be done to any alleged, reckless attorney who advocates violations of the laws of war, human rights, and US Constitution.
From this perspective it appears as though you’re giving a green light to abuse, torture, and other crimes.
Our oath isn’t to the nation, land, or President. Our oath is to the Constitution.
Those who violate that document, but live in a system that refuses to sanction volitions of that law, have little legal foundation or legitimacy. You cannot compel a nation of Americans to assent to a legal system that you say can be applied with discretion.
The national emergency is the allegedly, reckless legal community that has permitted this non-sense to go unchallenged. If Americans are not willing to civilly resolve disputes, then you have sent a green light that those disputes can only be resolved with force.
We either are or are not a nation of laws. But regardless one’s assertion on that question, We the People may lawfully assert our rights to draft a New Constitution.
This is something you do not – as an attorney – have the power to do. You are obligated to protect that existing document. Because you are part of the system, you are forced to make changes to the Constitution within Article V.
Not us. We can make new rules. We can devise a system that better oversees the allegedly defective legal profession, one that better compels allegedly reckless legal opinions from the White House counsel to meet some sort of higher standard other than what mess we’ve seen since 2000.
We the People are not required to continue to put up with this.
If you choose to wage war on Americans by asserting that the State may ignore the laws of war and treaties, then you are no different than those we supposedly fight. Rather, you have painted yourself as what you are: A domestic threat to the Constitution.
It is irrelevant that this Congress refuses to acted; or that this leadership uses non-sense to persuade people in the NSA to listen to their illegal claims of authority.
You have no power to stop this. We the People know we can create a new system. Something that the legal community can lawfully be shut out from, excluded, and denied access to.
We the People may lawfully create a system which enslaves the legal community.
Where is your claim to a salary? Where is your claim to anything we should respect?
You offer for us nothing but non-sense reasons to justify this absurdity. Show us, what is there within you that the world should justify listening to?
You have the burden.
We the People have options. You have no choice. You have freely chosen to hitch your wagon to alleged war criminals. It remains to be adjudicated – whether on the friendly field of court, or on the battlefield that you and others appear to prefer – who shall prevail.
The rule of law shall prevail. We the People can change that law.
We can make new rules, as was done at Nuremburg, and retroactively conclude that any attorney – such as you allegedly are – that provides legal advice to a war criminal, and does not removes themselves from that alleged conspiracy – may be tried for war crimes.
Hitler’s lawyers and you appear to be very similar. Devising all sorts of interesting arguments to justify abuses of power and violation of rights.
Either Americans or someone else will ultimately decide what is to be done. The way going forward is to realize that you no longer command respect.
Even the most stupid of bloggers can see that you appear to be an allegedly reckless, domestic threat to the US Constitution.
Again, we do not advocate violence. On the other hand, your clients in AT&T and your former clients in the White House – which you appear to have a higher loyalty to that the US Constitution – have a big problem. They have no legal defense for what they are doing, other than hide evidence.
Ms Gunn at GCHQ upset the apple cart. And there are others. Waiting. Ready. Not just within GCHQ but also around the globe. They are fully prepared to put the Constitution first, before their loyalty to their paycheck.
The only option the White House and NSA have is to use non-sense and fear.
That is not the basis for a civilized society. We the People can made adverse inferences. We also can use federal rule 11.
If you want to advocate illegal activity – using whatever legal non-sense you desire – to justify what you are doing, then we may lawfully reciprocate. If you want this to end, then you need it to end. If you want this to continue, then keep doing what you’re doing.
As we speak, those Americans who illegally support violations of the law are being targeted and killed in Iraq. This is something you and your President have allegedly chosen. If you think you’re going to get away with this – and allegedly implement a plan to do the same in American – you have a problem.
The world knows what America has done and continues to do. Americans are willing to assert the “right” to commit war crimes, abuse others, and then hide the evidence. War crimes don’t work that way. If Americans aren’t willing to follow the laws of war, then those in Iraq subjected to those abuses are not required to follow those laws.
If Americans are not willing to follow the laws of war – and illegally use military technology against American civilians – those foreign fighters may choose to use this as a justification to broaden their opposition and area of combat operations.
We see nothing in the line that creates a magic wall around America, not insulates it from abuse. Rather, those in Iraq who are abused – under what appears to be an illegally use of military power, which you allegedly, recklessly have asserted is permissible – then it remains to be seen whether those foreign fighters become domestic fighters.
The laws of war permit reciprocal violations of the law. The big “mighty” American army has shown it is not all powerful, just reckless and poorly led, much to the credit of the bungling lawyers who say, “Whatever you want, Mr. President.”
It’s time to consider where Americans stand with respect to the rule of law. If the legal community is not willing to assert the rule of law, and openly defy it – as we have seen in Iraq – what is stopping Americans from taking this fight to the only forum this President appears to recognize?
Americans have options. We may choose to continue discussions with other nations and the UN – using methods the NSA cannot intercept – to peacefully impose a sense of order, discipline, and rule of law.
Americans may also choose to assert the rule of law, and create a New Constitution.
Or we may choose to lawfully reciprocate and impose justice on those who move without regard to the legal system and defy their oaths.
If you defy your oath, then we need not consider the law – for it is not something you recognize; so we need not recognize the forums you choose to selectively apply, ignore, and otherwise destroy. You cannot rely on the Constitution as you source of legal authority for your job as an attorney; while at the same time compelling us to believe the law does not apply.
If you want to ignore the law, or explain it away, then we may ignore your attorney credentials and your preferred forum for threatening the Constitution. We are not obligated to honor a document you defy; nor are we in a position to be compelled to recognize a system which you have supported destroying.
You appear to have shown that your oath of office is meaningless, and that you allegedly are a recklessly threat to the rule of law and US Constitution.
If you choose to defy the rule of law, then you are saying that you will only rely on the last forum to resolve this dispute: The battlefield.
America has only just over 300 million people. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet. The American legal profession has chosen to unite against American civilians and the rule of law; American citizens may lawfully join forces with those outside American who are interested in re-asserting the US Constitution. We may lawfully ignore any restraint imposed by a Constitution you do not support; and we may lawfully work with others around the globe to re-assert the rule of law and protect this Constitution.
The free people of America need not fear the legal profession nor the White House nor the Joint Staff. Americans can see the fruit: A disaster in Iraq.
Lawyers were the ones who advocated this action; and lawyers are the ones who want to hope Americans get stuck with the problem.
Not this time. We can lawfully throw this problem back onto you, and lawfully render you to The Hague. Your legal system refuses to deal with this; we may lawfully deliver you to a forum that chooses to have a higher respect for the rule of law than the defective legal community inside the American Bar Association.
Congratulations, you have opened the door to the land of the Geneva Conventions and the principle of reciprocity. Thank you.
Let's try one more time: Who placed the explosives inside the World Trade center, and what does AT&T and your law firm know about the NSA's interception of the pre 9-11 information?
The key question is, Berenson, are you going to continue to allegedly pretend you're an attorney honoring your oath to the Constitution; or are you going to actually start acting like one that is asserting the rule of law.
That is not a question.
Choose: Your client, or the Constitution. You can't have it both ways.
Not this time. This time it's serious: Alleged war crimes, violations of public law, and gross malfeasance by Members of Congress and ABA-certified attorneys have allegedly violated their oaths of office.
You were there. Not someone else.
Berenson, you have 24 hours. After that, anything you say is "OK" to happen to others, could very well happen to you. The laws of war permit reciprocity. Is that what you think is "OK" in this "new war" on the American Constitution?
It's not nice to declare war on Americans, especially when you allegedly recklessly fall on both sides of the law. You made a very poor choice. If you're not willing to stand up and fight for the Constitution, may you suffer a very long and painful ordeal before The Hague.
You wished this.
posted by Constant @ 12:16 PM
<< Home