Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

ABA, Legal System: American Cess Pool

Ever since 9-11, things have been rather strange in America. The legal community has basically sat on their rear end doing nothing.

It's time take away the professional credentials of those like Wendy who were there, spewing forth non-sense.

You'd think that a legal community would exercise some leadership. If there was a national issue, the ABA "should" be there to make sure the laws are asserted, and power is restrained. They took an oath.

But it didn't work that way. It was as if after 9-11, the idiots in the legal community gladly gave the President "whatever he wanted."

Then when it comes to figuring out what happened, or how this mess is to be resolved, the legal community is there spinning, "This is what is best."

What a crock.

* * *

Unprofessional conduct

How bad does the American legal community have to get, to warrant disbarment:

  • Publishing non-sense on a website

  • Refusing to protect the Constitution

  • Acting in a manner that shows disdain for ethical responsibilities to provide credible legal arguments to a tribunal or in a published article

  • Asserting legal arguments which wholly undermine, destroy, and abrogate the US Constitution.

    * * *

    Some of you think that nothing can be done. But look at Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions. It clearly imposes a legal requirement on attorneys to ensure that the laws of war are enforced, and that Geneva is well known.

    Art 82. Legal advisers in armed forces

    The High Contracting Parties at all times, and the Parties to the conflict in time of armed conflict, shall ensure that legal advisers are available, when necessary, to advise military commanders at the appropriate level on the application of the Conventions and this Protocol and on the appropriate instruction to be given to the armed forces on this subject. (Legal Advisor responsibility.)

    To summarize:

  • This attorney duty is a treaty obligation;

  • The attorneys who are involved with DoJ and DoD are there to ensure that the laws are followed;

  • This, because it is a treaty obligation, is a law of the land

  • Attorneys should know that this requirement exists, is a law that imposes obligations, and has to be followed

  • Attorneys, when the take an oath to the US Constitution, incorporate all treaty obligations in that oath;

  • Those who fail to do what should be done, could be indicted for malfeasance, and a violation of their oath to the US Constitution.

    * * *

    Let's consider the recent Congressional direction, and DoD "plan" not to provide the Geneva Convention to interrogators.

    This "plan" directly contradicts the Geneva requirements:
    Art 83. Dissemination

    1. The High Contracting Parties undertake, in time of peace as in time of armed conflict, to disseminate the Conventions and this Protocol as widely as possible in their respective countries and, in particular, to include the study thereof in their programmes of military instruction and to encourage the study thereof by the civilian population, so that those instruments may become known to the armed forces and to the civilian population.Ref

    This means that it is clear:

  • The civilians are to have a role in ensuring the military follows the rules

  • Any effort to "shut the civilians out" is at odds with Geneva

  • Any Congressional "decision" or DoD "plan" to not make available or otherwise ignore the requirements is a subsequent violation

  • There is no basis for the leadership in DC to assert that "because the conduct is occurring overseas," or "because these prisoners are held in black sites in Eastern Europe" that the civilians have no say.

  • There is every reason to conclude that the Conventions, because they were intended to be read by civilians, were to have a civilian role in ensuring the national leadership, military, and civilian contractors followed the obligations, and were bound by these obligations.

  • There is no credible basis fro any attorney, DoJ counsel, or anyone inside DoD to assert that any contractor has been given "immunity" or that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint"; rather they do apply.

    * * *

    Consider the reprisals against the Iraqi civilians. This is illegal.

    Article 51: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.

    Article 52: Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals.

    . . .

    Article 52.3 In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

    Article 57: No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.


    Protocol I from 1977 has not been ratified by the US Senate.

  • Why is the US picking and choosing from the law and treaty obligations?

  • If the US is not going to recognize the protections for civilians, why should other nations agree to do the same?

    * * *

    The ABA imposes on attorneys the obligation to report conduct that is illegal, violates the law, or is contrary to the Supreme Law of the land.

  • Which legal "professionals" inside the DoJ knew, or should have known, about the defective, reckless legal advice Addington and others in the Executive Branch were giving?

  • Where are these attorneys

  • Why, given the results we have -- illegal war, abuse, torture, illegal rendition -- are there no attorneys who have come forward to explain how this illegal conduct was justified, explained, or ignored.

    Someone knows, and there are many attorneys in the ABA who have, or should have, some explaining to do:

  • Where were they

  • What did they read

  • What contribution did they make to this illegal effort

  • Why did they refuse to remove themselves

  • When did they learn of the illegal conduct

  • Why did they shut out the JAGs from providing inputs

  • Why, when they learned of the illegal conduct and failure of the legal advisors to compel assent to the treaties, did they not report this alleged failure of the attorneys to comply with their oath

  • Which attorneys have they discussed the issues with

  • Why no reports to the disciplinary boards

  • What efforts have been made to stifle discussion, reporting, or other mandatory attorney conduct when it comes to an issue or professional conduct

  • How have the attorney obligations, to the Constitution, illegally supplanted by an obligation to "something else"

  • What was given, promised, offered, or threatened if the attorneys refused to do what they should have done

    * * *

    Here are the protections given to all belligerents, and the phony "illegal combatant" is a fabricated word:

    ARTICLE 82.
    The provisions of the present Convention must be respected by the High Contracting Parties under all circumstances.

    In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto. Ref

    This means that the status of the detainees is completely unrelated to how the US defines them. The treaty, not the "good graces of the reckless ABA," is what protects them.

  • Where has the ABA been?

  • When the US legal community is not able to do their job, or they are required to assent to illegal conduct, where are the noisy withdrawals?

  • How could this much allegedly reckless, unethical, and illegal conduct occur, but the legal community is sitting pretty, "Not us." What a crock.

    * * *

    Here's what we know:

  • 1. There's a legal duty on the US legal advisors to ensure the laws of war are followed;

  • 2. The attorneys take an oath to the US Constitution;

  • 3. Their oath also binds them to all treaties, as the Supreme Law of the land; and

  • 4. Their legal arguments, and the results show that they've refused to do what should be done: Ensure that Geneva was protected, and asserted.

    There were specific conversations occurring between the DoJ legal teams, DoD, NSA, and other general counsels in government.

    Addington, Wendy, and other attorneys were there, involved, and should have been aware of what was going on. What's the plan to do some serious review of these arguably reckless DoJ legal conduct; and compare the professional standards of conduct to the results:

  • Which attorneys said it was "OK" to ignore the treaty;

  • Which attorneys, despite Article 82 obligations, said "We'll be silent."

    It's one thing to point fingers at other nations, or the so called "detainees." The problem this legal community has is, despite the well known "lack of Taliban-related prisoners at Guantanamo", there's no bonafide case to be made that the laws of war have been enforced, followed, or adequately advised.

    Article 82 imposes a legal duty on the legal profession, not just individual attorneys, to ensure that the laws of war are followed, adequately advised.

    The results are clear:

  • Abuse of prisoners

  • Violation of rights

  • Assertion the laws of war do not apply

  • Plenty of attorneys taking credit for their "big contribution" to the effort

  • Yet, no accountability for the results, nor any meaningful sanctions on those who had the duty to ensure the laws of war were followed, briefed, and made clear to the commanders.

    It's time to turn the spotlight on the ABA and the specific by-name attorneys who were involved:

  • Wendy

  • Addington

  • Gonzalez

  • Yoo

  • Viet Dinh

    They have some explaining to do:

  • What were there reasons for failing to ensure that the laws of war program was no enforced;

  • Why didn't they report the conduct of other attorneys who failed to do what should have been done

  • How do they explain the results: We have illegal war, torture, abuse, conduct contrary to treaties, and they were there -- but they cannot explain why the took no action, saw nothing, and have no story to provide on what they know

  • Who in DoD did they review memoranda from

  • When did they discuss the laws of war programs with DoD Attorneys

  • What was the basis for DoD Attorneys and the JAG to bypass Addington

  • Despite JAGs knowing that Addington and attorneys in DoJ were spewing forth non-sense and not asserting their Article 82 obligations, what effort was made to report this conduct to the bar for investigation.

    * * *

    Someone inside DoJ and DoD has crated this legislation that permits the US Army to issue a guidebook that assent to a lower standard. There's an attorney on some staff that knows, or should know better.

    The rules are already there. This legal crew invents legal non-sense to say the rules don't apply, they aren’t responsible. Fine, then the public should lawfully reciprocate: Lawfully target them by monitoring what they're saying, what legal advice they're giving, and then present it to Congress to show there is a problem:

  • The attorneys are not serious about their oath

  • The ABA refuses to ensure that the state-level oversight system is effective in protecting the Constitution

  • The current promotion and peer review system refuses to credibly ensure that the public is protected from legal advice that directly undermines the US Constitution

  • The ABA has failed to show that it is not a domestic enemy, or that it is able to competently screen out domestic enemies of the US Constitution.

    * * *

    Go down the list, and you'll see what idiots they have. Look at their legal arguments. Review where we are.

    It's clear the situation is a mess. We can blame one profession: The legal community.

    Time after time, the American public has been force fed a load of non-sense. Treaties, statutes, rights have been explained away as "quaint."

    I've personally had enough of this non-sense. What's amazing is that Americans are merely "lamenting" and "talking about' what "might happen" if they win the election.

    * * *

    Wow, despite the pervasive abuses, there are people inside the RNC who have looked at the voting, and think they can win. Amazing.

    Let's put aside the issue of reality, and focus on the real issue: Despite the pervasive abuses, there are people still breathing in America who want this abuse to continue, and will vote for this.

    You can whine all day long about the technical capabilities of the voting box, but until you get off your rear end and mobilize voters to wake up, and vote to protect this Constitution -- by voting for the DNC -- you're wasting your time blogging.

    * * *

    It's all well and good for bloggers to plead for contributions. What a load. Spend your time solving problems, rallying voters, and getting off your ass.

    I don't want to hear your B.S.-story. Either you're going to focus on the Constitution, or you're going to be in the way.

    Whine all you want about what happened in Ohio. It happened. The time is now to mobilize the voters, get them to vote, and focus on what is to be done to solve what is going to happen again: More voting fraud.

    if this means having more independent examiners, do that.

    If this means you have to set up teams that patrol the voting lines, do that.

    Whatever it is that will solve this intimidation-tampering-registration problem, do that.

    * * *

    The legal community needs to do a better job at providing the leadership. Each time, each election, each bill that appears before Congress is another opportunity to assert your values: The Constitution.

    Yet for the life of me I have yet to understand what the legal community in America and the American Bar Association can do to explain themselves.

    Look at the utter non=sense we've been given from the legal profession:

  • Addington has spewed froth non-sense to justify illegal wars

  • Gonzalez is getting in the way of investigations

  • White and Wendy are spewing forth non-sense to have a double standard on privilege, power, and the Constitution.

    * * *

    The common problem is that there are lawyers who are paid to defy their oath. The ABA needs to get hauled before Congress:

  • How did this happen

  • What's their plan to timely ensure the Constitution is protected?

  • What's going to be done to sanction those attorneys who are assenting to this unconstitutional conduct?

    Hay, it was your oath, your system, and your oversight plan. You can either solve it, or the American public should be offered a competing legal system, one where the "other bar association" can show it does better than the non-sense we've got from the ABA.

    * * *

    You only have one legal system. Americans have options. We can vote for new leaders.

    But when Americans, despite the abuse, continue to vote for what is unconstitutional, that does not mean that it is legal.

    If you want to parade your profession and legal system as the "world model," you've utterly let down the world. You can do better.

    The world doesn't need to give Americans any incentives. The only incentive Americans have is to assert their right, to do what is right, to remain free.

    Yet, Americans are willing to let the legal community water down the Constitution, spew forth legal non-sense, and do nothing about it.

    That is wrong.

    IF America is going to assert that it has some "fabulous system" then let's see some fabulous results.

    The utter non-sense we've been given from Addington, Gonzalez, Viet Dinh, Yoo, and the rest of the legal-idiots in America has sent a clear signal: America talks about one thing, but it's legal community is willing to do the opposite.

    * * *

    There is no reason Americans should have confidence in the legal system, especially when despite the many abuses, the legal community refuses to provide leadership to protect the Constitution.

    As always, this will be left to the American public: To provide the oversight of the very profession that would have Americans believe, "We're here to help."

    What a load of non-sense. This American Bar Association has given us utter crap. For too long we've been forced to assent to utter non-sense; and been told to put up with unconstitutional conduct.

    The lawyers who spew forth this non=sense are either reckless, or they're stupid. Either way, there's a real question as to how these attorneys got their licenses, can remain attorneys, and why we should believe they are serious about their oath to the US Constitution.

    They've spewed froth non-sense. Their legal arguments make no sense. But what's worse is that Americans are just rolling over saying, "Wow, an attorney said we have to burn the Constitution."

    Lazy Americans. You cannot keep what you are not willing to protect, even from the disease inside the ABA.

    The American Bar Association and their reckless lawyers inside the DoJ have created this legal mess. It's time Americans tell the ABA we're setting up a new system, one that will compete with, and directly-lawfully target, those attorneys who have perpetuated this mess.

    Americans are being told we have to put up with this. It's time to reciprocate to the Attorneys: You're going to put up with the Constitution, even if that means you're disbarred.

    Time to wake up America. This legal community is worthless, and they have twisted the laws to require you to embrace this legal non-sense.

    They have failed. They have failed their oath. They are reckless. They are not to be trusted. They should be disbarred and forever prevented from spewing forth any more legal non-sense, or compelling anyone to take them seriously.