Constant's pations

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

Friday, June 02, 2006

Adam J. White's Stupid Comments on State Secrets

Adam J. White offers a one-sided view of State Secrets, not surprising in that he is a DC-based associate with Baker Botts, the firm which orchestrated a $55B merger between AT&T, the defendant in the NSA litigation, and Tele-Communications, Inc.

Baker Botts also represented Liberty Media in its $42 billion split-off from AT&T, and is well connected to Vice President Cheney's Halliburton, and indirectly linked with Cheney's Chief of staff, David Addington.

The "rest of the story" is what the government and AT&T don't want you to know about: The legal assertions are dubious.

We've well discussed the dubious claims. (For detailed reading on the problem the Vice President's chief of staff has, you can read Tabs 1-7 at the EFF complaint.)

Judge Taylor ignores Adam's remarks; and the House Judiciary RNC members discuss impeaching Gonzalez for justifying the abuse of power and asserting absurd legal arguments -- things that Adam appears to condone. [ Source: 17 ]

Reed, consider the Comment at 17 for what it is: A good test case to invoke the State Proclamation calling for Gonzalez to be impeached. Let's see if we can get some of the states to quickly step up to the plate and force Congress to vote on a Gonzalez impeachment. If the States help out Congress (in asserting their power and independence), perhaps the Congress might be more serious about the States concerns on the President.

* * *


Your arguments are absurd and they fail on far too many counts to be taken seriously. Perhaps you could share with the public your reasons for asserting, as does David Addington, many of the "reasons" why something that is an obstruction of justice is lawful.

Putting aside the "well grounded legal theory" (which you fail to justify), let's focus on just a few of the reasons your “essay” fails as a credible showing of legal competence.

First, you suggest that the state secrets privilege is democratic. This is absurd, especially when the dubious assertion is linked with a greater desire to hide evidence of criminal misconduct.

Second, you incorrectly suggest that the theory of state secrets is absolute, privileged, and well grounded. Yet, despite this "well grounded" theory, the theory can be trumped by a fair showing that the claim is dubious. And this is where your argument collapses: It is not up to the public to prove or disprove this; rather, it remains a position of the court that the defendant, in his case Addington's client, to justify why the court should have confidence in the otherwise dubious claims.

Third, you incorrectly state the position of those who assert the rule of law over the reckless disregard of clearly promulgated statutes.

Fourth, you make no allowance for any non-classified method to litigate.

Fifth, you fail to make any discussion of the key point that the privilege can be trumped by a showing that the litigation can proceed without disclosing classified information. In this case, it is clear that clearly promulgated statutes have been violated (the president admits he has ignored the statute); and that the JROC procedures were ignored (which Addington well knows). We do not need to review any classified information to review the obvious outcome: This Administration ignored the FISA court as it was required; and all claims of “state secrets” are linked with a far more compelling argument.

Sixth, you fail to make any showing that the attorney who is working in the Vice President’s office can remain a source of competent legal input to either DoJ, Gonzalez, or DoD. Whether Addington does or does not understand his oath of office is irrelevant: He has a clear duty to ensure that the laws of the land are followed; however, he has a problem when he allegedly engages in an alleged conspiracy to not only circumvent the clearly promulgated law, but thwarts the clearly established procedures.

Seventh, you fail to discuss the clearly opposite assertions this Vice President made in 1987. Obviously, you have not read the report; otherwise you would have realized the Vice President and his chief of staff are arguing both sides of the argument on state secrets, privilege, and immunity. In the Iran-Contra affair, they argued that Congress had not specified rules; today, despite clear rules, they argue the opposite: That the rules do not have to be followed. Cheney and Addington find themselves in a legal trap, and even the most stupid bloggers realize who is against the Constitution and rule of law.

Eighth, you make no discussion of the specific Federalist Papers that mandate action should the Executive Violate the law. It is under Federalist 78 that this nation can lawfully impose a New Constitution to specifically state what this leadership already knows is illegal, but impose on them far graver penalties that simply removal from office.

Ninth, by invoking the Jackson test in the Iran-Contra affair, Addington and other “lawyers” like you have put yourself into a legal trap. You have asserted the very test which puts the President’s position at its low point.

Tenth, you fail to make any case that you are distancing yourself from an alleged conspiracy to undermine the Constitution. Rather, we may make adverse inferences that you fully support Addington’s positions which are arguably illegal, contrary to law, and wholly inconstant with his oath of office to this Constitution.


For under the laws of war, which Addington says “don’t apply,” We the People may lawfully reciprocate. Addington says that Geneva does not apply; yet, despite clear Article 82 provisions that mandate the enforcement of the protocols, Addington has rejected those arguments. Bluntly, by asserting the laws of war do not apply, Addington has stated that he does not believe the Laws of War apply to him. Under the laws of war, where a legal community refuses to assert their oath, and proffers non-sense as you have done, We the People may lawfully reciprocate. Where Addington argues for abuse, torture, and treatment contrary to Article 3, We the People may lawfully reciprocate through lawful Rendering to the Hague.


Whatever legal non-sense you and others like Addington may dream up, rest assured there remains a body of active, awakening, and growing pool of people who well know you and Addington have no interest in following the law; merely in asserting legal non-sense to justify suppression of what is likely criminal conduct. These are matters which the public need not be confused by.

It remains a matter of law whether you and Addington have your bar certification revoked. Rest assured, there remains an active force of competent people who continue to work behind the senses to lawfully ensure that those in the le3gal community who put at risk the Constitution remain out of the courtroom, and permanently disbarred.

If you refuse to publicly distance yourself from Addington’s allegedly illegal and unconstitutionally positions, you may consider yourself on the “do not hire” list and forever an adversarial litigator subject to close oversight, and greater public attention.

It is time for you to choose: Are you going to embrace non-sense; or are you going to stand up to the abusive people like Addington who have no legal foundation but illusions.

That is not a question.

Choose wisely.

* * *

Detailed comments


The Truth About Secrets
The Bush administration's use of the State Secrets Privilege is neither novel nor undemocratic.
by Adam J. White
06/01/2006 12:00:00 AM

Let’s discuss the specific problems with the “essay”.
  • 1. Sweeping generalizations. You fail to cite who the “critics” are.
  • 2. Failure to cite specific sources. You fail to cite the specific sources of the arguments.
  • 3. Misstating the other views. You narrowly construe the arguments, while failing to look at the broader issues.
  • 4. Failing to credibly justify why your assertions have merit
  • 5. Failing to incorporate other views
  • 6. Falsely asserting that the issue is narrow, when the public interests are much wider.
  • 7. Misstating the case and issues at hand. You fail to cite any specific case or language that backs up what you are saying about what the litigants want or desire. There is no reason to believe that your version of what is desired is linked with the central issues in the case.
  • 8. Failing to credibly discuss the real issues in the case
  • 9. Misstating the objectives of the litigation
  • 10. Misstating the role of the court in the litigation

  • 11. Fail to credibly justify confidence that your essay “title” is linked with a bonafide argument or claims.

  • 12. You fail to cite the other discussion on the topic that incorporates other views wholly at odds with yours, and includes better citations, a better balance, and is less focused on what a specific article said.

  • 13. That a specific case may or may not have said something does nothing to address the other cases that arrived at another point of view. You fail to incorporate the cases which are wholly inconsistent with your primes. Your argument lacks credibility.

  • 14. “Every” is a word that incorrectly implies that you have looked at all arguments. By your narrow definition of the issues, it is clear that you’ve incorrectly removed the most damaging information and cases, and have narrowly convinced your discussion to a very warped sense of what the issues are. This defies serious consideration, and raises reasonable doubts about the other clerks associated with Federal District Courts.

  • 15. You fail to cite the other litigation that is outside the narrow cases you cite; and you fail to incorporate any discussion within DoJ, DoD, NSA, and CIA which have raised reasonable questions about the proprietary of the illegal, domestic activities.

  • 16. You fail to discuss the open sources which specifically show that the procedures were not followed; and that the clear statutory requirements were not followed.

  • 17. You make no case why an act of Congress, even if it is inaction, is Constitutional. Moreover, you cite nothing from the Constitution or Federalist Papers which warrants confidence that your claims of immunity, privilege, or other dubious claims deserve any serous consideration. Rather, a reasonable, independent adjudicator could reasonably conclude the opposite: That the failure of Congress to act does not ratify the illegal activity; merely that the Congress refuses to do what it lawfully should do per 5 USC 3331.

  • 16. You mischaracterize the nature of the alleged NSA misconduct, and fail to discuss the broader activity related to rendition, transcription of data related to attorney client privilege, and actual intercepts and recordings of domestic citizens wholly disconnected with the activity.

  • 17. You fail to explain why, if the conduct is “no problem,” why the DoJ OPR was denied the ability to review the information; what basis access was denied; and what role AG Gonzalez and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff had in the discussions to thwart a lawful inquiry into the alleged obstruction of justice and subsequent illegal activity inside the NSA, DoJ, CIA, DoD.

  • 18. You fail to show why a public report by the open media is an “attack.” Rather, you are attacking those who dare to point out simple facts. Your claims are as equally dubious as this Vice President’s Chief of Staff.

  • 19 You misstate the fundamental basis for which the asserted “claims” are or are not questioned.

  • 20. You misstate was privilege is. It is not an action of the court; rather it is an assertion by the defendant. It is a power that exists; and it is a right that may or may not be trumped before an open court.

  • 21. You fail to discuss the other efforts underway to destroy the defenses to the state secrets claim. Any assertion that the information cannot be discussed can be rebutted using open sources. You fail to incorporate into your argument a discussion of why this open sources are not an alternative; nor do you credibly argue why the court should believe that the legal counsel have take full steps to resolve this matter without using the classified information.

  • 22. Whether a reported claim is or is not linked with something in another country is not relevant to whether in this case the use of that privilege is contrary to our reasonable expectations that violations of the law be litigated, even when there are non classified sources of information that can prove the claims. Your argument fails to characterize these others views.

  • 23. You fail to link your claim that certain (narrowly defined) claims are or are not linked with the sources that you state. It is your job to wade through the sources and prove your point; nor the job of the public to wade through your mess and figure out what you might mean. Your argument fails.

  • 24. You fail to show the other case law which contradicts the narrowly construed version who offers of what the core concerns are. Your article seems less at assisting the uninformed public with arriving at “truth,” and more of a propaganda piece designed to influence the public on matters related to their rights, issues which the public should be fully informed, and an effort to otherwise distract attention from the real issues: This Vice President’s Chief of Staff has no credibility, his arguments are flawed, and every legal argument he’s used to ignore the law has been discredited.

  • 25. You fail to show why the focus on 1953 or 1941 are relevant given your other assertions that the legal issues predate this. You are arguing over a minor issue, but your central legal argument has failed. Because you choose to split hairs, yet the larger best of tyranny is ignored, you’ve shown you’re not seriously comprehending the larger, fundamental legal issues. You suggest that you have a rather naïve view of the world and legal community. If you as a legal “professional’ choose not to assert your oath, then We the People are willing to step in, change the basis for continued attorney oversight, and institute a system that will better regulate the content of your public speech. You do not have the right to claim a linkage with the court, while at the same time asking us to grovel in the face of non-sense legal argument which are wholly devoid of weight, solid grounding, and a valid set of premises and facts. You bring discredit not just upon the legal profession, but you wholly convince the public that you remain a threat to the Constitution, and are not a credible public educator of legal issues. Thus, your claim of “Truth” can be reasonably be construed to mean, “Truth as David Addington wants the world to believe.” David Addington is an alleged war criminal; and has abrogated treaties and rights. Under the laws of war we may lawfully reciprocate against him and other legal “professionals” by rendering them to the Hogue. Is this what you would prefer for being an alleged co-conspirator with others in the legal profession who grovel in the face of these legal absurdities? Your claims are not to be taken seriously, more so that the open public sources defy your central claims. You make a mockery of your education, profession, and your sense of duty to the Constitution.

  • 26. Each comment that you have made in the essay below is wholly about the flaws of your own argument. Perhaps you may wish to borrow David’s Red Pen and mark up your copy next time. It is apparent that your editor knows very little of the law; and it remains unclear what “legal standard” was used to permit this (apparent) trash to escape your computer and appear in a major publication.

  • 27. You well ignore the other Jackson who in Youngstown show that the President’s power is at its ebb when it comes to domestic issues. Your piece fails to credibly discuss the legal issues. It remains unclear what you were doing in the District Court as a clerk; or what type of legal “scholarship” you used while in law school. From your writing it is clear that you have (unfortunately) endured some very poor legal assistance, poor oversight, and very poor assistance when it comes to legal issues. Sadly, your failings is a mess the public has to wade through. You cannot credibly call yourself a “professional” when you offer this type of poorly crafted work. This is the kind of drivel one might expect to read in a High School newspaper, not something that is the fruit of College, law school, and any amount of time in Federal District court.

  • 28. What you suggest in John Marshall’s opinion is wholly at odds with the larger issue of Judicial Review, something (apparently) lost. Again, your piece as does Addington’s central argument is that the court should be kept out of the oversight, despite the Congress and Executive agreeing to the contrary. You make no reference to Gonzalez’ inconsistent conduct: He’s openly stated that the FISA process is good, and sought changes to FISA; yet, at the same time he’s ignored the Court on matters which Addington though the Court should not know. This is wholly at odds with Cheney’s assertion in 1987 where he suggested the problem was with Congress’s inability to provide clear guidance. In this case, despite Marshall’s clear assertion of Judicial Review, the flawed government approach has been to go beyond Iran-Contra and eliminate both the legislature and judiciary from a well promulgated process. In other words, you’re making excuses for the government to have ignored its own procedures, and recklessly ignore the clearly promulgated statutes. Marshall would mock you more.

  • 29. That something may have happe4ned in the Confederacy is interesting, but of little relevance given this Vice President’s Chief of Staff fully knows FISA, and well understand the Jackson tests. Today is 2006, and we are not in a vacuum of uncertainty; we have clear statutes which is wholly at odds with Addington’s central arguments. You fail to discuss the transition from ambiguity when it comes to using ground forces; as opposed to the specificity that trumps the Executive on matters of the Constitution on domestic issues.

  • 30. Your characterization of what the courts do or do not do on the issue of state secrets shows signs of confusion. The role of the court isn’t to suppress or not suppress; the role is to judge. The court is not there to suppress something that should not be suppressed; nor decide to suppress something that may be probative. Rather, the court could choose to find a middle ground and seek another method to proceed to trail. The court is not here to protect the privilege; but to ensure justice is done, and that the litigants have their fair day in court. Whether the court gets this right the first time, or has to be reminded of this fact remains to be seen. It is clear that if the court relies on clerks like you to do its work, this case could very well find its way to the Supreme Court. We the People have the power to ensure that the litigation and other standards of conduct which are wholly at odds with your oath of office are better enforced; more swiftly litigated, and better removes those who put their loyalty to absurdity before their loyalty to truth. Clearly, your loyalty is to something other than a full discussion of the issues, to which you remain highly dubious as a credible source of legal information.

  • 31. You fail to show why the government assertions can or cannot be rebutted. You fail to discuss any case where the privilege was trumped.

  • 32, You fail to discuss the other NSA litigation where privilege has been rejected, and the court has denied any motion to suppress the information.

  • 33. Your assertion of privilege fails to include open admissions. The public may use other methods to gather information which the Executive cannot suppress, and permit a case to go to trial. When public officials make out of court inconsistent statements that is no longer privileged. Rather, a reasonable adjudicator could conclude that the failure to produce information isn’t merely an assertion of privilege, but linked to fraud.

  • 34. You fail to discuss situations where the government has taken action that wholly destroys their claim of privilege. As in the NSA case, the open government statements, admissions, and voluntary disclosures water down the merits of the claim of privilege. You have failed to show how, after the horses have retreated in the spreading political-fire inside the NSA, how the poorly trained horse herders inside the Vice President’s Staff office can control the horses. The RNC membership knows full well that they have been deceived; and that their trust has been exploited not to assert a bonafide interest in protecting the nation, but in avoiding liability for war crimes, obstruction of justice, and other recklessly conduct wholly at odds with their public promises and oaths to the contrary. These are not matters of privilege, but matters of criminal law.

  • 35. You have wasted time and energy on frivolous arguments. Not only have you failed to argue your (irrelevant) points; but the greater issues remain untouched. Your essay is a worthless piece of trash, fails to inspire confidence in the legal profession, and raises reasonable questions and doubts as to your suitability to practice law and your competence as supporting staff in any court.

  • 36. You fail to show why your points support your central argument.

  • 37. You fail to prove your point; and even if your point were proven it fails to credibly discuss the broader legal issues: What is going on; and what are the prospects for the litigation and the risks facing the nation. In short, your piece merely assertions something that should not be given much attention, and wholly distracts the RNC from the core problem: The legal community inside DoJ, NSA, DoD, and The White House have been fed a load of baloney from Addington, and this late in the game even the most stupid of people have figured out that the “best” that Addington can do is get people like you to offer you this drivel. The RNC has sure been let down, and they have every reason to raise reasonable questions about the suitability of the legal advice given by Addington, DoJ, the Attorney General, and the other “information:” that court clerks may or may not have “time” to “skim over” as they surf the internet during official hours. Yet, we know full well about the surfing habits of the DoJ Staff Attorneys, at a time when Gonzalez said they were “too busy” to confront the legal issues related to FISA. Overall, your piece sends a clear signal: The “best” the RNC can offer that this point is a stupid defense, non-sense, distractions, and merely more evidence that your leadership inside the Vice President’s office remains a clear and present danger to this Constitution.

    * * *

    Textual Deconstruction

    But enough of generalities, let’s talk about the specific problems with the essay.

  • 1. This sentence is an overgeneralization; and fails to include the other litigation. You also fail to mention that the activity is domestic, and that there is evidence that domestic calls were intercepted, transcribed, and illegally recorded.

  • 2. You fail to mention the fact that this sentence, because it fails to mention the domestic connection, is wholly at odds with the sworn testimony Gonzalez gave. Thus, your argument shows a clear sign that the AG and Addington hope to deceive the courts into believing that “the issue” is about something other than what we know: Addington directly was involved with discussions to keep the courts from discovering that illegally intercepted information was provide; and that they did not plan to discuss this important information to the opposing counsel – probative information which defense counsel should have been given, but apparently were denied. It remains to be understood whether this conduct amounts to simple recklessness, or is conduct that warrants a mistrial for alleged fraud upon the court.
    VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT of the war on terror has been met with a lawsuit. Recently the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the ACLU sued the federal government over the NSA's surveillance of international phone calls involving persons inside the United States.

  • 3. This sentence fails to capture the full issues. You fail to justify confidence that the order will disclose what is already known. You also fails to discuss the civil remedies and damages; and you fail to discuss the Constitutional issues.
    They seek court orders ceasing and disclosing the surveillance.

  • 4. In this sentence you fail to mention the new information – that the court has rejected the claims of privilege – in re the NSA; and that the court has in other cases mandated the contractor information be disclosed, even when this disclosure highlighted the contractor was doing something the Vice president’s Chief of Staff does not want the public to now.
    Last week, the Bush Administration asked the courts to dismiss the suit pursuant to the State Secrets Privilege, a doctrine under which the courts decline to require the disclosure of evidence involving secret national security programs, often resulting in outright dismissal of the cases.

  • 5. You fail to mention that the redacted version can be decrypted, and that there are online copies of the redacted case under “NARUS STA 6400” and shows methods to circumvent the cloaking.
    (A redacted version of the government's motion is available here.)

  • 6. In this sentence you make sweeping claims of “Critics” without mentioning them, what their claims are; and you provide no textual references to support what you are saying. Moreover, you do not credibly argue that their claims – as you have characterize them – are actually linked with what they really claim. In short, you appear to have narrowly argued “their points” only when those points can be rebuffed. Again, the list of “things that you have not covered” is long; and at this point, it would have been prudent for you to have simply deleted this essay and not bothered. But, you continued, so we shall further demonstrate the problems this White House on this specific litigation over the NSA issue; and the problems this Vice president’s Chief of Staff has in adequately managing the litigation that continues to spiral out of control. Of course, we know more things – and we’re going to wait for the government to fall into another trap. You’ll soon see.

    CRITICS HAVE CHALLENGED the legitimacy of the State Secrets Privilege on a number of grounds: that the privilege was a discredited relic of the Cold War; that it was born not of U.S. law but rather of Britain's monarchy; that it is "undemocratic."

  • 7. This “opening statement” is weak, not believable, and is meaningless. You fail to capture the full arguments which show Addington has allegedly supported an illegal, criminal enterprise; and that Gonzalez has allegedly engaged in obstruction of justice. Again, if your argument had merit, you should be able to explain why, despite this dubious and non-sense behavior by Addington and Gonzalez, that we should have confidence in the claims. Again, if there was a bonafide reason to assert a privilege, then we would not witness non-sense excuses to do anything else. Yet, the evidence before us is clear: Your Attorney General and your Vice President’s Chief of Staff can’t get on the same page; they disagree on whether issues are or are not constitution. Bluntly, your assertion does not stand scrutiny.
    None of these criticisms withstands scrutiny.

  • 8. This opening bullet statement. It is misleading. You fail to discuss the history of the issue. Rather, you merely look at a narrow article. That is not history, but trivia and political sparring. Using a misleading title like this puts your readers in a state of mind: That you will give us historical context. You fail to do that. Rather, you spend time arguing over pointless issues. That is not impressive; then again, its’ the best this White House, DoJ, and defective legal community can do when they are on the verge of being Rendered from Arlington to The Hogue for a war crimes trial.
    The history of the State Secrets Privilege.

  • 9. At this juncture, we’ve seen the full direction this piece is going: Not to arrive at truth, but to imply that editorials deserve attention. How did we get here? Again, the issue at this point is a legal one; yet your contradict yourself by introducing (what appears to be) a political issue; yet later, you distinguish between legal and political issues with one possibly not being relevant. So why bring it up here? You have contradicted a key point in your argument and you are not being internally consistent. You take good lessons from Duke University graduates who remain alleged war criminals and like to allegedly abrogate the 4th Amendment, FISA, US Constitution, and Geneva Convention.
    In attacking the Bush administration's motion, the Wall Street Journal reported that "[t]he state-secrets privilege stems from the Cold War."

  • 10. At this point of the “essay”, we find out the real problem: The writer is focusing on a key (irrelevant) case which wholly fails to discuss the full issue of privilege. This is pointless. It doesn’t matter what the media or an opposing counsel says or does not say; rather, we’re simply here to read your views on what the “truth” is. You’ve failed to satisfy the reasonable expectations of a reader. Your job is to stay out of the political issues, and objectively discuss the legal issues. If you do not wish to do that, then stop writing. Yet, you have open the door, and mandate that the world assent to your non-sense.

    So did the Washington Post. As did Shayana Kadidal, one of the CCR attorneys leading the legal challenge to the NSA program, who cited U.S. v. Reynolds (1953) as the privilege's foundation.

  • 11. You have failed to discuss the real issues. Until then, it is irrelevant what is or is not in the Reynolds Case. What is important is what is in this case
    * * *

    Let’s discuss the rest of the essay.

  • 12. This is a meaningless recitation of what happened many years ago; and fails to adequately capture the full rage of case law that is consistent with this; or those situations which are not included; and fails to discuss the exceptions to this; and the mans by which these standards can be ignored, overcome, or otherwise remedied. In short, you’re stuck on a case that is no longer a “super precedent,” and you ignore the trivial matter of what occurred between 1953 and 2006.

  • 13. This sentence specifically assert a truism that may or may not be true; you’ve cited no case language or text to justify confidence that the summary is valid; or that there are no other points and dicta that may undermine your assertion. Without text, for all we know your “Truism” is the opposite. This is not a credible argument. You’re starting your essay with the assertion of truism, but this is where you are to arrive, not start. Your argument is circular; given you’ve asserted a “truism” why did you bother to discuss the issue? Addington must have an answer for you on that one.

    It is true that in U.S. v. Reynolds the Supreme Court held that the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations could not be forced to disclose certain Air Force accident reports--and this established the modern multi-step process for successful invocation of the doctrine.

  • 14. This point is meaningless, and does nothing to answer the core issues you’ve already raised: What is privilege. You haven’t answered it; and this information doesn’t help us. Rather, you’ve failed to link this information with any of the broader comments that seek to raise more substantive issues. Your information fails to track back to anything that is related to the full legal issues.

    But the privilege's roots long predate the 1953 case.

  • 15. This point is meaningless. You’ve departed into the world of arguing your own point; and have failed to justify why an assertion of privilege in this case is or isn’t meaningful, relevant, or how privilege in a generic sense translates into something that helps protect whatever is being asserted. You also fails to show how an assertion of privilege, even if it is bonafide, can be trumped or addressed through open litigation using other methods. Again, that Jackson may or may not have said something is not credibly linked with a compelling claim that privilege – as you have characterized it – is or is not being addressed, discussed, or relevant to the ongoing litigation.
    Twelve years earlier, then-Attorney General Robert Jackson explained in an official opinion letter that judicial recognition of the State Secrets Privilege was no new invention:

  • 16. This excerpt fails to discuss the times when an assertion can be dubious; and when despite a privilege, the public interest compels disclosure of something that is a far higher importance: The Protection of the Constitution. Further, this statement fails to capture the burden on the government to prove that their claim is not dubious, especially in the case like the NSA where the Executive has openly admitted to conduct that clearly violates the law. There is no need to believe there is a “privilege” when the essential facts have already been admitted. Litigation can proceed, especially in cases where the public interest is not clear.
    The courts have repeatedly held that they will not and cannot require the executive to produce such papers when in the opinion of the executive their production is contrary to the public interests.

  • 17. This comment fails to capture the subsequent case law where the government fails to meet this test; and what basis the courts arrive at the conclusion that the Executive, despite the assertions, is making a dubious claim. There is a difference between determining something; and merely asserting a dubious claim. Your text fails to discuss the full case law which is clearly at odds with Addington’s premise: That he can hide behind the shroud to encourage others to engage in domestic activity which clearly violates the Constitution, and is wholly outside the exceptions in FISA. You fail to show how this 1953 commentary is overridden on issues of FISA written 25 years later.

    The courts have also held that the question whether the production of the papers would be against the public interest is one for the executive and not for the courts to determine. [emphasis added]

  • 18. Rather that move forward in time, and discuss the relevant case law showing privilege can be trumped – and that an assertion of privilege is not absolute [See Nixon], you’ve gone backwards in time. This is absurd. It doesn’t matter what happened in 1803, when in 1973 the US Supreme Court rejected this argument and mandated that the President be stripped of any privilege. Your case citation fails to persuade, and does more to suggest that the only defense this Administration has is to ignore the case law since 1973, and ignore the clearly promulgated FISA. We can only wonder how many other statutes this Vice president hopes to abrogate before being called what he is: A lunatic.
    Among the Supreme Court and lower court cases dating back to 1803, Jackson cited Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1807 treason trial of Vice President Aaron Burr, wherein Marshall recognized that a presidential privilege could prevent litigants from securing evidence.

    Again, the point of this discussion is not merely to show the weakness of the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, but to show the best that his cast of enablers can do is engage in non-sense:
  • Cite case law that is irrelevant
  • Ignore other views
  • Pretend that “their view” of the situation is correct
  • Assert a truism, as both the starting and ending point
  • Give the public a set of legal “theories” that, upon closer examination, are laughable
  • Wholly disconnected from the statutory requirements which the Judge Advocate General fully knows is wholly at odds with what this Vice president’s Chief of Staff is absurdly advocating
    * * *

    Let’s continue with the deconstruction.
  • 20. Notice the trend continues. At this point, the argument fails to incorporate FISA or the Nixon precedents, and goes backward in time to other cases. We are only left wondering: “What is the objective of this?” This information not only fails to persuade; but it does nothing to inspire that they are able to link their 2006 conduct with the Post-1978 case law in re FISA; or that they’re adequately capturing the Nixon precedents in the wake of Watergate. This is not a credible legal argument, but a diversion into the netherworld of absurdity.
    Also among Jackson's citations was Totten v. U.S., a case predating Reynolds by over 75 years.

  • 21. Notice in this section, the case fails to include the subsequent CIA litigation in Europe related to the same situation: A contract which was not fully performed. In the case of the CIA, the assertion of privilege was trumped, and the suit permitted.
    There, the Supreme Court flatly refused to let proceed a claim against the government arising from the plaintiff's alleged contract with President Lincoln to spy on Confederate forces:

  • 22. This commentary fails to capture the methods by which information can be gleaned which shows the claims are dubious; also where the alleged criminal conspiracy has already been admitted to/disclosed out of court; and that the information to be discussed in court is not longer credibly liked with a state interest, but a desire to violate the law and/or suppress evidence of criminal activity.
    "It may be stated as a general principle, that public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential, and respecting which it will not allow the confidence to be violated."

  • 23. The argument fails to show that it is proper to invoke “national security” when the real aim of the conduct is to prevent detection of domestic illegal activity, which falls well outside the protections of privilege; and was trumped during Nixon.
    Among those confidences, the Court declared, were those government confidences necessary to the proper functioning of the national security apparatus.

  • 24. This assertion fails to capture the times when this argument was ignored; and that this is not a universal truth that cannot be penetrated.
    The Supreme Court recognized the continuing validity of Totten as recently as last year, in Tenet v. Doe.

  • 25. You’ll notice in this discussion that the writer is, after misconstruing the focus on Reynolds, then arguing why they are doing what they are not actually doing. This is speculative, and there’s nothing to believe the argument, premise, or the conclusion:
    The reason Kadidal and other Bush administration critics tie the privilege to Reynolds is because, they argue, recent developments show that the privilege was abused in Reynolds.

  • 26. This is an example of a writer arguing against themselves. Notice they’ve relied on a case that is problematic (in that it contradicts their claim that privilege is absolute), and proves the opposite: That some information can be classified for dubious reasons, wholly disconnected from national security.

    In 2000, the Reynolds secrets were declassified and, according to critics, they were shown to contain no secret information.

  • 27. Here, you’ll see the problem: If the information as “highly secret” why was the information found to be linked with something else: A desire to hide information related to a problem; and that there was no bonafide way to suppress the information. Again, in this case, the plaintiffs did not seek to assert their right to review the survivors. The rule isn’t that the court will or will not excuse information; but that once a plaintiff fails to assert an alternative, the court may consider that lack of action as an acceptance of the privilege. But this does not mean that the litigation is ejected; rather, the only way the at the court concluded this was after the trial proceeded. The point isn’t what happened in the litigation, but the mere fact that the litigation despite the existence of secret information was openly adjudicated. This is not something the White House and Addington will consider as possible, despite the docket results to the contrary in the NSA situation.
    But this criticism misses the point: The government sought to protect this information in 1953 because the mission itself was "highly secret," and that "any disclosure of its mission or information concerning [the aircraft] would be prejudicial to [the Air Force]."

  • 28. This comment points to vague “critics”. Again, this conclusion misses the point: The issue isn’t what did or didn’t happen in 1953; the issue was that despite open litigation on a secret matter, there were bonafide alternative methods to still litigate the issue, even though the information may or may not have been secret. We’re not talking about secrecy – the core issue is whether, despite a privilege, the case can still be litigated. The 1953 case undermines the core argument that privilege is an absolute bar to trial on the NSA issue. IT is not.
    Critics today may look at the unclassified information and see nothing noteworthy, but the issue in Reynolds was the value of the information in 1953, not 2005.

  • 29. This is a conclusory statement, wholly incompatible with subsequent case law and precedent since 1953. The assertion fails to incorporate Nixon; and fails to consider the FISA requirements which this President and his Attorney General Agreed to follow. Moreover, if this was a “justified privilege”, then the Vice President’s chief of staff should not have admitted that that FISA violations would be explained away; or that the court would be asked to dismiss the cases in those situations where the court may discover that the information was illegally intercepted. Again, the point below fails to incorporate the full spectrum of illegal, domestic conduct which not only violates the law, but is wholly inconsistent with established procedures. IT remains to be understood who overrode those procedures; and this discovery does not require anyone to get access to the specific operational details related to the NAVY’s undersea tapping operations, or the methods by which US forces are deployed overseas. Rather, today’s issue is whether the public should believe that the court will review a matter related to domestic illegal activities on the false notion that it is protected because of a foreign threat. By all the public information, it is clear that there has been illegal activity; that domestic calls have been intercepted; and that the domestic FISA statutes trump the President’s assertions to the contrary: This President remains a clerk when it comes to issues of following domestic law; and he cannot assert any power to violate the Constitution. Thus, any assertion that the Court should “defer” at any time to the Executive on matters of domestic, illegal activity wholly contrary to clearly promulgated statutes, is wholly at odds with the non-sense this Chief of Staff wrote in the Iran-Contra Minority Report. Your assertion is dubious, your argument fails, and there is no reason to believe what you or Addington are saying.
    The Court's deference to the Air Force in 1953 was justified both then and now.

  • 30. This section is absurdly asking us to believe that what is going on is “grounded” . This misses the point. The issue isn’t whether Privilege is or isn’t grounded – it is; the issue is whether the State Secrets Privilege is a credible bar to trial in the NSA issue. Rather than make a case for why the privilege is or isn’t grounded as it relates to this case; they’ve changed the point of the debate to something that is already proven: That the Executive has privilege. This is not in dispute. This is analogous to arguing over whether or not the Sun is or is not warm; then after concluding that it is, then we must have global warming. In short, this statement is not a debatable point; and proving it fails to advance the argument related to the NSA. Bluntly, given this is the “best” that Addington can provide, it is clear that this Vice President has a major problem: He’s legal arguments are absurd, and easily detected by even the most foolish in the RNC.
    The grounding of the State Secrets Privilege in American Law.

  • 31. At this point, whether this argument is or isn’t true fails to capture the larger points: What relationship does this privilege have to the NSA.
    Another criticism of the State Secrets Privilege is that it is grounding in British, rather than American, law. In the words of CCR's Kadidal, "[e]ssentially our Supreme Court imported the state secrets privilege from British law." (Or, as he blogged elsewhere, "Conservatives, take note: IT CAME FROM FOREIGN LAW!")

  • 32. This is another example of “explaining someone else’s argument”. This is not to be believed. There are far stronger and more compelling issues that warrant confidence that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff has a real problem.

  • 33. This is not a defense of privilege, nr does it show us why the NSA issues will enjoy privilege. You fail to capture the other arguments outlined well in the argument; and you fail to discuss the broader legal issues showing that the government claims are dubious, and cannot be an absolute bar to trial. You’re simply using non-sense to [a] mischaracterize the complaint; and [b] greater distractions to mislead the public about the real issues on the NSA issue: That despite the asserts of privilege, there is no credible bar to trial. You have failed to make the case that any discussion related to other countries is or is not relevant to the NSA issue. Rather, you’ve simply asked the public to believe that a discussion of English law and privilege is not allowed; while at the same time you refuse to acknowledge that Addington remains well read in the common law of other countries. Surely, if there was no relevance of the laws of other nations, then Addington would not spend his time on it. Or are you asking us to believe that Addington is unable to manage his time, stay focused on the US law, and is actually reading case law wholly beyond the bounds of what is acceptable? Your point fails.
    The suggestion is that because the privilege is the legacy of monarchical rule, it fails to pay due respect to the coequal legislative and judicial branches' power to supervise the executive.

  • 34. You fails to prove that [a] anyone has or has not concluded anything; or [b] that your conclusion is related to their conclusion. You’re simply asserting something that you have no t lined to their text. Moreover, even if this were true, you fail to show why this is or is not a bar in re the NSA litigation. Your time spent on the frivolous, and failure to discuss the core issues suggests that you cannot explain the core issue: You fail to persuade why anyone, even the most lazy, could believe any assertion of privilege is anything but dubious given the open information directly contradicting any conclusions that this President was following the law.
    But this view also stems from the misconception that the privilege originates with Reynolds.

  • 35. This is a comment wholly disconnected form any point: You fail to show why, even if this was true, how this supports your argument. You’re going in circles, rambling, and arguing against yourself. You appear to be disingenuous in your interest in the law and serving the public good. Are you sure that you want to be an attorney?
    Reynolds cited a variety of U.S. cases (including Totten and Burr) and afforded British law only a couple of mentions.

  • 36. The comments below are irrelevant from the instant case. Let's take a broad view of what Adam is doing: He's arguing over what an (irrelevant) case says about something that is not in dispute -- that there is privilege. The question is whether that assertion can be trumped by a more compelling interest. Again, that someone has demonstrated that there is case law (which may or may not be correctly cited) is meaningless given the actual litigation and question at hand. This is analogous to debating which case law better frames an argument over the Confederacy claims; all the while missing the larger issue: This drunkard President chooses to defy his oath, put himself above the law, and refuse to assent to treaties which have not been abrogated.
    Reynolds noted that a version of the British privilege received "authoritative expression" in the Burr trial, but there Marshall himself recognized "the many points of difference which exist between the first magistrate in England and the first magistrate of the United States," and he calibrated his analysis accordingly, as have the myriad subsequent cases.

  • 37. This comment is meaningless, and we're left with the clear impression that Adman has lost his way on this essay. Notice Adam has failed to show how -- whatever he is arguing -- is or is not linked with any credible point on the matters related to the NSA. At best this point is merely a desire to assert some fact; but that fact must be couched in an argument. The only argument here is why Adam continues to write despite having no apparent comprehension of the law and matters of privilege.
    To suggest that the American version of the privilege was taken from British law is no more or less accurate than saying that any aspect of American law in 1806 was taken from British law.

  • 38. The following comment is again meaningless: It fails to grasp the larger issue at hand with the NSA: If something is "Apple pie" (as the Constitution is), why is there so much (apparent) deference to secrecy over the issue of the rule of law. Adam fails to discuss or rationalize his apparent choice:
    By the time the Court heard Reynolds, the privilege was as American as apple pie.

  • 39.As you read the following discussion on “democracy,” Adam's discussion really doesn’t prove anything. They’ve narrowed the discussion into a very obscure argument, then sought to prove that that argument, however disconnected it is form reality, deserves attention. This is not an argument, but simply arguing an irrelevant point. It's one thing to fail in your argument; quite another to succeed in proving beyond doubt you can well articulate something that is irrelevant. Adam does neither:
    Is the State Secrets Privilege "Undemocratic"?

  • 40. This point fails to prove what is being asserted; nor does Adam credibly explain how (even if true) this point is linked to any satisfactory discussion or conclusion. This is why they have editors: To cut out the mishmash. If you want to have a lengthy, meaningless "discussion" with yourself, try blogging.
    Kadidal charges that the privilege is "undemocratic," but such criticism turns the nature of litigation and national security on its head.

  • 41. This commentary fails to support the above point, why it is related to the discussion, or whether (even if it were true), what bearing it has on the larger issues. No answer from Adam.
    U.S. courts afford the individual an awesome power: the opportunity to wield the very power of government against his opponent, even when that opponent is the government itself.

  • 42. The writer fails to show that this is related to the central premise; or even if true, why this is relevant to the issue of privilege. This is wholly a diversion from the central issue of the alleged Recklessness of the Vice president’s chief of staff and reckless disregard for clearly promulgated statutes, rights, and treaties which have not been abrogated.
    Nowhere is this more clear than in litigation seeking the vindication of rights, where elections are irrelevant.

  • 43. This point fails to show that there is also a right to have a case litigated and heard. It is irrelevant that something may or may not be abusive; the issue is that despite privilege, litigants can still have their case heard, especially in situations where qualified immunity is stripped, and the violations are clearly contrary to clearly established rights, as is the case in the NSA issue.
    But the courts are well aware that abusive litigation of national security issues could (to again quote Robert Jackson) "convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

  • 44. The possible “dilemma” that is cited is not cited, nor is it linked with a case. This may or may not be true. There needs to be a good showing that this doctrine is something that is asserted in the law, not something that is merely a desire. Your point may be true, but it is not well grounded. You show you are lazy and not willing to use citations.
    To avoid this "dilemma to a free people," the courts have constructed a number of doctrines, rooted in the Constitution's provisions creating the courts specifically and the separation of powers generally, that prevent dangerous judicial usurpation of control over issues entrusted to elected leaders.

  • 45. The issue of “standing” as it relates to the NSA is irree3lvant. When discussing issues of criminal law, there is no victim. Rather, it is the job of the US Attorney to cross examine Mr. Addington, and then prove that he has made out of court inconsistent statements.
    These doctrines include "standing" (which bars the courthouse doors to all but those who are actually injured by government action)

  • 46. These comments may be interesting, but not only are they not linked with any case law, they fails to support the assertion related to democracy. This shows evidence of poor organization.
    "the political question doctrine" (which instructs the courts to dismiss cases inherently unfit for judicial resolution), among others.

  • 47. The comment below asserts something as if it were a truism; but notice it does not follow from the above. Rather, it merely asks the reader (due to apparent exhaustion) to give up, accept the premise as true. But nothing has been proven. Indeed, even if it were true (whatever that is), the argument fails to link back to a bonafide discussion on privilege: Why should we believe that privilege is or is not relevant in the NSA issue; and what other open source information has the President and Attorney General fatally admitted so as to defeat any claim of privilege.

    The State Secrets Privilege is yet another one of the constitutional and pragmatic safeguards against inappropriate judicial involvement in matters not properly resolved by the courts.

  • 48. This comment below fails to show that the “self defense” doctrine is invoked. Recalling the Jackson Test, which Addington well cited in the Minority Report, the Executive’s power is at its lowest point when dealing with domestic issues. The comment
    Such a safeguard is needed nowhere so much as in the nation's self-defense.

  • 49. This comment shows the Vice President is hoping to confuse the issue. Notice carefully that the argument does not discuss the real concerns: That the domestic activity violates the law, and would strip absolute immunity from any attorney and agent for their reckless disregard for clearly promulgated statures. Indeed, when it comes to matters of the law, this Vice President’s chief of staff is quick to invoke privilege; but unwilling to assert that privilege when it comes to matters related to commentary on Gonzalez; or the facts related to the torture memos. The point is that there are clear memos which document what Addington and the Vice President’s positions are; and these are not absolutely immune from discovery.

  • 50. The comment below also fails to discuss why the request for relief is or is not bonafide; and why it is not acceptable. The comment blow assert that the request for relief is “nothing less” that something without commenting on the larger issues of the Constitution; the NSA illegal domestic activity which violates the 4th Amendment; and the continued absurd legal non-sense used to defy the rule of law domestically. Jackson’s third test clearly shows this President has a problem; and open source information clearly shows that the required FISA procedures were not followed; and open source information clearly shows the NSA acquisition procedures were trumped, despite NSA program office conclusions that such a device would be contrary to law. The President’s Chief of Staff fails to explain why the clearly promulgated statues were ignored; and why the NSA created something that would comply with the law, but these approaches were rejected then cancelled. There is no need to look at any secret information to review this matter; and any claim of privilege is dubious.
    In the CCR complaint, the plaintiffs' request is nothing less than that the court "enjoin any further such warrantless surveillance" and order that the government disclose all surveillance of their communications.

  • 51. This comment below fails to comprehend the problem facing this Vice President’s Chief of Staff. Unless the illegal, domestic activity stops We the People may lawfully assert our inherent power and right to mandate a new Constitution. You may wish to review Federalist 78 to see what has already been planned and is well underway. Further, unless this court reviews these matters, We the People remain fully prepared to invoke at the State level calls for impeachment investigations. The problem is that the facts can be proven on the basis of open source information, fatal admissions, and admissible evidence that does not require any fair showing. The problem for the leadership in the White House is that the RNC membership no longer trusts the Vice President to do what should be done: Comply with the law. Nixon did not have an absolute privilege. Your arguments fail.
    For six plaintiffs to demand that the elected government cease a needed surveillance program is the epitome of undemocratic action.

  • 52. You have failed to justify your conclusion. You have left too much out, you have refused to discuss the other case law which wholly undermines this Vice President’s Chief of Staff arguments, and there is no reason to believe that the privilege will prevail. Rather, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the government’s claims are based on dubious standards, more linked with a desire to suppress detection of criminal conduct. Indeed, if the government as doing the right thing, there would be no fatal admissions to the contrary. Yet, this Vice President’s Chief of Staff shows that he is not all powerful, and he is incapable of managing this litigation. From all accounts, it appears this Vice president and his Chief of Staff have a real problem. Even the most stupid people inside the RNC can figure this out; what is to be said of those who work in the courts? Then again, we already know that: We’ve learned the best that a former clerk can offer. It’s only going to get worse for the Vice President’s Chief of Staff.
    THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE is neither novel, nor undemocratic, nor foreign. It is a democratic principle deeply rooted in our national experience.

  • 53. There is no credible basis to assert that invoking and assenting to privilege on the NSA issue will protect any national security. Rather, the opposite is true: Assenting to privilege will merely permit more illegal activity to occur; and do nothing to inspire confidence in this illegal, phony war. If this war were linked with real principles, then those principles were supposedly fighting for in Iraq in (in 1987) in Nicaragua would be something that this Vice president would welcome at home. The real issue is that this Vice president’s Chief of Staff has no interest in permitting people to assert their rights, or question that which deserves to be questioned: Domestic violations of the law, and a cover-up to pretend it is linked with something “big and scary.” He refuses to answer what he knows about who placed the explosives inside the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7; or why the Command Post in WTC 7 was destroyed. The American public can make adverse inferences and create a New Constitution that strips this Vice president of his power, and forever bars him from holding any public office. Those in the legal profession who assent to lawlessness can be disbarred, especially when they assent to non-sense and alleged criminal conspiracies to obstruct justice. You have to withdraw from this conspiracy with an overt act; until you do, you may be presumed to be an unlawful combatant, and denied any protections under the Geneva Conventions.
    And just as it protected national secrets of the Civil War and Cold War, we can only hope that it will continue to serve the nation in the war confronting us today.

  • 54. Ladies and Gentlemen, it appears based on the cursory discussion and rather limited case review that White has shown himself to be quite adept: Ignoring the issues, justifying absurdity, and otherwise acting as a poodle for Addington. Keep in mind that this is a former clear in the Court of Appeals. His words do not inspire confidence in the future of America; rather, they ask that Americans believe in non-sense, diversions, and baloney. Rather than spend time writing, perhaps he should spend more time reading: The Constitution, and your oath of office. Your duty is to the Constitution, not to your legal career. If you know of something you learned while in the 2nd District, you have a duty to report that. However, if we discover using lawful methods which GCHQ can do that you are linked with a wider conspiracy, you could face adverse legal consequences. You have to decide whether you are going to freely cooperate to protect this Constitution; or whether you are going to spew forth non-sense as you have done above. Regardless your choice, in the end, We the People shall prevail over those who choose to violate the domestic law, and allegedly commit fraud upon the courts as your arguments above suggest you and Addington have every intention to do. You made a poor choice.
    Adam J. White was recently a clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. His article on Justice Jackson's draft opinions in the Korean War-era Steel Seizure Cases will appear in the Albany Law Review later this year.

    * * *

    © Despite a copyright 2006, News Corporation and Weekly Standard do not have the right to prevent public comment on every sentence contained in a piece of non-sense.

    * * *


    The issue before us is whether the President and Vice President will assent to domestic law. The NSA issues are fairly clear and simple: Will the legal community work in concert with their oath to protect the Constitution; or will they show a higher loyalty to their political objectives.

    The NSA violations are clear. We have evidence that in Oregon the attorney has had his home invaded; and that his private conversations were recorded.

    We also know that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff has contributed to memos that wholly undermine confidence he is serous about the rule of law. This Chief of Staff clearly knows the Jackson test; and as House Intelligence legal advisor well knows the FISA statute.

    What is most curious is the time and energy spent to create fiction and justify illegal activity. The above essay is merely evidence that despite the best the legal community can do, and despite being caught and outed by those who have a higher loyalty to the Constitution than to legal nonsense, there is hope for America.

    Our nation does not rely on the abuse of those in the legal community. Rather, we see before us ample evidence that the legal community is willing to violate their oath, spew forth non-sense, and make consolatory assertions without proving their point.

    The le3gal community is on trial. The facts before us suggest that this NSA domestic illegal activity is not simply isolated, but is the fruit of one man in the Vice President’s office: David Addington. He lives in Arlington, Virginia has two daughters and is a distinguished graduate from Duke University Law.

    There is one small problem. Mr. Addington is not invincible. He remains tied to his oath to this Constitution. The above argument clearly shows that many in the legal community would have us believe that Mr. Addington enjoys some sort of immunity. Not at all. He is no different than anyone else.

    Addington’s problem is that he has fatally asserted arguments which are wholly inconstant. It doesn’t matter what the truth his: We already know the domestic violations have occurred. The problem is that the members of DoJ, DoD, NSA, CIA, well know that there is a growing rift between Addington and Gonzalez.

    Gonzalez knows he’s in trouble. He’s shown that just as he was unable to complete his college career at a single university, that he is incapable of standing on his own two feet. Addington’s problem is that he can no longer be assured that people will take him seriously. Rather, the evidence is clear, pervasive, and well known that Addington has little interest in following the law; rather, he like Hitler enjoys Abrogating the law.

    Yet, Addington has a problem. The Geneva Conventions in Article 82 imposes a specific duty on the legal community to ensure that the conventions are followed. Addington failed in this mandatory duty. When Addington took an oath to the Constriction, he swore to uphold the treaties, of which the Geneva Conventions is one. He does not have the power or discretion to abrogate those legal obligations; nor his duty to ensure he self-reports violations of his professional standards. The Conventions also afford through Article 3 protections for belligerents. Addington has perversely argued that a belligerent is not a belligerent; and that the President does not have to follow the law on Military Commission.

    It is irrelevant what the polls or voters say. These are matters of criminal law. The issue at hand is whether Addington can have any confidence that his alleged co-conspirators are going to continue to assent to his non-sense.

    It is clear based on the above discussion that the only defense this President and Vice President have is to invoke absurdity, argue the wrong point, and hope the public and Grand Jury do not figure this out: That there have been domestic violations of the law; that the law was clearly promulgated; and that Addington gave advice and consent to violations of the law; and Addington has corruptly persuaded others to ignore clearly promulgated statutes and guidelines within DoD, DOJ, NSA, CIA, and the White House.

    The issue going forward is whether those who work in the legal community are going to wake up or require a broader legal showdown. Rests assured, we are fully prepared to wage that battle in the court.

    In the event that this Vice President’s Chief of Staff chooses to unlawfully depart the country, rest assured there are personnel who are well placed within the National, Dulles, and other surrounding airports that know what Addington looks like. Addington has to decide whether he wants to voluntarily surrender, or whether he’s going to require the catalyst of We the People to impose on him lawful consequences. We are fully prepared to go down either route.

    We have not yet begun to discuss the legal issues. Addington’s major problem, which DoD and JAG officers well know is that Addington doesn’t listen; rather, he makes up excuses to do what he wants. But the laws and treaties are clear. You can rest assured that where there are violations of the law, and abuse of power, Addington has his fingers in it.

    Addington also has a much larger problem. He is no longer able to command respect. The public doubts his motives. But more telling is that the staff and personnel in the other branches have realized that he is the problem, and that he has to be kept out of the loop. Addington cannot be sure that he is aware of all things. His wisdom is finite, and his power constrained by the law.

    Beware as you approach Addington. Do not be deceived by his appearance. He is on the outside a rather imposing figure. But on the inside, he knows there is a problem. He can no longer be sure that he has not been betrayed by those he once trusted. He does not know how his arguments are being deciphered; nor does he comprehend his greatest weakness. That is what We the People shall continue to exploit.

    Addington is a troubled man, he is tired, but he remains a force to be reckoned with. It is time to simply let Addington stake center stage, let him exhaust himself, and then throw it back on him and ask:

  • Why should we believe you

  • What is your argument

  • What about the other views

  • Why should we believe your intentions

  • Have you considered the treaty which says the requirements

  • Why is your exception valid

  • What is the basis to believe your characterization of the situation

  • Why is this law not applicable

  • If this was truly an honorable thing, why the secrecy about the illegal activity,

  • If there is no problem, why a reluctance to permit the court to review the matter

  • If there is no problem, why is Gonzalez making inconsistent statements

  • If there is no issue, why is the President sill making comments which defy a clean, simple, and consistent line of events

  • If we are to believe you, what is to explain why the legal opinions are wholly at odds with the statute

  • How do the explanations square with the precedents of Nuremberg

  • What treaties, statutes, obligations, duties is Addington asking us to ignore

  • What assumptions is Addington using to justify this action; are those assumptions valid; and what other views have been incorporate

  • Has Addington shown that he is to be trusted to follow the law even when no one is looking

  • If there is truly a “big scary threat” out there, why is there no interest in providing the funding for DC homeland protection

  • Why is Addington in 2006 asserting standards that he rejected in the 1987 Minority Report on Iran-Contra

    The problem Addington has is that he no longer can rest assured that he can escape discussion, commentary, or a review of what appears to be his specific advise given to DoJ to circumvent the law. Also Addington has no comprehension of We the People to assert our inherent power to assert our rights, defend this Constitution, and lawfully cooperate with any entity worldwide to ensure the rule of law prevails.

    Libby’s attorneys have already questioned the GCHQ intercepts. Ms Gunn has already shared information. The issue is whether Addington can be sure he knows the full story; or whether there is something else that he has yet to learn.

    There is one thing that is mightier than a red pen. It is the will of We the People. We shall prevail. The rule of law shall soon return, even to the darkest seats on the Metro.

    Dave Addington, We know what is happening. You have to choose whether you are going to continue with your non0-sense; or whether you require the law to be imposed on you.

    As to this specific essay above, it is merely evidence that Addington has no legal foundation. He can only rely on nonsense. Think of the Advancing troops in WWII, as the closed into the German Bunker. We are merely a few short months away form Addington being forced to make one of his last few decisions.

    We outnumber you Addington, and what is more, those around you who have to deal with you on a daily basis have now chosen to make you irrelevant and do what must be done to lawfully assert the rule of law

    You will have to figure out the hard way which of your peers is openly cooperating with the US Attorney and ongoing secret Grand Jury investigations.

    Although some around you may continue to invoke the spirit of Hitler, they do so merely to convince you of their loyalty to Rebellion against the Constitution. But the joke is on you: They have been given the green light to openly violate the law, because they are cooperating witnesses in an ongoing, widening, and deepening criminal investigation.

    Addington, you are the target of this investigation. When you go down, all the pieces will have fallen into place.

    We look forward to the legal battles ahead. You and your alleged co-conspirators have been lulled into complacency. We are fully prepared to lawfully engage with the full force of the law and We the People.

    You have no hope. You shall lose. And the rule of law shall prevail. There’s nothing your red pen can do to stop this. Your leader is a drunkard, and has marriage problems. His wife knows he's not worth talking to. When will David Addington's wife join Laura for a girl's night out?

    Hoc Voluerunt.