Cheney Affirms Sentiments Behind Illegal Conspiracy
The Vice President has encouraged the public to closely read the Iran-Contra Minority report. One key quote in the 1987 report, which Cheney and other Members of Congress signed, is from an 1808 letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Brown touting the benefits of dictatorship.
By affirming his commitment to the Jefferson Sentiments, Cheney has fatally admitted he remains loyal to an illegal covenant to undermine the rule of law and the US Constitution. These are matters of criminal law for the Fitzgerald Grand Jury to review when examining the Vice President to establish his state of mind when Cheney discussed various Iraq WMD issues with Libby.
The Vice President and his chief of Staff have been implicated in their illegal conspiracy to abrogate the Constitution. Documents signed by the Vice President and Members of Congress reveal the illegal conspiracy which the Fitzgerald Grand Jury continues to expose. Their unlawful covenant is known.
The Iran-Contra Minority Report quotes an October 27, 1808 Thomas Jefferson letter to James Brown. The letter included the sentiments that the law sometimes would have to be ignored, and that a “universal resource is a dictator or martial law.”
Preservation: The Constitution or Dictatorship?
Issue: Despite their oath to the Constitution, why are Cheney and Addington loyal to lawlessness
These sentiments are linked with the ongoing illegal domestic NSA monitoring and illegal, warrantless searches of Americans. The Vice President's Chief of Staff and the Attorney General have been linked with the memos reviewing these programs. Their legal opinions amount to an illegal abrogation of the US Constitution, US statute, and international treaties.
The 1987 Minority Report, already reviewed by prosecutors, outlines the doctrine for the ongoing conspiracy. The Vice President and his Chief of Staff continue to implement the doctrine and apply it to the continuing cover-up over the illegal domestic surveillance, which violates the US Constitution.
The charges related to illegal war, obstruction of justice, violations of oaths of office, conspiracy, substantially matching the Nuremburg indictments.
Also implicated in the illegal conspiracy is the White House legal staff, legal teams assigned to the Department of Justice, and the US Attorney General, recently the subject of House Judiciary impeachment discussions. The American Defense Department Joint Staff is also involved and has illegally violated their oath of office and remain targets of the ongoing investigation.
The revelations have sent shockwaves through the Republican Party, many quick to dismiss the claims as propaganda. But a close reading of the 1987 report directly implicates the Vice President and his Chief of Staff in the damaging link with dictatorial designs.
Had this been merely a ruse, the Vice President would not have actively encouraged the public to review closely the Iran-Contra Minority Report. A close reading of the complete Jefferson letter, cited in the Minority Report, exposes the Vice President’s sentiments and his intention to threaten the Constitution, in violation of his oath, 5 USC 3331.
Federal investigators and the Grand Jury remain under gag orders. The Department of Justice and White House are not available for comment on Cheney’s association with the 1808 letter.
The Fitzgerald Grand Jury would be well within their narrow charter of investigating the leaking of the CIA agent name if they reviewed the Iran Contra Minority Report, and developed a line of questions to better understand the thinking behind the Vice President. Cheney, in supporting a dictatorship, gives the Fitzgerald grand jury admissible evidence of ongoing sentiments advocating illegal action. This is crucial information related to the line of questions related to the Libby perjury charges and notes.
Addington, Cheney, and Libby allegedly agreed to a line of responses to mislead the Grand Jury, invoking Jefferson’s 1808 letter as legal justification. Cheney has refused to distance himself from the 1987 sentiments, and has actively encouraged the public to review the report and 1808 quote.
It remains to be understood by the Grand Jury how Cheney and Addington invoked this doctrine when they argued that it would be lawful to reveal the CIA agents name. The information containing the CIA agents name was clearly marked ORCON, and all staffers who handled the document were well trained on the meaning of ORCON and its relationship to HUMINT sources and methods. Only the author of that classified information, not the President, can declassify this information.
Addington as former General Counsel to both the Central Intelligence Agency Department of Defense should have been well positioned to understand these classifications and competently advised Libby on the guidelines. Surprisingly, despite his experience as CIA General Counsel, Addington is reported to have (absurdly) argued that because the President revealed classified information that amounted to declassification. However, the ORCON rules leave it up to the classifying official, not the President to decide when specific information is to be classified.
It would be appropriate to expand the Grand Jury probe into the CIA agent name to review what Addington Actually said, and explore whether those assertions are credible. It does not appear credible; as Libby would have us believe, that Addington would suggest that the information could be declassified on the basis of the President’s say so.
Either Addington ignored the statutes, and provide invalid legal advice; or he made an error; or he invoked the 1808 Jefferson Letter to justify the Attack. However, based on Addington’s well crafted Minority Report and understanding of the legal issues, it does not appear credible that Addington would argue something contrary to what the ORCON rules would say. Addington has demonstrated a willingness to independently think, even oppose others in the Department of Justice. When recently faced with questions over Attorney General Gonzalez raid on Congress, Addington asserted the action was not constitution, clearly showing Addington is able to distinguish himself from others in the Department of Justice.
Jefferson’s 1808 letter argues illegal activity is justified. In a perverse reliance on the 1808 letter, the Vice President and Addington engaged in a course of conduct that retaliated against Ambassador Wilson for reporting information that subjected the Administration to legal liability for illegal war.
These legal issues raise many reasonable questions about the suitability of Addington to provide competent legal counsel and continue practicing law. One question is why, despite their legal training and 5 USC 3331 oath to the Constitution, do both Addington and the Vice President share a common respect for dictatorships.
Many lawyers in the Administration have embraced the Minority Report sentiments, and have refused to distance themselves from those who put loyalty to Jefferson’s 1808 sentiments before their oath to the Constitution. It remains unclear how many attorneys could be permanently disbarred for actively supporting these illegal actions and plans.
They’ve pushed the envelope on the law. We can only speculate what the Members of Congress have secretly agreed to do to do nothing as other Committee Rules and Obligations were ignored. It’s likely that the Members of Congress have assented to secret agreements to justify ignoring other violations of the Committee Rules.
Phase II isn’t simply a cover-up. It’s an agreement by the Congress to not do what should be done. That is recklessness and the members of Congress who refuse to assert their 5 USC 3331 should be viewed as what they are: Domestic threats to the Constitution.
It appears the Sept 2001 events have been orchestrated, with many questions related to the explosive placement left unanswered. It remains unclear what knowledge Addington and the Vice President have of those who placed the explosives; and how the known Sept 2001 planning triggered communication to DoJ to draft the Patriot Act before 9-11.
In light of the 1808 quote contained in the 1987 Iran Contra Minority Report, it appears as though the various post Sept 2001 events were invoked on the basis of “self preservation.” However, this assertion fails when that “self preservation” moves into abrogating the Geneva Convention and US Constitution.
Relying on Jefferson’s 1808 letter, the Vice President and Addington have embraced false crisis, justified illegal war, and non-sense to assert the doctrine of “self preservation.”
One key contrast is how Jefferson’s 1808 letter and his sentiments in support of dictatorship compare with Iraq. Rumsfeld initially invoked the 1808 letter when he met with Saddam Hussein, recognizing that the Iraqi leader would help advance American interests in opposing Iran. Yet despite Cheney supporting similar sentiments in the 1987 Minority Report, Cheney then reversed himself and supported an illegal invasion.
The surprising thing about Iraq is that Saddam was completely consistent with Jefferson’s notion of a dictatorship. In 2006, we clearly see the drawback of removing a strong central leader from Iraq: The country spirals into civil war.
This is not to say that dictatorship, because it might be good in Iraq for stability and preventing civil war, is good for America. Our Constitution does not permit this, and our oaths of office mandate that we take lawful action to protect this Constitution from domestic threats which advocate anything other than a Republic.
Rather, the point is that Cheney in 1987 invoked a doctrine of dictatorship and action “higher than the law” in order to justify illegal action; yet undermined that principle when it came to the Iraqi dictatorship.
It is up to the Vice president to explain his double standard on why the law should or should not be followed. In the case of CIA agent name and Iraq WMD, the 1987 Minority Report clearly supports fabricating information so long as this will serve a higher good. The problem with invoking this doctrine is when that “higher good” is asserted, only to destroy the very stability Cheney said would occur under a dictatorship.
It is up to the Grand Jury, Congress, and the Public to discuss these issues:
We’ve heard many speeches and cries from the Secretary of State Rice over what Iran should or should not do. It’s time to put the attention on her as her role of National Security Advisor, and understand her contribution to how the US obligations under the Geneva Conventions were or would not be followed.
Article 82 clearly imposes a legal requirement on all signatory countries to ensure the Conventions were followed. Article 3 specifically imposes a requirement on the detaining power, in this case the United States, to protect belligerents, and makes no distinction between whether those belligerents are lawful or unlawful.
Addington is widely reported to have abrogated the Geneva Conventions as quaint, and invoked an illusory distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. This is legal fiction, and cannot justify any abusive conduct. The President’s signing statements, to the effect that he does not plan to follow Geneva on treatment of belligerents, amount to an illegal abrogation of his personal treaty obligations far more real than what Iran may or may not do ten years from now.
Cheney in his 1987 open statements at the Iran Contra affair said the nation was not in crisis. Today, we should take him at his word: There is no crisis, there is merely a continuing Grand Jury investigation into the Vice President’s full thinking behind his discussions with Addington and Libby over the decision to violate the law, reveal the protected name of a CIA agent, and take unlawful action to serve a higher calling, not the US Constitution.
Going forward
It is important to contrast Cheney’s 1987 comments in the Iran-Contra report with the subsequent events after 2000. His Chief of Staff is widely reported to have been the key legal advisor on most of the memos related to torture, Iran WMD, and the Iraq invasion.
One problem has been the invocation of state secrets, allowing personnel to hide behind a wall of secrecy. By admitting there is a link between the events of 2006 and the 1987 Minority Report, the Vice president has made an out of court statement that is contrary to his interests. Under the laws of evidence, this out of courts statement is admissible because it is contrary to the Vice President’s interests, and we would not expect the Vice President to lie about something that is untrue and also detrimental to his interests.
Let’s go down the list of specific thing we can learn and conclude on the basis of this fatal admission, contrary to his interests. By admitting there is a link in 2006 between the 1987 Minority Report and the events in 2006, the Vice President has, by implication, admitted the following which are adverse to his interests:
It is important to review the Vice President’s opening statement where he specifically chastised Congress for not being specific on certain issues. Putting aside the veracity of that claim, it is incumbent on Members of Congress, the Public, and open media to contrast this statement with the FISA.
In the case of FISA, the Vice President is clearly faced with the very Congressional direction he called for in his opening Statement on the Iran Contra affair. It is up to the Vice President to explain why, if he was serious about assigning to Congress the responsibility to provide specific Guidance in the wake of the Iran-Contra affair, why he and others ignored that clearly promulgated FISA guidance.
The answer is simple: They have invoked Jefferson’s 1808 letter so that they could ignore the law, and prevent the Congress and Courts from discovering their actions.
There is one small problem. The Vice President and Addington didn’t read the rest of Jefferson’s comments. There is something called the Jefferson’s Manual which permits the States to file proclamations calling for Congress to take action. There is nothing Addington and the Vice President can do to stop this effort. As we speak delegates in Vermont, California, and Illinois continue to actively monitor the ongoing NSA revelations, and remain well poised to launch proclamations into the House floor. These cannot be buried in Committee. The House has to vote up or down on whether to investigate.
Cheney also has a problem in that as a member of the Iran-Contra investigating Committee called for investigations based on facts. It is clear that Addington, Gonzalez, and the Vice President hope to avoid fact finding on the illegal NSA domestic issue, and have already thwarted a DoJ OPR investigation.
It’s time for the Grand Jury to explore Vice President Cheney’s thinking:
One of the problems facing the public, Grand Jury, and Members of Congress has been the stonewalling. There’s a well known line of evidence that has been suppressed. Even in the AT&T litigation over the NSA issue, the lawyers have chosen to assert the principle of privilege and state secrets to suppress public knowledge.
In light of the 1987 Minority Report, these hurdles are irrelevant. Cheney, by reminding us of his love of dictatorship and the 1808 Jefferson Letter to James Brown, opened the door to public inquiry, debate, and fact finding. There is nothing he can do to stop the public from doing exactly what he advocated: Reading the 1987 Minority Report and the 1808 Jefferson Letter professing a love for dictatorships.
Recall what we learned after the Dec 2005 revelations over the NSA activity: The President and Gonzalez made public various legal arguments which did not withstand close scrutiny. In short, the legal arguments were retroactively crafted by selectively cutting from the case law. A close reading of the case law they cited as a “defense,” actually undermines their legal position.
The same lesson applies to the 1987 Iran-Contra Minority Report. The public needs to do to the Minority Report what it did to the FISA-related case law: Pick it apart, read the full case, and find out what the rest of the story is.
You can also do this with Cheney’s statements related to the Iran-Contra affair. Note closely his opening statement at the hearing, then consider his open statements before the various main stream media like Jim Lehr. There are transcripts of his statements. These statements were made with the intention that they be relied on, they are not related to his statements on the House floor, and are not protected.
Rather, there is a reasonable basis to broaden the scope of the Plame Inquiry from simply Libby, to look directly at the Vice President and allegations that he corruptly conspired with David S. Addington to thwart lawful oversight, avoid procedures, and ignore agencies that should have been involved in reviewing the NSA domestic activities. It is a violation of the law and fraud against the United States to work with others to circumvent the processes and checks a President has in place to ensure things are done correctly.
It is the job of Americans to heed Cheney’s wise counsel of 1987: This is not a crisis. Indeed, it is merely a Grand Jury investigation into the Vice President’s state of mind. The issue is whether Americans are prepared to face what is really in the 1987 Minority Report.
In light of his statements in 2006, it is reasonable to conclude that as Jefferson in 1808 concluded that some laws need not be followed, so too did Cheney, Addington, Powell, Libby, Gonzalez, Rice and the President consider the Geneva Convention and US Constitution not worthy of being followed.
Sy Hersh has well documented the NSA illegal activity, and the unlawful monitoring of American citizens domestic-to-domestic calls. This is not in dispute, and has been introduced into evidence. The NSA and DoJ are known by the courts to have intercepted Attorney privilege communications, transcribed that information, and then passed the information to other government agencies. In an effort to self-screen the list of NSA targets, the Department of Justice and NSA directly monitored American phone calls, not just their phone numbers, for the purposes of listening to the content. Addington is reported to have worked with Gonzalez to ensure the FISA court did not learn of this, and planned to withdraw cases which the court suspected the illegal activity was occurring.
Here’s a checklist of things you may want to think about:
How do Cheney’s actions, comments, and discussions with Libby compare with his sentiments invoked in the 1987 Minority Report;
How does Cheney’s discussion and state of mind compare with the sentiments expressed at footnote 14 of the 1987 Minority Report
When Cheney signed the report did he understand that there was a quote by Thomas Jefferson
What is the reason that Cheney signed a report in 1987 which included a quote stating that the law could be violated
Why should we believe that the Vice President’s sentiments between 2000 and 2006 changed
If the Vice President would have us believe that his 1987 Comments were no longer relevant, why does he continue to invoke a 1987 report that he would have us believe he no longer stands by?
Why should we believe that the Vice President is serious about the rule of law when he already asserted in a 1987 report the discretion to ignore the law?
If the Vice President no longer stands by the Sentiments in Jefferson’s 1808 letter, why is Cheney in 2006 calling for the public to read the full report, notes, and the associated documents related to that report?
We can only conclude one thing: Cheney is stupid for attracting attention to a document that is clearly at odds with his legal interests. A person this foolish, after having openly admitted in writing and signing that document, that there are times to violate the law, is not fit to be trusted to ensure the laws are faithfully executed.
Rather, by openly bragging about the Iran-Contra report in 2006, Cheney has given us a reasonable basis to question his mental competence, fitness for duty, and his interest in preserving this Constitution. This Vice President refuses to distance himself from his 1987 sentiments. A reasonable public inquiry should advance with all due speed on that assumption: That the President views times when it is appropriate to violate the law, ignore treaties, and defy the will of the people. The issue is: Where does the Vice president draw the line?
This Vice President has a problem. His Chief of Staff has drawn the line. There is an open rift between the President and Addington on whether the raid into Congress was or was not lawful.
The public should take a step back, and look at the raid onto Congress through this lens: The 1987 Minority Report, and what leaders will justify serving a higher calling, other than the Constitution.
It doesn’t matter what that higher calling is; it only matters that they put something else, other than their oath and the law, before something else. We did not delegate them the power to do that. Rather, through an Act of Congress called 5 USC 3331, we mandate that all elected officials take an oath to the Constitution, not “something else.” They do not have discretion. The idea of an oath is to compel them to act, especially in cases where they might be inclined, or it is far easier, to do something else. In this case, the public officials have taken an oath to protect, defend, and preserve this Constitution from domestic enemies.
Now is the time. This President, Vice president, Chief of Staff, and Cabinet, have collectively advanced another agenda, other than what they took an oath to do. For now, it really doesn’t matter why; it simply matters that the public comprehend that importance of the 1987 Minority Report. The Vice President’s sentiments show he is willing to have a reservation about his oath, and that he expects others, if they are to be rewarded, to share that reservation about whether the law or something else is their primary loyalty.
It does not matter whether Congress agrees to this or not. They too have an oath to protect this Constitution from domestic enemies. Congress has woken up. They are openly discussing in the RNC the possibility of impeaching the Attorney General over the raid into Congress.
The issue on the raid is not whether the Congress should be subjected to intrusions, or forced to yield to warrants. The issue is whether the Executive will respect Congressional privilege on the same level that Congress is forced to. The problem Americas have right now is we have been abused, and forced to assent to abusive intrusions. Many are quick to say that Congress should be subjected to the same treatment.
Yes, it is correct to say that Members of Congress are not above the law. But it is also important to recognize what must be protected, especially when this Executive puts himself above the law: This Executive says it is permissible to raid Congress, but prevents the Congress from doing the same. That is not acceptable.
Congress, despite the contempt the public has for it, has been put into a box. This Executive because he has abused American citizens, now enjoys unrestricted power to similarly abuse Congress. This is exactly what Jefferson wrote about in his 1808 letter to James Brown: A dictatorship.
As much as it may pain you to come to the defense of an institution you despise, it is time to take the broad view and consider what we face: Those in the White House and Executive Branch who put something else before the law.
Despite our differences, and despite the bickering, it is time for all Americans to put down your loyalty to party and come together. It is We the People against this Vice President and his Chief of Staff. Those two are the ones who are manipulating this non-sense, and it is time that Americans realize what is going on: The ghosts of Iran Contra are back, and they do not plan to stop.
Yes, Congress has failed. Yes, Congress is worthless. But now is the time for Americans to stand up with Congress against this domestic threat. We cannot afford to fight amongst ourselves. Nor can we afford to permit the Vice president and his Chief of Staff to escape responsibility for what they support: A dictatorship.
Our loyalty is to the Constitution. We have nothing else. If needed, we can ordain a new one. For the moment, it is We the People and This Constitution against the Vice President and his Chief of Staff.
The RNC membership has been reminded once again that we have been betrayed. The President and Vice President continue to invoke the spirit of warriors to fight foreign foes, when the real foe remains in the White House. Now is not the time for violence. Now is the time for peace and calm.
Heed Attorney Fitzgerald’s words from his announcement at the Libby Indictment: Remain calm. Forces are working behind the scenes to gather evidence, to conduct inquiry, and sort things out. Things are not falling apart. We still have a Constitution, and the States remain poised to act. The Good news is that the Congressional leadership is openly taking about impeachment.
For the remainder of this piece, I’m going to jump around, possibly repeat myself, but hope you receive it with the spirit it is intended: Merely sharing some thoughts on what is happening, and hopefully within a few short hours others will formulate a well crafted sentence to summarize what I am saying.
When we consider Jefferson’s 1808 letter to James Brown, we need to take a step back and consider what happened after 1808. We did not lose our Constitution, and despite some asserting in the Civil War that there are higher loyalties than the law, the supreme Court still found the winning army’s leader, Abraham Lincoln, had illegally violated the law. Regardless what you may think of Jefferson and his 1808 letter, the precedent is for the Constitution, not for something else or a higher devotion to illegal things.
Today, there is no emergency. We’ve been told the mission has been accomplished. The real issue is that those who chose to ignore the law, also ignored the planning. Not only do they invoke higher principles, but they invoke an expectation that their recklessness will go unchallenged. David Addington has shown he will challenge Alberto Gonzalez.
When we think about what happened after 1808, consider who read those words, and how other leaders invoked the sentiments of Jefferson: That there is a higher loyalty than the law. One name comes to mind and he wrote extensively on situation when the law should be ignored because it was in the interests of society to defend themselves. He wrote a book, and many have quoted him, carefully studying his methods. His name is Adolf Hitler, who wrote Mein Kampf, or “My Struggle.”
One of the many warnings for history in Mein Kampf is the notion of collective struggle. People will claim they have a superior right to ignore their obligations because they are subject to unfair abuse. This is how Germans viewed their predicament after World War One. Hitler invoked this contempt against those who imposed the WWI terms of Peace, and united a nation to commit many illegal acts.
Today, the lesson is to examine who also read Jefferson’s letter, and who else has invoked a love of dictatorship. Recall the words of Fawn Hall. She justified putting memos in her dress because in so many words, there were times when one has a higher duty than the law. This nation was rebuked at the Iran-Contra hearings, and people were subsequently jailed for violating the law. The problem is those who love Jefferson’s 1808 sentiments are now in charge. They love dictatorship. It is not a joke, but a means to another end.
The problem they face is that they have squandered the resources needed to sustain that dictatorship. They’ve alienated the world, lost friends in their own party, and they’ve subjected American service men and women to needless losses in an illegal war. The Iran-Contra Minority Report should be studies to explore the real method by which this leadership has freely chosen to embark on a pattern of abuse, misconduct, and illegal activity. It is all fine and good to point fingers at Iran for what may happen in the future; today, in 2006, the real problem is the clear danger is the President, Vice President’s office, and his Chief of Staff.
We the People will have to contrast their words, actions, and memos with what we know about the Iran-Contra affair. It is clear the pattern of conduct since 2000 has been illegal. The question is whether we are going to do what has to be done and protect this Constitution from these domestic enemies. We’ve already seen what they will do when given a green light with secrecy: Abuse, violate the law, and crate excuses to say that legal obligations do not apply.
Succinctly, it is a problem when the President ignores the Geneva Convention, and denies belligerents the protections they are afforded. Also, as stated above, it is a problem when the Vice President’s chief of staff ignores the Judge Advocate Generals, and invokes a phony distinction between “legal” and “illegal” combatants. That is legal fiction. The Geneva Convention no where makes that distinction. The Convention only mentions “belligerent,” which clearly the Taliban, AlQueda, and other foreign fighters are. It is irrelevant that they may or may be related to a location that does not follow the law. The only burden is on the detaining power (the United States) to comply or not comply with the requirements to treat them humanely.
It does not matter what the British in 1775 may have done by way of abuse to Americans. In the 1930s this nation freely chose to embrace the Geneva Conventions. The idea of the conventions was to learn from the past, and change how we interact during war. This Vice President’s Chief of Staff has chosen to illegally abrogate that treaty, and assert that the laws of war are quaint and do not apply to all belligerents. Under the laws of war, when someone violates the law, they can be subjected to lawful reciprocity. This means that if David Addington is arguing that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to all, then the Conventions’ protections need not be given to him. That simply means that if Addington is indicted, as Hitler’s lawyers were, for advising a leader for illegal war, he may not necessarily enjoy the legal protections under the treaty he swore an oath to uphold.
Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions mandates on all legal counsel a requirement that they ensure that the personnel they advise and counsel are well versed on the laws of war. DoD Directive 5100.77, which Mr. Addington knows well from his days as DoD General Counsel, is the specific requirement on the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the laws of war program is briefed, trained and that all military personnel understand. The issue of the 1987 Minority Report in the context of the DoD Directive 5100.77, is to what extent Addington and Cheney relied on the 1808 Jefferson letter to guide DoD personnel to ignore their Geneva Convention requirements.
The records clearly points to Addington as the chief architect of the war crimes He’s openly defied his attorney oath to the US Constitution; he’s stated that the Article 3 protections to belligerents is something else; and that his obligations as an attorney in Article 82 are not to be enforced. That is not a credible legal position.
Rather, by all accounts Addington has failed to demonstrate that he is serious about ensuring that the DoD 5100.77 requirements are followed. Rather, taking the broad view of the Vice President’s public association with the 1987 Iran Contra Minority Report and the 1808 Jefferson sentiments on dictatorship, it is well within the bounds of reason to formally charge the Vice President’s Chief of Staff with fraud for advising through documented memoranda personnel within DoD to ignore the laws of war, and engage in illegal torture, contrary to Article 3.
The fact that Addington is a lawyer as opposed to a prime actor is meaningless. The issue is whether Addington, upon learning of the illegal conduct, appropriately removed himself from those he counseled. He failed. Clearly, Addington remains in his position, having accepted a promotion. This is not something that indicates contrition, or a desire to make amends for errors. Rather, a reasonable jury could very well conclude that Addington is not longer a simple advisor, but an active policy maker.
The record before us suggests Addington is just that: He’s actively formulating policy, independently bullying staff members, and engaging in a course of conduct hat is not a legal advisor role. He’s acting as a defacto tyrant within the White House Staff. The issue is that Congress and the President, who have the legal authority to mandate assent to the rule of law, refuse to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations and require Addington to withdraw from his illegal abrogation of the Geneva Conventions.
Addington is the problem. Cheney is willing to protect him. The issue for the Grand Jury will be whether Cheney will make another error, and remind the public and court of a fatal problem: Cheney and Addington can no longer be trusted to speak in harmony. They will make an error. They cannot coordinate all their actions. And their major problem is they are stuck with what has long been signed in the 1987 Minority Report, and what they consistently affirm their loyalty: Jefferson’s 1808 letter. They’re stuck.
Our job is to remind our friends and neighbors that despite this period of non-sense after 2000, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. This is not going to last forever. The good guys are winning, and they are about to strike hard and fast. There will be in the coming weeks a series of releases. You should prepare yourself in advance. The RNC is already in civil war, and the leaders hope to find something to rally the nation behind. Don’t be fooled. It is a ruse. They have one goal: To prevent accountability for what they have already done: Violate the law.
There is good news. There are ways to find out more about the NSA using open sources. It is possible to show, without using classified information, that the President has violated the law and not reported the illegal conduct as he is required to do under Title 50. And it is possible to show that the NSA failed to follow the procedures and ensure their procurement policies and operations were consistent with the law. Just as the fatal evidence is already contained in the Minority Report, we do not have to explore classified information to prove the President, Vie President, Addington, and Gonzalez remain part of an effort to undermine the law, ignore procedures, and commit fraud. It’s already been laid out for you to share.
Take note of the FY06 Intelligence bill, and contrast that with the Iran-Contra Minority Report. You will come to understand how they are violating the law, where to look for the evidence, and to understand what is going on. In short, they are doing anything that is not lawful. They are making excuses to justify the conduct. The problem is that they are getting sloppy, and the public is comparing notes. We know about the illegal interrogations, and warrantless searches. We know about the random pickups, and the DHS teams which prowl the city picking people up without any warrants and no probable cause. We know about the hours Americans have spent in isolation tanks, waiting for their interrogators to arrive, with many questions, and no probable cause.
We also know about the domestic databases, and the contractors who are providing data to the US government. It is clear that special teams are trained to probe into Americans to discover why their computer files have holes in them, and to gather intelligence against Americans. These actions are illegal, they are well known inside compartmentalized unites with the CIA who are working stateside with DHS and DoJ. These activities are illegal. They are well known to Addington and Gonzalez.
Your job is to organize your data. One simple way will be to simply list the statutes, and then gather evidence of violation of those statutes. You can also compare the US Constitution to the current misconduct: Anything the British Government did in the Colonists; and what the American government is doing in Iraq is also being done stateside. There are agreements between the US government and the open source media to have these reports pulled and prevent discussion and public awareness. It is going on.
Your job is to know that this is what is actually happening, and keep in mind there are forces behind the scenes who know well there is a problem. Our loyalty is to the Constitution and the issue is not one that Americans have to wrestle with on your own. You have active support from non-American nationals around the globe who put their loyalty to the US Constitution and laws above their loyalty to the Vice President. They are actively working to gather evidence, and ensure that the US Constitution is protected. Americans will have to decide when they want to embrace what is happening; and what is going on. Just as the French were liberated in WWII by outside forces wishing them noting but the best, so too are other nations preparing to do the same. Your real enemy is in the White House, the real threat to your Constitution is from Addington. You have to decide whether you are going to freely impose the rule of law on Addington from within; or whether you require others to take lawful action from without. The present course is not sustainable.
As you go forward, heed the lessons of the 1987 Minority Report, and apply them to how you review the NSA and FISA issues:
All that you have to do is simply open your eyes, notice, and then share what you are finding. This sounds obvious, but because of the RNC civil war, they can no longer guarantee that they have control over who talks and what leaks out. These are not matters of state secrets, but criminal law. They have evidence of criminal activity. As you go about your day, all you have to do is notice what people are doing: They are choosing to assent to non-sense not because they are serving a higher good, but because they refuse to mandate that their immediate supervisors refuse to follow illegal orders.
It is coming undone. You can learn more about what is going on by reading this review of the FY06 intelligence bill; the Geneva Convention; and the US Statutes. Read closely the Nuremburg indictment language against those who abrogated treaties and laws – Addington, the Vice President, and Bush are doing the same with the signing statements. It is not lawful, must be challenged, yet he media refuses to challenge them for their illegal conduct. Your job is to put the pressure on the media, and make the media and Addington the front page story:
Let’s consider what we know about the FISA violations in the context of the Jefferson 1808 letter and the Iran-Contra Minority Report. Recall what Gonzalez didn’t do at the 06 Feb 2006 hearings: He didn’t disclose details, but he made errors in fatally admitting there was a data mining program. There are contracts, agreements, and data transmission related to that commercial support for illegal activity. The issue isn’t simply whether the DoD and DoJ are or are not doing this; the issue is, as with the NSA intercepts, which commercial firms are providing data they know they should not be providing.
At first blush it appears to be “no problem.” But when you consider the 1808 Jefferson letter, and the (ignored) laws which require warrants to prevent abuses, the issue becomes one of whether the contractors have lawfully complied with the warrant requirements. Again, I’m not talking about the phone number lists, but the larger data transfers which commercial firms are selling to the government: How is that information being protected? We’ve seen what happens to Veterans information: Their personal identify of 26 Million Americans (10%) is now (potentially) freely available for identity theft. Those who do not follow the procedures, and protect information are considered accessories after the fact, especially when they have a duty to do something.
Let’s think back to the Gonzalez denials and the Iran-Contra Minority Report. There are gaps in what we’ve been told about what is going on; why should we believe the FISA court and Congress have been told the complete truth? Just as we aren’t getting the full story on what this Vice President really supports, or what the full FISA-related case law is saying, so too are we not getting the straight story on whether the full activities are getting briefed. At the same time, despite professing a love of dictatorship, we’re expected – not asked – to assent to more secrecy. Yet, look at what secrecy has gotten us: It’s the playground for Addington to abrogate the Geneva Convention, ignore his obligations, and then assert that the treaty and laws are something other than what they are. Yet, when we demand our right to privacy, we are told, “ You have to put up with people meddling through your business.” It’s not an issue of farness; it’s an issue of an imbalanced view of what the law requires.
If Addington thinks its “OK” to violate the rights of others to get information, then we should be able to deny him any expectation of privacy and publicly discuss the full range of conduct, papers, and other things he’s using to plan and violate the law. It’s not speculative that he’s drafted memos calling for belligerents to be treated in a manner contrary to law. What else has he written; and when is it OK to deny the rights of innocents the protections they are guaranteed; and why must the court be kept in the dark? The answer isn’t that these are issues of national security, but they are matters of criminal law as Jefferson said in his 1808 letter to James Brown.
Addington and Gonzalez have selectively given information when it in their interests. Their problem is that they don’t know what the other is now talking about or planning. Addington and Gonzalez no longer are on the same page, disagreeing on whether the raid into Congress was lawful. This means one thing: Addington is either lying, and doesn't want to admit he supports the action; or that Addington was surprised, and actually opposes Gonzalez. Either way, Addington has a problem in that he is no longer in harmony with Gonzalez. This may seem like a minor point, but it’s very important in the context of a Grand Jury and cross examination: The moment that the fact finder senses that this is a rift, this is always exploited; that rift becomes a zipper which exposes everything that has been hidden.
There is evidence showing:
At the same time, we have to look at what is being shared and explore:
One thing to notice, in light of the 1987 Minority Report and the NSA revelations, is the Sept 2002 FISA court appearance by Addington and Olson. Given what we now know, you’ll notice that things do not add up: The responses are not complete; and the court is not asking the right question. The key is to notice the problem of not having an adversarial system before the FISA court, namely one where the opposing party preserves their view, and challenges the other side to respond to question and provide a full account. The core problem is that despite being given FISA-secrecy. Addington took advantage of that secrecy to avoid questions. Ideally, what should happen (if we are to have a secret FISA Court), there needs to be a method to argue the other side, and challenge the government with the full breadth of information:
Keep in the back of your mind as you review the FISA court the real problem: The people who are invoking state secrets are doing so not to protect the nation, but to shore up a dictatorship. Their loyalty to should be to the Constitution, and an agreement to lawfully ensure the Constitution is protected, even when secrecy is invoked. There are ways, they key is to find a real chief of Staff who is willing to be open to these solutions, not one who finds excuses to ignore the rule of law as does Addington. He remains a reckless threat to our way of life, even as he lounges on the soccer field.
Congress has woken up, but they still have not connected the dots. Congress may require a series of specific, targeted abuses and we judge that these are well understood by some, and will be a surprise to many. Regardless what happens, know that there are some in the RNC and Administration who are being kept out of the loop. They can only wonder what is being planned behind their backs, and whether they will be scarified for the “greater good”. Those who blindly obey those who defy the law subject themselves to being betrayed; and that is what has been happening for the ages. The issue is what we will do about it now that we know. It is simple: Keep digging, keep reading, and get the full story.
Let’s consider the broad implications of the 1808 letter. Clearly, this is just that: A letter, and not the US Constitution. Also, notice one key thing: The year: 1808, fully nineteen yeas after the US Constitution was first drafted in 1789.
Jefferson’s letter tells us that despite his Declaration of Intendance triggering the revolutionary war, he still thought there were times when dictatorship was the way to go. The contrast is similar to how Cheney speaks out of both sides of his mouth on Iraq: We invade for “democracy,” while the needed solution may be a strong central leader; while at the same time, Iraq is splitting into three countries.
Let’s get back to the US Constitution and 1798. Jefferson’s 1808 letter is not a valid legal document for Cheney or Addington to justify illegally abrogating the US Constitution. Federalist 78 specifically states that nothing can trump the US Constitution.
When Cheney and Addington rely on the 1808 letter, they are doing just that, and effectively passing an Amendment which violates Article V: They’ve not simply ignored the Constitution, but they’ve changed the procedure by which it is followed, enforced, and protected. That is a subsequent element in the charges related to fraud.
Let’s consider the way forward for the moment. The risk is that if justice is denied to Cheney and Addington, their followers will as Hitler did after WWI, use the injustice to rally others to the Sentiments 1808. Justice must prevail.
Yet, by actively asserting a love of dictatorship and situations when some can ignore the law, Addington and Cheney are committing to violations: First in ignoring the law; second in denying justice. They are setting themselves up to be martyrs, and the American civilian population has already shown it is willing to let Congress get trashed. If Cheney and Addington, despite their abuses, are in any way deprived of the things that they deprive others, you can rest assured there will be an outcry by the propagandists.
We have to apply the lessons of the Civil War. If we treat then honorably, we can save the Constitution. If we do anything else, we will sew the seeds as was done after WWI for a subsequent problem as we saw in WWII.
The proceedings will have to be just, otherwise their rank and file, as did Hitler, will invoke that injustice as a pretext to commit more abuses. Justice is required so that those who support a dictatorship in America see that the right thing is done and deny them any basis to invoke “something other than justice” to subsequently support future efforts to subvert the law and support anther dictatorship.
That’s why we need to talk about what is going to be done, not just today, but to ensure this does not happen again. We have a clear problem, the system of oversight failed, and the privileges and secrecy has been abused to destroy this Constitution.
It remains to be seen how the Grand Jury inquiry goes. It will forever be secret. We can only hope the Grand Jury will look at Jefferson’ 1808 quote and the Minority Report in the context of the law, the CIA agent, and what was in Cheney’s mind.
The problem this Vice President and his Chief of Staff have is their hypocrisy. It’s one thing to violate the law; quite another to chastise other dictators who have done the same. Quite another to use an accusation (as with Iran) to shift attention from one’s failings, merely to avoid detection of the initial abuses.
It remains to be understood who else has reviewed the full quote; who really understands what the Vice President and Addington are saying; and how we’ll look at FDR in a new light. Federalist 78 reminds us that case law cannot be credibly asserted when it supports actions that make the Constitution subordinate to something else; those in the Judiciary who refuse to assert their oath and compel assent to the rule of law, can be impeached for refusing to do their duty.
Other Members of Congress signed this 1987 Iran-Contra Minority Report, one of them Senator Hatch, former Senate Judiciary Chairman. Perhaps it’s time to examine what happened under his “watch” to explore what DoJ was permitted to do while Hatch and his cronies professed a love of tyranny and lawlessness, rather than oversight and accountability.
Other dictators around the globe rely on Jefferson’s 1808 letter to justify their abuses. The US and Israel invoke the image of Hitler, only to justify similar abuses of power and rights. No wonder Hamas has a following, and despite the defeat in Afghanistan, the Taliban are back. Supposedly the big lesson of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was the failure of the US to stay the course, and ensure Afghanistan was supported. America is re-learning the lesson, then forgetting it at the same time.
The key is to study the Iran-Contra Minority Report as a line of evidence useful to us in 2006. Cheney’s out of court statements are admissible. By encouraging others to read the report, Cheney asks us to only review at some parts, but not dig at the full quote which paints him in a negative light.
This is absurd. When someone invokes the Jefferson 1808 letter, the entire letter has to be seen for what it is: Not simply a transitory excuse to possibly violate the law for self-preservation; but part of the larger effort to shore up the dictatorship. Again, those who wish to say that Cheney didn’t explicitly say what was in the rest of Jefferson’s letter, fail to comprehend that the words related to lawlessness are invoked to justify greater abuse of power. Whether we call it a dictatorship, more simply criminal conduct is only one of degree. The problem is that the criminals whose names are Addington and Cheney have invoked only a portion that suits their interests, and then (absurdly) absolve themselves of any responsibility for the natural consequences of that invocation. Where there is part, there is a whole attached; where the door is opened with a quote, the full letter must be introduced for a debate. Cheney cannot invoke a Minority Report that selectively quotes some words, without being accountable for the larger framework being constructed. An architect does not claim credible for a building that rests of on a weak foundation. We must have more than the form of a Constitutional Republic, we must have a full functioning Republic that, as called for in the 14th Amendment, uniformly applies the law to all, not merely against everyone but those who have the power to hide their crimes.
Those who signed the 1987 Iran-Contra Minority Report have some explaining to do. They have assented to lawlessness, refused to ask questions, and satisfied the elements for a 5 USC 3331 violation.
They remain a domestic threat. They have invoked this sentiment to justify domestic spying, secret databases, rendition, abuse, and illegal war. They are not angelic messengers of any God; they are criminals as were those indicted at Nuremburg
It’s time to provide the FBI with your information, what you know, and how the events of 2006 fit in with the 1987 sentiments. Look closely at the Speeches Cheney has been giving; then compare them to what he said in 1987. You will see the common pattern
The absurdity is that the US goes to war against those who do the same: Advocating lawlessness, abusing power, and violating rights. The US is merely better at packaging the abuses as justified or “just following procedures.”
Those who read the Minority Report, or associate with Addington should know how this man’s conduct, advise, and commentary is linked with his justification for abuse, violations of the law, and abrogation of the Geneva Convention.
To those who say, “We didn’t realize what we were signing,” you get no sympathy. You mandate that American citizens when they sign the dotted line on a service commitment are stuck with that consequence and may have their tours indefinitely expected; so too are those who signed this 1987 Minority Report stuck with the full legal consequences of associating themselves with something that essentially rebukes the American Constitution without properly following Article V Amendment procedures. Only We the People may ignore Article V; and ordain a New Constitution in a solemn ceremony. Those who signed the minority report did not have any public ceremony, merely a silent agreement to violate the law.
The 1987 Minority Report on Iran-Contra must be examined in the context of discovery, evidence, and a guide for an ongoing conspiracy
We have to beware those who advocate principles and words which are at odds with their oath. Beware those who advocate you read a report, but only selectively. For purposes of 5 USC 3331 and comprehending the larger pattern of conduct, we have to look at the quote not simply as it stands, but how it fits in with the larger letter. Those sentiments are woven into the fabric of the larger plan unfolding in 2006, and form the basis for appropriately scoping the inquiry, discovery, and warrants for purposes of conviction.
Secrecy might prevent a full accounting of the abuses. Ideally, in an adversarial system, the opposing sides clash and the truth surfaces. Cheney and Addington should have known that the quote is linked with a larger letter and unconstitutional sentiment. It remains to be seen whether they ask us to selectively read their sentiment as they have selectively read the law and treaties. It remains to be understood which other quotes, case law, statutes, and treaties are similarly selectively read, applied. Yet, we only need to look at the President’s signing statements to see the full force of Jefferson’s 1808 Letter to James Brown.
By invoking the 1987 Minority Report, Cheney has invoked the right to manipulate, not explain. The RNC has been betrayed. The full Fitzgerald investigation warrants examining the leaking of the CIA agent name in the context of the 1987 Iran-Contra Report: The Vice President signed the document; affirmed his association with those comments in 2005/6; and made these statements to the open media after the Libby indictments. The lesson of Iraq, WMD, and Plame is this Vice President will “beyond the law” even if it is a ruse, and excuse, or contrary to our founding documents. He defies his oath. He is a domestic threat to our Constitution.
The Sentiments in the 1987 Minority Report clearly link Cheney, Addington, Rice, Gonzalez, Hayden and Rumsfeld with action and collective efforts and a conspiracy to implement a common plan. This report is an open document, has been signed, and Members of Congress had the chance to read the full Minority Report before signing it. They were not obligated to do so, but freely chose to be associated that specifically invoked Jefferson’s letter and what was fully attached. It was their job to distance themselves; as of 2006, they remain fully committed to what they signed in 1987. This is not a transitory phenomena, but a deeply held (criminal) belief.
The problem is that Cheney has openly admitted his connection to the report an documents and devotion to the report; has encouraged others to read it and rely on those sentiments; Cheney remains committed to those 1987 sentiments in 2006; and Cheney has repeatedly refuse to distance himself from the sentiments and citations which defy his oath, and mandate a public statement to the contrary. By all accounts, what this Vice President has called for in 1987 should be taken at his word: A full investigation. It is this Vice President’s job to explain why a full investigation was warranted in 1987, but now the matter should be swept under the rug. These are not matters of national security, but criminal law.
I encourage all Americans to read the Minority Report, not because it is a good thing to believe; but because it is a good guide to understand what war criminals and tyrants will justify in their own mind to abuse power and violate rights. Ask your friends: “Do they really understand what Cheney is advocating?” -- Action defying his oath.
This cannot sustain itself. The world will (as it already has done) oppose it. It will collapse from within. Our job is not to wait for the collapse, but to prepare to lead when the collapse comes. The same people who failed to lead in Katrina and Iraq will be there complaining that the world did not stop them from blindly obeying non-sense. Prepare now: The stupid and foolish will blame others; the wise will simply solve the problem. The stupid will scream when there are fair reports of what is happening; and whine that their incompetence is well paraded.
We saw this in competency in Louisiana and Iraq. ORCON prevents information from being classified to hide criminal conduct and incompetence. Where information is suppressed, despite judicial requests to examine it, the courts may make adverse inferences fully consistent with the plaintiff’s claims. This simply means that if the Government doesn’t want to cooperate in providing the court information, the court can assume that there is fraud, and adversely conclude that whatever the public is alleging is true. There is no basis to assert privilege on something that is good; the world should be ale to examine the goodness. Rather, where things are hidden, and the government refuses to cooperate with lawful inquiry, we can make adverse inferences about many things, especially when the government officials are actively destroying files and e-mails.
Ask yourself: Who would want to be associated with this quote in the 1808 Jefferson Letter to James Brown? Who would go out of their way to cite that quote, put it in a signed report, and then almost 20 years later invite the public to review the document.
Look at the quote in the context of what Hitler advocated with propaganda: With one small set you create momentum, and then a mass of people will believe you.
We have an oath. We don’t start down that path toward tyranny. We cannot justify any action that takes us down the path of Jefferson’s 1808 sentiments. It is not lawful. It is not consistent with our Government. Moreover, there is no bonafide emergency that would justify anything remotely related to these fanciful design.
Americans cannot be asked to read a Minority Report in 2006 unless you are also encouraged to read the entire quotes, and the full letters attached. You must know the full journey before you are asked to take that first step; you have a right to know where the real trail leads, not merely where it starts.
Jefferson’s 1808 letter is more than a simple quote, but connected to a full story and a larger picture. Others like Cheney and Addington have incorporated that image into their twisted view of what is or is not permissible. It is our job to remind them that we know the full quote, and that attached to that full letter is their duty to distance themselves from those sentiments. Failing that, we can reasonably be persuaded that they willfully, recklessly, and knowingly have defied their 5 USC 3331 obligations, and have actively planned illegal activity fully in violation of inter alia Articles 3 and 83 of the Geneva Conventions. Addington and UK’s Goldsmith have already agreed that the potential risks of the Iraq invasions could be liable for war crimes. Addington has refused to distance himself from what he now knows, or should know, was illegal conduct, thereby subjecting him to sanctions under the DC bar, including possible disbarment.
We’ve learned a lot since December 2005 when the NSA revelations surfaced and this President substantially confirmed the reporting was true. We’ve learned that Gonzalez will lie, mislead, obstruct justice, and not tell us the whole story. We’ve also learned that Gonzalez is a weak attorney, poorly grounded in the law, and has to rely on others to guide him. He’s selectively twisted the law and taken case law out of context to arrive at absurd conclusions. He knows his legal analysis cannot stand court review, thus he shrouds his conduct in the cloak of secrecy, hiding from us the further abuses the NSA has committed.
Addington contribution to this conspiracy is well known. He’s abusive, arrogant, and in his core corrupt. He’s no better than those who pulled the triggers on the battlefield or we’ve seen on the video tapes committing rapes against innocent women. Addington is the one who gave the green light to this abuse; refused to step in when he knew the conduct was outside 5100.77 requirements. He’s a despicable creature, and has little chance of any credible defense.
Addington’s problem is that he relies on his arrogance to justify outcomes, regardless the temperament required of a trained litigator, one that will use the experience of the court room to guide a guilty client to a prudent settlement. Addington doesn’t comprehend what he’s unleashed, nor what he’s really supporting. Despite an oath to the Constitution he’s more concerned with his loyalty, not his honor or integrity. That does not inspire a nation, but a criminal enterprise.
He cannot explain to his daughters what he really supports; nor would they believe him. With time they will learn that he has compromised all that he supposedly is fighting for, and that he was a very confused man, unclear what he truly values. His daughters will learn that their father attached himself to a criminal enterprise; and while he visited them at their soccer games, he said very little about how he destroyed what he once thought he cherished.
His daughters will learn about betrayal, then be attracted to those who do the same. They will love and cherish those who appear strong, but in their core are weak. They will become the fathers for David’s Grandchildren, forever marred by their association with a man who freely chose to defy this oath, counsel criminals, and refuse to remove himself from something that he new, or should have known, was illegal and contrary to the Geneva Conventions.
The results are telling. Those who hold power through abuse and manipulation have to rely on greater abuses and charades to avoid detection. They always get caught, especially when they have a high profile position.
This nation’s leaders have held onto power through manipulation, not because of an ability to achieve results but because of an ability to manipulate minds. Their real objective is to remain above the law, doing what they want. When pressed for a real solution, this crew shows its fully colors in Iraq and Katrina.
This President and Vice President invoke “self protection” as an excuse to ignore laws, violate rights, abuse power, and undermine the rule of law. They do this worldwide. They openly betray those who have supported them; now they abuse their closest family members. This President’s wife can little stand his presence, an unwelcome odor among an otherwise sweet summer lawn.
PNAC has come full circle. Now we know where PNAC came from: Out of the rubble and ashes of the Iran-Contra Minority Report. PNAC, like Addington, is reckless, out of control, and disconnected from reality.
Globally, this Chief of Staff has actively supported illegal activity. Iraq and the silence over the crimes is merely evidence of his covenant, not his oath. Iraq did exactly what Cheney wanted: Spiral into chaos, then create a pre-text to impose a dictatorship to insulate us from a similar fate. Saddam provided the very security Jefferson wrote in 1808; one day Cheney may admit he wishes he was Saddam’s bed partner.
Cheney has a problem. He still has to testify before the Grand Jury. The real sentiments of the 1808 Jefferson Letter are at the core of what is in Cheney’s mind. Cheney embraces atrocities as serving a higher good; a dictatorship s a necessity to insulate him from accountability.
Despite the self-evident mess in Iraq, the US reluctantly admits as do many Iraqis that Saddam’s dictatorship was the necessary stabilizing factor, as Cheney and Addington hope to become. We are not going to have, nor assent to a dictatorship to provide order; we shall rely on the law.
Rather than look at them as the mess-makers, with designs to solve impossible problems; Addington needs to be looked at the mess.
Our job is to lawfully clean him up, remove him from the political stage, and throw him to the Grand Jury and Bar Disciplinary Board. Our job is to strengthen and fortify this Constitution with better flame throwers. When the wolves return, might they quickly have their hair singed, left naked, as shorn sheep, in the cold wind. Then we, huddled under our warm, Constitutional blanket, shall mock them as they shiver, then freeze.
The US provokes others with arrogance because there is no check on power. Look at Iran. The US makes accusations as it did with Iraq to justify mindless actions
It’s absurd to believe or argue that the US is under “attack.” Rather, the US provokes others; when they assert themselves in response, the US uses heir response to feign a siege. The Romans did the same and crucified someone we well know. The Romans lost.
We’ve seen the Raid on Congress. Congress has only gotten a taste of what is in store. This covenant is not something that stops on its win. Cheney and Addington invoke the idea of “self preservation” after abusing those who lawfully retaliate.
Congress needs to realize that they have no intention of stopping. They will, like Hither, use all reasonable resistance to their illegal agenda, and efforts to impose civility, as an absurd claim of being an unfair victim, with the intention of mobilizing more for abuse.
Americans, because they have been abused with warrantless searches, are inclined to not care as Congress is abused. Congress will either assert its power, or be destroyed. This President and Vice President do not plan to permit a compromise, only victory. They are belligerents, who have denied the Geneva Convention protections to others, and have personally visited Guantanamo. They know well what they have supported. It is time to reciprocate and deny them the Geneva Protections. It would please me if they were lawfully rendered to The Hague and treated no better than any other prisoner they have permitted to be abused in violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. We do not have a duty to protect war criminals; we have a duty to ensure they are brought to justice.
Congress has been fair warning: Those in the Justice Department have no compression of precedent or American history. Their only goal is to assert power, regardless what is constitutional. They have justified invasions of homes and Congress. What is next?
There were other methods to lawfully secure information. By violating precedent, those who have been brutalized now assent to the brutality on others.
This is about one thing: The abuse of power. This Vice president and his Chief of Staff do not care who they have to see killed, destroyed, or smacked down. They have cooperated with efforts that have specifically resulted in the deaths of covert operatives around the globe. They have no interest in state secrets. Their higher covenant is to themselves, not even to those why conspire with to destroy the Constitution.
When the Germans during WWII wanted to lash out, the world said, “No” and destroyed Germany. Unless Americans are willing to protect your Constitution, Americans should be prepared to endure the same fate as the Germans: Total surrender, destruction, and wiped from the face of the earth.
Choose.
Summary
The Vice President’s Chief of Staff, the architect of the 1987 Iran Contra Minority Report, has also been implicated in the conspiracy to abrogate the American constitution. The report is the groundwork for the PNAC organization which supported illegal invasion of Iraq, violations of the US laws, and illegal abrogation of the US Geneva Convention.
Cheney wants others to read the signed report, without sharing the full context of the report, and its connection to illegal activity, dictatorships, and martial law.
Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald plans to subpoena the Vice President to testify under oath before the Grand Jury over his comments related to Ambassador Wilson’s trip to Nigeria. Cheney and Addington open report recalibrates the statute of limitations. The Vice President remains on the witness list in the Fitzgerald Grand Jury investigation of disclosures of a CIA operative name.
Cheney and Addington’s sentiments in the report, and subsequent pattern of conduct springing from the Iran-Contra affair, suggest new lines of inquiry for the Grand Jury on the Plame affair, and for Congressional inquiry into the illegal NSA domestic activity.
posted by Constant @ 3:55 PM
<< Home