Constellation: Monitoring Indicators of A Coup
Cleveland let it slip there was another Army investigation, not just in the Marine Corps.
The recent announcement that the US government is using banking information to conduct warrantless interrogations has triggered some denial in the legal and military sectors. Rather than focus on the requirement to investigate the unconstitutional conduct, many have been quick to shoot the messenger.
Targeting the media and its publishers for direct monitoring is one thing; but quite another when this call comes from military officers who have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution.
Major Richard “Diggs” Cleveland, with the 4th Infantry Division, is a field grade officer in the United States Army. Having been born in Canada, he is a naturalized American citizen.
The primary obligations of the military profession is to protect the Constitution. Whether this obligation is freely taken, or one imposed through force is not in dispute: At no time was Major Cleveland ever forced to take an oath to protect the Constitution, including the freedom to speak truthfully about unconstitutional conduct.
When reviewing this Executive and his unconstitutional conduct, as lawfully reported by the New York Times, we are guided by the following:
“No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804.[ 34]
Rather than assent to the scrutiny of sunlight, the Executive Branch and the American military personnel point to distractions. That is leadership and command failure. The troops can see it. The American civilians know it.
The core problem with the American military field grade and flag officers is a simple one: Integrity and credibility.
Keep in mind the big picture. This flag officer in Iraq is in charge of combat troops. His job is to lead. Yet, how is he spending his time? Lecturing American civilians how they should or should not spend their time; or what they should or should not comment on.
Again, this field grad officer has a job to do in Iraq: Provide leadership. Let's consider a far more pressing problem he has under his command, that is well known within his unit: Ref.
If this field grad officer "has the time" to solve the worlds problems, perhaps he and his fellow brigade-level officers might casually spend some time reviewing information that will have a greater impact on the welfare of American civilians: The well being of our daughters, sisters, nieces, cousins, and mothers.
Some have a problem setting priorities. It is outrageous, that in a time of illegal combat operations in Iraq, that a military "professional" is avoiding the issues that are within his unit.
Leadership is needed. It's time for the public to turn the direction on this field grade officer and compel him to answer: If he has so much time to surf the internet, why isn't he using that time to make substantive recommendations within his chain of command to address the immediate leadership issues.
The principle is simple. Civilian control of the military means civilians shall direct, and when needed lawfully remove from positions of leadership, those field grade officers who have a hard time understanding the laws of war. It is not appropriate for military personnel to comment on civilian issues, especially when they are political issues.
Civilian leadership is in the Constitution. However, since field grade officers in Iraq have decided that they "don't have anything else to do" other than lecture American civilians how they should or should not exercise their rights, the American civilian population -- All 300 Million of us -- can reciprocate, and give the field grade officers in Iraq needed guidance.
You have a leadership problem. Not simply within the Pentagon, and Joint Staff or Flag Officer level, but at the field grade officer level. It is clear the field grade officers have a very tenuous grasp of the Constitution and what your mission is in Iraq. This problem needs your attention. Stay out of politics, and the American civilians might think about staying out of your personal business.
We can remedy this problem. However, since you have opened the door, the remainder of this discussion is one message: How dare you point to American civilians who are speaking about issues which your commanders well know: That the US government has since 1998 been openly using the SWIFT system; and that this system was well positioned prior to 9-11, but was not used; and that our President -- your incompetent Commander in Chief -- has failed to lawfully use the warrant process to use the tools he has.
This problem is your problem: You are voluntarily following allegedly unlawful orders; then distracting the civilians -- those you work for -- with non-sense accusations. You are an alleged war criminal; and you are allegedly inciting others to commit acts of violence against American citizens. This is unacceptable.
You are a disgrace. How dare you call yourself a "professional" officer. You are arrogant, incapable of self-control, and an utter contemptuous example to your troops. They need military leadership, they do not need lectures about civilian politics.
You have other priorities. It is time you read your oath of office; and review the Geneva Conventions: What is your duty when you are given orders to unlawfully invade another country; and what do you do when you are given orders to continue occupying a country, yet the basis of that war is based on non-sense, no real evidence, and merely fabricated information.
This is your problem to wrestle with. You need to spend your time on your blog discussing the ethical and legal issues related to the Geneva Conventions; war crimes; lawful orders; and what is to be done when additional troops under your command realize that the American public supports only lawful war.
Your job is to explain Lt Watada to your troops; and make a good case that you should or should not spend time on this issue.
You shall immediately cease and desist from your inappropriate entry into American civilian politics; and you shall lawfully refrain comment on matters outside your immediate concern.
Your leadership has let you down. They have permitted you to stray into inappropriate areas of public discussion. You shall remove yourself from the inappropriate conduct, and remain focused on the laws of war and your job as a military officer.
You have brought discredit upon yourself, your peers, your unit, and your commanders. Most of all, you have brought discredit upon the United States and it's Constitution -- the document to which you freely took an oath.
You shall review your oath, and consider whether you are or are not serious about doing your job lawfully.
You do not appear to be serious. You appear to be a distraction from lawful assent to civilian control.
This shall end.
Picture his wife will enjoy: [ Click More Explore ]
Other POCs: Click
Nevada prisons have nice horses. Will you take it from NV, to Texas, or Colorado?
The SWIFT program was well discussed in 1998 with the Y2K preparations, and publicly included in the Patriot Act provisions which the Attorney General and President have public commented on many times.
Here are Cleveland's remarks about the NYT and those who discussed the activities:
Since the two reporters at the
New York Times, ERIC LICHTBLAU
and JAMES RISEN, don’t seem to
have a problem with making my job
harder, or making my life more
dangerous, then I believe
turnabout is fair play. And since
their executive editor, Bill
Keller, and their publisher,
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., don’t seem
to have a problem with any of
this, I’ll include them too.Ref
Here were various responses:
If the government won't act, perhaps some private citizens will . . .String em up . . .Any retired snipers out there?Click Ref
Then the alleged criminal defamation starts: Private citizens are allegedly openly accusing the NYT of criminal conduct, and falling to couch their assertions appropriately. Wow, Diggs, you sure know how to allegedly incite a riot in the United States. [Ref ]
Maybe this is what Canadian citizens allegedly do who are sleeper agents inside the US Military, or directing media attention at phony stateside enemies?
It's not appropriate for people to accuse others of crimes; that is defamation. It remains to be seen whether the NYT personnel bring a civil action against those who have publicly, and on record, asserted that the NYT has committed the crime of treason.
Given the NYT is merely reporting information which the President already discussed (related to the Patriot Act), it doesn't appear as though the claims of "they committed treason" are credible.
You have the right to speak freely; you do not have the right to accuse others of crimes. That is defamation, especially where there is no crime, other than the White House distraction from their recklessness negligent governance.
It would be appropriate if there was some adult supervision, and a fair warning to all: Cool it, lower the volume, and let things settle for a bit. If a court order is required, or other lawful sanctions, that may be needed to send a wake up call: Do not incite violence against American citizens; gather the facts; and avoid making inflammatory remarks.
I expect the national leadership to step in and call this what it is: A distraction, and an unwarranted attack on the open media. This SWIFT information was openly discussed in 1998 related to the Y2K-preparations; and many times after the Patriot Act was signed.
Attorney General Ashcroft promised in October 2001 to the Associations of Mayors that warrants would be used. However, given what we know about the NSA activity, it appears the warrants were self-issued, and not consistent with the probable cause requirements. Belgium is investigating.
Cleveland’s problem is that in calling for information to be posted –- with the sole objective of providing that information so that the NYT publishers and reports might be targeted – is inappropriate. It not only signals an inappropriate drift by the military into political affairs, the action turns upside-down the entire civilian-military relationship. Cleveland is advocating, in response to American civilians exercising their rights to free speech, and share news related to warrantless interrogations, that they be targeted.
Cleveland has made public and published his request that members of the public provide specific information about the personnel at the NYT Times, to include identifying information, their personal habits, and where they might be located.
Cleveland has a problem he is located in Iraq. His family, friends, and daughters are located in another location. If he is going to ask that the public disclose private information about others for having exercised their constitutional rights, we though it would be fitting to reciprocate: Cleveland’s immediate family is not in immediate danger, nor are they being threatened. Rather, because Cleveland finds it appropriate – for whatever convoluted logic – to aggregate this information, it would be fitting that he be reminded the same can be done with him, his family, and his daughters.
Cleveland is originally from Canada, and enjoys riding bicycles in Wyoming where he met his wife at a Halloween Party. He is currently an Army doctor stationed at Ft. Hood Texas, having previously been assigned to Walter Reed Medical Center having completed her medical studies at SUNY.
Cleveland and his wife are Canadian citizen. It remains to be understood whether his actions – in entering the political debate – amount to Article 134 violations under the UCMJ. Unique to US Naturalization is the provision under the Patriot Act that any naturalized American having committed a felony, can be stripped of their privilege to remain in the Untied States and Deported.
It is our view that the FBI and Army CID need to immediately review the information Cleveland has posted, and make contact with the NYT Staff to ensure they are safe and have not been physically threatened. IN that spirit, it would be appropriate if the public begin a discussion of the discussion Cleveland has sparked.
It is not appropriate for military officers to defy their oath, and take retaliatory actions against those American citizens who are enjoying their rights, and freely engaging in Constitutionally protected activity. Rather, under 42 USC 1983, any American citizens, who because they may have been retaliated against by members of the military or US government for exercising their rights, could win monetary damages in civil litigation. Cleveland is not immune to suit. IT remains to be understood how the NYT legal counsel reviews the alleged threats, and what action if any, is taken in civil litigation against Cleveland. It is our view that Cleveland’s statements are not protected, and could be found to be an unreasonable intrusion by military personnel into political affairs.
It remains to be understood how the FBI and CID investigations pan out. At the core of the UCMJ, which Cleveland is subject, is the provision that officers will not engage in conduct that is unbecoming of an officer. It is our view that calling for civilians to be targeted simply because they engage in constitutionally protected activity would amount to conduct unbecoming an officer.
However, there is a larger issue. We are not dealing with a simple discussion over political theory. Rather, it appears that Cleveland has made direct references to terrorism, and that the personnel so identified might have that information used by terrorists stateside. This is a surprising development. If you recall in the wake of 9-11, the President stated American would stand with those who stood for liberty. Cleveland has turned his Commander in Chief’s construct on its head, and effectively embarked on the early stages of efforts to organize what appear to be adversarial forces to target American civilians.
Colonel Dunlap in 1992 outlined the prospects of an American coup. His concern was the American people would defer their freedoms and welcome a coup because of the breakdown of central government and control. It appears Cleveland is fulfilling this role: Acting as a testing ground to see whether the civilian population is willing to target those who exercise constitutionally protected speech.
If Cleveland wishes to remain a military officer, he needs to consider his DoD Directives which specifically prohibit the military from entering the political debate. It is one thing to rally your troops to fight a lawful enemy. Quite another to, as a military officer, to rally civilians to oppose those who reveal unlawful conduct.
Cleveland has stated that the NYT revelations has made his job tougher. Unfortunately, Cleveland has yet to logically connect how a NYT revelations about illegal, warrantless interrogations in the Untied States does or does not make his job of fighting an illegal war in Iraq harder or tougher.
Let us consider Cleveland’s words, in remind the world that the military personnel know what they’re getting into.
IN the case of Cleveland, it appears he does not comprehend where he finds himself: In the middle of an Iraqi civil war. It is not appropriate for military personnel to comment on the sufficiency of the Iraqi government’s efforts to peacefully resolve the disputes. Cleveland has suggested that it is not appropriate for the Iraqis to offer amnesty to personnel who may have targeted Americans while they waged illegal war.
Cleveland’s concerns, although understandable, are not only irrelevant but at odds with the American Post-Civil War era, whereby Southern Confederate soldiers were offered Presidential pardons. Cleveland is student of international affairs, and should understand that the world does not bend the arbitrary wishes of a single military officer.
While the Grand Jury reviews the information it is appropriate the American public take a broad view of the issues. Military personnel freely take an oath to the Constitution. They promise to protect that document, and the exercise of those freedoms, against domestic and foreign enemies.
Cleveland has wandered outside his lane. He needs to retract his comments, refrain from retaliating against those who are truthfully reporting illegal activity, and stay out of politics. In the meantime, until Cleveland does agree to refrain from organizing civilians to target those who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech, Cleveland’s main problem is that he’s opened the door.
If the American government and citizenry is not willing to compel military personnel to assent to civilian control and law, and refrain from entering the political arena, and do nothing when military personnel organize Americans to retaliated, then Cleveland should be considered to be an enemy of the Constitution.
It remains to be understood to what extent Cleveland is organizing others to wage war, or is providing information that might assist, as he calls it, terrorists in targeting NYT personnel. Such action, if proven true, could amount to a charge of treason, mutiny, and sedition.
Congress has the exclusive power to define the punishment for treason, and has done so under the UCMJ. Cleveland is well aware that military investigators can use any information from any source to arrive at facts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that any State level grand jury upon finding facts is not reviewable in federal court.
Congress also has the power to approve Presidential appointments, which Cleveland as a military officer may hope to be. Although he is a field grad officer, he is not yet a flag officer. Rather, the Congress should examine his conduct and comments to evaluate whether the appropriate fact finding and oversight is at hand.
The Army appears to have a leadership problem because of the Joint Staff unchecked entrance into political affairs. Cleveland’s comments should be taken as they are: Another step that moves the conversation from speculative threats, to actual information aggregation and targeting.
Make no mistake, Cleveland has a large following. However, there is also another following that is equally capable of watching carefully what military personnel do when their oath and regulations call for the opposite.
It should be the national policy of the American public to identify Cleveland’s family, his associates, and the specific people he e-mails. When the public understands what one military officer is doing, and what American civilians are willing to assent, then we’ll be in a better position to decide what has to lawfully be done.
Grand Juries are not constrained. If the military argues that some Americans are not entitled to trial or protections, then under the laws of war they too may not necessarily be confident that those protections will be guaranteed.
If you want to target Americans for their practicing and engaging in commerce, free speech, and Constitutionally protected activity, then you cannot be confident you or your friends and family will remain immune to lawful retaliation.
Cleveland has opened the door. It is time for the American public to closely examine Cleveland’s personal information, and decide whether he should be tried for treason, denied any promotion potential, issued a dishonorable discharge, denied all pension, have his naturalized citizenship stripped, and sent back to Canada.
It is not unprecedented for the States to take bold action when the Federal Government fails. NY and NJ have already issued indictments against sitting vice Presidents. The States of Florida, California, Vermont, and Illinois have already discussed proclamations calling for the President and Vice President for impeachment. It would take very little to add Cleveland’s name to the list.
Cleveland’s obligations are to the very thing he attacks others for exercising: Constitutional rights. Cleveland has to choose: Whether he takes his oath seriously; or whether he has to face lawful consequences for doing otherwise.
Cleveland has made a poor choice.
Whereas House Rule 603 permits state proclamations be introduced to the House floor; and the States of California, Illinois, Vermont, and Florida have drafted proclamations using House Rule 603;
Whereas there exists a principle of pre-emptive government oversight, permitting We the People to make rules and issue proclamations punishing government officials who may imminently incite others to commit acts of violence;
Whereas US government officials and military personnel are prohibiting from engaging in political advocacy, and conduct to bring discredit upon the armed forces through Article 134 of the UCMJ;
Whereas Major Richard Cleveland is a naturalized US citizen, having been born in Canada, assigned to the US Army 4th Infantry Division in Iraq, and has communicated to at least two [2] people his alleged plan to provide information to assist terrorist in retaliating against Americans for engaging in and exercising Constitutionally protected rights;
Whereas the State of New York and New Jersey grand juries in 1804 did indict Vice President Burr for his alleged murder of Alexander Hamilton by dueling;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the Supreme Court does not have the power to review facts of a state court;
Whereas there are individuals in the States of New York, Illinois, Tennessee, Oklahoma that have allegedly communicated with, and assisted Major Richard Cleveland in providing him direct and indirect support which may be used by terrorists to target American Citizens;
Whereas the events of Sept 11, 2001 constituted a grave attack on American soil against Americans, but the AUMF does not permit illegal, warrantless interrogations of Americans;
Whereas Congress is the sole government body which has the exclusive power to approve Presidential appointments, including military officer promotions;
Whereas the Congress has the sole power to impeach any government official; and has the sole power to make uniform rules related to naturalization; and that citizens convicted of felonies may be stripped of their naturalization;
Whereas treason constitutes levying war and giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the Country;
Whereas Richard Cleveland is stationed abroad, has announced publicly, and allowed to have published to more than two people his specific intention to provide information to terrorists which may be used to target Americans;
Whereas Congress has the exclusive power under Article III Section 3 the power to determine the punishment for treason;
Whereas the President of the United States, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army CID and Federal Bureau of Investigation have refused to investigate Steven Cleveland for his alleged treason;
We the People of the State of New York call upon the state legislature to:
There world is not better off when military officers, out of self interest, attempt to rally American citizens against other citizens when they engaged in constitutionally protected activity.
The world is not better off when the President chooses to defy the law.
There is no plausible line of defense or argument that justifies any military officer, regardless their nationality, to assert that a truthful reporting of illegal activity and warrantless interrogations justifies any direct or implied threat of force.
It is not appropriate for military officers to take the law into their own hands; nor make comments using their rank as a means to shift attention from illegal conduct and target Americans who are reporting the Constitutional violations.
Under the laws of war, if you choose to incite others to violate and it is not stopped or adjudicated, then We the People may lawfully retaliate against you and those you incite. It remains a matter of law and fact to what extent Cleveland has communicated his plans to his close associates in Iraq, to his loved ones, or his friends around the globe. It is clear he has published the information with the intent that it be used and relied upon. This is irresponsible for a military officer, especially one that is a field grade officer holding a masters degree.
Leadership is to be used to achieve lawful ends, not retaliate against those who are lawfully doing what they are permitted to do.
The Secretary of Defense needs to explain what is going on with is military personnel in Iraq. He is in charge. Under his 5100.77 program, he is responsible for ensuring that military personnel do not retaliate against civilians. Cleveland appears to have misunderstood the Laws of War Program.
Civilians control the military. The military does not set the political agenda, nor does the military target Americans civilians who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Cleveland appears to have gotten it in his head that such retaliation is not only acceptable, but will not face sanction. The SecDef needs to explain why this attitude is prevalent under his direction and leadership.
It is not appropriate for anyone in the military to claim that the Congress is or isn’t supporting the military. Rather, the military is to remain silent, especially when the Pentagon actively plans to dramatically reduce the brigades in Iraq. If Cleveland has a problem with what is or isn’t happening in Iraq, he has one person to hold accountable: Himself. Cleveland freely took the oath, and volunteered to become an officer. He knew what was involved, and that one day he may be asked to follow illegal orders or do things which were not constitutional. It is irrelevant that he is not prepared, or has chosen to do what is not permissible. TI is time for the civilian leadership to enter the military forum, and provide the needed civilian oversight and discipline.
It is irrelevant what Cleveland might wish us to believe about his land in Colorado, how close it may be to the Bureau of Land management, or whether he will or will not build a cabin. IT doesn’t matter whether his wife has a virus, meningitis, or enjoys the hot sizzling heat of Texas. Nor does it matter than Cleveland got his masters degree through an online program located in Austin Texas. We need not consider the type of costume his wife was wearing on Halloween when they first met, or whether he and his wife are or are not satisfied with their separated military assignments.
The issue is Cleveland’s oath, what he said, and whether he can be trusted to protect the Constitution; or whether he is a threat and plans to give assistance to those who plan to target Americans for enjoying their freedoms.
It doesn’t matter how many mass graves Cleveland has seen in Iraq; what does matter is how many Americans Cleveland is willing to target.
It is a serious issue when a field grade officer, not a flag officer, enters the political debate. It is also serious when American Citizens appear to face an imminent threat for exercising their Constitutionally protected activity.
Cleveland knows the laws of war. He is also subject to 42 USC 1983, can be stripped of immunity. It appears he wants to provide and post information with the intent that it be used. The UCMJ does support partisan activity, especially when its objective is to achieve an unlawful objective. Cleveland cannot be trusted.
All Americans are guaranteed a Republican Form of government. The 14th Amendment ensures that they are to enjoy all the protections entitled to all. Just as the Patriot Act prohibits Americans from engaging in illegal activity to support terrorism, so does the UCMJ and Patriot Act provide sanctions on any American service personnel who hopes to accomplish the same objective.
Americans are regularly screened at government facilities. It is not a joking matter to discuss targeting aircraft. It is also not a joking matter to discuss publishing information with the intent that that information be used to support terrorism and retaliation. But it is more outrageous that this is coming from an field grade officer, and he is doing this simply to retaliate against those who are doing things the military officer does not agree with or understand. He does not have a vote on whether Americans do or do not assert their rights; his only vote is a private matter, and not something he can use to persuade American civilians to take action on.
It is well known that the US government can track money. It is not well known to American military personnel that the US government is using information to, without warrant, detain and interrogate Americans. Rather than admit that his service in Iraq may be linked will illegal activity, Cleveland is shifting the subject to whether others are or are not reporting on that illegal activity.
Putting aside the alleged conspiracy to target Americans for exercising their constitutionally protected rights, Cleveland’s core problem is that he fails to comprehend the illegal, warrantless detentions and interrogations are committed against Americans using the information Cleveland says should be openly shared. Rather that direct his efforts to work within the chain of command in the American military, Cleveland has exited the protection he might enjoy as a silent officer, and has publicly commented on an issue he knows little.
Cleveland cannot explain why it is permissible for some to comment on matters they are not allowed to comment; but others who are permitted to comment should face retaliation.
The facts before the Grand Jury are clear:
Cleveland is stuck in a mess he alone created. His voluntary 5 USC 3331 obligations was sworn before a duly authorized official. His job is to protect the Constitution so that others may enjoy its protections.
This flag officer allegedly proposes to reward those who may inflict harm on those who enjoy those privileges. His 5 USC 3331 obligation is voluntary; but once taken compels him to do and not do things under the UCMJ, laws of war program, and DoD Instructions.
Cleveland has asked the world to believe that military personnel know what they are getting into. This may be true when it comes to combat; however this is not true when it comes to matters of the Constitution, laws of war, and honoring ones oath.
Americans today are asked to have special trust in our armed forces. Yet, at the same time, through no fault of their own, they may find themselves deported for violating a rather benign statute. Cleveland is not an absolute citizen; he is naturalized.
Treason may be hard to prove, but it is not impossible, especially when someone is willing to announce to at least two [2] people what they apparently hope happens. There is no reasonable reason to mention terrorism and identifying information; nor is there a good reason for a flag officer to make politically charged comments about the law.
As you begin your deliberations and fact finding, keep in mind the larger issue: America is and remains a Constitutional Republic. Do not let the facts and current discussion cloud your discovery, or your view on what may or may not be viewed. There may be a larger pattern. Let the facts take you where you need to go. Keep in mind the largest issue: Your ultimate objective is to ensure the Constitution is protected, not undermined by the likes of Richard Cleveland, who remains innocent until proven guilty.
Your job is simply to make an informed judgment, and decide what must be done, if anything, to ensure the rule of law prevails, is protected, and is something all Americans can enjoy and rely on, even when put at risk by the likes of Richard Cleveland.
Your fact finding may take you to areas of conspiracy, solicitation, incitement to violence conduct unbecoming and officer, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of rank and retirement, and loss of citizenship.
As you broaden your individual fact finding, keep in mind that it is well known that Army CID and FBI may ignore things. Their leadership is flawed. They perceive abuse as sometimes necessary. The DoJ and DoD have their joint leadership problems.
Encourage the public to share openly:
Americans military combat forces are organized, trained, equipped, and sustained to protect the Constitution. What they are actually put into use to accomplish is sometimes not well linked with the law.
Hitler’s troops in France during WWII faced internal opposition. Today, Americans military as an occupying army faces the same thing.
The following blogs are linked and have published Cleveland’s comments and e-mails, and may be useful to target if Cleveland’s yahoo account is “not available”:
The following information is of interest to the Grand Jury
As you review the details of Cleveland’s education, inquire into how space commercialization is helping or not helping him as an infantry officer in Iraq.
Review the 203 training and his associates at Ft. Stewart to explore whether there were any unusual outbursts or discipline issues during his training
Look closely at the photographs he’s e-mailed, and identify the location the photographs were located in Iraq when it was taken
Inquire into the size of the picture of Cleveland’s peers kissing a letter, where it is placed, what meaning this has
Consider the alumni information of SUNY, and review his wife’s peers in the medical corps for comments on his communications and state of mind.
America needs people to protect the Construction. Major Cleveland should resign and return to his home in Canada. Cleveland freely chose to support an illegal war in Iraq and enter a combat zone. Americans did not choose to have their personal information used as the basis to conduct warrantless interrogations.
It only takes one name to find the rest. The message is simple: If Major Richard “Diggs” Cleveland wants to target Americans, then he and his family may also be targeted. If Cleveland does not like what is happening, then he knows the directions to Canada. Let us hope all Americans are spared the ravages of war, not simply those who happen to remain far away from Major Cleveland.
You can be found. Your family, children, and friends exist in physical space. If you want to target Americans for their engaging in constitutionally protected activity, then We the People may lawfully reciprocate and work closely with the grand jury to explore what others issues there are within the American military.
Any effort made to defy civilian control, or use military ranks to induce civilians to take any unlawful action is not appropriate and outside your charter and oath of office. You do not have the right to speak on political issues; you are constrained –as you freely chose to be constrained – by the DoD regulations.
9-11 reminded the world what can happen. It is ironic that the very military using that legacy to justify illegal war in Iraq is now turning on American civilians, and advocating others do it again at home. That is not appropriate, and it is conduct unbecoming an officer. You are not professional.
There are already three state percolations being debated. It does not take much for another name to get added. Cleveland has to choose: Whether he wants to be a “professional” military officer, or a civilian in Canada.
Choose wisely.
Other Supporting Material
NSA connection: Openly admitted in 2003: SWIFT - AT&T cooperation.
JP Morgan's Yawar Shah is on the board of SWIFT, present during the e-mail retention problems; Morgan ultimately paid $2.1M for the failure to retain e-mail.
[ Try this ]; Baker Botts/AT&T
Domestic, Warrantless/Incorrect Asset Seizures using SWIFT
Here's a sample of the assets DHS seized under the program. [ Click Ref] Note, they didn't have anything to do with the illegal activity; someone else hijacked their wire transfer function, but the US Treasury seized and damaged their property.
Checklist EO's related to Asset Seizure.
Diggs, we can't talk about this. . . .?
Bush signing statement saying that those who aid terrorists (in providing information about the NYT personnel who report truthful information) are threats to America.
Ashcroft clearly stated in 2001 what had always been available: The power to trace funding:
"Law enforcement will begin immediately to seek search warrants to obtain unopened voice mail stored on a computer, just as they traditionally have used search warrants to obtain unopened e-mail. They will also begin to use new subpoena power to obtain payment information such as credit card or bank account numbers of suspected terrorists on the Internet." [ Ashcroft: 25 Oct 2001, Mayor's ConferenceOther]
Presidential Statement After Ashcroft's Speech
The Act augments funding for Treasury's ongoing efforts to target, detect, and dismantle terrorist fund-raising and money laundering at home and abroad.Bush: Nov. 19, 2001
The real issue is that, contrary to Ashcroft's assertions, they didn't obtain warrants, but did what they did with the NSA: Used "administrative" self-issued warrants, and bypassing the court.
Bush announced again in 2004:
Before September the 11th, law enforcement could more easily obtain business and financial records of white-collar criminals than of suspected terrorists. See, part of the way to make sure that we catch terrorists is we chase money trails. And yet it was easier to chase a money trail with a white-collar criminal than it was a terrorist. The Patriot Act ended this double standard and it made it easier for investigators to catch suspected terrorists by following paper trails here in America. [Ref Source: #81]
Frum was in the speech-writing job when Bush issued the Patriot Act signing statement. Bush had included in the Patriot Act provisions trace money, and Frum should have been in a position -- as Bush's 2001-2002 economic speech writer -- to have an input into the Treasury-related Patriot Act signing statement. If he has no clue about this, then what kind of speech writer is Frum?
Frum's apparent crafting of the Bush Signing statement -- explaining that the Patriot Act of 2001 would trace terror funding -- is wholly at odds with his 2006 comments that the NYT revelations are unprecedented.
Read the Patriot Act and the Y2K preparations. This White House wants to shut down discussion of their incompetence: SWIFT was an openly discussed tool, available prior to 9-11. They failed to use it before 9-11, and since 9-11.
We can only conclude that they are either incompetent; or they aren't chasing real enemies. Either way, they haven't solved anything. This is about one thing: Shutting down public discussion of their incompetence, and has nothing to do with protecting national security.
This story about the leak is utter non-sense. In 1998, the House publicly discussed the SWIFT system as part of the Y2K-preparations. In 2001, when the Patriot Act, is was well known that the SWIFT system was available. Read section 362 of the Patriot Act, and you'll see what tools they've had. Also, prior to 9-11, these tracing systems were in place, and being used, and Intel Link could discuss the results of the analysis.
The real question: Why, despite these systems being tested for Y2K, did they fall down not just for 9-11, but between 2001 and now. The White House wants to shut down public discussion of their incompetence: Their failure to use the tools to trace the funding related to 9-11; and their failure to use the tools given to them since 9-11.
1998 Y2K Preparations: Pre-2001 Review of SWIFT Ref
Systems discussed:
Fedwire
Clearing House for Interbank Payment Systems, CHIPS
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, SWIFT
Diggs, you going to go back in time to 1998 and prevent them from discussing Y2K preparations, and the public discussions/publication in the Congressional Committee transcripts?
Patriot Act: White House openly discusses authority to trace funding.
Amendments to Bank Secrecy Act Section 328 Sec 330 Section 362
Diggs, do you expect the government to have the authority to shut down discussions about the statutes?
In other words, despite the 2001 authority to race funds, the US government has not been able to trace the funding. That's incompetence, and clearly the reason for the pressure on the NYT was to silence public discussion of the failure of this Administration to adequately use all the tools they've been given to address the issue.
"Hay, we can't talk about it publicly," meanwhile DoD is the one that is planning to cut and run from Iraq. Your leaders, nothing in Congress is making your Joint Staff actually plan to give up. The Flag Officers -- that you work for -- have no solution.
It's 2006, three years after the "big invasion." Your commanders are retarded.
The issue is that before 9-11, there was the Intel Link and RISS Secure Intranet: Why wasn't the information from the FBI, FAA, funneled to where it needed to go; and why does the DOJ have personnel inside the Potomac Golf Association, discussing these matters in July 2001, two months before 9-11?
"Hay, we can't talk about that." The very systems, that were openly discussed in 1998, and fully capable before 2001, suddenly people in the government want to threaten others for discussing.
The issue is that your leadership inside DoD failed to use the available resources in 2001; rather than solve the management problem, they expanded the power to abuse the very authority they said "They needed/didn't have."
What are the results? We're not getting better information to thwart attacks; we're getting more excuses to abuse power. Despite the "big funding" that went into these systems -- which already existed prior to 9-11 -- the results are worse?!? Get real. This is a complete sham.
We need oversight because:
The government openly discussed these issues in 1998, and here we are in 2006, fully 8 years after the Y2K planning, and DoD is pretending that this is some "big thing." In reality, we've got 8 years of non-sense, and the only option this crew has is to shut down the discussion.
From Cleveland's orders: Ft Hood, RNLTD 01 Feb 05
Ft Hood: Mission
WARHORSE IRON RAIDER
Sample Enlisted Career:
WJKLT0 WJAZD0 WH2DF0 WA2UTD WAD8B0 WAN4D0 WASUA0 WB1RAA WBH7BD WEVDHD WH2DF0 WJAZB0
Sample Duties: Message intercepts:
AR BN HHC, BTSB; CS BN ARS FSC D; CS BN FLD MNT CO B;
CS BN FSC MNVR; QM CO REAR; MD HSP REAR; OD CO AMMUNITION C
IN BN 02 RIFLE CO A; IN RGT 01 AR CO D;
AR RGT 01 BTY B; FA BN 02 REAR
1. Check the Alumni Records at the Following Institution
UB Dept. of Family Medicine
462 Grider Street
UB Clinical Center
Buffalo, NY 14215
2. Trace this name through SUNY, Walter Reed, then to Ft. Hood: Lauren S. Roman
3. Specialty: Family Medicine
4. e-mail: Lauren.Roman@cen.amedd.army.mil; Laura.Roman@cen.amedd.army.mil
5. Phone: (254) 288-8234
6. Fax: (254) 286-7196
Risk of a coup: Ref
Article 134, Conduct Unbecoming: Ref
Joint Staff Alleged UCMJ violations: Why there's little interest in reviewing misconduct within the ranks. Ref
Reference -- Cleveland's Comments: The Military Knows What It's Getting Into
Note: He says, "I choose to protec [stet] their right. . ." -- does he really?
Lots of comments from folks who
don’t know diddly about the
military. I’ve got 20 years in
this summer, I’m heading back to
Iraq with the 4th Infantry
Division come November. This will
be my third tour through Iraq.
I’m an officer, so I don’t "re-
enlist," I simply stay on, so no
comments from me on why I re-
enlisted. I never have. But I
know many soldiers who have, and
I’ve talked to them about it. The
reasons soldiers re-enlist are
many and varied, but they all re-
enlist with the full knowledge of
what they will be expected to do
if their unit is sent to Iraq. Or
Afghanistan. Or any other place
where we want to kill terrorist.
So whether it’s the pay, the
chance for seeing other
countries, the retirement, the
comraderie [stet], the esprit de corps,
or any number of things...it’s
still all done with the full
knowledge of what soldiers are
doing, and will continue to do,
in war. If we miss enlisting a
few thousand each year who aren’t
sure they are up to the task of
being a soldier, then the Army,
and those of us in the Army, are
better off for it. If we continue
to keep good soldiers at rates
higher than expected, than again,
we are better off for it.
The leftists in this country want
to cheer those who choose not to
join; that’s fine by me. The fact
that they do so safely, by no
effort of their own, and still
can’t fathom why I choose to
protect that right as they insult
me, is such sweet irony. To me at
least.
The real irony is when Major Cleveland would ask that we believe he is "protecting" their right; but would like to apparently retaliate against those who exercise the rights he's taken an oath to protect.
And if the news reporters all
want to take a guess as to why,
or why not, a young person
chooses to serve, it’s their
right. Though they get it all
wrong every time.
Comment: If they "get it wrong," why are you targeting them for getting it right?
2006 is not going to be the test
of whether young people still
want to stand on the side of
freedom. There will always be
those of us who find the strength
to believe in selfless service.
Just as there will always be
those who cannot understand why
anyone would willing do what we
do.
As always, you’re welcome.
The above hissed in response by:
Richard Cleveland at September
30, 2005 12:35 PM
Diggs: "The picture in the email
of the guy smelling the letter
is from my unit, when we first
went into Iraq back in 2003." Ref
Cleveland's Online Master's Program
Army Partners with Cenquest and
University of Texas on new online
industry-specific masters degree
program
U.S. Army Tank-automotive and
Armaments Command
News Release
WARREN, Mich. -- Cenquest
announces, with the cooperation
and support of AMC’s U.S. Army
Tank-automotive and Armaments
Command’s National Automotive
Center, the launch of an
automotive industry specific
masters program in technology
commercialization through the
University of Texas at Austin and
their world-renowned IC2
Institute. Targeted at
Engineering, Research &
Development, Technology
Commercialization and Product
Planning professionals, the
University of Texas at Austin
Masters of Science in Science and
Technology Commercialization
program focuses on specialized
technology transfer and
commercialization expertise. This
highly practical curriculum
enhances individual contributor’s
expertise and one’s ability to
leverage their organization’s
effectiveness in both assessing
new technologies and in moving
viable technologies from the lab
to the market--quickly,
efficiently, and successfully.
Launch date for program is
February 26, 2003.
Cenquest, in taking the
coordination role of bringing
together employee-students from
federal government labs and a
host of different automotive
industry concerns, is responding
to a demand for a greater degree
of industry-specific
customization in tuition-
reimbursing higher education
programs. One of the aims of this
automotive-cohort is to bring
together advanced automotive
technologies professionals from a
variety of non-competing
corporations in order to infuse
this program’s group discussions
and teamed projects with varied
and deep automotive industry
domain knowledge.
"The MSSTC cohort program offers
a special and valuable
opportunity for NAC and private
sector automotive employees to
work and learn alongside each
other while earning their
Master’s Degree," said Pete
DiSante, CRADA program manager
for the NAC. "We encourage our
suppliers and partners to
consider enrolling their
employees in the February 2003
Automotive Cohort Program."
TACOM’s U. S. Army Automotive
Research Development and
Engineering Center and the NAC
recognize the need for their
workforce members to possess
skills and knowledge that will
help them to move promising
technologies from the government
or commercial lab into military
vehicles.
"Traditional educational programs
we’ve utilized in the past,
including MBAs, have not met the
needs of an age of innovation and
rapid technological growth to
take advantage of commercial and
military technology, nor the time
and mission limitations of our
workforce," said Pame Watts,
Dean, TARDEC Corporate
University. "The distance
learning version of the MSSTC
program of The University of
Texas at Austin was analyzed and
determined to offer a unique
curriculum and approach and is
able to provide important
learning opportunities to
civilian and military associates,
maintaining a high degree of
flexibility. We are excited about
utilizing this program as we
develop the best skilled, highly
educated workforce for the Army,
TARDEC, TACOM, and the NAC."
Cenquest offers businesses
company-customized degree
programs from leading
universities such as Babson
College, George Washington
University, The London School of
Economics, The University of
Texas at Austin and others. By
infusing the university’s
established and proven curriculum
with industry specific projects
and issues, participating
employees can earn an advanced
degree from a prestigious
university while at the same time
increasing their immediate value
to the organization. The
University of Texas at Austin’s
MSSTC Automotive-Cohort is the
first time a multi-company online
cohort will be conducted,
bringing together peers from
across the industry to
collaborate on a variety of
commercialization issues common
to them all.
"We are finding the demand for
company-specific degree programs
coming from a variety of
businesses," said Cenquest CEO,
LaVonne Reimer. "This special
program is designed to make this
unique education opportunity
practical and economically
feasible for companies in the
automotive manufacturing sector."
For more information contact Don
Jarosz, U.S. Army Tank-automotive
and Armaments Command public
affair, at (810) 574-8820, DSN
786-8820.
203 Training Click
Watch what they do, especially after they've asserted a high principle. The military personnel are not to be trusted: Their goal is to abuse power, and not get caught.
The Commander in Chief is an excellent teacher, and Americans are eager students.
I am writing from Baghdad. I am a
soldier with the 4th Infantry
Division. I believe in freedoms,
and I congratulate the people who
took the chance and printed the
cartoons. They may be pating [stet: Painting]
themselves on the back for such a
move, and so they should. I would
be patting them on the back were
I there to do it. They, as
college students, have shown more
courage than the editors of most
major newspapers in America and
CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC News. If
that doesn’t deserve some self-
congratulations, then nothing
does.
Hassen [stet] is wrong in sayng [stet] that a
description of the comics would
suffice. Suffice for what? To
prove that freedom of speech
stops when it is offensive to
Muslims? In that case, yes, a
description would suffice; to
prove that freedom of speech
stops at a line drawn by one
religious community in exclusion
to all others. I believe that
freedom of the press, freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, is
worthless unless it protects all
people, and all speech, and all
religions equally.
I can’t figure out the
blogger/anonymous thing, so I’ll
just sign myself here,
Major Richard Cleveland
US Army
Baghdad, Iraq
9:04 AM
Teresa's [ jakeandelwood69 ] brother was assigned with the 133rd Signal Corps, company A, which was then incorporated into the 48th Infantry Brigade, out of Ft. Stewart, GA where Cleveland was associated before being transferred to Ft. Hood where his wife is a doctor.
Discussion on 133rd: Ref
Discussion on 48th: Ref
You can obtain the contact information related to the photographs here:
Crestwood Armory, (708) 824-6331.
13838 S. Springfield Ave.
Robbins, Illinois 60472-1825
As confirmation of this address, here is a DLA document: [ Ref ]
Here's the report of incorporation
[Taken from another site, still researching and will provide reference.]
Dec. 9 Chicago
Tribune piece, about 140 troops
of the 133rd Signal Battalion
will deploy to Iraq in support of
the 48th Infantry Brigade.
It is a 20 hour flight from Kuwait to Macon, Georgia. Here is the airfield code: HAAF
As confirmation of Cleveland's identity, you can look at his nametag on his blog: He didn't remove the nametag before having his picture taken. Here's what another version of the uniform looks like Ref
Here is a discussion of the uniform issues Ref
Upon arriving stateside, in 2006, the troops were welcomed with comments that sounded nice, but appear to be at odds with the principles Cleveland wants to see put into practice:
Ft. Stewart, GA, April 19 --
April 20, 2006 - The first of
more than 4,000 members of the
Georgia National Guard’s 48th
Infantry Brigade returned home
Wednesday after a year of combat
operations in Iraq. Wednesday’s
arrival marked the first of
nearly a dozen flights over the
next four weeks bringing the
Soldiers back to Georgia.
Some 300 members of Georgia’s 1st
Battalion, 121st Infantry were
greeted by Georgia Governor Sonny
Perdue as they stepped off the
plane at Hunter Army Airfield in
Savannah. Less than three hours
later they were welcomed home
with open arms and resounding
cheers of “thank God you’re all
home safe,” by families, friends
and officials at nearby Fort
Stewart.
Tears and smiles covered the
faces of those anxious family
members and friends as their
Soldiers marched proudly across
the parade field to the awaiting
crowd.
“We are just glad he is home,”
said Wanda Watkins, of Atlanta,
who’s son, Spc. Alfred Watkins of
Company C just returned home. “We
were nervous when he first went
over.”
Governor Sonny Perdue and First
Lady Mary Perdue are the first to
greet Soldiers of the Georgia
National Guard’s 48th Infantry
Brigade as they return home from
Iraq on Wednesday. The Soldiers
flew into Hunter Army Airfield
after a 20-plus hour flight from
Kuwait. Georgia National Guard
Photo by Jim Driscoll
After meeting the Soldiers at the
airplane, the Governor “I can
think of no job more important
than the one that these men and
women embraced,” said
Perdue. “These soldiers are our
family members, neighbors,
friends and coworkers and they
put their lives on hold to defend
our nation in the global war on
terrorism.”
In addressing the troops, Perdue
delivered what he called “the
shortest political speech in
history” to welcome home the
Soldiers.
Here are the IP codes for Walter Reed, where his wife did his residency after graduating from SUNY Buffalo. You can check the SUNY Alumni information to find the cross references to her husband's name.
141.236.12.17 wrair-namrid.army.mil
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
192.138.70.245 Walter Reed Army Medical Center
160.151.92.86 Walter Reed Army Medical Center
160.151.92.81 Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC)
Here is Where his Wife is currently working
@cen.amedd.army.mil
Darnall Army Community Hosp
36000 Darnall Loop
Fort Hood,TX
(254) 288-8000
To confirm you are talking to the right person, ask him what his wife was wearing when they first met.
Answer: It was at a Halloween party, she was dressed as the wicked witch.
To confirm you are discussing the issues with the correct person, you may review his wife's medical records, where you will find information related to the following:
meningitis
Sasser virus
Potential Investigative Question for CID
There is one apparent problem with Cleveland's public statements.
If you review his comments related to Haditha, you'll notice that he appears to represent his personal knowledge of the initial investigator, and that he worked for the problem.
Cleveland is assigned to the Army. However, the lead investigator was not in the Army, but a Marine General.
Several readers and friends have
written to me to ask my feelings
on the Haditha incident. I must
pass on this for now. I work
closely with, and know
personally, the officer who did
the initial investigation on
Haditha
Questions for CID to ask:
1. Is Cleveland aware of another investigation, not yet disclosed by the Pentagon?
2. Why is Cleveland representing that he is "familiar" with the lead investigator?
3. What relationship does the Army have with the Haditha investigation?
4. Why is an Army officer representing personal knowledge of a lead investigator who is in a different service, in the Marine Corps?
5. Does Cleveland, assigned to the Army, actually work in a communications capacity with the Marine corps in a Joint Assignment; what relationship does this assignment have with the Lincoln Group or SAIC; if Cleveland is in the infantry, how does he get time to provide public postings on issues related to stateside politics; what relationship, if any does Cleveland have with public relations efforts targeted at Americas that are in violation of the Smith Act?
5. Is Cleveland aware of a lower-level investigation by the Army which is outside the Marine Corps?
6. Have there been other situations where one service conducts an initial investigation, but another service submits the final report?
One name that has surfaced is Jesse MacBeth.
Given the full information contained above, related to the allegations of 134 violations, does Major Richard "Diggs" Cleveland which to revise any comments, or his knowledge of the events at Haditha?
Based on the information above, what reason does Cleveland provide for providing inconstant representations on his view of the Constitution: One on hand he would have us believe he is willing to fight for anyone's rights to free speech; yet, when he is faced with adverse information related to warrantless interrogations, Cleveland shows an inclination to engage in what might be termed "pre-planning" activities. What are Cleveland's thoughts on the disparity?
Here are the blog comments
Since the two reporters at the
New York Times, ERIC LICHTBLAU
and JAMES RISEN, don’t seem to
have a problem with making my job
harder, or making my life more
dangerous, then I believe
turnabout is fair play. And since
their executive editor, Bill
Keller, and their publisher,
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., don’t seem
to have a problem with any of
this, I’ll include them too.
What is the reason that Cleveland is making inconsistent statements related to constitutional rights?
Why is Cleveland suggesting that some speech is not acceptable; but earlier he would have us believe that he is in Iraq fighting for the right to speak?
What you can do
Contact the DoD Inspector General to make it known what information you have about Major Richard Cleveland using the internet to provide information to terrorists so that the NYT personnel are targeted.
Issues
A. Why is Major Cleveland issuing this information, all the while it is well known to his unit that insurgents in Iraq are using this information to harass American civilians? [ Ref ]
B. Why is Cleveland providing sufficient detail about his own family so that they can be targeted, just as Cleveland [in his own words] hopes to accomplish in providing/publishing information about the NYT personnel?
Based on the information from DoD and the known insurgent targeting of American civilians, we judge Cleveland published his request for information knowing full well that insurgents inside Iraq would/could continue what he well knows they are doing: Using open source information to harass American civilians.
This conduct is wholly inconsistent with professional military ethics, and defies any confidence that Cleveland is serious about protecting the Constitution. He took at oath under 5 USC 3331 to do one thing. His actions clearly indicate he will use information that the enemy eh is supposedly fighting could use to harass those who express views he disagrees.
Cleveland's problem is that he's making his own job harder by saying one thing, and doing something else. He volunteered. He should volunteer to return to Canada with his wife and family.
He wished this.
posted by Constant @ 2:15 PM
<< Home