Iran-Contra Minority Report Destroys White House Legal Arguments
The Boston Globe recently ran excerpts of the Iran Contra Affair Minority Report. Vice President Cheney has been widely reported to have cited this Minority Report as a clear template for asserting Executive Power.
There is one small problem. By invoking in 2006 his Iran-Contra Minority Report, the Vice President has put himself and the President in a legal box.
There is one man they can blame: The Vice President's Chief of Staff, David S. Addington, a former Baker, Donalson lobbyist working on behalf of AT&T, one key defendant in the NSA domestic surveillance litigation.
The Iran Contra Minority Reports undermines all legal arguments this White House and Congress have asserted on a broad range of issues: NSA domestic surveillance, rendition, torture, and illegal war in Iraq.
We encourage all Members of Congress on the Judiciary Committee and their staffs to carefully consider the 1987 Iran-Contra Minority Report as an opportune vehicle to lawfully, politically demonstrate the absurdity of the White House legal arguments.
[Rushed: The following contains many spelling errors and will be updated with additional links and content as we learn more]
David S. Addington, working for lobbyist Baker, Donalson in the 1990s, is reported by Roll Call to have lobbied on behalf of AT&T. Addington is the Vice President's chief of Staff, and has been reported in the open media to have been the principal author of the Iran-Contra Minority Report.
We reviewed that Iran-Contra Minority report and share with you a brief snap shot of the stunning results. In short, the Iran-Contra Minority report, when contrasted with the NSA-FISA arguments, effectively destroys this President's political and legal foundation.
Please encourage your elected officials to discuss the details of the Iran-Contra Minority Report in the context of what we know about the NSA-FISA issues. You will quickly see that the Vice President and his Chief of Staff in 1987 have asserted legal arguments wholly inconsistent with any credible legal defense of the illegal, domestic NSA monitoring which violates the 4th Amendment.
Key points
been delegated need not be prohibited. [ Ref ]
same cannot be said at home in 2001-2006. NSA domestic surveillance does nothing to protect, but violate, the same privileges asserted for action in Nicaragua (1987) and Iraq (2002-3).
President's Chief of Staff in re issues of fraud [Advocating action which ignores well known, applicable procedures in re public policy, FISA, and the court]
arguments to keep both the Court and Congress out of the picture in 2006.
and Chief of Staff assented to when periodically affirming FISA validity in wake of
Sept 2001. [See page 476; Notice Para: "The same argument extends. . .", to end of page]
Important Legal Points Contrary to the Minority Report
538 U.S. 343 -- Statute cannot legalize what is unlawful: Congress may not pass a bill retroactively legalizing conduct which violates FISA and the Constitution.
Federalist 78: An act may not override the Constitution
There is a legal basis for a New Constitution with a solemn ceremony or act.
The Executive has few and defined powers. Those powers are not expansive, unlimited, or inherent; rather, they are only specifically delegated. No Executive is delegated any power to defy his oath, the Constitution, or the Rights of the People.
The courts have the right and duty to declare acts void when they violate the Constitution. Failing to declare void unconstitutional acts is a reasonable basis to question whether the judges are conducting their affairs in a manner that is "good behavior," and warrants impeachment for failing to perform their duty.
Summary
We reviewed the Iran Contra Minority Report which this Vice President signed. It is stunning when contrasted with the NSA-FISA issues. We walk away with a simple conclusion: This Vice President and Chief of Staff
are not serious about their oath of office, but merely assert "whatever sounds good"
in order to justify whatever they want.
We call on all Americans to take a broad view of the NSA-FISA-Iraq-Rendition-torture issues and consider what we have before us in the Iran-Contra Minority Report.
A plain reading of the Iran-Contra report is warranted. You will find many
assertions of principles in 1987 which are wholly at odds with what this Vice President and Chief of Staff have asserted between 2001 and 2006 over the NSA, FISA, and rendition.
They have two standards on the rule of law, power, and oversight: One when it comes to 1987; and a completely different set of constructs when it comes to 2006. There is
one simple conclusion: The 1987 arguments (and case law this Chief of Staff cited
and invoked in 1987) help form the legal arguments to impeach this President and Vice President.
It is reasonable to begin a preliminary hearing for purposes of disbarring the
Vice President's Chief of Staff; and to broaden the scope of the FBI public
corruption investigation in re issues of fraud.
Discussion
Here is the su-doc number you will need to explore the Iran Contra Minority Report. The paper-vresions of the 1987 report do not include the text of the report. You will have to look at this in microfiche.
Y 1.2/8:100-433
[When searching for this su-doc in your microfiche files, note that the report number does not include the Appendix A or B]
The area of interest for this discussion is Chapter 3, page 465: The part of the report which discusses the Constituional issues related to inherent power.
Commentary on Minority Report in light of NSA-FISA and other Presidential abuses of power
The issue before us, when we discuss the NSA and other FISA issues is whether the President is above or below the law. There may have been some political disagreements over whether certain operations in the Iran-Contra affair were deliberate disregard for the law; or whether these were mistakes.
One telling remark in the Minority Report suggests the divergent views remain.
Page 465: The Minority Report cites Jefferson's statement in re the "strict observance of the law."
A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The law of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself . . . absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. [Note 14].
The issue is whether the emergency is bonafide; or whether the excuse of an emergency is being used to ignore the requirements.
It is not credible to assert that there was an emergency, and the DoJ did not have time to do something like getting a warrant. Rather, despite these "higher requirements that DoJ could not do," the DoJ did have the time to surf the internet and make changes to webpages that had nothing to do with DoJ or this so called "higher emergency."
Bluntly, it is not credible for anyone to argue that in 2006, fully five years after Sept 2001, that we remain in an emergency. Rather, we know that the Attorney General has met several times to make changes to FISA.
The record before us suggests that the real issue related to FISA wasn't the issue of an emergency, but that the Executive branch -- without considering the court -- asserted that the court might do something.
He is invoking the speculative to abrogate the specifc. This is not lawful.
It is alleged fraud, conspiracy of fraud, and attorney misconduct when the required procedures are not followed, especially so when those procedures are clear, they are ministerial duties, and the Congress and President have already agreed on methods by which the President will follow to ensure that the warrantless surveillance is adequately regulated.
It is false to invoke Jefferson's writings, while at the same time
our Constitution and Supreme Court have affirmed precedents to the
contrary. There is no record of Jefferson's writing forming the precedent to
which the Supreme Court shall follow.
If Jefferson's writing, because it were written long ago remains the
governing law and guidance for our country, then that is what we would
take an oath to: Not to the Constitution, but to Jefferson's interpretation
of what should be done.
But our oath is not to Jefferson, nor his writing; rather, we take an oath
to the Constitution as it stands today which the Supreme Court
interprets, not as Jefferson casually mentions.
If we are to invoke the name of Jefferson to justify ignoring the law,
especially in cases where there is no bonafide emergency, then this
President and Vice President are asking the nation assent to a twisted
version of the Constitution that is at odds with the law of the land, not one
which is consistent with the Supreme Court and Constitution itself.
The minority report may suggest that the Jefferson quote poses a "fundamental"
issue, but this is not something that the Supreme Court entertains.
The goal of the Supreme Court is to resolve, not create, ambiguity. This Supreme Court has already ruled on what is and what is not the Supreme Law of the land, the oaths, and what this nation’s leadership follows.
At the same time, when there is a bonafide emergency, there may be exceptions. Yet, this President in 2006 has not credibly asserted that there remains
an emergency; rather, there is merely a leadership problem in that this leadership
refuses to assent to the rule of law, even after having taken an oath to do so.
This Supreme Court has already affirmed that the law (in a general sense) is to be
followed, unless there are extraordinary situations where there are safety of life
issues, imminent harm, or other situations where the crimes are unfolding. Yet, this President and Vice President have not credibly asserted that there
exists any bonafide national emergency that warrants ignoring the laws
which this President has amply stated would be followed, enforced, and updated
in cooperation with Congress. Rather, Congress and the Courts have also unconstitutionally acted: In affirming (through inaction/negligence) that which is not lawful; and refusing to strike down the unconstitutional statutes.
It is the job of We the People to mandate with a New Constitution, as outlined in Federalist 78, to ordain a New Constitution, that imposes meaningful consequences on all government employees in all three branches for failing to do what has not been done: To preserve, protect, and defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the other two branches.
They have:
taken advantage of secrecy;
relied on absurd legal arguments;
refused to hear the issues before the courts;
invoked imaginary threats to ignore the laws of the land;
destroyed our sense of trust in civil society;
contradicted their legal arguments;
fabricated stories and evidence to wage illegal war;
unlawfully abrogated treaties, rights, and laws.
Yet despite denying the rights and proviledges to many, they afford themselves many priviledges which are not lawful:
The unalwful right to be immune to the law;
The illegal individaul right to violate the Constitution;
The intolerable particularized duty to not do what should be done;
The illusory priviledge to circumvent procedures which are not discretionary.
There is an interesting comment:
Whether the Minority in 1987 was convinced of something is irrelevant.
The issue is whether the leadership shall, at a time when there is
no bonafide emergency, be forced to assent to the rule of law; or
be permitted the latitude to diverge from the law by asserting other things.
There are differences between ministerial duties and powers. Power is not
something that is absolute. We the People have only delegated specific
powers. One power we have no delegated is the power to violate the law,
nor ignore inconvenient requirements which the Executive has agreed to follow.
We also have not granted anyone the power to abrogate the Constitution,
a treaty, or a broader statute merely out of inconvenience.
Some suggest that the issues before us need to be looked at in isolation,
that this issue with FISA must be regarded as a single data point of something
that relates to a broader Presidential desire to perform angelic works.
The test of whether that work is or is not angelic is irrelevant; the issue
is whether the result of that work is to defy, undermine, and destroy
the document he uses as a platform.
We did not confer on any President, nor have we specifically delegated
any power to abrogate the Constitution in cases where the illusory emergency
is asserted, and the personnel would rather do other things than what they
promised to do. It is not a credible assertion of a bonafide emergency when
we have evidence to the contrary: That despite a supposed "emergency" the
Execugiv4e's agents were working on rather trivial matters. A true emergency
would not afford any agent any time to focus on small things; rather, a true
emergency would leave the agent out of breath, focusing on the threat, and
doing the most important thing: Assert their oath, protect the Constitution,
and ensure we are safe.
Your oath is not simply to point to the skies and get the world to look
at mysterious things; Your oath is to protect this nation from domestic
threats, whether they live in the White House, or off Broadway avenue in NYC,
ready to place explosives in a public building.
You cannot credibly invoke the selective reading of the past, while compelling
those who assert their oath that they must look forward.
You do not have a monopoly on whether the past is or is not invoked. If you do
not wish to have your words from the Iran Contra rehashed and cast aside as the
words of tyrants, then you are to cease and desist from invoking those words.
You are the ones who have opened the door.
The issue before us is whether this perspective on the
law (despite the Supreme Court precedents and views of
What the law is or is not) shall be given any weight
when discussing issues of the law, ministerial duties,
and the President's oath to preserve, not abrogate, the
Constitution.
The issue raises a question of necessity, and emergency.
Let's review what some have said about military necessity.
[Enter Hitler Quote on military necessity during an
emergency]
I might spend many hours discussing the issue, then spring
upon you the surprise. Those words were written by a leader
in another land, another time, and another place.
The issue is whether this leadership in 2006 will embrace
the lessons of the past, and which lessons we will embrace:
Those lessons of our generation, and those we have learned in the
wake of 1978; or whether we will embrace another timeline,
and assert that despite what happened in 1978, the "precedent"
of the Minority Report will trump that clear statute.
Our nation is not a nation of laws that are selectively interpreted
by mortal men and women in one branch of government or the other.
Rather, the laws exist as a reminder of what the lines of power
are; where they stop; where they end; and what is to be done
when those lines are crossed.
Some may assert there is some sort of super precedent that permits
the executive to act in a time of an emergency.
Yet, the records before us suggests that the emergency is not here;
rather, the emergency is from long ago, another time.
-------------------
The point is that you may not invoke the idea of an emergency,
where there is no emergency; nor is there any argument that an
emergency still exists this many after the events of Sept 2001.
Yes, Jefferson may have written about a higher duty to protect
the nation; but that duty is not one to be asserted without
public comment or oversight. Either Congress can oversee, or the
public may redraft a new Constitution which compels this leadership
to assent to the law that they promise to uphold, not some
manufactured idea of what may or may not exist as a pretext
to abrogate a treaty, statute, or express Constitutional delegation
of power.
The issue is whether this leadership will freely assent to this
Constitution; or we require a new one.
We the People are not in a position to sit idly as the leadership
points to so called "emergency" situations; while at the same time
there is no emergency. The emergency must be related to something
specific, real, and bonafide; not something that is related to an
excuse to abuse power or violate rights.
We the People do not have an obligation to recognize powers, whether
they be overtly delegated, or asserted to have been implied.
Rather, We the People may redraft a New Constitution, to better
specify exactly what we will or will not permit.
Ideally, we should not have to discuss which powers and statutes
an executive has not been given or cannot violate -- as there has been
no delegation of any power or right to violate the law; nor should we
as Adams says, state that you shall not do what has not already been
delegated for you to do.
This nation has a curious contrast. It invokes the issues of potential
problems for one set of circumstances; but then chooses to have that
standard not apply when it comes to the present day.
There is a curious contrast in the specific quotes when contrasted with
FISA and the Iran-Contra affair.
When it call comes down to one thing, you have to answer whether you are
for or against the Constitution.
Where there is no emergency, the laws of peace prevail;
Where there is no crisis, the Constitution is the guide.
The issue is whether a philosophy disconnected from the law will or will
not be invoked at the expense of the very document from which they have
the liberty to discuss its abrogation.
Free speech is the power to speculate on what might happen; but you do
not have the power to advocate action which defies the law, especially
when there is no bonafide emergency; and your agents have shown that
they have the time to spend on non-official and trivial matters wholly
unrelated to any governmental purpose.
The only emergency that exists is the emergency that is manufactured
to justify putting something other than the Constitution as one's
primary focus, devotion, and service.
Where there is no real emergency, we have to explore what has been
manufactured; where there is no credible assertion of power when one
had the chance, we have to question why that principle was not invoked.
There was nothing stopping this President on the even of Sept 2001 from
invoking the words the Vice President now cites in the Iran-Contra minority
report.
Was everything done? Clearly not, as evidenced by the refusal to discover
who really placed the explosives inside the world trade center. This is known.
The issue is whether the facts will or will not be used.
This minority report has asserted that debate and leadership must be build
upon facts; yet in 2006 that standard is not asserted or applied.
The point is that the very people who invoke his 1987 minority report,
as if it were divine scripture, selectively quote and cite from it without
regard their own conduct which defies these principles.
Either the principles in the Minority Report are valid, and should apply; or
they do not. Yet, just as the case law related to the FISA statute is
selectively applied. so too is the minority report.
This leadership, as it relates to the law and Constitution, wants to selectively
pick and choose from treaties, statutes, and the Constitution when it is
convenient. That is called an illegal abrogation of an agreement, something
that Nazis did in WWII.
How dare you say you are not comparable to those who defied the Versailles
Treaty. Today in 2006, despite passing the Geneva Convention before WWII,
this leadership would have us believe that it is quaint, out of date, and not
applicable.
Hitler said the same thing about Article 82; yet it was at Nuremberg that the
rule of law was asserted, and the lawyers were rebuked for their refusal
to assert the rule of law, even when their lives were at risk.
Today's issue isn't that there is an emergency. The issue is that there is
a small group of people who have asserted their right to do what they want,
but refuse to comply with the Constitution that compels them to do otherwise.
This is not the work of angels. This is the work of a criminal.
It doesn't matter how rude, forceful, or arrogant you are; or whether you
can meet behind closed doors and convince others you are right.
The issue is whether you are for or against the Constitution; and whether
you freely assent to that rule of law, or whether you must be forced.
Hitler chose to defy the law; and he was forced to assent.
This nation must decide whether they shall do the same: Whether those
who defy the law must be forced to assent through the force of law and
persuasion; or whether the rule of law shall be forcefully asserted
through other means.
It is irrelevant that the masses may choose to follow those who defy
the law; or point to potential problems as an excuse to violate the law.
The Minority Report called for fact finding; it is fitting and it would
please me if that standard was applied to our present situation: Let us
engage in fact fading.
But this leadership, despite invoking the Minority Report's charge
of fact finding, asserts another standard: That facts are not relevant;
that we do not need to find facts; 0r that the public will not understand
the facts.
Curiously, this was completely at odds with the Minority Report in the Iran
Contra affair. Again, either the Iran Contra affair Minority Report got
it right, and there needs to be fact finding; or there does not need to
be fact finding, and the Minority Report Got it wrong.
You cannot have it both ways.
Choose.
There is one statement that deserves to be rebuked:
To the extent that the Constitution and laws are read narrowly, as Jefferson wished, the Chief Executive will on occasion feel duty bound to assert Monarchial notions of prerogative that will permit him to exceed the law.
There is a difference between exceeding the law, and ignoring the Constitution.
It is an issue when the "occasional" becomes a habit; and the "emergency" does not exist.
This executive invokes the false emergency, to shift attention from whether the signing statutes and promises to defy the law have become a habit.
We have not delegated any Executive the power to defy the law; nor invoke false emergencies.
We are in a time of peace. This leadership secretly discusses peace with those it openly states are those who are causing "the emergency."
We have been told, "mission accomplished" -- Then let this mission be accomplished: The emergency is over; and we shall invoke the laws of peace during this peace, however, unstable this leadership has left it.
Suffice it to say that the Minority Report fails to stick with an underlying
assertion of where it stands. One minute it invokes one principle; then next
it contradicts itself.
In the same paragraph (after invoking Jefferson), this Minority Report then
reverses itself saying,
Thus, the Constitutional construction that on the surface looks more
dangerous seems on reflection to be the safer in the long run
Mind you, this is after contradicting themselves:
Paradoxically, the broader Hamiltonian ideas about executive power --
by being more attune to the realistic dangers of foreign policy -- seem more likely to produce an executive who is able and willing to live within legal boundaries.
Which is it:
boundaries; OR
The Minority's view is that it would be "safer in the long run" if the law were followed.
To argue that the Minority's view is the opposite -- that we would be safer
if the law were ignored -- asks us to believe that the law only is applicable
when one man chooses to agree; while all others have no say.
That is not how We the People delegated you power.
Rather, we delegated you power on the premise that you would follow the law,
protect our rights, and we would in turn assent to your power.
But when you defy the law, and refuse to lawfully use your power, then
violate our rights, you have in effect abrogated the Constitution.
The framers in federalist 78 stated that We the People could invoke a
New Constitution should the ceremony be dignified.
We can do that.
On page 465 before note 15, the Minority discusses the broader principle
of Executive Power as Madison and Monroe invoked it.
The key isn't that Monroe did or didn't create a precedent for invasions;
the issue is what relevance foreign invasions abroad have to civilian populations at home.
There is no linkage.
Rather, the idea -- in theory -- of waging war abroad, is to ensure peace
for Americans at home.
That we might bear the fruit of peace and security at home is the goal of
waging a war abroad. In theory, we plant the seeds of democracy abroad,
and reap the rewards at home: Greater liberty, a stronger constitution,
and greater respect for rights.
We don't have that. Rather, we have failed democracies abroad; and greater
intrusions at home. We can only conclude the seeds sewn on the battlefields
were something other than the seeds of peace, democracy, and rule of law.
Rather, they are the seeds of tyranny, war, and abuse of power.
But this President does the opposite: HE wages war abroad illegally; while at the same
time mandating that the civilian population assent to violations of their rights.
A century of conquest abroad, does not mean that we have another century
of abuse at home.
This is not a payoff. There is no fruit.
We did not grant you any power to create fictional myths to be written
in one decade, then have that myth invoked out of convenience in another.
We need facts, not myths.
Page 465 continues to invoke an illusory principle of "inherent" authority.
No, there are only specifically delegated powers; and no Executive has any
power to invoke anything to assert what has not been expressly delegated, especially when it comes to matters which have been expressly forbidden.
When debating at the Constitutional Convention the notion of free speech,
Adams rejected the notion of having to list ad infinitum the specific
things one could not do as Executive. He promulgated this view in federalist 78.
It is absurd for this nation to have to promulgate what is required, yet
that is what we did when We the People told this Executive what to do: All
treaties are to be followed.
Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions is outside the Two Protocols the US
has not signed; thus for purposes of what did or didn't happen in 1977
and what may or may not have happened between 1932 and 1977 are irrelevant.
This nation has agreed to, and remains a signatory, of the original Article 82
requirements in the Geneva Convention.
To suggest that, out of convenience, that agreement does not apply is reckless.
Rather, until this nation formally withdraws from Geneva, those requirements
still exist.
However, under the laws of war, if the US decides to ignore Article 82 and
abuse, render, torture, or otherwise deny belligerents of any right, then
all American citizens -- not just those on the battlefield -- are subject
to having that protection denied.
We could go around all day long whether or not the people this nation are or
are not fighting are or are not "lawful." The Geneva convention does not
make a distinction on this. The only requirement is that the person be a
BELLIGERENT. That is it.
How that definition is satisfied remains unclear.
But no President has any right to violate Article 82, and expect the US citizenry
to then assent to lawful reciprocation.
Invoking the principle of Hamilton, Madison, and Monroe, We the People have a
superior inherent right to assert out power to ensure that This Executive
does not do something that will endanger us.
That is where we find ourselves.
What is the greater good?
Do we, as the Minority Report has done, invoke a principle of what is best in the long run;
or do we assent to another standard for the sake of something else.
As before, Either
We the People may assert out inherent authority to protect ourselves
from the Executive that puts us at risk; OR
the immediate concern is whether the law is or is not followed.
You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to assert "inherent power", while
at the same time abrogating that Constitution, then We the People may do the same
after we have a dignified ceremony recasting these powers in a manner
that better protects rights, prevents the abuse of power, and ensures
your loyalty is to the greater good: This Constitution.
Let’s be very clear about the Executive Power. His job is to impose will
to protect the Constitutional system. That notion is related to
foreign affairs.
However, the Anti-federalists were successful in ensuring that the protections
at home remained. Again, Adams argued that there should be no requirement
to "not allow" something that was no specifically delegated; yet the Anti-Federalists
won the day, and we have the 10 Amendments.
Inherent in that document in the 3rd Amendment is the explicit restriction
and explicit distinction between peace and war: Even during war, the
President must follow the law when it comes to housing troops in the homes of
Americans. This Commander in Chief cannot broadly assert "we are at war," as the
basis to then ignore the law; rather, We the People in the 3rd Amendment have
already expressly conferred onto ourselves in this Constitution the right to
require that the President conduct domestic operations related
to our homes in a manner that is consistent with the law.
The Third Amendment is clear, it has not been abrogated, and it remains a clear
intent of the founders to assert the force of the People to compel
to their inherent power to mandate that the laws have full force, even
in wartime as the relate to our homes, and how Americans are forced
to interact or be exposed to military forces.
If you do not wish to recognize this right, then we do not have to recognize your
power and we may lawfully under the terms in Federalist 78 ordain a
New Constitution at a ceremony that is dignified.
You have to choose: Whether you are going to recognize the full Constitution;
or whether you are going to be forced to assent to the result of a ceremony
you may or may not be invited to attend; A New Constitution.
You have to choose.
It is all well and good in the wake of Iran-Contra to argue what "might have been" had the President been able to assert powers abroad unchecked. Today's situation is different in that it relates to domestic issues which the FISA is the exclusive means by which this Executive is to assert power and otherwise engage in warrantless surveillance.
The problem is that this Executive wants it both ways. While on one hand asserting
a right to invoke a Minority Report with respect to Iran Contra -- and have
free reign to apply that principle at home -- this Executive then turns the matter
on its head, and mandates that that foreign construct be imposed without
question on the American public.
That is not something we have expressly delegated; nor does it matter what may or
may not have happened after Jefferson departed the political stage or what
FDR did in 1941.
We have new laws. We have new concerns. We the People have expressed what we expect.
You were not delegated the power to ignore the laws, the courts, or the Congress.
Most of all, you have no power to ignore We the People.
Rather, We the People have the power -- With a New Constitution, as per Federalist 78 -- to ignore you.
We can make that happen.
We can write a New Constitution, one that eliminates any confusion about whether
there is or is not a Supreme law of the land; and expressly eliminates
as a political tool the power of any President to engage in any domestic
affairs.
We could have a domestic President; and a foreign Affairs President. Two leaders,
two executives, and you both can then choose whether you will cooperate with
the law, or with something else outside your oath.
The domestic President may be given the Supreme Power over the foreign President;
and the Domestic President is elected directly by the people; while the foreign
affairs President is one that is indirectly elected through the State legislators.
This will eliminate the problem of confusion over whether the laws of war,
or the laws of peace apply. Rather, there will be two sets based on geography:
conducts himself in a manner that is consistent with treaties.
Why must there be one executive, when the challenges we face are "so tremendous"
that clearly one-executive cannot handle them.
Again, we can split this executive department into two sections; forever barred
from cooperating to destroy the Constitution; and forever required to ensure
that the two remain out of each other's way.
Smith in note 16 asserts that foreign affairs will compel the President
to take supremacy. The problem is when that "supremacy" is invoked as an
excuse to ignore the domestic laws.
A crisis requires attention; We the People must lawfully preserve our rights
and prevent the abuse of power when the Executive points to a foreign problem
as an excuse to ignore the promises he made to us at home.
We did not grant him the power to abrogate the Constitution; nor does he
have the power to in secret mandate that we assent to illegal warrantless searches.
Rather, We the People can lawfully compel this Execut8ive to explain why he
should be trusted with power; and if he fails, he be lawfully denied his present
access to power, along with those who put violations of the laws of wars abroad
beyond enforcement by the laws of man at home.
The minority report on page 466 invokes the notion of "Stresses" as a justification
to engage in covert operations abroad.
Putting aside the risk that all CIA agents, if captured, could be killed as spies
for violating the laws, the issue facing us today in 2006 is whether:
This leadership has told, not asked, the American public to embrace fictions
about what may exist abroad as the excuse to assent to abuses at home.
The Downing Street Memo is clear: There was a plan, a design, and many meetings
by those who were interested in planning for something they knew was not lawful;
and that they know was not supported by bonafide threats.
There are other memos of other meetings showing exactly who knew which FISA
statutes would or would not be ignored.
The issue is that this Administration is the source of the Constitutional
stress they are supposedly "protecting" us from.
Also notice in the first paragraph of page 466 [reading, "We close this section on
diplomacy. . ." with this comment: "We consider negotiations and communications
with foreign governments or individuals to be Presidential powers protected
by the Constitution, without reservation."
Small problem.
This is not absolute. Let's consider the issue of "emergency". The States have the inherent power
to directly engage in discussions when the states assert their inherent power to
protect their guaranteed right to a Republican form of government.
If this executive asserts the "power" to abrogate that agreement; then the states
may without reservation trump the Executive, and directly engage in
negotiations with other states and other nations so as to do what this federal
government refuses to do: Protect the Republic.
Again, if the Executive wants to wave his hand and assert a "power" and "right"
to declare an emergency -- and thereby "justify" ignoring the Constitution -- the
States may similarly invoke an "immediate emergency"-doctrine to trump the Executive
and seek foreign assistance.
The Minority Report absurdly asserts that this "interpretation" of the "exclusive"
negotiation power" fits "comfortably" within Precedent, while citing no precedent.
On the other hand, under the principle of the Geneva Convention, when a civilian
population is forced to assent to illegal military forces -- as we are now --
then under the Geneva Conventions We the People may ignore the same laws
which this Government is violating.
This government has to decide whether the Geneva Convention "does not apply".
Because just as "belligerents" may be argued to be "not related to a state that
is acting in a manner that is civilized", so too may We the People classify all
those who defy Article 82 as warranting special attention through lawful rendition
to The Hague for trail. You may not assert that others are or are not related
to a set of standards of law related to a state; while the real test is whether
the belligerents are or are not treated humanely, as all legal scholars know
is required under Article 82.
You cannot have it both ways. If someone -- whoever they are in government --
can "classify" someone as "not falling under the Protections of Geneva", then
WE the People may also violate that principle of mandatory protection
and deny civilian lawyers the protections they deny others.
Moreover, there is precedent for lawful reciprocation. Under the laws of war,
had the Japanese and Germans wanted to firebomb Washington DC, they could have
done so. Today, under the laws of war -- which this leadership says does not
apply and are quaint -- those who ignores the laws of war may have those violations
committed upon them.
Is this what you desire:
to lawfully target those who refuse to ensure the Constitution is protected?
There is something curious about the Minority Report. They ask that
we embrace a construct of an ability to not consult Congress on matters.
Curious, this is the same argument used on the FISA issue; but rather than
simply keeping the Congress in the dark about the full scale of the FISA violations;
those who crafted this Minority Report took it one step further: They
ignored both the Congress and the Judicial Branch.
Nevertheless, we consider it important o say something about the
power Presidents traditionally have exercised under the Constitution, to use
force with and without prior Congressional authorization.[Page 466]
This is a narrow view of what the President is or is not allowed to do.
Article 1 Section 8 gives the exclusive power to declare war
to Congress. The framers on August 17, 1787 specifically discussed at the
Constitutional Convention whether the powers granted to Congress
should be narrowly "declare," or broadly include making war.
Ultimately, they decided that the Executive has the power to make
war only so long as it was an imminent invasion. Nothing
stopped the President from invoking this "make war" power prior to Sept 2001;
but despite the 52 FAA warnings, multiple intelligence reports, and the
PDB 06 AUG 2001, this President did nothing.
Suddenly, after the attacks and the explosions inside the WTC towers,
suddenly the President's "inherent power" to do something gets invoked; yet
we did not grant him the power to obfuscate, lie, and avoid accountability
for violations of clear statutes that relate to ministerial duties:
follow the law.
But this President decided, as the Iran-contra-crew did, to not only
ignore the Congress, but the law and the Courts.
Again, going back to the Sept 2001 events, take note of the Minority Report
wording on page 466: "the Constitution expected the President to be
much more than a clerk."
This President is merely a clerk to the Vice President.
It's one thing to justify the assertion of power abroad using creative
applications of legal theory. This may be fine for the speculative
debates when crafting new definitions of what is or is not a lawful assertion
of power.
But back to reality. The Constitutional Convention debates have long ended.
The starting point is not to enter the speculative confusion over whether
power does or does not belong to the Congress, Judiciary, or Executive.
Rather, the way forward is to embrace the notion that the clear laws and
Constitution already answer what this President would have us believe
is debatable.
We are not in 1787; nor is there a "big mystery" about how power is or
is not to be used. Rather, there is clarity with the FISA statute
in 2006: This President must clearly perform a ministerial duty; and in order
to engage in warrantless surveillance -- something we do not allow, unless
he agrees to follow special rules -- then he is not allowed to do that.
The Minority Report presents a problem for the White House, and Vice President
Cheney. On page 466, by stating that the Constitution "provide a context
for discussing the less drastic projections of US power that fit under the rubric of
cover action", this President argues that there should be a debate.
Yet, when it comes to the FISA issue, he refuses to discuss; rather, he
secretly gathers his allies to figure out a new twisted legal construct to defy
the law.
Let's consider the problem of the President and Vice President when it
comes to FISA. You'll see a curious contrast when you compare the Minority
Report on Iran Contra with the FISA issue
Again, invoking the Minority Report defeats the Vice President's claims in re FISA.
Take careful note of the comment on page 466 [Emphasis added]:
In addition, may of the remaining actions were undertaken with
only the vaguest statutory authority.
Note carefully what the above comment states:
so that the Executive can fill that gap.
Yet, the problem with FISA is the opposite:
Again, the point is to show that by invoking the Minority Report, this
Vice President and his chief of staff have argued against themselves
when it comes to the NSA domestic spying:
yet at the same time being sufficiently specific, and constraining that
the law does not apply at home, and can be ignored;
given the specificity of the FISA;
free and clear; or the law is to be applicable; but this Executive
wants us to believe that there are two realities: That the specific law
applicable during both peace and war, is somehow to be ignored, yet
we will be better off. How does he Vice President explain Hamilton's
comments to the contrary? No answer.
Note also on page 466 there is a discussion on the 81 vs. 181 occasions
of prior vs. non-prior Congressional authorization.
Today's issue with the NSA isn't that the Congress has a specific number;
rather, the Executive agreed that FISA would be the exclusive
means by which the warrants would be issued; and the warrantless surveillance
continue despite no probable cause.
yet, despite that broad assent to warrantless surveillance, this Executive
chose to assert that Congress and the Courts had "no role" despite
affirming that they did.
Again, the Vice President and his Chief of Staff are being inconsistent.
They would have us believe that the law can or cannot be invoked; while at the
same time they fail to make any case that the law has or has not been
abrogated. By their conduct, they have abrogated the law; therefore, we
have no lawful duty to recognize their power.
Rather, we may under Federalist 78, create a New Constitution, and explicitly
revoke the power that they refuse to lawfully use; and we may re-delegate
that power back to We the People:
We could easily delegate that power back to some other entity, other than
the Congress, courts, and the Executive; ultimately leaving the Executive
with no power, but the responsibility to ensure that he alone follows
the law.
That does not require a staff to accomplish that task. You will no longer
have to ride the metro to work. You can stay home, never show up to work, and
root for your daughter's soccer games every day.
Something else to consider when reviewing pages 466-7 [the many times the
President used military powers on the frontier] is to notice the calendar.
Unlike the 1700-1800s, this nation is no longer battling foreign armies
on the frontier. Today, it is 2006, we have secure borders. We have an
internal police force. We have Posse Comitatus.
There is no merit to any argument by the Vice President or his Chief of Staff
that we are to rely on 1700-1800 precedent on issues of domestic
use of the military, when that precedent has been trumped by the 1978 law.
Again, if the Vice President chooses to assert some sort of Cowboy era
approach, whereby the trusty f-troop warriors dismount, and take a village
in order to secure the frontier, that's fine. But the reality is that we
have a new generation of Americans who have moved beyond nation building,
and reasonably expect this approach to be constrained by law, not
creative excuses to assert then-ill-defined limits of power.
The Congress has already spoken. Unlike the 1700-1800s where there was
ambiguity on the use of power at home, today the use of power is limited
in a manner We the People have agreed through the Acts of Congress.
We have not delegated you the power to abrogate the laws or Constitution.
Rather, like Hitler who abrogated many treaties your conduct
which communicates [1] an understanding of the law; and [2]
specific actions to ignore that law suggests that you are
more than reckless, but a clear domestic threat to This
Constitution.
IT remains a matter of law whether you are or are not guilty of a
wider conspiracy; and to what extent you have ignored Article 82
of the Geneva Convention; and have recklessly induced others to
ignore their oath by asserting that the Geneva Conventions have been
abrogated -- which they have not. Again, if they are not applicable
to any and all belligerents, then We the People may not
apply that Convention when it comes to an issue of lawfully rendering
to the Hague an attorney who defies Article 82. Your oath is to
the US Constitution and all treaties and laws, not those
you want to ignore, or encourage others to pretend do not apply.
You have no defense. You may not invoke "immunity" when the
laws you have violated are clearly promulgated; and the rights
you have affected are well stated.
These are not issues that the public -- as a victim -- has to
litigate. Rather, it is a matter of criminal law which the State
may bring charges against you for violating. That you may have
inducted some to ignore the 18 USC 1512, and intimidate some to
remain silent is meaningless. The world now knows that you
have sought to invoke some sort of principles when it comes to
one area; but not recognize that we have turned the calendar
and we have a new set of laws which trump any precedent to the contrary.
For any Vice President and Chief of Staff, after invoking Iran-Contra
as an excuse to do what they want, to then turn around and say the same
foreign ambiguity now exists would have us pretend there are only a few states,
and that there remains a threat of constant invasion by France and Spain.
We are in a new era. France and Spain are no longer doing battle in
California or Louisiana. Rather, with this new era -- and the era of
new laws -- we have created specificity where there was once
ambiguity.
The courts do not look favorably upon those who assert there is some
sort of ambiguity; while at the same time pretending that there is
great uncertainty over what may or may not happen. The laws are clear.
Domestically, we are a nation at peace; and there is no large scale
combat occurring in America's heartland.
Rather, there is only an imaginary war occurring in the minds of two
people: The Vice President and his Chief of Staff.
Again, invoking Adams we are reminded that We the People have only
delegated you specific powers.
Adams well stated that we have no need to prohibit you from doing
something when you have not been delegated that power to begin with.
Yet, not satisfied that those like this Vice President and Chief of Staff would
assent to that principle of reasonableness, the framers stated
that they would assent to a bill of rights specifically
prohibiting warrants unless there was an oath.
Thus, it is absurd for the Minority Report to assert that something
is or is not "unprohibited" or that Congress was "silent" when on the
issue has already been forbidden on a matter than Congress
well articulated at length.
Again, this Vice President and his Chief of staff would have us believe
that the argument that they used in the Minority Report on the Iran
Contra are to be "well read." fine, then let us well throw their
words at them and let them get out of the mess they find themselves
in 2006: A cess pool they began to dig for themselves well before
the Iran-Contra Minority Report was contemplated.
Page 468 discusses the secret discussions with the French.
The point is that this President, despite a duty to follow
the law, then turned around and invoked some absurd standard of
secrecy not just on Congress, but the Courts.
It is clear this Vice President and Chief of Staff have falsely
asserted that a foreign relations matter then creates a
precedent to invoke secrecy on a matter that is related to
Domestic Constitutional law. That is absurd.
Whether secrecy is or is not invoked is irrelevant when it
comes to issues of public law, criminal law, and public statutes.
Page 468: It's very interesting, but irrelevant what may or may not have
been stirred up in Florida in the early 1800s.
The target of that action was foreigners; today's FISA-related
issues are against your fellow citizens.
We the People find nothing credible in the Vice President and his
Chief of staff suggesting that Americans should assent to this
barbaric treatment simply on the false comparison with renegades
in Florida in 1810.
It is absurd to use a "precedence of silence" on a matter than is kept
secret; all the while then using "any public comment" as a basis
to target those who speak out about the abuses.
Again, this Vice President and Chief of Staff are being disingenuous. They
would have the world believe that Congress, because it was in the dark
and kept out of the loop and denied the ability to consult with
those they represent -- We the People -- that we must then assent
to their abrogation of the FISA. That is absurd.
It is absurd to suggest that the Constitution be "struck down" because
they interfere with the President's assertion of power.
Rather, it is the President who should lawfully, politically be "struck down"
with a lawful inquiry, impeachment, and removal from office. He cannot
be trusted to work within the confines of the Constitution while
he engages in secret conduct.
Moreover, rather than assent to fact finding, this Vice President and
Chief of Staff have broadly applied the term "foreign policy" to
include anything that interferes with the lawful oversight
of violations of the law.
The minority report digs a hole for the Vice President and Chief of Staff:
We the People may make adverse inferences when there is doubt,
and when an alleged criminal refuses to cooperate with lawful inquiry
into matters of criminal law. Where there is doubt, We the People
may invoke our inherent authority to revoke this Constitution
and lawfully impose a new one.
Let us review the specific "raid" into the Congress and Congressman
Jefferson's office.
This Vice President's Chief of Staff has raised doubts about the
Constitutionality of that issue, thereby showing that Gonzalez and
Addington are not on the same page.
Yet, let's consider what was written in the Minority Report on the
Iran-Contra affair [page 471]:
". . .some exercises of implied power . . .are so
central to the office that they remain beyond the Constitutional reach of
legislative prohibition."
Yet, what's the problem with the "raid" on Congress?
Cleary, there is, in the mind of Addington, a limit that is
unconstitutional.
It is up to Addington to explain:
limited by the Constitution.
Keep in mind what we have in the Minority Report: On page 471,
Addington and others have discussed the Jackson test in re Youngstown.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the
express or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb
those who signed the Minority Report -- Cheney and Hatch -- are in violent
agreement that the FISA statute is the law of the land.]
Yet what did Hatch do during Hayden's hearing? He rand down a list of
briefings that Hayden gave without looking at either
the conduct of the NSA; or whether the FISA had or had not been violated.
It would appear that Hatch is unable to recollect the document he signed.
And
Courts can sustain exclusive Presidential control in such a case
only by disabling the congress from acting upon the subject
Again:
is "denied" the power to do this.
What does this tell us:
themselves;
FISA statute confirms the President’s power is at its low point;
should have been reasonably been apprised of the FISA in context of the
Jackson test.
This is a problem for the Chief of Staff to explain, not for the
Public to "possibly not have thrown out of court" under the good graces
of the Court.
Again, going back to page 472 of the Minority Report, the Vice President
and Chief of Staff emphases that the Congress can be "disabled" from
asserting any oversight, but they fail to mention on every important thing:
It is the court that disables the Congress, not the Vice
President and his Chief of Staff.
If this Chief of Staff is going to invoke Jackson during the Iran-Contra,
and emphasize that there are some "disabling" factors (thereby preventing
Congress any role under Jackson's third standard). then this Chief of Staff
has to admit that he is arguing against himself:
the only way that he can argue "congress has no role" is if the court
so adjudicates [See the Minority Report in re Jackson test]; yet at the same time
Congress has well asserted, and the Vice President and his Chief of
Staff have assented to, the FISA statutes.
Notice also the problem [p472, n3] that the Chief of Staff has: He's specifically
invoked a distinguishing clause on whether the issue is externally
focused, or internally focused.
I would indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his [the President's]
exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside word
for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward not because of rebellion but because of
lawful economic disputes between industry and labor, it should have no such indulgence
You cannot assert that this issue is "national security" -- beyond
Congress's ability to mention, per the Jackson test -- when Congress has
already asserted a role which the courts have affirmed in countless
FISA cases.
Again, the Vice President and Chief of Staff are arguing against themselves.
They would have the public believe that the Jackson test is or isn't relevant;
yet they clearly know that this test is real, and well documented the test
in their 1987 Minority Report.
NSA/FISA issue, why did he sign the report which clearly includes this situation?
to the minority report"?
But let's not stop there. You'd think that despite using a Minority Report
in 1987 that undermines their NSA-legal defense in 2006, they'd keep quiet
about it. Not hits crew.
Putting aside the issue of whether this case citation has been adequately cited
or stated, let's simply Take note of the comments on 473, in :
[T]The Court was indicating that the lack of inherent and "cognate"
constitutional powers in the sphere of domestic policy meant that the Court
should apply a more rigorous delegation standard than it had for foreign policy.
This tells us several things:
where the target of that surveillance is located
of the argument and preventing the court from using a rigorous delegation standard
that was otherwise not used before illegally invading Iraq using fabricated information;
That certainly destroys the Vice President's argument that the court has "no say".
Let's check:
that this Vice President and Chief of Staff have said cannot be reviewed in court?
have anything to do with national security, but are actually related to the
explicit conclusion that the court would oppose the President --
using the very case they argued in Iran Contra -- on the grounds that the
Court must have a more rigorous delegation standard?
surveillance is not domestic -- thereby subject to this more rigorous
review by the court -- when it is targeting domestic people?
Of Staff then well clarified), suddenly get ignored when discussing the issues
of the NSA domestic spying?
clear power, yet that "power" can only exist where there is a vacuum?
It appears they want it both ways:
should not be given attention, should be ignored;
to justify a difference between domestic and foreign relations in
the Iran-Contra Minority Report, are to be ignored.
oversight adjudicated by the court so long as the Court will ignore the law; but
that when the Court might rule for the law, every argument is made to
avoid the Minority Report case citations, and keep the entire discussion
secret, out of the court, and beyond the more rigorous delegation standard
that the Minority Report authors argued for in 1987.
that undermines their argument in re NSA-FISA?
that shows the Vice President and Chief of Staff have no credibility?
that invokes various standards of review and evidence on domestic issues,
only to have them in 2006 argue the opposite -- that those statutes do not apply?
We're talking about the same people. The Vice President cannot argue that this is an internal work product, or that counsel was merely offering the legal views of an advocate. These are signed statements which were published, then referred to repeatedly in 2006 by his free choice. That is a ratification of comments that are adverse to his current legal interests, and are admissible to a Grand Jury.
They want to stand on both sides of the issue. When the case law goes one way,
they are there asserting the Congress cannot have a voice; but when the
Congress has spoken out, they assert that the Courts have no say; yet the
very Case law invoked clearly shows that the Congress not only has a say,
but that determination must be adjudicated by the court.
conclusions: That the law mandating court review on domestic issues
is a basis to defer to the President; but the same domestic review cannot
occur because the court might not "go their way".
They were very clear in 1987 in the Minority report: A "more rigorous
delegation standard" when it comes to issues of domestic issues; and that the
"foreign matters" have greater deference for the President.
and recording of the Oregon Attorney phone calls was not part of the US?
Congress that has said that Oregon is no longer part of the Untied States?
Ocean?
aliens and is no longer part of the planet earth!
Ladies and Gentlemen, either
admit in 1987 that because Oregon is connected to the US, that the President
can engage in domestic surveillance in 2006 for the same reason and
it remains subject to the courts review; or
element, and that the actual issue is whether or not the law is or is not followed.
Page 474: "Protecting American Lives Abroad"
Let's apply the same approach:
they have their rights violated?
Americans when Americans are subjected to greater intrusions and violations of their
rights at home?
NO answers from the Vice President and his Chief of Staff.
through 10th Amendment?
Page 474: US Navy Commander George S. Hollins demanded reparations from Nicaragua
for damages after a riot. The Nicaraguans refused.
Today in 2006, the US government refuses to cooperate with the Court -- which
the Vice President and his Chief of Staff invoked as a factor in Curtis Wright.
What is the Vice President and his Chief of Staff suggesting:
right to do worldwide what Hollins did in Nicaragua?
precedent should be invoked at home?
If Presidential "power" is invoked to "protect Americans abroad," why is
that same principle is not used to protect them at home from those who
violate the law, Constitution, and Geneva Conventions?
Again, let's use the Minority Report to answer this question:
Note 14, page 476, Chapter 4:
Another privilege of a citizens of the United States is to
demand the care and protection of the federal Government over his life,
liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of
a foreign government. On this there is no doubt.
No doubt: This is a quote which the Vice President and his Chief of Staff are associated with; have been ratified; and have been signed as representing their position.
But the facts and events of 2001-2006 is completely at odds with this: They assert the opposite: That there is “doubt,” despite clearly promulgated rights, duties, powers, and responsibilities in the Constitution, and Geneva Convention.
These duties imposed on the American President relate to Americans and belligerents, regardless their legal status. Those agreements, documents are no doubt in full force; and have not been abrogated, however much the Chief of Staff may desire.
These privileges were invoked as the basis for action in Iran Contra.
Yet these same "privileges" are deemed "quaint" when mentioned in the
Context of the US Constitution, FISA, 4th Amendment, or the Geneva Conventions.
We can only conclude that the "concern with rights and privileges" was not
invoke din 1987 because of an interest to "protect" those rights, but merely
an excuse for action.
Today, where is the "action" to protect those rights at home?
None. We have excuse to violate those rights, engage in abuse, and ignore the
laws and the court.
This Vice President and his Chief of Staff have no credibility. They invoked
in 1987 principles about "protecting rights and privileges" abroad to
Justify illegal action; yet, when it comes to preserving those rights
and privileges at home in 2006 in re NSA and FISA, where are they? No where.
the Vice President and the Senate suddenly "good enough" in 2006?
Again, we are in an either-or trap: Either
and falsely asserted that they were "concerned" about rights and privileges
to justify foreign action, but were silent on the domestic abuse of power; OR
contention that they are "concerned" about the "same issue" raised in the
Minority Report; and have no genuine desire to ensure that the "rights
and privileges" they invoked to justify legal action abroad should actually
be honored at home.
The issue isn't simply what has been abused in 2006 in Iraq; but what fiction
did this crew invoke in 1987, that they had no intention of credibly planning
for in 2002 on the even of the Iraq invasion.
Again, going back to the Minority Report, they invoke this vague notion of
"concern for American privileges" when justifying illegal action in Nicaragua;
while at the same time they invoke another phony argument over WMD to do
the same in Iraq: Violate the law, make excuses, and then pretend that there
is a very good reason for it.
Again, the issue is that the RNC has been let down. The RNC may have invoked
the "abuse" of the Iran-Contra affair (that they imposed on themselves
by ignoring the law); and then turned around and (like Hitler after World War One),
completely ignored the fiction they created, and defied every "principle" they
said they were acting on behalf.
Go read Mein Kampf and compare what Hitler was saying; and then keeping mind
the contrast between [a] the Iran-Contra affair Minority of 1987; and [b]
the actual NSA-FISA violations in the wake of Sept 2001.
Nothing adds up. The only thing this crew is doing is abusing their "knowledge"
of the law; while at the same time asserting that the laws of war do not apply.
Yet, the US has not abrogated the Treaty.
Rather, the issue under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions, is what is to be
done when a legal representative working in the Chief of Staff's office is
asserting that the law of the land, treaties, and Constitution no longer apply?
Clearly, that person should be investigated for possible disbarment. They
appear to have sided themselves with both sides of the issue: Selectively
twisting the law.
Yet, what we know is that article 82 clearly imposes a legal requirement on
the legal community to ensure that the Geneva Conventions are followed, not unilaterally abrogated without consultation with the Senate.
Had this Chief of Staff been open to the professional, competent, and well
educated views of the Judge Advocate General, he might have not found himself
in this trap.
But this Chief of Staff now has a problem.
we can easily deliver an indictment to his home address
tests;
when the courts have been introduced.
But what does he want us to believe:
because "of some big event that may have happene3d in Nicaragua in the 1800s"
What a load of non0-snese.
Either Geneva does apply, or it does not. Either Article 82 does apply,
and is a standard which is imposed on Attorneys; or it does not.
Either it is lawful or it is not lawful to render those who are part of a
"lawless nation."
If you're going to assert that the Taliban is a "stateless" organization,
and ignore the issue of "belligerents" then you are subjecting yourself to
lawful rendition as an Attorney living in Arlington to the same
standard which you have ignored when it comes to other people who are part of
other institution that defy the law.
Let's compare the Taliban to the present US government and system which
this Chief of Staff have invoked and substantially supported:
applicable
The list is endless
The point is that This Chief of Staff, by denying the Taliban
certain "rights" they are otherwise afforded under Geneva, has abrogated
the very protections he might have been entitled to had he not
ignored them. SO what is to happen?
is above the law, not subject to debarment, and that the rules in re fraud
and allegations of misconduct under the DC Bar are not applicable?
Keep in mind the cases cited above when reviewing the court procedures.
As the Minority Staff member to now-Vice President Cheney this Chief of Staff
well knows the FISA. FISA was passed in 1978, fully 9 years before the Minority Report
was written.
This Chie of staff graduated with honors from Georgetown and Duke; he's well
versed on the law; and he well knows the professional rules of conduct.
He's also in a position to influence, advise, and otherwise influence policy.
Nuremberg specifically found those who were in a position to advise, organize,
and otherwise assisting Hitler as being substantially supportive of the national policy.
This Chief Of Staff is a member of the DC bar; he is well known; and he is
the assistant to the Second most powerful man on Planet earth.
What do we know?
We know that this Chief of Staff has written a minority report; and that he
has authorized the very terms invoked today, but on the other side.
Where there is a claim that the Executive can violate the law to "protect"
Americans abroad, that principle is lost at home: Americans are told they
have to put up with whatever they get.
Yet, this Chief of Staff well knows that the Congress can be excluded if the court
is part of that process.
Yet, what does this Chief of Staff do? By the record, it appears he does not want
to do what he's done in re the Iran Contra affair. Where the Minority called for
close court oversight as a means to ejected the Congress, this Chief of Staff now
wants to keep both the court and the Congress out of the review on a domestic
matter, exactly what Jackson in his 3rd Test said.
This Chief of Staff well knows the statutes, the laws, and case law. He's cited them.
We leave it for another day to decide whether the case law he has cited in the Minority
Report resemble anything remotely resembling a credible argument.
The issue before is, if we accept what he is alleged to have asserted in the Minority Report
as true, why are we asked to embrace another alternate set of facts when it comes to the NSA
and FISA?
It is clear of one thing: Gonzalez and this Chief of Staff are not longer on the same page.
There is discord within the RNC. The problem with the RNC is that they were lied to in
the wake of the Iran Contra affair; and all the principles that they were supposedly
"fighting for" when it came to Nicaragua have been jettisoned.
Go down the line. Consider the Minority Report on the Iran Contra affair for what it is:
It is a statement of a position.
Simply compare that position to what we are being asked to believe in 2006.
The two positions do not match. Why? Because this is not a person who is arguing from the heart;
this Chief of Staff is arguing the law merely to assert power.
That is no different than the excuses Hitler's lawyers gave to justify what Hitler
advocated in Mein Kampf.
Read about Hitler's assertion of "Emergency" and consider what we know about the lies
over Iraq WMD and the false "urgency" of action in Iran.
The story is the same. They are using propaganda, lies, and deception to manipulate not
just the American public, but the world.
The issue is whether this world will mandate that American assent to the rule of law
freely; or have that rule of law imposed from without.
This Chief of Staff clearly shows he is well adept at arguing the law; but he is not
adept at removing himself from an alleged conspiracy to undermine the US Constitution.
At every turn, it appears that this Chief of Staff was well connected to the Downing Street Memo;
that he deliberately ignored the competent legal advice of the Judge Advocate Generals;
and that at every turn he has abrogated the Geneva Convention, at the time that he
under Article 82 should have been vigorously moving to ensure those standards of
conduct were enforced.
I encourage you to take a broad view of the entire set of events between 1983 and 2006.
Look at the entire Iran-Contra affair not in terms of what was permissible, but consider
what was asserted to be required.
Then compare that to what we have today in 2006. And as yourself, "How can the Chief of Staff
explain the difference between what he was asserting in 1987 vs. what he is actually
advocating in 2006?"
The two stories do not add up. There is one simple reason. This Chief of Staff has
a higher loyalty to the idea of power, than to the lawful employment of that power under
the rule of law.
This Chief of Staff remains an alleged domestic threat to the US Constitution.
This Chief of Staff remains an alleged violation of his attorney oath of office.
This Chief of Staff deserves to be closely watched, not simply because of his alleged
reckless disregard for the law, but because he cannot credibly be believed to offer any
credible legal argument that will justify where the nation now finds itself: In complete
defiance of international treaties.
This is not an issue of power. These are matters of criminal law.
The issue is how many more people may be sent to their deaths; and how many more
Americans are going to be told to "put up with" something that this RNC supposedly
took action in Nicaragua to prevent: The abuse of power, and the violation of rights.
It is time to broaden the scope of the investigation into this Chief of Staff.
He appears to be related not to a simple issue of leaking a name of a protected person,
but actively in close support of actions that have one goal: TO ignore and not follow
the very procedures he asserted should be followed before the court.
When lawful procedures are not followed, and they are ignored -- for whatever reason -- and
that results in some outcome, then that is called fraud.
Rather than embrace Congress and the courts to ensure that Jackson's 3rd test was invoked
in re Iran Contra, this Vice Chief of Staff argued that the court and Congress should be kept in the dark
on matters related to the full actions directed at Americans to deprive them of their
full protections.
This Chief of Staff argued that the US should take action in Nicaragua and Iraq.
When will this Chief of Staff similarly argue the same when it comes to Americans?
Ladies and gentlemen, when someone with this much education and access to power
engaged in alleged fraudulent conduct, they deserve to be investigated for potential
violations of the law and f0r purposes of disbarment.
Anything else, and it merely sends another green light to the same abuse of power this nation
so heroically stood up against in 1776.
This Chief of Staff must choose: Do you stand by what you wrote in 1987; or are you
invoking privileges and immunities you have denied others?
You may not choose both.
It is time to choose.
Americans have already chosen. They chose in 1776 to defy those who undermine the rule of law.
Americans are fully prepared to do the same in 2006. Even if it means ensuring that
the Chief of Staff is lawfully denied the ability to every practice law in any court room in
America,
This Chief of Staff has to decide:
to create legal non-sense.
or are you going to subject yourself to violations of the very "protections" you assert
other belligerents are not entitled.
yourself being associated with a law-abiding entity; or are you going to descend to the levels
that you said existed in Iraq, Nicaragua and in Afghanistan.
Choose.
posted by Constant @ 6:14 PM
<< Home