Constant's pations

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

Thursday, June 15, 2006

NSA: Constitutional Safeguards -- What new excuses does POTUS have?

It's very interesting what some in the RNC might dream to justify inaction.

What you can do: Spend your time learning the tricks Addington and Cheney used to twist the legal arguments in the Iran-Contra report; and how they did this between 2000-2006 [in re abrogating Geneva; violating the US Constitution with warrantless interrogations; conducting illegal NSA surveillance, rendition, and the illegal war crimes/abuse/torture].

* * *

Regardless what issue is on the table, the RNC's common approach is simple: Create excuses not to do what they should do. ANWR is a case in point.

Issue: Man-hours Expended on ANWR

Questions [ #14 ]

  • 1. How many times each session of this Republican Congress has ANWAR been put on the table,

  • 2. how many times did we have to step to the plate and devote significant resources to once again defeat it?

    Response "It Depends."

    - The ratio of articles to committee hearings is about 37: 1
    - The Congress has held 10 hearings on the issue since 1991.
    - In the 13 years since RNC controlled congress in 1994, it's been brought up 2.6 times each Congressional session.

    * * *

    When you say "put on the table" are you talking a committee hearing, or a floor vote, or something else?

    * * *

    There Have been 10 Committee Hearings since 1994

    2005: - 1
    2004: 0
    2003: - 1
    2002: 0
    2001: - 1
    2000: -- 2
    1999: 0
    1998: - 1
    1997: 0
    1996: 0
    1995: - 1
    1994: 0
    1993: 0
    1992: 0
    1991: -- 2

    If we assume that "this Republican Congress" means "back to 1994". . ., which would be the 104th Congress.

    1. ANWR's Benefits for Small Business, CIS-NO: 2006-H721-1, CIS-DATE: 2006, SOURCE: Committee on Small Business. House, May 19, 2005., Y4.SM1:109-16.

    2. H.R. 39, Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2003; and H.R. 770, Morris K. Udall Arctic Wilderness Act, CIS-NO: 2003-H651-95, CIS-DATE: September, 2003, Committee on Resources. House, Apr. 5, 2003, Y4.R31/3:108-13,

    3. H.R. 39, Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act, CIS-NO: 2003-H651-117, December, 2003, Committee on Resources. House, Mar. 12, 2003, Y4.R31/3:108-6

    4. H.R. 2436, the Energy Security Act, CIS-NO: 2002-H651-36, Committee on Resources. House, July 11, 2001, Y4.R31/3:107-48,

    5. Oversight Hearing on Compromising Our National Security by Restricting Domestic Exploration and Development of Our Oil and Gas Reserves, CIS-NO: 2001-H651-13, March, 2001, Committee on Resources. House, Apr. 12, 2000 Y4.R31/3:106-91

    6. Energy Potential of the 1002 Area; and the Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act of 2000, CIS-NO: 2000-S311-53, October, 2000, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senate, S. Hrg. 106-605, Apr. 5, 2000, Y4.EN2:S.HRG.106-605,

    7. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Resources, CIS-NO: 99-S311-14, CIS-DATE: April, 1999, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senate, S. Hrg. 105-755, July 23, 1998, Y4.EN2:S.HRG.105-755

    8. Arctic Coastal Plain Leasing, CIS-NO: 95-H651-32, CIS-DATE: December, 1995, Committee on Resources. House, Aug. 3, 1995, Y4.R31/3:104-33

    9. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, CIS-NO: 96-S311-13, March, 1996, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senate, S. Hrg. 104-333, Aug. 2, 1995, Y4.EN2:S.HRG.104-333

    10. Alaska Oil Reserves, CIS-NO: 95-S311-61, CIS-DATE: December, 1995, SOURCE: Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senate, S. Hrg. 104-202, July 18, 1995, Y4.EN2:S.HRG.104-202

    11. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Part II, CIS-NO: 92-H561-11, SOURCE: Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. House, Aug. 7, 1991, Y4.M53:102-35.

    12. Developing the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, CIS-NO: 91-S321-31, SOURCE: Committee on the Environment and Public Works. [ S. Hrg. 102-104, May 10, 1991, Y4.P96/10:S.hrg.102-104

    * * *

    Workload and Media Coverage

    The other way to look at the issue, isn't simply how many times it's been brought up, but what kind of media coverage there has been. In other words, the "media coverage" has been far more extensive, and generates far more man-hours to respond to the issue.

  • There are Roll Call Policy Briefs in the early 1990s

  • The outcomes are sometimes opposite: "Republican lawmakers rein in government by attacking environmental regulations, The Hill, January 17, 1996"

    There are 370+ ANWR-related publications since 1991. Each one would require a review, an analysis. Using rough math, the ratio of Committee Hearings to coverage is 1:37.

    * * *

    US Government Search: [Google ]

    House Resources ANWR

    ANWR History [ Click ]

    * * *

    Philosophy Questions

    If you had the answer to "how many times," what would this do? It wouldn't make the Executive Branch more interested in reading the case law or protecting the Constitution.

    How would voters rally to the Constitution? They haven't yet, so there's no reason to believe they will now. The only way is to directly target the attorneys with a credible threat of disbarment, and lawfully remove them one by one from the legal landscape.

    Would it wake the voters up to something? No, the voters would simply yawn.

    Why should the voters care how many times the issue has been brought up? It's merely another red herring the RNC uses to distract attention from the requirement of attorneys to do their job, not misrepresent things, and focus on priorities.

    Is there something more important than ANWR that is getting less attention? Yes, but even if ANWR weren't on the table, DoJ and the White House would have other excuses not to do their job. Despite lying about FISA warrants, they're already surfing the internet doing things unrelated to DOJ and FISA as it is.

    How does the number of times ANWR has been raised related to the number of signing statements? The President would simply create another excuse not to read the case law, and selectively cherry pick from the statutes, as we have seen in the Iran-Contra Minority Report.

    How does the number of ANWR hearings and man-hours spent on ANWR detract from the time that the EOP/DOJ Attorneys have been surfing the internet, not doing their official business? DoJ would still make up excuses not to do what is required.

    Even if ANWR were not an issue, would the EOP/DOJ attorneys have spent more or less time on the Constitution and official business? Answer: They'd still be doing non-FISA related website updates and discussing non-official business with their lobbyist-spouses.

    * * *

    The ABA-trained "attorneys" lied to us about Iraq and the oil. Why should we believe their stories about ANWR?

    If ANWR is "such a sure thing," why wasn't the oil in ANWR secured, before embarking in Iraq?

    Why should we believe that AlQueda "wanted a war" between the US and Iran? That's a little too convenient. Everyone, including Bolton, Bush, Cheney, and Osama Bin Ladin wants war. What's our Constitution got to say on illegal war and non imminent threats?

    The US has violated the NPT treaty. Does this mean the US is now a legitimate military target?

    The US while Cheney was in the White House in the 1970s wanted to encourage Iran to develop nuclear power. Why isn't Cheney being forced to explain his flip-flop on whether it is good or bad for Iran to have nuclear power?

    The UK has a problem with its natural gas and the North Sea supplies are running low; they are talking about developing nuclear fuel options. Why can't Iran have other options besides oil?

    The US is pushing for ANWR because of the "peak oil" issue and the "energy independence" argument. Why isn't Iran allowed to use those same arguments, and transition into nuclear power?

    * * *

    The US's excuses for war in Iran make no sense. They've decided on an outcome and are creating the non-sense to back it up.

    Addington in 1987 showed he would twist the laws in the Iran-Contra report. Our Constitution has been trashed.

    When will those who have spewed froth this non-sense -- those in the US legal community -- be held to account for their violations of Article 82 of the 1929 Geneva Convention?

    The burden rests with the legal community. Their lawyers have a duty to not provide misleading information. When they claim to be an attorney, but are connected with outright fabrications delivered to Congress, they have not only committed fraud, but they have defied their oath to conduct themselves in a professional manner.

  • How many shares do they own in the firms they are auditing?

  • How many off shore accounts have the law firms created to hide the oil profits?

  • What's the law firm incentive to ignore the law, expand power, and abuse the public?

    One answer: Money.

    Then it is time to take that away from them and deprive them of their livelihoods and access to what they want.

    They need to be disbarred and put in jail.

    Anything else, and our Constitution is going to get further trashed. Stay focused on the DoJ attorneys, and their connection to the AT&T commercial interests. There is a cross flow of people back and forth, in and out of government. The more you dig, the more you will find it is about protecting their access to money, and keep them immune for violations of the law.

    Time to take account for their abuse of their position. They have defied their oath. They do not deserve to be trusted. Unless you put yourself first, the attorneys will lie to you. They are not to be trusted. You have to assert yourselves. They will twist the case law to arrive at pre-determined, unlawful outcomes. Make them put everything in writing, and get them to sign it under penalty of perjury. Then ask questions and rip apart their work products. Their work is trash, just as we have see with this 1987 report.

    They are not your friends. They are you enemies. Treat them that way. Until you do, they will continue to defy their oath to the Constitution.

    The American legal community is the number one threat to the US Constitution. They are the domestic enemy. Until the rule of law is imposed on the American legal community, your Constitution will continue to be trashed.

    They wished this.

    If you don't do this, there are other nations who are willing to intervene and force them to assent to the rule of law.

    They can be lawfully be defeated. Stay focused on the current-former EOP/DoJ attorneys and compel them to explain themselves. They have no straight answers.

    Now you know how to play them off against each other.

    * * *

    The voters need to know that you have a sound plan in place:

  • Willing to assert the rule of law

  • Reliable information and governance

  • People willing to call it like it is

  • People who will solve problems lawfully

    Now is not the time to point to what is wrong. Now is the time to present your solutions to show what will be done to address the problems. Don't wait until November to figure things out.

    Organize your "plan to get a plan" now. It can be done. If you fail, your Constitution is going to get trashed more. Don't worry, there are other lawful, peaceful options. Well deal with that when we get to January 2007.

    Until then, stay focused on mobilizing the RNC voters to have confidence in your leadership in the DNC. They have alot of propaganda to wade through from both sides right now. They need to know that there is a serious crew in place.

    Do that.