Conyers Report: Patterns of Abuse Continues

Having not read the full 370 report, I am at a disadvantage and have read only the summary report which comprises just over 14 pages, with 12 pages of footnotes.

My purpose for commenting it to share what may be some methods to link the valid concerns with the events of the day. Rather than let the events of Iran and Lebanon overshadow the illegal activity, the goal is to use the report as a basis to better see through the distraction from Accountability.

[Note: The title should read, "Pattern of Abuse Continues", but the URL has already been linked, so it's staying as it is. Sorry for the spelling error.]

* * *

General Remarks

This report is an important milestone. My peers in the RNC will see that this document forms the basis to conclude several things: That the House Ranking Leader has a viable plan in place, is well organized, and can quickly amass large body of facts and succinctly distill them into a readable document.

The report should also be taken as an important guide and well documented plan for leadership. Congressman Conyers has demonstrated that he's not only committed to finding facts, but that he's willing to persevere despite no support from the Majority Congressional leadership. This is the very individual the American public needs at the Chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee.

The report itself should be seen as an important milestone in asserting the rule of law. The investigation has not started, yet the body of evidence is already large, growing, and well organized. Before we can proceed with the investigation into the President’s misconduct, we need a plan. Congressman Conyers has the very plan his Committee needs to continue to do its work. His investigation will for the important ground breaking work needed to objectively assess what the problems are, and what reasonable remedies, if any, are required.

The report should be taken as what it is: A large document that has not been adequately given the support from the House Judiciary Chairman. Rather, despite no support, the report has grown to an unacceptably large, and damning indictment of the volume of evidence this Congress refuses to address.

What is noteworthy is the length of the final report: Over 370 pages of text and references. The formal House Judiciary Committee Investigations have not started. However, the report length should be considered as indicative of the enormity of the problem which Congress refuses to face.

Despite no help, the DNC Staff on the House Judiciary Committee has done amazing things. They are well organized, and deserve our continued support as they prepare to take their rightful position as the Majority Party Investigating Staff. Our Constitution needs their dedication, and the American people cannot afford to be without them.

Please join me in applauding Congressman Conyers and his staff for their continued work. Let's continue to reach out to Republicans in my party who are starting to realize that we will have to work together to find the facts, then jointly discuss what is to be done to protect this Constitution.


* * *

It is my contention, perhaps shared by others, that the events in Lebanon and Iran are part of a deliberate effort to distract attention from the war crimes liabilities facing the RNC.

Let us put that side for the moment, and approach the Conyers report from the RNC perspective, but use today's focus on Iran and Lebanon as a means to illustrate the importance of the Conyers report.

Ref Conyers outlines the deceptions of Iraq WMD. Putting aside the contention that Senator Roberts is delaying the WMD report, and that the results of that report could be used during the first weeks of 2009 to remove the President, the point for the RNC faithful is clear: We've learned the President lied about the threat in Iraq. Iraq was invaded first.

Yet, in 2006, we're asked to believe that this threat is more looming in Iran.

If the President's version of events is true -- that Iran is a looming threat -- why wasn't Iran invaded first?

Conversely, given we know the President has lied about WMD, why should we believe his contentions that there is pressing problem in Iran?

Iraq's Hussein substantially complied with the UN resolutions. Putting aside the no-fly zone and ability to keep Hussein in a box, why are we to believe the contention that Iran is lying about whether it is or is not doing something?

* * *

Let's consider the issue of accusations without evidence. This is a common theme when it comes to rendition, NSA surveillance, and other illegal things. The point is that the White House has been invoking Sept 2001 events as a pretext.

There is a major problem: The illegal activity was occurring before Sept 2001: Illegal Iraq-invasion planning and NSA monitoring.

The point not to be lost is that there is a common approach to the law, regardless whether we are examining the abuses in the Conyers report, or today's events. Given this entrenched pattern, it's prudent to explore the misconduct rather than jump to the next (likely) manufactured crisis/excuse to distract attention.

* * *

As you read the summary report, and the detailed Conyers report, make an effort to generalize the common themes. Here's a sample.

As you go through the Conyers report, consider what we learned from Watergate and the Iran-Contra Minority Report: There is a core pattern of abuse which is not new. It doesn't matter what the facts are related to the means and details of the abuse; the more general issue which compels voter understanding and decision: What method will be most credible to protect the Constitution.

It is irrelevant whether there have or have not been crimes. At this juncture, we have a far more fundamental problem: Congress refuses to ask the question: What happened.

* * *

As you read the details of what occurred over yellow cake, recall the friendly reminder from Attorney Fitzpatrick: Some of the Libby arguments, although true, are not relevant.

We need not argue over facts or who is or isn't correct, when the fundamental truth remains in doubt. The approach of this Congress isn't to resolve ambiguity, but to create distractions to avoid resolving ambiguity. That is not leadership, nor does it protect our Constitution, as they are required under 5 USC 3331.

* * *

As you review the manipulations for war, consider two larger themes:

War was decided, yet there was no planning to comply with Geneva, which Hamdan affirmed was a requirement;

Illegal activity started before the events of Sept 2001, so whether there is or is not a "big scary threat," is meaningless: The President and DoJ Staff had already agreed to a course of conduct that was illegal, regardless the existence or no-existence of the FISA-war-provisions or AUMF. In turn, this meaningless invocation of the AUMF, needs to be considered when reviewing the AT&T and FISA surveillance: The AUMF is a read herring, as you can see in these diagrams. [See Diagram-1 (note 2) and Diagram-3 (note D) ]

The point is that the DoJ Staff attorneys have invoked the AUMF multiple times; yet, Gonzalez now reports to Senator Feinstein that "we're not at war" and "FISA terms related to war do not matter."

The point for the RNC voters is that their leadership keeps changing the story to match facts, but now the stories are not longer consistent. This deserves a review, but the RNC is quick to wave the flag to jump into Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Yet, despite this desire to jump, the RNC has no resources or plan to sustain the (likely) US (future) commitment in Lebanon, much less the (current, real) requirements in Iraq.

The RNC leadership botched the Iraq planning, liked about the evidence, and still has no plan for Iraq. There's no reason we should trust the RNC leadership to adequately manage the (likely) manufactured crisis with Israel. Rather, the RNC enjoys crisis so that it can create confusion, and distract the public from the initial war crimes and evidence of incompetence.

* * *

When reviewing the Vice President's abuse of information and analysts, it's useful to recall the similar (contrasting) approach to information when it came to the Iran-Contra affair.

Where Cheney in 2000-2006 twists information to suit his ends, then-Representative Cheney in 1997 appealed to "find facts" as an excuse to delay accountability. Just as some staged events are outrageous, other sham events are covered up. With this leadership their statements are not credible. Their only agenda is to abuse power, and their excuses are just that: An excuse to not be held accountable. They do not deserve to be treated with respect, but with disdain.

* * *

At this juncture, recall the Bybee and Goldsmith memos. They are evidence of DoJ Staff attorney knowledge of requirements, but their assent to excuse to ignore Article 82 Geneva requirements affirmed in Hamdan and remain ignored in Iraq and Lebanon.

What does the President plan to do if the US is called into action in Syria and Lebanon: Suddenly "follow the laws" he openly admits he has insufficiently trained people to follow? It's absurd to believe US combat forces are going to be in a position to treat any prisoners of war humanely. Rather, the RNC is spinning the public to justify committing more abuses against Arabs and Moslems.

The issue isn't the pretext to target a specific religion; rather, it's the domestic climate which embraces the abuse of authority, but does not little to quickly ensure the laws of war are followed.

* * *


Recall also here (in some cases) the courts assent to state secrets, and the refusal to investigate Rendition; and contrast that with the Judge Walker decision to review the AT&T-NSA allegations despite this privilege.
Adam appears to be part of the public relations effort to explain away the judicial decisions to do nothing.

Yet, recall from Ludwigsburg and Nuremburg that the Judicial officers can be prosecuted for failing to enforce the law, or not investigating things they knew, or should have known were illegal.

* * *

Recall here the Geneva Article 82 requirements of the DoJ Staff attorneys to comply with Geneva; and contrast what we were openly told, with what we've later found out: The Constitution has been ignored, they did not get required warrants, and information has been illegally obtained by the NSA to justify illegal rendition, warrantless interrogations, and subsequent abuse of innocent people.

The common theme is: One abuse led to anther, then to another . . . Where's the circuit breaker?

* * *

Here recall the ORCON requirements, and how these have been selectively ignored: Illegal activity has been (illegally) classified.

* * *

Recall here the rude reality of Iraq: Despite it being a war of choice, the illegal occupation/invasion was inadequately planned, there's been contract fraud and incompetence, and the US knew well before 2000 that substantial troops would be required. Because of the poor planning, the US failed to adequately prepare for the Geneva requirements of occupation, and subsequently committed (when it decided to go to war in 2000-2002 timeframe with insufficient troops) to a another round of war crimes: Inadequate troops to comply with Geneva requirements on an occupying force.

* * *

As you read this recall the many efforts Congress is using to avoid investigating, but change the law, thereby duplicating the problem of Watergate: Permitting the Executive to exercise the powers of other branches.

The theme is simple: One constitutional abuse, left unchecked, leads to another. Soon, the scope of the abuse is so large, the DoJ Staff attorneys claim, "It's such a large mess, we can't do anything." Fortunately, the ABA has been (somewhat) awoken form its coma. maybe the Senate Judiciary committee will ask real questions, and ignore the Executive "direction" to avoid certain "touchy subjects" like an attorneys legal thinking. Ref

* * *

The general lesson of this is that the law is there for all to follow, not to be explained away. Article II requires the Executive to enforce the law.

Despite dismissing the case against the government, Kennelly's opinion on page 39 shows us that Congress has a duty to enforce the law.

* * *

The issue here with "fully informed" requirement, is the President's (apparent) failure to comply with the Title 50 mandatory requirement on the President to inform Congress of the illegal activity.

Even if the President creates a "nice story" to justify the illegal activity, he can't explain why he’s failed to comply with Title 50 which imposes a duty to report that illegal activity.

Congress, in the Kennelly opinion, appears to have been informed of other illegal activity, but refuses to openly investigate this illegal activity. [ See 27-18 of 40 ]

* * *

When reviewing the misleading Executive statements, ask why the RNC is not in favor of the ABA conducting peer reviews; or why the RNC does not want to have the Attorney General, Yoo, Addington, Kesiler, or Moschella, Viet Dinh investigated and disbarred.

The answer is simple: They hope to avoid being held accountable.

Small problem: We know the Attorney General is lying about the "buy DoJ Staff" because of open evidence showing the DoJ Staff was not busy with "important things," but surfing the internet. Ref

* * *

On this page, consider the open source information linking AT&T, NARUS, and the NSA. Ref ]

* * *

Here, recall the DoJ AG subsequently revealed the President ordered the DoJ OPR to be blocked, raising the prospect of POTUS obstruction of justice into DOJ OPR review of attorney misconduct. Here are some questions you may wish to consider in light of the apparent obstruction. These are questions which need to be addressed before we give a green light for broader compat operations in the Middle East.

It's one thing to botch a pre-planned disaster; quite another to embark on a second phase while the forces are bogged down in the first quagmire. The US has no credible basis to threaten anyone, and the disaster in Iraq is inspiring other actors to rise up against the United States. The answer isn't to mobilize for war, but to comprehend what our reckless leadership is doing to contribute to the disaster. Ref

The generic abuses are pervasive, overwhelming, and warrant investigation, impeachment, and removal from office.

Read more . . .

Lebanon: Reivisiting 9-11 -- Some Staging Is More Staged Than Others

Remember those images of the 9-11 buildings? Some said they were staged.

The key is to notice the contrast, as we did with the DoJ Staff Attorney rendering.

Update: Contrast the uproar over the Adnan Hajj photoshopped images, with the silence over the 9-11 dubious explanations.

* * *

Some staging is off limits; other staging grounds for outrage.

Some suggest Hezbolla staged photos of another building. Let me get this straight:

9-11: We are not going to look at evidence of a staged collapse. Ref

Lebanon: We are going to look at evidence that Hezbollah staged the events.

* * *

Those who claim that Hezbollah is "up to something" with this so called staging, cannot adequately explain why they're not just as outraged at the more compelling evidence the WTC tower collapse was staged, and not brought down by aircraft.

The point isn't whether the Hezbollah pictures are or are not staged, but that those who are quick to point to Hezbollah’s staged-photos are likely silent on evidence related to WTC staged collapse.

* * *

Judgments

1. Agendas

Evidence of the WTC staged collapse did not getting the same level concern by the RNC as has the Hezbollah staging because the 9-11 staged collapse is inconvenient, and doesn't fit into the RNC agenda: Find an excuse to mobilize for war.

2. Power of Images

The RNC knew during 9-11 the power of staging a collapse on film. The RNC is outraged at the Hezbollah "staging" because the RNC knows full well what's involved, and what the implications of a staged building collapse are: The population can be manipulated to believe false things.

3. RNC has two standards on challenging falsity

Some false things, even if irrelevant, are good for the RNC discuss; other false things, if known to be false, are to be denied using other false things.

The RNC members are not permitted to comment on the inconsistency in whether staged events are or are not important. If the staged event like 9-11, when believed, supports your agenda, the RNC remains silent; however, if the staged event, when revealed, supports your contention and agenda, then you comment on the staged event, as they did with the Hezbollah staging.

* * *

It's important to notice how the same people react and respond to the same set of ethical and legal challenges. Consider what we learned about the DoJ Rendition: When personally confronted with a potential risk of lawful rendering to the Hague, the DoJ Staff is quick to invoke legal protections. However, upon closer examination, these protections were denied others.

When confronting someone with a legal or ethical challenge, we don't necessarily learn the truth or the law, but how they twist the facts to suit their personal agendas, as Addington did with the Iran-Contra Report; and how the DoJ Staff have argued over the ticking time bomb: It depends on whether you want to achieve an outcome, or lawfully achieve a solution.

Sometimes it’s useful to ignore what people are saying, and directly shine the light on those who are making the accusations:

Is their evidence reliable

What is their motivation

Have they invoked evidence that is unpersuasive

Have they explored the contradictions in relying on that evidence

If we dig deeper into the source of the accusations, can we really trust what is being asserted

Upon closer examination of the spinner, does it appear as though information is being hyped, and that far larger, more compelling problems are being ignored

To what extent is someone willing to compromise their personal integrity to create an impression of a capability or concern, yet upon closer examination we discover that their proposed solution asks for a perfect result, and the real goal they have is to promote themselves regardless the agenda.

These ideas relate to integrity. Be mindful of the solution: It may be demanding something that is perfect, all the while the solution or conclusion is something that, even if true, is overshadowed by a far larger problem.

In this case, arguably part of the reason that Israel is in Lebanon is because of the fiction perpetuated on 9-11. This fits into the advancing crusade approach to interpreting the 9-11 events. However, the fatal flaw to 9-11, Israel, the US, and the other events in Lebanon is the reality: The illegal abuse of power (premised on events of 9-11 and Lebanon) was already occurring before it was fashionable after Sept 2001.

Just as we saw with Iraq that the plans for an illegal war had been entrenched long before Sept 2001, the US has used the (irrelevant) excuse of terrorist to justify war crimes and Geneva violations. Yet, the illegal activity and abuse was already planned, and fully part of the Iraqi post-war approach. Ref.

The simple lesson is that the implications of inconsistencies are important: We can delude ourselves to embrace one myth over another. In practice, we are not required to choose either, but can take a step back and explore the larger issue: What is really going on and how are we being manipulated to accept something that, on the basis of argument alone, would never be supported?

This is how Hitler and propagandists work: To force you to get excited about something, when you real attention should be squarely on the fundamental legal issues: The war crimes, and Congressional failure to investigate the initial violations. Nuremburg and Ludwigsburg remind us that inaction and stupidity is not a defense when it requires great skill to choose inaction despite the overwhelming evidence of war crimes.

Read more . . .

Members of Congress and DoJ Staff Implicated In Alleged Conspiracy to Avoid Investigating War Crimes

Members of Congress and Staff Attorneys in the Department of Justice have been implicated in a joint conspiracy to engage in and avoid accountability for illegal war crimes planning [ Ref; Reconsider: Ref].

Contrary to what Congress may believe (or hope to have us believe they believe), war crimes can be adjudicated in any nation. Congress is powerless to prevent war crimes litigation. Moreover, given the war crimes are part of ongoing litigation Ref Ref, it's illegal for Congress to pass any legislation that relates to the pending matter. [See these precedents]

Action: Share this link

* * *

Nothing Congress says or does will retroactively immunize in 2006 anyone for conduct between 2000 and 2006. Congress has no power to prevent plaintiffs (in a civil case) and other nations (in a war criminal war crimes suit) from bring charges in foreign courts.

This communication between DoJ Staff attorney, AG Gonzalez, and Member of Congress confirmation that:

There have been ongoing discussions;

The conduct springs from a real concern that there have been war crimes;

The DOJ Staff are not neutral in that they have a personal stake in the outcome -- DoJ Staff attorneys have individually failed to ensure that Article 82 requirements were implemented; and

The liability attaches not simply to members of the Executive and Legislative branches, but could apply to Bybee who is on the Court -- Nuremburg is precedent for bringing war crimes charges against DoJ prosecutors and members of the court and judicial branch.

This effort -- to avoid enforcing the law through retroactive changes to the law -- is similar to Specter's absurd efforts to not enforce FISA violations, as Members of Congress have a ministerial duty. [ The Illinois court denied the AT&T motion to dismiss, stating that Congress and the Executive as political branches had an equal obligation and duty to be "equally responsible to ensure that the law is followed"39 of 40 ]

The approach is a familiar, disturbing pattern, raising substantial questions whether Members of Congress are serious about enforcing the law. Rather, it appears members of Congress are entertaining these proposals because the members of Congress know that they are also complicity in the original war crimes, and subsequent failure to prevent the illegal activity.

* * *

Damaging Judgments

(1) The RNC, Attorney General, DoJ Staff Attorneys, DoD Joint Staff, and White House Counsel know there exists a multi-department war crimes problem

Although the RNC may be nervous, this does nothing to address their war crimes problems. The fact that the RNC passed a 1996 bill, but the White House and RNC in 2006 want to ignore the bill, is evidence the RNC has an internal communication problem between White House counsel, Congress, and the DoJ Staff. Nothing the Supreme Court does or says (including Roberts or Alito) can immunize the United States or its agents from international prosecution of requirements which Hamdan affirmed were in place: The Geneva Conventions.

2. Ongoing discussions related to criminal activity are admissible, and not protected by any privilege

By revealing the Executive concerns with Congress, the Executive may not claim that the discussions are privileged. Rather, they have been openly disclosed to a branch of government and individual members of Congress to investigate the illegal activity.

It remains to be determined the details of Gonzalez conversation with Members of Congress:

- What were the DoJ Attorney's concerns;
- What did the AG admit to Members of Congress;
- What questions and issues the AG raised with Members of Congress;
- How the AG concerns were or were not consistent with previous statements to Congress on issues related to Geneva, Hamdan, or comments related to the Bybee or Goldsmith memos;
- How were the Attorney Generals’ line of questions and discussion points indicative of acknowledgement that there is a real concern with actual war crimes liability;
- What prompted the DoJ Attorney General discussions with Members of Congress: Invitation, staff report, public discussion, inquiry by foreign nation;
- What notes Members of Congress took;
- How Members of Congress reacted to the information;
- What consultation Members of Congress made with Congressional staff attorneys;
- What conduct Members of Congress took that they otherwise claimed they were prohibited from taking when given details of the NSA domestic surveillance;
- What plan, if any, Members of Congress plan to introduce into the Congressional record, legislative deliberations, or any committee report details of the conversations;
- What plan Members of Congress have to openly discuss the AG's concerns before the Committee
- Whether the Committees will or will not subpoena the Attorney General to testify under oat the particulars of the information related to war crimes activity

(3) The proposed legislation is a phony barrier to war crimes liability

US law, regardless whether it is or is not changed, is not a barrier to the larger Geneva obligations. Treaty obligations and violations are crimes, and Congress cannot pass a law saying retroactively that war crimes cannot be prosecuted. Rather, recall the lesson of Nuremburg and Ludwigsburg: Going forward there is no statute of limitations on war crimes litigation against defendants.

(4) Nothing Congress or the Executive agree to can retroactively immunize anyone from war crimes liability.

It is irrelevant what "limits" the United States places on litigation. Again, the Bybee memo specifically states that the abuse is subject to war crimes. Whether the abuse "shocks the conscience" is only relevant for a civil litigation in US courts, but does nothing to consider the war crimes liability.

(5) Treaty obligations, which Hamdan affirms cannot be retroactively immunized

It is not lawful, and it is irrelevant, that the United States wishes to prohibit someone from enforcing the Geneva Conventions. Rather, the conventions are a treaty, and US Courts may not retroactively state that the treaty obligations between 2000 and 2006 are immunized. This is too late. Rather, the DoJ Staff attorneys continue to have an affirmative duty to ensure that Article 82 requirements are enforced, and it remains to be understood how these ongoing requirements have been (illegally) explained away in subsequent memoranda within DoJ and to the White House and Members of Congress.

(6) There is no justification for the illegal abuse of prisoners.

There is no justification for torture -- any argument DOJ Staff attorneys that point to "context" or "special needs" are irrelevant. DoJ staff attorneys cannot credible answer how they know that the object of that torture was the correct object; nor can they explain why they are not putting their focus on the people who "just know" that this is the "right person" to torture. [ More about the flaws of the ticking bomb "Justification" to violate Geneva: Ref

(7) It is too late to reconsider the appropriateness of 2000-2006 decisions.

The Congress and Executive knew in 2000, before the Iraq planning kicked into high gear, that the War Crimes liabilities were real. Despite knowing these requirements, they chose to embark on illegal combat and fail to comply with legal war requirements. Rather than change the law, if the US did not wish to comply with Geneva, then the US should have engaged in prosecutions, not conduct supporting illegal violations of Geneva.

(8) The DoJ Staff and Congressional alarm is real.

The only reason Members of Congress, the RNC, DoJ Staff attorneys, DoD counsel, and the White House would contemplate these potential change is they know the implications of Bybee and Goldsmith memos are real, and were known. Despite this risk, the DoJ Staff assented to illegal conduct, implicating them for war crimes because of the Article 82 requirements to ensure the Conventions were implemented, not retroactively explained away with meaningless memos, phony abrogation, or other legislation.

(9) DoJ Staff Attorneys are linked with the illegal conduct and have violated Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions

The DoJ Staff attorneys have been implicated and are part of the ongoing discussions with Congress and the Attorney General. However, it is not lawful for the DoJ Staff attorneys to retroactively prevent anyone or any nation from holding Americans accountable for criminal activity.

(10) DoJ Staff attorneys know they have no bonafide defense

It is meaningless for the DoJ Staff attorneys to claim that the US interpretation of Geneva has precedence. Rather, the precedent is what has happened at Nuremburg, Ludwigsburg, and other war crimes tribunals related to Vietnam, WWII, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

(11) Congress is implicated in the failure to investigate what they have been reasonably notified are illegal war crimes

Failure of Congress to step back, refuse to engage in this phony defense, and launch an investigation based on Gonzalez' questions is further evidence of their 5 USC 3331 failures and subsequent liability for war crimes. Again, it is well established that those who are in a position to investigate, and stop war crimes -- as Members of Congress are -- have liability.

The Gonzalez questions creates a firm line in the sand: What does a specific Member of Congress do after this date that is either related or not related to a genuine desire to exert their moral courage to enforce the laws and investigate the war crimes. How Members of Congress act or refuse to act will be admissible in the subsequent Grand Jury review of Member of Congress 5 USC 3331 violations.

* * *

Start Laughing Now

"[H]arsh consequences await anyone whose conduct falls short of the highest legal and ethical standards. " Ref

-- Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty,
Department of Justice,
July 03, 2006

* * *

We the People Have The Power

"[T]he ultimate guardians of the people’s rights . . .are the people themselves." [ Ohio Supreme Court: 56 of 58] Ref

"American public deserves no less than honest government" Ref

-- Acting Department of Defense Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble,
Department of Defense
July 03, 2006

* * *

Sample DoJ Staff Atty Wiki Activity: Ref

Executive Office of President Concerned With DoJ-Keisler Discussion

Ref Wiki updates linked to EOP

Search: Ref

Concerns and EOP interest areas on eve of Senate Confirmation:

A. Keisler's alleged obstruction of justice Ref

B. EOP is apparently confused over Constellation Project Ref

Note:

Keisler graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School. He clerked from 1985 to '86 for Robert Bork, then a judge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and later for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Ref

Keisler's PO BOX: Ref

* * *

EOP Disclosing Classified Info?

Special Activities Division: White House staff linked to revelations. [ Ref ]

How are the special activities division personnel linked to the Rendition program?

* * *

Alert: Please immediately inform Congressman Conyers

Executive Office of the President (EOP) staff public comments on CIA classified activities. Note closely these wiki updates which are linked to EOP staff: [Ref Ref]

Why is the EOP staff making statements like this?

Which specific EOP staffer made these comments?

Loss of Executive Privilege: Open Statement By EOP Staff

What is the relationship between the Special Activities Division, which EOP (stupidly) confirms is real, to the rendition activities outlined in this EU report?

Why is the EOP Staff publicly commenting on matters that have otherwise been asserted (before the court in court motions by DoJ Staff, Ref) are privileged, or something that cannot be confirmed or denied?

Can DoJ Staff Attorneys explain why EOP staff are (apparently) indirectly commenting on matters related to ongoing Rendition litigation in Italy? Ref

The only reason DoJ Staff and CIA would discuss the issues, as has Gonzalez discussed the issues with Congress, was if there was a real problem that required a change in policy, procedures, or conduct. Given the likely DOJ Staff attorney denials of the link between the CIA's SAD, and rendition, can the DoJ Staff attorneys explain why they were discussing reviewing which specific CIA activities in Euruope would have to be reviewed in light of Hamdan? [ Ref ]

Read more . . .

Iraq: Revisiting Hamdan and US Occupation War Crimes

American occupying ground forces in Iraq continue to engage in Geneva violations. Members of Congress and the President's cabinet are in a position, but have failed, to fully investigate and end the illegal war crimes.

Action: Share this, this, (this, this, this} (this, this, this this this), this, [ this, Ref Ref ], (this, this, and this}.

* * *

Hamdan affirmed the applicability of Geneva. It is well established under international and military law that occupying powers have the legal obligation to ensure civilians are treated humanely.

US military occupation forces are engaged in ongoing war crimes: Inadequate protection given to civilian detainees in violation of occupying forces obligations. [Yamashita: The failure of military commanders to ensure prisoners are treated humanely, given fair trails is a war crime by military commanders.]

The Tokyo War crimes trials are precedent for imposing war crimes liability on the Executives cabinet and those in a policy making position that knew of and failed to prevent war crimes.

Insufficient compliance with Geneva is more than a military obligation on ground commanders and the Joint Staff. The illegal activity creates a war crimes liability for [a] civilian planners and leaders in the President's cabinet and [b] members of Congress. American civilian leaders in both the Executive and Legislative branches share joint responsibility for ensuring the laws of war are followed and enforced.

Members of Congress, the President's cabinet, and the leadership on the Joint Staff have the ability to, and have refused, to investigate evidence of war crimes. Hamdan is fair notice of the ongoing Geneva obligations of the United States as an occupying power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Judgments

The problem of insufficient ground troops is not unique to Iraq, but also applies in Afghanistan thereby raising the prospect of similar war crimes liabilities well beyond Kabul, Afghanistan.

US war planners prior to invading Iraq did not sufficiently provision for Geneva Compliance in Iraq. These deficiencies are well known to the Administration, private contractors, but there remains no plan to fully comply with US occupation obligations under Geneva.

War planners in know there are insufficient ground troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq to comply with occupying force obligations under Geneva. A significant increase in ground troops is known to be a requirement to comply with Geneva. The expected troop increases for both Afghanistan and Iraq will not be announced until after the November 2006 election.

Discussion

There is no merit to any argument that the Iraqis are responsible for the trials and detention. Occupying forces under Geneva have an obligation to ensure the requirements are met; occupying forces may not rely on local forces or resources when those resources are insufficient to comply with Geneva.

US occupation forces are engaged in war crimes. The misconduct relates to the illegal treatment of detainees. It is irrelevant whether the prisoners are civilians, combatants, or insurgents: All are entitled to Geneva protections. Hamdan affirms the US obligation to ensure the Geneva Conventions are enforced.

The US as an occupying power cannot reasonably defer to the Iraqi government. It is well established under international and military law that occupying powers have the responsibility to ensure civilians are treated humanely. This mandatory obligation upon the United States as an occupying power is not something that the United States, its military officers, or civilian leadership may delegate or assign to an inadequately resourced Iraqi government.

The current problems in Iraq relate to inter alia:

A. Failure of American occupying forces and military personnel to charge Iraqi civilians with any crime prior to detaining and imprisoning them;

B. Inadequate evidence presented at trial; insufficient provisions to ensure fair trials; no access to lawyers; failure to allow cross examination of witnesses;

C. Illegal home raids based on unreliable information;

D. Detention and abuse of innocent civilians;

E. Refusal to provide full access or comply with reasonable ICRC recommendations.

Hamdan is not the only precedent stating the proceedings must be fir. Sawada (1946 Nuremburg Commission) affirmed that the proceedings at trial must be fair. Yamashita 327 US 1 (1948) affirms that the military is liable for failing to control those who commit war crimes under their command. The Japanese Cabinet and German legal community were held complicit for war crimes in failing to investigate, stop, or otherwise assent to illegal war crimes planning.

Yamashita's problem was that he permitted war crimes. Lt Calley 46 CMR 1131 (1973) was liable for war crimes, even against those who were suspected of illegally waging war. The US as a military occupying force has an obligation to ensure the civilians, regardless their status, are protected and treated humanely. It is irrelevant and speculate what the civilians may or may not due while in detention; the Geneva requirements remain in full force and cannot be ignored or explained away by the President, DoJ Staff attorneys, Members of Congress, or other civilians who believe the Iraqis do or do not deserve what happens.

The issue for the American public and Grand Jury to review is who in the United States government was in a position and had the power to compel the Department of Defense to comply. Under our separation of powers, this duty isn't isolated to Members of Congress and the Executive. Rather, upon receipt of information, it falls upon the judicial system within the Military’s Judge Advocate Generals and other American Bar Association-related personnel. Again, Nuremburg and Ludwigsburg are precedent for bringing war crimes charges against the legal community, officers of the court, prosecutors and judges for failing to ensure the laws of war were fully followed and enforced.

As an occupying power in Iraq, the United Sates must provide the proper resources and medical personnel to provide health care to the Iraqi detainees. It is irrelevant that the civilian contractors have had a difficult time. The US has military airlift capability, control of the air, and open access to ports to provide these mandatory humanitarian supplies.

Each of the abuses violates international law and obligations on the United States, military commanders, military personnel, and civilian leaders. Hamdan affirms the obligations of the United States to ensure the Geneva Conventions are followed. There is reasonable basis for the United States to immediately launch a criminal investigation into the pattern of abuses in Iraq to assess the scope of continuing occupation war crimes.

Each of these abuses is known to flag officers with the experience and education to comprehend the Geneva implications, but the White House has not sufficiently worked with the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff to ensure sufficient US ground forces are in place to comply with Geneva.

Moreover, Members of Congress are in a position to conduct investigations into the violations, the needed manpower and training to comply, but have refused to take action, investigate what is known, or ensure compliance with Geneva. This malfeasance create subsequent war crimes liabilities for Members of Congress.

The problems with Geneva compliance in Iraq stems from the initial failed planning. There was insufficient consideration for the real manpower requirements; and the post-war occupation requirements were insufficient. These were known, or should have been known, well before the first shots were fired. Moreover, these deficiencies have been known to Members of Congress and have been highlighted in the wake of Hamdan.

Being insufficiently resourced does not alleviate Geneva requirements. Military and civilian personnel have a duty under Geneva to report violations of Geneva and ensure resources are provided to ensure the United States adequately complies with its requirements. It is irrelevant that the United States has assigned responsibility to the Iraqis; or that there have been Iraqi elections. The Iraqis remain in no position to independently comply with the Geneva requirements. Until Iraq is able to meet its legal obligations to comply with the Geneva requirements, the United States has under the Geneva conventions the legal obligation to ensure the manning and required supporting resources are in place to ensure Geneva obligations are fully met.

The Executive as a civilian planner and commander in chief has an obligation to listen to and ensure personnel have the resources, as occupying forces, to fully comply with the Geneva requirements. This President has failed to reasonable demonstrate any inclination to fully comply with the Geneva requirements. These are war crimes which any nation may lawfully prosecute against the President of the United States. It is irrelevant whether Members of Congress do or do not choose to investigate, impeach, or remove the President from office.

Again, Iraq as it currently stands is in no position to fully comply with its Geneva obligation requirements. Only the United States, as an occupying power, can and does have the resources to ensure that Iraqi civilians are treated according to the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan is fair notice that the Geneva Conventions remain requirements, irrespective of US military force location or mission.

It is irrelevant that the United States is incapable or unwilling to comply with the Geneva Conventions as an occupying power. The requirements exist regardless the Iraqi civilian populations' status: They are to be treated humanely, even if they have engaged in illegal warfare. The only lawful way to impose punishment is after a competent, fair trial, which the Iraqis in 2006 are not in a position to conduct: They do not ensure evidence is presented, that the witnesses are cross examined, or that the prisoners are given access to counsel.

Hamdan is fair notice that it is irrelevant that the detainees may or may not be insurgents, accused, innocent, or non-combatants. The US government, until the Iraqis are fully capable to independently comply, must provide the full infrastructure to ensure the detainees are treated according to the Geneva requirements. These requirements were known well before the United States National Command Authority, PNAC, and others may or may not have decided well before 2000 that the United States would invade Iraq.

Outlook

Unless the US Congress reasonably investigates the ongoing Geneva violations, they will have no defense at a war crimes trial.

The US voters are being given unreliable information on the true costs of the war, and the needed military draft to ensure fully compliance with Geneva. Even if the US were to ramp down manning and withdraw, this would merely create a new wave of actionable abuses at the feet of the retreating US occupation forces. This would be a subsequent violation of Geneva.

Putting aside the fact that the US war crimes duplicate the British Army abuses against the North American Colonists in the 1770s, the problem going forward is that the US war crimes are at odds with the founding principles supposedly at the core of the illegal invasion: To provide democracy. The legacy of the American military occupation in Iraq is the opposite: Despotic abuse of power and criminal war crimes inflicted upon innocent civilians.

Beyond being a disingenuous basis for the illegal invasion, the US ongoing war crimes in Iraq simply compounds the regional contempt for American occupation. The US criminal activity fuels the insurgency and substantially increases the likelihood of attacks directed at American civilian travelers around the globe.

This was a war of choice and openly planned. The United States knew the Geneva obligations before entering Iraq, but chose to ignore them. The United States occupation of Iraq has been more than a failure: It has been a reckless disregard for the laws of war as clearly promulgated under Geneva.

Nuremburg is precedent for brining war crimes charges against the legal community. The DoJ Staff Attorneys, DoD Judge Advocate Generals, Congressional attorneys, RNC General Counsel, the American Bar Association, and civilian attorneys working in concert with civilian contractors in Iraq have jointly and individually been reckless in failing to ensure the laws of war and US occupation have had adequate legal competence as required under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions.

WWII is precedent for indicting civilians for war crimes. The civilian Republican Party, by assenting to these illegal war crimes has done more than expose themselves to war crimes prosecution. The American leaders have recklessly put American lives around the globe at risk, substantially undermining any claim that the President or Congress is interested in American national security.

* * *

The problem, besides lack of information and non-existent Congressional oversight, is that the Congress has no basis to increase or decrease troops along any timeline: Congress is shooting in the dark. Even if the US withdrew along a timeline, the US would remain liable for the Geneva violations: Failure to
[a] Provide security;
[b] Prevent war crimes during the occupation; and
[c] Ensure that the locals had a stable, sustainable situation as required under Geneva (a US non-discretioary obligation as an occupying power).

The real answer: US needs a three pronged approach, fully coordinated with the Iraqis. (This approach needs to be applied not only to Iraq, but to Lebanon):

1. Geneva Compliance Plan to Maintain Security and Stability

A plan to increase occupying US troops to ensure Iraqi stability, and ensure US compliance with Geneva;

2. Plan for Peacekeeping

An approach that includes the phased introduction of peacekeepers to [a] overlap with the US forces, [b] continue working with the Iraqis, and [c] provide sufficient force to maintain peace after the US departs;

3. Plan for US Withdrawal

A US plan to realistically withdraw from Iraq, as the peacekeepers [a] replace the US troops, and [b] provide assistance to the Iraqis to maintain security.

* * *

Recommendations

1. The United States must ensure that the Iraqi criminal justice system has the manpower to fully comply with the Geneva Conventions.

2. Immediately notify Members of Congress of war crimes issues related to Administration Cabinet and US occupation forces in Iraq.

3. Prepare voters for likely increase in combat troops in Iraq, and possibility of a draft to meet Geneva-manpower requirements.

4. The General Accounting Office and DoD Inspector Generals [NICS, OSI, and CID] need to coordinate with the JAGs to assess the scope of war crimes, and then work with independent analysts to assess the real US manpower requirements in Iraq to comply with Geneva.

5. Members of Congress, to comply with their Geneva obligations and Article II powers (raise, support, and ensure combat forces comply with the law), shall, inter alia:

A. Document their knowledge of and/or failure to investigate the American military occupation war crimes;

B. Document [1] their knowledge of Hamdan implications as they relate to Geneva obligations of occupying-detaining forces; and [2] the requirements to ensure there are sufficient resources, manpower, leadership, and training to fully comply with Geneva obligations of an occupying power;

C. Commit with a Congressional resolution to a line of inquiry that will identify the scope of US ground force Geneva violations in both Iraq and Afghanistan;

D. Gather independent assessments of the time and resources required to ensure Iraqi military and civilian resources are [1] fully capable of complying with Geneva requirements; and [2] can adequately, fully assume current US occupation duties related to Geneva;

E. Oversee a military draft to substantially increase US ground forces in Iraq, thereby ensuring the US fully complies with its Geneva requirements as an occupying force in Iraq; and

F. Work closely with NATO allies and the President of Afghanistan to ensure there are sufficient ground forces in Afghanistan to ensure the NATO forces have the manning, resources, leadership, staff support, and legal training to fully comply with Geneva requirements.

* * *

Other Information

Ref: US Occupation forces are not complying with Geneva requirements -- failing to ensure fair trials, cross examination of witnesses, or bringing charges against prisoners.

Ref: Congress is not serious about their Geneva Obligations to ensure the laws of war are enforced.

Ref Ref Geneva imposes obligations on occupying nation (the US) to provide stability and resources the locals are unable to provide.

Ref Manpower shortages have been long known, and a US military draft is required to put into place sufficient US ground forces to meet minimal Geneva requirements of the US as an occupying nation. United States Geneva requirements and obligations were affirmed by Hamdan, regardless whether the United States does or does not agree that the invasion was or was not legal.

Ref: Prisoner abuse continues despite Abu Ghraib investigations and photos.

Ref Unlike US war criminals in Iraq, some in the United States still believe in speedy trials.

Ref: Arrests without charges.

Ref Congress knows something, but is suppressing it until after November 2006.

* * *

The 2006 election isn't the last chance to change Congress. There will still be more revelations of illegal conduct between now and 2008, which can still be a factor in an impeachment investigation. Note carefully the different election Calendars: Members of Congress take their seat at the beginning of January 2009, while the President will still be in office for another two weeks.

It's still possible to hold an impeachment trial in the first weeks of 2009, after the 2008 election of the new Senate. Bush is not out of the woods until he's physically left office in 2009. What happens in 2006 may or may not be the final word on whether Bush and Cheney are held accountable for impeachable offenses.

Read more . . .

Rendering DoJ Staff Attorneys

The ABA was previously challenged to provide a plan for the UN General Assembly. The task was simple: Coordinate the needed back up plan should Americans refuse to hold the DoJ Staff accountable.

The American Bar Association has the resources to review the implications of this requirement. The real problem is the implications of this task.

Ref

* * *

When we contemplate what such a plan might look like, we quickly run into a number of roadblocks, prompting us to ask:

How did the events of 9-11 go unnoticed

How many people are involved in the Rendition

* * *

When we speak of what might be required in rendering to the Hague alleged war criminals on the DoJ Staff, there are three major areas to consider:

A. The procedures

B. The laws

C. The ethics

Taken broadly, the problem with rendering the DoJ Staff to the Hague for war crimes prosecutions is the immediate scream and shout: "How can this be? We have rights."

Strange, the DoJ Staff said people could be rendered without comment; why does the DoJ Staff get to speak while others were required to assent to another standard? The answer is that they are abusive of power; and know the rights exist for all, but deny those rights to some.

* * *

Consider the checklists, steps, and planning required to implement the rendition of DoJ Staff. It is a logical, methodical process.

Then consider the same thinking-approach as it would have to have also occurred in the rendition of Americans to Eastern Europe; and the 9-11 events.

Simply contrast the two:

How can a simple rendering, with clear steps to deliver the DoJ Staff to the Hague be something, when considering the Rendition program, something that cannot be comprehended or discussed?

Anything that a group would have to do to render the DoJ Staff would also have to be done during 9-11 and the other classified Rendition activity: Get permission, order troops to stand down, and ensure access.

We are asked to believe during 9-11 as with Rendition that there is no evidence of a wider plan; yet, when proposing to move a handful of alleged DoJ Staff war criminals, suddenly the naysayers claim it cannot be done, it is impossible, too difficult. Either:

It is difficult, and 9-11 and Rendition require far wider planning; or

It is not difficult, and the DoJ Staff can be easily moved abroad.

Either way: It shows that the naysayers have two standards on planning: That the enemy can do things easily, but that Americans are buffoons and cannot do simple things. Quite a mess they make for themselves, especially when trying to inspire confidence that they can solve problems, not make more excuses.

* * *

Let's consider the law. The apologists for the DoJ Staff attorney war criminals say that taking the DoJ Staff to the Hague would amount to kidnapping, violations of US law, and conspiracy.

If that is true, then why is there no interest to investigate the same claims and cries when it comes to rendering other Americans to Eastern Europe?

* * *

Let's consider the ethics of Rendition. The Congress has to assent with this illegal conduct, they've appropriate funds, and ignored Nuremburg provisions against transporting civilians.

Rather, for Rendition to work, it would require secrecy within Congress on illegal things, and the subsequent inaction to investigate. Again, after WWII, the legal community was forced to account for their complicity.

What's really happening is that Americans have rationalized rendering some using abusive treatment; but they are not willing to let others similarly situated -- DoJ Staff attorney war criminals -- to ensure the same conditions.

Suddenly the legal community talks about rights, food, water, fair treatment, party hats, letters to relatives, and whether they will or will not be able to call home. Curiously, their memos said that prisoners at Guantanamo were not entitled to that. Why should anyone give the DoJ Staff something they said other human beings were not worthy of having; and why are the Geneva Conventions something that suddenly applies?

* * *

Are DoJ Staff attorneys who are war criminals any different than terrorists?

Notice who screams in the legal community and on the DoJ Staff when we speak of rending the DoJ Staff: They cannot explain their silence on the rendering of other people. Suddenly "certain difficulties" come into play, which were apparently trivial and quaint when rendering and torturing others: The law.

Should the law be denied to those who deny it to others?

It is one thing to Render people to the United States for prosecution; quite another to render them away for abuse and denial of treatment. Moving away, people are denied things: Why not the same for the fools on the DoJ Staff?

Recall after Europe was liberated, the collaborators had their heads shaven. Would it not be useful to do the same to the DoJ Staff, and treat them in court as if they were terrorists: Undeserving of respect, to be shacked, and forced to grovel on the ground?

Let's hear a good story from the DoJ Staff about the things that others should be denied: Their rights, respect, and protections.

Perhaps the things that the DoJ Staff has ignored or explained away should be similarly imposed on the DoJ Staff: Forced to assent to something that they forced others to remain silent about, not share, or have no voice to speak in court.

For many years others have been abused under the orders of DoJ Staff attorneys who knew, or should have known, the Geneva Article 82 requirements to fully implement the Conventions. But the lazy, ignorant, and stupid DoJ Staff that wasn't good enough. So much for their 5 USC 3331 oath to promise to enforce the Supreme Laws which include treaty obligations.

If we haven't taken an oath to be nice to the DoJ Staff, should we?

If the DoJ Staff has said other human being should endure abuse, physical harm, and other mistreatment, why is the DoJ Staff entitled to any protection against the same treatment?

* * *

Congress had to go along with this plan, not just in the original abuses, but also in the rendering of the DoJ Staff.

Some ask, "What if Congress stops the lawful delivery of indicted war criminals to the Hague?" The appropriate response, "Why is Congress willing to defend the rights of some, not all?" They do not take an oath to pick and choose who they defend; rather, they take an oath to God to protect the Constitution from their own.

Congress has to assent to the plan to deny rights, violate the law, not review, remain silent, and still pay for the illegal activity. The Congress is quick to spend money on things that are not justified or audited; but when it comes to accountability and investigations, the Congress shrieks, "We have no money." In truth, they have no interest in their oath, the law, or the rights of man. They simply love to abuse power without accountability. The poodles in Congress hide behind the White House, perfectly happy being relegated as a consultative body of the Executive, and nothing more than a White Wing to the White House. It's unclear why the Executive pretends to care for those who openly do not.

* * *


What if Congress were to pass a bill saying that something could or could not be done with respect to the DoJ Staff?

The response, "Why was this not also done with other abuses?"

The real answer is that the Congress is not interested in rights, or civility; it is merely concerned with pleasing those in the White House who enjoy abusing power.

Our reward is that they do not universally ensure that those who terrorize others are treated as terrorists, rather than officers of the court, as the DoJ Staff likes to believe they are.

The DoJ Staff, if the world were ideal, should be treated as they treat others, and how the DoJ Staff operates: Like terrorists who defy the laws, and have disdain for American values. The DoJ Staff has friends on the American Bar Association Staff who also like to pretend they are important, but spend their time on unimportant things.

While the Constitution smolders, they engage in unspeakable things. Yes, they are disgusting creatures and deserve to be treated with contempt, not respect. Perhaps if they treat the law with the respect they wish to compel others to show them, we might take seriously their claim that they are people who know something of the law. To date, the legacy has been recklessness and defiance of the laws and oaths.

They are America's finest. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah have broader and deepening support.

* * *

Congress is complicit with rendering. The issue is the DoJ Staff conduct between 2000 and 2006. There is nothing the Congress can retroactively do to change the laws that were fully in force at that time.

yes, Congress may pretend they have the power to pass a law saying that Geneva does not apply to DoJ Staff Conduct. But if that is true, why should that inconvenience apply to American civilians when it comes to lawful, peaceful methods use to civilly protect the Constitution from domestic enemies?

What is to be done when Members of Congress are leading the insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution: Who can lawfully raise a militia to come to the defense of the Constitution and lawfully, peacefully encourage the Congress and stupid DoJ Staff to rethink their dubious plans?

* * *

Congress does not have the requirement to cooperate. Rather, it has the mandate, duty, and obligation to assert the rule of law, enforce the Constitution, and see that it protects the document.

Congress will not explain why it is silent on matters of illegal rendition, fully litigated in open court in Italy.

Congress would like the world to believe that it has a choice whether it will or will not cooperate with enforcing the laws of war against DoJ Staff.

Does Congress really have a choice when it comes to war crimes?

Is there a requirement under international law that the Members of Congress cooperate and not interfere with the rendering of DoJ Staff to The Hague?

Congress is clear on issues of war crimes: It spoke with vigor on Yugoslavia, against Rwanda, and others who violated the rights of man. It remains to be seen whether Congress is inclined to find the time to speak with the same love of liberty and civility when they look at their legacy, and in the mirror.

* * *

Let's consider the actual, practical steps of physically moving the DoJ Staff war criminals from the United States Department of Justice Buildings in DC to the Hague.

There's a simple way: Give the DoJ Staff a deadline to appear, and tell them their travel costs will be reimbursed. On the other hand, US Citizens have been charged for the travel costs associated with protecting them from American bombings in Lebanon; it might be fitting to charge the DoJ Staff for their forced delivery. Surely, they have lobbyist friends like Libby's lawyers who could set up a website and have a fund raiser: "Get my DoJ Staffer a cooked meal." It could be like an elementary school PTA bake sale.

Another option is to issue through the UN diplomatic passes, and make them UN emissaries, immunity from arrest. This means that once under UN control, they cannot be detained (in theory) by the US. Practically speaking this could work, but given the Israeli’s aiming problems in Lebanon, it's not likely the US is going to show any greater respect to the UN security forces accompanying the DoJ Staff.

* * *

There will be the matter of physically entering the DOJ Building, walking down the hall, and finding the staff. All this without anyone stopping the UN.

Keep in mind what the FBI agents did on the Congressional raid. Perhaps the Sergeant at arms of the Senate or House would like to reciprocate and lead this raid into the DoJ building. "Hay, if you don't come out with our hands up, we're going to tell the world about all your secrets." Yawn.

Does the UN have to coordinate with the US Marshalls, JTTF, DoD, and Federal Government to lawfully render the DOJ Staff to the Hague? Before we answer that, think again of the 9-11 and Rendition planning: Given the complexity of delivering a single DoJ Staffer, surely there are records of the illegal rendition and 9-11 planning that is in the Intel Link system. Yes, the DoJ has separate LANS for that as well.

The curious thing is that the US government, despite its "love" of the "rule of law," is not likely to cooperate with the rendition of DoJ Staffers. So the question becomes: Who really greased the wheels for the Rendition and 9-11 activity?

In order to physically move a single person out of the US, or do something inside the US, there are several steps:

Flight clearance to land

Higher the flight crew

Entry into the DoJ Building

Physically detain the DoJ Staffer

Peacefully leave the DoJ Building without interference

Travel to the Airport, loading dock, port, or holding center

Depart

Comply with the approve flight plan

Travel with sufficient fuel

Not be intercepted

Arrive at the destination, peacefully land, not be blocked

Download the DoJ Staffer personal effects

Travel to the Hague

Enter the building, holding center

Maintain control of the DOJ Staffer

Again, the point is that the above steps closely match the US rendition efforts that the Italians are now reviewing. Yet, the US wants the Americans to believe that the Rendition-Kidnapping is a "state secret".

How can this be? There’s too much evidence outside American control for anyone to claim that it's secret, especially when the conduct is illegal, as were the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The only difference is scale, not the fundamental problem: Unchecked and unstopped abuse of power. Rather, there's a trail of evidence; people know, and there are non-Americans involved in the holding areas. Someone in Europe has to physically provide the lettuce which goes on the jailer's evening salad. That person is not an American farmer; rather, it’s a European farmer. We see no evidence that the US is flying lettuce from California to Europe; rather, they purchase the food from local vendors. Even the eggs and potatoes for the McDonald's Happy-Rendition meal. I suppose they could be growing the lettuce underwater in the Black sea and delivering it by ship to Constanta, Rumania.

* * *

Geneva outlines how the DoJ Staffers, once they are delivered to the Hague, are to be treated.

Should we hold them until the world "debates" how they should be treated? If the American lawyers in the ABA had their way, they'll debate for eternity, never arrive at a solution, and then bill the client for the confusion.

Geneva outlines war crimes trial provisions and requirements. Nuremburg, Yugoslavia, Rwanda provide the guides to how the war criminals should be treated. DoJ Staff attorneys like to twist precedent; should we twist these precedents when it comes to DoJ Staff attorneys:

Treatment of prisoners

Movement within the court

Safety of the escorting officers

Legal standing

Support

Provisions if other forces interfere with the proceedings

* * *

Let's imagine The Hague filled with DoJ Staff attorneys.

Should we bill the DoJ Staff attorney for the costs to provide security, or should we leave that up to the American public to vote on?

Should we provide food that the DoJ Staff attorneys like; or should we give them honey, and little biscuits that they might drool on while they read their bibles?

if the DoJ Staff attorney goes on a hunger strike, should we force feed them through their right nostril, down their throat, in their arm, or through another method?

If the DoJ Staff attorney accidentally trips while existing the aircraft at the airport closest to The Hague, should we provide them a Band-Aid, let the Red Cross look at them right away, or put them in a dark cell so the sun will not harm them?

Will we permit the detaining powers to conduct experiments on them?

Should we let the DoJ Staff attorneys discuss legal matters; or should we separate them into dark cells where their only human-to-human contact is between themselves individually and a large, hairy beast that smells as if it has never known the cleansing power of water, soap, and deodorant?

Again, keep in mind that it's the ABA that likes to debate these issues. Times to put the burden on the ABA to come up with some answers. Look to precedent: How did the Nazis treat the undesirable lawyers: Should that standard be applied; or should we apply the precedent of Guantanamo which the DoJ Staffers endorsed?

* * *

Under the laws of war and Geneva, DoJ Staff attorneys are not to be photographed. yet, recall how many orange suits we saw on the media.

Would it not be appropriate to let the world see how nicely the DoJ Staffer enjoys having their face rubbed into the ground as they are given the chance to taste the sweet flavor of The Hague's lawn? What a sight.

* * *

The way forward is for the American Bar Association to get serious with how it plans to prosecute these cases. It is not up to the public to bring indictments. The US Attorney has to do this. However, if DoJ refuses to investigate, then we really have only one other option: To deliver the DoJ Staff to a Grand Jury for indictments; then lawfully transport them to The Hague or another location for trial.

It's time for the American Bar Association to decide whether it is serious about providing leadership; or whether it's going to make excuses. Anything that the ABA does to slow roll this, should be looked at as evidence of complicity; and the public should ask: Why aren't these same roadblocks to abuse also provided to other Americans who have been rendered to Europe?

The answer is that the ABA knows about the abuse, is complicity with silence, and refuses to challenge Congress in court for its illegal assent to abuse of human rights, violations of Geneva, and other war crimes committed against American civilians.

The ABA has to decide how long they want this public relations disaster to fester; whether they will provide leadership; assent to public oversight; and encourage the public to work with competing associations. In the end, as the Nazis found out, initial battlefield and legal victories were no barrier to final war crimes prosecution: The lawyers were indicted, charged, and lawfully put to death for war crimes.

Lawyers don’t make the law. We the People have delegated that power to Congress, and we may lawfully revoke and transfer that power to an alternative, more responsive forum. It could happen. The American Constitution started as an idea in the mind of one person.

Americans are ready to force the United States to put their money where its mouth is: Lawfully, peacefully, and non-violently--Something the DoJ Staffers have a hard time comprehending, especially as they surf the internet doing things unrelated to the law.

Perhaps the DoJ Staffers know the law better than they've demonstrated: They'll be lucky if they are given the right to counsel. Others, the DoJ Staff attorneys said, were not entitled to certain rights. Why should the DoJ Staff attorneys be granted anything that they've denied others?

Read more . . .

GTMO: The Lawyers Want A Debate

In the wake of Hamdan it's been curious watching the lawyers appeal to confusion. There is a simple answer: Make a decision and lead.



Guantanamo and Hamdan has sparked a debate among the lawyers: What is to be done, how will the prisoners be treated, who shall make the rules, what is Congress to do, and will this be proper for the Executive?

Always leave it to a lawyer to create confusion, not lawfully solve a problem.

* * *

It's time for the lawyers to stop asking questions; and time for the leadership to start making decisions. Shockingly (sarcasm), the Americans refuse to set a deadline to lead.

The way forward is for the Congress and Executive to cease the debate, and simply defer to the excerpts: The Judge Advocate Generals:

How will the prisoners be treated

What is to be done with Guantanamo

What do we need to do to fully comply with Geneva

How do we conduct fair trials for the world

* * *

The real problem is that Americans have no evidence to justify detaining those they've accused. There can be no public trial because the evidence does not exist. Who will want to admit that, for this long, they've detained anyone without evidence?

Rather than have a trial and reveal the lack of evidence, this Congress wants to imprison Americans based on accusations, not evidence.

Hamdan reminds us that Geneva applies, not simply to those accused, but also to civilians.

It is time to take a broader view of the proposed legislation that will target Americans based on accusations, not evidence Ref: It is time to seek international assistance, and get adult supervision to remind the Americans that American civilians are to be protected, and entitled to fair treatment, as disgusting as that might sound to the small minded ones in the Republican Party and Department of (In)Justice.

* * *

We've had this many years since 2001 for the JAGs to speak out on how prisoners were to be treated. Five years later, the Supreme Court magically waves its wand telling us what we already knew: The law applies.

Perhaps if the weather is favorable, the Congress might comprehend that the Geneva Conventions, as a treaty obligation, applies to American civilians.

Then again, perhaps Americans after being detained and stripped of their rights might comprehend what the Iraqis have had to endure: Arrogance.

Is it wrong to speak about illegal activity, especially when the Congress openly debates the possibility of abrogating the US Constitution, and making excuses to inflict abuses on Americans which Hamdan rebuked as to prisoners of war?

The real issue is the Americans want to find someone to kick around. The Supreme Court said that prisoners cannot be abused. The arrogant Americans can always do it to their fellow citizens as they render them abroad, unwilling to admit what they are doing: Violating Geneva, and violating the Constitution.

Oh, did I say that?

* * *

The way forward in Guantanamo is to strictly apply the Geneva Conventions, and treat the prisoners as if they were prisoners of war (which they are), then let the world see that Americans can do what they are otherwise unwilling to do at home: Assert the rule of law, follow procedures, and demonstrate civility to others.

It is too late to debate whether someone should or should not be treated in a manner that fully embraces the Geneva Conventions, and exceeds the requirements. If this standard is not something Americans are willing to demonstrate, the time to have decided to “not assent to this requirement” was in 2001, when the first decision was made: Whether we will engage in war or prosecute.

Perhaps Congress might comprehend civility when it is forced to be civil and openly debates its contempt for the Constitutional requirements. They are there to check power, not explain away their love of tyranny with non-debate.

Some topics of debate, however protected, or a refusal to debate should be used as a sign of whether someone is not serious about their oath of office. This government likes to make adverse inferences about innocent Americans; it’s time Americans reciprocate and make adverse inferences about the guilty-until-proven innocent Members of Congress.

There's no reason to have a debate on Guantanamo, this will merely ask the world to believe that the Conventions are discrentionary. Rather, the real debate should be on whether Americans are serious about practicing democracy at home as they would like the world to believe they once wanted in Iraq.

It's one thing to talk about it, quite another to do it. Then we can consider the results. Every two years, we can find another crew. We can send others to Congress to make sausaage.

Congress looks at American civilians as something that can be treated like discretionary animal parts. Should Congress be so lucky to enjoy such acclaim.

Read more . . .

Bicameralism: Does the United States Need Tricameralism?

Ref

More thoughts on the House efforts. It's a problem when the House passes rules which celebrate duplicating the problems of the British Parliament: No debate.

* * *

Thomas Paine provides insight into the problem of the British Parliament, which the United States sought to address with the current Constitution. By failing to debate an issue, the US essentially is duplicating one of the many fundamental problems behind the American Revolution: A rubber stamping legislature.

Paine writes [Emphasis added]:

Were a Bill to be brought into any of the American legislatures similar to that which was passed into an act by the English parliament, at the commencement of George the First, to extend the duration of the assemblies to a longer period than they now sit, the check is in the constitution, which in effect says, Thus far shalt thou go and no further.

But in order to remove the objection against a single house (that of acting with too quick an impulse), and at the same time to avoid the inconsistencies, in some cases absurdities, arising from two houses, the following method has been proposed as an improvement upon both.

First, To have but one representation.

Secondly, To divide that representation, by lot, into two or three parts.

Thirdly, That every proposed bill shall be first debated in those parts by succession, that they may become the hearers of each other, but without taking any vote. After which the whole representation to assemble for a general debate and determination by vote. Paine: The Rights of Man

* * *

The Federalist Papers in 33, and 49-51 discussed the legislature, problems with committees and the benefits of the bicameral system. In 2006, the House action to expedite passage of bills, without sufficient debate, can be checked by the Senate.

The issue is whether the Senate will do the same: Similarly pass, as it did with the Patriot Act, something that is "needed," but neither proper nor necessary: Legislation without sufficient debate; Without debate and Congressional records, where will the legislative histories be for judicial review, other than the scant notes from the private rooms?

* * *

Federalist 33, raising a curious point about the Congressional assent to Executive Tyranny: Are the Members of Congress not aware that by assenting to signing statements, the Congress is stripped of the means it has to assert power?

What are the means to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? Fed 33

The issue is simply: What has it gotten into the minds of the Legislature to believe that non-assertion of legislative power is a good thing for Congress? Clearly, the Members of Congress are not simply delusional, but would rather continue their current position as an administrative district within the Executive Branch. On that count alone they show they are not statesmen, but poodles; unfit for leadership, perhaps fit to be thrown to the wolves at a dog show.

* * *

The ideas of bicameralism is to slow the speedy rubber stamping legislature, and make it difficult to quickly assent to passion. yet, the American fools have used passion as the pretext to do just that: Assent to barbarism, incivility, abuse, and other high crimes.

Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? Fed 33

This relates to the Article 1 Section 8: That the laws, necessary and proper be passed to carry out the powers. This is the core problem with the FISA-related "efforts to not enforce FISA" which Specter and his RNC goons like Hatch are drooling over: The FISA act exists; yet the RNC goons want to pretend it is imaginary; then point your eyes to something that might "induce the Americans to not be upset."

yet, this will simply embolden them to be more arrogant, as Americans only know to be. When dealing with Americans know that they are deceitful. Should you stand up to assert your rights, they use that as a pretext to abuse; but if you cooperate, they use your cooperation as an excuse to abuse your trust.

You see the common problem, to which the world knows: Regardless how you interact with Americans, they are abusive at their core.

Consider their arrogance when they ask for inputs, ideas, or suggestions. They are lying. They do not want to hear the truth: That they are incompetent; or that they lack ideas. Rather, they will use your good faith effort to provide web links to supporting material; make contributions to offer ideas and other views; and genuinely contribute as "evidence" that you are what they only know: Self-serving, disingenuous, and arrogant.

Americans wonder why they are held with contempt throughout the globe: It is because you are lazy, incompetent, and deceitful. Look at your ideas in the Constitution: IF only you were to put them into practice. But, as all Americans know well: What is on paper is, as Hitler says, "Just a piece of paper."

Hamas and Hezbollah are inspired, and inspire those who stand up to Americans not because of what they promise, but because of what they deliver: Hope, pride, and a sense that someone will assert power to rebuke that which is contemptuous: The abuse of power, to which the Americans pretend is a thing of the past from Hitler, but ever close to the bosom of Cheney and Addington.

* * *

Federalist 49, 50, and 51 build on the ideas of Paine and the lessons of the abuses in Parliament and other countries.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admitFed 51

* * *

What's changed since the Founding Fathers' days is the flip from Legislative control to Executive. Back then, the legislative staff was much larger that the Executive.

* * *

Notice this:

Every page of their proceedings witnesses the effect of all these circumstances on the temper of their deliberations. Fed 50

When Congress rubber stamps legislation, we have no proceedings, nor deliberations.

* * *

It is improper when a Congress celebrates the killing of civilians, refuses to end needless bloodshed, and stands silently as women and children are slaughtered.

To call for peace, but then out of the other side of the mouth scream with delight while others to commit war crimes is more than disingenuous; it is evidence of uncivilized barbarity. It is not merely the society which produces such thinking which is depraved, but it is the system, which permits this barbarity, that must be called into question.

The world does not look at the United States and Americans as evil and worthy of destruction because of freedom and values; rather, it is the threat that Americans pose to the freedom and values of other people and sovereigns.

Americans rest on the glory of WWII, yet have yet to point to a noble cause since then other than a skirmish in Grenada and the time they bravely ran away from Lebanon. What inspires Americans? It is the arrogant idea that they can do anything, without regard to the means to do it, or the legacy which shows they are incompetent.

Americans refuse to listen. They know all. They are actually sewing the seeds of their destruction.

It is naive for Americans to believe nobody notices. The world can see: Your treachery, deception, abuse, malfeasance, incompetence, and unwillingness to take responsibility for what is wrong and could be corrected.

What Americans do to others, others feel emboldened to reciprocate.

You bring this on yourselves. It can last many years. You are outnumbered. You cannot be in all places at once, especially when you show you cannot be where you are most needed: At home.

* * *

Americans take criticism as a sign that they are on the right path, inspiring their crusade along the wrong path.

This could be easily addressed if only the Congress were willing to face itself in the mirror, and discuss in public what it hopes to quickly pass without debate: Evidence that things are not quite right, but going terribly wrong.

There are solutions. A bad enemy will provide not substantive solutions, but let you enjoy the disaster you create.

Enjoy the midnight crickets.

* * *

A tricameral system might be an alternative to the 4th Branch; the third division of Congress would have the exclusive power to conduct investigations, and would always be controlled by the minority party.

When the majority's platform is at risk, they might be willing to share the truth, rather than incite the public to make adverse inferences about what is hidden: War crimes. Unless you cooperate with the rule of law, you can be compelled to lose, not just at home, but in Beirut.

It is one thing to abuse power; quite another to demonstrate to the world that you are not all powerful, but overreact, yet still cannot achieve your goals. This merely inspires the world to mock you, and then return to strike another blow where you are most vulnerable.

You need only look in the mirror to find your problem. Your enemy will remind you of the truth on the battlefield, your preferred forum to resolve disputes.

When there is no debate, you communicate you prefer another forum: The Battlefield.

Are you sure you are competent with your choices?

Eternity has no deadline. Those betrayed have vivid memories and passion to prevail, conquer, and destroy through peaceful, lawful means. They have found a way to do what you wanted them to do: Stand up, assert their rights, and enjoy the fruits of freedom and democracy.

Your problem is that you have disagreed with their free choice, decimating the land you sewed democracy's seeds. In truth, this land was where the seeds of democracy were first sewn, and it was passion that inspired you to choose an alternative. Your problem is that you are not happy when others choose another way: Something other than America, and something without Americans.

You cannot compel free people to work with or cooperate with those who refuse to work for peaceful solutions, and refuse to cooperate.

You wished this.

Read more . . .