Constellation: DoJ Accepts Trojan Horse
Hamdan creates a FOIA opportunity.
We discuss remedies to the failed system of American governance.
Hamdan fatally undermines the DoJ Asst Attorney testimony before Congress. The core issue is the Supreme Court has established that Geneva does apply, there have been violations, and that US government personnel are linked to that illegal activity.
The problem Keisler has, in the wake of the Hamdan case, is that his conduct between 2000-2006 is now of particular interest and fair public comment:
It remains to be understood how Keisler’s public comments, writing, and other testimony needs to be reconsidered in light of what we know in re Hamdan: That the Geneva Conventions are applicable.
For purpose of impeachment and removal from office, keep in mind the three week window after the January 2009 [Yes 2009] the new Congress takes office. Even if the Senate is not controlled by one party in 2006-8, the Hamdan case will act as a zipper to other evidence of war crimes. It is likely that the Senate, in the wake of the subsequent revelations and Grand Jury indictments between 2006-8, will shift to the DNC, and they will take control in 2009. There is a three week window between when the Congress takes seat, and when the President in 2009 leaves office.
Upon taking office in 2009, it could simply be a matter of a few short days in the first weeks of 2009 for the Senate to convict the President and Vice President of war crimes. Until then, the DoJ Staff attorneys will be targeted for individual prosecution, disbarment, and subsequent sanctions as permissible under the law.
The way going forward is to take the Hamdan case as merely one of the many pieces in a Nuremburg-like review of the DoJ Staff attorneys. Because Hamdan finds that there were violations of Geneva and war crimes, we have to consider the full scope of the illegal DoJ Staff attorney conduct, and the planning they were intimately involved in to commit these war crimes.
Central to the DoJ Attorney conspiracy is the objective to thwart oversight, create plans and documents that perpetuated the scheme, and then provided guidance to commanders and Senior Leadership on how to avoid consequences and detection. DoJ Staff attorneys are not merely idle computer nerds: They were instrumental in crafting the plans essential to commit war crimes around the globe, and at home against American citizens.
The DoJ OPR is the central point to receive complaints about DoJ Staff attorney conduct. Central to the planning for the illegal activity was the DoJ Staff attorney agreement not to report peer involvement in the war crimes and other illegal activity.
There is much more information that can be gleaned. Hamdan provides the public with the needed tool and leverage it needs to show the court that the FOIA requests of DoJ and DoD are related to illegal activity and war crimes. The FOIAs need to request: Documents DoJ Staff attorneys used to inter alia:
Here are the types of memoranda the Hamdan ruling shows must exist within the DoJ Staff, and under the ORCON rules cannot be classified or enjoy privilege because they related to illegal activity:
Hamdan, like the Downing Street Memo, is like a zipper: It tears apart the tenuous threads binding the White House, DoD, and DoJ. Hamdan reminds the executive on many levels that no one is above the law, regardless the reason or excuse. Geneva trumps the Executive’s discretion, he dos not have the power to ignore the law, and he is merely a ministerial clerk, not someone who can create or devise new powers which violate the Constitution or the US Treaty obligations. Addington appears to have missed this central lesson despite his professed curiosity with the Constitutional Convention debates.
The public should be able to see the information, plans, and other documents this government illegally created, used, relied upon, and followed to implement and carryout illegal activity. This information cannot be protected. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the information is related to illegal activity; and there is n bonafide claim that the information relates t a superior privilege claim. Rather, the information is related to criminal activity which was planned, orchestrated, and supported within the Department of Justice.
A plain reading of Hamdan destroys the legal arguments DoJ, the Executive, DoD, Addington, and Cheney have offered. Each of the following issues, in light of Hamdan, has the full support of the Supreme Court in asserting the rule of law, and requirement that all US Statutes and lawful procedures be followed, not ignored.
There is no merit to any Congressional assertion that the illegal activities are otherwise within the law, protected, or there has been no violation. Congress has no judicial power and any comment to assert that there has or has not been a violation by the Congress is meaningless and evidence that the Congressional leadership is incapable of investigating the pervasive pattern of war crimes and criminal conduct within DoJ, DoD, and the Executive Branch.
The following legal issues, in light of Hamdan, need to be reconsidered:
This conduct and activity did not self-propagate. DoJ Staff attorneys well planned this activity, coordinated it with the White House, and knew the conduct was not lawful. They have defied their oath to the Constitution, supported illegal warfare, and have failed to do what they are required to do: Ensure the rule of law prevails. They have defied their oath, not done what they should have done, remained attached to what was illegal planning for ongoing war crimes, and they have failed to assert their duties as members of the legal profession to protect the US Constitution from the enemies inside DoJ who are their legal peers.
It remains to be understood which DoJ and DoD Staff attorneys who were aware of the war crimes planning, have failed to properly reporting the illegal activity, or were subsequently given judicial bench seats despite their involvement in war crimes planning.
Given what the Supreme Court has said about the applicability of Geneva and the violations which are war crimes, Baybee is one DoJ war crimes planner within DoJ, and needs to be investigated for purposes of impeachment and removal from office.
Even a walled city can be penetrated. They deposited a large, wooden horse before the gates. Thinking it was a gift, the opposing army opened the gates, wheeled the horse inside. Later, they climbed out of the horse, opened the gates, and in walked the army to take over.
DoJ has a problem. Its wall have been penetrated. We can determine the exact times that specific DoJ attorneys were at their desks, which spouses they were speaking to, and where they physically reside within the DoJ Building.
The problem Hamden gives DoJ is one of war crimes. At Nuremburg, the precedent is that those who commit crimes can be indicted for war crimes, of which there is no statute of limitations. Nuremburg did not simply apply to the primary actors, but also those involved in the planning, organizing, and leadership.
DoJ Attorneys have a professional oath and obligation to ensure that the Constitution is protected, and that the treaties are also respected. Within the 1929 Protocol is Article 82, which imposes responsibility on attorneys to ensure that the military commanders follow the laws of war. This is not something that is isolated to DoD, but involves all attorneys who are peers of those in DoD.
Hamden presents a problem in that even if the Congress in 2006 abrogates the Geneva Conventions, the US remained under the Geneva Conventions between 2000 – 2006.
There are many lines of evidence, when taken in light of Hamdan create a mosaic, directly implicating the DoJ, DoD, and White House staff in the planning for these illegal war crimes. Recall the following:
This information is merely a taste of the problem DoJ Attorneys have. The entire line of evidence they’ve kept hidden from the public and Congress, on the grounds of national security, has been destroyed. Hamden effectively shows us that the entire DoJ-DoD Staff Attorney conduct and planning had one objective: To avoid detection of the illegal conduct they refused to remove themselves from.
The information is very clear: There is a pattern of abuse, the staff attorneys were led to believe that things would blow over, and that nobody would find out. Small problem: We know what’s going on, and we’re coming after you in the courtroom, grand jury, and voting booths There’s nothing you can do to stop this.
Your days of avoiding oversight, sanctions, and consequences for your war crimes planning are numbered. You have no statute of limitations to bargain with. Your peers have been traced through IPs to specific times and locations they were located in your building, but the DoJ AG has lied to Congress about not having enough time or attorneys to do FISA warrant reviews. Non-sense. We know about your online surfing and web updates; we know you’ve been chatting with your spouses about online material; we have your home phone numbers; we know where you park your cars in the basement; and we know which sports cars you like to fantasize about.
Central to the DoJ Attorney problem is the 2002 visits Addington made with Cheney to Guantanamo. Since then, Spike Bowman has done nothing to address the issues. Your problem is Hamden links you, as an attorney, to the war crimes – you failed to remove yourself from the planning.
We now about the 170th Military Police Company that reports to the 6th Group and the Joint Staff. There’s no evidence the DoJ Attorneys have ensured that your Article 82 requirements under Geneva have been enforced; or that you ensured your peers asserted their 5100.77 laws of war obligations. Yet, you have failed to credibly demonstrate to the DoJ OPR that you have appropriately reported the war crimes planning you and your peers have engaged.
DoD and DoJ are interwoven on the Hamdan litigation. What the Supreme Court has done is confirmed that a reasonable attorney working in concert with Article 82 would know that they should have filed memoranda stating that the Conventions applied.
Either this memoranda exists, never exists, or has been destroyed. Given the war crimes issues, if the memos have been destroyed, then this would amount to obstruction of justice. If the memoranda was not filed as required, upon receipt of information related to a war crime, then the DoJ and DoD Attorneys have a problem: They have failed to make reports of illegal conduct that a reasonable attorney, duly licensed at the state level, knew or should have know was a requirement under the Geneva Conventions. They are presumed to know the law; and their proximity to the issues put them in a special position of trust to make informed legal decisions. Moreover, they are members of the bar indicating that they have demonstrated a marginal amount of legal knowledge, and that they knew or should have know that when faced with a legal question they are to either look the information up on their computer, find an expert, or document their problem, and seek assistance from their supervisors.
The problem is that under the ABA rules, supervisors also have a duty to oversee, ensure that their attorneys are appropriately trained, and that if there are questions that those issues are resolved.
Consider the calendar: It is 2006, Keisler and many others have well discussed the issues since 2001, when they with Yoo and Addington discussed what could be done to violate the law, not get caught, and blame someone else.
Addington’s contention is that Geneva did not apply, and he is documented in 2002 to have discussed this issue with General Robert Gordon. Gordon bypassed Addington and made his report to the National Security Council.
The above information is merely a sample of the problem the DoJ Attorneys have. Keiser during this entire period was floating back and forth between the NSA and GITMO issues. Not only was he assigned to DoJ, with Sidle Austin he was also an AT&T legal council.
It can be clearly established that the communication lines between DoD and DoJ attorneys was robust, the attorneys were in a position to know the laws of war, and that they were well educated on the legal options they had to resolve what was or was not permissible under the Conventions.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Conventions apply, and the DoD-DoJ attorneys’ problem is that they have known this the entire time. Addington’s objective, in moving the prisoners to locations off shore, was to keep the legal issues out of the courts. However, the court has ruled that the prisoners, regardless where they are located, remain protected under Geneva, are entitled to hearings, and cannot be simply hidden away. Furthermore, once the Guantanamo legal defense fell apart, this was when the black sites in Poland and Romania were established. Given the prisoners at Guantanamo are entitled to Geneva Protections, then so too are the current and former prisoners at the Black Sites in Eastern Europe.
The Hamdan ruling essentially negates all legal arguments DoJ attorneys have provided in their internal deliberations; correspondence to DoD; the testimony provided to Congress; and the information they have submitted to Members of Congress in the form of letters.
At the core of Hamdan is the essential problem: DoD and DoJ Attorneys were working under Geneva, but actively planning to thwart those requirements. Either they were involved, or they removed themselves from this illegal planning. DoJ OPR would have the information on when the reports were made or not made. What we do know is that there is public information, outside the Americans control, which establishes by seat number and IP address within the DoJ building which DoJ attorneys were or were not at their desk on a specific day. This evidence confirms that they were physically breathing on a given day in the period 2000-2006, when the US Supreme Court states that the Geneva Conventions apply, and should have been part of the deliberations within DoJ.
DoJ Staff Attorneys like Keisler were well aware of the treaty requirements, and despite knowing the claims brought, and took action to delay any legal action. A plain reading of the statutes and Geneva leaves us with one conclusion: Despite knowing the laws of war were violated, Keisler, Gonzalez, Addington, and others within DoJ-DoD actively thwarted the lawful oversight of Congress in reviewing not only the DoJ war crime planning, but also the NSA-DoJ joint planning to thwart members of Congress from investigating the details of the NSA illegal activity. We have before us no evidence that any of the principals or their associates have removed themselves from this conspiracy; rather, they continued to assume that there would be no consequences, continuing to delay oversight between 2001 and 2006.
Given Geneva applies to any of the prisoners at Guantanamo, then it too must apply to any US Citizen on the issue of the military use of force and technology. The Geneva conventions prohibit the military from targeting civilians. The NSA has illegal used information to then direct paramilitary units in JTTF against American citizens, detained American citizens without warrants, and have unlawfully denied them access to counsel during forced interrogations. The interrogations were not lawful, devoid of probable cause, and did not secure the necessary warrants required under the Constitution. The US military personnel and the attorneys within DoD knew, or should have known, that the conduct not only violated the US Constitution, but was in contravention to the prohibitions in Geneva against using military force against American civilians.
The National Security Letters were a warrantless means to procure information, and illegally engage in domestic surveillance. This was one of the many illegal, unconstitutional tools which the DoJ Staff Attorneys created, argued for, but knew were not consistent with the Constitution. Despite the illegal activity, there is no compelling evidence that the DoJ Staff attorneys timely reported to the DoJ OPR information and reports of peer misconduct. Rather the DoJ Attorney General has thwarted the lawfully required investigations.
The Hamdan case also confirms many other problems for the DoJ Staff Attorneys. The programs they devised, planned, well discussed, and crafted after well planning and organizing the details had one goal in mind: To violate the rights of Americans, abuse power, and thwart lawful detection. Addington is known to have offered to eject cases rather than permit the FISA court to lawfully review the source of the FISA evidence.
Hamden reminds us that the procedures employed, whether they be in Guantanamo or Stateside, have to be lawful, and comply with the lawful procedures. Establishing a 45 day review period outside the FISA court merely repeats the violations on Hamdan. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not permissible to ignore requirements, especially when they are clearly promulgated and clearly established rights in the statute, Constitution, and Treaties.
DoJ Staff attorneys, because of their direct involvement in the war crimes committed at Guantanamo, Eastern Europe, Iraq, and stateside, have a major 42 USC 1983 liability problem. Under the 42 USC 1983, any government official can be stripped of their qualified immunity when it is shown that their conduct, planning, messages, or other indirect involvement helped create a system which violated clearly established rights. Because of the war crimes implications, DoJ Staff attorneys have met with outside counsel.
Consider Keisler’s involvement in the threats against the New Jersey attorney general. This is an open statement which Keisler freely gave implying that someone could suffer adverse legal consequences if they engage in a protected activity. This is a violation of the law, it is not protected, and is in contravention to the ABA standards of professional conduct.
Keisler’s problem is that he has jumped back and forth between the GTMO and NSA issues. In order for him to make a public statement on an issue, that information had to be coordinated within DoJ.
Also, consider the NSA-AT&T planning for the illegal, reckless NSA domestic spying. We already know that Qwest refused to participate, but suffered not known adverse consequences. Again, for that planning to occur, Keisler would have to organize the legal arguments, discuss them with the telecoms, then formulate the memoranda. It makes no difference whether he was with Sidley Austin, or with DoJ. Once he’s entered the legal nexus, and is part of the planning related to war crimes, it makes no difference whether he started the illegal activity and planning, or was merely at the end.
At no time did the DoJ Staff attorneys appear make any motion before the court, “We have made an error and need to fix this.” Rather, they deliberately and willfully, despite the Geneva requirements to the contrary, sought to delay any review of whether Geneva was even applicable. DoJ Staff attorneys unnecessarily delayed the Hamden case despite knowing the clearly promulgated Geneva requirements. Either they were reckless in ignoring the Geneva Conventions; or they were, by some miracle, granted the license to practice law, but were wholly ignorant of the law. Either way, they were in a position of responsibility to plan, devise, orchestrate, and delay investigations into the illegal war crimes committed at Guantanamo.
Hamdan has also done something very fatal to the DoJ Staff attorneys: It has effectively stripped from them any credible assertion or argument that the activity is privileged. ORCON reminds us that information related to illegal activity cannot be classified; and the Nixon vs. US reminds us that the Executive Privilege can be trumped when there is evidence of criminal activity.
5 USC 3331 also attaches to members of Congress the duty to assert their oath, protect the Constitution from all domestic enemies, and take swift action to ensure that the rule of law prevails. There is scant evidence any Member of Congress takes their oath seriously, yet each member failed to assert their oath and direct the Ranking Members to order the DoJ or DoD Inspector Generals to review these matters when they were known. Members of Congress are individually liable and can be stripped of their legislative immunity when they are part of an illegal scheme to hide evidence, not do what should be done, and otherwise fail to ensure that evidence of war crimes was thoroughly investigated. These are issues of Congressional malfeasance.
Geneva and the US code are in harmony. All people are subject to the requirements of Geneva. There is no evidence DoJ Staff attorneys, members of the White House staff, or the DoD Joint Staff took the required steps to timely report and investigate the abuses that have been well known. Rather, their objective was the opposite: To delay, thwart, and otherwise not do what is required under the US Code and Conventions.
Hamdan has destroyed the final defense DoJ Staff Attorneys have to Grand Jury war crimes indictments. It is clear to the Grand Jury that the legal counsel with in DoD and DOJ have recklessly ignored their professional obligations, failed to do what should have been done under the 5100.77 and Article 82 requirements; and did nothing to warrant any public confidence they have effectively engaged in adequate peer review or reporting.
We have the opposite:
In simple terms, the US Government effectively walked away while the abuse, war crimes, and illegal DoJ Staff Attorney conduct was celebrated.
The question is simple: What is to be done to resolve this matter, and prevent it from happening again. Clearly, the American model of governance has failed and the delays in arriving at justice are unacceptable.
The abuse started in early 2000, and it is now 2006, fully six  years, two years longer than the American Civil War and WWII. This is outrageous, unacceptable, and cannot ever be permitted to happen again.
The major problem is the American legal system which rewards offices of the court for being recklessly stupid, and incapable of assenting to the professional standards of conduct. It was not the legal community that took the lead. It was individual American citizens who decided that something had to be done, and who prompted the legal community to review this matter. That is not acceptable.
As WWII was winding down and the world realized that the German war machine was on the verge of collapse, the world discussed the simple question: What is to be done. Part of the solution was to modernize the Geneva Conventions, and enact professional standards of conduct within the medical community. The aim was to ensure that where there was abuse, this would be timely reported. This objective was not fulfilled.
There must be imposed on all legal professionals a singular duty to serve the Constitution, laws of the land, and all treaty obligations above and beyond their political loyalties to the contrary. It makes no difference what Addington and Cheney have fabricated in the Iran-Contra Minority Report, or what scheme they self-deluded themselves was needed. These war crimes were embraced by the DoJ Staff Attorneys when they should have rejected them, and done the opposite: Formally stand down, have no part, and make it known to the world what was occurring.
No DoJ Staff attorney can make any bonafide claim of executive privilege or secrecy. They well know that privilege and secrecy cannot hide illegal activity; and that their duty is to protect the Constitution, not their perceived loyalty to Addington and Cheney.
The American legal community, as did the Nazi doctors, has failed in self-governance. Their peer review system has no credibility. The ABA leadership is abysmal. They recklessly refuse to ensure there are oversight procedures to ensure ABA staff are appropriately selected, screened, or otherwise supervised. The results speak for themselves: War crimes, silence by the ABA, and continued reckless assent by the DoJ Staff attorneys to these war crimes.
There needs to be a specific advocate for the Constitution that has permanently recognized standing to bring suit, make claims, and appear before any court to mandate that illegal conduct be investigated.
It makes no difference what the law is or isn’t. The requirement is that there must be an advocate that speak when the legal community is silent. This entity must have recognized standing to openly discuss government crimes, allegations of war crimes, and illegal activity. Their mandate cannot be constrained by Congress; rather, their mandate must be as the single advocate for the Constitution. There must be a mechanism to compel responses. There must be a standing committee on 1st Amendment Grievances.
The issue of standing has always been a convenient government delaying tactic. Notice what is going on with the NSA illegal activity: Because the government can hide the evidence form the specific victims, the government would have us believe that there’s no accountability. This is false. When there is a crime, the victim does not have to appear; the issue is the state.
The real question is why is there no single attorney within the criminal justice system or US Attorneys office that has, on their own, empanelled a Grand Jury in 2001 to review the mounting evidence of war crimes by the DoJ Staff attorneys. It is irrelevant what does or does not work with the special counsel system. The issue is simple: There needs to be a mechanism that swiftly moves on the first report of a problem, not something that glacially arrives on the scene six  six years later after the Supreme Court reminds us, “Yes, we still have a Constitution and a requirement to follow the law.” If we lived in a country that had competent attorneys, this should be the starting point -- as a formalized rule of procedure -- for all discussion, not the arguable point that gets cast the wind as another unknown.
It is outrageous that the DoJ Staff has effectively walked around like zombies since 2000 and there has been no timely intervention in the early years to mandate that they assert their oath.
It is the responsibility of a competent legal professional to bring the case, and timely intervene early in the problem. Their goal should be to ensure that there is no abuse of power, the statutory violations are investigated, and the misconduct is reviewed and sanctioned. Ideally, this is automatic. Clearly, six years on, we realize that it requires almost an act of God before the legal profession has the Constitution shoved down its throat by the United States Supreme Court.
Yet, one day, the Court may choose to argue the other way. What is to be done to compel the court to stay within the lane of the law; and how, when the Congress assent to the abuse, refuses to impeach the Supreme Court when it fails to assert its oath? That is the next problem which We the People must devise a system to prevent, mitigate, and adjust.
There need to be some plain speaking observations of the problems. The disparity is curious. Consider the issue of public statements:
Here’s the obvious question: Why are the same sanctions that might be imposed, as a threat on the civilian population to keep silent about illegal activity, not also imposed on the DoJ Staff attorneys?
When there are clear crimes, as this President has admitted over the NSA issue, there should be no requirement that there be a specific victim. Rather, any attorney should be allowed to bring suit on behalf of the Constitution, and prosecute this case to its conclusion before a Grand Jury.
The issue of conviction is clear: The Senate, only after the House impeaches, can remove a President from office. However, the Executive has to have the support of other non-Presidential personnel.
Putting aside the refusal of this Congress to hold a simple clear in the Oval office to the laws all others are required to follow, the question is: How did so many within the Executive Branch convince themselves to actively support the war crimes? They are not under any promise. Rather, at an indefinite time, they could be prosecuted, and are not guaranteed any pardon.
Executive power has been abused, and the promise of pardons has been a green light to war crimes and violations of the Constitution. Power may not be used or promised in a scheme to undermine the Constitution.
It is time to review situations when the Executive Privilege must be emphatically rejected, and that the conduct associated with this rejected privilege be clearly known to all attorneys: If you are in this situation, know that the Executive is denied privilege and immunity. At no time can any attorney every claim that the privilege is absolute; or that the illegal activity is protected.
What is most outrageous with this reckless crew of DoJ Staff attorneys is that they perceive all legal issues, documents, Constitutions, and treaties as debatable, as if the Constitutional debates of 1788-9 are in vogue.
This must end. Rather than start with the uncertainty of the applicability of the law, the starting point must be the reverse: That the Constitution, Conventions, and Statutes are starting points, and the goal is to work within those parameters. This crew has done the opposite: Embark on reckless, illegal conduct, then twist the law as if it were debatable, not applicable, or something other than what it specifically says.
The world is not as mysterious as the DoJ Staff attorneys would have the world believe. The Constitution is clear. If they dare walk down the road to the rotunda, they might see the vault where the Constitution is housed. There needs to be a big sign above the Constitution: “Hay, idiots in DoJ – this is what you are protecting, not destroying. Got that?”
It is absurd that the courts entertain this notion that the Constitution, statutes, and treaties are debatable. The public should not have to re-argue the basic law each time as if it is still debatable.
Privilege has been abused. Executive power has been abused. There needs to be a set of fairly simple criteria that will make it clear to the Executive: You not longer can assert privilege in the court of law; and the attorneys you have working for you can be disbarred for asserting something that is not permitted.
These conditions relate to a pattern of conduct that relates to:
Our Constitution specifically says that Congress shall have no power to do certain things. It is not lawful for the Executive to claim an Article 1 Section 8-like “necessary and proper” clause to then assert legislative and judicial power. Rather, the clerk in the oval office must be treated as a clerk: With only expressly delegated powers; and that all powers exercised that are not delegated is the basis for the court to immediately strip immunity and privilege to engage in fact finding. There need not be a victim, especially when the Executive brazenly admits to criminal conduct. The goal is to contain the power, not get distracted as to whether or not the Executive has buried the victims in deep or shallow graves.
This Constitution expressly calls for Habeas and timely trials. Yet, despite this requirement, this legal community has devised a system that makes that discretionary. That is not acceptable. These protections apply to all people, even to the reckless war criminals still residing (temporarily) in the Department of Justice.
There needs to be specific instances where the legal community knows the Executive will have their privileges, immunities, and other powers expressly stripped, denied, and not permitted.
These are merely some of the conditions upon which the DoJ Staff attorneys, and White House counsel should expressly certify that they are aware of, have briefed the President, and make this certification annually to the American Bar Association and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Any attorney found to have made a false statement, incomplete statement, or fails to file a timely comment as to why they are late or have failed to provide a certification, shall be the basis to launch an immediate investigation into the that attorneys conduct; and shall put that attorney on suspension until the facts are cleared and understood.
Those attorneys that are aware of war crimes, and involved in planning, that falsely state that there are not problems, shall be considered to be a primary agent in the war crimes and be subject to prosecution.
Translation: When you work for the government you have qualified client-attorney privilege. That privilege can be stripped when it relates to illegal war, abuse of power, unconstitutional conduct, or other activity which violates the Constitution, laws, and treaty obligations. You may not as a Government attorney rely on the civil-privilege when you are in a special position of trust. Rather, when you are a government attorney, your job is to protect the Constitution first, not the Executive from accountability for violations of his oath.
If you are not wiling to asset in writing that you remain in compliance with the laws, then you are not fit to be a government attorney. Rather, the reason why the DoJ is a cess pool is that your peers know full well the re are problems, but the DoJ AG continues to thwart accountability for his reckless assent to the war crimes. Hamden has now destroyed his entire defense and excuses he’s made to Senator Feingold.
One of the requirements under the ABA is that the attorneys do not make public statements that will affect the trial. However, there is a problem when looking broadly at government operations and voters: What is to be done to ensure that the attorneys do not use the litigation to manipulate the election, or stifle Congress from engaging in needed oversight. It is one thing to protect the jury system; it is quite another to protect the Constitution.
As there are restrictions from tampering the juries, so too must the attorneys be barred from making direct or indirect comments that are going to taint the voters. You may not use overseas media outlets to then be used to discourage the Congress from doing what should be done.
It is not acceptable that the US government uses pre-litigation-excuses as the basis to smear targets. This is not merely a civil issue; it is a matter of abuse of power, and a defect in the legal community to effectively ensure that the voters are not tainted.
It is meritless to argue that your first Amendment rights have protected. Rather, you do not have the power to, and you may not issue, information that misrepresents the law, endorses illegal conduct, or otherwise sanctions executive abuse of power.
When you take an oath of office as a government attorney, you are promising to do something. You are not promising that you will support illegal activity; you are promising that you are going to protect the Constitution. This means that you have to promise, and you will take actions, to remain silent and sanction your peers when they use the media to manipulate the elections.
The contrast is noteworthy. On one had, the Executive claims privilege to keep information out of the public eye; while at the same time the attorneys and Executive Staff provide information to dissuade accountability. There needs to be a remedy:
You are always free to speak. The issue is whether the Americans are going to agree there should be unique sanctions on those who abuse the speech. It is not lawful to yell fire in a theater; so too as it should be illegal to point abroad and scream, “Terrorist,” all the while the executive is the greatest threat to the Constitution. Start pointing at the White House and say, “War criminal.”
The American legal community and Congress have failed to ensure that legal issues are timely resolved. There need to be sanctions on DoJ Attorneys when they, as they have done, delayed the court proceedings, and asserted that the law of the land does not apply.
DoJ attorneys were the ones who appealed the Hamdan case. The first court ruling could have been accepted as, “This is what we must accept.” But, the Executive decided to go through two more rounds.
Again, each time, rather than starting with Geneva and the Constitution as the basis to resolve the issue, DoJ threw the entire legal system on its head arguing that the laws of the land did not apply. What’s worse is the court of appeals embraced this absurdity.
There needs to be a mechanism that imposes sanctions on the Executive Branch Attorneys when they delay resolving the legal issues, or they continue to assert that the laws of the land are mysterious, not applicable, or otherwise uncertain in their applicability.
We have Habeas and the requirement for speedy trials; yet we are six years into this. Obviously something has broken. The legal community hasn’t thought it fit to resolve this matter. It’s time for the public to draft a more robust Constitution that expressly imposes on the legal community specific, known, clear sanctions on them for failing to honor their oath, and accept that the document is the starting point, and not up for debate. Until the legal community faces a credible threat of sanctions and loss of liberty for refusing to enforce it within government, there is no reason the US Constitution will remain a viable document. Each time the civilian population will effectively have to re-debate the entire Constitutional Convention. If that is the case, then we might as well discuss a New Constitution, and save the country time. This would expedite court proceedings, and more swiftly litigate government abuse of power.
Make no mistake, the problem is not simply with the legal community and reckless Executive. The problem lies with Congressional oversight. Cheney in 1987 stated he would welcome reforms. We take him at his word, and that he will welcome these reforms in 2006.
There has to be a mechanism that will sanction members of congress for violation of the Constitution when they pass prohibited legislation. Again, there is the notion of legislative immunity which the legal community appears to view as a blank check to pass illegal statutes. Again, putting aside the legal community’s stupidity and failure to make credible arguments, let’s consider the simple problem: It has to do with ensure that no bill from Congress destroys the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no law. . .” The framers never thought that the Congress would do something they have no power to do: Make laws that destroy the Constitution, and get the legal community to cheer. The louder the celebration, the swifter the sanction. We need something that is going to kick Congress faster when they do what they are not allowed to do: Destroy the Constitution through inaction, malfeasance, or design. This liability and risk of sanction needs to be put on the legislative staffers who are the ones who craft the language, and also the public lobbyists who do the same.
Again, legislative immunity is not a blank check for lobbyists in the defense and justice systems to create language that supports illegal war, violatiosn of the law, or programs which otherwise create technical capabilities which defy the warrant requirements. If you are a staffer at a contractor, then you should know that your support of these bills will be something that is subject to review, prosecution, and war crimes indictment.
The issue is that this abuse of power should have been timely nipped in the bud in 2001, not allowed to fest for six years. We need to have a system that is going to quickly establish a case, identify a public advocate for the Constitution that does not need to have a victim or damages; and can spring board a Grand Jury investigation on the basis of information form any source, even Presidential admissions of crimes.
We need a timely resolution. We need to deny DoJ and Congress any notion that they can delay or thwart oversight. Nobody is saying the president can’t protect the country; the issue is whether he will do so within the law, or whether he and his agents will be timely sanctioned in a meaningful way after they abuse power and violate the law well after the emergency is long over. The potential sanctions need to be meaningful to thwart abuse; not at such a level where it is impossible to ensure the clerk in the oval office follows rudimentary rules.
It is not acceptable that Congress is contemplating passing laws that violate, ignore, or abrogate the Constitution or Treaties. There needs to be a circuit breaker before the bill gets out of Congress. Even through a party may control all branches of government, there needs to be a mechanism that is going to timely challenge the conduct, without requiring a party with standing that is going to act on behalf of the Constitution. Otherwise, all we have is a Supreme Court affirming the law; then another Congressional-Executive scheme to thwart the Constitution, and another six years to clean that mess up. Once was enough in 1776: We need not seriously consider you as credible or suitable leaders when you feign ignorance of 1776 and 1789 with each bill.
Congressional lawyers have a problem. You have been witness to the abuses, have failed to timely report your peer misconduct.
There needs to be a plan that is going to timely mandate Congressional staff attorneys assert the Constitution despite the Executive’s abuse of power. We need only consider the vacuum of Congressional letters to the IGs to clearly understand the problem: Despite many concerns, there’s no evidence to suggest the Congressional attorneys were credibly asserting their oath.
There needs to be a mechanism will sanction Congress for refusing to engage in oversight. The committee rules and ethics process clearly fail to include something that will credibly impose a sanction. Congress may be a self-regulating organization for now, but when that self-monitoring system fails, as it has with the ABA, the first victim is the Constitution. This needs to end.
If the self-regulation power of Congress needs to be modernized, transferred, or otherwise transformed into a criminal justice system, that may be an option. The point is that the current oversight system in Congress has failed, has proven meaningless, and Members of Congress would have the public believe they didn’t know. Baloney. They knew, or should have known that the treaty obligations were not getting followed, yet did not think to review the matters. It was always “someone else’s problem.” Not any more: It’s now going to be your problem: These are war c crimes which you failed to adequately review, timely document, and failed to investigate. You have failed a credible source of leadership and if not prosecuted cannot be fit to remain in office.
Congressional legislative immunity needs to be stripped in matters related to 5 USC 3331, and the following types of threats to the US Constitution:
This assertion that “it’s all discretionary” is at odds with your oath: You promise to protect the Constitution. Yet, despite the prospect that the voters may vote the legislature out of office, Members of Congress continue to turn a blind eye to illegal activity. For that, they need to be treated for what they are: Complicit for their malfeasance.
Well within this mess is the system of bill creation witch effectively denies another branch of government power to do what should be done: Assert their oath, protect the Constitution. How do we explain six years of this non-sense?
There should be some system of sanctions on Members of Congress and their staff for even discussing bills that deny another branch of power; or otherwise abrogate the US Constitution and treaty obligations. Again, as with the legal community, the Congress appears to look at each bill as another starting point, and refuses to look at how it integrates with the overall Constitution, whining, “It’s up to eh courts.” Brilliant, that means another 6 years of finding a new victim.
Enough of that. Time to get the Congress kicked in the rear end the moment this comes up for debate: Congress shall make no law which waters down the Constitution, recognizes powers that does not exist; assents to illegal conduct; or otherwise permits conduct which effectively denies rights or abuses power. Yes, a very high standard for those who get paid a lot to do what is self-evidently very little accomplished: Destruction of the Constitution.
What’s going to be done to protect the Judicial branch when we face the same situation again: When all three branches are under the control of a reckless party that assents to barbarism, lawlessness, and stupidity.
Self-checking doesn’t work when the checks aren’t working. The Judicial Branch cannot be held hostage to the whims of politics. Rather, it should be above politics, ideology, and any other loyalty but the preservation of the rule of law.
Again, each case starts off as an insulated product, and We the People have been led to believe that each case must be argued as if the Constitution is uncertain; and show deference to the DoJ Attorneys who argue that the laws of the land are no long applicable. We need to send the wake up call through the courts, into the ABA peer reviews, and have some meaningful supervisory refresher training at the court direction and oversight.
Either the Judicial leadership will resolve these issues internally, or We the People will shove a New Constitution down your throat. Go read Federalist 78 which outlines how this can be done.
There needs to be a better system to oversee the ABA. The peer review process has failed. The DoJ Staff attorneys have been poorly led, and this defect should have been timely brought to the attention of the Congress, Courts, ABA, then the public.
There needs to be a Congressionally chartered agency that is independent of the Executive Branch that creates a system of oversight, monitoring, and review that evaluates whether the ABA peer review system is or is not working; and timely provide independent reports to the public so the voters can make informed decisions whether the Constitution is or is not being protected.
Job one is the Constitution and it should not be a question of discretion, debate, or convenience. It is mandatory. Your job in government is to protect it. Again, if you fail to freely reform, We the People may lawfully impose far harsher requirements that will remove any discretion, and make your jobs far more difficult than you can possibly imagine, You are outnumbered, and even the most foolish of voters can realize that you have essentially lose touch with your primary mission: The Constitution.
There needs to be a system of formalized war crimes reporting. The ABA rules of professional conduct need to be modernized, as the medical profession’s rules were modernized after WWII.
Yet, as with the medical profession that has failed, there needs to be a mechanism that is going to timely report to the voters there is a problem. In those cases where the US government denies the Red Cross Access, there needs to be a better discussion within Congress about the adverse inferences:
This oversight system needs to be something that is formalized, not something that is ad hoc.
There are issues of government-attorney confidence that are different than a private citizen-attorney privilege. This distinction needs to be formalized, and the Rules of Evidence updated to recognize this change.
This government has abused the attorney-client privilege intended to safeguard discussions between the citizen and client; and twisted that to pervert the government abuse of power, and remain silent.
Those days need to rapidly end. The abuse of power, regardless the recklessness of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, is something that must be prevented, not explained away with glassy-eyed stares.
DoJ Attorneys should not have an obligation to maintain confidences with their pees when the issue is war crimes. Those employees that want to publicly assert absurd constructions to deny public knowledge of illegal activity should be subject to OPM oversight, sanction, and reporting in their permanent file. The SES needs to be trained on this requirement, and report back to Congress within 90 days their plan to comply with his modernized system. If they need to manually document this using paper because the IT system aren’t working, that is acceptable. Bottom line: We need some demonstrated leadership, not the non-sense we’ve been given for the last six years. If you don’t want to do it, we can find someone else. There are 300 million of us, and any monkey could be trained to do what should be done: Follow the law.
The ABA needs a system within their oversight and peer reviews that ensures that the ABA rules of professional conduct are timely incorporated into the sate level oversight.
Again, given the state-level licensing of attorneys, the federal issues are somewhat disconnected as they are with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC has already in place federal rules related to attorney reporting. The 1933/34 Acts were the first steps to strengthen the securities regulation. A similar approach needs to be taken to the legal community: Federalize the oversight; impose federal level sanctions on the players; and ensure that the US Constitution is protected. Again, an act of Congress linked with Highway funding could be a nice incentive for the States to embrace the needed reforms at the state-level disciplinary boards.
Bottom line: ABA needs standards of conduct that compel war crime reports about clients and peers, noisy withdrawals, and minatory requirements on an attorney to remove oneself where there is a connection with efforts to isolate the Constitution, abrogate treaties, or otherwise support illegal war, torture, or other actions contrary to our system of laws. Understandably, many firms might lose legal counsel; this might be an incentive for firms to follow the law, rather than hire attorneys who are willing to play stupid about their reckless disregard for the Securities Laws and Constitution.
It is without merit to argue that this approach could not work at the Federal Level: The system in the wake of Sarbanes Oxley has shown that attorneys can maintain their employment, still service their clients, and at the same time do what must be done internally to resolve issues, but then as a last resort offer their walking papers and make it known there is a problem the auditors and SEC need to address.
The same time of system needs to be applied to DoJ and the Executive Branch:
The public needs war crimes reports from the ABA attorneys about their peers and clients. The Constitution comes first, Privilege cannot be used as a means to collectively destroy the source of that privilege.
There need to be a set of ABA standards that sanction attorneys for making stupid comments on the internet. This non-sense in the blogs is really absurd. Not only are the attorneys being condescending, but they’re acting as if the ABA has no role in overseeing and sanctioning them for online abuse and recklessness.
Again, if you are an attorney, your online conduct is not privileged. Rather, you are an officer of the court, and you will treat the public with the respect that you expect of your peers. If you desire to treat the readers of your blog with disdain, contempt, arrogance, or otherwise, do not complain when you are the subject of an ABA peer review, or you remain under surveillance for your non-sense.
You are a lawyer. Your job is to professionally conduct yourself at all times. If you want to be arrogant, stupid, or make silly arguments that are disconnected from reality, the law, or your obligations that is one thing if you do that privately. But the moment that you start publishing your comments, and the public relies on that information, then you are not long a private citizen enjoying your 1st Amendment right to speech. Rather, you are still bound by your oath through the ABA, to be professional understand that your comments are to be relied upon, and that you appropriately disclose disclaiming statements within your comments, and never make the absolute assertion that something is or is not so: You never know for sure. Don’t be arrogant and abuse your readers with non-sense arguments, especially when you fail to make a credible argument. You bring discredit upon yourself when you rely on legal non0sense and absurd twisting of text to arrive at an absurd conclusion.
This is not appropriate:
The ABA needs to use online attorney comments, products, and statements as part of their peer-review process; and the members of the Public and Congress need to use this information to assess whether the ABA is or is not effectively monitoring their peers.
If there is a requirement than anyone identify themselves, then the attorney should so identify themselves first. If the ABA and legal community is not happy with identification on blogs, then there should be no requirement that anyone else provide anything which the ABA will not provide:
Because of the reckless disregard this ABA and legal community have shown, especially through the proxy of the DoJ Staff attorneys, there’s very little reason the US civilian population should take the American legal community seriously.
If you want to bet paid high fees for worthless service, you have a problem: The public has figured out that the problem over the last six years can be traced to the non-sense in the American legal community.
If you ant to play stupid, then the public can do the same. If you want to support a client that does or doesn’t’ do something, then the public may lawfully reciprocate.
If you do not engage in oversight, then We the People may make a New Constitution which compels you, as an officer of the court, to assent to what you have always agreed to do, but have abysmally failed to do: Assert your oath, protect the Constitution, and not give us excuses to defy the law and abuse power and rights.
Central to the American legal systems problem is the lack of competition. I’m not talking attorney-to-attorney; rather, I’m taking a secondary or tertiary system that competes directly with the ABA, and forever bans any legal monopoly in the United States under the Constitution.
You have abused your monopoly, proven to be unresponsive, and your staff has shown it is incapable of self-discipline. Moreover, the results in DoJ and the war crimes around the globe are direly linked with legal “professionals” like Keisler, Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, and the rest of the cess pool that justifies being disbarred.
You have a credibility problem. You can either fix this system swiftly on your own, or we can impose far more aggressive oversight with a New Constitution.