Constellation: Moschella Joins The Cluster

This letter is more of the Addington-like non-sense.

Note at the end of this is another letter from Moschella; and This motion which discusses the issues before the Hamdan ruling.

More: Ref* * *

Fatal Inconsistency: Impeachment of Moschella as a witness

There's a key document Moschella is connected to, falsely leaving the impression that the decision to ignore FISA was related to Sept 2001. [ Ref Ref ] If we look at the current memo to Senenbrenner Moschella has changed gears from the FISA issues, which he recognized were applicable, and now would have us believe that Hamdi in 2004, before the 2005 memo was crafted suddenly is the justification. This makes no sense.

Also, page 3 of 5 para ""By expressly and broadly excepting" has been specifically rejected in that the AUMF, contrary the DoJ-White House desires, did not trump FISA, nor as we learn from Senator Daschle was the AUMF intended to trump FISA, which Hamdan recognized. AUMF in Hamdan which Moschella relies on in this memo is not only contrary to facts and the law, but wholly inconsistent with the letter to Schumer.

Truthout reports this letter which wholly destroys Moschella Dec 2005 legal arguments. The letter to Schumer simply deepens the legal problem Moschella has already dug for himself, the Attorney General, and the President.

On the Schumer letter alone, the inconsistent statements are a reasonable basis to conclude that not only is Moschella lying, but his previous assertions (which make no sense), should be a reasonable basis to expand the inquiry. Yet when taken in light of Viet D. Dinh's glaring misstatements before the DC bar, we judge there is ample evidence to indict the attorneys for Article 82 violations: None of the legal or factual accounts are consistent.

Each new judicial decision tips the balance away from the President. DoJ's only option is to redraft history, and then explain away the Supreme Court precedent. This is not Constitutional nor does it reflect well on the DoJ Attorney respect for the supremacy of the Supreme Court. They have defied their oath, as many did during Iran-Contra and Watergate.

* * *

Recall the lessons of the intelligence committee Chairman: He makes inconsitent, disingenuous statements: Ref

* * *

Discussion: Discussing the DoJ "response" to Schumer Letter

We briefly outline the detailed flaws with the Letter to Schumer and provide guidance on Moschella's connection to the LAN, and which DoJ contract with SAIC can serve as a vehicle to subpoena this information from DoJ.

There are four absurd reasons Moschella offers on the FISA legality, none of the arguments are compelling, we outline the flaws below. Unable to prevail using Hamdan, DoJ has shifted to Hamdi. Yet his 2005 memo makes this diversion irrelevant.

(1) Whether the UCMJ is or is not constitutional has no bearing on whether the FISA is or is not to be followed

The governing law is FISA. Hamdan affirms that procedures and rules that are in place are to be followed, not explained away.

. . .

(2) The Executive fails to account for the conduct between 2000 and 2004, and other illegal NSA surveillance prior to the events of Sept 2001, before the AUMF was issued.

What did or did not happen in Sept 2001 is meaningless to Moschella's argument. NSA illegal activity started well before Sept 2001. That Moschella may wish Congress be left with the false and misleading impression of the governing law is a matter for the DC Bar to review.

DoJ and the White House have provided no information to warrant confidence that their construction of the illegal NSA surveillance is or is not similar to any case law. Even if relevant, Moschella fails to demonstrate Hamdi of 2004 would trump Hamdan of 2006. Hamdi in no way affirmed any right or power to the Executive to trump the Constitution or governing law.

. . .

(3) Congress expressly defined in FISA which procedures are to be followed during wartime.

It is irrelevant that FISA permits an update with a "subsequent statute," in that Hamdi is not a statute. Rather FISA explicitly includes war time provisions which the Executive has ignored.

Even if we include the argument that something may or may not have happened in 2004, there is a period between 2000-2004 (exceeding the 15 calendar day limit expressly outlined in FISA.

. . .

(4) Article 1 Section 8: Congress has the exclusive power to make all rules.

The Article 1 Section 8 "necessary and proper"-clause in a power exclusively delegated to the legislature, and never delegated to the executive. This power is one expressly delegated only to the Congress so that they may make rules which are required to govern.

FISA fits comfortably within the necessary and proper clause. There is no merit to any assertion that Congress has no power to make rules related to collecting foreign intelligence during wartime. Rather, FISA rules apply during wartime, which Gonzalez has recognized and accepted on numerous occasions. If Attorney General Gonzalez did not wish to comply with FISA or believes that FISA is not within the power of Congress to promulgate, there is no explanation as to why Gonzalez came to Congress to make many other changes to FISA. [See Gonzalez 6 Feb 2006 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee].

Congress has not, and does not have the power to delegate this necessary and proper rule making power {"legislative power") to the Executive. Our system of governance is one that separates powers. As Hamdan affirmed, a consolidation of power within a single branch would not only defy the Constitutional structure, but permit the abuse of power which violates both the Geneva Conventions and FISA requirements. Hamdan comfortably affirmed the general rule that procedures and requirements must be followed, not explained away.

There is no legal basis to believe that any such delegation of power has occurred. Putting aside the legality of delegation, if it is DoJ's contention that Congress has delegated power, DoJ will have to coordinate with for Asst. Attorney General Viet D. Dinh who rightly or wrongly expressly states in his litigation over Sarbanes-Oxley that it is not constitutional for Congress to delegate any legislative power. This is a matter for the White House and DoJ to resolve with Viet D. Dinh.

The Constitution is unambiguous. The Executive does not have the power to create rules or procedures which circumvent during wartime the express will of Congress which clearly promulgates the requirements the Executive must follow during wartime.

We need not give deference to DoJ's inconsistent argument (arguing that power may or may not be delegated) when the Constitution on this point is clear: Congress has the sole, exclusive "necessary and proper"-power to make rules. The obvious communication problem and inconsistent legal arguments is not something we need to, nor should be expected to resolve. This is a criminal matter for a war crimes tribunal to prosecute. [See: "Attorney Violations of Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions: It is a war crime when attorneys and legal planners fail to ensure that the Geneva requirements were fully enforced and put into practice."]

. . .

Hamdan affirms that the rules and procedures must be consistent with within the governing laws and treaties. There is no merit to any assertion that the DoJ-NSA 45-day reviews of the illegal surveillance, conducted beyond the FISA court purview and outside what is permissible under the governing law, satisfy this requirement of FISA, which Hamdan affirmed must be done.

If the President does not wish to follow the governing law, he has another problem in that he failed to report under Title 50 the scope of the procedures he is using which violate FISA, and are not lawful. This is a subsequent violation which attaches liability to the legal community.

Compounding the President's problem is the failure to deny that Geneva is applicable. Hamdan does apply to US citizens in that when US citizens are targeted with illegal military power in an international war, Geneva expressly denies any protection to the legal community which advocates the illegal use of military force. Article 82 of the Conventions impose a requirement on the legal community to ensure the laws of war are followed.

Regardless whether we turn to Hamdi or Hamdan Geneva prohibits the Executive from imposing military burdens and abuses on civilians, whether they are located on the battlefield or at home. This executive has imposed burdens on civilians, violated the law, and has failed to meet his obligations under Geneva to ensure that the laws of war, as they apply to all civilians, are respected.

* * *

Constellation: Identifying Information

Moschella is well known to the Judiciary Committee and Sensenbrenner. Those who have experience conducting the investigations, know how to block the investigations, especially as it comes to FOIAs.

William E. Moschella assigned to Office of Legislative Affairs

BA from the University of Virginia in 1990

Born 1968

910273068

To file your complaint about Moschella, contact:

DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility

Ethics:

Mary Anne Hoopes
Associate Counsel
202-514-3365

* * *

Moschella has a problem. He's firmly linked with a failed leader who is a war criminal. The laws of war prohibit attorneys from attaching themselves to illegal conduct. Article 82 expressly defines the legal obligations of an attorney to ensure the laws of war are followed.

Whether Moschella and others in DoJ choose to assert the rule of law and their oath is not in dispute. When given the opportunity to explain their refusal to get FISA warrants, the Attorney General said that there was no enough manpower. However, within Moschella's office are computers which have been linked with wiki-updates when the Attorney General committed perjury and lied to Congress about the manning problem.

Further complicating Moschella's contention are the public statements by Viet D. Dinh to the DC bar which expressly asserted that all activity was legal. Yet, we now know that the conduct violated the clearly promulgated FISA statutes. The problem facing DoJ is why the attorneys have failed to provide peer comments to DoJ OPR when they well know that the misconduct amounts to war crimes and misrepresentations to Congress. Rather than assent to a lawful DoJ OPR review, the Executive and Attorney General have thwarted lawful oversight and reasonable reviews of DoJ attorney misconduct and material contributions to illegal war planning.

Moschella's conduct warrant a review by the DC Bar. They appear to be misrepresentations of the law, and a desire to incorrectly create the impression that there is no illegal activity occurring. In fact, Moschella's statements should not be given serious consideration. His arguments are not supported by the law, nor does he adequately respond to the Senator's concerns with the Constitution.

* * *

DOJ LAN and IP information

The DoJ internal IT network is located here.

Legislative liaison where Moschella works is affirmatively included on this IP list: [ Ref ]

KW = [ SMO ] at this link for room and other contact information.

[ Office Mission Details] Note the overlap of policy, meeting, and communication that occurs with this individual.

These are the DoJ networks LANS you want to include in the subpoena, and bring in independent certified fraud examiners (CFE) to seize the data: [ Ref ] Another system is this For details, you can work with Defense Contracting Management Command [DCMC] which can provide information on the SAIC contract effort to upgrade the FBI I-drive; this will connect you to the program management personnel, and other technical information you need to access the data currently of interest.

Also for the subpoena, if DoJ AG does not cooperate or assist DoJ OPR, GCHQ has intercepts and transcripts of all the cell phone traffic from 2004 from this organization; key personnel from DoJ are included on the list of intercepts: [ Ref ] DoJ is concerned with the 2004 litigation over the detentions.

Action: DoJ IG's reports on whistleblowers; yet, DoJ OPR's been shut down in re NSA investigation. What is the Ranking Member's plan to direct DoJ IG (Fine) to respond in writing to questions about the DoJ OPR being shut down?