Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Judiciary: Smokescreen To Muddy Oversight

This one via Raw caught "our" eye.

It appears there's far more to the story than what's been reported.

Short version: Contact Senate Sgt At Arms Details

* * *

Couple of things to remember:

1. Leaks

RNC has been (absurdly) complaining about leaks of the NSA issue, and ignoring the fact that Congress has done nothing on the illegal activity.

With respect to this "FBI phone taping"-allegation, where's the RNC-Congressional "concern" and "rage" that this "ongoing" investigation has been leaked"

The fact that there's more "concern" with a distraction tends to suggest that the original concern with the NSA leaks was dubious; and the current "FBI taping story", if true, should be an issue for the RNC: They cannot explain the inconsistency for the two levels of outrage.

2. Iran and US Military

Put aside Iran for the moment, and focus on what we know about the US military through the recent book Fiasco: That the US military had concerns, but was getting ignored.

Bluntly, it doesn't make sense that a military that didn't want to go into Iraq (because it wasn't linked with the war on terror) would at the same time be planning to illegally invade Iran based on dubious information.

3. Other events

Suppose what Bamford in the article is saying is true: That there's a rogue element inside the Military that "wants" or "wanted" to invade Iran. Supposedly this would be known, and the forces of good (inside the FBI, gag) are well aware of the issue.

If this is true, then how do we explain the "resistance" of the military in this issue: Ref.

Again, the point isn't what is or isn't going on inside Lebanon; the issue is (if Bamford's story is true) then does it make sense for the military to have a "public" view/opinion/statement on US forces in Lebanon, which appears to be at odds with their vies on Iran? It makes no sense.

Taking the argument further, if the US military is "upset" about Lebanon, wouldn't this "forced involvement" be something that would "fit into" the "Iran is evil agenda" and "solve the problem" of "having no basis to invade Iran, but now we have one"? Of course.

So we have to conclude that either the story about the "we want to Invade Iran" is false/shaky; or the public concern with the deployment to Lebanon is false/shaky.

Either way, it doesn't matter what the real story is: The point is simply, as with the Downing Street Memo and the other events of last year, the lesson is to consider whether the unfolding information/disclosures are consistent.

The lesson from Iraq WMD is when there's an inconsistency, there's a reason that things are not adding up: It's because the back story, evidence, and full scope of the issues is something entirely different.

My only recommendation is, as with the "targeting the Blue UN U-2" story: Watch out whether this information is propaganda, disinformation; and also who benefits by there being confusion.

I sense this is merely the first of many stories designed to sew seeds of confusion to protect RNC-PNAC personnel from their war crimes liability; and dissuade the public from making adverse judgments that would drive the RNC from majority control of Congress.

Also, notice what the RNC is doing: Asserting in public that they can "pick up seats," yet "privately" they're "gearing up" to get more DoJ counsel to defend against an impeachment. The goal: Two conflicting stories to dissuade DNC action; and at the same time do just that: Exploit the DNC inaction and mobilize the RNC to vote for tyranny.

4. Coup

This has been well known inside the Pentagon for years; yet "out of the blue" Bamford wants us to believe the opposite: That there's a rogue element inside the Military.

This makes no sense. Rather, if the issues as Bamford outlines them (that there's a rogue element inside the Pentagon), then the RNC and White House cannot explain their inaction.

Because of the inaction, we can only conclude that the prospects of a "coup by the Military, in order to attack Iran" is a sham. Rather, if it were true, they would never make the "big plot" known; and do the opposite: Silently gather evidence of the "big plotters" then indict them as a threat to the Constitution.

Rather, we have the opposite: It is the Congress and Executive that are the threat; and it is the (apparent) goal of some to make us believe that the military is the rogue. Again, the lack of action against the military is instructive; and the fact that this "big investigation" is open suggests more that it is a ruse. Otherwise, we should be hearing more information about the coup, and the actual threats which Congress and the Executive are worried about. In truth, they're not worried about a coup -- they are the coup.


Overall, the Rolling Stone story on Iran and the US military "plan" to invade Iran illegally sounds more like someone is trying to:

A. Shift attention from the civilians to the military;

B. Create a smokescreen of confusion over what did or didn't happen over the Iraq WSD issue

My sense is that the story could be linked with internal Congressional staffer speculation on what is going on.

Overall, look at the overall conclusions we're (apparently) asked believe:

1. The US military is the problem

2. FBI is engaging in surveillance

Notice who's not getting attention:

A. Congressional RNC staffers, if they know about this, then why aren't there RNC led investigations into the "big evil" DoD Military?

B. The failure of the Congress to "not look into" the Iraq WMD issue. Clearly, if the "real story) is that Congress has been "deceived" by a "rogue military" then that should be something that gets attention.

Overall, I get the impression they're trying to create the illusion of a phony military-like coup; and then distract attention from the war crimes that have been committed.

Again, the FBI surveillance could be real. The point is if it is real, why is Congress not demanding investigations into the illegal conduct, and the revelations of that monitoring.


America has a problem. It has a constitution, but Congress and the President are not inclined to defend it.

If what I suspect is going on -- that Israel is part of the diversion, to change the entire focus from war crimes to "the next convenient enemy" -- then we have a much larger problem on our hands: The very people in the US military who might be able to stand up to the war criminal in DoJ and the RNC are being targeted to take the fall.


1. The FBI-DoJ surveillance of RNC Members of Congress is real.

2. The scope of the surveillance is not well understood in Congress.

3. This revelation is part of an effort to distract resources of Members of Congress from the real pressing issue: Members of Congress, who are the real focus of the investigation into illegal activity, have failed to take action or exert oversight.

4. The RNC failure to demand investigations into the leaks over this illegal activity shows [a] RNC is being disingenuous on concerns whether there are inappropriate or appropriate revelations related to ongoing investigations into illegal activity; [b] suggests that the "apparent" FBI monitoring could be somewhat different.

5. Members of Congress and their Staff hope to shift attention from issues of their inability to hold office (basis for voters to vote them out of office), and hope to shift the attention/blame to the Military which is most opposed to what PNAC-RNC have proposed

6. The Real pressure to invade Iran isn't from the military, but from the same crew that was behind the Abuse in Guantanamo and Iraq WMD: Addington, Yoo, Cheney, and others.

7. This information is being released with the express purpose of confusing the voters; dissuading attention on the RNC recklessness; and avoiding needed public debate outside Congress over matters whether the Congress is or is not serious about the Constitution and standing up to the President’s illegal signing statements.

* * *

I would not be surprised to hear between now and the election:

A. Executive physical incursion into Congress with ground troops;

B. Allegations US military officers have lead a "coup", only to find out that it has been manufactured, and it merely a distraction from the war crimes investigations;

C. Increased public statements by RNC and DoJ Staff attorneys though their contractors to provide misleading information to dissuade the public debate and investigation of the war crimes by the RNC, White House Staff, Joint Staff, and Members of Congress.

* * *

You're going to have to decide what you're willing to stand up for. If this Congress, as I suspect, is not willing to assent to the law nor assert power to compel their peers to be accountable for war crim4es, it would not surprise me if there was a manufactured military crisis or some localized event as a ruse to focus public attention on the wrong issue.

Between now and the election, we're going to find out if Americans are serious about having a public debate, finding facts, and outside Congress making informed decisions about who you want to be your leaders.

At this juncture, if Americans choose to maintain the RNC Majority, it remains to be seen which specific US citizens perceive the US Constitution is at risk, and take up arms to come to defense of our liberties.

This may be the making of a civil war.

Watch your back. As we saw with 9-11 and Iraq WMD, this government is known for creating all sorts of non-sense to avoid attention. They're running out of options and time. They've already committed war crimes.

The question is whether you're in a position to stand up to the type of military assaults we've seen in Lebanon, but used against American civilians at home.

If it happens, I will not be surprised. Once your Constitution is trashed, it's going to be very difficult to re-instate it, even from abroad, or through a government in exile.

Overall, the impression I have of the events as the are unfolding is the image of Russia as the tanks fired on the Russian White House (their Parliament/Congress). That was the beginning of the upheaval. I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I sense that is where things are going in the US.

There is some optimism: The Judiciary has put the breaks on, and despite the "arbitrary Gonzalez deadline," someone is looking at the separation of powers: Ref

In the interim, I would encourage you and your friends to keep the pressure on this organization, and closely follow the recent news releases in the ABA President's Homepage Here:

  • What's the ABA's "education plan" to ensure that the public is aware there are (apparently) two standards on whether the leaks are or are not getting investigated;

  • What's the ABA's view on the legal implications of the US Congress and Military "apparently" cooperating with a ruse to engage in more war crimes in Iran?

  • Does the ABA have a plan to ensure that the Geneva Conventions requirements are timely brought before the public (client) so that the public can make informed decisions before the 2006 November election on issues of: Rule of law, compliance with Geneva, JAG responsibility to report misconduct of ABA peers, DoJ OPR reporting requirements, statute of ABA peer reviews of DoJ/DoD/NSA general counsel misconduct?

    * * *

    Taking the broad view, the point is that there are many issues that are dovetailing, but they are sending at best mixed signals; and at worse creating a picture that has one goal: To create confusion.

    It's time for the leadership in the ABA to realize that Congress is not leading; and that it is the job of the ABA to quickly communicate with the American public the information and oversight plan needed so that the voters choose to assert the rule of law and Constitution.

    Left to its own devices, this Congress and Executive hope to accomplish the opposite: Delay, create confusion, and change the subject. The only thing we really need to look at is the clear standard in the Constitution and international law.

    This Executive leadership in the White House appears to need more than a wakeup: It needs a credible threat of lawful war crimes indictments. Where's the ABA's plan to work with The Hague to collect, gather evidence, and do what Congress refuses to do: Ensure that the rule of law prevails.

    The idea of the law is to ensure that disputes are civilly resolved. This RNC leadership in both Congress and the Executive appear to favor the battlefield: "Hay, give the Israelis just a couple more weeks to chase a new goal, and commit more war crimes with cluster bombs and white phosphorous."

    If Americans do not oppose war crimes committed abroad, why should others stand with Americans against war crimes committed against American civilians at home? It's a shame Americans cannot trust the government to assert the rule of law, merely create excuses to do otherwise.

    This is not what we agreed when we approved this Constitution. Either this Congress cooperates with the rule of law, or We the People shall work with those forces that assert the rule of law, even if it means lawfully opposing this Congress and Executive on the battlefield.

    Choose wisely. This government is outnumbered. I would rather stand and fight for the rule of law and protect this Constitution, than to let this absurdity continue. It's up to Congress and the Executive to choose whether they honor their oath, or choose to avoid the rule of law and this Constitution. In the end, they will have no option: Forced assent to the rule of law, through either lawful use of force, or through the courts. It’s up to Congress and the Executive whether they have this decided civilly or on the battlefield. They prefer to anonymity of war, than accountability through the rule of law.

    We have an oath to protect this Constitution from these domestic enemies in the Congress and Executive. Congress and the Executive have a major problem on their doorstep: The prospect of a lawful domestic insurrection to protect this Constitution from the domestic enemies in Congress and the Executive branch. We will find out who is serious about the rule of law, and who is merely spitting non-sense as an excuse to impose tyranny.

    I do not advocate violence, nor unlawful attacks on the US Government. However, if this Congress and Executive force We the People to choose between tyranny or the destruction of the Constitution, that is not a choice. Rather, such a "plan" is merely a ruse to dissuade the needed accountability they otherwise ask be imposed on them in the court room and rule of law.

    This Congress and Executive screams with delight when the Israelis take the dispute to the battlefield and commit war crimes. Are they willing to scream with similar delight should American civilians do the same to protect the US Constitution from this looming, growing threat from both Congress and the Executive?

    Thomas Jefferson stated that a rebellion was a good thing for democracy, especially when it protects rights and prevents the abuse of power. Jefferson's words are behind Addington's assertion that there are some things that are more important than the law. Indeed, that thing is called integrity, to which Addington has none, and Cheney has less.

    Their time for honorable resistance to the rule of law has run its course. It is time for this Executive and Congress to choose whether they will continue their unlawful resistance to the rule of law, or prefer other means to protect the Constitution.

    They wished this.

    * * *

    Links of Interest

    What does the WH/RNC do when the Supreme Court says with Hamdan that the rule of law must apply, and that people are entitled to access to lawyers? You get other nations to commit the same abuses, then detain and target Americans: [ Ref ]

    ABA: It remains to be seen what the backlash is against the American government. Just as Israel is suffering a Lebanese backlash for their attacks on Civilians, so too might Americans unit against the forces the RNC and White House-Congress most despise: The rule of law. We'll have to see.

    Arab-Isreali Voices: These are important insights into what people are thinking; in a few months you may see the same thing in the United States.

    Israel’s objectives are not realistic Ref: Quite an overreaction over two [2] Israeli soldiers. Which US objectives in Iran are just as phony, and a distractions from the war crimes investigations into the Executive and Congress?

    What happens when pre-emptive war backfires and you have insufficient resources to back up your reckless claims? You encourage your allies to do the same and get them to wage endless wars. It doesn't matter if the reason for war is lawful, just wage more war. Ref

    * * *

    Ever thought about what the courts are supposed to do: Act as a forum to civilly resolve disputes and avoid violence. Why isn't there the same when it comes to issues of international affairs?

    It would be nice if the world community forced the Israelis and Lebanese to assent to a trial by a judge, and the decision could be appealed to an internally recognized court for lawful-peaceful arbitration.

    Judges make the decisions when there is a dispute. Why isn't the ABA advocating the same when it comes to international disputes in the Middle East? Apparently some people like war more than they do having the rule of law and jurisprudence.

    Noted. Taking it one step further, if Israel will not assent to Geneva and there are no consequences, why should Americans expect anything else when faced with the prospect of violence by the US government? It's one thing to wage war; its quite another to attempt to use force and fail. A failure to show that force is definitive, as is the case in Lebanon against Hezbollah, is what inspires people to stand up to those who prefer the use of force, not the law or courts of justice.

    * * *

    Violence by a government is not the primary problem. It's when the people realize that the government is not all powerful; and that failed use of force awakens American citizens to see the American government is the domestic enemy to the US Constitution.

    The problem the White House, Congress and DoJ have: They're not sure whether the informants are inside or outside their building.

    Return to Top

    * * *

    To link to this section, use this link: This one

    What you can do

    Tell the Senate Sergeant of Arms to wake up and choose which side of the Constitution he's on. [ Ref ]

    Senate Rule III is the governing rule which gives the Senate Sergeant at Arms the power and means to arrest those Members of the Senate that have defied their oath.

    The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.

    The Senate has failed to protect the Constitution. It is a Senate rule that the Constitution will be faithfully followed, executed, preserved, protected, and defended as sworn to under 5 USC 3331.

    Bill Pickle was sworn in as the Sergeant at Arms on March 17, 2003 Ref

    The issue is: Who has the power to arrest Pickle if he's allegedly, inter alia

  • Recklessly failed to ensure that Senate Rule III is enforced; and

  • Violated 5 USC 3331 in failing to protect the Constitution from the domestic enemies in the Senate and the Executive Branch who are violating Senate Rule III?

    Someone needs to approach the Sergeant At Arms and compel him to assert his lawful obligations under the Constitution to enforce Senate Rule III: Take control of the Senate gavel until Members of the Senate are willing to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations, and assert the rule of law over the illegal violations of the Constitution and laws of the land. If the Senate has no gavel, then they cannot attack the Constitution. [ Ref ]

    We need answers. You want [a] your Constitution; or [b] this mess Pickle's refused to enforce and show adult leadership?

    Bottom line: Either Pickle does his job, or he's violating 5 USC 3331. The US Attorney needs to follow-up and ensure the FBI has opened an investigation into, inter alia Pickle's alleged:

  • Failure to enforce Senate Rule III,
  • Reckless disregard for his duties, and
  • Other conduct which violates 5 USC 3331.

    He wished this.

    * * *

    Jan 2007: Challenge The Oaths

    385 U.S. 116 Member of Congress challenged

    The House:
    National sentiment in the wake of the Civil War lead to a new oath, under the Act of July 2, 1862, Ch. 128, 12 Stat. 502, which disqualified for a congressional seat any person with a past record of disloyalty to the United States (disloyalty was exhaustively defined within the wording of that oath). Ref

    Both the House and Senate Chambers have rules related to oaths. We need only look at the legislation, activity, inaction, and malfeasance to see what is obvious: These Members of Congress have defied their oath, and are not being loyal to the United States Constitution.

    The right to be sworn can be challenged on the basis of conduct which is not consistent with the Constitution.

    It is possible for the Non-voting representative from Puerto Rico to object to a Member of Congress taking an oath:

    On Jan. 21, 1971,(7) the opening day of the 92d
    Congress, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Mr. Jorge L. Cordova, did not arise to take the oath of office en masse with the Members-elect, as he had
    taken the oath at the beginning of his four-year term, with the
    commencement of the 91st CongressRef

    * * *

    In order to investigate whether someone was or was not given an oath, the courts have to get the House to agree:
    Sec. 5.22 Copies of the signed oath of office executed by House Members cannot be mandated by the process of ordinary courts without the permission of the House of Representatives.Ref

    The only way the House can oppose a full 5 USC 3331 investigation is if they invoke privilege, which the Executive says no longer applies on select documents.

    However, there's a big problem, when we consider the FBI raid:

    On Jan. 9, 1959,(10) the House was informed by the Clerk
    of a subpoena from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in the case of United States v John P. Gilroy, Jr., et al., No. 12880, criminal, commanding the Clerk of the House to appear before the court with certified copies of the signed oaths of offices executed by a certain Congressman. In response, the House adopted a resolution stating that under the privilege of the House no evidence of a documentary character under the control and in the possession of the House of Representatives could be mandated by process of the ordinary courts without the permission of the House. The resolution further stated that the House would permit the production of certified copies of the oath of office, along with other papers, pursuant to a determination by the court upon the materiality and the relevancy of the papers and documents called for in the subpoena duces tecum.
    10. 105 Cong. Rec. 363, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.

    In other words:

  • A. The House is the sole organ, not the court or Executive, to decide what is to be done with the FBI raid, what is or is not acceptable to be seized;

  • B. The House rules already say what the FBI was supposed to do, but ignored.

  • C. The House isn't following its own rules; and

  • D. The Executive -- the President -- has violated the rules of the Chamber, subjecting him to arrest.

    * * *

    Time for the DoJ Attorneys to choose:

  • A. Is your Executive going to invoke a phony "joint Executive-Congressional privilege" and deny the courts from looking at 5 USC 3331 oaths of office documentation; or

  • B. Are you going to accept that Congressional privilege is real and must be respected?

    You're in a no-win situation.

    The time for your honorable resistance to the Constitution and the rule of law has ended.

    * * *

    It's only going to get worse for DoJ Staff attorneys, Members of Congress, and the President. Look at the Calendar -- it's July, three months before the election. Ref