Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

NSA: Revisiting the Supreme Court Nominees

As you can see from the links on the Specter Bill, things have stirred up a bit.

Thought I'd pass on some thanks and kudos to you for your work.

* * *

Wanted to let you know that this link takes on a curious tone.

Consider a few things as you recall the link: The note was written before we knew about the NSA illegal activity. It remains to be understood how the confirmation hearings might have gone had there been Congressional interest in the legal issues, or in light of what we know about Guantanamo and the Hamdan implications.

* * *

Putting conjecture aside, it's important to realize how things have changed over the last year. This release should be a reminder of the arrogance in the RNC.

Also, notice a few things about the release in terms of its language, expectations, and the relative ease. This called a "positive" expectation. It's a way of manipulating the public. It's done to ensure that the audience is starting with a desirable perception; and then induced to support that favorable outcome.

Unfortunately, in light of what we've learned about the various players, and as we learn more about the abuse of power, and the DoJ Attorney misconduct-malfeasance-war crimes support, you'll see that things take on a new tone.

As you review this information, keep in mind we still have yet to hear the results of the ethics investigation involving Chief Justice Roberts.

As you review the Press release, keep in mind who the original nominee was [Harriet Miers], and how the press release contrasts with what happened: The Press release failed to prevent questions. Then we learned more in Dec 2005 with the NSA revelations.

Things, as they say, have changed.

* * *

Here are some things to notice in the Press release; and then some questions for your discussion.

"We expect a fair, thoughtful confirmation . . ."

  • Based on what we no know, was the confirmation hearing credible?

  • What pre-hearing information do you believe was floated that should be reconsidered in light of what we know about the NSA illegal activity and other Presidential programs?

  • Based on what we know about the Nuremburg war crimes trials, what evidence is needed to show that specific judges have unlawfully assented to violations of Geneva?

  • Are you able to link pre-nomination activity, messages, and other opinions to apparent reckless disregard for Geneva, and other adverse information Hamdan has struck down?

    . . .

    There is something related to a false sense of security.

    Notice this comment: "With Justice O'Connor resigning, the Supreme Court has a 6-3 majority favoring Roe v. Wade, so replacing her will not challenge Roe's core."

  • What is the basis for them to have asserted something is "not a problem," yet at the state level (for example North Dakota), teams were ready with legislation to force a challenge to overturn Roe.

    . . .

    Notice the approach the organization took. The problem is that they do not realize that it is the RNC that needs to take a breath.

    This quote is curious: "We call on the Left to take a breath and resist their natural impulse towards exaggeration."

  • Given what we know about the illegal RNC activities, what is the RNC plan to apply this standard to members of their own party?

    . . .

    This is an example of inducing your opponent not to assert their options: "We call on Democrats to resist the temptation to use their attack machine against [fill in the blank]."

    This is an example of inducting your opponent to delay action, or stall planning. "All parties should withhold judgment until [nice sounding phrase: "a fair and sober analysis has occurred"].

    . . .

    Notice the authoritarian language:

    "We expect the President to choose . . . [imply ability to make informed decisions, despite abysmal track record of incompetence]."

    "We have no doubt that the nominee will be . . .[nice sounding standard, which may or may not be relevant or true]."

    "Any such nominee deserves a . . .[narrowed options to something that is simplistic]."

    "They do not deserve . . .[meaningful oversight]"

    . . .

    Notice the "we" as if there is some imaginary group. In light of the NSA revelations, and larger pattern of abuse, this is a holier than thou attitude which has been cut down to size.

    "But we're familiar with the [imagined evil group]. . ." [If they're familiar with this, why did they think there was a need to issue a press release to state was "obvious"?

    "We know they will . . ." [how do they know this?]

    . . .

    Implied Threats

    "We will be watching . . . "

    "If [group A with power takes action] , it will be . . . [Group B who will suffer] who will be held accountable."

    Keep in mind, this (incorrectly) implies: "If you do not attack, we will not attack them." This is not true: They're going to do it anyway.

    The trick is to remember this: Rather than delay action, or pause, assume the RNC is going to do it anyway. The trick is to remember: Accelerate the timeline, and force the RNC to do what they threaten.

    Make the RNC react to their own threats. They're war criminals, and they do not deserve to be believed or respected.

    * * *

    Your goal should be to keep this RNC approach in mind as we move toward the election. The lessons apply to the NSA hearings, and how the Israelis are being given a green light to create a distraction.

    . . .

    Your goals at this point should be to do the following:

  • Keep your number one priority on asserting the Constitution, and the rule of law. We have no other higher calling or duty;

  • Continue to gather evidence for the war crimes trials;

  • Identify evidence the Grand Jury will be able to review to indict Members of Congress and DoJ Staff Attorneys for Geneva Violations; and

  • Be prepared to take the high ground on issues of the Constitution, fact finding, and investigations: If there is "nothing wrong," why is the leadership reticent to do what Cheney in 1987 called for: Investigations.

    * * *

    When it comes to an issue of honesty, or integrity, remember we are not perfect. However, there are times when there are more important things than simply whether someone is exactly right or exactly wrong: The issue is whether their intention, objective, and focus is to assert the rule of law and preserve the Constitution; or whether their ultimate objective is a higher loyalty to something else, and thwart accountability for violations of freely chosen standards, or standards they impose on others.

    The ultimate objective of the Constitution is to create a civil society. Your task is to take the high ground, and solve problems where the RNC has ably shown they are incompetent, unwilling to listen, and willing to compromise their integrity to make you believe they have a capability they do not actually have.

    We can only go off the facts, and what has actually happened. If they have claimed a capability to do something, then we should see the RNC put that capability into force, and see results. However, where they have asserted a capability, but the results are at odds with what we would reasonably expect if that capability were put into practice, then we have to explore the scope of their deceptions.

    It is one thing to make wild claims. It is quite another to assert something that is not only false, but evidence of wider criminal conduct. The problem the RNC has is when many rely on the false claims or asserted capabilities, but we are given something that is not only far less, but deceptive, false, and fraudulent.

    Fraud can blossom into other things like war crimes, especially when people believe that they will not be detected, or no one will find out. Your job is to find the truth and ask yourselves: Who do you really trust to honestly outline what needs to be done; and do they have a demonstrated track record of reliably providing you the straight story on what they can do, and what has actually happened. If there is a problem or misstatements, we have to ask whether their contrition is real, or whether they have abused others simply because they desired to abuse power, not assent to the rule of law.

    One blog can make all the difference. If you doubt this, consider what has happened in Vermont, Illinois, and California. You have helped make this happen. The idea has to start from somewhere. As you have seen, your individual actions have added up, and you have made a difference. Never forget that.

    Thank you for your focus on the Constitution and your continued efforts.

    Hoc Voluerunt !