Constant's pations

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

Monday, July 03, 2006

One Party Above The Law: RNC Quest For Two Standards Of Accountability In America

The RNC has shown its true colors. When given a choice between doing what they promise, and making excuses, the RNC does not miss a chance to do the latter.

Time for some corrections.

* * *

Welcome, #38

Let's review a recent RNC statement. You'll see that there are some major problems. Keep in mind as you read this, you're reading this from someone inside the RNC.

Take the larger view of classified information. Recall, the RNC uses classified FBI investigation reports to smear their political opponents. Not only is this an improper use of classified material, it corruptly affects voters in making informed decisions.

* * *

As you skim through this, you may enjoy seeing how the Hamden case also relates to other issues. [RNC statements on property: What really happens Ref ]

Also, as you read this information, keep in mind the Downing Street Memo process and the opportunity for FOIAs. What the Hamdan case has done is effectively opened a major hole inside the DoJ Staff attorney's arguments. Here's the problem the Hamdan case presents for the DoJ Staff attorneys, which as you well know were the ones who provided the absurd opinions on torture, and conduct which (they argued, incorrectly) was immune to Geneva Convention sanctions. [ Ref ]

The key concept: Hamdan is very worrisome for the RNC because, as Congressman Conyers has well documented in his well crafted "Constitution in Crisis" report, we are forced to face reality: The entire story we've been given over the Constitution, power, Geneva, and the rule of law, as was with Iraq, is completely false. Like the Downing Street Memo which destroys the legal foundation for the Iraq WMD and war, so too does Hamdan fatally destroy the second prong of the 2000-related events in FISA, Patriot Act, AUMF, and the detentions ("the issues"). Know, there are other issues to still surface.

The next step is to take the lessons from the Downing Street Memo in re Iraq WMD; and then combine them with the communication and inferences we can make from Hamdan issues, and see the larger pattern of abuse of power, violation of rights. This will help show the court that you are making reasonable FOIA requests as you go after the DoJ, and seek the documents that should be there related to the internal blocks against DoJ OPR and other NSA-FISA fact finding. Remember to use the lessons from both issues (Iraq/WMD, and NSA-FISA) to show there is a common pattern warranting the FOIA approvals. Recall, ORCON prohibits classification of illegal conduct; this will work in your favor now that the Supreme Court in Hamdan has ruled that that President and Executive Department have committed war crimes by violating the Geneva Conventions.

Remember, even a foolish blogger is able to see the simple story of the RNC excuses in the memo: They are trying to make a smokescreen; and get others to move without thinking (in going after the NYT), rather than asking the essential question: How much of the illegally gathered information gathered through the NSA was then used to gather financial information; if this was "no problem" why wasn't the court involved in approving the warrants; and why do we have a recurring problem of asserting that there is nothing wrong, but no evidence that the required procedures (warrants, Geneva, FISA) were followed?

The answer: They have no intention of holding themselves accountable. Your job is to show the voters that We the People must choose between the law and the recklessness. After you read this, you will understand why the choice isn't simply about voting and the law, but about whether America can enjoy sovereignty.

If America doesn't choose to assert the rule of law -- and the voters refuse to ensure leaders are in officer that will take their 5 USC 3331 oath seriously -- then outsiders will have no choice but to do this through a lawful intervention. This is permitted, as the Supreme Court stated in Hamdan. Outsiders are prepared to what American voters refuse to do: Asser the law, protect the US Constitution, and ensure the rule of law prevails over the criminals in the American government and legal community who have permitted this illegal conduct to go unchecked since 2000.

Hamdan is the fair warning to the RNC members in my party: This is your fair warning to assert the rule of law from within; if you fail, you may lose your option to do otherwise.

* * *

As you digest the implications of Hamdan, consider again the approach Congressman Conyers took in his "Constitution in Crisis" report. The goal is simply to make a very logical argument:

  • These are the requirements under the law, Constitution, and treaties

  • This is what we know

  • These are the crimes that have been committed

  • This is what must be done as a remedy to this system

  • This is the plan going forward

  • Here is what we are going to do

  • This is how we know we're making progress

  • Here are our options to resolve the likely problems on the way

  • This is where we expect to be, this is our success criteria

  • This is how we know we'll have arrived at our goals

  • Here is what we need you to do

  • This is what needs to change, and why we'll be better off

  • When faced with similar challenges to the Constitution in the future, we expect the process to more timely respond and credibly ensure the document is protected because of these specific reasons

  • We can show there is a logical link between what has failed, our solutions, and the actual system that works: There is a clear trace between what didn't work; what should work; and what will work.

  • We have corrected the problem, and are prepared to have this approach openly challenged so that we might improve what we have, and better protect this Constitution, and assert our 5 USC 3331 oath.

  • We are the leaders, this is what we can do, and if you elect us we promise to make this happen so we have a more vibrant national security and assertion of rule of law around the globe and at home.

    . . .

    A similar approach needs to be taken in the spirit of Hamdan in terms of the larger issues relevant to the voters:

  • Following procedures: FISA procedures, like Geneva, have been unlawfully ignored;

  • Requirement that the leadership, as a person, assent to the law;

  • A clear trace between the [a] original claims; [b] actual Hamdan findings; and [c] what we now know about abuse/torture/rendition/NSA-FISA

  • Clear story showing our principles in the RNC which are being destroyed: Leadership, accountability, responsibility, individual integrity.

    In short, the DNC's job isn't to win the White House; rather, the DNC's job is to convince the RNC membership that you are logical, have well coordinated plans, think about the issues, and willing to openly discuss the issues, and will do what it takes to protect the Constitution from all enemies. That is what national security is about.

    The only responsibility the DNC has is to come up with a plan to challenge the Executive to do what he promised. It's not your job to do the Executive's job. Your only "solution" that you can be held to provide is whether you do or do not come up with a solution that will challenge the Executive to do his job: Solve problems, provide leadership, and assent to the rule of law.

    It's a phony argument for the RNC to say, "The DNC has no solutions." In reality, they're admitting that they and the Executive have no solution. Remind the RNC that the 2006 election isn't a mandate on the White House -- it's a mandate on the Constitution. Between 2006 and the first three weeks of 2006, We the People are prepared to assert our rights and check power to lawfully compel this leader to assent to the rule of law.

    * * *

    National security isn't about threatening people to be quiet about government incompetence; or about illegal use of information to engage in abuse; or to intimidate a civilian population to assent to non-sense excuses not to assert the rule of law. Prudent fact finding and planning is what makes leaders. Followers are the ones who put the lawful plans into effect; and the leadership ensures that there are timely, lawful adjustments to protect the Constitution, and assert the rule of law. This is what will inspire the world to support America again. It cannot be something you talk about; it has to be something you are individually willing to show as an example, and compel your leadership within both the DNC and RNC to put into force at all times. Perfection is not the standard; rather, the goal is to inspire others to know that you are doing your best to assert the rule of law, and not create excuses to descend into barbarism.

    With time you will see that there are common things which, right now, appear to be something which Hamas and AlQueda do not share. But think broadly -- just as there are lawful solutions to domestic issues (compromise), so too can there be transformative solutions that will inspire all people -- even your enemy -- to see that you are leaders and able to achieve results that inspire all people, not simply a few that are intimidated to assent to non-sense. (Keep that in the back of your mind as you mull this over.)

    * * *

    Implications of Hamdan on RNC: A big problem

    The Handan ruling raises serious issues. Recall the Downing Street Memos: Page 13 which reminded the UK-US leadership that there were known risks of war crimes prosecutions. Hamdan reminds all that the Geneva Conventions not only apply to nations, but to people. The legal community inside DoJ, White House, and DoD know full well the Hamdan case is a major problems in terms of war crimes liabilities against civilian leaders, their attorneys, and those who carried out the illegal plans.

    In light of what we know about the actual abuses committed against prisoners, who were and remain protected by Geneva, the Bybee memo shows the American legal community entertains perverse rationalizations for abuse; yet they failed to ensure that the Geneva Conventions were adequately enforced, as required under the 5100.77 laws of war program.

    The problem the war criminals in the White House have is that their planned illegal conduct pre-dated 9-11; any claim that the planning for this illegal activity was linked to self-defense is absurd. Rather, where there was no threat, the illegal activity was actively planned with the full expectation that it not be detected.

    The Hamdan case reminds us that the Conventions apply, regardless the absurd excuses DoJ and DoD Staff Attorneys have offered to the contrary. Hamdan fatally destroys the legal foundations the war criminals in the White House, DoJ Staff, and DoD have used as a basis to wage illegal war, violate Geneva, and plan unlawful treatment of prisoners otherwise fully protected by Geneva. [Note: The DoJ excuses, which Hamdan destroys, are the same types of legal cherry picking which Addington did in the Iran-Contra Minority Report. Ref ]

    * * *

    Real story of Hamdan: What the RNC doesn't like you to know

    The United States Judge Advocate General appeared before the Supreme Court, and argued against the DoJ Staff attorneys. The article incorrectly asserts that the issue is one for the Democrats. On the contrary, this was an action taken by the prisoner’s nominated counsel to ensure that their rights under the US Code and Geneva Conventions were protected.

    All detaining powers have the responsibility to comply with the Conventions.

    It is incorrect to assert that the Supreme Court has “given” anyone anything. Rather, the court merely recognized the requirements which the Executive Branch, Republican Party, and DoJ Staff attorneys chose to deny others: Due process.
    It is also misleading for the letter to suggest or imply that the Hamdan case gives anyone “special protections”. Rather, these protections are ones the United States, until 2000, agreed would apply to all belligerents.

    The memo incorrectly asserts that the individuals being detained are guilty of terrorism. If this was true (which it is not), then there would be no need for a trial; however, because the Supreme Court recognizes that the Geneva Conventions and US code must be enforced and are lawful requirements, the way forward is to ensure the rule of law prevails.

    It is irrelevant whether a party is or is not a signatory to the Conventions. The Supreme Court ruling reminds us of the Geneva obligations that all belligerents and prisoners are entitled to protections of the Geneva Conventions. Even when the members of the DoJ Attorney Staff are put on trial for crimes in planning illegal activity against Americans, they too are afforded the right to a fair trial. However, they are not presumed to be immune to the law. All government officials in the White House, DoJ, and NSA can have their qualified immunity stripped when they, as is the case here, violated clearly established rights promulgated in the Geneva Conventions.

    Our system of laws mandates that trials disclose the evidence. It is not permissible to hold people using secret evidence. If such a standard would apply to the White House staff and DoJ Staff attorney’s then there would be no need for impeachment of investigators. Rather, our system of laws relies on evidence and warrants so that the courts can review the actions of the other two branches.

    There is no credible claim that the clerk in the oval office has any inherent powers. Contrary to the assertions that Paddington and Cheney have made that the President can defy the law or ignore the Constitution, the executive’s power are narrowly delegated. He does not have the power to create new powers that put him above the law, nor create new procedures not authorized by Congress or Treaty.

    The FISA courts are merely one example of the President unlawfully creating new procedures outside his power as a President to create. Only Congress can, and did, make the rules on what is to be done during executive reviews. This Executive has ignored the FISA requirements, and in doing so has violated the law. The Hamdan case is very damaging for the Executive branch in that it strictly defines the misconduct this White House staff and military personnel can be held accountable for: Violations of the Geneva Conventions and other war crimes.

    It is irrelevant what the RNC leadership think about the President. Our system of laws is clear: We shall be free from unreasonable searches; warrants are required to conduct surveillance; the FISA courts hall review and approve the warrants; and the President may not create procedures that go around the Judicial Branch.

    Also, it is not permissible for the White House to use information collected unlawfully to then target Americans with warrantless surveillance.

    The problem the RNC has is that they’ve changed the issue from whether the Executive will or will not follow the law, to an irrelevant issue. Where the RNC is weak on the rule of law, the Democrats are strong and willing to investigate. Where the RNC is weak on standards of conduct, the Democrats are strong and willing to hold their own to account. Where the RNC is weak on progress and solutions, the DNC is willing to debate in public the lawful options to address issues.

    There is a simple choice: Whether you want to have leaders who are going to solve problems lawfully, or whether you are going to have leaders who are going to unlawfully create more problems for you.

    The way forward is to decide: What kind of future do you want not simply for your family and your children, but for yourself: A country based on prudence, fact findings, and solutions; or one that relates to blaming, recklessness, and inaction.
    Regardless your choice, the responsibility for solving the leadership and legal problems in the Executive Branch lies with the President. This President refuses to lead. His only solution is to blame. The Democrats are not in a position to change the leadership in the White House until 2008. Until then, the Democrats can only do one thing: Provide the leadership for America.

    When you vote Democrat you’re voting for a future you can be proud of.

    When you vote Republican you’re voting for a future you can fear.

    It’s that simple: Pride, or fear.

    You do not need to live in fear. You have every right to be proud. You are an American and a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth. Together we can rebuild American prestige and solve problems.

    You deserve a bright future, not more excuses and lawlessness.

    Good luck in your choice.

    * * *

    Credible Version: This has been made up, [ Changed from Original: #33 ]

    Capitol Hill Republicans ADVOCATE Special Privileges for Themselves

    July 3, 2006

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) cheered the Supreme Court majority opinion in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld:

    "Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

    "The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."

    The American military Joint Staff and war criminals in Iraq, who falsely believe they are not a party to nor bound by the Geneva Conventions, is surely pleased at the support from the Republicans.

    "We may not have a platform, plan or solution, but by God and Allah, we're going to target Americans at the NYT who dare to speak about reality and our recklessness. Please, whatever you do, don't tell America how we use the information to engage in warrantless interrogations. We don't want to upset the Supreme Court again.

    "If we can't win the election on our own right, by God and Allah we'll just smear everyone until they scream, 'Hay, whatever you want -- we just want to watch the TV.'"

    The Hamdan case struck down any notion that the President has any inherent power to violate the Constitution.

    "I know what motivates the President. And that is to protect himself from the law and the Court, both at home and abroad."

    Capitol Hill Republicans are notoriously weak on the Constitution. There is a clear choice between Capitol Hill Democrats who celebrate the rule of law and solve problems, and Republicans who want to avoid accountability for their recklessness.

    * * *

    Note: The above has been rewritten from the original RNC version located Ref

    * * *

    Press Release: The absurd RNC view of "reality" -- RNC is in denial

    Capitol Hill Democrats ADVOCATE Special Privileges for Terrorists

    June 30, 2006

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) cheered the Supreme Court majority opinion in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld which gives foreign terrorists the special protections of the Geneva Conventions:

    "Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law.

    "The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."

    Al Qaeda, whose terrorist thugs are not a party to nor bound by the Geneva Conventions, is surely pleased at the show of support from Capitol Hill Democrats. Hamdan himself was a trusted member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. Having been captured in Afghanistan, Hamdan was charged with delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda, providing logistical support to bin Laden's bodyguards, and participating in weapons training.

    When asked by AP for his thoughts on the Hamdan ruling and what it means for national security, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) replied:

    Despite the ruling, House Majority Leader John Boehner defended Bush's use of his inherent powers as commander in chief. "I know what motivates the president," said Boehner, Republican of West Chester. "And that is to protect the American people from attacks here at home and abroad."

    Capitol Hill Democrats are notoriously weak on national security. There is a clear choice between Capitol Hill Democrats who celebrate offering special privileges to violent terrorists, and Republicans who want the President to have the necessary tools to prosecute and achieve victory in the Global War on Terror.

    * * *

    Discussion Questions

    As you review the Hamdan issues, consider the broader picture: The Geneva Conventions, the Downing Street Memo, illegal warfare, and conduct that was actually violating the laws of the land before 9-11.

    We've been asked to believe that the misconduct was for "defense." Yet, Hamdan shows us that there is no excuse for violating the law, not assenting to the Constitution and treaties, or engaging in conduct that violates clearly promulgated procedures and statutes. The Executive has no inherent authority to ignore the laws of the land.

    Consider these questions:

    Why is the RNC fearful of the Supreme Court?

    Answer: The RNC is fearful of the implications of the Goldsmith memo and the Downing Street Memo concerns: That the RNC could be held criminally liable for war crimes.

    . . .

    What is the reason the DoJ Staff attorneys refused to settle this case?

    Answer: The stakes are high: War crimes. If they did not assert their case arguments, then they would have had to have admitted long ago that their legal arguments were flawed. Rather than self-find Geneva, the White House required the Supreme Court to remind them what the DoJ Attorneys refused to assert: The rule of law.

    . . .

    Why did it take this many years to get the Executive Branch to accept that the Geneva Conventions apply to the United States?

    Answer: There was no timely review of the matter, ineffective oversight, and no speedy trial, as required under Habeas. These are subsequent violations of the US Code and Geneva Requirements, and not evidence of treating prisoners humanely.

    Remember a broad principle of the Constitution and rights: They are not simply individual rights, rather they are requirements which the government must recognize.

    Habeas isn't simply an individual right, but it's a check on the Executive to force them to explain quickly, timely why they are doing or not doing what they are.

    The problem is that by denying the applicability of Geneva, and affecting prisoners, We the People have been denied the speedy resolution of this abuse; and have been forced to unlawfully assent to subsequent unconstitutional conduct, abuse of power, and violation of rights.

    Some say that the US, by granting rights to the enemy, is putting America at risk. On the contrary, it is when America grants the legally protected rights to prisoners (as recognized in Geneva) that the US war planners have a check to ensure their conduct is lawful. Because there was no check on their illegal war, there were subsequent abuses committed in Iraq; and without a credible showing that there was a timely check on the Executive, the President saw nothing standing in his way to lie about WMD, mislead Congress, wage illegal war, ask for more money to support illegal war.

    In other words, by denying a prisoner his Geneva Convention right of a speedy review and human treatment, those you oppose have been lawfully emboldened to oppose American war criminals not simply in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the globe. By denying basic principles of the law early in the process, the abuse of power spread not simply on the battlefield, but also at home. The way a country respects/ignores the rule of law when waging (unlawful) war, says alot about how that government will treat its own civilian population; and what options the world must use to ensure they are treated with respect.

    As long as the RNC views the Hamdan case any other way -- and says it gives the world a free pass to commit abuses -- the longer the RNC shows they are missing the point on the important relationship between rights, laws, treaties, power, and civility: If rights are not respect for all, then no one need to assent to your power. This is what drives the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because the US moved troops from what may have been a more legitimate use of force in Afghanistan to a n illegal use in Iraq, the US made a strategic error and have lost on both fronts. They are also losing at the third front: The legal front before the court of law.

    Key point: If you deny the rights of prisoners, then you permit the abuse of power to spread not only on the battlefield, but at home against your peers. The abuse will lead to a breakdown of leadership, accountability, and prudence. This is why things, in part, fell apart in Katrina. One thing led to another. The problem, as you have seen, is that this has been dragging on since 2000. That's a very long time. Had the habeas requirement been respected, we might have quite another story to tell; and a far different line of legal non-sense from DoJ on whether there is or is not a credible basis for their actions. Likely, the FISA legal arguments would have been different; and there could have been a greater chances that the AUMF-Patriot Act-NSL non-sense would have been put to bed earlier.

    The goal should be to develop a system that, even when everything fails, quickly acts a circuit breaker. The American legal community has a major credibility problem right now: This mess happened under their watch, and they have shown that they are not serious about putting their oath to the rule of law before their love of abusing power and violating rights. Six years after this mess started, it was a prisoner of war, not American leadership, which forced the American legal system to work.

    . . .

    What evidence does the RNC provide that they have credible plans to solve problems?

    Answer: None. Their results speak for themselves. The RNC membership knows the RNC leadership and White House is negligent, reckless, and could soon be indicted by a Grand Jury for war crimes.

    . . .

    What is the RNC plan to address their leadership and credibility problem?

    Answer: Their only plan is to do more of what they've attempted: Create diversions, start other illegal wars, blame others, and incite others to commit criminal acts against those who seek the truth and assert the rule of law.

    . . .

    Should the rule of law only be applicable to those in the military, but not those in the RNC?

    Answer: The rule of law applies to all, without favor. Even Supreme Court Justices can be impeached if they have violated the law, or engaged in conduct that shows they are not fit to remain in office.

    . . .

    What powers in Article II of the US Constitution does the President have delegated?

    Answer: Very few. The President is merely a clerk, and cannot create any power. He can only do what the law permits him to do. Anything else, and he has violated the law, and usurped power he has not been delegated. This is not Constitutional.

    . . .

    Which powers has the President used, which have not been delegated?

    Answer: Many. He's asserted an illusory Article 1 Section 8-like power, delegated only to Congress, as the "necessary and proper"-power for the Executive. This is not a real power and is an illusory power We the People never delegated. The Hamdan case reminds us that he cannot assert power he has not been delegated.

    . . .

    Which conclusions from the Hamdan case destroy the President's arguments about the FISA review process he engages outside the court?

    Answer: Hamdan reminds us of the importance of Geneva and following lawful procedures. The President did not follow the FISA procedures. Hamdan is the precedent to bring action against the President for failing to follow the explicit requirements of Congress to follow specific procedures. It makes no difference that Congress said something else in a resolution; only the courts have judicial power to decide if there has or has not been a violation of the law.

    A criminal indictment against civilians for war crimes is not something the Congress can control. The only role the Congress has in adjudicating an issue of Presidential war crimes is when the Senate conducts a trial for purposes of removing an impeached President. other than that, Congress has no judicial power to interpret the Constitution.

    . . .

    Which requirements under the Constitution and Statute is the Executive not following?

    Answer: All of them.

    . . .

    When someone takes an oath to enforce the law, and the Hamdan case reminds us that those requirements are obligations, what is to be said of an Executive that openly issues statements that he will not enforce the law as it written; or ignore the laws he does not agree with?

    Answer: He has violated his oath of office, 5 USC 3331.

    . . .

    When someone takes an oath before God to enforce the law, but cannot be trusted to comply with the law, nor submit to the courts for review to ensure that he is following the law, has that person violated a solemn oath to God?

    Answer: Yes.

    . . .

    Why does the RNC like to rely on non-sense to make you believe something?

    Answer: They have no legal defense to war crimes.

    . . .

    If you had the choice between having an idiot or an intelligence person as your leader, would you rather have someone who writes [a] stupid statements that are short; or [b] longer statements that show evidence that there is a connection between the brain and their fingers?

    Answer: Americans have to choose. They tend to embrace non-sense; it would be preferable if they took the time to consider the issues and legal matters. The short answer is generally the quick one, which is not well thought.

    . . .

    * * *

    I can tell you as a Republican, there is a major problem. The RNC has defied the law, and failed to ensure the leadership followed the laws of war.

    This is not a partisan issue, but one of the law.

    The Supreme Court has made it clear: The US is a nation of laws. The President is not above the law.

    Hamden is an overdue reminder for the leadership in my party: You have defied your oath, you cannot be trusted with power, and you are war criminals.

    It is time for America to take a step back and understand what is going on: America is currently led by criminals. The way forward is to gather evidence.

    The RNC wants you to vote for them not because of what they can do, but because of what they won't do: Find facts, hold their own accountable, and ensure your Constitution survives.

    No single person has a monopoly on the law. Rather, we are all subject to the law.

    Anyone who puts themselves above the law, and attempts to dissuade others from engaging in Constitutionally protected activity has a problem. But you have a problem when you agree to take an oath, but refuse to assert your oath.

    All members of the RNC leadership, the Executive Branch, and the Congress and Courts freely take an oath: They promise to do something.

    Our nation can only survive if we make that oath mean something. The way forward is to realize that this is a simple choice between what you are required to do; and what you want to do.

    The RNC leadership is about doing what it wants, not what it promises.

    If you want to protect your way of life, the way forward is to set the example, and compel your peers to rise to the occasion. When you use propaganda and hype to rally others, then you have to use more propaganda to hide your earlier lies.

    The Hamdan case struck down the RNC propaganda. The issue isn't what the DNC is or isn’t' doing. The issue is whether the RNC will freely police their own, or require outside intervention to compel you to do so.

    At this juncture, the world has few options. The world does not mean to threaten America. Rather, the way forward is for Americans to do at home what they want the world to do abroad: Embrace democracy and the rule of law.

    Unless Americans rise to the occasion (and choose leaders that will put the law, their oath, and loyalty to the Constitution before all other things), then the world will have only once choice: To lawfully intervene and force the American government to remain civil.

    Americans, when you vote this November you have to choose whether you want to be a sovereign nation. You are the ones that decide whether you will hold your leaders to account.

    If you fail to exercise leadership and compel your leaders to assert their oath, then you know what is on the way. It may not be soon, but in the end the rule of law shall prevail.

    Your choice is whether you want your laws, or hope someone else solves your problem

    Choose wisely.

    * * *

    Here's a hint of what America has to face: Other countries know that you know, and have been told, about the Geneva Conventions. There are international obligations. They are not something the RNC-DNC can agree to ignore or play around with, ignore, or fail to assert.

    If you do not wish to wake up, others are willing send a wakeup call.

    Hamdan is fair warning. Ref Ref

    Do you have professional soldiers protecting you? No, you can only get people to take up arms if they are paid -- mercenaries, who commit war crimes and support illegal war. Where are the troops when it comes to defending the Constitution and only following lawful orders? You can't find them. They are war criminals, and they alone will decide when, and if, they want to follow the laws of war and Constitution.

    To remain a Constitutional Republic, you have to assert civilian control of the military. That doesn't mean expect the military to follow unlawful civilian orders; it means ensuring the civilian leaders are accountable to the laws they violate.

    Before you wage another illegal war, you have to wage a judicial war against the RNC. The RNC refuses to assent to this review. They are in the way. The RNC, my party, must be removed from the political landscape.

    We are not fit to be your leaders. It is up to you to make us lead, assent to the law, and permit investigations into our misconduct and illegal wars. If you will not make us, then other nations will have to intervene. This is permitted under the laws of war: Lawfully intervening in the US at is spirals under my party's lawlessness, war crimes, and abuse of power both at home and abroad.


    * * *


    Now that you've had the chance to review the above issues, consider this.


    A. It is appropriate for the court to remind the Executive that the laws of the land and Geneva applies

    B. Congress has more power than simply approving budgets; it has powers to make all rules which the Executive cannot ignore;

    C. War is not a unique Executive function; rather, the Executive must conduct the war under the laws of war, treaties, and rules which Congress alone has the power to make;

    D. The Executive has no power to make rules or create procedures which ignore the laws of war, US Constitution, or procedures which Congress has clearly stated are requirements;

    E. No Executive has any authority to defy the law; there is no merit to any argument or defense that there were emergency situations; rather, this executive despite knowing about FISA and Geneva, refused to fully consult with Congress on the needed changes to the statutes; rather, than follow the law or seek changes, he ignored the law, and obstructed lawful inquiry into whether the law was or was not being followed; he used threats, abuse, intimidation, retaliation, and other illegal conduct to silence valid questions related to his illegal activity;

    F. There is no merit to any claim that Lincoln did or didn't have authority to do something; it is well established that Lincoln did violate the law, and that Congress alone has the power to decide whether to impeach for crimes. Nothing stops a Grand Jury from bringing charges against the Executive agents who put into practice illegal plans which they knew, or should have known, were not lawful and violated clearly established rights.

    G. Congress has no obligation to defer to the Executive on matters of war in cases where the Executive fails to follow the laws of war, violates the law, or otherwise abuses power and denies rights of prisoners or US Citizens. It is the 5 USC 3331 obligation of Congress, the court, and all executive branch employees to protect the Constitution from the domestic enemies in the Executive Branch and Congress.

    H. The court has already enforced the Hamdan by reminding all Americans that Geneva applies. If the Judicial branch and district courts refuse to follow the Supreme Court, they have violated their oath of office and may be impeached. There is a well positioned legal team to appeal any DoJ excuses. Once the Court rules on the matter, that is final. The Supreme Court will then likely rule 9-0 that the order of the court shall be enforced without question, under penalty of jail time and damages against the DoJ Attorneys who refuse to ensure that the orders of the Court are adhered to. Any claim by the DoJ Staff attorneys to the contrary could be grounds for having their bar license revoked, and other lawful penalties including contempt of court, and subsequent jail time.

    I. It is now settled law that the Executive Branch has violated the laws of war.


    The RNC hasn't quite woken up to the reality: We have a Constitution. Their arguments to the contrary amount to frivolous court action and violation of FRE 11. Time to get the ABA woken up and expand the disciplinary investigations against the DoJ Staff Attorneys who still don’t have a very good clue.

    * * *

    After you read this, and consider the Hamdan ruling which destroys Addington's entire paradigm, you'll understand who the real threat to the Constitution is, and why he needs to be investigated for purposes of disbarment.

    In the meantime, the American Bar Association needs to explain how the US could commit so many war crimes, but the American legal community went along with this. This is an ABA leadership and credibility issue.

    We are a nation of laws, but where were the competent lawyers? The adversarial system should have nipped this in the bud earlier, and removed Addington from the legal stage years ago. He has no clue what he's talking about -- he simply picks and chooses from the laws.

    We need better lawyers. And better leaders. The RNC wasn't willing to assert their oath and ensure what was lawful prevailed.

    Read more: [ Discuss ]

    * * *

    The reason we have laws is to prevent the abuse of power and protect rights. American law is something that, among other things, is connected with the abuses of Charles I in England.

    Our Constitution is designed to build on the lessons of history, and ensure that power is not abused and rights protected. This nation has been tested: What do free people justify doing, despite the laws to the contrary.

    This nation chose to permit people to do things secretly, ignore the laws, and go around the Constitutional system. The abuse wasn't simply directed at Americans, but citizens worldwide.

    The issue going forward: What is to be done to ensure this does not happen again.

  • A system to mandate DoJ Attorneys provide annual certifications to Congress, as CEOs certify to the Securities and Exchange Commission, that they are in compliance with the laws of war; and have made appropriate reports to the DOJ OPR for review. Any attorney failure to timely report is subject for review; DoJ Attorney resignations require a statement to the Committees and public the nature of their concerns on legal compliance within the Executive Branch. Ref

  • Expanded 42 USC 1983 standing to permit anyone to bring suit against the US Government for war crimes, unconstitutional conduct, and assert Amendment 1 right to bring grievances. [ Ref ]

  • More aggressive investigation and enforcement of Member of Congress 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations. The current self-regulation within Congress is meaningless; we need to see criminal sanctions, not the current whitewash approach.

  • When the crimes are admitted, unconstitutional conduct occurs, or the Executive abuses privilege, the public should be able to make a presumption of guilt, assert to the court there is a diminished capacity to assert Executive Privilege, and enjoy lower threshold to get FOIAs answered in re ORCON . [ Ref ] As the pattern of abuse spreads and deepens, the public should have an easier time getting access to classified information; and the information needs to be presumed to have been classified to hide illegal activity, unconstitutional conduct, and violations of the laws of war.

  • It should be a felony and violation of their oath of office 5 USC 3331 for Members of Congress to fail to timely investigate the pattern of abuse and illegal activity during confirmation hearings of those involved with the illegal planning of unlawful warfare and treaty violations. [ Ref ]

  • The public needs to discuss the lessons of Charles I, and understand what abuses have been repeated under this Administration. [ Ref ]

  • The legal community needs to have a better system of identifying problematic legal opinions in reports, and more effectively challenge the dubious legal arguments members of the bar are asserting. Their oath as an attorney is to the Constitution, not to a particular ideology, party, or leader. [ Ref ]

  • There needs to be more effective ABA screening and Congressional oversight of the legal profession, with competing oversight models to ensure the ABA is denied a monopoly. [ Ref ]

  • We the People need to discuss a New Constitution -- one that better checks power, denies powers that have been abused, and more swiftly sanctions Members of Congress for assenting to illegal warfare, violations of the law, and other unconstitutional conduct. [ Ref ]