Constant's pations

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

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Rendering DoJ Staff Attorneys

The ABA was previously challenged to provide a plan for the UN General Assembly. The task was simple: Coordinate the needed back up plan should Americans refuse to hold the DoJ Staff accountable.

The American Bar Association has the resources to review the implications of this requirement. The real problem is the implications of this task.


* * *

When we contemplate what such a plan might look like, we quickly run into a number of roadblocks, prompting us to ask:

  • How did the events of 9-11 go unnoticed

  • How many people are involved in the Rendition

    * * *

    When we speak of what might be required in rendering to the Hague alleged war criminals on the DoJ Staff, there are three major areas to consider:

  • A. The procedures

  • B. The laws

  • C. The ethics

    Taken broadly, the problem with rendering the DoJ Staff to the Hague for war crimes prosecutions is the immediate scream and shout: "How can this be? We have rights."

    Strange, the DoJ Staff said people could be rendered without comment; why does the DoJ Staff get to speak while others were required to assent to another standard? The answer is that they are abusive of power; and know the rights exist for all, but deny those rights to some.

    * * *

    Consider the checklists, steps, and planning required to implement the rendition of DoJ Staff. It is a logical, methodical process.

    Then consider the same thinking-approach as it would have to have also occurred in the rendition of Americans to Eastern Europe; and the 9-11 events.

    Simply contrast the two:

  • How can a simple rendering, with clear steps to deliver the DoJ Staff to the Hague be something, when considering the Rendition program, something that cannot be comprehended or discussed?

    Anything that a group would have to do to render the DoJ Staff would also have to be done during 9-11 and the other classified Rendition activity: Get permission, order troops to stand down, and ensure access.

    We are asked to believe during 9-11 as with Rendition that there is no evidence of a wider plan; yet, when proposing to move a handful of alleged DoJ Staff war criminals, suddenly the naysayers claim it cannot be done, it is impossible, too difficult. Either:

  • It is difficult, and 9-11 and Rendition require far wider planning; or

  • It is not difficult, and the DoJ Staff can be easily moved abroad.

    Either way: It shows that the naysayers have two standards on planning: That the enemy can do things easily, but that Americans are buffoons and cannot do simple things. Quite a mess they make for themselves, especially when trying to inspire confidence that they can solve problems, not make more excuses.

    * * *

    Let's consider the law. The apologists for the DoJ Staff attorney war criminals say that taking the DoJ Staff to the Hague would amount to kidnapping, violations of US law, and conspiracy.

    If that is true, then why is there no interest to investigate the same claims and cries when it comes to rendering other Americans to Eastern Europe?

    * * *

    Let's consider the ethics of Rendition. The Congress has to assent with this illegal conduct, they've appropriate funds, and ignored Nuremburg provisions against transporting civilians.

    Rather, for Rendition to work, it would require secrecy within Congress on illegal things, and the subsequent inaction to investigate. Again, after WWII, the legal community was forced to account for their complicity.

    What's really happening is that Americans have rationalized rendering some using abusive treatment; but they are not willing to let others similarly situated -- DoJ Staff attorney war criminals -- to ensure the same conditions.

    Suddenly the legal community talks about rights, food, water, fair treatment, party hats, letters to relatives, and whether they will or will not be able to call home. Curiously, their memos said that prisoners at Guantanamo were not entitled to that. Why should anyone give the DoJ Staff something they said other human beings were not worthy of having; and why are the Geneva Conventions something that suddenly applies?

    * * *

    Are DoJ Staff attorneys who are war criminals any different than terrorists?

    Notice who screams in the legal community and on the DoJ Staff when we speak of rending the DoJ Staff: They cannot explain their silence on the rendering of other people. Suddenly "certain difficulties" come into play, which were apparently trivial and quaint when rendering and torturing others: The law.

    Should the law be denied to those who deny it to others?

    It is one thing to Render people to the United States for prosecution; quite another to render them away for abuse and denial of treatment. Moving away, people are denied things: Why not the same for the fools on the DoJ Staff?

    Recall after Europe was liberated, the collaborators had their heads shaven. Would it not be useful to do the same to the DoJ Staff, and treat them in court as if they were terrorists: Undeserving of respect, to be shacked, and forced to grovel on the ground?

    Let's hear a good story from the DoJ Staff about the things that others should be denied: Their rights, respect, and protections.

    Perhaps the things that the DoJ Staff has ignored or explained away should be similarly imposed on the DoJ Staff: Forced to assent to something that they forced others to remain silent about, not share, or have no voice to speak in court.

    For many years others have been abused under the orders of DoJ Staff attorneys who knew, or should have known, the Geneva Article 82 requirements to fully implement the Conventions. But the lazy, ignorant, and stupid DoJ Staff that wasn't good enough. So much for their 5 USC 3331 oath to promise to enforce the Supreme Laws which include treaty obligations.

    If we haven't taken an oath to be nice to the DoJ Staff, should we?

    If the DoJ Staff has said other human being should endure abuse, physical harm, and other mistreatment, why is the DoJ Staff entitled to any protection against the same treatment?

    * * *

    Congress had to go along with this plan, not just in the original abuses, but also in the rendering of the DoJ Staff.

    Some ask, "What if Congress stops the lawful delivery of indicted war criminals to the Hague?" The appropriate response, "Why is Congress willing to defend the rights of some, not all?" They do not take an oath to pick and choose who they defend; rather, they take an oath to God to protect the Constitution from their own.

    Congress has to assent to the plan to deny rights, violate the law, not review, remain silent, and still pay for the illegal activity. The Congress is quick to spend money on things that are not justified or audited; but when it comes to accountability and investigations, the Congress shrieks, "We have no money." In truth, they have no interest in their oath, the law, or the rights of man. They simply love to abuse power without accountability. The poodles in Congress hide behind the White House, perfectly happy being relegated as a consultative body of the Executive, and nothing more than a White Wing to the White House. It's unclear why the Executive pretends to care for those who openly do not.

    * * *

    What if Congress were to pass a bill saying that something could or could not be done with respect to the DoJ Staff?

    The response, "Why was this not also done with other abuses?"

    The real answer is that the Congress is not interested in rights, or civility; it is merely concerned with pleasing those in the White House who enjoy abusing power.

    Our reward is that they do not universally ensure that those who terrorize others are treated as terrorists, rather than officers of the court, as the DoJ Staff likes to believe they are.

    The DoJ Staff, if the world were ideal, should be treated as they treat others, and how the DoJ Staff operates: Like terrorists who defy the laws, and have disdain for American values. The DoJ Staff has friends on the American Bar Association Staff who also like to pretend they are important, but spend their time on unimportant things.

    While the Constitution smolders, they engage in unspeakable things. Yes, they are disgusting creatures and deserve to be treated with contempt, not respect. Perhaps if they treat the law with the respect they wish to compel others to show them, we might take seriously their claim that they are people who know something of the law. To date, the legacy has been recklessness and defiance of the laws and oaths.

    They are America's finest. No wonder Hamas and Hezbollah have broader and deepening support.

    * * *

    Congress is complicit with rendering. The issue is the DoJ Staff conduct between 2000 and 2006. There is nothing the Congress can retroactively do to change the laws that were fully in force at that time.

    yes, Congress may pretend they have the power to pass a law saying that Geneva does not apply to DoJ Staff Conduct. But if that is true, why should that inconvenience apply to American civilians when it comes to lawful, peaceful methods use to civilly protect the Constitution from domestic enemies?

    What is to be done when Members of Congress are leading the insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution: Who can lawfully raise a militia to come to the defense of the Constitution and lawfully, peacefully encourage the Congress and stupid DoJ Staff to rethink their dubious plans?

    * * *

    Congress does not have the requirement to cooperate. Rather, it has the mandate, duty, and obligation to assert the rule of law, enforce the Constitution, and see that it protects the document.

    Congress will not explain why it is silent on matters of illegal rendition, fully litigated in open court in Italy.

    Congress would like the world to believe that it has a choice whether it will or will not cooperate with enforcing the laws of war against DoJ Staff.

  • Does Congress really have a choice when it comes to war crimes?

  • Is there a requirement under international law that the Members of Congress cooperate and not interfere with the rendering of DoJ Staff to The Hague?

    Congress is clear on issues of war crimes: It spoke with vigor on Yugoslavia, against Rwanda, and others who violated the rights of man. It remains to be seen whether Congress is inclined to find the time to speak with the same love of liberty and civility when they look at their legacy, and in the mirror.

    * * *

    Let's consider the actual, practical steps of physically moving the DoJ Staff war criminals from the United States Department of Justice Buildings in DC to the Hague.

    There's a simple way: Give the DoJ Staff a deadline to appear, and tell them their travel costs will be reimbursed. On the other hand, US Citizens have been charged for the travel costs associated with protecting them from American bombings in Lebanon; it might be fitting to charge the DoJ Staff for their forced delivery. Surely, they have lobbyist friends like Libby's lawyers who could set up a website and have a fund raiser: "Get my DoJ Staffer a cooked meal." It could be like an elementary school PTA bake sale.

    Another option is to issue through the UN diplomatic passes, and make them UN emissaries, immunity from arrest. This means that once under UN control, they cannot be detained (in theory) by the US. Practically speaking this could work, but given the Israeli’s aiming problems in Lebanon, it's not likely the US is going to show any greater respect to the UN security forces accompanying the DoJ Staff.

    * * *

    There will be the matter of physically entering the DOJ Building, walking down the hall, and finding the staff. All this without anyone stopping the UN.

    Keep in mind what the FBI agents did on the Congressional raid. Perhaps the Sergeant at arms of the Senate or House would like to reciprocate and lead this raid into the DoJ building. "Hay, if you don't come out with our hands up, we're going to tell the world about all your secrets." Yawn.

    Does the UN have to coordinate with the US Marshalls, JTTF, DoD, and Federal Government to lawfully render the DOJ Staff to the Hague? Before we answer that, think again of the 9-11 and Rendition planning: Given the complexity of delivering a single DoJ Staffer, surely there are records of the illegal rendition and 9-11 planning that is in the Intel Link system. Yes, the DoJ has separate LANS for that as well.

    The curious thing is that the US government, despite its "love" of the "rule of law," is not likely to cooperate with the rendition of DoJ Staffers. So the question becomes: Who really greased the wheels for the Rendition and 9-11 activity?

    In order to physically move a single person out of the US, or do something inside the US, there are several steps:

  • Flight clearance to land

  • Higher the flight crew

  • Entry into the DoJ Building

  • Physically detain the DoJ Staffer

  • Peacefully leave the DoJ Building without interference

  • Travel to the Airport, loading dock, port, or holding center

  • Depart

  • Comply with the approve flight plan

  • Travel with sufficient fuel

  • Not be intercepted

  • Arrive at the destination, peacefully land, not be blocked

  • Download the DoJ Staffer personal effects

  • Travel to the Hague

  • Enter the building, holding center

  • Maintain control of the DOJ Staffer

    Again, the point is that the above steps closely match the US rendition efforts that the Italians are now reviewing. Yet, the US wants the Americans to believe that the Rendition-Kidnapping is a "state secret".

    How can this be? There’s too much evidence outside American control for anyone to claim that it's secret, especially when the conduct is illegal, as were the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The only difference is scale, not the fundamental problem: Unchecked and unstopped abuse of power. Rather, there's a trail of evidence; people know, and there are non-Americans involved in the holding areas. Someone in Europe has to physically provide the lettuce which goes on the jailer's evening salad. That person is not an American farmer; rather, it’s a European farmer. We see no evidence that the US is flying lettuce from California to Europe; rather, they purchase the food from local vendors. Even the eggs and potatoes for the McDonald's Happy-Rendition meal. I suppose they could be growing the lettuce underwater in the Black sea and delivering it by ship to Constanta, Rumania.

    * * *

    Geneva outlines how the DoJ Staffers, once they are delivered to the Hague, are to be treated.

    Should we hold them until the world "debates" how they should be treated? If the American lawyers in the ABA had their way, they'll debate for eternity, never arrive at a solution, and then bill the client for the confusion.

    Geneva outlines war crimes trial provisions and requirements. Nuremburg, Yugoslavia, Rwanda provide the guides to how the war criminals should be treated. DoJ Staff attorneys like to twist precedent; should we twist these precedents when it comes to DoJ Staff attorneys:

  • Treatment of prisoners

  • Movement within the court

  • Safety of the escorting officers

  • Legal standing

  • Support

  • Provisions if other forces interfere with the proceedings

    * * *

    Let's imagine The Hague filled with DoJ Staff attorneys.

  • Should we bill the DoJ Staff attorney for the costs to provide security, or should we leave that up to the American public to vote on?

  • Should we provide food that the DoJ Staff attorneys like; or should we give them honey, and little biscuits that they might drool on while they read their bibles?

  • if the DoJ Staff attorney goes on a hunger strike, should we force feed them through their right nostril, down their throat, in their arm, or through another method?

  • If the DoJ Staff attorney accidentally trips while existing the aircraft at the airport closest to The Hague, should we provide them a Band-Aid, let the Red Cross look at them right away, or put them in a dark cell so the sun will not harm them?

  • Will we permit the detaining powers to conduct experiments on them?

  • Should we let the DoJ Staff attorneys discuss legal matters; or should we separate them into dark cells where their only human-to-human contact is between themselves individually and a large, hairy beast that smells as if it has never known the cleansing power of water, soap, and deodorant?

    Again, keep in mind that it's the ABA that likes to debate these issues. Times to put the burden on the ABA to come up with some answers. Look to precedent: How did the Nazis treat the undesirable lawyers: Should that standard be applied; or should we apply the precedent of Guantanamo which the DoJ Staffers endorsed?

    * * *

    Under the laws of war and Geneva, DoJ Staff attorneys are not to be photographed. yet, recall how many orange suits we saw on the media.

    Would it not be appropriate to let the world see how nicely the DoJ Staffer enjoys having their face rubbed into the ground as they are given the chance to taste the sweet flavor of The Hague's lawn? What a sight.

    * * *

    The way forward is for the American Bar Association to get serious with how it plans to prosecute these cases. It is not up to the public to bring indictments. The US Attorney has to do this. However, if DoJ refuses to investigate, then we really have only one other option: To deliver the DoJ Staff to a Grand Jury for indictments; then lawfully transport them to The Hague or another location for trial.

    It's time for the American Bar Association to decide whether it is serious about providing leadership; or whether it's going to make excuses. Anything that the ABA does to slow roll this, should be looked at as evidence of complicity; and the public should ask: Why aren't these same roadblocks to abuse also provided to other Americans who have been rendered to Europe?

    The answer is that the ABA knows about the abuse, is complicity with silence, and refuses to challenge Congress in court for its illegal assent to abuse of human rights, violations of Geneva, and other war crimes committed against American civilians.

    The ABA has to decide how long they want this public relations disaster to fester; whether they will provide leadership; assent to public oversight; and encourage the public to work with competing associations. In the end, as the Nazis found out, initial battlefield and legal victories were no barrier to final war crimes prosecution: The lawyers were indicted, charged, and lawfully put to death for war crimes.

    Lawyers don’t make the law. We the People have delegated that power to Congress, and we may lawfully revoke and transfer that power to an alternative, more responsive forum. It could happen. The American Constitution started as an idea in the mind of one person.

    Americans are ready to force the United States to put their money where its mouth is: Lawfully, peacefully, and non-violently--Something the DoJ Staffers have a hard time comprehending, especially as they surf the internet doing things unrelated to the law.

    Perhaps the DoJ Staffers know the law better than they've demonstrated: They'll be lucky if they are given the right to counsel. Others, the DoJ Staff attorneys said, were not entitled to certain rights. Why should the DoJ Staff attorneys be granted anything that they've denied others?