American Government: Two Standards On Illegally-Acquired Information

The American government prior to Sept 2001 had acquired information, but ignored it. It's one thing to engage in illegal activity, quite another to ignore the fruits of that illegal activity, and allow other illegal activity to occur.

If the US had a real interest in engaging in illegal activity, there should have been a heightened interest in that illegally-acquired information. The folly is the energy devoted to collecting information, without the matching interest to use that information.

* * *

NSA: Pre 9-11 Monitoring was illegal, and ignored

Before 9-11, the NSA was already illegally monitoring Americans. The question is: What happened to this data; why wasn't it used to defend the country; or was the information used only to prepare the illegal legislation?

Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda. Ref

Did you catch that -- "Terrorism suspects"?!?

We've been told since Sept 2001, that the attacks were out of the blue. Now, in 2006, five year later, we find out that they were (1) monitoring them; (2) knew about them; (3) had the information; (4) intercepted information; (5) engaged in illegal activity to get information; (6) were referring to them as criminal suspects; yet (7) ignored the information.

Reconsider the abuse-Geneva issue, where prisoners were abused to extract false confessions, and contrast the two issues: Why was the government

A. quick to accept illegally acquired information in 2006 which is not reliable, and based on abuse, as the basis to argue for additional Geneva violations; but

B. slow to put similarly illegally acquired information into effect to prevent an attack?

Most likely answers

A. There's No Evidence

They're using abuse to get information because they have no information to justify their detentions. Recall the Guantanamo case files are empty, and detainees have not been charged with crimes; and that prisoners detained were not linked with actual combat, but targeted because of petit gripes, unrelated to combat.

B. Retroactive Excuses For Already Imposed, Non-Judicially-Approved Punishment

They've detained them, and are trying to find something that will justify the abuse that's been inflicted upon them.

C. Forced Confessions

This late in 2006, there's no credible argument to be made that the prisoners are providing any new information. Government officials who have worked for the NSA and CIA, within weeks of their departure are treated as if they're clueless.

Why are abused prisoners of war treated better than former NSA-CIA analysts? Consider the WMD and the Downing Street memo, and notice the similarity to how the White House-OSP treated information that has been fabricated:

American Double Standard On Illegally Acquired Information (1) Bad news from reliable sources is discredited to protect institutional interests, not ensure accountability; (2) Favorable news, even if it is fabricated is asserted as politically-reliable.

Why was adverse information that would trigger DoD preparation and solutions ignored; but the same information was put into effect to develop DoD-DoJ illegal plans?

It must have been an institutional benefit to do illegal things; and an institutional risk to prevent the event.

Yet, the reality wasn't that 9-11 would trigger illegal activity; the illegal activity had already started well before 9-11. 9-11 was just the public excuse to legitimize what was already in place: The illegal activity, Constitutional violations, illegal war crimes, and unlawful war plans.

We've seen in the wake of Katrina and Iran that the commitment to the full plan wasn't real. It appears more likely that the concern and more credible link between 9-11 and Afghanistan was a sham, as evidenced by the failure to see the Afghanistan effort through to completion.

* * *

Comments

There are a couple of things to consider with the NYT quote.

1. NSA was monitoring prior to Sept 2001.

2. Something had already triggered the NSA and White House to the monitoring.

3. At the same time, the illegal NSA surveillance had already started.

4. They were violating the law to get information, but they were ignoring the information and implications, and analysis.

5. They spent more time preparing illegal orders which relied on the catastrophic event, than they did responding to the evidence of an unfolding problem.

6. It remains to be understood how the "events and actions" which triggered the monitoring, also triggered the Patriot Act planning.

Original Question

What happened to this data, why wasn't it used to defend the country, or was the information used only to prepare the illegal legislation?

The information above is stunning in itself, and is substantially consistent with the other allegations in the various war crimes indictments. Each of these adverse judgments matches the independently-generated list of allegations in the draft war crimes indictment.

A. Future Procurement Over Current Defense

The US Government is more interested in creating an infrastructure to acquire information illegally than effectively using that information to protect the Constitution or the Country. When given a choice, the government would ignore information that was useful to prevent an attack, but use information as a pretext to engage in abuse. They want the power to create more power, not see that the power is lawfully employed or serves a lawful objective.

B. Subsequent Illegal Activity

The illegally acquired information was not used to prevent an attack, but to engage in other illegal activity -- passing unconstitutional statutes, engaging in abuse, and violating the Geneva Conventions.

C. Subsequent Illegal Statutes

Despite the direction to engage in illegal activity, the fruits of that illegal intercept was not effectively used to prevent an attack; rather, the information was us to implement illegal, unconstitutional legislation.

D. Illegal Commercial Activity Prior to Sept 2001

The NSA and commercial entities were engaged in illegal surveillance prior to Sept 2001.

E. Unlawful Orders

There were written orders to engage in illegal surveillance prior to Sept 2001, and commercial entities well know the activity is illegal, and not protected under either FISA or the Geneva Conventions.

F. Suppression

The illegally acquired information has not been properly disclosed to the public, to review before the November 2006 election.

G. Member of Congress Complicity, Inaction Despite Notification

The Republican leadership in Congress knows full well required investigations and reviews have not been done, and their public responses to these revelations are inconsistent because there is other to be disclosed illegal activity.

H. Legislation Without Credible Foundation

Despite failing to adequately prevent crimes, or take action to find facts, this Congress passed legislation that is illegal, and unrelated to the original problems.

I. Use of Illegal Information To Support War Crimes

Illegally captured data has been unlawfully used as a pre-text to engage in other criminal activity and war crimes.

J. Failure To Prevent War Crimes

Members of Congress know about the illegal activity and war crimes, but have failed to prevent other illegal war crimes.

Read more . . .

Addington Knew About War Crimes; Failed To Correct Illegal Policies, Practices

Addington essentially encouraged more war crimes, arguing that changing practices meant admitting the original violations. However, failing to correct known problems is an illegal excuse to continue violating Geneva. The issue isn't how torture is or is not defined, but whether there had been abuse, in violation of Geneva.

* * *

David S. Addington, who was then Mr. Cheney’s counsel and is now his chief of staff, was prominent among those who opposed modifications like an explicit ban on evidence obtained by torture, contending that it would wrongly hint that the government had sanctioned torture at all.

[ NYT: TIM GOLDEN, Memo Fueled Deep Rift in Administration on Detainees, 1 Oct 2006 Ref ]

The only reasonable conclusion is that Addington knew there were violations, or possible volations, and failed to prevent or stop what he knew or should have known what was occurring. It is not reasonable to conclude that Addington did not know about something he is reported to have been concerned about. Moreover, his reported concern leaves the reasonable impression that he knew of a problem, but failed to correct what he knew, or should have known was illegal and contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

Conversely, it defies reason to argue that Addington, allegedly someone who looked very every excuse to ignore the law, would suddenly be concerned with the law on something that was not a real concern. Rather, Addington's concern appears to be linked not with a concern for the law, but his realization he had no legal excuse or plausible defense to justify what had already happened.

Recall the President's words: "Failure to act would embolden other tyrants" Ref. Why is the world waiting to act to prosecute this alleged American war criminal?

* * *

Indeed, the 2006 Military Commissions bill and movement of prisoners from the now-disclosed CIA detention centers shows the abuse was not lawful and the US government officials knew this, as they publicly disclosed in July 2006.

Despite knowing the treatment was illegal, rather than change procedures or policies, the US government officials (1) crafted the illegal Military Commissions Bill; (2) granted themselves false immunity by illegally preventing prisoners the right to challenge their detention; and (3) included language to pay for the cost of defending their failure to prevent war crimes.

These illegal 2006 policies and procedures in the Military Commissions Bill would not have been needed had the United States followed the laws of war once making the decision to use force in 2001.

* * *

Constitutional Requirements Ignored

Geneva requires the detaining power, the Untied States, to ensure the prisoners of war are prosecuted using established procedures.

US courts rely on the Constitution, which guarantees the right of a detainee to challenge their detention. Rasul affirmed this right applied to prisoners of war held at Guantanamo.

Hamdan supposedly triggered the Military Commissions bill, and affirmed the Geneva obligations were requirements. Yet, no consideration was given to habeas corpus:

The element of the new legislation that raised the sharpest criticism among legal scholars and human rights advocates last week was the scaling back of the habeas corpus right of terrorism suspects to challenge their detention in the federal courts. But in dozens of high-level meetings on detention policy, officials said, that provision was scarcely even discussed.

So much for their concern with international outrage. It's foolish to have spent time on a Military Commissions bill as a public relations stunt, only to find out they've ignored the public, and relied on more illegal stunts.

American abuse of power, in part, fuels terrorism. Public relations backfire when the players ignore the law.

* * *

Conclusions

Here is what we can conclude about the NYT information:

1. The Members of the Legislative and Executive Branches knew there had been war crimes, yet failed to investigate them.

2. After knowledge of the illegal war crimes, Addington and others refused to prevent further illegal war crimes.

3. The Congress passed an illegal Military Commissions Bill.

4. Congress illegally failed to ensure the United States, the President, and others honored the Geneva obligations.

5. The Executive Branch did not seriously consider the full implications of Hamdan and the Geneva requirements; nor did it ensure the prisoners were afforded the full Geneva protections.

6. The pre-decisional discussions and memoranda have been disclosed to third parties and are not protected by any claim of executive or legislative privilege.

7. The pre-decisional memoranda shows the Members of Congress and Executive Branch knew about illegal war crimes, failed to timely prevent the war crimes; and despite Hamdan failed to ensure the policy fully complied with the Geneva requirements. This is evidence of recklessness, and warrants and upward adjustment in the war crimes sentencing.

Evidence: Consistent Implications

It's possible to take a broader view of these conclusions. There are some broad, recurring themes to this information:

(a) The different, emerging lines of evidence independently continue to confirm the war crimes allegations, alleged defendants, and scope of the illegal activity;

(b) These conclusions substantially match (1) the list of war crimes indictments; and (2) the implications of the pre-9-11 NSA illegal monitoring;

(c) Each of the conclusions can be linked with the Helix Evidence Model, linking Verizon, Abraxas, and AT&T to the alleged war crimes and illegal FISA violations; and

(d) Nothing we've publicly heard by way of explanation or defense does anything to undermine the support for (1) the adverse inferences or (2) allegations of illegal conduct and war crimes.

Read more . . .

SWIFT Access Allegedly Supported War Crimes

The SWIFT data releases is more than an issue of EU privacy violations, but alleged war crimes.

* * *

SWIFT banks illegally, the EU said, disclosed information to US-related entities in violation of the law. The EU decision that the SWIFT disclosures were illegal means the net is widening on the alleged war criminals.

Recall, the President revealed the illegal detention centers in Europe, which Rice had previously denied existed. A cast of enablers supported the illegal detentions including the telecoms industry, personnel who provided transport, and those who actively engaged in the alleged Geneva violations.

There's nothing wrong with tracing illegal activity. However, if the Americans want to violate the law in order to defend their way of life, they're ignoring what they supposedly are trying to defend. In truth, the Americans are only defending their "right" abuse power and illegally seize oil.

It remains to be seen what role US firms like Abraxas, Verizon, and AT&T played in transferring this illegally obtained information; and how the intermediaries were used to put into effect illegal renditions and prisoner abuse.

We'll have to see how serious the Europeans are in prosecuting those institutions which provided the Americans the information used to engage in the alleged war crimes in Eastern Europe.

Read more . . .

Abraxas Corp. Assumptions

This information is intended to assist the war crimes prosecutors.

The information below is not intended to be accurate. It is for discussion purposes only.

[Information may be substantially revised without notice.]

* * *

Allegation

As you read the information below keep one thing in mind: Abraxas Corp. and its personnel have not yet been convicted of any wrong doing, nor are they necessarily complicit in war crimes. These are only allegations, not assertions of fact.

Ref Questions for Abraxas in re alleged war crimes.

Ref War Crimes Plan allegedly supported by Abraxas.

Ref Alleged Abraxas pipline to support war crimes.

Ref Alleged bribes by Republicans to silence Abraxas employees about war crimes.

Overview

The war crimes prosecutor when planning discovery will need to identify the organizational parameters, range of documents, communications, and other likely evidence. This information will help couch the scope of the Abraxas Corporation, and assist with scoping the prosecutor's budget and discovery team.

Abraxas

Note carefully the definition of Abraxas, which gives insight into how Abraxas personnel are placed in other firms around the globe.

Abraxas allegedly acts as a pipeline. Personnel assigned to Abraxas are around the globe, likely in undercover capacities working in other firms with no obvious, outward linkage to Abraxas. Once CIA agents are assigned to overseas locations, the Abraxas overseas network becomes the means by which CIA employees are transferred, given credentials, and assigned.

It remains to be understood which Abraxas personnel knew, or should have known, about the CIA illegal Geneva violations. One requirement for Abraxas to place someone in the CIA is knowing the agent's actual duties, and then ensuring their cover does not give any indication or hint of their real activities.

Non-Abraxis Support

Abraxas Corporation is an international firm. A simple review of the maximum capacity of the Abraxas headquarters in McLean reveals there is insufficient space for all 300 Abraxas Employees.

Abraxas openly admits that its employees are assigned to other countries. The issue because to what extent Abraxas, because of its relationship with the CIA, is entitled to protection under the State Secrets or Executive Privilege. Abraxas is a commercial entity. As with Verizon before Vermont and New Jersey bodies, commercial entities do not have the power to invoke Executive Privilege.

Do not narrow your review of the alleged war crimes planning support to Abraxas. There is insufficient capacity to accommodate all employees. There are other entities around the globe unrelated to Abraxas which support the alleged illegal activities.

Please contact the US Attorney's office to determine whether the FBI or other agencies have placed audio-visual monitoring equipment on the north-east side of the Post Office adjacent to the McLean facility.

It is an error to narrow the focus of the alleged war crimes planning to what CIA funds have or have not flowed to Abraxas. Funds are transferred to non-Abraxas entities to accomplish like and intermediate support. Prosecutors and investigators should review funds from CIA to Abraxas and be open to discovering other US government efforts paying for the same activity, but from other programs, agencies, and program elements.

Abraxas and CIA need to provide a straight story on the dollar-man month figures, vs. the number of personnel assigned to the McLean facilities, vs. the workload assigned. If the dollar figures are consistent with the workload of planning agents, other Abraxas-related employees are assigned at intermediate locations outside McLean. If the dollar figures are not consistent, the funds must be flowing thorough other entities outside Abraxas direct control.

It is likely that DoD-related entities are involved in multiple regions. Abraxas could be a ruse. The lack of world interest in Abraxas suggests there are non-Abraxas entities involved. Observers appear to have insufficient concern. It is a security problem if all agent-support activities were located in a single location outside the main CIA facility. The fact that the CIA suggests it has lost contact with various CIA-related contractors indicates the placement program is not centrally coordinated, managed, or confined to a single entity.

There is insufficient capacity within the two [2] Abraxas McLean public facilities for Abraxas facilities to support all personnel assigned. There appear to be other facilities indirectly connected with Abraxas which support agent placement.

Abraxas Organization

Common Stock documents are filed with NY State Regulators.

Patents are coordinated with counsel formerly associated with Wisconsin, and integrate with intelligence related equipment in the CIA, DoD intelligence community, and NSA. Primarily hardware interface devises with report signal capture.

Personnel appear have ongoing interactions with DoD, DHS, CIA, NSA organization including Lockheed Martin, SAIC, and Sandia Labs. Familiar with IPT and SETA. Capable of providing use preference, and interface design for human factors engineering, and providing program management consulting for CIA contractors including SAIC and Lockheed Martin.

Facility-Employee Accommodations

It is likely employees keep documents in their personal vehicles. With about 300 personnel on the payroll, most of the employees spend time on the road, coordinating efforts, and do not necessarily make regular visits to either office. The building is just west of the Post Office, 175 parking spots. Parking around the second location is much smaller, with fewer parking lots. The distance 0.3 miles between facilities, and about 3 miles to Main CIA HQ.

To access CIA, Abraxas personnel would acquire security badges for the Abraxas shuttles.

Board

Skill set is light on PhDs and mechanical engineering.

Labor Rates

A fully burdened rate of $7K/employee/month.

Revenue growth (+700%) is attributed to small initial size, about 12-20 employees, then growing to over 300. In absolute numbers the revenues grew from about $1M to $8.5

Indirect labor rates are low relative to industrial production, higher-end acquisition programs due to small size, limited land, and very low overall energy consumptions. Marginal material costs. Cost of money is not an issue. Assuming no direct production operations or quality control division for materials processing.

Personnel are generally former military and government employees, many who are married, have retirement income, and are not necessarily full time Abraxas Employees, providing only part-time assistance. Personnel are assigned to other organizations.

Land is likely owned outright, property is a share of personnel investment. Salaries have been adjusted with common stock shares, awaiting IPO.

Corporate Structure

Corporate board, human relations, training oversight, program office support, budgeting, sensitive briefing area, STU-III and Top Secret messages, computers, and off site secure storage areas.

Ratio of PhDs to bachelor-degree is less than a silicon valley firm.

Assuming an IPT integration concept, well able to support the DoD planning cells. On a daily basis works with the CIA director of support, Stephanie Danes Smith.

Advanced concepts team integrates with the DHS program office and Sandia-LANL and indirectly with 1300 industry organizations.

Expertise

Despite claims of 12 foreign languages, country expertise is not associated with language expertise. For example personnel may have a language experience in Europe, but be assigned to central Asia. Prominent central Asia experts do not necessarily claim Arabic or Hindi within their language expertise.

Training

Abraxas does not appear to have sufficient revenues to conduct exclusive in-house training. Appears to occur through contracts at offsite facilities, and the internet.

Human Resources

Since 2001, formerly-assigned Abraxas employees are available for interviews. Formerly assigned Abraxas-personnel understand the confidentiality agreements are not enforceable when they relate to matters of war crimes and other alleged criminal activity and fraud.

Tasks

Abraxas is openly reported to provide assistance to the CIA in providing background stories and placing agents undercover.

Alleged Abraxas Pipeline

Abraxas personnel have openly admitted their existence since Sept 2001. The Abraxas Corporation is allegedly the means by which Abraxas-related personnel, formerly assigned to the CIA, were then repositioned in other business capacities and entities around the globe.

To carry develop this pipeline, Abraxas had to methodically place civilians in overseas locations; then ensure that assigned CIA personnel were not in any way openly doing something related to their hidden activities. The CIA would have had to, at some point, provide information to Abraxas about the specific duties that a given CIA employee would engage; Abraxas would then use this information to place the CIA agent within the Abraxas-created personnel pipeline.

The Abraxas pipeline would theoretically require a first wave of Abraxas employee placements; then a second wave of promotions, contracts, and other business relationships to remove overt connections between the Abraxas and the overseas entities; then continue to ensure that the newly-Assigned Abraxas personnel remained in positions of influence.

During wave 1, the Abraxas-placed personnel would likely have been placed in personnel position, technical writing, human relations, shipping, storage, and other management positions.

During wave 2, when Abraxas-placed personnel supported CIA agents, Abraxas-connected entities would engage in five general classes of discoverable activity:

(1) Information technology -- follow-on communications, e-mail, and electronic messaging through Itel Link, secure e-mail, and other NSA-compatible communication systems associated with the embassy;

(2) Information transfer -- content of messages and contracts related to these business relationships;

(3) Legal documents -- these are the subsequent legal opinions which Abraxas-connected personnel know, or should know, are not protected under the rules of evidence, Geneva conventions, or claims of secrecy -- these are matters of alleged fraud and war crimes.

(4) Funds transfers -- These are the financial flows between the Abraxas-related entities and subsidiaries, and can be traced with contracts, memoranda, and other agreements;

(5) Personnel flows -- This line of evidence relate to the technical conferences, trips, and other business conferences Abraxas-related personnel used to move through the pipeline, establish their presence. These conferences related to Academic, military, and technical interchange meetings.


Equipment

Abraxas personnel appear to have an understanding of NSA cryptography, and are familiar with the algorithms used to encrypt and intercept sensitive information.

The data Abraxas-placed CIA agents handle can be anything.

Equipment includes:

Detection equipment
Measurement equipment

Scheduling, presentation tools

Indexing
Data capture
Remote data access
Data storage, transfer
Satellite integration

Photo transfer, storage
Data analysis tools

Intrusion detection
Scrambling equipment
Complex SIGINT scanners

Auditing equipment

Records

CIA Directorate of Support memoranda approving the Abraxas-pipeline concept
Demonstration that the Abraxas-pipeline concept can successfully place and protect CIA agents
Inputs to State Department communication-integration systems
Shipping information
Intel Link access times
Updates to secure communications
Signed contracts
Patents
Equipment test plans, results
Meeting minutes
Policy memos
Signed memoranda
Budget documents
CIA-NSA-DoD-Contractor briefings
Program schedules
Foreign intelligence
Foreign technology analysis

Personnel

Tools and equipment are readily movable by auditors, inspectors, and construction crews during installation and site visits.

Personnel are adept at process analysis and providing point and time estimates with multi-variables.

Technical expertise includes weapons procurement, testing, and remote biological-chemical weapons detection.

Read more . . .

America's Assault On Justice

The US Congress and President have assaulted the American justice system.

It no longer matters whether the voters do or do not get it.

* * *

The Military Commissions bill illegally affects ongoing litigation.

Legal Challenges

Hamdan is not expected to raise the issue of habeas as this has already been determined in the case; but will likely soon challenge the military commission bill privisions related to evidence and procedures, which the Supreme Court already stated in Hamdan violate Geneva.

Congress has defied the Supreme law, the Geneva Conventions, and the Supreme Court. The Bill illegally denies prisoner-defendants' rights Hamdan otherwise affirmed as Geneva requirements. The Conventions require the defendant the same legal protections that are the part of regular courts. Regular courts in America are consistent with the Constitution.

The United States government has insufficient evidence to prosecute the majority of prisoners of war. If it did, it would gladly parade the defendants and show the evidence proving their guilt. The problem is the Americans have paid for defendants, not for justice.

Grand juries have little patience when they are given the run around, especially when the law is clear, and the conduct is illegal. It's the turn of the war crimes tribunals and grand juries to lawfully assault the alleged war criminals in Congress who have defied their oath.

Read more . . .

Senator Graham's Telling Outburst

Senator Graham made a revealing, fatal denial.

* * *

When indirectly responding to accusations that the President and Republicans had illegally violated the Constitution with the Military Commission Bill, Senator Graham defensively denied, "There's nothing we did."

Sure there is. Recall the Military Commissions Bill isn't about Congress (although it is), it's about the future prosecutions. Senator Graham's reason for personalizing the issue is simple. The Republicans did not conduct investigations into the Bush war crimes as they should have.

This Congress is complicit with war crimes.

Read more . . .

The Question

Ask your Members of Congress: If the Republicans really believed the Military Commission Bill was appropriate, why did they include a provision for war crimes defenses in Section 8?

The simple answer is the Republicans don't believe the bill, when signed into law, will amount to a real legal defense. They're not enforcing the law or protecting the Constitution. They're putting themselves first.

* * *

When the Supreme Court ruled on Hamdan, it wasn't any federal court, but the highest court. The District Court of Appeals, the first court after the military commissions, will have Hamdan and Geneva when they conduct their review.

How the Supreme Court is or is not made up is meaningless. Hamdan is the law: The Geneva conventions apply.

Unlike the first round where Hamdan required a fresh look, now each federal district court will have Hamdan as precedent to strike down the Military Commissions Bill.

Hamdan isn't a simple opinion with one court. Contrary to the popular mythology, the legal battle will not be something that requires another five years of litigation. Indeed, it may because of delays require five years, but that is another matter.

As Rasul affirmed the right of the detainees to challenge their detention, Hamdan is precedent for the court to review the legal issues, but at the earliest stages. Congress has no power to deny the courts of judicial review.

* * *

The courts can't roll over and defer to the President as the DC Court of Appeals did. Rather, Hamdan is the language and precedent to remind the court of what is required: Enforcement of Geneva.

Hamdan when it was initially argued did not have the benefit of hindsight, which we now have.

The District Courts can strike down the Military Commissions procedures. Failure to do so in light of Hamdan would be clearly erroneous. It is a separate matter how the Judicial Officers are or are not reviewed with respect to their judicial cannons, or whether they are subsequently impeached for failing to affirm Hamdan.

Yes, America's Congress has passed an illegal bill. No, the Constitution has not gone away. Yes, the litigation will be costly. No, it is not a waste of money; it is a waste of credibility.

Read more . . .

President's Telling Rebuke of Taliban Law

The Military Commission Language is at odds with the Preisdent's condemnation of the Taliban.

* * *

The President has rebuked the Taliban for their lawlessness.

Recall what the President said about Saddam.

"This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course."

In signing into law the illegal Military Commissions Bill, this President fails to distance himself from those comments.

Be careful what you condemn, especially when near mirrors.

Read more . . .

Unlawful War Crimes Planning

This is a checklist for prosecutors and investigators. This checklist outlines the steps used to allegedly unlawfully support war crimes in Eastern Europe and the detention centers.

This information focuses on the entities which allegedly supported the illegal war crimes. This checklist is not intended to be complete, but outline a range of areas investigators should consider during discovery. When reviewing this information, consider as an analogy the plans the Germans used during WWII to implement illegal activity.

* * *

Note The checklists below are not intended to state affirmatilvely that Abraxas has or has not done anything. Rather, the checklists are intended to act as a guide to consider whether any given entity has or has not engaged in the alleged illgeal misconduct. We make no claim that anything below is factual, true, or has occurred. These matters remain for the war crimes prosecutors to review and the court to adjudicate.

Other Links Related To Alleged Abraxas War Crimes

Ref Questions for Abraxas in re alleged war crimes.

Ref War Crimes Plan allegedly supported by Abraxas.

Ref Alleged Abraxas pipline to support war crimes.

Ref Alleged bribes by Republicans to silence Abraxas employees about war crimes.

* * *

Operational Plan

There would have been a staff study plan to implement the illegal activity. The legal memoranda would have been cited as authority to implement the illegal plan.

Systems Engineering

The planning is not a simple matter of calling for a plan and writing it. Systems engineers would have to review the proposed plan ensure that funding and ground-air transport could be scheduled to support the activity, and the planned activity was fully supported.

Early Coordination, Revisions

One key date to consider was when Addington and others openly discussed the possibility to disclosure, when to disclose the information, and the meeting minute notes documenting the decision not to disclose the illegal activity or make needed changes to comply with Geneva.

Key Decisions

There are several provable decisions within the illegal war crimes planning

(1) Plan development
(2) Illegal activity
(3) Knowledge the activity was illegal
(4) Failing to do what should have done
(5) Failure to prevent or stop illegal activity
(6) Course of conduct which abused, trust, power, access, and authority.

Information Transfers

Information flowed from illegally captured sources, to Eastern Europe; then was subsequently used to target other American citizens in violation of FISA.

The issue will be to determine the technical means to transfer the data without detection; alternatives used when primary communication systems were believed to have been compromised; personnel placement; knowledge of outside efforts to monitor.

___ How was the illegally gathered information transferred through Verizon, AT&T, NAR&S STA, to the CIA detention centers;

___ How was the information gathered using methods with violated Geneva transferred through the communication system to support illegal monitoring, subsequent targeting, and illegal kidnapping of Americans.

___ How did the information from abuse get transferred to the telecoms and analysts and agents within JTTF and DHS to target other individuals within the United States

___ When was it known FISA court had been illegally bypassed

___ What were the range of communications occurring related to war crimes planning and personnel placement to support the war crimes plan

___ How did information flow between the CIA, outside entities, and firms which provided support to the CIA in eastern Europe

___ When did the agents know or should they have known the abuse, detentions, and other support activity in eastern Europe was related to illegal activity

___ Despite no changes, what were the obligations of the personnel to remove themselves

___ How was progress and concerns related to the effectiveness of the rendition, abuse, and illegal war crimes provided back to the National Security Council, White House, CIA, and senior leadership within DoD, DoJ, DHS, and JTTF

___ How were concerns related to the legality of the activity resolved; how did these resolutions stand up to legal scrutiny by inside and outside entities; when did DoD, CIA, and DoJ personnel first inquire about private insurance to protect them for possible war crimes related litigation

* * *

Abraxas Pipeline Creation

There are two phases to developing the pipeline. First is the over Abraxas employee placement; second are the subsequent Abraxas-connected entities which support CIA personnel movement.

___ Develop Abraxas pipeline concept

___ Receive CIA Directorate of Support approval to implement concept

___ Receive legal opinion that overseas operations are illegal

___ Ignore subsequent Supreme Court decisions in Hamdan, Rasul, Hamdii, and Padilla that Geneva applies, and prisoners may challenge their detentions

___ Ensure CIA agents are not told directly about the Abraxas pipeline

___ Conduct first wave of Abraxas-personnel placement: CEOs, technical writers, human resources, shipping, storage

___ Receive from CIA directorate of support CIA personnel case files, missions, and develop cover stories which are unrelated to the known CIA missions which violate the laws of war, Geneva, and human rights. If asked, feign ignorance, “I had no idea.” Use a crying towel, look sincere. Try harder. Hope they don’t use a polygraph.

___ Transfer through Abraxas-related entitles the CIA personnel; use multiple corporations which may or may not be related to DoD

___ Rely on illegal assurances from DoD, DoJ, and CIA that all communications are protected; ignore legal memoranda and case precedents that evidence related to fraud cannot be protected

___ Rely on illegal assurances from DoD, DoJ, and CIA that contracts are protected, or that the business operations are not covered by Geneva; ignore subsequent Supreme Court findings that prisoners of war have rights

___ Rely on illegal assurances from DoD, DoJ, and CIA that legal memoranda and other Abraxas-related documents are protected; ignore legal precedents stating only the Executive is entitled to claim executive privilege; ignore legal precedents which strip claim of secrecy against entities, documents, and evidence related to fraud and illegal activities

___ Facilitate insurance purchases for concerned Abraxas-related personnel

___ Rely on illegal assurances that Abraxas-related contractors and subsidiary contracts cannot be revealed or discussed; continue with operations despite open discussion of war crimes charges against Abraxas personnel;

___ Rely on illegal assurances that Abraxas-related pipelines will protect travel, conferences, and other trip memoranda; ignore precedents where these travel documents were subpoenaed, and personnel were lawfully executed for interfering with a war crimes investigation.

___ Maintain a small number of personnel in McLean; assign Abraxas personnel overseas;

___ Change names of overseas entities; encourage Abraxas-placed employees to work with DoD-related entities which are ongoing, and have no obvious association with DoD or the Untied States

___ Support Abraxas-personnel flows through the Abraxas-pipeline

___ Demonstrate to CIA Management that the Abraxas-pipeline cannot be penetrated; and that this is a secure means to flow CIA personnel through the pipeline to their final destination

___ Establish worldwide outposts to support broader Abraxas-penetration, permitting Abraxas-related personnel to work without detection in other firms, and still provide access to personnel records, contracts, shipping data, technical information, and other key documents and positions to support Abraxas-pipeline

___ Ignore the public discussion on war crimes, or the risk that the Military Commissions Bill language will not be enforced; pretend that the Congressional bill cannot be struck down; ignore ex post facto claims; ignore claims that the Military Commissions Bill is an illegal, unenforceable bill of attainder; pretend that the Congressional language guaranteeing financial payments for US personnel will be honored; refuse to discuss possibility that a war crimes prosecutor may use this agreement as evidence of subsequent war crimes; ignore possibility that the war crimes tribunal may find this Congressional Bill illegal and refuse to enforce the provisions which would otherwise ensure Abraxas-personnel are defended by DoJ Staff.

___ Support targeting of DOJ OPR staff to shut down investigation of possible Abraxas-related support for war crimes

___ Refuse to discuss with Abraxas-related entities the Oregon litigation which has exposed the ongoing attorney-client monitoring program; do not discuss the Hezbollah ability to penetrate Israeli SIGINT; provide meaningless assurances that Abraxas-related communications to the overseas pipeline has or has not been penetrated, or that evidence has or has not been provided to the war crimes prosecutors.

___ Change the subject from Geneva violations to the need to change FISA, even though FISA and Geneva was the law of the land 2001-2006, but the Abraxas senior management allegedly has no legal foundation to justify anyone in Abraxas or the Abraxas-pipeline to have confidence their activity will or will not be detected, and be the subject of war crimes prosecutions

___ Refuse to discuss possibility that US Members of Congress and/or the media have been bribed, offered something of value to not discuss (a) the alleged Abraxas war crimes involvement; (b) the means by which the Abraxas-pipeline has allegedly been used to thwart the Geneva Conventions and EU rules; or (c) the means by which the States Attorney General have been illegally threatened with prosecution to dissuade them from seeing the link between the alleged Verizon-FISA violations and the subsequent illegal use Abraxas-placed personnel engaged when they used that illegally acquired information to allegedly engage in abuse, kidnapping, and other war crimes.

___ Do not discuss possibility that Abraxas-placed personnel are incompetent, and have allegedly illegally provided meaningless assurances of defense, immunity, or protection for war crimes;

___ Spout non-sense to continue believing in a government that otherwise engages in war crimes, fails to ensure justice is done, and commits grave braches of Geneva;

___ Create non-sense excuse to continue supporting the Abraxas-Pipeline despite mounting evidence that personnel have already worked with the US Attorney to share contracts, evidence, and other war crimes related information

___ Feign sympathy despite no real concern wither Abraxas-related pipeline entities are or are not discovered and implicated for war crimes involvement

___ Spout non-sense reasons, point to the possibility of an IPO, or other financial benefit as an excuse to take no action and remain loyal to the Abraxas-pipeline, not the US Constitution, rule of law, or Geneva;

___ Pretend there is a higher loyalty than the law, and claim one has a higher duty to protect secrets, not protect the Construction; ignore the possibility that Abraxas-pipeline personnel have already worked with US Attorney and are putting their oath of office before their meaningless promise to stay silent about alleged war crimes;

___ Feign shock and outrage when the US entities, forces, and other interests are attacked by combat forces that see the American justice system has been ignored, and that the Abraxas-pipeline has been instrumental in undermining the rule of law and respect for the Judicial branch

___ Point to a convenient slogan and say "our duty is to the Homeland, not the Constitution" when Abraxas-personnel wonder if they could be indicted for war crimes;

___ Continue targeting those who show signs of reporting their evidence to the war crimes prosecutors; make allegations against anyone; ignore claims that Abraxas-entities are run like Animal Farms

___ Make up more reasons to provide false information

___ Start rumors to silence those who might be a potential threat to the Abraxas-Pipeline

___ Do not discuss the Abraxas shuttles to McLean and the dirty seats -- must not mention the broken radios. "All is well! The Abraxas-shit doesn't stink!"

___ Say nothing about the strange disappearances. "They have been compromised," not rendered. "We would never silence anyone working for Abraxas."

___ Issue meaningless statements from DoJ Staff on the evidence of review. "hay, the morons in DoJ said so, it must be true." Ignore Hamdan and the Constitution.

___ Make no comment about the strange transfer of personnel from US districts to the VA District Court. Do not consider the potential liability Abraxas-personnel could have when their domestic involvement and placement as Non-official cover status is revealed, and they are shown to have actively supported illegal shipment of American citizens, in violation of the 6th Amendment. "Nobody will ever find out about the data exchanges to the DHS, or what we do when driving our vans."

___ Change the Burden of proof from the government to the defendant. Yell at them louder. Treat the non-Abraxas entities as if they were morons. Yell more!

___ Encourage the "more loyal ones" of Abraxas to fabricate information, engage in retribution, and stifle the Abraxas-related entities in the pipeline from discussing their evidence with the war crimes prosecutor.

___ Do not respond to outbursts such as, "Oh, yeah, what are you going to do -- wage illegal war and commit war crimes? You're already doing that. And even stupid bloggers can see through this."

___ Change the subject from war crimes and no statute of limitations to a condescending tone, "I understand that you're not happy and upset."

___ Do not discuss the imminent war crimes prosecutor arrival. "It's only a rumor. Nobody will find us in the Netherlands."

___ Refuse to comment when the Abraxas-related entities ask, "Hay, you made up stories about who you were detaining in Pakistan. What's going on with the similar frivolous claims about American citizens who are talking about the Abraxas-pipeline?"

___ Ignore concerns that foreign combat forces and paramilitary units will use the US Vote on the Military Commissions bill to lawfully target and strike at suspected Abraxas-related entities. "Hay, when you're dealing with alleged assholes like Abraxas, you can't be too sure. Bombs away!" [Ignore this, it is meaningless.]

___ Do not comment when asked, "if we don't allow the court to review these matters, then aren't we sending a signal that the only forum to resolve disputes is the battlefield?" Just create another Abraxas-entity, then let the other side (the evil ones) know their location, and compromise your employees. Scream loudly, "They knew the risks." Pound table to add emphasis to illegally intimidate the meek Abraxas employees into submission.

___ Create excuses introducing ambiguity.

___ Ignore Abraxas-pipeline concerns that the US is acting like the Roman Empire. Illegally communicate a threat, "Hay, we put Jesus on the cross, do you want to be next?"

___ Illegally broadly apply unlawful Geneva violations.

___ Communicate to superiors blind obedience to orders to illegally abuse power, and pretend the laws of war and US Constitution do not apply.

___ Pretend you didn't read it on the internet.

___ Ignore Nuremburg precedent that civilian contractors were lawfully prosecuted then executed for engaging in war crimes. Illegally state, "They'll never find out about the Abraxas-pipeline."

* * *

Prior to placement of support contractors and CIA personnel within Eastern Europe, there were readiness reviews. These were not necessarily major reviews, but included check sheets, confirming memoranda, and other data and messages sent through the Intel Link system.

Intel link and the classified support it provides to the unlawful rendition program and abuse is no longer lawfully classified, and has been disclosed to third parities. The DoJ Staff counsel and incorrectly asserted that the documents are protected. All personnel who have accessed the Intel Link system, reviewed these documents, and have failed to distance themselves from the illegal activity may be lawfully prosecuted for war crimes.

___ Which personnel inside the CIA support division and outside contractors reviewed the post-2001 decision to support decision

___ Once they were aware of the abuse, how did the resolve their concern with their continued involvement in the illegal activity

___ To what extent were they able to review or not review the range of evidence, communications, orders, and other messages related to the war crimes in Eastern Europe.

Personnel when assigned to Eastern Europe detention were the object of CIA management review, and verification they were ready to perform their assigned tasks.

___ Identify whether primary communication, placement had been compromised

___ Security notification based on unusual questions or possible disclosure of related or support activities

___ Conduct other reviews of disclosure and consulting

___ Complete checklist: Final message of arrival sent

___ Information related to upcoming events, reviews

___ Confirmation the agent, contractor had been successfully placed, and feedback on issues for resolution and follow-up

___ Legal review: Completed, satisfied with conclusions, despite the illegality of the effort

___ White House and DoJ memoranda reviewed, compared with agency legal opinion, decision to continue involvement

___ Other regional activities identified, income and oversight left to other individuals outside McLean in other entities and regions

___ Support activity completed

___ Personnel placed, checklist complete

___ Decision to violate regional reporting requirements, inadequate notification to civilian leadership

___ Inappropriate segregation of illegal activity and espionage efforts from the Geneva violations and war crimes

* * *

Personnel Placement

___ Intermediate, regional support if trouble or contacted

___ Assistant

___ Planner

___ Decision: Person, place, situation, event

___ Coordinator

___ Job hiring

___ Consultant

___ No notice arrivals

___ Runner

___ Errand

___ Delivery

___ Reporter

___ Sales

___ Trip Coordinator

___ Food delivery

___ Farming

___ Maintenance

___ Technology support

___ False communication related to non-entities

___ Testing

___ Distraction from real objective


Placement

___ Individual identified

___ Target location determined

___ Intermediary entities notified

___ Information shared without coordination

___ Valid reason for departure, arrival, operation

___ Planning conditions established

___ Expertise, training, and placement consistent

___ Unique match on timing

___ Reluctant arrival

___ Training completed on expertise

___ Placement criteria satisfied

___ Method to communicate on adjustments to placement, training

___ Training, preparation properly aligned with assignment

___ Funds for regional development, contracts secured

___ Traveler explanation

___ Legal obligation approved, funds expenditure limits reviewed

___ Personnel training, preparation consistent with plan

___ New project construction

___ Regional observer


Support Firms

___ Names

___ POC

___ Travel

___ Coordination with legal, DoJ, DoD

___ Background review satisfactory

___ Contract requirements identified

___ Non-disclosure agreements signed, retained

___ Electronic mailbox, indirect access to Intel Link

___ Case studies: Anticipated questions, issues, and suggested resolutions

___ Cash, letter generations, local currency support

___ Case studies: Legal review, issues, questions


Personnel Files

___ Photo

___ Data: Background, specialty, no conflicts

___ Checklists

___ Read files


Administrative Support

___ Travel documentation records

___ Coordinating letters, historical files, reference

___ Verification of reports, data prior to release

File Review

___ Travel

___ Résumé

___ Location of journal articles, publication background

___ Placement within universities, communications, media

___ Domestic NOCs

___ Communication: Public v. Private information


Indirect Method of Placement

___ Political, scientific, academic, economic connections

___ Confirming information

___ Travel, shipping documents through intermediaries

___ New position within a disaster, scandal

___ Re-entry from retirement, specialty, transition effort


Placement Options

___ Religion

___ Trucking

___ Farming

___ Pharmaceutical

___ Unsavory

___ Relief

___ Research

___ Holiday traveler

___ Public affairs, media

___ Maintenance

___ Cook

___ Hospitality

___ Motion picture

___ Travel, tour, trip planning


Placement Criteria

___ Non-obvious

___ Simple

___ Credible

___ Legitimate reason

___ Variety, non-patterned

___ Cultural awareness

___ Feedback on success

___ Adjustments, changes

___ Similar movements

___ SIGINT feedback on detection

___ Analysis of results, tests on false efforts

Read more . . .

War Crimes: The Proper Comparison Is US Conduct Under Geneva

When reviewing US war crimes, the correct approach is to review two things: (1) the Geneva conventions, and (2) The United States actions.

All other comparisons are meaningless.

* * *

The White House and the legal team hope to mention Yugoslavia and Hitler to make it appear as though Bush's conduct wasn't anything serious. The trap is to argue over whether the US actions are or are not similar or different than other nations and leaders. This is a false comparison.

The goal isn't to be accountable to Geneva, but to change the subject from whether their conduct is or isn't like someone else's conduct. The trap is defend-accuse the RNC leadership in whether they are or are not similar to other leaders. The comparisons to other leaders are irrelevant, especially without reference to Geneva.

The RNC has only itself to blame for hiring defective counsel. As shown with Hamdan, the DOJ Staff counsel failed to correctly apply the law to the United States. The only relevant comparison is the Geneva Conventions.

Read more . . .

Evidence Members of Congress Refused To Enforce Geneva

Members of Congress have given neither a victory to their foes, nor endured a defeat: They've engaged in a public act which fails to enforce Geneva.

This is not a political issue. It's a matter of criminal law and evidence.



Evidence

Ref The legal defense funds that should not be needed if this bill created real immunity, or could legalize abuse.

Ref Evidence showing Senate refused to enforce Geneva.

Ref Evidence showing House refused to enforce Geneva.

* * *

Consider what Congress has really done.

1. The debate (smokescreen) was over the prospective issues -- how prisoners will or will not be treated in the future.

2. The real Member of Congress-concern was the war crimes issue.

If Members of Congress really believed the bill was good for America going forward, why are they passing legislation that (illegally) immunizes people for wrong doing that has already happened?

The answer is: This question is a red-herring. Congress knows the bill is illegal, and it has no power to immunize anyone.

We know this for one reason: Within the bill is language that does exactly what Congress -- through this bill -- says is not needed: It provides a funds for a defense, not a legal defense nor absolute Article III-judicially-recognized immunity to war crimes.

* * *

Here's the key language which Members of Congress really voted for: Ref The language that will permit them to spend money. The language does not grant immunity; but assumes that there will be prosecutions, and that Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff will be targeted, investigated, and indicted.

If Congress was certain that the bill, as passed by the House and Senate, was a legal defense, there would be no need to include language for the opposite outcome: That the bill would be struck down, and those who engaged in the "permitted" conduct, were charged for engaging in unlawful, inhumane treatment.

* * *

This bill isn't about protecting those who commit abuse; it's about accepting that the Geneva Conventions are requirements, and that the US Government will be requested to provide funds to pay for the defenses of those who have not earlier engaged in oversight, prevented the abuses.

These bills are PR-stunts to make it look like the Congress is though on something; in truth, they are fearful. True leaders, who were really standing for the rule of law, would not have to include any language to defend themselves for what has happened -- they would have already done what they were supposed to do.

These bills are not a defeat, but a delaying tactic, a smokescreen, and a false message of power and confidence. The prosecutors can see through it. And those who the President says this bill will target -- the enemy -- will become emboldened, not simply for what it permits, but because the bill's language accepts the vulnerability of war crimes prosecution as inevitable.

The objective of the Congress and President will be to delay the investigators, hide the evidence, and deny the prisoners the forum to report evidence of Geneva violations.

Hamdan appears to have gotten thrown out the window, which is a subsequent offense against the justice system. Congress has no power to throw out what is important: Geneva.

Again, if this bill's objective were lawful and possible, then by passing this bill, the President should be able to commit abuses; self-define Geneva how he chooses; ignore the courts; and abuse power. This is a sham to keep faith with his fellow war criminals in the RNC.

Rather, the smokescreen is to confuse the party faithful in the RNC, make them believe the RNC leadership and President are committed to the phony objectives, and distract attention from their real concern. Yes, this is politics, but when you've been caught committing war crimes, the last thing you want to do is openly admit it, rather you go down fighting like Enron did, until the very last minute.

Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff know they're legally guilty; but in their minds their still arguing that they can twist the case law to fool people. The problem is the courts have already turned against them. The issue isn't who is or isn't on the Supreme Court, but whether the rule of law will or will not be enforced at The Hague.

Members of Congress, the DoJ Staff, and President know this is where things are going, similar to the prosecutions over the Yugoslavian war crimes: American war crimes prosecutions before The Hague.

Pace yourself. If Yugoslavia and Ludwigsburg are a guide, American astronauts might very well return to the moon before the war crimes tribunal completes its work.

* * *

The bill is meaningless, but gives the RNC leadership something to go to the confused RNC membership and say, "Look over here, but ignore the war crimes." [This is a smokescreen, as used in the phony NIE leak and the phony RNC rebellion -- illusions the RNC is under seige, but are united. More]

Note the bill contains language that would preserve all non-illegal elements. This is designed to ensure that if the court strikes down the bill over the language related to permitting inhumane acts, the thinking is that the non-illegal portions of the bill will remain in tact.

Despite this preservation clause, the Constitution doesn't give the court the power to strike down lines, but entire acts, discussed in detail discussed here. However, the courts have the power to strike down the entire bill, destroying the Congressional claim on defense funds.

It remains to be seen whether the Courts (1) conclude the Congressional language related to funding is evidence of their intent not to investigate, and they should; and (2) similarly strikes down the entire act as an illegal reward for (a) having committed war crimes, (b) drafting illegal opinions, and (c) failing to prevent war crimes when they had the chance 2001-2006.

Prosecutors will hope to show the language was the means to facilitate more war crimes, and could not have been lawfully relied upon as legal. Whether funds are or are not transferred to defend Members of Congress and the DoJ Staff are separate matters of law and evidence.

* * *

Use this bill as the catalyst to gather evidence to prove, inter alia,(1) there were subsequent war crimes, which Congress failed to prevent; and (2) Members of Congress unreasonably assumed they would be defended, but should not have reasonably relied on that possibility of reimbursement as a defense or excuse for inaction over the abuses committed (a) 2001-2006; and (b) after the bill was signed into law.

What You Can Do

1. Remind your friends to keep your eye on the big picture: This is evidence of war crimes, and the failure of Congress to do what it has the power to do -- prevent inhumane treatment. It has no choice. [Visit the Archive ]

2. Learn the lesson of California: States can use their power to target illegal activity. Visit: [ Share this link. ]

Read more . . .

Truth To Power

Marueen Dowd said it well: The job of the reporter is to say the truth.



The interesting thing about the interview was the simplicity of the conclusion: When a reporter tells the truth and the President reacts, that's the point -- the President is reacting to the truth, not delivering the truth.

Dowd also reminded us that Cheney's goal is to tear down the checks and balances.

* * *

Bush and the RNC hate the truth. They yell at those who take their requests for inputs seriously. If the media and truth were irreelvant, Bush would have no reason to respond.

He, Cheney, and others like Addington may bully others into feigned agreement, but those who are bullied will never forget. There is no sympathy if the bully is politically or legally destroyed; or if their illegal strategic objectives backfire.

* * *

Cheney's upset that people have him figured out: He doesn't respect the Constitution, he only respects those who abuse power.

Saddam and Cheney would make nice cell mates.

Read more . . .

Mapping The Ambush

Raw provided a video, and this prompted some questions.



Raw has the Video: [ http://tinyurl.com/lese2 ]

ABC: Blotter.

It would be interesting to get a follow-up from the driver who provided the video. Specifically:

1. Are the timelines in the Army response consistent with his recollections?

2. Do the UAV images match the description of the Army account?

3. The Army reports a Medevac; how does this medevac arrival time square with what was in the UAV image;

4. The Army reports RPGs; how does this account square with audio recordings, the driver's recollections, and the UAV images -- are there explosions which match this account;

5. The army reports that there was a perimeter established; how does this account square with the UAV images; if there was a perimeter, where was it established, how did the perimeter relate to the physical location of the two trucks in the image; do the distances that the UAV depicted square with the size, dimensions, and other timelines the Army provided.

6. Army reports attack aviation. Does the driver recall any aviation overhead, what sounds did he hear; does he recall any jets.

7. Which direction were the aviation crews traveling, where were they assigned; and if they had a direct over flight, how far from the trucks would the aircrew have to be to be out of audio-visual range of the driver.

8. it’s unclear what happened after the video was shot. How did the driver who provided the video get out of the area; was he rescued later; or was there something else that happened?

POINT

If you physically map out the times, where each truck was located, then retrace the army-version of events, you'll get a sense of whether the timelines are realistic.

* * *

Based on the driver's public comments, it's not clear that anyone in the army ever rescued him.

How long was he in the truck?

How did he get out?

Did he walk out on his own, and never saw anyone?

Which direction did he travel?

Point: He's alive today and can give some idea what he did or did not hear. The job the army is to first explain how all this rescue effort occurred, but the driver reports there was nothing going on.

Something isn't adding up: It doesn't seem as though the Army's story stands up to what the driver is reporting. It's possible the Army has deliberately oversold what did or didn’t' happen, to make it appear as though they did something. They may define the rescue to be something that was so far away, that it was not connected the original event. I'm assuming the army's going to craft a story that will explain away everything; the problem the Army appears to have is they don't know specifics on what the driver did or didn't see while exiting. It's possible the Army never released the driver had a video until after they did the initial review; and the original reports may have been changed to match what was in the released-driver video.

The key will be to find out the first story the Army went with; then find out if there were changes. The original investigation was based on something. They key is to find the information that triggered the original report, and explore how the initial Army version-story does or does not square with the final Army account below.

I believe the Army less. Military has lied about events to cover-up failures, war crimes. [See This: Haditha, Court martials, settlement with member of Congress]

1. The driver contents there was no rescue;

2. The army says there was.

* * *

Army Statement, as reported by ABC:

"There was an investigation conducted immediately following the attack that was concluded about a month after the attack. The investigation documents the actions of individuals prior to and during the convoy, and following the attack until the quick reaction force (QRF) arrived. The investigation documented that the individuals at the front of the convoy reacted as they were taught by pushing forward and getting out of the kill zone of the ambush. What is not visible in the video being shown is that they collected the casualties they could reach and laid down suppressive fire with their weapons to help get those vehicles that could move from the front of the convoy out of the kill zone. Once they were out of the kill zone, they set up security, called for the QRF, called for close air support, called a medevac for the casualties, and directed the movements of other gun trucks further back in the convoy. They helped direct two gun trucks, as well as a recovery vehicle, to maneuver up to two of the KBR vehicles that had wounded civilians in them and extract them. They were able to retrieve the wounded civilians from their vehicles while under enemy fire. During the entire time, the convoy was attacked with a heavy volume of small arms fire, rocket propelled grenades and hand grenades. Attack aviation arrived on scene approximately 20 minutes after the start of the attack. The ground QRF arrived on scene approximately 30-35 minutes after the start of the attack. The actions of the unit saved numerous lives during this attack. The investigation actually recognized the valorous actions of one Soldier and one civilian and recommended they be submitted for awards commensurate with their actions. At no time did any individuals abandon the convoy. They fought back bravely while waiting for reinforcements and attending to the casualties. We grieve the loss of any life, and what happened that day was tragic. But the events had the potential to be even more tragic, with an even greater loss of life, if not for the actions of members of that unit."

Read more . . .

Absolute Immunity For DoJ Staff Rejected

In another setback for the alleged war criminals in the Department of Justice, the Court has denied a motion to grant absolute immunity to former DoJ Staff. [ Summary ]

Where this is going: Another tribunal, but for American War Crimes, not Yugoslavia. [Visti a Sample ]

Take note of the Nuremburg Precedents: Prosecutors, Attorneys, Judges, and Civilians were lawfully prosecuted, convicted of war crimes, and executed. The same is possible for the alleged war criminals inside the DoJ Staff and Congress -- Failing to prevent war crimes, and approving illegal memoranda and policies that put illegal war crimes plans into effect.

It is clear why the Military Commissions Bill included on page 84-86 language which would provide finances for DoJ Staff counsel for all investigations and prosecutions. Ref The DoJ Staff and members of Congress have a real concern they could be convicted of war crimes.

What the Executive Branch illegally asserts, the courts can take away or not recognzie. [ Ouch, how you liking that Peter? ]

* * *

This means a couple of things:

1. Members of Congress do not have a credible claim to any absolute immunity when it comes to issues of war crimes; and the current legislation granting them immunity to review is illegal.

2. There is no bar for the State Attorney Generals following Governor Schwarzenegger’s lead an lawfully targeting all firms which provide illegal assistance to the United States to engage in war crimes. [ Visit Arnold's Plan ]

3. There is nothing preventing the State Attorney Generals from gathering evidence to prosecute the President; or lawfully support war crimes investigations, and other alleged war crimes committed using state resources; or from lawfully targeting for prosecution state contractors who have allegedly supported illegal US Government war crimes. [ Plan; AG Checklist; War Crimes Indictments Archive ]

4. There is nothing stopping the states from lawfully compelling DoJ Staff to explain the illegal orders, memoranda, and other things which they knew or should have known were related to war crimes, alleged illegal Verizon activity, and alleged illegal Abraxas support for alleged war crimes.

5. Alleged war criminal DoJ Criminal Division Peter D. Keisler could be called to explain is reasons for providing allegedly illegal opinions, memoranda, letters, and non-privileged/non-court filings allegedly threatening State officials for attempting to enforce the state law. [AKA: "Alleged Poodle Boy."]

6. Viet D. Dinh is not immune to being called related to his alleged illegal policies and failures to prevent illegal war crimes and policies. [AKA: "Alleged Wiki Master."]

7. Brad Berenson is not immune to being called, and he may be asked questions about his alleged knowledge, complicity and failure to prevent illegal prisoner abuses in Eastern Europe, in contravention to the Geneva Conventions. [AKA: "Alleged Denial Boy."]

8. Alberto Gonzalez is not immune to being called related to his alleged failure to comply with Title 28, which requires him to report violations of statutes. [AKA: "Alleged Frito Pie Boy."]

9. Bybee is not immune to being called to respond to questions about his alleged illegal opinion related to unlawful conduct which allegedly failed to prevent war crimes policies from being implemented. [AKA: "Alleged Justice Trial Target"]

10. John C. Yoo is not immune to being called about his allegedly reckless, illegal legal opinions which allegedly failed to prevent war crimes, and allegedly materially supported illegal policies. [AKA: "Alleged Berkley Bandit"]

11. David C. Addington is not immune to being called to discuss the Iran-Contra Minority Report, which has been openly discredited, and is evidence that Addington is allegedly reckless and unfit to practice law. [AKA: "Alleged Mr. Cut And Run From Annapolis"]

12. Secretary of State Rice cannot be immunized for her alleged involvement, failure to stop, and subsequent cover-up over the CIA illegal rendition activity. [AKA: "Alleged War Crime Enabler" ]

* * *

Links of Interest

Ref U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge rejects DoJ Staff immunity claim in re Abdullah al-Kidd, Idaho University football player; Islamic Assembly of North America; Lee Gelernt, ACLU Counsel. [In re Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft]

The Alleged War Crimes Archive: Ref

- Evidence
- Alleged defendants
- FOIA
- Discovery plans
- Draft Indictments

Read more . . .

Revisiting Guantanamo: Congress Failed To Enforce Geneva

Members of Congress have illegally failed to enforce Geneva. The Guantanamo abuses were illegally compared by Congress without proper Article III review.

Congress has no power in 2006 to prevent the Judicial branch from reviewing the Member of Congress failure to stop Geneva violations, or examine which standards, other than the required Geneva requirements, Congress did or did not enforce.

* * *

There's a problem with the 2002 Timelines in Guantanamo. The 170th Military Police Company, under 6th Group knew about the violations, and the Joint Staff was alerted. Once the Attorney General knew that there had been violations of Statute that would have triggered a Title 28 report to Congress.

The original Congressional reviews of the Guantanamo-Abu Ghraib abuses did not compare the conduct to Geneva. Rather, the public and Congress compared the misconduct to the incorrect US assertion of the law.

The DoJ memoranda show the US legal community was not following Geneva. By using the incorrect standard, the Congressional reviews did not credibly assess the war crimes implications.

Congress, despite this invalid review, is in no legal position to say the court may or may not review the Member of Congress failure to review the issues; nor may Congress lawfully prevent any and all Article III judicial reviews of alleged member of Congress complicity.

It makes no difference what Congress did or did not agree or understand after Guantanamo. The proper forum to review the abuses was not within Congress, but in a war crimes tribunal.

Despite Hamdan, Rasul, Abu Ghraib, the Afghanistan Box car incidents, the US continued to engage in abuses in CIA detention centers in Eastern Europe. Members of Congress are individually reckless for permitting this illegal abuse from continuing well after the first abuses were documented shortly after 2001.

These are not isolated incidents, but recurring patterns of misconduct which Congress well knew about, but failed to investigate or end relative to the Geneva conventions. The known Congressional failure to enforce Geneva dates back to 2001 when the AUMF was passed; the first documented message that the Joint Staff and Members of Congress knew about, and should have investigated, but did not, occurred within a matter of weeks, not years.

Read more . . .

NIE Disinformation: Distraction From American Geneva, FISA Violations

The objective of the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] information is a smokescreen. The goal is to shift public attention from the Member of Congress complicity with DoJ Staff war crimes and; and act as a buffer from the ongoing war crimes investigation directed against US personnel.

The National Intelligence Estimate is not a credible intelligence estimate, but a political agenda masquerading as legitimate because of its classification. The NIE is disinformation. One key indicator is the speed with which it was declassified, as opposed to the court litigation over Cheney's energy commission membership. This NIE is more of the phony information to occupy voters, and distract attention from the Congressional complicity with FISA and Geneva violations.

* * *

National Intelligence Estimate: Reading Between the Lines

Judgment

Members of Congress and the public have not been given a real NIE. DoD and the intelligence community has at least two different versions. The internal version is the no-kidding assessments. The second version, designed to politically manipulate the public and Congress, has one objective: To induce the public to believe non-sense. Congress needs to ask for the real NIE. This isn’t the version which the intelligence community has crafted, nor do the CIA and lower level analysis support this language.

This NIE has one objective: To spark a debate about anything else besides the Member of Congress complicity with war crimes, and to distract the public debate from the Geneva and FISA violations.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed 7 June 2006. This NIE is designed to have appeared to have been written before that date.

* * *

Overview

This detailed discuss shows you why this NIE is worthless, and how the NIE has been crafted to distract attention from the important legal issues facing the voters: Member of Congress complicity with, and failure to prevent violations of Geneva and FISA.

Source

Despite offering nothing specific, the NIE starts off with cheerleading.

False Success NIE: United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaeda and disrupted its operations; Comment The US is not leading anything. The issue is not one of "counterterrorism" but illegal war. AlQueda has no leadership; it is a list of people that is organized using independent cells. There is no basis to assert that the operations have or have not been disrupted. Rather, if this disruption were true, then there would be no need t comment on the self-evident non-disrupted, spreading efforts.

What seems lost is the real defeat of Israel and Hezbollah’s success. This NIE failed to comprehend that the NSA-Israeli communications had been compromised.

Don’t Talk About Hezbollah, Hamas, or Reality NIE: however, we judge that al-Qaeda will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. Comment: "Homeland" is not a credible reference point. Reconsider the statement, it is garbled: "al-Qaeda will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization" The comment does not provide a reasonable basis for belief. It is merely an assertion. Even if true, the NIE fails to outline what should be done; or if the statement were true how long this threat has been known, and how the opposition has or has not responded to intermediate US efforts to thwart this forecast. The judgment fails to account for the proven combat capabilities of Hezbollah which successfully overcame NSA support for Israel.

Here’s another sample of the FISA-Geneva-like debates to deflect voter focus on Congressional complicity with the illegal activity.

Spin To Distract Attention From DoJ Staff War Crimes NIE: We also assess that the global jihadist movement - which includes al-Qaeda, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells - is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts. Comment: "jihadist" is a meaningless word and imprecise. "global jihadist movement" is fiction. The organization is not an expanding wave, but an isolated set of cells. If, as we are asked to believe, the movement is "global," NSA's problem is it is incapable of targeting the "global communications" that should attach to that "global" movement. Describing the opposition in this way -- "which includes al-Qaeda, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells" -- is meaningless and imprecise. This is far too convenient and consistent with the Military Commissions Bill.

The NIE is worthless drivel.

Vagueness Is False Precision NIE: Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, Comment: This incorrectly states that something that they have previously defined as measurable cannot be measured. This is not consistent. It is illusory to define the "spread" as something that is or is not measurable. Rather, the issue is how the notion of anything that is global or spreading has defied the NSA ability to intercept.

Perhaps the lessons of Iraq will be remembered: If the sources are anonymous, the information is unreliable, and probably from the Office of Special Plans, and unrelated to reality.

More Anonymous WMD Sources NIE: a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion. Comment: "large body of all-source reporting" is meaningless. "activists describing themselves as jihadists" is not credible. This statement is meaningless: "although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” Notice the comma: It is placed without any value. This suggests a poor review. These are just phrases without any credible link with an analysis or review.

Will the voters pull back the curtain of Congressional complicity with war crimes?

Lions Tigers and Bears NIE: If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide. Comment: The trend has not been defined with specificity to call it a trend. "threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse" is circular. Anything that is related to a nebulous trend can nebulously is defined as spreading, expanding, and doing something that is diverse and increasing. This is worthless.

PNAC failed in Iraq, but why not invoke it again.

PNAC Agenda NIE: Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Comment: "Greater pluralism" -- this means nothing in terms of people. This is merely a convenient slogan to address the nebulous problem. "more responsive political systems” -- this is meaningless drivel. Notice they've shifted the debate from (1) a nebulous organization; to (2) a specific political commentary. How did they jump that canyon? No answer here. "would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit" -- This incorrectly links the nebulous organization with the nation of issues that are or are not exploited. This makes no sense. "Jihadists" don't exploit issues, politicians do. Rather, a combatant when they take up arms hasn't been exploited, they've freely joined a cause based on their choice. This issue is whether this is a top-down approach to solutions, which the US discusses; or the decentralized, individual approach which people choose. "grievances jihadists exploit" -- implies that there are legitimate grievances, but the US isn't addressing the core problems driving the grievances, rather it merely chases the symptoms: Individuals who are choosing to engage on the battlefield because the US refuses to engage on the legal front using reason. "exploit" is word the RNC well knows. This NIE is merely an RNC-crated document to define the Middle East in terms that are consistent with RNC-related parameters, not with what is really going on. This is not a credible assessment, nor linked with intelligence issues, but is driven by a US political agenda.

Coulda, Shoulda, War Crime NIE: Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qaeda, could erode support for the jihadists. Comment: Wishful thinking. Far too convenient. “could erode” – Could be another carrier landing, “mission could be accomplished.” What is the definition of “could”? “Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qaeda” – Gobbly goop, feigned strategy, disconnected from real problems in Oval office: Incompetent drunkard whose wife and children have moved out.

Notice the inconsistent themes in this “NIE” – one minute they’re talking about decentralization, the next a global movement. The purpose of this inconsistency is to ensure different groups can find something that they agree or disagree with, and distract voter attention from the Member of Congress war crimes, and refusal to investigate the illegal activity 2001-2006.

Members of Congress can be prosecuted for failing to prevent war crimes. Senator Graham should know this now that he has been spanked by the Judicial Court.

Decentralization NIE: We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. Comment: Notice they’ve contradicted themselves: “global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse” A. If the movement were “global,” arguing it is decentralized doesn’t mean it’s global – it just means that it’s widespread. B. By asserting that the “movement” lacks a “coherent” global strategy doesn’t tell us anything. Rather, this implies that the US is fighting something that is not a movement, but widespread. C. Saying something is “becoming more diffuse” is meaningless and contradicts the previous assessments that there was a movement. Something cannot be broad like a wave, but thin like a river. It is one other the other. The NIE has no objective of being reliable or consistent. The goal is to create ambiguity, to provide inconsistent information, and to deliberately send confusing messages. This is not credible as an NIE work product, nor is it meaningful or substantive. Rather, the NIE as this alleges to be is something which any audience member could find something to not agree with anyone else on. This NIE has one goal: To debate an irrelevant issue, and distract attention from the illegal plans, policies, and strategies which crated the present problem. This is by design.

You can see many examples the NIE isn’t crafted to succinctly state anything, but was originally written with the intent that it be released for the public. The entire leaking of the NIE to the media has been orchestrated to distract attention from the Congressional malfeasance and failure to investigate war crimes and FISA violations.

Domestic Consumption Objective NIE: New jihadist networks and cells, with anti- American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. Comment: "increasingly likely to emerge” – repetitive, this is not NIE-quality language but American vernacular designed for public consumption. Saying something is "likely” to emerge is meaningless and imprecise: It's likely the earth will continue to rotate. Rather, the truth is this has already happened. "New jihadist networks and cells" is more of the “oh, my Dorothy, lions, tigers and bears.” This is just fear mongering. "with anti- American agendas” – This means nothing. The issue isn’t whether something is or isn’t Anti- or Pro-American but whether America is or is not pro or anti rule of law and respect. This is an oversimplification of what motivates foreign fighters to engage in combat operations.

The inconsistencies are there to ensure confusion, focus on the product, and distract attention from the legal issues facing the DoJ staff counsel: War crimes incitements, investigates, and The Hague. Things which Members of Congress are concerned about, and included on page 84-86 of the Commission Bill—fully repayment of all legal costs to defend them before international tribunals.

Had the Members of Congress done their job, there would be no need to pay for their defense. Their costs should be denied, and alleged war criminals should not be able to retroactively create any incentive not to do what they should have done gong forward from 2001.

Designed Inconsistencies NIE: The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups. Comment: This is inconsistent with the NSA capabilities: “shared purpose and dispersed actors” – implies that dispersed actors will have increased communications. What is the NSA’s explanation? The NIE (absurd) answer: “will make it harder to find and undermine” – there’s no reason to consider this remark as credible, meaningful, or relevant. NIE fails to address how the “more diverse” group will be “harder” to find. The truth is that the more diverse “the big wave” gets the less effective it becomes. This NIE raises meaningless riddles, and then asserts, as an answer far too convenient outcomes to explain away the NSA inability to detect these supposed-activities. This NIE is merely an excuse for additional incompetence.

Here’s another RNC interest: To put the attention on the public, not Members of Congress.

Distraction From Member of Congress War Crimes NIE: We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland. Comment: "operational threat” – is meaningless, imprecise, and fails to convey a specific risk. This is merely a convenient buzzword which contractors have placed with the text to make it appear credible. This document is not a credible NIE work product, nor an analysis, but has been crafted to sound authoritative. “self-radicalized cells” – this is propaganda. Cells are not “radicalized” – they are disjointed, do not serve a common “radical” ideology – the share only one goal: To retaliate against those who abuse them. That is not radical; it is the same thing the Minutemen and Israelis have done. "radicalized" is a buzzword which incorrectly suggests that others are not clearly thinking. If a cell were “radicalized” then they would be disjointed, out of control, poorly trained, and incapable of carrying out their plans. Te opposite is true: They are successful in carrying out combat operations, defeating American forces, and have exhausted all American reserve units. Or is America saying that it has been defeated by radicals? The real answer is that the “growth in importance” of something that has been already described as growing is meaningless. “grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts” – means nothing. You mean it was less important before; if so, relative to what? This supposedly is the number one priority, how is the importance going to get bigger? It can’t. This assessment is at odds with the calendar: it’s been 5 years since 9-11: Now is too late to suggest that something in the future is going to grow; rather, this assessment was known in 2001 and should have triggered the US to increase combat personnel in uniform and start a draft. This was not done. “importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland” – this is an either-or, which is meaningless. Saying something is going to expand in all places is meaningless. To have been a credible NIE, this repetition would have been stripped out. Rather, this repetition is evidence the NIE is not a credible work product designed for competent leadership, but is designed to repeat convenient slogans. This is a worthless document and the contractors who help craft this document should have its award feed downgraded, and man months reduced. Monkeys could do a better job than this.

The US is alone. Afghanistan is falling apart. NATO is incompetent. What better ways to revitalize your allies after you’ve committed war crimes in their land? You do what the RNC does to American voters – talk about unspecific threats and get them to focus on themselves, not the American war crimes at the CIA detention facilities.

Seeking European Focus NIE: The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Comment: Where did this come from? Notice the disjointed themes: jihadists – Europe - Western interests Notice the obvious contradiction: Europe is the same as the West; the statement is circular. Read it again: “Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests”, as opposed to Europe being important for attacking non-western interests; or attacking Europe to go after Chinese interests? The motivation for this statement is not to inform the US public, but to rally NATO and Europe, who are losing patience with American illegal detentions, to the American crusade. The NIE would have us believe that somehow Europe is newly under attack. This is absurd. Europe is no more or less under attack in 2006 as it was before 2001. The only thing that has changed in the US inability to use the 9-11 attacks to rally NATO. Saying ‘jihadists” view Europe as something is meaningless. This is self-evident in the link between Europe and Western interests. But notice what the NIE has not done – failed to discuss western values. The US is attempting to cloud the picture, invoke the image of WWII, and pretend that “interests of WWII” is the same as “interests of America” and “values of America.” This is incorrect: American values are not the same as its interests; and European values and interests are not in line with American values. The objective of this NIE statement has nothing to do with outlining what may or may not happen in Europe, but to remove the needed European scrutiny of the reckless RNC leadership which continues to wage illegal war; pretend Geneva does not apply, and makes no apology for lying about the illegal detention centers in Europe.

NIE’s don’t retell vague historical trends. They are designed to estimate the new threats. This isn’t news, but more gobbly goop.

History Is News NIE: Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings. Comment: Saying something is an "extremist network” is at odds with the NSA inability to “intercept” the network. “extremist” is something that too closely matches Cheney’s speeches, and shows signs Cheney has been sleeping too much and reading too many talking points. “extensive Muslim diasporas” – this dates back to pre-Christian days, and is not something that is a new phenomena in the “new world” we supposedly live. “facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks” – is an admission that the grievances are legitimate, but despite the long-standing arrogance toward individuals, the US and Europe have jointly failed to resolve the issues in either the Middle East or Europe. The issue isn’t the groups, but issue is the unresolved grievances and illegal American war crimes. The solution isn’t to continue calling them extremists, but to address the legal issues: When will the Americans stop engaging in war crimes; what is the plan for the international community to ensure the US is lawfully punished for war crimes; when will the RNC and DoJ Staff counsel that has been complicity in this illegal activity be brought to justice? This NIE fails to address what the US is doing to contribute to well placed contempt for the RNC and DOJ Staff.

The common problem with this information is the comment on what is or is not happening in Iraq, without reviewing what the US is or is not doing to incite this backlash – committing war crimes, abusing prisoners, violating the laws of war, abusing civilians.

The Illusion of Training NIE: We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. Comment: Notice they’ve left Europe, and have jumped back to Iraq. Where’s the transition? The answer is that the confusion is by design: To mix the passing comment about Europe with the combat in Iraq. These are not related. The combat exists in Iraq not because of Iraqi or European decisions, but because of US and UK decisions. “that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives” – this is meaningless. All this really would ask us to believe, as if it were news, was that the US effort has backfired. This was known as a risk going into Iraq, which Senator Kennedy well discussed on the Senate floor, words to the effect that the US invasion may well precipitate the very violence the US hoped to quell. We don’t need an NIE in 2006 to tell us anything. What we need is a serious discussion why the Senate leadership failed to heed and give serious consideration to Senator Kennedy’s insight. There’s no need to classify something in 2006 which has been openly discussed on the Senate Floor. “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives” – this statement incorrectly suggests that the organization, which was inconsistently characterized as being (1) disorganized, diffuse; but (2) a global phenomena, is suddenly doing something unexpected. This is incorrect. What is inspiring people to rise up against the arrogant Americans has nothing to do with a world movement, but with the individual desire within the human spirit to oppose that which is wrong. Leaders are not required to incite anyone to hold in contempt those who say one thing and do something else; rather, it’s an innate feature of being human. Rather, those within the RNC who have their heads boggled and suffer from propaganda, have a hard time understanding what drives human behavior, other than their love of fear and gobbly goop. “perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere” – this statement is meaningless. People aren’t inspired to fight based on a narrow success, but on whether the arrogant Americans are or are not showing weakness. This has little to do with whether people are or are not willing to stand up, but whether the American system is or is not collapsing. This is a classic tale of David and Goliath. Goliath is no longer the mighty giant; all around the globe, people are realizing that what is wrong about American can be fixed, and challenged. The issue is whether Americans will peacefully correct what is defective within American society and governance, or whether Americans will remove from their options the possibility that grievances will or will not be resolved in the court room. The world has only been given one option: Put up with American arrogance and war crimes, without any prospect the Americans will self-regulate themselves under the laws. When the US refuses to assent to the rule of law, courts, discussion, or reasonable discourse, the world sees that it only has one option: To continue the battle which America started in Iraq, and broaden that battle to take advantage of what is cracking within America: It’s resolve to continue waging illegal war.

More convoluted statements to distract the public from Congressional malfeasance, and failures to investigate violations of Geneva and FISA.

Distraction From American War Crimes NIE: The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Comment: This is meaningless. Regular accounts of supposed Iraqi foreign fighters have been often proven fabrications. Why are people traveling to Iraq, to get inspired? If the NIE was true, the success in Iraq should inspire people to broaden the battle outside Iraq. The NIE isn’t being consistent: It is not possible to argue that the “global” phenomena is real when the extent of that phenomena is whether someone does or does not get energized by Iraq. “breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world” -- Iraq has nothing to do with breeding new resentment, but merely fueling the existing contempt. That the US is or is not in Iraq isn’t the issue with why the world holds the US in contempt; the US already holds the American government in contempt; Iraq merely confirmed, and provided an example of the arrogant American policies put into effect. Pointing to Iraq as a ‘cause” of resentment is meaningless. Muslim respect for the US after 9-11 was endearing and real, especially so after the Tsunami in Indonesia. The error is to presume that Iraq is the cause of all things; rather, Iraq is merely the example of what is already wrong: America and its failed system of governance, and arrogant disregard for its endearing values: Legitimate governance. “cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement” – this is propaganda. Again, there is no “movement,” but individualized contempt for arrogance. If the movement were real, then the NSA cannot explain why it cannot detect or monitor this “movement.” As stated earlier, the movement is not real, but 6.5 Billion people deciding whether they will or will not support was is unacceptable: Arrogant contempt for reason, prudence, and the rule of law. Iraq is not cultivating anything, America is doing the work: Continuing to not provide security, and continuing to demonstrate that a Constitutional system when practiced cannot be relied upon to engage in lawful governance. There are no supporters, there are merely people who are saying, “America is not all powerful, and we can work together to end what is unacceptable.” The old days of believing that America was all powerful are over. Iraq has nothing to do with inspiring anything – America is inspiring the forces which dare to challenge that which is showing is weak. Being abusive, arrogant, and all powerful is not inspiring, but cultivates the contempt. If anyone wants to know who or what is cultivating the contempt for America, you only have to look at one office: the oval office, and the buffoons like Addinton, Gonzalez, Yoo, Keisler, Bybee, Hanes, and the rest of the reckless DoJ Staff counsel who have explained away the law and asserted they alone had divine wisdom. Hamdan showed the American legal community otherwise. America’s problem has been its arrogance and contempt for its values and judicial system. Having secret courts, indefinite imprisonments, and ignoring your courts in no way inspires anyone to believe in anything. Rather, these DoJ Staff-coordinated actions, which the DOJ OPR has been denied the ability to review, were things which Americans freely chose to embrace. Where are the reports from Gonzalez stating why the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements would or would not be followed? No answer for the arrogant Americans. Keisler has no response, but he sure knows how to threatened the NJ Attorney General for attempting to do their job. That types of arrogance is what inspires people around the globe to take up arms, take the DOJ Staff on its word, and trust the DOJ Staff will continue to do what it is well known for: Ignoring the rule of law, making excuses to not appear before the courts, and doing everything within its power to hide illegal DOJ Staff memoranda from the US war crimes prosecutors. Surely, if the DOJ Staff had nothing to fear, they wouldn’t be panicked by a whiff of a war crimes tribunal. But there it is, in the last page of the US Military Commission Bill, language to provide the DOJ Staff counsel funds to cover the costs of litigation and investigation before a war crimes tribunal. The appropriate time to have made a choice about the law was in 2001, when the decision not use force was “debated”. America in 2001 chose to wage war, but the legal community chose to explain away the legal requirements attached with that war-related decision: Geneva. Once you vote for war, you DoJ Staff knew, or should have known, that the Geneva requirements remained in full force and applicable. The problem for America has been the asserted credibility of the combat operations, yet the absurd disconnect from the Geneva and the inhumane treatment in Abu Ghraib, eastern Europe, and the Afghanistan box cars. This has nothing to do with Iraq. The core problem is with American arrogance, and the contempt your DOJ Staff counsel have for the rule of law.

If you pull the curtain back, you’ll see Abraxas making a cover story for another CIA agent.

Lions, Tigers, Bears NIE: Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight. Comment: This is wishful thinking. Failure is not an option. Success in the face of victory is assured. When the Arrogant American government comprehends that it alone is the reason for what inspires contempt, we’ll be halfway toward solving the problem. The way forward has nothing to do with what does or does not happen in Iraq. The issue is what does or does not happen in the American legal system: Do the DOJ Staff and White House counsel get held accountable before the courts in America; or do the alleged war criminals have to be rendered to The Hague. Whether there are fewer or more fighters is meaningless. The issue is whether despite the successful combat operations, the DOJ Staff do not get it through their thick skull that they have run out of options. Where are they going to hide: Behind the remaining 10,000 reserve forces that have not been deployed? Even if you were to line the remaining US reserves hand-to-hand around the Hoover Building, that’s hardly enough to do anything. There were hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. Simply sending a body-wave of humans against the last 10,000 combat reserves would easily destroy them. The real issue is whether the White House is going to put the country through more propaganda and spew out more drivel as it has done in this NIE, or whether The Hague will be given deference, and the US accept a humanitarian intervention not deliver the alleged war criminals in the DOJ Staff to The Hague. “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” – this phrase is meaningless. It is drivel. The way forward has nothing to do with what does or doesn’t happen in Iraq; the issue is whether American leadership will or will not lawfully arrest the President of the United States for war crimes; or whether the US leadership phase to be personally indicted and prosecuted for failing to prevent additional war crimes. This statement incorrectly presumes that the future of the world depends on whether the US does or does not succeed in Iraq. This is absurd. The US has neither succeeded nor failed, but merely done what it is held in contempt for doing: Being reckless. The issue is not success or failure in Iraq; the issue is how far this recklessness will go. The DOJ Staff seems well pleased with itself, incorrectly believing nobody figured anything out, Berenson’s memos are tucked away, and if they can just hang on a few more days, nobody will figure it out. You’re buffoons. We’ve long known the rule of law, and your arrogant disregard for it. DOJ OPR well knows you’re idiots. Your idea of doing research is to update a wiki – what a load of non-sense. Why aren’t you spending time enforcing the law, rather than pretending you’re actually doing something. Your sole objective and purpose in live is to do one thing: Protect the Constitution. Your loyalty is not with anyone. Your oath is to the document, not secrecy. Even the most stupid bloggers have figured this out, and this realization is what inspires others to focuse on the real problem: The reckless disregard the DOJ Staff has shown for the US Constitution, Geneva Conventions, FISA, Supreme Law, and your oaths. We could spend days arguing over whether you did or didn’t mean something. What’s needed is a war crimes prosecutor to wade through the cess pool you’ve created not just in your office, but in Congress, the courts, Eastern Europe, Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. “fewer fighters will be inspired” – this incorrectly presumes that people, if they see anything in Iraq, will or will not make a decision. Wrong. The inspiration comes from within, and has no relationship to what is or is not “out there.” Each of the DOJ Staff is inspired by something. Their issue is to decide whether that inspiration is or is not with the rule of law. Their oath is to the Constitution; their binding promise is to that document. The issue is whether they will or will not be inspired to stand up and say what the world already knows: The game is over. The longer you wait, the more defeats there will be on the battlefield. You have no reserves. You have no world support. Your only option is to create more propaganda, spew forth more drivel and hope that your peers are not cooperating with the war crimes prosecutors. Your loyalty to your peers is greater than your loyalty to your oath. That’s what inspires foreign fighters to defeat Americans: Your love of man, not the law. That is illegitimate government, disconnected form written word, and only loyal to the transitory views of what may or may not be the law. Yet, look at the law that the DOJ staff has said it was: Consistently unreliable, leaving the DOJ Staff with a real war crimes liability. Nobody in Iraq did this; this was your choice. You freely chose to believe that this would never end. Small problem: The rule of law has inspired the world to refuse to cooperate with the arrogant, reckless, and abusive DOJ Staff who have shown they put love of illegal activity and abuse, above their 5 USC 3331 oath to the rule of law. “fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight” – No matter what the world does or does not do, the world has awoken to reality: The fight is only possible on the battlefield because the DOJ Staff refuses to work with the FISA court, and refuses to assent to the rule of law under Article III. The resolution to this problem is to take your arguments to the war crimes tribunal and defend yourselves. Until you assent to the court of law, the world has no other option but to continue to impose grave damage on American interests around the globe. It would be preferable if we could amicably resolve these issues, but the American leadership prefers battle, not common sense, or the wisdom of the Constitution. This was a war on the battlefield which Americans, the DOJ Staff, and the National Security Council freely chose. The resolution is under an Article III court, not an illegal self-adjudication by Congress that things are or are not permissible. Until you assent to the court, nobody else should assent to the DoJ Staff. Choose the law, or accept what you prefer: Lawlessness barbarism.

NIE Mission: Distract attention on war criminals in Congress who failed to prevent war crimes and Geneva violations.

Vagueness: A Perfect Smokescreen NIE: We assess that the underlying factors fuelling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this estimate. Comment: Translation: The American government is incapable of exercising self-governance to resolve what the Americans have or haven’t done to contribute to this mess. The “underlying factors’ driving this problem are in one office: The oval office. His name is George Bush. You could lawfully arrest him and prosecute him, but you refuse to do so. There are three options to lawfully deal with an abusive war criminal: 1. Impeach them, but you refuse to do that; 2. Prosecute him, but the US Attorney and State Attorney Generals refuse to exercise this lawful option which Jonathan Turley of Georgetown has well discussed; or 3. You wage lawful war and defeat them on the battlefield. America chooses 3, and then wonders why the world is upset. All you have to do is examine the facts, and explore what did or did not happen relative to Geneva and FISA. But American chooses to ignore the law and the facts. You deserve to be mocked more. “likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this estimate.” – means, “forever” and “we have no clue how we’re going to get out of The Hague once we’re chained to the ground like dogs.

When your audience cannot be persuaded to ignore the Member of Congress war crimes, one option is to make a list. Notice the numbered items are repetitive; and the list has four items. This is by design: lists with three items are considered convenient; a fourth or fifth item, even if it repeats as does this, is perceived to be cultured, non-American, and disconnected from efforts to mislead.

The NIE-list-approach didn’t work to distract attention from the Member of Congress war crimes, and failure to prevent illegal activity or investigate them.

Make a List: Bury It Twice NIE: Four underlying factors are fuelling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq .jihad;. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit. Comment: The assessment is meaningless. (1) and (4) are essentially the same, related to unresolved American problems of governance. (1) Incorrectly implies that the grievance is entrenched. No, the American arrogance is entrenched. A grievance ebbs and flows whether the US does or does not assent to the rule of law. (2) Is meaningless. Even if there was a “jihad” in Iraq, the US cannot explain why this does or does not result in the original premise: “factors are fuelling the spread of the jihadist movement”. IN other words, (2) is merely saying, “the reason we have a movement, is because there’s a movement.} How much money did you get paid to write this drivel? (3) Incorrectly asserts the US-model of “reforms”. This is false. At best, it is the imposition of American “reforms” that are inspiring the contempt for America. (3) implicitly is arguing that the “reforms” are needed, only if they US can change the direction from “bad reforms” to “good reforms”. Want some reckless reforms, go to Louisiana and take a look at that system of governance: US leadership needs reform. (4) Incorrectly states that there is some trend that someone is exploiting. In truth, this is more about how the RNC approaches it’s membership. “pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit” – again repeats the drivel of “pervasive” as if it were an external phenomena, and fails to accept that the problem is in the oval office, as the Joint Staff well knows. Saying, “among most Muslims” is arrogant. This is untrue and racist. The issue isn’t anti-American; it’s anti-American-government-arrogance. There’s a difference. Saying, “all of which jihadists exploit” is meaningless. First, even if this were true, the NIE fails to show how the “exploitation” is unreasonable. If the exploitation were real, then the NIE should show that the conclusions were or were not valid. This is imprecise. “Jihadists” is, as this NIE states, something that is not related to the broader reality: The contempt for American arrogance is not linked with a mindless struggle; it is with one struggle – to assert oneself against what is wrong and could be corrected. The issue is despite the legal option to remedy this dispute in the court, the Americans refuse to show evidence, hide the files in Guantanamo, refuse to admit they’ve got innocent people there, and will not have an open review of whether people have or have not been illegally detained and denied Habeas. Supposedly, America learned after WWII feigning, “Oh, we’re really sorry for interring the Japanese.” But rather than assert the law, and recognize that Habeas is real, this Congress has pretended that the requirement is discretionary, yet took no vote to disband it. Aren’t they stupid. They had all the power after Sept 2001 to pass anything, ignore any law, and create a dictatorship, but now in 2006 suddenly the US wants to formally strip Habeas by refusing to permit Article III judicial review within the Military Commission Act. Too late. This is an untimely request; the real time to have made this request was in 2001. IN 2006, there’s no credible invasion or insurrection; rather, the real insurrection is the DoJ’s ongoing contempt for the rule of law. That hardly warrants disbanding habeas and is more on the order of a war crimes tribunal, as mentioned on pages 84-86 of the military commissions bill.

If that doesn’t work, make an embedded list which repeats what you’ve previously said were problems, but make them sound like solutions.

Yes, this is more of Katrina: Rename the disaster a solution, and the voters will never notice your distraction from war crimes and Member of Congress complicity.

Make A List Without Listing NIE: Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens. Comment: Despite the non-sense above, the NIE-garbage turns to an illusory solution: „Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement.” Translation: Flawed analysis, means flawed solution. Notice what the US is doing, as it did with Vietnamese: Concluding that the enemy will or will not respond. Missed in the analysis is the real problem: Whether the US will or will not respond. Let’s consider each of the factors in the NIE and show you why they are ridiculous conclusions. (a) “dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts,” “Muslim-related conflicts”- is racist, arrogant, and meaningless. The only conflict there is right now is between the US government and the US Constitution. The US Constitution says only wage lawful war, and respect the treaties. The Oval office, DOJ Staff, and buffoons working with Haynes think treaties, laws, and standards need no attention. How about that 5100.77 Laws of War program: That’s a SecDef requirement, something that Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham well know, but refuse to investigate. (b) “the limited appeal of the jihadists' radical ideology,” “limited” and “radical” and “jihadist” -- this is circular reasoning. The points above have already talked about this as the reason it was strong. How do you propose to assert that “more of this” will be a solution? This is absurd. (c) “ the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and” Didn’t Cheney get his moth smacked once already with the Iran-Contra report and the “moderate”-Iranian-argument? (d) “criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens” When the US refuses to engage in legal discussion on FISA violations and breaches of Geneva in the court room, what option, other than battle, is the US open? Only surrender.

False hope is connected to irrelevant vulnerabilities. Real vulnerability is when you cannot escape a war crimes indictment and work on the DOJ Staff.

Their Vulnerabilities, Not Ours NIE: The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultra-conservative interpretation of Sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Comment: This is wishful thinking. The real vulnerability is with the buffoon-clerk in the oval office. “ultimate political solution” – where did this come from? This is absurd. If here was a “global effort”, then the solution has nothing to do with Iraq, but with the US government arrogance. “ultra-conservative interpretation of Sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world” – as opposed to an “ultra-conservative interpretation of RNC-based governance spanning the Muslim world”. How stupid and meaningless. Where is the evidence that this movement, if it is real, has any hope of surviving, as opposed to it falling apart under its own weight? If the activity is real, you will only protect America when you protect your rule of law. Until you exercise prudent judgment, all violations of the law which the US commits will inspire others to similarly impose retribution. The Nazi saboteurs were tried illegally, and Hamdan said this cannot continue.

In order to defeat oneself, one must point at the mirror more often.

How’s that Windex on the War Crimes Tribunal mirror?

Gobbly Goop NIE: Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade. Comment: Notice the NIE is defining the way forward not in terms of what is correctable in American – American arrogant disregard for the rule of law, but in something else. “religious and political straitjacket” – you mean the code of silence within the RNC to remain silent about the covenants, loyalty to man, and disregard for the rule of law. “jihadists' propaganda” should read, RNC propaganda. RNC needs terrorism to stay in power, without the distraction of war, the RNC is powerless to divert eyes from their inherent incompetence and arrogance toward others. Enron! “help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade” – This assertion incorrectly presumes that the “movement” is top-down, which it is not. Nobody has to be persuaded that America is a cess pool: The evidence is literally reeking in the Iraqi streets: No power to clean the sewers.

Forget the fact that the Americans ignore the courts, just yell louder.

Condemn The Ungrateful Ones NIE: Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. Comment: Wouldn’t this approach be lovely if it were to apply to FISA, the Constitution, and American Article III powers. “peaceful political activism” – how about that peaceful RNC violation of demonstrator rights in NYC. “could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology” – what does the RNC want, RNC-financed imposition of “order” worldwide. Sarbanes Oxley can’t contain Enron, beyond the Hollywood scripts, where’s the proof that the American model, as this RNC party imposes it, works any better than how it has failed in Iraq? We have nothing.

To muddle your audience’s mind, use more gobbly goop. They will never think to ask about the member of Congress war crimes complicity.

Speculation To Distract From Certain War Crimes NIE: This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. Comment: "Could" means we’re not sure and wishful thinking. Far too convenient. If America rejects illegal wars, perhaps it might be appropriate to expect others to reject other things. Until then, the requirement that success hinge on whether other communities do or do not reject something is a sideshow. Time for American leadership to reject, through investigations, the Geneva and FISA violations. Congress is not interested, so the war against American arrogance continues. It’s your choice. “reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support” – kind of like the mindless sheep within DoJ Staff – passively letting the Constitution get trashed, then awakening on page 85-86 of the Military Commissions bill to ask for help paying their legal costs. You have awoken form your coma in an untimely and inconvenient way.

JFK had a rubber bullet. The RNC has a rubber defense to war crimes: “Not me.”

Magic Solutions, Magic Theories NIE: In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror. Comment: Fanciful. The real, most powerful weapon against terrorism is the decision by the RNC to lawfully arrest the President, conduct a war crimes trial, and lawfully remove the DOJ Cess pool from the Hoover Building. “mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon” – did the focus group respond well to this phrase?

After your audience realizes you’re worried about war crimes, start talking about solutions. Hope the audience forgets that you’re proposing solutions to problems you created. With enough hand waving, the audience may not realize your solution is to the wrong problem; and even if correctly defined, this solution would not solve this or any problem. Not even defend you before The Hague.

False problem, false solutions NIE: Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders. Comment: "Countering the spread" – changed from “Domino theory” "jihadist movement" – previously described as decentralized; NIE inconsistent. “require coordinated multilateral efforts” – programs, budget, and more excuses to ignore the auditors. “go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders” – It is treacherous to put a price on the enemy’s head. How many standards within the Military Commission Bill would the DoJ Staff be guilty of: “Hay, Keisler isn’t that bad, he only causes us moderate discomfort when he enters the room. Torture means severe discomfort. Keisler may be inhumane as far as Geneva goes, but he’s got some really nice glasses.”

To distract attention from the Geneva-FISA violations 2001-2006, point to the future. Use a vague number, but point away from 2001-2006.

Point To A Number, Any Number NIE: If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Comment: No basis for estimate on 5 years. “political participation probably” – big if. “intransigent extremists” -- meaningless “drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process” – nope. “groups willing to use the political process” – RNC fails to show its willing to use the legal process, so why is this NIE statement believable? It’s not. “to achieve their local objectives” – but NIE just said above that this was “an ultra-conservative interpretation of Sharia-based governance spanning the Muslim world”. How can something be local and spanning? This makes no sense. This isn’t classified information. This is trash, not even a 1L would be embarrassed to let this drivel out of their mouth. We need names of the contractors who put this drivel to gather. Oh, wait – the same crew who cow-towed to Mr. Buffoon in the oval office on the FISA.

Talk about scary future things that are uncertain to distract attention from the crimes Americans already committed, and failed to prevent: Geneva and FISA violations.

Doom Over There, Not In The Hague NIE: Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit. Comment: This is absurd. This would argue that a solution will cause more problems. How long have you been working for FEMA?

Someone had to spend the time creating this report for public consumption before Zarqawi was killed? Don’t bet on it, it’s likely they included this error on purpose to create a debate and distract attention from the Congressional failure to investigate and precedent Geneva-FISA violations.

Ignore Evidence The Report Is Outdated NIE: Al-Qaeda, now merged with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role. Comment: Far too convenient. Let’s consider the big picture. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, if he was a real person, was not the same as Al-Qaeda. There were differences. How does the NIE explain the fusion of two organizations that were differently working on issues related to Israel and Saddam? “exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors” – oh, so all this money, but the SWIFT system can’t find it? Means the donors and NSA are agreeing to stay in different universes. How about that energy upgrade from BGE? “ and to maintain its leadership role” – But I thought you said that there were cells, poorly organized. How does the NIE explain the inconsistency? No answer here.

This section is designed to confuse you, and distract your energy from the Member of Congress complicity with war crimes.

Repeat Convoluted Theme NIE: The loss of key leaders, particularly Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Comment: The groups are already small. Even if this were to happen, how do you justify putting this into an estimate? “Kill or capture” – wouldn’t capturing them amount to the same result, and cause fracturing? Wow, so you’re basically arguing for . . . [wait for the pre-defined solution, deliberately couched to appear as though it is the only possible action]

This is the part where they repeat meaningless images and outcomes to distract your energy from whether your Member of Congress has their reservations at The Hague, or plans to wear an orange jumpsuit.

Talk About Irrelevant Problems NIE: Although like-minded individuals would endeavour to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. Comment: “like-minded individuals” – delusional “would endeavour” – BBC must have changed the spelling, “endeavour” in the US is spelled [ endeavor ]. [Unclear why the spelling was changed, or if in original.] “carry on the mission” – this incorrectly presupposes that “the mission” is a real objective, as opposed to an internal drive to fix what is wrong, and the US has not provided a better alternative. “loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements” – there’s no basis for this statement. “would exacerbate strains and disagreements” – if this is an international movement, but its decentralized, how can there be “strains”? This is only relevant in OSD which is strained by Rummy’s refusal to leave the party. It’s almost morning, and he’s still babbling to himself in an empty room. “disagreements” – What are they disagreeing about – the fact that the US system is or is not arrogant; whether the US will or will not cooperate. If there is real disagreement, why not encourage them to discuss the issues in public so the world can see. Or, is American afraid that the disagreement is only in the degree to which the Arrogant American system is or is not relevant. If you have secret trials, why should the US be concerned whether there is or is not disagreement worldwide on other issues? The US approach to disagreement is shut down debate, blame those who dare to point out the obvious, then target those who are naïve to be inspired by your arrogant lies and non-sense.

Rather than focuse on the problem of which Members of Congress will be left after the war crimes indictment, the American government spends time on other illusory problems.

Distraction of False Problem, False Hope NIE: We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qaeda. Comment: But NIE above said that the system organization was already decentralized, as current state. The above assessment incorrectly forecasts this as an outcome. IN theory, if the centralized condition, however that is achieved, would reduce a threat, how does the NIE explain the opposite: Despite being a splintered group, the world willingness to stand up to American arrogance is increasing The only reasonable conclusion is that the issue of whether the groups do or do not splinter is meaningless. The issue is whether the Untied States will or will not assent to the rule of law.

Notice they’re not talking about the appeal of a War Crimes indictment against the DoJ Staff or the threat Member of Congress pose to the Constitution.

Use Broad Strokes, They Hide the Holes NIE: Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat. Comment: Major problem: ‘Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture” -- al-Zarqawi is dead. NIE previously stated, "Al-Qaeda, now merged with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's network" This indicates that the NIE is not recent, but very old. What other non-sense is there in the other NIEs?

Prepare for the multiple references to convoluted themes. This is by design to create a debatable point within the NIE, and distract your attention from the real debate: 535 Conviction isn’t such a bad thing.

Combine Garbage To Create Bigger Garbage NIE: The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. Comment: “The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qaeda” – this is simplistic. Again, NIE is arguing (inconsistently) that the “movement” is or is not worldwide; and is or is not decentralized. NIE fails to explain how the “operations” (that are otherwise uncoordinated in Iraq) will suddenly become organized; or that there will be a transition from (a) old organization to (b) new organization. This is absurd. If there was “an organization” NSA can’t explain why it can’t find “the organization” for only one reason: Hayden’s mess in NSA is now in CIA, and Abraxas cover stories aren’t all that impressive. Oh, did I say that? “might lead veteran foreign jihadists” – MIGHT. Moon, blue cheese, hidden mice on dark side of moon. “might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations” – might lead someone to do something is absurd. How are they going to leave Iraq, why would they leave, and if they’re a veteran, why not stay and continue to win? This is wishful thinking and makes no sense. “focus their efforts on external operations” – rather, the “external options,” should already be known, not fabricated as they were with the BOGUS 10 flights from London. They had no passports. How were they going to do a dry run; and the whole story about liquid-explosives makes no chemical sense, and defies the cooling conditions required to implement the supposed plot.

The US government’s problem is its lack of focuse on the war crimes issues. The way forward is to conduct a trial and clean out the DOJ Cess pool.

DoJ prefers the wrong C: Cess pool, instead of the Constitution.

Talk About Things, Not Solutions NIE: Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation. Comment: This isn’t a change. Oh, notice the “mass-casualty”-term, guess the WMD-scary-word got overused. “mass-casualty attacks” – What is 3,000 Afghanis who were suffocated in box cars?

If you’re desperate for a distraction, make a meaningless comparison. Nobody will think to compare the inhumane acts to Geneva; they’ll just focus on the DOJ Staff drivel.

Irrelevant Variations NIE: We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qaeda but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. Comment: "Homeland” – Zieg Heil! “We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qaeda but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad” – what’s the use of commenting on whether a group is or is not a threat relative to an organization the President didn’t do anything about after reading the 6Aug2001 PDB? “will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad” – “varying” is meaningless. “threat to our allies” – which one, the last one we have, or the other ally we won’t mention by name. Unless you’re talking about UFOs, the US has no allies. “threat to our allies and to US interests abroad” – This isn’t a change, and fails to discuss the US problems – RNC disregard for rule of law and Constitution.

They’re waving their hands again, look the other way: Geneva, FISA, and war crimes indictments.

More Hand Waving NIE: The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones. Comment: Notice “focus of their attacks” implies something finite or specific. Yet, notice the attachment: “likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones” which includes (a) ebbing and flowing, and (b) local, regional, and global. This is meaningless, and the same as saying, “The future will vary.” This isn’t classified, it’s impressionistic art, broad brush strokes, without precision. How much money are you going to give yourselves fro this worthless work product, “Heck of a Job, NIE.”

If you’re desperate for a war crimes defense, start talking about reality as if it were debatable. It might convince someone you’re a fortune teller. Should we put fortune tellers in jail? It doesn’t matter what the future might be, but whether the fortune teller did or did not violate the law.

Rename Facts as Forecasts NIE: We judge that most jihadist groups - both well-known and newly formed - will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Comment: "that most jihadist groups" – Buzzword, repeat, maybe the voters will remember. The correct term is insurgent. Insurgents are winning, lazy American military is losing. “most jihadist groups - both well-known and newly formed” – as opposed to the third option, which is semi-known, but not yet disorganized by NIE gobbly goop. “will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy” – about as useful as saying, “The sun will come up tomorrow.” Thank you, Little Orphan Annie. Here’s some dental floss. “their asymmetric warfare strategy” – wrong. The US describes insurgency as their asymmetric warfare strategy” – it’s not their strategy; but how the US describes it. It’s would be correct to call it what it is: Desire to rub the DOJ Staff nose in the dirt for their alleged disregard for prudence, reason, and laws of war. “they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments” – so, the US is powerless to stop this, and they’re continuing to do more of what annoys America. What’s the news? “sustained terrorist attacks” – combat, not terrorism. “urban environments” – DoJ Staff homes.

People who have experience might put that into good use. That is unless your name is David Addington, and your experience is writing crappy legal opinions which selectively cut and paste case law [See the Iran Contra Minority Report]. He, like Gonzalez, cut and ran from the service academies, but now want the world to believe they know something about Geneva.

Addington, Gonzalez: Quaint.

Duh NIE: Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics. Comment: This isn’t an estimate it’s drivel. “potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics” is asking us to believe that something that should be clear (whether someone with experience does or does not have leadership potential) is uncertain. This isn’t a potential source of anything – it’s a real source of something. However, the cells don’t work on the basis of leadership of a large group, but a very localized, cell-relationship. “leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics” – repeating “jihadists” without effect or relevance. “jihadists pursuing these tactics” – you don’t pursue a tactic, you implement a tactic. This is important. NIE would have us believe that the method of operations is speculative in the future; in practice, the activity is historical. “Fighters with experience in Iraq” is repetitive. The NIE doesn’t do this. It’s succinct. This repeats the essential phrase of, “veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.” Not only does the NIE offer nothing new, but it repeats old news. This NIE is not intended to be real, it was designed to be released for public consumption while it was written, before the media got the “leak”. This NIE has one goal: to change the focus of the debate from White House war crimes tribunals, and change it to something else.

When you’re desperate for a distraction, but your distraction has been discredited, what do you do?

Rename it.

Rename The Discredited Propaganda NIE: CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups. Comment: WMD got overused. “will continue to be sought” – meaning there is no evidence that have them. So what’s the concern? Kind of like someone in the DOJ Staff seeking immunity for war crimes. Isn't going to happen. Dream on. The Hague has your name on it.

Members of Congress should be the ones who are uneasy: They have on defense for their failure to investigate the Geneva violations.

What’s a member of Congress to do? Make your voters uneasy, and they’ll run to you for comfort. Time to send the Member of Congress to the comfort room in The Hague.

Vulnerability To Make The Voters Uneasy NIE: While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists. Comment: Out of the blue they mention Iran. “remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism” – United States. “many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists” – United States. Translation: US causes problems, and cannot manage the world reaction. Should have thought about this before lashing out. Stupid Americans. “many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists” – incapable of defending the nation, as required under the US Constitution. This is a violation of the Constitutional Guarantee to the States that they remain protected from attacks. This statement is the basis for the States to request humanitarian assistance to defend itself against the ongoing, arrogant White House incompetence in managing affairs.

The goal is to distract attention from the Member of Congress, and get the voters to focus on themselves.

Point To Vulnerability NIE: Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fuelling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. Comment: "Anti-US” – incorrect, the movement is Anti-US government. “anti-globalization” – where did this come from, more WTO activists in Seattle to attack without provocation? “sentiment is on the rise and fuelling other radical ideologies” – more of the broad wave theory of dominoes. Where’s the evidence that it’s worse than the disaster in Iraq? “leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests” – very vague. Maybe if someone dares to challenge this NIE, maybe they could be . . . the next US President. “methods to attack US interests” – quite vague. Need to be more specific. Maybe Addington could cite something useful from Lincoln to justify more pre-emptive wars to dominate the world like Caesar. “adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests” – meaning, they don’t use terrorism now; or they’re still learning that the US will not respond to the rule of law, but still hoping Article III powers might subdue this arrogant crew on the DoJ Staff? War crimes tribunals sound better.

They’re moving their hands faster, look the other way: Geneva violations, War Crimes, The Hague.

Broader, Faster Sweeping Motions NIE: The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint. Comment: "radicalization process “ -- Faster movement! “occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously” – mysterious, dark, and dangerous. “The only answer is to mindlessly vote, and ignore the War Crimes Tribunal.” “raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint” – vague, meaningless, speculative, Green cheese on the Moon. “may be difficult to pinpoint” – no need to spend money on that NSA upgrade, cancel that contractor’s program.

When you’re desperate to distract attention from the DOJ Staff and Member of Congress complicity with war crimes, what do you do? Go after the very system used to carry those illegal plans into effect.

If you can’t defend yourself, blame the messaging system, and then get them to claim, If you shut us down, who will be left?

There are plenty of other people who could do what the DoJ Staff does. They’re called monkeys, and they will pay to be abused in law school.

OMG NIE: We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support. Comment: Translation: (1) People are talking, but we don’t have a clue what to do; and even if we did, we don’t have the resources to do anything about it; (2) People are talking electronically, but despite their communications, the NSA doesn’t have enough credibility to attract talent to determine how Hezbollah got technology we didn’t warn Israel about. (3) “groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support” – as opposed to the RNC approach of locking people up, and abusing them.

The DOJ Staff and Members of Congress have worked with the US intelligence Community to hide illegal FISA and Geneva violations.

Their goals is simple: To use this phony NIE to defend themselves, not America.

The appropriate courts of action is to encourage your State Attorney General to lawfully target the DOJ Staff counsel assigned to your state bar disciplinary board, and compel them to explain what they know about the war crimes committed while they worked on the DoJ Staff. Matters of fraud cannot be protected by a claim of executive privilege. These are matters of criminal law and war crimes, and the attorney-client privilege cannot be recognized by Article III courts as an excuse not to cooperate with this expanding Article III inquiry into the DOJ Staff and Congress.

Your State Attorney General can also work with your governors to shut down all funding and investment in firms which illegally support unlawful war crimes. It’s already started in California. There is a checklist and a plan how you can make this happen in your state.

Don’t lose hope. The Constitution is making the Members of Congress very afraid of their shadows. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes; and people have been lawfully executed for failing to prevent war crimes, as has this Congress and DOJ Staff.

Read more . . .