Constant's pations

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

Friday, September 22, 2006

Americans Illegally Agree To Continue War Crimes

The American Congress and President have unlawfully agreed to continue violating the Geneva conventions.

The agreement also forms the basis to presume that the permitted illegal activity has occurred, and forms a line of inquiry into presumed Geneva violations. Click for details

Members of Congress have pre-determined judicial outcomes by asserting conduct which is inhumane, is lawful and cannot be appealed. This is illegal use of Article III powers by Congress: Ref; see these precedents.

* * *

Ref Rather than agree to investigate the illegal, inhumane treatment to date, the Congress and President have illegally agreed to continue the inhumane treatment.

There's a shell game going on. Rather than address [a] the conduct; [b] how this conduct compares with Geneva; or [c] investigate, the Congress and President have jointly agreed to change the basis of the debate to something else.

They've agreed to use a phony standard, and assert that the bill meets that standard, without consideration for the conduct, or the Geneva Conventions.

* * *

The detainee treatment act is different than the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva is very clear. The legal requirement of Geneva is to humanely treat prisoners.

Indeed, it is illegal to treat prisoners inhumanely. How one inhumanely treats someone is irrelevant. It is prohibited under all circumstances.

It is a red herring to argue over [a] whether the definition of torture is or isn't correct; or [b] whether the new rules do or not meet that definition of torture.

* * *

Senator Graham has lost a fair amount of credibility. He's been ousted as a Court Martial Judge; he unconstitutionally asserting judicial power while being a Member of Congress. What Senator Graham may or may not agree is sufficient, or how he views the current agreement is meaningless.

The republican rebellion was a sham from the outset. There were no investigations, as required under Geneva, to prevent additional abuses, or investigate the known illegal conduct.

* * *

The American Congress and President are complicit in failing to investigate, prevent, or stop war crimes. They've also failed to ensure that the ongoing illegal activity is prevented.

This agreement is evidence of the individual Senator's recklessness, unfitness for office, and basis for the International War Crimes tribunal to issue indictments against the individual Members of Congress. Nuremburg and the Tokyo War Crimes tribunals are precedent for holding civilian leaders in policy making decisions, as is this Congress, guilty for failing to prevent illegal war crimes.

* * *

Nobody in any of the Republican lobbyist organizations can credibly point to this agreement as being a victory. It is a resounding capitulation by the Republican leadership to lawlessness.

Nor can anyone point to this agreement as a success in terms of whether there has or has not been a re-interpretation of Geneva. Rather than interpret Geneva, they've ignored it; then defined the ongoing, inhumane treatment as meeting an irrelevant standard in the detainee treatment act.

Hamdan already found the US policies and procedures illegal. Asserting the power to continue that illegal conduct in no way sets the stage for a favorable Supreme Court ruling. It is likely that this agreement will trigger another round of judicial reviews.

This Congress and President have illegally agreed to exercise judicial review, assert that conduct is or is not lawful; and have failed to let the courts rule on the legality of the known violations. Rather than investigate, gather facts, or let the judicial branch exercise its authority to impose punishment on the CIA war criminals, the Congress and President have effectively self-asserted the law's requirements have been met. This is an illegal assertion, and cannot be taken seriously.

* * *

These are serious matters. Despite the ongoing Geneva requirements to prevent violations, the individual members of Congress have failed in their oath to protect the supreme law; and the President has similarly failed to enforce that law.

Congress and the President were never delegated any power to agree to ignore Geneva, nor create non-sense excuses to defy the treaty obligations. We the People have also never agreed to assent to an illegal agreement, nor are we bound to comply with the illegal orders that will soon spring from this unlawful agreement.

Congress and the President have openly defied their oath, their obligations, and their agreement is evidence of their war crimes.


Has the American Government Illegally Agreed To Continue Inhumane Treatment?


Did the Congress and President endorse an approach the Supreme Court is likely to strike down as illegal?

The agreement is illegal. Whether the Supreme Court comprehends these Geneva violations is irrelevant. The war crimes prosecutors have indicted members of the judiciary for failing to enforce the law, or not protect rights of prisoners. We don't need to wait for the Supreme Court to rule. This agreement is illegal, and the CIA officials and leaders are providing materially misleading information to the CIA personnel when they suggest the CIA agents are innocent, cannot be convicted, or are immune war crimes prosecutions.

Did the CIA abuse prisoners?


Will this agreement permit additional inhumane acts, in contravention to Geneva?

Yes. The agreement in no way prevents anyone from conducting interrogations using abusive, inhumane techniques, but the opposite: Creates an illegal middle zone between (a) what Geneva requires and (b) what the US Congress has expressly banned. A close reading of the agreement's termonlogy expressly, and illegally permits illegal, inhumane abuse. The words like "severe" incorrectly and illegaly suggest that "something less than sever" is permissible; this is incorrect. Details.

The Americans have illegally defined the Geneva Conventions in terms of what is or is not impermissible; but have ignored the positive requirement to never commit any humane acts.

Was the RNC Rebellion Staged?

Yes. It was designed to create confusion, distract the public from the illegal activity in Europe, and hide the unlawful agreement to protect CIA agents from prosecution.

This RNC rebellion, if it were serious, would have called for investigations. There was no call for investigations. The RNC is not serious about enforcing the law. They are serious about creating the illusion of reasonableness only to sway the voters.

The RNC rebellion agreed to cooperate and agree to the wrong standard. Rather than bar all conduct which is inhumane, as required under Geneva, the RNC changed the discussion to whether the agreement did or did not meet an irrelevant definition of torture. Geneva prevents inhumane treatment. No congressman would ever permit their daughters to be subjected to the conditions they have illegally permitted--they are inhumane conditions.

Rather than investigate the violations of Geneva, this Congress and President have sought to retroactively immunize CIA war criminals. This is impossible. Congress has no judicial power to decide whether someone has or has not violated the law; changing the law does not change Geneva or the CIA inhumane treatment.

Why did the President announce the CIA rebellion against the illegal procedures?

The President was lying. The CIA agents, if they defied the President, would have been fired. There was no CIA rebellion. This was staged.

It serves the interests of the RNC to pretend the CIA agents are concerned about a standard. These are crocodile tears. The CIA agents allegedly worked in concert with Abraxas have allegedly illegally placed themselves in a position to abuse, commit acts of inhumane treatment, and nothing has been done.

Why are the CIA agents worried about lawsuits and getting insurance?

They are alleged war criminals, could be prosecuted, and believe they have done something that warrants their prosecution by an international war crimes tribunal. Their names can be found through Abraxas and other lawful methods.

Will this Bill Prevent CIA agents from being prosecuted?

No. CIA agents may lawfully be prosecuted by any nation. All nations have the power to prosecute war criminals. CIA agents may lawfully be targeted for rendition for delivery to The Hague. They may also be lawfully detained under protected custody, and kept in detention until they can be provided safe passage to The Hague as a witness.

If there was "no problem" with the CIA activities, why did Rice travel to Europe to deny what the President later admitted -- that there were CIA detention centers?

The CIA detention centers are illegal, inhumane facilities. Rice traveled to Europe to deny something she knew was real; she was on the National Security Council, and worked closely with Alberto Gonzalez to implement these illegal orders, carry this illegal policy into effect, and failed to prevent the illegal activity.

Rice's denial is admissible as evidence of her failing to act on information she knew was false, or failed to investigate. This is evidence Rice, as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, had the power to influence policy, and failed to prevent war crimes planning, policy, and orders. Similar failures were the basis for the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal to prosecute Japanese civilian leaders. Secretary Rice is an alleged war criminal.

Rice claimed the President was concerned about his legacy and decided to reveal the CIA detention centers. What continued to pressure the White House to come clean about the illegal CIA detention centers?

Civilian contactors realized they were linked with the illegal activity. The President did not have a renewed concern for his legacy. Had he had real concern with his legacy, his decision would have enforced Geneva after his February 2002 memoranda. He failed to implement his decision to enforce Geneva.

It occurred to the American government that any nation could lawfully reciprocate against American prisoners, whether those prisoners were contractors, American leaders, or in the military.

It is a phony argument by the RNC leaders that they were concerned about whether the military was or was not subject to retaliation. The real problem, one that they will not openly discuss, is the rude reality that American civilians and government leaders could be similarly abused if the RNC-White House agreement were implemented by other nations.

How does the United States explain away the Geneva Conventions violations by asserting the agreement complies with the US Constitution?

The 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments are similar to, but not exactly the same as the Geneva Conventions.

Geneva is a general standard that prevents inhumane treatment. That is clear, definite, and specific. Geneva is not a prohibition standard, but a requirement to be achieved or met: Humane treatment.

The 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments are different. These prohibit specific things. As with the CIA detention centers, the US government regularly engages in illegal activity to circumvent these restrictions in the Constitution.

Fundamentally, even though the RNC says that the current RNC-White House agreement is lawful, the fails to account for the known violations of the US Constitution in the FISA-NSA surveillance; and fail to explain why these violations were not violated.

Any claims that the agreement meets the standards in the US constitution is meaningless. This Congress fails to enforce those Averments, and does nothing to gather evidence to find out what must e done to prevent further violations of the US Constitution. Rather, they make new laws saying what should or should not happen, with equal lack of conviction to enforce those new requirements. This is no different than what the Nazis did in the 1930s. This Congress is pretending to enforce the law, but they are openly ignoring the Conventions and US Constitution; then doing nothing to enforce the law, or investigation or ensure prosecutions of those who violate the law.

Congress and the Executive have specific, ministerial duties to enforce the law and assert their oath. They have defined their oath, and have failed to protect the Constitution, and the US treaty obligations they have under their oath. Fortunately, we have the domestic courts, and the international war crimes tribunals which continue their work, not only targeting the alleged CIA war criminals, but the subsequent war crimes by individual members of Congress and the Executive branch in failing to prevent illegal activity and Geneva violations.

How did this happen?

The key is to compare the speed of the Sept 2001 events, and the Patriot Act passage. Then consider the FISA violations. In both situations, the leadership ignored the fundamental law, and focused on action.

Rather than focus on evidence of illegal activity, the leadership has focused attention on whether there is or is not agreement. Rather than ensure action was lawful, the leadership is asserting the need to achieve an outcome, and pays not attention to what that activity does or does not violate the law. This is meaningless and reckless leadership.

It doesn't matter if everyone agrees that something is or isn't true; the issue is whether it is or is not true. The belief in a flat earth does not make it so.

In this case, it is true that the US Congress has failed to investigate Geneva violations; and has done nothing to ensure that alleged war criminals have been investigated and prosecuted. It is also true that the focus of the debate shifted from whether the conduct was or was not humane (it was not), to whether there was or was no agreement on a definition of a prohibited act (irrelevant to whether that treatment is or is not humane, it is inhumane).

Even if there is a rule which outlaws something, this President -- and the Congress does not stop him -- has no power to illegally exercise Article III judicial power, or saying what he will or will not enforce in the law; or decides what that law means; or issue a signing statement that he will or will not interpret the law in a certain way. Again, these are exclusive Article III powers which our Constitution has expressly prohibited.

The problem the President has is that he's not only an alleged war criminal, but he's abrogated Geneva, illegally worked with others to abrogate his oath, and has illegally asserted he has the power to immunize others from things he has no power to immunize: International war crimes.

Individual members of Congress are complicit in these illegal war crimes, and their public activity is subject to a war crimes prosecution. The indictments are already prepared and the investigation is ongoing.

How does this RNC-White House agreement prevent war crimes?

The agreement does not prevent war crimes. The RNC Senate-White House agreement is meaningless, and the document is admissible evidence that the American leadership is not serious about preventing violations of Geneva which require prisoners be humanely treated. This agreement illegally permits more abuse and inhumane treatment which violates the clear Geneva requirement.

Today's events is not a problem, simply more evidence of war crimes: The failure to act, and the subsequent illegal agreement to do nothing about historical and future violations of Geneva. This agreement is not enforceable, illegal, and serves an objective contrary to public policy. It will not be upheld by the war crimes tribunal.

The precedent of Nuremburg is instructive for the Courts. Any judicial officer, including a judge, prosecutor, or attorney in any American court could be prosecuted for relying on this illegal agreement. Anyone who relies on this agreement as a bar to act, or fails to strike down this agreement as unconstitutional, could be prosecuted for failing to prevent war crimes.

Does this Bill include a provision for insurance?

Yes, but it is not enforceable. The bill includes a general clause that the illegal CIA war crimes will not be prosecuted. But this clause is not Constitutional, nor is it something that Congress or the President can lawfully do. This is an Article III-power. It is illegally to say that Congress or the President will or will not enforce the law. Even if they did say this lawfully, they have no power to say the Geneva conventions will not be enforced. Only the Judicial Branch can decide this.

What was the CIA doing in the CIA detention centers, and how does this treatment compare with Geneva requirements?

The CIA personnel were committing acts of inhumane treatment against prisoners of war. This violates the Geneva conventions. DoJ Staffers who say otherwise are deluding themselves, and arguably complicity in failing to remove themselves from the illegal planning, orders, and policies.

How will this bill stop the CIA officers from being prosecuted?

The bill has no force to prevent the ongoing war crimes investigations. Nothing Congress or the President says can prevent the ongoing, expanding war crimes investigations; nor does Congress or the President have the power to prevent CIA agents from being prosecuted. Rather, this bill and subsequent agreement provides the reasonable basis to awfully target the individual members of Congress and President for war crimes.

What did the CIA specifically do in Eastern Europe that violates Geneva?

The CIA officials inflicted inhumane treatment on prisoners. They subjected them to simulated death. There are a variety of ways which civilian contractors well know. One way is to simulate death by drowning; another is death by suffocation; another is death by live burial.

These are inhumane acts. The CIA and White House know this abuse was occurring. One reason for transferring prisoners out of the theater, then to Eastern Europe, was the false assumption that US courts had no jurisdiction. Rasul and Hamdan showed the DoJ Staff Counsel like Keisler and New York University Law School professors that their legal arguments were invalid. Just because a lawyer says something is legal doesn't mean that it is or isn't; rather, only a court can decide whether this legal argument is credible.

The American legal system is not legitimate. The DOJ Staff is not following the law. Rather, it is making excuses to not enforce the law. They are alleged war criminals and also the target of the expanding, deepening, and broadening war crimes investigation.

What did Senator Graham do wrong?

Senator Graham illegally exercised Judicial powers while being a Senator. Senator Graham cannot lawfully claim to be a judicial court judge in the armed forces, and still be a Senator. This violates the Separation of powers.

What Senator Graham did was feign resistance to an illegal policy. His error was to refuse to investigate the illegal acts.

His goal was to change his position, and use that change as the basis to convince people that there had been a solution. This is called an irrelevant argument. The illegal Geneva violations have not been prosecuted; nor will this agreement prevent inhumane treatment.

Senator Graham is an alleged war criminal, and also one of the targets of this broadening war crimes investigation.

How did the RNC fool their Republican Base?

The trick was a sleight of hand. Rather than focus on the inhumane because, they got the public to focus on the need of the program. They did the same in the FISA-NSA violations. Rather than investigate illegal activity, the White House asserted the need for the activity, without regard for whether that program was or was not legal.

How did the White House change the basis of comparison from Geneva to the US Constitution?

It's called word magic. If you convince people that something is confusing, and then confuse them, they believe that this is normal.

Geneva is specific, and clear: The United Stats may not inhumanely treat prisoners.

The White House strategy has been to focus on the samples of inhumane treatment, and argue that these were or were not clear. This is called a red herring. Rather than ensure that the prisoner detentions were humane, as required under Geneva, the White House changed the debate to an irrelevant definition of whether something is or is not torture.

Recall the goal of Iraq. First it was to prevent WMD use. That was a lie. The second theme was to prevent inhumane treatment. Now the US is arguing for the right to do the same: Commit inhumane acts.

Rather than be accountable for the inhumane acts, the White House is changing the argument to whether we do or do not need the fruits of that inhumane act. In so many words they're arguing that Geneva can be violated, and inhumane acts inflicted, so long as the purpose of that inhumane treatment is for a good cause.

There is a problem with this logic. It is called the Flawed Ticking Time Bomb Argument. There is more detailed information here: Ref. Briefly, this means that if the US can accuse someone of having information, they should be tortured; but nobody asks the question: How does the accuser know that this person would be targeted; and if they know this person should be targeted, what information do they have that proves this? The argument to torture someone based on the ticking time bomb assumes you know there is a bomb -- so how do you know there is a bomb, and why aren't you going after those who communicated the information and provide the basis for the belief? There is no answer because the scenario rules on assertions without evidence, not proof.

How did the US change the standard of review from (a) inhumane to (b) torture?

The standard for judicial review has not changed. Congress has no power to compel the Judiciary to ignore the Geneva requirements, and use an irrelevant, illegal standard.

The Republicans induced the Americans to accept this illegal change in standard through propaganda. The goal of the American leadership hasn't been to clarify Geneva, which says that inhumane treatment is illegal.

Rather, the White House goal has been to create confusion and ambiguity. There are many examples, including Yoo's editorial, the President's statements, and Gonzales invalid assertions of ambiguity.

The goal wasn't to clarify anything, but to create a deliberate confusion. The next step was to use that confusion to change the focus form the Geneva requirements, to the US Statute, and definition of torture.

However, no analysis was done on whether the existing conduct was or was not a violation of Geneva or inhumane. Rather, the debate was on whether the agreement was or was not consistent with the torture definition. This is an irrelevant comparison and consistency.

Propaganda is useful to confuse people, create alarm, create a conflict, and then share the glory when there is an agreement. The problem occurs when the agreement in no way addresses the problem; nor does it focus on the real issue: Was the conduct illegal, and a violation of the clear Geneva standard prohibiting inhumane treatment?

The White House and RNC used propaganda, phony opposition, fast arguments, feigned confusions, appeals to ignorance and ambiguity to confuse the Senators. Rather than focus on Geneva, they got the Senators focused on whether there was or was not agreement. An illegal agreement is not immunity to war crimes.

These Senators should not be re-elected, but should be prosecuted for failing to stop ongoing war crimes.

What about the CIA rebellion?

The CIA rebellion was phony. It was part of the propaganda effort. There's no way for the White House to prove this Rebellion was real.

Rather, the goal was to create the illusion the CIA was concerned. The next step is to point to the illegal agreement, and say that the CIA are willing to go back to work. Rather than focus on Geneva, the goal is to use the feigned celebration as the excuse to ignore closely examining two things: Is the conduct violating Geneva (yes); and is the illegal activity being prevented (no).

The CIA agents who rely on this agreement should now the Geneva violations are continuing, and the agreement is not the basis for any lawful order.

How do we know the CIA rebellion was fake?

The White House would never reveal dissention within the ranks, unless that opposition was designed to support a larger illegal objective and lack of accountability.

It is in the interests of the White House to create a phony rebellion, then point to an illegal agreement as the basis to say that the illegal war criminals in the CIA are satisfied and have no concerns.

Rather, the CIA officials have every reason to be concerned: Congress, despite openly discussing these issues, has failed to prevent the illegal activity; and the CIA is being ordered to do more of what violates Geneva.

We also know the White House fabricated the CIA rebellion because there's no credible way to verify the CIA rebellion was real. Indeed, once the RNC-White House agreement is in place, there's no way for the CIA to check or publish who has or has not changed their procedures, redoubled their efforts, or continued with their work.

This is the same type of non-sense we had with the Trailer-WMD stories with Iraq: There's no way to confirm the assertions. They are presumed false, unless there is compelling evidence to justify believe.

It is planned to have CIA officials anonymously report that they are satisfied, glad to get back to work. however, there is no way to physically verify that these media leaks are real. Indeed, if these were real leaks from the CIA, the White house cannot explain why it is not targeting the CIA agents who are leaking information about this rebellion or their subsequent "confidence" with the illegal plan. The reason is that the White House is making this up, and the leaks are from the RNC supporters, not from real CIA officials who remain the targets of the war crimes investigation and prosecution.

What About Senator Graham?

There's no reason to trust him. He's not a judge. he's a Senator. His loyalty is to his party, not to the Constitution. if his loyalty to the law were real, he would have removed himself from the JAG office, and focus on his duties as Senator, and investigate the alleged illegal activity. Senator Graham says he is concerned with the law, but his actions belie this assertion: He's violated the separation of powers, has refused to investigate, and continues to support funding things for thing he knows or should know are illegal.

There is precedent for prosecuting Senator Graham for war crimes. The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal similarly prosecuted government officials like Senator Graham who were in a position to stop, but failed to prevent the war crimes plans from being implemented.

Also, his feigned fear of losing his office was a way to sway people in the DNC to believe that the Republicans were serious. But we have no evidence of investigations, just an agreement to do nothing.

Senator Graham, a former JAG officer, is an alleged war criminal and the subject of this war crimes investigation and should know better. He remains liable for his alleged failure to prevent, investigate, and stop illegal war crimes; and his alleged complicity in drafting illegal policies that he knew, or should have know permitted grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. These alleged illegal acts violate the US Code, and Senator Graham has no power to self-immunize himself or others from this broadening war crimes investigation.

Does the Republican leadership understand what they have agreed to?

The Republican leadership is confused. They incorrectly bl3eiee that they have agreed to agree; they realize or should realize that the agreement is illegal. The individual Senators have agreed to violations of Geneva, and have agreed to do nothing to prevent future inhumane acts; and they have done nothing to investigate the inhumane treatment that they know is occurring.

Tell me again, what did the Republicans change?

They changed the focus of the debate from whether there was or was not inhumane treatment, to whether the US actions did or did not constitute torture.

The shift is important. Geneva requires humane treatment. The other requirement is that it prohibit inhumane treatment. The two standards are not the same. Requiring humane treatment is fairly clear.

The deliberate confusion was to argue over whether something was or was not inhumane. This is irrelevant.

The simple test is whether the treatment, if inflected upon an innocent daughter of a Member of Congress would be considered outrageous or inhumane. Deliberately dunking the head of a Senator's daughter under water, in circumstances where she was not free to resist or leave, would be considered inhumane and outrageous, or a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The other issue over how we define torture is meaningless. Geneva lists a variety of prohibited acts, but the list is not intended to be a guide to what you can or cannot do. They are merely a list of samples of what is inhumane.

The key lesson to consider: If the Congress is willing to say they have a victory, are they willing to let their civilian daughters be subjected to what they have said the CIA can do? The answer is no: The CIA is being allowed to do inhumane things.

Individual Members of Congress may soon have the opportunity to experience first hand inhumane treatment at the hands of those who lawfully render them to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal. The laws of war allow detaining powers to reciprocate, and inflict on others the same abuses the US has permitted. This is the principle of reciprocity and reprisal. They're not quite the same, but it allows other nations to violate Geneva in the same way that the US has violated. Because individual members of Congress said it was "humane" for the CIA to abuse prisoners, other nations may lawfully impose that same abuse on Members of Congress.

They wished this.


The above information is probable cause to indict the following people for alleged war crimes:

President of the United States

Senate and House Leadership who agreed to the illegal abrogation of Geneva with this agreement

Senator Graham

Senator Specter

Secretary of State Rice