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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
posted by Constant @ 10:50 AM
<< Home