Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Smokescreen To Hide Lost US Govt Legitimacy

Congress debates to distract voters. War crimes prosecutors continue to gather evidence. These are not debatable issues, but matters of criminal law.

The Constitution and court cases have already ruled on the legal issues Congress is debating. Congress has no power to debate provisions which are illegal, unconstitutional, and unlawful. These bills are dilatory. The Senate Sergeant at Arms has the power to arrest Senators who violate the Senate Rules.

The American government has no legitimacy. Congress debates the undebatable laws, while it refuses to investigate violations of the rule of law. The laws have already been passed. Congress has no power to protect the Executive Branch or Contractors for what they did 2001-2006.

Rather than assent to the law, the Congressional debates incorrectly shift attention to what the voters should or should not do. The correct focus is whether Members of Congress have or have not violated the law.

* * *

Members of Congress are allegedly in violation of their 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and are subject to lawful prosecution for failing to enforce the Supreme Law.

The United States government has failed. The clear requirement is to enforce the law. This Government creates excuses of what may happen in the future, to induce law enforcement and the State Attorney General from prosecuting the President.

The States have the power to prosecute the President and Individual Members of Congress. It makes no difference that the Congress has failed to enforce the Congressional rules. The States have the power to enforce the law, and lawfully prosecute Members of Congress for failing to ensure the State Guarantee to a Republican Form of Government is assured.

* * *

The issue before us is simple: The Article IV requirement that all States are entitled to a republican form of government. This includes and enforcement mechanism. To ensure the Republican form of government is preserved, Congress and the Executive must enforced the law. Without that enforcement, there is no Republican form of government.

The remedy is for the State attorney Generals to prosecute the President of the Untied States and individual Members of Congress for violating State law, and the Constitutional Guarantee of a Republican form of government.

* * *

Congress and the Executive are powerless to prevent adjudication of Geneva and FISA violations 2001-2006. The only reason for discussing any legislation is to distract attention from the Congressional complicity for war crimes and FISA violations.

Putting aside the definitions of what Congress may or may not agree in 2006, nothing Congress does in 2006 can retroactively change the law or the conduct.

The only goal the Members of Congress and Executive have is to shift the voter attention from the illegal activity, and create excuses to ignore their legal obligations: Oath of Office, Constitution, and Supreme Law. None of their excuses are credible. It is incorrect to suggest the debate in 2006 over definitions will or will not have any bearing on the illegal activity.

The issue going forward is that these orders are not lawful, and cannot be followed by anyone. Congress and the Executive do not have the power to assert or compel any American to tolerate warrantless searches. It is unconstitutional and undebatable. Rather, it is time for the American public to directly challenge the Executive Staff, law enforcement in the court room and compel them to show that they are complying with the Constitution.

All planned infinite detentions are not lawful.

Foreign fighters may lawfully enter American territory and engage in humanitarian relief, and take lawful actions to protect the American Constitution.

No American use of force to enact, or put into effect these Unconstitutional laws, rules is lawful, nor are they legal orders.

Members of Congress and the President, with illegal assistance from the Joint Staff and DoJ Staff counsel have illegally engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of the Supreme law, but domestically and abroad.

These are grave breaches of their oath, the Supreme Law.

The American government is not legitimate and is moving without regard to the rule of law, US Constitution, Supreme Law, and international obligations.

The American system of self-governance, in theory, works well. But all foreign fighters should take note: The American citizens are being asked to endure an illegal abuse of power for illegal reasons.

The American Congress must ask whether they are willing to be subjected to like treatment should they lawfully be arrested, detained, or prosecuted for failing to prevent Geneva violations.

Whether the US government does or does not change a rule going forward has no bearing on whether Congress is or is not examining the violations of the law that have been well documented 2001-2006.

The American government cannot explain why it should expect anyone to have any confidence in the American government. Clearly promulgated rules have been ignored; well documented evidence has not been investigated.

Rather than exercise leadership and protect the Constitution, this Congress and Executive have jointly created a smokescreen.

Notice the Shell Game

There are two issues:

A. Failure to enforce existing law -- which is certain: [Yes, or No]

B. Debate over future law -- which is speculative: [Irrelevant]

Congress wants you to focus on B, not A.

They have failed to do A.

This government asks that we engage in a speculative debate over what the law might be, in order to distract attention over the certain violations. This is analogous to the speculative threat of problems as an invalid pretext to give up rights.

The issue is not what the enemy may or may not do, but what this President and Congress have already done: Ignored the law, not enforced it, and explained it away using distractions.

Congress is complicity with illegal activity. 5 USC 3331 imposes clear ministerial duties on the Attorney General to report through Title 28 the efforts to not enforce or follow clearly promulgated statues. It makes no difference hwy the law was not enforced; the issue is despite the two available options to remove the alleged criminal -- through either prosecution or impeachment -- Congress is unwilling to exercise either option, and thwarts evidence related to Article III procedures.

Congress has committed grave braches of the Supreme Law. Congress is illegitimate. The American system of governance has failed.

It is lawful under the laws of war, when a system of governance has failed, that there be humanitarian assistance, relief, and support.

The question is what will Americans be asked to do while they are distracted from what has already been done: Grave braches of the Supreme Law.

If this Congress and president refuse to submit to the rule of law, then what option -- other than lawful use of force -- is there to ensure the Constitution remains in full force.

* * *

All Members of Congress are subject to arrest for violating their specific 5 USC 3331 obligations; and the State Attorney Generals have the authority to enforce the law, and prevent further violations of the State level criminal statutes which prohibit violations of the Supreme Law.

The job of American citizens is to focus on what can be done: Contract your State Attorney Generals, provide your testimony, and encourage your State Attorney Generals to launch criminal investigations against the DOJ Staff assigned to your state attorney disciplinary boards; and also gather evidence of 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations by the state officials currently assigned to the US Congress.

If your state level officials refuse to assert the rule of law, they too may be prosecuted for failing to assert their oath of office to the US Constitution.

If your state officials are not willing to assert the rule of law, investigate, or take action to call for prosecuting the President, then your state leadership has defined its oath. It doesn't matter what excuse they give about what something else might be. The only issue is whether we trust them to assert their oath on what is known, rather than point to what may or may not be true in the future.

The voters need not worry themselves with the debates in Congress. these are deliberate side shows. Your state officials should move quickly to lawfully prosecute the Federal officials for violating state law. The plan to accomplish the lawful shut down of the illegal Federal Activity is prepared for your review, and discussion.

You will see that it is straightforward, well thought, and includes a number of checklist items for your State Attorney to review as they work with their staff to lawfully end the illegal US activity within your state.

You will see how Congress is shifting attention from Congressional inaction, and making the voters worried about things that are not real.

Congress is fearful. They have no choice but to jeopardize the security and safety of Americans in order to dissuade the voters from putting the focus on Congress.

Shifting Attention from The Rule of Law

This is a smokescreen, and designed to be convoluted:

The lawmakers say a third change is aimed at ensuring that warrantless surveillance of an agent of a foreign power does not include an American. Under the change, the lawmakers said, the administration would be expected to obtain a warrant if the attorney general cannot certify a "reasonable expectation" that the warrantless surveillance will not involve a U.S. citizen. Ref

The above comment means nothing of relevance. Rather than putting attention on the Congress, and forcing Congress to speculate on their future the phony debate has incorrectly induced American citizens to ask the questions which Congress should be asking about themselves:

- Are we the targets of prosecution?
- What about our livelihoods?
- Is our future certain?

The voters do not have to answer any of these questions. The answers are already in the Constitution: They are called defined, protected rights.

Congress has no authority to take them away, debate them, or pretend that it is someone else's problem. Rather, Congress' problem is that it has failed to protect the Constitution.

Congress has no plan or leadership to protect the Constitution. It only has a plan to create confusion, to distract attention from what it has failed to do.

The Constitution Is Clear

CORE ISSUE: 4th Amendment Warrant Requirement

Congress has no power to debate this requirement away, make new rules, or pretend something may or may not happen.

Rather, the issue is the opposite:

A. What has happened. The facts cannot be changed.

B. What laws were violated. The laws cannot be changed. What the laws in the future may look like is meaningless.

* * *

Congress is fearful of accountability. Congress is the threat to the American Constitution. They cannot lead. They cannot debate. They will not focus on reality.

The American government is irrelevant to whether the US Constitution is preserved.

In order to shift attention from (a) Congress' war crimes, and reckless disregard for Geneva requirements to enforce the laws of war; and (b) their reckless disregard for the FISA requirements, Congress has only one objective: To make it appear as though it's debatable, uncertain, and an important matter.

There is no debate. Congress isn't relevant. The relevant inquiry in before an Article III war crimes tribunal. These are not issues of debate and rules. These are issues of criminal law.

Smoke Screen From Congressional Malfeasance

Reasons for SMOKESCREENs:

- A. To distract attention from the already committed abuses,
as was done with the Geneva violations;

- B. Create new rules to debate the rules, not the original abuses.

FISA is clear: Government shall get a warrant.

- Congress and the Executive are operating outside FISA, creating/debating new procedures; rather than focusing on the existing procedures that have not been enforced or followed.

This is by design.

Notice what Congress is doing, rather than focusing attention on the member of Congress, the law, or the illegal activity, the Voters have become the subject of the debate. The remedy to this issue is to make the Member of Congress the subject of the Debate.

It is simple: There is a checklist for your state officials to lawfully target illegal US Government activity; and a series of charges against Federal officials for their illegal FISA violations, and Grave breaches of Geneva.

The draft indictments are ready; the violations are known; the standards are clear. There is no need for any voter to believe that you are lawfully the subject of any review or accountability. Rather, this review and accountability falls on the Member of Congress.

Evaluating American Leadership


___ Is your Member of Congress focusing attention on what is known, or are they pointing to what might be

___ Is your member of Congress pointing to their duties, or shifting the focus to what the voters should or should not be dong.

___ Why is Congress debating new rules, but ignoring the rules that already exist?

____ What is the sense of passing new rules, when the existing rules have not been followed?

___ Why should we believe that a certification of anything in the future will mean anything, when the certifications that have already been required (1) were not done; and (2) the failure to do them, as already required, was never investigated?

Regardless whether Congress does or does not do its job, their oath, and its requirements exist. Justice shall decide whether they did what should be done, or made excuses to avoid what they had no choice to face: Criminal activity.

The American Government Unreasonably Puts Attention On You

Notice what Congress is doing: Making the voters wonder: "Am I going to be a target?"

US Citizen wonders what will the warrantless surveillance will Not involve?

* * *

Rather than Congress being the target of investigations, the Congress has induced the voters to shift attention from the government to "the program" and the intrusions into the voter.

It is time to redirect the attention, and remind Congress: They are the target, they are the ones being monitored, and they are the ones that have the uncertainty.

There should be no question: Congress, not the voters, is the target of this debate, investigation, and future uncertainty.

There is no legal basis to say that Any American will or will not be subject to warrantless surveillance. The Constitution is already decided, and this point is not debatable. Congress has no power, as it illegally is doing, to Amend the Constitution. These are not lawful debates, nor relevant to the Constitution.

Speculation over what may happen in the future is irrelevant; the focus of the Member of Congress, to explain, is why has the debate not focus don the known illegal activity in the past relative to the known standards which cannot be changed between 2001 and 2006?

Inducing Americans To Question Themselves Not Leadership

Notice what the Congress is doing: They're getting citizens to fear what may happen because of what Congress is or is not doing.

What if the monitoring targets an American, as did the phone bill records: what's going to ensure the US DoJ Staff complies with requirement, or ensures that the surveillance activity does or does not violate the law.

* * *

Your fear is unreal. The real problem is the false debate Congress is using to hide their fear: That you will pay attention to them, and make the debate about them.

This Congress has a real fear that they will be held accountable for the laws they have not enforced; and for the laws they have violated; and for laws they have failed to ensure were not violated.

Congress is the one that is fearful.

* This is an oversight issue with management.

* FISA and Geneva already addresses these issues, but were ignored.

The Proper Analysis Is Scrutiny of American Government Crimes

- They've created new issues to debate, as opposed to putting
attention on the core issue with the original violations:

A. Why not followed;
B. When are we going to prosecute them;
C. When is Congress going to debate and review;
D. How do we get the US Attorney and DOJ OPR mobilized to target the DOJ Staff that accepted the original abuses, violations, and did not comply with the requirements; nor did they follow the procedures or waivers to the existing requirements.

Notice the Smokescreen

Notice this false confusion.

They've ignored the existing rules, why are we wasting time and debate on new rules. The goal isn't to resolve anything; rather the goal is to pretend that the new debate, legislation is relevant. Rather, the rules in place 2001-2006 were clear.

* * *

This legislation, however finalized does not change two things:

(1) What happened;
(2) What the requirements were.

What the Attorney General may or may not do in the future is irrelevant. The issue is for Congress to explain why they have or have not reviewed the existing standards relative to what the Attorney General has already not done.

This Congress has no answer because to answer the question would point the finger at Congress: they have failed to assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations, and have not enforced the Supreme Law. They are alleged criminals and complicity with the FISA and Geneva violations. Their lawful penalty, according to the Tokyo War Crimes precedent, could include the death penalty.

Notice the False Debate

It is known the Attorney General didn't certify things. The smokescreen is to debate what that future certification might look like.

The goal of Congress is not to resolve issues, but to create ambiguity. This is not leadership, but the work of criminal defendants. They appeal to confusion because they cannot appeal to the law.

Notice the debate points, all of them are irrelevant to (1) what the rules were, and (2) what was done -- history, facts, and evidence:

US Attorney General
- Certification (What if he doesn't do it?)
- Meaningless (Is this requirement relevant?)
- Not done (What if he doesn't do it?)
- Waived (What if he ignores the rule or says it doesn't apply?)
- Hidden exception to allow a waiver (What if he makes a new rule to justify ignoring the new law?)
- Time limit the same, but still ignored/not enforced/not investigated (What if they make up a new excuses not to do this, then what?)

* * *

Notice the false checklists: Speculating on the future

__ Even if there were a certification, why should we believe it; If there was no certification, who is going to stop it.

___ US Attorney has already failed to provide the Title 28 certification;
requiring him to make another certification is meaningless.

___ He's ignored other certification requirements, no reason to believe this one.

* * *

The Answer

Stop the debate on the law. Focus on the facts. Compare the existing law to what has happened. What may or may not happen in the future is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether these Members of Congress are held to account under the law. Even if the voters miss this, the Member of Congress is ultimately accountable to the law. They have no choice. They can be prosecuted.

The way forward cannot be charged when history is the subject of debate. There is no real debate. The only appropriate task is to investigate.

The debate is a sham to avoid answering what can be decided: What has happened, and what is to be done.

Refocus On What Is Known

Even if he were to make a certification going forward, the certification
is meaningless as to the primary issues:

(1) What was the requirement --

(2) What was done.

* * *

They know they've violated the law. they're creating a false smokescreen
to avoid voter attention on the key issues:
A. Why aren't we prosecuting this issue;
B. The laws were clear and they ignored them;
C. This debate in Sept 2006 is a smokescreen;

Again, the issue of what may or may not be a prospective debate about what could or could not happen in the future is irrelevant. The focus of Congress should be on what is known, and what the laws have been.

This Congress refuses to find facts, and will not compare those facts with the existing requirements.

Debates today over whether the Attorney General may or may not certify something have no bearing on whether the Congress has or has not enforced the existing law. IT has not.

This is An Irrelevant Quandary

The phony debate appeals to confusion. Notice the uncertainty of these points.

Certification: (Will the Attorney General do what he's supposed to do?)

- Cannot certify (What if he can't?)
- Will not certify (What if he refuses?)
- Can certify (What if he can certify, but it is incorrect?)
- Could certify (What if he could certify, but doesn't want to?
- Required to certify, but fails to do so (What if he ignores the law?)
- Has a requirement to certify, but says the requirement does not apply (What if he makes a new rule to create an exception?)

* * *

These points and questions have already been addressed in the FISA law and Geneva Conventions:
A. FISA: This is when to get a warrant, this is what you're supposed to do;
B. Geneva: You have the requirement to treat prisoners humanely at all times; "moderate abuse" is inhumane.

These points are not relevant. Whether the Attorney General in the future may or may not comply with this statute is speculative, and meaningless.

Rather, the only issue is the opposite:

A. What was the law

B. What happened

Relevant Leaders Focus On Reality

Whether the attorney General does or does not have a future
requirement is meaningless to the historical reality:

(1) The law: The existing requirement
(2) The evidence: Conduct contrary to that requirement

There is no debate on the existing Constitution, warrant requirements, or what the Member of Congress and Attorney General responsibilities are under the existing laws.

This Congress, rather than investigate would rather debate. Debating the Constitution is impossible -- it is fixed, unless we agree to change it. We have no agreed to change the Constitution. Rather, the only debate should be on whether the Member of Congress will freely cooperate with the ongoing war crimes investigation directed at them; or whether they will be forced to cooperate through lawful use of force.

The Supreme Law permits the officers of the Court to use force when subduing fugitives. The alleged fugitives are known, and occupy a finite space in three dimensions: They are allegedly located in the Halls of Congress.

The Senate Sergeant at Arms can lawfully seize the gavel, shut down the Senate, and arrest anyone who has violated the Senate rules: That of putting the Constitution first.

It is time for the Senate Sergeant at arms to decide whether he and his staff will like to continue to enjoy public trust; or whether he would like to pretend that a real debate should commence as to his tenure as a public servant.

Where the Senate Sergeant at Arms defies his oath, and fails to enforce the Supreme Law, then a reasonable jury member could conclude that he too was reckless in performing his oath of office, and negligent.

Again, the rule of law is not debatable. What has or has not happened cannot be changed, nor can the governing law adjust.

Point to the heavens: The turn of the sky, the twinkling of the starts, and the movement of the heavens has no bearing on history. The Rule of Law is what is, not what might be.

* * *

The only goal is to create a public debate about the future law, and ignore the needed focus on whether the Congress did or did not violate the law.

Notice the objective by putting attention on the voter, and raising questions whether the citizen-voter will or will not get attention.

These issues, as they relate to warrants, are designed to be meaningless, unclear, and a distraction from Congress, their illegal activity, and the failure of them to enforce the law.

Where there is confusion, this Congress refuses to review the Constitution. There is no reason to put attention on these issues, and the potential risks to eh voter, unless Congress had an answer for why it has already failed to enforce the clear law.

There is No Debate What The Constitution Says

Notice the following issues and points. They are designed to make you question and debate what is not debatable: The requirement that government get a warrant before conducting a search.

These points related to warrants are not debatable, but this Congress pretends the issues are uncertain:

- Expected to obtain (what if . . . ?)
- Choose not to obtain (perhaps . . .?)
- Ignores the criteria on certification (Could this happen . . .?)
- Fails to get a warrant, and ignores the requirement (What if that happens, what will we do?)
- President issues signing statement saying this requirement/standard is not applicable (Is there anything we can do . . .?)
- Congress agrees to something that is not enforced (What if that happens . . .?)
- Congress fails to investigate already breached standards, why believe they're going to review new violations? (What about this . . .?)

* * *

Each of the points (and questions . . .?) has already been decided: It is in the Constitution. There is no debate. The leadership has no option.

In this phony debate, there are no relevant question about the future; the only relevant question is when will the individual Members of Congress be prosecuted for reckless violations of their oath of office.

Congress has no answer because individual Members of Congress are engaged in criminal behavior: Malfeasance, and they defy their oath.

The Rule of Law Is Simple

Again, debating a new requirement is meaningless, and a distraction from:

(1) The existing requirements (the law);
(2) What happened (facts).

The law and facts cannot be changed.

What can be changed are leaders.

* * *

Notice the Common Malfeasance

With respect to Geneva and FISA, the President and Congress have failed to:

1. Engage in Oversight (gather facts)
2. Enforce or follow the law (make changes)
3. Ensure accountability (punish the wrongdoers)
5. Honor their oath (do their job)
6. Deserve American trust (serve the customer)

* * *

The American Government is staffed by incompetent people.

They've changed the subject from whether they did or did not violate the law, to whether the future activity, definitions are or are not sufficient relative to the enemy.

Shifted the debate from the law to whether the lowered standard is or is not adequate to defeat an enemy.

Rasul and Hamdan have already affirmed, as did the FISA court and Judge Diggs that the rule of law, irrespective the capabilities of the enemy, dictates what will happen.

Existing requirements are imposed on the Government, regardless the status of the target, enemy, citizens’ status.

The American government is creating a false debate on whether the enemy does or does not deserve to be treated; or whether the conditions and rules should be changed.

Nothing the US government does, says, agrees to, or concludes will change the existing law; or what has happened when that law was violated.

Congress Defies Its Oath

The Action of Congress shows recklessness. They have clear standards, rules, and requirements, but openly defy them.

Notice how Congress is operating:

- Inability to face reality
- False belief that criminal prosecutors will have no say
- Incorrectly asserting that judicial courts will have no power
- Incorrect assertion that the third branch of government has no say on the matters
- Unwilling to debate the evidence of illegal activity in either the FISA or the Geneva violations.

* * *

This is a leadership problem within the American government.

It is a choice to do what is incompetent.

They are unwilling to change, incapable of change, and have no skills to change.

They are irrelevant to the American Constitution.

Congress and the Executive have no power to dissuade the court or voters from working together to ensure the existing law is enforced relative to the known illegal activity.

What Congress does or does not do in Sept 2006 has no relationship with the law and illegal activity 2001-2006. History is fixed.

* * *

The issue before us is what is to be done. There is no need for concern. For the rule of law shall ultimately hunt down, prevail, and impose lawful justice upon all who defy their oath, breach the public confidence, and betray the Constitution.

Gather evidence, know the rule of law is your shield, as it is now your sword. The Constitution remains in full force. Those who threaten to challenge or defy it should be called hat that are: Criminals, meaningless, and irrelevant.

Those who are relevant will remind your friends that the Rule of Law cannot be taken away with a smokescreen; rather, the smokescreen is evidence the Rule of Law is bearing down, grasping the throats of the Members of Congress, and choking them of their sensibilities.

Their confusion is feigned; the debate is not real; their fear is paramount.

They have no escape. They are doomed. Mock them. They are small-minded, fearful, and unwilling to be statesmen.

Not to fear, foreign fighters continue to assert the rule of justice on the battlefield, the preferred forum of this Congress and Executive to resolve disputes. They have had their chance to assent to the Rule of Law, openly defied the courts, and have illegally attempted to rewrite the law.

They cannot change history. They can change how this continues.

Congress cannot lawfully defy the Constitution, nor seriously pass any legislation that undermines the Supreme Law. Nor may anyone lawfully enforce that law. If they do, they are not legitimate; and it is this lack of legitimacy which inspires the Taliban, AlQueda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the American voters.

Congratulations. Your government has chosen to wage war on your Constitution, not because there is no other option, but because your government has no hope of victory. It is a diseased system, and would willingly threaten to expose its citizens to possible death, abuse, and Grave breaches of the Supreme law for only one purpose: To avoid the Rule of law.

The American system of governance has failed. Members of Congress should soon debate whether they have enough combat forces to defend them. They have none. Their only defenses are the small minded lawyers who lie.

The Rule of Law continues to make conquests within each heart of American voters and citizens. The rule of law is something this government refuses to embrace. This government gladly embraces combat, not the Rule of Law.

They wished this.