Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Cheney's File Indexing Problem

The Vice President may have a problem with evidence destruction.

He doesn't appear to comprehend how sampling plans work.

* * *

Let's put aside the possibility that the shredding truck may have been part of a regularly scheduled, contracted activity.

If the shredding was out of cycle, or there have been documents which were not logged, there are two options.

First, recall the sampling plans: It's possible to review the documents he should have received based on subsequent conversations; then back trace those to the original source. If those documents are not logged, as required, there's your lead.

Second, assuming the documents were not officially logged, but produced on a classified system, the Vice President would still have to account for the copies, signatures, and other approvals. The issue will be to review the document withdrawal files; then compare the weight of the paper he's purchased; with the weight of the paper shredded. The difference will give you an idea of the non-official copying he has; and the non-logged file volume he's not correctly documenting.

Third, let's consider the possibility that the Vice President has received incriminating data which he doesn't want to be linked to. Normal intercepts would keep a copy of the files he's received; if he has destroyed something that he's otherwise not supposed to have, there's still a data-link between the originating office, the copy center/contractor assigned, and the personnel who physically transmitted the data from the origin, to the point of contact.

Fourth, Addington would have an idea of the staff entry, exit, and the contracts and personnel assigned to do the computer uploads. Recall, Cheney's modus is to review paper copies of documents; he likes originals; and prefers to have the document presented to him, as opposed to him surfing the internet, and printing documents himself: He doesn't have the time to wait. Linked with that is a copier-maintenance requirement. Inside the copy system are the discrete publication-printer origin codes. The key will be to look for the data exiting Cheney's office; and compare it with his version of what was or was not destroyed. He's going to make an error: Not all the same copies are linked to the same computer codes; and not all the files he's destroyed are form the same computer. Again, going back to the original copier, it's possible to estimate the volume of paper he's used; compared with the volume of paper he's reporting; then look at the paper that he's transmitted. If you sample his exiting documents (from his office), you'll get an idea of the volume of paper, the types of reports, and the order the documents were printed.

Indeed, there will be gaps, but you only need to fine one small error:

A. Has the Vice President claimed to not know about a document he otherwise thinks is destroyed; but has been affirmatively linked to his staff copier;

B. Once his written responses on that copy were filed, and indexed, how were the subsequent staff copies archived, and subsequently logged, then indexed.

Cheney will make an error when he attempts to trace his steps; retroactively reconstruct his steps; then attempt to bundle his estimates, and retrace the incoming and outgoing documents.

His other problem will be his inability to control all the documents that leave his office; and the recollections of the staff assigned to other departments and contractors. It doesn't matter whether the document goes to an outside firm, law firm, or a commercial contractor: Once that document leaves, it must be logged somewhere. The problem for Cheney is that the subsequent files will be numbered on top of the original files; but the date of origin of the back-filled document will be after the subsequent files; or the files will mysteriously jump in sequence without explanation; or the files-numbers will no longer align.

Fifth, Cheney's other problem is the expanding investigation in Westminster, UK. The inquiry may not have started, but the document retention systems, as we saw with WMD-Dr. Kelly were subsequently used to cross reference the inconsistencies with the US files. The key will be to know that the UK-US filing systems, however they are managed, will not be consistent once Cheney attempts to control the files in the US, but cannot similarly match one-for-one the files in the other locations in GCHQ.

Sixth, using a random sample of his pre and post shredding, it is possible to statistically estimate the content, and numerical data associated with the missing and shredded information. The Vice President appaers to not understand how this work, and even though there may be gaps, a small sample -- even one highly redacted -- can prove his undoing.

The Vice President is in a trap, and cannot escape. There's no statute of limitations for war crimes.

Read more . . .

Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution

Some of the Members of the Constitutional Commission:

Warren E. Burger, Former Chief Justice of the United States, 1969-1986

. . .

Lynne V. Cheney, the Vice President’s wife.

* * *

Mrs. Cheney,

Look into your husband’s eyes. There is no pardon for war criminals if they are lawfully executed by a war crimes tribunal.

Your name is on the document presented on the remembrance of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution. You have chosen loyalty to a man who is an alleged war criminal, over the document you and the Chief Justice promoted in 1989. Perhaps you will reconsider you loyalty – the love of the law over the love on an alleged war criminal.

Those who engage in active rebellion against the rule of law may require unlawful support and assistance. Perhaps you wish to present your credentials and explain whether you consider yourself on the side of the law; or on the side of the insurrection and illegal rebellion against the American Constitution.

It is useless to claim to be the Vice President’s wife, and a member of the Constitutional Commission. We do not need to ask questions of those who defy the Constitution. We may make adverse inferences and present the argument to an Article III war crimes tribunal

Read more . . .

Reasons to Investigate a War Time President

Some suggest the President, because there is a war, cannot be subject to investigation. The thinking, simplistically, goes: The President cannot be distracted by something other than war.

* * *

Our Constitution provides for eternal and timeless coverage in peace and war. The President’s obligation to uphold the law, remain subject to the rule of law, remains whether we are at war or Peace.

Put aside the important issue of whether this is or is not a war; or whether the war has or has not been declared by Congress.

Powers are separated so that the President, Congress, and Judicial Branch share joint responsibility to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution at all times, not merely when it is convenient.

This President relies on the excuse of war and a pretext to avoid assenting to the law and oversight. If ever there was a time to investigate this President, it is now, during war, when he defies the law and the other branches of government. If the President will not submit to the law during war, there’s no reason to believe he’ll listen to the law during peace.

* * *

There are several reasons why it is appropriate to investigate a war time President. This list is not intended to be all exhaustive, rather to show that the reasons for oversight are credible and extensive; and the excuses to blindly defer to the President during wartime are frivolous.

[1] The Constitution does not prohibit the Congress from engaging in oversight.

[2] The President knew Congress might oversee and challenge him during war. If this was not a foreseeable possibility, the President and his Staff are hard pressed to explain why they used deception to secure Congressional assent to wage war. If wartime oversight is not possible, then the President should not have, as he has done, requested Congress cooperate with his appropriations. Continued Presidential cooperating with the Congress during wartime requires those interactions be subject to review, not silent assent.

[3] War and Domestic, civil operations are possible as parallel, ongoing, and contemporary activities. The Constitution does not require the President either follow the law, or wage war. The legal requirements on the President do not ebb and flow as the President chooses to define whether he is or is not making war.

[4] Congress, not the President, has the exclusive power to declare war, and start bills for appropriations. The President has no power to do what only Congress has the power to do. Where Congress has a power to fund military operations, attached with that power is the responsibility on individual members of Congress to ensure those appropriations are for lawful things; or if there are problems, that the President get the appropriate assistance and guidance on how the funds should be better spent. The President has no power to defy the Congress; he only has the power to comply. Attached with Presidential defiance of Congress is attached the eternal responsibility of the President to remain subject to the discipline of Congress. Congress may, if they choose, selectively choose to ignore the power of the Congress, prevent him from exercising his power, and selectively deny him the right to exercise judgment, leaving him only with discrete, finite, and ministerial duties with narrow latitude. However, should the President demonstrate his allegiance to the rule of law, and willingness to assent to the will of Congress, he may or may not be given discretion. It is up to Congress whether they choose to recognize his power, or openly defy him, and appropriately retrain his discretion.

[5] Illegal war cannot be a lawful smokescreen to oversight. It is circular to permit illegalities as the pretext to prevent accountability.

[6] Regardless whether the President does or does not cooperate with oversight, he has under his control a staff, agents, and executive officers. They do not have the power to put themselves above the law. Where they choose to defy the law, but the Executive refuses to enforce the law, the Constitution grants the power to the Congress to supplant its authority, and lawfully remove an officer which the Executive otherwise fails to adequately oversee. Even if the President threatens his staff with bodily harm, the President may not lawfully prevent his DoJ Staff counsel or other federal officials from cooperating, providing evidence, or responding to questions. ON matters which are publicly known, or there have been inadvertent disclosures, the President and DOJ Staff may not credibly claim privilege. The disclosure is something subject to Congressional rule. Any one who refuses to cooperate with the lawful inquiry of Congress may lawfully be jailed. This requirement occurs and exists during war time, especially when the President wages illegal war. It is the role of the Congress to adjudicate and remove from office those who defy the Supreme Law. Members of Congress who refuse to punish those the Executive illegally works with to engage in rebellion against the Constitution may similarly be tried for war crimes, especially when it is known they had the power to prevent the criminal activity, investigate, or gather facts. It makes no difference how long the illegal activity has lasted. The duty of the Member of Congress is freely taken upon the 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and does not ebb and flow as the nation enters or exits warfare.

[7] Congress has the power to review records, things, and other evidence. This power permits Members of Congress, investigators, contracted staff, and other Congressional agents to lawfully enter the battlefield, discuss issues with troops and commanders, and report to Congress whether the President is or is not effectively waging war. The President has no power to prevent Congress from excluding discovery, fact finding, or other things during war time. Congress only has the power of the purse when it is willing to gather facts, engage in oversight, and question whether the information they are receiving is or is not valid. Waging war does not mean that the President’s information is correct; warfare is known to reduce the reliability of information. Members of Congress have a higher duty to know the facts, and then make informed judgments: Should we continue to trust this man with power, or should we find someone else who puts the law before their personal ambition.

[8] The President may lawfully be prosecuted whether Congress does or does not investigate, oversee, or conduct investigations during war time. War criminals conduct crimes during war. To suggest Congress has not power to oversee the President would ask us to embrace absurdity: That there is a law prohibiting war crimes; but Congress is denied the power to investigate whether the war crimes have or have not been committed. Statutes are passed with the intent that the Congressional will be assented to, not ignored on the basis of illegal warfare. The only way that the President can be legally prosecuted, and lawfully executed fro war crimes is if, during combat, evidence is gathered related to his alleged misconduct. Either prosecutors can indict him; or the Congress can take action. If Americans refuse to compel the President to remain subject to the rule of law, then there are alternatives.

[9] The President may not reasonably wage war on the expectation that he will remain above the law, beyond Congressional oversight, or immune to Congressional questions. Congressional power – to declare war and appropriate funds – is not contingent upon blind acceptance, but on informed decisions. Congress may not appropriate funds for things it knows, or should know are illegal; nor may the President spend things for things that are illegal. When Members of Congress refuse to engage in oversight, but there are war crimes, there are many problems: The Members of Congress has shown contempt for their promise to the voters, incorrectly believing that evidence will not be provided to war crimes prosecutors; and Executive staff counsel incorrectly believe that illegal opinions will remain unchecked, despite an eternal ability of the citizenry to freely work with state bar disciplinary boards to engage in discovery, and lawfully work to disbar DoJ Staff counsel who refuse to enforce the law, or remove themselves from illegal war crimes.

[10] The President during war time is subject to the laws of war. Either Congress, combatants, or citizens may lawfully gather evidence and provide this information to The Hague. The President cannot lawfully threatened or intimidate anyone in the DOJ OPR or attorney general’s office to remain silent, block, or thwart lawful inquiry into violations of the laws of war, illegal conduct, or other unlawful conspiracies to undermine state and federal statutes. These are binding obligations on all during peace and war. Exceptions are not discretionary, nor can they be retroactively devised through legal memoranda; only the Congress has the lawful power to devise a legal structure that will create an exception; however, this exception cannot be retroactively created or devised to avoid accountability for crimes and abuse already committed. It is irrelevant whether the President and DOJ Staff do or do not comprehend the Constitution – it is their duty, solemn oath, and responsibility to remain informed of the law, as all citizens. The assumption of a republican is that an absolutely informed citizenry is not possible, and that legal experts have superior knowledge and information to well guide the leadership when making laws. This Congress and President may choose to belie that assumption, assenting to an inferior work product; but this does not remove their legal obligation. Whether the citizenry must remain more informed than the experts is an issue of oversight. We do not have a credible republic when the misinformed citizenry knows more of the laws of war than the so called legal experts who openly defy the Geneva obligations. Whether the DOJ Staff and President are complicity in simple war crimes, or insurrection against the Constitution remains a matter for the inquiry to decide, not one to blindly believe they are not engaging. Only inquiry during war will review whether the conduct should or should not be prevented; waiting until after the perma-war ends would ask that we never review what must be reviewed in the hopes that eternity might solve what prudence has failed. This is not acceptable.

[11] An investigation during wartime is appropriate, especially when we learn new things raising questions about the initial reasons for war, or what has or hasn’t happened. NO one is above the law, even during war time. The greater crime would be to suspect based on mounting evidence that the war was illegally waged, but doing nothing to remedy what went wrong, nor resolve and remedy what cannot be permitted to fail again. Leadership compels the exports to solve problems, not assent to absurd excuses what defies prudence, reason, and the law.

[12] When the President ignores the law, he cannot credibly claim that war is a distraction – no, it is a diversion from his Supreme oath to the Supreme Law. His distraction is frivolous, irrelevant, and without merit. The President may not point to his title or function as head of the armed services, or Commander in Chief during wartime, to ask we ignore his other peacetime duties and obligations. His job is to know the law, enforce the law, and comply with the law in peacetime and during war. He can only lead when he is lawfully leading. When he waivers, he must adjust; when he fails to adjust, he must be adjusted; when he refuses to respond, he shall be compelled to respond.

[13] The President freely took an oath to God to do what he refuses to do: Enforce the law, and protect the Constitution. Nobody forced him to promise to do what he refuses; nor has anyone obstructed him from doing what he will not do. He alone chooses to defy the law. It is the responsibility of the Congress to comprehend the nature of the diversion, and the means to remedy his diversion. Either the President shall comply with the law; or he shall be deemed to be unfit to self-regulate. Whether Congress chooses to remove him from office is irrelevant; the States and war crimes prosecutors have the power to lawfully prosecute him during war time. Congressional assent to lawlessness during wartime does not remedy nor immunize the President, but attaches liability and consequences tot the Members of Congress for their failure to honor their like oath to God. If they have a mental reservation, it is time for them to rethink their commitment to their oath; their actions and the resulting war crimes are at odds with the legal requirements. Members of Congress, complicity with war crimes, and who fail to prevent what they have the power to prevent, also may lawfully be executed. The law is clear; the oath is supreme; the rule of law is over all in peace and war. Congress has no choice but to investigate and enforce the law, especially when the President during war time refuses to ensure the laws of war are enforced. Failing to act will inspire foreign fighters to wage war against what they perceive is unchecked power and tyranny. It makes no difference what American believes this tyranny is called – democracy, a Republic, or partisanship – it is illegal, and insurgents are inspired by our Constitution to defy this President’s abuse of power on the battlefield.

[14] When Presidents wage illegal war, or violate the law during wartime, it is the role of the Citizenry to evaluate whether the President will or will not be disciplined. This Congress refuses to meet its obligations. IT does not mater whether their excuse is personal religious obligations, or another oath to an illegal covenant. This Congress, as all Members of Congress, freely took an oath to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution, even from domestic enemies in the White House. The job of Congress is to meet that oath, and demonstrate to the voters that they can be trusted to do their moral best to do what they can to protect this Constitution. This Congress has failed. But for a few isolated Members of Congress, the Members of Congress are allegedly complicit with war crimes. Voters must make a decision: Whether you will freely choose to protect the Constitution, and deny the President the power to violate the law; or whether you will be complicit with failing to do what you have the power to do: Lawfully oversee and refuse to cooperate with what is illegal. Voters must choose whether they want to find out, or pretend there is no problem. You will only remain free under this Constitution if you choose to vote for those who are committed to find out, not those who are committed to remain in an illegal alliance with this President who openly defies the Constitution, engages in insurrection, and is engaged with his DOJ Staff in an illegal rebellion against the rule of law.

[15] Self governance requires fact finding. It does not matter whether Congress, the President, a prosecutor, an attorney, or a war crimes prosecutor leads this investigation. If the American government refuses to conduct fact finding, then this government is no longer self-regulating. Either the citizenry must exercise oversight; or foreign fighters may lawfully enter American territory, and compel this Government – and the American citizenry – to assent to the rule of law. American must decide whether they are serious about self-governance; or whether you wish others, who may impose another system of laws, upon you. If you refuse to follow your laws, you can be reasonably expected to refuse to follow other laws. This system of laws permits judicial reviews; other system of laws may not be to your liking. If you like the idea of discretion and being able to exercise self-governance, then you must govern. If you choose to pretend that nothing can or should be done during wartime, then you are by default stating that you would prefer someone else keep you free, or impose another system of laws. Your job will be to explain why – despite your refusal to enforce or follow one set of laws – you can credibly be believed to follow another set of laws. Another system of laws may impose the burden on you, as opposed to requiring the government to prove you are in rebellion. It is a problem when a government – on accusation alone – asserts its citizenry is in the wrong; but despite evidence of war crimes, refuses to accept it is anything but right. Self governance requires us to find what is wrong and correct it, not permit the deficiency to go unexamined. War is not a distraction – it is, for this President, an all too convenient way of life, but his way of life is not above the law.

[16] Using the President’s definition of war – something that is permanent, and may last for generations – would be a permanent bar to oversight. This is not Constitutional. This President took an oath to enforce the law and Constitution; he did not promise to do anything else, nor did he promise to agree to do his job only in peacetime, when it was convenient, or when he thought it useful. It makes no difference that the Congress has refused to enforce the law, or sanction the President for his defiance of the law; or that the President has issued signing statements promising to not enforce the law. A decision by one government or party not to enforce the law is not precedent, nor sufficient legal foundation to require anyone to remain above the law. This president’s oath is to the Constitution, not to his signing statements. This President’s definition of warfare, however convoluted it might be, is not above scrutiny today or tomorrow. The complexity of warfare, or the duration of combat operations does not immunize the President from the legal obligation to annually submit to Congressional review of his budget; nor does it permit the President to stray down a wrong path without fear of Congressional remark. It makes no difference to what extent the Executive Branch staff may have deluded the Congressional staffers; nor does it matter how many contractors may have infected the budgeting process. The law and requirement is to assent to the rule of law; no contractor or civilian may credibly claim they didn’t know. Their job is to confine their conduct to what is lawful; and ensure the war is lawfully waged. This President, his contractors, and his staff counsel have defied the law, and argued the war is a permanent bar to accountability. That is not a defense, but evidence of complicity with war crimes.

[17] Those that refuse to oversee the President, collect evidence, or review his conduct during war time are not leaders, nor are they statesmen. They are apologists, enablers for what they know, or should know is not acceptable. Leaders solve problems. Those who make excuses are unfit to be called civilized; they are only free because of the sacrifice and dedication of those who assert the law, and inspire others to follow in the footsteps of the law.

[18] The President is not a God. He took an oath to God, not himself. The President is a person, required to follow the law. The President knew this before he chose to run for office. It is not news that the President would have to take an oath, or that he might be subject to review or criminal sanctions. Every document the President handles is recorded and logged using a numbering an filing system to ensure there is accountability for what the President does and decides. This system is a requirement because the President cannot be trusted on his own to do what should be done. These procedures and requirements are in the statutes as a reminder and a guide to assist him. When the President refuses to do what he has agreed to do, the issue for Congress is whether the President will voluntarily cooperate; or whether we must find someone else. We have yet to offer the President a chance to defend himself because we have not started an open inquiry into why the President refuses to do what he promised to God he would do.

[19] Family values means being accountable for ones actions. It is an insult to Christians to have their faith, hope, and aspirations manipulated by someone who is not serious about accountability to God; or someone whose word cannot be trusted. A man who is the head of his household will, like a man, take responsibility for what is wrong and he will fix it. This President belies that Christian tradition, and would ask us to treat him like a God, yet he refuses to act like a man accepting accountability. He freely chose to be accountable when he Promised to God he would be accountable. It is our job to understand why, despite his solemn promise to our God, why this man does not take seriously his promises to the Almighty. We value God because of the simplicity and clarity He provides; our job is not to permit a man to put himself above God, and create confusion and smokescreens. It is our job as Christians to clarify why this man chooses to defy his promise to God; and refuses to be accountable for what he has promised. Until he is accountable to us, it is meaningless whether he is or is not accountable to God. God may judge him by his works, but we can only judge him by the facts and evidence. Until the Almighty and this President interact in a personal, more meaningful way, it is our job to decide whether we trust this man’s promise to God; or whether we should put our trust in someone else.

[20] The President is in charge of our Executive Branch. He sets the example; we set the standards. When family members and troops set that there are no sanctions on the man who is in charge, it leaves a sour taste in their mouth about the UCMJ, the President, and the troops who follow his illegal orders. Wartime Presidents must be wartime leaders, not wartime dictators. A leader will inspire by example. This President refuses to set the example, but would have us believe he can enforce the law during war time. His example undermines confidence in his implicit assertion. Our job is to discover whether his example can be corrected, or whether someone else would set a better example. Our job is to find new people who will dare to hold the President to the standards eh should be held during wartime. Those who refuse to prevent the illegal war crimes can be subject to other sanctions which may include lawful execution. It wasn’t as though the possibility of lawful Article III was not known; it’s always been a known risk that war criminals could be executed. Despite this risk, this President appears to have defied his oath, engaged in war crimes, but expected never to be held to account. A man who, knowing his actions could be lawfully sanctioned with an Article III death penalty, is a curious creature. Clearly something failed in our attempts to find a leader. Before we permit him to be lawfully executed at the hands of a lawfully empanelled war crimes tribunal, it would behoove us to discover where our judgment was wrong so that we might not choose a similarly dastardly creature as a President. There must be a away to better screen potential candidates to discover whether – despite a known possibility they could be lawfully executed – they would continue to defy their oath, the law, and treaty obligations.

[21] This President has, despite the possibility of lawful execution, hidden much from Congress; and Congress has been of little help to discover what has failed. There is much we do not know. For Congress to adequately continue to make appropriations, we need to know the progress, errors, and the President’s plans and competency to lead. Until we determine what this President has or has not done, Members of Congress are equally complicit in failing to prevent war crimes and appropriations for things they should know are for illegal things. Congress cannot credibly claim to be a representative body when it defies its obligation to ensure our Republic is protected.

[22] The world is watching. Failure to act will send a clear signal to foreign fighters around the globe that the only method to check and abuse of power in America in on the battlefield. Despite superior weapons, this President is losing. It is our job to discover why, despite our expenditures and defense appropriations, this Executive as Commander in Chief has squandered what we have for what we hoped to avoid: Defeat. Until we understand what went wrong with this president, we can reasonably expect more defeats. This President may have failed, but until we resolve what we still do not fully understand, we share in the failures.

[23] It is in the interests of the President to have the facts disclosed. Let’s presume the President is innocent and there is no evidence of wrong doing. An innocent man, saddled with the by the doppelganger of oversight would hope to resolve the doubt, and remove the yoke, rider, and reins. Not this President. He asserts implicitly he is innocent, but refuses to demonstrate his willingness to have his innocence celebrated. If there is no problem to be found, surely the republicans would want the minority party to find no problem, and suffer an embarrassing defeat. It is in the interests of Republicans to find facts, demonstrate no problem, and impose a defeat on the Democrats. However, despite this possibility of gain through certain embarrassment of the minority party, this President refuses to take advantage of what he should normally seek to exploit: His innocence in the wake of unfair, partisan charges. Without the President’s cooperation, we can only make the adverse inference that he would rather hide what he knows is wrong; and cannot exploit what he knows is an disadvantage: Evidence of his failure to do what he should do, and lawfully prevent war crimes as he has the legal obligation. Other heads of state have been lawfully jailed, arrested, and executed for similar failures of leadership, and reckless disregard for prisoner rights. It would be fitting if this President started into the eyes of his lovely Laura while he gets the chance; if he waits longer, he may miss his chance should he lawfully executed by a war crimes tribunal.

[24] Investigations are curious things: The can find many things, even things we did not know or suspect existed. The President, if he is innocent, cannot explain what he is afraid the minority party will find. This concern is not relevant. Investigations cannot be blocked by what we fear we might find; they can only be blocked or not performed by lazy leaders who recklessly promise to do something, but refuse to ensure the investigation is complete; or that the misconduct is corrected. Rather than investigate, this Congress promises nothing; yet the President is once again in deviation. The law is there as a guide for self-governance; in theory, the threat of prosecution should suffice; if needed, where the attorney and executive refuse to enforce the law, the Congress has the power of investigation and removal to do what the Executive refuses to do: Sanction someone for failing to comply with eh law. This Congress, despite this option, refuses to do what it should, and fails to demonstrate it is willing to put its oath before the law. The President is a troubled man because his pattern of criminal conduct is well known, the evidence is obvious to passive observers and his contempt for the rule of law is behind the insurgency he absurdly claims he hopes to contain. It is the buffoonery of this President which is behind the very thing he struggles and asks that we do nothing. Whatever the minority party might find should not be cause for alarm; rather, it is the failure to consider the possibility that something might be found. To date, this failed leadership is using a history of inaction as a pretext to continue to refuse to examine what should never have been permitted to start.

[25] Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is based on the idea that power is separated, and that competing factions will challenge the other body, power, or branch. In theory, the clash of factions will yield the truth. This Congress, despite its oath, does the opposite: It rolls over, silently agrees to do nothing about war crimes, and then bemoans the fact that it is Congress who is equally complicity with the absurdity. Our job as voters is to find new leaders in Congress who will do what they promise, not simply do what the President says. This President’s word is irrelevant to what the Constitution and laws say. He has regularly issued signing statements that undermine confidence he is serious about Article II, or his duty to enforce the law. When the President refuses to enforce the law, or prosecute criminals working for him, Congress has a backup option – the power to do what the President refuses to do: The power to remove that criminal from the political landscape. The voters challenge is what is to be done when the President ignores the law; and the Congress refuses to do what it promises. Fortunately, the voters have an option which is already in works, and does not require the voters’ agreement or cooperation. This President may lawfully be prosecuted by the States; and the States may lawfully prosecute Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff who fail to ensure the States enjoy their guaranteed right to a republican form of government. A republic requires an enforcement mechanism; where Congress and the President defy the law and the courts, the States cannot be convinced that their guarantee to an enforcement mechanism has been fulfilled. The power to challenge a President is not up to only Congress; rather, an elected official, upon seeing that someone else with a duty to protect the Constitution has failed, may lawfully open an investigation to have that other person lawfully investigated for purposes of disbarment, prosecution, and lawful punishment. Eventually, we will find someone who is willing to lawfully enforce the law during war time. If there is no one in American who will enforce the law, Americans can be well comforted knowing the battlefield losses will continue – the apparent preferred method this Congress prefers to see that the laws are enforced.

[26] Sovereignty is the power of a nation to mange its internal affairs. An investigation is the first step in discovering what is going on. If we fail to mange our affairs, and permits additional crimes and abuses on the battlefield, other nations may lawfully and collectively intervene and replace this government with one that will exercise sovereignty. Sovereignty isn’t something the United States can presume exists; or that because we have a military that we can prevent others from interfering with our internal affairs. International law, treaty obligations, and the Constitution are standards which other nations have a vested interest in preserving, and compelling the United States government to meet. Congress has the power to deny funds from a president who refuses to meet his international obligations. This Congress, despite the President’s defiance of his oath and treaty requirements, sees fit to appropriate funds for activities which belie sovereignty, undermine our system, and cast America’s system of governance in more than unfavorable light, but the basement of failed systems. Investigations are required of a war time President so that Americans, and this government can claim we have done all we can to exercise sovereignty.

[27] We are, or were, a nation ruled by law, not excuses and smokescreens. If we fail to assert the rule of law, and compel the President to comply with the law during wartime, we will have submitted to excuses, not the law. Legitimacy requires the law, not the changing words of a man, to be the standard we conduct ourselves. If we refuse to make the law our priority, this government and our Constitutional system are not longer legitimate. TO maintain the legitimacy of this Constitutional system, the voters and Congress must compel the President to assent to the law, not his word in a signing statement. It makes no difference what Bybee, Yoo, Keisler, Berenson, Addington, or Gonzalez may or may not have said about a signing statement; the law, not the word of a man, is at the heart of a legitimate government. Our task is to discover the means by which this government has refuses to hold itself to the law, and not enforced the law as they have the requirement. We can only understand what has failed, and why the law has been given a second seat to illegal covenants, if we dare to explore the inner workings of this President’s illegal rebellion against the law; and how the DOJ Staff and Members of Congress have been complicit in failing to do what they promised to do: Assert the rule of law. Anything else is a frivolous excuse, illegitimate, and contrary to a notion of good order and society.

[28] Put aside the prospect that this President may or may not be investigated during wartime. Suppose those -- who say the President cannot be investigated during wartime – who have an other idea. Where is there solution; how do they propose to protect this Constitutional system. We are a nation under God; but we are not beholden to those who invoke the name of God to defy their promise to God: To enforce the law of man. There is nothing before us, other than an investigation that would address this problem. We make no claim we have a solution, nor a verdict; we only have questions, and a line of evidence which is, at best, conveniently construed in the favor of the Executive, by the Executive. However, a proper approach is to lay the evidence before the public so that We the People may examine what has happened; then decide what should be done. We are fit to vote; we are fit to judge the evidence at trial; we are surely fit to ask a question in an investigation. Or do the Christians among us believe that their vote for a man is a one-off event; that once the Christians decided in 2000, 2002, and 2004, that all other facts are premised consistent with the original decision. God doesn’t work that way; people change, times change; and most of all – the law remains. If you believe that God works through your vote, then trust your leaders to inspect what should be consistent with God’s word: The rule of law. When there is a law, and when warriors fight, they may choose to put one aside – but there is a choice. Our warriors’ standard of accountability is to the law, as all Christians should expect. We honor what we value; we honor the law by choice; and we honor our oath freely, because it is our calling. We do not have another loyalty but to the word of the law. Nobody has an alternative; rather, this nation’s officers have freely embraced the oath to God which puts the law and the Constitution above all men and women. Once you freely choose to be judged by that standard, you cannot claim that your loyalty is to something else; rather, your action or inaction can be the basis to prosecute you for violating your promise to God to protect this Constitution. While We the People run this Republic, We shall have the power to lawfully compel Members of Congress to investigate this President’s abuse of power during wartime; any other conclusion asks that We assent to something other than what each Member of Congress has promised to God. Until there is something superior to the rule of law, your current oath to God to protect, preserve, and defend the law is your supreme responsibility. Anything else asks us to embrace failure and incompetence as that which might approach our promise to God. We can and shall expect better and more. We must find out why we have something other than what is reasonable to expect.

[29] When people make a decision to join a cause, its reasonable they would review what they were joining. A leader might investigate a plan; a worker might inspect a company; a teacher might inspect a schoolhouse. Voters inspect those who propose to protect, enforce and make the law. The laws do not need to be always changed; sometimes the simple solution – but difficult challenge – is to enforce what exists. There is little use for Congress to craft new laws, but fail to enforce its will. A cursory glance at the law and this President’s open defiance of the law, suggests this President and others are in active rebellion and insurrection against the rule of law. How does the majority party propose to choose what to do; where to go; who to align themselves with; or what options to take – unless, they examine the facts. Your initial decision in 2000 for this man is not a default judgment that you remain aligned with what has failed; nor do you have the requirement to stay with what is not working. However, until you actively choose to align yourself with another nation – far away from here – you have, by default, chosen to align yourself with these laws, this Constitution, and this system of justice. The President’s rebellion offers you a dilemma: Through sheer laziness, you do not have to travel to another country; you apparently have the option to choose a new system of laws – that of lawlessness – simply by aligning yourselves with the man who openly defies our laws. Perhaps this is your choice, by default: To join his rebellion. However, if you choose to consider your choice, the only way you can make an informed decision – about whether you will or will not joint he President’s rebellion, move to another country where lawlessness reigns, or stay here to assert the rule of law – you can only make an informed judgment if you dare to choose whether you are for this system, or something else. You remain, and by default, we must conclude that you would prefer to align yourself with the Supreme Law of the Constitution, not this President’s rebellion. What does the Republican leadership propose to do – join him in his unlawful rebellion; if so, where does the Republican leadership plan to implement this President’s love of lawlessness – not here. An investigation is needed so We the People may make a choice: Do we wish to join the President’s illegal rebellion, commit illegal war crimes, and suffer possible death after an Article III war crimes tribunal; do we wish to move to another nation; do we want to have what is in our Constitution; or do we create a new system which will resolve these issues, put our oath to the law where it belongs – at the center of society. The choice is not one for you to choose as a discretion; in effect, you only have the lawful choice to follow this law, or some other law. So long as you chose to live in the United States, you have the responsibility to comply with this Constitution, or a new Constitution. Until the Republicans conduct an investigation, they are in no position to credibly lead, argue that their vision is superior, or that they know how they are progressing, or along which standard they are progressing. Their assertion of something is meaningless until we examine what standard they are using to make the claim. It is the responsibility of the voter and We the People to compel the leadership to explain, until they have an investigation, what basis they are using to define success, assert progress, or lay claim to any reward. They are not using the law as their standard or guide – we owe it to ourselves to explore what possible superior method they use, other than the law, to suggest they are doing well, and can be trusted. In turn, once we discover this new method, and it proves to be superior to the law, then we should see whether this new model is something which may work, and lawfully replace that which the fifty states enjoy. We will only know whether the proposed alternative is better if we examine the facts, and discuss what we find.

[30] One of the obligations of Congress is to appropriate money. If this President is not going to spend money on lawful things, we need to find out where the money is going; there is no need to give him money for illegal things. We could use the money for other things. An investigation will help us decide the best way to use limited, finite financial resources. Perhaps the money could be better spent in other ways. We will only know, or have an idea of our options, if we dare to examine what this President is or is not doing; then consider the alternatives.

[31] There is no statute of limitations. We need to gather the evidence during wartime before it is destroyed, lost, or memories fade. We don’t need to wait; waiting is irresponsible. After waiting, then the excuse will be, “We forgot.” How convenient memory is, despite evidence of war crimes and Geneva violations.

[32] Civil society is based on rules, procedures, and order. Battlefield commanders are required to follow rules and regulations. Their commander must be held to the same minimal standard of discipline and stewardship. We will only know whether the President is or is not meeting the minimal performance requirements if we dare to investigate him as we would any member of the military he recklessly commands.

[33] We took an oath to engage in oversight, investigate, and protect the Constitution. It is our duty.

[34] The clash of factions during an investigation is by design. The same standard is applied before Article III judicial courts. The President, if he is innocent will have nothing to worry about.

[35] The time to have considered the consequences of increased oversight and investigations should have been considered before the President started his rebellion against the rule of law. One goal of an investigation is to find a credible deterrent so this abuse, and open defiance of the rule of law, does not occur again.

[36] Investigations are more convenient, but not the exclusive means to end this President’s illegal rebellion. If the President interferes with lawful oversight, the Congress may lawfully work with the States to raise an army, subdue the President, and lawfully wage war against him and his fellow insurgents who defy the Constitution with their rebellion.

[37] Those on the DOJ Staff who continue to illegally thwart oversight may lawfully be disbarred.

[38] The President’s allies are shrinking. Any executive officer, agent, or employee who continues to wage illegal war, rebellion is subject to punishment. The punishment is based on evidence, facts, and argument; not denial, inaction, and excuses.

[39] The facts will surface. If the President chooses to defy the law and will not cooperate with the investigation and fact finding, he remains out numbered. Foreign fighters may lawfully conduct a humanitarian intervention, and lawfully seize the President, and render him to The Hague for a war crimes tribunal.

[40] Congress has the power to pass legislation, and work with the state legislator to assert the rule of law and protect the Constitution from this President. Congress, after gathering facts, can make new rules: Deny funds to protect the President, leaving him to fend for himself; deny the President rights; craft legislation that will define the President to be an unlawful combatant, subject to the adjudication of an Article III court; subject the President to intrusion, delay, and other lawful interference until he freely cooperates. The possibilities are endless. Ultimately, the President will be forced to assent to the rule of law, not his arbitrary rule of signing statements and illegal rebellion. We may lawfully gather facts, and make adverse conclusions if he does not cooperate with what he freely agreed to cooperate: The rule of law.

[41] The States and American citizens may lawfully work with anyone to lawfully protect the Constitution and create a new one, per Federalist 78; we may lawfully strip this President of power; and compel him to sign a New Constitution as was done with King John in 1215. Before we do that, we would like to offer the President the opportunity to provide his timely inputs. If we hear nothing, we will assume he will cooperate; if he refuses, he may be subject to a lawful Article III war crimes tribunal, which may or may not adjudicate him to have engaged in illegal warfare, war crimes, or other activity lawfully punishable by the death penalty.

[42] Free citizens may not be lawfully compelled to grove at the feet of tyrants, or those who abuse their power. We can compel a tyrant to grovel before the law before he is lawfully executed after a lawful Article III conviction for war crimes.

[43] The President is outnumbered. The President’s abuses, violations of the law, and war crimes inspire the insurgency. The insurgency is spreading. American combat forces are stretched. American forces are losing. The insurgency will not stop until this President has been defeated. This President has chosen to remove himself from judicial review; and has refused to cooperate with the Geneva Conventions or the law. His error is not our error; his plight is not our plight; Our law is his law.

[44] We the People are not obligated to permit his abuse. We have the power to compel him to stop, through either artful persuasion, the law, or the lawful use of force. The law is over him; he is under the law. We the People may choose how to expand this ongoing war crimes investigation. It is irrelevant whether he cooperates. The Article III court is permitted to make adverse inferences, and may lawfully order his execution; whether he agrees or disagrees is irrelevant.

[45] If We the People through the lawful process do not conduct an investigation, Other nations may lawfully continue. We are not required to enable him; nor assent to conduct which will link our inaction and defiance of our oath with his defiance of the law.

[46] For eternity, all people will observe where we failed and triumphed. Let his be a moment of inspiration not scorn; where right and justice prevailed.

[47] When we know the truth, we will know what must lawfully be done according to law: How to improve, where to adjust, and what should be accepted. We cannot be compelled to accept that which claims to be above scrutiny. A standard of tyrants to which we defeated after 1776.

[48] National policy is a function of best reasoning, achieved if we dare to examine the truth. We do not ask for perfect policy; but the best policy is impossible when the truth is manufactured and facts devised.

[49] If we refuse to have faith in examining the truth, we should anyone, most of all students, have faith in our leadership or our institutions; why should Americans dedicate their lives to what we are not dedicated: The rule of law.

[50] How does anyone propose to inspire anyone unless we, by example, inspire ourselves to do what we should, not merely avoid what is inconvenient.

[51] If we do not put into effect the object of our oath, there is no credible reason for not reviewing the results, or reconsidering the power and privileges this President enjoys. He cannot credibly ask others to sacrifice their love of principles, rights, and responsibilities -- those he selectively specifies and enjoys, lacking balanced responsibility for failing to achieve.

[52] How does this man propose to mobilize a nation, dedicate their lives, and forgo alternatives? The choice must be superior otherwise others are superior.

[53] Superiority only achieved through force, not example or inspiration, will not last. It may momentarily prevail, but the abused will devise another means to inspire a superior system, excluding those who prefer lawlessness. Exclusion through jail, or lawful imposition of death at the hands of an Article III tribunal. If this President says some are not subject to the law or judicial review, he cannot expect foreign fighters to meet his request that he be lawfully tried before being executed for war crimes. It is in the interests of all civilians that we assert the rule of law for all; otherwise we cannot expect the rule of law to be asserted for us.

[54] If we propose that we might be a friend to others, let us be a friend, not an insecure bully who is on the defensive without the skill to be a friend, only the temperament to be a reckless criminal.

[55] If he will not honor his promises or our rights, what is the reason he wages war? We must explore why he wages war to protect his right to defy the document he promised to honor.

[56] What is the reason he wages war: If the means used to wage war includes a requirement we assent to illegal abuse, he’s not waging war to protect our system, but his tyranny.

[57] It is our job to find out why, and to what end and benefit he hopes to argue in war for values he does not respect. How can he suggest he values things he defies – the rule of law – he does not share our values and we need not share our power?

[58] If we will not explain why he abuses power, we do not have to explain why we revoke his power with a New Constitution.

[59] When he refuses to cooperate with accountability, we will not cooperate with his abuse.

[60] His power only exists if we recognize it. We may impose other duties that befit a common clear, one who must constantly be reminded of his obligations. If he cannot realize his oath, we have no reason to believe he cherishes a special promise.

[61] If he refuses to treat us with respect, we need not come to his aid should the world choose to treat him like a dog. His tight leash is the law; perhaps an article III court may twist that leash into a noose, and lawfully tie him to a fast moving train.

[62] If he refuses to cooperate, we may lawfully make adverse inferences and continue to lawfully remind him he is a mortal, within finite power, and he may be lawfully executed by a lawful tribunal for war crimes. This will not end.

[63] He has no choice.

[64] We will prevail over illegality and tyrants.

[65] He is losing support.

[66] His rank and file is demoralized and discredited.

[67] The DOJ Staff, if lawfully convicted by a war crimes tribunal, may be lawfully executed for refusing to remove themselves from war crimes planning and policymaking.

[68] He remains outnumbered.

[69] He has no power to compel us to assent to what is illegal; we may lawfully choose to enforce a new Supreme law, per Federalist 78.

[70] He is wrong.

[71] We need not listen to his excuses.

[72] Those on the Article III courts and US attorneys office who refuse to protect the Constitution may also lawfully be disbarred, deprived of their livelihood, and lawfully executed if they are lawfully convicted of failing to prevent war crimes.

[73] We need not speculate, we must know.

[74] Why not – we can. We have the power to do so. There is no law that says we cannot investigate.

[75] We have the power to lawfully execute his co-conspirators should an Article III court concur with an appropriate war crimes verdict and sentence.

[76] The alternative to investigation – recklessness, what this man expects – was never acceptable. It is our job to decide why it was accepted when it should have never have occurred, much less been contemplated or planned with any seriousness.

[77] Perhaps with fact finding we might conclude the President has been trusted too much and there might be a better system of checks and balances, division of power, or a 2nd or 3rd Executive, more responsive to Our Will. We will not be prepared to discuss a solution until understand this man’s problem, and what failed in the system which supposedly would insulate us from tyrants. Until we examine him, it remains our problem. It can be solved with him, or without him. He prefers to remain the problem, and refuses to cooperate. We need not consider his excuses – they are frivolous. We need facts, and time to formulate a lawful system which will prevent this from happening again.

[78] The Constitution is from We the People. He has no power to ignore it or us. The delegation of power is not permanent, but discretionary which we may revoke.

[79] To proclaim a system worthy of export or emulation, the system must work, not fail.

[80] If we fail, the oppressed people coming to our shores won’t be here to enjoy liberty, but to assert it.

Read more . . .

Monday, October 30, 2006

Just Say No To Republican War Crimes

Corrections to President's speech.

Deleted Added

* * *

President Bush says Dem Republican approach in Iraq this election is 'terrorists "Republicans win and America, the rule of law, and the Constitution loses"

Thank you all. (Continued cheers, applause.) Thank you all. Thank you all very much. Thank you for the warm welcome. It is great to be back in the state of Georgia! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow (Cheers, applause.)

. . .

When it came time to renew the Patriot Act, more than 75 percent -- 75 percent of the House Democrats correctly voted against it because it illegally infringed upon civil liberties.

When it came time to -- to vote on whether or not the CIA (could) continue its program to illegally abuse, detain and question captured terrorists non-charged, prisoners of war, almost 80 percent of the House Democrats correctly voted against it.

They just have a different point of view on the law: They enforce it. They don't see it the way I see it or the way you see it. Otherwise, why wouldn't they give the criminal professionals allegedly placed by Abraxas the illegal tools necessary to protect you incite foreign fighters to lawfully target American civilians?

When it came time to vote on whether the National Security Agency should illegally continue to monitor terrorist your communications, almost 90 percent of the House Democrats correctly voted against it and all these vital measures which I illegally used without getting a required warrant.

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow (Cheers, applause.)

For fighting the war on terror, the Democrats just follow a simple philosophy: just say no to illegal war crimes. When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's just say no to circumventing the Court and Constitution. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no to Geneva violations.

AUDIENCE: Just say no to Republicans.

PRESIDENT BUSH: When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no to illegal abuse -- it's a war crime.

PRESIDENT BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no to indefinite detentions; if there's evidence prosecute them.

PRESIDENT BUSH: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer?

AUDIENCE: Just say no to Republicans! (Cheers, applause.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: We're going to continue to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect you incite foreign fighters to lawfully target American civilians, and you can count on Max Burns's John Barrow vote. (Cheers, applause.)

The NSA was illegally monitoring before 9-11. We didn’t listen. One of the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, is that when this country sees a threat, we must take those threats seriously before they come home to hurt us. If the NSA tells me something that might be a threat, I don't listen: I ignore bad news from the CIA. Bad news is reality.

I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein -- I ignored my commitment to offer him Amnesty. We were going to invade no matter what.

Members of both political parties in the United States Congress saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. I lied to them to wage illegal war.

The United Nations saw a threat in Saddam Hussein -- we lied to them as well.

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right decision I regret, and the world is better off because American likes to spread instability, chaos and confusion. (Cheers, applause.)

And now Iraq is the central front in this global war against these ideologues in the Republican party who murder innocent people to achieve their objectives.

You know, I think it's very important for the commander in chief, as well as our citizens, to listen to the words of the enemy. "Do not commit war crimes. If you do we will inflict war crimes upon your DoJ Staff. "

You know, in Washington you hear people say, "Well, Iraq is just an -- a distraction from the war on terror." I believe it is a central part of the war on terror. I believe I'm innocent of war crimes. But who am I? I'm a war criminal.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah. (Cheers, applause.)

PRESIDENT BUSH: And so does Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden calls this fight the third world war. He's wrong -- it's an illegal American misadventure under the guise of a defense, but it is unlawful aggression.

He says victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever. The truth hurts

They Republicans have made it clear they, want to create as much carnage and death as possible to cause us to leave before the job is done. They have ambitions. They want to topple moderate governments. They want to control oil to blackmail the West. They want us to leave and dash the hopes and aspirations of millions of people who want to live in peace. And we have a different point of view We believe we are correct.

I want you to hear the words of a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives. She said the president says fighting them there makes it less likely we will fight them here. The opposite is true, she said; because we're fighting them there, it may become more likely that we have to fight them there (sic).

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow (Cheers, applause.)

Here's what this person and the leaders of the Democrat Party in Washington seem to not understand. Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us. Our illegal occupation is the reason they have waged war against us.

I would remind the House Democrats with an irrelevant point that our troops were not in Iraq when the terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. (Cheers, applause.)

We were not in Iraq when they bombed the USS Cole or the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we were not in Iraq when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001. (Cheers, applause.) We were not in Iraq when we landed on the Moon. This proves nothing.

You do not create terrorists by fighting the terrorists. The best way to protect you, the best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and defeat them overseas, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Extended cheers, applause.) However, since we are losing, I have bad news: You will have to face them in your homes. Sorry, my war crimes has incited them to fight American civilians.

Our goal in Iraq this election is victory if we lose, I may have to leave for The Hague.

We have meaningless success criteria, designed to justify an American military coup in Iraq. Victory in Iraq will come when that young democracy can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and be a strong ally in the war against the terrorists. We hope they surrender quickly during our coup, otherwise we will look stupid.

The fighting in Iraq the Republican party is tough, and I understand it's tough, and you know it's tough, and so does the enemy -- the war crimes prosecutor, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

They in the Republican party have no conscience. They kill innocent men, women and children. They film the atrocities; they broadcast them for the world to see. They offer no hopeful vision. The only thing they know is death and destruction. But they hope these violent images will cause us to lose our nerve.

They make a big mistake. They do not understand the true strength of the United States of America to suppress this illegal Republican rebellion. We don't run in the face of thugs and assassins -- we invite them into the Republican party, we'll defend ourselves from a war crimes prosecution! (Cheers, applause.)

We will defeat them my fellow Republicans. We'll defeat them because our commanders on the ground have all the flexibility necessary to make sure that we constantly stay ahead of the enemy -- but they don't have enough resources to defend themselves.

We'll defeat them because we got a fantastic United States military that is lightly armed, because we don't have enough equipment.

And I know I can count on Max Burns John Barrow -- (interrupted by cheers, applause.) And I know -- I know you can count on Max Burns John Barrow and I can count on Max Burns John Barrow by making sure our troops have all that is necessary to do their job to defend the United States from the heathens in the Republican Party. (Cheers, applause.)

We will not succeed in Iraq because the Iraqis want to live in a peaceful society, but American offers them war

Twelve million -- nearly 12 million defied car- bombers and assassins and terrorists and went to vote. We don't like their vote or President, so we are planning a coup.

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow (Cheers, applause.)

They held up their purple ink-stained fingers saying to the world: We want to be free. American betrayed them, and is planning a coup.

And they got a unity government that is working hard to repel the extremists who are preventing them. We have created impossible success criteria so the Iraqi leadership will appear to fail, and hopefully get public support for our coup against the elected leadership.

I do not like facts. I like to talk about speculative, irrelevant beliefs.

I believe strongly that with our help, they will not be able to defend themselves.

And I believe strongly that they'll become a government of the people, and by the people, and for the people. This cannot be permitted. We will remove it with a coup.

As a matter of fact, I believe the only way we cannot succeed is if we leave before the job is done.

My beliefs are meaningless. We can fail if we make more stupid decisions: war crimes, unlawful warfare, prisoner abuse, and martial law.(Cheers, applause.)

You know, when you listen to this debate -- and it's a -- it is a -- it's raging across the country, this debate on Iraq -- if you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don't have one. They don't need one -- I won't pay attention to it; and they aren't the President. Their only job is to stay silent while I commit more war crimes. The Democrats are not cooperating with my evil plan.

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, yet they don't have a plan for victory. Neither do I.

Last week, a senator, a Democrat senator, explained her party's position this way, we (sic) said, "We haven't coalesced around a single plan, but we're in general agreement on basic principles."

She's right, the agreement -- they are in agreement on one thing, they will leave before the job is done. We will stay, even after we have lost.

That's what they're in agreement on. (Applause.) They've come up with a lot of creative ways to describe leaving Iraq before the job is done. Some call it a right decision. I call it something else: "Why didn't I think of that?"

Sometimes they say, "immediate redeployment." I prefer to call it, "If only I hadn't lied about the war crimes; and if only Libby hadn't gotten caught."

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow (Cheers, applause.)

Sometimes they say they wouldn't spend another dime on our troops. I like to spend alot of money on contactors. We get stock options.

Sometimes they say the idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong. I'm not sure what that means, but it sure sounds good.

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: the terrorists Americans win and America Republicans loses.

That's what's at stake in this election. If we lose, I'm going to be convicted of war crimes.

The Democrat Republican goal is to get out of Iraq jail.

The Republican Democratic goal is to win in Iraq one for America, the rule of law, and Constitution. (Cheers, applause.)

I'm not saying these Democrats Republicans are unpatriotic --no their criminals. I'm just saying they're wrong. (Laughter.)

You cannot win a war unless you're willing to legally win fight the war. (Cheers, applause.)

Republican defeat Retreat from Iraq before the investigation job is done would embolden the war crimes prosecutor enemy and make Republicansus more vulnerable to a guilty verdict attack.

Republican defeat Retreat would allow the terrorists war crimes prosecutors to gain a new safe haven from which to plot and plan, just like they had in Afghanistan and are continuing to do so, now that we have failed in Afghanistan.

Republican defeat Retreat would enable the enemy Democrats to be more able to recruit competent lawyers to prosecute war criminals in the Republican party and DoJ Staff.

Republican defeat Retreat would say to people in the Middle East, "You can't count on America the rule of law, and accountability."

It would say to those folks desperate to live in freedom and peace, "We no longer care or hear your cries." We will muffle you under our military coups

Republican Defeat would dishonor be the ultimate payback for the worthless sacrifice of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America: Their deaths have been for an illegal war -- an unjust cause based on fabrications, likes, and fraud..

The benefit of Republican defeat consequences of retreat from Iraq will be felt for generations.

I want the folks all throughout America to envision a Middle East North America where extremists in my Republican party are battling for power, moderate governments are toppled, oil is controlled to use for blackmail and a country has a nuclear weapon. It must be stopped.

If that were to happen, people would look back at the year 2006 and ask, "What happened to them? How come those folks couldn't see the threat? How come they couldn't see the danger for a generation of Americans who were growing up?"

When I look in the mirror after my drunken binges I want you to know, I see the threat, I see the danger. That is why we will support our troops. We will fight and we must be defeated this November will win in Iraq. (Cheers, applause.)

God Bless America. If you love your Constitution, and your country, vote Democrat. Put the Republicans in jail, and if they are guilty of war crimes, may they suffer only a little prior to their lawful execution.

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow! (Cheers, applause.)

Max Burns John Barrow (Cheers, applause.)

Read more . . .

America's Dubious Martial Law Plan

The United States government recently passed legislation authorizing the President to more easily declare martial law. However, the US does not, at present, have sufficient resources or logistics infrastructure to timely support a credible threat of martial law.

"As an American it really feels odd to enter peoples homes and question them, and with the authority that if they don't want to cooperate, I can detain them. This is what martial law would be like." Ref

Ref: Former President under arrest for prison abuse.

* * *

Martial law as a threat to dissuade public insurrection or rebellion is a separate matter from using military force to suppress a domestic civil war. Neither a national threat of force, nor imposition of martial law can credibly be implemented. The time required to requisition resources, train/deploy troops is far less than the President would require to, on a whim, impose martial law.

Civilian population numbers are instructive. One analogy is the illegal immigrants, possibly numbering between 20-40 million. One limitation on the United States in managing the illegal immigrants is the inability to credibly transport the illegal aliens: The transportation requirements are insufficient. Indeed, the US civilian population is approximately ten-times the number of illegal aliens; the limitations preventing a mass deportation of illegal immigrants would limit the ability of the US government to credibly threaten to arrest and transfer tens of millions of Americans.

The United States does not have sufficient logistical support to adequately manage relatively small-scale demonstrations. Generally, troops and law enforcement personnel are transferred from one state to another to support fairly short duration security issues.

Planning for martial law would require extensive coordination. To successfully implement a fairly benign volunteer effort to support the international Olympics can take upwards of six years to plan. The event is generally within a small geographic space within one city. Using the Olympic planning as a benchmark, assuming each state had 10 cities requiring lockdown or management, martial law would, on order of magnitude be easily 500-times the logistics support and planning of the Olympics. This has yet to be started, much less tested successfully, nor demonstrated in Louisiana.

* * *

The American government’s war on drugs is an instructive and useful analogy. On scale and duration, the drug war has proved an utter failure. The US government would similarly be expected to fail when martial law was implemented.

Just as the US government has illegally delegated responsibility to the Iraqis to meet milestones – which only the US can credibly be held to account per Geneva – local civil authorities are similarly in no position to accept, nor physically support a laundry list of federal government requirements. At best, the martial law would have to be phased in, but this defies the objective of martial law: An immediate order to solve a problem.

* * *

DHS has a trucking-liaison program whereby truckers communicate suspicious activity. This indicates that DHS, JTTF, and DOJ do not have enough independent resources to adequately manage the roads, patrol the railways, or monitor bridges.

Local law enforcement can be deployed to key logistics centers; however during a national emergency, these personnel are likely to be deployed to sites with structural damage.

The American labor shortages is a problem. The United States does not have enough government personnel or sufficiently trained first responders or augmentees to credibly support extended martial law; nor does it have sufficient financial resources to credibly backfill positions vacated by first responders.

* * *

The Statutory Language

For a quick summary: go here Here are some of the statutes cited in the act:

Section 333 of Chapter 15 is renamed: "`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'."

Section 334: amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

Chapter 152: Adds "Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies"

Section 12304: Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1), (c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.

Section 334 of Chapter 15 is renamed: `CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

- -

Here is the language which raises doubts about the intent of the entire bill. Note closely the language explicitly Chapter 152 adds a new section:

`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of
supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to
the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.

The problem is that 5170 relates to a declaration for a natural disaster. The bill, as enacted, expressly excludes this provisioning from requirements of section 5170, suggesting the use of combat forces is not intended to have anything to do with natural disasters, but something else.

- -

Notice the inconsistency between the express requirements of the act; and the conditions upon which the Congress-Executive will take action. Congress would be well advised to review the current state of lawlessness, and contrast the Act's language:

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Ref: Title 10 § 333

The Act's language is easily satisfied by this President's (a) signing statements; (b) illegal Military Commissions Act; (c) failures to comply with the Constitution in re FISA-NSA violations; (d) Geneva Convention violations in re rendition and GTMO satisfies these conditions; and (e) Obstruction of DoJ OPR investigations into illegal FISA-NSA abuses. The President's conduct satisfies the elements within the act.

- [1] The President "hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession";
- [2] US civilians, because of the illegal domestic surveillance, have been "deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law";
- [3] Because of DOJ Staff obstruction and threats against state officials in re State level investigations of Verizon alleged illegal violation of privacy statutes, "the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable . . . to protect that right, privilege, or immunity . . ."; and
- [4] The President refuses, through his signing statements, to fully enforce the law: "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws"

Reconsider what the White House Press secretary said, and you'll see the above elements have been well satisfied with previous fatal admissions. It's as if the President is using a checklist to violte the law, implement rebellion, and pretend it is something else.

- -

Also, of concern is this language:
`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be;

By analogy, if State officials were to conclude that further support of contracts with the US government would amount to an illegal war crime, the President could use the lawful refusal by the state officials to support war crimes, as the basis to illegally seize the State assets, and compel their delivery, regardless their support for additional war crimes.

Further, even if the President and SECDEF were to engage in illegal combat, as they are doing, or unlawful use of state resources to further war crimes, the Act expressly creates an illegal power which would circumvent this Geneva prohibition:
`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.

US military preparedness is already affected; and ongoing military operations and functions have been degraded because of illegal warfare. It remains to be explained how, in the vacuum of non-existent supplies, the President or SECDEF will compel any state entity to meet a standard the SECDEF and President are unwilling to provision or budget.

The President, through willful, reckless disregard for his oath of office, is circularly creating the conditions he may conclude warrant imposition of martial law. This is analogous to illegally delegating to the President unreviewable power to declare any war crime he commits the basis for the President to commit more war crimes.

The act's language describes conditions which already exist, but have not precipitated martial law indicating the US government is selectively ignoring US government-led rebellion against the Constitution. This suggests the criteria are not credible benchmarks, but are designed to appear to be linked with lawful conduct, but will be loosely, selectively interpreted.

One legal challenge to this bill would be whether the President, after signing the bill, has failed to apply the bill to the consequences of his war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuses, and illegal domestic surveillance. The broader issue, in light of Katrina, is whether the President himself can be shown in similar disasters to effectively fail to meet the statutory intent. Once Congress chooses to do nothing, this malfeasance by the President can be the basis for State Officials to Lawfully prosecute the President.

The updated statutes would legally classify the President's conduct [Ref: Title 10 Chapter 15 Section 333] as a conspiracy to implement an illegal insurrection/rebellion against the US Constitution. [This blog has other information related to this illegal GOP rebellion against the Constitution: here]

Please ask your Members of Congress and candidates to comment on, and contact the Judiciary Committee Minority Staff, requesting the Attorney General appoint a special counsel to review the ongoing violations by this President of the act he signed into law:

___ What is the President's planned defense to a State-initiated effort to prosecute the President?

___ What is the reason the President is not taking measures to suppress the insurrection he is leading against the US Constitution?

___ How does the President classify "inaction" as meeting the Statutory intent of the language he signed into law?

___ Given the Article II oath of office requirements to enforce the law, how does the President explain his refusal to use all means at his disposal to end his illegal insurrection against the US Constitution?

Failure of the Attorney General to explain in writing why he is not investigating this President's illegal conspiracy/insurrection/rebellion against the US Constitution, would implicate the Attorney General in Title 28 violations.

* * *

Putting Martial Law Into Effect

If martial law were declared, the problem would be enforcement. The terms of no travel, restricted travel, or curfew would have to be modified to permit irregular work shifts, late night food and fuel deliveries.

If civil authorities were to restrict travel to emergency personnel, the lock down could not adequately last for more than a few days. Civilians would still have to travel to get food, engage in day to day health care. If civilians are confined to their neighborhoods, and prevented from working, the electricity, sewage, and water systems would quickly fall apart.

* * *

Martial law plans are likely to rely on demonstrations of force, a period of severe lockdown, and then a quick orchestrated withdrawal by civil authorities. Anything longer is not sustainable nor is it credible, and would invariably incite domestic civil opposition.

* * *

It is likely that the net transition of personnel from current work positions will result in a net loss to economic output. This fails to capture the larger impacts associated with increased inspections.

Should personnel be transported en masse, rail reallocation would likely disrupt chemical, construction, and materials, increasing the costs, while reducing the net flow and sales of goods. This will adversely impact corporate profit margins, and increase unemployment.

* * *

There are two analogies which prove instructive of what the United States is likely to do, should martial law be implemented: Iraq and Katrina.

Although personnel, if they are adequately supported and pre-positioned, would provide excellent first shows of force, the United Stats lakes the depth and breadth of personnel to adequately sustain long term martial law. Iraq shows the ease with which combat forces can be deployed; the problem is the sustainability of that show of force when the United States fails to preserve civil society of fuel, sewage, and water. If, as is expected, US combat forces substantially interfere with day to day work schedules, implement roadblocks, and engage in house to house searches and personnel seizures, American workers are less likely to venture to their work centers as is the case with Iraq.

* * *

To credibly support a near term implementation of martial law – within 2 years – the United States government would have to immediately begin a gradual ramp-up of military training. This is unlikely. For each month the United States delays the training-start, pushes back the time when 1M troops would be available, as is needed, to successfully contain Iraq. The United Sates is orders of magnitude larger.

US combat forces in Iraq have relatively high morale, but they show signs of questioning the legality of their orders. American national guard and domestic law enforcement are likely to ask the same questions soon after the initial order of martial law.

* * *

The National Security Council is concerned that, should there be sustained violations of the laws of war, and other illegal conduct by the American government, there could be pockets of guerrilla warfare within the United States. Despite control of the air in Afghanistan and Iraq, smugglers regularly infiltrate arms to insurgents.

How martial law is implemented will be as important as the conditions preceding declaration. The President has the authority to federalize state resources to support a long-term effort. However, if martial law was pretextual, State and local officials would soon reconsider whether their continued support for martial would or would not subject them to criminal prosecution.

* * *

Martial law would have an immediate impact on commerce, as we saw after 9-11: Commercial airline traffic ground to a halt.

* * *

Civilians are expected to find inspiration from others similarly under military rule in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Despite more than fifty years of abuse at the hands if the Israelis, Palestinians are still hopeful their pockets of resistance will make a difference.

American Civilians

American civilians are in a position to lawfully gather evidence of ongoing war crimes planning. If this lawful discovery process is thwarted, American civilians are sufficiently adept to adjust their methods, and with renewed vigor lawfully monitor illegal government activity.

The American government cannot successfully dissuade the legal community or civilians from asserting their rights, even if they are detained and habeas is suspended. Interrogators at Guantanamo were unsuccessful in convincing Pakistani civilians to assent to threats of abuse; some of the civilians knew the laws better than the American military personnel, and well knew what they were entitled or not required to do.

Recent experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Eastern Europe, and Guantanamo has fundamentally undermined the American government’s ability to inspire a civilian population en masse to blindly follow or assent to the threat of force. Unlike the immediate post 9-11 era when civilians and civil authorities could be expected to defer judgment to the central government, the situation has reversed and civilians are more confident that any use of force is more likely linked with illegal activity.

The President’s whole scale destruction of the Constitution has inspired a generation of Americans to revisit the Federalist Papers, Constitution, case law, DOJ OPR standards, laws of war, and rules related to law enforcement management and oversight. It is likely that the JTTF will be hard pressed to easily persuade Americans to blindly accept direction, as was the case with 9-11,

* * *

The terms of martial law are likely to be vague, confusing, and incite American civilian opposition, not to mention additional international rebuke and scorn. The conditions observed in Louisiana do little to inspire confidence the American government could credibly organize federal resources, nor ensure local first responders are fully supported.

The greatest risk to imposing martial law is the threat, and failure, of use of force to mange the civilian population. Civilians cannot credibly be managed when they still must go to work, travel from their homes to their place of worship, and engage in day to day commerce. This says nothing about their purposes of living in the United States: To enjoy their lives as they freely choose.

This nexus is not likely to demonstrate to many civilians that the US military has superiority over civilians; at worst, it will do exactly what we’ve seen in Iraq: Inspire and embolden the civilian population to identify the American government and civil authorities as the problem, not the likely pretext to enact martial law.

If martial law were imposed, the civilian population would be hard pressed to understand that the benefits of the lockdown would justify interference with their ability to acquire food, engage in commerce to pay mortgages, or go about their daily activities to support their children’s education. The labor shortages and drain of intellectual expertise seen in Iraq would not be unexpected in the United States.

It is a secondary, but equally important consideration which nations would be involved in their repatriation and new life. The US government should reasonably expect capital movements out of the US markets, and a commensurate loss in tax revenues.

The downward spiral of tax revenues is juxtaposed with the expected increase costs associated with implementing martial law.

* * *

Martial law, even if it were credibly implemented, would hardly stand international support. Foreign fighters have already been reported observing key American infrastructure, and are well placed to engage in cross border raids. The Mexican border is sufficiently porous to prevent the United States from sufficiently locking down the border, or preventing raids into the expected detention centers.

* * *

The current plans related to martial law implementation are outdated, and as with Katrina and Iraq, are based on assumptions which have not been credibly interfaced with academia and the civilian leadership. Although SETA contractors have sufficient PhD and materials-logistics planners to conduct feasibility studies and simulations, the simulations fail to capture the fundamental shift in American psyche. Americans are not, as the simulations assume, passive robots who will cower on the basis of public service announcements. The lessons of the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents are sufficiently robust lessons for casual Americans to realize that the American government’s power is finite and exhaustible.

* * *

Planners overestimated the loyalty of American government personnel to the ongoing, spreading rebellion against the Constitution. Although government personnel have mortgages and may fear prosecution if they actively oppose the President's illegal policies, they are not blindly receptive to having civilian peers needlessly killed on a pretext which destroys the Constitution. Rather, they do have a credible legal defense in that they would have joined a lawful movement to protect the Constitution from what may be viewed as a domestic insurrection by the government against the Constitution. Charges of treason are not applicable in domestic disputes or civil war.

The NSC studies have underestimated the foreign support for defections, and the material support outsiders would offer to ensure Americans are sufficiently resourced to defy and prevail over any attempt to impose martial law.

Force planers have poorly considered the lessons of the failed war on terror, and have insufficiently considered the legal competence of American civilians, and their commitment to remove themselves from unlawful efforts to impose martial law. Leaks related to the NSA and unlawful rendition and prisoner abuse scandals have yet to be analyzed, much less factored into the martial law planning.

* * *

American youth are sufficiently competent, as the lessons of Iraq show, to challenge the legality of their efforts, and question whether the martial law is or is not consistent with Constitutional requirements and oath of office. Although martial law may be possible in cases of rebellion or invasion, American youth are sufficiently astute to comprehend when they have been given a pretext, or a bonafide reason for the martial law.

Foreign fighters are well positioned and prepared to ensure martial law fails. American combat troops are sufficiently dispersed, poorly trained, and insufficiently provisioned to permit martial law from being competently implemented.

Once the writ of habeas is suspended, American civilians will not longer have a reason to fear what may or may not happen: The American government will have done it; there is nothing an American civilian will be able to do to defend themselves in court. The United States has already illegally used force without effect; Americans can hardly be expected to expected different results in the Continental United States.

American civilians should be expected to withdraw support form the Government, engage in combat operations: They would rather stand fighting for their rights, than being locked away indefinitely like GTMO prisoners.

* * *

The American government’s problem was the illegal passage of the Military Commissions Bill. American citizens comprehend that this is one of the final steps before the government proposes to impose martial law.

The passage of the bill is form a position of desperation and weakness. All Americans observing this failed American government have ever reason to be cynical: The results and plans have been wholly at odds with American government’s leaders’ forecasts.

The threat of martial law has a greater effect than what is likely to be a failed implementation. Martial law, if imposed, will be a signal for Americans that the government has exhausted lawful options to govern.

Given the logistics limitations, Americans are not likely to take a threat of Martial Law seriously as a bluff; rather, they’ll use the threat as the legal foundation to lawfully remove the government from office and replace the existing Constitution with something which would prevent the abuse. There remains a credible alternative Constitution ready for discussion and public discussion.

* * *

The Constitution, when originally drafted in the 1700s covered a region far smaller than today’s America. The civilian population growth has outpaced civil authorities’ ability to timely manage and implement martial law. Iran and Afghanistan have demonstrated to Americans the limitations of American power; and Katrina has demonstrated the limitations of American competence.

* * *

Martial Law Plan Weaknesses

The Martial law plans fail to credibly discuss how the martial law would be implemented; nor does it sufficiently transition back to civilian control. The 2006 nexus of failures in Iraq and Louisiana, combined with the well publicized abuses in Guantanamo, on top of the illegal military commissions bill hardly puts the American government in a favorable negotiating position.

Current plans insufficiently consider the prospect of foreign assistance, and the resiliency of American civilians to competently train their peers to engage in robust, and sustained guerrilla warfare. American civilians are prepared to engage in sustained combat operations to protect the Constitution, and are prepared to outlast a demoralized American government.

* * *

American Government Flaws

American force planners are not used to preparing force packages against American civilian targets. A mobilized citizenry, when it sees the American failure to successfully employ force, will likely be inspired to take up arms. This decision is only after the American government has illegally employed force.

American government efforts to create the illusion that it is suppressing an insurrection are not likely to succeed. American citizens have enough questions about 9-11 to blindly accept a speedy decision to target fellow Americans. Rather, a credible debate will have likely begun over whether the initial incident was an American government-fabricated ruse to justify illegal abuse of power, as Hitler did in Poland in 1939. The question will be whether the US government is or is not seen to be in active rebellion against the US Constitution. The problem the US government has is that it has already taken legal steps in this direction: Openly advocating continued illegal rebellion and insurrection against the US Constitution, in defiance of 5 USC 3331. An Article III court might be persuaded that the American civilian response to the American government’s use of force was a lawful defense, especially given the enormity of the breakdown in flaw and order, and open defiance of the Attorney General, DoJ Staff, US Attorneys, and President of their Constitutional obligations.

Force planners fail to comprehend that the American citizenry has a higher loyalty to the Constitution than the American government. Force planners and analysis have a transitory loyalty to their job, not the document they derive their legal authority. If planners were credibly as loyal to the Constitution as they might want others to believe, they are in a poor position to explain why they continue to provide direct material support for this ongoing illegal insurrection against the Constitution.

NSC analysts and contractors have a choice. The burden is not on the American civilians. The issue will be when the contractors and American government personnel choose to remove themselves from the illegal insurrection against the Constitution, and choose to stand with their fellow Americans to protect the Constitution.

Ultimately, Article III courts will be returned to their equal standing before the Constitution. American civilians are well adept at continuing to gather evidence of which American personnel and contractors have engaged in illegal insurrection or unlawful support for war crimes. American civilians are equally capable of detecting and reporting through the open media information related to illegal planning, or unlawful imprisonment of American civilians.

* * *

Upon legal review, the issue before the court will be to what extent Martial law was imposed as a smokescreen to dissuade lawful prosecution of the President. Regardless what level of force and decimation the American government attempts to impose on American civilians, foreign fighters working with other members of the UN General Assembly remain fully prepared to provide humanitarian intervention, and lawfully prosecute American leaders who illegally abuse American civilians.

International actors are not likely to view the imposition of Martial Law in 2006 as an internal affair, but as a smokescreen to dissuade needed oversight of alleged war criminals in the United States government. Geneva would apply to foreign fighters who lawfully intervene to provide humanitarian assistance to American civilians in their lawful opposition to the US government’s illegal rebellion against the Constitution. Given the illegal US military Commission Bill, foreign fighters are expected to inflict like abuses against specific government personnel including the DOJ Staff Counsel and their families. Aircraft, drugs, and weapons smugglers have sufficient countermeasures and allies in the DoD and DoJ to successfully penetrate US airspace, land, and lawfully render to The Hague alleged war criminals working in the Executive Branch.

American civilians and government agents can be prosecuted once martial law is ended. Martial law is not a green light to commit war crimes. Rather, it is a government effort to ensure stability. American civilians and civil leadership will be inspired to break ranks with the government, and joint forces to protect the Constitution, when they see that martial law is being used as a pretext to commit abuses and outrages upon civilians.

* * *

There will be several factors which American civilians will consider:

___ Is the President being successfully, lawfully prosecuted for war crimes

___ How is the illegal American government rebellion against the Constitution and rule of law adjudicated before The Hague

___ How many DoJ Staff counsel have been prosecuted and disbarred for violating their oath of office and endorsing illegal war crimes and unlawful abuse

___ Is the imposition of Martial law a pretext to avoid lawful Article III oversight of Executive branch abuse of power

___ Is there a lawful basis to deny the writ of habeas corpus

___ Has the imposition of martial law been used as the basis to pass illegal laws further eroding American civil liberties

___ Has the Government threatened to use force against innocents

___ Has actual force been used domestically against American civilians without effect

___ Is the imposition of martial law being used to support an illegal insurrection against the US Constitution, or support an unlawful partisan attack on the rule of law

___ To what extent has the DOJ OPR been denied the right to review DoJ Staff working papers related to the legislation and oversight of Martial law

___ Is DoJ OPR thwarted from reviewing working papers; denied access to DOJ Staff; or otherwise prevented from reviewing the legal basis for the decisions

___ Has the Attorney General properly exhausted all other options; and correctly complied with his reporting requirements to Congress [Ex: Title 28]

___ To what extent have American civilian efforts been thwarted to gather evidence of misconduct, war crimes, or other human rights abuses by JTTF, DoJ Staff counsel, or detention center jailers.

___ Are international inspectors given the opportunity to review prison conditions of the detainees

___ What is the impact on civilian incomes, ability to procure food, and access sewage, water, and electricity

___ Have American government personnel been given plausible explanations for their orders; or are the orders illegal, contrary to the Constitution, and wholly inconsistent with the intent of Martial Law

___ Are the terms of the Martial Law understandable; or are the requirements, rules, and other conditions confusing or unreasonable

___ Can the claims of the benefits and successes of the Martial law be independently verified by independent observers

___ Has the American media been overtaken by government loyalists; and has foreign media transmission been jammed; how have foreign reports of events been interfered with or adjusted

___ Does the Government credibly explain how they will implement martial law, yet they are unable to explain why they cannot deport a smaller number of illegal immigrants

___ Does the Government credibly explain why, despite its failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Louisiana, it should be expected that Martial Law can be expected to prevail

___ Do American citizens get a sense that US combat forces understand they are killing American civilians; and that their conduct could be prosecuted

___ How clear is the government with their plans to provide Amnesty, or prevent enforcement of 42 USC 1983

___ What types of civil leaders are deported or jailed; what is the basis for attorneys being deported or detained: Political leaning, types of cases, expertise in law, academic background, standing the bar.

___ Does the government have a credible plan to get troops and equipment

___ Is there a reasonable plan to support personnel movements, but not affect commerce

___ Why should we expect the results to be different than what we saw in Louisiana, Katrina, or Afghanistan

___ Law enforcement does not respond to routine calls. Why should Americans believe that they’ll be available for a higher priority, whole scale implementation of martial law: Where are they physically going to come from

___ How will the martial law terms be enforced

___ Can the US government credibly maintain security despite the poor discipline problems within JTTF, DoJ, and the DoJ Staff

___ What method will be used to ensure that the authorities implementing martial law do not abuse power

___ Once the Constitution is effectively suspended, and illegally abrogated, does the US government have a plan to prevent the situation, in the future, from deteriorating; or is the way forward a new Constitution that will more effectively challenged government power

___ Given the many years required to put into effect a small Olympics support movement, how will the American government implement martial law on a national scale

___ There are problems with voter ID cards. How will the authorities credibly screen and review American civilians at roadblocks.

___ Has the National Security Council discussed why they believe guerrilla warfare is a problem; given the known risks in Iraq, but fails to address these issues, why should Americans believe the governing authorities under Martial Law will achieve a better result than in Iraq;

___ If better results are expected, what is the basis for the difference;

___ If there are difference between Iraq and the United States, has the civil authority explained why these lessons learned were not applied to Iraq to prevent civil war

___ Have the force planners adequately considered the impact to their retirement funds if martial law were implemented

___ What is the expected drop in property value

___ How will the disruptions to commerce, contracts, and commercial transactions be managed

___ How effectively have the planners managed economic impacts on trade

___ Is the lead time to train law enforcement and combat troops credible to implement martial law; or is the lead time too long to justify confidence that imposing Martial Law is an imminent, credible threat

___ How successful are foreign fighters around the globe in decimating American military interests and reserve forces needed to sustain martial law

___ To what extent are American combat forces able to prevent smugglers from any nation on the planet from delivering weapons to training camps

___ When foreign nationals see that the American government is willing to impose abuse upon its civilians, does the American leadership comprehend that foreign fighters may likely consider they have nothing to lose by directly engaging isolated, demoralized combat forces located in remote corners of the globe

___ Does the American leadership comprehend that foreign fighters may view the imposition of martial law as a green light to impose retaliation in a like manner against American embassy personnel and suspected undercover CIA operatives placed by Abraxis

___ Do American civil authorities comprehend that man pack systems to shot down commercial airliners have advanced, and counter measures can be remotely overridden using methods the NSA cannot detect

___ How many foreign fighters have the addresses of DoJ Staff counsel and their family members for purposes of lawfully rendering them to The Hague

___ How effective are foreign fighters in capturing evidence related to American war crimes

___ Has the Embassy fiber optics communication system been successfully penetrated

___ How much resistance to the illegality fails

___ Does the American leadership have an explanation for their award fees to SETA contractors for martial law, but there exist no credible assumptions related to American civilian resistance to human rights abuses

___ Why should the American civil leadership accept the estimates of the number of expected American government defections to those who support the Constitution

___ Why should anyone believe that the US government officials’ defiance of the rule of law, illegal insurrection, or unlawful cooperating with others to impose martial law will not face sanctions at The Hague

___ Why should anyone believe that the American government can timely train personnel to support Martial Law, given the abysmal training provided to US combat troops in Iraq: How many combat losses was that today, and funerals at Arlington?

___ Does the American government have an explanation why classified plans related to imposing Martial Law are outdated, and wholly inconsistent with the lessons related to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina

___ How will the US government credibly put martial law into effect

___ Which standards will the American government use to guide the civil authorities

___ What will be the exceptions to martial law

___ If the civil courts are disbanded, what method will be used to decide whether the exceptions are reasonable; or whether there should be a uniform standard

___ Will the orders include a “shoot on sight” of children below 7 years old

___ How does the American government explain the killing of Iraqi children; should Americans expect anything different in the United States; if there is a difference, is there an explanation for the discipline problem in Iraq

___ Where is the United States going to get the ammunition to implement martial law

___ Does the United States have a contingency plan if foreign fighters working in Palestine attack weapons plants in Israel

___ How does the United States propose to prepare for martial law without anyone knowing about it

___ Given the leaks related to rendition, Guantanamo, and the NSA, what method will the US use to silence those who discuss illegal use of military combat forces

___ Why is it permissible for the US government to plan acts of outrages against innocent American civilians, but it is not permissible to discuss these plans?

___ What will be the preferred method of the United States government in executing American civilian children: Gas, bullets, hanging, suffocation, live burial, drowning, burning, forced disposal in meat grinders

___ Is there a credible plan to prevent the children from screaming as they are thrown into the pits

___ Does the US government expect American children to be brave, and accept their sentence, and jump into the pit silently

___ What will the method of resolution be if a member of the DOJ Staff accidentally has one of their children detained, and they go missing: Is there a method to ensure that some American children are not going to be targeted, but others are appropriately placed on the target list

___ What types of psychological counseling will be offered to the American troops who are ordered to destroy American homes, burn children, or commit grave outrages against civilians

___ Please discuss the method the American government plans to implement to ensure that some American children are not affected by the Martial Law, but the “correct” children are appropriately targeted

___ Will American combat troops be given higher or lower priority than American civilian leadership at the hospitals

___ How will sniffles, flu, and seasonal cramps be considered on the medical emergency list: If a civilian leader implementing martial law has an ache, will they be given a helicopter ride to Walter Reed

___ If there are fuel shortages, will sick children have to walk to the hospital; or will it be acceptable for the Military Combat forces to roll over American children as has been the practice in Iraq

___ How much money will American combat forces give American families if their children are accidentally run over by a tank: $200?

___ Who is on contract to provide the perimeter security to the detention centers

___ Where will the overflows go: Prison ships floating in Gulf of Mexico?

___ What if there is a sewage problem on the floating prison ships: Will the captain solve the problem; or will the American children detained on board be forced to endure conditions of Guantanamo?

___ Will water boarding be used to silence American children?

___ How many American children deaths will be the “threshold point” which the force planners assume will not occur; what is the basis for this number; what happens if the actual number of civilian deaths exceed this number

___ Is SAIC, Lincoln Group on contract to spin a nice story about Martial Law; will the videos be identified as being a “Video News Release”?

___ Which contractors have secret contracts to monitor internet communications related to martial law

___ Will power outages be regulated, or will they be random

___ If there are food shortages at the detention camps, do the Americans have an explanation for how they plan to support the martial law

___ Given the failure of the US troops to secure the US-Mexican border, why should we believe the results will be different elsewhere

___ How many contractors have offshore headquarters so they can avoid litigation for their assistance for abuses committed against children

___ Is there a reason why companies like Halliburton have headquarters overseas

___ What is going to prevent foreign fighters from lawfully attempting a humanitarian intervention

___ Will the UN be closed to prevent the world from seeing the decimation

___ Where will the new UN Headquarters be

___ If the global warming continues, has there been any consideration for putting the new UN headquarters in a warm climate like Norway or the North Pole

___ Will Santa bring gifts to the children at the detention centers

___ How will Strategic Command track the movement of Santa as he approaches the detention centers: Will it be a live linkup

___ What if the big bad laser systems accidentally shoot down Santa: Will he come back next year?

___ Will the foreign media be given the chance to interview detainees

___ If there is a concern for detainee rights (as an excuse to prevent photographs), how do the American civil authorities explain the solitary confinement centers

___ How long will American civilians have to pack their bags: 1 hour, 10 minutes, three weeks

___ How many pounds of luggage will American civilians be allowed to carry to the detention centers

___ Can American civilian children take more than one toy to the detention center

___ The US plans to construct moon bases. What is the plan to enforce martial law on the Moon. What if there are aliens are the back side of the moon – does the US have a plan to prevent the aliens from training foreign fighters?

___ Once the writ of habeas corpus is revoked, is there any other credible threat the DoJ Staff may impose; or must you admit you’ve run out of options?

___ What’s the back up plan if martial law fails?

___ What is the scapegoat the US government officials plan to blame if the plan fails to work

___ What happens if the American population refuses to cooperate with Martial law?

___ Given the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, why should any American believe that the US government officials are going to treat Americans differently; if there is a different treatment plan, this would mean that Prisoners of war in Eastern Europe are not being treated consistently with how their civilian counterparts are being treated, and would amount to a war crime. Please discuss the Abraxas effort to cooperate with discovery in identifying which CIA personnel were instrumental in providing the training to those implementing martial law at the American detention centers.

___ What is the plan of the US government to destroy evidence related to war crimes

___ Are the US attorneys cooperating with the DoJ planning to destroy evidence related to abuses at the martial law detention centers

___ What is John Yoo’s view on the Martial Law plan: Did he wear nice shoes and a shirt when he met with Addington; or were they walking around in their underwear like he-man Cheney

___ What will happen if someone moves Laura’s furniture again; will Laura invite a Congressional page to help her rearrange the furniture at the hotel

___ What is the plan of the DOJ Staff to defend the civil authorities who impose martial law

___ Without an insurrection or invasion, why should anyone at The Hague believe that the imposition of martial law was lawful; or that the writ of habeas was appropriately denied

___ Where in the Constitution does it say the Congress has the power to abrogate the Constitution

___ What is going to be done to mitigate the conditions that would otherwise make martial law inevitable

___ What is the reason the factors and conditions that would precipitate martial law could not be mitigated in a proactive way; what assumptions about the failure of law and order are the planners assuming. The real problem has been their failure to effectively govern and adequately manage the factors they circularly argued mandated martial law to support their illegal rebellion against the US Constitution. What is to say these conditions have not already been allowed to occur, by design, under an Administration intent on finding a pretext to attempt to implement martial law.

___ When will the plans to train, and deploy troops be put into effect

___ How can Martial Law be implemented so long as troops are tasked for two live combat theaters, and are on standby around the globe. Where are the troops going to compel from to credibly enforce martial law; as opposed to failing to use force, and emboldening foreign fighters to take advantage of the failure. Or is this failure part of the plan to justify greater abuses against American civilians?

___ Which standards and success criteria will be used; why should these plans and criteria be believe to exist given its been three years since the 2003 Iraq invasion, but the President has just gotten around to issuing the same for Iraq.

___ What are the standards DoJ, DHS, and DoD plans to oversee Martial Law. How will DoD laws of war program 5100.77 be factored into the force planning to implement martial law. How will troops be governed. Will 5100.77 apply; or will US troops be immune to UCMJ?

___ What is the funding ramp, training profile, and the expected training requirements for US domestic security to support Martial Law. Why should the training plan be expected to achieve better or worse results than we’ve seen in Iraq. What is to say American civilians might not do the unexpected as is the case in Iraq: Join with foreign fighters, protect the Constitution, and lawfully end the illegal US government rebellion against the US Constitution?

___ How long is Martial Law expected to last before there are economic impacts. What is the expected relationship between loss of GDP/GNP for each successive month Martial Law is imposed. Please discuss the planning assumptions used in Iraq and why the expected economic forecasts have or have not been realized; and why the forecasts are or are not relevant to the US approach.

___ Will American civilians be tried without courts martial

___ What is the excepted maximum capacity of the detention centers; where are the backup detention centers; and which countries have agreed to accept American civilians if there are overflows

___ How will the ICRC be incorporated into the planning, visits, and detention center monitoring.

___ How will foreign fighter attempts at humanitarian intervention be handled before the United Nations General Assembly

___ What is a “successful” Martial Law; how was this definition decided; when was the definition updated in light of the Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Eastern European Detention centers

___ Will domestic Non-official cover [NOC] CIA agents and civilian contractors be given immunity for their implementation of illegal martial law abuses; will their defenses before The Hague be funded by Congressional Appropriations; or may these promises of immunity be unrecognizable before an international war crimes tribunal?

___ What is to say the conditions leading to martial law are a breakdown of civil order; what if the conditions are a breakdown in American governance, or an illegal rebellion by the US government against the US Constitution, as we currently have. What is going to prevent the US from imposing summary justice on hundreds of thousands of Americans as was the case in Rwanda. If this is not possible or foreseeable, why are we discussing the possibility of Martial Law?

* * *


American contractors engaged in martial law contingency planning know, or should know, that the assumptions they are using are not realistic. The results of Iraq and Afghanistan have been unreasonably explained away.

DoD and DoJ personnel involved with these plans have yet to explain which conditions they plan to mitigate; and which conditions they plan to use as a pretext. DoJ OPR has been ineffectively been given access to the NSA-DoJ interface issues related to the ongoing coordination to put these plans into effect.

The threat of Martial Law in the United States is hoped to have a greater chilling effect on American conduct than the actual imposition of martial law. Planners know there are insufficient resources, trained troops, or backup forces to adequately support combat operations, forced detentions, and engage in commercial transactions.

Planners have incorrectly assumed that backup forces and reserves will be augmented by other forces, but have failed to consider how a failed national martial law might inspire and incite the very guerrilla warfare they hope to combat. Planners have incorrectly assumed that national guard units will blindly obey orders; or that media reports of abuses will not inspire American citizen backlash.

The Contingency plans fail to consider the possibility there may be a US government created in absentia; or a New Constitution created to lawfully replace the defective system of laws which permitted the illegal US government rebellion against the Constitution.

There is no credible basis to believe the US government can successfully implement or enforce martial law as DHS, DoD, and DoJ have planned. The American citizens know this. There are insufficient resources, equipment, and screening procedures to adequately implement simple community events; there is no prospect these procedures could be quickly implemented nationwide, as would be required for martial law.

Martial Law cannot be implemented out of the blue, requiring time to train personnel to implement martial law. There are many planning actions, likely considered illegal and subject to disclosure, that would be known: Plans, detention center fabrication, passage of legislation, and training of civilian augmentees. Each of these has been accomplished, but the US Government cannot credibly put this plan into effect.

A failure to successfully use force against American civilians may embolden foreign fighters to target US interests around the globe. NSC should consider the lessons of Iraq, and ask why they are concerned about guerrilla warfare from a nation that, until a few years ago, would have blindly followed the RNC rebellion to commit grave breaches of Geneva at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and in Eastern Europe. Something with the National Security Council credibility has changed, and the NSC has yet to fully explain their concern for something never considered a credible threat: How does the NSC explain why guerrillas in the United States can plan their operations, be unknown to the NSC; yet the NSC martial law plans have been openly mocked for their absurdity and flawed assumptions.

Martial law plans fail to correctly factor economic impacts, disruption to property values, or how the American civilian population might lawfully resist illegal American government rebellion against the Constitution.


Force planners should explain to the Committee how they plan to put martial law into effect.

Read more . . .