Constant's pations

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

Monday, October 02, 2006

RNC Allegedly Offers Bribes To Suppress War Crimes Information

The United States government, as a matter of policy, allegedly promises favorable access, and refuses to provide access to reporters and other investigators who are interested in gathering information related to illegal Geneva violations.

* * *

Other Links

Ref Questions for Abraxas in re alleged war crimes.

Ref War Crimes Plan allegedly supported by Abraxas.

Ref Alleged Abraxas pipline to support war crimes.

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

Note closely how easily the RNC promises to provide something of value in exchange for the agreement not to report something. The issue isn’t’ what ABC did or didn’t do; but ho easily the Republicans are willing to provide something of value, or threaten to remove something of value in exchange for favorable coverage, or promises not to openly discuss information.

Here is the alleged bribery . Notice the speed and cavalier attitude the Republicans show toward those who provide favorable coverage.

We can only wonder what the Republicans have internally agreed to do nor not do in exchange for discussing or not discussing other adverse information related to war crimes, high crimes, or impeachable offenses.


The issue with the alleged bribery of ABC is federal and state law. The question turns on whether the RNC and other political officials within the Republican party intended to get the commercial entity to do or not do something in exchange for something of value, in this case exclusive coverage.

Let's assume for the sake of Argument that ABC is headquartered in New York, and that NY State Law applies. Attorney General Spitzer has already ruled on the issue: It is a violation of state and federal law to promise or give anything of value in exchange for favorable air time.

Just as people are stepping forward to report unfavorable information related to human relations, alleged harassment, and other inappropriate conduct, it remains to be seen how many Americans will step forward to report their evidence related to alleged RNC bribes to remain silent about war crimes.

Waiting until the victims comprehend what has happened is too slow. The appropriate role is to ensure the civilian leadership, when it fails to enforce the law, is similarly prosecuted. Leadership means enforcing the law, not creating excuses to permit abuses, war crimes, and other reckless disregard for Geneva to become a seemingly impossible pile of evidence to prosecute. Indeed, then the RNC excuse becomes, “Nobody has done anything before, why start now?” That is merely an excuse to not do what should have been done from the outset in 2001: Ensure Geneva was enforced, not explained away.

The world and county expect leadership. The victims of the abuses have been silent, and unable to present their evidence. This Republican party has illegally denied the victims of war crimes to use American courts to challenge the American abuse.

The world should not have to rely on the legal community to do what leaders fail to do. The second crime is to blame the public for reporting the alleged war crimes. It is irresponsible to blame the public that the evidence is or is not causing confusion. The way to clarify this confusion is to conduct an investigation into RNC bribery of public officials to remain silent about Geneva violations.

The appropriate role is not to wait until the victims report the misconduct, but to broadly encourage all to share their experiences which may related to alleged RNC promises, gifts, and other rewards related to efforts to stifle sharing of evidence related to war crimes.

* * *

War Crimes Information the RNC Bribes Hope to Muffle

It is inappropriate to argue for “judicial success” when the courts “narrowly” rule on an issue, but public officials do not extrapolate those court opinions broadly. Geneva is the law of the land. It is inappropriate for the American legal community, especially with the alleged reckless DoJ Staff to argue that the court has or has not ruled on an issue, therefore the illegal conduct is permissible. To the contrary, once the treaty was signed in 1949, that law becomes the standard: The United States President has no power to enforce illegal violations of rights; nor does Congress have the power to abrogate Geneva, nor pass any law that denies prisoners of war their Geneva protected rights.

A bill of attainder is a law which targets civil liberties. This is illegal. The Constitution does not permit Bills of Attainder. As the Military Commissions Bill has been crafted, the Congress is effectively denying defendants the right to have their case reviewed, as protected by the Geneva conventions.

Note carefully what the Constitution says about writ of habeas corpus:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. Ref

The Constitution states clearly that the writ may not be suspended in specific cases; the original Constitution capitalizes Cases. "Cases" does not mean a "situation," but a specific legal matter.

It doesn’t say the opposite: That potential invasions can justify denying the writ; nor can the US government point to a specific point in time, or a period of time to justify someone being denied the writ. Again, the writ may only be denied for a case, irrespective of time, excuses, or definitions.

The purpose of the writ is to compel the jailers to explain why they have detained someone. This Government defies the Constitution, and illegally jails those, without any prospect of judicial review. Any American could be accused of being an enemy combatant, and like Padilla thrown into solitary confinement for years without any relief. This is tyranny.

See Federalist 84, which Geneva says must be applicable to all prisoners of war:

It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of equal importance with any which are to be found in the constitution of this State. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,1 in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, Õsays he,å or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.'' And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas-corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution.''2

There should be no surprise why the foreign fighters continue to hunt down Americans overseas: The American government refuses to assent to the rule of law, and puts itself above review by the courts.

There is no other forum, but the battlefield, to resolve this dispute.

The US military action is illegal; and all efforts to stifle discussion of that illegality are with one purpose: To illegally support war crimes, and prevent those war crimes from being carried into effect.

We can only speculate what valuable consideration, threats, or other unlawful financial transfers or benefits have been exchanged or promised in exchange for silence on these war crimes.

* * *

Evidence of War Crimes: DoJ Staff Inconsistent Legal Arguments

The problem for the DOJ Staff is that these cases in Guantanamo have already been determined to be covered by the US Constitution. It is too late to argue the opposite. Despite the Supreme Court affirming the right to challenge their detention, and respecting the privilege of habeas corpus, Congress cannot retroactively undo what the Supreme Court has already done.

Congress has violated the Separation of powers. It's power is not legitimate. The President may not lawfully enforce this bill.

Nobody may lawfully ask that the same cases from Guantanamo be stripped of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus. Not only does the Military Commissions Bill amount to an (a) illegal ex post facto bill; (2) is an illegal bill of attainder which illegally targets the rights protected by Geneva; and (3) is an illegal assertion that specific cases are denied the writ of habeas corpus, without any showing that the prisoners have or have not been involved with an invasion or rebellion.

DoJ can’t have it both ways. Once DOJ staff took the erroneous position that the prisoners were not entitled to Geneva, they may not then argue the opposite position as the basis to retroactively deny them rights which are Geneva Convention requirements on the United States. At best, the Republican party is the entity that has illegally rebelled against the US Constitution. 2006 is far too late to argue that the original claims – that the prisoners were or were not linked with conditions, events, or cases that warrant denying them of the privilege of habeas corpus – are suddenly undone, reversed, or do not apply.

Rather, the DOJ Staff has already argued the opposite: Because the Taliban were not an international army, they were (illegally) denied their rights under Geneva. This was struck down with Hamdan. The absurdity is the DOJ having to reverse it’s argument, and assert on the same case that the Taliban were an international army, and the events on Sept 2001, were linked to the subsequent captures in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and all other locations, thereby "justifying" their denial of writ of habeas corpus.

DoJ cannot explain how the prisoners in Guantanamo can be both legal and illegal combatants; related and unrelated to international terrorism; and be linked with a US invasion in 2001, but the DOJ Staff has waited until 2006 to assert this "fact" as a basis to deny the prisoners the Geneva protections.

The issue isn't the Constitution or rights of combatants, but whether the US will or will not ensure that the privilege of writ of habeas corpus will or will not be respected, as Geneva requires. These requirements are on the detaining power, regardless the alleged status or non-status of the prisoners of war. Arguments suggesting that the Congress has or has not conferred a right are meaningless. Geneva mandates that the same tribunal system, rules, procedures, and privileges available to civilians also be made available to the prisoners of war. It is meaningless that the Untied States may or may not have violated this requirement in other cases; or that the United States was or was not sanctioned. Illegal activity is not a precedent for continued war crimes.

All tribunals in the United Stats recognize the writ, and the Congress has failed to timely deny the privilege the courts have otherwise affirmed apply in Hamdan and Rasul. Congress has no power to retroactively overrule the Judicial determination of the Supreme court; or specifically target these cases retroactively. This is a violation of the principle of separation of powers and an illegal, retroactive change in law with these specific cases. The Constitution does not permit a case to be partially denied the writ; rather, once the privilege of the writ is asserted and recognized to any party within that class of cases, all cases are similarly entitled to the same privilege. It is contrary to US law to deny privileges to similarly situated prisoners, and this would violates the equal protection clause which Geneva requires.

The decision to ignore or follow these requirements should have been part of the 'Informed" legislative debate prior to the AUMF in 2001; these issues were ignored. In 2006, it is too late to retroactively say that the Geneva requirements can be undone. The AUMF decision bound the United States to its Geneva obligations going forward; Congress has no power, and has been expressly denied the authority to pass any ex post factor law. The courts have already said are entitled to judicial review.

Congress also has no Article III judicial power to say how the court will or will not review specific cases. Any judicial officer, attorney, or member of the National Security Council who works with others to illegally denies these specific Geneva conventions or fails to enforce them could be prosecuted for war crimes. This is outside what the Constitution allows, and expressly forbidden. All members of congress which have illegally supported this unlawful bill have failed to protect the Constitution and have not lawfully ensured that the Geneva Conventions were followed, as Hamdan otherwise reminded.

* * *

War Crimes Despite Fair Warning By Judiciary

Put aside the DoJ inconsistent argument. Rasul affirmed that these prisoners captured after 2001, have the right to challenge there detentions. Nothing new has happened with the Military Commissions bill to undo Rasul; nor has anything happened that would say that other prisoners have or haven’t engaged in an insurrection or invasion. Rather, these prisoners were not invaders, but captured outside the United States.

The Administration’s problem is that by arguing the Taliban were not entitled to Geneva Conventions, they argued that the group was not an international actor. Putting aside Hamdan and whether that is or is not true, by now arguing in 2006 that the Taliban are invaders (thereby saying the write of habeas can be denied), the White House and DoJ Staff have inconsistently argued the status of the prisoners. In effect, even through their legal arguments were wrong, they cannot credibly claim the opposite argument in the same cases involving the same prisoners.

The writ in this case has been already affirmed by the Supreme Court as a privilege afforded to these cases. Congress cannot pass any law to undo the Supreme Court’s determination which Rasul and Hamdan affirmed: Prisoners do have the right to challenge their detentions.

This bill is not legal. It illegally:

(a) Denies Geneva Convention protections for specific prisoners of war [Illegal Bill of Attainder];

(b) States that a specific class of cases, which have already recognized as having the privilege of writ of habeas corpus are denied [Illegal denial of writ of habeas corpus for cases which the courts have already recognized the privilege exists]; and

(c) Retroactively states the judicial reviews and laws can or cannot be changed by Congress. [Violation of ex post facto; illegal Article III power assertion by Congress.]

No reasonable person could rely on this bill or statute. Rather, anyone who relies on, implement, or enforces this illegal bill – even the President -- could be subject to further war crimes allegations. By signing the law, the President has committed an illegal act which nobody can rely on. His signature on the bill amounts to an unlawful order. No member of the United States government, contractor, or any other entity may lawfully rely on his signature as lawful authority.

* * *

RNC Cavalier Attitude Toward Favors, Silence

Note the way that the favorable access and exclusive coverage was so easily offered, its as if similar promises had been made in other situations.

  • How much "favorable, exclusive" coverage as Judith Miller offered, in exchange for withholding information on the false WMD data?

  • Did the RNC promise "exclusive access" for the media, in exchange for the media promising not to cover certain allegations related to Geneva violations or other alleged war crimes?

  • How many times did the DOJ Staff privately threaten the public media or other prosecutors with retaliation if they mentioned illegal war crimes, DoJ staff complicity with Geneva violations, or other information showing that the American legal community had failed to prevent war crimes?

    Adverse Inferences

    The Republican party has regularly promised "exclusive access" to embargoed news, in exchange for public agreement not to report evidence related to American Government war crimes: Illegal kidnapping, unlawful violations of Geneva, and failure of US government officials to enforce Geneva conventions.

    America has descended into lawlessness. If the Judicial authorities refuse to compel the Executive to assent to the rule of law, then foreign fighters may lawfully target those judicial officers who refuse to prevent war crimes.

    This could have been prevented had the Congress enforced the law, rather than permitting illegal war crimes, then bribing people to keep silent about abuse of power and authority.

    America's system of governance has collapsed. It no longer has moral authority, nor can it successfully wage combat in any theater around the globe. The American government is irrelevant as a credible source of justice. A system which is out of control will either collapse from within, or it shall be destroyed from without.

    By bribing people to remain silent about these war crimes, this Republican party has illegally permitted the war crimes to continue. Foreign fighters, seeing the US is not interested in judicial review of the law, are lawfully using the other forum which the US has proven incompetent: The Battlefield. NATO forces are powerless to protect NATO interests worldwide, nor can it guarantee the safety of anyone working for Abraxas, the CIA, or any other contractor allegedly providing illegal support for war crimes.

    The American government is no longer legitimate. Unless the Congress and Executive reverse their illegal tyranny and war crimes, foreign fighters shall lawfully have the power and recognized right under Geneva to continue to target American CIA personnel, and all other US personnel and contractors stationed overseas who illegally put these war crimes into effect.