Congressional Refusal To Enforce Geneva Conventions Against President: War Crimes Evidence
War crimes prosecutors are interested in the reasons the assumed-Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given for not enforcing the Geneva Conventions against the President through an impeachment investigation.
The refusal to do what one should can be evidence of complicity with a failure to enforce the laws of war, and prevent war crimes. It remains to be seen whether Pelosi, having the power to enforce the law and prevent the President's illegal violations of Geneva, is charged with war crimes.
Public Oversight of Congressional Monitoring of President
This note outlines a number of issues related to the Congressional leadership decision not to consider impeaching the President. We discuss this stunning announcement in the Context of Constitutional obligations, the oath of office, and the Geneva Conventions.
Summation: The German War Crimes prosecutor has a reasonable case to bring charges against Speaker Nancy Pelosi for failing to prevent war crimes.
What You Can Do:
(1) Support War Crimes Prosecutors
Work with the German war crimes prosecutor to gather evidence of the alleged Congressional conspiracy to not enforce the Geneva Conventions against the President of the Untied States. [ German Prosecutor Contact Info ]
(2) Support, outside the Amendment process, structural changes to the US Constitution
The failed US governance can be remedied with this solution: A New Constitution, asserting rights and powers of We the People and the States to lawfully do what this American government, under this Speaker, refuses: Protect the Constitution, and lawfully hold all people accountable for violations of the Supreme law. [New Constituion: Discussion Purposes Only ]
[Note: the following is a draft, rushed for your consideration. It will be revised.]
This note outlines issues and concerns with Congressional oversight of the President.
The note outlines various observations; shares some concerns; and recommends an oversight plan for the public to review; and suggests a series of steps Congress should be encouraged to take to effectively oversee the President.
When discussing Presidential oversight, there are two levels of concern:
1. Congressional oversight of the President; and
2. Public oversight of the Congressional oversight process, as it applies to the President.
My concern is this President, although he may appear to be conciliatory, has not sufficiently undergone any credible consequences to suggest his conduct is going to change.
Congressional oversight of the President is based on the Constitution. Article I Section gives Congress the power to make decisions when passing legislation. Congress also has the power to make decisions about the suitability of the President for continued service as President.
If Congress decides, based on 2/3 vote in the Senate, that the President is unwilling to change, the Congress can choose to remove the President from power.
This President has not effectively communicated with his own Party when it was in power. It's a great leap to suggest his communication will improve with an opposing party. Perhaps it will.
My concern is that this President, despite the law to report actions to Congress, has ignored his own party, defied the law, and done what he's wanted to do. [Ref: Title 28; Title 50]
He's engaged in a series of violations, abuses, and other illegal conduct in secret. I see noting to suggest that this President, regardless who is in power in Congress, will suddenly change his habit of secretly doing illegal things.
The question is whether this President can credibly be trusted to disclose to the opposition what he refused to disclose to his allies. I am doubtful.
When Congress oversees the President, the standard for removal includes whether the President will or will not correct his behavior. Public assurances of compliance are meaningless if the illegal, secret activity continues.
In larger terms, if the Congress has not oversight plan of the President, there's little to believe that something more complicated -- like overseeing a military operation -- will have much credibility.
My concern is that if Congress has effectively stated, "We will not impeach," theoretically, the President could, if undetected, engaged in genocide, and have no fear of removal. Indeed, that threshold of abuse is perhaps the upper limit.
The point is that once Congress removes the impeachment option from the table, the President gets a signal: "Nothing will happen if you don’t get caught."
Perhaps the Congress has a specific set of criteria or standards they're using to say, "yes, these are the limits to which we'll go; and despite Presidential promises notwithstanding, he has refused to change."
It would be helpful if those threshold values were discussed. Openly.
Indeed, it may be an argument that to impeach the President, there could be a backlash. However, this "backlash" is only a credible, speculative risk if the impeachment is unwarranted. Conversely, there's little to suggest that a continued breach of Congressional-Presidential agreements would warrant continued confidence that the President remains fit for office.
Similarly, if there is sufficient loss of confidence in the GOP, DNC leaders may not have to induce anyone to leave the Republican Party, making moot Lieberman's threat to shift the balance of power in the Senate. [ Detailed analysis ]
Also, there's little to suggest that, like the phone jamming, the voters will not push back against those who engage in the abuse; or who fail to act on the abuse.
I'm inclined to believe that the threat of a "backlash" is a phony argument, linked more with a Republican-driven concern, not with a real concern.
In a large sense, it appears the Congress has assented to non-sense reasons by the RNC to not take action over Iraq. My concern is that the President and the RNC appear to be emphasizing more non-sense arguments to avoid action, as with Iraq and the FISA. [Analysis of problems with ISG Options Study; implications for Congressional oversight. ]
Recall, when Congress was left to its won, the Senators did not speak out or oppose the gag orders on the FISA-NSA briefings. The conditions prohibiting staff counsel from attending, reviewing, or consulting with Members of Congress were absurd, yet the Congress assented.
Similarly, going forward, what is to prevent the President from doing the same -- not engage in a gag order, but effectively achieve the same result: Confuse, distract, and throw a smokescreen.
We arrive at the core problem: Iraq. Indeed, Iraq is a problem. My view is that Iraq is a convenient distraction from the President.
Indeed, this President helped create, if not cause, the mess in Iraq. The Congress, I believe, and it appears, has shifted focus from the President, and changed its focus to Iraq.
In my view, a better strategy would be to start small: Create specific criteria for what would warrant an impeachment; and which violations and secret conditions would warrant removal, and a decision that the President is not changing, but doing more of the same.
Conversely, if the Congress will not specify these criteria as they relate to the President -- a single person, in finite physical space: the White House -- why should we believe that Congress will be able to do something more complicated: Overseeing many people, in a dynamic situation in Iraq. Again, my view is that if the Congress cannot credibly outline an oversight plan for the President, then the Congress will not be forced to go through the difficult learning process of starting what it has not started: Engaging in oversight.
Indeed, new leadership may bring change. A confidence building measure would mean starting small: If Congress wants the public to believe that there is a new improved oversight system in place, then the right place is, in my view, to start with a single person -- the President -- and show that there is an oversight plan in place to monitor one person.
Once Congress shows that there is an oversight plan in place for the President -- I'll be confidence that the learning curve for the larger problems will have been started, not completed.
I would encourage the Congressional leadership to view the President as being on probation.
I am not comfortable with the cordial overtures, and smiles the President has. He's in a weakened position. His smiles appear to be a ploy to dissuade what should otherwise occur: An ongoing review whether he will change; or whether it would be best to find a new leader.
Some may suggest that the RNC voters will push back against the Congressional leadership, and jeopardize the 2008 election. this may be true; and it may be false.
My view is that it is a ruse argument, as with FISA-NSA and Iraq, to dissuade the Congress to ask tough questions.
Recall the lessons of Iraq: When the media falls down, and the public is inducted to accept non-sense -- through whatever artful or fraudulent design -- we are jointly asked to embark on folly.
The lesson of Iraq is that this President cannot be trusted. He has lied in secret; oversight of the President should not be seen just as a means to oversee the President, but to what extent the initial information is or is not credible.
The test should be whether, despite the loss of the 4election, the President chooses to, as with Iran-Contra, to play games, waste time, and then use the fact that time has elapsed as an option excuse to argue that nothing can be done.
Rather than wait for more surprises, my view is that the aggressive oversight, and monitoring of the President should start now, in November 2006.
The RNC is still in charge. If the President is serious about cooperating, the test of that cooperating is whether this RNC leadership does or does not lead. If the RNC leadership refuses to issue subpoenas to find facts in November 2006, that is a bad sign. It tells us that Congress, after the December Holidays, will then be asked to put up with the excuses of, "Well, we just got back from the Holidays, so we can't really start going until February."
The problem is that by Spring, the budget markups will start. That is but another excuse. Then the Congress will have a summer vacation. Then it will be fall vacation. Then the excuse will be we need to agree on the budget.
All of the abuse is party of the annual budget cycle. It is not news; and it is not changed.
Rather than rely on the excuses of the President's Budget -- a known, annual Constitutional requirement factor called a "budget appropriation" -- why not start the investigations, preparation, and open discussion now in November 2006, so that the warm-up that will start after the President's budget is submitted will have already started in 2006.
Congress, no matter how it starts, is going to have a false start. It would be better to start earlier in November 2006, and find out the problems, then get ready to tackle them when the DNC is in charge.
Overall my concerns are the following:
1. I don't trust the President's promise to play nice. I suspect he will secretly do things that the DNC would be appalled.
2. Those who are in the Executive Branch, and may be aware of something, should have a clear idea of things the Congress wants to now about regarding indicators of whether the President is or is not changing, responsive; or whether he's playing the old games, but in a new way.
3. Personnel working overseas who may be aware of illegal activity, or new plans that are implemented after November 2006, need to know that there is an active listener in Congress who will take action. If they sense that Congress will not move to consider whether the President is or is not fit to remain in office; and have no plan to punish the President should subsequent revelations show that he has not changed, then those Executive Branch employees are not going to risk coming forward.
4. Before we can believe that Congress can effectively oversee Iraq, we need to see that Congress can oversee a small problem: A single clerk in the Oval office.
5. Until the US goes through the learning of effectively overseeing a simple issues -- whether the President is or is not effectively responsive, or whether he should or should not be removed -- that thinking exercise, until it is done, means that the simple steps and questions that should be asked with the President, aren't going to get asked -- and they will not get asked with issues of Iraq and bigger, more dynamic situations.
I would like to see Congress do the following:
___ Develop an oversight system of the President
___ Be clear on which levels of Presidential abuses, violations, and misconduct would warrant removal
___ Clarify with credible research whether the RNC will oppose in all situations a removal of the President
___ Discuss the levels of Presidential abuses, violations, and other scope of Presidential abuses that would warrant removal
____ Make a case that the President has effective oversight, and that the Executive personnel have sufficient support to report the types of things that the Congress will consider when evaluating whether the President is or is not changing; or whether the President is failing to meet his obligations and requirements.
____ Communicate to the Public the range of concerns, issues, and factors that would warrant a President being removed from office, especially when there is a pattern of abuses, or the President refuses to change
____ Credibly show that the lessons of this small oversight plan of the President are related to effectively staff oversight, lessons, and planning structures that can be expected to occur when monitoring Iraq
___ Openly discuss with the RNC membership, outside the Democratic Party, those issues, factors, and other Presidential conduct that they would find alarming, and question whether he is refusing to do what he should despite having no control over Congress
____ Make a credible case that the Executive Branch shenanigans, excuses, smokescreens, and other activity that surfaced with the secret FISA-NSA and WMD briefings is not simply repurposed into a new smokescreen of Iraq
____ Make a case that the Congressional oversight of Iraq, despite its complexities, does not need to have a demonstration period, or a proof of concept with a smaller, fairly benign oversight plan related to a single person
____ Demonstrate that, despite years of inaction, and failures on both sides of the aisle to use all lawful methods to hold the President to account, we should believe that the President will face real opposition and accountability
My view is that both the DNC and RNC were complicity with the Military Commissions Bill language; and the FISA-NSA violations. Senator Rockefeller had time to write a memo of his concerns.
If the activity were truly illegal, under ORCON that activity could not be lawfully classified. Why didn't the DNC move to discuss the issue on the floor of the Chamber?
Also, once it was known that the President was doing something or not doing what he should per Title 28 and Title 50 -- making required reports -- where was the Ranking Member letter to the IGs asking for a review?
Indeed, this may be classified. But something that is secret can only remain secret is if it is illegal.
In February 2006, Senator Feingold stepped up to the plate, and challenged the Attorney General’s alleged perjury. Despite that abuse of power, the DOJ OPR was blocked, but the Ranking Members of all the Committees did not document, nor challenge this abuse or pattern of misconduct.
I have my doubts about the DNC and RNC. Some ask the public to believe that we were fooled, and nobody knew the deception over the WMD issues.
yet, a plan reading of the issues, and simple questions of the public information, suggested there was a big problem. Consider the discussion on scrappleface: DO you see blind assent to the President's conduct?
I see the opposite: I see extensive questions, valid concerns, and flawed logic. This was open, known, and publicly available: The responses we were getting didn’t' make sense.
Congress could have done the same thing. Yet, the DNC leadership said they needed to give the President the option to use force. That is fine.
However, after three years of abuse, misconduct, no evidence of WMD, and the Downing Street Memo, we're asked to believe that we had no time.
Baloney. Public citizens before the Invasion of Iraq, had enough time to craft warnings, discuss concerns. In fact, the concerns were so well placed that comments were read to the DNC leadership by well known public figures.
The risks were known. The issues were clear: The story didn't add up before Congress approved the options. Indeed, despite the failed oversight, and inaction, the issue of the court challenge to the Iraq war needs to be addressed. How does the nation explain, despite no real evidence to justify in imminent threat, not even a court challenge could stop the train that had started.
This is absurd. The issue isn't simply the deception; but it is the escalator-like approach to foreign policy: Once it started, nothing could stop it. That is outrageous. Our system of governance requires circuit breakers, not a breaking of the checks and balances.
Something didn't work. Something, despite the disconnected logic, broke down. Indeed, but for the good graces of a few thousand voters, the Senate might still be controlled by the RNC. What if 1,000 voters have voted the other way -- would this non-sense train have continued?
My concern is that once the non-sense is disclosed, the US government should not be like a battleship that continues for three years along a perilous course.
The right answer is to develop a system that will timely end, and adjust, and reorient itself, especially when there are issues of war crimes, unlawful war, illegal activity.
How does American reconcile this? The answer isn't to look at America. Americans aren't the only ones who are reviewing these facts: The oversight, and real catalyst for change has not come from North America, but from overseas.
Indeed, it is American lawyers -- who, after getting permission from the Supreme Court to do what prisoners should always have the right: The right to counsel -- the US leadership suddenly woke up to the fact that prisoners were being abused; and that the lawyers should look at he situation.
This has gong on for 5 years since 2001. Everything broke down. Now the President is smiling. The system needs to be changed, and I'm not talking new leadership, I'm talking a new system. One is outlined for your consideration. The goal of this new system is to build on what is right under the Constitution; and give the US government a rude wakeup call: There remain eternal options to timely correct what has failed; and to swiftly move to end what is not lawful.
Americans should not have to rely on Germany prosecutors to effectively manage our internal affairs, yet, that is what is required.
Nor should Americans have to rely on foreign sources of information to credibly get a view of what is going on inside their own government. Yet, that is what is required.
I do not expect perfection. I do expect that if there has been a disaster as with Iraq, the new leadership will have a plan in place to put those lessons into effect, start small, and credibly show that the lessons have been applied.
By taking the Presidential impeachment off the table, changers the focus from the needed demonstration -- and fails to show that the lessons have been applied when the situation is small, easy, finite, and isolated to a Single President.
Congressional oversight of the President is not about the President, it's about determining whether there is credible oversight: Are there criteria in people's minds to decide whether the President would or should not be removed from office.
If there are no thresholds on what is or is not acceptable on a single man; why should I believe that there are thresholds on more difficult issues.
IF the President's threshold will not be probed, why should we believe the Congress will enthusiastically probe into what is less certain and more dynamic.
The President is a single person. He is one person. His policies are not simply his edicts in executive orders or regulations, but what he chooses to do in response to, or in defiance of the policies the Legislature enacts through Bills.
Congress has a joint responsibility for the legacy in Iraq. What failed in Congress in Iraq, and the Foley Page oversight issue is what will continue to fail unless Congress shows that it applies the lessons to what is small, simple and finite: The President.
I would ask the Congress and public to consider where we are:
___ The President has lost control of the Congress
___ The President has a habit of secretly doing things, violating the law
___ The President has lied to his own party
___ The Congress has assented to non-sense explanations, smokescreens, and not asked tough questions
___ Choosing to ask Congress to focus on Iraq moves the direction and attention away from the President, and makes Congress incorrectly wrestle with something the President should be held accountable for having failed to manage; removing the impeachment option says that despite his failures, something magic is going to happen in the President's mind that will turn his failures and bad habits around.
I am doubtful the Congress has the interest to focus on the President because the President does not have an interest in real accountability or consequences.
I believe the President is manipulating the Congress, as he did with the RNC, by shifting the discussion from him to something else. Congress should be able to do both: Focus on the President, choose whether he is or is not changing as required, then share with the public the results of the Congressional oversight of the President's conduct.
Until Congress goes through the difficult confrontation of facing what it has ignored on matters of what the President has or has not done, then I'm doubtful the President the Congress will have gone through the difficult process of learning what it has not demonstrated; then applying that new skill to something more complicated than whether a clerk in the oval office is or is not able to do what are in clear instructions.
It is premature for anyone in the RNC to make probes in to whether they will or will not be President in 2008. Although this may be related to party politics and planning, I would hope that in the spirit of bipartisanship, the various candidates in both parties move along a similar parallel track: If you want to make the case, explore, or decide whether you are or are not fit to be President, please consider whether you are or are not doing your job now.
I am not impressed when, despite five years of excuse, suddenly the prospective candidates are attempting to decide what may or may not happen in 2008. We are in 2006, the RNC chairmen are still in Control, and they are not doing their job.
Specifically, I am not impressed with specific Geneva Convention requirements are explained away, ignored, and the various committees -- despite a Constitutional requirement to enforce the law -- suddenly, only after notification by "various methods" they become aware of illegal conduct.
It was not impressive to see the majority party ask, dance around, and speculate on whether the Geneva Conventions were or were not requirements; then face the non-sense responses from this President. This RNC Party had the power to privately resolve these issues, but chose to defy the law. It is not credible to believe that a group that refuses to talk to itself will have a better ability to communicate with those they oppose. Perhaps you can make a case, but this is absurd.
For anyone to suggest that they may have specific experience with a certain area, but then turn around and get confused on the issues is troubling. Specifically, I am concerned when the Geneva Conventions -- which prohibit abuse -- gets couched as something relative to a different standard. Whether the US does or does not have a statute in place relative to torture is meaningless. Geneva specifically outlaws all abuse.
I do not care what a particular member of Congress believes the Geneva Conventions say; the issue of what the treaties are or are not is outside Congress to define: It is what the Judicial Branch and Article III officers decide. It is meaningless how Congress defined torture; or that Senator Graham concluded something was or was not a good solution. Geneva explicitly prohibits all abuses. How torture is or is not defined is irrelevant. Nor am impressed to discover that a so-called expert with those Conventions has approved legislation that changes the standard, and pretends that the standard is something other than abuse, but is or is not torture.
The general concern is that when a so-called expert botches the area of their expertise, why should I believe that the horde of lemmings will stand up, show reason, and oppose those experts. We've seen a horde of lemmings with Iraq, WMD, FISA, and NSA. Congress still has lemmings; the Experts on the Committees -- for whatever reason -- are not experts. They are expert magicians, full of excuses.
Let's go over this again: When I hear anyone from Congress talking about being confused, deceived, or not understanding something -- I only need to look to a single line of questions, and a quote that was issued before combat operations started.
What we being asked to believe is that, despite superior access to information, Members of Congress didn't bother to ask some fundamental questions; were satisfied with the answers; then when the truth was revealed, nothing was done to end the momentum.
This is a joint problem which this Congress needs to immediately fix, address, and resolve in November 2006, not "maybe" "sometimes" or "possibly" when you get around to it after the budget markups next Summer.
You have an option. You can pretend the problem doesn't exist, and march along your merry way, continuing along the lemming route; or you can consider you have a problem now in November 2006, and as private citizens review one possible solution to this structural problem within the Constitution.
This plan would address the real problems with Iraq: A better governance system for the United States, and a system that while more quickly inject circuit breakers before we make a foolish decision. If you would like to have it formally presented to you that will come on the day that it is signed into law as the New Constitution.
Until then, you are individually responsible for commenting on this document. If you are silent, it will stand. If you would like to comment on it, then comment. Your job is to comment and explain why it will not work; or why the proposed approach is less superior to to the self-evidence mess this US government has helped create, let happen, and not clean up.
I do not care whether you are the President of the Untied States, the Speaker of the House, the Leader of a Party, or a CEO of a corporation. Your job is to decide what you want: A solution, or more excuses.
At this juncture, there are three legislative bills, conveniently spaced around the country in three different legislative bodies: None of the bills is conditioned upon anything, only a desire of free people to compel Congress to vote on a decision.
Whether the Congress does or does not vote is meaningless. The issue is that there remain three viable options, ready to compel Congress to act. The issue is not whether Congress does or does not act; but whether Congress does or does not wake up.
This Congress' job is to make a case that its oversight system is something that is credible. I expect you to apply that system to the President. Your job is to make sure, at a small level, that the Presidential oversight system is working, functioning, and is something the leadership and Members of Congress in both parties understand and have confidence.
Until the Congress develops a robust system of oversight to the President, I cannot believe that the President has any oversight; nor do I believe that the more complicated issues related to Iraq or larger issues will or will not effectively be reviewed. Indeed, they may be.
However, we are not talking speculatively about what may happen; the issue is what will or will not happen in November 2006 to send a message that things have changed.
I need to hear a specific reason why the US Attorneys are not doing what the Germany prosecutors are. This doesn't mean that Germany is interfering; the issue is why is the US on one hand claiming sovereignty, but we have to delegate our prosecutorial and judicial accountability system to a non-US entity.
perhaps the US judicial system and law enforcement system with respect to war crimes, Presidential oversight, and abuses of power is broken. It needs to be fixed; until it is fixed, I would anticipate more non-American legal actions including combat by foreign gathers to credibly check what appears to be defective, incompetent, and ineffectual US government practices, procedures, and legal oversight.
I don't care that the President and Gonzalez may have shut down the DoJ OPR. I do care, despite that known block, the RNC voters continue to support what it is illegal: A celebration of non-answers.
The Constitution is not protected by popular vote: It remains in force so that even if there is only one person who defends that document, it shall survive, and prevail. Popular movements, and the desire of Members of Congress to ignore, explain away, not enforce, or not address defects with what has failed does not mean that the document is credibly ignored.
Rather, from all accounts it appears through selective amnesia, laziness, or artful sophistry, Americans have collectively chosen to prevent, not stop, and otherwise do nothing -- other than vote -- to remedy what has failed.
The Constitution is not a document which ebbs and flows on the basis of the voters will. Again, had 1,000 voters voted the other way, the prospects of the Constitution might have been different. That is the problem -- the Constitution cannot be permitted to hang in the balance because a majority of Americans have been inducted to accept nonsense. The Constitution requires an internal self-preservation mechanism that protects the document, even when everything has failed.
That is what Americans must decide: Whether you want a system that does collapse because of popular defiance and rebellion against the Constitution; or whether you want a document that, even when the Congress, Judiciary, and Executive jointly agree to do nothing, We the People remain armed with viable tools to protect the Document, and lawfully end what is illegal.
This President despite US combat troops refusing to disobey illegal orders, has effectively engaged in active rebellion against the Constitution, but would have us believe that there's been no problem, and this Congress supports his legal assertion. This Congress has no power to decide that the Article II leadership is doing his job unless they review the evidence. The goal of an impeachment is to provide the Congress with the power to do what the Executive may choose to not do: Enforce the law. If Congress and the Executive refuse to enforce the law, what is the alternative? Foreigners must do what American government refuses. Baloney. US combat troops, arguably, who have followed the se illegal orders have engaged in war crimes; and have not lawfully removed themselves from the unlawful orders. I do not care what types of non-sense the DoJ or DoD Staff counsels has collectively agreed with the White House staff. The stories are not lawful; and the legal requirements have not been met.
Indeed, it is disappointing to realize that the legal experts were also in rebellion; and could not be trusted to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath. The way forward is to remedy this failure, not silently pretend the issue is or is not Iraq; the real issue is a failure of people in America to choose to do their moral best to assert their oath, even when the majority wanted something else.
You have shown that you could not collectively assert your oath, unless the voters reminded you, stripped you of power, then made you do the same. Yet an oath is not something between you and the voters; it is between you and God. Your oath, when it is ignored is not a matter of the law or the Constitution, it is whether you will or will not do what you promise even when you believe it is impossible.
Your failure was your refusal to ask for help, the refusal to listen, and the arrogance each of you in Congress have shown to those who dared to approach you in person, offer a suggestion, and provide feedback -- good or bad -- on what was or was not happening; and then your contemptible arrogance to presume that you and your peers had a better solution.
Where is your new approach; where is your recommended restricting to the US Constitution; where is your public statement that outlines what was going to happen; where are your questions; and when all other options failed, what was your plan to lawfully assert your oath?
The only options that this leadership has accepted is the option of assent to the lawlessness. That is not acceptable. The question is what was the plan of the State attorney general, and the US Citizens to lawfully end unlawful cooperating with what was not lawful.
At each stage, it was the continued persistence of those who were initially decried as troublesome; then glacially accepted as perhaps having a point. Utter folly.
Indeed, perhaps Americans require more disasters before they will listen.
It would be preferable to amicably resolve these issues, and timely transform the American governance into something that works, not something that is apologized for.
Iraq cannot be looked at as a subject of the Middle East; it needs to be looked at as a subset of the Global Community: the US has made a mess; and the Global Community will have to jointly work on larger issues to resolve the mess
The correct approach is to broaden the perspective of Iraq; and look at how the world actors can be engaged to support a translational solution that involves solutions, progress, results, and timely oversight and improvement.
The trouble is that despite these proposals being rejected prior to 2001, we have yet to hear of another solution, or series of solutions that will solve the issue.
This is why I am concerned about the summit on Iraq: In my view, it is a distraction from the real mess in the oval office.
If the world is going to be transformed into something that solves Iraq; the world will have to see that there is a clear plan in place to transform the Oval Office clerk. A vote by the voters was something of little concern to the RNC; they openly defied the voters, manipulated them, and even targeted them because they dared to ask tough questions.
This President has already defied the law to his own party; it makes little difference whether he lies in private or public -- the consequences are nothing. That is the problem: The consequences should be lawful, swift, unequivocal, and with a specific deadline: This is what is expected, or the game is over.
Despite Saddam agreeing to the US terms, the US chose to embark on a folly war. Despite this President pretending to change, the US chooses to embark on folly oversight.
I expect the JAGs to get some attention. They need to come up with a clean story where they were sleeping while these war crimes were being perpetuated.
The JAG system has been compromised. I don't care why. The solution is to ensure that the lawyers who failed are brought to account, reviewed to their trustworthiness, and appropriately disciplined.
I do not want to hear the excuses of Germany after WWII. That was intolerable. Germany's labor shortage mean that many key people in the Nazi government could not be punished because there were not enough personnel to replace them. Curious, the lessons and challenge was lost on Iraq where key people were dismissed.
American lawyers have let down Americans and their ultimate client: The Constitution. I do not care what the excuses are, they are frivolous.
The answer is to devise a system that will remove this risk, and ensure there is no discretion. Once we though the oath would bind people to do what they would otherwise find inconvenient. We find that it didn't take much for inconvenient things to become major obstacles, impediments.
That mind set needs to change. The impediments need to be removed. There is a plan. Your job is to review your legacy, and ask -- if you were to do it over again, under this new system, would your choices, fears, and problems been the same; or would the system have forced you and others to protect, reveal, and understand the problem before it took on a life of its own.
There is no right or wrong answer. There is only your answer, your legacy, and what you believe you might have done under this new system. If you believe nothing would change, then say so; if you have a suggestion of what would correct this system, and ensure it remains protected, by all means add your comments; however, if you believe that the new system, had it been in place, would have made the situation works, by all means -- freely trash the proposal, and make a case that the current system is superior, and the best we could hope to have.
If it is the case that this system, as it has been devised, is the best system, then future generations -- until there is a change in the system -- must prepare now to prevail over what seemed impossible. Our legacy will be measured by whether we prepare ourselves and our peers to defend or challenge what we reluctantly thought might be questionable.
If you are not willing to defend this document, then you are free to defend something better. If you do want this document, then you need to make the case that this document cannot be improved; and that no other person has a better idea or solution. I am here to say that you have failed, and that you have been proven wrong.
A document that would correct, protect, and preserve itself from mass tyranny is one solution. How that system is devised is a subject of debate. Your job is to decide whether you believe you can make a difference.
I am confident you can: each of the 60% of Americans who refused to vote have voted: You have sent a clear signal that you have given up, are not interested, and would rather let others make or not make a decision. That is understandable. Your disgust is well placed.
The job of the non-voters is to decide: Do you have an idea of what will interest you to participate; if you had this approach and structure, would you be more inclined to share your views; if you had an idea, concern, or observation, would this system be the one that would say to you, "Yes, we value your input, and really want to know what you are saying -- we're not just saying that to make ourselves sound like nice people."
The Constitution, as defective as it is, stands and remains in full force. The proposed alternative is not something that is either or; you are free to discuss what can be refined, modified, or harmonized to make each better.
The New Constitution is not designed to be the answer: It is designed to be a starting point for a discussion on the points if have risen above.
I will let you choose to act, not act, or debate on the basis of the words alone. You will get no other information other than improvements to the document. If you have a different idea, there is obviously nothing stopping you from doing what I have done here, but doing it better.
Your job in November 2006 is to decide whether you want to continue with what hasn't worked; or we transform the system of governance into something that might work better. How and when that result is achieved is a separate matter. The only issue to consider is what would be an improvement over our current state of affairs. The answer is inside of you. Simply listen to yourselves, and speak. You will be surprised who is listening.
This is what would be helpful:
___ Clarify the problem you are concerned with; outline your solution. Discuss what changes in the system of governance would address the Constitutional system.
___ If you have a specific comment on an issue of legislation outside the Constitution, save those -- keep track of your thoughts. At this juncture, only interested in the specific language and structure of the Constitution: Connect it will the problems you are having with governance; whether rights are or are not being protected; and whether power is or is not being protected.
____ Does the proposed system of governance work better;
____ Does the current Constitutional structure have known problems, but this approach will not work -- if so, state the situation which the reformed or New Constitution would produce inferior results.
____ Review your legacy during the 2000-2006 era. How would this Constitution better protect, self-protect, or otherwise ensure it remains violable
__ Would the proposed approach resolve issues of corruption or compound them;
____ Would the proposed approach resolve the issues of oversight, or make it less effective;
____ Would the proposed approach better reveal, stop, and sanction inappropriate conduct
___ Will future generations be left with a clear guide of what is or is not awful; and how much information is needed to remind our peers that when they cross the line, it's likely that they've not exhausted all reasonable options
___ If we (government, or We the People) abuse power today, are the consequences isolated, or felt for generations
The Congressional leadership’s decision to not consider impeachment can be answered with adverse inferences:
Despite taking an oath to protect the Constitution, the US leadership is not willing to Assert Article I powers to consider removing from the Executive Branch someone who refuses to assent to the law; blocks investigations; and otherwise refuses to permit prosecutors from enforcing the law.
Despite claiming the US is a sovereign nation, the US is not willing to ensure the laws are uniformly applied to all; but relies on foreign prosecutors to do what Congress says should have been done: Gather evidence and examine issues on Presidential conduct
The leadership incorrectly believes that a decision to do nothing – on top of the President’s decision not to enforce the law is change.
The Congressional leadership does not believe that any level of conduct – even conduct that remains secret, hidden, and unexplored – would not warrant removing the President from office.
The Congressional leadership has an agreement with the President not to hold him accountable in exchange for the President’s worthless promise to reveal illegal activity, otherwise not detected.
There is no prospect that a system that fails to examine or oversee a single person can credibly argue it is ready to oversee a larger effort
The President has successfully manipulated the independent Article I branch of government to be a staff agency of the Article II – a violation of the Separation of Powers, and the basis to bring indictments against those in the Article I branch who refuse to do their moral best to protect the Constitution.
Logical Diagram: Is the Pattern of Conduct from the DNC or RNC?
A. Action: Take Oath to Constitution
B. Feign: Review Constitutional Standard for Removal
C. Hide: Ignore Executive Decision not To Enforce Law
D. Speak: Call for Change, but don’t change
E. Hide: Ignore Pattern of Conduct which may warrant removal
F. Delusion: Accept phony argument that voters may backlash against investigating-accusing party for doing what was reasonable
G. Denial: Refuse to accept possibility that voters – as they did with 2006 elections – might be convinced that inaction should be punished; and that Congressional oversight may require removing the President
H. Denial: Refuse to engage in oversight of President; nor develop standards or criteria which may warrant a decision; but ask voters to believe the Congress can do – what it fails to do with the President – on something more complicated involving two people.
I. Inaction: Develop no threshold which, if the President exceeded, would warrant removal
J. Inaction: Rely on foreign prosecutors to do what the President has prevented: Enforcing the law; refuse to point to Constitutional language permitting Congress to delegate law enforcement to non-Constitutional officers; refuse to engage in any domestic oversight mechanism which may monitor the needed changes to prevent the original war crimes from occurring
K. Speak: Claim there is new leadership, yet equally incapable of exercising sovereignty
L. Denial: Refuse to engage in discussion of Summit on President and Constitution; but embrace argument that summit is needed on Iraq, even if it is a distraction from the man who created the mess
M. Say the issues related to the President cannot be examined; but argue a New Constitution – imposing sanctions on Members of Congress for refusing to engage in Presidential oversight -- cannot be discussed
General Problems With Refusing To Consider Impeachment
Despite valid reasons to have an inquiry, it is incorrect to assume the voters will never support removal; or that the voters can never be convinced that the appropriate remedy is to remove a sitting President from office.
Contrary to claims that the US government might be “distracted” by an impeachment, Congress has powers which include impeachment, and the US government is able to engage in multiple activities.
Perhaps that impeachment is not used more often, as it arguably should be to act when the Executive refuses to enforce the law, that the novelty of the event attracts so much attention.
For the new leadership in Congress to argue that there must be changed, the leadership would have to know what is changing from, why, and what it hopes to correct; and how it will know whether the solutions will or will not solve the problem. Where there is no review, there is not prospect of a solution.
It is circular to argue the voters will not support impeachment. The voters have no information to suggest that impeachment is more improper than proper; just as the voters have no basis to have confidence in leadership that refuses to do what it should. Voters might support removal if they had new information; refusing to gather the information doesn’t mean that the voters would reject the effort to start.
Inaction and a refusal to impeach could be a backlash against the party that refuses to do what it should, especially when the voters know there are lawful options to do what the Executive refuses
Curiously, the excuses to do nothing on Presidential abuses are as frivolous as the excuses given to justify inaction and the original defiance of the law.
Claims that the action would bind someone to a specific outcome are as worthless as similar claims on State level proclamations calling for impeachment. Despite a preceding event – that of voting to support or not support a proclamation – there’s little to suggest that the required first step will compel a subsequent endorsement to remove. The first step is to start; not to use the prospect of a final conclusion as an excuse not to consider the option.
It remains to be seen which specific RNC personnel want to go on the record opposing fact finding despite public calls for just that. People who do not want to engage in oversight have not made a strong case they should remain leaders.
Refusing to consider the impeachment question does not to address the failed Article II leadership; nor examine a suitable alternative to Presidential decisions to block fact finding and prosecutors.
Refusing to impeach ensures there is no discussion on whether the President is or is not fit for office; nor develop any criteria to evaluate whether the best option is to remove the President, or Permit him to continue on some sort of probation. The Speaker does not have the exclusive power to make the final decision of whether the President is or is not fit to remain in office; this power belongs to the Senate, not the House. Refusing to consider impeachment amounts to an incorrect assertion that he remains fit for office, despite the President’s refusal to assert his oath. It remains unclear what level of abuse, misconduct, above and beyond what exists in the Constitution, would be required for this Congress to consider examining the illegal activity.
Most likely, the DNC leadership has embraced a NeoCon excuse for inaction – the false assertion that finding the truth will cause a backlash against the truth seekers. If this fear is real, the DNC cannot explain why it wants the truth from the Inspector General overseeing the Iraqi reconstruction. Some truth is less interesting than others.
The concern I have with the published statements on Presidential oversight is the blind difference there is to what he has or hasn’t done; and no prospect that if there are additional problems, despite some apparent agreement to change, that he will not secretly continue to do what would otherwise warrant removal.
Before implementing changes, new management would need to do a proper analysis. Analysis means looking at reality: What has happened; what are the patterns; and what is the way forward. One option remains, as stated in the Constitution, to remove the President when he is not longer fit for office.
At this juncture, we do not know whether the President suffers from some sort of dementia, delusion, or other mental problems. What is clear, is despite clear standards promulgated in statute, the President secretly agreed to violate those. A lesser standard of measurement is an unenforceable agreement with the House leadership to change. The President has defied the law; that he might break a verbal agreement would mean nothing; or it is not a stretch, in that he’s already done this, that he would secretly continue keeping from Congress illegal conduct, unlawful executive orders, or other secrete plans.
To analyze the Presidential abuse problem, we would have to examine what has happened, why, then prospectively develop criteria to determine whether he remains fit for office; and then monitor his performance relative to those standards, and ask whether he has changed, or whether the original abuses are continuing in another form.
__ Has there been a real change?
__ How can we do a proper analysis if the inquiry and options exclude what may be required
__ Why should we believe he’s serious about changing – he’s defied the law; defying a promise is a lesser, unenforceable standard
__ What is to say that we’re taking the bait on another ruse or false promise of change, but he’s doing the same.
A proper analysis requires focusing on reality.
__ How will the analysis be skewed if we constrain our options and views to a narrow set of possible solutions
__ Is there a reason that the issues have not been addressed
__ Is the analysis, by constraining a possible solution, dissuading a proper inquiry into the real reasons and cause for the problems, violations, and other conduct.
__What if the reason for the Problem is the President and the solution is to find a new President
__ How can we have a healthy debate of the situation and causes if the real issue may be off limits
__ Without knowing the issues and causes, how can anyone reasonably exclude an option
__ Has the DNC leadership done a full analysis of the situation to properly conclude what is or is not a solution; if so, how was this analysis done, and why was the analysis not publicly done through the formal impeachment process
__ Is there something that would prevent the public, Congress, and media from properly examining the facts in the House Judiciary Committee; then having a formal decision before the Senate as to whether the President is mentally competent to remain President
__ Has there been a medical diagnosis of the President to evaluate whether he has some pathology issues which have driven him to conclude or not conclude things to the Detriment to the Rule of Law and US Constitution
__ What happens if the issue is with the Executive Branch and the President is not listening as he should. Promising to change is different than actually changing; or developing a changed habit or mental ability to listen to what he is not able to understand.
__ Has there been a review of his speech writers comments, or the extent to which the President does or does not fully comprehend what he is saying; what kind of information and perspective does the president’s close associates have of his ability to comprehend what he is saying; does he believe what he is saying; or is he merely repeating words
__ What review was done of the President’s ear pieces, and his ability to formulate coherent thoughts
__ Once the President was with Speaker Pelosi, it became very apparent he was lost for wards within his own, familiar turf; how has the President been able to adequately manage the affairs of state, make speeches, and conduct other issues of National Importance.
__ Have independent medical practitioners come into the nexus to examine the issues
__ Even if the President remains in office, does the Voting Public have enough information to detect similar problems in other candidates
__ If the President does have mental, speech, or competence problems, but the Senate chooses to accept this incompetence as the best America can offer, what should the voters be mindful of when observing candidates so that the electorate is not inducted to accept someone in the future with similar problems
__ Even if the President remains in office, what formal oversight, review, and monitoring will occur so that new election monitors, and party officials can better review candidates and determine whether they have or have not seen an issue
__ Suppose the President does have issues of mental incapacity – were there people in Texas who knew about this problem; how was the Attorney General, in his role in the Supreme Court, rewarded to remain silent about what he may have possibly known
__ Prospectively, how much further will the United States have to suffer adverse consequences at the hand of secret, illegal activity – how much further will the US want to continue down this path before focusing the attention where it may be most needed: On the man who has chosen to avoid what may be needed medical treatment
__ If there are issues of mental competency, or some sort of internal struggles, is the President wrestling with something that should otherwise be known to the Senate before they make an informed decision as to whether he should or should not remain leader of the Country
__ Although the President claims to be a spiritual person and some may ask that we show compassion to what plagues him, compassion in a spiritual sense is not the same as making informed decisions abut the issues of State. Calls for compassion need to be contrasted with his conduct, the adverse consequences; and the claims for that compassion need to be contrasted with the motivation of those who plea for compassion when removal may be more appropriate.
__ How is the United States government going to oversee, manage, and resolve issues related to hidden violations. If the US is not going to open an examination of these issues, then there is no credible claim that the US is going to observe, view, or examine what may be the issue.
__ By choosing not to explore the President’s ability, competence, and ability to change sends a message that Congress views itself as a staff agency of the Executive Branch, not a coequal branch of government with similar duties and responsibilities the President and Speaker should be held accountable for.
__ If the President is the ultimate decision maker – which he is not – who is deferring to this false ultimate authority, and what are their reasons for ignoring the decision making function of the Senate when choosing to remove
__ If the President were removed, what is to say that the public support for those Senators who vote for removal would not increase
__ Who is proposing that there will be a backlash against the leadership for doing what may be required: To remove someone from the political stage who is not fit to remain in office; are there specific people with medical qualifications who say the examination is not needed; what are the legal backgrounds of those who argue inquiry and examination is not needed
__ Why should we believe that the President, who is unresponsive to the law, will be responsive to the Congress or the Voters.
__ The President has berated the public for their stands on issues; why should we believe that other opposing views, from a Congress controlled by the opposite party, will be given any real respect
__ Is there a credible plan in place to detect what the President may do: Issue other illegal orders, secret regulations, or other guidelines and requirements that defy the Supreme Law, Geneva Conventions, or other legal obligations he free took an oath to preserve, not secretly violate or pretend do not apply to him.
Congressional Oversight of President
Presidential oversight is not about the President, but whether there is a plan in place to oversee a single man. If the Congress can oversee a single clerk in the oval office, we might have a basis to believe it can oversee something more difficult.
The same RNC staffers, Members of Congress who blocked investigations will continue to lurk, hoping to block what they knew or should have known was being improperly blocked form scrutiny
When the Republican leadership creates a picture, it remains to be understood how the DNC was inducted to believe that they were making a free decision to not act, or avoid doing what they should on the basis of an orchestrated ruse. What the Congress refuses to apply to one man should be broadly applied to all things:
__ How has the Congress, in deciding to not review one man, accepted the argument as an unproven premise on other issues, thereby inducing similar non-reviews
__ What is the thinking of the leadership to not review a matter
The issue isn’t simply whether the Congress is or isn’t doing its job; but whether the same questions that this Congress proposes to apply to the President are turned don their head, and directed by We the People to the Members of Congress. If they won’t do their job, why should the Members of Congress not be similarly scrutinized as the President should be. The issue and focus is not whether the President has or hasn’t violated the law; but whether the Members of Congress, through inaction or willfulness have subjected themselves to the same scrutiny that would otherwise be applied to the President if we had a credible oversight system.
Where Congress fails to examine the President, the public is well positioned to apply to both the Congress and the President.
Rather than block a review of the President; the review should expand the inquiry to determine to what extent specific Members of Congress were blocking reviews on the basis of things that they knew should have been reviewed, but were deliberately not reviewed for to-be-understood reasons.
It remains to be understood the RNC-NeoCon excuses and results to get the DNC to back down, and then induce the DNC to similarly back down on minor points. The basis for the lack of interest, non-review, or faulty assumption needs to be better explored, understood before we can assume that the arguably flawed decision to not review the President does not repeat itself in decisions to not review others matters. Indeed, the burden is on the decision maker, not those who have been given an implausible story which defies credibility.
__ Who is going to monitor the President’s fitness for office
__ Who is going to be tasked with overseeing the President, monitoring his effectiveness, then making a case to the public, Senate, and Congressional leadership that there is a reasonable basis to remove the President from office.
Appointing no one means it will not be done, not that there is no problem.
By asserting the President will not be impeached, the Speaker has suggested there is not a credible oversight system, as required under the Constitution, to determine whether the President should or should not be removed from office when warranted.
Oversight of more complicated issues requires a fair showing that simple issues, related to a single person, can be adequately managed, monitored, scrutinized, debated, and then decided. The outcome is not as important as the systems in place to engage in oversight; if there are inadequate measures to monitor the President’s suitability for office, it’s reasonable to expect that more complicated oversight systems required to evaluate the credibility of proposed Iraq options are similarly problematic, nonexistent, or ambiguous.
Indeed, we may never know the answer, nor may we necessarily make a decision to remove from office; however, refusing to start will ensure that outcome by default, not by decision.
Whether the quick decision not to impeach is related to informed judgments remains dubious. AN informed DNC decision not to impeach could be credible if that judgment were based on evidence and a public debate. We have not had that.
Recall the lesson of Iraq: Where there is no real timeline, there is no reason to rush to exclude or include various options. If there is no oversight plan, or the exports are not going to be consulted, then this suffers from the same flaws of Iraq, which we are absurdly being asked to believe have been embraced, not repeated.
__ How will the RNC mandate that the DNC will not engage in oversight of the President?
__ What excuses will the RNC induce the DNC to accept
__ How will the RNC manipulate the DNC to believe the President has changed, when he has not
__ What deceptions, ruses, and other patterns of manipulation used in Iraq will be repeated when making another smokescreen to thwart scrutiny of the President
__ How will secret briefings be reformatted as “bipartisanship”, when the real goal is to confuse the Members of Congress and avoid outside questions as was done with FISA, NSA, rendition, and Iraq WMD issues?
If the DNC will not challenge the President, perhaps the real issue is to find a New Speaker and a New President.
The same excuses used to not review Iraq, WMD, FISA, NSA, are also in full force when applied to a single person. The lessons of Iraq need to be applied to the Congress: Press for answers; and publicly debate what the Congress refuses to address.
In theory, Congress exists as a deliberative body to discuss what the population has no time or expertise to review. The problem is when the so called experts refuse to do what they should; and the public must become experts on what the leadership would rather sweep under the rug.
Some suggest the Republicans may hold the leadership in the DNC to account, or there will be a backlash. That sounds like a phony excuse the RNC backed into to justify abuse: “If you dare hold us accountable, you could be held accountable.” That’s more of the Rovian spin. If it were true that the RNC voters may punish the DNC, the 2006 election showed the opposite: RNC voters will vote for a solution, and not engage in a backlash effort, especially when it is the RNC that is engaged in abuse, in appropriate conduct, or other activity warranting rebuke.
The greater failing is for the DNC, despite the need to act, refuses. Again, the contrast is interesting: The case was made for the urgency of action in Saddam despite not review; now the opposite is being argued on the basis of similar cursory reviews. Perhaps the Congress can explain why swift action based on ignorance is appropriate; but possible needed action against a factor we can control is not needed, but dissuaded.
Fast action on ignorance on matters of war; no action on ignorance on war crimes. Why should we believe that the original basis for the reasons to authorize force were sound if that vote and authorization was based on as equally speculative information.
As with Iraq, the US is rushing a timeline, arguing that we have no time, no interest, or desire to review something that may be real. Where is the timeline that says we the people cannot craft a New Constitution, compel a review, and lawfully remove the President from office through a lawful action under the New Constitution?
If Congress will not protect the Constitution, oversee the issue, or consider the possibly that there may be other secret, equally abusive patterns of conduct which would – as with the 2006 election – turn the RNC against the President, what does this say about the other factors, deliberations, and reviews the DNC leadership may or may not have done.
Perhaps the issue isn’t that there is or isn’t a possibly of an impeachment, but that the otherwise needed debate on impeachment --- that should publicly occur in the House well – has, as with the decision to go to war in Iraq, been decided not eh basis of an agenda, without adequate public input, and the leadership has chosen to stick with that decision despite reality.
If this is the case, as it appears to be, then the call for change is a sham: The leadership in both the DNC and RNC will assert an agenda despite facts: The agenda of invasion despite no WMD or evidence; and the agenda of inaction despite no review. The results are the same: An assertion of an agenda regardless subsequent information requiring a change to the agenda. It is absurd to argue whether our focus is or is not correct when we're looking at the wrong thing and avoiding the President.
America’s government is expansive in power, and has the resources to conduct affairs of war, and review the President. War does not insulate the President from scrutiny. Rather, if we do not review these matters, we may be putting more troops in harms way on the basis of equally flawed, and similarly dubious propositions which should otherwise be explored with a review of the President.
Consider that simple question: What issues, by choosing not to examine the President, has the US government by default accepted as a premise, and refused to consider when applied to other areas in Iraq, or other legislation.
It would be prudent to put these assumptions o the table, and see how the players and leaders of the country are making decisions on a single matter; then the public might better provide feedback on other issues. IF we know the leadership has a defective assumption, or flawed approach, We the People might engage in oversight of Congress if we appropriately tailor our comments based on the real motivations of the leadership, not the inferred or suggested motivations based on a faulty analysis.
If Congress chooses to ignore the analysis, We the People are capable of making adverse inferences. The analysis is not difficult. The only issue is whether the Congress, like the RNC leadership, will create excuses to assert what they say is a mandate, and avoid a mandatory review of what may not be a valid mandate. Perhaps the mandate is for change, and that change means We the People will do what the so called experts refuse to do.
If the same, flawed leadership process which put our Constitution at risk under the RNC continue under the DNC, we need not consider the calls for change real, but merely a ruse to continue what remains unchallenged.
If anything, the calls by the Speaker not to impeach should energize members of both parties and the non-voting citizenry: A call for change was a sham; and the needed oversight of the President will not be possible until the American public, not simply a besieged party, remains vigilant to challenge flawed American leadership across all fronts, not credibly isolated to a particular party.
The President has a way with women. Laura, Condi, Harriet, and now Nancy. Is there something here which needs to be understood. Or is there nothing the President is able to do that dissuades the most adept to assert their influence to prevent what they have the power to prevent: Abuse of power, illegal violations of the law, and war crimes.
It means nothing that by 2009 the Speaker may apologize for something she has not seen; or was lulled into asserting. As with Iraq, where the leadership refuses to challenge, We the People will have to take the arguments and assert them to challenge not only the original wrong, but the defective oversight, inaction, and refusal to investigate.
The original crime with the NeoCons wasn’t the assent to lawlessness; but the false believe that by compromising their values, they would gain something. They did neither. To get their judges appointed, they compromised on the laws of war; to get a tax cut, they supported unlawful expenditures, engaged in frauds, and increased the war debt they will bear. Hardly prudent planning. At best short sighted.
Curiously, the RNC in arguing for long term change crated near term problems, which only got worse. The DNC appears to be doing the same: Arguing for a speculative voting benefit linked with inaction, but possibly suffering adverse consequences: Contempt with the idea of real change.
Pelosi will likely apologize. This is the President’s mess. We will have to clean it up. IT remains to be understood whether the President wishes to join us in a competent review and resolution; or whether he must be lawfully removed from the political stage before we can do what should have been done long ago: Cleaning up the mess this President made.
How the man who created the mess can be considered part of the solution at best is a dubious proposition by the NeoCons-turned-Majority who want to believe in fanciful solutions, despite no solution.
The President has an interest in shifting attention from himself to other things. His legacy has been undermined. The issue is whether we should permit him to undermine the American legacy more, or start anew with a New President.
Impeachment and removal are based on whether the President can or cannot be trusted to comply with the law. Putting aside the issue what apparent endless lists of violations would not warrant removal, and the Congressional failure to define what would constitute a reasonable basis to remove the President, let’s consider the rules the President is operating to protect himself from removal. You‘ll see that the rules are similar to the approaches taken on Iraq, WMD, FISA, NSA, Rendition, and other illegal activity. It remains a burden of the Congress to justify making the case why the President can be trusted to change, despite his entrenched habits which span more than half a decade.
At best, the President’s overtures should be taken for what will most benefit him: A ruse as a defense, but not a real change of heart, merely an appearance of change, with the intent to continue in secret what he believes if right. As a comparison, look at the intent of Addington and Cheney in the Iran-Contra Minority Report; Despite the losses of 1994, they continued with their Agenda; there is no reason to believe this President’s loss in 2006 will dissuade him, Addington, or Cheney of their original agendas outlined in the Iran-C9ontra Minority Report: Tyranny and continued abuse of power.
Rule 1: To distract attention from the President’s refusal to change, make the enemy believe that your mess is their mess; get them to focus on the mess, not you.
The President’s mess is the legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Magna Charta specifically addressed issues of war: When hostilities were over, the prisoners were removed from Britain. However, because the war was bungled, the prisoners were retained. The prudent approach would have been to successfully end the war in Afghanistan, show the legacy of American power, and build on the NATO and world support after 9-11 to solidify the gains in Afghanistan.
The President chose to repeat what the US did in Afghanistan after the Russians left – abandon what was not resolved, thereby repeating what supposedly was behind the Taliban effort to take their fight to America.
The President after the 2006 election has been asked to have a summit on Iraq. IT remains to be seen whose idea this really was; or whether it was from the GOP, and disseminated as a new, good idea with one underlying objective: To align the DNC and RNC on a common goal that presumed the President, not Iraq, was not the subject of the summit.
Rule 2: Make your enemy believe they have to be able to do something; then create a condition where they will fail. Discredit your enemy on a false standard, then shift attention from your original failing, incompetence, and lack of change
The President’s approach is to shield himself from the review. Notice the standards which are being applied to the Iraq leadership: These should be applied to the president: Firm timelines, and clear consequences if he fails. The President’s pre-coup planning is revealed.
Indeed, the real burden is not the Iraqi government, but on the President to comply with Geneva. He has failed. Rather than take responsibility for his war crimes, the President has shifted the responsibility for change to those who have no resources; and shifted the responsibly for accountability to the new leadership in America that still has no power. Yes, the shell game on resources, power, accountability, and the standards has one goal: To get everyone to look at all things except the clerk in the oval office.
The absurdity is for the DNC to play into the President’s hands, and believe that they share in the responsibility for the results; but are absurdly unable to formulate policy. Just as there may be a summit on Iraq, the larger question is: How was the DNC able to conclude, despite equally confusing and disastrous results, the President should not also be the subject of a similar summit. By making a mess in Iraq as with Katrina, the President has shifted his attention from himself to the mess.
The DNC, by holding a summit on Iraq, will incorrectly accept responsibility for the failure of the summit, rather than point attention to the real failure: The failure of the President. If the Summit fails, or Iraq falls apart, the President is likely to blame the summit for the inevitable disaster, not accept responsibly or resign.
Rather than accept responsibly for the mess in Iraq, he’s fired Rusted, but we’re asked to accept the same president, but with a new ISG option study that is still disconnected from reality. The ISG analysis do not have a sense of the near term picture in Iraq; how the President can credibly choose an option, with or without Congress, is dubious. Rather than the President accepting responsibility for the mess, he’s brought Congress into the nexus after the mess has been entrenched, then induced the Congress to believe that their future rests with the mess in Iraq, not the White House, is cleaned up. The DNC leadership has been duped to accept as their responsibility a problem they have not faced; and avoided the problem which needs to real attention: the President.
The DNC leadership does not have to do anything: This mess is the President’s. The DNC leadership have no obligation to meet any criteria, nor do or not do anything at any summit. How the Summit on Iraq does or doesn’t proceed will have no meaning so long as the real problem – the President – is not part of the discussion, and not the focus of a needed summit in the House through an impeachment inquiry.
The DNC should be able to explain why they are willing to engage in fact finding on large disasters and call it a summit, but refuse to have a public summit on a simple issue of whether the President is or is not fit to remain President.
The common element is the President, not the DNC responsibly to solve what they refuse to solve: the President’s incompetence and arguably unfitness to remain in office.
The DNC, rather than putting attention on the President, have taken the bait, and will incorrectly accept blame for a summit and disaster in Iraq; while not assigning the correct blame to the President. The President is immune from blame: He is a leader of summits, not the rule of law or the Constitution.
Summits on Iraq are good; summits on the president are not allowed. Sounds like more of the double talk the voters supposedly rejected with this election. What is the DNC leaders’ explanation for the double standard on summits? We’re not allowed to talk about that, even through Rove’s approach to leadership has been discredited. “Heck of a job summit makers.”
Rule 3: No need to change if you can make others fear consequences on them if you are required to change.
Enron is a template for this President. When the market caught wind that Enron was imploding, and that the frauds were coming undone, the Enron leadership did not accept responsibility or tell the truth. They committed to their agenda, continued the false statements, and created bigger lies.
There was no need for the Enron leadership to change course: Nobody had an idea that change was needed. Yet, the fear was that if the truth were known, there would be large losses. Others were brought into the sham. The losses came, the mess was bigger.
It’s better to confront the issue sooner, than pretend it goes away, and let it grow. It will make the mess that much bigger, something the DNC seems to have not learned from Iraq, nor applied to this President.
This President has no need to change, as might be required to avoid a removal decision by the Senate, if he can make others fear consequences for voting against him. Indeed, The DNC has likely done little analysis of the voters – upon finding that the President has not changed, but committed more serious crimes; or that he has secretly done other things warranting removal -- how the voters might, as they did with 2006 rebuke the RNC leadership for letting the disaster continue.
This President and Rove appear to have relied on the NeoCon approach of pointing to speculative future adverse consequences as a justification for accepting adverse consequences today. This is a pretext for abuse which will only end once the country faces the abuse, not let it go unexamined with the smokescreen of Iraq.
This President as he did with the RNC appears to have induced the DNC leadership to incorrectly believe that regardless the level of abuses, misconduct, or other high crimes, that any and all accountability on the President – including removal – would be bad for democrats. This is absurd. The voters have yet to learn of the adverse information; if the result were true – that the removal would backfire – why aren’t the RNC leaders revealing the information that would warrant removal, then enjoy a victory?
It’s an absurd, convoluted argument to suggest that the truth will mean bad things for those who expose the truth. We don’t now the truth, so how can something that is not known be pointed to with any precision or specificity as to whether the results of that truth will or will not be good or bad. This is absurd.
The correct approach is to face the truth; and work on the affairs of the state – review with the President the issue of Iraq in a Summit; and hold a summit on the President. Whether this review is done by Congress, or done outside Congress is of little concern. If the voters, despite the call for change, suspect the Congress is not willing to face what it should, the answer is not a default decision for more of the same, but for a voter backlash in 2008. The choice is not between the RNC and DNC; the choice is between what we have, and an improvement. Doing more of the same – ignoring things – is not an improvement, but more of a mess.
This President cannot be believed to be committed to any change; if he was changing, he should not be doing the same – continuing with messes, but getting everyone in both parties to ignore him, and focus on the consequences of his reckless conduct. No President needs to change when those with power to examine are examining the wrong thing, the wrong mess, and ignoring the cause of the mess. While the DNC is fixated on the mess this President crated in Iraq, he’ll likely do what he did with the FISA-NSA violations, and secretly pass executive orders directing other messes be created, to the “detriment” of the DNC if they dare approach it. Folly!
Rule 4: Those who believe they have power can be inducted to believe that have power without ability to see, detect, or monitor.
The President, by inviting Pelosi to lunch, accepts power has shifted. However, power has not changed when the opposition continues to recognize what is powerless: The President. This President has no moral authority to compel anyone to cooperate; nor that they appear.
If there were real change, Pelosi would have privately agreed to lunch; inducted the President to invite her publicly, on the assumption she would have accepted; then publicly rebuked him for defying his oath, and immediately starting a tirade against his abuse of power. Pelosi chose to accept the offer; it remains to be seen whether her perceived statesmanship is rewarded with a Presidential backlash.
The RNC has a wonderful habit of publicly demanding of the opposition public decorum, without reciprocating behind closed doors. Pelosi is being manipulated to make her believe she has power to review and oversee Iraq; but she has been inducted to believe she cannot afford the time to review the President.
Pelosi has no ability to do what she refuses to do: Engage in benign oversight of a single person: The President. What excuse she has embraced to avoid this scrutiny should be expected to recur on all levels of staff and the page oversight board. The Speaker will have to explain why some warrant oversight in Congress, but the coequal branch of government does not coequally share in a requirement to be subject to the law and oversight.
To drive home the disparity, the President has already dispatched his agents, law enforcement officers, and others to do what Pelosi refuses to do to the President: Check the Congress, engage in oversight, and monitor. Pelosi has been inducted to accept the Presidential intrusion as necessary; but Pelosi is silent on the President’s plans. This President abused power with the FISA Court; what does Pelosi know that convinces her the President will not target the Members of Congress as Pelosi and the Senate should target the President? She has no answer, because she enjoys the deception.
Indeed, on matters of the law and extradition, the President defies the laws of war and refuses to support extradition of 28 CIA agents to Milan; then without missing a beat, he dispatches his agents to our ally in the UK, to do exactly what the President opposes: Engage in illegal conduct in the UK to then extradite people to the US. What is Pelosi’s plan to look into the abuse of power, violation of laws, and double standard on extradition: The US likes extradition if it means we can abuse others and impose our will illegally; extradition is bad if it means the US will be held to account for that abuse or illegal imposition of will. Pelosi has no answers because the question has not been asked: Why should we believe this President will change; he’s continuing what hasn’t been stopped under the RNC. Pelosi is distracted by Iraq and the Summit, not fixated on the Constitution or the single man proposing the diversion.
Pelosi has been induced to believe she has power as Speaker, but is powerless as Speaker to use her voice to rally both parties in the House against the President; and all voters in the nation for the Constitution. Pelosi has as much power as the President makes her believe she has; Pelosi has the power to change mines, rally the nation and disaffected GOP, and gather new evidence to put the burden on the RNC Senate: If they fail to remove the President, the RNC will suffer additional losses in 2008. Without shuffling the planted deck, Pelosi has played the President’s cards for him. Patsy Pelosi.
Rule 5: If your enemy is close, make them believe it is in their interests to feign ignorance. With time, they will believe it is safe to be ignorant, avoiding reality and the needed confrontation.
The NeoCons were successfully in inducing the American legal community to compromise on the rule of law. The RNC believed that if they agreed with the unlawful agenda, the NeoCons would support the judicial reforms. The thinking was that if the legal community was silent on war cries and other NeoCon abuses, the Congress would approve the needed judicial officers to combat the DNC.
Small problem. The Judicial officers including Bybee, Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Hanes, and others did neither: they didn’t point their judicial activism to enforce the law, but to target the vulnerable. The wrong judicial officers were approved. By supporting an illegal agenda, the NeoCons inducted the American legal community to not assert their oath; and then remain silent while those who abused the law were placed on the bench to abuse the Constitution. Pelosi’s approach is to ignore this problem, and not hold the President accountable for his appointments. She can blame the Senate. However, despite her legal power to review and undo through an impeachment – and lawfully remove from the Judicial Bench Bybee and Roberts for their alleged misconduct and violations of the law – Pelosi wants to look forward.
Pelosi is in charge, but she’s being inducted to believe Geneva is something that is vague. Yet, although Congress passed an illegal bill called the Military Commissions Act – Pelosi has no plans to undo what is illegal, nor enforce against the President the Geneva abuses. The laws about torture are meaningless when Geneva is about abuse. Pelosi defies her oath. Rather than lawfully target the President for removal; then strike down the illegal Military Commissions Bill, The Speaker is on a summit about Iraq.
What else has the President induced the Speaker to remain ignorant about? Whatever the President has done, said, or implied – as an inducement for the DNC to celebrate inaction – should be understood: It will continue in other things, as was done with the Iraq WMD debate. The seeds have been set; another illusory timeline is ready to be embraced. The NeoCons when challenged will say, “We agreed not to raise these issues with the President, there is not need to focus on this trivial matter. Vote for more war appropriations. It’s for the troops. Weep, weep.”
The tears are for your Constitution. Instead of having one party in rebellion, the second has joined and is, through choice or ignorance, complicit with the decision to not look at what should be examined: Their conduct, entrenched habits, and the NeoCon commitment to return in 2008 to continue, as did Hitler after the German losses following WWI. Until the NeoCons, and this President, are made the subject of a summit, Americans should expect the same as Germany: A return of what was not properly dealt a lawful, fatal blow. Addington and Cheney should be commended for their persistence: Despite their flawed Iran-Contra report, they’ve peddled the myth of the law against the reality of the Constitution and forced their peers to choose tyranny not the law. German war crimes prosecutors have moved, not because they love America, but because they love the law, as the NeoCons detest.
This nation must take the time to review exactly what the DNC leadership believes cannot be reviewed; then generalize the lessons, decisions, and assumptions; then review how this flawed oversight will play itself out on larger issues of Iraq.
Curiously, Iraq is used as a smokescreen to avoid overseeing the President; the President, inducing inaction on himself, ensures the same flawed oversight players itself out in Iraq. He is the mess, but others will be inducted to accept responsibility for something that they have not done. You can thank the DNC leadership for their decision to remain ignorant on something that should be simple, clear, and understood: What are the assumptions behind our believe that ignorance is better than facts; or, as Gonzalez argues, assent to illegal activity is better than allowing the courts and Constitution to stand next to the facts. Gonzalez is the target of a German war crimes prosecutor; why does the US leadership believing the non-sense of an alleged war criminal over the specific requirements in the Constitution: To remove a President when he is not fit to be president. The DNC leadership will have to explain why, despite their periodic lip murmuring called, “taking the oath of office” to protect the Constitution, the real defense of American Constructional principles rests with the nation we formerly imposed the Nuremburg Trials. If we will not listen to the law from those who were forced to learn the lessons, why should anyone believe – without examining either the facts or the law – Americans have learned any lessons? There is no reason, other than the NeoCon belief that ignorance is strength; and that avoiding the law is better than asking inconvenient questions of a single man in the Oval Office.
Rule 6: You demonstrate your ability to control or abuse others when you encourage them to believe there is a benefit to not examining things.
The NeoCons have done an number on America: Rewarding ignorance, celebrating illegal activity, and asking Americans to hold the contemptible legal community with respect. The reverse is true. Bybee, Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Haynes, and other American lawyers – in a position of trust, who took an oath to protect the Constitution, and enforce the Geneva Conventions – failed. Geneva is clear: Abuse is illegal. Rather than maintain that standard, they crated a phony standard: Whether something is or is not torture. Worse, the Congress embraced that non-Geneva standard and celebrated. Pelosi has no plans to undo it.
The DNC leadership has the opportunity to undo what is wrong: The flawed thinking if they examine reality, not embrace absurd notions as to why something should not be reviewed.
The Speaker has the power only if she is willing to use it; if she chooses not to examine, then she has not power in that area. Power not asserted, as we learned under the RNC Congress, is illegal Executive power assented to.
There’s no sense anyone celebrating that there is a first woman as Speaker when the speaker has been inducted to celebrate a false victory: That of having achieved a position, not for having used that power to maintain the position of the Constitution: At the center of the Speakers’ focus. She would rather have a summit on Iraq, not the Constitution. She could do both, but she chooses to narrowly apply her power to what suits the President: A diversion from him, and a false focus on what the President will not be held accountable for – conduct warranting his removal from office.
Reconsider Enron, and the auditors. They chose, like the White House and DoJ Staff counsel, to accept illegal conduct today on the false premise that something better would happen. Their reward is a fitting rebuke by the German war crimes prosecutor, something which Chip Burrus in the FBI cannot claim. Americans’ didn’t assert the rule of law on Americans: It was at the hands of those who dared to stand up against the recklessness of the American Department of Justice, unwilling to remove itself from the illegal Presidential cloak placed over the DoJ OPR investigation.
Indeed, when the Speaker says the President will not be examined, she’s also saying we will not review why the DoJ OPR was blocked; or what memoranda the Attorney General in Title 28 the DNC Minority Members could have demanded, but failed. What else does the Speaker not want examined? That should be the subject of the public inquiry of the Congress; and the full cooperating between the US citizenry and the foreign war crimes prosecutors. That which the Speaker says cannot be reviewed should be laid before the courts, evidence of what the Speaker fears applying her power: The power to review anything, with equal authority as the President.
Coequal branches, coequal ignorance. The sworn oath to the Constitution; just don’t look at the inconvenient violations which shows the oath has not been asserted, as otherwise required. The oath is taken to compel action when inaction might be preferable. There is no use to take an oath when, despite that oath, the preference for ignorance and inaction remains the standard.
That which is a strength will be derided as a negative; the skill you learned will be explained away as not necessary when you most need it; the relative advantage you have will be argued to be a flaw; the power you hold over others will be pointed to as a mortal threat, evidence of your inability to do what others should expect: Assent to incompetence.
Congress is not a coequal branch when it agrees with the President’s agenda. The President has not agreed with the Constitution’s agenda: To enforce the law, and remain subject to inquiry.
The NeoCon absurdity continues: Iraq summits good; Constitutional summits bad. More of the mess, good; examine, analyze, or remove the mess, bad. The Speaker has limited powers when she limits her options; or sets her agenda on the basis of what will make a tyrant happy, not what will satisfy the Constitution. Tyrants are never happy unless they are manipulating others over a lunch sweetened with the tyrant’s choices.
Rule 7: If you cannot account for the Past, create a bigger smokescreen.
The President’s crocodile tears on Veterans day mean nothing. They were on cue, not as those he supposedly honored were inconveniently returned to Dover. This President’s legal requirements are clear, he defies them. The Speaker refuses to consider the evidence; she wants to look at the future. The future is uncertain; the present is now; the evidence has not been collected. There has been no accountability. The President simply creates another sideshow, and she’s ready to order her next meal from the tyrant’s menu.
Rule 8: If your opponent has been induced to do nothing, and not ask questions in one forum or situation, challenge them to maintain that standard in all forums, even if silent or assent was first inappropriate, and subsequently at odds with other interests.
The Speaker has taken the bait, not keeping her options open. Rather, she’s pretending she’s the leader of a coequal branch, while standing on unequal footing. By committing to withdraw and respond to the President, the Speaker has started the habit of compromise, not assertion; where the Speaker has the duty to oversee the Coequal branch, she has assented to placing that branch under the wing of a tyrant. The air from the mother of five hopes to keep the wings of a tyrant flapping, not in using the flame of power to exhaust the needed air to maintain the tyrant’s flight.
The proper approach is to publicly extent the olive branch, but remain vigilant in detecting the new lines of abuse, secret executive orders, and other illegal things this tyrant does. The tyrant has not stopped his monitoring and abuse of power, nor the intrusion into Congress; there is not reason the coequal leader should promise to a lesser standard the tyrant has not agreed, nor respects.
The error is for the Speaker to have compromised on the most important, leaving all subsequent assertions far less than what should have been originally demanded: Complete disclosure, openness, and accountability of the President. The President as the leader of Article II will only face a coequal challenge when Article I accepts the Article II has not changed, only his ruse.
The joke will be when the tyrant, having been given deference in one forum, will be subject to other reviews in other forums. NO matter the result, the original victory was the agreement not to look; any deviation from that unconstitutional standard, however appropriate will be rebuked with the false claim of being partisan – another Rovian NeoCon approach. It is appropriate to speak, Madame Speaker; and be the leader of the Article I branch, not the clerk’s assistant for more Article II tyranny.
Rule 9: Make your opponent believe you’ve run out of options while you secretly continue your abuse.
Victory is a false defeat. Defeat is a non-used victory. Tyrants never run out of options: There are more laws that can be secretly violated, evidence destroyed, and witnesses killed. This leadership will have to decide how much more genocide they will accept before they feel a twitch of concern that the President might not have changed. Where the Speaker refuses to consider the possibility of removal, there will be no debate on how much more abuse, inaction, and tyranny would warrant GOP rebellion against the President, and national support for a removal.
The President belies his oath in tearfully stating he honors the troops through illegal war. The President does not honor the Constitution, his commitments, the Supreme laws, or those who serve him. He only honors those like the Speaker who agree to be manipulated.
The President still controls the mind of the Article I leader. It does not matter than he has lost control of a superior defense: The power to thwart enforcement. He has a greater power: The false belief in change, despite no change in the Article I leader’s heart – the agreement not to ask, probe, or hold the Article II leader to account.
Article I leader refuses to act because she incorrectly believes she’s won. Article II leader supports this false belief by appearing to yield; yet it was article I who responded to the timing of Article II, not the other way as would have happened had there been an untimely summit on the Constitution and Article II. Power is meaningless when we respond to the agenda of others; those who yield have not prevailed while the tyrant in secret continues to plot more tyranny. It will not end until the Article II leader is lawfully removed from his position of tyranny; changing the Article I leader is not the same as changing the article II leader.
If the tyrant had run out of options, he would not have invited Article I leader into his inner sanctum. This is not a defeat, but a false loss and ruse to invigorate what he hopes will be an ally, not a coequal branch. In Connecticut he extended the olive branch to what he thought would be a better option; by reaching out he’s lost control, but reached out he did, to gain an ally in avoiding oversight of tyranny.
Rule 10: There’s no reason to change when you’ve incited others to demand attention on an issue unrelated to you.
A promise to change is meaningless if there is no check or confirmation that the change had occurred. Even if there were checks, the tyrant can create the illusions of change, while secretly doing what he favors.
A claim of bipartisanship is a false agreement, unrelated to the superior agreement to the Constitution. Article I leader, like the NeoCons, has been duped to put loyalty to agreement, like a promise to remain silent on ORCON violations, as something above the superior duty to the Constitution.
The victory is to appear to lose, induce others to remain loyal to something other than what they promise; then march with them as they sway to the path of tyranny. The march has started. Remember, you were warned before, rebuffed it many times; and then in hindsight wished you listened. There is no need to listen; simply notice, and maintain your vigilance. The excuses of other things are just that – a ruse to divert your eyes from the Constitution, and remain loyal to something inferior. Victory is meaningless if you are not willing to fully assert your oath against the tyranny in Article II through all lawful means. You must choose to oppose that which is lesser than the Constitution, our you shall remain the enemy of the Constitution, and ultimately defeated. You have no hope of victory. The world comprehends the sham, and the German war crimes prosecutors continue to do what Americans refuse: Asserting the rule of law over tyranny.
Rule 11: Induce the enemy to ask for something that appears to be for their gain; by focusing on that, you control their eyes and their mind. You do not have to change when their eyes have changed.
Everything the President does, agrees to, or says has one motivation: To prepare the NeoCon’s return to power so that they may return to their tyranny agenda, as did Hitler after WWI. They have not given up on the agenda, only plan to use the setback to prepare their forces for another push.
They view defeat as a gain; the setback to their advantage; a chance to recondition; and a time to examine what they can do to prevail. It has not ended. It will continue. You cannot waiver. Your job is to expand your base, sound the alarm to the RNC base, and remind them of their choice: Certain betrayal, or certain loss.
The nonvoters are your allies. They will speak and respond to reason. They must see that you have not lost your minds with the false victory; but that you and they have a common objective: the Constitution, the rule of reason, and a commitment to prevail over tyranny, until it rears its head. It will never be destroyed unless you agree to prevail regardless the trickery, ruses, and false defeats.
Don’t want to learn of the deception; know that nothing exists to punish the deception, and there exists nothing but lawful death at the hands of a war crimes tribunal that will end the despicable love of power and tyranny. It will continue, gather in a new form, and surprise you. Your job is to rally larger forces, grow in numbers, train new minds to look for new deceptions, and move to defeat tyranny before it rears its ugly head again in the Oval Office. The absurdity is that a false promise to cooperate does nothing to end what is already in the Oval office; This tyrant’s abuses, fully endorsed by Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo, Haynes, and Bybee. All of them, but the clerk in the oval office have been challenged, but they have not been lawfully defeated.
Yes, you are tired; yes, you are exhausted; yes you have a victory of the election. But do not waiver, nor fall into false complacency. The work ahead is not nebulous, but more of the same challenge: To use your mind to outthink the desperate in the DOJ Staff; to work together to make the White House counsel respond to the Article I; and devise equally creative, but lawful means to preserve the Constitution. Continue with what you have learned; refine your skills; keep your options available; and learn new things to prepare for what continues. You will be challenged again soon. Remain alert, prepare, and maintain a free mind. Your mind is your only true ally: The tyrant’s only power is the ability to adjust your focus; he cannot adjust your mind unless you agree. You much choose to focus on the defense of the Constitution; be mindful of your duty to yourself and your loved ones; and be willing to assert your mortal best to be open to lawful means that will protect what was almost taken away through neglect, choice, and sheer will. You must choose to prevail, and do your best to support others to the same cause. A promise to someone even God is meaningless unless you are willing to do your moral best even when you are most fearful, afraid, uncertain, confused. It is your job to remind yourself of your mind’s function: To assert your rights when most prudent; not wait until it is convenient for the tyrant’ to destroy or manipulate.
Recall the lessons of the lawyers, the logic, and the arguments before a court: the law, as with all things is not mysterious. It is simply the choice of prudence over imprudence; rules over lesser rules; satisfied criteria over incomplete. It is understandable, and as with all things, those who have the power of the law, have the power of defying the law only if you blindly trust, but fail to face the truth: Of who has betrayed; who has not done what they promised; and who has shifted the obligation and duty inappropriately as a pretext for subsequent inaction, failure, and manipulation. Those most trained on the law well know how to manipulate, not the law, but the facts and reality to justify lawlessness. They are the targets of the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors. They are your political opponents; and they are your legal rivals, putting their private covenants to tyranny above the oath they have to the Constitution. Their real loyalty is to tyranny, the false source of power; not to the real source of power: We the People, who may lawfully deceive the tyrant to ensure he remains but a clerk and a fool. That a fool may be a tyrant does not mean the tyrant is a fool; only that we have been foolish to accept tyranny from a fool.
We have no reason to ask this tyrant for anything. He cannot give us anything by tyranny. The reality is the tyrant should be compelled to defend himself before the Senate to explain why he should not be removed from office. Tyrants must defend, We the People have no burden. We have no reason to give compassion to those who have no compassion for their oath to God. Their personal struggle is of little interest when it comes to matters of State and the Constitution. The tyrant should be given the chance to resolve his dispute with his maker soon, at the hands of a lawful execution at an Article III tribunal. This tyrant has shown little respect for the law, his promises, our document, or liberty, or the deference we have given him. Tyrants remain tyrants; whether they abuse or fairly treat slaves is irrelevant. There is no slavery unless we agree to enslave our minds to non-sense; this tyranny shall end.
Rule 12: Get your enemy to fear their allies and support, and make them agree you are safer person to be around.
This President has created a false agenda. Despite the clear Article II powers in his number one agenda – the Constitution – this President pretends that a summit on Iraq is superior to a summit on the Constitution. Iraqis debated the law; but not this President. Iraqis who assert the law are secretly plotted against by the President in another coup.
The DNC leadership does not have a unique set of agendas or problems. The same problem confronts them, but they avoid it: Tyranny, and the excuse of inaction.
This President smiles, sharing the elitism with the newly elected Article I leader. It only took a smile and a tear to dissuade oversight. But this diversion disconnects the Article I leader’s oath from the promise to the voter and citizenry to protect the Constitution, even from a domestic enemy in the Oval Office. By extending the olive branch, this tyrant incorrectly has others believe he is the source of reward and reconciliation; the real sources is We the People, and how this President reconciles his misconduct with the Senate.
Article I leader must choose between the Constitution and Article II leader. They are not the same. The Constitution is superior; the Article II leader inferior. The choice can be compelled with more meaningful consequences, including impeachment by the states of the Article I leader, as with the Article II leader.
Presidential Oversight Plan
Congress needs to fully demonstrate that it understands its Constitutional obligation to remove, when warranted, the President. Whether the conduct is criminal activity or a failure to change is a matter for the Senate to debate after the trial.
The Congressional oversight plan of the President must build on the Constitutional framework, and be seen as affirmatively linked with the 5 USC 3331 oath: The duty to protect the document. For contrast, we could look at the failure of the Congress in re Iraq, FISA, WMD, and intelligence issues to properly assign responsibility to the President for the failures of his officers to comply with the law. The President refuses to enforce the law or remove those who are a threat to good order; Congress, if it is to have any credible check, has only the impeachment power to do what the Executive refuses: Lawfully remove from the political state threats to the Constitution. However, the situation as blossomed that foreign war crimes prosecutors see a need to act, more so the Americans have refused to hold themselves accountable for Geneva Violations, self-delegating immunity for things they were expressly denied the power to do: Retroactively grant immunity for things which all nations have the duty to prosecute: War crimes, and the failure to prevent war crimes.
By refusing to consider impeachment, the Congress implicitly refuses to consider what standards would be grounds for removal. Taken to the extreme, Pelosi’s assertion that there will never be impeachment means that, even if the President were to commit Genocide against American citizens, the Article I leadership would do nothing. If this is untrue, then there must be a lesser threshold which the DNC would find reasonable to start impeachment.
The issue before us is to compel the Article I leadership to be specific with what they would jointly agree were reasonable grounds for removal, and something that would well convince the public that the removal were reasonable. Again, that the voters and citizens may not understand the issues is linked only with the refusal of the leadership to produce or compel the Article II power to provide the evidence which the voters can understand. Voters understand the abuse of power; they defied the RNC in November 2006; if given the clear standards, and the facts, the voters will well appreciate, if not demand, a removal from office.
The DNC leadership needs to be more clear with what standards they plan to use; what series of conduct; and what patterns of evidence would warrant a removal. Then, when the government employees in a position to report and produce this evidence see this type of behavior, they’ll know there is an activity audience, ready to digest the legacy of abuses.
This tyrant, because he has not been impeached, has no interest in changing. There are more abuses unfolding. The DNC leadership, whether they want to or not, will have to get a signal from We the People that the Executive Branch personnel and public are on the same page: We know there is a problem; the issues need to be examined; and there needs to be a concerted effort to share the evidence. Whether Congress wants to cooperate is irrelevant: They have no choice, but to protect the Constitution.
Congress needs to send a clear signal that they know there is a problem, and that it remains open to hearing and gathering more information related to specific criteria that would warrant removal. Whether Congress is or is not clear is meaningless: We the People will have to make our standards and expectations known: Whether the long string of abuses, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, serve as a guide is irrelevant. This President remains in power in 2006; the issue is whether he should be permitted to stay in power, or lawfully removed because he has refused to change; or has exceeded a reasonable probation period to reform.
Agents in the CIA, contractors, NSA, and DOJ need to hear a clear signal from the public that we will stand by them, even if they are threatened for disclosing other abuses related to Presidential abuses that would warrant removal. There is no need to wait until January 2006 to send a signal that change might arrive; the legacy of the FISA, rendition, NSA, WMD, and other abuses should send a clear signal that change must arrive: The pattern of abuse is compelling, and there is little prospect of reform.
Congress needs to be clear with the method to monitor the President. Again, if Pelosi is saying that impeachment is off the table, this does not send a clear signal that performance along any standard will or will not be monitored. Where there is no plan t hold someone accountable, there is no standard, nor is anything monitored relative to that standard.
What is needed is an effort to publicly discuss the standard that the Senate should use to evaluate and monitor whether the President should be removed; then use that criteria and benchmarks, as with Iraq, to make a decision whether an adjustment is needed. As long as the US refuses to do this with the President, the US benchmarks with respect to Iraq cannot be seen as credible. The prudent path is to demonstrate the oversight works with our President; perhaps, seeing our model implemented at home, Iraqis might apply the same standards for judicial-legislative review; as opposed to the current plan of the United States to use the criteria as failure-guaranteed, then using the inevitable failure along those abused as a pretext for a coup. If only the Senate were as willing to establish guidelines and standards as the US might do with other nations. It doesn’t mean that a removal is required; it only means that the Senate, until discusses the standards for removal, will need guidance from We the People to remind them want requires lawful removal.
On the other hand, there may be a basis to believe the President will change; that his changes might be real; and that the President, despite the Iran-Contra legacy of his peers, will refuse to do what others before him have done: Continue to abuse power in secret.
Perhaps, but the President is not likely to change. Despite the law, he’s refused to follow it; despite his oath, his refused to honor the Constitution; despite the requirements of the statutes, he’s rebuffed oversight, secretly enacting unlawful plans, apparently hiding it from his own party. It is nothing for him to lie and conspire against his enemies in the DNC.
The burden is on the President to make the case he remains fit for office, and should compete his term. This doesn’t mean a smokescreen of legislation on issues unrelated to his misconduct; but attention and a real change within the DoJ, Attorney General, and the National Security Council. The NeoCons may have lost the election, but they still control executive power, and like Hitler after WWI, have every intention to win in 2008. What they have lost, they will point to as a reason for celebration; what they have been stripped of, they will view as an entitlement; what they have failed to do, they will look at as discretion. They remain in denial: They have lost power, but they have not lost their love of power, and sense of entitlement to that power.
The voter and non-voters between now and 2008 must be treated with reverence, respect, and deference. They are intelligent people. They know a wrong when they see it. There is ample evidence in the Conyers Report to justify a removal; the way forward is to couch the evidence in terms the voters will reasonably demand that removal is the only option. This doesn’t mean inflating the evidence; it means being clear with what the DNC will or will not justify a removal from the Senate; and making a convincing case that the failure of the Senate to remove would result in losses for the RNC, then delivering on that Senate Failure.
Once the new Senate in 2008, because it refuses to act, is struck down, there will be three weeks in the first weeks of 2009 where the new Senate, potentially comprising 2/3 DNC, would be enough to remove the President.
The aim of the voters should be to vote and collect evidence for the purposes of deciding one thing: has the President changed his behavior now that he’s lost; or has he lost his will to publicly do what he has secretly done – abuse power.
It doesn’t matter what the President does or doesn’t do. The issue is to motivate the public and the Executive Branch personnel to work together, with the Article I leadership, and gather evidence to make an informed decision: Using reasonable criteria has the President chosen to continue his abuse of power, and should be removed; or has he changed, and he should remain in office.
Once We the People are clear with our intention to do what Congress refuses – to protect this Constitution, or craft a new one that will be protected – the voting and non-voting public will realize that the President is in a precarious situation: Given the momentum, it is unlikely this President can change his conduct, comply with the Constitution, and still maintain control. These are three diametrically opposed lines or vectors, none of them have been aligned; and the pressure of public oversight, evidence transfer, and pressure by the Congress will make the divergence obvious.
The president’s conduct is not in harmony with the law; the DoJ and White House counsel internal procedures, leadership, and operating instructions are devoid of legal foundation; and the White House has no deference to the Constitution. It is folly to believe, despite an external change in the Article I leadership, the Article II operations, practices, and ongoing plans – premised on their continued control of Article I – would change. They have too much momentum, and the illegal activity continues; the problem is that to suppress the evidence and reporting, despite the public claims of “we want change, and we hear you,” within the Executive Branch there is greater pressure to do the opposite: Continue, but not get caught; do it, but don’t tell me; we can win, but we’ll hide this.
Conversely, the Article I oversight, executive branch employees, and We the People need to be sensitive to this momentum, and continue – as with the pre-election monitoring and reporting – to quickly disseminate the smallest hint that things have continued. The evidence will spread like wildfire. Despite the promises of reform, the Executive will be besieged by additional evidence from within the GOP, his own branch, and within the legal community of problems.
The way forward is to be prepared for the same smokescreens, excuses, and diversion: But they will be masked as something else: Summits, Iraq, bipartisanship, and our legislative agenda. Don’t be fooled: It’s the same NeoCon non-sense: Diversion, while the agenda continues.
Your job is to think like Hitler did after WWI, but apply that to the Republicans after the November 2006. If you were in a position like Hitler after WWI, how would you use your defeat to rally people to do more of what was intolerable. Then consider what should have been done, despite his defeats, to thwart the abuse of power going into WWII. The lessons apply today.
Indeed, the logic of Hitler is absurd in hindsight; but a nation was inspired to wage a war to expand power, enslave other people, and return riches to the Germans.
The NeoCons are prepared to do something outrageous, extraordinary, and unexpected. It will be their undoing. Foreign fighters remain poised around the globe, reporting the abuses and continue to gather war crimes evidence. The NeoCons have not left the political stage: They plan to do the opposite of what is expected: Where there has been a trouncing and defeat, that will be their call for more non-sense; where there has been a loss, that will be used as a pretext to engage in more abuse, but in secret; where they feel they have been entitled to something, but deprived of it, they will use this as an excuse to engage in additional abuse.
they will do so without warning, and their goal is to shock and dismay you. Their approach will be to create a problem, and as always target those who speak out. Recall the lessons of Iraq: Although it is the President’s mess, the NeoCons have devised the way forward to be something that the Article I Congress will be held to account. Although this is a false standard, the ruse will be to embrace the Congress as a new ally, while plotting to make the Congress take the fall. The NeoCons plan to use the pretextual defeat of the Congressional summit as the excuse to abuse power, possibly launch a coup next Spring in Iraq, and then say the action was required because Congress failed.
Regardless the approach, be prepared for a fanciful, complex series of events. The goal is not to do what is right, but to with righteousness do what is wrong. The NeoCons have not been lawfully destroyed; they only view their loss as a catalyst to reinvigorate themselves. The goal of the public should be to compel the GOP membership to choose whether they want to continue with the NeoCon non-sense, and make a fateful attack on the world stage; or whether they want to end their rebellion now, and work from within to gather evidence, and share it with the world and war crimes prosecutors. Both choices will result in a change. The public must remind the Executive Branch employees that they have freely taken an oath; and that they freely volunteered to do or not do what they have engaged.
It makes no difference that the Congress has assented to the President’s illegal abuse of power; or that it refuses to engage in oversight. The core message all executive branch personnel must hear is that the voters have woken up; they will not stand for the abuse; and that the voters are willing to do something lawful to protect what we have: The Constitution. Ti is time for the Executive Branch personnel to take this wakeup call seriously: The agents, contractors, and other personnel working for the President must choose whether they will cooperate with is illegal, suppressed, secret, and remains hidden; or whether they will, as they are required, to put their oath above their promise to keep illegal things secret. Congress has new leadership; it is open to haring information related to criminal conduct; however, the Voters will watch whether the Congress takes the information to its logical conclusion, or privately agrees to do nothing about patterns of conduct that warrant the President’s removal.
The way forward is not to throw up your hands in the mistaken believe that nothing can be done. Rather, you must move with confidence that you are on the right side of the only real choice: The rule of law and Constitution. The other choices are false – whether you are for or against the Constitution is the only relevant choice. Once you choose the law, then you will see that the other choices rely on non-sense arguments; and unsustainable arguments which put the Constitution behind the NeoCons.
The goal of the NeoCons is to continue to accelerate schedules, to force decisions, and to shift the burden from the Article II to the Article I branch. However, a simple reading of the Constitution does not shift the burden from or to one branch based on the NeoCon decision; but based on We the People and what we choose is or is not sustainable. Should the Article I and Article II balances of power shift too far to the Article II – despite the Congress being under DNC control – the solution isn’t to give up, but to remind ourselves of what the voters are able to do: Wake up, work with each other, and make an informed decision.
Going forward, the job of We the People should be to make the NeoCon’s problems a choice for them to manage or not manage, not something for others to oversee. Yes, they bear watching and monitoring; but make it clear the post WWI legacy will not be permitted. There will be an oversight plan in place to prevent the pre WWII abuses of Nazi Germany to inspire the NeoCons after November 2006. Your job is to remain mindful of that possibility, plan for it, and keep a clear mind, observing other things as they unfold, in defiance of the Constitution.
They way forward is to stop asking Congress to answer the questions; and stop waiting for the new leadership to do the right thing. Our job is to hound them, as was not done prior to the Iraq invasion, and continue pressing questions and provide the answers and adverse inferences.
This will require two things: An objective review of what is possibly unfolding; and a view to what a solution might be: A New Constitution. Whether a New Constitution is or is not embraced by this Congress is meaningless, the objective is to hold the New Constitution out as what is possible, and make this Congress meet the standards of what is possible. They will fail.
The goal going forward is to ask questions, compel the Congress to respond, and make a case for why this President is not being removed from office; while at the same time, working with the public and executive branch employees to gather evidence of the other illegal activity that would warrant removal. Do not think of this as either-or; but as an ongoing effort. The main thrusts of this effort will not appear to be consistent, but the questions are designed to focus the DNC leadership on what the President doesn’t want them to look at: Him; while at the same time formulating a coherent, viable option that will compel the Congress to explain why it cannot meet what is possible in a New Constitution; then reminding the public and the Executive branch personnel that, as the President continues with his illegal conduct, we are well place to continue demonstrating that the President has not changed his patterns, and that the evidence related to the removal criteria are getting fulfilled.
In the end, the goal should be by the end of November of 2006 to have in place clear Constitution; a viable set of standards to monitor the President; an oversight plan of We the People to evaluate whether this Congress will or will not do what it should; and a discovery plan that is showing progress on evidence related to ongoing Presidential abuses. If you’ve been reading this blog, you’ll see that the lines of evidence are already there; can be easily obtained an organized; and that within a few short hours, things can come together fairly quickly.
Let’s consider the lines of questions which the public will want to press the Congress on:
___ If none of this is being done, how can anyone in Congress argue that they’re engaging in oversight: The only way to have a credible oversight of a department is whether Congress can first effectively oversee a single man? How can the voters believe that the entire Article II executive branch will be monitored, when the Article I leadership refuses to monitor the Article II leadership. Explain. [There is no answer.]
___ Is there a plan of the DNC to develop a plan to motivate the RNAC voters to vote against the RNC Senators if they refuse to remove the President? [There can be a plan, once the voters put pressure on the Senators to either remove the President; or the RNC leadership will be removed.]
___ What’s the plan of the DNC leadership to work with the RNC leaders to review the President? [We the People will have to impose this oversight plan through sheer will; the evidence will quickly fall into place; and the case for removal will continue to mount.]
___ Ho will the DNC promulgate standards, requirements, and other things that will meet these threshold criteria to warrant lawful removal of the President. [We the People will have to outlines this oversight plan, and impose it on Congress; if they refuse to protect the Constitution, they cannot be sure their jobs will be protected.]
___ When will the DNC meet with the RNC to review the removal standards. [The burden to meet will grow pronounced once it is clear the President, despite promises to the contrary, continues to ignore the law, and defy his oath. The trick will be to couch the evidence in terms the non-voting public will relate to; and inspire them to support a lawful conviction/removal; and generate support to lawfully defeat the RNC should they oppose needed oversight, monitoring, and consideration of whether the President should or should not be removed from office.]
___ What real evidence is there that there might be a backlash against the RNC if the Senators refuse to remove the President from power. [As the evidence surfaces from Europe, and there are additional programs revealed, the President will be in a less supportable position. The DNC leadership must be reminded now that the current summit on Iraq is a deliberate smokescreen; there should be a similar summit on the President. Once the voters see the President has not changed, the possible backlash will not be against the Congressional leadership unless the leadership has done all I could do to examine the evidence related to Presidential abuses, and conduct warranting removal. We the People should be positioned and ready to throw it back at the NeoCons, challenging their unsupportable assertion that the backlash might be against the DNC for taking action; rather, the backlash will be – as it was with the November 2006 election n—against the GOP for failing to do what it should have done: Protect the Constitution, remove the President from the optical stage, and prosecute the DoJ Staff counsel for their complicity with war crimes. The phony consequences of what may or may not happen to the DNC is just fear mongering, unsupportable, and easily defeated: “The President’s mess is his to clean up; the DNC leadership has the responsibility to gather facts and make a decision not to remove the President; the President had the chance to change, but refused; and the President, despite his oath, continued to defy the Constitution. That does not demonstrate leadership or a fitness for office, but well warrants a basis to remove the President and find new leadership. Inaction is not excusable; the voters saw the abuses in November 2006, and the backlash was not against the DNC, but against those who committed the abuse.” Going forward, the goal should be to rally the new voters, work with non-voters to motivate them to see the stakes, and work with their friends to gather evidence that will give the Senate the opportunity to make a decision: Do we remove him or not; once the Senators refuse, as the House did with the State proclamations on impeachment, the inaction itself will be another catalyst for non-voters to act, especially as the evidence form Europe and the UK mounts on the illegal Iraq war; and additional Congressional investigations reveal more. Inaction by Congress is not something to despair, but should be a catalyst for We the People to reach out to non-voters, and say, “There is a problem, there is a plan, there is an alternative. And if the Senate refuses to cooperate, the Senators could lose their power, but still there may be a trial with a new Senate after the 2008 election in the last weeks of the President’s office in 2009.” There is nothing the RNC can do, except rely on non-sense, to stop what has started: Oversight, tough questions, voter decisions, and lawful work to protect the Constitution.]
The President has violated the and denied his party, that he leads important informant. It is nothing for him to lie to the DNC Article I Congress – they are the enemy to the Article II power. By design, the Congress and Executive are supposed to clash; this tyrant does not plan to clash fairly, but defy the law, as he already has done, but suppress the evidence with new agreements, other Executive Orders, and more creative excuses.
The issues for the Congress, given their decision not to review the President, is despite the President’s open defiance of his own party, why anyone would believe he’ll do anything else with another congress that has deiced not to examine the Article II leader.
___ Why does the DNC leadership believe it will be able to find the information related to the illegal conduct
___ Is there something that will magically happen within the RNC-controlled Congress – between November and December 2006 – that will make the RNC suddenly wake up to their responsibilities
___ What is going to magically happen to make the RNC leadership find the information that they have otherwise not asked for
___ Is there a magic bullet or magic potion the RNC leaders in Nov-Dec 2006 plan to drink that will make them aware of something that they have otherwise ignored
___ What is going to prevent the President from issuing other illegal Executive Orders, regulations, orders, guidance, or other secret direction not violate the Constitution
___ What is magically going to happen, now that the GOP has lost control of the Congress, to make the President – in the Article II branch – work with, and cooperate with the Article I branch he is Constitutionally structured to clash?
___ What is the Article II leadership going to do to not clash with the Article I power
___ Is there any evidence the Article II leadership does not wish to secretly clash with the Article I powers in a new forum where the Article I powers are not looking, or do not have information
___ What information related to the Article II leadership plans will make its way to ideate that the Article I leadership has a problem with oversight
___ Is the Article I leadership willing to clash with the Article II leadership using the same methods
___ Is there a reason why the NeoCons are holding the Article I leadership to standards of conduct they refuse to apply to the Article II leadership
___ What is the executive’s plan to oversee the Congress; how is his law enforcement targeting Article I leadership; is there a reason that Article I leadership is not willing to similarly clash with the Executive
___ Is the Article II threat of Congressional oversight and monitoring credible; if it is in not credible why isn’t the Article I leadership exploiting that defect, and targeting the incompetent in the Article II enforcement divisions
___ How will this President’s agreement with the RNC and Executive Branch employees to be silent get detected if the DNC has agreed not to consider the possibility there might be presidential conduct warranting review in a Constitutional summit; impeachment hearing in the House; or a decision in the Senate whether the President should or should not be removed from office
___ If the DNC leadership has not considered the possibility this President might violate the law – or do things warranting conviction – why should anyone believe that the DNC committee leadership – taken as a whole, across all committees – will have an eye toward mixing the evidence in a soup to ask the key questions: (a) Has anything changed in the Article II Executive Branch compliance; (b) Have we given the President a chance to cooperate; (c) Is the only option to compel the Article II branch to remain under the umbrella of the Constitution to lawfully remove the head of the Article II branch, and find a new leader.
We cannot conclude – without any analysis – that the answer is no. Rather, the Framers designed the Constitution to force a clash, and compel a constant demonstration and rebuttal: A presumption of abuse, and constant verification to find the sources of the abuse of rights.
___ Why should we have confidence the DNC leadership -- who agrees with this absurd notion of oversight: That a President who lies to his own party will be truthful to the enemy – will be able to logically analyze something more complicated like the Iraqi combat situation; or something as benign as a Presidential rebellion against the Constitution. At best, the President has ever incentive to continue to abuse as he did when his own party controlled congress, but do so in secret – justified on the grounds that the stakes are “hat much higher” for 2008. Always pointing to the future problem, never holding themselves to account for the certain abuses required to shift attention from the abuses to the speculative future, good or bad. The shell game is the consistent pattern. It is propaganda. The solution is to remain calm, use your mind, and rally your friends no the basis of reason: The Constitution remains under threat by a tyrant who has been driven underground, but plans to emerge in 2008. The RNC leadership has already defied the Constitution, and fears a war crimes trial. They have fabricated lies and non-sense to shift attention from the Geneva violations and war crimes; while they were in power, they refused to act; there is not enough time between November 2006, and early 2008 – just over a year from now (when the 2008 Primaries start) to have confidence that the GOP will reform its ways. Rather, the same people who lied, failed to engage in oversight, and did not do their jobs, would have us believe that they should return to power in later 2008. They are alleged war criminals; when they had the power, they refused to use it; giving them more power is absurd.
___ What will prevent the alleged coconspirators from invoking their 5th Amendment right to silence. [The issue is simply one of: Why are some prisoners abused; while others are given rights. The GOP cannot explain why some – on basis of accusation – can be denied rights; while their own enjoy rights they’ve denied others. The same DoJ Staff counsel, who has also been complicit with war crimes, wants to rely on legal protections they’ve denied others. The argument should be turned back on them: What is they were, as they are, a minority party – just as a prisoner might be subject to abuse, wouldn’t the GOP like to have confidence that even though they might be a minority, there is something preventing their abuse at the hands of the majority. Their answer is the Constitution – the very thing that they ignored, but justified abusing others. The issue isn’t the double standard, the issue is that the GOP doesn’t respect anything unless it puts them at an advantage; and they will destroy all things, until it becomes their only option. They cannot have it both ways, but as with Hitler they want to have tow standards on who enjoys the economic benefits of illegal expansion; and two standards on who is held to account; and many standards whether abuse is or is not equally sanctioned or punished. For the NeoCons, the right answer isn’t in the Law, but how they can twist the law, as Addington did with the Iran-Contra minority report, to make it support whatever convoluted agenda or outcome they want. Once left to their own devices, reality and what was sustainable was so disconnected, that the law would have to be twisted to such an extent that only the most perverse and absurd propaganda would justify in anyone’s mind that things were permissible or prudent. The original guide is the Constitution. This GOP and the non-voters must decide whether they want to wrestle with the GOP under this Constitution – that they’ve ignored – or create a new system that twill make the GOPs approaches to the law almost impossible to replicate. That is where the New Constitution comes it: Indeed, the GOP likes to whine, “Nobody has a solution.” That’s not correct. Move with confidence there are many people considering a New Constitution, and encouraging the voters and nonvoters to ask the GOP: If you wont’ cooperate with current Constitution, why should we believe you’ll cooperate with any Constitution – make the case that you should not be lawfully tried for rebellion against the Constitution; or lawfully tried for war crimes for refusing to respect the 5 USC 3331 oath of office to the Supreme Law, including the Geneva Conventions which prohibit all abuse, not just torture.
___ Why should we believe that the new leadership will have a better plan to get at the truth, if they’ve decided – in advance, without analysis – that the truth cannot be taken to the logical conclusion the Constitution calls for: lawful removal of a sitting President.
___ Why is the DNC leadership accepting the false, phony argument that the voters might “backlash” against the DNC; when inaction of the GOP could cause non-voters to vote against the Republicans?
____ What plan is there to motivate non-voters to see the GOP has not changed; and encourage the non-voters to support a New Constitution that will prevent the NeoCons from returning to power to commit more abuses
___ What will be done to ensure the US Constitution is protected from people who are willing to sacrifice their legal principles and defy their oath – on the grounds of a legal agenda – yet, engaging in a course of conduct that will undermine the legal agenda they are supposedly fighting for
___ What kind of thinking is there in the GOP that, when faced with a potential loss of a legal agenda they would (a) assent to illegal conduct; (b) pursue an unlawful agenda (c) believe they would not get caught; (d) Whine when they were caught that their cause was just; and (e) not renounce their agenda, but complain that they would have succeeded if they had more resources? [The only kind oft thinking behind that is what was behind the Germans after WWI: They remains committed to their goal, as Addington and Cheney are, despite the losses; and they plan to continue despite its illegality and abrogation nof the Supreme law. They will not stop unless they are lawfully compelled to stop. Again, this doesn’t mean that real threats should not be fought; only that if the threats are real, then the law must be followed, otherwise there is nothing between the enemy and the Constitution. As the NeoCons admit, they did not exhaust all lawful, non-military options as they were required prior to invading Iraq. The law is there as a guide, a standard, and a threshold – to force choices and solutions within a lawful manner; otherwise, the solutions spiral into barbarism as we’ve seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, GTMO, Eastern Europe, and the United States.]
This President and his alleged co conspirators have too much open evidence, and too much time and not enough legal defenses to insulate them from war crimes convictions. Three’s more evidence. There’s no reason to believe this problem is isolated; Eliminating a consideration of an option – that of removal – belies confidence that the claim is supportable.
___ Why should we believe the President, Article II actors, and GOP have changed despite their entrenched habits?
___ What have the Speaker and the DNC leaders agreed with the President to give them confidence that the Article I leadership has leverage
___ When does the Article I leadership plan to disclose the assumptions, details, and form of the agreement they have with the President
___ When will the DNC leadership in the Article I branch reveal or release this agreement
___ How is the Article I and Article II leadership agreement consistent or inconstant with their 5 USC 3331 oath of office and duty
___ Is there a reason the Article I and Article II leadership have jointly agreed not to fully assert 5 USC 3331 oath of office, and examine the details of conduct that might warrant an Article I action against the Article II leadership
___ What is the reason that the DNC leadership in the Article I section are willing to be subjected to Article II oversight and intrusion; but they are not willing to subject the Article II branch to similar intrusions?
___ Is there a reason that the Article I leadership is assenting to abuses by the Article II branch of government
___ What is the motivation nof the Article I leadership to claim they believe in bipartisanship, but the article II leadership’s idea of bipartisanship is two standards for competing branches of government
___ Is there a reason that any promise not to hold the Article II leadership for misconduct is enforceable
___ Why should a promise not to enforce the law be recognized as consistent with the 5 USC 3331 oath of office
___ Is an agreement to not enforce the law sufficient evidence to lawfully find the Article I and Article II leadership pin joint rebellion against the Constitution
___ If the rebellion against the Constitution continues despite the change in Article I leadership, what difference does it make whether the rebellion is between one or both parties across Articles I and II
___ Does the Article III branch in the judiciary plan to comment on the defiance of the Constitution
___Why should we expect that the Executive Branch personnel will report information; and that the DNC has agreed to do nothing; or that all things are in alignment with the Constitution; or that the President has hid nothing in violation of the law.
We the People have the power. The President should be the first lawful target for an oversight plan of the newly elected DNC leadership. If the new Article I leadership adequately demonstrates they can oversee a single Article II leader, we might possibly consider they could expand their oversight competence to (a) the page board; (b) the US Constitution; and (c) Iraq. But if the DNC leadership said – regardless the Committee Chairman power – that there is a line that cannot be crossed, despite the Constitution not recognizing that line – why should the voters have confidence that the DNC leadership has changed, or is any different than what the RNC did: Refused to examine the lines the President crossed.
___ If the DNC will not oversee the President, why should we believe they’ll do it with the US conduct in Iraq; why is it easier to oversee a war than a single man?
___ How will the DNC leadership demonstrate they are effective managers of the Page Board over 535 members of Congress, but they can’t or wont do the same for a single President – one person.
___ Why should we believe that, in refusing to do what is simple – oversee one man – that the same leadership that can’t or won’t do what is simple, and small – will or is capable of doing the same for something that is large and complex
___ How does the DNC leadership justify to the voters and non-voters that the rule of law – the definition of legitimacy – is real when the leadership refuses to honor its obligation to ensure there is an enforcement mechanism behind the US government’s guarantee to the States
___ If the Article I powers will not ensure all options are on the table – but the President has secretly hidden evidence of illegal programs – (recall what Gonzalez aid on 6 Feb 2006: “Not this program”, meaning there were other non-disclosed programs) – what is the leverage the Article I leadership has to hold the Article II actors accountable. By refusing to permit enforcement of known illegal conduct, this President does not need a message that he will permit enforcement of unknown, secret but still illegal conduct; ye the Committees should be in a position to know, or have knowledge of these other activities. If the Executive will not enforce the law on his own Article II personnel, what is going to ensure that the illegal conduct is sanctioned through Article I powers. What is the magic bullet, other than state level prosecutions and war crimes that the US government plans to use if the Executive has ignored the article I branch, refuses to enforce the law, and keeps things hidden? There is none: That is the definition of a breakdown of governance; and continued slide into a rule by man, not law – the definition of illegitimate government. When we’ve arrived at that point, what option do We the People have – other than drafting a New Constitution —to compel the Article I and Article II powers to do their job?
___ How can the Article I leadership credibly explain why voters, who know of issues of abuse, would not backlash against the RNC Senators and the President for continued patterns of conduct?
___ Is the DNC leadership saying – despite the November 2006 result, where voters were motivated to vote against abuse – that somehow more patterns of abuse would not put pressure on the voters to vote against the RNC Senators who refuses to remove someone from office who cannot be trusted to change?
___ Why should we believe that the Pelosi-DNC-Presidential-RNC agreement to do nothing about Presidential war crimes, and Article II violations of the Constitution will be adequately resolved in another form?
___ What is going to magically change to make the President suddenly open to investigations by the DoJ OPR
___ If the US Attorney is blocked, how will the Article I powers force the Article II leadership to respond, if the threat of impeachment is off the tale?
___ By removing the impeachment option, how can the known President’s abuse of US Attorneys and DOJ OPR investigations be expected to change?
___ What incentives does the Article I leadership have to act if the DOJ OPR is blocked again
___ If there is no threat of impeachment, what will prevent the White House and President from putting all their assets, resources, and pressure to block the DoJ, US Attorneys, and FBI from discovering the other illegal activity in the other programs Gonzalez mentioned on 6 Feb 2006
___ Gonzalez has been accused of war crimes involvement. Are we saying that someone accused of war crimes and perjury is to be believed and trusted: “We aren’t going to question Gonzalez – he’s a nice guy. Impeachment of Gonzalez is off the table. We’ll leave issues of US governance to foreign powers.” Why should any non-voter have confidence in a system where it refuses to exercise powers, especially when the Constitution provides for impeachment option when the Article II enforcement powers are thwarted, not exercised, blocked, or illegally prevented from being put into effect.
The clear story is that despite the “Change” the Article I leadership is saying that – regardless party affiliation – it is not willing to be troubled with this mater of Presidential abuse of power; and despite the prospect of illegal conduct, and Presidential thwarting of enforcement tools, that the Article I legislature will not hold the Article II leadership to account using non-Article II powers of impeachment.
___ If the US government cannot be bothered to review one person’s conduct, why should anyone around the globe believe the DNC leadership will look at situations that have more than one person involved
___ How many governmental issues do you know that only have one person involved?
The only way the United States’ RNC-DNC leaders and Article II powers will silence everyone is if they go after the world, and impose joint Article I and Article II powers on all 6.5 Billion people. This is impossible: The US is outnumbered. How does the Article I leadership pin Congress propose to keep the entire planet silent about their reckless stupidity in refusing to keep Article I impeachment options on the table?
The DNC is planning sham oversight
The Article I leadership, despite evidence, refuses to engage in full oversight – to it logical conclusion, that of removal – for one man. There’s no prospect that the oversight will be possible on all other government al problems related to two or more people. It is not possible to fail to oversee one; but argue that more than one can be better overseen.
The President is the number one Article II officer. If the Congress will not monitor one in the Article II branch, then why believe that the pages in Article II will be supervised.
The standards for removal are clear: They are in the Constitution. If the President is convicted by the Senate for crimes, then he can be removed.
The DNC leadership has embraced the absurd Rovian argument that to hold anyone accountable will be bad consequences for those driving the accountability. This is not true, as evidenced by the November 2006 election result. The voters can be motivated to see reality; there is more information that will surface between 2006 and 2009.
No DNC leaders can credibly argue that it is impossible to motivate voters to vote against the RNC – they’ve already done it. If enough evidence were thrown before the Senate, and the Article II abuses were seen as clearly warranting removal – but the RNC senators refused – would this not inspire voters to vote against the RNC in the Senate, thereby making the November 2008 elections swing to the DNC.
What is to say that 17 Seats which GOP controls in the next Senate class could not be won; and if there was enough evidence warranting removal from office – evidence of Presidential genocide – would the non-voters not realize that there are real stakes, and they need to vote to do what the RNC senators refuses to do: Hold the leadership to account.
Why not hold a vote, and compel the Senators to commit – then let the Voters decide whether the Senators got it wrong or right.
I’m not convinced that the non-voters are going to side with the GOP. If there were sufficient Presidential abuses – above and beyond what we know – it’s possible that all Senators in the RNC could lose their seats; or if they refuse to take action, there will be a greater backlash.
Conversely, if despite the possibly that the voters would reject the RNC, the DNC still refuses to look at the presidential crimes – why would anyone want to be associated with leadership that forseeably knew – as a result of what Gonzalez said on 6 Feb 2006 – that there were other activities not disclosed – why would anyone want to vote for leaders who refused to look at what might be there.
Conversely, if there was a pattern of abuse, and Article II personnel were aware, and wanted to provide the information, but the default decision was not to start the review or go down that path – what credible check is there on the President’s abuse of power if the President is thwarting investigations; and Article II personnel have nothing to gain other than a “thank you, we’re about changing, but we’re doing the same as the RNC: Nothing.”
Indeed, if the voters and non-voters say that there were consequences on one man, they might believe there are credible consequences for the others.
___ How many people in the Article II branch are going to take the fall for blindly following the President?
___ Has it not sunk into the DoJ Staff counsel that even if they are appointed to the Article III judiciary, they remain lawful targets or war crimes prosecutors
___ Despite the internet surfing, classified e-mails, and memoranda, the DOJ Staff counsel are going to remain silent about what their peers have done; yet the war crimes prosecutors have evidence of the e-mails, memoranda, and other notes which supported the illegal activity – to such specificity that they could go down a list of high profile attorney names and show the German courts that there is sufficient evidence to warrant lawful convict on for war crimes
___ Despite not starting the investigations, the war crimes prosecutors have enough information in Germany to possibly convict – and possibly impose the death penalty against present and former White House, DOJ, and DoD staff counsel. What else could they do if given a few crumbs of information?
___ All these attorneys in the DOJ Staff counsel are aware of the illegal conduct, are going to take the fall, and silently sit there protecting the President?
__ What do the DOJ Staff counsel have to show for their sacrifice: They have no legal agenda – their attorneys and judges are held with contempt; they have a mixed political victory – their President has let them down; and they have a mixed economic victory – despite the tax cuts, they’re stuck with greater debts. Good old, DoJ Staff counsel: If you want nothing done, and silence, you can always go to the Germans to get a legal opinion. Not the DoJ Staff counsel: More excuses not to enforce the law; excuses to violate law; and when the DOJ OPR shows up, the DOJ Staff counsel will do nothing – “Hay, we extradite from the UK; but we don’t extradite to Milan” Nobody is going to bother noticing the inconsistency in our extradition. NO problem. No on will look at the Bybee Memo; prospect of war crimes: Hay, we’ll just pass new legislation, and make the double standard with NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia for the self-delegated immunity irrelevant. Nobody would bother thinking to apply that standard to the US.
Voters are able to comprehend requirements and standards in the Constitution. The voters, after seeing more information of illegal activity, can be persuaded to see that removal is required. There is a possibility that that option remains open. The issue is whether We the People want to motivate more voters to defy the GOP leadership, compel the Senators into a no-win situations as with House rule 603 – if they refuse to face the issue, they’re wrong; and if they refuse to remove the President, they’ll lose the 2008 election.
The key will be to continue pressing for evidence; working with the people in the Executive branch who know of the illegal conduct; and reminding the DNC leadership that they need to review the information, or we’re going to find new leadership that takes their 5 USC 3331 oath of office seriously.
___ How will a Member of Congress or candidate justify voting for a Speaker who has removed an option from the table?
___ Will a Member of Congress rightfully support a Speaker who has stated the article I powers to oversee the Article II leadership will not be used; but they’ll do nothing when the Article II leadership invades their Article I offices?
The way forward is to remind the DNC leaders and the RNC leadership in both the Article I and Article II branches that they – like Addington, Yoo, Gonzalez, Haynes, and Bybee – can also be lawfully targeted for failing to do what they should: Enforce the law; take responsibility for joint Article I-Article II failures to prevent illegal war; and be held to account by foreign prosecutors. If the US wants to compel extradition on illegal US government activity in the UK, it’s the job of the US government to explain why other US illegal activity in Milan should not be subject to rebuke and sanction. The war crimes prosecutors know how to file subpoenas; and the CIA and DOJ have already fatally revealed the existence of classified information showing a link between published documents, illegal plans, and unlawful results.
___ Why is anyone in either Article I or Article II sections of government mistaken to believe that other subpoenas will not produce links with additional, open information already in the public domain?
___ Does the DoJ Staff counsel believe that the public does not know about the classified web pages
___ Is there a false conception in the DOJ Staff counsel mind that the public cannot provide the classified links to the war crimes prosecutors
___ What is going to prevent the war crimes prosecutors – when they see the links and public evidence of known connections between the Joint Staff, CIA, and DOJ – not to ask for the details of that known illegal activity?
___ How can the DOJ Staff counsel claim that anything that has been disclosed – even inadvertently – can be protected?
___ What case law is the DOJ Staff relying on that will make the already disclosed evidence disappear in an archive or shredding machine
___ How does the DOJ Staff counsel propose to defend any client, Article II employee, or anyone despite the known links between the CIA, Joint Staff, DoJ Staff counsel, and the policy memoranda flowing through the CIA on the CIA secret e-mails
___ Does the DOJ Staff counsel believe that the war crimes prosecutors do not have have the IP numbers and classified e-mail addresses used to transfer classified information
___ How does the DOJ Staff counsel explain the existence of disclosed classified e-mails, e-mail address, and other sensitive information linked with the DCI, but they claim that nobody knew
___ The e-mals, memoranda, and documents linking the DOJ, CIA, and Joint Staff to the classified e-mail systems; and the open information of that classified information discloses the existence of memoranda, agreements, translations into foreign languages, and receipt and review by personnel in multiple locations. How does the DOJ Staff counsel plan to defend itself or its Article I/II clients when the Congress is shown to have access to these classified e-mail systems; and that the classified information – once argued to be secret – was openly shared, disclosed, and cross from the Article II branch into the Article I reviews, but nothing was done.
The funding to the contractors to establish, monitor, and maintain internal blogs; but DOJ Staff counsel claims nobody knows what was going on – what were they getting paid to comment on: The memoranda which has been disclosed on the classified webpages, and publicly known to exist, and subject of the German war crimes prosecutors subpoenas. You can’t hide something that’s openly discussed; and illegal activity may not be lawfully classified.
Oversight of Congress
Consider the blog: “Voters See” in this blog. Humanitarian interventions are possible of the US governance breaks down. The burden of proof is on Congress to demonstrate and provide all Americans and the world, the confidence:
___ Is the leadership protecting the Constitution
___ Is the leadership doing things that are easy
___ Does the leadership claim that focusing on one man is easy or hard
___ Does the leadership claim that focus on many people is hard or easy
___ What does the leadership need to demonstrate
___ Is the performance of the US leadership satisfactory; are the trends worsening; is there a threshold point defined
__ Despite a claim of change, has there been a real change
__ Why should anyone believe that there is no difference
___ There was a planned summit on Iraq; why not a summit on the President?
___ If the leadership won’t do what is easy, why should we believe that they’ll do what is hard
___ If the leadership refuses to do what is easy, why should the world believe the US government is interested in doing hard things
___ Is there a list of things that – if the US government fails to do them – foreign fighters may lawfully conclude, as was done with Yugoslavia: The US Congress, Speaker, and Members of Congress individually remain an imminent threat to world stability and should lawfully be captured and rendered to the Hague as has been done with the Yugoslavian leadership?
___ How many things have to happen before the world is ready to lawfully intervene in the United States
___ If the US leadership in both Article I and Article II branches of Government refuse to do their moral best to maintain a Constitutional system of governance, is there anything preventing the State Attorney Generals from lawfully prosecuting Members of Congress? No.
___ Has the RNC-DNC leadership read the Constitutional requirement, standards on removal from office
___ What is the standard, activity, and scope of abuse that would satisfy a removal decision; or the standard the Senate prospectively agrees would warrant a removal
___ What happens if the removal threshold has been exceeded, but Congress is not willing to remove the President: Is there a reason why the voters should not call for new leaders, or lawfully prosecute members of Congress who fail to assert their 5 USC 3331 oath of office?
___ What is the DNC plan to promulgate standards: What is the method to ensure the Article II employees know what to look for when reporting misconduct
___ Is there anything that Congress says it would review, and consider removing the President for; but they rebuff this information
___ What is to be said of the DOJ when it publicly says it is concerned with corruption; but has a demonstrated track record of making excuses, rebuffing information, and promoting personnel who refuse to learn the statues they are being paid to enforce, investigate, and gather evidence
___ What is to be said of a government – supposedly a Republic, founded on the notion that government officials could devote their time to gathering expertise on the law -- are shown to be wholly incompetent, lacking in understanding of the law, and devoid of understanding of the statutes, the extent that the misinformed public has to now the standards of conduct, statutes, and rules of professional responsibility better than the so-called experts who populate the halls of the Article I legislatures and Article II law enforcement?
___ How will the DNC monitor this President to determine if the President is or is not in compliance with the laws
___ What is to be said of e-mail when the Congress, despite a requirement to oversee classified activities, fails to show that it has credibly responded to well known violations of the law, and there is no evidence the Congress has effectively responded to the issues well documented on the classified e-mail systems and webpages
___ Does the Congress have no explanation why – despite the classified e-mail that it has access to – nothing was done to provide the information for Article I sanctions: Impeachment
___ When the US Attorneys are not willing or able to investigate – because the Attorney general and President block them from reviewing a matter – what is to be said of the classified e-mail systems: Why should se believe that the Brady requirements are met; or that the other evidence on “less important” issues is getting the attention nit needs
This government has not time to resolve prisoner abuse problems. There’s no reason to believe that the Senior Executive Service has a training plan which will awaken anyone to a smaller problem of Presidential war crimes. Congress has no time, not interested; no reason the SES should be expected to enforce their oath of office, or assert their 5 USC 3331 obligations.
___ What is a good reason for not embracing a New Constitution that would address this defective oversight problem
___ Is there an explanation why the DNC leadership is committed to a system that will not work; and avoids a system of oversight that would address these issues?
___ What is that thing that makes people fearful of solving problems: Change – so if the presence of change is a bad thing, does new leadership, promising inaction, mean that people can be comforted: No change in coming?
The RNC and DNC leadership needs to be clear with the specific basis or criteria they are using or rejecting to decide whether the President remains fit for office; or whether he has or has not committed an impeachable offense; or whether he does or does not have the interest, means, and ability to fully disclose all illegal activity he has ordered.
Despite the clear Constitutional power of the Congress to review the President, and evaluate whether he is or is not fit to remain in office, the Congress fails to consider the Constitutional standard, much less the conduct relative to those clear standards.
Despite the clear abuses and illegal conduct, the Congressional leadership is not interesting paying attention not the Constitutional standard, much less evaluate how a single person is performing relative to those requirements.
The Congressional leadership incorrectly concludes that inaction will generate greater support for political benefits; than the backlash that might occur against the DNC for failing to do what it should.
If the Congressional leadership – under this Speaker – will not Consider impeachment, perhaps Madame Speaker may wish to share her plans to resign, and permit someone else in the House be speaker before January 2009. If there is no plan to ever review the President, there is not basis to have confidence either party – despite the crocodile tears – is serious about doing what it should, much less consider what may be reality.
What is the DNC-RNC plan to accept what is in the Constitution, not make excuses, as the RNC did, to ignore the requirements.
Executive Branch Employees need information: What patterns of conduct will the Congress sanction. If there is no prospect of sanction, they have little reason to believe that risking anything to make a report might serve a purpose; they might have a better chance of a receptive ear in other lands, not in Congress, already closed to what remains a requirement: The responsibility to review and evaluate whether a change is needed.
The prospect of Presidential accountability is a needed wakeup call for Executive Branch employees. Once the Article II agents and personnel see what Congress is concerned about, they may be more inclined to report other misconduct which Congress is interested. Perhaps there is additional information showing the President is not openly working with the Members of Congress as some might like us to believe; and that there remain secret Executive Orders, illegal cooperation; and other things of interest to the voters.
It remains to be understood how the President and Congressional leadership have jointly agreed to cooperate, and what the terms of this agreement is. Have Article II agents been inducted to remain silent about other things. This Congress isn’t going to ask that question if it involves an issue of Presidential misconduct. How the Congress will oversee Article II misconduct, but ignore issues related to impeachment remains to be explained, not juggled, sidestepped, or hidden below a huckster’s shells.
Ideally, if Article II personnel under the President are aware of the Executive Orders or secret agreements or other illegal things, it would be helpful if they shared that informant.
__ The Congressional leadership argues that it is going to change. Without examining the Presidential misconduct, how will the Congress make a case of what it is going to change from; and what basis is there to argue the change is preferable if the original condition cannot be examined.
__ if the Congress will not consider impeachment, why should anyone believe that there is a plan to oversee one man; if there is no plan to oversee a single person, why believe the Congress can create a plan to oversee Iraq or the Untied States?
__ What is Congress looking at when it oversees the President
__ Is there a threshold of misconduct which the Congressional leadership would change its mind
__ How will the trends relative to these thresholds be monitored
__ How bad with the trend have to be to motivate the voters and non-voters to wake up
___ What review plan is there
__ Why should we believe that this is any different than Hastert: More excuses not to look at what the legal counsel have well documented is a problem: Illegal activity, and Presidential interference with investigations
___ How much money is being paid to contractors for award fees that are linked with Presidential incompetence; how much money would be saved if the source of the disaster – requiring the excessive cost overruns to remedy – were removed
___ How many constitutional requirements and powers of congress must be ignored and violated before the Congress is inclined to review the matter, or is the unfavorable weather the excuse
___ How many Presidential interventions in lawful investigations are required before Congress will consider whether the President has engaged in illegal conduct
___ How many dead Iraqi children does the Congressional leadership want to see pictures of before it concludes that the President may have committed illegal crimes against civilians
___ How many dead people must there be before the Congress considers this possibility that the President may be out of control
___ Why should we believe the President will not hide illegal activity with other secret executive order
___ How many laws must be violated
__ How many felonies
___ How many firings, threats, retaliation against others must occur
___ How many agreements
___ How much money must be transferred
__ How many American citizens must be abused in Eastern Europe
___ How many CIA employers must be silenced because they know the facts
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says there was no plan for Iraqi reconstruction, or post-conflict. Yet, the President claims the FISA-violations were part of this plan.
___ How can the President contradict the Joint Chiefs of staff, yet the Congress does not get interested?
___ How can two people say there was and was not a plan; but the Congress is not interested in the inconsistency which may be related to illegal Presidential conduct
___ If there was no plan for Iraq, why isn’t Congress interested in the plan the President was using to justify illegal FISA-NSA violations; and other prisoner abuses
Consider the scope of the abuses with a cooperating, safe Republican majority in Congress.
___ Has there been no thought given to the possibility that the US public might put pressure on the Republican Senators to remove the President; or whether it might be in the interests of the GOP to remove the President before they suffer additional losses
___ What types of conduct would the Congress consider worthy of examination during a summit on the Constitution and President; how would the President clarify that activity and fully cooperate
___ What is the level of evidence that Congress might consider; who has it; how long will it take to get it
___ By refusing to consider impeachment, is the Congressional leadership hoping what has failed or has not been done will suddenly be done: What is the basis for this belief – that secret, illegal activity will get exposed, not better hidden?
___ Why should anyone believe the President will not bury other evidence deeper that would warrant RNC Senators to remove
___ What voter backlash is possible against the RNC for inaction in the Senate; and more support for the Democrats
___ Where is the research saying that the voters will impose consequences – for taking action – against the DNC, unlike what they did during the November 2006 election: Rewarding the DNC for the RNC abuses.
The backlash argument is at best a NeoCon, RNC, and DoJ Staff counsel excuse, phony threat. There might be a backlash for inaction.
___ If the voters backlash against the leadership for enforcing the law – despite the voters doing the opposite in the November 2006 election – how can anyone explain the transition from (a) inaction; to (b) outrage at abuse; then transition back to (c) acceptance of inaction: How does this occur; what speculative chain of events would punish the leadership for doing what they were otherwise rewarded for promising: Change, oversight, fact finding, and accountability?
___ if the natural consequence of that change in government is a change in the Article II leader, this is consistent with the voter’s intent. Why is this natural consequence of the well stated call for change something that cannot occur?
___ If the voters are through to possibly punish the Congressional leadership for doing what they promised in their oath – protecting the constitution – why would anyone in the Congress want to be in charge of a system where the voters did not respect the system?
___ If it is argued the voters do not have a respect for the system and facts, and might punish the fact finders, is there no possible plan to guide the voters with something that would encourage them to respect facts, the system, and the leadership exploring facts related to impeachable offenses?
The DNC and RNC leadership need to review, disclose, and make publicly available the range of Presidential abuses warranting removal. Then consider: What information would not result in a backlash against the DNC, but relief and celebration by the GOP?
It remains to be understood the terms of the agreement to ignore Presidential misconduct
___ What has the President promised
___ When does the Congressional leadership plan to make this Presidential promise public
___ How will the Congress oversee the Presidential agreements, and ensure compliance with treaties
___ What use is it to have the public write letters when the Congress will not review information unrelated to Presidential misconduct
___ If the President violates an agreement, how does the Congress plan to sanction him
___ What is the method this Congress plans to use to energize the Executive branch personnel to watch for specific behavior, plans or illegal activity; then report that information to an interested Committee in Congress.
The President is an Article II officer. All lesser Executive offers and agents would get less attention from Congress.
___ If Congress is not giving any attention to the head of the Article II branch, why should we believe that lesser officers will get more attention?
___ How will the lesser officers be punished for things that the President has illegally ordered
___ Is the Congress only interested in holding the staffers to account, but not remove the man from office – through impeachment proceedings – to prevent the pardon power from being used
___ Does Congress hope to induce people – through a claim that impeachment will not be used – to believe they will be subject to pardons
___ How does Congress – faced with the prospect that the law is not being followed – justify continued false signals that it is not interested in enforcing the law and sending a false signal that pardons are possible: This invites contempt for the enforcement mechanism which have failed and for those that should work but are not used.
___ If the Congress will not oversee the President, why should we believe they’ll seriously look at lesser issues
___ If the Congressional leadership is not willing to work with the RNC leadership to look at the President, why should anyone believe that the DNC will work with the RNC on a “trivial” matter unrelated to the President
___ Which Article II activities are unrelated to the President
___ How can Congress justify to anyone that – in engaging in any fact finding – all consequences of that fact finding cannot lead to an ultimate examination of the Article II leader
___ Congressional responsibly is to check the Article II branch; how can Congress engage in any fact finding of the Article II branch, but not link the inquiry, nor consider the possibility, that the Article II leader is linked with the original activity linked with the assertion that more oversight is needed
The DNC-RNC leadership , have secretly and openly agreed to do nothing and not review the issues. The DNC was elected on the premise that change was needed; but if we continue along the same flawed path – that of no oversight of the President, nor taking that oversight to the impeachment – what is the DNC forecast of when the current, flawed path will result in a breakdown of American governance. Is there a plan of what to do once the leadership is seen as incapable, unwilling, and not interested in engaging in their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.
Rather than embrace the problem and resolve it, who will the DNC-RNC leadership blame in a bipartisan way. Rather than do their job, who does the Congressional leadership plan to target for the indictments against the Congressional leadership for 5 USC 3331 violations
Either congress acts to investigate all people; or it is complicit with the illegal rebellion to defy the Constitution. Can’t claim to be for something, but do nothing when it is defied.
What is the Congressional leadership to support a backlash against the voters? The RNC leadership has failed; there is no prospect, given the world support for solutions, that the voters will have less support. Rather, they are emboldened, and have the political power to craft a new system which will remove discretion, and impose a requirement. A promise of an oath was supposed to bind the leadership to do what was difficult, not lip service to avoid doing what was required.
It appears there has been false shock over the Foley and Congressional Page scandals. The problem with the RNC was meaningless Presidential oversight. The results are the same with the new Congressional leadership: Nothing.
The Speakers Role, as leader of one chamber in Article I, is to protect the Constitution, set the example. It appears there has been little regard for the reputation of the House; no plan to remedy pas wrongs; merely a call to look forward.
It is not appropriate to suggest that reality, wrongdoing, or past inaction on the Constitution should be repeated.
Under the existing Constitutional system, the Judicial Article III power is not a mediator between the legislature and the Executive. We cannot rely on the court to do what the Congress refuses to do; and what the President refuses to recognize: The courts or the rule of law.
The same questions the Congress is not asking about the President will also not be asked about Iraq.
The same phony RNC-NeoCon “backlash” concerns was the same line of concerns on matters of NSA, FISA< rendition, abuse of power, Title 28, the FBI-DOJ OPR oversight, and the failed White House counsel.
___ Where are the US attorneys
___ Why does the US government have to rely on German and Italian prosecutors
___ Is the US legal system incapable of doing what Congress refuses
___ Why would anyone in the GOP want to remain loyal to a party that celebrates defiance of the rule of law, and will only respond when foreign fighters and foreign prosecutors back the leadership pinto a corner
___ How many other plans were never created
___ How many Executive Branch personnel will be scarified
___ How many DoJ Staff counsel will be force to take the fall at the State level
___ How many attorneys will be disbarred
___ How many war crimes indictments will be issued against the US attorneys for failing to protect what they had the duty to protect: The Constructional requirement that the Geneva Conventions, as a treaty, are fully enforced
The lesson of Iraq is clear: Arguments should have been challenged before action was taken. Similarly, by refusing to consider impeachment, the Congressional leadership is ideating they are not willing to embrace the lesson of Iraq.
___ Where are the tough questions
___ Where is the Congressional plan to press for answers from the President
___ What is the plan to examine the President’s arguments
___ What is the plan to challenge the excuses not to change, but continue with what is not a sustainable, lawful, or prudent agenda
___ When will there be a full examination of a flawed Presidential agenda, that is disconnected from credible plans
The Congressional leadership has no response. It does not want to discuss it. There remain other options.
“No response” can be adversely interpreted to mean, “The Speaker is not serious about doing her moral best under 5 USC 3331 to hold the leadership to account. She is not fit to be speaker; and all US Attorneys should work to collect evidence of her alleged 5 USC 3331 violations.
“No explanation” can be adversely interpreted to mean, "Despite claims that the President has not cooperated with Congress on managing the war, the Congressional leadership will not require any explanation despite the legal requirement under Title 28 to provide an explanation not to enforce the law. It is one thing to know of a violation of the law that should have been reported, but was not; quite another, despite the President’s refusal to follow the law or investigations, for the Congress to do nothing about the violation of Title 28.
Madame Speaker the will of Congress is asserted through Statute in Title 28. If the President – the head of state, leader of your opposition, and the man in charge of the branch of government you are structurally designed to clash with -- will not be reviewed for violations of this Title, why is Congress bothering to enforce the will of Congress against anyone?
Madame Speaker, your oath is your only obligation. Your oath is to protect the Constitution. If this is your best, then we do not need you. We’ve already had this for the last six years. Let’s elect an RNC Speaker, and get the same: Nothing. A claim that you are the leader of the entire House may be true: Your leadership will mean nothing if you are not willing to lead your Chamber in the Article I branch, as you are required, against the Article II leader who refuses to do what he promised.
___ Where is the prosecution plan the Speaker plans to support
___ What opposition does the speaker have to the German War Crimes prosecutor reviewing this information
___ Does the Speaker plan to work with the President to eliminate extradition, and not compel US citizens to report to the German war crimes prosecutor
___ If the US will not support extradition of US citizens to Germany or Italy, why should any other nation or ally support extradition of their citizens to the United States?
Iraq is a mess. This President had no plan: That is another mess.
Leaders cannot be trusted with power when they have a mess, create a mess, and rely on messes as smokescreens.
Getting someone to agree with non-sense is not oversight, but folly.
This is maze of delusion. The US leadership well knew, or should have known, prior to granting permission to use force, that there were troubling questions; despite no answers, the Congress sat silently while force was used illegally; then did nothing after learning funds had been used for illegal purposes.
The future of America is linked with the rule of law only if American citizens are willing to compel the State level resources to enforce the law; and, as required, lawfully target Members of congress and the Executive Branch for their illegal rebellion and unlawful denial to the States of an enforcement mechanism on the supreme law.
Where there is no oversight, no questioning, and no review, there is no baseline to measure from; nor is there a way to monitor or detect new problems, or whether the proposed solutions and plans are improving or failing.
One decision for the Senate is to evaluate whether the President, despite a promise to change or do what he should – but does not – to decide whether the only option is to remove the man.
there is no need for this nation to be stuck with what is failing; it cannot be remedied, when there are lawful options to gather facts, examine the issues, and explore the remedy. We will not know whether the remedy is or is not removal unless we start a review designed to answer one thing: Should this President be charged with a crime or not?
The States have already reviewed the House rules and remained Poised to consider proclamations calling for the House to review the facts related t the President.
Is it the Speaker’s position that, despite House Rule 603, the Congressional leadership will not consider the option; make no appeal to vote; and will silence all its members from calling for investigation?
If this is the case, then we need only look at the inaction that has occurred and the illegal agreement in the Military Commissions Bill to immunize Members of Congress for what they have no power to self-immunize: Alleged war crimes through their failure to prevent them.
Impeachment, if it is not an option, is a meaningless power; but it remains a power which the war crimes prosecutors can consider:
___ Did the Members of Congress do what they could to investigate war crimes
___ Did the Members of Congress have the legal power to do something, but they refused to act
___ Did the individual Members of Congress have the option to support other lawful options to gather facts
___ Once it was known the Executive had thwarted those lawful alternatives, did the Congressional leadership block State Attorney generals from doing what Congress refuses to do: Bring charges against the President
___ Did the Congressional leadership agree to block state level prosecutions by the Attorney General against the President
___ What was the scope of illegal activity members of Congress knew about, or should have known about, or should have investigated but were not prevented
___ Despite taking an oath to protect the Constitution, comply with the Geneva Conventions, and ensure that the Conventions were fully respected and not violated, did the individual Members of Congress do their moral best to examine the facts related to alleged Presidential war crimes; or were they reckless in not doing what they took an oath to do: Compel the President to cooperate with lawful inquiry, and bring the facts before the body that had the power to examine the issues: The Senate.
If the answer to the above was, “No, the Members of Congress did not do what they should have,” then The Hague may lawfully conclude that the individual Members of Congress were complicit in war crimes; failed to enforce the Title 28 reporting requirements; and did not fully meet their legal obligations under Geneva or the laws of war and precedent to prevent, stop, and review what they had the power, ability, duty, and legal obligation.
Based on the above, the adverse inferences is: The Speaker is allegedly complicit with unlawful war crimes; and should be lawfully targeted by the German war crimes prosecutor for adjudication. If the German war crimes prosecutor determines that Speaker NANCY PELOSI did not do her moral best as required to enforce the Geneva Conventions, then it remains a matter for the German war crimes tribunal to decide whether she should be, upon taking office, and refusing to act as required, whether she and her alleged co-conspirators should or should not be lawfully convicted of war crimes.