Overseeing Congressional Committees
Guidelines to evalute Committee ability to effectively review illegal activity 2000-2006.
For discussion and use during Congressional Committee Hearings on these issues.
Expectations for Government-Committee Reviews
Forward Inputs To Committees
The US population and other interested parties are invited to publish their ideas and inputs for Committee oversight of the US government actions. The review is not isolated to events 2001-2006.
The Hearings should be organized with an eye toward preventing recurrence. The Hearings need to focus on solutions to prevent the abuse of power and violations of rights from being reported.
These are a set of expectations you may wish to forward to your elected officials; or use as a baseline to expand your oversight of the Committee hearings. Unless We the People communicate our expectations, Members of Congress may choose to argue, as a defense for malfeasance, that they didn’t understand what We the People wanted. This list is intended to deprive them of that excuse.
We have lawful options if reasonable expectations are not met: We may craft a New Constitution.
Objective of Hearings
The hearings cannot be narrowly conducted with an eye towards passing new laws. The existing laws have been violated. Solutions require a credibly showing that the proposed alternatives would have mitigated the events 2000-2006. The laws have been ignored, not enforced, and explained away. Passing new laws, and permitting the discretion in law enforcement, is not the solution, but more of the same. These hearings will lay the ground work for credible changes, not excuse to continue with what has failed.
If the US is not willing to look at real changes to the US government, the hearings are a waste of time. It makes no sense to have any hearings unless the evidence may be used to go after the leadership in the Article II branch which failed. The hearings will be a test of whether the US government is serious about solutions.
The illegal activity started before Sept 2001. The way forward is to examine what is to be done when:
- Congress passes unconstitutional laws
- The US government uses forces, abuse, and illegal activity to enforce that unconstitutional law
- The US government claims the illegal activity is classified or not reviewable by the courts; and the courts agree
When this occurs, as it might occur again if this US government is not reformed, the US government losses legitimacy. Despite abuse, We the People may exercise our right and assert our power to create something new. Reforms and new laws are insufficient. Solutions are required.
US Government Test
Before us is the still unproven assertion that the US government is competent. Is the US government willing to check power; or must alternatives be used in parallel to remind the US government that it has a job to:
- Civil litigation
- Foreign war crimes
- State level enforcement efforts against US government officials
- Non-congressional/non-federal options
The US government is more loyal to the idea of power than
- Legitimately using power
- Accountability for that power
- Consequences for flawed use of power
After WWII, the US had quite a position to dictate terms. Those days are long over. The lies of the Cold War have surfaced: The Military Power is finite, defeatable, and not as mighty as some believed. The US never had the legal or moral authority to put itself above the Nuremburg Standards; but the US crafted propaganda to rationalize abuses.
This government must address, not make excuses for the abuses. Like the Roman Empire, the US cannot credibly employ force to compel assent to abuse. The use of force failed, and has emboldened opposition not only on foreign battlefield, but the domestic opposition to what is not lawful: The abuse of power by the US government.
Witnesses who do not cooperate with the rule of law belong in jail.
Something got into the collective minds of the American leadership and citizenry inducing them to think that they could target Americans for challenging the abuse of power. The voters in 2006 rejected the abuse.
US Government officials have illegally enforced unlawful acts. There have been war crimes. Publicly traded firms listed on the NYSE have been implicated in war crimes. The way forward is to observe how effectively the evidence is reviewed by the NYSE and SEC prosecute CEOS for their illegal activities and support of war crimes .Foreign war crimes prosecutors have already reviewed the US government inaction. Foreign assets have been seized. NYSE associated firms, officers, and employees remain under investigation.
The US government must demonstrate that US citizens should stick with a system that has failed; as opposed to embracing a New Constitution that might more effectively work.
___ What is the basis for citizen confidence in the existing system that ignores the rule of law
__ What are the solutions, alternatives to lawfully change what has failed
Fundamental Credibility Problem
US government officials and the American legal community have lost the presumption of competence, lawfulness and credibility.
US CEO, civilian leaders and citizens have fair warning. US legal counsel are not necessarily issuing credible, legal options. We the People must exercise due diligence to effective oversee the American government and legal community which failed, as evidenced by the unchecked war crimes, and pervasive pattern of illegal activity 2000-2006. We the People have the responsibility to apply the lessons learned and enhance the due diligence to oversee the fiduciaries which may directly or indirectly implement illegal US government operations.
Committee Oversight of US Government
The US public is invited to publish their inputs, expectations, and other things they would like to see reviewed. There are guarantees: If the US government does not adequately demonstrate a reasonable ability to effectively self-govern, there are lawful options to change the US Government without giving US government officials the opportunity to provide inputs.
The US government is on probation: Either it does its job and demonstrates it can oversee its operations; or We the People shall lawfully impose a New Constitution which will substantially transform the US government into something that is more responsive to the Rule of Law and Our Will.
The US government is in a weakened position. Despite the use of military and lethal force, the US government has not been successful in employing military forces to impose its will. When a government uses force, but fails, it cannot credibly threaten anyone. The first error was to illegally wage war; the second error was to unlawfully constrain its operations to the rule of law; and the third error was to incorrectly believe that the illegal activity would not be discovered, sanctioned, or prosecuted.
This government defies the law, and pretends it is not responsive to Our Will. This is incorrect. A republic exists to efficiently and effectively transform Our Will into results than we could otherwise individually achieve, or through another system of organization.
The US government during the committee reviews has the burden of proof: To demonstrate it is competent and can comply with Our Will as expressed through the US Constitution, the oath of office, and statute. One possible outcome of the reviews is that individual US government officials may be lawfully executed if they are convicted of war crimes. This is not a new risk, but a known standard of prosecution well publicized.
The hearings will set the stage for whether the US government is serious about listening to We the People; or whether it will give lip service to the rule of law. We the People are in a position to make adverse inferences: Whether the US government is or is not trusted to organize people to effectively achieve lawful results.
This government, through whatever excuses, collectively chose to violate the law, incorrectly believing it was the only option. Indeed, the US government may be in such a weakened position, and on the wrong side of history and the law, that the officials jointly agreed that the only way to solve the problems was to engage in illegal activity. However, even when self-delegating themselves unlimited resources, they still failed.
A system which no longer has respect for the rule of law is not legitimate. Legitimacy hinges on the idea that written law, not arbitrary words of people, will guide leadership, decisions, organizations, goals, and oversight. It remains to be understood whether the decision to violate the law was before or after it was feared lawful use of force would be ineffectual. It remains to be understood how many myths of the Post WWII era – otherwise though to have been destroyed – never left, and have been discredited, warranting their final destruction.
The Committee Hearings need to be geared toward understanding what went wrong; and resolving the methods of interaction not ensure this does not happen again. Great weight will be given to whether the actors can make a credible case that the existing systems of laws, oversight, and checks can work; whether laws, that are otherwise ignored, can be relied upon as a system of governance; or whether something new is needed to organize society. Alternatives are available. The drafts have been written. The investigation plans have been outlined. War crimes prosecutors continue their work.
There are some key questions:
___ Are the issues getting addressed
___ Are the core problems not getting reviewed
___ Which agenda are people working toward
___ Is the agenda consistent with the Rule of law
___ What will nip this momentum in the bud earlier
The US government has been defeated on the battlefield, lost credibility before the US voters, has been sent a chilling rebuke. The way forward is for We the People to outline our clear expectations: What we want, and what we should reasonably expect and have without saying anything.
It is not our job to recite the Constitution, nor remind the political actors who took an oath to the Constitution what the Constitution is, or what the oath means. However, given the US government does not appear to understand its job, until it performs, We the People shall have to continue to remind the US government officials what their job is, what their oath of office is, and what the Constitution is. There is a training and leadership problem in the US Government linked to illegal activity. The issue is not simply poor employees; it is bad management disguised as something other than professionalism. The training, supervision, and oversight has been inadequate, illegal, and uninspiring.
Left to their own devices, even when not yet in power, US government officials have illegally self-delegated powers and rights which have been delegated or granted. The Speaker and Committee Chairman do not have the power to self-delegate themselves the right or power to decide whether impeachment is or is not an option. We the People, through the Constitution, never delegated that power to any individual, officer of the house, or any committee chairman. The Speaker is expressly FORBIDDEN and DENIED the self-delegation of any power, right, authority, or discretion not remove impeachment as an instrument of power from the discretion of the House of Representatives. Rather, all powers not delegated to the Speaker, are reserved for the States and We the People. Where the Speaker is denied the power and right to do something – because she was never delegated that power -- We the People retain the lawful power to punish her for exercising powers she has not been delegated; or preventing the legislative body from doing what has only been delegated to the body.
The power of impeachment has ONLY been delegated to the House of Representatives. The option remains on the table as a viable check on the Executive and Article II powers when they are thwarted, prevented, or otherwise not inspired to enforce Our Will as expressed through Statute.
The Speaker and her alleged co-conspirators have yet to be called before the House ethics Committee to explain their illegal decision not exercise non-delegated powers. The adverse inference is that the House has not been cleaned; nor is there a plan t clean the House; rather, the plan is to do what the President did: Illegally self-delegate powers not expressly delegated. This course of conduct does not inspire confidence that the Congress will oversee similar pattern of abuses in the President. Rather, by engaging in substantially the same abuses, for whatever reason, the only reasonable conclusion is the Congress will make excuses for the President to avoid the comparison with what the Speaker and Congress are doing: Abusing non-delegated powers.
A reasonable way forward is to consider the Watergate Grand Jury evidence and commentary. There were many concerns in the 1974 Grand Jury memoranda which warrant review. Succinctly, the issue is legitimacy of the US criminal justice system. It broke and has been broken; removing the impeachment option tells We the People that US government is not interested in the rule of law. When the executive refuses to enforce the law, We the People delegated the Congress the power to act, not the power to not assert power, nor remain powerless in the wake of Presidential and Executive Branch defiance of the rule of law.
The calls for bipartisanship are not convincing; they are meaningless. The way forward is to instruct the witnesses that they have one choice: Cooperate with the rule of law, or they will be sent where they have no choice – jail. If they have shown the threat of jail time is insufficient, the ultimate option remains the lawful adjudication of the death penalty for international war crimes, unreviewable by any President or pardon. It remains up to the witness whether they wish to cooperate or have the law imposed on them in final form. The Rule of Law, not witness arrogance, shall prevail.
There are a few areas of interest, connected to a common disdain for the rule of law.
- NSA-FISA violations
- Iraq AWMD
- DoJ OPR
- Geneva violations
- Prisoner, civilian abuse
- Illegal orders
- US governance
There will be no negotiation. Other options are available. Surrender.
Staff counsel and professional are subject to loss of standing, privilege, and their livelihood.
Hearing Ground Rules
We the People retain the right to withhold evidence which may be beneficial to the witnesses; or might timely inform them of a problem they may not think is known. US government official are deprived of information on who is inside and cooperating with these hearings, discovery, and oversight by We the People.
Adverse information, which may induce some witness to not fully cooperate because of the war crimes implications, may or may not be disclosed.
Memoranda not favorable to the witnesses may or may not be disclosed, the evidence may or may not included memoranda, signed policy memos, budgets, signed orders, meeting minutes, and other documents showing a cooperating witness has lied to We the People under oath.
Standards applicable to attorneys, fiduciaries, professionals in the accounting and auditing industry shall be applied without notification.
The extent of information which may be favorable or unfavorable to witnesses shall not be shared with witnesses or their counsel. Information obtained through non-US agents and sources remains in reserve, ready to impeach witnesses. The existence of this information shall be DENIED to counsel.
Foreign fighters remain engaged in widening, spreading, and more penetrating attacks against US government officials, contractors, and civilians. These attacks may or may not be under the direct command, influence, or ability of various entities to influence, adjust, or prevent. Witnesses before the Congressional Committees shall be reminded that their answers, however cursory or misleading, may be used by foreign fighters to assume the US government is not responsive to the rule of law; and that they may lawfully exercise their powers on the battlefield to impose sever combat losses on US allied forces, resources, and assets. Witness are reminded that foreign fighters shall continue to monitor the responsiveness of US government witnesses before Congress and the answers, when they are evasive or misleading may result in increased combat operations directed against forces allied with the alleged war criminal-witness.
The US government was put on notice that it retained the responsibility in November 2006 to continue oversight. The GOP remains in charge, but is not interested in leadership. The GOP cannot make the case going into the 2008 election that it is better suited for power. Despite having power, the Republicans in November-December 2006 effectively abdicated power, responsibility, and oversight for US government operations. Hearings were not effectively started; and the RNC did not effectively start reviews related to issues they knew the DNC may or may not review. This is material information related to the credibility of GOP claims in 2008 that they may or may not be able to do something in the White House.
As with NATO and Afghanistan, the US government is facing a test: Whether it can or cannot effectively work and achieve results. There is the skill, budget, resources, and training to do the job. The question going forward is whether the US government will organize itself to solve problems; or require a new system of oversight and New Constitution which compels a more responsive oversight system. The plan has been drafted. It is ready. The US government is in the position to lose what it has, and lawfully have the reforms imposed without debate.
During the hearings, the witnesses are reminded that the laws of war and reciprocity apply. For illegal activity asserted as permissible; or for abuse considered acceptable; or for misleading statements presented as acceptable – foreign fighters may lawfully do the same to US government officials, military personnel, and others engaged in illegal activity.
Signs of non-cooperation will be taken seriously. Foreign fighters may choose to increase combat operations, expand alliances, and increase pressure against US interests around the globe. These are permissible under the laws of war, especially when a government refuses to show signs it takes the laws of war seriously. Foreign fighters may lawfully ignore the same laws which US government officials and witnesses do not enforce.
US government officials and witnesses may reasonable presume the following:
Non allied nations have funneled information to We the People related to illegal activity, evidence, and other things which the US government has not disclosed; and does not anticipate being discussed.
We the People know more than we let on.
US government officials have the burden to inspire confidence and support
We the People retain the inherent right and power to change the system to suit Our Will, protect our rights, prevent the abuse of power, and compel US government officials to do their jobs.
US government officials, contractors, and employees are expressly DENIED the power, right, and authority to review plans, evidence, and options We the People retain in reserve to lawfully impose.
We the People can train competent leadership to marginally outperform the incompetent US government officials.
Witnesses, Committee Staff, and US government officials shall stop whining. This is not about your personal feelings, but about Power. You have abused it; and We the People are in the position to examine whether you are or are not going to be trusted with the existing power we reserve the right to revoke at any time.
Information for witnesses and their legal counsel
You have no power or right to support a rebellion against the US Constitution, rule of law, or Our Will expressed through statute. You shall either surrender unconditionally, or foreign fighters shall be in a position to impose continued combat losses on your already defeated forces.
Counsel and witnesses have a joint credibility problem. The American Bar Association has been discredited as a reasonable organization. It has glacially shown an interest in the Constitution, Rule of Law, and the legal issues at the center of the Presidential abuses. Whether you continue your association with the ABA is irrelevant.
We the People retain the right to no longer associate ourselves with allegedly defective counsel who should be disbarred for failing to assert their oath. If American legal counsel would like to create a new Attorney Association other than the ones that have failed, that is within your authority. Your loyalty is not to the ABA, but to the US Constitution.
All attorney-client communications are subject to foreign monitoring, interception, and may lawfully be used against both counsel and the witnesses, whether counsel or the witness is in the government, private practice, or a private firm. Foreign fighters retain the right to forward information they may intercept to We the People. This information shall be used against you during the hearings and you do not have the right or power to oppose this information transfer, especially when it comes to issues of war crimes, violations of the Supreme Law, defiance of the oath, classification of illegal activity, or other illegal activity.
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. The evidence you present may or may not be immediately used against you; and may at any time be used to lawfully prosecute for war crimes which may include the death penalty. Foreign fighters, under the laws of war, have the legal authority to lawfully target, and punish using any method they deem appropriate to defend themselves and their lands.
It is not appropriate for witnesses to stall for time feigning ignorance, or confusion over the questions. The more you stall the more questions you will get.
Your appearance before the Committees is not an invitation. You are to appear under penalty of perjury. If you refuse to cooperate, We the People retain the right, without notice or warning, to cancel all contracts with you and the entities allegedly engaged in fraud or illegal activity. We have lawful options to find new counterparties. If needed we may shut down your corporate functions, and lawfully deploy the Securities and Exchange Commission to gather evidence related to alleged securities fraud or other violations of the PSLRA. Your answers have direct bearing on the stock values of your peers and others relying on pension income. Where there is fraud, we will find it; if you are connected to that fraud, you may be jailed, even if you exercise your right to silence.
It is not appropriate to shift requirements to We the People. By signing your contracts or asserting your oath, you have allegedly agreed to engage in lawful conduct; but your conduct demonstrates doubt that you have faithfully asserted your oath.
Excuses for inaction are not appropriate. Your job is to convince the committee and WE the Pele that you did your moral best to assert your oath, not roll over. If you refuse to demonstrate competence, We the People reserve the right to expand our inquiry using methods you may or may not be informed.
Witnesses are remind to focus on the issue, not on the excuse to change the subject or blame others. You were there. You either took responsibility and asserted your oath and complied with the law; or you did not.
Follow the law. Do what you are required to do.
Do not pretend you did what you didn’t.
It is not appropriate to shift the requirements to We the People. You have a job to do – do what you are supposed to do. Find out, get the information, and report back. It’s not our job to explain to you how to do your job. You can be replaced, even if your only error is your incompetence, and refusal to attend training.
The basis for questions is at all times presumed to be legal: You have no right to invoke secrecy clauses on things that are illegal classified. Evidence of criminal activity is not privileged when it is post-decision; and you may not lawfully claim illegal activity is classified. It is not lawful to classify unlawful activity.
The Committee shall be briefed on ORCON and the unlawful efforts to classify illegal activity.
The public has made significant adverse inferences. The US government, not We the People, has the credibility problem.
Committees shall timely make known disclosures by witnesses, fatal admissions, or other inadvertent disclosures which may be useful to We the People to expand inquiry, lawfully target other witnesses, or use information to the advantage of We the People; and to the disadvantage of the witness and counsel.
Committees have a responsibility to bring to the attention of We the People new revelations, disconnects in testimony, inconstancies, or information showing there is a breakthrough in inquiry. The US government has shown a consistent habit of not being able to effectively coordinate presentations.
Committees shall present notes and publicize their concerns related to which questions are not getting answered, and require additional research, support, or assistance by We the People to investigate.
Committees shall present on a regularly basis – at least once a day – information of interest to the Committees that is novel, related to questions and issues the blogosphere may choose to debate and independently research; and other information We the People may wish to review and discuss.
Presidential pardons are not possible on issues related to impeachment; or when witnesses or counsel are lawfully prosecuted for international war crimes.
When witnesses are not cooperating on issues of war crimes, foreign fighters retain the right and power to expand combat operations against those who may or may not be directly involved in the combat theater.
___ Does the Committee understand, by removing impeachment off the table, witnessess may believe they can get a pardon otherwise denied by impeachment? Ref
Committees are not under any timeline, deadline, or milestone to complete or not complete any activity.
Committees shall afford We the People time to review the results of the hearings; provide inputs; and as needed recall witnesses for follow-up and, as needed, prosecution for perjury, obstruction, and other illegal activity.
Inquires shall be conducted on the presumption that witnesses are not cooperative. Witnesses may be lawfully subjected to extensive, repetitive, and exhausting inquiry which may or may not be similar to cross examination they might face on any witness stand or as a war crimes defendant.
Witnesses shall be reminded that they are to tell the truth, and inform the committee if they have been advised not to respond fully to any committee question. Witnesses are presumed to only answer the most narrow version of the question; where witnesses are not fully answering the questions, that information may be forwarded at any time to the US Attorney for prosecution or war crimes prosecutors as appropriate.
It is not appropriate for witnesses and counsel to predict the motivation of questions; nor assume they are in a position to know the possible information foreign fighters may present at the least convenient time, either in the form of additional, sustained combat losses on the battlefield; or in additional communications related to war crimes or other adverse information contrary to the testimony of a witness before Congress.
Committees shall be encouraged to find, explore, and dig into the full picture related to witness testimony, and share their adverse inference where witnesses illegally claim the unlawful activity is classified.
Committees shall ask questions, raise issues, and make public their concerns which may be different than what counsel and witnesses otherwise believe is the intended line of inquiry. The inquiry will last as long as the witnesses refuse to cooperate; and foreign fighters shall retain the right and power to lawfully target US government interests that are not fully cooperating with the inquiry.
There shall be timely follow-ups on questions.
Expectations of Committee Staff, Members of Congress, Congressional Staff Counsel
Do your job or find another job.
If you request information in writing, honor the input as the response. You are free to challenge the veracity of that information.
When you request We the People do something, provide information, or prove feedback, honor that information. Ignoring the input, or using the response as the basis to change the subject from (a) the object of the inquiry to (b) the suitability of the requested assistance, you demonstrate you have missed the purpose of your inquiry.
After you seek feedback on the committee hearings, you shall be open to that feedback. We the People shall be comparing notes whether the inputted information is or is not effectively translating into needed adjustments. You have no basis to believe that the feedback will be positive; any information you reject, or refuse to respond to may be used against you at any time in any court of law, election proceeding, or war crimes tribunal.
If you are not serious about resolving issues, stop asking questions. Let your silence or open “going through the motions”-conduct speak for itself.
If you do not know what to do, get training. There are no excuse.
Conduct yourselves in a manner that warrants support. However, refusing to tackle difficult issues is not competence, but fear to letting We the People see the limitations of your abilities. We will know. Bluffing will not impress. Lead.
It is not appropriate for the Congressional Staff or Members of Congress to blame the public for our questions or feedback. This information is to be expected and managed; using what should be foreseeable as an excuse not to do your job is not governance.
When push come to shove, We the People do not have to leave. We can outlast you. We may create a new system. You are free to go elsewhere to impose your lesser standard of performance on those who have already defeated you on the battlefield. Translation: You have run out of suckers to impose your absurdity and non-sense.
We the People retain the right to expand, modify, and change these expectations without notice. All Members of Congress and the Executive Branch, including staff counsel, are responsible for fully implementing programs which meet or exceed these standard.
Other citizens may at any time raise the standards, impose more stringent requirements, and expand inquiry and questions. We the People retain the right and power to create a new system of Committee Oversight that deprives the Speaker and Leadership in the Senate of any Powers, rights, or other discretion they may enjoy.
Calling for bipartisanship is different than protecting the Constitution. A call for bipartisanship is not a lawful standard of performance when, in meeting that objective, the oath of office is not fully asserted. One cannot credibly agree, in a bipartisan manner, to compromise on what cannot be compromised: Your oath to the US Constitution.
The DNC is only one half of the equation. The rule of law is not a DNC mandate; it is a mandate of We the People, not something the DNC can assert as their agenda. The DNC may not claim that the issue of impeachment or non-impeachment may or may jeopardize their political objectives in 2008. Impeachment is not something the DNC control, it is a power reserved only to the House of Representatives, not something the DNC can thwart, take of the table, deny exists as an option, or not assert on the basis of speculative political gain; nor avoid for any reason. Where the law will not be enforced through the Executive, the Members of Congress in the House must assert the rule of law through impeachment. To refuse to combat illegal activity makes the House complicit with the original wrong.
It is noteworthy where the GOP will or will not agree to cooperate. It is possible to review DNC statements related to oversight, and consider changes before the oversight hearings being.
If US government officials will not ask questions, there is no need to wait until the hearings are over. It’s possible to know, based on the initial public comments and plans of the GOP not to fully cooperate, that We the People should speak out now, not wait until the dancing starts. We can create a new system that will compel accountability.
The issue isn’t whether oversight is an option, but where oversight will or will not effectively protect the Constitution. Waiting until the disastrous oversight is self-evidence is not an option. The Committees shall conduct dry runs, and solicit feedback on their lines of questions; then go through mock oversight and debates with non-cooperative witnesses. We the People have a responsibility to raise the bar, set the standards, and clearly communicate what we expect. This has already been done in the Constitution. It is irrelevant whether Congress comprehend their credibility problem; or job is to remind them of what they apparently are unable to comprehend on their own: They work for us; we are not their play toys. We don’t have to wait to tell them to clean up their mess. When they start doing their job on their own, we can stop telling them what their job is. Until then, the exhaustive oversight shall continue, increase, and be relentless.
The Big Picture on the Rule of Law
The core problem with the 2000-2006 pattern of conduct has been the widespread violation of the law. The events of Sept 2001 did not trigger illegal activity; it merely rationalized what had already started. Before Sept 2001, the NSA was already engage din illegal activity, engaged in unlawful surveillance.
NO witness before Congress can credibly argue that Sept 2001 changed everything. This President changed everything, and Congress when with him before Sept 2001.
Subjects For Review
___ Why have confidence in a system that cannot ensure the rule of law is asserted at all times.
___ Witness are either able to do their jobs or they are not. Witnesses can either focus on the questions and respond; or if distracted by litigation, they should resign. If the witness will not cooperate with questions on the grounds of ongoing litigation, why have they not bee dismissed or resigned as Libby has done?
___ What was the breakdown of the National Security Council prior to Sept 2001 that endorsed illegal NSA surveillance, long before Sept 2001 occurred
___ What was the reason the information available for the NSC was not used: DSP combined the information from the CIA and FBI; the issue of “the wall” was irrelevant to whether the NSC could or could not review the combined information
___ The illegal activity started before Sept 2001 and did not stop. How was anyone able to argue for more illegal activity, without examining the original illegal activity – which, despite its existence – did not prevent the events of Sept 2001?
___ What is the approach of the Congress to effectively work with State level entities to enforce the rule of law against US government officials who violated the States’ right to a republican form of government – one that had an enforcement mechanism, not on that makes excuses to ignore the law.
___ If the surveillance was appropriate, why weren’t the existing legal requirements met and satisfied?
___ If there were perceived limitations with the statutory authority, why were only some of the desired changes requested of Congress; but other changes were unilaterally implemented?
___ Once Congress was aware of the illegal activity, can the Committees point to evidence that the Executive branch personnel were aware of the illegal activity, but they did not file the required Title 28/Title 50 exception reports stating in writing to Congress that the law would not be enforced and illegal activity would not be persecuted?
___ If, as some suggest, the FISA-NSA violations were permissible, why did the Executive branch personnel lie to the FISA court about something that was supposedly lawful?
___ How can anyone argue they had a “good intention” when the result relied on deception, fraud, fabrication, and misleading statements before Article III Judicial Power vested exclusively with the Judiciary?
___ How can anyone argue that the surveillance arrangements with contractors were appropriate; yet the Qwest CEO refused to cooperate; how was the Qwest CEO illegally punished for refusing to cooperate with illegal activity; or is the lack of punishment sufficient to show that other CEOs should have refused to cooperate but didn’t
___ What information did the Qwest CEO obtain to lead him to conclude that the activity was not lawful; what is the explanation of the Executive Branch for claiming this information cannot similarly be shared with the Congress; Members of Congress have the authority to review classified information – is there something that only an NYSE-listed CEO can review; but Members of Congress, charged with regulating the NYSE cannot review that information?
___ The Verizon CEO fatally admitted in e-mails to Mr. Cowie of Maine that they may have been authorized access to the NSA facilities; or that they may have a contract that permitted the NSA to access the Verizon facilities. What basis is anyone saying the activity is classified and secret when the activity is not lawful, cannot be classified under ORCON, and the inadvertent disclosures to Mr. Cowie are contrary to assertions NSA officials including former NSA director Hayden made on the legality of the activity?
Lawfulness of Orders
Government legitimacy hinges on written law. When government official ignore the law, the officials undermine the legitimacy of that government. We the People retain the power and inherent right to enact a New Constitution that will replace that government with something that is more usable.
Sovereignty is related to whether the US government will or will not effectively govern the affairs within its borders. Sovereignty hinges on whether the government will or will not effectively govern using laws; or whether outside entities, other than the US government are or are not serious about doing what the US government refuses to do – assert the rule of law.
The 1974 Watergate Grand Jury memoranda, well known in the Department of Justice raises the same issues. Military Commanders have been asked on the same legal issues: What is the net result to public confidence when personnel cannot be trusted to do what they promised to – assert the rule of law, protect the Constitution, and ensure the orders are lawful?
The way forward for the Congressional Committee Hearings it examine what is going to happen fro the next president to ensure not mindless following of illegal orders or Geneva violations. Let’s get specific.
Once military commanders knew that there was no WMD in Iraq, the issue of imminence arises. Without WMD, there was no imminent threat. Put aside the just as important issue of whether another nation can or cannot be invaded simply because they desire to defend themselves; or deter others from using force.
___ How are Members of Congress and the witnesses handling the distration from Geneva abuses, and focusing on the irrelevant standard of torture? Ref
___ What was going through the mind of the commanders when they knew, well before Iraq was invaded, that the deadline for an invasion had been set, regardless the diplomatic efforts?
___ Richard Pearle announced in Vanity Fair that he and the NeoCons would have succeeded had they had more resources. Were military planners and commanders willing to support illegal activity with additional resources?
___ Once it was known that there was no imminent threat, what was going through the minds of the military commanders related to their decisions to approve, follow, and pass on those orders?
___ What legal review did DoD’s General Counsel Haynes make of the legality of the orders in light of the lack of imminence?
___ Regardless Haynes’ legal troubles before the German war crimes prosecutors, what discussion after the illegal orders were issued occurred?
___ Addington is reported to have stated he didn’t want to change the procedures in Eastern Europe because the change would have been an admission of guilt. These are post-decision activities, not protected by any lawful classification. Where is the memoranda related to Addington’s review?
___ How does any military commander explain their conduct after the scope of the “lack of WMD evidence” was known?
___ How did Haynes and Addington, Gonzalez and other legal personnel inside DoD and DOJ work with the white House to review the legal issues?
___ Brad Berenson is reported to have been knowledgeable of the illegal abuses in Syria. How was the White House counsel’s office involved with the legal reviews related to the “non existence of WMD” in Iraq?
___ What is the plan of the committees to redline/not promote military commanders for their failure to refuse to follow illegal orders, or orders they should have known were not lawful; or for their failure to remove themselves from planned activities which did not meet the Geneva requirements related to security obligations of an occupying power?
Rendition is the illegal kidnapping of personnel from one area to a second where they are illegally abused in violation of Geneva. Rendition was originally designed to retrieve defendants from overseas and bring them to US courts for trial. Rendition as allegedly practiced by the CIA, Abraxas, Boeing, and other entities did the opposite: Illegally moved personnel to areas where Addington and others argued the rule of law did not apply. Geneva applies to the detaining power, regardless the status of prisoners, or where the US was conducting affairs related to those prisoners. Hamdan recognized the applicability of Geneva to prisoners located where the US transported, abused, offloaded, or otherwise was instrumental in directly or indirectly abusing prisoners.
___ How many floating ships does the US Navy or CIA or DOD or US government or other entities or countries have on contract to facilitate, support, or indirectly assist in the abuse of prisoners on, above, over, or under the seas, lakes, shipping lanes, ponds, streams, causeways, inlets, estuaries, streams, deltas, marshes, ponds, dams, reservoirs, artificial bodies of water, bays, isthmus, channels, straights, gulfs, oceans, or other bodies of water?
___ How was Boeing's access to information used to engage in abuse? Ref
___ Where did anyone get the idea that it was “OK” to mistreat prisoners?
___ Why weren’t those making allegations – that someone did or didn’t have information –- become the subject of attention? Details
___ Why wasn’t the NSA able to find the “other end of the conversation” that was supposedly linked with this person targeted for rendition?
___ How many American citizens have been rendered?
___ How does the US government distinguish between rendering and DHS-JTTF warrantless interrogations; and the efforts of DoJ and DoD to transport civilians and prisoners across state lines to prosecute them in Virginia?
___ When did the DoD General Counsel last review the lessons of Nuremburg?
___ How much loss of public support was calculated by CENTCQM to be permissible?
___ Does CENTCQM have a reason for showing more concern for public reaction to abuse, than with the original Geneva requirements prohibiting abuse?
___ What is the plan of CENTCQM once the illegal activity was revealed?
___ Does BOEING and Abraxas comprehend it is the target of a war crimes investigation in Milan for its alleged support for personnel, transportation, and other things related to movement of prisoners for abuse by CIA-related entities and personnel?
___ How much money was required to induce people to ignore the Geneva conventions, abuse prisoners, and violate the law; was the monetary award substantial, or could anyone for a few dollars an hour be induced to believe they had no other option but to abuse people?
___ French railway companies have been prosecuted for supporting shipments of slave labor in WWII for abuse. Please discuss why Boeing should not be similarly prosecuted.
___ Contractors making Zyklon B, used to abuse and kill prisoners, were prosecuted after WWII. Please discuss why NYSE-related firms have not been similarly targeted for their support of the rendition activity and other abuse.
___ IBM during WWII was instrumental in supporting the scheduling and data support systems used to process prisoners. Please discuss the software firms related to the Boeing and Abraxas scheduling systems; are there no alternatives?
The common course of conduct has been the US government and contractor action without regard to the law or evidence.
___ What is the mindset of the White House permitting this abuse?
___ How was it determined that the way to resolve issues was to violate the law?
___ How does anyone justify the outcome given the worthless debates?
___ Did no one in the White House, Joint Staff, or DOD believe that the US public might support lawful treatment of prisoners?
___ Once it was decided to secretly abuse prisoners, what thought was there to the loss of public input that might have more effectively solved the issues?
__ How did it get into the minds of anyone that abuse was “OK”?
__ How did anyone in the US government justify shifting the debate from abuse (the clear standard in Geneva) to the irrelevant definition of torture?
___ What other areas has the President blocked review?
___ How can the President claim he is asserting his Constitutional oath, despite his refusal to enforce the law?
___ Besides the NSA activity, which specific programs, unrelated to the NSA activity, has the President deprived the DOJ OPR or DoJ IG the authority to review?
___ Why is evidence of illegal activity being classified in violation of ORCON and Executive Orders?
___ Who is the classifying authority who is classifying evidence of illegal activity?
___ Which executive orders are contradicting each other: One Executive Order prohibiting the classification of illegal activity; and another set of orders which is classifying unlawful activity?
___ What is the reason that President and Attorney General did not comply fully with their Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirement: Duty to report to Congress in writing the planned declination to not enforce the law?
___ How much information from the DOJ Staff related to peer conduct was not appropriately processed, received, reviewed, reported, investigated, or persecuted?
___ What is the plan of the DOJ OPR to forward information to the state attorney discipline boards related to DOJ Staff counsel alleged misconduct, the basis for attorney disbarment?
___ What information do the Inspector Generals and Congress have within their files that the US Attorneys, War Crimes Prosecutors, and others should be prosecuting?
___ How effective is the US government in overseeing the Executive Branch, and understanding the scope of the range of abuse of power, violations of the Constution Ref
___ How is the American law enforcement community going to compel US citizens to respect or have any confidence in an abusive system?
___ How do the witnesses explain their responses in light of the known Watergate Garand Jury concerns in 1974 which raised questions of integrity within the US legal community?
___ How many requests for clarification doe FBI personnel require?
___ What is the reason the FBI Asst Director has a problem with personnel under his command not knowing the statutes; basis for their promotion despite showing signs of mental incompetence; or the FBI personnel lack of knowledge of statutes and rules of evidence?
___ How can the FBI director credibly enforce the law while violations are ignored?
___ What is the reason that informants with information related to illegal activity prior to Sept 2001 were being abused, dissuaded from coming forward to the FBI?
___ What is the plan of the US law enforcement community to effectively work with the US citizens, not abuse them and inspire greater disdain for US government objectives?
___ How many American citizens have been illegally held, interrogated, or rendered without warrant?
___ What is the basis for the roundups of American citizens to abuse them during warrantless interrogations?
___ Where is the information coming from that DHS is using to seize American citizens off the streets, remove them from their running automobiles, detain them in front to their children, or remove them to private warehouses where they are interrogated on financial information?
___ Does DHS have a plan to make a full accounting of the seizures of American citizens?
___ Why is it easier to seize Americans and question them, than privately find the holes in the data?
___ Do DHS officials and SACs have a good reason why the DHS personnel should not be similarly targeted by foreign fighters for lawful retaliation for these abuses committed against civilians?
___ Do DHS officials understand the principle of reciprocity legalizing like abuse against US government officials who defy the law, and they are located in, near, or passing through combat zones?
___ What is the DHS plan to resolve issues where DHS agents are lawfully rendered by foreign fighters and sent to The Hague?
___ Please discuss the progress of the KBR-Halliburton-related prisoner camps. What types of scenarios are anticipated that might warrant use of these camps? Is there a reason that these camps might not be useful to house US government officials pending their war crimes trials?
___ What concern does DHS have if too many GOP NeoCons are placed in a single detention center.
___ Would it be easier or more difficult to keep GOP NeoCons under surveillance if they were at the detention centers; or if they were located at The Hague?
Ref: Other reprots of DHS-related misconduct.