Constant's pations

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

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Systems Approach to US Government

The systems approach to the US government bears discussion.

* * *

The same system cannot prudently do one thing, while imprudently doing another. The same system will similarly botch, succeed, or collapse.

The same system which will not review the President’s conduct, cannot credibly manage war. Both tasks involve oversight. When the US government refuses to engage in oversight, we can measure the effects in terms of impeachment, laws, and war.

When the US government botches its oath, refuses to enforce the Constitution, and fails to keep impeachment on the table, we should not be surprised why it botches combat operations. The same systems in place -- oversight, leadership, management, fact finding, regulatory review, legal standards, auditing -- which have failed for one aspect of government operations, are universally failing in all aspects.

Where there is a problem hiring one segment of experienced personnel, all segments of that government operation can be reasonably presumed to be similarly recklessly managed.

Until the US government chooses to rise above the maladministration, and changes course on impeachment, there is no reasonable basis to presume the laws will be asserted, or there will be prudence. One cannot talk about oversight, while refusing to keep all options on the table; one cannot talk about governance, while refusing to do what governance requires. Governance is either working or it is not.

* * *

The Systems Approach to US governance does not mean that all things are failing. Rather, it means that a consistent pattern of misconduct, maladministration, and incompetence -- spread across many sectors of the government -- cannot reasonably be expected to refrain from entering all branches of government.

The same leadership required to reform one segment should be able to be applied to all segments. Where one segment gets away with not doing what it should, then all segments have failed to check, prevent, and ensure the system is doing what it should.

This is one US government. There are many departments. There is one Constitution. Each player collectively is supporting the outputs: Illegal warfare, incompetence, botched results, assent to excuses not to hold people accountable, and double talk on whether there will or will not be oversight.

You are either doing oversight, or you are not; you are either competent, or you are not; you are either asserting the rule of law, or you are not; you are either ending illegal combat appropriations, or you are not; you are either asserting your oath faithfully, or you are not.

* * *

The US government, as a system, as measured by the war, has a problem. The laws prohibit the appropriation and expenditure for things that are illegal. This is Article 1 Section 9. The DNC controls the House. All appropriations bills start in the House. The Senate has no power to trump the House, or make the House do something that is illegal.

The house is choosing to support illegal warfare, not end appropriations for illegal things -- unlawful NSA surveillance, unlawful combat operations, and illegal prisoner abuse. This is not something the House can blame on the President, the Senate, or anything.

Whatever excuses, convoluted logic, or pretexts the House leadership is using to justify doing what is illegal -- using non-sense, denying reality, not facing legal obligations, pretending something else is happening -- is the same convoluted thinking that is being applied to the law, issues of impeachment, and asserting ones oath.

The DNC leadership problem is that they have chosen to actively support illegal activity through their implicit refusal to keep all options on the table; and pretend that they can vote for a "partial support" of the President, while that "partial" support is illegal. Whatever non-sense the DNC leadership has embraced to take one step with the President, is the first step on the road to tyranny. The first excuse will require others to choose between the law and the tyranny; each step you take will require you to make another justification why you did not leave earlier.

America's problem is it is in a no-win situation on the war. Rather than assent to the rule of law and compel a war crimes review of this president, the US leadership knows it cannot review Geneva violations because it would implicitly show the DNC leadership was complicit with the continuing illegal war crimes: A failure to prevent, stop, and not support what was illegal.

The legal issues and options were clear. Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements are the only thing we need to consider. Details.

The DNC leadership, with the GOP, is choosing to pretend these are not serious matters. They are stuck, they know they are stuck, and they have no legal option but to end the unlawful activity. yes, they have a legal issue and problem, and this was their choice to continue to not do what they should have done.

They're stuck, and they're going to yell louder, make more non-sense excuses, and continue to pretend that the problem is "somewhere else." There is no difference between the DNC leadership and the GOP leadership.

There might be a difference if:

___ DNC leadership calls in war crimes prosecutors and publicly states that all illegal appropriations will immediately end, ensuring compliance with Article 1 Section 9.

Whatever excuses the DNC leadership is giving to not fully assert their oath is what they're doing to their party members, expecting the US population to accept, and compelling the world to pretend is not happening.

The Iraqi insurgents continue combat operations because imprudent US government activity -- by both the DNC and GOP leadership -- is illegal, contrary to the laws of war, and war crimes. The policies cannot be supported lawfully.

Leadership means uniformly applying the law to all, even your peers in the DNC, not pretending the choice is too difficult.

The choice is between asserting the rule of law now; and having that rule of law asserted upon you. Your choice is between doing what is difficult now, or having what is difficult imposed on you lawfully.

If you fails to choose to assert the rule of law and end all illegal combat operations, foreign fighters may lawfully target the US government. This is permitted under the laws of war. The world supports the Iraqi insurgency, not because they hate democracy or the US Constitution, but because they lawfully can assert power to destroy what is out of control: The US government.

Your choice is between asserting the rule of law and possibly being unpopular; or having the rule of law asserted upon you and being unpopular. Either way, you're not going to be popular; take popularity out of your thinking -- it is not relevant. Yes, asserting the rule of law is difficult, but not as difficult as explaining to a war crimes prosecutor why you refused to fully assert your oath.

Either way, you have some explaining to do. Either way, foreign fighters will continue their fight. The US government has no power, resources, or support to raise an army, defend the government, or prevent free people from asserting the rule of law.

The US government remains in illegal rebellion and insurrection against the US Constitution. The same US government which refuses to face reality on the issues of impeachment has entrenched convoluted logic which is assenting to the same absurdity on issue of war. Refusing to confront issues of impeachment have attached with that decision the decision not to confront difficult issues of war crimes, botched Congressional oversight of this war, and a refusal of the DNC-GOP leadership to uniformly agree that Members of Congress have been complicit with war crimes.

The longer the Members of Congress refuse to look in the mirror, refuse to confront the reality of their complicity with war crimes, the longer the Iraqi insurgency will impose, inflict lawful combat losses.

The war in Iraq is a symptom of a system that has failed, is out of control, and has not been adequately managed, overseen, led, or effectively contained. The same system which fails to assent to the rule of law on the battlefield is not assenting to the rule of law on issues of Presidential-Member of Congress complicity with war crimes.

Imprudence and deference in war is a symptom of a failed government. The same imprudence and deference to absurdity in war remains in place during peace. The imprudence in Iraq and Afghanistan is linked with a common element -- the US government.

Where there is no prudence in combat operations, oversight, or management of lawful war, there cannot be expected prudent governance, oversight, or enforcement of the law anywhere. You are either asserting the rule of law, or you are not; you are either asserting your oath, or you are not; you are either holding all government officials to account; or you are not.

Every refusal to act in one forum attaches with it an excuse that would be applied to all forums. You cannot justify inaction in one area, but punish others for enforcing the law in others. You are either asserting the rule of law against all, or you are selectively asserting the rule of law where it is easy. That is the same as the abuse of power.

Power is not something that is selectively applied whether it is easy; power must be asserted to check the abuse of power by others. Where the US government chooses to assert power illegally, all foreign fighters under Geneva may lawfully engage in like retaliation and abuse. The measure of the Iraqi resistance is not in what they are doing, but in what they are opposing: Their strength is related to the scope of the American abuse of power, failures, and incompetence. Iraqis look at the insurgents as patriots because they dare do what should be done: Check power.

* * *

The intent of the framers was to have power centers clash; the net result would be a medium -- halfway between the power centers, where each power center would check the other.

The adversarial system of governance and law is related to the intention that each party will fully assert their rights. The problem the US government has, especially the DNC, is that it is not willing to forcefully assert power to check what is abusive, illegal, and unjust. The reason is that the DNC has been complicit with the original violations; and has failed to take action as evidenced by the Title 28 and Title 50 exception report problem.

When the US government talks about the "hydra of AlQueda" the analogy applies to the US government: Just when you believe that one portions of the US government has been checked, there are other snakes coming at you from other directions. The Iraqi insurgency is strong, supported, and growing because it is perceived to be lawfully checking an abusive hydra. The Iraqi insurgency is doing what the US government has forbidden US citizens from doing -- standing up for themselves, checking power, and compelling the US government to assent to the rule of law.

The DNC leadership is communication, through its assent to war crimes, that is not willing to contain the US government hydra. When the US government is not willing to assent to the rule of law, foreign fighters may lawfully bring combat operations to the heart of America's power centers.

Congress must act. The US government is not something that can continue on its present course. The way forward is to openly discuss the war crimes, Geneva violations, and joint DNC-GOP complicity with illegal activity in terms of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. Until that debate starts, foreign fighters have no choice but to conclude the US government plans to continue illegal warfare, abusive treatment of people. The laws of war permit what the US government cannot stop, manage, contain, isolate, prevent, or govern.

* * *

By using force, and failing to effectively implement the tools of force, the US government has demonstrated its incompetence, limits, vulnerability, and fatal flaw. A system that attempts to use force but fails is no longer effective in preserving itself as a system. The error was to use force where it was not needed or lawful; the fatal error was to fail to prevail early; the ultimate error is to suffer a defeat, but not accept defeat.

Congress must accept the defeat. Indeed, there is more on the way. War crimes prosecutors well know of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, the lack of action by the DNC leadership, and the common agreement of the US government system not to do what it should.

Congress must decide whether it wants to prevail lawfully, or attempt to use force despite no prospect that force will succeed. You cannot compel Americans or any person to assent to abuse when they have options; the more abuse you inflict, the stronger they will become; the more power you abuse, the more emboldened your adversary will be.

America's Congress must adjust course. You have no legal discretion to defy the Geneva Convention, nor permit these war crimes continuing. The issue is not war; the issue if the deference to the rule of law. Where Congress shows no deference to the laws of war but assents to excuses not to fully assert its oath against the US Constitution, the Congress may be presumed to be in joint, active, illegal rebellion and insurrection against the US Constitution, the rule of law, its oath of office, and its promise to do what it refuses to do -- protect, defend, and preserve the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

Americans can comprehend the rule of law. They understand illegal warfare. Congress has the power to end the illegal activity by ending appropriations for what is not legal. The DNC has control of the House. The House is the only place where appropriations can start. The Framers intended for the House, because of the election every two years, to remain subject to swift removal, oversight, and change in leadership.

Two years is not long. You do not have the power to assert an agenda, nor argue that the DNC and President must cooperate on an agenda of legislation and bills. Those are secondary. Your primary duty and oath is to the Constitution, to protect it, assert it, and ensure it is fully defended. It is not appropriate to make excuses, rationalize lesser agreements, or put another duty above your duty to the Constitution.

Until the DNC leadership accepts that it is part of the problem, the US government system cannot be expected to adjust or stop doing what is illegal. NSA illegal activity started before Sept 2001; the ruse of Sept 2001 has been invoked to continue doing what was not legal -- destroying evidence, hiding facts, not enforcing the law, celebrating fiduciary excuses.

The American people know. They voted for change. Change will come in 2008 or sooner. Either through the ballot box, or through sustained combat losses against US interests on all lawful battlefields.