JOHN P. ELWOOD Provides Worthless, Misleading Testimony to House Judiciary Committee

House Judiciary Hearing on Signing Statements

The Title of the Hearing, contrary to Elwood's confusion, was about the President Bush Signing Statements. Elwood might as well have stayed home, discussing everything but the topic, making excuses for why this President remains in breach of his oath of office.

Ironically, Elwood cherry picked from various sources and unsuccessfully argued the President was not cherry picking from the Constitution. If DoJ witnesses want credibility, they should not continue doing what the President continues to do: Cherry pick.

Addington and Gonzalez appear to have reviewed this DoJ testimony. All cited case law, as was the case with the failed FISA defense, fails to consider the full language in the relevant court decisions. This is a repeat problem of Addington's mess in the Iran-Contra Minority Report.

Elwood pretended that a narrow line of signing statements may or may not be similar to someone else, but this in no way inspired confidence that Elwood comprehends the simple responsibility of a witness: To focus on the issue -- this President's signing statements -- not create a smokescreen. The cited examples in no way supported Elwood's central thesis, which Elwood failed to link to the purpose of the hearing. This falls into the "Do Over"-box for DoJ.

The Department of Justice Witness provided a trash statement requiring extensive time to fact check. The House should tell DoJ to resubmit his testimony.

* * *Rule: All DoJ Assertions in the testimony appear to have been denials of well-established concerns and violations of the law. DoJ has provided no basis to believe the denials about what the President is or is not doing.

It's easier to take the DoJ Statement, use all denials as a checklist of what the President is doing.

- -

Elwood's retelling of the Constitution [4 of 16] is irrelevant. The error is to assert a standard in the law or Constitution, and pretend the President is meeting that standard. He is not.

Illegal Self-Delegation of Judicial Power

Elwood's conclusion is an illegal usurpation of non-delegated Executive power. The Constitution only delegates to the judiciary the power to interpret the Constitution.

This disagreement does not relieve the President of the obligation to interpret and uphold the Constitution, but instead supports the candid public announcement of the President’s views.

We the People never delegated any judicial power, duty, or obligation to the President. Elwood has, in his conclusion, unconstitutionally ratified a violation of the Separation of Powers.

The President has no obligation or power to "interpret" the Constitution. His sole oath is to ensure the laws are enforced. This President and Elwood have, in their discussion of signing statements, usurped judicial power. There can be no candid discussion of the Constution with people like Elwood or this President who, in defending their actions, engage in illegal usurpation of power.

Impeach!

- -

Elwood fails to show that Bush's signing statements are or are not consistent with any precedents; or that the precedents, even if relevant, permit violations of the Constitution. They do not.[See Dunn]

Contrary to Elwood's assertion, Congress may require the President to do anything. This is the definition of a ministerial act, which Congress alone has the power to impose on the President.

The President may not claim unitary theory of government claiming he alone can make rules, as an excuse to ignore Congress; then reverse himself fail to enforce the law or sanction employees for violating the law. A unitary President must uniformly enforce the law, not cite a theory, but fail to take it to its logical conclusion: Protection of the Constitution.

Elwood attempts to take both sides of the argument: Asserting a non-delegated power to make rules; but a secondary (illegal) power to not enforce these rules. Elwood fails to explain why the President can have it both ways. He cannot.

- -

Elwood fails to credibly explain 14 of 16 how the President, subservient to Article I Section 8 rule making by Congress, can illegally assert judicial power in asserting his employees are or are not outside Congressional rule making power. The President has no power to make rules permitting illegal activity; or otherwise hiding evidence of unconstitutional conduct. Elwood simply asserted the legal requirement of supervision, without discussing the violations: Malfeasance and reckless supervision of Executive Branch employees engaged in violations of Geneva, war crimes, and violations of the Constitution.

Controlling disclosure of classified information is different than classifying evidence of illegal activity, but asserting the President can hide that illegal conduct. [ 12 of 16 ]

What other Presidents may or may not have said is interesting, but little relevance to whether Elwood has or has not fully discussed this President's signing statements. At best, he's misconstrued the concerns with the singing statements, then pretended that the citations explain the alleged illegal activity. Elwood's problem is that he's not adequately discussed the real illegal activity, which the President and DoJ have refused to cooperate in overseeing. Elwood's defense fails.

- -

Twisting Language

Elwood asserts on 14 of 16 that Myers recognized powers; but fails to mention the key problem with this President -- the responsibility is not a new power, but an oversight function. When the President does not enforce the law, as this President has failed to do, he may not assert a theory of "unitary executive" as a basis to block Congressional review of his maladminstration, and failure to remove officers who violatate the law.

Cherry Picking

Here is the original CRS, which in no way captures all the concerns in the CRS report:

However, in analyzing the constitutional basis for, and legal effect of, presidential signing statements, it becomes apparent that no constitutional or legal deficiencies adhere to the issuance of such statements in and of themselves. Rather, it appears that the appropriate focus of inquiry in this context is on the assertions of presidential authority contained therein, coupled with an examination of substantive executive action taken or forborne with regard to the provisions of law implicated in a presidential signing statement.2 of 30

However, Elwood only included the first sentence 6 of 16, deleting the relevant second part, curiously similar to what Addington did in the Iran-Contra report when pretending issue of politics were power.

Elwood, if you're going to call something "mainstream" at least consider the main stream of the argument, which you deleted from the CRS citation.

Elwood misstated the number of signing statements by an order of eight [8], well understating the problem. [9 of 16]

- -

Mischaracterizing ABA, Boston Globe

Elwood, in typical Addington-fashion, narrowly and incorrectly construes the ABA and Boston Globe positions, then refutes his misstatements without any evidence. Elwood, if you're going to defend the President, stop arguing with yourself.

Argues By Arguing the Incorrect Alternatives

Rather than defending the President's illegal activity, Elwood offers speculative risks of what may happen if signing statements are not used. 7 of 16 Elwood isn't arguing for the signing statements, only pretending that bad things might happen if they aren't used. This isn't a credible argument as he's only focused on speculative outcomes, not the certain illegal usurpation of power.

Repeating DoJ FISA Violation Defenses

Addington, Gonzalez, and Elwood have jointly pursued the common approach: Citing case law prior to the FISA, then ignoring the subsequent legislative history after the cited examples. This does not meet the standard of relevance.

President has no power to exercise judicial review nor interpret the law, especially when his conduct falls outside his narrow, sole Executive power.

Desiring to avoid a constitutional confrontation is no basis to assert the desirability of avoiding the confrontation; the confrontation may be needed. The President has no power to construe a statute to mean something that will prevent judicial review of his illegal usurpation of judicial power.

The Constitution only allows the President to make his views known to Congress. Elwood's speculative "benefit" of the President making isviews known to the public is outside the express delegation to the President to narrowly provide his comments in writing only to Congress. Elwood fails to account for this Constitutional requirement and standard on the President in Article I.

The President was no delegated power to remain silent and do nothing on a bill; but then direct a department to do something on that bill he has not signed. Elwood's reasoning is convoluted. Addington is close.

DoJ Witness Skews the Record

Ref The DoJ witness incorrectly stated that the Bush signing statements are "indistinguishable" from other Presidents. It is incorrect to say the President "occasionally" issued signing statements.

DoJ failed to correctly characterize the nature of the President's signing statements: To ignore the law.

It is irrelevant what other Presidents have done: The President has a duty to enforce the law, not actively ignore it as this President has done. There is no precedent which the Supreme Court recognizes which permits the President to usurp power.

As Addinton and Gonzalez cherry pick the statute, DoJ also mischaracterizes the CRS Study which clearly communicated a problem,

While the substance of the Bush II signing statements appear to be comparable to those of previous administrations, the nature and sheer number of provisions challenged or objected to indicates that there is nonetheless a qualitative difference to the current Administration’s use of this instrument.13 of 30

DoJ misses this statement, and focuses on a separate page, which includes a reference to numbers which DoJ Ignores:

While the number of provisions challenged or objected to by President Bush has given rise to controversy, it is important to note that the substance of his signing statements do not appear to differ substantively from those issued by either Presidents Reagan or Clinton. 12 of 30

DoJ ignore the CRS comments about the numbers as asserts the opposite, missing the point of the hearings: There is a problem with the numbers

In addition, the number of such statements issued by President Bush is in keeping with the number issued by every President during the past quarter century. 3 of 16

Ref

- -

Intent of Signing Statements

DoJ Mischaractizes the objective of signing statements which cherry pick on the statutes. There is no noble intent to ignoring the law, it's criminal activity and there is no excuse.

3 of 16: Look at the first full parapgraph, and you'll see they've created a checklist of illegal Presidential activity, then simply denied it without credible discussion:

___ Attempts to override, ignore, and invalidate laws

___ Ignore the checks and balances

___ Illegal usurpation of power

___ Violate the principle of separation of power

___ Unilateral action

___ Ignore Executive Responsibilities of ministerial acts

___ Efforts to ignore Congress, not respect Congressional statements

___ No respect for any dialog between Congress and Executive prior to passing the law

___ Refuse to enforce law as enacted

___ Put the Executive in a superior position over another branch of government

- -

3 of 16 Congress is allowed to make restrictions on who is or is not qualified to fill a position under the appointments process. Congress can make any rule which is a legal hurdle for the President to scale; Congress is not required to make rules which permit anyone to be qualified.

Contrary to DoJ Assertions, Article II powers are contingent upon Congressional consent, which they may grant or deny through any arbitrary rule Congress alone chooses. The DoJ Staff has no power to claim Congress cannot make this rule.

___ Illegal assertion President will not comply with Congressional rules related to when Congress will or will not recognize Presidential appointments

- -

There is no reason to believe DoJ Characterizations of when things are or are not violations; or whether they are or are not appropriate assertions of power.

The DoJ Witness statement is trash and should not be relied upon until all assertions are fact checked.

* * *

Another Witness

Ref Mickey Edwards incorrectly stated that illegal activity is a precedent. This is contrary to the US Supreme Court in Dunn where a usurpation of power does not become precedent.

It is a separate matter whether the law is actively ignored; or selectively not enforced. State Attorney Generals under the TN AG rules 42.1 may decline to prosecute because a statute has not been enforced, but this is different than a President actively stating he will not enforce the law. [ Details ]

Ref Edwards also incorrectly characterizes the "Unitary Theory" of the Executive. The principle relates, as Justice Alito Presented it at his confirmation hearing, that the President shall have control over the personnel under his department. In theory, this means that Congress does nto share control. As Edwards presented it, he suggested that Congress cannot make rules, which defies Article 1 Section 8.

Putting aside the theoretical differences, perhaps Edwards or others may wish to discuss the concept of "ministerial acts" and "acts of Congress" in terms of what Edwards said:

According to this theory of the "unitary executive", the legislative branch of government may not instruct executive branch agencies in the performance of their duties.

Again, the distinction is between [a] power and [b] ministerial acts. The argument Addington and Gonzalez offered, which has no merit, was that the President had power to violate the law [which he does not] as an excuse to ignore the explicit FISA ministerial acts. It does not follow for Edwards to argue, in light of Addington's argument over power, that Congress under the unitary theory, cannot make rules or instruct the Exeutrive how to perform duties.

____ To what extent are illusory powers created -- above and beyond the single power: Executive -- to assert that the President's actions are outside the real of ministerial acts?

____ If the President cannot be told what to do, why is there any effort to make the President's actions an issue of power, distinguishing them from a ministerial act?

____ If there is no basis for Congress to tell the President how to do his job -- which, by definition is what a statute is as it relates to a ministerial act -- how does the President explain his assent, agreement, or concurrence with any act of Cognerss?

Under the President's theory of government all things that he wants to do -- illegal or not -- are powers; and all things he wants to ignore -- legal or not -- are deemed inappropriate instructions.

___ Why bothering to take the effort to pretend that an act of the President is not a ministerial act, unless there is a fair case that the President's conduct is a ministerial act?

The President, by asserting that his acting is only power -- which it is not -- he's set himself up to explain: If Congress is illegally defining how he is to do something, why would the President both the pretend that the Congressional act is no a ministerial act? If he had real legal foundation on his power argument, there would be not reason to assert any power; nor claim that the activity was not a ministerial act. The President, in his singing statements attempting to assert a non-delegated power, has implicitly argued:

1. He knows the Congress has the power to make rules;

2. He knows the Congress can define ministerial acts;

3. He knows he cannot violate the law;

4. To get around this he will assert his conduct is a new power.

The error, in the signing statement, was to attempt to shape the basis for his decision. This fatally asserted a position which he would only assert if he knew it was not legal; he would not mention an issue of power unless he knew there was a fair cas to be made that the activity was a ministerial act, but he was hoping to shape it as something other than what it was: An illegal assertion of non-delegated power to define something as a power, when it was really a ministerial act which Congress alone has the power to define, regulate, instruct, and specify how the task will be accomplished.

Legislative power is asserted through Acts; unless the Acts are enforced, Congressional power is illegally thwarted. These are not issues of simply usurpation of legislative power by the Executive; but Congress assenting to having its primary power ignored. The Members of Congress have been complicit in illegal violations of the Constitution and should be prosecuted under 5 USC 3331.

* * *

Read more . . .

Don't Wait for '08

Enforcing the Oath of Office Against Senators

The oath of office means removing a President when he's caused this much damage. How much evidence of incompetence, maladministration, and criminal activity do they need? If the Senators don't think this is wrong, then they need to be reminded: They're wrong.

Please contact your state officials and attorney general asking that they prosecute Senators who refuse to remove the President from office. Don't wait until the Senators vote during the conviction phase of impeachment; start prosecuting them now: 5 USC 3331.

* * *There needs to be a timely way to end this non-sense over the Constitution. It should not take this long.

All Members of Congress are required to take an oath. Amazing what Members of Congress view as having fully asserted their oath, or protect the Constitution.

Our Constitution shall be protected by oath. When Members of Congress ignore their oath, leaving the duty to protect the Constitution to We the People, there is no reason for anyone to listen to the Republican party whine, "This is a partisan effort."

No, this is a movement by We the People to do what the US Government refuses to do: Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against the domestic enemies on the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate.

The Senators need to convict the President for war crimes and remove him from office; or the Senators who refuse to convict need to be prosecuted. State attorney generals can lawfully target for prosecution Members of Congress: They have failed to ensure the States are guaranteed an enforcement mechanism for the Constitution.

Either the President goes; or the complicit Senators and Members of Congress go, then the President goes. We don't have to wait until the elections to change the leadership. The November 2008 election is not the "next" opportunity; it is possible to have immediate mid-course adjustments through prosecutions of complicit Members of Congress.

What You Can Do

Please contact your friends and encourage them to lawfully target for prosecution at the State level all GOP Senators who refuse to convict and remove this President from office.

Don't Wait for '08

Read more . . .

Iran and Iraq: Members of Congress Complicit With President’s Illegal War of Aggression

Shows which memoranda to ask for related to war of aggression in Iraq and Iran.

* * *

Summary

The illegal war of aggression started in 2003. US government policy is to focus on the Iranian’s lawful responses in opposing the US government’s illegal war of aggression.

The US is acting like Japan in WWII: Pretending that opposition to an illegal war of aggression is the basis for attacks. The US after Pearl Harbor expanded combat operations against Japan and Germany. Iran is in the same position in 2007 as the US was in 1941.

This note dissects the flawed legal strategies Addington and Gonzalez are using to distract attention from Iran’s lawful responses; and points you to the White House Staff Counsel Memoranda discussing these legal issues and problems confronting the President. The President’s goal is to distract attention from his illegal warfare, and focus on Iran’s lawful responses as permitted under Geneva. The US Congress has been briefed narrowly on the Iranian military preparations, but without the needed context: Iran is lawfully responding to what Congress refuses to end: Illegal American warfare.

This note outlines a series of questions and issues you are encouraged to raise with your elected officials, and ask: When do they plan to end the illegal US war of aggression in Iraq; and what steps will they take to prevent the illegal warfare from expanding outside Iraq?



* * *

The American approach to world affairs in 2007 is best compared to Japan’s illegal war of aggression in WWII. Congress needs to realize the US is acting like Japan in WWII; and the US illegal war of aggression in Iraq is unlawfully expanding into Iran. It is meaningless to focus on what Iran may or may not be doing. Iran is lawfully responding to an illegal war of aggression, as the US did in response to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

The United States does not have a legal foundation for its illegal war of aggression in Iraq; and may not lawfully use the situation in Iraq to expand its illegal war of aggression against Iran.

The error for the Americans to make is to narrowly look at Iran, without looking at the larger pattern of American aggression. When WWII ended, Japan unsuccessfully attempted to defend its actions at Pearl Harbor, arguing Japan was lawfully responding to the US efforts to interfere with Japanese economic interests. The analogy applies to the American argument in Iraq. Japan started the war of aggression; and the United States lawfully interfered with that illegal aggression. Similarly, Iran has the legal right and power to interfere in Iraq when the US uses Iraq as a launching pad for to widen the war of aggression against Iran.

Congress must confront the President for his illegal war of aggression in Iraq. Until Congress confronts the President, as the Japanese cabinet failed to do, Members of Congress could be lawfully prosecuted for failing to prevent the US from expanding its illegal war of aggression from Iraq to Iran. China and Russia are lawfully providing to Iran what the US lawfully provided to Britain and Russia in WWII: Assistance linked with mutual security agreements.

* * *

Congress must openly discuss the legal issues with respect to the US war of aggression in Iraq and the unlawful expansion of that war of aggression against Iran. The US Congress has the obligation to review the legal issues:

1. Illegality of the original operations in Iraq, and the unlawful war of aggression;
2. The legality of Iran’s action to provide humanitarian intervention and assistance to insurgents who are lawfully opposing the US intervention and occupation;
3. The role Congress is playing in ignoring the US war of aggression in Iraq; but pretending that the Iranians are doing something they are not allowed to do. Iran may legally expand, as did the US in WWII against Japan, to lawfully confront and oppose the illegal US war of aggression in Iraq,
4. Recognize the US is act like Japan in WWII, and the US cannot point to Iranian lawful actions, while ignoring the catalyst for the Iranian activity – the US 1st use of illegal force in Iraq; and the illegal war of aggression unlawfully started by the United States.

If the US Congress does not wake up:

A. US Citizens will likely expand the New Hampshire efforts, and lawfully invoke the Article 10 right to revolt against illegal US government actions; other states may lawfully come to the assistance of New Hampshire citizens
B. Foreign fighters will have the legal basis to expand combat operations against the US military support structure worldwide
C. US congress, because it refuses to stop what it has the power to stop, may be deemed a legitimate military target
D. Members of Congress may be viewed as being complicity for failing to stop the illegal activity
E. The lessons of NSA, rendition, and GTMO apply: Open reviews are needed; and there is no basis for any secret briefings. The Administration briefings, like the NSA briefings on FISA violations, may not be lawfully classified. Members of Congress, if they choose to remain silent, not consult legal experts, or refuse to do what was done on the eve of 2003 Iraq invasion, will have communicated they are not fully asserted their oath and may be legally prosecuted.

US illegal activity and the war of aggression, if illegally classified as was the NSA FISA violations, is not protected. All briefings, notes, memoranda, and other DoJ and White House counsel memoranda related to this illegal war of aggression may not be lawfully classified, hidden with privilege, or suppressed.

No Member of Congress may be compelled to be silent about the illegal activity; and all Members of Congress who choose to remain silent about the expanding war of aggression may be legally found to have been complicit in war crimes; and not stopping what they have the power to stop.

No information the US government has related to the illegal expansion of this war of aggression may be legally protected, suppressed, or classified. The briefings the White House has provided to the Members of Congress are evidence of US efforts to unlawfully expand the illegal war of aggression.

As with the NSA information on FISA violations, Congress cannot legally be compelled to remain silent; nor can they be legally compelled to honor any non-disclosure agreements. All US government briefings, notes, memoranda, and other material related to the expanded war of aggression cannot be legally classified. As with the FISA briefings, Members of Congress cannot be compelled to remain silent; nor consult staff; or agree to remain silent or not discuss the expanded illegal war of aggression with legal counsel, constituents or any other person.

Members of Congress have a duty to explain the methods, details, and other things they have been told to induce them to remain silent about the illegal war of aggression, and planned US expansion of that illegal war of aggression. Members of Congress have a duty to explain in detail the methods, agreements, and other things the White House and other Executive Branch personnel have imposed on Members of Congress to suppress information, discussion, and open review of the legal issues. Secret briefings have one goal: To thwart the needed open debate of the legal issues.

Members of Congress need to be directly approached by American citizens in the form of lawful communication, inquiry, media interviews, and other communications to understand the nature of the expanded war of aggression from Iraq. Members of Congress need to be approached, and they need to be consulted not as an expert, but as a witness to ongoing plans to expand an illegal war of aggression. Members of Congress need to be reassured that the American public well understands the scope of the illegal activity; and that the goal of the contact with Members of Congress is not to compromise troop movements, but to do something more fundamental: Give Members of Congress a chance to vent: They have been complicit with an illegal war of aggression, and they need someone to talk to disclose the illegal agreements they have agreed to support to hide the evidence of the unlawful expansion of this war of aggression.

Citizens, media, and other third parties when Contacting Members of Congress should heed the lessons of the NSA briefings on FISA violations:

1. There have been inadequate legal reviews; Members of Congress should be presumed to have been denied the opportunity to review the US war of aggression; and may or may not have had the chance to discuss this legal issue with counsel.
2. There are Member of Congress/Staff notes, memoranda, and documented in writing reservations and stored in classified safes, as did Senator Rockefeller when he expressed his concerns to the Vice President over the NSA surveillance.
3. Members of Congress have been induced, agreed to, and have not challenged the narrow view of the briefings which focus only on Iran; they have not adequately challenged the illegal US war of aggression; nor have they considered the possibility that Iran is lawfully doing what the US did after the Japanese attacked Peal Harbor – lawfully opposing a war of aggression.
4. There have been accelerated, cursory, and top level reviews of the situation not in the context of the US war of aggression, but only focusing on the Iranian’s legal responses to the Unlawful war of aggression. As with Iraq WMD in 2002-3, the US is accelerating a timeline to change the subject from [a] the US illegal activity and aggression to [b] whether the targets of that unlawful aggression are or are not complying with US unlawful demands. The Iranians do not have the legal requirement to do what the US refused to do after the Pearl Harbor attack: Roll over, remain silent, and do nothing about wars of aggression in their neighborhood.
5. Congress is not facing a key issue: The 1st US war of aggression in Iraq is the core problem; and the US cannot pretend that this illegal war of aggression is over, history, or cannot be reviewed. The line in the sand is not drawn after the US installed a new government; but goes back to the original illegal war of aggression in 2003. It is not correct to look at the Iranian actions without looking at the illegal US war of aggression. The time window goes back to 2003, not to only 18 months ago when the US reportedly gathered evidence of lawful Iranian opposition to the US military presence. IT is a red herring whether the Iranians have or have not supplied IED material to the Iraqi insurgents. The US may not point to Iran as meddling; rather, the legal issue and burden falls on the US, as it did on Japan in WWII: Who started the illegal war of aggression. Not Iran, but the United States in 2003.

Members of Congress need to be lawfully engaged, approached, interviewed, called, and sent letters asking them to consider the following: Do Members of Congress realize:

A. The US government, White House, and DoJ Staff are illegal classifying information related to an expansion of an unlawful war of aggression which the US started in 2003 in Iraq?
B. Members of Congress are being asked to believe Iran, unlike the US in WWII, does not have the right to respond to a war of aggression which the US asserted it did against Japan?

* * *

Once you review the WWII precedents of US responses after Pearl Harbor, you’ll see that there are a line of questions which Members of Congress need to ask. The media also need to approach members of Congress in the wake of these illegally classified briefings on Iran:

___ How do Members of Congress view the classification issues related to the illegal war of aggression in light of the lessons of the NSA-GTMO-Rendition-FISA briefings?

___ How do Members of Congress explain their outrage over the illegal NSA spying; but silence over the inappropriate, illegal gag orders related to the illegal expansion of this unlawful war of aggression from Iraq?

___ When do Members of Congress plan to openly discuss, as they eventually did with the NSA-FISA briefings, that the ground rules for those briefings illegally prevented Members of Congress from consulting with legal experts on matters which Members of Congress did not have the expertise to decide on their own?

___ What is the Member of Congress plan to investigate the illegal war of aggression which started in 2003, and the White House proposes to expand against Iran?

* * *

The current briefings are incorrectly focusing on the narrow Iranian actions. These Iranian actions are lawful. The public needs to challenge the Members of Congress, and ask them to explain why they are not asking about the broader war of aggression.

___ Why are Members of Congress not asking about the US role in this war of aggression?

___ Is there a reason, during the illegally classified briefings, the Members of Congress are not adequately pressing the White House and DoD briefers on the comparisons between the US in 2007 and Japan in the 1940s?

___ Does the US Congress, and individual Member of Congress, not have an explanation why they refuse to end the illegal war of aggression in Iraq?

___ Do Members of Congress, as they did with Iraq WMD, not have a plan in place to challenge the US legal positions?

___ Why are Members of Congress going along with the smokescreen – narrowly looking at the lawful Iranian responses to the US illegal war of aggression; but not looking at the broader pattern of illegal activity which the US started in 2003?

* * *

The public, bloggers, and American citizens must see the similarity between [a] the illegal briefings on the unlawful NSA-FISA violations; and [b] the secret briefings related to the expanded war of aggression from Iraq. In both cases, the public ultimately had to provide the oversight; and it was the public, not Congress, which put pressure on the White House to assent to the rule of law.

The objective of these secret briefings is not to classify or protect troop movements, but to thwart public oversight, discussion, and review of the US illegal war of aggression which started in 2003. As with the FISA-NSA and Eastern European prisoners violations, the Administration is keeping the information illegally classified not to protect a secret, but to thwart oversight, review, and legal accountability. These are serious issues which warrant judicial review, not blind assent to claims of power.

The Executive has no power to wage illegal war. Rather than assent to a public review of his illegal war of aggression, the President hopes to classify the briefings related to the expansion of the illegal war of aggression because he does not want a judicial review in a court which would challenge the US claims.

Consider the claims on how long the US has known about the lawful Iranian action. Supposedly, when the US was pointing to Iranian nuclear plans, the Iranians were supposedly engaged in lawful activities in Iraq, opposing the US war of aggression. The White House counsel has advised the President that this evidence cannot be brought to a court because the Iranians are legally doing what is permitted under the laws of war: Providing a humanitarian intervention to support a lawful resistance to the illegal US intervention.

DoJ Staff, working with the White House counsel, have changed the focus of the legal debate from [a] the US illegal war of aggression, and the lawful Iranian support for opposition; to [b] whether the US can “defend” itself against Iran.

Iran is lawfully doing what it is allowed to do. The sleight of hand by Addington, Gonzalez, and the White House counsel, and the DoJ Staff is to pretend that the Iranian actions are illegal; and that the US is trying to do something that is lawful.

Contrary to Addington’s assertions, these are not issues of power; and the Congress has a role to oversee the President when it comes to illegal warfare. Congress, as it was with the 2003 invasion, is deluding itself not to ask fundamental questions; nor is it credibly looking at the larger evidence which the White House counsel and DoJ Staff want to diver the Members of Congress from: The President’s illegal war of aggression.

* * *

Reconsider the Administration approach to GTMO. There were secret hearings to obstruct legal reviews. Ultimately, in Hamdan the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions were requirements; and that the US had to obey them. Similarly, the White House hopes to avoid public discussions by adversarial legal counsel of the US war of aggression in Iraq -- as it did with FISA, rendition, and the GTMO-Abu Ghraib abuses.

Media, the public, and overseas prosecutors have the right and duty to make adverse inferences if the US courts to not assent to disclosing through the FOIA process the briefings related to this illegal war of aggression.

American citizens, media, and other interested parties are encouraged to discuss with your leadership in your corporations you plans to file FOIAs to gather information related to the following activities:

___ White House counsel memoranda related to the known unlawful war of aggression in Iraq;

___ DoJ Staff Memoranda related to efforts to intimidate, not respond to, and otherwise stifle reports to the US Attorney related to alleged US government employee knowledge of, participation in, and refuse to prevent this illegal war of aggression

___ Methods by which JTTF officers at the local and federal level have targeted private citizens, attempted to harass them, and otherwise identify personnel who know of, and are publicly discussing the illegal war of aggression

___ Identify the method by which the White House is using NSA resources to monitor lawful citizen opposition to the illegal war of aggression in Iraq; and the unlawful US government efforts to thwart lawful opposition to the expansion of this illegal war of aggression

___ Copies of Memoranda, legal notes, opinions, and other White House and DoJ Staff counsel work products related to the known illegal war of aggression. These notes include legal opinions and memoranda raising concerns that the Iranians are in a legally superior position; and that the Americans, because of their illegal war of aggression, may not have a legal foundation to block The Hague or war crimes prosecutors from examining these legal memoranda

If the White House refuses to cooperate, and the DoJ Staff counsel, as is expected, is deployed to orchestrate with media relations firms and other corporations, a media strategy, the public should make the following adverse inferences:

1. The White House knows that the 2003 unlawful war of aggression cannot be legally justified;
2. The White House and DoJ Staff working in Concert with the DoD General Counsel and White House counsel have jointly drafted memoranda outlining their concerns with the illegal war of aggression, but they have not legally removed themselves from the unlawful war crimes planning
3. All legal counsel in the Executive Branch have failed to assert their Article 82 obligation under the Geneva Conventions to ensure that the laws of war are applied; and that the US is held to account for its illegal war of aggression. By shifting the focus from [a] the US illegal war of aggression in Iraq to [b] the issues of whether Iran can or cannot oppose that illegal war of aggression – which it can – the DOJ Staff is complicit with violations of Article 82, and may be legally disbarred and prosecuted.
4. There are active plans in place to expand the illegal war of aggression;
5. It is known that Iran is legally doing something it may do under the laws of war;
6. The goal of these briefings to Members of Congress is to shift their focus from the illegal 2003 war of aggression that continues; and focus on the Iranian responses to that unlawful war of aggression
7. The US refuses to present the evidence of Iranian lawful opposition to any court for review because it knows it will lose the legal argument; and that Iran is lawfully doing what it is allowed to when lawfully opposing the US’s 2003 unlawful war of aggression.
8. The aim of the secret briefings has nothing to do with hiding or protecting information about US troops. This is a ruse. The aim is to obstruct legal oversight of the expanding war of aggression.
9. The goal of the documentation is not to legalize anything, but to act as a smokescreen, and avoid Member of Congress challenges to the 2003 war of aggression.
10. The aim of this distraction is not to protect the US, or respond to an imminent threat, both to crate a ruse, distraction, and pretext for the US to suggest without evidence, that expanded illegal war of aggression from Iraq to Iran is justified.

* * *

You will find in the FOIA responses the Memoranda which Gonzalez, Addington, and the White House counsel have reviewed as it relates to various historical analogies. The problem is these analogies are irrelevant, have been turned on their head, and do not apply. The legal term which you will want to use is: “Inapposite” which means that the cited case in the illegally classified memoranda is not relevant.

Let’s consider what the White House legal team has done. They’ve pointed to Cambodia, arguing the US invasion was lawful. The re is a problem. This invasion was premised on a condition precedent which does not apply to the US situation in Iraq: The US was legally doing something in Vietnam.

Unlike Vietnam, the US is not legally doing anything in Iraq. It has continued to wage illegal war, expanded its illegal occupation, and is using the resistance to that war of aggression to argue that something new is happening. Again, as with Cambodia, the point that Addington and Gonzalez are making has nothing to do with the first issue: Is the original action legal or not.

Rather, what they’ve done is the opposite: Simply asserted that the Cambodia analogy applies, but they have not reviewed what makes the situation different. This is an important point to consider when asking for your FOIA responses; and pointing to the direct arguments the Administration is making.

Simply, Gonzalez and Addington have a defect in their military case law background. Neither of them graduated from an accredited university that was devoted solely to combat operations; nor do they have the military background to assert that their use of the Cambodia analogy is relevant. As with the Iran-Contra affair, what Addington and Gonzalez have done in the illegally classified memoranda, is assert that the US is in the right; and as a starting point, presumed the US actions in Cambodia justify the US actions in Iran.

This is a grave error. Unlike Cambodia, the US did not start an illegal war of aggression in Vietnam. Yet, the situation with Iraq is the opposite: Unlike the US illegal war of aggression in Iraq, Iran is lawfully doing what the Japanese did. Simply put: The Cambodia analogy does not apply.

Members of Congress, the public, and the media need to directly, lawfully engage the DOJ Staff counsel, White House counsel, and the DoD General Counsel to review the following issues:

___ Why are they relying on an inapposite legal argument related to Cambodia?

___ Is there an explanation why the other views – which well express reservations related to the illegal US war of aggression – have been suppressed?

___ When the Joint Staff and JAGs raised these legal challenges, is there a reason why Addington, Gonzalez, and Haynes sidelined the JAGs, despite promises to the Members of Congress to learn the lessons of GTMO-Rendition-NSA and give the JAGs a new role?

___ How have the JAGs documented their concerns?

___ What was the Advise Addington, Gonzalez, and others gave to the President to block the DOJ OPR to prevent the DOJ from reviewing what the DOJ Staff counsel is doing to suppress, not report, or hide memoranda related to the known illegal war of aggression in Iraq?

___ What was the plan of the White House counsel’s office to respond to inquiry related to these memoranda which violation ORCON?

___ Does the White House counsel not have a plan to explain why the 2003 war of aggression has been mysteriously taken off the map?

___ Is there any explanation why the Asst FBI director has a problem with not adequately reviewing reports of misconduct, incompetence, and reckless disregard for the Senior FBI personnel who are being tasked to review these matters?

___ Why is the JTTF not effectively engaging with peers on the legal concerns related to this matter?

___ Is there a reason why the FBI is rebuffing complaints, concerns, and other reports of agent misconduct as it related to allegations that the White House and DoJ Staff are expanding an unlawful war of aggression?

___ Do the FBI agents have an explanation why their standards of conduct in the Manual of Administrative Operating Procedures is not being effectively enforced?

___ To what extent has the White House provided DoJ Staff and White House counsel rewards for their silence on the 2003 illegal war of aggression; and how have they been rewarded with direct appointments to the US Attorney positions?

* * *

Illegal Presidential Military Orders

Military personnel have a problem. Their oath includes a requirement to only follow lawful orders of the President.

The President’s orders to expand an illegal war of aggression in Iraq are not lawful. All Presidential orders related to expanded combat operations are not lawful, are illegal, and all Military Personnel have a duty to report these war crimes to their commanders under the 5100.77 laws of war program. This is a SecDef program which Secretary Gates must manage. There are insufficient resources to expand this illegal war of aggression.

Members of Congress need to review:

___ To what extent is the illegal war of aggression being supported through unlawful methods to circumvent Congress in performing oversight of the Armed Forces

___ Is it not the role of Congress to thwart illegal wars of aggression?

Recall the lesson of the King of England. Because he was running out of money, he house troops in private citizens homes. We made a rule in our Constitution prohibiting this practice. The fundamental rule is that the Congress cannot be circumvented when it came to issues of war making and raising funds. Only Congress through Article I Section 8 can raise and support an army.

___ To what extent is the President, like a King, using the lawful response to a war of aggression as an excuse to induce Congress to expand support for Iraq operations; and thereby provide illegal support for an expanded war of aggression?

___ How does the President plan to use the lawful Iranian response to the US war of aggression as the Pretext to shift attention from the war of aggression; to the response of the Iranians; and how will this focus induce Members of Congress to not do what they should – end illegal support for a war of aggression?

US troops, civilians, and US government officials may not rely on these illegal Presidential orders, executive orders, or Congressional agreements as a defense to expand this illegal war of aggression outside Iraq.

* * *

Separation of Powers

Congress was not delegated any power to authorize expanding illegal activity from Iraq to Iran. Members of Congress have an independent duty, through their oath, to fully assert the Geneva Conventions. Iran cannot legally be prevented from doing what the US did after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: Lawfully opposing an illegal war of aggression. It is irrelevant that the United States won WWII. The US is acting no different than the Japanese.

The error is for Congress to narrowly look at the Iranian response, and attempt to do what the Japanese argued after their defeat – that the response to the illegal war of aggression was the issue. This is incorrect. Iran is lawfully doing what Geneva permits; and it is a violation of the oath of office for Members of Congress to [a] not end illegal warfare; [b] silently consent to an expansion of illegal warfare; and [c] pretend that a lawful Iranian response to illegal US warfare warrants an attack. It does not. By taking impeachment off the table, the US Congress is complicit with war crimes. Media, private citizens, and international foreign fighters are lawfully on the right side of the law – fully asserting Geneva; and fully opposing unlawful American warfare. Iran is merely the object of the expanded US illegal warfare in Iraq; and as with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Iran may legally use the possibility of a conflict with the United States as the reasonable basis to work with all nations to lawfully oppose, invade, target, and end the illegal combat which Congress refuses to end.

* * *

The Administration’s goals relative to this illegal warfare are simple: Use diplomatic pressure; feigned concerns with terrorism; and induce the American public to believe that the US actions in Iraq are lawful. These are absurd contentions.

Here is the detailed media strategy being employed; and these are part of the media messages being coordinated through CENTC0M:

1. Pretend that Iran is a new situation and conflict. It is not; it is part of the expanded illegal warfare.
2. Pretend that the illegal Iraq war is over. This is incorrect. The illegal war of aggression is expanding, as did Japan’s wars of aggression expand into Pearl Harbor.
3. Pretend that the history related to Iraq is irrelevant, and that the situation with Iran is new. This is incorrect. The 2003 illegal war of aggression against Iraq, because it is expanding, is not over, but more of the same illegal war of aggression. All subsequent military actions after the 2003 start of illegal activity are also illegal, regardless whether they are by mercenaries, US civilians, or US troops in Iraq, Syria, or Iran.

The problem is that by the US linking attacks on Iran with operations in Iraq, the US is admitting that there is a linkage between [a] the illegal war of aggression in Iraq; with [b] the expansion of the illegal war of aggression in Iraq, broadly against Iran. This is a fatal linkage which the White House Staff knows, or should know, will be discovered when their memoranda is reviewed:

___ Why did the White House counsel not forcefully oppose the illegal war of aggression?

___ Which White House counsel were relieved of duties if they dared to assert that the illegal war of aggression in Iraq was unlawfully expanding into Iran?

___ Which FBI agents, upon hearing of these illegal war plans, specifically told DoJ and White House counsel to document their concerns; but when personnel working inside the DoD, White House, and DoJ staff areas brought this information to the attention of the FBI, this information was rebuffed, not taken, and the written evidence was ignored?

___ To what extent do the FBI Asst Direct have a pattern of not aggressively reviewing evidence of FBI agent misconduct as it relates to: Ignoring evidence; illegally making a declination decision only US attorneys can make; abusively treating DoJ and White House counsel who have attempted to bring their concerns to the FBI Asst Director; and how have the efforts to cooperate been met with retaliation by FBI agents, calling DoJ and White House staff as suffering from various personality disorders

___ How may people inside the White House, upon learning of this illegal war of aggression, have been told to do specific things to document their concern; but when they fully complied with that request for information, they actions were retaliated against for having done exactly what they were told was the right thing to do?

___ Which FBI Asst Director has a reputation for rebuffing information related to White Collar Crime; and which FBI personnel were making public responses on legal issues before they were assigned to the FBI HQ in DC?

___ How has the FBI pattern of abuse been institutionalized to target, identify, and silence those in the legal community who have the knowledge inside the White House, DoJ, and DoD that the President’s orders are illegal?

* * *

US Attorney Knowledge of Legal Issues

These are not simply public relations problems for the White House. These are issues of war crimes. No US Attorney can credibly argue that they were “waiting for” more information, when the evidence is overwhelming: The US is engaging in illegal warfare. The burden on the US Attorneys, despite their professed ignorance of the 5100.77 laws of war program and their specific Article 82 requirements, is to explain why they have not forcefully worked with the FBI to gather this information related to expand illegal warfare; and provide this directly to the Congress.

All DoJ, White House, and FBI Memoranda related to this illegal war of aggression are not lawfully classified. The US Attorneys and US government cannot present evidence of Iranian IED activity in Iraq because this would permit the court to conclude on the record that the original US actions in 2003 were illegal; and the Iranians are lawfully doing what they are permitted to do under Geneva – provide humanitarian assistance, and work with others, like the US did after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, to oppose an illegal war of aggression. All US claims, defenses, and evidence provided in this review of the Iranian IED evidence would be subject to review not in the narrow context of Iranian actions in Iraq; but the broader US war of aggression which started in 2003.

The aim of the US Attorneys, White House counsel, FBI, DoJ Staff counsel, and others involved in the planning cells inside DoD is to prevent Members of Congress from openly discussing the legal issues which only a court can review:

___ Why is the US waging illegal warfare

___ How long has Congress known there has been illegal warfare

___ When Members of Congress learned of the illegal warfare, did they fully assert their oath

___ How have the DoJ OPR and DOJ IG been thwarted from reviewing these issues of illegal warfare, and known DOJ and White House staff counsel work products related to unlawful warfare?

* **

We are seeing the danger of permitting the President, on the basis of an irrelevant AUMF linked with Fraud, to expand illegal warfare. Just as Congress after Sept 2001 did not effectively oversee the President on FISA-NSA, rendition, and prisoner abuse issues, the President through Addington and Gonzalez are doing the same:

1. Asserting they have power to wage illegal warfare. They do not.
2. Pretending that the details of this illegal activity are classified. They are not. It is illegal to classify data and memoranda that is evidence of criminal activity.
3. Pretending that there is a “new threat” to expand US illegal use of force. There is no new threat: Iran’s “threat” is its legal right to do what the US did after Pearl Harbor: Oppose illegal warfare with like force, influence, and measures.

As with FISA, Congress is self-deluding itself that the illegal activity cannot be reversed; or that there is a higher justification for the illegal activity. No, as with Hamdan, the Supreme Court reminds us that Geneva is a requirement; and it may be legally asserted by Iran that its lawful response to the US illegal warfare in Iraq is no different than the US response to Japan after Pearl Harbor.

Recall the lesson of GTMO: The extent to which this President will go to protect evidence of illegal activity; avoid judicial review; and keep evidence of war crimes out of the court. The goal is not to solve a problem, but to insulate the President and his staff from accountability for war crimes. It is not lawful for the Congress to secretly agree with the President that the expanded combat from Iraq is lawful; or that it is justified. It is illegal. In the absence of Congressional leadership on these issues of war crimes, and their refusal to keep impeachment on the table, these issues must be brought before The Hague. If the US government does not respond to the Geneva requirements or illegally asserts Iran cannot do what the US did after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, then Congress may be reasonably inferred to be complicity with the 2003 war of aggression; and may be lawfully targeted by prosecutors for their failure to prevent war crimes.

In a round about way we’re saying something very simple: The US government is no different than Japan in WWII; and on its present trajectory, it’s going to run out of friends, resources, and legal defenses to justify continued public support. When Members of Congress, despite a victory of November 2006, refuse to contain this illegal war of aggression, they are part of the problem. Succinctly, the US government’s time on earth is finite, and it cannot be expected to prevail either when confronted directly on the battlefield or in the courtroom.
The US Congress will have to face the prospect of several unfolding events, none of which it is prepared to deal with:

A. A prospect of a military coup to end the illegal war of aggression;
B. The real prospect that foreign fighters will launch combat operations in America;
C. The real prospect the American citizenry will legally end the unlawful war of aggression through a direct revolt
D. The real chances the States leadership will move to create a lawful alliance, and wage lawful war against the President and Congress for their refusal to end violations of Geneva.

American citizens cannot be compelled to support directly or indirectly illegal warfare in Iraq. Nor can US Combatant commanders hope to prevail in any legal forum for the expansive use of US resources, contractors, civilians, and military personnel to wage illegal warfare. The US Congress must realize it is walking onto thin ice. The US population is well positioned to legally end what the Congress refuses to do: Stop supporting unlawful warfare.

Citizens may legally:

___ Refuse to work to support any contract which supports directly or indirectly illegal warfare

___ Refuse to support any government effort which expands illegal warfare;

___ Provide evidence and refuse to cooperate with any US government official involved with illegal warfare;

___ Support all lawful efforts to protect the US Constitution from the spreading rebellion by this President and Congress against the rule of law

___ Refuse to permit resources, assets, and other war making things from being illegally used

___ Refuse to follow illegal Presidential orders as they related to expanding the illegal war of aggression outside Iraq

___ Provide evidence of illegal troop movements, contractor plans, and other civilian activities related to the illegal support of expanded unlawful warfare

___ Concluded there is an imminent threat from both the Congress and President as it relates to the States’ right to a Republican form of government, and lawfully prosecute any US government official for not protecting the US Constitution;

___ May legally form alliances with other states, foreign powers, and other entities to prevent this imminent threat from expanding operations against US civilians, other nations, or illegally expand combat operations and illegal warfare.

Each of these legal powers and rights mentioned above are issues which American citizens retain as protected, recognized, and clearly established rights and powers in the US Constitution. The President and Congress are on the wrong side of the law.

There is the real prospect that open combat could commence on the Continental United States between members of the US National Guard and US troops. State Governors and citizens will have to decide whether they are going to follow illegal orders and support unlawful warfare; or whether they are going to refuse to be federalized and join the ranks of those forces who are lawfully opposing the President’s and Congress expanded war of aggression outside Iraq.

* * *

The President’s briefings to Congress are illegally classified. He is illegally advocating expanded illegal warfare. It is reasonable to conclude that, as with the secret FISA briefings related to illegal activity, the President’s goal is to keep the evidence of his illegal warfare out of the courts, and assert without proof the problem is something else. It is an error for the President to assert the Iraqi insurgency is illegal – it is legally opposing an unlawful war of aggression started in 2003.

Under the laws of war, as long as the US expands its war of aggression, civilians are not required to comply with the normal requirements. Typically, when civilians are attacked, under the principle of levee en masse, civilians are not required to meet several requirements because of the speed of the invasion:

1. Report to a responsible commander;
2. Wear a distinctive sign
3. Openly carry arms
4. Conduct operations in conformance with the laws of war.

Because of the speed of the US invasion, all civilians are not required to meet these requirements. Rather, the burden is on the US to prove that the civilians were illegally doing something. This can only be proven or not proven at a court. Again, the goal of the US President and Congress is to keep these issues out of court, and simply assert the problem is Iran. The error is for the President and Congress not to look in the mirror.

Again, the President and Congress have jointly agreed not to present evidence of insurgent illegal activity because, by appearing in court to make these claims, the insurgents can legally defend their actions using the principle of levee en masse. The key lesson: The President and Congress, as with FISA-Rendition-GTMO, are jointly agreeing to secretly discuss assertions of wrongdoing, but do not want to present their evidence to any judicial tribunal for one reason: They do not want to face the real prospect that they might lose, and the court, as it did with Hamdan would rule that the US government must comply with Geneva, not explain it away; and that it is illegal for the US to have done in Iraq – wage an illegal war oaf aggression.

The US Members of Congress and President will ultimately be have to be held to account for this war of aggression which they have waged, not stopped, and perpetuated despite legal counsel obligations to prevent under Article 82. Lawful reciprocity against Members of Congress and the US Congress is permitted if they continue to support unlawful warfare; Addington and other legal counsel may not credibly argue that these illegal activities are secret as that impermissibly lets the Constitution spiral into an inferior state.

CIA forces working with contractors and Blackwatter [BLACK spelling error deliberate WATER] could also be lawfully prosecuted for supporting these illegal combat operations in Iraq, and as expanded in Iran. Although there may be laws prohibiting their identities from being disclosed, this does not mean that they cannot be prosecuted by foreign courts, even courts under the direction of the Taliban, Insurgents, or other adversaries of the US in Somalia. There is universal jurisdiction. Just as the President has issued illegal assassination orders against Iranians, so too may the opposing forces issue like assassination orders – this is the danger of the US Congress not ending the illegal war of aggression: The spiral of lawlessness continues. The error, which Japan made, was to absurdly argue their abuse was justified as a response; no, once the US first started the illegal war of aggression, the US alone after 2003, bears responsibility for the mess.

* * *

The US force in 2003 was not justified. The US is changing the subject from a relevant issue [illegal war of aggression by the US] to an irrelevant issue [whether it was a good or bad thing that Saddam was removed]. Illegal warfare is not legalized for a new reason; and expanded illegal warfare cannot be retroactively legalized by finding a nice sounding defense. This defense has not prevailed in any court.

It is lawful for Iran to blockade US ports; and for the Iranians to target forces which the US is illegally working with in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The White House knows Iran has the capability to attack these facilities the US is relying on. The Chinese and Russians have the capability to launching missiles directly into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and destroying the US facilities housing civilian contractors and US military aircraft. It doesn’t matter whether Iran does or doesn’t attack a US ship – the US is on the wrong side of the law and its actions are linked with the first illegal use of force in 2003.

All insurgents in Iraq have the lawful right to oppose this illegal aggression; and they may legally target civilian contractors assigned to the US embassy. Other nation have the lawful right, as does Iran, to assistance with opposition forces inside Iran to contain, end, and defeat the illegal US war of aggression in Iraq. The US combatant commanders have underestimated the area of operations, and have not sufficiently factored into their planning the real prospect China and Russia may legally come to the aid of Iran, and directly target US facilities, shipping, and other military support assets worldwide, well beyond the Person Gulf. Meanwhile, as the US wastes resources in Iraq, other nations are providing economic development programs for Africa. How’s that Katrina reconstruction effort?

* * *

Congress has no power to immunize the US government for the original war of aggression. Iran has the legal high ground. The US war of aggression is not legalized by having a secret briefing.

Self defense and collective security agreements permit the world’s nations to align and strike against US interests worldwide.

The fundamental problem, and this is very important: States asserting a right to act, as the US is doing, cannot contribute to that situation through its own wrongdoing. This is the error of the Congress: It is pretending that the basis for the action is “something else” while ignoring what the US has done to contribute to this mess.

The US cannot legally defend in open court any military action against Iran. Iran’s actions in Iraq are lawful; and the DoJ sand White House staff well knows this.

* * *

Adddington Incorrectly Cites the Cuban Missile Crisis

The US by acting outside the UN in 2003, is in no better position as the USSR was with Cuba and the blockade. Addington and Gonzalez cannot credibly argue the situation with Iran is anything like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Unlike the US is the 1960s that wasn’t doing anything wrong and had a legitimate gripe with Cuba and the USSR, today, the situation is the reverse: Iran has a legitimate concern with the US illegal warfare, something the US did not claim in re Cuba. Not only is Addington on the wrong side of the argument with respect to the Cuba Analogy, he’s overstating the merits of that analogy as it applies to any of the belligerents.

As the US did in WWII and with Cuba, Iran may legally work with any and all nations to implement, support, and put into full force collective security agreements to resist worldwide US expanded illegal aggression. They may also, as the US has illegally done, reciprocate and use the possibility the US will continue illegal warfare as the legal foundation to launch a first strike, opposite, mitigate, and pre-empt an attack by the US. The error is for the US to believe that the Iranian position is weak; rather, the risk is that the counter strike may occur from an indirect source. IT is irrelevant that the Iranians or others are or are not behind the attacks. The focus is on the lawful use of force other nations may use to legally oppose the US war of aggression.

* * *

It remains to be understood which civilian authorities in the US Congress have approved this US illegal warfare; or have not challenged the expanded war of aggression.

Once the DNC leadership confirms in public that they have been briefed, and that they know about the illegal warfare but choose to do nothing, then they have communicated that they know, or should know, they are complicit with war crimes. Members of Congress may be lawfully prosecuted.

Even if Iran illegally does something in Iraq, Iran may point to the US war of aggression as their legal foundation to engage in like violations of Geneva. Iran may legally assert that this is a humanitarian intervention. Iran is not a party to the combat – this is a war the US chose to start against Iraq in 2003. Iran may legally support reprisals as a deterrent to US illegal activity; and Iran may ignore all laws which the US government has violated. The US leadership may not credibly argue that Iran is in the wrong; or that the US may legally take action. Rather, because the legal weigh supports Iran, it is more likely the US will underestimate the legal options of other nations, and not adequately plan for the full spectrum of conflict. It is reasonable to expect, as with the failed Israeli plans-operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah, that the US planners have underestimated the legal arguments behind to-be-realized alliances with Iran. It is most likely the US force planners will be surprised.

* * *

The US Congress needs to look at eh legal issues with Geneva with respect to the US illegal war in Iraq. Legally, Iran may provide any and all support the Iraqi insurgents may require. Congress needs to review these issues:

1. Legality/illegality of US war of aggression and occupation starting after 2003;
2. Geneva rules permitting arms shipments to insurgents opposing illegal US warfare
3. Geneva prohibits US reprisals against Iran for Iranian lawful activity in Iraq; this lawful activity includes supporting opposition to the illegal US war of aggression
4. If the US attacks Iran, there is no basis to believe any Member of Congress will be immune, or beyond the reach of other alliances which may target Members of Congress, the Capitol, and the US government infrastructure worldwide
5. All US arms shipments worldwide may be legally intercepted by foreign forces, and the basis for Iran to attack US civilians and contractors worldwide.
6. US shipments to provide arms to NATO, CIA interdiction, and all supporting systems required to advance the US illegal war of aggression become legitimate military targets.

* * *

Notice the inexplicable change: A change in US focus form the nuclear threat to convention IEDs. This change is linked with the November 2006 election. The US has no legal foundation to oppose Iran for its efforts to oppose. If the US attacks Iran, other nations may similarly attack US support infrastructure and military shipments.

* * *

Addington and the Stimson Doctrine

All advantages the US government may have related to a war of aggression are not lawful advantages. It doesn’t matter if the President asserted power in a signing statement or executive order. Once the US started unlawful war of aggression, the US is in the losing position.

Addington misstates the doctrine. It is not the US that faces an imminent threat, but the Iranians. If you review the FOIA responses and Addington’s notes on Iran, you’ll see what he’s done: Addington took the list of criteria that would amount to a war of aggression, and is attempting to cast Iran as having met these criteria. The problem, which you’ll see when you examine the memoranda, is that Addington and the White House counsel have ignored the key problem: The US started the war of aggression; Iran’s actions are lawful.

Consider the list of things which Adddington and others are attempting to case Iran as having violated; you’ll see the US, because it waged illegal warfare, is the real culprit.

1. Attacks

The US is illegally attacking Iran for its lawful support in opposing a war of aggression. Addington wants you to ignore the first US actions; and only focus on the Iranian response. Rammer, take a wide view: The relevant legal precedents are not what the White House says, but go back to the 2003 illegal invasion. Addington wants you to focus on the Iranian responses, and ignore that the US is attacking Iran in an unlawful war of aggression.

2. Bombing

The US plans to illegally bomb Iran for its lawful opposition to the US war of aggression. Again, Addington wants you to focus on the Iranian response; and ignore the 2003 war of aggression which the Iranians are legally taking action to contain. Addington wants you to focus on the possibility that the Iranians may bomb US interests as an excuse to distract attention from the 2003 war of aggression the US started.

3. Blockade

The US plans to illegally blockade Iran. Again, Addington wants you to focus on the Iranian reaction to this blockade; and hopes you do not look at the US blockade as something that is linked with the illegal war of aggression which started in 2003. Addington wants you to focus on the possibility that Iran may (legally) blockade the US ports; and pretend this Iranian action is not linked with a lawful response to the US war of aggression.

4. Staging Area

The US plans to use Iraq as a staging ground to launch attacks against Iran; and wage a war of aggression against Iran outside the lawful agreements the US has to comply with Geneva. Addington wants you to ignore the 2003 start date for the US war of aggression; and pretend that it is Iran who is launching attacks in Iraq against the US. This is untrue.

5. Agreements

Addington wants you to focus on the Iraqi-US Congress support/position on the Iraq surge, and ignore the reality that this surge is linked with an illegal war of aggression. It is irrelevant whether Iraq or the US Congress supports or endorses any change. The error is to attempt to shift attention to the Iranian support for lawful opposition to the US, and pretend this is unrelated to the 2003 war of aggression.

6. Irregulars

Addington wants you to ignore the illegal expansion of us war of aggression using irregular, mercenaries, and other groups in Iran. The goal of the White House is to shift attention from the tools used to expand US illegal warfare – civilian mercenaries – and focus on the prospect Iran might use terrorism against the US. Iran is allowed to do what the US has done – violate the laws of war, and lawfully oppose, as the US did against Japan, a nation that wages illegal warfare after 2003.

* * *

These ruses are part of the shell game related to the AUMF. Recall, Congress is not, as it failed to do, reviewing the scope of the AUMF with respect to Iraq. Again, this is a red herring.

IT doesn’t matter how the President or Congress believe that activity does or does not fall under the umbrella of the AUMF. The ruse is to shift the focus from the illegal war of aggression, to whether the AUMF does or does not permit something. The AUMF is irrelevant. The US Congress has no legal power to authorize a war of aggression.

Further, the US Congress is the subject of the analysis: To what extent they have supported, not blocked, or otherwise failed to end a war of aggression in Iraq; it is irrelevant whether that war of aggression is expanded to include Iran, Syria, China, or Russia. The US may not legally forces to support; nor may it change the focus from the illegal warfare to something else:

1. The original illegal warfare
2. The illegal occupation
3. The illegal expansion of the original war of aggression.

Congress has no power to incrementally approve, continue, and not stop what Members of Congress know, or should know, was the first act of an illegal war of aggression starting in 2003. It doesn’t matter how the White House casts the activity against Iran; nor does it matter what evidence the US has – the US is in the wrong, and all nations may legally expand what Iran is doing in Iraq.

* * *

What you’ll want to do is to ask for the specific checklists, memoranda, and the legal documents Addington used when he was reviewing the following:

1. The characterization of the situation in Iraq;
2. The case law and summaries he used to identify the specific cases which would or would not qualify as a war of aggression;
3. The name of the outside counsel which reviewed these lists related to the definition of a war of aggression
4. The date the meetings occurred;
5. Copies of the memoranda which Addington reviewed when formulating the memoranda for the Vice President
6. A sample checklist which Addington and the Vice President’s counsel coordinated with the GOP leadership to sell the illusion that Iran was doing something wrong
7. The planned responses to concerns related to the US war of aggression in Iraq
8. What plan Addington and the Vice President planned to implement once the US actions in Iraq were unfavorably compared to the Japanese actions in WWII
9. The names of the media personnel Addington communicated his media strategy with; and how the Vice President’s staff was involved with the messaging by the Secretary of State, Secretary Gates, and Gonzalez on similar legal issues before the Senate
10. The plan of the Vice President and Addington to expand the illegal war of aggression, despite the Senate confirmation requirements for a new Intelligence Director; and how Addington planned to ensure Congress would not ask questions of Negroponte about the illegal war of aggression which NSA was used to advance with illegal targeting of political opponents; and the role JTTF personnel played in blocking reports of harassment against US citizens for their concerns about the illegal war of aggression

* * *

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

Once illegal warfare expands, Iranian allies may lawfully target Kuwait and Saud Arabia. IT remains to be understood the role Russia and Chinese missiles will have not simply to protect Iran, but actively target US installations and contractors in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran and other nations may legally attack US facilities outside Iraq, and it is irrelevant that the US has a public relations department working closely with New York to suggest otherwise.

* * *

The error of Congress is to fail to see it is duplicating the Japanese expansion in WWII. IT is an error for Congress to ignore the original US government aggression in 2003; or the pre-text the US government is suing to expand. It is irrelevant, as it was in WWII, that the US responded to an attack on Pearl Harbor. Iran is legally permitted to respond; and the US may not legally use the Iranian response to this war of aggression as an excuse to expand illegal warfare outside Iraq. Rather, the illegal war of aggression needs to end. Nothing is stopping any Member of Congress, especially with a DNC majority, from going to the well of the House, and publicly charging the President with a crime – waging illegal war. The States lawfully working in concern with their allies may lawfully take legal actions to end this illegal war of aggression.

The goal of the DoJ and White House staff on the issue of impeachment over this war of aggression is to insulate the president by pretending the Iranian responses is new, or something outside the original problem in Iraq. This is untrue. The Iranian response is linked with the US illegal activity which started in 2003. The US, not Iran, is the illegal aggressor. The US trap is to give upon the nuclear argument, and pretend that Iran’s lawful support for a war of aggression is the legal foundation pressure or for an attack on Iran.

The propaganda the US leadership uses is the “support the troops”-argument; without discussing the rude reality that the US “support” is for illegal warfare. This personalizes the support to a person, and shifts attention from the indefensible legal problem – the illegal war of aggression. The sleigh of hand is to shift attention from [a] the illegal warfare; to [b] the Iranian lawful response; and shift attention from [c] The DNC complicity with the expanded illegal warfare. The DNC is rewarded by going along with the ruse: It doesn’t have to be accountable for failing to engage in oversight.

This is the story of how the President, despite losing control of Congress, has controlled the agenda and is [a] illegally expanding unlawful warfare in Iraq and Iran; [b] getting DNC “approval” for the expanded illegal activity using secret briefings; and [c] getting the DNC leadership to work with the President to implement more war crimes.

The problem for Congress is its failure to end the illegal activity; and the Member of Congress failure to distance themselves from the illegal war of aggression which started in 2003, and continues into 2007.

* * *

White House Media Strategy

The goal of the White House, DoJ, and White House Counsel, not just Addington, is fairly straightforward. They hope to do the following:

[1] Confuse the issue; shifting attention from the US illegal warfare, onto the Iranian’s lawful actions to contain the US illegal activity;

[2] Distract attention from the US illegal war of aggression in Iraq;

[3] Pretend Iran is in the wrong; no, Iran is doing what it is legally allowed to do – oppose an unlawful war of aggression.

[4] Pretend subsequent acts by the US on to of the illegal war starting in 2003 are permissible; they are not.

[5] Avoid comparisons between {1} the US and {2} American enemies in WWII engaged in illegal warfare: [i] Japan and [ii] Germany.

* * *

When you review the memoranda out of the Vice President’s office, which have been coordinated the Joint Staff, DoJ, and White House, you’ll see Addington’s errors in his legal arguments.

[1] Ignoring the US war of aggression in 2003;

[2] Pretending that all definitions of aggression only apply to Iran, without looking at the original war of aggression which the US started in 2003;

[3] Addington’s policy of choosing from military case law the twisted version of the precedents to justify more American war of aggression

Let’s consider an example. One of the cited cases is the principle of self-defense. Addington wants the Congress to believe that the US is defending Iraq; in reality, he’s trying to shift attention from the valid Iranian argument that Iran is legally engaging in self-defense; and lawfully opposing the US war of aggression.

Back in 1837, there was a ship called the Caroline which the British forces ignited, sending it over the Niagara Falls. Rebel Canadian forces were using the Caroline to go after British Forces.

Similarly, Addington is using the Caroline as precedent to say that the US is going to go after the Iranian forces. Small problem: The Caroline was not being destroyed or used on the top of an illegal British Effort; but the opposite – the rebels were doing something incorrectly.

Addington and Gonzalez have shifted the focus from whether the British were or were not illegally waging war, and narrowly focusing on whether the British were or were not targeting a vessel. Again, it is inapposite for Addington in the memoranda to presume that there is a precedent for the US to attack a Caroline-like vessel under Iranian control.

There is something important called the Webster Formula, which Addington and Gonzalez have gotten backwards. Webster talks about the necessity of defense. The criteria require a threat to be [a] instant; [b] overwhelming; [c] no other means to defense; and [d] no time for deliberation.

The problem is, because of the memoranda that Addington and The White House counsel have coordinated on the issue, especially given the DoD cooperating, there is no merit to the final criteria. The memoranda will show that the US government did have time to deliberate; and misapplied the Webster Formal to Iran. Rather, Iran may presume what Addington and the Vice President deny – that the threat from the US against Iran satisfy all the criteria.

In other words, the US government is knowingly going to attempt to force Iran to do what it is legally allowed to do, but pretend that this is a violation of the law. Put aside the legal issues, and focus on the lesson of Iraq: The US didn’t think things through. This is what is happening with the Iranian response – the US planners have no idea which Russian and Chinese missiles the Iranians plan to lawfully launch into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, striking US contractors. These are things the US Congress is going along with, thinking, “Wow, look at all this great NSA intelligence we’re getting telling us what the Iranians are doing.”

The ruse is to focus on the intelligence, and ignore why the Iranians are legally doing what they’re doing, planning, and coordinating: The US illegal war of aggression starting in 2003.

* * *

Reconsider the Caroline: Addington is pretending that the US may do what the British did, but he’s ignoring the big problem: There is no imminent threat; but these activities are being planned – wholly contradicting the legal principles which would defend the like application with Iran.

Addington’s legal arguments, when openly compared with the 2003 war of aggression, and when contrasted with the US response to Japan paints one picture: Addington’s legal arguments do not add up. The same crew which botched the legal arguments over Iraq, are still confusing Congress; and similarly do not have enough resources to sustain a attack on Iran, much less deal with the Chinese and Russian missiles targeted at Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

This is illegal. It is not a magic show, and it is not a “wow, what a great PNAC plan”-type of argument. It’s one thing: This Administration is making one mess; then not cleaning it up; then using the world reaction to that mess to expand the target list. Same thing happened with the NSA targeting; the FISA violations; Rendition; and the Abu Ghraib. The DNC isn’t leading.

* * *

The White House doesn’t care what the Iranians do or don’t do. The US plans to simply expand the illegal war it started in 2003. Do not look at the Iran issues as something new; but in the context of the United States -- as something which Hitler did when he expanded eastward into Russia – simply advancing his illegal activity until he is stopped. Congress isn’t stopping the money or the resources; this means there’s nothing stopping the President except for two things: [1] legal arguments in a court – which the President ignores; or [2] combat losses by forces opposing his illegal warfare. The error is to assign Patraeus to fight an engagement US forces are not prepared or trained to do – a combined insurgency-civil war; and then the next wave of lawful attacks from Iranian allies. This is about one thing: Distracting Congress from the President, and avoiding war crimes indictments against the DoJ and White House counsel. The problem is that Congress is complicit; if they stop now, the question will be – why wasn’t this stopped earlier. Congress is part of the problem.

* * *

Here is the problem: The US Attorneys and Grand Juries know fully well the illegal warfare issues. However, the DoJ and White House are picking and choosing on the legal issues.

Someone inside the White House and Congress need to meet, agree that this is not going to last, and agree to surrender. The problem is that they’re so deep into these war crimes, they have nothing to lose by creating a new smokescreen.

All the US leadership is doing is picking and choosing from the definitions of aggression, and hoping to make the American public believe that the Iranians are meeting these criteria; while, at the same time, distracting public questions related to the original problem: The US war of aggression which started in 2003.

The problem is simple: The US original war of aggression permits Iran to provide a humanitarian interview; and Iran is not being used by a third state to do something. If Iran was being used by a third state – like Russia or China – to do something illegal, then the US would have a claim. But again, this argument gets trumped, as with WWII, with the original wrongdoer – the US war of aggression which started in 2003.

* * *

What the US government has done

Here’s a summary list of what is happening. The US government has

[1] Ignored the original US act of aggression in the region;

[2] Looked at a list of “aggression” and twisted reality to match what the Iranians are lawfully doing in response to the US illegal war of aggression:

[a] Cross border – permitted

[b] Attacks against US troops – permitted

[c] Building up Iranian forces – permitted

[d] Relying on an illegal US-Iraq approval of the illegal invasion -- Illegal

[e] Using the pretext of the Iranian response as a pretext to attack – Not permitted

[f] Using irregulars to attack the opposing side – permitted

What’s happening is the Congress is getting briefings related to the Iranians response; but without context: The Iranian military movements are interest sting, but are lawful as they related to the illegal 2003 US war of aggression.

As with the NSA-FISA violations, Congress is getting swamped with information, but they have no idea that they’re being deliberately mislead.

That’s where you come in: You need to let your member of Congress know the White House and Addington are doing the same thing. You have the memoranda references above to ask for; and this will hopefully point you and the Congressional staffers in the right direction. You need to do the following:

1. Share this link with your friends;
2. Remind your friends of the lawful response the US had to the Japanese war of aggression;
3. Show your friends how the legal community is twisting the focus and facts to shift attention from the illegal US 2003 war of aggression, and focusing on the Iranian lawful responses
4. Show your friends that the US NSA is dumping volumes of intelligence on Members of Congress to overwhelm them, but distract attention from the original 2003 war of aggression by the US

Talk to your member of Congress:

___ Have they considered how the NSA is providing volume of intelligence, but have not considered that Iran is lawfully doing what it is permitted?

___ What is the plan of the US Congress to put attention on the illegal 2003 war of aggression?

They have no plan because the DNC leadership has been inducted to believe that “holding the President accountable” is not in the DNC leadership’s interest. Baloney. The DNC leadership has a superior responsibility to end illegal warfare; not permit more non-sense on top of the 2003 illegal activity to then expand eastward. There are insufficient resources; and the US intelligence community HUMINT sources in the Middle East well know the Chinese and Russian missiles can lawfully target and destroy Kuwait City and US military installations in the Middle East. The reports are going in, but the President and Vice President aren’t paying attention: Their goal is to shift attention from the illegal activity, and focus on the irrelevant conflict.

Iran is most powerful if it does nothing, leaving Congress confused as to why the NSA is providing data and intelligence, but nothing is happening.

Again, Addington and the Vice President do not care whether the Iranians do or do not respond: They will expand the illegal warfare to avoid Congressional focus on the original 2003 illegal war of aggression.

* * *

Summary on US Government Power

The Constitution does not delegate to the Congress power to many things. Congress has no power to:

[a] Decide the original Iraq invasion was anything other than an illegal war of aggression

[b] Pretend the Iranian responses are unrelated to illegal US actions in Iraq;

[c] Expand, approve, endorse, or coordinate illegal combat in Iraq to induce Iran to do anything.

It remains to be understood how the legal liabilities of these illegal war crimes are attached to US Contractors and Members of Congress. Liability attaches to the contractors who supply the illegal means to implement illegal warfare in Iraq, and then as it is expanded to Iran.

As with the NSA-DoJ coordination with Qwest, there needs to be a discussion with the CEOs of the major defense corporations and ask them why they are cooperating with the illegal US war of aggression that started in 2003. The Qwest CEO opted out.

___ Why are US defense contractors not opting out of this illegal war of aggression?

* * *

It is a negligent failure of Members of Congress to refuse to change, stop, adjust, or end illegal activity. They can be legally tried for war crimes

___ Who was in a position to adjust, implement, change, or block this illegal policy?

[a] Any Member of Congress who fails to ask these questions could be found to have been reckless in not asserting their oath; or not challenging illegal agreements to keep evidence of unlawful war crimes hidden.

[b] There is universal jurisdiction to lawfully try all Members of Congress. If they refuse to challenge the 2003 illegal war of aggression, yet they have a legal background, Members of Congress cannot credibly claim they didn’t know. The problem is that they didn’t do what they should have done – asserted their Article 82 obligation as an attorney to end illegal warfare and war of aggression which violates the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter.

* * *

It is irrelevant that the Congress may approve a new AUMF for action against Iran. Again, this is a ruse and distraction away from the 2003 illegal war of aggression.

It is irrelevant what Iran may or may not have done: All Iranian efforts after 2003 are lawful efforts to legally oppose the US illegal war of aggression, just as the US did after Pearl Harbor.

Congress cannot legally grant powers to the President, and the President may not claim in any signing statement, a power to expand illegal warfare in Iraq to Iran.

The widening war may lawfully target US civilian contractors who may be viewed as providing substantial military support for this illegal war of aggression.

___ Which US Contractors have failed to stop the illegal war planning in Iraq and Iran?

___ Which US based entities are making an effective contribution to the US illegal military activities in Iraq and Ian?

The US cannot expand or wage illegal war. The courts need to be brought into this. The President may not agree with Congress to deny Judicial review; or keep this evidence of illegal warfare hidden. Iran and other nations may lawfully target the civilian infrastructure not just in Iraq, but the Personal Gulf region, and the US because they contribute to the US illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

___ How are US military forces helping with transpiration, dams, farms, and other infrastructure to support illegal warfare?

* * *

Senator Clinton said she would change her 2003 vote if she had a chance. Clinton as an attorney has a superior duty to review the information, agreements, and independently challenge the illegal war of aggression, especially in 2007.

The same abuses with Iraq WMD are occurring with Iran: Non-sense arguments, questions not getting answered, and the US moving down an escalator. This needs to end.

Clinton whined [paraphrasing], “The President lied to us.” This is irrelevant – Clinton and others had the responsibility to make adverse inferences, assert their oath, and compel an open debate before voting.

___ Which US troops are directly aiding commanders who are complicit with war crimes?

___ Which US officials in the DNC, Congress have the authority to change, reverse policy?

Those who continue with this illegal war of aggression may be tried as war criminals. It doesn’t matter if they are military, contractors, or civilians; or whether they are in our out of the government.

Those at the policy making level, especially contractors who have legal advisors well aware of the laws of war, have a duty to end this illegal war of aggression. US personnel -- regardless their status – if they refuse to remove themselves from the illegal war of aggression may be viewed as unlawful combatants, lawfully targeted, and prosecuted for war crimes.

___ Has the US Congress reviewed the Executive orders which are manifestly illegal?

___ What is the plan, in the absence of immediate Executive cooperation with the disclosure of these illegal executive orders, for the US Congress to immediately end funding for this ongoing illegal war of aggression?

Funds can only be added if Congress chooses to include them. The Senate cannot filibuster to force the House to do anything. Please contact your Member of Congress, provide the above information to their staff, and let them know there is a major problem with the White House secret briefings: They are ignoring the first use of force by the US – in 2003 it was illegal; all Iranian responses to the US first use of illegal force are lawful.

* * *

Once the US entered Iraq, it had the obligation to ensure that seized property was not used for additional illegal purposes. The US may argue that the assets it has seized in Iraq were for a “good use,” but this is not an ultimate defense to war crimes. You need to look at the contracts; and compare them with the Flick case involving the Rombach industrial complex in Lorraine during WWII.

___ How is the US using private assets, resources, and property in Iraq and Iran to advance illegal warfare?

___ To what extent is the US like Germany, using Iraqi economic resources to benefit the US illegal warfare starting in 2003?

___ Where are the profits going from the oil exports?

___ Which US Attorneys, legal counsel, and other lobbyists created the contracts permitting these oil profits to go to US personnel, entities, and other things as a reward for remaining silent on the illegal US war of aggression?

Read more . . .