Alleged War Criminal Rice Refuses to Reconcile With US Constitution
Rice's public statements can get turned on their head: How they are evidence of Rice's mental capacity; and whether she is or is not fully ensuring that the GOP is or is not complying with all legal requirements.
Rice is in a position to influence policymaking. When she refuses to confront the President, she is enabling illegal violations of the Supreme Law.
Her action or inaction may be introduced as evidence during a war crimes tribunal before The Hague. If she refuses to cooperate with legal requirements, foreign fighters have no option but to impose adverse military consequences in the form of retaliatory strikes against the US Department of State Officials.
Secretary of State Rice does not in diplomatic circles have a very impressive reputation. She is more openly mocked for her stupidity, many wondering how she manipulated others to believe she has competence.
What's most absurd about Rice is that while her country, party, President and the District of Columbia is under political siege, she's run to a mess she helped create, and lectured the Iraqis over what they should or should not do.
Perhaps the Secretary of State should reconcile with the Constitution which she appears, as National Security Advisor, not to have taken seriously. It's irrelevant that her friend and alleged co-conspirator Gonzalez is arguably a moronic attorney who could be disbarred. He remains a target for the German War Crimes prosecutor.
Please encourage your friends to contact overseas points of contact with the aim of communicating to foreign nations: The hunt for criminals is expanding.
Open communications into GCHQ confirm that US personnel have raised questions about whether they may or may not be detained. These communications have been recorded, archived, and are outside the American's ability to destroy.
Rice should be reminded by all foreign leaders she visits that the hunt for the alleged war crimes is on. Rice is on that target list. She and others may be legally detained, arrest, and forwarded to The Hague and war crimes prosecutors.
Rather than lecturing the downtrodden about what they "should do," Rice would better spend her time listening to her private legal counsel. She may believe that she can engage in a spirited defense with open calls for the Iraqis to do things.
Her error, apparently connected with what appears to be poor legal advice, is for her to publicly assert a standard in the open, without legal protection, and without the authority to impose this standard.
Under the laws of war, when leaders make speeches or impose consequences or assert standards, that assertion of a standard -- however absurd it is -- may legally be introduced into evidence as a frame of mind of what the defendant is capable of understanding.
Rice's error is in publicly commenting on issues of law, standard, conduct, and requirements which she, as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, appears to have violated, ignored, or not embraced.
The reason for her refusal to assent to Geneva is less important as her state of mind: Does she or does she not understand the difference between standards and illusions? Based on her public comments in Iraq, it appears Rice well understands what a standard is; whether she agrees or disagrees with Geneva is meaningless.
Rice’s other problem is in making public comments about standards, she's well communicating that she has the mental capacity to understand a requirement. Again, whether she ignores or follows that requirement is secondary. Rice cannot credibly claim insanity, confusion, or lack of understanding.
The only way that Rice could make a statement to others related to standards is whether she understands standards; and that she understands that solutions are possible. Whether she uses legal or illegal means to achieve that outcome is less important as her demonstration that she is mentally able to know right form wrong.
Take a step back from the lines of evidence, confusion, and the absurd GOP statement. Simply look at the record as evidence of whether hey are or are not facing reality. It is arguably a waste of time to try to make the GOP believe something it refuses to accept: The supremacy of law.
Do the opposite. Celebrate their absurd legal statements, and share them with your friends: File them, organize them, share with your friends the emerging lines of evidence that the GOP, despite defeat, refuses to end war crimes or do what it should.
Debate less, organize evidence more.
Rice is demonstrating that she understands that there are opportunities which can be used to change things. Again, the issue isn't that she's focusing on Iraq, but that she's mentally going through a though process that she should be applying to her legal defense, and lecturing to her peers in the GOP.
Side A: Where Rice says there are opportunities for some, then she is communicating that she understands that there are options; that there are things that can be done; and that there are possibilities for change.
Side B: Contrast that with her actions and statements of the GOP: They would have us believe the opposite: That the problem is something else; that the options are the responsibility for others; and that the burden of action is closing based on irrelevant criteria; and that the opposition must change.
Call this what it is: IT is denial, a legal strategy, but not credible. Notice the contrast between side A and Side B: They are diametrically opposed. The aim of the GOP isn't to do the right thing, but to -- with volume -- assert Side B, knowing full well Side A is reality.
The error is for the blogosophere to argue the merits or weaknesses of Side B. There is no merit to this delusion of Side B: It is a legal defense, not a credible debate.
I encourage you to take a step back, know that the people who are pretending to be idiots, are mentally capable of being CEOs. Whether they are or are not successful CEOs or incompetent is a secondary issue. They can do it if they want; or they can create records creating the illusion that they are competent.
Find the evidence of what is reasonably expected, and compare them with the reasonable standards of conduct; then compare that with what the leadership is or isn't doing.
When Rice travels abroad, and makes speeches, she is communicating what she expects. Put aside whether that expectation is or is not prudent.
The General rule is whether someone has the mental capacity to understand [a] conditions 1, 2, and 3; and [b] choose between options. Rice shows, through her speeches, that she is supported by a staff that understands this. Again, put aside the issue of whether those options are or are not flawed, imprudent, unreasonable, or reckless. Thing in general terms: Is there or is there not a mental process occurring.
That is all that needs to be proven to show: Was there leadership with the capacity to affect policy making, and ensure compliance with the law. Again, whether they do that is a secondary issue; the aim of the GOP is to pretend that there is no basis to compare [a] reasonable conduct; with [b] the standards. Their goal is to pretend the standard is not applicable, has changed, or they have exceeded the standard. Incorrect. Again, the secondary issue is whether that leadership was or was not violating the law.
BY her actions, speeches, and other public movements, Rice is communicating that she s acting under authority to do something; and that action is linked with specific planning. This means that the travel records -- as proof of her planning -- can be introduced, especially when they follow an open decision. This is important when considering the rules of evidence and what can or cannot be easily introduced, reviewed, or demanded.
It is a secondary issue whether those documents are or are not destroyed.
When Rice communicates that she is  observing a situation; and  making recommendations, she is doing something very important: Communicating that she is aware of something; and that she's translating her knowledge into a plan, comment, or a vision.
Rice cannot credibly claim she was confused when she's openly doing the opposite: Making specific statements. Again, put aside whether she is or isn't making sense; or whether she is or isn't competent.
The only issue is whether she believes that her statements are logical; and whether she understands the connection between  reality; and  the possibility for change; and  a plan. Again, put aside whether or not there is a logical connection between her through process, and what is workable. That is secondary.
What's needed is a more generalized way of looking at the statements of the US government leadership. Spend less time debating their invalid points; but do the opposite: Use their thought process, plans, and approaches against them in court.
Your job as a private citizen is to rest assured that war crimes prosecutors are doing this in private; and they are formulating legal motions at this level.
Indeed, it is shocking to hear what the GOP is saying and doing. But remind yourself that their statement is designed to shock you. Do the opposite: Rise above it, look at how the information can be used to undermine their legal position, and use the additional information with confidence: It is more evidence against them.
The war criminals in the GOP are stuck. They've run out of lawful options. Their approach going forward is to crate smokescreens, delay focus, and attempt to pretend that the issue is something else. DO not be alarmed. This behavior is well understood by war crimes prosecutors. You are not alone. There are 300 Million Americans who are with you: Some are still on the wrong side of the law.
The hard work was done. The 2006 election is behind us. The House is under the control of our allies. The GOP, Senate, and President can't do anything to undo the 2006 election, and power of the House to block the President, GOP, and Senate.
Going forward, as we speak, the legal teams are working. That is where you come in: Your job is to make contact with the legal community and learn from them: How is the public information we are learning being used to prosecute the GOP leadership. You do not need to know the details; but you need to be aware that the legal community is working very hard to organize the information and prosecute the President, Rice, and DoJ Staff for their reckless war crimes.
Share that confidence with your friends. Yes, absurd as things appear to be, the GOP is doing this because they have no other legal options. Use their non-sense as evidence of their fleeting legal defense.
Contrary to Rice’s claims in Iraq that attacks are falling, there are reports of the opposite: Despite more troops, the attacks are increasing.
It is premature for Rice to say that the "escalation" is working; at best, it's having no effect; at worst, it's giving the insurgents more reason to expand their attacks.
Unlike a "normal insurgency" Iraq has a secondary problem: There is a civil war. This can be confusing because it's not clear what side an attacker is; just because someone is an insurgent, it doesn't mean that their attacks against the US are anti-Iraqi.
The US is not in a position to pick the "right" side: The "right side" is uncertain.
Iraq's refugee problem is spilling into America. It's an error to say things are stabilizing in Iraq. If enough people leave Iraq, there will be no problem in Iraq.
What the Iraqis are arguing over in 2007 could have been discussed and resolved well before the 2003 invasion. The US chose to let these issues go unresolved.
Troop strengths are questionable, especially when the numbers cannot be corroborated; and there's a difference between "someone ready" and "someone listed on a roster, but not ready." Depends on how they are defining readiness levels.
What's amusing about Rice is that she's saying what should or shouldn't happen by way of planning; and how politics and security issues should or should not be connected.
Her statements show that she's aware of a connection, but her actions indicate that she doesn't understand how this connection will have consequences for America.
Indeed it is not easy to rebuild the American democracy after the GOP, in their illegal war, has refused to protect what they should.
It is incorrect for Rice to suggest the "administration" doesn't have infinite patience. This "concern" and claim of a threshold would not have been asserted had the GOP won the 2006 election. It is only through the 2006 defeat that the President would have us believe he's more interested in benchmarks, limits, and timelines.
Contrary to Rice's assertions, the issue isn't whether the President does or does not have a deadline; but the more fundamental problem for the GOP: Can they afford to not take responsibly for the failed leadership; and what would it have taken, without an election defeat, for the GOP to have stepped up to the plate to change. This glacial embrace of reality is hardly something to celebrate. It's been going on five years since the 2002 pre-Iraq invasion planning, yet the GOP is now suddenly concerned with benchmarks. It's a little late.
Americans were never prepared to wait forever. It's absurd for Rice to present this to the troops in Iraq as if it were something she's always known. No, it took the November 2006 defeat for her to acknowledge what the GOP and White House have ignored: We the People.
Nothing stopped the GOP from adjusting course earlier., The failure to adjust, combined with the illegal invasion, and puts the mess on the back of the GOP, President, Rice, and others in the Republican leadership. They alone chose to manipulate, lie, and recklessly conduct this war.
That there might be fewer casualties in Iraq in 2007 is not a defense for the original illegal activity in 2002-3.
Rice’s problem is that in claiming progress in Iraq, she's admitting that the progress to date has been inadequate, and the American public should not have been the catalyst for the US government to meet its obligations.
Rather than focusing her lectures on the Iraqi people about what they should or should not do, Rice should share her concerns with the GOP leadership, and encourage them to reconcile with the rule of law.
If Rice and others do not with to reconcile in the judicial branch before a magistrate, there are foreign fighters who are willing to provide incentives for them to more quickly embrace other reconciling forces.