Former DoJ Staffer Makes Frivolous Excuses For Illegal Warfare, Constitutional Violations
Attorneys were lawfully adjudicated and executed at Nuremberg when they were found complicit with, and failed to prevent war crimes and breaches of Geneva.
Ref Wendy J. Keefer continues her drivel.
We discuss the apparent failure of some attorneys to comprehend the laws of war, reciprocity, and retaliation as permitted under the Geneva Conventions.
Note: Keith is from 1972, six years prior to FISA. Gonzalez was not acting according to Keith, but according to the 1978 FISA requirements.
Summary: readers are encouraged to carefully study the Keith case linked here [ 407 U.S. 297 ] Backup; then compare the case to Keefers points linked here. You'll see a curious disconnect as sumamrized here.
Also look at note 22 to see how the Keith case is being used. Keefer appears to have read, if not contributed to, the white paper linked here; then check note 22 here:
Now that the President has agreed FISA Court shall oversee the activity, what is the plan of the Adminstration to comply with this report:
TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PERSONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT OBTAINING COURT-ORDERED WARRANTS
___ What happened with the responses to the House?
Foreign fighters are emboldened to attack American civilian leaders and their legal counsel who remain complicit with, and refuse to end, illegal violations of the laws of war. It remains to be understood how the NSA illegal activity prior to Sept 2001 was or was not used to support war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other grave breaches of Geneva by Abraxas and DoD Contractors.
The American government is not legitimate, especially when it is recklessly enabled and supported by deficit legal counsel who make apologies for reckless defiance of written law.
Wendy J. Keefer, no longer with alleged war criminal Viet Dinh consulting, has decided to go to law school to be a teacher.
Keifer absurdly sticks to the GOP propaganda on the President's illegal domestic surveillance. Consider the following from the CIA IG: The activity is illegal. Ref
Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith argues the AUMF never gave the President "authority" to violate the Constitution.
Contrasting Keith With Keefer's Comments
Normally, we might be able to review the single case which Keefer cites and end the discussion: "wow, Wendy really knows her stuff." Gag. We have to consider who we're working with: Someone who worked with the cut and paste-crowd DoJ which Addington and Gonzalez helped shape.
Keith is cited here for reference. Keefer's reliance on Keith doesn't help her argument: The cited cases contradict Keefer's position.
Keith explicitly states Section 2511 is not -- repeat NOT -- a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillance.
1. Section 2511 (3) is merely a disclaimer of congressional intent to define presidential powers in matters affecting national security, and is not a grant of authority to conduct warrantless national security surveillances. Pp. 301-308. [407 U.S. 297, 298]
This holding can hardly be good for the President, especially when the best legal argument Keefer can offer is to pretend that Keith did or didn't permit warrantless surveillance.
Consider Keefer's words:
Indeed, only in a case involving domestic surveillance for domestic security purposes, the Keith case, did the Court suggest that Congress might create a separate warrant and judicial system for sensitive domestic matters.
No, the court said the opposite: The existing statutes were sufficient to say that domestic surveillance was already covered. No new statutes were needed; and Congress did not have to create something that did not already exist.
Prior to enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) in 1978, it seemed unquestioned that at least in certain circumstances involving the protection of national security, the President could engage in warrantless electronic surveillance.
Even if this is true, citing Keith does not advance her argument. The court in Keith wries,
2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 314-321; 323-324.
There it is -- in black and white -- the President shall get judicial approval. This President ignored Keith; we can only speculate that the Defense Strategy is to assert full compliance with teh law despite Gonzalez fatal admissions that he was not fully complying with the FISA requirements.
But let's put aside the above two points, and focus on the some issues of Keefer's argument. Keefer would have us believe that the President agreed to comply with Congressional rules.
This is false, in that he made hiw own rules, and ignored the court, expressly ignoring Keith, which emphasizes the role of the judiciary:
(b) The freedoms of the Fourth Amendment cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillance are conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch without the detached judgment of a neutral magistrate. Pp. 316-318.
A government that talks about freedom, but refuses to respect the separation of powers can hardly be called wonderful. It is the definition of tyranny.
Keefer talks a little bit about enemies. Again, the Keith case does little to support her position:
2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 314-321; 323-324.
(a) The Government's duty to safeguard domestic security must be weighed against the potential danger that unreasonable surveillances pose to individual privacy and free expression. Pp. 314-315.
The President cannot, as Keefer would ask us to believe, create rules which he alone reviews. This is an illegal usurpation and consolidation of legislative and judicial power under the President.
Enemies of the US government are not necessarily enemies of the US Constitution. The error is for the legal community to make an excuse that they are concerned about security as a pretext to violate rights; but their reckless disregard for reality does not provide any improvement in security, but does the opposite.
If the DoJ Staff was concerned about security it would have reviewed the foreseeable backlash related to abusing power, violating rights, and expanding illegal warfare. Where there is no respect for what is foreseeable, the DoJ Staff is deemed to ahve been reckless in not reviewing the security issues.
The rest of the comments below spring from the fatal inconsistency between [a] the law; [b] what this President was doing; and [c] the legal themes cited in the Keith case which [d] Keefer fails to credibly argue, defend, or support. At best, Keith is an example of a case legal counsel cite just to see if anyhone's bothering to notice; at worst, citing Keith suggests the only defense this President has are those that will move him to a worse legal position than had he never bothered to hire an attorney.
Contrary to Keefer's assertions, Gonzalez has no "power" to inform Congress that the US government will or will not comply with the law. We weren't waiting around, Wendy, for the Attorney General to tell us something.
The illegal NSA activity started before Sept 2001. The FISA does not permit DoJ Staff counsel from permitting violations of the FISA court procedures.
The FISA court alone was the vehicle to guide the President how to use his sole power: Executive. The President has no other power. Article II only delegates to the President one power: Executive. Nothing else.
Congress established FISA to guide the President and attorney General. The AG and President ignored the law. They are alleged war criminals for using illegal captured data to support war crimes, prisoner abuse, and illegal kidnapping, something the DOJ Staff counsel well knows is "rendition".
The President ha no power to "authorize" illegal activity. The activity is not a "terror surveillance" activity, but an illegal assertion of non-delegated judicial and legislative power by the Executive.
If the activity was legal, but there was no time, Keefer cannot explain why her peers in the DOJ Staff have been affirmatively linked with non-official business using official government computers. [ Details ]
There is no merit to any Keefer assertion that the President or anyone was operating under "orders" from the FISA court. The FISA court was ignored. Before Slept 2001, the Administration was illegally violating the law.
NSA analysts and technicians working with SAIC in Thinthread created system that would legally comply with the FISA requirements. These technical innovations, know to Addington and Gonzalez were ignored, not fully supported, and ignored.
The Administration changed its policy on FISA surveillance because the original policies were illegal.
Historically, the US is acting like Japan during WWII: Using world opposition to illegal warfare as an illegal pretext for the US to expand unlawful, aggressive war.
The President can hardly be called being the architect of something that is a "voluntary" system of compliance: The President is voluntarily defying his oath, and was violating the law before the tragic events of Sept 2001.
This President and the lazy buffoons on the DoJ Staff ignored the FISA requirements. These violations were not properly documented, as required, in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports. The DOD, CIA, and DOJ IG have failed to review these gaps in the records.
What was or was not in existence prior to FISA is interesting, but not helpful. Prior to Slept 2001, FISA was the law of the land. This President ignored FISA. That is illegal.
It may be true that the President can engage in domestic surveillance so long as the FISA court is involved. The FISA court was ignored. This too is illegal.
It is not relevant that the President was waging an illegal, aggressive war in Iraq. Once the President chose to comply with some changes to FISA, the President and Attorney General jointly communicated to Congress that the covering language was not the AUMF, but the FISA text and US Constitution.
The cited cases in Keith do little to help Keefer's argument. 407 US 297: See 18 of 23 at the PDF link. Keith is about FISA and warrant applicability to domestic organizations, which applies to this NSA activity. The President does not dispute that the surveillance covered domestic targets which require a warrant and FISA court involvement.
It is irrelevant what Keefer says about Keith. The court didn't suggest anything -- it emphasized what was required: A warrant.
With concurrence of the Executive, which the attorney general well knew was enshrined in FISA, the Congress and President did establish FISA.
The President has no discretion to violate the Constitution. FISA only permits the President to conduct surveillance without honoring the 4th Amendment. Gonzalez knew he could retroactively get waivers, but he did not follow this process.
It is false for Keefer to suggest that the FISA system is "purported" to be the exclusive means to do something. Once domestic targets are surveilled, as they were prior to Sept 2001, FISA is triggered. Whether the intelligence is for domestic, foreign, or combat is secondary; the officer's warrant and affidavit ensures the basis for the surveillance is subject to judicial control with an oversight and surveillance plan.
Keefer fails to cite any authority which permits the President to suggest that he may violate the Constitution. The President is not delegated the power to violate the Constitution, ignore FISA, or usurp judicial power to self-review what only the FISA court can review.
Contrary to Keefer's assertion, the President is not delegated any power to violate the Constitution, especially when the President agrees to assent to the FISA process, as it applies.
The President is not being deprived of any option. Congress may, when it defines ministerial Acts, the means by which the President asserts his power. This is under the power of Article 1 Section 8, the exclusive power delegated only to the Congress to define how the finite, single power of the President shall be executed. When the President ignores tease instructions he is in violation of the law.
What President carter did or did not do is interesting, but has little relevance to what President Bush was illegally doing prior to Sept 2001: Not following FISA, but pretending that he was working with Congress to comply with FISA> If FISA did not apply, President Bush through the Attorney General should not have worked with Congress to update any rules. He did. This is a fatal admission by his action that he knew, or should have known, FISA was a requirement.
The time to have asserted that FISA did not apply was not after he was caught; but when the supposed "non-applicability" was first known. Gonzalez' actions defy his legal defenses, raising the prospect he's committed perjury before Senator Feingold before an official proceeding. Hardly evidence the US government is extraordinary, just contemptible. Having updated one rule, the President and Gonzalez have fatally admitted that they knew FISA was the covering language, not the arbitrary self-usurpation of judicial power by the President deeming his word alone would decide whether something was or was not lawful.
Keefer enjoys playing in word games over whether a FISA requirement, which the President and attorney general knew existed and were requirements, were or would not be followed.
The Constitution expressly requires a warrant. This is not a hypothetical concept, but within the four corners of the Constitution. Contrary to Keefer's fantasy, the ministerial requirement of the President to fall under the Constitution is both a statutory and Constitutional requirement linked through the President’s oath of office.
Contrary to Keefer's assertions, there is no debate over whether the President has only one power: Executive. That is expressly defined and delegated in the Constitution through article II.
Had the President had any authority to do anything, he would not -- as Gonzalez did -- assented to FISA standards, and hoped to change FISA to accommodate some, but not all, of what the President and DOJ Staff knew was going on.
The President is not the Commander in Chief when there are no combat operations, as there was the case prior to Sept 2001. Whether the President wanted to intercept communications prior to Sept 2001 is interesting, but does little to explain why the President knew something to review NSA intercepts, but was not willing to submit this classification and review to the FISA court. The jury is literally still out.
Keefer arguing that there was an "ongoing" war on terror is a frivolous argument which has no bearing on the pre-Sept 2001 NSA monitoring which this President has not credibly defended, explained, or justified.
Something may be important, but it does not mean that goal trumps all legal requirements, especially the Constitution which narrowly delegates only one power to the President in Article II: Executive. Unlike Article I which delegates many powers to Congress, the President has one power -- Executive. All options this President has under that one power are options, not expansive delegations of power to defy the Constitution, acts of Congress, especially as they related to combat.
Keefer's apparent failure is her lack of comprehension that Geneva, as a requirement, is a legal set of guidelines which constrain how the President can or cannot use force. Where the President violates Geneva, foreign fighters may legally engage in reciprocal violations and retaliate.
Keefer's error is the meritless assertion that "constitutional dilemmas" spring from domestic enemies. To the contrary, the "dilemmas" do not rest with may people, but with one: He lives, for now, in the Oval Office.
Once the President violated the Constitution, this President started and created the constitutional dilemma he alone faces. Whether Congress and the lazy DoJ Staff are cognizant of their respective responsibilities or their duty to report illegal activity to the DOJ OPR is a separate matter.
Keefer misconstrues the history over the legal challenges to the NSA unlawful activity. The concern has nothing to do with whether the President can or cannot lawfully do something; the issue is subtle: Whether the President, despite a legal mandate to do something, will or will not follow the laws of war, Geneva, and legal constraints.
DoJ Staff have asserted the President is above the law. State and national legal opponents take a different view: The President is below the law. Always.
Keefer cannot credibly argue that the litigation distracted anyone. DoJ Staff, contrary to Keefer's whining were so "not distracted" by FISA, that they had the time to surf the internet looking at non-official sites. This information has been forwarded to the DOJ IG, and is available in the open media.
The primary mission of the US government is to defend the Constitution. One cannot credibly defend what is destroyed; nor can defense of one come at the expense of all. NSA has legal systems in place which fully comply with FISA. Keefer fails to explain how the DOJ Staff, had it used this system, would have been harmed. At best, the DoJ Staff problem is one they created for themselves: Arrogantly asserting that the laws do not apply; but hiding evidence from DoJ OPR whether the illegal activity was or was not timely reported as required under the attorney standards of conduct.
America is not doing anything to help its defense when it illegally violates the laws of war, but asks -- at the end of a gun -- the world to believe that democracy and Constitutional law is a good thing.
Good things have good results. This American government crates messes, wages illegal wars of aggression, and pretends that things are just fine. This is non-sense. The American government is so "great" that Gonzalez didn't want you to know how great it was: It violates the law, and then he hides the evidence.
Terrorists are only part of the problem facing Keefer. The larger formidable problem is the knowledge We the People have that the American legal community, especially former DoJ Staff counsel, can be lazy, arrogant, stupid, and incompetent. This nation absurdly relied on the lazy DoJ Staff counsel for expert legal advice, but they failed and advised the President and Congress to expand illegal abuse, torture, and prisoner mistreatment contrary to Geneva. Terrorists didn't do this, lawyers did.
America’s constitutional structure is nothing to be proud of. It has impermissibly rewarded illegal wars of aggression, not check abuses by the President, and has failed to timely sanction alleged war criminals on the DOJ Staff who defy their oath and have obstructed DOJ OPR reviews of alleged war crimes and use of data to support Geneva violations.
Contrary to Keefer's assertions, the US government has not determined any lawful plan how to ensure Members of Congress, the DOJ Staff, and DoD officials will be properly disciplined for their failure to assent to the rule of law. The enemies Keefer refuses to acknowledge are those she sees in the mirror: Arguably defective legal counsel who must be reminded of their attorney standards of conduct, even when the DOJ OPR is locked out of the room, and the staff counsel cannot be trusted to assert the rule of law.
The prospect of terrorism is not excuse for the DOJ Staff or President to violate the Constitution, especially when there were available legal, reliable, and workable solutions permitting NSA to comply with the law and support the President’s war fighters.
Keefer and others would have us believe that choosing a legal system meant the President was deprived of power. This is incorrect. The truth is the opposite: By giving the President the power to violate the Constitution through FISA, the President's power is expanded to include legal methods to do what the Framers prohibited: Activity by government without warrants.
Nobody is saying surveillance is illegal or should not be allowed. The truth is that the President, when properly advised by competent counsel, could be trusted to seek some changes to FISA. The error was our trust for something he was not willing to do: Fully comply with the rules which permitted him to exercise broad discretion. this President abused our trust. The way forward is to remind the President what the rules are. Whether he follows those rules or not, the rules remain in place.
America’s leaders have a problem. Despite clear war crimes, members of the American legal community, Congress, and White House staff refuses to end illegal, aggressive war. These are war crimes.
There are new threats. We have one Constitution. There are new challenges, but these challenges cannot overshadow the founding document: The Constitution.
Novel policies may be developed, but they must be legal, not simply approved because of their novelty. Effective prevention of attacks is an admirable goal. The problem for Keefer is, despite the illegal NSA monitoring before Sept 2001, the attacks came. Americans tried the approach of "trust us to do what is needed, even if it is illegal." We didn't get safety, and we didn't get protection. We had illegal activity, and this President used the unlawful precedent of illegality to expand illegal warfare, and leave us with less security.
Where the President ignored the law and expanded US power beyond what was sustainable, this President and Congress have left us less safe, more vulnerable, and subject to lawful retaliation by foreign fighters. This is a threat this President helped create through his incompetence, well advised by the equally incompetent and lazy DoJ Staff who remain alleged war criminals for their refusal to end what are grave braches of Geneva.
Effective policies require legal results. Ineffective leaders will claim they are doing something good, but deliver reckless results.
This Government has refused to cooperate. Despite clear standards, this government has openly defied its oath, assented to illegal warfare, left us less safe, and has done little to inspire confidence in the Constitutional system.
NSA had lawful, technical means to comply with FISA and fully support the war fighters. This President chose to ignore the law and technical options.
NSA before Sept 2001 was violating the law, but did not protect us. No one can argue that illegal activity is good. It is bad, especially when it is sold as something that will keep us safe, but we are less safe.
Contrary to Keefer's apologies and rewriting of history, this President did not find a way to "work within" any Congressional system. It was not voluntary, and the President had no choice.
Rather, this President did the opposite: Devised ways to work outside the system. His momentum fueled the illegal abuses at Guantanamo, explained away reckless oversight, and failed to timely ensure there remained a viable program to fully implement the SecDef 5100.77 requirements. On top of that, without fully compliance with the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, the President has sown every inclination to work outside the Constitutional system, defy Congress, and has brought discredit upon himself, his Presidency, and the United States of America.
Keefer has a problem. Her remarks fail to inspire confidence in her legal reasoning or arguments. She may be a good attorney when it comes to arguing over whether a roof gutter system should be litigated. But we're dealing with something that is well beyond a commercial contract, but the US Constitution in the context of open combat, Geneva, and illegal rebellions by the President and Congress against the rule of law.
Keefer offers us nothing to inspire confidence Congress and the President will voluntarily assent to the rule of law or their oaths. At best, the US government is making excuses to do nothing about illegal warfare; at worst, hoping the legal community can find a neat legal trick to keep Members of Congress from being prosecuted at The Hague for failing to prevent illegal warfare.
America’s government, if it is as Keefer suggests, "an example of the best of government policy development" should be able to do what it is required to do: Check power, not permit the abuse of power to span multiple Congresses regardless the party in power.
This sentence does not make sense: "To be truly effective this prevention must both stop while protecting our liberty and freedom." When you say, "must both stop" what are you referring to? You're missing a word after "stop".
Keefer's piece, although in English, appears to suffer from some basis problems:
1. Lack of a purpose
2. Lack of commitment to a central theme
3. Poor citations or relevant case law
4. Lack of an organizing element
5. No credible solution, plan, or roadmap
Keefer doesn't appear to be objective in defining the proble4m she hopes to discuss; nor in outlining what needs to change. Perhaps Keefer's point was that things are fine, just as long as people don't read the Constitution.
Small problem: We the People have to know the US statutes, case law, and Constitution better than the reckless buffoons on the DOJ Staff who have issued, drafted, and allowed to be used illegal memoranda linked with illegal war crimes. That is hardly a problem Keefer touched upon, much less dared to approach.
The way forward is to review Keefer's legal background, examine why she left Bancroft, and understand what knowledge she has of the DOJ Staff conduct on the internet prior to Sept 2001 when the President would have us believe they were "too busy" doing non-official business to follow the law.
Keefer also needs to explain whether she has or has not fully complied with her attorney oath of office, and made all information known, as required, to the DOJ OPR related to alliterations of peer misconduct while she was in DoJ.
Keefer needs to explain how she, as an attorney, apparently not licensed in the DC Bar, was able to rise in the Department of Justice; yet her legal background is related to commercial law, leaf blowers, and apparent problems with gathering evidence.
If Keefer wants a "better policy" she should look in the mirror and ask whether that policy improvement needs to start with the individual attorney.
__ To what extent have they fully asserted their attorney standards of conduct;
___ Why does it take so long for the President to "voluntarily" do what he has no discretion to avoid?
___ Who in the DoJ gave the President the impression that he could "authorize" the FISA court to engage in judicial review?
___ Where in the Constitution does the President have the judicial power and authority to delegate to the FISA court the power to review something?
This President has not "voluntarily" done anything. It was only after his party lost the November 2006 election, and after Hamdan that the President accepted he must follow the laws of war, US Constitution, and his oath of office.
The likes of Keefer hardly inspires confidence the Administration is willing to do anything unless there is a credible threat of litigation with meaningful legal consequences. This President deserves criticism for failing to timely follow the law, especially where he has no power to violate the law.
Indeed, changing practices in the wake of a stable standard is evidence the original activity was illegal, and unlawfully authorized under unlawful policies. Unscrupulous lawyers will rewrite reality to pretend the standard is something other than reality.
Keefer's essay should be seen as another failed legal defense effort by the Administration. This President and the White House counsel have not voluntarily done anything. They reluctantly admit that they have not met the required standard. It should not take this long.
The law is as the law is: Whether we call it a ministerial duty, a Constitutional requirement, a statutory obligation, or an obligation under the Bill of Rights, we arrive at the same conclusion: This President and DOJ Staffers were complicity with illegal warfare; violations of the Constitution; illegal war crimes; unlawful memoranda; non-official use of government resources when we were told the Staff was not available to comply with clearly promulgated requirements.
Keefer's arguments are curious, creative, but not sound. A warrant was required prior to FISA. The only issue was whether that monitoring was or was not subject to FISA requirements -- the exclusive means by which the President may conduct surveillance under the conditions which made FISA applicable. If the FISA wasn't applicable, Gonzalez should not have discussed the changes to the statutes that he would have us believe did not regulate what the President was doing.
Authority, politics, power, and ministerial requirements are not the same. FISA, contrary to Keefers' implicit argument, did not limit authority, but broadly expanded the President's latitude, despite the possibility for abuse. The President can monitor the enemy. The problem is that this President is treating the American public as if it were the enemy, then asserting he has the unreviewable discretion to defy the Constitution. He does not. There would be no dilemma if we had a needed Constitutional confrontation.
The telecommunications companies have no explained why they permitted the NSA to have access to their facilities without the required warrant; or how their cooperating with the US government has assisted in illegal violations of Geneva, prisoner abuse, and illegal rendition. When government will not comply with the law, We the People must decide how to lawfully confront the Executive. The rule of law seems lost on this US government. The only alternative, other than a New Constitution, appears to be at the hands of foreign fighters intent on imposing the rule of law from without.
The American government has refused to assent to the rule of law. The US government resembles the Japanese and German governments of WWII: It supports, engages in, and expands illegal, aggressive warfare. It even uses lawful opposition to this illegal activity as an absurd basis to expand illegal warfare.
The US government must change. Either it will be legally transformed through the law or voluntarily reform; or the expanded illegal warfare forms the basis for foreign fighters to lawfully destroy this government.
The one thing worse than tyranny is a nation of legal scholars who are not competent on the law; and unable to scholarly discuss the legal options to compel the US government to assent to its oath of office, legal obligations, and the laws of war. To inspire, we need a vision and a way forward; not a list of excuses for what is illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to public policy in the Geneva Conventions. We the People can reasonably expect something marginally better than what this failed US government has offered. The Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, and Somali warlords know that the US government could do better. The error is for the Americans to rest on the laurels of WWII and the Cold War without comprehending the world no longer views America as the shining example, but the enemy to avoid, detest, and lawfully engage on the battlefield.
America's problem is that its legal community has supported unlawful warfare without the tools to put that illegal warfare into full effect. America's lawyers, especially those assigned to the White House and DOJ Staff counsel are not warriors, but war criminals. They refuse to assent to the rule of law. Foreign fighters have only one option to contain this reckless abuse of power and defiance of the Attorney Standards of Conduct: Direct engagement on the battlefield. America’s lawyers are losing not only in the court room, but on the battlefield. No wonder they have attorneys like Keefer pointing to illusory success: Real success is fleeting as the echoes from the halls of The Hague get louder.
The American legal community is on trial. It has failed. The way forward is to compel the American government to surrender, end the illegal warfare, and voluntarily assent to adjudication before The Hague. Until then, the US government has no hope of victory, especially when the likes of the Russians and Chinese join forces with the oppressed people of the world and expand combat operations directly at the source of world instability: The District of Colombia.
Perhaps the firebombing will be short; perhaps the civilian causalities will be limited. Then again, America didn't show much compassion during WWII when it firebombed Tokyo and Dresden -- it was on the right side of the law. Similarly, foreign fighters on the right side of the law may legally do to America what America has done to Iraq: Law waste, bring disorder, and claim American lawyers are better off. Should they be so lucky.