Constant's pations

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

Monday, February 12, 2007

Fraudulent White House Data Triggers State Plans To Render US Government Officials To The Hague

State officials are moving to implement plans to render to The Hague US government officials who have defied the laws of war.

The US Constitution permits State officials to work with foreign powers when there exists an imminent threat. These discussions are expanding. The rendering plans are moving beyond strategic legal decisions, and moving into operational and tactical considerations.

* * *

The American Vice President and Addington are orchestrating false, misleading, and fraudulent information to Congress. This activity amounts to illegal support for war crimes unreasonably subjecting US citizens to lawful attack by foreign powers.

The Vice President and Addington are unable to point to test plans conducted on the material supposedly seized. Independent analysts, contrary to the White House position, have concluded the material does not come from Iran, but from Ireland.

Of concern are the abusive treatment centers US forces have subjected supposed Iranian personnel, without complying with the Geneva Conventions. It appears Congress has knowingly been given unreliable information gleaned from illegal torture.

The US government's plan to expand illegal, aggressive war amounts to an imminent threat to all US civilians. State Governors and Attorney Generals should be contacted to lawfully prosecute US government officials; and legally raise combat troops to lawfully seize, detain, and render to The Hague US government officials for war crimes adjudication.

* * *

NATO leaders, as the case with European rendition, need to be challenged openly asking how much military hardware they are supplying to the Iraqi resistance and oppose the US war of aggression.

Without changes in Gitmo conditions, US officials allegedly are torturing prisoners in Iraq, and not disclosing to Members of Congress the source and methods used to acquire this dubious information.

All claims about why information was limited are fabricated excuses using convoluted logic which defy reason.

Neda Sudani, a Shiite lawmaker loyal to Sader, says there is "not rock solid evidence" of what is happening. Uncertainty can hardly be the basis for certain fear of a specific event, otherwise required for the President to unilaterally act without Congressional involvement.

The lessons of the Iraq WMD appear to have been lost on the American Congress.

Despite a track records of waging illegal, aggressive war on the back of fabricated, false, and misleading information, the American Congress appears willing to not challenge these false claims.

The DNC siren song that they would bring change is meaningless. Even when they have power, they still accept the non-sense information.

* * *

Members on the Judiciary, Intelligence and Armed Services Committee have complained they didn't have the chance to ask information about the NSA activity, or they were not afforded full, unfettered access to the claims.

The US Administration illegally denied the Congress and Courts information needed to check power, and enforce the law.

Similarly, the Administration with Iran is making the same presentation under dubious conditions.

Members of Congress, rather than speaking out about the flawed oversight and defective basis to provide evidence, have as they did with the Iraq WMD issue, lapped the President's non-sense.

There are basic questions which the leadership in Congress did not ask on the Iraq WMD issues; these are known; and were, in part, the basis for the DNC to win the November 2006 election.

Despite winning the election on the promise of change, the DNC is doing what the Congress did on the run up to the war.

* * *

When considering the Congressional oversight of the dubious Administration claims about the so-called Iranian support for Iraq IEDs, look at the similarities with the Iraq WMD issue:

___ Unnamed officials

___ Secret briefings

___ No information about which staff and legal advisers have been denied access to the information

___ No information about which decisions have been made at these meetings

___ Providing information -- that is false, fraudulent, and misleading -- under the cloak of secrecy

* * *

It is alleged that the Vice President and Addington working with intelligence and defense officials have illegally classified evidence they know, or should know is not reliable not to protect sources, but to dissuade public examination of this information transfer.

This classification of fraudulent information to Congress is illegal. The Executive Orders covering this information transfer prevent the classification of activity that is related to criminal activity: False statements to Congress.

* * *

Indeed, there is no basis for the public or Members of Congress to believe the Administration claims about Iran.

___ Sources have not been identified

___ Other explanations for the source of the IEDs have been unreasonably rejected

___ Technology found in Iraq from Ireland and Pakistan has not been credibly discussed

___ There has been no adequate discussion of the MI5 support for the transfer of this technology

___ There has been no credible explanation why, if these IEDs are real, why the British and Pakistani Government is not being forced by the American to take responsibility for the arms flowing to Iraq

* * *

Putting aside the factual problems and fraud committed by this Administration, even if Iran were doing what is alleged, there is nothing in international law which would provide a legal foundation for the US to attack Iran.

Iran is legally allowed, under the laws of war, to support combatants who wage lawfully war and opposition to the US illegal war of aggression and occupation.

Iran has correctly sided with Russia in opposing the American unlawful war of aggression.

* * *

There is no basis to believe the claims about how the Iranians are involved; nor has there been a credible showing linking the Iranian leadership with the activity in Iraq.

The Members of Congress have openly acknowledged the information transfer from the Administration to Congress is unusually secret.

There is a problem when information supposedly linking one nation with arms shipments is not assigned to someone by name. US government officials when they provide information to Members of Congress, need to have their reputation on the line.

___ Who is the media and public going to prosecute for providing false information to Congress?

If possible, all intelligence personnel would attempt to distance themselves from this fraudulent information provided to Congress to expand an illegal war, raising the prospect the information is unreliable.

* * *

The Vice President and Addington are allegedly complicit with a ruse to wage and expand illegal warfare. Their planning, as was the case with Iraq, is linked with the Joint Staff planning cells disseminating false information to Congress.

As the case with Iraq where US troops were in Kuwait, the US hopes to use the presence of troops in the Gulf as the excuse to use them.

It is incorrect for Congress to rely on the motivation of US troops in the Gulf as the basis to say, as was done with Iraq, that we need to "get this over with" or "we need to put them to use."

We have seen the results with Iraq: Bungled planning, reckless results.

* * *

Put aside for the moment the fraudulent information from the Vice President's poodles. Consider what we've learned about Katrina and Iran planning: This Vice President is reckless, incompetent, and arrogant. He's unwilling to take care of the full list of requirements.

As with Iraq, why should anyone believe that this Vice President and his poodles have considered the full legal requirements under Geneva for the post-Iranian-invasion plans:

____ What information has the Vice President provided to his peers in the Senate about the adequacy of the Iranian post-invasion plans?

___ Where is the checklist the Administration is using to fully implement the Geneva Convention requirements for a post-invasion reconstruction?

___ Why, as did not happen with Iraq, should anyone believe Iranians will do the opposite what Americans refused to do after Sept 2001 -- rally to the cause of the invader and overthrow the attacked government?

The same buffoons which have botched Iraq and Katrina, disseminated false claims about the NSA activity, are doing the same with Iran.

___ Where is Congress?

___ When will Congress put the lessons of Iraq and Katrina on the table, and confront the President?

___ Why are Members of Congress focusing on the 2008 election, but they refuse to do their jobs in 2007: Ending illegal warfare, and challenging this President's defiance of international law.

* * *

The Russians and Iranians, working in concert with their allies, have all but stated they will military launch strikes into the United States if the US continues to expand its illegal war of aggression.

Those attacks are legal.

Members of Congress, because they refuse to check power, have delegated the oversight of the American government to foreign nations. This is a sovereignty issue which played itself out in Yugoslavia. NATO, because Yugoslavia refused to assent to international law, invaded the Balkan nation to restore order.

Other nations around the globe may similarly do the same against the United States.

Unlike the American defenses in WWII which were mobilized before Pearl Harbor, there is no adequate defense mechanism in the US to repel a land invasion; nor are there sufficient resources, troops, and supplies positioned to defend the American continent from a lawful invasion.

These are known risks which the Joint Staff well understands.

Foreign powers view the US as formidable, and unwilling to end illegal aggressive war. As with the Tokyo and Dresden firebombing intended to terrorize and undermine support for the leadership in Japan and Germany, American citizens are at risk of being subjected to firebombing and other military hostilities.

The responsibility for these attacks on American citizens rests with the US Congress that refuses to end illegal, aggressive American warfare.

* * *

One does not build a case for war by starting war; nor does a nation make a case that their government should be respected when it acts in a despicable manner.

America once used to be the shining example on the hill. Now, as other failed states have done, rather than raise to the occasion, the American government is destroying not just the hill it rests, but the values which created the hill.

* * *

The time for talk needs to come to a close. Talking is only enabling war crimes.

The Congress must decide whether it is going to end illegal warfare; or whether it shall be deemed an unlawful combatant. Members of Congress, if they refuse to end their illegal support for this war of aggression may be legally prosecuted for war crimes.

Foreign fighters, under the principle of reciprocity, may legally seize Members of Congress, render them to The Hague, and subject Members of Congress to the same treatment, mistreatment, abuses, and violations of human rights Members of Congress have refused to prevent at Guantanamo, in US prisons, and under the Military Commission Act.

* * *

There is false information floating around to support illegal aggressive war. Doctored information was supposedly a problem. Congress wants to hold hearings on Iraq.

The Americans without an imminent threat, cannot claim there is urgency required. The President has no legal authority to claim that he alone must quickly do something. The US Administration is lying. It is waging illegal warfare. The US leadership, contrary to their oath, is not constraining illegal violations of the US Constitution.

America's government has broken.

* * *

The US leadership is accepting the false, unsubstantiated arguments of the Administration.

It doesn't matter what the intended use of the false information is; the purpose has been achieved: To get Congress talking about the Iranians, and avoid attention on the President for his illegal, aggressive war.

American think tanks have permitted themselves to be used.

___ How much money is going to the Middle East Institute?

___ Who pays the money for the Middle East Institute?

* * *

The timelines and urgency by these unnamed US intelligence officials are not credible. There is no basis to argue that false information is urgent information; nor can the President rely on false information to suggest something immediate must be done.

The public needs to understand:

___ Why was the briefing, supposedly linked with real information, delayed?

___ If there was valid information, why was it not presented 18 months ago when it supposedly was first found?

___ Why should anyone believe any claim that the information and evidence was first obtained 18 months ago?

___ What views in the intelligence community about this fabricated evidence have been suppressed?

* * *

Starting with speculative, false information, one cannot build a case that something is or is not happening; then assign some sort of explanation or intent related to that fabricated event.

Middle East Institute claims that something "could be" related to Iraq is meaningless. Starting from false information to make a conclusion is not a valid argument.

Members of Congress need to be challenged on the logic flaws they were subjected; and ask if they were or were not allowed to take notes.

___ Why, despite the so-called outcry by members of Congress over the highly packaged NSA briefings on FISA-surveillance, is the Congress not refusing to assent to rules compelling silence with rules prohibiting full, open review of the evidence?

___ What was the nature of the dispute within the Administration related to the evidence?

___ Which analysts were pressured by who in the Vice President’s office to pull their punches?

___ Which intelligence analysts have been fired, retaliated against, denied promotion, or otherwise harassed for disagreeing with the false information emanating from the Vice President's office?

* * *

If Iran is doing something, there is no reason to limit the briefing, but open the evidence for full, public discussion.

As with Iraq and NSA, the most likely reason for the refusal to open the briefing is that the information is false, illegally classified, and intended to manipulate Congress to ignore important legal arguments:

___ Is the US planning to expand its illegal war of aggression?

___ How does the US leadership, despite the fabricated evidence and illusory timelines, plan to sustain combat operations against Iran?

___ What is the US plan to manage the legal Iranian and Russian military attacks against the United States should they legally launch counter strikes against the American people to end Member of Congress support for this illegal war of aggression?

___ How many American civilians does the Administration believe are "acceptable" to lose in a nuclear strike by Russia should it deem all other options have failed to end the US illegal war of aggression?

___ What thought has the United States given to the possibility that opposing forces, currently not-aligned, may put aside their differences and form an alliance to lawfully, and military destroy America which refuses to end this war of aggression?

___ Has there been any discussion about the failed Israeli planning in Lebanon and its bungled assessments about Hezbolla; and how these lessons might shed light on what the US might expect to happen in Iran against a more formidable foe, likely backed by the Chinese and Russian militaries?

* * *

Notice what's changed. Despite opening themselves to a briefing, the anonymous intelligence briefers have changed their position. This is important.

Recall, the White House said they had evidence. Fine, put aside the issue that the evidence is false.

The moment that the briefer -- whoever they are -- changes their position on what Iran is or isn't doing, this means there is doubt, uncertainty, other views.

These other views need to be explored. Members of Congress have had their chance.

Unlike Iraq WMD, WE the People need to make adverse inferences:

The changes in the briefing are because despite the promise of anonymity, the briefers are not willing to commit to something they know is not supportable. This is stunning. Let me say that again: Despite anonymity which would remove any attachment to them for the false information to Congress, the briefers are not willing to commit to what the White House is saying.

That is the sign of a major disagreement not just with the evidence, but with the legal arguments. These guys know there is a problem; normally, if guaranteed anonymity, they would continue to lie.

The briefers know that their identify could be discovered, especially when it is shown that they have information that contradicts their position.

Bluntly, in the back of their minds, the briefers appear to believe that they are awakening to the prospect that Congress and the world community will find out one simple thing: The President and Vice President have illegally threatened people with unlawful consequences if they speak about the fraudulent information; and that there could be illegal consequences on Executive personnel if they dare speak about the link between [a] this fraudulent information; and [b] the expanding, illegal aggressive war.

These are war crimes. The briefers know they can be prosecuted. They appear to be hoping Congress does what it is not willing to do: Confront the President.

The responsible thing would be for the analysts inside the CIA, intelligence community, and others to disclose the illegal activity; and share with the public the information that cannot be legally classified.

It is a crime for anyone, including the President, to suppress evidence of illegal activity; or attempt to classify that information with the hopes of avoiding public oversight and knowledge of reckless management and illegal activity. The rules are related to ORCON.

Despite the prospect that individual combatant commanders could be prosecuted and legally executed for war crimes, the American leadership appears to have no reluctance in abiding by the laws of war. This is no different than the NATO charges against Yugoslavia.

All American citizens, as was the case with Dresden and Tokyo, should consider what Members of Congress propose to do: Not confront the President, permit illegal warfare to expand, and expose American citizens to military retaliation.

This government has failed. It no longer is willing to honor its oath; and it is using American citizens as pawns. It cannot be trusted.

The American government is no longer legitimate.

* * *

All the talk about which groups in Iraq or Iran were or were not doing things is irrelevant. This is deliberately confusing to do one thing: Distract attention from the President and Vice President’s war crimes.

The US government officials are not lawful combatants. They may be legally seized and rendered to The Hague. State officials working with the National Guard may legally seize, detain, and render to The Hague all US government officials involved with this illegal aggressive war.

All claims by the Department of Justice and White House that this would amount to an illegal action are not credible. State Governors may legally take military action to defend their state and its citizens against the imminent threat this American government poses to the US Constitution and the States' rights.

All other legal options appear to have been exhausted. Governors may legally under the US Constitution work with other governors and foreign powers to end this US government illegal war of aggression.

* * *

All the attention on what Iran is or isn't doing is a smokescreen from the illegal US war of aggression. The US is acting no differently than Japan.

The US leadership in Washington DC failed. It recklessly bungled the military planning for an illegal war.

It is too late to credibly argue Iran is responsible for US setbacks. The American leadership is and shall be held responsible.

It is fanciful thinking to suggest the American problems of defective, reckless incompetence is the fault of Iran. It is the fault of the US command authority, the President, and the lazy Members of Congress who refuse to do what the voters told them is needed: Change this illegal momentum and restore the American Constitution.

* * *

The Iraqi and Iranian leadership is cooperating. The US is meddling. Iraq is a sovereign nation. The US is interfering with what the Iraqis want to do. This is hardly a US recognition of a democratically elected government.

Without credible fact checking the US leadership could claim anyone was doing what the US doesn't want. This is scapegoating. Even if the false evidence were embraced and used to launch attacks in Syria, Jordan, and Iran, the world community is not likely to believe the basis for the US claims.

Arabs who have not been respected are expected to see their expanded use of unconventional weapons as legitimate. It remains to be seen whether Arabs and Muslims on opposite ends of the political and religious spectrums set aside their differences and oppose their common foe: The United States.

* * *

The US has no basis to say what the Iraqi government will or will not do. The US leadership has brought non-sense, chaos, and confusion. Iran will be hard pressed to bungle as big as the Americans have.

The US should welcome Iran in providing what the US supposedly wants: Order.

* * *

The US has limited the information to prevent Members of Congress from reviewing the evidence and challenging the legal implications.

It is absurd to argue that the disclosure of the facts will cause anyone to do more -- they aren't doing it to begin with.

Where there is a gap between what they say they know, and what they actually show, that gap must be presumed to be filled by fantasy.

The US, as with Iraq, cannot launch combat operations based on uncertainty, especially when many lives are at stake, and the US has no legal foundation.

The intelligence officials who refuse to cooperate with Congress need to be challenged:

___ Why is there a gap between what you are showing and what you believe?

___ What is the basis for the disagreement?

___ How much pressure have you been put under by the Vice President?

___ Which of your careers is in jeopardy if you dare to challenge openly the Administrations false evidence and dubious claims?

___ Why should anyone believe that evidence, as was the case with Iraq, has not been fabricated?

___ What are the intelligence officials going to tell the parents like Cindy Sheehan who lose heir sons and daughters in Iran for yet another lie in this illegal war of aggression?

* * *

We've had forgeries about the Niger Yellow Cake, with complete fabricated shipping documents.

___ Why should anyone believe the US claims about this evidence?

___ How can anyone claim that weapons are or are not linked with Iran, while those weapons have Western markings on them?

___ Which NATO-related countries are providing arms to the Iraqi resistance?

___ Does the US plan to raise these issues with NATO allies, or is that "too sensitive" for anyone to contemplate: NATO allies are opposing the US by supporting military units fighting against the American military illegal war of aggression

* * *

Detainee Treatment

Notice the contrast between what the US does or does not pay attention to; vs. what the US is required to follow -- the laws of war.

___ Why is the US government willing to listen to information gleaned from torture, but unwilling to listen to the law prohibiting illegal aggressive war?

___ What are the conditions of the prisoners supposedly linked with Iran have been subjected?

___ When is the US Congress going to personally visit these detention centers?

___ Why are the prisoners always not available, out "exercising"?

* * *


The analysts and policy makers, as with Iraq, are not on the same page.

The analysts are saying that there can never be any definite link; yet the policy makers, as with Iraq, are saying they have or have not been able to determine something.

___ Why are the analysts saying that physical hardware -- which exists is physical space -- cannot be analyzed to determine its composition, and origin?

___ Why are analysts saying there can be "no smoking gun" but policy makers are contradicting this and asserting they have "determined" something?

This is not acceptable. This does not add up. These are war crimes.

Members of Congress and We the People need to immediately have an independent review of the material in these so-called weapons, have it independently examined, and determine exactly what is going on.

There is no basis to say that the public cannot hear the results. Failure to conduct this open, independent analysis shall be presumed to be evidence of policy-making driving intelligence, a repeat effort of the Iraq WMD issue.

___ If there is "no smoking gun" how was it "determined" that something was or was not from a specific location on planet earth?

___ What was the testing that was done?

___ Where are the photographs of the microscopic images?

___ Which physical tests, comparisons, and analysis were done showing that the material was affirmatively produced in a specific location on planet earth?

___ When was this testing done?

___ Why should we believe the testing was real given [a] the objects were supposedly acquired 18 months ago; but [b] in 2007 there is no agreement whether there is or is not a way to link something -- that may or may not be real -- to a second location?

There is no basis to believe the US intelligence community has approached any material weapons experts; nor have they outlined for Members of Congress the detailed testing plan used to assess these materials.

Saying, "We can't show you that" means one thing -- the analysts and briefers have no idea what they're talking about, are incompetent, and they are stooges.

___ How much money are these "briefers" getting paid?

___ Where did they do their dry runs?

___ What inputs did the briefers get, prior to their presentation, from staff, contractors, and others hoping to indirectly satisfy American public concerns?

We the People need to see the detailed testing plans used to assess this material. These procedures are not classified. They are openly available through ANSI and IEEE.

We need to see the standards used to develop these material tests; and copies of the detailed test plans. Where there is no test plan available, and no evidence of the US having conducted this testing -- as required -- We the People shall presume this is a fraud.

There is no basis to believe anything the US government is saying. It is reckless. It expands illegal warfare. These are war crimes and imminent threats to We the People and all fifty [50] states.

Governors, you should begin mobilizing your troops to legally defend your States and move swiftly to lawfully detain all Members of Congress entering your airspace, or driving through, above, or over your land.

* * *

America alone is the source of the Iraqi chaos. There are not enough troops, which the Vice President was told.

There is no reason to believe, given the lack of information about whether something is or is not real, that there have been tests.

___ Why is a rocket that supposedly "only" comes from Iran linked with Ireland or Pakistan?

___ Where is the test showing that Iranian involvement is illegal; and that the US should not target Ireland or Pakistan for sending supplies?

* * *

The supposed weapons first found in 2004 have been -- wait for it -- around for almost three years. Yet, there is no agreement in Feb 2007 -- prompting the White House to delay the briefing. This means:

1. It's taken almost 1,000 days to fabricate a story;

2. There is no reasonable testing.

Small problem: The entire testing could have been finalized and concluded in a few short weeks, not years! This is total fabrication just like Powell's briefings to the UN.

Given the analysts assessments that there was "no smoking gun" with the unreasonable assertions that something that has been determined, its more likely the analysts doubt the claims about what is or isn’t' going on. There is no basis to say that "only" Iran is doing something.

It doesn't reconcile: Analysts saying that metal work can be traced; while other analysts saying there is no smoking gun. This is impossible. There is or is not something in physical space that the analysts can agree:

___ What is it;

___ Is it real;

___ Was it really captured where it was

___ Could the evidence have been planted

___ How do we know that the US has not captured Iranian equipment and placed the material with the intent to deceive those who "find it"

* * *

It does not make sense for the Iranians to supply munitions while it is discussing the issues with the Iraqi government.

Iran doesn't need to use force: The Iraqi government is more friendly to Iran than it is the United States.

Notice the story changes: In Lebanon, supposedly Iran was supplying weapons; now in Iraq, Hezbollah is supplying weapons.

The US leadership, despite "knowing" about this, has no plan in place to deal with it; more troubling is that this has supposedly been "known" since 2004 -- for almost 1,000 days. That defies reason: The US should have, if this was true, developed a plan; and have coordinated their information about this with the Israelis to defeat Hezbollah. That didn't happen in Lebanon.

* * *

The error is for the Americans to attempt to back Iran in a corner, without considering the real legal implications. Russia and China are on the right side of the law when they assist Iran in opposing the illegal US war of aggression in Iraq and Iran.

The issue is not what the US is doing by way of "raising the stakes" for Iran, but what the reckless US government, through malfeasance, is doing to "raise the stakes" for American civilians.