Spat Over Pelosi Security Fatally Undermines DoJ and DoD Legal Defenses

Illegal Interference By DoD in Congressional Operations

Take the broader view of the DoD-White House spat over Pelosi's security: The event sheds light on problems for the Executive Branch's legal defenses in many areas. [Implications: Illegal DoD disclosures of classified WRM resource constraints. ]

* * *

Ref DoD is impermissibly interfering with domestic politics, but is silent on its so-called area of expertise: War crimes. It is an error for DoD to move into the wrong lane, and leave a mess where it refuses to engage in oversight.

This is an issue of separation of powers. We the People may use this open information to make adverse inferences. These issues are not issues of politics, but of power. DoD and the White House have fatally crossed into the exclusive turf of the Congress: The sole power to raise and support an army.

This isn't adding up. The President and DoD cannot claim this is a new era of security concerns warranting national sacrifice, but in denying the leadership of the needed security to meet the so-called threat. [ Sgt At Arms Statement ]

* * *

Security for Pelosi is an important issue, especially when the Vice President claims the world hasn't woken up to the new threat. Addington and the President, once again, show they are picking and choosing their facts and arguments. This is not a credible defense.

The White House and DoD's spat with Pelosi on security should be contrasted with the Vice President's claims about 9-11 and the "new paradigm." DoD refusal to embrace the new paradigm -- the post 9-11 world -- can be seen for what it is: Inconsistent arguments about the threat, duties, and responsibilities of US government officials. The inconsistency sheds light on problems with the Vice President and Addington's legal defenses in many areas.

Notice the contrast and inconsistency. DoD shows no interest in laws of war, but in illegally interfering in domestic politics. These are unfortunate indicators DoD is not adequately assenting to its role as a poodle for civilians.

Larger Oversight Issues: A Hearing Is Warranted

This trend and evidence is admissible. Of interst to war crimes prosecutors: How easily DoD and White House staff will coordinate on a legal issue; but then absurdly claim they had no time. It is appropriate to gather evidence related to this activity and present it to We the People:

___ To what extent has DoD drifted into illegal civilian oversight issues?

___ Why is DoD interfering with another branch of government?

___ What others things is DoD planning to do to harass, annoy, not cooperate?

___ Does DoD understand that Congress alone has the sole power to raise and support an army?

___ What language in the Constitution is DoD relying on to say that Congress, despite having the sole power to raise and support an army, can defy the Congress?

___ What other things does DoD plan to do to defy the institution that has the sole power to provide funds for the Military?

* * *

Recasting DoJ Legal Defenses on FISA In New Light

DOJ's argument in the FISA violations was that it "didn't have time" to get warrants. Strange, this leadership does have the time to ignore the laws of war, and focus on issues outside their narrow power.

America's leaders have time for things they want to do. Whether they have time or not to enforce or follow the law is irrelevant. It is a requirement.

Make the time, or do the time.

* * *

Last time I checked, the Iraqi insurgency and Taliban were running circles around the buffoons in DoD engaged in illegal warfare. Put aside the 5100.77 Laws of War program, and indictments against DoD miliatry commanders in Germany.

This DoD Joint Staff has not only bungled a military operation, but's assented to illegal warfare. What does it do? Rather than ficus on its complicity with war crimes, its shifting focus to the Speaker of the House.

* * *

Insurgents are actively targeting US civilian and military personnel around the globe. DoD, when it refuses to ficus on illegal warfare, sends a clear signal: Foreign fighters may legally target the GOP, Joint Staff and others.

The error is for the GOP and Pentagon to politicize a security issue. Supposedly we are at war, and the Vice President requires security. When the President travels he has enough fuel. Pelosi, under advisement of the Sergeant at Arms, needs transportation.

If Pelosi isn't going to get the support she needs from the DoD, then I expect all funding for the Vice President's office to be shut down. No more flights, nor more excuses, and no more handwaving.

* * *

Time to put the spotlight on DoD:

___ Why is it interfering with security requirements

I want to know by name by close of business today the name of the DoD and White House staffers who have worked this security issue for Pelosi. I do not expect them to interfere with the Sergeant at Arms. If DoD does not want to provide the security, then DoD does not need the money. Inadequate security for Pelosi means no money for DoD or the Vice President.

* * *

It remains to be understood whether the White House has instructed the DoD to harass Pelosi, or use this security issue to distract attention from the DoD war crimes.

DoD in the Watada case is arguing that there must be unity of command and discipline:

___ Why is DoD permitting itself to be seen as a political instrument on issues of the Speaker's security requirements?

___ Does the Executive Branch understand that it is not seen as part of a solution, but this non-sense over Pelosi's security is seen for what it is: DoD having two standards: One standard on laws of war [ignore them]; and a separate standard on politics [illegally interfere].

If DoD doesn't want to provide the security, then all funds which DoD might use related to that security needs to be withdrawn. The paperwork and coordination needs to go through the White House staffers and GOP who are mucking around on this issue.

Congressional spring budget review is at hand. THe last thing DoD can afford while being in a legally independable place on war crimes is to annoy the DNC leadership the President is attempting to manipulate.

Informed citizens are fully capable of doing the following:

- Raising reasonable questions and doubts about the independence of the Military;

- Make adverse inferences to what extent the White House Staff is creating smokescreen against war crimes;

- Explore to what extent the DoD and White House through the GOP are engaged in a deliberate effort to annoy, harass, mislead, and not adequately manage duties and responsibilities they claim they are uniquely qualified.

* * *

If DoD and the President are going to argue for unity of command and a unitary theory of government, then we need to have a unified effort to consistently apply rules to all people. If the DoD refuses to do what it should, then the UCMJ and US Codes should be aggressively compared with the DoD Staff conduct:

___ Who is impersmissibly ignoring the laws of war, but putting unreasonable attention on this matter.