Constant's pations

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

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

US Atty General Kenneth Wainstein Is A Moron

The US government has yet to fully comprehend the legal consequences for what it illegally started in 2003: The lawful right of foreign fighters to reciprocate and retaliate against the US government for its illegal overthrow of the Iraqi government.

Ref: The laws of war under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation permit foreign fighters to do in the United States what the US government has illegally done in Iraq, in violation of international law: Lawfully move to violently overthrow the government. The error is for Kenneth Wainstein to pretend this lawful option will never be exercised. Combat troops have mobilized and they are on the way.

Ref The errors if for DoJ legal counsel to talk about the rule of law, but to remain silent when there are grave breaches of Geneva. Foreign fighters, whether they are mechanized forces, highly complex, linked with satellites, or using rudimentary explosive devices, may legally retaliate in the District of Columbia against US government facilities, personnel, and leadership.

* * *

The government position is without merit, inconsistent, and contrary to the statutory requirements. The defendant has not engaged in any illegal activity. The prisoner is being illegally detained and charged for activity which is protected, lawful, and consistent with international law.

All prisoners which were of UK origin have been released. There is no basis for the US government to hold people which a US ally has deemed non-chargeable. The prisoners actions, as controversial as they might be, are lawful, protected, and fully permissible under international laws of war.

Prosecution of lawful, protected, and permissible activity should be expected to cause grave, irreparable harm to the United States, especially when it is learned that the defendant is not being treated consistently under international law. The proper approach would be to let a single court -- the ICC -- collectively prosecute or dismiss all the cases. The United States has refused to permit the ICC to adjudicate.

People are allowed to defend themselves and their friends when their lands are under attack. If the US attacks a country, or expands combat operations illegally beyond what Congress alone has the power to declare, the President has no legal defense for his actions; and cannot credibly punish others for defending their friends.

The US government has not shown that the prisoner has done anything illegal; or that he has unlawfully cooperated with specific people the US has identified as unlawful combatants. The US has failed to show that the defendant-prisoner's action are in support of something that is not authorized or permitted under the laws of war.

Contrary to the US government assertions, there is no evidence the defendant-prisoner is linked with an illegal organization. The groups and lawful combatants he is associated with are lawfully entitled to present evidence that they are not, contrary to the US government assertions, affiliated with any Al Queda.

The Islamic Courts in Somalia, contrary to the American government position, are unrelated to AlQueda. The US government has not placed any of the prisoner-defendant's associates on any terror watch list consistent with the publication requirements under the US Codes. Such a list would require Congress and the President to jointly agree. The Attorney General has not complied with the notification requirements as required under statute.

It is irrelevant that the government has secured the prisoner, or charged him with a crime. His activity was lawful, consistent with the laws of war, and not illegal. US laws require a showing that the defendant engaged in illegal activity. When there is international conflict, which the US says it is waging, the US may not then assert the prisoner is outside the laws of war; or not allowed to defend himself and his friends regardless his location.

Contrary to the US government position, the prisoner has not engaged in illegal activity in the United States. Even if he had been, this activity based on US precedent, would not give the US government the power to detain someone for having lawfully engaged in reciprocity. The government may attempt to prosecute, but it is viewed that all legal action, especially given the US government's illegal war crimes, would be unjust and a subsequent war crime warranting further lawful reciprocity and retaliation against the US government worldwide.

The prisoner cannot be charged for activity which is not a crime, is permitted, and the local government has not punished. That one government may have a problem with convincing the United States it is or is not related to international law, does not give the US government the power and authority to intervene, inject its law, and define lawful conduct in one state as being illegal in another.

The US may disagree with the position of the combatant; but this does not grant the US government the power to summarily assert that lawful, protected opposition to military conflict in the form of military actions is punishable. The US government might as well criminalize retroactively the legal opposition George Washington had to the recklessness of the British Government in 1776.

Charging Maldonado with a crime in 2007 is the same as if the French in 1776, dissatisfied with the ebb and flow of the American revolution, injected itself into the North American continent, and resued to permit either local or foreign law to apply. Just as France then and now has no power to compel George Washington to account for his lawful opposition to British Tyranny, the American government has no legal authority to punish one of its citizens for activity they were legally engaged in Somalia: That of lawful defense of another nation and people against abuse, illegal warfare, and other uncivilized conduct.

That the means to that end were less than diplomatic are irrelevant. The means by which lawful activity can occur is not confined to non-violent means when the combatants are lawfully defending themselves and their friends; or taking lawful action protected under the Geneva Conventions: That of humanitarian defense. We might speculate that the prisoner may have had a desire to travel somewhere; but the government's admission places the prisoner outside US jurisdiction in a country where he was legally permitted to wage lawful war against military forces. It is irrelevant that the US government chose to inject itself into that conflict.

The US has no power and legal authority to define how one nation, unrelated to the original AUMF related to Afghanistan, can or cannot manage its internal affairs. The US has no legal foundation to assert that one of its citizens dissatisfied with the illegal US war of aggression in Iraq should or should not assent to acts of aggression by third parties. The proper mode of lawful combat for the US was not the courtroom in Houston, but in Iraq. This was not done.

The US government cannot credibly claim, after having illegally invaded Iraq and overthrowing the Iraqi government, that others attempting to overthrow another government is or is not punishable. Based on the US precedent, the action of foreign fighters to reciprocate and retaliate in overthrowing another government, even the United States, would be lawfully protected under the laws of war. This legal conclusion in no way is a statement on the advisability, merits, or benefits of such a lawful action under international law; and should not be construed as a legal opinion regarding the imminence, benefit, or desirability of such a violent overthrow of the US government by foreign fighters.

The laws of war, when the US violates them, permits all foreign fighters to engage in like behavior. Reciprocity and retaliation against the US or its proxies, as permitted under the laws of war, does not create a separate cause of action. The correct approach was for the US to have not illegally done what it says other may not do.

Maldonado was legally engaged in lawful support, defense, and preparation to defend himself, his friends, and his associates against expanded illegal warfare the US government started when it illegally overthrew the government of Iraq. Whether the US government likes or dislikes his lawful conduct is a separate matter than whether the US government can or cannot enforce the laws of war. The US, because it has substantially violated all laws of war it claims the prisoner may have violated is in no position to enforce any of the charges against the prisoner.

The US might have considered if Somalia or Ethiopia may wish to prosecute the prisoner. However, given the reasonable chance that the identification of the prisoner may result in abuse, the US cannot legally return the Prisoner to either Somalia or Ethiopia. If the prisoner chooses to return, he may and he may recover all costs from the US government for having interfered with his lawfully opposition to illegal warfare.

Dismissed, costs borne by the US government, prisoner shall be escorted out of the courtroom and permitted to make travel arrangements and engage in lawful activity and non-violent revolution inside the United States; and may legally continue his lawful combat training that is designed to protect him and his friends against illegal US wars of aggression worldwide.


* * *


The US cannot credibly argue before the world that the laws which it has ignored and refused to enforce suddenly apply. The US government is selectively picking and choosing whether the laws of war do or do not apply. The President cannot claim Congress has no power to end illegal warfare -- on the grounds that the war is undeclared; then turn around and say the same conflict is international.

Ref There is no connection between the prisoner-defendant's status and the asserted actions. The government has failed to show that the organization the defendant-prisoner was associated was really who the US government says it was. See "original document" at 29/12/06 -- there is no link between the resistance, Islamic courts, and AlQueda. The US Cannot prosecute someone for not being associated with AlQueda, as required under the US Code.

* * *

The Prisoner's Actions Were Lawful, Protected

1 Governing local law in Somalia was clearly established.

Ref The Somali Constitution was adopted May 2001.

2. The government, and all opposition were engaged in an internal struggle, which the US government illegally internationalized by providing false evidence of an asserted link to illegal activity. Asserting criminal activity is not the same as having engaged in illegal activity.

Ref The EU recognizes the Somali government: 17 Jan 2007 -- "EU parliament Chairman for African Affairs Dr. Nico Scholten arrived in Hargiesa" for meetings.

3. Whether the Somali government, Resistance, or other parties do or do not respect American customs is irrelevant. There was a bonafide war of aggression which the prisoner was legally defending, fighting, and opposing using lawful means. It doesn't matter of the US backed the opposition to the groupd the defendant-prisoner was associated. He had the right particpate in legal activity which may include lawful defense of peoples who have been illegally attacked by forces which bring instability, chaose and confusion.

Ref Somali armed forces are permitted to defend Somalia. The US government cannot prohibit this defense, nor interfere with Somalia; nor may the US define who is or is not a lawful combatant in a military confrontation the US government has not legally entered, participated, or involved.

4. The US has no standing to exercise jurisdiction over combat operations related to internal affairs which the US was not legally involved. The proper court for this review is not the United States, but the ICC which has jurisdiction to review whether lawful defense against illegal US wars of aggression are or are not enforceable or a crime.

Ref Note that Footnote 19 specifically states that the Somali Army is a transitional army, manned by irregular forces which defendant is allowed to join and participate; or he was allowed to lawfully engage in defense of others if that government is waging illegal warfare.

___ If this was a problem, why isn't the Somali government prosecuting defendant for interfering with internal affairs?

6. The US government cannot claim there is or is not a central government as the basis for the US government to exercise jurisdiction. Just as the US govermen has failed to regulate its troops and assent to international law; the US has no basis to compel other nations to meet standards of conduct which the US government will not meet. It is irrelevant that the US government, outside the ICC, argues in the kangaroo courts of America that the US has a role in setting an example. US courts are known for their buffoon judges who are incompetent on the law and unable to rise above partisan loyalty. Look at the illegal warfare with the US Courts and Members of Congress have assented to, encouraged, not stopped, and otherwise endorsed. This can hardly be a fair or reasonable basis to suggest others, lawfully defending people and civilians who have come under attack overseas to do something the US government refuses to do: Competently organize itself to assert the rule of law and defend American civilians.

Ref The clans invited the defendant to provide lawful defense against an illegal war of aggression. The US has no jurisdiction to say that permitted acts of defense are illegal; the US, to make this assertion, must assent to the ICC which it does not recognize. The US may not legally assert the applicability of law under international courts which the US ignores. The US cannot say that the Somalis have or have not done something when the US goerment has ignored more fundamental laws.

Ref Feingold Statement on Somalia.

Ref Somali Country Study.

Ref Somali law.

Where there is an illegal war, and that war is broadly waged in defiance of the laws of war, foreign fighters may legally engage in like violations of Geneva. The US has failed to comment on the Somali internal conflict. The US entrance to that conflict, if it makes the conflict international, would bind the US government to fully compliance with Geneva. However, the US government, in violating Geneva, cannot expect foreign fighters to comply with provisions the US is not following.

The US government -- rightfully or wrongly -- has maintained that the US government is operating under the AUMF, and a declaration of war. If this is true -- that the US is acting commensurate with a declaration of war -- then the US cannot prosecute. Congress specifically immunized all fighters when there is a declared war. Ref

The problem the US government has -- is it relates to its FISA, NSA, and rendition -- if the US government has not waged a lawful war; then all charges against the defendant fail because the AUMF after Slept 2001 means the US is at war.

If the US government argues the opposite -- that there has been no declared war, then all defenses the US Attorney has offered to explain away the FISA violations -- on the grounds that it was linked with the CINC orders -- fail.

Maldonado forces the government to commit -- in open court -- whether the US was or was not operating according to the laws of war; and whether the US actions after Slept 2001 were or were not related to a war. If there is a "war" for the purposes of this statute, then the US government will have to explain why the approach to FISA was the opposite: Acting as if there was not a war, and concerned that the FISA court would not permit violations of the Constitution.

However, if there was "no war" -- thereby stripping the defendant of this defense -- then the question becomes: Was the US illegally doing something in Somalia which prompted the required defense which Maldonado put into effect.

Once there is "no war" -- in an effort to attach liability to Maldonado for terrorism -- then the lack of war means Maldonado did not have fair notice and could not be expected to carry his arms openly. The US position, regardless what it takes, will fatally undermine its legal arguments in other areas:

___ Whether the US was or was not at war;

___ Whether that war was or was not legal;

___ Whether the US was legally engaged in combat operations in Somalia;

___ Whether the US can or cannot credibly claim that it has evidence of wrongdoing in Somalia, but claims the opposite in Afghanistan and Iran -- that it has "no time" to safeguard evidence. If its the same war on terror, then the US troops and FBI which are involved in Somalia should have been able to be involved in Iraq, Guantanamo, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and worldwide, along with the required oversight, DoJ Staff counsel compliance with FISA, and the associated implementation of contractor oversight procedures in re FISA, Boeing, Terremark, Abraxis, AT&T, and Verizon.

Translation: This case actually undermines the US legal arguments as it relates to the excuses not to have fully enforced the laws, or punish FBI agents and DOJ Staff for their violations of DOJ OPR standards of conduct and grave braches of Geneva.

This case fatally undermines all US Government legal claims related to FISA, Geneva, war crimes, prisoner abuse, eastern European detention centers, and the other arguments asserting that the US Congress cannot oversee the FISA issues. This case shows that the law can be asserted. It is a separate matter whether, using these rules, the government can prove its case.

Take the broad view on this case:

___ How do the claims by the government in this case related to FISA, AUMF, and war on terror, rendition, and FISA come undone;

___ To what extent are the legal assumptions in this case inconsistent with the fiction Members of Congress have been asked to believe about legality of warfare in Iraq; or whether the US government is or is not linked with illegal warfare in violation of Geneva;

* * *

To charge someone with treason, the government will have to show that the US government's hands are clean. When the US engages in illegal, aggressive war, and unlawfully expands the use of force [a] outside an active combat zone; [b] into a new theater; [c] against a non-affiliated group not on any terrorist list; and [d] fails to show that the defendants actions are unrelated to any illegal defense of another nation, the US government cannot claim treason against the US. Ref

An overt act which is lawful and protected under the laws of war cannot be adjudicated in a court as a war crime or as an act of terrorism. The US is picking and choosing it's legal theory:

___ Was the defendant linked or not linked with a government, group, terror organization that was inside or outside the AUMF used after Sept 2001;

___ Was there was or was not an AUMF which linked US action in Somalia;

___ Whether there was or was not a lawful war;

___ Whether the US was or was not engaged in a lawful war;

___ Whether persons are or are not linked with organizations;

___ Whether the US was inside or outside an active, declared, or lawful combat zone when it engaged in the military operation.

What we really have:

1. The US is arguing for an excuse to punish lawful opposition to illegal warfare;

2. The US is illegally attempting to pretend that post Sept 2001 combat operations, wherever the US conducts them, are legal, regardless the lack of connection to the events of Sept 2001;

3. The US, despite waging illegal warfare, wants to ban all people from lawfully opposing the illegal US government war of aggression as it is spreading beyond the original people associated with Sept 2001 events, but to include anyone the US engages in unlawful combat operations. This is a problem Members of Congress have refused to oversee and mange.

* * *

For there to be a conspiracy, the government has to show there has been illegal activity. The government has not met this burden. Ref

Defendant-prisoner was lawfully engaged in training with an organization not connected with anything on any US government list. It is lawful for US citizens to associate themselves with non-terrorist organizations, especially when the US government has not proven a link between [a] the entity supposedly causing problems; and [b] the intended objective of the defendant in providing defense to a secondary organization. The link must be real, not asserted; and the support must be material, not merely fanciful or imagined.

* * *

___ Why was the Secretary of Defense not consulted by the Attorney General to get assistance? Ref

___ If there was no WMD, as is the standard, under section 2332, what is the basis for the US to be concerned? Ref

* * *

___ Where is there evidence the Attorney General certified, in writing as required by statute, that the alleged action by the prisoner was because of an illegal retaliation? Ref

Where the prisoner engaged in lawful defense of a nation, the prisoner cannot be charged with a crime, especially when there is no finding in writing by the Attorney General that the activity was illegal retaliation.

___ Where is the original lawful action which the US government says occurred?

___ What was the subsequent activity which this prisoner engaged?

___ Where is there evidence that the prisoners activity was illegal?

___ How can the government show that the admitted defense of Somalia is anything but a lawful defense of a government system which provides more stability than the recklessness this US government provides?

Defendant may introduce evidence of the US government's recklessness; and make a fair showing that the system of governance he was defending was marginally more competent than what the buffoons in the Department of Justice have illegally permitted with violations of the laws of war.

* * *

___ The US government's burden is to prove that the defendant knew he was linked with a known terrorist organization. Ref

Being "affiliated" with AlQueda is an assertion which is not consistent with the known problems in Somalia.

It is a separate issue whether the defendant thought he was working with Somalia, and not related to any known terror organization. Based on the frivolous DoJ Complaint which they have not provided, defendant did not believe he was doing anything wrong, nor affiliated with a known terror organization. He did believe, and the government admits, that he was working to defend Somalia, hardly a basis to say he was doing something that he knew was affiliated with a known terror organization on the US list.

No legal standing for US government: The military commissions act does not apply as it was passed after Maldonado traveled to Somalia, engaged in training, and defended himself. US jurisdiction does not cover US citizens who have renounced their citizenship.

US law does not apply in Somalia. The US cannot argue law attaches to all people regardless their place; but do the opposite and argue alleged foreign fighters, under US care, are not subject to US law. The US government does not have military jurisdiction over Maldonado because the US had not lawfully declared war in Somalia.

The US cannot credibly hold Maldonado for crimes allegedly committed before the Military Commissions Act was passed; but not follow the procedures. It is a secondary, but important matter, to review whether those procedures, because they were not legal, can or cannot be enforced.

Bad US laws and reckless disregard for Geneva does not mean Maldonado is guilty or triable.


Get a life.

"The prosecution of Mr. Maldonado demonstrates the scope of our laws and serves as a warning to others who would travel overseas to wage violent jihad," said Kenneth Wainstein, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's national security division.Ref

When you and your buffoon-friends in DoJ start to take the laws of war seriously, and uniformly enforce them, I might take your blabbering about Maldonado seriously.

Despite the Attorney General lying to Congress that your friends in DoJ were "too buy" to process warrants, the DoJ OPR knows they've been stonewalled. Where's your statement on the power of the "laws" and the "warning" his abuse of power? I'm not waiting for DOJ to look around for another excuse.

* * *

___ Which foreign courts have denied US jurisdiction; how did the US Attorney request assistance of foreign powers prior to transporting the defendant to Houston? Ref

Ref US laws only apply to jurisdiction of the United States. Acts committed against powers unrelated to the United States are not under the jurisdiction of any US court, nor subject to any US law. The US does not have the legal power to transport people outside US jurisdiction then charge them with crimes which are outside US jurisdiction.

Ref 18 USC 2339 does not prohibit anyone from receiving training overseas; it only prohibits providing training. As alleged in the complaint, defendant did not provide any training.

* * *

If the US is going to wage, expand, and perpetuate illegal warfare, this does not mean that all people are required to assent to this illegal warfare.

It remains to be proven, contrary to the Somalia warlords, whether a connection to any particular group is or is not real. Somali warlords may or may not be affiliated with Al Queda.

___ Where does the US have jurisdiction to compel other nations to assent to war crimes, illegal invasions, or abusive of government leadership?

* * *

The American Republican is based on the rule of law. That means the Geneva Conventions apply. If you and your peers in DoJ don't want to enforce Article 82 -- requiring that the Conventions be enforced -- that's one thing. But stop your nonsense about the rule of "law" as it applies to Maldonado.

He may be a misguided person, but his heart in the right place: He's trying to do the right thing. Indeed, he may have broken the law. That doesn't justify what he's doing.

But some Americans have more respect for foreign fighters not because they violate the law, but because they dare to do what lazy people like you and your peers in the DOJ refuse to do: Enforce the law against this President.

* * *

There is no clear consensus that the alleged connection with ICU is real, relevant, or probative. Other records indicate that the Somali war lords, contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions by JTTF, were not connected with AlQueda. [Click on "original document" Ref: kw = ( 29/12/06 ) ]

Asserting that Maldonado is linked with AlQueda because he was in Somalia is meaningless. Getting training to fight a war is different than committing a crime which falls under US jurisdiction.

___ Which US troops were attacked?

___ What legal authorization can the US Attorney point to showing that the US of US combat troops in Somalia was lawful?

___ How has the US shown, beyond mere holding the defendant, that the United States, its laws, and courts have jurisdiction over the prisoner?

___ Where are the copies of the video tapes used during the FBI interrogation in Kenya; and why are these not being provided in full to the prisoner?

* * *

Flawed US Attorney Position

"Any who seek to aid terrorists in their mission to threaten our national security will be held to account for such serious criminal conduct," said United States Attorney Don DeGabrielle.

This is not a valid legal argument.

1. National security is not a defendable position like a house. It is imprecise and doesn't mean anything.

2. When the United States violates the laws of war, other nations and foreign fighters may legally engage in reciprocity, and legally threaten Americans.

3. It is not correct to say that "any" are subject to prosecution. The laws of war immunize and protect combatants when they legally engaged in defense of their land.

4. The US president, by waging illegal war, has aided terrorist training and recruitment.

5. The US law cannot prosecution anyone for crimes which were not crimes in 2006. The Military Commissions Act was passed well after the alleged illegal activity.

6. Americans cannot credibly argue for "national security" when that "security" is premised on illegal, aggressive war.

7. Foreign powers, using lawful means, are permitted to provide training, assistance, and weapons to combatants who are engaged in a lawful opposition to American illegal warfare. It is an overstatement to suggest the US Attorney is going to arrest the nation of Iran, China, and Russia.

8. When US leaders and DoJ Staff assent to illegal violations of the laws of war, other nations may reciprocate. It is not lawful nor is it correct to suggest that combat, when lawfully waged as reciprocity, is a serious criminal offense. Rather, it is illegal for the US Attorneys office to attempt to prosecute people using laws which are not applicable, outside US jurisdiction, and cannot be enforced in another nation.

* * *

It doesn't matter what type of legal background you have. What does matter is that you know Maldonado, as misguides as he is, has done what you and your friends in DoJ refuse to do: Act to end what is not Constitutional.

It is an error to wage illegal war; but it is not illegal for Maldonado, as a combatant under the laws of war, to engage in like violations of laws which the US government does not follow. The US government, because it substantially engage in like violations, cannot credibly prosecute someone for having done what the Geneva Conventions permit to be violated under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation.

___ How many US civilian contractors like Maldonado are engaged in illegal violations of the laws of war in Iraq?

Until the US government ends the illegal warfare by all civilians, it may not selectively enforce the against Maldonado. You can try, but foreign fighters are likely to see his prosecution as unjust; and a subsequent absurdity which Geneva permits: Like misconduct in retaliation for the US government misconduct.

___ How are you going to explain Maldonado's prosecution for his voluntary action in Somalia?

___ How is your office going to credibly prosecution only some people, but not all civilians supporting the illegal US war of aggression in Iraq?

The US cannot credibly argue US laws "apply" to Maldonado; but then suggest that, because there are contractors in Iraq, no law applies.

* * *

We need to have an open trial of Maldonado to find out the non-sense DoJ is offering. If there is no open court, it’s like the charges against Maldonado will match the misconduct your office knows full well US civilians are engaged in Iraq.

___ Maldonado is free to go anywhere on vacation;

___ Maldonado is free to take action that communicate he has given up his US Citizenship;

___ He is legally allowed to attend any recreational activity he chooses;

___ The laws of war permit foreign fighters to wage lawful combat against nations and powers

___ The US has no jurisdiction to enforce Somali law in US court rooms.

* * *

The absurdity is for DoJ, despite asserting US law did not apply to persons under US care or were tortured in Syria, suddenly does apply to a conflict the US is illegal engaged.

The Somali warlords offer more security and protection that your buffoon friends in DoJ.

___ How does your office justify denying the applicability of US law to prisoners under US Care; but then turn around and say that the US law -- as absurd as it is -- does apply to Somalia?

___ How do you explain how US law does apply to Somalia; but then argue that the laws of war, which Maldonado is entitled, do not apply?

Maldonado is not required to carry his arms openly. Consider the speed to which his friends were invaded. Under the principle of levee en masse, because the US government acted so quickly, Maldonado could not e expected to carry his arms openly. He is not required, especially when the US government brings chaos to the peaceful people of Somalia.

The warlords offered hope, organization, and security. It may not have been perfect, but it does appear to be slightly more competent than the legal non-sense you and your peers in DoJ have permitted to be raised as the standard for the world when it comes to illegal warfare, evidence destruction, war crimes, and other grave breaches of Geneva.

Once the President agreed to quickly and secretly do something without Congressional involvement, and he swiftly moved in Somalia, this mean that that Maldonado was not required to comply with standards which may have been applicable had the President lawfully gone to Congress and gotten a declaration of war.

The error is for the President to argue he must move quickly; but then deny the defenders of Somalia their option to, with such speed, to not carry their arms openly as permitted under Geneva.

DoJ will have to prove that Maldonado was not a lawful combatant; and that he was not legally doing something anyone who was surprised with this unannounced aggression was doing.

If Kenneth Wainstein were on vacation in New York, and the US was attacked without warning, but Kenneth Wainstein had specialized training that he learned, would Kenneth Wainstein be right or wrong to not put into effect his training?

The answer is clear: Kenneth Wainstein is a trained lawyer, but does not appear to be fully putting into effect his legal training when it comes to the laws of war or DOJ OPR reporting standards. Unlike Maldonado who took action to fully assert himself, Kenneth Wainstein appears to have rolled over and assented to tyranny. Hardly inspiring public confidence.

Kenneth Wainstein and Maldonado: Two men trained. One decides to do something; the other decides to remain a poodle for the alleged war criminal in the Oval Office.

___ Who inspires more confidence that something can be done?

___ Who is more loyal to solutions?

___ When the law fails, where does Kenneth Wainstein plan to go next: Maldonado gave him the answer -- combat.

* * *

Maybe when you put together a straight story for the Judiciary Committees why your peers who use the DoJ computers for non-official business, when the Attorney General said you were "too busy" to do your jobs on FISA -- I might take your statements about the rule of law seriously.

Until then, go talk to the DOJ OPR about what you know:

___ Which of your peers is getting training on how to obstruct justice and not respond to Congressional inquiry into war crimes, illegal rendition, and other violations of the laws of war?

___ Please provide memoranda, policy memos, and other documents showing which personnel in the DOJ have crafted memoranda that support illegally asserted non-delegated powers by the President?

___ Which of your peers has illegally classified evidence of Attorney Misconduct using classification procedures?

___ Is there a reason that your peers are hoping to obstruct FOIA requests related to getting information about illegal DoJ Staff conduct?

___ When was the last time you had a good talk with the DoJ OPR about the attorney standards of conduct?

___ What's the plan of DoJ to prosecute the President for war crimes, illegal invasion, and unlawful use of NSA resources prior to Sept 2001?

* * *

In my personal opinion, you're an idiot and moron for one reason: You expect American citizens to lap up your non-sense about the rule of "law" while your peers in DoJ show open contempt for Geneva.

There are two solutions to this legal compliance problem within DoJ. One is through the courts; the second is on the battlefield.

American citizens are not allowed to wage war; but they are allowed to delegate power to foreign fighters to wage lawful combat against the US illegal war of aggression.

The error is for DOJ to stifle legal oversight, but pretend that foreign fighters, relying on Geneva, cannot assert power. You are mistaken.

* * *

The legal profession is America is defective. Attorney like you, in my personal opinion, are defective, reckless, and unreliable. Your peers do not do what they're supposed to do; and the legal standards applicable through DoJ OPR have not been enforced.

Your job is to decide whether you and your peers in DoJ want to more visibly enforce the law against the President; or whether the President and Congress, facing no legal consequences of illegal activity, have to be lawfully checked using combat.

Let's reconsider what you wrote, and apply it to DoJ, Members of Congress, and the President:

The prosecution of Mr. Maldonado demonstrates the scope of our laws and serves as a warning to others who would travel overseas to wage violent jihad

Rewritten, it could read:

The prosecution of Mr. Maldonado Members of Congress, US government officials, DoJ and White House Staff counsel demonstrates the scope of our laws and serves as a warning to others who would travel overseas to wage violent jihad attempt to defy their oath of office

___ What is the plan, Ken, to prosecute Members of Congress for 5 USC 3331 violations?

___ How much illegal warfare are you, Ken, going to tolerate?

___ Where is your demonstration that you have fully asserted your Article 82 requirements under Geneva?

___ Why is memoranda, not protected by privilege, being crafted to illegally asserted non-delegated judicial and legislative powers?

___ Why is the DOJ Staff complicit with war crimes?

___ How many foreign fighters, denied court access, are required to wage lawful combat operations against the Department of Justice and US Congress to get the American public interested in the rule of law?

* * *

Maybe Mr. Wainstein and his lawyer friends can talk about the legal options other powers have to check the illegal assertion of US government power. Where the US Congress and DoJ Staff refuse to do their jobs and not punish illegal activity, perhaps DoJ has an explanation why there is little confidence in the American legal system.

Justice cannot credibly be called something of interest when the US Congress, DoJ, and US Attorneys are complicity with violations of Geneva. Illegal procedures are not legalized by Congress. When habeas was denied, that was done illegally.

* * *

When there are war crimes and DoJ Staff complicity with that illegal activity, it's not hard to prosecute DoJ Staff counsel. The laws of war permit foreign fighters to wage lawful war, and directly target DoJ Staff if they are complicit with Geneva violations.

State disciplinary boards have the resources and access to the internet to review DoJ Staff counsel names and find which DOJ Staff have not correctly, as required, provided information of peer misconduct to DOJ OPR. The memoranda cannot legally be protected when it is related to unlawful activity, especially when the decision is outside the Executive Branch authority, and the classification of that memoranda is not linked with a bonafide public service.

DoJ Staff memoranda which is linked with the illegal assertion of judicial or legislative power is not protected by a "legislative and judicial privilege." DoJ cannot legally suppress information related to the President's signing statements, especially when the President has illegally asserted non-delegated powers. There is no precedent which allows a usurpation of power, regardless the fantasy of your peers on the Staff, to become precedent.

* * *

You can whine all day long about the misguided people like Maldonado who have their hear in the right place -- the desire to do what is right -- but they didn't realize they were violating the law.

You, on the other hand, have fatefully made your name known; and have freely associated yourself outside court with legal opinions. Your comments outside court are not protected.

They may be introduced to The Hague as evidence of a double standard.

Congratulations, your name is on the list of alleged defendants for war crimes. It appears you are in a position to know what is going on; and you are making assertions about the law; and you would have We the People believe that the rule of law is important.

Fine. Let's see some results:

___ Meet with DoJ OPR and provide an affidavit on what you know about illegal warfare;

___ Provide information to the DOJ OPR on the memoranda your peers in DoJ have issued assenting to illegal warfare and Article 82 violations;

___ Prosecute Members of Congress for their failure to assert their oath on issues of war crimes in Iraq;

___ Provide an explanation why you and your DoJ friends are not prosecution alleged violations of Title 28 and Title 50, which compel reporting to Congress of illegal activity, but which has not been done.

If you lead the charge to prosecution Members of Congress, work with The Hague, and see that the President, Vice President and DoJ Staff counsel are lawfully prosecuted for war crimes, I might take your concerns about Maldonado seriously.

Until then, you appear to be making excuses for war crimes; and do not appear to be fully asserting your oath of office. These are serious allegations which the German and Italian war crimes prosecutor, working in concert with The Hague, may find very interesting to examine.

* * *

Here's the deal: If the US government and your friends in DOJ continue to support illegal warfare, foreign fighters -- known to Maldonado -- may reasonably reciprocate for the likes violations of Geneva.

Any prisoner abused at Guantanamo, but your office did not stop, as required, may be the basis for the friends of Maldonado to lawfully target, punish, and abuse.

Anyone who is mistreated in any prison camp, but your friends refuse to fully enforce Geneva, the friends of Maldonado may legally capture, detain, and punish in a like manner.

IF you and your friends in the DoJ do not like Maldonado, then you should stop writing memoranda which assent to illegal warfare; and stop avoiding the DOJ OPR office when you learned of illegal memoranda.

Tell your friends in DoJ to stop using the internet for unofficial purposes. It really makes your boss -- AG Gonzalez -- look that much more stupid when he lies to Congress that you and your friends were "too busy" to follow FISA; but the open records show that your DoJ friends were goofing off on non-official business.

* * *

War crimes are a very serious things. Maldonado may legally argue, as the Nazis, did that because the US sent illegal fighters abroad, others may legally do the same. Does this mean that foreign fighters, because the US DoJ Staff is unhappy, will stop doing what they're doing? Of course not.

Every time the DOJ Staff assent to more excuses for illegal warfare, the more foreign fighters will be emboldened to wage lawful warfare. It remains to be seen how quickly the foreign fighters are dispatched, and decide to lay waste to the District of Columbia. Wouldn't that be funny: For your office, not far from the Potomac cess pool, to be engulfed in the flames of law and order foreign fighters are lawfully allowed to impose in response to war crimes.

Again, this is not a statement that implies that you are under any physical threat; or that your office is being targeted. Rather, it's just an acknowledgement letter: Go ahead and prosecute Maldonado -- there are more on the way and they may legally wage war in the District of Columbia and destroy the US government -- one that puts itself above the law that you supposedly say must be enforced.

Here's a hint: When you enforce the law against all, people won't have to take to the battlefield to impose more combat losses on troops which your reckless President and buffoons in the Congress have illegally directed to expand illegal warfare.

If you're serious about ending illegal activity, spend more time with the DOJ OPR and clean up the mess in the American Bar Association.

Until then, Maldonado and others are likely to become the rallying cry for more foreign fighters to wage war; and for the world community to lawfully oppose what the DoJ Staff and you appear to be complicit with: Grave breaches of Geneva.

* * *

NATO took it upon itself to wage war in Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia’s government ignored the laws of war. Similarly, the US government, by ignoring the laws of war, may be lawfully targeted.

You are lawyers. You are not a lawful combatant. But lawyers who refuse to end what is illegal, especially you who has the power to resign, may be viewed by some like Maldonado to be unlawful combatants. Your government says that prisoners may be abused; similarly, all DoJ Staff like you who might be lawfully captured may or may not be treated with the same respect or disrespect you show Maldonado.

When you talk about a "warning to others" look in the mirror. Your oath office does not allow assenting to illegal warfare, especially when your attorney standards of conduct prohibit the Constitution being left in this inferior state.

* * *

___ Why should we believe Maldonado's statements were voluntary?

___ Did Maldonado understand what he was doing?

___ Is Maldonado a real person?

What's interesting is how concerned the DOJ Staff is about what Americans are or are not doing in Somalia; but that concern is not the same for the Members of Congress and DoJ Staff who recklessly ignore the laws of war and assent to illegal warfare.

___ What specifically prohibits Maldonado from going on vacation in Somalia?

___ Are you saying that Maldonado is not able to express his opinion about the reckless US government action which defy the laws of war?

___ Why is it impermissible for someone to go on vacation to Africa; but US combat troops can lay waste to a country in Iraq?

___ Why does the US government get to illegally undermine the Iraqi government; but the DOJ Staff is silent when the White House undermines the Constitution?

___ Which laws prohibit or allow US citizens to like yourself to learn how to undermine the law, or thwart Congressional oversight?

___ When were you trained how to manufacture a legal argument to undermine Congressional power, and destroy the Constitution?

___ Did you attend training inside DoJ on methods to destroy, undermine, and thwart Congressional oversight?

___ How long were the training sessions related to this illegal objective?

___ How long have you and your friends in DOJ engaged in illegal rebellion against the US Constitution?

___ Did you learn to undermine the Constitution using training videos; or were the power point slides something you flipped through walking across the street?

___ Do you have any plans on resigning?

___ How well did you know Bybee?

___ Are you a friend of Addington, Gonzalez, Yoo, or Stimson?

___ Have you ever been to Starbucks with DoD's Hynes?

___ Do you think FBI agents are retarded?

* * *

Kenneth Wainstein: Tell your friends in DoJ that you're stupid. When you get serious about enforcing the law against all, I might believe you're willing to take responsibility for the FISA violations, and the reckless disregard for Geneva your peers have down.

Until then, We the People delegate to foreign fighters the power, authority, and right to lawfully target you and your peers as unlawful combatants; and you may be legally captured and rendered to The Hague.

If you have any problems, think of Maldonado. Then you'll understand why there are more combat losses, and warfare is being waged in the District of Columbia: The US government refuses to assent to the rule of law. It is only through people like Maldonado that the US government is getting a wakeup call: When you abuse power, there are legal consequences.

Maldonado's error was in doing what others are already planning. Russian troops, Cuban air forces, Iranian special forces, and other nations are preparing to wage combat outside your office.

Keep it up, Kenneth Wainstein. The rule of law shall prevail, especially as it is applied by foreign powers to the likes of the DOJ Staff and US Attorneys who are recklessly ignoring the laws of war, and not fully asserting their oath of office.

People like Kenneth Wainstein want the world to believe that America is serious about the rule of law. We'll see how serious Kenneth Wainstein when The Hague is the platform; and the charges are DoJ Staff alleged complicity with grave breaches of the laws of war.

Congratulations Kenneth Wainstein. You're a lawful target for war crimes prosecution.