Geneva vs. Executive Branch: Second by Second Timeline
Fatal to the Department of Justice's current non-sense-excuse is the small problem of Hamdan. This established that Geneva was a requirement.
At the other ends of the spectrum is the timeline the White House Counsel, DoJ Staff, and DoD General Counsel's office have.
We know the two do not match: Despite Geneva, the Supreme Court concluded that the Hamdan case showed there was a requirement. The President changed his position, moving prisoners.
During a war crimes investigation, once a defendant like the President is publicly rebuked, and that defendant responds to attempt to change his position, then all evidence and communications related to that decision are subject to discovery.
Here's a problem the White House has with the US Attorney firing. The E-mails show that the asserted timeline does not match the actual timeline.
Second, we also know in light of Hamdan that there were coordinating messages between the White House, DOJ Staff, DoD, and the outside contractors.
Attached to each computer is a specific data storage system. This is called a baseline. Every time a person uses the computer, does anything, shut down, or exits the White House, that movement is tracked as a discrete data point.
This information has been collected outside the White House knowledge and is secure. There's nothing the White House counsel, DoJ Staff, outside counsel, or alleged war criminals can do to affect this date.
Here's the problem for the White House: They have a war crimes issue on their hand; their legal counsel has been discredited; outside counsel has publicly commented on issues which confirm counsel knew of the prisoner abuse; and the Geneva Conventions. These are fatal disclosures.
It doesn't matter what the content of the e-mails are. The issue is that each time the White House, DOJ Staff, and DoD General counsel coordinated with legal, public affairs, and the political offices, this created a discrete timeline that cannot be changed. This is the real timeline.
Small problem: To defend themselves, the White House has to explain the existence of the known communications before the Hamdan ruling; and make a case that they were fully complying with the law.
As Addington has admitted, once they change their position, this is fatal.
Congress needs to go second by second on the timeline related to all communications attached to the Eastern European detentions. Hamdan is the means by which the public, Congress, and others can engage in expansive inquiry into these required communications.
Contrary to some assertions, the communications related to this illegal activity is not protected by privilege. Rather, because the activity was related to illegal prisoner abuse -- which outside counsel have confirmed they knew about but failed to prevent -- then this means that every document relating to this Hamdan related adjustment is subject to review.
They key for now isn't the content of the e-mail, but the timeline of communications:
___ Who said what
___ Where were they physically located in the White House
___ What time did they enter the White House that day
___ What physical actions did they take on that day
They can only be in one place at one time.
Here's the problem: To organize a prisoner transfer, there is a known volume of communication. This coordination exceeds what the White House counsel's office can do.
That's where the outside communications enter the nexus. Once the contractors affiliated with this illegal planning are identified -- which they can be given war crimes discovery is expansive -- the White House will have to explain which physical contract they used to direct this contractor to support this war crimes planning.
The timelines are set. The data has been archived. The law is clear.
The way forward is to examine the core legal question confronting this President: War crimes under the Geneva conventions.
Either staff counsel can explain their conduct and they are innocent; or they have been involved with the war crimes planning. One or the other.
Attached to each e-mail is an e-mail identification code. This is logged. Thos who access the information are known. Those who read the e-mail can be identified. Subsequent e-mails can be traced.
Everything that the NSA supposedly can do with any e-mail attached to Verizon or AT&T can be done to the White House, NSC, contractors, DoJ, and DOD. It is the same system. Contractors designed and installed the same equipment.
When the personnel in the White House, DOJ, DoD, or any contractor interface on an issue, that particular person is only in one position.
We can eliminate from the list of people involved in the illegal war crimes planning no one. Rather, the issue is how do the e-mails sent compare with the known activity personnel were involved.
Even if we do not know for sure what e-mail is linked with which subject; we can second by second churn through all the DoD, DoJ, and White House data to get a second by second timeline of what was going on; who was where; and which communication systems were being used.
At the same time, information outside the US Government control can be brought into the nexus to compare whether there are any gaps in the information; then review where the people were physically and electronically. They can only be in one position.
The problem for the White House is that they are asserting that certain things did or did not happen with the US Attorneys. There were either meetings or there were not; and there were either e-mails or there were not. There are no other options.
The problem is that the computers they have used were not doing what they were supposedly doing: Personnel who had "no involvement" were attached to a specific function at that time. What the computers were doing is irrelevant; the issue at this point is that the communications system was linked to something specific, discrete, and finite.
The only way the White House can argue that specific personnel like Rove, Gonzalez, and the President were not actively discussing the US Attorney firings is if they were doing something else.
This is the problem. The data communication systems do not show the same timeline that the White House wants Congress and the public to believe. That is their problem to explain.
Every communication related to the Hamdan response can be similarly charted, tracked, and organized.
Then it becomes the responsibly for the White House to explain what they were doing; which e-mails link with which tasks; and which tasks were or were not related to the US Attorneys.
Here’s the issue: Once Rove raised his question: "What about the US Attorneys", we know there had to have been a meeting, some sort of pre-planning, and a follow-up memoranda. The issue is that there are gaps, indicating that the communication system that they’ve used is not consistent with their legal requirements to retain all data.
Also, once Hamdan was issued, all open source information related to each person associated with that discussion is fair game: If they were not discussing Hamdan, then they have to explain which project they were working on; which contract they were billing their time to; and which specific Congressional authorization that activity is connected to.
They can only be in one place at one time.
The magic answer is simple: Each of the contractors involved with the post-Hamdan response has a specific contract linking them, their data deliveries, and all work to a specific contract.
Take Abraxas. They are a firm that provides cover stories for CIA agents. They are on contract with DoJ. Abraxas doesn't know it, but inside their messages is discrete spaces, times, and things: Only one thing happens at a time. There is a finite timeline that Abraxas really worked on.
TO support the White House version of events, there had to be a second timeline, which the DoJ Staff, White House counsel, and DoD would have to coordinate.
The problem is this: Because they were not really doing what they say they were doing, the personnel were working on other things. The outside monitoring system can show exactly what they were really doing; and then show you which volume of work they were doing. This will give you an idea of the pool of evidence that they have not provided, but is related to war crimes in re prisoner abuse, rendition, and the other Hamdan related violations.
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Super computers can be assigned to do this task. AT&T and Verizon well know that their computer system can be subject to audit, sampling, and review.
There’s a faster way to do this: Each time a specific computer and person interacts, there is a record kept outside NSA control. This is with the foreign intelligence services. You can talk to the NSC about their known concerns.
Foreign intelligence has been tasked with the responsibly to use this open source information, identify the open evidence of war crimes, and show which White House counsel, DoJ Staff, and DOD personnel were involved; and what they were really doing.
One example of this is the Attorney General’s claim that he didn't have enough time to process FISA warrants. Small problem: DoJ Staff counsel records in the building show who was goofing off, who was not doing official business, and who was really doing paperwork related to warrants.
The same system also links to the contractors, intermediaries, and subsidiaries assigned to process the warrants.
Here's the issue: DoJ IG and DOJ OPR have found evidence that despite goofing off, DoJ Staff counsel were not doing their job and violating the law; but they would have us believe that they were doing something else.
The burden is on the US government to show what they were really doing.
Each of the warrants required has a known workload requirement to support that warrant. Staff and intermediary contractors have to spend x-amount of time doing this processing. The contractors were either doing what they were getting paid to do; or they were doing something else.
Here’s the issue: Despite the so-called workload that Gonzalez says they could not perform, DoJ Staff and outside counsel were really doing something else: Not processing FISA warrants.
This opens up the expansive discovery into the time cards which personnel have to submit under US government contractors. Each contractor doing business with the US government has a government plant representative. These are very important people and they annoy the contractors to no end. They are doing their job.
Within their authority is the ability to do something called audits. This is a system of sampling. They look at a portion of the data, and make conclusions about the most likely picture. Their audit sampling increases when there are more indicators of fraud.
We also know the President and Attorney General punished US Attorneys who attempted do their job. Attached to each federal contact is a statement related to legal compliance. If the auditors assigned to the defense-justice contractors were not able to do their job; or they were thwarted from gathering this information, then this is documented.
US government contracts cannot claim "Classification" requirements when the primary purpose of that activity is to hide illegal activity. This violates ORCON.
The problem is that the open communications known outside NSA do not match the timelines the White House says must have existed to support what their version of the story is.
Also, the contractor data, e-mails, and communications are not consistent. The workloads supposedly required to do what Gonzalez says they were doing do not match the real activity. DoJ IG confirms this with the FBI reckless disregard for the NSL processing requirements; and the failure to follow-up and provide the documentation.
This may seem like paperwork, but this is very important evidence. Once the Hamdan ruling was issued, it is possible to trace the spike in communications between the White House, DoJ, DoD, and the intermediaries and contractors involved with implementing the repositioning.
It is not classified. IT is evidence of war crimes planning. Either the data exists; or it does not exist. If the White House, DoJ, and DOD personnel assigned to this tasking were really doing something else, then the question is: Who was really coordinating the response.
All personnel assigned to this Hamdan response can be traced. They were or were not doing what was required under the Geneva Conventions.
Each position is linked to a specific contract. Each contract has an audit term which is either performed; or it has been illegally not done.
Once DoJ, White House, and DoD counsel coordinate with the contractors, then that established the timeline for what really happened.
The problem the White House has is that they do not have enough time to reconstruct the timeline, hide the evidence linked with war crimes, but present the information that is benign.
They've made errors. In the most recent submittal they've included classified information related to specific names who have an adversarial relationship. This information is a nugget which attaches to additional links of questions:
___ Who did the review of the e-mail
___ Why was this information not redacted
___ Who was this person coordinating their review with
___ What procedures did they use to screen or not screen the data
___ Do they have a reason why they are disclosing litigation related information
___ Once the error was fond, what do we know was not done by way of quality control, checking, and reviews
If they weren't doing anything wrong, then they could immediately provide a timeline without any inconsistencies.
However, because they were doing illegal things -- not processing FISA or NSLs per instructions, but goofing off on non-official business -- then there needs to be a review for what the US government and We the People really got for the funds that were paid to that contractor, employee, attorney, or Executive.
The US government's job is to assent to all discovery requirements that the DoD, DoJ, and NSA inspector Generals place.
___ What is the timeline
___ What were was scheduled
___ What was accomplished
___ Who said what to whom
___ Which legal requirements were getting met
___ Which tasks were or were not consistent with the contract requirements
___ What are the known DoJ, White House, DoD, and outside contractor use of official and business related machinery, but how was this machinery not consistent with what they were being paid to do.
Using time motion studies it is possible to review the e-mail times, then calculate the estimated work and other things that was getting done; then compare that with the contractor's payments and physical results. Where there are gaps or inconsistencies, then that becomes the basis for inquiry:
___ Why is this government entity with X-requirement under FISA unable to produce Y-warrants; but they've slotted Z-amount of time for this task: The time cards do not add up; the physical results they assert they are getting paid to do does not match; and the timelines of what they say they were doing are at odds with the timelines required to fully comply with the law and Geneva conventions.
The White House counsels' office, DoJ Staff, DoD General Counsels, and intermediary contractors are stuck:
1. The legal requirements they had are associated with a most likely workload;
2. The performance they work at can be calculated based on their communication, message output, and document deliveries
3. Their lead times for planning can be overplayed with the most likely time to do a given task
4. The differences between [a] contract requirements; [b] most likely times; [c] reported timelines; and [d] physical outputs can be compared do the known information which remains outside their control.
Open source information and other methods which the NSA is unable to detect show the disparity is wide.
A. Contract payments are not consistent with the reported output;
B. The White House timelines of who was or was not involved do not match the real timelines of what was really getting done, or who was responding to messages
C. The outside communication hubs can be estimated, identified, and tracked.
To respond to Hamdan the CIA, NSC, and DoD had a finite set of communications to implement orders, organize personnel movement, and physically do something.
These are coordinated with contactors who handle the scheduling. Either there is a schedule or there is not; from a given airport there is an aircraft, or there is not; from a given facility there is either a person buying something with cash, or they are not.
DoD also has overseas entities which are cover. These are publicly adversarial entitles which are created by DoD to openly attack the US, and fit in. Some of these have swayed and are outside DoD direct control. Contractors are working at these.
Based on the workload to perform this White House planning for the Post rendition recovery, there is a finite workload that has to be accounted for. If it doesn’t attach to the US government it is assigned (by default) to the overseas DoD-affiliated entities which are in deep cover.
These can be identified. The entity is under US government indirect control. They appear to be openly hostile. They are there for a reason: They are advance warning.
They must decide whether now is when they will let themselves be put to use; or whether they will be the object of armed attack by foreign fighters. Geneva permits foreign fighters to wage war in retaliation for war crimes.
If the US government does not wish these overseas entities affiliated with the US government to be attacked, now is the time to reconsider your timelines.
The easy way is to cooperate with the discovery. The hard path, and less desired, if for the US government to do nothing to cooperate; and then play stupid while the overseas entities are knocked off one by one.
The longer this President delays, the more overseas allies will be targeted; the more the DoJ Staff refuses to end its rebellion, that's one more formerly associated US government entity in deep background that will be lawfully destroyed under the Geneva Conventions.
The American government is outnumbered. The DoD, DoJ, and White House Communications have been compromised. And then there's the small problem with subpoenas. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.
Either the US government gets this right, or foreign fighters under the Geneva Conventions will be lawfully delegated authority to specifically target and destroy US government overseas entities. If this happens, the President has only himself to blame.
Once those lines are cut, and the alliances are destroyed, the GOP will have the burden to explain why they permitted their overseas entities to be compromised; and why they required this level of combat force to be used to compel them to awaken from their coma: The game is over.
It doesn’t matte whether you believe you're right: You are outnumbered, are on the wrong side of the law, and your leadership has failed you. Yes, you are complicit with war crimes; and yes, many on the DOJ Staff could be implicated and adjudicated for war crimes. That was their decision. They feely made the choice to ignore the law, not assert their oath, and pretend that they were admirable people.
IT doesn't matter whether the contracting community cooperates or not. The data supports one thing; and what this President is attempting to do is something else. Some contractors have refused to cooperate; others have pretended they will not be caught. Gonzalez once thought the same thing. He was wrong. So are the contractors and outside counsel.
The timelines showing which DoJ Staff have or have not been doing what they should have been doing have already been provided to Congress, war crimes prosecutors, and the DOJ IG. DoJ OPR is well aware of the problem. They have the information. They know they have a mess: It is in the Attorney General’s office.
The solution is for this President to comprehend that he is on the wrong side of the law; there is no escape; the evidence exists; there is no legal defense; and these issues related to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
Those who refuse to cooperate may be adjudicated as being complicity with war crimes. Those who choose to accept that there are relatively rudimentary methods to illustrate the legal problems may have hope for some leniency. There are no guarantees. You are not being promised anything. You are not being tasked as an agent for the US government.
Your job is to decide whether you are willing to assert your oath; or whether you are going to pretend that your peers in DoD, DoJ, and the White House and outside counsel are going to really tell you what you need to know. If you're left holding the bag, you only have yourself to blame. Lives of innocent people have already been needlessly sacrificed. This President does not blink thinking other Americans may take a fall. He has betrayed the Constitution, his party, and his peers in the political arena.
The evidence does not support the White House. The timelines do not match. The evidence is there. The question is whether the US Congress will or will not get the attention it deserves; or whether this Government will pretend that the truth cannot be found. The truth is known. The question is whether these DoJ Staff counsel want to admit that they are stuck, they cannot negotiate, and there are other ways to get the information they refuse to provide.
The rule of law shall prevail. The Constitution remains fully intact. All counsel who refuse to assert their oath and not fully implement the Constitution are in rebellion. This is illegal. We the People clearly told you what we expected. You failed. IT was a voluntary choice; and your continued defiance of Our Will as evidenced by this non-sense timeline shows you remain complicit with war crimes, are not serious about ending this illegal activity, and you fail to comprehend the extent to which the White House communication systems have been penetrated, stored, and preserved outside American control.
There is nothing you can do to stop this. The rule of law is what you ignored. Now you shall learn the hard way what happens when the rule of law is eternally imposed upon your legacy.
You wished this.
Discovery Target List
White House, DoJ, DoD, outside counsel and intermediaries have common external communications hubs; however, the personnel, entities, and organizations outside the US Government do not have a legal basis to assert privilege or immunity.
___ External communication hubs
___ All external communications with non-clients
___ All data deliveries subject to all Federal Audits
___ Common meetings, assignments, and conferences
___ Common non-federal entities indirectly linked but associated with the White House, DoJ, DoD, and outside counsel and intermediaries
___ All financial flows, communications, contracts, messages, meetings, memoranda with organizations directly or indirectly associated with common outside entities
___ Courier contracts and client lists
___ Communications in and out of the messenger service
___ Transshipment staging areas, delivery rosters, and equipment/materials lists
It doesn’t matter, for now, the content of the communications. What matters is the White House, DOJ Staff, DoD Counsel, and outside entities understand there is a way to create a timeline; then examine in detail whether their explanations are or are not consistent with their legal and contractual requirements.
Once illegal activity was disclosed, they had a duty to review whether they were or were not sufficiently mitigating the chances that they were or were not involved with illegal activity. This duty rests with the legal counsel, Senior Executive Service, and board of directors. The duty for auditors remains: Whether they have or have not sufficiently reported the chances that their client has or has not sufficient controls in place to ensure they are not complicit with this President’s illegal activity.
It is possible to simulate the communications lines and identify the open source entities required to support the forecasted communications levels; and calculate the most likely support structures required to sustain these external entities.
All worldwide banking systems including non-electronic transfers are subject to review and tracing. There may or may not be bounties assigned to providing data, information, and details related to the data provided.
War crimes prosecutors have no legal limitations; and may lawfully compel nations to extradite civilian, military, and contacting personnel.
Each of the above may be legally targeted by war crimes prosecutors within or external to the US Justice and Judicial systems.
Whether the US government does or does not cooperate is meaningless. Contractors cannot lawfully rely on any contract language allowing them to support directly or indirectly war crimes; violations of the Supreme Law; nor retain data outside lawful inquiry.