Judiciary Demands White House Documents

Ref Into the White House we go.

* * *

___ How much information from GCHQ do you think the NSC has no idea is getting passed around? Alot of stuff.

___ Who so you suppose is working with the war crimes prosecutors to let people which documents are available, or should be available? Wouldn't you like to know.

___ How does a "separate" branch of government get the goods the DoJ and White House counsel? Informants put their oath above their party loyalty.

___ Do you think that legal counsel in Congress is getting information on which evidence to ask for? Yes.

___ Do you think that the GCHQ intercepts of the NSA and NSC e-mail systems might come back to haunt the White House? Yes.

___ How many of the White House counsel know about the war crimes the US committed by sending personnel through the rendition pipeline to Syria? Many, and they are worried. Their names are on documents assenting to war crimes and Geneva violations.

* * *

Added 10 Mar 07

Bigger Picture

This is how I see things fitting in with the above line of inquiry.

Ref NSA data provided to White House to assist with getting status on classified US Attorney indictment information. (Isn't it odd the Members of Congress in the GOP know things upper management in DoJ claim to not know about. Wouldn't surprise me if NSA intercepts were targeting the US Attorneys, then forwarding info. Link gives you a line of questions.)

Ref Helix Evidence Model: How all the rendition, NSA, and war crimes lines of evidence fit together.

Ref FOIA which SAIC is worried about.

Ref Lines of questions for the GOP Staff Counsel

Ref Vice President's ruse in re the Plame identity; and the apparent ruse with the NYT editorial -- hiding his overseas intelligence assets.

Ref War Crimes questions for Abraxas in re alleged use of NSA intercept data to support renditions, translations, and court support at Guantanamo; plus the fabricated lines of evidence which personnel appear to have placed in prisoner files, known to be fabricated.

* * *

Given the above, how to assess the risk or probability that the following type of scenario could have been practiced without Members of Congress knowing? Scenario

Given DoJ IG found 20% of the FBI NSL files were not consistent with policy [ie illegal], it's within the scope of possibility that [a] something has been planned; and [b] the Inspector Generals have been kept in the dark.

If we assign uncertainty at 50%, I put it at above 50%, or more likely than not that the above scenario has been developed, and is ready. It is not certain that it would be implemented by a specific data; however, it is reasonable to say that it is 70% probability the above scenario has been developed, civilian contractors are involved with the logistics planning, and that the Congress is not aware.

Now is the time to proactively compel the President, Joint Staff, and the DoD-DoJ-DHS civilian contractors to show their cards on what phony excuses they'll use [bogus exigent circumstances] to justify putting the plan into effect.

Two tests accomplished: Cheney and Libby are not aware of all communications; they do have private networks they are protecting; and when the issue of Geneva surfaces with the possibility that foreign fighters might retaliate, people have a hard time digesting what this means. Plus, combined with the US Attorneys who are targeted, and the ones who have been promoted for not preventing war crimes; then with the DOJ IG finding that DOJ Staff cousne haven't been doing their job on overseeing legal issues, the scale turns away from 70% more toward 100%.

These people have the means, support, and legal-enabling factors to pull this off: Blame Congress for anythings done resembling accountability for war crimes. In their mind, they would justify it, even if it meant a coup against the Speaker.

I see little before me, other than the good graces of a few volunteers who put their oath before all things, that wold actively thwart this illegal activity.

IN my view, Congress needs to review these lines of questions, and direct the agency IGs to assess the risks of lack of detection then work with the Speaker to defend the Capital against such a chain of events.