US Atty Firings and Republican Ideology

US Attorneys and DOJ Staff leadership cannot be rewarded for having implemented an illegal agenda. Attorneys are allowed to freely discuss their beliefs. The error is when they translate those beliefs into policies which violate the Supreme Law, their oath of office, and the Attorney Standards of Conduct.

When resolving these issues with the US Attorney firings, it's appropriate to take the broad view: Even if the players involved in this illegal firing are punished, what will be done to ensure the ideology behind this action is legally managed, not allowed to flourish unchecked.

* * *

The US Attorney firings were part of a Republican effort to entrench their ideology, win elections, and consolidate power. Regardless the results of the investigations, a secondary issue needs to be addressed: What will be done to lawfully manage the effects of this ideology.

* * *

The Republican ideology is linked with PNAC, the NeoCons, and the post-Iran-Contra attitudes:

A. Some things are above the law;

B. When serving this higher good, anything can be justified;

C. The law is a means to an end;

D. What can be debated can be asserted.

The problem with the above are the bad effects:

E. Excuses not to enforce the law;

F. Secret agreements to circumvent the law;

G. Illegal classification of illegal agreements;

H. Loyalty to something other than the Constitution;

I. Rationalization to assert an agenda, regardless the law

J. Ignoring resource and legal constraints

* * *

The US Attorney firings were about putting ideologues in place to help entrench political gains. Money has been transferred illegally.

Of concern are the law review articles which openly assert illegal activity: Pre-emptive war without imminent threats; permissibility of prisoner abuse; and rationalization to put the Constitution behind arbitrary "national security" interests. There is no merit to putting the citizen rights behind a political agenda.

The way forward is to accept, regardless the outcome of the US Attorney-firing investigations, the ideology remains in place, driving the criminal enterprise, and motivating lawyers to justify more illegal policies.

* * *

The GOP and Legal community have a responsibility to outline their plan to effectively manage this problem. Until they do, there is no reason to believe they can demonstrate they are willing to assent to the rule of law.

Timeliness

It should not take this long to gather evidence, and prosecute this illegal activity. The GOP and legal community plan needs to include something which shows there are effective checks in place, that internal controls are working, and that outside legal and auditing reviews are fully embraced and implemented, not explained away.

Sanctions

Part of reviewing an attorney's qualifications for continued admittance to the bar is whether their legal writings do or do not conform to the Supreme Law. Attorneys who have advocated violating the Constitution or Conventions, need to have those "legal conclusions" examined:

___ Is this attorney qualified to remain in the bar;

___ Are there reasonable questions about their attorney oath of office;

___ To what extent has their view been implemented as a policy;

___ Have the attorneys removed themselves from the illegal activity;

___ Have the attorneys implemented an agenda based on legal theory which contradicts the Supreme Law, treaties, and oath of office requirements.

* * *

What's needed is success criteria for this approach, not just a transition, but how to guide the leadership to focus on the Constitution. Oaths aren't working; and new laws aren't working.

___ What is going to make the leadership fully assert its oath?

___ What will force there to be an enforcement mechanism?

___ What will ensure needed investigations are not blocked?

___ What will make the players do what they promise?

One solution is to strip them of the power they refuse to assert; and delegate this to new institutions who will assert power, do their job, and do what must be done to protect the Constitution.

There needs to be a method to permit people to bring suit, assert their oath, and compel the government officials to fully meet their legal obligations. Discretion is not permissible when inaction permits the Constitution's destruction.

* * *

Legal Reviews

Beliefs are not the problem. The issue is the translation of beliefs into policies which violate the Constitution, agreements, and legal standards.

The legal community needs to outline their plan to identify, monitor, and appropriately discipline legal counsel who have put into effect illegal agendas.

There needs to be a method to test whether the classification of policies and programs is or is not related to unlawful activity, and not linked with bonafide legal objectives.

There needs to be a better enforcement of the ORCON requirements.

When there are problems with legal compliance, it cannot be left to the discretion of the criminals whether they do or do not assent to an investigation.

Peer reviews in the legal and auditing industry need to be openly reviewed and sampled.

Illegal policies and procedures need to be included in the assessment of whether an attorney is or is not allowed to practice law.

Illegal memoranda, polices, and procedures must be included in the open assessment of whether an attorney is or is not fully asserting their oath to the US Constitution.

Attorney-client privilege cannot be a shield for an attorney to actively implement illegal polices; nor can they expect that their endorsement of illegal activity and war crimes will go unexamined.

* * *

As with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the way forward is to outline the problems, then list the solutions. This burden falls on the GOP and legal community. They were instrumental in assenting to and implementing this illegal activity. They need to be given a chance to outline their plan to prevent this from happening.

Then We the People can debate whether their solutions will or will not resolve both their illegal ideology, and the means by which that ideology was illegally implemented.