Constant's pations

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

Saturday, March 03, 2007

US Rendition Court Ruling Opens Floodgates To Foreign Fighter Attacks on US Personnel

4th Circuit Opinion Entered Into Evidence In re Alleged War Crimes by American Judicial Officers

Ref: The courts reasoning is legally flawed and does not inspire confidence in the American legal community, system of justice, or the American government.

Stupidly, the court would have us believe that the "only" evidence available to determine the oversight of this illegal activity was classified. No, it's public. Here's where it is: [Oversight Functions and Duties for Rendition Management] The Budgets for this activity is linked with the contractors whose job is to develop the policy memos, contracts, and other things required to put the CIA covert activity into effect. This is part of a contract that cannot be lawfully classified when it is linked with illegal activity and war rimes.

Ref The 4th Circuit decision failed to heed the lesson of the Justice Trial -- Judges were found guilty of war crimes for enforcing bad laws, or not prohibiting illegal war crimes. Arguably, this 4th Circuit Decision is reckless, and evidence which the German War Crimes prosecutor should consider when adjudicating war crimes against the 4th Circuit court of appeals.

* * *

Fatal Problem for 4th Circuit

The problem falls apart from Reynolds which the court misapplied. Then it gets worse, relying on convoluted logic. This is more trash writing from the DOJ Staff counsel, not something from an independent judiciary that can read case law.

What's most disgusting about this ruling is that the court has affirmed the very legal practice at the heart of the illegal activity -- that of cherry picking on the law. American citizens may not have time to read the opinion and fact check the language against the cases; but the world does know that the conclusion stinks:

1. Federalist 43: A right implies a remedy. This prisoner was denied a means to remedy this abuse; and properly relying on Case law would have done just that.

2. The Union was designed to act as a check on the GOP insurrection against the rule of law. [ Fed10 ] It's a sham for the courts to pretend they're doing what they actively refuse: Challenge the abuse of power.

* * *

Misapplication of Reynolds

The courts error was in taking as true the assertion of privilege, without examining the controlling language in Reynolds: Ref o8 of 23; n30: In this case, the court misapplied Reynolds which bars classification/invocation of privilege when not strictly related to national security.
The privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly necessary to prevent injury to national security
Here, the invocation has another purpose: To avoid disclosure of illegal war crimes evidence. Claims of "injury to national security" are trumped when the information has been illegally classified as prohibited under ORCON.

The error of the court was to accept, as true, claims that the privilege existed; but did not consider the course of conduct that cast doubts on the government's motivations, as Reynolds requires.

It can hardly be argued that the "strict" intent of the privilege was to protect a secret, when [a] that secret cannot be legally classified because of its relationship with illegal activity; [b] the privilege had been waived because of the disclosures; and [c] disclosure of the information, inconsistent statements on the rendition, and transfer of the prisoners after Hamdan show there as illegal activity, and belie the government claims that the classification was for a "strict" national security purpose. [ The list of evidence warranting a rejection of the Government’s claim, as it contradicts Reynolds is long.]

Ref America's courts in re rendition and war crimes have taken an Addington-approach to the Supreme Court precedents: Cherry picking. Hardly inspiring world confidence in the American legal system or claims of the superiority of the system of checks and balances.

America has rubber stamping courts whose officers refuse to read the full cases, and selectively pretend there are reasonable excuse to permit this absurdity.

* * *

Ref Court parrots White's non-sense on State Secrets.

Ref German war crimes prosecutor targeting CIA officers involved with dismissed case.

Ref American legal system implicitly says, "We have no clue what to do about war crimes; we need the German War Crimes prosecutor to sort this out."

[snark] Nazi Judges said to Hitler's request to classify evidence of the Holocaust: "Whatever you say . . . "

* * *

Case Summary

The question before the court was whether an abused prisoner can bring suit and prevail on the merits. The court said the plaintiff had standing, but refused to review the merits. This is impermissible.

There are legal methods to review classified information, protect secrets, and adjudicate grave breaches of Geneva. Where the US legal community refused to find a way, foreign fighters may view this as a green light to lawfully resolve this abuse on the battlefield.


It is not lawful to classify evidence of illegal activity. It is circular to classify illegal activity; then claim the classification prohibits prosecution of those illegalities. There are too many lines of evidence showing the US government has an illegal policy and program.

The courts reasoning is flawed; and in the minds of foreign fighters the legal foundation to engage in reciprocal attacks against similarly situated US personnel. This does not advocate this action. However, under the principle of reciprocity, the US has no legal foundation to punish anyone for engaging in like abuses of Geneva against US personnel.

Good enough for Guantanamo, but not the United States

Rule: Prisoners shall enjoy same treatment as similarly situated; this case shows the treatment for similarly situated prisoners is not consistent, as required under Geneva.

The US is openly enforcing a double standard on prisoner treatment, impermissible under the Geneva Conventions.

You'll enjoy this. Contrast [a] the standards the DoJ Says prisoners at Guantanamo must assent, vs. [b] the standards US government officials are required to face. To defend themselves, Guantanamo prisoners are denied access to evidence; however, charged US government officials in re that abuse, when "unable" to present evidence, assert they cannot be prosecuted.

The US government, when it claims that it cannot be “fairly” tried if it cannot present evidence, would have us believe that it can credibly assert this legal position; but deny similarly accused defendants at Guantanamo that same defense and position.

Putting aside Guantanamo and Geneva, if we are to believe the DOJ Contention that the standards that are “good enough” for prisoners at Guantanamo, must be “good enough for US government personnel.”

By saying the standards are not good enough, but US government officials should be entitled to more protections than Prisoners at Guantanamo, the US government is showing it is not fully meeting its Geneva requirements at Guantanamo.

* * *

Fatal Admission

Brad Berenson openly admitted the US government was working with countries on abuse where the open relationship was hostile.

This means that the US government and White House Counsels office was knowledgeable of things going on.

If this was "classified," then what's the plan of the Government to "prosecute" Berenson for disclosure of this "classified" information:

___ The US, to put this plan into effect, would have to transport the personnel;

___ The White House counsels office would know of the plans to transport personnel, and if there were problems

___ White House counsel should have known the activity was not lawful; and once disclosed was not protected by a bonafide claim of privilege

Brad Berenson fatally admitted something which opens the barn door to expansive discovery and inquiry. The white House can't claim that the information is protected when Berenson and the President have revealed the essential details; this is a waiver of privilege, even if the disclosure was in advertent.

* * *

Summary Rules

Here are some summary rules which apply to this case, and are discussed below from many perspectives.

Rule: Information related to illegal activity may not be classified

Rule: It is a violation of Executive Orders to Classify Illegal Activity

Rule: A disclosure of something, and a failure of a government official to deny an issue, but comment on it cannot be reversed with retroactive claims of privilege

Rule: Changes after a court ruling support the conclusion that the original activity was not meeting the standard

Rule: There is universal jurisdiction for war crimes

Rule: Refusals to punish war crimes, permits foreign fighters to engage in reciprocity and retaliation

* * *

Frivolous Assertion of Classification

The court incorrectly accepted the "neither can confirm nor deny"-argument as an excuse to say nothing could be done, despite:

A. Rice’s admission that the US was sorry and was wrong for the Rendition activities in Europe;

B> The president’s open admission; and

C. The transfer of prisoners.

The open discussion is not a caim that the informatoin is not secret, merely raising reasonble doubts in re Reynolds that the priviclge clasim was stricklyfor national security interests. Had the court approrpiately read Rynolds in light of the open evidence, fatal admissions, and changes after Hamdan, we may have something different to talk about.

The open actions, like the NSA FISA fatal admissions belie the contention that the activity is protected. It’s been disclosed. It's a secondary legal question whether the information was-is or was not-is not lawfully classified. There is no dispute the US government public commented -- and did not deny -- in the wake of Hamdan.

US government claims in court belie official conduct substantially confirming facts which the government now says it cannot confirm or deny. The open, non protected change in position is admissible, and is not, contrary to the defense claims, classified. As with Stimson, when the government contradits itself to address new infromation, that contradict invalidates the argument that the privlge is strictly for national security, in re Reynolds.

The inconsistency may be challenged to impeach the witnesses. The inconsistency is admissible for purposes of impeaching a witness; and contrary to the court’s claims does not rely on any classified information; nor does it mean that classified information must be used by defendants to defend themselves.

The defense claims that it must access classified information, without showing how that classified information would be helpful. However, it is not compelling to assert that the evidence is useful, without a fair showing why it will respond to the non-classified-related-arguments.

What the US government is really doing is pretending that something that is classified is for a good purpose; and rather than justify or defend the illegal activity, the Government is shifting focus form the illegal activity, to whether or not the speculative debate and details about that classified activity are or are not needed for national security reasons. This is a smokescreen from [a] the illegal activity; [b] the unlawful classification; and the [b] weak defense which relies on phony claims of "secrecy" as an excuse not to defend themselves for openly admitted, not denied activity which the Italian government has litigated successfully against the United States. It is secondary that the US government refuses to operate with the war crimes investigation or proceedings.

Combat does not mean that all actions, because they are classified, are legal; nor than all things occurring in the finite open window of combat are lawful. The asserted benefits of a covert operation clash with the interests of the government to compel lawful activity; it is impressible that the government will claim privilege for unlawful activity; or argue over meaningless evidence that in no way respond to the central question: Who did or didn’t commit a crime.

Let them appear as defendants and invoke the 5th. They cannot make out of court statements to confirm a program is real, and that treatment has violated the law; but pretend that the disclosed information enjoys protection.

* * *

Frivolous Assertion of Cannot Confirm or Deny What Already Confirmed and Failed to Deny

I appreciate that the "official" policy of the US is that it can neither conform nor deny the allegations. however, there is physical evidence which the government has not defended, explained, or satisfactorily discredited in Italy.

* * *

Italian Courts Have Proven The Activity Is real Despite frivolous claims the activity us unknown

* * *

Available Evidence Does Not Support Government Contentions

Evidence: Database information, access times

___ Who reviewed the database with is name

___ Where is the database with his name

___ When was that database reviewed

___ When was the database updated, verified, and how was the information stored

* * *

No basis to recognize classification of illegal activity

el-Masri doesn't have to produce any evidence: The issue is whether the government can explain the contrast:

1. It has claimed the activities are classified;

2. But the US government activities, as adjudicated in the Italian courts, are not legal

3. There is no basis to lawfully "classify" something that is related to illegal activity.

4. The court cannot recognize a claim of privilege or secrecy when the activity is openly admitted; not denied; and has been adjudicated in courts as being illegal.

* * *

Each of the Official US government responses, actions, and remarks fail to deny something the CIA would have us believe cannot be acknowledged.

The Italian court has the evidence and has shown there is a linked between the CIA, the organization, the results, and what commutation they have to put this plan into effect.

* * *

Failure of Checks and Balances

Asserted, speculative options to compensate for judicial inaction are, in practice, denied invalidating the Supreme Courts assertion that there are other remedies.

Justice Scalia stated that private litigation was sufficient to check government abuse of power for warrant problems.

The problem with the US court system is that is doesn't check the abuse, but relies on non-sense to avoid action.

* * *

The courts reasoning is flawed; and the results are baffling: There are bad things happening, but no consequences. This needs to be resolved.

* * *

In General terms we evaluate government in terms of the results. When there are bad things, but there is no end, that is a problem.

The result in this case if impermissible:

1. Government abuse of power;

2. No remedy;

3. No end.

* * *

Adverse Inferences

The government’s error is that it has openly stated the information is classified; that means it’s real. Moreover, the CIA does not dispute the allegations, but goes further in admitting that the information, if disclosed, would substantially confirm the veracity of the witnesses’ claims.

The government has also failed to deny the allegations.

* * *

It also appears the government has botched the defense: Note closely the reason for the decision to neither confirm nor deny: Because the allegations were about the activities of the CIA.

However, the CIA's activities have been disclosed in an Italian court; and there is no basis to say that the CIA's actions as already disclosed are different.

Once the Italians released the information, the CIA litigation in Germany and the US may rely on this Italian evidence and admission to argue the CIA has failed to successfully deny something that has been shown.

The issue isn't what the CIA specifically did in this case, but whether the government can claim no one may discuss in court issues which the US government has not been able to prevent the Italians from admitting evidence.

Its sophistry to pretend the that the government can claim in an American court that the issues are "classified", while the same agency is linked in an Italian court to activists that are illegally classified.

* * *

Adverse Inferences

Based on the way the Italians have proceeded, and contrasting this with the American courts, the reasonable conclusion:

A. The CIA was involved with a rendition program;

B. CIA personnel in the American court are substantially doing something that transfers prisoners

C. The US government failed to defend itself in the Italian court

D. All war crimes related information n the Italian courts is admissible to US courts

* * *

It is absurd to suggest that the CIA "cannot" confirm or deny anything; the Italians have adjudicated the matter; and the CIA did not successfully defend or deny the allegations.

Rather, the evidence shows the CIA personnel were connected. IT is fiction that the CIA was engaged in lawful activity; rather, the CIA has illegally classified evidence of unlawful activity which has violated the rights of prisoners.

* * *

It may be true that the Government has classified information, but it doesn't mean that the classification is lawful.

The problem for the US government is that in classifying evidence of illegal activity it does itself few favors. The contrast between the open evidence in Italy -- substantially confirming the details of the CIA operations

* * *

The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the US government is whether it will do what is right. The law does not permit classification of illegal activity.


It is not reasonable for victim-plaintiffs to have the burden to [a] take the lead to end illegal US government actions; [b] gather evidence; and [c] be held responsible for the consequences of not being in the government.

Let's turn the tables: If el-Masri had evidence that the CIA activity was occurring while he worked for the US government, he would be able to prove his case: The evidence was illegally classified; and the US violated the law in unlawfully classifying evidence of illegal activity.

* * *

Someone was involved in the detention; and he was transferred.

The error is for the US government to engage in this abuse, but then hide the agents, contractors, and others involved with the illegal activity.

Once the Italian government in the different case proved the CIA was involved, then in theory, this should open the door to additional discovery of that evidence: Names, the operation, and the other details that are illegal and unlawfully classified.

* * *

Expansive Power Narrowly Enforced

The real burden, in light of the Italian prosecutors, is on the government: Despite the illegal activity, it refuses to end the conduct; nor use the court.

The nonsense is the "Separation of power" which impermissibly says, "The President is doing it, we can't stop him." No, the Courts are making an error in permitting this illegal activity to go unsanctioned.

* * *

Where we find things: The US legal system is making two errors: First, in not sopping the illegal activity from the outset; and second in failing to sanction the misconduct when it continues. This is absurd. Things that are wrong, especially when they are connected with things in Italy which are illegal, must end.

* * *

Put aside the specifics. Focus on the general principle of the law as a shield, guide, or a standard.

If the misconduct occurs -- regardless the success or failure of the plaintiffs lawsuit -- the court is saying despite evidence in Italy that the CIA is doing this, the Court will take a narrow view of the CIA, only allowing the victim-plaintiff to enter evidence related to their narrow situation.

* * *

If one consider the nation of power, in theory, there are no constraints. But these are not issues of unreviewable power, but of illegal activity relative to specific requirements in the Geneva Conventions.

It's more likely that the CIA has violated the law.

* * *

The US position is most absurd. Putting aside Geneva – as the US has done – the Congress, President, and Government would have us believe that the conditions which Guantanamo prisoners must endure at trial are “not good enough” for US government personnel.

* * *

Court Conclusions Have No Merit

Such a showing could be made only with evidence that exposes how the CIA organizes, staffs and supervises its most sensitive intelligence operations

Other Sources of Evidence

"Sensitive" does not mean that the conduct is unreviewable. Rather it is the claim of sensitivity which is illegally shielding evidence of unlawful activity.

Consider the quote again:
only with evidence that exposes how the CIA organizes, staffs and supervises its most sensitive intelligence operations

It incorrectly asserts that the disclosure would disclose something new; and starts from the invalid premise that the information is lawfully classified, not available, or there is no other means to prove the claims. This is false. The Italians have already disclosed how the CIA does what it does. It is irrelevant the government will not admit to itself the details.

There is no reasonable basis to claim that the result of this illegal activity must disclose something new; or that details are required. The information has already been disclosed in the Italian Court; that the US does or doesn't want to accept the verdict is irrelevant.

These are issues of international war crimes. Indeed, they are in the US court system, but they can be just as easily adjudicated in another court outside the United States.

The case also present a problem for the Government in re Habeas: IN this case someone does get access to the US courts. The problem is the difference of the government characterization of their status. Prisoners that have been released are not allowed to challenge their detention because the challenge rules on classified information.

* * *

The question is whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt. It is no doubt the US has supported illegal activity in Italy; and did have centers in Eastern Europe.

* * *

The flaw is for the US government to use its circular reasoning to argue that there was nothing wrong. No, there is something wrong: The US government is not part of the solutions, but making excuses to violate the law, not hold people to account, and pretending that the results in other courts do not apply.

* * *

Consider power: It is broad, and a general blanket authority to do things. Now consider the CIA program in Italy -- it was rightly or wrongly, linked with that power.

The government would have us believe that the President can broadly apply power, and then use that power to support illegal activity.

However, when it is known that the activity occurs, that there is a CIA program, and there are illegal results, the reverse should occur: The same government that expansively applies power to implement the CIA illegal activity in Italy, should also be presumed to be linking that CIA activity with the same power in other situations.

Anything that was asserted as a foundation for the President's assertion of power is linked affirmably with the CIA activity in Italy; conversely, when there is illegal activity connected with the CIA, then it is (or should be) broadly connected with the government.

But the court isn't look at it that way: Asking us to accept the broad claim of power -- used as the basis to argue an issue -- cannot be similarly broadly viewed as forward and retroactive connections to the actions of that program.

* * *

There is one CIA; and there is a rendition effort. When the President broadly claims power and applies it in Italy, then he's broadly stating that the power is linked to something that is real.

It does not follow that the same broad powers driving the CIA to do illegal activity, cannot be turned around to argue [a] we know we have illegal activity; and [b] that illegal activity matches the CIA planning; therefore [c] that illegal activity is linked with the illegal use of that power.

The overwhelming evidence suggests the activity was illegal. The burden on the government it explain why, despite the results of Italy, that the US courts are not doing the same with ORCON and concluding that the claim of secrecy is not lawful; and the evidence has been unlawfully classified, therefore make it available.

* *

The court decision does not mean that the US government is innocent. That guilt has been established in Italy. The question is whether the success in Italy will be the path to open the bard door to broader discovery; and how the EU investigations will broaden an understanding what the CIA was or as not doing.

As it stands, it is impermissible for the US government to believe that it can claim the evidence is classified -- it is illegally classified -- but continue with illegal abuse. That is absurd.

* * *

It is incorrect for the court to say that a showing could be made only with evidence that exposes -- this incorrectly suggests the disclosure would be new; or that the disclosure would not be appropriate.

There is no basis to claim that a US court could not redact the details that are classified. The US government claims it can do the same in Guantanamo.

Why is the US claiming that the "redacted information" can work in Guantanamo, but it can't work for other litigation?

The claim that these activities are "sensitive" is not supported by the Executive Orders that make it illegal to classify unlawful activity.

It is not credible that the proof of the problem can only be evidence the US government has. Other powers have other evidence which disclose the status of US government officials; it is secondary that they may not want to disclose there evidence. Foreign powers do have the information and have to decide whether they will be silent, and not present their evidence in a peaceful forum; or whether they are sitting on information with the hope taking this dispute to the battlefield. This smacks of the silence about the Holocaust where the world leaders had a sense of what was going on, but refused to act. The US government has made no compelling case why the illegal activity should not be reviewed by the EU. Other nations may have data which shows exactly how the CIA organizes, staffs, and supervises illegal US government activities. Even if this information is not forthcoming, it doesn't change the fact: There is an illegal program; it has abused prisoners, and more likely than not this plaintiff was a witness to what happened.

* * *

We reject the assertion that the plaintiffs claims depend on information that meets only what the US government says is classified.

Rather, there are two other issues: Whether the US government has or has not lawfully classified something; and whether the US legal requirements have or have not been met; and whether the operational details are substantially the same and linked with the same broad sweep of power.

There's little to suggest the CIA would be running multiple different ways of violating the law; how they violate the law is less important than noticing the absurdly of the US government position: Despite the failure of the government to absolutely avoid legal conclusions in Italy, it would have us believe that the Italian results have no bearing on war crimes litigation in other courts. This if false.

Yet, even if were did know the operational details of how the CIA organizes, it wouldn’t change the fact that there has been abuse, and we have a witness to the illegal activity.

The US may want to hide information, but that hope is meaningless when contrasted with the legal requirement to enforce Geneva.

* * *

There is no merit to the claim that the defendant could "not properly defend themselves" or that the only means to defense relied on privileged evidence." No, that evidence must be awfully privileged.

The Executive cannot claim privilege for actions which are illegal; and there is no Exertive Privilege over post-decision deliberations which have been disclosed; and Executive privilege does not protect the President’s assertions of non-Executive power. Executive Privilege does not shield him from illegal activity; or unlawful usurpation of power: There is no joint "Executive-Legislative-Judicial" privilege the President can hide behind.

* * *

Here’s What Is Known

1. The government has fabricated evidence related to transcripts and illusory evidence related to prisoner treatment and supposed statements

2. Abraxas is real, and there is a contract

2. The government has attempted to pretend that post-decision memoranda are protected

4. The government is pretending that the evidence from one court --- and the attached legal conclusion -- is not admissible to another court

5. The government is claiming broad power to be above review; but cannot explain why we should believe that the same power linked to an action in one location is not also lined with another situation; or that the results in one situation are not linked with the original power in the first example.

* * *

Should not be able to hide behind classification to avoid oversight; or claim that the evidence to defend themselves classified: That means the evidence real and connected to real event, not something that the Government can credibly claim they can neither confirm nor deny.

Can't argue that something is credibly protected when that shielding is linked more with a desire to hide illegal activity.

The claims that the evidence is privileged is not supported by the same program which has been adjudicated as being illegal; Applying the results from Italy to this case means the US is attempting to pretend that the conclusion of illegal activity in one court under Geneva are not transferable to US courts.

* * *

What's possible: A review of the results from Italy; applying them to the CIA; then looking in other locations for other evidence the US supports this illegal activity.

We argue that the details of how the CIA manages this activity are less important than the problem of the Italian result contrast with this case: The government cannot claim it can protect the details of illegal activity, or that these details are privileged when the results are illegal and required violations of international law.

* * *

The CIA may violate the laws overseas al the time; but this does not mean that the activity is legal. Custom of the CIA is to violate the law with impunity; the plaintiff has standing to bring suit for that illegal activity. The error is to pretend the illegalities which defy international law cannot be adjudicated; while claiming the ICC ahs no jurisdiction on the ground that the US will "take care of it." No, the world gets one lesson: The US makes excuses to violate the law, and pretend that is above the law. The world may conclude that the only option, to remedy these illegal war crimes, is to commit like abuses in combat, as protected under Geneva under the principles of retaliation and reciprocity. This does not make them above review.

The US cannot argue that other courts can't review this; and then say the US courts cannot permit any evidence. This is absurd. In the mind of the US government all courts can't review illegal activity because it violates the power of the president to wage illegal warfare and abuse prisoners.

The details how this is done are less important than looking at the results: Was there or was there no prisoner abused illegally. The answer is yes.

* * *

If it is the US government’s position that these abuses cannot be litigated, then foreign fighters have been delegated the power to engage in like abuses against US personnel in the District of Columbia. The US government has no legal claim to awfully impose consequences on foreign fighters if they engage in like abuses. The US may claim t can impose penalties, but the US cannot lawfully claim that the convictions will be just:

___ US Members of Congress may be legally targeted and inflicted with like abuse

___ Personnel suspected of working for contractors indirectly supporting this illegal activity may be legally detained, abused, and

___ Personnel stationed at US commercial aircraft maintenance facilities may be determined to be supporting illegal war crimes and similarly abused

___ Legal counsel assigned to the CIA cover companies in the US may be legally targeted for destruction for their unlawful support and refuel to remove themselves from the illegal activity; or for their refusal to prevent their resources from supporting war crimes.

The error is for the court to not find a way to resolve the issue; and ensure the lawful retaliation and reciprocity does not spiral. The US government has, by rejecting the court as a means to resolve these issues, said that it would prefer battle.

* * *

Nazi judges enforced bad laws, and refused to find a way to end illegal warfare. Where these disputes cannot be resolved in the court room, but the US continues to inflict abuse on the world community, the world may legally organize itself to impose like abuse similarly situated US personnel.

___ People accused of being complicit with this illegal activity may be lawfully abused; whether they are people who have been mistakenly taken is meaningless.

Translation: Geneva prohibits retaliating against Civilians; but it does not require that reciprocation be only against some people, but not others. All US civilians who may be correctly or incorrectly implicated in this illegal activity have become legitimate military targets under Geneva for lawful retaliation and reciprocal abuse.

This is not guidance that anyone do this; only that Geneva permits the natural consequences of what the court refuses to adjudicate.

* * *

The case before us is a European abused by the Americans. Europeans may work with their governments and lawfully retaliate against similarly situated American personnel.

___ Embassy staff may be legally seized and subject to like treatment; any US effort to penalize this conduct will be seen as unjust, fueling more attacks

___ US government officials, contractors, and other personnel directly or indirectly supporting war crimes may be legally targeted o basis of allegation alone

___ Anything the Americans have imposed as an abuse on any civilian may be legally imposed on any US government official, or person rightly or wrongly accused or implicated in the illegal activity.

* * *

Under the laws of war, foreign fighters may legally make the same "mistakes" the CIA said.

All information related to conversations about what the CIA was "mistaking" are linked with official US government positions. There is no dispute that there was an error.

The admissible evidence is the Database the US government has, relies on, and used to target this particular person.

* * *

The case sends a clear signal to foreign fighters. The US is not serious about assenting the rule of law; and legal options court are not the answer. American should not be surprised why foreign fighters expand combat operations.

It is an illusion for the US to talk bout the benefits of the American model when this kind of abuse is not stopped, and the courts refuse to conclude that the evidence has been illegally classified.

Reasonable people should be baffled: This is the same non-sense which Nuremberg rebuked the legal community for having permitted, not stopped, and allowing to continue under illegal laws.

The activity is not legal; and the claims of privilege are not legally sound. The result impermissibly sends a signal that the only way to end this base of power is to wage warfare against the Untied States. When the Congress, President, and Courts refuse to resolve this, foreign fighters have no other option but to expand warfare and confront the President, Congress, and those who support this illegal activity.

* * *

A movement which refuses to prevent illegal activity, and impermissibly allows evidence of illegal activity to remain hidden is not a credible system to oversee, manage, or organize resources.

Foreign fighters are reasonably emboldened when the US legal community fails, and the US government pretend that nothing can be done despite the demonstrated abuses of the CIA in the Italian Court. The problem is when threats of funding cuts for illegal activities are circumvented with additional secret, illegal Executive orders directing the war crimes to expand, transition, and get hidden. These orders are not lawful and cannot be reasonably be relied upon. No, foreign fighters may wage combat. There error is for the court to impermissibly permit an illegal war of aggression, attached with it illegal abuse of prisoners, to feed on itself and expand the abuse of power.

Apparent Legitimate, Non-Protected Military Targets in Mind of Foreign Fighters

___ Judicial Offices who enforce illegal orders;

___ Judicial officers who allow illegally classified evidence to remain hidden

___ Judicial Officers issuing orders recognizing the unlawful protection of illegal activity behind a claim of privilege

___ Judicial officers who ignore evidence the President, Secretary of State substantially confirm, admit, and fail to deny something the DOJ Staff would have us believe they can neither confirm nor deny

___ Contractors providing the scheduling and transport systems for this illegal system

___ US government employees who reuses to investigate despite the information the President and Secretary of State have admitted, not denied, and confirmed

It is absurd to pretend there is a credible system of governance. The US in the wake of Hamdan changed the status of the prisoners; Hamdan helps identify when there were efforts to hide illegal activity. All documents relate to these post-decision, illegal activity is not protected by privilege.

* * *

A government which permits war crimes, and does not bring about accountability, doesn’t add up.

Congress may or may not review these matters. The error is when the President pretends he can violate the law (the means by which the Congress asserts power) -- but then claims the President has veto power over whether the Congress does or does not enforce that law.

* * *

This is not impressive.