Constant's pations

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

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Gozalez View on Habeas vs. Refusal To Cooperate On US Atty E-mails

War Crimes Investigation: Habeas Privilege and Gonzalez Title 28 Violations

The DoJ refusal to respond to subpoenas sheds light on their operations and willingness to cooperate with War Crimes Investigators. [War crimes: Negligence, malfeasance, recklessness]

There is a basis in history and law to examine the chance of other illegal activity linked with the original frauds. It is imprudent to put the blinders on, and only look at things in isolation. Ref Consider: What other frauds have been committed in the wake of a fraudulent war?

The AG Refusal to respond to the House Judiciary subpoena on US Attorney e-mails is a basis to conclude that the DOJ views similar refusal -- to do or not do what is prohibited; or do or not do what it should -- as "permissible."

In light of the unfortunate decision of the Department of Justice to not respond to House Judiciary subpoenas -- nor cooperate with oversight on the grounds of what is permissible -- adverse inferences are appropriate.
It is reasonable for the Congress to presume all things Gonzalez (rightly or wrongly) said the Constitution did not protect or enforce, as things that the President and AG Have agreed to not allow, respect, recognize, agree with, enforce, or protect, despite the requirement to the contrary.

They have most likely drafted memorandum, contract language, executive orders and other planning guidance impermissibly "permitting" others to not respect this privilege and other rights; and illegally have hidden these memorandum and contracts behind the shield of executive privilege.

They have most likely redefined the illegal activity as something that is "permissible" knowing this is a ruse to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, Supreme Law, Constitution, and oath of office requirements.

Although ORCON prohibits classification of illegal orders, this did not stop the President and Attorney General from enacting programs which violated FISA, Geneva Conventions, or the Constitution.

Ref Title 28 imposes a requirement on Gonzalez to report in writing his decision not to enforce the law.

Gonzalez needs to explain in writing as required by Title 28 which statutes he is not enforcing by permitting violations of Habeas privilege. All White House and DoJ Staff counsel memorandum, budget documents, signed policy memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, presentations and notes putting these illegal orders and decisions into effect are illegal and discoverable by Congress and War Crimes Prosecutors.

Ref Case study: Gonzalez approach to legal language.

Ref Audit Indicators [SAS99]: Types of illegal activity Gonzalez and President would "permit" under this "it is not required to be proteced"-doctrine.

* * *

Congress should examine AG Gonzalez comments in re Hebeas in the context of what Gonzalez in his mind has permitted DOJ to "not protect" Habeas. He views "not protecting" a privilege as acceptable: He must have policies, memos, and work flows in DOJ putting this view into effect.

___ If, in the mind of Gonzalez, the Constitution only prohibits Congress from suspending of Hebases, could the President and AG pass a rule, work flow, or issue an executive order that prohibits enforcement or protection of that privilege?

- -

Indeed. He must have said his perverse rules on the Constitution for a reason and was on his mind because he thought about it. Let's see the memos and work flows related to this DOJ Planning. If it's "legal to not fully protect, enforce, or secure Habeas" (in the mind of Gonzalez) he should not have a problem with the Congress reviewing all e-mails related to these discussions, plans and unlawful violations of the CDonstution.

___ What has Gonzalez or the President permitted, not stopped, or silently allowed DoJ (or DoD, or anyone or entity ) to do to "not enforce" Habeas?

* * *

Recall Gonzalez comments on Habeas: That the Constitution does not compel protection of the right. For now, let's accept this illegal assertion. Then let the DOJ Staff suffer the same consequences:

___ Why should Congress "protect" a right of Goodling that, he says, no one is required to protect.

___ Why not say that Congress can pass a rule saying that DOJ Staff counsel may not enforce their right or privilege; or challenge the decision of Congress to put them in solitary confinement?

* * *

Anyting the AG says does not have to be protected in the Constitution, Congress is not required to recognize against the DOJ Staff counsel. If, as the AG (incorrectly) asserts, there is no right to have Hbeas enforced, then Congress may take any action which the AG says is OK, and "Not enforce" Habeas for DOJ Staff counsel.

If it is "permissible" under Geneva for water boarding to be imposed, then Members of Congress should ask why DoJ Staff counsel should not be subjected to the same treatment that the Staff counsel said was permissible for prisoners of war.

How does Goodling like the idea of water boarding, solitary confinement, and a decision by Congress to "not enforce" Habeas should she challenge the decision of Congress to have her arrested?


A. Gonzalez got it wrong (he did); OR

B. Gonzalez was right and Congress is not required to respect any right of Goodling;

C. Congess is not required to respect any DOJ Staff counsel claim of privilege or privacy.

There's nothing in the CONsttion that protects the right of DOJS taff counsel to engage in war crimes and plan illegal activity.

* * *

Reality Check

Unless a right is protected, it is suspended: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended

Government either is neutral, protects, or it violates a right.

* * *

Implications of Gonzlaez statement in Re Title 28

If the Government is not ensuring that habeas has not been suspected, it is not protecting the right as required; nor is it remaining neutral. Being silent about abuses is hardly permissible in that it is assenting to a suspension of the right. Unless a privilege is preserved, not necessary protected, then it is illegally suspended.

When Gonzalez said there is no protection for Habeas, he's saying that he's not going to take enforcement action to ensure that it was not suspected.

This is illegal. Title 28 requires the Attorney General to report in writing all decisions he has to not enforce the law.

Range of Possible DOJ Abuses in Hidden Counsel Memorandum

Attorney General must have said the statements about Habeas for a reason. Recall his double talk on the FISA violations. It seems reasonable to presume the AG's comments reflect his thinking on what is permissible for DOJ To "not protect" the privilege.

___ What is the attorney generals view of what is permissible to "not protect" a privilege, despite the Title 28 duty to report decisions not to enforce the law?

___ If AG Gonzalez views Heabas privilege as not something that must be protected, what can AG Gonzalez -- in his view -- do to "not fully suspend" Habeas, just short of invasion or insurrection?

___ How does AG Gonzalez view Habeas as being something that can be violated, ignored, or not fully protected?

___ If Congress does not suspend Habeas, can the AG take action to not fully enforce the privilege?

___ How, through what methods or means, does AG Gonzalez view Habeas can be "not fully proteced or enforced," regardless whether there has been an insurrection or invasion?

___ Does AG Gonzalez view the restriction habeas, because it is Article I, as only relevant to a constraint on Congressional power, and silent on what the President may do to not enforce habeas?