I had a FITFUL sleep; maybe the MOST fitful sleep I have had during the BuZh administration.
I have seen the face of EVIL and what people like to see as the face of Satan firsthand.
It is embodied in the persons of Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Dick Cheney and DAVID ADDINGTON (not to mention John Yoo). It is a "consortium of murders, crooks, liars and CON ARTISTS of the worst possible stripe, given free rein by the majority of the ACLU and the American Bar Association. FOR SHAME!!
Why?
Because, despite the fact no one can ever, EVER run away from conscience, these people are role modelling to a North American generation of young people that Straussite "might is RIGHT" is the way to live LIFE.
But as WE know, that is NOT the way to do it - by continuing a business of corporatocracy in which only the carrot and the stick (and blackmail, perjury, moral "compromise," kickbacks, and materialISM) have sway over the business of living.
Deep down, the weight of over one million dead INNOCENT Iraqis is not going to go away. The destruction of the landmass around the straits of Homuz by depleted uranium weapons must be dealt with sometime SOON. We are facing nuclear annihilation by taking on Iran and Russia.
Blame is not the game: but accountability surely is. That priority, accountability is what sets about the infants and children from pure adulthood. It proves the human race is growing.
Surely we are not seeing this in the past seven years.
But there are other underlaying causes than just pure greed going on in the political "scenario", to wit; we are witnessing the PERVERSION of the rule of law into something so grotesque that us mere "mortals" - that is those who care - are nearly struck dumb with a sense of dread and awfulness each and every day! We KNOW that there are legal safeguards; we are not seeing them IMPLEMENTED.
I woke up wanting to read a copy of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. It was the most awful thing I read growing up. I wanted to read it and out how she built that story into something that was far more affecting than just a simple plot twist; how she found a way for you to FEEL that death sentence. It was in response to thinking what it must have been like to take a walk into Dick Cheney's office to apply to be BuZh's running mate.
Ole Dick. Just smooth as glass saying - "C'mon, be candid with me. If you are going to run as Vice President with Puppetboy, I must know every single detail of what might come out as a campaign proceeds. ALL THE DETAILS! If I know, then I can protect you."
And as a person who knows the perks that go with the job (including a free hand with ALL intelligence gathering), and realizing how RICH and powerful you could be, you open up your mouth and freely tell ole Uncle Dickie all the sex secrets (you had it on with the nanny, the cook, the governess AND the chauffeur), all the money hidden in your inlaws' freezers, the little lies you told on your income tax forms (or didn't tell, cuz you just didn't file for a few years), how you charged CONgress for Jeanne Palfrey's fantasy service and for a limo which was charged to Dusty Foggo's company, how your children are addicted to crack, how you did SPEED cuz the high was fun, how you shoplifted a Rolex watch, how you didn't pay room service at the Hotel Pierre as they left it off the bill by some "mistake", how your wife, husband, lover absolutely HATES you, how you never paid child support for the child you had out of wedlock and gave away, who you paid off when you were in law practice so that no mark went against your legal record with the local ABA ethics committee ..
and on and on and on you went. Every last little detail.
And Uncle Dickie smiled and said: "Wonderful. You are a shoo-in for the job. Just trust me."
And then Uncle Dickie took the job for himself and you knew you had been HAD. And you would ALWAYS BE HAD, and your children would be had, and your spouse was had, and how you didn't want to get some grim CIA-endorsed biochemical disease, or be thrown out of a plane like Ron Brown .. and you would always wonder where it would STOP or not stop.
Your one hope just might be for all the strange comings and goings to come to light; that's a government requirement, right?
Well, nope! It's NOT. David Addington decided that there is a fourth branch of government and that government regulations requiring sensitive and secret intelligence information does not have to be reviewed, filed or archived. You will never be vindicated. You will always be horn swoggled, you will never get away from the threat of Dick (OVP) Cheney and his buddies ..
You started out with a little snag in your moral fabric, you tried to pick it off, it unravelled a bit, you thought maybe you could make it up but that proved too hard, so you went after a little Money and Power to feel better about yourself, but now those who play Hard Ball in the Big Leagues know that they can "have" you, they put their fingers in that little hole and Twist and Twist Away until you don't even recognize yourself, the compulsivity and the addictions kick in full time, you hang out with ONLY THOSE who are of a like bent as yourself, the pests and demons work on you full time to convince you that you will stay safe if you keep Playing the Game (AND ONLY IF you keep playing The Game!)
and no matter how many people die, no matter how many people are defaced, maimed, mangled and have their souls destroyed as a result of your INACTION, it is all JUSTIFIED. Minimizing what has happened to the American SOUL does not cut it - it is NOT "soft" fascism as one of our Presidential candidates has called it. It is moral anathema, obvious to the entire world.
The Lottery is alive and well and being practiced every day in the halls of CONgress, the White House and beyond the silence of Dick Cheney's TWO walk-in Mosler safes. And the ONLY THING that stands between more mayhem, corruption, death, sickness and moral degeneracy is US - you and me - and we must not go quietly into The Good Night!!
Can we SHAME these people into adequate behavior by appealing to the media and to the states' Attorney Generals? I really do not know - but I do know I would rather die than to leave that avenue unpursued.
.. and this is
I have seen the face of EVIL and what people like to see as the face of Satan firsthand.
It is embodied in the persons of Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Dick Cheney and DAVID ADDINGTON (not to mention John Yoo). It is a "consortium of murders, crooks, liars and CON ARTISTS of the worst possible stripe, given free rein by the majority of the ACLU and the American Bar Association. FOR SHAME!!
Why?
Because, despite the fact no one can ever, EVER run away from conscience, these people are role modelling to a North American generation of young people that Straussite "might is RIGHT" is the way to live LIFE.
But as WE know, that is NOT the way to do it - by continuing a business of corporatocracy in which only the carrot and the stick (and blackmail, perjury, moral "compromise," kickbacks, and materialISM) have sway over the business of living.
Deep down, the weight of over one million dead INNOCENT Iraqis is not going to go away. The destruction of the landmass around the straits of Homuz by depleted uranium weapons must be dealt with sometime SOON. We are facing nuclear annihilation by taking on Iran and Russia.
Blame is not the game: but accountability surely is. That priority, accountability is what sets about the infants and children from pure adulthood. It proves the human race is growing.
Surely we are not seeing this in the past seven years.
But there are other underlaying causes than just pure greed going on in the political "scenario", to wit; we are witnessing the PERVERSION of the rule of law into something so grotesque that us mere "mortals" - that is those who care - are nearly struck dumb with a sense of dread and awfulness each and every day! We KNOW that there are legal safeguards; we are not seeing them IMPLEMENTED.
I woke up wanting to read a copy of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. It was the most awful thing I read growing up. I wanted to read it and out how she built that story into something that was far more affecting than just a simple plot twist; how she found a way for you to FEEL that death sentence. It was in response to thinking what it must have been like to take a walk into Dick Cheney's office to apply to be BuZh's running mate.
Ole Dick. Just smooth as glass saying - "C'mon, be candid with me. If you are going to run as Vice President with Puppetboy, I must know every single detail of what might come out as a campaign proceeds. ALL THE DETAILS! If I know, then I can protect you."
And as a person who knows the perks that go with the job (including a free hand with ALL intelligence gathering), and realizing how RICH and powerful you could be, you open up your mouth and freely tell ole Uncle Dickie all the sex secrets (you had it on with the nanny, the cook, the governess AND the chauffeur), all the money hidden in your inlaws' freezers, the little lies you told on your income tax forms (or didn't tell, cuz you just didn't file for a few years), how you charged CONgress for Jeanne Palfrey's fantasy service and for a limo which was charged to Dusty Foggo's company, how your children are addicted to crack, how you did SPEED cuz the high was fun, how you shoplifted a Rolex watch, how you didn't pay room service at the Hotel Pierre as they left it off the bill by some "mistake", how your wife, husband, lover absolutely HATES you, how you never paid child support for the child you had out of wedlock and gave away, who you paid off when you were in law practice so that no mark went against your legal record with the local ABA ethics committee ..
and on and on and on you went. Every last little detail.
And Uncle Dickie smiled and said: "Wonderful. You are a shoo-in for the job. Just trust me."
And then Uncle Dickie took the job for himself and you knew you had been HAD. And you would ALWAYS BE HAD, and your children would be had, and your spouse was had, and how you didn't want to get some grim CIA-endorsed biochemical disease, or be thrown out of a plane like Ron Brown .. and you would always wonder where it would STOP or not stop.
Your one hope just might be for all the strange comings and goings to come to light; that's a government requirement, right?
Well, nope! It's NOT. David Addington decided that there is a fourth branch of government and that government regulations requiring sensitive and secret intelligence information does not have to be reviewed, filed or archived. You will never be vindicated. You will always be horn swoggled, you will never get away from the threat of Dick (OVP) Cheney and his buddies ..
You started out with a little snag in your moral fabric, you tried to pick it off, it unravelled a bit, you thought maybe you could make it up but that proved too hard, so you went after a little Money and Power to feel better about yourself, but now those who play Hard Ball in the Big Leagues know that they can "have" you, they put their fingers in that little hole and Twist and Twist Away until you don't even recognize yourself, the compulsivity and the addictions kick in full time, you hang out with ONLY THOSE who are of a like bent as yourself, the pests and demons work on you full time to convince you that you will stay safe if you keep Playing the Game (AND ONLY IF you keep playing The Game!)
and no matter how many people die, no matter how many people are defaced, maimed, mangled and have their souls destroyed as a result of your INACTION, it is all JUSTIFIED. Minimizing what has happened to the American SOUL does not cut it - it is NOT "soft" fascism as one of our Presidential candidates has called it. It is moral anathema, obvious to the entire world.
The Lottery is alive and well and being practiced every day in the halls of CONgress, the White House and beyond the silence of Dick Cheney's TWO walk-in Mosler safes. And the ONLY THING that stands between more mayhem, corruption, death, sickness and moral degeneracy is US - you and me - and we must not go quietly into The Good Night!!
Rage! Rage! Against the dieing of the light!And you know, within the Beltway of DC, lies the wreck of many a soul, rePUG and DemocRAT alike, it has a ship of state run by self-serving and vicious attorneys, backed up by a legal profession that is absolutely complicit as war crimes co-conspirators by their baleful silent (and deadly) acquiesence to other lawyers who are operating way, way, WAY outside the rule of law.
Can we SHAME these people into adequate behavior by appealing to the media and to the states' Attorney Generals? I really do not know - but I do know I would rather die than to leave that avenue unpursued.
.. and this is
From my anonymous poster: (it's too true to leave it buried in the comments)
Here are some issues with the 2008 Presidential Candidates needs to address, now:
I would hope the excellent readers of Crooks & Liars and TPMmuckraker could rally the media to call Cheney-Addington on their non-sense. I would like to invite the public to consider the following discussion/points:
I would hope the excellent readers of Crooks & Liars and TPMmuckraker could rally the media to call Cheney-Addington on their non-sense. I would like to invite the public to consider the following discussion/points:
1. 32 CFR 2800
32 CFR 2800 is a code of federal regulations which specifically invokes the Office of Vice President's legal requirements. Addington-Cheney's argument of "we have our own branch" or "We're not subject to ISOO" is a flawed argument. The CFR clearly outlines the specific legal requirements on the OVP and David Addington.
Addington's problem is that he would like to draw a line in the sand, and say, "ISOO does not apply." For the sake of argument, let's accept his argument as true: That going forward, from that date he decided the ISOO does not apply, does in fact not apply. Here's the problem: Even if we rely on this argument, Addington fails to explain: What about the data retention standards/practices before the ISOO supposedly did not apply?
Addington has no answer. The CFR clearly states the ISOO Directives apply to OVP; and there are criminal sanctions against Addington -- as chief legal advisor to the OVP -- under 32 CFR 2800. Even using Addington's argument, he still has no explanation for the data retention policies and procedures that would have applied immediately after 2001, and as they related to OVP discussions of the CIA taping, not to mention the CIA tape destruction, rendition, prisoner abuse.
Addington's other problem is that he has no explanation why the 32 CFR 2800 requirements -- as they relate to Geneva data retention requirements -- have not been fully complied with, met, followed. Also, if we accept that there are "no legal requirements" applicable to OVP, then what standards -- if any -- are the OVP staff using to evaluate whether they are or are nto fully complying; or whether they should or should not make a referral to the FBI/DoJ for possible prosecution?
Addington's problem is that he would like to draw a line in the sand, and say, "ISOO does not apply." For the sake of argument, let's accept his argument as true: That going forward, from that date he decided the ISOO does not apply, does in fact not apply. Here's the problem: Even if we rely on this argument, Addington fails to explain: What about the data retention standards/practices before the ISOO supposedly did not apply?
Addington has no answer. The CFR clearly states the ISOO Directives apply to OVP; and there are criminal sanctions against Addington -- as chief legal advisor to the OVP -- under 32 CFR 2800. Even using Addington's argument, he still has no explanation for the data retention policies and procedures that would have applied immediately after 2001, and as they related to OVP discussions of the CIA taping, not to mention the CIA tape destruction, rendition, prisoner abuse.
Addington's other problem is that he has no explanation why the 32 CFR 2800 requirements -- as they relate to Geneva data retention requirements -- have not been fully complied with, met, followed. Also, if we accept that there are "no legal requirements" applicable to OVP, then what standards -- if any -- are the OVP staff using to evaluate whether they are or are nto fully complying; or whether they should or should not make a referral to the FBI/DoJ for possible prosecution?
If the CFR does not apply -- which it does, but put that aside -- Addington's problem is he's failed to explain what does apply. Without a written standard, there is nothing in writing, and OVP cannot claim it is "legitimate" -- rather, it is failing to use written law or written standards as the basis for governance. That is the same as "illegitimate" government. The war crimes prosecutors take note of that when considering whether legal counsel have or have not fully asserted their oath, or done all they could to enforce the law.
2. Geneva
But let's suppose you don't like the CFR discussion. Fine, let's discuss another gem: The Geneva conventions, and the legal duty on counsel under Article 82 to ensure the conventions are fully met.
Some former WH counsel with the Federalist Society like to pretend that Geneva does not apply; or the US Constitution does not confer any rights upon prisoners of war. That misses the point: Geneva isn't simply a list of rights conferred on prisoners which can or cannot be stripped away; but something that is also the opposite -- legal responsibilities on the detaining power, in this case the United States.
Said another way, Addington's problem is that he's pretending that there is confusion about Geneva; and that Geneva is silent on the US responsibilities; and that the US Constitution doesn't apply to prisoners. Rather, Geneva imposes legal obligations like a leash on the US, preventing US agents and government personnel and contractors from crossing a line. Geneva isn't just a shield for prisoners, but it is a tight leash to prevent the abuse.
Addington's argument about the "fourth branch" would have us believe that because he says so, that the "fourth branch" is not subject to Geneva; does not have a legal constraint; and that Geneva does not constrain the OVP, nor does Geneva mipose legal requirements on counsel, nor does Geneva constrain legal counsel or the OVP. This is illusory. As with all governments, Geneva has two essential prongs which must be enforced, prserved, defeneded, and respected: The enforcement prong as it relates to the object of that detention; and the preservation program as it relates to preserving the requirement as it relates to the United States. Both prongs exist; either prong attaches legal liability to legal counsel. Only one prong needs to be shown to have been violated for Geneva legal consequences to be imposed on legal counsel through a war crimes trial. This is Addington's problem. He's stuck.
By arguing that OVP is "outside" the US government, this does nothing to address whether the OVP is or isn't constrained by Geneva. It is. Again, OVP and Addington's arguments are flawed, but even if we take those arguments to their logical conclusion -- as flawed as they are -- they still do not stand up to legal scrutiny.
3. MCA
Let's pretend you don't like the Geneva or CFR arguments above. Fine. Let's look at Addington's problem from another perspective. Take a look at the last pages of the Military Commissions Act [MCA], and in the original drafts you'll see some interesting language which Addington, DoJ OLC, and the President coordinated with Congress: Language explicitily including within the MCA funds for US government personnel who appear before international tribunals.
Let that sink in for the moment. What the MCA is doing -- despite Addington's denials to the contrary -- is turning Addington's argument on its head: Even if Addington's OVP is in the fourth branch, Addington and others in OVP with the MCA acknowledge the JAG concerns raised at the POW working group meetings within DoD that the US government legal counsel could be tried for war crimes before the ICC.
Addington's problem is even if his claim of "we're outside the three branches"-argument were real, then he still cannot explain why his office fully supported funing of defenses before the ICC. If Addington really believed his "fourth branch" was outside the law, there would have been no reason for he or others in OVP to work with DOJ OLC to get this language within the MCA. But the langaugeis there for one reason: Whether Addington is or is not in one, two, three, or the four branches of government is meaningless: He's still subject to ICC prosecution. It was raised in the POW working group memoranda, the memos are publicly available, TPM and C&L readers well know about these memoranda, and Addington well knows why ICC prosecution is a real threat: Because there have been alleged frivolous legal arguments by him and others in OVP-WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD-NSA in re war crimes, Geneva, and the laws of war.
Some former WH counsel with the Federalist Society like to pretend that Geneva does not apply; or the US Constitution does not confer any rights upon prisoners of war. That misses the point: Geneva isn't simply a list of rights conferred on prisoners which can or cannot be stripped away; but something that is also the opposite -- legal responsibilities on the detaining power, in this case the United States.
Said another way, Addington's problem is that he's pretending that there is confusion about Geneva; and that Geneva is silent on the US responsibilities; and that the US Constitution doesn't apply to prisoners. Rather, Geneva imposes legal obligations like a leash on the US, preventing US agents and government personnel and contractors from crossing a line. Geneva isn't just a shield for prisoners, but it is a tight leash to prevent the abuse.
Addington's argument about the "fourth branch" would have us believe that because he says so, that the "fourth branch" is not subject to Geneva; does not have a legal constraint; and that Geneva does not constrain the OVP, nor does Geneva mipose legal requirements on counsel, nor does Geneva constrain legal counsel or the OVP. This is illusory. As with all governments, Geneva has two essential prongs which must be enforced, prserved, defeneded, and respected: The enforcement prong as it relates to the object of that detention; and the preservation program as it relates to preserving the requirement as it relates to the United States. Both prongs exist; either prong attaches legal liability to legal counsel. Only one prong needs to be shown to have been violated for Geneva legal consequences to be imposed on legal counsel through a war crimes trial. This is Addington's problem. He's stuck.
By arguing that OVP is "outside" the US government, this does nothing to address whether the OVP is or isn't constrained by Geneva. It is. Again, OVP and Addington's arguments are flawed, but even if we take those arguments to their logical conclusion -- as flawed as they are -- they still do not stand up to legal scrutiny.
3. MCA
Let's pretend you don't like the Geneva or CFR arguments above. Fine. Let's look at Addington's problem from another perspective. Take a look at the last pages of the Military Commissions Act [MCA], and in the original drafts you'll see some interesting language which Addington, DoJ OLC, and the President coordinated with Congress: Language explicitily including within the MCA funds for US government personnel who appear before international tribunals.
Let that sink in for the moment. What the MCA is doing -- despite Addington's denials to the contrary -- is turning Addington's argument on its head: Even if Addington's OVP is in the fourth branch, Addington and others in OVP with the MCA acknowledge the JAG concerns raised at the POW working group meetings within DoD that the US government legal counsel could be tried for war crimes before the ICC.
Addington's problem is even if his claim of "we're outside the three branches"-argument were real, then he still cannot explain why his office fully supported funing of defenses before the ICC. If Addington really believed his "fourth branch" was outside the law, there would have been no reason for he or others in OVP to work with DOJ OLC to get this language within the MCA. But the langaugeis there for one reason: Whether Addington is or is not in one, two, three, or the four branches of government is meaningless: He's still subject to ICC prosecution. It was raised in the POW working group memoranda, the memos are publicly available, TPM and C&L readers well know about these memoranda, and Addington well knows why ICC prosecution is a real threat: Because there have been alleged frivolous legal arguments by him and others in OVP-WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD-NSA in re war crimes, Geneva, and the laws of war.
4. CIA Tape Destruction
Let's forget the above for the moment, and focus narrowly on the issue of the CIA Tape destruction in the context of this claim "we're in our own branch of government." Fine, let's pretend that argument is true: Why was this "fourth branch" involved with discussions about CIA tape destruction, rendition, prisoner abuse, and the movement of prisoners?
Even if they are in the "fourth branch" Addington's problem is that he cannot explain why he's getting access to material information, secret data, and other state secrets. It's not as though he's above the law, can randomly get access to this data, and do with it what he wants. Rather, Addington's problem is that he's blocked the ISOO auditor from reviewing the data which OVP has received, and has been supposedly hidden in this "fourth branch" which, by ADdington's admission, would fall outside the permitted data storage allowances.
That is key: There are two things -- prongs -- we're talking about on this OVP data: One is a standard; one is the practice. Keep that in mind as you workn on the FOIAs: If OVP is not within any standard, then it must be stored consistent with some standards. Addiongton's problem is that by asserting he is in a fourth branch, he's failed to demonstrate that he's lawfully overseeing data, or that he is effecitvely managing resources.
Geneva is not silent on this. If Addington -- as he asserts -- is not subject to any laws, and not required to follow any rules -- then Geneva would classify all operations under his direction, association, or subject to any policy he's written as being unlawful combatants: Those forces that he's writing policies for are outside Geneva-recognized classes. In other words, by asserting he's "outside" the US government's legallly recognized three branches, he's admitting -- by implication -- that he and others are not lawfully providing any direction, nor are they legally issuing any orders, nor are the agets and contractors under Addington's influence under the GEneva-protected classess.
Under the laws of war, this would lawfully beofre the ICC appear as though Addington and the OVP were engaged in non-Geneva-protected activities; and they too are subject to prosecution as unlawful combatants, and unlawful policy makers per the Geneva Conventions. By implication, this means the prime motivation of the CIA tapes' destruction is not to protect any CIA agent -- look at Plame -- nor to insulate the CIA from "political concerns" -- get real, in 2005 GOP was assumed to have political control -- but for one reason: JAGs well stated to Addington after 2001 that the ICC could prosecute civilians for war crimes.
5. War Crimes Issue
Here's Addington's real problem as it relates to Geneva and the treatment or prisoners in Eastern Europe and the Rendition program. Regardless the Supreme Courts position that they are "state secrets," Geneva imposes legal reqwuirements on all people. Lawyers, last time i Checked, despire their defects, are people and still subject to Geneva. Even in secret programs, the Geneva conventions still applied to the United States. It doesn't matter what the US government says about the status of the prisoners, detainees, or whether they were located. Once the US agreed to be bound by Geneva, then all US contactors, forces, and things under US controls were bound by Geneva; doesn't matter whether the US farmed out, contacted, or sent prisoners to "other locations". The chief legal requirement was on the United States, its persons, and all US persons subject to that treaty: Our conduct must comply with Geneva; and we cannot change that requirement by moving the prisoner. Standards do not change by hiding the evidence; standards apply regardless whether an OVP legal advisor pretends they are in a place where "it doesn't apply." That place does not exist, but in the wild imagination of an attorney making allegedly frivolous legal arguments.
Even if they are in the "fourth branch" Addington's problem is that he cannot explain why he's getting access to material information, secret data, and other state secrets. It's not as though he's above the law, can randomly get access to this data, and do with it what he wants. Rather, Addington's problem is that he's blocked the ISOO auditor from reviewing the data which OVP has received, and has been supposedly hidden in this "fourth branch" which, by ADdington's admission, would fall outside the permitted data storage allowances.
That is key: There are two things -- prongs -- we're talking about on this OVP data: One is a standard; one is the practice. Keep that in mind as you workn on the FOIAs: If OVP is not within any standard, then it must be stored consistent with some standards. Addiongton's problem is that by asserting he is in a fourth branch, he's failed to demonstrate that he's lawfully overseeing data, or that he is effecitvely managing resources.
Geneva is not silent on this. If Addington -- as he asserts -- is not subject to any laws, and not required to follow any rules -- then Geneva would classify all operations under his direction, association, or subject to any policy he's written as being unlawful combatants: Those forces that he's writing policies for are outside Geneva-recognized classes. In other words, by asserting he's "outside" the US government's legallly recognized three branches, he's admitting -- by implication -- that he and others are not lawfully providing any direction, nor are they legally issuing any orders, nor are the agets and contractors under Addington's influence under the GEneva-protected classess.
Under the laws of war, this would lawfully beofre the ICC appear as though Addington and the OVP were engaged in non-Geneva-protected activities; and they too are subject to prosecution as unlawful combatants, and unlawful policy makers per the Geneva Conventions. By implication, this means the prime motivation of the CIA tapes' destruction is not to protect any CIA agent -- look at Plame -- nor to insulate the CIA from "political concerns" -- get real, in 2005 GOP was assumed to have political control -- but for one reason: JAGs well stated to Addington after 2001 that the ICC could prosecute civilians for war crimes.
5. War Crimes Issue
Here's Addington's real problem as it relates to Geneva and the treatment or prisoners in Eastern Europe and the Rendition program. Regardless the Supreme Courts position that they are "state secrets," Geneva imposes legal reqwuirements on all people. Lawyers, last time i Checked, despire their defects, are people and still subject to Geneva. Even in secret programs, the Geneva conventions still applied to the United States. It doesn't matter what the US government says about the status of the prisoners, detainees, or whether they were located. Once the US agreed to be bound by Geneva, then all US contactors, forces, and things under US controls were bound by Geneva; doesn't matter whether the US farmed out, contacted, or sent prisoners to "other locations". The chief legal requirement was on the United States, its persons, and all US persons subject to that treaty: Our conduct must comply with Geneva; and we cannot change that requirement by moving the prisoner. Standards do not change by hiding the evidence; standards apply regardless whether an OVP legal advisor pretends they are in a place where "it doesn't apply." That place does not exist, but in the wild imagination of an attorney making allegedly frivolous legal arguments.
Under US laws, all legal counsel who make frivolous legal arguments to justify, not stop, or condone illegal activity, can be personally attached to the underlying unlawful activity. Said another way, even though Addington may not have personally violated the laws of war, he -- as an attorney -- had a duty to not make frivolous legal arguments. However, when he does make frivolous legal arguments, the precedent under US law and Geneva -- through Nuremberg -- is to attach the underlying war crimes to the legal counsel making frivolous legal arguments.
This gets us back to where we started: Addington's arguments that he's in a "fourth branch". Let's revisit the CFR in the context of frivolous arguments. ICC when it reviews the evidence will look at the US Constitution and ask, "Is there a mechanism in place to enforce the laws of war?" The answer, already given and the reason for ICC not taking action yet, is the US does have the power to prosecute and enforce Geneva. They are called courts, prosecutions, attorney Generals, and impeachment.
The moment Addington and other WH-DOJ-OLC IS a fourth branch] but the ICC does not see the US taking action to enforce Geneva against Addington because of these frivolous legal arguments, then the ICC could step back and say:
6. US Enforcement
On the table are the alleged frivolous legal arguments Addington and other legal counsel have given; also there are the Genva constraints with the JAGs well documented; and there is the open evidence that prisoners have been abused. We don't need a long trial nor lengthy discovery to look at the open record: There is clear evidence that the US government did have legal counsel present; that legal counsel was aware of the prisoner abuse; and that Addington personally was reluctant to move the prisoners because allegedly he said that a change in position would be an admission the original treatment was illegal.
Some are pretending that Addington has to show his evidence, or that he must comply, or that without the evidence the OVP staff will go free. Non-sense. Under the laws of war and rules of evidence -- even criminal matters -- where there is evidence missing, where there is a legal duty to preserve that evidence, the lack of evidence is admissible. In this case, its reasonable for the ICC, Senate, and Grand Juries to conclude the reason the evidence is missing is that there were known ICC-issues which the JAGs raised; and the reason Addington and others did not preserve the data had nothing to do with whether they were or were not required (that is not in doubt, they are), but because Addington and others well knew that they had not met their legal obligations.
This can be proven simply: Looking at the argument of "we are in the fourth branch" is allegedly a frivolous legal argument; and when we review the CFR and Geneva we have two legal standards which Addington and others are alleged to have been instrumental in "explaining" them away. We only need to look at the JAG memos; and the OLC discussion to confirm whether Addington worked alone, or whether there were civilian legal counsel who were complicit.
If we speculate, it appears what's happened is that legal counsel associated with the FISA violations had some financial interest in prosecuting a war, and ensuring there were no legal consequences. This is speculation. But that is not necessarily the issue: The question is why would the legal counsel working on the telecom immunity be working so hard for immunity, yet Addington claims "we're not subject to any law". Why isn't the telecom community making the same argument? The answer appears: The telecom contractors appear to fear that their FISA violations were instrumental in supporting war crimes; and that the OVP-evidence, which they have, could be subpoenaed to show Addington was fully involved with the war crimes planning.
Time to calling Addingotn on his bluff. He claims there's no evidence. Fine. There's discussion that the telecoms want immunity. OK, let's consider that: In exchange for immunity, are they prepared to turn over all the OVP-related evidence that the ICC and war crimes prosecutors want? If not, then there is evidence with GCHQ that can help put teh telecoms and OVP staff before the ICC.
It's time to stop playing nice with the telecoms, OVP, and Addington. He's allegedly destroyed war crimes evidence. That evidence is retained outside hsi control within GCHQ, and also other non-NATO allies have expressed interest in enforcing Geneva against US government officials. If Addington wants to believe that he's not subject to any law, then it is time for the international community to apply Geneva, and declare Addington and the OVP and VP leaders of unlawful combatants, and subject to enforcement under Geneva.
Big Clue For Addington
If he wants to continue to pretend he's not within any of the three legally recognized branches of government, then his assertions can be entered into evidence as frivolous; and for purposes of reviewing CIA tape destruction and Geneva standards, that evidence can be presented before the ICC's war crimes prosecutors.
The moment Addington and other WH-DOJ-OLC IS a fourth branch] but the ICC does not see the US taking action to enforce Geneva against Addington because of these frivolous legal arguments, then the ICC could step back and say:
"OK. We've given them their chance. They've balked. Time to review what Addington said about the fourth branch, and consider whether that is a legal defense, or whether it is a frivolous legal argument."
The ICC may conclude that asserting "we don't have to keep war crimes evidence because we're in the fourth branch" as a frivolous legal argument. Addington is likely to invoke the MCA language which says his legal defenses before the ICC are fully paid by the US government.
6. US Enforcement
On the table are the alleged frivolous legal arguments Addington and other legal counsel have given; also there are the Genva constraints with the JAGs well documented; and there is the open evidence that prisoners have been abused. We don't need a long trial nor lengthy discovery to look at the open record: There is clear evidence that the US government did have legal counsel present; that legal counsel was aware of the prisoner abuse; and that Addington personally was reluctant to move the prisoners because allegedly he said that a change in position would be an admission the original treatment was illegal.
Some are pretending that Addington has to show his evidence, or that he must comply, or that without the evidence the OVP staff will go free. Non-sense. Under the laws of war and rules of evidence -- even criminal matters -- where there is evidence missing, where there is a legal duty to preserve that evidence, the lack of evidence is admissible. In this case, its reasonable for the ICC, Senate, and Grand Juries to conclude the reason the evidence is missing is that there were known ICC-issues which the JAGs raised; and the reason Addington and others did not preserve the data had nothing to do with whether they were or were not required (that is not in doubt, they are), but because Addington and others well knew that they had not met their legal obligations.
This can be proven simply: Looking at the argument of "we are in the fourth branch" is allegedly a frivolous legal argument; and when we review the CFR and Geneva we have two legal standards which Addington and others are alleged to have been instrumental in "explaining" them away. We only need to look at the JAG memos; and the OLC discussion to confirm whether Addington worked alone, or whether there were civilian legal counsel who were complicit.
If we speculate, it appears what's happened is that legal counsel associated with the FISA violations had some financial interest in prosecuting a war, and ensuring there were no legal consequences. This is speculation. But that is not necessarily the issue: The question is why would the legal counsel working on the telecom immunity be working so hard for immunity, yet Addington claims "we're not subject to any law". Why isn't the telecom community making the same argument? The answer appears: The telecom contractors appear to fear that their FISA violations were instrumental in supporting war crimes; and that the OVP-evidence, which they have, could be subpoenaed to show Addington was fully involved with the war crimes planning.
Time to calling Addingotn on his bluff. He claims there's no evidence. Fine. There's discussion that the telecoms want immunity. OK, let's consider that: In exchange for immunity, are they prepared to turn over all the OVP-related evidence that the ICC and war crimes prosecutors want? If not, then there is evidence with GCHQ that can help put teh telecoms and OVP staff before the ICC.
It's time to stop playing nice with the telecoms, OVP, and Addington. He's allegedly destroyed war crimes evidence. That evidence is retained outside hsi control within GCHQ, and also other non-NATO allies have expressed interest in enforcing Geneva against US government officials. If Addington wants to believe that he's not subject to any law, then it is time for the international community to apply Geneva, and declare Addington and the OVP and VP leaders of unlawful combatants, and subject to enforcement under Geneva.
Big Clue For Addington
If he wants to continue to pretend he's not within any of the three legally recognized branches of government, then his assertions can be entered into evidence as frivolous; and for purposes of reviewing CIA tape destruction and Geneva standards, that evidence can be presented before the ICC's war crimes prosecutors.
Also, standing in the wings are the State Attorney Generals who have the power to prosecute a sitting Vice President and legal counsel. Time to remind the State AGs that ICC expects the US government, or someone, to enforce Geneva. Congress refuses; might as well be the State AGs that organize the effort.
Addington is an alleged war criminal. He's allegedly been in receipt of war crimes evidence. The ICC is assuming the US will resolve this issue. It's time for the Presidential candidates for the 2008 election to get challenged on this issue: What is their plan to cooperate with the ICC -- as the MCA said was possible -- in enforcing Geneva against Addington; or do they have no plan? If they haven't thought about this, then
what good are they going to be in enforcing the
"needed reforms"
to ensure this never happens again?
what good are they going to be in enforcing the
"needed reforms"
to ensure this never happens again?
Addington, in my personal opinion, is a worthless attorney. He didn't graduate from the Naval Academy. He believes Geneva does not apply. He's failed to understand that regardless the relevance of Geneva to a prisoner, that Geneva is a leash on him. The question is whether he wants to cooperate; or whether he would like to be the subject of a world-wide man hunt to find him. Addington has a major legal problem. Pretending that he's in his own branch isn't solving his problem; it's merely evidence the ICC needs to attach Addington to the alleged war crimes others have committed in violation of the laws of war.
If the US Congress will not impeach Addington, then the ICC may conclude the US government is not serious about enforcing Geneva, and proceed with prosecutions. Congress, by refusing to impeach, send the ICC and international community a clear signal in re Geneva: The US government is not serious about enforcing, complying with, or following the laws of war. The international community has lawful ways of dealing with nations who believe they are not bound by standards:
That nation, as was done in WWII, is lawfully declared an outlaw nation, and subject to lawful attack.
The rule of law shall prevail.
Even against legal counsel who make frivolous legal arguments in re Geneva and the laws of war. You brought this on yourselves.
Time to wake up. This is about war crimes, evidence destruction, and alleged Attorney misconduct warranting the DC Disciplinary board to start an investigation into Addington, OVP legal counsel, and DOJ Staff counsel. Time for the US legal community to self govern; or, by their inaction, admit that they have no effective oversight mechanism -- as required -- to enforce the laws of war against member attorneys. If the US government will not lead this, then it is time for the public to openly discuss what happened in Germany after WWII: There were new governance standards which transformed the German government. The same needs to be done in the US. The next President needs to be challenged -- now, during the primaries -- to explain their plan to transform this US government into one that is responsive to the laws of war, not -- as it is now -- complicit with war crimes and incapable of enforcing or adhering fully to Geneva.
No comments:
Post a Comment