IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT; Let's call Addington on his BLUFF! Sounds like a Good Idea, to me! How's about YOU??

Been following along on this discussion?

Getting yourself into HIGH GEAR to see the White House and Uncle Dickie and the rest of the cabal to face charges as the war criminals that they are?

Have you noticed that in light of the defining an deafening silence in the Department of Justice (this includes goneGonzales And AT&T apologist Michael Mukasey) and CONgress about the nature of the war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors going on for the past seven years, not to mention in the mainstream media, that we have been forced to figure out how to pursue justice is left to ...

OURSELVES??

Here is the latest issue to pursued . . . how do we get David Addington under the legal microscope to show exactly where his dirty little mind has taken us all, the little rationalization script he has pursued to assist, abet and = ahem = justify the misdeeds of those in control of the US weapons arsenal, the troops, the intelligence apparatus that is = ahem = supposed to protect us from tyranny and terrorism?

Here is the latest plot as we go bravely forward to get rid of the compromised, dishonest, corrupted and morally bankrupted Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers .. Let's ...

Call Addington on his bluff:

"OK, you won't give us the data in the OVP files; let's see the post-decision-emails related to that decision to exclude OVP from the ISOO-directives in the 32 CFR 2800."

The arguments he'll use to not comply with that request will likely contradict the assertions he's made to the court. That's his problem. His problem is this isn't about OVP, ISOO, or data retention; but about something else: Alleged e-mails discussion efforts to thwart access to alleged war crimes evidence.

Says my anonymous poster.

The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)

The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) is responsible to the President for policy and oversight of the Government-wide security classification system and the National Industrial Security Program. We receive our authority from Executive Orders 12958 "Classified National Security Information" [PDF] and 12829 "National Industrial Security Program" [PDF], as amended.

We are a component of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and receive our policy and program guidance from the National Security Council (NSC).

ISOO has two directorates and a staff of 25 people to accomplish its mission.

The Directorate for Policy:
Develops security classification policies for classifying, declassifying and safeguarding national security information generated in Government and industry. The current policy documents for the Government and industry programs are Executive Orders 12958, as amended, and 12829, as amended, respectively.

The Directorate for Operations:
Evaluates the effectiveness of the security classification programs established by Government and industry to protect information vital to our national security interests.

Presidential Document

• View an up-to-date listing of agency heads and officials who have been designated by the President in the Federal Register as having the authority to classify information.
  Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 200 Tuesday, October 17, 1995 Pages 53845-53846
  
  
  
  
  
  You see, the ISOO is supposedly a government office protecting US, not the office of the Vice President (OVP) !!! Now, isn't THAT a surprise! It's supposed to protect us all from state secrets falling into the wrong hands. It's not there to protect our officials - rich and groaning in defense profit$ and displaying their moral bankruptcy for all to see - from legal culpability at all!! No, it's definitely not for that!
  
  Yet, to protect the Vice President (OVP) from being found guilty of torture, rendition, use of clusterbombs (No! No! says the world to those!), depleted uranium weapons, Addington, dear David Addington, has suggested that he can ignore the PROCEDURES clearly laid out.
  
  Um HMMMM. Right. His little mind outranks the consensus of the entire global community. But there is thing .. and something he MIGHT have thought about .. as an ATTORNEY, when ignoring international law, he can be found guilty of being a war criminal himself when taking it upon himself to cover up for all those bloody hands!!
  
  Let's take a real look at the thinking of a good legal mind - and try to bear with the entire argument to see the soup that David Addington has brewed for himself. Davy'll need a bit of Remy to swig when he gets a load of THIS. And maybe a good near death experience (nde), to boot!
  
  From my anonymous poster .. * I recommend you read materials posted here on the blog on 28 CFR 3200 first .. you need to understand the precise nature of what the law demands from the White House, and from Dick Cheney's office in order to understand how cleverly they THINK they have overcome federal directives before you understand, probably, how entrapped by his OWN LIES and legal distortions David Addington actually is.
  

We are the face of the new generation of "Good Germans" . . those wish to come into the Millenium with clean hands, clean souls and a duty to do right by the other citizens in this world. And nothing short of a total reformation of our legal system (american legal system) is going to accomplish this; therefore, I, just another glib person in a world of corruption ask that ALL ATTORNEYS take this information to heart and do WHAT IS RIGHT. Here is the plan!! We need a return to the RULE OF LAW pronto. The cost of not doing that has been way too high already.

I would like a good night's sleep knowing that these monsters are being held ACCOUNTABLE.

Here: before you get into the "meat", is some gravy to help you understand the precise nature of what is being said below (for clarification purposes)

OVERVIEW

The key point with this entire article is this:

The X-decision point is not, in itself, important as far as "when" it is; rather, this X-point merely represents a line in the sand:

1. Addington/OVP will have to commit to this point in time;

2. All OVP-data that Addington hopes to shield (that he says is outside ISOO-reporting/retention requirements) that is _before_ this date will be under this standard.

3. _After_ this X-date, then the focuse of the data changes from [a] the OVP-iSOO-related- data that Addington wants to shield; to [b] the e-mail discussions after the X-data, that are post-deliberative, and no longer proteced by privildge.

4. The key with this X-date is that the A-B line represents the OVP-data which has not yet been declared "outside" the OVP retention requirements of ISOO; and the CD-line represents the e-mail that is "outside" the "deliberative privilege".

5. Addington/VOP will most likely attempt to pretend that the X-data is "something else" or "cannot be disclosed" or "cannot be pinpointed". That is the trap: If he "can't decide" when the X-data is, then he has no basis to say that OVP data is or is not outside a standard on a given date; nor say when the OVP data moved from "being under 32 CFR 2800" to "something else that does not include ISOO". This is another way of saying, "If ADdington-OVP will not commit to the X-date, then they have no basis to say that any e-mails are shielded, as there was never a decision, and never a "pre-decisoin/deliberative" region.

6. Arguably, the ISOO-requirement remains in force; but if Addington wants to pretend "After the President Bush-Cheney took power, then the ISOO-standard didn't apply," he'll have to say, "When after Jan 2001 the ISOO-requirements no longer applied; and when, before that date, the OVP data would still be subject to the ISOO-directives."

7. The Key will be to pinpiont the X-date; get Addington OVP to commit to that X-date; then call him on his bluff: All OVP-data before the X-date is still under the ISOO standard, and is subject to review/access/compliance under 32 CFR 2800; and all e-mails sent in regards to this X-data/ISOO/32 CFR 2800/and the "decision to conclude OVP is outside the three branches, in his fourth branch" is disoverable, because it is after that decision.

Overall, the key is to realize that this could be very confusing, but the confusion is of Addington-OVP's making: They are the ones that want to protend OVP is "not" sujbect to some ISOO-standards, regardless the 32 CFR 2800 requirements which still include ISOO.

Also, once the X-date is asserted, then Addington admits -- through implication by 32 CFR 2800 -- that the OVP Chief Counsel is subject to prosecution for the non-compliance with ISOO standards _before_ those standards were deemed "no longer applaible."

ADdington's job is to explain:

A. When did the decision to exclude ISOO-standard get finalized;

B. Why is he still talking about "non-relevance" of ISOO standards, despite that "Decision"

C. Where are the e-mails sent after the X-date that are still discussing things that were "suppsosedly finalized"

Overall, the key is to recall this: Regardless the X-date, data before and after that X-date is accessible: OVP data subject to ISOO before the X-date; and e-mails sent in re ISOO after the X-date. In summary, the excuse of "ISOO does not apply" is meaningless, as all the data from OVP since 2000 is discoverable: Either as OVP data subject to ISOO; or as e-mail after the X-date.

Addington hasn't created a shield, but merely shown, by committing to an X-date, that he's opened himself to other inquiry. This relates to alleged war crimes evidence ICC needs.

<<:>> <<:>> <<:>>

CREW has been involved with the OVP records reviews: they appear to have a legal interest in getting FOIAs related to OVP compliance/non-compliance with various security reports. Addington and VP have claimed they are in their "own branch" and "not subject" to the Executive Orders related to ISOO. However, 32 CFR 2800 clearly shows the OVP is subject to security standards which include ISOO directives and executive orders. However, Addington contends the ISOO standards do not apply to OVP. Addington does not specifically address 32 CFR 2800, only asserts "executive orders" (an irrelevant argument, arguably frivolous) do not apply to OVP; and that the OVP is not an "agency" subject to ISOO standards.

Put aside the above. It appears there is an opportunity. Let's call Addington on his bluff. This note outlines a number of options for war crimes prosecutors, ICC, and legal counsel attempting to get FOIAs requests fulfilled. This goes over some basic legal definitions; is not intended as legal advice; and is merely for discussion purposes only.

ISOO Decision Point

Addington asserts that OVP is not subject to ISOO standards. However, he fails to address the 32 CFR 2800 requirements which explicitly mention ISOO directives. Addington's problem is that he's failed to make the case that OVP "never" was subject to any 32 CFR 2800 requirement; or that the OVP security-compliance standards never included any ISOO directives. He appears to merely assert that they do not apply.

Let's accept that assertion as true, for the sake of discussion: That there was a decision, related to 32 CFR 2800, that says the ISOO directives were no longer applicable. Keep in mind as you read this, the 32 CFR 2800 still includes the ISOO directive references; and the assertion that OVP is or is not in the Executive branch is not relevant: 32 CFR 2800 applies directly to OVP.

Addington's problem, in light of the clear language in 32 CFr 2800 that expressly includes ISOO directives, is that he has to point to a specific time when this standard "no longer applies". Let's call that time the "line in the sand." Put that aside for the moment while we discuss his other problem.

Deliberations

Under the rules of privilege, we learned through the DOJ Staff counsel, that "pre-decision memoranda" are protected. This means any discussion counsel has before a decision is protected or shielded by privilege, unless that legal opinion is clearly erroneous, frivolous, and tends to condone illegal activity.

As we continue with this comment, I would like you to keep in mind the following diagram:

[ A----------B - X - C----------D ] , where:

- The "X" signifies the decision point to no longer include the OVP under ISOO;
- Horizontal line A-B represents pre-decision deliberations;
- Line C-D represents post-decision memoranda; and
- Time is on the horizontal axis, going left to right. Early time is on your left; and later time is on your right.

Addington appears to incorrectly believe he's made an argument that seals all the evidence. The evidence appears to relate to decisions the OVP took to ignore 32 CFR 2800, not comply with OVP security requirements, and pretend that the legal requirements were not applicable. Here's his problem: (Refer to the diagram)

A. Whether OVP is or isn't an executive agency is irrelevant for purposes of 32 CFR 2800: OVP is expressly included. However, Addington would like to pretend 32 CFR 2800 does not apply; and that at some point -- X -- there was a decision to no longer consider OVP as being subject to ISOO security standards.

B. This time-X is the decision point; meaning, all memoranda in A-B are not obviously releasable, unless they are unrelated to that decision and can be accessed using other methods. However, if decision-X is real, and there was a decision to "no longer include" OVP within the ISOO standards, that must have occurred after the President took the oath of office in 2001. In theory. This helps bound the time when the OVP was, in Addington's mind, "no longer" subject to the ISOO 32 CFR 2800 standards.

C. Addington's burden, for the sake of this discussion only, isn't to show that the evidence is protected; but the opposite: To provide an inventory of all data that is pre-decisional. It is up to the court to decide whether that inventory is correct or not. When OVP asserts that the memoranda "cannot be disclosed" because they are "pre decisional", that is not an assertion the court accepts; but the opposite -- one the court reviews. If the court agrees, then the list of documents asserted to be privileged because of the "pre-decisional or deliberative"-waiver/protection

/privilege, then those documents are sealed.

D. After "the decision", the privilege does not apply. If there are no reasonable reasons, the Court can-may-might-could order all these post-decisional memoranda/discussion/non-deliberative e-mails related to this issue. The key is to know exactly what the Court has or has not expressly ruled on; and call Addington on his bluff about the rules "not applying". Other rules do.

E. However, if there is a time-X where there was a decision to exclude OVP from the 32 CFR 2800-ISOO-related standards, then that date must exist; and all subsequent discussion after that decision no longer fall within the "pre decisional protection privilege". As we saw with the US Atty firing-emails, the DOJ staff when it sent e-mails after the decision to fire -- was required to provide those emails; they were not protected. They were made after the decision to fire. This does not go into the issue of the DOJ Staff using non-official emails to bypass the official records; or the possibility that the WH-DOJ-RNC destroyed emails that they realized could not be protected by any privilege claim.

FOIA Request

Now that you have an idea of a timelines, decision points, and know a little bit about pre-decisional/deliberative privilege/shields, you're going to quickly see that Addington has a problem: He's stuck in a web of contradictory assertions which do not match reality, the standards, or the existing lines of evidence outside his control. Addington's problem is he's still digging. DC Disciplinary board needs to get spun up on this.

Let's reconsider what Addington is saying, but put this in the context of the X-decision; and the pre-post decisions. You'll see that the subsequent FOIA-requests will produce something which Addington cannot protect or shield. Where this is going: The inventory is allegedly a list which the International Criminal Court would be interested.

Here is the problem Addington has:

A. If he claims that the OVP is "not" subject to any ISOO-related standards, then he needs to point to a specific decision that does the following: Expressly changes the language within 32 CFR 2800; one that expressly changes the language in the OVP-related language; and one that expressly deletes the ISOO-references. His problem is that the CFR still includes these ISOO references, but let's pretend that he's changed them. Going back to our diagram, if he asserts that ISOO-related references -- in the CFR and as they relate to OVP data-retention requirements -- are not longer valid, he will have ot produce a document that expressly does this. if there is no document, then the standard hasn't been changed; if he refuses to provide the document, he has to explain why he's not providing that document. he can't be silent.

B. Addington's other problem is that once he commits to a "specific date-X" where there was "the decision" to "exclude" OVP from the ISOO requirements, he will have to produce all documents made after that decision, in the C-D range. That's his problem. Addington's goal is to shield everything.

C. Recall, there are two types of data we're talking about: One is the data that was supposed to have been retained, and is subject to 32 CFR 2800 requirements; and the second set of data -- which bears closer examination -- are the discussions related to that decision to exclude OVP from this standard. Let's accept, for the sake of argument, Addington's assertion that the OVP office is "not subject" to any Executive Order; and accept that he's failed to account for the CFR-ISOO requirements: There has to be some post-decision discussion about his realizing that the e-mails related to his decision are not protected. Again, we're not talking about the original data that OVP refuses to turn over, but the e-mail discussion about that OVP-data. Once Addington asserts that there was "a decision" to draw the line in the sand, and say, "from this day forth" OVP is not subject to ISOO, then all subsequent discussions -- post-decisional-memoranda -- are not protected by privilege.

D. The key on the FOIA requests for OVP is to think in terms of the two lines of data: One is the data that the public would like to see, which Addington wants to say is not subject to ISOO; and the second set of data, is the e-mail discussion related to that post-decision. If we accept -- for the sake of argument -- Addington's assertion that there was a decision, and after that date, the OVP data was not subject to ISOO, then all e-mails related to that post-decision are reviewable, and subject to FOIA-requests.

E. Addington's problem is -- referring to the diagram -- is that he's hoping nobody is going to pinpoint him on the following: When did the OVP no longer fall under 32 CFR 2800-ISOO-requirements?

Suggestions

1. Pinpoint for the court the exact calendar date Addington/OVP asserts that OVP was not subject to ISOO;

2. Require Addington to produce all e-mail records related to any discussion after this date;

3. Require Addington to produce an inventory of all e-mails related to this decision in an inventory to the court;

4. Ask the Court to review the legal basis for OVP to declare a change to the CFR; and include a data when OVP notified the public that the 32 CFR 2800 had been changed to exclude ISOO-references-directives.

Comments

Addington is stuck. He and OVP staff counsel fails to realize that even if he claims the OVP is in its "own branch", he has not addressed adequately for the court or public why the ISOO-directives no longer apply. The 32 CFR 2800 still includes ISOO, and there has been no change [read="Addington is imagining an X-date]; and because there was not apparent decision to remove ISOO-requirements from the 32 CFR 2800 requirements, there is neither a pre-decisional shield [read: "A-B protection does not exist for any e-mails related to the ISOO requirements"] nor is there a basis to shield any of the records OVP says it does not have to provide.

Addington appears to be saying, "We do not have to provide this non-email OVP-data for the FOIA request, because the OVP was not in the Executive branch, and not subject to any ISOO-standards." Even if we accept that assertion as true, and go down that route with him, he'll be forced to contradict himself before the court when asked about the "emails about that decision to exclude OVP from ISOO."

Key Questions

- When, after President Bush and VP Cheney took office, did OVP change the 32 CFR 2800 language to explicitly exclude OVP from the 32 CFR 2800 requirements? [Adverse inference: The ISOO-related standards in the 32 CFR 2800 were not changed; the ISOO-requirements remain, and Addington cannot claim any e-mails related to the OVP security retention requirements in re 32 CFR 2800 are protected. Rather than address the ISOO standards in the CFR, Addington is attempting to change the focus to whether OVP is or is not subject to executive orders. That is an irrelevant, and arguably frivolous argument subjecting Addington to an alleged disbarment investigation in re alleged war crimes evidence destruction/obstruction of justice in re evidence related to an ongoing proceeding.]

- Which e-mails related to this decision does Addington-OVP assert were part of the "pre-decisional-deliberations"; and has the court been provided an inventory of these emails? [Adverse inference: Addington cannot point to a specific date when this decision was made; and no e-mails related to this "non-decision" are protected/shielded. He'll have to create another allegedly frivolous excuse not to comply with the 32 CFR 2800 requirements on OVP, of interest to ICC.]

- Which e-mails made after this decision is Addington attempting to distract attention from, and focus not on the emails, or the OVP 32 CFR 2800-ISOO requirements, but pretend that "everything" is protected? [[Adverse inference: Here, we enter the issue of the real reason RNC-WH-OVP e-mails appear to be deleted: Addington appears to know the e-mails are of interest to war crimes prosecutors, but he has no non-frivolous legal argument to shield them, so the emails were allegedly destroyed. Lack of evidence where there should be evidence, as required under 32 CFR 2800, can be entered into evidence with adverse inferences: "The email was destroyed for frivolous reasons; and the underlying illegal war crimes attach to counsel."]

- If the OVP data is "not" subject to any ISOO-standards, when was this decision made to exclude OVP from these ISOO standards; and why -- despite the "change" after Cheney took office -- is OVP asking us to believe that OVP "never" was subject to any 32 CFR 2800-ISOO requirements? [[Adverse inference: In this case, war crimes evidence which cannot be destroyed, or others have seen, can only be shielded using allegedly frivolous reasons. If it cannot be protected, the only option -- to hide the evidence without a bonafide shield -- is to destroy it. Allegedly illegally in re ICC.]

- Has Addington -- in asserting that OVP data is shielded because it does "not" have a reporting requirement under ISOO -- adequately explained how he's differentiating between [a] pre-decisional memoranda/email issued before this decision date; [b] the OVP data which is the subject of the original FOIA request, and unrelated to emails either before or after the "date which ISOO standards" did not apply; and [c] the e-mails sent outside the protected/shielded period [C-D]? [[Adverse inference: No, Addington has failed to adequately discuss why the e-mails -- not the original OVP documents -- also are protected in the C-D region. Nor has he explained why the OVP e-mails sent before the decision have not been inventoried for the court to demonstrate that they have been correctly shielded by the privildge.]

If you can't get the original OVP-data, and Addington continues to pretend that OVP is "not" subject to any ISOO-standards, then ask for the e-mails related to that decision; and make Addington explain why those e-mails -- created after the decision point -- are also not available. The answer is: They appear to have been destroyed because they discuss methods to thwart war crimes prosecutors from finding evidence related to rendition, prisoner abuse, GTMO, and other alleged violations of the laws of war. If you play Addington's game on this, you'll give him enough room to trip. Call him on his bluff:

"OK, you won't give us the data in the OVP files; let's see the post-decision-emails related to that decision to exclude OVP from the ISOO-directives in the 32 CFR 2800."

The arguments he'll use to not comply with that request will likely contradict the assertions he's made to the court. That's his problem. His problem is this isn't about OVP, ISOO, or data retention; but about something else: Alleged e-mails discussion efforts to thwart access to alleged war crimes evidence. This FOIA isn't about getting access to papers or records; its about forcing Addington to admit that he's allegedly destroyed evidence of interest to war crimes prosecutors, and was foreseeably known since 2001 had to be retained as it was related to alleged war crimes which the JAGs have known told WH-OVP-DoJ-DoD since 2001 were issues the ICC could have jurisdiction.

You will also find, most likely, that the region C-D coincides with the decision of WH-OVP-DOJ-DoD to include in the MCA language to provide legal defense funds for US persons brought before the international tribunals, including the iCC. Supposedly, with Rove's permanent majority, the GOP-WH-DoD-Rove-ADdington-Gonzalez would never have to respond to any inquiry. You'll find the evidence was most likely "not available" not because of any ISOO-requirement change, but because the OVP realized someone outside OVP knew of that evidence; and that the evidence could not be reasonably shielded using non-frivolous reasons. Once frivolous reasons are used, then the underlying alleged crimes attach back to legal counsel.

Yes, Addington has a very big problem right now: He's asserted things that do not make sense; and by asserting that there was a decision to "not include" OVP within the ISOO, those post-decision-emails discussing these decision are subject to a secondary FOIA request. They cannot be protected. If OVP attempts to shield them, its because they too have been allegedly illegally destroyed in contravention to ISOO directives contained within 32 CFR 2800. Arguably, that destruction is admissible before the ICC as an alleged war crime in re destruction of alleged war crimes evidence: rendition, prisoner abuse, and other alleged violations of Geneva.