“Given new revelations that Condoleezza Rice chaired the meetings approving specific torture techniques, she can not continue as Secretary of State. Secretary of State Rice Must Resign”
I find the DoJ AG response troubling for several reasons. One of them TPMM cited: The Nuremberg defense.
Second, the AG appers to have a conflict: As a Judge, he appears to have had a requirement to have reviewed whether the FISA-captured information was used as a pretext for this abuse.
Third, the AG appears focused, as does Congress on the irrelevant issue of "torture": Geneva prohibits _abuse_: whether waterboarding is or is't "torture" is the wrong track. Self-evidently, waterboarding is abuse. AG's insistentce that this was "authorized" amounts to a slap against Geneva; and the absurd notion the President -- or someone else -- "authorized" war crimes. That isn't a defense, but _evidence_. AG needs to disclosed, as a witness, _who_ authorized the war crimes. AG needs to recuse himself.
Fourth, going back to Nuremberg, civilian policy makers were prosecuted for war crimes, and judges were indicted at the Justice Trial. AG's responses today suggest that a war crimes investigaiton needs to be opened.
Fifth, the purpose of having prosecutors is to enforce the law under the Exeuctive Branch. When the Executive Branch will not enforce the law, the Framers intended the legilsature -- through impeachment -- to have a tool to remove agents the President refused to remove. Taking impeachment "off the table" and the decision to "not impeach" leaves us back where the Nuremberg Justice Trial was: A country that refuses to either impeach or prosecute war crimes is not civilized. AG's assertions about the rule of law, investigations, and duty are meaningless when the basice premise of Nuremberg is thrown out the window.
I would prefer Congress open an investigation into the AG's response. Given the Congress' lack of interest in enforcing the law, and the DOJ AG's assertion that he will not enforce the law on this narrow issue as well -- through investigations -- I would ask that the State Attorney GEnerals be immediately contacted for purposes of drafting indictments gaainst the AG and Members of Congress for their joint decision to not enforce Geneva. If the State AGs are not going to do this, then we need to broaden the list of prosecutions/indictments to include the State AGs over alleged breaches of their oath of office, and their decision to "not protect" the Constitution against domestic enemies.
Either these people in the DOJ, Congress, and the State level enforce the law; or they are subject to prosecution for refusing to fully assert their oath. Either or. Time to stop the legislative hearings, and get on with the war crimes indictments: Either investigate to defend the Constitution and Geneva obligations as the SUpreme Law; or those who refuse, but have a duty to act, could become targets for that prosecution effort. Let's stop pretending there are legitimate excuses for inaction on these issues of Geneva: If the US refuses to enforce the law, other nations may take similarly situated persons and treat them the same: Waterboard them without trial, access to evidence, or ability to have access to legal counsel. If that's what the US goernment officials want, then that is evidence of a mental reservation, not a legitimate defense for malfeasance or inaction.
Please contact your State AG's and share with them the above. Time for the States and local citizens to do what the US Congress and AG refuse to do: Fully defend the US Constitution. Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:37 PM:
This is non-sense: "All of that depends on whether certification was given, whether permission was given and whether it was permissibly relied on."
AG is acting as if this is speculative: Whether "certification" was or wasn't given; whether "permission" was or wasn't given; and whether "permissibly relied on" did or didn't occur. If this is "uncertain" why is there no AG plan to find out the answers? He appears to be using the "lack of infofmration" about these issues to assert, in my view incorrectly, that "no investigation" is needed.
That's, in my personal opinion, idiotic: It acts that we not _start_ an investigation until those things are known; yet, wet have the _certain_ outcome: A tape of alleged illegal abuse.
Whether certification, permission, or reliance existed is _not_ to be decided as a _preliminary_ matter _before_ starting the investigatin; but the _conclusions_ for the _court_ to make on whether to adjudicate guilt or innocense.
I would respectuflly ask the Congress to reconsider the AG's responses and ask if he's fully removed his Judicial hat; and ask that he reconsider his role: His role, is to accept that there was a a tape; there were interrogations; and the _questions that need to be investigated_ include before presenting the facts to the Court:
A. Was there evidence on the tape; B. Was the tape destroyed to hide that evidence from the court; C. Who provided "permission" to conduct prisoner abuse D. Who relied on "permissions" to implement the abuse E. Who raised the issue of "certification" -- was this _before_ or _after_ the alleged abuse was imposed on the prisoner; F. The question of "permissibly relied upon" isn't the question, but whether the _defendant_ as a _defense_ can say that _they_ reasonably relied upon.
I'm concerned that the AG is acting as a defense counsel in re F. abuse, as it is the obligation of the _defense_ to prove that the orders were reasonable; that they defendant _did_ reasonably rely on orders; and that there was _no_ hint that the direction, orders, and guidance was illegal. This is a burden the defendant needs to provide at trial as a defense, and not an issue for the AG to consider as to whether to _investigate_.
It cannot be seriously argued by _defense_ counsel that permission, certificaction, or legality of orders existed when Geneva bars _all abuse_. It appears the AG is pretending, out of convenience as are the alleged defendants, that there is "confusion" about whether waterboarding is or isn't torture as a _preliminary_ issue, as a bar to all investigations. Non-sense. The reverse is true: Geneva, in barring all abuse, would put the burden on the defendant to prove at trial the orders were reasonable. Yet, tape destruction is evidence that is contrary to intersts: The tape was destroyed _after_ the court ordered it be retained; adverse inferences in cases of spoliation are relevant: The tape was destroyed to hide relevant evidence to answer the questions of certification, permissions, and defenses -- the act itself is evidence the certification was not lawful; the permissions were contrary to Geneva; and the reliance was not reasonable.
*snip*
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:41 PM:
The fundamental qustion is: Has the President or anyone "authorized" the CIA to commit Geneva violations?
If they're waterboarding, yes.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 8:00 PM:
I'm surprised to hear of the uncertainty, given the Geneva issues: " But as Mukasey made clear, that may or may not happen." How can it be _unclear_ whether they need to _investigate_ to determine whether the _conduct on the tape_ was or wasn't illegal? If there's lack of clarity, then an investigation needs to occur to _determine_ that answer. Or what method does the AG's staff divine to arrive at a clear answer outside an investigation?
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 8:10 PM:
LarryB wrote on January 30, 2008 7:37 PM
"The CIA was explicitly authorized to torture "Al Queda" detanees by their chain of command. No one is suggesting that they were operating as rogue agents."
This starts with a false permise: That the basis for the analysis is "torture". Incorrect, the issue under _Geneva_ is whether there was or wasn't _abuse_. How can anyone say that the CIA was _lawfully_ "authorized" to commit war crimes, and impose abuse? That's absurd.
The way the CIA operates overseas: They violte the law all the time. But the issues of war crimes, when not resolved, has a boomerang effect: Each time the US government agent commits a war crime, but the US refuses to prosecute, other nations may through the principle of reciprocity and retalation commit _like_ abuses against similarly situated prisoners.
The problem: The US, by detaining and abusing non-combatant civilians, held them without access to lawyers, and on accusation alone without evidence, is that other nations' fighters may do the same to US persons accused, without getting access to lawyers or evidence of being illegal combatants. Any American could be charged as being an illegal combatant, and abused.
People who "authorize the CIA to commit Geneva violations" are issuing illegal orders; it's the burden of the CIA agent _at trial_ to show that the order was reasonable; that they rasonably relied on that order; and that the order was lawful. Yet, when tapes are destroyed, it suggests the opposite: That they knew the orders were "authorizing" illegal abuse; that they could not reasonably rely on the defense of "legality" and "reasonableness" to justify following direction to violate Geneva; and that they knew, or should have known, the expectation that the evidence of that abuse would be hidden/destroyed was not reasonable as "clearance" to proceed with the abuse.
It appears the CIA agents believed that they thought the tape would never see the light of day; that someone working with the tapes made some sort of certification that they would not disclose the content of the tapes; and that the CIA agents believed that they could rely on this certification of non-disclosure as a shield to further discovery. Once we're moving outside the narrow lane of covert operations, but expanding to the broader umbrella of war crimes, simple agreements bewteen CIA agents and other contractors are not arguably enforceable.
If the AG will not investigate the tape's destruction or the contents of the tape, then he needs to answer the opposite issue: Whether he will investigate the _disclosure_ of the tape, and the fact that the tape was destroyed. If there was "no crime" in destroying the tape, and the tapes' contents were "not a problem," then the issue turns on its head: Who has allegedly "disclosed" the exitence of the tape? That question won't get answered as the disclosure of alleged war crimes evidence is not, in theory, actionable. The opposite is true: There is likely a statute the DoD-DoJ-CIA personnel were relying on to justify disclosing the existence of the tape.
*snip*
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:54 AM:
I hope the public can see the absurdity of this: "Whitehouse to Mukasey: Why Not Investigate Torture?": This, from a Congress that refuses to investigate the President. Public to Congress, "Why, before asking the AG to investigate, are you not investigating?"
There is nothing stopping the Senators asking these questions of the AG from communicating to the House: "We would like for you to investigate the President." Inter-branch communications are not binding; but they are possible. The Senate needs to go on the record: They've asked the AG why he's not investigating; they need to do the same with the House: "Why is there no investigation of this President's impeachable offenses?" Indeed, the Senate committees do have the power to, independent of the House, to review the illegal activity. But rather than conduct fact finding, they're pleading with a separate branch of government. That is not a check, that is assent and subservience by the Senate to the AG. Enough!
Indeed, when Congress refuses to investigate the President's impeachable offenses, why should the AG bother responding to questions about why the AG is or isn't investigating. This Congress, rightly or wrongly, has said with its words and actions: "We are not going to investigate; but we are going to waste time asking why the AG isn't investigating what we refuse to independently investigate." Hypocrisy!
The Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government: It does not report to the AG's timelines. Yet, this appears lost on these Members of Congress despite their oath to enforce the Constitution against domestic enemies.
The public is not well served by a Congress that, with the promise of elections, does not deliver. There is no need for the Congress to "discuss with the AG whether or not to investigate": There are standing committees in Congress that can independently investigate, but refuse.
The pattern of abuses aren't telling us new information: It's from the same criminal element recklessly running this nation's governance into the ground. How dare the Senate lazily inquire as to whether the AG is or isn't doing something, _while_ the Congress continues to vote for war funding to export a system of governance that even the US Congress doesn't take seriously.
The Congress well knows the importance of investigations, but refuses. Inaction, on top of an oath compelling a defense of the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, is not a defense but evidence of alleged malfeasance in re war crimes.
Some may believe the public is stuck with this charade of governance. We're not. There are ways to punish lawfully the Members of Congress: Grand Jury indictments can be issued against Members of Congress for their alleged malfeasance. Time for the public to move lawfully outside Congress, the Executive Branch, and courts, and work directly with the grand juries to organize evidence related to Member of Congress alleged complicity with these war crimes.
Nuremberg established that new laws can codify retroactively things that people should know are illegal. Before Nuremberg there were no explicit laws binding Geneva as a legal obligation to the specific jurists. Similarly, in the wake of this disaster, other laws can be retroactively codified that will fully promulgate the legal responsibilities of the legislature: Things that they should have known to do, but refused.
Arguably, any agreement to not investigate is not one that the courts or Congress or the President will dare to examine seriously: They view inaction as a higher calling. This charade needs to end: Inaction is evidence of not fully meeting one's 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations. The public needs to openly discuss gathering evidence of Member of Congress alleged 5 USC 3331 violations; prepare indictments; and remind the Members of Congress: Either you do what you are expecting of the AG -- to lead an investigation; or you're facing the prospect of jail time where you can think about what you should have done, but refused.
We could go on and on about how the Secret Service daily protects the Magna Carta; how the sworn officers faithfully defend the Constitution each night as it descends into the bowels of the capitol. The sworn officers of the Capitol Police, Secret Service, and other uniformed officers need to examine their oath: Are they fully defending the Constitution and the Supreme Law against all domestic enemies in all the branches? The case can be made that they know full well there's a problem; and are not -- as they could -- securing search warrants to prosecute the President, Members of Congress, and lawyers for their alleged complicity for these war crimes.
The law isn't something people take into their own hands. It is something that should daily be asserted as a starting point; not as a questionable, debatable, possibility. This Congress and AG appear to have it backwards: The oath binds them to certainty; and this late in the game -- 2008, seven years after this non-sense started -- it's not credible that the Senate and AG are still debating whether or not there should be an investigation. This late in the game, the reasonable grand jury would conclude: The prosecutions of Members of Congress and this second AG are long overdue.
Then let's have that. Let's see some leadership by the unformed officers of the Secret Service; and let's see some real discussion within the Senate and House Sergeant at Arms office: How much longer are you going to let this arrogance, reckless disregard for law compel you to remain silent, not take action, and refuse to serve search warrants upon all three branches of government? Daily, American citizens -- on accusation alone -- are forced to assent to this abusive intrusion _without warrants_. Surely, the law enforcement professionals policing the nation's capital could discuss and secure warrants to defend this Constitution against the domestic enemies wandering, confused in the District of Columbia.
It is time to stop shirking, and not fear whether we are offending anyone. This leadership has offended its oath, the rule of law, and its good name: As a Republic. But we the People are above this. As _the_ sovereign, We the People can work with the grand juries, guide them, and well communicate that we fully support grand jury indictments against the Members of Congress who know enough to challenge the AG on investigations, but feign confusion over whether investigations should or shouldn't occur against the President. We don't have to wait for the 2008 election, because this process isn't linked with the voters: It's linked with We the People and oversight. If it takes one week, or four years is irrelevant: It needs to start now. Not maybe, not perhaps, not "when we feel like it", but now.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:06 AM:
I have trouble with this assertion: "Please don't be led astray by the red herring of worrying about the agents. In spite of their Nuremberg defense for their actions, I can't see how it benefits anyone to prosecute them, when the real criminals are those who gave the orders."
There's nothing before us -- as a public, outside the investigation -- to know whether the agents are or are not red herrings; or that they should be given preference to go after "bigger fish." That asks that we ignore the current decisions to not go after the big fish.
The above approach would ask that we ignore the agents as "red herrings"; but pretend that the real trail is somewhere else. Indeed, Congress and the AG refuse to follow the real trail. Getting them to awaken using a red herring appears to be a good start. If they're going in the wrong direction, they might adjust; but if they're still asleep, their idea of adjusting is to roll over.
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:33 AM:
The Senate debate on telecom immunity fails to consider the alternative: That, without immunity, there must be an investigation into criminal activity. Time for the telecom immunity-debate to discuss also the AG's refusal to investigate all alleged illegal activity in re the contents of the CIA tape.
These are not separate incidents, but part of the same pattern of abuses which warrant an impeachment investigation.
January 24, 2008
What more do Americans need to demand impeachment?
Years ago, months before the illegal and calamitous invasion of Iraq, Wilson's Almanac opposed that impending folly. We made a big deal of it, because we saw disaster staring Iraq and the USA in the face. Almost overnight, our fast-growing readership (our ezine was doubling in circulation every 70 days) went into freefall. Opposing Bush's torture policies didn't help our circulation either, nor did our our opposition to Guantanamo and the US's new attack on human rights.
In those days, and in the months following, to oppose Bush's insanity was a recipe for exclusion, and certainly not good for ezine circulation. I never really met more than one or two people in favour of the invasion, but it was apparent that many of my American readers did support it, for some unknown reason. We paid the price -- but we invite our dear departed readers back. Some have written to apologize for dissing us, and one such US reader even went from actively, publicly and vehemently opposing our stance, to campaigning in opposition to Shrub's new Vietnam and in favour of peace. It's very heartening!
Before this unjust war, we published Myths of the War on Terrorism and Iraq -- it has been read by thousands and even translated into another language, but still we didn't persuade many that their governments were lying to them. Although that was plainly the case.
So, it's good to see that now, when virtually everyone knows that the White House and 10 Downing Street lied to get us embroiled in a senseless war, that even conservative TIME magazine will publish something like this. Now, with more than a million dead in Iraq, why are Bush & Co not yet impeached? It staggers the imagination and, frankly, lowers our estimation of our American cousins, who we have so long admired and defended.
Orchestrated campaign "President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." Center for Public Integrity (emphasis mine)
By an overwhelming 79%-12% margin, Americans want to change the disastrous direction George Bush and Dick Cheney have taken us. But there's no need to wait until January 2009 - we can begin change now with impeachment.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) is organizing his colleagues to ask House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to begin Cheney impeachment hearings, and he needs our help.
On Wednesday, please call your Congressmember through the Capitol Hill Switchboard (202) 224-3121, toll-free at 1-800-828-0498, or directly (http://www.democrats.com/congress). Tell your Congressmember to urge Chairman Conyers to begin impeachment hearings for Dick Cheney. Then tell your friends and call and email the media.
______________
Tell the Candidates: Change Begins NOW
If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he wouldn't be sniping over the Voting Rights Act of 1964 or Iraq War speeches in 2002.
He'd be leading the largest protests our nation has ever seen to end to the occupation of Iraq, restore the Constitution, massively shift funds from the military to humanity, and impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for their war crimes and lies.
If the Democratic candidates for President want to compete on who is a better agent of change, it's time for them - all of them - to stop talking and start acting. Email Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama to
1. Oppose any more Iraq War funds 2. Support Sen. Chris Dodd's filibuster of telco immunity for warrantless wiretapping 3. Support Rep. Robert Wexler's call for Cheney impeachment hearings 4. Support Rep. John Conyers' single-payer non-profit health care plan
Grassroots Impeachment Activists Are Making a Difference
Impeachment activism is exploding from coast to coast.
* John Nirenberg, a retired college professor, has completed a 40-day march from Boston to Washington D.C., where he will ask Speaker Nancy Pelosi to begin impeachment hearings. He's garnered a great deal of media attention along the way and has planned a press conference for noon on January 16th on the Cannon House Office Building Terrace. Watch the end of the march: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/30080
* Viggo Mortensen, John Kaminski, Dennis Kucinich, John Nichols, and David Swanson spoke at New Hampshire forum for impeachment. Video: http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/29968
* Maine impeachment activism led conservative Democratic congress member Mike Michaud to ask Conyers to begin Cheney impeachment hearings: http://afterdowningstreet.org/me
* The Washington and New Hampshire state legislatures are taking up impeachment resolutions this month. The first hearing in Olympia is scheduled for January 17th. Here are details on Washington and New Hampshire, plus the list of resolutions already passed around the country: http://afterdowningstreet.org/wa
One of the primary goals of the American Bar Association is to foster public understanding of the law and the legal process. To that end, the ABA, through its Division for Public Education, has constructed this site to inform the general public about the impeachment process and related procedures and institutions, such as the Office of Independent Counsel and the federal grand jury. It is organized in a question-and-answer format under the following three headings:
Our site also includes hypertext links to selected resources available on the Web for each of these topic areas. To help guide you to the information you are looking for, we have annotated many of the links.
We hope you find the site useful and informative. We welcome your feedback, comments, and suggestions for improving our site. Contact abapubed@abanet.org
of the 10,900 links on impeachment at the ABA website, these are the most frequently used:
... ABA Division for Public Education. FAQs and Web Resources on the Impeachment Process. One of the primary goals of the American Bar ... www.abanet.org/publiced/impeachment.html - 18k
... FAQs and Web Resources on the Impeachment Process. Impeachment Links. JURIST. JURIST's ... Background & History of Impeachment. Hearing ... www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach_links.html - 21k [ More results from www.abanet.org/publiced ]
The ABA Journal is read by half of the nation's 1 million lawyers every month. It covers the trends, people and finances of the legal profession from Wall Street ... www.abajournal.com/news/ga_lawmakers_target_judge_for_high_defense_costs/ - 30k
IMPEACHMENT OF OFFICERS. Initial Question: My executive ... change. I was also concerned about whether you meant impeachment or removal. In ... www.abanet.org/lsd/sba/topics/impeachment.doc
... 7, 2006 1 Impeachment Of Expert Witnesses: Down In The Trenches – The Do’sAnd Don’ts Of Cross-Examination Panelists: Kevin ... www.abanet.org/litigation/mo/premium-lt/prog_materials/2006_jointcle/009.pdf
... [2003]). 2) Thus, the Constitution permits impeachment of any officer of the United States, ... areas, eg., bankruptcy, procurement, taxation . C. Impeachment... www.abanet.org/rol/publications/asia_raca_prof_hutter_prosecuting.pdf [ More results from www.abanet.org/rol/publications ]
... By Otto J. Hetzel. The Impeachment Process Distraction. ... So, campaigns were affected and vacations as well. The Impeachment Process. ... www.abanet.org/statelocal/lawnews/221hetzel.html - 30k
... Legal disclosure obligation Giglio v. United States, 405 US 150 (1972), is the leading case on disclosure of impeachment materi- al. ... www.abanet.org/crimjust/mo/premium-cr/cjmag/22-1/Ethics.pdf
... 7. The final constitutional safeguard is the intentional difficulty of the impeachment process—only on "impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery ... www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/judicial_main.html - 18k
Website:http://www.MoveToAmend.orgMission:We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.
Company Overview:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.
I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent
A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.
B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.
C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.
D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.
E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.
F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.
G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.
H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.
I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.
J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.
K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.
L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.
II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States
A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.
B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.
C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.
D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.
E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.
F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.
III. Independent Branch
A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.
B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.
C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.
D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.
E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.
F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.
IV. Prosecutorial Branch
A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.
B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.
C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.
D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.
E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.
V. Judicial Branch
A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.
B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.
C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.
D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.
VI. Legislative Branch
A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.
B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.
C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.
D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.
E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.
F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.
VII. Executive Branch
A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.
B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.
C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.
D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.
E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.
F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.
G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.
H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.
I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.
J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.
K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.
L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.
M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.
N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.
O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.
P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.
Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.
Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Trying to train the next generation of diplomats what the issues that they will face are, how to survive the coming hard times and how to conduct themselves so that they, unlike most of their role models, DO THE RIGHT THING. They are inheriting a neocon Klusterfuck, are ill prepared and need whatever help they can get.
Impeachment activism is exploding from coast to coast.
