National Guard Must Enforce Arrest Warrants Against Elected Officials Who Refuse To Enforce Laws of War

By testing - July 28, 2008, 1:07PM

American elected officials have refused to investigate, much less
consider evidence of war crimes. This inaction has put the American
elected officials at the state, local, and federal levels in
opposition to the Constitution and their legal obligations. Most, if not
all, elected officials to believe there will be no lawful consequences if they do nothing; or consequences will evaporate after the election. This is an excuse for malfeasance not legitimate government.

This absurd "hearing" before the House Judiciary Committee restricted
private citizens from exercising their First Amendment Right: To openly
call the President what he is -- A criminal. This President is not a
king. The House and Senate cannot reasonably expect the public to dance
around these felonies, avoid calling the President what he is, and not
lawfully confront the elected officials who are in collusion with his illegal activity.

Members of Congress need a lawful wakeup call. They must face the lawful threat of arrest for complicity with war crimes. The Constitution does not make Members of Congress immune to arrest. They can be arrested for treason:

Article I, Section 6: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason,
Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Yet, the possibility that they might be arrested or prosecuted
-- for treason, the felony of conspiracy with war crimes or refusing to fulfill their oath of office -- is meaningless to them and they refuse to investigate. There is only one reasonable conclusion: They are domestic enemies of the Supreme Law.

Let's consider the other view: That any effort to organize the National Guard to arrest members of Congress is an act of treason. Treason requires warfare from an external force, and there is no "foreign" enemy the defenders of the Constitution are aiding. Those involved with the civil war were not engaged in treason.

"To levy war there must be an assemblage of men in a condition and with an intention to [unlawfully] employ force." (Opinion on introducing evidence to Burr Trial on Treason, 8 U.S. 470, 1807)

National Guard units, by their definition, are domestic militia, under control of the governors, and charged to use force to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. The question turns on whether the President, to thwart enforcement of the Constitution, illegally federalizes these national guard units.

Here, the issue isn't whether there is force to overthrow the government, but whether the force is lawful to enforce the law and defend the Constitution. Treason cannot possibly mean the use of the national guard to enforce arrest warrants against domestic enemies of the Constitution. Such a charge would absurdly have outlawed the use of national guard units to to enforce the Supreme Court orders banning state-level school segregation.


Let's turn our attention to Congress. The question is whether this President and elected officials have or have not waged war against the United States. Treason is

"only in levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort."

One question is whether he refusal to enforce the laws of war,
FISA, or breaches of the FISA statute, or complicity with war crimes
amounts to a felony. Arguably yes, satisfying the requirement in the
Constitution permitting arrests of Members of Congress.

Treason does not require an overt act of supporting hostile military forces against the United States. Treason and misprison of treason relate to efforts to subvert the government:

"The person who procures treason
to be committed, who plots some project to subvert the government, who
advises, who hires, who counsels, who commands, or who abets a project
to subvert the government, is a traitor according to that common law." (US v. Burr,25 F. Cas. 55, 1807)

A failure to investigate the President for war crimes could be be misprison of treason; or an agreement to not disclose evidence of treason. The President has illegally used military force to subvert the United States government:

A. Used active duty combat forces, civilians, and government resources
to disseminate unlawful propaganda to mobilize the nation for illegal
warfare, absent the required imminent threat;

B. Illegally used military force to detain civilians in violation of habeas to intimidate a civilian population from confronting his illegal activity;

C. Illegally using the NSA to violate FISA and violate our rights and the Constitution during wartime, despite FISA applicability during wartime;

D. Domestically used military forces to intimidate the public and elected officials and thwart enforcement of the laws of war through investigations;

E. Deployed CIFA personnel to thwart oversight of the United State government, and

F. Domestically used military forces, NSA, and combat forces to collect intelligence to support an illegal policy of intimidation and induce Members of Congress not to enforce the laws of war.

State governors require compelling evidence to arrest Members of Congress for treason, waging war against the United States, and felonies For example, one extreme example -- to avoid any action -- is the claim that any confrontation with Congress is laughable. Those justifying inaction might suggest it is "laughable" the Congress "knew "the President and others waged war against the United States in the attacks of 9-11, but have aided him in thwarting complete investigations into these attacks against the United States.

Something must remedy this lawlessness, and continued spiral into
illegitimacy: Where written law is no longer universally enforced.

Regardless the legal theory used to justify the lawful arrest of Members of Congress for collusion with the President on war crimes, FISA violations, and violations of the Supreme Law, the current condition is unacceptable:

A. Illegal activity is not getting investigated;

B. The President faces no prospect of an impeachment investigation, as the Framers promised in Federalist 77 ["his being at all times liable to impeachment"]

C. The Members of Congress have not timely conduct an investigation of war crimes or impeachable offenses;

D. The Supreme Law has not been enforced; and

E. The Constitution, with Member of Congress agreement, is seen as inapplicable to the United States Government and this President.

This is unacceptable. Other than hoping Congress cooperates with their legal obligations -- which they show they are not willing to do -- there is no credible plan to defend the Constitution with credible legal consequences.

Lawful arrest warrants for Members of Congress felonies must be on the table.

State Governors have the lawful authority to declare a state of emergency; work with the courts to secure arrest warrants; and use lawful force to detain, arrest, and deliver to a magistrate Members of Congress.

State Governors, national guard units, and judicial officers must work
together, process arrest warrants, and have them lawfully served on
Members of Congress.

The allegations for the arrest warrants for members of Congress link with their oath of office, and include:

1. Collusion with the President in unlawful warfare, a war crime;

2. Conduct breaching their legal duty to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies;

3. Active cooperation with efforts to thwart investigations by members of Congress into Presidential war crimes;

4. Treason, fraud, and malfeasance in aiding domestic enemies of the Constitution; and

5. Unlawful assent to illegal executive and legislative orders to not investigate violations the Constitution, oath of office, Geneva conventions, and Supreme Law.

The American public must support their national guard units in lawfully
enforcing arrest warrants against elected officials who refuse to
support, defend, and protect the Constitution against these domestic
enemies in Washington, DC.

It is not a lawful order for the President to direct anyone in the
National Guard to refuse to enforce the Constitution, or avoid lawful
state governor orders requesting lawful assistance to process arrest
warrants against Members of Congress.

The National Guard oath of office does not permit following illegal orders of the President:

"I, (Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (State Name)
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the Governor of (State Name) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."

The National Guard has the lawful authority to suppress domestic rebellions, and enforce the orders of the Governors against domestic enemies and traitors.

The American government refuses to enforce the laws of war. Arguably, these are act of treason. National Guard members take an oath to the United States Constitution to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.

State governors are lawfully permitted to organize with other state governors to jointly apprehend, seize, detain, arrest, and deliver to the courts Members of Congress, and other state-connected officials. The Supreme Court has decided this issue, and well provides a wealth of guidance for your state attorney general, national guard unit JAGs, and Governor legal counsel:

"In view of these provisions of the Code of Georgia, we hold that the
notary public before whom the affidavit in that state was made may be
regarded as a magistrate within the meaning of 5278 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Such, it must be assumed, was the view of the governor of Alabama when issuing his warrant of arrest under the authority of that statute." Compton v. State of Alabama, 214 U.S. 1 (1909)

Once arrested, and not available for service in government, the State legislatures and governors may lawfully declare that seat vacant in the Congress, and appoint a new Member of Congress.

There is no excuse for inaction. There should be no debate to consider what the Members of Congress might not support. They've had their chance to dabate. Their decision is to support, with inaction, war crimes and violations of the Supreme Law.

No American should come to the defense of the traitors in Congress. Rather, Members of Congress, having been lawfully detained and arrest for alleged treason, must make their case.

A. Why is their detention unreasonable?

B. Why is their arrest unlawful?

C. Why is their replacement illegal or in violation of the law?

D. What evidence do they have to refute the charges against them?

D. What is their plan to show they have fully asserted their oath of office to enforce the laws of war?

Senators Obama and McCain -- one of them -- are the most likely next President. Imagine on their inauguration day one of them is sitting in jail because they've been charged with treason, and not demanding investigations of the United States' Government war crimes.

The governors must prepare transition plans, and identify replacements
for Members of Congress lawfully arrested, detained, and brought to
trial.

What You Can Do

The American public must rise to the defense of this Constitution, and lawfully work with available national guard units to enforce arrest warrants against Members of Congress and other state and local officials:

1. Contact your State Attorney General, and State Governors to seek their comment on discussions of using the National Guard to arrest Members of Congress who are in collusion with the President.

2. Contact your National Guard units in your local districts, cities, and municipalities. Ask them what their commanders and legal advisers with the Judge Advocate General have said regarding the use of their units to enforce arrest warrants against your state's elected officials at the local, state, and federal level.

3. Identify nominees for your state governors to consider to replace the alleged traitors in Congress.

4. Work with your friends in your communities to remind your local elected officials they must take their oath of office seriously, support investigations, or they could be lawfully charged with complicity with war crimes and treason.

Comments

Strategically, it might be more effective if all those interested in seeing this through begin by focusing on one state, contacting that state's AG, Governor, State House and local national guard.

This is just to get the ball rolling. A collective focus on one state or one politician, John Conyers for example, to create the initial spark.

Power is often the result of well-organized momentum.

Can Bush avoid a war crimes invesigation??

There's a crack in the President's efforts to thwart a war crimes investigation. Former and currently assigned legal counsel have a major problem. Evidence developed supports the allegations the NSA did rely on illegally captured information to violate FISA, target Americans, and render innocents in violation of the laws of war.

The CIA and NSA appear to have worked with the OVP to destroy the link between Geneva violations, unlawful FISA violations, prisoner abuse, and warrantless interrogations of US citizens, in breach of domestic and international law.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. The alleged evidence destruction appears well connected from concerns the JAGs well raised in re Geneva. The penalty of war crimes evidence destruction could include the death penalty.

The WH e-mail destruction is not linked with a sole event, but the broader effort to hide the use of unreliable information to justify bypassing the Congress and Courts. The basis for the state secrets claims have less to do with national security, and more to do with hiding evidence of war crimes, impeachable offenses, and violations of the Supreme Law including the Bill of Rights.

The President, Congress, and US Courts have been complicit with illegal US government activity to hide from public view evidence of the US government official's illegal conduct. They've been turning a blind eye to illegality to avoid paying attention to their complicity with the illegalities.

This misconduct and malfeasance spans all three branches, including legal counsel, court officers, and legislators. The alleged malfeasance relates to failures to enforce the laws of war, investigate, and enforce the law as required by oath.

Information developed suggests the NSA did rely on illegally captured information to violate FISA, target Americans, and render innocents in violation of the laws of war.

> PENTAGON INSIDER HAS DIRE WARNING <

Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming attack on Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at a recent American University symposium. What follow are his comments from that speech. They have been edited only for space.

By Daniel Ellsberg

Let me simplify . . . and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9-11. That’s the next coup that completes the first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution . . . what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world—in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.

All these violations were impeachable had they been found out at the time but in nearly every case the violations were not found out until [the president was] out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today.

That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable. They weren’t found out in time. But I think it was not their intention, in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 1970s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but [they] have believed in executive government, single-branch government under an executive president—elected or not—with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.

When I say this, I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country—but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country [and the Framers of the Constitution] thought.

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with ‘signing statements.’

Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says: ‘I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.’

It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the executive branch, essentially of the president—a concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.”

Now I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right. It’s not just ‘our way of doing things’— it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody, including Americans.

On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.

That brings me to the second point. This executive branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition [even] from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran, which, even by imperialist standards, [violates] standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the executive branch but most of the leaders in Congress.

The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. …

But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.

Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t; it doesn’t even make it unlikely.

That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress—Democrats and Republicans—and the public and the media, we have freed the White House — the president and the vice president—from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.

And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.

And the question is what then, can we do about this?

We are heading toward an insane operation. It is not certain. [But it] is likely.… I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.

What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran, is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.

And . . . we will not succeed in moving Congress, probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect.

However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small, perhaps—anyway not large—possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.

* * *

Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration.

Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9-11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little.

We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, ‘traitor,’ ‘weak on terrorism’—names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.

How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.

I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath of office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the armed services.

And that oath is not to a commander in chief, which is not [even] mentioned. It is not to a Fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.

I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath, which I eventually came to do.

I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada—who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war—is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously [the matter of] upholding his oath.

The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. [All the personnel] under him who understand what is going on — and there are myriad — are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people.

On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate—and frankly of the Republicans —that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.

I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.
Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.”

Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?

I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read [about] in The Washington Post who threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.

I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from madmen in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.

And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves —they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relations with the president to the slightest degree.

That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.”

(Issue #47, November 19, 2007)