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.

IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT: 32 CFR 2800, Geneva, MCA, the CIA, the telecoms, ADDINGTON !!!

I had a FITFUL sleep; maybe the MOST fitful sleep I have had during the BuZh administration.

I have seen the face of EVIL and what people like to see as the face of Satan firsthand.

It is embodied in the persons of Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, Dick Cheney and DAVID ADDINGTON (not to mention John Yoo). It is a "consortium of murders, crooks, liars and CON ARTISTS of the worst possible stripe, given free rein by the majority of the ACLU and the American Bar Association. FOR SHAME!!

Why?

Because, despite the fact no one can ever, EVER run away from conscience, these people are role modelling to a North American generation of young people that Straussite "might is RIGHT" is the way to live LIFE.

But as WE know, that is NOT the way to do it - by continuing a business of corporatocracy in which only the carrot and the stick (and blackmail, perjury, moral "compromise," kickbacks, and materialISM) have sway over the business of living.

Deep down, the weight of over one million dead INNOCENT Iraqis is not going to go away. The destruction of the landmass around the straits of Homuz by depleted uranium weapons must be dealt with sometime SOON. We are facing nuclear annihilation by taking on Iran and Russia.

Blame is not the game: but accountability surely is. That priority, accountability is what sets about the infants and children from pure adulthood. It proves the human race is growing.

Surely we are not seeing this in the past seven years.

But there are other underlaying causes than just pure greed going on in the political "scenario", to wit; we are witnessing the PERVERSION of the rule of law into something so grotesque that us mere "mortals" - that is those who care - are nearly struck dumb with a sense of dread and awfulness each and every day! We KNOW that there are legal safeguards; we are not seeing them IMPLEMENTED.

I woke up wanting to read a copy of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. It was the most awful thing I read growing up. I wanted to read it and out how she built that story into something that was far more affecting than just a simple plot twist; how she found a way for you to FEEL that death sentence. It was in response to thinking what it must have been like to take a walk into Dick Cheney's office to apply to be BuZh's running mate.

Ole Dick. Just smooth as glass saying - "C'mon, be candid with me. If you are going to run as Vice President with Puppetboy, I must know every single detail of what might come out as a campaign proceeds. ALL THE DETAILS! If I know, then I can protect you."

And as a person who knows the perks that go with the job (including a free hand with ALL intelligence gathering), and realizing how RICH and powerful you could be, you open up your mouth and freely tell ole Uncle Dickie all the sex secrets (you had it on with the nanny, the cook, the governess AND the chauffeur), all the money hidden in your inlaws' freezers, the little lies you told on your income tax forms (or didn't tell, cuz you just didn't file for a few years), how you charged CONgress for Jeanne Palfrey's fantasy service and for a limo which was charged to Dusty Foggo's company, how your children are addicted to crack, how you did SPEED cuz the high was fun, how you shoplifted a Rolex watch, how you didn't pay room service at the Hotel Pierre as they left it off the bill by some "mistake", how your wife, husband, lover absolutely HATES you, how you never paid child support for the child you had out of wedlock and gave away, who you paid off when you were in law practice so that no mark went against your legal record with the local ABA ethics committee ..

and on and on and on you went. Every last little detail.

And Uncle Dickie smiled and said: "Wonderful. You are a shoo-in for the job. Just trust me."

And then Uncle Dickie took the job for himself and you knew you had been HAD. And you would ALWAYS BE HAD, and your children would be had, and your spouse was had, and how you didn't want to get some grim CIA-endorsed biochemical disease, or be thrown out of a plane like Ron Brown .. and you would always wonder where it would STOP or not stop.

Your one hope just might be for all the strange comings and goings to come to light; that's a government requirement, right?

Well, nope! It's NOT. David Addington decided that there is a fourth branch of government and that government regulations requiring sensitive and secret intelligence information does not have to be reviewed, filed or archived. You will never be vindicated. You will always be horn swoggled, you will never get away from the threat of Dick (OVP) Cheney and his buddies ..

You started out with a little snag in your moral fabric, you tried to pick it off, it unravelled a bit, you thought maybe you could make it up but that proved too hard, so you went after a little Money and Power to feel better about yourself, but now those who play Hard Ball in the Big Leagues know that they can "have" you, they put their fingers in that little hole and Twist and Twist Away until you don't even recognize yourself, the compulsivity and the addictions kick in full time, you hang out with ONLY THOSE who are of a like bent as yourself, the pests and demons work on you full time to convince you that you will stay safe if you keep Playing the Game (AND ONLY IF you keep playing The Game!)

and no matter how many people die, no matter how many people are defaced, maimed, mangled and have their souls destroyed as a result of your INACTION, it is all JUSTIFIED. Minimizing what has happened to the American SOUL does not cut it - it is NOT "soft" fascism as one of our Presidential candidates has called it. It is moral anathema, obvious to the entire world.

The Lottery is alive and well and being practiced every day in the halls of CONgress, the White House and beyond the silence of Dick Cheney's TWO walk-in Mosler safes. And the ONLY THING that stands between more mayhem, corruption, death, sickness and moral degeneracy is US - you and me - and we must not go quietly into The Good Night!!

Rage! Rage! Against the dieing of the light!

And you know, within the Beltway of DC, lies the wreck of many a soul, rePUG and DemocRAT alike, it has a ship of state run by self-serving and vicious attorneys, backed up by a legal profession that is absolutely complicit as war crimes co-conspirators by their baleful silent (and deadly) acquiesence to other lawyers who are operating way, way, WAY outside the rule of law.

Can we SHAME these people into adequate behavior by appealing to the media and to the states' Attorney Generals? I really do not know - but I do know I would rather die than to leave that avenue unpursued.

.. and this is

From my anonymous poster: (it's too true to leave it buried in the comments)

Here are some issues with the 2008 Presidential Candidates needs to address, now:

I would hope the excellent readers of Crooks & Liars and TPMmuckraker could rally the media to call Cheney-Addington on their non-sense. I would like to invite the public to consider the following discussion/points:

1. 32 CFR 2800

32 CFR 2800 is a code of federal regulations which specifically invokes the Office of Vice President's legal requirements. Addington-Cheney's argument of "we have our own branch" or "We're not subject to ISOO" is a flawed argument. The CFR clearly outlines the specific legal requirements on the OVP and David Addington.

Addington's problem is that he would like to draw a line in the sand, and say, "ISOO does not apply." For the sake of argument, let's accept his argument as true: That going forward, from that date he decided the ISOO does not apply, does in fact not apply. Here's the problem: Even if we rely on this argument, Addington fails to explain: What about the data retention standards/practices before the ISOO supposedly did not apply?

Addington has no answer. The CFR clearly states the ISOO Directives apply to OVP; and there are criminal sanctions against Addington -- as chief legal advisor to the OVP -- under 32 CFR 2800. Even using Addington's argument, he still has no explanation for the data retention policies and procedures that would have applied immediately after 2001, and as they related to OVP discussions of the CIA taping, not to mention the CIA tape destruction, rendition, prisoner abuse.

Addington's other problem is that he has no explanation why the 32 CFR 2800 requirements -- as they relate to Geneva data retention requirements -- have not been fully complied with, met, followed. Also, if we accept that there are "no legal requirements" applicable to OVP, then what standards -- if any -- are the OVP staff using to evaluate whether they are or are nto fully complying; or whether they should or should not make a referral to the FBI/DoJ for possible prosecution?

If the CFR does not apply -- which it does, but put that aside -- Addington's problem is he's failed to explain what does apply. Without a written standard, there is nothing in writing, and OVP cannot claim it is "legitimate" -- rather, it is failing to use written law or written standards as the basis for governance. That is the same as "illegitimate" government. The war crimes prosecutors take note of that when considering whether legal counsel have or have not fully asserted their oath, or done all they could to enforce the law.

2. Geneva

But let's suppose you don't like the CFR discussion. Fine, let's discuss another gem: The Geneva conventions, and the legal duty on counsel under Article 82 to ensure the conventions are fully met.

Some former WH counsel with the Federalist Society like to pretend that Geneva does not apply; or the US Constitution does not confer any rights upon prisoners of war. That misses the point: Geneva isn't simply a list of rights conferred on prisoners which can or cannot be stripped away; but something that is also the opposite -- legal responsibilities on the detaining power, in this case the United States.

Said another way, Addington's problem is that he's pretending that there is confusion about Geneva; and that Geneva is silent on the US responsibilities; and that the US Constitution doesn't apply to prisoners. Rather, Geneva imposes legal obligations like a leash on the US, preventing US agents and government personnel and contractors from crossing a line. Geneva isn't just a shield for prisoners, but it is a tight leash to prevent the abuse.

Addington's argument about the "fourth branch" would have us believe that because he says so, that the "fourth branch" is not subject to Geneva; does not have a legal constraint; and that Geneva does not constrain the OVP, nor does Geneva mipose legal requirements on counsel, nor does Geneva constrain legal counsel or the OVP. This is illusory. As with all governments, Geneva has two essential prongs which must be enforced, prserved, defeneded, and respected: The enforcement prong as it relates to the object of that detention; and the preservation program as it relates to preserving the requirement as it relates to the United States. Both prongs exist; either prong attaches legal liability to legal counsel. Only one prong needs to be shown to have been violated for Geneva legal consequences to be imposed on legal counsel through a war crimes trial. This is Addington's problem. He's stuck.

By arguing that OVP is "outside" the US government, this does nothing to address whether the OVP is or isn't constrained by Geneva. It is. Again, OVP and Addington's arguments are flawed, but even if we take those arguments to their logical conclusion -- as flawed as they are -- they still do not stand up to legal scrutiny.

3. MCA

Let's pretend you don't like the Geneva or CFR arguments above. Fine. Let's look at Addington's problem from another perspective. Take a look at the last pages of the Military Commissions Act [MCA], and in the original drafts you'll see some interesting language which Addington, DoJ OLC, and the President coordinated with Congress: Language explicitily including within the MCA funds for US government personnel who appear before international tribunals.

Let that sink in for the moment. What the MCA is doing -- despite Addington's denials to the contrary -- is turning Addington's argument on its head: Even if Addington's OVP is in the fourth branch, Addington and others in OVP with the MCA acknowledge the JAG concerns raised at the POW working group meetings within DoD that the US government legal counsel could be tried for war crimes before the ICC.

Addington's problem is even if his claim of "we're outside the three branches"-argument were real, then he still cannot explain why his office fully supported funing of defenses before the ICC. If Addington really believed his "fourth branch" was outside the law, there would have been no reason for he or others in OVP to work with DOJ OLC to get this language within the MCA. But the langaugeis there for one reason: Whether Addington is or is not in one, two, three, or the four branches of government is meaningless: He's still subject to ICC prosecution. It was raised in the POW working group memoranda, the memos are publicly available, TPM and C&L readers well know about these memoranda, and Addington well knows why ICC prosecution is a real threat: Because there have been alleged frivolous legal arguments by him and others in OVP-WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD-NSA in re war crimes, Geneva, and the laws of war.

4. CIA Tape Destruction

Let's forget the above for the moment, and focus narrowly on the issue of the CIA Tape destruction in the context of this claim "we're in our own branch of government." Fine, let's pretend that argument is true: Why was this "fourth branch" involved with discussions about CIA tape destruction, rendition, prisoner abuse, and the movement of prisoners?

Even if they are in the "fourth branch" Addington's problem is that he cannot explain why he's getting access to material information, secret data, and other state secrets. It's not as though he's above the law, can randomly get access to this data, and do with it what he wants. Rather, Addington's problem is that he's blocked the ISOO auditor from reviewing the data which OVP has received, and has been supposedly hidden in this "fourth branch" which, by ADdington's admission, would fall outside the permitted data storage allowances.

That is key: There are two things -- prongs -- we're talking about on this OVP data: One is a standard; one is the practice. Keep that in mind as you workn on the FOIAs: If OVP is not within any standard, then it must be stored consistent with some standards. Addiongton's problem is that by asserting he is in a fourth branch, he's failed to demonstrate that he's lawfully overseeing data, or that he is effecitvely managing resources.

Geneva is not silent on this. If Addington -- as he asserts -- is not subject to any laws, and not required to follow any rules -- then Geneva would classify all operations under his direction, association, or subject to any policy he's written as being unlawful combatants: Those forces that he's writing policies for are outside Geneva-recognized classes. In other words, by asserting he's "outside" the US government's legallly recognized three branches, he's admitting -- by implication -- that he and others are not lawfully providing any direction, nor are they legally issuing any orders, nor are the agets and contractors under Addington's influence under the GEneva-protected classess.

Under the laws of war, this would lawfully beofre the ICC appear as though Addington and the OVP were engaged in non-Geneva-protected activities; and they too are subject to prosecution as unlawful combatants, and unlawful policy makers per the Geneva Conventions. By implication, this means the prime motivation of the CIA tapes' destruction is not to protect any CIA agent -- look at Plame -- nor to insulate the CIA from "political concerns" -- get real, in 2005 GOP was assumed to have political control -- but for one reason: JAGs well stated to Addington after 2001 that the ICC could prosecute civilians for war crimes.

5. War Crimes Issue

Here's Addington's real problem as it relates to Geneva and the treatment or prisoners in Eastern Europe and the Rendition program. Regardless the Supreme Courts position that they are "state secrets," Geneva imposes legal reqwuirements on all people. Lawyers, last time i Checked, despire their defects, are people and still subject to Geneva. Even in secret programs, the Geneva conventions still applied to the United States. It doesn't matter what the US government says about the status of the prisoners, detainees, or whether they were located. Once the US agreed to be bound by Geneva, then all US contactors, forces, and things under US controls were bound by Geneva; doesn't matter whether the US farmed out, contacted, or sent prisoners to "other locations". The chief legal requirement was on the United States, its persons, and all US persons subject to that treaty: Our conduct must comply with Geneva; and we cannot change that requirement by moving the prisoner. Standards do not change by hiding the evidence; standards apply regardless whether an OVP legal advisor pretends they are in a place where "it doesn't apply." That place does not exist, but in the wild imagination of an attorney making allegedly frivolous legal arguments.

Under US laws, all legal counsel who make frivolous legal arguments to justify, not stop, or condone illegal activity, can be personally attached to the underlying unlawful activity. Said another way, even though Addington may not have personally violated the laws of war, he -- as an attorney -- had a duty to not make frivolous legal arguments. However, when he does make frivolous legal arguments, the precedent under US law and Geneva -- through Nuremberg -- is to attach the underlying war crimes to the legal counsel making frivolous legal arguments.

This gets us back to where we started: Addington's arguments that he's in a "fourth branch". Let's revisit the CFR in the context of frivolous arguments. ICC when it reviews the evidence will look at the US Constitution and ask, "Is there a mechanism in place to enforce the laws of war?" The answer, already given and the reason for ICC not taking action yet, is the US does have the power to prosecute and enforce Geneva. They are called courts, prosecutions, attorney Generals, and impeachment.

The moment Addington and other WH-DOJ-OLC IS a fourth branch] but the ICC does not see the US taking action to enforce Geneva against Addington because of these frivolous legal arguments, then the ICC could step back and say:

"OK. We've given them their chance. They've balked. Time to review what Addington said about the fourth branch, and consider whether that is a legal defense, or whether it is a frivolous legal argument."

The ICC may conclude that asserting "we don't have to keep war crimes evidence because we're in the fourth branch" as a frivolous legal argument. Addington is likely to invoke the MCA language which says his legal defenses before the ICC are fully paid by the US government.

6. US Enforcement

On the table are the alleged frivolous legal arguments Addington and other legal counsel have given; also there are the Genva constraints with the JAGs well documented; and there is the open evidence that prisoners have been abused. We don't need a long trial nor lengthy discovery to look at the open record: There is clear evidence that the US government did have legal counsel present; that legal counsel was aware of the prisoner abuse; and that Addington personally was reluctant to move the prisoners because allegedly he said that a change in position would be an admission the original treatment was illegal.

Some are pretending that Addington has to show his evidence, or that he must comply, or that without the evidence the OVP staff will go free. Non-sense. Under the laws of war and rules of evidence -- even criminal matters -- where there is evidence missing, where there is a legal duty to preserve that evidence, the lack of evidence is admissible. In this case, its reasonable for the ICC, Senate, and Grand Juries to conclude the reason the evidence is missing is that there were known ICC-issues which the JAGs raised; and the reason Addington and others did not preserve the data had nothing to do with whether they were or were not required (that is not in doubt, they are), but because Addington and others well knew that they had not met their legal obligations.

This can be proven simply: Looking at the argument of "we are in the fourth branch" is allegedly a frivolous legal argument; and when we review the CFR and Geneva we have two legal standards which Addington and others are alleged to have been instrumental in "explaining" them away. We only need to look at the JAG memos; and the OLC discussion to confirm whether Addington worked alone, or whether there were civilian legal counsel who were complicit.

If we speculate, it appears what's happened is that legal counsel associated with the FISA violations had some financial interest in prosecuting a war, and ensuring there were no legal consequences. This is speculation. But that is not necessarily the issue: The question is why would the legal counsel working on the telecom immunity be working so hard for immunity, yet Addington claims "we're not subject to any law". Why isn't the telecom community making the same argument? The answer appears: The telecom contractors appear to fear that their FISA violations were instrumental in supporting war crimes; and that the OVP-evidence, which they have, could be subpoenaed to show Addington was fully involved with the war crimes planning.

Time to calling Addingotn on his bluff. He claims there's no evidence. Fine. There's discussion that the telecoms want immunity. OK, let's consider that: In exchange for immunity, are they prepared to turn over all the OVP-related evidence that the ICC and war crimes prosecutors want? If not, then there is evidence with GCHQ that can help put teh telecoms and OVP staff before the ICC.

It's time to stop playing nice with the telecoms, OVP, and Addington. He's allegedly destroyed war crimes evidence. That evidence is retained outside hsi control within GCHQ, and also other non-NATO allies have expressed interest in enforcing Geneva against US government officials. If Addington wants to believe that he's not subject to any law, then it is time for the international community to apply Geneva, and declare Addington and the OVP and VP leaders of unlawful combatants, and subject to enforcement under Geneva.

Big Clue For Addington

If he wants to continue to pretend he's not within any of the three legally recognized branches of government, then his assertions can be entered into evidence as frivolous; and for purposes of reviewing CIA tape destruction and Geneva standards, that evidence can be presented before the ICC's war crimes prosecutors.

Also, standing in the wings are the State Attorney Generals who have the power to prosecute a sitting Vice President and legal counsel. Time to remind the State AGs that ICC expects the US government, or someone, to enforce Geneva. Congress refuses; might as well be the State AGs that organize the effort.

Addington is an alleged war criminal. He's allegedly been in receipt of war crimes evidence. The ICC is assuming the US will resolve this issue. It's time for the Presidential candidates for the 2008 election to get challenged on this issue: What is their plan to cooperate with the ICC -- as the MCA said was possible -- in enforcing Geneva against Addington; or do they have no plan? If they haven't thought about this, then

what good are they going to be in enforcing the

"needed reforms"

to ensure this never happens again?

Addington, in my personal opinion, is a worthless attorney. He didn't graduate from the Naval Academy. He believes Geneva does not apply. He's failed to understand that regardless the relevance of Geneva to a prisoner, that Geneva is a leash on him. The question is whether he wants to cooperate; or whether he would like to be the subject of a world-wide man hunt to find him. Addington has a major legal problem. Pretending that he's in his own branch isn't solving his problem; it's merely evidence the ICC needs to attach Addington to the alleged war crimes others have committed in violation of the laws of war.

If the US Congress will not impeach Addington, then the ICC may conclude the US government is not serious about enforcing Geneva, and proceed with prosecutions. Congress, by refusing to impeach, send the ICC and international community a clear signal in re Geneva: The US government is not serious about enforcing, complying with, or following the laws of war. The international community has lawful ways of dealing with nations who believe they are not bound by standards:

That nation, as was done in WWII, is lawfully declared an outlaw nation, and subject to lawful attack.

Said another way,in plain English for the toads at the American Bar Association Law Journal: You've made quite a mockery of the law by naming Gonzalez the "newsmaker of the year." However, your organization has failed to signal to the American public that you are competent, or self-governing. Rather, you've done the opposite: Shown despite JAG warnings that you're allegedly complicity with frivolous legal arguments. There is not statute of limitations for war crimes. If you refuse to assert your oath, the ICC and war crimes prosecutors are going to go after you as well. Addington is the tip of the iceberg.

The rule of law shall prevail.

Even against legal counsel who make frivolous legal arguments in re Geneva and the laws of war. You brought this on yourselves.

Time to wake up. This is about war crimes, evidence destruction, and alleged Attorney misconduct warranting the DC Disciplinary board to start an investigation into Addington, OVP legal counsel, and DOJ Staff counsel. Time for the US legal community to self govern; or, by their inaction, admit that they have no effective oversight mechanism -- as required -- to enforce the laws of war against member attorneys. If the US government will not lead this, then it is time for the public to openly discuss what happened in Germany after WWII: There were new governance standards which transformed the German government. The same needs to be done in the US. The next President needs to be challenged -- now, during the primaries -- to explain their plan to transform this US government into one that is responsive to the laws of war, not -- as it is now -- complicit with war crimes and incapable of enforcing or adhering fully to Geneva.