oh and I remember this one.....about the e-mail OVP power abuse....it's still going on right now.

mudshark @ 1:

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated.

Oh fuck. Things just keep getting better and better. I hope we make it to New Years

You mean, Dick Cheney would rather destroy a government oversight office than “engage on the substance of an issue”?

Why not? Wouldn't you say he (and his band of neocons) pretty much destroyed the constitution and what the USA once stood for? What would stop him from destroying any one particular department of government?

I swear the more I hear about Cheney the more I hate him. Cheney and his supporters are the terrorist of this damn nation. How insanely dumb are most republicans that support these people? HOW DUMB ARE THEY? I used to have respect for most people I knew were repubs, but this breed of repubs that support the president and vice president have got to be the dumbest people in the U.S. 32% of those morons still think IRAQ had WMD's. They need to get an education and start caring for the country instead of the 2 idiots in office.

Benazir Bhutto ...Jesus.....

Right wing religious fanatics strike again.

Bhutto was assassinated today. A sad day for hope of democracy.

...and Muscharrif tightens his control further.

Bhutto would have found out about all that money,linking the US to whatever TF their up too...Mushariff is a scary guy

the govt’s too big…it needs to be reduced…hmmmm? where have I heard that one lately?

bingo!

Musharrif used bush's money to further consolidate his power. This recent suicide attack was funded by taxpayer money. US foreign policy is playing a fools game proping up the dictator Musharrif.

This is all unproven speculation of course. Look at the timeline of Musharrif's gain to power, look the US support in weapons and training toward the pakistan military and judge for yourself.

There was an attempt on the other former PM Nawaz Sharif as well......4 security personel were killed......right about the same time they asassinated Bhutto.

I asked Santa for Impeachment...he didnt deliver.
Santa sucks.

Cheney is clearly a massive asshole...he needs to be removed from power ASAP and thrown in prison!
Impeach the motherfuckers!

mudshark @ 23:

I also am concerned for the safety of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.........A Woman?..and A Black Man?........look what they did to JFK....and MLK....and RFK...

Yeah, good point. You better vote for Kucinich or Edwards.

Sha_Rules @ 24:

I asked Santa for Impeachment...he didnt deliver.
Santa sucks.

Ya well, I just did 45days as a Santa in de inner city we all can't do it all. I can't even keep the kids from kickin my knee. I did email my congress person and of course the stick in the water Nancy. So I tried too.

Perhaps a Priest or a Shamen?

I just wonder how the Bushie Senior and his little hedgefund guys did what they did a few years ago. did they know they were sinking the US and the Constitution, so very easily with putting Cheney in charge of the selecting a VP.

OliverDreams @ 28:

mudshark @ 23:

I also am concerned for the safety of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.........A Woman?..and A Black Man?........look what they did to JFK....and MLK....and RFK...

Yeah, good point. You better vote for Kucinich or Edwards.

At this point...I don't really think ANY candidate is safe...this regime we have in the WH...I think they are capable of doing whatever it takes to remain in power. Only question I have is, are they willing to destroy whatever shadow of democracy we have left in this country?

miss marple @ 31:

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, is a sadistic coward who has thrown away 1,000’s of American lives, and 10’s of 1,000’s of Iraqi lives in his campaign to destroy liberty and justice.

And how many Americans really give a (four letter word).

this one does by god!

If we could just determine what language Cheney speaks, we could determine his definition of 'Democracy'.

addington needs to go to jail. nobody in the history of the united states has done as much damage to the constitution than addington.

If it weren't for our "new pearl harbor" would we put up with this baloney??? Things that make ya go "hmmmmmmm"..........

Blame it all on Nancy! She has the power and refuses to use it.

Meanwhile, Bush/Cheney keep claiming and using powers that they don't have(constitutionally). How ass-backwards and totally f'ed-up is that?

Yossarian @ 10:

Benazir Bhutto ...Jesus.....

Right wing religious fanatics strike again.

Look for Jim Webb, Ron Paul or Keith Olberman next.

People can't really believe that Bush and Cheney aren't really using all that illegal wire tapping to spy on members of congress?
Cheney's man-sized safe is probably chock full of dirt on half the members of congress. My bet is that if Pelosi ever stood up to the dark lords she'd end in prison after some newspaper mysteriously finds the skeletons in her closet.

Cheney should be placed in the fifth branch of government, in Arlington, in the Vice-Presidents' plot.

The saddest thing is how the lefty blogs have ignored Wexler's call to get signatures for his petition. It has been left to a few commenter’s to bring it up on a daily basis when, one would expect, these lefty bloggers would have a daily column reporting on the effort and urging signups. C&L get at least 50,000 distinct hits a day as do fdl, digby, atrios, ect, yet, for all of their outrage about cheney, rarely a mention of the "I" word. What happened? Are they all, really, in the end, Pelosicrats? Now even the msm is reporting on the impeachment effort more vigorously than the blogs. From opednews.com

The above article by Wexler also links to two other Judiciary Committee members who are taking up the call.
Lefty blogs could push this the same way they pushed the FISA filibuster, but, with exception of an occasional mention by bluegal, I don’t see a word. If you want these hearings to go forward and you comment on other sites, ask those bloggers why they are not taking up the cause. Isn’t impeachment more important than Plame or FISA, since it goes to the source, cheney? The judiciary meets again Jan 8. Let's let Wexler plop down ONE MILLION signups, that is a number that niether Pelosi nor Conyers cannot ignore.

Not exactly on topic, but today the US ambasador to Norway presented a thinly veiled threat.

Norway is on the verge of buying new fighter jets. If we buy the Sweedish alternative, the JAS Gripen, the US is not going to take it lightly.

Just another example of the agressive pollicies of the Bush/Cheney White House.

LAST I CHECKED, THE US IS OUR FUCKIN' ALLY! With friends like that, who needs enemies?

why isn't this mutha-phucking khock-ssucking bastard IMPEACHED!!!!

Cheney shits on the constitution and the magna carta both!

He should be in jail NOW!!!

I would hope the excellent readers of C&L and TPM 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 responsibiites; 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 stsand 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 pgages 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 th efourth 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 m ovement 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 reaiurement 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 enfore GEneva. They are calld courts, prosecutions, attorney GEnrals, and impeachment.

The moment Addington and other WH-DOJ-OLC start making excuses [Geneva is vague, prisoners have not US Constitutional rights, or there 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 eivdence 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 awrae 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 treatement 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 Addingont and others did not preserve the data had nothing to do with wehther 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 allegeldy 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, 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 releveance 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.

We are all on a hit list, what happened to America.