Snowball

/43 Comments/in /by

I have a feeling (and I hope) things are going to snowball from here on out. With each new revelation, the things the Administration did while operating in secrecy get worse and worse. And, they make it easier for Democrats to push for still more revelations. For example, when the ACLU succeeds in liberating the Yoo Torture Memo, it makes everyone ask about that October 23, 2001 memo that claims the 4th Amendment is dead.

Second, in the March, 2003 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum publicly released on April 1, 2008, the contents of a secret October, 2001 OLC memorandum were partially disclosed. Specifically, the 2003 memorandum explains that in an October 23, 2001 memorandum, OLC “concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.”3 On two prior occasions – in letters of February 12 and February 20, 2008, – Chairman Conyers requested that the Administration publicly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum .4 The memorandum has not been received despite these specific requests.

Based on the title of the October 23, 2001 memorandum, and based on what has been disclosed and the contents of similar memoranda issued at roughly the same time, it is clear that a substantial portion of this memorandum provides a legal analysis and conclusions as to the nature and scope of the Presidential Commander in Chief power to accomplish specific acts within the United States. The people of the United States are entitled to know the Justice Department’s interpretation of the President’s constitutional powers to wage war in the United States. There can be no actual basis in national security for keeping secret the remainder of a legal memorandum that addresses this issue of Constitutional interpretation. The notion that the President can claim to operate under “secret” powers known only to the President and a select few subordinates is antithetical to the core principles of this democracy. We ask that you promptly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum.

And, when the Attorney General makes bogus assertions to justify his calls for FISA reform, it makes everyone want to know why George Bush didn’t prevent 9/11 if he had the opportunity to.

This statement is very disturbing for several reasons. Initially, despite extensive inquiries after 9/11, I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks. In addition, if the Administration had known of such communications from suspected terrorists, they could and should have been intercepted based on existing FISA law. For example, even assuming that a FISA warrant was required to intercept such calls, as of 9/11 FISA specifically authorized such surveillance on an emergency basis without a warrant for a 48 hour period.2 If such calls were known about and not intercepted, serious additional concerns would be raised about the government’s failure to take appropriate action before 9/11.

Accordingly, we ask that you promptly answer the following questions:

1. Were you referring to an actual pre-9/11 incident in the portion of your statement quoted above? If not, what were you referring to?

2. Do you believe that a FISA warrant would have been required to intercept a telephone call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States in 2001? If so, please explain.

3. Even assuming that such a warrant would have been required, do you agree that even before 9/11, FISA authorized emergency interception without a warrant for a 48-hour period of phone calls from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States?

4. Assuming that you were referring to an actual pre-9/11 incident in your statement, please explain why such phone calls were not intercepted and appropriately utilized by federal government authorities in seeking to prevent terrorist attacks.

While DOJ will undoubtedly try to hide evidence that Bush claimed the 4th Amendment was dead for some time yet, those efforts will inevitably lead those trying to hide such embarrassments to say something else that will add to the snowball gathering momentum.

Of course, that means there’s a bit of the race, between the gathering snowball and the end of Administration, when Bush will pardon more close Administration associates than anyone has ever pardoned before.

image_print
43 replies
  3. druidity36 says:

    um, that’s a big deal, isn’t it?

    In OCTOBER, 2001 it was decided that the 4th amendment didn’t apply…

    I fear *ush will throw all caution to the wind in the coming weeks and go forward with the Iran plans. What does he have to lose at this point?

  4. prostratedragon says:

    when Bush will pardon more close Administration associates than anyone has ever pardoned before.

    Maybe someone will commission John Williams for a march. Something to keep up the spirits of the long line of supplicants outside the office.

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, they won’t have to ask. Did/Will Scooter Libby have to ask?

      Nope, I bet he’s got all the pardon letters hidden in a special fireproof drawer in his desk, just in case he has to get out of Dodge quickly. All made out in triplicate:

      Dick
      Addington
      Fredo
      Scooter
      Karl
      Monica
      Alphonso
      Rummy
      Yoo
      Haynes
      Harriet

      And so on and so on.

      • prostratedragon says:

        Don’t forget my fav for this week, Doogie Faith.

        Maybe the march would be to keep our spirits up. I suppose there’s no point in wondering whether a president under impeachment can still hand out pardons to others.

        • emptywheel says:

          I’ve actually been thinking of starting a pool (if bmaz has any of those hubcaps left over) to predict who will get the pardons. If I can figure out how to judge these things (hopefully either phred or ProfFoland will show up and invent a method–they’re good at such things) then maybe I’ll even collect money, and donate half to DNC…

        • Peterr says:

          Hmmm . . . so many ways to set up that pool.

          How many pardons will Bush issue for administration official?
          Who will get them?
          In what order?

          And most important — to borrow from the lingo of the NCAA basketball tournaments — who is on the bubble, and might end up being left out of the pardon party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

        • bmaz says:

          My Michigan surrogates report the recent acquisition of four shiny new hubcaps. Appear to be off of a Honda…..

      • scribe says:

        Speaking to the pardon issue, this would definitely play into those foreign countries who would be interested in trying those clowns for war crimes. As Balkin noted the other day, and as Philippe Sands in Vanity Fair did, too, the absence (through pardon or, as Sands discussed, the Military Commissions Act immunizing the actors) of a legal remedy (i.e., criminal prosecution) heightens the case for a foreign country with an anti-torture statute prosecuting one of these clowns when they get on a plane and land there.

        Perhaps we can have a nice conference on legal something-or-other in a nice place like, um, The Hague, and give all of these characters a free ride there on a government-owned Gulfstream. One way, perhaps?

      • Bushie says:

        EW
        Can various Bar Associations disbar these putzes; say for moral turpitude and who could initiate a complaint to the Bar?

        • MadDog says:

          Can various Bar Associations disbar these putzes; say for moral turpitude and who could initiate a complaint to the Bar?

          Per Christy Hardin Smith in a comment over on FDL:

          And, by the way, any person can file a complaint with a supervisory bar association if they feel a lawyer has violated his obligations on ethics. It’s not just lawyers who police ethics issues. Just FYI…

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think Elgar is customary, while pardonees use that halting step while en route to the dais. They may need the new National Stadium to fit them all in.

      Or he’ll do it by secret EO, not allowing anyone to see who’s on it, what the pardon says, or what’s being pardoned. The administration will simply issue retina-scanned wallet cards that say, “Please extend to Mr. Capone the freedom of the City.”

      • prostratedragon says:

        I think Elgar is customary —

        You know, I did have Elgar in mind. Other classical possibilities: “Procession of the Nobles” (Rimsky-Korsakov), with a different mood for each cohort. The heart-throbbing “March to the Scaffold” (Berlioz). “Tangata del Alba” (Piazzolla), which has a big scream in the chorus, reminiscent of a trapdoor opening.

  5. Mary says:

    While he’s at it, he should ask Mukasey to ante up with who classified the Yoo memo just released, whether it complies with EO 13292, if not, whether there is another EO or amendment with which it does comply, whether there is a section of 13292 which justifies classification of legal rational and citation, etc.

  6. scribe says:

    For those of you interested, here is the Very offending text. From the Yoo Memorandum, footnote 10, at page 8:

    Indeed, drawing in part on the reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez, as well as the Supreme Court’s treatment of the destruction of property for the purposes of military necessity, our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct. 23, 2001).

    The “Verdugo-Urquidez” being discussed (and, to all appearances, stretched beyond all recognition) is the case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), a case decided 5-4 (or 6-3, depending on how you count Stevens, concurring in the judgment) in an opinion written by then C.J. Rehnquist. From the findlaw site, here is the “syllabus of the decision”:

    After the Government obtained an arrest warrant for respondent – a Mexican citizen and resident believed to be a leader of an organization that smuggles narcotics into this country – he was apprehended by Mexican police and transported here, where he was arrested. Following his arrest, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, working with Mexican officials, searched his Mexican residences and seized certain documents. The District Court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that the Fourth Amendment – which protects “the people” against unreasonable searches and seizures – applied to the searches, and that the DEA agents had failed to justify searching the premises without a warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Citing Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 – which held that American citizens tried abroad by United States military officials were entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections – the court concluded that the Constitution imposes substantive constraints on the Federal Government, even when it operates abroad. Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 – where a majority assumed that illegal aliens in the United States have Fourth Amendment rights – the court observed that it would be odd to acknowledge that respondent was entitled to trial-related rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but not to Fourth Amendment protection.

    Held:

    The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. Pp. 264-275.

    (a) If there were a constitutional violation in this case, it occurred solely in Mexico, since a Fourth Amendment violation is fully accomplished at the time of an unreasonable governmental intrusion whether or not the evidence seized is sought for use in a criminal trial. Thus, the Fourth Amendment functions differently from the Fifth Amendment, whose privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. P. 264.

    These two points in the reasoning are interesting:

    (c) The Fourth Amendment’s drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and not to restrain the Federal Government’s actions against aliens outside United States territory. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the Framers’ contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters. Pp. 266-268.

    (d) The view that every constitutional provision applies wherever the Government exercises its power is contrary to this Court’s decisions in the Insular Cases, which held that not all constitutional provisions apply to governmental activity even in territories where the United States has sovereign power. See, e. g., Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 . Indeed, the claim that extraterritorial aliens are entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment – which speaks in the relatively universal term of “person” – has been emphatically rejected. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 . Pp. 268-269.

    Way down in the reasoning (and, I’d suspect it’s dicta to the main decision, though I have not gotten around to reading it, yet) is this nugget:

    (f) The Court of Appeals’ rule would have significant and deleterious consequences for the United States in conducting activities beyond its [494 U.S. 259, 261] borders. The rule would apply not only to law enforcement operations abroad, but also to other foreign operations – such as Armed Forces actions – which might result in “searches and seizures.” Under the rule, aliens with no attachment to this country might bring actions for damages to remedy claimed violations of the Fourth Amendment in foreign countries or in international waters, and Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches would be plunged into a sea of uncertainty as to what might be reasonable in the way of searches and seizures conducted abroad. Any restrictions on searches and seizures incident to American action abroad must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty, or legislation. Pp. 273-275.

    Seems kinda speculative, to me. So, we should not be surprised if Torture Boy Yoo stretched this case out of all recognition – going from refusing to suppress evidence seized in a foreign country without a search warrant to deciding that the Fourth Amendment had no applicability to the military conducting operations within this country.

    Kinda like that old bit where the guy decided to spell everything phonetically, and “fish” wound up spelled “ghoti”. You remember it…. This is the lawyers’ equivalent.

    • bmaz says:

      Nice discussion. It has been a while (1993-95), but I was involved a couple of related cases in a cocaine conspiracy that touched on these issues. There was no hesitation whatsoever in bouncing my 4th Amendment arguments on the foreign nationals (I had standing issue because they were not my clients, but the decision went against them personally too in their joined cases) that were wiretapped while they were in Mexico. But the same ruling applied against my American client too in the first case because I could not prove that the Mexican police were working for/with the DEA, so the court held that to be just fine (I still take issue, but never got to appeal on that). A second case was filed that shook loose the fact that the Mexican police were indeed working with the DEA all along and it then went in my favor; i.e. the 4th applied to US citizens even out of the country if the incursion was at behest of American authorities. The Mexican nationals never got any 4th protection even when proved that the DEA ordered it. Pretty much consistent with your interpretation of Verdugo-Urquidez.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      My meager recollection is that Congress had not yet rescinded the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited domestic military operations for peacekeeping purposes. So what operations did they have in mind and why were their plans for it so far along they needed a CYA memo to cover them?

      I can’t decide whether to borrow the DVD for that bad Denzel Washington mediocre, The Siege, about declaring martial law in New York, or Seven Days in May. Annette Bening as it all over Ava Gardner, but I’ve always liked Edmond O’Brien and Frederic March. May it is.

  7. Neil says:

    LMAO. The Bush Presidential Pardon Pool; come on in, it’s an Olympic size pool.

    Or a new game show: “I Beg Your Pardon!?” Wouldn’t you like to watch that skit on SNL?

    • Peterr says:

      Or a weekly YouTube from Jane, Christy, and EW — like the Libby Liveblog wrapups.

      “This week’s candidate is a former senior administration official with a west wing office, ties to major GOP donors, and was known to have subverted the law in his dealings with not one, not two, but three different federal agencies. Say hello to this week’s applicant on ‘I Beg Your Pardon’ . . .”

    • scribe says:

      Name the actors and characters who will go begging to Bushie for their pardons….
      Go on. Everyone spent hours casting the Plame picture….

  8. Tross says:

    I have been saying for some time now that based on the frequency of the law-breaking revelations, I can’t see how Bush makes it out of office before a high-level exec. branch operative gets charged with a crime.

    I doubt it will be Bush/Cheney (although I’m still hoping Nancy re-sets “the table”), but between Rumsfeld, Yoo, Mukasey, Addington, Meirs, Laurita Doan, the EPA head, Karl Rove, Gonzo (and I could go on) — the odds are that somebody won’t make it to the finish line.

      • Tross says:

        Yeah, but Libby was more of a “fall guy”. I’m thinking more along the lines of someone who’s name everyone knows, not just us DFH’s.

  9. JamesJoyce says:

    911…….looking more like a “Gliewitz Incident” type of event all the time? Would only make 911 worse if it was in fact enabled/coddled. Irrespective off that perspective, 911 was used by Bush to play a shell game with the truth. Now we have the “Iraq Oil Plot” and all the “benefits” of responsible reasoned based policies by responsible leadership!

  10. pede says:

    I love this site!

    On the pardon issue, why not establish a campaign to collect as publicly as possible a list of the individuals and their alleged crimes, but hold off on charging them. Assuming safely that most of them would be found guilty, Bush has two options either pardoning only alleged crimes – I can’t see how he can do that, or face the fact that all these individuals will feel the urge to CYA and therefore seek immunity deals and cooperate with investigations ahead of the end of the presidency, which would speed up the snowball, maybe even to the impeachment size.

    The other issue is where the dem candidates stand on the International Criminal Court. I have not seen that raised as a question to the candidates.

    My two cents – thanks

  11. JamesJoyce says:

    The only way the world found out about the “fabricated” attack on a German Radio Station named Gliewitz, blamed on Polish saboteurs, organized by the SS was: War Crimes Trial! Based on that “fabricated attack,” the Nazis invaded Poland and started WWII, justified and rationalized as a preemptive military strike called the Blitzkrieg to save the German Homeland, a fraud!

  12. mesquite says:

    Can Shrub issue preemptive pardons- for offenses that haven’t been charged? As long as the statutes of limitations are not exceeded, President Obama’s AG should use the evidence of a DOJ clearly broken for years to open a prosecutor’s office dedicated to charging the Boosh League criminals in January 2009. Congress can and should collect evidence until them, and require testimony, but I don’t see them charging anyone before then.

    Also, the Miltary Commissions Act provided immunity for beaucoup bad actors- but can a statute immunize behaviour that violated constitutional protections?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Yes, the president can pardon someone for a crime he or she hasn’t been charged with – President Ford did that with Nixon, who resigned before being impeached (removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors) – though it is rare. The question of whether the president can pardon himself has never been answered.

      Most pardons correct obvious injustices, or wipe the slate clean for someone who has been convicted and served their sentence and whose post-release behavior has been exemplary for an extended period. A few are issued to protect alleged political cronies from criminal liability; the GOP accused Clinton of doing that with Marc Rich. That is well within the president’s authority to do, though doing it frequently normally has adverse political consequences. The kind this administration routinely ignores.

      Presidential pardons only void criminal liability; they have no affect on civil liability. That’s one reason Mr. Bush wants Congress to legislate statutory immunity from suit, as well as grant an amnesty for criminal liability, to telecoms. He can only do half that, and would have to put his own name on the Get Out of Jail card to do it.

      Mr. Bush has used his pardons more sparingly than any modern predecessor. That was true of his use of similar powers he had as governor of Texas. He seems to think that the system always works and that anybody convicted deserves what they git. Scooter Libby and himself excepted. There’s a specific office in the DOJ that normally processes all requests for pardons. Mr. Bush’s respect for the law and its normal processes have been well documented here.

    • Minnesotachuck says:

      Wasn’t Ford’s pardon of Nixon preemptive? He hadn’t been formally charged with anything at that point, as I recall.

      Relatedly, what if folks who are pardoned are indicted in other venues, such as Europe. Will the pardon protect them from extradition? Or more generally, how would such an extradition attempt be treated under the law?

      • Ishmael says:

        Bush can only issue pardons for “offences against the United States”. He could grant pardons for violations of the War Crimes Act, a federal statute, but the pardon would not, IMHO, serve as an absolute bar to his extradition to the Hague. BTW, for political reasons, this ain’t gonna happen to a former American president – I’d settle for Rumsfeld though! Pinochet, for example, was deemed subject to extradition for ordering the torture and murder of domestic opponents by the House of Lords to Spain despite his assertion of immunity from prosecution as a former head of state – the Lords decreed that some international crimes, such as torture, could not be protected by former head-of-state immunity. Torture was recognized by the Lords as an international crime subject to universal jurisdiction, despite efforts by Pinochet to get Chilean government actions to immunize him. Political pressure by Bush 41 and Margaret Thatcher eventually resulted in a decision by the British government that Pinochet was too ill to stand trial and he was returned to Chile instead of Spain for trial.

        • phred says:

          Political pressure by Bush 41 and Margaret Thatcher eventually resulted in a decision by the British government that Pinochet was too ill to stand trial and he was returned to Chile instead of Spain for trial.

          What was their incentive? Was it a broad interest in not wanting any head of state prosecuted in order to ensure no head of state of Britain or the US would ever be prosecuted? Or was it more self-serving, fearing what evidence might come out in such a trial that would make Bush41 or Thatcher look bad?

        • klynn says:

          but the pardon would not, IMHO, serve as an absolute bar to his extradition to the Hague. BTW, for political reasons, this ain’t gonna happen to a former American president – I’d settle for Rumsfeld though!

          Totally agree. Years ago, I was an intern at UN Office at Geneva (UNOG). So, I follow news releases from their office. (Good reading BTW). You might appreciate the following:

          Among positive developments in the second periodic report of the United States, the Committee welcomed the State party’s statement that all officials, from all Government agencies, including its contractors, were prohibited from engaging in torture at all times and in all places, and from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee noted with satisfaction the State party’s statement that it did not transfer persons to countries where it believed that it was “more likely than not” they would be tortured, and that that also applied, as a matter of policy, to the transfer of any individual in the State party’s custody or control, regardless of where they were detained. The Committee also noted with satisfaction the enactment of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which addressed sexual assault of persons in the custody of correctional agencies. The Committee also noted the intention to adopt a new Army Field Manual for intelligence interrogation, applicable to all its personnel, which, according to the State party, will ensure that interrogation techniques fully comply with the Convention.

          The Committee reiterated its concern with regard to the absence of a federal crime of torture consistent with Article 1 of the Convention and requested, among others, that the State party ensure that acts of psychological torture, prohibited by the Convention, were not limited to “prolonged mental harm”, but constituted a wider category of acts, which caused severe mental suffering, irrespective of their prolongation or its duration. The Committee regretted the State party’s opinion that the Convention was not applicable in times and in the context of armed conflict, and that the Convention’s application would result in an overlap of the different treaties which would undermine the objective of eradicating torture.

          The Committee urged the United States to register all persons it detained in any territory under its jurisdiction to prevent acts of torture. In that regard, the Committee was concerned by allegations that the State party had established secret detention facilities, which were not accessible to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Detainees were deprived of fundamental legal safeguards, including an oversight mechanism in regard to their treatment and review procedures with respect to their detention. The Committee was also concerned by allegations that those detained in such facilities could be held for prolonged periods and faced torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee considered the “no comment” policy of the State party regarding the existence of such secret detention facilities, as well as on its intelligence activities, to be regrettable. In addition, the United States should cease to detain any person at Guantánamo Bay and close that detention facility. It should permit access by the detainees to judicial process or release them as soon as possible, ensuring that they were not returned to any State where they could face a real risk of being tortured.

          (From May 19, 2006 meeting of UN Committee Against Torture)

          and this:

          In a world community which has adopted global measures to counter terrorism, the United States is a leader. This position carries with it a special responsibility also to take leadership in the protection of human rights while countering terrorism. The example of the United States will have its followers, in good and in bad. The Special Rapporteur has a deep respect for the long traditions in the United States of respect for individual rights, the rule of law, and a strong level of judicial protection. Despite the existence of a tradition in the United States of respect for the rule of law, and the presence of self-correcting mechanisms under the United States Constitution, it is most regretful that a number of important mechanisms for the protection of rights have been removed or obfuscated under law and practice since the events of 11 September, including under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and under Executive Orders and classified programs.

          The Special Rapporteur thus sees his visit as one step in the process of restoring the role of the United States as a positive example for respecting human rights, including in the context of the fight against terrorism. He dismisses the perception that the United States has become an enemy of human rights. It is a country which still has a great deal to be proud of.

          The framework of public international law

          The Special Rapporteur does not consider the international fight against terrorism as a “war”, at least not in other than rhetorical terms. During high-level meetings with Government officials, it has been repeated that the United States sees itself as being engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, commencing prior to the events of 11 September and continuing today, until the capabilities of Al Qaeda can be so degraded that their conduct can be dealt with through regular law enforcement mechanisms. The United States consequently identifies humanitarian law as the applicable international law to the apprehension, detention and trial of persons detained at Guantánamo Bay. The Special Rapporteur reminds the United States of the well-established principle that, even during an armed conflict triggering the application of international humanitarian law, international human rights law continues to apply. This is a point made clear, for example, by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 29, and has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice. The conduct of the United States must therefore comply not only with the Geneva Conventions, but also with applicable international human rights law.

          From the Special Rapporteur who conducted a 10-day visit to the United States, at the invitation of the Government, from 16 to 25 May 2007.

          Note: we invited the Special Rapporteur on a visit during the same time we had an accountability report before the UN Committee Against Torture. Guess which one made the news headlines?

          (My bold btw)

          full link here:

          http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/5FBB9C351B9E70EBC1257173004EB4CE

          The UN is watching…

        • klynn says:

          Sorry, that last link is coming up an error. If you select and paste the entire link, it works.

  13. Mary says:

    37 – Thank you for the UN updates.

    You know, it doesn’t really even have to be the Hague. There’s nothing to prevent any country whose laws or sovereignty was violated from maintaining an action. That’s pretty much what is happening in Italy right now (although if Bushe Berlusconi gets back in office I’m not sure what happens there) and as the Sands article points out, with the MCA, Germany has lost the grounds on which it originally rejected pursuing actions against Rumsfeld et al (that the US courts could/would maintain the action).

    • klynn says:

      Glad you liked reading it. An update. The May dates listed are correct. I did fail to link the second report that was given the same week the UN Special Rapporteur was in the US in May of 2007. My mistake. I’ll try and get that second report posted.

  14. radiofreewill says:

    The Integrity of Our System of Government has been Violated.

    For years now, Bush and Cheney have willfully Obstructed any independent, non-Executive Branch review of their actions – even going so far as to commute the Felony Convictions of a Loyal Lying Henchperson – while so far failing to provide any compelling Legal Argument that would justify the On-Going Secret Exemption from Legislative Oversight and Judicial Review that they granted themselves.

    If we leave this precedent intact…if we fail to hold Bush and Cheney accountable to the Rule of Law…then Who can fail to see the Seeds of Our Own Future Demise being Flauntingly Displayed before Our very eyes?

    Impeachment restores Integrity to the Constitution.

    A walk for BushCo ratifies the End of US.

    What are We asking for?

    Are We going to re-claim what was taken from US in the dark of Secrecy?

    Or are We going to say, “It’s okay,” and rollover, hoping the nightmares will end?

    What’s it gonna be?

  15. MartyDidier says:

    I had a lot of trouble trying to log in today.

    This is a great article today. Good job!

    After all these years of telling my story, it’s not uncommon to find that people are having a difficult time believing what I’m trying to tell them. And believe me, I’ve tried all kinds of ways to explain it but it’s so unbelievable still that it’ll take a little while longer. However this article as well as others now being shown do start to surface some of the issues that are part of the over all that I’ve found difficult to have people believe. Thanks for doing a great job.

    To summarize: Our political system has been changed into two groups with one WANTING the Constitution and the other NOT WANTING the Constitution. I don’t know when it exactly happened but it’s been like this for a while. Back in the 90’s when the family talked about the Political system they said that out of every 10 Lawmakers, 7 are Republicans and 3 are Democrats who are involved to NOT WANT the Constitution.

    Some of the stories are starting to assemble what appeared to be different situations into a larger one. I guess the view from the bottom up takes time to slog through the detail. As for me, I spent more than 26 years in a family who are active players in the group that DOESN’T WANT the Constitution. But their job in this over all movement is to Launder Drug and Gun Running money straight into Property using a huge Laundromat consisting of big Banks and a large host of others. The started in the late 70’s with laundering for a CIA operation for “The Dirty War” then continued to this day. They brag about being a CIA Asset which means those around them also the same. There are other families involved such as “The DuPont family” and more as I’ve met some of them through the family. In the 90’s my brother-in-law’s wife’s brother got out of the service as a pilot and the whole family met at my house. There my brother-in-law approached his wife’s brother with a proposition to go into business air freighting huge amounts of drugs into the US and starting their business in Florida. I was standing right next to the two of them when this happened.

    The Florida business has been in the news since last year as one of their jets went down in Mexico. “Clyde O’Connor” was caught and not arrested and remains at large to this day. The O’Connor’s live in the Chicago area where my ex-wife’s family lives and everyone seems foot-loose and fancy free.

    If you’ve been following the Federal Rezko trial in the Chicago area, please note that this trial is addressing what has been happening in the Illinois Governor Administration. But what many don’t know is it also includes the Daily administration but this is also personal to me since my youngest son is tied in with Rezko through the family.

    The huge drug system mentioned above is a weekly $100 Million dollar Drug shipment into the Chicago area. There its split with Florida and Chicago as told to me in the 90’s. It’s important to consider that there are other shipments going elsewhere too so the annual amount is considerably huge as the Chicago shipment represent over $5Billion annually. The Illinois Governor all the way down to Daley know about the drug system as told to me by the family.

    I was told throughout the later 80’s and 90’s about their plans but back then I didn’t believe it either. Who would? It seemed much like pure fantasy.

    The drug system’s profits are being used to fund “Black Op’s” that are supporting another White House Coup. This group knows well that they failed back in 1933 and have done as much as they can to make sure they don’t fail this time.

    Unfortunately there is far too much to talk about to describe this but I’ll try to give more information. Around Chicago is a huge group of people supporting their interests with protecting the drug system and much more. There are so many things happening in this area that it’s difficult to account for all of them. Even the Newspapers are involved and have been for decades to limit information. I’ve personally had lots of trouble recently trying to post on the Tribune website.

    I’ll try to explain more another time….

    Marty Didier
    Northbrook, IL

Comments are closed.