This is the name of the document:

Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States

Rives memo, which connects to the DOJ OLC opinion comments of "necessity", which JAGs voiced grave concerns, then cited in the Senate.

once upon a time, before Bush's 'signing statements' trumped all we often observed laws and treaties ...

then, even the DOJ was not used as the prez's personal political counsel &/or personal "enforcer" ...

lots of federal agencies actually served the interests of the people to some extent ...

seems hard to imagine these days!

There's been alot of abuse under DOJ OLC guidance, yet very little action. Why did it take DOJ IG so long to investigate: Who in DoJ was intimidated to prevent reporting of these illegal memoranda, war crimes, and other unlawful activities?

Here is the language:

TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 0--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Table of Contents Subpart E-4--Office of the Inspector General Sec. 0.29g Reprisals.

Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action shall not, with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any action against any employee as a reprisal for the employee making a complaint or disclosing information to the OIG unless the complaint was made or the information was disclosed with knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.

It does not seem credible in 2008 to believe that everyone in DoJ was silent.

- Who was intimidated to keep quiet; or what retaliatory action was taken against them to punish them for attempting to enforce the laws of war against the DOJ AG, President, DOJ OLC legal counsel, DOJ OPR, or others in DOJ?

- Why was there no activity witin DoJ OPR when these legal memorand were known, or should have been reported to DOJ IG?

- If anyone within DoJ OLC or DOJ had "concerns" about these DOJ OLC memoranda "permitting" or "not preventing" or "not outlawing" illegal attacks on US civilians without warrants, why was there not report made to the DOJ IG?

- Where are the reports to DOJ IG of this war crimes evidence sprining forth from this DOJ OLC memo?

The President and DOJ AG appear to be blocking enforcement of the laws of war and US Constitution against them. DOJ OIG agentse have the power of arrest to enforce Geneva and the US Constitution against the President and DoJ AG:

TITLE 28--JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 0--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Table of Contents Subpart E-4--Office of the Inspector General Sec. 0.29j Law enforcement authority.

They have an annusal "deputization" process. This means that, without adequately legal compliance, they could be denied this authority:

Special Agents of the OIG are deputized on an annual basis as Deputy United States Marshals at the direction of the Deputy Attorney General and are authorized to:

- Why are DOJ OIG deputies still getting deputized, despite the alleged inaction against DoJ OLC and others cmoplicit with war crimes?

(a) Detect and assist in the prosecution of crimes in violation of the laws of the United States and to conduct such other investigations regarding matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General;

- Why haven't there been arrests in light of this DOJ OLC memoranda?

(b) Carry firearms;

- Do DOJ OIG agents know how to use the weapons they have access to enforce the laws of war against DOJ OLC, DoD, and other DOJ personnel?

(c) Seek and execute search and arrest warrants;

- Who in the WH counsel's office or DOJ/US Atty's office blocked search warrants?

- Is someone in DOJ OIG saying that they could not get a search warrant from any court to gather this war crimes evidence?

- Which judicial officer did DOJ OIG seek these warrants to secure war crimes evidence?

- When was this request made?

Even without a warrant, DOJ OIG could arrest legal counsel instrumental in implementing the illegal DOJ OLC memo and DOJ AG policy:

(d) Arrest without warrant any person committing any offense in the presence of an OIG Special Agent or whom the Agent has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony;

- How many war crimes against American citizens is required before DOJ OIG agents arrest their peers?

- Is someone forgetting what happened in 1789?

(e) Serve legal writs, summons, complaints, and subpoenas issued by the Inspector General or by a Federal grand jury;

- Where's the grand jury review of these war crimes issues?

- Who blocked the grand jury from reviewing DOJ OLC memos, or the DOJ IG inaction on these war crimes?

- Why not indictment against the DOJ AG or President for these war crimes planned and implemented against US civilians?

(f) Receive, transport, and provide safekeeping of arrestees and other persons in the custody of the Attorney General, or detained aliens.

- Who knows of this war crtimes evidence, but the DOJ OIG has not safeguarded them, but permitted retaliation against them?

Estimate of Legal Language Within Still Unavailable Memo ["Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States"]

We judge the following:

A. The scope of the "other programs" relying on the still undisclosed DOJ OLC memoranda relate to legal excuses [ See: snipurl.com/23kua ] given to block DoJ IG and other oversight from learning the scope of the President's legal activity. These include exceptions here which were illegally applied to unlawful war crimes and warrant violations against American citizens;

B. Yoo's still-unavailable memo mentions "special needs" to justify US combat forces against American civilians without a warrant. DoJ OLC put warrant exceptions above the US Constitution, and Geneva Conventions barring military force against civilians. It's circular to argue that the "special needs" of the military remove the warrant requirement from DoD conducting combat operations against American civilians without a warrant. The President and Gonzalez, relying on the DoJ OLC memo, appear to have argued that by "ncessity" the Constitution, on assertion alone, without any judicial involvement, can be ignored by US Combat forces against American civilians;

C. The speeches and testimony US government officials gave to Congress about warrants, FISA, surveillance are false, misleading and designed to unlawfully hide US combat activity against American civilians, in violation of the warrant requirements, FISA, and the Geneva Conventions; and the intent of this misleading testimony was to hide evidence of the above illegal activity by US Department of Defense personnel, contractors, and other civilian contractors agaisnt US civilians;

D. This activity continues as "other programs" and the "domestic, warrantless interrogation program" into 2008, illegally using these exceptions [ snipurl.com/23kua ] to suppress evidence of this ongoing illegal activity against American civilians, in violation of Geneva and the US Constitution's warrant requireement;

E. The nature of the intimidation against American citizens includes unlawful threats of arrest and prosecution for discussion evidence of this illegal activity;

F. US contracted security forces have fabricated stories to pre-textually detain on false, dubious evdience for purposes of detecting and intimidating those with evidence of illegal, unconstitutional activity by domestic security contractors against American civilians;

G. The basis for these illegal acts has not been adequately audited, nor have the oingoing policies related to this continuing illegal activity against civilians been properly documented with lawful procedures; and

H. The environment of intelligence gathering hinges on false statements, material misrepresenations, unlawful intimidation, illegal threats of prosecutions, and gross misrepresentations of facts and law to unlawfully intimdiate a civiilan popuolation from detecting and commenting on this official misconduct by unlawfully used domestic military and security services.

DoJ Alleged Effort To Block Access To DOJ Archive Data

[Note: Quotations, in some cases have been added; they were deleted from the archived version of this speech, and appeared as ASCII images. There may be errors. Do not rely on this version for accuracy.]

Here [ snipurl.com/23kuw ] is the DOJ AG speech. Gonzalez' comments as AG appear to rely on the case law and language within the still-unavailable memo. The comments below appear to form the basis to issue indictments against Gonzalez for false statements to Congress. Gonzalez incorrectly cites the 4th Amendment, and fails to mention that warrants are required.

- Where is the DOJ-led grand jury related to these alleged false statements [see: snipurl.com/23kus ] ?

- Why has the DoJ Criminal Division not, as required under the CFR, presented these matters to a grand jury?

"Special needs," as DOJ OLC appears to have invoked it, is a circular argument: All combat forces are, by their nature, different than law enforcement.

Finally, the NSA's terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment has never been understood to require warrants in all circumstances. The Supreme Court has upheld warrentless searches at the border and has allowed warrantless sobriety checkpoints. See, e.g., Michigan v. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); see also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) (stating that "the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack"). Those searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involve "special needs" beyond routine law enforcement. Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995). To fall within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement, the purpose of the search must be distinguishable from ordinary general crime control. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000).

The terrorist surveillance program fits within this "special needs" category. This conclusion is by no means novel. During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994 that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. See Amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Hearings Before the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 103d Cong. 2d Sess. 61, 64 (1994) (statement of Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick). See also In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745-46.

The key question under the Fourth Amendment is not whether there was a warrant, but whether the search was reasonable. Determining the reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes requires balancing privacy interests with the Government's interests and ensuring that we maintain appropriate safeguards. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001). Although the terrorist surveillance program may implicate substantial privacy interests, the Government's interest in protecting our Nation is compelling. Because the need for the program is reevaluated every 45 days and because of the safeguards and oversight, the al Qaeda intercepts are reasonable.

No one takes lightly the concerns that have been raised about the interception of domestic communications inside the United States. But this terrorist surveillance program involves intercepting the international communications of persons reasonably believed to be members or agents of al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations. This surveillance is narrowly focused and fully consistent with the traditional forms of enemy surveillance found to be necessary in all previous armed conflicts. The need for the program is reviewed at the highest levels of government approximately every 45 days to ensure that the al Qaeda threat to the national security of this Nation continues to exist. Moreover, although the Fourth Amendment does not require application of a probable cause standard in this context, the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard employed in this program is the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause standard. As the Supreme Court has stated, "The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

This Administration has chosen to act now to prevent the next attack with every lawful tool at its disposal, rather than wait until it is too late. It is hard to imagine a President who would not elect to use these tools in defense of the American people"in fact, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. The terrorist surveillance program is both necessary and lawful. Accordingly, as the President has explained, he intends to continue to exercise this authority as long as al Qaeda poses such a grave threat to the national security. If we conduct this reasonable surveillance "while taking special care to preserve civil liberties as we have" we can all continue to enjoy our rights and freedoms for generations to come. I am attaching for the record both the Department of Justice's paper of January 19, 2006, setting forth the Department's analysis of the legal basis for the terrorist surveillance program, and the previous Letter for Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, from William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs (Dec. 22, 2005). I am also attaching my detailed responses to questions previously posed by Chairman Specter.

"Reasonable surveillance", by its definition, must include a warrant.

- Which DoD domestic surveillance, monitoring, warrantless interrogations have been targetd against American civilans?

- How many US citizens have been rendered, held in detention, and abused; then released, only if they agreed to settle or not talk about the "classified" activity?

- Which American citizens were threatened with prosecution if they discussed the illegal violations of the warrant requirement by US combat forces?

- What lessons from the NSL abuse apply to the DOD abuse of the domestic seizure program, where US citizens were rendered, subjected to interrogation without access to legal counsel?

- What were the terms of the settlement/non-prosecution agreements?

- How many American citizens have been freed from this detention only if they agreed not to sue the United States?

- How many American citizens have been detained under this Program where US citizens have been held, detained, questioned, and not given access to counsel by US combat forces?

- How many US Citizens, under this program, have been rendered, taken out of the United States; and released only if they agreed not to discuss what the United States did?

- When did the President, DoJ AG, and others agree to impose special "gag rules" which silence American citizens from discussing the details of these illegal violations of the US Constitution?

- How were these "exceptions" [ snipurl.com/23kua ] to the DOJ IG investigation used to "justify" blocking DOJ IG or DOJ OPR from reviewing these warrantless detentions of US citizens by DOD Combat, intelligence, and domestic security forces?

- As with the NSL abuses, how many American citizens were threatend with prosecution if they discussed any information related to the use of exceptions of blockign DoJ IG from reviewing their abuse, surveillance, detention, or detainment by US combat forces without a warrant?

- To what extent are the above alleged illegal actions by US government counsel subsequent war crimes against US citiens, warranting DOJ OPR review, and disbarment investigations against American legal counsel [improper use of threat of prosecution to suppress war crimes evidence]?

The President's arguments are circular. Study these exceptions which the President, relying on the still unreleased DoJ OLC memo, appears to have used to suppress evidence of this illegal activity. This explains the scope of the White House email destruction, and the inclusing in the MCA language giving US funds to American defendants before war crimes tribunals.

Look at the Executive orders issued prior, during, and after the opinions. For example, Gonzalez drafted this for cover:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13233

FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases...

There's a problem with the timeline. Recall, after the NYT article in 2005, DoD's Miers used the incorrect terminology: "Reasonable suspicion" when talking about warrants. This suggests he was relying on the convoluted DOJ OLC memoranda still in 2005.

Yet, the White House would have us believe that the DOJ OLC memo on warrants was not relied on after it was written.

- Why was Miers in 2005 invoking language which appears to have been lifted from the 2003 DOJ OLC Memo?

Deconstructing Yoo's Frontline Interview Related to Warrants In Light of New DOJ OLC Comment Disclosed About Warrantless DoD Action Against Civilians

Yoo's comments with Frontline open the door to any DoD abuse against American civilians on the pretext that civilians "could be" AlQueda; for the President to claim "necessity" to ignore not just the Constitution but other laws; and for the President to exclude anyone from the discussion how he re-interpreted the law.

The 9-11 excuse has been abused as a pretext to violate the Constitution. Speculative future, possible action is invoked to distract attention from certain, near illegal abuse of power. Rather than explain who placed the explosives in the WTC, the US government and contractors like to invoke 9-11 in 2008 as a pretext to intrude, get access to, and abuse American citizens in violation of the law without judicial oversight.

Reconsider Yoo's comments to Frontline about warrants in light of the new information about the content of the still-secret DOJ OLC memo on use of DoD forces without warrants against American civilians.

Disclaimer: The responses Yoo have have been adjusted in light of what we've learned about the Memo since this interview. Refer to the original transcript before making any judgments about Yoo's competence. The text below related to Yoo's comments may or may not accurately reflect what DoD is secretly doing. This is for discussion purposes only. These are personal opinions about what Yoo said about something else, but his comments have been adjusted to respond to different situations we now know about.

Lowering Constitutional Standard From Probable Cause To "Reasonable", Then Combining Illegal Standards With Other Illegal Activity

When DoD officials incorrectly cited the Constitution's warrant requirement, rather than correct them, we should have asked them for the DOJ OLC memos they had just read. The problem is when many illegal standard and invented rules are combined: "reasonable" and "necessity" could, in a convoluted way, have been invoked by Hitler to "justify" security Germany against a perceived domestic threat. We do not subscribe to Hitler's ideology, although it appears this President's lawyers have used the same perverse legal "reasoning". The concern is what programs [plural] have they justified using what perverse legal reasoning; and, with Congress refusing to impeach, what options remain for the States to ensure the Constitution is defended.

Here's the green light Yoo gave to DoD-connected contractors to conduct warrantless searches of American citizens; and that search could include detention, questions, and subject to waterboarding:

You can still have warrantless searches, but they have to be reasonable.

- Is a "reasonable" search one, out of necessity, which "might" prevent another attack?

- Is a "reasonable search" one that contractors, relying on false statements, could falsely accuse someone to intimidate them to disclose personal information they are not required to disclose?

- How is this information -- which was obtained under coercion -- subsequently provided by DoD-DoJ-DHS contractors to the fusion centers, then used as a basis for other follow-up questions?

- When will the Berkeley Law school be subject to these warrantless searches by DoD-connected contractors doing "reasonable" searches to "possibly" defend American against alleged war criminals inside Berkeley Law?

American Civilians As Terrorists

Here's the pretext Yoo gave to target American civilians, without a warrant:

what they do is they disguise themselves as civilians

- How many AlQueda have been hidden inside Berkeley Law School, or are sleeper cells inside DOJ OLC?

Here's the kicker, During wartime, the Constitution goes out the window:

Yoo: "And then the second question is, does that restriction apply to wartime operations?"

- Is it a "wartime operation" for the President to illegally do things, delegate unconstitutional activity to contractors, and "allow" them to harass civilians during wartime to dissuade them from discussing unconstitutional conduct?

- How many private lawsuits does the President "approve" for purposes of intimidating a civilian population to silence them about reckless Oval Office incompetence, war crimes, and Geneva violations?

Blacklisting: Ignoring Legal Protections On Accusation Alone

The next step is when DoD suspects American civilians in the United States are 'really' AlQueda. During wartime, when the warrants "can" get ignored, DoD "can" use deadly force, because American civilians "might" be AlQueda. DoJ looks at America as the battlefield. All those civilians "could be" AlQueda:

We don't require a warrant, we don't require reasonable searches and seizures when the Army, the military's out on the battlefield, attacking, killing members of the enemy.

- How many US civilians have DoD-connected contractors killed in the United States because they "think" they "might" be connected to terrorism; how many have been abused in violation of international law?

Establishing Evidence of Communication Lines: Yoo and Gonzalez Invoke Plural-Programs

We can establish that Yoo and Gonzalez most likely discussed these issues because both invoked plural-Programs. This indicates that the matter, now disclosed, cannot be shielded. The fact that there were multiple programs is not a state secret, and subject to war crimes discovery.

We judge multiple programs within DoD, DoJ, NSA, and CIA relied on his legal opinion, and were commonly known to Gonzalez as White House counsel and DoJ AG:

Yoo: "The press has reported and I haven't denied that I worked on the legal authorization for those programs."

Witness Impeachment: Inconsistent Statements About Memo Content, Familiarity

Note the contrast Yoo gave when asked about this memo ["It wasn't about Iraq"]; but then how he responds to a question about a memo:

Well, first, I don't specifically remember that memo

- Why would Yoo know enough about "this memo" to provide no comment; but he knew enough about "another memo" to give allegedly false statements to Esquire about it? Yoo had most likely been thinking about what he "didn't" write.

Other DoD Activities

Here's the hint Yoo gives that we're not talking just about the NSA, but other DoD activity:

One thing our armed forces always do . . .

- What were the "other" things DoD had in mind, but "can't" talk about?

"Necessity" To Target US Civilians As Terrorists, Until Proven Innocent

There's evidence the President reversed the burden of proof, and has treated American civilians as if they were enemy combatants. This raises the prospect American civilians have been rendered. On accusation alone, the US government could even target all American private communications, abuse them in secret, but still not be able to get the "secret intelligence" because, as Yoo (implicitly) says, even if the civilians refuse to cooperate, they're still up to not good, and hiding their illegal activity, "justifying" abuse to get it from them because they "refuse to cooperate":

The hard thing for our side is to identify where in that stream of civilian, innocent communications Al Qaeda members are disguising their messages

Invoking "Confusion" As "Legal Basis" To Confront American Civilians As Terrorists

The US government is using methods to get American civilians to react. If they react the "right" way they are not targeted. The problem is Americans are not told that this profiling is occurring. Even if the NSA tapped all American homes without a warrant the NSA still is not likely to figure out what is going on. They never consider the possibility: There may be no sleeper cells, and there is no illegal terror-connected activity by civilians. The likes of Yoo are using the "there must be hidden secrets, because we can't find evidence"-(circular) argument.

- How many AlQueda know to hide in the law schools as professors because "nobody" would think to look there?

Illegal Self-Delegation of Power Beyond Constitution

Yoo invokes the broad theory of convenient powers Presidents can create in wartime, and delegate to themselves:

part of the president's commander-in-chief power

"Law of Presidential Loyalty Ethics" Trumps Law: DOJ OLC Author Refuses To Face Legal Issue

These raise DoJ OLC-connected language with specific DoD and DoJ contractor language imposing silence related to illegal activity. We need better information how the DOJ OLC memo was used by contracting officers to impose, enforce, and justify secrecy agreements on this illegal activity.

Frontline asks, can this DoD-connected activity be done without a warrant? Note Yoo doesn't address the legal issue:

Yoo: "I don't think it's inherently always wrong for . . .

. . to which Frontline responds:

My question wasn't actually whether it was wrong. My question was, is it a violation of the law?

Revisit This

Ethics and Loyality to President Above Law: Reconsidering Frontline Added Words

I'd like for you to read the transcript. Look for the following. Frontline added a word. However, if you remove that word, what Yoo said can be read another way.

Original Frontline:

Frontline: "My question wasn't actually whether it was wrong. My question was, is it a violation of the law?"

Yoo: "No. I don't [think] it's a violation of the law if by the law you mean the Constitution. The Constitution includes the president's commander-in-chief authority."

Notice how there's some new information if we remove the word Frontline added, and focus on what Yoo is saying:

Modified Frontline:

Frontline: "My question wasn't actually whether it was wrong. My question was, is it a violation of the law?"

Yoo: "No. I don't. [Removed] It's a violation of the law if by the law you mean the Constitution. The Constitution includes the president's commander-in-chief authority."

- What "other law" or "other standard" could Yoo be referring to: Secret loyalty oaths to the President which trump the Constitution?

We need some information about these ethics rules which Yoo implicitly asserts trumps the Constitution and oath of office:

- What "other law", other than the Constitution, which is secret, could the President rely on for guidance? A DoJ OLC Memo that asserts the President has power to, in times of necessity, ignore the warrant requirement. Yoo's invented a presidential power of "trumping the Constitution". He's also referring to "other law" other than the Constitution. This needs some detailed exploration.

- Which law "other than the Constitution" can the President rely to claim power to ignore the Constitution?

Reagan did the same thing with the Iran-Contra affair: Said he knew better than Congress, but this time, Bush said he knew better than the Constitution, Congress, and the Courts.

- When did Yoo discuss these legal issues with Addington, as written in the Iran-Contra Minority Report?

Too Far Removed From A Credible "Imminent" Threat

The excuse for the assertion of illegal, warrantless DoD-connected activity was the "just happened attacks." However, it's 2008, almost seven years after that, and they're still using the "just happened attacks"-argument. That's absurd.

We've had years of surveillance, plenty of harassment, and no prosecutions. This substantially supports the conclusion that there is no enemy to be found; the crisis is over; and we're in a peace-time environment, where the rules of peace prevail. If we were in a real crisis, then the evidence and terrorists convictions should be rising. That's not happening. We have the opposite: Evidence the US has abused non-combatant civilians in violation of the laws of war.

Yoo [added text]: "I think the president has the constitutional authority to [not get a warrant, ignore the Constitution, permit DoD-contractor warrantless activity] intercept those calls [and do other things, TBD] to prevent a second attack."

- What was the attack: Who placed the explosives? It all happened, and there are no answers. More excuses of "there might be another attack, so we need you to put up with our illegal activity." Those days need to end. Someone in the US government and contracting community needs to give the public a very good reason why We the People should continue supporting this government. Burden is on the contractors.

Dubious Claim of Privilege

This needs a followup: What specifically are the reasons, after this Memo has been disclosed, for Yoo saying, "He can't say" or "can't answer" this question:

Frontline: Did you give the White House that advice, or did you give the attorney general that advice?

Yoo: I'm not allowed to say

- What legal authority, after the memo is disclosed, is Yoo relying to say he "can't" talk about illegal activity?

- Who, other than the President read the memos with the JAGs office?

- When did the CIA cabinet-level officer review the DOJ OLC memoranda?

- How many other "inherent" powers does the President have to ignore the statutes, Constitution, and prohibitions against CIA torturing American citizens?

DoJ OLC Memo Written After Presidential Decision: Dubious Assertion of "Deliberation Privilege"

This claim of "privilege" fails when the memo, as it appears, was written after the decision:

Yoo: "But I can't say what I told the White House or not as a matter of privilege."

American Civilians As Discrete Objects To Be Abused

It's time to confront Yoo with an impeachment, investigation, DoJ OPR, and require Congress to go line by line down the memos he's written and discuss his writing with him. On the record. He will make an error. Yoo, when he talks about "access to the flow" is referring to the personnel, civilians, and others who are not connected to the technology, but subject to DoD warrantless interrogation in the United States:

it has to [removed] access to the flow

- How does DoD define "the flow" for purposes of violating Geneva against American civilians: Is it permissible, out of necessity, on accusation alone, to "put up with" a few "collateral" losses of American civilians during waterboarding?

- US government says waterboarding is "OK" when it comes to some people; couldn't AlQueda be hiding in the Berkeley Law school: Isn't DoD, CIA, or DOJ going to implement their waterboarding there without a warrant?

- How are DoD-contractor-led operations against civilians 'so differnent' that you can't get a warrant?

There's not like a single wire you could get a warrant for and tap.

Just a single human life. Unlike a wire where you have to get a wire, this President respects wires more than he does American civilians. They don't have wires. They might be AlQueda. "DoD: You're free to abuse civilians out of necessity." This Congress recklessly does nothing about it. The weather is unfavorable. If the DNC loses, because 24% of the DNC oppose either Obama or Clinton and plan to support McCain, is there really any difference between the DNC and GOP? Like Harman, it's likely Members of Congress have been told, in secret, about some aspects of the DoD-contractor-related warrantless abuse of American civilians. "Don't bother us about oversight, we have an election to lose."

Illegal Abuse of Civilians If Invented Reasons Sound Good

What can be done in violation of the law without a warrant by DoD-connected contractors? Anything is fair game, if there can be a good excuse:

It depends on why the government wants. . .

If the government wants something for a fabricated reason -- to "prevent another attack" that it doesn't investigate -- but really wants to intimidate people to keep silent about illegal activity, that seems like a government objective or "want". It's not legal. But Yoo doesn't close the door. (How could the "interest to prevent another attack" be a credible reason for action when the investigation refuses to explain or consider how the explosives were placed in the WTC?)

FISA Updates: Moving The Law To Accomodate Illegal Activity

Curious, Harman claims she never talked about the legal issues of FISA until after 2005 NYT article. makes one wonder why she agreed to move the goal post without understanding why the players were violating the rules or unable to meet the requirement. What would be "other law" that the President might rely on:

Yoo: "good example of where existing laws were not up to the job"

Defiance of We the People: President Illegally Usurps Judicial Power, Congress and Contractors Assent to That Illegality

Rather than rely on warrants, the President wants to use his own judgment, or delegate that decision to DoD-DoJ-connected contractors, going from "probable cause and a warrant" to "a possible chance and no warrant, just a contractor's judgment without court oversight":

doesn't allow you as a government to use judgment based on probability

Now we understand why the contractors in 2008 keep invoking 9-11: They can "rely on" the blanket "authority" of this DOJ OLC memo, and avoid questions about why those contractors are violating the law, engaging in reckless conduct, and intimidating their employees with threats of prosecution if they dare talk about this illegal activity connected with this DOJ OLC memo. Again, there's no difference between the DNC or GOP. What again is the reason the contractors want Americans to remain loyal to what is recklessly ignored? We the People are not obliged to remain loyal to illegal activity.

Slim Chance, Certain Illegality: Drifting From Constitutional Framework

What slim chance would warrant DoD warrantless activity against civilians, matching Cheney's assertions?

Yoo: "1 percent probability"

What possibility is it that some of the communications out of the Berkeley law school are connected to AlQueda?

Yoo [note added]: "high probability that some of those calls are terrorist communications" [read the original to see the context, but apply his words to the DOJ OLC memo on warrantless government activity against civilians]

Appeal To Ignorance To Justify Certain Abuse Against US Civilian Accused-Terrorists

What is the basis for action by DoD against American civilians? In Yoo's words, ignorance is the basis for DoD's used of deadly force against American civilians without a warrant:

Yoo [text added]: "But we don't know [information]. You want to get at those [interactions] but under [the law] you can't do that. [So we do it anyway, and conduct surveillance of American civilians, interrogate them, abuse them, intimidate them to be silent about our abuses, violate their rights, ignore the Constitution, without a warrant.]

What is the standard contractors and DoD-connected entities are using to engage in warrantless abuse of American civilians, in violation of the Constitution? Look at this vague standard: "Think" and "high likelihood"

President Imagines Something, DoD Contractors Illegally Abuse Accused

Yoo: "you think there's a high likelihood"

If someone "thinks" it's a "high likelihood" that the US government is ignoring the Constitution, but nobody does anything about it, "out of necessity" what does that permit US citizens to do? In Yoo's world, apparently thinking about that could justify calling them a terrorist. Looks like there isn't much thinking going on at Berkeley Law or the American legal community. Anyone from Berkeley going to call Yoo on the carpet "out of necessity" and review his competence to continue teaching, much less practicing law?

Ending Public Discussion of Changes to Constitution

Does Yoo have a view on how laws are changed; or should there be secret changes to the Constitution which the public isn't involved? Yoo appears to have an answer to that:

one problem is that in order to get those kinds of changes, you have to have a public debate and discussion

Indeed, public oversight of alleged war crimes is a problem, especially after the war crimes have been committed, and you still can't get in secret Congress to agree fully with those war crimes. What to do? Violate Geneva in secret, engage in war crimes against US citizens, then classify the evidence of those war crimes, and call it a state secret. Last thing we want is a discussion within a secret court to consider whether the laws might be violated. In Yoo's world, a "public discussion" is far too scary; the President has "inherent power" to classify that discussion as a state secret, and claim, using secret evidence, that the information is "classified".

DOJ OLC Supports Generalized Warrants: British Abused Before and After 1776

What happens if "generalized warrants" are not lawful? You ignore the warrant restriction and do it anyway:

So you couldn't, under FISA, just get generalized information and search it for patterns. …

President Imagines Patterns in Stars: Imagines Evidence, Commits Certain Illegal Abuses

How that "pattern" of alleged war crimes activity at Berkeley Law? Under Yoo's construction, DoD could "look for patterns" in how people react to being tortured. If they refuse to cooperate with torture, illegal activity, or Presidential abuse of power, they "must" be guilty, right?

Yoo's view of the warrants is that they are outmoded, antiquated, and quaint. Never want DoD to be subjected to any rules, as that might prevent the President from stopping people from discussing the illegal activity:

Frontline: "you got a warrant, you get to listen to the phone, right? So what you're saying is, from your standpoint legally, that's an outmoded idea."

Yoo: "Yeah." [The Constitution, warrant requirement, and Judicial role in overseeing the actions of contractors against civilians without a warrant during wartime is outmoded. You can't get a warrant to look into their warrantless activity.]

Congress Alone Declares War: President Relies on AUMF To Abuse American Civilians

Look where Yoo is starting, from the AUMF, then going back to Congress and making Congress explain why you can't abuse power. That's backwards. Congress alone declares war; the Constitution doesn't grant the President power to ignore the warrant requirement, as DOJ OLC memo said was possible:

Yoo: "When you get the authorization to use military force, when you're getting a Patriot Act, I think those are things you're asking Congress for. It doesn't harm the national security to ask those things of Congress. You're not giving away secrets about what we're doing."

- Which specific things did Congress, in secret, agree to "give" the President, DoD, and Contractors?

- What information did Congress, independent of the DOJ OLC memo "authorizing" warrantless DoD action, review to "approve" of this President's warrantless activity by DoD and contractors against US citizens?

Presidents Are Never Wrong, the Law is Wrong

Sometimes the law "goes too far". Indeed, a President can overreact to terrorism, and ignore the law:

Yoo: "we can overreact to the mistakes and abuses of one man [Osama Bin Ladin], by one president [that Constitution was a mistake of Thomas Jefferson, it went too far], and erect procedures and limitations on authority that cause great problems for our country in forestalling terrorist attacks. . . . It was just an overreaction, I think. We went too far in restricting our intelligence agencies when we tried to make sure there would be no other abuses of the kind we saw in Watergate.

- Who's overreacting? It doesn't matter. It's the law. It's a requirement. Yoo's giving us excuses to ignore the law calling the Constitution an "overreaction".

Ignore What Will Not Permit Illegal Activity

Rather than rely on the existing system of checks and balances, Yoo wants to leave all the decisions on domestic intrusions, abuse of American civilians to the President:

Yoo: "It's impossible to have an error-free system."

What happens when the system of checks and balances fails to ensure the President is held accountable to the law, and civilians are protected from warrantless abuse of power by DoD and contractors? We the People are not required to support what even the lawyers refuse to defend.

Ignore What Is Inconvenient, Abuse Those Who Disagree

Yoo, a Constitutional lawyer, appears to say, "When we can't work with what we don't like, ignore it. Rather than fixing what we don't like, we'll ignore it. Rather than work with the existing system, we'll ignore it and make errors under an illegal system."

Absurd Analogies Behind Certain Illegal Activity

If you're wondering why Mukasey recently invoked the absurd analogy from Afghanistan as an excuse to ignore FISA, look at the similarity to this Yoo comment:

The second difficulty is that it doesn't allow you, for example, to tap streams of communication that might be coming from, say, Afghanistan to the United States to try to search through those for terrorist communications.

Hidden Messages in JAG Memoranda Related to Presidential War Crimes Against American Civilians

Let's consider the JAG reaction to the DOJ OLC memoranda.

These are some stunning conclusions. The DOJ OLC memo related to "authorized" 4th Amendment violations against American citizens deservse some rethiniking. There are some troubling implications of this DoJ OLC memo within the JAG memoranda. We strongly encourage all TPMM and other readers to reconsider the JAGs memoranda in light of the following, and the disclosures about the DOJ OLC "approvals" to permit 4th Amendment violations. There appears to be a reasonable basis to ask

- Why was there no grand jury convened to review these matters;

- What evidence do the JAGs or otehrs have that the President started this illegal abuse against American citziens starting in 2001

- Have the President and other Agency Heads committed fraud in sworn affidavits to the court on the legal basis for asserting privilege or state secrecy.

Revisiting JAG Memoranda

Feel free to draw your own conclusions. However, there is something you need to consider. Based on the wording of the JAG's open comments about DOJ OLC memoranda, it appears there is another connection between the JAGs, DoD legal views, and Yoo's memo "authorizing" warrantless DoD actions inside the United States. Once the JAGs affirmatively demonstrate in public that there were disclosed discussions about Yoo's 2003 memoranda without adverse affects to national security, the President has less legal standing to invoke the privilege claim.

As a reminder, the 2001 DOJ OLC Memo, dated Oct 17th: 2001:

Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States (Oct. 17, 2001

Domestic Use of DoD: JAGs Discuss Civil Liability

Sixteen months [16] later, the JAGs issue this comment. Notice the domestic component:

February 27, 2003: "Criminal and Civil Liability of DOD Military and Civilian Personnel in Domestic, Foreign, and International Forums.

This means "within the United States" is essentially the same as the domestic concerns of the DoD JAGs.

Domestic Public Reaction

One concern was US public reaction to the DoD domestic use of force:

c. U.S. and International Public Support and Respect of U.S. Armed Forces.

DoJ OLC concluded that the 4th Amendment does not apply to DoD operations. This is reflected in the DoD JAG reaction. There is nothing which says US citizens were not detained by DoD:

2. (U) The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Department of Justice (DOJ), provided DOD with its analysis of international and domestic law as it relates to the interrogation of detainees held by the United States Government. This analysis was incorporated into the subject draft Report and forms, almost exclusively, the legal framework for the Report's Conclusions, Recommendations, and PowerPoint spreadsheet analysis of the interrogation techniques in issue.

The above shows us, linked with the DOJ OLC analysis, are DoD documents: Conclusions, recommendations, and powerpoint spreadsheets related to interrogation of, presumably, US citizens, held domestically, in violation of the warrant requirement.

- What was the DoD view on applying harsh interrogation tactics in violation of US domestic law and the Constitution against US civilians?

- What request has been made of the DoD-DOJ documents on the narrow question of: Use of force during DoD combat and interrogation actions against US citizens in the United States?

DOJ OLC Memo As War Crimes Evidence

The still-secret memo has been illegally classified. It is not related to national security, but efforts to hide evidence of war crimes this President did commit against American civilians. It is a concern when the JAGs say the President, in the interests of necessity, can ignore the US Constitution. Yoo's implicit argument boils down to: The 4th Amendment (part of the US Constitution) is unconstitutional:

This defense is based upon the premise that any existing federal statutory provision or international obligation is unconstitutional per se, where it otherwise prohibits conduct viewed by the President, acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, as essential to his capacity to wage war.

Yoo's argument about the option of DoD to conduct warrantless combat operations against American citizens domestically is viewed as lafwul because it is "consistent" with the President's "power" to wage war. However, this is a misreading of the Constitution. Article I exclusively delegates to the Congress the power to declare war; and the Congress through the AUMF did not authorize the President to wage war in violation of the US Constitution against American civilians. However, Yoo's legal argument, after the President did wage illegal warfare against US civilians is not a defense to war crimes, but a fatal admission: The Constitution was turned on its head to "authorize" warfare against civilians in violation of the laws of war

Evidence WH Email Destruction Linked With War Crimes Against American Civilians

DoJ OLC argued enemy combatants have no rights. It was not seriously imagined that only enemy combatants would ever have standing in US courts. Those with standing include another class of plaintiffs: Non-combatant, domestic civilians. Indeed, the following is evidence the JAGs were concerned US citizens in US Courts would bring suit against US combat forces:

I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum.

Recall, the above wasn't the secret advice of JAGs about US combat forces necessarily just after a crime, but also prospectively. It was discussed that US citizens, abused in violation of the warrant requirement, could bring suit. The issue wasn't that the evidence would be secret or hidden, but that after the evidence was disclosed, the defense might fail. It is after this memo surfaced that the WH email destruction began apace: Legal counsel knew US citizens abused in violation of the laws of war would bring suit. Recall, this 2003-memo was before Hamdan, only then did the POWs have standing to appear in court, much less bring suit against their oppressors.

DoD JAGs Well Discussed Implications of Warrantless Actions Against US Civilians

Recalling the issue was not narrowly on POWs, but on the broader abuses against American civilians:

If such a defense is not available, soldiers ordered to use otherwise illegal techniques run a substantial risk of criminal prosecution or personal liability arising from a civil lawsuit.

It was foreseen that civil lawsuits by American citizens-prisoners would produce evidence that would mushroom into prosecutions, compelling US Attorney Action. These are not first criminal charges by a war crimes tribunal; but civil suits by personnel detained. Again, the POWs still did not have standing to bring suit in 2003. We must consider the real possibility the JAGs were not narrowly focusing their concerns about civil suits by POWs against US government officials, but civil suits by US citizens against US government officials and contractors in domestic court for illegal war crimes against US citizen-prisoners. It was foreseen that there would be errors; this chance of error would be compounded by ejecting the court from judicial review and conducting warrantless interrogations of US citizens, per the DOJ OLC memo.

- What illegal techniques did the JAG have concerns would be employed against American citizens?

- Where are the JAG's concerns in light of the 2008 disclosures of POW abuse against non-combatants: DO they know where DoD is holding US citizens, abusing them, and conducting searches on their persons without warrants?

- How many US citizens, like POWs, have been hidden from the Red Cross or legal counsel, and denied Habeas illegally?

- Are POWs being granted habeas, but US citizens, still held in secret, not getting a fair habeas hearing?

Geneva Conventions Applicable To American Citizens

Once the DOJ OLC memoranda is seen for what it is -- a "green light" to commit war crimes against American civilians -- this will be taken in a new light, where there is no distinction between terrorists, combatants, unlawful combatants or American citizens:

DoD policy, indoctrined in the DoD Law of War Program in 1979 and subsequent service regulations, greatly restored the culture and self-image of U.S. Armed Forces by establishing high benchmarks of compliance with the principles and spirit of the law of war, and humane treatment of all persons in U.S. Armed Forces custody.

- Was it the aim of the President to classify as a "state secret" the abuse against US citizens without a warrant because public knowledge of those war crimes would undermine the public support premised on false hoods about 9-11 and WMD?

- What was the President's plan once the public learned US combat forces had abused American civilians in violations of the laws of war?

- How would the US President explain -- on top of sustained combat losses in Iraq and Afghanistan and abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and the Black sites in Eastern Europe -- that US military personnel,not just the CIA, had re-tarnished the image of the US military by engaging in abuse against American, non-combatant civilians?

DoJ OLC Discuss Assaults Against American Civilians Using DoD Combat Forces

It remains unclear whether the planned assaults against American civilians were with combat force, interrogation, or with deadly force:

(U) Several of the exceptional techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law and the UCMJ (e.g., assault).

Again, recall it was DoJ OLC's position that the enemy combatants had no legal standing to bring suit. The only other people who could bring suit were US civilians. It appears the JAGs are expressly talking about something other than POW-related lawsuits. It appears highly likely that the JAGs were discussing US citizen lawsuits against US government contractors and DoD personnel for war crimes. However, recall the exceptions above, barring investigations of things for "national security" reasons.

- Did the President "determine" that all evidence of DoD combat abuse of American civilians was an issue of "national security" and, during wartime, the President could prevent US citizens from enforcing their Geneva rights against DoD personnel by refusing to permit any lawsuits against any DoD personnel?

- How many American citizens were rendered, abused, and subsequently threatened with prosecution if they disclosed this war crimes evidence linked to former and current legal counsel, contractors, and others?

- Who did the JAGs propose would prosecute these cases?

- Was it intended that the US Attys would not prosecute these war crimes committed against US civilians until US civilians attempted to get evidence of these war crimes against them through lengthy discovery?

- What did the other DOJ OLC memoranda say about the exceptions to the DoD IG, DOJ IG and DOJ OPR investigations that would permit the President to block investigation of these DoD war crimes against American civilians?

- How long did DoJ OLC plan to delay discovery by American citizens of war crimes committed by DoD personnel against US citizens: Indefinitely?

Foreign Power Role in Enforcing Violations of 4th Amendment

The President appears to have blocked the evidence of this war crimes planning and execution against US citizens. However, the JAGs did raise the issue that foreign powers might enforce the 4th Amendment barring illegal (warrantless) searches and seizures of US citizens:

(U) Other nations are likely to view the exceptional interrogation techniques as violative of international law and perhaps violative of their own domestic law.

- Where are the other versions of this JAG memo on detention and abuse of American citizens: Why wasn't the Congress provided public copies of these other versions of the JAG memo which contained explicit concerns that US citizens were being detained, seized, and abused without adequate warrants in violation of the laws of war?

- What other classified memoranda did the JAGs produce related to what other powers might do to enforce the US Constitution, or provide military assistance to civilians who have been illegally detained, seized, and searched without the required warrants?

- With troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which US combat forces does the President propose to use to block foreign powers from enforcing the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions barring abuse against American civilians against the US government officials and DoD personnel implementing this illegal DoJ OLC memoranda?

The Qualification

There were also discussions of using US combat forces against American civilians. Indeed, DoJ OLC memoranda states the "legal basis" for seizing US citizens without obtaining a warrant. AFter this discussion, it appears one of the JAGs wanted to make a qualification. You will see that this qualification is needed because some did not agree with the DOJ OLC opinion that deadly force could be used against American civilians.

This qualification would not be required unless the President and DOJ OLC memo expressly raised an option permitting seizure and detention of US citizens. This is not a position, but a recommendation: To make something "very clear" to decision makers. What they didn't know was the President had already ordered and approved the illegal, warrantless activity; and these legal "discussions" were post-decisional. We also know that Yoo is lying about the DOJ OLC memoranda having "no connection with Iraq". The DOJ OLC memoranda was not limited to "other than Iraq," but worldwide.

2. I would like to further recommend that the document make very clear to decision-makers that its legal conclusions are limited to arguably unique circumstances of this group of detainees, i.e., unlawful combatants held ``outside'' the United States.

- Why would the JAGs specifically "qualify" the "intent" of the DOJ OLC memo to "only" apply "outside" the United States, when we know DOJ OLC memos said it was legal for the President to ignore the 4th Amendment, and seize without warrant US citizens during wartime within the United States? Because they are referring to other, still classified conversations, which have been documented on DoJ OLC and JAG working papers.

- What would ensure that the DOJ OLC memo that permitted warrantless seizures of American citizens would "only" be applied overseas? There is nothing here.

- Who in DoJ OLC raised concerns with the JAG that the Yoo memo would be broadly applied to all situations, prompting this JAG comment and concern? Someone must have, otherwise the JAGs would not have made this qualification.

- Where are the JAGs other classified memos about subsequent reports of DoD abuse of American civilians in violation of the laws of war; and the direction by the President to prevent DoJ and DOD IGs from reviewing this war crimes evidence related to DoD abuse of American civilians in violation of the laws of war?

- If the President had not already ordered warrantless seizure and abuse of American citizens, should it not be obvious that the "only" group was enemy combatants? That's what makes the JAG's qualification noteworthy, especially in light of the DOJ OLC memo permitting warrantless seizures of American citizens. DOJ OLC memos aren't written narrowly, but broadly: "Worldwide" application in a "Global" war on terror, where Yoo considers private citizens as terrorists.

It should have been self-evidence the "only" group connected with this memo were enemy combatants, not US civilians. However, the JAGs appear to have written the memo to make a qualification because DoJ OLC policy, as written, permitted worldwide abuse against all civilians, combatants, non-charged prisoners, and others indirectly or directly connected with accusations of terrorism.

- Why didn't DoJ OLC and the President inform through SecDef to the JAGs that the decision had been made in 2001; and the "deliberations" in 2003 were a ruse? This would create a paper trail, which could be eliminated by transferring email from Lotus Notes to MS Outlook. One contractor on the data transmission appears to have an interest in suppressing DOJ OLC opinions in re FISA violations.

- What did the President plan to do once the JAGs discovered their memoranda in 2003 were post-decisional, and not protected by any bonafide claim of privilege? It appears some of them were threatened, in secret, with prosecution if they dared discuss the war crimes implications.

The President, in keeping open the option to commit war crimes against American civilians, and apparently ordering that illegal abuse in violation of the laws of war cannot require the JAGs to remain silent about this alleged war crimes evidence related to the President's orders in 2001; or the sham deliberations after that original decision.

Yoo's statements to Esquire about the memo "not" applying to Iraq appear linked to likely other dubious assertions that the memo does "not" apply to American citizens under warrantless DoD seizure, detention.

Evidence of President, DoJ OLC Deception of JAGs

There is evidence the DoJ OLC misled the JAGs about the scope of the JAG's legal review. The JAGs appear to have not been fully told that the intent of "their review" was to comment on the DOJ OLC policy that warrantless seizures of US citizens was lawful. As you read the following quote, reconsider what we've been told: DOJ OLC has "authorized" warrantless seizures of US Citziens by US combat forces. The JAGs were misled, told that the POWs were being treated "Differently" than "our own people". In 2003 they were not "preparing" anything, the abuse had already started:

It must be conceded, however, that we are preparing to treat these detainees very differently than we treat any other group, and differently than we permit our own people to be treated either at home or abroad.

"At home" refers to the warrantless seizure of US citizens.

What the JAGs didn't have complete evidence was the President had already ordered the warrantless detention, surveillance, and seizure of US citizens. This JAG-review was after that decision. The DOJ OLC memos to the President retroactively did exactly the opposite what the JAGs were assuming: To treat US citizens, seized without a warrant, no different than detainees, substantially different than Geneva-protected POWs.

The above seems fantastic, but reconsider what we've learned about YOo's comments. Reconsider the Frontline interview: Yoo said that terrorists could "hide" or "be disguised as" civilians. Yoo's assertions about whether terrorists could or couldn't hide as civilians does not reconcile with the JAG's comments that POWs wold be treated differently than US citizens. The opposite is true: It was the decision of the President, without a warrant, to seize, abuse, and violate the rights of American citizens, do this using DoD forces, rely on the "inherent authority" to ignore the Constitution, and survive a US citizen-lawsuit against him and other DoD officials by invoking this retroactive decision.

It doesn't make sense for DOJ OLC to argue "inherent authority" for the President to do anything; but then the JAGs make a qualification that this DoJ OLC memo "only" apply overseas, while Yoo contradicts himself on the memo's application to Iraq. It appears more likely the JAGs, in their still-classified working papers, documented their concerns that the DOJ OLC opinion, as written, would do the very thing they appear to not realize had already started in 2001: Warrantless seizures of American citizens. There's no reason to believe this didn't happen because DOJ OLC memos are written to justify illegal activity; they are not written to "confirm" only legal activity: No memo is required to do what is obviously lawful: Proper treatement of US citizens.

Rather, the DOJ OLC memo appears most explainable when it is viewed as a retroactive document, written to justify warrantless seizures of US citizens, and to defend the President against civil lawsuits for his alleged war crimes against US citizens. Any other interpretation asks that we believe the same DOJ OLC that argued the prisoner had no right to trial or access to courts, yet were only concerned with that foreign connected litigation risk during the discussion with the JAGs. This defies reason. The JAGs and DOJ OLC must have discussed US civilian lawsuits within the existing civil court system, spring boarding from the DOJ OLC memo authorizing warrantless seizures of American citizens.

Recall, in 2003, the POWs in Eastern Europe were still considered "without Geneva protections". There was no issue with them bringing suit in 2003 when Yoo wrote this memo. Said another way: The memo was written while DOJ OLC assumed that all the foreign, combat-connected prisoners would not have standing in any court, as evidenced by the continued detention of prisoners in Eastern Europe. DoJ was moving in 2003 on these memos to focus on the problem of American citizen-led lawsuits, DoD/DHS abuse against American citizens in the US, and warrantless seizures of non-combat, American citizens in violation of the laws of war.

In truth, DoJ OLC in 2003 was less concerned with POW lawsuits, than with the real problem of US citizens lawsuits against US contractors. As with the FISA violations, it remains to be understood what immunity agreement the US government arranged with US contractors working under DOJ, DHS, and DoD to implement these illegal seizures against US citizens, then abuse them. These are likely other classified memoranda, and may have been destroyed in the WH/RNC email destruction.

If this view of the JAGs memo is valid, then

- What threat of prosecution are US government officials aware to prevent US citizens subject to this warrantless seizure from bringing suit;

- Who was threatened with arrest for daring to assert their rights in discussing these issues with legal counsel; and

- Which legal counsel were embargoed or prevented from publicly commenting on any of these issues as was done with the NSLs?

Agency Head Affidavits

It appears the classified affidavit DoJ, CIA, NSA, and DoD leadership provided to the court claiming this activity is a "state secret" was based on fraud. The activity has less to do with national security, than hiding evidence of war crimes against US citizens. The question is which legal counsel at which contractors know of this deception, and are attempting to suppress public discussion of this legal theory.

- When did the JAGs realized they were being deceived about the intent of the President to continue abusing American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment, continue seizing them without warrants, and continue hiding evidence of these illegal war crimes against American citizens?

- What still classified JAG memoranda has DoD suppressed detailing the JAGs real concerns that the DOJ OLC memo could permit illegal abuse against AMerican citziens?

- Why should we believe the JAGs needed to qualify something that was "only" connected with foreign forces?

- Is it not reasonable to conclude the JAGs in these memos intended to leave a trace so that others knew they were qualifying something which they were not able to discuss or document: The planned, continuing, warrantless seizures of American citizens in the United States in violation of the laws of war?

- What evidence do the JAGs still have that the US Attorneys have refused to prosecute or empannel a grand jury?

- How were the above-listed DoJ IG exceptions applied to block DoJ IG from reviewing the JAGs concerns about the ongoing, warrantless seizures of American citizens?

- Where are the JAG working papers discussing their real concern that this DOJ OLC memo would permit war crimes against US citizens, in violation of Geneva and the US Constitution?

- When did the White House counsels' office first discuss attempting to use civilian legal counsel to suppress public discussion of these war crimes against US citizens on the reckless claim that this was "classified" information and "only" obtainable using classified sources?

- After White House counsel discovered the attempted litigation to suppress discussion of these war crimes had failed, who gave the direction to the RNC and WH staff to destroy this evidence of US government war crimes against American civilians?

- How does this DOJ OLC memo permitting war crimes against US citizens fit in with the timeline on the MCA language giving US government employees funds to defend themselves against civil lawsuits by US citizens abused in violation of the laws of war under "this program"?

- When did legal counsel in DOJ OLC first realize that the public knew former White House counsel was concerned with war crimes issues, publicly discussing those concerns, and that the effort to block the DOJ OLC memoranda related to domestic abuse of American citizens had failed?

- How much money did the specific contractor involved with the WH email retention give to the GOP; and what did that contractor get promised if it "cooperated" with this expanded abuse of American civilians in violation for the laws of war: Immunity from war crimes prosecution, despite the JAGs stating those contractors could be prosecuted for those war crimes?

- When did the WH counsel realize the Italian government would not end its prosecution of these war crimes against US government officials?

- When did it occur to the DOJ OLC, former WH counsel, and currently assigned legal counsel that CIA personnel were cooperating with the EU/EC to share the evidence of the above with war crimes prosecutors?

- When did it first occur to WH counsel that the JAGs, after being deceived, no longer we bound to remain confidences related to their concerns with the continuing, and planned abuse of American citizens in re the DOJ OLC memo; that the JAGs would then realize their "confidences" had been based on fraud; and that the agreement to remain silent was not enforceable under the laws of war preventing abuse by this President against American civilians unlawfully seized without a warrant in the United States?

JAGs Documented Their Warning For Future

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Discovery can start and continue indefinitely. The JAGs included a hidden message in their comments. The JAGs had an inkling something did not smell right. Recall, they had access to the DOJ OLC memo authorizing warrantless seizures of US citizens. They likely well knew about the rendition program had been applied, and the President had violated the laws of war; and their work was well after the decision; but were unable to document these concerns within this commentary. There are likely other, related memos and concerns with the JAGs have been ordered to be quiet about.

The JAGs knew that their inputs would be filtered by DOJ OLC, and the White House counsel. The only reason the JAGs would mention "decision maker" was to remind future readers -- us, the public -- that they were being asked to provide comments on something which DoJ OLC had already approved. That makes no sense.

At a minimum, I recommend that decision-makers be made fully aware of the very narrow set of circumstances-- factually and legally--upon which the policy rests.

JAGs cannot recommend to the President, who is more than relying on DOJ OLC memos to engage in war crimes. The JAGs knew in 2003 that the abuse programs were well underway. They knew these deliberations were not protected as "pre-decisional". The JAGs well knew about the other DOJ OLC memos expressing "inherent authority": It broadly asserted the President had the power to ignore all laws. The President, the JAGs knew, were not going to pay attention to the JAGs.

The JAGs also knew in 2003 that the President started this illegal activity in 2001. It wasn't something the JAGs were advising the President on as a forward going policy, but something else -- The JAGs were sending us a message: The JAGs

- knew that the President had violated the law on the FISA violations;

- had been gagged using a dubious claim of state secrets;

- the President has committed war crimes by abusing POWs; and

- the President is ignoring Geneva requirements, as evidenced by the non-sense DOJ OLC memoranda "permitting" warrantless seizures, abuse, and detention (4th Amendment violations) against American civilians.

The JAGs were telling us to ask them under oath about:

- The timing of the DOJ OLC memoranda;

- The NSA warrantless interrogations in 2001;

- Whether we really believed these discussions in 2003 were "pre-decisional" when we well knew the President already made the decision to violate the COnstitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions;

- Whether their words to "narrowly apply" the application of the DOJ OLC memoranda were or were not liked with DOJ OLC comments that these abuse procedures could be used against American civilians without a warrant during rendition efforts;

- Why we should blieve they thought nobody would ask them about the working papers they have documenting their concerns that the President had been, was, and continues to commit war crimes aginst US citizens in violation of the laws of war;

- The dates the JAGs learned the IGs had been shut down on the basis of dubious "state secrets claims," when, in fact, the objective was to suppress war crimes evidence linking the President, DoJ OLC, and other US government contractors with breaches of Geneva committed against US citizens in violation of the laws of war, US Constitution, and 4th Amendment;

- Where are the JAGs memos about their concerns they were being ordered to remain silent about these war crimes against American civilians, in violation of the laws of war.

Impeachment and Congress

- When were Members of Congress told about the DOJ OLC memo permitting warrantless seizure and abuse of American citizens?

- When were Members of Congress informed that US citizens had been rendered and abused in violation of the laws of war?

- Why are Members of Congress not making adverse inferences about the inconsistencies between the DOJ OLC memos, Yoo's public statements, and the JAG memoranda?

Cross Posted

This is the same FISA-dribbling we had in 2005, not the final answer, and is a smokescreen organized by the President. As with FISA, one piece of new information is creating a problem for many other lines of evidence. That is backwards. The new information should be consistent. It is not.

These DoJ explanations in 2008 are not reconciling with (a) the JAG comments in 2003; nor with (b) Yoo's comments before Frontline on warrants; or (c) AG Gonzalez comments before Judiciary in 2006. (Recommended backup is here; feel free to attack the recommended analysis).

Example 1: The JAGs in 2003 were still concerned about the DOJ OLC memo to say, in effect, "We need to make sure that this only applies overseas." In 2003 it was still unclear how the DOJ OLC memo was being applied in terms of geography, and programs (plural). It wasn't just electronic surveillance, but interrogations.

Example 2: Recall, in 2003, when the JAGs wrote their memo, and commented about the 2001-related DOJ OLC memo, the Prisoners had not been given access to any courts. Yet, the JAGs raised the prospect of civilian-triggered trials in US courts. That could only be, in 2003 before Hamdan, US citizen-initiated abuse. Why were the JAGs concerned in 2003 about lawsuits from people the President/DoJ OLC said were not allowed access to any court? The warrantless seizures were not hypothetical, but were directed at US citizens.

Example 3: We're being asked to narrowly believe the scope of the DOJ OLC 2001 memo. Yoo openly talked about preventing an attack, not reacting to that attack, as DoJ in 2008 would have us believe about the memo's connection to DoD.

The problem is the stories we've been told since 2001 hinge on the assumption this warrantless seizure of American citizens would not be discovered. It's possible the DoJ OLC 2001 memo was written after the President made his decision, and the JAGs know there have been war crimes committed against US citizens.

"Public law (requiring retention of White House emails; access to illegal memoranda used to unlawfully implement war crimes) trumps Executive Orders. The Court can strip a President of privilege claims when those privileges have been abused as has been substantially shown"

You place too much faith in "public law". Bush's court-packing scheme ensures that the federal appellate courts are a vitual extension of the current administration, ad infinitem. From the Palmer Raids to Rex-84 to 9/11, Congress routinely legislated the curtailment of civil liberties during so-called national emergencies. From first-hand experience, I remember the violations that took place when DC was under martial law in 1968. For my family and their friends, COINTELPRO was a dangerous threat to our personal safety. Nothing has changed.

DoJ 2008 Comments on Yoo's 2001 DOJ OLC Memo on Domestic Warrants Do Not Reconcile With Gonzalez statements before the Senate Judiciary; Yoo's Comments on Frontline; or the JAG 2003 Memos

The 2008 DOJ comments on the 2001 warrant memo cannot be believed. There is broader activity relying on these illegal memoranda. DoJ has not adequately distanced itself from other programs, not provided confidence that all activity relying on this memo has ended. DoJ and the President have created programs under the theory, "All civilians could be terrorists" and perversely argued the President is above the Constitution out of necessity. The memos are retroactive, non-deliberative, and cannot be shielded by a claim of deliberation.

There is no legal basis for the privilege claims about these DOJ OLC memos, and other JAG memos about the warrantless seizure of US citizen. The memos cannot be lawfully suppressed. The government provides no evidence that disclosure of any DoJ OLC memos related to war crimes and 4th Amendment vilations has caused a threat to national security. Claims that Iraqi-linked terrorists 'would attack DC" after the 2003 US invasion were not credible threats, but designed to dissuade an American invasion. Self-evidently, Iraq did not have the means to launch attacks on DC after the US invaded.

Myths Behind DoJ Legal Assertions

There are many myths surrounding the DOJ OLC memos. These relate to issues of privilege, secrets, and public access to evidence of war crimes. The President's assertions through DOJ OLC are dubious. The resistance to share the information is less to do with a bonafide concern about national security, but with legal risks the evidence could be used to prosecute American lawyers and civilian government personnel and contractors for war crimes. These legal issues are not narrowly on issues of wiretapping, surveillance, or domestic abuse of power, but international war crimes committed by the US government against American civilians during an international conflict.

DoJ, in demanding others "prove" their connection to war crimes starts with an absurd premise: That DoJ unreasonable assertions must be discredited. This only delays justice and is evidence DoJ is not acting in good faith. It is the goal of DOJ to require others to prove a foregone conclusion -- the President's alleged guilt of war crimes -- then ignore that verdict. That legal objective cannot be left unchallenged.

Myth: The memo is narrowly applicable to reacting to attacks.

Yoo on Frontline expressly stated the objective of the President wasn't to narrowly organize DoD to react, but to prevent an attack. An attack that is supposedly prevented must be real, not one fabricated to justify abusive intrusions, nor one that the US government induces others to formulate. The US government fails to explain how it can either react to or prevent an attack when it has no explained how placed the explosives in the WTC.

Myth: The memo is narrowly applicable to one activity.

Multiple US government programs are related to this DoJ OLC memo permtting warrantless seizure of US citizens. It defies reason for DOJ OLC to argue for broad power that is only narrowly applied. Gonzalez in 2006 mentioned other programs, but asserted illegal violations of the 4th Amendment were lawful. These were rejected. Yoo's claims that his memo did "not" apply to Iraq are contradicted by the news reports he cited that (rightly or wrongly) linked AlQueda to Iraq. Yoo intended for the memo to apply worldwide, contrary to his assertions to Esquire. The JAGs qualified in 2003 that the DOJ OLC memo would only apply to foreign affairs. Between 2001 and 2003, DoD had not been challenged on domestic operations.

Myth: The DOJ OLC only permitted lawful activity.

DoJ OLC knew or should have known that the legal opinions were instrumental in creating a dubious legal defense to ongoing and planned war crimes. Congress did not effecitvely challenge whether the DoJ OLC claims were or were not lawful. Harman did not conduct a legal review until 2005, after the NYT broke the NSA story. She absurdly claimed it "never occurred" to her that there was illegal activity, despite her documented "concerns" in 2003 the CIA proposed to destroy war crimes evidence. Harman knew, or should have known to ask for the DOJ OLC memos related to (a) the secrecy agreement; and (b) the requirement to remain silent about activity which Congress had not conducted an independent legal review. DoJ OLC has no legal basis to assert it is the exclusive legal advisor to Congress. DoJ OLC is in a separate branch of government; Congress is required to conduct independent oversight. No agreement to remain silent about legal questions or issues is enforceable.

Myth: DOJ OLC Memo only applies to future activity

DoJ OLC memos were written retroactively, and are outside the deliberative shield. In 2003, when the JAGs were commenting on POW treatment, there had already been documented 2002 abuses in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. The illegal activity had started before the memo. The memos were written to retroactively justify something which the President and others suspected could not be suppressed. Despite disclosures of illegal activity, there has been no threat to national security linked with that law enforcement action. The President cannot claim this illegal activity, if disclosed, would be a threat to national security.

Yoo on Frontline said terrorists "disguise" themselves as civilians. The government has not excluded the possibility US citizens, (rightly or wrongly) accused of terrorism, were "beyond" all legal protection while overseas.

Haynes was thrust back into the spotlight last week after the disclosure of a March 2003 Justice Department memo concluding that federal laws against torture, assault and maiming would not apply to the overseas interrogation of terror suspects.From

- How many US citizens were abused overseas?

- How many US citizens, on accusation alone, were classified "suspects" or "suspected terrorists" and abused to collect information?

- Where are the US citizens being abused?

- What were the conditions of the American citizens' release: A promise not to bring civil cases against the US government, or talk about their experiences; were they threatened with prosecution if they disclosed the details of their abuse?

Here is the evidence the JAGs were excluded. We have no information about JAG memos, written in secret, about perpheral issues.

Although limited at this link, Yoo's book has several "warrant" references [Look to right for page index, search term].

Yoo suggests the Constitutional legal requirements, enforced by oath, were "difficult," compelling the President, out of "necessity" to bypass these DoJ OLC-supported solutions and legal requirements. Despite the many constraints known to DOJ OLC, they sought fit to bypass the legal requirements they supported, then blame Congress for not updating the laws DoJ originally endorsed. These raise more questions about the information completeness between the President and members of Congress in secret.

Here are key terms most likely in Yoo's still secret 2001 memo on warrantless DoD activity against American civilians:

"Special needs"
.
"impractical"
.
"Not practical"
.
"Information not available"
.
"Difficult"
.
"Frustrating"

DoD Information Warfare

Information gathering is the pretext the British used to intrude. Once information is obtained, the President, according to Yoo, may use that information any way he chooses, even to support subsequent illegal war crimes: Covert action against American citizens, conduct litigation, or engage in other intelligence gathering.

- How will media messaging from DoD-sources be regulated under the Smith Act, prohibiting US government propaganda at American civilians?

Dubious Separation From Law Enforcement

Yoo absurdly asks us to believe that non law enforcement-related activity does not require a warrant. Curiously Yoo asks that the President be allowed to use any information how he wishes, even to include prosecutions; but simultaneously ask us to believe the activity is unconnected from law enforcement.

DoD Joint Chiefs of Staff

One man's assertion of "reasonableness" may or may not be consistent with the Constitution or the Judicial Branch. This President, with DOJ OLC concurrence, appears to claim the Constitutional requirements are unreasonable. Some American citizens decline to participate in all US government-connected activity. DOJ OLC would use that avoidance as evidence of a connection with a foreign power.

Necessity And Non-Compliance

President may delay notification out of interest of national security; and invoke dubious claims of "national security" to hide evidence of illegal activity. NSLs were abused, and delayed notification could be never.

Invalid Basis To Justify Warrantless Interrogations

These programs rely on missing information to justify more extensive intelligence gathering. The financial data fields do not adequate explain lawful transactions. Errors in the data bases are driving US government officials to compel Americans to explain themselves. DoJ and the President incorrectly assume people only hide things for illegal purposes.

- How many Americans, in declining to disclose information they are not required to disclose, have been punished without judicial oversight?

Follow the Law Until DOJ Legislative Liaision Does Their Job

It defies reason to believe, with expansive Presidential powers, that things "only" happen with judicial approval. Home raids by DoD without a warrant is beyond what the framers intended. DOJ OLC legal counsel fail to explain why Legislative Liaision has not been sanctioned for their apparent reckless coordination with Congress. How DoJ OLC plans to implement this but comply with the Constitution is their responsibility to share with Congress.

Meaningless Standard

"Significant" in the mind of some lawyers is 5%. Saying a FISA warrant is "significantly related to national security" is meaningless. There's a 5% chance the President has committed war crimes, yet Congress refuses to act. 95% of the FISA warrant could be to pre-textually gather evidence needed to harass civilians and engage in malicious prosecution. On the basis of accusation alone, "foreign threats" could mean anything, anyone, anytime.

Laws of Peace, War: Confusing Domestic and International Conflict

Yoo invokes the Civil War to justify warrantless detentions of American citizens. he fails to account for the different rules related to civilians. Non-combatants under the laws of war (which Yoo ignores or says are not applicable) are protected. Yoo also incorrect mixes international and domestic issues. A war on terror, by its definition, is global and subject to international laws of war.

Yoo Flaw: Dubious Basis To Deny Geneva, Constitutional Protections

Yoo shows a poor understanding of the laws of war. Yoo refuses to specifically address: Can the Court permit warrantless seizures of American citizens for any reason? "national security purposes" could mean anything. By its definition, the 4th Amendment is applicable to the President. The question is whether FISA-like standards are created to ensure the President complies with judicial review. Whether American citizens are "foreign" or "domestic" security risks is irrelevant: they are protected by the Constitution; and US government officials are constrained by that Constitution -- linked with the treaty obligations -- while interacting with American citizen-prisoners and foreign POWs.

Inadequate Judicial Review of Presidential Findings

The President has no power to "conclude" the laws of war do not protect American citizens, regardless their asserted connection or association with terrorism. The President has no power, on his own, to determine that a US citizen is "really" a foreign power. That's a legal decision which belongs in the Judiciary and needs oversight. Indeed, the Constitution may be frustrating or inflexible, but that's what the Framers intended. Yoo's using the legal standards as an excuse to claim "inflexibility", then "out of necessity" ignore the standard, or change the standard to accommodate what the Framers rejected.

Irrelevant Historical Analogies, Outside Legal Options

YOo invokes FDR as Precedent trumping FISA requirements. This is the same DOJ argument we heard after 2005 from Gonzalez about electronic monitoring of the telegraph. That's irrelevant. FISA, not DOJ OLC reconstructions of history, is the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance.

Accusation Alone

Any excuse, on accusation alone, to connect any American citizen to any foreign power would "justify" Presidential action without judicial review. False, incorrect, or dubious information could be the pretext against American citizens.

Iraq WMD Lessons: Non-Existent Threat As "Evidence Warranting" DoD Use of Deadly Force

The disadvantage of a modern, industrialized society is the ease by which terrorists can efficiently do something. DOJ OLC's answer is to require everyone register their goats, and require 100% pedestrians. Under this theory, if there were no terrorists, the DoJ OLC would use the "lack of evidence" as evidence that more intrusions are required against American citizens. We heard the same excuse with the Iraq WMD: They failure to cooperate is evidence of illegal activity; and the refusal to provide the evidence means there is an imminent threat. If there is anything we should learn from the failed adventure in Iraq, it would be preerable if this President were not permitted to treat Americans how he has abused Iraqis.

Testing ,
Ok you are making my head hurt again . At least goldspinner seems to understand your usual detailed analysis . My focus remains on which State Attorney General will have the necessary focus & DETERMINATION to go after the bushcheney crime cartel . I am still praying that jERRY Brown of California will step forward and begin the legal battle to start impeachment proceedings against this bunch of fascists wannabes.
And goldspinner many of us remember Cointerpol - here's an interesting new political dynamic to consider this time though- here recently The Ron Paul Revolutionaries have taking over the GOP Texas Caucus - Futhermore in speaking with a few of the RPR 's here in Austin , Tx they appear to be very outraged by this unitarian executive power grab aka as GWB 43- if we can agree to disagree about certain issues - such as monetary policy or saving social security - we might make common cause regarding armed military forces kicking down our collective front door - We all need to be thinking about building a populist coalition -given our recent sad history I am not so sure that the neo skums will go quietly into that "good night " .
And right about now I am very grateful that we do have a Second Amendment - Finally I am quite certain that the late great Charlton Heston & I would make common cause togather against this gathering storm of executive abuse - even as we would disagree about Roe v Wade -
We all must think long and carefully about illegal jackboots on our collective front stoop ..
we must begin to actively build a coalition of citizens that want their US Constitution left intact and unfetterd ....

Of concern are the alleged human rights abuses and war crimes by the US and Isreal. DoJ OLC memos would justify "out of necessity" DoD attacks on American media broadcasters, on the pretext of a mistake, or difficulty in distinguishing civilians from military targets in the "confusion" where terrorists are "disguised" as civilians.

Civilian Contractors, Security Personnel Connected With Fusion Centers, JTTF, InfraGard, DoD, NSA, CIA, DHS Allegedly Engaging in Ongoing War Crimes Against American Civilians

DoJ OLC is likely (illegally) arguing that civilian security firms could engage in deception to gather intelligence about American civilians. However, the US government has no legal standing to extent immunity or qualified immunity to these DHS-DoD-DoJ-connected contractors at the fusion centers. Arguably, in illegally engaging in DoD-connected-military intelligence gathering, the security firms engaging in these DoD-efforts to violate the 4th Amendment are engaging in war crimes against American civilians.

The JAGs in their 2003 memos well discussed the real possibility that US government-connected contractors could be adjudicated with war crimes. How civilian contractors and security personnel have been induced to support these illegal DoD operations remains to be understood. The issue turns on its head. Yoo and DOJ OLC in arguing for ignoring Geneva and engaging American civilians as "disguised" terrorists, has potentially exposed to war crimes adjudication the civilians in the domestic DoD-intelligence gathering network.

Geneva affords special protections to civilians. These protections remain in full force until the civilians engage in military support. Then the civilians lose these protections of the laws of war. This does not mean the laws of war prohibit civilians from taking action that supports military operations. It means civilians, once they engage in unlawful activity supporting military operations cannot rely on their status as a civilian to invoke their civilian-connected Geneva protections.

DoJ OLC and others knew or should have known that Geneva applied to American civilians. The US government cannot induce others, through contracts, to take action that would strip those civilians of their protected status. This is similar to illegally offering bounties for the enemy, which induces civilians in a combat zone to take up arms act as combatants, and strip the civilians of their protected status. This incorrect "defense" is likely included with the DOJ OLC memo.  DOJ OLC through the CIA, DHS, or DoD would offer to civilians and contractors. However, this appears to be a misstatement of the law, and could attach to legal counsel with those outside contractors hired to communicate with civilian bloggers.

American civilians and contractors supporting the US military in implementing these DoD plans have a problem. These are more than violations of FISA or the Constitution. The risk is contractors, relying on DoJ OLC memos, have been induced to support unlawful war crimes against American civilians.

The DOJ OLC memo would likely support DoD-combat-support operations such as secretly taking over leading American civilian blogs. Civilians who allowed their blogs to be used for a military objective could be stripped of their Geneva protections. The risk is that civilians, in helping to spread military propaganda used to inflame civilian attacks against other civilians, could be adjudicated with war crimes as was done in Rwanda.

Subsequent War Crimes: Contracts To Induce Civilians To Engage in Military-Support, Denying Civilians Their Protected Status

As with the FISA violations, it remains to be understood what meaningless promises the President and DOJ and DOD would offer; and whether these defenses would survive a war crimes tribunal. DoJ OLC likely argued that there was "no intent" to commit war crimes or create conditions that would strip civilians of their Geneva protections. This argument defies reason and is retroactive: Yoo argued the opposite: That Geneva didn't apply. That DoJ OLC legal position is unrelated to any legal defense of "no intent". The DOJ OLC legal argument was premised on the intent to ignore Geneva.

Civilian Legal Counsel Connected With War Crimes, Illegal Activity

There is emerging evidence of DoD-connected entities engaging in war crimes against American civilians. These lines of evidence related to civilian conducting inherent government functions, but violating the laws of war. These efforts include fraud, misstatements of the law, unlawful deception, illegal harassment, unlawful use of computer resources to access private information, and perjury during investigation, and illegal threats of prosecution. Private and government legal counsel connected with these DoD-support function know they face the prospect of an attorney disbarment investigation. Legal counsel knows, or should know of this illegal activity supporting unlawful DOD operations.

- Why did the White House construct a ruse "data retention/transfer program" knowing full well the intent of that program was to destroy this war crimes evidence?

DoJ OLC incorrectly believes that firms containing this war crimes evidence, if moved overseas, could not be subject to US laws or Geneva. This is circular and defies the Supreme Court in re Hamdan: The laws of war are universally applicable. If, as it appears, DOJ OLC says US and Geneva do not apply to firms located outside the US, the government fails to explain why they moved POWs from Europe to Guantanamo.

- Why did DoD move these databases supporting these war crimes to firms who are incorporated overseas?

- When were private counsel at civilian contractors first approached by DoD, DHS, DoJ, or other US government agencies to create procedures, ignore violations of the law, or establish requirements on security personnel to support this ongoing activity supporting DoD war crimes against American civilians?

- What promises did DoJ OLC and White House counsel make through civilian legal counsel that they could rely on the DOJ OLC memoranda as a legal defense for these ongoing DoD-combat support functions?

- Why did legal counsel at the civilian security firms not question the loss of the civilians' Geneva protections?

- How do outside legal counsel working on these DoD-related war crimes plans and operations credibly believe they could rely on Geneva protections after Yoo expressly stated that Geneva did not apply?

- How does legal counsel explain that Geneva does not apply to the operations or the targets of these DoD war crimes; but that security personnel could invoke Geneva protections to avoid prosecution, despite that material support to unlawful DoD-connected activity?

- To what extent have security personnel, knowing they have been caught engaging in illegal activity, attempted to shift attention from their misconduct, by falsely accusing civilians of "improper" conduct?

- Which civilian contractors supporting unlawful DoD combat operations against American civilians have illegally denied American citizens access to public services, public accommodations, or other things on the basis of dubious charges?

- To what extent have US civilian contractors and civilian security personnel relied on the DOJ OLC memo to justify illegal intrusions, accusations, and false charges against American citizens?

Civilian contractors and security personnel, once they engage in this direct and indirect support for the American military, lose their protected status under Geneva as civilians. Legal counsel connected with these civilian firms could be prosecuted for assisting civilians in supporting unlawful military actions against American civilians. The fusion centers, JTTF data, and InfraGard systems could be used as lines of evidence at a war crimes trial that civilians had drifted from their protected status, and engaged in substantial military-connected actions.

- Is the purpose of the intelligence gathering to support unlawful DoD combat operations against American civilians?

- To what extent are the RNC email destruction orders linked with these illegal plans?

- To what extent can the JTTF, InfraGard, and fusion center databases be used to prosecute civilians for war crimes against American civilians?

- Does Congress have an adequate legal system to ensure the alleged evidence of war crimes in these JTTF, InfraGard, and fusion center databases are safeguarded, retained and preserved, as required under the laws of war?

- To what extent is the White House using outside counsel to bring false charges of 'discussing secret information' to dissuade open discussions of US government connected civilians' loss of Geneva protections?

DOJ OLC Memoranda Used By DoD War Planners In Attacking American Civilians Under False Pretense

Here are some of the legal issues raised when DoD conducts urban raids on civilian population centers in the United States. Once the DoJ OLC puts the President above the law, the only constraint on the President is technology, not operational constraints. We've seen in iraq that the President ignored resource constrains, and still directed an illegal invasion without an imminent threat. You would not have agreed in the DOJ OLC memoranda with the following:

To be sure, legal and political constraints are not independent of technological and operational constraints.

Once Yoo says in DoJ OLC memoranda that Geneva doesn't apply, this constraint goes out the window:

However, in planning for urban operations, the most salient limitations on U.S. military action are often those the military places on itself by adhering to international legal norms and restrictive rules of engagement (ROE) to satisfy public and diplomatic pressures.

This means:

- Illegal rules of engagement;
- Unlawful Presidential orders to ignore the laws of war:
- Illegal direction by civilians to the military to establish unlawful policies against American civilians in violation of the laws of war;
- Direction to the military to ignore Geneva;
- Not respond to public commentary;
- Ignore outside threats of combat force against US military personnel engaging in war crimes against American civilians.

DoJ OLC likely supports DoD's planned use of predator drones to target American civilians, on the pretext they are "disguised terrorists".

Aerospace Doctrine Ready To Implement War Crimes Against American Civilians

Recall the JAGs in 2003 raised the issues of "support". If DoD engaged in war crimes against civilians, the support for DoD would fall. As with the Iraq WMD, the President is likely, despite promises to the contrary to blame the DoD agency or contractor, and not accept responsibility for his illegal decisions:

Planners strive to maintain support among three sets of audiences—the domestic public, the international community, and some parties local to the areas of operations; adherence to international law can bolster this support.

DoD and NSA works well with the media messaging contractors to mitigate opposition to unlawful DoD operations against American civilians. Once civilians, on accusation alone without any evidence or trial, are classified as "disguised terrorists," domestic and international public opinion can be mobilized away from DoD and the President, and focused on the "crimes of the accused American civilian". In the view of DOJ OLC, it does not matter that the intent of the use of the DoD resources is to distract attention from the President's illegal orders against American civilians.

You appeals to a false confusion about Geneva. There is no confusion: War crimes against civilians are illegal. However, DoD appears to take the DOJ OLC view, and appeal to this confusion to delay legal decisions, but point to the pretext of a speculative threat. In concert with DOJ OLC legal theory, this subordinates the law to the immediate use of combat technology [emphasis added]:

While interpretations of some international legal provisions shift or remain unsettled,

DoD engaged in illegal abuse of POWs, but retroactively used the JAGs as cover. JAGs were not involved with the original decisions or reviews. It is false comfort to believe the JAGS are involved with any DOJ OLC memo "authorizing" DoD to conduct war crimes against American civilians. The JAGs may have been excluded from the operational orders. How this relates to the placement of explosives in the WTC remains to be understood:

Prior to and during operations, legal advisers and military Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers have played a variety of roles in ensuring compliance with international law—roles that have gained prominence in the past decade.

On accusation alone, DOJ OLC might likely support warrantless DoD seizures of American civilians:

In pursuing military victory, however, parties are also governed by the principle of humanity, which forbids the infliction of injury or destruction not necessary to the achievement of legitimate military purposes.

"Legitimate military purposes" can be anything, if couched as "anti-terror". The problem occurs when the speculative threat of terrorism is not linked with any credible threat. Recall, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, Iraqis were reported to have threatened to attack DC with terror campaigns. The US invaded, but (surprise, surprise) there was no Iraqi terror attacks on DC. Iraq wasn't threatening to attack DC, it was hoping to dissuade an American attack on Iraq. However, US planners appear to have taken the opposite view: "no attack came then, so we must remain vigilant until it occurs."

Anyone could threaten anything out of bluster. The President's cooperating with DOJ OLC has no real connection with a bonafide military capability by terrorists. It does not exist. Seven [7] years on, and the sleeping terrorists have jointed the ranks of Snow White: Fantasy.

The issue isn't whether DoD should defend the Untied States, but whether the military personnel in DoD will see the President's orders are illegal, and cannot be enforced. There is no legal defense for US military personnel who use arms against American civilians.

It is the job of the military to demand to see the evidence, ensure there are lawful warrants, and ask why judicial officers believe the Congress ever intended to wage war against the American public. The Congress has never declared war against the American civilian population. DoD personnel who implement these unlawful orders in attacking American civilians could be prosecuted for war crimes. There is no statute of limitations.

State Governors v. President: Enforcing Geneva

It remain unclear whether the State Governors would or would not permit their national guard air units to be used against their state civilians; or whether they would order air units under their command to engage DoD forces attacking American civilians. To date, the lessons of JTTF and the fusion centers suggest the Governors would not object to illegal attacks on their state citizens, or attempt to use their state's law enforcement or military resources to enforce the laws of war against DoD officials or contractors. State governors have not adequately objected to their national guard units being used to implement illegal warfare in Iraq. It's unclear why the Governors have not ordered their combat units home or deactivated them to ensure they are not used to commit war crimes against American civilians.

There is a danger of momentum. Once accusations are made, and combat units are mobilized, it's difficult for American civilians to get advocates at the Cabinet level. The framers placed the exclusive power to declare war with the Congress. DOJ OLC has likely argued the AUMF "authorizes" the use of deadly combat forces against American civilians who are (accused of being) "disguised terrorists". DoJ OLC has likely said the President's military "necessity" trumps the presumed "balancing":

Many of the specific rules contained in the law of armed conflict attempt to balance, on the one hand, the latitude necessary for military forces to carry out their functions, with, on the other hand, a desire to minimize human suffering.

DOJ OLC has likely put the President's interests at 100%; and the "Desire" to minimize human suffering at 0%. This Congress is not inclined to object, nor are the States.

Recall the lessons of the FISA violations: The "expected" gain was 100% defense. If this comes at the expense of "some civilians", the DOJ OLC memoranda views this as acceptable.

Together, the principles of military necessity and humanity underlie the rule of proportionality, which demands that parties refrain from attacks, even against legitimate military targets, likely to cause civilian suffering and damage disproportionate to the expected military gain.

"Miltary gains" can mean anything to block pubilc knowledge of illegal activity: Things the DOJ IC cannot investigate, the so-called "exceptions" listed above. DoJ OLC likely views "military gain" as anything that will ensure DoJ IG is blocked from investigating any of these war crimes, DoD plans to attack civilians, or other things on the dubious claim of "national security" and "operational plans".

Blurring the Distinctions

Yoo invokes the "terrorists disguised as civilians"-theory to trump this legal theory [original emphasis removed, new emphasis added]:

Embedded in these principles and rules is the idea of distinction (or discrimination) between military and civilian persons or property.

If Geneva "didn't apply," Yoo cannot explain why he spent time attempting to create novel legal theories to explain away Geneva. Self-evidently, Geneva "should not" apply, and not require any exceptions within the DOJ OLC memo. There are not exceptions to Geneva: IT is part of the Supreme Law as a requirement, not a standard to move to accommodate illegal activity against American civilians.

Congress has the power to make rules on how US combat forces are used. Congress needs to ask the following:

- How are planners able to implement their Geneva-obligations to "distinguish" between civilians and combatants?

The risk is DoD force planners and operational commanders, like the NSA telecoms, may respond to pressure to act, despite legal requirements to resist.

- When confronted with the ticking time bomb scenario (as a theory, not an actual event), will DoD planners prospectively develop procedures to require judicial officers' involvement, court orders, and other consultation with Congress?

- What lessons from the FISA violations by the telecoms must Congress ensure DoD force planners and commanders glean when using combat force against American civilians?

- What standard of evidence will force planners use to ensure they are not given dubious information, on accusation alone, and carefully consider the basis for the accusations and evidence before using deadly force against American civilians?

- What legal training and oversight broke down with the NSA telecoms that needs to be corrected to ensure the same errors are not repeated in DoD use of deadly force against innocent civilians?

- What is the SecDef plan to ensure the legal theories in the DOJ OLC memo are not used to trump any DoD-recognized Geneva constraints on illegal use of combat force against civilians; when will SecDef conduct this inventory, and provide a complete survey result to the Congress in an open, non-classified forum; what is the status of the Defense Contract Audit Agency in ensuring that no DoD-connected contractors have been assigned any authority to support thse unlawful attacks on American civilians using this DoJ OLC memo or unlawful Presidential orders?

The concern, on accusation alone, and relying on the DOJ OLC memo, "military necessity" and "substantial military contribution" can be twisted, on accusation alone, to "justify" attacks on civilians "disguised" as terrorists [emphasis changed from original]:

Furthermore, operations are to be directed exclusively at military objectives, defined as “those objects which by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage.”

- How many civilians, "possibly disguised terrorists," would Congress deem an 'acceptable loss rate'?

- Does Congress view killing many civilians "out of an honest error" to be acceptable?

- Is it acceptable to Congress out of 'military necessity to mobilize for war' that some civilians might be killed during a DoD domestic combat operation?

- How many civilians could be lawfully killed under the DOJ OLC memo if it was "out of necessity" the President wanted to hide evidence of war crimes against American civilians?

- Could the President "out of military necessity" kill civilians on his own order, if those civilians "might" disclose information, concerns, or views about (dubious) exceptions to the DOJ IG rules, above?

- Who in DoD or the domestic contracting community will implement these illegal orders: Does Congress feel comfortable continuing to issue contracts to DoD-DoJ-connect firms which might violate the Geneva Conventions?

- Why is Congress unwilling to stop speculative war crimes against American civilans; but is willing to agree to certain war crimes against the same civilians?

Something broke in the internal DoD-NSA oversight that continued applying NSA-related combat technology against American civilians. The legal requirements were ignored. Congress needs reasonable assurances through legal reviews to ensure these problems with the NSA violations of the law are not repeated in any way in how DoD plans to use or not use US Combat forces against American civlians.

Once DOJ OLC memos argue for ignoring standards, laws, and conventions, what do we have left? A barbarian military, moving without constraint, and fully capable of using combat technology against innocent civilians. We've seen it with the FISA violations. Congress did nothing. There is nothing in the way of the President using deadly force against American civilians using the same ruses, misleading statements, and dubious legal arguments we've seen with the FISA violations.

- How many American civilians has this President ordered killed on the dubious assertion that they "might be connected" to terrorism?

Maybe the President is connected to terrorism against American civilians. Congress won't stop or investigate the President or investigate; there's little chance the Congress will care to investigate the deaths of American civilians. We still don't have answers about who placed the explosives inside WTC. Congress has "no time" for the President's impeachment investigation or review war crimes agaisnt American civilians; but it does have time to comment on elections.

Recall Yoo's reference to "terrorist use of" American infrastructure. He's turned the "Complexities" facing DoD on their head, and created another pre-text to ignore this balancing:

Urban environments contain shared military-civilian resources and house dual-use facilities. The military and civilian population often utilize common power sources, transportation networks, and telecommunications systems. . . During crises, for example, the military is generally the priority user and can be expected to utilize any residual capacity.

On accusation alone, Yoo would argue that things that "might be" used by "civilians disguised as terrorists" as "legal justification" for DoD to attack inherently civilian infrastructure because it "might be" used by "civilians disguised as terrorists." DoD could, under DOJ OLC theory, seize infrastructure and utilities for their own use, and substantially interfere with domestic, civilian uses. On accusation alone, out of retribution, because the President "out of necessity" isn't happy with a decision of a US Attorney.

- What substantial economic consequences were placed at the feet of the US Attorneys if they dared bring war crimes charges against the President?

- Did the President or anyone directly or indirectly threaten the US attorneys for responsibility for Presidentially-directed attacks on civilian infrastructure if the President was held to account for war crimes?

- When did legal counsel connected with the White House indirectly suggest the US Attorneys would have a "high price to explain" when the President decided to use deadly force against "civilians disguised as terrorists"?

Curious how DoJ OLC, before Sept 2001, knew enough to write a draft Patriot Act. They can't get the law right, but they "knew enough" to plan. We still dont' have an answer who placed the explosives in the WTC:

Planners sometimes view the dual-use nature of infrastructure systems opportunistically, because military usage arguably legitimizes these systems as targets, even though it may in fact be the incidental effects on the civilian population that planners hope to manipulate.

- When did the President order DoD-connected demolitions experts, under the guise of "terrorists," to place explosives within the WTC as an "opportunistic" activity out of "military necessity"?

Yoo in the DOJ OLC is in ecstacy:

As a result, the United States tends to favor liberal legal interpretations of “military objective” regarding dual-use facilities.

Yoo in the DOJ OLC memo would reaffirm this, arguing that the President at all times trumps everything. The US before the UN would likely argue this attack on US civilians to be an "internal" matter. What they cannot explain is why they spent so much time convincing themselves Geneva didn't apply to American civilians in this international war on terrorism.

when vital U.S. interests are at stake, decisionmakers are less likely to adapt operations to placate international dissent;

Yoo doesn't care about the law or Geneva, what's his view on American citizens. Even the US government openly will subscribe to this theory, prompting the JAG's concerns from zero, to something less than zero, celebration:

During full-scale combat operations, the demands of the local populace will typically concern U.S. decisionmakers and planners less

DoJ OLC memos appear to have given DoD the green lght to engage in civilian genocide in Iraq, where the planning appears designed to inflict civilian casualties. The US government got away with it in Iraq, nobody is going to care when the US government does the same against US civilians. Congress doesn't care:

U.S. military operations are planned and conducted with high sensitivity to potential U.S. casualties.

- Where did this same "sensitivity" go out the window on issues of FISA violations against American citizens?

For anyone in DoD or DOJ OLC to claim to Congress, "We're concerned about the safety of American ciitizens" while they implement orders to violate their rights is one thing; but for DOJ OLC, in secret, to issue memoranda opening the doorway to warantless seizures and combat operations against Civilians is another. The failed oversight in re NSA violations continues.

Legal counsel working for the President, and DoJ OLC current and formely assigned counsel have no expectation of privacy when they are complicit with war crimes. The Congress, on Legislative Order alone, may direct lawful interception of legal counsel private and public communications.

Legal counsel working for the President may be subject to electronic surveillance by Congress, on accusation alone. Congress may search legal counsel records when DOJ OLC memoranda have been used to justify abuses against American civilians in violation of the laws of war. Once DOJ OLC issues that memoranda "legalizing" war crimes against American civilians, the court may reasonably conclude that the President has no intention of engaging in any good faith discussions or negotiations.

Government surveillance where there is no legitimate expectation of privacy does not amount to a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and therefore carries no requirement for a warrant, probable cause, or even any semblance of reasonableness. From

No one working in DoD, the contracting community, or DoJ has any reasonable expectation of privacy. They are public servants, working with public funds, and have an oath to the US Constitution. Their records, computers, private homes may be searched without meeting a high standard afforded to regular American citizens. They are not a "citizen" for purposes of Fourth Amendment protections, but are members of a competing, co-equal branch of government. Once that information related to official corruption is removed from their office and taken to their private homes, they have allegedly engaged in improper classification and storage of that evidence related to unlawful Presidential activity and orders.

It is a misreading for DOJ OLC to presume a "desire" to keep war crimes planning secret automatically means that is a bonafide state secret. The JAGs and Congress have been misled. It is likely the Courts reviewing unlawful war crimes and FISA violations have been similarly misled with false, dubious, and absurd legal arguments relying on this indefensible DOJ OLC memoranda. The government may desire to hide evidence of war crimes, but that desire is not Constitutionally protected, nor can the court recognize that desire as consistent with public policy:

But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.From

It is self-evidence that war crimes planning, which violate the Constitution, cannot be Constitutionally protected. A desire to keep war crimes-related evidence shielded is not a Constitutionally protected desire, but an issue of unlawful war crimes and evidence suppression.

The President and his alleged co-conspirators working for the NSA contractors and legal counsel have not legal basis to demand alleged war crimes evidence, available through open sources, enjoy any expectation of privacy. Their expectation is unreasonable because, as a condition of these war crimes, DOJ OLC memoranda started with the recklessly false premise that Geneva does not apply. If this were true, then that conduct -- devoid of Geneva -- is not Constitutional; and is not entitled to any Constitutional protections.

The reckless error of outside legal counsel is to pretend that they can ignore the laws of war, support war crimes on the false premise that the US Constitution and Geneva do not bind them; but then invoke the very Constitution as a shield from discovering their intentional activity to violate the Constitution and laws of war.

As with the Iran-Contra minority report, Yoo and outside legal counsel would like to pick and choose from the law; yet inconsistently and arbitrarily decide that they are or are not subject to the law and its protections.

Once DOJ OLC memoranda concludes the laws of war and Constitution do not apply to constrain their actions, then they cannot rely on that ignored legal regime as a shield to discovery of that unlawful, war crimes-related activity. The DOJ OLC remoranda does not recognize the law as a leash on their conduct; no one invoking the DOJ OLC memo can invoke that ignored law as a shield. When the leash is cut, the shield is not available to shield evidence of any DOJ OLC-memo-connected actions against American citizens.

DOJ OLC memo is evidence the President is not engaging in good faith discussions of efforts to resolve a problem. Once Geneva is ignored within the memoranda, the DOJ OLC memo becomes admissible evidence of war crimes, available to state and local prosecutors, and grand juries.

The DOJ OLC memoranda forms a reasonable basis to broadly expand alleged war crimes investigations against US government officials, current and formerly assigned legal counsel, and security contractors. It is illegal for the US government, in response to these investigations against them, to invoke exceptions under the DOJ IG rules to block investigations of that alleged war crimes-connected evidence; or engage in additional war crimes against American civilians.

Oppressive lawsuits, designed to burden the public with frivolous litigation, and distract resources from reviewing war crimes against American citizens is inconsistent with public policy. US government and outside legal counsel court filings may be introduced as subsequent evidence of illegal efforts to harass, intimidate, and block lawful discovery of war crimes-related evidence. The original court filings may be evidence of subsequent war crimes by legal counsel against Geneva-protected American civilians. Legal counsel, knowledgeable of Geneva, are on thin ice when they invoke DOJ OLC memoranda, but claim they "didn't realize" their litigation delayed timeline, reasonable, and good faith efforts to conduct discovery on alleged White House-connected war crimes planning.

DOJ OLC Memo Supports American Civilian Detentions at Naval, Marine Installations

DoD has not commented whether it still views DoJ OLC memoranda as controlling. Padilla, as a civilian, was detained by the Navy for a specific reason. Yoo appears to have relied on an exception within the Posse Comitatus Act, and ignored subordinate DoD directives barring Navy and marine actions against civilians.

Guantanamo, under Naval Control, was selected because of an absurd legal reason connected with DOJ OLC discussions with the White House and DoD. Yoo stated Geneva and the Constitution "out of necessity" do not apply to the President. Similarly, DoD needs to explain which services have relied on the DOJ OLC memo. DoD directives may prohibit action, but the President, as commander in Chief, could waive those directives under the DOJ OLC theory:

The Act does not apply to the Navy or Marines . . . and does not prohibit activities conducted for a military purpose that incidentally benefit civilian law enforcement bodies. From

If this is a DoD-led operation under the "rule of necessity", then DOJ OLC likely argued that this is not incidental to anything, but essential. DoD directives prohibit US combat forces against American civilians, including the Navy and Marines. This raises questions:

- How did DoJ OLC/Yoo distinguish between the Posse Comitatus Act and the DoD Directives: Did he argue the Act, "not prohibiting" the the Navy and Marines from domestic activity, means "they can" regardless "lesser" DoD directives?

- Did Yoo, as was done with FISA, claim the President trumps the "lesser" directive:

- Did Yoo only focus on the Posse Comitatus Act, and claim the "lesser DoD directive" was trumped by the Act, leaving open the option for the President to order Marines and Navy combat forces against Civilians?

- What plan did Yoo and DOJ OLC discuss with DoD to transfer non-Marines/non-Naval forces under Naval Commanders, and bypass the Posse Comitatus Act requirements?

- Why would Yoo and others discuss intricate personnel moves to bypass the Directives, yet contract themselves and claim these directives did not apply; why develop contingencies to bypass Geneva when "DOJ OLC established" Geneva was not applicable; if Geneva "didn't" apply "anywhere", why not detain enemy accused terrorists within the United States, and why go to the trouble to hide them in Guantanamo, Eastern Europe, or on Naval Vessels?

- How many American citizens have been detained on floating naval or marine vessels, and are they detained by navy and Marine personnel in violation of DoD directives?

- Why are questions and comments about these programs within the DOJ IG exceptions, barring their investigation?

- Does DOJ AG have no plans to review how many American civilians have been detained by the Navy or marine corps?

- Did Yoo and DOJ OLC use the Posse Comitatus Act -- which fails to include the Navy and Marines -- as the pretext for DOJ OLC to issue memoranda to the CIA and DOD to detain American civilians on floating vessels under Control of the Chairman of Naval Operations, in violation of DoD directives?

- When did CNO first conduct an audit of all prisoners detained on vessels under their command to ensure that there were no American civilians being detained on any contracted ship, floating vessel, or sea-based container with direct or indirect contact with Navy, Marine, or other connection with the Government or contractors?

- When was this certified audit provided to Congress, SecDef, and the DOJ IG for their inspection and independent audit and verification?

- How many American civilians (have been, are now, or are being planned to be) detained by Navy or marine personnel or contractors indirectly or directly connected with the Navy Or Marine Corps?

- Which DoD directives has DOJ OLC said are not applicable when the President orders Marines or Navy personnel against civilians?

DoJ is not likely, after stating the 4th Amendment (Constitution) does not apply to the President, to suggest the President, as Commander in Chief, is bound to "lesser directives".

- What is the nature of the President's secret Executive Order that establishes waivers to whether these DoD directives are or are not enforced?

- As with FISA, why should we believe the affidavits connected with these waivers are lawful, consistent with real evidence, or not based on false statements and affidavits, as FBI agents have made before the FISA court under oath?

- What is SecDef's plan to ensure (a) the abuses DOJ committed before the FISA court, and (b) Presidential "self-certification" by DOJ OG in re FISA abuses, are not repeated by DoD personnel in unlawfully following illegal Presidential orders to commit war crimes against American civilians?

- What inventory has SecDef made of the internal control problems within NSA and DoD that permitted NRO assets to be used to support DoD operations against American civilians?

- When will the audit of the fusion center databases be complete to outline which DoD-connected war planners have accessed this database when planning DoD-led combat operations against American civilians?

DoD said there was a "lower" warrant requirement. DoD legal counsel, working with DOJ OLC, endorsed an illegal standard, less than the Constitution requires.

- What will ensure DoD General Counsel are not permitted to avoid oversight; and issue memoranda, orders, or other legal guidance to bypass the laws of war and US Constitution, and support the use of US combat force against American civilians?

- What DOJ OLC memoranda has been written on the "lawful" use of US combat force, as opposed to "unlawful use"; how was Geneva included or excluded in these two legal issues; when was this DOJ OLC memo provided to DOJ IG and DOJ OPR for their review: Assess whether exceptions to DOJ IG investigations have been abused on dubious claims of "national  security".

DoJ OLC (Circular) Legal Theory: Illegal Actions of Men Trump Precedent, Geneva, and Constitution

As with the FISA violations, the goal posts in the Constitution and Geneva were moved to accommodate DoJ OLC's planned illegal activity. This is a fatal assertion, when taken in light of Yoo's comments about warrantless DoD actions:

Yoo: "The difficulty for Youngstown created by the 9/11 attacks is that the theater of combat now includes parts of the domestic United States"From

Rightly or wrongly, this means Yoo knew or should have known, as an international conflict, that Geneva applied to DoD actions against American citizens. Yoo is invoking "combat on American soil" as the pretext to discard the Constitution, Geneva, and all legal authorities controlling DoD actions. Any law contrary to this was ignored; and any Act, remotely permitting US combat forces against American civilians would be selectively mis-quoted.

This helps support the link between Posse Comitatus exceptions in re Navy/Marines, and the DOJ OLC memo in re DoD warrantless activities against civilians. Yoo should have known his DOJ OLC memo was allegedly "legalizing" war crimes against American civilians.

Here is Yoo's paper arguing Katz is not applicable. Could be read as a (partial) declassified version of his comments on DoD domestic activity against US civilians.

Yoo's law review in re Katz substantially mirrors historical analogies used in his published book: FDR, Civil War. Take note of the case citations in re military and warrants at 59 and 60 in the Katz article, these are likely invoked in the still classified DOJ OLC memo in re DoD use of force without warrants against American civilians.

Yoo declared Geneva not relevant, making ("Renditions from the United States") possible, not prohited, and something Yoo in the DOJ OLC memo would likely say, "There is no law prohibiting the President from doing this to 'terrorists disguised as civilians.'"

This shows the type of selective reasoning Members of Congress, in secret, may have been given to justify rendering of US citizens: The abuse did not rise to torture; and failing to discuss Geneva protections of US citizens.

DoJ OLC crafted memos to bypass warrants, as with FISA, because DoD and the CIA had already seized US citizens. The DOJ OLC memo "permitting" warrantless seizures is retroactive, non-deliberative, and not protected by the deliberative shield.

Fearing an adverse legal consequence means they knew the law applied, but then ignored the legal requirements. DOJ OLC hoped to convince themselves (a) the President was above the law, which they feared; and (b) the law was inapplicable, when it was. DOJ OLC's fear is not linked with an irrelevant standard, but a real legal consequence: A war crimes adjudication.

Shifting Position On Whether Law Relevant

FISA violations, rendition, and DoD domestic operations are linked through a common paradox. Fearing a (seizure, surveillance) warrant might be rejected, they made an excuse to claim DoD did not require warrants.

They've made inconsistent legal arguments, first arguing they were concerned the court might reject a warrant, implying that under FISA or Geneva, the proposed action would be illegal. Then they contradict themselves. Rather than risk judicial oversight or objection, they argued the warrant legal requirement was not applicable.

Paradox: Legal Arguments To Justify Ignoring A Requirement; Yet Fearful Court Might Not Grant warrant

The basis for the DOJ OLC memoranda had nothing to do with a genuine belief the law was not applicable, but the fear the law, when applied, would not go their way. DOJ OLC's job was to confront those who attempted to enforce the law, explain the law away, pretend they were never concerned with the law, and finally claim the President was above the law.

Yawn: President Above An Inapplicable DOJ OLC Standard

DOJ OLC's argument is flawed because their aim isn't wholly to show that the law wasn't relevant (it was), but to conclude the President was above an irrelevant law. The absurdity with this reasoning is DoJ OLC cannot explain why the for President should be respected when his is above (in their view) an irrelevant law. DOJ OLC cannot explain why a claim of power, linked to claiming a law is not relevant, means the President has "more" power. No, the President's power is not enhanced by creating new ways to ignore laws. He has only one source of Power: We the People through the Constitution.

Let's consider an example of a pointless assertion, and how an irrelevant standard could be used to enhance one's asserted prestige. Consider a goat boasting they have not floated into the sun -- an irrelevant, meaningless assertion. The goat might claim that the goat was strong, the sun was weak and incapable of moving them. The goat might argue because of the goat's special status, all other animals were safe.

The goat, without doing anything, has distracted attention from the goat's benign status by pointing to the sun and indirectly discussed gravity; claimed the sun and gravity have no effect on the goat; assigned superiority to the goat relative to the sun and gravity; and claimed other animals enjoyed these benefits because of the goat's status and power The issue is when the other farm animals believe the goat's "ability" is unique or evidence of an inherently superior quality of goats. It's not, just evidence that a convoluted goat can make a convoluted argument and induce others to believe convoluted arguments are evidence of goat superiority.

Let's reconsider the warrants, the law, and judicial oversight. The truth is the law does apply to the President even during wartime. The President and DoJ OLC knew or should have known when the law was applied, the court would likely reject their illegal plan. Prohibiting an illegal option is not the same as claiming the President had not power, only that his power was constrained by FISA, the Constitution, and Geneva. During wartime, FDR and Lincoln did not have the legal or moral authority to wage genocide or crimes against humanity in the name of fighting evil. The President has no power other than those expressly delegated. We are safe not because the President has done anything, but because we have used the law to monitor the President's conduct and arguments. When the law is applied, we can see through convoluted arguments and see the illegal activity. This President is the domestic enemy.

Congress can make rules:

This Court has recognized inherent power in Congress to pass appropriate legislation to "preserve the departments and institutions of the general government from impairment or destruction, whether threatened by force or by corruption.

The President's power is finite:

"the President had acted beyond his power under Art. II" (From: Nixon)

Some on the House Judiciary Committee staff and counsel.

There is evidence within the DOJ OLC memo and legal arguments that rules only applicable to military personnel are being illegally applied to civilians. It is absurd for DOJ OLC to argue Geneva is not applicable; but implicitly argue civilians can be inspected as if they were subject to the UCMJ. The same laws which defend and protect American service personnel, at a minimum, must be afforded to civilians. Civilians may never be expected to assent to any legal regieme which confers fewer protections and greater intrusions than those DoD or DoJ officials are subject. DoD personnel may have volunteered to be subject to the UCMJ; but the COnstitution does not impose that same obigation on non-uniformed civilians, outside the military.

Mukasey illustrates there are many options DOJ OLC gave to the President and DoD to essentially ignore the 4th Amendment.

Creating excuses, out of "necessity" to ignore the law;

Create new excuses, exceptions, and conditions which permit "lawful" DoD warrantless activity, or assert the law does not apply or is irrelevant

Invoke a higher Power in the President to ignore the requirement,

Grant permissible violations,

Refuse to punish personnel who refuse to enforce the Constitutional requirements

Grant waivers or prospective immunity for DoD "necessary" violations

"But Mr. Yoo's contention was that the Fourth Amendment did not apply and that the President was free to order domestic military operations," Feinstein replied.

"Without regard to the Fourth Amendment?"

"Yes."

"My understanding is that is not operative."From

Mukasey also means DoD and DOJ OLC have likely crafted language to "lawfully" expand exceptions to the Fourth Amenmdment.

Mukasey did not say DoD was not conducting domestic operations without regard to the Fourth Amendment. In DOJ OLC language means, "We've given consideration to the 4th Amendment in re DoD, but have found that those requirements do not apply in these exceptions and situations.

Mukasey is saying the DoD actions "without regard to the Fourth amendment" were not being applied. Because the DOJ OLC memo considered the 4th Amendment, and found the 4th Amendment did not apply to DoD, Mukasey, in his view, is correctly reporting to Congress the truth: DoJ OLC, the AG, President, and DoD have carefully given due regard to the 4th Amendment and found them inapplicable.

Arguing over whether there are or are not Constitutional limits, says nothing about whether those limits can be "lawfully" ignored, given exceptions, or "out of necessity" violated:

TPMM: The Washington Post reported last week that the Justice Department "repudiated the idea that there are no constitutional limits to military searches and seizures in a time of war, saying it depends on 'the particular context and circumstances of the search.'"

Saying "it depends" indeed invokes DoJ OLC memos which artfully recast the Constitution as something the President, on his direction alone in secret, can "out of necessity" say does not apply in a particular context and circumstances. Those details, under DOJ OLC view, could be subject to classification, and not subject to either Congressional or Judicial review "out of necessity".

This does not say that the 4th Amendment limits cannot be "lawfully" ignored, given exception, or deemed inapplicable; nor that the President, in secret, can determine that secret exceptions exist requiring new exceptions and waivers to the 4th Amendment.

Recap

The above comment does not mean that this is legal. DoJ AG is invoking very precise language. These are the exceptions under the DOJ IG rules. The President, as was done with the FISA violations, may (in DoJ view) determine that details about a Presidential finding on a DOJ legal issue could be subject to classification. This does not mean that that classification is lawful, nor that DoJ IG does not have a role, only that the President has asserted one of the exceptions to the DOJ IG oversight and investigations requirements applies. This would block the DOJ IG from reviewing.

Mukasey's assertions need to be reviewed in the context of what he is not excluding, leaves open, and does not expressly prohibit. This President and DOJ OLC have, without Congressional challenge, broadly restated the Constitution as a narrow, discretionary document; and broadly expanded Presidential power, on his assertion alone, to say his characterization of the events alone trumps the legislature and Judiciary.

Make no mistake, this President, DOJ OLC and DOJ AG are abusing power, and have broadly created new excuses well beyond what the Framers intended. Congress is wrapped around the axle on the words because it refuses to broadly look at Mukasey's comments as additional evidence warranting an impeachment investigation. As long as the House leadership refuses to confront this President, DOJ AG, and the DOJ OLC, the Executive Branch faces no legal or administrative consequences for their continued assertions that the Department of Defense may "out of necessity" ignore the 4th Amendment. Civilians are not under military command. The military, as the Framers intended, is subject to civilian, legal review. Until Congress leads the effort to impeach the President, and compel the military to assent to civilian rule, American civilians will continue to be subjected to war crimes by this President, DOJ AG, the Department of Defense and these DOJ OLC memoranda.

We've learned from Harman the Congress is reluctant to do detailed legal reviews. The new databases showing Congressional staff counsel salaries well show staffers are paid to provide legal assistance. The question is what return, if any, are the American public getting from those fees to Congressional legal counsel. This Congress wants a foregone conclusion that the President and Department of Defense have committed war crimes, then make excuses to do nothing. The question is how much DoD has substantially violated the Geneva conventions in implementing these programs which abuse American civilians and subject them to military inspections. Congress needs to do more than ask questions, it needs to make adverse inferences, and force the Senate to review this evidence in an impeachment trial. The President, Defense Department, and Attorney General will not cooperate until they are forced to confront the charges.

Sitting Presidents can be prosecuted. The State Attorney Generals, to force the Members of Congress hand, must openly discuss prosecuting Members of Congress for malfeasance in re their oath of office, and alleged complicity with war crimes and Constitutional violations. When Congress wakes up, the President might. Contact your State Attorney Generals, ask them why they have not discussed prosecuting a sitting President, and ask them when they plan to challenge in Court their state's federal officials for alleged reckless breach of their oath of office, and threat to their states' citizens constitutional guarantees.

DoD accessss fusion center data. Unclear who audits DoD access, data, or practices as discovered in the Denver Spy Files. As with contractor abuses in accessing UCLA medical records and passport files, DOJ OLC bypassed requirements by contacting database management to non-government entities. Some US passport data management occurs in Thailand. Security contractors invoke the pretext "counter terror" to impermissibly update, access, and apply the fusion center data in unintended ways.

DOJ OLC supports military inspections of civilians.

Geneva prohibits sigantories from cooperating with illegal trials. Here are the DoJ OLC-sponsored files at Guantanamo, transferred to Afghanistan for trial. There is no physical, admissible evidence. The files are empty, raising further questions what the US has been doing with non-charged prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and other locations.

Empty Prisoner Files

"Confessions/Admissions/Incriminating Statements: None"

"Witnesses: None"

"Physical Evidence: None"

"Photographs: None" From

With unjust rials, DoJ OLC knows or should know the prisoner treatment, after release from US custody, violates Geneva:

"These are no-witness paper trials that deny the defendants a fundamental fair-trial right to challenge the evidence and mount a defense," said Sahr MuhammedAlly, a lawyer for the advocacy group Human Rights First

Information from the Vice President, Yoo, DoJ OLC, and the JAGs do not reconcile with reported abuses and timelines within the FBI and forwarded from DoD personnel to the Joint Staff. Indeed, the Senate knew in 2002 of abuses, but DoJ OLC would have us believe that memos were written before the abuse started. DoJ OLC has not explained why, as part of its review of the abuses, the Senate in 2002 was not provided a copy of these memos, or details about the meetings on abuse, nor timing on the memos, abuses, and Vice Presidential involvement.

The abuse appears to have started before the DOJ OCL discussions with the JAGs. The JAGs are commenting in 2003 on abuses practices which well started. This suggests the memoranda was non-deliberative, but retroactive.

There's an inconsistency. DoJ OLC would ask that we believe the DoJ OLC memos were written before the abuses started, and there were meetings aligning with these DoJ OLC memos:

AP: "If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.

It's questionable whether they had meetings or memos before the abuses started. The tone of the DOJ OLC was speculative. Indeed, Yoo in 2008 would have us believe that the memos were not intended for Iraq, despite his express words in the memo including "Iraq".

All, please beware that the individual who posted this blog posting and all comments,known as TESTING, is known to post unsubstantiated accusations such as this blog posting. He is little better than a spammer and his blog postings are spam at its worst.

While there may be some truth in the posting, it is only surely a result of pure accident on his part if there is so. Testing simply posts things he does not know about and then says because no one has stopped to explain the topic to him and the ins and outs, there must be a conspiracy.

He is no better than ChickenLittle....THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING.