My hope for January, 2009, is that on lowering his hand after taking the oath of office, President Obama turns, points at Bush and Cheney, and says "Arrest those men!" They are then bundled off to The Hague for a war crimes trial.

A grouch can dream, can't he?

America is being led by reckless buffoons who show no regard for civilized behavior. America's leaders are incompetent. It is beyond dispute they are adept at recklessly waging war, destroying nations and corrupting the rule of law. This is hardly a model of governance anyone around the globe might embrace. It defies reason for any legal counsel currently or formerly assigned to the White House to expect anyone to believe they are serious about enforcing the laws of war or fully asserting their oath of office. The evidence before us well supports reasonable conclusions the White House counsel's office and DOJ Staff have incompetent legal counsel who cannot be trusted to fully defend the US Constitution or Geneva Conventions. They've well demonstrated they are reckless and cannot be trusted to continue practicing law. Members of Congress appear to be well served by equally incompetent, lethargic legal counsel.

It is beyond dispute the President and his legal counsel well knew of Geneva requirements. They chose to ignore them. There is no legal basis for anone in the CIA to have destroyed the interrogation tapes. They well knew, or should have known, the AG was concerned about future war crimes litigation. It appears the only reason the CIA tapes were destroyed was to thwart a war crimes investigation the DOJ AG and President well discussed immediately after 2001.

Note the speed the President will use American military combat force against American civilians, and how quickly he will move to violate the law, but how slowly he moves to cooperate with war crimes investigations. The law is either followed, or it is enforced against those who defy the law. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Civilian legal counsel have been implicated in efforts to intimidate American civilians, dissuade discussion of these war crimes issues, and recklessly abuse judicial power to silence discussion about war crimes evidence.

Voters Must Pressure Candidates Now

The three Senators running for the White House -- Obama, Clinton, and McCain -- have recklessly failed to lead as Senators any plan to review these issues in the Senate. They cannot credibly argue they as President can lead: They refuse to confront what is wrong, and cannot point to any plan that will build to what is right.

These revelations raise many issues linked with the White House refusal to permit White House counsel from testifying on the US Attorney firings. These issues below match the same questions related to the US Attorney firings, the White House email retention, and FISA issues: Where was everyone, why was there no investigation, and where's the evidence?

US Attorney Referral . DoJ Appropriate Recusal . DOJ OPR . White House Email Destruction . DOJ AG Mukasey Statements . FBI Statements To Congress . Outside legal counsel . Threats of Arrest . House Refusal To Investigate or Impeach

Today's revelations show the White House and DOJ Officials knew there were war crimes issues, and jointly agreed to not raise these issues. It remains to be understood how this knowledge did or did not translate into appropriate reports to the US Attorney.

It is highly likely some of the decisions to fire US Attorneys related to their internal concerns and repeated efforts to raise war crimes issues. We've learned today it was the Attorney General, who was in charge of the US Attorneys and FBI, who knew of this war crimes discussion, but cannot point to anything that would bolster his defense.

Ashcroft cannot point to any referral he made to the US Attorney or FBI for prosecution or investigation. How he continues to practice law and get contractors to conduct oversight of contractors remains to be understood. It appears we couldn't trust him to do what he should have while the AG. Why should we trust him to do what he refused to do: Fully comply with, and ensure compliance with the law?

The only thing the public has is the opposite: A coordinated effort between the White House legal counsel and outside contractors to allegedly destroy this war crimes evidence.

OVP

Addington's problem under 32 CFR 2800 is he has a personal responsibility to explain what he was or was not doing to retain the OVP legal counsel memoranda related to these war crimes discussion. It's been reported a shredder appeared on Cheney's street. The reasonable adverse inference is Cheney and Addington have coordinated to destroy war crimes evidence despite knowing US prosecutors and investigators had a legal duty to retain, investigate, and prosecute charges relying on that evidence.

Fatal to the President's position are the disclosures about the rendition program and the CIA documents. It cannot be argued the President' didn't know. Rather, the AG's open disclosures indicate the President and legal counsel knew of the legal issues, rebuffed personnel, and refused to ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

This reckless conduct by the AG does not reflect well on his service. Rather, when the enemy learns of this open discussion within the White House, their case is bolstered: Despite knowing the laws of war, the President and his legal advisers supported efforts to violate the laws of war, impose abuse on American citizens, then seek to destroy evidence of that illegal activity. The President might as well have packed his bags and joined the Taliban and AlQueda.

Rather than leading to ensure Americans conduct this warfare in a civilized manner, this President has recklessly ordered Americans to engage in war crimes, and the Congress refuses to challenge this President on those Geneva violations. It is no wonder the enemy is emboldened: This President has time to make jokes about warfare, but no plan to ensure his warriors are competently led.

The AG needs to explain why, when he had these concerns with war crimes, he did not order the FBI to investigate, secure evidence, and work with the US Attorneys to prosecute and present evidence to grand juries. Also, the current FBI director appears to have failed to adequately explain why he, when he knew of these war crimes issues, did not gather that evidence. The FBI directors testimony this week before Congress needs to be revisited:

- When did the President direct him not to raise these issues at any meeting with the Cabinet, DOJ OLC, or the legal counsel at the CIA or DoD?

- Who in the DoD JAG and criminal investigation areas (NCIS, OSI, CID) knew of this illegal activity, but agreed to not investigate, or did not fully secure all evidence related to these war crimes?

- What response did DOJ OPR and DOJ IG get when they learned of these discussions and attempted to investigate?

- How was this AG discussion in the White House documented on the DOJ workflows for follow-up?

- How did the DOJ AG justify ignoring war crimes issues, but support illegal FISA violations against American civilians?

The discussions fatally destroy the legal counsel's statements and credibility. We need to reconsider how former and current White House counsel have or have not been abusing the claim of executive privilege to distance themselves from needed DC Attorney Disciplinary review of these war crimes issues.

Until the DOJ AG and FBI director recuse themselves, and the US Attorneys direct a grand jury to review these revelations, the international community should support the Italian war crimes prosecutors' efforts to prosecute these war crimes. The United States Congress and legal community have not demonstrated to the world legal community they are serious about enforcing Geneva.

Some narrowly argue these White House-discussed war crimes against POWs will only affect military personnel. That is a misreading of Geneva and the US violations. The US has violated Geneva by detaining non-combatants, non-charged civilians, and accused them without trial or evidence of being complicit with illegal activity.

US Government Puts American Civilians At Risk

Other nations might do the same to American civilians: Detain them, not charge them with any crime, but accuse them of being illegal combatants, and subject them to torture and abuse. The United States does not have sufficient military resources to ensure the safety of Americans traveling abroad. As with Israel, the United States is using the lawfully acts of retaliation permitted under Geneva against Americans as the pretext to broaden American targeting against overseas and domestic enemies.

The American government's problem is that it has used US combat force and accusations, not evidence, to target American civilians. This is a subsequent US government war crime against American civilians.

Congress has some explaining to do. This abuse has been known since 2001. It is 2008. That is seven [7] years. The Members of Congress need to disclose whether they have been threatened with arrest or prosecution for discussing this war crimes evidence. It defies reason this many years after the abuses first occurred that Congress refuses to exercise its oath. All promises not to review this war crimes evidence are not enforceable agreements, but evidence of subsequent war crimes by Members of Congress.

Fitzgerald Grand Jury

These are very serious issues. It appears the Fitzgerald Grand Jury was blocked from reviewing material information about the CIA name leak not to protect the Vice President, but to broadly shield all US government employees from being linked with illegal warfare, war crimes, and other breaches of Geneva. The FBI agents appear to be compromised. They appear to have agreed to engage in illegal NSLs to target those discussing this illegal activity; but cannot point to any evidence the FBI might have gathered to enforce the laws of war against DoD and CIA officials.

The American legal community has a problem. It's credibility is zero. It has not been responsive to oversight, questions, or legal requirements under Geneva. New oversight and leadership is needed.

Reckless Military Commander Misconduct, UCMJ

The American military commanders have a problem. They are well versed on Geneva, and have a legal obligation to forward evidence of war crimes. This does not appear to have happened, from the highest levels of the US military, down to the lowest commanders in the junior ranks of the nation's military. There is no excuse for inaction. All military commanders are well versed on the laws of war. They knew they have legal obligations. it is irrelevant what convoluted non-sense they've convinced themselves to do nothing.

It appears the mounting evidence of war crimes is inducing many Americans, lawyers, and military commanders to not refuse, as they should, these illegal Presidential orders. We've already seen nuclear weapons lost. The civilian control of the mlitary has been compromised. Other nations have a reasonable basis to be concerned about the national command authority in the United States, the ability of war fighters to independently review whether they are or are not obeying lawful or unlawful orders.

Reckless DoJ Staff Counsel

The DOJ Staff has been compromised. Rather than quickly respond to war crimes legal issues, we've seen in writing that DOJ Staff plan to gum this to death. That falls well short of the Geneva obligations of legal counsel. That assertion -- that we will gum this to death -- is subsequent evidence allegedly attaching the DOJ Staff, OVP legal counsel, and outside civilian legal counsel to war crimes.

On the table are the war crimes issues, and reckless civilian leadership. Congress refuses to conduct oversight. The military continues to cooperate with illegal activity. The Congress refuses to respond to voters' call for change.

Today's revelations show the basis for White House counsel moving to include language within the Military Commissions Act. Language was included to reward civilian legal counsel for their alleged malfeasance, and fully pay their full legal fees before international tribunals. We've learned the AG well discussed war crimes issues. The concern wasn't that the conduct was illegal, but about the backlash once the illegal activity was disclosed. This shows the AG and DOJ Staff counsel well knew the legal standards, and recklessly refused to immediately investigate and secure evidence.

It is unacceptable that any American be induced to follow illegal orders. But it is more reckless for legal counsel to abuse secrecy, and order DOJ Staff to comply with war crimes orders. This is reckless leadership. These actions embolden the enemy. The correct leadership position would have been to fully comply with the law; and ensure all war crimes evidence was secured and safeguarded. At best, the Guantanamo POWs have empty case files; and the White House had destroyed war crimes evidence. At worst, the White House has illegally used civilian legal counsel to target innocent Americans for attempting to do what this reckless Congress refuses: Safeguard war crimes evidence and investigate Geneva violations.

Going Forward

After the NSA issues surfaced, DOJ OPR reported they were given permission to review classified information and review DOJ Staff involvement with the FISA violations. This week, by COB Monday, DOJ OPR leadership needs to provide to Congress in writing a certification they understand the issues related to the press reports on AG involvement with war crimes discussion in the White House.

DoJ OPR needs to outline for Congress in writing their plan to review this evidence, and what timeline -- before the election -- they will meet to report immediately their findings.

- How did the President and White House legal counsel provide inappropriate direction to DOJ staff, the AG, and FBI to block them from reviewing, commenting on, or reporting these war crimes issues?

- How did the President and AG discuss the JAG's concerns with POW treatment?

- When was the last reported meeting the DOJ Staff had to discuss the feedback from the White House: That these war crimes issues in re POW abuse and rendition should not be raised?

- What orders the DOJ OPR have been given to not review these lines of evidence, who coordinated on those letters in DOJ OPR and DOJ Staff, and the agreements DOJ OPR made to not fully review DOJ Legal counsel compliance or non-compliance with their Attorney Standards of Conduct?

- Once the AG reported these discussions in the White House, what evidence did DOJ OPR not find by way of mandatory US Attorney calls for a grand jury?

- What orders did the President, White House counsel, or other legal counsel issue to the FBI director blocking him from reviewing, investigating, or fully complying with his oath of office to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions?

- Who agreed within DoD and CIA to not cooperate with the required FBI, NCIS, OSI, and CID reviews of these war crimes issues?

- What involvement did the OVP, CIA, DoD, and civilian legal counsel have on the decision to destroy this war crimes evidence showing the DoJ Staff and AG well knew of war crimes, but the President illegally ordered them not to fully assert their oath?

- Once the AG knew the public might be concerned with these issues once disclosed what review did the AG make of watergate when similar DoJ Staff concerns were raised, prompting a grand jury review?

- Why has there been no grand jury review of this evidence; and why have the US Attorneys, as required under Geneva, not immediately called for a grand jury to review this war crimes evidence?

- What is the DOJ OPR plan to review Mukasey's statements to Congress that he has no plans to enforce Geneva?

- In light of the disclosures DOJ Staff, AG, and FBI knew or should have known about these war crimes issues, why is Mukasey's assertion -- that he will not enforce Geneva -- anything which the United State can legally justify before any war crimes tribunal?

- Is DOJ OPR under any threat of arrest, prosecution, or other sanction if they attempt to review any of the above issues?

- Did DOJ OPR get any resistance from the JAGs, DoD public affairs, or DoD or CIA legal counsel when conducting this review?

- Where is the grand jury that the US Attorneys, when they learned of these war crimes issues, should have immediately empaneled?

Tenet Appears To Have Lied

We know Craig Murray of the UK had various rendition documents suppressed. Murray raised concerns, but was suppressed. His concerns resulted in retaliation. Now, we're asked to believe the opposite: That CIA agents raised concerns, but did not suffer any retaliation, but Tenet ran to the White House:

According to a former CIA official involved in the process, CIA headquarters would receive cables from operatives in the field asking for authorization for specific techniques. Agents, worried about overstepping their boundaries, would await guidance in particularly complicated cases dealing with high-value detainees, two CIA sources said. From

It defies reason that Murray would be rebuked, but the CIA agents, supposedly raising these concerns, would prompt the CIA director to go to the White House. Tenet's account does not reconcile with Murray's. It's more likely Tenet was not getting anything new, but merely raising general issues. The FBI and DOJ, according to Ashcroft, were told not to raise the issue; yet, we're asked to believe Tenet still raised the issue.

It doesn't matter if Tenet is lying. He's publicly saying there were meetings, and Tenet has disclosed the reasonable basis for FOIA inquiry into the now-disclosed documents. Tenet, in revealing these conversations shows us the conversations were not deliberative, nor related to legal advice, but post-decisional, and not protected by shield.

Let's presume Tenet is fabricating the meetings. Even if there were no meetings, and the original illegal Presidential orders remained in force, the White House cannot credibly claim these conversations, fabricated or not, are protected. Either the White House can provide evidence confirming Tenet's story; or the original Presidential orders were never questioned, despite Murray's report of retaliation.

This makes Tenet's defense worse and could implicate him in war crimes: For allegedly failing to challenge the activity; and not being able to provide any evidence he attempted to fully enforce Geneva. It appears Tenet hopes to pretend there were meetings, hide those illusory meetings behind a shield, then support the DOJ effort to slowroll disclosure of those non-protected discussions.

It's likely the real focus of the meetings was something else, an issue Tenet hopes to distract attention from. The war crimes prosecutor should ask about the other issues raised at these meetings.

Adverse Inferences

The Tenet report is not credible. The meetings, which should have taken place, have been fabricated. Tenet was not in a position to question the legality of anything: It was his duty to not obey these illegal orders. He allegedly did not question the legality of what he should have known was illegal.

The CIA has fabricated a timeline to pretend CIA agents were concerned about Geneva. The CIA has produced no cables supporting any assertion that the agents were concerned. Without evidence, the reasonable inference is the CIA agents failed to document their concerns, and followed orders they knew or should have known were illegal.

There is no evidence the CIA or CIA contractors asked for additional guidance or were concerned. All legal concerns were answered with, "The President said to do this."

As with the FISA violations, there is no evidence anyone in the CIA was concerned, balked, or objected to these illegal orders.

There is no evidence CIA agents, CIA contractors, or other DoD personnel were concerned about the mistreatment. Even if Guantanamo abuses occurred, the required reporting to the Joint Staff did not spark the expected commander investigations. There is no evidence DoD commanders timely acted as required under Geneva.

CIA agents and contractors were not worried about violating Geneva. They were told GEneva did not apply. It defies reason, in the wake of the DOJ OLC memos in re Geneva, that the CIA would be concerned about a legal standard they were told was not relevant.

There is no evidence the CIA agents waited to commit illegal war crimes. They acted without regard to the rights of POWs. There is no evidence the CIA provided any concerns to the White House.

Until we receive evidence from the CIA, the CIA's assertions cannot be believed. The CIA has provided no evidence it lawfully followed orders directing POW abuse, nor that they received assurances that the orders remained lawful.

It defies reason to believe the White House would tell the FBI not to bring this up, but it would listen to repeated concerns from the CIA about standards the DOJ OLC said did not apply. Tenet appears to be lying to create an illusory pile of FOIA evidence, which the White House would say, "We can't release," thereby delaying criminal investigators, Congress, and war crimes prosecutors.

Tenet's statement should be construed broadly: He's made inconsistent allegations which the White House and CIA have not provided evidence. This jeopardizes the CIA and White House counsel legal position, but is evidence Tenet would like us to believe he considered Geneva, despite DOJ OLC saying it did not apply. It appears Tenet is lying, did not give attention to Geneva, and the CIA agents and contractors recklessly ignored Geneva. This could warrant an upward adjustment for Tenet at sentencing if adjudicated for war crimes (lack of contrition, alleged deception, failure to act, reckless disregard for legal standards, retroactive attempts to falsify evidence and timelines).

The problem for DoJ, the White House, and CIA is the following:

Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

Ashcroft is reported to have been concerned he knew of information from the CIA, that there were discussions in the White House, and DOJ was aware of information from the CIA.

Look at this: White House counsel was saying the opposite, that contrary to the CIA's supposed concern with Geneva, the White House counsel argued the information wasn't going to end up in court:

Well, yeah, I certainly took that on board, but you've got to make a distinction among those three arguments. The notion that the kinds of interrogations that were being conducted of terrorist detainees weren't going to yield evidence admissible in court was seen as completely beside the point, because most of these people were never going to be charged in a criminal court.

It defies reason for anyone to believe the White House counsel's contention was true or valid. If the prisoners weren't going to be charged in court, then the CIA cannot argue that anyone was concerned with Geneva. Geneva would have given the POWs access to courts.

We've already established Tenet was most likely lying. However, even if true, the White House counsel appears to have lied on the record.

We leave it for another day whether the White House counsel was deceptive or has changed their public position on whether or not they had a reasonable legal conclusion of law in re war crimes, POW abuse, and rendition; or whether they are protected by any attorney-client claim on issues of war crimes; or whether the disclosures by Tenet would breach any attorney claim of confidentiality.

The CIA could clear the confusion by providing evidence it was concerned. However, the White House counsel has done a disservice to the CIA: Publicly commented on the issues in alleged misleading terms favorable only to the lawyers, but left the CIA agents out to dry and take the fall. The CIA agents have been betrayed by the White House counsel. This would explain why the CIA agents have been going to the Italian War crimes prosecutor and EU to share evidence of illegal rendition activity in Italy.

White House counsel appears to have invoked an idea of "privilege" to bind the CIA to silence, but the counsel appears to have ignored that silence-agreement and allegedly misrepresented the situation.

Most likely the lack of evidence would implicate the CIA agents, and the White House counsel. The failure of the White House to retain key war crimes evidence, especially by a legal counsel connected with a firm with expertise on data forensics would permit adverse inferences in re war crimes evidence destruction. This could attach to outside counsel and spark a disbarment proceeding.

Here's something interesting, suggesting the objective of the White House wasn't to prevent an attack, but to have something to go to the public after another attack to say, "We even used illegal methods, and weren't able to prevent an attack:

But if you were president of the United States, I think you personally would want to make certain that you had done everything you could to prevent another catastrophic act of terrorism in the event one occurred. You would have to be able to look into the eyes of the American people, the constituents who elected you, who invested you with this enormous power and say to them in good conscience, "I did everything I could, and this happened in spite of all my efforts." From

The President was using the speculation that there would be a successful attack as a pretext to commit war crimes. The real agenda of the White House wasn't to prevent an attack, but to say that they had used illegal methods, but that was insufficient to prevent an attack.

Notice the subtle change. The justification for war crimes wasn't related narrowly to protecting Americans from an attack, but after a successful attack, with a defense of the President before the voters.

However, the President cast the illegal activity in a different light:

"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. From

Bush wasn't connecting any dots to protect Americans, but himself. Bush fully expected another attack. Rather than take efforts to mitigate that risk, he increased these risks by invading Iraq.

Rice was former National Security Advisor, then went to State in 2005. There is emerging evidence that former White House counsel may have misrepresented the extent of State Department involvement.

What's unclear is whether Rice was speaking in the ABC report as National Security Adviser 2001-5, or as Secretary of State after 2005.

ABC:

Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say "

This associate White House counsel left in 2003, two years before Rice becamse Secretary of State:

In general, the State Department was the outlier on a lot of these issues. ... The State Department was consistently less aggressive in treating this as a war than some of the other departments and agencies, and less aggressive in endorsing the implications of treating it as a war. Now, that's not uniformly true. The Office of War Crimes in the State Department, the war crimes ambassador, Pierre Prosper, and people who worked for him really were fully with the program and fully supportive in many of these areas. . . But the lineup when there was controversy was typically the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice on one side and the Department of State on the other, advocating a more lenient or less muscular, less aggressive approach. From">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/berenson.html">From

It appears State was not, as White House counsel would have us believe, acting as a moderating force, but one that expressly advocated illegal activity, war crimes, and a free reign to the CIA.

This is a sample DOJ workflow connected with a public release related to Room 450. Note this is from 1997, but the information shows:

- Required information that was sent, and should have been kept on file to access room 450;

- The coordination that would be possible between OVP, White House, DoJ OLC, AG, and DoJ Staff on briefings;

Recall the lessons of the DOJ US Attorney firing emails: White House political, legal, and public affairs officers are in the loop. Once White House counsel discloses a meeting in the Old Executive Office Building, Room 450, and implicitly reveals there were other meetings there, we have to presume the WH counsel, legal, and public affairs were on the same page.

The only way to efficiently coordinate this is through the WH emails. If those emails are missing, then we have another data point: The objective of the email deletions appears related to war crimes related evidence and discussions which took place with the EOP, OVP, Cheney, White House counsel, CIA legal advisers. This information should be available through the DOJ workflows. Again, if it is missing, it may have been deliberately removed to block a war crimes investigation and the Fitzgerald Grand Jury.

War Crimes Evidence Discovery

The old press release linked above and archived reports the following evidence which should have been either faxed, emailed, or sent through a secure communication channel:

fax their Date of Birth, Social Security Number

This information on the archive data confirms we're talking about Room 450, where these security requirements apply:

2 P.M., Thursday, June 5, 1997 Room 450, Old Executive Office Building 17th and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW

Former WH counsel has a spouse who runs a non-profit in Maryland. Their Social Security Number can be gleaned through this non-profit, via their spouse's identifying information. Her first name is Susie; the non-profit is linked with Bethesda, MD; and the name of this non-profit to distribute grants is believed to be "Many Hands".

War Crimes Evidence Notice

The above is alleged war crimes-related evidence. Any removal, suppression, or obstruction of this information could be material in re the ongoing Italian War crimes prosecutions in re rendition and other alleged breaches of Geneva. The possible consequence for attempting to suppress war crimes evidence may include, under order of a lawful war crimes tribunal, the death penalty.

Sample Data Request:

Using Publicly Disclosed Forms To Trace Discrete Information Within the White House Security Office Related To Alleged War Crimes Planning and Discussions

As you read this, think of a Trojan Horse. In 2005, unknown to the White House, data related to Room 450 was linked with discrete external information of interest to Italian War Crimes prosecutors. The form below is like a tag or Trojan Horse which can be traced through email, fax, and within the existing forms and files of the White House, OVP, and the White House counsel's office.

We will show you how known forms were coordinated with the White House related to Room 450. This known coordination can be used as an analogy to find other data attached to other meetings White House counsel had in Room 450. Those names can then be linked with other information related to other meetings connected with the CIA rendition program.

Note For Italian War Crimes Prosecutor

This outlines for the war crimes prosecutor a possible method to identify the same data related to these alleged rendition-related meetings. The issue is less where the meetings were, than in reminding WH Counsel that there is data outside their control, that would link them to Room 450 and other meetings; but this fax-header-IP information cannot be shielded. The White House, when it coordinated on other meetings related to Room 450, disclosed information that is useful to the War Crimes prosecutor.

The information below shows the war crimes prosecutor a sample known form sent to a specific fax number. This fax number should appear as an incoming fax call to the White House when the summary forms were provided to coordinate this meeting in Room 450 in 2005.

Evidence: Sample Form To Trace Into White House

The Italian War crimes prosecutor should ask to see all copies of these forms, and how they were coordinated with the White House, EOP, and Secret Service:

Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 450 (Pennsylvania Avenue and 17th Street entrance) Washington, DC . GOVERNMENT ISSUED PHOTO ID REQUIRED . Please fill out one form per person attending. Please fax back to 202-296-9236 by Wednesday, May 11. (Please print clearly) . Last Name _____________________________________________ . First Name _____________________________________________ . Middle Initial___________________________________________ . Date of Birth mm/dd/yyyy)________________________________ . Social Security #________________________________________ . U.S. Citizen _____Yes____No . If "no", Country of Origin___________________________________ . Please provide a contact # and email in case there are any changes: . Email address_______________________ . cell #_____________________________ .

War crimes prosecutors will want to see the original faxes sent; and copies of the headers showing the White House understood the incoming fax was from an outside organization. The next step will be to show that these forms, when searched, do or do not produce results.

Each incoming fax can be traced to a sender; and the EOP/OVP IP numbers can be linked with these confirmation messages. The forms will tell us:

- Who should have appeared on the access lists for Room 450;

- Which email should have been sent/received;

- Which fax numbers were involved;

- Which White House/EOP/OVP coordination there was to process these names;

- Whether the data connected with these non-White House entities is related to known gaps within the White House/EOP/OVP files related to Room 450. The above lessons will shed light on the White House counsel meetings in Room 450 on other occaisions.

How To Do This

1. Request copies of the fax numbers, data sent, and the copies of the forms sent to the security office for Room 450, to include the calling information from Houston to DC; and from the DC office into the EOP/OVP Eisenhower facility.

2. The fax numbers originally linked with Houston will appear on the telephone records for the outside organization. Look for the incoming fax records/receipt logs inside the Security office. Compare the records from the sending organization in Houston/DC with those showing faxes have been received. Ask to see the fax cover sheet, and the information on the fax showing the incoming fax number.

3. Request all data related to these fax numbers, to include dates of planned meetings, unscheduled uses of the room, and all other security reviews done when monitoring personnel access to Room 450.

4. Compare the list of meetings for Room 450 with the list of names of White House counsel accessing those meetings; and all meetings where CIA, DoD, and State Department personnel met in the Old Executive Office Building, room 450.

5. Obtain a second list of all White House personnel, DOJ OLC legal counsel, and all DOJ, DOD, and CIA personnel who are reported to have briefed the Vice President on the overseas rendition.

6. Compare the names on the Room 450 access lists connected with these known fax numbers, with the list of names in the EOP/OVP legal counsel's office.

7. If the names do not match, then you know they were holding meetings in other locations; or the records with the White House counsel's names on them have been removed.

WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!

All beware the poster of this blog is a known spammer on TPM that throws unsubstantiated allegations on the news blogs that link to his unsubstantiated rants on this blog.

If you chose to leave a comment on his blog that does not agree with his conspiracy driven dribble, the blogger will in turn attack you. He has a history of flaming people throughout the TPM site.

He rants that anyone that disagrees with him is somehow connected to the DOJ, attempting to spread misinformation since the poster does not agree with him, attempts to connect the poster to another poster in a means of discrediting him/her, or attempts to claim the commenter is violating TPM policy for posting a divergent point of view.

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.

Proceed at your own risk.