Our job as American citizens is to lay the foundation in May 2008 to confront President McCain. Our job does not start when he becomes President. Our agenda does not respond to him, his policies, or his timelines.

This thread is intended to generate some discussion on what can be done now, in May 2008, to broaden the lawful, focused, and broad based opposition to Bush III, President McCain. This thread attempts to answer,

Two Questions

What specific plan will mobilize the American public to confront President McCain and the other two Senators on issues of war crimes; or is this impossible using TPM discussion threads;

What lawful, non-violent methods are required to confront the three candidates on their failure, as Senators, to conduct war crimes investigations.

Or, is this legal requirement only one TPM posters must follow as a term of use, but will not be enforced against US government officials?

Comments

The next President will be Senator McCain. Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have not made the case in the Senate that they are serious about enforcing Geneva. They should use their time now to assert power in the Senate, not wait for another excuse to do nothing. The common issue is: They are Senators. As Senators, each can and should speak in the Senate on any topic. The Senators are not now discussing war crimes issues, nor have they exercised leadership to investigate war crimes. It’s their job.

Our job as American citizens in May 2008 is to remind the Senators that they should debate each other, now, on the Senate floor. Their job is to outline what they, as Senators, will do to lay their foundation in the Senate for a plan to lead. When they show they can implement that plan as a Senator, then we might take seriously whether they will, as a Senator, develop a plan to lead the country.

American citizens and voters should reasonably expect the Senators to take the floor of the Senate; all three of them, at the same time, and have an open debate. Their job is to discuss the mess this US government has on its hands, and what they – now, in May 2008 – plan to do as Senators to confront this mess, and what they as Senators – now, in May 2008 – plan to do as Senators to conduct oversight, as Senators -- now, in May 2008 – to gather facts, and implement a plan to solve this mess.

The time for promises needs to end. The time for distant dreams needs to be put on hold. The there senators need to stop promising. They need to act, as Senators, to show, discuss, and demonstrate that they will confront reality, discuss in the Senate well their plan, and then from the Senate floor, direct others to support those plans.

The American public has been given nothing but promises. Each of the three Senators does not have to wait. Americans need advocates. Now. Not promises. The three Senators don’t need more power to do anything. They, as Senators, have the power to go to the Senate floor, outline their plan, and direct others to follow them.

They don’t need to wait until 2009. The public can reasonably expect the three Senators to demonstrate their leadership. Now. In May 2008. From the Senate Well.

Confronting President McCain

President McCain’s agenda is to protect his friends who have allegedly committed war crimes. These are serious issues of international criminal law.

The three Senators need to explain now – in May 2008, from the Senate Floor – their plan to organize themselves, their peers in May 2008 – to confront President McCain.

Yes, Senator McCain needs to be part of this debate. His job, now as a Senator, is to discuss what he is or isn’t’ doing about these war crimes. None of the candidates as Senators have provided leadership to confront the evidence Each Senator has implicitly deferred to the Speaker of the House. Her solution is to do nothing. That is not an option.

Each of the three Senators has now – in May 2008 – a legal obligation under the Geneva Conventions to enforce the laws of war. None of them have stated nor implemented a plan now in May 2008 to start this confrontation. There is no excuse.

Our job as American citizens is to remind President McCain that we started the discussion in May 2008, and he refused to respond. That is not our problem. His inaction is evidence of Geneva violations. He does not have that option. Neither does the Attorney General. When President McCain informs us that he plans to continue with Attorney General Mukasey, nobody should be surprised.

Our job now in May 2008 is to lay the foundation to broaden the lawful, non-violent confrontation with this reckless DOJ Staff and alleged war crimes of the Attorney General: His stated policy not to enforce the laws of war.

This US government must either enforce the laws of war; or it will not. The latter is not lawful; the former is an obligation. The there Senators must outline what they as Senators will do – now, in may 2008 – to implement the needed plan to start now – in May 2008 – to confront the Attorney General, gather evidence of war crimes, and understand how the reckless DOJ OLC staff got away with supporting war crimes.

We don’t need the three Senators talking about what they might do for social needs. Those will pale in comparison to the looming problem. If the US government will not end war crimes, all Americans could be subjected to retaliatory attacks. America’s military is insufficient to protect us. The way forward is to remind the international community – now, in May 2008 – that we take seriously these war crimes, and have a plan to confront them.

Now. In May 2008. From the Senate Floor.

The public needs to see some leadership in the Senate to confront the legacy of Bush II. Signing statements, illegal DOJ OLC memoranda, reckless staff counsel intimidation, and FBI abuses are expected to continue under President McCain until 2013. That’s four and a half more years.

The time to develop and start our lawful, non-violent confrontation with President McCain must start now.

Specific Areas To Discuss

War crimes will prompt the DOJ Staff and GOP to engage in more abuse of power. Their goal will be to destroy evidence, attack those who dare to challenge war crimes, and abuse the power of the Executive branch to remain immune from accountability.

It is foreseeable President McCain and others will expand illegal combat operations as a smokescreen. Their aim is not to solve problems, but to create bigger misdirection. President McCain and the DOJ OLC will have to be confronted to provide their rationale for expanding illegal warfare from Iraq into Iran, without sufficient military resources.

Our job as American citizens in May 2008 is to confront the Members of Congress and ask them to respond – now, in May 2008 – what they plan to do to address their betrayal of 2006. They promised many things. They did not deliver. They need to show, with actions – now, in May 2008 – that they have a plan to confront Senator McCain who is expected to continue as President the same policies.

Senator McCain needs to make the case – by pointing to specific plans he has implemented in the Senate, going forward from May 2008 – that he is going to support something, and work to confront war crimes, the DOJ OLC staff, and ensure illegal warfare ends.

The three Senators must outline what their plan – now, as Senators – plan to do to ensure there is improved oversight of the Iraq combat operations. Congress has shown deference to the President, not challenged the President, but has largely rubber stamped policies. No American should take seriously any promise of change. The Senators, despite their oath of office and promise to enforce the Constitution, are largely taking a hands-off approach to combat operations.

Visits to Iraq are meaningless. The Senators need to show they are leading – now, as Senators in May 2008 – to implement a new policy, gather evidence in public of options, and lay the foundation to take us in a new direction.

Neither of the Senators has spoken from the Senate well about their specific progress along these plans to confront the recklessness in Iraq. There is no excuse. We need specifics. Not words, not promises, not hand waving. Something concrete that they as Senators – now, in May 2008 – have accomplished as Senators to gather facts, implement a new policy, and assert power as Members of Congress.

The Senators have status, as leadership in the Senator, to assert Article I powers against the President. None of them have led the Senate to act as a co-equal of this President. The three of them are acting as something lesser than a co-equal branch of government.

The Senate is different than a Senator. But the Senate can and should make way for the three Senators to discuss their plan and progress in confronting now – in May 2008 – these war crimes issues.

President McCain will have spent many visits in Iraq, yet he’s not pointing to something he, as a Senator, did to confront the war crimes.

The three Senators know the Geneva Conventions. The US, as an occupying power, has the obligation to safeguard Iraq. Neither of the there Senators has directly discussed this war crimes issue. All three of the Senators have not led the Senate to confront this President. Nobody should believe they – any of them – will understand what the President must do to stabilize Iraq. As Senators, they have not taken the time to openly discuss the legal problem, much less implement a plan in the Congress to challenge the President.

The DNC has the majority of the Congress. The GOP, despite being the minority, still is bale to introduce amendments blocking oversight of DOJ OLC. The DNC must explain why, despite this option to block things, the DNC since 2001 did not block the illegal Patriot Act, Habeas destruction bill, and unlawful NSLs.

The only reasonable conclusion is the Senators did not fully assert power. This must end. The Senators – all three of them – must fully assert power, lead the Senate, and demonstrate to the public they are serious about leading, using the power they do have.

When the Senators are showing that they – as Senators, in May 2008 – can confront these war crimes, and realign the Senate approach to war rimes, the public might believe they’re serious about contemplating change. But they refuse.

The DNC Members are poised to defect. To reject either Obama or Clinton, and rubber stamp more war crimes, no oversight, and the McCain Presidency.

American citizens were promised change. The DNC plans to deliver President McCain to the Oval Office. No American should be surprised by the DNC’s agreement to support these war crimes. They refused to block them in the Senate when they had the chance. Their feigned powerless as a majority; yet the real minority acts as if it can block the DOJ IG from independently reviewing alleged DOJ OLC war crimes.

This is absurd, reckless, and does not communicate to the world America is serious about war crimes or the Geneva Conventions.

Our job as American citizens now, in May 2008, is to prepare for more of what the DNC and GOP have done since 2001: Not do anything about our treaty obligations, and refuse to start investigations, much less prosecutions against, US government officials. Until the war crimes issues are confronted, the American civilian population under the principle of retaliation might be subject to similar Geneva violations. America would be a transformed place.

The luxury we have now of discussing higher gas prices will be a distant memory. We will have the real threat of seizure, capture, and punishment as enemy combatants. On accusation alone. Without trial, And no chance to exercise our rights as civilians.

Neither of the Senators have a plan as a Senator to manage the Geneva-permitted acts of retaliation. Our job as American citizens is to decide what must be done as these war crimes are not confronted.

The Constitution is the guiding document and framework. Our job as American citizens will be to put the Constitution first, despite the US government’s defensive posture on war crimes. Our job is not to defend what is illegal, but to enforce the law against those who support illegal activity.

The proper focus for American citizens is not overseas, but on the US government. The three Senators and both leading parties are not fully exercising leadership. They have no experience in standing up and asserting power on war crimes. They‘re doing nothing. Each American should expect their reckless inaction as Senators to continue.

Until. They. Change.

America doesn’t need to change. America’s leadership, now in May 2008, needs to change it’s attitude, and lead.

The DNC excuse of 2006 was that they were in the minority. Now that they’re in the majority, they blame the minority. Now the GOP minority is doing things the DNC, out of “restraint” refused to do: Block legislation.

They’ve had the chance to block illegal activity, but keep rubber stamping appropriations for it. No American should believe they’re going to change. They’re not changing. The 2006 promise was a sham, as is the promise from all three senators to change.

Change isn’t something we talking about in the future. It’s something we do, embrace now, and implement.

The three Senators must lead. They must change. They must confront war crimes – now, in May 2008 – as Senators against this President.

Each of the Senators could draft voting statements, outlining their plan, and showing which fellow Senators will support their war crimes investigations. That hasn’t happened. That’s not change.

Each of the Senators could go to the well of the Senate, and discuss – without fear of legal consequences – this President’s war crimes, and the required investigations that they are doing to gather facts. This hasn’t happened. They haven’t changed.

The three Senators have enormous power in May 2008. One of them will be looking at the other two wishing they had done something in May 2008. Two of them will not motivate the DNC to vote for them.

At least one of the Candidates can be assured of DNC support. The question is whether the DNC is serious about change. It is not.

Stop talking about what might happen in 2009. Let’s see some leadership, and progress, now in the Senate, on these war crimes.

The Senate is a separate chamber from the House. The Senate is not obliged to wait for the House to review war crimes. It is irrelevant to the Senate that the Speaker has refused to impeach. The Senators can now in May 2008 lead, gather evidence of war crimes, and make a case that the public should support action in the “other” chamber. That hasn’t happened. This isn’t change. The three Senators have become an Administrative Arm of the House. They do not show leadership. They show noting but excuses to not fully assert power.

The public needs to see the three Senators change. Now, not promise to change in 2009. Let’s see some real war crimes investigations. If they cannot get these war crimes investigations going, then the public should reasonable conclude the following: Despite a promise for change, the three Senators are not willing, interested, able, or inclined to remind their peers in the Senate of the Geneva obligations.

The three Senators must report to the public why their peers in the Senate will not fully support war crimes investigations – now, in May 2008 – and gather evidence about Geneva violations. They cannot use the excuse of elections. They have a job. Now, in May 2008 to fully assert their oath. The three Senators have not done their job under the Geneva Conventions.

Their duty is to explain to the public who or what is getting in the way of them fully asserting their legal obligations. Those Senators who refuse to permit war crimes investigations need to be challenged. In public. And evidence needs to be developed to prosecute these Senators for alleged refusal to enforce the laws of war, conduct investigations, or fully assert their oath.

The three Senators in the well of the Senate must show they are serious about the Geneva requirements. Two of the Senators should stop acting like they might do something; and they must show, now in the Senate, what they are doing. Two of them will not be President. President McCain has not been challenged as a Senator. He must be. The DNC cannot explain why the plan to support President McCain. One possible answer is the DNC is not serious about war crimes.

Then America should not be serious about this US government. Our only obligation is to the US Constitution. This US government is different than the US Constitution. The Constitution requires enforcement of the Geneva Conventions as a treaty obligation. This US government is not interested in obligations, but excuses. All three Senators point to 2009. Neither of them is using their existing legal authority or power now, as Senators, to lead an effort to challenge this President. They refuse. There is no prospect they are going to challenge President McCain.

Their excuse is it is difficult. It will be far more difficult to explain to American civilians why their homes have been destroyed, their lives turned upside down, and their friends killed. But the devastation of Katrina is lost on these there Senators.

Once the world sees President McCain is not serious about Geneva, and Senator Obama and senator Clinton still have no plan to challenge war crimes, the world community may – under the Geneva Conventions – engage in retaliatory strikes and combat operations against the Untied States. On accusation alone, American citizens may be detained as “unlawful combatants”.

The devastation of Katrina will pale in comparison to what the world community is preparing and actively discussing: Open combat operations on the American heartland.

May 2008 is the time to decide whether you want to support enforcement of Geneva; or be subject to retaliatory attacks. Geneva is not going away. If you avoid it, other nations will force you to refocus.

It would be preferable if the three Senators led, as Senators, now in May 2008, efforts to confront Bush II for his war crimes. Seeing no action, the public should reasonably expect and plan for a failed US government response to these foreseeable Geneva enforcement actions.

>i>What Americans Must Plan For

Combat operations are difficult to endure on the front line. As a civilian, they are more troubling. There are fewer resources, and civilians are not equipped to quickly respond to combat fatalities, mass destruction, and the destruction of water supplies.

We’ve seen what American governance has brought to occupied people in Iraq. We should not expect an occupying power to do any better for America. Geneva does not time solve the real problem of putting fresh water into your homes.

American civilians must discuss in May 2008 our plan to work through this chaos, and develop something that will support some semblance of law and order. The challenge will be to remind your neighbors that things will get better. That is no different than the promise of the three Senators. However, it will be more difficult for civilians to deliver on a promise. The easier approach would have been to compel the Senators to deliver as Senators. The three refused. They would prefer American civilians deliver on government promises.

The three Senators are communicating that they are not serious about leading in the Senate. They are jointly deciding that they will not, as Senators, debate in the Senate Well to challenge either the President or the House. Congress is divided to prevent the legislature from becoming too powerful. But that division does not oblige the Senate to inaction on war crimes.

The Promise

The three Senators have failed to work within the existing US government system to effectively lead enforcement of the laws of war. The world community reasonably concludes that the American model of governance, despite its strengths, is fundamentally flawed. It cannot deliver relief to victims, and it cannot deliver on its promise for the common good.

The three Senators are part of the problem: The US government.

Our job, outside government, is to discuss now in May 2008 what must be done to challenge President McCain. We know the US government is the problem. So is President McCain. We know this in May 2008. We don’t have to wait to be disappointed. Our job is to remind the Congress that we remember their betrayal of 2006. Change isn’t something either of the senators delivered as Senators. They told us to put up with war crimes. That’s not an option.

Our job is American citizens is to accept what we have: Three Senators who have no plan to lead as Senators to enforce Geneva. Our job is to gather evidence of their refusal as a basis to prosecute them as Senators and President. All three of them are allegedly complicit with these war crimes. All three could object to funding that implements war crimes; they could object to any bill that refuses to fully enforce the laws of war.

This isn’t a problem of the President. This is a problem of the excuses to not confront war crimes, and of the three Senators refusal to lead in the Senate to confront this President. They choose not to fully assert their oath. Their job is to explain their refusal.

Our job is to take off the political gloves, and confront the three senators – now, in May 2008 – what they plan to do – now, in May 2008 == to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Which bills are they going to object?

Which Amendments, if not included, will prompt them to refuse to permit consideration of a bill?

Which nominations will they refuse to support until these war crimes issues are confronted?

Why are they supporting any judicial nomination, but are not supporting investigations of war crimes?

How do they explain a vote for a judge, but not vote to support a war crimes investigation?

They have the power. They refuse to assert it. Their promise of change or leadership is meaningless. Our job is to accept there is no change. We must be that change. We must, by example, show we are willing to prosecute the President, Senators, and Representatives who refuses to enforce the laws of war.

The change means putting the US government second, and putting the US Constitution first. Change means assert our powers, which have not been delegated to the US government, and we retain.

These are not rights. These are powers of We the People. We never delegated them. No court can take them away; and no court has to agree that we do or do not have these powers.

We have the power to gather evidence of war crimes.

We have the power to confront reckless, incompetent DOJ OLC legal counsel and conduct open discussions of their alleged complicity with war crimes.

We have the power to broadly assert all powers we retain to defend the Constitution against these there Senators, against this reckless DOJ OLC legal counsel staff, and against this President and his reckless legal counsel.

We have the power, right, duty, and requirement to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Either the three Senators lead now an effort to fully enforce the laws of war, or we the people must assert out power against them, and defend this Constitution from their continued policies of inaction.

Either the three senators lead now in May 2008; or We the People must assert our power, not just our rights, to declare and lawfully, non-violence confront these domestic enemies. They are either with We the People and the Constitution; or they shall be confronted. Either they lead as Senators; or We the People shall lead them to the evidence and their prosecutions.

Their promise was to change. Our power is to impose that change. Our power is not a promise. It exists. It cannot be taken away. We the People outnumber the three. They show as Senators they are not inclined to do anything, but promise. The power and act of one trumps the promises of many.

The lawful, non-violent actions of many trump the promises of three, and their legacy of inaction. Their error is to believe they can promise, but not deliver, now – as Senators – what they must deliver: Leadership to enforce the laws of war. Now.

For Your Consideration

You are not obliged to do anything. You must decide whether you are going to do nothing, support the efforts to defend the Constitution from these three Senators, work with others, or actively oppose these efforts. You are free to do what you want.

On the table is the plan to continue working with the State Legislators, to find one group marginally interested in the rule of law, and which will support an impeachment proclamation under House Rule 603. Vermont’s Senate as passed one such resolution. There is proven process. The rules are known. Foreign powers will ask whether citizens did or did not fully assert their power to confront this President and Congress using House Rule 603. Our power remains on the table.

Either the three Senators confront these war crimes issues now in may 2008, or the House Rule 603 effort will be broadened to confront the three Senators for alleged complicity with, and refusal to enforce the laws of war. Either the Senators do it; or the State legislators shall. Vermont knows what is at stake. Vermonters are leading, while the three Senators are not.

Our job as citizens is to discuss these war crimes issues with our neighbors and discuss the type of government that we would prefer. This dose not mean we support violent revolution or illegal activity. It means we retain the belief that enforcement of the law against reckless, incompetent DOJ OLC legal counsel remains a requirement, not an option. Where the Senators will not object to bills that refuse to permit DOJ IG war crimes reviews of DOJ OLC, the public is not obliged to wait. We can do it through lawful tribunals.

The NSA litigation shows the US government cannot stop efforts to enforce the law. The states are not obliged to follow the US government or these there Senators are they refuse to enforce the laws of war. Our job as Americans is to do what the Senators refuse to even promise: Enforcement of the laws of war. They took their oath, but their oath obviously – in their mind – doesn’t include the Geneva Conventions. They are faulty.

Neither of the Senators is fit to be trusted as Commander in Chief to comply with the Conventions: Neither of them will, as Senators, lead an effort to enforce the laws of war in the lowly Senate Chamber. There is no prospect that any of them will take seriously that which they refuse to respect, understand, or take seriously. Neither will President McCain. We make no comment on why, a man abused as a POW, is not leading an effort in the Senate to ensure American abuses are prosecuted or investigated. His legacy from Vietnam is admirable, as is his son’s service. However, American citizens cannot permit any Senator to rest on laurels from a bamboo hut, when the American government and this Senate burn the laurels lining the laws of war.

Our obligation to the Constitution now in May 2008 is to develop a modernized system of governance that will ensure this abuse of power does not happen again; and that the three Senators are timely prosecuted for their alleged complicity with and refusal to enforce the laws of war. Anyone who says the three deserve an exception must explain why that exception should apply to them, but not to American citizens.

American citizens are being abused for crimes others committed on 9-11. yet, it’s the three Senators who are silent on this abuse, and refuse to constrain Executive Power. Rather than lead in the Senate to enforce the laws of war, all three Senators –by their inaction – refuse to end the abuses against American civilians.

Americans are not convenient targets to abuse. We are the Sovereign, the source of power. The three Senators refuse to assert power to enforce the laws of war. Then Americans must discuss revoking their discretion to avoid war crimes, and either create a system that will enforce the law against them for that inaction; or remove the option of inaction from the Senate. That power could be delegated to someone else.

The House and Senate “may” establish rules. That does not mean that they have exclusive powers to establish rules. The Constitution leaves open the option that someone else or another group may establish, and enforce rules imposed on the senate and the House. Self-governing bodies lose the right to compel others to believe there are legitimate when they refuse to fully enforce the laws of war.

This Constitution is not something we can ignore, nor the Geneva obligations. It remain in full force until revoked, Amendment, or altered. The three Senators are working under a clearly established Constitution, with the oath of office binding them to enforce treaty obligations. They must show – now, as Senators – their progress in showing they are interested in remaining bound to the law, not to the promise.

American should be cautious. Your job is to decide whether you want to be with Senators who promise one thing, and do not deliver; or whether you want to work now to confront President McCain; or whether you want to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. The issue which is not going away are the war crimes. The burden is on the Senate to make the case that it remains a self-governing body, and is functioning to fulfill its’ Constitutional mandate. The there Senators have the mandate to lead, but they refuse. Inaction will inspire the DNC to support President McCain.

You must decide whether you want to discuss options, or whether you want to leave the leadership to those who might.

Confronting The Senators

The Senators must be confronted on why they have not made bills conditioned upon amendments that would require the Senate to investigate.

The Senators must explain why they have no asked for, and why they have agreed to do nothing about war crimes.

The Senators must explain what reaction they received when they raised these war crimes issues with Senior Senators, and why the Senate Committees have not visibly, publicly, and loudly called on witnesses to directly investigate war crimes.

The Senators must explain their plan, now as Senators, to enforce Geneva and investigate now as Senators illegal war crimes by this President, Vice President, and others.

The Senators must explain why they are not attaching to all bills Amendments calling on the Congress to investigate these war crimes.

The Senators must explain why the minority party in the Senate can attach amendments to bills that block DOJ IG jurisdiction to investigate DOJ OLC staff counsel; but the DNC Majority will not attach amendments that require DOJ IG jurisdiction to investigation DOJ OLC staff counsel.

The Senators must explain why the minority party in the Senate is blocking war crimes investigations, and the majority party is not making the minority party cooperate with enforcement of Geneva Conventions.

The Senators must explain what is getting in the way of them enforcing the laws of war, conducting investigations, and gathering evidence of these war crimes.

The Senators must explain why they have not gone to the well of the Senate and independently called on the Senate to lead a war crimes investigation.

The Senators must explain why they appear to be bound the Committee decisions to not investigate war crimes, and explain why they are not independently discussing, debating, and reviewing war crimes evidence on the floor of the Senate.

The Senators must explain which rules, precedent, procedure they feel bound that are preventing them from starting this war crimes investigation;’ and explain why there have not been requests for exceptions or suspension of these supposedly limiting rules, precedents, or procedures on war crimes.

The Senators must explain why, despite their inaction on war crimes in the Senate, why anyone should believe they have a plan to confront these war crimes as President: How do they explain the inaction; but the promise for change – why aren’t they changing now?

Specific Things You Can Do

Demand the three Senators running for President explain what they are doing to now change in the Senate.

Request the Senators discuss their reasons for not having a three-Senator debate on the floor of the Senate to discuss their positions, policies, and plans as Senators to confront these war crimes.

Contact your local political office, and courage the volunteers working for the Obama, Clinton, and McCain Presidential bids to forward to the Main Office Headquarters this suggestion: That the three Senators conduct an open debate on the Senate floor on issues of war crimes; and explain the progress of their plans, -- now, in May 2008 – of their review of these war crimes issues.

Remind the candidates that their decisions, actions, and progress on war crimes has bearing on whether they will or will not be credible in leading change to enforce the laws of war, Geneva Conventions, and Nuremberg precedents.

Discuss with your local city, municipal, and county prosecutors their plans to prosecute a sitting President for war crimes.

Document the responses you receive from the candidates and the Department of Justice on whether they will or will not enforce Geneva against this sitting President.

Continue monitoring the actions of DOJ OLC legal counsel, and prepare to support war crimes indictments against the DOJ OLC legal staff.

Safeguard war crimes evidence.

Review the Geneva Conventions prohibiting any effort that would block enforcement of the laws of war, evidence destruction, or intimidation against witnesses to war crimes.

Remind your friends that until the US government enforces the laws of war through impeachment or prosecutions, the State Attorney Generals must continue their efforts to enforce the laws of war against US government officials.

Remind your friends of the oath of office, which binds elected officials to Geneva, and creates a legal obligation on them to enforce the laws of war.

Discuss rules your states may pass to oversee, discipline, and remove Members of Congress.

Support your state legislator’s staff efforts to discuss House Rule 603, and tailor the proclamations to include the laws of war, and charges related to the Geneva Conventions.

Challenge the Senators to show they are leaders now in the Senate, and remind the Senators the public needs to see progress and results on the laws of war now in the Senate, not vague promises after 2009.

Remind your friends and the candidates at the federal, state, and local level they must choose between the Constitution or lawlessness. They have a duty to fully enforce the laws of war, not make excuses for inaction.

Remind your friends that members of the United States government, including active duty CIA agents have broken ranks with DOJ OLC staff counsel and are working with war crimes prosecutors and international fact finders to enforce the laws of war against US government officials.

Discuss with your friends the problems you see which could be solved with more effective leadership, and discuss the solutions you would like to see in how the US government is managed, overseen, disciplined, and lawfully punished to ensure this abuse of power does not repeat itself.

Support efforts to remove Pelosi as Speaker, and make way for a Speaker the GOP and DNC will support that will challenge the President and Vice President, and lead the way for effective enforcement of the laws of war.

Work with your friends to support candidates who solve problems and understand the Geneva Conventions, and are not making excuses to do nothing. It’s their job to lead, not throw up their hands. The American public and Geneva Conventions are not going away.

This Is Not Going Away

Neither of the candidates is required to respond. If directly asked about why they are not doing anything in the Senate, they are likely to say that it is the committee’s decision. Your job is to ask them why they have not raised this, as a Senator, outside Committee in the well of the Senate. There is nothing that restrains them. They are free to speak, without fear of punishment, on any topic. Their silence and inaction is not change, but more of the same.

The DNC’s problem is the pre-stated decision of many voters to reject either Clinton or Obama. This decision would block an effective war crimes debate, and ensure President McCain can point to “the mandate” of inaction. Yet, without confronting the war crimes issue, the American public fails to communicate to world powers that we take our Geneva obligations seriously. When they see that, they don’t need to either. The direct risk to American civilians is that other powers may engage in like violations. Where the US government has, without evidence, detained civilians as “enemy combatants,” foreign powers might do the same. The DNC needs to explain why they would like to keep this option on the table.

The Senators must be treated with utmost respect. They are leaders within their parties. However, our job is to outmaneuver them, and ensure we clearly communicate to them, our peers, and the world community that we take these Geneva obligations seriously, and we are willing to take lawful action to oversee this US government. Our job is difficult: TO do what the leadership in the Congress and Executive Branch refuse to do: Confront reality, discuss our concerns, outline some plans, gather information, and discuss what we believe the real problems are.

When we agree that we can solve this problem—outside Government – we’ll be making progress. No one can argue this will be anything but difficult. However, the alternative – more tyranny and the risk of attack from abroad -- is unacceptable. It would be preferable to start doing now what is difficult, than wait and attempt to oppose what we already have: Tyranny. The domestic enemy is here. It’s time to confront it. Now. The three Senators must decide whether they are going to lead the assault on tyranny, or be swept up in the war crimes prosecutions. Either way, the Geneva issues are not going away.

Your Job

It’s your job whether you want to be a passive observer, share your views, pretend someone else might have a better idea, or spend your time on something more important than the Constitution.

The case cannot be made, especially when the US government will not put the US Constitution first, that the public can put it second.

No one can argue they have a better idea, as we hear nothing from the Senate or candidates which is better, nor a novel idea. They give us silence, or excuses. That is not leadership in the Senate.

Nothing is stopping you fro sharing your views.

The only question is what will motivate you to be something other than a passive observer. It would be easier if you were to get involved, share your views, but it is not required. However, on US government, state, and local officials it is mandatory. Until we look at this job as a requirement on us, we will not have the resolve to convince others it is their duty to fully assert their oath.

By example we should aspire to do the job the Senate refuses: Lead the effort to investigate these war crimes, challenge the DOJ OLC, and organize information for war crimes trials. Yes, the Senators may take the credit but that is no excuse to avoid what must be done.

Confronting President McCain

President McCain and Attorney General Mukasey are expected to not enforce the laws of war. Our job now in May 2008 is to convince him to go on the record as a Senator his views of Geneva. He must explain why he refuses to enforce the laws of war as a Senator. As President, he should not be expected to do any different. His loyalty is to his party, not the Constitution. If he put his loyalty the Constitution first, we would see war crimes investigations. There are no investigations. It defies reason to believe he puts the Constitution where it should be: First.

Some have suggested its Un-American to confront a former POW. It’s un-American not to confront a POW who knows first hand the importance of Geneva, but refuses to ensure the conventions are upheld. His service while in the NAVY is beyond debate. However, as a Senator, he is free from the confines of the Department of Defense, and he is in a separate branch of government.

There is no excuse for him, as a Senator, to not break ranks with the President and DoD, and lead the effort to personally enforce the laws of war. Indeed, he is a POW, a war veteran, and a navy combat pilot. But that does not mean he is above enforcing the Geneva Conventions against his peers. He cannot rely on his legacy as a POW to continue supporting policies which achieve the same result: Defiance of the laws of war. He may have had some moral currency when running for the Senate, arguing that he as a POW knew the importance of Service. But it’s time we see that service put into action, not the promise of action. It’s time for the Senators to be challenged. A former POW is not above being challenged. Neither is any other US government official who took an oath to the US Constitution.

Iran

President McCain will have to explain why he, as a Senator, did not conduct hearings into US abuses and war crimes, and ensure there was a credible program in place to ensure Iranian civilians were respected. American civilians and Iranian civilians are not different: They are civilians, and protected under Geneva.

Geneva protections do not bind civilians to be silent, especially when three Senators refuse to use their voice. Where the Senators are silent, the American public has a duty and obligation to speak.

At this juncture, war with Iran would be reckless. There are insufficient combat or reserve forces to sustain an attack. Indeed, the United States might use non-conventional weapons to target specific locations, but this does nothing to address the real issue: The refusal of the Americans and Europeans to accept that Iran may be lawfully doing something it is permitted to do: Develop peaceful nuclear power for civilian use.

Iran has no obligation to meet treaty obligations the United States refuses to respect. White the American government has been pointing its finger at Iran’s possible nuclear ambitions, the Untied States continues – in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty – to develop the next generation of nuclear weapons. Americans argue they need to defend themselves. This defense is only required when American abuses others.

If the Senators were to exercise leadership and enforce the laws of war, they might be able to make the case they’ve done all they cold to ensure Iran is contained. Otherwise, a unilateral accusation against Iran, without a fair showing by either Senator that they are serious about civilized conduct, hardly inspires Iranian civilian support. In the end, the United States may invade and occupy Iran with its vast resources. It remains to be explained how the United States, which cannot convince its NATO allies to assist in Afghanistan will mobilize others to provide support in Iraq.

Until the Senators confront the war crimes through Senate investigations, foreign powers should reasonably expect similar war crimes in Iran. By implication, if anyone argues that a McCain Presidency will end the war crimes, they are contradicting themselves: A change in President would only change US policy on war crimes if the President were supporting that policy. McCain, Obama, and Clinton cannot credibly claim they’re going to change their stance on American war crimes in Iran, while they’ve been rubber stamping the war crimes in Iraq.

However, Russia, China, India, Venezuela and others are not beholden to the Senate lead. The Senate may be silent, and may not have the power to wage war, but foreign powers do. The United States must discuss how it plans to support combat operations in there (3) theaters, despite only the resources to support one.

Even if a draft were planned, it would take too many months into President McCain’s administration to effectively field those draftees as an effective reserve force. Indeed, it may be possible to transfer some combat brigades from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran, but President McCain has no plan on how he plans to backfill the military combat brigades currently needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senators have no plan to discuss war crimes; it defies reason to believe they’re discussing a solution to the needed shell game to support a credible threat against Iran. That impossibility and flawed military planning did not stop Bush II, not inspire the Congress to end what is reckless. This US government rewards that reckless planning. So much for the 2006 mandate for change.

Things To Discuss

Is the war crimes evidence secure.

Has the Secret Service been, as it should, involved with the planned arrests of the President to ensure the VP and President are safe, despite detentions?

Do we have State governor and legislative support to put Geneva and the Constitution before their loyalty to the US government.

Who will draft the war crimes indictment against the President and Vice President.

Which prosecutor will lead the prosecution of the President and Vice President.

Do the Senators understand their Geneva obligations.

When is the planned debate between the three Senators on the well of the Senate.

Does AG Mukasey understand he can be prosecuted for refusing to enforce Geneva.

Where is the DOJ Staff counsel and US Attorney on the grand jury indictments: What is the explanation for no indictments from the grand jury; and how much evidence is the Grand Jury sitting on until “after the election”?

When will the DNC implement a plan to attach amendments to bills to start a war crimes investigation in the House or the Senate.

Do the key players at the State level on the House Rule 603 effort have the support they need to engage with legislators, and respond to excuses to do nothing?

Which of the GOP Representatives are willing to support removing Pelosi as Speaker and support a new Speaker of more liking to the GOP, but who will support a war crimes impeachment of the President and Vice President?

What support do you need to get your views about war crimes before key decision makers at the war crimes prosecutors’ office?

Does anyone in CIA or DoD need any assistance in securing war crimes evidence, or transferring that information to war crimes prosecutors or the EU?

Have the automobile license numbers for the DOJ OLC staff counsel been secured, and are they ready for the State Governors to enforce with asset seizures, in re alleged unlawful use in support of war crimes?

Should anyone care whether the DOJ OLC legal counsel’s BMWs are or are not scratched during these asset seizures; or should this concern only apply to non-German automobiles?

Confronting President McCain On the War Crimes Issues

Our job will be to ensure Geneva gets the attention it needs. There are three domestic options: Congressional impeachment, Federal prosecution, or state level prosecution. The first two have been removed; the latter has not been adequately discussed. Other options include state level decisions to no longer provide war reserve material to President McCain. The laws of war cannot compel any State to provide assistance to a government engaged in war crimes.

The Governors need to step up to the plate and decide whether they will or will not confront President McCain. State resources, including the militias, can be deactivated, and no longer supported. President McCain will have to provide the resources to reactivate those units. If President McCain would like to continue using any state resources, his use must be linked with assurances, and audit rights by the Governors to review whether or not Geneva is or is not being fully enforced.

The President has no power, given this evidence, of expecting anyone to take on face value his assertions of legality. DOJ OLC counsel are free to attempt to prosecute for refusing to support war crimes. However, the State Governors and citizens are prepared to broaden the continued DOJ OLC oversight with direct efforts to disbar DOJ OLC legal counsel at the state level.

President McCain should be expected to explain his plan, in detail, to the State Governors how he plans to continue waging warfare in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and expand those combat operations into Iran without the assistance of State Citizens. There is no draft. The Federal Government has no power or legal authority, outside a draft, to compel state citizens to support war crimes, Geneva violations, or illegal warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran.

President McCain and DOJ OLC cannot wage war if they do not have the resources. Their objective may be to starve some of the states of funds, prompting state citizens to push for jobs.

It’s not likely this confrontation would result in a civil war, however a civil war is not an option President McCain has taken off the table. There is insufficient combat leadership and required resources in the United States at the local to effectively support and sustain a civil war as we saw in the 1860s. However, this does not oblige he State citizens to support nor obey illegal orders, or continued abuse at the direction of the FBI, JTTF, or local law enforcement.

Your analysis is flawed.

A. There is a legacy of inaction

B. The DNC Membership opposes the DNC nominee, whether it is Obama or Clinton.

C. Whether McCain is or isn't President in 2009 is unrelated to the House/Senate inaction since 2006 on war crimes.

D. Promises of change are not different than 2006.

E. We should see action now. Without progress now in the Senate, we have to understand the resistance to confronting now the war crimes issues. That resistance in Congress is not going to disappear with a new President. If there is an argument the resistance "would" disappear if there were a new President, then nobody can explain why the House did not conduct an impeachment investigation or impeach.

Detailed Comments

We should see results today, not promises. However, the DNC does control the House and Senate, and nothing has been done on the war crimes. This is more promises of "will" without an explanation why the DNC majority in both Houses hasn't already confronted these issues.

Stop Making Promises About What Will Happen

This is like more of the Iraq WMD argument: "Oh, we're going to find the WMD. You watch us." The votes aren't there for an Obama victory, unless something changes now.

Second the Democrats will have a majority in both the Senate & the House -and Sen Whitehouse & Sen Durbin will be leading multiply oversight investigations into Bush war crimes etc.

They're not doing anything now. Why expect a change in the Congress based on what happens or does nto happen in the White House? Your argument relies on a red herring issue: The Congress is unrelated to the Executive Branch.

Legacy of Inaction Will Not Change

You failed to explain what will change to ensure the DNC do not support McCain. We should, in the wake of the 2006 "mandate" have already seen a war crimes investigation. That hasn't happened. The DNC controls the Committees, but are refusing to act. Whether McCain is or isn't the President is unrleatd to why the DNC since 2006 has refused to take the lead on war crimes investigations.

There's nothing stopping a war crimes investigation now. Your conclusion is at odds with polling data: Because the DNC membership opposes either Obama or Clinton, 20% of the DNC plans to vote for MCain regardless whether the DNC nominates Clinton or Obama are the DNC nominee.

Said another way: If Obama is the nominee, at least 20% of the DNC plan to oppose him and vote for McCain ,because they want Clinton. However, if Clinton is the nominee, a different 20% plans to oppose Clinton, support McCain, because they want Obama. Something is going to have to change to ensure these combined 20% sections will remain loyal to the DNC despite their hatred of either Obama or Clinton.

First flaw in this analysis -it will be a President Obama administration and not a McCain -

- Who is going to convince the 20% of the DNC not to jump ship and oppose Obama/Clinton? They don't care about the DNC or the war crimes, they care about opposing either Cltinton or Obama.

We'll have to agree to disagree. More of the "we will"-promises proved meaningless after the 2006 election.

In short we will turn the page on this ongoing criminal conspriracy called gwb43 ...

Pelosi and Harman will still be there, and you've provied nothing that would justify confidence that there will be a change in the DNC leadership. Why hasn't that call for a change happened already, and removed Pelosi and Harmon?

And the enablers such as Harmon & Pelosi will no longer be either in office or in a position to help the Yoo's & Addingtons of the world !

The DNC inaction has helped Yoo and Addington. The same leaders will be there. How do you explain why there will be prosecutions or impeachment with 20% of the DNC willing to oppose either Obama or Clinton?

The analysis, for the sake of conversation, was to make the point that action needs to start now to oppose President McCain. Also, the discussion focused on the required Senate actions now in May 2008.

You failed to explain how the 20% that plan to jump ship from the DNC to the GOP will be convinced to oppose what they reject: Either Obama or Clinton.

The point is rather than waiting, as we did after the 2006 election to discover nothing was happening, let's start planning now in May 2008 to confront President McCain.

I don't buy the argument that something "will" happen. Something should have already happened now in the Senate and House, but nothing has.

You also failed to address the war crimes issue, but have given us more of the "promise later for something, but pay no attention to the DNC inaction since 2006." We need to see war crimes investigations now, otherwise none of the three candidates has a basis to argue what they are for or against in re Iraq, the Department of Defense.

Nobody can say, "No one thought about a President McCain Administration in May 2008, and what to do sabout it in May 2008 to confront President McCain on war crimes when he was a Senator."

Let's put aside all the arguments above. Put aside the clear conclusion: There is a reasonable basis to be concerned about DNC denial.

No one can credibly argue in May 2008 that we should not consider now a plan to oppose President McCain.

A single discussion is not a distraction. The bigger distraction is the real problem of the 20% of the DNC who are planning to jump ship and support McCain, regardless the DNC nominee.

The arguments against doing this are flawed. Because of those flawed argument, people will be wondering in November 2008, when McCain wins -- unless the 20% magically change their minds -- to explain why there was nothing started earlier to confront McCain.

Putting aside the Presidential election, the other question will be: Why, despite the Geneva requirements, was there no effort to pressure the Senate to investigate these issues in May 2008?

All the arguments against doing anything, and "for" blindly assuming Obama "will" win are at odds with the record:

- The House refuses to impeach or investigate;

- Obama Continues to campaign, and is not relaxing to enjoy his "sure" victory;

- War Crimes investigations have not started, despite DNC control of the House and Senate;

- The 20% of the DNC are posed to support McCain, without any credible plan now in May 2008 for those McCain supporters in the DNC to believe the DNC is more effective at leading, investigating, and managing the Executive Branch.

As with the Senator's statements in re Iraq, the world is being asked to accept their conclusion == that they are a better candidate -- without any evidence form the Senate, or results by way of progress on a war crimes investigation -- to believe that they'll start doing in the Executive Branch what they refuse to do in the Senate.

McCain will win because the GOP can convince the DNC Membership that the DNC leadership relies on non-sense, faulty reasoning, and defective promises of hope. The GOP has a reasonable basis to argue that more of "effective" leadership should continue. The bungled results of the House in re impeachment and war crimes investigation -- no action -- are what inspire the DNC to reject the promises of change, and stick with aggressive (albeit reckless) assertions of power.

The DNC infighting is because they knew they've squandered their mandate since 2006, have not asserted power, and their decisions to do nothing -- on the promise of a White House victory -- appear to have been false hope. The DNC is going to kick itself saying, "We should have impeached."

It's time for the States to pressure the House with House Rule 603 proclamations to start impeachment proceedings. Supposedly Obama is going to win, and the DNC control of the white House is assured. The House has no reason not to impeach, other than more excuses.

Should we dare comment or respond to anyone who later says, "We should have listened," or "Nobody though of this, it's too late to do anything."

For reference, this was highly recommended, while planning for a war crimes investigation got a yawn.

This is an example of the "why McCain would be bad"-argument, but doesn't discuss why "bad things" can still happen. Classic denial. Same thing is happening in Iraq, "It would be a bad thing if we lost, so let's stay and lose more."

The point of this discussion is to not wait until the bad news arrives, but do something constructive about it while we still have time to organize and plan.

Why is there fear in treating Obama, Clinton, and McCain as they are: Senators in the Legislative Branch, and unrelated to the Executive Branch. They need to do their job, not use the election as an excuse to delay lawful confrontation with them.

Testing in May 2008 All Three (3) Senators As If They Were President

It's May 2008. It's not January 2009. Time to press with the pressure on McCain, Clinton, and Obama to make progress on war crimes in the Senate; based on their progress, we can evaluate their leadership, skill in presenting information, and their views on solutions they would support as President.