Have you noticed, when examining US legal compliance, the public's attention has been focused on whether the President will or will not provide documents Yet, in a Republic, with separated powers and overlapping jurisdictions for developing US government policy, here's another side of the coin: The Legislature.

Congress Has Relevant Internal Memos, Similar to DOJ OLC Memos To President

Congress shows through the Rockefeller and Harman notes re: FISA that Members of Congress have secret memos, but do not necessarily put their cards on the table when discussing legal compliance. Just as the President is or isn't responding to requests for internal memoranda related to illegal activity, the public must examine:

What internal documents do Members of Congress have related to this alleged "collusion" between the President and Members of Congress on war crimes, illegal activity, and violations of the FISA-Geneva Conventions?

Anyone suggesting "There's nothing here," has a difficult time explain how two different, separate branches of government are reaching the same conclusion -- inaction -- on war crimes. Something must be coordinating the decision to do nothing. In 1906, the collusion was correctly labeled "treason". Today, the reasonable conclusion is:

There must be written documentation. It defies reason to believe a country, with extensive evidence of collusion in bungling Iraq-Afghan combat operations, magically, without any coordination, arrived at a common policy of inaction.  If there is no documentation, the only reasonable conclusion is the US government is out of control without a compliance plan.

The public needs to see the Congressional staff memoranda discussing the Member of Congress liability for complicity with war crimes. These memos, in part, help understand the legislative support for the Military Commissions act language providing funds for US persons before international war crimes tribunals. Arguably, the defense-reimbursement agreements are illegal because they rewarded people for malfeasance. For example, how does the Congress and President explain the agreement to retraoctively change the law with MCA:

Ex Post Facto: "The amendments made by this subsection, except as specified in subsection (d)(2)(E) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, shall take effect as of November 26, 1997"

There's a broader basis to be concerned with these (likely)  secret memoranda. We've seen excuses for inaction on House Rule 603, impeachment, and war crimes prosecutions. Arguably, the excuses for inaction are linked, as was the case with the DoD military analysts, with an organized public relations effort. Nuremberg showcased similar documents during the war crimes proceedings, proving collusion.

The public needs to see the briefings, DOJ OLC memos, and Congressional Staff correspondence organizing these media messages of benefit to Members of Congress and the Administration.

There are implications for taking impeachment off the table. Federalist 77 claimed, before ratification, the states and public should support the Constitution because the perpetual threat of impeachment, trial, and removal would provide the required safety.

Hamilton reassured: "Does it also combine the
requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence
on the people, a due responsibility? The answer to this question
has been anticipated in the investigation of its other characteristics,
and is satisfactorily deducible from these circumstances; from
the election of the President once in four years by persons immediately
chosen by the people for that purpose; and from his being at all
times liable to impeachment"

However, once impeachment is removed from the table, we must consider the implications of the Congress and President knowing they are not fulfilling the promises presented in the Federalist Papers. A republican form of government is one that relies on written law, and enforces the law:

AIV, S4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government"

The inaction has important implications:

Malfeasance Problem: We still have no formal impeachment investigation and enforcement of the laws of war, despite Federalist 77 promising the threat of impeachment would "at all times" safeguard the States under this Constitution.

There must be memoranda discussing the US government plan to thwart the States from challenging the federal government for its failure to ensure the US government provides a republican form of government.

219 U.S. 346, MUSKRAT v. UNITED STATES(1911):"The Chief Justice demonstrated, in a manner which has been regarded
as settling the question, that with the choice thus given between a
constitutional requirement and a conflicting statutory enactment, the
plain duty of the court was to follow and enforce the Constitution as
the supreme law established by the people."

There must be Congressional memos memorializing this agreement "authorizing" the decision of the committees to refuse to examine this illegal activity through impeachment, investigations, or other oversight. The public needs to see these government documents, which war crimes prosecutors examined at Nuremberg.

The Declaration of Independence says people have the right and duty to change government when it is unresponsive. This doesn't mean that illegal activity must be used; or that violent revolution is required; only that an unresponsive government must be changed:

Declaration of Independence : "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

To fulfill these rights and duties in the Declaration, we have the right and responsibility to oversee this Congress and Executive Branch. Yet, this government refuses to consider an investigation and the inaction on war crimes. It is reasonable to consider the US government has coordinated efforts to thwart any discussion needed to implement changes changes to the oversight. 

It is reasonable to presume, in this legal climate of 2008, there must be a US government strategy to address these issues. The public must see this information which help support an informed public discussion of needed, lawful, peaceful, non-violent changes in oversight to Congress:

A. The
public needs to see the information Members of Congress and the
Executive Branch are relying to thwart oversight, and remain loyal to
an unresponsive system;

B. The public must discuss what will compel checks and balances when the oath of office proves
meaningless to Members of Congress and Executive Branch personnel; and

C. The public needs the information to discuss what will compel enforcement of the Supreme Law when the threat of prosecution for violating the oath of office proves meaningless.

The DOJ OLC well warned the President that when Geneva is not enforced, there is a risk that US civilians could be extradicted.

Congressional Committee Report citing DOJ OLC memo: "[These procedural protections] might be lacking if the United States
extradited the individuals . . . [to their] victims’ home countries for
prosecution.”

Implicit with the DOJ OLC  memo to the President is the  risk that when the US government refuses to enforce the laws of war, and will not be bound by the Supreme Law, the US combatants are not under lawful authority, and are unlawful combatants. This is a serious risk. Members of Congress likely discussed this foreseeable outcome or legal risk.

The Congress and DOJ OLC must have jointly discussed this risk of losing Geneva protections, and may have secretly coordinated something to thwart efforts to enforce Geneva against Members of Congress and Executive Branch Staff. Our responsibility is to understand what they've agreed to and the implications for the Constitution and Republic.

All muckrakers on TPM are encouraged to discuss with their contacts in Congress the following requests for information and internal DOJ OLC/Congressional memoranda:

The US government's position when states' guarantees are violated, and the States, outside Congress, revisit the thwarted promises of the Constitutional Convention.

Specifically:

1. How have the Congress, the President, and/or DOJ OLC jointly agreed in secret to authorize the President to use NSA eavesdropping on conversations, with the goal to thwart enforcement of Geneva and prosecution efforts of the Attorney Generals against the US government, members of Congress, and President;

2. To what extent has Congress agreed with the President that any effort to challenge the illegal US government activity will be called, "domestic terrorism," or any "exceptions" to all Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens for engaging in public discourse;

3. How have the Congress and DOJ OLC jointly agreed to permit the President to use domestically military forces without the required warrant to intimidate civilians, thwart enforcement of the Supreme Law, and block oversight of both Members of Congress and Executive Branch personnel;

4. Where are the memos, briefing papers, and communications between Congress, legal counsel, DOJ OLC staff counsel, and Executive branch personnel, and outside contractors related to a Presidential determination, and Congressional assent to, that the Smith Act is not applicable to domestic propaganda aimed to thwart enforcement of the Constitution, Geneva, and FISA against Members of Congress, contractors, and Executive Branch personnel and officers?

5. What other objections or other views have been documented, thwarted, or dismissed in contravention with the Geneva conventions, oath of office, or Supreme Law?

Members of Congress, staff counsel, DOJ OLC legal counsel, and Executive Branch personnel know or should know that a failure to enforce the law invites more US government-sponsored violations to thwart detection, investigation, discussion or enforcement of the earlier acts. The cycle of lawlessness must end immediately.