Supposedly in California, law enforcement reportedly creates pedestrian "safety zones" where law enforcement can stop people -- without any reason -- because they are walking. Assuming this is true, why are these violations (of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures) permitted; or is there something else going on?

States Do Not Respect Citizens as much as they should

Some of the States are very arrogant to American citizens when it comes to child custody rules. But as soon as someone mentions they are with a reservation, tribe, or an American Indian -- and get support from the tribal attorney -- the state social service department will improve the treatment.  These standards can be enforced in Federal Court through the states; and Indian Tribal Attorneys carry alot of weight in the states. However, it would be nice to understand why this leverage isn't also quickly available for all American citizens.

Advocacy questions:

• What can be done to ensure the standards of protection-conduct -- supposedly enforced through the US Government-Indian treaties in Federal Court against the states -- are made available to all American citizens;
• Why aren't all Americans given the same protections as American Indians; and
• Why aren't American citizens given the same respect afforded to American Indians enforced through the treaties?

Probation Officers Block Unreasonable Searches, But Not For All Americans

When stopping citizens, law enforcement is supposed to ask whether the detainee is on probation. If they are, then before there's a search, law enforcement must -- or is supposed to -- contact the probation officer, and request permission to conduct a search. If the probation officer says "No," then there's no search. However, citizens who are not on probation -- during the same stop -- can be searched without a good reason. The different standards of treatment afforded to citizens on or off probation appears to be unequal protection against an unreasonable search. 

14th Amendment: Why aren't all Americans given the same protections as those on probation or supervision? It would be nice if law enforcement, before they search anyone, were required to get permission from somone outside the law enforcement chain of command. Oh, that's right, they sometimes have to get a warrant, but we saw with the FISA violations what warrants mean.

Other

Improper law enforcement access to databases. It's troubling to learn that law enforcement, to retaliate against people who lawfully refuse to disclose their personal identification -- because it is not required -- are later harassed. The information in the databases should not be accessed unless there is a bonafide reason related to law enforcement. Retaliation hardly meets a legal requirement.

Federalist 68:

[T]he system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

We need to discuss reforms to the Constitutional framework when, even after a vote for change, the same fools perpetuate mischief. 

The US government's arguments and court opinions on the Fourth Amendment tend to undermine Obama-Bush claims on FISA. These problems highlight American governmance problems in how the US wages war and governs American citizens.

When fools in goverment get away with breaking the law, they're left to apply their foolishness to combat operations in Afghanistan and American governance: We're in the almost-ninth year of combat operations, and still muddling through. 

This President and his Predecessor have and want to abuse cloak of secrecy the US government relies to avoid public oversight on Geneva-FISA violations. The Framers would reel seeing this abuse of rights and power, especially during poorly planned combat operations and American governance.

American Government's Problem With Protecting Contractor Data

The US government's legal positions are a symptom of larger leadership-oversight problems behind condtinued bungling in Afghanistan.

Let's consider the flawed reasoning in the US governmentment, and show how this absurdity creates a convoluted argument or policy. One of the interesting statements on EFF:

While giving lip service to the idea that email is protected by the Fourth Amendment, the court nevertheless stated that a user has no protected expectation of privacy when she stores her messages with a third party.

Let's go down that rabbit hole. Suppose the court says a "user" has no "expectation" of privacy with a third party.  ( Let's put aside the issue of whether the court opinion on the Fourth Amendment is or isn't consistent with the Supreme Court. Currently, the government in the FISA litigation says that the case cannot be litigated because of secret information.)How does the government -- as a "user" -- propose to shield that third-party-held information -- related to dubiously-labeled state secrets -- from court review? 

A reasonable answer should be that the FISA litigation should go forward in secret. But Obama-Bush claim even a secret trial -- "good enough" for Guantanamo POWs -- isn't OK. There must be another excuse.

American Double Standard on Contract Enforcement

One issue is contracts: People and governments agree to terms in an agreement. One problem has been the telecoms primise to protect private information; but their alleged cooperation with the US government to ignore FISA, and not respect the privacy rights of state citizens. Which contract does the government propose to rely on to prevent the court from reviewing that information; but then reverse itself, and argue that the public has no expectation of privacy with third party-retained data?

American citizens cannot pick and choose from the laws of contract theory the same way the government can. Annother excuse to avoid oversight.

Lowers Confidence American Government Will, In Secret, Comply With Laws

Another issue is how the US government proposes to justify public confidence that it will -- in secret -- obey the laws. The government in the FISA litigation argues that the FISA violations cannot be litigated because of secrets. Then why can't those secrets be removed from the public record, and conduct trials as we've seen at Guantanamo? It appears the US government isn't willing to submit to rules of procedure that it says were "good enough" for the POWs at Guantanamo. 

Lack of Progress in Afghanistan: Going After Vulnerable in US

The tragedy is when flawed US policy making means the US government targets American citizens who are the most vulnerable, especially during an economic crisis. We need to consider how flawed legal arguments on FISA, state secrets, contracts, and Geneva relate to flawed oversight to ensure American citizens are adequately protected and respected.

These court cases smell of the same Bush-era non-sense behind flawed governance during combat. We voted for change, not more convoluted smokescreens to ignore the arrogant defiance of written law and American citizens' rights during wartime.

Breaking Up IC

If the intelligence community will not agree to improved governance, then that IC community should be divided into more responsive-manageable pieces. Yes, that means putting "breaking up the intelligence community" on the table. You want another decade of trillions spent abroad by fools who recklessly govern at home?

Despite a vote for change, fools in power remain unchecked. Let's get this lawfully fixed, and ignore the excuses otherwise.

There appears to be a possible doorway for more information about the alleged FISA violations: There may be some documents released. However, EFF is not happy with the WH delays in providing emails on WH-telecom discussions related to immunity.

As a matter of law, it's not established that the Congress-Executive can exercise judicial power and affect the outcome of ongoing litigation against the telecoms.

It will be interesting to see how the new emails open the door to new FOIAs. American civilians and the states need to know the details of the real deal between the telecoms and the US government. It's premature to pretend there's no problem or "more important" issues.

"Despite this report, the government's motion seeks to delay disclosure of all the documents, and no new documents have been released just yet." 

One goal of thwarting access to the information is to block American civilians from understanding what ish appening. A FOIA approval does not mean that all classified information is released. National security -related information is protected.

This comment arrogantly misses the point about American government abuses against American civilians:

"Disclosure of such information would assist our adversaries in drawing inferences about whether certain telecommunications companies may or may not have assisted the government in intelligence-gathering activities," Justice Department lawyers argue in the new motion.

The "protected information" and "illegally acquired intelligence" hasn't helped the US government timely win in Afghanistan. It's non-sensical to argue American government disclosure of FOIA-screened-information could possibly help our enemies.

It's premature to assume this "effort to delay" might not mutate into an "effort to permanently delay forever" any release.

However, for sake of discussion on TPM, let's assume that -- eventually -- one document is released. The release, arguably, could be evidence that the White House and telecoms agreed to press for immunity in exchange for the telecoms doing something else for the US government. 

(For this discussion, we put aside the important legal issue whether or not the "immunity deal" might be an illegal exercise of judicial power by the Congress and President.)

What might the telecoms have agreed to do, in exchange for support of the immunity effort; and for the telecoms securing immunity?

Did the executive branch, to secure continued telecom support for alleged FISA violations, agree to the immunity in exchange for a telecom agreement not to fully cooperate with FOIA requests or other discovery into the alleged FISA violations?

We've learned through the US Attorney firing and CIA abuse e-mails that the US government uses Lotus Notes to communicate on these sensitive issues. Also mentioned are Lotus Domino.

Presumably, the telecoms were using Lotus Notes to coordinate their responses with the White House.  The FOIA process generally applies to government records.

Has the FOIA process looked at the option of securing copies of the telecom-housed emails still contained on the contractor Lotus Notes system?

Or, has the White House, to shield itself, made another agreement with the telecoms to shift attention from the emails the contractors retain in their databases?

Has anyone looked at applying the FOIA process to government-related information on the telecom servers and Lotus Notes-like systems?

Once we get some of the emails related to the telecom-WH discussions on immunity, we'll have the opportunity to review whether there are new details which the government has not disclosed:

Timing of conversations

Concerns raised

How particular concerns about non-executive/legislative power were resolved

Arguably, once the WH discloses any email related to power reserverd only to the judiciary, the government cannot shield that information with executive privilege. 

Editorial Comment

We judge the "concerns about assistance to our enemies" are a smokescreen to thwart public knowlege of Intelligence Community abuses which, if known, might increase public pressure to strip them of indendence.

We need to understand how the public was thwarted from understanding the full scope of the Watergate-era abuses; and how these lessons have been applied to shield the US government, legal community, and IC from timely legal consequences.

Unacceptably, the law appears to have been an unimportant guideline to US governance after 9-11. The same flawed governance which ignores the laws and attached lessons learned has miserably organized itself to mobilize the public or achieve a timely, favorable result in Afghanistan. The American government and state level law enforcement appear more adept at targeting targets of convenience -- innocent American civilians -- that in lawful organizing to achieve combat results in Afghanistan.

It should not take this long to gather evidence about alleged FISA violations. FISA is applicable during wartime. Someone made the mistake to believe that these alleged FISA violations would not be detected. They were.

Further, once the Congress and Executive unlawfully exercise judicial power -- by changing the outcome of ongoing litigation against the telecoms by "granting immunity" -- there must be timely state level options to challenge the Federal government.

The US government's approach after 9-11 has been reckless. It's violated Geneva, FISA, and bungled combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; and misled the public about the scope of illegal activity, WMD evidence, and failed to secure a meaningful result in response to 9-11.

Illegally Obtained Intelligence: Pathetic Combat Results

It is a shame, despite the FISA violations and access to electronic communications, the US government has not been able to translate that secured information into a speedy resolution to combat operations in Afghanistan. Had this been WWII, the US government would be asking for the American public to accept in 1949 -- eight years after Pearl Harbor -- for an unclear strategy, end game, or list of success criteria.

State AGs

The American public's electronic communications have been not fully protected. The State Attorney Generals have been thwarted from timely ensuring state-level privacy protections have been respected. There needs to be a discussion on what options the states have when the US government refuses to timely provide information about ongoing FISA compliance or violations.

Government Shifts Attention From Elusive Enemy To Vulnerable Civilians

Had the US government lawfully used options to gather intelligence through electronic and interrogations methods. there might have been broader public support. However, the US government chose to commit FISA and Geneva violations, then would put the burden of "not finding the enemy" on the back of the American civilians through intrusive, abusive law enforcement-intelligence community interrogations.

Contractor Complicity With Geneva Violations

One issue on the table is whether the telecoms, by working in secret to cooperate with the Congress and White House in exercising judicial power, have indirectly been complicit with war crimes against American civilians. One issue is less whether the telecoms have or have not discussed a lobbying strategy, but to what extent the telecoms hope to shield serious breaches of international law from war crimes prosecutors overseas.

Continued stone walling will only increase public and international backlash against not just the United States government, but the American sense of justice and cooperation in international investigations.

American Governance Modernization

Putting aside the above, the public needs to discuss the options when -- going forward -- this happens again:

How do we timely prevent and detect the US government from illegally violating laws and treaties;

What methods are required at the state level to ensure this abuse of power does not happen again;

What is the resolution plan the public needs to support to ensure the US government retains the confidence of the American public.

American civilians should not live under a cloud of "presumed suspicious until they cooperate with intrusive interrogations". The burden of proof should belong on the government, not on the public to respond to this continued arrogant abuse of power, stonewalling, and incompetent governance during wartime.

Until the US government provides a timely plan to succeed in Afghanistan, the American public should presume that US government adversarial actions and intrusive interrogations against American civilians will continue. That abuse of power must be discussed.

Until there are legal consequences, the rogues stand poised to exploit the unaddressed weaknesses in governance, much as they did during the Iran-Contra affair after Watergate.

The US government, as it did after Watergate, successfully precluded a full public examination of the intelligence community abuses. The public needs to consider putting the intelligence community under tigher oversight, and look at the risk of not breaking the IC into more manaable units.

The public should openly discuss lawful options when the "domestic enemy" is abusing the FOIA process and denying the public the needed information to lawfully tame these threats to the American Constitution. Eight years of this non-sense is more than the public should be reasonably expected to tolerate.

We voted for change. Where is "the deal" the American government plans to offer the American civilians for putting up with eight years of this non-sense?  Self-evidently, the US goverment has no plan to meaningful resolve these governance and legal issues with the source of power -- We the People. That failure of planning needs to be part of the public discussion.

The public, not the telecoms, are owed a meaninful resolution to this reckless abuse of power. The public needs more responsive leadership and governance to modernize this failed governance.

It is sad that despite the feedback from failed combat operations in Afghanistan, even the prospect of bungled combat operations has not mobilized the leadership or public to examine needed reforms in governance.  Warfare is one of the most important functions of governance. It's redundant to debate lesser incompetence.

However, because of the unfavorable winds, it appears change from within the US government is impossible. We the People are not required to remain beholden to a flawed system of governance which refuses to confront domestic enemies.

Change from outside the US government is required. The states and American civilians showed they were willing to take an independent path when they called on Congress to impeach President Bush. Those independent actors have not been exiled.

Secretary Janet Napolitano said law-enforcement authorities are tracking terrorists with al-Qaeda leanings in the U.S.

"It is fair to say there are individuals in the United States who ascribe to al-Qaeda-type beliefs," Napolitano said

Successes against al-Qaeda have helped keep the main organization holed up in the tribal region of northwestern Pakistan, she said.

Toy 1: FISA violations.

Toy 2: Patriot Act abuses

Toy 3: NSLs which violate the Constitution.

Toy 4: Warrantless search and seizures.

"We can't simply say we can check this box and we can move on."

"The key thing is intelligence analysts," she said.

1. The lessons of Red Flag are applicable. What is the status of the classified program to develop a "black hat" group of Americans who "act like terrorists", and glean lessons on how to track these people?

2. How have the lessons of the Red Flag exercises at Nellis been applied to develop a similar American-government supported training team which would duplicate terrorists, and provide "realististic training" to American law enforcement?

3. We should establish Islamic schools to learn their challenges.  What similar schools in Pakistan have the Americans attempted to duplicate to understand how the schools to "train terrorists" are supported, provided intellectual support, and mobilized to provide information?

4. Governance issues, when addressed, might mitigate some DHS concerns. What is the plan of the American intelligence community to use resources at their disposal -- American streets, cities, and property -- to glean lessons on how Americans can be induced to support dubious solutions to governance problems confronting America?

5. The IC would be an excellent place for terrorists to hide. What plan does the American Congress or TPM community have to monitor whether there is a credcible plan to review whether the Intelligence Community has been adequately vetted for "those sympathizing with terrorists"?

Today, the US government says that some POWs may not be prosecuted for "war crimes," but that they'll leave open the option to prosecute one released Afghan for "other" things.

This seems absurd. There's a limit to whwat the US can do. Indeed, if the US govenment isn't going to prosecute some of the POWs for war crimes, how does the US propose to prosecute POWs for non-war crimes, and still meet the StOL requirements?

NYT: "Justice Department officials have said the criminal investigation of Jawad is still open. . ."

The POWs have been sitting there for, in some cases, seven years. That seems much longer than the time window to conducf a trial for most "non" war crimes, and still fall within "normal" StOL requirements. Indeed, this newly released document from the NSC related to the POW treatment shows that the NSC knew Geneva applied.  Given the understood relevance of Geneva, why are there any discussions about prosecuting anyone outside what Geneva permits, and beyond the StOL?

When does the US government acknowlege there is a StOL problem, and it's "too late" to prosecute the POWs for "non war crimes"? Or is someone arguing there's an exception to the "speedy trial" requirement that would have made irrelevant the statute of limitations for "non war crimes"?

If the StOL "tolls" while a POW is in prison, then there's no legal incentive for a speedy trial. That's not justice, nor any plan to resolve these issues, but have a permanent state of conflict and confrontation. And we wonder why the enemy is still fighting . . .

Arguably, the US government cannot seriously ask others to believe that any "non war crime" -- this late in the game after initial capture -- is "open". It's too late. It doesn't matter whether the US govement has released a POW or not.

Or is the US keeping "on the table" the option to render people back to the US for criminal proseuction for non-war crimes, despite exceeding the statute of limitations?

"This is especially a problem when contractors are used to carry out activities that are inherently governmental."

Unsupported assertion: "If there's a covert-action finding that says, 'Go hunt down Osama Bin Laden' -- which there was -- the agency can use whatever means necessary," said a former senior CIA official.

A. How far along in the planning process these decisions were, and whether the General Counsels inside the CIA, DOJ, DoD, or White House were aware of this planned use of former-Blackwater contractors;

B. Whether the Blackwater contractors were going to be in any sort of uniform during these raids. If they were not going to wear uniforms, but engage in combat operations, foreign powers had the legal authority to find these Blackwater contractors war criminals;

C. Whether the US government planned to pay any bounties to the Blackwater contractors. It is illegal under the laws of war to put a price on the enemy's head;

D. Why the US government or CIA did not want to use uniformed military personnel inside American special forces units; and

E. The timelines of the legal reviews for this activity, and how these legal reviews compare with the dates that the DOJ OLC memos were issued; and dates when the US government refused to enforce GEneva; but did make a decision to ignore Geneva but put emphasis on the US Attorney firings.

The government's claim of "privilege" fails when the government discloses -- or inadvertently confirms the veracity of --  evidence connected with that supposed secret.

The DOJ investigation is not so much an effort to intimidate defense counsel, but creates new lines of evidence for defense counsel to review in court US government-disclosed state secrets.

The US government wants to scuttle the POW trials, and prevent the public from knowing the full scope of the US government involvement in other rendition-like activities against American citizens.

Recently, the defense counsel at Guantanamo used evidence from the Italians and traced the phone calls in Italy to specific people in the United States, photographed them, and (apparently) presented these photos to Guantanamo POWs asking, "Do you recognize anyone?"

DOJ conducted an investigation, in part, (apparently) fearing the US government defense counsel were stating that "the people in the photos" were (allegedly) CIA agents.

However, by discussing the photographs with Guantanamo defense counsel the photographs, the US government has strengthened the public link between the US government and rendition.

One line of evidence includes the DOJ-CIA internal emails commenting on the public articles related to these specific DOJ-led investigations of defense counsel. Recall from the US Attorney firing emails, we read many internal AG staff comments on news releases. CIA and DOJ OLC legal counsel cannot sweep the articles under the rug as "hearsay" when there are internal emails commenting on the news articles.

Arguably, the US government would not "investigate the disclosure of the photos to the POWs" unless:

A. The defense counsel got it right, and properly linked the cell phone information from Italy with the correct people connected with the US government;

B. The CIA was involved;

C. The people in the photos had some connection with the original activities in Italy

Now that DOJ personnel appear to have "leaked" the details of the investigation into what defense counsel supposedly did, it appears there's a subsequent problem for the US government: Why is the US government -- that wants to "protect" a state secret, disclosing the existence of an investigation related to that "state secret"?

Brady rules permit defense counsel access to all evidence which may be probative for their client. If that evidence cannot be provided, there is a chance that a case can be thrown out. This is a foreseeable risk of prosecution which the US government appears to have ignored, falsely believing that the POWs would never really litigate these legal issues with an adeqate defense.

Argaubly, now that there is an "openly disclosed investigation into rendition and client-connected activity of reviewing photos of poeple supposedly connected with the events in Italy," the subsequent DOJ investigation could possibly be admitted into evidence, to include:

A. Internal memos related to the DOJ commentaries on the rendition-related news releases;

B. Any communications related to alleged plans of the US government to intimidate defense counsel related to collecting evidence from open sources about the people connected with the phone calls in Italy; and

C. DoJ, CIA, or DoD personnel comments contained in emails about news articles on the DOJ investigation into the Guantanamo defense counsel's photography and POW interviews.

Rendition is supposedly a "state secret," raising questions why DOJ is disclosing an investigation into that "state secret". The reasonable answer has something to do with selective disclosure, domestic propaganda, and selective case management.

One question is whether the FBI agent is inciting others to violence. Here's a good chance for Congress to test the POGO manual on overisight. At a minimum, we should hear whether a grand jury has or has not been empaneled.

Bamford's Alleged Disclosure: If you have a choice of a metropolitan city, would I go to New York, with 40,000 police officers, would I go Los Angeles, with 8,000, or would I go to Boston, with 3,500 ... and I know there's no assault rifles in the Boston Police Department. . .

The FBI agent has given enough information to anyone to pinpoint specific, internal, vulnerable targets. Why is this FBI agent giving enemies of the United States sensitive information about the weakest, softest "targets" in the United States?

However, if the US Government refuses to do anything about this, then we cannot conclude this is note a real vulnerability, but scare mongering. Didn't we vote for change?

Anyone inside DOJ who claims "nothing needs to be done" must explain why US Agents target American citizens for discussing the same "public" information on the grounds of "possible domestic terrorism". Why the arrogant double standard?

Indeed, continued US govenment inaction about this disclosure raises serious questions about the real motivation of the FBI agent's comments. This raises questions about the agent's professional ethics and use of the media to disseminate misleading information.

Warren T. Bamford is a "Special Agent in Charge," or SAC, pronounced, "sack." As a senior manager and leader within the Department of Justice, Bamford needs to explain why he is allegedly disclosing an FBI assessment in the open media, and making this vulnerability known outside official channels in a public forum, where the information is not properly screened or protected. There are procedures to review this internal security matter.

Stop giving the enemy the informatino they need to attack American citizens. We don't need FBI SACs providing enemies of the United States analysis which helps them exploit our vulnerabilities.

Is this treason? FBI agents reading this site have fair warning of what it means to have not reported alleged treason:'

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The national command authority cannot argue it is fighting for our "freedom" abroad, while agents -- with access to classified information -- are disclosing key assessments about vulnerabilites in the Homeland.

What will it take to sack this SAC; or do we need years of worthless investigations and excuses to do nothing about things the FBI agents like to accuse American citizens of doing: Disclosing sensitive informatnio useful to the enemies of the United States.

Here are some of the procedures the AG office should be using to review this matter.

Who gave this SAC approval to disclose this sensitive information, per 50 USC 783?

    unless such officer or employee shall have been
    specifically authorized by the President, or by the head of the
    department, agency, or corporation by which this officer or
    employee is employed, to make such disclosure of such information. . .

If you want Americans to support you. protect the information you have; do not target Americans for commenting about your disclosures. One absurdity is the time the US government dedicates to monitor people who access information. How about spending more time on training to ensure the internal security information is protected not disseminated?

Isn't the country at war right now, and there exists "heightened security" concerns to prevent people from getting fair trials because of supposed concerns about classified evidence? All those DOJ OLC secret memos written to "justify" doing illegal things against people to safeguard America, but the FBI SAC can't keep his lip sealed to safeguard internal security issues?

We don't need to worry about Al Qaeda. We need to worry about the FBI agents who might actually do something to prove "they were right" about these security issues. Al Queda doesn't need to do anything but read the latest disclosures from the loose lips of the FBI SAC.

President's Alleged Resource Allocation Decision To Not Spend Time on Geneva

The White House fired US Attorneys for "not" doing something. Indeed, the White House "knew" they were firing US Attorneys, without spending time on Geneva oversight, as they had a legal duty.

There was no "confusion" about the laws of war, but a decision to ignore it. That is an alleged subsequent war crime, and an alleged breach of legal counsel duties to enforce the laws of war.

Recently two of the NMT cases, "The Justice Case" (United States v. Alstotetter,) and "The Ministries Case" (United States v. Von Weisaecker) have been subjects of renewed interest among legal scholars.

. . .

The reason for the renewed interest in these cases has been the declassification over the last several years of legal memorandums written by lawyers of the Bush administration authorizing torture as a lawful means of interrogation.

The precedent of the Justice Trial from Nuremberg (a US-run trial), was that legal counsel -- when they refuse to enforce the laws of war -- can be prosecuted for war crimes. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justices could, in theory, be investigated for their alleged failure to enforce the laws of war when they allegedly refused to permit legal proceedings related to rendition.

The Ministries Case brought charges against policy makers. However, today, in the United States, policy making is not the exclusive power of the Executive, but shared between the President and Congress.

Look at the charges, and consider (a) the time the White House spent explaining away these abuses; (b) the time the WH did spend on firing US Attorneys, but not Geneva; and (c) the extent Members of Congress refused to remove themselves from the illegal planning and policymaking, including POW abuse, FISA violations, and unlaful use of that illegally captured evidence during torture:

Ministries Trial: The indictment listed eight counts: 18 of the defendants were charged with committing crimes against peace by participating in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties; 17 of the defendants were charged with participating in a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; 8 were charged with committing war crimes by participating in atrocities and offenses, including murder, enslavement, and ill-treatment, against POWs and those at war with Germany;

One question on the US Attorney-firing documents from the White House: When did the White House make decisions to ignore Geneva, but punish US Attorneys for not following a political agenda?

Arguably, once the White House "made the decision" to punish (rightly or wrongly) US Attorneys, the White House knew or should have known it was not fully using its power to enforce Geneva.

Translation: The time the White House staff spent on the US Attorney firings is evidence of time they knew they should have been spending on higher priorities: enforcing the laws of war, not using WH-GOP power to punish prudent US Attorneys. The White House documents related to the US Attorney firings is part of the larger evidence related to US government malfeasance related to Geneva.

Alleged war crimes!

We must ask why Members of Congress have an interest to focus on health care: They enjoy the distraction and smokescreen away from what the President did or didn't do; and their contribution to that failure. Today's "focus" on health care shows us there are "higher" interests to avoid the US Attorney firing issues, and the attached smokescreen from war crimes and Member of Congress complicity.

DOJ IG/OPR-Identified Hole In WH Communications

215 of 392: The White House also would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of U.S. Attorneys

184 of 392: According to Jennings, sometime in 2006 Bell told him that Senator Domenici was going to call the White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, about Iglesias. Jennings notified Taylor and Rove so that Bolten could be given a heads-up. We do not know whether this call was made, and if so what was discussed

1. To what extent did the DOJ IG/OPR-identified-holes in the White House communications identified in the original report get addressed with the newly released White House documents;

2. Can the DOJ IG/OPR show the Congress using a table or timeline how the newly released documents do or do not fill in the gaps which the DOJ IG/OPR identified;

3. What additional information, above and beyond newly released through the HJC, does the DOJ IG/OPR need to provide an adequate assessment of issues identified in the oriignal DOJ IG/OPR report; and

4. What new issues, beyond those originally identified in the original DOJ IG/OPR report does the DOJ investigation highlight, raise, or leave inadequately addressed?

We've stumped on a few things, but thought we'd ask a general question:

Bridge Between HJC 2009 Handwritten Notes Release and AG 2007 Email Disclosures

There's an interesting link between the House Judiciary Committee Disclosures and the AG disclosures in 2007. For example [See part 1, page 3, HJC 2009], we found a handwritten phone number of a Senator's Chief of Staff [TPM, 2007] on one of the handwritten pages; and this phone number appears to suggest that someone in the White House was talking to someone that Rove would have us believe there was no coordination

176 of 392: Among those who urged Iglesias to investigate and prosecute voter fraud cases in New Mexico were Allen Weh, the Chairman of the state Republican Party; Patrick Rogers, a former general counsel to the state Republican Party who continued to represent the party on voter fraud and ballot access issues;104 Mickey Barnett, an attorney and former Republican state senator active in party politics; Steve Bell, Chief of Staff to Senator Pete Domenici

Bell also refused to discuss the issues with the Justice Department. The official DOJ IG/OPR report provides a lesson to AG Holder on an investigation of US government abuses: We need an official record, first; then a decision, based on that record, what to do:

Murkasey on the DOJ IG/OPR Report: Today's report is an important step toward acknowledging what happened, and holding the responsible officials to proper account.

The Phone Number in the HJC Documents

We're not sure. We have no idea who wrote the number, whether it was really called, when the note was made, or how this fits in with what Rove or other White House personnel were or were not denying about contacts with Senator Domenici on these issues. It seems important, but we need help.

The IG and OPR also raised the question in their report: They too were unsure whether these referenced calls were made:

184 of 392: According to Jennings, sometime in 2006 Bell told him that Senator Domenici was going to call the White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, about Iglesias. Jennings notified Taylor and Rove so that Bolten could be given a heads-up. We do not know whether this call was made, and if so what was discussed.

It's not obvious from the handwritten notes whether they could have been from only someone from outside the White House. We don't know whether this restriction -- which applied to the DOJ OPR and IG -- also applied to the HJC on handwritten notes:

215 of 392: The White House also would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of U.S. Attorneys.

There is some background to the discussions between Bell and the White House, see page 154 [172 of 392]: (h/t ABQ Journal)

DOJ IG/OPR: In addition, Senator Domenici and his Chief of Staff, Steve Bell, also declined to be interviewed by us. Domenici initially told us through his counsel that he would be "pleased to assist" our investigation once a pending Senate Ethics Committee investigation of his phone call to Iglesias was completed. We renewed our requests for interviews after the Senate ethics inquiry was concluded. Bell continued to decline to be interviewed. Domenici also declined to be interviewed, but said he would provide written answers to questions through his attorney. We declined this offer because we did not believe it would be a reliable or appropriate investigative method under these circumstances. In contrast, Representative Wilson cooperated with our investigation and was interviewed by us three separate times.

Here the DOJ IG/OPR report links Bell with an email pressuring the US Attorney on voter fraud:

181 of 392: In mid-October 2004, Weh forwarded Iglesias an e-mail message he had received from Congressman Pearce's Chief of Staff with an attached newspaper article about voter fraud in Colorado. The next day, Weh forwarded an e-mail to Iglesias from the assistant to Senator Domenici's Chief of Staff Bell that was addressed to Weh, Rogers, and John Dendahl, a former Republican Party Chairman and gubernatorial candidate. The original message read: "From Steve Bell. This [voter fraud] is really getting out of control." Weh added the following message for Iglesias: "The game clock is running!"

What we don't know is what telephone calls preceded the emails. Sometimes the email sent is a post-telecom summary, and a way to summarize a decision made via telecom. For example, here there appears to have been a memorial of some sort of discussion. The curious thing about this message is whether Bell did or did not object to the email sent:

183 of 392: Weh said he complained about Iglesias to Scott Jennings in the White House sometime in 2005, and told Jennings that Iglesias should be replaced.112 E-mail records we obtained from the White House confirm that Weh wrote to Jennings about Iglesias on August 9, 2005. His message to Jennings, which was copied to Karl Rove, Sara Taylor, Tim Griffin, and Steve Bell, stated:

"We discussed the need to replace the US Atty in NM several months ago. The brief on Voter Fraud at the RNC meeting last week reminded me of how important this post is to this issue, and prompted this follow up. As you are aware the incumbent, David Iglesias, has failed miserably in his duty to prosecute voter fraud. To be perfectly candid, he was 'missing in action' during the last election, just as he was in the 2002 election cycle. I am advised his term expires, or is renewed, in October. It is respectfully requested that strong consideration be given to replacing him at this point . . . . If we can get a new US Atty that takes voter fraud seriously, combined with these other initiatives we'll make some real progress in cleaning up a state notorious for crooked elections."

Bell Receives Information

There were many discussions which could have been referenced through this handwritten phone number. For example, one problem was that Bell and Senator Wilson later agreed that removing Iglesius would affect ongoing litigation:

185 of 392: Representative Wilson told us that shortly after the mistrial, Senator Domenici's Chief of Staff Bell called her and asked what she had heard about the trial.115 Wilson told him she had heard that the government had a good case but that it was not presented well. She said Bell told her that the Senator's office had received the same information. Bell also told Wilson that Senator Domenici had come to the conclusion that the district needed a new U.S. Attorney. According to Wilson, she cautioned Bell that removing Iglesias right away could adversely affect the Vigil re-trial and said that Bell seemed to agree.

AG Meetings

There is also another possible set of conversations linked with this phone number, the handwritten notes, and Bell. Here, the DOJ IG/OPR report summarizes the meetings and phone calls where there were possible handwritten notes:

187 of 392: According to calendar entries from the Office of the Attorney General, Sampson and Moschella may have been in the room with Gonzales during the three calls, and Goodling may have been present for the April 6 call. According to Moschella, Gonzales never used a speaker phone, so they would have heard only his side of the conversation. Moschella said he has no memory of the calls and is not certain that he was present for any of them, but said he talked to Domenici's Chief of Staff Bell prior to at least one of the calls. Based on that conversation, Moschella said he believed that the Senator was concerned about the district's caseload and that he planned to tell Gonzales that the USAO needed additional resources. Sampson stated that he did not remember any details of Gonzales's telephone conversations with Domenici.

Rove Expressly Requests Call From Bell

Here, the emails show there was a thirty (30) minute gap between when Bell sent Rove and email, and when Rove responded to Bell:

203 of 392: The 2006 mid-term congressional elections occurred on November 7, 2006. At 1:03 p.m. that day, Domenici's Chief of Staff Bell sent Rove an e-mail about ballot problems in a New Mexico precinct. Bell ended his e-mail with the statement, "We worry still about the USA here." Rove responded at 1:35 p.m: "I'd have the Senator call the Attorney General about this."

Bell As Conduit Between House Member and White House

Bell worked for a Senator, but forwarded some email from the House of Representatives to the White House:

209 of 392: On October 15, Representative Heather Wilson sent an article to Senator Domenici's Chief of Staff, Steve Bell, noting public corruption prosecutions in states other than New Mexico. Bell forwarded the complaint to the White House, stating that other U.S. Attorneys were able to "do their work in an election season."

Bell appears to have confidence that his email would be received, not buried, and get the visibility it needed for a Member of Congress.

Also, we've done some key word analysis on various Rove's comments which are "qualification words" -- "I believe" or "I cannot recall" --  suggesting that Rove was coached, increasing the prospect he was retroactively stating he "thought" one thing, but really -- at the time of the event -- thought something else. Do you want to know about the word counts; or would you rather have some detailed analysis of specific comments Rove made which may or may not be consistent? This may take some time, and delay providing you some context. Would you rather wait, or would you rather have the raw concept, and have some suggestions on what other issues we might want to look into as part of a comment discussion?

Here's the issue: We'd like some feedback and discussion on how to best couch these -- possibly trivial but seemingly interesting -- factoids. What are your thoughts on this?

I do not want to spam the TPM blog with many short, trivial posts; yet, I do not want to sit on something that might be a small piece of information, but sheds light on something new. Collectively, we have a greater chance of remembering something from the Ralston depositions or something in the US Attorney firing emails -- already released last year -- that may relate. 

Where do you fall in this: If you could talk to to someone that might be able to do some focused analysis on specific "factoids," what summary report would you like; or would you like to get the raw finding, and let you discuss the context?