Order of Battle

Russia is expected to pre-emptively attack the agreed-to Polish missile
shield-sites and the support bases. Russia would rather not attack
specific fuel supplies in Poland, but if NATO refuses to heed Russian
demands, Polish fuel supplies around the agreed-to-missile support base
will likely be attacked.


Russia, as with it's decision to cut ties with NATO, is likely to more
quickly than NATO anticipates. Russian naval  units in the Black Sea
are expected to engage in a blockade of Poland to intercept all
material support for the missile shield. Russia does not expect to be
confronted when narrowly targeting the equipment for the missile Shield.


If Russian forces are opposed, and NATO continues to deploy the Missile
Shield, Russia is expected to view all ancilary support and associated
NATO conventional forces as necessary for NATO to support, deploy, and
offensively use the Missile Shield. In Russia's view, the NATO forces
less connected with the Missile Shield would be logical, legitimate
military targets.



Russia's overture to Norway is important. Russia intends to use the
shipping lanes north of Russia to deploy submarines and harass Iceland,
Ireland, and Britain. NATO should reasonably expect worldwide harassment on all levels to further drain NATO forces from Afghanistan, and create more problems than Brussels can manage. America's security promises to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan will be tested.

Legal Warfare

The Russians view NATO as, all but in name, as having declared war on
Russia. Russia views seriously the signed agreement to deploy the
missile shield in Poland.

America's support in promptly returning 2,000 Georgian troops establishes an important legal principle. America's involvement in Georgia sets the legal stage for Russia to argue that the United States took illegal, overt military action against Russia in an internal security matter.

There is a legal precedent for the Russian pre-emptive strike on
Poland: The American President's pre-emptive strike on non-existent,
non-imminent threats in Iraq; the planned pre-emptive strikes in Iran;
and the Isreali pre-emptive strikes on Syria and Iraq.

Russian lawyers are expected to make a strong case, especially with the
American-Isreali actions in the Middle East that Russia was doing
nothing different than DOJ OLC legal counsel said the American
Persident and Isreal could lawfully do.

Russia views the NATO Missile Shield in Poland as the same as the
American missiles in Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia
views the Missile Shield as an offensive weapon designed to eliminate
Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia views the Missile Shield as an
unacceptable, prepatory provocation, similar to how JFK viewed the
Russian missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia, in her view, has exhausted reasonable efforts to reach a
negotiated solution. The Russians are done talking to what they view an
unresponsive, uncooperative, and arrogant NATO and American military.
Russia has, in their view, attempted to peacefully resolve these
issues, and attempted to help NATO and the American leadership
understand Russia's security concerns.



Although the American leadership has spent time listening, Russia views
the Americans has giving Russia lip service, and not interested in any
dialog or reasonable solution to Russia's security concerns.

Russia's Preference Over Conventional Than Nuclear Confrontation

Poland's reaction to Russia's security efforts in Georgia tells Russia what it long feared: The Missile Shield is intended to be used against Russia in an offensive capacity.

Russia knows from Chernobyl the devastating effectives of nuclear radiation and would rather now have a finite conventional confrontation with NATO than have a nuclear confrontation with perpetual, residual effects.

Russia's Loss of Confidence in NATO, American Leadership

The Russian President feels personally betrayed by the American President who looked him in the eye, and promised Peace. President Bush has delivered war, with NATO's tacit agreement, without a plan to constrain his illegal use of power.

Superior Russian Intelligence

Russia views American intelligence is dysfunctional, still not yet mobilized to engage with real enemies in Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia does not take seriously the NATO intelligence operations in Europe.

Career American and NATO intelligence officers, rather than conduct simulation testing or gathering intelligence to support NATO defenses have been putting their intelligence gathering centers on informal holidays. This when the Americans and NATO were supposedly at war against terrorism.

Rather than spend time gathering real intelligence about the risks of Russian combat forces on NATO soil, the American intelligence community has wasted energy harassing American civilians.

Russia plans to prevail over a dysfunctional NATO and American military command structure. The American public has underestimated the error of Speaker Pelosi refusing to confront this President over impeachable offenses.

The Poles are revealing the real motivation behind the American defense shield in Europe.  The Poles said, with the Russian actions in Georgia, they are more supportive of a missile shield. This contradicts the premise behind the American President's deployment: That it would "not" threaten Russia.

American Provocations Continue Despite Russian Military Action

Russia interprets the NATO reactions, and continued plans to deploy the missile shield as one of arrogance. In the Russian view, despite Russian military force in Georgia, NATO does not seem responsive to Russian security concerns.

The Americans and NATO are not looking at the Russian action in Georgia through the Russian lens:

The Russians view the American President as a threat to Russia.

The
Russians view the American-led missile shield as a direct assault on
Russia.

Russia was surprised Georgia, NATO, and the United States did not seriously
consider the Russian concerns and capabilities in Georgia.  Despite the Russian military
action, Russians are more confused why the Americans are keen on still
provoking Russia by expanding the missile shield.

Missile Shield Will Not Defend NATO Conventional Forces

A missile shield will take time. The missile shield will not address Russian conventional forces.  NATO's conventional forces have poorly performed in Afghanistan.

Russia views Georgia as a NATO proxy. Russian military forces believe they demonstrated the flaws with some of the NATO-allied command and control centers.

Pole Support For Missile Shield Stokes Russian Fears

Russia is worried there will be other Georgian-like hostrile action along her Eastern European border. If this occurs and NATO allies repeat what Georgia did, there is the risk Russia will use military force to intervene and defend the ethnic minorities in the former Eastern Block.

Continued border incursions by Georgia's allies in NATO will likely precipitate Russian defensive moves along her border with NATO.

Russia feels vulnerable because a missile shield would ensure NATO
could launch missiles on Russia, and a Russian nuclear response would be
thwarted. Russia is not happy NATO can pre-emptively neutralized Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Poland is confirming Russia's fears, prompting, in part, it's action in Georgia: Fears that the missile shield would be pointed at Russia, and support an American first strike on Russia.

Russian Pre-emption Against NATO

Russia understands that NATO has been planning a response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. Rather than wait for NATO to qualify its interactions with Russia, Russia pre-empted the NATO plan and cut all ties with NATO.

Russia waited to pre-emptively cut ties to ensure NATO leaders wasted time, and shows Russia can neutralize  and isolate NATO's leadership.  By cutting ties with NATO, Russia ensures NATO must use action, not words, to reassure Russia.

Debating the Security Language

The Russians are following the American model: Debating language for American interests, then selectively parsing the language to support Russian interests.

Russia views the French proposal as unacceptable, and offered another version.

Growing Risk of Central Asian Conventional Warfare

Russia views NATO conventional forces as vulnerable, and that NATO is
not responsive to Russian military forces or security concerns.  Russia feels emboldened to orchestrate other reckless NATO military responses, and justify Russian military action against what Russia views as disloyal former USSR allies.

We expect Russia to feel military justified in repeating the same military efforts in Georgia, but against other former Eastern Block nations now part of NATO. We expect Russia to orchestrate a NATO provocation to justify a ruse Russian invasion of Eastern Europe. NATO is not militarily prepared to defend Europe against this foreseeable Russian defensive move.

The goal of Russian military action in Eastern Europe is not to immediately solidify gains in Europe, but to distract American and NATO power from Central Asia, the real Russian objective.

One motivation behind Russian military action is to discredit American military cooperation with former-USSR republics. We would not be surprised if, within the next 18 months, Russian ground combat units have successfully repeated defensive moves along Central Asia in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, new American allies in its war on terrorism. This will compound NATO's problems in Afghanistan, complicating American transport and theater support for intelligence gathering.

It is possible, but less likely, the Russians will use combat forces in Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland to safeguard Russian minorities. If, as expected, NATO continues to bungle it's responses to Russian military efforts in Central Asia, Europe's new Cold War may warm substantially.

It's unclear who's digging faster: The Russians in their new Georgian fox holes; or the President in his war crimes.

The President has stupidly made statements about Russia which show the President and DOJ OLC have a legal conclusion contradicting both the Geneva Conventions; and previous Presidential orders.

President's Problem:

American Administration Statements About Russia Are Contrary To the
Presidents Interests: Demonstrate President's Understanding of The Laws
of War, Which He Ignored

Bush's Comments About Russia Provide Evidence To Convict Him For War Crimes

The issue isn't the truth, but what the war crimes tribunals will conclude the President and his lawyers reasonably knew was a lawful standard.

What You Can Do

The public and TPMM is encouraged to carefully continue:

A. Monitoring all White House and Administration statements about Russia;

B. Looking for key statements about what the President and his war criminal lawyers say about Russia's legal requirements; and then

C. Comparing those public statements with the DOJ OLC memos; and contrast those with what the President said about Geneva.

The President has contradicted himself. We no longer need to wait for the President to cooperate in providing email messages confirming what is self-evident:

This American President has orchestrated war crimes, and induced Members of Congress to breach the laws of war.

Disclosed Legal Counsel Reviews

The DoD emails and McClellan's book show the President and White House staff closely coordinate all public statements with legal counsel.

The President's public statements about Russia should be linked with
DOJ OLC memos. The Senate Judiciary committee complains the DOJ OLC and
White House counsel have not timely responded to information requests
about still-secret memos. The President's statements on Russia make this excuse irrelevant.

Arguably, this is less important once the
President makes a public statement about Russia: These Presidential public statements on Russia can be linked with the contradictory DOJ OLC legal opinions, proving the President did not fully meet a legal standard he now publicly affirms.

Contradictory DOJ OLC Legal Opinions

Either:

A. Legal counsel previously made a reckless statement about the American President's legal obligations, and then later correctly asserted the correct policy re Russia; or

B. Legal counsel's original statements on the law were correct; and the President's public statements about Russia are invalid and not consistent with the DOJ OLC legal memoranda.

Sovereignty

To illustrate, let's consider some specific statements the President and others have said about Georgia. This statement shows the President and DOJ OLC know there is a principle of sovereignty, which the United States ignored in Iraq:

Bush, Augist 15, 2008: "Georgia's sovereignty and territorial
integrity must be respected."

The President has disclosed his understanding the "sovereignty" as a legal principle is important. The evidence shows the President did not recognize this standard in Iraq.

The President's statements about Russia and sovereignty are admissible against the President. The President knew or should have known that violating Iraq's sovereignty were punishable under the laws of war. Members of Congress and the Attorney General in refusing to enforce this principle are complicit with the President's war crimes.

Spheres of Influence

This statement contradicts the DoD emails and PNAC which expressly said the United States would expand its sphere of influence from Iraq into Syria and Iran:

Bush, Aug 15 2008: "The days of
satellite states and spheres of influence are behind us."

The Allied powers after WWII at Nuremberg prosecuted the Nazis for their illegal war of aggression, which substantially mirrored what the President did in Iraq, and planned/plans to do in Syria and Iran.

Going backward to 2001, the President's statement about Russia shows us the legal standard DOJ OLC should have included in their memoranda, and this President and others ignored; or the Attorney General is no w refusing to enforce a legal standard in the DOJ OLC memos that this President says Russia cannot also violate.

Civilized State Conduct

This shows us a level of civility this President would have Russia -- not the Untied States -- meet:

Bush, Aug. 13, 2008: "Bullying and intimidation
are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."

The President's deceptions on WMD and in the DoD emails and domestic propaganda show the President's policy of intimidation and bullying were acceptable to him, but not within the scope of civilized behavior.

Nuremberg: "Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance."

Nuremberg prosecuted lawyers and judges who did not meet the standard of conduct expected of civilized nations. When the American President commented about Russia, he  shows he understands or should understand international legal obligations are important. However, the President's conduct since 2001 is at odds with this principle the President today affirmed. This is an assertion about Russia which is contrary to the President's interests.

The President and Congress must explain why they have not respected this principle of sovereignty related to Iraq, Syria, or Iran. Where there is no imminent or ongoing threat to America, the President and Congress knew or should have known that the military campaign in Iraq was illegal; and all combat-related activities planned in Syria and Iran were an expansion of this illegal war of aggression.

The President's statements about Russia show his state of mind, his understanding of the law, and what the DOJ OLC has internally deliberated. The DOJ OLC memos can be linked with an illegal policy -- either related to POW abuse, Iraq WMD, or other war crimes.

The DoD and DOJ Staff emails show when the President is makes public statements, they are carefully coordinated by DOJ and Administration attorneys. His statements about Russia are not consistent with his statements and policies against Iraq. This means the DOJ OLC legal memos have contradicted the legal standards.

At Least One DoJ OLC Memo Proves President Violated Laws of War

We can infer from the President's statements that one set of standards applicable to the Russians is a "fair" statement of the DOJ OLC legal opinion of the  law. It doesn't matter what the DOJ OLC may or may not have internally deliberated. The issue is the President and DOJ OLC cannot credibly defend inconsistent legal conclusions or policies relative to Geneva.

Arguably, the Congress does not need to see the DOJ OLC or White House internal emails. the President's public statements about Russia, when contrasted with his policies in Iraq, are sufficient to prove the President knew of the legal principles he was violating, and recklessly ignored in Iraq the legal standards he publicly says the Russians must meet.

The President cannot shield the memos related to either Iraq WMD, POW abuse, or Russia. The DOJ OLC memos related to the President's statements on Russia are reachable as an exception to privilege through the crime-fraud exception.

DoJ OLC Evidence Retention Memo Re Russia

Recall the DOJ OLC memos on POW abuse. Just after 2001, the DOJ OLC memos show the President and others knew there was a foreseeable risk civilians abused could prosecute American officials in foreign courts.

Yoo: "’[These procedural protections] might be lacking if the United States
extradited the individuals . . . [to their] victims’ home countries for
prosecution.”

It was foreseeable the evidence of POW abuse should be retained, and there is no legal merit to any assertion that the CIA tapes could be destroyed.

Going forward, it is reasonable to conclude there is a similar DOJ OLC memo related to similar foreseeable legal risks on Russia and the President's statements. That is not a lawful internal deliberation nor protected by a bonafide shield. Those DOJ OLC memos are also lawfully admissible. If they are missing, that could be construed as a subsequent war crime.

Members of Congress, the Attorney General, the State Attorney Generals, and DOJ OLC legal counsel have fair warning that the President's statements about Russia are admissible. They have a job to do.

Lawful Use of Russian Combat Forces To Secure War Crimes Evidence

If the Congress, DOJ, or United States government now refuse to enforce the laws of war, then Russia may be forced to expand its lawful use of Russian combat forces.  Russia, as a sovereign power, has a legal interest in securing this war crimes evidence inside the Department of Justice. Without the President's full cooperation to disclose this war crimes evidence, Russia will not be able to timely respond to any American government request.

The President has fatally affirmed principles in Geneva he has expressly violated. Congress has fair notice that it must now start an impeachment investigation, or Russia and her allies may lawfully use deadly combat force to secure this war crimes evidence in the District of Columbia.

Russia's military actions highlight the President's convoluted
legal arguments behind the invasion of Iraq, PNAC, and his cynical
confrontation with Russia.

The President and Congress have
largely failed to enforce the laws of war. It is absurd for the
American government to attempt to hold Russia to legal standards
Americans refused to enforce.

DoD Emails Undermine President's Position Against Russia

The
President's agenda was founded on an illegal perversion of the laws of
war. He threw the laws out the window, and said that propaganda was
sufficient to defend his actions.

The DoD emails show the world
the American President personally spoke with military analysts to drum
up the case for war against not just Iraq but Syria:

Illegal propaganda, illegal warfare: "a lot was moved by Saddam's people from Iraq into Syria"

Russia Destroys PNAC's Legal Foundation

The
American government's hypocrisy on the laws of war created an unstable
foundation for the American government. The roots of the hypocrisy
extend to the now-discredited PNAC agenda.

The Project for the
New American Century relied on legal opinions perverting the laws of
war to justify illegal warfare, pre-textual invasion, and war crimes.
The Americans since 2001 have abused power and violated the Geneva
Conventions.

This President argued he was above the law. He
said, as documented in the DoD emails, the PNAC agenda should guide
Americans to impose American values ti reshape the world:

Imperial President: "when we invaded iraq we let syria and iran know they were next"

The
PNAC legal foundations were unalwful, and largely unchallenged until
Russia challenged the Georgian's illegal provocations along her souther
borders.

PNAC Hypocrisy

The President, in
challenging Russia, is arguing against the American agenda and legal
framework adopted to justify his illegal activity. The President has to
opinions on whether the PNAC legal foundation should or should not be
thrown out the window. The President, long disdainful off
accountability, has a new (disingenuous) religion and an expansive love
of legal standards.

Bush's Illusion: The
perverted, ignored laws suddenly have taken on new meaning: A new
standard to impose on others, but one to continue to explain away at
home as unworthy of concern.

The President has no real
love of the laws of war. He's merely looking for an excuse to distract
attention from his war crimes against civilians.

DOJ OLC is
hard pressed to explain why the Russians should comply with the legal
standards DOJ OLC said were not applicable to the American President.
Even the Attorney General says he will not enforce these standards at
home.

The American President has no coherent plan to:

1. Explain his reversal on legal standards;

2. Justify embracing a standard he earlier said did not apply; and then

3. Convince reasonable American the Russians should be bound by legal standards the AG and DOJ OLC said do not warrant a response to Congress.

US Govt Disingenuous About Russian Combat Operations

The
President fails to understand that Russia's actions
along her border are lawful, and consistent with her internal security
requirements. The buffoon in the Oval Office needs a geography lesson:
Iraq, unlike Georgia on Russia's border, is not on America's border.

It is irrelevant how the Russians achieved their legal
justification. This American President and the law are not in the same
universe. The DoD emails show the President fabricated a pre-text to
plan for the illegal invasion of Iraq, then Syria, then Iraq.

Propaganda, not the law applies: "they're training terrorists right now in Syria to go into Iraq"

Unlike
Iraq many thousands of miles away from America and not an imminent
threat to American civilians, Georgia took illegal action along Russia's border against civilians holding Russian passports. No propaganda is required when there is an unfolding threat to Russian citizens.

Geneva

The American President and Congress have no legal foundations used to question Russia's decision to address an internal
security requirement along her southern border. The Geneva Conventions,
once ignored, cannot be revived. Once one power ignores the laws of
war, they have no legal justification to prosecute anyone for similar
violations.

Geneva does not allow the United states to attempt to enforce any legal
requirement a the United States has substantially ignored, not enforced, or violated.

In
their response to Russia, PNAC and the DOJ OLC lawyers have cast their
perverted legal architecture out the window. Whether Russia has or has
not complied with the laws of war is irrelevant. These are questions
the the American President and Congress cannot adequately explain to the public:

A. Which ignored legal standard does DOJ OLC plan to impose on Russia; and

B. How does DOJ OLC explain attempting to impose on Russia a legal standard PNAC, the President, and Congress said no longer applied?

There is no legal foundation for this President or Congress
to question Russia: Those legal principles are ones this Congress,
President, and Attorney General to not recognize. The Attorney General
says all DOJ OLC memos 'legalized' the war crimes:

MUKASEY: "When it comes to past conduct, one of the many questions
involving past conduct, in addition to what was done, is, what
authorizations were given, what authorizations were reasonably relied
on?"

Those ignored legal standards
cannot be exported as requirements on foreign powers. Even if Russia
had violated any applicable law, the President and Congress have
another problem: A history of lack of enforcement establishes those
legal standards cannot be selectively enforced.

Comparing American Atrocities in Iraq to Russian Actions in Georgia

War
isn't pretty. The press reports from both Georgia and Iraq have not
been free from bias. The number of civilian deaths in Iraq is
estimated, in one study, to be several hundreds of thousands:

BBC: "One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2006, suggested that about 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion."

The Russians are getting blamed for killing civilians. Strange, when the Americans were charged with genocide in Iraq, the President laughed it off as collateral damage. Rather than take responsibility for the American abuses, the President blamed the civilian casualties on Iraqis:

"As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the terrorists and Saddamists will continue to use violence"

This video shows the American president was willing to risk more deaths. The issue isn't that there are civilian deaths in Georgia, but the American President has a new excuse to distract attention from the Iraqi civilians he and others killed with an illegal invasion.

If the world wants to raise concerns about Russian actions in Georgia, the world must ask about the Georgian actions; and the American abuses in Iraq.

The American government likes the Russian response to the Georgian provocations: They distract attention from American war crimes and Member of Congress collusion with the illegal activity in Iraq.

The President invoked the "I'm a wartime President," as an excuse not to respond to Congressional questions and assert executive privilege. There is no reason this President should be surprised why the Russians are not timely responding to America:

DOJ OLC Torture Memo: "In wartime, it is for the President alone to decide what method us use to be prevail against the enemy."

The President cannot explain why this legal standard does not apply to Russia's government. The war criminal-lawyers inside DOJ OLC want to have it both ways, and argue that the Russian President must rely on NATO-US agreement on how Russia secures its borders.

Bush's Convoluted Rules

A. The President gets to decide to ignore the laws of war;

B. The President can, outside Geneva, create a new standard that he holds Russia to;

C. The President hopes nobody notices the similarity between how he views Geneva re Russia and FISA: Ignore the real requirement; and then attempt to apply new standards.

This is absurd. DOJ OLC argued the opposite when it came to American Presidential power. This United States government is arguing against itself. Anything this DOJ OLC-President argue about Russia must be thrown back at the lawyers:

A. How can the American President be above the standards imposed on Russia, a sovereign power; conversely,

B. If the Russians are required to comply with any legal requirement, why hasn't the American President and Congress shown by example they are willing to comply with and enforce that legal "requirement"?

C. If these legal standards are applicable to Russia, why doesn't the American Attorney General see them suitable for enforcement against the American government?

Members of Congress must explain why they did not demand since 2001 the American President answer questions the Russians are "required" to answer. The illusion is Congress has no control over the President; but the President and Congress can control Russia. Strange, Pelosi claims she cannot stop the war in Iraq, yet John Yoo writes:

"The legislative power should have a right to disband [a standing army] as soon as it pleased." [Yoo, 84 Calif. L. Rev. 167]

Anything the President or others say about Russians in Georgia should
be asked by Congress of the President about his military campaign in
Iraq and Afghanistan:

A. Why was this force used;

B. Why are these civilian deaths occurring, under which policy;

C. What is the legal basis for these actions, how is this uniformly enforced;

D. Why aren't the POWs being immediately cared for under the Geneva Conventions;

E. Why weren't captured non-combat-connected equipment and civilians immediately returned to their home countries; and

F. Who is responsible for establishing these illegal policies supporting war crimes against Iraqi civilians?

The American President blamed "ongoing combat operations" as the excuse not to respond to the law and Congressional oversight. Last time we checked Congress doesn't oversee Russia. Congress has enough trouble explaining away the decrepit lawn on the nation's mall.

When Congress can manage lawns, the world might take seriously their "concern" about civilian deaths overseas. Since 2003, Congress yawned when hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, mercilessly slaughtered by this President's war criminals. Returning American veterans report the leadership encourages war crimes against Iraqi civilians.

Congress: Incompetent Domestic Confrontation

Congress has proven powerless and incompetent in using power to confront the President. The world cannot take seriously any Congressional threat against a sovereign power. Congress' idea of a declaration of war is to write a letter asking for cooperation.

The President hasn't timely answered questions about his illegal warfare. Members of Congress have not made the case why they tolerate a non-response from the President, but might require Russia to respond.

When America cleans up the cess pool inside the Oval Office and explains the Bush-led genocide in Iraq, perhaps the Russians might consider responding to questions about civilian deaths in Georgia.

The way forward is for Americans to reconsider Yoo's words and discuss changing the American constitution to more effectively constrain executive power, which this Congress, in defiance of its oath, refuses to do:

Yoo: "South Carolina's radically different constitution is the exception that proves the rule: it was the only state to restrain the executive's war powers by placing decision-making authority in war in another branch of government. If the Framers of 1787 had wanted to adopt either South Carolina's system, or a system requiring consultations with other bodies such as a council or Senate, they had a clear example to follow."

Time for the Congress to call Yoo to testify about war powers in light of the turn of events in Georgia. Does he still have the same views; or are there times when the Executive should be able to blame another branch of government for letting him do something foolish?

The decider should decide whether he wants to be the leader. The village is waiting.

The Russian military offensive shows brute military power makes the lobbyists' arguments irrelevant. A lawyer's words as a lobbyist mean nothing to the Russian Bear.

Russia Outmaneuvered the President's Military Bloggers

Katrina helped open the door to the President's incompetence. Before Katrina, the President enjoyed substantial, unquestioned media support. The distance of Iraq and media control meant the President enjoyed quite a honeymoon.

After Katrina passed, the President could no longer hide behind the media curtain.  Katrina brought the problem home, and the public saw the President was incompetent.  As the President's bungling surfaced, Americans had greater doubts.  The media honeymoon started to wind down.

Russia: The New Katrina

The same thing happened with the Russian response to the Georgian military provocations.  The speed of the Russian invasion has left the White House dumfounded, unable to craft a coherent message. At best, Rice is embracing the pre-Katrina delusion; at worst, she's showing her blind loyality to a war criminal.

The White House cannot, as it did with the military bloggers on Iraq WMD, craft or disseminate a marginally coherent message. The President is behind the message. Russia, not the American President, is setting the agenda.

The public knows this. We need only look at the NYT letters to the editor on Georgia: The President's arrogance in Iraq is coming back to haunt him.

Russification of Bush Doctrine

Consider this unanimous backlash against the President, published in the NYT [emphasis added]:

Michael Boyajian, NY : "administration has miscalculated"

Dale Friedley, FL: "Russia holding a much stronger hand"

Benjamin Solomon, IL: "Russia is emulating, in its own brutal fashion, America’s basic reliance on military force"

Bruce Rider, TX: "administration’s lack of knowledge of the wider world"

Sadanand Nanjundiah, CT: "world has seen through the hypocrisy"

Connell J. Maguire, FL: "consequences of squandering America’s moral authority by invading Iraq"

Note the comments about the President are largely couched in terms of him as a person; while Russia is broadly referred to as a power, or a country. Americans are separating themselves from this President; and looking at Russia as a single entity.

President, Rice Are In Denial

This distinction shows us the Americans are viewing the problems with America as attached to the President; while the forces which helped reveal these problems are more unified as a single power. The Russian Prime minister achieved his goal.

It will be interesting to look at the White House email messages to the media and military analysts.  The public information suggests the President's proagandists are still scrambling for the facts to spin, much less for a policy to propagandize.

While the Russians prepared their military, the White House for the past 24 months has been crafting propaganda to blame Iran for the President's incompetence in Iraq; and distract attention from the NATO failures in Afghanistan.

The President can no longer hide the facts:

A. This American President's policies have been a disaster;

B. Seven years on, NATO under this President's leadership, is incapable of effectively organizing active duty combat units;

C. Russian military reserves are rested, and have boots on the ground in Georgia; and

D. There is nothing the President or Congress can do to convince Americans this American government knows what it is doing.

It's likely the White House staff messages are similar to the confusion we saw with the US Attorney firings: Staff scrambling to respond to media questions, and cynical comments about gumming the public to death until January 2009. Meanwhile, the Russians are digging deeper into the Georgian soil.

America refuses to support this President. He burned the bridge on FISA, POW issues, and Iraq. The Russians, like Katrina, have helped pull the curtain away from this President's delusions about abusive military power.

The President's media messages are hypocritical. His Administration's comments about Russia shed light on what the Congress should be saying about the President.

Increasing Pressure on American President

This war criminal in the Oval Office is isolated.  If he had any credibility, someone would come to his defense.  He has no credible allies. Perhaps the Russians might, out of sympathy, offer the President a Russian passport as he flees the media and his legacy. Should he be so lucky.

This President's vulnerabilities, exposed by the Russians, must be exploited to defend the Constitution. All lawful options are on the table.  Congress refuses to defend the Constitution. Perhaps the Russians, like Katrina, have awoken Americans, to the real incompetence in the District of Columbia.

Once Americans agree on a problem, we can discuss a solution. no thanks to the complicit war criminals in Congress. With the right leadership, FDR and JFK showed the world Americans can do wonders. This President has not risen to the occasion.

It's time for America to do the job this President refuses to do: Clean up this mess in the District of Columbia with timely war crimes prosecutions and disbarments of the lawyer-lobbyists. If only America's leadership had spent as much time enforcing the law as they did making excuses for war crimes. Perhaps Congress wants another Russian reminder.

Russia is ready.

America's Geneva Violations Come Back To Haunt White House On Russian Humvee Seizure

One of the hazards of the American President ignoring Geneva is his inability to compel other nations to comply with Geneva.

The issue is the Humvee. Nothing like having a foreign power lawfully remind the American leadership of their legal obligations under the laws of war and American Constititution.

Perhaps if the Americans make additional concessions to the Russians, the Russians might think about returning the Humvee soon.

Americans should ask what this President has secretly agreed with the Russians to respond.

The Russians are reading the news reports of the unresponsive DOJ OLC to reasonable Congressional demands for written information. The Department of Justice has not been timely responding to requests for information. It will take many years to review the details.

Consider the recent Russian capture of American mlitary equipment in Georgia. The Americans say the Russians "must" return the equipment:

Independent: "White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe stated that if Russia has seized any US military equipment in Georgia, it must return it immediately."

Under the laws of war, enemy property is defined as property that is useful for combat operations. Russia and the United States are not technically (yet) at war.

The American lawyers have argued -- out of "necessity" -- that the American President may ignore the laws of war.  Te American Attorney General says he will not enforce the Geneva Conventions. There is no legal requirement for the Russians to do something the AG refuses to do.

The legal issues related to the Humvee also revolve around "necessity".

The status of the Humvee is unclear:

A. Was it really outside the battlefield;

B. Was it planned on being used by the Georgians for illegal warfare against Russia;

C. Was there an issue of necessity, where the Georgians, might possibly have imagined a case that they could have used it?

Yoo, Addington, Bybee and the "Necessity" of America's War Crimes

FISA is a law applicable during wartime. The American President out of  necessity said American citizens are not protected under the laws of war, FISA, or the US Constitution. There is little reason Russia should meet a standard this American President says is not good enough for the American people.

Once the American lawyers working for this war criminal inside the Oval office said -- on assertion alone -- that the American President may -- out of "necessity" -- detain American citizens or non-combatants without charge and hold them as war criminals -- then other powers may lawfully revisit the definition of "necessity".

Anything this President has done the Russians may lawfully do -- "out of necessity".

These are complex legal issues. The Russians and American lawyers may or may not timely agree on the legal definitions. As with Congress, the Russians should be afforded at least as much time to consider the legal issues as this President has taken.

Or is this President demanding Americans comply with slower justice; and that foreign powers should move faster than the complicit Congress?

The Russians may or may not agree -- taking the DOJ OLC lead and after careful, exhaustive review of the American claims -- that the American military equipment might have been used by the Georgians. Once the Americans transported Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia, America was no longer neutral.

There is a question whether the United States, seeing it could not timely provide equipment to Georgia directly, may have been planning to lease or transfer that equipment to Georgia on an emergency basis.  The Russians are interested, as Congress is, in working in good faith with the American legal experts.

However, America's lawyers have not been interested in timely responding to reasonable requests for information.  There is a reasonable question in the mind of Russian lawyers whether the DOJ OLC will or will not timely provide legal papers to the Russian authorities.

The question the Russian lawyers may have of DOJ OLC, as chief legal advisors to the President:

- Please provide a copy of the memorandums between the American President and Georgian officials on plans to lease that equipment to Georgia;

- Explain why the United States should be viewed as a non-belligerent given America's involvement with the Georgian conflict through its transport of Georgian soldiers from the ilelgal conflict in Iraq to the illegal Georgian activity, south of Russia;

- Provide to the Russian President's l egal experts an explanation why the Russians should not treat the American action in Georgia as a war crime; and the Russian seizure of American equiprement as evidence of violations of the Geneva Conventions; and

- Provide a reasonable explanation to the Russian legal team advising the Russian Primse Minister why the American lawyers should be trusted over their legal opinions given their disdain for the laws of war, Geneva, and human rights when it comes to POW treatment.

If the Americans would like the Humvee back -- soon, possibly before the Olymics in Russia -- then the DOJ OLC legal counsel should do something it has shown a lack of interest since 2001: Timely responding to reasonable Russian requests for information about the specifics of:

A. This President's war crimes in Iraq; and

B. Jow this President and others in DOJ OLC have or have not been complicit with this President's expansive use of illegal war planning to support unlawful movements of Georgian troops from Iraq to another illegal combat zone south of Russia.

The Americans have not timely complied with Geneva requirements when it comes to POW treatment, trials, or other laws of war. The White House has not provided a legal basis for the Russians to do what the Americans refuse to do: Timely respond to Geneva-related issues.

Even if the Russians were to consider the American request, there's no mechanism in place for America to enforce its demand. Russia and the United States are not at war. It will take time for the Russians to review the American claims.

America took seven (7) years to "get around" to complying with Geneva requirments for POW treatment. It is absurd for the Americans to believe the Russians will move faster than the "mighty" American President.

The Russias have the opporutnity to:

A. Review the American claims;

B. Compare the American action in Guantanamo with a proper, reciprocal Russian response;

C. Establish whether the American precedent at Guantanamo should or should not be respected;

D. Carefully examine the American's assertions that the equipment was not illegally being transshipped through Georgia to support Anti-Russian military efforts;

E. Conduct a broad review of the equipment to ensure it was not being used in any capacity for any illegal intelligence gathering; and

G. Glacially think about whether or not to respond to the American's request.

Considering the Americans have returned to Russia -- in pieces -- jet fighters, the Russians could lawfully do the same with this Humvee:

1. Take it apart, slowly;

2. Photograph it, slowly;

3. Closely examine the photographs under a microscope, slowly;

4. Glacially return the Humvee in boxes, through Iran, to the Americans.

America might get the Humvee back if it agrees to lawfully confront this President's war crimes; and demonstrate it will timely enforce the laws of war. Until then, Russia has seven (7) years to "think about" what it should do.

What's the United States going to do, go to the UN and whine? Russia has the veto power.

Or go to the ICC and make a claim? Ooops, the President said the ICC and the US are not going to work together. Seven years. Maybe America will get the Humvee back earlier if the President and Congress do not do something stupid.

Possibly sooner. 

If America cooperates with reasonable requirements under the laws of war, Russia may -- out of sympathy for the American people's plight under this incompetent President and Speaker -- consider accelerating the Russian review and sooner return the Humvee. That will require some special concessions from the American government.

The President is known for theatrics when it comes to moving things near or around large ships. The Russians are lawfully able to respond in kind. It would be fitting, as the Russians or Irananians lower the Humvee onto the American port, for the crew to wave a copy of the American Constitution and Geneva Conventions. Congress isn't waving the flag or Constitution.

The President and Congress refused to respect the American Constitution and the American public. The world will see if the war criminal-lawyers working for the American government respond to Russian lawyers.

The world will see whether Americans or Russians are more interested in the rule of law. It will not take much for the Russians to meet a marginally higher standard the American war criminals have refused to meet.

Russia has been taking careful note of the American President's disdain for written law and agreements. She is an excellent student: Russia is doing the same as this President: Parsing the written word to justify asserting power.

The American leadership is not genuinely really "concerned" about
Russia doing what the President does. Although FISA and the Constitution still apply during wartime, Russia
enjoys knowing the American President and Congress scornfully view
written agreements.

The President and Rice are upset
Russia is getting away with selectively parsing written agreements; and NATO, under American "leadership"
has more Afghan egg on its face.

Parsing Geneva Over Iraq, POW, and Georgia

Usually, conflicts have an aggressor, especially when all peaceful
options have not been exhausted. That requirement when 'out the window'
when this President illegally invade Iraq.


The President and Rice are silent on who is responsible for this war of aggression in Georgia: Is it their proxy or their convenient enemy of the wee, Russia.

Curious how the President and Rice are silent on Geneva, only referring
to new agreements. They did the same with the telecom immunity and POW
abuse: Ignore the original standards, then pretend the new standards
were  also discretionary.

Parsing the Parsing

The American President selectively parsed the American Constitution and FISA, arriving at perverse legal conclusions, with the assistance of the war criminals inside the Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel.

The American President said he required Congress to agree with his interpretation of Executive power.  For years, Congress complied with this perversion:

Court: "Moreover, the Executive argues, the Committee cannot rest on an implied right to investigate derived from Article I because the underlying subject matter here -- removal of executive officials -- is an issue on which Congress has no authority to legislate and thus no corresponding right to investigate."

Similarly, when Russia agreed to a cease-fire, it meant it agreed to the Russian interpretation of security: Georgia is "secure" when Russia decides Georgia is secure:

NYT: Maj. Gen. Vyacheslav N. Borisov, a Russian officer who has called
himself the region’s “commandant,” briefly appeared at nightfall and
suggested that under one interpretation of the cease-fire agreements,
the area could be part of a peacekeeping zone.

You recall Bolton's comments about using the NSA to monitor American citizens. He openly admitted, long before the NYT reported the President's illegalities, the United States government monitors American citizen's private communications. Bolton read the transcripts.

It doesn't follow for Bolton to pretend America was surprised by the Russian invasion. This President illegally monitors Americans. He doesn't need a warrant or an excuse to use the NSA to monitor war preparations for Georgia:

Telegraph: "Having been caught unawares the administration didn't respond strongly
enough in the initial days and that gave the signal to the Russians
that they could pretty much do what they wanted," said John Bolton, a
former US ambassador to the United Nations.

The NSA surveillance started before 9-11. The American Congress has yet to have a real accounting of what information the NSA had, but the President and Congress refused to heed.

As with the Iraq WMD white wash, there is no prospect Congress will soon start a serious investigation of the NSA "failing" prior to the Russian invasion. Congress likes to pretend it is surprised, as a distraction from their collusion with this President's war crimes.

The President views the American constitution as discretionary. Addington views of an expansive view of Executive power set the stage for the Russian selective parsing of their agreements over Georgia. Addington in the Iran-Contra report selectively cut and paste from the Constitution, Supreme Court precedents, and Federalist Papers to arrive at perverse views of American power.

Rice's Crocodile Tears

It should not be a surprise to anyone, especially those complicit with this President's war crimes, why other nations take a selective view of written agreements:

LAT: Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice expressed skepticism about the Russian promise to
withdraw. "I just know that the Russian president said several days ago Russian military operations would stop. They didn't."

It's almost possible to believe Rice, until we remember the President agreed to follow (and illegally ignored) FISA requirements during wartime. The President of the United States said he would, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, something Congress and the President do not take seriously:

Article II: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."

This President and Congress have painted themselves into a corner.
They've trained Congress and the American public to embrace two
standards on the law.

It's disingenuous for America's leadership to expect Americans to
enforce a standard against Russia this President and Congress have
ignored since 2001. Their real aim is to gum the Russian-Georgian
crisis, and dissuade accountability at home. There is no statute of
limitations for war crimes.

It's also disingenuous for the President, Rice, and Bolton to feign shock or surprise the Russians have or have not done something. The Russians have seen under this Administration a perverse view of written laws and agreements.

The perversion in Congress is their stupidity in thinking foreign powers and Americans wouldn't do something about it.

NATO has been having problems in Afghanistan. Now NATO has bad news from Georgia: Russia isn't as weak as once thought.


The Georgians hope to get modernized equipment NATO uses. Russia's goal
is to undermine confidence in the NATO shield for Eastern Europe.

 NATO appears to have
been surprised not by the use of force, but the speed of the Georgian
military collapse. These are of concern to NATO because of problems in
Afghanistan which might recur when defending Europe against Russia.

NATO will have to explain why, despite planning the Russians reported
24 months ago, why NATO is only now reviewing progress in Afghanistan,
and reconsidering Russian power used in Georgia.

NATO appears to fear it has a credibility problem, not only
because of poor progress in Afghanistan, but the tactical surprise of
the Russians against the Georgian military. NATO will have to provide
some credible reassurance to its member nations to demonstrate they
have sufficient command and control of resources to defend against an
increasingly likely Russian pre-textual attack against Eastern Europe.


The Russian defense ministry recently discussed additional funding for the tactical missile complex system. The Georgians claimed the Russians moved the systems to Georgia is a tactical missile system, which has supporting launch vehicles.

Russia denied it used the system and says it has no plans to use the system. They did not address the claim that the system was moved.

Russia has contradicted itself: Claiming it destroyed Georgia's military; but then refused to completely withdraw. If Russia's claims -- that they quickly, completely destroyed the Georgian military -- were true, then Russia cannot explain why it needs a military in Georgia.

The truth appears to be something different: The conflict in Georgia was a pretext for Russia to invade, destroy Georgia's military, and occupy the country.

The Russians view the American NSA and NATO as being in bed with Georgia. The Russians are gleeful that they've outmaneuvered the American satellites, and moved rockets without any meaningful American or Georgian response.

The Russians are vaguely referring to possible NATO-like aircraft over Georgia and Eastern Europe, mocking the figher pilots as they are tracked across the newly deployed Russian systems in Georgia. The Russians provided similar assistance in the former Yugoslavia when it assisted them in tracking specific fighter pilots flying from Italy.

The Russians have been providing commentary on their ability to use space-based platforms to integrate ground reconnaissance and support air operations. One commenter was happy Russian pilots wold be able to have active air combat experience in Georgia, and not act as show pilots during air shows.

The Russian news reports are discussing NSA satellite coverage of the Russian military movements within Georgia. The Russians are reporting that the Pentagon was surprised by the speed of the Russian troop movements, prompting concerns within NATO. NATO's problem has been the command and control issues in Afghanistan against simple insurgents living in caves.  The NATO concerns appear to be much more than how to respond to Georgia, but how to effectively respond to a worried Russian invasion of NATO.

Russian news reports have not adequately discussed the different defense systems NATO uses in Europe, than those available for Georgia. However, NATO has not explained why the best military equipment -- presumably available to defend Europe -- cannot prevail in Afghanistan.

According to the Russian reports, NATO has been surprised by the speed and effectiveness of Russia's attacks on Georgia's command and controls systems, vital to defending Eastern Europe from Russia, and key to organizing an effective air-to-air response against expected Russian air forces over NATO allies.

From the Russian perspective, it appears they are not clear why Georgia did not take seriously the Russian threats. This suggests the Americans believed they could dissuade Russian action in Georgia. One report emphasized the speed at which Georgia's military has been effectively neutralized. Even with some NATO-American assistance, Georgia quickly collapsed.

Russia views Georgia as an indirect proxy for NATO, relying on NATO-like equipment. Russia views the Georgian-military-defeat as a fair warning for NATO: NATO combat forces are not sufficiently robust to challenge Russia, nor defend Eastern Europe.  Russia views the remaining Georgian forces as meaningless: One of the units remaining exists only to finance the ministry; and the other organizing the (already) Georgian demobilization.

One of the key reminders is the Russian preparation for the Georgian invasion did not appear out of the blue. The preparations have been coordinated for many months. The American President has known something was possible, but did nothing to timely adjust in either Iraq or Afghanistan; nor did he secure a victory overseas to then make available US forces for Georgia. The President made the decision many months ago not to fully mitigate the Russian threat in Georgia.

It remains to be seen how the Georgian conflict spills into the Middle East. The Russians see an interesting dynamic. They view Israel as being limited in deploying forces, and would have us believe that Israel refused to return to Georgia specific equipment.

According to the Russian media, Russia is not moving its forces out of Georgia because it is planning for an increased American military presence and defense in Georgia. Russia does not expect the American President to use nuclear weapons, and are confident Russian conventional forces will not be adequately opposed by either NATO or America.

The Russians invaded Georgia. The President is powerless to make the Russians do anything. The Russians are not leaving. The Russians showed the GOP that military power is more relevant than lobbying.

The Russians show Americans the American government is not relevant. Katrina, when it unmasked this President's incompetence, brushed away the illusion this President could not be confronted.

Pakistanis took to the streets opposing the Pakistani President. Even state-sponsored terrorism against the political opposition could not deter the Pakistanis. They were ready to impeach the Executive.

Congress is complicit with this President's ineffectual policies. Rather than ensure that scarce resources were prudently used, this Congress ensured this President had enough space and time to stretch American power beyond what is sustainable.

The Russians took note. The question is how many other foreign powers will take advantage of the imploding American power. There appears to be little stopping China from using military force against Taiwan: This President has recklessly sent American forces to provide humanitarian assistance to Georgia, and has plans to invade Iran.

Until Congress confronts the President, the American public should not be surprised to see military expansion within Africa threatening vital strategic resources.  The President has not adequately explained why he is relying on Al Qaeda supporters to defend American interests around the globe.

In this global war on terror, the President is fighting himself. Congress is complicit. The State AGs and legislatures-assemblies have the power to lawfully confront, investigate, and prosecute this sitting President.

Until Americans digest the lessons from Russia and Pakistan, be prepared to make more excuses when other countries exploit the incompetence within the Speaker's office, and her collusion with this President's war crimes.

As with Pakistan, Americans should not be surprised when and if this Congress works with the President to lash out at those least capable of defending themselves: The American public. It is a shame the President and Congress, incapable of establishing a credible deterrent against Russia in Georgia will likely find a convenient scapegoat at home.

Americans cannot wait. This President and Congress must be confronted. The Pakistanis show us that the excuse of a "global war on terror" does not mean incompetent, reckless leadership cannot be confronted.

America must lawfully confront this reckless President and complicit Congress. Until then, the President's bungling in Afghanistan using NATO forces sends a clear signal to the Russians that Americans are not serious about using NATO to defend Eastern Europe.

The Russians are ready. This President and Congress are vulnerable. If Americans do not move first to confront this reckless leadership, the Russians and other nations are prepared. The issue is not whether there will be a confrontation; but whether we lawfully have one through impeachment, or foreign powers expand their combat operations to further discredit this incompetent President and Speaker.

The confrontation is on the table. It started when this President, in concert with Congress, decided to ignore FISA, Geneva, and the laws of war. Foreign powers are lawfully violating the same provisions this President and Congress have ignored. These violations under Geneva will continue and expand until Americans lawfully constrain this reckless American government.

We have the time. The question is whether foreign powers will remain patient. The continued occupation of Georgia and the resignation of the Pakistani President shows Americans that foreigners are not willing to give this President or Congress any more time. Neither should Americans.

It's time to lawfully confront this President through impeachment; and,
as required, remove Pelosi to make way for these required
investigations. If they refuse, then further Russian expansionism is on
their hands; and no American should tolerate any abuse this President
or Congress inflict on the American people

The violations of our rights and the Constitution have run their "reasonable" course. Until confronted, this President will continue. We must end our illegal cooperation with this reckless President. He must be lawfully confronted.

The world has run out of patience with this failed President and Congress. Americans must support impeachment, or prepare for more abuse of power, and mobilize broader reforms at home.

It will not be easy. Inaction will make things difficult. Complicity and collusion have made things worse. We have the obligation to confront this abuse of power. Then things might change. We cannot continue down this path. Niether can the President, nor can Congress.

Change is on the way. This President and Congress are not leading.  They will have to change from within; or they will become irrelevant on the international stage, and at home. We the People have the power to confront this reckless American government through our State legislatures.

The President and Members of Congress can be lawfully prosecuted for complicit with and active support of unlawful warfare; and other grave breaches of Geneva. Until we take the lead of the Pakistanis and move to impeach this President, Americans should not be surprised while the world takes the lead of the Russians: Further reminding this President and Congress of their powerlessness.

This powerless is something Americans can exploit, and use to defend the Constitution from this reckless US government. The worst that will happen is more of what we already have: Incompetence. We're better than than. We should not have to rely on threats from Russia to awaken us; nor look to the Pakistanis to remind us what the rule of law means.

The answers and vision are not coming from the District of Columbia, but from our formerly close allies in this phony war on terrorism. Even this President has turned the tables and is working with supporters of Al Qaeda in his new Congressionally-supported warfare against Iran.

This President and Congress have become state sponsors of illegal activity, war crimes, and terrorism. No American is required to cooperate with this President's barbarism. He will not change. Neither will Congress. Then they must be lawfully transformed into something that will be responsive, and end what the Russians and Pakistanis have rejected: Incompetence.

DoJ permitted tainted prosecutors to review the District of Columbia. The original problem related to an improper prosecutor release of trial transcripts to six witnesses in a 9-11 investigation.

The issue which tainted the W. District was their improper prosecutor release to the FBI of the Wecht Juror names. The error should have been detected.  It was not.

Another distirct should have reviewed the original problem in the Distirct of Columbia. This too did not happen.

There are some larger budgeting issues related to this failure. They relate to how DOJ provides Congress through the President estimates of its manpower requirements. DoJ is underreporting its manning requirements to conduct thorough reviews of prosecutor misconduct.

The first comment below shows the relationship between the tainted prosecutor review and manpower-budget models; and outlines for the public and TPMM questions to ask of the Department of Justice.

Person A Is Ted Steven's House Mate?

TPMM shares some emails. Notice there are some great lengths to conceal the identify of someone, Person A.

"At 3:49 a.m. on September 1, 2006, Stevens wrote Person A: "press
releases say the FBI served a warrant in Girdwood??? Did they hit our
house? T."

Stevens didn't say, "Your house," or "their house," but "our house." It stands to reason that the emails were sent to Steven's house mate, presumably his wife, invoking the privilege granted to spousal communications.

How did this email get around the spousal privilege, confidentiality of communications between spouses?

One option is when the NSA intercepts information, the identifying information is stripped off; and the grand jury was not adequately informed about privileges applicable to spousal communications.

The President's emails are privileged, or so he would argue. Why isn't Stevens' communication with his wife suppressed? Perhaps the prosecutors, in their rush to prosecute, neglected to mention that they may have evidence which is not admissible; and would taint the grand jury.

Or is it too scary to contemplate the possibility the prosecutors have engaged in misconduct, and are attempting to cover it up, as they did with 9-11?

Critics have dismissed concerns about political prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions. Some have suggested Geneva and the Wecht trial are not connected.

The NYT does not agree that prosecutions are not partisan.

The AP is reporting that political decisions are improperly tainting US trials at Guantanamo.

AP: "The ruling will fuel defense challenges in other trials at this U.S.
Navy base, where a former chief prosecutor and defense lawyers have
accused Air Force Brig Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser to the
tribunals, of demanding that certain cases be pursued over others based
on political considerations."

The DoD General counsel, planning trials for POWs at Guantanamo, said,

"Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals".

The NYT implicitly linked the President with selective prosecutions against Wecht, a Democrat:

NYT Editorial: "There is by now strong reason to believe that [the President and others] were involved in plans to fire United States attorneys for political reasons, fill other important positions on the basis of partisanship rather than competence and order prosecutions designed to help Republicans win elections."

Political prosecutions and other questionable conduct at the Wecht trial are related to the DoD questionable conduct at Guantanamo. The Justice Trial reminds us that judges, if they refuse to enforce the laws of war, can be prosecuted for war crimes.

The President must stop tampering with American courts and juries. His continued harassment and meddling in the judicial branch sends a message to foreign war crimes prosecutors that American courts are not independent, as required by the Geneva Conventions.

Geneva requires POWs to have access to judicial procedures as those of similarly situated combatants, in this case American military personnel. The President must explain why he is tampering with American military courts in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Regardless the inclination of Congress to face this illegal activity, the NYT is implicitly raising the bar: Political prosecutions are not domestic issues of impeachment, but violations of the laws of war.

Perhaps if the weather is favorable, Members of Congress might review
these Geneva requirements to investigate these subsequent
Presidentially-directed war crimes. Inaction could be a subsequent war crimes charge agaisnt Members of Congress.

People generally do not repeat the same phrase, word for word. It rare to have two different people repeat the same string of words, especially when they are independent.

We noticed something very unusual with a common phrase. This is presented for your discussion. Note the following comment, and notice the key phrase in bold:

"All, please be aware that the individual testing post
unsubstantiated crap and when someone calls him on it, he simply posts
more and more crap. The guy is no better than a spammer and should be
banned from the site."

Posted by
GSB27

April 14, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink

This comment is repeated multiple times, the duplicate times are for different postings of the same comment:

April 14, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink


April 14, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink


April 14, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink


April 14, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink

Put that comment aside, and consider the following comment:

"All, please be aware that there is no Wecht Jury Tampering."


Posted by
JamesDD

June 29, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink

Here is the problem: There is another version

"All, please beware that the"


Posted by
GSB27

April 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink


Posted by
GSB27

April 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

"All, please beware that"


Posted by
GSB27

April 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

There is another version of the quote.

C&L has a caption contest. Vote for your favorite, or add your own:

Captions

A. "When he waved the flag, there was a reason Americans cried."

B. "He did the same to the Constitution."

C. "I've taken impeachment off the table with this table cloth."

D. "He said America needed a dictatorship. We got this for our color guard."

E. "Seven years after I invaded Afghanistan, and all I got was this rag from Osama's cave."

F. "If you think this is silly, ask me about the Skull and Bones view of the Iraq invasion."

G. "Katrina turned things around. Then America saw who was holding the flag -- his only plan."

H. "In Bush's universe, the wrong way is still the wrong way."

I. "He released a new foreign policy. This is the new right way. Russia took notice."

J. "Everyone else is holding it the wrong way. What are you doing to do about it? Impeach me? Ha!"

K. "From my perspective, I'm right. Everyone else is wrong. I did not have relations with monkeys. Just the Constitution."

L. "I do things that please me. You should be pleased. Send money. For my defense, I mean campaign fund. Yes, I'm running. From Laura, I mean the law. Hillary for Chief Justice. Roberts out."

M. "This is a signal. The signal is classified. The reason known only to Him."

N. "He alone decides what is in the best interests of America. Foreclosures are patriotic. Americans are showing their are fore-patriot-closured-ized"

O. "Six more months. Laura, what a great dust cloth for the West Wing. Where's my beer?"

P. "When I do this, nobody will notice our invasion of Iran. I mean, Georgia. I mean, the relief mission. Rice Krispie cakes or pretzels?"

Q. "He meant it to be backwards. He is the decider. And America did the same."

Illegitimate American Government: A Catalyst for Russians

There is no prospect America's leadership will aggressively confront
Russia in Georgia. America's leadership does not have the inclination, or resources to credibly confront domestic or international threats.

Russia knows this applies to foreign policy and is moving without fear of American military retaliation in Georgia. Russia is empowered because of America's defiance
toward the law. The law is about a process to understand the facts and decide an appropriate remedy. Russia knows this is a process American leaders do not wholeheartedly embrace.


Those who are weak and incompetent, but abuse power without remorse, must be lawfully challenged without fear of consequences.

Americans must challenge the incompetent leadership in the District through direct prosecutions at the State level.

This American leadership demands mercy for itself before it gathers facts or upholds justice.  Mercy is for those who show remorse. America's leadership shows
contempt for the rule of law. Justice does not require mercy, but
punishment. Remorse, if real, might be a mitigating factor, but it is
not an excuse to avoid punishment or justice.

Invalid Excuses To Enable Future War Criminals

The job of America's leadership and law enforcement is to enforce the
law. Without the law, the government is illegitimate. Some in the United States government have the incorrect perception that the President, only months away from ending his term, will get a free ride. Congress and the AG have decided to talk about accountability, but do nothing.

The American leadership must be lawfully confronted now. There is no excuse for this leadership to skate past the election, into 2009,
and expect to return with another Administration. The leadership in the
Department of Justice, Congress, and Executive Branch are not doing
their job. They should either resign or be lawfully removed from office.

Legal counsel are part of the problem. Until confronted, they remain a domestic threat. Those who are not challenged, will lurk, ready to abuse their power as attorneys.

Confronting War Criminals In American Legal Sector

The American legal community has been complicit with war crimes. Until confronted, the domestic enemies in the legal community remain ready, waiting in the wings, to abuse power.This is no
different than how the Nazis were after WWI: Those who are not confronted and lawfully punished would return to exploit cowardly indecision.

These trends touch more than the legal community, but are affecting foreign policy. American is a force for words, not real change or leadership. Foreign powers are exploiting this reckless American leadership.

The answer is not the reckless use of military force; but the responsible use of resources and power.

The American public must lawfully confront the reckless legal
counsel. Their future livelihoods must be put at risk.  The American lawyers are complicit with this illegal activity. They must:

A. Face
the lawful threat of disbarment; and

B. Suffer the lawful
consequences for their defiance of, and refusal to enforce the law.

The American public would not be held to a different standard. Neither should those entrusted with power, and the duty to show, by example, leadership.

American leadership cannot be rewarded for jeopardizing the public confidence in their
expertise. The law is in disrepair because the legal leadership are
disorganized and confused. They are not doing their job. The American public has to conduct oversight of their failed profession.



The error is for the American government to not confront this domestic
cancer within the American legal community. This refusal to act against
attorneys is a symptom of America's disdain for the rule of law. This
disdain is affecting how foreign powers view American power,
leadership, and resource utilization: With the same contempt America's
lawyers show for the Constitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions. If
they were serious about their oath, the lawyers would find a way to put
the law, not the President, first.

American Leadership: Meaningless Threats

It's interesting to compare the Cheney's statements about
Russia; the AG's comments about criminal activity; and Conyers
statements about the AG. All three have nothing behind their words, but
empty threats:

Conyers: "I am distressed that Attorney General Mukasey has been so quick to determine" [Impeachment is off the table]



AG: "But the failure was systemic in that the system – the institution –
failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong. There was a
failure of supervision by senior officials in the Department." [Prosecutions are off the table]



Cheney: "Russian Aggression must not go unanswered." [Seven years on, American, NATO forces are bogged down in Afghanistan.]

The common thread running through the halls of leadership: The leadership likes to
talk about accountability, but are not serious about ensuring accountability. The common problems are:

- There is no reason any person or power should take this leadership seriously;



- The leaders have no credible plan to put teeth behind their words.

Foreign power have taken note. Russia continues to exploit the American
government's indecision. The American military is stretched,
leaving Russia with the means and opportunity to confront NATO.



NATO is bogged down in Afghanistan, unable to defeat people living in
caves, and incapable of deploying substantial troops to support America
after 9-11. America did not require much to invade Iraq and enjoy Russian
complicity with that illegal invasion.

Russia only needs the prospect of instability along any of her borders with
NATO, and she would lawfully have the right to invade, bring stability
to her border, and provide the leadership this President and Congress
cannot.

Russia and the Americans have
likely privately agreed to not confront each other. America is publicly
saying it rejects the Russian invasion.

9-11 Lessons and NSA: Where Were They For Georgia?



Russia's invasion did not appear out of the blue. The NSA and President
have known about the Russian plans. The President and Vice President acted surprised.



The American President is no serious about confronting Russia over Georgia. He did not publicly rely on his NSA to deploy Georgian troops from Iraq to
Georgia before the Russian invasion.

The President did not confronting Russia over Georgia using overt military military force. This is an important bargaining chip during secret negotiations. The President hopes to ensure Russia stays out of the fight in Iraq and Iran. As with the Nazi-Russian pact, these secret deals are not enforceable.



It is a shame the lessons of 9-11 are still lost. The NSA was supposed to have been reformed. More likely, as with 9-11, the President knew and was told about Russia's military plans in Georgia, but decided to retroactively about the problem rather than do something.  The President tied his hands with his illegal activity in Iraq and focus on Iran, not Afghanistan. He claims the surge succeeded as a distraction from his original failed plans requiring the surge.

The public must learn more about (a) the back-room knowledge the President had before the Russian invasion of Georgia; (b) what arrangement he and others made to not timely use military force to defend Georgia; and (c) why the President was quick to use illegal force in Iraq, but not defend an ally in the war on terrorism.

Congress will likely to provide a whitewash investigation as we've seen with 9-11 and Iraq WMD.

We must revisit whether Russia plans to do anything when the
President invades Iran. If Russia does nothing, despite an earlier
promise to retaliate if the US invades Iran, we know there's been a
deal between President Bush and Primse Minister Putin.

The law and resources must be accepted as real constraints. When they are ignored or defied, the history of Napoleon and Hitler remind us foreign powers will exploit this unsustainable overreach.

Today is no different. This Congress and President have jointly agreed to an unsustainable, illegal foreign military actions. Russia is exploiting this overreach. There is no credible reason to believe the United States will respond, just as the AG and House Judiciary have shown they are not serious ensuring accountability.

There is a self-checking mechanism under the Geneva Conventions. With few exceptions, when one nation violates the laws of war, other nations may violate the same. This is the principle of reciprocity or retaliation.

Not every impeachment is related to a crime

The AG said: