Nothing like watching a frog lazily enjoy an undisturbed sleep in a slowly, boiling pot of water, the temperature slowly rising, giving no hint to the worsening situation. On top of the thousands of abuse memos disclosed through ACLU FOIAs, and seven (7) years after the war crimes were directed, two CIA memos supposedly surface, as if this will make a difference to the US government.

WaPo and TPMM refer to two (2) "new" memos, but are not obviously providing a copy of the memos for public review, commentary, or analysis. This is useless hand waving:

WaPo: The classified memos, which have not been previously disclosed, were requested by [ then-CIA director Tenet ] more than a year after the start of the secret interrogations, according to four administration and intelligence officials familiar with the documents

There were hints that there were other, non-disclosed memos at 18 of 18, analyzed after this text:

Evidence of previous, non-disclosed memos

The public needs to see a copy of the two memos to include the dates the memos were sent. This information is needed to establish the timeline of the CIA memos as they related to DOJ OLC, DoD JAG, and DoD Military analyst correspondence.

Debate Over CIA War Crimes Evidence: Distraction From 9-11 Explosives Experts

There has been no adequate investigation into who placed the explosives inside WTC 1, 2, and 7. Even if the CIA agents were (illegally) violating Geneva by abusing POWs 'to find information about the people behind the Sept 2001 attacks,' the President and CIA agents have not explained why they did not use these same illegal methods on Americans to find which Americans in New York City placed the explosives.

After we see these memos, the public can then intelligently discuss whether the "four administration and intelligence officials" should be believed; or whether they've (likely, again) misconstrued the information related to breaches of Geneva.

Until we have this information, the reasonable issue to discuss is, as with Article I section 9 for Congress, which powers the executive shall be expressly denied: The discretion to making signing statements granting him the authority to engage in war crimes, and hide that evidence, or compel Inspector General legal counsel to rubber stamp the unlawful administration legal memoranda..

Sham CIA Officer "Immunity" From Geneva

Not to be lost in the debate is the key smokescreen: The President and others would have us (incorrectly) believe the President can use the CIA to conduct war crimes. Yet, the Constitution expressly assigns to all officers the legal obligation to adhere to treaties.

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

For the moment, put aside the legal obligations of CIA agents to ensure they preserve the US's treaty obligations under Geneva. This US government's legal obligation falls on the United States as a detaining power.

It is irrelevant what DOJ OLC or CIA legal counsel may have said about the status of the POWs. Once the Congress issued the AUMF after 9-11, the President and CIA implicitly knew, as confirmed by DOJ OLC memos, that the laws of war were applicable to the United States. Nothing in the publicly-disclosed memoranda makes any credible legal argument that the United States was no longer bound to its Geneva obligations. Rather, the disclosed NAVY emails confirm US personnel well knew Geneva was applicable to the United States.

The excuses (inartfully) crafted to create (a false) exception for the CIA to commit war crimes fails to address the legal obligation on the United States, directly attached to the AUMF after Sept 2001: Geneva applies to all United States' combat operations and prisoner treatment as a detaining power.

All actions of contractors and agents, for them to be lawful per the US treaty obligations, must be consistent with Geneva. It is irrelevant that the CIA may or may not be unrelated to DoD; or that there may or may not be CIA procedures which define how the CIA shall or shall not comply with Geneva.

Any agreement, order, contractual arrangement, or legal instrument created to "permit" or "not enforce" Geneva is illegal and unenforceable. That agreement is not a lawful state secret; nor is the evidence, deliberative material, and other memoranda related to that agreement lawfully classified. They are evidence of war crimes which DOJ OLC memos going forward from 2001 well understood created a legal nexus for the other powers to prosecute Americans in foreign courts for war crimes.

This Congress and President and Supreme Court would illegally ask the public to embrace the false, illegal, and indefensible position that CIA agents -- because they are covert, and acting "outside the law" -- are not governed by Geneva "unless the President and others agree." This is backwards. Geneva is the umbrella which all US personnel including CIA agents, the President, Members of Congress, and the Supreme Court jointly agree to be bound by these treaty obligations, and this is not discretionary:

The error is to pretend the President can make rules, issue signing statements, or rely on a secret agreement to ignore Geneva. Whether there  are or are not rules or procedures which the CIA officers were or were not issued has not relationship to the United States' legal obligations under Geneva to enforce the laws of war, investigate war crimes, and prosecute war criminals. The question of whether the CIA agents do or do not have procedures to fully comply with Geneva is not a defense, but evidence despite Nuremberg that the US as a detaining power and the lead prosecutor at Nuremberg still has not effective oversight plan to comply with the legal requirements of the Constitution and the attached treaty obligations.

War Crimes Smokescreen

This government is attempting to change the question from whether the war crimes were or were not prosecuted; to whether or not they will or will not cooperate with disclosure of the additional war crimes evidence.

Regardless the smokescreen, American citizens have not effectively reported, investigated, or prosecuted these Geneva breaches. Two new memos is not a sufficient defense to justify inaction, but raises the question: What is it going to take, short of a direct military confrontation with the United States, for the US government to take its legal obligations seriously under the laws of war?

The DoD NAVY emails recently disclosed -- outside these two (2) CIA memos -- establish American citizens thoroughly discussed the Geneva obligations, which DOJ OLC well knew were clear from the Nuremberg precedents. These legal obligations include both enforcing the laws of war; investigating war crimes, and holding people accountable.

This reckless US government has fallen down on all counts. The crime is much worse given the United States was the prosecuting power at Nuremberg, but has failed to demonstrate it is willing to meet the legal obligations it expected of the Germans. This arrogance is, in part, behind growing world support for direct combat operations against the District of Columbia to topple the out of control, irresponsible, reckless US government.

The United States Constitution is not this same as this US government.

It's unclear, from the WaPo-information provided whether the memo is really "new," or one that someone may have overlooked, but suddenly stumbled upon. It is possible, as with the "new" NSA-disclosures on domestic spying, that the "new" memo is old, and merely one that someone in the media has repackaged.

When Rice provided written responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee, it was somewhat clear that then disclosed memos were not the SASC25 documents.

What makes this most baffling is the DoD recently disclosed domestic-abuse emails in response to an ACLU FOIA. It is unclear how the two  CIA memos fit in with the timeline of the DoD documents.

We need some context and details. Today's disclosures on these two new memos are not helpful in reconstructing these timelines.

Arguably, a Congress that refuses to investigate these war crimes isn't going to suddenly act on two (2) new memos. Rather, two new memos are merely a slight increase in temperature for the already comatose frog, enjoying a marginal increase in already super-heated bubbles.

The absurdity of these two "new" memos is that, on the surface, they do not appear to provide new information -- confirming a foregone conclusion that the President directed illegal war crimes; but even if they do give us new information, its unclear what new, substantive action, if any, Americans will take in response to these memos to enforce the laws of war against the President for these treaty obligations.

US Supreme Court and the Justice Trial

The Justice trial at Nuremberg presents a massive problem for the United States Supreme Court. At Nuremberg, judges and lawyers were prosecuted for refusing to enforce the laws of war. It appears this US Supreme Court is guilty of the same violation.

The Supreme Court essentially called the rendition program a state secret, and one that the courts cannot review for purposes of civil litigation. Yet, the same American judicial system would have the American public believe that the judicial system is an appropriate forum to resolve judicial issues. Americans have heard the (tired, old) refrain from the courts that the civil lawsuits can be an effective check on executive abuses. However, this is impossible when the Supreme Court will not permit civil lawsuits linked with Rendition-connected war crimes.

This is absurd. When the US Supreme Court refuses to hear rendition-related civil lawsuits, it is relying on sophistry to argue that the judicial system will resolve issues. No, this Supreme Court is complicit with the inaction that has sent this President and Congress a green light for war crimes since 2001.

The Supreme Court should not be confused why foreign combatants escalate armed conflict against Americans: The combatants appear to (reasonably) view the US judicial system as one that is ineffective, and unable to credibly check either the Congress or the Executive on issues of war crimes. The only option foreign powers (apparently) have to enforce the laws of war is not through the legal process, but through armed conflict.

Same Conclusion With Other Memos

This is not a stunning conclusion that is linked to the two (2) "new" memos, but is reasonably linked with already disclosed information from the NAVY. Putting aside whether we do or do not have copies of the two "new" memos, the US government has not effectively taken action to enforce the laws on the existing-disclosed information.

We don't need more evidence. We need a lawful confrontation with this US government to enforce the laws of war, hold the President, Congress, and Supreme Court accountable, and stop pretending that another week might reveal more evidence supporting the foregone conclusion: This President has directed war crimes; and the US government refuses to meet its Geneva obligations to report, investigate, and prosecute this President and complicit US civilians.

This is a serious problem. The laws of war, as the DoD-NAVY emails reference, attach to other US persons a reporting requirement under the laws of war to report violations of the laws of war; and also to conduct an investigation of those war crimes. Whether the CIA and Tenet were or were not given two memos "authorizing" the illegal activity does not adequately address the failure of the US government officials under the laws of war to investigate the existing information -- other than the supposed two (2) "new" memos -- for failures to report and investigate these war crimes. 

Americans and the world community of nations have seen nothing but excuses by this US government: It refuses to ensure the Geneva treaty obligations are timely enforced against all persons subject to the laws of war, including CIA agents.

It is useless to talk about two new memos when the US government refuses to adequately hold itself accountable for the thousands of DoD emails confirming the same: The American President has been complicit with war crimes; and under this Presidents direction the American population was mobilized for illegal warfare with illegal propaganda from military analysts.

We don't need more memos confirming the requirement to investigate. We need an investigation to find what other war crimes this Supreme Court, Congress and Executive have failed to timely investigate and prosecute. This problem lands squarely on the backs of the lazy, incompetent, and reckless American legal counsel who continue to craft legal niceties to (inadequately) explain the legal obligations of a detaining power and all agents, officers, and contractors acting to supposedly "defend" the Constitution.

For the moment, put aside the issue of the war crimes and the two supposed CIA memos and look only at the President's stated policies: To issue singing statements which put him above the law, and create legal language -- outside Congress -- to, in effect, unconstitutionally amend Acts of Congress. Congress refuses to confront these signing statements.

State Legislatures Have Power To Compel Confrontation With War Criminal In Oval Office

This US Government is not on the side of the Constitution or the American people. It is the domestic enemy disguised as our ally. It must also be lawfully confronted through an open discussion of the legal mechanisms required to more effectively check power, dilute the concentration of abused power, and ensure that these serious Constitutional violations in the CIA memos are timely confronted, not explained away as was done in WWII Germany.

It should not be a surprise when the President does something else to defy the Supreme Law.  Accordingly, the state legislatures should confront this recklessness in Congress and their joint refusal to enforce the laws of war through House Rule 603, which permits state legislatures to grind the House to a halt, and force the Congress to confront these war crimes now disclosed in the two (2) "new" CIA memos.

Let your friends know about House Rule 603, and work with your state officials to pass the proclamations at the link. Vermont's Senate has passed a proclamation calling on Congress to impeach. If enough state legislatures pass these proclamations, this will shut down all House business until the House confronts the legal issues brought by the States.

Speaker Pelosi can hardly argue, given Obama's clear lead, that a House action to confront President bush is relevant. Rather, Speaker Pelosi, in refusing to confront this President's war crimes, must be lawfully removed by declaring her speakership position vacant. This is possible given the growing public outrage we've seen with the current financial bailout: Not all Members of Congress are willing to remain in lockstep with the President or House leadership.

Unlawful US-Contractor Agreements To Support CIA War Crimes

The DoD is linked with the transportation of CIA-held prisoners in Europe; and with detention of prisoners on NAVY ships. Whether the contractors working for the CIA were or were not given "authorization" misses the point: That contract creating a relationship between the CIA and the rendition-contractors cannot be lawful when the purpose of that agreement is to violate the Geneva Conventions.

This sophistry over whether the CIA was or was not "authorized" to conduct war crimes is no different than the FISA "agreement" between the White House, Congress, and the NSA telecoms to ignore FISA during wartime; then retroactively provide immunity despite those admitted-to FISA violations.

Geneva trumps the language of the contractor-US government agreement to provide logistics support to the CIA. Conversely, it is a perversion of the law, Geneva, and Nuremberg to argue that a "private" agreement between the CIA, White House, and contractors would somehow be legalized on the basis of a memo while the agreement violates Geneva. Unlawful contracts are not legally enforceable, as the FISA telecoms and CIA contractors' legal counsel have been well trained, especially in the wake of Nuremberg.

What Else Should Congress Be Confront

The larger issues relate to how many other agreements the Congress knows the President and contractors made to violate the statutes. Recall, the courts have expressly said that this many years after 9-11, it cannot be argued there was an "imminent" emergency; nor a nexus that would require the Congress and Executive to ignore the law in the sake of national security. The link between 9-11 and the continued war crimes was never legally valid; but is untenable this many years, especially after the abuses of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Illegal Excuses For War Crimes

Relying on the "imminent urgency"-argument to "justify" war crimes is more the Addington-Gonzalez-Yoo sophistry about Geneva. If we don't enforce it domestically, foreign powers might determine that only through combat operations can Geneva be enforced against the United States. This reckless, lazy, and haphazard approach to Geneva opens the United States to a lawful attack from foreign powers, and not one the US can credibly defend itself given the expansive movement of combat troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The current nexus is hardly one the Framers would characterize as being in the interests of common security. This President has decimated the military, left the US legally and militarily vulnerable, and can hardly be considered one that is defending the Constitution. The outrage is this Congress refuses to put aside its partisan election goals, and confront this President's war crimes.

This US government isn't part of the solution, but the smokescreen. The reasonable question relates to legitimacy: Why do we need this US government? As with the US financiail bailout, this government hasn't connected the dots between what is is doing and its legal requirements under the Constitution; nor provided a credible argument that its actions are logically connected with lawful solutions.

Core Issues For Discussion

Where are copies of the supposed "new" memos the WaPo implicitly suggest they have viewed?

When did Congress first get access to these CIA memos?

How did the WaPo get access to these "new" memos: Was it a FOIA; or did they find the memos in another way?

How do these supposed two (2) "new" memos relate to the other CIA documents already disclosed; or are these two (2) "new" memos merely a restatement of information we've already been provided in the other CIA-disclosed memos?

Is there a reason the WaPo and TPMM have not provided a link to the two (2) new memos; without a link to the two (2) "new" memos, what's the basis for WaPo/TPMM reporting that they are "new"?

How do the two (2) "new" memos fit in with the timelines of the current DoD emails sent to support the domestic military analysts program?

How do the two (2) "new" memos fit in with the timeline of documents which the SASC disclosed in the SASC25 and SASC10 disclosures?

How do the "new" memos fit in with the DOJ OLC internal memoranda on known legal consequences for not enforcing Geneva: The real risk of overseas litigation/prosecution of American officials?