« State Proclamation Calling On House To Impeach Cheney | testing's Blog | Paulson's Rosy Status Report »
District Attorneys Can Prosecute Vice President
This statement is not supportable:
The record shows us that Vice President Aaron Bur was charged with a crime. While in office. While Vice President. NY and NJ charged Burr with murder. He was prosecuted, but acquitted.
"Qualified immunity" does not mean absolutely immune to prosecution. Self-evidently, it is qualified meaning that some conduct can be prosecuted.
Qualified cannot be re-interpreted as absolute, as the Vice President's legal counsel and apologists might desire. No one is absolutely above the law, even a federal official. To so conclude would make the written law irrelevant. It is not. It is Supreme and the basis for legitimate government.
If the Federal officials do not believe they should be subject to indictment by local officials then Federal officials should not take their oath of office to the Constitution. Their oath is to all treaties, Federal and State laws as the Supreme Law.
Consider the Constitution, in reverse order.
Once the Supreme Court finds that the state laws do not contract the Federal requirements, the Federal Officials and their legal counsel know the Judicial Branch and Congress expect the Federal officials to recognize, enforce, and obey state regulations and legal requirements. They know this because of the express language in the Constitution "notwithstanding" "anything" in the "laws of any state".
Arguments about the Supremacy Clause do not mean that State laws have no effect. In the case of FISA, the state privacy laws were written to enforce privacy rights at the state level the FISA requirements against Federal officials and telecoms. These legal requirements were known but ignored.
It is a misreading of the Constitution for House legal counsel to suggest that the Department of Justice, once it determines it will not comply with a state legal requirement, is absolved of local review. Rather, when the House refuses to enforce the state legal standards applicable to federal legal counsel, it is the duty of the state officials to enforce the laws which the House refuses to enforce through impeachment.
Gonzalez while he was attorney general was still subject to legal requirements per the Texas State Bar. If he did not want to be regulated by the state laws of Texas while an attorney working for the United States, he was free to remove himself from the Texas State Bar and find another State Bar. He did not do that. His decision to remain attached to Texas does not create a right or power of the Federal government to -- after the alleged crime was detected -- to claim there was no link. We can only rely on what Gonzalez did not what he would like to retroactively pretend existed.
Why can't we have district attorneys bringing charges against Federal officials? Because it shows the world that the Federal officials aren't doing their job.
That's the reason that they must be prosecuted.
When the legal community will not check power at the federal level, then the only option is for the state and local prosecutors to do what the Department of Justice has recklessly refused to do: Enforce the law.
The problem is the leadership in the Justice Department under Gonzalez is accused of being complicit with efforts to not enforce the law he allegedly violated. Someone must enforce the law.
Inaction in DC requires other, adult leadership. Enter: The district attorney. The defense hasn't adequately explained: How were they able to convince all the district attorneys -- until now -- to do nothing. This isn't a comment about the success of the Vice President's charade, but the questionable legal analysis local district attorneys used for seven years to (in their own mind) "justify" inaction.
It is a state of lawlessness when non-Federal officials are prohibited from asserting their oath against Department of Justice Officials who have recklessly refused to fully assert their oath against the President and Attorney General. Ar best we have malfeasance. At worst, there are other to-be understood agreements and arrangements to thwart enforcement of the law.
The enormity of the task should not deter the legal community from confronting the Vice President. We must examine why despite the pervasive abuses it required this much time.
Complicity with alleged illegal activity does not mean DOJ turns a blind eye to AG or VP criminal activity, as appears to be the case.
Federal officials are required to follow, not ignore State law. Remember, the state privacy lawsuits against the telecoms? Congress has no power to thwart State officials from enforcing state law against Federal officials.
The Supreme Court can strike down or uphold "burdensome" state laws. Once upheld, the Federal officials cannot have discretion to ignore them, otherwise they are telling the Supreme Court that it is irrelevant. Just because the Vice President views the FISA court and Geneva Conventions as irrelevant doesn't mean the law goes away.
Suppose there was "no way for state officials to enforce the law against federal officials." There should be no evidence of any Administration official arguing that those state laws are burdensome. Yet, attorneys make a living arguing against state laws because they know those laws are enforceable against their clients -- Federal officials and agencies.
Without enforcement, there is no incentive for any federal official to fully assert their oath of office. [Cue, GOP "control" 2001-2008.]
Curiously, some might oppose enforcement of state law against Federal Officials; but reverse to challenge state laws regulating abortion. "Those state laws affecting federal officials are good."
The Supreme Court struck down state laws regulating segregation. What if Federal Officials refused to be held accountable for violations of the revised state segregation laws? Perhaps President-elect Obama might not have been afforded the access he needed to fulfill the promise of the Constitution, Founders, Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
The "Commerce Clause" is not designed to thwart enforcement of State law against Federal Officials. Rather, the intent of the Framers was to ensure states do not make rules that would thwart the free flow of goods between the states, and dilute the objective of a United States.
DOJ OPR needs to be called before Congress to account:
One problem the United States has is that legal counsel at all levels of the US and State governments have not fully met their legal obligations. They have reporting requirements in many cases to report peer misconduct or collusion with illegal activity.
The lack of prosecutions of legal counsel is evidence of this malfeasance.
The lawyers were not passive observers to this lawlessness. Lawyers were the ones who wrote the contracts and orders to "authorize" Geneva and FISA violations. Despite a legal duty to enforce the laws of war and FISA requirements, the lawyers ignored this and supported rendition.
The same people dancing around the laws and regulations in the financial services industries were also looking at the US Constitution, Geneva, and FISA as similarly flexible, something to be twisted to suit their ends. "Nobody is going to find out." That attitude does not prevail, especially when the same people making excuses to ignore the regulations are giving agreen light to ignore prudent planning. Now we know why the plans for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had to be adjusted.
The United States leadership took a "discretionary" view of reality. This attitude fails when credibly confronted on the battlefield, in court, and Wall Street.
The same people giving a green light to prison abuses, FISA violations, and Geneva violations were ignoring the lessons learned that told this President the long-term risks of invading Iraq, and not going into Afghanistan with a credible, long-term strategy. This says nothing of the credible argument that the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal.
Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way: When you ignore reality, and pretend constraints do not apply, you become arrogant and push too far. Napoleon and Hitler learned about reality, as this President has done, when they pushed too far against Russia. The Russian Winter nipped Napoleon and Hitler; the Russian military took at stand in Eastern Europe and Georgia.
Thank goodness Iraq doesn't have much snow. This President would have blamed his reckless, illegal planning on the weather. He tried that with Katrina.
The lawyers can't explain away the financial crisis, nor can they explain the real resource constraints they ignored when planning and executing the invasion of Iraq. Rather than listen and responsibly plan (an illegal) invasion, they chose to explain those factors away. Lawyers, when subjected to sunlight, cannot explain away reality. In darkness, the American lawyers have turned a blind eye to secret trials with worthless evidence.
American lawyers are doing this. It's taken too long to get it right. Far too long. Meanwhile the people that once supported America after 9-11, have now a real, credible basis to hold the legal community with contempt: Those lawyers haven't been held to account, yet the lawyers working in concert with the US government brought reckless, illegal warfare to Iraq.
The legal discussions are not simple parlor room discussion. They involve combat, the use of force, and deadly military consequences. The American legal community appears to look at military combat as if it were another forum to wage their legal battles.
The American approach to combat and the court -- that of disregard to reality, facts, and evidence -- is challenged. By our military opponents. And by regulators.
In the summer of 2001 the US was facing an economic challenge. Now, the United States has two problems: An economic disaster on top of war crimes. Until the lawyers are forced to assent to intrusive oversight, the American public can reasonably expect the current financial-legal disaster to spill into something else.
Is there anything left? Sure. Building materials. It appears there is too much capacity and not enough oversight to ensure the American public is adequately safeguarded. How else to do you explain the WTC 1, 2, 7 "mysteriously" falling? Oh, but we're not allowed to talk about the real reasons the towers fell because that might upset something. Of course there were explosives.
Things aren't adding up, people know it, and we need to confront these issues. That means opening the door to the district attorney in Texas to do what this embarrassment of a Congress refuses to do: Confront the Vice President.
This isn't a law enforcement issue. It's a sustainability issue. We supposedly "learned" the lessons after 1929, and we had the 1933-34 Security Acts to better regulate the financial services. With time, those like FISA and Geneva were, thanks to the poorly regulated lawyers, explained away as "quaint".
We need to find out what other regulations are also getting ignored, and adequately ensure the American public is safeguarded, not exposed to more surprises. If there's too much economic growth, and not enough time for the regulators to monitor the financial instruments, isn't it reasonable to question whether there are other gaps in regulation?
We need to move away from looking at regulations as a hindrance, and consider them as useful lessons learned. If someone isn't going to take the time to learn the regulations, perhaps they haven't taken the time to glean the lessons of history and effectively use scarce financial and human resources. That applies on the battlefield and the prisoner management industries.
We went to war voluntarily. Iraq and Afghanistan were was of choice. We know from the DOJ emails that the DOJ OLC staff knew there were potential legal consequences if foreign power attempted to enforce the laws of war.
Despite knowing these risks, we ignored the law, we disregarded the planning factors, and started combat operations. Before. We. Were. Ready. To. Lawfully. Prevail.
Our leadership ignored what they should have paid attention to. That is an outrage. Combat forces are not paid to second guess the orders. However, recent history suggests the second guessing was required. We need to find out what the lawyers were threatening behind closed doors if those illegal orders were disobeyed.
A war of choice means to choose to wage war. This President chose to not prepare for war, but go anyway. that is a reckless absue of limited, finite combat resources. It is reckless.
The greater abuse is, despite the divided powers, the Congress went along with that reckless abuse. It shouldn't require a mid-course correction when, before starting combat operations, your military planners are telling you there are problems. This was a war of choice, not one of necessity.
Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the US was preparing for war. After 9-11, we went to war, then adjusted. Then thought about the law. Then tried to hide things. The US leadership and lawyers have been on the wrong side of history and the law.
Stop telling the combat forces -- that you've recklessly abused -- to clean up the mess you will not confront. Similarly, stop blaming the local district attorneys for confronting the mess in OVP. The Grand Jury concludes there is a problem which the Congress needs to pay attention to.
Change, or you will be forced to change.
What makes this more despicable is that the American leadership were told before combat operations started in 2001 how to address the financial issues; and what risks were known related to this President's arrogant abuse of rights and power. Those warnings fell on deaf ears.
We need to discuss better oversight to ensure responsiveness, not arrogance.
As with the financial disasters unfolding since 2007, these problems with the legal services industry are not new. The GOP exploited the legal nexus to create the (false) impression that there would never be consequences on legal counsel for their failure to act.
As an example, Geneva does not recognize as a defense a legal counsel's claim that they didn't believe they were required to act. Nuremberg reminds all lawyers that Geneva expressly imposes on legal counsel a duty to enforce the laws of war.
Inaction On Cheney's Impeachment Insulates The Lawyers
The unspoken problem in DC is that the House Judiciary -- in avoiding impeachment -- hopes to avoid the real problem: The breakdown of the oversight of the key players (the lawyers). This is the same problem that has happened with the financial services industry. The credit rating agencies or "referees" weren't adequately regulated or punished if they fell down on the job.
By refusing to act on impeachment, FISA, and Geneva, the House really hopes to avoid the needed confrontation with the legal community. The lawyers are the ones who were both writing the rules and providing the direction not to enforce the laws within the criminal justice system and the financial services industry.
Federal Enforcement Needed
We don't (yet) have credible federal enforcement of the legal and financial services industry. The Texas Grand Jury is forced, as with the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, to focus on a narrow set of charges to open the door to real accountability.
The Texas Grand Jury is doing what the House Judiciary, DOJ OPR, and the President refused to do: Enforce the law.
Change means embracing Federal Level performance standards for legal counsel. The House Judicary must be confronted through this impeachment to provide a good reason why the US government should not impose and enforce federal regulations on the American Bar Association and all American legal counsel at the State and Federal levels.
The Federal Government has the obligation to ensure legal counsel are adequately regulated with meaningful, timely consequences. Self-regulation has failed in the financial services and legal services industries.
Since 2001, the House Judiciary inaction on impeachment tells us the real problem: The lawyers refuse to assent to needed legal consequences for reckless enforcement of the Constitution and all laws of the entire United States, including treaty obligations.
We need civilian oversight of the legal community, just as there are civilian oversight boards for law enforcement. The lawyers must be stripped of their absolute discretion to make or ignore their standards of conduct.
The ABA must be called what it appears to be: A lesser union which has apparently put itself above the Union and US Constitution. The ABA appears to be thwarting the needed oversight and punishment at the Federal level of reckless legal counsel who are allegedly complicit with high crimes, war crimes, FISA violations, and grave breaches of the laws of war and state laws.
Some legal societies which advocate legal advocate theories defying the Supreme law, or view presidential power as unreviewable. Those societies should be treated as domestic enemies and lawfully punished.
They are doing more than advocating and holding beliefs. They are taking action and crossing the line. Arguably, the lawyers who are members of that society are not merely sharing beliefs, but are actively implementing illegal plans to thwart the Constitution and all treaty obligations.
The lawyers appear to be domestic enemies assisting the Vice President in thwarting the laws. Fortunately, we have a grand jury process which can operate in secret. And local district attorneys who are willing to confront Federal officials.
HuffPo reports "You can't have district attorneys across the country bringing charges against federal officials," Treece said. And even in a federal probe, Cheney and Gonzales have a "qualified privilege" that would protect them so long as they were acting within their jobs, Treece said.Others have a different view. Namely, Jonathan Turley and Vincent Bugliosi.
See "From Pillar to Post": The Prosecution of American Presidents, journal article by Jonathan Turley; American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 37, 2000The excuses for inaction must be confronted. Here is what you -- as a TPM reader -- can do.
The record shows us that Vice President Aaron Bur was charged with a crime. While in office. While Vice President. NY and NJ charged Burr with murder. He was prosecuted, but acquitted.
"Qualified immunity" does not mean absolutely immune to prosecution. Self-evidently, it is qualified meaning that some conduct can be prosecuted.
Qualified cannot be re-interpreted as absolute, as the Vice President's legal counsel and apologists might desire. No one is absolutely above the law, even a federal official. To so conclude would make the written law irrelevant. It is not. It is Supreme and the basis for legitimate government.
If the Federal officials do not believe they should be subject to indictment by local officials then Federal officials should not take their oath of office to the Constitution. Their oath is to all treaties, Federal and State laws as the Supreme Law.
Consider the Constitution, in reverse order.
The oath binds officials to the Constitution
"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"
The oath to the Constitution includes the 10th Amendment reserving to the states the power to make rules related to power not expressly delegated exclusively to the Federal government. The State laws are legal requirements which Federal officials must follow, otherwise we no longer have a union, but lawlessness. [Enter, the GOP 2001-2008]
The oath is to the Supreme Law, which includes State law:
"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."
Once the Supreme Court finds that the state laws do not contract the Federal requirements, the Federal Officials and their legal counsel know the Judicial Branch and Congress expect the Federal officials to recognize, enforce, and obey state regulations and legal requirements. They know this because of the express language in the Constitution "notwithstanding" "anything" in the "laws of any state".
Arguments about the Supremacy Clause do not mean that State laws have no effect. In the case of FISA, the state privacy laws were written to enforce privacy rights at the state level the FISA requirements against Federal officials and telecoms. These legal requirements were known but ignored.
It is a misreading of the Constitution for House legal counsel to suggest that the Department of Justice, once it determines it will not comply with a state legal requirement, is absolved of local review. Rather, when the House refuses to enforce the state legal standards applicable to federal legal counsel, it is the duty of the state officials to enforce the laws which the House refuses to enforce through impeachment.
Gonzalez while he was attorney general was still subject to legal requirements per the Texas State Bar. If he did not want to be regulated by the state laws of Texas while an attorney working for the United States, he was free to remove himself from the Texas State Bar and find another State Bar. He did not do that. His decision to remain attached to Texas does not create a right or power of the Federal government to -- after the alleged crime was detected -- to claim there was no link. We can only rely on what Gonzalez did not what he would like to retroactively pretend existed.
Why can't we have district attorneys bringing charges against Federal officials? Because it shows the world that the Federal officials aren't doing their job.
That's the reason that they must be prosecuted.
When the legal community will not check power at the federal level, then the only option is for the state and local prosecutors to do what the Department of Justice has recklessly refused to do: Enforce the law.
The problem is the leadership in the Justice Department under Gonzalez is accused of being complicit with efforts to not enforce the law he allegedly violated. Someone must enforce the law.
Inaction in DC requires other, adult leadership. Enter: The district attorney. The defense hasn't adequately explained: How were they able to convince all the district attorneys -- until now -- to do nothing. This isn't a comment about the success of the Vice President's charade, but the questionable legal analysis local district attorneys used for seven years to (in their own mind) "justify" inaction.
It is a state of lawlessness when non-Federal officials are prohibited from asserting their oath against Department of Justice Officials who have recklessly refused to fully assert their oath against the President and Attorney General. Ar best we have malfeasance. At worst, there are other to-be understood agreements and arrangements to thwart enforcement of the law.
The enormity of the task should not deter the legal community from confronting the Vice President. We must examine why despite the pervasive abuses it required this much time.
Complicity with alleged illegal activity does not mean DOJ turns a blind eye to AG or VP criminal activity, as appears to be the case.
Federal officials are required to follow, not ignore State law. Remember, the state privacy lawsuits against the telecoms? Congress has no power to thwart State officials from enforcing state law against Federal officials.
The Supreme Court can strike down or uphold "burdensome" state laws. Once upheld, the Federal officials cannot have discretion to ignore them, otherwise they are telling the Supreme Court that it is irrelevant. Just because the Vice President views the FISA court and Geneva Conventions as irrelevant doesn't mean the law goes away.
Suppose there was "no way for state officials to enforce the law against federal officials." There should be no evidence of any Administration official arguing that those state laws are burdensome. Yet, attorneys make a living arguing against state laws because they know those laws are enforceable against their clients -- Federal officials and agencies.
Without enforcement, there is no incentive for any federal official to fully assert their oath of office. [Cue, GOP "control" 2001-2008.]
Curiously, some might oppose enforcement of state law against Federal Officials; but reverse to challenge state laws regulating abortion. "Those state laws affecting federal officials are good."
The Supreme Court struck down state laws regulating segregation. What if Federal Officials refused to be held accountable for violations of the revised state segregation laws? Perhaps President-elect Obama might not have been afforded the access he needed to fulfill the promise of the Constitution, Founders, Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
The "Commerce Clause" is not designed to thwart enforcement of State law against Federal Officials. Rather, the intent of the Framers was to ensure states do not make rules that would thwart the free flow of goods between the states, and dilute the objective of a United States.
DOJ OPR needs to be called before Congress to account:
A. Whether they have (or have not) reviewed information DOJ Staff has within JCON related to the Texas Grand Jury indictment and alleged AG criminal activity; andOur Financial Crisis Is Related to These Prison Abuses
B. What plans DOJ IG and OPR have to timely inform the House and Senate of further information raising reasonable questions about the competence of the Bush Administration carry overs within the Department of Justice.
One problem the United States has is that legal counsel at all levels of the US and State governments have not fully met their legal obligations. They have reporting requirements in many cases to report peer misconduct or collusion with illegal activity.
The lack of prosecutions of legal counsel is evidence of this malfeasance.
The lawyers were not passive observers to this lawlessness. Lawyers were the ones who wrote the contracts and orders to "authorize" Geneva and FISA violations. Despite a legal duty to enforce the laws of war and FISA requirements, the lawyers ignored this and supported rendition.
The same people dancing around the laws and regulations in the financial services industries were also looking at the US Constitution, Geneva, and FISA as similarly flexible, something to be twisted to suit their ends. "Nobody is going to find out." That attitude does not prevail, especially when the same people making excuses to ignore the regulations are giving agreen light to ignore prudent planning. Now we know why the plans for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had to be adjusted.
The United States leadership took a "discretionary" view of reality. This attitude fails when credibly confronted on the battlefield, in court, and Wall Street.
The same people giving a green light to prison abuses, FISA violations, and Geneva violations were ignoring the lessons learned that told this President the long-term risks of invading Iraq, and not going into Afghanistan with a credible, long-term strategy. This says nothing of the credible argument that the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal.
Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way: When you ignore reality, and pretend constraints do not apply, you become arrogant and push too far. Napoleon and Hitler learned about reality, as this President has done, when they pushed too far against Russia. The Russian Winter nipped Napoleon and Hitler; the Russian military took at stand in Eastern Europe and Georgia.
Thank goodness Iraq doesn't have much snow. This President would have blamed his reckless, illegal planning on the weather. He tried that with Katrina.
The lawyers can't explain away the financial crisis, nor can they explain the real resource constraints they ignored when planning and executing the invasion of Iraq. Rather than listen and responsibly plan (an illegal) invasion, they chose to explain those factors away. Lawyers, when subjected to sunlight, cannot explain away reality. In darkness, the American lawyers have turned a blind eye to secret trials with worthless evidence.
American lawyers are doing this. It's taken too long to get it right. Far too long. Meanwhile the people that once supported America after 9-11, have now a real, credible basis to hold the legal community with contempt: Those lawyers haven't been held to account, yet the lawyers working in concert with the US government brought reckless, illegal warfare to Iraq.
The legal discussions are not simple parlor room discussion. They involve combat, the use of force, and deadly military consequences. The American legal community appears to look at military combat as if it were another forum to wage their legal battles.
The American approach to combat and the court -- that of disregard to reality, facts, and evidence -- is challenged. By our military opponents. And by regulators.
In the summer of 2001 the US was facing an economic challenge. Now, the United States has two problems: An economic disaster on top of war crimes. Until the lawyers are forced to assent to intrusive oversight, the American public can reasonably expect the current financial-legal disaster to spill into something else.
Is there anything left? Sure. Building materials. It appears there is too much capacity and not enough oversight to ensure the American public is adequately safeguarded. How else to do you explain the WTC 1, 2, 7 "mysteriously" falling? Oh, but we're not allowed to talk about the real reasons the towers fell because that might upset something. Of course there were explosives.
Things aren't adding up, people know it, and we need to confront these issues. That means opening the door to the district attorney in Texas to do what this embarrassment of a Congress refuses to do: Confront the Vice President.
This isn't a law enforcement issue. It's a sustainability issue. We supposedly "learned" the lessons after 1929, and we had the 1933-34 Security Acts to better regulate the financial services. With time, those like FISA and Geneva were, thanks to the poorly regulated lawyers, explained away as "quaint".
We need to find out what other regulations are also getting ignored, and adequately ensure the American public is safeguarded, not exposed to more surprises. If there's too much economic growth, and not enough time for the regulators to monitor the financial instruments, isn't it reasonable to question whether there are other gaps in regulation?
We need to move away from looking at regulations as a hindrance, and consider them as useful lessons learned. If someone isn't going to take the time to learn the regulations, perhaps they haven't taken the time to glean the lessons of history and effectively use scarce financial and human resources. That applies on the battlefield and the prisoner management industries.
We went to war voluntarily. Iraq and Afghanistan were was of choice. We know from the DOJ emails that the DOJ OLC staff knew there were potential legal consequences if foreign power attempted to enforce the laws of war.
Despite knowing these risks, we ignored the law, we disregarded the planning factors, and started combat operations. Before. We. Were. Ready. To. Lawfully. Prevail.
Our leadership ignored what they should have paid attention to. That is an outrage. Combat forces are not paid to second guess the orders. However, recent history suggests the second guessing was required. We need to find out what the lawyers were threatening behind closed doors if those illegal orders were disobeyed.
A war of choice means to choose to wage war. This President chose to not prepare for war, but go anyway. that is a reckless absue of limited, finite combat resources. It is reckless.
The greater abuse is, despite the divided powers, the Congress went along with that reckless abuse. It shouldn't require a mid-course correction when, before starting combat operations, your military planners are telling you there are problems. This was a war of choice, not one of necessity.
Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the US was preparing for war. After 9-11, we went to war, then adjusted. Then thought about the law. Then tried to hide things. The US leadership and lawyers have been on the wrong side of history and the law.
Stop telling the combat forces -- that you've recklessly abused -- to clean up the mess you will not confront. Similarly, stop blaming the local district attorneys for confronting the mess in OVP. The Grand Jury concludes there is a problem which the Congress needs to pay attention to.
Change, or you will be forced to change.
What makes this more despicable is that the American leadership were told before combat operations started in 2001 how to address the financial issues; and what risks were known related to this President's arrogant abuse of rights and power. Those warnings fell on deaf ears.
We need to discuss better oversight to ensure responsiveness, not arrogance.
As with the financial disasters unfolding since 2007, these problems with the legal services industry are not new. The GOP exploited the legal nexus to create the (false) impression that there would never be consequences on legal counsel for their failure to act.
As an example, Geneva does not recognize as a defense a legal counsel's claim that they didn't believe they were required to act. Nuremberg reminds all lawyers that Geneva expressly imposes on legal counsel a duty to enforce the laws of war.
Inaction On Cheney's Impeachment Insulates The Lawyers
The unspoken problem in DC is that the House Judiciary -- in avoiding impeachment -- hopes to avoid the real problem: The breakdown of the oversight of the key players (the lawyers). This is the same problem that has happened with the financial services industry. The credit rating agencies or "referees" weren't adequately regulated or punished if they fell down on the job.
By refusing to act on impeachment, FISA, and Geneva, the House really hopes to avoid the needed confrontation with the legal community. The lawyers are the ones who were both writing the rules and providing the direction not to enforce the laws within the criminal justice system and the financial services industry.
Federal Enforcement Needed
We don't (yet) have credible federal enforcement of the legal and financial services industry. The Texas Grand Jury is forced, as with the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, to focus on a narrow set of charges to open the door to real accountability.
The Texas Grand Jury is doing what the House Judiciary, DOJ OPR, and the President refused to do: Enforce the law.
Change means embracing Federal Level performance standards for legal counsel. The House Judicary must be confronted through this impeachment to provide a good reason why the US government should not impose and enforce federal regulations on the American Bar Association and all American legal counsel at the State and Federal levels.
The Federal Government has the obligation to ensure legal counsel are adequately regulated with meaningful, timely consequences. Self-regulation has failed in the financial services and legal services industries.
Since 2001, the House Judiciary inaction on impeachment tells us the real problem: The lawyers refuse to assent to needed legal consequences for reckless enforcement of the Constitution and all laws of the entire United States, including treaty obligations.
We need civilian oversight of the legal community, just as there are civilian oversight boards for law enforcement. The lawyers must be stripped of their absolute discretion to make or ignore their standards of conduct.
The ABA must be called what it appears to be: A lesser union which has apparently put itself above the Union and US Constitution. The ABA appears to be thwarting the needed oversight and punishment at the Federal level of reckless legal counsel who are allegedly complicit with high crimes, war crimes, FISA violations, and grave breaches of the laws of war and state laws.
Some legal societies which advocate legal advocate theories defying the Supreme law, or view presidential power as unreviewable. Those societies should be treated as domestic enemies and lawfully punished.
They are doing more than advocating and holding beliefs. They are taking action and crossing the line. Arguably, the lawyers who are members of that society are not merely sharing beliefs, but are actively implementing illegal plans to thwart the Constitution and all treaty obligations.
The lawyers appear to be domestic enemies assisting the Vice President in thwarting the laws. Fortunately, we have a grand jury process which can operate in secret. And local district attorneys who are willing to confront Federal officials.
Advertisement
Leave a comment