One of the Anti-Federalist letters, Jan 23, 1788, hoped the States would act as a check on US government tyranny.

Sadly, 2001-8, the States have largely failed to meet the promise of the framers, and did not address the role the Anti-Federalists hoped the States would play.

This note outlines the concerns of the Federal Farmer; then broadens into a discussion of problems the US government 2001-8 did not adequately confront. This discussion builds off a previous note on TPMM, which started with a review of the Ford Administration notes linked to Cheney.

This is one of the important paragraphs from the letter:

"I have often heard it observed, that our people are well informed, and will not submit to oppressive governments; that the state governments will be their ready advocates, and possess their confidence, mix with them, and enter into all their wants and feelings. This is all true; but of what avail will these circumstances be, if the state governments, thus allowed to be the guardians of the people, possess no kind of power by the forms of the social compact, to stop, in their passage, the laws of congress injurious to the people. State governments must stand and see the law take place; they may complain and petition -- so may individuals; the members of them, in extreme cases, may resist, on the principles of self-defence -- so may the people and individuals."

Where was the reistance at the state level of Geneva and FISA violations; and against Members of Congress for their immunity for FISA violations; and for the illegal NSLs?

We need to discuss what will mobilize the States to challenge the US government when it is injurious. We need to know why the States did not block funds, and cancel contracts the US government was using to move the resources needed to implement the abuse of power, war crimes and FISA violations.

The remainder is intended for a quick skim, and an outline of points which may assist you in commeting on the topic. Some of the comments below are in response to previous objections raised, and made with the hopes of benig specific with what the States could have done or raised with Congress.

Detailed Comments GamePlan For State Level Confrontation Against Members of Congress

Americans cannot be compelled to endure double standards. The public should discuss what's broken in the criminal justice system, and challenge those who have abused power since 9-11. 

For this discussion, "US government" is not narrowly the executive branch, but all three branches, the elected officials, appointed staff, and contractors working for those agencies and branches. 

Part I: Myth of 9-11 -- The Speed of Imposing Abusive Government Power on America's Vulnerable 

We've been told that we're in the "post 9-11 world". However, it is a false argument for anyone in government to point to 9-11 as the pretext to avoid legal compliance or oversight. Not all public activities are related to 9-11, and some concurrent functions include oversight and governance.  

Whether we are or are not "after 9-11" has no relationship to whether we have a concurrent duty to responsibly conduct oversight of the US government.   

It is a tired refrain for law enforcement and government to rely on the excuse of 9-11 to justify expansive abuse of American citizens. It is equally troubling when those complicit with the malfeasance and reckless abuse of power after 9-11 use 9-11 as a smokescreen to needed government oversight. 9-11 didn't remove their legal obligation to enforce the law, conduct investigations, and assert power against reckless peers in government, law enforcement, or the intelligence community. It is a false choice for government officials to suggest Americans must choose between the prospect of terrorism and American government abuse of power. That false choice is the symptom of an incompetent government, not leadership. 

9-11 Myth Linked with Dubious Government Conduct: The myth of what happened leads to a myth of whether the subsequent actions were or were not reasonable. The government, relying on one myth, cannot argue that a reasonable solution is to abuse those the government was created to protect or safeguard.  

The United States government has not adequately punished those who placed the explosives inside the WTC towers. Those domestic enemies remain unchallenged. This failure has contributed to the myth about what happened during 9-11; and what benchmarks were use to evaluate government responses since 9-11.   

After 9-11, the US and local governments moved to a hair-trigger approach to fact finding, imposing punishment, and hiding evidence of government corruption. American citizens are regularly abused on accusation alone. Law enforcement and the legal community have a different standard. It was the law enforcement and legal community which refused to confront this President and Congress or reckless FISA and Geneva violations.  

One issue is government malfeasance. The same government which refuses to responsibly oversee illegal activity would demand Americans continue blind support of their efforts to muddle through their recklessly planned cleanup. The government has a credibility problem. It is not solved by abusing Americans, but by responsibly managing affairs of state. This is the job of government. It should not be, but is, the job of American citizens to make sure the supposed "experts" get it right.  This government's approach has been to retaliate against those who know when the experts have got it wrong. 

Leadership means confronting those in government who cannot do the job, are unwilling to take a subordinate position, or who are incapable of effectively managing affairs of State. You don't have two (2) years to hide the evidence; and expect the public to support reckless, incompetent management. Our job is not to outline the oversight; your job in government is to achieve the results, or make way for better leadership. The American public is not required to bail you out of your leadership problem. 

The same hair-trigger system which swiftly - on accusation alone - imposes punishment on Americans should be applied to law enforcement, prosecutors, and legal counsel who have failed to do their job: Not enforced FISA, and refusing to challenge the US government's law less actions. 

There are "fusion centers" which consolidate supposed "terror related" information. Similar centers should be created to review law enforcement and prosecutors who abuse power, or recklessly refuse to enforce the US constitution. 

Part II: Afghanistan, Iraq -- Symptoms of Reckless American Justice System 

Like Katrina, American abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq could not be forever hidden. There is a relationship between battlefield abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq to the abuse of power on American streets. The same people involved with reckless abuse of power on American streets were behind the abuse of power at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in Afghanistan. 

As with the failure of the regulatory systems, the American media has some explaining to do:  

- Why has it shown a deferential approach to the government in the post 9-11 world?

- Why should we believe that the same media, which missed the problems with the financial meltdown, has a better record in reporting on the defects of the American criminal justice system? 

The setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq are related, in part, to a perverse sense of "justice" the Americans attempted to impose. American combat operations have been reckless, alienating the local populations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American mind set is linked with an aggressive notion of justice: That peace, security, and stability can be imposed through the threat of and use of force.  The same reckless abuse of power occurs on America's streets. 

It is unfortunate that law enforcement believes it must secure order by threatening to use force or impose adverse consequences on people. The same prospect of punishment seems lost on law enforcement. 

There should be timely consequences on law enforcement for their abuses. Law enforcement and the military favor quickly abuse Americans, Afghans, and Iraqis. The American approach to power is to use it first, and force the victim to later challenge the abuses. This is an imbalanced approach. Law enforcement and the lawyers are not willing to cooperate with a similar swift, speedy, and intrusive system that will quickly impose similar punishment. Americans are forced to wait many months before they see justice, if at all. 

There should be meaningful consequences on Americans who work in the criminal justice system and lie or violate the law. Members of law enforcement and the legal community who are members of the state attorney bars should face the same prospect of street trials and public oversight that other Americans face. 

Law enforcement and the legal community can secretly conduct private inquiries and refuse to take action against officers and attorneys. The same option should exist for the public. Conversely, if the courts and government mandate a separate and unequal system of oversight, the government should not be surprised at the diminished loss of confidence. 

- Why does the government have a monopoly on the ability to use force, without the prospect of timely consequences for that abuse?

- Why isn't the public, when it is illegally abused by the government, given the constitutionally protected right to retaliate with like force?

- When law enforcement lies to the public, why isn't the public granted the option to immediately respond to law enforcement deception with similar deception?

- Why does the US and state governments have a double standard on whether American citizens are or are not held responsible?  

Law enforcement and court officers (attorneys) have one system of compliance and oversight: Hidden, cursory, and apologetic. However, the public can be subjected to street trials, intrusive searches based on accusation alone, and subject to abusive force.  

It is absurd how much evidence is required to secure the disbarment or decertification of attorneys and members of law enforcement. This high bar should be afforded to American citizens. The American public is subjected to - on accusation alone - the burden to prove ones innocence. For purposes of discipline, the American public should have the same rights and immunities afforded to law enforcement and attorneys; and the court officers and law enforcement should explain why the public should support a secret system for law enforcement and attorneys. 

Probation officers and the courts should not be permitted to impose requirements for people to secure adequate employment. Not all people who are committing crimes require the structure of employment. Without adequate counseling and goal setting before securing employment, it can be counter-productive for the court-directed requirement to secure employment. 

-  Why isn't the government willing to wipe the slate clean on people who have committed crimes?

-  Why are known risks - that of drug relapse - treated as new problems, when the basis for securing specialized housing is due to the known risks of possible drug relapse?

-  Why are probation offices and the courts treating repeat offenders as if they will forever continue with what is over?

-  Why does the criminal justice and attorney bars of conduct treat law enforcement and attorneys is if they have a different set of probationary, oversight, and investigation standards applicable to other Americans? 

Probation offices, law enforcement, and attorneys should be subject to the same oversight, intrusions, and unforgiving system they have created. It is unfair that the lawyers, law enforcement, and probation officers have this much unchecked power; and those who most know of the abuses - the clients who are felons - are treated as unreliable allies. 

The public needs to see independent reviews of law enforcement, attorneys, and probation officers: 

-  To what extent are law enforcement, the legal community, and the probation officers imposing on Americans a system of oversight, punishment, and discipline which they will not agree?

-  When law enforcement lies to the public, why isn't the public given a balanced option to lie to law enforcement?

-   Why is the public required to provide truthful evidence to the courts, but there is a known custom within law enforcement of testilying - providing false statements in court without fear of detection? 

Street Trials of Abusive Officers: Wouldn't it be interesting to see law enforcement face street-level justice. Currently, law enforcement can call backup, make false statements in official records, and mislead the public and courts about their abuse. What if the public had the same power to call backup, and conduct a similar street trial of the law enforcement misconduct? This would save time and avoid the chance that law enforcement misleads the private auditors; and permit the public to assert power against abusive, untrustworthy law enforcement. If this standard of justice is not good enough for the public to impose on the street, why is it acceptable for law enforcement to make similar baseless accusations?

Law enforcement, on false accusation or false evidence, can have American citizens prosecuted and denied their liberties. When the public learns of this abuse of power, evidence, and authority, the public should have the same right to make the same adverse consequences against law enforcement.   Law enforcement can make baseless accusations against the public; why can't the public do the same? 

Law enforcement says they need to combat crime. What happens when law enforcement abuses these tools, engages in criminal activity, and will not cooperate with oversight? The public doesn't have the option to not cooperate with law enforcement.  Why can't the public have the protected right to arrest law enforcement - there, on the street during an illegal stop, and end the interrogation? 

Part III: Remedies When Government Will Not Honor The Social Contract 

The public delegated power to the government so that power can be effectively used for the common good. In exchange for that grant of power, the public imposes on the  government conditions upon which that power can or cannot be used.  

One problem is when the power is delegated, not used for the common good, but that abuse is not adequately checked. The public is not required to continue recognizing power that is abused; nor when power is not used to adequately protect the public.  

The US government has the power to regulate the financial markets; yet, when the government fails to assert its power, and the market spirals out of control, the American public - with this reckless bailout -- is the one left holding the bag. The public should have confidence that the public can make the government clean up the mess, and stick the abusive government with the problem. 

- What are the remedies when government refuses to meet its legal obligations?

- What are the remedies when the US government has power to do something, but refuses to assert that power to enforce FISA, Geneva, or the intent of the securities regulations? 

Then NY State Attorney General Spitzer had a reputation for prosecuting financial crimes on Wall Street. Some said he went too far, and some wanted to find an excuse to remove him as governor. Given what we know about the scope of the financial misconduct, it's reasonable to argue AG Spitzer correctly saw the problem with reckless compliance with the securities industry.  Despite his leadership to safeguard the markets though his use of NY State Government resources, the US government was largely on the sidelines. 

- When are we going to hear from former Governor Spitzer on his views of the legal tools he thinks prosecutors need to adequately regulate the markets? 

Part IV: Amnesty: The Prospects of Reconciliation without Revolution 

The public should enjoy the same immunities which the law enforcement and legal counsel have abused since 2001. 

Congress should work with the State Legislatures to pass Amnesty provisions. Without Amnesty, the American public is less likely to support aggressive US government action and more likely to support confrontation against the government.  

American justice should wipe the slate clean after someone serves their time in prison. The error is to impose administrative and financial punishments on Americans who have served their time. There is no reason to have a blanket policy of denying housing, jobs, or credit to Americans who have served their prison sentences. 

The Iraqis and the Taliban have Amnesty. Why not American citizens? 

There is no reason - many years after a conviction, prison sentence - for Americans to have to answer for felonies. An error from many years ago - possibly linked to a misunderstanding - should not be the basis for the criminal justice system to continue to intrude into the private lives of Americans.  

Once someone serves their time, Americans should be able to go on with their lives. If the US and state governments compel continued intrusions, then the same should apply to US and state government officials, law enforcement, and attorneys. 

Consider the relationship between drug use, housing assistance, and probation. It is not uncommon for some people to relapse. Once someone - known to be at high risk of a relapse - is granted housing, they should not have the prospect of a loss of housing become a new method for probation officers to intrude into their lives.  

Housing should not be conditioned upon a clean record, or a perfect compliance with probation. Americans are at risk of relapsing when they are in probation. The fact that someone has relapsed while on probation or in subsidized housing should not be considered a new problem. It was part of the original risk before the housing was provided. 

We need a better program that will work with the candidates, and ensure despite a relapse, that they are going to succeed. The current approach finds any excuse to continue to harass those the courts know are most likely to have another problem. A lack of funding should not mean the courts can only find excuses to harass people; but have no resources or support to help them recover and eventually succeed. 

It is reasonable for the public to have little confidence in the American justice system. Americans should not be surprised why Iraqis and Afghans took up arms to oppose the Americans. The Americans have imposed a perverse sense of justice. 

- Why is the government offering assisted housing to people they know have a high risk of committing crimes? It's not new information that someone -- on probation for drug use -- has a relapse. A relapse into additional drug use isn't a new risk factor; but part of the known risk factors when making the original housing decision.  This relapse be considered so unusual that this person is subject to the adverse punishment of having their housing denied. It makes no sense, after a relapse, for the probation office and housing authorities to act shocked; and use this relapse to deny housing, increase monitoring, and put more pressure on the candidate. 

- Why, despite giving housing to people who have social problems, is the government treating relapse and other criminal activity as "new information" subject to adverse consequences? Those who are in assisted housing need to have a graduated system of punishment and probation; and should not be quickly denied housing when they most need it. Denying them access to credit, housing, and transportation will only make their problem worse. 

- Why aren't law enforcement and attorneys treated with the same perverse sense of "justice" imposed on those with known problems? Law enforcement and attorneys, as we've seen after 9-11, are not saintly, but willing to turn a blind eye to tyranny, abuse power, mislead the courts, and hide evidence of their misconduct.  

Discussion Points 

Basis for No Confidence in American Justice: Make the case that the American justice system should be supported. Provide some assurances that the American justice system is unrelated to the abuse of power in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

One flaw of the financial bailout is to give the power to those who created the mess the discretion to self-govern. Similarly, those in law enforcement and the intelligence communities would ask, despite their bungling before and after 9-11, that they should be trusted to secretly oversee the plans to abuse or safeguard Americans. That defies reason. 

Systemic Compliance Problems: Explain in detail why the American law enforcement and lawyer regulatory systems are not suffering from the same cursory enforcement we've seen in the securities industry. 

Amnesty For Telecoms Not Americans: Make a case why there should not be blanket Amnesty for all Americans. 

- Why aren't Americans, after they serve their time in prison, given a clean slate, and the chance to secure housing, a job, and start their lives over?

- Is there a reason why Congress has granted immunity to FISA telecoms; but will not extend the same courtesy to American citizens? 

Members of Congress Remain on Probation: Discuss the different systems used to monitor (a) American citizens on or off probation; and (b) government officials, law enforcement and legal counsel.  

- Why isn't the same intrusive, meddling, and unforgiving system Americans, Iraqis, and Afghans are subject also imposed on legal counsel, law enforcement, and probation officers?

- Is there a reason Members of Congress and their staff are not subject to similar public oversight and monitoring all Americans are subject? 

We've had massive Congressional malfeasance on FISA violations and war crimes. Members of Congress should be subjected to the same types of oversight, intrusion, and thin deference any American on probation should endure. Members of Congress and their staff should be subjected to the same intrusions Americans on probation are subject. Members of Congress, like others on probation, should be subject to intrusive oversight. Where the Congress says it cannot be subject to oversight, American citizens should be immune from the same intrusions. 

Subjecting Members of Congress To Same Intrusions Permitted Against Americans: The Constitution does not make Members of Congress absolutely immune to arrest. They can be arrested for felonies. Arguably, illegal agreements to support FISA and Geneva violations would subject Members of Congress and their staff to lawful arrest, intrusion, and detention.  

Congress is not absolutely immune to search. Warrants can be obtained to search Member of Congress offices. However, this risk of search seems lost on Congress. Rather than follow FISA and require warrants, Congress turned a blind eye to 4th Amendment violations against American citizens; but they refuse to permit similar oversight of themselves. This arrogance and double standard does not have a place in America.  

The 4th Amendment says the government is required to get warrants.  The absurdity is Congress argues it has special immunities and protections it says American citizens cannot enjoy. Congress is using its immunity not to effectively govern, but to thwart oversight of its ineffectiveness. 

Where Congress denies American citizens the right to enjoy the protection of a warrant, the public should be able to deny the Member of Congress of balanced protections they have abused to hide their malfeasance and illegal cooperation with FISA violations. 

Filibuster Thwarts Economic Recovery, Not Illegal Activity: There is a double standard on whether the Senate minority can or cannot influence the majority position. After 9-11, the minority party did not filibuster provisions that enacted illegal NSLs; the act of Congress which illegally suspended the writ without a rebellion or invasion. Yet, in the wake of the financial crisis, we see that Congress is pointing to the prospect of a filibuster as the excuse for not enacting economic reforms. 

- Why didn't the minority parties 2001-9 oppose illegal activity with the filibuster?

- What approaches did the majority party take 2001-9 to overcome the risk of filibuster on illegal acts of Congress; but why isn't this approach being used to pass legislation to support the economy?

- Why aren't the House and Senate - outside the Conference committee - agreeing to like bills so that the threat of a filibuster makes the involvement or non-involvement of the conference committee irrelevant on the stimulus package? 

The public is reasonably concerned when the Congress will refuse to use the filibuster to block illegal bills; but blames the filibuster for not enacting needed economic reforms.  

The majority in the US government have shown desperate loyalty to illegal activity, not prudent, lawful planning. The prospect of a filibuster is only real when the Congress wants to make an excuse to do the wrong thing, or not do the right thing.  

The US government has run out time to use the "We're in the post 9-11 world." So is every other American, but we're not being treated with special favor or discretion, but the opposite: Higher burdens to act "responsible" over false charges, fabricated evidence, and smokescreens. 

Members of Congress Subject To Intrusive Oversight: Discuss the different methods government punish (a) American citizens on or off probation; and (b) government employees who are complicit with Geneva and FISA violations. American citizens should not be subject to FISA violations; yet Members of Congress assert they are immune to similar oversight and intrusion for corruption and malfeasance on FISA and Geneva violations. 

- Why are Americans forced to endure street trials based on accusation, but law enforcement and attorneys are permitted to enjoy secret reviews with little prospect of meaningful consequences for serious ethics problems and violations of standards of conduct?

- Why are American citizens forced to endure secret FISA violations without prospect of adequate government oversight; yet the Congress will not publicly assent to similar intrusive monitoring related to their complicity with FISA and Geneva violations? 

Conclusion 

The prosecutors and legal counsel in the United States have let us down. They have a double standard on justice, information sharing, oversight, and discipline.  This double standard is more evident after 9-11, and in the wake of the abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

American leadership has the burden to explain why there is a double standard between (a) how American citizens are treated; and (b) how law enforcement and attorneys are overseen.  US government officials, law enforcement, and legal counsel demand the public recognize immunity for FISA violations. Yet, the American public is required to shoulder the burdens of that abuse and illegal activity. The US government has not adequately argued why the public should shoulder the abuses, but not enjoy any immunity.

It is unjust for law enforcement and legal counsel to be granted sweeping Amnesty for repeated abuses, or have their misconduct hidden with secret settlement agreements.  It is a double standards for Congress to exercise judicial power and grant telecoms immunity for FISA violations; but not exercise executive power and grant sweeping Amnesty to Americans. 

The criminal justice system need reform, especially in the wake of the hypocrisy of the "post 9-11" abuses. The government  appears more interested in gathering adverse information about people outside the criminal justice system, than in enforcing the law against citizens who have over a dozen felony warrants outstanding.  

Law enforcement is using unreasonable force, interrogation methods, and surveillance against trivial issues; but wholly refusing to exercise the needed discretion and competence when faced with real, substantial threats. When law enforcement proves itself incompetent in confronting real issues, there is little reason for those who have been mistreated over trivial matters to shed a tear. 

It is wrong for those who created a mess to dictate how the public will support how that mess is cleaned up. If the public is required to shoulder the burden of cleaning up the mess in government, then government loses its discretion to independently act without intrusive oversight.  

Those on probation have been denied discretion. The same should apply to the US government, law enforcement, attorneys, financial regulators, and others who have recklessly failed to do their jobs before and after 9-11. 

There are many double standards which the public should openly discuss and develop provisions to independently check this abuse of power. These issues relate to a lack of confidence the US, state, and local governments can effectively use power to preserve the rule of law. The question is what system of constitutional law is required to effectively compel the government to responsibly use power; and, when the government remains unresponsive to the rule of law, what Constitutionally protected options the public should have to timely challenge those abuses. 

Amnesty is needed. Conversely, if amnesty is not afforded, US government officials should not reasonably expect to be shown respect; nor have their claims of immunity recognized re Geneva and FISA.  Indeed, it is the reckless assent to illegal Geneva and FISA violations during wartime that might inspire the public to work to prosecute those most responsible for the malfeasance: Members of Congress, legal counsel, intelligence officials, and law enforcement.  

If amnesty is not afforded to American citizens, then American citizens should not be required to show a deferential approach to government personnel; nor should there be a basis to bring subsequent charges against Americans who refuse to show the undeserved deference to arrogant government officials and prosecutors. 

You had a duty to remove yourself from illegal activity. You chose to continue supporting illegal activity, and refused to block the unlawful activity through budget authority. Indeed, malfeasance could include a decision of Members of Congress and State Legislators to continue funding illegal government operations which violated the laws of war and FISA. 

The American public is not required to remain loyal to a government that defies the Supreme Law, turns a blind eye to FISA-Geneva violations, but imposes a standard of proof on the public which government officials will not agree is applicable to them. Our job is not to remain loyal to a Constitutional system which you have let fall into disrepair; but to openly discuss which Constitutional reforms are needed to ensure its preservation despite foreseeable future plans to build of these abuses and further ignore the Supreme Law. 

Where law enforcement and legal counsel will not act responsibly, nor willingly subject themselves to meaningful consequences, the public should have that information to make decisions about where they would like to travel, conduct business, or initiate legal proceedings.  The public is not required to generate tax revenue for government officials and entities which abuse their publicly-financed authority. 

Americans need options. There have been breakdowns in the attorney disciplinary systems and law enforcement oversight. We need to understand what has gotten in the way of misconduct proceedings against law enforcement, especially after 9-11. It appears DHS and others have agreed to policies and procedures which suppress evidence of misconduct with the criminal justice system. Rather than hold themselves accountable, it appears law enforcement likes to target those knowledgeable of the abuses. 

We've seen massive abuse of power: FISA and Geneva violations. We need to understand what got in the way of the attorneys investigating this illegal activity, and what stopped them from reviewing this illegal activity. The law enforcement and attorneys need to explain why they've taken a deferential approach to illegal activity, but not showed the same deference to American citizens.  

Rather than go after their peers in the law enforcement and legal communities, the American intelligence and justice systems appear to have shifted their attention to the American public. The reward for challenging this abuse of power has been more abuse, not needed discipline in government and the legal community.  

This is a credibility problem which the Framers argued the Constitution would address, not, as now, ignore.  This American leadership has betrayed out trust and violated the social compact. The failure of these oversight systems should not bind Americans to continue working with reckless, defective, or incompetent law enforcement, legal counsel and prosecutors.  We're required to work within the Constitutional System. We're not required to turn a blind eye to needed Constitutional reforms. 

Law enforcement, attorneys, and intelligence personnel are more likely to be connected with or know something about 9-11-related misconduct than are American citizens. Yet the consequences for the 9-11 related bungling are on the backs of innocent American citizens, not those in government most connected with the recklessness. The error is to permit the abusive power to be imposed on those least connected with the supposed pretext for the post-9-11 abuses. 

Government failure to impose discipline on law enforcement and attorneys should not bind Americans to interact with those personnel. Americans should have the right to choose to interact with different law enforcement officers and prosecutors. Just as Americans are subject to oversight and threat assessments, the American public should have public information about the complaints against law enforcement and prosecutors. 

Public assistance given to former felons should not be easily denied for foreseeable repeat offenses. However, if the criminal justice system will not forgive Americans, it must explain why Americans should forgive government officials complicit with illegal interrogations, FISA violations, or war crimes. 

Lawyers who are subject to disciplinary investigations should be put on probation and subject to intrusive audits. If this prospect of intrusion is not acceptable, then this intrusion should cease when it comes to American citizens on probation. The state leadership should develop a balanced oversight system for attorneys, law enforcement, and parolees. 

All disciplinary investigations, actions, and other information related to attorneys and law enforcement should be subject to public review. Conversely, if the attorneys and law enforcement find this information unacceptable to retain or disseminate, then that similar information should not be similarly kept or disseminated on American citizens. The different reporting standards is a reasonable issue of public debate and oversight. 

The President and Vice President say, because there was no impeachment, they cannot be held to account for what happened 2001-9. This defies reason. Putting aside whether that is true or not, American citizens should have the same assurances:  Those who had nothing to do with 9-11 should not be required to bear the burden of the abuse of the American intelligence, criminal justice, and legal counsel communities. If the US government will not be accountable the abuses, the American public cannot be held responsible for the breakdown in governance. Such a burden perverts the social compact and is indefensible, reckless tyranny. 

Where are the probation officers who are monitoring legal counsel and Members of Congress who have defied their oath, not cooperated with FISA enforcement, or turned a blind eye to Geneva violations? They've the voters and informed citizenry. However, we need greater tools - outside the secret grand jury process and beyond the reach of the malleable media toads -- to confront Members of Congress complicit with this illegal activity. These tools need to be at least as intrusive as the tools the US government illegally uses against American citizens, otherwise there is no adequate check on power, just a blind eye to US government tyranny.