Congressional Inaction On CIA Abuses Could Implicate Congress
One reasons Members of Congress are hinting at inaction over CIA abuses is the larger problem: What did Members of Congress know, and when did they know it.
Contrary to assertions that there is a "distinction" between policy makers and those who execute the policy, the Nuremberg trials and Tokyo War Crimes trials do not make that distinction. Rather, policy makers were adjudicated with war crimes beecause they did not, as required, ensure compliance with the laws of war.
War crimes attach not only to primary actors, but to Memers of Congress who share -- in the US system of separation of powers -- policy making responsibility. The question is wheher the US Congerss hopes to use the economic crises as a smokescreen to their alleged subsequent plan to not fully meet their Geneva obligations.
Congerssional inction on these alleged Geneva violations is not the end of the story. As discussed on TPMM recently, the Conyers bill appears to be a whitewash. This doesn't mean the issue goes away, but does the opposite: Why is the US outsourcing its Geneva enforcement program? The question is whether the states' Attorney Generals, seeing inaction under the Obama DOJ, decide they need to prosecute US government officials in Congress, the Obama Adminstration, and US government agents.
The US, as a signatory to Geneva, is required to enforce the laws of war, and have a compliance program in place. The Congressional decision to whitewash war crimes, and not prosecute CIA abuses could signal to foreign powers that the US is unwilling to meet its legal obligations. Foreign powers would have the legal option to use military force to enforce the laws of war against US government officials.
The first problem was for the US government -- including Members of Congress -- to turn a blind eey to illegal policies; and do nothing about the Geneva violations. The second problem is the US pretending someone else will do something, with the (apparent) plan never to cooperate with outside legal action.
This US government and Members of Congress are not signaling, as they are required per their oath of office, that things have changed; nor are they showing they are serious about their Geneva obligations. Foerign powers could introduce these statements, the Conyers bill, and other subsequent cursory action as subsequent evidence of Member of Congress alleged complicity with Geneva violations.
Definitely Rec'd!
Is it possible for the citizens to themselves sue Congress and the Executive to compel them to honor their obligations under the Geneva Conventions? Surely there must be some legal redress available for the circumstance where the Congress and the Executive are complicit in criminal actions.
It is extremely frustrating to hear pundits and others explain that perhaps it makes sense to simply move on and let bygones be bygones. This is not an option. We have a responsibility here, and we fail as a democracy if we do not hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.
January 13, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the investigations begin. What did they know and when did they know about it, and what did they do about it after they found out about it....
Fine, let us get to the truth of things. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. Dems, Reps, I don't care who gets hurt.
January 13, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dickday - I made a similar comment about putting Barney Frank in jail over Fannie Mae. You said "I do not wish to imprison anyone in Congress past or present for legislation".
January 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A test for Republican Trolls:
1.) A blow job is...
2.) A legislative decision regarding Fannie Mae is...
3.) A violation of the Geneva Conventions is...
Match answers below:
a.) ... a blow job.
b.) ... a democratic vote taken in a Representative body of government.
c.) ... an Impeachable Offense.
(Hint for truly ignorant Republican Trolls: The answers correspond with the opening lines in linear fashion.)
January 13, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me see, it's a, b, c, 1, 2, 3,
Baby, you and me!!!
I think it is a completely foreign concept to Republicans to hold principles before relationships. At all costs the Republicans are loyal to their party. Bush could not have gotten a second term without this blind loyalty.
Democrats hold the principle as the priority. A thief is a thief, a liar a liar, and ciminal actions should be prosecuted. Lately on the record, the Dems have swiftly dealt with their own party memebers that have broken laws. I agree with this tact. It seems very clear crimes have been committed, and it is time for the criminals to answer for those crimes. It makes little difference to me from which party they originate. There are 300 million people in this country. Sure, no one can replace another, but there are always people who can take their position. We've been able to do it with 43 presidents so far. If we survive these changes in the White House, we can survive them in Congress too.
January 13, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Gregor. Onward and upward. er whatever.
January 13, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ - that was very funny. It was a miracle that I got them right without looking at your hint.
I've got one for you:
Q: What's the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
A: The puppy stops whining after it grows up
January 13, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was deep, Middle.
You never responded to the point he was making, though, which is that you were trying to equate a serious crime; an impeachable offense, with a vote on a piece of legislation. You really don't get it, do you, Middle.
What's the difference between a neo-con and a narcissistic sociopath?
Answer: Pretty much nothing.
January 14, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't equating anything. I simply said that I want Barney Frank in jail for the Fannie Mae fiasco.
January 14, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hot today Sleepin!!!!!!
January 13, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are entitled to Congressional immunity. But I would not mind a discussion on this if you wish to create a blog. I am saying, if Dems are complicit, let it come out. This is only the investigative stage. Again, I have not proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt against anyone.
Embarrassing the powers that be is ok with me.
January 13, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barney Frank should go to jail for letting Fannie Mae's lending practices get out of hand
January 13, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly delusional, Middle! See above.
BTW, Why isn't Bernie Madoff in jail? Why is he sitting in his fine digs in New York after he broke the requirements of his bail?
January 14, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again - no where was I equating Madoff with Frank. I simply said that I want to see Barney Frank in jail for having screwed up Fannie Mae
January 14, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following letter confirms that this article is a slam dunk. Congress has failed and appears complicit in the CIA abuses. This is content that appears here
Dear Senator Feinstein, David Grannis, Jennifer Cabrera and Don Stone,
Please accept this as written request for a meeting with you or directly with Senator Feinstein. My request to meet with Mr. Don Stone is being obstructed and Mr. Stone is refusing to meet with me and hear the allegations. It seems as if Mr. Stone has not even read the disclosure that I uploaded to http://www.larsonmedia.net/special_access/sa_docs/Larson_SSCI.pdf or the DoD IG documents from 103586
Mr. Don Stone has cited that he trusts the DOD IG to handle the situation and a meeting with the committee is not required, however DoD IG personnel at the Field Office in California have cited that they are unable to take action because the activities I have cited are "non DoD" intelligence activities. This was also confirmed during a personal phone call I had with Bill Dugan, the acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight. This issue must be addressed and Don Stone is acting obstructionist and preventing Senate leaders from being informed.
Specifically, these are the issues that must be addressed:
1. CIA Director Mike Hayden is using intellectual property developed at the Alfred Mann Foundation, Second Sight LLC, and under Naval Space Warfare (SPAWAR) contract #N6600106C8005 as enhanced "sources and methods" domestically. Don Stone wants to rebuff this, however Don Stone has not been briefed on what the CIA's "other" enhanced sources and methods are. To substantiate this claim, I offer the following; Under FOIA provisions, the CIA would have to verify whether they are using the intellectual property developed at the Mann Foundation and Second Sight, unless there is a citable exemption. In response to my FOIA request regarding the CIA use of this intellectual property, the CIA cites "b1" the material is "properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order in the interest of National Security" and "b3" is information "pertaining to the CIA Directors statutory obligation to protect intelligence sources and methods". This confirms that the intellectual property is sources and methods. Additionally, I have a badge that permits me access to the Naval Air Weapons Center in China Lake, California, I have an informal relationship with contract personnel involved in Naval Space Warfare contract N6600106C8005, I have been involved in very early development efforts of this intellectual property and it is my testimony under oath that Michael Hayden has deployed this technology domestically as enhanced sources and methods as part of domestic surveillance efforts and has done so against candidates for office. This needs to be addressed. I uploaded a copy of this CIA FOIA request to www.larsonmedia.net/special_access/documents.htm
2. In order to support the domestic surveillance efforts involving this intellectual property, the defense contractor, Alfred Mann, has lobbied the FCC for a "experimental" FCC license, call-sign WD2XLW. This license permits an unlimited number of intelligence personnel to use the WD2XLW license anywhere within the United States to interact with the intellectual property which is being used as part of the domestic sources and methods, and is being done under the cover of "medical technology". Further, the Intel Corp filed comments with the FCC disputing the FCC's claim about limited range. Intel has asserted that the WD2XLW license being used by intelligence personnel has a range of 16000 meters (many miles).
3. These sources and methods have been used against me while I was confirmed by Calif. Secretary of State Deborah Bowen as a candidate in the 2008 Presidential Primary. I have uploaded substantial medical records that show Physicians have removed the intellectual property belonging to Alfred Mann which is being used as sources and methods from my person on numerous occasions. According to election results, I received votes from several counties in California alone and this sets a disturbing precedent. Did Congress authorize the President to deploy sources and methods against political rivals? This must be addressed.
The documents in my possession include copies of contracts, confidential emails between the contractor, the FCC and others, and includes documents which say "need to know". A meeting with Senate staff is necessary and is the right thing to do. Don Stone is in no position to assert that he knows what the "other" sources and methods are, or to dispute the evidence supported by medical physicians and what has been confirmed by ATSDIO Bill Dugan. Because these are sources and methods being deployed by CIA Director Hayden (domestically) these are intelligence activities outside of the review of DoD. For Don Stone to bow to the will of Hayden and refuse to meet with me or receive the supporting evidence, he is complicit in permitting CIA Director Hayden to engage in unlawful domestic surveillance, and the deployment of classified sources and methods domestically against political candidates for office. This is happening outside of Congressional review and is unlawful. Disclosure is necessary and Don Stone is not doing anyone except Mike Hayden a favor by acting obstructionist and stonewalling what is obviously a necessary and legitimate disclosure. Further, this matter appears to have much larger implications because the domestic use of the sources and methods is only enabled by expanded power of the executive. It is quite possible that the desire to engage in domestic surveillance for partisan political purpose has affected war on terror policy and has influenced some of the poor policy decisions regarding the war. The administration has been dependent on the war on terror because the expanded power of the executive is needed to support this domestic surveillance program. These allegations are well supported in documents and evidence and disclosure to Senate members is necessary and proper.
I respectfully request an opportunity to meet with someone so that appropriate disclosures may be made. In light of the stonewalling and failure of Don Stone to hear the allegations, please accept this as written request to meet with David Grannis, Senator Feinstein directly, as disclosure is obviously warranted and necessary. Thank you.
Dave Larson
Confirmed by CA. Secretary of State Deborah Bowen
Candidate 2008 Presidential Primary
January 13, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least in terms of any criminal action taken by US prosecutors (acting pursuant to Geneva Convention, etc, obligations), I would think members of Congress are likely protected by the Speech and Debate Clause (Art I, Sec 6 of the US Const). Even if the US is acting pursuant to legal obligations under international law, the S&D clause would likely serve as an effective constitutional affirmative defense, so long as they're in a US Court.
I guess if there's a real international, non-US war crimes trial, this might go out the window... but it's hard to see that such an international trial would actually happen.
January 14, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink