Conspiracy Of War Criminals
Many Libertarians, Constitutionalists and a scant few Democrats have awakened to the Presidential tyranny in our midst and are seeking the best course for the impeachment and removal of GWBush. The Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has placed the President, many in his administration and members of the US Armed Forces and Intelligence Community at the direct risk of felony prosecution for war crimes.
The recent ruling by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor upholding the Constitution and declaring the illegality of the warrant less NSA domestic wire-tapping only cements the lawless character of the GWBush Administration. The below excerpts are from section XI Conclusion of her ruling:
For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP (The Secret Program of domestic wiretapping by the NSA) violates the APA (Administration Procedures Act); the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the final claim of data-mining is granted, because litigation of that claim would require violation of Defendants’ state secrets privilege.
The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met. The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution.
As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):
Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile. Id. at 264.
One can simply ignore as propaganda the Neo-Con/GOP/MainStreamMedia fear mongering attending this ruling as a threat to the “war on terror”. If wire-tapping was needed in the interest of national security, the existing law allowed for BushCo to act immediately and soon thereafter get approval from the FISA Court, a required course of action that was intentionally not done. Please note that Judge Diggs Taylor specifically mentions that a remedy for the Defendant, the Bush Administration, would be for them to comply with the Constitution and statutes and/or amend them.
The litany of unconstitutional and criminal actions of GWBush was well covered in the recent commentary “Bush Seeks Retroactive Laws To Protect Himself From War Crimes Prosecution” from Paul Craig Roberts, as found in the Baltimore Chronicle, NewsMax, Lew Rockwell and other publishers. For those unaware of Mr. Roberts, his conservative pedigree is impeccable.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Excerpts from his commentary of 08/31/06:
Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration’s military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.
President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President’s attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?
Even worse than impermissible, any retroactive law (technically known as ex post facto law) is in direct violation of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, and Paragraph 3 and is illegal.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Any legislation that attempts to change existing
law and apply these changes retroactively is without question unconstitutional
and invalid. It would provide only the “color of law” but
would not be actual law. Without the prohibition of ex post facto law,
then our Constitution or any other law code that professes to uphold
the rule of law would be empty.
“White House proposes retroactive war crimes protection - Moves to shield policy makers” By Pete Yost, Associated Press as found in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, The Guardian, Townhall.com and the New York Times,
… is the foundational issue Judge Anna Diggs Taylor mentioned in her conclusion. Modifying the Constitution or a change in applicable statutes must be done first before any new law or act contrary to Constitution or statute can be considered legal.
This core determination re-affirms the Constitution as being a contract (not a living document) with obligatory terms and conditions between the parties. Please remember that the Constitution only enumerates the people’s rights and does not grant them. The high hurdle set in Article V for changing the Constitution was intentional to protect the rights of the people from infringing tyrants.
The requirements for modifying the Constitution are found in Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Neither the Congress nor the President can ratify changes to the Constitution; they only propose changes. Modifications can only be done by the uniform agreement of both houses from 3/4ths of the State Legislatures. The USA PATRIOT Act, the supposed interpretive authority of presidential signing statements, the Congress ceding its authority to declare war in Iraq and many other unconstitutional and criminal actions did not pass any Article V process. Lawless defines the current President and the Congress as well with its acquiescence to his tyranny - the unitary executive.
Any simple retroactive change to the War Crimes Act would be constitutionally null and void. No real or de jure’ protection for GWBush would exist. A clear opportunity to re-establish constitutional authority is now present.
The Administration activities in drawing up “immunizing” legislation with certain Congressmen are prima facie evidence of a criminal conspiracy with the intent to violate civil rights, obstruct justice, commit offense against the US and commit insurrection against the US.
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of
CHAPTER 19 – CONSPIRACY
Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2383. Rebellion or insurrection
GWBush and his handmaidens are in direct disobedience to the clear substance of Judge Diggs Taylor’s ruling and Hamdan v Rumsfeld from the Supreme Court. They spit in the face of the Constitution to which they have sworn an oath to uphold and protect.
The most expeditious course of action for removing GWBush would not be impeachment (a non-starter in the fully corrupt GOP Congress) but to commence prosecution by filing of Federal Criminal Complaints against the President, collaborating Congressmen and others for the above listed crimes. Their actions to create immunizing legislation are in essence admissions of guilt.
What only remains are for a few serious attorneys or judges to summon the will and courage to commence the process of restoring the Constitution. That list could well consist of:
MSNBC commentator and George Washington Law Professor
Please help our fight against the New World Order by giving a donation. As bandwidth costs increase, the only way we can stay online and expand is with your support. Please consider giving a monthly or one-off donation for whatever you can afford. You can pay securely by either credit card or Paypal. Click here to donate.