Sanctioning Tyranny, Torture; Summary of arguments


1-***Petitioner begs the Court to recognize such provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (#1b) and provisions exempting judicial review, are unconstitutional violations of due process and 5th Amendment , and Petitioner begs the Court to declare such provisions or amnesty amendments to other statutes null and void as being inconsonant with democratic justice and our beloved Constitution.

2-***The Petitioner begs the Court declare, pro-actively, what is the law to the executive. The court needs to require that the Office of Legal Counsel(OLC) interact regularly with the US District Court, that it be an arm of the Court, a part of the Judicial branch of government.

3) ***Petitioner pleas that the Court needs to declare that OLC attorneys are officers of the Court, to which they are responsible. The Office of Legal Counsel has no more important role than saying “what the law is” .. to the Chief Executive, which is a judicial function. It is fundamental to the juris prudence of the law of the United States, emanating from our Constitution, that each branch of government has its own power and responsibilities

***Court is asked to declare the OLC attorneys of the DOJ responsible to the supervision of the Court, insofar as the Chief Executive needs an arm of Judiciary to tell him "what the law is", a function exclusive to the Judiciary. For an attorney responsible to the executive alone for his job has split loyalties and is not purely responsible to the US Constitution, ideals of oath-taking not withstanding. The recent experience during the Bush administration, as regards the infamous and discredited "Bybee Memos", which were the product of disingenuous over-obliging legal advice.


4)***Petitioner pleads with the Court that “signing statements”, that is, when the President makes a declaration while signing a bill, qualifying the law as he would like it to be, be declared mute, with no legal bearing, for they are not legislated, nor could they say what the law is, for that is the sole jurisdiction of the Court.

5)**Petitioner begs the Court to use to the power of issuing writs to command the executive to” show cause” to the Court that his(the executive’s) declarations and edicts which have human rights implications, pass Constitutional muster, before he makes public his declarations.

6)*** Petitioner pleas that the Court needs to declare such ex post facto provisions in the military Commissions Act of 2006 tyrannical, abhorrent to democracy, and unconstitutional. If he wants to issue pardons to specific individuals, that is within his power as Chief Executive granted by the Constitution. But, the Executive and Congress harm the due process and integrity of our beloved Constitution by inserting ex post facto amnesty provisions into legislation.

7) First, the MCA 2006 changed the definition of war crimes for which US government defendants can be prosecuted, inventing a hitherto unknown term “grave breach” . (#1a),(#1b) Such a change in definition has the effect of an ex post facto law , in that, it provides a retro-active impunity for those who broke the law under the definition of the law as it had existed at that time thus fitting the definition of an ex post facto law and unconstitutional on its face. (#1d)

8)Techniques permitted by MCA 2006 include limited water-boarding, stress positions, hypothermia,
Court needs to declare provisions authorizing such techniques unconstitutional, in violation of the 8th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the Convention Against Torture. Techniques permitted by MCA 2006 include limited water-boarding, stress positions, hypothermia,

9)***Petitioner begs that the Court deny any exceptions, including for “National Security” or "necessity", for torture.

10)Techniques permitted by MCA 2006 include limited water-boarding, stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation. Such treatment would not be allowed in US prisons because it is cruel and inhumane so the Court needs to declare provisions authorizing such techniques unconstitutional, in violation of the 8th Amendment, 5th Amendment and the Convention Against Torture.

*11)*** Petitioner pleads with the Court to declare these MCA 2006 provisions(from Pet 10) (#2) unconstitutional and such treatment be declared by the Court to be forbidden, absolutely, as they are a violation of the 8th Amendment,

12)***Petitioner begs that the Court deny any exceptions, including for “National Security”, for torture. The court has the power, has the right, has the duty, to tell the executive what is the law[citing Marbury v. Madison]

14)***Petitioner pleads the Court order the Attorney General to cease the expressly intended discrimination that he has been demonstrating in his prosecutorial decisions.

15 *** Petitioner pleas The Court needs to provide some check on executive power, unless or until Congress passes a Special Prosecutor Act by placing the Office of Legal Counsel under the Court’s jurisdiction.

18)***Petitioner begs the Court to insist that the rule of law prevails in these United States. The defendant, as Attorney General, has a duty to challenge the Constitutionality of ex post facto laws which lend impunity to torturers.
22 -***Petitioner further pleads with the Court that out of respect for the Due Process of law clause in the US Constitution’s 5th Amendment that it disallow the use of discredited, disingenuous OLC “torture memos”, so-called “Bybee Memos” for “guidelines in determining who should be prosecuted for torture”.

30) (a)*** Petitioner begs that the Court not only declare unconstitutional the amnesty provisions of the Military Commissions Act as being ex post facto law, but also those parts the Military Commissions Act that rewrote part of the U.S. legal code on war crimes, changing the definition of a war crime from conduct that "constitutes a violation of Common Article 3" to the much higher standard of "a grave breach of Common Article 3."

32) Torture was used to fabricate evidence to perpetrate a fraud upon the United States...because Justice Scalia has spoken out against such fraud statutes as would apply to his friend, former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, he should be recused from sitting in any hearing regarding this Petition.

31,35) Necessity defense for torture invalid

43)*The Plaintiff pleads the Court use its special power to issue a writ of mandamus by directing the Defendant Holder remedy a situation where discrimination has been effecting prosecutorial decision