Invective is no defense

What to do . . . if caught not cleaning up your room?

Plead ignorance about mom's rules:

"She never said anything before . . . "

* * *

The same thing is going on with the war crimes: The RNC leadership is pleading ignorance about existing statutes.

Kevin Drum of the WA MO wants specific rules on how to treat prisoners.

News flash: The rules already exist.

* * *

The existing Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners need to be enforced before an independent magistrate.

* * *

Rather than focus on whether the President did or did not commit war crimes, the issue is sidelined by pretending the existing statutes are inadequate.

* * *

Debating new legislation is analogous to:

A. Ignoring the existing Geneva Conventions;

B. Pleading ignorance about the clearly promulgated statutes;

C. Ignoring the training about those statutes; and

D. Asking that new rules be enacted to duplicate already violated statutes.

* * *

It's a waste of time, the intent of a distraction, to focus on "whether Congress should or should pass the redundant rules."

The diversionary debate then morphs into another intentional distraction, of whether people are "for or against" the distraction/redundant new rules.

* * *

Bush has no defense for his leadership failure. 5100.77 clearly states how Americans shall treat prisoners; and how personnel under DoD, even DoD-contractors, shall treat prisoners.

Contracts that create an immunity to the law are not for lawful purposes and not enforceable.. No contractor can credibly claim they have immunity to the Geneva Conventions because "the scope of the contract terms" created an immunity.

RNC leadership and war lobbyists have no defense. Under the existing statutes, all the RNC can do is assert the instant case falls outside the "expected range of options" and "foreseeable circumstances."

Indeed, these are issues for the court to decide in court.

* * *

We send the wrong signal to the world when America, supposedly the "rule of law" land, puts all laws up for political debate.

The debate ended when the statutes were passed.

A violation of the law does not re-open a decided issue.

* * *

The real RNC objective is to focus on new legislation to distract attention from the existing laws and court docket.

Someone in court needs to make a very good case why the President should not be impeached for war crimes: This is the job of defense counsel.

At that juncture, in court Bush will have no say on whether new or old legislation is sufficient; it will be up to the House Judiciary Committee to appoint counsel to gather facts relative to the existing Geneva Conventions: This is the job of the lead prosecutor.

* * *

The Germans used the "just following orders" defense.

RNC uses the "we were too stupid to follow the law, so we're innocent because we self-certified our innocence"-defense.

Both the Germans and the RNC acted as if they know better than the law.

That's tyranny.

* * *

The issue is whether the country wants to assert the rule of law over all people, even the Chief Executive in the White House.

Fitzgerald is getting closer.

The RNC shows that it cannot be trusted to follow the laws, even when ably advised by "wise counsel."

* * *

Last time I checked inter alia:

A. Harriet Miers is the President's chief legal advisor; and

B. Counsel advising Hitler of the legality of the Holocaust didn't get a seat on the US Supreme Court.

* * *

Guess who wrote this:

"Those who would choose a rule of man rather than the rule of law must not escape fitting penalty."

Answer:

-- Harriet Miers, July 27, 1992

In "Don't Blame the Legal System for Fort Worth Rampage"
Texas Lawyer

President, State Bar of Texas
Partner, Locke Purnell Rain Harrell

Hat Tip: Time

* * *

Bush appears to be hiding Miers on the bench to keep her out of the dungeon.