War Crimes: How to charge Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Joint Staff is feeling the pinch of justice.
5100.77 is the SecDef guidance on laws of war. This was clearly promulgated. The Joint Chiefs knew, or should have known, about this guidance. Reports from Senator McCain via Capt Fishback indicate the SecDef has allegedly lied to Congress with full knowledge of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Further, President Bush when advised of the conditions and the uncertain legal status of those in Guantanamo asserted in a memo that he would treat the detainees per the Geneva Conventions. The treatment has fallen well below this standard as evidenced by the photographs.
In turn, in November 2002, the 170th Military Police Company under 6th Group did conduct investigations and interrogations in the presence of Naval Intelligence and the FBI agents. These reports were then forwarded to 6th Group, and to the Joint Staff.
Basis for court martials against the Joint Staff hinge on one simple problem:
A. Either the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when they received the 6th Group report from Guantanamo, took action on the report; or ignored the report. There is a staff summary sheet with a routing slip that will show who within the Joint Staff received this report from the 6th Group.
B. On the contrary, if it is claimed that the 6th Group, after it received the interrogation report from the 170th Military Police Company, claims that it knows nothing, or it never sent the report, the issue then becomes why wasn't the SecDef 5100.77 guidance followed in re laws of war which require an immediate report to the commanders.
The Court Martial against the Joint Staff for war crimes will hinge on the following factors:
1. Why, despite the clear guidance in 5100.77 did they not take action after the President direct that detainees be treated consistent with Geneva;
2. Why did the Joint Staff not have in place a system that would ensure the findings from the 170th Military Police Company and 6th Group were timely translated into actions and oversight to ensure troop discipline;
3. Why did the Joint Staff not have in place a system to ensure that once they were in receipt of a report of unlawful conduct or war crimes, that per 5100.77 there was not an immediate investigation into the matters.
The answers are that the Joint Staff, it will be found, was fully aware of the problems, and according to Capt Fishback and others within the Army, there was a double story going on.
One story was for public consumption to contain the problem; while the systematic abuses continued.
The same problems we've found with Libby and the Vice President's stories not matching will also be found within the Joint Staff and SecDef's office.
Under the laws of war, once there is a problem with treatment of the enemy or an allegation that the troops are aware of a possible violation, this information must be forwarded to their commander. This is consistent with Geneva, and clearly promulgated in Army guidance per SecDef 5100.77.
The problem the Army cannot explalin is, why despite the 5100.77, their troops in the interrogations and committing war crimes, were not actively refusing to follow unlawful orders in re treatment of prisoners.
This is the core problem with DoD cannot explain. Why despite the lessons of Nuremburg, did troops continue to engage in misconduct, all the while the Senior Commanders who were aware of this misconduct were reporting the opposite to Congress.
The American public should be concerned. Despite the many statutes and training available to both commanders and troops, the American fighting men and women were they claim "not sure" what to do, and "didn't get help" that the needed.
Clearly, the story, as is the entire issue with Valerie Plame and the White House, not adding up.
The problem DoD has is that the conversations and transcripts of the interrogations are already outside their control. We know that the 170th Military Police Company was present; and this information was forwarded to the Joint Staff.
Either someone in the SecDef's office, as is the Vice President's staff, playing a game of "not me" as did Libby, or there is a far larger problem on our hand: Despite clear 5100.77 guidance on the laws of war, "nobody knew" what was going on, or what to do.
That is not credible.
Prosecutors do find, as we have seen with Libby, that when someone makes a statement in a court of law that is not credible, and not supported by the evidence, that they are lying.
It is time for the civilians and military personnel inside the 5 walls of the Pentagon to choose which side of the law you are on.
Know that through the NSA and GCHQ we already know which personnel by name are on which memos which reviewed the documents from 6th Group, and we know the 5100.77 guidance was in place.
You have fair warning. You and your fellow staffers inside the Pentagon are going to face the onslaught of the American military and judicial system.
As you have seen with the Libby indictments, a Grand Jury can be empaneled secretly for many years, quietly reviewing the evidence, letting you sink further into this trap.
You are already caught.
Recall during the Nuremburg trials civilians were held liable for war crimes. If you are a civilian contractor working for NSA and are aware of what has happened, you need to talk to your attorneys.
Right now, we know your IP numbers, contract involvement, and your material support for the unlawful wars of aggression; and the knowledge that you had, or should have had knowledge of what was going on, because of your involvement in the contract support at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other locations, but failed to act.
Contracts which give you immunity for violations of the law are arguably unenforceable.
It is not credible, in light of what is happening to Mr. Libby, for anyone within the Joint Staff to believe you are going to escape accountability.
Either you were in charge, and failed to act per 5100.77; and did nothing about the 6th Group reports that you had access to;
Or, you failed to ensure that there was a system in place to ensure your troops, despite 5100.77 were adequately trained on the laws of war, and immediately forwarded to you, as required, the information needed to oversee them.
Either way, you're on the wrong side of the law.
However, the new evidence is that we now can prove that the Joint Staff not only knew of the information, but that they were fully aware that Rumsfeld has lied to Congress under oath.
I repeat: You have a large problem on your hand. Recall, that it took many decades after the Nazis in Germany were defeated that Nazi hunters continued to hunt down the war criminals.
You will be found. We have the evidence.
We can find you.
Choose whether you want to cooperate, or face indictments.
Either way, you are going down, and the full weight of the entire American legal system and evidence discovery process will be brought to bear.
Certified fraud examiners know how to put pieces of destroyed computers back together. There are ways to reconstruct destroyed electronic data.
Satellites and overseas locations maintain copies of data.
The more data you destroy, the more evidence there will be to indict you.
The evidence is in GCHQ, we have the transcripts, and we know which staffers by name did and did not do what they were supposed to do.
It's time to come forward. The troops in the field expect leaders, not excuses.
Also know that the American public, in light of the Libby indictments, will be more open and receptive to troops coming forward with evidence. The world is no longer willing to believe the non-sense from DoD or the smearing against LtCol Schaefer, Ambassador Wilson, Valerie Plame, or Sibel Edmonds.
The tide has turned. DoD is on the wrong side of history.
Choose wisely. America has a long memory, even when DoD likes to play stupid.
This is what is needed:
We make no guarantee that you will get anything in return.
Make copies of these documents, keep the originals if you are lawfully allowed to have access to them, and forward all information to the nearest US Attorney's office. Also, send a courtesy copy to Senator McCain's office.
The American military's Joint Staff and Donald Rumsfeld are going down town, to China Town.
0. International surfing Ref
Ref: 美国军事部门/中国/巴西/丹麦/英国 -- 美国/土耳其/墨西哥/中国/美国军事部门 -- 美国军事部门
1. Look for the Rules of Engagement [ ROE ]
Staff Judge Advocates [SJA] know about 5100.77 and are required to work with commanders to ensure the orders are consistent with the laws of war and mission objectives. [ Ref ]
These ROE are available at the SJA, and commanders will have in their read files copies and the date that they annotated that they have reviewed the documentation and ROE.
ROE may be referenced in orders for travel, but can be linked with a specific commander and assigned personnel through the funding codes in the travel orders.
Funds may only be expended for approved programs; this means that if money is going to a program that is unlawful, there is military order that specifically identifies who issued the orders, and which funding this order, military movement, or personnel transfer/TDY is associated with
Note: An "approved" program is not the same as a "lawful" program.
Question: How did the orders and funds get issued/disbursed if the activity was not lawful?
The commanders, before they issue orders, or engage in any operation must ensure their activity is lawful. Ref.
Question: How were the systemic abuses in Abu Ghraib possible, but the Joint Staff claims that they didn't know, or it's all a mystery?
A. The Joint Staff is lying and never read the laws of war guidance from 1998 [ Dereliction of Duty ?]; or
B. They have issued orders that they did not verify were lawful; or
C. They have received reports of violations but did nothing; or
D. They failed to ensure that personnel responsible for issuing orders were doing so in a manner that was consistent with the laws of war.
2. GTMO Personnel records
E-mail and MSG header
3. DoD E-mail and hardware Discovery: Archiving, data retention requirements
GTMO DNS/IP routing data
4. Check Congressional Correspondence Logs: Completeness of entries in DC Staff offices
A. GTMO e-mail and web information:
Both the detentions and the interrogations at JTFGTMO are plainly unlawful
B. 2003 letter direct
5. Check personal data cards: Gaps, patterns, inconsistencies with testimony
6. Is NCIS/MI5 engaged in another PR for POTUS as they were prior to Iraq invasion?
GTMO-assignee says POTUS is "excellent." Ha!
QUOTE: " I sincerely ask you to apologize for your reckless disrespect of the United States' highest elected official." -- ENDQUOTE From: firstname.lastname@example.org
-- Response: Tell the President to stick a corncobb up his ass.
7. Assess: Whether use of CAC/PKI card or using government computers for unofficial business
EX: Sample alleged intimidation of others who have other views
Other e-mail: email@example.com
Karl W. Schult
Karl W Schult '94
Schult, Karl W. RPI, OD [Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Optometry]
Education: Siena ROTC, 1997 [Loudonville, New York]
Meaning: Karl is most likely a Captain in the Army Medical Corps, and supervises GS-06 technicians.
Re: Bush Sucks!!
Posted: Oct 20, 2005 10:24 AM Reply
Comments from Personnel assigned to GTMO:
DR. SCHULTZ: QUOTE: John M. Riley, Ph.D, you may wish not to throw dirt but you evidently have no self control and no respect. This may be why you have no money.
Advise: Go for a long bike ride and think about yourself without thinking about the next thing you wish to say.ENDQUOTE
Karl, did you really go to Siena where they preach, "Diversity, Optimism, Respect, Service" -- "Service" includes posting comments on the internet using your offiical e-mail at GTMO? Shocked!
Karl, did you go to college to learn how to make silly postings on the internet; or are you just bored at GTMO? You know, there are many laws of war and POW handbooks you could be reading, but it seems your friends don't like to follow the rules. Why is that?
Maybe Karl should go on a really long bike ride, and think about 1997 in New York: Laws of War, 5100.77, are they really important?
Maybe Karl could learn not to make silly comments using his official GTMO e-mail address; others may monitor how Karl may make a fool of himself during an ongoing war crimes investigation. Not that Karl knows anything about war crimes or the laws of war.