Constellation: Haynes Misleads Senate Judiciary Committee
Haynes served as General Counsel to the Department of Defense. In 2002 he crafted memos which permitted the unlawful abuse of prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
During testimony, Senator Lindsay Graham asked whether Haynes did or did not coordinate with the JAGs on the memos. Haynes affirmatively indicated without equivocation that he had fully coordinated with the JAGs. Subsequent JAG testimony indicated Haynes had not, as previously testified, coordinated the documents; rather, it was 14 months later, well after the abuses were known when the JAGs were aware of Haynes illegal war crimes planning and policies.
While serving as General Counsel, Haynes had full access to the Intel Link system which includes procedures and guidance related to the laws of war, Geneva, Article 82, and the 5100.77 DoD Laws of Wars Program. Also, Haynes also had access to the message traffic from Guantanamo and 170th Military Police Company sent through 6th Group to the JCS clearly stating the prisoners were not appropriately being treated.
Count 1: Allegedly Misleading Statements to Congress, in Violation of Statute
During his confirmation hearing for appointment to the federal bench, Haynes was sworn into to provide testimony to the Senate Judiciary. Haynes failed to provide truthful testimony to the Senate Committee, a violation of the law. Haynes as an attorney knew that his statement were false, and that his statements were made with the intention to deceive Congress and avoid Article 82 war crimes liability.
Count 2: Alleged Violation of the Laws of War
Haynes knew, or should have known, that the policies he outlined did not comply with the DoD Laws of War Program or the Geneva Convention. Article 82 imposes a duty on attorneys and civilian leadership to ensure the laws of war and Geneva Conventions are implemented. Not only id Haynes recklessly ignore the clearly promulgated requirements of the Conventions, he lied to make others believe that he had fully coordinated the planning with the JAGs. Moreover, rather than rely on the information he had in the Intel Link and JAGs, Haynes circumvented the experts and freely chose to ignore the relevant expertise that would otherwise remind him of his lawful requirements.
Count 3: Alleged War Crimes and Misprepresentations Violate Attorney Standards of Conduct
While duly licensed to practiced law and act as General Counsel to the Department of Defense, Haynes knew or should have known the clear standards of conduct expected of an attorney. Haynes is an accomplished lawyer, well trained, and recognized and confirmed by the Senate to fill the difficult and challenging job as counsel to the Department of Defense. Haynes took the oath of office and freely agreed to ensure that the Constitution and all treaties were respected as the Supreme law of the land.
While acting as Chief Counsel to the Department of Defense, Haynes was primarily responsible for providing legal advice to the Department, acting as the final legal authority on matters.
Haynes conduct is in contravention with the Attorney professional conduct. He has violated his oath as an attorney to uphold the standards of professional conduct, brought discredit upon himself, and was materially instrumental in planning, executing, and overseeing war crimes committed by the United States, thereby placing the nation at great risk of lawful attack and counterstrikes by other nations seeking to impose discipline where Haynes has failed.
Haynes conduct cannot be taken lightly. His misrepresentations before the Senate violate the ABA standards and amount to a violation of the law. Haynes sole objective in making these misrepresentations was to avoid war crimes liability that he well knew were real as evidenced by his knowledge of the Bybee and Goldsmith Memos. Haynes was instrumental in the planning of, executing, and failing to prevent war crimes he knew or should have known were in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and in doing so failed to ensure his Article 82 obligations were fully implemented. Despite the precedents of Nuremberg, Haynes failed in his duty to stop what he knew, or should have known, were grave violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Patriot, Ref 42
- Sample complaint
- DC Bar Disciplinary Process: Process applicable to DC Bar
- Model rules: It's misconduct to fail to report misconduct; Discussion: State-level discussion of caselaw as it relates to attorney misconduct.
- Sample arguments, as applied to Illinois Bar
- Sample evidence presentation in re Viet D. Dinh: Note links at allegations
- Process As applied to Yoo: Links to Philadelphia Bar at bottom;
- POC: Others who may be interested ]