Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, July 31, 2006

Members of Congress and DoJ Staff Implicated In Alleged Conspiracy to Avoid Investigating War Crimes

Members of Congress and Staff Attorneys in the Department of Justice have been implicated in a joint conspiracy to engage in and avoid accountability for illegal war crimes planning [ Ref; Reconsider: Ref].

Contrary to what Congress may believe (or hope to have us believe they believe), war crimes can be adjudicated in any nation. Congress is powerless to prevent war crimes litigation. Moreover, given the war crimes are part of ongoing litigation Ref Ref, it's illegal for Congress to pass any legislation that relates to the pending matter. [See these precedents]

Action: Share this link

* * *

Nothing Congress says or does will retroactively immunize in 2006 anyone for conduct between 2000 and 2006. Congress has no power to prevent plaintiffs (in a civil case) and other nations (in a war criminal war crimes suit) from bring charges in foreign courts.

This communication between DoJ Staff attorney, AG Gonzalez, and Member of Congress confirmation that:

  • There have been ongoing discussions;

  • The conduct springs from a real concern that there have been war crimes;

  • The DOJ Staff are not neutral in that they have a personal stake in the outcome -- DoJ Staff attorneys have individually failed to ensure that Article 82 requirements were implemented; and

  • The liability attaches not simply to members of the Executive and Legislative branches, but could apply to Bybee who is on the Court -- Nuremburg is precedent for bringing war crimes charges against DoJ prosecutors and members of the court and judicial branch.

    This effort -- to avoid enforcing the law through retroactive changes to the law -- is similar to Specter's absurd efforts to not enforce FISA violations, as Members of Congress have a ministerial duty. [ The Illinois court denied the AT&T motion to dismiss, stating that Congress and the Executive as political branches had an equal obligation and duty to be "equally responsible to ensure that the law is followed"39 of 40 ]

    The approach is a familiar, disturbing pattern, raising substantial questions whether Members of Congress are serious about enforcing the law. Rather, it appears members of Congress are entertaining these proposals because the members of Congress know that they are also complicity in the original war crimes, and subsequent failure to prevent the illegal activity.

    * * *

    Damaging Judgments

    (1) The RNC, Attorney General, DoJ Staff Attorneys, DoD Joint Staff, and White House Counsel know there exists a multi-department war crimes problem

    Although the RNC may be nervous, this does nothing to address their war crimes problems. The fact that the RNC passed a 1996 bill, but the White House and RNC in 2006 want to ignore the bill, is evidence the RNC has an internal communication problem between White House counsel, Congress, and the DoJ Staff. Nothing the Supreme Court does or says (including Roberts or Alito) can immunize the United States or its agents from international prosecution of requirements which Hamdan affirmed were in place: The Geneva Conventions.

    2. Ongoing discussions related to criminal activity are admissible, and not protected by any privilege

    By revealing the Executive concerns with Congress, the Executive may not claim that the discussions are privileged. Rather, they have been openly disclosed to a branch of government and individual members of Congress to investigate the illegal activity.

    It remains to be determined the details of Gonzalez conversation with Members of Congress:

    - What were the DoJ Attorney's concerns;
    - What did the AG admit to Members of Congress;
    - What questions and issues the AG raised with Members of Congress;
    - How the AG concerns were or were not consistent with previous statements to Congress on issues related to Geneva, Hamdan, or comments related to the Bybee or Goldsmith memos;
    - How were the Attorney Generals’ line of questions and discussion points indicative of acknowledgement that there is a real concern with actual war crimes liability;
    - What prompted the DoJ Attorney General discussions with Members of Congress: Invitation, staff report, public discussion, inquiry by foreign nation;
    - What notes Members of Congress took;
    - How Members of Congress reacted to the information;
    - What consultation Members of Congress made with Congressional staff attorneys;
    - What conduct Members of Congress took that they otherwise claimed they were prohibited from taking when given details of the NSA domestic surveillance;
    - What plan, if any, Members of Congress plan to introduce into the Congressional record, legislative deliberations, or any committee report details of the conversations;
    - What plan Members of Congress have to openly discuss the AG's concerns before the Committee
    - Whether the Committees will or will not subpoena the Attorney General to testify under oat the particulars of the information related to war crimes activity

    (3) The proposed legislation is a phony barrier to war crimes liability

    US law, regardless whether it is or is not changed, is not a barrier to the larger Geneva obligations. Treaty obligations and violations are crimes, and Congress cannot pass a law saying retroactively that war crimes cannot be prosecuted. Rather, recall the lesson of Nuremburg and Ludwigsburg: Going forward there is no statute of limitations on war crimes litigation against defendants.

    (4) Nothing Congress or the Executive agree to can retroactively immunize anyone from war crimes liability.

    It is irrelevant what "limits" the United States places on litigation. Again, the Bybee memo specifically states that the abuse is subject to war crimes. Whether the abuse "shocks the conscience" is only relevant for a civil litigation in US courts, but does nothing to consider the war crimes liability.

    (5) Treaty obligations, which Hamdan affirms cannot be retroactively immunized

    It is not lawful, and it is irrelevant, that the United States wishes to prohibit someone from enforcing the Geneva Conventions. Rather, the conventions are a treaty, and US Courts may not retroactively state that the treaty obligations between 2000 and 2006 are immunized. This is too late. Rather, the DoJ Staff attorneys continue to have an affirmative duty to ensure that Article 82 requirements are enforced, and it remains to be understood how these ongoing requirements have been (illegally) explained away in subsequent memoranda within DoJ and to the White House and Members of Congress.

    (6) There is no justification for the illegal abuse of prisoners.

    There is no justification for torture -- any argument DOJ Staff attorneys that point to "context" or "special needs" are irrelevant. DoJ staff attorneys cannot credible answer how they know that the object of that torture was the correct object; nor can they explain why they are not putting their focus on the people who "just know" that this is the "right person" to torture. [ More about the flaws of the ticking bomb "Justification" to violate Geneva: Ref

    (7) It is too late to reconsider the appropriateness of 2000-2006 decisions.

    The Congress and Executive knew in 2000, before the Iraq planning kicked into high gear, that the War Crimes liabilities were real. Despite knowing these requirements, they chose to embark on illegal combat and fail to comply with legal war requirements. Rather than change the law, if the US did not wish to comply with Geneva, then the US should have engaged in prosecutions, not conduct supporting illegal violations of Geneva.

    (8) The DoJ Staff and Congressional alarm is real.

    The only reason Members of Congress, the RNC, DoJ Staff attorneys, DoD counsel, and the White House would contemplate these potential change is they know the implications of Bybee and Goldsmith memos are real, and were known. Despite this risk, the DoJ Staff assented to illegal conduct, implicating them for war crimes because of the Article 82 requirements to ensure the Conventions were implemented, not retroactively explained away with meaningless memos, phony abrogation, or other legislation.

    (9) DoJ Staff Attorneys are linked with the illegal conduct and have violated Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions

    The DoJ Staff attorneys have been implicated and are part of the ongoing discussions with Congress and the Attorney General. However, it is not lawful for the DoJ Staff attorneys to retroactively prevent anyone or any nation from holding Americans accountable for criminal activity.

    (10) DoJ Staff attorneys know they have no bonafide defense

    It is meaningless for the DoJ Staff attorneys to claim that the US interpretation of Geneva has precedence. Rather, the precedent is what has happened at Nuremburg, Ludwigsburg, and other war crimes tribunals related to Vietnam, WWII, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia.

    (11) Congress is implicated in the failure to investigate what they have been reasonably notified are illegal war crimes

    Failure of Congress to step back, refuse to engage in this phony defense, and launch an investigation based on Gonzalez' questions is further evidence of their 5 USC 3331 failures and subsequent liability for war crimes. Again, it is well established that those who are in a position to investigate, and stop war crimes -- as Members of Congress are -- have liability.

    The Gonzalez questions creates a firm line in the sand: What does a specific Member of Congress do after this date that is either related or not related to a genuine desire to exert their moral courage to enforce the laws and investigate the war crimes. How Members of Congress act or refuse to act will be admissible in the subsequent Grand Jury review of Member of Congress 5 USC 3331 violations.

    * * *

    Start Laughing Now

    "[H]arsh consequences await anyone whose conduct falls short of the highest legal and ethical standards. " Ref

    -- Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty,
    Department of Justice,
    July 03, 2006

    * * *

    We the People Have The Power

    "[T]he ultimate guardians of the people’s rights . . .are the people themselves." [ Ohio Supreme Court: 56 of 58] Ref

    "American public deserves no less than honest government" Ref

    -- Acting Department of Defense Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble,
    Department of Defense
    July 03, 2006

    * * *

    Sample DoJ Staff Atty Wiki Activity: Ref

    Executive Office of President Concerned With DoJ-Keisler Discussion

    Ref Wiki updates linked to EOP

    Search: Ref

    Concerns and EOP interest areas on eve of Senate Confirmation:

    A. Keisler's alleged obstruction of justice Ref

    B. EOP is apparently confused over Constellation Project Ref

    Keisler graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School. He clerked from 1985 to '86 for Robert Bork, then a judge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and later for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Ref

    Keisler's PO BOX: Ref

    * * *

    EOP Disclosing Classified Info?

    Special Activities Division: White House staff linked to revelations. [ Ref ]

    How are the special activities division personnel linked to the Rendition program?

    * * *

    Alert: Please immediately inform Congressman Conyers

    Executive Office of the President (EOP) staff public comments on CIA classified activities. Note closely these wiki updates which are linked to EOP staff: [Ref Ref]

  • Why is the EOP staff making statements like this?

  • Which specific EOP staffer made these comments?

  • Loss of Executive Privilege: Open Statement By EOP Staff

    What is the relationship between the Special Activities Division, which EOP (stupidly) confirms is real, to the rendition activities outlined in this EU report?

    Why is the EOP Staff publicly commenting on matters that have otherwise been asserted (before the court in court motions by DoJ Staff, Ref) are privileged, or something that cannot be confirmed or denied?

    Can DoJ Staff Attorneys explain why EOP staff are (apparently) indirectly commenting on matters related to ongoing Rendition litigation in Italy? Ref

    The only reason DoJ Staff and CIA would discuss the issues, as has Gonzalez discussed the issues with Congress, was if there was a real problem that required a change in policy, procedures, or conduct. Given the likely DOJ Staff attorney denials of the link between the CIA's SAD, and rendition, can the DoJ Staff attorneys explain why they were discussing reviewing which specific CIA activities in Euruope would have to be reviewed in light of Hamdan? [ Ref ]