Constant's pations: DoJ Preparing To Defend US Govt Officials Before International Tribunals

The United States Department of Justice is working to defend US Government Officials before international tribunals, which can include war crimes proceedings. These private plans contradict the President's public statements.

The plain is outlined briefly in newly released documents. The language^{[ Ref ]} relates to war crimes investigations and trials before The Hague.

Here is the language: Visit

Ironically, despite Congress refusing to prevent or investigate war crimes, this RNC Congress, DoJ, and Executive want to be reimbursed for all costs related to the investigation of their war crimes. Yet, by refusing to use, much less cooperate with the FOIAs, the Executive and Congress have increased the costs of the war crimes investigation. The US government officials' malfeasance has compound the urgency and costs of the investigation.

US government officials were never guaranteed the right to have their legal defenses fully covered during war crimes investigations and proceedings before international tribunals. Rather they had a real requirement to enforce the laws of war. It is appropriate to force US government officials to comply with the agreements they had between 2001 and 2006.

The entire bill permitting this reimbursement is against public policy, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and not enforceable. The costs associated with the defense should be DENIED, and war crimes-defendants should bear their own costs.

* * *

The United States DOJ and Members of Congress have consulted on language that would allow the US Attorneys office to spend funds to defend US Government personnel before international tribunals. The propose agreement and language is against public policy and unconstitutional.

The reason for the language change is simple. Despite public statements to the contrary, the President and DoJ Staff fear a war crimes indictment. Despite public posturing, the President's claims of immunity and Congressional efforts to retroactively immunize government officials are worthless.

* * *

The situation is dire. The Congress and Department of Justice realize they have a major war crimes problem on their hand, not just attached to the President, but with Executive Department personnel and Members of Congress. Until now the United States had always asserted it was not subject to the International Criminal Court.

Under the laws of war, policy makers in Congress could be tried for war crimes for failing to prevent illegal violations of Geneva. Also, it is precedent from Nuremburg that attorneys and judicial officers can be indicted for war crimes in promulgating illegal policies which violate the laws of war.

Individual Members of Congress, the President, and DoJ Staff have been implicated in war crimes. It is presumed that "agent" includes the CIA employees who have illegally rendered American citizens and foreign nationals in violation of the laws of war. It remains to be understood whether Congress intends this language to apply to contractors.

Contracts that support an illegal objective are against public policy and not enforceable. It is not reasonable for a contractor to have relied on a promise of immunity as a condition of satisfying the contact. This is an illegal, unenforceable contract clause.

* * *

No Credible DoJ Staff Claim To Secrecy or Privilege

These are matters of criminal law and evidence. It is against public policy for anyone in government to promise to another to pay for war crimes defenses. It is illegal to provide this assurance retroactively as a reward for failing to prevent war crimes. There are several issues of evidence:

A. ORCON

This information is not secret, and cannot be protected by any claim of privilege.

B. Post Decision

Pre-decisional memoranda is considered privileged. However, when that planning is after an initial decision to violate the law, the document is post-decisional, and it and all subsequent communications related to that post-decisional document are admissible.

C. Knowledge

The post-decision discussions related to this reimbursement for legal fees is evidence the officials knew their conduct was wrong, but failed to prevent further illegal war crimes. This is fraud and this promise of reimbursement is not enforceable.

D. Related communications

This promise and all communication related to this planning is publicly known to third parties, and becomes part of the war crimes record. The public disclosure of this illegal planning, concern, and litigation preparation waives any claim of Executive and Legislative immunities on the planned legal defense reimbursement.

* * *

Evidence DoJ Staff Implicated In War Crimes

DoJ Staff Counsel is regulated by the state attorney disciplinary boards. The State Attorney Generals may lawfully prosecute DoJ Staff regulated in their state for participating in actions which undermine the States' guarantee to a republican form of government. Rather than enforce the law, this government chooses to reimburse itself for unlawful activity.

It remains to be seen who challenges the effort by the United states to defend civilian contractors who are otherwise working under an illegal and arguably unenforceable agreement to defend the civilians at trial.

The language is not constitutional. Government funds may not lawfully for an illegal objective: To honor a preexisting, illegal agreement between government officials to engage in illegal activity, do nothing to stop the illegal activity, then provide legal services; or reward any member of government for malfeasance, defiance of their oath, or fraudulent conduct.

When there is fraud, as is the case here, all agreements relying on that fraud are unenforceable. Arguably, all contracts and agreements between the United States and individual officials, agents, and contractors to provide legal representation would be void in that the illegal activity occurred before the change in language occurred

The illegal conduct occurred between 2001 and 2006. Any Congressional act in 2006 may not lawfully create a retroactive, enforceable promise where none existed. Rather, the time to have drafted this language was in 2001 when the AUMF was passed.

As with Katrina, rather than engage in robust planning, the United States Congress chose to assent to illegal war crimes, do nothing about it, and failed to ensure that the requirements of Geneva going forward from 2001 were enforced. Rather than make the decision to only engage in legal behavior, this Congress chose to assent to illegal activity. The financial arrangement promising the reimbursement was not part of the AUMF, but only created after Members of Congress, DoJ Staff, and the Executive realized they had no bar to international war crimes.

Again, the appropriate course of action is not in 2006 to retroactively create immunities or financial agreements. The correct approach would have been in 2001 to decide to enforce Geneva, raise enough troops to ensure Geneva was fully implemented, and that there were sufficient ground troops in place to wage lawful war, and support the gathering of evidence required to prosecute war criminals.

Rather than comply with Geneva and present evidence, this Congress did nothing when it well knew that there were war crimes. Moreover, despite well understanding that US military personnel were not overworked and lazily surfing the internet, no reasonable fact finder could conclude that there was any credible argument by anyone in Congress or the Department of Defense that there were insufficient troops. Rather, the opposite is true. When DoD personnel were required to comply with Geneva, they instead spent time surfing the internet on unofficial sites. there is no credible case to be made that the DoD personnel were "too busy" to comply with Geneva, or that the DoD personnel were more involved with higher priorities.

Geneva is a requirement and a priority. Each service member takes an oath to protect the Constitution. Within the Constitution is the requirement that all treaties are the Supreme Law of the land. The DOJ and DoD Staff problem is that they've ignored the JAGS, failed to enforce 5100.77 DoD Laws of War Program, and otherwise done nothing to demonstrate they were serious.

Meanwhile, despite knowing of the war crimes, Congress did nothing to raise additional troops to ensure the US military personnel were fully staffed with the required number of troops to fully comply with Geneva, conduct lawful trials, and ensure the laws of war were respected.

The only thing Congress has done is lazily awoken in 2006 to a problem they helped create in 2001: A reckless disregard for the laws of war. It is inappropriate for anyone in 2006 to credibly argue that they are entitled to some sort of reimbursement or compensations for legal fees associated with any investigation of war crimes.

The time to have conducted this review was in 2001. It is not timely. Congress is prohibited from retroactively doing anything. Even if Congress could make a rule which changed the law and immunized them from paying for legal costs, this does not immunize them from international war crimes liabilities. Rather, the post-decision activity is merely evidence that Congress failed to do something that it should have done in 2001 going forward, and satisfies the element required to show that Congress knew, or should have known, the standards, but failed to enforce the law until they were discovered. This amounts to recklessness and further tips the scale away from the individual members of Congress.

* * *

No public money can lawfully be spent to defend anyone who has engaged in fraud, war crimes, and other acts which violate the Geneva Conventions. Any promise to reimburse these officials would never be enforceable in any court. The officials knew, or should know, that even members of a corporate board who engage in fraud and violate their covenants cannot expect to have their legal defense paid.

Based on the concern in DoJ, the rapid change in the President’s position on the CIA rendition, a reasonable conclusion is that the objective of this funding has nothing to do with a future event, but with a series of events that has occurred. The Congressional language, even if lawful, would amount to a retroactive change in policy that would not only immunize members of congress, but reward them for their war crimes. This too is against public policy, and as all corporate board members know, such a plan and course of conduct can never be rewarded, much less tolerated.

* * *

Public payments and promises to cover those legal feeds are against public policy. It permits the alleged war criminals to believe that they may have a legal case and support, despite their war crimes.

It remains up to the Members of Congress to explain why, despite these ongoing discussions between the DOJ Legislative Liaison and Congressional Staffers why there is a concern for war crimes tribunals. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Members of Congress hope to create for their own advantage, not the public interest, a legal defense for war crimes.

Arguably, these are not official acts of Congress. However, if it is DoJ's position that there is a connection between the member of Congress conduct, and the subsequent war crimes allegations against them, then this would further cement their fate: All evidence related to these discussions is admissible.

When there is fraud, as is the case with war crimes, the memoranda subsequent to that initial decision to commit a crime is subject to discovery.

This legislative language is a fatal problem for the DOJ and Members of Congress. It openly admits that there must have been post 2001 discussions about the risks facing US government personnel. Because it is known these discussions have occurred, combined with the President’s fatal admission that the CIA has illegally detained people in violation of the laws of war, the information related to this ongoing discussion between DoJ and Congress is no longer protected by privilege.

Rather, all legislative notes, memoranda, and communications are known by outside parties to exist, and it is presumed that all claims to privilege have been waived.

* * *

The US government has asserted that the nation is at war. Many private insurance policies, promises to provide legal representation and other agreements are not enforceable or provide not coverage during times of war. It against public publicly to reward people for engaging in illegal war crimes.

This was a war of choice. Congress freely assented to an illegal war, refused to ask questions, and despite knowing of the illegalities continued to appropriate money for the illegal things. This conduct violates the Constitution. Individual Members of Congress cannot claim legislative immunity. This only applies to civil suit. Individual members of Congress are not immune to war crimes indictments before The Hague.

It remains to be seen whether the Congressional promise to provide legal assistance to alleged war criminals would amount to an unconstitutional act: Rewarding those who would otherwise be denied public funds, leading to further evidence of other criminal conduct. Because this revelation is linked with war crimes, all Congressional claims of immunity and privilege are waived and cannot be recognized. Rather, the Congressional staff e-mails, communications, phone calls, and all other evidence related to this post-2001 decision are now admissible and can lawfully be seized by international investigators.

The EU has already started investigations into the illegal rendition. Despite the rendition known to be illegal and ongoing, the President and Member of Congress were individually reckless in failing to comply with Geneva; failed to stop known violations of Geneva from occurring that they knew or should have known should have been stopped; and did obstruct a lawful inquiry into illegal conduct. This subsequent obstruction, in the wake of known war crimes, amounts to a subsequent war crime.

Any effort may Members of Congress to pretend this is a debatable matter are misplaced. The United States is not immune to international sanctions. The leadership must decide whether it is willing to sacrifice more of its citizens on distractions, or whether the leadership will lawfully surrender.

The world outnumbers the United States government personnel. The world is also well aware that the American military could be used to thwart, interrupt, and block lawful investigations. This subsequent activity by individual military personnel would amount to a war crime.

All military commanders are advised to remain calm, and refuse to obey any illegal order to destroy evidence. This is a war crimes investigation. Your communications are constantly intercepted by forces outside your control. As evidenced through communications in and out of the NSA, your SIGINT capabilities are not absolutely secure or impenetrable. There are methods which NSA personnel know which can lawfully penetrate, access, and decrypt your SIGINT without your detection. Yes, your national security counsel has been penetrated and compromised. This is in lawful support of the ongoing war crimes investigation.

You are advised to remind the troops, sailors, airmen, and marines under your command to fully comprehend what has happened. The forces which well know there have been war crimes are in a position to compel you to assent to the rule of law. The Judge Advocate Generals have been unlawfully ignored. It is time you pay attention to them, and lawfully secure the evidence and communications your office has that related to Executive-Legislative war crimes planning and subsequent obstruction.

Additionally, forces around the globe continue to keep your undercover personnel under close watch. Your phones have already been tapped, and as well demonstrated in Italy, can be traced and lawfully recorded. This is admissible evidence. If you pretend that the world does not comprehend what is happening, you are mistaken. It is well understood to even the most foolish of bloggers that the American government has a major problem on its hands. The voters are well positioned to make adverse judgments, just as the Grand Jury continues.

Your time for honorable defense of the Constitution has ended. It is time you surrender. If you choose to defy the court, then you shall be punished. You cannot escape. The data which may be used to convict you and your peers has already been captured. That data is not subject to US law, but international rules. You are not going to be afforded the chance to review that data before you are required to make statements. After you have confirmed in writing the facts as you believe them, your statements will be contrasted with the evidence that is known and admissible. If you are lying or misleading the war crimes prosecutors you may lawfully be put to death.

It is time to wakeup. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. You are outnumbered. You are also in a weak position. You are in finite space, easily traced using even rudimentary methods. If you decide to run or hide, that will be additional evidence used against you. Do not attempt to flee. You are not under physical threat. Your job is to remain calm, and cooperate with the expanding war crimes investigation.

* * *

War Criminals Cannot Be Rewarded

Members of Congress and the DoJ Staff have illegally engaged in fraud. They well knew the Geneva requirements, and ignored them. Also, despite requirements to enforce the law, they ignored that requirement.

Any agreement between two US government officials and other parties to pay for all legal costs is against public policy, and unlawfully rewards those in government who have abused power and recklessly violated the laws of war. Nobody should ever be sent the message that such conduct can ever be rewarded.

War criminals cannot be rewarded. It is against public policy the Government to honor any retroactive agreement to reward misconduct and war crimes. The alleged war criminals have not followed or protected the very agreement to which they rely for protection: The US Constitution. Alleged war criminals may not lawfully rely on any agreement which stems from illegal agreements to then demand the public and US Treasury to support your defense.

The alleged war criminals had the choice before you took your oath. They failed to honor their oath. We the People cannot be compelled to honor any retroactive agreement to support alleged war criminals. If the alleged war criminals wanted the American public to defend them, then they should have first defended the American Constitution. They failed. Their reckless disregard for your oath cannot be rewarded, especially as it relates to a retroactive agreement to create new obligations to do what they were otherwise not lawfully entitled.

War criminals cannot expect the American people to come to their assistance. Those who wage illegal war cannot rely on any promise of assistance. They knew, or should have known, that their conduct was illegal. They were not there when needed; there is no reason to stand by them. The war criminals are without lawful public support.

The appropriate punishment is to deny any request for reimbursement to anyone who has engaged in war crimes. It is up to the individual Member of Congress, DoJ Staff counsel, and civilian contractors to pay the legal costs. The US government cannot be put in any position to defend anyone who has committed grave breaches of Geneva. All agreements between US officials and other parties to that effect are based on fraud, and not enforceable

They wished this.

* * *

Return

Contained in the Amendment on page 84 of 86 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is language which makes changes to the statute. The new language, if enacted, would read:

(b) Counsel- The United States Government ~~may~~ shall provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to the representation of an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent described in subsection (a), with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution or investigation arising out of practices described in that subsection whether before United States courts or agencies, foreign courts or agencies, or international courts or agencies, under the same conditions, and to the same extent, to which such services and payments are authorized under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code. [Ref: Section 1005, as modified by Amendment 84 of 86, lines 5-16.]