DoJ Staff Counsel: Legitimate Military Targets

The Department of Justice Staff Counsel has engaged in war crimes. Under the laws of war, when individuals are instrumental in executing illegal war crimes, and they refuse to assent to the rule of law, they may lawfully be classified as legitimate military targets.

This note outlines the course of conduct the DoJ Staff has engaged that would classify them as legitimate military targets, and discusses what the DOJ Staff may consider to return the lawful civilian, protected status.

[Note: This note does not advocate any action nor does it encourage any violence against the DoJ Staff. Before taking any action, you should consult an attorney.]

* * *

The Department of Justice Staff Counsel has been instrumental in committing, planning, and failing to stop war crimes. The Tokyo War Crimes tribunals convicted those who were in a position to stop war crimes. The DOJ Staff is in such a position:

They have drafted memos permitting violations of Geneva, illegally loosening the procedural standards afforded to prisoners of war;

They could gather evidence, and prosecute American war criminals; and

They could report the misconduct to DoJ OPR or resign.

DoJ Staff have said it was permissible to violate Geneva, commit outrages against prisoners, and otherwise deny prisoners their substantive rights. This is a violation of the laws of war. [Sawada]. DoJ Staff can individually be linked with the following war crimes, inter alia:

Permitting bounties to be paid for the death of foreign fighters [Treachery];

Denial of substantive procedural rights in Eastern Europe and Guantanamo [Sawada;

Kidnapping and outrages against prisoners of war [Geneva];

Outrages against prisoners of war [ Bybee Memo ]; and

Failing to prevent war crimes, when they had the power to consult with the JAGs, and otherwise provide war crimes information to Members of Congress [Tokyo War Crimes].

* * *

Under the principle of tu quoque, when one side commit a breach of the laws of war, others may not be convicted of the same war crime. The DOJ Staff is well aware of the following:

Information has been illegally collected, and used to kidnap innocents; and

Using illegally intercepted information, innocents have been abused in violation of Geneva, and denied substantive due process.

Under the laws of war, those who engage in, support, and otherwise refuse to prevent these crimes are no longer passive observers. The Tokyo War Crimes tribunal indicted those who were in a position to stop illegal activity, but refused to do so.

DoJ Staff could, under the principle of reciprocity, be targeted. They are not innocent civilians. Rather, they are instrumental in the execution of the illegal war crimes.

DoJ Staff are not protected, but could lawfully be targeted. In turn, under the principle of tu quoque those charged with taking action against DoJ Staff could raise as a defense that the United States may not prosecute anyone for these crimes because the United States had engaged in similar conduct, inter alia:

Kidnapping;

Denial of rights and substantive due process; and

Accusations and judgments without access to evidence.

The issue is simple for the DOJ Staff. The longer they refuse to assert the rule of law, the more vulnerable they become to lawful retaliation and the more difficult it will be to justify prosecutions of those committing war crimes against the DoJ Staff. The DoJ Staff hands are unclean and any acts of war committed against them, when shown to be connected to DoJ Staff war crimes committed against others, will never succeed in the court room.

The purpose of this rule is to sanction those who commit war crimes: If you permit war crimes, you cannot prosecute others for doing the same. Had the DoJ Staff listened to the JAGs in 2001, they could have told you this. Rather, the DOJ Staff preferred to listen to Addington who knows as much about military law and Geneva as he does about graduation day at the Naval Academy: He's too good for it.

Similarly, when the DoJ staff says that Geneva is quaint, then so too are DoJ Staff counsel claims that others should or should not be prosecuted for doing what the DOJ Staff encourages: War crimes. If the DOJ Staff wants to be protected under Geneva, and lawfully prosecute those who violate the laws of war, your hands must be clean.

DoJ Staff hands are unclean, and cannot lawfully assert a superior right to immunity or protection on the President's-asserted international-battlefield. In the mind of some, DoJ Staff when they advocate prosecuting foreign fighters for war crimes the DOJ Staff has turned a blind eye, are not respecting substantive due process. Foreign fighters could reasonably conclude, by DoJ Staff refusing to enforce Geneva, that the DoJ Staff remain a legitimate military target.

* * *

Some could be prosecuted and punished for waging war on America. However, for some, their prosecutions mean nothing, serving only to remind the combatants that they have been subjected to illegal proceedings which prosecute some for the same crimes Americans have committed on others.

It makes no difference to some combatants whether they are or are not lawfully tried. The convictions for any attacks on DoJ Staff may be viewed by some as evidence the United States does not recognize the principle of tu quoque. This is impermissible, and may be viewed by some as further evidence of the defective American governance and failure to comply with procedural due rights of Geneva.

* * *

Military Commissions Act: Evidence of Ongoing War Crimes Violations

Consider the Military Commission Act. The DOJ Staff has illegally drafted memoranda that permits the same crimes which they want to prosecute others for. The Military Commissions, as crafted in the draft bill, are not only unconstitutional, they are evidence of post-decision planning to continue war crimes and outrages against prisoners of war. Denying them substantive procedural rights, see Sawada. The punishments cannot lawfully be imposed.

If the DoJ Staff would like to better understand their vulnerability, it would be appropriate to review the laws of war. It is one thing to state in a draft bill which crimes someone may be convicted. It is quite another to look in the mirror and accept that the DOJ Staff has been instrumental in illegally permitting the same abuses and violations against other non combatants. You cannot lawfully convict someone of war crimes you’re also committing. The appropriate decision would have been in 2001, to fully embrace the JAGs, and ensure that the Untied States had the manpower to fully follow Geneva.

Non-Privildged Evidence of DoJ Staff Recklessness

Instead of reading the laws of war, the DOJ and DOD staff chose to update unofficial wikis. This is publicly known, and not privileged. This evidence can be used by anyone around the globe to show that the DoJ Staff, despite ministerial duties to enforce Geneva, were reckless, and spent time on other matters wholly unrelated to their oath of office obligations.

The evidence is known to third parties and has been released outside your claim of attorney-client privilege DoJ. DoD staff conduct on the web is considered a public act, not protected. The DoJ staff conduct was well after the 2001 decision, and linked with alleged war crimes. It is not credible for the DoJ Staff to claim this was a pre-decisional discussion. It is not lawful under the executive orders to classify evidence of illegal activity; and when there is fraud and war crimes, claims of privilege need not be recognized, however masterfully the Agency head asserts such.

Review

The Military Commission Act of 2006 is an unprotected legislative Act. Rather, it is evidence. The post-2000 planning and war crimes is not protected, and all DoJ Staff communications related to this bill are not protected by privilege. The war crimes tribunal and the Guantanamo defendants have the right to examine these memoranda, and compel discovery on the DoJ Staff knowledge and complicity with other American war crimes around the globe.

* * *

America's enemy is emboldened when America has a double standard on prosecutions. The more you are unfair, the more your enemy is seen as legitimate. The more the DoJ Staff prosecute people, and ignore tu quoque the more your enemy views its struggle as legitimate, especially when it faces prospect of conviction at the hands of those who engage in the similar abuses.

America's enemy is strong because the DOJ Staff is not willing to apply the Geneva Conventions to its peers, military commanders, or the President. The enemy is not willing to compromise on the law. Americans are.

Until the DOJ Staff takes their job seriously, and remove themselves from their illegal support for these war crimes, foreign fighters will continue to view the DoJ Staff as part of the problem. You're either with the rule of law, or you are a legitimate military target.

Choose.