Draft War Crimes Indictment Against Alleged Torturers

This is a draft war crimes indictment against alleged illegal activity which CIA contractors and others civilian contractors provided to the United States, and illegally inflected upon prisoners of war.

[Subject to update without notice]

* * *

1. The firms provide contacted training to the United state government.

2. The boards of the firms are staffed by former high ranking military officials in the Department of Defense.

3. The state charters of these organizations require commercial operations to comply with the law.

4. All state operations shall comply with the Constitution, all treaties, and otherwise in all respects fully ensure that all training and activity is consistent with the Rule of Law.

5. The Geneva Conventions require all prisoners be treated humanely. The contractors allegedly failed to ensure this requirement was met. The contractors failed to ensure that interrogators explicitly reject, not engage in, or otherwise refuse to participate in illegal abuses, and inhumane acts.

6. While providing contractor services to the United States Army, the firms allegedly failed to ensure that their business practices, training objectives and student achievement fully complies with Geneva.

7. Following Sept 2001, the contractors allegedly worked with DoJ and DOD to agree to training contract goals. The contractors were allegedly reckless in failing to ensure that their lessons, contactor terms, and business objectives were fully consistent with Geneva.

8. DoD and DOJ provided illegal guidance and no reasonable contractors could have relied on that legal advise or contractor terms.

9. The Boards of Directors for the firms were in a position of public trust, had access to legal counsel, and knew or should have known the laws of war. The Boards of Directors were allegedly recklessly in failing to ensure the lesson plans, training, and other student exercises fully implemented Geneva.

10. While in command of Ft. Huachuca, the base commander allegedly failed to ensure that the contract terms, polices, and other training outcomes in the contractor facility were lawful.

11. While reviewing contractor performance, DOD Joint Staff allegedly failed to ensure that the contractor award fees were based on performance that was fully consistent with Geneva.

12. While providing funds through the paying station, the Army Contracting officer allegedly continued issuing payments for things they knew or should have known were for illegal, unlawful, and war crimes.

13. While conducting graining, the former military personnel allegedly knew or should have known the training plans, outcomes, and student proficiency was well short of what the Geneva Conventions required.

14. After the Senate and President illegally agreed on language that would not enforce Geneva, the contractors, board, trainers, and other DOD staff illegally relied on these clearly illegal standards and failed to ensure the Geneva Conventions were implemented.

15. NO reasonable contactor could rely on the initial DOJ assurances of what was or was not lawful. Rather, the request for insurance and alleged communications with Members of Congress to have costs of war crimes related investigations-prosecution fully funded indicates the contractors well knew there was a problem, but failed to ensure their conduct was lawful.

16. There is no legal foundation for any of the contractors to have relied on these illegal agreements. They knew, or should have know, the Geneva requirements, Nuremburg Code, and other 5100.77 Laws of War program.

17. Each of the Contractors, Board Members, contracting officers, paying officials, and Joint Staff involved with the training, oversight, and policy making of this interrogation training was allegedly defective and allegedly illegal.

18. Geneva places a simple standard on all people: That prisoner shall be treated humanely. There is no reasonable defense that the orders appeared to be lawful. Each of the participants in the interrogations knew, or should have known, the Geneva requirements and absolute bar against all inhumane treatment.

18. The lawful punishment for Grave breaches of Geneva is the death penalty. The contractors were in a position to know, but failed to ensure that their legal obligations were enforces. This allegedly reckless conduct brings discredit upon their service to the United States, their voluntary participation in this illegal activity, and reflects poorly on their judgment.

19. It's not as though the business precipitants were simply stupid. The business managers has the legal requirement under DOD contracts to provide in writing progress reports, meet proficiency standards, and demonstrate their ability to meet management performance criteria. These were not people who just walked off the street. They were well trained, certified, and had the experience to know to ask for assistance, seek guidance.

20. There's no reasonable excuse for their failure to enforce Geneva, not seek competent legal advice, or ensure that prisoners were treated humanely. That they have allegedly sought insurance and coordinated changes with Senator McCain on the defense language indicate that they know there is a problem, but failed to do something. This post-decision coordination is not protected, and shows signs they are not willing to accept responsibility for what they have done. Rather, it shows the opposite -- They knew there was a requirement, but before the misconduct was known, they knew well enough that there was a problem. This shows signs of recklessness.

21. Compounding the problem are the photos, legacy of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, other public discussion, and other clear problems with the President’s statements. At each turn when even the most stupid of bloggers could figure this out, the contractors would have us believe that Geneva is unclear, that the requirements of war were pressing, and other effuses. These are not credible excuses or defenses. Rather, they show an artful attempt to avoid responsibility for something they knew, or should have known was wrong at the time.

22. The issue before the court is whether the punishment of death is too harsh, or whether there is something to be service by granting leniency and leaving personnel in a position of public position and share their experiences. These are valid concerns and very compelling.

23. However, upon reflection, the knowledge the alleged defendants had of Nuremburg, and their experience, and knowledge of the laws of war, we would be remiss to send a signal that carelessness, recklessness, or gross disregard for ones oath is to be rewarded by like complicity from the court. Your job is to disobey illegal orders, enforce the law, and ensure that the laws of war are implemented at all times. If the country has to watch over their shoulders, even when the President issues you illegal orders, you are useless.

24. Based on the Article III review, the evidence, and the facts before us, we encourage the court to lawfully adjudicate this matter, and impose the most reasonable penalty upon all the contractors who were allegedly involved with these grave breaches. The defendants have allegedly demonstrated no remorse, well know the standards, ignored them, and have allegedly not demonstrated they are capable of reform. Indeed, it is the seriousness of the possible sanction of death that appears to escape their comprehension. For that matter, despite the grave breaches, it would be fitting that their lawful punishment be delayed, televised, and subject to close scrutiny. The sentence of death should be delayed until all the facts can be gathered. There is no statue of limitations, not threat that the defendants will escape. They will be given six months to put their affairs in order, provide testimony, and otherwise cooperate with the war crimes investigators.

25. Then, we may consider subsequent appeals, evidence. Until then the reasonable Article III sentence for the alleged war criminal is the death sentence.

* * *

Ref Lines of evidence linking the interrogators, Senator McCain, and Sandia Labs.