Draft War Crimes Indictments Against American Persons, Entities
These are draft war crimes indictments against American government officials, civilian contractors, and private entities.
The charges, evidence, and narrative below are allegations, and are not accusations of criminal activity against specific individuals. The alleged war criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty before a court or international war crimes tribunal.
[This information may be updated without notice.]
What You Can Do
Contact your state attorney General.
1. State Attorney Generals may lawfully prosecute the President for violating your state criminal statutes. You are entitled to US Government protection to guarantee your state's right to a republican form of Government. The President has violated criminal statutes in your state.
2. The State Attorney General can work with your state officials to lawfully investigate, prosecute, and disbar DoJ Staff counsel and US Attorneys who have engaged in, planned, and otherwise failed to prevent war crimes. It is a felony to engage in war crimes. Felons may be disbarred by your state attorney disciplinary board for violating the rule of attorney professional conduct. Encourage your state attorney general to work closely with the state disciplinary boards to disbar, where appropriate, those DOJ Staff counsel and US Attorneys who have committed felonies and war crimes.
3. House Rule 603 permits state legislators to pass proclamations calling for the House of representatives to investigate and impeach the President for war crimes. If your elected officials in your state refuse to pass these resolutions, you and your friends should work with your state attorney general to find better leaders and elect leaders who take their oath of office seriously. Encourage your state attorney general to investigate any state legislator who refuses to enforce the law, protect the constitution, or take action to protect your state from war criminals in the White House. Find leaders in your state and local communities who take their oath of office seriously.
II. Authorities: Legal references supporting war crimes indictments against American civilians, government officials, contractors and intermediaries.
III. Allegations: Charges against alleged American war criminals
IV. Narrative: Discussion of American war crimes planning, execution, and failed attempts to thwart investigation and prosecution.
V. Documents: Historical documents related to American war crimes planning, organizing, and execution.
VI. Evidence: Admissible information supporting American war crimes convictions, and lawful imposition of death penalty on Americans.
VII. Links: Other supporting information for the war crimes tribunals, prosecutors, and grand juries to consider.
Ref The illegal distraction from Geneva: The non-sense debate over the irrelvant definition of torture.
This summarizes the draft war crimes indictments against Americans. These are draft war crimes indictments against American corporations, civilians and government employees for:
These are charges against alleged war criminals in the following organizations and locations:
Tokyo War Crimes Tials
Nixon: Executive does not have absolute immunity to criminal proceedings.
Kennelly: Member of Congress had duty to enforce law
Article III: Congress has no power to affect ongoing litigation proceedings.
Sawada [Prisoners entitlted to substantive due process]
Calley, 46 CMR 1131
III. Allegations: Counts Against Alleged American War Criminals
Count___: Illegally Abrogating Geneva
Count___: Waging illegal war
Count___: Illegal use of banned military weapons [Iraq, incendary devices]
Count___: Illegally putting bounty on foreign fighters head [Treachery]
Count___: Illegally targeting non-miliary targets, without any showing of military necessity, using weapons that are disproporationate
Count___: Refusal to quarter [Afghan Box Car suffocations]
Count___: Instrumental in planning, organizing, and develop illegal war policies, plans, and programs
Count___: Freely acted to advise, counsel, and support leadership in planning, committing, waging, and denying an illegal war of aggression
Count___: Maintained close confidence of the civilian and military leadership, and was in a position to advise, counsel, and otherwise prevent war crimes, but failed to do so as required under the Geneva conventions
Count___: Refusing to comply with domestic law and courts responsible for enforcing the Geneva Conventions.
Count___: Failure to stop illegal war crimes and appropriations and expenditures on illegal activity [Tokyo War Crimes]
Count___: Illegally refused and/or failed in duty to assert oath, enforce Supreme Law, and ensure the Geneva Conventions were implemented, enforced; or that violations of the Conventions were timely investigated and that subsequent violations were appropriately and timely stopped and prevented as required under the Conventions.
Count___: Refusing to remove oneself from activity know, or should have known, to be connected with war crimes planning, assistance, or other violations of Geneva.
Count___: Illegally capturing, disseminating, sharing, and transferring personal information used unlawfully to kidnap, detain, and abuse civilians without judicial oversight or lawful order, in violation of the Geneva Conventions
Count___: Knowingly violating Geneva conventions despite access to counsel that knew, or should have known, the activities, plans, and programs were unlawful outrages against civilians.
Count___: Deliberately sharing false information to dissuade lawful opposition to illegal warfare
Count___: Deliberately misstating the law in non-court filings with the intent to dissuade government officials from discovering, detecting, or examining evidence related to war crimes planning, involvement, support, and/or contribution.
Count___: Instrumental in carrying out an illegal plan to tamper with elections to further an illegal war plan with the objective of avoiding consequences for unlawful war crimes.
Count___: Knew or should have known that war was illegal, yet misled voters, prosecutors, and lawful authorities; and provided misleading, false, or fraudulent information to voters which they relied on when making a voting decision. The fraudulent information was instrumental in continuing the illegal violations of Geneva, and failed to stop what the defendant had the power to stop, prevent, or remove him/herself from.
Count___: Inhumane treatment of prisoners
Count___: Failure to prevent inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Count___: Failure to timely remove oneself from course of conduct, plan, and overall effort to inhumanely treat prisoners.
Count___: Approving, issuing, or providing unlawful statutes, policies, and orders permitting, not stopping, or refusing to investigate inhumane treatment of prisoners.
Count___: Unlawfully sending incorrect information of refusal to obey illegal orders, yet those orders had been carried out, and no personnel had timely refused to carry out the known illegal orders.
Count___: Failing to ensure protected civilians and prisoners were treated humanely.
Count___: Unlawfully lowering the humane treatment-standards to permit illegal abuse of civilians.
Count___: Failing to exercise due diligence in illegal war crimes legislation and failing to responsively enforce the laws of war -- "humane treatment" if denied as torture, subjects US leadership, civilians to like abuse under principles of reciprocity.
Count___: Providing assistance to support, transfer, plan, position, accommodate war crimes.
Count___: Failure to remove oneself, entity, and personnel on had control over from illegal war crimes operations, activity, planning, support, or involvement.
Count___: Failing to stop operations, support, and assistance for war crimes
Count___: Recklessly falling to determine how data was acquired, how it was used, or whether the action was or was not linked with illegal war crimes support or illegal efforts.
Count___: Using illegally obtained information to directly or indirectly support abuse of prisoners of war.
Count___: Illegally hiding prisoners to prevent public trial, thereby illegally thwarting lawful defense of demonstrating similar war crimes by detaining power [tu quoque].
Count___: Unlawful protection to government officials not entitled to privilege, immunity, or secrecy protections related to evidence linked to war crimes planning
Count___: Unlawful threats of civil or criminal legal proceedings to thwart government or regulatory officials from lawfully investigating evidence and allegations of criminal conduct related to war crimes
Count___: Failing to ensure that the laws of war program and Geneva convention requirements were fully applied, implemented, trained, and fully briefed to all personnel within the chain of command.
Count___: Failure to provide evidence related to illegal war crimes, despite a specific ministerial duty or requirement to cooperate or provide that information.
Count___: Illegally destroying evidence related to war crimes
Count___: Illegally obstructing lawful investigations related to war crimes by agencies, prosecutors, or attorneys responsible for investigating facts, gathering evidence, or determine why illegal war crimes were occurring, not prevented, or allowed to continue.
Count___: Denial of POW procedural rights [Sawada]
Count___: Denying prisoners of war legal protections granted under Geneva
Count___: Illegally violating domestic laws to illegally target, kidnap, and abuse civilians
Count___: Illegally imposing punishment on prisoners without trial [Calley, 46 CMR 1131]
Count___: Illegally defining someone as an unlawful combatant without judicial review, then denying so-clasified prisoner of Geneva protections.
Count___: Illegally kidnapping and transporting across international boundaries innocent civilians without subjecting the punishment to the required judicial proceedings
IV. Narrative: American War Crimes Planning, Execution, and Illegal Efforts To Thwart War Crimes Investigation and Prosecution
The illegal war crimes planning started in the 1990s, well before the events of 2001. Long before the buildings collapsed, the National Security Agency under directions of the President illegally intercepted information used to support violations of the Geneva Conventions.
In 1987 the Iran-Contra Minority Report outlined the initial philosophy of the alleged war criminals. The report is spattered with unreliable case law citations. The Iran-Contra Minority Report was used as one of the documents for the New American Century, which outlined the alleged illegal war crimes planning and formalized the document. The legal experts including Viet Dinh, Addington, and Gonzalez allegedly knew that the laws were ignored, and there is ample evidence the illegal concentration of power in the hands of the Executive was well underway before the events of Sept 2001.
In the 1990s the FISA requirements were well known in the CALEA community. Despite these requirements, the NSA was monitoring and preparing for illegal war in the Middle East well before Sept 2001. The invasions were premised no violations of the laws of war; the individuals freely participated; there are no credible refusals to participate; and Congress failed to oversee and instigate or shut down funding for the illegal activity prior to Sept 2001.
Individual Members of Congress knew the activity violated Geneva and failed to prevent it. The activity crossed three major areas: War in Iraq; the illegal rendition; and the FISA violations.
Civilian contractors had the chance to remove themselves, but chose to illegally continue their unlawful support of alleged war crimes-related operations, planning, and activities.
There was a joint plan between Members of Congress and the Executive to commit war crimes against American citizens. The Geneva violation were jointly agreed to include illegally collecting information; provide illegal media messages for domestic consumption; illegal kidnapping; and subjecting American citizens to the outrages of illegal and unlawful war.
The post decision and retroactive efforts at immune and efforts to secure funding for the defense show the extent to which the alleged war criminals comprehend their wrongdoing. The 2006 efforts to secure immunity retroactively change laws, or secure funding for war crimes is untimely, illegal, and evidence of recklessness. The alleged war criminal failed to remove themselves, and stop the illegal activity as they had the specific ministerial duty to do. The individual actors knew, or failed to find out, that the activity was directly or indirectly in support of illegal violations of Geneva and material in supporting war crimes.
The war crimes conduct amounts to fraud, violates the individual government officials’ oath of office, and in grave breach of their specific ministerial duties to prevent violations of the laws of war, and otherwise prevent breaches of Geneva.
The FISA conspiracy started before Sept 2001. The alleged war criminals proceeded on a course of conduct to intimidate, dissuade, and thwart lawful reporting of war crimes related information. Using illegal threats, deliberate misstatements of the law, the alleged war criminals fatally admitted to their participation in the alleged war crimes.
Fatal admissions include the Presidents admission the interceptions were done without warrants; and that the information once collected was used to kidnap, and detain individuals who were not afforded any judicial review.
The evidence relates to war crimes, is not protected by statute, yet the alleged war criminal proceeded along a common objective to stifle public debate, knowledge, and discussion of non-protected, non-privileged information. Even though the alleged war criminals knew the information had not been properly classified, was illegal, and that the information after disclosure was no longer protected but had all privileges waved, the alleged war criminals continued to mislead the public, block investigations, and assert privileges which the courts had no lawful power to recognize.
The war criminals were individually reckless in failing to assert their oath, and unlawfully recognized powers which illegally violated domestic and international laws. Judicial officers were individually reckless in failing to assert their mandatory Article 82 Ministerial duty to ensure Geneva and the 5100.77 laws of war program were fully trained and enforced. Judicial officers were individually reckless in not permitting discovery of information that they knew, or should have known, was linked with an unlawful war crimes objective to hide evidence of illegal planning prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Following discovery of the war crimes, the alleged war criminals engaged in common scheme to unlawfully intimidate prosecutors, attorneys, the media, and private citizens from discussing unprotected, and illegally classified information related to the war crimes activity. Despite overt threats, the alleged war criminals fails to hide the contracts which were instrumental in carrying the illegal intimidation and propaganda effort into effect, thereby losing all credible claim before any court that the activity was either protected, privileged, or a secret.
Individual contractors, intermediaries, and others knew or should have known that the required lawful warrants were not used; and the information was subsequently used to illegally kidnap, abuse, and commit outrages against civilians in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Stemming from a common core working document within the national security counsel, and drafted with concurrency by private contractors and DOJ Staffers, the alleged war criminals embarked on a common course of conduct to commit outrages against innocent civilians under their care. The common plan was well documented, part of a common set of policy objectives, and well understood within the Joint Staff and National Security Counsel to be grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Despite knowing the war crimes implications, personnel continued to engage in non-official business, and failed to review with the JAGs the war crimes implications. It was only upon discovery and public discussion of the illegal activity that the alleged war criminals sought outside counsel assistance.
Rather than surrender, the alleged war criminals then embarked on a second phase of the cover-up to include public intimidation, targeting, and an effort to use NSA intercept information mislead the public, thwart investigations, and illegally prevent lawful oversight. The Department of Justice was illegally prevented by the President from exploring the full scope of the conspiracy, and illegally denied access to evidence that would have shown the link between DoJ Staff planning involvement with the war crimes activity in Eastern Europe, Guantanamo, and Africa.
Upon learning that the international community had already launched war crimes investigations, the third phase of the cover-up began. Rather than remove themselves, the alleged war criminals quickly drafted an illegal set of procedure which violated the Geneva Conventions, and included in those procedures was language granting themselves the access to legal defense for war crimes before an international war crimes tribunal.
Phase II of the WMD showed before the election that there was no lawful basis for war, nor an imminent threat. The alleged war criminals, continued along a plan that was devoid of any real evidence, no imminent threat violating the Geneva Conventions.
Despite knowing the Phase II information was adverse and the basis to bring charges for war crimes, Members of Congress individually did nothing to prevent further violations of Article 1 Section prohibiting expenditure of funds for illegal war crimes.
The alleged war criminals public admissions that they had failed to follow the law, and had otherwise not followed Geneva, were deliberate effort to cloud the efforts to illegally immune themselves with illegal, retroactive changes to FISA, the laws of war, and other criminal sanctions. These were not lawful assertions of Article I powers by Congress, but illegal assertions of Article III powers, violating the Separation of Powers, and supporting the alleged war criminals in their mistaken believe that they would remain immune to prosecutions.
The alleged war criminals incorrectly believed that by disclosing adverse information they would be treated favorably. This was mistaken. The international war crimes investigators continue to share information using methods the NSA cannot intercept.
The alleged war criminals actions after August 2006 had nothing to do with leadership, the oath of office, or governance, but a desire to stifle accountability for the war crimes. Despite knowing of the war crimes problems, the alleged war criminals did nothing to prevent the illegal war crimes as required.
The alleged war criminals found themselves in a no-win situation. If they failed to act, the voters would know; if they did act, they would admit they haven’t done what they should have done long ago: Stop the illegal activity, communication, share evidence, and engage in war crimes investigations. Rather than show remorse and voluntarily end their illegal planning, the alleged war criminals then embarked on Phase IV of their plan to illegally invade Iran. Rather than provide evidence of wrongdoing, the war criminals asserted that they had a superior right to violate the Geneva Conventions, yet provided no evidence the Iranians were in breach of any law.
The war criminals continued to plan their illegal invasion and bombing of Iran, despite no imminent threat, or identifiable targets. This planning amounted to illegal violations o Geneva, and if executed subsequent war crimes. The Joint Staff and Nation Security Council, despite no information, planned to expand the abuses and attack Iranian civilians in violation of Geneva. In preparation for this air offensive in Iran, the National Security Council through the NSA cooperated with Israel in committing war crimes in Lebanon.
The alleged war criminals linked with the AT&T domestics surveillance, have also been linked to contracts, lines of evidence, organizations, and planning meetings linked with the Joint Staff and fully supported the illegal plans to wage illegal war in Iraq, and commit grave breaches of Geneva against civilians.
All defenses are without legal foundation. The alleged war criminals have hoped to invoke sympathy with the court, claming the information was related to state secrets. The courts failed to prevent the illegal invasion of Iraq; and did not compel the defendants to provide evidence related to the illegal war crimes planning. This constitutes a subsequent violation of the Judicial Cannons, and an unlawful effort by Judicial Officers to permit additional breaches of Geneva, which they otherwise had duty to prevent.
There is no lawful benefit to war crimes. The alleged war criminals have asserted in public the war crimes committed against civilians is widespread. There is no justification for any outrage committed against any civilians during war, especially when that war is a war of choice, and illegal.
The common course of conduct hinged on an illegal agreement to advance war crimes, and use extrajudicial legal arguments and procedures which violated domestic and international law. Through a common purpose the alleged war criminals failed to prevent violates of the Geneva Conventions and their joint actions resulted din the deaths of tens-of-thousands innocent civilians.
War crimes can be sanctioned with the death penalty. Because of their lack of remorse, failure to remove themselves, and subsequent efforts to cover-up the illegal activity, this warrants an upward adjustment of the sentence. More telling is the initial failure in 1987 to comply with the law; and then illegally rely on defective legal arguments to justify more war crimes. This is recklessness on the part of legal counsel.
It is not unprecedented to impose the death penalty on judicial officers, legal staff, or heads of state for engaging in war crimes. Despite their conduct being publicly debated, the alleged war criminals then embarked on Phase V of their disinformation, illegally asserting that they could not be prosecuted, while they secretly planned to arrange for reimbursement for their legal defenses. This arrangement is evidence the alleged war criminals were untimely in their removal from their war crimes activity, but further evidence they were not serious about taking full responsibility for their frauds and outrages committed upon civilians in violation of Geneva. The evidence is overwhelming and telling: The individual defendants have committed grave braches of Geneva, and have continued to defy the courts and calls for their illegal war crimes to end.
Rather than freely assent to the law the alleged war criminal embarked on Phase VI of their defense, and targeted those who were speaking about illegal activity. The alleged war criminals engaged in an illegal effort to target media and public officials to silence them about the unlawful activity. This conduct was not protected, but related to one objective: To hide evidence that the alleged war criminals were involved, fully knew what was going on, and otherwise only hoped to stifle public discussion of the evidence.
The alleged war criminals knew, or should have known, that the claims of privilege, secrecy, and immunity were not enforceable, and could not be recognized. Rather, once the information was released even inadvertently, that information could no longer be protected as privilege. Despite this legal precedent which destroyed their claim to privilege, the alleged war criminals continued to assert that the courts had no jurisdiction, refused to respect or honor the courts rulings that Geneva remained en force, and otherwise drafted illegal and unconstitutional language that otherwise defied the Supreme Court and affirmation that Geneva was a requirement.
The conduct of the alleged war criminals is reckless. They have openly defied the law, bragged about their misdeeds, all the while knowing there was no evidence to justify any action, and their conduct was known to be in violation of the Supreme Laws of War as promulgated in Geneva. At every turn, with rare exception the alleged war criminals had the chance to remove themselves but chose to continue with the full expectation that nothing would stop them.
It was known that the Executive Orders prohibited classification of illegal war crimes, but the alleged war criminals threatened to prosecute those who spoke of the illegal things. It was known that the President had no lawful power to wage illegal war, or violate the Supreme Law, but the alleged war criminals continued to support him without question. It was known that once information was disclosed, that the executive could no longer claim privilege, yet the judicial officers continued to threaten their peers for hiding what could no longer be hidden.
The alleged war criminals have shown no remorse, proceeded along a common illegal plan, and have recklessly failed to ensure that the Supreme Law was enforced, much less protected. Rather, they have silently agreed to continue their resistance. Despite overwhelming odds against them, the alleged war criminals refuse to stop even at the direction of the court. Even when threatened with lawful sanctions on the battlefield or in the court room, the alleged war criminals reluctantly change position, but otherwise continue with their illegal planning. This is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated among civilized nations. They have been give ample opportunity to end, but refuse. There is only one way to stop them from engaging in additional violations of Geneva.
It is reasonable and just that the individual defendants be sentenced and afforded the maximum punishment afforded by law: The Death Penalty.
Geneva: Prohibits outrages against Civilians; illegal to abrogate treaties/illegal to ignore courts, or use non-legal methods to impose non-judicial proceedings/illegal to transfer civilians out of theater of war to other jurisdictions
Nuremburg: Indictments and death penalty for illegal war
Ludwigsburg: Indictments and death penalty against WWII civilians for war crimes until 1990s
Bybee Memo: Red herring on whether or not abuses and outrages prevented
Downing Street Memoranda: War crimes planning
Quest CEO: Option to remove self from alleged illegal war crimes planning, involvement, support
Verizon Counsel Fata Admission
2006 Change of coverage to US officials
7 June 2006 Specter Letter to VP Cheney
Cheney 1987 statement on investigations
Iran-Contra Minority Report [1997, Addington]
Oregon memo: Attorney-Client monitoring
Fleishman Hilliard contract
Phase II Senate Report
ORCON Executive Order
NSA Descriptive Summary [Telcordia]
Ref Prisoner cell dimensions.
Ref Video statements.
Ref Former prisoner statements.
Ref Tipton Three.
Pre 9-11 illegal NSA monitoring
Rendition Fatal Admissions
Domestic Attorney-Client intercept program
Afghan Box Car Deaths [Refusal to Quarter]
Hexlix1-4, NARUS STA 6400
President fatal admissions in re warrantless surveillance, rendition
Domestic media messages and monitoring contracts
Phase II WMD: No evidence of legal warfare
Article 1 Section 9: Funds still appropriated fro illegal things
DoD NCIS, DoJ personnel engaged in no-official website use, when government said DoD personnel were scarce and unable to ensure compliance with Geneva requirements
Waiver/Loss of Executive privilege/immunities/informant protection/secrecy
Disclosure to third parties
Illegal classification of war crimes-related activity
Information disclosed to third parties
Change of position and retroactive attempt at non-judicial remedy has only relevance during civil litigation; has no bearing on whether original war crimes did or did not occur.
FISA conspiracy and alleged co-conspirators
Iran: Americans Dream of War Crimes [dispropriationate, no necessity]
Feb06 AG testimony before Senate Judiciary
NARUS STA 6400, Helix 1-4
Oregon Atty-Client Domestic Surveillance Memoranda
DoJ OPR blocked
Military Commission: Unconstitutional
White House/DoJ request for legal defense funds
Members of Congress implicated in war crimes conspiracy
5 USC 3331
US Atty Oath
5100.77 Laws of War Program
Attorney/Judges prosecutions for war crimes
Article 82: Malfeasance of US Attorney
2006 Military Commissions Act [Denial of Substantive Rights, Sawada]