Vice President, Chief Justice Targeted By War Crimes Prosecutor
The European Union continues to investigate alleged American Geneva violations. The European commission has expanded the inquiry, and appears on the verge of appointing a war crimes prosecutor to review the alleged American war crimes committed in Eastern Europe.
The Vice President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court have allegedly engaged in a course of conduct of interest to war crimes prosecutors. In light of the Foley accusations, calls to investigate inhumane treatment of Congressional Pages are hollow without a balanced demand to investigate war crimes.
Ref: Details on Abraxas alleged Geneva violations.
The Chief Justice of the United States has been affirmatively linked with personnel at Abraxas who have allegedly engaged in war crimes.
Also, the Vice President suggested that the alleged war criminal Donald Rumsfeld, if lawfully targeted by the ongoing war crimes prosecution, would leave Cheney without any protection.
It's no wonder why Libby allegedly lied to the Grand Jury: Cheney had fully briefed his staff of the risk if there was no defense -- The Vice President could be lawfully targeted for prosecution by an international war crimes tribunal.
Inaction To Avoid Needed Consequences
There's a recurring pattern I've noticed cutting across Foley, FISA, and the Congressional oversight.
A, The Washington Post reports:
In private conversations with Bush, Cheney is reported to have said Rumsfeld's departure, no matter how it might be spun, would be seen only as an expression of doubt and hesitation on the war. It would give the war critics great heart and momentum, he confided to an aide, and soon they would be after him and then the president. He virtually insisted that Rumsfeld stay. Ref
B. Compare the VP's "if they get to you, I will be next"-sentiment to Hastert's comments in re Foley:
“If they get to me, it looks like they could affect our election as well,” Mr. Hastert said in an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. Ref
C. Then consider the other example: We dare not stand up, because we would prfer to lie on teh ground and be beaten like a dog. Ref
They're not providing a good reason for why the review should not occur; as with Gonzalez' excuses over FISA (we can't review this matter, because it might invoke Constitutional issues), they're using the "risk" that there may be (needed legal) consequences as an excuse/defense not to start. That's not leadership but a phony excuse to engage in malfeasance.
Now the war crimes prosecutor understands the real motivation for Cheney to have the language included. It had nothing to do with White House concern that alleged war criminals working for Abraxas and the CIA might be prosecuted without legal assistance.
The Vice President was concerned that he didn't have enough money to defend himself before the war crimes tribunal. The war crimes prosecutors have the evidence, and continue to work.
The Vice President's legal counsel are allegedly complicit in failing to prevent war crimes, and it remains to be seen whether they too could be charged with war crimes and lawfully sentenced to death.
The real question is: Has anyone bothered to look at the strange legal connection between Justice Robert's wife's law firm and the General counsel of Abraxas?
Abraxas' Saunders was with Shaw-Pittman as an attorney, where Chief Justice Robert's wife works.
Justice Robert's alleged complicity with war crimes could have serious ramifications. When are we going to hear the results of the ethics investigation into why Chief Justice Roberts refused to ensure the Geneva conventions were fully enforced?
Accountability Long Over Due
This American government has refused prevent Geneva violations or to stop inhumane treatment of prisoners. Note this Editorial, rebuking of the American leadership:
"The evidence was strong enough long enough ago. . . "
". . . constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress."
"Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate . . ."
"The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have . . ."
". . .a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened."
"The original e-mail messages were warning enough . . ."
"The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat. "
"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."
Republicans inconsistent with the law, accountability, and fact finding. The Republicans refused to investigate "trivial" war crimes. Why is it surprising Republicans didn't "bother" with a "trivial" matter like inhumane treatment of Pages?
War Crimes Prosecutor Questions
When did Chief Justice Roberts, through his wife and Saunders, get information that certain Abraxas-related financial interests in Europe would be jeopardized if Hamdan was permitted to challenge his detention?
What does Chief Justice Roberts know about the Abraxas-Saunders relationship?
How often does the Chief Justice's wife discuss the ongoing Abraxas issues with Saunders?
What financial reward or support did the American legal community and/or Members of Congress community provide to Chief Justice Roberts for his alleged failure to enforce Geneva?
When should the Speaker of the House have been informed of the Abraxas-Saunders connection, and the need to investigate the issue?
What financial reward or bribes did the Speaker of the House Hastert and now-Chief Justice Roberts receive for failing to enforce Geneva, not investigate, and allegedly engage in war crimes by failing to prevent war crimes?
Was this the motivation for Roberts not to enforce Geneva?
Would Saunders suffer if she failed to enforce Geneva; and was this concern communicated to the DC Court of Appeals, the DoJ Staff, or other legal personnel who had a direct or indirect line of communication to the Chief Justice or his wife?
What was Abraxas' input to the DoJ Staff counsel language granting financial funds for those who are defendants before war crimes tribunals?
What role did Abraxas' CEO play in organizing insurance coverage for Abraxas-related personnel, contractors, and entities for their possible defense needed for alleged war crimes prosecutions?
What communication was there between Saunders as Abraxas General counsel to her former law firm Shaw Pittman?
What was the Abraxas counsel or other Abraxas personnel input to the DoJ Military Commissions Bill language?
How were the concerns about Abraxas' alleged war-crimes-support communicated directly or indirectly to Shaw Pittman, Roberts' wife, or the Chief Justice himself?
Republicans Demand Accountability
From this perspective it appears as though the Chief Justice deliberately failed to enforce Geneva because of the relationship his wife and her firms’ partners had with the Abraxas General counsel. The primary error is to fail to enforce the law; the second error is to fail to remove yourself from the litigation; the third error is to continue to practice law and act as Chief Justice despite the ongoing ethics issues.
Indeed, the Senior Republican leadership has already called for the resignation of the Speaker of the House for failing to investigate a "trivial" matter of abuse and inappropriate conduct. It's nothing to believe that the Speaker similarly failed to conduct investigations on more "trivial" matters like Geneva and alleged war crimes by Abraxas.
No Chief Justice or Vice President is immune to an international war crimes prosecutor. Not at Nuremburg, and not in 2006 going forward.
No President can pardon you if you are lawfully sentenced to death by the war crimes tribunal.
Chief Justice Roberts and Vice President Cheney, you should resign, and take care of your personal legal problems. The war crimes prosecutor continues to probe into your alleged illegal relationship with those who have allegedly engaged in war crimes.
Yes, Mr. Cheney the war crimes prosecutor is coming after you. There is no deadline.