Draft Disbarment Investigation Charles D. Stimson

Ref: CA State Bar launches attorney misconduct investigation into Stimson.

[Direct Link to Stimson content: http://tinyurl.com/yaznxw ] Attorney Charles D. Stimson of the American Department of Defense [DoD] allegedly issued, provided, or made available a list to target, punish, and not hire counsel who are attempting to fully enforce and assert the Geneva Conventions. Ref ( h/t ) Discuss

Checklist below compares the American Bar Assocation [ABA] model rules of professional conduct with Stimson's alleged misconduct; and shares questions the public, investigators, and oversight may wish to persue.

* * *

Summary

The newly-released Military Commissions Manual [Analysis] includes specific requirements on attorneys in how they interact with prisoners; and prohibited retalation against defense counsel. Curiously, Stimson's comments, despite his apparent knowledge of the newly releasd Military Commissions manual, suggest there are entrenched policies within the Bush Administration to violate the very provisions with the Military COmmission Manual the Supreme Court in Hamdan said were requirements.

In other words, despite the Supreme Court compelling the Administration to make new rules to prosecute prisoners -- to ensure the trials were consitent with Geneva requirements -- the new rules appear to be a sham. Practices in place contradict the standards the Supreme Court said must be created, were required, and mandatory under the Geneva conventions.

* * *

Other Stimson Links

Impeaching Stimson as a Witness: Alleged out of court inconsistent statements.

Ref Alleged Stimson violations of Manual on Military Commissions.

Ref Analysis of the Manual on Military Commissions: Mandatory provisions which are not being implemented.

Ref Oversight plan: Sample issues to consider when evaluating whether the Military Commissions Manual procedures are effectively implemented [performance compliance]; and whether the manual, as it is drafted, does or does not meet Geneva requirements [Standards compliance].

Great summary: Visit this -- [Leave comments here ]

Ref Model Rules: 6.1 [ProBono], 3.8 [Prosecutor Statements]

* * *

Overview of Content Below

We examine the original press release, highlighting the basis to impeach Stimson as a witness. "Impeachment", as the term is used here, does not mean removing him from office, but, in court, using Stimson's out of court statements to discredit him as a witness; or cast doubts upon any testimony he may provide to a court, grand jury, or tribunal. Impeachment is used by an attorney to show to the jury that Stimson as a witness or defendant cannot be trusted; and that evidence he may provide is not reliable.

We also review Stimson's statements in light of his attorney standards of conduct. There are problems warranting reivew. We outline a line of questions which the public may wish to discuss. The checklist includes questions about Stimson's conduct and statements; contrasts Stimson's activity with the American Bar Association standards applicable to attorneys; and forms the basis to examine whether the practices, not just the standars, to prosecute prisoners do or do not meet the intent of Geneva.

Judgements

The Administrations practices and standards do not meet the Geneva requirements, and form the basis for subsequent allegations of war crimes against Stimson and others in the Bush Administration.

Despite the Supreme Court in Hamdan reminding the Administration that GEneva applies and that new procedures are required to prosecute prisoners for alleged war crimes, the Manual on Military Commissions, as implemented under Stimson, does not satisfy Geneva; nor are the practices as implemented intended to fully comply with the provisions within the Manual on Military Commissions. If proven true, these material deviations from the Hamdan-affirmed Geneva requirements could form the basis to prosecute Stimson and others for alleged war crimes; and bring sanctions in the form of attorney disbarment.

* * *

Contrasing Stimson's Radio Interview With His Written Comments

Out of court inconsistent statements are admissible for purpose of impeaching a witness.

Issue: Notwithstanding Stimson's retraction, does the US have an official policy to target counsel who assert Geneva Convnetions; or otherwise encourage commercial, non-government entities and firms to engage in retalaiation against public defenders who are doing what the Geneva Conventions require -- provide a full legal defense?

* * *

Notice Stimson is quoted as saying, "WE"; but in his apology, he only refers to his personal views.

___ Why is Stimson issuing an apology for something he didn't say; and not disavaowing the comments which Stimson originally attributed to "WE"?

___ Why is there an inconsistency between what Stimson was saying in this Radio interve [Below]; and the comments in his letter? [ Letter here, with comments ]

Radio Interview

Stimson is quoted as saying, "We" [ Ref "And we want to watch that play out."; [ Admissiable Audio Recording Evidence Kenyon.edu, Stimson's Alma Mater ] indicating this is not his personal opinion, but an official policy of more than one person; and the objective of the arrangement is, in effect, to undermine enforcement of Geneva.

It is not lawful for anyone to participate in any agreement or arrangement that would undermine, not enforce, or diminish the full Geneva protections. All US Government officials who refuse to review this matter could be subject to like retaliation by foreign fighters.

Should these alleged war crimes be reviewed by The Hague, Stimson's alleged reckless breach of the Geneva conventions would be outside US jurisdiction, and subject to The Hague, which Stimson knew, or should have known before engaging in these alleged breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

It appears Stimson's efforts are an illegal breach of Geneva and could be adjudicated with the death penalty.

* * *

Under the principle of reciprocity, foreign fighters could lawfully impose on any US government official like treatment similarly detained before The Hague -- denial of full legal defenses. This is a serious matter. The Military Commission Act specifically included language which would provide for US funds to defend US government officials before International bodies. It was the intent of Congress that the courts, not battlefield, but the appropriate remedy to resolve this issue. Stimson's alleged breach of Geneva may wholly undermine the intent of Congress, legally permitting foreign fighters to take this dispute directly to the combat zone, and lawfully target additional US government officials with like abuse, mistreatment, and other grave braches Geneva without prospect of a fully legal defense.

Stimson's name has been added to the list of attorneys allegedly complicit in breaches of the laws of war, or alleged war crimes. This information has been provided to the German War Crimes Prosecutor.

If you have information related to similar alleged breaches of the laws of war; or evidence of alleged war crimes by other US government officials, here is the German war crimes prosecutor. You may be eligible for a significant financial reward, and possibly never have to work again in your life.

What You Can Do: Ask Maryland Disciplinary Board to review.

* * *

It is serious business when US government officials participate in a program, disclosure, or course of conduct that undermines the full enforcement of the Geneva Conventions. Stimson and others allegedly involved, but who are not appropriately disciplined, could be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters for reciprocal treatment.

I would like to know the names of the firms using this list, and have the Securities and Exchange Commission review their filings; and assess whether there is any evidence of auditor-attorney potential Rule 10b-5 issues; or non-disclosed arrangements only to hire specific counsel or auditors with pre-existing, non-disclosed arrangements with the board of directors.

Based on the available evidence, it appears Stimson's actions are aimed with one objective: To allegedly unlawfully interfere with the administration of justice as required under the Geneva Conventions; an alleged grave breach of Geneva amounting to a war crimes by a civilian attorney, which Nuremburg, as precedent, has adjudicated with the death penalty; and satisfy a to-be-understood relationship with third parties to restrict, interfere, or block defense counsel from enjoying the fruits of their law credentials.



___ To what extent do Stimson's communications amount to unofficial use of DoD resources for private gain, possible profit, or other benefits unrelated to the United States government's requirement to ensure justice is fair; and that the US Constitution is preserved, as required under Stimson's oath of office 5 USC 3331; has Stimson effectively undermined the Constitution by ensuring that all Geneva Treaty obligations are not fully enforced as required; has Stimson breached his Article 82 obligation to ensure the Geneva Conventions are fully enforced, as affirmed in Hamdan? Ref

Arguably, Stimson's conduct amounts to an alleged war crime in that he has effectively participated in a course of conduct to breach his Article 82 Geneva Obligation to ensure the Geneva Convention requirements, as affirmed in Hamdan, are fully enforced. The Supreme Court does not look favorably upon those who violate the Conventions; and Stimson knew, or should have known because of his alleged NAVY JAG experience, that the Geneva Conventions shall be fully enforced, not effectively undermined, nor not fully enforced as required under Stimson's 5 USC 3331 oath of obligation to the US Constitution, which includes the Geneva Conventions.

___ Has Stimson every communicated with anyone in any firm, entity, or third agency that was represented by counsel, but Stimson did not, as required, discuss this information through counsel, but directly with the represented person as prohibited? Ref

___ To what extent has Stimson engaged in commercial transactions, transfer of information, or other transactions for personal monetary benefit, without adequately disclosing the communication -- prior to disclosure -- to the affect counsel and clients, which Stimson has no attorney-client relationship? Ref

___ TO what extent do boards of directors, corporate legal counsel, and CEOs face a war crimes risk for engaging in a course of alleged illegal retaliation against those who attempt to enforce the laws of war? Ref

___ Which specific counsel, attorneys, or other officers of the court have been targeted, fired, removed, or denied promotion because they have attempted to enforce the Geneva Conventions -- consequences prohibited by law? Ref

___ Which counsel have been denied the opportunity to bring their alleged illegal termination to the appropriate authorities? Ref

___ To what extent have all of Stimson's prospective clients been made aware of the potential disqualifying information related to alleged reckless misconduct; and has Stimson fully satisfied the requirements for all allowed exceptions? Ref

___ What is the nature of the settlement agreement, post employment arrangement, or other terms and conditions which prevents attorneys from openly discussing alleged illegal retaliation against them for attempting to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions? Ref 11.13(e)

___ To what extent are the firms who are using this information targets of a war crimes investigation into prisoner abuse; do any of the firms on the target list include anyone related to SAIC, Terremark, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AbraxasCorp, or any other firms allegedly complicit in alleged war crimes? Ref

___ Is Stimson, with this disclosure, effectively playing both sides of the same legal argument: First as a JAG asserting the Geneva Conventions; then as a US government official participating an alleged scheme to thwart the Geneva Conventions enforcement?Ref

___ Who directed, encouraged, or advised Stimson to create, disseminate, provide, or make known this list; how was this strategy, plan, or effort to intimidate devised; what connection is there with this disclosure with the White House counsel dismissal; why is DoJ OPR blocked from getting access to information, but DoD is providing information on the same legal issue -- whether the laws will or will not be enforced? Ref

___ Who is Stimson's Supervisor, Hanes? Ref 5.4(c)

___ How does Stimson and DoD have inputs to defense counsel, peer ratings?

___ To what extent has Stimson's supervisor recklessly not fully complied with this requirement:

"A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

___ How has the information Stimson provided to counsel, firms, or others been with the intent to regulate professional judgment, refuse to enforce the Geneva conventions, or otherwise not fully do what Article 82 requires under the Conventions?

___ Does Stimson comprehend that foreign fighters, if they perceive that his action may be materially undermining the Geneva Conventions, that Stimson himself could legally become the subject of a direct, lawful, reciprocal, like consequence as permitted under the laws of war?

___ Does Stimson comprehend that if foreign fighters lawfully enter US Airspace, land, and detain Stimson, Stimson could be delivered to The Hague, and all defense counsel at The Hague could similarly be dissuaded from defending Stimson using the like target list?

- -

___ What is the oversight which Stimson's supervisor provided;

___ To what extent is Stimson using information or passing it to third parties with the hopes of thwarting enforcement of the attorney standards of conduct, and allegedly in gross, reckless contravention of rule 1.11(c)?

___ When was DoD Haynes, DoJ AG Alberto Gonzalez, or White House Counsel Miers informed of Stimson's conduct; and have they failed to review this matter and report it to DoJ OPR, DoD IG, or the appropriate DC or State Disciplinary Board for review? Ref: 5.1(c)(1-2)

___ To what extent has Stimson, in revealing this information, violated an attorney-client privilege which only the client can waive? Ref

___ How can Stimson argue that this conduct, when revealed, would do anything but jeopardize the US government claims against the prisoners at the detention centers, as expressly prohibited under Rule 3.2? Ref

___ Is Stimson, in effect, engaging in business transactions which he could or plans to derive future benefits in the form of valuable consideration; and has the US government not, as required, providing permission in writing for him to engage in these business transactions? Ref 1.11(d)(2)

___ To what extent is Stimson, in effect, cooperating with the Department of Justice -- representing a client adverse to the prisoners, the United States -- in directly dissuading defense counsel from opposing what is arguably a war crime, or doing their moral best to defend their client as required under the Geneva Conventions? Ref 1.7(b)

___ Have firms allegedly engaged in this professional misconduct appropriately informed clients of their efforts to allegedly undermine the Geneva Conventions, not ensure justice is fully provide to all prisoners, or otherwise retaliate against officers of the court for enforcing the Geneva Conventions? Ref

___ Have all firms allegedly engaged in this conduct -- alleged unlawful retaliation against counsel for enforcing the Geneva conventions -- been appropriately disclosed to all clients; when is the expected notification by all counsel and corporations involved in this alleged illegal retaliation; when will Congress call as witnesses the lead firms involved in this alleged retaliation for enforcing the Geneva Conventions? Ref

___ To what extent has Stimson's conduct, and all firms allegedly involved with this target list been known and made available to all clients of those law firms and corporations so they can make a decision whether Stimson and the firms are or are not fit to do business with; why is there a double standard on providing lists about who is or isn't allegedly not fully asserting their legal requirements and professionally conducting themselves? Ref

It is a serious matter when the US Government not only engages in abuse but is part of an alleged conspiracy to illegally retaliate against attorneys seeking to do what the US Government, DOJ Staff, and Department of Defense refuse to do: Fully enforce the Geneva Conventions.

Stimson's alleged outrageous, reckless conduct amounts to an alleged breach of the Geneva Conventions and wholly undermines confidence the US government is serious about curing the well known abuses which have been well published in the media in re Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan Box Cars, Rendition, Eastern European detention abuse, and Guantanamo.

___ To what extent has Stimson specifically put a "value" on the counsel he has public identified, as prohibited by the attorney standards of conduct? Ref

___ Has Stimson identified client information that the attorney-as-counsel has the option to not disclose; to what extent has the disclosure by Stimson effectively denied defense counsel the right to decline stating which clients they do or do not represent? [Ref "but need not identify the client" ]

___ Who has a copy of the information provided by Stimson; how was this transmitted; was it by hand, email, US mail or some other way? Ref

___ How is the information used by Stimson or others to interfere with, engage in, discuss, or otherwise make decisions about the prospective employment of non-represented parties? Ref

___ Has Stimson's written information amount to an inappropriate, false, or misleading statement about defense counsel, leaving the incorrect impression that they were doing something illegal warranting illegal boycotts? Ref

___ Did Stimson, when he issued this information, appropriately include all required legal notices and details required the certifying information? Ref

___ Is there evidence that Stimson was providing this information to firms, counsel, or others with the hopes of gaining prospective employment; or achieve other to-be-understood arrangements and consideration? Ref

___ Did Stimson's written information to the non-client firms, include the words, "Advertising Material" as required under the Model Rules? Ref

___ To what extent does Stimson's provision of this list, in exchange for to be understood valuable consideration, amount to an illegal agreement to deny, block, or interfere with attorney-client agreements, or prospective employment? Ref

___ Has Stimson provided this list to anyone in exchange for anything of value, including promises, employment, partnerships, or any data transfers from other clients?

___ Which Counsel have asked for this information; what was the basis of the agreement to provide the information; when were other counsel aware of these actions; did they appropriately report this alleged misconduct to the appropriate authorities in the state disciplinary board? Ref

___ Why isn't Stimson’s name on the attorney roster; does he really have a law license, unlike another JAG? Ref

___ Does Stimson have an issue with not complying with his required certification notification requirements; why is there no public information, apparently as required, related to Stimson's certification state? Ref: 7.4 (d)(2)

___ To what extent is Stimson, by providing this list, providing non-informed opinions to non-experts, in violation of this attorney standard of conduct? Ref

____ To what extent is Stimson making statements about the suitability of legal peers without disclosing his official position in that release? http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_2_3.html

____ To what extent is Stimson's conduct demonstrating unfairness to counsel who are in an opposing position? Ref

___ To what extent does Stimson's transmissions of this information to jurisdictions outside DC and Maryland amount to unauthorized practice of law where he is not licensed to provide legal opinions, information, or other attorney work products? Ref

* * *

Stimson knew, or should have known, that as a public servant, he was making inappropriate comments.

Mr. Stimson, who was a Navy lawyer, graduated from George Mason University Law School. In a 2006 interview with the magazine of Kenyon College, his alma mater, Mr. Stimson said that he was learning “to choose my words carefully because I am a public figure on a very, very controversial topic.”

This tells us:

- He knew, or should have known about the Geneva conventions;
- He has made public statements to the media
- He knew there may have been a problem
- These comments have not been denied

For purposes of the disciplinary hearing we accept the statement as reported in the NYT as true.

* * *

Issues for the Disciplinary Board to Review

___ To what extent has Stimson's conduct undermined the US justice system?

___ Is Stimson engaging in tortuous interference with prospective business?

___ Which firms, if they choose to retaliate, may be legally targeted by the US government for having engaged in an illegal boycott?

___ To what extent has Stimson’s conduct brought discredit upon himself as a legal professional?

___ TO what extent is Stimson's conduct amounting to adverse trial publicity prejudicial to the administration of justice? Ref All the allowed communications do not adequately cover what Stimson has released as an apparent official US government statement about the competence of opposing counsel. This does not inspire confidence in Stimson's judgment; or his competence to effectively comply with the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

___ To what extent Stimson's statements amount to reckless disregard for the rights of opposing counsel to seek employment as defense counsel in this and future litigation? Ref Arguably, the official statements which Stimson failed to appropriately qualify, and were made without appropriate regard to the impact of public opinion on defense counsel would amount to a violation of the Model Rules.

* * *

The apparent intent of Stimson was to undermine fully and fair legal rights and representation.

Arguably, this is professional misconduct which the Federal Courts should be immediately brought notified.

___ Should the prisoners be released because of undue influence on counsel?

Arguably, this conduct could result in a mistrial and dismissal of charges against the prisoners because of the perception that counsel were not fully asserting their oaths; or the incorrect perception that counsel were not willing to fully do this job.

This is outrageous conduct by someone who is an attorney.

I would like to see the report, and comments from DoJ OPR and the DoD General counsel. HASC and SASC should review DoD General Counsel supervisory skills; and review Stimson's performance plan and recommendations. Please ensure DoD IG is involved and provides a full report to Speaker Pelosi and the appropriate Committee Chairs.

It would be appropriate if Stimson were to resign effective COB Monday, 15 Jan 2007.

* * *

Please Verify Stimson Has A Valid Law License

Basis for concern: JAGs, which Stimson alleged was while in the NAVY, do not always, as required, have a valid law license.

SO much for self regulation and peer reviews in DoD:

Ref Top Air Force lawyer relieved of command
Colonel had been disbarred; JAGs now must show proof of valid license

By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, December 9, 2006

ARLINGTON, Va. — Col. Michael D. Murphy was one of the Air Force’s top legal eagles. He practiced law for 23 years, even serving as commandant of the Air Force Judge Advocate General School in 2005.

But Murphy’s high-flying career came to a halt on Nov. 30, when the Air Force relieved him of his command of the Air Force Legal Operations Agency in Washington after discovering that he had failed to disclose that two states yanked his law license more than 20 years ago.

___ Why isn't Stimson listed in the public attorney listings?

* * *

Broader Issues

The implications of Stimson's conduct are far reaching. These issues relate to the military commissions bill which Congress passed, granting US personnel access to US-funded legal counsel before international tribunals.

The purpose of the remainder of these comments is to narrowly focus on the Geneva implications of Stimson's conduct in the Context of the 5100.77 Laws of War Program; and the requirement US Defense Counsel assigned to DoD in the Judge Advocate Position have to fully enforce the Conventions; and the lawful retaliation that foreign fighters may lawfully engage if the Conventions are not fully asserted.

The laws of war, as they apply to Stimson, prohibit him from doing anything that would undermine the Laws of War, or do anything that would dissuade any attorney from fully asserting their Geneva Convention duty -- as an attorney -- to fully defend the prisoners. The alleged guilt or innocence of the prisoners is irrelevant to whether US defense counsel in the JAGS, or civilian public defenders do or do not have a Geneva Obligation and duty to fully do their moral best to defend the prisoners and meet the Geneva obligations on an attorney under Article 82. These are requirements which Stimson and all government officials know, or should have been told by DoJ Staff Counsel, form the precedent for having lawfully executed civilians for their having failed to fully enforce the Geneva requirements.

All US Attorneys, legal professionals, and other officers of a court take an oath to the US Constitution; the oath binds them to assert the Supreme Law which includes not only domestic law and the US Constitution, but all treaties. Geneva is one treat which the Supreme Court in Hamdan affirmed as a requirement.

When the laws of war are not fully enforced, foreign fighters may lawfully engage in like abuse under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation. Stimson knew or should now about this given his connection with the NAVY JAG program; and his presumed understanding of the SecDef 5100.77 Laws of War program. It is irrelevant whether Stimson believes that the prisoners are guilty; and it makes no difference that Stimson may have a particular view on the rightness or wrongness of their original alleged actions; or the subsequent treatment they have been allegedly subjected. As the leader of the DoD Prisoner Detention program, Stimson has a superior obligation to fully assert his oath, seeing that the Laws of War, regardless the prisoner status, are fully asserted. One obligation is to ensure prisoners are fully afforded all rights as required under Common Article 3. Hamdan affirmed this requirement, forming the basis for the President to move prisoners from Eastern Europe to Guantanamo in re the CIA Detention facilities in Europe.

- -

Under the laws of war, when prisoners denied rights during trial -- which include, inter alia full access to legal counsel as they are required/entitled under Geneva -- the issue is not one simply of whether the prisoners have or have not faced a fair trial. The issue turns on its head: Once foreign fighters perceive that this injustice is an active policy, they may lawfully reciprocate against similarly situated defendants.

Stimson's error is to allegedly participate in an alleged targeting program to dissuade defense counsel from fully asserting their oath; and allegedly ensuring there are commercial consequences on defense counsel for having fully asserted their oath. Putting aside the alleged Geneva violations, the key issue of this subsequent not is:

___ Which defense counsel could foreign fighters similarly, under the principle of reciprocity, engage in like abuses?

___ Which counsel who may be providing US personnel with legal advice could be lawfully targeted for like retaliation under the laws of war?

Stimson's alleged targeting effort is related to defense counsel for an alleged defendant in a war crimes trial. Broadly applying Geneva, when any American is similarly charged with a crime, detained, or otherwise held to account for war crimes -- regardless the facts, innocence, status, or merits of the case -- foreign fighters may engage in like retaliation against all US prisoners, not limited to military personnel, but anyone.

The personnel detained at Guantanamo have not been charged with crimes. Similarly, foreign fighters may lawfully detain -- regardless evidence or non-evidence -- anyone without charging them with crimes.

Personnel at Guantanamo have not been provided timely access to legal counsel. Similarly foreign fighters may lawfully not provide timely access to legal counsel.

Personnel at Guantanamo are not necessarily fighters or combatants, but were rounded up on the basis of accusations, not necessarily evidence, and arguably in the mind of a reasonable person it is the lack of evidence which is prompting the US government not to permit open trial. Similarly, foreign fighters may lawfully reciprocate by, regardless the fabricated evidence, similarly detain anyone without any reference to evidence.

Finally, Stimson's conduct directly targets defense counsel in punishing them for having fully asserted their oath. Similarly, foreign fighters may do the opposite with respect to DoJ Staff counsel -- lawfully target them for like, reciprocal abuses [including no charges, indefinite detention, abuse, and no access to counsel] -- merely because the DoJ Staff counsel were closely associated with the original abuses: Having refused to ensure Geneva was fully asserted, and arguably thwarting full enforcement of Geneva, the DOJ Staff counsel are not passive observers of legal issues, but arguably legitimate military targets of foreign fighters during the trial phase: That of refusing to permit DoJ Staff, as required under the Military Commissions Bill, from fully doing their jobs as Congress intended, because Stimson and others were targeting prisoner defense counsel for having fully asserted their Geneva obligations.

In so many words, Stimson's conduct has opened the hornets nest to a needless escalation of trial abuses which would form the basis for foreign fighters to deny American military personnel of full defenses, but also the accused DOJ Staff counsel of a full defense.

In short, Stimson's conduct has opened the door for DoJ Staff counsel to be lawfully targeted for seizure, subjected to Geneva abuses -- which the US has committed -- and summarily denied counsel because they are similarly situated in the chain of abuses against prisoners.

Stimson's conduct is not only adverse to military personnel and their possible defense prospects before Geneva; but whether US attorneys are lawfully targeted for like abuse, and similarly mistreated as the original prisoners.

Going further, once this escalation occurs, regardless the US government's position on the original prisoner status, the US DoJ Staff no longer has an objective, passive, and purely theoretical interest in the matter; nor are they non-related to the original abuses. Because of their perceived connect with the original abuses -- their failure to prevent the prisoner abuse, and refusal to fully enforce the Geneva conventions -- DoJ Staff counsel are subject to like abuse.

DoJ Staff counsel are potential defense counsel for US government officials, including other DoJ Staff counsel. DoJ Staff counsel who are implicated in the original abuses may be lawfully targeted, captured, and detained without trial; or summarily abused, regardless their knowledge or lack of knowledge of the laws of war.

Foreign fighters may lawfully target, capture, detain, prosecute, and in secrete abuse DoJ Staff counsel because of (a) the original abuses committed; and (b) the subsequent abuses of interfering with a full defense.

Foreign fighters may lawfully interfere with the US DoJ Staff counsel efforts to fully defend any US government official, military, civilian, or contractor, without any fear that they are doing anything which the Conventions recognize as lawful.

Foreign fighters may lawfully capture, abuse, detain, hold indefinitely, and deny a fair trail to any American attorney in a similar position as what was originally denied to the prisoners: Their role of providing a full defense. Conversely, if DoJ Staff attempts to enforce the laws of war against some, but not subject themselves to similar oversight, this may be viewed as an inconsistent application of Geneva warranting further reciprocity and retaliation.

- -

The error is for Stimson to believe that the prisoners -- on the basis of his judgment alone -- have or have not done something; and that Stimson alone has the input to whether a full legal defense is or is not warranted. There is no choice: It is required.

Stimson's broader failure, despite his NAVY background experience and knowledge of 5100.77, is his implicit admission that the US government, his office, and the Commander in Chief have an express policy of interfering with defense counsel, and adjudicating them as having warranting some sort of retaliation for having fully asserted their Geneva Convention obligation. IT is a secondary matter whether Stimson's conduct does or does not amount to a breach of his oath of office, or warrants disbarment.

Under the laws of war if Stimson's policy of retaliation is perceived as real -- as it reasonably appears is the case -- foreign fighters have the legal option of:

A. Ignoring the requirements that US personnel, implicated DOJ Staff do or do not have an attorney that is competent;

B. Providing a kangaroo court to the DoJ Staff who are implicated in the alleged original abuses;

C. Engaging in mock trials, mock executions, and other abuses which DOJ Staff counsel know is occurring in US detention centers but have not prevented, nor reported to the DoJ OPR as required.

- -

Stimson's alleged breaches of the Geneva Conventions, combined with the possibly of retaliation, undermines the assumption that the risks of original US Geneva violations will only fall on US military personnel. Rather, Stimson himself and US counsel that would provide a fully defense to US personnel charged at the Hague or elsewhere, could be similarly denied a full defense.

Recall the Nazi attacks on civilian shipping. The Nazi defense was that the allies engaged in like abuses. The objective of Geneva was to confine the military confrontation to military targets; once combatants stray from the narrow lane of military targets and attacks supporting infrastructure or supply lines unrelated to the original combat, the protections no longer apply.

Indeed, Geneva prohibits retaliation against civilians; however, it does not prevent, as the US has done, of accusing civilians of being combatants. Similarly, foreign fighters may lawfully, as the US has done, accuse any American civilian of being a combatant, or complicit with war crimes and subject them to like abuses: Refusing to provide that civilian the full legal defenses that they might be able to exercise had the US not engaged in the original abuses, which Stimson is allegedly involved.

- -

These are serious issues. Stimson's problem is that he's opened Pandora’s box and made it possible that foreign fighters could lawfully target any American citizen, accuse them of any crime, deny them a fair trial, and the US would don’t be in a legal position to challenge this under the laws of war. Putting aside the legal problem of finding the defendant, the US's problem is that the foreign fighters are not legally required to do what the US refuses to do: Ensure a full defense as required under Geneva.

Foreign fighters do not have to do what Stimson is implicitly saying the prisoners are not entitled:

An aggressive legal defense;

Right to access counsel;

An opportunity to challenge the Government with competent counsel;

Full legal arguments which challenge the procedures of the detaining power.

IN effect, Stimson has jeopardized the entire Geneva defenses which US civilians, DoJ Staff, and US government and military personnel might have thought they were entitled.

Stimson's conduct isn't simply whether he has or has not engaged in alleged professional misconduct warranting disbarment, but whether his perceive official statement related to an apparent official policy effectively communicates to the world: The US does not plan to comply with Geneva's legal requirements as they related to any prisoner. This nexus means foreign fighters are not required to meet the same legal standards.

Similarly, the US is not allowed to use foreign fighters lawful retaliation against US DoJ Staff as a basis to then increase US combat targeting against other enemies.

- -

The error is for the DOJ Staff to have remained silent on the original abuses. Now that Stimson has opened the bar door, effectively stating that a full Geneva defense cannot be guaranteed, (2) all DoJ Staff may be legally targeted for their original abuses; and (2) all foreign fighters have the power to lawfully target DoJ Staff and similarly deny them access to a full and fair trial.

Whether the DOJ Staff have or have not engaged in real violations is secondary to the like retaliation foreign fighters may impose: Lawful abuse and denial of access to counsel on any issue foreign fighters accuse the DOJ Staff of having committed.

The error is for the US, in violating Geneva, to use foreign fighters lawful reciprocate and relation as the basis to demand the President be given more power. The oppose is the case: Until the President is lawfully constrained, foreign fighters may lawfully engage in lawful reciprocal retaliation against the DOJ Staff for their having failed to ensure the prisoners were fairly treated in the original trials.

The solution is for the DOJ Staff to fully assert their oath and compel the legal community to fully comply. Until the DOJ Staff fully asserts their oath, and otherwise remains allegedly complicit with Geneva breaches, the DOJ Staff may be lawfully targeted for summary execution, abuse, and not afforded any right to a fair hearing.

The remedy is for Stimson's conduct to be seen in the context of the larger Geneva issues; the implications for escalation; and to be seen in the context of what happens when the US President and others assert they are above the law. Foreign fighters may lawfully assert the same and provide direct combat consequences on the people who are enabling the US President.

The US argued that the Tokyo and Dresden Fire Bombings were required. If this escalation of abuse continues, there is nothing legally prohibiting foreign fighters from doing what Israel has allegedly imminently said it was going to do: Use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent military target.

Foreign fighters, under the regime which Stimson asserts is required, would at its logical conclusion leave the US legal foundation to ask for international support should foreign fighters selectively target the US government, DoJ Staff, and other accused with attack by nuclear weapons.

It is not lawful for reciprocity to be imposed on civilians; but it is not illegal for foreign fighters to accuse anyone of being no different than the prisoners the US has detained: Their status being a non-accused unlawful combatant supposedly warranting Stimson's effort to retaliate against counsel.

Stimson's apparent decision to support efforts to not fully enforce Geneva have broad implications in terms of escalation, real checks on the President's power, and whether the US can have any assurance that Geneva will be fully applied to all US personnel who may be detained for any reason, real or imaginary.

Nuclear weapons under the principle of mutual assured destruction [MAD] theoretically ensured the abuse would not occur. With Geneva violations the opposite is true: Each subsequent violation permits the other side to engage in like abuses.

The error is for Congress to not break the cycle, and compel the US government and DoJ Staff to fully enforce Geneva. Congress' current approach, that of deference, no comment, inaction, or a refusing to impose legal consequences on the President, means the President has a tacit agreement with Congress: If the President commits Geneva violations, Congress is not going to enforce them; and anyone who attempt to enforce them, will be targeted.

This is the reason why people were fearful of speaking out during the Nazi era: They were intimidated to be silent. It is dangerous when people like Stimson are given commercial support or have apparent commercial agreements on issues which are internal legal matters.

Stimson's conduct is eerily similar to the first lines of abuse and intimidation directed at Nazi judges who were intimidated to not strike down illegal law. The greater crime is for the US to remain complicit with this abuse of power; but pretend that the foreign fighter lawful reciprocity warrants more abuse. The solution is to do the opposite: Ensure the abuses are contained; and that Stimson is made a legal example: These are matters of alleged war crimes; and all attorneys, regardless their agreement or disagreement with the alleged conduct, have a duty to ensure Geneva is fully asserted, not explained away as a piece of paper as Hitler did in the 1940s of as this Congress has done on issues of impeachment.

The law must be enforced, otherwise your political opponent may transition the dispute from the courtroom and political arena into the most extreme forum: The combat forum where the rules are gradually whittled away under the guise of defending a principle that is turned on its head.

History has rebuked The Nazi Approach. The reason the Arabs and Muslims target Israel is that Israel, despite its legacy after the Holocaust, is resting on the legacy of the Holocaust to justify abuses in 2007. When the US does not fully enforce Geneva against all, and fails to ensure that all attorneys fully assert Geneva, there is little distinction between the US government’s approach to Geneva and the Nazi approach: Each making absurd arguments to rationalize ignoring the laws.

History learned what was possible in WWII. Foreign fighters are determined not to let this happen again. The US cannot rest on the laurels of the US Constitution of 1789 as a defense for conduct little different than the abuses of Nazi Germany. The abuses start somewhere; the error is to remain silent. If the US government is not responsive to these concerns with Geneva, foreign fighters have the legal power to do what the US government will not do: Take more extreme measures to ensure Geneva is asserted; if not, those protects will be denied until the US government is either lawfully destroyed; or it awakens to the problem confronting all American civilians -- the US present has inducted Americans to celebrate as their legal protection have been whittled away, and asked that we believe this lawlessness is something inspiring. It is not: It is barbarity.

Either the US government will check this abuse; or foreign fighters will lawfully engage in like abuses. The ultimate document to keep in mind is the US Constitution which delegates lawfully to foreign fighters through the Geneva Conventions the power to check the US government when the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches -- as is happening today -- jointly refuse to assert the rule of law. By delegating to foreign fighters the last check on US government power, the US government has effectively communicates to the world: The US is no longer sovereign, legitimate, or able to effectively mange its internal affairs -- the US remains a threat to world stability, is an imminent threat to world peace, and may be lawfully invaded, destroyed, and forced through the lawful use of Geneva violations to come into compliance with its legal obligations. This possible outcome matches the NATO arguments for having entered the former Yugoslavia.

As with the southern European status we now call the Balkans, America is not eternally promised the right to call itself a single nation under one flag. Foreign fighters, as the US is discussing with Iraq, may conclude that the way forward for America is that it must be partitioned, as was done in Yugoslavia.

The solution is to focus on the problem: The President. The refusal of Congress to challenge the President leaves the question in the balance: Will the US government survive; or will it be destroyed, leaving the North American Continent under occupation, and divided. Lincoln would not be impressed with this voluntary slide to what he hoped to preserve: One Nation. Franklin would have said it well: [paraphrasing] "The Republic will only survive if you are willing to protect it and keep it."

Congress is not serious about protecting it because they do not comprehend the legal implications in terms of Dresden, Yugoslavia, and the possible resulting decentralized government which may emerge. Iraq has a civil war because of disagreements. Biden's solution is to divide Iraq; perhaps Biden's plan needs to be dusted off as the alternative if the President is not lawfully confronted. Either the President is confronted; or the foreign fighters will have the legal power to bring the same destruction we've seen in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Bosnia.

Stimson fails to comprehend the implications of his alleged relation. Congress, in taking impeaching off the table, is not sending a clear signal it plans to do anything soon. It really doesn’t matter: Foreign fighters are mobilizing to bring the war to the DOJ Staff, and lawfully impose justice whether the US leadership refuses.

Stimson wished this, and it remains to be seen whether he Comprehends the Geneva issues of reciprocity he may have unleashed. Indeed, he should have been careful with what he said, especially when foreign fighters have access to his words, and fully comprehend the principles of reciprocity and retaliation as Stimson knew or should have known were fully permitted under the laws of war. The American leadership cannot point to "foreign fighters" as the problem when the real catalyst for instability are US government officials like Stimson inciting foreign fighters to impose like abuses on US civilians. US civilians are not required to permit this assent to barbarity to continue; We the People may lawfully work with anyone to protect this Constitution; or bring about a New Constitution.

Stimson is denied the power to have any inputs to a New Constitution. He does not respect his oath, shows disdain for the Geneva Conventions, and is an alleged war criminal which foreign fighters may or may not specifically target for lawful destruction and retaliation. The issue is whether American citizens, after being subjected to this lawful retaliation, can be expected to support what is not willing to fully assert its oath to ensure full compliance with the laws. An illegitimate government cannot survive by force. The Roman Empire is history. Stimson must decided whether he is on the side of the Geneva violations subjecting him and others to lawful relation; or whether he will be cured of his apparent disdain for his oath of office to see that the Geneva Conventions are fully asserted.

Stimson no longer has the power to decide. He's effectively communicated he would prefer Geneva violations than fully asserting his oath. Stimson would appear to be a legitimate target for foreign fighters and it remains to be seen how his legal position is or is not amicably resolved. Stimson should have checked which barn door he was opening, especially when putting gat risk the lives of innocent civilians. Under the Bosnia approach Stimson's conduct could be construed as an imminent threat warranting lawful defense. The US government must move quickly to contain this problem, otherwise foreign fighters may do what the US government apparently refuses to do: Directly engage with Stimson.