Military Commissions Manual: Alleged Charles D. Stimson Violations

The new Military Commissions Manual should be reviewed for alleged Charles D. Stimson violations of the Geneva Conventions. There appear to be subsequent Geneva violation on top of Stimson's alleged violations of his attorney standards of conduct. Stimson's public statements strongly suggest, inter alia :

A. The US government has active programs which violate the Military Commissions Manual requirements;

B. Many people are involved with ongoing violations of the Manual Commissions Manual requirements;

C. Despite Stimson review of the Military Commissions Manual and his duty to fully enforce Geneva, he is not complying with the new rules the Supreme Court required;

D. The US government is not seriousness with fully assenting to the Supreme Court orders confirming Geneva is a requirement in Hamdan and Hamdii.

* * *

Charles D. Stimson appears to have wasted no time in getting caught in violating the Military Commissions Bill.

Before being formally issued, Stimson appears to have violated several provisions of the Military Commissions Manual.

It would be appropriate if the public, in the apparent vacuum of oversight of the Military Commissions Manual, to review the specific provisions relating to Stimson's alleged misconduct; and ask why Stimson appears to not comprehend the requirements of the Military Commissions Manual.

* * *

The list of abuses related to twisting the law are well captured in the FY06 intelligence bill. The Military Commissions Manual appears to be a tool the President and Gonzalez plan to use to secretly violate the law, as they did with FISA: Using the standard as a cookbook for violations; then asserting those violations, if revealed, might do harm to America.

This amounts to an illegal classification of unlawful conduct, and violates the Executive Orders prohibiting classification of illegal activity.

The President's notion of the "rule of law" appears to be one where he takes any rule, and asserts he has the power to ignore it.

___ Why should this approach not be expected as it relates to the US government's fully compliance with the Military Commissions Manual?

* * *

This President appears to use clearly promulgated rules, statutes, and Constitutional requirements as a checklist for his illegal activity, then phony assertions of power to ignore those requirements.

The Military Commissions Manual appears to be a document which Stimson and other US Government counsel are using as a cookbook to violate. Stimson's public apology is meaningless when comparing (a) his assertions that there are plans in place to retaliate against counsel; with (b) the express military commissions manual requirements prohibiting the retaliation.

We can only wonder how many other things, in secret, Stimson and others are doing to thwart full compliance and enforcement of the clearly promulgated Military Commissions Manual.

___ Does Stimson, despite his appointment to DoD, not read the Military Commissions Manual?

___ Is Stimson, despite his assignment to prisoner affairs in DoD, not read the manual and information that would apply to the people he supposedly is working in DoD to monitor?

___ What kind of confidence should anyone have that Stimson can credibly oversee whether the Military Commissions Manual does or does not get sufficient DoD Staff counsel input?

___ Other than alleged action showing defiance for the Military Commissions Manual, is there something that Members of Congress know that would inspire in them confidence that Stimson is able to do -- in secret -- something he refuses to fully do in public: Fully comply with all legal requirements in the Military Commissions Manual?

___ What things has Stimson’s admitted would violate not just the American Bar Association rules, but the military commissions manual?

___ Which Standards of Conduct and Geneva prisoner treatment requirements are non-Constitutionally assigned US Attorneys refusing to enforce?

___ What is the plan of the US Government to use the Military Commissions Manual as a cookbook of things to violate?

___ Given Addington, Gonzalez, and Yoo's approach to Geneva and FISA -- that of using FISA and Geneva as a baseline to ignore and assert Presidential power to defy the clearly promulgated law -- why should we believe Gonzalez as attorney General has any plans to do anything differently other than use the Military Commissions Manual-related-violations as a list of things to hide from Congress, assert are classified, or assert that Prisoners are not allowed to talk about?

___ Why should anyone have confidence -- given the Attorney General’s defiance of the secret FISA court -- that he will do anything differently with the Military Commissions, and not similarly ignore required coordination; or not responded to concerns about the functioning of counsel before the court; or violations of procedures by the Military Commissions?

___ What is going to ensure the Military Commissions, regardless the legality or illegally of the procedures in the Military Commissions Manual, are or are not lawfully working as intended, as opposed to the approach the Attorney General has taken to the FISA courts?

____ What is the plan of US government officials, contractors, intermediaries, or others to violate the Military Commissions Manual during secret trials?

____ Which planned abuses of the Military Commissions Manual have been delegated to new agencies, entities, and contractors to thwart Congressional detection of this illegal activity?

___ What is the plan if the US government violates, hides violations of the US Military Commissions Manual: How will ORCON be enforced to impose sanctions on US Attorneys who have not been sent before the Senate to be approved?

___ Is it the plan of the Attorney General and President to use the fact that US Attorneys have not been approved by the Senate as an excuse to say that a non-approved US Attorney cannot be overseen, disciplined, or impeached?

___ What is the legal basis for the US Attorneys who have been assigned without proper Senate oversight?

___ Is there a legal precedent for non-Senate-approved attorneys being the subject of disbarment; or having all cases attached to that attorney retroactively dismissed because the US Attorney did not follow the required appointment process?

___ What is the plan of the US government to discipline US Attorneys who have been directly appointed without Senate approval: What is the plan to resolve attorney challenges to their appointment oath if they assert that their appointment was not lawful?

___ Does the US government plan to use, as a defense, that US Attorneys assigned to the cases [involving Geneva violations, FISA violations, and other contractor abuses of prisoners and US citizens] cannot be prosecuted because the US Attorneys assigned were not lawfully appointed as required?

___ To what extent is the President hoping to use the end-run around the Senate -- in not assenting to Constitutional requirements to assent to the Senate -- to circumvent enforcement of Geneva or other illegal activity; and otherwise thwart enforcement of the law against the Executive branch?