Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Iraq War Crimes Defense: White House and DoD Singing From Different Sheets of Music

Cracks in DoJ Geneva Violations Legal Defenses: DoD Denials On WMD Problems Inconsistent With White House Cover up

The DoD statements on WMD show the DoJ Staff counsel have run out of legal options to defend US government officials over war crimes in Iraq.

The DoD report and summary for Congress are evidence in the alleged war crimes and effort to illegally mislead Congress to induce assent to Geneva violations. Members of Congress have a duty to hold hearings on the issues discussed below.

Update: Ref White House and DoD not on the same sheet of music either. Quite a trend, that.

* * *

DoJ Staff Counsel are frustrated that the evidence isn't adding up to support their clients. No wonder they want to keep the courts out of the picture: Any evidence submitted to any court worldwide is admissible to any other court, ultimately Geneva.

US Government officials remain concerned with war crimes indictments, and that the DoJ Staff is not able to adequately defend US government officials against the death penalty.

The DoD report is part of a legal defense strategy. Rather than defend the charges, DoJ and DoD have agreed to assert in a meaningless report that there is no evidence of a problem. Only a court can make this legal finding.

DoD issued a report saying there was no problem with the WMD data. DoD statements are irrelevant. We need only look at the contradictory White House actions showing the US leadership has known there is a problem with WMD data.

Subsequent Bush Administration illegal activity shows the concerns with WMD were based on the concern the US officials would be detected in their ruse to mislead Congress.

If, as DoD would have us believe -- the US was fully correct in its conclusions -- there would be no reason for Libby to have lied. Ambassador Wilson, without any retaliation, would have been discredited.

The US government's activities related to Iraq are less consistent with the DoD position, and more likely linked with other illegal efforts, retaliation, and other to be understood criminal activity.

* * *

DoD would have us believe the WMD data was "just fine." Putting aside the problem with self-auditing, there are a number of issues. If thing were "just fine" with the WMD data in re Iraq:

1. Honorable People Account For All Known Legal Memorandum

What about the Goldstein memos to Tony Blair? There were clearly documented concerns by the Prime Minister's Chief legal advisor that the action in Iraq could be an indefensible war crime. Even if the WMD information was true, there was no imminent threat -- a war crime.

2. Honorable People Do Not Delay Release of Good News Prior to An Election

Why the delays in the Senate Intelligence Reviews, Phase II? If there was no wrong doing, Senator Roberts -- to avoid a likely RNC defeat in November 2006 -- would have trumpeted the "truth" to stem the voter rebuke. That didn't happen.

3. Honorable People Do Not Have To Intimidate Analysts Reviewing Factual Information

Why the 17 visits by the VP to CIA? If the truth were "obvious" Cheney would never have had to visit the CIA, nor been upset at Wilson: The truth would have vindicated Libby, and there was no reason to lie to Fitzgerald.

4. Honorable People Do Not Have To Fabricate Evidence

Why the misleading statements to the UN on the trailers? These are not errors, but wilful judgements, and deliberate efforts to mislead and get Congress to authorize what they would not approve had they known the truth.

5. Honorable People Account For All Legal Issues

Why the attempt to discredit the Downing Street Memos? If the truth vindicates DoD, then there would be no reason to attack the Downing Street Memos, but take the opposite approach: Openly show why the DSM authors did not have credibility given the "obvious truth". This didn't happen.

7. Honorable People Do Not Plan To Defend Against "No problem"

If there was "no problem" with the WMD data, why did the US DoJ insert into the Military Commissions Act a provision to provide defense funds to US personnel linked with illegal war crimes? DoD cannot credibly assert there was "no problem" with the WMD data, yet DoJ has included a provision to provide free legal assistance before The Hague.

8. Honorable People Do Not Retaliate Against Civilians

Why the illegal detentions in NYC? If the "truth" was as Cheney would have it, then there would have been no basis to detain anyone, especially illegally. Rather, because there was illegal activity, and the facts do not support the US government's position, it is more likely that the illegal activity and detentions were for a bad purpose, not a good one. It doesn't make sense for anyone in DoD or the White House to argue that things are "just fine," while the open actions of DoD, JTTF, and White House indicates the opposite:

- They were concerned about the truth getting out;

- The internal White House Memorandum has substantially confirmed the suspicions that DOJ Staff were aware the Executive Branch could be prosecuted for war crimes;

- The Libby alleged lies to the Grand Jury were with a goal wholly contradictory to the DoD claims.

* * *

DoD's release of the self-review, and the conclusion that DoD did nothing wrong is meaningless. Congress needs the chance to challenge in open the fully process of the Senate Phase II report; and review not just the fabricated evidence for illegal warfare, but the larger efforts to openly target reasonable, lawful opposition to illegal warfare.


The US governments actions, regardless DoD assertions to the contrary, do not support the conclusion that there was "no issue" with the WMD data.

The DoD report is a subsequent effort to avoid accountability for war crimes.

War crimes prosecutors and foreign fighters may wish to review the US government agreement or refusal to fully embrace Geneva and develop their legal and combat responses accordingly. The US has no credible legal or military foundation to avoid consequences for these ruses which fail to meet the imminence standard required under the laws of war.

The DoD document shows the US government is not serious about accepting responsibility or showing contrition, but making more efforts to manipulate others to believe something DoD and the White House still haven't deluded themselves to believe: That there were or were not sufficient legal defenses to fully insulate all US government officials for war crimes.