DoD Policy Unacceptable Prior Restraint
DoD and the White House are using the "war" as an excuse to avoid needed legislative debates.
This is impermissible.
This is circular:
"A national debate on changing [the law] with the accompanying divisiveness and turbulence across our country, will compound the burden of war."Ref -- David S. C. Chu
Thank you for your letter. My concern is the Founders intended for factions to clash. The issue before us is whether, even in war time, We the People will be allowed to exercise our rights.
DoD is assigned a job under the 5100.77 Laws of War Program and Geneva Conventions to only wage lawful warfare. How the President implements lawful warfare is a matter of public debate, especially in Congress.
This President has engaged in war crimes. His error is to assert that "the war" is a basis to shut down debate on issues that may require discussion. This war is difficult because the nation refused to debate serious issues, and did not respond to this President’s illegal confrontation with the Constitution.
Division is not the potential problem, it is the illusion of unity which is impermissibly enabling war crimes, and arrogant demands that We the People do or not do something.
We the People, not the attorneys in DoD, have the power. You work for a clerk in the oval office. All other powers, including the power to delegate to foreign fighters the power to wage lawful war against war criminals, resides with We the People.
America's supposed unity behind war crimes is false and illegal. This President by his own admission, has made many mistakes. His recklessness has brought more than turbulence to peaceful lands, but has divided his party. Division is not a possibility, but the rude reality of this President's war crimes. Unity might be possible under real leaders who fully enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Division exists because the laws have not been debated. Division and the needed debate to attend to urgent matters have been lost on this Congress. The Senate, GOP, and President refuse to confront issues with debate. They are powerless to prevent We the People or the House from discussing these issues.
Failing to debate has impermissibly let this war go unmanaged, expanded illegal warfare, and assented to grave breaches of Geneva. DoD "suggestions" for Congress about what to debate have given up: Illegal warfare, reckless oversight, and war crimes. The Military Commissions Act is evidence of your office's complicity with enacting policies that are serious war crimes; and the conversations with DOJ Staff counsel and Members of Congress to enact this illegal legislation are admissible: They are post-decision memoranda, subsequent to an unlawful agreement to expand illegal warfare. Any attempt by you or the DOJ Staff to claim privilege is meaningless, not lawful, and circular. Illegal activity and evidence of hat unlawfulness may not be lawfully hidden; nor may the President claim privilege on matters related to judicial and legislative evidence.
Your office cannot prevent foreign fighters from waging lawful warfare; nor auditors reviewing whether the President did or did not fully comply with his Congressional reporting requirements under Geneva, US Codes and Title 28 and Title 50.
Where there is no evidence or memoranda, as there should be, this lack of evidence was sufficient to show at Nuremberg which legal counsel and civilian policy makers did or did not commit war crimes. When records are destroyed, or the Attorney General refuses to put in writing things he is required to document, that may be admitted to the war crimes tribunal for adjudication.
Foreign intelligence may also, without notice, violate your attorney-client claims when you are no longer a passive observer, but complicity with the illegal activity. Information sent from your office to contractors like SAIC, Boeing, Terremark, Abraxas, AT&T, Lockheed Martin or others allegedly complicit with illegal warfare may be introduced when subject to a lawful warrant per a war crimes tribunal.
The error is for attorneys in the Department of Defense to impermissibly enter the public debate, but then compel others to be silent on whether you, as a public figure and government employee, cannot be the lawful target of public commentary.
Congratulations on fatally open the barn door and permitting lawful questioning of your conduct, affairs, comments, and whether you have or have not fully complied with the Geneva Conventions. Nothing in this letter should be construed as an accusation of a crime; rather, these are merely allegations of your war crimes.
If you do not like to be the subject of a war crimes investigation, then you should remove yourself from the public debater, remain silent on issues confronting Congress, and stop sending letters that can be publicly commented on. Your letter forms the basis for fair comment spanning the full spectrum of alleged war crimes by our, your peers in the legal community, and other reckless conduct alleged to have occurred but has not been reported to proper authorities as required.
All the following are based on information and belief, are to be construed as an opinion, and not a statement of fact. Whether you are or are not convicted of war crimes remains up to the war crimes tribunal.
The President violated the law and started the illegal confrontation with our Constitution. The error was for the President to believe that we the People would not confront him.
The error is for the President to believe he can violate the law, and not get caught; or that his efforts to classify illegal activity will remain a secret. This is an error. he has no power to classify lawfully evidence of war crimes.
All claims that the President has engaged in lawful activity are frivolous, fleeting, and uncompelling. The legal community recklessly dishonors its professional when it pretends war crimes are something else.
These orders are not lawful. Your job as an attorney is to review your Article 82 Geneva Conventions, and evaluate whether you want to remain complicity with alleged war crimes; or whether you want to abandon your alleged insurrection and rebellion against the rule of law and rejoin civilized society.
The attorney standards of conduct require an attorney to remove themselves from illegal activity. It is not acceptable for any attempting to talk about the speculate confrontation as an excuse to avoid a confrontation.
Confrontation does not need to be turbulent, but confrontation is required. The Founders expected this, and our system, when it is working correctly, requires a confrontation.
War is no basis to suggest there can not be a confrontation. the burden of war is one this President chose: He chose Iraq where there was no imminent threat; and did not end combat in Afghanistan after victory.
When the President wages illegal warfare, he cannot use his illegal activity as an excuse for everyone to avoid confronting him either on the law or policies.
It is not acceptable for DoD to pretend that "avoiding" a confrontation is a solution, especially when that confrontation is on a policy decision. If not now, the next excuse will be something else.
Debate is needed, if not on the original topic, but on the broader topic of why DoD attempts to use war as the barrier to exercising the right to debate.
The prospect of division is not a threat or reason to debate; but the divisions, if true, must be resolved only when confronted. Avoiding a debate does not address the division which the leadership is avoiding, but impermissibly enables what is not acceptable.
That there are only a few small cases means that it is permissible to debate a "minor" issue without much turbulence. Yet, if there is a "turbulent" reaction, this is one the President will have to manage, nor for the nation to avoid.
Change is needed when continuing is not acceptable. Change is not a problem when, as you admit, the policy is a relatively minor subset of a large number. You cannot credibly argue that the country has "more important issue" yet claim that there is a "turbulent" consequences for something that is minor.
If the President cannot manage combat on the excuse that Americans are talking, then the problem is for the President to resolve, nor for Americans to avoid.
In the future, place when you say that you will follow Congressional direction, say this without reservation. All Congressional direction is to be followed, regardless the subject; this is a requirement in the constitution. If the President does not like the direction, then he shall exercise the veto. Without a veto, the President agrees with the law. There are no other options.
No one can claim that an issue like this should be avoided or is not urgent. It stands as a testament during war time that "minor" things like prisoners and Army patients are considered not important.
if the US government will not address these issues during a "long" war, then the US is impermissibly saying that until the President decides to end an illegal war, we must avoid all things. No, we can continue debating issues, regardless how recklessly mismanaged this war is.
1. Your letter 12 Feb 2007 shows that the Under Secretary of Defense has an in-box system, and a method to track [a] when the letter was received; and that a response can generate; and [b] that your office does have the means to use the mail to communicate.
2. Your assignment to the "personnel and readiness" area indicates that you are assigned to the Department of Defense, and should know the 5100.77 Laws of War program.
3. While working for the Secretary of Defense and Under secretary you had a duty to conduct yourself professionally at all times.
4. Your office does know how to read a letter, and look up statutes in the US Code, and that you reasonably understand English.
Your letter, although technically correct, fails to capture the concern the Senator shared: The policy, as it implemented, targets a specific group of people not for what they do, but who they are. Whether they do or do not do something is irrelevant; the Title impermissibly punishes those who discuss who they are. That has nothing to do with any lawful or unlawful activity.
It is not true that the policy reflects a reasonable public policy. The debate is whether the law, as written, should or should not be changed. Whether the US is or not engaged in combat is irrelevant.
IT is time to discuss the issue. Your letter opens the debate. We see no evidence of the world falling apart. The timing of the changes in policy will follow when America debates this issue.
It is not appropriate for your office to tell the 110th Congress what its "priorities" are. They are a separate branch of government. Your office has no say on what "should" be a policy; it is an impermissible violation of the Separation of Powers for your office to utter one word about what Congress should or should not do.
Rather, as a public service, you have the job to do you job: Focus on your job, not tell Congress what it "should" have as a priority. When your office follows the laws of war, maybe you can have a comment about other people’s priorities. Your office is not doing that. Do your job, and maybe you'll be in a position to talk about what others "should" or should not be doing.
Contrary to your assertion, the President -- not Congress -- has a requirement to develop a solution to his mass. This President has failed to develop any lawful policy; it is hardly the job of Congress to fix what is not lawful. It is unrepairable. The job of Congress is to punish what is ungovernable: This President.
It is not correct that "widespread support" or other perceived views of the merits or deficiency of a Presidential responsibility should be something that is the responsibly of another branch. This President alone decided to wage illegal war. Congress has not obligation to develop a new policy, especially when the President asserts he is above the law.
Your argument is inconsistent. You are suggesting that "addressing such issues could help heal the divisions" on one matter; but reversing yourself, arguing because of the war, that the issue cannot be discussed.
It is not appropriate to characterize a legislative activity -- debating -- as "fighting". Rather your office, and perhaps yourself, have fought the law and refused to assent to Geneva. Perhaps a more appropriate word or phrase would be "debating." When you use correct terms, maybe we can have discussion about your rules of evidence related to war crimes adjudication. Until then, your office remains the target of war crimes investigation.
You have no place to say what would or would not be good or bad for Congress to do. Whether "healing" is or is not the result is outside your power to influence. You are one person. If the President reuse to cure his war crimes, then whether there is or isn’t "healing" in Congress is secondary.
The only people this President are alienating, other than the voters who rejected him November 2006, are the GOP Members of Congress who must choose between the buffoonery of your President; and the rule of law.
It is speculative and irrelevant that at discussion may or may not be undesirable. Your office, despite the war crimes issues, has little regard whether your combatant commanders do or do not alienate themselves from the Geneva conventions.
The public supports the rule of law; and getting the country on the "right track" isn't one for your office to have inputs. IT is one for the President to decide: Will he join civilized society; or will he defy his oath.
Calling the President’s inaction, denial, and illegal warfare a "measured, prudent approach to change" is laughable. The most pressing problem is this President: His illegal policies, his failed leadership leadership, and his war crimes. All other mentions of what did or didn’t happen has little to do with the needed attention on this President’s war crimes.
Military leaders do not have a role in providing leadership to the civilians. Civilians control the military. Military commanders do not solve policy issues; they implement them.
Please refrain from equating the position of a military commander with that of a civilian. We have civilian control. IT shall remain that way. The "pressing problem" is failure of the GOP to focus on the President’s illegal warfare, and the refusal to end illegal warfare.
Whether you or your office chooses to surrender, of continue with your non-sense is of little interest. The rule of law shall prevail.
War, especially illegal war, is not an excuse to avoid debate. The threat to this country is from the White House; if the US had built on the gains of Sept 2001 and reconstructed Afghanistan, there would hardly be a claim that the war would be long.
"Unrelenting" is absurd: This President abandoned Afghanistan and cut and ran from the real enemy. The "war" does not give the President the "far reaching" power to violate our Constitution. His threat is with us until his war crimes are adjudicated; there is no statute of limitations.
Whether the US forces engage in "life threatening" events is of little interest to whether the US Congress will or will not debate. It will.
It is false and smacks of condescension to suggest ad debate will make war difficult; no, it is the refusal to debate that impermissibly enabled this President to [a] illegally expand illegal warfare; and [b] abandon Afghanistan.
Debate is urgent: If the country will not discuss a minor issue; surely a complicated issue like war crimes is not on the radar.
Your office has no basis to "question" anything, much less pretend that there is something wise to staying with what should be considered. The solution may be to remain the same; but refusing to confront these issues means we will not examine a simple issue and being a discussion of what is important.
I would prefer the following:
___ A statement in writing that you will follow all Congressional direction.
___ DoD stay out of the affairs of Congress.
___ Cease and desist from pretending that debate is to be avoided
___ Refrain from calling this illegal warfare a war on "terror"
___ Focus on the real problem: DoD's refusal to tolerate people who are different, whether they are from one segment of society or from anther country
___ Stop pretending that there is "no military ban" on people who based on belief alone are punished for simply stating a fact.
___ Stop pretending that a discharge is related to conduct when people can, without any conduct, be discharged.
__ Stop pretending that the policy reflect the law; it does not.
___ Refrain from pretending that Shalikasvili's service is responsible, when the President has ignored his recommendations; the DoD response to his inputs belies the contention that anyone respects him, as they should. The General did his job; this President and your peers in the legal community are alleged war criminals. Whether you do or do not think something is “respectable” is meaningless. Your idea of “respect” is to assent to war crimes.
___ Stop suggesting now is not the time to discuss this issue, yet your letter shows that a discussion can start
___ Refrain fro commenting on what Congressional priorities are or should be; that is a different branch of government. You're violating the separation f powers.
-__ When your office can focus on the Geneva violations, maybe you might have inputs to priorities elsewhere. Without a war rimes tribunal, DoD is lost in arguing what others should be doing.
___ Discuss your concerns with the President: Why hasn't he developed responsible policy in Iraq, as opposed to his war crimes.
___ Refrain from pretending that a discussion is a problem, but this President’s reckless war crimes are to be celebrated.
__ Refrain fro discussing what will or will not heal. That is for Congress and We the People -- not our or the President to decide. Healing means confronting war crimes; your office refuses to do that. You are not part of the healing process.
___ Do not talk about what might alienate people. You can only speak for the DOD SecDef. That our troops might be alienated is one thing; but the fact that our office opposes debate hardly pretends that you are serious about listening, but making excuses. Your claims are meaningless.
___ Remember that the "right track" is the Constitution. To stay on that track, the President and you must agree to follow the law, not lecture others. The right track means asserting your attorney standards of conduct.
___ Refrain from calling war crimes a "measured, prudent" approach;
___ Do not pretend that stonewalling the war crimes prosecutions is a useful "change"
___ Stop pretending that military leaders have equal input to policy. No, civilian leaders control the military; and are complicit with war crimes when they refuse to end illegal warfare.
___ Recall that the nations most pressing problem is the illegal rebellion by the GOP and this President against the rule of law. This is impermissible.
___ If you want to solve a problem, look in the mirror and ask: Why are you failing to stop war crimes; and can you honestly believe that you are fully asserting your Article 82 Geneva obligations you have under 5100.77 and the laws of war program.
___ Stop talking about the excuse of war as whether Congress should or should not do something
___ Remember the threat is from attorneys who are reckless, do not do their job, and refuse to challenge this President’s war crimes
___ The prospect of war is not a barrier to peaceful discussions
___ War is an ugly thing, but the worst thing is to use the ravages of war abroad to avoid confronting the ravages of peace
___ The rule of law applies at all time. The prospect of a confrontation s not speculative or possible, but is here: This President has brought divisions to his party, and has turbulently destroyed this Constitution.
___ The burden of war is with this President: Despite the law, he ignored the Geneva Conventions.
___ The urgency of this debate is measured by the speed to which important war crimes are ignored. If not a war crimes, why not discuss a monitor issue? The troops at Walter Reed know all about "minor" issues. It is unacceptable that our soldiers were treated no better than dogs; and hardly suggests that prisoners of war were treated any better.
___ You say that a problem is not urgent, yet your office has not urgently met important challenges, especially war crimes. You refuse to address "lesser" matters for a circular reason: That it cannot be covered because of more important excuses to do nothing. These are serious issues, especially when taken in light of the eternal Geneva requirements.
___ I question your judgment, competence, and political independence
___ Before you write another letter, talk about the wisdom of assenting to war crimes; and consider that there is no statute of limitations. Nazi Judges who assented to illegal warfare were prosecuted. The same could happen to you.
___ Show more interest in the Constitution. Perhaps America might be concerned if you do or do not successfully defend ourselves before a war crimes tribunal. The penalty on you and others, if you are convicted of having failed to prevent war crimes, could be the death penalty.
Thank you for your interest in ending illegal warfare, and ending this President’s reckless rebellion against the Constitution. The Men and Women of the Department of Defense will be proud to know that despite bungling idiots in the SecDef legal counsel area, the have a new name to openly mock for being an alleged war criminal: David S. C. Chu.
Learn your job, stop giving excuses, stay out of the business of Congress, and maybe we’ll have a conversation. Until then, go find an attorney and prepare your war crimes defense. You have brought discredit upon yourself, the United States, and the American legal community. For that, We the People will have to do that much more work, then find an excuse not to hand you over to foreign fighters for a war crimes tribunal. You are not impressive.