Karen Kwiatkowski Feb 2007 Interview Reported in TruthDig

Information: Statement of Karen Kwiatkowski.

Relevance To War Crimes Adjudication: This information appears to support serious allegations of:

A. War crimes planning by the American government;

B. Widespread knowledge of this illegal activity; and

C. Failures of legal and auditing fiduciaries and law enforcement to timely investigate and prosecutor US government officials for illegal warfare.

Recommendation: House Judiciary use the following information Tues, March 6th 2007 as a basis to question US Attorneys about information related to illegal warfare which US Attorneys appear to have been provided, but retaliated against with firings for attempting to prosecute these illegal war crimes. [ Details [ Subpoenas]

Action: Confront US Attorneys on US Department of Justice, DoD, White House and other government policy to intimidate US Attorneys to act on information related to Title 28 and Title 50 violations in re illegal warfare, Geneva violations, and violations of the laws of war:

___ What war crimes related charges did the US Attorneys get punished for attempting to prosecute?

___ What information can the US Attorneys provide that FBI agents were rebuffing information related to war crimes allegations against US government officials?

___ Why does the FBI director and Asst FBI director have a problem with known failures to discipline FBI agents for rebuffing information, evidence, and witness testimony related to allegations of illegal activity; and inappropriately exercising declination decisions only delegated to the US Attorneys?

___ When did the President illegally direct DOJ OPR not to review the evidence of war crimes as it relates to DOJ Staff counsel complicity with illegal warfare?

___ What is the Attorney General's explanation for having assented to illegal Presidential orders to block, thwart, and obstruct investigations into allegations of illegal warfare, war crimes, and other violations of the laws of war?

___ Does the President, DOJ Staff counsel, FBI agents involved, and the Attorney general understand [a] these actions support a reasonable inference that there have been grave breaches of Geneva punishable by the death penalty; [b] there is no statute of limitations for war crimes; and [c] there is universal jurisdiction to adjudicate war crimes against US government officials?

* * *

Witness accounts detail how the Bush Administration implemented their overt policy of ignoring information, but using pre-established policies to reject truthful information, and support false information.

Evidence

The appropriate way to couch the evidence is in terms of indicators of illegal war crimes planning, and reckless disregard for the Geneva Conventions. The Precedent is Nuremberg. The US code, international law, and US government procedures apply.

It is not lawful for the President to have classified this material, or attempted use Statute to shield evidence of illegal activity. It is unlawful to classify evidence related to war crimes, illegal activity, and policy making that is linked with [a] post-decision illegal activity; and [b] evidence of putting an unlawful conspiracy of war crimes into effect.

Legal issues warranting comparison with Nuremberg and war crimes status:

Reckless Disregard for truth

Sham procedures

Refusal to listen to valid inputs

Established policy of imposing policy on analysts without lawful objectives; and ignoring information which shows that policy is illegal

Illegal planning and policy making

Unlawful orders

Reckless disregard for established policies requiring reports to lawful authorities

Failure to exercise due care expected of personnel trained in the laws of war, 5100.77, and knowledgeable of were not reasonable defense to war crimes

Refusal to disobey unlawful orders; no reasonable defense for having followed orders which were related to known policies disconnected from reality

Reckless reliance on orders as an excuse not to have disobeyed orders which were unlawful, unreasonable, and could not be reasonably asserted to have been a lawful order

Failure to use the known lack of lawfulness as a basis to question the broader policy, planning, and illegal war crimes

Witness Statement Ref

And the first act to follow that setup of the Office of Special Plans, we had a staff meeting, and our boss, Bill Ludy, who was the boss of Special Plans technically, not in reality but on paper. And he announced to us that from now on, action officers, staff officers such as myself and all my peers, at least in that office, and I presume this went all the way through the rest of policy, but we were told that when we needed to fill in data, putting it in papers that we would send up, doing our job, as we did our daily job, we were no longer to look at CIA and DIA intelligence, we were simply to call the Office of Special Plans and they would send down to us talking points, which we would incorporate verbatim no deletions, no additions, no modifications into every paper that we did.

___ Name of personnel assigned

___ Allegation: Establishment of a formal policy

___ Where, how, when was the policy documented

___ Where is a signed copy of this policy

___ Allegation: Unlawful orders to ignore valid information

___ Allegation: Unlawful orders to incorporate, as true, information known to be unrelated to credible intelligence analysis

___ Copies of DOD IG reviews; and letters by Members of Congress requesting DoD IG review tehse matters, and provide reports to Congress [ Sample Title 28, 50 Legal authorities to seek information ]

- -

Witness Statement Ref

We're not to look at the intelligence any more, we're simply to go to this group of political appointees and they will provide to us word for word what we should say about Iraq, about WMD and about terrorism. And this is exactly what our orders were. And there were people [Laughs] a couple of people, and I have to say, I was not one of these people who said, “you know, I'm not gonna do that, I'm not gonna do that because there's something I don't like about it, it's incorrect in some way.”

___ Known policy implications: Making facts irrelevant

___ Doubts about the policy

___ Where was the effort to seek legal counsel input?

___ What documents do legal counse have that they appropriately took action, as required, in providing information to DOJ OPR?

___ What reiew did legal counselmake of 5100.77, Laws of War Program?

___ Where is lgal counsel's evidence that they fully sserted their oath?

___ How does the apparent inaction square with Stimson's apparent overt policy to retaliate against US legal counsel for fully asserting their aoth in re Geneva?

___ How did Addingt, Gonzalez, and the Vice President work throghothers to dissuade legal counsel from fully asserting their oath?

___ What retaliation was discussed to punish legal counsel who raised war crimes concerns?

- -

Witness Statement Ref

And they experimented with sending up papers that did not follow those instructions, and those papers were 100 percent of the time returned back for correction. So we weren't allowed to put out anything except what Office of Special Plans was producing for us. And that was only partially based on intelligence, and partially based on a political agenda.

___ Concerns with the legality of the procedures

___ Allegation: Illegal, unlawful policy fully implemented

___ Knowledge the staff "generated" information was reviewed, tailored, and rewritten to conform not with fads, but with pre-established policy

___ Recklessness

* * *

Legal Problems for US Government officials

We reject the assertion that US government officials did not know the laws of war, or were oblivious to the legal implications.

Personnel assigned were well trained on the laws of war.

Personnel were aware, or should have been based on this training, that the defense to war crimes must be reasonable reliance on the orders as being lawful.

Once it was known the policy making was driving analysis and orders, and these orders were not linked what bonafide intelligence or credible assessments, the personnel involved and aware of this illegal planning could no longer credibly argue they reasonably believed he orders were lawful. The opposite is true.

US government officials knew the legal standards, were aware of what was going on, and recklessly supported activity they knew, or should have known was illegal warfare. All classification, retaliation, and abuse of personnel was illegal and designed to support unlawful warfare.

* * *

Excuse of US Bases is Meaningless

1. That the US may have military bases in Iraq is a rationalization for the illegal activity.

2. The US cannot be sure that the bases in Iraq, once established, will not become the target of lawful strikes by lawful combatants.

3. There is no basis for Members of Congress to ignore the implications of the evidence on the grounds that the United States has basis in Iraq.

Appropriate Perspective

4. The evidence of Kwiatowski should be viewed in the context of the Nazi War of aggression: What was known, who was involved, what should have been done, and were the orders lawful.

5. Upon learning the policies were top-down, and recklessly ignoring reality, Members of the Armed services knew, or should have known, that the orders related to the knowingly ignored intelligence was [a] disconnected from reality; [b] recklessly devoid of factual foundation required under the laws of war; and [c] not related to any justifiable claim, real evidence, or well grounded fear of an imminent threat.

6. The policy was not hidden, but know to the intelligence community.

7. They had a duty to remove themselves from the illegal activity; they chose to remain.

8. The implications of this policy run horizontally, and vertically within the Executive Branch, and horizontally into the other branches of government.

9. Upon learning the illegal activity, unfounded assertions, and evidence that the Presidential orders were not lawful, United States government officials were recklessly in [a] refusing to disobey orders they knew were illegal; [b] implementing unlawful war crimes policies; and [c] were issuing orders and creating policies they knew or should have known were wholly disconnected from any lawful warfare.

* * *

10. The known illegal activity, top-down management of information, and policy-driven analysis was not adequately documented, reported, or rejected.

11. Despite a legal duty to remove themselves from illegal warfare, and report the evidence of war crimes, US government officials were reckless in [a] supporting policies they knew were unrelated to any facts, imminent threat, or real intelligence analysis; [b] overtly rejecting information showing the policies, when implemented, were illegally; and [c] retaliating against US government officials for their attempts to refuse, reject, and not cooperate with the illegal war crimes planning.

12. Auditors, analysts, and Members of Congress either knew of the illegal activity and did nothing; or they failed to review the reports of illegal activity; or they failed to inquire, as permitted, per the House rules; or they continued to appropriate funds for things they recklessly failed to review and should have known was evidence of illegal warfare.

* * *

Concerns

[A] Knowledge of this deception

[B] Refusal of US government officials to remove themselves

[C] Presidential illegal warfare

[D] Breakdown of Congressional oversight

[E] Unlawful retaliation and abuse against US civilians for them reasonably opposing these illegal policies

[F] Circular reasoning

[G] Deception of voters to support reckless criminals and war crimes

[H] Illegal orders

[I] Knowledge of these illegal orders

[J] Unreasonable reliance on these illegal orders

[k] Policies known to be unrelated to facts, evidence, bonafide concerns, or lawful objectives

[L] No imminent threat s required under Geneva

[M] Policies, orders, and other government contracts designed to implement these illegal decisions

[N] Unconvincing evidence that personnel involved were deluded; the opposite is more likely true: They failed to exercise due diligence

[O] 5100.77 Laws of War Program

[P] Title 28 and Title 50 Reporting requirements; options of Members of Congress to document, ask questions, review, and examine evidence

[Q] Illegal retaliation against personnel knowledgeable of the deception

[R] War Crimes

[S] Other conduct, actions, orders, and direction to advance these illegal orders

[T] Involvement of contractors in the planning process who did not exercise due care

[U] Attorney Standards of conduct related to supervisors, reporting illegal conduct, and other evidence of misconduct to the DOJ OPR

[V} President openly admitting that he blocked DOJ OPR from reviewing these matters

[W] President openly admitting that he issued orders to go around the law, ignore the courts, and put into effect monitoring to "target" people he knew had no relationship with any evidence of a real problem, but were only connected with pre-determined conclusion

[X] Refusal of Congress to investigate under both GOP and DNC Control

* * *

Questions

___ What else are we going to find out?

___ Which policies, built on this original deception, have been implemented using illegal executive orders

___ Who cares about "the bases in Iraq" when, under the current "military commander structure" the Joint Staff and SecDef have been incapable of demonstrating that US basis in Iraq can be defended

___ When did it sink in that the insurgents might lawfully attack these "secure bases" with [hello] mortars from outside the concrete bunkers

___ When did the legal counsel assigned to DoJ and DoD plan to report this evidence to DoJ OPR

___ How much evidence of this war crimes planning has the US government attempted to destroy, not knowing that foreign powers have collected this evidence independent of the NSA, and can use the destruction of that war crimes evidence as a basis to broaden the indictment footprint against US leaders, policy makers, legal counsel and US civilians involved with this evidence destruction?

___ Which contractors have used this information to implement other illegal activity?

___ Does the US government, contractors, and personnel assigned understand that these war crimes, if not adjudicated, opens the door for foreign fighters to lawfully attack the District of Columbia?

* * *

This is very serious. The evidence we have is that the Vice President, President, and other people closely connected with the US National Command Authority were ignoring reality, and fabricating information used to implement unlawful orders.

These are war crimes. The President insults our Constitutional legacy when he pretends he is "no different" than George Washington. No, this President, unlike George Washington doesn't know when to stand up or sit down in a boat.

America's Constitutional lifeboat remains fully enact. The only problem is that many Americans, relying on the legacy of WWII, have perverted this nation's history, and have implemented illegal war crimes. It doesn't matter what the US did or didn't do in WWII. That lawful opposition to Germany and Japan is protected. The American war of aggression of 2001-2007 is no different that what the Japanese and Germans did during WWII. The US cannot use the world's opposition to American illegal warfare to then expand illegal warfare from Iraq into Syria, or Iran.

* * *

American citizens will have to decide whether they are going to support war crimes. Our job as American citizens is to reach out to our neighbors and tell them what is going on.

The conclusions of this war crime activity are reasonable. It is reasonable to conclude:

___ The American legal system broke down

___ US legal staff counsel assigned to the DOJ and DOD have been complicit with illegal warfare

___ Americans have been induced to ignore the laws of war, and pretend that "something else" was above the legal duty and requirement.

* * *

It doesn't matter if the US government -- personnel in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches -- do or do not support this illegal warfare. These are war crimes.

It is reasonable to conclude, in the breakdown of law and order, that the US government is not legitimate, is disconnected from law, and is unmanageable.

* * *

These are serious issues for the US capital market, National Command Authority, legal community, and Congressional leadership to digest.

Unless this leadership ends this illegal warfare, the US government remains a legitimate military target.

US officials knowledgeable of this illegal warfare, but who do not end this activity, may be adjudicated as being complicity with war crimes.

Excuses of what the Senate may or may block are meaningless. Members of Congress who vote for funds to advance, support, and put into effect any of these illegal orders can be adjudicate as having been complicit with war crimes, especially when they refuse to examine the piles of evidence supporting a reasonable conclusion that the orders are unlawful.

* * *

Members of the American military have a difficult choice: Do they want to continue following illegal Presidential orders; are they going to report their evidence to proper authorities; and will they openly share evidence of Members of Congress refusal to fully implement the Geneva Conventions.

It doesn't matter what threats you have been given. Those threats, outside the original illegal warfare, are also illegal. They have no force.

Your job is to share with the world what else is going on:

___ Who is really in charge

___ Who is leading the investigation

___ Does the US government official you are talking to comprehend that, in the absence of ending this illegal warfare, they are a legitimate military target

___ Is there a plan, outside lawful combat, to end this illegal rebellion against the rule of law, Constitution, and laws of war?

* * *

Americans are going to have to decide whether you are going to stand up, and lawfully challenge your government. The American government is actively complicit with war crimes but refuses to adjudicate the matters.

Until the US government is forced to assent to the rule of law, foreign fighters may lawfully expand combat operations, directly target the District of Columbia, and may legally destroy anything which directly or indirectly supports this illegal warfare:

___ Command centers

___ Contracting support facilities

___ Ports

___ Railway lines

___ Canals

___ Civilian detention centers used to punish lawful opposition to illegal warfare

___ Airports

___ Lines of communication

___ Supply centers

___ Resource distribution centers used to provide war reserve material

___ Mining facilities providing war related material

___ State level entities providing directly support to illegal warfare

* * *

The US government may not use "foreign fighter attacks" on the American government and infrastructure to expand illegal warfare.

These orders are not lawful.

If the US government does not outline and implement a plan to end this illegal warfare, then foreign fighters may reciprocate and commit the same abuses against the US leadership, national command authority, and legal counsel who are putting these orders into effect.

___ Legal counsel can be tracked

___ US leadership can be followed

___ National command centers have a finite location

___ Personnel involved with this illegal warfare can be lawfully targeted

This is warfare.

* * *

I would prefer the following:

[1] A plan of the US legal community to adjudicate these matters;

[2] A clear statement by the legal profession that it has a plan in place to organize information, evidence, and has a litigation plan in place to bring charges for war crimes against US government officials involved

[3] A clear plan by the House leadership to immediately end all funding for illegal warfare

[4] A clear statement by the House leadership that regardless what the Senate does or does not threaten to do, block, avoid, the House leadership will not be complicity with illegal warfare

[5] A plan by the DoD Contacting community to work with the Inspector General and Members of Congress on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to immediately freeze all funds for any and all contractors implementing and putting into effect any unlawful order supporting illegal warfare

[6] A plan by the US intelligence community to work with foreign powers and foreign intelligence services to obtain, secure, and procure evidence of this war crimes planning, and appropriately direct legal counsel to source of evidence supporting the adjudication of war crimes.

[7] A clear statement of whether Members of congress are or are not going to fully assert their oath under Title 28 and Title 50 to exercise all options to investigate, review, subpoena, gather evidence, make adverse inferences, and forward evidence of war crimes to the US Attorney, war crimes tribunals, and proper investigating authorities

[8] A detailed plan of what will be done t outline the specific evidence which has been fabricated at Guantanamo; and how these fabricate evidence has been used, provided, and made available to legal counsel, contractors, and other US movement officials to put into effect illegal monitoring, data mining, and other violations of the US Constitution.

* * *

The above are requirements which exited in 2001, and were ongoing requirements of the US government to implement, document, record, and monitor,

This was not done.

The auditing community has a problem. The auditing standards under the Statement of Accounting Standards are requirements. The public needs information about which indicators were ignored; and how the US government was able to pass audits despite the evidence of war crimes planning, funding, and policy making.

___ Where are the working papers of the auditors

___ Which auditors have been threatened

___ Where is the evidence of this threat against auditors being used as a SAS 99 risk indicator

___ How were boards of directors advised of tie illegal warfare

___ What evidence of auditor-counsel communications to the board exists related to the illegal warfare public and private firms were providing to put this illegal warfare into effect?

___ Do civilians working at private firms understand that civilians were adjudicated for war cries for failing to end support for illegal warfare

* * *

The problem is the US civilian community is no longer a passive observer. This illegal activity has been going on for too long not to have raised questions and doubts about the legality of these orders.

The world community does not buy the argument, defense, or rationalization that the American public was fooled. No, reasonable questions were not answered; and the responses were not reasonably used to question the legality of those orders.

If the US government does not voluntarily agree to assent to the laws of war, then foreign fighters may legally expand combat operations against the US government, contractors, and all people directly supporting and putting into effect these war crimes.

It would be preferable if the House leadership exercised its power, and ended appropriations for illegal warfare. They cannot be compelled to act or not act. However, they can be legally targeted for war rimes; and they may be legally targeted by foreign fighters for being instrumental in putting into effect war crimes when they knew, or should have known their appropriations were supporting illegal warfare.

* * *

The intelligence community also has a problem. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes; and they know that evidence related to this illegal activity has been retained in secure locations outside the American's control.

Foreign powers are not required to remain silent about their sources and methods. Rather, they may lawfully direct third parties to directly target known individuals putting these war crimes into effect; and may legally direct war crimes prosecutors to open information supporting the conclusion that there has been war crimes.

Every deception this government has used to illegally intrude into the US public's private lives can be used by foreign powers to do the same in collecting evidence of war crimes. Sensitive, classified information can be used by foreign powers to direct investigators to open information, evidence, and others things related to war crimes.

The world is not on the side of American because America is engaging in illegal warfare. The Americans are outnumbered. They are on the wrong side of the law. The laws of war permit foreign powers to expand warfare and impose like retaliation on America.

* * *

Notes

UK Attorney General Goldsmith: Outsiders have say in how US does or does not comly with internatioal law.

"I am conscious that some will say that this is not for an outsider to say. That this is America’s decision. I have increasingly been of the view that this is not so."Ref

Fair notice: Other governments can take legal positions on US war crimes; and maylawfuly enforce those findings through the lawful use of force against the United States. All Presiedtial orders prohibiting, blocking, or attempting to thwart lawful enforcement of the American war crimes are illegal and may not be lawfully followed, issued, or relied upon by anyone: No person, agent, indidiviual, contractor, or government entity.