White House Illegally Rewarded US Attorneys for Inaction on War Crimes
The President and Attorney General have been implicated in unlawfully rewarding Department of Justice Staff counsel and US Attorneys for their illegal decision not to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Evidence of US Attorney violations of Geneva, and White House complicity surfaced long ago.
Also implicated are by-name FBI senior managers who actively rebuffed reports of public corruption, and illegally blocked investigations of Hobbes Act violations attached to the original war crimes.
Other problems were forwarded to the German war crimes persecutor when US Attorneys refused to provide war crimes evidence to Members of Congress and the grand jury.
Then, US Attorneys refused to prosecute the President for his oversight of the illegal war crimes. US Attorneys are authorized to prosecute a sitting President.
Update 9 Mar 2007 Ref Krugman agrees: The remaining US Attorneys avoided punishment because they cooperated with illegal GOP activity.
The evidence is the inconsistent statements of the government which have been fatally admitted into the court record. This report discussing the classified rendition program and evidence for the attached Members of Congress is available here; and the relevant committees who have shown interest in this top. [ Review1 Review2 Review3]
Update 6 Mar 07: TPM discusses the reward for Atty who cooperated with GOP pressure to issue indictments.
The House Judiciary Committee is concerned with US Attorney firings. The President and others appear to have directed these firings as punishment for the US Attorneys to refuse to punish US government officials in the DNC.
The President and others hoped to induce US Attorneys, for partisan objectives, to use or not use their authority to unlawfully direct US government resources against political appointees.
Allegedly knowledgeable and involved with the planning, communications, and the scheme include the Senior delegation from New Mexico.
The US Attorneys have unlawfully agreed to illegal orders, and received valuable benefits for not fully asserting their oaths office.
The President, Attorney General, White House counsel, and DoJ Staff are linked with known planning efforts designed to thwart enforcement of Geneva, and illegally reward counsel who have violated their attorney standards of conduct.
The evidence cannot be legally classified in that it relates to illegal activity. ORCON rules prohibit the classification of war crimes related information and other illegal activity.
Privilege fails when the evidence has been disclosed, and the primary purpose of the classification is not exclusively to protect nation security.
Evidence before the German war crimes prosecutors whose US Attorney declinations were not connected with a lawful objective, nor any bonafide claim of privilege, but with rewards for inaction on war crimes. These declinations violate Article 82 of the Geneva conventions requiring Counsel to fully enforce the laws of war.
Also implicated are Staff counsel assigned to the Geneva Conventions, and prisoner management areas. Despite 5100.77 Laws of War program, staff counsel were reckless in not reporting evidence of illegal conduct to DOJ OPR. The President and Attorney General have admitted that they illegally blocked the Office of Professional Responsibility fro reviewing activities known to be supporting unlawful warfare, and permitting illegal plans into effect in violation of Geneva.
If proven before a war crimes tribunal, the possible punishment against the President, Attorney General, Staff Counsel and cooperating US Attorneys could include the punishment allowable by law: The Death Penalty.
Central to the agreement was an understanding that US Attorneys would be expected to meet partisan objectives, unrelated to lawful prosecutions.
The GOP has been linked with efforts to put pressure on the US Attorneys to take action where the US Attorney were not obligated; and the desired objective of the President and others was to use prosecutions as a method to discredit DNC candidates, further strengthening the GOP control of Congress.
The effort backfired. The voters in November 2006 rejected the Republican efforts and turned control of the Congress to the DNC.
The Judiciary Committee has focus on the arrangements and understanding related to the US Attorneys who refused to cooperate.
There's been less attention on the other US Attorney who did cooperate, and what rewards they received for turning a blind eye to war crimes.
As the Judiciary Committee expands it inquiry into the US Attorney firings, it will be important to notice which US Attorneys have not been called; their role in support the GOP objectives, how they may have been rewarded, and which specific US Attorneys knew, or should have known of the illegal war crimes, but were rewarded for doing nothing.
It defies reason to suggest the GOP was only punishing US Attorneys for inaction; but refusing to reward US Attorneys for their cooperation.
The war crimes inquiry is expanding into these areas:
___ What did the US attorneys know or have duty to review related to the reported war crimes?
___ What requirements did the US Attorneys to refuse enforce?
___ How did the illegal activity violate specific standards the US Attorneys reviewed during annual training programs?
___ Which US Attorneys have avoided firings because of their cooperating in prosecuting American citizens for partisan objectives?
___ What was the means by which US Attorneys were rewarded for cooperating with the illegal White House objectives?
___ Which specific things did the cooperating US Attorneys know?
___ When did the US Attorneys underrated that their inaction on war crimes helped them receive benefits, avoid adverse inferences, and maintain support within the GOP?
___ What was the plan of the Republican party to explain this conduct?
___ Did the Republican party members not understand that universal jurisdiction meant?
___ What was the reason that the Attorney General and US Attorneys involved with the war crimes cover up did not consider there is no statute of limitations for war crimes?
___ If not lawfully executed for war rimes, where do the implicated staff plan to do after they are disbarred?
The German War Crimes prosecutors is aware of the punishment US Attorneys have received for attempting to rebuff demands that the prosecutors inappropriately use their legal authority to target, for partisan purposes, US civilians.
The inquiry has broadened into understanding what threats were made to induce US attorneys to breach their Geneva obligations; which US Attorneys cooperated; and what promise or reward the White House offered to US Attorneys who refused to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
The White House strategy accelerated once it was clear the legal defenses against the war crimes were fleeting.
The Staff counsel issued additional memorandum, guidance, and other media statements intended to undermine the confidence in the minds of the US Attorneys that the Geneva Conventions were clear.
Attorney General Gonzalez and others in the legal community including John Yoo allegedly agreed to pretend that the Geneva Conventions were vague, unclear, or ambiguous. This assertion was rejected in Hamdan where the Geneva obligations
The objective of the agreement was to stall, deadly, and block US Attorney reports to DOJ OPR; and dissuade Members of Congress from reviewing whether they were or were not timely responding to Title 28 and Title 50 violations requiring written reports to Congress reporting violations of the laws of war.
The NSA surveillance program included efforts to block efforts to enforce the, obstruct investigations into war crimes; monitor the status of investigations into the war crimes; and for partisan objectives, illegally use DoD surveillance tools to target DNC members of Congress.
The illegal effort was confirmed when the Republicans, claiming that legal action would backfire, were unable to provide an explanation why the President and others were not directly more of what would supposedly backfire.
The GOP failure -- to do what would supposedly backfire against the DNC -- demonstrated the suggested consequences were illusory, but intended to dissuade legal action against the President, Vice President, and Executive Branch personnel implicated with war crimes.
The US Attorneys, DoJ Staff counsel, and others listed on the indictment remain under seal pending presentment to The Hague.
US Attorneys implicated may be disbarred and, if convicted of thwarting enforcement of Geneva, lawfully executed for failing to prevent war crimes.
Nuremberg is the precedent for adjudicating war crimes against legal counsel and court officials for their refusal to enforce the laws of war; or in blocking investigations to end illegal warfare; or in failing to remove themselves from illegal activity.