Army Prosecutors Refuse To Enforce Geneva Against Civilians/Contractors, Defying Nuremburg Precedent
Ref Reckless DoD Legal counsel have absurdly asserted that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to civilians or contractors.
Rather, Nuremberg is precedent for imposing consequences on legal counsel who fail to enforce the GEneva Conventions. This briefing shows that there has been recklessness within the United States miltary in re contract oversight. This is not permissible.
There is no excuse for the Army to assert there is a "gap" in the UCMJ coverage. No, there is universal jurisdiction over war crimes, and breaches of Geneva. I want names of who in OSD and the Secretary of the Army's office who is responsible for this; and why people in the Army are allowing this kind of trash to get thrown around. This impermissibly sends a green light to contractors that war crimes are acceptable; or that nothing will be done. Wrong answer. Do this over, DoD. Unacceptable.
These are serious issues with Geneva violations which need immediate attention. RIghtnow, Friday evening 6 April 2007. If you have any more information about this forward it to this address. Someone is going to be working on Saturday morning to clean this mess up.
Ref: This briefing is an excuse to assent to illegal activity by contractors and needs to be re accomplished.
___ Who approved this briefing?
___ Where is DOD IG on this? Need a status update; and a report of the Title 50 exception reports showing which laws of war are not being enforced. Need this Friday afternoon. I do not care that it is the weekend. Call them in. These are allegations of war crimes.
___ How many contractors supposedly fit into the “gap” that Army is talking about?
___ How long has this illegal activity been known?
It is reckless for the Department of Justice to pretend that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to civilians or contractors.
The Presentation has no basis in law. As manufactured and presented, the Army presentation is evidence the US Army JAG is reckless in failing to comprehend Geneva; or the universal jurisdiction of Geneva.
It is not acceptable that the US Army legal community has perpetuated a myth that civilian war crimes cannot be prosecuted. The world leadership should be advised that the American legal "experts" have created loophole for contractors to avoid accountability.
The Army is reckless in pretending that the UCMJ does or does not apply depending on ether the wars are or are not declared.
The issue of UCMJ applicability is irrelevant. Genera applies to all people, regardless their status. Indeed, Geneva is not enforceable on situations related to internal civil wars, but this is outside the scope of the Army discussion.
It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says: Nuremberg is precedent to lawfully prosecute Members of the Supreme court who say the Geneva Conventions do not apply. whether the UCMJ does or does not apply is meaningless.
Army legal experts need to pull their head of the sand and review the Geneva Conventions and laws of war in light of civilian prosecutions for war crimes.
Where there is a gap. that gap needs to be explained in terms of: Why was similarly conduct supposedly the "basis" for the US to enter WWII? If there is no violation by civilians under Geneva, then the Army cannot explain why the supposed civilian offenses under Geneva propelled the US to enter WWII.
Recall the non-sense we’ve heard from Addington: That people – out of uniform – were not lawful combatants.
__ Why isn’t this being applied to US Contractors?
___ Why aren’t US Contractors, engaged in combat support, being prosecuted as unlawful combatants?
If you the US “can’t” find a way to conclude the US Contractors are unlawful combatants; how does the US explain that it “can” – without any evidence – assert, without proof – that people randomly picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan were doing something wrong?
___ Why is there a double standard on whether the Geneva Conventions will or will not be applied?
There is no credible, legal, or justifiable explanation. These are excuses to pretend that people cannot be prosecuted.
This is sophistry.
It is fiction to rely on the US Statute as the sole authority. Geneva, as it applies through the US Constitution and the treaty obligation attaches to all people through the Nuremberg precedent.
What Congress did or did not decide in 2006 in re UMCJ has no relevance to whether Geneva does or does not apply to civilians: It does.
Just as the US government created retroactive rules covering prisoners of war, the US government should be able to crate rules that apply retroactively to civilians.
___ Why is the US saying that the Military Commissions Act can be retroactively crated for prisoners of war; but the same cannot be done for civilians?
Geneva requires similarly situated people to be treated the same.
___ Why isn't the US government, that crated retroactively the MCA, doing the same for civilians?
___ Is there a reason that the US government is retroactively crafting rules for prisoners of war, but refuses to do the same for civilians?
The US government has outsourced illegal activity. When the US says that contractors are beyond the law, they're really saying the President wants to delegate illegal missions to contractors so that there will be no liability for those war crimes.
It is not acceptable for a President to have under his command contractors who are outside the law. This is fiction. Geneva gives him the tools to enforce the laws of war against all people.
This President supposedly invaded Afghanistan to enforce the law; surely, he can prosecute those who are subject to US contracts.
US Contractors must ensure their activity is lawful, otherwise they may be prosecuted.
The "gap" in prosecution is fiction.
It is fiction to say that "army law" will not apply. The Geneva Conventions do apply.
The US cannot explain why at Nuremberg civilian contractors were prosecuted. Whether contractors are or are not subject to the UCMJ is meaningless. The issue is whether the US shall fully enforce the Geneva Conventions to personnel under its control. The President has issued contracts; he has no power to waive the laws of war.
If the US government will not ensure all combat-support-related activity is lawful, then it is illegal for Congress to appropriate funds for that activity.
Either the activity is regulated and the contractor’s illegal activity is prosecuted; or
The money is for illegal activity and cannot be constitutionally reimbursed in that it was for an unlawful purpose, illegal, and beyond what the US Congress or the President can appropriate or spend money.
It is reckless for the US to now about war crimes, but not punish them.
It is irrelevant whether the US does or does not declare war. The supreme Court in re Hamdan ruled that the laws of war and Geneva do apply regardless the Congressional position on that war. The laws of war apply to conduct, regardless whether Congress agrees with the war or refuses to declare war. Permitting Executive unilateral illegal warfare to go unpunished is circular. IT impermissibly means the President can defy Congress, not have a declaration of war, and then use forces illegally without prospect of accountably. Wrong answer. This President is responsible for their combat-support-related actions: He alone can prosecute them for war crimes, but he refuses. The only "gap" is the logic leap this reckless President has used to pretend the laws of war do not apply against contractors. Total legal fiction. This contrary to Geneva.
The Supreme Court affirmed the illegal Military Commissions Act. Nothing saying the US Government cannot retroactively apply and create new laws to apply to Contractors.
If OSD needs to whine, "There’s no guidance," they are mistaken. Nuremberg is clear guidance. This is not a training issue, but an issue of legal competence in the OSD JAG office.
Fiction for the issue to narrowly be argued in terms of whether UCMJ does or does not apply t Contractors. The Geneva Conventions apply to contractors.
Nuremberg was over 60 years ago. It is meaningless to say there is "no guidance" in re contractors.
All contractor activities must be lawful, and Consistent with the Constitution, including the Geneva Conventions.
Not buying this Army non-sense about there being no way to prosecute. They need to re-read Nuremberg. The briefing is a non-sense reason to avoid Geneva.
All the acquisition process related to the Joint Staff -- which you see in purple -- must comply with the laws of war. Contracts cannot be crated to allow for illegal activity.
Contracts may not be crafted to permit war crimes; nor is there a green light in any contract to allow for war crimes.
It in inherent in all contracts that they are for a lawful purpose, consistent with the Constitution, and not contrary to any treaty. Any provision which permits illegal activity is not lawful. The Army knows this.
All US funds to any contractor must be for lawful purposes. The Contractors cannot commit acts of war, but demand reimbursement. Congress may not authorize funds for anything which fail to enforce the Geneva Conventions; or are used to permit illegal activity. All funding for these contractors which fail to comply with Geneva is subsequent evidence of war crimes.
Audits must be consistent with the Constitution. Fraud indicators and illegal activity must be reported.
The US army is being reckless in pretending that the "lack" of UMCJ guidance in re contractors is an issue.
I world prefer a discussion by Army and JAG officials in light of Nuremberg; and the conclusions that contractors may be prosecuted for war crimes, regardless whether that war is or is not declared.