Draft War Crimes Indictment Against US Supreme Court

The Justices are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Ref Justices could be prosecuted or impeached. They are not above the law; and shall fully enforce the Geneva Conventions against the US as a detaining power, regardless the status of the prisoners of war, or their location.

The failure to keep impeachment on the table is evidence the House leadership is reckless in ensuring the rule of law prevails; and the US government assents to uncivilized barbarity by US government officials. Nuremburg reminds us, in stunning contrast with the US government assent to the illegal Military Commissions Act:

Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice.Ref . . trials lacked the essential elements of legality Ref . . .His acts were more terrible in that those who might have hoped for a last refuge in the institutions of justice found these institutions turned against them and a part of the program of terror and oppression . . . . Ref

* * *

Authority

Nuremberg Justice Trial. Ref

Allegations

1. The Supreme Court refuses to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

2. The lease agreement with Cuba clearly states the US shall exercise all jurisdiction.

3. Supreme Court recklessly ignored this language.

Count 1: Failure to Enforce Geneva Conventions

4. Non-charged, innocent civilian prisoners of war were illegally abused in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

5. The Justices jointly refused to hear cases related to war crimes.

6. Justices had a duty to fully enforce the US Constitution which attaches with it treaty obligations of Geneva as the Supreme Law.

7. The Justices refused to hear cases, denied prisoners of war their Geneva Conventions rights, and failed to enforce the Geneva Conventions.

8. The Geneva Conventions apply to detaining powers. The status of the prisoners of war, their location, or whether the US does or does not control the land is meaningless. The Justices were reckless is making excuses not to hold the United States, as a detaining power, accountable for the violations of the Geneva Conventions.

9. The Supreme Court has relied on sophistry to pretend that the Conventions do not apply to the United States as a detaining power because of irrelevant arguments over whether the US does or does not wish to assent to Geneva; or whether the United States has a good excuse why the Conventions should or should not be enforced against the Untied States.

Count 2: Failure to Enforce Lease Provisions With Cuba

10. The Justices refused to accept that the US government shall exercise jurisdiction at Guantanamo.

11. The Justices were reckless in not enforcing the Geneva Conventions permitting prisoners of war to challenge their detentions.

Count 3: Enforcing Illegal Statute of Congress

12. The Justices refused to strike down the illegal military commissions act which denies prisoners of war their full Geneva protections.

Count 4: Legal positions denying States Guarantee To Enforcement

13. Justices had a duty to enforce the Geneva Conventions, and protect Americans against like retaliation.

14. Justices failed to enforce the Geneva Conventions, and denied the states their guarantee to have the laws of war enforced, as required to protect American citizens against lawful retaliation.

Count 5: Illegal Assent to Unlawful US War of Aggression

15. The Justices of the Supreme Court have recklessly assented to expand combat operations against American civilians, the US government.

16. The Justices decision not to enforce Geneva exposes American civilians, US government officials, and other American personnel to needless violence which is permitted under the principle of retaliation.

Count 6: Illegally Granting Discretion To Continue Avoiding, Not Enforcing, and Not Complying With Geneva Conventions

17. Anyone relying on the US Supreme Court rulings in re the prisoners of war at Guantanamo could be induced to commit subsequent war crimes. This is impermissible. A failure of the Supreme Court to fully enforce the Conventions is not absolution for anyone governed by the 5100.77 Laws of War Program which prohibit violations of the laws of war. The Supreme Court has no power to trump Geneva; nor may it ratify, endorse, nor fail strike down illegal Acts of Congress which facilitate illegal violations of the Conventions.

Count 7: Recklessly Issuing Illegal Court Orders Without Regard To Whether Those Orders Would Permit Continued Geneva Violations

18. Civilian contractors, US government officials, and other nationals have been directed to rely on this Supreme Court as precedent to continue operating existing and establish new facilities around the globe designed to exist and operate outside the United States. However, that a facility is or is not under total US government control is meaningless when the terms of the lease agreements state that the United States shall exercise all jurisdiction.

19. The status of the prisoner of war or their location is irrelevant; the conventions apply to the detaining power regardless the status, location, or allegations against a prisoner of war.

Count 8: Recklessly Issuing Illegal Court Orders Without Regard To Whether Those Court Orders Would Permit Retaliation and Reciprocal Violations of Geneva Against US Persons, Facilities, Allies, and Interests

20. Relying on the Supreme Court, US personnel are getting an illegal signal that it is permissible for anyone to fabricate an illegal prisoner of war camp anywhere in the Universe; and that the US continues to claim because the facility is not on US soil, that the prisoners of war may be mistreated.

21. This is a continuing impermissible violation of the laws of war exposing other personnel to retaliation and reciprocity like the Iranian detention of British troops in response to the President's illegal attack on an Iranian diplomatic mission in Iraq.

22. The Justices recklessly ignored these foreseeable consequences of their illegal order and impermissibly exposed American civilians, contractors, and other US personnel to needless retaliation and reciprocity permitted under the laws of war.

Count 8: Illegally Quashing Required Legal Actions to Enforce the Geneva Conventions and, in turn, Enforce the US Constitution

23. Justices impersmissibly refused to hear cases outlining evidence where prisoners of war had been abuse, mistreated, or had not been give a chance to challenge their detentions.

24. This illegal quashing denied the prisoners of war of their full Geneva protections.

25. Justices hae refused to hear evidence that attempts to bring impeachment proceedings against the President through the states have been quashed; and that the Supreme Court has allowed, through inaction, the Constitution to spiral into impermissible inferior state.

26. The Supreme Court has impermissibly assented to the illegal violations of the laws of war; has illegally permitted violations the Genevra Conventions; and has not asserted its oath to ensure that the Conventions were fully applied against the United States as a detaining power.

Count 9: Illegally Assenting To Unlawful Trial Procedures In Violation of Laws of War

27. The Justices knew, or were reckless in not reviewing, the illegal trial procedures which were not fully enforced against the United States as a detaining power.

28. The Justices had a duty, but failed, to independently review the trial procedures, rules, and other guidelines which violated the Geneva Conventions.

29. Justices, despite assistance from a chorus of bar certified Attorneys and law clerks, engaged in dubious legal analysis and issued reckless legal opinions which failed to exercise the judgement expected of the nation's highest court officers.

Summation

27. The Justices have failed to enforce the laws of war, and not recognized the precedents of the Nuremberg Justice Trial imposing legal liability on officers of the court for failing to strike down illegal statutes violation the laws of war.

28. The Justices, if convicted by a competent war crimes tribunal, may be adjudicated with the death penalty. There are no mitigating circumstances.