Mandatory Enforcement of Laws of War

Discussing Purged RNC E-mails as evidence of obstruction of war crimes investigation; and deliberate US Government efforts to ignore the Nuremberg requirement to use impeachment to enforce laws of war.

Summary

Congress needs to examine whether the US Solicitor General, who has replaced the Attorney General in overseeing the Department of Justice, is competent to enforce the laws of war against DoJ Staff counsel. His direction to keep Goodling on the payroll after she invoked the 5th is not a good sign he's the right person. Judiciary needs to oversee the Solicitor General’s plan to enforce the laws of war against all DOJ Staff counsel.

The US Attorney firing e-mails and the GOP e-mail purging raises issues of war crimes.

Going forward, the debate needs to hinge on what will be done to ensure the enforcement of the laws of war is not discretionary, but required; and that the oversight of Geneva attached to the legal community and political parties.

Lobbyists, contractors, and others engaged in illegal activity can turn to Nuremberg as fair notice of what can happen to those complicit with war crimes.

The needed first step to awaken the American public to the importance of the laws of war are prosecutions of the DNC and GOP leadership who have been complicit with illegal warfare.

America's democracy is not seen as legitimate when it recklessly conducts relief operations in Louisiana and Afghanistan; and is unable to respect human rights in Iraq. The world watches as the American democracy of 2007 contradicts the possibility of the FDR democracy of WWII.

The US cannot claim it is doing the right thing when it, as Japan did in WWII, uses lawful opposition to its abuse of power to expand illegal warfare. The US needs to be held to account for illegal warfare.

This President and legal counsel treated the US Constitution like the tax code: Picking and choosing, hoping to do what he wanted without consequences.

* * *

Discussion

The e-mails from the Department of Justice and White House need to be looked at in terms of war crimes evidence. The RNC computers which purge these e-mails is evidence of war crimes evidence destruction.

The examination will review to what extent Congressional counsel and the supreme Court did or did not review the evidence of war crimes; and whether Counsel did or did not fully review Title 28 and Title 50 exceptions. Counsel could have advised Members of Congress to seek expertise form the JAGs on the 5100.77 laws of war.

It really doesn't matter why the laws of war were not enforced. The issue is: When the illegal activity was known, why did the Congress not call JAG experts to review what is required; and review why the 5100.77 requirements were not considered by this President; but these standards and legal experts were ignored by the DOJ Staff legal counsel like Bybee.

There is no credible reason. The defiance of Geneva is inexcusable. It's time to take this issue out of the political debate, and throw the GOP and DNC staff counsel complicity with these war crimes into the war crimes tribunals.

* * *

This should not have gone on this long. There should have been an oversight system with the American legal community that would have inspired in the minds of staff counsel in the GOP to fully comply with the laws of war. Regardless the excuses, the solution to this problem is to create a system of oversight that is mandatory; and is fully in place regardless which political party controls all three branches of government.

Ideally, the laws of war should have been part of the deliberative process, but were rejected as irrelevant. Rather than eliminate all abuse, the US argued over definitions of torture. Geneva doesn't care about torture only about abuse. The US debate over whether treatment was or was not torture is meaningless. It is possible to "not have torture" but still violate with the abuse the Geneva Conventions.

Bybee's memo is evidence he was reckless in not enforcing the laws of war while White House counsel. The issue for Congress will be to explore this illegal activity Bybee and other White House counsel have been implicated, and review the impeachable offenses. A Presidential appointment is not an eternal immunity to war crimes. Nuremberg is precedent for holding justices, counsel, and officers of the court liable for war crimes.

* * *

The war crimes are locked. Nothing can change them. ALl dilatory acts, excuses, and refusals of Congress to impeach is not a political issue, but one of evidence.

Each day that passes is a change for the GOP and DNC to do the right thing. Yet, rhat than enforce the laws of war, they are pretending that they can slow roll, debate, or not take action.

No, each day they refuse to act, creates more evidence of subsequent war crimes and refusals to enforce the laws of war.

The GOP and DNC media litigation strategy will not defend them. It is additional evidence they did not end what they should never have permitted: War crimes.

The public news releases, memos, and other things the GOP sends is evidence the GOP could do the same to the President in re war crimes, but refuses. The GOP cannot credibly argue it had not chance. The error was the GOP refusal to do what was required: Enforce the laws of war through impeachment. The GOP could have impeached the President, but refused.

There is no mitigation.

* * *

I am concerned that the DNC and GOP appear to be taking a narrow view of the e-mails and not looking at the larger war crimes evidence. Nuremberg does establish precedent for punishing Members of Congress when they fail to impeach to enforce the laws of war.

Impeachment Delays Are Evidence Of Subsequent War Crimes

For anyone to suggest "we don't have time to impeach" is meaningless. This is the same as asking an innocent person who has been wrongly accused, "Hay, you’ve only got two more months on your sentence, why don't you hang around in jail." Baloney.

There would be an uproar if an innocent man were detained for two more months, despite his original wrongful conviction. The same goes with the president but the opposite: There's no reason to let him linger around thinking that he's got two years to float around. No, let’s get this confronted now. This President did violate eth laws of war. It is not lawful to refuse to enforce the laws of war. Start Now: There Is No Statute Of Limitations

* * *

We need to see some visible discussion of what is going to clean this mess up. I'm not talking about the institutional mess with the Constitution and better requirements for oversight with one-party-control, but with the mind set of Americans.

Confronting the American Legal Community and Academia

The American legal community failed. The origins of this mess date back to the mid 1980s when the Iran-Contra report was written. In that Minority Report, you'll see that Addington cherry picked form the case law, in some cases arriving at illegal conclusions or conclusions which are contradictory to the law of the land.

The convoluted thinking that has allowed this abuse of power needs to be examined. This is two generations of people who have celebrated this convoluted thinking. This isn't isolated to a branch of government or a party, but to a profession: The legal profession.

Something broke down with the oversight. Peer reviews didn't challenge the legal community. What's needed is a better system of auditing, oversight, and sanctions against legal counsel who have been complicit with war crimes. We should not wait this long after Addington's non-sense in re the renditions, and illegal warfare to get a clue about the DOJ Staff e-mails.

* * *

As you review the e-mails consider the larger issues of war crimes. The President only has one power: Executive. Read Article II closely. Unlike Article I which says powers [multiple], article II power is singular. That is important.

The President only has one power: Executive Power. All other things he does is a subset of that single power.

The issue of "making war" is not one that President can assert, nor is it unbelievable. The President can only wage lawful war, subject to the funding, troops, and support Congress alone decides to provide.

The President cannot deploy troops without the law being on his side; nor may he recklessly plan that war, and use the excuse of his poor planning to demand Congress give him more. Congress has the power to refuse. The President must manage what Congress gives him; not use the quagmire and mess he's created to convince the Congress to throw more money after bad.

E-mails As Evidence President Faced No Imminent Threat

Under the principle of lawful war, the President cannot deliberate over how to wage war, but then argue there is an imminent threat; or that he must act without consulting Congress. The moment the President begins deliberations in-house, he admits that there is no immediate or imminent crisis requiring action. Rather, the evidence of deliberations is evidence that the issue is not so quickly unfolding that the President has "no time" to review the issue. By its nature, deliberations are evidence there is no imminent threat; and the President is not facing a crisis he has not time to think about.

Once the President debates an issue, the claim of "immediacy" linked with the asserted power to "wage war" falls apart. Yes, the President is, during times of war, Commander in Chief; but he may not deliberate over war, but keep Congress out of the loop; nor argue he cannot share his deliberations when the fact that there are deliberations means there is not case to be made that there is "not time" to review the issues before waging war.

* * *

Compelling Enforcement of Laws of War

The founders thought that factions would clash. The error is the problem when the factions, as they have done in 2007, assented to illegal warfare.

The DNC has been induced to believe that doing nothing is best. This needs to be part of the debate: What will compel the DNC through their oath to assert the rule of law and enforce the Geneva Conventions through impeachment, as is required form the Nuremberg precedent.

If Congress will not use their power, then that power needs to be stripped from them and delegated where it will be asserted. Where the parties are getting in the way of leaders from doing their job, those Parties need to be subject to oversight and review to compel compliance with the law.

The US government regulates agencies. Arguably, political strategy is separate from illegal activity. Yet, where the RNC and DNC have jointly agreed not to enforce Geneva, those notes and agreements sent through the e-mails to non-official e-mail accounts must be subject to war crimes prosecutor review. It is too late well after the illegal activity has been done to think about this; the way forward is to have ongoing reviews that compel the political parties to show they are fully cooperating with audits of their options, plans, and statutory compliance.

The President has unreasonably politicized the Justice Department. There needs to be a way to guarantee that required prosecutions -- as a deterrent to this illegal activity -- are on the table, and cannot be removed by either party, or any person.

The issue of US Attorney firings -- and e-mails related to Presidential meetings and Gonzalez involvement -- is evidence the President did not want to enforce the laws of war; but retaliated against US Attorneys who attempted to enforce the laws of war.

This is not a political issue for 2008. This is an issue of international criminal law today, in 2007.

On April 9th, America will get to decide – as it does each day – whether it will do what it should; or whether it is communicating to the world that it no longer has sovereignty and is incapable of enforcing the laws against all.

If the US Congress would like to be part of We the People and this Constitution, Congress needs to make a decision to defend the Constitution now, not make excuses. Nuremberg establishes the precedent to prosecute civilians who remove impeachment from the table, and refuse to use impeachment to enforce the laws of war.

* * *

War Crimes Evidence: E-mails Showing US Government Thwarted Efforts to Enforce The Law, Refused to Impeach, But Actively Took Efforts To Block Lawful Action

If the DNC will not impeach, and as it has done with the GOP, actively thwart State level impeachments calling for impeachment, those e-mail communications are subject to review by war crimes prosecutors to decide whether the DNC did or did not fully comply with the Nuremberg Precedents to keep impeachment on the table to enforce the laws of war. All e-mails sent from GOP and DNC to other Federal and State officials are admissible.

These e-mails are evidence of official US government action, efforts, and direction to block enforcement of the laws of war. The issue turns on whether Members of Congress did keep impeachment on the table as Nuremberg requires; or whether they violate eth laws of war and thwarted State level efforts to debate proclamations calling for Congress to investigate, and if appropriate impeach, the President are evidence of war crimes: Decisions by the US government officials to block enforcement of the laws of war.