More Flawed Arguments To Refuse to Enforce Geneva Conventions
There's a growing list of absurd arguments the DNC and GOP are using to avoid enforcing the Geneva Conventions.
The list below will help war crimes prosecutors review the various arguments Members of Congress used to refuse to assert their oath; and not enforce the Geneva Conventions.
The excuses not to enforce the laws of war are not credible, but evidence of subsequent war crimes.
Nuremburg established that civilized societies shall leave on the table the option to impeach; and that war criminals shall be impeached to enforce the laws of war.
Refusal of State Officials To Assert Their Oath Against Members of Congress
Ref The error is to presume that State Official may not prosecute Federal Officials. It doesn't matter what one calls it -- State Attorney Generals may prosecute a sitting President; and disbar legal counsel when they are complicit with war crimes.
Ref State Officials May Have Their E-mail Examined To Determine Who Induced Them Not To Assert Their oath.
Refusal To Impeach Is Probative For War Crimes
Ref Nuremburg is precedent for specifically linking a lack of impeachment with a ruling that the civilian officials did not fully assert all lawful options to enforce the law. The question becomes:
___ A. Who refused to heed Nuremburg;
___ B. Which Legal counsel knowledgeable of the laws of war, Geneva, and 5100.77 failed to ensure Article 82 was fully asserted
___ C. Which Members of Congress, despite access to legal counsel, refused to decide to enforce the laws of war?
Ref Only government is required to follow the Amendment process. We the People are permitted to craft a New Constitution outside the Amendment process. [See Federalist 76]
Ref Impeachment denies the President the Pardon. The senate has no power over impeachment. It is premature to refuse to impeachment on the basis of what the Senate might do. The only thing the House can control is what he House does. If the GOP Senators refuses to convict, they will have to consider the political and legal implications.
Ref Let the Senators choose to do nothing, and they may be prosecuted for having not fully enforced Nuremburg precedent and enforcing the laws of war against the President.
That some GOP may not assent to the rule of law, and refuse to enforce the laws of war against the president, does not mean that American must assent. Rather, the way forward is to prosecute Members of Congress for their refusal to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
State Proclamation Efforts As Evidence of War Crimes
Ref Rather than look at the proclamation as having succeeded or failed, consider it evidence: That the Congress, despite this proclamation, refused to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Ref Every decision by a State committee or legislature to do nothing, or table a resolution, is evidence they are not fully asserting their oath to enforce Geneva; or remind Congress what remains a legal obligations: Enforce the laws of war against the President.
Ref The more legislatures repeat the refrain -- impeach and enforce the laws of war -- the more evidence there is Members of Congress did not fully assert their oath as required under Nuremburg to enforce the laws of war through impeachment.
More impeachment proclamations is more evidence that Congress isn't responding. State prosecutors have the power prosecute Members of Congress and US Federal Government counsel who defy their oaths and refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Ref State legislators and Members of Congress need a reminder: Either enforce the laws of war and prosecute; or you will be prosecuted for not enforcing the laws of war. State officials, when they refuse to assert their oath, can be prosecuted under the laws of war.
Ref State proclamations are evidence of who is or is not doing their job to fully enforce the laws of war, and assert their oath.