SecDef Legal Advisors Gamble During Official Duty Hours

Legal experts inside the Office of Secretary of Defense, in violation of US Department of Defense ethics rules barring use of official DoD computers for non-official purposes, have been linked with an Internet gambling ring.

It remains to be seen whether Members of Congress dare to raise this issue with the Department of Defense Inspector General through the Title 50 exception reports. DoD IG has yet to explain why this online gambling activity was not previously detected by the DoD internal control system.

Citizens are encouraged to file FOIAS to find how much money the SecDef legal advisers have won from their online gambling operations.

* * *

The Secretary of Defense's legal experts overseeing the proceedings at Guantanamo have attempted to illegally dissuade some prisoner of war legal defense from enforcing the Geneva Conventions. Stimpson made comments that retaliation would be appropriate against legal counsel who provided a defense for prisoners of war. Stimson subsequently resigned.

DOD's Haynes was dealt a blow when he was denied a position on the federal bench. The Senate was concerned he oversaw illegal war crimes.

Today's revelations drive a fatal blow into the reckless DoD legal team's claims that they are too busy to handle cases.

Senator Lindsey Graham [R-SC] suggested the courts would get to backed up with cases if the prisoners of war were given a chance to process their claims of Geneva violations, or challenge their unlawful detentions.

Today's revelations show the staff counsel working for the Secretary of Defense are reckless, and incapable of being trusted to do what the Geneva Conventions require: Focus their full efforts and energies on reviewing the laws of war and ensuring they are fully implemented.

* * *

The Pentagon's Office of Secretary of Defense [OSD] needs to be called before Congress to explain:

___ Why do OSD personnel "have time" to engage in internet gambling; but "no time" to ensure the Geneva Conventions are fully applied?

___ Is there a reason that the Office of Secretary of Defense is incapable of monitoring the online surfing habits of its legal advisers?

___ How long has OSD legal known about this gambling?

___ What could possibly explain the consistent problem between OSD and DOJ that staff counsel would get a green light to use official US government computers for non-official business; but for them to do so without fear of detection by any supervisor?

___ What other problems are there with the OSD Legal Staff compliance with DoD policies?

___ When does the DC Bar plan to review the evidence inside the DOD computers showing which specific legal counsel have engaged in online gambling during official duty hours?

___ What is the DOD IG plan to review the surfing habits of the DOD Legal counsel to determine why they do have time to gamble, but "no time" to ensure the Geneva Conventions are fully enforced?

___ Does the President have anything to say about this?

___ How much money has the DoD legal staff counsel won from their online gambling efforts?

___ How long has the DoD Information Technology department known about this online gambling?

___ Which outside contractor was assigned the audit to review this inappropriate use of government equipment, but failed to ensure their audit scope was sufficient to detect and report this inappropriate use of official US government equipment; where are their working papers related to the OSD IT?

___ How does the conduct of the OSD legal team square with the Attorney Standards of Conduct?

___ What is the reason the OSD legal team choose to use official government computers for non-official reasons?

___ How does the OSD Legal staff compliance or non-compliance with OSD rules in re Information technology uses shed light on the likely scope of OSD legal team compliance or non-compliance with Geneva and the Attorney Standards of Conduct?

___ Why didn't DOD IG sampling of the IT department records catch this online gambling earlier?

___ What is the plan of the SecDef to review his staff counsel conduct online to ensure they’re not using the computers for inappropriate reasons?

___ Is there a reason that the Secretary of Defense and President have not, as required, provided to Congress the Title 50 exception reports which would communicate their decision not to enforce the law against using official OSD computers for non-official purposes?

___ Where is the inspector General in this: Do they have any plan to ask any of the DoD IG criminal investigators to review the online gambling habits of OSD Legal counsel; or is there another excuse the OSD IG has to say that this activity cannot be reviewed?

___ When does the DoD IG plan to provide a report to Congress related to the inappropriate use of OSD computers by staff legal counsel to support their online gambling habits?

___ Will all OSD legal staff counsel gambling winnings be deemed US government property; or will the Secretary of Defense use those winnings to offset funding cuts Congress says should not be provided to illegal wars of occupation in Iraq?

___ What is the plan of the DoD IG to determine how much money the OSD legal counsel has won through this inappropriate use of OSD computers?

___ Why is OSD, SecDef, and the DOD IG learning about this problem outside DoD channels; and not getting this information through self-reports from OSD Legal experts?

___ Given the failure of the OSD legal team to self report this problem, what is to be said of the state of peer reviews in the OSD legal team; and the apparent problems they have with ensuring the legal team is or is not fully complying with all appropriate directives?

___ Why does the Secretary of Defense or President have confidence in the OSD legal team given their connection with this online gambling and unofficial use of computers for private gambling purposes?

___ How many attorney standards of conduct has the OSD legal team violated with this inappropriate use of OSD computers for private gambling purposes?

___ When does the Congress and SecDef pan to provide a fully public report related to this activity to the DC Bar for purposes of assessing whether staff counsel should or should not be punished for apparent violations of their attorney standards of conduct?

___ How will this conduct be factored into the Senate decisions to review, promote, or accept presidential nominations from the Office of Secretary of Defense legal team for positions on the Federal bench?

___ Why haven't the OSD legal experts self-reported this problem before their online surfing habits were detected, and provided to war crimes prosecutors as evidence of US government reckless disregard for the Geneva Conventions?

___ Does the OSD legal team believe that nobody knows the address for the German War Crimes prosecutors?

___ What would possibly enter the mind of the OSD legal team to believe that nobody living in Europe could pick up the phone and call the German War Crimes prosecutor with the evidence linking them to this inappropriate use of US government officials?

___ What does the OSD legal team believe might happen once the War Crimes tribunal learns of this online gambling; but is asked to believe that there was "no time" to review this matte?

___ Does the OSD legal team plan to run to Addington to claim that there was an "imminent threat" and "no time" to review the legal matters; yet the staff did have time to lazily review the online gambling instructions?

___ How does the OSD legal team plan to reconcile for the war crimes tribunal the disparity between [a] the "rule of necessity" which assumes there is "no time" to review a matter; with [b] the time the OSD legal team has to review the online gambling instructions to procure personal winnings using OSD computes?

___ Does it enter into the mind of anyone that the OSD legal team’s use of official computers for gambling purposes is admissible evidence which war crimes prosecutors need to understand, review, and have fully access to; and that failure to provide this evidence could be interpreted as blocking an official investigation into alleged OSD Legal Staff counsel complicity with, and failure to prevent war crimes?

___ How does the OSD legal team, which has time to review online gambling procedures, claim that it has "no time" to review whether the acts of Congress do or do not violate the Geneva Conventions?

___ Does the OSD legal team understand that at the Justice Trial at Nuremberg staff counsel and officers of the court were legally adjudicated with war crimes because they failed to fully assert the Geneva Conventions; but made excuses why they did not fully assert their attorney standards of conduct?

___ How does the OSD legal team plan to explain and defend themselves before a war crimes tribunal?

___ Is there any reason any war crimes prosecutor or tribunal should believe anyone from the OSD legal team when they argue they "didn't understand" what was going on; but they did understand, and take time to review, the online gambling instructions?

___ Where is a time sheet for all OSD legal team staff access to computers?

___ Where is the audit report?

___ Who is OSD and SecDef reviewed this OSD legal team access to computers?

___ Where are the resignations of the OSD legal team?

___ When will this evidence of recklessness by the OSD legal team be provided to Congress and the German war crimes prosecutor?

___ What is the explanation of the OSD legal team supervisors for this conduct?

___ How does the OSD legal team supervisor demonstrate that they are fully complying with their supervisory obligations; yet, this conduct occurs under their watch?

___ How long has OSD legal supervisors known about this inappropriate use of official OSD resources for non-official, commercial purposes?

___ What is the plan of the OSD legal supervisors to fully cooperate with the DOD IG and DC Bar in re reviewing this issue?

___ Which OSD staff counsel have illegally invoked the 5th Amendment during this administrative hearing in violation of Hoover?

___ What is going on with the OSD legal team continuing legal education: Is there a gap in the legal training that says: "Do not use official government computers for private, commercial purposes"?

___ What could possibly enter the tiny minds of the OSD legal team to make them believe that this provision did not apply to OSD staff counsel reviewing the legal proceedings under the laws of war?

___ Is the OSD staff counsel saying, despite the allegations of war crimes, that their staff has "nothing better to do" other than to surf the internet, engaging in online gambling, and not reviewing the Geneva Conventions?

___ What is the basis for manning requirements out of the OSD legal staff area?

___ Who reviewed the performance, workflows, and resource utilization of the OSD legal staff prior to forwarding these manning requirements to the President for inclusion in the President's budget [PB], and OMB staff levels?

___ What is the means by which OSD legal team is showing that their Continuing Legal Education is working?

___ What kind of problem does the OSD staff have with converting [a] online training related to appropriate use of government resources; into [b] correct conduct relative to those standards; and [c] self-reports related to peer misconduct relative to those requirements promulgated in training?

___ What tasks were the OSD legal team supposed to be working on while this internet gambling ring was taking root within OSD?

___ Can the SecDef account for the lost hours OSD legal team has related to this online gambling?

___ How many legal cases before the Federal Bench have been delayed not because of lack of evidence or national security reasons, but because the OSD legal team is using official resources gambling?

___ How many prisoners of war have had to sit in Guantanamo waiting for the court to review the legal issues not because there is a problem with evidence, but the OSD legal team would rather gamble than meet court deadlines?

___ Which Presidential war crimes has OSD legal staff not reviewed because they were gambling?

___ How does the OSD staff explain the disparity between [a] Article 92 requirements to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions, and the duty of staff counsel to ensure the laws of war are met; with [b] the time OSD legal staff spent gambling?

___ Can OSD legal explain why they are not closely reviewing these legal issues?