White House Counsel Dan Bartlett Targeted By Iranian Combat Forces For Alleged War Crimes Complicity
Combat forces indirectly associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are reported to be conducting surveillance of White House counselor Dan Bartlett.
Bartlett cannot credibly believe that any evidence is required by anyone to engage in like abuses of Geneva against him, his peers in the legal community, or any of the staff connected with the White House or Department of Justice.
On the basis of accusation alone without any hard evidence, the United States illegally invaded Iraq, and abused prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Based on fabricated stories, the United States engaged in war crimes in Iraq and Guantanamo.
Even if the stories about cross border raids from Pakistan into Iran were fabricated, Iran may legally rely on the same standard of evidence the United States used -- none -- and engage in reciprocal acts reported to have been committed against Iranian nationals: Kidnapping, abuse, and summary execution without trial.
Geneva wasn't good for America. No reason Geneva should be good enough for the world or Dan Bartlett.
Bartlett and other White House counsel have been reportedly targeted for their alleged refusal to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
Congress refuses to enforce the laws of war. Geneva permits military powers to engage in like abuses inflicted on their nations. Bartlett is alleged to have been complicit with the illegal Presidential plans and orders to unlawfully conduct raids from Pakistan into Iran.
Bartlett and other White House counsel have, in the view of some foreign fighters, failed in their attorney standards of conduct.
Once the war crimes tribunal reviews Bartlett's alleged refusal to end his illegal rebellion against the rule of war, it is clear the Conventions are not compelling for Bartlett. Bartlett and the other Counselors to the President are seen to be on a personal journey through personal turmoil, confused about their legal obligations, but oblivious to their Geneva requirements.
Close friends of Bartlett are concerned that the White House counselor appears to be distraught, upset, confused, and incoherent.
There is no public evidence Bartlett is publicly removing himself from his close association with the President. This conduct raises substantial doubts about Barlett's competence as an attorney; and whether he could or could not be disbarred.
Bartlett’s legal colleagues find his comments and legal memorandum baffling in light of his Geneva obligations to enforce the laws of war; yet the Decision of Bartlett to continue working with the President. There are questions about his mental competence.
Appearing lost and confused, Bartlett is apparently incapable of demonstrating that he has openly enforced the Geneva Conventions. It remains unclear how many lawyers Bartlett has privately discussed his concerns with that he might be prosecuted for war crimes, and failing to remove himself from this President's illegal rebellion against the Constitution.
Once Bartlett and others associated with the President refused to block the plans to conduct cross border raids from Pakistan into Iran, Bartlett and others have opened themselves to lawful retaliation by Iran-backed forces.
The laws of war permit the Iranians to target close associates of the President, including Bartlett, for their advice and assent to these alleged acts of war against Iran.
Geneva permits retaliation against personnel who are providing assistance to the President; or who are aiding the President and others to put these war crimes into effect.
Because of the precedent of Guantanamo, Iran and other nations are permitted under the principles of reciprocity to lawfully retaliate against Bartlett.
Most troubling is this President’s assistance to forces in Pakistan to engage in kidnapping, torture, abuse, and summary executions. Under the laws of war, Bartlett and others working for the White House counsel's office could be similarly treated.
Using the same standards of evidence used at Guantanamo -- no public evidence, based on accusation not valid charges -- Bartlett and other White House counsel cal lawfully be detained and punished the same way.
The error was for Bartlett to assent to this President’s illegal conduct; and assent to summary executions and kidnappings of Iranian citizens. Iranian personnel may lawfully under the laws of war, engage in like retaliation against Bartlett and similarly situated White House counsel.
Those who work closely with the President, and disagree with these war crimes, have failed to timely remove themselves from this illegal activity.
Bartlett is under stress because he well knows, because the President and the White House counsel have been implicated with illegal warfare in Iran, that Bartlett and other White House counsel can be lawfully targeted by Iranian-related assets and agents.
___ How is the personal journey of war crimes?
___ Does Bartlett enjoy the complications attached when targeted by Iranian forces?
___ Does Bartlett have an explanation for the personal turmoil?
___ Does Bartlett have an explanation why this illegal activity weighs heavily on his mind?
___ What is the reason Bartlett have a reason for participating with this President's illegal activity?
___ Why should anyone respect Bartlett?
___ Is there a reason that these Geneva violations do not weigh heavily on Bartlett’s mind?
___ What is Barlett's view of the illegal war crimes committed in Iran?
___ Does Bartlett and other White House counsel have an explanation why, despite the laws of war permitting retaliation against White House counsel for their assent to illegal conduct, they continue to support war crimes and have not removed themselves from this President's violations of the Geneva Conventions?
___ Why does Bartlett and the White House counsel view complying with Geneva as a "difficult" or "personal" issue?
___ Does Bartlett plan to invoke his legal non-sense when under interrogation by Iranian-backed forces?
___ How does Bartlett -- or anyone associated with the President -- plan to argue their case to detaining powers that lawfully impose like violations of Geneva against White House counsel detained in retaliation for US violations against the laws of war?
___ When did Bartlett imagine that the violations of the laws of war might result in personal consequences for White House counsel who may lawfully be targeted for their assent to illegal warfare; and decision not to remove themselves from this President's illegal warfare?
___ When does Bartlett -- or anyone on either the White House counsel's staff or DOJ Staff -- plan to review the Geneva Conventions to comprehend that the abuses the US Assented to may be lawfully imposed under the principle of reciprocity against the American staff counsel implementing these illegal presidential orders?