November 30, 2007

Member of Congres War Crimes Problem

Member of Congres War Crimes Problem

The American government’s system of checks and balances relies on sepration of power: Congress appropriates money; and the President spends it. This does not mean that war crimes only attach to those who do things. Nuremberg adjudicated war crimes against legal counsel and officers of the court (judges) for failing to enforce the laws, or attempting to enforce illegal laws. The precedent: Non-Executive branch civilian personnel, leadership, and staff counsel can be prosecuted for war crimes, regardless their distance from the illegal activity on the ground. Members of Congress and their staff counsel have a war crimes problem.

They’re gumming this to death. There are several lines of evidence suggesting there’s great concern within the Member of Congress staff meetings in re war crimes. After DoD JAGs documented their concerns to DOJ that ICC would have a possible/likely role in prosecuting US officials for prisoner abuse, the Military Commissions Act included language that would defend US government officials before “international” tribunals. JAG concerns were not isolated to one document, but related to many working group meetings which Congress and DOJ were well aware and involved.

Congress also has the power — and responsibility — to raise and support the armies [AI S8]. Attached with that is the legal obligation to ensure those funds are only going for lawful things. Congress cannot, in “supporting” an army, spend money on an illegal war, or illegal violations of Geneva.

After WWII, Nuremberg adjudicated war crimes not just against primary actors — those who committed war crimes — but also civilian policy makers, non-executive branch judges, and legal counsel. Nuremberg concluded that the Geneva obligations attached to those who had the power to enforce the law, strike down bad law, and ensure the laws of war were fully preserved. [ See ]

Based on information and belief, it appears the Congressional staff counsel, working in concert with DoD and DoJ Legislative Liasion created language to defend all US government officials — including non-Executive Branch personnel in Congress, as required — against war crimes. Legal counsel memoranda is presumed to exist. It is expected that the arguments in writing, under seal, are not consistent with the public statements of Members of Congress.

Based on information and believe: Congressional staff counsel have memoranda which explicitly raises to Members of Congress the risk that US Members of Congress could be adjudicated with war crimes; that the precedents of Nuremberg do not attach solely to primary acts; and that Members of Congress and the President have a joint interest in never fully investigating all war crimes related issues.

Where To Get The Evidence

Discovery isn’t as difficult as one might expect. It cannot be argued that it is a “state secret” that Members of Congress and DOJ created language defending US government officials before “international” tribunals. The only tribunal related to the MCA — the one the US says it will not recognize — is the ICC and The Hague.

What appears to have happened is the Congress and President have publicly asserted the ICC-The Hague have “no jurisdiction”; but privately, they’ve well discussed the JAG memoranda from the POW working groups. There must be notes, memoranda, meeting minutes, and other things which would coordinate the JAG concerns; develop language for Congress to pass in the MCA; but then develop a public relations policy that would, with the President, attempt to convince the public that the ICC has no jurisdiction. [See sample “working group” Memo: here ] These working groups started after 9-11 in 2001.

Note the link is part of the Congressional record: Someone inside the Congress knew about the working groups, and has discussed this, but where are the war crimes investigations? “Off the table”. That is alleged malfeasance which implicated the Justices at Nuremberg. There’s no case to be made that this alleged malfeasance could not also broadly be applied to individual Members of Congress.

Sample Grand Jury Discovery Plan

- When did Members of Congress and their staff/outside counsel review JAG memoranda from DoD outlining JAG concerns that US civilians could be prosecuted for war crimes before the ICC?

- How long have Members of Congress and their staff counsel known — but failed to investigate — known war crimes which the JAGs well discussed in 2001 in re prisoner abuse?

- When did legal counsel first raise with members of Congress the risks that US civilians could be prosecuted before the ICC?

- When did the DOJ Staff Counsel discuss with Members of Congress, staff counsel and others the need to insert language within the MCA to defend before the ICC or other international tribunals war crimes charges against US Members of Congress, staff counsel, or others in the Executive Branch?

- Which Contractors did Congress and/or President hire to develop this public relations strategy: To attempt to convince the public that Members of Congress are not subject to any judicial review before the ICC or The Hague?

- What meeting minutes do Members of Congress have which took the JAG concerns about prisoner abuse: Why did these notes and memoranda not result in a shut down for funding in a timely manner; and where are the Majority-Minority memoranda to DoD-DoJ-CIA-NSA General Counsels/IGs related to questions about funding for these illegal activities?

- Where are the member of Congress legal counsel memoranda discussing the JAG concerns with prisoner abuse; and why did these memoranda not result in any public investigation of the war crimes?

- Which legal counsel working in Congress have hired outside counsel to defend them before the ICC/The Hague for making allegedly frivolous legal argument: Pretending Members of Congress could not be prosecuted; that the Nuremberg precedents in re Justice Trial could not be applied to other non-combatants in the Legislative Branch?

- When did legal counsel discuss with Members of Congress, Congressional leadership, and other staff counsel in the Executive Branch the problem associated with war crimes evidence: Which “state secrets claims” were known to be frivolous; were jointly agreed by Legislative-Executive counsel to shield evidence damaging to both the Executive and Legislative branches?

- When did Legislative Counsel discuss with members of Congress and others using “state secrets claims” as a basis to allegedly falsely “We cannot get the information,” related to evidence they knew, or should have known was related to illegal activity which they knew or should have known could not be shielded by any state secret claim, privilege, or any executive order?

- When did Members of Congress, their staff counsel, Executive Branch personnel, and their staff counsel jointly agree or indirectly agree to not ask questions related to these memorand abecause the war crimes issues attached not just to the President, VP, but also Members of Congress and staff counsel in both the Legislative and Executive Branches?

No comments:

ShareThis