<< Michael Mukasey and his problems with the law >>.

"We are neither safe nor secure because of this DoJ AG's assertions and his stated intent not to fully meet his Geneva obligations ..."

Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions imposes a legal duty on all legal counsel to ensure Geneva obligations are fully implemented, enforced, and respected. This DoJ AG has allegedly breached the Geneva Conventions. I read with interest the following summary,

"Attorney General Michael Murkasey said that he would not investigate torture or warrantless spying, he would not enforce contempt citations, and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes."From

The above three-highlighted phrases clearly say the AG will not investigate, enforce, or recognize the written law. That's essentially saying he's not going to fully do his job, as required by oath. But the problem is larger. Consider the basis for prosecuting at Nuremberg prosecutors who refused to enforce Geneva, as the AG says he will not do: The justice trial was about the same things the AG says he "will" do: Not fully enforce the laws.

Nuremberg concluded the following: Either impeachment or prosecutions must be used to enforce the law. When neither are used, a nation cannot be civilized:"Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice." From

Repeating Prosecuted Misconduct of Nuremberg

Nuremberg establishes there are two options on the table are both impeachment and prosecution. This DoJ AG has taken both options on the table, and he's implicitly asserting that he will defy the precedents of Nuremberg, ignore the Supreme Law, and not fully enforce Geneva as required by Article 82. Let's broaden the view from whether this is or isn't about impeachment, the President, US laws, or the Geneva Conventions. It's about an American prosecutor saying he will not recognize Nuremberg precedents; and that he alone will assert what the law is or isn't regardless the will or intent of the legislature.

The AG has no legislative power to assert, "This is the law." He can only enforce the law, and present his evidence to a different branch of government: The Judicial Branch. The AG is acting no differently than the Nazis did: They consolidated legislative, judicial, and executive power; then abused it; then said those abuses could not be reviewed. Nuremberg established that prosecutors like the DOJ AG can be prosecuted for doing exactly what he's alleged to have said he will do: Not enforce the Geneva Conventions.

DoJ AG Allegedly Breaches Oath of Office

The AG's statements should be entered into evidence. Whether the AG is impeached by the Congress, or he is prosecuted under US law, or he is brought before world courts to enforce the laws of war against him remains to be seen. But Congress does have a duty to either lead an impeachment effort, to provide evidence of these alleged war crimes to a prosecutor that will investigate, and where warranted, bring charges. This AG has done the reverse: Without any investigation of facts, he's asserted that he will not enforce Geneva; and that the Geneva Conventions and Congressional intent of treaty obligations and statute will be trumped by the legal opinion of the Justice Department. That's not how the law works. DoJ AG has no legislative or judicial power. When the DOJ AG makes the above statements he's allegedly repeating the abuses of the Nazi lawyers, not fully enforcing Geneva, and making excuses.

The country needs to support an independent investigation of this AG, this President, and this Congress: To determine whether they will or will not fully enforce Geneva through either impeachment or prosecutions. To date, they have collectively voted "no," despite their oath of office and legal obigations to say, "Yes, let's keep that option on the table, press forward, and gather facts." Refusing to gather facts isn't enforcing the law, but turning a blind eye to justice. This is hardly a practice that would inspire other nationals to follow the American model. Whether that model is freely exported through choice, or imposed is irrelevant: The model as implemented in the American example is tyranny and shows contempt for Nuremberg and the Supreme Laws. The DOJ AG needs to be challenged in a court of law over his alleged decision -- without fact finding -- to put himself and others above written law.

No Statute of Limitations for War Crimes

The AG's oath isn't to the President. It is to fully enforce the Constitution, which includes all treaty obligations. He promised to have no mental reservation. However, he has explicitly stated that he will not do what he's promised to do. The issue isn't whether the Constitution does or doesn't confer rights to POWs; it's whether the US, as a detaining power, will agree to be constrained by the Geneva obligations. This DOJ AG says that he will not agree to be bound by his Geneva obligations, which is an alleged subsequent war crime.

It's time to directly challenge the DoJ AG's statements. Either Congress uses inherent contempt to prosecute the DoJ AG; or they impeach him; or the Congress will have said, "We will ignore Nuremberg." It remains to be seen whether, as was done at Nuremberg, new rules are retroactively written to bind legislators, not just prosecutors and judges, to be held accountable for failing to fully enforce Geneva.

Retaliation Against Similarly Situated Americans

If Geneva is not fully enforced, then other nations under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation may commit like abuses. Americans traveling abroad, on accusation alone without any access to evidence, could be charged as being an "enemy combatant," and abused with waterboarding. If the US Congress and Prosecutors refuse to use civil, lawful methods to enforce Geneva through the courts, other nations may use the battle field to achieve the aims of Geneva. That option remains on the table. Pelosi's decision to remove impeachment exposes all US travelers to being called enemy combatants and tortured, as Geneva permits as retaliation.

Pelosi, the DoJ AG, and the President have put themselves and their abuse of power before written law. Their decision puts them before Americans, but all Americans could be subjected to the consequences. We are neither safe nor secure because of this DoJ AG's assertions and his stated intent not to fully meet his Geneva obligations.