Continuing

Here, Ashcroft advises the President of the risk that civilian policy makers could be prosecuted for war crimes:

”It could involve substantial criminal liability for involved U. S. officials

and

”It’s legal implications carry higher risk of legal liability, [and] criminal prosecution”

From Ashcroft Memo to the President, Feb 1, 2002; “NSC Discussion on Status of Detainees”

These statements show US officials could be subject to prosecution. The Military Commission Act.

- What role did Buchanan have in ensuring, while Director EOUSA, or as a United States Attorney, that she was prepared to fully support criminal prosecutions of US officials?
- Was there no contingency planning or efforts within EOUSA or the US Attorneys Office to ensure that the US Attorneys were fully ready to support these foreseeable prosecutions of American civilians for war crimes?
- What specific plans did Buchanan review, sign off on, coordinate, comment on, or was aware related to prosecuting US officials
- How was the foreseeable chance of litigation factored into the plans to seize, search for, and prosecute US officials worldwide?

Foreseeable Risks If US Failed To Enforce Laws of War Against Civilians In Civilian Courts

There were specific risks that if the United States refused to enforce the laws of war; or not comply with the laws of war there might be a backlash. Buchanan is reported to have been an advisor to Ashcroft; Ashcroft is reported to have had at least once conversation within the White House claiming the issues of war crimes and POW abuse should not be raised.

There were specific legal risks if the United States did not enforce the laws of war; or it blocked enforcement of the laws of war; or it refused to recognize that Geneva applied to Then Secretary of State Powell warned of consequences if Geneva was not applied:

”It may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate our officials and troops”

and

”It will make us more vulnerable to domestic and international legal challenges

From: Secretary of State Powell’s memo to Counsel to the President (Assistant to the President for National Security); Jan 26, 2002

“Draft Decision Memoranda for the President on the Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the Conflict on Afghanistan”

How can anyone argue there will be a ”domestic” legal challenge if impeachment is off the table; and the US Attorneys like Buchanan are not directing FBI agents to review war crimes evidence?

Part III: Foreseeability of Civilians Being Prosecuted in American Civilian Courts

All US Attorneys could foreseeably have a role in enforcing the laws of war. Not all violations of Geneva are subject to exclusively enforcement of the Department of Defense.

There are three types of prosecutions which related to civilians, civilian courts, and war crimes:

1. POWs in civilian courts;
2. US Citizens in civilian court
3. US citizens in foreign courts

Each of these possibilities attaches with it a requirement for DOJ to establish a policy, coordinate a plan, and implement procedures to fully support these prosecutions. Buchanan must explain what reviews she did of these plans; and how she, as a US Attorney, reviewed Geneva, war crimes, and the chance civilians would be brought before her and adjudicated with war crimes.

JCON Review For US Atty Plans: Foreseeable Role For US Attorneys In Civilian Courts

DOJ Memos show there was a chance that civilians could be brought before civilian courts and tried for war crimes. There was a discussion involving American legal counsel, US war crimes experts, and civilian counsel related to the following discussion point:

”We understand, however, that even if the armed forces begin interrogating an individual with a view to a military commission trial, the possibility remains that the individual will later be transferred” to civilian custody for criminal prosecution..

Memoranda: Feb 26, 2002

From Bybee to William J. Haynes

“Potential Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations of Person Captured By US Forces In Afghanistan”

Where are the JCON-related documents discussing the plan?

Once this risk – of civilian custody, and criminal prosecution in civilian court -- was discussed within DoJ, what DOJ workflows were completed to support this planning?

Foreseeable Requirements On US Attorneys To Prosecute Civilians At American War Crimes Trials

It was expressly discussed that there was no known restriction that would absolutely bar all POWs from having a review. There was always a chance that the POWs might appear before civilian courts, and require government prosecutors to argue their legal positions in civilian court:

[W]e have no decisions that clearly foreclose the existence of Habeas Jurisdiction [in Federalist District Court]”

From: Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Dec 28, 2001; “Possible Habeas Jurisdiction of Aliens Held in Guantanamo By, Cuba

Note the memo was written in late 2001, three (3) days after Christmas: Despite the “distraction” of the war after September 2001, the legal counsel were discussing the possibility of civilian trials in Federal Court. US Attorneys knew, or should have known that civilians could be brought before civilian courts. This should not have been a surprise for any US Attorney; nor beyond the imagination of what the US Attorneys should have expected.

Where was the plan Buchanan as US Attorney or Director of EOUSA reviewed and discussed with EOUSA general Counsel prosecuting war crimes cases in civilian court?

When did Buchanan discuss with DOJ Staff counsel leadership the required plans to support these prosecutions in district court?

Is it Buchanan’s position that she, as Director EOUSA, never had any discussion related to any US government plans to prosecute these cases in civilian court?

US Attorney Role In Prosecuting Americans For Violations of POW Rights
Some have suggested than nobody within the Department of Justice imagined that enemy prisoners of war might appear in civilian court; or that the US Attorneys would never have expected to every manage any cases related to POWs in any US district court. However, the DoJ Memoranda show us that there were discussions on the rights POWs would have in court.

”[Y]ou asked about the rights than an enemy alien habeas petitioner would enjoy as a litigation in federal district court.”

Response: “No basis on which a federal court would grant different litigant rights to a habeas petitioner simply because he is an enemy alien.”

From: Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Dec 28th, 2001

“Possible Habeas Jurisdiction Over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”

This means they concluded after discussion that the existing plans related to protecting defendants rights during trial would have been suitable.

What role did Buchanan play in reviewing these plans; and did Buchanan understand, and agree with the decision that the existing prosecution and case management plans would fully support the anticipated/foreseeable prosecutions in civilian courts?

Did Buchanan concur or non-concur with the legal conclusions that no updates were required to any case management plans to prosecute alien combatants in civilian courts?

Is it Buchanan’s view that she was fully prepared to prosecute in civilian court before a federal district judge anyone the courts concluded should be brought before a civilian courts?

What role did Buchanan play in deciding that prosecutors should be assigned to a specific court?

Did Buchanan object when she learned that the cases would not be brought to Pennsylvania?

When did Buchanan learn that the Habeas cases from Guantanamo would, with certitude, be assigned to another district?

While the Department of Justice discussed POWs being brought before civilian courts, Buchanan was working on an obscenity case related to written comments about abuse. When was Buchanan concerned there would be a question about why she was spending time on comments about abuse; but insufficient attention given to ordering FBI agents to conduct a war crimes investigation?

What discussion did Buchanan have with Mary L. Walker on the POW prosecution plans?

What did Buchanan discuss with Walker or other legal counsel about US government legal counsel comments on the plans to prosecute POWs in civilian courts?

Discussions on Liability Risks For Foreseeable War Crimes Trials In Civilian Courts

On issues of POWs, there were also specific discussion on possible US government liabilities. One discussion related to legal risks if POWs brought a cause of action in federal court:

”You have also asked about the potential legal exposure if a detainee successfully convinces a federal court to exercise jurisdiction.

From: Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Dec 28, 2001

“Possible Habeas Jurisdiction of Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”

This shows the government was aware, and did discuss legal risks and liabilities if POWs appeared in federal court.

What was Buchanan’s view of this legal memoranda after she read it in 2001?

Is it Buchanan’s view the Military Commissions Act adequately addresses the legal risks Philbin outlined?

Foreseeable Overseas War Crimes Litigation Against Americans

There was a specific discussion about the possibility of Americans being prosecuted in American courts. This leaves open the possibility that the DoJ Staff and US Attorneys did discuss prosecuting Americans in civilian courts

The Americans prosecuted would have available all the procedural protections of the American justice system.”

From; John C. Yoo Jan 9, 2002; to William J. Haynes II, DoD General Counsel

“Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees”

The AG says he plans no enforcement of the laws of war when the DOJ OLC absolves Americans for those war crimes; or says that the illegal activity is permitted.

How does the AG reconcile the benefits of a procedure that should be afforded to Americans during trial; but no plans to enforce violations of those policies when they attach to foreign nationals?

How can the AG argue that US military personnel should be afforded Geneva protections overseas when the AG refuses to ensure violations of the laws of war are prosecuted at home?

Does Buchanan understand that by refusing to use her power to direct the FBI to investigate war crimes, she could be seen as complicit with failing to ensure the Geneva-mandated procedures are fully afforded to prisoners of war, as the DOJ memos state?

What was the plan of the US Attorneys to enforce the laws of war against Americans in civilian court?

What got in the way of Buchanan ordering the FBI to gather evidence of war crimes, and support prosecuting Americans for complicity with war crimes?

What specific Presidential order trumped the DOJ guidance, and said that no American policy maker would be prosecuted in any Federal court by any US Attorney?

Which Presidential order reconciled the two (of many)_ contradictory DOJ OLC opinions – that (1) Geneva violations do not have to be enforced, per the AG; but (2) violations of Geneva will open the door for victims to prosecute?

What special plans did Buchanan review, prepare, comment on, or disseminate related to prosecutions of Americans in civilian courts for war crimes?

Buchanan’s Duty To Enforce Laws

Even if Geneva was ignored, there were other legal standards which must be enforced. There were discussions about the impact if Geneva were denied. Gonzalez told the President that even if Geneva was not enforced, there were other legal standards that were applicable:

”[Other] criminal statues” “would still be available”

Gonzalez to President Draft Memo Jan 25, 2002: 3:30PM

What was the basis for the Attorney General to argue that no legal standard would compel him to enforce the laws of war?

How can the AG argue, by relying on a DoJ OLC memo there is no legal standard to compel him to enforce the laws of war; yet Gonzalez told the President that there were other legal standards that would leave the door open for other prosecutions under other statutes.

Was it the policy of the Untied States Attorneys Office, the Director EOUSA, or any US Attorney to argue that there was no law that would compel compliance with Geneva?

Why is the Attorney General saying there is nothing that would compel him to take action; yet the President is told the opposite: There were other legal options, even if Geneva were explained away or denied?

If there are other legal options outside Geneva to either investigate, prosecute, or adjudicate war crimes – by POWs or US persons – then there must have been discussions to implement those plans; or finalize those plans.

Where are those plans which have been fully coordinated, and are ready to support prosecution of American civilians in civilian court for war crimes?

Why is the AG saying publicly that he will not enforce the laws of war; but there should be plans to do the opposite: What will it take for the AG to enforce the laws of war against American policy makers, and fully implement these plans based on foreseeable action by POWs, regardless Geneva applicability?

Foreseeable Risk US Citizens Extradited To Foreign War Crimes Tribunals

Some have suggested there will never be a foreign war crimes tribunal; or that no American needs to be concerned that foreign war crimes tribunals might make an adverse ruling. Some suggest these foreign courts will never be able to control Americans; or that American citizens will simply refuse to appear, making the foreign war crimes tribunals meaningless and powerless.

However, they fail to consider the DOJ discussions with the Department of Defense discussing extradition of US citizens to foreign courts so victims of war crimes could see justice. Yoo said jurisdiction was possible, but not desirable because:

’[These procedural protections] might be lacking if the United States extradited the individuals . . . [to their] victims’ home countries for prosecution.”

What was Buchanan’s role in coordinating on plans to support extradition to jurisdiction that did recognize protections for US citizens?

Review

The Department of Justice written memos establish the United States did anticipate American civilian policy makers could be adjudicated for war crimes in foreign courts.

Secretary of State Powell on Jan 26, 2002 stated the impact of Geneva was not respected. By implications, the implications of Option 2 included:

An indefensible legal framework in the United States No solid legal foundation for the United States Prosecutors A negative posture for the American judicial system Materially undermining US credibility Waked US moral authority around the globe Invalidates US legal and political standing demand, expect, or company international support

By refusing to enforce the laws of war with investigations, war crimes prosecutions of civilian policy makers, the United States government – Congress and the US Attorneys for the President – have substantially supported the very goals this President said al Qaeda was hoping to achieve.

The enemy doesn’t need to do anything. Our greatest threat to national security lies with the reckless failure of the US Attorneys to fully enforce the laws of war. They would rather discuss obscenity and prosecuting those who would like to talk about actions, which the United States President fully supported.

MajGen Teguba says this Administration has directed war crimes.

MaryBeth Buchanan says she’s concerned about obscenity.

The DOJ memos show us something should have been done about war crimes.

Where is the plan of Buchanan to direct the FBI to investigate these war crimes the President ordered, did not enforce, or has blocked investigation?

Posted at July 6, 2008 7:19 PM in response to Mary Beth Buchanan's Alleged War Crimes Problem

Continuing

Here, Ashcroft advises the President of the risk that civilian policy makers could be prosecuted for war crimes:

”It could involve substantial criminal liability for involved U. S. officials

and

”It’s legal implications carry higher risk

Posted at July 6, 2008 7:18 PM in response to Mary Beth Buchanan's Alleged War Crimes Problem

There are POW abuse related memoranda that raise many questions. Buchanan’s stated policies in the Wecht Trial seem to contradict what she appears to have a legal duty to do. Someone with this much power, influence, and authority should be able to say something more than, “I wasn’t involved.”

I. Buchanan’s Legal Problem

A plain reading of the Department of Justice POW-related memoranda paint a grim picture for Buchanan’s legal defenses on allegations she was complicit with, and refused to enforce the Geneva Conventions. Buchanan appears to be in a prosecutors trap on issues of war crimes.

MaryBeth Buchanan is the US Attorney leading prosecution efforts against Dr. Wecht. Buchanan would also have us believe that she directed the FBI agents to conduct home interviews. Whether she acted on her on, or under the orders of someone else, is a separate issue. By fatally asserting that she had a direct relationship with the FBI, Buchanan has opened up a line of questions related to her legal obligations, and whether she did or didn’t direct FBI agents to investigate and enforce other legal requirements.

She would have the court believe, in another case, that talking about inhumane treatment is obscene. This means she knows, or should know, that there is a legal standard which applies to human conditions. It’s absurd for her to argue that discussing or writing about something is obscene; but the underlying treatment is permitted. This would ask us to embrace the fiction that the government can engage in obscene acts of war crimes and prisoner mistreatment; but anyone who discusses the details of those war crimes could be subjected to an obscenity charge. This defies reason.

If Buchanan would like to charge someone with obscenity for talking about inhumane treatment, she needs to show the underlying subject of discussion – the inhumane treatment – is one the government has aggressively enforced. Failure to enforce the laws of war against US government officials on issues of POW abuse means the government cannot credibly charge anyone with a crime for discussing details or writing fictionalized stories about similar treatment.

Either Buchanan told the truth about directing the FBI agents to conduct an investigation and home visits, and she has control over the FBI agents under her jurisdiction, but cannot explain why she has not ordered FBI agents to investigate war crimes;

Or Buchanan is lying about her ability to control FBI agents.

II. The Government Memoranda Making Buchanan’s Legal Problems Worse

Let’s put aside, for the moment, the problems of the Wecht and Obscenity cases, and consider the government memoranda that a war crimes tribunal may review when examining Buchanan’s conduct while a US Attorney.

A war crimes investigation might start with some general inquiry:

A. What is the legal standard;

B. Was the United States’ government’s definition of “grave breach of Geneva” reasonable

C. What are the legal obligations of prosecutors to enforce the laws of war;

D. Were these legal obligations of US prosecutors fully met?

The following discussion and questions hope to assist war crimes prosecutors in answering some of the above questions.

The Memoranda

Buchanan’s problem is that the DOJ OLC legal counsel is the source of legal language that might cause her the most problems. It would be absurd for her legal counsel to argue that Buchanan, while a US Attorney, was following lawful orders; yet, those written memoranda and orders rely on legal positions which raise more questions about Buchanan.

We put aside the issue of whether these legal statements are or are not lawfully correct; or whether they correctly state the United States Government’s legal obligations. We accept the following as DoJ-related policy and legal opinions which Buchanan and others knew or should have known.

Bybee wrote a memo to Gonzalez, Jan 22, 2002:

”[T]he Geneva Conventions require the High Contracting Parties to enacted penal legislation to punish anyone who commits or orders a grave breach.”

Bybee to Gonzalez, Jan 22, 2002: “Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees”

The above requirement, according to Bybee, would implicitly mean Members of Congress, in refusing to pass legislation, could be complicit with other Geneva violations. This also implicitly means that when legislation exists, but is not enforced to punish someone for grave braches, there is a potential Geneva compliance issue.

Not the above comment doesn’t focus only on grave breaches or who committed them, but who orders them. MajGen Teguba emphatically asserted that there was “no doubt” this administration has ordered war crimes.

For there to be any force behind Bybee’s comment to Gonzalez, that legislation would have to be enforced through prosecutions. On one hand are Teguba’s assertions; on the other hand are the absence of prosecutions.

Mary Beth Buchanan is a United States Attorney. Her job is to explain to the public why she is spending time directing the FBI to conduct home visits on the Wecht Jury; but she’s apparently provided no confidence she’s directed any FBI agents to investigate war crimes.

Buchanan’s problem is that she would have us believe two contradictory positions about her legal duties and activities. On one hand, when it comes to conducting home visits, she has control over the FBI agents; but when it comes to enforcing the laws of war, she can’t point to any orders she’s given to any FBI agents to conduct an investigation.

Obligation To Search For, Bring To Justice Anyone

According to the government and the Department of Justice legal memoranda,

[E]each state party has the obligation to search for and bring to justice (either before its court or by delivery a suspect to another state party) anyone who commits a grave breach.”

Memo from John Yoo, Jan 9, 2002 to William J. Haynes II, Department of Justice General Counsel

Yoo and Haynes played squash together, sometimes four times a week at the Potomac Officer’s Athletic Club

The key words are: “Anyone”. Recall, Bybee said the laws must exist to punish anyone who “commits or orders” war crimes.

Buchanan claimed she has access to, and can direct the FBI agents in the Wecht Case. This, presumably, would include the power of the US Attorney to work with the courts and the FBI to conduct visits of US government officials, secure search warrants, and apprehend any US government official, including the President or Member of Congress, who is complicit with these grave breaches of Geneva.

Buchanan said she could direct the FBI agents when it came to home visits of the Wecht Jury members.

- Where is the evidence Buchanan has complied with, and supported the Geneva obligation to “search” for and “bring to justice” “anyone” who commits a grave breach?

- Where is Buchanan’s legal compliance plan to direct the FBI agents under her control, as stated she can do in re Wecht, to conduct an investigation of the President and Members of Congress on issues of war crimes?

When Buchanan was director of the Executive Office of US Attorneys, when did she consult with her EOUSA legal counsel on the legal requirements under Geneva to enforce legislation to “search for” and “bring to justice” the President, Members of Congress or “anyone” else complicit with illegal war crimes?

What plans, while director EOUSA, did Buchanan review, approve, and coordinated through the DOJ Workflows, and document in the JCON database, showing how the United States Department of Justice would comply with its legal obligations to “search for” and “bring to justice” American civilians and policy makers complicit Geneva violations?

Forseeable Problems: Where Was Buchanan In Planning?

Before 9-11, we’re asked to believe “nobody imagined” that aircraft would collide with the WTC. Yet, out of the blue, many months before 9-11, the Department of Justice created a plan that would, relying on a national disaster, put into effect a program to broadly assert Presidential Power. Before the events of 9-11, substantial portions of the Patriot Act were written.

However, the Department of Justice would have us believe, this many months after 9-11, that they still have no plan or legal requirement to ensure civilian policy makers are adequately prosecuted, searched for, or brought to justice. This defies reason.

Any hint that there would be a potential for a plan, and this Administration would develop that plan.

The question is whether there was enough warning about civilians being connected to any possible war crimes litigation; and whether the Untied States Department of Justice had any inkling that civilians and policy makers might be brought before a war crimes tribunal. Some suggest a war crimes tribunal is out of the question. This is a distraction from whether or not there is a legal requirement; a duty to act; or whether or not a foreign war crimes tribunal will or will not have any power to enforce the laws of war.

Death Penalty Adjudication: Where Was Buchanan In Directing FBI Agents?

Some have suggested that the President can order the US Attorney General to not enforce the laws of war. However, the Department of Justice reminded the leadership that there was a legal requirement to do the opposite:

”Whoever, whether inside or outside the Untied States, commits a war crime . . . and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the death penalty.”

From John Yoo, Jan 9, 2002 to William J. Haynes II, Department of Justice General Counsel

It seems fairly clear that this is a legal document from the Department of Justice. The Attorney General must explain why, given this DOJ legal document, he would have us believe the opposite: That, despite a legal standard imposing the death penalty, the Attorney General has no plans to enforce that standard.

Here, in this Yoo memo, the Attorney General should be able to read that there is a legal requirement that imposes the death penalty.

- Why is the Attorney General claiming he will not enforce the laws of war on the back of DOJ OLC memoranda;

Is it the Attorney General’s view that some DOJ OLC legal memoranda are to be ignored; while others are to be given deference?

What is the basis for the Attorney General to say the above DOJ OLC-sourced document should not be enforced, and that the death penalty adjudication standard is not applicable?

Is it Buchanan’s view that “refusing to permit the FBI to investigate” is a subsequent war crime; or something consistent with the President’s policies?

The AG’s Double Standard on DOJ OLC Memoranda

The Attorney General has crafted an interesting rule to justify inaction on the laws of war. The AG’s apparent position is: If the DOJ OLC said it was OK, then it’s not a crime; and I’m not going to enforce the law if that DOJ OLC opinion is illegal or legally without any foundation.

The AG’s problem is that some of the DoJ Staff memos say one thing about Geneva, and tie the AG’s hands; while other memo say the AG is not required to enforce the laws of war. The public and Congress need a clarification from the AG. This legal position contradicts the DOJ OLC legal memoranda:

”No State Party is permitted to absolve itself or any other nation of liability for committing a grave breach.”

From John Yoo, Jan 9, 2002; to William J. Haynes II, Department of Justice General Counsel

“Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees”

Refusing to investigate or prosecute anyone for violation of the laws of war show the AG is not enforcing the Conventions; nor is he lawfully creating any immunity to prosecution. His statement of policy is, in effect, a decision not to do something he is required to do: Enforce the laws of war.

The Attorney General said if the DOJ OLC memo said it was OK, he would take no action. Yet, the supreme Court concludes the DOJ OLC positions on habeas – that the POWs had no right to trial or a habeas ruling – are invalid.

The Members of Congress and public have been left with the impression that the Attorney General is not required to enforce the laws of war; that hey can rely on DOJ OLC memoranda to ignore violations of the laws of war; and that he can point to DOJ OLC memoranda as a legal foundation to justify inaction in his decision not to fully enforce the laws of war.

How does the Attorney general justify relying on some DOJ OLC memos that “legalize” a war crime; but other DOJ OLC memos explicitly state that no one may legalize war crimes?

How does the AG reconcile one DOJ OLC memo that says “No State Party” is permitted to “absolve” itself for committing a grave breach?

What is the Attorney Generals plan to review the DOJ OLC memoranda “legalizing” the various procedures to block prisoners from accessing legal counsel?

How was this legal conclusion – that no investigation was required to investigate a war crime – accomplished without an investigation into [a] the legal standards; [b] the conduct of those personnel; [c] the legal obligations of the Untied States to enforce the laws of war; or [d] the explicit ban on the Untied States from absolving itself?

Is it the view of the attorney genera that he, as the attorney general, is not the “State Party” and not subject to any requirement to enforce the laws of war?

Does the AG view his statement – that he will not contradict a DOJ OLC opinion and enforce the laws of war on subjects the DOJ OLC “legalized – as something that is not connected with a “State Party” subject to the treaty obligations?

How does the DOJ OLC justify ignoring this legal opinion – that says a party may not absolve itself of war crimes – but claim that he’s not going to enforce the laws of war because he’s “relying on” DOJ OLC memoranda?

How can the DOJ OLC both “rely on” and “not rely on” DOJ OLC memoranda?

DOJ Policy: Legal Power of US Attorneys Extends Outside the US

Buchan’s legal problem as it relates to the FBI and Wecht is her claim that she has control over, and can direct FBI agents. Some have suggested that the Untied States Attorney in Pennsylvania has no power to review crimes in another State; or outside the Untied States. This assertion is not supported by the 2001 DOJ legal opinion:

”Laws are frequently applied extra territorially to conduct outside a nation’s jurisdiction.”

From Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Dee 28th, 2001

“Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Why is Buchanan not using her expansive powers to “direct” FBI agents – as she said she did with the Wecht Jury home visits -- to gather evidence of American government war crimes, illegal orders, and breaches of Geneva around the globe?

When did Buchanan, while direct of EOUSA or as a US Attorney, review the Geneva compliance requirements in the DOJ JCON database?

Is it Buchanan’s position that she has no power to direct FBI agents to go outside Pennsylvania?

How does Buchanan explain how she plans to comply with the DOJ standard – that the prosecution and investigation power extends beyond the Untied States – when she’s not taking action to enforce breaches of the laws of war from within the United States by Members of Congress, the President, or her peers in the legal community?

How does Buchanan explain the DOJ OLC memoranda which reminds us that US Laws are applied outside the United Stats; but there’s no apparent effort by Buchanan or any other US Attorney to enforce the laws of war within the United States against the President, Members of Congress, or others alleged to be complicity with war crimes?

Requirements To Assure Compliance, When Waived, Are Not Civilized Standards of Conduct, But Excuses To Turn A Blind Eye To War Crimes

Some might be arguing that the Attorney General has no control over the United States Attorneys; or that the US Attorney are not subject to any AG review. Above, we’ve learned that there’s a legal requirement on the United States to ensure compliance with the laws of war; and ensure the laws of war are enforced through personnel seizures and prosecutions.

The McDade Act (28 USC 530B) is a special act which creates a link between the Attorney General and the US Attorneys. The AG

”[S]hould make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance”

From Bybee Memo to Haynes, Feb 26, 2002

“Potential for Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations of Personnel Captured By U. S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan”

Is it the Attorney Generals position that “should” in this case means the Attorney General is not required to write any rule to would assure compliance?

How does the Attorney General explain how eh will enforce the laws of war, when he refuses to make rules that will ensure that outcome is realized?

Is it the Attorney General’s position that he is not required to pass any rules related to Attorney Standards of conduct, even if the Supreme Court were to rule the Prisoners of War were subject to Geneva; and the US Attorneys must enforce the laws of war?

Is it the AG's position that the “compliance” with Geneva is discretionary; and that he has no legal obligation to seize, search for, or bring to justice any US citizen complicit with war crimes?

Well Known Risk Civilians Could Be Prosecuted For Refusing to Enforce Laws of War

Some have suggested the United States government is not required to enforce the laws of war; that there was no foreseeable risk of litigation for war crimes; and that civilians cannot be prosecuted for war crimes. However, it was foreseen that US civilian, non-military officials could be prosecuted for war crimes.

Here, Ashcroft advises the President of the risk that civilian policy makers could be prosecuted for war crimes:

”It could involve substantial criminal liability for involved U. S. officials

and

”It’s legal implications carry higher risk

Posted at July 6, 2008 7:16 PM in response to Mary Beth Buchanan's Alleged War Crimes Problem

Where are the records of EOUSA or WaPenn US Attorney office access to this website:

jag.navy.mil/JAGMAG

- When did Buchanan review Geneva-related material at the JAG websites when developing policies for the US Attorneys in prosecuting prisoners?

- When was the first time Buchanan heard Mary L. Walker's name in the context of the Department of Defense, US Attorneys, Geneva, prisoners, or the laws of war?

- What emails did Walker and EOUSA Buchanan exchange on JAG-related issues when developing prosecution policy or other EOUSA-policies which Buchanan had input related to Geneva, POW abuse, rendition, FISA issues, prisoner detention, prisoner trials?

Posted at July 4, 2008 8:25 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'

Mary Walker is linked with this personnel training system on national security issues:

cpms.osd.mil/nsps/

When did Buchanan, if at all, access this information when reviewing how US Attorneys, when traveling to Guantanamo, would or would not meet the security requirements while at secure DoD facilities?

Posted at July 4, 2008 8:20 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'

Strange how someone, who was a director of the EOUSA, could spend six [6] hours in a hearing where she wasn't involved.

Was it like this:

Question: We would like to ask you a question about . . .

Answer: As I said for the last six hours, I wasn't involved. . .

Six hours of, "I wasn't involved"?

Posted at July 4, 2008 8:06 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'

Notice this DOJ-connected summary, explicitly showing someone inside DOJ agreed that Geneva did not apply.

What role did Buchanan play in providing inputs to the EOUSA representatives to DOJ meetings on the POW working group?

How did these DOJ-related meetings, outside the POW working group, consider specific comments from Buchanan?

How did Buchanan develop policies for US Attorneys while Director EOUSA while relying on the summary conclusion at the link in this comment?

Once the Working Group, including the DOJ Lawyers, "agreed" to something, how was this "agreement" used within EOUSA to organize, and make consistent all policies for the US Attorneys on how evidence will be obtained, managed, stored, and presented for trial?

What role did Buchanan have in reviewing this agreement at the link in this comment when leading efforts to organize US Attorney case management/evidence presentation policyes for prosecution?

Posted at July 4, 2008 8:00 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'

Which of the "processes" is Specter referring:

Mr. Specter, the ranking GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, this week said she had "acted properly" throughout the processM.

Geneva compliance programs?

POW interrogation?

Her lawyer, Roscoe C. Howard Jr., said she was "absolutely not involved" in the firings,

What about involvement with EOUSA-related decisions, plans, guidance, and prosecution decisions, evidence collection, or case management policies that allegedly ignored the Geneva Conventions?

From:

House, Senate aides quiz Buchanan on firings
Saturday, June 16, 2007
By Jerome L. Sherman and Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan yesterday faced six hours of questions from congressional staffers in the ongoing probe into last year's controversial firings of nine other U.S. attorneys from across the country.

When will the public get a chance to review the transcript; and examine any Geneva/Nuremberg issues which the Judiciary may have not raised?

Posted at July 4, 2008 7:52 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'

From:

House, Senate aides quiz Buchanan on firings Saturday, June 16, 2007 By Jerome L. Sherman and Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Ms. Buchanan, who has served as the chief federal prosecutor in Western Pennsylvania since September 2001

She was traveling back and forth beween PA and DC while holding the position she had since 2001.

Posted at July 4, 2008 7:45 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'

Reconsider this:

”The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussion the subject was well known to a number of other senior officials at the department, including others who were involved with preparing the departments’ testimony to Congress.”

From: “Former Justice Dept. Official Defends Actions New York Times, March 18, 2007

There should be records supporting what legal counsel are saying about these communications beween DoJ and the White House.

Posted at July 4, 2008 7:38 PM in response to Wecht Defense Counsel Motion on 'Jury Poll'