An honorably discharged army soldier is refusing to deploy to Iraq partly on the grounds that these orders are illegal.  His position directly contradicts the United States government's contention that these combat activities are lawful under the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, the President's public affairs office has been implicated at 119 in disinformation efforts, suspected to supporting alleged unlawful warfare and war crimes.

Sgt Matthis Chrioux reports he fears retaliation. This is a well founded and reasoned concern, supported, in part by the well crafted preliminary memorandum, related to a decision to refuse to deploy to a combat zone. The laws of war require service members, when they learn of war crimes, to report that evidence to their commanders.

Chiroux reports he was  not able to fully comply with his Geneva obligations because he feared retaliation for reporting war crimes. Chiroux fears retaliation if he complies with the Geneva conventions. His fear, in part, stems from public support for illegal warfare, as supported by the President's information warfare against American civilians.

Civilian oversight has been turned on its head. It is Chiroux's contention that this public support for the alleged illegal occupation is fueling retaliation against military personnel who attempt to take comply with the laws of war. The military is rightfully, albeit slowly objecting to following illegal civilian orders.

This is a serious situation warranting public comment and review.  The President is not applying the lessons of Vietnam to prevail in combat, but is allegedly suppressing public discussion of his failure to fully comply with Geneva. The President is applying the wrong lessons from the war he refused to deploy.

Information Warfare: Maintain Support For War Crimes

The President's information warfare through the military analysts appears related to his larger objective of suppressing domestic opposition and oversight of this alleged illegal, reckless, and unlawful activity. The President may be losing on the battlefield, but he faces no consequences if he can maintain public support for his recklessness. This is the lesson of Vietnam.

Congressional inaction on impeachment dissuades some a from challenging the failed Iraq policy. A decision to not impeach would bolster the President's standing, and dissuade military personnel from refusing to obey deployments.

Impeachment Inaction Fuels Alleged War Crimes Machine

This is a cycle feeding on itself. The President's disinformation continues, there is no information to prompt an investigation, and without a prosecution the public has no infromation to challenge the illegal warfare. Then the cycle continues with more disinformation and intimidation.

Congress is not helping by refusing to oppose the President, nor leading efforts to undermine support for illegal warfare.

One attorney contrasted the public opposition against Vietnam with still-popular Bush Administration's war in Iraq:

". . .Bush Administration still actively defends it and might well find it useful to political purposes to go after veterans who talk publicly about war crimes they witnessed. . ."

War crimes defendants have the obligation to show they did not have a reasonable basis to conclude the orders were illegal. Sgt. Chiroux declares:

"This occupation is unconstitutional and illegal and I hereby lawfully
refuse to participate as I will surely be a party to war crimes."

The soldier reported his fear of retaliation on Iraq Veterans Against the War:

"As an Army journalist whose job it was to collect and filter
servicemember's stories, I heard many stomach-churning testimonies of
the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation
from the military, I failed to report these crimes, but never again
will I allow fear to silence me."

These have serious Geneva implications. Congress must examine why
reports of alleged war crimes are not being adequately processed.

The public and international community must know why service members serving in active duty combat zones are reluctant
to report alleged violations of the laws of war. The next step is to remove these obstacles, and ensure the laws of war are fully enforced, not explained away with the President's disinformation and Congressional inaction.

US Government Contractors, Civilians

The problem is not isolated to the Department of Defense. DoJ OLC staff counsel, contractors, and outside legal counsel are also allegedly complicit with these war crimes It remains to be understood which JCON data DoJ OLC staff counsel accessed to support other war crimes. The Attorney General and DoJ OLC have self-certified circular memoranda saying American war crimes are lawful. That declaration is allegedly not enforceable and could be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war. No attorney, legal counsel, or staff adviser can lawfully declare they will not fully enforce the Conventions.

DOJ JCON Database and War Crimes Investigations Against Staff Counsel

There is some confusion about whether anything is getting done. Some point to a promise of concern, asking us to believe that help is on the way. That is an illusory promise in the wake of certain war crimes, and not a recipe for change.

A decision to investigate is different than raising a legal concern in a court motion. It is arguably reckless for anyone to argue that because an attorney or court may have mentioned legal counsel misconduct that there is, necessarily an investigation. The court records are not the same as the disbarment investigations. The issue is not what is or isn't in the court database, but whether there is or is not a reasonable basis to conclude from court records that there is an investigation outside court. That does not follow.

Legal Counsel Oversight Through Prosecutions, Not Promises of Investigations

There is some confusion about whether there are or are not ongoing investigations or plans to prosecute DOJ OLC staff counsel. Some might suggest that there is a promise from DOJ OPR to conduct an investigation. Others may claim that they have seen concerns in court filings. The misdirection is interesting.

Rather than point to court results,
we're asked to believe the vague assurance that someone is "concerned"
about something. That is meaningless. Whether the court officers are or
are not concerned about misconduct is a separate issue than whether
they have reported that information outside court to the attorney
disciplinary board.


Court data bases are not the same as disciplinary board investigation documents. 
It is a separate issue whether that complaint does or does not
translate into an investigation.  It is misdirection to point to a
court data base when making
assessments about whether there are or are not active war crimes
investigations against United States Attorneys, DoJ OLC Staff
counsel, or others allegedly complicit with illegal information warfare.

Where there is supposed evidence that someone is possibly concerned
with a court officer's conduct, that concern is meaningless until that
information is transmitted to the attorney disciplinary board, and the disciplinary board completes their investigation, then forwards that information to the court for trial.  

If any court has a genuine concern with any attorney -- supposedly under investigation or engaged in alleged illegal conduct -- the court could work with others to expedite that legal review and prevent that legal counsel from appearing before the court. This does not appear to be happening, as evidenced by the lack of war crimes prosecutions against the DOJ OLC staff counsel. Indeed, the Attorney General has expressly stated he has no plans to enforce the laws of war, nor fully comply with Geneva because the DOJ OLC memoranda said it was OK. That excuse is not acceptable, and could be adjudicated as a subsequent war crime.

The public must review to what extent court officers and legal counsel
have publicly claimed they have "concerns" with war crimes, but show no
evidence they have filed, started, or reported this information to the
attorney disciplinary boards.

Reckless Assurances of Concern Without A Showing of Progress

A motion containing a concern about a court officer or staff counsel means nothing until the state disciplinary board completes its investigation, and the results are provided to the court for a disbarment proceeding. We're far from that, thanks to the inaction of Congress, lack of reliable information, the disinformation from the President, and lack of state-level public action directed at DOJ OLC staff counsel for their alleged complicity with war crimes. We have an apparent national war crimes policy of "inaction in action."

The public has no assurances that any investigation has started, until the alleged war crimes investigation of an attorney is complete and the state disciplinary board presents their information to the court for purposes of disbarment. But a concern in a court document does not mean there were previous investigation nor subsequent actions.

An outside, non-court investigation has no relationship to whether or not there is or is not a court motion filed in any database.  An investigation, by definition is pending, and is not in court. The investigation must occur first. A court filing mentioning a possible investigation means nothing.

No one can credibly argue they "know" an investigation has started; or that the review will or will not result in formal charges unless they are speculating, have inside information, or they hope to provide assurances of things which may or may not happen. Under this US government, the promises have been fruitless.

However, there is another way to know whether an investigation is or isn't happening. It's possible to compare the publicly available evidence of investigators, review what is publicly known about what they are doing, and compare their actions, questions, and likely evidence to various policies, guides, and legal standards. With enough anecdotal information, it is possible to make some informed judgments of what is most likely happening. The results from this US government are clear: We have no war crimes prosecutions, only the promise.

The States should move to enforce the laws of war against the President, Attorney General, DOJ Staff, and Civilian policy makers.  Until the public sees visible evidence that there are investigations against legal counsel in the form of prosecutions, the public should reasonably conclude that "concern" about war crimes is not triggering the mandatory actions: War crimes reports and investigations against staff counsel. This inaction was the subject of war crimes prosecution at the Justice Trial.

Not Obliged To Follow Illegal Orders

More people like Sgt Matthis Chrioux should question the legality of this occupation. The President may or may not have made a legal error. However, there is no reason anyone should support that error by covering up war crimes, or not enforcing the laws of war.

The White House Press office is allegedly lying when it says the White House is not involved with the alleged disinformation campaign directed at US civilians in violation of the Smith Act. The White House emails firmly establish at 119 the White House involvement with the planning. However, Perino would ask that we not believe our lying eyes.  This climate of disinformation is fueling the intimidation, and dissuading military personnel to comply with their Geneva obligations. This disinformation could be a subsequent offenses under the laws of war.

Alleged DOJ OLC Role In Drafting Illegal Memoranda To Support Disinformation, and Bolster Public Support for War Crimes and Illegal Activity

Until the war ends, the public should reasonably conclude that the DOJ OLC staff counsel believe they are  immune from prosecution. They are in error. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes.

People like Sgt Chiroux are speaking out. DoJ OLC legal memoranda are allegedly behind the President's alleged illegal orders. It is only a matter of time before the spotlight brightens on the DOJ JCON database seeking that alleged war crimes evidence which may implicate DOJ OLC staff counsel. It remains to be understood how military personnel like Sgt Chiroux might be able to assist in prosecuting Department of Justice staff counsel as was done at Nuremberg.

Needed War Crimes Investigations of DOJ OLC Staff Counsel 

The problem is not with those who disobey illegal orders. The problem is the reckless DOJ OLC staff counsel which refuses to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions. The lawyers have allegedly betrayed their oath, written memoranda that
would demand military personnel be silent about war crimes, and largely
supported illegal efforts to intimidate people not to fully comply with
their legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

We need to see investigation results, not the promise of investigations. The open question remains to what extent non-DoJ personnel, contractors, and personnel not directly connected with the Department of Justice are involved. These efforts appear to include plans and ongoing activities to dissuade discussion of these war crimes, and the proven White House connection  at 119  with the disinformation and information warfare. How this is affecting non-DOJ personnel remains to be understood.

America's citizens must accept the domestic enemy is in the Oval Office and the Department of Justice legal counsel's office. Until they are confronted at a war crimes tribunal or through impeachment, America is recklessly leaving the enforcement of the laws of war against the President and Staff counsel in the hands of those who have been deployed, and are not able to directly confront the alleged war criminals in the Department of Justice.

If you would like to oppose this President's allegedly reckless, illegal warfare, visit this link, to meet with others who hope to enforce the laws of war against US government officials and this reckless President.

Disclaimer: We are not affiliated with the that organization, nor has this information been provided to you on their behalf. This is for information only and not legal advise. The link is provided for your convenience, and is not an encouragement to violate the law or neglect legal requirements under the laws of war.