We'd like to call attention to this article at Jurist: Discussing Nuremberg and legal counsel responsibility.

President's Alleged Resource Allocation Decision To Not Spend Time on Geneva

The White House fired US Attorneys for "not" doing something. Indeed, the White House "knew" they were firing US Attorneys, without spending time on Geneva oversight, as they had a legal duty.

There was no "confusion" about the laws of war, but a decision to ignore it. That is an alleged subsequent war crime, and an alleged breach of legal counsel duties to enforce the laws of war.

From the article:

Recently two of the NMT cases, "The Justice Case" (United States v. Alstotetter,) and "The Ministries Case" (United States v. Von Weisaecker) have been subjects of renewed interest among legal scholars.

. . .

The reason for the renewed interest in these cases has been the declassification over the last several years of legal memorandums written by lawyers of the Bush administration authorizing torture as a lawful means of interrogation.

The precedent of the Justice Trial from Nuremberg (a US-run trial), was that legal counsel -- when they refuse to enforce the laws of war -- can be prosecuted for war crimes. Indeed, the Supreme Court Justices could, in theory, be investigated for their alleged failure to enforce the laws of war when they allegedly refused to permit legal proceedings related to rendition.

The Ministries Case brought charges against policy makers. However, today, in the United States, policy making is not the exclusive power of the Executive, but shared between the President and Congress.

Look at the charges, and consider (a) the time the White House spent explaining away these abuses; (b) the time the WH did spend on firing US Attorneys, but not Geneva; and (c) the extent Members of Congress refused to remove themselves from the illegal planning and policymaking, including POW abuse, FISA violations, and unlaful use of that illegally captured evidence during torture:

Ministries Trial: The indictment listed eight counts: 18 of the defendants were charged with committing crimes against peace by participating in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties; 17 of the defendants were charged with participating in a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; 8 were charged with committing war crimes by participating in atrocities and offenses, including murder, enslavement, and ill-treatment, against POWs and those at war with Germany;

One question on the US Attorney-firing documents from the White House: When did the White House make decisions to ignore Geneva, but punish US Attorneys for not following a political agenda?

Arguably, once the White House "made the decision" to punish (rightly or wrongly) US Attorneys, the White House knew or should have known it was not fully using its power to enforce Geneva.

Translation: The time the White House staff spent on the US Attorney firings is evidence of time they knew they should have been spending on higher priorities: enforcing the laws of war, not using WH-GOP power to punish prudent US Attorneys. The White House documents related to the US Attorney firings is part of the larger evidence related to US government malfeasance related to Geneva.

Alleged war crimes!

We must ask why Members of Congress have an interest to focus on health care: They enjoy the distraction and smokescreen away from what the President did or didn't do; and their contribution to that failure. Today's "focus" on health care shows us there are "higher" interests to avoid the US Attorney firing issues, and the attached smokescreen from war crimes and Member of Congress complicity.