Bombing Iran’s IAEA safe-guarded nuclear facilities

________________

DoD directives

The U.S. military accepts this provision of 1977 Geneva Protocol-1, that its article 52 accurately declares customary international law, its “civilian object” and “military objective” language, and is binding, on the U.S. government, the U.S. military, and all combat commanders, private contractors, mercenaries, covert operators, civilian support, hired hands, independent operators, groups, states, it conspires, incites, aids and abets, facilitates.

________________

U.S. Air Force, 2006:

• Targeting {1.21mb.pdf, afep, 1.21mb.pdf, dtic}, pages 88-95 at 88-89 (“Appendix A, Targeting and Legal Considerations”) (U.S. Department of the Air Force, AFDD 2-1.9, June 8 2006) (“Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.9, 8 June 2006”), marked-up by CJHjr to conform to binding DoD Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program, paragraph 4.1, issued a month earlier (May 9 2006, quoted below), superceding, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander's Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict (U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, AFP 110-34, 25 July 1980) (“OPR: JACI (Maj Burrus M. Carnahan)”) (U.S. Air Force, Judge Advocate General's Corps, International and Operations Law Division), declared obsolete, December 20 1995, together with, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law--The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations (USAF, AFP 110-31, 19 November 1976, 173 pages annotated) (OPR: JACI) (U.S. Air Force, Judge Advocate General's Corps, International and Operations Law Division) (“the first pamphlet published by the United States Air Force on the law of war”). Obsolete Publications {3.52mb.pdf} (USAF, AFD-070808-022, July 8 2008).

Note: An Air Force mistake, the U.S. is a signatory to that Additional Protocol, but did not yet ratify it (Geneva Protocol-1, signed December 12 1977).

4 JAGs (U.S. army, navy, marines, air force), 1986:

• “Memorandum to John H. McNeill, Assistant General Counsel (International), OSD” (Office of the Secretary of Defense), “Subject: 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions: Customary International Law Implication” (8 May 1986) (May 8 1986), from W. Hays Parks (Chief, International Law Branch, DAJA-IA) (Department of the Army, Judge Advocate, International Affairs) (U.S. Army, Office of The Judge Advocate General, International Affairs Division), LCDR Michael F. Lohr (JAGC, USN, NJAG, Code 10) (Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Navy Judge Advocate General, International and Operational Law), Dennis Yoder (Lt Colonel, USAF, AF/JACI) (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Judge Advocate General's Corps, International and Operations Law Division), William Anderson (HQ USMC/JAR) (Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Judge Advocate Division, Research and Civil Law), facsimile, Law of War Documentary Supplement (2007) {3.7mb.pdf, source, ditto, source} (“Law of War (LOW) Documentary Supplement (2007)” “LoW Documentary Supplement (2007)”) (formerly, JA 424), pages 399-401, “Protocol I as an expression of customary international law” (TJAGLCS: United States Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, International and Operational Law Department, 600 Massie Road, Charlottesville Virginia, June 25 2007, Sean M. Watts, editor), facsimile, United States v. Omar Ahmed Khadr (prisoner number 766), William Kuebler (Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, detailed defense counsel), Rebecca S. Snyder (Lieutenant, U.S. Navy Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, assistant detailed defense counsel), “Defense Motion to Dismiss Due for Lack of Jurisdiction for Failure to Comply with Common Article 3” (17 January 2008) {3.8mb.pdf}, attachment A (“Memorandum from W. Hays Parks, Chief, International Law Branch, DAJA-IA, et. al., to Mr. John H. McNeill, Assistant General Counsel (International), OSD (8 May 1986)”) (U.S. Military Commission, under 10 U.S.C. § 948(h), U.S. military base, Guantanamo Bay Cuba, January 17 2008).

USAF, 2007:

• The Military Commander and the Law, pages 617-645 (chapter 17, “International and Operations Law”), at pages 624-629 (“The Law of Armed Conflict”), page 626 (U.S. Air Force, The Judge Advocate General’s School, Maxwell Air Force Base Alabama, 8th Edition 2006, electronic update October 2007) {3.84mb.pdf, source}.

________________

U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, 2007:

• Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, “Edition July 2007” {2.01mb.pdf, source} (U.S. Navy Warfare Publication NWP 1-14M, U.S. Marine Corps Warfare Publication MCWP 5-12.1, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Publication COMDTPUB P5800.7, July 2007, replacing the October 1995 edition, replacing the October 1989 edition (designated NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10)), {SuDoc: D 201.6/12:L 41, LCCN (none), OCLC: 24497192, GPOcat, paper, DL, WorldCat}, “sources of authority for statements of relevant law” and previous (1995) edition, Annotated Supplement to the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWC: U.S. Naval War College, International Law Department (formerly, Oceans Law and Policy Department), Newport Rhode Island, 1997), reprinted, A. R. Thomas, James C. Duncan (editors), Annotated Supplement to the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWC, ILD, international law studies (“blue book”) series, volume 73, 1999) {5.94mb.pdf, source, copy, source} {SuDoc: D 208.207:73, LCCN: 99229871, OCLC: 43517538, GPOcat, paper, DL, WorldCat}.

________________

U.S. Army, 1956, 1976:

• The Law of Land Warfare {10.3mb.pdf, source, copy, source} (U.S. Army, Field Manual 27-10, July 18 1956, and amendment dated July 15 1976) {SuDoc: D 101.20:27-10, ditto, LCCN: 56062174, OCLC: 39027139, GPOcat, WorldCat}, reprinted, Law of War Documentary Supplement (2007) {3.7mb.pdf, source, ditto, source} (“Law of War (LOW) Documentary Supplement (2007)” “LoW Documentary Supplement (2007)”) (formerly, JA 424), pages 1-145 (TJAGLCS: United States Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, 600 Massie Road, Charlottesville Virginia, International and Operational Law Department, June 25 2007, Sean M. Watts, editor).

________________

DoD JAG lawyers

The Judge Advocate General’s Corps.

Where do JAG lawyers fit, in combat?

Is targeting any of their business?

Must they be consulted?

Can they be excluded?

Do they speak, only if spoken to?

Are they clerical staff? rubber-stampers? of higher orders?

There are U.S. military orders, about law, about lawyers.

These orders say, they’re binding, on the lawyers, on all combat commanders, on all they command, special forces included, the U.S. President’s secret SS commandos.

Can U.S. military lawyers be prosecuted, for the war crime of bombing Iran’s IAEA targets, because of what they say, or what they don’t say.

Can U.S. military combat commanders be prosecuted for the war crime of bombing Iran’s IAEA targets.

JAG lawyers are not combat commanders, they’re not in the combat chain of command, they have no veto.

But JAG lawyers have legal duties, as support staff. They are obliged to examine, and express an opinion about it, planned targets.

By performing their duty, or refusing to do it, JAG lawyers willingly associate themselves with massive violence, and so can exhibit criminal intent, if that violence is unlawful.

Likewise if a JAG lawyer fails to report, and promptly, to a higher command, if a combat commander insists to attack unlawful targets, or attack in unlawful ways, unlawful in the lawyer’s reasonable opinion.

Combat commanders have the legal duty to consult JAG lawyers, on the question, is their intended violence lawful. And so combat commanders can exhibit criminal intent, if they violate that duty, or reject legal advice, and if that violence is unlawful.

Their orders require combat commanders to comply with the law of war and to submit their “plans, policies, directives, and rules of engagement” to U.S. military lawyers, whose duty is to “ensure their consistency” with the law of war.

• DoD Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program {115kb.pdf, jel, jdeisfs} (boldface added) (Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense Directive, DoDD 2311.01E, May 9 2006), cancels DoDD 5100.77, DoD Law of War Program (December 9 1998) {42kb.pdf, 36kb.pdf, 16kb.txt, jdeisfs}, cancels DoDD 5100.77 (July 10 1979) {253kb.pdf, source}, cancels DoDD 5100.77 (November 5 1974).

The Chiefs:

• Implementation of DoD Law of War Program {110kb.pdf} (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction, CJCSI 5810.01C, January 31 2007) (“Directive current as of 29 January 2008”).

• Joint Publication 1-04, Legal Support to Military Operations “01 March 2007” {640kb.pdf, source, jel} {copy, fas} (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, JP 1-04, March 1 2007).

• Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms {2.62mb.pdf, doddict, jp, jel} (“12 April 2001, as amended through 30 May 2008”) (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, JP 1-02, May 30 2008).

JFCom: U.S. Joint Forces Command (combat command)

• Joint Fires and Targeting Handbook {2.21mb.pdf, dtic}, 19 October 2007 (USJFCom: United States Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting Center, 116 Lake View Parkway, Suffolk Virginia, October 19 2007).

________________

Iran bombing encyclopedia

1. Who owns the Iran bombing encyclopedia? (euphemistically, basic encyclopedia).

Is there more than one?

2. Who owns the Iran candidate target list?

Is there more than one?

3. Who owns the Iran no-strike list?

Is there more than one?

4. Who owns the Iran restricted target list?

Is there more than one?

5. Who owns the Iran joint target list?

Is there more than one?

The quoted Joint Forces Joint Fires and Targeting Handbook recites, that it recounts current best practice in U.S. combat commands, including what the binding DoD Law of War Program directive requires them to require, namely, that combat force JAG lawyers personally evaluate each target, whether it be in the bombing encyclopedia or not, which is nominated to a candidate target list, and personally approve its further destination, namely, each addition to, and each omission from, the three bombing lists: The no-strike list (NSL), the restricted strike list (RSL), or the unrestricted joint target list (JTL).

Obviously, Iran’s nuclear facilities are in the bombing encyclopedia, with no shortage of people eager to nominate them, to a candidate target list, and so the question is, which bombing list are they now on?

Are they ready to bomb (JTL)? are they ready to bomb with restrictions (RTL)? and what is the text of the restrictions? are they on a no-strike list (NSL)?

The answer is apparent, as the bombing talk bears witness, they’re now on the JTL, ready to bomb, on orders.

Impending, massive, unlawful, violence, licensing lawful reprisal targeting of the U.S. public, U.S. civilians and U.S. civilian objects:—

How did this came to be? by what procedure? on whose orders?

How can the law of war be enforced? how can these targets be moved to the no-strike list?

Are there are multiple Iran targets lists? conflicting lists? secret lists? covert action lists? lists with different names? within the same joint forces combat command? in different joint force commands? in single commands? not part of a joint force? special operations combat commands? from the separate military departments (army, navy, marines, air force)? the CIA? private contractors? mercenaries? aided and abetted individuals or groups?

Have one set of commanders outlawed targets, different commanders stand ready to bomb?

To discover the answer, let’s hear the testimony of each individual JAG lawyer, who signed off on these targets, and their explanation.

In addition, JAG lawyers at every combat command which might launch weapons at Iran’s IAEA nuclear facilities, each of the 10 combatant commands, each subcommand, joint task force, and each secret command which the President may have created for covert action. SOCCom, CentCom, JFCom, EUCom, PacCom, SouthCom, AfriCom, StratCom, CentAF, USNavCent, USMarCent, ArCent, SOCCent, MNF-I, CJTF-101, CJTF-HOA.

The public needs accountability, enforcement of the rule of law, criminal penalties, mandatory incarceration, prosecuted in the U.S. federal district court, requiring identified staff to create permanent records, and preserve them permanently, including real time operation logs, identifying the record-keepers and each individual who evaluates targets.

The U.S. military officers who approved bombing the ICRC warehouse in Kabul, twice, are still at large, anonymous hoodlums for hire, willing to sign-off on any target anybody wants to bomb, or those who deceived them.

With accountability, which Congress has not provided, they would long since be expelled from the military and locked up for their crime.

It’s plain, from the DoD Law of War Program, a binding directive, that combat commanders are prohibited from obeying orders, from the national command authority (President, Secretary of Defense), to bomb targets, unless and until the combat commander personally evaluates those targets, whether or not it is lawful to bomb them.

If s/he concludes the targets are not lawful, then if s/he bombs them anyway, on the President’s orders, s/he commits a violent war crime (under both U.S. and international law), and a U.S. court martial crime.

________________

Silencing JAG lawyers

What to do, if you want to bomb Iran, their IAEA nuclear facilities, and your military JAG lawyers say, “No.”

Their secret torture memos demonstrate it, Bush-Cheney have their methods, how to paint JAG lawyers out of the picture (civil servants, not politically appointed):

George W. Bush asserted, in a signing statement, his intention, if it suits him, to violate the Act of Congress he signed, which prohibits any officer or employee of the Department of Defense to interfere with the ability of military legal advisers (judge advocates) “to give independent legal advice.” 10 U.S.C. 3037, 5046, 5148, 8037 (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force).

And that’s precisely what Bush-Cheney did, to create their secret torture “law,” cram it down the throats of the military, who then saluted, and did as they were told.

The general counsel for the defense department, William J. Haynes II (Jim Haynes), he ordered the JAGs to stop their review of U.S. military torture techniques, a review destined to preempt that cruelty, a violation of the law of war.

His order was passed verbally by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard B. Myers) to his JAG lawyer, Legal Counsel to the Chiefs (Jane G. Dalton), ordering her to stop the review she was conducting, with JAGs in all services. She obeyed that verbal order.

The JAG lawyer, she did not insist on a signed, written, order, that she conduct her business in violation of her professional judgment.

She allowed Richard B. Myers to escape responsibility.

People who know, or suspect, they’re doing something wrong, they don’t want to sign anything, and later, they might claim, they can’t recall, don’t remember, what’s not recorded.

If required to put it in writing, and sign it, they might think better of it, and withdraw their order.

• Origins of aggressive interrogation techniques “Part I of the Committee's inquiry into the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody” (Senate Armed Services Committee, hearing, June 17 2008, 9:34am-5:15pm) (panel-2, 12:37-2:40pm), C-Span video, broadcast June 17, 18, 20, 21, 2008, C-Span cached video (panel 1) {3:03:10, 177mb.rm, 564752709, rss}, C-Span cached video (panels 2 and 3) {4:10:16, 244mb.rm}, C-Span library video (panels 1 and 2, “Detainee Interrogation Techniques, Morning”) {5:10:44, flv, 206004-1, search}, C-Span library video (“Detainee Interrogation Techniques, Afternoon”) (panel-3, 3:10-5:15pm, William J. Haynes II) {2:06:49, flv, 206004-2}, FNS transcripts: panel 1, 2, 3, Lexis.

This signing statement is the likely work of David Addington, then legal counsel to Dick Cheney (U.S. Vice President) and reasserts the same authority he and Cheney first asserted in 1992, rebuffed by Congress, a mechanism to tempt or coerce military lawyers, to lie about their legal opinions, or else silence them.

• Charlie Savage, “Hail to the chief: Dick Cheney's mission to expand -- or 'restore' -- the powers of the presidency” {pf} (The Boston Globe, November 26 2006).

A former Secretary of Defense and DoD General Counsel, Cheney-Addington, they certainly appreciate the obstacle posed by JAGs, to criminal orders, to dubious orders:

• JAG Instruction 5803.1C (JAG 132, November 9 2004), Subject: Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General {6.63mb.pdf/image, source, copy}, enclosure 1, “Rules of Professional Conduct,” rule 1.2(e), 32 C.F.R. 776.21(5), (f) (U.S. DoN JAGC: Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Washington D.C.), JAGINST 5803.1C (JAG 132, November 9 2004), cancels, JAGINST 5803.1B (JAG 132, February 11 2000) {250kb.pdf, source}, cancels, JAGINST 5803.1A (JAG 132, July 13 1992), and see, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers {157kb.pdf, legal, epubs} (U.S. Army Regulation 27-26, June 1 1992), Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct (AFRPC) {251kb.pdf, caaflog} (U.S. Air Force, Judge Advocate General's Corps., TJS-2, August 17 2005).

Cheney-Addington might understand how to evade that obstacle, enleague a few JAG lawyers (maybe one’s enough), flatter them, seduce them, corrupt them, bribe them, intimidate them, failing which, banish them, marginalize them, silence them, transfer them, fire them.

It preys on their mind, now, may be, for this very reason, the JAGs, their likely opinion, about bombing Iran’s IAEA nuclear facilities, and may be their opinion about violent DoD covert operations in Iran (murder, arson, kidnapping).

Recently, Jim Haynes did it again (David Addington’s personal pick for that job), fronting for Bush-Cheney, their desperation, to control the JAGs, influence them, dominate them,q intimidate them, weed them, once again rebuffed Congress (informally).

• Charlie Savage, “Control sought on military lawyers: Bush wants power over promotions” {pf} (The Boston Globe, December 15 2007), Charlie Savage, “Military lawyers stay unbridled: White House drops veto bid on promotions” {pf} (The Boston Globe, December 19 2007), Globe editorial, “Lawyers with too much integrity” {pf} (The Boston Globe, December 20 2007).

Each service has a general counsel (10 U.S.C. 3019, 5019, 8019), a civilian political appointee, and these could be persuaded or ordered to terminate the duty of the JAGs to approve targets, declare they comply with the international laws of war. The Defense Department general counsel (10 U.S.C. 140), a civilian political appointee, could be persuaded or ordered to issue that order and usurp all JAG legal adviser duties on targeting, into the hands of a cooperative lawyer. Persuaded or ordered by the Secretary of Defense, a civilian political appointee, boss of the whole department (10 U.S.C. 113(b)). And if no military lawyer will play ball, then — as with their torture opinions — the U.S. Attorney General can confiscate that duty (28 U.S.C. 512-513), a civilian political appointee, and declare the targets lawful, and this by a secret opinion, eagerly, or persuaded or ordered to do so, may be, by George W. Bush, the political appointor, as commander-in-chief, a Caesar, who fancies he can “supervise” a “unitary executive branch,” according to his whim, the legal regime created by Adolph Hitler’s lawyers, and Richard Nixon’s view too, as he put it to David Frost (Washington D.C., April 25 1977) {transcript, pf, video}:

Proper oversight of the rule of law requires the committee to throw a wrench into this mechanism, junk this Führerprinzip.

Let’s hear the JAG lawyers, their opinion about it.

Do they endorse the Fhürerprinzip, acquiesce, submit, to what Nuremberg military tribunals held to be beyond the legal capacity of any government to legalize, any government official (commander-in-chief), any government legislative body (Congress), the presumed legal authority to decriminalize an international violent crime (e.g., a war crime).

If the U.S. president orders bombing of Iran’s IAEA nuclear facilities, will our JAG lawyers say, his order is a legal Führer order (as Adolph’s lawyers would assert), though it violates the laws of war, or a criminal Führer order (as the Nuremberg military tribunals would hold), because it violates the laws of war.

Any such legal dispute involving, as it does, massive violence, this dispute, in an honest government, would be urgently unmasked, ventilated in fresh air, reported to the public, to every military commander with weapons release authority, and to Congress.

So that Congress can consider whether to resolve the dispute, by enacting or clarifying the law. So that military commanders can consider their risk of criminal prosecution, if they obey orders. So that the public can remove members of Congress who shirk their duty, or perform it contrary to their desires, the voters.

In an honest government, lawyers would be protected in their work, to investigate facts, to form, and to express, a free and honest opinion, and those who seek to bribe them, or tempt them, or coerce them, or punish them, for doing their duty, these hoodlums would be prosecuted.

But if members of Congress don’t want to do it, protect honest lawyers, then, for the sake of honest government, they should at least clarify, that military lawyers, their duty, obliges them to obey orders, to deliver legal advice and opinions as they are ordered, as if it were their actual honest advice and opinions.

Lying, on orders, about your legal opinion, this is dishonest, of course, as is the usual method of lying by U.S. government legal advisers, accepting stipulated facts which they have reason to suspect are not, or may not be, the actual facts and concealing their opinion on alternate facts. Dishonesty is a basis to disbar them, revoke, suspend, their license to practice law.

• In Re Elliott Abrams, rehearing en banc, 689 A.2d 6 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 91-BG-1518, February 5 1997) (“dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation” “deceived three Congressional committees”) {183kb.pdf}.

Dishonesty, a want of good moral character, disqualifies them to hold the office of a military lawyer, except in the eyes of a criminal military high command, and their civilian provocateurs, wondering how to coerce tens of thousands of soldiers, to obey criminal orders.

A complicit Congress can easily fix this anomaly, by discarding the requirement that military lawyers hold a license to practice law.

But this would be a war crime, by each member of Congress voting to do it, as the laws of war require a state to provide lawyers, to advise commanders, e.g., on targeting.

Members of Congress don’t fear criminal prosecution, for war crimes, else they would not vote, as they routinely do, to conspire, incite, aid and abet, facilitate, the criminal torts and violent war crimes of Israel, its officials, its army.

________________

Mutiny

The President, and his circle, do not release weapons.

For that, they require obedience, from tens of thousands of people. It’s a simple matter for the military high command, the CIA, to lie, deceive, bamboozle, stonewall, silence, most of these people, they are young, ill-informed, and uneducated in such matters. Less so older people, with weapons release authority.

All these people might have their doubts, many might feel convinced, their orders are unlawful, criminal under the laws of war.

Especially, if that’s what their own JAG lawyers are telling them.

But Congress cast them into a deadly dilemma.

Congress threatens each of them with criminal prosecution and execution, if they obey orders to release weapons against unlawful targets. And so does every other country in the world, which can get their hands on them (universal jurisdiction, international war crimes).

Yet, Congress also threatens them death too, if they refuse to obey orders.

And if they ally with others, and refuse to obey orders, to thwart an unlawful attack.

• “Mutiny or sedition,” 10 U.S.C. § 894 (UCMJ: Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 94). “Revolt or mutiny of seamen.” 18 U.S.C. § 2193.

It’s poor treatment, for Congress, to threaten our military, with execution, if they obey orders, and execution, if they refuse to obey orders, those very same orders.

Congress created it, this dilemma, and so should remedy it, provide a way for our military to refuse to obey orders they reasonably believe, or reasonably fear, are unlawful, including a war crime, a violation of the international law of war.

Our military law assumes an honest President and an honest military high command.

Recent events illustrate, this assumption is unwarranted, on both accounts, but it has always been unwarranted.

The committee should also solve the dilemma at hand, declare these targets illegal, or any rate off-limits, and so preempt anguish of our men and women in the military.

Most members of Congress vote as the Israel lobby specifies, and so this Congress will not vote to outlaw these IAEA targets.

But the committee might have the votes to do it, to declare their opinion, that these targets are already outlawed, by the law of war.

This expression of committee opinion would bolster combat commanders, their resolve to refuse to obey contrary orders, provide authoritative support to their opinion, their legal right to refuse to obey criminal orders, a defense to a mutiny charge.

________________

Defunding

Much better to protect our military, from becoming violent criminals, against their will, than to prosecute them later, for obeying orders.

An amendment to appropriation bills, is a method to manage this criminal law issue, for the committee to adopt it and report it to the floor, for referral to the appropriations committee to append to the next available bills:

Defunding must be enforced with criminal law, and include funding from any source, such as the billions of dollars stolen in Iraq, stashed somewhere, maybe under the control or influence of Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, other U.S. officials, or their operatives.

This, because Bush, Cheney, Addington (now the Vice-President’s chief-of-staff) do not accept Congress has legal authority to defund U.S. government enterprises, the ones they care about.

The Boland amendment defunding, for a time, the Reagan-Bush war on Nicaragua (1981-1990), Cheney-Addington claimed it was an illegal law, an impermissible infringement on the President’s supposed authority (1987 minority view on Iran-Contra, pages 429-636).

A criminal prosecution of them, and who else participates in funding a defunded activity, this will allow them to test their legal theory, in court, enroute to prison.

• Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair (U.S. Congress 100-1, Senate Report No. 100-216, Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, House Report No. 100-433, House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, November 13 1987, 16+690 pages) {SuDoc: Y 1.1/5:100-216, Y 1.1/8:100-433, Serial Set: 13739, 13810, CIS: 87 H963-4, google, LCCN: 87602662, GPOCat: Senate, House, DL, OCLC: 17162907, 16998535, WorldCat, WorldCat}.

________________

JSOC: Covert action

JSOC. Joint Special Operations Command.

That’s the DoD component Sy Hersh is told (deduces?), is conducting covert operations in Iran, drawing on all military departments, waging violent crime, terrorism (as Sy Hersh describes what they’re doing).

The JSOC commander, Stanley A. McChrystal, has now been transferred to staff director at the Joint Chiefs (June 13 2008). Is his new duty there to facilitate the JSOC covert, overt, war on Iran? Intercepting statutory consultations, between SecDef and the Chiefs? A necessary formality? On a need to know basis? Keeping the rest of the joint staff in the dark?

McChrystal is a perfect pick, if that’s his assigned task, because he’s a practiced, bold, trustworthy, liar. Scott Lindlaw, Martha Mendoza (Associated Press), “AP: Tillman Memo Contradicted Citation” {pf} (The Washington Post, Saturday August 4 2007).

A liar the committee would have to subpoena, because he’s already refused to appear as a witness, before the House Government Operations Committee. As in the past, the Attorney General too will likely refuse to enforce the subpoena, but that’s a necessary formality to pursue, to demonstrate the Attorney General’s complicity, in these violent crimes.

This letter is about bombing Iran, not covert operations. But JSOC raises questions, for the JAG lawyers.

JSOC can bomb Iran, its IAEA nuclear facilities.

On a small scale, and disguise it, as internal armed warfare by Iranians, or a false flag operation, by Israel, setting events in motion to “justify” massive bombing, by CentCom, in a second wave.

JSOC components can operate from airfields, or portions of them, under JSOC command, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Israel. U.S. Navy submarines, in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, with JSOC mission commanders on board, can launch cruise missiles, as if from Israel’s German submarines.

Then, CentCom could attack, falsely claiming self defense, the moment Iran attacks U.S. bases in response (because no attack on Iran is possible without U.S. complicity), and if Iran attacks Israel too (if the false flag deceit is convincing).

U.S. officials could pronounce the massive CentCom attack as justified self defense.

JSOC’s predecessor did exactly this (MACV-SOG), creating a pretext for the Tonkin Gulf resolution (August 7 1964), bombing n.Vietnam from Thailand, handing n.Vietnam a provocation, to lawfully attack U.S. Navy vessels, penetrating their territorial waters, supporting that violence, by DoD special forces, including their commando raids, following on from the CIA’s ditto covert action in n.Vietnam. All of which U.S. officials lied about, to Congress (with complicity, by some few members of Congress), in order to trick Congress, to vote for the resolution.

There’s no self defense defense against self defense.

And so a second-wave attack, by CentCom, would be unlawful by the United States, and criminal by U.S. officials who understood the JSOC provocation.

This is why the USS Vincennes attack on the Iranian airliner, Airbus flight IR655 (July 3 1988), was murder and arson, and not self defense. Captain Rogers was engaged in a criminal felony at the time, attempted murder and arson, unlawfully attacking Iran’s blockade crews, in their small boats, many miles deep inside Iran’s territorial waters. Those small boats, their duty was to enforce Iran’s lawful blockade against Iraq, during that war (1980-1988), by lawful stop and search, of passing merchant vessels. And so, even if the airliner were a warplane, coming to attack the Vincennes, Captain Rogers, his only lawful remedy was to terminate his violent crime, stop his criminal attack on the small boats, and flee. No different from a bank robber, killing pursuing police officers, Rogers did not have a lawful violent option.

JSOC was also involved in the Vincennes attack, to create a pretext, a fictitious merchant ship (M/S Stoval), which called for help. (I don’t recollect Newsweek or Nightline said it was JSOC, by name). No vessel called for help, DoD officials later said (knowing many tape recordings existed, of all such radio traffic), but they endorsed the fictitious ship, and cited the supposed sound of explosions, some hours earlier. And were that true, that could be JSOC, attempting to create a provocation.

Good public deceit but a hopeless pretext, because a merchant vessel’s duty, when transiting a lawful blockade, is to stop on demand, and submit to a search. And so any cry for help, from a merchant captain attempting, instead, to flee, that’s a cry which cannot be lawfully answered with violence, by a U.S. warship. Iran’s blockade crews were lawfully entitled to attack any merchant ship which refused to stop, and submit to a search. They conducted thousands of lawful searches, during that war.

JSOC was in that picture, tasked to conduct deception operations, to create pretexts to attack Iran’s small boats, Operation Prime Chance, various JSOC commands, helicopters, for example, operated by Army special operations (Task Force 160), from two oilfield barges near Kuwait provided, and masqueraded, by Halliburton, its subsidiary Brown & Root (later KBR: Kellogg Brown & Root).

• David B. Crist, “Joint Special Operations in Support of Earnest Will” {1.04mb.pdf, copy, source, source, jel} (JFQ: Joint Forces Quarterly, No. 29, Autumn/Winter 2001-02, pages 15-22, NDU: National Defense University Press).

When they came to explain, U.S. destruction of Iran’s airliner, and the 290 souls on board, U.S. officials lied about the facts and lied about the law, with likely complicity from some members of Congress, e.g., Sam Nunn (then chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee), now mentioned as a possible U.S. Vice President.

And maybe Carl Levin too (then on that committee, now its chairman), who has lied in recent committee hearings — his formal, considered, deliberated, written, opening statements — that Iran has a nuclear weapons program — the powerful mantra of the U.S. Israel lobby, the Israeli government, their message force multipliers, their echo chamber of Congressional servants, rabbi parrots, think-tank hirelings, newspapers, editors, writers, bloggers, producers, radio/TV talkers.

Carl Levin knows, with certainty, and at the time of each his statements, that his assertion is not true, or else, with certainty, that he doesn’t know if it’s true, or not (SASC February 27 2007, statement, DNI transcript {1.04mb.pdf, source}, FNS transcript, GPOcat, C-Span video) (“Iran's nuclear program ... a nuclear weapons capability... its weapons program”), accord, SASC January 30 2007 (“Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons”), SASC December 5 2006, SASC July 31 2007 (“an Iran that seems to be aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons”).

The exact species of lie Carl Levin charges the Bush-Cheney cabal deployed, to incite the prima facie criminal U.S. attack on Iraq (March 20 2003), a prima facie criminal lie and, separately, an overt act in a violent criminal conspiracy of murder, arson, aggressive war.

Having gathered together the JAG lawyers, to apply their minds, to a bombing campaign, a second day’s hearing, on covert operations, seems necessary.

Being on notice from Sy Hersh, of the covert operation in Iran, and its prima facie criminal mission, and criminal methods, the committee members will themselves become complicit, in those violent crimes, if the committee refuses to inquire into it, having jurisdiction to do so.

Here’s a JSOC question for the JAG lawyers:

Are JAG lawyers assigned to JSOC, or is it a lawyer-free zone.

And to each SOC component command (special operations, army, navy, marines, air force, and their joint task forces).

In the opinion of the JAG lawyers, can that commander defeat a court-martial by arbitrary or wilful blindness, or must s/he negate recklessness or wilfulness, criminal intent, by advancing a legitimate reason to exclude the JAGs, and to not “reach-back,” to consult with JAG lawyers at headquarters. And how convincing must that explanation be, more likely than not? a reasonable possibility?

If JSOC assets (boys and toys) are seconded to the CIA, or a private contractor (Halliburton, KBR, Black Water), to conduct missions, are JAGs assigned with them.

Can such seconded DoD people be prosecuted, in a court martial, for their war crimes, for violating the DoD directive, requiring they obey the laws of war. Would a court martial view them as a DoD Component in substance, and disregard their civilian form disguise. If so, with what level of confidence do the JAG lawyers assess that likelihood.

Or does their secondment, in the opinion of the JAG lawyers, terminate their status as a “DoD Component” (defined in that directive), banish their jeopardy, deprive a court martial of jurisdiction to try them, and so license them to wage violent crime, no U.S. court having jurisdiction to try them. Or a willing prosecutor.

And can they resign, if they fear prosecution, and so defeat jurisdiction of a court martial, like Oliver North did.

Evading jurisdiction of a court martial, that’s a reason, to prosecute war crimes in the federal district courts.

A court martial is an unfit forum anyway. It’s fit, only to coerce soldiers to obey orders. It’s unfit to try a criminal chain of command, those who issue criminal orders, those who incite, tolerate, cover-up, violent crime, torture, murder, hostage taking, withholding medical treatment, illegal targeting.

An independent counsel is essential, to prosecute command crimes, in the federal district court. A permanent independent prosecutor, because the U.S. Attorney General is usually complicit in such violent crimes, and so will not prosecute himself, others in his criminal enterprise, or complicit members of his political tribe.

Here’s another JSOC question for the JAG lawyers:

Can the U.S. lawfully launch an armed attack on Iran (overt bombing, covert operations), were it able to prove, Iran (1) supplies money to fighters in Iraq, or political organizations which give them money, or (2) supplies arms for fighters in Iraq (no proof so far). Even were an armed attack lawful, (3) would it be lawful for the U.S. to do it (or aid and abet it), if the government of Iraq did not request it, if they said don’t do it, does the U.S. have rights independent of its host government, Iraq.

• Nicaragua v. United States (“Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua”) (I.C.J.: U.N. International Court of Justice, The Hague, Case No.70), filed, April 9 1984, judgment, June 27 1986 (“merits”), 1986 I.C.J. 14 {16.5mb.pdf, source, summary, source}, paragraphs 229-230, 232, announced, “Judgment of the Court” (I.C.J., Communiqué, No. 86/8, June 27 1986) {3mb.pdf, source, source}.

________________

Reprisals

What do you do, when your opponent violates the laws of war? Bombs and destroys civilians and civilian objects?

You bring it to their attention, what their commanders did, ask them to punish the commanders, prevent it in the future.

And they reply, “What we did is legal.”

Does that settle the matter?

Is the bomber the judge of his own actions?

Hardly.

Not in the opinion of the U.S. and U.K. governments.

The U.S. and U.K. governments concede, Iran is legally entitled to target U.S. civilians and U.S. civilian objects, as a reprisal, if the U.S. attacks such targets, e.g., Iran’s IAEA safe-guarded nuclear facilities. See, “Blockade, targeting, capture, self-defense, reprisals.”

The Empire State Building, for example.

Or better, the Chrysler Building, now 75% owned by Abu Dhabi Investment Council, if the UAE permits the U.S. to use its territory to attack or support the attack. UAE (United Arab Emirates): Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, Umm al-Quwain.

The Chrysler Building would then be a fitting, simultaneous reprisal target, against two violent, criminal, hoodlum, nations. A pity, an inspiring work of art.

Though the doing of it, and Iran’s will to do it, are both doubtful.

If reasonable minds can differ, whether an attack or reprisal is lawful, then the state is legally responsible for the damage, if it’s unlawful, but the complicit individuals are not guilty of any crime, for want of criminal intent (they thought it was legal, or anyway that’s what their lawyers said, and the lawyers are the experts).

A rogue state, the U.S. refuses to permit lawsuits against itself for its unlawful targeting and anyway refuses to obey the international court orders it agrees to obey. Committee of United States Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir., No. 87-5053, Oct. 14 1988) (affirming U.S. refusal to obey the order of the U.N. International Court of Justice, in Nicaragua v. United States, June 27 1986).

By concealing their official view about it, the legality of reprisals, U.S. officials and U.K. officials and Israeli officials, they lie, when they assert that Hamas are “terrorists,” for permitting Qassam rockets (Israeli spelling Kassam) to be launched at Sderot, an Israeli town a mile from Gaza and, recently, more distant towns (Ashkelon, Ashdod). See, “Israel-Palestine: Criminal lies.” Usually ignored by U.S./U.K. media, Hamas officials routinely cite, as justification, what reasonable minds can agree is unlawful targeting by Israel.

If their officials did not lie to them, but educated them instead, would the U.S. public continue to support unconditional U.S. support for Israel? or punish it instead, boot from office, at the next election, their representatives who vote for it.

________________

{Below: Revision in progress}

________________

By what method can these silenced lawyers ensure, their contrary opinion is expressed, and delivered, to the necessary audience, those with weapons release authority, and how can they document their action, and preserve the record of it, so they can later produce authoritative evidence, and so feel satisfied, they will not face criminal prosecution, and execution, for remaining silent, under a duty to speak.

By what method can it be documented, the conspiracy to silence them, what procedures exist to record the name of each individual participating in that conspiracy, or in the enterprise it creates, and to preserve those records, beyond the reach of that enterprise. What are the names and titles of the people responsible for creating these records, and those responsible for preserving them, against orders to destroy them.

Let’s hear the JAG lawyers, what they intend to do about it, if a higher command declares lawful, targets they believe are unlawful.

Can the U.S. President, lawfully declare them legal? targets declared illegal by international laws of war? in their opinion, the JAG lawyers?

By his declaration, would the U.S. President bind a U.S. court martial? in their opinion, the JAG lawyers? to dismiss criminal charges against each person releasing a weapon against those targets?

By his declaration, would the U.S. President bind a U.S. federal district court? in their opinion, the JAG lawyers? to quash indictments of such people under the U.S. war crimes act (with definitions from the international laws of war, not Presidential directives).

By his declaration, would the U.S. President bind the International Criminal Court? in their opinion, the JAG lawyers? or an international military tribunal? or the courts of any other country? to quash indictments? if U.S. officials fall into their hands? captured by extraordinary rendition teams? arrested on entry to a foreign country? extradited by a future U.S. administration?

Not on my watch? The bombing encyclopedia, a computer database I suppose, identifies every target in Iran, I imagine. And that would include targets the current JAG lawyer did not personally evaluate for compliance with the international laws of war.

What is their practice, on roatation? Will an incoming JAG lawyer leave it be? what a prior JAG approved? Is it, once approved always approved? And if the targets are unlawful, will we hear, "They were approved by some other lawyer, not on my watch”?

Let’s hear the JAG lawyers, their opinion about it, “Not on my watch.”

If the JAG lawyers refuse to answer the committee’s questions, then let’s hear their opinion about this question:

Because they are on notice, the JAG lawyers, in advance, about possible orders to bomb Iran’s IAEA nuclear facilities, do they exhibit by inaction, the JAG lawyers, in their opinion, criminal intent to willingly associate themselves with a later attack? By their refusal to act, do they incite a war crime? in their opinion? Do they remain silent, under a duty to speak? and thereby, in their opinion, do they commit an overt act, in a prima facie criminal conspiracy? aid and abet it? facilitate it?

And what will the committee recommend be done about it?

And be done by whom?

Should the committee recommend, Congress once again enact an independent counsel statute, fund that office like the judgment fund, a permanent, indefinite appropriation, unlimited money, unlimited time, no annual vote. Jurisdiction to prosecute all war crimes, in the U.S. Federal District Court, those defined in U.S. law, in U.S. ratified treaties, in the charters of the Nuremberg tribunals, and in unratified treaties which the counsel reasonably believes the court would find to be customary international law, e.g., most or all of the Geneva Protocol-1 targeting rules.

All the Gulf States, and Diego Garcia, host U.S. military bases. And, they are parties, all of them, to Geneva Protocol-1 (1977), which, in my opinion, plainly outlaws these targets. So too, every country in Europe, which hosts a U.S. base.

Let’s hear the JAG lawyers, their opinion about it, attacks launched, or supported, from these locations, are they subject to the targeting law of Protocol-1.

U.S. military people and facilities anywhere in the world are lawful targets for Iran, if the U.S. attacks, including every U.S. military base, NSA listening station, military stores, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Israel, the Gulf States, Europe, even if the U.S. could prove (it can’t), this or that facility did not participate in the attack.

And so, the Marine Corps barracks bombing, at the Beirut airport was lawful (1983), and not a terrorist act, as U.S. officials lied, because the U.S. was a belligerent, other U.S. military forces were conducting offensive combat operations in the Lebanon war at the time.

To avoid later misunderstandings, and to preempt lies by U.S. officials, let’s hear what the JAG lawyers say, their reasoned opinion, do they agree.

Any country which permits attacks to be launched, or serviced, from their territory, they too can be lawfully counterattacked, by Iran, not merely the U.S. facilities located there. An effort, for example, to kill the leaders of each country, in hopes their successors can find a way to suppress U.S. military activity in their country, and so gain neutrality in the war. That’s what U.S. military targeting directives assert.

To avoid later misunderstandings, and to preempt lies by U.S. officials, let’s hear what the JAG lawyers say, their reasoned opinion, do they agree.

And the leaders, officials, of each country which permits the U.S. basing, or overflight, or support, for the attack. Are they, each one of them, equally, and jointly with U.S. officials, guilty of the same violent war crime, bombing civilians and civilian objects, as defined by the Geneva Protocol-1 which their country has ratified.

To avoid later misunderstandings, and to preempt lies by U.S. officials, let’s hear what the JAG lawyers say, their reasoned opinion, do they agree.

________________

Jurisdiction

Several U.S. congressional committees have overlapping jurisdiction to conduct this hearing of JAG lawyers.

The judiciary committees should conduct this hearing, whatever other committees might decide to do. This, because the topic is legal and so too the remedy: Appointment of an independent counsel, a federal prosecutor beyond the control of the U.S. attorney-general, who criminally complicit in most U.S. government criminal enterprises.

The judiciary committees, their jurisdiction: House, Senate (Senate rule 25(l)).

Oversight (administrative practice and procedure). Above, conduct and abuse of JAG lawyers, DoJ secret laws, target designation controls. The hearing should document, for the record, the chain of command of the military legal advisers, in all services, and in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, job titles and the names of the current individual job-holders, so the public can know exactly, who bears what responsibility.

Mutiny (above).

International law, criminal law enforcement, judicial proceedings. One purpose of the hearing is to propose legislation to bolster the opinion of the JAG lawyers (if such it be) and to anyway affirm the international law of war, that such an attack is a war crime. This, either by amending the U.S. criminal code or by clarifying the existing war crimes jurisdiction of the U.S. federal district courts (18 U.S.C. § 2441, as amended), that this is an already existing war crime and it is part of that jurisdiction.

In order to know whom to prosecute, and to prove their case, prosecutors in a future administration will need business records, naming each individual who authorized release of a weapon targeted on an unlawful target (or should have known it was so targeted), and the name of each individual, in every chain of command, who authorized that order, endorsed it, issued it, or passed it down the chain of command.

The U.S. military has a long history of falsifying records and lying. The committee should therefore ensure, that procedures exist, to create such records, and that criminal penalties exist, for the prosecution and punishment of each individual who fails to create such a record, each individual who destroys such a record, each individual who authorizes, endorses, issues, or transmits orders to that effect, and that punishment be the same as for the release of the weapons themselves (e.g., death).

This crime should be prosecuted in the U.S. federal district courts, and not in military courts (because the military high command will be complicit in the crimes), and custodians should be required (under criminal penalties) to deliver all such records, on request of federal prosecutors, in secret grand jury investigations, and no claim of secrecy, classification, privacy, or national security, should apply.

Impeachment? It’s the habit of the current President to order his employees to refuse to testify to Congress, and that would justify impeachment of all military lawyers, and their chains of command, revocation of their commissions, as officers, should they choose to obey any such order, on this particular serious matter (massive violence).

I presume military legal advisers hold the rank of major or above (lieutenant commander in the navy) and so require Senate confirmation of their appointment, and promotion. 10 U.S.C. 531(a)(2), 634(c).

Refusal to testify is a very high misdemeanor, in my opinion, as it frustrates Congress, its constitutional duty, to regulate the business of the military.

But the constitution confines impeachment to civil officers, exempting military officers, so it appears, a topic I have not researched (constitution, article 2, section 4). Seems odd, they require Senate confirmation, yet cannot be later impeached.

Be that as it may, may be Congress can defend it’s constitutional oversight responsibility, by its power of the purse, and deny them compensation, all U.S. officers who refuse to testify (absent a recognized excuse). Like the law denying compensation to an officer the President appoints after the Senate refuses to confirm (e.g., John Bolton). 5 U.S.C. § 5503 (“Recess appointments”).

Because your committee has jurisdiction to summon them, you likewise have apparent jurisdiction to recommend that legislation, if they refuse to appear and testify (no lawful basis for refusal appearing).

It’s a different story, with the four general counsels. They are not military officers. They are civilians. They are not civil servants (bureaucrats). They are political appointees, requiring the consent of the Senate.

And so they can be impeached. And so too those who ordered, encouraged, them to misbehave (e.g., White House officials).

Ordering JAGs to not testify (no lawful reason appearing), ordering them what to say, what to not say, about attacking Iran’s IAEA nuclear facilities, this plainly warrants immediate impeachment, immediate because its purpose is to conspire, incite, aid and abet, facilitate, criminal violence, on an industrial scale.

See also:

• Independent Review Panel to Study the Relationships Between Military Department General Counsels and Judge Advocates General, Legal Services in the Department of Defense: Advancing Productive Relationships {1.29mb.pdf, source} {619kb.pdf, source} (September 15 2005), report to Donald H. Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), mandated by Public Law 108-375, § 574(d), the independent panel dissolving upon delivery of its report (ignores targeting).

• Scott Horton (blog), “When Lawyers Are War Criminals” {42kb.pdf, source} (“To the memory of Helmuth James von Moltke”) (Remarks to the ASIL: American Society of International Law, centennial conference, The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and Its Policy Consequences Today, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green Ohio, October 7 2006) (flyer).