Policy Memorandum: Constitutional Law

To: The Office of President of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton,

The West Wing, The White House,

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, District of Columbia.

From: Ian K. Judge-Lord

Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice

11114 L Street Northwest, Washington D.C.

Memorandum

On the Constitutionality of

War Crimes

[In violation of Chapter VIII Article 50 Paragraph 4 of the Second Geneva Convention; Part VI Section I Article 129 Paragraph 4 of the Third Geneva Convention; and Part IV Section III Chapter I Article 75 and Part V Section II Article 85 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions]

And

Torture 

[In violation of Chapter I Article 3 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 1, Article 12 and Article 51 of the Second Geneva Convention; Part I Article 3 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 1, Part II Article 12 Paragraph 3 and Article 14 Paragraph 1, Part III Section I Article 17 Paragraph 4 and Section VI Chapter III Article 99 Paragraph 2 and Article 108 Paragraph 1 and Part VI Section I Article 130 of the Third Geneva Convention; and Protocol I Part IV Section III Chapter I Article 75 and Protocol II Part II Article 4 of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions]

Background:

            In the Tuesday November 8, 2016 Presidential election, 45^th President of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Republican Party candidate Donald Trump[1] by 2.8 million votes[2], 65.8 million votes to 63 million votes[3], or 48.2% to 46.2%.[4] However, had she lost the election, Trump would have become the next Commander in Chief of the United States Military Armed Forces. The purpose of this memorandum is to explore doubts as to the Constitutionality of the foreign policy proposals of the man who on November 8, 2016 came within a mere two percentage points of becoming the next Head of State of the sole economic and military superpower in the civilized developed industrialized Western first world.

            As a Presidential candidate, first beginning in January 2011 and then officially announcing his campaign on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump and his campaign went to historically unprecedented lengths to be as vague and noncommittal on matters of policy as any candidate for elected office in the 220-year history of American Democracy. As a result, there existed very few policies on which it was possible to discern with any reasonable degree of certainty just what precisely it was that Trump planned to do. This memorandum focuses on the two precise proposals made by Trump during his 2016 Presidential campaign on the subject of what he planned to do if elected President when it came to the foreign and international military policy of the United States.

            First and foremost, on the Fox News Channel show “Fox and Friends” on December 2, 2015, Trump put forth his doctrine for dealing with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or “I.S.I.S”, founded from Al-Qaeda in Iraq by Abu-Al Baghdadi in 2006. “I would hit them so hard like they’ve never been before.” Trump told Fox News Channel host Brian Kilmeade.[5] “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.”  “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.” Trump repeated to the shocked and silent “Fox and Friends” co-hosts Kilmeade and Stephen Doocy. “They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself.  When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”[6]

            Secondly, at the eighth 2016 Republican Primary Debate on February 6, 2016 at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, Donald Trump enumerated how he would expand and build on the terrorism tactics of his Republican predecessor, 43^rd President of the United States George Walker Bush. “I would bring back waterboarding.” Trump told debate moderators David Muir and Martha Raddatz of ABC News, describing the simulated drowning tactic former Vice President Richard Cheney euphemistically describes as “enhanced interrogation”, but which in Chapter VI of the Report of its 36^th Session issued on May 19, 2006, the United Nations committee Against torture identified as constituting a form of “torture”, which it defined as “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment”.[7] “I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” Trump continued. The next day, in an interview on “This Week” on ABC News, Trump confirmed to host George Stephanopoulos that “I would absolutely authorize something beyond waterboarding.” “I’ll approve it immediately, but I’ll make it also much worse.” Trump told Republican State Representative Bill Herbkersman of South Carolina in Bluffton, South Carolina on February 17. “We should go much stronger than waterboarding.” Trump reiterated, concluding by telling Herbkersman “You know, half these guys say, “Torture doesn’t work”. Believe me, it works…and don’t tell me it doesn’t work. Torture works.”[8]

Previously, Trump had hedged his proverbial bets by telling a crowd in Columbus, Ohio on November 23, 2015 “Would I approve waterboarding? I would approve more than that. It works”. “And even if it doesn’t work;” Trump then added; “They deserve it anyway.”[9]

“We should go for waterboarding;” Trump repeated in the elevenths 2016 Republican Primary Debate in Detroit, Michigan on March 3, 2016; “And we should go tougher than waterboarding.”[10] The closest thing to explaining what he meant by “worse than waterboarding” and “tougher than torture” that Trump would ever get was in an interview with NH1 New Hampshire News on June 30, 2016, when he told Political Director Paul Steinhauser “We’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable”. [11] Trump’s love for torture, and waterboarding in particular, is unmistakable, however, as when he said at a campaign rally in Saint Clairsville, Ohio on June 29, 2016 “I like waterboarding a lot. I don’t think it’s tough enough.”[12]

Origins of Constitutional Conflict

The day after the January 20, 2009 inauguration of his first term President Clinton’s predecessor, Barack Obama, signed Executive Order 13491: “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations”, saying that prisoners “Shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person [including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture], nor to outrages upon personal dignity [including humiliating and degrading treatment].”[13] At the White House Press Conference marking his hundredth day in office as President on April 29, 2009, Obama explained, “I believe that waterboarding was torture and whatever rationales were used, it was a mistake.” Six years later, on April 13, 2015, Republican Congressman William Thornberry of Texas introduced into the United States House of Representatives a bill to turn President Obama’s Executive Order into law[14], House Resolution 1735: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 [H.R. 1735: NDAA F.Y. 2016]. The bill passed the United States Senate on June 16, 2016[15] and passed the House of Representatives on November 5, 2015. President Obama signed the bill into law on November 25, 2015.

The wording of President Obama’s Executive Order closely mirrors that of Article 3 of the First, Second and Third Geneva Conventions as well as Part IV Section III Chapter I Article 75 and Part V Section II Article 85 of Protocol I and Part II Article 4 of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions, all of which prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.[16]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution of the United States of America enumerates the power of the President of the United States “to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”. The Geneva Conventions were signed by 33^rd President of the United States Harry Truman’s Ambassador to Switzerland John Vincent on August 12, 1949 and ratified by the United States Senate by a unanimous vote of 77-0 on July 6, 1955. 34th President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Ratification on July 14, 1955.

Constitutionality Question

            Though the United States Supreme Court has explored the question of whether or not the President of the United States is empowered to unilaterally nullify a treaty in the case of Barry Goldwater v. James Carter on December 13, 1979, the court has yet to provide a ruling which answers the question, with the District of Columbian Circuit Court of Appeals writing on December November 30, 1979 that:

“The Constitutional institution of advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators concur, is a special and extraordinary condition of the exercise by the President of certain specified powers under Article II. It is not lightly to be extended in instances not set forth in the Constitution. Such an extension by implication is not proper unless that implication is unmistakably clear.”[17]

With the Supreme Court neglecting to produce a ruling that of the Appellate Court stands. However, that is by no means to say that the Supreme court as a whole refrained completely from handing down their opinion, with Supreme Court Associate Justice William Brennan writing, in his dissenting opinion that “Our cases firmly establish that the Constitution commits to the President alone the power to recognize and withdraw recognition from foreign regimes.”[18]  

A “Crime Against Peace”

The Fourth Geneva Convention is subtitled “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” and defines civilians as individuals who “do not belong to the armed forces” and “take no part in the hostilities”.[19]  This definition is mirrored in other regulations at the national level around the globe. The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law states that a “civilian is any person present in the area of combat operations, who is not a member of armed forces and refrains from any act of hostility”.[20] France’s Law of Armed Conflict defines civilians as “those persons who do not belong to the armed forces or who do not participate in hostilities”.[21] Israel’s Law of War Booklet defines a “civilian” as “any individual who is not a member of an organized army of a State, and who is not involved in hostilities.”[22] Canada’s Law of Armed Conflict Manual states, “A civilian is any person who is not a combatant.”[23] Australia’s Defense Force Manual defines a “civilian” as “any person not belonging to the armed forces”.[24] The United Kingdom Law of Armed Conflict Manual states “Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces.”[25] The Fourth Geneva Convention states that civilian must be “treated humanely at all times and protected against acts or threats of violence” and states that no civilian “may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”[26]

So not only would Trump’s proposed policy of “taking out the families” of the Islamic State be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States of America is a signatory, but it is also illegal under very nearly each and every other legal regime in the civilized developed first western world. This, in turn, raises another international diplomatic hazard with the Republican’s foreign policy: namely, the alienation of America’s allies. In November 2011, a war crimes tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia found former 43^rd Republican President of United States George W. Bush guilty[27] in absentia of “Crimes Against Peace”, which the 1950 Nuremburg Tribunal[28], submitted to the United Nations General Assembly[29], defined as “Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances”. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission followed this up in May 2012 by convicting former President Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of the Department of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Attorney General of the Department of Justice Alberto Gonzales in absentia of “conspiracy to commit war crimes”.[30] [Former Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs and National Security Council National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counterterrorism Richard Clarke later confirmed that former President Bush and Vice President Cheney were in fact guilty of war crimes.[31]] Malaysia became a signatory to the Geneva Conventions on August 24, 1962.

As has been shown, the American military’s treatment of noncombatant civilians under the foreign policy proposed by the Republican Nominee would violate the laws of nations from North America [Canada] to Western Europe [France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Russian Federation] to the Near East [Israel] to East Asia [Australia]. All of these nations are allies of the United States, but all of them are also signatories to the First Second, Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Australia signed the Geneva Conventions on January 4, 1950 and ratified them on October 14, 1958. Canada and France, Israel, the Russian Federation and Great Britain, like the United States, were one of the original signatories on December 12, 1949. France ratified the Geneva Conventions on June 28, 1951, Israel on July 6, 1951, Russia on May 10, 1954, the United Kingdom on September 23, 1957 and Canada on May 15, 1965. All signatories to the Geneva Conventions are pledged to enforce all of the articles therein, in addition to whatever national laws each may have. If these nations, whose legal regimes on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity so closely mirror that of the Geneva Conventions, were to ever choose to do what Malaysia did and convict the President of the United States [in absentia, necessarily] of violating not only international law but their own national laws as well, it would make it extraordinarily difficult if not effectively practically all but impossible for that President to full their sworn Constitutional duties and responsibilities as Head of State. Travel to countries wherein a President has been found guilty and convicted of war crimes under international law would risk arrest and detention if any warrants outstanding were to exist in those countries. Without being able to safely travel abroad and overseas, the conduction of diplomacy with said nations would be hampered or even become impossible. In the case of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the closest ally of the United States for centuries, all of American foreign policy would be affected and in the case of the Russian Federation, the largest and one of the most powerful nations on Earth, the very safety and security of the world could be placed in serious jeopardy by a breakdown in diplomatic relations.

Granted, the United Kingdom is unlikely to try a President of the United States for Crimes Against Humanity, as it was former Prime Minister of Great Britain Anthony Blair who was convicted of War Crimes alongside former President Bush by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal in 2011.[32] Had President Clinton lost the November 8, 2016 Presidential election to Donald Trump, it would have also been improbable that the Russian Federation would have brought any charges against him[33], considering the considerable resources that Russian President Vladimir Putin is known to have dedicated toward defeating President Clinton[34] and placing Trump in the Oval Office.[35]

France, however, makes clear in no uncertain terms precisely how and why Trump’s proposed policy of “taking out families” would constitute a war crime. It’s Law of Armed Conflict Manual requires the armed forces “to distinguish between military objectives, which may be attacked and civilian objects and persons, which must not be made the subject of deliberate attack.”

The argument that was made by the Bush-Cheney regime, by Rumsfeld, among others, was that people who matched the demographic profile [gender, age, height, religion, geographic location, etc.] of armed combatants could be considered as such and were therefore subject to attack by American armed forces. Canada’s Law of Armed Conflict Manual, however, dispels with that fallacy by stating “The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.” Another argument for the deaths of civilians used by Rumsfeld and others during the Bush regime was what Vice President Cheney once famously referred to as the “One Percent Doctrine”: That is to say, if someone meets the demographic profile of a combatant and it is not known whether they are a combatant or not, if there exists even much as a 1/100 chance that they might turn out to be a combatant, their status as a combatant was to be taken as an absolute certainty.[36] Australia’s Law of Armed Conflict Manual tells us that the standard in international law is precisely the opposite: “In cases of doubt about civilian status, the benefit of the doubt is given to the person concerned.” The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law concurs: “In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered a civilian.”

Cheney, Rumsfeld and others used a similarly fallacious line of reasoning in their rationalization of “enhanced interrogation” such as waterboarding: that it could not be known whether someone was a combatant or not until after they had been interrogated.

Inhumane and “Unusual”

Even when not engaging in torture, however, the Bush-Cheney regime engaged in the practice of indefinite detention without charge, indictment, representation, trial or conviction, most notoriously at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. People assumed by the Cheney-Rumsfeld regime to maybe perhaps be combatants were kept in Cuba, in part, because prisoners within the contiguous continental United States are entitled to the Rights enumerated in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution to “equal protection under the law” [V], “a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury” to confront witnesses and to counsel [VI] and “trial by jury” [VII], and also, not coincidentally, that of the eight Amendment—against “cruel and unusual punishment”.  In addition to the American citizen, Yaser Esam Hamdi, detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, the detainees also include nine citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, seven citizens of France and nine citizens of the Russian Federation.[37] Even failing the indefinite detention without charge or trial notwithstanding, the conditions under which detainees at Guantanamo Bay are known to be held are, by the legal regimes of most if not all of these nations, in violation of the requirement of the Fourth Geneva convention that those presumed to be noncombatant civilians until and unless proven otherwise be treated humanely at all times.

Conclusion

As the conviction of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for Crimes Against Humanity at the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal demonstrates, nations such as Britain, Canada, France, Israel and Russia already have what many legal regimes, national and international, would regard as a case against any Presidential Administration that continues, as the previous two Democrat and Republican alike have, the offshore indefinite detention without charge or trial of citizens of America and its allies. If, however, Trump had defeated President Clinton in the election, as he came within a mere two percentage points of doing, and reversed President Obama’s Executive Order in order to institute his proposed policy of “tougher than torture” and “worse than waterboarding”, then violations of the laws of American allies would be the least of his Constitutional worries. If he were to further institute his proposed policy of “taking out the families” of the Islamic State, he would be in violation of the pledge that President Eisenhower took upon signing the ratification of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions to enforce all articles therein contained, and only a ruling on whether or not the President of the United States is or is not Constitutionally empowered to nullify [or “un-sign”] international treaties, which the United States Supreme Court has thus far neglected to provide, could save his foreign policy from a Kuala Lumpur-like conviction except on a much wider worldwide scale, resulting in either impeachment or else an Article II, Section II v. Article I Section VIII Constitutional crisis unlike any in the more than 220-year-long history of American Democracy.

This Memorandum is not intended and should not be interpreted as advocacy, but rather cautionary. Until and unless the United States Supreme Court issues a ruling on whether a President can nullify a treaty signed by a previous President, it must be presumed that the Articles of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions against inhumane torture and the targeted attacking of civilians are to serve as the binding manual, as it were, for the conduct of the military armed forces, as one of the original 1949 signatories, and in turn of their Commander in Chief. 

This Memorandum is Classified Embargoed from Public Release and Publication by the Office of the Attorney general of the United States [Secretary of the United States Department of Justice] until at least no earlier than January 20, 2017

---

[1] Kentish, Ben. “Donald Trump Has Lost Popular Vote By Greater Margin Than Any US President”. The Independent. Tuesday December 13, 2016: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-lost-popular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-a7470116.html  

[2] Kentish, Ben. “Hillary Clinton’s Lad Over Donald Trump in the Popular Vote Rises to 2.8 Million”. The Independent. December 15, 2016: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-us-election-president-elect-millions-a7476926.html

[3] Subramanian, Courtney. “Clinton Has Won More Votes Than Any Other White US Presidential Candidate in History”. BBC News. December 12, 2016: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38254946

[4] Drum, Kevin. “Hillary Clinton’s Popular Vote Lead Is Now Up To 2 Percent”. Mother Jones Magazine. December 7, 2016: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-now-2  

[5] Howard, Adam. “Trump on ISIS: “You Have to Take Out Their Families”. MSNBC. December 2, 2015: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-isis-you-have-take-out-their-families

[6] Lobianco, Tom. “Donald Trump on Terrorists: “Take Out Their Families”. CNN. December 3, 2015: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/ 

[7] “Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-Sixth Session”. United Nations. May 19, 2006: http://repository.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/165895/A_61_44-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

[8] Johnson, Jenna. “Donald Trump on Waterboarding: “Torture Works”. Washington Post. February 17, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/17/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/?utm_term=.12a7b7376684

[9] Jacobs, Ben. “Donald Trump on Waterboarding: “Even if it doesn’t work, they deserve it”. The Guardian. Monday November 23, 2015: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-even-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it

[10] Berenson, Tessa. “Donald Trump Defends Torture At Republican Debate”. TIME Magazine. March 3, 2016: http://time.com/4247397/donald-trump-waterboarding-torture/

[11] Visser, Nick. “Trump Amps Up His Call for Torture: “We’re Going to Have to Do Things That Are Unthinkable.” The Huffington Post. July 1, 2016: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-torture-waterboarding_us_5775d740e4b04164640f6597

[12] “US. Election: “I Like Waterboarding A Lot”, Says Donald Trump”. BBC News. June 29, 2016: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36664752

[13] Holan, Angie. “Obama Signs Executive Order On Torture”. Tampa Bay Times. Tuesday January 27, 2009: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/

[14] Huetteman, Emmarie. “Senate Votes to Turn Presidential Ban on Torture Into Law”. The New York Times. June 16, 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/world/senate-votes-to-turn-presidential-ban-on-torture-into-law.html?_r=0

[15] Lewis, Paul. “Senate Passes Torture Ban Despite Republican Opposition”. The Guardian. Tuesday June 16, 2015: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/16/senate-passes-torture-ban-republicans

[16] “Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions”. International Committee of the Red Cross. May 2010: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf

[17] Wright, et al. “Senator Barry Goldwater v. James Earl Carter, President of the United States”. United States District Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. December 13, 1979: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/617/617.F2d.697.79-2246.html  

[18] Scott, David. “Presidential Power to “Un-Sign” Treaties”. University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 69, Issue 3, June 1, 2002, Article 26, pages 1447-1477: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5206&context=uclrev

[19] “The Geneva Conventions and the Red Cross”. British Red Cross. August 13, 2010. Page 19: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

[20] “Nastavlenie po mezhdunarodnomu gumanitarnomu pravu dlya Vooruzhennyh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii”  [“Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation”]. Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. August 8, 2001.  

[21] “Fiche De Synthese Sur Les Regles Applicables Dans Les Conflits Armes” [“Summary Sheet on the Rules Applicable in Armed Conflicts”.] Direction des Affaires Juridiques Sous-Direction Du Droit International Humanitaire Et Du Droit Europeen [Directorate of Legal Affairs Sub-Directorate of International Humanitarian Law and European Law]. January 4, 2000. Page 4.

[22] “Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War”. Israel Defense Forces. 1986. Chapter 1.

[23] “The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels” Office of the Judge Advocate General. August 13, 2001. Chapter 4, Section 6, Page 46: http://tamilnation.co/armed_conflict/canadian_manual.pdf

[24] Baker, J.S. “Law of Armed Conflict”. Australian Defense Force Publication, Operations Series, First Edition. August 1996. Chapter 9, Page 81: http://www.navedu.navy.mi.th/stg/databasestory/data/laukniyom/workjob/bigcountry-workjob/Australia/ADDP06.4LOAC.pdf 

[25] “The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict”. Ministry of Defense Joint Doctrine and Concepts Center. 2004. Chapter 5, Page 53: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27874/JSP3832004Edition.pdf

[26] “Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”. August 12, 1949. Article 33, Page 18: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9861b8c2f0e83ed3c1256403003fb8c5/72728b6de56c7a68c12563cd0051bc40

[27] Falk, Richard. “Kuala Lumpur Tribunal: Bush and Blair Guilty: A War Crimes Tribunal in Malaysia Offers a Devastating Critique of International Criminal Law Institutions Today”. Al Jazeera. November 28, 2011: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html

[28] “Nuremberg Trial Proceedings, Volume 1: Charter of the International Military Tribunal”. Section II, Article 6: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

[29] “Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nurnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal”. Yearbook of the International Law Commission. Volume II, 1950. Principle VI, Page 2: http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/7_1_1950.pdf

[30] Ridley, Yvonne. “Bush Convicted of War Crimes In Absentia”. Foreign Policy Journal. May 12, 2012; Boyle, Francis. “Bush Administration Convicted of war Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity”. Center for Research on Globalization. May 30, 2013.

[31] Ashtari, Shadee. “Former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney Committed War Crimes”. The Huffington Post. May 29, 2014: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/richard-clarke-george-bush-war-crimes_n_5410619.html  

[32] Ramakrishan, Mahi. “War Crimes Tribunal finds Bush and Blair Guilty”. Center for Research on globalization. November 24, 2011: http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-crimes-tribunal-finds-bush-and-blair-guilty/5478367 

[33] Treisman, Daniel. “Putin: Trump’s Most Dangerous Best Friend”. CNN. Sunday December 11, 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/opinions/troubling-relationship-russia-america-treisman/index.html

[34] Chambers, Francesca and Spargo, Chris. “Putin Personally Ordered the Election Hack as Part of a Vendetta Against Hillary Clinton: Putin is Reported to Have Done This in Revenge Against Clinton for Publicly Questioning the Integrity of Russian Parliamentary elections Back in 2011”. Daily Mail. December 14, 2016; Tennent, James. “Former US Ambassabdor to Russia Says Putin Wanted “Revenge” on Clinton: McFaul Claims Putin Believes Clinton Interfered in a Russian Parliamentary Election in 2011”. International Business Times. December 12, 2016: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/former-us-ambassador-russia-says-putin-wanted-revenge-clinton-1595970 

[35] Entonous, A. et al. “Secret CIA Assessment Says Russia Was Trying to Help Trump Win White House”. Washington Post. December 9, 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.9058fcfef1f1

[36] “1% Doctrine Nation”. Akron Beacon Journal. December 16, 2014: http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/1-doctrine-nation-1.550216

[37] “The Guantanamo Docket”. The New York Times. December 5, 2016: http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo