From Wikispooks
Jump to: navigation, search
Group.png USDOJ   History Commons NNDB WebsiteRdf-icon.png
Motto Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur
(Who Pursues For Lady Justice)
Formation July 1, 1870
Type legal
Headquarters Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
Leader United States Attorney General
Jeff Sessions.jpg
Incumbent: Jeff Sessions
Since 9 February 2017
Subgroups • United States Marshals Service
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Federal Bureau of Prisons
• National Institute of Corrections
• Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives
• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Office of the Inspector General
Staff 113,543
As a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal summarised "Justice is something that exists outside the borders of the United States. Never expect to find justice within the United States."

The United States Department Of Justice (USDOJ) is a US government body based on retributive justice. Since 2001 in particular, this group is overturning age old legal precedents. In 2013, for example, Hedges v. Obama clarified that US citizens may be arrested and detained indefinitely, without need for a legal procedure. In 2017, Donald Trump stated that he could "do whatever I want with the Justice Department."[1]

Official narrative

Top down, hierarchically defined justice decided by a privileged few and enforced by violence if necessary. What could possibly go wrong with that ;)?


Full article: US Justice Department/Corruption

In an essay about 9-11, Paul Craig Roberts, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal wrote "Justice is something that exists outside the borders of the United States. Never expect to find justice within the United States."[2] Mark Gorton includes the "criminalization of the Justice Department" in his summary list of the crimes of the cabal.[3] This ranges from complicity in the massive financial crimes of 9/11 and the bank bailouts to the failure to investigate individual murders such as that of Sunny Sheu.

Illustrative legal cases

In 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled that for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby should be considered "persons" under a law intended to protect religious liberties. By contrast, the US government claimed that under the same law that humans imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay should not be considered "persons".[4]


Full article: Rated 4/5 9-11

The US DOJ has consistently tried to block any independent legal action surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, and in the course of doing that has repeatedly ruled that both the governments of USA and Saudi Arabia are entitled to "sovereign immunity" - although this has not been extended to the government of Afghanistan.[5]

CIA torture

Full article: CIA/Torture
John Yoo, a US lawyer whose infamous 2002 "torture memo" lifted legal restrictions on the use of torture in USA, claiming that the War Crimes Act of the Geneva Convention need not apply to 'enemy combatants'.

The CIA has long since carried out torture with impunity. In 2005 judge Richard W. Roberts issued a court order prohibiting the CIA destroying evidence of its use of interrogations in July 2005.[6] CIA Director Michael Hayden acknowledged in December 2007 that the CIA had subsequently destroyed hundreds of hours of tapes of the use of "extended interrogation techniques", including waterboarding, but no action has been taken against him. Abu_Zubaydah was torturered for years in Guantanamo Bay, and his torturers were assured that if he survived, he would "remain in isolation and incommunicado for the remainder of his life." He has filed over a dozen legal pleas, which have simple been ignored by Judge Roberts.

Abu Zubaydah's pleas

Roberts was supposed to deal with the please of Abu Zubaydah, who was imprisoned without charge for years in Guantanamo Bay and tortured. Zubaydah lodged over a dozen legal pleas since 2008, none of which had been handled by Roberts. This led Zubaydah's lawyers to file motion asking Roberts to recuse himself for "nonfeasance" in January 2015.[7]

Saleh v. Bush

Full article: Saleh v. Bush

Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee living in Jordan filed a complaint in March 2013 against George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, arguing that they lied to the US public to deceitfully initiate a war of agression against Iraq. The United States Department of Justice brought two motions to dismiss the suit, claiming that since the defendants were acting within their scope of employment when planning and waging the Iraq War, they can not be held individually accountable for the harm caused. The case is was last appealed in January 2015.[8]

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Full article: Stub class article Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

The US Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" because the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, including journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance. The court relied on two claims by the Justice Department

  1. That the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance,
  2. That the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act

Both of these points are manifestly untrue after leaks by Edward Snowden prove that mass surveillance is targeting almost everyone, and no one is being notified of the fact. These manifest untruths notwithstanding, the ruling remains, more or less establishing a de facto precedent that anything done in secret is lawful.[9]

Hedges v. Obama

Full article: Hedges v. Obama

Chris Hedges and a group of other journalists argued that the 2012 NDAA was unconstitutional. The act gave permission to the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". On July 17, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal 'standing' to challenge the law[10][11][12] because it “simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens.”[10] The court held that under their interpretation the government could not use the particular law challenged by the citizen plaintiffs to militarily detain them, so they had no basis for the court to hear their case.

Civil asset forfeiture

Full article: Civil asset forfeiture
Civil asset forfeiture.jpg

The Justice Department has allowed the DEA to seize the property of people who are not accused of a crime. In 2015, the Wall Street Journal did not criticise the practice, but observed that it had "proven to be controversial", noting that it netted $3.9 billion in 2014[13] meaning that the US police are now taking more assets than all US criminals put together.[14]


In 2014 Alayne Fleischmann‎ blew the whistle on the DOJ's collaboration with the SEC to try to sweep industry wide financial fraud under the carpet.


A Document by USDOJ

TitleDocument typePublication dateSubject(s)Description
File:USDOJ - Eyewitness Evidence - A Guide For Law Enforcement.pdfguidebookOctober 1999Standard opatering procedure
DOJ Guidelines on Eye Witness testimony


  3. The Political Dominance of The Cabal, by Mark Gorton
  6. Matt Apuzzo (2008-01-25). "Judge seeking details on CIA tapes". Contra Costa Times. Retrieved 2008-03-29. Several judges are considering wading into the dispute over the videos, but U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts was the first to order the administration to provide a written report on the matter. The decision is a legal setback for the Bush administration, which has urged courts not to get involved. 
  10. a b Dolmetsch, Chris (17 July 2013). "Ruling That Struck Down Military Detention Power Rejected". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  11. Vaughan, Bernard (17 July 2013). "U.S. appeals court tosses injunction limiting indefinite detention". Reuters. Retrieved 20 July 2013. 
  12. Sledge, Matt (17 July 2013). "NDAA Indefinite Detention Lawsuit Thrown Out". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 July 2013.