John Howard Formally
Reported To International Criminal Court

“Bush, Blair and Howard have to accept
‘that they are war
criminals’ - and
deserve to be punished”
-Stated by ‘John Valder AO, CBE
John is former –‘Liberal Party National & State
President’
Press link >> http://www.nswpeace.org/features/1093493874_30418.html
HOW DAMNING CAN YOUR
ACTIONS BE!
WHEN THE AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL PARTY, YOUR OWN
PARTY’S FORMER
NATIONAL & STATE PRESIDENT
-‘CONDEMNS YOU AS A
‘WAR CRIMINAL’!
EMINENT PERSONS REGISTER
THESE ARE
GROWING LISTS: ADDITIONS WELCOMED
DON ANTON, SENIOR LECTURER, ANU; PETER BAILEY,
PROFESSOR, ANU; ANDREW BYRNES, PROFESSOR, ANU;GREG CARNE, SENIOR LECTURER,
UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA; ANTHONY CASSIMATIS, LECTURER, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND;
HILARY CHARLESWORTH, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND
PUBLIC LAW, ANU; MADELAINE CHIAM, LECTURER, ANU; JULIE DEBELJAK, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, CASTAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; KATE EASTMAN, WENTWORTH CHAMBERS,
SYDNEY; CAROLYN EVANS, SENIOR LECTURER, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY; DEVIKA HOVELL,
LECTURER, UNIVERSITY OF NSW; FLEUR JOHNS, LECTURER, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY; SARAH
JOSEPH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CASTAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, MONASH
UNIVERSITY; ANN KENT, RESEARCH FELLOW, CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC LAW,
ANU; DAVID KINLEY, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, CASTAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW,
MONASH UNIVERSITY; SUSAN KNEEBONE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CASTAN CENTRE FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW; WENDY LACEY, LECTURER, ADELAIDE UNIVERSITY; GARTH NETTHEIM AO,
EMERITUS PROFESSOR, UNSW; PENELOPE MATHEW, SENIOR LECTURER, ANU; IAN MALKIN,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY; CHRIS MAXWELL QC, MELBOURNE BAR; TIM
MCCORMACK, RED CROSS PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR MILITARY LAW, MELBOURNE
UNIVERSITY; SOPHIE MCMURRAY, LECTURER, UNSW; ANNE MCNAUGHTON, LECTURER, ANU;
KWAME MFODWO, LECTURER, MONASH LAW SCHOOL; WAYNE MORGAN, SENIOR LECTURER, ANU;
ANNE ORFORD, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY; EMILE NOEL, SENIOR
FELLOW, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; DIANNE OTTO, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY; PETER RADAN, SENIOR LECTURER, MACQUARIE LAW SCHOOL;
ROSEMARY RAYFUSE, SENIOR LECTURER, UNSW; SIMON RICE OAM, PRESIDENT, AUSTRALIAN
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS; DONALD ROTHWELL, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SYDNEY
UNIVERSITY; MICHAEL SALVARIS, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL
RESEARCH, SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY; CHRIS SIDOTI, PROFESSOR, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
OF AUSTRALIA; JOHN SQUIRES, DIRECTOR, AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE, UNSW;
JAMES STELLIOS, LECTURER, ANU; TIM STEPHENS, LECTURER, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY; JULIE
TAYLOR, UNIVERSITY OF WA; GILLIAN TRIGGS, PROFESSOR AND CO-DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE
FOR INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY; JOHN WADE,
PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE, BOND UNIVERSITY;
KRISTEN WALKER, SENIOR LECTURER, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY; BRETT WILLIAMS,
LECTURER, SYDNEY UNIVERSITY.
It is a heinous war crime if you bomb densely civilian populated major
cities.
·
Think of any major densely civilian populated
world city – ‘YOURS’ –where you live now!
·
Open this video Press link>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aEvzuA4f0c&feature=related
-on full volume, & hit the full screen button
>>
on the video after
it downloads
The Lancet Iraq deaths study: 650,000
have been killed by this heinous act.
Press link>> http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
MAKE NO MISTAKE
-THIS IS WHAT JOHN WINSTON HOWARD
DID – TO INNOCENT
PEOPLE!
**** STOP PRESS ****
We wish
to advise the 62 page ‘Brief of Evidence’ document to the ICC Chief
Prosecutor, which we feel builds the
prima
facie case ‘alleging’ that John Winston Howard has committed war crimes; was
sent to The Hague 14 June 2008.
On 15
August 2008, the ICC advises the Brief Of Evidence: Case 425/07 to be ‘now
under analysis’.
We have now placed this abridged wordfile
document on this website,
***Please
note it is a very large 4.6mb file and the first download will take 4 or
5 minutes,
however
once downloaded it will be immediate for all future downloads
Press
link >> www.iccaction.com/ICC
BRIEF JUNE 13 2008.doc
The
widespread support for this initiative has grown from decent citizens having
read the ‘Brief Of Evidence’, and its
compelling substance,
spurring
their deepest conscience to not allow such acts happen without the full
scrutiny of the courts of law; which have been established
to stop
what is viewed by millions as heinous criminal behavior.
What is the likelihood of success?
Bush and
Blair ‘named’ as ‘possible’ prosecutions.
We note
the ICC Chief Prosecutor’s willingness to examine any Iraq war crimes
committed.
Press link >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/03/18/1174152881638.html
THE ‘BRIEF OF
EVIDENCE’ SNAPSHOT OF TECHNICAL DETAIL:
In international
law, it is a war crime intentionally launching an attack ‘in the
knowledge’ that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to
civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe
damage to the natural environment –‘which would be clearly excessive’ in
relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
War crimes are defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part
II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). Press link>> http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm
Accordingly, the
Brief Of Evidence alleges John Winston Howard violated this statute by
intentionally launching an attack ‘in the knowledge’ that such attack would
cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian
objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment
–‘which would be clearly excessive’ in relation to the concrete and
direct overall military advantage anticipated’. The violation at law occurs if
the person ‘with the authority’, takes the decision, ‘knowing the impacts’
and ‘knowing the impacts will be excessive’.
The Brief Of
Evidence alleges, the violation at law did actually occur because the person
‘with the authority’, John Winston Howard, took the decision, ‘knowing the
impacts’ and ‘knowing the impacts would be excessive’. It alleges, not only did
John Winston Howard have this knowledge, he was also formally warned by
the world’s most eminent legal experts, of the excessiveness of the attack and
the severe impacts in human carnage. (see Slater & Gordon 20/3/03 written
warning below) -also obtainable as a printable document on link Press link>> www.iccaction.com/S&G.pdf
War crimes also
involve complicity in war crimes and it does not mean that those found guilty
had to be the overall planners of the attack. Government ministers can be held
personally and criminally responsible for complicity in crimes committed.
Article 25 of the ICC Statute provides for individual responsibility of persons
who commit a crime within the ICC's jurisdiction and attributes criminal
responsibility in a number of circumstances, including where a person orders,
solicits or induces the commission of a crime; for the purpose of facilitating
the commission of a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission
or attempted commission, including by providing the means for its commission;
or intentionally contributes to the commission or attempted commission of a
crime by a group of persons acting with a common criminal purpose. In other
words a person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence
is guilty of that offence; and a person who incites the commission of an
offence is guilty of an offence. The Brief Of Evidence indicates John Winston
Howard having been the decision maker to commit and sign off on Australia’s
direct military and armed forces support and direct attack on Iraq is thereby
alleged to have committed war crimes by this excessive attack.
This analysis under
the ICC Rome Statute by the ICC Prosecutor of actually determining –‘if the
attack is clearly excessive’, relies on existing fully codified and guiding
laws of armed conflict (LOAC -‘laws of war’); -the jus in bello
doctrine Press
link>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_in_bello. This law codifies
acceptable practices while engaged in any conflict and at any level
of command. The actual analysis itself examines the ‘proportionality’
of the attack under the jus in bello doctrine. The ‘proportionality’ test of
this level of ‘excessiveness’ in an attack, depends on when attacking
belligerents, knowingly considering the humanitarian impact risks when
determining the level of ‘attack severity’; will proceed in military
attack when it’s not justified. In other words the level of proportionality is
unjustified; -if the attack was excessive; and ‘disproportionate’ in relation to the
concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated, it is therefore
defined as ‘excessive’ and –‘a war crime’.
To ‘technically
legally’ fully evaluate ‘excessiveness’, in light of the size of the attack
and the military need for it under the specific circumstances, the
Prosecutor examines the 'attack' itself under the ‘legal doctrine of proportionality’
Press link>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_%28political_maxim%29. This codified doctrine states that no layer
of government should take any action that ‘exceeds’ that which is
necessary to achieve the objective of government (Regardless of intent
of objective). The analysis by the Chief Prosecutor in the Iraq conflict
therefore asks; ‘was the attack disproportionate’ to the ‘direct overall
military advantage anticipated’ of the circumstances of this particular
attack’.
This distinction is
legally critical because the statute defines that ‘no layer of government’
-at any level, may violate the ‘proportionality’ doctrine. Its object
and intent forces its explicit legal obligations upon ‘top command politicians’
responsible for the planning and executing ‘the entire conflict’ as well
as lower command military personnel in an element of the conflict. This
protection is vital in its application of all law otherwise ‘top command’ would
always remain protected, for any decision. ‘No layer of government’,
may be exempted or protected under any law, it must apply to all
government officials making any decisions that have serious impacts on people.
The process used in
the application of analysis of ‘war crimes’ ‘proportionality’ assessed as
‘excessive’ or ‘disproportionate’ are specifically defined under
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) and requires, inter alia, an assessment of: