<

 

There were more than 650,000 people killed in The Iraq War.

See ‘The Lancet Iraq deaths study’:  Press > www.iccaction.com/LancetIraqWarInvasionDeaths.pdf

 

 

THE PROSECUTION CASE RESTS.

 

 

“Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

(John Donne 1623)

 

This declaration and act of lethal war upon Iraq is a violation of The U.N. Charter,

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and The U.N. Geneva Conventions.

 

As a result of John Winston Howard’s declaration and act of lethal war upon Iraq, a Brief Of Evidence has been sent to the International Criminal Court in the Hague; alleging John Winston Howard is guilty of war crimes. The two current Briefs Of Evidence before the ICC were sent 29th October 2012 and 10th October 2012 (and follow under) and are sent after the Chief Prosecutor invited further evidence.The initial 13th June 2008 brief also follows that and it has the entire case including full detail of the deaths, injuries and destruction in Iraq. These current briefs take further narrower legal argument than the initial 2008 brief. The current 29th October 2012 brief is very important as it requests the Chief Prosecutor to take note that Rome Statute, Article of Article 21 Applicable law 3., compulsorally requires there to be 'NO EXEMPTION' to war crimes laws and that Coalition Of The Willing leaders 'must be prosecuted' as 'Commanders In Chief' for the attack on Iraq well as any lower level cammanders. It also makes legal argument that the entire focus of the former Chief Prosecutor’s 9 February 2006 Guidelines on Iraq war submissions standards is legally flawed as they do not address Commander In Chief actions.

 

 

**********************************************************************************

 

PDF FILE ICC Brief of Evidence 425 Press link  >>  http://www.iccaction.com/ICC BRIEF OCTOBER 29 2012.pdf

 

**********************************************************************************

 

 

**********************************************************************************

 

PDF FILE ICC Brief of Evidence 425 Press link  >>  http://www.iccaction.com/ICC BRIEF OCTOBER 10 2012.pdf

 

**********************************************************************************

 

 

**********************************************************************************

 

PDF FILE ICC Brief of Evidence 425 Press link  >>  http://www.iccaction.com/ICC BRIEF JUNE 13 2008.pdf

 

**********************************************************************************

 

 

Many have asked “why do we do this”?

-We do this for our daughter and for our son. – www.iccaction.com/why.jpg

 

 

 

Major Impact On The Rule Of Law And The Laws Of Armed Conflict

 

Our entire global international law framework was laid down by the west after the massive bloodshed of WW1 and WW2. It was the west’s wisest leaders that saw so many die and so many injured, that prompted the west itself to develop The United Nations, The U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions. This great humanitarian work established and developed a solid Rule Of Law framework to make us safer and limit these horrific risks on a mass scale to our precious lives in future. In this nuclear age of excessive lethal arsenals of weaponry, this framework is critical to human existence.

 

This framework has served us so very well, and saved massive further conflict even in our nuclear age. It has been a guiding beacon for decent civilized bahaviour, making sure that a template exists for controlling conflict and bringing war criminals to trial for violations under The Rule Of Law. Without this framework we would have decended to the vilest bahaviour of animals, where death, killing and injury are meaningless.

 

We owe so much to our past good and strong political leaders of the west in developing this international law and reinforcing The Rule Of Law.

 

Much more significantly for us all, is that the Iraq War is the first major attempted direct subversion of The Rule Of Law in international law, by any western nation politician. The very dangerous impact of this for us; is that these three politicians have now severely damaged the west’s own time honoured legal framework.

 

Unless The Rule Of Law is restored by examining these Iraq War violations; all laws of armed conflict are now redundant and any nation can now attack another without having been attacked -as these three western politicians illegally did.

 

In the post nuclear era, to have no agreed Rule Of Law framework to legally test any armed conflict violations, -places us on a path to oblivion which we cannot recover from.

 

After having built such strong U.N. legal institutions to serve us all, we cannot allow the monumentally ethical work of the west’s past gallant and strong and decent leaders to be obliterated by these three men violating the west’s own respected legal framework that has kept us from war.

 

**********************************************************************************

 

October 7 2010 STOP PRESS UPDATE: JOHN WINSTON HOWARD WAR CRIMES REPORT

ICC: OTP-CR-425/07

 

The long awaited ICC response to our ‘Brief of Evidence’ has now been issued and received 19 October 2010. As fully expected, the ICC Prosecutor has decided (based on the information currently available), the alleged 'war crimes' conduct described in our report does not appear to fall within the Court’s mandate -Article 15(6) of the Rome Statute.

 

The ICC also advises however, an investigation may be reconsidered

in the light of new facts or information (which we will provide).

 

This specific response to our initial report was fully anticipated and we regard it as a good development. The reason being, we are now seeking the detailed definitions the ICC used to take this decision to further refine our evidence to be reconsidered in the light of new facts or information we then provide; in conformity with The Prosecutor's obligations under the Rome Statute:

 

The Rome Statute definitions the ICC used to take this 7 October 2010 response decision are:

 

·                     Information reported needs to provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime

    within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed.

·                     The admissibility of evidence provided before the Court, in light of the requirements

    relating to gravity and complementarity with national proceedings.

·                     Requirement to give consideration to the interests of justice.

 

The process of successful prosecutions in the ICC takes many years and our efforts are being assisted by many great legal minds and international law bodies, the fact that the ICC is holding the Brief Of Evidence and holding it open to further evidence is a substantial positive development.

 

No law is an abstract, with its destiny determined by its intrinsic righteousness or inviolable wisdom. Its meaning and object is to protect the greatest numbers of its owners from the greatest harm and usher to them the greatest good. All law is defined, devised, promulgated, enforced, varied and kept vital to our needs solely by its owners, we of the human family. We alone must keep its spirit alive and relevant, solely by our personal energies.

 

The ICC has played a vital part in ensuring our international law framework is manifestly robust to ensure its judgments’ provide maximum legal efficacy across the spectrum of contemporary criminal jurisprudence realms possible. This rigor is essential to ensure that when a prosecution takes place its potency is absolute.

 

Patience is required, the mass scale killing in the lethal attack on Iraq are war crimes and cannot be undone. It took Simon Wiesenthal (KBE) most of his life in tracking down and gathering information on fugitive Nazis so that they could be brought to justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The illegal declaration and act of war on Iraq, killing so many is an identical war crime and must be pursued through the ICC in The Hague. It took 20 years to bring legitimate war crimes charges against Augusto José Ramón Pinochet and there was little evidence. The self-titled ‘Coalition Of The Willing’ politicians actually delivered the volumes evidence for which a case can be made. This detailed evidence will expedite the judicial process to a strong case in The Hague

 

The next step for ICCACTION has been to take this decision (by invitation) to the ICCJnet Reimagining International Criminal Justice Forum 22 October 2010 to 23 October 2010 at University of Sydney Law School. We sought further wisest counsel on our next step and this effort is ongoing.

http://sydney.edu.au/news/law/457.html?eventcategoryid=35&eventid=6584

 

This internationally renowned ICCJnet http://www.wun.ac.uk/research/iccjnet Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Research and Policy Project, within its ‘Rethinking International Criminal Justice’ workshop; has the capacity and potential to provide the most contemporaneous and legally intellectually sound and practical advice to guide international law improvements.

See the ICCACTION Submission: http://www.iccaction.com/ICCJnet Research & Policy Project.pdf  

 

 

ICCACTION is deeply indebted to Sydney University to allow our case progress to be examined under the auspices of such august globally legally developed and focused minds as the following renowned international law professionals:

 

Professor Mark Findlay http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/staff/MarkFindlay/

 

Associate Professor and Director Jake Lynch http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/people/jake_lynch.shtml

 

 

We are now progressing our efforts through legal institutions towards ensuring our response to the ICC’s invitation to submit further evidence falls precisely in line with the most rigorous international law template that must be abided. This is to ensure the ICC has the entire body of detailed evidence appropriate to be able to make a decision on a recommendation to the ICC Pre Trial Chamber for an investigation of the alleged war crimes.

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

 

THE FIRST MAJOR ATTEMPTED SUBVERSION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE WEST SINCE 1215

 

The Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms) of 1215, truly established our 800 year old (modern democratic) doctrine of the ‘Rule Of Law’. The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, means that the law is utterly independent, free from interference, above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governor or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is now above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

 

This means that if ‘any’ of the prevailing laws which govern all societies are violated, ‘all’ these violations ‘must only’ -be addressed independently in a court of law. Courts possess the independence for weighing of competing evidence, the impartiality for considering the rights and obligations of all parties involved and coercive powers to enforce the court’s final decision. The Rule of Law applies to any laws on a personal, business, national or international level and it also established our absolute legal right to a court hearing on any matter affecting us under all prevailing laws. The Rule of Law became the basis of constitutional law and of common law and when any matter is finally determined by the courts, justice is fully served.

 

Magna Carta was the first document forced upon an English King by his subjects to limit his powers by law and to protect citizen’s rights. The establishment of this principle was profound, because the monarchy had absolute power over all citizens in all matters of life and death prior to this.

 

The Rule Of Law has been extended over time to now apply to all citizens, including all politicians in power and ensures any destructive violations of the inviolable legal rights of citizens cannot be interfered with in any way by those with power in society.

 

Any interference whatsoever, by any party whatsoever, in any way whatsoever, in any matter requiring to be appropriately addressed at law, solely in a properly constituted legal court, tribunal or judicial system, is an attempted subversion of the Rule Of Law.

 

MAJOR RECENT DIRECT ATTEMPTED SUBVERSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE RULE OF LAW

BY WESTERN POLITICAL LEADERS

“To be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country”

George Orwell  –‘The Prevention of Literature’ 1946

 

 

Politicians have tremendous power by virtue of controlling all governmental structures, consequently they potentially can and do, attempt to subvert our Rule of Law doctrine. They can do this both for their own personal benefit and to escape the law that must apply to all citizens. One of the most egregious and blatant recent attempted subversions of the doctrine, is Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi granting himself immunity from prosecution after he won government in 2008. Berlusconi passed a law, giving himself and three of his top officials immunity from prosecution, in a case in the system heading for trial over three separate matters involving corruption, bribery and false accounting.

 

Berlusconi was facing a charge that he paid his lawyer David Mills a $700,000 bribe to give false evidence in trials involving the prime minister, Mills was found guilty of accepting the bribe and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail. Berlusconi dropped out of the trial after giving himself immunity. However, Italy's most senior court has now ruled that the immunity law Berlusconi passed is ‘unconstitutional’ because no citizen should be above the law. Press > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/08/2707890.htm. This is a case where this interference was an attempted subversion and subjugation of the Rule Of Law by a politician for his own personal benefit. However, the doctrine itself, solely by its fundamental democratic and legal potency, ultimately triumphed. The full and proper examination of the alleged violations have now been handed back to the courts where they truly belong, in a civilized functioning democracy.

 

Further recent direct attempted subversion of the Rule Of Law is by world political leaders totally removing our rights to a legal trial as a free citizen. This legal right is titled ‘Habeas Corpus’ and is the fundamental right of trial each of us has to defend at law, any claims made against us. The Habeas Corpus right exists in all modern democracies. It is based on the fundamental democratic notion that we must be presumed innocent of any crime, unless proven guilty in a legally constituted court of law. The most blatant removal of this time honoured democratic legal right by a politician, was its permanent removal from law in the USA by George W. Bush with the signing of the Military Commissions Act. Press > http://www.amnesty.org.au/hrs/comments/20995/.

 

After the September 11 2001 al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York, Bush forced rushed and draconian laws and corrupt ‘non-evidence supported’ arrests of citizens globally. Without any legal basis whatsoever, the authorities arrested many citizens who had never been combatants against the United States or engaged in any terrorist acts. These innocent victims of undemocratic, corrupt laws were imprisoned permanently without any charges under this vilest politically expedient act. This monstrous attack on citizens’ rights by politicians with immense power has no deeper base in evil, because these citizens were not permitted to consult counsel, or provided access to courts or other tribunals. They were dragged off in chains to prison at the Guantanamo Bay Cuba Naval Base; where they were further removed from their legal rights to justice. This denial of justice was a deliberate, planned subversion of the Rule Of Law because aliens detained in Cuba outside United States sovereign territory, may not invoke habeas corpus relief in a USA court.

 

This politically corrupt act was ‘a fundamental attempted subversion of democracy’ and has subsequently been overturned in the USA by the Supreme Court and held as unlawful, and Habeas Corpus has been restored. See: The US Supreme Court’s overthrow of the Military Commissions Act, finding Bush unlawful for trying prisoners by means of military commissions that violated congressional statutes and international law. Press >  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZS.html.

 

Once again, this is a case where the interference was a direct attempted subversion and subjugation of the Rule Of Law by a politician. However, the doctrine itself, solely by its fundamental democratic and legal potency, ultimately triumphed. This will now allow the full and proper examination of these cases to be handed back to the civilian courts. These matters will now undergo the fundamental processes of law in the courts where they truly belong, for a just and independent determination in a civilized functioning democracy.

 

CRITICAL HISTORICAL FACTS OF ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT THE

RULE OF LAW IN DEMOCRACIES

 

The Rule Of Law is so important in underpinning the entire political and judicial framework of democratic government in society, it is constantly under threat of attempted subversion by politicians, whose immense powers it ultimately must control. The Rule Of Law makes politicians answerable to the citizens who elected them, this is the foundation of democracy itself. The act of attempting to subvert the Rule Of law is a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine the Rule Of Law by persons working covertly from within the political, judicial or executive branches of government. The highest potential for direct attempted subversion exists at the political branch of government, due to its control by elected politicians of all other branches.

 

The two most important ‘and chilling’ critical historical facts about politicians and their potential to attempt subversion of the Rule Of Law are these:

 

1.               Having tremendous power by virtue of controlling political structures, politicians potentially can and will go to any lengths to attempt to subvert the Rule Of Law’s protection of citizens against politician’s personal vested interests: - Citizens will suffer.

 

2.               Having tremendous power by virtue of controlling political structures, politicians potentially can and will go to any lengths to attempt to subvert the Rule Of Law which limits their own excesses of political power: - Politicians will gain.

 

This means when and if they choose, they potentially can and will attempt to subvert the Rule of Law in any way possible if their decisions or power can be challenged or limited by any citizen. The Rule of Law keeps politicians under the same legal obligations as ordinary citizens. It stops their attempted abuse of our laws and forces them to behave legally and remain accountable, as it does all other citizens.

 

This constant attempted subversion risk exists within all democratic political systems, it always has and it always will. One of the most fundamental safeguards to have been developed and universally adopted by all democracies to minimize this huge risk is the doctrine of the Rule Of Law itself. This attempted subversion risk is so high, all democratic systems use their judicial systems to undergo constant rigorous internal and external public legal review to ensure democracy is kept safe and fair and under the control of citizens and not politicians.

 

The powerful message is, always watch politicians –always. They are controlling all government branches and potentially, as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC chillingly shows, even in democratic nations:- “government is more dangerous to our liberty than the enemy it claims to protect us from”. Press > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8421286208568567299.

 

The Berlusconi and Bush cases are a mere two recent examples of this ongoing attempted direct subversion of the Rule Of Law by politicians. However, both were ultimately overturned in time by conscientious citizens demanding the restoration of the Rule Of Law over government. This democratic process is a direct result of the triumph of the fundamental application of the Rule Of Law itself.

 

These blatant direct attempted subversions of Rule Of Law are frighteningly profound in their impact and involve the destruction of real citizens’ lives and protection of politician’s criminal behavior. However, they are manifestly dwarfed in impact by the monumental attempted subversion of the Rule Of Law by recent western politicians in the declaration and execution of the war on Iraq.

 

THE MOST MONUMENTAL ATTEMPTED POLITICAL SUBVERSION AND SUBJUGATION

OF THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW IN CONTEMPORY HISTORY

 

The most extraordinary attempted direct political manipulation of the entire framework of the international judicial and legal structures in contemporary history, is the massive attempted subjugation, subversion and rendering redundant of the international Rule Of Law by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Winston Howard.

 

This direct attempted subversion impacted the entirety of United Nations legal jurisdictions and all of the Security Council structures and Geneva Conventions. Nothing in contemporaneous political history has come anywhere near this monumental attempted utter contortion of all international societal doctrines and safeguards put in place to guarantee against such massive attempted subjugation and subversion by politicians. –Nothing -ever.

 

This is extraordinary, because this monumental attempted subversion has gone legally unaddressed since March 2003. Although this has been profound in its impact, major moves are steadily now underway to bring these politicians to justice for their actions; Press > http://www.iccaction.com/2009 CANON OF MORALITY.doc -

 

The tragedy of this massive attempted Rule Of Law subversion is that it was conducted by politicians of the greatest nations which initially instigated and championed (and are signatories to) these profound democratic legal protections; the U.S.A. United Kingdom and Australia.

 

This attempted subversion is striking in its potent design, execution and consummate effect. Striking because these politicians, remarkably, attempted to utterly shift the legal focus entirely away from all of the time honoured, fundamental tenets and accepted precedents of the international Rule Of law.

 

In addition, the temporary success of this attempted subversion is stunning, because these politicians actively tried to drive the entire legal focus and full lawful analysis on to their own jointly contrived focus; which at law is utterly legally irrelevant. Press > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance#In_law

 

By virtue of their control of the political systems as elected representatives, these politicians attempted to ‘deliberately coerce’ the total legal analysis by the entire international justice system and the global public media organs to suit their own personal political goals. This covered the entirety of U.N. independent legal systems frameworks, and signatory universal legislative governmental structures of ‘all’ nations and the total global public media reporting networks. They did this by being in power and collectively constantly driving their legally fraudulent agenda from their seats of power.

 

Their aggressive goal was to attempt to coerce the system to follow their deliberately concocted, legally fraudulent path, and stunningly; this concocted path is ‘legally irrelevant’ at law. This attempted subversion is the most monumental temporary corruption of international justice in contemporary history. And this capability exists and will always exist in democracies and only the Rule Of Law being upheld will control such attempted political subversion. This egregious attempted subversion was possible solely by virtue of the abuse of the immense executive power of these politicians.

 

This deliberate act of fraud by these politicians was for their own political ends and it is a contrived attempted manipulation of all major societal judicial lawful protections. This political farce utterly dwarfs even the blatant and corrupt Berlusconi immunity from prosecution and Bush Military Commissions Act attempted subversions.

 

What was the precise nature of this monumental Rule Of Law attempted subversion?  This breathtaking contrived attempted manipulation was the coercing of the entire legal argument and debate and public focus, solely on to a legally irrelevant ‘non-tenet’ of law. This legally irrelevant concocted ruse was to deliberately attempt to lead the entire legal analysis and global focus solely upon the ‘alleged existence’ of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in Iraq.

 

This is a monumental attempted subversion of the legal process because it did not matter at law if weapons actually existed in Iraq as alleged. It is absolutely extraordinary to have deliberately successfully driven this monumental attempted fraud, utterly against the entirety of international law and the fundamental Rule Of Law doctrine. It is the most monumental politically motivated and executed attempted fraud in contemporary legal history. And it was done solely by abuse of the immense political power serving politicians have within the political branch of any government. And it was done malevolently in concert, by politicians who knew it was attempted subversion of the Rule Of Law.

 

Under international law, the Rule Of Law legally obliged all nations, all media, all politicians, all military, all citizens to test alleged WMD’s solely ‘by inspections’, and not by waging war. That is to say, once Iraq had both responded in writing to the U.N. both that it had no WMD’s and that it legally agreed to all inspections anywhere to allow this to be proven true, testing became a legal obligation at law. This total lawful compliance by Iraq placed ‘absolute’ Rule Of Law obligations on all these politicians to test alleged WMD’s -solely by inspections.

 

Yet these politicians have corruptly managed since 2003 to coerce all their legal counsels, all political commentators, all media analysts to follow their contrived legally irrelevant focus solely on the WMD’s alleged existence. By the immense political power they possessed, they did this so effectively by deliberately setting and leading the entire legal discussion agenda and debates ‘themselves’. It was an absolute abuse of political power.

 

They themselves deliberately chose ‘alleged WMD’s existence’ as a concocted story and fraudulently directly set the agenda and led the discussion. They led the U.N. debates, they led the news networks, they led the PR machines. This was achieved initially by virtue of the fact of their immense political power over all of the democratic processes as elected leaders. This of course is the inherent risk of all political systems, including democracy; and this is the risk that is ultimately minimized by the Rule Of Law.

 

This monumental incredible achievement is since 2003, they have delivered a stunning attempted subversion of the Rule Of Law for their personal political benefit. The effect of the deliberate diversion is of course that it automatically takes the focus off themselves and on to alleged WMD’s.  And it of course diverts the international justice system from correctly investigating them for war crimes in the execution of the Iraq war. This is the sole reason for the attempted subversion, no less than the Berlusconi and Bush cases stated.

 

At law, there was solely a strict international ‘Rule Of Law obligation to not invade Iraq. Their attack was an international Rule Of Law criminal violation. Yet these powerful ruling politicians have been consummately successful at coercing the entire legal focus and analysis utterly away from this absolute legal violation – a violation that they can be tried for. This massive international Rule Of Law attempted subversion has not been matched in contemporary legal history.

 

The Rule Of Law ‘legally obliges’ the legal focus to have been only their absolute legal obligations of ‘resolving their alleged’ claim of WMD’s’ solely by testing, (which tragically, could have been done without killing one soul). War was illegal, war was a criminal violation, war was a breach of three major Rule Of Law legal obligations these politicians had. War was a violation of the U.N. Charter articles 2.4 and 25, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Geneva Conventions.

 

Yet these ruling politicians remarkably, fraudulently set the entire legal focus as ‘the alleged existence’ of WMD’s and cunningly and deliberately drove the full global debate themselves, incessantly. The remarkable thing is this fraud was so well contrived, and the manipulation is so well planned and constructed and executed; it still continues even today by stealth and active focus, by the tattered remnants of Blair’s government in the U.K. Chilcot inquiry. Press > http://www.theage.com.au/world/blair-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-20091126-juj4.html.

 

The fraud is so powerful in this inquiry because of its contrived terms of reference. The entire questioning and testimony of the inquiry is still fraudulently and irrelevantly focused on whether WMD’s existed. Or whether Blair lied. Yet both these notions are irrelevant at law. The subversion of the Rule Of Law is so monumental here in that the Chilcot inquiry itself is part of the continuing fraud, part of the continuing attempted subversion. It has been established by Blair’s cronies to keep the focus on a legally irrelevant non-tenet of law –‘politician’s alleged WMD’s belief’.

 

In addition to its deliberately contrived hypocritical and self contradicting terms of reference, it ‘stunningly’, is publicly stated as set up “not to apportion blame” in the Iraq war. These two monumental subversions are breathtaking, this is a farcical ‘inquiry’, that will not apportion blame for the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi citizens in an unlawful war. And tragically it will not apportion blame for criminal violation of the U.N. Charter articles 2.4 and 25, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Geneva Conventions. It will focus on legally irrelevant ‘politician’s stated belief’.

 

The stunning reality of this odious farce is, with these contrived inquiry terms Blair, Bush and Howard simply cannot be held accountable for any violations whatsoever, because all that is being asked and tested in this inquiry is whether their belief in WMD’s was true. You can never prove belief is true or untrue, it is lawfully irrelevant.

 

Any credible inquiry must by Rule Of Law definition solely examine actions, real violations of law such as the U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and the Geneva Conventions.

 

The brilliance of this contrived fraudulent attempted subversion is that in human philosophy, any person can claim they ‘truly believe’ in anything at all and their belief cannot be challenged at law; even if they are cunning pathological liars. Belief in an alleged god can’t be proven, belief in Santa can’t be proven and belief in WMD’s can’t be proven either because it’s stated as ‘belief’ not a fact. This is precisely why belief is legally irrelevant at law, the law is compelled to judge obligations, rights and violations -not beliefs at all. These three politicians however, have ruthlessly and cunningly, been able to temporarily coerce the entire global focus of legal debate and analysis on to their (alleged) beliefs. And the Chilcot inquiry continues the massive Rule Of Law attempted subversion.

 

However, as farcical as the Chilcott inquiry is, and as limited as it is by its deliberate politically corrupt design; it will deliver significant further evidence that can and will be used independently by the international legal systems. This evidence will be used after the inquiry delivers its planned benign result. The evidence will be used by the proper international legal institutions such as the International Criminal Court to rebuild the Rule Of Law from the destructive abuses these politicians have deliberately wrought.

 

The Chilcott inquiry has already brought such immense focus to these politicians’ actions, that Tony Blair has now directly publicly indicted himself as committing a monstrous political subversion of the Rule Of Law by executing the Iraq war. This now as an act of criminal complicity, also indicts John Winston Howard. As of December 15, 2009, Tony Blair has now utterly changed his previous publically stated reasons for invading Iraq away from his previous ‘and now admitted lie’ that it was alleged WMD’s. This public admission has major implications for the war crimes claimed to have been committed by the self titled ‘Coalition Of The Willing’.

 

Ken MacDonald, the former U.K. Director of Public Prosecutions, has penned a devastating article in the Times in response to Tony Blair's admission, in a calculated interview with Fern Britton ahead of his appearance at the Chilcot inquiry, that he would have attacked Iraq even if he'd have known there were no WMD’s. MacDonald describes the role Blair's character played in driving the criminal adventure against the will of the British people, noting his "sycophancy" and his thirst for glamour and power. He urges Chilcot not to succumb to the British establishment disease of hiding the truth to protect the powerful. Press > http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/guy-aitchison/ken-macdonald-on-blairs-deceit-and-warning-to-chilcot

 

This monumental attempted subversion and subjugation of the Rule Of Law by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Winston Howard is now utterly unraveling as of Tuesday December 15, 2009. These admissions of Tony Blair were made solely in a feeble attempt to protect himself from the questioning he will face at the Chilcott inquiry in 2010. He knows the focus will then be solely on his alleged WMD’s concocted stance that he was able to manipulate whilst a serving politician and head of government deliberately in concert with George Bush and John Winston Howard. He also knows that he must now answer at law, the fact that such a notion is legally irrelevant at law. The Rule OF Law has now caught up with these politicians who by virtue of no longer having control of any of the frameworks of justice in government, they can no longer attempt to subvert the Rule Of Law.

 

The Rule of Law doctrine is universally agreed and held as sacrosanct as the only civilized way to prevent any of us from taking direct endless reprisals against each other. This applies most importantly to politicians taking illegal actions against their own citizens and other nations’ citizens as well. This is because politicians have not only immense power, they have their hand on the ‘trigger’ of the world’s most horrifically destructive military arsenals. They have the power to kill, maim and destroy, instantaneously. The doctrine recognizes we all have the darkest of potentially destructive forces lurking within us, which can and do get quickly out of control. The Rule of law has been crucial to keeping our society decent, civilized and functioning as properly as it can. It is universally honoured because it also forces all disputes to be managed independently at law by legal experts, away from powerful vested interests of the parties involved.

 

Only courts have the legal specialists to manage the interpretation and meaning of all parties’ international legal rights and obligations under all prevailing laws, (including the ‘illegal’ declaration of war on Iraq). This time honoured Rule of Law doctrine also enforces universal acceptance of the court’s decision as final. The Rule of Law establishes that no one is above the law and the court’s decision is binding upon all citizens, all organisations, all governments and all leaders in any dispute anywhere. The Rule of Law doctrine was further fully developed mainly by western democracies and governments and operates in all civilized countries of the world.

 

INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

This honoured fundamental ‘Rule Of Law doctrine was further universally reinforced at international law by the 1945 U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions, which are the basis of which all international laws of ‘armed conflict’ are agreed. These laws and conventions were fully developed by western democratic governments after the massive unnecessary bloodshed of WW1 and WW2. The international criminal courts and tribunals were established with the authority and obligations to examine any violations in armed conflict. Hitler’s henchmen were all prosecuted for war crimes in these international courts.

 

DETAIL OF THE FIRST MAJOR BREAKDOWN

 

Some western leaders have for the first time, violated our protective international laws and Rule of Law doctrine in the Iraq war; by the lethal armed attack on its densely civilian populated major cities. The Rule of Law applied in the attack upon Iraq where the belligerents were obliged not to attack but to abide the specific international laws of armed conflict which operate under the U.N. Charter. This charter states, nations cannot attack another (unless it is U.N. approved or unless attacked by another nation). The Geneva Conventions also enforce legally binding humanitarian obligations in armed conflict, towards armed services personnel, prisoners and citizens. The attack upon Iraq was illegal under the U.N. Charter and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and Geneva Conventions. This is the first time in over 58 years since the U.N. Charter was signed in 1945, that these western developed laws (under the universally accepted Rule of Law doctrine) have been violated by a cabal of major western leaders. In addition, the U.N. Security Council has the sole authority to approve action in armed conflict and its Resolution 1441 specifically prohibited the attack upon Iraq.

 

Because of these blatant violations of international law, our own protection against any armed attack anywhere is now utterly destroyed. Unless addressed at law, the Iraq war has now set the horrifying precedent that any country can invade another without fear of legal criminal prosecution. This violation of international law has made our world extremely unsafe and has utterly weakened the United Nations. It has also made the doctrine of Rule of Law redundant, specifically for international laws of armed conflict and generally for all law.

 

Of more importance is the actual few western leaders who have violated the Rule of Law doctrine itself. Their actions have destroyed all of the protective international laws of armed conflict established and honoured and used in past war crimes violations by their own previous distinguished governments. They have now violated all there is to help keep society decent in armed conflict, the most barbarous state there is in humanity; where the vilest mass destruction of life and of families occurs. This attack has set a watershed in international law violations, which now threatens the entire legal framework of armed conflict in use for the prior 58 years. Unless these violations of international law (under the Rule of Law doctrine) are now examined by the international courts and fully redressed, this dangerous illegal behavior can be repeated anywhere. We live in the most dangerous nuclear arms age, the risks to us all are now extreme.

 

THE SETTING OF THE MOST EXTREME ARMED CONFLICT PRECEDENT

 

The most dangerous new precedent of attacking without being attacked (called pre-emption), has been set. Not only have these legal institutions been deeply weakened - in itself a criminal offence -this Iraq war is the first time that any post-nuclear age western world leaders, have formally legitimized the vilest ‘pre-emption’ notion in a major state of war. They themselves have now set the actual example that a state of war without being attacked, is now a legitimate option by any nation against any other. These few western nations’ past distinguished leaders proudly led and developed this universal Rule of Law framework to protect against such extreme violations.

 

Unless addressed, this illegal attack has now actually delivered the major dangerous precedent, allowing any country to attack any other without fear of prosecution. In other words, it has legitimized ‘war crimes’ by violation of these international laws in the Iraq war. The violations have utterly destabilized the Middle East and no potential future conflict that may now occur anywhere, has a legal frame of reference to be managed if armed conflict is ignited. This applies to any potential regions such as Pakistan, India, Eastern Europe, China, South America or elsewhere.

 

Only these few western leaders have now created and unleashed the vilest (potential nuclear-war) pre-emption serpent of their own making. Because of this attack, it can and will now strike us anywhere. Unless overturned, this illegal attack now fully legitimizes any nation pre-emptively attacking any cities such as New York, London, Paris, Sydney, Amsterdam, Baghdad, Tikrit, Toronto, Beijing, Johannesburg,  - you can now be attacked in your city anywhere Press > http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3aEvzuA4f0c&feature=related

 

 

There is only one means of rebuilding the Rule of Law and that is taking these flagrant violations of these binding international laws of the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions and Resolution 1441 to the international courts. They must now be independently examined at law by the international judicial process.

 

ICCACTION is a dedicated group doing this now, with an ongoing Brief of Evidence currently before the International Criminal Court (Case Report ICC 425 of 2008). If the International Criminal Court finds the evidence we provide to be a strong prima facie case of international law violation, it will be recommended investigation for criminal prosecutions to the ICC Pre Trial Chamber of the court. By examination of case 425, the ICC is addressing both the Iraq International Law violations and the blatant flaunting of the universally accepted doctrine of the Rule of Law.

 

If this ICC case is successful, our 800 year old Magna Carta Libertatum ‘Rule Of Law and our U.N. Charter of 1945 and Geneva Conventions will be restored and upheld once again. This major reinforcement of International Law will then mean we utterly remove the vile precedent that any country can attack any other without provocation or without U.N. approval. If successful, this case itself will therefore demonstrate at law that any Heads of State will face prosecution for such illegal attacks. The Rule of Law and laws of armed conflict have kept most nations decent, civilized and functioning properly since 1945. We cannot revert to a world without law, if we do we would become animals and civilized society will utterly break down.

 

Magna Carta Libertatum is the original and true legal 'separation of powers' which stopped the absolute power of the monarchy. Pre-emption is a violation of International Law under the doctrine of Rule of Law and means these few recent law violating government leaders have now themselves become a quasi monarchy -and more powerful than the worst monarchy.

 

This International Criminal Court Case Report ICC 425/07, where violations can be examined and the rule of law can be fully re-established; is therefore as important as the original Magna Carta Libertatum of 1215 itself. This 425 case itself, will demonstrate that all war criminals will be prosecuted and it will send a warning that their lethal actions are legally accountable under International Law and it will re-establish the Rule of Law.

 

Watch this case Report ICC 425/07 online as it proceeds and refer to our updates

 

“Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

(John Donne 1623)

 

 

 

Violation of the Rule of Law By The Iraq War

 

FORMER LORD AND CHIEF JUSTICE LORD BINGHAM STATES THE IRAQ WAR 'A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW'

Press link>>  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/bing-n27.shtml

 

Therefore, this formal Brief of Evidence is a test case of the legality of the Iraq war

by the independent examination of the courts.

 

There were more than 650,000 people killed by The Iraq War.

See ‘The Lancet Iraq deaths study’:  Press link>>  www.iccaction.com/LancetIraqWarInvasionDeaths.pdf

 

 

The ICC Prosecutor is currently examining Final Brief 425 of 13 June 2008 to determine

if it should go to Pre Trial Chamber for investigation for recommendation of war crimes prosecution.

 

Download ICC Brief of Evidence 425 Press link >>  http://www.iccaction.com/ICC BRIEF JUNE 13 2008.doc

 

This Brief of Evidence is declared by an Arbitrator of the International Society of Criminology:-

-"a strong, constructive prima facie case, demanding action and a response".

 

 

It is a war crime to bomb densely civilian populated major cities.

Massive civilian deaths were known in advance to result by this major attack.

 

The attack has been declared ‘illegal’ by international legal experts because:

·                   Iraq fully complied with all demands under all U.N. Resolutions

·                   Iraq allowed full inspections anywhere, which made the attack illegal

·                   Iraq did not threaten to attack any country

·                   The U.N. formally disapproved of the attack

·                   The massive attack was utterly disproportionate to any possible military benefit

·                   Iraq was unable to protect its densely civilian populated major cities against such a lethal attack

 

 

 

 

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF JOHN WINSTON HOWARD’S DECISION TO DECLARE AND CONDUCT WAR ON IRAQ:

 

He was warned in writing by almost all Australian and international law experts this action was excessive, would result in

death/injury/destruction war crimes and he would be potentially prosecuted

Press link >>   www.iccaction.com/warning.pdf

 

 

 

 

EMINENT WORLD REGISTER OF CITIZENS SUPPORTING THE ICC CASE FOR PROSECUTION

 

EMINENT PERSONS REGISTER

 

John Valder AO CBE Liberal Party Former National President (& NSW State) President

Press link >> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/18/1090089035899.html

 

Lyn Allison, Former Leader of the Australian Democrats, Former Victorian Senator, Parliament of Australia

Press link>> http://vic.democrats.org.au/vic-articles.html

Press link>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIvDMzUjWGI

 

The Honorable Sandra Kanck, MLC Leader Australian Democrats (South Australia)

Press link>> http://sa.democrats.org.au/people/Sandra%20Kanck.htm

Press link>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf9Lmb5Bjiw

 

Robert Richter, Queen’s Counsel, The Victorian Bar Melbourne

Press link>> http://www.vicbar.com.au/bp.aspx?RollNumber=964

Press link>> http://www.vicbar.com.au/pdf/Summer%2005%20Bar%20News.pdf

 

Dr Sue Wareham OAM, President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia)

Member, Australian Management Committee, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Press link>> http://www.mapw.org.au/media-profile/dr-sue-wareham-oam

 

John Williams (London), World Renowned & Foremost Ambassador of Classical Guitar

Press link>> http://www.johnwilliamsguitar.com/

Press link>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeVtPDppyY&feature=related

 

Ron Tandberg World Renowned Political Cartoonist

Press link>> www.iccaction.com/Tandberg.jpg

Press link>> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/26/1088145026488.html

 

Michael Leunig World Renowned Political Cartoonist

Press link>>   www.iccaction.com/Leunig.jpg

Press link>> http://abc.com.au/news/video/2007/09/29/2047029.htm

Press link>>   http://www.leunig.com.au/biography/

 

David Bradbury Internationally Acclaimed Documentary Filmmaker

Press link>>   http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/profile.htm

Press link>>   http://www.frontlinefilms.com.au/filmography.htm

 

Criss Canning Renowned Australian Still Life Artist

Press link>> http://www.crisscanning.com.au/

 

Cindy Sheehan (USA) -America’s Most Famous Congressional Candidate & Peace Activist

Press link>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT_faGwBr1Q&feature=PlayList&p=54E706F71CF8F801&index=0

Press link>> http://www.cindyforcongress.org/article.php?list=type&type=12

 

Stan Johnston, Past Chairman & Head of Criminology Department, Melbourne University

& Former President, Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology

Press link>> http://www.anzsoc.org/society/president.html#Johnston

 

Mike Salvaris Adjunct Professor Applied Human Rights and Community Wellbeing,

School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University

Press link>> http://www.culturaldevelopment.net.au/downloads/CulturalIndicatorsreport.pdf

 

Dr. Tim Anderson Senior Lecturer Political EconomyUniversity of Sydney

Press link>>  http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/content.php?pageid=1150

 

Gill H Boehringer, BSc (C'nell) LLB (Calif) LLM (Lond) Hon. Associate Macquarie University

(former Head, School of Law)

Press link>>  http://www.publiclaw.mq.edu.au/about01.htm

 

Dr. Robert Marr For Medical Association for Prevention of War

Press link>>  http://www.mapw.org.au/download/mapw-nsw-release-welcoming-end-iraq-combat-role-and-calling-investigation-possible-criminal

Press link>>  http://www.mapw.org.au/files/downloads/NSW_Iraq-Howard_2008-06-02.pdf

 

David Halpin   MB BS FRCS United Kingdom

Press link>> http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=2

 

ALARMED BUSINESS CITIZENS REGISTER

SUPPORTING THE REPORTING AND A POTENTIAL ICC PROSECUTION

 

Ross Gillespie,  Managing Director CoachCorp Pty Ltd

Press link>>  http://www.coachcorp.com.au/about.htm

 

David Glenn, Director Lambley Nursery

Press link>>  http://www.lambley.com.au/gardens

 

Glenn Floyd, Managing Director FloydAubrey Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Press link>>  http://floydaubrey.com

 

 

THESE ARE GROWING LISTS: ADDITIONS WELCOMED

 

 

 

WORLD OPINION:

·                     JOHN VALDER AO, CBE FORMER –‘LIBERAL PARTY NATIONAL & STATE PRESIDENT’ –“THIS IS A WAR CRIME”

·                     KOFI ANNAN SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ‘ATTACK IS ILLEGAL’ – IF SO, A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME

·                     LORD BINGHAM, -U.K. FORMER LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ‘A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW’ - IF SO, A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME

·                     HANS BLIX CHIEF UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTOR ‘ATTACK IS ILLEGAL’ – IF SO, A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME

·                     THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY & MINOR PARTIES – ‘NO LEGAL BASIS FOR WAR’ – IF SO, A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME

·                     GLENN FLOYD 2004 SENATE CANDIDATE WITH WAR CRIMES ACT AMENDMENT BILL – “THIS IS A WAR CRIME”.

·                     MAJOR LIST UNDER OF AUSTRALIA'S FOREMOST INTERNATIONAL LAW EXPERTS: – FORMALLY WARNED –A HORRIFIC WAR CRIME

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.

 

 

WE AWAIT THE ICC PROSECUTOR’S ANALYS AND REPLY FOR BRIEF OF EVIDENCE 425 of 13 June 2008

WE ARE ADVISED 2 MAY 2009 BY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT,

THIS BRIEF OF EVIDENCE IS CURRENTLY ‘UNDER ACTIVE ANALYSIS’

Press link>>   http://www2.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/Biographies/The+Prosecutor.htm

 

 

 

 

 

CONTACT:

 

Glenn Floyd

 

Director ICCACTION

www.iccaction.com  Australia

P/O Box 997 North Melbourne 3051

Mobile: +61 (0) 407 861 056
eMail: floydaubrey@bigpond.com