THE
INTERNATIONAL REBUILDING OF
THE RULE OF
LAW
THE PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA V. JOHN WINSTON HOWARD
THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION
“Apartments in Jerry Seinfeld’s inner city New York
are so beautiful, -as they are in Sydney and Melbourne and Amsterdam and Beijing
and London and Prague and Paris. It’s so very sweet to live there. And the
beautiful sweetness comes from the hundreds of thousands of very densely
civilian populated apartments; sprinkled around all the lovely narrow streets;
surrounded by beautiful gardens and rivers lined with palm trees. This is where
loving family’s happily live and where mothers go daily walking with their
babies and their children, in lovely parks and around coffee houses and through
busy city markets. The millions of peace-loving families and people,
harmoniously living together in these beautiful cities; make it so lovely”.
THE PROSECUTION’s EVIDENCE SUBMISSION
“And so it was also, in the same lovely cities of
Najaf, Fallujah, Basra and Baghdad;
-until the dark night of 20 October 2003”.
PRPOSECUTION EXHIBIT A. Press > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmQi20nJ67c
THE PROSECUTION SUMMARY
“You see during that dark night of horror, and over
these densely civilian populated cities, John Winston Howard and George W. Bush
and Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, launched approximately 1,700 ferocious air
bombing sorties, with 504 using lethal cruise missiles; a most horrific act of
war upon any major city anywhere. This massive indiscriminate and unrelenting
reigning of bombs by the most lethal arsenals on earth,
killed anyone that was living there. This was a massively excessive and lethal
act of war and was directly and indiscriminately waged on the very densely
civilian populated apartments; sprinkled around all the lovely narrow streets;
surrounded by beautiful gardens and rivers lined with palm trees in Najaf,
Fallujah, Basra and Baghdad. This is precisely where loving family’s once
happily lived and where mothers used to go daily walking with their babies and
their children, in once lovely parks and around coffee houses and through busy
city markets. The millions of peace-loving families and
people, harmoniously and peacefully living together in these beautiful cities;
also once made it so lovely living there”.
These three politicians,
turned the beautiful life in these beautiful cities, into an inferno of hell
that night.
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.
**********************************************************************************
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
THE INTERNATIONAL REBUILDING OF THE RULE OF LAW
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