Is Law then simply ‘What WE Make
It?
John Howard claimed he
had the legal authority to wage his war of aggression against
OK then, I say, I have the legal
authority to take full and permanent delivery of all John Howard's cash, plus
all his assets, shares, titles and other items of value.
Quick – just think of
something you want. Now just proclaim out loud that you have the legal authority
to it… Has it
magically appeared in your hands?
No?
Hmmm, that’s
strange. There must be some flaw in this logic, somewhere…
Let's take it from the
top.
According to John's legal advice –
specifically the advice from the Attorney-General's Department's international
law office head; Bill Campbell, QC, and the legal adviser to the Foreign Affairs
Department, Chris Moraitis – there's plenty of legal authority in Security
Council resolutions 678 (1990),
687 (1991) and
1441 (2002) to
justify their attack on the Iraqi people and their
infrastructure.
The basic premise of using the
first two resolutions is in that 678 was the resolution that originally gave the
UN permission to use force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and 687 set out the conditions in which the cease fire,
established after Iraq's withdraw from Kuwait, was established.
What they argued was that
any failure to fulfill the requirements of 687 (e.g. acquiring or developing
WMD) would automatically reactivate 678. They simply ignored the fact that
They have combined this idea
with the delusion that resolution 1441 gave enough authority for the US's
coalition of the willing to attack Iraq without further reference to the UN, in
any case of a breach of 1441.
In a clear case of selectively
reading of international law, John's advice stated:
"This existing authority for the use of
force would only be negated in current circumstances if the Security Council were to pass a
resolution that required member states to refrain from the use of force against
Iraq,"
John really should get some
better lawyers because according to the resolution there was no exiting
authority as Iraq was no longer occupying Kuwait. You need only look at the
Preamble to the UN Charter to see the UN's stated mission is to: "practice tolerance and
live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, to unite our strength
to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance
of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be
used, save in the common interest"
This is
without even going through the numerous articles and resolutions affirming
exactly that same principal.
Add to this the fact that to
negate something, it must already be an option. With all the diplomatic
wrangling and hair splitting over the exact wording of 1441, particularly the
phrase "serious consequences", it would be a brave man indeed who stands up in
court to testify that 1441 gave the authority for military
action.
The official UN euphemism
for armed attack is "all necessary means". The fact that the words
"serious consequences" were used instead definitively shows that no one who
voted to approve 1441 meant for it to include an automatic trigger for
war.
Now, having established that
there was no UN approval for an attack, it is time to take a look at
international law and what it has to say on the matter.
After WWII, a set of
principles was devised under which Nazi, Japanese and any possible future war
crimes could be prosecuted.
Article 6 of the
"Nuremberg Principles" states:
"The following
acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
for which there shall be individual responsibility:"
"(a) Crimes against Peace:
namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a
war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or
participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of
the foregoing;"
"(b) War Crimes: namely,
violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include,
but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or
for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder
or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of
hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities,
towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity;"
"(c) Crimes against
Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the
war, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of
or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether
or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders,
organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or
execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes
are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such
plan."
Article 7 states: "The
official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible
officials in Government departments, shall not be considered as freeing them
from responsibility or mitigating punishment."
And Article 8 specifies:
"The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a
superior shall not free him from responsibility"
So there you have it.
John Howard, the British Government whose legal advice was almost identical to
Australia’s and the US, all committed and planned to commit war crimes and
crimes against humanity and are still now continuing to do
so.
If I am wrong here, and there is
some provision somewhere
that states that "just saying it repeatedly makes it so" then I apologize
unreservedly for any misunderstanding. - I'd also like to take delivery of
John Howard's riches right now because, as we all know:
I have the legal authority to take full and permanent delivery of
all of John Howard's stuff.
I have the legal authority to take full and
permanent delivery of all of John Howard's stuff.
I have the legal authority
to take full and permanent delivery of all of John Howard's stuff.
I have the legal authority to take full
and permanent delivery of all of John
Howard's
stuff
Rule of law?
People
everywhere recognize that, in a great democracy, committed to the rule of law,
no one is above the law. John Howard's Workplace Relations minister, Tony Abbot,
said it himself in parliament on
"No one is above the law. This government
is totally committed to the rule of law."
John Howard summarized the concept of the rule of law perfectly when he said:
"But the
reality is that law and order depends for its respect on an even application and
that means everybody should be entitled to the same protection, but equally
those who break the law should expect the same measure of response from the
police."
We must
ask ourselves, then, why is John Howard so committed to destroying the
foundations of our democracy and protecting himself from the law? Why did he go
so far as to push through legislation exempting himself from arrest in the
Criminal Code Act in 2002? Equally, if we truly believe in our democracy and the
principals it stands for then it is up to us to demand that our Prime minister
be subjected to the same laws that apply to each of us. To do otherwise would be
to forfeit our right to call ourselves democratic.
John Howard has defied both international and Australian law and should face justice.
References
(1) - John Howard's Address at Hindmarsh Community Morning Tea -
July 7,
2004
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech974.html
(2) - John Howard's Letter to the Editor "Enemies of
open society will not prevail" - The Australian - September 11,
2003
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7227945%255E23110,00.html
(3) - House of Representatives Official Hansard - June 17,
2003
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr170603.pdf
(4) - A doorstop interview in Victoria with John Howard - Feb. 24,
2004
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview707.html
(5) - Criminal Code Act 1995 - SECT 80.1
Treason
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/0/PA001590.htm
These
articles bothe appeared on the ChargeJohnHoward Website which can be visited Here
Menu