(Former Australian PM John) Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq troop deployment

[sabra]

Source: ABC News AU

A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.

A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.

Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.

"We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard's actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute," he said.

...

A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair. The United States is not a signatory to the court.



Read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2262414.htm?section=australia

[Mnemosyne]

1. More to come... :) n/t

[orleans]

2. "The United States is not a signatory to the court."

gee...i wonder why...

[struggle4progress]

3. Imagine that! Not a signatory! But perhaps there may yet be a wave of interest in signing us up

[roguevalley]

7. I am sure Barack will sign us up. it is the civilized thing to do.

[Baby Snooks]

4. Iraq was not a signatory either so it has no jurisdiction

The problem is Iraq is not a signatory to the court's jurisdiction and so it has no jurisdiction. Saddam Hussein feared being held accountable by an international court just as George W Bush did.

The main flaw in the way the court was set up is that it operates separate from the United Nations - had it been set up within the United Nations it would have had jurisdiction over all member nations.

That was unacceptable to the United States as well. For the obvious reason.

As I recall, there are provisions in the United Nations charter to allow for war tribunals such as Nuremberg. But of course the United States would block it.

We have reached a point where the United Nations is really powerless to stop one of the superpowers and the United Nations had no power to stop the declaration of war on Iraq and has no power to stop the war.

At some point the United Nations charter will have to be changed to allow greater power by the General Assembly with regard to the Security Council to allow the General Assembly to override the Security Council and to act against the superpowers (The United States, Russia, China, France and Great Britain)if need be.

The United Nations was a wonderful idea. But at this point it basically is nothing more than a means by which developing nations may be forced to bend to the will of the superpowers. The superpowers have the power to block any action. All it takes is one. That was the major flaw and still is. The United States will always block any action it believes is contrary to its own interest. Including, obviously, the right to declare war and the right to exclude itself from international law.

Any war crimes trials would have to be held by the countries themselves. And Nancy Pelosi made it clear that was off the table as well and once Bush leaves office, he and his administration are basically no longer accountable. The president in particular.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool who has forgotten Iran-Contra which was in the end an act of treason with regard to the matter of trading with the enemy. As soon as George HW Bush left office, that was the end of it. Bill Clinton could have pursued the others. But didn't. As soon as George W Bush leaves office, that will be the end of it as well. And Hillary Clinton of course won't pursue the others. Neither will John McCain. Both in fact most likely will escalate the war.

No one knows what Barack Obama might or might not do.

As for the United Nations, it is possible he might be willing to allow the United States to be held accountable under a war tribunal set up by the United Nations but one thing is clear. He is the only one who might be willing to do so.

But then Great Britain might block it. For the obvious reason.

Our only real hope was impeachment. I hope Nancy Pelosi spends eternity burning in Hell as well.

[struggle4progress]

8. What mattereth for Howie is that the Ozzies did sign on a few years backs

[Swagman]

5. I have some evidence for the court !!

I lived in John Howard's electorate for a few years. Before the invasion he sent every constituent a signed pamphlett with the reasons for invading Iraq.

It stated in precise amounts the quantities of WMD's that Iraq possessed and threated the world with.

He catergorically stated that was THE ONLY REASON for the invasion and under no circumstances would he join the invasion for the sake of regime change !.

We now know from various defectors from Australian intelligence services that Howard was told that these WMD's did not exist.

So he lied to the Australian Parliament and he did what no other Prime Minister has done-he did not allow Parliament to vote on joining the invasion he simply made the decision himself. I always thought that pamphlett would come in handy one day.

[Senator]

6. Universal Jurisdiction Trumps The "Not A Signatory" Propaganda Meme

Torturers and war criminals like bush, cheney, rumsfeld, yoo, etc... can be tried anywhere based on Geneva.

The only "complication" is political will, nothing legal.

---

[countryjake]

9. kick!

[bluesmail]

10. Darth's got an EARFULL. Retroactive immunity, will save his

ASS. He knows how close they are to swooping him up. and my guess is they ARE cosing in, The World Is Watching.

[fascisthunter]

11. a Legal Precedent