 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bad Legal AdviceThis article was originally posted to Melbourne Indymedia in March, 2003. (Original dead link)It has since been removed from the archives and Google.com has managed to flush most references to it down the memory hole. Minimal modifications have been made to the links from the original article - otherwise this is exactly how it appeared. Why John Howard must face justice.By noisy avenger.Email: ben@fuckthewar.com ( Email server has since been disrupted to the point of no longer working) John Howard claims he has the legal authority to wage his war of aggression against Iraq. 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) (PDF @ UN.org), 687 (1991) (PDF @ UN.org) and 1441 (2002) (PDF @ UN.org) 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 are arguing now is that any failure to fulfill the requirements of 687 (e.g. acquiring or developing MWD) would automatically reactivate 678. They have simply ignored the fact that Iraq is no longer occupying Kuwait, and in fact shook hands with Kuwait at the Arab summit last Easter while they both proclaimed that neither would engage in hostilities against each other again. They have combined this idea with the delusion that 1441 gives 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 international law, John's advice states "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 as 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 neighbours, and 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 who stands up in court to testify that 1441 gives 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 in their stead 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 is 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 is almost identical to Australia's, and the US are all committing and planning to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. 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...... |
Appreciate our efforts?
|