It’s not that surprising to read that former Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad has called for an international tribunal to try Western leaders with war crimes over the war in Iraq, nominating Bush, Blair and Howard in particular. Mahathir is well-known as a provocateur, with a fondness for extreme statements, which have included anti-Semitic attacks on George Soros and others. So it’s unlikely that anyone will pay much attention to him.
Still, his views on Iraq as a war crime are widely shared. It scarcely seems beyond the bounds of possibility that someone like Baltasar Garzon might find a legal way to file criminal charges (Wikipedia says he’s already threatened a civil suit.
Such charges would have enough factual and legal support to make the outcome unpredictable if they ever came before a tribunal. Apart from the general question of the legality of the war itself, the US in particular has openly denied the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and has engaged in many actions (torture of prisoners, bombing of occupied civilian areas, reprisal attacks of various kinds) that at least arguably violate the Conventions.
On the other hand, the prospect of Bush, or any US official, for that matter, actually standing trial, let alone being convicted or punished, seems unthinkable. The only consistent inference that I can draw from this is that, if charges are ever laid in any jurisdiction, the governments concerned will find a way to abort the process without allowing the substantive issues to come before a court. Since most of the doctrines that might be used to achieve such an outcome (sovereign immunity, non-interference in internal affairs and so on) have already been repudiated, it seems as if such an outcome could only be justified in terms of a bald claim of “reasons of state”.
Are there any legal experts who can help me out here? I have two main questions:
1. Where if at all, might charges be brought against Bush and others?
2. How would the hearing of these charges be prevented?
John Quiggin 
The idea of pursuing members of the coalition of the willing for war crimes would only make a mockery of any international tribunal. A few posters here have mentioned that other nasties have a case to answer and if the world was committed to prosecuting evil doers the anteroom of the international tribunal would be ‘standing room’ only. The self-appointed human rights tourists only become alacritous when the West and its major players are mentioned. Consider the plight of the Uyghurs who have seen their region turned into a charnel house thanks to the overlordship of the Chinese. I’m sure there is a file on it somewhere in the UN but it only gets dusted off occasionally. Are there any accounts of actors and human rights tourists in lockstep with Sheik Hilali marching down George Street, Sydney demanding freedom and the gift of human rights to all Cuban dissidents? That could mean the unpalatable – to some – prosecution of Fidel.
The UN’s name is often mentioned as the appropriate forum to debate the issue of war crimes but consider the manoeuvring done to fit terrorists under the aegis of the Geneva Conventions covering POWs. Soldiers are required to wear uniforms and have a chain of command. The only commander that some of the terrorists have was born and died in the 7th century. We could be forgiven for thinking the Indian Cricket Control Board is making the decisions.
Let’s all pray that members of the legal club don’t bring their hubristic opinions to the debate. This month the chocolate wheel of justice delivered another abstruse decision involving the stabbing death of a family man. The judge ruled that the victim could have fallen on the knife. Why didn’t the judge complete the comedy and find that the victim stabbed himself to death? Under those rules GW Bush would have to have been photographed wearing a soldier’s uniform and firing randomly while strolling down Main Street, Baghdad. Twelve reliable eye witnesses would be handy; otherwise forget about it. Can we leave the legal club to enjoy its playpen?
What we need is a forum that has the respect and confidence of all people and is backed up by a system that will pursue and prosecute ALL people or governments guilty of war crimes and the denial of basic human rights.
Andrew Says: April 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Exactly. THe AUS Left has reverted to its post-seventies silliness ever since it smelt Howard’s blood in the water. No doubt worked into a frenzy under the influence of Bush’s toxic policies.
COndemning Howard/ADF as war criminals is all about rewriting history to give ones political enemies black hats. It gives the Left another opportunity to pat themselves on the back for being such fine fellows.
It does no practical good at all. But it does turn the international military judicial process into a farce.
The ADF is not in the business of military conquest (“war for oil”), bombing civilian areas or torturing prisoners.
ANd Howard was a crucial leader in the military actions that liberated Timor, FFS. Ask Horta if that is the act of a “war-criminal”.
These inconvenient facts do not fit the Left’s Howard-hating script so it must be flushed down a memory hole.
The ADF went to Iraq as a token force to provide international legitimacy to the US-led “coalition”. Virtually no military operational combat role. A political fig-leaf that we owed the US on account of their help to us in Timor.
Its called “the favour bank”.
This kind of deal does not register on the AUS Left’s radar screen. It is primarily interested in moral grandstanding (Sorry Day, Earth Hour, 2020 Gabfest) to improve its own status. Improving the status of others less fortunate is a secondary, purely instrumental, concern.
Pr Q’s questions merit an answer, political not legal though. Most international jurists are just grand-standers who cant/wont get a real job in the private sector or get tough on crime at home.
Pr Q says:
All coalition leaders are prima facie chargeable for waging unauthorised, unlawful, aggressive war against Iraq. Guilty as sin.
Pr Q says:
By the accused threatening to “flood the zone” and counter-indicting their political legatees and associates. ANd by the US threatening to pick up its ball and go home.
The US-led war in Iraq has implicated about half the political leadership class of the OECD. I dont see much chance in an international jurist putting half the world’s political Alpha-males in the dock as war-criminals.
If the RoW picked on Bush alone the GOP would mobilise to withdraw from the international system. I dont think that global security managers would relish that prospect.
The failure of the war has greatly enhanced the reputation of the UN, whilst damaging the war-party in the US (Which explains why an otherwise undistinguished cadidate such as Obama has made such headway amongst the peace-party congregation.)
Bringing war-crimes indictments against Howard and Blair trivialises the notion of war-crime. Most proponents of the war honestly felt that they were doing some good. ANyone equipped with a moral sense can see this is quite distinct from common or garden war criminals like Milosevic or super war criminals like Hitler.
The fact is that everyone recognises Iraq-attack as a bloody mess and an awful shame. I dont see much to be gained by turning it into a war-crime.
Jack,
I would take issue with this:
While I would agree that there is a prima facie case (as in the first sentence) as there was no explicit UNSC authorisation, there is no more than that at the moment. It depends (in my understanding) on the operation of the Vienna Conventions and on what, exactly, particular people knew or believed at the time. This is a matter of fact that would need to be tried before a jury – so the second part – “Guilty as sin” – is yet to be proven and, in all likelihood, will never be tried and therefore never tested and therefore never proven.
COndemning Howard/ADF as war criminals is all about rewriting history to give ones political enemies black hats.
howard lied his country into a coalition, that attacked another country without provocation that resulted in the deaths of over a million civilians
if this is not a war crime,
then there has never anywhere been a war criminal
if rudd who i voted for had done it i would say exactly the same,
the pettiness of some of the ‘mainstream’ minds here is saddening and astounding
if your point of view hasnt been handed to you from ‘officially sanctioned sources’ then it is mocked as akin to a 23 year old student activist, truly pathetic
sounds like a 23 storey a***hole to me
Lord Strocchi’s gratuous put-down of Barack Obama (53) was unwarranted. His implication is that normally the people who emerge from these primaries, or gain contention, are of a high quality.
This is patently not the case.
Well may we debate whether the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime, however worse is still to come. The Bush administration seem hellbent on nuking Iran or Syria.
For anyone interested, this post by Prof Q was also cross-posted at Crooked Timber (where the discussion was at least initially slightly less acrimonious, but eventually degeneratated in the usual fashion: at least there were some excellent links along the way).
A question for Prof Q, if I might – have your original questions been “answered” to your satisfaction?
And if so, any conclusions worth noting?
The reason I ask is that any people seem to agree that the invasion was illegal, but quickly conclude that nothing can ever be done about that. This seems IMHO a rather unhealthy state of affairs.
grrr “any” people = “many”
Jack Strocchi: “ANd Howard was a crucial leader in the military actions that liberated Timor…”
As far as I remember, it was only public opinion which forced Howard to send troops to E.Timor. Left to himself he would probably have done nothing.
Sincere apologies for the double post at #41 and #42. #41 had not appeared and I figured it had been banned for containing some regrettable personal asides. I reposted (#42) as a civil version and both have appeared. Apologies to all.
Thanks for this, Damien. I won’t worry about deleting the duplicate at this point.
I’ve been guilty of some sharp asides myself, but as I have come to realise it’s better to show that an argument is wrong than to say so loudly.
Gandhi, I have to say I hoped for a bit more information on the actual questions than I got, though as always I’ve learned a bit from the discussion. I agree with your conclusion at #59, which I suppose was my starting point.
gordon Says: May 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Democratic politician pays attention to democratic populus. I am shocked, shocked! THats how the system is supposed to work.
Howard got the job done. Thats what counts.
He quarantined defence expenditure immediately he took power in 1996, after a decade of neglect and Jakarta-lobbying led by the likes of Woolcott and Evans.
I dont imagine that push will be stepping forward to be accountable for their complicity in the TNI’s “war-crimes”.
From memory it was Laurie “Dangerman” Brereton who pushed for Timorese separation, against most if not all the ALP incl Whitlam and Evans
Howard saw the opportunity and took it, with the support of the UN and the US
gandhi,
As I said earlier, whether the invasion was illegal or not is not a question that can be answered definitively unless and until the questions of fact are tried in a court of law. The law on the matter is fairly clear (IMHO). How the law is applied in this case is a matter for a court of competent jurisdiction – but I would agree that it is unlikely ever to see the inside of one.
Personally, I would agree that this is a pity as I would say that it is an interesting legal argument and would set an important precedent.
However, one principle at the base of our legal system must remain – innocent until proven guilty. For political reasons you may believe that Bush, Blair and the rest of the CoW are the worst of the worst, but as soon as you say that they are guilty you are throwing out the very legal system you want to see them tried under.
You cannot have it both ways.
Andrew that’s nonsense. if I rob a bank, do we have to wait until it goes to trial to see if it is illegal or not? I may not be convicted yet, but everyone knows I committed an illegal act. We don’t need a court to tell us that. The Iraq War was black-and-white, straightforward, unequivocally illegal – no possible trial based on the known facts could prove otherwise. Of course superpowers do not submit their own actions to any international law, anarchy is law in international politics.
Gerard, you are advocating replacing due process with a summary justice.
“Why should Malaysia or Malaysians be less corrupt, cronyistic or unjust than the rest of us?”
Paul Keating (overtly and ultimately successfully) and Peter Costello (more discreetly and ultimately unsuccessfully) campaigned for the Prime Ministership of Australia.
Neither of them was jailed on trumped up charges after being beaten by police so badly that they were crippled for life.
Anwar Ibrahim was less fortunate.
“If the UN had got its act together in the 1990s to keep Hussein accountable then we wouldn’t have got in this mess in the first place”
Yes if only the UN had stopped Saddam from developing WMDs and rebuilding his conventional forces.
“The UN was kicked out in 1998 and at that stage Iraq still had WMD.”
No, 1998 the Iraqis were unable to provide definitive proof they DIDN’T have WMDs.
Which might have had something to do with Iraqi Kurdistan not being under their control; the bombing of numerous army facilities and government buildings during the Gulf War and the widespread looting and arson of government offices during the Shia uprising.
Basically, the US spent the late 1990’s inventing claims Iraq still had WMDs in order to justify the continuation of sanctions.
No Rog, Gerard is not suggesting summary justice. He is merely noting that there is sufficient evidence available to warrant the laying of charges under existing laws. Police do this all the time on the assumption that the evidence points to a breech of law. It remains for a court to receive that evidence and test it. When Andrew says ..
As I said earlier, whether the invasion was illegal or not is not a question that can be answered definitively unless and until the questions of fact are tried in a court of law
…he confounds these two processes. Police can arrest someone on probable cause and the public can notify the police of the apparent commission of an offense. They do so in the belief that the culprit is likely guilty. The Australian public can read the Hague and Geneva Conventions, note the wording of the UN resolutions, observe the invasion itself (and the prima facie evidence of war crimes offenses within Iraq) and put their concerns before the authorities. Entirely legal and appropriate.
One of the disturbing aspects of those who would defend the Iraq invasion is that they set the standard of proof too high before accepting that war crimes have occurred. If one waits until the leaders give signed confessions we will wait forever. Nor is it reasonable to simply declare leadership decisions as “just politics” (and hence a valid exercise of ministerial discretion). If this principle is extended too far Ministers can never be considered as commiting offences. We would not accept that John Howard could drive at high speed past a school and run down a child. We would put him before the courts and sack him from office for clear breeches of established Australian law. How more compelling is it that he should not be permitted to involve Australia in an illegal war that lead to the death of a million Iraqis. That set of circumstances demands the highest level of scrutiny. Unless, of course, we think a million dead brown foreigners rate less than the death of one Aussie school kid?
We have the laws and we have the prima facie evidence. Now we need an official inquiry to determine more closely if criminal charges are warranted. The dead brown people deserve it.
Damien, you are misrepresenting what Gerard said;
“We don’t need a court to tell us that”
Not true. Gerard is making the fair point that when people see evidence substantially pointing to the commission of a war crime they are entitled to express that view and act upon it in a political context. Gerard discounts the necessity of court proceedings before forming and holding public views about a political leader. In this he is entirely correct. Gerard does not explicitly say it, but he does not discount that as far as individual accountability before the law is concerned people are entitled to have criminal charges properly assessed. This is implied in his statement:
Of course superpowers do not submit their own actions to any international law.
You have ignored the distinction I made earlier. If it walks and sqwarks like a duck (or a war crime) the public is entitled to believe it is. They have no legal or moral basis to wait upon court verdicts in individual trials. You would not be able to sustain your political blindness if Howard had run down an Aussie kid in the street. You can only do so because strangers are dying far away. That’s not good enough.
I would think that if this thread has proved anything, it has shown that the burden of proof is on those who would argue that the invasion of Iraq was NOT illegal under international law.
The question of what can or will be done about that is another issue, and seems entirely dependent upon public outrage (or the distinct lack of it) at this stage.
I imagine that when our “combat troops” come home there might be some further media discussion on this topic, which might present an opportunity to press the argument for a Royal Commission. I would urge concerned citizens to write to their local papers etc at that time.
Ian Gould (#69):“Neither of them [Keating and Costello} was jailed on trumped up charges after being beaten by police so badly that they were crippled for life”.
No, but Pauline Hanson was gaoled, in 1998, after a campaign organised by Tony Abbott around the technicalities of One Nation’s registration as a political party put her inside for several weeks after being sentenced to three years. She got out after the Qld. Appeals Court threw out the conviction.
No, she wasn’t beaten as far as I remember and yes, enough of the legal system still functioned to get her out. But that was a “trumped up charge” and a political conspiracy. And don’t forget Haneef.
We aren’t so perfect that we can patronise the Malaysians. One of the causes of a lot of the anti-Mahathir rage is that he frequently and publicly reminds us of this unfortunate state of affairs.
Nonsence, gandhi. The burden always is where it should be, on those making the accusation that certain conduct was illegal. Anything else is to adopt the position that someone can be guilty until proven innocent – which is effectively what you are saying.
If you want to abandon the presumption of innocence then you are free to campaign for that, but you can expect me to oppose you on that.
i submit exhibit 1 – downing street memo
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
policy first, facts fixed second, invasion third
WAR CRIME
actually, i am as usual, going about this all wrong,
for those who believe it was not an illegal act of aggression in contravention of international law,
could you please explain to me what justified the attack on iraq and what essentailly made it the right thing to do
Andrew Reynolds,
Nonsence [sic], gandhi. The burden always is where it should be, on those making the accusation that certain conduct was illegal.
I submit that sufficient evidence has been put forward on this thread and at Crooked Timber, particularly in these links, to conclusively prove the invasion was illegal.
I still have not heard one single credible argument that the war was NOT illegal. Hence my comment.
If you want to put the case that the invasion was legal, please do go ahead. Seriously! I am intrigued how anyone can still believe this, and on what logical, legal basis.
AR, I wonder if you apply this consistently. For example, Saddam Hussein was never convicted of war crimes (he was executed for reprisals against domestic opponents). Do you assert that he was therefore innocent of such crimes, or that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence in general discussion of the topic?
I’m sure you can think of even worse war criminals who were never tried or convicted.
smiths,
I would suggest a quick read on legal procedure. You can’t convict on the basis of a memo, untested by examination. You also cannot reverse the burden of proof (not without throwing out our legal system).
You have, however, identified one of the key issues – whether there was legitimate cause to believe that there was an imminent threat. The Vienna Conventions in international law are clear on this.
Note, however, this is not whether that threat actually existed, but whether there were grounds to believe it existed.
Possible counter-arguments may be Saddam’s conduct in frustrating (or not) the weapons inspectors, any evidence that he was assisting terrorist organisations, any genocidal activities he may have been carrying out or anything else capable of being introduced into a court as evidence.
Please note that I am not, in this comment, saying any of this is fact. Any of it could be wrong, just as the “Downing Street Memo” could be simply in error, or the impresions of a meeting as recorded by one participant. Again, it would all need to be tested and weighed before a court.
That is what we have a legal system for – or do you want to simply have a lynch mob?
Neither Res.687, 660 nor 1441 provided the legal basis for the Iraq invasion.(see here)
Since there was no immediate threat of military attack by Saddam Hussein against the US, Australia or anybody else, what then is the legal justification for the invasion?
C’mon you guys, it was your war.
Absolutely, PrQ. Everyone is entitled to a general presumption of innocence before the law. None of Mao, Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot were ever convicted of any crimes. Ceaucescu was summarily executed. Saddam was convicted, but in a court that probably did not meet the standards we would expect necessary to reach a fair verdict. I said this at the time and I maintain that this is the case.
Once someone is dead, however, it then becomes a matter for historians to sort out – not the legal system. In the case of all the men mentioned above, the judgment of history is that they were guilty of many crimes (and, to the extent that you can compare them, in the given order). If somehow they could be revived and put before a court, this could never be sufficient though. A presumption of innocence must apply and the burden of proof would be on the prosecution.
.
Thus, if you say “I believe that Bush, Blair, Howard and the other leaders of the CoW will be judged by history to have been war criminals” then you may be right – and an argument can be put together for that. If you say that they are “definately war criminals” then you have no basis for that statement and you are wrong, until such a time as they are put before a court.
A clear distinction needs to be drawn between a legal and an historical judgement.
As an historical judgement, I believe Mao to have been the worst mass-murderer in history. However I believe that, if he were still alive, he should go before a court and be entitled to a presumption of innocence.
AR #82
Again, it would all need to be tested and weighed before a court.
That is what we have a legal system for – or do you want to simply have a lynch mob?
EXCELLENT! So now do you agree that we need a Royal Commission to sort this out???
damien,
Your first sentence your opinion and, incidentally, the opinion of many repected legal minds. The second statement is your opinion, supported by information to have come out since the invasion. Neither of them have gone before a court to be tested. That is all I am saying.
There are arguments to say that both opinions are wrong – but those are long arguments and I have no time to do them justice in a blog comment. Note, however, I am not saying those are correct either.
A Royal Commission is not a court, gandhi. It is an investigatory process sanctioned by a Royal Warrant and cannot convict anyone of anything.
Well, fine. I am more than happy to see this case heard in any court outside Washington.
Of course, most court cases involve some initial case preparation, if not a full police investigation, which is why I believe a Royal Commission would be a good first step. But if you wanna skip that because it could be too embarrassing, fine…
You still haven’t explained what Howard’s defence would be. Temporary insanity?
actually andrew i suggest you do a thorough read on international law
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime�(1). the tribunal’s charter placed “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression�(2) at the top of the list of war crimes.
1. Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 9th November 2004. Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml
2. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Nuremberg Trial Proceedings. Vol. 1:
Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art6
of course one of the best witnesses in any proceedings would have been the english man that knew most about iraqi biological and chemical weapons, and who knew what and when inside the coalition,
unfortunately he went for a walk in the woods and never came back,
slashed his wrist and bled to death, but get this, there wasnt any blood, astounding
gandhi,
Not embarrasing to me at all. While I supported the invasion at the time, this was on the basis of what I knew or understood at the time. If that was wrong then I personally have no grounds for embarrasment.
The crucial element in all this is what they (B, B, H and the others) knew at the time. If a prima facie case can be put together that they knew there was no immanent threat then they should be subject to a full investigatory process and the prosecuting authorities should then weigh the result and, if thought strong enough, it should be put before a court.
While I used to work in criminal prosecution, I am not a lawyer, much less an internationl criminal lawyer, so the exact process is not within my field of expertise. An Australian Royal Commission, though, would have no powers outside the Commonwealth, so it is unlikely to have the powers needed to get hold of the documents and witnesses that I would think needed to investigate this properly.
AR
I meant that a Royal Commission might be too embarrassing to John Howard, not you. I am sure there are plenty of locked drawers at DFAT, ONA, ASIO and elsewhere with information that some people would rather never comes to light.
Have you forgotten that millions of people around the world marched against the war (the greatest popular demonstration en masse in world history)? If you don’t think that the information posted already in this thread represents a compelling prima facie case, then there is probably no point arguing any further with you.
gandhi,
And if you make statements like “…conclusively prove the invasion was illegal…” then you are throwing out our legal system and you believe there is no need even for a trial. Little grounds for argument there.
Andrew, here is some law, now tell me which part is wrong or what further reading you recommend to set me straight
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime�(1). the tribunal’s charter placed “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression�(2) at the top of the list of war crimes.
1. Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 9th November 2004. Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml
2. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Nuremberg Trial Proceedings. Vol. 1:
Charter of the International Military Tribunal.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm#art6
inititation of a war of aggression at the top of the list of war crimes,
what part of this is not clear
You are clutching at straws, Andrew, and (I presume deliberately) playing petty linguistic games. You might want to consider your true motives for this.
IMHO the invasion was illegal, and IMHO that has been conclusively proved. OTOH if you believe that this has not been conclusively proved, and that the invasion should therefore be considered legal, please explain the basis for this belief. Do you still cling to UN Resolution 1441, or some other rationale?
If you are unable to put forward any argument for the legality of the war, then we can at least agree that a full investigation is warranted. IMHO the only way that will ever be achieved is a Royal Commission.
According to your logic, Andrew (#82), police would not be able to obtain a search warrant for someone found at 2.00am on business premises with a pinch bar and a face mask. They would have to wait until he was found guilty at a trial. What sort of logic is that? What’s wrong with conducting a broad ranging judicial inquiry into how and why we went into Iraq? Or don’t you accept that Australians are entitled to have answers to those questions?
You can’t convict on the basis of a memo, untested by examination. You also cannot reverse the burden of proof.
Who’s reversing the proof on anything? If a leaked memo from a senior officer of the NSW auditor general’s department pointed to massive kickbacks and bribes within government circles people would be entitled to accept that as prima facie evidence of corruption warranting further investigation. Of course, convictions would require trials. But why should people suspend their initial judgment in the meantime?
And what’s wrong with the Downing Street memo other than the fact that it debunks the lies for invading Iraq?
If a prima facie case can be put together that they knew there was no immanent threat then they should be subject to a full investigatory process.
That’s an “imminent” threat, Andrew, but I would not disagree with “immanent” either. Either way, you don’t get to invade unless people can “prove” that Saddam does not pose a threat. And the prima facie evidence of Bush deception is available — at the level sufficient to deserve the issuing of an indictment or arrest warrant.
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former US federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. Ms Vega has compiled a one count indictment document (“Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371”) against the Bush administration outlining — at the level normally sufficient to bring criminal charges — false statements provided by them in regard to Iraq’s alleged WMDs. The evidence presented by Ms de la Vega is of a systematic program of fraud carried out against the American people and the world at large with respect to WMDs. The only thing standing in the way of criminal charges is political factors.
Since neither AR nor anybody who supports the war has bothered trying to posit a legal argument in Howard’s defense, I will have a go…
IMHO the only possible legal argument that Howard, Downer, Hill et al could use in a criminal trial would be that they were duped by intelligence provided by the US and British governments. But even this is not so much a defense as a mitigating argument: “My clients plead guilty, but with diminished responsibility, your honour.”
And of course, this would not explain why they deliberately suppressed information from people like Andrew Wilkie.
What we really need to know is what was discussed at the top level during meetings with US and British political leaders, intelligence officers and military analysts. Our national press should be submitting FOI requests for all such correspondence, and asking the Rudd government to explain why any of it might still be considered too secret to reveal.
I suspect our own versions of the Downing Street Memos are still waiting to be discovered. A Royal Commission would of course compel all such documents as evidence.
Damien,
Please re-read and try to understand. I will make it even simpler for you.
1. I have not said there is no crime here.
2. I have not said there should not be an investigation.
3. I have said everyone is (IMHO) entitled to a presumption of innocence.
That is all. If you want to make a case that it was illegal, please feel free to do so – I will agree 100% with your right to make that case. Just do not expect me to agree with statements that try to reverse the burden of proof (like some of “gandhi’s” and “smiths'”)
Before I go, I would also like to note that soon after I wrote the post mentioned earlier about the need for a Royal Commission, my blog was dropped from the Oz Politics RSS feed. I still have not been able to get an explanation for this.
Just sayin’…
gandhi,
That would not be (at least in my understanding) a defence of dimished responsibility, it would be an absolute defence. Provided the prosecution could not prove that they knew it to be false (or at least they were reckless as to its truth) any Australian defendants would walk on that basis.
I do not have the time to prepare (or the interest in preparing) a defence of their actions. In the unlikely event it ever gets to court I will be fascinated to see the evidence. Beyond that I see litle point in getting excited about it as I personally doubt it will occur.
Andrew, there’s nothing personal intended by my comments.
1. I have not said there is no crime here.
2. I have not said there should not be an investigation.
3. I have said everyone is (IMHO) entitled to a presumption of innocence.
That is all.
Not true. You have argued further that..
If a prima facie case can be put together that they knew there was no immanent threat then they should be subject to a full investigatory process.
I’ve simply pointed out to you that such evidence exists and that it is reasonable of the public to expect an investigation. If you have read the evidence put before you then you should be able to safely support that. This is not a game; the dead people are real, not notional; and oversight of government is meaningless unless inquiries can be held where appropriate. Respectfully, you need to get off the fence on this issue.
….and I agree with Gandhi’s last post. An inquiry is overdue.