Will the Australian general public ever find out exactly what then Prime Minister John Howard told the National Security Committee and Cabinet which convinced them to endorse & enter an unlawful war fought on the basis of a lie?

Prime Minister John Winston Howard 
playing at 'war leader' circa 2003
Photograph: The Sydney Morning Herald/Fairfax Media/Getty Images

The Guardian, 1 January 2024:

The release of the 2003 cabinet papers “barely scratches the surface” of the Howard government’s “disastrous decision to go to war in Iraq” and reinforces the need for a parliamentary vote before committing Australia to future wars, Greens senator Nick McKim has said.

McKim has demanded the full release of all national security committee and cabinet documents related to the 2003 decision, which committed Australia to the US-led “coalition of the willing” to invade Iraq.

The cabinet papers, released by the National Archives on Monday, had been heavily anticipated for the insights they would offer into the decision by the Howard government.

They show that the cabinet signed off on the decision based on “oral reports” from the prime minister, John Howard.

“There was no submission to cabinet on costs, benefits and implications of Australia’s entry into the war,” Prof David Lee from the University of New South Wales Canberra wrote in an essay on the release of the papers.

“This indicates that cabinet’s national security committee was the locus of decision-making on the war.”

Under legislation, cabinet documents are released after 20 years, but national security committee documents that do not go to cabinet are precluded from automatic release. They can be applied for released independently from 1 January, with a decision made by the information commissioner on a case-by-case basis.

On Monday it was revealed that the Morrison government had failed to hand over some national security-related cabinet documents from the time of the Iraq war to the National Archives for potential public release.

The blunder means the archives were unable to scrutinise some of the documents for potential public release in time for its usual publication of 20-year-old cabinet documents.

The archives said it intended to make a decision about the release of the additional documents “as a matter of priority”.....

McKim said the papers that had been released “still don’t reveal the entirety of the flawed intelligence and failures of political leadership” and were “a missed opportunity to learn the lesson that war should never be entered into on the basis of a lie”.

“It’s critical that additional intelligence documents, including national security committee documents used to justify the war on false grounds, are released,” he said.

“Massive questions remain unanswered about exactly when John Howard promised George Bush he would take Australia to war in Iraq, how that stacks up with the timeline of flawed intelligence, and how this informed national security committee and cabinet decisions to proceed with one of the worst foreign policy disasters in Australian history.”

The decision to join the US in 2003 was justified by unconfirmed reports the Iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction and was harbouring terrorists. An investigation by US and UN inspectors found no such weapons at the time of the invasion and concluded Saddam Hussein had destroyed his last WMDs at least a decade before. About 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the conflict......

On the basis of the Chilcot report an international law firm is attempting to sue former British prime minister Tony Blair for alleged war crimes & crimes against humanity

Despite the International Criminal Court (ICC) and at least one eminent silk reportedly ruling out the possibility of former British prime minister Tony Blair being prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the law firm Nasser Hashem and Partners is preparing a case to be lodged in both British and international courts.

Gulf News, 5 October 2016:

Dubai: A Dubai-based lawyer has started legal action against former British prime minister Tony Blair, seeking his prosecution for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Advocate Nasser Hashem and his partners in London will register the criminal case against Blair this month at the International Criminal Court and British courts for breaching human rights and committing war crimes that killed thousands of Iraqis.

Hashem and his partners in Cairo, Dubai and London decided to take legal action against the former prime minister after the publication of Chilcot's report on the Iraq war in July. Former British prime minister Gordon Brown announced an inquiry in 2009 and the inquiry's chairman Sir John Chilcot announced his findings in a public statement in July.

Speaking to Gulf News, advocate Hashem said: "Since the results of the inquiry were announced earlier this summer, my partners [in Cairo, Dubai and London] and I have decided to take Blair to court for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that were committed in Iraq. We are taking this legal procedure against Blair since he took the decision [in his capacity as the British prime minister then] to participate with the United States in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the UK's House of Commons. He produced unreasonable, bogus and wrong information to the House of Commons, according to Chilcot report, and based on that information, the UK participated in that war."

Hashem said Blair falsely and unfoundedly told the House of Commons that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons before the war was launched against Iraq.

According to the Chilcot report, Saddam Hussain did not pose an urgent threat to British interests and that the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty. Also, the report said UK and the US had undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council.

"Based on all the lies and allegations that Blair produced before the members of the House of Commons, the decision to go to war alongside with the US was taken. Thousands of Iraqis were killed, injured, displaced and/or shattered. Blair committed war crimes against the people of Iraq and violated human rights. He should be taken to court for the crimes he committed," said Hashem.

A media statement issued earlier by Hashem and his partners said: "Our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organisation for Human Rights and to prove the oppression of Blair against Iraq, that led to the destabilisation of the Arab countries, (and) for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts." Hashem and his legal team are expected to announce further details about their legal action against Blair soon.

Nasser Hashem & Partners, media release, 25 July 2016:

Submitting the British former Prime Minister for trial

In this respect, we are ensuring the achievement of the international justice and the enforcement of law. Accordingly, we held a press conference in Cairo in order to start taking legal procedures against the former British Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair" before the international Criminal Court for committing War Crimes and crimes against humanity by taking this decision to participate with the United States of America in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the permission of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by presenting unreasonable information to the House of Commons, According to Chilcot report in 2016 before the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

We emphasize that our office in London will take all the necessary legal procedures before the British courts to prove the violations and crimes against humanity that have been committed against human rights in Iraq and breaching the human rights that was settled by International Organization for Human Rights, to prove the oppression of the former British prime Minister "Anthony Blair" against Iraq, that led to the destabilization of the Arab Countries for taking wilful decision and committing grave acts. We will submit all the documents which prove the conviction of the former Prime Minister "Anthony Charles Blair" specifically after his recognition of taking all responsibility of his decision

Since Egypt joined the Security Council, it has the authority to submit the case by the Security Council before the International Criminal Court. We are making investigations with the Egyptian Minister of foreign Affairs because of our dissatisfaction for violating the rights of Arab nation without any right.

It is important to mention that the United Kingdom claims for human rights and world peace, at the same time violating the respect of humanity. We consider that this is contradicting and this major evidence that led to the division of Iraqis, murdering of innocent children, displacement of families and classifying the Arab countries as a source of terrorism. Consequently, we can consider that what happened in Iraq is not an invasion but it is breaching the sovereignty of state without any right for the purpose of hidden aims and accordingly the former British Prime Mister will be convicted

Update​ 1/10/2016

Nasser Hashem & Partners is preparing all the documents regarding "Anthony Blair" Case to be submitted to the International Criminal Court and British Courts for committing war crimes against Iraqi citizens as a prelude to submitting a compensation case against United Kingdom and the United States of America for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Citizens. We are currently preparing a team which will travel to the United Kingdom to proceed to take legal action and there will be a press conference before the flight to brief journalists on the actions that will be taken in the UK.

Is Prime Minister Abbott so desperate to control the message and lift his flagging polls that he risks alienating Australian mainstream media?

This was how The Australian commenced its 5 January 2015 article about Prime Minister Abbott’s latest public relations misstep:

TONY Abbott’s office has triggered frustrations with the media by excluding a TV crew from the Prime Minister’s sudden visit to Baghdad, limiting access to his speech to Australian troops and joint statement with his Iraqi counterpart.

A camera crew sent by the major TV networks was left in Dubai when Mr Abbott flew into Iraq with his personal staff, forcing the media to rely on footage provided by the Prime Minister’s office.

This is how individual journalists reacted to the unannounced Iraq trip on Twitter:

What Iraqi News knew on 29 December 2014:

(IraqiNews.com) On Monday, the official government spokesman, Saad Hadithi revealed that the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott plans to visit Baghdad in the coming days, while noting that Abbott will discuss with Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi the support and the equipment of security forces to confront the organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Hadithi said in an interview for IraqiNews.com, “Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott will visit Baghdad in the coming days to meet with President Minister Haider al-Abadi to discuss military cooperation between the two countries.”

He added, “Abbott will discuss with al-Abadi the subject of development, training and equipping of security forces with weapons and ammunition,” adding that, “Australia has shown its willingness to provide military support to Iraq to face the terrorist gangs of ISIS.”

This is part of the 5 January speech Australian journalists were not allowed to hear as it happened:

This is my first visit to Baghdad. It is my first visit to Iraq.

Iraq is a country which has suffered a very great deal. First, decades of tyranny under Saddam Hussein. Then, the chaos and confusion that followed the American-led invasion. Most recently, the tumult, the dark age, which has descended upon Northern Iraq as a result of the Daesh death cult, but Australia will do what we can to help.

These are some of the images of varying quality which Team Abbott appears to have released to the media and/or posted on Facebook:

These are the poor quality propaganda videos his personal media crew created:

http://youtu.be/XCrDn8j812Y  http://youtu.be/Ba4XP0rhWL0

However, the Prime Minister's attempt to control the media message was not successful as one can see from this interpretation of that 5 January speech in The Sydney Morning Herald later the same day - which contained only one mention of 'death cult' and opened with this message about a war of which he approved and agreed to Australia's participation in:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has blasted in his strongest terms yet the US management of Iraq following the 2003 invasion, branding it a period of "chaos and confusion".

It seems the days when Abbott just had to don a helmet and flak jacket to have the media treat him like a hero have long since passed and his latest attempt to reverse the public relations situation is only making matters worse.

I imagine Jane McMillan is thankful she is on holidays and not returning to the the prime minister's office as his media chief. 

To quote Bruce Hawker writing in The Age: When a Prime Minister is on a collision course with public opinion there can only be one result.

UPDATE

Political cartoonist Alan Moir sums up what appears to be the general response, to the Prime Minister's visit to Iraq, in his latest effort for The Sydney Morning Herald on 6 January 2015:

The truth about the Australian Prime Minister's address to the United Nations on 25 September 2014

Prime Minister Tony Abbott  addressed  the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 25 September 2014 during the Opening of the General Debate.

There was the standard set image of his attendance on the UN website:

Other more animated images in the Australian media such as this:

However, there were no long shots of the audience listening to Abbott’s speech.

This is one possible reason why…..

US President Obama speaking during the Opening of the General Debate in front of a packed audience of delegates on 24 September:

This was Tony Abbott speaking during the same Opening of the General Debate with a decidedly sparse audience the next day:

Like the difference in the size of their official audiences, the messages they delivered to the world were starkly different even when both were addressing the situation in Syria and Iraq.

These were President Obama's opening remarks:

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear and hope.

Around the globe, there are signposts of progress. The shadow of World War that existed at the founding of this institution has been lifted; the prospect of war between major powers reduced. The ranks of member states has more than tripled, and more people live under governments they elected. Hundreds of millions of human beings have been freed from the prison of poverty, with the proportion of those living in extreme poverty cut in half. And the world economy continues to strengthen after the worst financial crisis of our lives.

Today, whether you live in downtown New York or in my grandmother’s village more than two hundred miles from Nairobi, you can hold in your hand more information than the world’s greatest libraries. Together, we have learned how to cure disease, and harness the power of the wind and sun. The very existence of this institution is a unique achievement – the people of the world committing to resolve their differences peacefully, and solve their problems together. I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever before to be literate, to be healthy, and to be free to pursue your dreams….

While these were Prime Minister Abbott's:

I’m happy to be here at your urging, Mr President. It is the weightiest of matters that brings us together today.

Right now, thousands of misguided people from around the world are joining terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq because they claim Islam is under threat and because they are excited by the prospect of battle.

But whatever they think or say, these terrorists aren’t fighting for God or for religious faith.

At the heart of every terrorist group is an infatuation with death.

What else can explain the beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions, rapes and sexual slavery in every town and city that’s fallen to the terrorist movement now entrenched in eastern Syria and northern Iraq?

A terrorist movement calling itself “Islamic State” insults Islam and mocks the duties of a legitimate state towards its citizens.

And to use this term is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world.

So, countries do need to work together to defeat it because about 80 nations have citizens fighting with ISIL and every country is a potential target….

Full transcript of Obama's speech.

Full transcript of Abbott's speech.

My day of reckoning is upon me......

Tomas Young’s letter published in Dangerous Minds 19 March 013:

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.

—Tomas Young

 

The Australian Wheat Board scandal continues to play out

After all the lies the Howard Government told, including Tony Abbott…….
BloombergBusinessweek 8th August 2012:
“MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A former managing director of an Australian wheat exporter has been fined 100,000 Australian dollars ($106,000) and banned from being a company director for two years for his role in paying $200 million in kickbacks to Iraq's former dictatorship under the discredited UN oil-for-food program. Andrew Lindberg, former head of the now defunct monopoly wheat exporter AWB Ltd., was sentenced Thursday for breaches of Australian corporate law. It was part of a plea deal with corporate regulator Australian Securities and Investments Commission that ends a case that began in 2007. Justice Ross Robson said Lindberg had failed to act "with the degree of care and diligence a reasonable person would exercise" in his role.”

DOE V RUMSFELD 2011: a sweet smell of karma is in the air

According to a Government Accountability Project media release on 3 August 2011:

Yesterday, a federal court in Washington, DC upheld the validity of a constitutional rights claim against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for his role in the torturing and illegal imprisonment of a U.S. citizen who was working as a translator in Iraq.

At LongIslandPress on 4 August:

Lawyers for the man, who is in his 50s, say he was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the U.S. military and held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive.

Court papers filed on his behalf say he was repeatedly abused, then suddenly released without explanation in August 2006. Two years later, he filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington arguing that Rumsfeld personally approved torturous interrogation techniques on a case-by-case basis and controlled his detention without access to courts in violation of his constitutional rights.

Excerpts from a U.S District Court (District of Columbia) Order and Opinion dated 2 August 2011 in the matter of John Doe v Donald Rumsfeld et al:

In this challenge to the conditions of and procedures used in detaining an American citizen at a United States military compound in Iraq, Plaintiff John Doe sues former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, other high-ranking United States government officials, and several unidentified United States officials and agents. He alleges multiple constitutional violations in his seizure and detention…..

Doe also sues Defendants Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Robert S. Mueller III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Alan Bersin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner, and John Morton, Assistant Secretary of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in their official capacities, to secure the return of the property seized upon his detention and for alleged violations of his right to travel.

Finally, Doe brings claims against unidentified officers or agents of the United States, alleging:

(1) false arrest,

(2) unlawful detention and conditions of confinement,

(3) torturous and unlawful interrogation,

(4) denial of the right to counsel and the right to confront adverse witnesses,

(5) denial of the right to present witnesses and to have exculpatory evidence disclosed,

(6) denial of access to courts and to petition,

(7) blacklisting, and
(8) conspiracy……

The Court finds, however, that Doe had a constitutional right to be free from conduct and conditions of confinement that shock the conscience, that such right was clearly established at the time of Rumsfeld's conduct, and that Doe has pleaded factual allegations sufficient to support a claim that Rumsfeld's conduct violated this clearly-established right. Accordingly, Rumsfeld’s qualified immunity defense to Doe’s substantive due process claim fails…..

The Court thus finds, under the circumstances alleged, that a reasonable federal official would have understood conscience-shocking physical and psychological mistreatment—including temperature, sleep, food, and light manipulation—of a United States citizen detainee to violate the detainee’s constitutional right to substantive due process. Accordingly, Rumsfeld is not entitled to qualified immunity from Doe’s substantive due process claim…..

..the Court DENIES Rumsfeld’s motion to dismiss Doe’s substantive due process claim. The Court GRANTS Defendant Rumsfeld’s motion to dismiss Doe’s procedural due process and access to courts claims.

The Court further GRANTS the government’s motion to dismiss Doe’s return of seized property claim; the Court permits Doe leave to amend his complaint if he can plead, in good faith, factual allegations supporting a reasonable inference that the government’s refusal to return his property was a “final agency action.”

Finally, the Court DENIES the government’s motion for a more definite statement of Doe’s right to travel claim.

Tony Blair is coming to Australia and he wants to hold an audience.....

In July 2011 former British prime Minister and alleged war criminal Tony Blair is coming to Australia to do a little revenue raising in Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth.

Wonder who will actually admit to paying these prices to meet him or which Australian corporations (besides Visy) might actually believe that being associated with this man will enhance business reputations?
Will someone try to claim Monbiot's bounty by performing a peaceful citizen's arrest?

An Audience With Tony Blair: Lessons in Leadership, Negotiation and Innovation

TICKET PRICES

$1,000 per person
Ticket includes a full sit down banquet meal and attendance at the pre-event cocktail party

$10,000 per Table of Ten
Tables of ten include a full sit down banquet meal and attendance at the pre-event cocktail party

$1,500 VIP Ticket
Includes a seat at one of "the best tables in the house", one ticket to private pre-event "meet and greet" cocktail party and individual photograph with Tony Blair

$15,000 VIP Table of Ten
Includes "the best seats in the house" table of ten, ten tickets to private
pre-event "meet and greet" cocktail party and individual one photograph
with Tony Blair, full page advertisement in the program, logo recognition in the program and on the screens at the event

They have stopped throwing shoes in Britain......

"A woman stabbed an MP twice in the stomach during a constituency surgery in revenge for his vote for the war in Iraq, a court heard today."
{The Independent UK on 1st November 2010}
More here.

Unlawful War: well we always knew that they knew and.............

.....they knew that we knew, but it was nice to have it confirmed when Clegg rose to his feet on 21 July 2010!

Nick Clegg was tonight forced to clarify his position on the Iraq war after he stood up at the dispatch box of the House of Commons and pronounced the invasion illegal.

The deputy prime minister insisted he was speaking in a personal capacity, as a leading international lawyer warned that the statement by a government minister in such a formal setting could increase the chances of charges against Britain in international courts.

Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London, said: "A public statement by a government minister in parliament as to the legal situation would be a statement that an international court would be interested in, in forming a view as to whether or not the war was lawful."

[The Guardian 21 July 2010]

The truth revealed? Uncorrected transcript of former British Pm Tony Blair's evidence to the Iraq Inquiry

Evidence taken on 29 January 2010 by the U.K. Iraq Inquiry was a rather pointless exercise at times - for the most part questions carefully walked around a former leader rather than confronting issues head-on.

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair was allowed to interrupt committee members and drag out his political soap-box at length almost unchallenged.

However, what clearly comes through is the fact that Blair:
(i) was probably heavily influenced on a personal level by George W. Bush;
(ii) was determined on regime change in Iraq;
(iii) held a desire for change which was never predicated on Iraq as a hive of international terrorism;
(iv) was aware U.N. sanctions had effectively 'contained' Saddam; and
(v) presented a supposedly intelligence-driven policy position to the British people in which any identified breaches of U.N. sanctions or allegations of weapons of mass destruction were only the smoke screen behind which the Coalition of the Willing had agreed to advance their invasion agenda.

Full uncorrected 249-page transcript here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 January 2010, British press shocked at Blair's no regrets on Saddam

Bush, Blair, Howard unlawful war legacy drags on through the courts

The degree to which the very expensive former Australian Prime Minister John Winston Howard and the Liberal Party seek to defend and frequently re-define his political record may indicate some internal unease concerning that very record.

When it comes to human rights, unlawful invasion of sovereign nations and the conduct of war, there is much to be concerned about.

According to the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs in December 2008:

"On September 16, 2007, a group of contractors working for the firm Blackwater USA engaged in a chaotic and bloody firefight in Baghdad's Nisoour Square that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, Blackwater's $500 million in government contracts in jeopardy and the future of the privatized security industry in question. What exactly happened in Nisoour Square remains in dispute. Blackwater alleges that its contractors came under small arms fire and lawfully engaged to stop the threat. The Iraqi government and the US military both argue that Blackwater opened fire unprovoked and used excessive force — including machine guns, grenade launchers and helicopter fire. The FBI, which is conducting a formal investigation into the shootings on behalf of the Department of Justice, argues that 14 of the 17 deaths were unjustified killings and finds no evidence, thus far, that Blackwater was justified in shooting at civilians.

The Nisoour Square incident was broadly proclaimed to be the final straw that would force the White House, Congress and the courts to come to terms with the complex and often fraught relationship between the U.S. military and the increasingly ubiquitous, increasingly interoperable private military contractors that it hires. The FBI investigation marks the first time since the end of the Cold War that the US government is attempting to hold a private security company criminally liable for extraterritorial crimes committed in the course of a government contract.

However, while the episode has subjected the privatized military industry to heightened scrutiny from the Iraqi government, the US military, Congress, and the public, the Department of State and the Department of Justice contend that despite recent efforts to the close the legal loopholes through which private military contractors have slipped in the past, there remain considerable, perhaps insurmountable, hurdles to prosecution.

Meanwhile, at the time the grand jury investigation into the Nisour Square shootings was opened, a civil lawsuit was filed by the New York based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of the Iraqi families who lost loved ones in the incident. These families are suing Blackwater in tort, under causes of action including assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and wrongful death. While the jurisdictional challenges faced by the Department of Justice may ensure that Blackwater never faces criminal liability, the barriers to entry for a civil suit are far lower.

In July 2009 the civil lawsuit, filed as Estate of Husain Salih Rabea et al v. Prince et al, resulted in two declarations being submitted to the court which make statements against Blackwater Worldwide and its founder Erik Prince, accusing the security company and its former CEO of murder and other serious crimes in Iraq (allegedly true copies of Declaration 1 & Declaration 2).

With the Blackwater Five still before the U.S. Federal Court on 34 counts of manslaughter, attempt to commit manslaughter, aiding and abetting and another matter, actions taken under the auspices of the Coalition of the Willing will continue to be scrutinised.

Should either the criminal or civil court cases result in findings that these alleged killings occurred, then the names of Bush, Howard and Blair will forever be associated with known war crimes.

Even closer to home was the Howard Government's rather blasé attitude to an Australian private security firm operating in Iraq. An attitude which may come under closer scrutiny when a U.S. civil court case progresses against Unity Resources Group in a complaint concerning the death of a female Iraqi national (torts, injury, assault, libel and slander).

Blackwater Five 6 page Grand Jury indictment true bill, filed on 4 December 2008

US judge orders Bush Administration to cough up those e-mails

Well, this has been a week and a half.

First a former Pentagon official in charge of those infamous military commissions finally admitted that torture occurred at GITMO.

Now we find out that a US Court has ordered the Office of the President to find those emails covering the period which included the invasion of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina.

Digital documents on memory sticks etc., are apparently just walking out the door or heading for the trash can of their own volition.

Yep, those pesky little blighters are even said to be jumping to their own deaths from fourth storey offices rather than reveal all they know about George, Dick, Donald, Colin, Alan, Roberto and whatshername.

The Order

Copy of order here.

If Rumsfeld and Ashcroft go before the courts, can Bush, Blair and Howard be far behind?

Some of the best news to come out of 2008 turned up in News Week earlier this month.

The United States, like many countries, has a bad habit of committing wartime excesses and an even worse record of accounting for them afterward. But a remarkable string of recent events suggests that may finally be changing—and that top Bush administration officials could soon face legal jeopardy for prisoner abuse committed under their watch in the war on terror.

In early December, in a highly unusual move, a federal court in New York agreed to rehear a lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft brought by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. (Arar was a victim of the administration's extraordinary rendition program: he was seized by U.S. officials in 2002 while in transit through Kennedy Airport and deported to Syria, where he was tortured.) Then, on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld by four Guantánamo detainees alleging abuse there—a reminder that the court, unlike the White House, will extend Constitutional protections to foreigners at Gitmo. Finally, in the same week the Senate Armed Service Committee, led by Carl Levin and John McCain, released a blistering report specifically blaming key administration figures for prisoner mistreatment and interrogation techniques that broke the law. The bipartisan report reads like a brief for the prosecution—calling, for example, Rumsfeld's behavior a "direct cause" of abuse. Analysts say it gives a green light to prosecutors, and supplies them with political cover and factual ammunition. Administration officials, with a few exceptions, deny wrongdoing. Vice President Dick Cheney says there was nothing improper with U.S. interrogation techniques—"we don't do torture," he repeated in an ABC interview on Dec. 15. The government blamed the worst abuses, such as those at Abu Ghraib, on a few bad apples.

High-level charges, if they come, would be a first in U.S. history. "Traditionally we've caught some poor bastard down low and not gone up the chain," says Burt Neuborne, a constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer at NYU. Prosecutions may well be forestalled if Bush issues a blanket pardon in his final days, as Neuborne and many other experts now expect. (Some see Cheney's recent defiant-sounding admission of his own role in approving waterboarding as an attempt to force Bush's hand.)

Now the Bush Administration may still be able to sidestep American laws, but one has to wonder if the day is drawing nearer when the Iraqi Government will have the courage to take the United States, Britain and Australia before The Hague on the basis of breaches of international law and war crimes.

Finally, the truth begins to emerge on why Howard's friend Bush went to war in Iraq

No matter how often in his old age John W. Howard huff and puffs on the matter of his record as an Australian Prime Minister, the public record is beginning to form in relation to his lickspittle relationship with George W. Bush.

Press Release of Intelligence Committee

Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence

-- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --

Contact: Wendy Morigi (202) 224-6101
Thursday, June 5, 2008

Washington, DC -- The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and a bipartisan majority of the Committee (10-5), today unveiled the final two sections of its Phase II report on prewar intelligence. The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD's Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.

"Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence," Rockefeller said. "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

"It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa'ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa'ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

"These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again," Rockefeller added.

The Committee's report cites several conclusions in which the Administration's public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of Manucher Ghobanifer and Michael Ledeen in the meetings was inappropriate. Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials. Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.

Today's reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks.

The Committee released its first report on July 9, 2004, which focused primarily on the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and links to terrorism. Those findings helped lay the foundation for some of the intelligence reforms enacted into law in late 2004.

In September 2006, the Committee completed and publicly released two sections of Phase II: The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress; and Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments.

In May 2007, the Committee released the third section of Phase II: Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq.

Separately, in early 2007, the Pentagon Inspector General released its own report on the intelligence activities conducted by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and also concluded that those activities were inappropriate.

###

Howard awarded Queen's Birthday AC but not everyone is impressed

John Winston Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, has just been awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia.
Not the Order of the Garter or Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports with which he hoped to emulate his dead idol, Robert Gordon Menzies, but better than nothing ('Mrs Bucket' apparently sees the AC as a stepping stone to greater honours).

Of course not everyone was or is impressed.
Saturday's online mention of his AC honour only came up on Google News once and yesterday he might never have rated a mention if he had not shared billing with Australian supermodel Elle or "The Don" centenary wasn't coming up.

War crimes is still the phrase which more readily trips from the lip when Bush, Blair and Howard are mentioned.
At last count Google Search came up with 128,000 mentions of war crimes and Howard.
War crimes outrank honours anytime.

Here are some example article links.
Australia`s Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq: Report [Indonesia]
Bush, Blair, Howard wanted for war crimes [Estonia]
Australia group seeks ICC war crimes charges against ex-PM for Iraq deployment [USA]
Oz PC racism & ICC complaint over Australian & Coalition war crimes in Iraq & Afghanistan [Australia]John Howard a 'war criminal' [Australia]
Howard is war criminal, says former colleague [Australia]

Update:
By this morning Google News mention of Howard's honour had risen to four (after the original Saturday item was shifted or renamed). Perhaps his taxpayer-funded assistant did a quick ring around to wake the media to the momentous event they were otherwise ignoring.

Regrets? I've had so few: John Winston Howard

If I were still prime minister, we wouldn't be withdrawing from Iraq says former Australian Prime Minister John Howard in a The Sydney Morning Herald article. 

 

Howard went on to say of his decision to unlawfully invade Iraq in the face of considerable opposition from the Australian people; "It was hard; very, very, very hard. It was very much my decision." It was a decision influenced "partly by the fact I had been in America at the time of the [September 11] attack and because of what terrorism represented".

 

John Howard is stuck with an eternal defence (no matter how simplistic or revisionist) of his decision to go to war because complaints to The Hague just won't go away.

ICCACTION ha reportedly sought a "legal brief" that it intends to forward to the court.

 

ICCACTION brief of May 2008 is here.

Fruit from a poisoned tree may be the death of the Rudd Government

With the latest news on America's treatment of Guantanamo detainees, prisoner abuse and politcal interference, it is time that the Rudd Government addressed the fact that much of the advice it receives on both domestic and international anti-terrorism measures is fruit from a poisoned tree.

The Prime Minister's failure to either rise above the politics of fear or rid the public service of the principal supporters of such fear will result in retention of legislation which breaches international law and erases the common law rights of Australian citizens. 

Federal Labor would do well to remember that, like a person who divorced their spouse, Australian voters having got rid of one government may fairly quickly rid themselves of another when next at the polling booth.

Mr. Rudd, we've broken the political marriage taboo - lift your game or pack your bag.

No-one's willing to tolerate an ersatz Howard Government, except diehard Liberal Party followers and those in the anti-terrorism 'industry'.

 

News.com.au yesterday.

 

AUSTRALIAN man David Hicks should never have been charged with terror offences, according to Guantanamo Bay's former chief prosecutor.

Colonel Moe Davis, who oversaw the prosecution of Hicks, quit the war court last year.

He testified overnight that evidence for the war crimes tribunals was obtained through prisoner abuse, and political appointees and higher-ranking officers pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were even written.

Col Davis was giving evidence at a pre-trial hearing for Osama bin Laden's driver, Yemeni prisoner Salim Hamdan, in a courtroom at the remote Guantanamo naval base in Cuba.

Since the US began sending foreign captives to Guantanamo in 2002, only one case has been resolved - that of Hicks.

 

Tony Kevin writing in New Matilda has it right.

 

But are sections of the Australian foreign policy and national security bureaucracies still living, by force of habit, in a world mainly defined by fear? How much of the worldview so well analysed in Lawrence's lectures still lingers in Canberra? And do Labor Ministers have any idea how to re-jig their departmental executives' way of thinking towards the new direction Rudd is taking as Prime Minister?

It's a little like turning the Titanic around. If there is not a great deal of deliberate hard steering from the bridge, the ship will stay comfortably on its old course.

Take, for example, a recent speech by the Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans. In an otherwise humanitarian speech, sensitive to the human rights of persons caught up in migration and refugee determination issues, he said this on border security:

"The Government is committed to strong border security, tough anti-people smuggling measures and the orderly processing of migration to our country... This Government will continue to look at ways to prevent, deter and enforce compliance to preserve the integrity of Australia's migration program, while treating individuals humanely."

Did Evans really understand what he was saying, or did he just uncritically accept a departmental draft? Does he understand that under Howard, terms like "strong border security" and "tough anti-people-smuggling measures" were policy cover under which the AFP and Immigration mounted questionable covert people smuggling disruption operations in Indonesia? Under which Defence intercepted boats and was in no hurry to rescue people at risk of drowning on crippled, sinking vessels?