Australia's John Howard's possible war crimes submitted to the International Criminal Court
By John Amato Monday Jun 02, 2008 1:30pmSydney is an incredible city to visit. I played there in 2003 and just loved it. OK, I'm just plugging the down under because it was an amazing trip, but it's not such a cool place for their ex-Prime Minister John Howard right now:
Meanwhile, the Australian Broadcast Corp. reported June 1 that a legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court alleging Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq. A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organized by the ICC Action Group, based in Melbourne.
An organizer, Glen Floyd, says Howard should be made accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.
Howard, who led the country for 11 years and celebrated his friendship with President Bush, told the newspaper that the decision to send Australian troops to Iraq in 2003 was "very, very, very hard." But he stood by his choice, which he said helped further deepen Australia's alliance with the United States...read on
Stay tuned...
Login or Register to post comments.
Awesome.
Now when are we going to try the Administration and the 108th (I think) Congress for our war-crimes?
why oh why can't we start doing this here?
Does that mean someone might have the guts to try bush and cheney.
Right frickin' on!!!! Just you wait, Bu$h, Cheney, and the rest of your effed up boys and girls who perpetuated these war crimes over the past 8+ years... your turn is coming.
Part of the coalition of the schilling.
Go OZZZ!!!!
Marge @ 4:
Get these guys tried and found guilty and Bush/Cheney will have to hide out in Dubai! Think the Saudis will hide them?
AHHH the Aussies better beer braver people
Little known fact John Howard was the 4th STOOGE ...
That would be a good start. Execute all these god damned war criminals and traitors. In fact, a raffle to get to see who gets to put a bullet through some of them would raise probably half a billion Dollars the first week.
I've got to give the Australians a lot of credit. It has to be difficult as well as embarrassing nationally to accuse your own former leadership of war crimes right there on the international stage but, if it has to be done it has to be done. This legal brief obviously is only the start but it shows the world that Australia has no problems with holding its leadership accountable. What a pity the right wing fears the Bush Administration more than they do the rule of law or else they would participate in the same type of action.
Yeah, but the aussies kept electing that asshole for 11 years! They just copied the same pro corporation crap that America had perfected.
Let's hope that Howard likes to be a power bottom.
He justifies his choice to send his country's troops into harms way to "further deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States"? Wow.
And when do we bring war crimes charges against Bill Clinton for the bombings of Iraq in the 90s? Iraq hadn't attacked us then either, so naturally the unprovoked bombing is a war crime. Or even more egregious, the bombing of a completely innocent pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum in 1998?
John @ 15:
Or war charges against Reagan's SecDef for invading Grenada and deposing the Nicaraugan government and for invading Lebanon and letting the Israelis get away with war crimes, or even Jimmy Carter for allowing his Administration to draw the USSR into Afghanistan and start the ball rolling on 9/11...
John @ 15:
Why stop there. You can go much further back than that. We have been the thugs on the international stage for quite some time.
Unfortunately the bush administration has broken out system of laws by appointing a NeoCon leaning SCOTUS. And you know he did this for just this reason.
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ @ 18:
Alice Hussein @ 17:
Distraction!!!!
Get back on track! Let's use these trials to set precedents to take down BushCo!
They have to get to Bush before he can bail to Paraguay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/mainsection.tomphillips
South America is a favorite place for war criminals (several nazis, among others) to escape punishment....but it shouldn't be too hard for the world courts to find him there...
Also, would be great if they could get to Cheney before he bolts for Dubai in the UAE....
where he'll be rejoining Halliburton in their new 'international headquarters'...as chairman of the board...after all, they couldn't stay in Houston with their war crimes on daily display...
Question....how much does everyone think Cheney will get when he sells his half of Wyoming back to our country???
Explain how the USSR invading Iraq was Jimmy Carter's doing. This is a new line I've never ever seen before.
Afghanistan, sorry
Paraguay does not extridated for war crimes. Did he buy a ranch yet?
John @ 22:
From what I've read, Brezinki (or however the hell you spell it), he fully admitted drawing the USSR into it, and Reagan used this war and the US involvement to create the Mujahideen, one of whom happened to get the luck of the draw, and create Al-Qaeda.
Interview is here:
So, if you have to play the blame game for 9/11, Jimmy Carter has 3,000 people from the Twin Towers, and God knows how many Afghans' blood on his hands, all for giving the USSR a Vietnam scenario.
It is surprising that it has not been reported in the media that the environmentalist and the columnist who writes in The Guardian, George Monbiot, attempted to perform a citizens' arrest on John Bolton, when Bolton appeared on stage to give a speech in Wales. Monbiot was, alas, unsuccessful, as two large security guards escorted him out of the building. No charges were made against Monbiot, as it would appear that the last thing the administration would desire would be for attention to be focused on the war crimes that John Bolton has committed in the name of the United States.
Joe O. @ 12:
Just think how happy we would be to be able to do the same here. I, for one, can handle the embarrassment.
*
General_Rennenkampf @ 16:
Reagan Breaks Laws then Lies About It
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZfnOJd_FmA
I've always wondered just what prompted the political leadership in Oz to send troops; what deals were made? Somebody's palms have to have been greased; a slice the expected oil profits intended to 'pay for the war', perhaps?
When our Dear Leader bolts to his Ranchero, we can hire Blackwater to do a rendition on his ass!
Good on the Aussies! As one of the Bush regime's most obedient lap puppies, any actions whatsoever that are taken in bringing Howard to justice will strengthen the cases against all members of the Bush regime.
Outstanding.
harley @ 24:
They've bought 98,840 acres of land which is reportedly adjacent to a similar parcel owned by the Rev. Moon. Sitting on top of the largest fresh water aquifer in the world.
*
General_Rennenkampf @ 25:
OK, I'll try that link again.
General_Rennenkampf @ 33:
BobD @ 8:
Remember that Idi Amin lived in the Royal Palace at Riyadh for his waning years until he died.... under the protection of the Saudi Royals.
We can submit our gang after they're removed from office.
Hopefully, John Howard will be waltzing with a few "matildas" after he's filleted in The Hague.
Trittydi @ 32:
He termed it "surprising" that the Bush family is trying to settle a few short miles from the U.S. Mariscal Estigarribia Military Base.
ha, as if wars that ARE sanctioned by the United Nations are moral and justifiable.
OT: AP is calling nomination for Obama.
Here we go! :)
harley @ 37:
Maybe the base has a prison?
I think we should dig up Teddy Roosevelt's body and flog him for starting this American imperialism thingy.
earl @ 40:
Close to a secure air strip to get in and out of dodge.
displaced @ 41:
Or King George III for creating the conditions that made it necessary for the colonists to declare independence. (Let's see how silly this can get)
Forget Sir John Kerr's cur, This "swag" man should be waterboarded by some billabong.
Neo-classical secular humanist @ 36:
displaced @ 41:
At least he fought in the wars he created; imagine if Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney retired to fight in Iraq, like Roosevelt did during the Spanish-American War. Moreover, he would probably be considered liberal by today’s standards. He was: the first progressive president, for Universal Health Care, pro-environment, pro-regulation. So what if he started a couple of unnecessary wars or stole land from Columbia to build a canal? No one is perfect.
This is a very lame excuse by Howard:
"Howard, who led the country for 11 years and celebrated his friendship with President Bush, told the newspaper that the decision to send Australian troops to Iraq in 2003 was “very, very, very hard.” But he stood by his choice, which he said helped further deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States".
This is just plain BAD JUDGEMENT of a game of..... follow-the-leader....
When a leader defies INTERNATIONAL LAW........this should have been a HUGE CLUE that something is NOT RIGHT. CIVIL SERVANTS in HIGH POSITIONS are HELD by a HIGHER STANDARD. The FREEWORLD will be the judge whether that standard has been met. Negligence, Carelessness, and Abuse is NOT acceptable anymore than anyone who perpetrate CORRUPT acitvities.
CRIME is CRIME. Criminals must be prosecuted indiscriminately regardless of who they ARE. Martha Stewart paid her dues and serve prison time; Charles Manson is serving his time. What makes Howard, Bush and Blair any different?
WE AS PEOPLE must not ALLOW these very few bad APPLES corrupt OUR VERY SYSTEM and LAWS that WE AS PEOPLE have been obeying. To be lenient with the law of the land IS to corrupt the legal system.
We as people MUST not tolerate this.
IT TAKES DISCIPLINE to maintain a CIVIL SOCIETY. To tolerate crimes without consequences indiscriminately is to WEAKEN CIVIL ORDER. We can not live in PEACE as a CIVIL SOCIETY if WE CAN NOT control our government from making such heinous offenses against humanity.
Such misjudgements from these civil servants (Howard, Bush, Blair, etc.) CAUSED thousands of lives.
WE as people MUST dictate HOW WE want our government run in a FREE and DEMOCRATIC WORLD...........NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND...........
We should do the same, bring up war crimes for the president, vice president and every member of Congress that authorized us going into Iraq. Which is to say, most of them.
Wow, three "very"s. I'm impressed.
Still made the wrong decision though. Should've gone for four "very"s, or even "five". Or maybe just ask the nearest four-year-old if it's a bad idea to participate in the invasion of a country that is no threat to you so you can cozy up to a slightly retarded fake cowboy. They could've set you straight.
randomstranger @ 47:
My comment at #26 agrees with your recommendation. As this link demonstrates, George Monbiot attempted to do just that.
http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2008/05/31/john-bolton-runs-from-war-crim...
Will he be tried in a kangaroo court?
Sorry...couldn't resist!
So I am confused..if he does indeed face an Investigation for War Crimes- what does it mean for Bushco? Can they also face charges and possible trial- esp. once they are no longer in power ?
General_Rennenkampf @ 25:
Wow. Jimmy Carter is responsible for the deaths of 9/11. That's a classic.
Trittydi @ 27:
I don't think anything can beat the embarrassment the bush admin has caused these past years. If these a-holes were being tried for war crimes, embarrassment would be the last emotion I would have. Pride in finally holding dickwad politicians accountable would be more like it.
Liberal AND Proud @ 50:
Same will happen to Bush,baby !
I guess Howard shouldn't have joined the 'Koalaition of the willing to be bribed'.
Condi Rice is hiding out with old hag from the phillipines (Markass) They should both be made to eat shoes for the rest of thier miserable lives.
Bitter for Hussein Obama (aka right wing hater) @ 21:
The Truth Hurts @ 52:
No. It was CLINTON's fault !!!
My position on the Australians trying to charge their former PM with a war crime seems like overreach. I don't blame Howard for sending troops to Iraq, for basically providing military support to a valued ally (us) that turned out to have in most respects lied to everyone about the need to invade Iraq. If the Aussies really want to file war crimes charges they ought to aim at the SOBs really responsible - Dubya, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Addington, Libby, Rice, Chalabi, and anyone else involved - for the subterfuge, lying, mismanagement, embezzlement, and torture now associated with the whole Iraq fiasco.
I still can't believe Aussies put up with this creep for so many legislatures...
if this australian case goes forward, i think bush & co's asses are grass . . . in the absence of any evidence that iraq was involved in 9/11, they cannot justify the attack upon iraq, the subsequent dismantling of its government, and the ongoing occupation . . . even if it had been proven that iraq had wmd's, iraq's decimated military machine did not have the capacity to deliver a wmd to israel, much less the u.s. . . . . besides, the world is full of countries that possess wmd's (some of which are openly hostile to the u.s. and have the capacity to deliver them) but do not used them
i think that the first executive order by the new prez should appoint a special counsel to investigate these war crimes and ban all foreign travel by bush administration officials pending the completion of that investigation
General_Rennenkampf @ 25:
If only Sky Captain had made it in time.
Chico Hussein @ 54:
So, the terrorists hate us for our marsupials?
The Truth Hurts @ 52:
He was responsible for Osama Bin Laden gaining access to men with guns. It's no more of a direct responsibility than Dubya had for a plan years in the making that finally went into effect in about the eleventh month of his term.
Dubya had no excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq because of 9/11, though.
is that why he resigned?
Tony Blair is also a bright and shiny defendant charged with war crimes in the International Criminal Court so PM Howard doesn't feel so alone.
Isn't that special? While Mr. Blair ropes in a few million dollars while trying to bring all religions together as one happy family of paranormal entities worshipers . . he's charged with war crimes and crimes against mankind.
Maybe since Bush and Co are now defining his "uniter" status as only uniting Republicans as loud proud sociopaths glorying in mass murders Mr. Blair's newest job as a uniter of the paranormal pimps will help him fund his legal defense fund.
Anyone here think those high priced lawyers have associates working at the Pearly Gates schmoozing the judging that awaits their clients?
General_Rennenkampf @ 62:
So, are you kinda like a GOP talking points test pilot...taking this lame rewrite of history out for a test "spin"?
randomstranger @ 47:
no disagreement here.
The link, I hope it fucking works this time:
Site monitor-it keeps swallowing the damn link, can you help?
The money quote:
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
The decision to draw the USSR into Afghanistan was the product of Carter's Cold Warriorism. He also started arming the Mujahideen on the principle of bleeding the Red Army dry. Funny, neither he nor Reagan counted on a Saudi Wahhabite named Bin Laden turning the US's own weapons against it.
Liberal AND Proud @ 65:
what's the carter connection again?
Marge @ 4:
That will never happen, a bit of flag waving and flag pin spin and everyone will carry on infighting.
liberal traitor @ 3:
There are a lot of unpleasant answers for that question, too many unfortunately.
Liberal AND Proud @ 65:
Read the fucking link I posted, it's from his National Security advisor. Carter started the ball rolling, the real person who owes most responsibility is Reagan for letting the Mujahideen play with sharp toys and not forcing them to return them.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 63:
The pressure in the country was overwhelming, it's what happens when you have a lot of people who care about what's going on.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 68:
Here:
Read it, it's from his National Security Advisor's words. Cold War realpolitik's a bitch, ain't it...
General_Rennenkampf @ 70:
Why not roll the wayback machine allll the way back to the Saudi nationalization of their oil production. Hell...lets take it all the way back to the Crusades.
John @ 15 says:
What a dweeb.
Note-I consider Reagan to have the lion's share of responsibility for 9/11, but without Carter having set up the trap sandbox for Reagan to play in, St. Bonzo would never have had the chance to decide to arm the guys that later started bombing things like the Cole and the Twin Towers (twice.)
And while your at it...you want to be taken even slightly seriously...grow the fuck up and lose the four letter words..
JERK OFF.
Liberal AND Proud @ 73:
Actually, I consider Islamic terrorism born more out of resentment for Anglo-French colonization and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire than anything else, plus the fact that most Muslim states are extremely weak, and terrorism is a handy weapon for the weak.
Had the Ottoman empire been just a mite stronger, you and I would be posting in late Ottoman Turkish and I would be explaining why those Krauts are blowing themselves up because Christianity is weak and Islam is strong.
Liberal AND Proud @ 76:
Oh, get off your high horse! Iran hates us because of Mossadeqh and the Afghans hate us because we drew the Russkies in and they started ripping the shit out of their country.
Don't even get me started on why Asians and Africans dislike Uncle Sam, or especially Latin America, where we interfere often just because we could.
General_Rennenkampf @ 67:
let's be clear:bin laden told booshTheElder to get the fuck off of muslim holy land. boosh ignored the threat because "we're america!". So they targeted the WTC twice. this was NOT carter's fault. Zbig thought he was a fucking genius, smarter than Kissinger. They were both megalomaniacs, but Carter cannot be blamed for OBL. Boosh instigated the whole magilla. Under him, the CIA became the sloppiest, most ineffective, craven inteligence organization on the planet.
Jerry @ 71:
OY!
Chris H. @ 45:
You've got to be kidding. War crimes are war crimes. At least in Panama that land was returned to Panama and the money we give to Colombia makes up for some of that damage.
General_Rennenkampf @ 72:
carter did note start what OBL did. Boosh did. And the CIA, under boosh, did a piss poor job of finishing off the Afghan job and left ill will. that's not Carter's fault.
liberal traitor @ 3:
What is preventing us from doing the same thing here? The Bush/Cheney crimes dwarf those of Howard. All that is required is the will and a little backbone, which seems to be sorely lacking in this country now.. My greatest respect goes to the Aussies who are doing the right thing.
Bush/Cheney invaded a sovereign nation that was not an eminent threat to us. The war was badly mis-managed by the suits in Washington and cost the lives of how many civilians, destroyed how much of the countries' infrastructure and made us more vulnerable in the long run. Why shouldn't they be taken to task for this?
When will these idiots learn; freedom comes from within! Had the Iraqi people united against Saddam, like that would've ever happened, fought and died for their freedom, I would be a little more agreeable to sending aid to the freedom fighters than sending our men and women in the military to Iraq to overthrow Saddam by invasion, when OBL was still on the loose. Given the nature of the culture in Iraq, making a statement like, "We'll be greeted as liberators!" was at best a pipe dream! Speaking of OBL, where is he? Oh yeah, on another planet apparently; you know, the planet called Pakistan. After all, W was going to go to the ends of the earth to catch him. The country impeached Clinton for lying about having sex and Bush lied about catching OBL; why don't we impeach for that lie.
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 82:
BaScOmBe against Bitter Elitist Appeasement Bullshit @ 79:
@Bascombe:
Yeah, I guess Bush was in office in the 1980s when OBL was learning the techniques to fighting armies far more powerful than his merry pranksters, right? I mean, the Bush family is so good they can be in office even when they were middling players in other people's administrations? No, Carter, and then Reagan are primarily responsible for arming OBL. Bush II is responsible for ignoring Clinton's warnings and actually trying to do something, anything to stop a terrorist attack. Carter undoubtedly had no idea that a Saudi would cause all this nonsensical neo-Yellow Peril paranoia in this nation based on his not-unreasonable idea to entrap the USSR. 9/11 was a pinprick and should have been responded to, covertly by psychological warfare, not by big fanfare and then dropping bombs on Pashtuns and Hazara and Kurds and Yezidis (I'm referring to both Iraq and Afghanistan, here)that had not one thing to do with it. The Soviet trap in Afghanistan is a perfect illustration of the law of unintended consequences.
surfjac @ 84:
No, Osama Bin Laden is probably dead of his kidney problems, or killed by a lieutenant who is now using the more notorious name of Bin Laden and a lookalike to keep the US dancing to his strings and making more recruits for him. A 6'6'' man with a need for dialysis does not tend to do very well in a land of short people turned into a bloody mess from a war and living in a cave.
General_Rennenkampf @ 85:
The bases in Saudi Arabia were put in place by BUSH the Elder, as a staging point for Desert Storm. The rest is HISTORY.
Bin Laden was a US proxy in Afghan. He turned on us because we pissed him off with the bases.
Liberal AND Proud @ 87:
And as far as your references to the 80s. George Herbert Walker Bush has been head of the CIA and after that...VICE PRESIDENT of the U.S.A.. Remember the decade...uhh...the 1980s.
Liberal AND Proud @ 87:
Yes, that is basically what happened. Bin Laden was pissed off at infidel armies occupying the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. Were Christianity as tied to Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome, and Constantinople as Islam is to Mecca and Medina, I'd be equally as pissed as he was. After A.D. 70, Christianity kinda lost the Holy CityTM version of faith, but still...
I certainly empathize with OBL's anger, and I'm not surprised that Infidel armies in the holy cities provoked that reaction. The smart thing to do would have been to leave forthwith, but name one US president with that sort of intelligence in our history, hmm?
Liberal AND Proud @ 88:
Yeah? A Dick Cheney to Reagan he was not.
Bush wasn't that well-informed in the Reagan administration, and probably nursed a grudge against Reagan for beating him in the primaries.
As far as the Bush family turning everything to sh*t goes, that doesn't surprise me that much. People who get jobs because their daddy has a lot of money typically aren't the best people to run stuff, knowwhatImean?
I could, of course, be entirely wrong on the role the father played in Reagan's administration, and if you have evidence to correct me, then I will humbly accept it. Am I right or wrong that he was not the power behind the throne the way Cheney is?
General_Rennenkampf @ 90:
So now you have insight into Bush's feelings? Who are you? Nancy Reagan's Astrologer?
And the bases were built in the 90s....during the Presidency of.....George Herbert Walker BUSH.
And none of this overshadows the fact that George Walker Bush overlooked intelligence...CLEAR intelligence...that could possibly have allowed us to avoid the disaster on 9/11.
Whether the oversight was intentional or incompetence is for history to decide.
Liberal AND Proud @ 91:
No, I don't.
And yes, I know about the bases being built then. I have already stated that were my faith as centered on Antioch or the Vatican or Istanbul the way Islam is on Mecca and Medina, I would definitely get the way Bin Laden felt.
Matter of fact, I'm surprised it took until 2001 for Bin Laden's displeasure to get noticed by our nation, and not surprised at all that we reacted not by taking care of the problem, but stirring up two hornet's nests instead.
Bin Laden is more complex than the US paints him as...but then, so is the conservative movement, neo-con and otherwise.
Liberal AND Proud @ 92:
Really? Sources? Now you've got me curious.
harley @ 24:
Yes - He sent Jenna down there to put the finishing touches on the deal - and she went with about 15 body guards. This all took place September, 2006. GW bought a ranch with 100,000 acres right on the Argentina border and Argentina is where the War Criminals of WWII went because that country offered amnesty. Now it's ditto for Paraguay - they offer amnesty to present day war criminals.
General_Rennenkampf @ 90:
Not sayin you're wrong, but didn't Mr. Reagan develop Alzheimer's in like '83 and win re-election suffering from the first stages? I was a teenager, but seem to remember he went downhill during his second term. Mr. Bush the Senior would have been in a good position to 'step up' behind the scene as it were, him being mister 'spooky CIA guy' and all.
Of course you have to dig pretty hard to find any reference of this in the Australian media.
Here, too, most people simply don't want to think about the possibility that their country could have been involved in 'war crimes'. That's just for Nazis and such folk.
Jimmi the Grey @ 96:
Yeah, Reagan developed Alzheimer's, but Schultz seems to me the more likely power behind the throne.
Cheney's power as VP is an aberration, not the norm.
And Reagan did more than his share of damage while remaining an idol of the Right for reasons entirely unknown to me.
I don't care if it starts in Oz as long as Cheney and Bush end up at the Hague where they belong.
please forgive me if i don't hold my breath for the UN to try a "1st world" leader for crimes against humanity. War crimes are for tin-pot dictators who have outlived their usefulness to the west.
nemo @ 29:
At the time there was a Free Trade Agreement being pushed by Howard and Bush - the perception was that the FTA was "the deal" that secured Howard's support.
Perhaps - On a more cloak and dagger issue - Mr Howard's youngest son was able to garner a White House internship around the same time (particularly around the 2004 USA elections). Saying nothing untoward happened but of interest.....
Is this the beginning? Does it start now? Will we really get to witness justice at work - in the United States too?
William @ 44:
Yep... I know quite a few people who would love to watch to see if it's really torture or not.
Save room for at least two more criminals on that flight to the Hague.
PaulW @ 58:
I understand your sentiments, but nah, a lot of people here would like to see him and his war cabinet tried. They are a horrible bag full of arseholes. Howard knew the lies, he knew what was going on - he's in on the thing. This whole thing would have us licking our chops (licking our lips in Strine).
reyvn @ 101:
Yes, unfortunately I have to agree. Eddie Izzard, the great British comedian born in the middle east has a good skit on that. He basically says that if you kill one or two people they put you in a room and watch you through a little window, but kill hundreds of thousands of your own people and it's "good on you! Your diary must look full - get up in the morning, tea, kill, kill, kill, kill, lunch, kill, kill, afternoon tea, kill... I can't even get down the gym!"
Yep, kill hundreds of thousands of your own people, yes!, "go right ahead" says Eddie. Pol Pot was put under house arrest and Margaret Thatcher stood by his side....
What jerk offs this lot are.
I enjoy reading through the comments on all this as it's enlightening and edifying - HOWEVER, you know what? We've got no frigging idea what's happened, who did what to whom and who was involved. We talk about OBL and Reagan and Carter and Howard and Bush and Cheney like we know what happened. I would put forward that we have no idea, none, nada. All we have is what we've been told or what's been leaked to the media which is just the propaganda to keep the war machine going.
In Australia and all over the world before this latest war on Iraq, millions of people marched against the invasion - MILLIONS. Who gave a damn about democracy then? Liars, cheats, thieves.
And then there's the "oil shortage" - what a joke! There's enough oil, they just (for some reason I don't claim to understand) want to drive the world into recession.... perhaps they can then buy up larger and larger tracts of land... anyway, who on earth REALLY knows what's going on? I would suggest that Bush and Cheney don't actually know exactly either.
They should all be [Deleted. Please do not advocate violence here. Thanks-Sitemonitor]. Evil personified.
It's just been announced on Australian radio that Obama is the nominee and that Hillary is going to run as VP.
Underground Pirate @ 13:
Don't blame me! I voted against him 5 times (out of 5).
Underground Pirate @ 13:
Howard kept getting voted in because the opposition was a disorganised disaster. As a Labor voter (the opposition to Howard's Liberal party) I lamented his relections, but entirely understood them. A necessity for a functioning democracy is a viable opposition. There wasn't.
=my2c
It's a pity but it seems Bush and the Neo Co's wont suffer Howards indignation as the USA is not a signatory to the ICC so,
How about China take Howard away to a top secret prison and hold him for years on end without charge or following Geneva conventions.
They might need to dream up some new terms like enemy combatant as a way of saying tuff cookies to the UN or anyone else whom don't like it.
Then they could invade OZ and bomb innocent civilians in the hunt for our WMD's and high ranking officials whom served under Howard. the link between OZ and US tyrants now established by trial of media and all that would be left is to burn every copy of 1984 ever printed.
Then India could do the same to China as they see things differently.
Then Isreal could invade India and pay it forward some more. Gee this with us or against us rhetoric seems like it will cost the lives and happiness of everyone.
History not his story will define howards legacy.
The reason we put up with Howard for so long is because our economy has been going so strong for so long. Everyone has been making bucketloads of money and we all love it.
That said, I never voted for him. The first election I ever voted in was the one in which Howard toppled the Keating government in 1996. 2007 was the first federal election I've voted in where the party I voted for got into power.
Back on topic, I don't think anything will come of this. I live in hope, Howard was an abomination of a prime minister. He did a couple of things right, namely gun control, and he was a huge supporter of sports. Beyond that I struggle to remember anything positive about his time in power.
Lynda from DownUnder @ 108:
Shes the VP?
Are they ahead in the time zone? Like 2 months ahead?
Lynda from DownUnder @ 108:
Was this on the ABC? I was listening this morning and heard something similar, but dismissed it as possible speculation on the part of the person who wrote the report. Surely, we can't know this already?
BOT....let's get Howard sent off to the Gulag!
Maybe Howard and the Commander in Thief could share a cell together...
PaulW @ 58:
Everyone here blames Howard. Whilst you are correct in terms of a Aus-US relationship, it was against international law, against the continued efforts of UN weapons inpsectors (who just prior, was lead by Aussie Richard Butler), against many in the intelligence organisation's recommendations and more importantly, against the will of the people.
Howard even claimed that he had 'legal advise' that the Iraq invasion was actually legal, but never, ever released the advise to the public when queried.
We are a signatory to the ICC, the US is not. In fact, many saw Dubya's refusual to be a signatory to the ICC when he came to power as a sign of things to come... and they came.
Of all the players in the invasion of Iraq, Howard is by far the lowest hanging fruit. If this gains traction, then Blair might be facing the ICC also. Because the US is not a signatory, the ICC has no place trying the Bush regime.
opps for overdoing the bold.
[FIFY-Sitemonitor]
This is good news. Start with Howard and move through Blair to the whole WH gang, finishing with Bush and Cheney.
Once the Bush junta is out, the US can sign the ICC treaty, and then put our criminals on trial.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, would make me happier.
motorfingaz @ 113:
Maybe they're clairvoyant - I don't know... um, um, the BBC reported the collapse of the third tower of the World Trade Center before it happened... (grasping at straws here :) )
Progressive Australian @ 112:
Yes, it's the economy stupid and not much more than that. We have been very good economically for so many years and the Howard government traded on that. As I'm sure you'd agree, Progressive Australian, the shame of those years can't be glossed over by making the mortgage each month, and I felt quite ashamed to be Australian many times during Howard's tenure (grip). Rudd feels soooo much better - I feel we've come of age somehow... we've 'apologised' to the aboriginals, we're withdrawing troops from Iraq, now if we can just let go of auntie's coattails and become a republic, perhaps we can finally grow into the country we're meant to be.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
IF Howard is found guilty...
What does it make the man who's orders Howard was merely following?
.
General_Rennenkampf @ 2:
The 108th - dereliction of duty and an abrogation of responsibility toward investigation and oversight and the complicity to commit war crimes(Hillary included[Sorry folks, a yes is a yes, unread or not!])
The 109th - See 108th along with the continuation of funding an illegal operation that included TORTURE, RENDITION, USURPATION of American Rights, MERCENARIES, TREASON
The 110th - See 108-109 in addition, a complete lack of Patriotism and feigned oversight(just who's been held accountable?)
.
I think that was misquoted. What he meant to say was it further deepened Australias reliance on the United States. The only thing Iraq deepened was the debt of the countries stupid enough to be involved.
Just one small domino is capable of creating enough momentum to knock over thousands. Even the largest dominoes can be taken down by one small one, if they're placed correctly.
Sadly, courts in other countries (e.g. England) have shown themselves too spineless to back war crimes charges against foreign leaders unless they head powerless countries (e.g. Charles Taylor of Liberia). I truly hope the Australian courts recognize that there's enough evidence, rather than protecting some asshole who is an undeserving holder of the term, "Right Honourable".
John Coward - sorry, Howard - is neither right nor honourable.
Trittydi @ 32:
Those who predict a complete collapse of the world economy due to oil shortages have mentioned how the wealthy are buying large pieces of land and supplies in preparation for it. They're taking the "I got mine!" attitude, arming themselves like survivalists at the expense of the populace.
Either that, or it's a repeat of WWII and the Nazis who ran away to South America to avoid prosecution.
Howard, Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and all the other promoters of this bullshit war, should share a cell.
I GOD PLEASE! OH GOD PLEASE! I would feel like I won a million dollars. Just sending one of these war criminals to prison would put that bounce back in my step thats been gone since 9/11. I am not a religious guy but I am praying here! OH please god seend that bastard to prison.
John @ 15:
You are suppose to be able to but people are to propagandized and scared of the New police state. Think about it, why do you think they took your rights away? So they can go after you for real..thats why. They murdered the Debra Palfrey who was going to expose them and the media turned the other way. She NEVER killed herself and she said she would never on radio to protect herself but whatever she had the government REALLY didn't want it out. Don't think they wouldn't kill you.
Login or Register to post comments.