Iraq Invasion 2003 - Aussies US-Anglo Capitalist Puppets

US-ANGLO CAPITALIST AUSSIE PUPPETS IRAQ INVASION 2003 CHILCOT REPORT WAR CRIMINALS https://youtu.be/HP55OMZbM6Y Press TV (Mahi Ramakrishnan) - LINK | Source "The judges in the verdict said that that the United States, under the leadership of Bush, forged documents to claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." "“Bush and Blair are found guilty under the same law that applied to the Nazis after the end of the World War II. So, they are international (war) criminals guilty of Nuremberg crimes against peace; and they should be prosecuted by any state in the world that gets a hold of them." Press TV (Mahi Ramakrishnan) LINK | Source COMMENT US Capitalist Empire has taken steps IN ADVANCE to ensure that no country dare prosecute the AMERICAN-ANGLO CAPITALIST WAR CRIMINALS (or their associates), as US Capitalist Empire has given itself permission to wage war against those that seek to bring US CAPITALIST WAR CRIMINALS to justice. Hague Invasion Act Human Rights Watch | 2002  http://archive.is/OXr7k "A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court. U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.  In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.  ... The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. " Human Rights Watch | 2002  http://archive.is/OXr7k Press TV Thu Jul 7, 2016 6:2AM A former Australian army chief has warned Canberra against “blindly” following the United States in the American military adventures, a day after a long-awaited inquiry into Britain’s role in the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq blamed the UK for rushing to war. “We... need to be careful of blindly going along with our senior strategic partners,” Peter Leahy, who was the chief of the Australian army from 2002 to 2008, said in an apparent reference to the US. “I think as we look at other issues that are afoot at the moment, there are some thoughts to be given there — what decisions are we making?” he said, speaking on Thursday. The former army chief, who is now a professor at Canberra University’s National Security Institute, added that “Frankly, some of the decisions the United States, our senior partner in our strategic alliance, have [sic] made over the last 20 or 30 years have been a bit crook.” The Chilcot Inquiry, established in 2009 to investigate Britain’s most controversial military engagement since the end of the Second World War, published its 6,000-page report in 12 volumes on Wednesday, slamming former British Prime Minister Tony Blair over support for former US President George W. Bush in the 2003 Iraq war. At the time, Blair presented the case for war with “a certainty which was not justified” based on “flawed” intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which was not challenged as it should have been, the report concluded. Blair’s government sent 120,000 members of the British armed forces and civilians to Iraq, proving its role as Bush’s chief military ally.  A total of 179 British personnel were killed in the war. In 2003, Australia also sent 2,000 troops to support the US and British forces in the invasion of Iraq, whose legal basis, according to the Chilcot Inquiry, was “far from satisfactory.” According to Leahy, a review of the Australian involvement in the Iraq war released in 2004 also showed that Canberra relied on flawed advice in joining its senior allies. “Let’s have a discussion, not an inquiry, around our relationship with the United States, how we decide to go to war and very importantly how we decide every day when we are at war to stay at war,” Leahy said. Meanwhile, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who at the time of the Iraq invasion was part of then-Prime Minister John Howard’s conservative government, defended the decision made by the government to send troops to Iraq, saying it was “based on… the best information that we had at the time.” “The government takes responsibility for all decisions that a government makes and we take responsibility for this one,” she further said, describing the decision as “a bipartisan position up to a point.” Blair himself has defended the British decision to follow in the US’s footsteps into Iraq following the publication of the Chilcot report. According to the Australian constitution, the government does not require a permission from the country’s parliament to declare war. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/07/07/473989/Australia-Peter-Leahy-Iraq-War-US-Chilcot-Inquiry 2011 - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia War Crimes Tribunal BUSH & BLAIR WAR CRIMINALS tribunal found former US President George W Bush former British PM Tony Blair GUILTY of crimes against humanity LINK | here WikiLeaks | Assange [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE & 'NEW TAB'] WikiLeaks | Assange FCO & MI6 BRITISH INTELLIGENCE Source | @WikiLeaks FREE ASSANGE SAVE JULIAN ASSANGE Saddam Hussein Iraq government described as: "AN OBSTACLE TO EVERY SINGLE WESTERN OBJECTIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST" "OUR GOAL IS REGIME CHANGE" "WE HAVE HAD SUCH GOALS BEFORE. WE SUCCEEDED IN THE SOVIET UNION, IN APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA AND IN BELGRADE." "I ASSUME [REGIME CHANGE] REMAINS OUR GOAL IN PLACES LIKE BURMA, IRAN, LIBYA, ZIMBABWE AND LIBERIA." "LAWYERS AND PEACENIKS SHOULD NOT PREVENT US FROM SAYING WHAT WE REALLY WANT IN IRAQ" "IF WE WERE TO BUILD UP THE KURDS AND THE SHIA AS PROXIES, WHAT ASSURANCES WOULD WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THAT WE WOULD NOT LET THEM DOWN YET AGAIN?" "ALL OF THESE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAN LEGALITY ..." "WE CAN LOOK FOR A LEGAL BASIS ONCE WE HAVE DECIDED WHAT TO DO, AS WE DID IN KOSOVO." "WE KNOW BUSH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WILL BE BOTH INTELLIGENT AND RESPONSIBLE IF WE CAN HELP THE AMERICANS COME UP WITH A PERSUASIVE PLAN TO OUST THE WORLDS WORST TYRANT, THEN WE SHOULD DO SO. AND IF THE BEST MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE ORGANS OF LONDON AND WASHINGTON FAIL TO PRODUCE A CONVINCING PLAN, THEN WE STICK TO CONTAINMENT." SIGNED: JOHN SAWERS SENT BY CAIRO ON 21-02-2002 09:52 RECEIVED BY NO 10 ON 21-02-2002 22:07 http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/210163/2002-02-21-teleletter-sawers-to-jay-iraq-policy.pdf John Sawers descendant of Norman invaders (12th C.) former British Diplomat former British Senior Civil Servant Foreign & Commonwealth Office 1997 MI6 agent in Yemen & Syria Political Officer, Damascus 1982 FCO Desk Officer, European Union Dept. 1984 Private Sec. to Minister of State 1986 FCO, Pretoria, Cape Town, South Africa 1988-1991 Head of European Union Presidency Planning Unit 1991 Principal Private Secretary to Douglas Hurd 1993:     - Bosnia War     - Middle East war     - European Union debate International Fellow at Harvard University, USA, 1995-1998 British Embassy, Washington DC, headed Foreign & Defence Policy Team Foreign Affairs Adviser to PM Tony Blair 1999-2001     - Kosovo War     - Northern Ireland peace process     - Iraq sanctions policy Ambassador to Egypt 2001 - 2003 British Special Representatives to Baghdad (3 mths) FCO, Director Gen. for Political Affairs 2003 wide scope, negotiations with:   G8, EU and the UN closely involved re policy on: Iran Iraq Afghanistan Balkans British Permanent Representative to the United Nations 2007-2009 former Chief of MI6, Secret Intelligence Service 2009-2014 governor of the Ditchley Foundation, Anglo-US capitalist relations promo Ditchley Foundation est. 1958 by Sir David Wills, descendant of the tobacco importing family, W. D. & H. O. Wills (Bristol) W.D. & H.O. Wills, est. 1786 one of founding companies of:   Imperial Tobacco on merger of W.D. & H.O. Wills & x7 other tobacco companies key:  William Wills, 1st Baron Winterstoke businessman, Liberal politician JOHN SAWERS, MI6 WikiLeaks | Assange Chilcot Report Rigging Plan Source | @WikiLeaks COMMENT Julie Bishop defending the decision to enter into ILLEGAL WAR ON IRAQ, on a CONCOCTED basis, for the enrichment of US-ANGLO CAPITALISTS who destroyed and robbed the country, is appalling. But what else can the government do?  It's not like they're going to admit to being war criminals and admit liability, are they?  LOL It also sounds like Australia might want to address the issue of the constitution that permits a declaration of war without parliamentary backing. SAVE JULIAN ASSANGE WikiLeaks | Assange @WikiLeaks AUSSIE SUPPORTER DICK SMITH | AUDIO Dick Smith Takes On Sweden & US Empire LINK | here

No Nuremberg for Anglo-American War Criminals

ꕤ Article SOURCE as indicated http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/10/18/433878/Tony-Blair-Bush-Iraq-war- Bush, Blair plotted Iraq war 1 year before invasion had started: White House memo Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:54AM A damning White House memo has revealed details of the so-called “deal in blood” forged by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush over the Iraq war. The document, titled “Secret... Memorandum for the President”, was sent by then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell to President Bush on March 28, 2002, a week before Bush’s summit with Blair at his Crawford ranch in Texas, Britain’s Daily Mail reported on Sunday. The sensational memo revealed that Blair had agreed to support the war a year before the invasion even started, while publicly the British prime minister was working to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The document also disclosed that Blair agreed to act as a spin doctor for Bush and convince a skeptical public that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, which actually did not exist. In response, Bush would flatter Blair and give the impression that London was not Washington’s poodle but an equal partner in the “special relationship.” Powell told Bush that Blair “will be with us” on the Iraq war, and assured the president that “"the UK will follow our lead in the Middle East."  In November 2002, US President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell applaud at a summit in Prague. Between them is National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, to their right, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. (Reuters photo) Another sensational memo revealed how Bush used “spies” in the British Labour Party to help him to influence public opinion in the United Kingdom in favor of the Iraq war. Both documents were obtained and published by The Mail on Sunday. They are part of a number of classified emails stored on the private server of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which courts have forced her to reveal. Blair has always denied the claim that he and Bush signed a deal “in blood” at Crawford to launch a war against Iraq that began on March 20, 2003, that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Powell memo, however, showed how Blair and Bush secretly prepared the Iraq war plot behind closed doors at Crawford. Powell told Bush: “He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause.” The top US diplomatic official added that the UK premier has the presentational skills to “make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace.” Powell wrote that Blair will “stick with us on the big issues” but he needs to show the British public that “Britain and America are truly equal partners in the special relationship.”  In March 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding WMDs; but no such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq. More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion, and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization Project Censored. The US war in Iraq cost American taxpayers $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, according to a study called Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/10/18/433878/Tony-Blair-Bush-Iraq-war- http://www.globalresearch.ca/kuala-lumpur-war-crimes-tribunal-bush-convicted-in-absentia-it-s-official-george-w-bush-is-a-war-criminal/30839 Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. Bush Convicted in Absentia: IT’S OFFICIAL – George W Bush is a war criminal. By Yvonne Ridley Global Research, May 14, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal 14 May 2012 EXTRACT In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were today (Friday) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. FULL AT SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/kuala-lumpur-war-crimes-tribunal-bush-convicted-in-absentia-it-s-official-george-w-bush-is-a-war-criminal/30839 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html Kuala Lumpur tribunal: Bush and Blair guilty A war crimes tribunal in Malaysia offers a devastating critique of international criminal law institutions today. 28 Nov 2011 13:37 GMT Richard Falk Richard Falk is Albert G Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies. He is also former UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. EXTRACTS In Kuala Lumpur, after two years of investigation by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC), a tribunal (the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, or KLWCT) consisting of five judges with judicial and academic backgrounds reached a unanimous verdict that found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the Iraq War. The proceedings took place over a four-day period from November 19-22, and included an opportunity for court-appointed defense counsel to offer the tribunal arguments and evidence on behalf of the absent defendants. They had been invited to offer their own defense or send a representative, but declined to do so. ... Universal jurisdiction The KLWCT did not occur entirely in a jurisprudential vacuum. It has long been acknowledged that domestic criminal courts can exercise universal jurisdiction for crimes of state wherever these may occur, although usually only if the accused individuals are physically present in the court. The underlying legal theory is based on the recognition of the limited capacity of international criminal trials to impose accountability in a manner that is not entirely dictated by geopolitical priorities and reflective of a logic of impunity. In this regard, universal jurisdiction has the potential to treat equals equally, and is very threatening to the Kissingers and Rumsfelds of this world, who have curtailed their travel schedules. The United States and Israel have used their diplomatic leverage to roll back universal jurisdiction authority in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom and Belgium. "War must be outlawed. That will have to be our struggle for now. We must struggle for justice and freedom from oppression, from economic hegemony. But we must remove the threat of war first. With this sword of Damocles hanging over our heads we can never succeed in advancing the interests of our countries.  War must therefore be made illegal. The enforcement of this must be by multilateral forces under the control of the United Nations. No single nation should be allowed to police the world, least of all to decide what action to take, [and] when." Mahathir Mohamed anti-war speech of February 24, 2003 ... In his 2007 statement, Mahathir promised that a future KLWCT would not, in his words, be "like the 'kangaroo court' that tried Saddam". Truly, the courtroom proceedings against Saddam Hussein was a sham trial excluding much relevant evidence, disallowing any meaningful defense, and culminating in a grotesque and discrediting execution.  ... FULL AT SOURCE http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111128105712109215.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT When you don't know what's going on, the conviction for war crimes in absentia sounds vaguely amusing -- as if the Malaysians were off their heads and had gone rogue in deciding to convict such fine and upstanding Americans (and Blair) for war crimes. It's only down the track that you learn that, yes, there really is grounds for such an outlandish-sounding conviction, as there is a convention against torture and against waging wars of aggression. Yes, people were tortured and, yes, the Iraq invasion was illegal and was launched on false pretexts (WMDs). So these government representatives are totally bent and criminal in their actions. And, as time progresses, more information comes out supporting that ugly fact.  The latest is just more confirmation that these people and their governments really are criminals. Germans were tried by the victors at Nuremberg and hanged for war crimes. But there won't be any such trials for the Anglo-American war criminals. ________________ Wonder if those Clinton e-mails were meant to come out, to maybe influence elections.  As in, Bush is Republican and Clinton is Democrat.  So creating a situation (private server) where this information would be released could maybe have been deliberate to advantage the Democrats, I'm thinking. Of course, I could be completely wrong.  lol ꕤ

Legal Advice on Extra-Judicial Assassination Drone Strikes & How the British Establishment Works - Syria

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/i-can-reveal-the-legal-advice-on-drone-strikes-and-how-the-establishment-works/5475352 I Can Reveal the Legal Advice on Drone Strikes, and How the British Establishment Works By Craig Murray Global Research, September 11, 2015 Craig Murray 9 September 2015 Region: Europe, Middle East & North Africa Theme: Law and Justice, Militarization and WMD In-depth Report: PALESTINE This may be the most important article I ever post, because it reveals perfectly how the Establishment works and how the Red Tories and Blue Tories contrive to give a false impression of democracy. It is information I can only give you because of my experience as an insider. It is a definitive proof of the validity of the Chomskian propaganda model. It needs a fair bit of detail to do this, but please try and read through it because it really is very, very important. After you have finished, if you agree with me about the significance, please repost, (you are free to copy), retweet, add to news aggregators (Reddit etc) and do anything you can to get other people to pay attention. The government based its decision to execute by drone two British men in Syria on “Legal Opinion” from the Attorney-General for England and Wales, Jeremy Wright, a politician, MP and Cabinet Minister. But Wright’s legal knowledge comes from an undistinguished first degree from Exeter and a short career as a criminal defence barrister in Birmingham. His knowledge of public international law is virtually nil. I pause briefly to note that there is no pretence of consulting the Scottish legal system. The only legal opinion is from the Attorney General for England and Wales who is also Honorary Advocate General for Northern Ireland. So Jeremy Wright’s role is as a cypher. He performs a charade. The government employs in the FCO a dozen of the most distinguished public international lawyers in the world. When the Attorney-General’s office needs an Opinion on public international law, they ask the FCO to provide it for him to sign. The only known occasion when this did not happen was the Iraq War. Then the FCO Legal Advisers – unanimously – advised the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, that to invade Iraq was illegal. Jack Straw asked the Attorney General to dismiss the FCO chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood (Goldsmith refused). Blair sent Goldsmith to Washington where the Opinion was written for him to sign by George Bush’s lawyers. [I know this sounds incredible, but it is absolutely true]. Sir Michael Wood’s deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned in protest. In consequence Blair and Straw decided that, again for the first time ever, the FCO’s chief legal adviser had to be appointed not from within the FCO legal advisers, who had all declared the war on Iraq to be illegal, but from outside. They had to find a distinguished public international lawyer who was prepared to argue that the war on Iraq had been legal. That was a very small field. Blair and Straw thus turned to Benjamin Netanyahu’s favourite lawyer, Daniel Bethlehem. Daniel Bethlehem had represented Israel before the Mitchell Inquiry into violence against the people of Gaza, arguing that it was all legitimate self-defence. He had also supplied the Government of Israel with a Legal Opinion that the vast Wall they were building in illegally occupied land, surrounding and isolating all the major Palestinian communities and turning them into large prisons, was also legal. Daniel Bethlehem is an extreme Zionist militarist of the most aggressive kind, and close to Mark Regev, Israel’s new Ambassador to the UK. Daniel Bethlehem had developed, in his work for Israel, an extremist doctrine of the right of States to use pre-emptive self-defence – a doctrine which would not be accepted by the vast majority of public international lawyers. He clinched his appointment by Blair as the FCO chief legal adviser by presenting a memorandum to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 2004 outlining this doctrine, and thus de facto defending the attack on Iraq and the Bush/Blair doctrine. A key sentence of Daniel Bethlehem’s memorandum is this     It must be right that states are able to act in self-defence in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack. There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. How can you be certain that an attack in “imminent”, if you are not certain where or what it is? Even if we can wildly imagine a scenario where the government know of an “imminent” attack, but not where or what it is, how could killing someone in Syria stop the attack in the UK? If a team were active, armed and in course of operation in the UK – which is needed for “imminent” – how would killing an individual in Syria prevent them from going through with it? It simply does not add up as a practical scenario. Interestingly, Daniel Bethlehem does not pretend this is accepted international law, but specifically states that     The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats  [EDIT:  ie ARBITRARY] Bethlehem is attempting to develop the concept of “imminent” beyond any natural interpretation of the word “imminent”. Daniel Bethlehem left the FCO in 2011. But he had firmly set the British government doctrine on this issue, while all FCO legal advisers know not to follow it gets you sacked. I can guarantee you that Wright’s Legal Opinion states precisely the same argument that David Bethlehem stated in his 2004 memorandum. Knowing how these things work, I am prepared to wager every penny I own that much of the language is identical. It was New Labour, the Red Tories, who appointed Daniel Bethlehem, and they appointed him precisely in order to establish this doctrine. It is therefore a stunning illustration of how the system works, that the only response of the official “opposition” to these extrajudicial executions is to demand to see the Legal Opinion, when it comes from the man they themselves appointed. The Red Tories appointed him precisely because they knew what Legal Opinion would be given on this specific subject. They can read it in Hansard. So it is all a charade. Jeremy Wright pretends to give a Legal Opinion, actually from FCO legal advisers based on the “Bethlehem Doctrine”. The Labour Party pretends, very unconvincingly, to be an opposition. The Guardian, apparently the leading “opposition” intellectual paper, publishes articles by its staff neo-con propagandists Joshua Rozenberg (married to Melanie Phillips) and Rafael Behr strongly supporting the government’s new powers of extrajudicial execution. In summer 2012 Joshua Rozenberg presented a programme on BBC Radio 4 entitled “Secret courts, drones and international law” which consisted mostly of a fawning interview with … Daniel Bethlehem. The BBC and Sky News give us wall to wall justification of the killings. So the state, with its neo-con “opposition” and media closely in step with its neo-con government, seamlessly adopts a new power to kill its own subjects based on secret intelligence and secret legal advice, and a very weird definition of “imminent” that even its author admits to be outside current legal understanding. That is how the state works. I do hope you find that helpful. This article has been updated to reflect the fact the Daniel Bethlehem is now retired from the FCO. SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/i-can-reveal-the-legal-advice-on-drone-strikes-and-how-the-establishment-works/5475352 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SUMMARY 'Red Tories' = British Labour Party - aka 'New Labour' 'Blue Tories' = British Conservatives - ie the Tories Subject = extra-judicial drone killings / extra-judicial assassinations region = Syria legal opinion = bollocks state =  law unto itself / making it up as it goes / arbitrary definition etc dissenters - ie legal dissenters =  threat of being fired Jeremy Wright 'Legal Opinion' = charade FCO = Foreign & Commonwealth Office | Link | here FCO *UNANIMOUSLY* Advised:  ILLEGAL to INVADE IRAQ advised:  British Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith = Peter Goldsmith (Baron Goldsmith) = barrister & attorney-general = announced resignation same day as Tony BLAIR stepped down = currently works in private capacity Link | here Jack STRAW Sought Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith dismissal of FCO chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood Jack STRAW Anglican Labour Cabinet - Gordon govt Cabinet - Blair govt Cabinet = 1997-2010 *Home Secretary - internal affairs; immigration *Foreign Secretary - foreign relations & intelligence Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith = refused to fire:  FCO chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood Tony Blair = Sent Goldsmith Washington George Bush lawyers = write 'legal opinion' = for Lord Goldsmith, British Attorney-General to SIGN Elizabeth Wilmshurst Deputy of Sir Michael Wood (ie the FCO chief Legal Adviser) = RESIGNS in protest As result: Jack STRAW + Tony BLAIR decide to break with tradition for first time EVER FCO chief adviser to be appointed from OUTSIDE the FCO (not from the FCO legal advisers, who had ALL declared war on IRAQ to be illegal) Jack STRAW + Tony BLAIR turn to: DANIEL BETHLEHEM =  Benjamin Netanyahu 'favourite lawyer' DANIEL BETHLEHEM = extreme Zionist militarist = extremist pre-emptive 'self-defence' doctrine = such pre-emptive doctrine: not accepted by vast majority of international lawyers DANIEL BETHLEHEM = legal opinion that legal to build Wall built = on ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED LAND (surrounding& isolating all major Palestinian communities & turning them into large prisons) DANIEL BETHLEHEM = close to:  MARK REGEV Israel new Ambassador to UK DOCTRINE Daniel Bethlehem developed in work for Israel = right of STATES to use PRE-EMPTIVE 'self-defence' DANIEL BETHLEHEM = de facto defended attack on IRAQ & the BUSH-BLAIR DOCTRINE (previously written by BUSH admin lawyers for  Peter Goldsmith, Attorney-General, Britain) KEY to DANIEL BETHLEHEM DOCTRINE - STATES - 'self-defence' - 'further imminent attacks' - 'IMMINENT'  [arbitrary & accepted on the go to fit whatever circumstances develop as 'new'] - no specific EVIDENCE - no precise NATURE of attack RESULT no EVIDENCE required arbitrary: make up definitions, as you will Stretch definition of 'imminent' threat legalise state extra-judiciary assassinations DANIEL BETHLEHEM = was appointed to FCO = by Jack STRAW & John BLAIR DANIEL BETHLEHEM =  leaves FCO, 2011 Britain's BETHLEHEM DOCTRINE = firmly set British government doctrine = all FCO legal advisers know to follow it or get sacked JEREMY WRIGHT = legal opinion PRECISELY SAME as DANIEL BETHLEHEM legal opinion BETHLEHEM DOCTRINE = not even accepted under international law = what constitutes 'imminent armed attack' is arbitrary *BETHLEHEM DOCTRINE attempts to "develop the concept of 'imminent' beyond natural interpretation of word" DANIEL BETHLEHEM = was appointed by New Labour (Red Tories) - ie Labour Party, UK = appointed PRECISELY because they knew WHAT legal opinion would be given JEREMY WRIGHT = pretends to give legal opinion = ACTUALLY from FCO legal advisers,  BASED on BETHLEHEM DOCTRINE Labour Party UK ...  PRETENDS to be in 'opposition' Meanwhile: PRESS | MEDIA IN DEMOCRACY 'OPPOSITION' PRESS THE GUARDIAN = 'opposition' intellectual press outlet = publishes articles by "its staff neo-con propagandists"  [see propagandists] = strongly SUPPORT govt NEW POWERS OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL EXECUTION OTHER PRESS BBC =  wall-to-wall justification broadcast, for extra-judicial killings Sky News =  wall-to-wall justification broadcast, for extra-judicial killings MURRAY’S CONCLUSION MEDIA  >   closely in step with its neo-con government =   seamlessly adopts new power kill state subjects =   based on secret intel & secret legal advice Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

Parmenides' Fallacy

---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------  Parmenides' Fallacy COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Parmenides a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher born in Italy; held the metaphysical view that being is the basic substance and ultimate reality of which all things are composed; said that motion and change are sensory illusions (5th century BC) SOURCE | ABOVE http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Parmenides ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE | BELOW Forbes Margie Warrell Contributor Book:  Stop Playing Safe http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/19/the-parmenides-fallacy-are-you-ignoring-the-cost-of-inaction/  EXTRACTS / SUMMARY Bad situation indecision = stuck with status quo hoping things get better (but they get worse) Human beings are neurologically wired to: over-estimate the size of risks under-estimate our ability to handle them downplay the costs of inaction "... by choosing not to make a change or take a chance ... you can wind up incurring steep costs, in ways you can’t possibly foresee from where you are right now" [ REFERS TO ] "Professor Philip Bobbit from the University of Texas has even given a name to the human tendency to assume the present situation will remain the same. He calls it ‘Parmenides Fallacy,’ after the misguided Greek philosopher who argued that the world was static and that all change was an illusion." result:  "drives us to stick with the status quo – even one we dislike" "Parmenides Fallacy serves as a reminder to not to kid ourselves; choosing to do nothing..." SOURCE | ABOVE Forbes Margie Warrell Contributor Book:  Stop Playing Safe http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/03/19/the-parmenides-fallacy-are-you-ignoring-the-cost-of-inaction/  Margie Warrell Error 404 - page not found http://margiewarrell.com/stopplayinsafe Margie Warrell "an international thought leader in human potential" "professional background in Fortune 500 business, psychology, and coaching" "Her clients include NASA, British Telecom, Oracle, Body Shop, PWC and the Australian Federal Police." "bestselling author, Forbes Columnist  ..." " ... sought out by leading media outlets such as The Today Show, FOX News, CNBC and Al Jazeera, Psychology Today and Wall Street Journal. She is also a regular contributor on Australia’s ABC News Breakfast and Sunrise.    ...  international media outlets from the Wall Street Journal to The Today Show. She is also regular commentator on Australia’s Sunrise and ABC News Breakfast." http://margiewarrell.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW Aakash "I am a speck of dust in this universe, who is going to create a whole new universe someday." http://logically-illogical.blogspot.com/2008/02/parmenides-fallacy.html Parmenides' Fallacy All our decisions are generally based upon the measurement of the future benefits that can be drawn by making that decision. How will it make us better of than what we presently are. This is the fundamental clause in the decision making of most of the managers while making any investment. But what is interesting to note is that the things in the normal circumstances will constantly deteriorate in their own. So, if we don't take any decision then we might be worse off in future than what we are now. So, if the investment is made then it might be that we would be worse off than now but better off than we would have been without it.  [ ... ] SOURCE - ABOVE Aakash "I am a speck of dust in this universe, who is going to create a whole new universe someday." http://logically-illogical.blogspot.com/2008/02/parmenides-fallacy.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW Opinion, NYT Today's War Is Against Tomorrow's Iraq By PHILIP BOBBITT Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas Published: March 10, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html EXTRACTS ONLY President Bush has again made his case for war against Iraq, and again his primary argument is the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to America. The president's critics are quick to point out that the Central Intelligence Agency and other experts feel that, for the moment, Saddam Hussein is unlikely to conduct terrorist attacks against America. However, they warn us, if an invasion threatens his regime, his agents or his extremist sympathizers might well attack us — possibly even using weapons of mass destruction. So is it really a good idea to press ahead with regime change? Aren't we better off now than we would be if we invade Iraq and risk setting off a dreadful response? These are natural questions, but they are neither logical nor helpful. They are a prime example in our public discourse of what might be called "Parmenides' Fallacy" — named after the Greek philosopher who held that all change was illusion. This fallacy occurs when one tries to assess a future state of affairs by measuring it against the present, as opposed to comparing it to other possible futures. Let me give a famous example of Parmenides' Fallacy in operation. [...] So, as we look to the future, we must stop debating whether invading Iraq will result in our being worse down the line than we are right now. We do not have the option of holding time still — which exposes the biggest flaw in the "Why Rush to War?" argument. The urgency lies in the fact that every day Saddam Hussein stays in power he grows richer, the global terrorist network to which he has access plans further atrocities and (international inspections notwithstanding) the chance of his acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons grows. To avoid Parmenides' Fallacy, the question we must ask is: Will we be better off in the future if we invade Iraq or if we do not invade? [ ... ] We should also consider the future of the Iraqi civilians. Yes, they would suffer the horrors of war in the near term, which for a time would be even worse than life under the sanctions now. But if an American-led intervention succeeded, the country's oil revenues could once again enrich its people, as well as its schools, hospitals and financial institutions. The Iraqis would be much better off after an invasion than they would be living indefinitely chained to Saddam Hussein. For us, though we live in relative tranquillity at present, we will at least be far less badly off in the future if we act now. Parmenides' Fallacy must not paralyze our imaginations, or our will. SOURCE - ABOVE Opinion, NYT Today's War Is Against Tomorrow's Iraq By PHILIP BOBBITT Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas Published: March 10, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/10/opinion/10BOBB.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- SOURCE - BELOW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt EXTRACTS |  SUMMARY Philip Bobbitt b. Texas, USA distinguished pedigree author, academic, lawyer, and public servant lectured in the United Kingdom best known for work on military strategy & constitutional law and theory Attended: Princeton University Yale Law School Oxford University graduated with an A.B. in philosophy | Princeton University in 1971 president of the Ivy Club and Chairman of the Nassau Lit. 1975 J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was Article Editor of the Yale Law Journal and taught at Yale College at Yale that he met Charles L. Black (1915–2001), who became a mentor to Bobbitt received his M.A & Ph.D. (Modern History) | University of Oxford in 1983 J.D. =  three-year law degree, Doctor Jurisprudence "... word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law." In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy of law." [Cornell Uni - example] Charles Black (professor) American scholar of constitutional law  role in the historic Brown v. Board of Education *landmark USA 1954 case* US Supreme Court declared establishment of "separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional." Impeachment: A Handbook  analysis of the law of impeachment during the Watergate scandal. served in the Army Air Corps as a teacher an associate at Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl  (now Davis, Polk & Wardwell) professor of law at the Columbia University Law School "... He had the moral courage to go against his race, his class, his social circle." "Black also co-authored The Law of Admiralty with Grant Gilmore .. ... constitutional legal scholar ... "The Law of Admiralty" is one of the most influential law books ever written in a practical area of law. Admiralty is the law of the sea, of shipping and shipping contracts, and is a functional, practical area of international law, in which uniformity of the application of law in ports throughout the world is important, and as a result it has evolved somewhat differently from other areas of federal law. "Gilmore and Black," ... so influential that it is one of the few treatises that federal admiralty and international courts cite almost as though ... a primary source of law ..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Black_%28professor%29 ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  Consitutional Law - Philip Bobbit "... believes that the Constitution's durability rests, in part, in the flexible manner in which it can be and has been interpreted since its creation. ... Bobbitt asserts that all branches of government have a duty to assess the constitutionality of their actions. 'Constitutional Fate' is a commonly used text in courses on constitutional law throughout the US." Government Service - Philip Bobbit extensively in government, for both Democratic and Republican administrations 1970s, he was Associate Counsel to President Carter  Senior director for Critical Infrastructure & senior director for Strategic Planning - Bill Clinton's presidency worked with Lloyd Cutler on the charter of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Lloyd Cutler Intelligence Commission served as White House Counsel during the Democratic administrations of Presidents Carter and Clinton Feb 2004 Lloyd Cutler  appointed to Iraq Intelligence Commission (IIC) IIC = independent panel tasked with investigating US intelligence surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the allegations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction Counselor for International Law at State Dept during George H. W. Bush administration served at National Security Council as director for Intelligence Programs National Security Council (NSC) principal forum re national security & foreign policy US President, National Security Advisors, + Cabinet officials { = part of Executive Office of President of USA} Founded by Harry S Truman 1947 - by NATIONAL SECURITY ACT b/c "felt that the diplomacy of State Dept was no longer adequate to contain the USSR" - - - Intent:  coordination & agreement among: Navy Marine Corps Army Air Force Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)  {also created in the National Security Act, 1947}  & other instruments of national security policy Function: ASSIST ON NATIONAL SECURITY & FOREIGN POLICY The Shield of Achilles - Philip Bobbit " ... 900-page work that explicates a theory, verging on philosophy, of historical change in the modern era, and a history of the development of modern constitutional and international law." "...  patterns in the (mainly modern European) history of strategic innovations, major wars, peace conferences, international diplomacy, and constitutional standards for states. Bobbitt also suggests possible future scenarios and policies appropriate to them." "The Shield of Achilles generated much interest in the diplomatic and political community.  Public officials who follow Bobbitt's works include: the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair ... the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who referred to Bobbit's book in a 2004 address to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute." Terror and Consent (2008) "... the Wars for the Twenty-first Century, which applied many of the ideas of The Shield of Achilles to the problems of wars on terror." " ... Senator John McCain praised the book as "the best book I’ve ever read on terrorism ..."  "... Henry Kissinger called Bobbitt, "perhaps the most important political philosopher today."  Tony Blair wrote of Terror and Consent:  "It may be written by an academic but it is actually required reading for political leaders."  David Cameron, the leader of the Tory party in the UK  put it on a list of summer reading for his parliamentary colleagues in 2008.  ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  In Terror & Consent, Bobbitt argued that the only justification for warfare in the 21st century was to protect human rights ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- The Garments of Court and Palace  " ... 2013, Bobbitt published a study of Niccolo Machiavelli entitled The Garments of Court and Palace: Machiavelli and the World That He Made. " "...  argues that only by understanding The Prince as one half of a constitutional treatise on the State (the other being Machiavelli's Discourses) can we reconcile the many otherwise contradictory elements of his work." [emphasises] " ... what he describes as Machiavelli’s reification [reification =error of treating something which is not concrete -eg an idea - as a concrete thing] of the state as an entity with its own reality that is not to be identified with the personal power of the prince. "... especially worth emphasizing in view of the fact that the term state is so often used ... as little more than a synonym for government." "... Bobbitt has already stressed in The Shield of Achilles how much is lost if we refuse to conceptualize the state as a distinct apparatus of power, and he now points to Machiavelli as the originator of this line of thought." "... 2004 Prospect Magazine named him One of Britain's Top 100 Public Intellectuals.  ... writes essays, typically on foreign policy, published in The New York Times, and The Guardian." SOURCE - ABOVE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- ASIDE Davis, Polk & Wardwell founded in 1849 multiple name changes international law firm HQ NYC described as:  "Tiffany's of law firms" Revenue:  $975 million (2013) John W. Davis former US Solicitor General |  1924 Democratic presidential nominee US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education represented South Carolina  |  in defence of racial segregation Davis developed close ties between the firm and: J.P. Morgan companies Guaranty Trust Company Associated Press International Paper firm represented numerous clients in the financial crisis of 2007-2008 lead counsel to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York {U.S. Treasury’s $250 billion bank capital purchase program} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Polk_%26_Wardwell ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- ꕤ