Howard has always had a problem, as most political philosophers know. It is that his only sense of history is that of a neo-colonialist.

Such is shown by his refusal to agree to an official apology for our earlier treatment of the Aborigines. Truly one of the Biblical Promised Land in which the true believer has the right to do away with the unbeliever.

An ageing Cecil Rhodes wrote about it when he came to give favour for a moneyed elitist group to manage the world the way a sensible God would want.

It is why Blair and Howard naturally followed George Dubya preemptively and illegally into Iraq.

Certainly it is not a changing world, under Howard we have just slipped back again into the 19th century, the miraculous advances in technology only advancing the big political neo - free market con'.

Even Adam Smith, father of the free-market warned about it, as did Maynard Keynes when he foresaw casino capitalism.

Yet never you know, Howard could be still on the right track, but many only too glad they will not be alive still to put up with it.

The only proper way to establish if John Howard was legally right or wrong in invading Iraq is to have him formally charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes, treachery, etc. The problem is that the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth director of Public Prosecutions so far have refused to even investigate any complaints. The High Court of Australia also refused to hear the case, notably on 19 March 2003 (the day of the invasion) when I sought to pursue litigation against John Howard.
As such, John Howard is protected by them and this is where the real problem is, as this denies us to have a real democracy.
No one should be above the law, but because John Howard does not need to be charged by the authorities he continues his way of ignoring constitutional and other legal restrains.
And, by “convention” we will find this will get worse and worse unless WE, the People, finally do something about this.
As not to do anything about it only means we live in a dictatorship.

“The only proper way to establish if John Howard was legally right or wrong in invading Iraq is to have him formally charged with crimes against humanity, war crimes, treachery, etc. “ - well, hopefully, potential judges and jurors to share such an opinion.

“The High Court of Australia also refused to hear the case, notably on 19 March 2003 (the day of the invasion) when I sought to pursue litigation against John Howard” – to sue in advance if it was Iraq-related case? It seems it is really a very revolutionary approach to an issue.

I pursued the High Court of Australia to issue a Mandamus/Prohibition against John Howard not to allow Australian troops to invade Iraq on the basis that the Governor-General had not authorised such an armed invasion as he had not published a DECLARATION ON WAR in the Gazette, a constitutional requirement before the Minister of Defence, not the Prime Minister, can authorise troops to invade another country. Without a DECLARATION OF WAR it is TREACHERY, see also Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth).

The constitution is the superior law of Australians, and not even the Federal Government can ignore this, even so John Howard did, and therefore we must hold him and his cohorts accountable before the Courts.

No one is above the law!

Australian Constitution? Thank you for reminding.
There is a difference between “invasion” and “pacifying mission”.

Let’s improve our English by playing words.