Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt, a most successful barrister deigns to talk about morality. Wasn’t it a group of barristers who needed pushing and prodding by the ATO to lodge tax returns for the many years they had failed to do so? It got to the stage where special legislation threatening disbarment was needed. And even though some barristers were barred they continue to practice because of pending appeals. If that harlequinade wasn’t enough, some of those barristers declared themselves bankrupt to avoid paying millions of dollars of tax owed to the ATO (that’s us, the poor dumb unwashed).

A barrister talking about morality; that makes about as much sense as that bloke who made reference to turkeys voting for an early Christmas.

The invasion of iraq was not illegal. QED

Hey Sage, how about answering her arguments instead of making comments about what she does for a living?

Wow. Illegal means immoral? I know which school of legal philosophy you belong to. The wrong one.

Lets just look back in history a little...

Martin Luther King....immoral
Ghandi...Immoral
Nelson Mandela...immoral.

Great philosophy you got there...

The Iraqi war was not legal by any means,it will be interesting to see how the political parties attempt to try & cover themselves.The UN said NO,that WMD's had not been found.Why did Australia or I should say the liberal party go against the UN & the laws of our country,we where not under attack?Many times I have heard Mr H say he speaks on behalf of all Australians,I find this insulting & untrue.Will these leaders be taken up before the Haig for their misdeeds or will it be a matter of two sets of rules?

What is interesting is that many who OPPOSE current policy in Iraq also fail to mention "the serious breach of international law engaged in by Australia, the USA, the UK and others who so willingly followed the “lead” of the US administration" and base their critique on purely instrumental grounds

As oppossed to what, legal invasion?

Morality is subjective. Some people regard abortion as immoral, some do not make that distinction. It doesnt seem to effect the legal standing of it in this country.

Legal? So a bunch of people who agree with each other and authorise each other, pump out words, paper and wax seals to justify what they do.

Big deal.

Silly premise, silly article.

Dr Jocelynne A ought perhaps consider what is constitutionally applicable before writing an article.

On 6-7-2006 published book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

I then filed this as evidence in my succesful appeals which were heard on 19 July 2006 and succeeded on all constitutional grounds.

See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog
http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

You see, as I placed before the Court John Howard had no position to authorize any armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq and within Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) committed TREACHERY.
Likewise so his cohorts.

Therefore, it is irrelevant then what International Law may or may not dictate, Australian troops in the first place were unconstitutionally/illegal in Iraq and for this should be withdrawn immediately.

And, those who authorized/supported/participated in this invasion into another sovereign nation unconstitutionally should be charged and made to answer before the Courts.

The issue then is not if for humanitarian reasons we should assist Iraqi’s but that as we unconstitutionally invaded their country we are obligates to provide appropriate restitution.

Only when we apply DUE PROCESS OF LAW against those who were involved in the murder of so many innocent people can we avoid a repeat.

It doesn’t matter if the UN had or had not authorized an armed invasion, as even if it had only the Governor-General had the prerogative powers, on behalf of the Queen, to declare WAR or PEACE, by publishing it in the Gazette.
The then Governor-General Peter Hollingworth refused to DECLARE WAR.
I lodged on 18 March 2003 an application in the High Court of Australia seeking a Mandamus/Prohibition for Australian troops to invade Iraq, but the High Court of Australia, on 19 March 2003, the day of the invasion, refused my application within section 75(v) to proceed! Seems to me they were taking sides with the Government rather then remaining impartial.
I wonder if Jocelynne bothered to seek to prevent the armed invasion as I did?
I doubt it.

Collective Securities is not about waging WAR. I wish Australians would discuss "Collective Securities".... at home and abroad.

Who learnt what from Vietnam and how is it we and or the media are accused of bias because we see and react to the mindless "willful" practice of this bloodshed?

Rostow's "Take off Theory to Self-Sustained Growth" or his "Three stages of Development" re-headed and unfortunately again.... so pretentiously contrived!

As you say Jocelynne, "Humanitarian aid has no dependency upon a continuing illegal occupation of Iraq. Saving the children is not dependent upon soldiers roaming the streets. Ensuring Iraqi schools, businesses, hospitals and tertiary institutions stay open and running - and running safely - has no nexus with troops remaining in Iraq."

Calling all NGO's, everywhere? How do we ever believe anyone can assist the war torn families after this kind of poverty - violence and terror?

Danger and more distruptiveness between communities factions for years to come. Either way... this future is serious!

"...an entire country’s destruction: hundreds of thousands of citizens dead; hospitals, amenities, utilities damaged and destroyed. Not to mention the gross destruction wrought on cultural icons and artifacts, with robberies galore."

How will the children of tomorrow heal.... their parents and grandparents are scarred unsustainable, exposed worse-off by this.

A SHAMEFUL and DISGRACEFUL MESS!

http://www.miacat.com/

.

Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt is correct when she rightly argues that going to war was morally and legally wrong. The analogy is that of criminal pyromaniacs being permitted to burn, rape and torture and then demand legitimating their deeds by expecting they be given the task of putting out the fires therby manufacturing collective consent to murderous criminal activity. Of course our Prime Minister doesn’t send his offspring into the hell he is safely cocooned in the bosom of the Whitehouse working as George W Bush’s Whitehouse aid. His child is not for burning.

I would love to know what the basis is for this so-called international law? Who makes these laws? It seems to me that politicians and lawyers do so with no mandate from the people. What mandate does the UN have to make laws concerning Australia? The UN is not mentioned in our Constitution, as it did not exist when the constitution was adopted. No Australian parliament has ever been empowered to delegate powers to any external organisation. Any suggestion that the Australian people would vote in a referendum to delegate power to the UN would have me rolling in the aisles with laughter.

Democracy has always seemed an inconvenient detail for lawyers, with one article in this forum suggesting recently how a new constitution could be adopted in Australia without a referendum. All politicians and lawyers need to remember that ever since Magna Carta consent has been the basis of legitimacy for all law.

Very simply put International Law and the UN are the result of Nations coming together after WWII. After WWI the League of Nations made a first attempt. The slogan "Never Again" the senseless slaughter. For Europeans the horrors of war are not just an abstract thing that happens to others.

There is much to be critized in the UN and International Law, but at least there is the ideal that conflict can be solved with negotiation.

We in Australia carry on about our democracy and outsiders better respect our laws. Is all that just lip service? What is this idiotic slanging match re lawyers, international law etc. Are there some who secretly wish we had a Sadam Hussein who makes and dispenses law in each country? And internationally we have the USA who will tell us what is legal or not?

How can we in the so-called civilised West act enraged that Sadam Husein disregards a resolution by the UN and refuses to cooperate with demands re WMD and then ourselves disregard the UN. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and immoral. We have lost credibility as an example as an alternative way of life, that we believe in the rule of law without fear or favour.

Firstly the Constitution of our federation has been purportedly replaced with an identical constitution in the Australia Act 1986 but so that now it is no Constitution at all as we had. And, the High Court of Australia has gone along with their treasonous conduct.
That is why John Howard pursues to do as he seems fit because he can ignore what our Constitution really stands for as he now used the replacement Constitution as being below him.

plerdsus, is correct that the UN has no power over us, but again that is under our real constitution but the fake constitution now used is to change all this.

We now have that the High Court of Australia is fooling around with that one the one hand it argues (taking it out of context far too often) what the Framers of the Constitution intended but on the other hand argues about contemporary views. Well, the Framers of the Constitution made clear that if the people wanted to amend the constitution on contemporary views then they could use a Section 128 referendum to do so. So, we have the High Court of Australia hijacking our constitutional rights by making the decision without our consent!

Unless We, “the People” stop this rot it will go on and on. Today the persons may have names like David Hicks, Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez Solon, etc but others with different names will follow time and again unless We, the people, no longer allow this abuse of power by politicians and judges.

Keep in mind that our children and grandchildren are growing up seeing this disrespect of the law by politicians and judges alike and no wonder then they may end up using the same in their life, no matter we seek to avoid them doing so.

The answer is clear, We, the people, must stop this rot! No good to blame ongoing terrorist when our own politicians and judges are ending up being more of a terrorist to us then other so called terrorist.