The following edited excerpt from Bob Ellis' essay in SMH asks why our leaders' criminal behaviour is exempt from scrutiny. i think they should be brought to account.
Excerpt.
[Those who watched] may ask: if a head of state can hang by the neck until he is dead for having ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or not punished, or failed to countermand the torture and killing of 148 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime, what will happen to the generals, bureaucrats, prime ministers and heads of state who ordered, or countenanced, or signed off on, or did not punish, or did not countermand, the killing of 150,000 Iraqis guiltless of any great crime (the Iraqi Government's estimate of the dead) and the torture of ten thousand more? And how many Americans - Bremmer, Abizaid, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Bush - should on this precedent be charged and hanged?
They may also ask… what was fair about a trial in which three of the defence lawyers were shot and those who survived forbidden to see the prosecution's testimony before it was unveiled in court, … And why this trial wasn't aborted, and another trial begun in The Hague… And why Saddam died so soon. Something to do, perhaps, with his coming genocide trials and the complicity of Germany, France, the US and Britain in the manufacture of his nerve gas, anthrax, cluster bombs and helicopter gunships, and his amiable business relationships with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush snr, once head of the CIA, in past decades, and how his genocidal methods back then did not greatly annoy them, not so long as he paid his bills.
And these are the freedoms we fought for… The freedom to ask, and not be told … what really happened,… Such were the freedoms Nixon encouraged in Chile when he helped Pinochet to censor, torture and kill those inconvenient to the many, many secrets America wanted to keep.
These are the freedoms we fought for, and will now defend in Iraq for decades if Bush and Howard, brothers-in-arms for "freedom", get their way.

Only the losers are war criminals. You continue to pose some of the most disingenous questions possible.

As for Ellis. He is a crackpot, even for the left. Just another red stooge who is happy to enjoy the protection of governments who allow him to suggest that they are war criminals.

A bit like you, really

I don't know how much fighting you, or Bob Ellis have done for us.
I know I have, & would again, fight to be rid of twits like you & Ellis. I never have been fond of those who want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Excellent point Leigh, how lucky we are to have the priviledge of free speech, and not to have to worry about being dragged off in the middle of the night for having contrary views.

Yes, Rojo. It is good to live in a country where we can say pretty much what we wish to say. But it has nothing to do with luck, as you suggest.

People have fought for what we have in Australia and, while I am not suggesting that people should be prevented from voicing stupid opinions, I take umbrage when idiots like Ellis abuse the privilege. Anyone who claims that Blair, Howard and Bush are in any way war criminals is a total idiot who would be no loss if they had the courage of their convictions and went to live among people they prefer to their own kind.

I sometimes think that Australia has much more to fear from Australians of a certain kind than it does from our enemies. There is a definite vicous, nasty fifth column in Australia, and Ellis is one of the seditous bunch. They wouldn't have the guts to rave on the way they do anywhere outside Australia or the West where they prefer to reside in the safety of a society they hate.

Hi ybgirp,

""Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

Ferencz is a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials

Leigh I'm sorry you took my poor choice of word " lucky" in the wrong context. I had no intention of demeaning those whose lives were lost or damaged in defence of our rights.

Thank you, Freethinker.
Our tax-funded politicians and their rabid supporters should contemplate the adage, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

Ybgrip “Our tax-funded politicians and their rabid supporters should contemplate the adage, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."”

Well I suggest you

Stand for election on the basis of your manifesto,

And I, as one of those rabid supporters, will decide if your manifesto is sufficient to win my vote

Then maybe you will waste more of my taxes on pursuing fatuous legal cases in courts.

I note for all the breast beating and renting of garments which goes on around these sort of “causes”, no court proceedings are every initiated.

Oh so many “talk the talk”, yet seem to lack the metal to “walk the walk”.

YBGIRP

ur right,we do reap what we sow. But think of what you are actually saying... you are apparently suggesting that all leaders should be charged with all 'crimes' which involve the deaths etc of other people.

Well my friend.. you better go to EVERY leader in the known world, including every socialist type. It would not be difficult to drag up some poor hapless soul who's death can be attributed to the leader.

In other words, you are stalking one huge load of absolute crap.
Excuse my vulgarity.....

Your comments are:

1/ Unworkable.
2/ Unrealistic.
3/ Plain stupid.
4/ Naive about history.
5/ Naive about life and human nature.

You MUST be a Lawyer, because they are the only ones who would benefit from your approach.

SEDITION ? yep.. calling our leaders criminals and deserving of war crimes punishment is quite serious, I am hereby unofficially SICKING Asio and the AFP onto your sorry ass in the hope that they will BITE it severely, and give you a dose of rabies :)

While they are at it, they can send you off to a re-education camp with lots of manual labour and forced Google time with filters which limit your net access to history alone.

C'mon mate..seriously, if you want to have a shred of credibility here, at least say stuff which is meaningful instead of loony.

Hi ybgirp,

You are welcome :-) I'm surprised how many people on these forums think that Dubya shouldn't be tried as a war criminal!

Interesting point is that weapons inspectors do not go anywhere near the US or Israel. Israel threw the weapons inspectors out in 88/89 - why didn't the US blow them to smitherins ?

Boazy: "...if you want to have a shred of credibility here, at least say stuff which is meaningful instead of loony."

What's that saying about the pot calling the kettle black?

How many shreds of credibility do you reckon you have here?

I'm convinced that half-baked academics like Ellis are on a mission to out-stupid each other. The really sad part of it is that it is tolerated by officialdom & more likely than not their mindless lives are being handsomely supported by taxpayer funded schemes approved by unaccountable bureaucrats. Well, how else could they survive ?

Um, pragma - Ellis may be many things (writer/journalist, film-maker, political commentator and speechwriter, pisspot) but as far as I'm aware he's never been an academic.

However, I think he makes a valid rhetorical point in the quotations from his essay: Bush, Blair, Howard and the other COWboys prosecuted a hopeless and fraudulent war against the decisions of the UN, which has left a soveriegn state in ruins and has killed tens of thousands of innocent people. Who is going to call them to account?

I think a show trial at the Hague would be appropriate... as if!

cj morgan, i can see your perspective but do you seriously believe that these leaders enjoy invading another country & sending their troops & innocent civillians to their deaths ? you mention the UN. if ever there was a perfect example of incompetence & fraud then the UN fits the description. I hear people say "it's all about oil." ok, that may well be. so what ? how long do you think western consumer society would last without fuel & empty supermarket shelves. you'd have total anarchy in two weeks. remember hurricane Katrina ? just imagine if the resources being used to play policeman of the world could be used for genuine disaster relief instead of having to do battle with religous fanatical factions or hierarchies who think nothing of letting their people starve to death or other victimisation. Bush, Blair & Howard had no alternative. all the idealistic gobbledeegook in the world thus far has not solved those problems. if you want do do some good just remember the age-old & proven sayings- you've got to be cruel to be kind & prevention is better than cure.

One day everyone will wake up to the fact that we are all guilty of murder even those who tongue in cheek or ignorantly claim that Mr Bush, Blair and Howard should be tried. Thank God for Jesus who became sin so we could be viewed by God as sinless. The haters of Bush, Blair and Howard somehow think that their hearts are purer than everyone elses. Why is it that their are so many self righteous experts around. There is only One Man I know of who was truely Righteous.

It's interesting that most of the responses have little to do with what Ellis actually said in the (excert from) his article but more about his right to say anything at all.

Crackpot, stooge, loony lefty, academic, non-academic and so on but not much about the body of the text.

There haven't been many leaders who don't have blood on their hands and history has shown that most have even sacrificed the lives of some of their own citizens for the benefit of the majority. I expect this trend will continue.

The mood seems to be that if it takes the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians to allow us to live in the manner in which we have become accustomed, then so be it.

Despite all the chest thumping self righteousness and post war justification that pervades these pages, it still seems like it was a very bad idea that is getting worse and will, at best, poison the next generation with the same hatreds that we havn't been able to overcome.

I think Bob Ellis has deeper and more profound thoughts than REAL stooges like like Pauline Hanson, Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt. (Winner of the UnAustralian of the Year Award - congratulations Andrew, well done.).

wobbles, to merely focus on the exact text of what some idealists write is just & if not more ignorant that those who despite 50/50 vision still can't see. the reality of it all is that people no matter where they are want more for less. be it religion or wealth or power some people are simply never satisfied. and that my lad is the cause of all the problems we have now. to accuse leaders who send troops to war to prevent even greater mayhem & call them war criminals is the height of either hypocricy or ignorance. take your pick. let's look at it this way. if the west decided not to take action now how long do you think it would be before anarchy spread across the globe ? do you think that playing ostrich is helping ? but that's exactly what the idealists are doing. they stick their heads into the sand & waffle on through their only other exposed orifice.

wobbles “It's interesting that most of the responses have little to do with what Ellis actually said in the (excert from) his article but more about his right to say anything at all.

Crackpot, stooge, loony lefty, academic, non-academic and so on but not much about the body of the text.

. . . .than REAL stooges like like Pauline Hanson, Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt. (Winner of the UnAustralian of the Year Award - congratulations Andrew, well done.).”

I think that “REAL stooges like like Pauline Hanson, Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt. (Winner of the UnAustralian of the Year Award - congratulations Andrew, well done.).”

Has little to do with the “body of the text”

and

Simply because you disagree with the views of Hanson, Jones and Bolt, it was you who brought up the right “to say anything at all.”

Now, is that 5 day old kipper or the irrepressible whiff of hypocrisy that I smell?

Actually pragma, I think the real cause of the problems we are having today is the tendency for governments to blatantly mislead and lie and for everybody to just accept their actions without question.
It's the responsibility of all citizens, particularly in a democracy, to keep their leaders under pressure to do the right thing and for the right reasons.

I can't see "anarchy spreading across the globe" from a second-rate struggling middle eastern country who posed no real threat to the west or even it's neighbours, despite the media spin it has been subjected to.

It's more likely to come from the growing global dissatisfaction of the actions of a powerful rogue state that wants to rule the world and decide who should lead each country and under what circumstances.

Or perhaps we should do what governments and religions want us to do -just keep quiet, follow orders and don't ask any questions because they know what is best for us.

Col Rouge, although I disagree with much of what Bolt et al have to say I still listen to their arguments and don't just dismiss them out of hand. Nevertheless I still feel that they have as much an agenda as anybody else but with massively greater influence. My remarks were a response to the tendency for people to play the man and not the ball when the law or the facts aren't on their side.

Hi wobbles,

You said ""It's more likely to come from the growing global dissatisfaction of the actions of a powerful rogue state that wants to rule the world and decide who should lead each country and under what circumstances""

And that is the main problem. Hussein and bin Laden were used by the US to serve 'their' purpose and once used, they were simply dismissed. How long before the 'new' people they have shuffled into power to serve their purpose before they too are dismissed ?

It has been both interesting and depressing to read the intemperate replies berating Bob Elliot [and me] for daring to expect our leaders to obey laws and behave with decency.
I realise that religious adherents are expected to obey their leader’s dictates unquestioningly – using faith instead of reason, but when did that attitude apply to our all too humanly frail elected leaders? Who decided they should be beyond the law?
Patriotism is commendable only if one’s support is for the welfare of the country, not its temporary leaders.
A leader who has no concern for the lives of innocent foreigners, will also not be too concerned about the welfare of his/her own citizens. I've been reprimanded for ‘biting the hand that fed me.’ That is stupid. I fed the politicians through my taxes.
This government has been credited on these pages with the fact that I am free to express my opinions. But this is false. It was earlier governments of Australia that tried to create a fair, just and tolerant society. This government has virtually dismantled the social security network, made it necessary to work longer hours, repealed most of the laws granting us freedom of expression and association, created concentration camps to house refugees, undermined the tenuous secularity of the state, undermined the judiciary, left one of it’s citizens to rot in a foreign concentration camp, gained office each time on the back of egregious lies, made us the lick-spittle of the U.S.A., and refuses to do anything at all about the greatest threat to life on earth – global warming.
Support them if you must, but it does you no credit.

When will Bush, Blair and Howard be tried for Crimes Against Humanity?
I will be castigated for this, but admire the Irony;

On Judgment day, so Hold your breath until then; If anything It would save Australian ; Hard Working –Thinking- and productive people some Looted billions in Legal WAFTAM’s fees.
And besides , there a a few thousand people ( And Climing) in your catagoury that will face anti intelligent charges before we weed out any other for perpetuating such stupid thoughts.

Your entire program is a war crime, and a crime against humanity.

Bravo ybgirp!

What ever happened the old Aussie ideal of "keep the bastards honest"

Whnever Bush, Blair or Howard say anything these days all I see are the nodding of the sheeples heads, like puppets on a string. People fail to understand that the 'War on Terror' is simply another means for the governments to gain more control over the people and bring back archaic laws that our ancestors fought to do away with.

Welcome back to the Dark Ages!

So let me see now. The whole point of war is to keep everyone in line. We need to attack someone, anyone, no matter who, every now and then just for the sake of it. It's sort of like sending out a message that we're still top dog and you'd better not mess around with us. Then and only then can we sit down and lick our bits.

Just the fact that Saddam was put in power by the very people who ended up taking him out sinks to high heaven.

Oh, by the way... US, Britain and Australia weren't the only countries that sent troops to Iraq.

While I enjoyed the read, I think freethinker's words as opposed to his/her moniker show anything but freethinking. Looks pretty locked up in lefty ideology and US bashing to me. All been done before mate.

Two points - I am glad I am not relying on the edifice of the UN to defend my rights. Fantastic record there. I note that Saddam himself was in breach of UN resolutions, but nobody wanted to do too much about that. In the end was tried in a court of law and judged and sentenced by his own.

Where was free thinker when the Kurds and Shiites were being murdered. Tucked comfortably in bed or postulating on a web blog probably. Nobody can be proud of the world standing by when that happened. UN is a good forum for trying to resolve differences between otherwise reasonable states, but not very effective at dealing with the bad bastards of the world.

Secondly, whatever the faults of the US and they, like us, are far from perfect, they still get to choose their leaders and vote on their leader's policies. Even freethinkers get to pass their own judgements, and I note the outcome of the recent elections.

For my money I'd rather be mates with the US and UK with all our shared foibles,flaws and democratic values than line up with the crowds the UN so often seeks to protect or for that matter people like Bob Ellis and freethinker.

I'd like to ask, when are we going to invade China for their abuses of human rights? Or is China too valuable as a target market?
Also, whatever happened to Osama, the one who was actually responsible for 911 as well as other gobal acts of terrorism. Why has he not been given his just desserts? Why is he not mentioned in the "free" media. Perhaps it's always convenient to leave at least one boogie man out there. Good bedtime stories for when we start feeling too free.

Col Rouge's point:
"Oh so many “talk the talk”, yet seem to lack the metal to “walk the walk”."
Does this mean that you support the blasting of limbs with that remark? (lack the metal) as in limb,hip and knee replacements due to war related explosions?
As with the other opinions above: Saddam needed to be hanged or culled as he had to much info on his connections with worldwide industrialists.
He was supported in setting different races and peoples against one another and so is Osama.His time will run out too for the same reasons.
Cover-up,cover-up cover-up. If found out, the Delphi method will apply to protect the basterds.

Porphyrin “I'd like to ask, when are we going to invade China for their abuses of human rights? Or is China too valuable as a target market?”

That is an extremely useful question.

The point with China is, as a nation it is well populated and has an enormous military resources at its disposal.

The start of “Détente” with China was, of all people, Richard Nixon. Nixon's visit to China represented a major shift in strategy so significant that it has been marked by having an Opera based on it.

Whilst China is despicable in its human rights record, it used to be worse (hard to believe but true).
People were forced to read and recite the thoughts of Chairman Mao everyday or be sent off to some interment camp for “Re-Education” (concentration camp).

Slowly trade is allowing the Chinese to see how other systems of government work. This exposure trickles into the cracks of a rigid, dictatorial culture and like water on limestone, slowly opens up fissures through which meaningful changes can be implemented.

It has been 15 years since China started to open up through trade and technology transfer. That it is not as “liberal” as anyone with a sense of decency would wish is understandable. However, the pace of liberalizing change is likely to achieve in one or two generations more than what the communists destroyed with their abuses.

I always thought the Russians went at “democracy” it too fast (tearing down communism and replacing it with nothing results in anarchy) and have paid for it since. Hopefully China will do better. At least they are moving in the right direction, be thankful for that.

Another post from Col with which I agree substantially. However, the reason that nobody's invaded China (whether on the pretext of human rights abuses or whatever) since WW2 is that, as Col implis, there is no army - or coalition of armies - that would have a hope in hell of succeeding. Unlike, of course, Iraq - which was incorrectly asessed as being a soft target by the COW.

That’s a good point Col, I have not heard a thing about how ; Cop the numbers here: 75 Million Of the Communist elite party- transferring their Ideology to National Socialism, and how they consider them selves to be the new Elite Supermen. Armed with weaponry, Ideology, and genetic supremacy rearing to go- and we trash our industry and kill off our farmers. Great stuff.

I actually wonder, how many other people take an interest in what is actually going on – opposed to what the Useless Idiots want you to know.

Some how I don’t think it is actually the Target market China has interest in long term - Do you?

Europe is near dead- America is weaker and distroying it self- and we trail about 14 years behind their regressive deterioration, sorry people reality has to hit home eventually.

who do we put on trial for that crime

All –“Europe is near dead- America is weaker and distroying it self- and we trail about 14 years behind their regressive deterioration, sorry people reality has to hit home eventually.”

Oh really, I would not underestimate the capacity of the developed world to maintain an edge. It might suit your fantasy to predict Europe and USA will lay-down and die but it is not going to happen, regardless of what China, any other nation state or continent or the malcontents within the democracies do or want.

Sorry, maybe I am obtuse, I would have liked to respond to the rest of your post (the 75 million bit particularly converting into fascists) but I found it all too jumbled to be able to discern what you were actually commenting on. Could you please repost with subtitles for us simple folk.

I will share this with you, it helps me to imagine political movements as arrayed on the face of a clock,

At the top of dial is when the minute hand is on the hour.
Here I see Democracy.

To the Left of democracy all the little socialists (Lenins useful idiots) hovering around ten minutes to the hour then at around 29 minutes to the hour I see communism.

At about 4 minutes past the hour I see the Australian liberals, the US democrats, the UK Conservatives
At about 5 minutes past you see the US Republicans.

At twenty nine minutes past the hour I see fascism.

The interesting thing with my clock, whilst both fascism and communism seem to be moving in opposite direction from democracy, communism and fascism end up very, very close to one another, a mere 2 minutes apart.

Both Communism and Fascism rely on the anti-democratic suppression of the individual to sustain their own versions of horror.

Think about it !

I don’t know about the fantasizing bit Col, I do not take any pleasure what so ever seeing the Modern world collapse, all be it for the egocentric morons, I hope your faith in the West can come to full fruition; But I seriously doubt it, 40 years of the useless Idiots and co-hoard’s has take a grand toll, and demographics are some what different now.

No Col, I think you hold on to a fantasy that perhaps once existed, there are not enough good people left to launch freedom as we once new it.

And if this article is not testimonial in the falling Intelligence and comprehension, then what evidence do you have to show that it will change , and how?

Ps Col;
The Chinese National Socialist mutation etc, was a speech given by the Chinese Foreign Office about 5 months ago;
The remainder of the comment should have sparked some memory cells- there should not be any attempt for self degradation , you probably did understand.
And you need a little more home work on you Ideological definitions, close, but not close enough.

As previously iterated in this place, for those of U who r unawares, the last time the equivalent of the UN was torn apart by war mongers like the anglo military alliance the world copped WWII for its trouble.

To me it is a pleasure to have individuals like *ybgirp* & *FreeThinker* in this place, and perhaps a necessary evil to have to put up with the red necked propaganda parrots like *col rouge* & *leigh*

In relation to the topic, consider this if U will:

" ... Why of course the people don't want war ...
But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

--Hermann Goering
Nazi leader at the Nuremberg Trials
following World War II

To me, that about somes up the tactics of the accused & their propaganda parrots? What do other people think?

...Adam...

Adam J Le Breton “and perhaps a necessary evil to have to put up with the red necked propaganda parrots like *col rouge* & *leigh*”

Oh thankyou, that you consider me “necessary”. It is always good to know one is valued.

Unfortunately, I do not see you in similar light. I find your posts infantile and presumptive. The sort of stuff one expects from adolescents who spend too much time anticipating foreplay.

Using “rednecked” in the same sentence as my name is a bit of tautology. I suspect the subtlety of nom-de-plumes goes right over your head.

Being reduced to quoting fat Hermann is not a good strategy, It aligns your agenda with that which was his and I don’t think you want that. Although your acclaimed acolyte ybgirp, has already started that with “created concentration camps to house refugees,”

(Hardly ybgirp, I see no medical experiments, slave labour camps or starvation rations being handed out before the internees are marched off for gassing).

And “repealed most of the laws granting us freedom of expression and association”
I request you substantiate that claim by telling us all how your right to “freedom of expression” and “free association” have been restricted in any practical way.

As for “the greatest threat to life on earth – global warming.” Oh someone has pulled it well over your eyes haven’t they.

A few years ago the greatest threat was nuclear annihilation.

Now that was a real “threat” and not one invented by a bunch of scientific hacks clamouring for public research funding.

Fortunately the U.S.A., (the ones we are the lick-spittle of) through Ronald Reagan and his successors oversaw the collapse of USSR.

Speaking of USSR, they knew how to run concentration camps (read Solzhenitsyn) and how to really crush “freedom of expression and association” but I doubt you were old enough to remember those times. Probably getting burped and diapered or still a “twinkle in some ones eye”.

ybgirp: I'm with you all the way,because you seem to be on the right track for gathering and understanding global knowledge unlike others on this forum.
For those "knitpickers",here is another article you can demolish,that is if you are capable of cruising to the end of the arcticle.
Do not take offence if this does not apply to you:-)
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/ad_archive/english.html
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/open_letters/pharma_laws_history.html#rockefeller