Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Latest LIVE show

Hereward Fenton

September 13, 2014
Climb aboard the ship of truth with Hereward Fenton at the helm, as we plough through uncharted waters of geo-politics, scandals, cover-ups, war and tyranny.

Listen Live or Call In !

Recent News & Podcasts

Canadian MP Libby Davies reads 9/11 petition in Parliament

14 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6DK_jTVcA


New Democratic Party Deputy House Leader Libby Davies delivers a Parliamentary Petition signed by over 500 Canadians demanding a new 9/11 investigation, in Canada's House of Commons during Routine Proceedings at 1:10 pm on June 10, 2008

Here is the full text of the petition, available to sign at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ca...

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.

We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:

(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.

(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.

Committed to truth and accountability,

 

Senator Karen Johnson Brings 9/11 Truth to Arizona

14 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lgEpaLVjgo

June 10, 2008 will be a moment in the 9/11 Truth movement we can all look back on and be extremely proud.

For all of you who have spent countless hours reading books, watching DVD's, searching the internet, investigating what happened on 9/11, researching til 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, knowing you had to get up soon to go to work but you couldn't pull yourself away from this.

For all of you who have been ridiculed, laughed at and have been told that you are nuts. For all of you who decided that it's time to do something about the obvious lies and cover-up by our government and media.

For all of you who have stood on a street corner holding a 9/11 Truth sign and have absorbed a middle finger or heard the voice of a sheeple yelling, " GET A JOB !! "

For all of you who have sacrificed your time, energy and money to organize a speaking engagement in your home town, only to be completely ignored by the media. For all of you who have made phone calls to your local representatives, radio stations, television and print media urging them to look into 9/11.

For all of you who have experienced sleepless nights because you know something is very wrong with our country, our press and our democracy.

For all of you who have a voice, but at times go unheard or suppressed. For all of you who stand up when it's uncomfortable, when it's inconvenient or when it's down right hard to do so.

For all of you who stood by Blair and cheered him on.

For all of you who continue to ASK QUESTIONS AND DEMAND ANSWERS.

For all of you who wish you had a State Senator who could be your voice for you. For all of you who know that there is only one Senator from Arizona who stands for the Truth and it's not John McCain. It's Karen Johnson !! For all of you who work to achieve accountability for the victims of 9/11 and their families and for all of you who know 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, this is for you.

Thanks for your support over the last 16 days. These days will always belong to all of us.

High quality video available here:
http://911blogger.com/node/16064

Khalid Sheik Mohammed makes first court appearence

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.smh.com.au/news...2008/06/06/1212259043000.html


Does my nose look big in this? … Janet Hamlin's courtroom sketch of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and, left, the FBI photo of Mohammed after his capture in Pakistan in 2003.William Glaberson in Guantanamo Bay
June 7, 2008

WHEN at last he got the chance to speak, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, called President George Bush a crusader and ridiculed the Guantanamo trial system as an inquisition.

Mohammed, the former senior al-Qaeda operations chief, said he would represent himself and dared the tribunal to put him to death.

"This is what I want," he told a military judge in his first appearance to answer war crimes charges for the terrorism attacks that killed 2973 people and set America on a path to war.

"I'm looking to be martyr for long time," he said in serviceable English, improved, perhaps, by five years of custody, including three in secret CIA prisons.

The arraignment on Thursday of Mohammed and four other detainees the US Government says were high-level co-ordinators of the September 11 attacks was the start of hearings in the case, which is the centrepiece of the Bush Administration's war crimes system.

But it was also the first public appearance by Mohammed, who has long cast himself in the role of super-terrorist, claiming credit in the past not only for the 2001 plot, but for about 30 others, including the murder of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter in Pakistan.

Mohammed worked to get as much control as possible over the proceedings. Peering through big, black-rimmed glasses and sporting a bushy grey beard, he rejected US lawyers as agents of the Bush Administration's "crusade war against Islamic world," saying he would represent himself. He said the lawyers could stay to help him as advisers.

By day's end, each of Mohammed's four co-defendants had said he wanted to represent himself. That could turn the trial into a jumble of rhetoric and a new opportunity for critics to attack the Guantanamo system as designed to get easy convictions.

The judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, agreed to permit three of the men to represent themselves. But in the case of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was to have been one of the hijackers, he said he wanted to further investigate a report from a military lawyer that Binalshibh has been on psychotropic medication.

When Colonel Kohlmann asked Binalshibh why he was taking the medication, security officials cut the sound fed to reporters in a glassed-in gallery and a media centre. It was one of several times when a national security consultant cut the sound when detainees appeared to be discussing what several of them said had been years of torture.

Mohammed managed to get the reference through the censor twice. "After torturing" he said, "they transfer us to Inquisition land in Guantanamo."

CIA officials have said that Mohammed was one of three detainees subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Mohammed looked lean compared with the photo taken of him after his 2003 capture. He chanted verses in Arabic and then translated them into English, and he vied with Colonel Kohlmann for control of the courtroom.

All five accused men were held in the secret CIA program and transferred to Guantanamo to face charges in the military commission system.

The New York Times


Free Bees - 9/11’s a Lie (Stayin’ Alive)

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdnq6IWWSA

 

The 'Free Bees' are looking for help in spreading their '9/11's a lie' music video and song far and wide. Reluctantly they have decided that even though they're extremely proud of the work, they are releasing it anonymously.

They believe that this music video has the potential to reach a large audience and as a work of infotainment is amusing, informative and thought provoking.

Regardless of your personal music taste please help spread this music video and song around.

Find us on:
www.myspace.com/free_bees
www.myspace.com/officialfreebees

LYRICS:

Well you can tell
By the way the buildings fell
There was something wrong
Now it's time to tell
Spread the word it's nothing new
You've gotta educate yourself in truth
Well it's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
We can help you understand
The New York Times effect on man

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

Well we can't give in we can't let go
If we wanna see some justice flow
It's time for us to make a stand
And together we can end this plan
It's not alright, it's not okay
For you to look the other way
The wars they fight, just ain't right
I don't know how they sleep at night

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah
9/11's a lie

We're getting stronger
Won't take much longer
The truth will set us free
Let's break our silence
No need for violence
Become the change we want to see
9/11 was an inside job
9/11 was an inside job

We need a peaceful revolution
We need to know we have a choice
We've let them get away with murder
It's time for us to find our voice

Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Neo-cons are shaking
The world has started waking
9/11's a lie
9/11's a lie
Ah ah ah ah


TNRA 06 June 2008

June 6, 2008, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

09 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 2

Categories: [ Australia ]

Tonight's show leads with the breaking story of the Australian government's plan to form an Asian Union. We discuss the implications of such a development for our national sovereignty and civil rights.

The top-down, autocratic approach to the creation of an Asian Union has similarities with the North American Union, as outlined in the following excerpt from the film Zeitgeist:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

In the second part of the show we discuss the recent publication by the ABC of an article by Hereward Fenton, "9/11 Unanswered Questions". The article received a deluge of mostly positive comment until it was arbitrarily closed for comment after just two days, amid claims that the article was the subject of a "campaign". The article was followed by two rebuttal pieces, which are analysed in this edition of TNRA: Conspiracy Theory Lunacy by Hugh Tobin, and The Philosophy of Conspiracy by David Coady. The language and tone of these articles is deconstructed.

After the break we take look at the global food crisis, and Josh Jackson gives us his analysis of the way in which the crisis has been artificially created and manipulated.

In the final segment we return to examine the ABC - this time in regard to a controversy over a childrens' game, The Planet Slayer, which uses gruesome imagery and death threats to hype the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

The game begins with the cheery message: "Find out when you should die".

ABC tells children when to die

On the next screen the kids are greeted with "how big a a greenhouse pig are you?" and told to click on a skull and cross-bones to find out when they should die so as not to use more than their fair share of Earth's resources:

How big a greenhouse pig are you?

We take good long look at the psychology behind this game, which has suddenly sparked interest from the media and questions in the Senate.

Please leave us a comment and stay tuned for more shows.

Aimee Allen’s *Unofficial* Ron Paul Revolution Video

08 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCKMTo210k

 

see also:


Singer & Songwriter Aimee Allen on the Alex Jones Show

Aimee Allen: Revolution Video (2002) Blocked by US Government



from Aimee Allen:

 

Contact Aimee Allen: www.myspace.com/aimeeallen

I'm putting the "unofficial video" up on my page in honor of the cause...and due to popular demand.

I've tried and failed to get it removed from the internet because the director and myself and all the people involved including the editor were not even close to having it completed.


I want to have the credits up and the thank you's because the person that stole this footage and leaked it didn't have the courtesy to do so.


Full Brief of Evidence in Relation to War Crimes Allegations against the former Australian Prime Min

06 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

To download the full brief, click here.
website: www.iccaction.com
contact: Glenn Floyd (http://floydaubrey.com)

The Prosecutor Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo,
The International Criminal Court,
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague,
The Netherlands

Re: War Crimes Allegations: Introduction

4 June 2008

Dear Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, pursuant to the initial report to you of 22 November 2007, this ‘Brief Of Evidence’ is furnished for your further consideration under the provisions of the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part IV, Article 42, 1, http://www.un.org/icc/part4.htm  as persuasive, relevant substantiated evidence, supporting allegations of war crimes committed as defined within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, those war crimes are alleged as committed by the unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq. Specific war crimes alleged are the loss of life and injury to Iraqi civilians detailed herein and on public record, and damage to civilian objects and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment of Iraq. The alleged war crimes identified directly arise from the self titled ‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’ excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq as its optional but direct response choice; to its untested assertions of the republic of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s).

The submission is forwarded for your examination in support of specific and articulable facts and inferences that John Winston Howard Of Milner Crescent Wollstonecraft NSW Australia 2065, in respect of his express personal, executive order to commit Australian Defence Forces in direct support of the armed attack and invasion of Iraq; on and after 20 March 2003, caused significant deaths and injury to Iraqi civilians and widespread destruction of property and the natural environment of Iraq. It is therefore stated, that by this express personal executive decision and action, John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes by ‘the conduct’ of such an ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ armed attack and invasion. The allegation is made that the ‘excessively lethal’ nature, and the unwarranted ‘conduct itself’, of this armed attack and invasion upon Iraq; is a commission of war crimes.

In alleging the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal nature’ of the armed attack and invasion is in itself ‘criminal conduct’, it is stated it was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. Accordingly, ‘during this unwarranted and excessively lethal action’; John Winston Howard is alleged to have committed war crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm .

The case and evidence herein presented, relies on the claim at international law under the provisions of this statute; the ‘actual conduct’ of the action itself, as a reasonable option, is alleged as ‘criminal conduct’. That is to say, the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal conduct itself’ of such an attack by way of its questionable necessity, reasonableness, severity and impact, violated the ICC Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv).

The violation is alleged because the clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal decision and conduct was applied when Iraq had both declared it had no WMD’s and in good faith, to prove the facts of these untested assertions of possessing WMD’s, Iraq lawfully complied with the existing Security Council Resolution 1441(2002) inspections measures to prove the factuality of both this untested assertion and Iraq’s lawful declaration. In addition, Iraq being a totally economically and militarily broken country since the 1991 Gulf War; was not capable of disobeying any directives of the U.N. Security Council. It lawfully complied as obliged and as demanded.

Iraq’s non-functioning economy was ruined after its military collapse since the 1991 Gulf War, when a massive coalition force of 38 countries delivered the absolute destruction of Iraq, where only one hundred hours after the Gulf War ground campaign started, President Bush fulfilling U.N. Resolutions declared "Kuwait is liberated" and Iraq's army defeated” http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9D0CE0DB1638F93BA15751C0A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
 . In this major military exercise 11 of Iraq's 26 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed and damaged, causing electricity production collapse to four percent capacity. Infrastructure was almost non-existent with the destruction of the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations and sewerage treatment plants, which all turned Iraq from one of the most advanced Arab countries into one of the most backward, where telecoms equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, roads, railroads and bridges were also destroyed. In addition, the parlous state of the entire societal workings of the Iraq republic at all levels was evident, and brought to further draconian collapse by the effective authorised U.N. economic sanctions, operating for over the following 12 years.

Iraq was utterly broken as a nation and Iraq lawfully declared it had no WMD’s as demanded by the U.N., further, the untested assertions of Iraq possessing WMD’s was being fully proven out by Security Council enforced authorised inspections Iraq had lawfully complied with. There was no case whatsoever for such a clearly unwarranted, and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion, this conduct was clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. (See definitions of ‘Excessive’ pp12 to 13).

WAR CRIMES VIOLATIONS DEFINED.

War crimes as defined under the International Criminal Court Rome Statute Part II Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Applicable Law Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm .

relevant statute ‘explicitly and clearly states’ a war crimes violation occurs when:

For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means: Inter alia,

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the

Established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment -which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Although the specific and articulable facts and inferences herein also presents compelling evidence that the decision and action are in themselves both unlawful and illegal, the case and evidence presented, does not rely ‘on the unlawfulness and illegality of the decision to commit an armed attack and invasion of Iraq’, nor does it rely on the ‘unlawfulness and illegality of the action of actually committing or assisting to commit the armed attack and invasion of Iraq’. Those matters of decision and action, although clearly unlawful and illegal, do not constitute material evidence of fact or commission of war crimes within the ICC jurisdiction, as it is understood the ICC has no powers to investigate lawfulness or illegality of any military actions within the provisions of The Rome Statute.

It is the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this attack and invasion defined under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv), which is the subject of war crimes allegations. However, the ‘unlawfulness and illegality’ of both the decision and action, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘excessive’ as ‘reasonable conduct’, when considering the potential impact of available options in achieving the stated aim of ‘proving the facts’ of untested assertions of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. Consequently, the ‘unlawfulness’ has compelling direct bearing on the ‘excessiveness’ of the conduct itself of the attack and invasion; as it ‘utterly removes all grounds’ for any level of military action whatsoever, being justified in any way.

ARMED ATTACK AND INVASION AS A REASONABLE CONDUCT OPTION:

This Brief Of Evidence therefore, fully demonstrates, the ‘entire conduct itself’ of this unwarranted and excessively lethal armed attack and invasion of Iraq ‘as reasonable conduct’ under the circumstances was ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated’. This allegation relies on the fact that the self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ forces’ openly stated rationale for attack and invasion was its untested assertion that ‘Iraq actually possessed WMD’s.

However, this matter of ‘determining the facts of the existence’ of WMD’s as asserted, was ALREADY being fully managed ‘as reasonable conduct’ by the Security Council itself. This ‘reasonable conduct’ would have reasonably and fully tested at law, the facts of this WMD’s untested assertion, without any death, injury or destruction whatsoever.

In reasonably managing this most serious matter, the Security Council being the duly recognised authority itself, in also considering this potential attack and invasion path as a possible conduct option available, (with its intrinsic ‘excessively lethal impact’), chose to not attack, and instead used its powers and functions appropriately as ‘reasonable conduct’, to manage the risks of ‘untested assertions’ of WMD’s. The Security Council formally warned Iraq of serious consequences and not only gave Iraq the chance to comply with its warning to prove the untested WMD’S assertion, it actually forced Iraq into full compliance with the agreed WMD’s inspections testing regime. It therefore acted reasonably within the binding obligations of the war crimes Article 8, 2, (b), (iv) provisions; the untested WMD’S assertion was being legitimately and fully proven without risk and without an excessively lethal attack and invasion.

LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO MANAGE THE IRAQ MATTER

Only the Security Council had the lawful authority at international law to manage this ‘untested assertion’ of WMD’s and it reasonably chose this balanced ‘non lethal’ option by ‘proving the facts’ of the WMD untested assertion through inspections testing, without applying criminal conduct of an excessively lethal armed attack and invasion. It chose this reasonable path because it felt ‘proving the facts of asserted WMD’s through such a use of excessively lethal force; clearly, was not warranted. This was a deliberate, lawful, strong, effective, balanced and humanitarian decision.

Therefore, at law, given the object of Resolution 1441 to test the assertions of WMD’s and the consequential death, injury and destruction resulting from an attack and invasion; the duly authorised authority decided armed attack and invasion would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. The self titled ‘‘Coalition-Of-The-Willing’’ however, with no authority to do so, by their decision and action have chosen and executed, the unwarranted and excessively lethal option of armed attack and invasion; alleged as criminal conduct resulting in war crimes.

Deaths and injuries to civilians and and widespread destruction of property resulting from the armed attack and invasion of Iraq are widely identified in the public domain and are specifically identified in this Brief Of Evidence. Accordingly, it is requested your office examines these claims and evidence under PART 2.  JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW Article 15 (2) and further considers under Article 15, (3) http://www.un.org/icc/part2.htm, John Winston Howard’s alleged criminal culpability for indictment and criminal prosecution.

If your analysis of this Brief Of Evidence conforms with the view that a prima facie case of war crimes (identified in this Brief Of Evidence and elsewhere), exists as alleged and it is concluded that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, it is requested you submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber; a request for authorization of an investigation in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

http://www.icc-
cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rules_of_procedure_and_Evidence_English.pdf
.

It is further requested therefore, if such investigations consequently accord with these allegations of war crimes made herein, John Winston Howard be indicted under Article 21,1 (b) seeking invocation of appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict for war crimes violations specified for prosecution for war crimes.

MATTERS OF *’UNLAWFULNESS AND ILLEGALITY’ SUBSTANTIVE TO DEFINING ‘EXCESSIVELY’ LETHAL BY UNWARRANTED ACTION:

It is previously stated the ‘unwarranted and excessively lethal’ nature of the conduct itself of this armed attack and invasion which is the subject of war crimes allegations. The unlawfulness and illegality of both the decision and action however, although not falling within the ICC war crimes jurisdiction, do have bearing on additional compelling evidence, that this decision and action was utterly ‘unwarranted’ as reasonable conduct (and therefore in this context, also excessive), in the total set of prevailing circumstances. This analysis is helpful in defining the use of the term ‘excessive’ when considering appropriate and reasonable options of conduct and the potential impact of all available options in achieving the stated aim of proving the facts of untested assertions of the existence of WMD in Iraq.

This focus is valuable because there are a wide ranging set of circumstances surrounding any behaviour in legal cases under analysis and many of them whilst not legally impinging upon defining criminality of actual decisions and actions of the case, have a direct bearing upon clear analysis of what is ‘reasonable behaviour’ (i.e. excessive behaviour), expected or obliged at law, in relation to the decisions and actions actually taken and acted upon.

There are two sides to analysis and determination of any war crimes committed under Article 8, 2, (b), (iv). They are the absolute severity of the impact of the action which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated and there is also the legal, practical and ‘moral imperatives’ which are operating. These are the factors in an enlightened society at play of the pure compelling reasons to do or not do something which has a severe impact. They consequently may be defined ‘excessive’ –simply because they are breaches of these accepted or binding imperatives and consequently affirm behaviour as unnecessary or unwarranted ‘under these specific circumstances’ and not so in others.

*A separate case is under preparation alleging the attack and invasion of Iraq is unlawful and illegal and ipso facto,

premeditated criminal conduct and/or criminal negligence.

This focus looks at any morays, ethics, values, laws, statutes, norms of behaviour that we all understand and accept as forming or defining ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour. Such focus is material to the specific facts of the case itself because it shows by certain agreed societal operands we are clearly aware of, that such behaviour is clearly excessive, unnecessary and/or unwarranted etc. If the decision and action taken was also known to be unlawful, illegal and is wholly premeditated, this provides further strong evidence the decision was unwarranted, unnecessary as well as excessively lethal. The unlawfulness and illegality of such behaviour cannot at the ICC define war crimes, however the unlawfulness compounds the actual decision and action as irrefutable evidence the premeditated behaviour was fully understood as ‘excessive, unnecessary or unwarranted’ or unreasonable behaviour at law. It therefore displays full knowledge of excessive impact ‘and under these circumstances’ shows behaviour as war crimes, because the action or ‘conduct’ clearly shows at law, in attack, ‘any’ military advantage is non-existent.

 

continued...

Howard accused of war crimes over Iraq troop deployment

04 June 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

ABC News

Posted Mon Jun 2, 2008 1:17pm AEST
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/02/2262414.htm 

 

A legal brief has been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging former prime minister John Howard committed a war crime by sending troops to Iraq.

 

A loose alliance of peace activists, lawyers, academics and politicians is behind the brief, organised by the ICC Action group in Melbourne.

 

Organiser Glen Floyd says Mr Howard should be held accountable for sending troops to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.

 

"We have produced a 52-page brief of evidence which states to the chief prosecutor of the criminal court that we allege John Howard's actions are war crimes under article 8 of the Rome Statute," he said.

 

Democrats Senator Lyn Allison says the legal brief sent to the ICC is justified.

Senator Allison, who is one of several eminent people supporting the move, says accountability is important.

 

"This action has been taken to hold those accountable for their action, so it's essentially our prime minister - he was the one at the time [who] was the executive of government, made the decision," she said.

 

'It wasn't put to the Parliament and as we all know, it turned out to be unjustified."

A similar brief has been sent by a group from the United Kingdom regarding former prime minister Tony Blair. The United States is not a signatory to the court.

 

Page 91 of 106 pages ‹ First  < 89 90 91 92 93 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments

http://youtu.be/EB5WiCZHXws 

This is one I shot. I am clearly flying for extended periods in “Chemclouds” here… yet inexplicably.. I survive….

Comments please.

By Mike Glynn on 2012 08 01 - 15:29:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Trolls should be excluded and their posts deleted.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 01 - 15:28:37
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Troll:

1. Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

2. A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.

By Hereward Fenton on 2012 08 01 - 15:23:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

No, it isn’t me. Listen to some of the other people who are posting here also, rather than just arguing with them all the time as if you know things that you don’t know.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 01 - 06:11:35
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

isn’t it you who refuses to make that first step?
Without it, there are no further steps unless you want to defy logic by somehow “moving past” and accept it as a dogma (sic!) that there are actual “chemtrails”.

By Josh on 2012 08 01 - 05:35:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

When I say “people like you” I mean people who refuse to move past the first step in the discussion.  And I can’t help you do it. You have to help yourself.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 01 - 05:26:39
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

yet you continue to add long posts and various links purportedly supporting your views ...

Oh, come on, of course you want to convince others to stop considering the “persistant contrail” question !

By Josh on 2012 08 01 - 05:12:39
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Congratulations for learning your lessons well on how to debunk chemtrails.

I may, as need arises, refer to that site, but you see my world does not revolve around persuading you, or people like you, of anything.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 08 01 - 04:59:45
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall, one more thing:

There are no “hordes of Joshes”, enforcing “the dogma that chemtrails are contrails” as you wrote.

There is one hobby pilot who may be as passionate defending reason and sanity as conspiracy believers are when they defend their ‘elite knowledge’. Why should that be unlikely?

And if there is more than one, all coming to the same conclusions, can it be that they may just have a point? Are you in fact seeing them as centrally controlled and “unleashed”?

By the way, a dogma is something that is not discussed. So by refusing to discuss the issue it is you who makes it so.

By Josh on 2012 08 01 - 04:52:46
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

This is getting sort of exhausting ...

Wayne Hall,

where is your evidence that what people are seeing in the sky are not “normal” aircraft emissions?

Again, you are just assuming this and you seem to be deaf for any argument contradicting this assumption.

You can discuss politics all day, but the issue at the core is that scientists are talking propositions, whereas you claim that there are actual ongoing deliberate (and visible) spraying/geo-engineering activities.

But there is just no evidence of that.

All those long copy/paste posts from you did not contribute the least bit of relevant evidence of trails being anything else than contrails. So please no more of that.

The one valuable source that you recommended was this one:
http://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/

I wonder if you have actually browsed through the plethora of knowledge available there ...

By Josh on 2012 08 01 - 04:26:05
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories