Expose US war crimes by "proceeds of crime" prosecution of former Australian PM Howard over his memoirs

The leaders of the US Alliance have yet to face war crimes trials before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for their involvements in the Iraqi Genocide (4.4 million deaths, 1990-2010) and the Afghan Genocide (4.9 million deaths, 2001-2003).

However Australian Guantanamo Bay prisoner David Hicks (who has committed no offences against Australian or International law) is reportedly under investigation by Australian authorities for a possible “proceeds of crimes” prosecution over the publication of his memoirs “Guantanamo: my journey”.

Judicial exposure of US Alliance war crimes can be achieved if Australian PM John Howard, who committed Australia to the illegal invasion of Iraq, is prosecuted for “proceeds of crime” over his recently published memoirs.

David Hicks is an Australian who converted to Islam, trained with fundamentalist Muslim forces in Afghanistan and was captured unarmed after the illegal US invasion of Afghanistan. He was subsequently anally penetrated and tortured and then abusively imprisoned for 5 years at Guantanamo Bay, US-occupied Cuba (mostly in solitary confinement).

He became a UK citizen in 2006 despite UK government opposition and refusal to demand his release from Guantanamo Bay (as it has successfully done for other UK prisoners there). The UK Government subsequently revoked his UK citizenship. Hicks’ abusive imprisonment without trial by the US authorities drew criticism from many decent Australians.

In order to secure release from highly abusive imprisonment, in mid-2007 Hicks pleaded guilty to a charge of “providing material support for terrorism” before a US Military Commission Court, was returned to Australia and served out the remaining nine months of a suspended seven-year sentence in Adelaide’s Yatala Labour Prison where he was kept in solitary confinement in the state’s highest-security ward, G Division.

Hicks was released from prison under a control order on 29 December 2007. The control order expired in December 2008. In 2010 Random House Australia published the personal memoirs of David Hicks entitled “Guantanamo: My Journey” (see “David Hicks”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks ).

However publication of David Hicks book immediately drew calls for criminal investigation under Australia’s laws prohibiting the making of any profit from crime.

According to Professor George Williams, a public law expert at the University of New South Wales: “Well you can’t proceed unless you actually know that David Hicks is profiting. Unless that can be shown then there’s no basis to make an order against him.” And the Australia Federal Police won’t comment (see “Hicks to release book despite proceeds of crime laws”, The World Today, ABC TV, 24 September 2010: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/co... ).

“Guantanamo: My Journey” by David Hicks was released in October 2010 (see Readings: http://www.readings.com.au/product/... ). Right wing politicians have asserted that the book publication may not just violate the proceeds of crime laws but may also violate the terms of the plea bargain with the US Government. Thus Labor senator Joe Ludwig, representing Attorney-General Robert McClelland, confirmed the matter was now being investigated by the AFP ahead of possible action by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP): "The Australian Federal Police is making further enquires to enable it to determine whether and what action is to be taken in relation to this matter" (see “AFP investigating Hicks book”, The Age, 28 October 2010: http://www.theage.com.au/national/a... ).

It must be remembered in all of this that David Hicks did not violate any Australian or International laws and only pleaded guilty to US charges to terminate 5 years of highly abusive imprisonment without trial and torture by war criminal US authorities.

However the case raises the possibility of a novel avenue for justice being meted out to war criminal leaders of the US Coalition involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq, specifically George W. Bush and John Howard, who have recently published their memoirs and Tony Blair (who is writing his memoirs).

All are unapologetic for their illegal invasion of Iraq and the horrendous consequences of 7 years of genocidal war (post-invasion violent deaths and non-violent avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation now total 2.5 million) (see “Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide: https://sites.google.com/site/iraqi...).

In the UK and Australia criminals are prosecuted if they benefit from the “Proceeds of Crime” e.g. from book royalties. Tony Blair has side-stepped this issue by donating his 4 million pound advance and all future royalties to injured veterans, but unless John Howard has taken similar steps with royalties from his recently published memoir “Lazarus Rising”, he is up for prosecution.

However, more importantly, the prosecution of John Howard under “Proceeds of Crime” legislation (passed by his own Government in 2002) would provide a public, judicial vehicle for exposure of the war crimes of the US Coalition as a whole in both Occupied Iraq (post-invasion deaths 2.5 million) and Occupied Afghanistan (post-invasion deaths 4.9 million).

I haven’t read John Howard’s book “Lazarus Rising” but a cursory examination of the index revealed the absence of Andrew Wilkie, the former Australian Defence Force (ADF) Lieutenant Colonel and intelligence analyst who resigned from the Office of National Assessments in 2003 just before the Australian, UK and US invasion of Iraq, stating, contrary to the view of the warmongering Americans and the Howard Government, that there was no hard evidence for the existence of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Wilkie was backed by top UN Weapons inspectors and vindicated after the US Coalition invasion – no WMD were found.

Not only was the invasion of Iraq illegal, the continuing Iraq War has had horrendous human consequences. In Occupied Iraq the post-invasion violent deaths now total 1.4 million (this estimate deriving from the research of top US medical epidemiologists and the UK ORB polling corporation; see the eminent US Just Foreign Policy: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/ ); post-invasion avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation total 1.1 million (UN Population Division data); post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.8 million; and refugees total 5 million.

However the Howard Government was also involved in Sanctions against Iraq (as were the previous Hawke and Keating Labor Governments of Australia) that were associated with 0.2 million violent Iraqi deaths in the Gulf War, 1.7 million avoidable deaths from deprivation and 1.2 million under-5 infant deaths (90% avoidable and due to deprivation). Thus the total violent deaths and avoidable deaths from deprivation in Iraq (1990-2010) total 4.4 million, under-5 infant deaths total 2.0 million and refugees total 5 million – an Iraqi Holocaust similar in magnitude to the death toll of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) and an Iraqi Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention.

The Howard Government was also involved in the Afghan War that has been associated, so far, with post-invasion violent deaths of about 1 million, post-invasion non-violent avoidable deaths from deprivation totaling 3.7 million, post-invasion under-5 infant deaths totalling 2.6 million and refugees totaling over 3 million – an Afghan Holocaust and an Afghan Genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention (see “Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/afgha...).

The huge non-violent avoidable deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely due to egregious US Coalition violation of the Geneva Convention which demands that an Occupier must provide life-sustaining requisites to the Conquered Subjects “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”. The US Coalition is composed of some of the World’s richest nations yet WHO informs us that the annual per capita total health expenditure permitted by the Occupiers in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan is US$124 and US$29, respectively, as compared to US$3,122 in Occupier Australia.

As recently as several weeks ago Howard was unrepentant over the invasion of Iraq (see “Howard’s war – why he committed Australian troops to Iraq”, New Zealand Herald, 30 October 2010: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new... ), stating that “[existence of Iraqi WMDs was] reasonably entertained …Even more importantly, it was a legitimate act of anticipatory self-defence against future terrorist facilitations by a regime which had a track record of both regional aggressions and support for terrorist activities .. It was neither unreasonable nor implausible of the Americans to believe that WMDs possessed by Iraq might, at some time in the future, be handed to a terrorist group for use against the United States or others, with horrific consequences."

However the testimonies of other important political figures are damning. Here is a sample of opinions of some conservative politicians.

John Valder, President of the Australian Liberal Party, Howard’s own party (2004): “Bush, Blair, and Howard, as leaders of the three members of the coalition of the willing, inflicted enormous suffering on the people of Iraq. And, as such, they are criminals. I believe the only deterrent to a repetition of the Iraq situation is punishment in some form as war criminals" (see “Howard is a war criminal, says former colleague”, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July 2004: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004...).

Senator Nick Minchin, leading Liberal member of the Howard Liberal-National Party Coalition Government (2010): “I regret we were not able to be more successful in persuading the Bush administration to remain focused on Afghanistan rather than open another front in Iraq… The debacle that ensued in Iraq has made the vital campaign in Afghanistan more protracted and more difficult…My admiration for Powell was immense, my doubts about Rumsfeld were deep. I earnestly hoped that Powell would win that internal battle and that the US would refrain from pre-emptive action in Iraq…Rather than the US and it allies focusing all their energies and resources on Afghanistan, Iraq became a massive diversion” (see “US was wrong to invade Iraq, says Minchin”, Yahoo 7 News, 28 October 2010: http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland...).

Nick Clegg, UK Deputy PM to the UK House of Commons (2010): “I am happy to account for everything that we are doing in this coalition government, a coalition government which has brought together two parties working in the national interest to sort out the mess that he [Jack Straw] left behind. Maybe one day, and perhaps we’ll have to wait for his [Straw’s] memoirs, he could account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all, which is the illegal invasion of Iraq" (see “Britain’s Clegg says Iraq invasion was “illegal’:, Reuters, 21 July 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... ).

Gerhard Schröder, former German Chancellor (2010): “But this link [between 9-11 and Iraq] , as it became clear during 2002, was false and contrived. This goes for reasons [for the invasion] given by Bush and [vice president Dick] Cheney too. As we know today, the Bush administration’s reasons for the Iraq war were based on lies." (see “Schröder hits back, saying Bush lied”, The Local, 9 November 2010: http://www.thelocal.de/politics/201... ).

Bush will not be tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) because the US does not recognize its authority over Americans.

Blair may possibly face the ICC (for a scenario see the movie “The trial of Tony Blair”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tr... ) but may have evaded future prosecution for “proceeds of crime” by donating his book advance and future royalties from his memoirs to injured soldiers (see BBC , 16 August 2010: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi... ) .

Howard is unlikely to be hauled before the ICC (unless, like General Pinochet, he lands in the wrong country) but is a potential candidate for a “proceeds of crime” prosecution. Prosecution of John Howard for “proceeds of crime” would be the first comprehensive exposure of US Coalition war crimes in a transparent, public judicial process. Decent Australians must demand the “proceeds of crime” prosecution of John Howard.