Citizens Arrest of Attorney-General Philip Ruddock as a War Criminal
A peace activist attempted a citizens arrest of Attorney General Philip Ruddock as a war criminal at a legal conference at the University of NSW on July 5. As Philip Ruddock was about to address a symposium on Law Liberty & the War on Terror, Peter McGregor confronted Ruddock with a formal Warrant, charging him with various war crimes.
Peter McGregor, a retired academic from Newvastle, was himself then arrested, & charged with disruption of the symposium, & refusing to leave when asked. McGregor also had criticized University of NSW, the Law Faculty, & all present, for welcoming such a war criminal.
"Ruddock’s abandoning of Habeas Corpus, as both Minister for Immigration, & Attorney-General, should make him a social pariah, & especially with academics & those who believe in the rule of law & human rights. In order for evil to triumph, it is enough for good people to do nothing." McGregor said in a statement.
According to the NSW Police Facts Sheet; 5th July, 2007 :
“On Thurs 5th July 2007 the Accused attended the conference at the UNSW… the Accused has stood up after the introduction on Attorney General Philip Ruddock & began to yell out abuse claiming that Mr. Ruddock was a war crimes offender & the Accused tried to effect a citizens arrest of Mr. Ruddock. The Accused was stopped by NSW Police, & was escorted from the lecture theatre… the Event Co-Ordinator Dr. Andrew Lynch (Faculty of Law, UNSW) informed the Accused that his permit to attend the conference had been removed… The Accused stated to police that he would continue to re-enter the ground it they left… The Accused was charged… & is to appear at the Waverley Local Court as 9.30 am on 25 July 2007.“
The following day, July 6, a report was given to the conference on the arrest of Peter McGregor. There was a request from some attendees that the organisers contact the police and ask that no criminal charges proceed.
The citizens arrest warrant reads in full:
Warrant for the Citizens Arrest of John Howard, Alexander Downer, Philip Ruddock, & Brendan Nelson:
John Howard, Prime Minister; Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Philip Ruddock, Attorney-General; & Brendan Nelson, Minister for Defence are hereby charged, to be trial by the International Criminal Court, with:
(1) Planning, preparing, initiation or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances – VI (i) Nuremburg Principles
(2) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of the above – V (ii) Nuremburg Principles
(3) Participating in the use of cluster bombs in contravention of the AUSTRALIAN MINES CONVENTION ACT, 1998
(4) Participating in the use of weapons of mass destruction in breach of the GENEVA Convention including Fuel Air Explosives which cause death by asphyxiation
(5) Conspiring to subvert the course of justice by (i) abandoning habeas corpus both in the domestic 'anti-terror' laws & in international policy; & (ii) covering up or defending the use of torture & over breaches of the GENEVA Convention, the International Covenant for Civil & Political Rights, & the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, against Australian – and other - citizens, at Guantanamo Bay
(6) Failing in its duty to protect Australian citizens overseas, & conspiring to continue the illegal detention of Australian citizens without trial or changes for over 5 years
(7) Demonizing and incarcerating asylum seekers under the policies of mandatory detention and fortress Australia. Such policies contravene the legal principle of habeus corpus and have induced undue suffering and mental illness for detainees.
Issued & authorized by Citizens against War Crimes
wow great work
Now there s someone with balls !!!
How do get in contact with him or family to send our support???
http://kangaroocourtaustralia.com/
http://kangaroocourtaus.ath.cx/kangaroo_court_australia/index.php?showtopic=8
While I might applaud this
While I might applaud this action as a way to draw attention to the little disputed fact that half our politicians are war criminals, A citizens arrest as attempted here has questionable legal validity.
The best way to see these people brought to justice before an Australian court is to lodge a formal complaint with the Federal Police detailing the alleged crimes against the peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Now when the AFP declines to investigate which they most likely will (as they have been politicized), one would seek a writ in the high court ordering that they do investigate the said allegations and to provide an account of such investigations to the applicant.
A further writ to ensure that the AFP do charge the suspected offenders would bring the details of the investigation before the court.
The court if acting with respect to due process would have little option but to order the arrest of the said defendants.
The defendants would then argue, that they as ministers of state are immune from prosecution, to which one would simply argue that such immunity only extends to matters relating to "representative represented response syndrome"
Well it sounds good in theory.
Anybody game?
You're right about one
You're right about one thing; it sounds good in theory.
First, your claim that it is 'little argued' that 50% of our politicians are war criminals is just plain wrong. You may hold this to be so, but most people don't.
Which links nicely to my second point. As the AFP have operational independence as part of the executive branch of Government, they are under no obligation to investigate all allegations of 'war crimes' or anything else. They quite rightly undertake a triage process to prioritise investigations to mange the infinite demands made on finite resources.
Third, no court can order the police to 'charge' suspects. Can you imagine a court doing so, only to find the accused not guilty some time later at trial? Moreover, it attacks the very principle of independence between the judiciary and the police. We don't have an inquisitorial system of justice in Australia in which investigating court officials initiate prosecutions.
As you said. It sounds good in theory.
"To educate the ignorant is the duty of the informed"
Great work
Great work. The criminals running this country need to know they are not above the law. Then again thay are aren' they.
R U seriously suggesting
R U seriously suggesting that the courts should dictate to the police who they should arrest? Are you saying that the police should in effect be the executioners of the court's bidding? That the police are beholden to the courts?
What U R suggesting is that the courts and not the police decide who should be arrested and brought before....the courts! What then? The courts assess the evidence that they themselves have acted on in directing the police to arrest the suspect?
That might be the way things are in places like Zimbabwe where the courts are nothing more than the puppets of the Mugabe Government. But don't suggest we try that here. U show an incredible lack of appreciation of the real world and how our system actually works.
intersting
I think the person in the first comment is saying that by seeking an order - this would mean the allegations were before the court, not that the application would succeed.
But it still wouldn't work as it would be an abuse of process, and the allegations would be a nullity - unless the applicant didn't know the court couldn't order the police to arrest.
I would have thought that the courts have inerrant powers to issue a warrant for arrest?, (don't forget the sheriff) but they would send the matter down to the magistrates court?
The Einstein Factor
Yes courts have powers to issue arrest warrants, but only after hearing an application by the police and considering the evidence. That's the principle of our justice system (the seperation between the judiciary and the police) which our resident Einstein apparently just can't get. The police don't issue their own warrants and the courts don't lay or direct charges to be laid.
If the courts directed the police to charge someone against the wishes of the police and then that person was later acquitted, who would pay the accused's court costs? The judge who directed the police to lay charges? I bet the cops wouldn't be putting their hands in their pockets!
Go and get informed, then express an informed opinion. If you must.
Well thats nice Cran
Accuse "student" of being an "Einstein" (Sarcastic) when they were only asking questions ? and go on yo DEMAND the person:
"Go and get informed, then express an informed opinion. If you must."
And then to top it off, get the facts wrong yourself -
"but only after hearing an application by the police"
Any citizen (with standing)can prosecute you idiot - it would be more pleasant reading your posts if you were not so up yourself.
Post new comment