Sir John Chilcot – The inquiry, launched in 2009, delayed by the ‘Maxwellisation process’.
By Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Time is simply running out. Every year that goes by brings more destruction and tragedy to the people of the Middle East. We keep hearing that it is a matter of groups that disagree about ideology or religion. But isn’t it far more likely that the powerful global masters have arranged almost all such conflicts?
I recall a conversation with a friend from Belgrade in 1989 just before war “broke out” between Serbs and Croats. She was in a panic, not knowing which side her mixed-ethnic family could take. She assured me that people in Belgrade not only didn’t fight over ethnicity, they did not even know which of their neighbors was which. The trouble that began in 1989 must have been planted by outsiders.
Yesterday, the editor of GumshoeNews.com, Dee McLachlan, posted an article about the huge flow of refugees from Syria into Europe (“The Tides of Humanity and the Destruction of Civilisations”). A commenter, who is an international lawyer, said that Australia should not break international law by bombing Syria. This led to a discussion of war crimes and the Chilcot Commission in UK.
That’s the name of a currently running public inquiry into war crimes committed by the by citizens of the UK, for example, Tony Blair. We read that the inquiry has been held up for a long time while people are being “Maxwellised.”
I’d be delighted to think that the name had something to do with me. After all, I was the plaintiff in the case Maxwell v Bush, which sued for an injunction against the US proposed bombing of Iran and Syria, back in 2006. (My basis was the US Constitution’s allocation of powers: the executive is not allowed to start a war.)
Alas, the UK thing has nothing to do with me. To “undergo Maxwellisation” means that if you are to be named in the inquiry in a critical way (as in “he or she be a war criminal”) you are first to be given private notice and a chance to ‘clear your name.’ Watch Blair clear his name. Seriously, I would not rule it out.
But at least the UK is bothering to talk about the tragedy of Iraq. In the US, which is my ‘homeland’ – pardon my French – there is excellent law that criminalizes war crimes, but it is never enforced. In fact I never see it mentioned. Any American who commits a war crime can be prosecuted right then and there by his own compadres. It is codified at 18 USC 2441.
Congress, in 1996, passed a War Crimes Act, and in 1997 an Extended War Crimes Act. This had something to do with a freshening up of the Geneva Protocols in 1996. I can’t divine how it came about, and will be surprised to see it used. The champion of the use of law of war, Charlie Gittings, met his end a few years ago, age 56. His website PECG.com (“Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions”), is, luckily, still online.
Gittings once told me that he wasn’t able to make any progress at all, not the least bit. This may be because no country wants to turn itself in. After all, if Country X had wanted to be a good world citizen it wouldn’t have allowed itself to be an international aggressor in the first place.
Right now I feel the same way my Belgrade friend felt, nearly in a panic over what is happening. Of course, back in 1989, she didn’t have had the research that we all now have to hand, showing how “faked up” these wars are. The fact that we do now realize this, should be a way of changing our path. But only if the citizenry would reject the propaganda about “terrorists.”
It panics me that there is so little progress on that front. Hands up anybody who wants to brainstorm ways to oppose the lies we tell, day in and day, out about “Middle Easterners.” Doesn’t it make you sick? Aren’t we an educated lot? Can’t we come up with something a bit less Neanderthal in regard to our intergroup behavior?
I don’t believe in making jokes about these matters, but here is a short video to watch.
— Mary W Maxwell lives in Adelaide and worries non-stop. Please see her Youtube channel: Mary W Maxwell.
Listeners to ABC 99.7 Drive got some deeper perspective on the pedigree of ISIS and the oil pipeline politics at the root of the refugee crisis in the news this afternoon.
I got a clear run with a few questions from host Fiona Parker who I have had communications with previously along with her producer. I sent her some reference to support my opinion.
The next caller continued my points with a poem that included 9/11 challenges and good coverage of political realities.
One caller chimed in with the usual “conspiracy” chants but Fiona didn’t join him which I credit to my previous petitioning and the many documents I had sent.
I now include the habit of forwarding supporting documents to the program when I get on Talk Back.
Even an ocean can be filled with droplets if enough people participate and stick to the task.
The enemy relies on frustration rendering us helpless to the point that we do not bother standing up and stating in public places, I do not believe or accept the lies, here is my alternative interpretation and solution, it makes more sense!
Yay, and many happy returns of the day, Christopher.
Thank you Mary, all children will be home by lunchtime to-day. My two Melbourne girls are picking up son (21) from Tullamarine , who is returning from two months traveling around Europe.
Talk Back was ABC 97.7, not 99.7 as stated.
http://www.abc.net.au/shepparton/?ref=nav
The programs are a mix of local region to National regional broadcast depending on the time of day and night.
ABC journalists are obligated to at least respond to questions from the public.
The advice I give to people who support my opinions on Talk Back is to contact the station and let them know you heard the conversation and suggest they give some serious air time to the “very interesting” and “rational” explanations you heard that caller “Christopher Brooks” explaining because it makes more “sense” than the “confusing contradictions” coming from other “experts” and “Government sources”. Ask why has this interpretation not been included in the general coverage of the Middle East issues?
http://www.abc.net.au/goulburnmurray/contact/
Questions can be addressed to specific journalists and programs.
Hypothetically, just consider the effect my call could have on Fiona Parker and her producer if ten separate people took the trouble to intelligently add force to my call by spending a couple of minutes to add force to information.
The key point here is how can we form the good habits of using our “vote” to take “correct action” every day in support of better discussions and policies.
I know that the vast majority of Australians have good intentions and do support the honest path if only the fog of lies can be cleared so they see all reality, not just the portion selected by our rulers.
We need to learn from the methods used by the power matrix and build a linking organic connected matrix of individuals collaborating intelligently to challenge the monopoly power architecture with our own alternative that is charged and motivated by the individual spirit, but recognizes our essential community dimensions and the associating profit and it’s harvest of freedom potential. If only the 99% could wake up to it’s potential if it stopped being neutralized by the mob and faction sorcery that concentrated power wields so cleverly to engineer all the fake conflicts and political flavours that distract from a pure methodology of thinking and action.
There is some streaming of programs from regional ABC but it is not yet consistent. I am planning to upgrade to an Iphone so I can record all phone conversations to media, academics and political desks for public accountability.
If all that is recorded is that subjects are not prepared to answer questions on the record, it is important in itself to get that much on the record.
Can readers imagine if vote holders in their hundreds begun addressing questions to their political desks by telephone with the initial communication that it is on the public record and is being recorded for broadcast. The possibilities are rich if this action could be done with intelligent collaboration of effort and record.
Dee, Please consider re-positioning the above comment as an article.
Some titles for that article that spring readily to mind are:
“Why Christopher Brooks Seems So Relaxed when Dealing with Brickheads”
“How Australia Developed a Community, via Radio, in 2015.”
“I May Not Get There with You But I Have Ten Followers”
“Bullies Can’t Survive This”
“It Could Be Your ABC if You’d Get Up Off Your Duff,”
or maybe just: “Genghis Kahn with an I-Phone.”
Excellent Christopher.
Ah, I see the Maxwell of the story is the late media mogul Robert Mossad Maxwell.
He “threw libel suits like confetti,” hence the need to cater to such persons by giving them the “right of reply.” Or in the case of Chilcot suspects, the right of pre-ply.
But that wouldn’t be the real reason would it. The real reason would be the logical one. Like i said.