THE FLOYD DOSSIER

Submission To The Iraq Inquiry 24th November 2015

PROVING: At law, no parliamentary or congressional member is responsible or culpable for the Iraq war
The decision was solely that of Political Heads of State George Walker Bush,
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and John Winston Howard.
Parliaments and Congress merely ratified their powers of high-office to solely make this horrific decision
For: Our Sweet Sleeping Daughter
From: GLENN FLOYD <floydaubrey@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 5:01 PM
To: Iraq.Inquiry@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
Cc:
Subject: ICCACTION Australia: Official Submission To The Iraq Inquiry: Submission Of Evidence Not
taken To date.
Sir John Chilcot Chairman
The Iraq Inquiry
35 Great Smith Street,
London SW1P 3BQ
Mr Chilcot, Sir John;
as you now inform the public, you will deliver your long awaited report to
the UK Parliament in five months-time, and with the greatest respect and as Australian world
citizens deeply impacted by the Iraq war, we officially submit our specific evidence and legal
arguments for your lawful consideration. These matters have not either been put in testimony to
The Iraq Inquiry to date by any party, or covered in any cross examination. Accordingly we regard
this flawed process a gross injustice and place these gravest of matters before you for consideration
prior your report and recommendations to parliament.
We wish our evidence and legal arguments to be fully considered in conjunction with all evidence,
and hearings of testimony taken, and facts considered in your inquiry; in your solemn duty of
reporting on the greatest threat to world security and peace in the 21st century.
Given the vital and honourable post WW1 and WW2 role the United Kingdom, USA and Australia
played in establishing our current world order, global security legal framework and civil decency, the
recent leadership act of war decisions of principals of these nations must be fully and rigorously
scrutinised by your inquiry for ethical and lawful legitimacy.
In particular, as your mandate commands, in examining the catastrophic legacy of the Iraq war, and
specifically the way decisions were made ..for UK involvement; our submission is vital to giving
this chain of events greater scrutiny and clarity than has been given to date by any party involved in
your most important inquiry. This of course includes general focus on the UK participation, and
specific scrutiny on the high office decision solely taken, by Anthony Charles Lynton Blair; in joining
the Coalition of the Willing in an act of war.
The global and growing Iraq war backlash terrorism threat is now horrifically demonstrated by the
recent tragic malevolent human butchery unleashed in Paris, and is caused directly by the
involvement of the United Kingdoms armed forces being so potently committed (with the Coalition
of the Willing) in this aggressive act of war against Iraq.
Your paramount focus is officially stated as examining the way decisions were made, this is of
course is the decision to commit an act of war upon another sovereign nation; the gravest decision
there is to be made in highest office of political leadership in all of human history. There is no more
gruesome human decision ever made.

With respect to UK culpability, this ongoing global Iraq war backlash terrorist extremist violence is
caused SOLELY by the personal highest-office Prime Ministerial executive decision of Anthony
Charles Lynton Blair, to declare and execute the act of war (with the Coalition of the Willing); upon
the sovereign state of the Republic of Iraq in 2003.
Neither the UK parliament itself (nor any of its members) is/are at all legally implicated in any way
whatsoever by this solitary decision of a horrendous act of war. It is solely former Prime Minister
Blair, who, under the heavy and solemn, and solitary decision burden of his high office; unilaterally
chose and argued and executed this act of war upon another sovereign nation.
This fact of the parliaments non-implication in this unilateral act of war decision under the
Westminster parliamentary conventions, is demonstrated by the fact that neither parliament itself,
nor any member took this decision. It/they merely ratified the Prime Ministerial decision making
powers of office with respect to Royal Prerogative. With the UK having no constitution, there is no
parliamentary requirement for HM Government to seek any explicit form of parliamentary approval
before committing British forces to military action.
The parliament merely ratified the Prime Ministers Royal Prerogative powers of office, which
permits the Prime Minister alone to commit an act of war in the Sovereign's name. This is a solitary
decision of the Prime Minister, exercising the foreboding powers of high-office; ordering the armed
forces to commit an act of war.
This fact is demonstrably shown as true in your inquiry questioning of Mr Blair by Sir Martin Gilbert
on 21st January 2011 (at the 2 minutes: 10 seconds point on video), where Sir Martin asked your
decision that we should be prepared to join the Americans and that we should prepare to use
force ourselves. Can you tell us at what point you took that decision? Mr Blair did not answer this
question, however the point of the matter is Sir Martin Gilbert fully identified this as his personal
Prime Ministerial Royal Prerogative decision alone, taken under his Prime Ministerial powers of
high office.
This non-culpability of parliament/members is further factually and lawfully proven by all
Westminster parliamentary conventions which hold, that if parliament itself had numerically voted
down his motion for this act of war which was put, argued; solely justified and personally moved by
Mr Blair; it would not circumvent his Prime Ministerial decision making powers of Royal
Prerogative.
Even if his motion was lost in parliament, this man still had the authority and power to override
parliament and commit an act of war. And parliament merely ratified his Royal Prerogative powers
of high-office office to take such a grave decision, and this he did; alone.
As the Westminster framework stands, it is the Prime Ministers Royal Prerogative, which permits
solely the Prime Minister alone to commit his serving government, (in the Sovereign's name), and
gives the order to begin military action; in any act of war.
We invite your deep focus, scrutiny and analysis of the legal facts we argue, not covered in any
interview by any world media, not questioned by any of your committee of Privy Counsellors, nor
offered as evidence by any organisation or individual to date and particularly; utterly subverted by
the entirely legally flawed and false testimony given by Mr Blair himself.

The most grievous point for your focus and scrutiny and analysis in this horrific (non-parliamentary)
sole Prime Ministerial decision, is that Iraq had formally surrendered its full military armaments and
sovereignty and territoriality in writing to the United Nations on 16th September 2002; fully six
months before this gruesome act of war. And this moment is critical to your focus, scrutiny and
analysis and has not been examined even superficially by your process.
Former prime Ministers Blairs testimony is not only false, not questioned in the areas we cite as
critical by any Privy Counsellors on the points of law he deliberately evades, but factually and legally
self-contradicting and morally and ethically corrupt. The man lied to the inquiry under solemn oath;
as our Brief of Evidence and legal argument put to the International Criminal Court attests.
Our submission to you invites your profound focus, scrutiny and analysis upon the main point at law
governing this horrendous war decision and catastrophic bloody aftermath where we all now know,
there is no safe harbour for any good person on earth now. And we submit to you, that the gravest
war crime was committed by Mr Blairs declaration and execution of an act of armed warfare upon
the republic of Iraq. As we have stated, not only is this war crime horrendously vile in human
conflict, we submit his action (in conjunction with the Coalition of the Willing) is the major, if not the
sole generator of Islamic extremist bloodletting worldwide.
Your focus is not only compelling for our now fragile world humanity, but lawfully obliging, because
of Mr Blairs sole conceptualisation, establishment, development, championing, fostering garnering
support for, selling and achieving parliamentary majority ratification of his Prime Ministerial Royal
Prerogative powers for his truly horrendous war action decision in high-office.
Your heightened focus and analysis of his act of war decision-making under your most critical terms
of reference focus, is critical. This is because these decision-making facts are able to be deliberately
concealed, subverted, sidelined, and purposely withheld in evidence; by this disgraced former Prime
Minister.
That is to say, when giving testimony to you, he has been able to powerfully and easily shift your
critical focus well away from his decisions made, and in this process; fabricate false statements that
the UKs interests were being protected by his decisions; and principally with utterly corrupted
politicised testimony. As succinctly stated by George Orwell Political language -- is designed to

make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.

The reason for our submission is to correctly move this focus specifically back upon his utterly false
statements, so corrupted by his political language; that he was able to evade cross-examination on
this matter completely. This focus is redirected by our submission back on to the utter factual and
legal lies he submitted as truth and fact to you under oath.
Our ICC Brief of Evidence demonstrates clearly that the concocted WMD-threat risk claims of Mr
Blair (and the Coalition of the Willing) became utterly irrelevant in fact and at law on and after the
16th September 2002. This is the basis of our submission to you, and it demonstrates not only the
fact that this date is critical that the WMD-threat utterly dissipated on that day, but that all evidence
of Mr Blair (claiming WMD-threat risk existed after that critical date) is not only false, but clear
evidence itself that he lied under oath that there was such a WMD threat-risk at all after that date.
In fact this crucial 16th September 2002 date and its acute lawful and ethical and evidentiary
significance is so central to the conflicts bearing, it dwarfs any other matters at all; and this includes
flawed or doctored (or even correct) intelligence, lies about intelligence or even the actual existence
of WMD.

All these matters became and were and are utterly irrelevant to the conflict and war after this
critical 16th September 2002 date. In fact even if subsequent post war testing had found WMD, the
WMD threat-risk was still utterly removed at and from the critical 16th September 2002 date . And
astonishingly, there has been no cross examination whatsoever to date by your esteemed
committee of Privy Counsellors of this fact. This grave miscarriage of justice must be immediately
revisited for lawful due process to be properly honoured by your august historical inquiry.
It is utterly alarming that this vital 16th September 2002 date and its critical events exceeds all other
issues in massive importance over the entire conflict; and yet not once has its criticality been even
raised by any of our worlds press. Considering the major bearing on the first global war of the 21st
century, under solemn duty and obligation to us all; this utter neglect is deeply disturbing and has
high potential bearing upon all future conflicts; and incendiary extremist violence as we are
witnessing.
This date is the most seminal issue in fact, and at law, and deliberate leadership lying of this
horrendous conflict and war that has remained utterly unchallenged. And this includes the just
issued 25th Oct 2015 appalling Blair pseudo apology. This deliberate ongoing concocted unchallenged
Blair charade happening since 16th September 2002 still continues; and it defies belief.
Nobody has called Mr Blair and these war criminals out on these crucial facts and critical point of law
and his lies about the actual WMD-threat risk actually not existing at all after this critical date of 16th
September 2002. It simply cannot be claimed in fact, or at law after that day that any WMD-threat
risk existed at all; in ANY form. Ipso facto intelligence (either factual or flawed) was of course a
redundant issue. It simply didnt matter.
And there is deepest shame for this miscarriage of scrutiny by all of our institutional standard
bearers of our truth, for our future and of our democracy.
The WMD-threat risk itself utterly ended in fact and at law on 16th September 2002; six months
before the war. Nobody has ever raised this fact or point of law or post 16th September 2002 lie with
Blair; not once; and this is a gross dereliction of justice.
This potential WMD-threat high risk legitimately fully existed in fact and at law, right up and until
16th September 2002, six months before the attack on Iraq; but not in any form at all on and after
that day.
Because of the 16th September 2002 critical date and the events of that day, the WMD-threat risk
utterly ended in fact completely, it did not exist after that day. And because of this, the entire
related matter of flawed or doctored intelligence also became utterly irrelevant to the conflict.
From this date it didnt matter if the intelligence was true, doctored or falsified. In fact, this 16th
September 2002 date and events is so critical to the conflict and war, even if Iraq actually did have
WMD, this also became utterly irrelevant from that date, and this is the tragic point of the world
scrutiny failure that still continues today.
The critical points of law and facts of the conflict from the 16th September 2002 date are as follows:
On that crucial 16th September 2002 day, six months before the war, the Iraq Foreign Minister Naji
Sabri formally fully honourably surrendered in writing, officially surrendering Iraqs entire full
military armaments and national sovereignty and territory to the United Nations Security Council.

This lawful full surrender act utterly terminated any WMD-threat risk whatsoever from that day;
because Iraq then offered full honourable written military armaments and full sovereignty and
territory surrender to the UN. The WMD-threat risk was gone from that moment.
There was not, nor could not have been any WMD-threat risk whatsoever after full surrender. Iraq
fully complied with every obligation of international law there is under the laws of armed conflict
(LOAC); including all ICRC Rules of War and Geneva Conventions. This is precisely why the formal
written surrender has profoundest honour. Iraq could have done nothing more and it had destroyed
its WMD as it had claimed (later shown as true) and it offered to prove this with full territorial
inspections; it could not have done more.
Full surrender means full surrender, there is no precedent in contemporary history or international
law where an act of war was ever threatened and/or executed after full formal written honourable
territorial surrender. The day Japan honourably offered territorial surrender in writing in 1945, not
one single bomb was dropped against Japan, not one soul was killed; there was profound honour by
world leaders.
Yet after the honourable full military armaments and full sovereignty territorial surrender by Iraq,
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and the Coalition of the Willing war criminals declared and executed a
most brutal act of war. These war criminals reigned down upon Iraq the most horrendous might of
the greatest combined WMD arsenals in human history upon a fully honourably surrendered nation.
Mass killing AFTER lawful surrender is unheard of in all world war human history. And it is a war
crime.
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, John Winston Howard and George Walker Bush have eulogized
themselves, their names and human reputations in perpetuity as the most recreant craven cowards
in contemporary military and human history. This vilest infamy will live forever for attacking and
killing after Iraqs signing and offering of an honourable full military armaments, full sovereignty and
territorial surrender.
Where was the scrutiny on Mr Blairs 25th October 2015 continuing evil (non-existent) WMD
charade? After full surrender there was no WMD-threat risk. Where was the scrutiny with this
fundamental question? He states a WMD-threat risk that was non-existent due to this full lawful
territorial surrender, he did this in testimony to you and he lied to you under oath.
There was and still is the most perfectly concocted confidence-trickster ploy being regularly
conducted by Mr Blair to utterly control the full debate, the discussion, the points pf law and the
true facts by the most cleverly constructed press release and testimony ploy ever deployed in
contemporary political history. And with his manipulative responses he has masterfully succeeded in
being able to deliberately avoid your substantive cross-examination on these critical matters
concerning his decision to commit an act of war. Specifically referring to his ongoing post 16th
September 2002 WMD-threat risk lie to you.
The recent Blair pseudo apology reinforces this cleverly rehearsed odious staged farce that they all
collectively act in. It is to keep the intense focus still on WMD-threat risk, and off the lawful fact that
it utterly evaporated on 16th September 2002 under full territorial surrender. They are so good and
the press is so complicit in not exposing this. Although Iraq had conducted controls beforehand
frustrating some localised inspections, this was different, this was a written honourable, formal full
territorial surrender after the UN threatened military action under Resolution 1441.

This rehearsed odious Coalition of the Willing stage-managed media ploy is deliberate, its planned,
its jointly choreographed and its corruptly conducted in full unison by them all, because it works
the beguiled press over perfectly; every time. This is truly astonishing to still see 13 years after the
mass killing, particularly where these war criminals will one day be tried for war crimes in The
Hague.
These war criminals cannot believe their fortune that they have never been challenged by any world
press once on their post 16th September 2002 fabricated WMD-threat risk ruse they push; its
remarkable that they are still so successful at it. They are so remarkably successful solely due to an
unquestioning world press that if the press cannot be accused of collusion or complicity, it can only
have displayed utter journalistic ineptitude.
And it is still being cunningly deployed now by Mr Blair clearly evidenced in his pathetic pretence
apology, and it works, as it always has due to profound professional journalistic failure. Again, as
always he is not questioned once over the fact that the WMD-threat risk utterly ended on 16th
September 2002, six months before his attack.
WMD and intelligence both became not merely a non-issue from that moment, it was utterly
irrelevant in fact, at law, in decency, in carriage of grave global war responsibility and obligations not
to kill; when there was no need whatsoever.
Mr Blairs constant deliberate and continuing citing of a WMD-threat risk is actually not a fact after
that 16th September 2002 date, is astonishing; it was utterly removed formally and officially and
lawfully by full surrender. He and Howard and Bush cleverly still use their ploy by connecting the
WMD-threat risk to flawed intelligence and Blair still masterfully controls the discussion this way (as
they all do). And they all slyly attempt to shift the blame to flawed intelligence by unnamed
bureaucrats, the vilest and weakest form of fraudulent nebulous scapegoating. This charade has a
truly execrable odium that manipulates the press.
Your august inquiry is honour bound not to become complicit in this odious farce.
Under the International criminal Court Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(iv); attack or war with death and
injury (without need) is a war crime. Any death and injury when unnecessary under this international
law is classified clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage
anticipated. It's classified a jus in bello (justice in battle) 'proportionality' doctrine, grave war crime,
where any action that kills or injures even one person 'when not needed' is 'disproportionate' to the
anticipated military advantage.
This was made perfectly clear in writing in a legal warning to John Winston Howard on 20th March
2003, by many great civil activist minds and the worlds best legal fraternities most esteemed legal
practitioners and scholars.
After the full formal Iraqi surrender six months before the attack, the non-lethal capability then fully
existed for proving out absolutely, a potential WMD-threat risk; without killing anyone. This is a
perfect example of our grave lawful obligation not to kill and injure when there is a way of utterly
proving the WMD-threat risk without killing one soul.
And from 16th September 2002 the WMD threat did not exist, directly by and from this Iraqi full
written military armaments and sovereignty and territoriality honourable surrender. It could not be
claimed there was any WMD-threat risk whatsoever from this surrender date and no scrutiny has
ever been applied in any Blair press briefings or inquiry pushing back this vilest corrupt lie.

These politicians left rivers of blood, oceans of tears; mountains of heartbreak; and they alone are
solely to blame for the massive Islamic extremism, beheadings, gun siege killings, bombings to this
day; ALL of them.
I head the ICCACTION group that includes Former Liberal President John Valder all calling for John
Winston Howard to be tried as a war criminal and we are actively pursuing a jus in bello war crimes
case against him in the International Criminal Court see > www.glennfloyd.org/ICC BRIEF OCTOBER
12 2014.pdf
There will be a further Brief of Evidence sent to The ICC post your august UK Chilcot Inquiry, this
inquiry must and will condemn Mr Blair for subversion of parliament. It must offer as
recommendation that the parliament itself deal with the matter as it must; there is no option.
All politicians merely ratifying the Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Royal Prerogative decision need not
fear implication for the war decision. These politicians merely supported Mr Blairs decision to
prosecute the war; he alone took the executive decision; it was his. He took the decision, he led the
entire debate, he defined the entire grounds, he prosecuted and decided the full case, as did
Howard and Bush. They are all war criminals.
Respectfully submitted for your lawful consideration under Westminster parliamentary conventions.
Yours Sincerely

Glenn Floyd
Director ICCACTION www.glennfloyd.org/icc.htm
eMail: floydaubrey@bigpond.com

Phone +61 (0)407 861 056

From: GLENN FLOYD [mailto:floydaubrey@bigpond.com]

Sent: Sunday, 12 October 2014 8:15 PM
To: 'otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int' <otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int>
Subject: Brief of Evidence, supporting allegations of war crimes committed by Australian citizen John
Winston Howard, (last known address of Milner Crescent Wollstonecraft NSW Australia 2065) in the
Iraq war commencing 20 March 2003.

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE: ARTICULABLE FACTS AND LEGAL ARGUMENT

The Prosecutor Ms. Fatou Bensouda,
The International Criminal Court,
Information and Evidence Unit
Po Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Ms. Bensouda, pursuant to our initial report to The Prosecutor of 22 November 2007, and
subsequent revisions of 30 May 2008, 5 June 2008, 13 June 2008, 10 October 2012, and 29 October
2012; 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), as persuasive, relevant
substantiated evidence, supporting allegations of war crimes committed by Australian citizen John
Winston Howard, (last known address of Milner Crescent Wollstonecraft NSW Australia 2065) in the
Iraq war commencing 20 March 2003.
The Brief of Evidence now contains formal advice from the Australian Government via the Australian
Federal Police, it is unwilling as an ICC Rome Statute signatory under its binding lawful obligation
(under Australias complementary International Criminal Court Act 2002 No. 41, 2002); to investigate
and potentially legally charge John Winston Howard with alleged war crimes in the Iraq war.
This step is mandatory under the ICC Rome Statute provisions whereby the ICC cannot proceed to
prosecute until any Rome Statute signatory nation shows it is either unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Now that this Australian Government refusal is official, the ICC has lawful carriage of this grave
responsibility to investigate our additional facts, legal argument and evidence presented to consider
recommending this man be investigated by the ICC Pre Trial Chamber for war crimes as alleged.

Glenn Floyd
12th October 2014
Director ICCACTION www.glennfloyd.org/icc.htm
eMail: floydaubrey@bigpond.com