War Crimes, The lies that lead to war

The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremberg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court are clear. 

“If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.

If there is to be remembrance, then let us not forget the death’s of hundreds of thousands, leading to millions at the hands of the war machine.

Let us not forget why International treaties have been produced, and signed as undertakings to avert war and conflicts.

After World war one the Kellogg Briand pact was created and signed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

Hitler then ignored the international agreements and started World war two

After World war two the Nuremberg trials took place with thousands (but not all) of Nazis being brought to justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

From these trials came the Nuremberg Principles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

Nuremberg principles http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390

Nuremberg Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

With immediate affect arrest of all of those whose unlawful actions have directly resulted in, genocide, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, abuse of Human and Civil rights and ecocide.

This is not a political issue, it is one of law.

UK Citizens demand the arrest of MP’s who are war criminals http://peoplesassembly.blogspot.co.uk/

WHEN WAR IS ILLEGAL PAYING TAX IS A WAR CRIME

http://taxrebellion.wordpress.com/lawful-duty/

UK Government WAR CRIMES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjMHf5hVVEg

It is each and everyone’s lawful duty to demand the arrest of  MP’s who have undertaken to break international and domestic laws, and have committed war crimes.

Those responsible include Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Nigel Lawson. Along with David Cameron, William Hague, and over  500 MP’s who voted on air strike attacks on Libya.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16050574

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9593234/Sudanese-war-criminal-wins-right-to-remain-in-Britain.html

The lies that lead to war

How the Government deceived Parliament, HM forces, the media and

the public into waging illegal wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

“War is essentially an evil thing.  Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.  To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

                                                                                                         Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

The method used by British Governments to persuade the nation to wage war is as old as the hills - lie repeatedly about the illegality of war.  The British Government used the same lie to promote the war with Libya as it had done for the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq - that military action by HM forces is lawful and authorised by the UN Security Council operating under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. 

On March 21^st 2011, shortly before 559 MPs voted in favour of illegal military action against Libya, the UK Government issued a statement making the false claim that the deployment of British forces against Libya was lawful and authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973; their note declared: 

“The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives”.   

This Government statement, claiming that the armed attack on Libya would be legal, exemplifies the way in which British politicians, lawyers and civil servants pervert and break the law.  By cross-checking Government statements against the laws governing the use of force, it can quickly be established that the wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all illegal. 

The law of war

The two main legal documents which govern the use of armed force in international affairs are the UN Charter and UN General Assembly Resolution 2625.  The first lays down the law and the second explains how to interpret it. 

The UN Charter

The UN Charter is the Statute which lays down the legally binding terms of this agreement in 111 Articles.  Article 2 states the purposes of the United Nations and includes these rules:

2.3   All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

2.4   All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Articles 39 - 51) contains the rules governing the measures that the UN Security Council may take to bring about peace and security.   Article 41 states:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures…

To a person with common sense the phrase not involving the use of armed force means not involving the use of armed force; so why do British Government lawyers repeatedly claim that the UN Security Council has authorised the use of armed force when it is clearly forbidden?   

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625

In 1970 the United Nations agreed 51 new definitions of the law governing in UNGA Resolution 2625:

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND

CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

This Declaration is one of the most important legal documents the world has ever produced; yet few if any public office holders in Britain or America have seen it or read it.   It includes these rules: 

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.  Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently [the UN General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.

These laws are crystal clear.  The use of force is prohibited.  The use of armed force to attack other nations is a crime.  No state or group of States such as NATO, ISAF[1] or the EU, may intervene in another State’s affairs and every State must obey, uphold and enforce these rules.   

The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremburg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are also clear.  If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes.   

So why do British and NATO politicians, lawyers and civil servants interpret phrases such as all necessary measures, humanitarian intervention, and not involving the use of armed force to mean using weapons of mass destruction such as cruise missiles, rockets, drones, bombs and radioactive munitions to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq or to attack Libya?   Could the real reason for these heinous decisions to kill innocent civilians and destroy weaker nations be a psychopathic lack of conscience and moral values, or is it perhaps because they know that they control the law enforcement processes and can ensure that they will never be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for their war crimes, for the suffering inflicted on their victims or the horrific consequences of their decisions.

For more than sixty years UK Government Ministers, officers and lawyers have deceived everyone over the illegality of war and armed conflict and have got away with it.   These massacres of Afghan, Iraqi and Libyan civilians in which at least 450,000 children have died and more than 1m have been injured and maimed since 2001 are the worst atrocities in British history.  Why is it then that not one member of the UK establishment is willing to call a halt to the killing or speak out against it?   Why is it that those with the power to stop the wars and enforce the laws repeatedly refuse to do so?  

It is time for law abiding citizens everywhere to take a stand against Britain’s political, civil, judicial and military leaders and institutions to ensure that the killing is stopped, the resort to war is ended and those responsible for the deaths of 1.5m civilians are arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.   

Chris Coverdale   The Peace Strike   August 2012

---

[1] the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan

November 14th general strikes and People protests throughout Europe against austerity cuts corporate corruption and illegal wars

A direct message to ALL LAW enforcement officers 

TAKE NOTE

 "Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”. “If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.

Nuremberg Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law”.

The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremberg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are clear. 

“If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.

 Without law enforcement there is no law. 

Now Time

On 15th May 2011, around 150,000 people took to the streets in 60

Spanish towns and cities to demand “Real Democracy Now”, marching

under the slogan “We are not commodities in the hands of bankers and

politicians”. The protest was organised through web-based social

networks without the involvement of any major unions or political

parties. At the end of the march some people decided to stay the night

at the Plaza del Sol in Madrid. They were forcefully evacuated by the

police in the early hours of the morning. This, in turn, generated a

mass call for everyone to occupy his or her local squares that

thousands all over Spain took up. As we write, 65 public squares are

being occupied, with support protests taking place in Spanish

Embassies from Buenos Aires to Vienna and, indeed, London. You

probably have not have read about it in the British press, but it is

certainly happening. Try #spanishrevolution, #yeswecamp, #nonosvamos

or #acampadasol on Twitter and see for yourself. What follows is a

text by Emmanuel Rodríguez and Tomás Herreros from the Spanish

collective Universidad Nómada.




IT’S THE REAL DEMOCRACY, STUPID 15TH May, from Outrage to Hope




There is no doubt that Sunday 15th May 2011 has come to mark a turning

point: from the web to the street, from conversations around the

kitchen table to mass mobilisations, but more than anything else, from

outrage to hope. Tens of thousands of people, ordinary citizens

responding to a call that started and spread on the internet, have

taken the streets with a clear and promising demand: they want a real

democracy, a democracy no longer tailored to the greed of the few, but

to the needs of the people. They have been unequivocal in their

denunciation of a political class that, since the beginning of the

crisis, has run the country by turning away from them and obeying the

dictates of the euphemistically called “markets”.




We will have to watch over the next weeks and months to see how this

demand for real democracy now takes shape and develops. But everything

seems to point to a movement that will grow even stronger. The

clearest sign of its future strength comes from the taking over of

public squares and the impromptu camping sites that have appeared in

pretty much every major Spanish town and city. Today––four days after

the first march––social networks are bursting with support for the

movement, a virtual support that is bolstered by its resonance in the

streets and squares. While forecasting where this will take us is

still too difficult, it is already possible to advance some questions

that this movement has put on the table.




Firstly, the criticisms that have been raised by the 15th May Movement

are spot on. A growing sector of the population is outraged by

parliamentary politics as we have come to known them, as our political

parties are implementing it today––by making the weakest sectors of

society pay for the crisis. In the last few years we have witnessed

with a growing sense of disbelief how the big banks received millions

in bail-outs, while cuts in social provision, brutal assaults on basic

rights and covert privatisations ate away at an already skeletal

Spanish welfare state. Today, none doubts that these politics are a

danger to our present and our immediate future. This outrage is made

even more explicit when it is confronted by the cowardice of

politicians, unable to put an end to the rule of the financial world.

Where did all those promises to give capitalism a human face made in

the wake of the sub-prime crisis go? What happened to the idea of

abolishing tax havens? What became of the proclamation that the

financial system would be brought under control? What of the plans to

tax speculative gains and the promise to stop tax benefits for the

highest earners?




Secondly, the 15th May Movement is a lot more than a warning to the

so-called Left. It is possible (in fact it is quite probable) that on

22nd May, when local and regional elections take place in Spain, the

left will suffer a catastrophic defeat. If that were the case, it

would be only be a preamble to what would happen in the general

elections. What can be said today without hesitation is that the

institutional left (parties and major unions) is the target of a

generalised political disaffection due to its sheer inability come up

with novel solutions to this crisis. This is where the two-fold

explanation of its predicted electoral defeat lies. On the one hand,

its policies are unable to step outside a completely tendentious way

of reading the crisis that, to this day, accepts that the problem lies

in the scarcity of our resources. Let’s say it loud and clear: no such

a problem exists, there is no lack of resources, the real problem is

the extremely uneven way in which wealth is distributed, and financial

“discipline” is making this problem even more acute every passing day.

Where are the infinite benefits of the real estate bubble today? Where

are the returns of such ridiculous projects as the airports in

Castellón or Lleida, to name but a few? Who is benefiting from the

gigantic mountain of debt crippling so many families and individuals?

The institutional left has been unable to stand on the side of, and

work with, the many emerging movements that are calling for freedom

and democracy. Who can forgive Zapatero’s words when the proposal to

accept the dación de pago# was rejected by parliament on the basis

that it could “jeopardise the solvency of the Spanish financial

system”? Who was he addressing with these words? The millions of

people enslaved by their mortgages or the interests of major banks?

And what can we say of their indecent law of intellectual property,

the infamous Ley Sinde? Was he standing with those who have given

shape to the web or with those who plan to make money out of it, as if

culture was just another commodity? If the institutional left

continues to ignore social movements, if it refuses to break away from

a script written by the financial and economic elites and fails to

come out with a plan B that could lead us out of the crisis, it will

stay in opposition for a very long time. There is no time for more

deferrals: either they change or they will lose whatever social

legitimation they still have to represent the values they claim to

stand for. Thirdly, the 15th May Movement reveals that far from being

the passive agents that so many analysts take them to be, citizens

have been able to organise themselves in the midst of a profound

crisis of political representation and institutional abandonment. The

new generations have learnt how to shape the web, creating new ways of

“being together”, without taking recourse to ideological clichés,

armed with a savvy pragmatism, escaping from pre-conceived political

categories and big bureaucratic apparatuses. We are witnessing the

emergence of new “majority minorities” that demand democracy in the

face of a war “of all against all” and the idiotic atomisation

promoted by neoliberalism, one that demands social rights against the

logic of privatisation and cuts imposed by the economical powers. And

it is quite possible that at this juncture old political goals will be

of little or no use. Hoping for an impossible return to the fold of

Estate, or aiming for full employment––like the whole spectrum of the

Spanish parliamentary left seems to be doing––is a pointless task.

Reinventing democracy requires, at the very least, pointing to new

ways of distributing wealth, to citizenship rights for all regardless

of where they were born (something in keeping with this globalised

times), to the defence of common goods (environmental resources, yes,

but also knowledge, education, the internet and health) and to

different forms of self-governance that can leave behind the

corruption of current ones.




Finally, it is important to remember that the 15th May Movement is

linked to a wider current of European protests triggered as a reaction

to so-called “austerity” measures. These protests are shaking up the

desert of the real, leaving behind the image of a formless and silent

mass of European citizens that so befits the interests of political

and economical elites. We are talking here of campaigns like the

British UKUncut against Cameron’s policies, of the mass mobilisations

of Geraçao a Rasca in Portugal, or indeed of what took place in

Iceland after the people decided not to bail out the bankers. And, of

course, inspiration is found above all in the Arab Uprising, the

democratic revolts in Egypt and Tunisia who managed to overthrow their

corrupt leaders.




Needless to say, we have no idea what the ultimate fate of the 15th

May Movement will be. But we can definitely state something at this

stage, now we have at least two different routes out of this crisis:

implementing yet more cuts or constructing a real democracy. We know

what the first one has delivered so far: not only has it failed to

bring back any semblance of economic “normality”, it has created an

atmosphere of “everyman for himself”, a war of all against all. The

second one promises an absolute and constituent democracy, all we can

say about it is that it has just begun and that is starting to lay

down its path. But the choice seems clear to us, it is down this path

that we would like to go.




Tomás Herreros and Emmanuel Rodríguez (Universidad Nómada)




(hurriedly translated by Yaiza Hernández Velázquez)




please feel free to distribute, copy, quote...