Saturday, 17 November 2012

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.
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


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
UK Government WAR CRIMES

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.

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 21st 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


Wednesday, 14 November 2012

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. 






Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Human right abuses and crimes against peace




Serious human rights breaches that the above are responsible for are:

Freedom from degrading treatment
The right to liberty
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
The right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
The right to peaceful enjoyment of your property

If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer or other official.

Nuremberg principles

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."

Friday, 6 April 2012

The cost of war to Americans

police officers under investigation for racism

Out of 130.000 police officers they say that they have fewer than 20 under investigation for racism. This would suggest one of four things.
1. The police are offering these people up in an attempt to appease the complaints in the hope that it will all get quickly forgotten by the people.
2. This is the very tip if the iceberg reflecting yet another part of a police regime that is acting without the consent of the people and conspiring against the People of the UK in collusion with a corrupt government and corporate interests that are is acting against the people of these lands.
The third option would seem to be the least likely
3. These incidents are reflecting that it is a minority of police officers that are acting in this way, so much so that they have only found around 20 officers worth investigating.
4. This is yet another underhanded attempt to incite even more racial problems within communities resulting directly from a deliberate lack of accountability or transparency by the law, the independent police complaints commission http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx , or the police force itself.

There are 2 types of law; statute laws made by governments and judges and sanctioned by the queen, these laws predominantly criminalise people whilst gaining funds for the states vaults.
These are all infringement of human rights and have nothing to do with our common laws. The common laws are that of understanding, common sense, respect and integrity.

The police are sworn to oath, that being that they will uphold the laws, the peace and the rights of the people.
It is about time that policing reflected the common laws and not that of state.
It is high time that the police upheld the rights of the people.
Peace and balance will only come about when true integrity is put in place.
The government is supposed to represent the majority of people, we are ruled by consent but we have not given our consent to any of this unconstitutional rulings and behavior.
The police are public servants, but they are not acting on behalf of the people, far from it they are acting on behalf of a corrupt government company that is masquerading as a representative of the people.
They would all like for you to forget, the MPs expenses, the bankers bonuses, the sale of our heritage, the rising tide of unemployment, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the privatisation of the NHS, the Houses involvement in acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, along with crimes against peace.
They would like for you all to look at the Olympics and how we are all benefitting, whilst they creaming the money with their corporate friends and hierarchy, get your tickets from America, go to China to buy your official 2012 Olympic merchandise. They would like you all to forget their shoot to kill policy kratos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos
They would love to have secret kangaroo trials, with zero transparency or accountability.
The questions should be where is the justice, where is the law? Are the police not in dereliction of their duty and oath? Why are the people and their rights not being defended to the hilt? This ongoing criminal behaviour is both against UK citizens and the Country. Why are these breakers of laws and protocols being allowed to continue their unlawful, unjust, unconstitutional activity? It is time that the books were put in order and all those brought to book to answer to the people. People throughout history have made great sacrifices for others; we must not allow them to sacrifice ourselves for their greed. We must not allow the 1% to enslave us all. We must sack this unjust government.