PUBLIC POLICE NOTICE
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”.
“Without law enforcement there is no law”
The crimes associated with
waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremburg Principles and the Rome
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."
Any officer not enforcing the law will be in dereliction of both their duty
and their oath.
“Arrest and
prosecute Tony Blair plus 559 MP’s
for war
crimes and crimes against peace”.
The fact
that an individual was informed of the reasonable consequences of his or her
actions and continued to defy legitimate authority, they are personally
responsible for what happens next.
If any officer or private security personnel strikes at, or assaults a
peaceful human being, the officer or security employee carrying out the offence
should be fired immediately and prosecuted with the full force of the law.
Morality and leadership are indivisible.
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
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
“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 Afghanistan ,
Iraq and Libya
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
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
It is time for law abiding
citizens everywhere to take a stand against Britain
Chris
Coverdale The Peace Strike August 2012
[In his next article Chris
will lay out what individual citizens in NATO countries can do to stop their
Governments from waging illegal wars, murdering civilians, committing crimes
against humanity and corrupting the justice process.]
Former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair could face trial in Scotland
for his war crimes in Iraq
Margo MacDonald, an independent MSP, called for the alteration of the International Criminal Court (
The suggestion to try Blair gained support from backbenchers of the Scottish National Party (SNP), Annabelle Ewing, Gordon MacDonald, John Finnie, Chic Brodie and Jim Eadie.
Jim Sillars, husband to a former SNP deputy leader called on bold Scottish MPs to "introduce retrospective legislation to indict the former prime minister on war crimes."
"Blair knew aggressive war was a crime. He believed he was safe, there being no legal system that could touch him. There is one now - ours," he added.
Last week, Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for Blair and former
Tutu, the Nobel Peace prize winner said that the
former leaders of the UK and
the US Iraq
Morally Indefensible: Tutu
Refuses to Share Platform with Blair
Ever a
man of conscience, Nobel laureate, anti-apartheid icon and retired Archbishop
Desmond Tutu has withdrawn from a leadership summit in South
Africa to protest thepresence of former prime minister Tony Blair,
whose support for the Iraq War Tutu condemned as "morally
indefensible." Meanwhile, calls are mounting for the arrest of Blair for crimes against humanity
when he appears.
"The
Discovery Invest Leadership Summit has leadership as its theme. Morality and
leadership are indivisible. In this context, it would be inappropriate and
untenable for the Archbishop to share a platform with Mr Blair."
