Peoples Assembly of Justice: international law

Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Direct and immediate action required by all citizens

Live Event & Action this event starts today 7th July @ 2pm.
It will continue tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future until the law is enforced and murderers and war criminal holding office in the UK government are arrested, charged and convicted.

Locations; The Houses of Parliament the House of Lords, Downing street, plus all police and police stations throughout the UK.

We ask you individually and collectively to take direct action.
Everywhere and anywhere

It is advised that you print out the following and hand it directly to any and all law enforcement officers.
We urge you all to print out the following and take it along to your local law enforcement office, or give it to any & all police officers.
If you are not in the UK, we urge you to translate this letter and take it along to your law enforcement office and hand it out to any and all police officers.

This is not a political issue, it is one of law.
We must ALL stand UNITED and demand that the law is enforced resulting in the arrest and conviction of 557 MP's.

Please share this ongoing event and information with as many people as you can.

On behalf of ALL, Many thanks, People's Assembly of Justice

We do not need any conspiracy theories to see the truth, it is as plain as day, right in front of our eyes.
We must collectively and individually demand that the rule of law is adhered to. The system has put into place laws that it must adhere to itself. All those who are not enforcing the law, whether they are a police officer a judge or any other individual or collective responsible for enforcing the law are in dereliction of their duty and failing not only the justice system, but also the people and truth.
They are also committing a criminal act.

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.”

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.”

As a Nation it is our duty to rise up and against those who are responsible for murder and war crimes. We urge one and all to demand that justice is served.
Please print out the following and ensure that it is given to all officials responsible for enforcing the laws of the land including judges & police.
Here is video evidence confirming that the actions of government is not only unlawful and illegal, but it is way past the red line.

Direct and immediate action required from ALL
Accounting For War: Press Conference 2013
http://youtu.be/4MeUyUR8rE0

WE MUST ALL put massive pressure on those who are charged with the duty of enforcing the laws. There are many hundreds, if not thousands of groups who are protesting against injustice, we must now protest for justice to be served and for those responsible for the following breaches in law to be charged and convicted fo the crimes they have committed.
We see the Arab spring is still running its course, we see Brazilians actively demanding change along with Turkey and 99% of Europe. we see people standing up around the World against corruption, tyranny, repression and oppression, we must ensure that as a Country and a community that we are conscientious and steadfast and that we do not let the World and its people do this on their own. It is our duty to each other, in the name of peace and justice.

Please print the following and get the truth circulating within groups, individually, virtually and on the streets.

Murder is always a crime, and the murder of children is the most heinous of crimes. There comes a time when women and men must align themselves to correct action and moral fortitude and persistence for truth & justice.

The message is to stop violence not to promote it.

There has been much deliberation with UK police regarding the law and UK war criminals. International laws and treaties have been quoted, but to date have failed to be recognised by the UK police.

Here is the law as set down in the UK

The offences against Person Act 1861

(4) "Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavor to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he( or she) be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he (she) be within the Queens dominions or not, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life". http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/4

The guilty; Vote count by MP’s of the UK government participation in the air strikes on Libya; 557 MPs rallied behind David Cameron's new military adventure, while only 15 MPs opposed it (13 votes against, plus 2 'tellers').

These MP’s who voted in favor of air strikes in Libya, knew full well that they would result in the deaths of children, women and men. This was and still is murder. A list of MP’s who voted in favour of air strikes on Libya is available to police on request.

Murder or manslaughter abroad.

(9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in England or Ireland. Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

Elements of Arrest under section 24 PACE

A lawful arrest requires two elements:

1. A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence;

AND

2. Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.

Under International Law http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

The Rome statute of the International criminal court 1998;

Article 27, (1) This statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence. (2) Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

By Oath in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law. Please take note that this is not a political issue but one of law.

If you are a Policeman, judge or any other law enforcement officer or official you are advised to take action, you are also advised to pay particular notice and attention to the following;

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.” http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390

Also take note of the Rome statute of the International criminal court 1998; Article 27, (1) http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

Calling on all who are of conscience to enforce the law.

If you are a Head of State or responsible government you would are also advised to take particular notice of;

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.” http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390

Including the Rome statute of the International criminal court 1998; Article 27, (1) http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 21.

• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

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.

Calling on all who are of conscience to enforce the law.

If you are not a policeman or a judge then contact crime stoppers on line https://secure.crimestoppers-uk.org/ams.form.anonymous.asp

You may also feel the need to contact the Independent Police Complaints Committee http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx

Or the Crown Prosecution Service http://www.cps.gov.uk/contact/index.html

Thursday, 14 March 2013

Contact your MP, Councilor and crime watch; War criminals in the house

Contact your MP and councilor.

Submit the documents below 'War Crimes the Evidence' and 'The Lies that Lead to War'
to give supportive evidence, and ask them what they are doing to ensure that UK war criminals are brought to justice.

http://www.writetothem.com/

If you feel this is not enough then contact crime stoppers on line submitting the following documents 'War Crimes the Evidence', 'The Lies that Lead to War' as supportive evidence

https://secure.crimestoppers-uk.org/ams.form.anonymous.asp

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”.

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.

Evidence

Civilian losses Timeline of the 2011 military intervention in Libya

14 May: NATO air strike hit a large number of people gathered for Friday prayers in the eastern city of Brega leaving 11 religious leaders dead and 50 others wounded.^[180]

24 May: NATO air strikes in Tripoli kill 19 civilians and wound 150, according to Libyan state television.^[181]

31 May: Libya claims that NATO strikes have left up to 718 civilians dead.^[182]

19 June: NATO air strikes hit a residential house in Tripoli, killing seven civilians, according to Libyan state television.^[183]

20 June: A NATO airstrike in Sorman, near Tripoli, killed fifteen civilians, according to government officials.^[184] Eight rockets apparently hit the compound of a senior government official, in an area where NATO confirmed operations had taken place.^[184]

25 June: NATO strikes on Brega hit a bakery and a restaurant, killing 15 civilians and wounding 20 more, Libyan state television claimed. The report further accused the coalition of "crimes against humanity". The claims were denied by NATO.^[185]

28 June: NATO airstrike on the town of Tawergha, 300 km east of the Libyan capital, Tripoli kills eight civilians.^[186]

25 July: NATO airstrike on a medical clinic in Zliten kills 11 civilians, though the claim was denied by NATO, who said they hit a vehicle depot and communications center.^[187][188]

20 July: NATO attacks Libyan state TV, Al-Jamahiriya. Three journalists killed.^[189]

9 August: Libyan government claims 85 civilians were killed in a NATO airsrike in Majer, a village near Zliten. A spokesman confirms that NATO bombed Zliten at 2:34 a.m. on 9 August,^[190] but says he was unable to confirm the casualties. Commander of the NATO military mission, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard says "I cannot believe that 85 civilians were present when we struck in the wee hours of the morning, and given our intelligence. But I cannot assure you that there were none at all".^[191]

15 September: Gaddafi spokesman Moussa Ibrahim declares that NATO air strikes killed 354 civilians and wounded 700 others, while 89 other civilians are supposedly missing. He also claims that over 2,000 civilians have been killed by NATO air strikes since 1 September.^[192] NATO denied the claims, saying they were unfounded.^[193]

-----------------------------------

Day 1 – 19 March 2011
On the afternoon of 19 March, the Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Triumph^[35] fired Tomahawk cruise missiles.^[36] A combined total along with US over the day was reported by the US to be over 110 missiles.^[37] The Royal Navy also has a Type 22 frigate (HMS Cumberland) and a Type 23 frigate (HMS Westminster) engaged in a naval blockade.
David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, confirmed that British aircraft were in action over Libya on the 19th,^[38] although it was the French Air Force who made the first coalition aerial presence over Libya earlier the same day.
Sentry, Sentinel and VC-10 aircraft were said to be carrying out operations from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.^[2] The home base for the VC-10 aircraft was RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and for the Sentinel and Sentry aircraft was RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.
On the night of 19–20 March 2011, Storm Shadow missiles were launched by Tornado GR4 aircraft.^[39] Tornados of No. 9 Squadron from RAF Marham had sortied on a 3,000 mi (4,800 km) mission to fire Storm Shadow missiles against targets in Libya. They required refuelling by British tanker aircraft three times on the outward journey and once on the return. 101 Sqn VC10 and 216 Sqn Tristar aircraft were involved.^[40]

Day 2 – 20 March 2011
The MoD announced that Tornado and Typhoon aircraft would be deployed to the Italian Gioia del Colle Air Base.^[2]
The Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Triumph launched further Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya.^[2]
Tornados GR4s, flying from Marham, were on route to Libya but did not fire their missiles due to information being received that suggested civilians were in the target areas. The Tornado aircraft returned to RAF Marham fully armed.^[41]

Day 3 – 21 March 2011
The Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons on 21 March at the start of the debate on the UNSC resolution that RAF Typhoons had been deployed to an Italian airbase (Gioia del Colle) and would fly in support of the NFZ.^[42] Three Typhoons successfully conducted a mission and returned to Gioia del Colle.^[43]
Headquarters 906 Expeditionary Air Wing formed at Gioia del Colle Air Base responsible for assets forward deployed there. Headquarters 907 Expeditionary Air Wing formed at RAF Akrotiri responsible for assets forward deployed there. C-17A Globemaster and Hercules transport aircraft were also used to assist in the build up of deployed forces.^[10]

Day 4 – 22 March 2011
RAF Typhoons flew their first ever combat mission,^[44] patrolling the no-fly zone while Tornado GR4s from RAF Marham flew an armed reconnaissance sortie. The MoD reported that Royal Navy ships Triumph, Westminister and Cumberland remained in theatre for additional strikes and patrol.^[45]

Day 5 – 23 March 2011
Tornado GR4s were forwarded deployed to Gioia del Colle Air Base.^[5] In a media interview, the UK Air Component Commander, Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, stated that the Libyan Air Force "no longer exists as a fighting force" and that "we have the Libyan ground forces under constant observation and we attack them whenever they threaten civilians or attack population centres."^[46]

Day 6 – 24 March 2011
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles were again fired at targets from HMS Triumph^[47] RAF Tornado aircraft on an armed reconnaissance mission launched Brimstone missiles against Libyan armoured vehicles that were reported to be threatening the civilian population of Adjdabiya. Four T-72 tanks were destroyed in the attack by Tornados, and three by another coalition aircraft. Likely target locations had previously been identified by other Tornado aircraft equipped with RAPTOR pods.^[28]

Day 7 – 25 March 2011
RAF Tornado aircraft launched more Brimstone missile strikes, destroying three armoured vehicles in Misrata and two further armoured vehicles in Ajdabiya.^[48]

Day 9 – 27 March 2011
Over the weekend, Tornados from Gioia del Colle launched numerous armed reconnaissance missions, during the course of which ordnance released hit a total of 22 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery pieces in the vicinity of Ajdabiya and Misrata.^[49]

Day 10 – 28 March 2011
Tornados from RAF Marham, supported by Tristar tankers from RAF Brize Norton, launched Storm Shadow strikes against ammunition bunkers in the Sabha area in the southern Libyan desert. The bunkers were reportedly used to resupply Libyan Government troops attacking civilians in the north of the country.^[49]
The Type 42 Destroyer Liverpool was ordered to the Mediterranean to relieve Type 22 frigate Cumberland.^[50]

Day 11 – 29 March 2011
The London Conference on Libya was chaired by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague.
Two Tornados flying from Gioia del Colle engaged near Misrata a Libyan armoured fighting vehicle and two artillery pieces with Brimstone missiles.^[51]

Day 12 – 30 March 2011
Tornados flying from Gioia del Colle engaged near Misrata three Libyan tanks, two armoured fighting vehicles and a surface-to-air missile site with Brimstone missiles and Paveway IV bombs.^[52] HMS Liverpool was deployed to relieve HMS Cumberland.^[26]

Day 13 – 31 March 2011
From 06:00 GMT, NATO took sole command of air operations over Libya under Operation Unified Protector, taking over from U.S. Africa Command.^[53][54][55]

Day 15 – 2 April 2011
HMS Triumph returned to base HMNB Devonport flying the Jolly Roger marked for six successful Tomahawk launches.^[56]
RAF Tornado aircraft launched Paveway IV bombs against pro-Gaddafi forces. Two main battle tanks in Sirte and several small ground-attack aircraft on an airfield near Misrata were reportedly hit.^[57]

Day 16 – 3 April 2011
RAF Tornados reportedly launched successful attacks with Paveway IV and Brimstone missiles on ten armoured fighting vehicles south of Sirte.^[57]

Day 17 – 4 April 2011
The number of Tornado aircraft taking part in Operation Ellamy was increased from eight to twelve on 4 April, with the aircraft deployed from RAF Marham.^[58] RAF Tornados, engaged in two separate strikes in the Libyan city of Sirte, launched three Brimstone missiles which destroyed one main battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers.^[57]

Day 22 – 9 April 2011
Seven tanks were destroyed by Tornado aircraft, two in Ajdabiya and five in Misrata, using Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles.^[59]

Day 23 – 10 April 2011
The MoD reported that over the weekend of 22–23 April, of 61 armoured vehicles and air defence assets destroyed by NATO, 21 were destroyed by RAF aircraft.^[6]

Day 25 – 12 April 2011
HMS Turbulent was declared available in theatre by the MoD for Tomahawk strikes should they be required.^[6]
RAF Typhoon aircraft were used operationally in a ground attack role for the first time. A Typhoon destroyed 2 main battle tanks near Misrata with Paveway II whilst a Tornado destroyed the third with Paveway IV. In total, RAF aircraft destroyed eight main battle tanks on 12 April. Since the start of Operation ELLAMY up until 12 April, RAF aircraft had engaged over 100 main battle tanks, artillery pieces, armoured vehicles and SAMs.^[6]

Day 31–18 April 2011
RAF Tornados and Typhoons attacked a pair of multiple rocket launcher vehicles and a light artillery piece reportedly firing on Misrata, as well as a self-propelled gun and tank.^[60]
HMS Triumph was reported by the MoD to have launched two salvoes of Tomahawk missiles against command and control facilities alongside precision strikes by RAF Tornados, Typhoons and coalition aircraft.^[60] The MoD's previous report that HMS Triumph had returned to Devonport suggests the submarine involved was probably HMS Turbulent.^{[6][dubious – discuss]}
HMS Liverpool intercepted the vessel MV Setubal Express heading for Tripoli, conducting a boarding party search with Royal Marines and finding trucks of potential use to the Gaddafi regime. The merchant vessel was ordered to divert to Salerno in Italy.^[61]

Day 32 – 19 April 2011
The Foreign Secretary announced that a British Military Liaison Advisory Team was to be sent to Benghazi to advise the NTC on how to improve their military organisational structures, communications and logistics.^[62]

Day 43 – 30 April 2011
HMS Brocklesby destroyed a buoyant mine containing over 100 kg of high explosive. Using her sonar and underwater mine disposal system, Seafox, the mine was destroyed one mile from the entrance to Misrata harbour, making the waters safe for aid ships to enter^[63][64]

Day 49 – 6 May 2011
Tornados attacked a site south of Sirte based on analysis of intelligence by RAF Tactical Imagery Wing. 20 FROG-7 launchers and a significant number of Scud canisters were reported as either completely or partially destroyed. RAF aircraft also destroyed one tank and two armoured vehicles in the area of Misrata and one mobile rocket launcher south of Tripoli.^[65]

Day 55 – 12 May 2011
An RAF Typhoon was reported to have destroyed two Palmaria 155mm howitzers near Sirte.^[66]
While engaged in surveillance operations off the coast of the rebel-held Libyan city of Misrata, HMS Liverpool came under fire from a shore battery, making her the first Royal Navy warship to be deliberately targeted since the Falklands War.^[67] Liverpool had been tasked with other NATO warships, to intercept small, high-speed inflatable craft spotted approaching the port of Misrata, the type which had been used previously to lay mines in the Port of Misrata. Libyan rocket artillery on the coast fired an inaccurate salvo of rockets at Liverpool. Liverpool returned fire with her 4.5 inch main gun, silencing the shore battery, in the Royal Navy's first use of the weapon since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[68][68][69]

Day 59 – 16 May 2011
Royal Navy Tomahawk missiles reportedly fired from HMS Triumph, and Paveway IV bombs released by RAF Tornado aircraft were reported to have struck intelligence agency buildings and a training base used by Colonel Gaddafi's Executive Protection Force. RN and RAF attacks were reported to have damaged or destroyed over 300 targets since the start of Operation Ellamy.^[66]

Day 62 – 19 May 2011
Tornado GR4s attacked two corvettes in Al Khums naval base and destroyed a facility in the dockyard constructing fast inflatable boats which Libyan forces had reportedly used to mine Misrata and attack vessels in the area.^[70]

Day 63 – 20 May 2011
RAF aircraft destroyed five multiple rockets launchers around Tripoli.^[71]

Day 67 – 24 May 2011
RAF aircraft attacked four armoured vehicles deployed near the Libyan city of Zlitan. A Tornado attacked a Libyan coastal radar station near Brega, which was destroyed with a dual-mode seeker Brimstone missile.^[71]

Day 68 – 25 May 2011
A vehicle depot at Tiji was attacked by a Typhoon FGR4 and a Tornado GR4 dropping four Enhanced Paveway II and five Paveway IV weapons between them.^[71]

Day 70 – 27 May 2011
HMS Ocean (detached from the Response Force Task Group COUGAR 11 deployment) deployed with a complement of 4 Apache helicopters to aid operations.^[72][73]

Day 77 – 3 June 2011
The Response Force Task Group withdrew from COUGAR 11 and was deployed (an RFTG ship, HMS Ocean, and her embarked Apache attack helicopters had been deployed days earlier) to supplement UK forces in Operation Ellamy.^[74]

Day 102 - 28 June 2011
HMS Liverpool used her main gun to fire warning shots at pro-Gaddafi maritime forces moving along Libya's Mediterranean coast just west of the city of Misrata, amid concerns a threat was posed to civilians due to recent repeated attempts to mine the harbour. After initially ignoring the first shell, a further three were fired and the vessels were forced to return to their port of departure.^[75][76]

Day 107 - 3 August 2011
Several rockets were fired at HMS Liverpool. She returned fire with her 4.5 inch main gun. The attack came after the ship had fired a barrage of illumination rounds in support of an air attack on the stronghold of Zliten.^[77]

Day 145 – 10 August 2011
RAF Tornados launched direct from RAF Marham in Norfolk to target command and control and air defence targets with Stormshadow cruise missiles.^[78]

Day 151 – 16 August 2011
Since the start of military operations on 19 March, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, and Army Air Corps precision strikes were reported to have damaged or destroyed some 870 former regime targets.^[79]
HMS Liverpool was involved in the most intense shore-bombardment of the war. Liverpool had been tasked by a patrol aircraft to fire illumination rounds over the city of Zlitan. While conducting this mission, Liverpool came under fire from a Loyalist shore-battery. Liverpool responded by firing three rounds from her 4.5 inch gun, silencing the battery. Later on the same day, a patrol aircraft spotted a large pro-Gaddafi vehicle convoy carrying weapons and ammunition. Liverpool fired 54 shells from her 4.5 inch gun at the convoy, destroying or severely damaging many of the vehicles. During the ensuing chaos on the ground, NATO aircraft destroyed the remainder of the convoy.^[80]

The US and Britain were among those in favour of establishing the no-fly zone over Libya [AFP]

The UN Security Council resolution, passed on Thursday, authorises a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians from attacks by Muammar Gaddafi's forces.
These are the key points:

Demands "the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians".

Demands that Libyan authorities "take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance".

Authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".

Decides "to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians", but says humanitarian flights and flights authorised by the UN and Arab League can take place.

Strengthens the arms embargo imposed on February 26 by calling on UN member states "to inspect in their territory, including airports and seaports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from" Libya if the country has information with "reasonable grounds" to believe the cargo contains banned military items, or that armed mercenaries are being transported.

Orders all states to prevent any Libyan owned, operated, or registered aircraft - or any aircraft believed to be carrying prohibited weapons or mercenaries - to take off, land or overfly their territory without prior approval from the UN committee monitoring sanctions.

Adds travel bans on the Libyan ambassador to Chad and the governor of Ghat, both directly involved in recruiting mercenaries for the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi.

Extends an asset freeze to seven more individuals including three additional Gaddafi children, the defence minister, the director of military intelligence, the director of the external security organisation, and the secretary for utilities.

Freezes the assets of five key financial institutions: the Central Bank, the Libyan Investment Authority, the Libyan Foreign Bank, Libyan Africa Investment Portfoilio, and the Libyan National Oil Corporation.

Asks Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to establish an eight-member panel of experts to help the UN sanctions committee monitor implementation of sanctions against 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 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.

[1] the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan

Contact your MP and councilor.

Submit the documents above, 'War Crimes the Evidence', 'The Lies that Lead to War', to give supportive evidence, and ask them what they are doing to ensure that UK war criminals are brought to justice.

http://www.writetothem.com/

If you feel this is not enough then contact crime stoppers on line submitting the following documents 'War Crimes the Evidence', 'The Lies that Lead to War' as supportive evidence

https://secure.crimestoppers-uk.org/ams.form.anonymous.asp

Thursday, 14 February 2013

Turning it on its head you have the key

United Nations declaration Universal human rights Article 21.(3)
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

WHEN WAR IS ILLEGAL PAYING TAX IS A WAR CRIME
http://taxrebellion.wordpress.com/lawful-duty/

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”.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

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

Misconduct in Public Office

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

We need no conspiracy theories, in the clear light of day we can ALL see the basic facts; banks are corrupt, politics and politicians are corrupt, business in corrupt, media are corrupt, councils are corrupt, management of public services is corrupt, police are corrupt, judges are corrupt.
To resolve these paramount issues there is only one answer, and that is to charge them all with crimes against peace, crimes against humanity.
One chance for choice to choose that which is truthful and just as opposed to that which is ungodly, immoral, unconstitutional and an affront to decency.

The Law is the Law. Police and Judges are bound by position, duty and oath to uphold International and Domestic law and common law.
At present they are in breach of all.
This charge levied at them is not a work of fiction, as you can see the facts speak for themselves.