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
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
the
International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan
Kellogg-Brian-Pact
The treaty for the renunciation of war 1928 [Kellogg-Brian-Pact] prohibits
resort to war and requires that all disputes are settled peacefully.
The UN Charter 1945 prohibits the threat or use of force and
requires states to work together in conformity with the principles of justice
and international law to maintain peace.
The Nuremberg
War Crimes Trials 1946 upheld the principle that waging aggressive is a war crime and that
individuals rather than states can be held to account in a court for war
crimes.
The Geneva Convention 1949, 1977 govern the conduct of warfare, the
protection of civilians and prisoners of war whilst prohibiting wilful killing,
attacks on civilians, destruction of property, unlawful weapons as well as
designating 33 separate punishable war crimes.
The Genocide Convention 1948 prohibits the adoption of a policy
to destroy members of a national ethnic racial or religious group as such.
The Nuremberg
Principles 1950 introduce
the concept of personal responsibility for the universal offences of a crime
against peace [waging aggressive war], crimes against Humanity, war crimes and
complicity in such crimes.
The Chemical Weapons Convention 1992 prohibits the development
production stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention 1972 prohibits the development production stockpiling and use of biological
and toxic weapons.
The Land mines Convention 1997 prohibits the development production
stockpiling and use of land mines and anti personnel explosives.
The Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 gave the International Criminal Court power to
prosecute genocide, crimes against Humanity and war crimes.
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 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 August 2012
When is it a crime to pay tax?
Most taxpayers know that evading tax is a crime, but how many of us know that
paying tax can also be a crime? Chris Coverdale a lawyer and tax resister
explains.
When David Cameron took the comedian Jimmy Carr to task last summer for tax
avoidance and persuaded him to pay income tax to the British Government, he
inadvertently involved him in the worst crimes known to mankind – genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Under the domestic and international laws of war citizens are forbidden from
taking part in war on the side of the aggressor and are legally bound to
disobey the orders of any Government that takes part in an illegal war or
supports acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. This duty to
refuse to obey unlawful Government orders includes orders to pay tax. If a
government uses funds raised by taxation to wage illegal war or to commit acts
of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, then a taxpayer’s normal
duty to pay tax is reversed and becomes a duty to refuse to pay tax.
“ The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international
duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the
individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while
acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising
action moves outside its competence under international law…”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
War is never lawful; it was outlawed in 1928 when 63 nations ratified the
General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact). This treaty,
which formed the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, is still in
force. The only occasion when the use of armed force is lawful occurs when a
State is under attack and it acts in self-defence to repel the attackers. On
all other occasions the use of armed force is illegal.
“War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand
Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world
an illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one
or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law…. We
denounce them as law breakers.”
Henry Stimson, USA
Secretary of State 1932
Wilful killing during warfare is always a crime. If a person is killed as a
consequence of a planned military action then the death is unlawful and the
perpetrators can be charged with a war crime, a crime against humanity,
genocide, murder or conspiracy to commit such crimes.
WHEN WAR IS ILLEGAL PAYING TAX IS A WAR CRIME
Under the laws of war each of the wars fought since 2001 against Afghanistan, Iraq
and Libya
is illegal. Not only do they violate the Treaty for the Renunciation of War and
the UN Charter, but by killing 1.5m civilians the leaders and taxpayers of
every State involved in these wars committed murder, crimes against peace, war
crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Under the common law doctrine of joint enterprise or Article 25 of the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court every citizen of a NATO or ISAF
State who has paid tax since October 2001 is technically an accessory to the
crimes committed by their Government, and is criminally liable for arrest,
prosecution and punishment for complicity in war crimes.
The fact, that taxpayers can be arrested, tried, convicted and punished as
war criminals alongside the civil, political and military leaders responsible
for starting the wars may come as an unwelcome surprise to those who are not
familiar with the laws of war. But it should be no surprise to anyone who has
experienced or even considered the horrific consequences of war. Starting a
war, in which tens of thousands of totally innocent men women and children are
injured and killed is the world’s most evil act; so supporting a war by
providing the funds that purchase the weapons and pay the troops ranks
alongside it as a monstrous crime.
The legislation however provides relief for taxpayers who have unwittingly
supported illegal wars. Providing they end their participation in the crimes
and refuse to pay any further taxes to their government or its agents until the
wars and the crimes have ended, they will not be punished for aiding and
abetting the crimes.
To make sure that you cannot be prosecuted, ask you employer to pay your
PAYE and NI payments into a trust account to be withheld from the Government
until it abides by the laws of war. By paying taxes into a trust or escrow
account you fulfil your national duty to pay tax as well as your international
duty to withhold tax. However if you or your employer continue to pay tax to
the government after you know that it is a criminal offence, you are liable for
arrest and prosecution as an accessory to murder, war crimes, crimes against
humanity or genocide .
By joining together in international tax resistance taxpayers can force our
Governments and leaders to stop their illegal wars and end the indiscriminate
killing of civilians. So it is now down to us to end the carnage. Each of us
has a choice; we can stop the wars and end the killing by withholding tax, or
support the wars and continue the killing by paying tax.
Chris
Coverdale
Corporate, capitalists, multi conglomerates,
banks, Governments and businesses ALL who are directly responsible for murder, the
destruction of habitats, species, environments, the displacement of indigenous
people, the pollution of the natural environment, and using force to
repress people are ALL in breach of
Human Rights, and in many cases they are also committing war crimes and crimes
against Humanity and Human rights breaches
Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
The right to liberty
The right to a fair trial
The right not to be punished for something that
wasn't a crime when you did it
The right to respect for private and family
life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
and freedom to express your beliefs
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
The right to marry and to start a family
The right not to be discriminated against in
respect of these rights and freedoms
The right to peaceful enjoyment of your
property
The right to an education
The right to participate in free elections
The right not to be subjected to the death
penalty
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.
The above are
responsible for serious human rights breaches, breaches in domestic and international
laws including war crimes.
International Bill of Human Rights
There is much recent concern as to changes that are being implemented regarding Human rights in the UK.
There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Human Rights Act 1998. Those changes will be listed when you open the content using the Table of Contents below. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
Also another worrying development
Justices' unanimous ruling closes courthouse doors
to most cases with no direct connection to the United States, despite
protests from human rights groups. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that international human
rights violations with no direct link to the United States cannot be
challenged in U.S. courts under an obscure 1789 law.
The people
around the world must stop following orders that set human upon human whilst the
arms dealers, the generals, the politicians and the elite reap their rewards
from the peoples spilled blood. People must not allow themselves to be enslaved
and divided by the divisive and the corrupt. We have all of history to see the
bloody game they have set upon human kind, with this information surely we
cannot still be so blind as to not see the deceit and evil done and implemented
on the many by the few.
Return the lands to the people and the people to
the lands
We as free people must not pull back from
seeking the truth and consistency in any plans concerning our race, the planet
and its species.
If we look at the world, we are all sharing it
as the whole, the one, and, at present, there is no other.
The bottom line is, you cannot get off.
It is each and everyone's responsibility to
ensure that industry, Governments and corporate's do not destroy the
environment and species any more.
There are no excuses for the wanton destruction
of the planet, it's species and habitats to date.
You/we/I have only to look to see the massive environmental
damage that big companies and governments have already created with their
insatiable greed and their need for cash, control of people, energy and
resources.
The truth is they must be stopped from
destroying any further.
Alternative energy is not a fantasy, there is an
inexhaustible amount of information readily available.
Conservation of energy must also be fully
realized, utilized and practiced.
Do not be fooled into thinking bio fuels, or
hydro electric dams are an answer.
They serve no sustainable purpose, resulting
once again in the destruction of habitats and the displacement of wildlife and
indigenous people's.
As a race, we must not allow any to destroy our
environment.
We must not allow corporate, industry, or
regimes to force us to be separated from interacting with our environment.
Nuclear power is a demon seed with nuclear waste
having a half life of 25,000 years.
This means that it will still be 100% toxic to
all forms of cellular life in 25,000 years time.
Chernobyl in Russia and Fukushima in Japan has
shown that no nuclear power plants are 100% safe, and once an accident happens,
the species and environmental impact is both far reaching and devastating.
People must pluck the sickness of greed and corruption from
their Nations
You only get one chance,
make that chance, one of a future for all People, species and planet.
People must expose and oppose
tyrants, regimes and oppressors and those who commit crimes against peace,
genocide, and ecocide. Everyone is on the same Planet, we need to acknowledge
that we are also on the same page in our History and Future.
There is also a face book group should you wish to join
