Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

war crimes continue until arrested






War Crimes Continue until arrested


We do not need to smash the lock in order to open the door; we must simply use the right key.

 It is required under UK law that murderers are arrested and prosecuted.
.
Those under oath, sworn to duty must honour their undertaking to enforce the law, uphold the peace & the rights of the People
They MUST do so, as a conscious sworn oath is not to be taken lightly.
Bearing in mind that there is much corruption within the courts of the land, within Parliament and unfortunately also within the police force.
There is now sufficient evidence to arrest and charge MP’s with murder, war crimes, genocide, crimes against peace and crimes against Humanity.
The government/s direct involvements in illegal wars include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.

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

Under UK Law
The offences against Person Act 1861
"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".

Under International Law
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.

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.
Supporting evidence


Who are some of these people?

Tony Blair
A prominent international lawyer says former US President George W. Bush, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stand guilty of crimes against peace, war crimes and torture.
Margaret Thatcher's true legacy was the war criminal Tony Blair


David Cameron & Libya
Vote count by MP’s of the UK government participation in the air strikes. 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 voted in favor of air strikes in Libya, knowing 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 for these air strikes on Libya is available to police on request

“David Cameron’s call for war crimes charges against Libyan leaders is justified, but the Tory leader should add himself, the majority of his party and almost all of his Westminster colleagues to the list of people who should face justice before an international court on charges of waging aggressive war and the deaths of over a million people.”
Not detracting too much, we must not forget the Levson enquiry & David Cameron's involvement in the Hacking scandal and the ensuing cover up.. This is also where a citizen openly accused Tony Blair of war crimes;
 Instead of pursuing an investigation into these charges Levson was only concerned with how this citizen got into the court.
David Cameron has been mocked for meeting Rebekah Brooks for the first time since the former News of the World editor was charged with offences related to phone-hacking. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9755178/David-Cameron-mocked-for-partying-with-Rebekah-Brooks.html


Margaret Thatcher, deceased:
‘Thatcher called 'war criminal'
Not detracting too much, but also her involvement in Hillsborough
Hillsborough families demand full disclosure over ex-PM's role in cover-up http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-dead-hillsborough-families-1821863


Mark Thatcher 
Sir Mark Thatcher has left South Africa after pleading guilty over his involvement in an alleged coup plot in Equatorial Guinea.

The British queen and 60 years of war crimes
Your Country is being run by war criminals


On the day of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral there will be many troops who have been coerced into fighting illegal wars for government/s
There is growing anger in the service community that the Military Covenant, which says soldiers should always be able to expect fair treatment in return for the rights they forgo, is not being upheld

There will also be Hundreds of armed officers along the procession route.
Operation Kratos; shoot to kill policy
Also see
17,600 police jobs have gone since March 2010 to find savings of £749m. This is more than half the 32,400 uniformed officers and civilian staff jobs they now plan to shed by 2015.

Open Public appeal to police officers to arrest war criminals many  of who will be present at St Pauls on Wednesday 17th April
Police_March_In_London_May_10th_2012_save and protect


Once again it is reiterated that those who are responsible for enforcing the law, must stand on their Oath and do so.
Oath definition; A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness

To top it all, whilst all those people, including soldiers and police attend and tend the funeral at St Paul’s we are consistently reminded to think of honor and respect.

MPs wanting to pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher in the Commons today will be able to claim up to £3,750 each to do so.
According to reports, all 650 MPs have been told they can claim back the cost of returning to Westminster if they were outside the country when parliament was recalled.


Once more, just to ensure and enshrine this wording for correct purpose and use.

Murder is an arrestable crime Under UK Law

The offences against Person Act 1861
"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".

Under International Law
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.

Thank you for your time.
It is now required under UK law that murderers are arrested and charged.
Those officers on oath, given the duties to enforce the law MUST do so.
Bearing in mind that there is much corruption within the courts of the land, within Parliament and unfortunately also within the police force.
This request is made to the compassionate, the decent, the honorable, and the just.

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

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.


Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Prince Harry killed

 Prince Harry in his Apache helicopter (© John Stillwell/PA Wire)

Harry: I killed Taliban insurgents


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




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.   


[1] the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan