Gordon Brown is due to appear before the Iraq Inquiry on Friday 5th March.
Sir John Chilcot has a duty to ask Gordon Brown about the criminal offences under UK law that he carried out in relation to the Iraq War.
Regime change using force (boasted of by Blair on 29th January 2010) has been "an act of terrorism" in UK law since 1993 (see Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993).
It remained an act of terrorism as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Funding terrorism is an offence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The penalty, on conviction, is 14 years imprisonment.
Gordon Brown funded the Iraq War by virtue of his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer during the relevant periods.
Chilcot has a duty to ask Brown about that funding of an invasion and regime change by force that was an "act of terrorism" in UK Law.
Monday, 22 February 2010
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Was there a miscarriage of justice in the Court Martial of Malcolm Kendall-Smith?
If my thesis is correct, that military action has been unlawful for UK Armed Forces since July 2000, it seems to me that it inevitably follows that those military personnel court martialled in relation to actions (or refusals) since that date may have been the subject of a miscarriage of justice.
A more than averagely informative account of the Court Martial of Malcolm Kendall-Smith is found here: RAF doctor must face Iraq court martial.
The article attributes the following quote to Jack Bayliss:
He said: "There can have been no possible illegality in complying with the orders to attend for pistol and rifle training, to attend for a helmet fitting and sizing, or to attend an initial response training course. Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre."
To what extent is the validity (if it ever had such) of Bayliss's statement affected if the Terrorism Act 2000 applies?
I'll list three issues which I surmise correspond to what I believe to be 3 or the 5 charges against Malcolm Kendall-Smith.
1. Refusal to attend for pistol and rifle training. If Malcolm Kendall-Smith had complied with the order he would have committed a criminal offence as specified in Section 54(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
2. Refusal to attend for helmet fitting and sizing. If Malcolm-Kendall Smith had complied with the order he would have committed a criminal office as specified in Section 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
3. Refusal to attend an initial response training course. Having to guess exactly what happens at an "initial response training course", I think it would be sensible to look at possible offences under Sections 57(1), 58(1)(a) and 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. I would be surprised if one of those offences weren't involved at some point in the process.
Notice that Jack Bayliss said, "Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre.". This proves that he knew the activities were related to the deployment to Iraq.
It seems to me that Jack Bayliss's comment is useful evidence for any upcoming action by Malcolm Kendall-Smith. Bayliss links what Malcolm Kendall-Smith refused to undertake to the unlawful action in Iraq (as judged by the perspective of the Terrorism Act 2000) thus strengthening the evidence that orders Malcolm Kendall-Smith refused would have been such as to cause him to commit one or more criminal offences in terms of the sections listed above.
I'll develop several lines of questions and argument relating to this broad topic in later posts.
Suffice to say that I think it's likely that many, if not all, of the military personnel convicted at Court Martial in relation to offences of the nature of those just described will be eligible to appeal to the Secretary of State for compensation for the miscarriage of justice that affected them personally.
A more than averagely informative account of the Court Martial of Malcolm Kendall-Smith is found here: RAF doctor must face Iraq court martial.
The article attributes the following quote to Jack Bayliss:
He said: "There can have been no possible illegality in complying with the orders to attend for pistol and rifle training, to attend for a helmet fitting and sizing, or to attend an initial response training course. Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre."
To what extent is the validity (if it ever had such) of Bayliss's statement affected if the Terrorism Act 2000 applies?
I'll list three issues which I surmise correspond to what I believe to be 3 or the 5 charges against Malcolm Kendall-Smith.
1. Refusal to attend for pistol and rifle training. If Malcolm Kendall-Smith had complied with the order he would have committed a criminal offence as specified in Section 54(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
2. Refusal to attend for helmet fitting and sizing. If Malcolm-Kendall Smith had complied with the order he would have committed a criminal office as specified in Section 57(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
3. Refusal to attend an initial response training course. Having to guess exactly what happens at an "initial response training course", I think it would be sensible to look at possible offences under Sections 57(1), 58(1)(a) and 58(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000. I would be surprised if one of those offences weren't involved at some point in the process.
Notice that Jack Bayliss said, "Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre.". This proves that he knew the activities were related to the deployment to Iraq.
It seems to me that Jack Bayliss's comment is useful evidence for any upcoming action by Malcolm Kendall-Smith. Bayliss links what Malcolm Kendall-Smith refused to undertake to the unlawful action in Iraq (as judged by the perspective of the Terrorism Act 2000) thus strengthening the evidence that orders Malcolm Kendall-Smith refused would have been such as to cause him to commit one or more criminal offences in terms of the sections listed above.
I'll develop several lines of questions and argument relating to this broad topic in later posts.
Suffice to say that I think it's likely that many, if not all, of the military personnel convicted at Court Martial in relation to offences of the nature of those just described will be eligible to appeal to the Secretary of State for compensation for the miscarriage of justice that affected them personally.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg support internation terrorism in Parliament
By virtue of the UK's military action in Afghanistan being "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of The Terrorism Act 2000, it is an inevitable consequence that statements in Parliament by David Cameron and Nick Clegg support Britain's international terrorism in Afghanistan.
I believe it is inappropriate and improper for David Cameron and Nick Clegg to be making statements in Parliament supporting international terrorism and individual terrorists.
Below is a copy of my recent email to David Cameron. I wrote to Nick Clegg in similar terms at the same time.
[13th February 2010]
I am aware that on the floor of the House you support the troop's actions. In so doing, you are supporting "terrorism" as defined in UK law and lauding the actions of those who are committing criminal offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000.
See
for one description of the argument, and here for another (with a little polemic too, but a detailed legal argument later in the post):
I believe you have a duty to investigate this as a matter of urgency given that:
1. The British Armed Forces are acting contrary to UK law
2. British Officers would be liable to life imprisonment on conviction by virtue of committing offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000
3. British soldiers who die or are maimed are doing so as "terrorists" as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
4. Use of public funds for unlawful purpose makes many civil servants liable to prosecution, in addition to specific offences detailed in Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Andrew Watt
I believe it is inappropriate and improper for David Cameron and Nick Clegg to be making statements in Parliament supporting international terrorism and individual terrorists.
Below is a copy of my recent email to David Cameron. I wrote to Nick Clegg in similar terms at the same time.
[13th February 2010]
Mr Cameron,
I ask you as a matter of urgency to seek legal advice, since I believe the Afghan War is unlawful in UK law by virtue of it meeting the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I am aware that on the floor of the House you support the troop's actions. In so doing, you are supporting "terrorism" as defined in UK law and lauding the actions of those who are committing criminal offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000.
See
for one description of the argument, and here for another (with a little polemic too, but a detailed legal argument later in the post):
I believe you have a duty to investigate this as a matter of urgency given that:
1. The British Armed Forces are acting contrary to UK law
2. British Officers would be liable to life imprisonment on conviction by virtue of committing offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000
3. British soldiers who die or are maimed are doing so as "terrorists" as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
4. Use of public funds for unlawful purpose makes many civil servants liable to prosecution, in addition to specific offences detailed in Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Andrew Watt
Questions the Iraq Inquiry must ask Gordon Brown about his criminal offences re the Iraq War
Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister, is due to be interviewed by the Chilcot Inquiry sometime in March 2010.
As you'll probably know, Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 before taking over as Prime Minister from Tony "The Terrorist" Blair.
Given that the Iraq War is terrorism, as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, then it is difficult to argue that Gordon Brown hasn't committed at least some of the financial terrorist offences described in Sections 15 to 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Here is a provisional list of questions that, if Chilcot were genuinely an inquiry, would have to be asked.
1. Mr Brown, do you accept that the Government of Iraq changed as a result of the use of military force by the United Kingdom and others in March 2003?
2. Mr Brown, what part did you play in relation to those military operations?
3. Can you confirm to the inquiry approximately how much public money was made available on your authority to support the military action?
4. Mr Brown, were you aware of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993? And that in Section 2(2) of that Act that the overthrowing of a goverment by force is deemed to be "an act of terrorism".
5. Mr Brown are you aware of the Terrorism Act 2000, an act passed into UK Law by the United Kingdom Parliament?
6. Mr Brown, the inquiry has offered you legal advisers, to help you interpret the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000. Is it the advice you have now received that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000?
7. Mr Brown, I draw to your attention Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism 2000. Can you tell the Inquiry the advice you received re whether or not, you committed criminal offences in respect of the public money you made available for the purposes of terrorism in Iraq?
8. Mr Brown, are you sure that you wish to answer no further questions on grounds of self-incrimination?
9. Very well, you may leave. Thank you for such cooperation as you felt able to give the Inquiry.
Perhaps not literally like that, but these are issues that MUST be explored by Chilcot and, in time, by UK courts.
As you'll probably know, Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1997 before taking over as Prime Minister from Tony "The Terrorist" Blair.
Given that the Iraq War is terrorism, as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, then it is difficult to argue that Gordon Brown hasn't committed at least some of the financial terrorist offences described in Sections 15 to 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Here is a provisional list of questions that, if Chilcot were genuinely an inquiry, would have to be asked.
1. Mr Brown, do you accept that the Government of Iraq changed as a result of the use of military force by the United Kingdom and others in March 2003?
2. Mr Brown, what part did you play in relation to those military operations?
3. Can you confirm to the inquiry approximately how much public money was made available on your authority to support the military action?
4. Mr Brown, were you aware of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993? And that in Section 2(2) of that Act that the overthrowing of a goverment by force is deemed to be "an act of terrorism".
5. Mr Brown are you aware of the Terrorism Act 2000, an act passed into UK Law by the United Kingdom Parliament?
6. Mr Brown, the inquiry has offered you legal advisers, to help you interpret the meaning of the Terrorism Act 2000. Is it the advice you have now received that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000?
7. Mr Brown, I draw to your attention Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism 2000. Can you tell the Inquiry the advice you received re whether or not, you committed criminal offences in respect of the public money you made available for the purposes of terrorism in Iraq?
8. Mr Brown, are you sure that you wish to answer no further questions on grounds of self-incrimination?
9. Very well, you may leave. Thank you for such cooperation as you felt able to give the Inquiry.
Perhaps not literally like that, but these are issues that MUST be explored by Chilcot and, in time, by UK courts.
A Petition to have Tony Blair tried for war crimes - Is it well founded?
I've been having a look at an online petition which seeks to have Tony Blair tried for "war crimes". The petition is here: "Campaign to arrest and prosecute former Prime Minister Tony Blair for War Crimes."
It doesn't have too many signatures yet.
Why haven't I signed it (yet)? That's straightforward. I'm still trying to come to a view as to whether Tony Blair committed "war crimes" as defined in Schedule 8 to The International Criminal Court Act 2001 and/or the correspondong Scottish Act The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.
It's not immediately obvious whether the petitioners are using "war crimes" as a catch all phrase to cover the offences of "Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes" listed in Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and defined in Schedule 8 mentioned in the preceding paragraph or more specifically (as one of the three crimes defined in Schedule 8. Nor am I sure whether the petition is to have him charged in the UK or, in due time, at the International Criminal Court.
I didn't publicly accuse Tony "The Terrrorist" Blair of terrorism under UK Law, (see, for example, Tony Blair's First Life Sentence - He's a Terrorist. in the UK's Court of Public Opinion), until I'd looked carefully at the evidence. Once I've completed a careful look I don't hang back from polemic where I think it's genuinely justified. And I'm taking a similar approach to the "Blair is a War Criminal" notion. It may be true but it needs careful consideration which amounts to more than abuse.
The petition links to TonyBlair.org War Criminal. And there's quite a bit of bedtime reading there that I need to look at properly sometime. It may help me come to a considered view.
There's a useful overview page about the Chilcot Inquiry, which begins with the insight, "The Iraq Inquiry is in many ways the Goverments way of appeasement. It’s the minimum they had to do.". Spot on!
One aspect I did find a little disappointing was that the creator of TonyBlair.org War Criminal has used an anonymising service, Moniker Privacy Services, based in Pompano Beach, Florida to conceal his/her/their identity. Maybe I'm being old-fashioned here, but it you're accusing someone of serious wrongdoing I think it shows a little more integrity to be open about it.
As it happens, I emailed both Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell a few days ago about my considered position regarding Tony Blair being a "terrorist" under UK law and having committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
No libel writ, so far. Maybe Cherie's burning the midnight oil looking for a legal loophole?
It doesn't have too many signatures yet.
Why haven't I signed it (yet)? That's straightforward. I'm still trying to come to a view as to whether Tony Blair committed "war crimes" as defined in Schedule 8 to The International Criminal Court Act 2001 and/or the correspondong Scottish Act The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.
It's not immediately obvious whether the petitioners are using "war crimes" as a catch all phrase to cover the offences of "Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes" listed in Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and defined in Schedule 8 mentioned in the preceding paragraph or more specifically (as one of the three crimes defined in Schedule 8. Nor am I sure whether the petition is to have him charged in the UK or, in due time, at the International Criminal Court.
I didn't publicly accuse Tony "The Terrrorist" Blair of terrorism under UK Law, (see, for example, Tony Blair's First Life Sentence - He's a Terrorist. in the UK's Court of Public Opinion), until I'd looked carefully at the evidence. Once I've completed a careful look I don't hang back from polemic where I think it's genuinely justified. And I'm taking a similar approach to the "Blair is a War Criminal" notion. It may be true but it needs careful consideration which amounts to more than abuse.
The petition links to TonyBlair.org War Criminal. And there's quite a bit of bedtime reading there that I need to look at properly sometime. It may help me come to a considered view.
There's a useful overview page about the Chilcot Inquiry, which begins with the insight, "The Iraq Inquiry is in many ways the Goverments way of appeasement. It’s the minimum they had to do.". Spot on!
One aspect I did find a little disappointing was that the creator of TonyBlair.org War Criminal has used an anonymising service, Moniker Privacy Services, based in Pompano Beach, Florida to conceal his/her/their identity. Maybe I'm being old-fashioned here, but it you're accusing someone of serious wrongdoing I think it shows a little more integrity to be open about it.
As it happens, I emailed both Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell a few days ago about my considered position regarding Tony Blair being a "terrorist" under UK law and having committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
No libel writ, so far. Maybe Cherie's burning the midnight oil looking for a legal loophole?
Friday, 12 February 2010
Military Force in Iraq: Some Technical Considerations / Speculations
If you're new to this site I suggest you skip this post since it's simply a brief (if I can keep it brief) summary of some academic or technical issues of legal conceptual framework. A kind of shared notepad for the (meant in a nice way) obsessives. Sensible people would move on.
I'm having some fun legal discussion "off piste" as it were with a lawyer or two and among the questions/issues/perspectives are the following.
Nothing I've heard/discussed so far has led me to change my views expressed in other posts. But it has helped me sharpen up my thinking re issues that need to be dealt with (i.e. examined and dismissed, then communicated effectively) to convince the legally literate sceptics. Including challenging some of their (so I assess them) false assumptions.
The purpose of doing this more theoretical legal stuff, is for me to continue to keep under review the accuracy / credibility of my views about the implications of the Terrorism Act 2000 etc for Iraq and to explore the range of other assumptions and perspectives (including some vividly red herrings) that need to be addressed.
One thing that is very clear is that it is an area (at least in the arguably unique circumstances that applied in the time periods relative to the Iraq war) that not enough detailed consideration of some issues has taken place.
Some very sloppy judicial thinking is evident (a need for more posts when I can express the limitations of some individual judgements in a clear way and propose a better analysis for the issues under consideration in them). And, I think, some very sloppy (even more sloppy?) thinking went into the pre-war assessment by Peter Goldsmith.
Later I'm going to attempt to produce an article to attempt to communicate "A Theory of Law re the Use of Military Force in Iraq [time period to be decided]" (taking into account interactions of which I can trace no previous consideration). Not a 10 volume job, though (I sincerely hope!!). I'll leave that to the relevant judges.
1. The implications of whether Tony Blair gave parliament an accurate description of the legal position.
2. Ditto for the factual position.
3. If one were to accept that "all necessary means" was thought to be allowed (a la Goldsmith advice), what is the position when it was found NOT to be necessary - since there were no WMD.
4. Put it another way, if the pre-war assessment of a "need" for armed force proved to be wrong, and there were in fact no "necessary" means, does that mean that the use of armed force was unlawful? In practice that may not matter (the "might is right" anti-principle) but in theory if the authorisation is limited to "necessary" means (and nothing was actually "necessary") does it mean that the variation of the background prohibition against using armed force was invalid. In other words, the prohibition was still in place and the war was unlawful (in international law). I haven't been able to trace any consideration of that question.
5. We haven't seen in the public domain the AG's "it's ok to use force" letter (of 13th March). If he didn't caution the CDS about the need for the cause to be "correct" would his advice be negligent? Would that matter? The letter will probably emerge at Chilcot in time. I can't see how they can continue to withold something so pivotal. Chilcot will look even more feeble than currently.
6. In the situation pre-Iraq War how did international law (e.g. UN), the Royal Prerogative and UK criminal law (specifically the Terrorism Act 2000 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the Scottish equivalent) apply / interact at various time points.
7. Would a formal declaration of war have changed the legal position?
8. Scope of the Royal Prerogative
9. Royal Family personally can have criminal record (Princess Royal). Relevance to Prince Harry and likely offences under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 when he was in Afghanistan.
10. Distinction between the lawfulness of the consideration by HoC and whether military force is still terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 etc) and the issue of individual criminal liability of military personnel.
11. Effects (if any such relevant) of UNSCR 1483, 1500 and 1511.
12. Implications (if any) of occupying power status re Terrorism Act 2000.
13. Scope / validity of Royal Prerogative variously among Civil and Criminal UK Law.
14. Malcolm Kendall-Smith miscarriage of justice. Jack Bayliss pronouncements. Scope of the arguments put forward by the defence.
15. Skeleton defences for upcoming possible court martials (issues depend on time when order(s) were disobeyed etc)
16. CND v PM 2002. Scope of Singh's arguments. Note scope on which Court refused to go along with Singh. Note too what they didn't consider. What they weren't asked to consider.
17. HoC 18/03/2003 - UK "should use all means necessary" - but time told otherwise. There was NO need.
[More later/tomorrow]
I'm having some fun legal discussion "off piste" as it were with a lawyer or two and among the questions/issues/perspectives are the following.
Nothing I've heard/discussed so far has led me to change my views expressed in other posts. But it has helped me sharpen up my thinking re issues that need to be dealt with (i.e. examined and dismissed, then communicated effectively) to convince the legally literate sceptics. Including challenging some of their (so I assess them) false assumptions.
The purpose of doing this more theoretical legal stuff, is for me to continue to keep under review the accuracy / credibility of my views about the implications of the Terrorism Act 2000 etc for Iraq and to explore the range of other assumptions and perspectives (including some vividly red herrings) that need to be addressed.
One thing that is very clear is that it is an area (at least in the arguably unique circumstances that applied in the time periods relative to the Iraq war) that not enough detailed consideration of some issues has taken place.
Some very sloppy judicial thinking is evident (a need for more posts when I can express the limitations of some individual judgements in a clear way and propose a better analysis for the issues under consideration in them). And, I think, some very sloppy (even more sloppy?) thinking went into the pre-war assessment by Peter Goldsmith.
Later I'm going to attempt to produce an article to attempt to communicate "A Theory of Law re the Use of Military Force in Iraq [time period to be decided]" (taking into account interactions of which I can trace no previous consideration). Not a 10 volume job, though (I sincerely hope!!). I'll leave that to the relevant judges.
1. The implications of whether Tony Blair gave parliament an accurate description of the legal position.
2. Ditto for the factual position.
3. If one were to accept that "all necessary means" was thought to be allowed (a la Goldsmith advice), what is the position when it was found NOT to be necessary - since there were no WMD.
4. Put it another way, if the pre-war assessment of a "need" for armed force proved to be wrong, and there were in fact no "necessary" means, does that mean that the use of armed force was unlawful? In practice that may not matter (the "might is right" anti-principle) but in theory if the authorisation is limited to "necessary" means (and nothing was actually "necessary") does it mean that the variation of the background prohibition against using armed force was invalid. In other words, the prohibition was still in place and the war was unlawful (in international law). I haven't been able to trace any consideration of that question.
5. We haven't seen in the public domain the AG's "it's ok to use force" letter (of 13th March). If he didn't caution the CDS about the need for the cause to be "correct" would his advice be negligent? Would that matter? The letter will probably emerge at Chilcot in time. I can't see how they can continue to withold something so pivotal. Chilcot will look even more feeble than currently.
6. In the situation pre-Iraq War how did international law (e.g. UN), the Royal Prerogative and UK criminal law (specifically the Terrorism Act 2000 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the Scottish equivalent) apply / interact at various time points.
7. Would a formal declaration of war have changed the legal position?
8. Scope of the Royal Prerogative
9. Royal Family personally can have criminal record (Princess Royal). Relevance to Prince Harry and likely offences under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000 when he was in Afghanistan.
10. Distinction between the lawfulness of the consideration by HoC and whether military force is still terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 etc) and the issue of individual criminal liability of military personnel.
11. Effects (if any such relevant) of UNSCR 1483, 1500 and 1511.
12. Implications (if any) of occupying power status re Terrorism Act 2000.
13. Scope / validity of Royal Prerogative variously among Civil and Criminal UK Law.
14. Malcolm Kendall-Smith miscarriage of justice. Jack Bayliss pronouncements. Scope of the arguments put forward by the defence.
15. Skeleton defences for upcoming possible court martials (issues depend on time when order(s) were disobeyed etc)
16. CND v PM 2002. Scope of Singh's arguments. Note scope on which Court refused to go along with Singh. Note too what they didn't consider. What they weren't asked to consider.
17. HoC 18/03/2003 - UK "should use all means necessary" - but time told otherwise. There was NO need.
[More later/tomorrow]
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Tony Blair's First Life Sentence - He's a Terrorist. in the UK's Court of Public Opinion
Regular readers of my writings know that I believe that Tony Blair should be investigated by the Metropolitan Police for offences he has committed under Section 56 of the Terrorist Act 2000.
The penalty for Tony Blair when he's convicted under Section 56 will be life imprisonment.
But that life sentence won't be imposed today or tomorrow. Unfortunately. Just maybe, if Chilcot does a far more thorough job than many people expect him to do, then that might take Tony a step or two closer to his free accomodation for life.
But Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is already under his first life sentence. He's a TERRORIST in the Court of Public Opinion and, happily the Court of Public Opinion has made its judgement fully in line with UK statutes..
Better still, Tony "The Terrorist" Blair's first life sentence can never be reduced. No lawyerly acquaintance can set him free from it. No dissembling spin doctor can get him off this hook. I find that justice of a very poetic kind!
Where do we find the official definition of a "terrorist"? And can I prove that Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is a "terrorist" according to that official version?
The definition of a "terrorist" in United Kingdom law is in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. You can't get much more official than a full blown Act of Parliament, can you?
I'll reproduce the whole of Section 40 here so you can read it for yourself.
40 Terrorist: interpretation
(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.
I'm going to show that Tony is a terrorist based on Section 40(1)(b).
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
If the Iraq War is "terrorism" then it follows that Tony is a Terrorist since we know that Tony was concerned in the preparation and instigation of it. He's admitted that publicly with his many boasts about "regime change".
And it's in Tony's regime change boasts that we have him!
Regime change using force has been an "act of terrorism" in UK law since 1993. In Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 we read:
The government of Iraq of 2003 was a government as described there. There's no doubt that force or violence were used. There's no suggestion that Tony Blair acted alone. And there's no doubt from Tony "The TERRORIST" Blair's public evidence to Chilcot (and elsewhere) that he intended both to "influence" that Iraq government by force and, after March 2003, to "overthrow" that government by force.
So, in a conversational sense, I've just proved that Tony is a TERRORIST, since he acted in connection with an "act of terrorism" (as defined in Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993). And the test expressed in Section 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 is met:
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
"Job done", you may say.
Not quite.
Remember, Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is a lawyer.
He might object that the definition of "terrorist" in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 should only apply if we can prove that he's committed an "act of terrorism" under the same Act.
To meet that objection we need to demonstrate that Tony Blair has been involved in or connected with "acts of terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Here's the full text of Section 1 so that you can see that I'm not doing anything underhand. It's long. Read it and try to understand it. In a moment I'll walk you through a short version of the logic to demonstrate that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1.
In 1(1) we see three tests: Test 1 in 1(1)(a), Test 2 stated in 1(1)(b) and Test 3 stated in 1(1)(c).
Look first at 1(3) (that's not the same as 1(1)(c) that I mentioned for Test 3, it comes a little later). It means that if firearms or explosives are used then we don't need to bother with Test 2 stated in 1(1)(b). I don't think anyone disputes that UK Armed Forces used firearms or explosives in the Iraq War.
That means for the Iraq War to be "terrorism" we only need to satisfy Test 1 stated in 1(1)(a) and Test 2 expressed in 1(1)(c).
Test 3 in 1(1)(c) is satisfied. There is no suggestion that I'm aware of that UK Armed Forces carried on the Iraq War in a way disconnected from the UK Government. The "political cause" being advanced was the UK Government's policy. Thankfully, we're not required to prove that it was a coherent political policy! Nor to prove that it was honestly presented.
So now, we only need to see if Test 1 in 1(1)(a) is true. For that to be true we need any one of the subtests stated in 1(2)(a), 1(2)(b), 1(2)(c), 1(2)(d) or 1(2)(e) to be true.
To keep it brief the first subtest refers to serious violence against a person and the second is serious violence against property. Both, in the Iraq War, are impossible to deny, in my view.
And, for completeness, 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b) make it clear that Iraq is covered in the geographical scope of this definition of "terrorism".
We've demonstrated (albeit in a short version) that the Iraq War is also "terrorism" (as defined in Section 1). That confirms what we already knew from looking at the 1993 Act.
So, going back to Section 40(1)(b),
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
we see that Tony is a terrorist since in relation to the Iraq War he's been "concerned in" the "preparation" and "instigation" of "acts of terrorism" (corresponding to the definitions in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993).
Tony "The Terrorist" Blair's first life sentence pronounced in the United Kingdom's Court of Public Opinion is clear for all to see.
[E&OE] [This post is very long but I've abbreviated or simplified certain points of detail. If you're concerned about some specific question that doesn't "hang together" seen from your perspective, please post a Comment and I'll add a new post to address the issue. I think this post is already long enough!]
The penalty for Tony Blair when he's convicted under Section 56 will be life imprisonment.
But that life sentence won't be imposed today or tomorrow. Unfortunately. Just maybe, if Chilcot does a far more thorough job than many people expect him to do, then that might take Tony a step or two closer to his free accomodation for life.
But Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is already under his first life sentence. He's a TERRORIST in the Court of Public Opinion and, happily the Court of Public Opinion has made its judgement fully in line with UK statutes..
Better still, Tony "The Terrorist" Blair's first life sentence can never be reduced. No lawyerly acquaintance can set him free from it. No dissembling spin doctor can get him off this hook. I find that justice of a very poetic kind!
Where do we find the official definition of a "terrorist"? And can I prove that Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is a "terrorist" according to that official version?
The definition of a "terrorist" in United Kingdom law is in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. You can't get much more official than a full blown Act of Parliament, can you?
I'll reproduce the whole of Section 40 here so you can read it for yourself.
40 Terrorist: interpretation
(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.
I'm going to show that Tony is a terrorist based on Section 40(1)(b).
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
If the Iraq War is "terrorism" then it follows that Tony is a Terrorist since we know that Tony was concerned in the preparation and instigation of it. He's admitted that publicly with his many boasts about "regime change".
And it's in Tony's regime change boasts that we have him!
Regime change using force has been an "act of terrorism" in UK law since 1993. In Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 we read:
(2) In this section “acts of terrorism” means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
The government of Iraq of 2003 was a government as described there. There's no doubt that force or violence were used. There's no suggestion that Tony Blair acted alone. And there's no doubt from Tony "The TERRORIST" Blair's public evidence to Chilcot (and elsewhere) that he intended both to "influence" that Iraq government by force and, after March 2003, to "overthrow" that government by force.
So, in a conversational sense, I've just proved that Tony is a TERRORIST, since he acted in connection with an "act of terrorism" (as defined in Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993). And the test expressed in Section 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 is met:
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
"Job done", you may say.
Not quite.
Remember, Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is a lawyer.
He might object that the definition of "terrorist" in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 should only apply if we can prove that he's committed an "act of terrorism" under the same Act.
To meet that objection we need to demonstrate that Tony Blair has been involved in or connected with "acts of terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Here's the full text of Section 1 so that you can see that I'm not doing anything underhand. It's long. Read it and try to understand it. In a moment I'll walk you through a short version of the logic to demonstrate that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1.
1 Terrorism: interpretation
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4) In this section—
(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
In 1(1) we see three tests: Test 1 in 1(1)(a), Test 2 stated in 1(1)(b) and Test 3 stated in 1(1)(c).
Look first at 1(3) (that's not the same as 1(1)(c) that I mentioned for Test 3, it comes a little later). It means that if firearms or explosives are used then we don't need to bother with Test 2 stated in 1(1)(b). I don't think anyone disputes that UK Armed Forces used firearms or explosives in the Iraq War.
That means for the Iraq War to be "terrorism" we only need to satisfy Test 1 stated in 1(1)(a) and Test 2 expressed in 1(1)(c).
Test 3 in 1(1)(c) is satisfied. There is no suggestion that I'm aware of that UK Armed Forces carried on the Iraq War in a way disconnected from the UK Government. The "political cause" being advanced was the UK Government's policy. Thankfully, we're not required to prove that it was a coherent political policy! Nor to prove that it was honestly presented.
So now, we only need to see if Test 1 in 1(1)(a) is true. For that to be true we need any one of the subtests stated in 1(2)(a), 1(2)(b), 1(2)(c), 1(2)(d) or 1(2)(e) to be true.
To keep it brief the first subtest refers to serious violence against a person and the second is serious violence against property. Both, in the Iraq War, are impossible to deny, in my view.
And, for completeness, 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b) make it clear that Iraq is covered in the geographical scope of this definition of "terrorism".
We've demonstrated (albeit in a short version) that the Iraq War is also "terrorism" (as defined in Section 1). That confirms what we already knew from looking at the 1993 Act.
So, going back to Section 40(1)(b),
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
we see that Tony is a terrorist since in relation to the Iraq War he's been "concerned in" the "preparation" and "instigation" of "acts of terrorism" (corresponding to the definitions in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993).
Tony "The Terrorist" Blair's first life sentence pronounced in the United Kingdom's Court of Public Opinion is clear for all to see.
[E&OE] [This post is very long but I've abbreviated or simplified certain points of detail. If you're concerned about some specific question that doesn't "hang together" seen from your perspective, please post a Comment and I'll add a new post to address the issue. I think this post is already long enough!]
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
It's pretty much inevitable that military intervention is "terrorism"
It's interesting chatting to people about the War in Iraq being "terrorism" according to Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Some have a perception that terrorism and military action are conceptually miles apart.
The reality, of course, is that terrorism is violence for a political end and that military action is violence for a political end (but on a much larger scale, typically).
"Terrorism" and "military action" are simply two terms used to refer to the violence-with-political-aim part of the conceptual framework.
It's entirely to be expected that an Act of Parliament intended to deal with terrorism finds itself applying to military action too.
I suspect the parliamentary draftsman struggled with the affrontery of writing "Terrorism is violence-with-politics done by Them and is illegal. Military action is violence-with-politics done by Us (and we're the Good Guys) and is legal."
It would be pretty obvious that the concept of everyone being equal under the law had gone out the window.
Some have a perception that terrorism and military action are conceptually miles apart.
The reality, of course, is that terrorism is violence for a political end and that military action is violence for a political end (but on a much larger scale, typically).
"Terrorism" and "military action" are simply two terms used to refer to the violence-with-political-aim part of the conceptual framework.
It's entirely to be expected that an Act of Parliament intended to deal with terrorism finds itself applying to military action too.
I suspect the parliamentary draftsman struggled with the affrontery of writing "Terrorism is violence-with-politics done by Them and is illegal. Military action is violence-with-politics done by Us (and we're the Good Guys) and is legal."
It would be pretty obvious that the concept of everyone being equal under the law had gone out the window.
UK Charity Help For Heroes potentially using donations to fund UK terrorism in Afghanistan
The UK Charity, Help for Heroes, is using donations to fund the return of military personnel to their units and, therefore, potentially to active duty in Afghanistan.
In other words, they're potentially using donations to fund "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Avid readers of this blog will recall that The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000.
I'm concerned that Help for Heroes may be committing one or more of the financial terrorist offences as specified in Sections 15 to 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I'm contacting Help for Heroes to draw to their attention to the fact that I believe they may be acting unlawfully and contrary to the documentation they have submitted to the Charity Commissioners which specifies their committment to carry out "any lawful charitable purpose". Terrorism is not a lawful purpose, in my view.
In other words, they're potentially using donations to fund "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Avid readers of this blog will recall that The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000.
I'm concerned that Help for Heroes may be committing one or more of the financial terrorist offences as specified in Sections 15 to 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I'm contacting Help for Heroes to draw to their attention to the fact that I believe they may be acting unlawfully and contrary to the documentation they have submitted to the Charity Commissioners which specifies their committment to carry out "any lawful charitable purpose". Terrorism is not a lawful purpose, in my view.
Courts to require David Miliband to disclose "torture" documents
According to the BBC, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (David Miliband) is to be required to release documents relating to the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed.
Torture has been a criminal offence in UK law, by virtue of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 since 11th May 2001 and 24th September 2001, respectively.
Torture is one of the components of the offence in domestic law of "crime against humanity" (see respectively Section 51 of the English Act and Section 1 of the Scottish Act).
The definition of what is a "crime against humanity" is found in Schedule 8 of the English Act, and torture is mentioned at Paragraph 1(f) of Article 7.
Alert readers of this blog will recall that I mentioned that the existence of Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and Section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 were two relevant pieces of UK law which Goldsmith appeared to have overlooked when giving his advice to Blair in March 2003.
If UK intelligence agents were found by a court to be sufficiently closely associated with the "torture" of Binyam Mohamed they could be found guilty of a "crime against humanity".
Uncomfortably for politicians in the relevant period, domestic law also makes provision for considering the culpability of "commanders and other superiors", as specified in Section 65 of the English Act.
Torture has been a criminal offence in UK law, by virtue of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 since 11th May 2001 and 24th September 2001, respectively.
Torture is one of the components of the offence in domestic law of "crime against humanity" (see respectively Section 51 of the English Act and Section 1 of the Scottish Act).
The definition of what is a "crime against humanity" is found in Schedule 8 of the English Act, and torture is mentioned at Paragraph 1(f) of Article 7.
Alert readers of this blog will recall that I mentioned that the existence of Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and Section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 were two relevant pieces of UK law which Goldsmith appeared to have overlooked when giving his advice to Blair in March 2003.
If UK intelligence agents were found by a court to be sufficiently closely associated with the "torture" of Binyam Mohamed they could be found guilty of a "crime against humanity".
Uncomfortably for politicians in the relevant period, domestic law also makes provision for considering the culpability of "commanders and other superiors", as specified in Section 65 of the English Act.
UK National Audit Office asked urgently to investigate unlawful spending on terrorism in Afghanistan
The post title expresses the essence of what I've done.
The text of my communication to the National Audit Office is set out below.
There should certainly be some interesting conversations over coffee in the NAO today.
I write to confirm what I said to you in my phone call of a few minutes ago.
I am asking the UK's National Audit Office to investigate as a matter of urgency what I believe to be the expenditure of millions of pounds per week of public funds by the UK Government for purposes that are unlawful in UK Law.
The scale of the misuse of public funds is such that I believe that the NAO should allocate the highest priority to the issue.
I appreciate that you will need to pass this information to legally qualified individuals for assessment. I suggest that as a matter of prudence that you also copy this email to senior managers to ensure that they are not blindsided when media enquiries on the matter begin to reach the NAO. I'm copying it to the NAO Press Office, to give them advance warning of possible media interest.
It is my firm conclusion that the UK Government is spending in Afghanistan many millions of pounds a day for unlawful purposes, specifically "terrorism" as defined in UK law. Individual criminal offences are set out in various parts of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Terrorism is defined in Section 1 of the Terrrorism Act 2000, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_2#pt1-l1g1.
Normally, to establish the existence of terrorism each of the three tests in Sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c) need to be satisfied to establish that terrorism exists which meets the statutory definition.
Given that in Afghanistan Her Majesty's Government is employing firearms and explosive in Afghanistan, section 1(3) applies.
The effect of that is that of the three tests expressed in Section 1(1), it is not necessary for the test in 1(1)(b) to be considered further.
I take it as a given that the UK's Armed Forces are under political control, so the test in Section 1(1)(c) I conclude to be met.
The test in Section 1(1)(a) is also satisfied by virtue of the use of serious violence against the person and against property (subtests which are expressed in Sections 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(b)).
The two required tests for "terrorism" when firearms are used (expressed in Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c)) are both satisfied.
Therefore I believe that UK military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism" as defined in UK primary legislation, specifically Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If your legal advisers find my case above to be soundly based, I ask the NAO as a matter of great urgency to inform the UK Government of their conclusion and, should the Government seek to continue unlawful expenditure, I ask the NAO to seek injunctive remedy in the appropriate court as a matter of the greatest urgency. I believe that to do less would be a dereliction of the NAO's duties to the UK public.
If your legal advisers conclude that there is no "terrorism" taking place in Afghanistan (in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000) I ask the NAO to provide me in writing (email is sufficient) with the full text of that advice so I may decide how it may be appropriate for me to proceed.
For reasons that will likely be obvious to you, I'm sending silent copies of this mail to others (some within the NAO) as evidence of this important and urgent issue, involving financial misconduct on a large scale, having been drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office I wish to minimise the possibility of denial by the NAO of awareness of the issue.
I believe the NAO has a duty to take prompt and effective action to avoid and prevent the misuse of public funds. Today, the NAO has a unique opportunity to have its credentials in that regard tested.
Andrew Watt
P.S. Some of your colleagues may find the information in the following links of relevance. I've included the links so that if you forward this email then the supplementary relevant information will be readily available to recipients.
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/use-off-armed-force-by-uk-military.html
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-uks-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan.html
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/cease-and-desist-request-to-gordon.html
The text of my communication to the National Audit Office is set out below.
There should certainly be some interesting conversations over coffee in the NAO today.
I write to confirm what I said to you in my phone call of a few minutes ago.
I am asking the UK's National Audit Office to investigate as a matter of urgency what I believe to be the expenditure of millions of pounds per week of public funds by the UK Government for purposes that are unlawful in UK Law.
The scale of the misuse of public funds is such that I believe that the NAO should allocate the highest priority to the issue.
I appreciate that you will need to pass this information to legally qualified individuals for assessment. I suggest that as a matter of prudence that you also copy this email to senior managers to ensure that they are not blindsided when media enquiries on the matter begin to reach the NAO. I'm copying it to the NAO Press Office, to give them advance warning of possible media interest.
It is my firm conclusion that the UK Government is spending in Afghanistan many millions of pounds a day for unlawful purposes, specifically "terrorism" as defined in UK law. Individual criminal offences are set out in various parts of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Terrorism is defined in Section 1 of the Terrrorism Act 2000, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_2#pt1-l1g1.
Normally, to establish the existence of terrorism each of the three tests in Sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c) need to be satisfied to establish that terrorism exists which meets the statutory definition.
Given that in Afghanistan Her Majesty's Government is employing firearms and explosive in Afghanistan, section 1(3) applies.
The effect of that is that of the three tests expressed in Section 1(1), it is not necessary for the test in 1(1)(b) to be considered further.
I take it as a given that the UK's Armed Forces are under political control, so the test in Section 1(1)(c) I conclude to be met.
The test in Section 1(1)(a) is also satisfied by virtue of the use of serious violence against the person and against property (subtests which are expressed in Sections 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(b)).
The two required tests for "terrorism" when firearms are used (expressed in Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c)) are both satisfied.
Therefore I believe that UK military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism" as defined in UK primary legislation, specifically Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If your legal advisers find my case above to be soundly based, I ask the NAO as a matter of great urgency to inform the UK Government of their conclusion and, should the Government seek to continue unlawful expenditure, I ask the NAO to seek injunctive remedy in the appropriate court as a matter of the greatest urgency. I believe that to do less would be a dereliction of the NAO's duties to the UK public.
If your legal advisers conclude that there is no "terrorism" taking place in Afghanistan (in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000) I ask the NAO to provide me in writing (email is sufficient) with the full text of that advice so I may decide how it may be appropriate for me to proceed.
For reasons that will likely be obvious to you, I'm sending silent copies of this mail to others (some within the NAO) as evidence of this important and urgent issue, involving financial misconduct on a large scale, having been drawn to the attention of the National Audit Office I wish to minimise the possibility of denial by the NAO of awareness of the issue.
I believe the NAO has a duty to take prompt and effective action to avoid and prevent the misuse of public funds. Today, the NAO has a unique opportunity to have its credentials in that regard tested.
Andrew Watt
P.S. Some of your colleagues may find the information in the following links of relevance. I've included the links so that if you forward this email then the supplementary relevant information will be readily available to recipients.
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/use-off-armed-force-by-uk-military.html
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-uks-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan.html
http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/cease-and-desist-request-to-gordon.html
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Cease and Desist Request to Gordon Brown re the illegal military action in Afghanistan
I sent this by email yesterday as well as hard copy of the letter to visible recipients.
I think it's self explanatory.
It's time the illegal UK military operation in Afghanistan stopped.
8th February 2010
To:
James Gordon Brown MP, 10 Downing Street
Robert William Ainsworth MP, MoD
Cease and Desist Request
Afghanistan War: Multiple Serious Criminal Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000
Gentlemen,
I write to you to request that you and the civil servants and the military personnel under your authority forthwith cease and desist from acts related to military action in Afghanistan many of which, I believe, constitute offences in UK law under the Terrorism Act 2000.
I urge you to give this important matter your urgent and careful attention.
The foundation of my request is my belief that the military interventions by the United Kingdom in Afghanistan constitute “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The text of the Terrorism Act 2000 is available online and Section 1, where “terrorism” is defined, is not particularly opaque.
As individuals you are, in my view, committing offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000. You will note that the punishment, on conviction, is life imprisonment.
Further, I believe you have a legal duty to inform your staff of this information.
Since funding activities related to acts of terrorism may constitute criminal offences under Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 I am copying this letter to Alastair Darling for him to consider how these matters apply to his own responsibilities and the actions of those under his authority. He may also wish to review the relevance of Section 19 of the Act for himself and those who work for him.
I fully understand that you will require to take authoritative legal advice before deciding how to proceed. I urge you to do that as a matter of urgency. I am copying this letter to Baroness Scotland and the Director General of Legal Services at the Ministry of Defence to facilitate the process.
I think that, once the question is asked, the matter is remarkably straightforward (if potentially hugely disturbing to some).
If ministers, civil servants and military personnel persist in unlawful actions in connection with Afghanistan it seems to me that you place yourselves and those under your authority in a highly precarious legal and moral position.
I am copying this letter to a number of individuals, including my constituency MSP Alex Salmond MSP. The list of visible copy recipients is below.
You may also wish to be aware that I have separately drawn my concerns on this matter to the attention of Sir William Jeffrey, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and Sir Graham Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff and others.
Thank you.
Your sincerely
Andrew H Watt
Addressees:
James Gordon Brown MP
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA.
Robert William Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Whitehall
London
cc. (Ordinary Mail)
Sir Augustine O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary
Jonathan Baume, FDA
Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
Alex Salmond MSP
Baroness Scotland, Attorney General
Martin Hemming, Director General Legal Services, MoD
Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate
I think it's self explanatory.
It's time the illegal UK military operation in Afghanistan stopped.
8th February 2010
To:
James Gordon Brown MP, 10 Downing Street
Robert William Ainsworth MP, MoD
Cease and Desist Request
Afghanistan War: Multiple Serious Criminal Offences under the Terrorism Act 2000
Gentlemen,
I write to you to request that you and the civil servants and the military personnel under your authority forthwith cease and desist from acts related to military action in Afghanistan many of which, I believe, constitute offences in UK law under the Terrorism Act 2000.
I urge you to give this important matter your urgent and careful attention.
The foundation of my request is my belief that the military interventions by the United Kingdom in Afghanistan constitute “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The text of the Terrorism Act 2000 is available online and Section 1, where “terrorism” is defined, is not particularly opaque.
As individuals you are, in my view, committing offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000. You will note that the punishment, on conviction, is life imprisonment.
Further, I believe you have a legal duty to inform your staff of this information.
Since funding activities related to acts of terrorism may constitute criminal offences under Sections 15 to 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 I am copying this letter to Alastair Darling for him to consider how these matters apply to his own responsibilities and the actions of those under his authority. He may also wish to review the relevance of Section 19 of the Act for himself and those who work for him.
I fully understand that you will require to take authoritative legal advice before deciding how to proceed. I urge you to do that as a matter of urgency. I am copying this letter to Baroness Scotland and the Director General of Legal Services at the Ministry of Defence to facilitate the process.
I think that, once the question is asked, the matter is remarkably straightforward (if potentially hugely disturbing to some).
If ministers, civil servants and military personnel persist in unlawful actions in connection with Afghanistan it seems to me that you place yourselves and those under your authority in a highly precarious legal and moral position.
I am copying this letter to a number of individuals, including my constituency MSP Alex Salmond MSP. The list of visible copy recipients is below.
You may also wish to be aware that I have separately drawn my concerns on this matter to the attention of Sir William Jeffrey, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and Sir Graham Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff and others.
Thank you.
Your sincerely
Andrew H Watt
Addressees:
James Gordon Brown MP
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA.
Robert William Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Whitehall
London
cc. (Ordinary Mail)
Sir Augustine O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary
Jonathan Baume, FDA
Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police
Alex Salmond MSP
Baroness Scotland, Attorney General
Martin Hemming, Director General Legal Services, MoD
Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate
Three more UK soldiers die as terrorists in Aghanistan
Sadly, another three young British men have died as terrorists in Afghanistan in Gordon Brown's illegal military operations.
What kind of taste will it leave in the mouths of the relatives of the dead, knowing that Gordon Brown knows his war is terrorism and is willing to allow more young men to throw their lives away in Mr Brown's criminal enterprise?
How angry will those relatives be knowing that Mr Brown knows that he's acting unlawfully?
How many young men will lose their limbs tomorrow in Afghanistan in Gordon Brown's unlawful terrorist war?
Gordon Brown should be ashamed and stop.
I'll repost the text of my petition to Mr Brown which"evaporated" from the Number 10 web site:
What kind of taste will it leave in the mouths of the relatives of the dead, knowing that Gordon Brown knows his war is terrorism and is willing to allow more young men to throw their lives away in Mr Brown's criminal enterprise?
How angry will those relatives be knowing that Mr Brown knows that he's acting unlawfully?
How many young men will lose their limbs tomorrow in Afghanistan in Gordon Brown's unlawful terrorist war?
Gordon Brown should be ashamed and stop.
I'll repost the text of my petition to Mr Brown which"evaporated" from the Number 10 web site:
Your petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Cease
offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 in Afghanistan
We view the military action in Afghanistan as constituting
"terrorism" as defined in the meaning of Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
The consequence of that is that the Prime Minister is
committing criminal offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
Put simply, please stop. Don't allow any more young men to die
in uniorm as terrorists.
In addition, more than £10bn of public money has, we believe,
been spent unlawfully.
Please stop that too.
I don't want any more young men to die as terrorists in Afghanistan.
Mr Brown you've caused more than enough pain in Afghanistan with your illegal terrorist operation. For information on its illegality see here: "The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000"
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Cease
offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 in Afghanistan
We view the military action in Afghanistan as constituting
"terrorism" as defined in the meaning of Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
The consequence of that is that the Prime Minister is
committing criminal offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
Put simply, please stop. Don't allow any more young men to die
in uniorm as terrorists.
In addition, more than £10bn of public money has, we believe,
been spent unlawfully.
Please stop that too.
I don't want any more young men to die as terrorists in Afghanistan.
Mr Brown you've caused more than enough pain in Afghanistan with your illegal terrorist operation. For information on its illegality see here: "The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000"
Sage Comment about Goldsmith's advice from Prof. Philip Allott
You may recall that Peter Goldsmith referred in evidence to Chilcot in terms of Blair being his "client" (In the transcript of Goldsmith's evidence on the Chilcot site see for example page 67, line 13 and following).
That's another mistake in approach, illustrated by the following sage comments from Professor Emeritus Philip Allott (emphasis in the quote is mine):
"The job of an advocate is to win cases. The job of an adviser is to be right. To regard the government as a client is correct when the attorney general is called on to act for the government in litigation. It is not correct when his role is to advise in advance of a serious decision."
Spot on, in my opinion.
The job of an adviser is to be right.
Another issue which Chilcot ought to pursue with the embattled former Attorney General.
That's another mistake in approach, illustrated by the following sage comments from Professor Emeritus Philip Allott (emphasis in the quote is mine):
"The job of an advocate is to win cases. The job of an adviser is to be right. To regard the government as a client is correct when the attorney general is called on to act for the government in litigation. It is not correct when his role is to advise in advance of a serious decision."
Spot on, in my opinion.
The job of an adviser is to be right.
Another issue which Chilcot ought to pursue with the embattled former Attorney General.
Gordon Brown to see Chilcot in March
Apparently Gordon Brown is to see Chilcot in March.
I wonder if Chilcot will raise the issues of legality of Brown's actions in the context of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The offences in Sections 15, 16 and 17 apply to Gordon Brown since he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who financed Tony Blair's terrorism in Iraq.
I wonder if Chilcot will raise the issues of legality of Brown's actions in the context of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The offences in Sections 15, 16 and 17 apply to Gordon Brown since he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who financed Tony Blair's terrorism in Iraq.
Petition on Number10 web site evaporates
I wonder ... could Number 10 have begun to run scared?
Here is the text of the e-petition I posted yesterday on the Number10 web site (around the time I was emailing ministers, as mentioned in an earlier post today).
My petition (which I duly confirmed) has disappeared totally from the Number10 web site.
Could it be anything to do with Number 10 being worried by the content? The following is copied from the email confirming the first step of e-petition creation (Yes, I did click on the "to confirm" link).
Your petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Cease
offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 in Afghanistan
We view the military action in Afghanistan as constituting
"terrorism" as defined in the meaning of Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
The consequence of that is that the Prime Minister is
committing criminal offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
Put simply, please stop. Don't allow any more young men to die
in uniorm as terrorists.
In addition, more than £10bn of public money has, we believe,
been spent unlawfully.
Please stop that too.
Here is the text of the e-petition I posted yesterday on the Number10 web site (around the time I was emailing ministers, as mentioned in an earlier post today).
My petition (which I duly confirmed) has disappeared totally from the Number10 web site.
Could it be anything to do with Number 10 being worried by the content? The following is copied from the email confirming the first step of e-petition creation (Yes, I did click on the "to confirm" link).
Your petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Cease
offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 in Afghanistan
We view the military action in Afghanistan as constituting
"terrorism" as defined in the meaning of Section 1 of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
The consequence of that is that the Prime Minister is
committing criminal offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
Put simply, please stop. Don't allow any more young men to die
in uniorm as terrorists.
In addition, more than £10bn of public money has, we believe,
been spent unlawfully.
Please stop that too.
The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000
The title of the post asserts the bald and controversial interpretation that I put forward regarding the legal position relating to the use of armed force by UK military personnel.
I'll assume that it is not in dispute that the Terrorism Act 2000 was determinative in matters of terrorism from 20th July 2000.
From that date the Terrorism Act 2000 is the primary, permanent legislation where "terrorism" is defined (in Section 1 of the Act).
Where the tests relating to "terrorism" specified in Section 1 of the Act are satisfied other parts of the Act need careful consideration.
The crucial part of assesing the validity and/or applicability of my thesis is testing whether or not the Section 1 tests of "terrorism" are satisfied or not.
In the general case three tests need to be satisfied, which are briefly stated in Sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c).
Armed military force, of practical reality, involves the use of firearms and/or explosives. The effect of Section 1(3) is that it is not necessary for the test specified in Section 1(1)(b) to be examined.
To establish terrorism when the use of firearms or explosives is routine one need only look at the tests in Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c).
It is a given that the UK armed forces are under political control and act in accordance with the political aims of the UK Government of the day. In the general case it seems to me that the test in Section 1(1)(c) is met.
The component parts of the test summarised in Section 1(1)(a) are set out in Section 1(2). Meeting any one of those tests is sufficient for the test in Section 1(1)(a) to be satisfied. Can you imagine a war where the actions specified in Section 1(2)(a) or 1(2)(b) don't occur? Neither can I. So, in the general case, relating to the use of armed force by UK military personnel we can expect the test expressed in Section 1(1)(a) to be satisfied.
The tests in Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c) are therefore both satisfied in the general case.
The action of the use of armed force by UK armed forces in the general case is therefore "terrorism".
As a consequence, individual members of UK armed forces and those commanding them are guilty, in the general case of the use of armed force, of offences specified in other sections of the Terrorism Act 2000. This has been true for any use of armed force by the UK military since 20th July 2000.
The terminological effect is that any use of armed force by UK armed forces since 20th July 2000 has been "terrorism" as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.
Those military personnel who have participated in those acts of terrorism in the period specified are "terrorists" in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The practical effect is that UK military personnel have acted contrary to UK law on multiple occasions and that a large number of UK military personnel have committed one or more of the offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000.
Simple really.
It is for Chilcot to find out if Goldsmith overlooked this line of argument. And, if he didn't, why he gave the advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he gave in writing on 13th March 2003.
In time it may be for UK courts to consider the evidence that UK Ministers, civil servants and military personnel committed offences specified in the Act as appropriate to their circumstances and actions.
If my interpretation is correct, the impartiality of the UK courts is going to be tested in a way never before so evident to the public, both in the UK and worldwide.
I'll assume that it is not in dispute that the Terrorism Act 2000 was determinative in matters of terrorism from 20th July 2000.
From that date the Terrorism Act 2000 is the primary, permanent legislation where "terrorism" is defined (in Section 1 of the Act).
Where the tests relating to "terrorism" specified in Section 1 of the Act are satisfied other parts of the Act need careful consideration.
The crucial part of assesing the validity and/or applicability of my thesis is testing whether or not the Section 1 tests of "terrorism" are satisfied or not.
In the general case three tests need to be satisfied, which are briefly stated in Sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 1(1)(c).
Armed military force, of practical reality, involves the use of firearms and/or explosives. The effect of Section 1(3) is that it is not necessary for the test specified in Section 1(1)(b) to be examined.
To establish terrorism when the use of firearms or explosives is routine one need only look at the tests in Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c).
It is a given that the UK armed forces are under political control and act in accordance with the political aims of the UK Government of the day. In the general case it seems to me that the test in Section 1(1)(c) is met.
The component parts of the test summarised in Section 1(1)(a) are set out in Section 1(2). Meeting any one of those tests is sufficient for the test in Section 1(1)(a) to be satisfied. Can you imagine a war where the actions specified in Section 1(2)(a) or 1(2)(b) don't occur? Neither can I. So, in the general case, relating to the use of armed force by UK military personnel we can expect the test expressed in Section 1(1)(a) to be satisfied.
The tests in Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c) are therefore both satisfied in the general case.
The action of the use of armed force by UK armed forces in the general case is therefore "terrorism".
As a consequence, individual members of UK armed forces and those commanding them are guilty, in the general case of the use of armed force, of offences specified in other sections of the Terrorism Act 2000. This has been true for any use of armed force by the UK military since 20th July 2000.
The terminological effect is that any use of armed force by UK armed forces since 20th July 2000 has been "terrorism" as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.
Those military personnel who have participated in those acts of terrorism in the period specified are "terrorists" in the meaning of Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The practical effect is that UK military personnel have acted contrary to UK law on multiple occasions and that a large number of UK military personnel have committed one or more of the offences specified in the Terrorism Act 2000.
Simple really.
It is for Chilcot to find out if Goldsmith overlooked this line of argument. And, if he didn't, why he gave the advice to the Chief of the Defence Staff that he gave in writing on 13th March 2003.
In time it may be for UK courts to consider the evidence that UK Ministers, civil servants and military personnel committed offences specified in the Act as appropriate to their circumstances and actions.
If my interpretation is correct, the impartiality of the UK courts is going to be tested in a way never before so evident to the public, both in the UK and worldwide.
Did Peter Goldsmith misdirect himself?
Misdirection is an interesting word.
It's used to refers to magicians creating an illusion.
And it's used to refer to judges getting something wrong in law.
I have a suspicion that Peter Goldsmith in the early days of March 2003 used or experienced misdirection in both meanings of the term.
By spending inordinate time and mental energy on the verbal and cerebral gymnastics needed to bend the "facts" of March 2003 to find a "justification" in international law for the use of force in Iraq, my suspicion is that Goldsmith the magician caused Goldsmith the lawyer to lose sight of important issues resulting in Goldsmith the lawyer (in a quasi-judicial capacity as Attorney General) misdirecting himself.
Understanding what I'm trying to express is a hugely important issue for Chilcot. I suspect that Chilcot completely missed the problem with Goldsmith's evidence. I had missed it until yesterday.
One of the issues that I think has been lost sight of is what a phrase like "the war is legal" (or one of its more formal variants) actually means.
What does "the war is legal" mean?
Phrases like "the war is legal" have been bandied around a lot.
Have you stopped carefully to consider what that means?
Stated more precisely, one might express it as "Is there any applicable prohibition in principle to indicate that the use of force would be unlawful?".
Goldsmith in his evidence to Chilcot said that the UK had an obligation to comply with both international law and national law. I agree.
If you've been following the Chilcot broadcasts or have read the transcripts you'll have endured endless cerebral gymnastics focussing on UN Security Council resolutions.
It's clear from testimony to Chilcot that Goldsmith was, for a period, heavily involved in those twistings and bendings of international law to produce the "legal position" that Tony Blair wanted. It's immaterial in this context whether Goldsmith knew his advice on international law was questionable or not (then or now).
One result of the huge emphasis on questions of international law was that the question of relevant UK law was (at least as far as I can gather) never seriously considered.
The one time when I'm aware that Goldsmith considered issues around domestic law was in paragraphs 33 and 34 of his minute of 7th March 2003 [check] to Blair.
But, here I think, we have the first evidence that Goldsmith was misdirecting himself. He confuses in those paragraphs issues of domestic judicial process with issues of domestic law.
The statements he made about the International Criminal Court were accurate (so far as I understand the position) but by focussing on legal process he missed an opportunity to identify a major issue of domestic law.
The issues relating to the International Criminal Court, to which Goldsmith referred in paragraphs 33 and 34 were contextualised by the the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Goldsmith failed to mention in those paragraphs that in Part 5 of that Act certain offences were entered into UK domestic law. In Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act the domestic law offences of genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes are mentioned (with their definitions and defences mentioned elsewhere in the Act).
In other words, a new position had been introduced by the existence of Part 5 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
My reading of the effect of Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act is that it doesn't prohibit war in principle but it does make offences acts which might occur during actual warfare.
It's at this point that, I suspect, Goldsmith misdirected himself again. He failed, so far as I can tell, to see the distinction between there being no prohibition in domestic law against going to war and the practical restraints on going to war imposed by Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (and its Scottish equivalent, the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001).
The gaps in the evidence that I've heard and read (Chilcot can fill the gaps) implies that Goldsmith also made an error by failing to identify and communicate the distinction between there being no prohibition in principle in domestic law and there being no practical impediment to starting a war. That is stated subject to the declassification of documents not yet in the public domain from the period in question.
The practical impediments to war imposed by Section 51 of the International Criminal Courts Act 2001 shouldn't pose a huge problem for the armed forces of a democracy. But neither are the constraints to be treated as capable of being ignored. War is possible. Participants just need to be aware of the relevance of the statutory meaning of Section 51 for what they're likely to do.
A more major mistake, in my view, was made because the same confusion arises in relation to The Terrorism Act 2000.
I'm going to put forward a bald assertion here.
The effect of the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000, rightly interpreted, is that war was for all practical purposes outlawed as from 20th July 2000. War remained possible in principle but for all practical purposes impossible to conduct without committing multiple criminal offences.
[I'll do a step by step justification of that assertion in a later post.]
I'm not going to attempt to justify that here. But I believe that bald assertion is true and that Goldsmith and his team of lawyers just didn't realise it.
The evidence suggests that Goldsmith made a monumental mistake here, if I'm right.
So when Goldsmith claimed that the war would be lawful, my surmise is that he would have been correct but only if he had fully communicated the relevance of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 and, most importantly of all, of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If he'd appreciated the relevance of the Terrorism Act 2000, Goldsmith would have told the Ministry of Defence that there was no prohibition in principle to the use of armed force but that enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000 meant that war could not practically be carried out by UK armed forces without breaches (probably multiple breaches) of UK national law. And that, for those reasons, the United Kingdom had for all practical purposes abandoned the use of armed of force (in a legal way) on 20th July 2000.
Of course, once war began it was possible for criminal offences under international law or under national law (or both) to take place.
Viewed in the round Goldsmith needed to consider six tests, in my view:
1. Was the use of force prohibited in the prevailing circumstances by international law? He concluded it wasn't prohibited.
2. Was the use of force prohibited in national law? He concluded it wasn't.
3. Was the practical prosecution of any war lawful in international law?
4. Was the practical prosecution of any war lawful in UK law? It's here I think he went tragically wrong. As far as I can tell, Goldsmith totally overlooked the relevance of the Terrorism Act 2000 to the practical conduct of any law.
5. Once the war was begun, were crimes committed under national law?
6. Once the war was begun, were crimes committed under national law?
The import of tests 5 and 6 is that legal position relating to a war can be determined only after the war has finished.
The primary questions which can be resolved prior to the war starting is whether or not there is a prohibition in principle precluding the use of armed force and whether there are practical legal barriers to conducting war (the Terrorism Act 2000 in this instance)
Goldsmith's advice, so far as I've seen it, related largely or totally to whether in principle the background prohibition against the use of force had been removed under international law. And failed to identify the relevance of the Terrorism Act 2000 and its effect in making the participation in war by UK armed forces unlawful for practial purposes.
It's used to refers to magicians creating an illusion.
And it's used to refer to judges getting something wrong in law.
I have a suspicion that Peter Goldsmith in the early days of March 2003 used or experienced misdirection in both meanings of the term.
By spending inordinate time and mental energy on the verbal and cerebral gymnastics needed to bend the "facts" of March 2003 to find a "justification" in international law for the use of force in Iraq, my suspicion is that Goldsmith the magician caused Goldsmith the lawyer to lose sight of important issues resulting in Goldsmith the lawyer (in a quasi-judicial capacity as Attorney General) misdirecting himself.
Understanding what I'm trying to express is a hugely important issue for Chilcot. I suspect that Chilcot completely missed the problem with Goldsmith's evidence. I had missed it until yesterday.
One of the issues that I think has been lost sight of is what a phrase like "the war is legal" (or one of its more formal variants) actually means.
What does "the war is legal" mean?
Phrases like "the war is legal" have been bandied around a lot.
Have you stopped carefully to consider what that means?
Stated more precisely, one might express it as "Is there any applicable prohibition in principle to indicate that the use of force would be unlawful?".
Goldsmith in his evidence to Chilcot said that the UK had an obligation to comply with both international law and national law. I agree.
If you've been following the Chilcot broadcasts or have read the transcripts you'll have endured endless cerebral gymnastics focussing on UN Security Council resolutions.
It's clear from testimony to Chilcot that Goldsmith was, for a period, heavily involved in those twistings and bendings of international law to produce the "legal position" that Tony Blair wanted. It's immaterial in this context whether Goldsmith knew his advice on international law was questionable or not (then or now).
One result of the huge emphasis on questions of international law was that the question of relevant UK law was (at least as far as I can gather) never seriously considered.
The one time when I'm aware that Goldsmith considered issues around domestic law was in paragraphs 33 and 34 of his minute of 7th March 2003 [check] to Blair.
But, here I think, we have the first evidence that Goldsmith was misdirecting himself. He confuses in those paragraphs issues of domestic judicial process with issues of domestic law.
The statements he made about the International Criminal Court were accurate (so far as I understand the position) but by focussing on legal process he missed an opportunity to identify a major issue of domestic law.
The issues relating to the International Criminal Court, to which Goldsmith referred in paragraphs 33 and 34 were contextualised by the the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Goldsmith failed to mention in those paragraphs that in Part 5 of that Act certain offences were entered into UK domestic law. In Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act the domestic law offences of genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes are mentioned (with their definitions and defences mentioned elsewhere in the Act).
In other words, a new position had been introduced by the existence of Part 5 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
My reading of the effect of Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act is that it doesn't prohibit war in principle but it does make offences acts which might occur during actual warfare.
It's at this point that, I suspect, Goldsmith misdirected himself again. He failed, so far as I can tell, to see the distinction between there being no prohibition in domestic law against going to war and the practical restraints on going to war imposed by Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (and its Scottish equivalent, the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001).
The gaps in the evidence that I've heard and read (Chilcot can fill the gaps) implies that Goldsmith also made an error by failing to identify and communicate the distinction between there being no prohibition in principle in domestic law and there being no practical impediment to starting a war. That is stated subject to the declassification of documents not yet in the public domain from the period in question.
The practical impediments to war imposed by Section 51 of the International Criminal Courts Act 2001 shouldn't pose a huge problem for the armed forces of a democracy. But neither are the constraints to be treated as capable of being ignored. War is possible. Participants just need to be aware of the relevance of the statutory meaning of Section 51 for what they're likely to do.
A more major mistake, in my view, was made because the same confusion arises in relation to The Terrorism Act 2000.
I'm going to put forward a bald assertion here.
The effect of the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000, rightly interpreted, is that war was for all practical purposes outlawed as from 20th July 2000. War remained possible in principle but for all practical purposes impossible to conduct without committing multiple criminal offences.
[I'll do a step by step justification of that assertion in a later post.]
I'm not going to attempt to justify that here. But I believe that bald assertion is true and that Goldsmith and his team of lawyers just didn't realise it.
The evidence suggests that Goldsmith made a monumental mistake here, if I'm right.
So when Goldsmith claimed that the war would be lawful, my surmise is that he would have been correct but only if he had fully communicated the relevance of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 and, most importantly of all, of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If he'd appreciated the relevance of the Terrorism Act 2000, Goldsmith would have told the Ministry of Defence that there was no prohibition in principle to the use of armed force but that enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000 meant that war could not practically be carried out by UK armed forces without breaches (probably multiple breaches) of UK national law. And that, for those reasons, the United Kingdom had for all practical purposes abandoned the use of armed of force (in a legal way) on 20th July 2000.
Of course, once war began it was possible for criminal offences under international law or under national law (or both) to take place.
Viewed in the round Goldsmith needed to consider six tests, in my view:
1. Was the use of force prohibited in the prevailing circumstances by international law? He concluded it wasn't prohibited.
2. Was the use of force prohibited in national law? He concluded it wasn't.
3. Was the practical prosecution of any war lawful in international law?
4. Was the practical prosecution of any war lawful in UK law? It's here I think he went tragically wrong. As far as I can tell, Goldsmith totally overlooked the relevance of the Terrorism Act 2000 to the practical conduct of any law.
5. Once the war was begun, were crimes committed under national law?
6. Once the war was begun, were crimes committed under national law?
The import of tests 5 and 6 is that legal position relating to a war can be determined only after the war has finished.
The primary questions which can be resolved prior to the war starting is whether or not there is a prohibition in principle precluding the use of armed force and whether there are practical legal barriers to conducting war (the Terrorism Act 2000 in this instance)
Goldsmith's advice, so far as I've seen it, related largely or totally to whether in principle the background prohibition against the use of force had been removed under international law. And failed to identify the relevance of the Terrorism Act 2000 and its effect in making the participation in war by UK armed forces unlawful for practial purposes.
Are the UK's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the biggest unlawful use of funds in UK history?
Are the UK's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the biggest unlawful use of funds by public servants in UK history?
You realise, the question hinges on whether or not the escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan are "terrorism" in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If they are then, in my view, all the spending on military action in Afghanistan and in Iraq was unlawful.
If it's the case that those wars were "terrorism" then the spending of tens (?) of billions of pounds on them was unlawful spending.
When will Chilcot have the courage to bite that bullet?
In addition, as well as any general criminal liability with regard to spending of public funds on unlawful purposes, the Terrorism Act specifies individual offences relating to financial aspects of terrorism.
In Section 15, it is an offence to raise funds for purposes of terrorism. Will we see Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the dock? I suspect not but logically they have done what's specified as an offence in Section 15.
In Section 16, it's an offence to use money for purposes of terrorism. Many Ministry of Defence civil servants may have done just that.
In Section 17, it's an offence to enter into "funding arrangements" where funds are passed to another and end up being used for terrorism. Just how many individuals does that describe?
In Section 19, there is a provision which is highly unusual in UK law. Anyone knowing or suspecting an offence under sections 15, 16 or 17 (and gets that information in the course of his employment) commits an offence if he doesn't tell the Police "as soon as reasonably practicable". The penalty, specified in Section 19(8)(a) is up to 5 years in prison and a fine.
Alastair Darling is certainly in an interesting position in deciding how to respond to my communication to HM Treasury's ministers yesterday. I wonder what advice he's getting on my interpretation of these issues and whether the obligations specified in Section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 apply to him. Perhaps he wishes that he lived in times which were a little less "interesting"?
So, to understate the situation just a tad, this all hinges on whether or not Goldsmith told the truth about the war being lawful in UK law, doesn't it?
Did he ask the questions that I've been asking today? And did he look assiduously to establish the evidence for his assertion of compliance with national law as a competent professional should have done before telling his Ministry of Defence client that it was lawful?
Or has Goldsmith dropped the biggest boo boo in legal history?
Lucky Sir John Chilcot has the task of finding out.
You realise, the question hinges on whether or not the escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan are "terrorism" in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
If they are then, in my view, all the spending on military action in Afghanistan and in Iraq was unlawful.
If it's the case that those wars were "terrorism" then the spending of tens (?) of billions of pounds on them was unlawful spending.
When will Chilcot have the courage to bite that bullet?
In addition, as well as any general criminal liability with regard to spending of public funds on unlawful purposes, the Terrorism Act specifies individual offences relating to financial aspects of terrorism.
In Section 15, it is an offence to raise funds for purposes of terrorism. Will we see Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs in the dock? I suspect not but logically they have done what's specified as an offence in Section 15.
In Section 16, it's an offence to use money for purposes of terrorism. Many Ministry of Defence civil servants may have done just that.
In Section 17, it's an offence to enter into "funding arrangements" where funds are passed to another and end up being used for terrorism. Just how many individuals does that describe?
In Section 19, there is a provision which is highly unusual in UK law. Anyone knowing or suspecting an offence under sections 15, 16 or 17 (and gets that information in the course of his employment) commits an offence if he doesn't tell the Police "as soon as reasonably practicable". The penalty, specified in Section 19(8)(a) is up to 5 years in prison and a fine.
Alastair Darling is certainly in an interesting position in deciding how to respond to my communication to HM Treasury's ministers yesterday. I wonder what advice he's getting on my interpretation of these issues and whether the obligations specified in Section 19 of the Terrorism Act 2000 apply to him. Perhaps he wishes that he lived in times which were a little less "interesting"?
So, to understate the situation just a tad, this all hinges on whether or not Goldsmith told the truth about the war being lawful in UK law, doesn't it?
Did he ask the questions that I've been asking today? And did he look assiduously to establish the evidence for his assertion of compliance with national law as a competent professional should have done before telling his Ministry of Defence client that it was lawful?
Or has Goldsmith dropped the biggest boo boo in legal history?
Lucky Sir John Chilcot has the task of finding out.
Regime change by violence an "act of terrorism" in UK law since 1993
Did you know that as long ago as 1993 what Tony Blair calls "regime change" was, in a UK law, specified as "an act of terrorism"?
You didn't?
Did Goldsmith in March 2003?
Did Tony Blair?
Remember Goldsmith told the Chief of the Defence Staff in terms on 13th March 2003 that the use of force would be lawful under both national and international law.
Let's look at what's said in the 1993 Act, which is the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 by the way, on the topic.
The relevant text is in Section 2(2):
You didn't?
Did Goldsmith in March 2003?
Did Tony Blair?
Remember Goldsmith told the Chief of the Defence Staff in terms on 13th March 2003 that the use of force would be lawful under both national and international law.
Let's look at what's said in the 1993 Act, which is the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 by the way, on the topic.
The relevant text is in Section 2(2):
(2) In this section “acts of terrorism” means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
It's an "act of terrorism" for persons acting on behalf of "any organisation" to do anything with the aim of overthrowing a government. Does that apply only to aiming to overthrow the UK government. No, it also applies to "any other government".
Oops!
When Blair was proposing overthrowing the government of Iraq did Goldsmith (you know the Peter Goldsmith who allegedly looked carefully at national law) say something like, "Look Tony, it could be embarrassing for the UK to be seen to be carrying out something called an act of terrorism in our own law. You'll look a bit of a twat if you're seen to be carrying out an act of terrorism while you're rabitting on publicly about a war against terrorism."?
We haven't been told. At Chilcot. Or elsewhere. As far as I'm aware.
Did you spot that Section 2(2) calls it an act of terrorism as far back as 1993 to do something involving force or violence which was intended to influence a government. Remember that's any goverment anywhere. I suggest that even Tony Blair should have worked out that the government of Iraq was covered by the wording.
Do I hear you suggest that nowhere in the Reinsurance (Act of Terrorism) 1993 does it state that "an act of terrorism" is an offence.
And you'd be correct in suggesting that.
But, remember, it's late 2002 and early 2003 when Peter Goldsmith is carrying out his assessment of national law. Is there anything at that time which might land Tony Blair deep in the doo doo as Tony "The Terrorist" Blair?
If you've been paying attention in earlier posts you've probably already got the answer: our old friend Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Look at Section 1(1)(b):
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
Oops!
Things are getting worse for Tony with the arrival of the Terrorism Act 2000. It's still terrorism to attempt to influence a government involving acts such as those causing serious violence against a person (Section 1(2)(a)) or serious damage to property (section 1(2)(b)) and which are for a political purpose (Section 1(1)(c)).
Ah, but maybe now it doesn't apply to Iraq. It says "the government" so maybe it only applies to the UK Government.
Good try. But you need to look at Section 1(4)(d):
d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
Is Iraq a country? Yes, Iraq is a country.
So, with the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000, doing what Tony Blair is doing with respect to Iraq is still an "act of terrorism" in UK law (it having been so since 1993).
But with the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000 on 20th July 2000 the situation for Tony "The Terrorist" Blair, Ministers, civil servants and military personnel had got a whole lot worse.
Why?
In the same Act of Parliament where Tony's naughtiness in Iraq is again indicated as being an "act of terrorism", it links such acts of terrorism to offences with penalties up to life imprisonment (Section 56 is an example).
And there are offences which seem to catch Ministers, civil servants and military personnel too.
Now, remember Peter Goldsmith has told the Chief of the Defence staff what is proposed in Iraq is legal under both international and national law.
Mega oops!
Now, let's shift the focus to the Chilcot Inquiry.
They're a professional bunch aren't they? I'll let you answer that one.
And they have a paid legal adviser? Yes
Remember Sir John Chilcot's words, in his Opening Statement, "We will approach our task in a way that is thorough, rigorous, fair and frank. "
So, what has happened as a result? What has Sir John's "thorough" and "rigorous" examination been of a situation where Tony Blair appears to have committed at least one "act of terrorism" (as defined in Section 1 of theTerrorism Act 2000) involving probably rendering himself liable to life imprisonment on conviction (see Section 56 of the Act) consisted of?
Sweet nothing.
Chilcot hasn't asked Blair about it.
Chilcot hasn't asked Goldsmith about it.
Why not?
And when are these immensely serious questions going to be asked by the Iraq Inquiry?
I would certainly like to know.
Two UK Laws that are relevant to the Iraq War
If you've been following the Chilcot Inquiry you'll know that Peter Goldsmith, the then Attorney General wrote to the then Chief of the Defence Staff (Admiral Sir Michael Boyce) on 13th March 2003 supposedly telling the CDS that the war in Iraq would be "legal". Strictly speaking the communication was from David Brummell (an assistant to Goldsmith) to a Ministry of Defence Legal Adviser (probably David Hemming).
One part of Peter Goldsmith's claims was that military action was legal under national law.
But was Peter Goldsmith telling the truth? Had he carried out a thorough consideration of national law in a manner which one would expect of a diligent professional? Or was Peter Goldsmith negligent? Did he mislead the Chief of the Defence Staff?
I'm not going to attempt a detailed answer to those questions here. Suffice, for the moment to say the following. I can trace no evidence that Peter Goldsmith considered either of these pieces of United Kingdom primary legislation. No evidence that the consideration of their implications happened at all and no evidence that he considered them adequately. Nor evidence that he drew the potential issues to the attention of the Chief of the Defence Staff.
I'll point you to two UK laws that I think relate directly to the possible criminal liability of UK military personnel (as well as ministers and civil servants) regarding what was done by us in Iraq.
The two UK statutes that I'm referring to as relevant to the criminality of military personnel etc in the war are:
1. The Terrorism Act 2000
2. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 and its equivalent in Scotland The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.
What on earth has either of those topics to do with Iraq, you might ask.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a piece of UK primary legislation consists of more than its title.
To keep this post to a reasonable length I'm simply going to point you to a few relevant definitions, offences etc. I'll develop detail and/or other issues in future posts.
Terrorism Act 2000
Among the relevant sections of the Terrorism Act 2000 you might find useful and illuminating to read are the following:
1. Section 1, where "terrorism" is defined. Ask yourself if you can see a difference between what the UK did in Iraq and the definition of "terrorism".
2. Section 40 where "terrorist" is defined. And think about Tony "The Terrorist" Blair. If what we did in Iraq is "terrorism" (as defined in Section 1) then Tony is "officially" a "terrorist", as defined in Section 40.
3. Section 56. Tony "The Terrorist" Blair took a part in directing an organisation that carried out in Iraq acts of "terrorism" as defined in Section 1, didn't he? Some might say that life imprisonment is too good for him but, personally, I'd settle for that as an outcome.
International Criminal Court Act 2001
Now, take a brief look at the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (the Scottish version is very similar with respect to the issues I'll touch on here). The important aspect for this discussion is that in addition to setting the scene for the establishment of the International Criminal Court it also created offences under UK law that, I believe, can be investigated and tried in the UK. This is made explicit in the title of Part 5 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001: "Offences Under Domestic Law". That doesn't leave much doubt about it, does it?
In Section 51 three offences are stated. They are
1. Genocide
2. Crime against humanity
3. War crimes
To understand what is an offence under UK law you need to look at the definition of what constitutes each of the three crimes just listed. A criminal prosecution in the UK will be based on the definition in this Act (or the equivalent Act in Scotland), not on a colloquial approximation of what the terms might mean.
Here is the link to the definitions for "genocide", "crime against humanity" and "war crimes". For each of the definitions it is an offence to have carried out any one of the offending actions. For the offence to have been committed it is not necessary to have carried out all the acts in a definition.
1. Genocide
2. Crime Against Humanity
3. War Crimes
I think there is good cause for some UK military personnel to have difficulty sleeping peacefully in their bed. But detailed consideration of that is for another time.
One part of Peter Goldsmith's claims was that military action was legal under national law.
But was Peter Goldsmith telling the truth? Had he carried out a thorough consideration of national law in a manner which one would expect of a diligent professional? Or was Peter Goldsmith negligent? Did he mislead the Chief of the Defence Staff?
I'm not going to attempt a detailed answer to those questions here. Suffice, for the moment to say the following. I can trace no evidence that Peter Goldsmith considered either of these pieces of United Kingdom primary legislation. No evidence that the consideration of their implications happened at all and no evidence that he considered them adequately. Nor evidence that he drew the potential issues to the attention of the Chief of the Defence Staff.
I'll point you to two UK laws that I think relate directly to the possible criminal liability of UK military personnel (as well as ministers and civil servants) regarding what was done by us in Iraq.
The two UK statutes that I'm referring to as relevant to the criminality of military personnel etc in the war are:
1. The Terrorism Act 2000
2. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 and its equivalent in Scotland The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.
What on earth has either of those topics to do with Iraq, you might ask.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a piece of UK primary legislation consists of more than its title.
To keep this post to a reasonable length I'm simply going to point you to a few relevant definitions, offences etc. I'll develop detail and/or other issues in future posts.
Terrorism Act 2000
Among the relevant sections of the Terrorism Act 2000 you might find useful and illuminating to read are the following:
1. Section 1, where "terrorism" is defined. Ask yourself if you can see a difference between what the UK did in Iraq and the definition of "terrorism".
2. Section 40 where "terrorist" is defined. And think about Tony "The Terrorist" Blair. If what we did in Iraq is "terrorism" (as defined in Section 1) then Tony is "officially" a "terrorist", as defined in Section 40.
3. Section 56. Tony "The Terrorist" Blair took a part in directing an organisation that carried out in Iraq acts of "terrorism" as defined in Section 1, didn't he? Some might say that life imprisonment is too good for him but, personally, I'd settle for that as an outcome.
International Criminal Court Act 2001
Now, take a brief look at the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (the Scottish version is very similar with respect to the issues I'll touch on here). The important aspect for this discussion is that in addition to setting the scene for the establishment of the International Criminal Court it also created offences under UK law that, I believe, can be investigated and tried in the UK. This is made explicit in the title of Part 5 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001: "Offences Under Domestic Law". That doesn't leave much doubt about it, does it?
In Section 51 three offences are stated. They are
1. Genocide
2. Crime against humanity
3. War crimes
To understand what is an offence under UK law you need to look at the definition of what constitutes each of the three crimes just listed. A criminal prosecution in the UK will be based on the definition in this Act (or the equivalent Act in Scotland), not on a colloquial approximation of what the terms might mean.
Here is the link to the definitions for "genocide", "crime against humanity" and "war crimes". For each of the definitions it is an offence to have carried out any one of the offending actions. For the offence to have been committed it is not necessary to have carried out all the acts in a definition.
1. Genocide
2. Crime Against Humanity
3. War Crimes
I think there is good cause for some UK military personnel to have difficulty sleeping peacefully in their bed. But detailed consideration of that is for another time.
Two KEY documents with legal advice are being withheld by Chilcot
I haven't been able to trace two key documents that relate to the important questions about the validity or otherwise of Peter Goldsmith's advice on the Iraq War.
It's possible I've overlooked them. Can anyone out there point me to a publicly available version?
I'm looking for the full text not short extracts. The latter, of course, with certain types of editing, can be made to seem to say almost anything.
The documents are:
1. A communication of 12th March 2003 from a Legal Adviser (Martin Hemming, I suspect) at the Ministry of Defence to David Brummell (Legal Secretary to the Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith). It's the key document where Goldsmith is asked to provide black and white advice about both national and international law.
2. The reply from David Brummell (presumably on Peter Goldsmith's behalf) supposedly stating in terms that Goldsmith thought the war was "legal" under both national and international law.
These are the pivotal documents in which the Ministry of Defence asks, in effect, "Is it legal?" and Peter Goldsmith says "Yes".
I think we can safely assume that the documents aren't being withheld from the public because they tell us the favourite snack of the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Attorney General.
One wonders what those pivotal documents contain that "they" don't want "us" to know.
It's possible I've overlooked them. Can anyone out there point me to a publicly available version?
I'm looking for the full text not short extracts. The latter, of course, with certain types of editing, can be made to seem to say almost anything.
The documents are:
1. A communication of 12th March 2003 from a Legal Adviser (Martin Hemming, I suspect) at the Ministry of Defence to David Brummell (Legal Secretary to the Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith). It's the key document where Goldsmith is asked to provide black and white advice about both national and international law.
2. The reply from David Brummell (presumably on Peter Goldsmith's behalf) supposedly stating in terms that Goldsmith thought the war was "legal" under both national and international law.
These are the pivotal documents in which the Ministry of Defence asks, in effect, "Is it legal?" and Peter Goldsmith says "Yes".
I think we can safely assume that the documents aren't being withheld from the public because they tell us the favourite snack of the Chief of the Defence Staff or the Attorney General.
One wonders what those pivotal documents contain that "they" don't want "us" to know.
The Metropolitan Police is institutionally racist in how it investigates terrorism
Maybe you remember the Steven Lawrence case from a few years ago where the investigation of the murder of a young black man by the Metropolitan Police attracted huge criticism. I think the inquiry into that case was when the term "institutional racism" emerged.
There are two aspects to institutional racism but, to the best of my knowledge, the Metropolitan Police has begun to remedy only one of the two aspects. The other aspect of the Metropolitan Police's institutional racism is running rampant.
Let's first look at the two aspects of institutional racism (as it applies to the Metropolitan Police):
1. Failure to treat groups equally before the law in investigating crimes against particular groups (the Steven Lawrence scenario)
2. Failure to treat groups equally before the law in investigating crimes by particular groups (the Terrorism Act 2000 scenario)
Let me illustrate how institutional racism of the second type is rampant in 2010 in the Metropolitan Police. I'll illustrate it by reference to the Terrorism Act 2000 which is, as readers, will recall is directly relevant to the legal case which demonstrates that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I've explained elsewhere that I believe that British military personnel in Iraq committed offences under various sections of the Terrorism Act 2000. The actions of those military personnel were "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. If you doubt that then spend a little time to look at the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Act and ask yourself how what was done by British military personnel in the Iraq War differs from "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I know that offences by military personnel and civil servants under the Terrorism Act 2000 have been drawn to the attention of the Metropolitan Police. How many investigations so far? Zero, so far as I know. It follows that the number of attempted prosecutions is zero too.
If the same offences related to terrorism (as defined in the Act) had been carried out by Moslems, there would have been dawn raids, highly publicised arrests and trials. The whole shebang!
If "people like us" can break the law with seeming impunity while "people like them" have the judicial book thrown at them then there is something deeply sick about how the Metropolitan Police is applying the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Metropolitan Police is grossly institutionally racist in how it is investigating criminal offences committed by different groups.
In a modern democracy that needs to change so that criminal behaviour is investigated and prosecuted equally irrespective of the societal group whose members are carrying out criminal activity.
There are two aspects to institutional racism but, to the best of my knowledge, the Metropolitan Police has begun to remedy only one of the two aspects. The other aspect of the Metropolitan Police's institutional racism is running rampant.
Let's first look at the two aspects of institutional racism (as it applies to the Metropolitan Police):
1. Failure to treat groups equally before the law in investigating crimes against particular groups (the Steven Lawrence scenario)
2. Failure to treat groups equally before the law in investigating crimes by particular groups (the Terrorism Act 2000 scenario)
Let me illustrate how institutional racism of the second type is rampant in 2010 in the Metropolitan Police. I'll illustrate it by reference to the Terrorism Act 2000 which is, as readers, will recall is directly relevant to the legal case which demonstrates that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I've explained elsewhere that I believe that British military personnel in Iraq committed offences under various sections of the Terrorism Act 2000. The actions of those military personnel were "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act. If you doubt that then spend a little time to look at the definition of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the Act and ask yourself how what was done by British military personnel in the Iraq War differs from "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I know that offences by military personnel and civil servants under the Terrorism Act 2000 have been drawn to the attention of the Metropolitan Police. How many investigations so far? Zero, so far as I know. It follows that the number of attempted prosecutions is zero too.
If the same offences related to terrorism (as defined in the Act) had been carried out by Moslems, there would have been dawn raids, highly publicised arrests and trials. The whole shebang!
If "people like us" can break the law with seeming impunity while "people like them" have the judicial book thrown at them then there is something deeply sick about how the Metropolitan Police is applying the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Metropolitan Police is grossly institutionally racist in how it is investigating criminal offences committed by different groups.
In a modern democracy that needs to change so that criminal behaviour is investigated and prosecuted equally irrespective of the societal group whose members are carrying out criminal activity.
The Chilcot Inquiry is Institutionally Racist
Have you noticed that the Chilcot Inquiry has not interviewed a single Iraqi?
Did you realise that (so far as I can judge his intentions) Sir John Chilcot has no plans to interview even one Iraqi, never mind an appropriate cross section of Iraqis that would allow meaningful lessons to be learned about the Iraq War.
How can you "learn lessons" if you treat the people who have been most seriously affected by the United Kingdom's immoral, ill thought out and illegal war as if they are worse than Untermenschen? As if Iraqis are "non-people", with no brains, no views, no insights.
Gordon Brown intended that the Iraqi people be excluded from the process. He wouldn't be too keen on detailed examination of what it feels like to be orphaned by a Royal Air Force bomb or missile or have your home obliterated by Her Majesty's Royal Artillery to be put in the public domain.
Gordon Brown's natural naziism appals me Somehow (in a lawful way) he has to be made to include Iraqis in the Iraq Inquiry. Surely he can't get with his blatant insitutional racism.
Surely it's totally unacceptable in the 21st Century that Chilcot gets away with this grotesque and gross institutional racism.
Did you realise that (so far as I can judge his intentions) Sir John Chilcot has no plans to interview even one Iraqi, never mind an appropriate cross section of Iraqis that would allow meaningful lessons to be learned about the Iraq War.
How can you "learn lessons" if you treat the people who have been most seriously affected by the United Kingdom's immoral, ill thought out and illegal war as if they are worse than Untermenschen? As if Iraqis are "non-people", with no brains, no views, no insights.
Gordon Brown intended that the Iraqi people be excluded from the process. He wouldn't be too keen on detailed examination of what it feels like to be orphaned by a Royal Air Force bomb or missile or have your home obliterated by Her Majesty's Royal Artillery to be put in the public domain.
Gordon Brown's natural naziism appals me Somehow (in a lawful way) he has to be made to include Iraqis in the Iraq Inquiry. Surely he can't get with his blatant insitutional racism.
Surely it's totally unacceptable in the 21st Century that Chilcot gets away with this grotesque and gross institutional racism.
Chilcot's Cheating Us: Britain's First Genuinely Public Inquiry
Democracy, they say, is Government by the people for the people.
Let's make Chilcot's Cheating Us Britain's First Genuinely Public Inquiry!
Internet technologies make possible new levels of public inquiry.
Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people.
How does that sound to you?
Let's make Chilcot's Cheating Us Britain's First Genuinely Public Inquiry!
Internet technologies make possible new levels of public inquiry.
Inquiry of the Government by the people for the people.
How does that sound to you?
Is Tony Blair really a terrorist?
If you watch a rally against the Iraq War on TV you'll in all likelihood hear someone shout something about Tony "The Terrorist" Blair at some point. Or maybe someone will be holding up a banner or placard with a similar message.
Is calling Tony Blair a terrorist just a meaningless insult or is it a fully justified term to use for him?
To begin to consider that entirely legitimate question we can't do much better than look at what a "terrorist" is in UK law.
You can't get much more "official" than that, can you?
The definition of a "terrorist" in UK law is found in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
So, you can make up your own mind now, can't you?
What's my opinion? I think Tony Blair is a terrorist on the basis of the definition in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In a later post I'll probably walk you through the evidence for my opinion. But, for now at least, read Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. To understand Section 40 you'll need to also read Section 1 of the Act. That's where we find out what "terrorism" actually is in UK law.
Is calling Tony Blair a terrorist just a meaningless insult or is it a fully justified term to use for him?
To begin to consider that entirely legitimate question we can't do much better than look at what a "terrorist" is in UK law.
You can't get much more "official" than that, can you?
The definition of a "terrorist" in UK law is found in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
So, you can make up your own mind now, can't you?
What's my opinion? I think Tony Blair is a terrorist on the basis of the definition in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In a later post I'll probably walk you through the evidence for my opinion. But, for now at least, read Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. To understand Section 40 you'll need to also read Section 1 of the Act. That's where we find out what "terrorism" actually is in UK law.
Well, I wonder how this will all work out
A few minutes ago I created a Facebook "Cause" also called "Chilcot's Cheating Us" to allow the UK public (and anyone else who is interested or has something useful to contribute) to explore the limitations of the Iraq Inquiry (also called The Chilcot Inquiry) in finding and disclosing the truth about the Iraq War.
I'm intending this blog to allow me to post some summary information about ideas and questions that already interest me relating immediately or more widely to the Iraq Inquiry. I also want to use this blog to capture and summarise important points from any discussion on the Facebook Cause (which has currently has exactly 1 member - me!).
In other words, once I get past these initial setting up hurdles this blog should be the "textbook", the "resource" for ideas and questions and the Facebook Cause will be where (if anyone else joins) ideas, views, opinions, prejudices, insights ... the whole panoply of stuff human minds produce ... will be tossed around. With the aim of getting closer to the truth about the Iraq War and making it harder and harder for Chilcot to go on cheating us. We can do it!
I wonder how it will all work out. Will the Facebook Cause mushroom or will I sit there in glorious (or inglorious) isolation? Will it be a 5 minute wonder or take over my life? Will it be useful to others? Will it change anything in the real world?
Time will tell.
I'm intending this blog to allow me to post some summary information about ideas and questions that already interest me relating immediately or more widely to the Iraq Inquiry. I also want to use this blog to capture and summarise important points from any discussion on the Facebook Cause (which has currently has exactly 1 member - me!).
In other words, once I get past these initial setting up hurdles this blog should be the "textbook", the "resource" for ideas and questions and the Facebook Cause will be where (if anyone else joins) ideas, views, opinions, prejudices, insights ... the whole panoply of stuff human minds produce ... will be tossed around. With the aim of getting closer to the truth about the Iraq War and making it harder and harder for Chilcot to go on cheating us. We can do it!
I wonder how it will all work out. Will the Facebook Cause mushroom or will I sit there in glorious (or inglorious) isolation? Will it be a 5 minute wonder or take over my life? Will it be useful to others? Will it change anything in the real world?
Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)