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!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)