Re: If voting could change things, it would be illegal - anonymous
International Criminal Law
3/ I contend that the conduct of The Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, the Attorney General, 414 Members of Parliament and others in commanding, HM armed forces to join a Coalition of states to attack Iraq in the knowledge that its citizens would be killed, constitutes a crime of genocide under Articles 6 and 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) rendering the offenders criminally responsible and liable for punishment for such a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Individual criminal responsibility
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
I assert that the actions of HM armed forces in using indiscriminate weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells against targets in built up areas in Iraq, in the knowledge that such attacks would kill Iraqi men, women and children constitutes genocide as defined in Articles 6 and 25.3(a) of the RSICC and as such renders the aforementioned leaders and commanders criminally responsible for ordering, soliciting and inducing such a crime, which itself is a crime under RSICC Article 25.3(b).
I draw the court’s attention to RSICC Articles 27 and 28 which place responsibility for the crime of genocide with those leaders and commanders responsible for its commission and negate the claims that the royal prerogative or parliamentary privilege take priority.
Irrelevance of official capacity
1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
Responsibility of commanders and other superiors
In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court :
(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where :
(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or were about to commit such crimes; and
(ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
Chris Coverdale Wimbledon March 2006
The Nuremburg Law
[The duty to refuse to take part in or assist the state in waging illegal war]
1. I submit that every human being has a duty in international law under the Nuremburg Principles to refuse the orders, commands and laws of the State where that State is in violation of the laws against war.
2. As the world’s first major war crimes trial, the Nuremburg Tribunal provided the principles and tenets that now form the basis of customary international war law. In 1946 Germany’s leaders were convicted of crimes against peace and humanity for waging wars of aggression against eleven nation states in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The judgement highlighted the principles governing conflict between nations, and highlighted the responsibilities of individuals in preventing war.
“After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing...
It was submitted that international law is concerned with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognised…
The very essence of the [Nuremburg] Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…
That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law of war has never been recognised as a defence to such acts of brutality, though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether moral choice was in fact possible…
3. The Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials were the first occasions in modern history when political leaders were held to account for their crimes in court. The essence of the trials was that individual political, civil and military leaders and officials could not shelter behind their duty to the state, when the state was in breach of international law. As both Germany and Japan had ratified the Kellogg-Briand Pact, their leaders, by breaching the Pact, had committed serious crimes for which they were personally responsible and for which they were convicted and punished.
4. The reason why the Nuremburg trials are important is that they provide the first example of the rule of international war law in action and the judgment gave a lucid account of the laws against war and the principles which underpin relations between states. The International Law Commission then used the Nuremburg judgment as the basis for the statutory laws against war agreed by the UN General Assembly which were entitled the Nuremburg Principles in recognition of their source.
5. The single most important legal development derived from the Nuremburg judgment is the focus on the responsibility of the individual in matters of international warfare. Those responsible for waging war are to be held to account in court. Up to that moment national leaders such as Kaiser Wilhelm or Napoleon Bonaparte who were responsible for waging wars causing the deaths of millions had escaped the ultimate penalty for their crimes. Furthermore, the Nuremburg judgement made it clear that it was not only Heads of State that could be indicted, but all those individuals who together were responsible for planning, supporting, condoning, funding or taking part in aggressive war.
6. The Nuremburg Principles became international statute criminal law when they were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950. As these seven principles are the world’s primary international laws against war, it is the duty of every citizen of Member States of the United Nations to uphold and abide by these laws.
I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
7. I assert that in commanding the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, 412 MPs, Peers, officers in command of HM armed forces and others committed crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity as they are defined under Principle VI of the Nuremburg Principles.
8. I submit that every citizen of Britain who condones supports or assists the British Government in waging the illegal war against the people of Iraq is complicit in these crimes and as such commits a crime under Principle VII of the Nuremburg Principles.
9. I submit that I was in Parliament Square pursuing my duty in international law under the Nuremburg Principles refusing the illegitimate orders, commands, laws and regulations of the United Kingdom Government on the grounds that these laws and regulations are unlawful and designed to silence legitimate protest against the British Government’s violations of international law and crimes against the people and state of Iraq.
Chris Coverdale Wimbledon May 2006
The closing argument of Justice can be found on the internet . It is a briefing set before the House of Lords warning of the dangers of socpa legislation. Google Socpa and Justice and you will find a few answers…
'come on... slow coach' - my lovely girlie-girl, calling out to her little mate, with a big smile!
anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging Brian W. Haw, Parliament Square, John Catt, Mark Thomas, Ziggy Abu and FCUK - all equally, greatly inspire free speech
Without your corrupt 'nonse' judges on the bench and your 'politically corrupted' henchmen police... where would you be? Broadmoor, if not the Haigue.
Forever seeking that story of "The 100th Monkey" of kindness within the reality of the psyche of all humanity - Peace to everyone, everywhere, always. And the world... could be a better place...
- a mom and member of humankind
anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging the persistent efforts of Princess Diana Spencer, Steve, Babs, Chris, Maya, Mark, rikki, Eric, 'Mary Poppins' of Parliament Square, Maria and Brian and many more enlightened reasonable logical minds
[size=medium]Freelance brain owner[/size] R U Darwin\'s monkey?[size=medium] HumanKIND = God\'s creation[/size]