profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Blair's war crimes: efforts to indict

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow

Post Post subject: Blair's war crimes: efforts to indict Reply with quote

Some articles on an application to prosecute Tony Blair under Scottish law. Any further pieces/links on the subject of Blair's possible indictment welcome here.


Call for Scotland to try Blair as 'war criminal'


SCOTLAND'S Lord Advocate was today urged to prosecute Tony Blair as a war criminal for the invasion of Iraq.

Former MP Jim Sillars said he had written to Elish Angiolini with a 10,000-word document setting out a formal complaint against the Prime Minister.

And he said Scots law allowed Mr Blair to be put on trial despite such a move being ruled out south of the Border.

The move came as Westminster Tories called for an immediate inquiry into the war in Iraq in a move expected to cause a Labour backbench rebellion. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague was using a Commons debate to call for a hearing by senior politicians with powers to summon officials and military commanders.

Mr Sillars, who is married to independent Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald, claimed Mr Blair was guilty of conspiracy with others to wage aggressive war, and waging aggressive war against the state of Iraq in March 2003, contrary to international law and the law of Scotland.

In his letter to the Lord Advocate, he said: "I am requesting you to investigate this complaint and prosecute in a Scottish court."

Mr Sillars emphasised that despite his political past - first as a Labour MP and then as SNP MP and deputy leader - the complaint against Mr Blair was based on legal principles and case law and was not a political initiative.

He told Ms Angiolini in the letter: "You will find that the research is sound, and that the case against Tony Blair is a strong one. You, of course, will be able to dig wider and deeper than I can as an ordinary citizen, and I am sure that when you do you will reach the same conclusion as contained in the complaint."

Mr Sillars said it was generally believed that Mr Blair could not be indicted for war crimes over Iraq.

But Mr Sillars claimed Scotland's High Court had "declaratory powers" which enabled it to embrace international crimes in Scots law.

He said: "I have spent since January of this year, with a break for the election, researching the case against Blair and whether he could be indicted through the Scottish criminal justice system. The complaint lodged with the Lord Advocate shows the conclusion to that effort. Blair can, in my opinion, be tried in a Scottish court; and the evidence of his conspiracy through deception, lies and misinformation, and his intention of committing the illegal act of regime change through aggressive war, is quite clear. "

Mr Sillars said the Prime Minister had carried on because he felt immune from prosecution.

Mr Hague said today that the presence of UK soldiers in Iraq could not be used as an excuse to "indefinitely postpone" the inquiry. He wants an investigation along the lines of the wide-ranging inquiry into the Falklands War chaired by philosopher Oliver Franks.

Downing Street has said it will hold a probe into the war and the faulty intelligence about Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction, but not while UK troops are in the country.

And Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is expected to dismiss the call, arguing there have already been four inquiries into various aspects of the war and that another one would distract from the efforts of troops on the ground.

Plea to try Blair as a war criminal in Scotland KEVIN SCHOFIELD June 12 2007

A former deputy leader of the SNP has launched a bid to have Prime Minister Tony Blair prosecuted in Scotland for his decision to go to war in Iraq.

Jim Sillars, the former MP for Govan, alleges Mr Blair "waged aggressive war" against the Middle East country and can be charged under Scots law.

Mr Sillars submitted a 24-page document supporting his case to Elish Angiolini, the Lord Advocate, on Friday and yesterday said he was confident that the Prime Minister would eventually stand trial in Scotland.

However, a leading expert on international law said it was highly unlikely that Mr Sillars's attempts to have Mr Blair prosecuted would succeed.

Speaking at the Scottish Parliament alongside his wife, the Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald, Mr Sillars said Scotland was now the only place in the world where the Prime Minister could face legal action over Iraq.

He said: "There is overwhelming evidence that Blair is guilty of a conspiracy to wage aggressive war and of waging aggressive war.

"There can be no prosecution at the international criminal court because it doesn't have jurisdiction, there is no chance of a special court being convened by the United Nations because Britain and the US have a veto and no chance of a prosecution in England and Wales.

"But Scots law is an entirely different entity and entirely different jurisdiction with different rules and procedures."

Mr Sillars said the High Court of Justiciary has powers to declare new ways of committing existing crimes, namely waging aggressive war on another country.

He argued those so-called "declaratory powers" would therefore allow Ms Angiolini to bring a case against the Prime Minister.

Alongside his legal document, Mr Sillars has also submitted a range of documents taken from the internet which he claims prove that Mr Blair took part in a conspiracy in order to justify the military campaign in Iraq.

These include cabinet memos, the memoirs of the former weapons inspector Hans Blix, excerpts from the Butler report into the war and other pieces of research from both sides of the Atlantic.

Mr Sillars said that, taken together, the evidence he has gathered since beginning his investigations in January provide a compelling case for the Prime Minister's prosecution.

"The Lord Advocate would have to give a very good explanation to say why, with the evidence presented to her, she didn't proceed with an investigation," he said.

"This is a serious document about a very serious matter."

Mr Sillars said demonstrating no-one was above the law would lend moral authority to the West's battle against international terrorism.

He added: "It's the morality of our position that will ultimately determine whether we win that struggle or not."

However, John Grant, a former professor at Glasgow University's law school and now a professor at Lewis & Clark law school in Portland, Oregon, last night said he was not convinced that Mr Sillars's attempts to have Tony Blair stand trial will be successful.

He said: "The Scottish declaratory power, while used relatively recently in minor areas, has been seen by some as contrary to European human rights law, which requires that crimes should be known in advance of the acts that constitute them and not legislated by courts."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "We can confirm receipt of correspondence from Jim Sillars. A response will be issued in due course."

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The government has always acted in accordance with international law."
Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:29 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The great deception continues - as must the effort to expose and indict the guilty

And so, the end of the Blairite decade. Tributes, applause and a standing ovation at PM’s Question Time. Gushing reflections from fellow politicians and sundry acolytes. And, of course, the whole panoply of deferential BBC coverage replete with helicopter ‘reportage’ of official cars going to and from the Palace.

How abjectly depressing, yet revealing, that so many people, so many institutions, can participate in this mass charade. How intellectually and morally bereft of our political and media ‘guardians’ to observe the constitutional etiquette while the slaughter goes on in Iraq.

Was there ever a more graphic illustration of collective deceit. Not conspiracy. Rather, a more disturbing acceptance, internalisation and amelioration of a gross lie.

And, now that the crime has been denied and mitigated by our servile media, the lie itself can be laundered and ‘cleansed’ through new hypocritical gestures. Wolfowitz to the World Bank, Bolton to the UN. And now Blair’s endorsement as the Quartet’s Envoy to the Middle East. Just when we thought we’d seen it all.

Again, the institutional self-deceit: how can the UN, who told Blair that his actions against Iraq were illegal, now propose him as a political dove? Unlike the Nazi war criminals who sat-out the remainder of their poisoned existence in remote bolt-holes, the modern war criminal now ‘hides’ in public; a more effective form of junta protection. Blair might, like Wolfowitz and Bolton, ultimately see his own public ‘fall from grace’ and removal from the Quartet’s office. But even that would be part of the convenient mask to deflect proper attention from his high war crimes. In the meantime, his pretence of ‘honest broker’ will be dutifully acknowledged and safely contextualised: irrespective of Blair’s past, they will say, he has the ‘standing’ and ‘determination’ to pursue peaceful resolutions between Israel and the Palestinians.

Here we see the vital task of the liberal media: to make that appointment a plausible reality; to encourage us to think the unthinkable, and bring us to a safe version of the thinkable, while cautiously observing the obvious objections. Hence, the safety-zone gesturings of Huw Edwards, live at Number 10, noting the token ‘doubt’ over Blair’s suitability for the post, and his casual dismissal of its actual importance: “That’s a debate for another day.”

Yes, let’s not spoil this mystical observance of the powerful with such inconvenient discussion. Never mind that such an appointment is equivalent in its obscenity to Henry Kissinger getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Never mind that approaching one million Iraqis lie dead at the behest of Blair and the murderers in suits. Never mind the four million Iraqis displaced from their homes as despairing refugees. Never mind the knock-on catastrophe across the Middle East and the prospect of generational misery to come.

How the establishment looks after its own. Even its psychopathic own – reflecting, one might reasonably conclude, its own collective psychopathic nature.

Today, as the handover of power between Britain’s two main prima facie war criminals is completed, with a complicit media indulging, par excellence, in its shocking awe, we have witnessed another historic crime take place in this institutional effort to shield the guilty and pervert the course of moral justice.

But, as millions of rational people around the world are still very capable of seeing, none of this ornamentation, deception and spin can obscure these resilient, enduring realities:

That Blair fronted and sold the lie of 'necessary war' in Iraq.

That Brown wrote the cheques for that aggression and continues, as PM, to defend the crime.

That the BBC and its peer media are grossly complicit in that catalogue of lies and protection of the warmongers.

Even with the institutional enterprise of the perpetrators and their media apologists, none of these inconvenient truths can be expunged from the historical record. No time should be lost in pursuing, exposing and indicting those concerned.

Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:15 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

It's encouraging to see the new Scottish Executive's active engagement over torture/rendition flights:


Amnesty International to compile dossier of evidence on secret rendition flights

By Rachelle Money
Justice secretary seeking evidence on ‘torture flights’ that landed at Scottish airports

HUMAN RIGHTS organisations will for the first time compile a dossier of all evidence relating to "torture flights" landing at Scottish airports after a call made by the Executive.

Amnesty International Scotland said they were approached by civil servants on June 15 on behalf of justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has asked for all information and reports linked to extraordinary rendition flights landing and taking off from airports in Scotland.

John Watson, director of the civil liberties organisation, said: "I don't believe that it the evidence has been gathered in one place before, it's all buried amongst lengthy lists and reports on our website, in the Council of Europe report and so forth."

He added: "There certainly hasn't been an investigation into the Scottish angle before."

The Scottish Executive's decision to launch its own inquiry comes weeks before the Westminster parliamentary intelligence and security committee is due to publish its findings on rendition flights.

Labour peer Lord Foulkes suggested the Executive should hold off from this inquiry until after the Westminster one is published to avoid "misunderstandings" between Holyrood and the London parliament.

Earlier this month the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) also completed an inquiry, which concluded that there was not enough evidence to warrant a police investigation, a finding which the human rights organisation Liberty called a "whitewash".

A Scottish Executive spokesman explained why a Scotland-specific inquiry was necessary. He said: "Civil aviation is a reserved matter and is the responsibility of the United Kingdom government. However, attempts to commit or conspire to commit torture are crimes under Scots law, and it is for the police to investigate allegations of such offences and for the procurator fiscal to decide whether or not to bring proceedings.

"ACPO have considered information provided to them by the human rights group Liberty. The information examined was already available, and the investigation comprised a consideration of this material and was not a full criminal investigation.

"Hence our intention to meet with these individuals and organisations to discover what information they may have, and if appropriate to pass it on to the Crown and the police in Scotland."

Watson said the Executive had shown a "real shift in attitude and policy".

He said: "We need to have this investigation because quite frankly we can't trust the Westminster government. They have made strong assurances that we're not involved in anything like that but we're not going to tell you any more or give you information about it'.

"Someone saying it's in hand isn't going to convince us, it's too late in the day for that."

Watson said that if "substantiated evidence" came out of the inquiry he hoped it would be acted upon by the appropriate authorities.

"This is fundamental stuff you're talking about, kidnap and torture carried out by government agents. The Council of Europe suggest it's happening on the nod from our own government.

"I don't know if we will be able to get that kind of evidence, I don't even know if that evidence will exist in a format that we could find, but we have to try. Even if we don't find anything, I think we would have to set up systems where this can't happen in the future."

Amnesty International said they would call on Scottish airports to "follow the good example" of Derry airport in Northern Ireland, which has opened its flight records for scrutiny and signed a protocol setting out safeguards to prevent future rendition flights landing there.

The move has been welcomed by Clive Stafford Smith, the acclaimed human rights lawyer who represents many people who are imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay and have been subject to extraordinary rendition flights.

He said: "Certainly they should set protections in place, At the moment the British are placed second after Germany in the European league of complicity in these flights, and there is only going to be more evidence that comes out."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said they have already contacted MacAskill and sent him all the information they have compiled on rendition flights.

She added: "We hope the Scottish Executive's brave move will shame the new UK government into action.

"We have been calling on the UK government and the English police to conduct a similar investigation for over 18 months. Our requests have been refused.

"The next step for Liberty is to continue, along with other concerned organisations, to call for a full, transparent inquiry for the rest of the UK."
Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:12 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Blair's new peace charade and the Quartet's sponsorship of it will not fool or appease those in the Middle East and beyond who see him for what he really is: a brazen war criminal.


The day a war criminal becomes an envoy of peace is an Orwellian nightmare having come true, and a wake up call to us all.

Blair's future is Brown

Mohammad Kamaali

Tehran Times,
3 July 2007

As Tony Blair left Downing Street, leaving Britain's prime ministership to his long time rival and co-leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, the protesters outside Blair's office were greeted with the news that Blair had just been appointed as the new "Middle East Envoy" for the Quartet. Looking at the realities of the Middle East today and reviewing Blair's contribution to the current mayhem, one is left wondering whether this decision is born out of delusional thinking, sheer cynicism, or is there any possible constructive utility in this appointment?

During his ten years in office, Tony Blair was, by all accounts, the most media-obsessed prime minister Britain has ever seen. Perhaps his decision to put himself forward for this job must also be viewed in that light, as a last attempt by an increasingly unpopular politician to save his face at home rather than a genuine attempt to work towards any real prospect of a safer world.

Perhaps the one major highlight of Blair's negotiation skills was the Good Friday Agreement that he helped bring about in Northern Ireland in 1998. But not only was the groundwork for this laid down by his predecessor, what is also often forgotten, is that this was an isolated problem, in his own backyard; while the Middle East is an entirely different situation with a complicated web of stake holders where problems cannot be viewed in isolation from each other.

The very fact that Blair seems to see himself as 'fit for purpose' shows a lack of understanding of the political situation in the Middle East and the root causes of the ongoing problems.

His conduct and miscalculations in his shameless refusal to call for a ceasefire during Israel's attack on Lebanon last summer, which led to the destruction of southern Lebanon, cost him the little credibility he had previously earned by projecting an image of himself as a restraining force in preventing George W. Bush from attacking Iraq without a second UNSC resolution. Of course that resolution was never passed and they both went ahead with their long time planned invasion.

In any conflict, it is reasonable to expect the mediator to be respected by both parties to the conflict as unbiased and one who will act in competence and honesty to bring about a fair and appropriate resolution. Blair's appointment as an envoy was immediately welcomed by Israel and the U.S. But is this a view that is shared beyond the 'allied' countries? It is inconceivable to think that Blair and his advisors are not aware of his image in the Middle East. As such one is led to believe that he is quite simply "not bothered" about it. This is what I refer to as "sheer cynicism".

If his new title is anything beyond a media spin and if he takes it seriously at all, we should expect that he will most likely follow the same biased agenda that he followed throughout his time in office. There should be no illusion that if his double standards with respect to democracy and human rights in the region were capable of bearing fruit in any way, there would have been a brighter outlook for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict today.

The Middle East is not limited to Palestine and Israel. There are many other local and international players in the region, and more often than not, they are in conflict with one another, an important aspect of which relates to the extent to which they support or defy U.S. policies. Blair's shadow over the region, following his complicity with the U.S. in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, will no doubt further highlight the differences between those states in the region that practice an independent foreign policy and those effectively implementing American scripts for short-term gains, but to long term detriment of the interests of their own nations.

Blair's military adventures in the Middle East have also adversely affected Britain's interests and reputation, not only among the people and historians of the region, whose memory of the colonial past has now been sharply revived, but also among some client states too. The Iraqi dictator who was so humiliatingly and horrifically captured and hanged last year, was one of the closest allies of the West until as recently as 1990. Other regimes in the region, who also have developed close relationships with Britain and the U.S. in the hope of 'security', will now think of contingency plans for the years or decades ahead when their expiry date comes up and the U.S. may call upon them too to disarm or else.

This goes beyond today. For most countries in the Middle East, with a colonial past, 'foreign policy' is a new skill which they have yet to master. Under colonial rule, they interacted with the outside world, only with the blessing of the colonialists; but now they are expected to act independently and to distinguish between being a puppet, and acting as free agents engaged in independent cooperation and liaison at an international level. During this transition, those rulers that choose to accommodate the concerns of foreign entities rather than their own population are bound to come into conflict with their own societies sooner or later. The history of the Middle East is littered with uprisings against governments who were more loyal to the British or the Americans than to their own people. The Middle East's level of 'stability' has often been miscalculated, mainly because the assessments have always been subjective to our own interests in the West, rather than measured against the social and economic welfare of the inhabitants of the region. In 1977 President Carter famously branded Shah's regime in Iran as "an island of stability in a turbulent sea." The monarch was forced into exile only a year later following popular grassroots uprisings!

Gordon Brown without causing much controversy has tried to open a new chapter by reshuffling the Labour cabinet and by introducing new ministers who have a record of having been critical of the Iraq war. He has effectively fired the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, in favor of David Miliband, who is said to have been critical of Blair for his bias towards Israel. Other major appointments include John Denham who had resigned over the Iraq war in 2003 and Sir Mark Malloch-Brown, again a critic of the war.

But no matter how many changes he makes to distance himself from Blair's legacy, Brown, and the entire country for that matter, for many years to come, will have to deal with the consequences of having waged unprovoked wars against countries and their populations. Not surprisingly, Brown's first day in office on 28th of June, started with news of three British troops killed in Iraq, and on 29th June, with an alleged car bomb plot in London.

In the past ten years, the world has gone through fundamental, largely irreversible changes. Yet despite having been part of the force responsible for this change, Blair's take of the situation so far, has been limited within the boundaries of official channels. Now, however, that he has left office, perhaps he will become more in touch with realities on the ground.

He may notice the occasional pieces of independent commentary in the media. He may google "Blair and Iraq" and see the title "Blair Knew Iraq Had No WMD" or in a rainy day, whilst drinking tea in his recently purchased multimillion pounds house in Connaught Square, he may come across those countless blogs and photo-blogs that have forever documented the role of his servile and interventionist foreign policy in bringing about misery and instability in the world.

The day a war criminal becomes an envoy of peace is an Orwellian nightmare having come true, and a wake up call to us all.

As time goes by, whether he likes it or not, Tony Blair will find out how he is viewed by the real "international community". His 'legacy' will be a lesson for other politicians who rely too much on propaganda to support and protect their agenda, whilst underestimating the power of an increasingly informed public opinion.
Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:47 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 724
Location: Glasgow

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Some comments and calls for help on efforts to indict Blair and others (posted at the Media Lens Message Board).



The Blair Government's War Crimes Police Investigation
Posted by luke on February 18, 2008

The Blair Government's War Crimes Police Investigation

A small, brave group of Members of the UK Parliament and anti-war resisters who after about 150 failed attempts in 44 separate jurisdictions have persuaded the London Metropolitan Police to conduct an investigation into allegations of War Crimes conducted by the then PM, Tony Blair, his Cabinet and the Government's Attorney General, Peter Goldsmith.

The Metropolitan Police is currently investigating 14 alleged crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to those under the UK's International Criminal Court Act of 2001, Sections 51 and 52 as well as crimes against peace and complicity in crimes against peace under the Nuremburg Principles, murder and incitement to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act of 1977.

The Police interviewed Chris Coverdale and the other complainants for over six-and-a-half hours. The investigation is currently ongoing. Further information is available at the Make War History website.

One of the key factors in bringing about this investigation was the fact that just before 911 the UK Government enacted the International Criminal Court Act of 2001 which has its basis in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 and in the spirit of the International Treaty for the Renunciation of War, 1928. However utopian you may think this nevertheless the case is that under the 2001 Act those who incite war and the murder of innocent people are held to be war criminals. Clearly, both the Bush and Blair governments fell into that category when they illegally attacked peaceful countries. They broke their own respective genocide laws.

Moreover, according to the same 2001 law, all those who paid taxes to the criminal governments who conducted that aggression were themselves complicit in war crimes unless they had refused to pay such taxes and had taken an active part in resisting such wars. Millions of war criminals!

The five videos below record Chris Coverdale's initial complaint to the Metropolitan Police at its Belgravia Station and the Press Conference that followed at the House of Commons on 19 January 2008.

Chris Coverdale is calling for British citizens, Peace and Anti-War groups &c to now take similar action and to lodge similar complaints, using the same UK laws against these war criminals, at every Police station throughout the land. Many of us have waited for so long for justice to be done and for these evil men to answer for their crimes. At no previous time has a British government committed such a great crime against humanity as has the Blair/Brown government against Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Australian, Dr Gideon Polya, the death toll in these two countries ever since Gulf War I is now over 8 million!

I would therefore appeal to all my British readers to consider taking their own action along these lines. I have downloaded and burned onto disk the above five videos which are useful to show audiences at local group meetings. If UK readers would like a copy of the disk they should send me an email request to



Re: The Blair Government's War Crimes Police Investigation
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on February 19, 2008

Do I get the smell here of something that could grow very big and maybe even get strong enough to have a real effect? Or am I just kidding myself?

Chomsky’s not alone in pointing out that those of us who really mean business about combatting the criminal schweinereis of the power-wielders have to start at home, in our own states, because that’s where we have most chance of significant results.

The least that this initiative might do is to so taint the serial war-criminal Tony Blair with bad publicity that it screws his chances of getting to be President of Europe: a prevention that he deserves richly. The EU is less democratic even than many of its member states, and the European WealthPowerStatus-mafias whose particular project it is are quite sensitive about this glaring fact. Stinking publicity for any of their pocket-politicians is bad news, from their perspective.

A few years back, popular action almost nailed Pinochet, on a visit to London, and came close to delivering him under arrest to Spain, to stand trial for his crimes. Only the manoeuvrings of – wouldn’t you know, ever the defender of anything that stinks! – his friend Thatcher got him off with no more than a period of humiliating house-arrest in London, and then hasty deportation back to Chile – where he suddenly felt better, and got up out of the wheelchair where he – poor infirm ol’ chap -- had had to stay before, to be greeted at the airport by his fellow thugs and their hangers-on.

Christopher Hitchens, for all his subsequent squalid fall from grace, did initiate a drive to impeach and try Kissinger for his immense crimes against humanity. That stalled. But Kissinger is still alive, and knows quietly, without a shadow of doubt, that he’ll never be wholly safe from prosecution until he dies. The whirligig of these increasingly upheaving Interesting Times could still bring in his revenges.

Sooner or later, grassroots action +will+ nail one of these crooks. Not necessarily just a drum head trial and then out into the courtyard to be shot, like the Ceauscescu’s, but a measured court trial, and a guilty verdict before the eyes of the world, followed by some kind of compulsory making of amends: The rule of law applied to the mafiosi and their upoals, like the rest of us, instead of the usual immunity that they award themselves. Imagine Blair and Bush and their criminal coteries forced to do periods of reconstruction and community-service work in Iraq and Afghanistan! And why not? There’s no law of nature that says this can’t happen. Take another, thoughtful look at JK’s ‘Power of Love’ post a bit further down on this page, and think how such popular actions by us would ease the vengeful, outraged feelings of millions of muslims, inside and outside of those poor battered countries, and thus help to make us safer from blowback: genuine security, instead of the orwellian reversal of meaning which the gangsters-in-charge and their upoals are always prating.

A second crucial idea is contained also in Luke’s post:

“Moreover, according to the same 2001 law, all those who paid taxes to the criminal governments who conducted that aggression were themselves complicit in war crimes unless they had refused to pay such taxes and had taken an active part in resisting such wars. Millions of war criminals!”

Plenty of us took part in the demos and civil disobedience actions against the war-crimes, and continue to do so. I reckon that if we’d just been a bit more disruptive we would have stopped the criminal uk-state’s complicity in the aggressions. But the tax-refusers remain lamentably few, though refusing, combined with voluntary self-tithing to support genuinely worthy recipients, is a potent weapon against the criminal state and the crooks who run it, if a big enough groundswell of refuseniks can be got going.

And I’m here to tell you, still free and unpersecuted after many years of doing it, that it really is practically possible, even for an isolated individual. So think what a tidal wave of us could do!

As a further easing of the justified anger of the muslim peoples of Eurasia, we could redirect substantial portions of our withheld taxes towards reparations for the smashing up done to them by our out-of-control militaries. And it wouldn't hurt the aim of reconciliation and visible justice if those same military personnel were to dump arms, and then request permission from the local people to give practical help in reconstruction, before coming back to the only countries where they have any legitimate right to be.

It’s a basic rule of thumb in human affairs: the powerful never give us justice, out of their generosity of heart. That happens when we force it, by determined mass action.

Sometimes I feel quite glad that the end of bourgeois over-prosperity is in sight now for the Pampered Twenty Percent of humankind, as the synergistic global crises ramp up. At least the shock might sting us out of our collective hyper-easeful, bauble-laden trance state, and get us back into serious action, like my parents’ generation, who – for example – blagged out of the WPS-mafiosi of their time the foundations, at least, of social democracy which we still just about enjoy today. That wasn’t got by dapper, polite requesting. It’s Scargillian intransigence on the part of many common citizens acting together which wrests such things from the control of the gangsters.


[b] Re: The Blair Government's War Crimes Police Investigation
Posted by David Sketchley on February 19, 2008b]

Chros Coverdale has asked for help, so if anyone has any spare time....

He said: "we are targetting Alistair Campbell and expect to handover evidence to the police in a couple of weeks. If you can research his or other members of the media's activities, search the web and discover statements which he has made at any time after Sept 1st 2001 which can be used as evidence in a case against him we will be delighted to include it in the material given to the police. The material that is needed needs to prove his 'intent' to kill or 'harm' Iraqi or Afghan citizens."
E-mail dated 13 Feb 2008.

Failing that if anyone knows where to find such information, then please post it here.


Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:55 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 27

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

If it was a 2001 Act, it's obvious why 911 happened when it did. the panic creation of a world crisis to prevent this Act ever being enforced.

* "those who incite war and the murder of innocent people are held to be war criminals."

Everybody who says bullying, among children or adults, has to be accepted as an inevitable fact of life, incites the murder of the people whose suicides are caused by it - hence are war criminals. Everyone who want such thing as ribaldry to exist at all in the world is a conspirator to genocide. I'm totally literal in this.

* "all those who paid taxes to the criminal governments who conducted that aggression were themselves complicit in war crimes unless they had refused to pay such taxes and had taken an active part in resisting such wars."

How can anyone be a criminal for obeying the domestic law of their state that they were forced to obey? Except if they were directly in person asked to commit genocide?

* the charges against senior politcians should not be lodegd with the authorities in the form of a request to ivnestigate. A request is a confession of the authorities having even in theory a discretionary choice not to do it, accountable to nobody but themselves. the charges should be field on terms of citing the authorities with being party to the crimes themselves unless they take up the charges by automatic duty. It's vital to use the word "automatic". It pins our states' validity as states at all to them doing it.
Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:23 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 248
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

"all those who paid taxes to the criminal governments who conducted that aggression were themselves complicit in war crimes unless they had refused to pay such taxes and had taken an active part in resisting such wars"

I do agree the term complicit, coupled with the assertion that one could only be absolved of guilt by not paying taxes *and* taking an active part in resisting wars is too much (as opposed to *only* resisting wars), serves to perhaps alienate many who were resistant to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree that the taxes used are a direct link between us (as citizens) and the killing of Iraqis and Aghans, but not that we had a choice, except to starve (there is, after all income tax, excise/VAT). We would have to remove ourselves completely from society to avoid paying this dirty tax, which few can conceivably do. If we worked directly for a company involved, we would have the choice to quit, because we could always find other work (for example, I worked for a shipping company - CP Ships, now merged with Happag Lloyd - from which, on discovering the huge military contracts with the US for the transport of military weapons inc warheads, I quit). We don't have the choice to not pay taxes (legally, or logistically).

Making the point that taxes should be awarded only on the basis of the specifics for which they are earmarked, and all taxes used for 'foreign policy' involving the use of weapons given only in an opt-in/out scheme (or something similiar) would be a useful point. We shouldn't have to provide taxes to the pot, when much of the use of that 'pot' doesn't benefit anybody in the country, much less out of the country.

Obviously, a far better way of putting it is to the people; 'your taxes are used to kill - don't stand for it', rather than the more negative stance of 'you are a war criminal because you paid your taxes'.

I can appreciate that distinction between implication and reality, but many people (I know) simply get annoyed at the unfair (and let's face it, untrue) assertion.

Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:55 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 133

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Various individuals, including myself, all over the UK have joined Chris Coverdale's Make Wars History campaign and made complaints to their local police authority about war criminals, quoting the International Criminal Court Act, 2001 as the basis for complaints asking the police to prosecute.

If anyone is interested to obtain more information they can either go to the MWH site or contact

I would strongly suggest that anyone who decides to go ahead and complain about war criminals should copy all their correspondence to the address below with a footnote below any correspondence to the police reading "Copy to ICC Office of the Prosecutor".

Communications and claims under art.15 of the Rome Statute may be addressed to:

Information and Evidence Unit
Office of the Prosecutor
Post Office Box 19519
2500 CM The Hague
The Netherlands

or sent by email to ,
or sent by facsimile to +31 70 515 8555.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:18 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly