Page 1 of 2

Britain to the Hague?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:59 pm
by antiaristo
The machinery of democracy is falling apart. I want to understand the reason why.<br>I have linked to the Treason Felony Act before, it is true. It is obscure, and difficult but absolutely fundamental to this question of WHY?<br><br>That statute makes it illegal for anyone to do anything that opposes the Queen. “Any person” includes, crucially, all the judges in the United Kingdom. I can prove this in my own case, for I can demonstrate that a forged court order was issued by the High Court. And then buried.<br><br>Now come to the Human Rights Act. All these “rights” are subject to enforcement by the courts, which means the judges. But the judge swears an oath to Queen Elizabeth, and is constrained by the Treason Felony Act. Where a human right might conflict with the interests of the Queen, the judge will not enforce that right. In other words the conflict is resolved within the mind of the judge when he lays down his ruling, and the rest of us know nothing of what has taken place. So the “rights” of the British are not rights at all.<br><br>But that doesn’t work with Article 13. The right to an effective remedy. For example, where you get demonstrably screwed by the court (such as a forged court order), there MUST be a remedy available – that is something more powerful than the Queen. So they left it out.<br><br>The point about Jack Straw is this. Until Kofi Annan came to London and made his statement the British Government was denying that the war was illegal. Many activists had sought to obtain a judicial review of the legality of the war – either to defend themselves (remember Katharine Gun?) or to attack the conditions and the conduct of the occupiers (Phil Shiner and Camp Breadbasket). But whenever the matter came before an English judge that judge would be sent a note from or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown. We were never told what was in the note, but the judge ALWAYS ruled the issue of legality as beyond his or her competence.<br><br>These notes, I am certain, referred to the Treason Felony Act. So it was this statute that prevented any definitive JUDICIAL view on the legality of the war. We were in limbo, with common sense saying “illegal”, but the State machine screaming “Not so!”. Until Kofi Annan did his thing (and look at the price he has been paying).<br>The position is rather peculiar. For although the whole world can see that the war was illegal, Westminster and Whitehall are subsumed in Bush style bubble, created personally by the Queen, in which the war was legal because she says so. Which is where the ICC comes into the equation.<br><br>As I wrote to the Secretary General<br><br>“As I understand the situation, the International CRIMINAL court at The Hague plays the role of tribunal of last resort. That is, the Court is designed to be invoked only when the signatory states themselves have failed to investigate and try prima facie war crimes. Several such war crimes are at this very moment working their way up the British legal system, propelled by the Human Rights Act.”<br><br>So let’s try a few legal tests.<br><br>A) Were “War Crimes” committed?<br><br> If the war was contrary to the Charter then by definition the answer is yes. We don’t even need to get into the specifics of “Camp Breadbasket” and elsewhere.<br><br>B) Have the British made good faith efforts to investigate and try prima facie war crimes?<br><br>i) The courts have been actively prevented from exploring the underlying legality of Blair’s decision to attack Iraq. The agency of prevention is the Queen and her Treason Felony Act.<br>ii) The Human Rights Act specifically excludes Article 13 of the European convention. The conclusion is that British subjects have no right to an effective remedy even against War Crimes. The agency of prevention is Blair himself, prime minister when this faulty legislation was passed by parliament. This also applies to Iraqi citizens living in Iraq.<br>iii) The Attorney General was consistent in his view that the war was not legal. That is until his formal “Opinion” was rejected by Charlie Falconer and Sally Morgan, who then substituted their own opinion. The agency for this change is the Queen and her Treason Felony Act.<br><br>So what we have here is a carefully constructed closed system in which all law is decided by a single person. Although there have been a few show trials, they have been conducted on the basis that the war itself was entirely legitimate. The British were clearly just “going through the motions” with their Potemkin justice system.<br><br>So just a single consideration remains. Are the British subject to the International Criminal Court? For although the British have signed up, it is not clear whether or not the signatory was acting ultra-vires, or beyond his powers. It is known that Major was acting fraudulently throughout his tenure, and that the same was true of Blair from 1997 to June/July 2000.<br><br>(As a final aside, is it not ironic that two of the three original judges of Milosevic were functionaries who swore allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Talk about having it both ways.)<br><br><br>Addendum. Latest intervention by Queen Elizabeth<br><br>Attorney general spared trial by bar <br><br>Clare Dyer, legal editor<br>Thursday July 14, 2005<br>The Guardian <br><br>The Bar Council has thrown out several complaints of professional misconduct against the attorney general over his Iraq war advice, saying it has no power to investigate the provision of legal opinions to ministers by the government's law officers. <br>The complaints came from the former overseas development secretary Clare Short, a separate group of MPs, more than a dozen barristers (including four QCs), Reg Keys, the father of a soldier killed in the war who stood against Tony Blair at Sedgefield in the general election, and a journalist, Richard Heller. <br> They accused Lord Goldsmith of breaching a section of the bar's code of conduct which says a barrister must not "permit his absolute independence, integrity and freedom from external pressures to be compromised", or "compromise his professional standards in order to please his client, the court or a third party". <br>The complaints were highly embarrassing to the Bar Council because Lord Goldsmith is not only a former chairman of the bar but, as holder of the office of attorney general, also the titular head of the bar. If found guilty, he could have been disbarred. <br>Had a professional conduct hearing gone ahead, Lord Goldsmith would have had to explain how his advice changed from the 13-page minute to the prime minister full of uncertainties about the legal justification for war to the terse, unequivocal statement he produced 10 days later that no fresh UN resolution was needed. <br>A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said he was "very pleased" with the Bar Council's decision. "He thinks it's come to the right conclusion."<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Britain to the Hague?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:19 pm
by DrDebugDU
> So just a single consideration remains. Are the British subject to the International Criminal Court? For although the British have signed up, it is not clear whether or not the signatory was acting ultra-vires, or beyond his powers. It is known that Major was acting fraudulently throughout his tenure, and that the same was true of Blair from 1997 to June/July 2000.<br><br>I think that they are subject to the International Criminal Court. There is one bigger problem and that is that there is a 7 year pardon after signing, so the Iraq War still falls into that pardon.<br><br>The reason for the seven year was that the French troops had trained the Hutu-controlled Rwandan military, which in 1993 and 1994 helped organize the massacres of some 800,000 people belonging to the Tutsi tribe. France feared that its officers and men could be charged with complicity in genocide.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And France didn't want to sign if they could be held responsible for a massive genocide, so a clause was added to the treaty allowing signatories to exempt themselves from the court's jurisdiction for its first seven years <p></p><i></i>

Britain NOT to the hague?

PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:55 am
by antiaristo
DrDebugDU,<br><br>Oh bugger it!<br>Thank you. You have saved me from much unnecessary anguish.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src= ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

ICC Prosecutions

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:05 am
by antiaristo
Britons face Iraq war crime trials <br><br>Colin Blackstock and Richard Norton-Taylor<br>Wednesday July 20, 2005<br>The Guardian <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=",2763,1532223,00.html">,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>There is NO DOUBT that the spooks have this site under constant surveillance.<br><br>There is ANOTHER story today relating to Lord Clive Hollick's corporation (MAI then United News and Media then United Business Media) which I will post on the Anglia thread.<br><br>This site is NOT POPULAR with the powers that be. I urge all my colleagues to provide any backup or support they can.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:55 am
by rain
'this site'<br>John are you referring to R.I. specifically? <p></p><i></i>

This Site?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 am
by antiaristo
rain,<br>Yes I am referring to R.I. specifically.<br>I'm no techie, so I don't know what to suggest myself.<br>But R.I. is a big problem for the Medieval Mob. <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:28 am
by rain
assumed so, just wanted to clarify.<br>I think most of us here are aware of such, just trying to gauge 'level'<br>but then, if you applying blow-torch to monster's butt, gotta expect it's gonna turn and bare it's fangs. <p></p><i></i>

you may be right antiaristo,anything specific?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:03 am
by hmm
privacy and security interest me,and i have a pretty good understanding (if abstract) of these issues and how they relate to the internet.<br>You cant expect anything you do or say on the internet to be in anyway private.period.<br>It really comes down to how much effort a interested party is willing to make.<br>So while i dont doubt that this site is under surveilance,i dont really know how this is relevant to anything said here.what i'm trying to ask is what is your specific worry in relation to RI and government monitoring at this specific time.I'll gladly give a stab at "Yes I am referring to R.I. specifically.<br>I'm no techie, so I don't know what to suggest myself." if i knew what you meant.<br> <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:24 am
by antiaristo
Why did they go through all that crap to "marry" Camilla to Charles? Because they got nervous about putting all their eggs in one queen. There MUST be people out there that would conclude that the only way to end the nightmare is to bump off Her Majesty. The incentive now is much lower.<br>We've been attacked once already.<br>The R.I. database is of enormous value ALREADY, and it will only get better.<br>We need to spread the load. <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:43 am
by rain
hmm .. antiaristo, settle, deep breaths..<br>hmm, I was just thinking about you. actually about you truly spiffy bit of sleuthing - one degree - after a quiet rant, yet again, 'where are the supposed good guys, apart from us, if the droids are snooping, why aren't ones who can walk the talk, or are we it'. <br>I'm getting a little tired of Sherman's blah, blah, blah.<br>so I re-read this<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>(hope it links. but you get the gist)<br>what are the chances? how long did it take you to chase that. these guys supposedly get paid to do that.<br>and aren't there any 'good' journo's out there.<br>ah, you'll have to excuse my rant, but every time the screws are tightened... will somebody please... a little breathing space.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Suggestions

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:49 am
by DrDebugDU
Before people are getting too paranoid. The attack included many ezboards and there a plenty of free boards where you suddenly notice that a whole year of postings is gone.<br><br>There is no reason to become overly paranoid. Of course they keep an eye out of sites and this is probably one of them, but you should also remember that for example DU, Dailykos, Whatreallyhappened, Alex Jones etc. have much more valuable information and they are still up and running.<br><br>So take it easy. We should be aware that they might look in and you shouldn't doubt that they can easily know how you are, however there is no reason to panic whatsoever.<br><br>On a lighter note. We should definitely copy stuff on different places. The proliferation of data makes it accessable to many people. I personally want stories to be copied and assembled and disassembled and joined with other story. The more places the information is, the better, because that way it'll reach more people. <p></p><i></i>

antiaristo and re suggestions

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:22 am
by hmm
antiaristo,i dont really know you so its not for me to suggest taking a deep breath,but i sometimes find i need one after immersing myself in "their" BS for too long.<br>I can understand (based on the letters you posted here) why you feel there is reason you personally would have "raised flags" with certain agencies but i cant make the leap from there to any IMMINENT danger to RI or the people that post here and i feel the last thing we need here is fear.Now if you wish to have a discussion about what could be done to ensure continuity of information or to increase the privacy and or security of this site or its posters i'm all for that.but i think that would be best done calmly and based on common sense discussion of scenarios and implications.So if you have some SPECIFIC reason for bringing this up i want to know now! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src= ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> otherwise i will offer my thoughts more abstractly.<br><br>Backups:<br>Making a backup of this site and board is important if only for continuity,companies offering services on the internet are notorious for going bust and leaving customers without their data (this goes for hosting,blogs,boards,email you name it)<br>backups are also crucial in recovering from hack attacks (malicious or more often pure vandalistic)<br><br>Privacy:<br>Again,the largest threat to our privacy is not from "them" directly but indirectly via the companies that run the webservers,blogs,boards,email servers.These can view/alter/delete anything on their servers with impunity.and they are the ones that can log most easily.<br><br>If RI grows to the size where it can support it,consolidating all "internet technology" used by RI into that which is under the personal control of the owner would greatly improve our privacy.<br>While it would be possible to make RI completely concealed from government agencies doing so would render it unusable AND the act of making it secure and concealed would only INCREASE the interest of those agencies and serve as "probable cause" for them to justify investigating.<br><br>I dont want to downplay any real risks but fear is also an enemy of ours. <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:29 am
by rain
hey Dr.D., not panicking, and only healthy para-noia.<br>agree completely, and practically, with your suggestions.<br>one suggestion, with specific reference to hmm's 'one degree' - 'Dear Patrick, (or whomever),... please explain'.<br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src= ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

So if you have some SPECIFIC reason for bringing this up i w

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:40 am
by antiaristo
hmm,<br>I began to read the newspaper this morning. Within two minutes I'd spotted two stories related to posts here. The first is that British squaddies are to face war crimes trials under the auspices of the ICC. Read what I've written on this thread.<br>The second is that the re-named MAI is to unload the last of its television holdings to RTL. Read what I've written about what Lord Clive Hollick and MAI did to the employees of Anglia Television.<br><br>I don't believe in coincidence theories.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src= ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Britain to the Hague?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:56 am
by slimmouse
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But that doesn’t work with Article 13. The right to an effective remedy. For example, where you get demonstrably screwed by the court (such as a forged court order), there MUST be a remedy available – that is something more powerful than the Queen. So they left it out.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> That isnt the only article 13 or amendment missing from any such constitution. Is that not the same #article (concerning US citizens holding any titles - judges serving in office etc) conspicuous by its absence from many states versions of the US constitution ?<br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>