Treason Felony Act and the Crime of Aggression

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Law lords to rule on activists' direct action to stop 'illegal' Iraq war · Peace campaigners have their day in highest court · Landmark appeal tests law over 'crime of aggression' Clare Dyer, legal editor Monday February 20, 2006 The Guardian The crime of aggression, the waging of an illegal war, was labelled "the supreme war crime" at Nuremberg. Most international lawyers believe the Iraq war was unlawful. "An unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression," wrote Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the Foreign Office's deputy chief legal adviser, when she resigned on the eve of the invasion. But can peace activists who tried to stop bombers being refuelled or armoured vehicles being loaded on to ships argue in court that their acts were lawful because they were trying to stop a greater crime -the crime of aggression? Is the issue of their right to mount such a defence even open to a British court to decide? Those questions are at the heart of a landmark appeal which goes to the House of Lords today, three years after the fraught weeks when Britain and the US were marshalling their troops and anti-war protesters were desperately trying to put a spoke in the war machine's wheels. Twenty of those activists will take their cases to Britain's highest court today. In a week-long hearing, the five law lords will not be asked to decide whether the war was lawful, but the arguments will come close enough to discomfit the government. When the issue came before the court of appeal in July 2004 the judges were handed an extraordinary witness statement 10 minutes before the hearing began. From Sir Michael Jay, permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, and authorised by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, it asked the judges to refrain from ruling on the legality of the war for fear of "giving comfort to terrorists, endangering the lives of Britons in Iraq and harming foreign relations". In February 2003, six weeks before the start of the war, 14 crew members of the Greenpeace International ship Rainbow Warrior went ashore at the Ministry of Defence's Sea Mounting Base at Marchwood on Southampton Water. They chained themselves to Scimitar armoured fighting vehicles which were awaiting loading on ships for transport to Kuwait. The 14 were later convicted of aggravated trespass for obstructing a lawful activity - the port operations - and four were found guilty of criminal damage. A month after the Greenpeace 14 took their action Valerie Swain cut her way through the fence at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, where United States bombers were being readied to take part in the "shock and awe" assault on Baghdad. Ms Swain was arrested before she could do any more, however she was convicted of aggravated trespass and criminal damage. A week later, on March 20 2003, a week before the war started, five other peace activists broke through the perimeter fence at Fairford. Two of them, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling, disabled a fleet of bomb carriers and other support vehicles, causing damage put by the US military at more than £80,000. The others were arrested before they could reach the bombers. The five are due to stand trial at Bristol crown court this year, their trials delayed by legal arguments over what defences are open to them. They argue that their actions were justified because they were trying to prevent the far greater crime of starting an unprovoked war. Lower courts have so far denied them the defence, holding that attacking another country is a matter for international law and cannot be ruled on by a British court. Since the appeal court ruled against them, however, they can thank an unlikely advocate for giving a boost to their argument. In his confidential advice to the prime minister dated March 7 2003, but made public only last April, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, stated: "Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1713575,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/antiwa...75,00.html</a> The Jay family is connected to Jim Callaghan - the ultimate nepotist and class traitor. When (unelected) prime minister he appointed his son-in-law, Peter Jay, Ambassador to the United States of America. The scandals were unrelenting. His daughter, Baroness Jay, was leader of the Labour Party in the Lords. That "extraordinary witness statement" submitted by Sir Michael Jay was not a request. It was a command issued under authority of the Treason Felony Act of 1848. Once again the Queen had used her personal power to overrule the common law. Elizabeth Windsor is a monstrous murderer. All those deaths can be put down to her and her alone. And her family knows it. And they intend to keep on doing it

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:59 am

Kofi Annan has taken a lot of shit. Especially from the Yanks. That's because he's a courageous, honourable man. Remember this? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Iraq war illegal, says Annan The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...661134.stm</a> THAT was because of this. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 Kofi Annan 35003 Las Palmas de Gran UN Secretary General Spain Canaria (Correos Certificado 58464ES) 4 July 2004 Dear Secretary General, I write further to my unacknowledged letter of 26 August 2002. 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. If you actually read the Human Rights Act you will find that the European Convention on Human Rights has been adopted into UK law article by article. You will also find that Article 13, the right to an effective remedy, is missing. And it’s no mistake. The very antithesis of the Treason Felony Act of 1848,The Human Rights Act of 1998 had to be strangled at birth. Under British law we human beings are entitled to a theatrical performance of great skill that resembles due process. But we cannot have “law and justice in mercy”, the essence of the Coronation Oath. When it comes to British law, that’s up to the Brits themselves of course. If the House of Lords and the House of Commons want to carry on fucking over their people, that’s up to them. Fine. I’m Irish. But of course it’s not just the Brits, is it? Those poor Iraqis murdered, tortured and abused by the Brits have also been deceived into putting their hopes into the Human Rights Act. They don’t know that Blair quietly murdered it back in 1998, do they? At some point you will have to make a judgement about whether or not British war criminals are to be indicted at The Hague. If you want evidence for how the Windsors have no respect for human rights, read for yourself how clever lawyer Mr Blair “does a Rumsfeld” around the Human Rights Act. If you want evidence for how the Windsors have no respect for the law, read how clever lawyer Jack Straw used the Treason Felony Act just this last week to prevent judicial review of the legality of this vile, illegal war of aggression. RSVP Yours sincerely, John Cleary BSc MA MBA cc Rt. Hon. Alan Beith MP Lord George Carey His Holiness Pope John Paul II His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II Once more, in memory of my two lost little girls, I include below a list of my writings since 26 August 2002, when last I wrote to you. Date Recipient/Title of Document 16.11.02 Sir Michael Peat 26.11.02 Tessa Jowell MP 26.11.02 Sir Michael Peat 11.12.02 Sir Michael Peat 14.12.02 Sir Michael Peat 25.03.03 The Enemy Within 05.04.03 Pope John Paul II 18.05.03 Felipe de Borbon 18.06.03 Lord Falconer 10.07.03 Judge Peter Cory 14.07.03 Luzius Wildhaber (ECHR) 16.07.03 Luzius Wildhaber (ECHR) 21.07.03 Andrew Gilligan 30.07.03 Luzius Wildhaber (ECHR) 30.07.03 Jacques Chirac 04.08.03 Brian Hutton’s Phoney Circus 05.08.03 Ambassador Joseph Wilson 20.08.03 Mrs Janice Kelly 02.09.03 K M Reid (ECHR) 10.10.03 K M Reid (ECHR) 03.12.03 F Elens-Passos (ECHR) 05.01.04 Charles Allen et al 06.01.04 Gordon Pollock QC (BCCI) 12.01.04 Sir John Stevens 15.01.04 Queen Elizabeth II 15.01.04 Equitable Members Action Group 17.01.04 Antonio Vitorino 23.01.04 Elfyn Llwyd MP et al 27.01.04 Sir George Russell 30.01.04 Equitable Members Action Group 04.02.04 Michael Howard QC MP 28.02.04 Equitable Members Action Group 08.06.04 Dr Rowan Williams Please make this letter available to all current members of the United Nations Security Council<hr></blockquote>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:16 am

Craig Murray is a good egg. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Straw faces a torturous spell in the witness box By Guy Adams Published: 21 February 2006 Twenty-five years after he hung up his barrister's wig, Jack Straw faces the unwelcome prospect of returning to court. Craig Murray, our former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, intends to call the Foreign Secretary to give evidence in any legal action over his forthcoming memoirs. This month, Straw's staff wrote to Murray - who was sacked for blowing the whistle on human rights abuses - saying they'd "actively consider a claim for breach of confidence or Crown copyright" over his book, Murder in Samarkand. Despite that threat, Murray's publishers, Mainstream, tell me they "intend to proceed" with the memoir, which will hit the shelves in July. Meanwhile, Murray has used an interview with The Bookseller to launch a personal offensive against Straw, saying he has "proof that the Government has been obtaining intelligence from torture, and that Jack Straw approved it." He's also happy to take the matter to court, adding: "The Government is seeking to undermine freedom of speech ... If they want to send me to prison, I am prepared." The Foreign Office letter to Murray was drafted by legal advisors, who are anxious to avoid a hoo-hah similar to that inspired by the publication of Sir Christopher Meyer's memoir DC Confidential. However, Straw's direct involvement makes it hard for them to keep him away from any trial. With this in mind, an FO spokesman stressed that they've yet to decide "how to take this forward."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article346740.ece">news.independent.co.uk/pe...346740.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Feb 22, 2006 5:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 3.30pm Pressure builds over rendition flights in UK Matthew Tempest and agencies Wednesday February 22, 2006 The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today again denied the government had any knowledge of CIA "extraordinary rendition" flights, after it was revealed last night that the suspected planes involved had flown through UK airspace around 200 times in the past five years. The row over possible British government collusion in the controversial US practice re-erupted last night after Channel Four news revealed new figures from the National Air Traffic Service relating to the aircraft thought to be involved. Questioned about the figures today, Mr Straw insisted Britain had no knowledge of any such flights. And he said he had no reason to believe they were taking place without the government's knowledge. Speaking at the Foreign Office, Mr Straw said: "We know of no occasion where there has been a rendition through UK territory, or indeed over UK territory, nor do we have any reason to believe that such flights have taken place without our knowledge." That is a line that has been used by the prime minister, Tony Blair, at press conferences when the subject has come up. Now the Liberal Democrats are pressing for the parliamentary watchdog, the parliamentary ombudsman, to force government ministers to give more details about the flights. That threat comes after the acting Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, was told that a written question to the armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, requesting to know how many times planes had used UK military bases en route to or from countries suspected of using torture had been rejected, because "the information is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost". There have been claims that hundreds of secret CIA flights have used British airports and airspace to transfer terror suspects to third countries where they may be tortured, in the practice known as "extraordinary rendition". The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has admitted that suspects are flown abroad for interrogation, but has denied that torture is involved. Mr Straw last month told Mps that the government knew of only four requests for the transfer of detainees via the UK, all of which pre-dated the September 11 terror attacks in 2001 and two of which were refused. Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said of the new figures: "Frankly that flies in the face of the answer we received from the government that only two or three cases of rendition ever took place." Mr Clegg added: "It begs many, many questions. We don't have the answers yet and the most important issue that needs to be clarified now is what does the British government know about what these CIA flights are up to." Neil Durkin, of Amnesty International, said evidence gathered by the organisation from flight records in the US links the some of the planes to incidents where torture has taken place. "What we want to see is the UK government allowing a full public investigation into any complicity with rendition flights," he said. The Commons foreign affairs select committee will tomorrow produce its annual human rights report, which will include its preliminary findings on extraordinary rendition and evidence obtained under torture. Labour chairman Mike Gapes said: "The bottom line is that we have not had the full story, the full facts. "My select committee has been pursuing this for some time and gradually, bit by bit, we get more and more pieces of the jigsaw but we haven't got the whole picture yet."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1715555,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/t...55,00.html</a>

by **Sepka** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:31 am

Kofi Annan? "Corrupt" and "incompetent" are the first adjectives that come to my mind. He puts on a very good show, strutting about and waving his hands, chattering constantly about peace and reform and social justice, but ultimately all that ever seems to get accomplished is that his family keeps getting richer by using their connections to him. Do you honestly suppose he'd be allowed to keep that lucrative job if he made trouble for any of the Big Five? -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **antiaristo** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:18 am

Sepka, I believe your problem is that you believe what is in the American press. That's not a very good basis for comprehending the ways of the world.

by **Sepka** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:50 am

Okay... Cite for me then some of Annan's accomplishments. I know he runs his mouth a lot, but tell me of things that he's actually *accomplished*, as distinct from his speeches and posturing. What's changed because of his efforts, apart from his family's bank account? -Sepka the Space Weasel Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sepka>Sepka</A> at: 2/23/06 6:50 am

by **antiaristo** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:04 am

Not really necessary. Any man that manages what he has while being bugged every minute of the day by your NSA deserves our gratitude. Why aren't you more worried by all those murderers that represent your own country? Your country wrong or wrong?

by **Floyd Smoots** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:33 am

Sorry, John, old chap, but I must disagree with you on this one. This is opinion (hopefully somewhat educated), but opinion only, nonetheless. I think "Goofy Anus" is just as big a meat-puppet, if not Bigger, as George "the shrub" Bush, Tony Blair, and far too many other "Leaders(?)" of the so-called West than I care to look up, or name right now. It's 11:30 PM where I am, and, like you, earlier tonight, I'm going to bed. Keep the Faith, and don't forget to "Kick 'em when they're down" because it's not that often that we Freedom Lovers get the chance. No quarter asked....NONE GIVEN!!! Brother-In-Arms, Alexander

by **antiaristo** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:57 am

Floyd, I heartily encourage fellow members to diagree with me. That's the only way to learn. But only if it is in good faith. I have repeatedly pleaded for others to critique my logic. But they will not do so. I get ignorant abuse, or I get the silent treatment. But I never get "Anti, you are wrong about that because....". Why this is so I do not know. With respect to Kofi, I told Sepka that it was not really necessary. If (s)he had bothered to read the supplied link to the BBC (s)he would have found precisely what (s)he had asked of me. Read it for yourself. Kofi Annan travelled to London, arranged an interview with the BBC and told the interviewer that the war was illegal. There was no way that could be hushed up in the UK. He didn't have to do that. He got into a lot of trouble for doing that. It took a man of courage and honour to do that.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:34 pm

Rupert has seen the light and relented. I can once again peruse The Times. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Blair condones Amin-style tactics against terrorism, says Archbishop By David Charter, Ruth Gledhill and Greg Hurst TONY BLAIR was accused last night by the Archbishop of York of helping the US to run “Idi Amin-style” tactics in the war on terror. Mr Blair was challenged by Dr John Sentamu after refusing to condemn Guantanamo Bay beyond calling the prison camp run by the US in Cuba an “anomaly”. The Prime Minister also risked the wrath of civil liberties campaigners — including his own wife — by accusing Amnesty International and a cross-party committee of MPs of looking at Britain’s treatment of terrorist suspects “the wrong way round”. At his monthly news conference, he said that too much time was spent examining the rights of suspects compared to the “human rights of the rest of us to live in safety”. Mr Blair had been stung by criticism from the MPs’ Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) that the monitoring of suspects returned to countries with questionable human rights records must not be a “fig leaf to disguise the real risk of torture”. Mr Blair said: “When people say to me unless I can get absolute cast-iron guarantees and have all sorts of monitoring arrangements, we have got to keep people here who may be engaging actively in inciting terrorism in this country, I have to say I think we have got the world the wrong way round.” His outburst may even cause a backlash at home. Cherie Booth, QC, his wife and a leading human rights barrister, is due to give a speech at an event partly organised by Human Rights Watch next week entitled Torture: Do the rules still matter? Mr Blair spoke out after the FAC called on him to push more vociferously for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Amnesty International also issued a report criticising many of Britain’s measures in the war in terror for undermining human rights. They were joined last night in an attack by Dr Sentamu who compared President Bush’s human rights record with that of the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Dr Sentamu, a former High Court judge who fled Uganda for Britain after it became clear that standing up to the dictator had placed his own life in jeopardy, also criticised Mr Blair for describing Guantanamo Bay as an “anomaly”. Dr Sentamu said: “This is not an ‘anomaly’. By declaring ‘war on terror’ President Bush is perversely applying the rules of engagement that apply in a war situation. But the prisoners are not being regularly visited by the Red Cross or Red Crescent, which is required by the Geneva Convention. They were not even allowed to be interviewed by the UN human rights group. “In Uganda President Amin did something similar: he did not imprison suspects because he knew that in prison, the law would apply to them so he created special places to keep them. If the Guantanamo Bay detainees were on American soil the law would apply. This is a breach of international law and a blight on the conscience of America.” Mr Blair hinted that he had spoken more strongly about Guantanamo Bay in private with Mr Bush but would use no stronger word to describe it yesterday than “anomaly”. But returning to the issue of suspects that Britain wants to deport, he said: “If I am right in saying that the reports both of the FAC and Amnesty International were talking about the deportation cases we have got here, I’ve just got to say I think we have just got the whole thing upside down. “I do not see why we should not be able to deport people who are not nationals of this country but have come here to cause trouble.” Mr Blair also denied that there was any evidence for claims that terror suspects were carried on up to 200 American flights through Britain under “extraordinary rendition”. Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty, said: “There is nothing ‘upside down’ about taking a principled stand against torture.” RIGHTS REPORT Amnesty International report on Britain’s human rights record: On anti-terrorism powers since September 11, 2001: “People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have . . . been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know and therefore cannot refute.” On the Terrorism Bill before Parliament: “Some of its most sweeping and vague provisions, if enacted, would undermine the rights to freedom of expression, association, liberty and fair trial.” On the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture: “Amnesty International is increasingly concerned that UK’s policies and actions at home and abroad are effectively sending a ‘green light’ to other governments to abuse human rights.” On rendition flights: “Amnesty International remains concerned about the allegations that the UK authorities played a role in the unlawful transfers of a number of individuals to US custody.” On Guantanamo Bay: “Amnesty International is concerned at the failure, to date, of the UK Government to oppose with any real vigour the human rights scandal that Guantanamo Bay represents.” Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on human rights: On allegations of rendition by the US of terror suspects: “The Government has a duty . . . to make clear to the USA that any extraordinary rendition to states where suspects may be tortured is completely unacceptable.” On using information obtained by torture in third countries: “We recommend that the Government clearly set out its policy on the use of information derived by other states through torture.” On Guantanamo Bay: “The continued use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention centre outside all legal regimes . . . is a hindrance to the effective pursuit of the war against terrorism.” GREG HURST<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-10-2056210-61,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/pri...61,00.html</a>

by **Floyd Smoots** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:45 pm

....I have been watching the SecGen's speeches, actions, and far too often, his INactions all over the world, to give him much respect. I suspect he is no more than a highly paid Actor, whose role is that of "The Loyal Opposition". Not fighting with you here, but it really has taken many years of his regime(?) to lead me to this fairly firmly-held conviction/opinion. And, no, I'm not going to provide links, because most of this information has come my way via old fashioned newspapers, magazines (of ALL stripes), books, and (Gasp) radio & TV news. But you have every right to salute him if you believe that he actually acted in good faith. respectfully, Alexander Mutter

by **antiaristo** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:45 am

Hello Floyd, It's Carnaval here, I've just got home and I'm extremely drunk. But given it's my first alcohol since Christmas that's only to be expected. I like Kofi enough to give it another shot. So here goes. One thing I've learned is that you can't rely on anything in the media. Whatever the wise ones say, the only thing that counts is personal experience. Everything else is manipulated. So I base my estimation on how people have responded to me. People have died for writing back to me you know. So when Kofi Annan responded to my letter of 4 July by travelling to London to say unequivically that the war was illegal, he won my trust. I don't doubt you have heard bad things about him. I don't doubt it because the people that run your country have a vested interest in running down the UN. Have you any idea what it must be like to know that everything you do is being recorded. That the Americans know exactly how many times he farts when he goes to the lavatory? Can you not put yourself into his position as a human being? Stop looking at this from an expectation of perfection and start looking at it from the perspective of a flawed human being. Can you cite any occasion at all that any of the Bush gang have ever done anything selfless? You are a Navy man. I've heartd criticism of Jimmy Carter because he did this and didn't do that and so on. You have to judge these people overall. Overall, Jimmy Carter was a decent human being who tried his best. Far better than the recent monsters. I put Annan in the same category. He was actually capable of doing something selfless. That means he understands something higher. Which is all we can ask.

by **Sepka** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:22 am

The problem is that there's nothing in any of those articles that adds up to more than "Kofi Annan ran his mouth". Can you point to even one instance of selfless action by this man? Just one? Annan's actions have, first and foremost, always been directed toward protecting his career, and swelling his family's bank accounts. That means avoiding any real conflict with any of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This is the man who was head of the UN Peacekeeping Division during the Rwandan genocide. Then as now, his only goal was career advancement. He served himself then by ignoring the clear evidence of the impending genocide, and by preventing his peacekeepers from taking anything other than token actions once it was underway. More than anything, he served himself by keeping the word "genocide" from being used, since that would have necessitated action by the Big Five, and that would probably have been a career-killer for Kofi. His prudent avoidance of action got him the covetted post of Secretary General a few years later, when Bhoutros Bhoutros Ghali overstepped himself, and eventually won him the Nobel Peace Prize. You can see the same course of events playing itself out in Darfur today, with western governments calling tepidly for UN action, and Annan dutifully playing his part by making sure that the UN never officially describes what's happening as "genocide". Everyone gets what they want out of this arrangement. Annan gets a prestigious position, and the west gets to be on record as having called for UN action that never came. Like Floyd said, the man's an actor. He plays The Opposition. So long as he continues to play the part required of him, and so long as people continue to take it at face value, then his job is safe, and he'll continue to be showered with honours, and the Big Five will studiously look the other way when his family members are pilfering from the Oil for Food program or similar undertakings. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:43 am

Look who has come into the light <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Baroness Jay, a former cabinet minister and a friend of Ms Jowell, said she was feeling the pressure after coming under "enormous personal attack".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article348714.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...348714.ece</a> All hands on deck!

Treason Felony Act and the Crime of Aggression

Treason Felony Act and the Crime of Aggression

Kofi Annan

More Problems for Jack Straw

Re: More Problems for Jack Straw

Re: More Problems for Jack Straw

Re: More Problems for Jack Straw

Re: More Problems for Jack Straw

Kofi Annan

Re: Goofi Anus

Kofi

Pressure Building

With Respect, John....

Re: With Respect, John....

Re: Treason Felony Act and the Crime of Aggression

The Callaghan/Jay Clan

Who is online