A report expected to be a damning indictment of former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be released soon. Blair is widely thought to have lied to the House of Commons about Iraq’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction. Blair convinced Commons to support military incursion into Iraq in conjunction with George W Bush.
There is already underway a move to bring Blair to trial before Parliament using the ancient English Common Law action of impeachment, which could result in stripping Blair of any awards and honors, prison time, and banning him from holding office in the future.
In the wake of Brexit, this will be another blow to the political establishment in Britain and further fan the flames of populist revolt around the globe.
George W Bush is in no danger of being prosecuted for war crimes here as a result of any British action, as Barack Obama has already given Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al, a pass on war crimes.
But opening the wound of the Iraq war and the crimes of Tony Blair and George W Bush will most certainly enure to the benefit of Donald Trump.
Trump not only opposed the war, he made criticism of the war and the Bush administration central to his campaign. And with Hillary Clinton having supported the war and having been endorsed by none other than Dick Cheney, the issue will catapult to the front burner of the presidential campaign.
As the American public overwhelmingly opposes our involvement in Iraq, revisiting the issue will only help Donald Trump, and will seriously hurt Hillary Clinton.
My respect for the British left keeps growing!
MPs say they’ll use ancient law to impeach Tony Blair of misleading Parliament over the Iraq war in the wake of the Chilcot report
- A cross-party group of MPs want to bring Blair to trial in Westminster
- They say Blair misled Parliament, causing deaths of 179 British lives
MPs have begun to build support for an attempted prosecution of the former Labour Prime Minister after the 2.6million-word report is published on Wednesday.
A cross-party group is considering using an ancient Parliamentary mechanism to bring him to trial in Westminster.
Tony Blair, seen here with wife Cherie on the day in 2007 when he left 10 Downing Street, is accused of duping the Commons over WMDs, which ultimately led to the loss of 179 British servicemen’s liThey say Mr Blair should be forced to answer claims he duped the Commons over the war, which cost the lives of 179 British troops.
The MPs believe they can argue that the ex-Labour leader should be impeached over allegations he breached his constitutional duties as Premier.
The power has not been used since 1806 when Lord Melville, a Tory minister, was charged with misappropriating official funds by the Commons. He was acquitted.
Mr Blair, who made claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction that were contradicted by his own intelligence assessments, is expected to be heavily criticised in the Chilcot Inquiry report.
The long-awaited report by Sir John Chilcot, pictured, into the Iraq war will be published on Wednesday
One Westminster source said: ‘Impeachment is on our minds but we will need to digest the report. There is definitely a feeling that Blair must be properly held to account for his actions in the run-up to what was a disastrous war.’
One MP can trigger the process by proposing a motion. He or she would need to present evidence to support their case and this would form the basis of a document called the Article of Impeachment, drawn up by a committee of MPs.
If the impeachment attempt is approved by MPs, the defendant is delivered to Black Rod ahead of a trial. A simple majority is required to convict, at which point a sentence can be passed, which could, in theory, involve Mr Blair being sent to prison.
Contact your MP – https://www.writetothem.com/
Open letter to all political parties & those involved with illegal wars
I am contacting you to find out if you are willing to uphold the law.
The Supreme court has ruled that the UK government have been involved with terrorist actions.
Under the Terrorist Act 2000, section 15 and 17 it is clear that it is a crime to fund terrorism and murder by paying tax, fines, PAYE, council tax, etc.
Are you willing to help end illegal wars by upholding the laws of war?
Would you be willing to inform the public in your area on how they could uphold the law and stop funding genocide?
We would like to see an alliance of people from many party’s and groups to join together to help end war in our lifetime.
Bombing innocent children, women and men creates more terror in the world.
Due to more wars we are seeing more refugees flee war torn countries.
If we are to try and solve this problem we need to end wars.
Let’s MAKE wars HISTORY and PEACE a REALITY.
Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 maintains that:
A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another, and he suspects that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
As Parliament defined terrorism as the use of firearms or explosives endangering life for a political cause , and as the Supreme Court stated that this appears to extend to the military activities of HM Government , and as HM forces use explosives to take lives in Iraq and Syria.
I confirm that I am perfectly willing to pay all lawful tax demands and so will pay any sums lawfully due to you when the Attorney General, the Advocate General and a court of competent jurisdiction:
(i) confirm that money paid to UK public authorities is excluded from the crimes in sections 15, 17 Terrorism Act 2000, s. 52 International Criminal Court Act 2001, article 25 Rome Statute of the ICC 2002, and Principles VI and VII of the Nuremburg Principles 1950.
(ii) confirm that if I pay money to UK public authorities knowing that some of it may be used by HM Government for the purpose of buying firearms or explosives which may be used to endanger life, I will not commit a crime under these war and terrorism laws.
(iii) grant me immunity from prosecution under any of these laws if I pay taxes or transfer money to UK public authorities knowing that HM Government plans to use, or is using, some of the money for the purposes of war or terrorism.
Laws making war illegal
The Judgement of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
“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… Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”
The UN Charter 1945
UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970
1.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
1.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the United Nations to apply such measures…
[NB HM Government’s claim that its’ use of force is authorised by the Security Council operating under Chapter VII [articles 39 – 51] of the UN Charter is false and untrue. By ignoring the word ‘not’ in the sentence ‘not involving the use of armed force’ in Article 41, the Government misled us into believing that the UN had authorised war. The UN can never authorise war or the use of armed force.]
UN Declaration on Principles of International Law 1970 [UNGA Resolution 2625]
Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.
The Nuremburg Principles 1950 [Principle 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.
Laws making the payment of tax illegal
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism [summary]
The States Parties to this Convention, deeply concerned about the worldwide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations have agreed as follows: Any person commits an offence if that person unlawfully and wilfully provides or collects funds in the knowledge that they are to be used to carry out an act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian.
The UK Terrorism Act 2000 – [summaries of sections 1, 15 and 17]
1. Terrorism is the threat or use of firearms or explosives endangering a person’s life for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
15. A person commits an offence if he asks for, receives or provides money knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
17. A person commits an offence if he enters into an arrangement as a result of which money is made available to another, and he knows that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
Regina ‘v’ Gul UK Supreme Court 64 (2013) extracts from paragraphs 26 and 28
26. “the legislation does not exempt, nor make an exception, nor create a defence for, nor exculpate what some would describe as terrorism in a just cause. Such a concept is foreign to the 2000 Act. Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motives of the perpetrators… Terrorist action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life … is terrorism.”
28. “As a matter of ordinary language, the definition [of terrorism] would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved … by the UK government.”
The International Criminal Court Act 2001 [summary of section 52]
It is a criminal offence for a person to aid or abet the commission of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime or conduct ancillary to such crimes.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [summary of article 25.3 (c)]
A person, who aids, abets or assists in the commission of a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, including providing the means for its commission, shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment.
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
8. Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender.
It would be great if you joined the campaign to make wars history.
At this website there are videos and much more explaining the laws of war –www.makewarshistory.co.uk
• I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.
If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.
• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!
• If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.
There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.
• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot
You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!
• Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty