It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Courts AGREE, the Iraq war is illegal

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   
article.wn.com

I feel the tide is turning.
Law courts and the juries within them are having difficulties prosecuting individuals for sabotaging US military equipment.

They have successfully argued in England and the UK, that the US Machines of war are committing war crimes, and the law states and individual sabotaging a machine intending to break the law in terms of murder and destruction of property are unable to be prosecuted.

So if I sneak into a base in Ireland, smash the hell out of a refueling American fighter plane, I will not be charged with destruction of property, because I am stopping an illegal event from taking place.

Thank god there are some sane people on this planet.

The difference here, had this of happened in the USA, they would of been tried convicted and locked up with the greatest of ease from the US law courts.

But foreign countries are finding it difficult to prove that the US war, is LEGAL.

Today is a good day.

If the USA wants to galavant around the middle east committing war crimes, and murdering innocent people, they deserve all the payback they are going to receive from common citizens.

Hats off to these brave individuals.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

mod edit, spelling & shorten link

[edit on 18-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Good try, but you know that won't happen. What is it you are so angry about, is it the fact that America is a good country that has some bad people. Is it the fact that we are the strongest country and so this makes us the biggest target? Is it that you have no ideal what real war crimes are? Or is it that Ireland has been someones redheaded step child serving the English for centuries?
A real American can play any game brought to the table.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
What happens when america takes that ball game to someone that doesnt want to play, nor has any reason to play?

Clearly Iraq was never a threat
Clearly your administration had more to do with 911 than Iraq.

Yet it is them we destroyed, and it is them we continue to murder and mame.

If this war was just, everyone would be behind it. They wouldnt have a leg to stand on.

Im glad some courts are starting to rule against it.. the snow ball has left the peak and the downfall of american,is unfortunately at hand.

Your governments going down, and they are going to take you all along with it.

I lvoe america, the land its great, the people for the most part are unbelieveably awesome.
There's a few that deserve to be on the front lines in this illegial war, mainyl because they swear by nukes n bullets.

luckily my country will never be a target, my presidents head is so far up ur presidents a$$ he had to shave his mustache jsut to keep the sh1t in your own coutnry.

Im peaved beause the world we had, and the world we COULD Of been living in and enjoying was taken away by your lunatic president who cares more for his elite corporate friends.. than what he does his own citizens.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Lol nice spin, mind if I give my spin a go?

These two loonies thought it would be nice to go and try and wreck two highly expensive bombers on US GOVERNMENT property (nevermind the fact that tresspassing is still ILLEGAL in england, luckily not in scotland,) add to that they are saying there stopping warcrimes.

Lets list the crimes again:

Breaking and entering, tresspassing, intent to damage and destroy and breach of the peace.
Now tell me what kind of effect would even losing one B-52 bomber have? None.
Attention seeking.

Oh and add to the fact that the "jury didnt reach a verdict" does not mean anything other than the jury couldnt make up its mind....yeah ground breaking legal action there....

Ever considered a job at sky or say the sun?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
They have succesfully argued in England and the UK, that the US Machines of war are committing war crimes, and the law states and individual sabotaging a machine intending to break the law in terms of murder and destruction of property are unable to be prosecuted.

So if I sneak into a base in ireland, smash the hell out of a refueling american fighter plane, I will not be charged with destruction of property, because I am stoppping an illegial event from taking place.
[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]


If you were to do that you would probably be shot on the spot(or before you even got near the plane). Its not too bright to try to sneak into a military instillation and try to sabotage equipment that doesnt belong to you. You would be seen as tresspassing illegally in the first place man. Bad logic in my opinion. Even if was legal for you to do so, you would still be tresspassing, which is a crime.

Oh and plus, I help pay for the maintaing of that equipment. You dont want to go and see MY money put to waste do you?


[edit on 10/18/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
UK Courts AGREE, the iraq war is illegial

...

politics.guardian.co.uk... defendants had tried to argue in court that the entire war against Iraq was a crime of aggression. But in March this year the law lords ruled that they could not use this defence

[...]

they were allowed to show that they were seeking to prevent specific war crimes from being committed - principally, the release by the B52s of cluster bombs and munitions tipped with depleted uranium.

Thats not at all the same as saying that the war is illegal.

They cited section 5 of the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, which provides lawful excuse for damaging property if that action prevents property belonging to other people from being damaged

This is an entirely different situation from war. This has nothing to do with the war being right or wrong, legal or otherwise, they are saying that its damaging property, therefore it can be destroyed. The UK courts clearly do not have jurisdiction in iraq.

section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, which states that "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime". In summing up, the judge told the jurors that using weapons "with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective" is a war crime.

Who grants this judge authority to determine how the US carries out its military objectives in iraq?
No one does.

The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.

Absurd. There is no rule that states that the UN has the power to determine when another state's security is at risk. The reading of the charter given above says that war can occur when the UN authorizes it, or when a state chooses to go to war.

It would be prejudicial to the national interest and to the conduct of the government's foreign policy if the English courts were to express opinions on questions of international law concerning the use of force ... which might differ from those expressed by the government,"

Indeed, civil courts aren't supposed to be determining when a nation goes to war. And they've certainly not got the authority to determine if another state was legally justified in invading another state.
The penultimate paragraph is the important one here:

It is true that such verdicts (or non-verdicts) impose no legal obligations on the government. They do not in themselves demonstrate that its ministers are guilty of war crimes.


The fact is that the UN itself hasn't stated that the war was illegal, nor has it done anything to indicate that its going to set up trials or even a committee to explore if it was legal or not.


If this war was just, everyone would be behind it.

'Just War Theory' is nothing more than a theory, it is not a requirement for war. Indeed, most would argue that 'just war theory' results in wars like the GWOT, because one camp decides that it is just and that the opposition is illegitimate and unjust, and thus open to any kind of attack. "Just war theory" is entirely irrelevant here.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I just want to say that if what america did to iraq were to happen to america, american people would freak out.

Enough said.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The jury not reaching a decision may mean one or two people couldn`t be swayed,in the case that a unanimous verdict was required.
Or if the jury found that there was not enough evidence presented.Or if they agreed with the protest.

I`m all for the right to protest,even though it seems to have been made illegal by the Gov.in the UK,as they know full well the war is Illegal.
Probably not a good idea to bust into a base though...you could end up dead.
Better a peaceful gathering outside the gates or something.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I hope I'm still correct but vandalism is considered a straight forward crime no matter where you live. Then there is trespassing, theft and disturbing the peace among other possible laws that could be broken before we even get to the concept of a war being legal or not.

Most of the people pushing the idea of legal wars are often those that like the UN eg. ya wanna have a war then go and ask daddy if it's okay.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
True enough,Deny
But if the jury were made up of people who did not support the war,this could have influenced their judgement.Rightly or wrongly.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I hope I'm still correct but vandalism is considered a straight forward crime no matter where you live. Then there is trespassing, theft and disturbing the peace among other possible laws that could be broken before we even get to the concept of a war being legal or not.




Im all for peace and not fighting war with war but disturbing the peace is what the us army is currently doing in iraq.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
your all missing the point.

They were caught red handed.

Its not like there was lack of evidence, or they found PLANS for what they were doing.
They were caught sneaking into the yards with these tools to damage american WAR hardware.

But, the court couldnt prosecute them, because they couldnt get past the fact that these weapons were going to be sent to MURDER and mame.
And if someone is damaging the equipment used to murder people or destroy property, under the LAW they cant be prosecuted for attempting to stop that crime.

See it as you please,
But the world isnt going to remain stupid for ever.
People are waking up to what is really going on.

luckily there were people PRIOR to this war starting in ireland who knew the legality of it.
"The jury decided that the five saboteurs were acting lawfully."
See that?

Wrecking american war planes intending to be used in Iraq is a LAWFUL act.
Id die before working at fox news.

That show is an insult to the media world, and speaks volumes about america!

"The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence"

If only there were respectable judges in America not bought off by corporate greed who could rule in in the interests of humanity, instead of $$$


Your ruling elite make me sick, and all of you whom follow there line should be put in a line and shot for crimes against humanity.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Your ruling elite make me sick, and all of you whom follow there line should be put in a line and shot for crimes against humanity.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



I agree that the war is extremely dumb but no one desurves to die period. Not even those who brings death to others, everyone has the chance to change and peace won't be acomplished if the followers of peace use unpeacefull methods.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Your ruling elite make me sick, and all of you whom follow there line should be put in a line and shot for crimes against humanity.


Careful what you say, the "ruling elite" is a matter of perspective, and lining anyone up to be shot sounds very Hitler.

I know you're passionate, but as you're working up the next America-bashing thread, keep from using "you" and "your" when referring to the administration. Especially since you don't live here.

As to the matter at hand, I really don't care what the jury said. The time spent tending to our equipment most likely cost a soldier their life; good vehicles are in short supply in the sandbox. So why you're praising the brave vandalism of a few nobodies against the war machine, remember that all they really did is contribute to under-equipping soldiers that most likely don't want to be there.



[edit on 19-10-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Noted! Cheers!
Reading the first few words of your thread I was waiting for you to warn me against this line of speak, as of late I could be considered a unwanted threat to the administration...
specially being im foreign....
Please dont refer to them as American bashing,
I am not bashing america, just the ruling elite.
As is ALWAYS the case in my threads.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Understood. I know we're both serious and passionate in our points; military issues are just more sensitive for me than other issues are.

No harm done.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I am surprised they were not shot, and if this becomes the attitude of UK courts of this type a thing there may be a few shootings unfortunately.

*sighs* just something else we dont need..... I could see it now....

Shooting occurs on the base.... more anti-war sentiment is stirred up....

*Sighs*....



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Agit8dChop,
Please quote me where it says the UK courts agree the war in iraq is illegal...Please because frankly I dont see it all I see is a spin on the fact that the jury didnt make a decision.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   
IMO the biggest problem concerning the legal wrangling behind the Iraq is the historical precedent that was set at Nuremberg. Many of the NAZIs were charged and convictedof raging an War of aggression . Note the charges were seperate to the ones relating to the massarca of the Jews.



war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) as one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and that it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...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


link

I going to let others decide what to make of this because I need to get some sleep.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
I just want to say that if what america did to iraq were to happen to america, american people would freak out.

We sure as heck wouldn't care what british courts had to say about it, nor protest the war by legalities. We'd do what we did when we were attacked and nearly 3k of our civilians were killed, we'd hunt down the enemy across the globe and smash any state that resisted.


siliconesynapse
The jury not reaching a decision may mean one or two people couldn`t be swayed,in the case that a unanimous verdict was required.

Its not really the decision that is relevant, its that the court permited them to make the defense that their actions were to prevent an atrocity, thats where the legal precedent is being made. These guys simply weren't found guilty/were found innocent, not for any specific reason.


denythestatusquo
I hope I'm still correct but vandalism is considered a straight forward crime no matter where you live.

Yes but what they are saying is that, in the UK, there is a law that lets you, say, sabotague a bulldozer if its about to be used to knock down a house full of people. They are saying that the war is a crime and that they are thus protected by the law to destroy the war machines.


selfless
but disturbing the peace is what the us army is currently doing in iraq.

And UK courts have no jurisdiction in Iraq. No Iraqi court has called it a crime, and the Iraqi government hasn't even requested that the US leave, thats because they know things will get really bad if they leave.


Agit8dChop
But, the court couldnt prosecute them, because they couldnt get past the fact that these weapons were going to be sent to MURDER and mame.

The jury didn't find them guilty, and yeah probably because at least one of its members beleived that the war was an atrocity and that they were protected by the law that permits sabotauge when its preventing death. BUT, thats not what is setting precedent here, its that the Judge permited the defense to even be made.


And if someone is damaging the equipment used to murder people or destroy property, under the LAW they cant be prosecuted for attempting to stop that crime.

No, thats infact not true. Or at least its not what happened here, the jury failed to find guilt, a judge didn't throw the case out because of that law. The major problem with interpreting that domestic law to the international scale is that it means that even britain can't fight a defensive war, even if they are invaded. A person could blow up a military base and merely claim 'i was saving lives'. Clearly, the law wasn't intended to work like that, let alone that british citizens could be protected by the law to destroy american property to prevent an attack in iraq.

People are waking up to what is really going on.

This is merely a few cases of individuals trying to protect themselves from prosecution. It hardly signals some shift in global consensus.


I could be considered a unwanted threat to the administration...
specially being im foreign....

Well, no, probably because you're threatenign mass murder of your political opponents. I mean, if they did arrest you, it'd hardly be unjustified.


I am not bashing america, just the ruling elite.
As is ALWAYS the case in my threads.

Which means, 'anyone that you disagree with'.


Your ruling elite make me sick, and all of you whom follow there line should be put in a line and shot for crimes against humanity.

We're not the ones that will find ourselves blindfolded with our backs against bloodied walls when the tide turns.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join