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.
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
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,"
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.
If this war was just, everyone would be behind it.
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.
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
denythestatusquo
I hope I'm still correct but vandalism is considered a straight forward crime no matter where you live.
selfless
but disturbing the peace is what the us army is currently doing in iraq.
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.
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.
People are waking up to what is really going on.
I could be considered a unwanted threat to the administration...
specially being im foreign....
I am not bashing america, just the ruling elite.
As is ALWAYS the case in my threads.
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.