The Courts Are Starting To Accept That The War Against Iraq Is A Crime

[kpete]

The courts are starting to accept that the war against Iraq is a crime

In Britain and Ireland, protesters who have deliberately damaged military equipment are walking from the dock

George Monbiot
Tuesday October 17, 2006
The Guardian


In the early hours, two days before the attack on Iraq began, two men in their 30s, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, cut through the fence surrounding the air base at Fairford in Gloucestershire and made their way towards the B52 bombers which were stationed there. The planes belonged to the US air force. The trespassers were caught by guards and found to be carrying tools and paint. They confessed that they were seeking to disable the planes, in order to prevent war crimes from being committed. This year they were tried on charges of conspiracy to commit criminal damage, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Last week, after long deliberations, the jury failed to reach a verdict.

.........................

The 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: while aggression by the state is a crime under international law, it is not a crime under domestic law. But 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.

............

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. But every time the prosecution fails to secure a conviction, the state's authority to take decisions which contravene international law is weakened.

These cases cannot reverse the hideous consequences of the crime of aggression (the "supreme international crime", according to the Nuremberg tribunals) that Blair and Bush committed in Iraq. But they do make it harder to repeat.


more at:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?pg=http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fcommentisfree%2Fstory%2F0%2C%2C1924178%2C00.html

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Hell, if I was English

I would want to disable those bombers, Iraq war or not. I don't want any other country's bombers using my country as a parking lot.

[Land Shark]

2. K&R #5: THere is higher law of int'l human rights & higher morality

[BlueEyedSon]

3. B52's? They're still in service? Good news anyway!

[The Count]

4. That's why OUR courts had to be muzzled.

Now you see why the self-padon/torture act was so necessary...

[ArbustoBuster]

5. That page has two nested frames on it...

...and if either Opednews or Rawstory takes down their frame, this link dies. :)

The original article is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1924178,00.html