Accounting

for
Genocide
Holding Britain’s Leaders to account
for the wars with Afghanistan and
Iraq and 3.5 million casualties.
 2

Make Wars History

“But as elected Members of Parliament, we

all know that we will be judged not only on
our intentions, but on the results, the
consequences of our decisions… Yes of
course there will be consequences if the
House approves the Government’s motion.
Our forces will almost certainly be involved
in military action. Some may be killed; so
too, will innocent Iraqi civilians... I urge the
House to vote with the Government tonight.”

Jack Straw 18th March 2003

2
 3

“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.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

The results of Parliament’s unlawful decisions to wage war with Iraq and Afghanistan
are now abundantly clear and it is time that those responsible for killing and injuring
so many innocent people must answer in court for their crimes.

The Crimes
In the six years since Parliament authorised the war with Iraq MPs have caused the
violent deaths of 1 million people, including 300,000 children; they have maimed and
injured 2.5 million and have driven 4 million into exile and destitution. None of the
victims had done anything to harm Britain or the USA, was given an opportunity to
plead for their life in court or was shown any mercy before they were violently
maimed, injured or killed in the worst massacres of modern times.

Parliament’s choice to turn down the peaceful non-violent options and to choose
instead to continue its’ illegal use of modern high explosive weapons such as cruise
missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions against villages,
towns and cities in Afghanistan and Iraq has caused an average daily death toll of
450 civilians of whom 150 are children.

The decision to use indiscriminate high explosive weaponry ensures that innocent
men, women and children suffer horrendously. The range of causes of death
occurring throughout these wars includes decapitation, dismemberment,
disembowelling, crushing, burning, bleeding to death, as well as the lingering painful
deaths caused by cancer and the lack of medicines or treatment.

These massacres are the worst atrocities in UK or US history. Not only are they
illegal, breaching all of the laws of war, but they constitute the criminal offences of
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against peace. The wars
and killings must be stopped now and the political, civil and military leaders
responsible for them must be arrested, prosecuted and tried for their crimes.
3
 4

Who is responsible ?

In a democracy the supreme sovereign body responsible for governing the nation is
its Parliament or Congress. In Britain, Europe’s least democratic state, Parliament
shares responsibility for government with the monarch, and thus every member of
both Houses of Parliament together with the Queen are individually and collectively
accountable in law for the consequences of government decisions.

Britain’s political, civil and military leaders must be made to answer for the
consequences of their unlawful decisions to wage war, and in particular for the 3.5
million innocent people injured and killed as a direct consequence of their decision to
attack the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. When Parliament made the unlawful
decision to use armed force it ignored the binding terms of The International Treaty
for the Renunciation of War and the UN Charter which both require states to settle all
disputes peacefully. Britain cannot allow its political, civil and military leaders to
ignore and breach the binding terms of the world’s most important treaties.

Each of our leaders could at any time during the last seven years have brought these
wars and the killings to an end. Instead, they chose to support this heinous
Government policy, and as a result they condemned 300,000 children to a violent
and painful death and 700,000 to a life of misery burdened with debilitating injuries,
the loss of family and friends and the destruction of their country.

Rather than work assiduously to stop the crimes, halt the killings and obey, uphold
and enforce the law as is their public duty, the Queen and 1400 members of both
Houses of Parliament chose instead to support the policy of waging two illegal wars
of aggression. By condoning the use of armed force and the use of indiscriminate
weapons of mass destruction against Afghanistan and Iraq knowing that innocent
men, women and children would be injured and killed, every sitting member of both
Houses of Parliament committed crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war
crimes and crimes against peace under the domestic and international laws of war.

For seven years while the daily indiscriminate killing of civilians has continued apace
neither the Queen nor any Member of either House of Parliament has taken a single
effective action to halt or reverse the orders to HM armed forces. This horrific abuse
of their legally binding duties must be punished. Concerted international action must
be taken now to arrest and prosecute Britain’s political, civil and military leaders for
their heinous abuses of the rule of law.

“In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive war are doing that
which is equally illegal, and of much greater moment than a breach of one of
the rules of the Hague Convention… 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.”

4
 5
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946
Who is accountable in law for the actions of Parliament ?
“It is not what we say or feel that makes us what we are; it is what we do or
fail to do.”

Although thirty to forty MPs have regularly spoken out against the war and 142 MPs
voted against the war with Iraq in March 2003, actions for which they are to be
commended, not one of them has resigned their seat, returned their salary, reported
the war crimes and war criminals to police, refused to pay tax, informed the media or
their constituents of the illegal nature of the wars or encouraged the public to join a
lawful rebellion. This abject failure to act1 to prevent the worst crimes known to law
makes every sitting MP and Peer complicit in the crimes. In law, a person’s words
are not enough on their own to disprove a criminal offence; it is a person’s deeds or
failures to act that count in court. By failing to act to prevent the killings, halt the
wars or hold Government Ministers to account for their actions, sitting members of
both Houses of Parliament2 and the Queen as Head of State committed the same
crime that Germany’s leaders committed when they condoned Adolf Hitler’s policies
to attack and occupy 11 independent nation states during WWII.

MPs’ and Peers’ individual and collective responsibility

On accession to their positions in public life the Queen3 and every sitting member of
both Houses of Parliament took an oath to govern according to law. By taking up
positions in public life and by accepting money from the public purse they confirmed
their part in the decisions of Parliament and the government of Britain. Just as every
member of the Cabinet is individually and collectively responsible for the decisions of
Cabinet and accountable for the consequences of those decisions, every member of
a board of directors is individually and collectively responsible for the decisions of the
board and is accountable for the consequences, and every employee of a
government department is jointly responsible for the actions of their department and
accountable in law for the consequences, so too are members of Parliament
individually and collectively responsible for the actions of Government and
accountable to a court for the consequences.

It was submitted [by the defendants] that international law is concerned with
the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for individuals;
and further, that where the act in question is an act of state, those who carry it
out are not personally responsible, but are protected by the doctrine of the
sovereignty of the State. In the opinion of the Tribunal, both these
submissions must be rejected. That international law imposes duties and
liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States has long been recognised…

1
Which in law is treated as an act of omission
2
This excludes Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness who, although elected to Parliament, have always refused
to take the oath of loyalty to the Crown and have therefore been barred from taking their seats.
3
The Coronation oath.
5
 6
The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international
duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the
individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity
while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in
authorising action moves outside its competence under international law…

That a soldier was ordered to kill or torture in violation of the international law
of war has never been recognised as a defence to such acts of brutality,
though, as the Charter here provides, the order may be urged in mitigation of
the punishment. The true test, which is found in varying degrees in the
criminal law of most nations, is not the existence of the order, but whether
moral choice was in fact possible…

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

Judgement

Crime by association
“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.”
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

If a representative disagrees with the decisions or actions of the Parliament or

Congress of which they are a part, he or she must resign4 from their office or accept
the consequences of the decision not to resign. In law, by making the moral choice
to stay in Parliament and accept reimbursement from the public purse for carrying out
their public duties, MPs participate in the decisions of Parliament’ and are liable for
the consequences of those decisions. Parliament is the supreme governing body in
Britain, and as such sitting members are individually and jointly responsible and
accountable in law for the actions of the Government of the day. In this case every
MP and Peer has freely chosen to stay in Parliament and has chosen to accept the
responsibilities of office. In law, each MP and Peer is criminally liable for all the war
crimes committed by HM armed forces, and the forces of Britain’s Coalition partners
during their period of office. For example, every MP and Peer in Parliament at the
time of the United States’ forces attack on Fallujah is individually and collectively
responsible for the injuries, deaths and crimes committed during that attack, and as
such can be prosecuted as an accessory to the crimes under the Accessories and
Abettors Act 1861.

MPs and Peers committed genocide

4
As did Robin Cook, John Denham, Elizabeth Wilmshurst and others when they resigned from their official
positions in 2003 in protest at the Government’s decision to wage war with Iraq.
6
 7

It is quite clear that the former and current Prime Minister, the former and Current
Attorney General, members of the Cabinet, Members of both Houses of Parliament,
civil servants, military commanders, law officers, advisors, journalists and taxpayers
have violated the domestic and international laws of war and committed genocide
against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan:

A summary of the facts

In early 2002 at a meeting in Washington the former Prime Minister of Great Britain
[Tony Blair] in response to a request by the former President of the United States of
America [George W. Bush] decided to form a Coalition with the United States to
mount a full scale armed invasion and occupation of the State of Iraq with the
unlawful stated intentions of removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and destroying
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction5. Subsequently the Prime Minister and
members of HM Government gave unlawful orders to HM armed forces to deploy to
the Middle East in readiness for the armed attack on Iraq. In a vote in Parliament on
March 18th 2003 412 MPs voted in favour of war knowing that the armed attacks by
Coalition forces using high-explosive weapons would result in the death and injury of
Iraqi citizens. The invasion and occupation of Iraq by Coalition armed forces has
caused injury and death to 3,000,000 Iraqi citizens.

Multiple war crimes committed against the people of Iraq

We contend that by order of Parliament HM Armed Forces joined a Coalition of
States and took part in the illegal armed invasion and occupation of Iraq in which
they used indiscriminate high explosive weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets,
cluster bombs, mortars and depleted uranium artillery shells in thousands of separate
attacks against villages, towns and cities in Iraq killing tens of thousands of Iraqi
men, women and children. By setting out to destroy and subsequently killing
thousands of Iraqi citizens Ministers of State, Members of Parliament and others
committed crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, conduct
ancillary to such crimes, a crime against peace, complicity in a crime against peace,
murder, conspiracy to murder and incitement to murder which are criminal offences
under sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, Article 25 of
the Rome Statute, Articles VI and VII of the Nuremburg Principles, the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861, the Criminal Law Act 1977, the Accessories and
Abettors Act 1861, the Landmines Act 1988, the Chemical and Biological Weapons
Acts the Geneva Conventions and other international and domestic statutes, as well
as constituting crimes in common law and customary international law.

The domestic law against genocide

5
Evidence of these crimes is contained in the Secret Downing St Memo of July 2002, the Secret Legal Advice
from the Attorney General to the Prime Minister of March 7th 2003 as well as Cabinet Office Papers and Cabinet
Minutes.
7
 8
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the domestic law against genocide is
contained in the International Criminal Court Act 20016,

It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit
genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct
ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or
outside the UK by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service
jurisdiction7.

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group, as such (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious
bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
or in part…”

The international law against genocide

The Genocide Convention which was signed in 1948 has been ratified by most major
nations including Israel [1951] and the USA [1988]. In 1998 this was superseded by
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which added crimes against
humanity and war crimes to the universal offence of genocide and simultaneously set
up a law enforcement authority in The Hague.

Rome Statute - Article 25 - Individual criminal responsibility

3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and

liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that
person:

(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or

through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally
responsible;

(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact
occurs or is attempted;

(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or
otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including
providing the means for its commission;

(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of

such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such
contribution shall be intentional and shall either:

6
In Scotland the genocide legislation is contained in the International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001.
7
This is a summary; for the full definition see Sections 50 – 80 the International Criminal Court Act 2001
8
 9
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal
purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the
commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or

(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the
crime;

(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to
commit genocide;

(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its
execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur
because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions. However,
a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents
the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this
Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and
voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

When has a crime of genocide taken place ?

Genocide, a particularly horrific type of mass murder, takes place whenever a
government or ruling group develops and implements a policy to destroy members of
a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. In law, waging aggressive war and killing
people because of their nationality constitutes an act of genocide.

It is clear that genocide occurred in both Afghanistan and Iraq because the victims
were killed by Coalition forces for the sole reason that they were members of the
Iraqi and Afghan national groups. Prior to the attacks, the victims lived peacefully in
villages, towns and cities doing nothing to warrant a fatal attack. To attack them on
at least 100,000 separate occasions using modern sophisticated high-explosive
weapons is a deliberate act of genocide as well as a crime against humanity.

Under international law the ONLY people using armed force lawfully in Iraq and
Afghanistan are the Iraqi and Afghan citizens fighting to defend their country from
invasion and occupation. Every other person associated in any way with the
conflicts is acting unlawfully, and if the killings satisfy the other elements of the crime
[specified below] then the perpetrator and their associates are guilty of genocide and
can be charged under the law of England and Wales with a crime of ‘genocide’ or
‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ under sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal
Court Act 2001.

Describing the victims as ‘enemy’, ‘terrorists’, ‘insurgents’, ‘rebels’ ‘militants’ or

‘infidels’ is a propaganda ploy used by political leaders, journalists and the media to
cover the fact that innocent people are being killed because of their nationality or
because they own the rights to large quantities of oil. It makes no difference in court
to plead that the victim was an enemy combatant. If they were killed because of
9
 10
their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity then a crime of genocide has taken
place.

What elements distinguish genocide from mass murder

The legislation specifies four elements of the crime8 that must be in place before a
court can convict a person for the crime of ‘genocide by killing’. They are:-

1. The perpetrator killed [4] one or more persons.

2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnic, racial or
religious group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national,
ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar
conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect
such destruction.

Notes [4] The term killed is interchangeable with the term “caused death”

Evidence that the attacks on Iraq constitute genocide

For a factual and moving description of the crimes and the consequences of the
illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq please read the speech given by Dr Omar Al-
Kubaisy to the European Parliament on March 18th 2009. [Appendix I]

(1) The perpetrator killed [caused the deaths of] one or more persons

Through the use of weapons such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs,
mortars, machine guns, rifles, hand grenades and depleted uranium artillery shells
against targets in Iraq, Coalition armed forces under the orders of their political and
military commanders killed at least 100,000 Iraqi citizens and an unknown number of
Afghans. In addition, for every death caused by the direct actions of Coalition forces,
a further 5 deaths were caused indirectly by factors linked to the invasion and
occupation. These include such factors as deaths from:-

• unexploded cluster bombs and munitions exploding when they are touched
accidentally by children playing or farmers tending their crops;
• cancers and associated illnesses caused by the clouds of radio active dust
particles, metals and destroyed Iraqi tanks resulting from depleted uranium
munitions used by Coalition forces and spread across large parts of Iraq;
• infighting between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish groups caused by the illegal
dismantling of the Iraqi army, police and law enforcement authorities;

8
The definition of genocide by killing is defined in The International Criminal Court Act 2001 (Elements of Crimes)
Regulations introduced on the 4th May 2004 by Jack Straw the Foreign Affairs Minister.

10
 11
• untreated illnesses and injuries caused by the destruction of hospitals and
medical facilities, shortages of essential medicines, equipment and doctors;
• suicide bombers attacking opposition groups and Coalition forces;
• retribution, murders and deaths in custody caused by Coalition forces and
private security forces operating outside the law;
• the destruction of essential water and power supplies causing pollution, water-
born diseases and malnutrition causing further avoidable deaths;

Whatever the final number of proven deaths, they will exceed 100,000 and will meet
the first criterion – the perpetrators killed one or more persons.

(2) Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnic, racial

or religious group.

The vast majority of the victims are civilian residents. The sole reason for targeting
and killing these men, women and children is that they were Iraqis or Afghans living
in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq Body Count has gathered and kept detailed records and
a tally of certificated deaths of Iraqi civilians caused by military or para-military action
since the war with Iraq began in 2003. Although incomplete, these records are the
best available and they identify by name, gender, location and date a total of 100,000
violent deaths caused by the Coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq. Together
with sketchy details9 of 3 to 6 million Afghans whose deaths were caused by
Coalition forces this should be enough to prove the second criterion, such persons
belonged to a particular national group.

(3) The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national,

ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.

This is the criterion for genocide that is often considered the most difficult to prove.
As with all deaths a court must be presented with evidence that the perpetrator
intended to kill his or her victims and it wasn’t simply a case of accidental death.

Establishing intent

A person’s intent can be interpreted from an examination of their actions; by watching

what they do, rather than accepting what they say. By comparing and contrasting
their chosen course of action with other viable alternative options which they rejected
one can establish a person’s ‘intent’. Most criminals will do all they can to keep their
real intent hidden from view and use statements of worthy ends to reassure everyone
of their upright moral lawful standpoint.

Proof of intent

The legal definition of intent is defined in the legislation as:-

(a) a person has intent (i) in relation to conduct, where he means to engage in
the conduct, and (ii) in relation to a consequence, where he means to cause the

9
UNICEF figures Feb 2008
11
 12
consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events;
and
(b) “knowledge” means awareness that a circumstance exists or a
consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.

That Britain’s Ministers and MPs set out with the intention of destroying part of a
national group can be established from six separate evidential sources:-

(a) the perpetrators’ published oral and written statements,

(b) the perpetrators’ choice of conduct [course of action],
(c) the perpetrators’ repetition of conduct after consequences are known,
(d) the perpetrators’ rejection of all non-violent options and alternatives,
(e) the perpetrators’ prior knowledge of the consequences of their decisions,
(f) the perpetrators’ prior knowledge of the law and crimes of war.

(a) Published statements

The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made numerous public assertions about the
war with Iraq that indicate his state of mind and his intentions; “it was the right thing
to do”, “I had to make a hard decision”, “there will be casualties”. These and other
statements made in TV and radio interviews as well as statements in Cabinet and in
No 10 made prior to and during the conflict confirm that he knew that his chosen
course of action (the use of armed force) would cause the death of Iraqis.

Perhaps the most telling statement is one that Blair made to members of the Armed
Forces at the Basra airbase shortly before his resignation during his ‘farewell’ tour of
Iraq; as reported by Martin Amis in the Guardian of 2nd June 2007 and repeated by
Martin Bell in his book The Truth That Sticks.

“So we are killing more of them than they kill us…… You’re getting back out
there after them. It’s brilliant actually.”

This statement shows clearly that Tony Blair was intent on killing Iraqi citizens. It is
almost as if he was treating the war, the killings and the suffering of innocent men,
women and children as if it was a political game. This has to be one of the most
horrific statements ever made by a British Prime Minister, and the fact that it was
accepted without comment or action by every Cabinet member, every member of
both Houses of Parliament, the Bishops, the Queen, military commanders and the
media is an appalling indictment of the poor quality of leadership in Britain.

Further evidence that members of the Cabinet ‘intended’ that their decision would
result in the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians is contained in the speech by Jack
Straw in Parliament on March 18th 2003 (Hansard Vol 401 No.65 Page 902).

“But as elected Members of Parliament, we all know that we will be judged

not only on our intentions, but on the results, the consequences of our
12
 13
decisions… Yes of course there will be consequences if the House approves
the Government’s motion. Our forces will almost certainly be involved in
military action. Some may be killed; so too, will innocent Iraqi civilians... I
urge the House to vote with the Government tonight.”

This statement shows that Jack Straw intentionally engaged in an action which he
knew and understood would lead to the deaths of innocent Iraqis. In law, this is
unassailable evidence that he intended to destroy, at least in part, the Iraqi national
group as such, a crime of genocide. Coming shortly before the armed attacks took
place it is also evidence of ‘conspiracy to murder’, ‘incitement to murder’, ‘incitement
to commit a crime against humanity’, ‘complicity in a crime against peace’ and many
other offences in common law and customary international law.

In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to

commit genocide;

Article 25.3(e) of the Rome Statute makes it quite clear that a person commits
genocide if they directly and publicly incite others to commit genocide. When Jack
Straw called on MPs in Parliament to vote with the government, and when Tony Blair
congratulated soldiers for the quantity of killing they were both directly and publicly
inciting others to kill innocent Iraqis, an act of genocide. These are probably the
clearest pieces of evidence of ‘incitement to commit genocide’ ever obtained from
Ministers of State and they provide clear unassailable evidence that Tony Blair and
Jack Straw knew before ordering the attack to take place that their words and actions
would cause the deaths of Iraqi men, women and children. These statements on
their own are enough to prove to the satisfaction of a court that they were intending
to kill Iraqi citizens for the sole reason that they were Iraqi citizens which in law
satisfies the criteria for the crime of genocide.

(b) the perpetrators’ choice of conduct [course of action],

The former and current Prime Ministers, members of the Cabinet and MPs chose to
wage aggressive war and to use armed force in the certain knowledge that Iraqis
would be killed. Although they had at least 100 peaceful legal options open to them
such as negotiating peacefully, continuing with the UNMOVIC weapons inspections,
continuing the destruction of Iraq’s long range rockets, allowing the UN Security
Council to find a peaceful solution, withdrawing totally from involvement with Iraq,
disabling Iraq’s military communications systems, instigating anti-government
sanctions, continuing UN sanctions etc, they chose to pursue the illegal actions of
waging a war of aggression and using armed force in the certain knowledge that the
consequence would be injury and death to thousands of Iraqis; further proof of their
‘intent to commit genocide’.
(c) the perpetrators’ repetition of conduct once consequences were known.

Even four years after the war started and after hundreds of thousands of totally
innocent Iraqis had been killed and injured Tony Blair was urging the troops to
continue the killing. If a person’s actions lead to the death of an individual and the
perpetrator then halts his or her activities on the grounds that the deaths were
accidental and unintentional the perpetrator goes some way to proving that the initial
13
 14
death or deaths were not ‘intended’. If however the perpetrators, knowing
perfectly well that more innocent people will be killed, repeat the course of action
and kill more people they demonstrate their ‘intent to kill’. Because MPs and Peers
were aware of the mortal consequences [deaths and injuries to men women and
children] of their decision to wage war and because they have failed for six years to
withdraw or reverse Parliament’s orders, they have proved conclusively that they
were acting with intent to kill; and as their ‘intent to kill’ was focussed on Afghans and
Iraqis this will be taken by a court and a jury as proof positive of ‘intent to commit
genocide’.

(d) the perpetrators rejection of non-violent options and alternatives

When a person is faced with a number of alternative courses of action and then
deliberately chooses to pursue the only option leading to death and destruction over
the numerous options leading to life, negotiation and assistance, their free choice of
the sole course of action resulting in death proves their ‘intent to kill’. If they had
chosen the path of peaceful negotiation their choice would have proved their ‘intent
to negotiate’ and their ‘intent to act peacefully’. Just as with the bombings in London,
Birmingham and Omagh, where the IRA attacked targets in Britain knowing that
British citizens would be killed and injured, so British Ministers of State and MPs
ordered armed attacks on villages, towns and cities in Iraq and Afghanistan using
high explosive lethal weapons in the certain knowledge that thousands of members
of the Iraqi and Afghan national groups would be killed and injured. This deliberate
choice by MPs of the sole course of action that would result in the deaths of innocent
members of a national group, proves ‘intent to kill’ and ‘intent to commit genocide’.

(e) the perpetrators prior knowledge of the consequences of their decisions.

A person only chooses to use a cruise missile if they intend to kill people in the
vicinity of the explosion; a person only chooses to use cluster bombs [an
indiscriminate weapon containing up to 256 bomblets] if they intend to kill large
numbers of men, women and children within three kilometres of the target; if a
person chooses to use depleted uranium tipped artillery shells with a half life of four
thousand years knowing that it will cause birth defects, cancers, deformities and
miscarriages it demonstrates their intention to “cause serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group. Any person, who makes the deliberate choice to use
weapons of this nature in the knowledge that such weapons by their nature and
design will kill indiscriminately, intends to kill large numbers of people. If Ministers
and other offenders had wanted to forcefully disarm or temporarily disable Iraqi
nationals they could have ordered the use of tear gas or tazers or other non fatal
options. Their choice of indiscriminate high explosive weapons demonstrates their
‘intent’ to destroy part of the Iraqi national group; their ‘intent to commit genocide’.
(f) the perpetrators’ prior knowledge of the law and the criminal offences.

Further evidence of Ministers’ intent to kill is provided in the Secret Legal Advice from
the Attorney General to the former Prime Minister of March 7 th 2003 [2 weeks in
advance of the invasion]. In the final section of his advice, the Attorney General
draws the Prime Minister’s attention to the potential unlawful consequences of going
ahead with the war.
14
 15

“You will wish to take account of the ways in which the matter might be
brought before a court… Two further, though probably more remote possibilities
are an attempted prosecution for murder on the grounds that the military action
is unlawful and an attempted prosecution for the crime of aggression.
Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically
forms part of domestic law…”

The Attorney General points out the possibility of facing prosecution for the crimes of
‘murder’ and ‘aggression’. This suggests that two weeks before the debate in
Parliament, both Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, knew full well
that waging a war of aggression with Iraq was a crime of aggression and that by
killing innocent Iraqis they would be committing the crime of murder.

Proof that MPs and Peers intended to commit genocide

These six sections of evidence together provide proof that individually and
collectively members of the United States Congress, Britain’s Parliament and others
deliberately and intentionally set out to destroy part of the Iraqi and Afghan national
groups as such, and in doing so committed the criminal offences of genocide and
conduct ancillary to genocide.

(4) The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar
conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect
such destruction.

The state policy, authorised by Congress and Parliament of using trained military
forces to use high-explosive indiscriminate weapons to attack undefended villages,
towns and cities across Afghanistan and Iraq killing and injuring thousands of
innocent civilians quite clearly constitutes ‘a manifest pattern of similar conduct
directed against the group’ and as such satisfies the fourth criterion for genocide. In
addition thousands of attacks by Coalition aircraft in which high explosive bombs and
rockets killed several people simultaneously constitute ‘conduct that could itself effect
such destruction’ and as such satisfy the fourth criterion for genocide.

Irrelevance of official position as a Member of Parliament

The Rome Statute clearly states that the law against genocide applies to everyone
regardless of their official position or role in society.

Article 27 - Irrelevance of official capacity

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based
on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or
Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected
representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from
criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a
ground for reduction of sentence.
15
 16
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official
capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar
the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

MPs committed crimes of genocide and conduct ancillary to genocide

We assert that by making public and private statements in support of the war with
Iraq, by voting in Parliament in favour of armed action, by condoning the actions of
the Prime Minister, by paying tax, by taking part in debates, by agreeing to
Government policies, by supporting and condoning orders to HM Armed Forces to
conduct armed attacks against Iraq and by providing assistance with the invasion
and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan in the certain knowledge that men, women
and children would be killed, the Queen, members of HM Government, Members of
both Houses of Parliament, civil servants, armed forces commanders and others did
aid, abet, counsel and procure the commission of genocide against the Iraqi and
Afghan people and as accessories to genocide are liable to be tried, indicted and
punished as principal offenders for crimes under sections 51 and 52 of the
International Criminal Court Act 2001 and Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court.

What will you do to end the killing?

The main reason why Britain continues to take a leading part in these unlawful wars
and heinous crimes is that none of our leaders and no more than a dozen members
of the public have taken practical steps to disassociate themselves from the crimes.
Under the laws of war, anyone who takes part as a principal or an accessory to
genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes commits a crime and is liable to
punishment. However under Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute it is possible to
avoid prosecution IF a person demonstrates to the court that he or she has
abandoned their support for the crime, given up the criminal purpose and is doing all
they can to prevent the completion of the crimes.

What you can do to end the killing.

1. Report war crimes to Police. Take this report to your local police informing
them that Britain’s leaders, including your MP, are breaching the laws of war
and ask them to carry out their duty in law to investigate the crimes, arrest
local offenders and together with the Crown Prosecution Service prosecute
them for violations of the laws of war. The police can establish whether or not
your local MP is amongst those who have taken action to end the killing, have
renounced their support for the war and are doing all they can to end it.

16
 17
2. Join the tax rebellion. As it is a criminal offence to aid, abet or assist an
act of genocide, it is a crime to pay tax to a government that is killing people
because of their nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. This means that
anyone who has paid tax to British, American or Coalition Governments since
they commenced their attacks on the Afghan and Iraqi people is an accessory
to the crimes and is criminally liable as an accessory to genocide and crimes
against humanity. If you wish to end your personal complicity in this crime you
must stop paying tax immediately, inform your local tax collector10 and MP that
you are doing so and let them know that you will withhold all tax payments
until the war crimes have ceased and the troops have been brought home.

3. Contact your MP. Give him or her a copy of this report and point out that
they are violating the laws of war. Ask them what they have done in response
to our letter of March 20th to end the killings [see Appendix 2]. If they have
done nothing then ask them why not? If by the time you speak to them they
have not tabled or signed an EDM11 ending the war, ask them why they
haven’t and if they cannot come up with a good reason tell them that you will
report them to the police for their violations of war law. You could also remind
them that they are working for you not for Gordon Brown, David Cameron,
Nick Clegg or any political party, and unless they take every action in their
power immediately to end the killing you will never vote for them or their
political party again and you will do all in your power to ensure that they
answer for their crimes in court.

Chris Coverdale - Make Wars History - March 2009

Appendix I

The Honourable Ms. Luisa Morgantine,

Vice-President;

European Parliament

Members of the European Parliament

Ladies and Gentlemen,
10
Employees on PAYE must ask their employer to withhold individual and corporate tax payments.
11
Early Day Motion.
17
 18

Allow me to thank you very much, as well as our colleagues who have given us this
opportunity to have the honour in meeting with you and speaking to you to convey to you a
clear and honest picture of the health situation as well as the dire humanitarian situation
experienced by the afflicted people of Iraq. It is an excruciatingly tragic and unbearable
situation which cries out to all the liberals of the world and to all those interested in the lives
of people in this vast universe, to get seriously and effectively involved, to proclaim the word
of truth and to standup and work to save mankind, to provide and preserve the minimum of
the simplest and most basic rights for a happy and dignified life, freedom, secure habitat and
prosperous employment in a state of mental and physical energy without suffering and pain,
hardship and discrimination, especially when this person lives in a land and country like Iraq,
to which God has given such great natural wealth of water, oil, precious metals, and a rich
soil all of which guarantee achieving a decent living.

I come from Mesopotamia, (The Land Between The Two Rivers), very ancient and has
always been called "the black land" because of its prosperity, its crowded population and its
abundance of good living conditions; because of its people's ancient civilization and its
contributions to human civilization: the first letter and alphabet, the pen, and law, thousands
of years ago, as you have read in ancient history.

Iraq, ladies and gentlemen, with its wealth and its generosity, attracted many peoples and
ethnicities over the ages, as a result of which the aforesaid elements have made up a mosaic
of the people. It has been inhabited by peoples of numerous different nationalities, ethnicities
and religions in security and peace, as well as in compatibility, harmony and stability in spite
of the fact that it has experienced numerous foreign waves of invasions, and large attempted
invasions, desirous of its great wealth and its geopolitical strategic position over the ages.
Iraq has come out of these experiences after fighting to the death and defending its land and
territory to emerge victorious, united and unified.

I, an experienced doctor and cardiac specialist, who is experienced in the treatment of heart
disease and who has served in his specialty in The State of Iraq for the past 4 decades,
stand in your presence and addresses you. I have lived with and through the rule of several
successive governments and political regimes which you know. I haven't any particular party
or political fealty and affiliation. My people as well as my students and my colleagues in Iraq
bare witness to my service in the medical, health and military and civilian medical services
fields, professionally as well as academically. I specialized and trained in European
hospitals in England, Italy, Ireland, France and here in Belgium, specializing in heart disease
during the critical periods of the long war and the chocking embargo. I transferred the most
up to date technical skills and research you had achieved in the cardiac field in order to
benefit Iraq's patients as well as its doctors at a time when Iraqis suffered from the scourge
of a technical, scientific and economic embargo which lasted for 13 years; I also witnessed
the invasion of Iraq and when I also saw with my own two eyes, on the 9th and 10th April,
2003, how the invading tanks invaded my cardiac center and burned, looted and plundered
the largest center for cardiac surgery in the center of Baghdad in plain sight of the entire
world, for it to be left open for further plunder for many days to come under the invader's
auspices.

In this center we used to perform 8 open heart surgeries on Iraqi adults and children, daily.
European doctors from England, Switzerland, France, Italy, Spain and Germany volunteered
their work there as a humanitarian contribution to the center. I recall a telephone call from a
colleague from the South of France who had worked in the past with us in the Center, when
Baghdad and the area in which the center is situated was undergoing heavy aerial
bombardment, during the invasion, begging me to leave the center with the rest of my
18
 19
colleagues in order to escape because the center was a target, as he seemed to believe
from the direct satellite pictures. I remember when tears poured down my cheeks whilst
watching the Cardiac Center burn and I was screaming at the commanding officer of the
group which supervised the operation from the top of a tank, saying to "me stop your tears,
we will build you a greater, larger and more up to date Center”.

Gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament and Distinguished audience, when my

colleagues and medical students in Iraq knew that I was going to be present amongst you, I
was asked by their Union which was lately formed and carries a membership of more than
350 doctors, to carry forth their concerns and suffering as a result of the seriously
deteriorated health situation in Iraq; their letter which arrived 2 days before my arrival, here,
is in my possession. I left Iraq after continuing to work and restore parts of the Center with
my colleagues, up to 5th March, 2005, when I received a letter threatening to liquidate and kill
me in company with 10 other colleagues who are all cardiac specialists, should we not leave
Iraq before this date. Its letters still follow me like ghosts and the style in which it was written
still fills me with horror and pain.

Gentlemen, before the invasion and despite the cruel embargo, there were 18 Faculties of
Medicine, six of which were established during the period of the embargo, six dental
colleges, four pharmacological faculties, and tens of colleges, institutes and schools of
nursing, assistant doctors and aides, in Iraq. The first Faculty of Medicine in Baghdad, was
opened in 1927 whose first dean, for a very long time, was the English Doctor, Sanderson,
the author of the golden memories of his decades long medical service in Iraq called "10,000
Nights and a Night in Iraq".

In Iraq, we had more than 39,000 hospital beds in efficiently run teaching hospitals, as well
as city and town hospitals, as well as medical clinics and centers in the country. We had
more than 34,000 registered doctors, 20% of whom were specialists and we used to
graduate more than 1,000 doctors annually. We also had 30 Post Graduate Studies of
Medical Specialization, granting the Iraqi Board to more than 250 doctors annually. These
personnel carried out their duties and responsibilities with great efficiency towards the injured
and the disabled during a long war and during the period when Iraq was boycotted
scientifically for a very long time.

The Founding Constitution of The Iraqi State in the 1920s granted the right to all Iraqis to free
education and state medical treatment and preventative medicine (national health
insurance). These services were established throughout Iraq's countryside, villages and
cities, throughout all its provinces.

The Educational system in Iraq is British in its method since its establishment, and Europe
understands and knows the standards and efficiency of Iraqi doctors as well as the standards
of medical teaching and health care in Iraq; a large percentage of these doctors, today, is
spread throughout Europe and Britain. The World Health Organization, UNESCO, UNICEF,
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF RED CROSS, and other world organizations
evaluated Iraq's achievements positively in vaccination programmes, family medical care,
general health, child health, rehabilitation of the disabled, birth control and the decline in
mortality of the under 5s and of the newly born since 1980, which put an end to the spread of
infectious diseases and epidemics such as Cholera, Infantile Paralysis, Meningitis,
Diphtheria and Whooping Cough, and Tuberculosis. In addition to this, Iraq was the
foremost in the region in controlling HIV Aids and in fighting addiction and drug abuse as well
as establishing School Health Programmes and establishing Protective Child and Maternal
Centers as well as establishing specialized centers for Fertility, Cancer, Cardiac and
Vascular, Orthopedic, Glandular, Radio Isotopes, Nerves, Ophthalmology, Paralysis,
19
 20
Rehabilitation and Prosthetics, Toxicity, Herbal Medicine, and even Acupuncture
Treatment.

Iraqi women have contributed heavily to Iraq's medical journey and history, and in addition to
all the aforementioned the great success of The Food Programme and the Dispensing of
Medicines for all chronic disease, as well as the widespread institution of local health clinics
and national health insurance. The beneficial use of the Oil For Food and Medicine
Programme led to mitigating the bad effects of the imposed embargo on Iraq on its medical
imports before the occupation.

The method of importing medicines and medical equipment and supplies since the '70s in
the last century was successful in importing safe, effective and solid medicines from
international, multi national solid, well-known companies, so was the local manufacture of
medicine, enjoying the same specifications as that of the imported, both of which succumbed
to identical analyses and tests as well as to efficient central registry in order to safeguard
society from its possible resultant catastrophic effects. The importation of medicines was
limited to the Organization for Medicinal Imports – The Ministry of Health, with scientific
supervision of a committee specially chosen for its efficiency.

Gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament and Distinguished Colleagues and

Audience:

What did the invasion of Iraq after April 2003 do to the health and humanitarian situation in
Iraq, as we commemorate its repugnant and abominable anniversary?

To abbreviate my talk, and because of the constraints of time, leaflets in English will be
handed out to you which will give you a clear picture in numbers which reflect the state of my
country's health. These numbers are not a figment of the imagination, but numbers
extracted from studies and follow up reports carried out by international professional and
humanitarian organizations, institutions and societies, referred to, opposite each fact and
number mentioned.

As for the reality on the ground, CDs will be handed out to you which will, in pictures, reflect
and document a little of the suffering of the Iraqi people from the terror of bombardment and
bombing, the destruction of infrastructure, violence and terror, the killing which has targeted
the people and its doctors, its efficient professionals, and its scientists and academics as well
as the forced displacement of people inside and outside Iraq; the suffering of women as well
as the widows and the orphans and the spread of crime and sickness and epidemics; the
spread of commercialization of bad medicines and addictive drugs; the internally displaced
refugee camps; their conditions as well as the condition of the detainees in the prisons of the
occupation as well as in those of the imposed authority. However, suffice it for me to state
that we are in a country that :

1- 70% of its doctors have emigrated.

2- It has lost more than 5,500 of its scientists and academics, killed, imprisoned, or
emigrated.

3- 70% of its hospitals have minimum standard performance, below the required
standards in the remnants of what is destroyed, raided, or stolen.

20
 21
4- 90% of medicines in pharmacies is neither analysed nor is it registered or is
bad or corrupt and contaminated; it is brought on to the black market across
the borders by ghost companies and a country in which thousands of unlicensed
pharmacies and drug depots exist, run by people who are not pharmacists.

5- Its hospitals are used as centers for ethnic and sectarian physical liquidation and
terror by the militias.

6- The Ministry of Health is part of a sectarian quota division system that specifies
the identity of the minister and the directors general and is controlled by the
theocratic political parties as well as the religious and sectarian militias. It is an
institution in which financial and administrative corruption prevails and according
to the Transparency Committee, more than 2 Billion US Dollars have disappeared
as a result of phony ghost contracts and bribery.

7- There is no supervisory or monitoring role to be mentioned by the present

parliamentarians who are doctors, but on the contrary, their interference may
cause a negative effect on the size and the nature of the financial and
administrative corruption.

8- Widespread mental illness and drug addiction and the widespread growth
of opium poppy plantations and opium for the first time since occupation.

9- Alteration of basic medical purchase requirements and their replacement with

insignificant lists and invoices.

10 - The spread of epidemics and the loss of credibility of all statistics and the lack of
statistics of cholera, Measles, Diphtheria and Whooping Cough, and
Toxoplasmosis and a worsening situation of Tuberculosis and HIV Aids.

11 - Unsafe imported foods.

12 - A rise of incidence in cancer and the nature of the registered cases recently and a
rise in cases of congenital malformation as due to the aggravated complications
as a result of radioactive pollution and the burning down of trees. Pollution of
rivers, as a result of the collapse of the sewage system, particularly in the Middle
and the South caused by the use of Depleted Uranium and White Phosphorous
as well as Cluster Bombs, and the prevention by the occupation forces of
remedial measures and surveys to discover the polluted locations for sterilization
and cleansing.

13 - The proliferation of landmines in the sites of the old wars, as well as unexploded
ordinance, especially in Basra and in the border areas.

14 - Loss of cooperation and harmony with the humanitarian and voluntary

organizations, such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and others, as
well as financial corruption in the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, and the escape
outside Iraq, of its President with US protection.

15 - Lack of medicines and supplies and, as well as minimal financial allocations,

since they did not exceed 4% of the overall budget allocations in the best of
cases, and because of rampant corruption.
21
 22
16 - Lack of safe potable water for more than 70% of the population and the
continuing lack of electricity as well as the lack of proper sanitation.

17 - The highest rates of infant and newborn mortality in the world.

18 - In Iraq after the occupation:

o More than five million are displaced.

o More than 4 million are below poverty level.

o Approximately, 2 million widows.

o Five million orphans.

o Insufficient food for more than eight million.

o More than 400,000 have been detained and imprisoned.

o More than 28% of the population is unemployed.

Conclusion:

It is clear that human health and safety is being targeted as well as the Iraqi identity;
depersonalization, and interference in the process of education and upbringing in order to
weaken and divide Iraq by depletion of its capabilities and its scientific resources which is
being implemented by devising a political process and service institutions based on ethnic
and sectarian quotas which are inconsistent with efficiency, integrity and reconstruction,
transparency and construction.

Distinguished Members of the European Parliament: Occupation, invasion, murder,

terrorism, intimidation, and threats would not put an end to the aggravated violence because
of the worsening oppression of peoples and unjustified wars that do not create freedoms and
democracy. All that the occupation built is a political process which it alleges to be
legitimate, has proved that it is a failure, for the Government of Iraq is classified as the most
failed in the world, and the most financially and administratively corrupt.

Thus, I urge you to work on expelling the occupation out of Iraq as soon as possible and to
allow the Iraqi people and international will to achieve genuine national reconciliation
between the patriotic forces and the components of the mosaic of our people and its factions
so that it is an Iraqi solution with regional and international support and so that it is not a
forced solution as a result of force, invasion and threats.

International law obliges the occupying power to pay equitable compensation for all the
damage committed after the occupation while the country was under its patronage. We also
hope that all those involved in all the political administrations formed during the occupation,
be made accountable and tried for their planning for, and execution of the invasion of Iraq,
without any justification. Your stance with the will and aspirations of the ill-fated Iraqi
People is required and is basic for what it expresses in its message of justice and support for
all the oppressed peoples, in opposition to and a cessation of all lethal wars and all
22
 23
occupation and imperialistic projects in the world, for they will only contribute to further
violence, tension and political and economic instability which threaten the world today,
with choking crises as well threatening the heart of humanity and the achievements of the
peoples of the world.

Finally, please accept from our people and ourselves, words of the deepest gratitude, of
thanks and of praise as I also ask of The Brussels Tribunal for helping in granting me this
opportunity.

Dr. Omar Al–Kubaisy

Brussels, Belgium.

March 18th, 2009.

Appendix II Make Wars History

83 Priory Gardens, London N6 5QU
www.makewarshistory.org.uk
Tel: 020 8374 0742
Every MP
The House of Commons,
London SW1A 0AA
20th March 2009

“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.”
Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

23
 24
It is six years since Parliament, the British Government and the Queen took
Britain into the illegal war with Iraq. When will you take action to end the
violations of war law, the war crimes and the unlawful killings in Iraq and
Afghanistan?

As one of the 1500 people ultimately responsible for governing Britain and for
renewing the illegal orders to Britain’s forces to attack the Iraqi and Afghan people,
you are personally criminally liable in law for the violations of war law and war crimes
committed by Coalition forces during your term as an MP. By condoning and
financing the orders to HM Armed Forces to wage war and use weapons of mass
destruction such as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium
munitions against civilian targets you have taken part in the mass killing of 1 million
people, including 300,000 children, you have maimed and injured 2.5 million and
driven 4 million into exile and destitution. None of your victims had done anything to
harm Britain, was given an opportunity to plead for their life in court or was shown
mercy before Parliament caused their violent, cruel deaths.

I assume that you know that waging a war of aggression against an independent
nation state is the most serious crime known to mankind and that it is the same crime
for which Germany’s leaders were convicted and hanged at Nuremburg in 1946. I
am certain that you know that the wilful killing of a child is a crime of murder, and that
killing 300,000 Iraqi children is genocide and a crime against humanity; so why are
you continuing to command our armed forces to commit these horrendous crimes?
When you took your seat in Parliament you swore on oath to govern according to
law; so when will you abide by that oath and bring an end to these heinous violations
of the domestic and international laws of war?

I have enclosed with this letter a copy of Articles 25 and 27 of the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court. This is the international law, ratified by Britain in
2001, that prohibits genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct
ancillary to such crimes. I suggest that you read it very carefully because, as you will
see in Article 27, it applies to you and to every British citizen without exception.

24
 25
I must point out that the legislation does provide you with an opportunity to
avoid a criminal prosecution. Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute makes it clear
that, if a person completely and voluntarily gives up the criminal purpose,
abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of
the crime, he or she will not be liable for punishment under the Statute for the
attempt to commit the crime. This does NOT mean that you are not criminally
liable for other war crimes, but rather that you might avoid prosecution if you can
demonstrate that you made every possible effort to prevent further offences of
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from taking place.

To give yourself a chance of avoiding prosecution for war crimes you must ensure
that the killing stops immediately. At the very least you need to:-

(1) Write to the Privy Council and the Queen demanding that they reverse all
unlawful active service orders and command the immediate withdrawal of all UK
Armed Forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
(2) Sign and vote for an EDM halting payments to the MOD. [By stopping the
funds that pay for the crimes you will stop the killing within hours]
(3) Inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that paying tax which is then used
to facilitate war crimes is an offence of ‘accessory to the crimes’ [Rome Statute
Article 25.3(c)] and therefore you will withhold tax and instruct your constituents
to withhold their taxes until the crimes have ceased.
(4) Set up / attend a briefing meeting on the laws of war, the law officers’
false legal advice, the war crimes committed by British citizens and the personal
responsibilities of MPs for war law enforcement.
(5) Report war crimes committed by British citizens to your local Chief
Constable and ask him or her to initiate a criminal investigation.

For sixty years law officers have deceived Parliament, the armed forces and the
public over the laws of war and as a result Britain has waged five illegal wars since
1998 killing and injuring over three million people. The massacre of Iraqi men,
women and children, for which you share responsibility, is not only a crime of
genocide but it is the worst atrocity in British history. That so many lives have been
lost because corrupt law officers deceived the nation over the laws of war is an
appalling state of affairs that Parliament must correct before another life is lost.

You have a moral and legal duty to your constituents, the nation and the world to
obey, uphold and enforce war law. If anything in this letter is unclear, if you need
to find out more about the laws governing the use of armed force or if you need to
know more about your own criminal liabilities then please arrange for a
representative of your political party to contact us to arrange a meeting.

Chris Coverdale

25
 26
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Article 25 - Individual criminal responsibility

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.

2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and
liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.

3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a
crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person,
regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;

(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;

(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in
its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;

(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a
group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:

(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group,
where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of
the Court; or

(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;

(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;

(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a
substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's
intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the
completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit
that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

4. No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of
States under international law.

Article 27 - Irrelevance of official capacity

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In
particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an
elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility
under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether
under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

26
 27
Appendix III

THE LAWS OF WAR

“War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand
Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world an
illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of
them must be termed violators of this general treaty law.... We denounce them as law
breakers."
Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State 1932

For eighty years law officers have deceived parliaments and the public over the laws of war.
Despite signing binding agreements never to wage a war of aggression12, attack another
country13, kill or harm individuals14, destroy national, ethnic, racial or religious groups15 and
promising to settle disputes peacefully, respect human rights, uphold and enforce the rule of
law and act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation16, political
leaders and Governments regularly violate these treaties killing and injuring thousands of
innocent men, women and children. The time has come for the people to compel our political
leaders to obey, uphold and enforce the laws of war.

All war is illegal.

War was outlawed in 1928 by the International Treaty for the Renunciation of War [the
Kellogg-Briand Pact]. Sixty three nations including Britain, America, France, Germany and
Japan ratified the Pact condemning recourse to war and agreeing to settle disputes
peacefully. This treaty is still in force.

ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their
respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international
controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations
with one another.

ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all
disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may
arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact formed the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. The
attack on Iraq renders the Coalition’s leaders liable for the same crime of waging aggressive
war for which Germany’s leaders were convicted and hanged in 1946. The Nuremburg
judgement concluded:

“After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national
policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war
as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war

12
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [Kellogg-Briand Pact]
13
The United Nations Charter 1945
14
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
15
The Proxmire Act 1988 [US], The Rome Statute 1998, The International Criminal Court Act 2001
16
The United Nations Charter 1945
27
 28
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.”

“The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive
wars are charges of the utmost gravity. 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.”

The Nuremburg Principles – The Universal Laws of War

These seven international war laws, derived from the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes
Tribunals, were adopted as universal statute war law by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1950.

I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a
crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from
responsibility.

III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under
international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not
relieve him from responsibility.

IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior
does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral
choice was in fact possible to him.

V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial
on the facts and law.

VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other
purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of
prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or
private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation
not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation
and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on
political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such
persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime
against peace or any war crime.

28
 29
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.

Armed attacks on another State are always illegal

When a nation state [including the USA and UK] signs and ratifies the UN Charter it makes a
binding agreement never to threaten or attack another member State and to settle all
disputes peacefully.

2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

2.4 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.

The UN Security Council cannot authorise the use of armed force.

The UN Security Council is a peacekeeping body and it may never use armed force. The
claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was authorised by UN Security Council
resolutions was a lie.

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 its
members to apply such measures…

The only legitimate use of armed force is self defence.

All pre-emptive attacks were outlawed 150 years ago as a result of Britain’s underhand pre-
emptive attack on an American vessel “The Caroline” at Niagara. The only time when the
use of armed force is legal is self-defence. If a nation is attacked it may legitimately use
armed force to defend itself, but it may do so only until the UN Security Council implements
measures to resolve the conflict17.

Willful killing is always a crime

In times of war or peace it is never lawful, legal or right to kill another human being. The
wilful killing of enemy combatants is always a crime and is never lawful. The UK Human
Rights Act specifies:

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life
intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a
crime for which this penalty is provided in law.”

It is never legal and always a crime for a serviceman to wilfully kill an enemy. Whenever a
person dies as a result of an act of aggression all those responsible for giving, transmitting or
executing the orders that brought about the death commit a crime and become criminally
liable in law.

17
UN Charter Chapter VII Article 51
29
 30

Killing a person because of their nationality is genocide.

Pursuing a policy of killing people because of their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity is a
crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention18, the Rome Statute and the International
Criminal Court Act.

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm
to members of the group; (c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…

The widely held assumption that it is lawful to kill an enemy during times of war is incorrect.
It is always a crime to kill or cause the death of a person even if they are described as ‘the
enemy’. In law every resident of every State which took part in the invasion and occupation
of Iraq and who aided or abetted the killing of Iraqi citizens is criminally liable for the crimes
of genocide, conduct ancillary to genocide, accessory to genocide or conspiracy to commit
genocide.

This Statute [Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court] shall apply equally to
all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official
capacity as Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or Parliament,
an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person
from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it in and of itself, constitute a
ground for reduction of sentence.

Aiding or abetting warfare or the use of armed force is a crime

Whenever a government embarks on an illegal war taxpayers become criminally liable for
complicity in the crimes of their government and subject to the sanctions of domestic and
international law. Actions such as paying tax, voting, speaking or writing in favor of war are
criminal offences. Individual citizens may argue that they did not intend to commit a crime,
but as the meaning of intent is defined in the legislation they will find it hard to argue that they
were not aware that anyone might be killed.

“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 offender19.”

Every citizen has a legal duty to disobey illegal orders

“If a person who is bound to obey a duly constituted superior receives from the
superior an order to do some act or make some omission which is manifestly illegal,
he is under a legal duty to refuse to carry out the order and if he does carry it out he
will be criminally responsible for what he does in doing so.”
18
In the USA The Genocide Convention Implementation Act 1988 [known as The Proxmire Act] applies
19
The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861
30
 31

Article 24 Chapter VI of the Manual of Military Law applies to every British citizen and
taxpayer as well as to servicemen and women. This means that if a government embarks
on an illegal war everyone is duty bound to refuse all government orders associated with the
war. Soldiers must refuse active service orders, armament suppliers must refuse to supply
weapons and taxpayers must withhold taxes. Anyone who co-operates with a government
that wages a war of aggression is complicit in a crime against peace and is criminally liable
as an accessory to war crimes. As the judges at Nuremburg explained when convicting
Germany’s leaders for breaches of the laws of war:

“The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international duties
which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.
He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of
the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its
competence under international law…”

Leaders are responsible for the war crimes of their subordinates.

The International Criminal Court Act makes it clear that no matter who launches the rockets,
fires the cruise missiles, drops cluster bombs or deploys depleted uranium shells,
responsibility for the resulting deaths, injuries and destruction lies with the political, civil or
military leaders who ordered the attack.

65. A military commander, or a person effectively acting as a military commander, is

responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control
or his effective authority and control… A person responsible under this section for an
offence is regarded as aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the
offence.

Breaching war law renders citizens liable to prosecution as war criminals.

Everyone has a responsibility to humankind to abide by the laws of war and the rules agreed
in the UN Charter. These duties include, refusing to obey manifestly unlawful orders,
arresting and prosecuting anyone planning or participating in a war of aggression and
withholding taxes from Governments that violate war law. War is always illegal and if any
citizen breaks any of these laws they commit a war crime and become individually criminally
responsible and liable for punishment throughout the world.

Chris Coverdale The Campaign to Make Wars History Feb 2009

31
 32

“As a citizen I regard it not only as a right but

as a moral duty to help shape the destiny of
my country, to uncover and oppose manifest
evils. What I aimed to do was to rouse my
students to an ethical understanding of the
grave evils of our present political life; a
return to definite ethical principles, to the rule
of law, to mutual trust between man and
man. This is not illegal rather it is the re-
establishment of legality.”

Professor Huber, Munich University 1943

Shortly before he was condemned to death with five of his students

for spreading sedition

From Humanising Hell by George Delf

32