(UK) Campaigners ask courts to rule Iraq war a 'crime of aggression'

[sabra]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/20/nirq20.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/20/ixhome.html

Campaigners ask courts to rule Iraq war a 'crime of aggression'
Britain's most senior judges will be asked today for a ruling that could lead to the war in Iraq being declared an illegal "crime of aggression".

Until now, the courts have taken the view that they cannot rule on the Crown's prerogative powers to wage war. But today the law lords will start hearing appeals by peace protesters who claim they were entitled to commit "criminal" acts in an attempt to prevent what they saw as the greater crime of launching an illegal war.

Nobody has been punished for aggression in international law since the Nuremberg Tribunal executed former Nazi officers in 1946. The new International Criminal Court does not yet have jurisdiction over the crime, partly because of difficulties in agreeing a definition of it.

But the Government has been told by its senior legal adviser that ministers could face such charges under English law.

[Peace Patriot]

1. The question seems to be whether or not international laws against

aggression--such as the US/UK's invasion of Iraq and slaughter of tens of thousands of people, and torture of many more--have any meaning.

CAN the law be enforced--locally or internationally? It is a question with the gravest consequences for world peace. Big countries can always punish little countries for THEIR aggression; and victors can punish the vanquished (as in Nuremburg). But can big countries who are wrong, and who have broken international law, be held accountable, in this case as the defense for peace protesters who tried to stop them?

The issues are very similar to those in the trial of the Catonsville 9--a trial of nine Catholics, including Frs. Daniel and Phillip Berrigan, who burned Draft records with homemade napalm during the Vietnam War--and the Chicago 7--a trial of seven Vietnam war protesters accused of rioting at the Chicago Democratic Convention, which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War (a war in which upwards of two million people were slaughtered). Daniel Berrigan wrote, of the Catonsville incident: "Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children. . . ."

Catonsville 9: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catonsville_Nine

Chicago 7: http://www.answers.com/topic/chicago-eight

It is the defense of necessity. Is the destruction of property (Catonsville 9) or the organization of a war protest that turned into a police riot (Chicago 9) justified in trying to stop an illegal war? And, if national and international institutions fail to prevent an illegal war, are the citizens of the guilty country justified in breaking lesser laws trying to stop it?

The Catonsville 9 were found guilty and suffered punishment (jail time). In that case, the slaughter of two million people was found not to be a justification for burning Draft records--an appalling decision that stands as a major disgrace to American society and jurisprudence, the jailing of priests and nuns for their conscience-based, peaceful efforts to stop that dreadful war.

Of the Chicago 7, five were convicted of inciting to riot, but the convictions were overturned on appeal (7th Circuit), but not on the main issue, rather on the grounds of the judge's unfair actions.

Re: the current cases in England, Blair was advised in 2003 that, "Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts."

"Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair to expect opponents of military action to bring a case against the Government or military personnel. 'We cannot be certain that they would not succeed,' the Attorney General said."

The three cases involve five peace campaigners who face criminal damage charges relating to RAF Fairford, Glos, 14 Greenpeace activists convicted of aggravated trespass after they occupied tanks at Marchwood military base in Southampton, and a third case involving aggravated trespass at RAF Fairford.

"All of them claim that they are entitled to a defence under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act, which says 'a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime'."

And here is an important distinction that is being made: "The law lords are not being asked to rule whether the decision to take military action against Iraq amounted to aggression. Instead, the five campaigners due to stand trial in Bristol want them to rule that they can raise the argument in their defence."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/20/nirq20.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/20/ixhome.html

Let's hope that England turns out to be the more civilized of the two countries, upholds the higher law, and finds the war protesters not guilty of minor disorders due to the necessity of stopping their country from engaging in mass murder and mayhem.