Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for the ‘War’ Category

Tony Blair – War Criminal

without comments

The Rt.Hon., Chris Grayling,

The Secretary of State for Justice

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France



Dear Sir,

Re: Obligations of the UK High Contracting Party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions IV Article 146

I assume that, since you have not replied to my letters, dated 18 March and 29th April 2013, asking for your implementation of The 1949 Geneva Conventions IV Article 146, I have finally found the identity of The Representative of The UK High Contracting Party to those Conventions.

All Departments in Whitehall, that could have been the Representative, have, like servants in Kafka’s Castle, sent immediate replies to my requests, saying that it is not their Department and that I should try another.

The Attorney General directed me to the Home Secretary; The Home Secretary directed me to the Crown Prosecution Service; The Crown Prosecution Service directed me to yourself. Replies surely composed by gate keepers anxious to absolve their superiors of difficulties – because difficulties there are a plenty.

My tutor, Sir Harry Hinsley, met Hitler in Munich in 1937, I followed his footsteps, but to Munich and Nuremberg. As a historian you will know that adjacent to Courtroom 600 at Nuremberg is a museum of the 1945 – 6 trials and a collection of the 40 Blue Books which recorded all the proceedings.

The museum pays tribute to the 2,000 idealistic American, Russian, and British men and women who spent two years recording these trials and composing the 1946 Nuremberg Protocols, which formed the basis of 1949 Geneva Conventions IV. Their idealistic aim was to make it impossible for such a war of aggression again.

Vladimir Putin, writing in the New York Times (13 September 2013) referred to the importance of The Geneva Conventions, that Nations must support the United Nations, not letting disintegrate as did the League of Nations. He continued: “ the preservation of law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos.” Fortunately, in the case of Syria, his words, so far, hold the day, and further violence by the USA, UK and France in the Middle East is delayed.

I have pointed out to you the strong evidence that Anthony Blair and our ally, the USA, have, in the conduct of the Iraq war, committed gravest breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The use of depleted uranium (DU), white phosphorous, mercury, napalm equivalents and other toxins against a civilian population penned up in Fallujah in November 2004, were a significant war crime.

Long term damage to the natural environment and disastrous effects on the genetic material of the Iraqi population, have been linked to a massive increase in horrendous birth defects, and grotesque cancers on childrens’ faces and bodies, which you will surely have observed on CNN, Sky News and on You Tube.

The agonised look of a Fallujah mother staring at her otherwise beautiful child, marred by a grotesque growth on her face – and the hatred and despair on that mother’s face, is of hauntings..

Yet Whitehall continues to deny that DU is harmful, stating that its use is perfectly legitimate under international law. The then Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon said of the use of “Storm Shadow” missiles in the initial “Shock and Awe” attack, and use of cluster bombs over Hilla, “I will not compromise the safety of our armed forces by restraint.” (As you will know, pure military expediency was not accepted as a defense in the trial of Hermann Goering).

The perpetrators of these actions, Tony Blair and others, require – under the 1949 Geneva Conventions IV, article 146 – investigation by the High Contracting Party to examine grounds for prosecution and penal sanctions against the perpetrators of these breaches.

Your Ministry of Justice is required to act, lest it become an Orwellian Ministry of Injustice by inaction. Inaction in itself is breach of The Geneva Conventions. As, by default, allowing the continuation of effects of toxins and radiation on the genetic material of future generations to continue. The radioactive ‘half life” of depleted uranium, is 4.6 Billionyears.

Another effect referred to by Vladimir Putin, is that inaction under international law encourages continuous wars, death and chaos.

The judgement of future generations, may find inaction itself a war crime. Indeed, Article 146 asks for suppression of those breaches of the Convention IV.

If international law is disregarded, the Ministry of Defence will continue to claim that DU is benign. Such weapons will continue in use in “humanitarian” wars as Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere. Wider UK sales of this weaponry will continue, citing depleted uranium’s unique penetrating power and incineration properties.

However DU dust respects neither boundaries, or time. In the future, your grand children, may, like Kenny Duncan or Jenny Moore, join the army develop genetic damage as a result, or, say, work in Iran, and drinking coffee in Tehran, on one shallow breath, absorb an alpha particle carried on the wind, resulting in an agonising cancer or leukaemia. Neither is inaction an option in the face of lethal, unending damage for future generations where ever these weapons are used, for the population and our own and coalition forces.

In further support of Vladimir Putin’s call to respect the Geneva Conventions I refer to my letter of 1st March 2013, Indictment No.1, on the conspiracy by Blair and others to go to war by: “wrong footing Saddam on the Inspectors”.

At Nuremberg, in 1945-46, conspiracy to go to war was regarded as: “ the supreme international crime.” In my letter to you I pointed out that Tony Blair, was fully aware, in March 2003, that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet in Parliament at the crucial debate of 18 March 2003 he pretended that there were. I quote from my letter of 1st March 2013 to you :

Unfortunately Hans Blix’s report on the absence of weapons conflicted with the conspiracy between Downing Street and the USA to wrong foot Saddam in order to justify waging a war in March 2003. Sir David Manning reported in a secret memo, that on 31 January 2003 Tony Blair met George W. Bush in the US and they discussed the fact that probably no weapons would be found.

Bush was reported by Manning at this meeting to suggest three alternatives. One was to “fly U2 Reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them he would be in breach.”

Instead Hans Blix was recalled and instructed to abandon his inspection on 28 Feb 2003. War was declared 2 weeks later. Blair, however said, on 18th March 2003, that the idea that Saddam Hussein had indeed destroyed these weapons was” palpably absurd. ” I suggest that Blair was lying and knew he was lying .

If there is a failure by the UK High Contracting Party to investigate this then it will be failing its obligations under the Geneva Conventions and future generations will know that the UK finally abandoned the Geneva Conventions with all the sorry consequences that President Putin pointed out.

If Sir John Chilcot’s legal Advisor, Ms Sara Goom’s letter of 8th March 2011 is taken seriously ( copy enclosed ) Sir John has relied upon me to report to “the appropriate authority “ evidence of criminal offences that have emerged from his Inquiry. If the report of Sir John’s concern regarding the possibility that there was a conspiracy to go to war between Blair and Bush, as reported in The Times of July 20th 2013, is correct, then Sir John may be concerned at my failure to alert you to an implementation of Article 146. I am therefore sending Sir John Chilcot a copy of this letter.

Finally you will surely have read Blair’s biography “A Journey”, which states on page 571:

”I had a vision for Britain. All the way I had believed I could and would persuade the country it was the right choice, the modern way, bigger than Iraq, bigger than the American Alliance, bigger than any one thing; a complete vision of where we should be in the early twenty first century; about how we finally overcome the greatness of our history to discover the full potential of our future.”

I suggest to you, as Secretary of State for Justice, that such a vision should be restrained before it is emulated and allowed free rein.

I shall be grateful if you will confirm that you are indeed the Representative of the High Contracting Party to The 1949 Geneva Conventions IV.

Yours faithfully,

Nicholas Wood,

Secretary Blair War Crimes Foundation;

Secretary to 19 November 2009 Submission to Chilcot Inquiry.

Copy to:

Sir John Chilcot,

Ms Glenda Jackson MP

Elfin Llwyd, MP

The most reverend Desmond Tutu

Dr. Yakovenko , the Russian Ambassador to the U.K.

His Excellency Mohammad Khazaee, the Iranian Ambassador to the U.N.

His Excellency Bernard Emié, the French Ambassador to the U.K.

Written by anubis

January 16th, 2014 at 5:33 am

Posted in Government,Politics,War

George Carlin on You Tube

without comments

A depressing post…

George Carlin on You Tube

Written by anubis

September 21st, 2011 at 9:00 am

War is hell

without comments

from Simon  Black…
Have you ever seen the devastation from a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile? It’s beyond description. Standing in the impact area, it’s as if nothing has ever existed there before.

It’s naive to think that something with so much destructive power is unlikely to cause ‘collateral damage.’ I can only imagine the consequences of 159 and counting, the amount of force that has been unleashed in Libya as yet by western governments.

This morning, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates shrugged off any implication that military strikes are responsible for significant civilian casualties in Libya… while at the same time playing down America’s role and the timeline for continued action.

This is insane. You are either at war, or you are not. Warfare requires clearly defined objectives, competent generals, and well-resourced fighting forces… it cannot be waged with half-measures and stammering equivocation.

Yet, here we are again, watching bureaucrats tap dance in front of voters, playing down the long-term ramifications of engagement and outright rejecting the idea of regime change as an intended objective.

They feel 100% justified in their decision to wage a half war without getting their hands dirty, rejecting any consequences to civilians, all under the auspices of protecting civilians… but only Libyan civilians.

Much praise has been heaped on Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the UN Security Council for their ‘political courage,’ taking action in the face of popular backlash to defend Libyans.

“Political courage” is an oxymoron. Everything these people do is for their professional gain, to be reelected, and the fallout of these decisions costs lives and economic misfortune. The cost of the munitions alone so far is over a quarter billion dollars, let alone the human cost.

Barack Obama himself said in 2002, “What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks… to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income?–?to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

Sounds great. Spoken like a true Nobel Laureate.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy involved is phenomenal.  The UN Security Council resolution (#1973) which ‘authorized’ this invasion, expresses condemnation for Qadaffi’s deleterious actions against his own people…

… nevermind that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain (which produces only 10% of Libya’s oil) where the US Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered with front row seats to the show;

… nevermind that governments have hardly uttered a word about the situation in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia;

… nevermind that the western world has proven itself incompetent at regime change after the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan;

… nevermind that 10-years of warfare have worn out the spirit and morale of fighting forces to the point that they are twisted into taking trophy photos of dead civilians like a 16-point buck;

… nevermind that you can’t just step in, bomb some targets, step out, and expect a peaceful, stable, democratic, pro-Western society to materialize out of thin air;

… nevermind that the coalition forces lack the moral authority to cherry pick which countries to invade and which civilian populations to ignore.

When they lack moral authority, they simply create it out of thin air. Politicians and bureaucrats equate morality with legality. If something is legal, it must be just… and if it’s not legal, they’ll pass a law or resolution making it legal… and hence just.

This is the way they operate– using regulatory technicalities to wrap themselves in a blanket of righteousness in order to execute their agenda. As Tacitus said, “the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

Written by anubis

March 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 am

Posted in War