Prosecuting Tony Blair and others

Introduction

“Abdication of responsibility, and equivocation in the face of evil, led Europe down a desperate path in the late 1930s. From the ashes was born the United Nations, and a new international order. But this international order requires law, and law requires enforcement. That is the issue before us today.“

Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP.Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (The 2nd Accused) Concluding his reply on behalf of the Government to the Special debate on Iraq & Weapons of Mass Destruction. Tues. 24 September 2002

Dear Reader

Welcome to this my modest section of this most excellent web site! My name is Robbie Manson and I live in Newport in Pembrokeshire on the far west coast of Wales. I feel certain that many who know of my past endeavours in the broad field of 'campaigning for peace by upholding law’ would describe me as a somewhat “off-the-wall” sort of character. Others of a more ‘purist’ prostestant bent have oft accused me of 'supping from a poisoned chalice', when I try to persuade other peace protesters of the ‘political’ merit in campaigning around the issue of ‘legality’. However, though I have certainly campaigned, and even crusaded, for the cause of peace through the adoption and clarification of, and the better understanding, respect and observance for the rule of law, most particularly the international humanitarian laws of armed conflict; I have never sought even to suggest that “law” is a source of human morality or ethical virtue in human behaviour, which would be an absurd proposition.

Rather, it is my contention that law can be the visible product of a common human morality. Law as a reflection of, or a ‘sounding brass’ for, a common human morality for peace, born of the misery of the experience of war and recorded for future generations in the annals of the laws of nations. Law as a means for the governance of the civilised methods and means for the restoration and maintenance international peace and security on this planet, as being a common cause amongst “human beings” (in the Shoshone Indian sense of the term); as opposed to those other lesser mortals for whom their peace can only be “guaranteed” by their absolute right to resort to the use of hostile armed force as, if and when they deem it necessary or prudent to do so, in the exercise of their ‘privileged’ assessment of the public interest in national security. Those in “Gulliver’s Travels” whom Swift called the “Yahoos”, or if you’re in the first US Marine Expeditionary Force, that’s probably “Hooyahs” !

In this field I have been most concerned in the past with the issue of the illegality of the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons, as being weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, and in supporting and advising those who have campaigned and protested in this country particularly against this nation’s obscene and unlawful reliance on the so-called nuclear deterrence defence policy. In the course of that endeavour I came to have a better understanding and appreciation myself for some of the most important historical documents and historical lessons which have shaped the international humanitarian laws of armed conflict. It is after all a most salutory adage which tells us that those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to relive them in their future, save that the technology of modern warfare may yet rob us of any future worthy of the name.

Most especially, in the field of international treaty law (what is called conventional law), I read about the treaty with the most signatories of all international treaties in the history of international law, the Charter of the United Nations (1945), and of the ambitions and hopes of those who established it and who wrote that noble Charter. Whilst in the field of customary international law, I read about the International Military Tribunal established in Nuremberg in the same year for the Trial of the Major German War Criminals, and especially what was said by the distinguished representatives, in particular of this country, and of the United States, about what was and what was not acceptable international behaviour between States.

So when it came to pass that that most righteous reborn Christian crusader “Bush of Texas”, elected by a clear majority of 5 to 4 Justices of the Supreme Court, came of late to threaten an act of unsurpassed and naked international aggression, whereby he would bring down the wrath of the ‘neo zealots’ upon the land of Babylon, and smite the pagan host with a blast both shocking and awful, I though aghhh(!) .. at least the Rt. Rev. Tory Blurr will remind his political ally that their freedom of action in this regard is most proscribed and limited by the laws of the civilised World, born of our common transatlantic experiences of war, as devised and settled by the US & the UK more than any other nations. But no. As we now know it came to pass that when the Rev. Blurr could not command the required majority of members of the UN Security Council, under the duly constituted and democratic international political procedure for lawful international intervention, he revealed himself instead as ‘Tory’ the Brigand of Basrah, leader of a less appealing band of latter day ‘Ali Babas’ aided and abetted by his two principle henchmen, the ‘Man of Staw’ and the ‘Pommie’ Hoon.

Well I said to myself at least there’ll be a clamorous host of distinguished lawyers and jurists in this most ‘learned’ of countries who’ll besiege the televisions studios, protest in Parliament, and most especially petition the judiciary to act in exercise of a preventative jurisdiction to halt this most monumental and monstrous threat of a breach of the peace both of this Realm and of the World in which it was erstwhile “set as it were as a jewel in a crown”. But no, it wasn’t to be. One gentlemanly letter signed by a dozens or so emeritus professors to the Times, and the professional clamour for justice in the name of humanity was at an end.

Well I rail against such pusillanimous and ineffectual measures of traditional “English” protest, and if instead it falls to me, and God willing that there are others like me, to describe exactly why this latest act of the utmost heinous, barbaric and offensive character, against the peace of the world, is a crime; in what precise domestic, international and constitutional legal terms, the description of the offence is cast, then so be it. I shall not once relent to do my very best to put the case for the “peace-makers”, blessed of our Lord Jesus Christ if not our Lords Justices’ of Appeal, before a jury of the common people and ask them for their verdict, I shall not desist from the attempt merely because of the ineptitude & craven cowardice of the so-called legal profession in this country.

There is a most renowned maxim which fell from the pen of that most splendide of French philosophers, Voltaire, “.. for evil to thrive requires only that ‘good’ men do nought to prevent it ”. Well I do not put myself forward as a ‘good man’, and the lessons of the history of Nuremberg and of San Francisco in the year 1945 are every bit as much your history as mine. Nevertheless I set out herein my best efforts to so apply those historical lessons to today’s evil deeds, not in order to impress or confound with legal argument, but rather to encourage and stimulate others to similarly enquire and also question and perhaps say with me that this was not merely an immoral, an unnecessary and an unconscionable thing ; but more over it was and remains an unlawful act, a breach of the ordinary criminal law of the land, and an insult to the law of nations “without which we must cease to be a part of the civilised world”. An offence against the continued peace of the Realm and of the World together, in which we must be made to learn to live in peace with our neighbours.

Of late, I’ve begun to hear some mention in the media of certain aspects of that international humanitarian law both settled at and later stimulated by the Judgement and Statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal, but of course, only that which most favours the interests of, and offers comfort to, the executors of the State’s will. They mention on the one hand, “war crimes” most especially as respects the treatment of their prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, but perhaps also the responsibility and obligations of occupying powers. Then also mention is made of “crimes against humanity”, most especially alleged acts of “genocide” under the UN Convention on Genocide, but only as perpetrated by those vanquished rulers whom they seek to arrest, or per chance also as a pretext for this and for further future acts of international aggression.

But what of the first of the “Nuremberg Crimes”. What of that crime about which the Judgement says “the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Where are the articles in our newspapers and the documentaries on our televisions about this first of the Nuremberg Crimes and its application to the present situation .... the commission of a “Crime Against Peace” ? ...

Oh ! You’ve not heard of it before ? I wonder why that is ? ‘The planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression or against international treaties, or the participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the same’. Well read on for there’s much to learn.

If the claim to live at peace with the World and in a country where a civil society is safeguarded by a democratic government subject to and under the rule of law, be more than a mere pretence of the modern doctors of spin, then let the accused persons be put to their trial. If the act be a crime, which I assert it is, then let the disturbance to the public conscience be settled by the administration of justice, according to the law, and by due process.

“Let justice be done...though the heavens fall let justice be done”

Robert L. MANSON Peace Campaigner April XXIII Newport, Pembrokeshire

A speech by Sir Thomas Moore, written by playwright Robert Bolt, in "A Man for All Seasons". Moore turns to his former confidant Will Roper who has become a vigilante in the name of "justice" and asks:

" And when the last law was cut down and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would then blow ? "

Site created for locals, by locals at newcastle-emlyn.com and hosted locally by SCL Net