Tuesday, 1 March 2016

The Bottom Line; International Laws & Domestic Laws Must Be Enforced & All Human Life Protected

The bottom line is that international laws and domestic laws must be enforced and those guilty of war crimes, whatever their position or power, must be charged and brought to justice under the charges of; crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, human rights abuses, rendition and complicity in torture, genocide, war crimes and murder.

The law is absolutely clear.

 

Weapons of mass deception
How UK Governments deceive HM Forces over the legality of war.

“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 British Government’s legal justification for the war with Libya was the same as that for Iraq and Afghanistan – that military action is lawful and authorised by Resolutions of the UN Security Council operating under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.  This is wrong.  The threat or use of force is always illegal and is prohibited in international and domestic law.   

By comparing Government claims of legality against the requirements and prohibitions of the laws of war it is clear that the wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all illegal and that the Attorney General’s legal advice on the legality of war is false and deceptive.

In March 2011 the UK Government argued that the attack on Libya by British and NATO forces was lawful:  In its legal advice to Parliament it stated:

“The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives”. [1]  

To establish whether the deployment of forces and the use of armed force in Libya Afghanistan and Iraq is lawful we must refer to the UN Charter and to UN General Assembly Resolution 2625; the Charter sets down the law, and Resolution 2625 explains how to interpret it. 

The UN Charter

The United Nations is an organization of 193 independent nation states which have promised on behalf of their people to work together to maintain international peace and security and to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.  The UN Charter lays down the binding terms of this agreement in 111 Articles. 

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.
 41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force[2] are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
42. Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625

In the 1960s the United Nations, concerned that States were misinterpreting the UN Charter, asked the International Law Commission to tighten the rules so that all States would be clear on their meaning.  In 1970 this work came to fruition when the UN General Assembly agreed and published in UNGA Resolution 2625 the Principles to be used in interpreting the Charter.

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING
FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Amongst its many important principles are the following: 

Every State has the duty to refrain in its 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.  Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently [the General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.


Chris Coverdale    Making Wars History   


[1] Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter (articles 33 – 51) govern the operations of the UN Security Council.
[2] Author’s emphasis
 




Chris Coverdale an expert on the laws of war is interviewed by Michael Mallick.


Civilian losses





14 May: NATO air strike hit a large number of people gathered for Friday prayers in the eastern city of Brega leaving 11 religious leaders dead and 50 others wounded.[180]
24 May: NATO air strikes in Tripoli kill 19 civilians and wound 150, according to Libyan state television.[181]
31 May: Libya claims that NATO strikes have left up to 718 civilians dead.[182]
19 June: NATO air strikes hit a residential house in Tripoli, killing seven civilians, according to Libyan state television.[183]
20 June: A NATO airstrike in Sorman, near Tripoli, killed fifteen civilians, according to government officials.[184] Eight rockets apparently hit the compound of a senior government official, in an area where NATO confirmed operations had taken place.[184]
25 June: NATO strikes on Brega hit a bakery and a restaurant, killing 15 civilians and wounding 20 more, Libyan state television claimed. The report further accused the coalition of "crimes against humanity". The claims were denied by NATO.[185]
28 June: NATO airstrike on the town of Tawergha, 300 km east of the Libyan capital, Tripoli kills eight civilians.[186]
25 July: NATO airstrike on a medical clinic in Zliten kills 11 civilians, though the claim was denied by NATO, who said they hit a vehicle depot and communications center.[187][188]
20 July: NATO attacks Libyan state TV, Al-Jamahiriya. Three journalists killed.[189]
9 August: Libyan government claims 85 civilians were killed in a NATO airsrike in Majer, a village near Zliten. A spokesman confirms that NATO bombed Zliten at 2:34 a.m. on 9 August,[190] but says he was unable to confirm the casualties. Commander of the NATO military mission, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard says "I cannot believe that 85 civilians were present when we struck in the wee hours of the morning, and given our intelligence. But I cannot assure you that there were none at all".[191]
15 September: Gaddafi spokesman Moussa Ibrahim declares that NATO air strikes killed 354 civilians and wounded 700 others, while 89 other civilians are supposedly missing. He also claims that over 2,000 civilians have been killed by NATO air strikes since 1 September.[192] NATO denied the claims, saying they were unfounded.[193]

-----------------------------------

Day 1 – 19 March 2011
On the afternoon of 19 March, the Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Triumph[35] fired Tomahawk cruise missiles.[36] A combined total along with US over the day was reported by the US to be over 110 missiles.[37] The Royal Navy also has a Type 22 frigate (HMS Cumberland) and a Type 23 frigate (HMS Westminster) engaged in a naval blockade.
David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, confirmed that British aircraft were in action over Libya on the 19th,[38] although it was the French Air Force who made the first coalition aerial presence over Libya earlier the same day.
Sentry, Sentinel and VC-10 aircraft were said to be carrying out operations from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.[2] The home base for the VC-10 aircraft was RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and for the Sentinel and Sentry aircraft was RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.
On the night of 19–20 March 2011, Storm Shadow missiles were launched by Tornado GR4 aircraft.[39] Tornados of No. 9 Squadron from RAF Marham had sortied on a 3,000 mi (4,800 km) mission to fire Storm Shadow missiles against targets in Libya. They required refuelling by British tanker aircraft three times on the outward journey and once on the return. 101 Sqn VC10 and 216 Sqn Tristar aircraft were involved.[40]
Day 2 – 20 March 2011
The MoD announced that Tornado and Typhoon aircraft would be deployed to the Italian Gioia del Colle Air Base.[2]
The Trafalgar-class submarine HMS Triumph launched further Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya.[2]
Tornados GR4s, flying from Marham, were on route to Libya but did not fire their missiles due to information being received that suggested civilians were in the target areas. The Tornado aircraft returned to RAF Marham fully armed.[41]
Day 3 – 21 March 2011
The Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons on 21 March at the start of the debate on the UNSC resolution that RAF Typhoons had been deployed to an Italian airbase (Gioia del Colle) and would fly in support of the NFZ.[42] Three Typhoons successfully conducted a mission and returned to Gioia del Colle.[43]
Headquarters 906 Expeditionary Air Wing formed at Gioia del Colle Air Base responsible for assets forward deployed there. Headquarters 907 Expeditionary Air Wing formed at RAF Akrotiri responsible for assets forward deployed there. C-17A Globemaster and Hercules transport aircraft were also used to assist in the build up of deployed forces.[10]
Day 4 – 22 March 2011
RAF Typhoons flew their first ever combat mission,[44] patrolling the no-fly zone while Tornado GR4s from RAF Marham flew an armed reconnaissance sortie. The MoD reported that Royal Navy ships Triumph, Westminister and Cumberland remained in theatre for additional strikes and patrol.[45]
Day 5 – 23 March 2011
Tornado GR4s were forwarded deployed to Gioia del Colle Air Base.[5] In a media interview, the UK Air Component Commander, Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, stated that the Libyan Air Force "no longer exists as a fighting force" and that "we have the Libyan ground forces under constant observation and we attack them whenever they threaten civilians or attack population centres."[46]
Day 6 – 24 March 2011
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles were again fired at targets from HMS Triumph[47] RAF Tornado aircraft on an armed reconnaissance mission launched Brimstone missiles against Libyan armoured vehicles that were reported to be threatening the civilian population of Adjdabiya. Four T-72 tanks were destroyed in the attack by Tornados, and three by another coalition aircraft. Likely target locations had previously been identified by other Tornado aircraft equipped with RAPTOR pods.[28]
Day 7 – 25 March 2011
RAF Tornado aircraft launched more Brimstone missile strikes, destroying three armoured vehicles in Misrata and two further armoured vehicles in Ajdabiya.[48]
Day 9 – 27 March 2011
Over the weekend, Tornados from Gioia del Colle launched numerous armed reconnaissance missions, during the course of which ordnance released hit a total of 22 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery pieces in the vicinity of Ajdabiya and Misrata.[49]
Day 10 – 28 March 2011
Tornados from RAF Marham, supported by Tristar tankers from RAF Brize Norton, launched Storm Shadow strikes against ammunition bunkers in the Sabha area in the southern Libyan desert. The bunkers were reportedly used to resupply Libyan Government troops attacking civilians in the north of the country.[49]
The Type 42 Destroyer Liverpool was ordered to the Mediterranean to relieve Type 22 frigate Cumberland.[50]
Day 11 – 29 March 2011
The London Conference on Libya was chaired by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague.
Two Tornados flying from Gioia del Colle engaged near Misrata a Libyan armoured fighting vehicle and two artillery pieces with Brimstone missiles.[51]
Day 12 – 30 March 2011
Tornados flying from Gioia del Colle engaged near Misrata three Libyan tanks, two armoured fighting vehicles and a surface-to-air missile site with Brimstone missiles and Paveway IV bombs.[52] HMS Liverpool was deployed to relieve HMS Cumberland.[26]
Day 13 – 31 March 2011
From 06:00 GMT, NATO took sole command of air operations over Libya under Operation Unified Protector, taking over from U.S. Africa Command.[53][54][55]
Day 15 – 2 April 2011
HMS Triumph returned to base HMNB Devonport flying the Jolly Roger marked for six successful Tomahawk launches.[56]
RAF Tornado aircraft launched Paveway IV bombs against pro-Gaddafi forces. Two main battle tanks in Sirte and several small ground-attack aircraft on an airfield near Misrata were reportedly hit.[57]
Day 16 – 3 April 2011
RAF Tornados reportedly launched successful attacks with Paveway IV and Brimstone missiles on ten armoured fighting vehicles south of Sirte.[57]
Day 17 – 4 April 2011
The number of Tornado aircraft taking part in Operation Ellamy was increased from eight to twelve on 4 April, with the aircraft deployed from RAF Marham.[58] RAF Tornados, engaged in two separate strikes in the Libyan city of Sirte, launched three Brimstone missiles which destroyed one main battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers.[57]
Day 22 – 9 April 2011
Seven tanks were destroyed by Tornado aircraft, two in Ajdabiya and five in Misrata, using Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles.[59]
Day 23 – 10 April 2011
The MoD reported that over the weekend of 22–23 April, of 61 armoured vehicles and air defence assets destroyed by NATO, 21 were destroyed by RAF aircraft.[6]
Day 25 – 12 April 2011
HMS Turbulent was declared available in theatre by the MoD for Tomahawk strikes should they be required.[6]
RAF Typhoon aircraft were used operationally in a ground attack role for the first time. A Typhoon destroyed 2 main battle tanks near Misrata with Paveway II whilst a Tornado destroyed the third with Paveway IV. In total, RAF aircraft destroyed eight main battle tanks on 12 April. Since the start of Operation ELLAMY up until 12 April, RAF aircraft had engaged over 100 main battle tanks, artillery pieces, armoured vehicles and SAMs.[6]
Day 31–18 April 2011
RAF Tornados and Typhoons attacked a pair of multiple rocket launcher vehicles and a light artillery piece reportedly firing on Misrata, as well as a self-propelled gun and tank.[60]
HMS Triumph was reported by the MoD to have launched two salvoes of Tomahawk missiles against command and control facilities alongside precision strikes by RAF Tornados, Typhoons and coalition aircraft.[60] The MoD's previous report that HMS Triumph had returned to Devonport suggests the submarine involved was probably HMS Turbulent.[6][dubious ]
HMS Liverpool intercepted the vessel MV Setubal Express heading for Tripoli, conducting a boarding party search with Royal Marines and finding trucks of potential use to the Gaddafi regime. The merchant vessel was ordered to divert to Salerno in Italy.[61]
Day 32 – 19 April 2011
The Foreign Secretary announced that a British Military Liaison Advisory Team was to be sent to Benghazi to advise the NTC on how to improve their military organisational structures, communications and logistics.[62]
Day 43 – 30 April 2011
HMS Brocklesby destroyed a buoyant mine containing over 100 kg of high explosive. Using her sonar and underwater mine disposal system, Seafox, the mine was destroyed one mile from the entrance to Misrata harbour, making the waters safe for aid ships to enter[63][64]
Day 49 – 6 May 2011
Tornados attacked a site south of Sirte based on analysis of intelligence by RAF Tactical Imagery Wing. 20 FROG-7 launchers and a significant number of Scud canisters were reported as either completely or partially destroyed. RAF aircraft also destroyed one tank and two armoured vehicles in the area of Misrata and one mobile rocket launcher south of Tripoli.[65]
Day 55 – 12 May 2011
An RAF Typhoon was reported to have destroyed two Palmaria 155mm howitzers near Sirte.[66]
While engaged in surveillance operations off the coast of the rebel-held Libyan city of Misrata, HMS Liverpool came under fire from a shore battery, making her the first Royal Navy warship to be deliberately targeted since the Falklands War.[67] Liverpool had been tasked with other NATO warships, to intercept small, high-speed inflatable craft spotted approaching the port of Misrata, the type which had been used previously to lay mines in the Port of Misrata. Libyan rocket artillery on the coast fired an inaccurate salvo of rockets at Liverpool. Liverpool returned fire with her 4.5 inch main gun, silencing the shore battery, in the Royal Navy's first use of the weapon since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[68][68][69]
Day 59 – 16 May 2011
Royal Navy Tomahawk missiles reportedly fired from HMS Triumph, and Paveway IV bombs released by RAF Tornado aircraft were reported to have struck intelligence agency buildings and a training base used by Colonel Gaddafi's Executive Protection Force. RN and RAF attacks were reported to have damaged or destroyed over 300 targets since the start of Operation Ellamy.[66]
Day 62 – 19 May 2011
Tornado GR4s attacked two corvettes in Al Khums naval base and destroyed a facility in the dockyard constructing fast inflatable boats which Libyan forces had reportedly used to mine Misrata and attack vessels in the area.[70]
Day 63 – 20 May 2011
RAF aircraft destroyed five multiple rockets launchers around Tripoli.[71]
Day 67 – 24 May 2011
RAF aircraft attacked four armoured vehicles deployed near the Libyan city of Zlitan. A Tornado attacked a Libyan coastal radar station near Brega, which was destroyed with a dual-mode seeker Brimstone missile.[71]
Day 68 – 25 May 2011
A vehicle depot at Tiji was attacked by a Typhoon FGR4 and a Tornado GR4 dropping four Enhanced Paveway II and five Paveway IV weapons between them.[71]
Day 70 – 27 May 2011
HMS Ocean (detached from the Response Force Task Group COUGAR 11 deployment) deployed with a complement of 4 Apache helicopters to aid operations.[72][73]
Day 77 – 3 June 2011
The Response Force Task Group withdrew from COUGAR 11 and was deployed (an RFTG ship, HMS Ocean, and her embarked Apache attack helicopters had been deployed days earlier) to supplement UK forces in Operation Ellamy.[74]
Day 102 - 28 June 2011
HMS Liverpool used her main gun to fire warning shots at pro-Gaddafi maritime forces moving along Libya's Mediterranean coast just west of the city of Misrata, amid concerns a threat was posed to civilians due to recent repeated attempts to mine the harbour. After initially ignoring the first shell, a further three were fired and the vessels were forced to return to their port of departure.[75][76]
Day 107 - 3 August 2011
Several rockets were fired at HMS Liverpool. She returned fire with her 4.5 inch main gun. The attack came after the ship had fired a barrage of illumination rounds in support of an air attack on the stronghold of Zliten.[77]
Day 145 – 10 August 2011
RAF Tornados launched direct from RAF Marham in Norfolk to target command and control and air defence targets with Stormshadow cruise missiles.[78]
Day 151 – 16 August 2011
Since the start of military operations on 19 March, Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, and Army Air Corps precision strikes were reported to have damaged or destroyed some 870 former regime targets.[79]
HMS Liverpool was involved in the most intense shore-bombardment of the war. Liverpool had been tasked by a patrol aircraft to fire illumination rounds over the city of Zlitan. While conducting this mission, Liverpool came under fire from a Loyalist shore-battery. Liverpool responded by firing three rounds from her 4.5 inch gun, silencing the battery. Later on the same day, a patrol aircraft spotted a large pro-Gaddafi vehicle convoy carrying weapons and ammunition. Liverpool fired 54 shells from her 4.5 inch gun at the convoy, destroying or severely damaging many of the vehicles. During the ensuing chaos on the ground, NATO aircraft destroyed the remainder of the convoy.[80]




UK/World citizens must demand and affect the arrest of all whose unlawful actions have directly resulted in, genocide, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and abuse of Human and Civil rights.
This is not a political issue, it is one of law.


The treaty for the renunciation of war 1928 [Kellogg-Briand-Pact] prohibits resort to war and requires that all disputes are settled peacefully.
The UN Charter 1945 prohibits the threat or use of force and requires states to work together in conformity with the principles of justice and international law to maintain peace.
The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials 1946 upheld the principle that waging aggressive is a war crime and that individuals rather than states can be held to account in a court for war crimes.
The Geneva Convention 1949, 1977 govern the conduct of warfare, the protection of civilians and prisoners of war whilst prohibiting wilful killing, attacks on civilians, destruction of property, unlawful weapons as well as designating 33 separate punishable war crimes.
The Genocide Convention 1948 prohibits the adoption of a policy to destroy members of a national ethnic racial or religious group as such.
The Nuremberg Principles 1950 introduce the concept of personal responsibility for the universal offences of a crime against peace [waging aggressive war], crimes against Humanity, war crimes and complicity in such crimes.
The Chemical Weapons Convention 1992 prohibits the development production stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention 1972 prohibits the development production stockpiling and use of biological and toxic weapons.
The Landmines Convention 1997 prohibits the development production stockpiling and use of landmines and anti personnel explosives.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 gave the International Criminal Court power to prosecute genocide, crimes against Humanity and war crimes.














NATO members that have been participating in air strikes in Libya include France, Britain, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy.

 I would like to make formal charges against the NATO alliance for war crimes committed in Libya.

France, Britain, United States, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy are joint members of the NATO alliance, and have all broken their UN mandate, and committed a catalogue of war crimes in Libya.

Because of their influence over the main stream press in my country (UK), I cannot even give a full and complete list of their crimes.
But the following crimes are documented, and I demand that the ICC take appropriate action, and have the leaders of the NATO alliance charged with these heinous crimes.

13 May 2011: The murder of 11 Muslim Imams in Brega.

30 April 2011: The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli

30 April 2011: The bombing of a Gaddafi residence, murdering Saif Gaddafi, his friend and 3 Gaddafi children.

12 June 2011: The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established.

22 July 2011: The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water.

23 July 2011: The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.

8th August 2011: The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 human beings, many of them children. The bombing of hospitals is against all international laws, and a most grievous crime.

9 August 2011: The bombing of the village of Majer, resulting in the murder of 85 civilians. 33 Children, 32 women and 20 men.

The persistent on going bombing of the civilian population in Zliten and Tripoli, death toll not yet established. NATO are committing genocide and I DEMAND that the ICC address this matter with urgency.

David Cameron has admitted that UK special services have assisted the terrorists on the ground, this is against the UN mandate which allowed NATO to intervene in Libya, and is a war crime.

Many of the rebels have been identified as Al Qeada members, NATO working with known terrorists is a war crime, and against all international laws.

It is also my belief that NATO lied about their reasons for invading Libya, I demand that the ICC investigate these lies, and hold the NATO alliance responsible.

I also charge the ICC with working with NATO to spread propaganda and fear among the Libyan people, namely by announcing that the NTC had in their custody Saif al Islam Gaddafi and Muhammad Gaddafi, the night the terrorists (NTC) entered Tripoli. This was lies, and clearly shows collusion between the TNC terrorists and the ICC.
Libya is not Afghanistan or Iraq, and NATO will be held accountable for their crimes in Libya.

As this is a matter of great urgency, I demand that the ICC address these charges immediately, as the genocide is on going.

I am not a lawyer, and I have no legal training, but as a citizen of the UK & EU I demand justice. NATO are acting illegally, UK tax money is financing this travesty, and under EU and international law the ICC must deal with the charges I have documented, with the utmost seriousness.

Yours Sincerely Sandra Barr

Documentary evidence of the crimes.








The following link shows that before NATO decided to bomb Libya, the UN were going to bestow a humanitarian ward to Muammar Gadaffi!

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/ministerial-feedback-form this is the contact on line form for the British Foreign Office. I have emailed them and demanded David Cameron be arrested for war crimes.





http://peoplesassemblyofjustice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-main-message.html

 



Another concerned citizen
PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR AND WIDE
Im sure that there are 1000's of people like myself, who are horrified at the genocide being commited by NATO in Libya, and I am sure that most people are like myself, and feel really helpless about the situation.
This morning I descided to take a more proactive approach.
I phoned Westminster and asked how I could have David Cameron charged with war crimes and genocide. They told me to contact my local conservative office and see if they could help!!!!!
Number for Westminister 020 7219 4272.

I called the foreign Office (020 7219 4272). I was told that all complaints about the actions of NATO in Libya should be made in writing to the Foreign Office. The lady I spoke to was very sympathetic, in fact so sympathetic that she admitted she to was horrified by their actions, still she could not help me, other than the advice to document and write to the FO. I will be doing this later today.

I phoned my MP, who will call me back when he gets into his office.

NATO HQ in the Hague Netherlands, do not have a contact phone number, but I will also be emailing them.

Lastly, I phoned the International Criminal Court (0031 705 158 515). I was told to document the charges against NATO, and email it to them. I have done this, and I would urge everyone to also do it.

If enough of us shout, they have to hear us, please circulate this note, and PLEASE PLEASE, take the 5 mins to copy and paste the email, and send it to the ICC.

This is such a small thing to do, but if thousands of us inundate the ICC with these charges, they will be forced into a corner, and they will have to act. NATO are acting as if they have immunity from all international laws, and the reason they get away with so much, is because we all give off but do nothing! They must be held accountable for their crimes.

Please feel free to re-edit, correct grammar or anything else you see fit to do. the following is the email I sent:

International Criminal court email sent 26/08/2011


When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we prove crime, I do not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of international conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that involves moral as well as legal wrong. And we do not mean conduct that is a natural and human, even if illegal cutting of corners, such as many of us might well have committed had we been in the defendants' positions. It is not because the yielded to the normal frailties of human beings that we accuse them. It is their abnormal and inhuman conduct which brings them to this bar.

This Tribunal is not the product of abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times-aggressive war.
The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON



NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES

On November 21, 1947, one year after the end of the first Nuremberg trial (IMT), the United Nations passed General Assembly Resolution 177 in order to codify the so-called "Nuremberg Principles
."  The original language reads:
177 (II). Formulation of the principles recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal.
The General Assembly decides to entrust the formulation of the principles of international law recognized in the charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal to the International Law Commission, the members of which will, in accordance with resolution 174 (II), be elected at the next session of the General Assembly, and direct the Commission to:
(a) Formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal and,
(b) Prepare a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind, indicating clearly the place to be accorded to the principles meantioned in sub-paragraph (a) above.

In order to fulfill this mandate, the International Law Commission (which had been created under UN Resolution 174) duly codified seven principles, listed below, and adopted them on July 29, 1950.


The "Nuremberg Principles" are:

  1. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
  2. 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 under international law.
  3. 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 under international law.
  4. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
  5. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
  6. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
    a) Crimes against peace
    b) War crimes
    c) Crimes against humanity
  7. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle 6 is a crime under international law.
 


The Geneva Convention 1949, 1977 govern the conduct of warfare, the protection of civilians and prisoners of war whilst prohibiting wilful killing, attacks on civilians, destruction of property, unlawful weapons as well as designating 33 separate punishable war crimes.

The Genocide Convention 1948 prohibits the adoption of a policy to destroy members of a national ethnic racial or religious group as such.

The Nuremburg Principles 1950 introduce the concept of personal responsibility for the universal offences of a crime against peace [waging aggressive war], crimes against Humanity, war crimes and complicity in such crimes.

 

Universal declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Article 21.

  •  (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.

The lies that lead to war
How the Government deceived Parliament, HM forces, the media and
the public into waging illegal wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

“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 method used by British Governments to persuade the nation to wage war is as old as the hills - lie repeatedly about the illegality of war.  The British Government used the same lie to promote the war with Libya as it had done for the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq - that military action by HM forces is lawful and authorised by the UN Security Council operating under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. 

On March 21st 2011, shortly before 559 MPs voted in favour of illegal military action against Libya, the UK Government issued a statement making the false claim that the deployment of British forces against Libya was lawful and authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973; their note declared: 
“The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives”.   
This Government statement, claiming that the armed attack on Libya would be legal, exemplifies the way in which British politicians, lawyers and civil servants pervert and break the law.  By cross-checking Government statements against the laws governing the use of force, it can quickly be established that the wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all illegal. 

The law of war

The two main legal documents which govern the use of armed force in international affairs are the UN Charter and UN General Assembly Resolution 2625.  The first lays down the law and the second explains how to interpret it. 

The UN Charter

The UN Charter is the Statute which lays down the legally binding terms of this agreement in 111 Articles.  Article 2 states the purposes of the United Nations and includes these rules:

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.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Articles 39 - 51) contains the rules governing the measures that the UN Security Council may take to bring about peace and security.   Article 41 states:

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 members of the United Nations to apply such measures…

To a person with common sense the phrase not involving the use of armed force means not involving the use of armed force; so why do British Government lawyers repeatedly claim that the UN Security Council has authorised the use of armed force when it is clearly forbidden?   

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625

In 1970 the United Nations agreed 51 new definitions of the law governing in UNGA Resolution 2625:

DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND
CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

This Declaration is one of the most important legal documents the world has ever produced; yet few if any public office holders in Britain or America have seen it or read it.   It includes these rules: 

Every State has the duty to refrain in its 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.  Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently [the UN General Assembly] appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.

These laws are crystal clear.  The use of force is prohibited.  The use of armed force to attack other nations is a crime.  No state or group of States such as NATO, ISAF[1] or the EU, may intervene in another State’s affairs and every State must obey, uphold and enforce these rules.   

The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremburg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are also clear.  If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes.   

So why do British and NATO politicians, lawyers and civil servants interpret phrases such as all necessary measures, humanitarian intervention, and not involving the use of armed force to mean using weapons of mass destruction such as cruise missiles, rockets, drones, bombs and radioactive munitions to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq or to attack Libya?   Could the real reason for these heinous decisions to kill innocent civilians and destroy weaker nations be a psychopathic lack of conscience and moral values, or is it perhaps because they know that they control the law enforcement processes and can ensure that they will never be arrested, prosecuted or convicted for their war crimes, for the suffering inflicted on their victims or the horrific consequences of their decisions.

For more than sixty years UK Government Ministers, officers and lawyers have deceived everyone over the illegality of war and armed conflict and have got away with it.   These massacres of Afghan, Iraqi and Libyan civilians in which at least 450,000 children have died and more than 1m have been injured and maimed since 2001 are the worst atrocities in British history.  Why is it then that not one member of the UK establishment is willing to call a halt to the killing or speak out against it?   Why is it that those with the power to stop the wars and enforce the laws repeatedly refuse to do so?  

It is time for law abiding citizens everywhere to take a stand against Britain’s political, civil, judicial and military leaders and institutions to ensure that the killing is stopped, the resort to war is ended and those responsible for the deaths of 1.5m civilians are arrested and prosecuted for their crimes.   

Chris Coverdale   The Peace Strike   August 2012

[In his next article Chris will lay out what individual citizens in NATO countries can do to stop their Governments from waging illegal wars, murdering civilians, committing crimes against humanity and corrupting the justice process.]

General Sir David Richards,
Chief of the Defence Staff,
Ministry of Defence,
Whitehall,
London SW1A 2HB
                                                                                23rd May 2012


Sir,

We recently received legal advice that the wars with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are illegal because they violate the UN Charter, the Treaty for the Renunciation of War and the Rome Statute.  At the same time we were told that soldiers have an international legal duty to refuse to carry out unlawful orders. Lastly we were informed that anyone who took part in actions in which civilians were killed is criminally liable for arrest and prosecution for war crimes under the International Criminal Court Act 2001.  

This advice, which I have never seen or heard before, flies in the face of everything I have been told by commanding officers and politicians about the legality of war and a soldier’s lawful duty to obey orders. 

If this legal advice is true it has massive implications for everyone in the armed forces.   I am concerned, on behalf of friends and colleagues serving in Afghanistan and others who served in Iraq and Libya, that for decades we have all been deceived by our political leaders and their legal advisors about the legality of active service orders.   

Would you please confirm whether or not this legal advice is correct.  If it is incorrect please would you explain how our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya accord with (i) the Declaration on Principles of International Law in UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 and (ii) the phrase in Article 41 of the UN Charter ‘not involving the use of armed force’.    

If the advice is correct please would you (i) reverse the active service orders in Afghanistan (ii) recall the armed forces to the UK and (iii) confirm whether or not soldiers who have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and caused the deaths of civilians are liable for arrest and prosecution under sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

Yours sincerely


Why I will not fight for Queen and country by ex-SAS soldier Ben Griffin




 


THE LEGAL CASE AGAINST WAR  
 
 “ The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives.”

This claim, by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, that the attack on Libya was lawful was as false as the claims of legality made by Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith when justifying the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq and their 1.5m civilian deaths.  The truth is that war is never legal, the UN Security Council is prohibited from using force and killing civilians is always a war crime.

“The solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war 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…[1] 

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions …

In 1970, concerned by repeated violations of the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly adopted the recommendations of the International Law Commission and agreed 51 new rules[2] to ensure that every Member State would understand and obey the law against waging war.

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force…  Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.

These rules are crystal clear. The use of force is prohibited; the use of armed force to attack other States is a crime; no State or group of States, such as NATO, ISAF[3] or the EU, may intervene in another State’s affairs and every State must obey, uphold and enforce these rules.  So why do Britain’s leaders and Governments repeatedly ignore these rules and break the law?

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   

Chris Coverdale - Making Wars History - June 2012


[1] Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal   
[2] UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 - DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
[3] The International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan





When is it a crime to pay tax?
Most taxpayers know that evading tax is a crime, but how many of us know that paying tax can also be a crime? Chris Coverdale a lawyer and tax resister explains.

When David Cameron took the comedian Jimmy Carr to task last summer for tax avoidance and persuaded him to pay income tax to the British Government, he inadvertently involved him in the worst crimes known to mankind – genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

Under the domestic and international laws of war[2] citizens are forbidden from taking part in war on the side of the aggressor and are legally bound to disobey the orders of any Government that takes part in an illegal war or supports acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.  This duty to refuse to obey unlawful Government orders includes orders to pay tax.  If a government uses funds raised by taxation to wage illegal war or to commit acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, then a taxpayer’s normal duty to pay tax is reversed and becomes a duty to refuse to pay tax.

“ The very essence of the 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…”

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

War is never lawful; it was outlawed in 1928 when 63 nations ratified the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact). This treaty, which formed the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, is still in force.  The only occasion when the use of armed force is lawful occurs when a State is under attack and it acts in self-defence to repel the attackers.  On all other occasions the use of armed force is illegal. 

“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

Wilful killing during warfare is always a crime. If a person is killed as a consequence of a planned military action then the death is unlawful and the perpetrators can be charged with a war crime, a crime against humanity, genocide, murder or conspiracy to commit such crimes.   

WHEN WAR IS ILLEGAL PAYING TAX IS A WAR CRIME

Under the laws of war each of the wars fought since 2001 against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is illegal.  Not only do they violate the Treaty for the Renunciation of War and the UN Charter, but by killing 1.5m civilians the leaders and taxpayers of every State involved in these wars committed murder, crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  

Under the common law doctrine of joint enterprise or Article 25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court every citizen of a NATO or ISAF State who has paid tax since October 2001 is technically an accessory to the crimes committed by their Government, and is criminally liable for arrest, prosecution and punishment for complicity in war crimes.

The fact, that taxpayers can be arrested, tried, convicted and punished as war criminals alongside the civil, political and military leaders responsible for starting the wars may come as an unwelcome surprise to those who are not familiar with the laws of war.  But it should be no surprise to anyone who has experienced or even considered the horrific consequences of war.  Starting a war, in which tens of thousands of totally innocent men women and children are injured and killed is the world’s most evil act; so supporting a war by providing the funds that purchase the weapons and pay the troops ranks alongside it as a monstrous crime. 

The legislation however provides relief[3] for taxpayers who have unwittingly supported illegal wars.  Providing they end their participation in the crimes and refuse to pay any further taxes to their government or its agents until the wars and the crimes have ended, they will not be punished for aiding and abetting the crimes. 

To make sure that you cannot be prosecuted, ask you employer to pay your PAYE and NI payments into a trust account to be withheld from the Government until it abides by the laws of war.  By paying taxes into a trust or escrow account you fulfil your national duty to pay tax as well as your international duty to withhold tax.  However if you or your employer continue to pay tax to the government after you know that it is a criminal offence, you are liable for arrest and prosecution as an accessory to murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide[4].

By joining together in international tax resistance taxpayers can force our Governments and leaders to stop their illegal wars and end the indiscriminate killing of civilians.  So it is now down to us to end the carnage.  Each of us has a choice; we can stop the wars and end the killing by withholding tax, or support the wars and continue the killing by paying tax.  

 “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


NOW TIME TO START STOPPING
By way of design weapons of war are responsible for war crimes, it there follows that those responsible for making them are war criminals.
The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremberg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court are clear.
“If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes”.
Nuremberg principles http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390
Nuremberg Principle III states, “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 under international law.”
Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
With immediate affect arrest of all of those whose unlawful actions have directly resulted in, genocide, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, abuse of Human and Civil rights and ecocide.
This is not a political issue, it is one of law.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Article 21.  (3)

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.




[1] the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan
[2] Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact), UN Charter, Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal, Nuremburg Principles, Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
[3] Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
[4] S. 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001 or S.1, 2, and 3 The International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001








Calling on all who are of conscience to enforce the law.


Murder is always a crime, and the murder of children is the most heinous of crimes. There comes a time when women and men must align themselves to correct action and moral fortitude and persistence for truth & justice.
The message is to stop violence not to promote it.
There has been much deliberation with UK police regarding the law and UK war criminals. International laws and treaties have been quoted, but to date have failed to be recognised by the UK police. 
Here is the law as set down in the UK
 The offences against Person Act 1861
 (4) "Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavor to persuade, or shall propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he( or she)  be a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether he (she) be within the Queens dominions or not, shall be guilty of an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life".
The guilty; Vote count by MP’s of the UK government participation in the air strikes on Libya; 557 MPs rallied behind David Cameron's new military adventure, while only 15 MPs opposed it (13 votes against, plus 2 'tellers').
These MP’s who voted in favor of air strikes in Libya, knew full well that they would result in the deaths of children, women and men. This was and still is murder. A list of MP’s who voted in favour of air strikes on Libya is available to police on request.
Murder or manslaughter abroad.
 (9) Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in England or Ireland. Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

Elements of Arrest under section 24 PACE
A lawful arrest requires two elements: 
1. A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence;
AND
2. Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.
Under International Law
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
The Rome statute of the International criminal court 1998;
 Article 27, (1) This statute 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. (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.
By Oath in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law. Please take note that this is not a political issue but one of law.
If  you are a Policeman, judge or any other law enforcement officer or official  you are advised to take action, you are also advised  to pay particular notice and attention  to the following; 
Nuremberg Principle IV states, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390
Also take note of the Rome statute of the International criminal court 1998; Article 27, (1) http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

If you are a Head of State or responsible government you would are also advised to take particular notice of; Nuremberg Principle III states, “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 under international law.”
Including the Rome statute of the International criminal court 1998; Article 27, (1)

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 21.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
The crimes associated with waging aggressive war, laid down in the Nuremburg Principles and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, are also clear.  If any person, in furtherance of a state policy, orders the use of force to attack members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, that person and everyone who takes part in the attack is responsible for the consequences, breaks international law and, if it results in the deaths of innocent people, commits the universal crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aggression or conduct ancillary to such crimes.   
If you are not a policeman or a judge then contact crime stoppers on line
https://secure.crimestoppers-uk.org/ams.form.anonymous.asp
 You may also feel the need to contact the Independent Police Complaints Committee
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx
Or the Crown Prosecution Service
http://www.cps.gov.uk/contact/index.html

 War crimes court email otp_spi@icc-cpi.int