Skip to content or view screen version

When will Blair answer for his crimes in court?

chris coverdale and rikki | 04.10.2006 14:24 | SOCPA | Indymedia | Repression | London

Chris Coverdale, an expert in war law, explains how the Prime Minister and Parliament violated the laws against war and asks why law enforcement authorities are failing to prosecute offenders.

When Britain’s Prime Minister took the nation to war against Iraq it was on the false premise that it would be legal. Although many of the public instinctively knew that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong and illegal, and more than 1 million people marched through London to protest against the war, no-one could point to the laws and treaties that were about to be broken. Because so few of us know or understand the international and domestic laws that prohibit war, we failed to recognise the dishonest nature of Tony Blair’s assertions.

The consequences of this woeful gap in our education have been horrific. Accepting the fictitious claim that Saddam Hussein was about to use weapons of mass destruction and believing the false assurance that the UN Security Council had authorised the invasion, 412 MPs voted in favour of an illegal war. Using cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium artillery shells, coalition armed forces launched ‘shock and awe’ attacks on a small and almost defenceless nation weakened by ten years of punitive sanctions, killing at least 50,000 innocent men, women and children. This mass murder of Iraqis, killed for the sole reason that they were living in Iraq, breached every one of the main international treaties and laws against war and constituted the most serious crimes known to mankind, crimes against peace and the crime of genocide. It should never have happened.

It should not be possible in a democracy for a Head of State to deceive the people over such a fundamental issue as war. The British Government once gave solemn and binding undertakings to the world that we would never wage a war of aggression , never use armed force to threaten or attack another country , never kill or harm human beings , never destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group , always settle international disputes peacefully, respect human rights, uphold and enforce the rule of law and act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation , but now this Government has ignored each of these solemn and binding promises and embarked on the world’s worst crime, a war of aggression .

War was expressly outlawed in 1928 when the world’s major nations agreed ‘The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War’. This treaty, which became known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, was the result of a decade of negotiations to prevent war and was motivated by the horror and tragedy of World War I. When Lord Cushenden signed the treaty he made a firm and binding commitment on behalf of the people of Britain to renounce war as an instrument of national policy and to settle all disputes peacefully. Why then do British Governments regularly breach this law, whilst states such as Sweden and Switzerland always uphold it? Why don’t our law enforcement authorities enforce the law on Britain’s political, civil and military leaders, arresting and charging them with crimes when they break the law?

The first time that political leaders were held to account in court for breaching the Kellogg Briand Pact occurred in 1946 at the end of World War II when the Nuremburg War Crimes tribunal tried Germany’s leaders and convicted them of waging wars of aggression. The Tribunal’s judgement confirmed the illegal nature of war and the criminal responsibility of leaders who initiate armed conflict.

“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… 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

Why then did Tony Blair, the Cabinet, Parliament, the Government and the Queen all violate the laws of armed conflict and take Britain into a manifestly illegal war with Iraq? It is quite clear in the Attorney General's legal advice, provided to Tony Blair two weeks before the war started, that both men knew full well that the war was illegal and that they could be prosecuted for 'murder' and the crime of 'aggression'. It is also clear from Jack Straw's speech, when he closed the Parliamentary debate authorising the war with Iraq, that he and his audience of MPs knew that they would be responsible for killing totally innocent Iraqis. Surely they knew that killing innocent men, women and children is an act of murder? Yet they went ahead with it.

“We are about to vote on the most crucial issue that has been before the House in the 24 years that I have been privileged to represent my constituency of Blackburn. 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 [Hansard Vol 401 No.65 Page 902 March 18th 2003]

This is the clearest possible statement inciting mass murder to be made by a Minister of State. Now that the crimes have been committed and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been murdered and maimed, why hasn't anybody compelled the 412 MPs who voted for the war to answer for the consequences in court? They knew they would be judged on their intentions and the consequences of their decisions, so why haven't they been arrested, tried and convicted of genocide? Now that they know that it was illegal, that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction didn’t exist, and that Saddam Hussein had no connections with Al Qaeda, why are they continuing the killing, and maintaining the illegal occupation of Iraq? Every week hundreds of totally innocent men, women and children are being killed and maimed under the command of the American and British Governments. This has to stop.

We must uncover the reasons why our government continues to violate the laws of war and commit the world’s worst crimes, and we must halt it now.Two fundamental reasons seem to be the lack of understanding of war law, and the catastrophic failure of law enforcement. Although it is hard to believe, it is now clear that the Attorney General and Britain’s law officers not only failed in their duty to advise Ministers, MPs, the Queen, the Government, the media and the public on the laws governing armed conflict, but they deceived everyone over the legality of the war with Iraq. Weeks before the war started, the Prime Minister asked the Attorney General for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq, and we now know that he received a detailed reply to his request on the 7th or 8th of March 2003.

The Attorney General’s ‘secret’ legal advice of March 7th 2003 is one of the most damning government documents ever to come to light. Not only did the Law Officers fail to provide legal advice on the illegality of warfare and military action, but they concentrated instead on providing an erroneous and flawed rationale for waging war. It is clear from reading the document that both Tony Blair and the Attorney General knew at least two weeks before the fighting commenced that the war was illegal and that if it went ahead and anyone was killed, they could both be prosecuted for the crimes of ‘aggression’ and ‘murder’.

Now that 50,000 innocent people have been murdered, why haven’t those responsible been arrested and charged with genocide, crimes against peace and humanity or war crimes? Do our political leaders consider themselves to be above the law? As any criminal proceedings must have the consent of the Attorney General, and as he is one of the main perpetrators of these horrific crimes, could it be that our law enforcement authorities, fearing for their jobs, honours and decorations have agreed not to prosecute him or the Prime Minister?

The evidence of a conspiracy is mounting. The crimes committed by Ministers, MPs and Government officers have been reported to the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts on numerous occasions since February 2003 but these bodies always find an excuse not to investigate the crimes or charge the offenders. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions know perfectly well that killing innocent people is an act of murder. They all know that none of Tony Blair’s victims had attacked Britain, had committed any crimes, hidden any weapons of mass destruction, taken part in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre or done anything to warrant a death sentence. The Police, the CPS and the Courts used thousands of man hours investigating and prosecuting the Soham murders of two small girls, so why won’t they put even one tenth of that effort into investigating and prosecuting the mass murder and genocide of 15,000 Iraqi children? Is this yet another example of corruption in government? Whatever is stopping our law enforcement authorities from enforcing the laws of war?

Now that Britain’s political, civil and military leaders have committed the self-same crimes for which Germany’s leaders were convicted and hanged at Nuremburg in 1946, they must also be compelled to account for these offences in a court of law. It is right, timely, and urgent to tackle this issue now. It must never be said that the British people were complicit in genocide or afraid to confront their leaders with their crimes. Parliament should end Britain’s involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, compel the Prime Minister to account for his crimes in court, hold an inquiry into the causes of the war, and make arrangements to ensure that Britain can never again wage an illegal war. Arrange an appointment with your MP and make these demands. For the sake of humanity we must all take a stand now for truth, justice and equality under the law.

chris coverdale and rikki
- e-mail:


Hide the following 9 comments


04.10.2006 15:10

"The British Government once gave solemn and binding undertakings to the world that we would never wage a war of aggression(1), never use armed force to threaten or attack another country(2), never kill or harm human beings(3), never destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group(4), always settle international disputes peacefully, respect human rights, uphold and enforce the rule of law and act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation(5), but now this government...has embarked on the world's worst crime, a war of aggression(6)

1 The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928
2 The United Nations Charter 1945
3 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
4 The Genocide Convention 1948, The International Criminal Court Act 2001
5 The United Nations Charter 1945
6 The Nuremburg Principles 1950

Chris Coverdale appears at Marylebone Magistrates Court on Friday 6th October at 10am. Supporters are warmly welcomed. more info at

mail e-mail:

Demand that Blair is prosecuted for war crimes on Monday 9th October at 1pm

04.10.2006 17:10

Demand that Tony Blair is prosecuted for war crimes on Monday the 9th of October at 1pm outside Parliament where a mass protest is to be held. For more information visit:

Bring the war home!

My my, Blair is a mass-murdering psychopath- who would have thought it?

04.10.2006 17:48

Blair to be prosecuted, eh- what the f**k does that mean in the context of the real world we live in?

Perhaps Blair's zionist controlled legal system is going to turn on him? Israel wanted the genocide of muslim's in Iraq, and so did Goldsmith. Law in the UK, and the will of Israel are one and the same thing.

Perhaps the zionist controlled press and TV are going to turn on him? I mean, I imagined that broadcast "what muslims really want" didn't I?

Perhaps zionist controlled France, Germany or Canada are going to turn on him. Did you know that during the recent Israeli holocaust in Lebanon, the German authorities worked tirelessly to remove all films with german labelling on places like YouTube that merely showed images of Israeli atrocities in Lebanon? Did you know that the Canadian government CHEERED the murder of Canadian citizens by Israel during their warcrimes?

Perhaps Russia will turn against Blair? After all, its not as if Blair's partnership with Putin over the Moscow apartment bombings, and the resulting genocide in Chechnya counts for anything. And Putin certainly hasn't seen Russia massively enriched over the recent fuel price manipulation scams, has he?

Perhaps the Chinese will turn against Blair? I mean they really hate Blair's 100% support of their abusive regime, and Blair's role in proving massive investment.

Perhaps Blair's uniformed thugs will turn against Blair? I mean, old Hitler lived in mortal fear of the Gestapo, and the SS, didn't he?

Some of us have been saying since before Kosovo that Blair is the single most dangerous man in Human History since Adolf Hitler. We have been proved so very right. Blair has torn out every mechanism (some of which are many centuries old) that protects humanity in a modern civilisation. Blair has destroyed the fragile balance provided by the so-called 2-party system. Blair has created a modern tyranny more powerful than any to be found in previous history.

The German people cheered Hiltler as he unified German homelands, but as a consequence, could not conceive the extent of his real intentions. Normal people look for logical explanations, even when their are none to be found. This article (while I agree with its thrust) is designed to sell such a lie.

LAW AND ORDER, AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, IS GONE. It was an artificial construct, anyway. You refused to bind your own morality to your expectations of the state, and Blair used this against you to move all concepts of law to that which serves the state alone.

Blair has exterminated more than 500,000 (***NOT*** 50,000- that figure is provided by Blair's own people using the same methodology of WW2 'holocaust deniers') since his invasion of Iraq. Before then, Blair was responsible for his share of the million+ murdered by sanctions maintained using lies produced by the UK and Israel intelligence forces.


However, one did not have to wait to Iraq to understand the depravity of Blair, and the 'liberal' outlets that supported him. Take your mind back to Kosovo. While the Serbs, allied to Israel, had carried out the most evil crimes during the Bosnia war, the Kosovo war was 100% evil warcrimes by UK, US and NATO. Serbia wasn't being punished for Bosnia, but was merely Blair's chosen nursery slope to get the US army back to fighting major ground battles (since their nerve went over Vietnam). The propaganda campaign justifying Kosovo was 100% UK run (unlike the wars that followed). At the time, British TV and newspapers were like Fox news today in the states, endlessly pushing battle scenarios for the US.

The most sickening aspect of that war was Blair (working with Albanian Kosovo 'leaders') bombing civilians in Kosovo to force then to leave their homes, so that the mass media of the West could use their flight as proof of Serbian evil in Kosovo, and also provide a clear battleground for US forces. THEIR WAS NO LIMITS TO THE ACTIONS BLAIR WAS PREPARED TO TAKE TO ACHIEVE HIS GOALS.

We probably remember the Israeli-style murder of the TV station (triggered when BBC people signalled that the last foreign news person had left the building) in Serbia- repeated dozens of times since by Blair, Bush and the Israelis in various attacks against un-approved journalism. In reality, this was one tiny example of tens of thousands of war crimes carried out by Blair during that period. The result, BLAIR FAILED, but became more powerful than ever.

No ground war in Kosovo meant one thing, OPERATION 911. The tried and trusted false-flag was going to be needed once again to justify large-scale ground operations by the US military. 911... the very name tells you to your face that Blair did it, and then dares you to adjust your thinking to the new reality, knowing that most humans are just too psychologically weak. 911, the two one's become the burning towers, and 911 is the universal cry for help in the States. A meme so f**king obvious, that the very obviousness of it becomes the mask- a well known psychological phenomenon.

Did the rule of law bring Hitler down? Or Stalin? Or any of history's great tyrannical monsters? Why? Because their is NO SUCH THING as the rule of law for your masters. They MAKE the laws, empowered willingly by us. Now external forces, represented by other nations, can be a threat. But what external forces threaten Blair? Even Cuba and Venezuela are far more pro-Blair than you realise. The powers that count are total in Blair's pocket.

So our future is WORLD WAR, and more laws to make us comply. You should be thinking NOT about how Blair will be punished, but how WE are going to be punished.

If you have hope, you are foolish beyond help. Remember that Blair, just a week or so back, had his agents turn an apparent anti-Blair protest into a pro-war protest (and if you don't understand why wanting to be pro-soldier by caring about 'our boys' in Afghanistan and Iraq is pro-war, you really should read the history of nazi-germany, and Goebbels propaganda operations). Blair came out of his New Reich conference with screaming praise ringing in his ears. OPERATION: JAM TOMORROW (having the dribblers give up on the promise of Blair gone some unspecified time in the future) a 100% success for the n-th year running.

Your neigbour is a child killing monster. Not to worry. After each murder, you get together with your friends, and all agree on that fact. Proud of yourselves, you go home waiting for the next death, after which you promise to get together again so that you can re-affirm the fact of his criminality. WHEN A SANE PERSON ASKS OF YOU "WHAT'S THE F**KING POINT OF IDENTIFYING A CHILD-MURDERING PSYCHO IF YOU DO NOTHING TO STOP HIM", YOU ALL SAY "THAT'S NOT OUR JOB, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANYBODY ELSE EXISTS TO DO THE JOB".

Blair controls every aspect of the well defined systems within the UK. We allowed this, stupidly thinking that this was the right of a leader of the ruling party. Individuals were fatally undereducated about the system under which they live, and Blair exploited this to the max. The same can be seen happening in the US, regardless of their constitution.

We have one option left to us- namely to remove the passive support for Blair. Given that 99.999999% of people don't have the faintest idea what passive support means, and why at a time like this it serves Blair so much better than active support under the old system, the likelyhood of this happening is zero. Want proof? The people of German were not withdrawing their passive support for Hitler even just before the end when their nation was utterly destroyed, and many millions of them were dead. The allies had to bring an external viewpoint into Germany after victory for the Germans to begin to change their mindset.

Hitler had to use the force of his will to get his invasion of Poland, and the same applies to Blair and Iran. We, the people, have become irrelevant. Poland and Iran were/are outrageous enterprises, with world shattering consequences. People whose names you will never know are arguing the pro's and con's, and Blair is doing is level best to ensure that his faction wins out. The momentum of history is his undefeatable tactic. Everybody 'knows' it is going to happen, courtesy of his total political and media control. This thought pattern conditions people to allow a choice in history that would otherwise be impossible.

The BBC doing its SEEMINGLY innocent programs about Iraq before the invasion. Today, the BBC doing its SEEMINGLY innocent programs about Iran before the invasion (and YES, Iran is to be invaded, but not on day one like Iraq- Iran will be totally destroyed first). If you understand my meaning fully, you will understand that anything even people like myself says about Iran actually helps Blair, because given the power of his position, we are merely helping to confirm the inevitable. Chop one head off, and two grow in its place. This is why 'pirate's racist posts are not censored here, but people like me are allowed to attack. All mentions of Iran are good mentions of Iran for Blair's project, and Blair's smarter agents know this.

Chris Coverdale, an expert in war law

what the f**k does that mean. Show me an expert in law, and I'll show you a person expert in ensuring the law does not apply to powerful people. That is the whole point of our model. Laws designed to apply to all of us, by definition, DO NOT REQUIRE EXPERTS TO UPHOLD THEM. Do you need some f**k with a qualification to tell you that cluster bombing kiddies in Lebanon is wrong. If your honest answer is yes, then you are nothing but a willing disciple of Blair. Hitler LOVED 'experts'. Blair LOVES 'experts'. Ever hear of a little thing called 'right' and a little thing called 'wrong'. Ever hear of a concept called 'thinking for yourself'. Blair loves 'experts' because he holds a hand full of them, to be rolled out whenever his media explains why he is our master, and his opinion IS law.

When monsters are in power, their rule IS the rule of 'experts'. The enemy of the monsters is found in the fundamental moral understanding built into most of us. Some people here really need to relearn this obvious truth.


twilight - you're way off beam this time

04.10.2006 23:27

try attacking the real enemies instead of taking the piss out of people that are putting their lives on the line. chris coverdale is a man of principle, a peaceful man, and he has no legal qualifications but has thoroughly studied war law, which most 'experts' simply don't understand. he has attempted to bring war law into court as a defence for his socpa case, as a defence for his failure to pay fines, and as a defence for his ongoing tax strike (for which he has recently been made bankrupt). so, stop merely carping at others from the sidelines, get off your pompous ass, and try to do something useful. you're attacking the wrong people here.


All Part Of A Detailed Plan

05.10.2006 03:51

If you haven't noticed by now, there is a plan to let Bliar step down gracefully, instead of being tossed from power, and possibly arrested.

It is starting to be very transparent within the media and Government itself.

Pay close attention to who's involved.

It Was Leaked Over A Month Ago

What the hell is "war law" anyway?

05.10.2006 10:36

By definition, anyone who thinks it is a legitimate subject to be an 'expert' in also believes war is fine and dandy as long as everyone plays by the rules of the game.

THAT is not the sort of 'expert' I would give a shit about, sorry.


The Best Hope We Have

05.10.2006 10:41

Firstly support for Chris and Rikki who put themselves on the line in support of peace and by taking on the establishment
The best hope we all have for a better future is that Blair faces a court of law to answer for his crimes so well described above by Chris and Rikki
Only if warmongers are FULLY held to account will people who gain political power in the future think twice before rushing to instruct the armies they now have under their control to slaughter civilians and lets not forget the young soldiers who just like in the first world war are dying for what?
How many people realise that over 100 MPs actually took legal advice and signed a motion calling for the impeachment of Blair see although it doesnt seem to be moving forward at the moment
Here is a copy of an email reply I recieved in July

Dear Solidarity Park

Thank you for your e-mail of 30 July.

Both the questions whether a serving Prime Minister and a former Prime
Minister have the same legal status as any other citizen in the country
and the question whether and how a private prosecution might be brought
are matters on which you should take proper legal advice. They are not,
I am afraid, things on which I can advise you.

Yours sincerely

Sir Philip Mawer
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Is it time to form a determined campaigning and fundraising group with the sole aim of getting Blair before a court before he escapes to the U.S.A
I believe as well as holding Blair to account it might just make the world a bit safer in the future
Better to do something with hope and a peaceful motive rather than do nothing

mike d
mail e-mail:
- Homepage:

reply for "???"

05.10.2006 11:07

QUOTE "anyone who thinks it is a legitimate subject to be an 'expert' in also believes war is fine and dandy as long as everyone plays by the rules of the game"

i'm not sure why this article has attracted such ill-considered harsh judgements from the likes of 'twilight' and '???', but in brief answer to this point, erm, one of the first things that chris coverdale learnt and regularly points out in reference to his long study of war law is that ALL war is illegal. so the main 'rule of the game' is not to go to war at all.

i question how you arrived at your statement or what your motive is - have you spoken to chris or read his other work?

mail e-mail:

'Stop' the War

05.10.2006 23:35

It was Chris Coverdale who tried to get support from the 'Stop' the War Coalition for a tax strike against the war in Iraq on legal grounds in last years annual conference. 'Stop' the War officers, especially Andrew Murray advised delegates to vote AGAINST the proposal by Chris Coverdale to campaign using a tax strike, on the grounds that we could never force the state to have such a legal challenge. Delegates voted in majority AGAINST it, following (like sheep) with the official 'Stop' the War positon thereby ending any possibility to get mass support for effective anti-war action. This was an 'anti-war' group advising not taking anti-war action! Stop the War also failed to help in other ways in efforts to get a legal challenge to the war.

Strangely their rules were very different when it came to their attempts to co-opt the Military Families Against the War legal challenge, which they were only too eager to support.,,1473645,00.html

Hmm... I wonder why the attitude was so different in this case?

Brian B
- Homepage: