When a jury asked if it was the U.K soldiers who were the terrorists, instead of a young lawyer on trial, as a terrorist [for "glorifying terrorism" !!] the Judiciary refused to address the legality of the U.K wars of aggression.
University of London law student Mohammed Gul
.
http://www.brianhaw.tv/index.php/blog/1988-law-u-k-jury-ask-if-u-k-soldiers-are-terrorists
Law: U.K. jury asks if U.K. soldiers are ... terrorists
BrianHaw.tv, 17 December 2013
A U.K Jury asked a Judge if U.K soldiers are terrorists.
BBC: PROMISING LAW STUDENT MOHAMMED GUL.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12576973
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When a jury asked if it was the U.K soldiers who were the terrorists, instead of a young lawyer on trial, as a terrorist [for "glorifying terrorism" !!] the Judiciary refused to address the legality of the U.K wars of aggression.
Instead the Judge illegally directed the jury to convict the lawyer as the terrorist.
The government mouthpiece, the BBC, who are well known for glorifying state terrorism, peddled the lie, the lawyer was the terrorist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The recent -non- ruling on the legality of war, by the U.K Supreme Court, would make even Hitler blush.
The people are so real and so human.
It was not the student lawyer on trial who was the terrorist, which is what the media, courts and government would have people think.
The fact is, it is the U.K State, (along with others) who are the terrorists. The war criminals. The mass murderers.
This is why the U.K State do not want the people anywhere inside courts in any capacity, other than "defendants".
The recent U.K State ruling would be like saying Syrian Christians could not stand up to defend themselves in Syria right now, because they were being attacked by western backed terrorists.
http://shoebat.com/2013/12/11/bishop-calls-christians-carry-arms-crusade-coming-close/
In law, people are entitled to use reasonable force in self defense, and what is the use of reasonable force in self defense, when war crimes are being committed by western states.
A Syrian Bishop quite properly and lawfully states that Christians should use reasonable force to defend Syria and it's people.
The Syrian Bishop advocates law, over religion.
"Our young people are ready to fight; their fingers are on the trigger and ready to fight for the sake of Syria and for the sake of self-defense"
The Syrian Archbishop speaks about about the unprecedented use of western backed -terrorists- in Syria.
http://sana.sy/eng/22/2013/12/12/517101.htm
In the U.S the people have the right to bear arms.
In Syria, the civilians have the right to bear arms. Indeed many would say it is a duty, which can only help their own soldiers.
The U.K Supreme Court take, on the most important points of law, however, was that the U.K Supreme Court doesn’t want to be caught out doing law, anytime soon, and particularly not, before U.K troops return from Afghanistan.
The U.K are also at war with the Syrian people.
It is widely known that U.K Supreme Courts assertion that “following orders” is okay, is not a legal defense to criminal acts.
Wars of aggression are the most serious criminal acts there can be.
So the U.K Courts are seen to have illegally refused, to address the question of the legality of their own wars, which include their war in Syria.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT
Gul, R. v [2013] UKSC 64 (23 October 2013)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/64.html
1. One of the jury's questions was:
2. "Re: definition of terrorism in [section 1 of the 2000 Act], would the use of force by Coalition forces be classed as terrorism?
" In relation to that question, the judge gave the following direction: "… the use of force by Coalition forces is not terrorism.
They do enjoy combat immunity, they are ordered there by our government and the American government, unless they commit crimes such as torture or war crimes …".
3. Later the same day, the jury asked a further question, which was in these terms:
4. "Please confirm that within Iraq/Afghanistan now there are governments in place there cannot now be said to be a 'conflict' and therefore no combatant exemption from what would otherwise be a terrorist attack, ie IED on Coalition Forces. To simplify, would an IED attack (ignoring self-defense) on Coalition Forces be a terrorist attack if carried out in 2008/9?
" The judge answered this question, after hearing submissions from counsel, in these terms: "I have to apply the Terrorism Act and the definition of terrorism which is part of English law, and the answer is 'yes, it would'. But it is ultimately for you to say."
5. The jury then proceeded to convict the appellant on five of the six counts. The count on which he was acquitted related to a video which contained footage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza.
The judge directed the jury that, if Israel was involved in an incursion into Gaza which involved attacks on civilians, schools, hospitals and ambulances, and all that the appellant was encouraging was resistance to these attacks, the prosecution did not seek a conviction.
The present appeal proceeded without considering whether, as a matter of law, the stance adopted by the prosecution was correct, and we do not propose to address it further.
The judge sentenced the appellant to five years' imprisonment, with appropriate allowance for time spent on remand.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
What the U.K Supreme Court ruling shows, is that both the U.K Parliament and their Courts know that the reason the U.K Parliament specifically invented a legislative Act using the word terrorism, was to avoid law, over war.
This is because when you stick with law..
Murder is murder.
Except that there is a defense, of using "reasonable force" in self-defense.
You can see -why- the U.K State get very nervous with the people, in courts of...law.
The people will do law, whereas the criminal state invent fraudulent legislative acts, so the state effectively sits as judge, jury and executioner in their own trials, to cover up their own criminal acts.
I sincerely hope that the many - utterly - disgraceful members of the U.K Judiciary (including those in this case) who have been involved in facilitating the most horrendous war crimes, live very long lives, so that the people can witness them stand trial, like the Nazis.
Their own "rulings" stand as -evidence- of their complicity in many war crimes.
This case highlights the importance of the people, pursuing the U.K State over...law, because it is the U.K State, who the people have on the run, over their illegal wars of aggression which have led to the brutal murder of millions of innocent civilians.
http://www.brianhaw.tv/index.php/blog/1988-law-u-k-jury-ask-if-u-k-soldiers-are-terrorists Law: U.K. jury asks if U.K. soldiers are ... terrorists
BrianHaw.tv, 17 December 2013
A U.K Jury asked a Judge if U.K soldiers are terrorists.
BBC: PROMISING LAW STUDENT MOHAMMED GUL.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12576973 ___________________________________________________________________________________________
When a jury asked if it was the U.K soldiers who were the terrorists, instead of a young lawyer on trial, as a terrorist [for "glorifying terrorism" !!] the Judiciary refused to address the legality of the U.K wars of aggression.
Instead the Judge illegally directed the jury to convict the lawyer as the terrorist.
The government mouthpiece, the BBC, who are well known for glorifying state terrorism, peddled the lie, the lawyer was the terrorist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The recent -non- ruling on the legality of war, by the U.K Supreme Court, would make even Hitler blush.
The people are so real and so human.
It was not the student lawyer on trial who was the terrorist, which is what the media, courts and government would have people think.
The fact is, it is the U.K State, (along with others) who are the terrorists. The war criminals. The mass murderers.
This is why the U.K State do not want the people anywhere inside courts in any capacity, other than "defendants".
The recent U.K State ruling would be like saying Syrian Christians could not stand up to defend themselves in Syria right now, because they were being attacked by western backed terrorists.
http://shoebat.com/2013/12/11/bishop-calls-christians-carry-arms-crusade-coming-close/ In law, people are entitled to use reasonable force in self defense, and what is the use of reasonable force in self defense, when war crimes are being committed by western states.
A Syrian Bishop quite properly and lawfully states that Christians should use reasonable force to defend Syria and it's people.
The Syrian Bishop advocates law, over religion.
"Our young people are ready to fight; their fingers are on the trigger and ready to fight for the sake of Syria and for the sake of self-defense"
The Syrian Archbishop speaks about about the unprecedented use of western backed -terrorists- in Syria.
http://sana.sy/eng/22/2013/12/12/517101.htm In the U.S the people have the right to bear arms.
In Syria, the civilians have the right to bear arms. Indeed many would say it is a duty, which can only help their own soldiers.
The U.K Supreme Court take, on the most important points of law, however, was that the U.K Supreme Court doesn’t want to be caught out doing law, anytime soon, and particularly not, before U.K troops return from Afghanistan.
The U.K are also at war with the Syrian people.
It is widely known that U.K Supreme Courts assertion that “following orders” is okay, is not a legal defense to criminal acts.
Wars of aggression are the most serious criminal acts there can be.
So the U.K Courts are seen to have illegally refused, to address the question of the legality of their own wars, which include their war in Syria.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
SUPREME COURT
Gul, R. v [2013] UKSC 64 (23 October 2013)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/64.html 1. One of the jury's questions was:
2. "Re: definition of terrorism in [section 1 of the 2000 Act], would the use of force by Coalition forces be classed as terrorism?
" In relation to that question, the judge gave the following direction: "… the use of force by Coalition forces is not terrorism.
They do enjoy combat immunity, they are ordered there by our government and the American government, unless they commit crimes such as torture or war crimes …".
3. Later the same day, the jury asked a further question, which was in these terms:
4. "Please confirm that within Iraq/Afghanistan now there are governments in place there cannot now be said to be a 'conflict' and therefore no combatant exemption from what would otherwise be a terrorist attack, ie IED on Coalition Forces. To simplify, would an IED attack (ignoring self-defense) on Coalition Forces be a terrorist attack if carried out in 2008/9?
" The judge answered this question, after hearing submissions from counsel, in these terms: "I have to apply the Terrorism Act and the definition of terrorism which is part of English law, and the answer is 'yes, it would'. But it is ultimately for you to say."
5. The jury then proceeded to convict the appellant on five of the six counts. The count on which he was acquitted related to a video which contained footage concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza.
The judge directed the jury that, if Israel was involved in an incursion into Gaza which involved attacks on civilians, schools, hospitals and ambulances, and all that the appellant was encouraging was resistance to these attacks, the prosecution did not seek a conviction.
The present appeal proceeded without considering whether, as a matter of law, the stance adopted by the prosecution was correct, and we do not propose to address it further.
The judge sentenced the appellant to five years' imprisonment, with appropriate allowance for time spent on remand.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
What the U.K Supreme Court ruling shows, is that both the U.K Parliament and their Courts know that the reason the U.K Parliament specifically invented a legislative Act using the word terrorism, was to avoid law, over war.
This is because when you stick with law..
Murder is murder.
Except that there is a defense, of using "reasonable force" in self-defense.
You can see -why- the U.K State get very nervous with the people, in courts of...law.
The people will do law, whereas the criminal state invent fraudulent legislative acts, so the state effectively sits as judge, jury and executioner in their own trials, to cover up their own criminal acts.
I sincerely hope that the many - utterly - disgraceful members of the U.K Judiciary (including those in this case) who have been involved in facilitating the most horrendous war crimes, live very long lives, so that the people can witness them stand trial, like the Nazis.
Their own "rulings" stand as -evidence- of their complicity in many war crimes.
This case highlights the importance of the people, pursuing the U.K State over...law, because it is the U.K State, who the people have on the run, over their illegal wars of aggression which have led to the brutal murder of millions of innocent civilians.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
We're not technically at war with Syria
20.12.2013 07:33
Persons
The war against Syria was planned by Britain two years before “The Arab Spring”
20.12.2013 11:11
Former French Foreign Minister: The War against Syria was Planned Two years before “The Arab Spring”
by Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Global Research, 15 June 2013
In an interview with the French TV station LCP, former French minister for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said:
‘’ I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.
This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.
Naturally, I refused, I said I’m French, that doesn’t interest me.’’
Dumas went on give the audience a quick lesson on the real reason for the war that has now claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people.
‘’This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance.
Consequently, everything that moves in the region- and I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me ‘we’ll try to get on with our neighbours but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed.
It’s a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it.’’
Dumas is a retired French foreign minister who is obliged to use discretion when revealing secrets which could affect French foreign policy. That is why he made the statement ‘I am French, that doesn’t interest me’. He could not reveal France’s role in the British plan as he would be exposing himself to prosecution for revealing state secrets.
There have been many disinformation agents in the British and French press, many of them well known ‘leftist’ war correspondents and commentators, who have tried to pretend that Israel secretly supports Assad. Those who make such arguments are either stupid, ignorant or deliberate disinformation agents of NATO and Israel.
Israel’s support for Al Qaeda militants in Syria has even been admitted by the mainstream press. For example, Germany’s Die Welt newspaper published a report on June 12th on Israel’s medical treatment of the Al Qaeda fighters.
Israel planned this war of annihilation years ago in accordance with the Yinon Plan, which advocates balkanization of all states that pose a threat to Israel. The Zionist entity is using Britain and France to goad the reluctant Obama administration into sending more American troops to their death in Syria on behalf of Tel Aviv.
Of all the aggressor states against Syria, Israel has been the quietest from the start. That is because Laurent Fabius, Francois Holland, William Hague and David Cameron are doing their bidding by attempting to drag Israel’s American Leviathan into another ruinous war so that Israel can get control of the Middle East’s energy reserves, eventually replacing the United States as the ruling state in the world. It has also been necessary for Tel Aviv to remain silent so as not to expose their role in the ‘revolutions’, given the fact that the Jihadist fanatics don’t realize they are fighting for Israel.
This is the ideology of Zionism which cares no more for Jews than it does for its perceived enemies. The Jewish colony is determined to become a ruling state in the Middle East in the insane delusion that this will enable it to replace the United States as a global hegemon, once the US collapses fighting Israel’s wars.
Israeli Prime Minister once told American talk show host Bill Maher that the reason why Israel always wins short conflicts, while the United States gets bogged down in endless wars. ‘’ The secret is that we have America’’, he said.
But Israel is itself slowly collapsing. If one excludes the enslaved Palestinian population, the Jewish state still has the highest level of poverty in the developed world with more and more Jews choosing to leave the ‘promised’ land, a garrison state led by mad men, an anti-Semitic entity threatening to engulf the world in war and destruction. Israel cares no more about its own working class Jews than any other ethnic community.
In fact, if the Likudnik crooks running the Israeli colony get their way, working class Israelis will be among the first to pay as they are conscripted to fight terrorists created by their own government. With orthodox Jews protesting in the streets of New York against Israel and Haredi Jewish minority opposing Israel’s rampant militarism, Zionism is coming under increased attack from Jewish religious authorities and non-Zionist Jews both inside and outside of the occupied territories.
This is not the first time that Roland Dumas has spoken out against wars of aggression waged by successive French regimes. In 2011 he revealed that he had been asked by the United States when he was foreign minister in the Mitterrand administration to organize the bombing of Libya. On that occasion the French refused to cooperate. Dumas, a lawyer by profession, offered to defend Colonel Gaddafi, at the International Criminal Court in the event of his arrest by Nato.
Dumas was also vocal in condemning France’s brutal neo-colonial bombing of the Ivory Coast earlier in 2011, were death squads and terrorists similar to those later deployed in Libya and Syria were unleashed upon the Ivoirian population in order to install a IMF puppet dictator Alassane Quattara in power. Gbagbo was described as one of the greatest African leaders of the past 20 years by Jean Ziegler, sociologist and former member of the Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council.
Gbagbo had plans to nationalize banks and wrest control of the country’s currency from the colonial finance institutions in Paris. He also wanted to roll back many of the worst effects of IMF restructuring by nationalizing industries and creating a functioning, universal free health service. All of this threatened the interests of French corporations in the former French colony. So, the Parisian oligarchy went to work to find a suitable replacement as caretaker of their Ivoirian colony.
They sent in armed terrorist gangs, or ‘rebel’s in the doublespeak of imperialism, who murdered all before them while the French media blamed president Gbagbo for the violence that ensued. Gbagbo and Gaddafi had opposed Africom, the Pentagon’s plan to recolonize Africa. That was another reason for the 2011 bombing of their two African countries.
The formula is always the same. Imperialism backs ‘rebels’, whenever its interests are threatened by regimes that love their country more than foreign corporations. One should not forgot that during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, General Franco and his cronies were also ‘rebels’ and they, like their counterparts in Libya in 2011, were bombed to power by foreign powers, replacing a progressive, republican administration with fascism.
There are pro-Israeli fanatics in France who have used the analogy of the Spanish Civil War as justification for intervention in Libya and Syria. The pseudo-philosopher Henry Bernard Levy is one of them. Of course, the ignoramus Levy doesn’t realize that the reason France, England and the USA did not officially intervene in the Spanish Civil War is because they were covertly helping the ‘rebels’ from the start. They enabled arms shipments to the Francoist ‘rebels’ while preventing arms deliveries to the Spanish government, who, like Syria today, were helped by Moscow. Anyone who has studied the Spanish Civil War knows that all the imperialist countries wanted Franco as a bulwark against communism.
There is nothing imperialism loves more than a rebel without a cause. What imperialism hates, however, are revolutionaries. That is why the ‘rebels’ which imperialism sends into other countries to colonize them on behalf of foreign banks and corporations, have to be marketed as ‘revolutionaries’ in order to assure the support of the Monty Python brigade of petty-bourgeois, ‘ leftist’ dupes such as Democracy Now! and their ilk.
Dumas is not the only top French official to denounce the New World Order. Former French ambassador to Syria Michel Raimbaud wrote a book in 2012 entitled ‘Le Soudan dans tous les états’, where he revealed how Israel planned and instigated a civil war in South Sudan in order to balkanize a country led by a pro-Palestinian government. He also exposed the pro-Israeli media groups and ‘human rights’ NGOS who created the ‘humanitarian’ narrative calling for military intervention by the United States in the conflict.
The subject was covered extensively by African investigative journalist Charles Onana in his 2009 book, Al-Bashir & Darfour LA CONTRE ENQUÊTE.
There are many more retired French officials who are speaking out about the ruinous policies of this French government, including the former head of French domestic intelligence Yves Bonnet. There have also been reports of dissent in the French armed forces and intelligence apparatus.
After the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi in October 2011, the former French ambassador to Libya Christian Graeff told French radio station France Culture that it was responsible for the diffusion of lies and war propaganda on behalf of Nato throughout the war. Graeff also warned the broadcasters that such disinformation could only work on the minds of serfs but not in a country of free minds.
The power of the Israeli lobby in France is a subject rarely discussed in polite circles. In France there is a law against questioning or denial of the holocaust. However, denial of the Korean holocaust, Guatemalan holocaust, Palestinian holocaust, Indonesian holocaust and the dozens of other US/Israeli supported genocides is not only perfectly legal but is the respectable norm.
The same lobby which introduced the Loi Gayssot in 1990, effectively ending freedom of expression in France, would also like to ban any independent investigations of genocides whose narratives they have written, such as the Rwanda genocide, where Israel played a key role in supporting the ‘rebels’ led by Paul Kagame, who invaded Rwanda from Uganda from 1991 to 1994, leading to the genocide of both Tutus and Tutsis. Many serious scholars have written about the Rwandan genocide, which the Israel lobby repeatedly uses as a case study to justify ‘humanitarian’ intervention by Western powers. The Zionist thought police would like to see such authors prosecuted for ‘negating’ imperialism’s disgusting lies on African conflicts.
Now, the Israeli Lobby is forcing the (their) French government to prosecute twitter messages which the lobby deems ‘anti-Semitic’. This is one further step towards the creation of a totalitarian state where any criticism of imperialism, foreign wars, racism, oppression, perhaps eventually capitalism itself could fall under the rubric of ‘anti-Semitism’.
These people are sick, and those who cow down to them are sicker. Perhaps the etymology of sickness, a word cognate with the German Sicherheit (security) according to dictionary.com, is not a coincidence. For what is particularly sick about our society is the cult of security, endless surveillance, ubiquitous cameras, the cult of the all seeing eye, the prurient gaze as part of the incessant discourse on terrorism by those who specialize in the training of the very terrorists they claim to be protecting us from. Whether or not the words security and sickness are linguistically related, they are certainly cognate in a philosophical sense.
Roland Dumas and others like him should be highly commended for having to guts to say what so many others are too morally corrupt, too weak and cowardly to admit.
As the French government and its media agencies drum up hysteria for war on Syria, Roland Dumas, now in the twilight of his years, is warning people of the consequences of not understanding where Israel is leading the world. Will enough people heed the warning?
__________________________________________
Former French Minister of Foreign Affairs: “…Britain had been preparing gunmen to invade Syria two years before the crisis there flared up in 2011…”
Text of open advisory by renowned British Peace Activist Babs Tucker
by Parliament Square Peace Campaign, Global Research, 16 June 2013
Subject: SYRIA: FAO ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOREIGN SECRETARY, HOME SECRETARY & COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:06:30 +0100
The former French Minister of Foreign Affairs has publicly made a statement that the British Government intended to overthrow the Syrian government for political reasons, long before there was civil unrest (fomented by the British) in Syria.
“…Britain had been preparing gunmen to invade Syria two years before the crisis there flared up in 2011…”
I attach the video of his public statement.
Clearly his statement has very grave and serious legal implications.
We would like written confirmation that the U.K government will make a Full statement in the House of Commons over why the UK government has clearly misled the U.K people and the International Community.
We expect that statement would include an announcement of a public inquiry.
We would also expect the U.K government to publicly provide a written assurance that the U.K government will under no circumstances, now supply, to anyone, any weapons that could be used in Syria.
In addition following a public inquiry it is expected that the U.K will need to provide substantial reparations for the serious harm already caused to Syrian people, by the U.K government.
The written response by email, of the U.K government, is required as a matter of urgency.
Babs Tucker
Parliament Square Peace Campaign
www.brianhaw.tv
__________________________________________
Gearóid Ó Colmáin
Homepage:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-french-foreign-minister-the-war-against-syria-was-planned-two-years-before-the-arab-spring/5339112
playing down the role of the Syrian revolution
20.12.2013 12:54
But, while the imperialists may have had their own plans, the uprising of 2011 was the result of a grassroots Syrian revolution. The imperialists have seized on it and are trying to distort it to suit themselves, but that doesn't change the fact that there are also genuine revolutionaries on the ground.
Phrases like "..civil unrest (fomented by the British).." play down the agency of the Syrian people. A blinkered way of looking at the world only in terms of geopolitics and state-actors, while ignoring the agency and power of ordinary people.
We need to be aware of both: the cynical manipulations of states AND the power and aspirations of ordinary people. And the picture is more complicated even than that, because of course "the people" are no homogenous group but have many different desires and opinions.
z-f
nonsense
20.12.2013 22:11
Take straight off a terrorist's sympathiser's site
manners
Indymedia UK is infested with MoD trolls
21.12.2013 08:59
A classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.
eyes wide open
Indymedia UK is infested with cut and paste trolls too
21.12.2013 10:53
How can anyone expect me or others to read something that has obviously taken less than a minute to post up here? Its insulting.
If you can't be bothered writing something original, then i can't be bothered reading it
a troll