See Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL for David Cameron's speech.
I believe that David Cameron lied to the House of Commons regarding the supposed legality of RAF air strikes in Iraq.
I'll explain briefly why I think so.
Broadly, there are two aspects of Law which may be relevant:
- International Law
- UK Criminal Law
Mr. Cameron's statement made reference only to international Law.
Serious questions could be asked about the request from the Iraqi Government asking for UK assistance.
It is entirely possible that the "request" was a charade - a confidence trick to fool MPs and the British public. If it was, then the supposed basis in International Law for the air strikes is a fabrication and a deception.
However, the more easily demonstrable aspect of Mr. Cameron's lies relates to UK Law.
Mr. Cameron concealed from the House of Commons the evidence that the proposed air strikes in Iraq are "terrorism" in UK Law, specifically in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The text of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can be found here:
Terrorism: interpretation
For convenience, I'll reproduce the full text of Section 1 at the time of writing this blog post:
Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
If you're not used to ploughing through the morass of legislative text this might, at first glance, seem opaque.
Let me describe my rationale for concluding that the air strikes in Iraq are "terrorism" in UK Law.
When explosives are used, as they must inevitably be in air strikes, only two further criteria need to be satisfied for "terrorism" to exist, in the meaning of Section 1.
Those criteria are expressed in Subsections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c). For convenience, here is the text of Subsection 1(1):
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—Because explosives are used in air strikes, it is not necessary to satisfy Subsection 1(1)(b). This is expressed in Subsection 1(3):
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.Subsection 1(1)(a),
(a)the action falls within subsection (2)is satisfied since air strikes meet the criteria in Subsection 1(2):
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—Air strikes inevitably involve "serious violence against a person" and/or "serious damage to property".
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
The final criterion which must be satisfied for "terrorism" to exist is expressed in Subsection 1(1)(c):
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.Mr. Cameron in various speeches disclosed the political cause in pursuance of which the air strikes were proposed - the destruction of the organisation variously known as "Islamic State", ISIS, ISIL or IS.
So, in my view, there is no rational basis to doubt that the proposed UK air strikes in Iraq are "terrorism".
Various criminal offences, some of which are expressed in the Terrorism Act 2000, arise.
One serious example is Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000:
56 Directing terrorist organisation.
(1)A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.
Mr. Cameron is, in my view at least, clearly "directing" UK military forces with respect to the proposed air strikes in Iraq.
In my view both Mr. Cameron the Secretary of State for Defence have committed offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In Summary, here are some aspects of the deception that I believe Mr. Cameron perpetrated in the House of Commons on 26th September 2014:
- He said there was a "clear legal basis" for air strikes in Iraq. It may be "clear" in International Law but there is no clarity that it is legal in UK Law.
- He concealed from the House of Commons (and the British public) that the air strikes are terrorism in UK Law.
- He concealed from the House of Commons (and the British public) that he and Michael Fallon would be committing criminal offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrrorism Act 2000.
The UK is conducting acts of "terrorism" in Iraq on the basis of lies told to the House of Commons by David Cameron MP.
That deception was possible, in my view, because of the misconduct of Jeremy Wright, UK Attorney General and Robert Buckland, UK Solicitor General.
I will return, in a future post, to my view about the perceived misconduct of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General which I believe may amount to criminal offences of misconduct in public office.
