The air strikes in Iraq are unlawful, contrary to the lies David Cameron told the House of Commons

In the House of Commons on 26th September 2014 the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, told the assembled MPs that there was a "clear legal basis" for UK military intervention in Iraq in the form of air strikes.

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:

1. International Law
2. UK Criminal Law

For an act such as air strikes to be legal it must be lawful both in International Law and in 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—

(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.

Because explosives are used in air strikes, it is not necessary to satisfy Subsection 1(1)(b). This is expressed in Subsection 1(3):

(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—

(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.

Air strikes inevitably involve "serious violence against a person" and/or "serious damage to property".

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:

1. 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.
2. He concealed from the  House of Commons (and the British public) that the air strikes are terrorism in UK Law.
3. 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 House of Commons was deceived by Mr. Cameron.

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.

Investigations into historical child abuse

Yesterday, the Home Secretary Theresa May MP announced that investigations would take place into historical allegations of child abuse.

The Hansard record of Mrs. May's statement and the subsequent debate was available online here:
Today's House of Commons debates - Monday 07 July 2014
but has now been removed from that URL.

The permanent House of Commons Hansard link is not currently available.

The promised investigations potentially open up new ground but there is considerable potential for important questions not to be asked.

In addition, given that no terms of reference have been announced the credibility of those promised investigations remains uncertain.

I plan to return to those areas of potential concern in one or more future posts on the matter.

A short tutorial in the concealment of official corruption

In our supposedly democratic society there are multiple checks and balances that are supposed to ensure the rule of Law.

But, in practice, the system of checks and balances doesn't work.

One of the lynchpins in the concealment of official wrongdoing and criminality is the IPCC.

Let's suppose that a senior politician, in his ministerial role, breaks the Law. Or, perhaps, a senior Police officer is suspected of perverting the course of justice.

A concerned citizen reports in writing the suspected crime to the Metropolitan Police at the highest level.

The Metropolitan Police claims an absolute discretion to investigate or not.

The concerned citizen reports the Police failure (which conceals ministerial crime) to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The IPCC gets the Law wrong and refuses to investigate the matter.

The concerned citizen lodges a formal complaint about the IPCC Commissioner involved.

The IPCC refuses to investigate.

The concerned citizen writes to the Home Office about the IPCC Chair's refusal to investigate the concealment of "serious corruption" by the Police.

What do the Home Office do?

Currently, after some 5 weeks, the Home Office hasn't acknowledged the complaint regarding the Chair of the IPCC.

What other options exist?

Report the IPCC Chair to the Police for misconduct in public office or perverting the course of justice?

But would the Police investigate? So far as I'm aware, every Police force in the UK is subject to the IPCC's authority.

And, far off in the political sphere, the Home Affairs Select Committee which is responsible for oversight of both the Police and the IPCC quietly ignores the evidence in front of it and looks the other way.

And official criminality, including Police corruption and IPCC corruption, continues untroubled by meaningful accountability.

PC Blakelock: black people are waiting for justice too

The Guardian has an interesting article this morning on the continuing resentment against the Metropolitan Police in at least some parts of the black community in London: PC Blakelock: black people are waiting for justice too

Four deaths of black people at the hands of the Metropolitan Police are listed, none of which have resulted in charges against Police officers.

The article illustrates a systematic bias in the "justice" system in the UK and illustrates a systematic bias in the media coverage too.

Yes, of course, there should be justice for PC Blakelock. But there should also be justice for the black people killed at the hands of the Metropolitan Police.

The killing of Azelle Rodney - The Report

Yesterday, the Azelle Rodney Inquiry, Azelle Rodney Inquiry, published its report.

The Executive Summary of the Report is here: The Executive Summary of the Azelle Rodney Inquiry Report .

The full Report is here: The Azelle Rodney Inquiry Report .

The BBC reports its conclusions as indicating that there was no lawful basis for the killing of Azelle Rodney by a Metropolitan Police firearms officer: Azelle Rodney death: 'No justification' for police shooting 

Other media outlets are more forthright, indicating that Azelle Rodney was unlawfully killed. See, for example, Azelle Rodney death: unlawful killing verdict for Met marksman
in the Guardian and Police marksman may face trial over botched shooting of suspected gangster Azelle Rodney in the Independent.

The Crown Prosecution Service previously had decided not to prosecute the firearms officer.

It will be interesting to see if they change that position in light of the Inquiry's report.

I have recently been reading parts of the MacPherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

There are disturbing similarities in the arguably shambolic organisation of the Metropolitan Police Service operation in both cases.

The Lockerbie Bombing: the CIA "wanted to kill the accused before trial"

In the Scotsman this week there is a report, arising from a recent book by William Chasey claiming that the CIA wanted to kill the two Lockerbie accused before trial.

See CIA ‘wanted to kill Lockerbie bomber before trial’

25th Anniversary: Iran Air Flight 655

This month is the 25th Anniversary of the shooting down by the US Navy of Iran Air Flight 655.

See, for example, Remembering Iran Air Flight 655 and Iran Air Flight 655

In the mind of Lockerbie investigators that event of July 1988 may well be causally related to the Lockerbie Disaster of December 1988.

Establishing the truth about what happened at Lockerbie is an ongoing battle against what ought to be the forces of justice in Scotland.

It seems to me that there are very serious questions that require to be answered about the role of the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, the Crown Office and, whisper it, the Court of Session judges who convicted Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi.

The Hillsborough Independent Panel, Hillsborough Independent Panel , has taken us much closer to the Truth about the Hillsborough Disaster.

Sadly, the resistance in official circles to establishing the Truth about the Lockerbie Disaster and the likely criminal cover-up of its true cause goes on.