Is painting an anti-war message on the stern of a military supply vessel a crime?
That's precisely the question before the UK Law Lords this week,
asthey consider the fate of 20 individuals charged with activities
indefiance of the invasion of Iraq.
All of them chose to undertake non-violent civil disobedience at
military sites, to try and stop the rush to war.
The six Fairford protestors - three independent groups of people
- allentered an RAF base at Fairford and attempted to immobilise
B52bombers. The planes they hindered would later be part of
thecarpet-bombing of Baghdad.
The Marchwood 14 enteredSouthampton's Marchwood Military Port
and occupied tanks, lockingthemselves with chains and padlocks. The
occupation was part of a widerweek of actions at Marchwood,
involving many other volunteers, whichaimed to stop the build up to
war. Other actions included using ourflagship the Rainbow Warrior
to blockade Marchwood military port andstop military hardware
leaving for the Gulf and boarding and conductinga 'sit in' on a
military supply ship bound for the Gulf with a cargo ofmilitary
hardware.
The tanks would later roll across Iraqsecuring oil fields while
UN-sealed nuclear facilities were leftunguarded, and participate in
a futile search for weapons of massdestruction. It was an invasion
that broke every rule againstpre-emptive war and was based on
intelligence that even former USSecretary of State Colin Powell now
admits was wrong.
Theinvasion set a precedent under which India should be allowed
to attackPakistan on suspicions of aggression, Israel should be
allowed to bombIranian nuclear facilities suspected of weapons
activities, andIsrael's own nuclear arsenal could be cited as a
justifiable cause forinvasion by any of its neighbours. If ever
there was a slippery slope,the invasion of Iraq was it.
Key legal points which will be considered by the Law Lords are:
1)Isthe crime of aggression, defined and last used by the InternationalMilitary War crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-6, and enshrined inUN law by the 1946 UN General Assembly, still part of international law?
2)Ifa crime of aggression is illegal under international law is it a crimein UK law? In his controversial legal advice the Attorney Generalcertainly believed so, he stated, "Aggression is a crime undercustomary international law which automatically forms part of domesticlaw".
3)Should UK courts have the authority to consider whether a crime of aggression has been committed?
4)Werethe Greenpeace defendants denied their right to a fair trial, contraryto article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because theywere not allowed to argue issues which related to the legality of thewar?
In the courts last year, activists asked that thelegality of the
war be considered in their defence, and sought therelease of the UK
Attorney General's secret advice to Tony Blair aboutthe legal
underpinnings of the invasion. But a district judge ruledthat "the
lawfulness of the war and the Attorney General's legalopinion are
not relevant to issues in the case." The full advice wasonly
finally released to the public after being leaked to TV news.
One law for the leaders, a different law for the people.
Greenpeace UK Executive Director Stephen Tindale stated "These
peopleacted because they believed that the Iraq war was both
illegal andmorally wrong. The majority of international lawyers
have since agreedthe war was illegal. Yet our volunteers were
prevented from arguingthis in court and were effectively denied a
fair trial."
We'reappealing that double standard. We say the legality of the
war iscentral to the question of whether the activists themselves
committed acrime in stopping it.
Tindale concluded, "This case is crucialas it could help ensure
that the UK is never again dragged into anillegal pre-emptive war,
against UN wishes and based on dodgyintelligence.
If we are to have a society where governments aswell as
individuals can be held accountable for their actions and
theinternational rules of law are upheld, then it's crucial that
the rightto this defence of preventing a crime of aggression is
upheld."
The hearing ended on Thursday 23rd February. A conclusion is not
expected for another month.
Take action
Sign up as a cyberactivist and join the thousands of people who take action to protect our environment.
Support us
Greenpeace accepts no money from governments or corporations. This allows us to campaign for a green and peaceful future without fear or favour. We need people like you to keep us going.