1

War Crimes
and
War Criminals

A report on the war crimes committed by

British citizens during the preparation
and conduct of the war with Iraq

April 2008

The Campaign to Make Wars History

 2

“In the opinion of the Tribunal, those who wage aggressive

war are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much
greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of the
Hague Convention. In interpreting the words of the [Kellogg-
Briand] Pact, it must be remembered that international law is
not the product of an international legislature, and that such
international agreements as the Pact have to deal with
general principles of law, and not with administrative matters
of procedure. The law of war is to be found not only in
treaties, but in the customs and practices of states which
gradually obtained universal recognition, and from the
general principles of justice applied by jurists and practiced
by military courts…

Crimes against international law are committed by men, not

by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who
commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be
enforced.

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 1946

 3
Contents
 4
The laws of war
1. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact]
2. The United Nations Charter
3. The Nuremburg Judgement
4. The Genocide Convention
5. The Geneva Conventions
6. The Nuremburg Principles
7. The Chemical, Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions
8. The Landmines Convention
9. The Convention against Torture
10. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [The Kellogg-Briand Pact] was the binding
international treaty signed in 1928 by the world’s major nations on behalf of their people
promising never to wage a war of aggression and to settle all international disputes peacefully.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 and its Charter is now the main treaty governing the
relationships between states. In 1948 the Genocide Convention introduced genocide as a
universal crime and in 1950 the UN enacted the Nuremburg Principles adding the universal
statutory criminal offences of (i) a crime against peace [waging a war of aggression] (ii) a crime
against humanity and (iii) a war crime.

In July 2002 the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into effect and for the first
time the world set up a permanent law enforcement authority in The Hague with jurisdiction over
these universal crimes. Although Britain and 108 other nations have ratified this treaty when they
enacted their own domestic legislation, the USA, Israel and several other nations have failed to
do so and are therefore not bound by its terms.

War Crimes committed against the Iraqi people

By waging war with Iraq and ordering Britain’s armed forces to join American forces in co-
ordinated attacks on villages, towns and cities in Iraq using weapons such as cruise missiles,
rockets, cluster bombs, mortars and depleted uranium artillery shells causing death and injury to
thousands of totally innocent Iraqi men, women and children, the leaders of Coalition
Governments committed the worst crimes known to mankind. Not only was this war illegal in
domestic and international law but all those British citizens involved in it committed war crimes.
These war crimes include a crime against peace, genocide, a crime against humanity, murder
and conspiracy to murder. None of the victims had attacked Britain, been allowed to defend
themselves in court or were shown any mercy before being massacred by Coalition armed forces
operating by order of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Queen, the Government and armed
forces commanders. The main international statutes and laws governing the behaviour of British
citizens involved in a war of aggression are (i) the International Treaty for the Renunciation of
War [Kellogg-Briand Pact] (ii) the UN Charter (iii) the Nuremburg Principles (iv) the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court (v) the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and (vi) the
International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001.
 5
(i) The International Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact]
War was outlawed and made illegal in 1928 by the International Treaty for the Renunciation of
War [the Kellogg-Briand Pact]. Sixty three nations including Britain, America, France, Germany
and Japan ratified the Pact condemning recourse to war and agreeing to settle disputes
peacefully. This treaty is still in force and its meaning is crystal clear.

ARTICLE I The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their
respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international
controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one
another.

ARTICLE II The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all
disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may
arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact formed the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. The
invasion and occupation of Iraq renders the leaders of Coalition Governments liable for the same
crime of waging aggressive war for which Germany’s leaders were convicted in 1946.

(ii) The UN Charter

When Britain signed and ratified the UN Charter we made a binding agreement with every
Member State never to threaten or attack them and to settle all disputes peacefully.

2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.

2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force1
are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon members of the
United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption
of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 prove to
be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include
demonstrations, blockade and other operations by air, sea, or land forces.

Pre-emptive attacks are illegal. The only legitimate use of armed force is self defence. If an
armed attack occurs a nation may legitimately use proportionate force to defend itself, but it may
do so only until the UN Security Council implements measures to resolve the conflict. The UN
Security Council is a peacekeeping body, it may never resort to the use of armed force and to
avoid any possibility of death or injury all its actions must be of a non-violent nature.

1
Author’s emphasis
 6

(iii) The Nuremburg Principles

I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime
under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from
responsibility.

III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under
international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve
him from responsibility.

IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior does not
relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact
possible to him.

V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on
the facts and law.

VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the
acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose
of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of
war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property,
wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and
other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political,
racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried
on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

These seven international war laws derived from the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes
Tribunals by the International Law Commission were adopted as universal statute war law by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1950.
 7

(iv) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

25.3 In accordance with this Statute2, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable
for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person: (a) Commits
such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person,
regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible; (b) Orders, solicits or
induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted; (c) For the
purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in
its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its
commission; (d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission
of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose… However, a
person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion
of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit
that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.

The crimes currently within the jurisdiction of the court are genocide, crimes against humanity,
war crimes and conduct ancillary to such crimes. It is important to realise that this applies to any
person who has done anything whatsoever to facilitate the commission of one or more of these
crimes. It not only applies to all those Members of Parliament, civil servants and members of the
armed forces who have been involved in the war, but it also applies to arms and munitions
suppliers and manufacturers and even to taxpayers who have handed over tax to the
government over the past five years.

Talks are currently underway to define the crime of aggression but it will not come under the
jurisdiction of the ICC until 2009 at the earliest. Alleged war criminals can only be prosecuted
under the Rome Statute if they are a citizen or resident of a nation that has ratified the statute.
No-one is immune from prosecution.

27.1 This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on
official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State, a member of a
Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no
case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of
itself constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

(v) The International Criminal Court Act 2001

It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a
crime against humanity or a war crime or to engage in conduct ancillary to such an act.
This section applies to acts committed in England or Wales, or outside the United
Kingdom by a UK national, resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction3.

For the first time in English law we have an Act of Parliament that takes precedence over the
Royal Prerogative and binds the Crown and everyone in the public service of the Crown. By
enacting this war law, Parliament blocked the legal loopholes that have enabled past British
leaders to commit war crimes with impunity. Criminal responsibility for the crimes of genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to such crimes now lies with those
who commit them, those who commission them and those who condone or support them, and all
such persons can be held to account for these crimes in court.

2
This is an extract from Article 25. For the full article on individual criminal responsibility see the Rome Statute.
3
This is a summary. For the full definition of the offences see ICCA Articles 51 and 52
 8

Article 25 of the Rome Statute and sections 51 and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act
2001 not only place criminal responsibility for the deaths caused by war on the Monarch, the
Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, senior civil servants, MPs and the military commanders
responsible for commissioning acts of war; but equally place criminal responsibility on the
servicemen and women, arms manufacturers, suppliers and taxpayers who aid, abet, incite or
facilitate the commission of these crimes. No longer can individuals evade joint responsibility for
war crimes committed by our political leaders.

All military personnel, taxpayers and ordinary citizens who support, obey or condone the orders of
Government or Parliament to wage aggressive war in which people are killed, are not only
criminally liable for a crime against peace under the Nuremburg Principles, but under this new
legislation they become accessories to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes and render themselves liable to prosecution in Britain or The Hague.

It is a common error in Britain to believe that the law is different or somehow suspended in times
of war. This is not the case. That the nation is at war provides no legal protection, excuse or
defence to these crimes. This means that since 2002, if one or more persons has been injured
or killed by the deliberate action of Britain’s military forces against a national, ethnic, racial or
religious group, then a crime of genocide has been committed and those responsible for it are
criminally liable and may be indicted and tried for the offence. So for example if an RAF officer
is ordered to fire a rocket or drop a bomb that causes death or injury to men, women and children
in Iraq, then he or she together with all the political, civil and military commanders who
commissioned the bombing can be charged with a war crime. If any member of HM armed
forces intentionally kills or injures one or more persons who are members of a national, ethnic,
racial or religious group, as part of a widespread or systematic attack on that group, then both the
individual killer and all those in the chain of command responsible for giving the orders to attack,
are criminally liable for the crimes of ‘genocide’ or ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’.

The principle of international law, which under certain circumstances protects the
representatives of a State, cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal
by international law. The authors of these facts cannot shelter themselves behind their
official position in order to be freed from punishment in appropriate proceedings.

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

(3) The International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001

It shall be an offence for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war
crime or engage in conduct ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts committed in
Scotland or outwith the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or a United
Kingdom resident4.

As Scotland has a different legal system to that of England and Wales it needs different criminal
legislation and so a separate act of Parliament was enacted for Scotland.

4
This is a summary. For the full definition of the crimes see The International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001
Articles 1 and 2.
 9
Intentionally committing a war crime
A person is regarded as committing such an act or crime if the material elements are
committed with intent and knowledge. A person has ‘intent’ where he means to engage
in the conduct or where he means to cause the consequence or where he is aware that it
will occur in the ordinary course of events. ‘Knowledge’ means awareness that
circumstances exist or will occur in the ordinary course of events.

British leaders may attempt to exonerate themselves from criminal responsibility for war crimes
against the Iraqi people by claiming that they didn’t intend to commit the crime. They will find
however that it isn’t as easy as it seems to escape culpability by adopting this defence. If for
instance a British citizen is charged with ‘conduct ancillary to genocide’ for continuing to hand
over taxes to the government and they plead ‘lack of intent’ as their defence, they are likely to fail
because the criminal conduct is the payment of tax to the government which the government will
use for an illegal purpose, killing Iraqi children – genocide. You will find it hard to argue that you
didn’t intend to engage in the conduct of paying tax unless you have evidence of an unpaid tax
demand or a letter to your employer demanding that they withhold all your PAYE tax payments
from the Inland Revenue until the crimes have ceased. You will also find it hard to argue that
you didn’t know that the Government was involved in waging war against Iraq. It has been in the
news nearly everyday for the past five years, and as a taxpayer you know that your taxes ‘in the
ordinary course of events’ will be used in part to pay the troops or purchase the weapons that are
being used to murder Iraqi children. Therefore in law you have both ‘knowledge’ that your
actions will in a small way facilitate the crime of genocide of the Iraqi people, and ‘intent’ to
engage in paying taxes and thereby contribute to genocide.

Avoiding prosecution for war crimes

“However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents
the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the
attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal
purpose.”

It is clear from the last sentence of section 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute that the legislators wished
to provide an exit route for all those individuals who find themselves unwittingly caught up in a
criminal act perpetrated by their political leaders under the auspices of the state. If, as soon as
a person discovers that they are criminally liable for a war crime, they voluntarily and completely
abandon their efforts to commit the crime and take active steps to prevent it from continuing, then
they will not be liable for punishment. This point is particularly important for all those British
citizens who were deceived into supporting the illegal wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many thousands of British citizens particularly MPs, Members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh
Assembly Members, Military officers, civil servants and taxpayers have unwittingly supported or
facilitated the commission of crimes by Coalition Governments over the past five years. If you
are one of these people and you want to avoid prosecution as a war criminal you must take
remedial action immediately to prove to the court that you have abandoned all criminal acts
associated with the crimes and completely and voluntarily given up the criminal purpose.

[To assist you in this process we have listed at the end of this report on Page xxx a number of
actions that any British citizen can and must take to demonstrate their goodwill, probity and
determination to give up their support for the war and the crimes of genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes currently being committed by members of Coalition Governments.]
 10
(1) Crimes against peace
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of
international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or
conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The Nuremburg Principles No VI

The armed invasion and occupation of Iraq not only constitutes a war of aggression but it took
place in violation of the 1928 International Treaty for the Renunciation of War [the Kellogg-Briand
Pact] under which Britain, America and most of their Coalition partners had given firm and binding
promises to renounce war and to settle all disputes peacefully whatever their nature or origin.
The unprovoked armed attack on Iraq in 2003 is the same crime of waging a war of aggression in
violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact for which Germany’s leaders were convicted and hanged at
Nuremburg in 1946 and as such is also a crime under international customary law.

(2) Complicity in crimes against peace

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

The Nuremburg Principles No VII

By aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a crime against peace thousands
of British citizens not only became accessories to a crime against peace under the Accessories
and Abettors Act 1861 but were complicit in its commission and as such committed the criminal
offence of ‘complicity in a crime against peace’ under Nuremburg Principle VII.

(3) Genocide
For the purposes of this [Rome] Statute “Genocide” means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to
prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

In order to establish whether a crime of ‘genocide by killing’ has taken place under the Rome
Statute a court will need to establish whether each of the four elements of the crime is proven.

1. The perpetrator killed [4] one or more persons.

2. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnic, racial or religious
group.
3. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnic, racial or
religious group, as such.
4. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed
against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Notes [4] The term killed is interchangeable with the term “caused death”
 11

The evidence that genocide has occurred in Iraq is overwhelming. (i) We know that at least
80,000 and possibly 1,000,000 men, women and children were killed by the actions of Coalition
forces under the command of their respective political, civil and military leaders. (ii) We know
that the vast majority of the victims belonged to the Iraqi national group. (iii) We have extensive
detailed evidence of published statements made and courses of conduct chosen that demonstrate
that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, Lord Goldsmith and hundreds of Britain’s
political, civil and military leaders deliberately set out to kill innocent Iraqis and by continuing to do
so five years after the first killings occurred demonstrate their intent to destroy part of the Iraqi
national group as such. Of the many statements made by British leaders in support of the war
and the destruction of the Iraqi national group none is more telling than the statement made by
Tony Blair to members of the Armed Forces at the Basra airbase during his ‘farewell’ tour of Iraq
as reported by Martin Amis in the Guardian of 2nd June 2007.

“So we are killing more of them than they kill us…… You’re getting back out there after
them. It’s brilliant actually.”

(iv) We know that as similar conduct [armed attacks using modern high explosive weapons such
as cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions] took place on at least
40,000 separate occasions it not only demonstrates a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed
against the group, but was conduct that could itself effect such destruction [killing one or more
persons belonging to the Iraqi national group]. This is only a small selection of the evidence of
genocide available to the police and prosecuting authorities. There is no doubt in our minds that
a crime of genocide has taken place in Iraq and that it was ordered by George Bush, Tony Blair
and their accomplices in Washington, Westminster, Whitehall, Windsor and the White House.

(4) Crimes Against Humanity

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against
any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such
acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with
any crime against peace or any war crime5.

This legislation was set up to protect civilians. Of the 1m Iraqis killed in the conflict so far at least
95% were civilians. Regardless of whether government spin doctors in Washington or Downing
St classify the victims as insurgents, enemy agents, collateral damage or freedom fighters they
are all civilians in international law and they are all protected persons under the law. By waging
a war of aggression and using high explosive cruise missiles, rockets, mortars, cluster bombs and
depleted uranium artillery shells against villages, towns and cities in Iraq killing and injuring tens
of thousands of totally innocent civilians including children, Coalition forces and their political, civil
and military commanders committed and share legal responsibility for crimes against humanity.

(5) War Crimes

For the purposes of this Statute “war crimes” means: (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or
property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: (i) Wilful

5
This is the definition of a crime against humanity contained in the Nuremburg Principles. For a full comprehensive
definition of a crime against humanity see Article 7 in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
 12
killing; (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; (iii) Wilfully
causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; (iv) Extensive destruction and
appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly; (v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces
of a hostile Power; (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the
rights of fair and regular trial; (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
(viii) Taking of hostages. (b)……6

As the war with Iraq was illegal every separate action which caused death or serious injury to
civilians or prisoners of war constitutes a war crime and is punishable under the Nuremburg
Principles, the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court or
domestic legislation such as the International Criminal Court Act 2001 which covers residents of
England, Wales and N.Ireland or the International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001 which
covers residents of Scotland.

(6) Conduct ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and

war crimes
“Conduct ancillary” means: aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of
an offence, inciting a person to commit an offence, attempting or conspiring to commit an
offence, assisting an offender or concealing the offence.

The criminal offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and a crime against
peace are all ‘state sponsored’ crimes committed by a large number of individuals co-operating
with one another. These crimes cannot be committed by a single individual operating on their
own, by their very nature they involve many people at different stages of the crime. The war
with Iraq which involved the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes could
not have taken place without the active support and co-operation of Cabinet Ministers, Members
of both Houses of Parliament, the Law Lords, the armed forces, civil servants in the Cabinet
Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, the Law
Officers Department and the Treasury, the Metropolitan Police, The Crown Prosecution Service,
HM Courts Service, the BBC, the media and taxpayers. Individuals in each of these departments
or categories who condoned or took part in the war with Iraq committed the criminal offences of
conduct ancillary to each of the crimes and as such are liable for prosecution and punishment as
war criminals in Britain or at The Hague.

(7) Murder
“Whosoever shall solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall
propose to any person, to murder any other person, whether he be a subject of Her
Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen’s dominions or not, shall be guilty of
an offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for life.”

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861

6
This is incomplete. The full definition of 26 further war crimes can be found in Article 8 of the Rome Statute.
 13

Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence,
whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be
passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.

The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861

Every violent death of an Iraqi citizen since March 20th 2003 that can be shown to have been
caused by the actions of Coalition forces is an act of murder and can be prosecuted in Britain
under common law, the Offences against the Person Act or the Geneva Conventions Act.
Every MP who voted in favour of the war with Iraq on March 18th 2003, knowing that Iraqi citizens
would be killed as a result of their decision, committed murder and can be convicted as an
accessory to murder. Having caused the deaths of at least 80,000 and possibly 400,000 totally
innocent Iraqi children every political, civil and military leader involved in the war deserves to be
tried, convicted and punished as a child killer and should receive the same sentence as was
handed out to the murderer of the two small children at Soham.

(8) Conspiracy to murder

“If a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be
pursued which amounts to or involves the commission of any offence or offences by one
or more of the parties to the agreement, he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or
offences in question.”
The Criminal Law Act 1977

As the Minister in charge of foreign affairs the war with Iraq was Jack Straw’s responsibility.
Jack Straw supported the Prime Minister and urged members of Parliament to vote in favour of
war when he used the following words in closing the debate in Parliament on March 18th 2003i.

“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.”

This statement provides clear unequivocal evidence of conspiracy to murder. Jack Straw knew
perfectly well that Britain’s armed forces were about to kill innocent Iraqi civilians. It shows
beyond doubt that he not only knew what he was doing, but that he knew that he would be judged
on the consequences of his decision – the results that he was planning. It shows quite clearly
that he was setting out on a course of action that he knew would kill innocent Iraqi men, women
and children and in law this is more than enough to prove that he and his Parliamentary
colleagues who took part in the debate and who subsequently voted in favour of war were
conspiring to commit genocide as well as murder. Now that he has achieved all or more than he
was planning it is essential that he be removed from his position as Minister of Justice and
prosecuted convicted and punished as a war criminal alongside every one of the MPs who took
part or voted in favour of the war.

Accepting responsibility
 14

Waging war is a State decision. The German leaders who were convicted at Nuremburg claimed
in their defence that they were following orders and that as it was Adolf Hitler who had made the
decisions to wage war he alone bore responsibility for the consequences. However the
significance of the Nuremburg judgement is that the judges rejected this defence. They made it
quite clear that by accepting the decisions to wage war and use armed force to invade and
occupy 11 sovereign states, and also by taking part in the planning and preparations for war the
defendants shared responsibility for the decisions and their consequences. They were found to
be criminally responsible for the crimes of the German nation and convicted for violations of the
Kellogg-Briand Pact.

Freedom to choose to take part in war

The same legal principle holds good today. In a democracy, where everyone is free to choose
their course of action, citizens have a free choice over whether to accept or reject government
decisions. The Queen can refuse to sign the state orders commanding the armed forces to
wage war; ministers can resign from government; Peers can resign their peerages; MPs can give
up their seats in Parliament; civil servants can quit their jobs, judges can leave the judiciary,
military commanders can resign their command, soldiers can refuse active service and taxpayers
can refuse to pay tax. Anyone accepting a position as an officer of state shares responsibility for
the decisions and actions of the State and has a legal duty to uphold the law and to act on all
occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them.

In matters of warfare, where the decision to wage war or use armed force will cost the lives of
hundreds or even thousands of innocent men, women and children, every adult member of
society shares responsibility and is accountable in law for the consequences of the decision. If a
democratic nation decides to wage war and innocent people lose their lives every adult member
of that society is jointly responsible and criminally liable in law for causing the deaths.

As in WWII when German citizens were found to be responsible for the crimes of their
government American and British citizens are criminally responsible today for the genocide ii
crimes against humanity and war crimes taking place in Iraq. Every British adult has a choice
between supporting the government’s crimes and sharing responsibility for the deaths of a million
Iraqi men, women and children or opposing the government and preventing the crimes.

Everyone in Britain and America who accepted the decision to wage war with Iraq and continued
to pay taxes to the government shares responsibility for the crimesiii. Taxpayers know that it is
their money that pays for the activities of government. They know that if their government
wages war that they are providing the funds that will finance the killing. The Government uses
taxpayers’ money to buy weapons of mass destruction such as cruise missiles, rockets, bombs,
mortars and depleted uranium artillery shells which the armed forces use to attack villages, towns
and cities murdering and maiming the inhabitants. Taxpayers’ money buys the cluster bombs
and landmines used to kill and maim thousands of Iraqi children. Taxpayers’ money was used
to train equip and pay Coalition armed forces to take part in the Fallujah massacre, and it is
taxpayers’ money that pays for the genocide of the Iraqi people and the destruction of the world’s
oldest civilisation. No-one who pays tax can deny their responsibility in law for the deaths of Iraqi
men, women and children.

Responsibility for war crimes

 15

The main legal responsibility for the crimes taking place in Iraq lies with the political, civil and
military leaders responsible for planning and initiating the war as is made clear by Articles 27 and
28 of the Rome Statute.

Article 27
Irrelevance of official capacity

1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official
capacity. In particular official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a
Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case
exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself,
constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a
person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its
jurisdiction over such a person.

Article 28
Responsibility of commanders and other superiors

In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the
jurisdiction of the court:

(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be

criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the court committed by forces under his
or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be as a
result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where:

(i) That military commander or person either knew or owing to the circumstances at
the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such
crimes; and
(ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary or reasonable
measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit
the matter to the competent authorities for investigation or prosecution.

(b) With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph (a) a
superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the court committed by
subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to
exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:

(i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly
indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;

(ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and
control of the superior; and

(iii) The superior failed to take all necessary or reasonable measures within his or her
power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent
authorities for investigation and prosecution.

War Criminals
 16

The world’s first war criminals were the German leaders who were convicted by the Nuremburg
War Crimes Tribunal in 1946 of waging wars of aggression against 11 nation states in violation of
the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

“In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of
national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a 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…

Those who wage aggressive war are doing that which is equally illegal, and of much
greater moment than a breach of one of the rules of the Hague Convention. In
interpreting the words of the Pact, it must be remembered that international law is not the
product of an international legislature, and that such international agreements as the Pact
have to deal with general principles of law, and not with administrative matters of
procedure. Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract
entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of
international law be enforced…

That international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon
States has long been recognised… Individuals have international duties which transcend
national obligations of obedience imposed by the state.”

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

The Nuremburg judgement confirmed three important principles relating to war; first, that initiating
a war of aggression is the supreme international crime; second, that individuals responsible for
such a crime must be indicted and punished; and lastly, that in matters relating to war a person’s
duty to humanity transcends their duty to the state, in other words we are all duty bound to
disobey Government orders when those orders contravene international law.

Breaching the laws of war

When Britain joined America in the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq it was the fifth time in
five years that the British Government had breached the laws of war. Having given binding
undertakings to the world that we would never wage a war of aggression iv, never use armed force
to threaten or attack another Statev, never kill or harm civiliansvi, settle all international disputes
peacefullyvii, respect human rightsviii, uphold and enforce the rule of lawix and act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operationx, the British Government then violated every
one of these treaties.
 17
British war criminals
A war criminal is a person who violates the laws of war. The individuals named on this list are
responsible for ordering Britain’s armed forces to wage war with Iraq killing innocent Iraqi men,
women and children and in doing so they committed a crime against peace, genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes all of which are violations of the laws of war.

1. Queen Elizabeth II
At her coronation in 1953 the Queen took the coronation oath and swore to uphold the law.

“Will you solemnely promise and sweare to govern the people of this kingdom of England and the
Dominions thereto belonging according to the Statutes in Parlyament agreed on and the Laws and
customs of the same?

Will you to your power cause Law and Justice in Mercy to be Executed in all your judgements?”

By commanding the armed forces to undertake an armed attack on Iraq in which tens of
thousands of totally innocent men, women and children were killed the Queen violated the
Statutes, Laws and customs pertaining to warfare and armed conflict and failed to act in a legal,
just and merciful manner. By authorising the waging of aggressive war and causing the deaths
of one million innocent people of whom 400,000 were children, the Queen committed the criminal
offences of genocide and a crime against humanity under sections 51 and 52 of the International
Criminal Court Act 2001.

Since she came to power in 1952 Queen Elisabeth II has been personally responsible for more
violent illegal deaths of innocent men, women and children than any monarch in Britain’s long
and turbulent historyxi. She has always had the authority to reject her Prime Ministers’ proposals
for war. She could have halted Anthony Eden’s attack on Suez, Margaret Thatcher’s sinking of
the Belgrano or Tony Blair’s attacks on Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq; yet she didn’t. She knew
that innocent men, women and children would be killed, yet she continued to authorise war.
The Queen knew that not only would her soldiers, sailors and airmen kill innocent civilians, but
that some of them would themselves be killed. She knows that killing an innocent person is a
crime and presumably she knew when she gave the royal assent to the International Criminal
Court Act in 2001 that genocide and a crime against humanity are criminal offences and that she
herself would be culpable if she signed the active service orders.

2. Tony Blair
The former Prime Minister involved Britain in five wars between 1998 and 2003. On each
occasion innocent people who had done no wrong to Britain were killed. Tony Blair is personally
responsible for killing and injuring in excess of two million people. In law he is responsible for
crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and conduct ancillary to
these crimes as well as murder and conspiracy to murder. After he took the decision to support
George Bush’s attempts to get rid of Saddam Hussein he had to construct a rationale that would
sell the war to the public. In doing so he lied to Parliament and the people over the weapons of
mass destruction, he lied over the 45 minute threat, he lied over UN Security Council
authorisation and most important of all he lied over the legality of the war.

Tony Blair cannot be trusted with the lives of innocent people. Although he knows perfectly well
that murder is a criminal offence, that capital punishment was abolished forty years ago and that
killing people because of their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity is an act of genocide, he still
 18
went ahead with the war endlessly repeating the mantra that he knew it was the right thing to
do. Since when has killing an innocent child ever been the right thing to do? Since when has
firing a cruise missile into a crowded Baghdad market place been lawful ? How does the
massacre at Fallujah where rockets, bombs and missiles were used to kill 750 of its inhabitants
accord with international law? Nothing about the invasion and occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan
is or has ever been legitimate or lawful. Tony Blair, George Bush and now Gordon Brown and
Barack Obama four of the 21st century’s most evil leaders, not only committed a crime against
peace, the selfsame crime for which Germany’s leaders were convicted and hanged in 1946, but
they also committed genocide and crimes against humanity, the world’s worst crimes.

3. Lord Goldsmith
Peter Goldsmith is on the list of British war criminals for his part in the Iraq war. His legal advice
to the Prime Minister and Parliament was false and fundamentally flawed. If he had done the
job for which he was paid he would have informed Tony Blair, the Cabinet, Parliament, the
Government, the armed forces and the nation that the waging of an aggressive war is the world’s
worst crime, and that, should they support even a minor aspect of George Bush’s illegal invasion
and occupation of Iraq in which Iraqi nationals were killed, they would be committing the crimes
of genocide and a crime against humanity both of which are criminal offences in international and
English law and for both of which every member of the Government could be arrested, indicted
and tried in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Just why he omitted to mention the
laws of war when he was asked for his legal advice is yet to be determined; but one thing is for
sure. If he had warned the nation of the illegal nature of the Bush – Blair war on Saddam and
NATO’s war on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as well as the implications for British citizens of taking
part in any form of armed conflict, the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan could not and would not
have taken place and tens of thousands of innocent lives would have been saved.

4. Gordon Brown
The Prime Minister is on the list because of his membership of Tony Blair’s Cabinet, his
influential role in Government his control of the purse strings and his decision to continue the
killing when he became Prime Minister. If he had upheld the law as he promised when he
entered Parliament, if he had insisted in Cabinet that the country must never wage a war of
aggression, if he had refused to transfer funds to the armed forces to pay for the war and if he
had supported Robin Cook in his stand against Blair, we would never have gone to war. Gordon
Brown has always been in favour of the war with Iraq and as a prime mover and shaker in the
Blair Government and as the current Prime Minister he is jointly and severally responsible for
commanding Britain’s armed forces to join the Coalition and responsible for the deaths of 1
million Iraqis. As such he is one of Britain’s foremost war criminals.

5. Jack Straw
Jack Straw the current Justice Minister took over the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the
resignation of Robin Cook. The FCO is the Department of Government responsible for foreign
affairs and responsible for Britain’s relationships with the rest of the world. If the FCO had done
its job correctly Britain would never wage war and the proposal to attack Iraq would have been
dismissed outright. The sole reason for killing these men, women and children was that they
were Iraqi nationals living in Iraq. Mass murder becomes genocide when a person sets out with
the intention of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and then proceeds
to implement his plan. By urging members of Parliament to vote in favour of an armed attack on
Iraq, Jack Straw was instrumental in persuading members of Parliament to vote in favour of war.
 19
If Parliament had upheld international law and voted against the war Britain would not have
joined the Coalition and the killings would not have taken place. As the crimes did take place
and the evidence for all the elements of the crime of genocide are present, Jack Straw should be
arrested and charged with genocide, conduct ancillary to genocide, a crime against humanity and
conduct ancillary to a crime against humanity. He should also face charges of incitement to
murder and conspiracy to murder.

6. Geoff Hoon
Geoff Hoon was the Defence Minister when the war with Iraq started and he was the Minister of
State responsible for ordering the armed forces into war. If Geoff Hoon had upheld the laws of
war and the international treaties outlawing war to which Britain is a signatory then the war with
Iraq would never have taken place. He authorised the involvement of the Armed Forces in the
war and he claimed that the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium in Iraq was lawful. The
possession, manufacture or use of cluster bombs (anti-personnel explosives) and depleted
uranium are forbidden under the terms of the Landmines and Chemical Weapons Conventions.
Unexploded cluster bombs do more damage in maiming and killing children than they ever do to
their so called military targets. He knew or should have known that attacking undefended
villages, towns and cities in Iraq was a breach of the Geneva Conventions and a serious crime.
As Minister of Defence he must have known that the only time when war is legal is when a nation
defends itself from an attack and he knew that Britain was not under attack. He knew that
forcibly removing Saddam Hussein was illegal and that by ordering the troops to take part in a
war of aggression he was commissioning the worlds most serious crime. At any time Geoff
Hoon could have stopped the war, stopped the killing and recalled the troops.

7. Lord Boyce
Admiral Boyce was Chief of the Defence Staff when the war started in 2003. He was
responsible for giving the orders to the armed forces to take part in the invasion and occupation
of Iraq. If he had upheld domestic and international law and refused to involve Britain’s defence
forces in a war of aggression, a million Iraqis and 130 British service personnel would still be
alive today. Their blood is on his hands. Their deaths are his responsibility.

8. Lord Turnbull
Andrew Turnbull was the Cabinet Secretary throughout the run up to the war. He was Britain’s
senior civil servant and responsible for the actions and behaviour of all Britain’s civil servants.
The fact that British politicians were able to renege on international treaties at will is down to
Andrew Turnbull. As the Cabinet Secretary he had the responsibility for ensuring that the
Cabinet had the facts and figures to hand before making their decisions. That the cabinet came
to decisions on behalf of the nation that ignored international treaties, violated international law
and put millions of human lives at risk was his responsibility. It is clear that the decision making
processes in use in Government are faulty, corrupt and inappropriate for a 21st century
democracy. Andrew Turnbull is jointly responsible for the deaths of more than 1 million innocent
people and was a key figure in the genocide of the Iraqi people.
 20
9. Lord Jay
Michael Jay was the senior civil servant at the Foreign Office during the run up to the war.
Together with Andrew Turnbull he had the fate of the Iraqi people in his hands and he failed
them. He was in charge of the Foreign Office and together with mandarins such as Christopher
Meyer and Jeremy Greenstock was responsible for developing and steering British foreign policy.
Britain could not have waged war with Iraq if the Foreign Office under Sir Michael Jay had done
its job correctly. He failed totally to persuade or remind the politicians to abide by the law and to
adopt a pacific approach to international relations. He could have instructed Jeremy Greenstock
to formulate a peacekeeping proposal to put to the UN Security Council instead of trying to push
through a war making resolution; he could have instructed Christopher Meyer to warn Tony Blair
and the Americans in the spring of 2002 of the illegal nature of the proposal to invade Iraq; and
he could have insisted that the Government upheld international treaties and played a proper
peacekeeping role in the world. He failed to stop the conflict and instead played a major part in
the planning and preparations for war and the genocide of the Iraqi people and as such he
qualifies as one of Britain’s worst war criminals.

5000 British war criminals

Although the main responsibility for the war with Iraq and the genocide of the Iraqi people lies
with Tony Blair and George Bush, there are several thousand others in America, Australia and
Britain who took part in the planning, preparation and conduct of the war and by failing to resign
their posts are criminally responsible in law. In Britain these include:-

• John Prescott and David Blunkett (deputy Prime Minister and Home Office Minister)
• All other members of the Cabinet serving on or after March 18th 2003
• All Junior Government Ministers serving on or after March 18th 2003
• The 412 MPs who voted in favour of the war in the debate on March 18th 2003.
• Every sitting MP7 who has served in Parliament since October 7, 2001
• All those members of the House of Lords who accepted the decision to wage war and
failed to resign their peerages, including the Law Lords and Bishops
• The Staff and Advisors at No 10 Downing St. (Jonathan Powell, Alistair Campbell etc)
• Government law officers and legal advisors in the Law Officers Department, the Ministry
of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the FCO and the Home Office.
• Senior Civil servants and advisors in the Cabinet Office, the FCO, the MOD, the Treasury
and Departments involved in the planning, preparation or conduct of war.
• The Chiefs of the Defence Staff and the armed forces commanders and senior officers in
Whitehall and in the field of combat.
• The Queen’s advisors.
• The Lord Chief Justice and High Court, County Court and Magistrates Court judges who
supported the wars and rejected legal attempts to stop the wars.
• The Metropolitan Police Commissioners Lord Stevens and Sir Ian Blair as well as all UK
Chief Constables.
• Journalists, editors and members of the media who supported the war.
• Taxpayers who continue to pay tax after they know that it is an illegal act.

Just as Robin Cook resigned from the Cabinet, Elisabeth Wilmshurst from the Foreign Office and
Malcolm Kendall Smith refused to serve in Iraq, so too could these people have resigned from

7
Excluding Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness
 21
their positions or refused to serve or co-operate with this Government. They fully deserve to
answer in court for their part in the crimes against Iraq.

What we can do to stop the killing

We all know that killing innocent men, women and children is a crime. Our duty to humanity is
always greater than our duty to Government, Queen or country. Only when the political, civil
and military leaders responsible for waging war and committing these crimes are arrested,
charged, tried and if found guilty, punished, will we be in a position to eliminate warfare.

When will we take a stand ?

More than 1,000,000 Iraqis have been killed by order of the British and American Governments
since March 2003. This is equivalent to a public execution of 30 totally innocent men, women
and children every hour of every day for four and half years. When will we say no to genocide?
When will Parliament force the British Government to stop the war, stop the killings, recall the
armed forces and arrest and indict war criminals? Every hour that we allow this war to continue 8
more children are murdered. Every day that we wait for someone else to take the decision to
stop the war we condemn 750 people to death. We must act now. We can no longer afford to
accept the lies and deceptions of the American President, the Prime Minister, Parliament, the
Queen, our Governments or the media. Every person in Britain and America has a duty to force
the UK and US Governments to end the warfare and the killing now.

Chris Coverdale The Campaign to Make Wars History April 2008

i
Hansard Vol 401 No.65 Page 902.
ii
Genocide is defined as intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing or causing
serious bodily or mental harm to its members. The killing of Iraqi citizens by Coalition forces for the sole reason that they
were Iraqi nationals defending their country from enemy invasion constitutes an act of genocide.
iii
Article 33 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
iv
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [The Kellogg-Briand Pact].
v
The United Nations Charter 1945.
vi
The Geneva Conventions 1948, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.
vii
The Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928, the UN Charter 1945.
viii
The UN Charter 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
ix
The UN Charter 1945, the Rome Statute 1998.
x
The UN Charter 1945.
xi
Although previous monarchs were responsible for more deaths in war, waging a war and killing civilians and combatants
have only been illegal acts in statutory international law since 1948 and 1950.