(European) courts are starting to accept the war against Iraq is a crime

[muriel_volestrangler]

In Britain and Ireland, protesters who have deliberately damaged military equipment are walking from the dock

George Monbiot

In the early hours, two days before the attack on Iraq began, two men in their 30s, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, cut through the fence surrounding the air base at Fairford in Gloucestershire and made their way towards the B52 bombers which were stationed there. The planes belonged to the US air force. The trespassers were caught by guards and found to be carrying tools and paint. They confessed that they were seeking to disable the planes, in order to prevent war crimes from being committed. This year they were tried on charges of conspiracy to commit criminal damage, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Last week, after long deliberations, the jury failed to reach a verdict.
...
They cited section 5 of the 1971 Criminal Damage Act, which provides lawful excuse for damaging property if that action prevents property belonging to other people from being damaged, and section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, which states that "a person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of a crime". In summing up, the judge told the jurors that using weapons "with an adverse effect on civilian populations which is disproportionate to the need to achieve the military objective" is a war crime. The defendants are likely to be tried again next year.

While these non-verdicts are as far as the defence of lawful excuse for impeding the Iraq war has progressed in the UK, in Ireland and Germany the courts have made decisions - scarcely reported over here - whose implications are momentous. Last year, five peace campaigners were acquitted after using an axe and hammers to cause $2.5m worth of damage to a plane belonging to the US navy. When they attacked it, in February 2003, it had been refuelling at Shannon airport on its way to Kuwait, where it would deliver supplies to be used in the impending war. The jury decided that the five saboteurs were acting lawfully.

This summer, the German federal administrative court threw out the charge of insubordination against a major in the German army. He had refused to obey an order which, he believed, would implicate him in the invasion of Iraq. The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1923914,00.html

The British courts have said they can't hold the whole war to be illegal under British law; but individual acts, such as using cluster bombs on civilians, can. Hence sabotage to stop them can be used as a defence - which enough jurors have accepted to prevent a verdict being reached.

[Gman]

1. Excellent news. We're one step closer to war crime trials

for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al.

[Tellurian]

3. Bush just purcased a hideaway in Paraguay..

don't count your chickens, just yet..

[Gman]

5. Yes I know, and the US has an extradiction treaty with Paraguay

here's a link to it: http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-ext-usa-pry.pdf

If we have this treaty, I'm sure other countries do to.

[Tellurian]

2. So, Cheney is building a house in VA..

will that be far enough away from being extradited for War Crimes?
<sarcasm> I hate using the dripping bloody teeth..:)

[rodeodance]

4. whow-----when will this Reasoning hit this side of the pond?