‘War criminal’ David Cameron reported to police by three men who walk into small Scottish cop shop

http://www.philosophers-stone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CapturePNG.png

 

The hardy trio brandished copies of an 87-year-old peace treaty as they declared “we’re here to report an international war crime”

 

Three men have walked into a small Scottish police station and tried to get David Cameron arrested.

The hardy trio brandished copies of an 87-year-old peace treaty as they declared: “We’re here to report an international war crime”.

They claim the Tory Prime Minister broke the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact by voting to extend RAF airstrikes on ISIS from Iraq into Syria.

Signed in Paris by nations including Britain, the US, Germany and France, the treaty pledged to “renounce war as an instrument of national policy”.

Despite it failing to prevent the Second World War, members of the Scottish Resistance – a pro-independence group – insist the pact is still in force.

http://vjs.zencdn.net/4.12/video-js.swf

 

Led by campaigner James Scott, they marched into Rutherglen Police Station near Glasgow on Friday and announced their demands.

Mr Scott told a lone police officer behind the desk: “We have the law here, which you’ll probably have to read.

“We’re here to make a criminal complaint against the Prime Minister of the UK, David Cameron .

“He’s gone to war in breach of international law. In 1928, a treaty was made called the Kellogg-Briand pact.

PA
         Outspoken: James Scott (right) protesting after a speech by Gordon Brown in May

“It was a treaty to end all war. This is the truth.

“What has happened since is in the Second World War the Germans were actually prosecuted under this international war law.

“We’re here to get a police incident number for a crime we are reporting against David Cameron .”

Unperturbed, the police officer duly wrote out an incident number for the three men. But it is not known whether the case has been taken any further.

Norman Inglis
Other interests: Mr Scott at the churchyard where William Wallace was betrayed

David Cameron insisted airstrikes on Syria were legal last week because the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution saying nations should use ‘all necessary measures’ to beat ISIS.

But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said it was not enough to give ‘clear and unambiguous authorisation’ for bombing the terrorists’ capital Raqqa.

He also questioned whether ‘bogus battalions’ of 70,000 supposed moderate ground troops would be able to pick up the pieces once the conflict ends.

A Police Scotland spokesman said: “We can confirm that a complaint was made in person at Rutherglen Police Office on Friday 4 December.

“No criminality was established and advice and guidance was given.”

Is bombing Syria legal?

1,000+ VOTES SO FAR

Is bombing Syria legal?

  • YES

    27%

  • NO

    73%

 

See also:

Kellogg–Briand Pact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy[1]) was a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.”[2] Parties failing to abide by this promise “should be denied of the benefits furnished by this treaty.” It was signed by Germany, France and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounced the use of war and called for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy.[3] It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.

Signatories and adherents

Dark green: original signatories
Green: subsequent adherents
Light blue: territories of parties
Dark blue: League of Nations mandates administered by parties

After negotiations, the pact was signed in Paris at the French Foreign Ministry by the representatives from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, British India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom[4] and the United States. It was provided that it would come into effect on July 24, 1929. By that date, the following nations had deposited instruments of definitive adherence to the pact: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, the Soviet Union, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. Eight further states joined after that date (Persia, Greece, Honduras, Chile, Luxembourg, Danzig, Costa Rica and Venezuela.[5]) for a total of 62 signatories. In 1971, Barbados declared its succession to the treaty.[6]

In the United States, the Senate approved the treaty overwhelmingly, 85–1, with only Wisconsin Republican John J. Blaine voting against.[7] While the U.S. Senate did not add any reservation to the treaty, it did pass a measure which interpreted the treaty as not infringing upon the United States’ right of self defense and not obliging the nation to enforce it by taking action against those who violated it.

Effect and legacy

The 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations, and remains in effect.[8] One month following its conclusion, a similar agreement, General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, was concluded in Geneva, which obliged its signatory parties to establish conciliation commissions in any case of dispute.[9]

As a practical matter, the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come. Moreover, the pact erased the legal distinction between war and peace because the signatories, having renounced the use of war, began to wage wars without declaring them as in the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939, the German and Soviet Union invasions of Poland.[10] Nevertheless, the pact is an important multilateral treaty because, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat[11] or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it,[12] are unlawful.

Notably, the pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace. It was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal tried and sentenced a number of people responsible for starting World War II.

The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that “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.” One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. However, neither this nor the original treaty has prevented the subsequent use of annexation. More broadly, there is a strong presumption against the legality of using, or threatening, military force against another country. Nations that have resorted to the use of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right of collective defense.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact

 

The Kellogg-Briand Pact – Documents

Also contains the text of the Treaty.
Source: United States Statutes at Large Vol 46 Part 2 Page 2343
Informal Suggestions for Further Implementing the Treaty for the Renunciation of War Signed at Paris, August 27, 1928
[On July 25,1929, during the discussions arising out of the Sino-Russian controversy, the Secretary of State made a suggestion for the implementation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, i. e., the Treaty for the Renunciation of War; see memorandum by the Secretary of State, “Suggestions for a Commission of Conciliation,” volume II, page 243..]

The above Memorandum is printed in Foreign Relations 1929 Volume II
Source:
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States – 1929
(In Three Volumes) Volume I
Department of State Publication 2018
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1943

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/kbmenu.asp

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Responses to “‘War criminal’ David Cameron reported to police by three men who walk into small Scottish cop shop”

  1. ian says:

    Respect to the guys involved, but breath holding not recommended.

  2. Lynn says:

    But that is what we are reduced to Ian…a few good men…they will bring false charges against them…that’s for sure.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.