UK Treason Case study: Trial of King Charles of England.
On 1st January 1649 the rump parliament passed an ordinance for the trial of King Charles 1st
he was charged with subverting the fundamental laws and liberties of the nation. In a reversal of the traditional definition parliament declared that it was treason for a King to Stir up War .

When the House of Lords refused to give its assent to the ordinance the House of Commons declared itself to be the supreme authority in the land with powers to pass laws without the consent of the King or the Lords.

A High Court of Justice was specially convened for the trial which was held in the painted chamber of the Palace of Westminster. Although the commissioners of the High court were anxious that the trial should be seen to be open and public stringent security measures were enforced soldiers were stationed to control the crowds, guards were posted on the roofs, cellars were searched.

King Charles did not recognise the jurisdiction of the High court.The depositions proved the King's personal demonstrated his intention of stirring war. On 26 January the commissioners drafted the sentence condemning King Charles Stuart as a " tyrant, traitor, murderer and publicenemy to the Common wealth of England ".

The final session of the address to the prisoner asserted that even a King was subject to the law
declaring Charles guilty of the charges against him the order of the sentence was read out to his great dismay. Charles was not allowed to speak and was abruptly led away from the court to await his execution.
Treasons Act 1534

The Act specified that all those were guilty of high treason who will or desire by words or writing, by craft imagine, invent, practice to be done or committed to heirs apparent [ House of commons and Parliament ] to deprive them of any of their Dignity. Members of Parliament who kept there Dignity by Resignation over the Iraq war

Robert Finlayson Cook until the time of his sudden and un expected death of a heart attack in 2005 was reported to be the only one of the cabinet's chief opponents of military action against Iraq and on 17 March he resigned from the Cabinet. In a statement giving his reasons for resigning he said " I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."

Elizabeth Wilmshurst known for her role as Deputy Legal Adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
She resigned on 20 March 2003 three days after Lord Goldsmith's final advice to the British government reversed her legal opinion that the invasion was illegal without a second United Nations Security Council Resolution to SCR 678.

Clare short on 9 March 2003 Short repeatedly called Tony Blair " RECKLESS " in a BBC radio interview and threatened to resign from the cabinet in the event of the British government going to war with Iraq without a clear mandate from the United Nations.

Tony blair as like king Charles 1st of England (Regarding untouch from other people reality with God beliefs) In an interview with Michael Parkinson broadcast on ITV1 on 4 March 2006, Blair referred to the role of his christian faith in his decision to go to war in Iraq stating that he had prayed about the issue and saying that God would judge him for his decision I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well.

The invasion of Iraq was particularly controversial as it attracted widespread public opposition and 139 of Blair's MPs opposed it. In 2009, Blair stated that he would have supported removing Saddam Hussein from power even in the face of proof that he had no such weapons.

He did not listen to the concerns of the uk public on going to war with protestors 1 to 2 million marching out side at No 10 Downing Street which some organisers estimated at to stop military war on the Iraque people and the eventual suffering this will cause.
which later responded by blocking and banning the public to protest around westminister and No 10 Downing Street. Tony Bliar did not listen to the expert advice from the Iraque weapons inspectors from America and Britain that there were no weapons of mass destruction.
( UK ) The Guardian , Wednesday 3 March 2004 Article history by Julian Borger
US David Kay weapons inspector walked into the US Senate in late January, the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction In simply stating that " there were no stock piles ", Kay declared that the" would-be Emperors on both sides of the Atlantic had no clothes ".

George Bush's administration and Tony Blair's government insisted that some evidence of weapons had been found by the Iraq Survey Group ( ISG ) which Kay had led for seven months, and that much more would be uncovered In simply stating that " there were no stock piles ", Kay declared that the " would-be Emperors on both sides of the Atlantic had no clothes ".

In person however Kay's message is clear. " I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stock piles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war," he told the Guardian in an interview in Washington. He now believes that any weapons the Iraqis had were probably destroyed before 1998. " There were continuing clandestine activities but increasingly driven more by corruption than driven by purposeful directed weapons programmes," argued the 63-year-old former diplomat and sleuth.

Coming from a hawk and advocate of the Iraq invasion that is a depressing conclusion for an administration otherwise, faith in governments will be under mined. Before the war Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action and more than two months after the invasion, with no signs of an arsenal Kay came to believe it was because the Pentagon was botching the search. In early June, the administration decided to take him at his word. It took control of the weapons search away from the military and gave it to the CIA which set up the ISG.

The CIA director, George Tenet asked Kay to lead the hunt. Kay a veteran diplomat and nuclear weapons expert set off convinced he would find the weapons but within a few weeks of interrogating Iraqi scientists and officials and sending out search parties in vain, he began to feel a "great unease " that perhaps his assumptions and those of many of the world's intelligence agencies, were built on sand.

I had millions of dollars of reward money that I could have paid for information on weapons and believe me if someone had come in and said this is where they're hidden we would have taken care of them for the rest of their life. . " The fact that no one came forward for it was a worrying concern."

But he found that some officials in the US and Britain were in no hurry to publicise his realisation
the Iraqi military threat which was largely illusory - but by the suffering of the Iraqi people.
It will probably be the justification that Washington and London will ultimately settle on. " You spend any time there and you look at the mass graves and the destruction of society and the culture," Kay says

( UK ) Dr Kelly weapons inspector (found dead in mysterious circumstances.)
David Christopher Kelly was a British scientist and expert on biological warfare employed by the British Ministry of Defence and formerly a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. He came to public attention in July 2003 when an unauthorised discussion he had off the record with a BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was cited by the journalist and led to a major controversy.

Kelly was invited to join the inspection team attempting to find any trace of weapons of mass destruction programmes and was apparently enthusiastic about resuming his work there. He made two attempted trips to Iraq. The first was on 19 May 2003, when he was prevented from entering Iraq from Kuwait because he did not have the proper documentation.The second trip was from 5 June 2003 - 11 June 2003, when Kelly went to view and photograph two alleged mobile weapons laboratories as a part of a third inspection team.

Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer,
which on 15 June 2003, quoted "A British scientist and biological weapons expert who has examined the trailers in Iraq.
The expert said : " They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons.
They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons". It was confirmed in the Hutton Inquiry that Kelly was the source of this quote.

Kelly's experience of weapons inspections led to him being asked to proof read sections of the draft dossier on the history of inspections. Kelly was unhappy with some of the claims in the draft particularly a claim originating from August 2002 that Iraq was capable of firing battlefield biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order to use them (known as " the 45 minute claim ")

He was called to appear on 15 July before the parliamentary foreign affairs select committee, which was investigating the issues Gilligan had reported. Kelly was found dead two days later.

Tony Blair's government set up the Hutton Inquiry a public inquiry into the circumstances
surrounding the death.This determined that Kelly had committed suicide. In October 2010 the postmortem that Hutton inquiry had ordered was sealed shut for 70 years .


We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists."

UK Gaurdian,

George Monbiot
A Dutch inquiry led by a former supreme court judge found that the invasion had " no sound mandate in international law ". Last month Lord Steyn a former law lord said that " in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion it was illegal ". In November Lord Bingham,the former lord chief justice stated that without the blessing of the UN the Iraq war was " a serious violation of international law and the rule of law ".



UK Telegraph

Nor did virtually anyone else with the exceptions of Robin Cook, Clare Short (somewhat belatedly ) and FCO deputy legal advisor, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, politicians, officials, ministers and servicemen were either convinced or were happy to go along. Their silence was deafening.
Fellow travelers included Gordon Brown the principal figure who could have blocked British participation in military action at any point Instead Brown sat through meetings in silence unhappy with events but choosing to keep his counsel. Iraq was Blair's war but there is a collective sense of guilt among former ministers and officials who failed to speak out.


UK Independent

The situation in Iraq is still horrible more than 400 people died in violent incidents last month; more than 1,400 were wounded. Millions of Iraqis are still displaced inside Iraq or in Syria, Jordan or elsewhere with little prospect of their returning home. Water and electricity are limping along, the vital oil industry will take years to rebuild. British troops sent to train the Iraqi security forces were in Kuwait through the summer marking time while the Iraqi government quibbled about their legal status.


During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stock piles of WMD
In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program


As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office revealed her office had ­ consistently advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression without legal justification the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder : those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties . They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute which established the international criminal court ( ICC ) and provides for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted. There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist.


Laws of War

Remedies For Violations

After a conflict has ended persons who have committed or ordered any breach of the Laws of War especially atrocities may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law. Also nations which signed the Geneva Conventions are required to search for then try and
punish,anyone who has committed or ordered certain "grave breaches" of the Laws of War. (see GC III, Art. 129 and Art. 130 )


David Halpin looks at the litany of crimes for which former British Prime Minister Tony Blair will have to account sooner or later.

ony Blair accused of War Crimes
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair on Trial in The Hague