1

The British Government’s lies, deceptions and false legal

assertions concerning the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.

On March 20th2009 Make Wars History wrote to every MP asking them to end the
killings of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. We received twenty replies
including a letter from the FCO responding on behalf of Bill Rammell the Minister for
the FCO explaining the Government’s policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is our
analysis of the letter pointing out the lies, deceptions and false legal assertions on
which the UK Government’s illegal foreign affairs policies are based.

1. “Ultimately the decision to undertake military action was determined by

Saddam Husseins’ refusal to co-operate with the UN weapons inspectors”.
This is not true. Saddam Hussein co-operated fully with UN weapons inspectors,
allowing Hans Blix’s team full and unrestricted access to all sites and providing
14,000 pages of records. The weapons inspectors had found nothing in four
months of searching and they were finally pulled out of Iraq by the Americans.

2. “It is well known that the UN Security Council Resolution No 1441 gave Iraq
one final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”.
This is not true. UNSC 1441 set up the weapons inspections process asking for,
and receiving, full co-operation from Iraq. It also asked the weapons inspectors to
keep the UNSC fully informed of progress. It did not, and could not, give Iraq one
final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. This was another of
Tony Blair’s lies used to persuade Parliament to go to war with Iraq.

3. “Saddam Hussein chose not to take the opportunity offered to him. His
regime failed to give the UN weapons inspectors the full, active and immediate
co-operation that the international community demanded”.
This is not true. The letter from Hans Blix to the UNSC confirmed that Iraq’s
foreign minister had agreed to all the weapons inspectors’requirements. The
following four months of inspections carried out without interference by the Iraqis
confirmed Iraq’s immediate and total co-operation with UNSC requirements. The
international community was fully behind the UN and the only states making
demands on Iraq were Britain and America. This is another of Tony Blair’s lies.

4. “In almost four months of inspections, the regime failed to answer a single
outstanding question about its WMD programmes, or to resolve any
outstanding issues as requested by the UN.”
This is another blatant lie. The regime answered every question that they were
asked fully, completely and honestly.
 2

5. “Our decision to take military action to enforce Iraq’s disarmament obligations,

in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions, was taken as a last
resort”.
This is another blatant lie. Iraq had complied with every requirement to disarm
and the weapons inspectors had overseen the destruction of Iraq’s few remaining
missiles. Iraq was fully compliant with all UN disarmament requirements.
Britain’s military action was not taken as a last resort. Military action had been
agreed by Blair in March 2002, had been planned for nearly eleven months and
was the only option that the British Government ever considered.

6. “The Iraqi regime’s refusal to co-operate ultimately led to the conclusion that it
was simply too dangerous to let the situation in Iraq develop further”.
As a reason to go to war and destroy a nation state killing and injuring 3.5m of its
citizens this has to be one of the worst lies in history.

7. “The then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed on March 17 th, 2003
that authority to use force against Iraq existed in the combined effect of UN
Security Council Resolutions 678, 687, and1441”.
Lord Goldsmith’s legal advice was totally false. These UNSC resolutions did not
and could not authorise the use of armed force. Not only is there is not one word
in any of the Security Council resolutions authorising the use of armed force, but it
is important to point out that The UNSC cannot authorise the use of armed force
under any circumstances. Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter states:-
“ The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the
use of armed forceare to be employed to give effect to its decisions,
and it may call upon its members to apply such measures.”
The UN is a peacekeeping body and it may not under any circumstances take a
human life. To claim that the use of armed force was authorised by UNSC
Resolutions is false.

8. “All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter,
which allows the use of force for the purpose of restoring international peace
and security”.
Another blatant lie. Nowhere in Chapter VII of the UN Charter is the use of
armed force allowed. This is a deliberate misinterpretation of Article 42 which
does allow for the use of force, but does NOT allow for the use of ARMEDforce.
All of the measures suggested inArticles 41 and 42 are non-violent and designed
to restrain or restrict the actions of an aggressor in the same manner that a police
force is allowed to use force to restrain a criminal. Under no circumstances is a
member state of the UN authorised to use armed force or cause the death of
another human being.
It is also clear that only those armed forces which are operating under UN
auspices are authorised to act on behalf of the UN. In this case not only were
British forces operating without the mandate of the UN but they were operating in
 3

defiance of the UN. The UN Security Council had publicly refused to accept the
infamous second resolution put forward by Britain and America.
9. “It is important to note that our forces operated in Iraq under a UN mandate,
as set out in Security Council Resolutions 1546 and 1790 until 31 December
2008”.
This is another deception. These resolutions are peacekeeping and security
resolutions and do not and cannot authorise the use of armed force. If a single
person is wilfully killed in any of these operations then a crime has been
committed and the offenders, in particular those who authorised the use of armed
force, must answer for their actions in court. Not only were our armed forces
never authorised to use armed force, but every time violent force is used and
causes death or injury to Iraqi citizens then a criminal offence is committed by
every person associated with the killing.

10. “These resolutions were requested by the Government of Iraq. Since 31

December 2008 UK forces have operated in Iraq at the request of the
democratically elected Government”.
Another deception. The Government of Iraq is an occupation Government
imposed on the people of Iraq by Coalition forces which had overrun and
conquered their country. In the same way that the Vichy Government in France
during WWII was a creature of the German occupying forces, so the current
Government in Iraq is a creature of the Coalition Governments and is not a
legitimate Government of an independent state.

11. “You mentioned civilian casualties. Coalition forces in Iraq have sought at all
times to avoid civilian casualties”.
This is another blatant lie. Of the 3.5m casualties caused by the illegal armed
invasion of Iraq, at least 95% are civilians and 1m were children. Coalition forces
rather than seeking to avoid civilian casualties have intentionally targeted
civilians. One does not use cruise missiles, rockets, cluster bombs, mortars and
depleted uranium munitions against undefended villages, towns and cities with
any other purpose than to destroy the people living in the vicinity of the
explosions. If as the FCO claims our armed forces seek at all times to avoid
causing civilian casualties then they would never use weapons especially against
children. They know perfectly well that if they use high-explosive weapons they
will kill and injure anyone in the vicinity of the explosion. They knew within 24
hours of starting the ‘shock and awe’campaign that they were killing and injuring
civilians in huge numbers. If they had really sought to avoid civilian casualties
then they would never have fired another shot or dropped another bomb.

12. “Operations have been aimed against legitimate military targets”.

Another lie. If, as the British Government claims, Saddam’s military forces
possessed weapons of mass destruction then it would have been suicidal to aim
high explosive weapons at them in case they released the fatal germs and toxins
the WMD were supposed to have contained. There never were any legitimate
 4

military targets. Even if one makes the untrue assumption that the invasion was
lawful, all military targets had been overrun and defeated in the first seven weeks
so any target after that date was illegitimate. In law every violent death of an
Iraqi citizen that occurred after March 19th 2003 is a war crime and constitutes a
criminal offence in domestic and international law. Even if a person is described
by political leaders as a terrorist, an insurgent, a suspected suicide bomber or an
enemy it is NEVER lawful to kill or injure them.

13. “As you know our armed forces operate under strict rules of engagement
which authorise the use of lethal force only when absolutely necessary”.
Apart from knowing no such thing, there are no occasions in law [even when one
is under attack] when it is lawful to use lethal force. IT IS NEVER LAWFUL TO
KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING even if that person is described by one’s
government as an enemy. The laws of war, which the British and American
Governments have ignored and violated for more than sixty years, are designed
to save human life not to destroy it. British Government law officers repeatedly
deceive Parliament, the armed forces and the public over the legality of the use of
armed force. Almost nothing that Britain’s armed forces have done on active
service in the past sixty years has been lawful under the international treaties,
conventions and statutes known as the laws of war. No Government officer can
ever prove their assertions of legality because they cannot point to any grounds,
phrase, clause, article, section, paragraph or Chapter of any current international
statute that authorises the use of armed force; whereas every assertion or
statement made in this document is grounded in statute, common or customary
international law.

14. “Everything possible is done to minimise the risk of civilian deaths and
casualties from occurring”.
Totally untrue. Where one hundred years ago civilian casualties were less than
20% of the total casualties in war, they now regularly exceed 90% of the total. If
everything possible was done to minimise casualties then there would be NO
DEATHS AND NO CASUALTIES. If everything was really being done to
minimise civilian deaths, the British Government would abide by the laws of war;
we would never fight an aggressive war, as required by the Kellogg Briand Pact,
we would never wilfully kill an enemy combatant, as required by the Geneva
Conventions, never kill or harm members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious
group, as required by the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court; never threaten or attack another state, as required
by the UN Charter, respect human rights especially the right to life, as required by
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and we would settle all our
international disputes peacefully, as required by the Treaty for the Renunciation of
War and the UN Charter. It is important not to believe a single word concerning
the legality of their actions emanating from the FCO, the Cabinet Office, the MOD
or the law officers as they have never told the truth about the laws of war in sixty
years and they cannot be trusted to respect human life.
 5

15. “It would be misleading to suggest that Coalition forces caused more
casualties in the short conflict against Saddam Hussein than terrorists have
inflicted since”.
This is misleading and untrue. Coalition Governments are responsible for all the
violent deaths ensuing from the unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq whether
they were caused by Coalition forces or other militias. In international law the
occupying power is responsible for all the violent deaths that take place under its
control. Having disbanded the Iraqi armed forces, police and judiciary the
Coalition Governments brought about, and are directly responsible for, the
lawlessness and internal strife between competing militias. In law not only are
British and American political, civil and military leaders jointly responsible for
every one of the deaths and injuries caused in the initial ‘short conflict against
Saddam Hussein’, but they are also jointly responsible for all the violent deaths
that have taken place since. The only people using armed force who are
operating lawfully in Afghanistan and Iraq are the so-called ‘terrorists’ or
‘insurgents’ who are fighting for the freedom of their country. Under Article 51 of
the UN Charter, a nation is entitled to use armed force to defend itself from attack.
As the only states that are under attack are Iraq and Afghanistan then the only
people lawfully using armed force are the Iraqi and Afghan ‘insurgents’ fighting
the invading and occupying forces of the Coalition or ISAF.

16. “UK forces along with 41 other contributing nations are in Afghanistan at the
invitation of the democratically elected Afghan Government with the support of
the vast majority of Afghans and at the request of the United Nations”.
This is another attempt at post hoc rationalisation of an illegal armed intervention
in another country’s affairs. The only use of armed force that can ever be lawful
is when a nation uses armed force to defend itself after it has sustained an armed
attack. The only people who are operating within the law in Afghanistan are the
Afghan fighters attempting to repel an illegal armed invasion of their country.

17. “It is vital to immediate UK national security interests that Afghanistan

becomes a stable and secure state that can suppress terrorism and violent
extremism within its borders and contribute to the same objective across the
border in Pakistan. This is because the majority of attack plots against the UK
come from this area”.
This is a disgraceful attempt to justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands
of Afghan men, women and children. When Britain signed the Treaty for the
Renunciation of War [the Kellogg-Briand Pact] in 1928 and the UN Charter in
1945 we promised never to threaten or attack another state, to settle all disputes
peacefully whatever their nature or origin, to respect human rights and to work
together in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation. By using modern high tech
indiscriminate weapons and explosives against undefended villages and towns
Britain has breached every one of the international peace agreements and
treaties that it has signed and ratified since 1928. It has never been lawful to kill
 6

totally innocent men, women and children on the grounds that there may exist
amongst them ‘terrorists’ and ‘violent extremists’ plotting to attack the UK. If you
suspect a person of plotting a terrorist attack then the lawful way of dealing with it
is to arrest them and try them for their crimes in a court of law. To attack them,
their families and their neighbours with high explosive missiles, cluster bombs,
rockets and depleted uranium artillery shells is not only the worst kind of terrorist
attack it is possible to commit and the mark of an uncivilised nation, but it
constitutes the worst criminal offence known to law, the crime of genocide.

18. “The UK’s objectives in Afghanistan are: to ensure that core Al-Qaeda does
not return to Afghanistan; to reduce the insurgency on both sides of the
Durrand line to a level that poses no significant threat to progress in
Afghanistan and Pakistan; and to ensure that Afghanistan remains a
legitimate state increasingly capable of handling its own security”.
This isa disgrace. None of these reasons are lawful or legitimate concerns for
British and American armed forces; and whose progress is threatened? We are
using modern attack aircraft, firing rockets and dropping bombs to injure and kill
thousands of innocent men, women and children who have never done anything
to harm Britain. Each of our victims had a right to life and a legitimate expectation
that Britain would respect their rights, uphold and enforce its international
agreements and leave them alone to live in peace. By what right are we
interfering in their affairs, murdering them, destroying their country and forcing
them to become a so-called ‘legitimate state’ modelled presumably on America
and Britain two of the least democratic and worst rogue states in living memory?
What right has the British Government to force members of its armed forces to
serve in either Afghanistan or Iraq? Both occupations are unlawful and every
armed attack by Coalition forces that results in injury or death to innocent civilians
is a crime of genocide and a crime against humanity in domestic and international
law. Having employed servicemen and women to ‘defend their country’ it is a
criminal offence of a ‘crime against peace’ to command them to fight an
aggressive war; and it is a crime of murder to cause their deaths ‘serving their
country’ in an illegal war of aggression. To claim that this is a ‘noble endeavour’
and that they are ‘heroes’ is a disgraceful propaganda ploy by cowardly political
civil and military leaders wishing others to do their dirty work [killing] for them.

19. “Reconstruction of a country ravaged by decades of war is a long term

endeavour. Already there has been considerable progress made; however
this progress comes at a high cost in terms of civilian and military casualties”.
The cynical use of the terms ‘reconstruction’ and ‘progress’ in this appalling
justification for the high level of deaths caused by the use of modern high-tech
weapons of mass destruction against tribesmen and women in one of the world’s
poorest countries, is yet another indictment of Britain’s inhumane and evil leaders.
Why is it that Britain is only prepared to attack smaller weaker and far more
vulnerable nations? Why do we congratulate and reward our armed forces for
their mass murders of innocent men women and children? Why is the FCO
violating rather than upholding the international and domestic laws of war? Why
do they cloak their unlawful activities in a veneer of deceptions and lies?
 7

20. “The UK, as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), takes
these incidents very seriously and investigates them thoroughly”.
This is another lie. Although the genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes committed by Britain’s political, civil and military leaders have been
reported to police on at least 250 occasions over the past six years not one
criminal investigation has got past the initial stages. Despite the huge numbers of
deaths and injuries to Iraqi and Afghan citizens and members of HM armed forces
and despite overwhelming amounts of evidence that Britain’s leaders have
repeatedly committed the world’s most serious crimes, not one case has yet
reached court. With corruption in the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution
Service and the Judiciary reaching epidemic proportions, it is most unlikely that
the Coalition’s war crimes will ever be investigated and even more unlikely that
British war criminals will ever be prosecuted in a British court unless Parliament
takes the matter in hand and initiates criminal proceedings itself.

21. “But we have the right mission to deliver and members of our Armed Forces
are resolute in doing what their country asks of them”.
How can killing and injuring children ever be “the right mission” ? To our certain
knowledge our Armed Forces have never been asked by their country to wage
war or use armed force against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact when
the war with Iraq looked increasingly likely, more than one million people marched
through the streets of London demonstrating against it. Never before have so
many British citizens demonstrated so forcefully against war and the mass murder
of innocent people. To use language like this to cover up genocide, crimes
against humanity and mass murder is the worst deception ever played upon the
people of Britain.
22. “Our armed forces are fully aware of their obligations under international law”.
This is yet another abominable lie. I cannot find a single member of HM Armed
Forces at any level who knows or understands their duties and obligations under
the international laws of war. If they knew their obligations they would know full
well that under article 24 of Chapter VI of the Manual of Military law they have a
lawful duty to refuse to carry out a manifestly illegal order; they would also know
that should they carry out the manifestly illegal order they are criminally
responsible for the consequences. Even a basic knowledge of the UN Charter
enables a person to know that the use of armed force is prohibited under articles
2.3, 2.4 and 41. Even a basic knowledge of the criminal law will tell an RAF pilot
that dropping cluster bombs on villages will inevitably result in the deaths of
innocent children and farmers and that this act constitutes the crimes of murder,
genocide and crimes against humanity. Even a basic knowledge of the definition
of genocide would cause service personnel to understand that killing Iraqis or
Afghans because of their nationality is the worst criminal offence it is possible to
commit. The MOD publication The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict is the
most misleading UK law book ever published. Not only is it full of errors but it
omits all the main laws of war and their implications. Furthermore it is not only
our armed forces who are ignorant of the laws of war but we can find no single
 8

MP, Peer, civil servant, police officer, crown prosecutor, judge, journalist or
taxpayer who knows or understands the laws of war. As these people are
responsible for the decisions to take us to war, how can they be expected to obey
the law if they are ignorant of its requirements and prohibitions?

23. “The rule of law is paramount in everything our troops do, so service
personnel can and will be prosecuted if there is evidence that they have
tortured assaulted or committed any other offence against a person. They are
subject to UK criminal law as they would be in the UK”.
This is also totally untrue. For sixty years Britain’s armed forces have breached
and violated the laws of war and committed every war crime in the book. As to
prosecuting service personnel it is never the commanders responsible for the
crimes who are prosecuted but only the lower ranks. Overwhelming evidence
that Britain’s political, civil and military leaders have committed the criminal
offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under sections 51
and 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 has been presented to the
Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Judiciary on numerous occasions
over the past six and half years, but on every occasion our law enforcement
authorities have unlawfully declined to prosecute our leaders. By repeatedly
failing to prosecute major war criminals, in effect giving them immunity for the
most serious crimes known to law, Britain’s corrupt law enforcement authorities
have ensured that the crimes are repeated over and over again causing death
and injury to several million totally innocent people.
If the FCO and the Government was serious about prosecuting people for their
crimes then Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, John Prescott,
Lord Goldsmith and numerous other Cabinet Ministers and MPs would have been
arrested and tried in court for waging wars of aggression in violation of the
Kellogg-Briand Pact, for acts of genocide against the Iraqi and Afghan people, for
crimes against humanity, for war crimes, for murder, for conspiracy to murder and
for numerous other criminal offences. As it is they have been free to continue
and repeat their killing sprees murdering around 1m Iraqis including 300,000
children, injuring and maiming around 2.5m and driving 4m into exile and
destitution. If Tony Blair had been prosecuted for his war crimes when they were
first reported to the Metropolitan Police in February 2003 then the war with Iraq
would never have taken place and millions of lives would have been saved. But
you can’t trust Parliament, the British Government or Britain’s law enforcement
authorities in matters of war and peace; so until we can find a police officer, a
prosecutor or a judge somewhere who will do what they are paid to do and initiate
criminal proceedings against Britain’s leaders for their violations of the laws of
war, Britain will remain one of the world’s leading warmonger [rogue] nations. If
our political, civil and military leaders are so convinced of their innocence then let
them prove it to a jury in court.

24. “The ICC has already completed an analysis of the situation in Iraq and I refer
you to the detailed response issued by the ICC’s prosecutor Luis-Ocampo in
Feb 2006 to allegations that serious crimes have been committed in Iraq”.
 9

This is yet another attempt to cover up the crimes committed by British citizens in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is the British
legislation against Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes. Under
this criminal statute it is the responsibility of the police, the CPS and the Judiciary
in Britain to initiate criminal proceedings against all those British citizens who
have committed offences under British criminal law. It is NOT the responsibility of
the ICC to initiate criminal proceedings against British citizens for violations of
British criminal law. Under the complementarity principle, the ICC only has
jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
when the state with jurisdiction [UK] has proved itself unwilling or unable to initiate
criminal proceedings itself.
In his letter the Prosecutor made it clear that the ICC does not yet have a
mandate to prosecute the crime of aggression. However Britain does have
jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of aggression, the same crime for which
Germany’s leaders were convicted at Nuremburg in 1946. In his letter to the
Prime Minister of March 7th2003 the then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith
warned Tony Blair that should he go ahead with the war then he might have to
face a prosecution for the crimes of ‘murder’ and ‘aggression’. He explained that
‘aggression’ is a crime in customary international law which automatically forms
part of domestic law.
In his letter Mr Ocampo also gave as his reasons for rejecting a prosecution for
genocide: The available information provided no reasonable indicia that Coalition
forces had “intent to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group as such”. It is unclear what available information Mr Ocampo
possessed at the time in relation to the ‘intent’ of Coalition forces, but in Britain we
now have masses of evidence of ‘intent’ in relation to the political civil and military
leaders who initiated the wars. This detailed evidence of intent [see attached
report Accounting for Genocide] is quite enough to start criminal proceedings in
Britain against UK leaders such as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and
other Cabinet members as well as all the 412 MPs who voted for the war in 2003.
To claim that no criminal offences have been committed by British leaders
because the Prosecutor of the ICC has said in his letter that the available
information provided no reasonable indicia of intent of Coalition forces, is a
dereliction of the legal duty to prosecute such crimes.
When it is public knowledge that mass killings have occurred and when it is
known who was responsible for commanding the mass killings to take place, the
rule of law demands that police and prosecutors arrest the killers and present
them and the prosecution case to a judge and a jury in court. The defendants
can then present their defence case and the reasons why the killings might be
lawful to the jury, and it is down to the jury to consider the evidence in both the
prosecution and defence cases, to decide whether or not the killers intended to
commit their crimes and then to find them innocent or guilty. It is NOT down to
any one individual in government or in the law enforcement authorities to
prejudge the decision of the court and to allow killers and mass murderers to go
free on the grounds that they didn’t intend to commit genocide. As a direct result
of allowing Britain’s leaders to get away with their crimes scot free, they have
 10

repeated them over and over again for six years and 3.5m innocent people have
suffered horrendous injuries or death as a direct result of Coalition leaders’
determination to keep the wars and the killings going.
IT MUST BE STOPPED, AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE MUST BE ARRESTED
AND PROSECUTED IN COURT FOR THEIR WAR CRIMES.

Chris Coverdale Make Wars History May 2009