Greenpeace activist boards the Magdelana Green to prevent it from leaving for the Gulf
You cross a neighbour's lawn to stop a mugging. The police arrest you for trespass. In your defence in court, wouldn't you say the fact that you were attempting to stop a crime would be a relevant fact?
That's precisely the question that was before the UK Law Lords this week, as they consider the fate of 20 individuals charged with activities in defiance of the invasion of Iraq.
All of them chose to undertake non-violent civil disobedience at military sites, to try and stop the rush to war.
The six Fairford protestors - three independent groups of people - all entered an RAF base at Fairford and attempted to immobilize B52 bombers. The planes they hindered would later be part of the carpet-bombing of Baghdad.
The Marchwood 14 entered Southampton's Marchwood Military Port and occupied tanks, locking themselves with chains and padlocks. The occupation was part of a wider week of actions at Marchwood, involving many other volunteers, which aimed to stop the build up to war. Other actions included using the Greenpeace flagship the Rainbow Warrior to blockade Marchwood military port and stop military hardware leaving for the Gulf and boarding and conducting a 'sit in' on a military supply ship bound for the Gulf with a cargo of military hardware.
The tanks would later roll across Iraq securing oil fields while UN-sealed nuclear facilities were left unguarded, and participate in a futile search for weapons of mass destruction. It was an invasion that broke every rule against pre-emptive war and was based on intelligence that even former US Secretary of State Colin Powell now repudiates.
The invasion set a precedent under which India should be allowed to attack Pakistan on suspicions of aggression, Israel should be allowed to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities suspected of weapons activities, and Israel's own nuclear arsenal could be cited as a justifiable cause for invasion by any of its neighbors. If ever there was a slippery slope, the invasion of Iraq was it.
In the courts last year, activists asked that the legality of the war be considered in their defence, and sought the release of the UK Attorney General's secret advice to Tony Blair about the legal underpinnings of the invasion. But a district judge ruled that "the lawfulness of the war and the Attorney General's legal opinion are not relevant to issues in the case." The full advice was only finally released to the public after being leaked to television news.
One law for the leaders, a different law for the people.
Greenpeace UK Executive Director Stephen Tindale stated: "These people acted because they believed that the Iraq war was both illegal and morally wrong. The majority of international lawyers have since agreed the war was illegal. Yet our volunteers were prevented from arguing this in court and were effectively denied a fair trial."
We're appealing that double standard. We say the legality of the war is central to the question of whether the activists themselves committed a crime in stopping it.
Tindale concluded: "This case is crucial as it could help ensure that the UK is never again dragged into an illegal pre-emptive war, against UN wishes and based on dodgy intelligence.
"If we are to have a society where governments as well as individuals can be held accountable for their actions and the international rules of law are upheld, then it's crucial that the right to this defence of preventing a crime of aggression is upheld."
The hearing ended yesterday. A conclusion is not expected for another month.
Key legal points which will be considered by the Law Lords are:
1) Is the crime of aggression, defined and last used by the
International Military War crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-6, and enshrined in UN law by the 1946 UN General Assembly, still part of international law?
2) If a crime of aggression is illegal under international law is
it a crime in UK law? In his controversial legal advice the Attorney General certainly believed so, he stated, "Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law".
3) Should UK courts have the authority to consider whether a crime of aggression has been committed?
4) Were the Greenpeace defendants denied their right to a fair trial, contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because they were not allowed to argue issues which related to the legality of the war?
