Evidence needed to defend the rights of ordinary people to protest against powerful arms dealers responsible for the death of civilian s world wide
from a group in brighton, UK
As you may know the trial of the injunction taken out
against anti arms trade activists in Brighton, England
will start in late November. For more information
concerning the injunction please
visitwww.smashedo.org.uk or contact 07875 708873
The trial concerns an injunction taken out under the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by a Brighton
based arms company EDO MBM against protestors. Two
protestors have been arrested under the act and face
possible jail sentences. One of the
defences under the injunction is that of acting 'to
prevent or detect crime'. The defence is arguing that
under the International Criminal Court Act EDO MBM ,by
manufacturing the bomb guidance systems for the
PAVEWAY system manufactured by Raytheon and the
Hellfire missile in use with the IDF, are ancillary to
war crimes, specifically relating to the Occupation of
Palestine and the Invasion of Iraq.
The admissibility of this defence! will be judged on
November 2nd – 4th in a three day hearing at the High
Court in London. In this trial within a trial, the
defence will demonstrate that not only was the war
illegal but that specific war crimes were committed.
They will also show that EDO MBMs products played a
vital role in that war. The legality of the Occupation
of Palestine and EDO MBMs role will also be
considered.
The case has already in its initial stages attracted a
large amount of media attention and we hope in can be
used to focus attention on both war crimes in Iraq and
Palestine and the clampdown on civil liberties in the
UK.
As this is a civil trial almost anything can go in as
evidence (for example the evidence against the
protestors included hundreds of pages of downloads
from animal rights websites). Iraq Body Count’s public
report has also been submitted as evidence. What would
be useful to us is signed statements of eyewitness
re! ports, copies of media reports dealing with
airstrikes and statements from you as to how you
conducted your research. Any evidence you have of
types of munitions used in airstrikes would also be
useful.
Unfortunately we are working to a very tight schedule
and need this by October 12th.
Thank you for your time.
As you may know the trial of the injunction taken out
against anti arms trade activists in Brighton, England
will start in late November. For more information
concerning the injunction please
visitwww.smashedo.org.uk or contact 07875 708873
The trial concerns an injunction taken out under the
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 by a Brighton
based arms company EDO MBM against protestors. Two
protestors have been arrested under the act and face
possible jail sentences. One of the
defences under the injunction is that of acting 'to
prevent or detect crime'. The defence is arguing that
under the International Criminal Court Act EDO MBM ,by
manufacturing the bomb guidance systems for the
PAVEWAY system manufactured by Raytheon and the
Hellfire missile in use with the IDF, are ancillary to
war crimes, specifically relating to the Occupation of
Palestine and the Invasion of Iraq.
The admissibility of this defence! will be judged on
November 2nd – 4th in a three day hearing at the High
Court in London. In this trial within a trial, the
defence will demonstrate that not only was the war
illegal but that specific war crimes were committed.
They will also show that EDO MBMs products played a
vital role in that war. The legality of the Occupation
of Palestine and EDO MBMs role will also be
considered.
The case has already in its initial stages attracted a
large amount of media attention and we hope in can be
used to focus attention on both war crimes in Iraq and
Palestine and the clampdown on civil liberties in the
UK.
As this is a civil trial almost anything can go in as
evidence (for example the evidence against the
protestors included hundreds of pages of downloads
from animal rights websites). Iraq Body Count’s public
report has also been submitted as evidence. What would
be useful to us is signed statements of eyewitness
re! ports, copies of media reports dealing with
airstrikes and statements from you as to how you
conducted your research. Any evidence you have of
types of munitions used in airstrikes would also be
useful.
Unfortunately we are working to a very tight schedule
and need this by October 12th.
Thank you for your time.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 13 comments
Barking!
06.10.2005 19:35
If a criminal holds up a bank and shoots someone dead, he is guilty of murder. But under your logic, accessories to the crime include the manufacturer of the gun (even if manufactured legally), the manufacturer of the getaway car, the manufacturer of the mask he wore etc etc. I think you'll find that the argument doesn't hold water!
Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it illegal (and that includes the war in Iraq).
Tina Cat Visit
my comments
06.10.2005 19:43
2) demand a jury trial
3) DO NOT play by Blair's rules when defending yourselves
to be honest, if you are NOT prepared to do the above, you should NOT have been playing the game in the first place.
Think about it!!! You obviously have to hold one of several positions.
POSITION 1- the government and courts are fair, and EDO MBM is wrong. In this case, since the government has vastly better resources than you, they can quickly discover that you are right.
POSITION 2- the court is fair, the government and EDO MBM are bad. You felt you had good reason for your actions. Present these reasons to the court and win.
POSITION 3- the court, government, and EDO MBM are bad. Well, you knew the rules of the game, and now you face them fully. Given that the system is going to screw you, screw them back. Understand that you best hope is an ability to appeal to the same public that you feel you represent. Follow the 3 points at the top. Understand that bad publicity DOES hurt Blair, and that is your greatest weapon. Blair uses propaganda because it works. You are going to have to do the same, because a logical legal argument in court is going to win you nothing if the people judging you are under Blair's control.
Let's stop being naive, folks. The UK is one of the major arms-manufacturing and arms-trading nations on this Earth, and this business is government run and government approved. However, the government pretends an opposite position when communicating to the public through the Mass Media. Playing with that hypocrisy is probably your only weapon. Blair has to currently protect the pretence.
Want to REALLY piss off Blair, and his death-dealing pals??? Make giant posters showing the child victims of these sick bastards, use strong slogans (like "EDO MBM- murdering children for Tony Blair") and get these posters placed in the most embarrassing locations. There is a good reason The Sun uses its front page as it does. Do the same thing, for god's sake.
The LAST THING this is is a game of legal mumbo-jumbo. Fight on Blair's own choice of battlefield, and you deserve to be slaughtered. Make Blair fight on YOUR choice of battlefield and you may see some success!
"admissibility"- god almighty!!! I'm surprised I can't hear Blair's laughter from here.
twilight
"I think you'll find that the argument doesn't hold water!"
06.10.2005 22:12
If you don't agree, perhaps you could start a campaign to have Bruno Tesch posthomously pardoned?
>For a more realistic example, the robber gang has been at it for over a century, killing millions, (also occaisionally legitimately defending themselves, to be sure). They are infamous and despised for their crimes by most of the population, yet are seemingly above the law. They have a longstanding symbiotic relationship with their gunsmith(s), who are an essential part of their extended crime spree.
judge
keeping on track -
06.10.2005 22:18
And Tina Cat, I suppose if i were to make arming mechanisms for al qaeda you wouldn't consider me a terrorist, or at least terrorist accomplice? "oh, but thats different, al qaeda are the official bad guys ..."
antiEDO
Peaceful Protest without a police permit is a human right!
07.10.2005 16:48
American Anarchist
Oh Really?
07.10.2005 20:00
"Any government that bans peaceful demonstrations deserves to be overthrown."
Really? ANY peaceful demonstration? Does this then also include Orange Order marches, or BNP marches, as long as both can show that no-one on the march itself is violent? Does it include homophobic and race hate groups? Do you see a completely open field here?
And what about the impact on traffic, other people in the towns and cities, and so on? Do they just have to like it or lump it?
My little American friend with your simplistic agenda, try thinking things out a bit more in future.
Big Bad Boab Fae Bathgate
Judge not........
07.10.2005 21:46
Bruno Tesch was found guilty of the violation of the laws and usage of war. Not the case in iraq.
As for your armed gang argument, what planet are you on? Yes, actually I agree with you - if the manufacturer knowing that the arms were to be used by a GANG OF ARMED ROBBERS knowingly supplied them, they would be accessories. Hold on though! Isn't armed robbery illegal these days? Wheras the war in Iraq was legally declared by an alliance of nations to uphold a UN resolution.
Whooooooosssshhh!!
What was that? That's the sound of another logical point of fact being completely missed by a leftie IMC a*hole.
The argument is still leaking
Whooooooosssshhh!! back
08.10.2005 05:58
www.worldtribunal.org
"As for your armed gang argument, what planet are you on?"
Heard of Paul Bemmer's 'Order 39'? Complete sell-off of Iraqi assets by occupation authorities - Lord Goldsmith says "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law,", eg.
If you're disputing the 'millions dead', read Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - If you're going to blanket defend British foreign policy at least know what it is (from the declassified records, largely).
"Hold on though! Isn't armed robbery illegal these days? Wheras the war in Iraq was legally declared by an alliance of nations to uphold a UN resolution"
I feel an overwhelming urge to write Whooooooosssshhh! If you really believe that, see www.downingstreetmemo.com - heres some snippets: "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [of war]", "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change". Resolution 1442 specificly does not authorise force and the US explicitly assured security council that a further resolution was required for war in order to get 1442 passed.
ANYWAY: back on topic - any eye witness reports of arial bombing or aftermath etc to
judge
drip ...drip...drip...
08.10.2005 11:32
Look Judge, if you're going to base all you arguments on blogs and unauthorised "independent" websites, then it's no suprise you're so far off the surface of the planet.
Open your eyes and try to look for the bleedin' obvious rather than twist everything into machiavellian conspiracy plots.
Whoooooosssshhh ! Missed again?
Tina the plumber
lol
08.10.2005 12:02
"blogs and unauthorised "independent" websites"
a site containing the full texts of OFFICIAL DOWNING STREET DOCUMENTS (i havn't bothered reading the blogs there), the World Tribunal on Iraq which heard many hours of eyewitness testimonies and Lord Goldsmith himself.
Either use logic or stop trolling.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
+ Remember people - anything related to air strikes that you've witnessed contact
_____________________________________________________________________________________
judge
Logical? You be the judge!
08.10.2005 19:03
Don't believe everything you read (especially in the Grauniad)!
Whooossssshh! Damm, missed again!
Acton Ant Visit
Mind yer language
08.10.2005 19:09
Presumably it comes from the noun 'Troll' meaning one who doesn't agree with another's point of view. This term is specifically employed when the user needs to add an element of abuse in order to make him/her feel a little better that they haven't been able to carry the argument.
You have a point Tina - carry on girl!
Roget
downing street memos
09.10.2005 07:03
I concur, you be the judge. Now no more food.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And remember ISMers etc, eyewitness reports of air strikes to
jury