British Military Terrorism

In the last couple of days media attention has been drawn to concerns expressed by Ed Miliband regarding a perceived lack of post-intervention planning by David Cameron with respect to British military action in Libya in 2011.

One very important aspect of the Libya intervention which Mr. Miliband and the UK media have ignored is the evidence that the British military action was terrorism as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Today I reported to Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police suspected terrorism-related offences by David Cameron, at the time UK Prime Minister, and Dominic Grieve QC, at the time UK Attorney General.

The reported suspected offences by Mr. Cameron are

Suspected offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Misconduct in Public Office

The reported suspected offences by Mr. Grieve are

A suspected offence contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Misconduct in Public Office

The text of the letter follows below:

25th April 2015

Sir Peter Fahy,

Chief Constable,

Greater Manchester Police

Openshaw Complex,

Lawton Street,

Openshaw,

Manchester

M11 2NS

[By email and post]

Dear Chief Constable,

Libya: Offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by David Cameron

Misconduct in Public Office by David Cameron

Misconduct in Public Office by Dominic Grieve QC

Libya: Section 56 offence by Dominic Grieve QC

I write to report to you as a constable serious suspected crimes by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve QC with respect to British military action in Libya.

Brief Background

On 21^st March 2011 the House of Commons voted in favour of British military action in Libya.

It was not disclosed to the House of Commons that the proposed military action in Libya was “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Were the Libya air srikes “terrorism”?

A fundamental question with respect to the reported suspected offences by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve is whether or not the UK air strikes in Libya were or were not “terrorism” as defined in UK Law.

Terrorism is defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

For convenience, I reproduce the full text of Section 1 here.

1 Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation]F1 or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial]F2 or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

When explosives are used, as they must be in air strikes, only the criteria in Subsections 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(c) need to be satisfied for “terrorism” to exist. See Subsection 1(3).

Air strikes inevitably involve both “serious violence against a person” and/or “serious damage to property” as specified in Subsection 1(2). Therefore the criterion in Subsection 1(1)(a) is satisfied.

The air strikes were carried out in accordance with UK foreign policy, that being a “political cause” of the nature specified in Subsection 1(1)(c) therefore the criterion in Subsection 1(1)(c) is satisfied.

Taken together, it is demonstrated that UK air strikes in Libya are “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 56 offences by David Cameron

Given that the British air strikes in Libya are “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the question of Section 56 offences by Mr. Cameron arises.

For convenience, I reproduce the text of Section 56 here.

56 Directing terrorist organisation.

(1)A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Are the elements of a Section 56 offence satisfied?

In the preceding section of this letter I demonstrated that British air strikes in Libya are terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.

The Hansard record and various public statements by the UK Government demonstrate that it was “concerned in” the commission of acts of terrorism in Libya.

Mr. Cameron, as Prime Minister, “directed” activities of the UK Government.

Therefore, it seems to me, that all the elements of a Section 56 offence are satisfied with respect to Mr. Cameron’s actions.

Hence the present report of suspected Section 56 offences by Mr. Cameron.

Communications to Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve

I refer below to written communications to Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve,

Unfortunately due to current computer problems I cannot immediately provide you with copies of the correspondence.

The description later in this letter of the correspondence to Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve is done from memory and is therefore subject to some measure of uncertainty in terms of timing and detail of the content.

Misconduct in public office by Mr. Cameron

In addition to the suspected Section 56 offences by Mr. Cameron, the question of the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office arises.

I believe that Mr. Cameron had a duty honestly to inform Parliament and the public the proposed air strikes in Libya were “terrorism” in UK Law. Parliamentary approval for the air strikes was obtained on false pretences.

My recollection is that I wrote by email to Mr. Cameron shortly before the House of Commons debate held on 21^st March 2011.

I believe, but cannot be sure, that I sent the correspondence to the email address of Craig Oliver who at the time was a senior member of Mr. Cameron’s staff. I copied to Mr. Cameron the communication to Mr. Grieve to which I refer later.

To the best of my recollection I did not receive a reply from Mr. Oliver or Mr. Cameron.

However, it is the substance of the correspondence which is relevant to the suspected Misconduct in Public Office.

I communicated to Mr. Cameron that air strikes in Libya were “terrorism” in UK Law.

Mr. Cameron failed to inform the House of Commons and the British public of that terrorism either during the House of Commons debate or subsequently.

That failure seems to me to be of such seriousness as to constitute the offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

The Crown Prosecution Service sets out the elements of the common-law offence of Misconduct in Public Office.

See http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

It seems to me that the failure of Mr. Cameron to inform Parliament and the public that UK air srikes were terrrorism is a failure of such severity as to constitute the offence of misconduct in public office.

Was Mr. Cameron holder of a public office? Yes, he was at the time in question Prime Minister.

Did Mr. Cameron act in his public office? Yes, he made a case for air strikes but, importantly, failed to inform Parliament and the public when justifying air strikes in Libya that they were terrorism in UK Law.

Was it wilful neglect? It seems to me that it was such. I informed Mr. Cameron that the air strikes were terrorism. He concealed that information.

Did Mr. Cameron have reasonable excuse? It seems to me that Mr. Cameron, if he acted honestly, would be obliged to inform both Parliament and the public that the air strikes were terrorism.

Misconduct in public office by Mr. Grieve

The question of Misconduct in Public Office also arises with respect to the conduct of Dominic Grieve QC who, at the relevant time, was UK Attorney General.

Using the elements in the Crown Prosecution Service guidance did Mr. Grieve commit the offence of Misconduct in Public Office:

Was Mr. Grieve holder of a public office? Yes, at the time in question, he was UK Attorney General.

Did Mr. Grieve act in his public office? Yes. I wrote to Mr. Grieve as Attorney General asking that Parliament be informed that the proposed air strikes were terrorism. He concealed that information from Parliament and the public.

Was it wilful neglect? Yes. My communication to Mr. Grieve demonstrated that the proposed air strikes were terrorism. Mr. Grieve had a duty to inform Parliament and the UK public.

Did Mr. Grieve have reasonable excuse? It seems to me that Mr. Grieve had a duty to inform both Parliament and the public that the proposed air strikes were terrrorism but chose to conceal that. I can identify no reasonable excuse for his failure so to inform Parliament and the British public.

Section 56 offence by Mr. Grieve

Please see the section on Section 56 offences by Mr. Cameron for the text of Section 56.

The criteria previously enumerated demonstrate that the British Government was “concerned in” acts of terrorism.

Did Mr. Grieve “direct operations” of the UK Government? As UK Attorney General he evidently did so.

It seems to me that the elements of a Section 56 offence are satisfied with respect to Mr. Grieve.

Jurisdiction and recording

I believe Greater Manchester Police has jurisdiction with respect to the Section 56 offences by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve.

If you accept that, then I ask that you record the alleged offences by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve forthwith and investigate honestly and thoroughly.

Should you disagree regarding jurisdiction I understand that you are required to record each “state-based offence” as a Crime-Related Incident and refer the matter(s) to the relevant Police force which you might consider as being the Metropolitan Police Service.

With respect to the alleged offences of Misconduct in Public Office by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve, it occurs to me that you may consider that Greater Manchester Police does not have jurisdiction.

If that is the case you are required to record these “state-based offences” as Crime-Related Incidents and formally to refer them to the relevant Police force, which in this case would likely be the Metropolitan Police Service.

Police and other concealment of terrorism offences

You may wish to be aware that there is a sustained pattern of concealment of multiple terrorism offences. That concealment has been done by several UK Police forces and other public bodies, including the Chilcot Inquiry.

The following links may serve to inform you of examples of such concealment of terrorism offences variously in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Concealment by former Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and former Assistant Commissioner John Yates:

http://thepolicearecheatingus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/terrorism-act-2000-section-56-offences.html

Concealment by Sir John Chilcot:

http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/iraq-inquiry-letter-of-2nd-february.html

Concealment by Chief Constable Chris Sims and Assistant Chief Constable Marcus Beale:

http://criminal-state.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/raf-terrorism-in-iraq-section-56.html

These failures seem to me to raise very serious issues about the integrity and/or competence of several UK Police forces as well as the Chilcot Inquiry.

Making a statement

I am willing to make a statement on the alleged offences by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve, given reasonable notice, at a Police station convenient to myself.

It would assist me in that regard if Mr. McGinty of the Attorney General’s Office (a copy recipient of this letter) could provide me with copies of the communications sent in March 2011 to Mr. Cameron and Mr. Grieve. Both were, as I recall, sent to him as well as to the Correspondence Unit of the Attorney General’s Office.

Distribution

This letter is a public document.

A copy is to be placed on my “British Military Terrorism” blog:

http://britishmilitaryterrorism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/letter-to-sir-peter-fahy-re-terrorism.html

This letter is copied to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General’s Office since the emails of March 2011 to Mr. Grieve and Mr. Cameron were copied to him.

It is further copied to David Anderson QC who is in a position to advise Greater Manchester Police on whether or not UK air strikes in Libya were “terrorism” as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Actions requested of you

I ask that you promptly acknowledge receipt of this letter.

I ask that you record the suspected crimes and that Greater Manchester Police takes a statement from me on these serious matters.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

cc.

Kevin McGinty, Legal Adviser, Attorney General’s Office

David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation

Below is the text of a letter sent to Chief Constable Francis Habgood of Thames Valley Police earlier this month.

So far, some three weeks later, I have neither received an acknowledgement from Chief Constable Habgood or had any other indication that he is taking any action of this report of suspected serious terrorism offences by David Cameron.

1^st April 2015

To:

Chief Constable Francis Habgood,

Thames Valley Police

Dear Chief Constable,

RAF air strikes in Iraq are “terrorism” in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000

David Cameron MP

I write to report to you as a constable suspected offences contrary to Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by David Cameron MP

I ask that you investigate this as a matter of urgency given that the perceived terrorism offences in Iraq are ongoing.

The air strikes are terrorism – Section 1 Terrorism Act 2000

The air strikes in Iraq are, in my view, visibly terrorism in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Here is my reasoning.

Subsection 1(3) indicates that where explosives are used (as they must be in air strikes) then only two further criteria require to be satisfied for terrorism to exist.

The two necessary criteria are expressed in Subsections 1(1)(a)and 1(1)(c).

The criteria expressed in Subsection 1(1)(a) are satisfied since air strikes inevitably involve serious injory to one or more individuals and/or serious damage to property. Ministry of Defence media releases confirm destruction of property.

The criteria expressed in Subsection 1(1)(c) are satisfied since the air strikes are being conducted for a political or ideological cause – the degrading and/or destruction of ISIS.

The characteristics of the air strikes demonstrate that Mr. Cameron has initiated acts of terrorism in Iraq by the Royal Air Force.

Section 56 offences

Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 indicates that a person who directs at any level an organisation carrying out acts of terrorism commits an offence.

It seems to me that Mr. Cameron, as Prime Minister has played such a role in directing the UK Armed Forces in committing acts of terrorism in Iraq.

Offences committed by others

It is evident that Mr. Cameron is not acting alone in committing acts of terrorism with respect to the air strikes in Iraq.

With regard to these acts of terorism in Iraq you will, if you are an honest Police officer, seek to ensure that all who have committed offences contrary to the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and other related legislation will be fully investigated.

Jurisdiction

The Terrorism Act 2000, as I understand it, provides that Thames Valley Police has jurisdiction with respect to the suspected offences.

Prevention of additional acts of terrorism

I understand that, as a Police officer, you have a duty to prevent crime.

Terrorism offences with respect to the RAF air strikes in Iraq are ongoing. I believe you have a duty to prevent continuation of such criminal acts.

I ask that you ensure that you take all necessary steps to ensure that RAF terrorism in Iraq is brought to an end forthwith.

Actions requested of you

I ask that you record and fully investigate the suspected Section 56 offences, as required by Law.

I ask that you ensure that additional and/or related acts of terrorism are stopped forthwith.

I very much hope that Thames Valley Police will demonstrate that it, unlike at least two other Police forces, does not operate a policy of targetting Moslems with respect to investigating acts of terrorism.

Making a statement

I am willing to make a formal statement on these matters at a Police station convenient to myself, given reasonable notice.

Distribution

For the avoidance of doubt this letter is a public document.

I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

British Military Terrorism

Thursday 2 July 2015

Oppress Moslems in the UK. Kill Moslems abroad. - David Cameron's counter terrorism strategy is a mixture of hypocrisy and madness

Saturday 25 April 2015

Letter to Sir Peter Fahy re terrorism-related offences by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve QC

Wednesday 22 April 2015

Letter to Francis Habgood re Section 56 offences by David Cameron