Theresa May: War Criminal.

On or around March 4th (4/3/18) three individuals were taken ill in the UK city of Salisbury.

They have since been identified as Sergei Skripal a Russian agent of Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6, his daughter Yulia and a British police officer Nick Bailey.

On March 12th (12/3/18) British Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that the three had been poisoned by Russia.

Specifically using a nerve agent known as; "Novichok" which had been produced at the Shikhany-2 facility. Located just outside of Moscow.

On March 22nd (22/3/18) the British Court of Protection (COP) released details of Porton Down's analysis of the chemical used in Salisbury.

This declared Theresa May to be a liar. There was no evidence that Novichok was the chemical used. Let alone that the chemical had been produced by Russia.

On April 3rd (3/4/18) the normally very camera shy head of the Porton Down laboratory Gary Aitkenhead insisted that Britain's Sky News interview him. Not only on the record but also on camera.

In this interview Aitkenhead restated the fact that Theresa May is a liar. There was no evidence that Novichok was the chemical used. Let alone that the chemical had been produced by Russia.

On April 12th the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) - the UN's chemical weapons regulator - released the findings of their investigation.

This confirmed Britain's findings and declarations that Theresa May is a liar.

There was no evidence that Novichok was the chemical used. Let alone that the chemical had been produced by Russia.

It was obvious to all who read and understood the March 22nd (22/3/18) documents. However the OPCW report made it undeniable that Theresa May was a liar.

Theresa May has lied to the United Nations.

Theresa May has lied to NATO.

Theresa May has lied to the European Union.

Theresa May has lied to the British Parliament.

Most importantly Theresa May has lied to the British public.

So Theresa May spent April 12th (12/4/18) on the brink of being impeached when the UK Parliament returns to work on Monday (15/4/18).

Theresa May's response was to convene her cabinet on the afternoon of April 12th (12/4/18). In order to order British military action against Syria.

On April 7th (7/4/18) the sort of people you wouldn't normally trust claimed a Chemical Weapons attack had taken place in Douma. A suburb of the Syrian capital Damascus.

As soon as April 8th (8/4/18) Theresa May saw fit to declare not only that this attack had taken place but that is was carried out by the Syrians.

On April 9th (9/4/18) the Syrians invited the OPCW to conduct an investigation. Due to the logistics of assembling a team and dispatching them to Syria that investigation was set to begin on April 14th (14/4/18).

Generally speaking people do not request investigations which are going to prove them to be guilty.

Therefore along with her track record it seems that in around three weeks time Theresa May would be declared to be a liar by the OPCW. For the second time in under a month.

So in technically the very early hours of April 14th (14/4/18) the UK conducted airstrikes against Syria. It was accompanied by France and the US.

Involving more than 100 missiles the British led strikes targeted the Syrian military bases of Barzah near Damascus alongside Him Shinshar in Homs Province.

These are the two bases the OPCW have been invited to inspect. In order to prove or disprove the claim they were involved in the Douma.

So if there was evidence proving that the Syrians did not conduct a Chemical Weapons attack and once again that Theresa May has lied.

Well Theresa May's just blown it into tiny little pieces.

Following the strikes the UK published what it claims is its legal authority to conduct the strikes. 

It can be read here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/syria-action-uk-government-legal-position/syria-action-uk-government-legal-position

It is based entirely on the doctrine of humanitarian intervention known as; "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)."

The immediate problem with this is that Responsibility to Protect is not an aspect of international law.

Instead it is a theological doctrine on the ethics of war. It is equivalent to the Catholic Church's doctrine of "Just War." Or Malcolm X's "On Black People & War." 

None of these doctrines carry any legal weight or have any legal authority.

The only way that one nation can legally take military action against another nation is under a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution passed under Chapter 7.

Included within Chapter 7 there is Article 51. Often known as the self-defence clause this allows for military action to be taken without a Chapter 7 resolution in extremely limited circumstances.

Firstly there must be a direct threat to the nation taking action or having action taken on its behalf. An attack in Syria simply does not pose a direct threat to the UK.

Secondly it must stand a reasonable chance of removing that threat. Destroying Chlorine in Syria does nothing to remove the vast amounts of Chlorine freely available within the UK.

Despite yesterday's strikes in Syria I can still go up to my bathroom in the UK and create Chlorine gas in the time it takes you to read this sentence. 

In fact that is so easy to do I did it by accident in March 2016. That Chemical Weapons attack did damage to nothing but my pride.

Thirdly the threat must be so imminent that there is no time for the UNSC to meet.

The UNSC met on the issue in the hours prior to the attack. At no point during that meeting did the UK or any other nation seek to obtain a Chapter 7 resolution.

The UK has and will continue to argue that it did not seek a Chapter 7 resolution because Russia would veto it. This is also legal bunkum.

A UNSC veto is not an absolute. They can be overturned by a majority vote in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). This happened as recently at December 2017 when the UNGA overturned a US veto on Jerusalem.

You will notice that throughout these seven years of screaming; "It's Russia's Fault!" nobody has sought a UNGA vote to overturn Russia's veto.

That is because they know they are lying. They know that because they are lying the UNGA will not support them. They will lose the vote and Russia's veto will stand.

In fact if it wasn't for Russia's veto allowing certain nations a free ride the UK would likely find its support on the UNSC utterly collapse.

They would be left with the support of just the European nation they elected to the UNSC to ensure a vote against Russia. Poland has recently replaced Ukraine in this role.

Even Sweden has shown itself to be a rational actor.

Proving that it is far from impossible to get a Chapter 7 resolution on Syria there is already a Chapter 7 resolution in effect on Syria. UNSCR 2170 (2014).

The existence of UNSCR 2170 makes it impossible for any nation to invoke Article 51 in relation to Syria.

UNSCR 2170 obligates nations do everything in their power to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Qaeda. It forbids nations from taking action in support of ISIL or Al Qaeda.

On April 7th (7/4/18) Douma was under the occupation of the Army of Mohammad/Jaish al-Mohammad coalition. This is made up of the Army of Islam/Jaish al-Islam (JAI) and Al Qaeda in Syria.

So not only has the UK's action been taking in the absence of a Chapter 7 resolution. It has been taken in violation of a Chapter 7 resolution.

At around 11:35 on 15/4/18 (UK date) I will pick this up later.

Edited at around 16:35 on 15/4/18 (UK date) to add;

As I've said Responsibility to Protect (R2P) carries no legal weight nor authority. 

Therefore I may as well use this time to discuss Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's epic 1855 poem "The Song of Hiawatha" as a legal justification for military action against Syria. They both certainly have an aroma of colonialism about them.

However having invoked the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect Britain has then failed to follow the doctrine of R2P.

In short R2P argues that there is a moral responsibility to protect civilians from Crimes Against Humanity. Regardless of which nation state they are citizens of.

Crimes Against Humanity are defined by the 1998 Rome Statute. There are only six of them; Murder, Extermination, Torture, Rape, Political, Religious and Ethnic Persecution.

The use of Chemical Weapons is not considered a Crime Against Humanity. 

In a time of peace the use of Chemical Warfare agents is considered perfectly normal and acceptable. Every British police officer carries a can of CS Gas with them whenever they are on duty.

However in a time of war the use of Chemical Warfare agents is considered a War Crime.

Although not strictly speaking it accurate is best to think of War Crimes as Misdemeanours and Crimes Against Humanity as Felonies.

Every time there is a claim that the Syrian government has used Chemical Weapons people queue up to talk about the longstanding international taboo against the use of Chemical Weapons. 

When anybody except the Syria government has proved to have used Chemical Weapons those same people remain silent.

Putting aside that selective outrage this claim of a longstanding international taboo against the use of Chemical Weapons is an example of revisionist history.

This longstanding taboo seems to have come into existence in 2011. Just as Islamist nations started trying to overthrow Syria's secular government.

Through the 1925 Geneva Protocol nations did outlaw the use of Chemical Weapons. 

However they put the use of Chemical Weapons on a par with other War Crimes such as stealing cap badges as trophies from dead enemies.

Despite signing the 1925 Geneva Protocol nations continued to invent new Chemical Weapons and more effective ways to use them.

The specific Chemical Weapon it is claimed the Syrians used in Jobar in 2013 and in Khan Sheikhoun in 2017 is "GB." Sometimes known as; "Sarin" this is part of the G-Series of Nerve Agents. 

The G-Series was invented in Nazi Germany in 1938. Some 13 years after the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

During the Second World War both Britain and the US stockpiled massive amounts of Sulphur Mustard, Chlorine, Lewsite, Phosgene and Paris Green. Particularly at the M.S Factory in Rhydymwyn, Wales.

In 1944 then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote a memorandum advocating the use of those Chemical Weapons along with the Biological Warfare agent Anthrax against Nazi Germany.  

What led to this idea being rejected was the experience of strategic bombing using conventional weapons that had occurred earlier in the war.

In March 1940 Britain took the decision to start the strategic bombing of German cities. In September 1940 Nazi Germany responded in kind and began the strategic bombing of British cities. This nearly year of devastation is known in Britain as; "The Blitz."

As such Churchill was advised that if Britain began using Chemical Weapons Nazi Germany would respond in kind. By using Chemical Weapons against Britain. 

It was this concern over British casualties rather than a moral objection which prevented the Britain using Chemical Weapons.

During the Second World War Nazi Germany exterminated around 11 million people. Predominately using a Cyanide based poison named Zyklon-B.

Zyklon-B was used against civilian prisoners rather than combatants on the battlefield. So technically it is not an example of Chemical Weapons use. 

However that legal pedantry most certainly does not reveal a moral objection to poisoning people. Neither does the US' continued use of chemical poisons as a way to execute prisoners.

The main thing that stopped Chemical Weapons being used during the Second World War was really the changing nature of warfare.

The First World War was fought by tens of thousands of troops stationary in entrenched positions. This made Chemical Weapons very effective. You could simply release a chemical cloud over your enemies trenches.

The Second World War was dominated by the tactic of; "Blitzkrieg" or; "Lightening War." This involved fast moving columns of tanks and troops supported by airpower. 

This made Chemical Weapons largely ineffective. There was rarely enough troops in one place long enough.

Following the Second World War nations continued to invent new Chemical Weapons and more effective ways to use them.

Although those claims have been shown to be false the Novichok which has been talked about in relation to Salisbury is part of the V-Series of Nerve Agents. These were invented by the UK in 1953. Some 28 years after the 1925 Geneva Protocol.

What prevented Chemical Weapons being used after the Second World War was the invention of Nuclear Weapons in 1945. The UK actually traded its knowledge of the V-Series for the US' knowledge of Nuclear Weapons.

Nerve Agents can be devastating when deployed correctly. However it is extremely difficult to deploy them correctly. Making them highly unreliable.

By contrast once you've figured out how to make the Nuclear Weapons are effective 100% of the time. They are also far more destructive than Chemical Weapons.

The use of Chemical Weapons against a Nuclear armed state would provoke a Nuclear response. No sane nation would ever do that.

So what has stopped Chemical Weapons being used in the age of Nuclear Weapons is not a moral objection to killing a large number of people. It is the deterrent effect of mutually assured destruction.

Despite this there have been numerous examples of Chemical Weapons use between non-Nuclear armed actors.

The most serious example of this was Saddam Hussein's 1986 to 1989 Anfal Campaign against Iraq's Kurds. 

This genocide which exterminated some 180,000 people included the March 1988 Halabja Massacre. Here Saddam used a combination of Chemical Weapons including G-Series and V-Series Nerve Agents to kill around 5,000 civilians.

At the time Saddam Hussein was allied with the western powers of the UK, the US and France. Iraq's Kurds were allied with Russia and Iran.

So the UK, the US and France's initial response to the Halabja Massacre and the wider Anfal Campaign was to deny that it had taken place.

When it was impossible for them to deny they accused Russia and Iran of carrying out the attack as a False Flag Operation to smear the good name of Saddam Hussein.

No action was taken to punish Iraq over the use of Chemical Weapons. The Anfal Campaign was allowed to continue for another year.

Of course in March 2003 the US and the UK suddenly decided they were outraged by the Halabja Massacre. France is yet to condemn it.  

Within the current conflict in Iraq and Syria the use of Chemical Weapons is a matter of routine. 

They are particularly widely used by the Army of Islam who claim the Syrians conducted the April 7th (7/4/18) attack in Douma.

In April 2016 the Army of Islam freely admitted using Sulphur Mustard Gas against Kurdish civilians in Aleppo City. 

Roughly two weeks later they again used Sulphur Mustard Gas against Kurdish civilians in Aleppo City.

We are still waiting for the UK, the US and France to acknowledge the Army of Islam's Chemical Weapons attacks.

Let alone condemn them. 

17:40 on 15/4/18 (UK date).