UK's Daniel James Allegedly Targeted For Attempting to Prevent Illegal UK War Crimes

[ Daniel James Direct link: http://tinyurl.com/yat6f7 ] The UK's Daniel James, 44, has been allegedly targeted by City of Westminster magistrates because of his efforts to prevent UK assets from being used for war crimes.

[ Important: Read here -- Problems with Explanations At Secret Court ]

We do not share the UK Government's contention that the alleged illegal activity is credibly linked with intelligence transfer. The details have changed: First that the information was allegedly being given to AlQueda, but then changed to Iran. The inconsistency is noteworthy and a recurring problem with the information releases on this matter.

We judge the timing of the action is linked with UK-US efforts to target Iran and tilt public opinion toward taking military action in Iran; and away from ensuring the basis for that action is lawful, or connected with a careful study of the resource requirements to fully support a lawful invasion of Iran.

* * *

The Official State Secrets Act of 1911 prohibits sketching or providing drawings of defense related activities, and is not necessarily related to an intelligence official function as in the 1986 act. [Ref ]

The could mean anything, including the possible revelations of UK Government war crimes activity:

a purpose prejudicial to the interest of the state’

Ref UK has bungled similar cases, failing to prosecute.

There have been errors, inconsistencies, and incomplete disclosures on the charges, cited acts, and his personal details. It appears he's presumed to be related to intelligence because of an incorrect citation of the 1986 Act; however the 1911 Act does not necessarily relate to official UK government personnel. It may or may not. It is not clear that James was a UK Government official or involved in intelligence.

Note closely how the burden of proof shifts. Someone unable to access the evidence against them -- possibly fabricated evidence -- cannot possibly provide a credible defense or explanation. States have an "interest" in being immune to war crimes accountability, but that interest is not lawful:

(2) On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State; and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act, or anything in such a place [or any secret official code word or pass word], is made, obtained, [collected, recorded, published], or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, it shall be deemed to have been made, obtained, [collected, recorded, published] or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved.

* * *

We submit into evidence the following speculation; asserting none of the information is from the Court, nor has been leaked by anyone related to the proceedings before the Court.

We conclude James was engaged in protected activity, in an alleged effort to prevent the illegal use of UK assets for purposes of war crimes. James has been allegedly targeted under the Official Secrets Act because UK Government officials do not want it known to war crimes prosecutors that UK citizens have been abused, targeted, and secretly detained in their lawful attempts to prevent war crimes.

This information may be of interest to German War Crimes prosecutors. [ Contact Info ]

* * *

Unresolved Questions

Notice the distraction:

A. Conduct

Rather than focus on what may or may not be lawful activity -- engaging in lawful Geneva-protected activity to prevent war crimes, the UK government is focusing on the conduct of other people attempting to get the information.

___ Where are these "other people"?

___ Why should we believe they are real, and not invented to invoke the 1911 Official Secrets Act?

B. Information

Rather than focusing on specific information allegedly related to James, the UK government is pointing to vague "spy networks." This is similar to the ruse with the Ticking Time Bomb scenario: Rely on the public accusation as a distraction from the UK government misconduct; and focus on an individual who cannot publicly comment on the baseless accusations.

C. Notice Who is being charged: Not the "known people" asking for intelligence.

Trying to recruit someone as a spy (someone allegedly approaching James) is not the same as engaging in intelligence gathering or passing that information (as some suggest James did).

___ Why aren't the "other people" who are asking for the information being brought forward?

___ What evidence is there these "other people" exist, really asked for the information, and that the information was provided, not simply "perhaps requested"?

___ Why isn't the object of the inquiry directed at the personnel attempting to gather the information; and what evidence is there that these people really exist?

___ Where are the foreign spy networks that supposedly were trying to turn James?

Saying they were "trying" to turn him is not the same as "pointing to specific evidence" that he provided information.

___ Did James provide information or not;

___ Where is the evidence that "the unmentionable ones" were supposedly asking for information;

___ Why should we believe this evidence of a "planned exchange" is real, and not fabricated as was the case with the Summer 2006 "liquid bombers"?

* * *

Given James low profile, we can presume his character, alone, was not the basis for the 1911 Official Secrets Act-action. The other options are what he allegedly did; or what he was allegedly participating in.

UK official are not unknown to make errors. That the Court has gone into secret hearings suggests the issues are not clearly supporting a conviction, and there is some question whether the evidence is sufficient.

The legal questions turn on the following points:

1. Is there any other possible explanation, that is lawful, that would account for what James was allegedly doing?

Answer: James' reported occupation in the literary world might account for what was happening. Someone engaged in journalism, exploring possible illegal conduct, or other evidence related to alleged war crimes cannot conclusively be evidence of illegal conduct. Rather, James may have been engaged in simply observation of illegal UK government conduct at a military facility. There is a lawful explanation for what may have been happening which the UK government may not wish the court to consider, examine, or explore.

James may be aware of something that is related to illegal activity; and hopes to share this information with those who might be able to do something about the problem. It's possible James is fearful of retaliation and was led to believe that others may be in a better position to do something, or that the people he was talking to where in the media.

2. Is there no possible course of lawful conduct, which James might have been possibly engaged, that would account for what was observed?

Answer: It is protected action for UK citizens to attempt to prevent UK assets from being used to wage illegal warfare. If James is in receipt of information that is linked more with illegal UK activity, not with a UK-effort to wage war, his actions could be explained as lawful. Indeed, James activity could be fully protected, and it is just as likely the UK and US governments could jointly cooperate to orchestrate the impression to the contrary.

3. Do we trust the reports of what was happening?

Answer: No, the UK Government appears to be caught in a bind: The action James appears to have engaged in appears to be arguably protected -- allegedly engaging in activity, conduct, and other efforts that would legally entitle him to take preventive action to prevent war crimes; however, the UK government cannot afford to have the scope of the UK efforts disclosed. There are issues of UK government official liability if James activities, if they were lawful, were revealed as legitimate efforts to prevent illegal UK government war crimes. There is a reasonable basis to question the reports of what has happened.

4. Is the evidence of what was or was not happening conclusive; or is there some dispute as to the reliability of the evidence provided?

Answer: The UK government cannot lawfully detain someone for engaging in protected, lawful action related to preventing war crimes. The UK government appears to hope that the accusation of criminal conduct -- using the State Secrets charge -- will silence and dissuade others from planning similar alleged operations. It is possible the UK government may trump up the charges, fabricate evidence, or create false impressions with the court to justify a charge or gag order; rather than a have a fully public accounting for the alleged illegal UK government war crimes. The evidence, in our view, is not conclusive; and there is a reasonable basis to question any and all government statements and evidence presented to the honorable court.

* * *

Daniel James Allegedly Provided Rendering of Facility to Prevent UK Government from Enacting Alleged Illegal Operations and War Crimes.

Judgments

We conclude James was engaging in lawful activity related to allegedly reporting, documenting, and planning lawful efforts to thwart the illegal use of UK assets for purpose of engaging in war crimes.

The evidence, course of conduct in re Geneva, and pattern of UK and US governments’ abuses against lawful action tilts against the UK government. The UK government has a higher burden of proof to demonstrate James was not doing something that was protected, lawful, and arguably a Geneva obligation to prevent war crimes. We judge the UK and US government will fabricate, orchestrate, and commit fraud upon their respective judicial systems to hide the scope of the illegal war crimes, Geneva violations, and other grave braches of the laws of war.

Until the full scope of the alleged UK-US Geneva violations are fully investigated by outside entities, we conclude any charges brought against James are not just, but related to a larger effort to insulate UK-US officials for their alleged failure to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions. These are serious issues. No independent observer of the UK or US judicial systems, under these alleged circumstances, should have confidence in the proceedings, evidence, or charges.

The proceedings hardly inspire confidence in the rule of law, western democracy, or support any credible foundation to impose this system on any nation. Rather, it is understandable why illegally invaded peoples would reject this system and actively engage in combat operations to prevent an alleged system of injustice from being imposed through illegal use of force.

The evidence of James’ alleged activity should be forwarded to the German War Crimes prosecutor and European Commission to examine the alleged sketch James may have that could be embarrassing to the UK; and launch an immediate, legitimate line of inquiry to examine:

___ To what extent are UK officials using the Official Secrets Acts to stifle alleged protestors in an attempt to prevent UK assets from being illegally used for war crimes;

___ What evidence is there the UK officials are illegally permitting Geneva violations;

___ How many other cases related to the 1911 Act have been illegally sealed to prevent the world community know there is an alleged scheme in place to suppress evidence related to UK citizens being targeted for doing what they are lawfully permitted to do -- prevent war crimes;

___ To what extent have UK officials mislead the City of Westminster magistrates to conceal the real intent of the UK government: Suppress world knowledge of the abuse of the Official Secrets Act to dissuade lawful action to prevent war crimes;

___ To what extent have the City of Westminster magistrates failed to review the legality of James' actions in light of war crimes, lawful efforts to prevent war crimes;

___ To what extent are the City of Westminster magistrates engaging in like abuses inducted at the Nuremburg Justice Trial, where German lawyers were prosecuted for enforcing illegal statutes;

___ To what extent has the defendant been deprived of a full ability to review or challenge the evidence related to the charges;

___ To what extent has the defendant been deprived of the right to speak about the proceedings which may have illegally denied him the challenge the evidence presented;

___ To what extent has defendant counsel been deprived the ability to challenge evidence allegedly showing the UK government actions were more designed to silence open discussion of efforts to lawfully prevent alleged UK government war crimes;

___ How do the proceedings in the City of Westminster tend to match or contrast with reported proceedings at Guantanamo;

___ To what extent have Geneva violations, and the associated evidence of those violations by the UK, been illegally suppressed using the Official Secrets Act;

___ If the UK government was doing nothing wrong, why isn't it willing to permit James to publicly comment on the nature of his intended actions to allegedly prevent war crimes by the UK government;

___ To what extent is the Official Secrets Act being used to suppress evidence that should be admitted to war crimes prosecutors with the specific intent of prosecuting UK officials for Geneva violations;

___ To what extent are UK allies, including US Government officials, complicit with the rendering, movement, and scheme to hide evidence related to Geneva violations;

___ To what extent have public officials, Members of Congress/Parliament, and other UK and US officials been illegally threatened with unlawful retaliation for their disclosure of efforts to suppress evidence related to war crimes; evidence of UK-US government efforts to suppress efforts of war crimes; or not openly discuss with anyone, including counsel, evidence UK and US government officials have actively engaged in Geneva violations; and

___ How many other people like James have been detained and prosecuted in secret because of their legally protected right to prevent war crimes was illegally classified as a "state secret," yet the true motive of that secrecy was to prevent disclosure of UK government knowledge: (1) The war crimes-related activity had not been prevented; (2) UK officials failed to prevent illegal war crimes that they knew, or should have known were not permitted under Geneva; and (3) UK officials knew, or should have known, they had a duty to prevent but failed to prevent as required under Geneva?