Truth, Honesty and Justice
The Alternative to Wars, Terrorism and Politics

Home Page - Issues - The World Court of Justice - BOOKS - Contacts - Donate - Search

Treason, Terrorism and Tony Blair
Publication date: 2005-08-08

Are Terrorists and Tony Blair Guilty of Treason?

Some people are suggesting that suicide bombers be charged with treason, and it is now common knowledge that Tony Blair involved the British Armed Forces into the Iraq war without a valid reason and deliberately deceived the British Monarch, the British People and the British Armed Forces about the legality of this war. Less known are activities and pronouncements of Tony Blair from which it is clear that he seeks to replace the British Parliamentary Monarchy with a Leader‐and‐Masses Commonwealth, in which the Prime Minister is not a servant of the Crown, but a Leader ruling the country in accordance with his personal political instincts and accountable to none, but History.

Are acts of the bombers and of Tony Blair treason under the British Law?

According to The Oxford Companion to Law (ISBN 0–19–866110–X):

“The essence of treason is violation of the duty of allegiance which is owed to the sovereign and is due by all British subjects who are citizens of the U.K. and colonies, wherever they are, and by aliens under the protection of the Crown, so long as within the realm or still within its protection though having left the realm.”

“It makes it punishable as treason to compass or imagine (intend) the death or bodily harm of the sovereign, her heirs and successors; and to utter such compassing or intending by publication or by any overt act or deed; to compass or imagine the death of the King's wife, or the wife of the sovereign's eldest son and heir, to violate the King's wife or his eldest daughter unmarried or the wife of his eldest son and heir; to levy war against the sovereign in her realm, to be adherent to the sovereign's enemies in the realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere; to slay the Chancellor, the Treasurer, or any of the judges of the High Court or Court of Session or Justiciary, when in their places and doing their offices; to endeavour to hinder any person next in succession from succeeding to the Crown, and maliciously by writing or printing to maintain that any persons have title to the Crown otherwise than according to the Bill of Rights, 1688, the Act of Settlement, 1700, and the Acts for the Union of England and Scotland.”

“All persons who incite, aid or abet treason, or receive or protect a traitor, are guilty of treason also.”

“Misprision of treason is a common law offence committed by one who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that another has committed treason but fails to disclose this information to the authority within a reasonable time.”

And in the case of any person, if any of his acts fall within the above he can be charged with treason.

In the case of “suicide bombers” their liability to being charged with treason would depend whether they “owed duty of allegiance to the British sovereign”, and whether their acts were intended to cause harm to the British Crown as described above.

Thus acts of persons who owe no allegiance to the Crown, cannot be acts of treason. Nor can be treason acts not motivated by hostility to the Crown.

But, if a suicide bomber, or any other person, owes duty of allegiance to the Crown, and his act was aimed at the Crown as described above, then he is guilty of treason.

There can be also cases of dual allegiance: a person might have an equal duty of allegiance, and feel loyalty to two countries. This can become a problem when the two countries are at war. This was the case with Germans residing in Britain at the times of the two world wars. In times of war persons with loyalty to the “enemy country” are seen as “suspicious and possibly hostile foreigners” rather than “traitors”. This often leads to various limitations on their movements and activities, such as internment. But not in punishment for “treason”. In case they do commit hostile acts, they are more likely to be seen as “enemies”, rather than “traitors”.

There can also be cases of “ideological” dual allegiance, as it was in the case of British nationals who became Russian spies due to their Communist sympathies. Or British nationals who took the side of Germany in World War II, due to “ideological” sympathies. Such cases are usually treated as “treason”.

More “difficult” is the issue of whether the involvement of Britain into an “illegal” war by deception by Tony Blair and his attempts to surreptitiously undermine the British Monarchy and to turn Britain into a populist leader‐and‐masses commonwealth in which he would have practically unlimited powers constitute acts of treason.

The key issue here is the essence of treason itself, that is violation of the duty of allegiance which is owed to the sovereign.

Tony Blair owes duty of allegiance to the British sovereign both as a subject of the Crown and as a servant of the Crown (the Prime Minister).

The duty of allegiance to the Crown as Prime Minister presumes unconditional honesty in the performance of his duties, and acting in the interests of the Realm, rather than sacrificing the interests of the Realm to his personal ambitions.

Acts of dishonesty or contrary to the interests of the Realm by a British Prime Minister are violations of the duty of allegiance to the sovereign by her servant, and as such they are acts of treason.

There is enough evidence in the public domain today to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Iraq war had no legal basis and that the reasons for Tony Blair's involvement into this war were the personal views and ambitions of Tony Blair, rather than the interests of the Realm. There is also enough evidence in the public domain to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that to justify the war Tony Blair deliberately deceived the Monarch, the People and the Parliament, which is an act of treason in itself.

But these were not the only acts of violations of the duty of allegiance to the sovereign by Tony Blair in his special capacity as Prime Minister.

Tony Blair does not understand the British Constitution. He sees the Monarchy as a mere ceremonial adornment which can be used as a colorful background to his personal image. This became evident by his allocating a special “slot” for himself at the funerals of Queen Mother, when he strolled in front of the TV cameras with a grotesque open umbrella.

Tony Blair equates his own person with Britain, as when he said before announcing the Iraq War: “Britain has to decide” instead of “I have to decide on behalf of Britain”. But, besides of equating himself with Britain, he was deceiving the British Public. Because he had decided to join the Americans in their war against Iraq months before making that announcement.

In his laws Tony Blair seeks to minimize the role of the Crown. Thus, he wanted to remove the word “Crown” from the “Crown Prosecution Service”. And he wants that in the proposed by him citizenship ceremonies, the candidates to the British citizenship would swear allegiance to the “Country”, rather than the “Queen and Country”.

He justifies his actions by his instincts, rather than by his duties as a servant of the Crown, and wants to be judged only by History, rather then by Her Majesty's Pleasure.

Nor has Tony Blair any respect for the House of Commons, nor for the House of Lords. He wants to diminish the role of the House of Lords and to make it a gathering of his proteges (“Tony's cronies”). And in the House of Commons when asked to account for his actions at Prime Minister's Question Time he avoids inconvenient to him questions — as he avoided the legitimate question by the Leader of the Opposition about the reasons for the Iraq War.

Nor has he any respect for the Rule of Law — he seeks to dictate to the British Judges what decisions they should make.

And when given legal advice by a senior British lawyer that the Iraq War was illegal, he made that lawyer to change his advice to justify the war.

And he has turned the British Civil Service known for its independence and professionalism into a malleable part of his Party Apparatus ‐ Soviet Style.

And as more and more British soldiers are dying in Iraq, Tony Blair seeks to shift the public anger at the illegal war onto a handful of Muslim clerics, whom he seeks to accuse of treason.

But it is not this handful of Muslim clerics that is Tony Blair's real target. He uses these clerics in the same way as Hitler used van Der Lubbe (the Dutchman who was accused of the burning of the Reichstag).

Together with “gagging” the few Muslim clerics whose views are unpopular with the public, the power he seeks for himself under the proposed “anti‐terror” laws would enable him to gag not just the few “extremist clerics”, but any British journalist or public figure who will say that the “suicide bombings are due to the Iraq War”. And any mention of the illegality of the Iraq War will be interpreted as “justification of terrorism”, and therefore an act of treason. And in that way he seeks to re‐interpret the meaning of “treason” in the British Law from “violation of allegiance to the sovereign” to “violation of allegiance to Tony Blair” himself.

And once the British Law of Treason becomes interpreted in such way, Tony Blair will be able to avoid his own liability for treason and for his war crimes in Iraq. He will simply proclaim anybody who speaks against his politics, as a traitor. Just as Stalin used to proclaim anybody who was against him “Enemy of the People”.

And this will finalize the British transition from the Parliamentary Monarchy to Tony Blair's semi‐socialist Reich.

Narcissist politicians like Hitler or Blair use every opportunity to promote themselves. Times of national outrage like the German reaction to the burning of the Reichstag, or the British reaction to the London Bombings, allow such politicians to mobilize popular support and in the confused emotive atmosphere to remove whatever constitutional obstacles they have on their way to unlimited power. Blinded by hatred of the “enemy” and prepared to justify any laws in the name of their own “security” people rally behind the “strong leader”. And the more power such leaders get for themselves the more crimes they commit and the more power they need to keep themselves in power.

Hitler was very popular in Germany in his heydays, and he was respected by the “International Community”. And like Tony Blair he promoted the Olympics to promote himself, and loved to be photographed with children. And like Tony Blair he started as a socialist, and as Tony Blair he courted and manipulated the Industry. And both were obsessed with their place in History and sought to establish it by waging wars.

So while it is not too late, Tony Blair should be removed from his office by impeachment and put on trial for treason and war crimes in Iraq.

But who will stand up against him?

While there are people in Britain who see the dishonesty of Tony Blair and the criminality of his politics, the opposition to Tony Blair is as weak, as the opposition to Hitler at the times of the Weimar Republic.

So, while some journalists might write some articles (before the Blair new laws come into force), and while some backbenchers might make some statements criticizing his politics, there is nobody to stand up to Blair today and to call him to account. Just as nobody could stop Hitler in the days of the Weimar Republic.

So start finding places in your sitting rooms for the portraits of your Beloved Leader.

And start learning by heart the poem:

When we say Britain, we mean Blair!
When we say Blair, we mean Britain!

This is the poem that the Russian children were taught in Stalin's times. The only difference being that instead of “Britain” they were saying “The Motherland”, and instead of “Blair”, they were saying “Stalin”, and they were saying it all in Russian.

Some will say, “It cannot happen in Britain. Britain is a free and democratic country.”

But so was the Weimar Republic.

And have not you by now come to terms with Tony Blair's dishonesty? Or with the criminality of his war? Do you feel the same indignation at the deaths of the innocent murdered on the orders of Tony Blair by the Baghdad Bombs as you feel at the deaths of the innocent in London? And, if you do not, then what right do you have to demand anybody to condemn anything? And which atrocity is greater killing of 25,000 or of 50? Or is it that the laws of arithmetic stop working, when crass nationalism comes into play?

As Baroness Thatcher once said, slowly spelling each syllable: “In‐sec‐u‐ri‐ty”. And it was her who said about Tony Blair, “Once a socialist is always a socialist”.

Fear combined with nationalist pride and inferiority masked by denial will ensure inevitability of Blair's Reich. Just as the same human qualities made Hitler's rise to power … inevitable.

Tweet       Follow @wcj4

If you have found this article stimulating, check out other articles.

If you disagree with us, tell us. Prove us wrong, and we shall agree with you.
If you agree with us, spread the message of Government by Truth, Honesty and Justice.

If you want us to deal with more issues and publish more articles, send a monetary donation.

You can see printed books and publications at Truth and Justice Publications Ltd website and find out how you can buy, borrow or review them.

If you want to be informed of any new articles on this site, send us an empty email, by clicking here. If you are interested in articles only on a particular subject, tell us so in the email.

Home Page - Issues - The World Court of Justice - BOOKS - Contacts - Donate

Copyright (C) 2005 Shams Ali — All rights reserved

WARNING: The Google Search data can be out of date. For up to date search go to the issues and browse through the contents using your browser search (find) facility.

Search WWW Search Search

      to Top