Yesterday's UK Daily Mail informs us that RAF doctor Malcolm Kendall-Smith has been sentenced to eight months in jail after being found guilty by a court martial of failing to comply with "lawful orders" after refusing to serve in the Iraq war.

Kendall-Smith is said to have told a pre-trial hearing last month that he refused to go to Iraq because he believed the war was illegal and he did not want to be complicit with an act of aggression contrary to international law. He reportedly said that he had "evidence that the Americans were on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf. I have documents in my possession which support my assertions. This is on the basis that on-going acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany."

Kendall-Smith is absolutely correct. There is ample evidence – growing in volume and quality every day – that the U.S. and its lap-dog, Great Britain, went to war on trumped up charges, lies and with illegal intentions. There is, for example, the "Downing Street Memo," and the more recent evidence that George Bush not only knowingly used "cooked" intelligence, but that he also deliberately attempted to destroy the lives of those individuals who sought to expose this hoax.

So the fundament of the Iraq invasion was based on lies and deception created for the express purpose of initiating an illegal, aggressive war of conquest. This is important because the prosecutor, David Perry, states the UK government's position as being that the orders were lawful and Kendall-Smith had a duty to obey them as a commissioned officer. Perry then makes the most astounding claim that "the question of the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant because it occurred prior to the charges"! Further, in complete disregard of the facts of the invasion mentioned above, now well known to many – including ordinary citizens - that at the time of the charges, the presence of coalition forces in Iraq was "unquestionably legal" because "they were there at the request of the country's democratically-elected government".

Now, how can there be a "democratically elected government" in a country that has been illegally invaded and its legitimate government overthrown, and every man, woman and child in said country under duress and fear for life and limb by said invaders who enforce this so-called "democratic election" to take place?

This sounds a lot like the "democratically elected" government that was imposed on Poland by Stalin.

Getting back to Kendall-Smith: in court Judge Advocate Jack Bayliss said "Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Disobedience of orders means it is not a disciplined force, it is a disorganised rabble. Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they obey and those who do so must face the consequences." He then added that the sentence would send a message to other members of the armed forces of the importance of obeying orders.

When sentencing Kendall-Smith, Judge Advocate Bayliss told him: "You have, in this court's view, sought to make a martyr of yourself. You have shown a degree of arrogance that is amazing." The news reports tell us that Judge Advocate Bayliss further said that Kendall-Smith may have acted out of his moral viewpoint but his interpretation of the presence of British forces in Iraq as illegal was incorrect.

A spokesman for the Royal Air Force Prosecuting Authority said: "It is right that Ft Lt Malcolm Kendall Smith was prosecuted for disobeying legal orders. British troops are operating in Iraq under a United Nations mandate and at the invitation of the Iraqi government. The Judge Advocate ruled that the court would not accept his defence that the war was illegal and a panel of his peers have convicted him on that basis."

More than anything, in these remarks, this court has proven its moral heritage descends from Nazi Germany.
Make note of that, Jack Bayliss and David Perry.

From Mar. 5,1947 to Dec. 4, 1947, nine members of the Reich Ministry of Justice and seven members of the People's and Special Courts, were by the Nuremberg Tribunal with using their power as prosecutors and judges to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Nuremberg trials were conducted under what is referred to as "Control Council Law No. 10, or "CC Law 10".

The Allied Control Council is composed of the authorized representatives of the four Powers: the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The preamble to Control Council Law No. 10 in part, is as follows

Article II of C.C. Law 10 defines acts, each of which "is recognized as a crime," namely, (a) crimes against peace, (b) war crimes, (c) crimes against humanity, (d) membership in criminal organizations.

The Justice Trial is one of the most interesting of the Nuremberg trials. This trial raised the issue of what responsibility judges might have for enforcing grossly unjust - but arguably binding - laws. The trial was the inspiration for the movie Judgment at Nuremberg, though the movie presented a somewhat fictionalized view of the trial.

Ingo Muller's book, "Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich", provides analysis of the evidence suggesting that most German judges were ultraconservative nationalists who were sympathetic to Nazi goals. In other words, the "Nazification" of German law occurred with the willful cooperation of judges. Judge Advocate Jack Bayliss might want to sit up and take notice.

An important point to note, as I will discuss further on, is that many judges appointed before the Nazi rise to power had views that were quite compatible with the Nazi party because of the economic and social circles that judges were drawn from.

In the Justice trial at Nuremberg, American prosecutors argued that there was a pattern of judicial and prosecutorial support for Nazi programs that consisted of gross violations of human rights. In order to convict, it was only necessary t that the defendant consciously furthered these human rights abuses; that is, that they had been notified, at some point, that there were those who considered the acts such abuses.

For example, jurist Franz Schlegelberger served in the Ministry of Justice from 1931-1942. For the last period of his service, Schlegelberger was Director of the Ministry of Justice. He wrote legal books and was honored as a great jurist. Schlegelberger's defense was that he was bound to follow the orders of Hitler, the "Supreme Judge" of Germany, but that he did so reluctantly. Schlegelberger argued that he did not join the Nazis until 1938, and then only because he was ordered to do so by Hitler. Schlegelberger argued that he had "sympathy for the Jews" and that he "resisted" certain legal measures against them. He also argued that he continued to serve as long as he did in order to prevent the appointment of a less sympathetic judge.

Sounds perfectly heartbreaking, eh? Like being stuck between a rock and a hard place?

His arguments may have saved him from death, but they didn't mitigate his responsibility. In its decision, the Justice trial tribunal pointed out that the decision of a man of his stature to remain in office lent credibilty to the Nazi regime. More than that, Schegelberger did sign his name to orders that, in the tribunal's judgment, constituted crimes.

Another example is that of Oswald Rothaug, pronounced by the Nuremberg Tribunal to be a "sadistic and evil man." Rothaug enthusiastically supported the Nazi human rights abuses. He was very creative in his construction and interpretation of those laws that could be construed to "to take advantage of the war effort." In one case, Rothaug sent an innocent Jew to his death by arguing that death was the appropriate punishment for exploiting the air-raid black-outs to pursue a romance with a young German girl.

Jack Bayliss and David Perry, are you taking notes?

It has been said by expert analysts that most German judges over-identified with the Nazi regime. They came to see themselves as fighters on the internal battlefront, with the responsibility to punish "the enemy within," people such as Malcolm Kendall-Smith. The defendants in the Justice Trial claimed protection under the principle nullum crimen sine lege. This maxim states that there can be no crime committed, and no punishment meted out, without a violation of penal law as it existed at the time of the act. This basic legal principle has been incorporated into international criminal law for just such situations as the trial of Malcolm Kendall-Smith.

What this is going to ultimately mean for Jack Bayliss and David Perry is that, even if they are arguing that British troops are in Iraq at the "invitation" of the "democratically elected government," once it has been established by an international court that the invasion was illegal, which then means that the so-called "democratically elected government is also illegal, then there will be no limitation upon the power or right of an International Tribunal to punish acts which can properly be held to have been violations of international law when committed.

In short, Jack Bayliss and David Perry have both overtly supported the Nazification of Great Britain in exactly the same way that Oswald Rothaug did because, the ex post facto rule cannot apply in the international field as it does under constitutional mandate in the domestic field.

As a principle of justice and fair play, in War Crimes tribunals, the rule in question will undoubtedly be given full effect. Applied in the field of international law, the principle requires only proof before conviction that the accused knew or should have known that in matters of international concern he was guilty of participation in a nationally organized system of injustice and persecution shocking to the moral sense of mankind, and that he knew or should have known that he would be subject to punishment if caught.

The fact is, no person who knowingly commits the acts made punishable by C.C. Law 10 can assert that he did not know that he would be brought to account for his acts because notice of intent to punish is being repeatedly given by the only means available in international affairs, namely, the solemn warning of the people.

This is what Malcolm Kendall-Smith has done: as a man of conscience, he has officially notified the British Court System - and the World - that, one day, in the not-too-distant future, the people of this Earth will take back control of their lives; they will reject utterly the rule of conscienceless Pathocrats, and there will be Justice for humanity.