Written evidence from Andrew Watt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This evidence focuses on the question of the
appropriateness, specifically the legality, or otherwise, of the
military aspect of UK foreign policy in Afghanistan.
2. The position expressed in this document is
that the UK foreign policy in Afghanistan is highly inappropriate
since it involves multiple offences contrary to various sections
of the Terrorism Act 2000.
3. UK foreign policy in Afghanistan since October
2001 has included military action as an essential aspect of that
foreign policy.
4. UK military action in Afghanistan since October
2001 meets the criteria for "terrorism" in UK Law as
specified in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (specifically
those criteria set out in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4)).
5. Current and recent UK foreign policy in Afghanistan
therefore involves the commission of multiple offences contrary
inter alia to sections 15, 16, 56 and 57 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
6. Such offences have been committed and continue
to be committed by UK politicians, military officers,
other military personnel and UK civil servants.
7. UK military action in Afghanistan is unlawful
under UK Law (since it inevitably involves the commission of multiple
criminal offences contrary to various sections of the Terrorism
Act 2000) and has been unlawful on those grounds since military
action started in October 2001.
8. Information about such offences contrary to
the Terrorism Act 2000 has been concealed from Parliament and
the UK public by UK civil servants and senior military personnel
as well as by a number of well-known UK politicians.
9. UK military personnel have not been informed
that, when fighting in Afghanistan, they risk dying as "terrorists",
as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Nor have they
been informed that, in fighting a so-called "War on Terrorism",
they themselves are "terrorists" who are carrying out
"terrorism" as defined in Section 40 and Section 1 of
the Terrorism Act 2000.
10. Some £5 billion of public funds is currently
being spent annually on unlawful terrorist activity in Afghanistan.
11. The Ministry of Defence has not disclosed
to Parliament that much of their budget is being spent on "terrorism".
Nor did they disclose that during earlier phases of MoD terrorism
in Iraq or Afghanistan.
12. Fund-raising for and funding of "terrorism"
are offences contrary to Sections 15 and 16 of the Terrorism Act
2000.
13. UK politicians, current and recent, and civil
servants have concealed from the UK Parliament and public that
tax monies are being used to fund "terrorism" (as defined
in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000) in Afghanistan.
14. UK politicians, civil servants and military
personnel have used funds for the purposes of "terrorism"
(as defined in the 2000 Act) contrary to Section 16 of the Act.
15. The expenditure of public funds on terrorism
in Afghanistan (and previously in Iraq) may constitute the largest
misuse of public funds in UK history.
16. UK politicians and others have committed
offences contrary to Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (note
not the 2000 Act) by praising "terrorists" who have
carried out acts of terrorism on behalf of the United Kingdom
in Afghanistan.
17. The primary recommendation for action by
the UK Government is that all unlawful terrorist activity by individuals
acting on behalf of the United Kingdom in Afghanistan cease forthwith
and that associated misuse of public funds to fund terrorism also
cease forthwith.
18. A secondary recommendation is that the UK
Government promptly institute a comprehensive set of inquiries
including Police and Judicial Inquiries to investigate all aspects
of the offences committed since October 2001 contrary to the Terrorism
Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006.
BRIEF PERSONAL
BIO
Andrew Watt is the author of the blog "Chilcot's
Cheating Us" which examines some of the evidence that UK
military action in Iraq from July 2000 involved offences contrary
to the Terrorism Act 2000. In addition, he is the author of the
blog "Westminster's Cheating Us" which explores some
of the issues underlying the loss of public confidence in the
integrity of Westminster politicians, including some of the offences
mentioned in this document.
Andrew Watt was formerly an academic and a civil
servant in the UK.
SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
1. This evidence focuses on legal questions relating
to the military aspects of UK foreign policy in Afghanistan.
2. It is a matter of public record that UK foreign
policy in Afghanistan since October 2001 has included an element
of military action, variously labeled as Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Herrick.
3. The author of this evidence holds the view
that such UK military action is (and has been since its inception)
"terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
4. The basis for that assertion is examined in
more detail later in this document. In particular, the wording
and meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are examined
in some detail later in this document.
5. This evidence does not attempt to address
all possible lines of legal argument relating to the multiple
criminal offences committed contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000.
Nor does it attempt to be exhaustive in identifying all offences
contrary to the various sections of the Terrorism Act 2000, nor
the categories of people nor individuals who have committed such
criminal offences contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000.
6. My conclusion that UK foreign policy in Afghanistan
since October 2001 is unlawful rests on the interpretation of
Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
7. For convenience, the full text of Section
1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is reproduced here:
1.—(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 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 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.
8. Section 1 in effect contains two definitions
of "terrorism" which I will term the "General Definition"
and the "Proscribed Organisation Definition". The latter
is defined in section 1(5), is the one on which the media generally
focuses but is not relevant to the focus of this evidence and
will not be considered further in this document.
9. UK military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism"
in the meaning of the General Definition of "terrorism"
set out in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
10. According to the "General Definition"
of terrorism in Section 1 of the Act satisfying the following
three criteria is sufficient to constitute "terrorism"
in the general case.
- (a) a threat (or action) against person(s)
and property - see 1(1)(a) and 1(2).
- (b) the threat or action is designed to influence
a government or a section of the public of any locality.
- (c) the threat or action is for a political
or ideological purpose.
11. It is a matter of public record that UK military
forces have used firearms and explosives in Afghanistan on many
occasions. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is not necessary to
satisfy criterion (b) in the preceding paragraph 10 (see subsection
1(3) of the Terrorism Act 2000 as to why that is so).
12. However, for completeness, I will briefly
show that each of the three criteria specified in paragraph 10
of the current document are satisfied and that, therefore, UK
military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism" as defined
in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
13. Criterion (a) is satisfied since it is on
public record that the UK military have carried out multiple actions
in Afghanistan which have caused (or threatened to cause) serious
violence or death to persons and/or serious damage to property.
14. Criterion (b) is satisfied since the military
action was initially targeted to "influence" the then
Taliban Government of Afghanistan and has continued to target
the subset of the Afghanistan public who are members of the Taliban
or sympathetic to the Taliban.
15. Criterion (c) is satisfied since the armed
violence by UK military personnel has been for the purpose of
carrying forward the political cause constituted by UK Government
policy, as amended from time to time.
16. I conclude, therefore, that since all three
tests are satisfied that UK military action in Afghanistan is
"terrorism" as defined in the "General Definition"
of "terrorism" laid out in Section 1 of the Terrorism
Act 2000.
17. In passing, the Select Committee will wish
to note the import of Section 1(4) which shows that actions anywhere
in the world against the Government or section of the public of
any country is encompassed within the definition of "terrorism".
Therefore Afghanistan is within the geographic scope of the definition
of "terrorism" in Section 1 of the 2000 Act.
18. Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines
who is a "terrorist". For convenience I reproduce the
text of Section 40 here:
40.—(1) In this Part "terrorist"
means a person who—
- (a) has committed an offence
under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
- (b) is or has been concerned in the commission,
preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
- (2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to
a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation
or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a
person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this
Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of
acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.
19. If UK military action in Afghanistan is "terrorism"
as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 then Subsection
40(b) indicates that those who have "been concerned in the
commission, preparation or instigation" of such acts of terrorism
are themselves "terrorists".
20. Consequently, not only are UK military personnel
in Afghanistan "terrorists" as defined in Section 40
since they were concerned in the "commission" of acts
of terrorism but so are their supporting civil servants and the
politicians who "instigated" the acts of terrorism.
21. It would therefore be correct to view individuals
such as the following as being "terrorists" in the meaning
of the Terrorism Act 2000:
- (a) Former Prime Minister Tony Blair since
he was concerned in the "instigation" of UK military
action in Afghanistan in October 2001.
- (b) A large number of UK military personnel
who served in Afghanistan since they have been concerned in the
"commission" of acts of terrorism in Afghanistan in
the period since October 2001.
- (c) A number of UK civil servants, not least
in the Ministry of Defence, and others since they were concerned
with "preparation" for acts of terrorism in Afghanistan.
22. The number of individuals who are "terrorists",
as defined in Section 40, is huge and detailed characterisation
and identification of those "terrorists" is beyond the
scope of this evidence.
23. Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 defines
an important type of offence that a number of well-known public
figures have committed.
24. For convenience, I reproduce the text of
Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 here:
56.—(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.
25. Anyone who directs an organisation which
commits acts of terrorism is guilty of an offence, and is liable
on conviction to imprisonment for life.
26. It is taken as demonstrated, by virtue of
earlier examination of the matter in this document, that "acts
of terrorism" (in the meaning of Section 56) have taken place
in Afghanistan.
27. Among the individuals who have committed
such Section 56 offences, as discussed above, are the following:
- (a) The former Prime Minister Tony Blair
who directed, at a political level, UK terrorism in Afghanistan
from 2001 to 2007.
- (b) The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown
who directed, at a political level, UK terrorism in Afghanistan
from 2007 to 2010.
- (c) The current Prime Minister David Cameron
who is continuing to direct, at a political level, UK terrorism
in Afghanistan (from May 2010).
28. In passing, I would mention that I wrote
some months ago to Gordon Brown (when Prime Minister) and David
Cameron (when Leader of the Opposition) drawing their respective
attention to UK military action in Afghanistan being terrorism
and asking them to take steps to cause such terrorism to cease.
29. Gordon Brown "noted" my request
that the United Kingdom "cease and desist" from acts
of terrorism in Afghanistan. David Cameron's reply seemed to indicate
that he supported such acts of terrorism, an interpretation confirmed
by the Section 56 offences committed by David Cameron since he
assumed the office of Prime Minister.
30. Fund-raising for terrorism and the use of
money to fund terrorism are offences as specified in Sections
15 and 16 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
31. Various UK civil servants and politicians
have committed offences contrary to Section 15 and/or 16 of the
Terrorism Act 2000.
32. According to answers given by Gordon Brown
to the Chilcot Inquiry some £5 billion per annum is being
spent by the UK in Afghanistan to support military action. Given
that such action is "terrorism" then some £5 billion
per annum of public funds are being spent on terrorism by the
UK.
33. The UK taxpayer has not been informed by
the UK Government that tax monies are being used to fund terrorism
in Afghanistan.
34. The Ministry of Defence did not disclose
to Parliament that funding used in Afghanistan for military purposes
was to be used for the purposes of terrorism as defined in the
Terrorism Act 2000. The Ministry of Defence officials and others
concerned may be guilty of contempt of Parliament.
35. The use of public funds for the purposes
of terrorism, totaling some £20 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan
is likely to be the greatest financial crime in UK history.
36. On numerous occasions UK politicians have
praised British Army terrorists who have died in Afghanistan.
37. Such statements are contrary to Section 1
of the Terrorism Act 2006 which specifies that "encouragement"
of terrorism is an offence.
38. Some such offences have been committed under
cover of parliamentary privilege. Others render the offender liable
to prosecution and potentially to imprisonment for up to 7 years.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
1. The author recommends that the Select Committee
asks that the UK Government cease forthwith all activity in Afghanistan
that will cause individuals to commit further offences contrary
to the Terrorism Act 2000 and that expenditure of public funds
for the purposes of terrorism also cease forthwith.
2. The author recommends that the Select Committee
asks that the UK Government institute a comprehensive series of
truly independent and thorough inquiries to include Police and
Judicial inquiries to investigate all aspects of the criminal
offences carried out by UK politicians, military personnel and
civil servants in connection with unlawful terrorist activity
by the UK in, and related to, Afghanistan.
3. The author recommends that the Select Committee
asks the UK Parliament and its select committees to institute
one or more inquiries into how relevant information was withheld
from Parliament in its consideration of UK foreign policy in Afghanistan
and the parliamentary approval of funding for "terrorism"
in Afghanistan by the British Army and other military entities.
4 October 2010
| 
