Could an ex PM be charged with War Crimes?

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Seeing as the Iraq Inquiry has stated that Blair "was told 10 days before the Iraq invasion that Saddam had dismantled his WMD" - did he lie to Parliament, and if he did, what are the consequences?

 

[Gwylan]

The answer is "yes" - theoretically at least. That's what's happening in the Hague right now with Radovan Karadzic (and, although he was not a PM, would happen with Ratko Mladic if they could find him).

But there's no way that Blair would be put on trial - even though I'd love to see him squirming.

 

[Superphil]

Teflon Tony will get away with it, alongside all the other "allied nations" war criminals over the past 50 years or so.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

This is not the smoking gun. Although if this is what they are willing to bring into the open - what is being hidden ?

 

[Buzzer]

There's a very good case IMO for bringing Clinton to trial over NATO atrocities in Serbia. We bombed the f*** out of Belgrade incl hospitals, schools and TV stations not for strategic purposes but to crush Serbian morale. Despicable acts against the Serbs but they'll get away with it because NATO will have us believe all Serbs are bad and deserve it.


I'd love to see Blair, Campbell et al up on war crimes charges. Theyy certainly deserve to be.

 

[Don Quixote]

How's he a criminal? Someone had to get rid of Saddam eventually and are any wars "just" wars?

 

[Questions]

How's he a criminal? Someone had to get rid of Saddam eventually and are any wars "just" wars?

There are legitamate reasons for going to war but regime change is not one of them. To protect a people in that country ( Kosovo ) to remove a invading force (1st Gulf war) from a sovereign territory another. But just because someone keeps sticking two fingers up at you is not enough in my opinion to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands of people in an illegal invasion. And see, I didn`t even mention oil.

 

[Jim D]

I thought this was going to be about Thatcher and the Belgrano.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Bob and No.

 

[looney]

Exactly what crimes did he authorise and what international laws did he break?

 

[drew]

Seeing as the Iraq Inquiry has stated that Blair "was told 10 days before the Iraq invasion that Saddam had dismantled his WMD" - did he lie to Parliament, and if he did, what are the consequences?

.

Who announced this then? You seem to categorically state that the weapons had been dismantled. Nobody knew that, except of course you. It was suggested in a report that they may have been disassembled. READ IT CAREFULLY. The crucial word is ' may'. It was also suggested that he may not have the warheads to deliver the weapons. Again, you need to understand the meaning of the word 'may'.

Fact is, we couldn't know for sure. Could we take the risk. What if he had attacked Israel and they had responded with their own weapon of mass destruction.

I'm no great fan of Blair or Brown for that matter but they had to make a judgement call. I sometimes wonder what some of you lot on NSC would have done 70 years ago. We weren't attacked by Hitler but are you suggesting we should have declared neutrality and hope he didn't cross the Channel? Maybe if we had, we could have turned a blind eye to his ethnic cleansing?

There are the anti Blair/New Labour/Brown et al brigade who would try and pin anything and everything on them.

Facts are that for 10 years Saddam had not just been sticking two fingers up at the world, he had been breaking sanctions and disrupting weapons inspections. He had been murdering scores of his own people, for example the Kurds.

There are many who also aren't interested in the inquiry as they have already jumped to their own conclusions and won't accept anything that doesn't concur with that.

 

[Questions]

.

Who announced this then? You seem to categorically state that the weapons had been dismantled. Nobody knew that, except of course you. It was suggested in a report that they may have been disassembled. READ IT CAREFULLY. The crucial word is ' may'. It was also suggested that he may not have the warheads to deliver the weapons. Again, you need to understand the meaning of the word 'may'.

Fact is, we couldn't know for sure. Could we take the risk. What if he had attacked Israel and they had responded with their own weapon of mass destruction.

I'm no great fan of Blair or Brown for that matter but they had to make a judgement call. I sometimes wonder what some of you lot on NSC would have done 70 years ago. We weren't attacked by Hitler but are you suggesting we should have declared neutrality and hope he didn't cross the Channel? Maybe if we had, we could have turned a blind eye to his ethnic cleansing?

There are the anti Blair/New Labour/Brown et al brigade who would try and pin anything and everything on them.

Facts are that for 10 years Saddam had not just been sticking two fingers up at the world, he had been breaking sanctions and disrupting weapons inspections. He had been murdering scores of his own people, for example the Kurds.

There are many who also aren't interested in the inquiry as they have already jumped to their own conclusions and won't accept anything that doesn't concur with that.

As to whether he had WMD, best to listen to the weapons inspectors then.

And they said............... ?

 

[Dandyman]

Exactly what crimes did he authorise and what international laws did he break?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by member states. The Charter lists two exceptions:

The first is member states’ inherent right of self defence (hence Blair's lies about WMD)

The second is action authorised by the Security Council that is necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.



As it was clear that the UK faced no threat from Iraq and that the UN made clear that it's resolutions did not authorise any attack on Iraq, it follows that Blair and Bush initiated an illegal war of aggression.

Neither will of course ever come before a court at The Hague anymore than Kissinger or his henchmen will.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Fortunately for Blair a potential star witness in the Iraq Inquiry , Dr David Kelly is dead , so all the misinformation that was given at the time can no longer be corroborated by an individual with first hand experience.

 

[looney]

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by member states. The Charter lists two exceptions:

The first is member states’ inherent right of self defence (hence Blair's lies about WMD)


As it was clear that the UK faced no threat from Iraq and that the UN made clear that it's resolutions did not authorise any attack on Iraq, it follows that Blair and Bush initiated an illegal war of aggression.

This is it, it was NOT clear at the time that the UK faced no threat, The USA had been attacked twice, sept 11 and the anthrax attacks. It was reasonable to assume the worst and it still is. Therefor they did not behave illeagally.

Trying to rewrite history will do you little good.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Blair is a war criminal, pure and simple. He wasn't fooling the million people who marched through London to protest against the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. He wasn't even fooling the Houses of Parliament, though with a few honourable exceptions, the gutless wonder MPs rolled over to maintain the fiddled-expenses lifestyle they'd become accustomed to. Coalition Of The Willing, my arse. Did you see the face on that Spanish PM? They must have been blackmailing him with goat-shagging porno shots for him to sign up to 'the willing'. And bombings in Spain and England were a direct result of their being willing accomplices to this war crime. Blood on their hands. Fact.

 

[Dandyman]

This is it, it was NOT clear at the time that the UK faced no threat, The USA had been attacked twice, sept 11 and the anthrax attacks. It was reasonable to assume the worst and it still is. Therefor they did not behave illeagally.

Trying to rewrite history will do you little good.

Try to make intelligent and factual arguments. The attack on the Trade Towers was masterminded and carried out by Saudis not Iraqis. Saddam's regime was a secular one with no connection to those attacks. There is not a shred of evidence that Saddam had any connection with Islamist terrorists. Indeed the previous support shown by the Yanks toward Saddam during his war with Iran rather proves the point.

There was no evidence that the UK faced a threat from Iraq, hence Robin Cook's resignation as Foreign Secretary and his subsequent speach in the House of Commons.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Blair is a war criminal, pure and simple.

True but history tells us that it is only the losing protaganist that gets indicted as a war criminal. Blair knows that the real truth will never be revealed during his lifetime and perhaps not for another 100 years after that.

 

[Dandyman]

Blair is a war criminal, pure and simple. He wasn't fooling the million people who marched through London to protest against the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. He wasn't even fooling the Houses of Parliament, though with a few honourable exceptions, the gutless wonder MPs rolled over to maintain the fiddled-expenses lifestyle they'd become accustomed to. Coalition Of The Willing, my arse. Did you see the face on that Spanish PM? They must have been blackmailing him with goat-shagging porno shots for him to sign up to 'the willing'. And bombings in Spain and England were a direct result of their being willing accomplices to this war crime. Blood on their hands. Fact.

100% spot on.

 

[mona]

Fortunately for Blair a potential star witness in the Iraq Inquiry , Dr David Kelly is dead , so all the misinformation that was given at the time can no longer be corroborated by an individual with first hand experience.

Robin Cook, a member of the cabinet and one who opposed Blair's Iraq plans, also died while out walking. mmmmmm