So to balance out the polls, should Tony Blair be taken to the International Criminal Court for breaking international law? Indeed, should he be tried for war crimes?

An international group of academics think so and have been preparing a case.

ooo err. Difficult one. I have found myself increasing caught between a rock and a hard place on this.

I agreed with Blair's decision to sort out saddam (albeit not for the reasons he gave) but I it makes my flesh crawl on the whole Euro debate.

So perhaps I could be as sneaky as other politicians and use the upset over the war to make sure he don't take us to the Euro??

Erm..ah.. I dunno.

Moon

I don't even see the point of a debate other than pure show and ceremony, cos it's almost a given we WILL end up with the Euro at SOME point in the near or distant future, we have to to keep up with other European countries who've already got it, and for the sake of employment in the import/export industries and beyond, because countries won't export to us cos it costs too much to change the prices into pounds etc, and it's expensive for us to export to them because of the cost of changing our prices into Euros.

You know I'm talking sense, that's why I'll never be a Politican, I don't talk out of my arse or make false promises I have absolutely no intention of keeping (like student top up fees, when Labour got in, they said they WOULDN'T introduce them, couple of years later, what do they go and do? Introduce top up fees! Lying backstabbing morons)

It strikes me that the two sides on the Iraq invasion aren't arguing the same point.

The pro-invasion side say it was a good thing to remove the Taliban and Hussein.

The anti-invasion side say that the invasions were illegal.

I agree with both. It's a good thing that the tyrants are removed, but the way it was done - ignoring international law, lies and deception - sucked. It seems clear that the invasions were just for economic and political gain and to further "The Project for a New American Century". I think the middle east problem is one for the world to tackle as a whole through the United Nations. Taking the UN route would reduce arab's feelings of outrage and therefore reduce terrorist sympathisers and recruitment.

To show that we respect international law (and not just when it suits us), if the international law says that Blairs actions were illegal then he should answer to the International Criminal Court for his actions.

Should Bush answer to the ICC? Well America is pretty much the only country that doesnt recognise the ICC (which was newly formed last year). In fact America reserves the right to use force to recuse any of their agents who are arrested and taken there. No wonder the rest of the world have such bad feelings towards america.

The Euro? Umm not really on-topic. I reckon Single Currency and therefore 1-to-1 exchange rate Good. Control of interest rates by central bank Bad.

Originally posted by Rich
I don't even see the point of a debate other than pure show and ceremony, cos it's almost a given we WILL end up with the Euro at SOME point in the near or distant future, we have to to keep up with other European countries who've already got it, and for the sake of employment in the import/export industries and beyond, because countries won't export to us cos it costs too much to change the prices into pounds etc, and it's expensive for us to export to them because of the cost of changing our prices into Euros.



How is it that Blair and Brown stand at that dispatch box and tell the world how well our ecconomy is doing, how well the services are doing, how the unemployment rate the best in Europe. That we can finance the 'protection' of countries all over the world. That apart (I believe from Germany) we are the largest monetary contributor to the E.U. Are they lying? How can we better what they profess we are doing at the moment? We are not 'In' but we ain't doing bad are we? All we have to worry about is WORDS, we know how to do that I believe.

How do you think Switzerland are coping?

Originally posted by Lickszz
How do you think Switzerland are coping?
With all that Nazi gold and other ill-appropriated monies in their secretive banks, they can do what they like.
I like the Swiss though. Their main export is peace. Hans Blix was swiss I think.

He's Swedish...

Damn, I always get those two confused. Mebbe it's the swedes that export all that lovely peace.

(One of the two are really anti-conflict, to the extent of avoiding argument in everyday life. They mediate in conflict zones. And they go on holiday to Italy so they can watch other people having a good argument :) )

So what are you called if you're from Switzerland? Other than a thieving gypse that is:P

Originally posted by garrence
They mediate in conflict zones. And they go on holiday to Italy so they can watch other people having a good argument :) )
Isn't that the Norwegians?

Little known fact here.

The 'peace loving Swedes' are one of the biggest arms producers in the world.

BOFORS to name but one, and they were supplying guns to ALL sides in WW2.:loopy:

Nice friendly country, or what.

Originally posted by Mike
Isn't that the Norwegians?
I've been googlin'

They both seem to quite like peace. Sweden has done some mediation but is also an arms exporter. Norwary mediated with the Tamil Tigers and in Israel last year. I reckon the Norweigans win it!

Edit: Markham you beat me to it. I didn't know the Swedes were such sneaky gits.. sitting there all quiet while flogging guns around the world. At least the Brits have the common decency to flog them, be hypocritical about it, then invade the country to get them back again!

He's not done a bad job really compared to da conservatives!

Originally posted by garrence
It strikes me that the two sides on the Iraq invasion aren't arguing the same point.

The pro-invasion side say it was a good thing to remove the Taliban and Hussein.

The anti-invasion side say that the invasions were illegal.
I think most people agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was legal. Al-Qaeda was a threat to US national security and were being harboured by the Taliban. Therefore the US had a right to invade in order to deal with the threat to their country.

The invasion of Iraq is another matter. As we all now know, Iraq was not a threat to US or British national security. Because of this we now find the US and British governments trying to justify it by citing resolution 1441. Unfortunately for them, this doesn't wash either.

The US and UK governments say that UN resolution 1441 made it clear that Iraq could face military action, without the need for a further resolution, if it did not fully comply with weapons inspectors. This is true, the UN could have legally entered Iraq. However, it was not the UN who invaded Iraq.

Resolution 1441 did not declare Iraq "open play" for any country wanting to invade. When the US and British troops entered Iraq they did not represent the UN. The UN did not approve. The war is illegal.

Should Blair be tried? Yes, but it will never happen.

Blair has demonstratred, by virtue of his decision to send troops to invade Iraq, that his actions contravened international law. His argument at the outset was based on unquantifiable statements, let alone the emerging of obvious truth, after the fact. (Much of which was available to begin with but was ignored because of the desire to secure trade links with the war hungry US). While Blair and his American sycophant Bush spew words of supposed 'justification' for 'war' (har har) they never mention the fact that because of their abuse of power many people died. Many men, women and children splattered to pieces and burned alive. They don't get up and carry on with the day, as in the movies. Whether people give a damn is not the issue (the propaganda that abounds here in the US ensures that they won't). Unless you're a victim the reality is the same as the movies. You get the same morons getting off on pictures of the real thing because they don't know any different. The point being that anyone who is instrumental in causing death and mayhem is morally reprehensible, no matter what nationality, and should be tried for crimes committed against humanity. They should be tried by those who have a proper grasp on reality. They won't be tried because of the control that the USA and UK extoll across the world.
It's a very sad indictment of the British armed forces that they have partaken in murder by command of an IDIOT. It's a sad indictment of the US armed forces that they can't wait to focus the kill boxes and watch their victimes dismember and fry. I didn't see Bush, Rumsfeld or Blair piloting a Black Hawk or defending their country by standing up to the invaders. I didn't see their corpses lying by the roadside or upon the desert sand. PITY....Yes, Blair should be tried by a UN War Crimes Court and ideally sent to Hell for the remainder of his apparently conscience-free days.
CALLASSA.

Tony Blair's problem is that he needs to take his head out of George W Bush's ass.

Could someone explain to me why *only* Tony Blair should be tried? He did not unilaterally take us into war. The commons had a vote on it. What about the other 300 odd MPs who voted for it? If the war was illegal they are equally to blame.

Nomme

Bush & Blair were the main players. The UK recognises the international Criminal Court, the US does not, so it's a lot more feasible to get Blair before the court.

Parliament's opinion was swung on the basis of the second dossier, with its 45 minute claim plus other lies and exaggerations. You could therefore argue that Parliament was misled. In that case, it acted in "good faith".

Spain, Italy and Australia were secondary nations. The rest of "the coalition of the willing" were fairly insignificant countries that had been bribed into joining in. Actually Australia was also bribed by America with "if you join in then we'll sign a free trade agreement with you" (the agreement was signed recently).
It seems to me that Blair and Bush did most of the work - dodgy dossiers, Nigerian uranium, spying on the UN, etc; and the other nations just went along with it? They might be able to argue that they were lied to and were acting in good faith (although I'd argue that there was enough evidence for them to be reasonably expected to have questioned what they were told).

Yes, if Blair should be tried then so should the other leaders. If they want to argue that they were acting in good faith (ie, they genuinely believed they were doing the right thing at the time) then they can argue that in court.

Originally posted by markham
Little known fact here.

The 'peace loving Swedes' are one of the biggest arms producers in the world.

BOFORS to name but one, and they were supplying guns to ALL sides in WW2.:loopy:

Nice friendly country, or what.

That's nothing.

The bofors scandal that probably brought about the death of Olof Palme (famous peacemaker) was sweden's very own arms to Iran scandal - which seems to have penetrated government right up to the prime minister.

Some people believe that Olof Palme had himself assasinated.

Also in world war two, the swedish supply of high quality ball bearings proved to be instrumental in letting the whole thing happen at all - WWII would have literally ground to a halt without them.

As for Blair, if there are charges to be faced, he should face them - but....

...if the people who supported him into iraq are going to use this as an opportunity to put the boot in to him for perceived failures elsewhere he is fooked anyway.

Tony Blair knows he was on dodgy ground on this one. That is why he has refused to publish the full advice of the Attonery General, and has called for a debate on 'reform' of international law. Whay would he do this if the law suited his purposes already?
Under the ICC, it is the individual soldiers and commanders who would be liable for prosecution. On the eve of teh Iraq war, the top brass was desperately seeking assurance that an invasion would be legal. Whatever they were told, it seems to have been enough.
If I were a soldier (unlikely, I would be a rubbish soldier), I would leave the army now, rather than risk being prosecuted in the hague.

to tellyothe truth i dont think he should be tried because i never really gave a **** about the war in the first place, politics isnt my thing, i find it boring, and after about a month i was sick of hearing abuout "george bush invaded so and so and innocent ali got his arms blown off". it happens if every war, get over it

Could someone please cite exactly which law was broken by Mr. Blair, and how.

Originally posted by Call_Me_Sue
Could someone please cite exactly which law was broken by Mr. Blair, and how.

exactly my point. and its not just blair and bush. if maggie thatcher, clinton or any of the rest of them were in power instead, the same thing would have happened

Originally posted by Call_Me_Sue
Could someone please cite exactly which law was broken by Mr. Blair, and how.
The experts don't agree on whether laws were broken or not, although there seems to be a majority that says the Iraq invasion was illegal. The law would be an international law/convention saying "thou shalt not go around invading other countries unless the UN agrees".

The point of this poll is not to discuss whether the invasions are illegal or not - we don't have enough knowledge or legal expertise to decide that - but to say that IF they did act illegally THEN should they face trial or not?

Originally posted by garrence
but to say that IF they did act illegally THEN should they face trial or not?


The answer to that question is self-evident. I am still intrigued as to what precise law he has supposedly broken, and from there I can form an educated judgment as to whether he has broken it or not.

Sue

Jag alskar sverige (forgive lack of correct punctuation - no crib sheet to hand for key board)

I dont think Blair should be tried, no

Fancy that, you never expected me to say that did you

Leaders have to lead, they have to make decisions that they believe are for the best, using the information they have at their disposal and try to win the support of their colleagues to get their policies through.

TB did that, he won the support of the vast majority of his cabinet and ministers, I recall about half a dozen resignations out of 150-ish government members, he won over the Tories and some of the fringe parties I think, in a ballot in the House of Commons.

Now you and I can argue all we like about what we would have done had we been the PM etc, but we werent and he is.

You cant suddenly decide he should go on trial.

But if he did, let me tell you now, I would be up there supporting him with a huge box of photographs of the 300,000 dead bodies already discovered in mass graves by the Red Cross.

I would be saying to the court "Should we have let this carry on? How many dead bodies is too many dead bodies before it is okay to do something about it? Should Saddam have had a free reign to go on digging those holes and filling them up with dead bodies forever?"

I would probably want to read out the article I saw in the Telegraph around the time of the end of the war, where a man came out onto the street, with his mother, to see his family, having been hidden in a cupboard for nearly twenty years, in fear of his life, just like Ann Franks.

He was bloody glad to see the troops, let me tell you

Whether Iraq's a better place following the invasion isn't the question though. The question is whether he acted illegally and, if so, should he face trial for that.

All they had to do was allow Hans Blix and his team the extra couple of months they asked for, then deal with the issue through the UN. The UN would have then made a decision on how to deal with Hussein, which would have been via millitary action.

If they had stuck with doing things legally via the UN, then would the Arab world feel less aggrieved? Would there be fewer terrorist reprisals? I think the terrorists would have less support.

The official reason why we waded in without following due process is that Saddam was such an urgent threat that, after having prevaricated for a decade, he had to be dealt with immediately.

The real reason is that it's economically and politically better for American companies to have all the juicy post-war contracts for themselves without having to share with a broader coalition.

Yes leaders have to lead. They also have to act in good faith. Did TB genuinely believe Hussein represented "an immediate threat" (as claimed at the time) or did he deliberately mislead his party and parliament?

Originally posted by garrence
Whether Iraq's a better place following the invasion isn't the question though. The question is whether he acted illegally and, if so, should he face trial for that.

Why is it? Why is that the question?

"I am sorry sir, you broke the speed limit in your car, I dont care if you were carrying organs to be transplanted and would have saved a life" - we were all livid about that, remember?


Originally posted by garrence

Yes leaders have to lead. They also have to act in good faith. Did TB genuinely believe Hussein represented "an immediate threat" (as claimed at the time) or did he deliberately mislead his party and parliament?

I am sure he believed it

He doesnt live in a time vacuum you know

He would be aware that if he deliberately mislead his party abotu something, and it came out one day, then the whole Labour project, the third term, the whole caboodle, would be up the swanee. Why risk everything to chum with a Republican he never liked half as much as Bill Clinton? What would be in it for TB to risk everything?

And what is this oil people keep going on about that would make it all worth the risk, oil on one hand and annihilation at the polls on the other? It must be gold oil is all I can say, and where the hell is it? and where is the income from it? if that was what it was all for, how come the Chancellor never mentioned this oil yesterday in the budget?

Some have suggested we went to war in Iraq for the benefit of the contracts to build some new schools and hospitals and factories in Iraq.

They must be bloody good contracts huh

Contracts paid in gold bars in tankers.........where is it all then? the pay-off?

Where is all the vast sums of dosh that we coined in by going to war?

And dont you think we have enough interest in building schools and hospitals here? without having to bomb another country so we can build some there? Wouldnt it be easier to bomb a country in western Europe and rebuild that? it would be nearer for a start.


Of course he believed in WMD in Iraq, lots of people did, in lots of countries.

Saddam refused to admit that he had got rid of them or how, so what were we to assume?

He also believed in those dead bodies in those war graves, and we havent had any problem finding them

TB might have been wrong about the WMD, but he did definitely believe in their existence and their threat, of that I am sure

I'm not convinced TB believed that Hussein was an imminent threat. TB had to "sex up" the dossier and his most powerful argument in the introduction he wrote was the 45-minute claim, which he must have known related only to battlefield weapons.

I think he thought that taking over Iraq was a good thing to do and that this country would get the best outcome if we went in immediately.

Various reports about this (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justifindex.htm)

And what is this oil people keep going on about that would make it all worth the risk, oil on one hand and annihilation at the polls on the other? It must be gold oil is all I can say, and where the hell is it?

It's in the ground. Iraq has huge reserves of good quality oil that is cheap to extract and, being on the coast, is easy to ship over here.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm

Many other remaining supplies of oil are less attractive. EG drilling in Alaska isn't a popular idea. If we drain Iraq first, then technology should have progresses enough by then to build the pipeline through Afghanistan that the oil companies have been proposing for years. (We should have got Afghanistan stable by then).

There are very few new oilfields being discovered. A lot of what remains is in closed-down oilfields where it will become economic to extract it as (a) extraction technology improves and (b) the barrel price increases.

During Britain's "fuel crisis" Blair got a taste of the public's reaction to slightly more expensive petrol. There's not much left in the North Sea and renewables aren't going to take over from oil any time soon. We have recently agreed to pipe gas in from Russia because our North Sea gas is running out. We need a secure supply of oil without being held to random by OPEC.

So that's an enormous asset, which will turn into cash as it's piped out of the ground. Now, we can't just run off with it, we have to leave some of the cash in the country for the Iraqis to spend. And they will spend it with... our multinational companies that set up there.

The oil will slowly come on stream as things stabilise more. You won't see any "hooray now we're using the Iraqi oil" announcements. It'll just be in the petrol pumps.

Originally posted by Belle
[B]Why is it? Why is that the question?

"I am sorry sir, you broke the speed limit in your car, I dont care if you were carrying organs to be transplanted and would have saved a life" - we were all livid about that, remember?


I just noticed I didn't reply to this.

That's not really an analogy. In the organ driver's case, we were livid because the law was wrong. Any reasonable person would say that the driver should have the same legal status as an ambulance driver. The driver was acting in good faith because he believed he was unofficially allowed to drive at high speed (they always had speeding tickets dropped before).

The rule of "don't invade somewhere unless the international community (UN) votes for it" seems sound. I don't think anyone would agrue that is wrong. They had the option of following the law by seeking a UN resolution but chose not to.

I just found this article on the above site. It's from the Daily Mail I'm afraid.

"Following the decision not to prosecute the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun, the suspicion is that the government will do anything to keep secret the advice submitted to it by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on the legality of the Iraq war. There is a very simple reason why the government would want to do this. If it turns out that the Iraq war was illegal, then Tony Blair could go to prison."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0302blairprison.htm

Originally posted by thenewborn
to tellyothe truth i dont think he should be tried because i never really gave a **** about the war in the first place, politics isnt my thing, i find it boring, and after about a month i was sick of hearing abuout "george bush invaded so and so and innocent ali got his arms blown off". it happens if every war, get over it

Thank you for that lucid and analytical insight. Good to see that degree in political science is being put to good use :)

Originally posted by Belle
Leaders have to lead, they have to make decisions that they believe are for the best, using the information they have at their disposal and try to win the support of their colleagues to get their policies through.


But that doesn't mean you can lie and mislead to get that support.

Originally posted by Belle
You cant suddenly decide he should go on trial. But if he did, let me tell you now, I would be up there supporting him with a huge box of photographs of the 300,000 dead bodies already discovered in mass graves by the Red Cross. [/B]

And what about the photos of the tens of thousands killed in less than a year by US and UK troops? And what about photos of those being killed every day (more than Saddem's average daily body count) as a result of the anarchy and power-struggle caused by the invasion?

Originally posted by Belle
I would be saying to the court "Should we have let this carry on? How many dead bodies is too many dead bodies before it is okay to do something about it? Should Saddam have had a free reign to go on digging those holes and filling them up with dead bodies forever?"[/B]

When you say "we", who do you mean? The US and UK as the self-appointed morality police of the world? Is it any wonder that people in the middle east fear and hate the west when we export our own moralities using force?

Of course we (the west) should be fighting oppressive regimes... just not in the literal sense (unless under genuine threat).

Originally posted by Belle
I would probably want to read out the article I saw in the Telegraph around the time of the end of the war, where a man came out onto the street, with his mother, to see his family, having been hidden in a cupboard for nearly twenty years, in fear of his life, just like Ann Franks.He was bloody glad to see the troops, let me tell you [/B]

For every liberation story there is an equally moving one accounting the pain, suffering and death caused by the invasion.

The bottom lines is this. The UN was created post WWII (where some 50 million were killed) to try and prevent it ever happening again. International laws were agreed to prevent countries invading one another i.e. unless they are under attack or have prior consent of the UN. There are no excuses and no "yeah but's" otherwise it doesn't work.

When you argue that it was alright to ignore the will of the UN then you argue against democracy. Democracy, no matter how slow and frustrating it can be, is the only way to go. IMO, if the UN fail to take the US and UK to task over their actions then it will destabilise the world. It will be like saying we have rules but if you're big enough you can still do what you want. We cannot allow this as the risk is too great.

Originally posted by Belle
Jag alskar sverige (forgive lack of correct punctuation - no crib sheet to hand for key board)

Jaha, det gör inte jag, Jag tror at älska ett land över ett annat är meningslöst!


I dont think Blair should be tried, no

Fancy that, you never expected me to say that did you

Leaders have to lead, they have to make decisions that they believe are for the best, using the information they have at their disposal and try to win the support of their colleagues to get their policies through.

TB did that, he won the support of the vast majority of his cabinet and ministers, I recall about half a dozen resignations out of 150-ish government members, he won over the Tories and some of the fringe parties I think, in a ballot in the House of Commons.

A ballot immediate preceded by a scaremongering speech about the danger to british interests in cyprus from Iraqi WMD.

A speech whose main point - the WMD ready in 45 mins claim - was instrumental to its persuasive power, yet the claim was completely untrue. And known to be untrue.

This is also the PM who told us, before the war that "it was [is] about disarmament not regime change".


Now you and I can argue all we like about what we would have done had we been the PM etc, but we werent and he is.

You cant suddenly decide he should go on trial.

Suddenly decide? No - But if he is charged under international law to which he and this country are a signatory, then he should stand trial. If he is innocent of all and any charges then he has nothing to worry about.

But if he did, let me tell you now, I would be up there supporting him with a huge box of photographs of the 300,000 dead bodies already discovered in mass graves by the Red Cross.

How many of those buried in the mass graves are Shia Muslims?

We never cared about the mass murder and death in Iraq before, why the sudden change of heart, other than convenient post-rationalisation?

May I quote Madeline Allbright?

CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."


Don't forget sanctions and 10 years of weekly combat sorties and bomb dropping against Iraq between 1992 and the start of the war.


I would be saying to the court "Should we have let this carry on? How many dead bodies is too many dead bodies before it is okay to do something about it? Should Saddam have had a free reign to go on digging those holes and filling them up with dead bodies forever?"

For a long time, until the invasion of Kuwait, that is exactly what every british government did. Ignored the mounting corpses of the Shia Muslims and Marsh arabs being exterminated by Saddam with the implicit support the UK and US.

I would probably want to read out the article I saw in the Telegraph around the time of the end of the war, where a man came out onto the street, with his mother, to see his family, having been hidden in a cupboard for nearly twenty years, in fear of his life, just like Ann Franks.

He was bloody glad to see the troops, let me tell you

They would have been glad of the troops in Tibet, Chechnya, Srebrenica, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopa, and wherever else there has been mass human death at the hands of aggressors.

That doesn't necessarily mean we should send them.

I would read this letter sent to the telegraph a few weeks ago.




Re: Let's have a proper answer this time
Date: 27 February 2004

Sir - Now that Katharine Gun has been formally acquitted on all charges of leaking the document ordering spying to be carried out on six Security Council members, despite admitting doing so on the grounds of the public interest, the public can make its own judgment on the following points:

• That it was in the public interest to reveal that the British and American intelligence services might bug the offices of the United Nations Security Council, perhaps in an effort to manipulate votes, and that the vote could have been unfairly influenced through this mechanism.

• That the advice of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on the legality of the invasion of Iraq must be assumed to be fatally flawed, given that the need to suppress it was the apparent primary reason for abandoning the case.

• That the Government apparently sought to destroy the careers of anyone within the system who appears to have attempted to question the legality of the war or the veracity of intelligence reports.

• That the manipulation of intelligence, and the political involvement in its collection and dissemination, apparently ignored by Lord Hutton, has led to widespread disillusion within the intelligence service, and a complete lack of trust by the general public in the veracity of their work.

• That the vast number who have died in Iraq since the invasion, on both sides, owe their demise to a judgment dependent more on political expediency than any moral compass.

• That the Prime Minister's position is becoming less and less tenable as each day and revelation passes.

The Labour Party does itself no service by pretending this issue does not exist, but, given that the parliamentary party voted by a majority to support the invasion, it would be reasonable to expect some kind of explanation from the party that claims to govern the country. We really would like a proper answer this time.

From:
Phil Wolstenholme, Sheffield, S Yorks

Originally posted by garrence
So to balance out the polls, should Tony Blair be taken to the International Criminal Court for breaking international law? Indeed, should he be tried for war crimes?

An international group of academics think so and have been preparing a case.


A resounding "NO", Blair has done nothing wrong in fact he has done everthing right, why should he be unjustly blamed for what Sadam Hussain, Karaditz, Bin Laden, and other murdering thugs have done, why not try them first for war crimes which are real and stop trying to make a scapegoat out of an innocent man.

Originally posted by halevan
A resounding "NO", Blair has done nothing wrong in fact he has done everthing right, why should he be unjustly blamed for what Sadam Hussain, Karaditz, Bin Laden, and other murdering thugs have done, why not try them first for war crimes which are real and stop trying to make a scapegoat out of an innocent man.

No silly - we execute him without a trial - innocent or guilty remember?

Originally posted by halevan
A resounding "NO", Blair has done nothing wrong in fact he has done everthing right, why should he be unjustly blamed for what Sadam Hussain, Karaditz, Bin Laden, and other murdering thugs have done, why not try them first for war crimes which are real and stop trying to make a scapegoat out of an innocent man.
Nobody is blaming TB for anyone elses crime - he has his own to answer.

What do you think he is being made a "scapgoat" for?

Hal, TB's crime is that he broke international law. If you disagree, then perhaps you could explain to us the grounds on which you think it was legal to invade and take control of another sovereign country?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
No silly - we execute him without a trial - innocent or guilty remember?


"SILLY" yourself Mr Phan. you admitted at the time that the drug pushers and pimps were as guilty as hell and deserved all they got, for what they did to the innocent victims. Changed your mind have you "SILLY"!!!

Personally I had no problem with Saddam being removed. I do have a problem with the Prime Minister lying to Parliament and the people.

Leave alone what it's done to our standing with the ROTW. After all, what kind of credibility does Britain now have?

As for Saddam being so awful, yes he was. It's just a shame that the US seems to support people like that so long as "he's our type of b*st*rd" ie there's an economic interest.

Eisenhower testified to Congress in the 50s that he was given the job in Central America of "protecting US economic investments." That was the only goal of the mission, not to fight communism or any other excuse.

On that basis the US has actively helped dictators for decades, supplying instruments of torture and labelling it `humanitarian aid'. Indeed, the Ba'ath party was set up in 1963 with funding from the CIA. After Hellabjah, in 1989 I worked with a Kurdish bloke- he couldn't believe the EU and US wanted to look the other way, and nor could I once he told me what had happened.

The simple fact is that none of this was ever about helping anyone but the rich, who really don't need it. Meantime, people who are just getting by are sent out as cannon fodder, without even the right equipment.

One point: I don't believe Blair thought there was a serious threat. If he had let those soldiers go out there so poorly equipped and they had been subject to an NBC attack, can you imagine the political backlash?

Whether you think he was sincere or not, one thing he is, is a politician. And no way would he have taken /that/ chance with his power-base.

Anyone who believed the line about this war being about preventing the proliferation of WMD should ask themselves:

Why was North Korea not dealt with first, as it seemed to present a more immediate threat?

Why have the US doen so little about 'loose bombs' in the former USSR?

Why have they continued to support the dictatorship of Pakistan which actually has exported nuclear technology to other countries, including N. Korea?

All these seem to be more immediate probles than Saddam. The argument that it doesn't really matter because a tyrant has been removed is just a wilful disregard of the true reasons behind the war. If the west (US/UK axis and allies) really had a concern for human rights, there has been and still is very little evidence of this.

Originally posted by halevan
A resounding "NO", Blair has done nothing wrong in fact he has done everthing right, why should he be unjustly blamed for what Sadam Hussain, Karaditz, Bin Laden, and other murdering thugs have done, why not try them first for war crimes which are real and stop trying to make a scapegoat out of an innocent man.
OK

Milosevic is still in court, OBL has yet to be caught by the US and Hussein is faceing a trial.

They all have cases to answer, and I look forward to seeing them in court.

Tony Blair may or not may have a case to answer. If he does, then he should answer it. If he is found guilty then he should be punished.

No scapegoating or injustice neccessary. Of course, TB is such an honourable man he will give himself up if indicted....

(Actually, a little bird tells me he will throw Hoon out to the wolves (as a scapegoat) and carry on as PM.)

So let's see if a proper case emerges against him - but that means disclosure by the government on, amongst other things, the detail of the Attorney Generals advice on the war being legal in his opinion, and whether he was pressured to make that decision or whether he was wilfully provided with false information to lead him to his conclusion.

Let's not dispense with trials and visible justice in favour of military trials in camera with no legal access and summary executions - because that would bring us down to the level of the terrorists.

Summary justice is not justice.

Originally posted by garrence
So to balance out the polls, should Tony Blair be taken to the International Criminal Court for breaking international law? Indeed, should he be tried for war crimes?

An international group of academics think so and have been preparing a case.



Asking if Blair should be tried as a war criminal, is just as stupid as saying that Winston Churchill should have been tried as a war criminal after World War two, because he declared war on Germany in 1939.

After all, Adoph Hitler hadn't attacked this country at that time, and he didn't declare war on us, so are not some of us applying double standards here? There is always a villain and it was Hitler then, but this time it was Hussain.

The difference is that Hitler and Hussain were and is murdering Monsters whereas Churchill and Blair were and is good men.

Churchill did not become PM until May 1940.

In September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. His intentions were clear so Britain and France issued an ultimatum which he ignored. Two days later Britain and France declared war on Hitler.

In May 1940 the Nazis invaded The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemborg. At this time, Chamberlain resigned and Churchill took over. Two days later, the Nazis entered France. By November they had bombed Coventry.

After two world wars, the governments of the world agreed that they needed to work together to prevent war. The United Nations was officially founded in October 1945. The UN's charter is long; it's preamble begins WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind....


Halevan, your analogy does not stand up:

1) Chamberlain did not need to answer to the UN because it did not exist. Blair does.

2) Hitler had just invaded Poland, Chamberlain was acting in its defence. Iraq hasn't invaded anywhere for over a decade.

3) The threat posed by the Nazis to Europe was clear. It was 8 months from the time Hitler invaded Poland to the time he invaded France, and 13 to bombing Coventry. Saddam HussEin did not pose any threat to the UK, or indeed to any other country. Blair deliberately misled Parliament about HussEin's weapons in order to secure a vote for war.

Nobody questions whether Hussein was a bad man. We have known that for decades. He was so bad we gave him weapons to fight Iraq, and looked the other way when he gassed 5000 Kurds in 1988 towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war. This invasion had nothing to do with removing a "murdering monster", nothing to do with terrorism because Iraq had no Al-Quaida connection (Al-Quaida has ideological differences with the apostate Iraqi regime) and everything to do with futhering the Project for a New American Century (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0304thinktank.htm)

Blair may well be a good man, but that does not excuse breaking international law. All he had to do was secure a UN resolution authorising the invasion. In that case he would have been acting legally, and we would not now be in a situation where a large chunk of the world hate Britain because they perceive that we rode roughshod over the UN so that we could secure economic and political control in the region (which we did).