 |
|
|
|
| Tony Blair Should Be Prosecuted As A War Criminal |
| Instead of collecting million dollar pay cheques for doing absolutely nothing, Tony Blair should be sent on a permanent holiday to the Hague. He invaded another country without legal justification. He committed what Robert Jackson, the American judge at the Nuremberg trials, called "the supreme international crime".
If Iraq, in fact, had been in possession of WMD, a strained legal defence of the invasion could have been offered based on prior UN resolutions. It wasn't, though, so Blair doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Prosecuting him will set a useful example for the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecution for war crimes is why several US and Israeli politicians are afraid of travelling to EU
countries where there are open warrants for their arrest. Four CIA goons are on trial in
absentia in Italy because the US is too spineless to extradite them for trial.
Those in question - Blair, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, and all the other terrorists -
need to be renditioned, waterboarded until they confess (Bush says it's not torture, so it's okay!),
tried in the Hague and executed if/when found guilty of crimes against humanity.
I only say if because it's unlikely they could be apprehended. If they were apprehended, the
"ultimate punishment" would be inevitable.
Edit:
"tewalls12" is either too ignorant/illiterate/stupid to know about the Downing Street Memo, or is
too dishonest to deal with the facts. |
| |
 K9  01 May 2008 14:49
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Really I think this man is so awful for selling out the British public and going to war that both he
and his family should be put to death for their crimes. Only if we act in such a manner will our
leaders take such actions seriously. They are too insulated from events and facts to get a clear
picture. Having such strict measures will make sure that they make sure they get the facts and
understand them before making such decisions. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I thinks the most damning thing to appear out of this sorry saga, is the fact that Mr Blair stood up
and lied to the then Government and to the people of the UK, what is worse still he knew he was
lying, and tried to cover it up, and you wonder why nobody trusts politicians. As far as i am
concerned he and the then Government should be tried for the illegal invasion of Iraq.
But the saddest thing is he went to war knowing that the British people were firmly opposed to it,
and thought it was unjust,but he went ahead with it any way, and now we have to pay for it, not only
thru higher taxes, but now have to suffer the repercussions of a much heightened terror threat. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
He has caused more deaths of innocent people and military personnel for his own vanity |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree, I'm sick and tired of these "big named" wealthy individuals getting away with whatever they
please. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I would like to see Blair and Bush answer for their actions on Iraq.
I don't think that they had any right to send troops there . Their reasons for doing so were flawed
and it has been argued, illegal.
If so then they should be answerable for all the carnage they have brought to Iraq and the
unleashing of fundamentalism and terror attacks elsewhere. Having said this no-one can justify the
actions of these fundamentalists who would probably have struck anyway.
If most of us knew that the 'weapons of mass destruction' arguments were unfounded it's worrying
that British and US intelligence got it all wrong.
The reasons for the invasion of Iraq were wrong and seem to have been based on personal ambition on
Bush's behalf . Blair may personally now regret what he did and has to live with the consequences
of thousands of deaths on his conscience.
Some of the families of British soldiers killed there hold him responsible for their losses. I can
understand that .
The UN made their position very clear and were ignored in favour of this 'illegal' action.
Even if Blair isn't tried as a war criminal he and Bush should still be forced to answer for their
actions. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Is that like the Hutton Inquiry?
Or the impeachment?
He's had his audience with the pope. He cleared his conscience.
I admire you raising the issue though. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If you think you can rely on The United Nations that font of justice and equality to give real of
reliable information i don't want to be the on to explain the world to you. Could the reason that
they have not found any weapons of mass destruction be that they are in the middle of thousands of
miles of desert or the nearly open border with Syria? People do tend to forget Sadam Hussein's own
war crimes. What were the again? O yeah he used VX and Sarin nerve agents on the Kurds, his own
people. The last time I checked nerve agents were classified as weapons of mass destruction. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As yet Blair has not been charged with anything illegal.
What he did was wrong and morally wrong but not against the law as such.
It depends very much on what we define as war crimes. It could be argued as it has by Mackenzie that
they didn't commit genocide or crimes against humanity.
On the other hand prisoners of war have been mistreated by both the British and the Americans,
particularly the latter.
Many thousands of non-combatants and innocent people have been killed in Battle, murdered and
mutilated as a consequence of this war and I think that some or all of these could be seen as war
crimes.
The debate is a good one and needs debating as the consequences of the Iraq war will be with the
Iraqi people for many years to come.
I believe that Blair is basically a good man with a conscience and may regret what he did very much.
He can only be tried when and if his actions are legally defined as war crimes. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a grave error when he invaded Iraq with his ally, US
President George W. Bush, but he does not qualify as a war criminal. The tribunal in the Hague and
other courts generally qualify "war crimes" as genocide, mistreating prisoners of war or any crimes
against humanity. Although prisoners of war were, indeed, mistreated in Iraq at the hands of
coalition forces, there is absolutely no paper trail to suggest that Blair knew about these abuses,
or that he personally ordered them.
"Knowing" that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or believing incorrect
intelligence on this matter, and invading Iraq on these grounds simply does not constitute a war
crime in itself, but what happened in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990's certainly does, as
does the fighting in Rwanda over ten years ago. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
