More like this
War crime case against Tony Blair now rock-solid
Neil Clark: A trial would be warmly welcomed by millions – so what happens next?
Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes.
The case against Blair, strong enough before this latest comment, now appears rock solid. Going to war to change another country's regime is prohibited by international law, while the Nuremburg judgment of 1946 laid down that "to initiate a war of aggression", as Blair and Bush clearly did against Iraq, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
Blair's admission, that he "would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam]" regardless of the WMD issue, is also an acknowledgement that he lied to the House of Commons on February 25, 2003, when he told MPs: "I detest his [Saddam's] regime. But even now he [Saddam] can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war... But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation."
The view that Blair is a war criminal is now mainstream: when comedian Sandi Toksvig, host of Radio Four's News Quiz, called him one on air, the BBC, according to the Mail on Sunday, did not receive a single complaint.
But while it is easy to label Blair a war criminal, what are the chances of him actually standing trial - and how could it be achieved? Various initiatives have already been launched.
The Blair War Crimes Foundation, set up by retired orthopaedic surgeon David Halpin, has organised an online petition, addressed to the President of the UN General Assembly and the UK Attorney General, which lists 14 specific complaints relating to the Iraq war, including "deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war" and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the occupying powers.
The campaigning journalist George Monbiot, who attempted a citizen's arrest of the former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, for his role in the Iraq war, said at the Hay Literary festival in 2008 that he would put up the first £100 of a bounty payable to the first person to attempt a non-violent citizen's arrest of Blair.
Monbiot has also called for the setting up of national arrest committees in countries which, unlike Britain, have incorporated the 'Crime of Aggression' into their domestic law. These committees would exchange information with one another and make sure that Blair "would have no hiding place".
If Blair is to face an international trial, then the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague - to which Britain is a signatory - would be the likeliest forum. While the ICC has said that it will not conduct prosecutions for the Crime of Aggression until it has been defined by its own working group, the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, told the Sunday Telegraph in 2007 that he would be willing to launch an inquiry into US/UK war crimes in Iraq. Charges could also be brought against Blair at the ICC for failing to prosecute the war in a "proportionate manner".
From Iraq itself, there are also moves to bring Blair to book. It has been reported that lawyers acting for Tariq Aziz, the former deputy leader of the country, now held in captivity, have written to Britain's top legal adviser asking permission to prosecute Blair for war-crimes, in the light of his latest comments.
Whichever way it comes about, if Blair is forced to stand trial, there can be no underestimating the event's significance. Up to now, the only political leaders who have faced war crimes trials since World War Two are those who fell foul of the west - and in particular the United States of America. But the notion of international justice will never be taken seriously if western politicians are deemed to be exempt from the same rules that leaders in Africa and elsewhere are supposed to adhere to.
The prospect of Teflon Tony finally having to answer for his crimes in a court of law, would be warmly welcomed by millions of people throughout the world, not least all those who marched for peace through central London in February 2003, one month before the Iraq invasion.
There is widespread contempt for a man who has made millions while Iraqis die in their hundreds of thousands due to the havoc unleashed by the illegal invasion, and who, with breathtaking arrogance, seems to regard himself as above the rules of international law.
The next decade will tell us whether that is indeed the case. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
If lawyers acting for Palestinians can get a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for the arrest of Israeli's suspected of war crimes why have lawyers acting for Iraqi's not taken this route to Tony Blair?
Tony Blair and George Bush are the product of Socialism and fiat currencies. They were voted in by the vast majority who themselves have been brain washed in government schools to be Socialists. They cannot help themselves, they will always vote Socialist. Gordon Brown and Barrack Obama are Socialists as is David Cameron and Sarah Palin. There is no viable alternative to Socialism. Socialism only works with fiat currencies. Capitalism only works with gold as money. Gold is like penicillin to all fiat currencies. The upheaval in the worlds economies is caused by the inevitable over production of fiat monies resulting in gold returning. Blame whoever you like but what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan is the simply the product of Socialism.
"Andrew", I'm horrified to hear that a bigoted warmonger like yourself is allowed to teach children. Clearly you must live on a different planet, on which they found WMD in Iraq? Here's a handy phrase for your students - "that's a load of porky pies".
"It was Tony Blair that removed legally held handguns from Bitish (sic) citizens and took away a great deal of our ability to defend ourselves against the tyrany (sic) and injustice of our own racist rulers."
The Dunblane Massacre which led to the ban on handguns happened when Tony Blair was Leader of the Opposition. Before that the Hungerford Massacre in 1987 occurred during Mrs Thatcher's term in office and produced the ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons in private hands. Reading your post I am glad two impeccably right wing politicians were possessed of enough good sense to ban them. What pray does this have to do with shoring up a non-existent case against Tony Blair for "war crimes?" What comes next? The Royal family are charged with murder?
We have been denied the means to defend ourselves against the mass colonisation of our country through unwanted immigration Barry Larking. It was Tony Blair that removed legally held handguns from Bitish citizens and took away a great deal of our ability to defend ourselves against the tyrany and injustice of our own racist rulers. Who said people like you should decide which leaders are acceptable and unnacceptable and who are you to decide how 'liberal' the British people wish to be in having our right to self-determination stripped away from us? We no longer live in a democracy because our voices are ignored.
Thank you, Neil Clark, for affording me the opportunity to append my signature to the petition to secure Blair's trial for war crimes. Sending him to trial will send a powerful message to all nations of the world that NO ONE is above international law. It might also act as a deterrent to heads of powerful countries that they donot have a license to wage war at will against leaders they donot like or consider undesirable.
Not only that Bush and Blair initiated illegal war, but during the war illegal weapons were used too. Iraq today is a radio-active wasteland duing to depleted uranium tipped bunker buster bombs. Extraordinary level of rise in birth defects have been detected in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraqis (and also Afghans) and people of the neighbouring countries downwind will suffer from radio-active fallout for millenia. All that to secure control over future supply of oil. Bush and Blair should be arrested right away, sent to the Hague and tried together without any further delay.
Here we are plunged into the realm of false equivalencies and a kind of 'Hall of Mirrors' which wilfully 'establishes' that like is made somehow the same as unalike. Blair by this process of distortion comes out ahead of Saddam Hussein (or Adolf Hitler, whoever) in the blood soaked tyrants league. It is arrant nonsense of course. It has been tried before. Playwright Ralph Hochhuth tried the same piece of historical jujitsu on Winston Churchill and other low grade efforts are made regularly enough against hitherto unsuspected 'criminals' whose offence was to fight tyranny and win. It was well said that today liberal society could never come into existence since it would be denied the means to defend itself.
Andrew -- before you take on students to teach them English it would be a good-idea to become competent yourself. "Spittle-flecked"? I think your imagination is running away with you. "Ups the humour quotient"? What exactly does that mean?
And you'd better brush up on your constitutional law, too, while you are at it. The PM can send troops into battle without Parliamentary approval, agreed -- and regrettably for all of us did so. But that power is only supposed to be used in emergency and should be ratified subsequently. Blair lied to the House of Commons and to all of us and therefore exercised his powers malevolently.
Very interesting. The same man who says it was right to go to war even though the intelligence was wrong, and his government produced dodgy dossiers, and misled parliament also says that we have to act to reduce carbon emissions to prevent climate change, even though the science is suspect. Blair said today: "It is said that the science around climate change is not as certain as its proponents allege. It doesnâ??t need to be." These issues are both of a piece - massive deception, propaganda, manipulation of the media and misuse of the democratic system. Just as Blair could browbeat the intelligence community and the Attorney General to give him what he wanted, so the scientific community are being nobbled and all the powers of the state being employed to support another deception. Wake up folks!
I'm looking forward to this happening to George W. and his whole administration that was complicent to this too. We do have laws in this country and what he did was punishable as a war crime. He went to war on a Soverign Nation and toppled a Soverign Ruler who was NOT a threat to us and and Did this without the full consent of Congress!!
So I hope you guys go for it!!
It ill behoves monolingual warmongers like Oliver Kamm to make a one-letter typo the basis for the refutation of the case for a war-crimes trial of Tinpot Tony, their gutless neocon hero. Kamm's reputation lies in ribbons - no surprise that he's been dropped as an author by even the Beaconsfield Bugle.
The Prosecuter at The International Court of Justice in the Hague would be the person to contact regarding laying a charge against Blair. Bush cannot be touched as the USA did not sign the agreement but the UK did.
The charge would be the same as the Nazi's were charged with and that is waging a "war of aggression".
Remember that it was the USA who supplied Saddam with biological weapons, by one Donald Rumsfeldt, when Iraq was an ally of the West, he was not a bad leader in those days.
First Post thank you for providing my English students with a first class example of how not to write a news article. I am sure I will get many years service out of the frothing, spittle-flecked nonsense in this article and most of the comments.(Oliver K & norm excepted) Tony Blair is no more going to stand trial for War Crimes than I am going to be the next forward for Manchester United and basing the article on Sandi Toskvig talking about it on Radio 4 just ups the humour quotient. I seem to remember that, even though it wasn't necessary as he had he powers to do so, Tony Blair put the matter to the House of Commons and they voted for support of war in Iraq.
Blair's admission was an attempt to evade any charges of lying; implying he was fooled as well. Whereas those of us who were awake at the time and capable of independent thought - which excludes the cabinet and most MPs - knew he was lying and didn't for one minute believe Sadam had WMD, thus the dodgy [lying] dossier and the immodest haste to get started, even speeding up the departure of the UN weapons inspectors before they could statecategorically there are no WMD. The troop build up was another clue. Arrest warrants should be issued by the UN on him and Bush, so either can be arrested anywhere in the world they try to hide.
Would you really like to have seen Sadam Hussein remain ruler of Iraq? The man was a murderer, killing thousands of his own people with biological weapons. Maybe throwing out the Taliban in Afgahnistan was also a bad idea. They only shot women in football fields.
After what he did to Great Britain and our standing in the world with Muslim countries, laying us open to terrorist attacks, scorn and indeed hatred, Tony Blair should have the possibility of a war crimes trial left hanging over his head for the rest of his life if a trial can not be arranged. He deserves to suffer as he had no compunction about lying, causing mass murder and widespread economic ruination. Let the possibility of Balir's prosecution serve as a warning to other would be arrogant international bullies, who use their position of power, to excercise their perversions towards the abuse of human beings take note.
Right on Neil.....
Agree with everything you have written here.
I had contempt for this Janus when he first came to power in '97 and my opinion of him since leaving office has become one of disgust.
I completely agree with the views expressed. However, the chances of a prosecution are extremely small since the pusillanimous creeps in the Cabinet all agreed and the chances of all them being in the dock are therefore infinitessimal. We already knew we were led by crooks and liars but the complicit civil servants who now emerge from the woodwork in the Chilcot enquiry to say that they didn't really agree with any of this should be stripped of their "honours".
Where do you start?
1. There is no such place as "Nuremburg".
2. Dr David Halpin is a 9/11 "Truth" campaigner.
3. Neil Clark's attitude to war crimes is distinctly flexible. In 2004 he was retailing the bogus claims of the Bosnian Serb government on Srebrenica, denying the documented figure of 8,000 victims of that genocidal massacre.
And what about George W Bush? He should be in the dock with Tony Bliar as well. Never mind the illegal invasion. Neither of those two goons made any provision for an insurgent problem in postwar Iraq. It will take decades for Iraq to put itself together again. All thanks to Bush and Bliar.