I've been having a look at an online petition which seeks to have Tony Blair tried for "war crimes". The petition is here: "Campaign to arrest and prosecute former Prime Minister Tony Blair for War Crimes."
It doesn't have too many signatures yet.
Why haven't I signed it (yet)? That's straightforward. I'm still trying to come to a view as to whether Tony Blair committed "war crimes" as defined in Schedule 8 to The International Criminal Court Act 2001 and/or the correspondong Scottish Act The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001.
It's not immediately obvious whether the petitioners are using "war crimes" as a catch all phrase to cover the offences of "Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes" listed in Section 51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and defined in Schedule 8 mentioned in the preceding paragraph or more specifically (as one of the three crimes defined in Schedule 8. Nor am I sure whether the petition is to have him charged in the UK or, in due time, at the International Criminal Court.
I didn't publicly accuse Tony "The Terrrorist" Blair of terrorism under UK Law, (see, for example, Tony Blair's First Life Sentence - He's a Terrorist. in the UK's Court of Public Opinion), until I'd looked carefully at the evidence. Once I've completed a careful look I don't hang back from polemic where I think it's genuinely justified. And I'm taking a similar approach to the "Blair is a War Criminal" notion. It may be true but it needs careful consideration which amounts to more than abuse.
The petition links to TonyBlair.org War Criminal. And there's quite a bit of bedtime reading there that I need to look at properly sometime. It may help me come to a considered view.
There's a useful overview page about the Chilcot Inquiry, which begins with the insight, "The Iraq Inquiry is in many ways the Goverments way of appeasement. It’s the minimum they had to do.". Spot on!
One aspect I did find a little disappointing was that the creator of TonyBlair.org War Criminal has used an anonymising service, Moniker Privacy Services, based in Pompano Beach, Florida to conceal his/her/their identity. Maybe I'm being old-fashioned here, but it you're accusing someone of serious wrongdoing I think it shows a little more integrity to be open about it.
As it happens, I emailed both Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell a few days ago about my considered position regarding Tony Blair being a "terrorist" under UK law and having committed offences under Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
No libel writ, so far. Maybe Cherie's burning the midnight oil looking for a legal loophole?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blair would unquestionably have been hung at Nuremberg according to the standards and procedures adopted by the Americans, British, French and Russians at the time. For him to be effectively shielded by the Labour Party and legal establishment is not only a disgrace but an eyeopening indication of what international law actually means.
ReplyDeletePlease circulate online petition far and wide:
ReplyDelete"BlairFoundation.Wordpress.Com - To bring Tony Blair to trial for war crimes"
hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/BWCF/
Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the
ReplyDelete2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious
British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers
suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass
killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to
900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is
approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia's
infamous "Killing Fields" during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-
million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/
British Medical Journal 1995:
ReplyDeleteIraq sanctions lead to half a million child deaths
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7019/1523
Economic sanctions imposed on Iraq since the ending of the Gulf war have been responsible for the deaths of more than half a million children, according to a new study. The study also shows that severe malnutrition is widespread among children in the capital city of Baghdad.
We must remember the exchange on CBS between [Bill Clinton’s ugly little Zionist (racist) Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright, who was then the US ambassador to the United Nations, and Lesley Stahl of CBS in a Sixty Minutes interview on 12 May 1996. Albright was maintaining that sanctions had yielded important concessions from Saddam Hussein.
ReplyDeleteStahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"
Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price.. we think the price is worth it."
They read that exchange in the Middle East. It was infamous all over the Arab world.
The secret Downing Street memo (23 July 2002):
ReplyDeleteQuotes:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."
The secret Downing Street memo
ReplyDeletehttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm
http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
ReplyDeletehttp://icasualties.org/oef/
The smelly 9-11 World Trade Center demolitions: 1193 architectural and engineering professionals and 8053 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.
http://cms.ae911truth.org/