The penalty for Tony Blair when he's convicted under Section 56 will be life imprisonment.
But that life sentence won't be imposed today or tomorrow. Unfortunately. Just maybe, if Chilcot does a far more thorough job than many people expect him to do, then that might take Tony a step or two closer to his free accomodation for life.
But Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is already under his first life sentence. He's a TERRORIST in the Court of Public Opinion and, happily the Court of Public Opinion has made its judgement fully in line with UK statutes..
Better still, Tony "The Terrorist" Blair's first life sentence can never be reduced. No lawyerly acquaintance can set him free from it. No dissembling spin doctor can get him off this hook. I find that justice of a very poetic kind!
Where do we find the official definition of a "terrorist"? And can I prove that Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is a "terrorist" according to that official version?
The definition of a "terrorist" in United Kingdom law is in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000. You can't get much more official than a full blown Act of Parliament, can you?
I'll reproduce the whole of Section 40 here so you can read it for yourself.
40 Terrorist: interpretation
(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
(2) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.
I'm going to show that Tony is a terrorist based on Section 40(1)(b).
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
If the Iraq War is "terrorism" then it follows that Tony is a Terrorist since we know that Tony was concerned in the preparation and instigation of it. He's admitted that publicly with his many boasts about "regime change".
And it's in Tony's regime change boasts that we have him!
Regime change using force has been an "act of terrorism" in UK law since 1993. In Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 we read:
(2) In this section “acts of terrorism” means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.
The government of Iraq of 2003 was a government as described there. There's no doubt that force or violence were used. There's no suggestion that Tony Blair acted alone. And there's no doubt from Tony "The TERRORIST" Blair's public evidence to Chilcot (and elsewhere) that he intended both to "influence" that Iraq government by force and, after March 2003, to "overthrow" that government by force.
So, in a conversational sense, I've just proved that Tony is a TERRORIST, since he acted in connection with an "act of terrorism" (as defined in Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993). And the test expressed in Section 40(1)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 is met:
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
"Job done", you may say.
Not quite.
Remember, Tony "The Terrorist" Blair is a lawyer.
He might object that the definition of "terrorist" in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 should only apply if we can prove that he's committed an "act of terrorism" under the same Act.
To meet that objection we need to demonstrate that Tony Blair has been involved in or connected with "acts of terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Here's the full text of Section 1 so that you can see that I'm not doing anything underhand. It's long. Read it and try to understand it. In a moment I'll walk you through a short version of the logic to demonstrate that the Iraq War was "terrorism" as defined in Section 1.
1 Terrorism: interpretation
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4) In this section—
(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
In 1(1) we see three tests: Test 1 in 1(1)(a), Test 2 stated in 1(1)(b) and Test 3 stated in 1(1)(c).
Look first at 1(3) (that's not the same as 1(1)(c) that I mentioned for Test 3, it comes a little later). It means that if firearms or explosives are used then we don't need to bother with Test 2 stated in 1(1)(b). I don't think anyone disputes that UK Armed Forces used firearms or explosives in the Iraq War.
That means for the Iraq War to be "terrorism" we only need to satisfy Test 1 stated in 1(1)(a) and Test 2 expressed in 1(1)(c).
Test 3 in 1(1)(c) is satisfied. There is no suggestion that I'm aware of that UK Armed Forces carried on the Iraq War in a way disconnected from the UK Government. The "political cause" being advanced was the UK Government's policy. Thankfully, we're not required to prove that it was a coherent political policy! Nor to prove that it was honestly presented.
So now, we only need to see if Test 1 in 1(1)(a) is true. For that to be true we need any one of the subtests stated in 1(2)(a), 1(2)(b), 1(2)(c), 1(2)(d) or 1(2)(e) to be true.
To keep it brief the first subtest refers to serious violence against a person and the second is serious violence against property. Both, in the Iraq War, are impossible to deny, in my view.
And, for completeness, 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b) make it clear that Iraq is covered in the geographical scope of this definition of "terrorism".
We've demonstrated (albeit in a short version) that the Iraq War is also "terrorism" (as defined in Section 1). That confirms what we already knew from looking at the 1993 Act.
So, going back to Section 40(1)(b),
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
we see that Tony is a terrorist since in relation to the Iraq War he's been "concerned in" the "preparation" and "instigation" of "acts of terrorism" (corresponding to the definitions in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Section 2(2) of the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993).
Tony "The Terrorist" Blair's first life sentence pronounced in the United Kingdom's Court of Public Opinion is clear for all to see.
[E&OE] [This post is very long but I've abbreviated or simplified certain points of detail. If you're concerned about some specific question that doesn't "hang together" seen from your perspective, please post a Comment and I'll add a new post to address the issue. I think this post is already long enough!]
No comments:
Post a Comment