So far as being 'above the law' is concerned, parliament voted and the war was waged.
Parliament voted, based on the false information and lies which they were told.
Would you uphold a conviction if the prosecution had lied to the jury ?
The only way the Iraq war could have been legal under international law, was if the authority had been given by the UN. How the UK parliament voted is irrelevant.
Blair claimed that he was carrying out the wishes of the UN. But he refused to put it to a second UN vote, because he damn well knew that the UN would not back him.
He was perfectly aware that he did not have the support of the UN when he told the UN inspectors to get of Iraq because him and his mate Bush, were going to start bombing. In other words, he knew very well that he was violating international law.
All this nonsense concerning the Att. General and whether the war was lawful in a red herring. All Blair had to do was put it to the UN for a second vote, which could have unambiguously given the authorisation for an attack on Iraq.
In fact this is exactly what Blair intended to do. Until at the last minute, he realised that the UN would not support him. So he decided that he was above international law.
No one should be allowed to get away with that........the whole purpose of the UN being set up after World War 2, was to avoid wars at all possible costs.
.
FFS c'mon wake up!
