Oh God please let it happen

Blairs a c u next Tuesday no doubt, but really do you think he actually is guilty of a war crime ?

If so what?

Supporting Bush- thats just what us Brits do, until milliband fuct up Cameron’s Syria intervention
Faking the dossier?
Was it really faked?

It just used very hazy language and was a rubber stamp affair anyway, the troops were already in place before the vote

In fact 90? of torries voted for the invasion, no limp dems and only 60% of labour did and most of those against seemed to vote on principle rather than on the details of the motion
It only actually passed because the Tory ‘opposition’ wanted war as much as fox news

A hand full of MPs actually seemed to look into the justifications and reasoning behind ital the rest just jumped in their usual directions

Our lizard overlords would not allow it ( unless they did as a sophisticated trick to make us think they did not exist.)

Our American cousins would move heavan and earth to prevent such a precident being set. A finding of guilt against Blair would by implication convict Bush and Cheyne.

But guilty of what actual crime?

No he will not as he did not commit a crime. As I’ve posted numerous times before any senior political figure who might conceivably have been PM would have taken the UK into Afghanistan and Iraq.

The article doesn’t suggest he could be convicted of war crimes, merely the delay in publishing Chilcott may suggest to some that he could be.

He had the backing of parliament, so I doubt it.

The war crime would be waging a war of “aggression” i.e. one not sanctioned by international law. It was the desire to avoid this crime on The British Army’s part that led to all the debate about U.N. resolutions and the disputed Attorney General’s advise. I can’t recall the detailed argument now but my overall impression was that the 2nd Gulf War was a crime of aggression but Bush didn’t care cos the Americans are not keen on internal law regulating state power and Blair was going to hide being the A.G’s advise that it was good to go as justification.

Only in a pubescent fantasy. 😆

But guilty of what actual crime?

The standard response to this is that: Blair and Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussain militarily. They justified it by saying that Iraq was a threat to it’s immediate neighbours and to the wider world through it’s support, and actual use of terrorism, and further they said that they had the legal right to do so.

The contention is that in fact; there was little or no intelligence to suggest the former, and that they knew they didn’t really have the latter, and then fixed policy accordingly.

Estimates range from hundreds of thousands to perhaps millions of deaths in Iraq. Which it could be suggested are crimes against peace (according to the Nuremberg Trails.)It could be held that Bush and Blair are ultimately responsible.

Is my understanding of the case against Blair

There would be a review of Dr David Kelly’s ‘suicide’ if there was any justice in this world, unfortunately there isn’t and the power brokers have a free reign.

Bliar and Bush should be held accountable for their actions, the claims of WMD.

The destabilisation of the entire region and the subsequent rise of IS are as a result of their actions.

At least Bush has done the decent thing and crawled away into a hole.

jimster01 – Member
Bliar and Bush should be held accountable for their actions, the claims of WMD.

The destabilisation of the entire region and the subsequent rise of IS are as a result of their actionsI agree entirely. Whether this actually means being tried for war crimes is really down to the law to establish.

From reports I have read, the Chilcot enquiry is likely to prove “incendiary” and senior Whitehall officials are also clearly in the firing line.

but as parliament voted for it, Blair has the backing of his government

as I understand it the justification comes down to 2 things
that Saddam had nukes and was gonna use them
specifically in the september and later dodgy dossier that

1)Saddam had ‘sought’ to buy some uranium in niger

2)that he had the capability to deploy wmds in 45 minutes

afaik those 2 (uncredited in the reports ) claims were the key claims that swung it and parliament happily voted for it
im pretty sure that those 2 claims were known to be ‘dodgy’ but Blair had them put in anyway

but they are such weak justifications anyway that every MP that voted yes is accountable

comparing it to the vote on Syria last year some of our MPs at least seem to have learnt that

Anyway, it’s all turned out OK in the end hasn’t it?

but as parliament voted for it, Blair has the backing of his government

Bush and Blair’s get out has always been; “We acted in good faith, given the intelligence we were presented at the time by people who were expert, and we at all times acted within the law seeking government and parliamentary backing, resolutions and UN approval for our actions.”

If you can demonstrate that in fact they ‘knew’ the intelligence was flimsy, and started to aggressively posture and prepare for war with the intent on prosecuting that war all along regardless of international law, and making sure that the UN, Parliament, and Congress were denied vital evidence to make a proper decision…

Then Blair and Bush have some questions to answer.

Whether that’s the reason Chilcot is being delayed is another conspiracy theory all together

@nickc I understand your comments and view but its not the basis for a conviction of a single individual. Blair didn’t actually gather the intelligence or write the conclusion. You’d have to try the entire Parliament and/or the intelligence services.

Jambalaya.

That’s precisely the point I’m making. You’d have to be able to demonstrate that Bush and Blair had concluded before any evidence was presented to them that they would go to war and would then fit the evidence and legal case around that decision, and not the other way around

If Chilcot can show that there is in fact memorandum or letters or phone calls or orders or so on from Blair (or from people being directed by him) telling, for instance, Intelligence gathers: “this is what we need this report to say” and so on, then you could prosecute individuals.

EDIT: You can (and Bush and Blair do) make the case that Yes: perhaps with hindsight the evidence was see through, but it was the best that we could get at the time, and Yes the UN mandate was not as strong as we’d have liked, but that’s often the case when trying to get agreement with several other nations all with their own agenda and international politics isn’t straightforward, and we needed to act quickly so that’s what we did.

But…Given that it’s war we’re taking about, then the case needs to be belts braces yer big granny pants and long johns, what Bush and Blair offered was the tiniest of flimsy lace g strings…

n demonstrate that in fact they ‘knew’ the intelligence was flimsy, and started to aggressively posture and prepare for war with the intent on prosecuting that war all along regardless of international law, and making sure that the UN, Parliament, and Congress were denied vital evidence to make a proper decision…

I don’t think you can reprimand them for preparing for war, the troops , materiel etc had to be ready and in place if you wanted to launch a campaign straight after a vote, certainly Blair would say so, no doubt arguing he’d have been wrong not to be pepared
In his own mind he probably believed it, his intervention on Serbia had been ‘righteous’ after all

If you (or chilcot) can show that any vital evidence was denied to parliament, maybe you’d have a point but is that going to happen? Unlikely , at best you’d get some Whitehall types sexing up the odd phrase, but so much of the 2 dossiers was ambiguously phrased and poorly credited that there’s tons of wriggle room in there for someone as expert at that sort of stuff as Blair. I’m sure any pressure he put on the intelligence services or civil servants would be deniable/ indirect .

Parliament voted for it, the press had a hard on for getting Saddam (usual suspects guardian, independent maybe BBC excluded)

St Tony will probably be beatified one day !

But…Given that it’s war we’re taking about, then the case needs to be belts braces yer big granny pants and long johns, what Bush and Blair offered was the tiniest of flimsy lace g strings…

Nothing changes though, its about as much, in fact more than the nipple pastie that Obama/ Cameron were offering for regime change in Syria

Kimbers I tend to agree with your assessment. I reckon any ‘evidence’ that Chilcot comes up with is going to be at best merely embarrassing to Blair, and will hopefully kill his career once and for all. However as he’s amply demonstrated over the intervening years, his embarrassment gland appears as under developed as his ego is over…

Under the Statute, the definition of “crime of aggression” is stated as follows:

Article 8 bis[edit]
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

So Parliamentary support is irrelevant to Blair’s guilt or innocence.

planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression

Was Blair in control though, Shirley he’d just argue he was following the will of the people, ie parliament

If they’d voted no then he’d gone ahead anyway, then yeah I could see that getting him

And that definition would also include the drone war we are waging in Pakistan etc ?

So there is a God !

Where’s the justice ten frenchies shot dead for taking the piss while Blair never gets so much as a flesh wound for his part in the gulf war.