When should George Bush and Tony Blair stand trial for War Crimes?

sxt

When the "British Iraq inquiry" known as the Chilcot Inquiry is finally published and presuming it provides the indisputable myriad of evidences of Catastrophic War Crimes against Tony Blair ...

Birneybau

Yeah, good luck with that.

Iwasfrozen

sxt wrote: »

When the "British Iraq inquiry" known as the Chilcot Inquiry is finally published and presuming it provides the indisputable myriad of evidences of Catastrophic War Crimes against Tony Blair ...

Are you going to outline these crimes and how they are linked to Bush and/or Blair.

Mena

You asked and answered your own question?

Well alrighty then.

JRant

Well the Americans would just tell the ICC or any other body to "do one".

sxt

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Are you going to outline these crimes and how they are linked to Bush and/or Blair.

1) Blair launched a war of aggression that broke international law

In attacking Iraq, Blair committed a crime against peace, defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. The Iraq war was waged for a reason other than self-defence, which made it a crime of aggression and violated Articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

2) Blair knew he was breaking international law

Eight months before the invasion, the British government’s most senior legal adviser wrote to Blair and advised him that an attack on Iraq would be a serious breach of international law, and the UN charter. Lord Goldsmith’s July 2002 letter stated that an invasion launched on the premise of self defence would be illegal because Britain was not under threat by Iraq, and that whilst in certain circumstances the UN allowed ‘humanitarian intervention’, it was not relevant in the case of Iraq.

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith’s letter, but banned him from attending cabinet meetings and gagged him so that he could not speak out publically.

Blair was explicitly warned by his Cabinet Office that a “legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists.” Then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw similarly advised Blair that none of the legal conditions for war had been met.

3) UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise war

Blair and his supporters argue that UN Security Resolution 1441, passed on November 8th 2002, authorised war on Iraq. This resolution did strengthen the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and gave Iraq ”a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” – but it did not authorise war.

American ambassador John Negroponte assured the Security Council the resolution meant a “further breach” by Iraq would require “the matter…return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”

UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG similarly confirmed that “there is no ‘automaticity’ in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12.”

4) Blair lied to help fix the intelligence and facts around the policy

There are numerous examples of Blair lying, deceiving, and misleading, in order to hype the supposed threat from Iraq, and try and justify war. Here are just a few examples.

In April 2002 he claimed that Saddam Hussein had major stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons – even though the Joint Intelligence Committee had described the intelligence as “sporadic and patchy” just the previous month. They also said that Saddam only had “some production equipment, and some small stocks of CW agent precursors”.

Blair claimed that Iraq posed a regional threat, when the previous month a secret Cabinet Office paper noted that “Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours.”

During a press conference Blair and Bush jointly referred to a purported IAEA report, apparently confirming that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky later denied that the agency had issued any such report, said that there was no substantiated evidence for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and that anyone who claimed to know the nuclear situation in Iraq was “misleading you”.

In late September 2002, citing a British government dossier, Blair claimed that Iraq had “existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”. When this was later revealed to be untrue, Blair claimed that he had never understood that intelligence agencies did not believe Saddam had long-range weapons of mass destruction.

However, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook confirmed that on March 5th 2003 – two weeks before the attack on Iraq – Blair told him that Saddam’s “battlefield weapons had been disassembled and stored separately”.

Blair later claimed that he did not recall Cook telling him that Saddam had no long-range weapons.

5) The illegal war on Iraq has caused an enormous amount of suffering and death

Nodin

sxt wrote: »

1) Blair launched (............)of suffering and death

A fact you failed to mention is perhaps the most relevant one - both Britain and the US have a veto on the UNSC. A second, not irrelevant thing is that the US is the last remaining superpower and Britain its ally. Therefore even if there was a report detailing perhaps how the pair made a deal with satan, signed with the blood of a newborn, nothing is going to happen.

entropi

This thread should have been posted in the humour forum. The very thought of them even coming close to that scenario is funny.

KingBrian2

Well they broke one country and on their way to breaking more. Nothing to stop them from doing another war. The ICC would prevent countries from launching pre-emtive attacks.

Turtyturd

Bout 2003.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The ICC would prevent countries from launching pre-emtive attacks.

Just like how district courts prevent burglaries before they happen.

Zebra3

The correct answer to the thread title is over ten years ago.

If there was any justice in this world, Bush and Blair, amongst others, would have been swinging from a noose years ago.

You'll get there apologists on here soon enough though. :rolleyes:

YFlyer

sxt wrote: »

1) Blair launched a war of aggression that broke international law

In attacking Iraq, Blair committed a crime against peace, defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. The Iraq war was waged for a reason other than self-defence, which made it a crime of aggression and violated Articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

2) Blair knew he was breaking international law

Eight months before the invasion, the British government’s most senior legal adviser wrote to Blair and advised him that an attack on Iraq would be a serious breach of international law, and the UN charter. Lord Goldsmith’s July 2002 letter stated that an invasion launched on the premise of self defence would be illegal because Britain was not under threat by Iraq, and that whilst in certain circumstances the UN allowed ‘humanitarian intervention’, it was not relevant in the case of Iraq.

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith’s letter, but banned him from attending cabinet meetings and gagged him so that he could not speak out publically.

Blair was explicitly warned by his Cabinet Office that a “legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists.” Then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw similarly advised Blair that none of the legal conditions for war had been met.

3) UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise war

Blair and his supporters argue that UN Security Resolution 1441, passed on November 8th 2002, authorised war on Iraq. This resolution did strengthen the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and gave Iraq ”a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” – but it did not authorise war.

American ambassador John Negroponte assured the Security Council the resolution meant a “further breach” by Iraq would require “the matter…return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”

UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG similarly confirmed that “there is no ‘automaticity’ in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12.”

4) Blair lied to help fix the intelligence and facts around the policy

There are numerous examples of Blair lying, deceiving, and misleading, in order to hype the supposed threat from Iraq, and try and justify war. Here are just a few examples.

In April 2002 he claimed that Saddam Hussein had major stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons – even though the Joint Intelligence Committee had described the intelligence as “sporadic and patchy” just the previous month. They also said that Saddam only had “some production equipment, and some small stocks of CW agent precursors”.

Blair claimed that Iraq posed a regional threat, when the previous month a secret Cabinet Office paper noted that “Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours.”

During a press conference Blair and Bush jointly referred to a purported IAEA report, apparently confirming that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky later denied that the agency had issued any such report, said that there was no substantiated evidence for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and that anyone who claimed to know the nuclear situation in Iraq was “misleading you”.

In late September 2002, citing a British government dossier, Blair claimed that Iraq had “existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”. When this was later revealed to be untrue, Blair claimed that he had never understood that intelligence agencies did not believe Saddam had long-range weapons of mass destruction.

However, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook confirmed that on March 5th 2003 – two weeks before the attack on Iraq – Blair told him that Saddam’s “battlefield weapons had been disassembled and stored separately”.

Blair later claimed that he did not recall Cook telling him that Saddam had no long-range weapons.

5) The illegal war on Iraq has caused an enormous amount of suffering and death

Blair is a liar.

Balmed Out

For a permanent member of the security council to have an international court convict a former or present leader of war crimes would require a lot worse then attacking an unpopular dictatorship. Your going to need pre meditated mass murder of civilians etc.
Not saying its right just that it wont happen.

One eyed Jack

sxt wrote: »

When the "British Iraq inquiry" known as the Chilcot Inquiry is finally published and presuming it provides the indisputable myriad of evidences of Catastrophic War Crimes against Tony Blair ...

I see a problem with your argument.

Fratton Fred

I guess the same time that the Polish, Spanish and Australian premiers do.

Obviously being an Irish forum, no one cares about them, but it wasn't just Bush and Blair.

KingBrian2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess the same time that the Polish, Spanish and Australian premiers do.

Obviously being an Irish forum, no one cares about them, but it wasn't just Bush and Blair.

Yes but the Spanish decided to withdraw their troops from that excursion. Did not want to join the powers who were going to be invading Iraq. Thankfully France and Germany had the sense to stand up to the war hawks in the Pentagon.

BoJack Horseman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess the same time that the Polish, Spanish and Australian premiers do.

Obviously being an Irish forum, no one cares about them, but it wasn't just Bush and Blair.

The "When will John Howard & Leszek Miller face a court for their war crimes" thread is imminent I'm sure.

thehouses

Team America World Police

Matt Damon says Matt Damon.

Hans Bricks

Balmed Out wrote: »

For a permanent member of the security council to have an international court convict a former or present leader of war crimes would require a lot worse then attacking an unpopular dictatorship. Your going to need pre meditated mass murder of civilians etc.
Not saying its right just that it wont happen.

That's why I can't take this seriously anytime it comes up. I wouldn't equate them to Bosnian, Serb or Liberian warlords. I wonder would the same vigor be there for putting Putin and Medvedev on trial for "war crimes" in Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ukraine & Crimea ? It's almost like another tired cause de jour for the type who go to throw red paint on Blair at a book signing in Easons.

Iwasfrozen

sxt wrote: »

1) Blair launched a war of aggression that broke international law

In attacking Iraq, Blair committed a crime against peace, defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. The Iraq war was waged for a reason other than self-defence, which made it a crime of aggression and violated Articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.

2) Blair knew he was breaking international law

Eight months before the invasion, the British government’s most senior legal adviser wrote to Blair and advised him that an attack on Iraq would be a serious breach of international law, and the UN charter. Lord Goldsmith’s July 2002 letter stated that an invasion launched on the premise of self defence would be illegal because Britain was not under threat by Iraq, and that whilst in certain circumstances the UN allowed ‘humanitarian intervention’, it was not relevant in the case of Iraq.

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith’s letter, but banned him from attending cabinet meetings and gagged him so that he could not speak out publically.

Blair was explicitly warned by his Cabinet Office that a “legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists.” Then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw similarly advised Blair that none of the legal conditions for war had been met.

3) UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise war

Blair and his supporters argue that UN Security Resolution 1441, passed on November 8th 2002, authorised war on Iraq. This resolution did strengthen the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and gave Iraq ”a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” – but it did not authorise war.

American ambassador John Negroponte assured the Security Council the resolution meant a “further breach” by Iraq would require “the matter…return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.”

UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG similarly confirmed that “there is no ‘automaticity’ in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12.”

4) Blair lied to help fix the intelligence and facts around the policy

There are numerous examples of Blair lying, deceiving, and misleading, in order to hype the supposed threat from Iraq, and try and justify war. Here are just a few examples.

In April 2002 he claimed that Saddam Hussein had major stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons – even though the Joint Intelligence Committee had described the intelligence as “sporadic and patchy” just the previous month. They also said that Saddam only had “some production equipment, and some small stocks of CW agent precursors”.

Blair claimed that Iraq posed a regional threat, when the previous month a secret Cabinet Office paper noted that “Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours.”

During a press conference Blair and Bush jointly referred to a purported IAEA report, apparently confirming that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky later denied that the agency had issued any such report, said that there was no substantiated evidence for an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and that anyone who claimed to know the nuclear situation in Iraq was “misleading you”.

In late September 2002, citing a British government dossier, Blair claimed that Iraq had “existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”. When this was later revealed to be untrue, Blair claimed that he had never understood that intelligence agencies did not believe Saddam had long-range weapons of mass destruction.

However, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook confirmed that on March 5th 2003 – two weeks before the attack on Iraq – Blair told him that Saddam’s “battlefield weapons had been disassembled and stored separately”.

Blair later claimed that he did not recall Cook telling him that Saddam had no long-range weapons.

5) The illegal war on Iraq has caused an enormous amount of suffering and death

Now you see that wasn't so hard. You could have wrote all that in your first post.

renegademaster

sxt wrote: »

1)
5) The illegal war on Iraq has caused an enormous amount of suffering and death

1,500,000+ and counting

KomradeBishop

The war in Iraq can be considered a War of Aggression, and this is how such acts were considered by the Nuremberg trials:

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

If there is any crime on the planet deserving of the death penalty, committing a war of aggression ranks very high up there.

walkingshadow

I think in time to come, Islamic fundamentalists will come to revere and worship George W. Bush. He is after all, the real founding father of ISIS.

steddyeddy

No better than terrorist attacks. As the late great Tony Benn said "there is no moral difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber. Both killing innocent people for political gain".

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Obviously being an Irish forum, no one cares about them, but it wasn't just Bush and Blair.

Obviously being an Irish forum we have closer connections to Britain and the US as well as forces within those two nations being the principle actors who pushed for the invasion.

The British people were lied to and lost soldiers in the invasion yet you choose to engage in whataboutery? If I was British I'd be furious.

silverfeather

Begging the question :rolleyes:

Princess Laika

You have to agree, Saddam Hussein did get hotter with age.

Alexis Sanchez

renegademaster wrote: »

1,500,000+ and counting

That's the propaganda figure. The other surveys are about one-tenth of that.

Another thing, the sectarian conflict would have erupted after the Arab Spring anyway, so you can stop counting the deaths after 2011.

Nodin

Balmed Out wrote: »

For a permanent member of the security council to have an international court convict a former or present leader of war crimes would require a lot worse then attacking an unpopular dictatorship. Your going to need pre meditated mass murder of civilians etc.
Not saying its right just that it wont happen.

China, Tiannem square etc. If you're one of the big boys, or in good with them, you're a "made guy" and virtually untouchable.

harry Bailey esq

I dunno,Tuesday?

galljga1

sxt wrote: »

When the "British Iraq inquiry" known as the Chilcot Inquiry is finally published and presuming it provides the indisputable myriad of evidences of Catastrophic War Crimes against Tony Blair ...

But.... didn't they win? Or did anybody?

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Obviously being an Irish forum we have closer connections to Britain and the US as well as forces within those two nations being the principle actors who pushed for the invasion.

The British people were lied to and lost soldiers in the invasion yet you choose to engage in whataboutery? If I was British I'd be furious.

The British are pretty furious. Where are the Labour party now?

it isn't whataboutery, it's what's your motives.

Zebra3

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British are pretty furious. Where are the Labour party now?

it isn't whataboutery, it's what's your motives.

Bush and Blair were the chief architects of the war on Iraq.

That's why their names come up first.

But as usual there's the defend merry old England attitude at whatever the cost, even throwing out some insinuation of racism. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Zebra3 wrote: »

Bush and Blair were the chief architects of the war on Iraq.

That's why their names come up first.

But as usual there's the defend merry old England attitude at whatever the cost, even throwing out some insinuation of racism. :rolleyes:

Not defending anyone Zebra old boy.

No, I'm questioning why people aren't interested in the other perpetrators.

Cos, let's face it, 90% of people who want to see them prosecuted couldn't a fiddlers about the actual war itself. It's about an anti US agenda and if Britain (not England, you obviously need a geography lesson) can be thrown in for good measure, then happy days.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

anti US agenda

Wanting to see Bush and his handlers being charged for the invasion of Iraq is anti-US?

Are all the people in the US who want to see Bush prosecuted anti-US?

Are the relatives of US soldiers who were killed or maimed in Iraq who want Bush prosecuted anti-US?

Those are rhetorical questions.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Wanting to see Bush and his handlers being charged for the invasion of Iraq is anti-US?

Are all te people in the US who want to see Bush prosecuted anti-US?

Are the relatives of US soldiers who were killed or maimed in Iraq who want Bush prosecuted anti-US?

Those are rhetorical questions.

Every one who wants then charged does so for their own reasons. I'm just questioning why people in a country that had nothing to do with it want those two alone, when there were other players very much involved.

Personally I'd like to see Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell strung up by the balls, but that is because they created a lie they took my country to war in what was, little more than a religious crusade.

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm just questioning why people in a country that had nothing to do with it want

Oh I didn't know that people in other countries couldn't wish for a little justice for the people of Iraq, Britain and the US. Silly me.

those two alone, when there were other players very much involved.

Nobody has expressly stated they want those two alone prosecuted. Also Bush/Cheney were the main players followed by Blair so they will get more attention.

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British are pretty furious. Where are the Labour party now?

it isn't whataboutery, it's what's your motives.

Not so furious at the Tories....who (with few exceptions) voted in favour of the war. The Lib Dems however...

Fratton Fred

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not so furious at the Tories....who (with few exceptions) voted in favour of the war. The Lib Dems however...

It wasn't the Tories who created the lines and the spin though.

Jimoslimos

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It wasn't the Tories who created the lines and the spin though.

They bought it however, which doesn't say much for their position as an opposition. An opposition that should have been asking the same questions that an inquiry is now.

KingBrian2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not defending anyone Zebra old boy.

No, I'm questioning why people aren't interested in the other perpetrators.

Cos, let's face it, 90% of people who want to see them prosecuted couldn't a fiddlers about the actual war itself. It's about an anti US agenda and if Britain (not England, you obviously need a geography lesson) can be thrown in for good measure, then happy days.

Going after the architects of the Iraq war is counter-productive and impractical. Those responsible for causing a Shiite Sunni civil war in Iraq is an entirely different prospect. Negligence in preventing a Shiite Mosque being bombed. They should be brought to justice. Today's conflict is directly linked to that incident as the two religions fought with each other after that act of aggression.