Desmond Tutu calls for war crimes charges for Blair, Bush

Run_to_da_hills · 06-09-2012 1:42am #1

More people of this position are needed to speak out over the of the atrocities that have happened in Iraq. Unfortunately nothing will ever happen to these two and it won't be too long before we witness the next stage of their quest.

The former Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa wants ex-leaders to face the Hague

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu , on Sunday, called for Tony Blair and George Bush to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for their role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Tutu, the retired Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that the ex-leaders of Britain and the United States should be made to "answer for their actions."

The Iraq war "has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history," wrote Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984.

"Those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague," he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/02/blair-bush-tutu.html

JustinDee · 06-09-2012 8:25am

I'd disagree with the subjective claim that "The Iraq war has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history".

Nothing polarised the world more than the Cold War which was a result of the Second World War, in my opinion anyway. Doesn't take away any degree of opportunism that the Iraq invasion was, however. Just thought I'd add that it was a particularly daft thing to say.

laoch na mona · 06-09-2012 1:14pm

fair play to him

Manach · 06-09-2012 2:12pm

"Victor's Justice" would seem to suggest that the winning side is never put on trial.

golden lane · 06-09-2012 2:18pm

such is life.........and who really cares......

of course people could stop buying and using american and british goods and technology......and ignore those countries inventions.....

stop speaking their language.......show them that they mean business....

OS119 · 06-09-2012 3:09pm

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

Memnoch · 06-09-2012 3:23pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

What a pile of condescending nonsense.

Rented Mule · 06-09-2012 3:26pm

I'd say he's a little late to the party. Where was he 10 years ago when this all started ? Does he plan on going after Obama, Brown and Cameron as well ?

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 3:29pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

I can't say that I'm particularly a big admirer of Bishop Tutu but if you look at the indictments used at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1946

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

then I think that a look at Blair, Bush and their respective cabinets under counts 1 and 2 could be worthwhile.

I don't think that they could have forseen just how bad the subsequent Iraq civil war could have gotten but regarding the planning and pushing for war and things like the dodgy dossier I think a prosecution by a neutral authority could be worthwhile.

Manach · 06-09-2012 3:45pm

A main issue I'd have with using Nuremberg as a precedent, leaving aside the differing view about its basis on natural justice, would be that it was flawed by just having trials against the losing side when at least of the judging countries could have been indited on the self-same charges of waging aggressive war.

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 4:20pm

Manach wrote: »

A main issue I'd have with using Nuremberg as a precedent, leaving aside the differing view about its basis on natural justice, would be that it was flawed by just having trials against the losing side when at least of the judging countries could have been indited on the self-same charges of waging aggressive war.

I'd agree with you about victors justice, the Soviets should certainly have faced indictments on all four counts.

However it is the indictments themselves that I am talking about, not who they were levelled against back then, you are conflating both aspects when that is not the argument that I am making.

Memnoch · 06-09-2012 4:30pm

I think they also have cases to answer for Guantanemo, rendition, Abu Gharib, torture outside of Abu Gharib, Fallujah, as well as various other atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanisthan. Have they not also used depleted Uranium and cluster bombs?

I think the above would fall into War crimes as well as crimes against humanity.

Of course they have absolved themselves of all responsibility for their crimes, which is hardly surprising.

OS119 · 06-09-2012 4:36pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

...then I think that a look at Blair, Bush and their respective cabinets under counts 1 and 2 could be worthwhile...

i agree that 1 and 2 are the runners (but probably not unanswerable) - yet where are these indictments, where are the legal cases being put forward?

lots of polemic political crap - as above - but precious little serious law.

blatantrereg · 06-09-2012 4:38pm

There have been calls for Bush to be indicted for years now. There are even books on the subject. Here is one of them online.

Considering Obama got a peace prize and then introduced indefinite detainment without charge for American citizens (and then appealled the courts outlawing this), some major change would be needed for any genuine possibility of proceedings being taken against Bush.

Memnoch · 06-09-2012 4:46pm

OS119 wrote: »

i agree that 1 and 2 are the runners (but probably not unanswerable) - yet where are these indictments, where are the legal cases being put forward?

lots of polemic political crap - as above - but precious little serious law.

More nonsense. You know very well the answer to your question.

There is no indictment because the people committing the crimes are too powerful and have put themselves out of the reach of justice and law.

There can never be indictments or conviction when those accused of crimes are also those who get to decide who investigates and prosecutes those crimes and WHETHER those crimes can be investigated in the first place. G.W. has conveniently placed himself out of reach of the ICC by declaring that Americans cannot be prosecuted by it.

That doesn't change the fact that anyone with a clue knows just how evil the actions of these two men have been and how their intentions were anything BUT honorable.

But you know all of this. Yet you chose to deliberately rely on a argument of semantics. When taken within the context of the political reality of the world we live in, your argument is shown to be fatuous as best and delibierately disingenuous at worst.

The only way we will have SERIOUS law, which you oh so clamor for, is if more and more people in positions of prominence and power rise up and speak up like Desmond Tutu and more and more of the proletariat take up their call.

Bush and Blair might never be held to account in a court of law, but they can and should be ostracised by any society that claims to believe in basic human rights, dignity and moral values for they are undeniably among the worst criminals of our generation.

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 4:48pm

OS119 wrote: »

i agree that 1 and 2 are the runners (but probably not unanswerable) - yet where are these indictments, where are the legal cases being put forward?

lots of polemic political crap - as above - but precious little serious law.

If we look at the trials for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, those needed a UN security council resolution to establish them. Given that the UK and US are permanent members of the security council and have a veto then I can't see how the existing processes could be used against them.

Can you see any alternative method for indictments to be leveled?

Fratton Fred · 06-09-2012 4:55pm

Does John Howard get to join the party as well?

BlaasForRafa · 06-09-2012 5:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Does John Howard get to join the party as well?

Possibly, although Australia did only send a small force to Iraq. Also to what extent he was involved in the planning and preparation to invade Iraq (beyond making troops available) I can't say.

Nodin · 06-09-2012 5:14pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.
...

As there was no immediate threat or any of the other issues that normally justify an attack, and as they acted outside the authority of the security council, that would - as far as I'm aware - render the whole escapade a crime. Of course its not going to ever go before a court, the UN or anywhere else, but presumably its that immunity which has so irked Desmond Tutu. That, and Blair jetting around the world smugly.

Palmach · 06-09-2012 7:54pm

Nodin wrote: »

As there was no immediate threat or any of the other issues that normally justify an attack, and as they acted outside the authority of the security council, that would - as far as I'm aware - render the whole escapade a crime. Of course its not going to ever go before a court, the UN or anywhere else, but presumably its that immunity which has so irked Desmond Tutu. That, and Blair jetting around the world smugly.

It has come before the ICC and there was no case to answer.

Eggy Baby! · 06-09-2012 8:45pm

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd disagree with the subjective claim that "The Iraq war has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history".

Nothing polarised the world more than the Cold War which was a result of the Second World War, in my opinion anyway. Doesn't take away any degree of opportunism that the Iraq invasion was, however. Just thought I'd add that it was a particularly daft thing to say.

Agreed. Iraq is maybe the polarising conflict post Cold War. Not of all time.

Eggy Baby! · 06-09-2012 8:48pm

golden lane wrote: »

stop speaking their language.......show them that they mean business....

Что за черт?

Nodin · 06-09-2012 9:01pm

Palmach wrote: »

It has come before the ICC and there was no case to answer.

Nope. It said it had no jurisidiction as to the legality or otherwise of the war.

Palmach · 07-09-2012 2:17pm

Nodin wrote: »

Nope. It said it had no jurisidiction as to the legality or otherwise of the war.

Untrue. Read the judgment.

Nodin · 07-09-2012 2:57pm

Palmach wrote: »

Untrue. Read the judgment.

Bottom of page 15, onto page 16.

"....the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. As the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I do not have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression"

http://books.google.ie/books?id=A9GI4_nrrqkC&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=includes+the+crime+of+aggression,+it+indicates+that+the+Court+may+not+exercise+jurisdiction+over+the+crime+until+a+provision+has+been+adopted+which+defines+the+crime+and+sets+out+the+conditions+under+which+the+Court+may+exercise+jurisdiction+with+respect+to+it+(Article+5(2)).%22+Hence,+%22the+International+Criminal+Court+has+a+mandate+to+examine+the+conduct+during+the+conflict,+but+not+whether+the+decision+to+engage+in+armed+conflict+was+legal.+As+the+Prosecutor+of+the+International+Criminal+Court,+I+do+not+have+the+mandate+to+address+the+arguments+on+the+legality+of+the+use+of+force+or+the+crime+of+aggression&source=bl&ots=8Yo2QC521w&sig=ia6SA7d16B4VkmKlsljvdJYRQUg&hl=en#v=onepage&q=includes%20the%20crime%20of%20aggression%2C%20it%20indicates%20that%20the%20Court%20may%20not%20exercise%20jurisdiction%20over%20the%20crime%20until%20a%20provision%20has%20been%20adopted%20which%20defines%20the%20crime%20and%20sets%20out%20the%20conditions%20under%20which%20the%20Court%20may%20exercise%20jurisdiction%20with%20respect%20to%20it%20(Article%205(2)).%22%20Hence%2C%20%22the%20International%20Criminal%20Court%20has%20a%20mandate%20to%20examine%20the%20conduct%20during%20the%20conflict%2C%20but%20not%20whether%20the%20decision%20to%20engage%20in%20armed%20conflict%20was%20legal.%20As%20the%20Prosecutor%20of%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court%2C%20I%20do%20not%20have%20the%20mandate%20to%20address%20the%20arguments%20on%20the%20legality%20of%20the%20use%20of%20force%20or%20the%20crime%20of%20aggression&f=false

If you've anything further to add, you might be as good as to include a source, thanks.

snafuk35 · 08-09-2012 10:48pm

Supposing an extreme right wing White South African regime had taken power and used chemical weapons against black South Africans killing them in their hundreds of thousands?
Imagine if this white racist regime launched the military invasion of one of its neighbours and annexed it but had been defeated by an international military coalition?
Imagine if air exclusion zones had been put in place to prevent its aircraft from bombing black South Africans and the warplanes enforcing the air exclusion zone were fired at by the white racists? Imagine if international weapons inspectors authorised by the UN were continually frustrated in their efforts to inspect, locate and destroy suspect WMD stockpiles?
Imagine if dissidents like Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela and many others were hideously tortured and executed by the white racist regime?
Imagine if the armed resistance of the ANC was defeated and vast of black South Africans numbers executed or driven into exile?
Would you support military action against such a regime? I bloody well would.
Would you protest in the streets with "No Blood For Diamonds" signs because you think any military intervention would obviously be not about human rights and only about diamonds right?
Even if the war really was about diamonds and not about human rights would you still support the war because indirectly it might lead to a better future for black South Africans?
Now what if we replace black South African with "Shia Iraqis" and white racist regime with "Baath Party" and diamonds with "oil" now what do think?
Imagine if Obama launched the war to overthrow this white racist regime would you be calling him a murderer and a war criminal?

Nodin · 09-09-2012 7:33am

snafuk35 wrote: »

Supposing an extreme (.........) criminal?

The campaign against the Kurds, which is what you're thinking of, occurred long before the war and took place while Iraq was on good terms with the US. In fact, during the first campaign against the Kurds, Kissinger decided to drop hostility to Saddam, dropped all support to the Kurdish rebels, and made sure that Turkey blocked the borders, thus preventing them from fleeing.

snafuk35 wrote: »

Imagine if international weapons inspectors authorised by the UN were continually frustrated in their efforts to inspect, locate and destroy suspect WMD stockpiles?

You're about 9 years out of date on that one.

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 11:43am

Nodin wrote: »

The campaign against the Kurds, which is what you're thinking of, occurred long before the war and took place while Iraq was on good terms with the US. In fact, during the first campaign against the Kurds, Kissinger decided to drop hostility to Saddam, dropped all support to the Kurdish rebels, and made sure that Turkey blocked the borders, thus preventing them from fleeing.

So Saddam Hussein should still be alive and in power then?

Nodin · 09-09-2012 1:10pm

snafuk35 wrote: »

So Saddam Hussein should still be alive and in power then?

As his regime was weakened and continually weakening in 2003, theres no reason to believe he would have lasted another decade.

I note you're trying to turn this into a "you're for the war or you're for Saddam" styled thing....

johnnyskeleton · 09-09-2012 2:16pm

OS119 wrote: »

i thought Archbishop Tutu was smart?

war crimes indictments are issued when a coherent case is presented that an individual broke the various International laws surrounding the use of force and justications for war.

they are not issued because you disagree with the position, or you dislike the consequences, or people died, or like, bad things happened man...

if those who would like to see Blair/Bush et all in a cage at the Hague spent a bit more of their time understanding what the internationally accepted Laws of War permitted, and do not permit, rather than typing the word 'illegal' on internet message boards, they might be able to build a case, rather looking like imbeciles because they don't actually know what the law requires, and therefore what actions, or do not, take someone outside the law.

as a headstart 'war is bad, m'kay' is not on the statute books...

I agree with you that it's not enough to simply disagree with the motives for war, but wasn't it the case that the us acted unilaterally (with some allies eg uk and turkey) because the un refused to sanction a peacekeeping mission. Therefore, it was an illegal war from international standards. I'm sure that abu graib etc would constitute torture which is a war crime so even if the war was legal, how they went about it was not.

snafuk35 · 09-09-2012 3:00pm

Nodin wrote: »

As his regime was weakened and continually weakening in 2003, theres no reason to believe he would have lasted another decade.

I note you're trying to turn this into a "you're for the war or you're for Saddam" styled thing....

Why leave him in power another day so?

Today thanks to the Americans and their allies a democratically elected government exists in Iraq and the country has a future.

By definition if you opposed the invasion in 2003, you are saying you would prefer if Saddam Hussein was still in power or you are saying you don't care.

When a country - any country in the world - is ruled by a fascist dictator you should rejoice when he is overthrown. I don't care who overthrows dictators - Americans, Europeans, Chinese. Russians it doesn't matter to me. I don't really care if their motives are really about greed and oil. If the effect of overthrowing a dictator leads to the creation of a democratic government I say more please.
Iraq has been example to the rest of the Middle East as we can see today as Arab people are inspired to overthrow more dictators and tyrants.

Desmond Tutu calls for war crimes charges for Blair, Bush

Comments