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

sxt · 16-05-2015 10:34PM #1

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 · 16-05-2015 10:35PM

Yeah, good luck with that.

Iwasfrozen · 16-05-2015 10:43PM

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 · 16-05-2015 10:44PM

You asked and answered your own question?

Well alrighty then.

JRant · 16-05-2015 10:48PM

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

sxt · 16-05-2015 10:58PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:12PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:14PM

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

KingBrian2 · 16-05-2015 11:21PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:25PM

Bout 2003.

BoJack Horseman · 16-05-2015 11:27PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

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

Just like how district courts prevent burglaries before they happen.

Zebra3 · 16-05-2015 11:27PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:30PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:33PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:37PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:45PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:50PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:51PM

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 · 16-05-2015 11:56PM

Team America World Police

Matt Damon says Matt Damon.

Hans Bricks · 17-05-2015 12:02AM

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 · 17-05-2015 12:03AM

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 · 17-05-2015 12:33AM

sxt wrote: »

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

1,500,000+ and counting

KomradeBishop · 17-05-2015 12:34AM

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 · 17-05-2015 12:55AM

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 · 17-05-2015 12:59AM

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 · 17-05-2015 01:01AM

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 · 17-05-2015 01:06AM

Begging the question :rolleyes:

Princess Laika · 17-05-2015 01:11AM

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

Alexis Sanchez · 17-05-2015 11:13AM

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 · 17-05-2015 12:13PM

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 · 17-05-2015 12:18PM

I dunno,Tuesday?

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

Comments