What war crime has Tony Blair committed?

Original post by SignFromDog

I see lots of uneducated, shouty people going on about Tony Blair being a war criminal. Can they please explain what war crime Tony Blair has committed?

Although some People argue that Iraq was illegal, there was no war crime committed. (It's a bit like shouting down somebody you don't agree with being homophobic/racists/sexist/fascist etc)

Some of those who disagreed with Iraq will just say it's illegal because it's easier for them to say that than argue the moral reasons why they didn't agree with it.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 44

Original post by MatureStudent36

Although some People argue that Iraq was illegal, there was no war crime committed. (It's a bit like shouting down somebody you don't agree with being homophobic/racists/sexist/fascist etc)

Some of those who disagreed with Iraq will just say it's illegal because it's easier for them to say that than argue the moral reasons why they didn't agree with it.

The only possible crime that Blair could have committed is a crime against peace. Whether crimes against peace stand aside from or are one category of war crime is definitional. Jackson J said at Nuremberg;-

To initiate a war of aggression (the archetypical crime against peace), therefore, 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.

so he regarded a crime against peace as a war crime.

Blair would have committed a crime against peace if he knew or believed the casus belli to be untrue.

Reply 45

JD1lla

3

Has blair personally benefited from his actions in any way?

Reply 46

Original post by nulli tertius

The only possible crime that Blair could have committed is a crime against peace. Whether crimes against peace stand aside from or are one category of war crime is definitional. Jackson J said at Nuremberg;-

so he regarded a crime against peace as a war crime.

Blair would have committed a crime against peace if he knew or believed the casus belli to be untrue.

Blair only gets called a war criminal if he is found guilty in a international court of law.

12 years after the event Blair et al haven't be indicted.

Reply 47

Original post by MatureStudent36

Blair only gets called a war criminal if he is found guilty in a international court of law.

12 years after the event Blair et al haven't be indicted.

I didn't use the expression "war criminal". I said "would have committed a crime against peace"

Fred West, undoubtedly committed murder. Was he, a man who was not tried or convicted by any court, a murderer?

Moreover, once you start down the route of saying that conviction is necessary to describing someone as a war criminal, you are going have to deal with the men with moustaches.

Reply 48

Original post by nulli tertius

I didn't use the expression "war criminal". I said "would have committed a crime against peace"

Fred West, undoubtedly committed murder. Was he, a man who was not tried or convicted by any court, a murderer?

Moreover, once you start down the route of saying that conviction is necessary to describing someone as a war criminal, you are going have to deal with the men with moustaches.

Fred west was found guilty in a court of law.

No country has ever tried to indicte Blair et al.

I remember going into Basra as a younger lad. I was welcomed as a liberator by the population.

Reply 49

Original post by MatureStudent36

Fred west was found guilty in a court of law.

No he wasn't

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

No country has ever tried to indicte Blair et al.

I remember going into Basra as a younger lad. I was welcomed as a liberator by the population.

Without being disrespectful you were welcomed by the people Saddam oppressed. His allies and supporters would have made themselves scarce. We however did not go to war because Saddam was being nasty to the people of Basra.

Blair is very vulnerable to changes in political fortune. There is no guarantee that Cameron would protect Blair from The Hague if Chilcot revealed a smoking gun and Corbyn would hardly mount a protest.

Reply 50

Original post by nulli tertius

No he wasn't

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

Without being disrespectful you were welcomed by the people Saddam oppressed. His allies and supporters would have made themselves scarce. We however did not go to war because Saddam was being nasty to the people of Basra.

Blair is very vulnerable to changes in political fortune. There is no guarantee that Cameron would protect Blair from The Hague if Chilcot revealed a smoking gun and Corbyn would hardly mount a protest.

There was a hell of. Lot of people throughout all of irAq who were glad he was gone.

He did after all invade three neighbouring countries.

Fire missiles at a third.

Used chemical weapons against civilians.

Break his nuclear non proliferation treaty obligations.

I'll loose no sleep he's gone. We won the war and f****d up the end game.

I tend to find the only peole who call Blair a war criminal are those on the extreme left of the politely spectrum who are more upset that Blair destroyed old labour and use this war cry as a means of tracking the man whilst ignoring the fact that old labour is dead.

12 years have gone by. Nothing new is going to come out of Chilcot.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 51

Original post by MatureStudent36

I tend to find the only peole who call Blair a war criminal are those on the extreme left of the politely spectrum who are more upset that Blair destroyed old labour and use this war cry as a means of tracking the man whilst ignoring the fact that old labour is dead.

I think you are mistaken as to the unpopularity of Blair on the political right.

In a sense that is irrelevant to the politico-legal questions.

Could a "crimes against peace" prosecution be sustained against Blair to which the answer is we do not know. We don't yet know what the contemporary record shows of what Blair knew and believed at the time.

Would the present or any conceivable future British government protect him if an attempt to prosecute was made? That is seriously doubtful.

I don't think you are right about Chilcot. That is why the can is being continually kicked down the road and why the Maxwellisation process is proving so difficult.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 52

Observatory

20

Original post by nulli tertius

I think you are mistaken as to the unpopularity of Blair on the political right.

The Iraq conflict was authorised by a HoC vote to which most of the Conservative Party assented, so how safe are they? If you want to argue that the HoC, though in practice having the ability to veto the whole thing, did not have direct executive responsibility for the conflict, could not Blair argue that it should be HM the Queen standing in the dock instead of him?

Reply 53

Original post by Observatory

The Iraq conflict was authorised by a HoC vote to which most of the Conservative Party assented, so how safe are they? If you want to argue that the HoC, though in practice having the ability to veto the whole thing, did not have direct executive responsibility for the conflict, could not Blair argue that it should be HM the Queen standing in the dock instead of him?

No, because as I said earlier, he would have committed a crime against peace if he, personally, knew or believed the casus belli to be untrue. I don't think it is arguable that the House of Commons collectively believed it to be untrue.

That means that either he did not believe Goldsmith's advice that the existing UN resolutions authorised military action (and in addition an international court finds that they didn't-this is necessary because a belief that something is unlawful can't make it unlawful if in fact it was lawful) or he knew or believed that Saddam was in substantial compliance with the UN resolutions about WMD.

The fact that the war may have been lawful in domestic law does not necessarily make it lawful in international law.

However it would be questionable weather in these circumstances it would be lawful in domestic law. However, the UK has a very poorly worked out domestic law of public misconduct by minsters. There is statutory provision for misconduct by colonial governors but nothing relating to ministers. Therefore the charge would have to be misfeasance in public office which is an indictable offence. The other theoretical possibility, impeachment for a high crime or misdemeanour is, I think, inconceivable. The difficulty with a trial, other than an impeachment, is Article 9 of the Bill of Rights; the questioning of Parliamentary proceedings out of Parliament.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 54

Observatory

20

Original post by nulli tertius

No, because as I said earlier, he would have committed a crime against peace if he, personally, knew or believed the casus belli to be untrue. I don't think it is arguable that the House of Commons collectively believed it to be untrue.

If for Blair, why can it not be for individual MPs?

Reply 55

YellowWallpaper

10

Sending this country into a war using a dodgy, sexed up dossier. So, basically sending us to war on false premises. And yes, just because he's prime minister doesn't mean that he can do whatever the **** he likes. People need to grow up.

Reply 56