If I believed in CP Blair would hang.
He should be prosecuted in Baghdad, I'm sure he'd receive the same sentence they gave Saddam.
It's never going to happen though, but I seriously would **** a brick if it did.
He can't, as far as I am aware, be prosecuted for the invasion as there was a Parliamentary vote in favour of it. However, if he was found to have deliberately doctored information or to have made some sort of arrangement with Bush beforehand there might be a case but probably not in an international court of law. At the end of the day Blair was a cog in the process that led up to the war; Bush was evidently the main man but I'd like to see anyone try and prosecute him!
He's too slippery and charming.
Anyone who doesn't doubt the legal basis for the law should read "Lawless World" by Philippe Sanders QC, which explains Blair's legal justification for going to war, and how it didn't comply with international law. Like Blair's legal advisors, he believes a second UN resolution was needed to go to war. Lord Goldsmiths change of legal opinion in the days before the war is pretty damning in this light, I think it is clear that Blair knew the case for the war being legal was at least as strong as the case for the war being illegal, and on the strength of his conviction that the was was "the right thing to do" went ahead and did it anyway. Does that make Blair a war criminal? I suppose according the to the UN charter it does.
However, I have mixed feelings about him being brought before the Hague. On the one hand, the law (any law, international or domestic) should be applied equally to all. He may have had the approval of Parliament, but then many wars of aggression have had the approval of the respective domestic parliament. Perhaps his justification for the war will exonerate him. On the other, it doesn't seem right to be trying Blair alongside genuinely evil people like Slobodan Milosovic and Radovan Karadic. But then that places me alongside the Serbs who don't believe their leaders should be tried either.
Luckily, this is all hypothetical, because I think it's massively unlikely that things would get that far for Blair. This inquiry hasn't pushed hard enough in asking the difficult questions, and Blair acquitted himself very well on Friday. I'd be surprised if the eventual report is even close to critical of Blair, at least not without outlining those criticisms with some serious caveats.
I'd like to see him and Bush prosecuted.
Seriously, would people actually rather there was still a vicious evil dictator in control of a country that was growing more and more dangerous.
I personally don't want WWII again thankyou very much.
What would people rather happened? Please, intrigue me
he shouldn't be prosecuted, grow up
The only grounds he could be prosecuted for would be a war of aggression and the illegality of this is not conclusive in the ICC. Ultimately he's a war criminal but he's covered his back very well.