Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Possible Prosecution Of Tony Blair watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Tony Blair be prosecuted for invading Iraq?
    Yes
    20
    33.33%
    No
    40
    66.67%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz)
    tony? is that you?
    Yes it is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If I believed in CP Blair would hang.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    He's too slippery and charming.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    please read the article than comment

    also

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...hilcot-inquiry

    I'm fully aware of the article. Particularly, the section you quoted does not in itself state the war was illegal, nor make it so. Again, that article above does make the war an illegal one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    I'm fully aware of the article. Particularly, the section you quoted does not in itself state the war was illegal, nor make it so. Again, that article above does make the war an illegal one.
    what?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to see him and Bush prosecuted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    WTF.

    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Which part of the article you have quoted states unequivocally that the war was 'illegal'? Do you know the reasons for its supposed illegality?
    It doesn't anywhere other than in the 'opinion' of someone. The poster's a buffoon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    He did and yes I did

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...aq-inquiry-law

    The evidence of Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst, combined with the documents, tells a shocking story. In 2002, the Foreign Office and the attorney general saw little chance of establishing a legal case without one of three things: a second UN resolution (which Britain sought but did not get); an urgent need for self-defence (which – despite the WMD dossiers – did not exist); or a humanitarian crisis (which did not exist either).


    please explain how he didn't break international law?



    It is opinion not evidence. Here's a different opinion.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/no...that-followed/

    Furthermore it was approved 412 to 149 by Parliament in a free vote. Are they all 'war criminals'?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    he shouldn't be prosecuted, grow up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    It is opinion not evidence. Here's a different opinion.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/no...that-followed/

    Furthermore it was approved 412 to 149 by Parliament in a free vote. Are they all 'war criminals'?
    "Let me make it plain that I had no doubts that the war was legal because I have little time for international so-called law"

    article fails

    most lawyers agree war was illegal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theQClawyer)
    but would that be just?
    Would that be just...what?

    If you're going to talk about this stuff at least learn to write English properly, mate.

    :facepalm:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NoneGuy)
    Would that be just...what?

    If you're going to talk about this stuff at least learn to write English properly, mate.

    :facepalm:
    hahaha before you criticize his English read the post again

    Spoiler:
    Show
    "would that be just?"

    –adjective
    1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
    2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
    3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
    4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
    5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
    6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
    7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
    8. actual, real, or genuine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.