Should Tony Blair face charges for Treason ???

Question

If I had made statements that I knew to be false or untrue that then led to Britain declaring war, and cost the lives of our Soldiers, that would probably count as an act of treason. How come politicians choose to hide behind their power and position. definition of treason @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Answer 1

Without a doubt! He should also face charges of deceit, terrorism & murder. The same goes for bush. If they didn't have an entire army and police force protecting them and intimidating us, I would personally have made a citizens arrest on blair already. I think we should still do it en masse anyway. If only the rest of this great nations people would take their heads out of their ignorant arses and see what he has actually done to us & the rest of the world, then a revolution would surely follow.

Answer 2

In the United Kingdom, which does not have a constitution, treason consists of disloyalty to the Sovereign. We are told that Blair meets the Queen regularly in private, so who is to say Blair misled the Queen?

If Blair's actions are contrary to international law, as many have argued, he could in theory be sent for trial in an international court, like Serbian war leaders. That is a different matter.

There are also issues as to whether Britain's governance concerning its armed interventions overseas meets commitments to democracy that we have made in international agreements.

An important point of detail. So far as I know, Britain has not declared war in accepted international form since the Second World War. In some instances the United Kingdom has deployed troops in accordance with United Nations peacekeeping arrangements.

Answer 3

I think it would be hard to prove treason. I felt that war was unjust for too many reasons to cite now, and it's my personal view that the government should fall for involving the country in it. To prove treason though, you'd have to prove that Blair lied to take us into war... maybe he did, I wouldn't put it past him... but I think he's got his tracks pretty well covered too. What you'd need would be for someone to leak a document which clearly says something he's taking the country to war to benefit the Exxon corporation, don't worry, the oil's good as ours, and that would need to have his signature on it- in other words, incontraversible proof. Even then, you'd have trouble making it amount to treason because British troops have died. Perhaps you could make him and other key Labour party members stand trial for invading another sovereign state for no good reason? That'd take international justice though, and the only real 'enforcers' of that are the Americans. In other words, selective justice is no justice.

The people had a chance to kick him out of office at the last general election, but they still picked him. 'Best of a bad bunch' mentality perhaps? Or was it a non-representative vote? Possibly the latter.

As for why politicians hide behind their power and position- that's the world... it takes a brave person to admit to mistakes if they have any amount of cover to get behind. Time and time again you see it happen... of course, it just makes it worse when the truth finally comes out. Still, I doubt that Tony's signed letter to Enron is going to appear in the public eye anytime soon...

Is the point just kicking him out though? I wonder if it would make much difference in the long run, he's just one man...trying him for treason- which, don't forget, still carries the death penalty in the UK- seems a very old fashioned solution. Is it something more like instituional reform we need to be asking for? Mind you, trying Tony could be a good start to building a more utopian state ;)

Answer 4

Of course not. Everyone knows it's all Bush's fault. The war in Iraq, gas prices, global warming, the sinking of the Titanic, the fall of the Roman Empire. Hurricane Katrina, the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the space shuttle Challenger exploding, halitosis, the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, the Hindenburg disaster, the Great Depression, the Jonestown massacre, the Waco/David Koresh tragedy, the Chicago fire, the greenhouse effect, male pattern baldness, mad cow disease-

Don't blame Tony Blair.

It's all President Bush's fault. He doesn't care about any of us.

Answer 5

you're misinterpreting. Treason is acting/ plotting against the state. By going to war with another country you are not calculating against your own country or its heads. Basically, that is not, and would never be construed as treason. Theres no action against the pm's claims as far as i know. Even if there is its going to be difficult to prove that he knew them to be false. I dont believe he did to be honest. at the end of the day, given taht information, if iraq did have blah blah and they didnt do anything, like the police raid in forest gate, questions would be how could you let this happen. Its a no win situation

Answer 6

Treason by definition is the "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies"

Do you honestly believe he aided and abedded the emeny. If you do then yo believe his should be charged with Treason. However, I do not believe there is anyway any of his actions are even close to warranting the charge of treason. In fact I believe he is trying to prevent future attacks on your homeland and if you want to call that treason be my guest but people who know the meaning of the word will think you are unaware of the true meaning of treason.

Answer 7

specific he will ought to i'm not anti warfare even nonetheless i'm against the invasion of Iraq located on the Lies that Tony Blair &Co recommended. uk /united states of america allegedly have the friendly intelligence accumulating on earth MI5/MI6/CIA/SIS/FBI so if the Iraqi's had WMD why have been they now not in a position to pinpoint the places and direct those inspectors at once to them. might united states of america enable a russian delegation of inspectors into all their information superhighway web pages of WMD i doubt it. How might america and Britain have confidence if the troops of remote places govt pulled down the statues of their leaders. The BBC gave Tony's spin on Saddam's crack royal safeguard the place are they if the existed there ought to have been fairly some persons killed that the united kingdom united states of america have not admitted to killing became it actual to seek for out his sons execute them and parade their bodies might blair like this to happen to his kin he became merely as super a tyrant as Saddam in his very own ability

Answer 8

Bush knew as well!! He knew they were all lies!! And he lied as well, one after another!! I don't know what number reason we are in Iraq now for but the last word from Bush and Rice, it was to "give them a chance at democracy!!"

What the hell is that???

He will be charged with Crimes Against Humanity as soon as he leaves office!!

Answer 9

Yes he should. Maybe Bush did drag him in, but he needs to take responsibility for his own actions. 'Only following orders' didn't cut any ice in 1945 and it doesn't now, apart from the fact Bush has no right to order Blair to do anything.

Answer 10

That is impossible... but he should be removed from office. He got britain in a war that should not have been... at least not for those reasons. Politicians have been removed from office for less.. LOTS less. Just a name? John Profumo. Probably will never happen.