Should Blair be prosecuted for lying to parliament and taking the UK into an illegal war?

Question

A majority of international lawyers, including several who advise the British government concluded that military action in Iraq without proper UN security council authorisation was illegal under international law.

You are blowing smoke Speaeasy: UN authority was deliberately undermined by the USA and UK - Them Arguing that they had a right to enforce a mandate is wrong under two counts 1/ Saddam had complied - both Hans Blix and Scott Ridder concur and they were on site 2/ Israel is in breach of more UN resolutions than Saddam ever was, is in breach of human rights conventions and is illegally occupying Palestine - Israel is funded and supported by the US so the hypocrisy of the Us arguing that they needed to uphold the law is outrageous.

Miner S - No one is slapping you in the face but is sounds like you need it.

choyryu - I believe Blair should be prosecuted whether he is in or out of office. Democracy needs to send a clear message to all would be totalitarian dictators that they are representatives of the people and accountable to them.

De Expert - You must be one of the 45% of US citizens who is semi-literate.

whiteboyasiangirl - you are the one sounding 'leftist' . Also, you fail to account for Blair remaining in power on a minority vote - and going to war against the will of the people, the advice of his attorney General and the resignation of his Foreign Minister.

Answer 1

Until this country (its citizens) finally get together to have a convention for the drafting of a written constitution for the United Kingdom we will always have an absurd 'democracy' here.

The simple facts are these. For centuries unelected elites ruled this country, claiming they did so by 'divine right'. By the late 18th century it was not uncommon for 30 men (all of them employees of lords etc) voted for entire constituencies. And it was only a few years ago that the unelected House of Lords was abolished. The people (NOT governments) made a written constitution. It is WE who tell our politicians what they can and cannot do. OR IT SHOULD BE. Blair refuses to listen to the electorate because he is a politician, a product of a society that votes time after time for useless and unaccountable elites. Political parties have no legitimacy until they, like other nations, have a written constitution. Then, and only then, can government be by the people and FOR the people. Till then it is a sham - protecting only vested interests such as royalty and other parasites and putting business interests ahead of the best interests of society as a whole.

It is not merely Blair. It is the whole sick political system. The UK should get real - it should learn from France and the USA - it can and should demand and create a constitution from the PEOPLE and should insist that it, the constitution, is the only basis on which governments have legality and legitimacy.

We have a government within a government. That is the product of our own laziness here in the UK. Pull the plug on these evil men. GET A WRITTEN CONSTITION FOR THE UK AND THE END OF ROYALTY, ELITISM, AND A TRUE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRAY WHICH RULES ACCORDING TO THE RULES THAT WE, THE ELECTORATE TELL THE POLITICIANS, NOT VICE-VERSA.

That is our right. Thomas Paine was correct. Any government who rules without a written constitution is wicked, corrupt and not representative of a democatic society. The evils of Iraq, 7/7, etc etc are all due to the unaccountable nature of the political elites who really rule the UK.

Answer 2

Lets be realistic. The victorious and the mighty write history and are a law unto themselves. Every war and conflict ever fought has illustrated this point. Do you think Hitler or any of the Nazi party would have been tried if they had been victorious? During WW2 when were at war with Japan how Japanese were rounded up and put in Concentration camps by allied nations, there land taken away never to be given back. Do we hear of this. Of course not, because we won. We toppled a heinous dictator, the point is moot because it will never happen. Should he? Maybe. Will he? NO. What are the UN going to do, kick out the two most powerful nations. Hmmmmm. NO. They're going to let it slide.
And the Yanks, are more interested in impeaching a good president for getting a BJ and trying to hide it from his wife, than impeaching a bad one who is God fearing and getting revenge for 9/11.

Answer 3

Do you think he purposely lied if in fact he lied at all? Do you not think his intentions were well directed and virtuous? Obviously not if you could give a dangerous, corrupt, weak body like the UN which only tries to tie the hands of the lawful and civil while having no power vs. the lawless, corrupt and brutal such high respect and deference. As for the illegal war allegation, how can an early intervention into what should be seen by any decent person possessing sense and freedom of thought as the most destructive, evil driven, barbaric movement in human history. If allowed to spread and fester it probably would be looked back at in that way assuming there was anyone left to look back on history when these organised criminals were done. But you go ahead and prosecute Tony Blair and his ilk and don't forget to add all the poor people murdered on the trains to his littany of crimes. Better still why not wait for all the masses of future dead bodies whose blood will be on his hands and you'll really have a case.

Answer 4

I'll answer your question with a question, if Blair should be prosecuted why not our own liar? Is he above the law? he told through his people and directly out of his own mouth so many outright lies regarding not only the war in Iraq but also about the patriot act, and 9/11. He desperately tried to intervene against the 9/11 commission report. You should read it. The scenario you describe in your question is the exact same scenario we were forced to accept here is one and the same. Hans Glick sat compassively while Colin Powell held up some doctored photos of missle launchers in Iraq and others like Mr Glick simply did not believe him. They voted against the US going to war against the Iraqis but we did anyway. Littlebush and cheneydick should be brought up formally on charges and prosecuted just like anyone else. But that will never happen because too many people in this damn country believe in the power of hate, prejudice and anger so they will back littlebush for going to war no matter who its against.

Answer 5

When the UN cannot uphold its own mandates, it is no longer the legal authority.

The temporary cease-fire was called off in accordance with UN Resolution 688. It took a coalition of over 60 nations actually willing to ENFORCE international law to get the job done.

As in the UN, not all supporting nations in the coalition actually do the fighting.

Answer 6

Blair should be brought to account for every British serviceman who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war we have no legal or moral reason to be involved in.
How he can sleep at night or look in a mirror when he shaves in the morning I do not know,the man has no shame. The British Armed Forces responsibility is the defence of our country.It has been proved that we were under no threat,except the one he fabricated.It is the same old story........Oil.

Hang the deceiving bastard.

Answer 7

Of course he should.
He has done something illegal, and like everyone else. should be punished for it.
But surely, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Like his bed-brother Bush, he has lied about so many things.
He has hidden the truth about the 7/7 underground bombings like Bush has hidden the truth of 9/11.
He is obviously a part of a private agenda which is hell bent t on removing the freedom of British citizens. Hopefully we can get rid of him, and his ID card ides, get a sensible party of honest people together to run the government, and get on with a peaceful life without all of these unfounded wars and private agendas.

Answer 8

War Crimes Tribunal.

First of all he should be impeached by the British people. Otherwise, the United Nations might pass a motion to remove an illegal dictator by force, e.g bomb and invade Britain. Veto doesn't count with war criminals.

Answer 9

No.

You can't apply that kind of punishment to a person sincerely trying to defend his nation from attacks by a clear and present danger.

Do you really think he's on the same level of guilt as Pinochet, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot or Hitler? Not even close.

History is full of leaders who made decisions and later found them to be wrong. That doesn't mean you accuse them of War Crimes; war crimes aren't something you throw around at people you don't like, they are like the Anti-Nobel Prize for unimaginable cruelty and evil. Blair and Bush just don't rate on the scale of diabolical evil leaders in world history.

As for your lawyers point, there are hundreds of lawyers on both sides; how can you summarily state that one side is correct? They're lawyers for crying out loud, all they do is argue subtle points ad naseam and they're just getting warmed up! Not the time for legal conclusions.

Next the UN: a toothless tiger of political hacks, all of them are appointed by their governments, none are elected. They issue paper and have no one to enforce their orders. They recently agreed to put French troops into Palestine but what happened? France didn't want to actually send any troops when it came time to act. Negotiations continue. We won't even get into the Oil for Food program or the slaughters in Congo & Hutus.
How do you feel about Nasrallah (leader of Hezbollah) ordering the killing of eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two? Is that a war crime? Nasrallah has stated that he would not do it again knowing how Israel would respond. But I have not heard a single accusation of a war crime even though he defied every intention of the UN.
How do you feel about accusing Saddam of a war crime? He slaughtered Kurds, gassed Iranians and killed Kuwaitis for oil. His Republican Guard pillaged Kuwait, yet no accusation of war crimes.
How do you feel about Iran's and Syria's direct support of Hezbollah? Any war crime activity here? What about
Abaminejad's statement that Israel should be wiped off the map (pushed into the sea)? Any red flags, anything disturbing? Think he should have nukes?

Your problem is that you accuse the UK & US of historically minor violations while ignoring the horrible crimes by others. You can't defend your nation from Islamofascists by convening a congressional (or parliamentary) investigation of every day-to-day decision that occurs; world leaders take risks and sometimes they don't work out. Welcome to life on earth.
This is not a risk free world. I applaud the people who take up arms against a sea of troubles to oppose and end them. My hope is that certain factions in the world understand that attacking the US & UK is a stupendously bad idea.

It's a good thing Churchill didn't have to face this war crimes crap when he ordered the destruction of the French fleet in port after the Nazis took over. Look at history; we're pansies today compared to the old timers!

Answer 10

As I am a king of spritual tantra and divine and also master in the fortune teller so in my view If a good lawyer is arrange for blair or if i have a meeting of blair layer and his secretary / adviser blair is absolutely save its clear otherwise unsafe coz he is unknown to every thing its i know and confirm