The Trial of Tony Blair?

Question

On Thursday evening, Channel 4 are screening a fictional account of the trial of Tony Blair for war crimes.

Given that he, along with George Bush, invaded Iraq without the support of the United Nations (thus making the invasion illegal) do you think that he should be tried for war crimes and if so do you think that it will actually ever happen?

Answer 1

only once he steps down

Answer 2

I thought this programme was on Monday night? No, he won't ever be put on trial neither will George Bush. I think I would like both of them to stand some sort of trial but wish there had been sufficient powers in place at the time to actually prevent them from going to war which, obviously, was the most important thing. I think there have been enough reports, investigations into the whole affair to prove beyond doubt both men lied, misled and covered up - this is what I'd like them to go on trial over. I would like TB to leave office in disgrace and not, at some point in the future, be made a Lord. None of this will ever happen though, because life just isn't fair!

Answer 3

Yes i think he should be trialed for war crimes, but unfortunately, i don't think it will ever happened unless there is a HUGE turn around in the way people think about themselves and learn to admit when they where wrong.
basically i think the problem is that voters don't like to admit they are wrong... that they voted the wrong person etc. therefore popular opinion will always be against a trial unless it is taken out of their hands and the victims (people of the middle east) have the world vote. this will probably never happen as they don't have the finances to actually win a war... only to create a stale mate and the 'west' own too many of the world's pockets for this situation to occur on a diplomatic level.
I think it is a sad situation of both the moral and spiritual ineptitude of the west... and perhaps, just maybe... it will be it's down fall anyway. but for now, i think people just want to sweep it under the carpet and pretent they aren't responsible.

i live in hope none the less.

Answer 4

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine they would cite political immunity from a trial for anything they did during their leadership (like Pinochet did). It's difficult as well to prove that TB and GB deliberately wanted innocent people to die in this. They can argue it was in their nations' best interests to go to war (and in my opinion with TB at least, he genuinely believed it was in the UK's best interests, WMD or not - and maybe i'm being naive - he thought Saddam was a threat). Ultimately i think it would be very difficult to prove. And other countries will not support TB and GB being put on trial because that would mean the theory of political immunity was shattered and the floodgates of prosecution would open upon their own prime ministers. I honestly don't know whether they should be put on trial, both in terms of whether they deserve to, and whether it will achieve anything.

Answer 5

Yes, I think both Blair and Bush should definitely be tried for war crimes, but unfortunately I don't think it will ever happen

Answer 6

Yes he should be tried, but no he won't be. I think it is a disgrace that the UK has such a discredited leader. I cannot think of one political leader in British history who has promised so much and yet on foreign affairs has failed so disasterously. The man has obviously no sense of personal responsibility otherwise he would resign a party leader and prime minister as a duty to 'new' Labour, and call a general election to let the country judge on the collective responsibility of his government.

Answer 7

Tony B-Liar and Bush should both be hung the same as Saddam Hussein was. They caused all this unpleasantness in the beginning.

Answer 8

England is a democracy, so if you believe that Blair should go on trial, why don't you get action and ask for it? Of course, if everybody think he should go on trial but do nothing, I don't think something will happen. Is it because of "le phlegme britannique"? (What French people call "British composure".

Answer 9

considering that 2003 apparently as your 2d responder has argued we've stumbled on 3 hundred WMDs.... hi I dont want to start this entire debate returned however the information become genuinely spin and on the time of invasion there become in basic terms hypothesis approximately Saddam ability which incorporates the reality that we already decreased his skill drastically after 1991.....with the aid of sanctions... we necessary the oil we are "paying for" any tract of land which will supply us gas and oil... this become in basic terms approximately oil... the version is that France and Russia already had contracts with Saddam for oil that's the explanation for their opposition and we and united statesa. did no longer via fact of sanctions and our help of Kuwait... and the Saudis via fact of this we went to conflict.. we destroyed a usa via fact we won't be able to do employer legitimately ...we are no longer from now on than the ants who feed off a broken spider... and then those human beings come right here and are so criticised for the reality they're refugees...even however as a consequence of this conflict they have grew to become up in India and neighbouring Pakistan in there hundreds of hundreds quite than tens hundreds.. I dont think of that Blair must be prosecuted via boost of radical Islam that's a difficulty and Afghanistan become permitting (so become Pakistan) yet Iraq become never approximately 9/11... for the U.S. ...Iraq could have been approximately U.S. for the 9/11/ bombers.. The wholesale argument become a conflict on terror..... and Iraq apparently portion of it..... The conflict on terror is justified yet IRaq become no longer...and now inspect it.... ARE YOU fowl POOP WHO needs OTHERS to respond to a question which you extremely want to take a seat on the FENCE FOR??? what's YOUR OPINION>>>

Answer 10

Oh, it definitely will! With Judge Saddam Hussain, presiding.

Answer 11

It will never happen the man could claim insanity.