Community | December 16, 2009 | 32 comments

Tony Blair may be prosecuted for War Crimes

Image
asherp
Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

The former British prime minister, who backed the US-led invasion in 2003, told the BBC he would "still have thought it right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because of the threat he posed to the region.

Lawyers representing the deposed Iraqi leadership said they would seek to prosecute Blair following his remarks, while one newspaper commentator said it was a "game-changing admission" for the ongoing official inquiry into the war.

Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up."

Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry into the war, led by former civil servant John Chilcot, early next year, and the commentator in the Sunday Telegraph said the investigation's focus must now change.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Current Democrats,   Human Rights,   6 more
  2. tags:
    UK War Crime Iraq 6 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // Tony Blair may be prosecuted for War Crimes

  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • WHY...
      Because the left hand won't cut off the right ?

      OR
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3xxwQvVnE

      anyway...

      Here in Great Moral America we only hold accountable celebrities and politicians for their sexual indiscretions. Tiger Woods is paying a bigger price for his girlfriends than Bush or Cheney will ever pay for the deaths and ruined lives of millions of people. - Paul Craig Roberts

    • 2 years ago
  • ryan8566
    • 0
      ryan8566  
    • the hearings being conducted in the u.k. are on c-span, and the testimony being given by all of the british then-officials is amazing. blair is scheduled soon, altho the chair agreed not to call gordon brown until after the election. it is a civilized inquiry, but the questions are pointed, and the answers equally so. so far all the errors and lies go right to bush.
      for any one interested, watching would be well worth your time. it really begs the question of why obama and the congress let bush, cheney, et alia, just go home. i would hope the u.k. would embarass the u.s. into congressional hearings.

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image
    • War Crime Case Against Tony Blair Now Rock-solid
      A trial would be warmly welcomed by millions - so what happens next?

      Going to war to change another country's regime is prohibited by international law, while the Nuremburg judgment of 1946 laid down that "to initiate a war of aggression", as Blair and Bush clearly did against Iraq, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
      http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57361,news-comment,news-politics,war-crime-case-ag...

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • WhiteNoise
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • I guess I have to say this at the BEGINNING of my post, don't I? It's 4 a.m. and Current is MINE...hee hee, ha ha, ho ho...yeah, professional help may very well be in order now that you mention it...

    • 2 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  
    • Such a trial may well be justified, but these are pretty flimsy grounds. I gather he simply means that he felt there were a number of other, equally valid, reasons for the invasion. Before any of you jump me, I disagree (and believe I have posted several hundred -- Lord, I DO need to get out more, don't I? -- posts over the past year that would show that to be my position), but this admission proves nothing...

      P.S.: Insomnia apparently DOES have its high points, after all! I have been posting since 4 a.m. without a single challenge to my positions. Of course, when people start to rise from their beds at a DECENT hour, all of my dreams will be dashed. Again. But in the meantime...(wrings hands together with manic glee)...Current is MINE, hee, hee, hee...

    • 2 years ago
  • darinK
    • 0
      darinK  
    • The U.N. found saddam in contempt of the peace treaty signed in '90 17 times. If a country signs a peace treaty then doesn't follow through with its requirements it's back to war. People forget the u.s. has been in Iraq since 1989. Saddam should have been taken out 18 years ago when he violated the cease-fire agreement. The only people attacking Blair are Saddam supporters. Thank God - no Thank Bush he's dead.

    • 2 years ago
  • afloyd60
  • WhiteNoise
  • WhiteNoise
    • 0
      WhiteNoise  
    • Image
    • "To initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -Nuremberg tribunal

      "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." - Noam Chomsky

      Reptilian talk & conspiracy galore as smoke screen is sooo passé...

      History & reality rules ;)

      WELCOME TO MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR HYPOCRISY INDEED
      http://www.mtwsfh.blogspot.com/

    • 2 years ago
  • WhiteNoise
  • unclepete813
    • 0
      unclepete813  
    • they need to hang that reptilian devil. along with alot more, like bush,rumsfield,chenny,and more. these elite devils are just plain evil, and all of them are part of the secret society. illuminati. they all worship satan. this stuff is real. yall better wake up.

    • 2 years ago
  • StaciMagnolia
  • wtthfkovr
  • bushama
  • calm_incense
  • bailey78
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • bailey78:

      Sadly he is specifically protected by American law. Presidents get an "everything I did as president is automatically Ok" exemption. It doesn't dome up that much because no administration has had to hide behind it as much that one has. I do not know whether that exemption covers them under international law or not.

      If it doesn't, to get Bush or Cheney the Hague would have to decide that they are worth getting, then they would have to do something stupid like leave the country without diplomatic passports. It is possible that presidents get lifetime diplomatic passports though. Again I just don't know.

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
  • deathmetalbrian
  • afloyd60
  • CarolineS
  • calm_incense
    • 0
      calm_incense  
    • CarolineS:

      That would only make ironic rhetorical sense if he had supported the institution of Sharia law...

      By the way, LOL at the notion of Iraq having Sharia law. You realize Saddam Hussein was a secularist, right?

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • CarolineS:

      I suspect if that was done he might get off free. Sharia law is more concerned with small time behavioral and property crime like wearing the right hat and talking only to the right people than war crimes.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarolineS
    • 0
      CarolineS  
    • CarolineS:

      "By the way, LOL at the notion of Iraq having Sharia law. You realize Saddam Hussein was a secularist, right?"
      nope I didnt know that actually.
      So what's the sharia law regarding murder? because i'm sure thats a tough law, wouldnt stoning be the punishment?
      i think that would be a fitting punishment for blair!

    • 2 years ago
  • nursediesel
  • bombastinator
  • blkblk13
    • 0
      blkblk13  
    • bombastinator:

      So Blair the elected leader of a sovereign nation, with its own government intelligence agencies, was simply dupped by Bush? He knew exactly what he was getting into. He's not the victim here.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • theghostofjohnlennon
  • jeffissleeping
more from Community:

top videos