Thursday, January 28, 2010

Arrest Tony Blair for crimes against peace!


The intention is to encourage repeated attempts to arrest the former prime minister. We have four purposes:
- To remind people that justice has not yet been done.
- To show Mr Blair that, despite his requests for people to “move on” from Iraq, the mass murder he committed will not be forgotten.
- To put pressure on the authorities of the United Kingdom and the countries he travels through to prosecute him for a crime against peace, or to deliver him for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.
- To discourage other people from repeating his crime.

We have no interest in people’s motivation, as long as they follow the rules laid down by this site. If they try to arrest Mr Blair because they care about the people he has killed, so much the better. But if they do it only for the money, that is fine too, and we will have encouraged an attempt which would not otherwise have taken place.
The higher the bounty, the more people are likely to try to arrest Mr Blair.


More details of the bounty here. (It's almost up to £10,000).
And bravo to George Monbiot for launching this initiative.

P.S.
If you're still unconvinced of the criminality of Tony Bliar, then please read this, this and this.

3 comments:

Gregor said...

I really don’t know about this.

Tony Blair really is like a parody of a right-wing politician. Yet, I also think there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Brit media about him. Britain didn’t rush to the Iraq war in a panic over being destroyed by Mesopotamian WMDs. The commentariat put forward utilitarian reasons why we should not respect national sovereignty.

And you could argue that they had a compelling case. Saddam killed and tortured vast numbers of people. Surely a short bombing campaign would kill less people than leaving Saddam in charge?

It seems to me that there are two answers to this: Firstly, if nations could remove any leader they wanted there would be chaos so national sovereignty is a principle well worth defending, utilitarian positives or no utilitarian positives. Secondly, could a short bombing campaign be guaranteed to bring peace? Does America really care about limiting civilian casualties? Or is their very media full of people who gloat over carnage abroad? And even if it wasn't, would they use 'shock therapy' knowing that this causes countries to melt-down?

It seems to me that there is little effort to put these arguments forward in the media: only the paleo-cons and the ‘far left’ as I suppose people who have any leftist ideas are called. But the neo-liberal centre of the media has not changed at all.

The idiotic reaction of the MSM to tie-chewing loon Saakashvilli’s bombing campaign against his ethnic minorities shows that open-mouthed Anglo-American sabre-rattling is far from dead.

Incidentally, the same hackneyed historical comparisons were also trotted out: Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill, appeasement. I find these analogies dull rather than illuminate the discussion.

There is, of course, a compelling case for arresting Blair for the ‘dodgy dossier’. But I think this is an entirely separate issue from the Iraq war itself.

Arresting Blair because the utilitarian argument for war has been so drastically discredited, I think would actually close the door on the debate rather than open it.

Neil Clark said...

Hi Gregor,
many thanks for your comment.
I couldn't agree more when you say

if nations could remove any leader they wanted there would be chaos so national sovereignty is a principle well worth defending,

To launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state is the supreme international crime.
And that's why it's important that Blair is arrested. Let's not forget he did it in 1999 too.

Gregor said...

@Neil

'To launch a war of aggression against a sovereign state is the supreme international crime.
And that's why it's important that Blair is arrested. Let's not forget he did it in 1999 too.'

But my point is that the bombing of Serbia and complicity with Wahibbi drugdealers has been declared a ‘good war’ by our political complex: that is, the media isn’t to interested in the Christians who are being ethnically cleansed from the region and they haven’t expressed too much interest in researching the accuracy of New Labour’s statements on the number of casualties inflicted by the Serbs, far less the depleted uranium etc that was dropped on Serbia. Indeed, Clair Short is one of Blair’s top critics.

However, I feel with Iraq the mainstream argument is that a lot of people were killed, there is a lot of reporting on the civilian casualties, and so it is a ‘bad war’, without a deeper reflection by our media establishment on whether we should be isolationist. Even the Lib Dems who sensibly avoided the Iraq war believe in ‘humanitarian intervention’ (as highlighted in one of Nick Clegg’s speeches).

By 2008 it was obvious that the Iraq war had failed in any goals: Saddam had no WMDs, Al Quada had moved into Iraq, Fallujah and Abu Ghraib were common knowledge. But what happened that year? When Putin intervened to help the Ossetians, the media parroted exactly the same clich├ęs about Hitler/Stalin and appeasement that they’d used to justify war in Iraq. (incidentally, for all the ‘Sudetenland’ metaphors at the time, where was Medvedev’s Ossetian Abu Ghraib? and what Georgian city did he bombard with white phosphorus?)

I just think arresting Blair would be like a scapegoat ritual in a primitive community. Our media establishment and ‘opposition’ (hohoho) politicians weren’t imploring Blair to see sense about Iraq in 2003: they were egging him on and accusing his critics of being ‘appeasers’. When Saddam’s regime quickly collapsed, things were all very cosy in parliament with the ludicrous IDS dribbling over Tony.

That isn't to say I oppose arresting Bliar for lying to the country. But personally, I feel happier at news of the British print media’s meltdown than at any thought of Blair facing trial. Electoral reform would do more to stop neo-liberal intervention than arresting Blair.