Monday, December 14, 2009

War Crime case against Blair now rock solid

This article of mine appears in The First Post.

Neil Clark: A trial would be warmly welcomed by millions – so what happens next?

Tony Blair's extraordinary admission on Sunday to the BBC's Fern Britton - that he would have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein regardless of the issue of Iraq's alleged WMDs - is sure to give fresh impetus to moves to prosecute our former prime minister for war crimes.

The case against Blair, strong enough before this latest comment, now appears rock solid. 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".

Blair's admission, that Saddam would have been attacked anyway, is also an acknowledgement that he lied to the House of Commons on February 25, 2003, when he told MPs: "I detest his [Saddam's] regime. But even now he [Saddam] can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully. I do not want war... But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam's active co-operation."

The view that Blair is a war criminal is now mainstream: when comedian Sandi Toksvig, host of Radio Four's News Quiz, called him one on air, the BBC, according to the Mail on Sunday, did not receive a single complaint.

But while it is easy to label Blair a war criminal, what are the chances of him actually standing trial - and how could it be achieved?

You can read the rest of the article here.


Giovanni Di Stefano said...

see above action has been taken including an indictment BEST GDS

Anonymous said...

Neil, did you see how Kamm had a piece on his blog this morning about this article of yours, in which he casually implied that you are "a racist" like Nick Griffin?

I was very amused to see that within a couple of hours the piece had completely vanished from the Time's website!! I sure hope you made a note of it and got witnesses - if so you could give the nasty little asshole and his employers some real trouble over this, I think. :-D

David Lindsay said...

Blair can be called a war criminal on the radio station of politically the most aware section of society, and how many people complain? None. Not a single, solitary one.

Say what you like about Saddam Hussein, but he certainly didn't end up with absolutely no popular following whatever.

neil craig said...

While I think the case against Tzipi Livni for Gaza is nonsense for reasons we have thrashed out here before it does establish a precedent that any honest magistrate in Britain must immediately swear out warrants against those leaders (almost all of them) who have unquestionably engaged in real aggressive wars, genocide & indeed worse. Here's hoping there is one honest one.

Anonymous said...

the case against Blair may be rock solid, but hes no more likely to be sent to the Hague than the US or israeli govts


Anonymous said...

In these times there appears no chance of the worlds war criminals being brought to justice.

jack said...

@neil craig

I thought that was chutzpah as well to charge Israeli officials with war crimes when we ourselves have launched numerous wars of aggression especially in the Mid East with Iraq and sabre rattling with war against Iran and Russia.

jock mctrousers said...

So zippy Livni shouldn't be arrested? Nonsense. That's a big step in the right direction. Of course it throws up the question of why we're not arresting our own war criminals, but it helps establish the principle. Not just Blair, but ALL those who lied and propagandised for the destructions of Iraq and Serbia: most of the Labour and Tory parliamentarians; most of the mainstream tv, press and radio management and journalists; ALL the friends of Israel, the Board of Jewish Deputies etc; the Harry's Place lot; and Paul McCartney just for the hell of it. Treason is still a capital crime, and they're nearly all of them are guilty of THAT, as well as massive crimes against humanity. Let's hang them all - give us a reason to be cheerful.

Robin Carmody said...

Actually, treason hasn't been a capital crime since 1998.

Why do you cite Paul McCartney? Do you believe he has put forward *cultural* pro-American propaganda which tends to extend to politics? (and, specifically, are you thinking of his 2001 song "Freedom"?). I must admit I essentially agree that pop music and the society I want are essentially incompatible, horribly depressing though that thought is ...