There's nothing fun about it, millions of people said at the time that it would lead to sectarian violence in the area, even intelligence documents released as part of the Chilcot report, the claim that ISIS was largely born in Syria is a lie. If we are to believe the security services we are the primary target, apparently the security services prevented 7 attacks in 2015 alone. Better or worse doesn't make something justified though, we declared war on a sovereign nation intent on changing the regime, something we arguably had not legal right to do and lead rise to the war in Syria along with a holly war against the west.
Exactly. It's often forgotten that in 1999, Russia vetoed UN authorization of military action to force the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, leaving NATO to intervene to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s repression of the province’s ethnic Albanians (over the Kremlin’s vehement objections). Therefore, the Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia was, according to the UN, 'illegal'. Opinions are various regarding the intervention, but what is true is that NATO's intervention did halt Milosevic.
As long as USA Supports the UK and the other way around what is the UN going to do. UN interferes in things it thinks it will win support on. Its ignored russia 3 times, It ignored the first Iraq war and the 1991 war in somalia. Dude comited genoside, UN lets try some peaceful negotiations whilst the country gets slaughted. It sent 50 whole people to watch the food supply. It took 2 years before they agreed to millitary force by which time 500k people were dead, 1.5million were misplaced.
I'm not saying the UN is an effective organisation or anything but ultimately their not the ones who make judgments on what's legal or illegal when it comes to international crimes.
The ICC is the only ones that could hold the trial, they have never been to interested in interfering in American policies or the uks. It will take more than 1 report to get a trial to be held. A lot more evidence than what has been posted. It's all too circumstantial. It's all based on pre war findings that to this day are still heavily classified. Remember if Blair is guilty so is Bush. Can you imagine America ever handing over a former president to be trailed for war crimes. Or handing the ICC the Intel it would need to hold a valid trial. If there's one piece of paper that confirms the presence of 1 wmd then they would both walk. UN and NATO are both effectively puppets of America will.
They're not the only ones, there's also the possibility that he could be prosecuted abroad for crimes of aggression the way Denmark and Germany did to punish crimes against humanity in Bosnia, and Belgium and Canada did over Rwandan, although politically that's a hot potato. Then you have misconduct in public office, the most likely to succeed but it would need the CPS to decide if it was in the public interest, if found guilty it could carry a sentence of life imprisonment. There's also the possibility of bringing a civil claim that's the equivalent of misconduct in public office, monetary punishment. And lastly impeachment, although that ones highly unlikely to happen.
Good luck with those, Only Bush and Blair together can be found guilty. Can't find one guilty but not the other.
If one is guilty of war crimes they are both guilty of war crimes. Can not have it both ways, went to war together. They made the calls together, USA has lost alot since the war ended. Most of the bodies who could prosecute for war crimes are international organisations. A guilty verdict in England would likely result in a guilty verdict in the hauge which lets be honest would be the death penalty for Tony Blair. They may not administer the punishment but life in prison in that place would be the same thing. If the British courts decide to press ahead, ICC can do the same thing after. There punishments over rule ours. Are really gonna condem the ex pm to a life in the hauge? Never gonna happen. This will be made to quietly disappear, I'll be shocked if he's charged with anything.
Blair is the master of spin. Even now he is cherry picking his words to side step amd blaim everything and anything he can. Blair would never have invaded if Saddam actually had WMD. He would never risk the back lash of an invasion going south if Iraq has any potential to fight back with said weapons. Im surprised Dr David Kelly hasn't been mentioned in all this.
Likely to succeed is irelivent, If he is found guilty of War Crimes by any court the ICC is mandated to investigate. Misconduct in public office is a slap on the wrist basically. Its not a slap on the wrist the people are looking for they are after him been found guilty of war crimes.
@rollo, The only court that can try someone for was crimes is the ICC (afaik) so I'm not sure where you got the idea of being found guilty by any court. Misconduct in public office is in no way a slap on the wrist, it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
ICC is too busy atm. https://theintercept.com/2016/07/08...uman-rights-abuses-by-british-forces-in-iraq/ Presented to the court by the British firm Public Interest Lawyers and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, the January communication was followed up by a second batch of cases in September 2015, submitted by Public Interest Lawyers. By November of last year, the ICC reported that it had received 1,268 allegations of ill treatment and unlawful killings committed by British forces. Of 259 alleged killings, 47 were said to have occurred when Iraqis were in U.K. custody. According to a December Freedom of Information release, the government has already settled 323 cases, totaling some 19.6 million pounds. Citing confidentiality clauses, the British government did not in that response offer breakdowns by type of complaint — for instance, the number of settlements for deaths or serious injury. “The MOD [Ministry of Defense] doesn’t settle unless there’s good cause — that’s the fairest assumption,” said Andrew Williams, professor of law at the University of Warwick. “One would think that with almost 20 million pounds and 300 cases you are settling some significant allegations.” - Interesting side comparison... http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody Cliff notes: Total deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police, England & Wales 1990-date Type - Metropolitan Police - Other forces - Total Custody 259 767 1026 Would not have guessed those numbers? More like 50 to 80 over a 26 year period whilst in Custody.
John Prescott ( dep prime minster during the event) is all over the press saying it was An illegal war, he dislikes the fact he (Blair) said I'm with you whatever prior to the war. You can't have disagreement about such a fundamental question like this between the acting and deputy. This does not bode well for Blair, he acted out of turn to say the least and the subject is of such importance he only needs to be slightly in the wrong to be in huge trouble, and he is way more than a little wrong in his actions here designing and backing up war invasion several years before. He is defiantly in hot water.
If nothing else comes of this report, can we at least never ever vote for a showman again? He won over the population with charm and smarm. Big smiles and very heavily orchestrated talks with his famous hand expressions. A showman that created a show. He certainly did that with Bush. The biggest show on earth. The biggest show he could ever preside over. At the expense of over a hundred thousand lives and the cost of a countrys' security for the previous decade and the next decades. He is a circus ringmaster, not worthy of leading a country.
