Blair Impeachment

[ZAMB]

If there is anything that Tony Blair has repeatedly said it has to be his reasons for getting rid of Saddam Hussein. You probably don't agree with his reasons, but he can not be accused of not explaining himself.

The reasons we were given at the time were not truthful and have changed over time. And I can't think anyone really believes that we went to war to bring 'freedom and democracy' to Iraq.

 

[Azrael]

While fantasies of a duly-convicted prime minister's proper fate are a constant source of comfort, in reality I have to admit there's very little you could charge Blair with, unless you become as bad as him and impose ex post facto law.

Sending British troops into action is not a crime. Whatever UN regulations he's flouted, those things are not domestic crimes. There are only two charges that could hold any weight: lying to parliament, and high treason. Both seem virtually impossible to prove.

If the sources on Blair's state of mind are true, the lying charge would be impossible to substantiate, owing to the fact that Blair appears unable to tell a lie. He apparently believes, completely, in whatever he says at the moment he is saying it. If this is true then mens rea is absent and the PM walks.

High treason sounds fantastical, but, thanks to our fantastically vague treason laws, would be credible if Blair were shown to be putting the interests of a hostile foreign power above that of Britain. He certainly gave "aid and comfort" to Bush, but to make that wash you'd have to prove the US is Britain's enemy. A handful of friendly-fire incidents are unlikely to hold up.

There is of course the International Criminal Court, but trying Blair there would be a mockery, since the UK is well able to hold its own trial. I don't even support the institution's existence, so that wouldn't be an option for me personally, but I can't ever see it happening.

So Blair walks. But perhaps we're wrong in placing too much focus on this cretinous figurehead; a critical mass of the political establishment was behind this amoral conflict. Maybe Blair's continued freedom is a deserved punishment for us all, and a continual reminder that imperialism redressed as "liberal interventionism" is an arrogant and perilous notion. Until national sovereignty is again treated as inviolate, we're going to witness a string of candidates for the dock.

 

[shagnasty]

the honours for peerage seems to be getting closer they have interviewed howard i think when cameron gets a tug blair will not be far behind him

 

[ZAMB]

Sending British troops into action is not a crime. Whatever UN regulations he's flouted, those things are not domestic crimes. There are only two charges that could hold any weight: lying to parliament, and high treason. Both seem virtually impossible to prove.

What about war crimes and crimes against humanity?

 

[Azrael]

What "war crimes" is Blair responsible for? To my knowledge he hasn't ordered anything that would count as a war crime. Bombing TV stations is the nearest he's got, but it's a pretty flimsy case. "Crimes against humanity" is a nebulous crime invented to pack out the charge sheet at Nurmeberg and thankfully not (to my knowledge) part of UK law.

In hard legal terms, what's Blair supposed to be guilty of? I'd love to see him in the dock as much as the next man, but not on trumped up charges.

 

[London_Calling]

Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

"extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." - Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention



The thing that Blair (a lawyer) and Campbell planned very well indeed was that there was no trail from the MI6 carve up to Number 10; Blair has always had the legal defence that he didn't know the Intel was bogus and that he just believed what the experts told him - that is a sufficient defence under the Convention.

Of course, Campbell, John Scarlett and unknown at MI6 did the job between them.

He is a war criminal though, by any standard that's worth having.

 

[Azrael]

Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity

"extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." - Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Fine, that's a proper charge, and War Crimes are a part of UK law. But how do you suggest proving it? Blair can argue the war is legal as parliament authorised it (and I can't imagine any UK court ruling that parliament isn't sovereign) and that all the actions of British troops are justified by military necessity. If they're not, you'd have to prove he has chain-of-command responsibility and ordered the more excessive actions directly. And this can only apply to British troops, so the likes of Fallujah are off the menu. (Unless Blair has some chain-of-command responsibility for that.)

The thing that Blair (a lawyer) and Campbell planned very well indeed was that there was no trail from the MI6 carve up to Number 10; Blair has always had the legal defence that he didn't know the Intel was bogus and that he just believed what the experts told him - that is a sufficient defence under the Convention.

Of course, Campbell, John Scarlett and unknown at MI6 did the job between them.

All leads into Blair's inability to tell a lie. It would be a legal nightmare to prove.

He is a war criminal though, by any standard that's worth having.

Well I consider any aggressive war a criminal act, but that's hardly a common view, particularly on the Left. Under the accepted legal definition of war crimes, I'm far from convinced of Blair's guilt. I don't want ad hoc law imposed just because it's convinient; that would make me no better than Blair.

 

[London_Calling]

Fine, that's a proper charge, and War Crimes are a part of UK law. But how do you suggest proving it?

You can't prove it. May even have been the whole point of the dossier in the first place; to demonstrate Blair was relying on Intel received from a "middle ranking Iraqi officer" informant.

Nonsense, it was cooked up for Campbell by MI6 and the Joint Committee rubber stamped it - but as far as any investigation is concerned, Blair just got to see the end product.

He's a lawyer, he knows the score as well as anyone.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Mass citizens arrest.

If enough people march on parliament to carry it out it would make Balirs postion somewhat ticklish. Sure we wouldn't get close to him, but the confrontation would put the issue back on the agenda and could be enough to at least force him from office. Far better to see the cunt forced out by popular anger rather than 'a carefully managed transition'. He would also have recieved some sort of justice for his crime as well.

Im up for it. A march starting in the north and working its way down over about a forthnight, gathering poeple up on the way - like the old school english rebellions against previous trecherous and corrupt rulers.

 

[niclas]

If you mean they've gone way beyond Major in terms of pursuing awful policies; I'd agree.
however, if you mean in terms of personal; corruption, that simply isn't true.
There were 23 resignations/sacking forced by scandal in the major era.
There have been NOWHERE NEAR as many with this lot.
In fact, all I can recall - off the cuff - are;
1. Ron Davies; an affair simply too bizarre to judge, IMO.
2.Mandelson; guilty of a relatively minor offence first time, and probably NOT guilty of what he was accused of, second time round (a report exonerated him); in fact, his true crime was to be so loathed by all his HoC collagues (bar one) that no-one chimed up to support him.
3. Bev Hughes - lied to the house, has to go, but hardly Hamiltonesque sleaze.
4. Blunkett-guilty as charged, but again, only due to the code of conduct introduced by new labour, in response to the scandals of the Major years.
In fact, more ministers (including PPS's) resigned over Iraq; 11 in all, if we count Short's monumentally-botched one.

Don't get me wrong; i loathe Blair & Co. It's a tragedy no-one's nailed their lies over Iraq.
But you do yourself a disservice with wild, haymaker accusations like these.
it damages your case, which is a shame.

You forget

- Cash from Bernie Ecclestone to save Formula One
- Geoffrey Robinson - can't remember what he did but he's a shit
- Berlusconi's bribe to Jowell's dodgy husband
- Mandelson had two bites at the cherry
- So did Blunkett

The loans for peerages is a scandal up there with Lloyd George selling peerages.

Remember a lot of Tories had to resign because of sex scandals after Major (of Currie shagging notoriety) had launched a moralistic "back to basics" family values campaign.