Blair officially NOT president of Europe :-)

[Azrael]

You could always try reading the quote I posted:

"they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict"

That's vague. The Guardian needs to name specific military commanders making specific accusations, and detail the law under which Mr Blair is to be tried. I know due process can be tedious (which is probably why Liberty and Amnesty International prefer emotive slogans) but it's vital to justice. Without it, allegations are so much slander.

And what about those MPs who authorised the war? Should they all be indicted?

 

[ymu]

civilian population

The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 2)

The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

These protections include the right to be free from attacks, reprisals, acts meant to instill terror, and indiscriminate attacks. Civilian populations must not be used as civilian shields. (Protocol I, Art. 51)

grave breaches

Grave breaches of the Conventions and Protocols are war crimes.

[and include]

Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war. (Convention III, Art. 13)

Unlawful transfer, deportation or confinement of civilians, willful killing, hostage taking and torture . (Protocol IV, Art. 147)

Attacking cultural objects when they're not located near a military target or used for the war effort. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4D)

Depriving combatants, prisoners of war, refugees, or medical or religious personnel of a fair trial. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

http://spj.org/gc-index.asp?

 

[ymu]

That's vague. The Guardian needs to name specific military commanders making specific accusations, and detail the law under which Mr Blair is to be tried. I know due process can be tedious (which is probably why Liberty and Amnesty International prefer emotive slogans) but it's vital to justice. Without it, allegations are so much slander.

And what about those MPs who authorised the war? Should they all be indicted?

It was the Telegraph who broke the story. You could always look it up.

Yes, they should be indicted. They knew they were being lied to, and many of them went back on promises to their constituents not to act without a second UN resolution - a poor enough fig-leaf which Blair still could not obtain for them. They should all be called to account for their actions. Why in hell not? Do you think governance is improved by ignoring self-interested wrong-doing?

 

[Azrael]

It was the Telegraph who broke the story. You could always look it up.

Can't find anything on specific charges, and as the person making the allegation, the burden's on you to back it up. I appreciate the link to the Geneva Convention, but without details of specific incidents linked to specific sections, and evidence of chain-of-command responsibility on the part of Mr Blair, it doesn't show why our former PM should be cuffed and carted off for trial.

Yes, they should be indicted. They knew they were being lied to, and many of them went back on promises to their constituents not to act without a second UN resolution - a poor enough fig-leaf which Blair still could not obtain for them. They should all be called to account for their actions. Why in hell not? Do you think governance is improved by ignoring self-interested wrong-doing?

The public can hold them to account by voting them out, as some were in 2005 (not nearly enough, mind). If you have a complaint, direct it at the legions of tribal voters, who'd elected a poodle in the correct rosette (and yep, it is tempting to say that they often do).

The law can hold them to account if they violate it, but if we're to start indicting MPs for waging wars you don't like, Parliamentary independence is finished.

 

[ymu]

Original report and link to the leaked documents here.

The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

And don't be obtuse. It's not about which party is in power, it is about holding politicians to proper account when they do wrong.

 

[ymu]

And now there's this:

"The truth of the matter is, if the inquiry was going to express a view with any kind of authority on the question of legality, it would need a legal member and quite a senior one," the [unnamed senior] judge said. "Looking at the membership … it seems to me that legality just wasn't going to be a question they would be asked to review."

Another senior legal figure said: "The panel clearly lacks the expertise to address the question of legality. The members are not experienced at cross-examination – it is simply not their skill set."

The criticisms come after the chairman of the inquiry has been repeatedly forced to defend its approach amid claims that the process is a "whitewash".

There have been repeated calls from influential legal and judicial figures for an investigation into whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal, including the former senior law lord Lord Bingham, who last year reiterated that it was "a serious violation of international law".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/23/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war

You'd almost think they had something to hide ...

 

[Azrael]

And don't be obtuse. It's not about which party is in power, it is about holding politicians to proper account when they do wrong.

Which is what I said. I criticised tribal voters precisely because they can't see beyond their party to the quality of the individuals representing it.

 

[ymu]

That makes no sense. I' not interested in who is in power, I'm interested in seeing those who abuse their power brought to justice. How else do we stop it happening?

Voters, in case you hadn't noticed, do not get a choice of who they can vote for. They are just presented with a limited list of candidates, all of whom would apparently enjoy immunity from prosecution once in power, if you had your way.

 

[Azrael]

Where have I suggested MPs get immunity from prosecution? (They don't enjoy it, with the possible exception of some dead-letter protection from civil arrest.) If there's evidence, they should be prosecuted. But in the vast majority of cases, they haven't done anything illegal, and the best punishment is being voted out of Parliament. I'm sure, in most cases, voters could find someone on the list who wasn't a fan of Iraq.

 

[ymu]

Where have I suggested MPs get immunity from prosecution? (They don't enjoy it, with the possible exception of some dead-letter protection from civil arrest.) If there's evidence, they should be prosecuted. But in the vast majority of cases, they haven't done anything illegal, and the best punishment is being voted out of Parliament. I'm sure, in most cases, voters could find someone on the list who wasn't a fan of Iraq.

I may have misunderstood you. You seemed to be insisting that Blair et al should not stand trial for the crimes of which they have been accused (by senior figures in the military and the judiciary) and for which there is now ample evidence for a court to hear. If that is not the case, the last few posts have been at cross-purposes.

 

[Azrael]

I think they have, yes. If there's a specific charge against Mr Blair, either under English law, or the Rome Statute, he can be stuck on trial for all I care.

 

[fela fan]

The scapegoating of an unremarkable figurehead is buck-passing of epic proportions.

No. The prosecution of a figurehead for war crimes will send a clear signal to any future figureheads who may think they can take the country they lead into wars against humanity for political purposes.

Just perennially letting leaders get away with their crimes is in effect giving them permission to continue doing so.

Isn't punishing criminals supposed to act as a deterrent to others while also punishing the original criminal?

To try and argue that blair has not committed a crime when he has helped create the deaths of thousand of humans is a real longshot in my book. Of course he's broken laws. If you kill thousands of people you have broken laws.

 

[Azrael]

Double post, whoops.

 

[Azrael]

If you kill thousands of people you have broken laws.

Not all killing is murder "Bomber" Harris had chain-of-command responsibility for killing hundreds of thousands, but did he break any laws? Unlikely (although he would today). It's not so simple as you say. Most wars kill thousands, often innocents. Are we to indict the people responsible for, say, the Gulf War into the bargin. .

Like I said, if there's a prima facie case against Mr Blair, I'm happy to see him stuck on trial. I just want to know what exactly it is he's charged with.

 

[ymu]

In terms of international law he is accused of going to war for the purpose of regime change (illegal) and of failing to protect civilians (a grave breach, considered a war crime) as a result of trying to cover up that fact. He is also accused of lying to parliament about whether or not the decision to go to war had already been made (not sure of the legal implications of this one in British law).

Did you bother reading any of the links? This is coming from the military and the judiciary. There is clearly a case to answer, and it should be answered in court.

 

[newharper]

I think they have, yes. If there's a specific charge against Mr Blair, either under English law, or the Rome Statute, he can be stuck on trial for all I care.

Indeed, I have no doubt that would be the case.

Surely this is relevant.

The most controversial paragraph is a report of a recent visit to Washington by head of the Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C'):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The British analysis of US policy is also stated elsewhere in the minutes:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Know it's wiki but as far as I know, acceptable. My PDF quoter is down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

They know the legal position is 'dodgy'.

Nothing actionable about this though.

For the secret documents — seen by The Sunday Times — reveal that on that Tuesday in 2002:
# The attorney-general was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.

Straw even said the case for war was “thin”. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

“If the political context were right,” said Blair, “people would support regime change.” Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason.

By the end of the meeting, a possible path to invasion was agreed and it was noted that Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of the defence staff, “would send the prime minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week”.

Outside Downing Street, the rest of Britain, including most cabinet ministers, knew nothing of this. True, tensions were running high, and fears of terrorism were widespread. But Blair’s constant refrain was that “no decisions” had been taken about what to do with Iraq

This however,

AS a civil service briefing paper specifically prepared for the July meeting reveals, Blair had made his fundamental decision on Saddam when he met President George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

“When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April,” states the paper, “he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change.”

Blair set certain conditions: that efforts were first made to try to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) through weapons inspectors and to form a coalition and “shape” public opinion. But the bottom line was that he was signed up to ousting Saddam by force if other methods failed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387237.ece

If that can be shown, he must be on very dodgy ground.

 

[Azrael]

In terms of international law he is accused of going to war for the purpose of regime change (illegal) and of failing to protect civilians (a grave breach, considered a war crime) as a result of trying to cover up that fact. He is also accused of lying to parliament about whether or not the decision to go to war had already been made (not sure of the legal implications of this one in British law).

Do the Rome Statute or English law explicitly ban aggressive warfare? If so, how do they define it?

Did you bother reading any of the links? This is coming from the military and the judiciary. There is clearly a case to answer, and it should be answered in court.

I've read the links, and I've yet to see a specific charge. This would look something like "on such and such a date, Mr Anthony Blair committed X act, which is in violation of Y law". It doesn't have to be framed in precise legal terms. Just something specific, which mentions a specific act, and the specific law that act violates. A general "he launched an aggressive war, which violates international law" is far too vague.

 

[Azrael]

If that can be shown, he must be on very dodgy ground.

Only if he's shown to have violated a law. UN resolutions aren't enough. So far as I'm aware only British common law, or the ICC, have the power to put Mr Blair on trial, although I'm happy to be corrected if we're under some additional jurisdiction.

 

[ymu]

You can't have read them very carefully. The attorney general is quoted on the matter. I guess he could have been mistaken.

If you want to know which statutes, look it up. It's you questioning the reported facts, not me.

 

[Azrael]

I read the attorney general's doubts years ago. So far as I remember, he didn't list a specific law that Mr Blair could be tried under, although again, I'm happy to be corrected.

Until the reported facts list a specific charge, I'm under no obligation to look up anything.

Demanding that Mr Blair be stuck on trial on vague grounds is easy. Providing legal justification is much harder, and, I suspect, will prove impossible.

Should the rest of the cabinet be herded into the dock as well? This would include Clare Short, who, let's remember, was complicit in waging the war, under the doctrine of collective cabinet responsibility.

 

[ymu]

These are (and were back then too) leaked documents. No, the attorney general did not come out and tell everyone that what Blair wanted was illegal. Would you have expected him to?

 

[newharper]

Only if he's shown to have violated a law. UN resolutions aren't enough. So far as I'm aware only British common law, or the ICC, have the power to put Mr Blair on trial, although I'm happy to be corrected if we're under some additional jurisdiction.

Would this do, haven't checked it, time for bed.

By means of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 British tribunals are empowered to try war crimes recognized by the Statute of Rome. The Act enables UK investigative bodies to investigate and prosecute any ICC crimes committed in this country, or committed overseas by a UK national, a UK resident, or a person subject to UK services jurisdiction.

Read more: International Criminal Court (ICC) http://law.jrank.org/pages/15830/International-Criminal-Court-(ICC).html#ixzz0XpZbhOPj

http://law.jrank.org/pages/15830/International-Criminal-Court-(ICC).html

 

[ymu]

You can't be arsed to look it up, but you will spout nonsense anyway. Do you expect to be taken seriously, at all?

Regime change is no basis for war - the AG's advice to Blair


THE DANGERS OF COURT ACTION IN RESPONSE TO WAR IN IRAQ

"In assessing the risks of acting on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, you will wish to take account of the ways in which the matter might be brought before a court. We cannot absolutely rule out that some state strongly opposed to military action might try to bring such a case. It is also possible that CND may try to bring further action to stop military action in the domestic courts. Two further possibilities are an attempted prosecution for murder on the grounds that the military action is unlawful and an attempted prosecution for the crime of aggression."

REGIME CHANGE AND A PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE

"I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign."

IS UN RESOLUTION 1441 ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY WAR?

"The key question is whether resolution 1441 has the effect of providing such authorisation. As you are aware, the argument that resolution 1441 itself provides the authorisation to use force depends on the revival of the express authorisation to use force given in 1990 by Security Council resolution 678. The revival argument is controversial. It is not widely accepted among academic commentators. I believe that the arguments in support of the revival argument are stronger following adoption of resolution 1441. The question is who makes the assessment of what constitutes a sufficiently serious breach. On the UK view of the revival argument (though not the US view) that can only be the Security Council, because only it can decide if a violation is sufficiently serious to revive the authorisation to use force."

Full text of his advice and analysis at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-remember-that-in-any-statements-526599.html

Is war illegal without a second UN resolution?

The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/13/qanda.politics

 

[newharper]

I read the attorney general's doubts years ago. So far as I remember, he didn't list a specific law that Mr Blair could be tried under, although again, I'm happy to be corrected.

While I'd agree that expecting a bunch of lawyers to leave 'smoking guns' around is pushing it.

This memo, if one could get access to it,

The most damaging new revelation concerns the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush at the White House on January 31, 2003, during which Mr Blair urged the President to seek a second UN resolution giving specific backing for the war.

The Mail on Sunday has established that the meeting was attended only by Mr Blair, his Downing Street foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning, Mr Bush and the President's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, plus an official note-taker. The top-secret record of the meeting was circulated to a tiny handful of senior figures in the two administrations.

Immediately afterwards, the two leaders gave a Press conference in which a nervous-looking Mr Blair claimed the meeting had been a success. Mr Bush gave qualified support for going down the UN route. But observers noted the awkward body language between the two men. Sands' book explains why. Far from giving a genuine endorsement to Mr Blair's attempt to gain full UN approval, Mr Bush was only going through the motions. And Mr Blair not only knew it, but went along with it.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/36510.html

might allow charges under

Conspiracy law was used at the Nuremberg Trials for Nazi leadership who were charged with participating in a "conspiracy or common plan" to commit international crimes. This was controversial because conspiracy was not a part of the European civil law tradition. Nonetheless, the crime of conspiracy continued in international criminal justice, being incorporated into the international criminal laws against genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)