[anarchist23]

The High Court has blocked an attempt to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair over the Iraq War.

Former Iraqi general Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat alleged the former prime minister committed "the crime of aggression" by invading Iraq in 2003.
No such crime exists in England and Wales and the court ruled there was "no prospect" of the case succeeding.
The general had wanted to prosecute Mr Blair, ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.
Last year, Westminster Magistrates' Court had turned down Mr Al Rabbat's bid to bring private prosecution.
He then sought a judicial review in an attempt to get the Supreme Court - the UK's highest court - to overturn a 2006 House of Lords ruling that there is no such crime as the crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.
'Important issues'
However, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the general's application, saying there was "no prospect" of the case succeeding.
The UK's attorney general had earlier intervened in the case, urging the High Court to block the challenge on the grounds that it was "hopeless".
Reacting to the ruling, a spokesperson for the attorney general's office said the case had raised "important issues about the scope of the criminal law".
"It should be for Parliament, and not the courts, to create new criminal offences. This principle was upheld when the House of Lords ruled in 2006 that the 'crime of aggression' does not exist in English law.
"In this legal challenge, we argued that this remains the case today and the courts agreed."
In 2003, the UK joined the US-led coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein, after then US president George W Bush and Mr Blair accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction.
Last year, the UK's Iraq War inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, ruled the invasion had not been the "last resort" presented to MPs and the public.
His report ruled Mr Blair had overstated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Michael Mansfield QC, appearing for Mr Al Rabbat, argued the report justified the prosecution of Mr Blair.
He said a paragraph in it could be summarised as concluding that Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to the interests of the UK.
It said the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction had been presented with "unwarranted certainty".
Mr Mansfield told the court: "Nothing could be more emphatic than this evidence.
"It does not say there was an unlawful war or crime of aggression. It doesn't need to because the criteria are arguably all there in that paragraph."
Speaking last year, former Labour prime minister Mr Blair apologised to the families of those killed in the 2003 Iraq War, but insisted he did what he thought was the "right thing" at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40775725

[skinster]

Bullshit.

I hope for the day he's hanged along with the rest who were responsible for the destruction of Iraq.

[Heisenberg]

(1) Tony Blair will never be prosecuted over the Iraq war. It is a fantasy that people need to get over. By all means, let waiters and barmen keep "arresting" him, because it's funny to see Blair reduced to a laughing stock. But don't expect anything real to come of it.
(2) The "crime of aggression" is not a crime under English law, so any attempted prosecution would be doomed from the outset. Of course, I'm not too surprised that Saddam Hussein's former chief of staff doesn't understand that you can't just make up whatever offence you like and make it stick.

[Buzz62]

Not apologist skinster...realist.

Blair can be accused of all sorts of things, and most would be right on the money.
Complicit, short-sighted, stupid...

We citizens of the NATO nations have to come to grips with what our governments have done.
It's all deplorable.
It's also all been washed away to protect the guilty.

And that's reality.

[Heisenberg]

Ugh, war-criminal apologists.

I am nothing of the kind. I despise Tony Blair, and think the Iraq war was the worst British foreign policy blunder since the Suez crisis. But that doesn't mean I'm obliged to live in a fantasy world. By what mechanism, exactly, do you envision Blair being prosecuted and hanged(!) for a crime that doesn't exist("the crime of aggression")?

More broadly, do you think it is realistic to expect to see Blair prosecuted over the Iraq war? Barring some hellish revolution that puts the SWP in charge of every institution in Britain in the next 10 years, I just don't see it.

[anarchist23]

^
I saw this gif on Imgur in the last few days. Zero out of ten for originality. Blair is a war criminal and it's only a matter of time, possibly decades, before he is hauled in front of the ICC or suchlike.

[Beren]

'Let Tony Blair be prosecuted for Iraq!' is boring indeed, but 'Let Tony Blair be prosecuted for something that doesn't exist as part of the law!' is rather ridiculous.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Mod note:

Let's not fall back on lame one-liners to insult other forum users rather than address the topic. And let's not alert on other people's posts as being 'off-topic' after being the first person in the thread to descend to one-line, and then one word, insults, OK? You know who you are.

[One Degree]

Pssst! Your liberal leaders don't really believe in the human rights/rainbow world. That is just to get you to support an opposite agenda. They have no objections to bombing others and are not about to convict someone of it. Big secret so keep it quiet.

[Buzz62]

When did "liberal" become the catch-all for "stupid"?
I have, what I'd consider, "centerist" ideals. I would be willing to bet that most people do.
Some "liberal" ideals are good, and some "conservative" ideals are good.

But this is about Tony "the wet noddle" Blair.
And in the real world, it'll likely be a cold day in hell before he's convicted of anything.
That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a good spanking, but realistically...

[skinster]

In fact, the judgement does accept there is a longstanding crime of waging aggressive war as part of international law, and does not (contrary to the Guardian’s report) argue at all that the international law only came into existence recently.

It argues however that international law is only captured in UK Law when this is done specifically through an Act of Parliament. Indeed the judgement goes so far as to state:

“the clear principle that it is for Parliament to make such conduct criminal under domestic law. Parliament deliberately chose not to do so.”

This surely is problematic. The judgement states that the UK, deliberately, does not follow international law in its domestic law. So the UK is an institutionalised rogue state. Its internal arrangements allow its rulers, its armed forces and other actors to commit international crimes and flout international law with no fear of domestic repercussion as a matter of conscious choice.

It would not be beyond the wit of man to draft domestic legislation making it a crime for those acting in service of the British state to breach international law; it would not be necessary to have separate legislation enacting each piece of international law individually. Separate legislation is however possible and often done – when in the FCO I was often concerned with the enactment of treaty or other international obligations into domestic law, which is generally by secondary legislation.

When Sir Michael Wood, the FCO’s chief legal adviser, told Jack Straw it would be illegal to invade Iraq, Straw replied that there was no court that could try the case. The full significance of that did not really strike me until today. It is no accident; the UK is deliberately set up to be psychopathic entity, its elite breaking international law at will, with no fear of retribution.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... ony-blair/

[anarchist23]

The crime of aggression is a crime under international law.
Article 4 of the UN Charter.

Remember, Spain issued a warrant for Pinochets arrest when he was in the UK for medical treatment but because of his ill health was not deported.

The case was a watershed event in judicial history, as it was the first time that a former government head was arrested on the principle of universal jurisdiction.
After having been placed under house arrest in Britain in October 1998 and initiating a judicial and public relations battle, the latter run by Thatcherite political operative Patrick Robertson, he was eventually released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. Straw had overruled a House of Lords decision to extradite Pinochet to face trial in Spain.

Wiki

[Beren]

Is that we could expect from a Corbyn cabinet, capturing the crime of waging aggressive war in UK Law? I wonder whether Blair could be prosecuted or charged retroactively.

[Decky]

B'liar should hang for treason. He sent British soldiers to their deaths to achieve American foreign policy goals, he the put the civilians of this country at risk by making us a target for terrorist attacks and he squandered British tax payers money on a war the bought no benefit whatsoever to the British people (in fact it harmed them by putting their lives at risk every time they step onto public transport).

[Potemkin]

This surely is problematic. The judgement states that the UK, deliberately, does not follow international law in its domestic law. So the UK is an institutionalised rogue state. Its internal arrangements allow its rulers, its armed forces and other actors to commit international crimes and flout international law with no fear of domestic repercussion as a matter of conscious choice.

And this guy has only just realised this?

The truth is that all states are 'rogue' states. It's just that some of them are powerful and/or rich enough to get away with it (eg, the UK, the USA, &c) and others aren't (eg, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq, &c). This is the way it has always been, since the day the first city-states were founded on the mud-flats of Sumeria....

[Albert]

As much as I think Iraq war was a wasted effort and I just dont like Blair, in principle; However, I see it is wrong to persecute your own in such a fashion. He is British and must be treated like a man of such statue. In the west it seems loyalty and comradery to one own national has been all but forgotten.

[Heisenberg]

And this guy has only just realised this?

Indeed. Apparently a lengthy career as a diplomat didn't teach him how the world works. Instead, it took a perfectly reasonable judgement in a masturbatory war crimes fantasy trial for it to really hit home.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Mod note: final warning, skinster: cut out the masturbatory one-liners that are just attacks on other members, and signalling of how radical you think you are, or I'll just delete all your posts in the thread, since you can't discuss this like an adult. You've only yourself to blame, for coming whining to the mod when someone replied to you in kind.

[skinster]

I was just asking Heisenberg why he liked Blair.

And you don't have to be very radical to hate a warmonger like Blair.

I don't recall "whining" to anyone either, just reporting something off-topic.

[Buzz62]

Blair? A warmonger?
Stooge maybe.
I just have trouble envisioning that ultra-whitebread, momma's boy as a warmonger.