Blair 'war crimes' case launched

[emad]

From BBC News:


The International Criminal Court in the Hague is being asked to probe allegations of war crimes by Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon.
The claims surround the UK's role in invading Iraq and have been raised by the group Legal Action Against War. They say a "principal charge" is "intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians". Michael Mansfield QC said the group wanted to re-establish the rule of law.

As well as the prime minister, foreign secretary and defence secretary, the group is also targeting Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who advised that the war was lawful. The Foreign Office declined to comment on the petition, saying only that it stood by the legal basis given for the war. Mr Mansfield said none of the reasons given for the war - weapons of mass destruction, violation of United Nations resolutions and removing Saddam Hussein - provided a satisfactory legal basis for attacking Iraq.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) did not have jurisdiction to rule that unlawful aggression was a war crime, he told a news conference. But he continued: "The context of considering the particular individual war crimes has to be set against what we claim is an unlawful war. "Even if the ICC decided that the war was lawful, they still have to examine whether what was carried out was proportionate."

The use of weapons such as cluster bombs, which had killed many innocent civilians, meant more force than necessary had been used, argued the top lawyer. "We are saying that there are matters here that need to be investigated," he said. "What is the point of having the ICC if on one of the gravest things this country has even done the ICC is going to turn its back on it?" The court should not just address alleged war crimes in "banana republics" but should investigate the world's powerful nations too, argued Mr Mansfield. Mr Mansfield acknowledged there might be "extraordinary reluctance" in indicting ministers on such charges but it was right they were investigated. The Ministry of Defence has previously said it supports the use of cluster bombs against legitimate military targets in order to protect British troops and civilians from further harm.

From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3524133.stm

[terryg11]

1. no charges against the US?

while both armies are at fault when it comes to using cluster bombs and the like, I do recall the British army taking a much more conservative and careful approach to their seige of Basra (?). They decided to surround the city and let civilians pass out as they pleased where as when the US forces went into Baghdad they shot at anything they thought was a threat even if no weapons were displayed.

Not to mention the fifty attempts at bombing SAddam where they only killed innocent civilians instead.

[emad]

2. Nothing like starting an international debate in the courts during

the 2004 presidential campaign for a few awkward questions to get coverage in the conservative US media.....

[roguevalley]

3. Good. One down and several more to go on both sides of the Atlantic.

I suggest calling that analyst that they decided not
to prosecute because it would be revealed that the
Attorney General (?) Lord something or other rewrote
the justification for war from no to yes and gave cover
to the General Staff of the military that were prepared
apparently not to obey Blair without it. Its all a big
fat mess.

[emad]

5. Lord Goldsmith and his advice is the least problem:

In the UK no one can 'go to war' without the Monarch's express consent. This is called The Royal Assent.

None was given for the Iraq war.

Blair is wriggling like a pig in an abattoir conveyor belt.

Hope he remembers his Shakespearian plays, especially the one about Julius Caesar in the market place, getting knifed in the back by Brutus....

Ides of March: 5-15 March 2004.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. You've got to start somewhere

and it seems that British law may be much more clear about what you can and can not do. Besides Bu$hler is clever and got Tony to do a fair bit of the dirty work, like the 45 minute, imminent threat claim. Tony was a sucker and fell for Bu$hler's manipulation, hook, line and sinker.

However, the only thing Tony has got going for him is the fact that if he goes down, he will probably take Bu$hler with him. Everyone knows this whole think wasn't Tony's idea.

[bluedog]

6. at least blair has to speak openly

thats more than bush does.blair is always on the hot seat..hes asked questions and has to answer.his nation at best know he'll be splashed all over the news.by everything he says.don't you wish bush would go the weekly grinding that blair does.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Sending Blair to Prison

This is an article originally publised in "The Mail on Sunday" and recently posted at antiwar.com.


In 2000, the United Kingdom ratified the Rome treaty which created the International Criminal Court. In the run-up to the war, therefore, the government was well aware that an illegal war could spark a prosecution against senior ministers. This is why so much emphasis was placed on weapons of mass destruction: without them, the war had no basis in law at all.

With the failure to find any weapons, Tony Blair's chickens may now be coming home to roost. His government was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the International Criminal Court: he might be one of the first world leaders to be indicted by it. For a group of international lawyers, most of them based in Britain, have written to the Prosecutor of the new Court, asking him to look into allegations that the British government committed war crimes during the invasion of Iraq. If the Prosecutor decides that there is a case to answer, Tony Blair, Geoff Hoon and other ministers could end up in the dock.

When the government pushed for the creation of the ICC, it never expected that prosecutions would be brought against itself. It took the complacent view that only "lesser" nations in the third world would ever be prosecuted. Robin Cook, who was foreign secretary at the time, said, 'This is not a court set up to bring to book Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom or Presidents of the United States.'

<snip>

Since we went to war to eradicate WMD, they ask, did we confine our attacks to alleged weapons factories or storehouses in Iraq? Or were the attacks motivated by a desire to ensure regime change, rather than destroy Iraq's alleged WMD capability? Both the British and American governments agreed to the bombing of a whole range of targets which had nothing to do with alleged weapons facilities. For instance, the well-publicised attack on a Baghdad restaurant, where Saddam Hussein was supposed to be having lunch, could easily be deemed illegal. And what about the attacks on TV stations in Iraq or on civilian means of transport? Britain would have to explain how these were linked to the weapons programme. If it turns out that the real goal was regime change, and not the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, then there is a case for saying that illegal acts may have been committed.

http://antiwar.com/laughland/index.php?articleid=2066