Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Memphis]

Init.

H I think we owe it to the forum to keep this threads feet on the ground before it gets over run with political ranting and quoting of 15 year old UN legislation.

Who do you think would win in a fight, Bush or Blair?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Init.

H I think we owe it to the forum to keep this threads feet on the ground before it gets over run with political ranting and quoting of 15 year old UN legislation.

Who do you think would win in a fight, Bush or Blair?

Bush would get Jeb to stand in his place.

[BIG H]

Init.

H I think we owe it to the forum to keep this threads feet on the ground before it gets over run with political ranting and quoting of 15 year old UN legislation.

Who do you think would win in a fight, Bush or Blair?

Hahaha

[Memphis]

Why was it illegal again?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Why was it illegal again?

Damn you memphis!

Not exactly what you're asking but I'll get the ball rolling.

Blair, Hoon And Straw To Be Investigated For War Crimes!

PRESS RELEASE 23 January 2003
If, as appears likely, the UK is involved in the use of force against Iraq the leaders of the UK Government will be investigated by the prosecutor of the international Criminal Court (ICC) if it breaches international humanitarian law (IHL). So promise a coalition of professors of law and leading NGOs from around the world.1 The UK,US and Canadian Governments have today been served with letters before action warning them of the consequences of an illegal use of force against Iraq. In the UK, Tony Blair was served at 10 Downing Street during filming for a Channel 4 TV programme on January 31.2
The ICC came into being in July 2002 and is shortly to commence work. It will investigate and prosecute those guilty of "genocide," "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes." The definition of "war crimes" is wide and would catch indiscriminate methods of attack or weapon systems used by the UK and US in the 1991 Gulf War, and in Kosovo and Afghanistan.3 Whereas those wars took place before July 2002 any war in Iraq could be subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Thus the following which have been used in the past and are in breach of IHL are now prohibited:

• Indiscriminate methods of attack against civilian centres such as high level airs strikes and attacks on cities such as Baghdad and Basra.
• Indiscriminate weapons systems such as cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives, multiple rocket launcher systems or weapons using depleted uranium.
• Attacks on Iraqi infrastructure
• Attacks on electricity supplies (so as to cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians because of failed water sanitation plants).
• Attacks on projects likely to release dangerous forces such as civil nuclear energy plants or dams.

The coalition of lawyers and NGOs plan unprecedented action using the ICC legislation as a threat to force the UK to target its use of force and to avoid indiscriminate attacks. If there are violations of IHL (which prohibits indiscriminate attacks) these and other NGOs who will be in Iraq or otherwise in a position to monitor the war will report to a Tribunal of eminent international jurists and others. If the tribunal finds there have been violations it will report to the prosecutor of the ICC and he will be urged to start an investigation of his own initiative as he is empowered to do.4 Thereafter the coalition will work with the Prosecutor to ensure that the evidence of violations is credible the leaders of the UK Government who, under the principle of Command Responsibility, are liable for violations are prosecuted in the Hague.
Carol Naughton, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament said today: "The world has changed for the better since the 1991 Gulf War and we now have the International Criminal Court. We can guarantee Messrs. Blair, Hoon and Straw that they will be investigated and prosecuted if they repeat the attacks of that war, or in Kosovo and Afghanistan."
Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, the coalition’s UK lawyer said today: " The definition of war crimes is very broad and will catch indiscriminate methods of attack or weapon systems. The UK Government must ensure that all force used is targeted, discriminate, proportionate and necessary, otherwise its leaders face a similar fate to that of Milosovic."
Michael Mandel of Lawyers Against the War (Canada) and Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto said today: " Our governments are planning to commit nothing short of mass murder. They are planning to kill Iraqi civilians without any lawful justification or excuse. That’s a crime in England and in Canada and under international law. No one is above the law, not even Prime Ministers. If they do this terrible thing, we are going to see to it they are personally brought to justice. We are going to prosecute each and every one of them for each and every crime they commit."

[Howlin Mad Missy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cY5mh1B7vY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POM73KsQHO4

New Statesman - Iraq, Palin and building bridges

[Gandalf]

Good posts there Missy!

There is probably a wealth of material and sources to go on if it ever got to trial, they would be sent down for their duplicitous acts. It often seems to me that the big guys never get tried by the international courts though. It's always the leader of some obscure African country that nobody has ever heard of. A precedent really needs to be set showing that even the powerful and rich are not above the law and will eventually go down for their dastardly actions.

[Gandalf]

And who voted for the Queen? That's going to open a whole barrel of worms!

[Memphis]

• Indiscriminate methods of attack against civilian centres such as high level airs strikes and attacks on cities such as Baghdad and Basra.
• Indiscriminate weapons systems such as cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives, multiple rocket launcher systems or weapons using depleted uranium.
• Attacks on Iraqi infrastructure
• Attacks on electricity supplies (so as to cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians because of failed water sanitation plants).
• Attacks on projects likely to release dangerous forces such as civil nuclear energy plants or dams.

Fuck me take all the fun out of war why dont you.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

• Indiscriminate methods of attack against civilian centres such as high level airs strikes and attacks on cities such as Baghdad and Basra.
• Indiscriminate weapons systems such as cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives, multiple rocket launcher systems or weapons using depleted uranium.
• Attacks on Iraqi infrastructure
• Attacks on electricity supplies (so as to cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians because of failed water sanitation plants).
• Attacks on projects likely to release dangerous forces such as civil nuclear energy plants or dams.

Fuck me take all the fun out of war why dont you.

[Kirkland Laing]

Yes they should but no they won't be.

Bush started plotting to get his hands on Iraq's goodies before he got elected. The first item on the agenda of the first cabinet meeting he held after taking office was Iraq. A lot of people who got him elected were aftr a share of the trillions of dollars of Iraqi oil. This is an actual document, made public by somebody called Paul O'Neill who was Bush's Treasury Secretary and at the first cabinet meeting :

[HattonTheHammer]

You had a go at me not 24 hours back for inciting trouble on here and yet it appears the logic of posting this thread is to put another capitalist-socialist divide on the lets get it on

Of course they shouldnt, both made a tough, life changing call but chose to back their instincts for the sake of eventual peace one day within the middle east.

100s of brave heroes have been lost. But in the long run iraq and afghanistan will be free of tyrany and men and women can finally live in a free democratic society

[Kev]

Another good posting Kirklaind Laing.

I too believe they both have the blood of innocents on their hands and should be tried.

Of course this enquiry will absolutely exonerate them of any blame and brush all the awkward questions far under the rug.

The real people in power are also in control of any enquiries so nothing will happen at all.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

You had a go at me not 24 hours back for inciting trouble on here and yet it appears the logic of posting this thread is to put another capitalist-socialist divide on the lets get it on

Of course they shouldnt, both made a tough, life changing call but chose to back their instincts for the sake of eventual peace one day within the middle east.

100s of brave heroes have been lost. But in the long run iraq and afghanistan will be free of tyrany and men and women can finally live in a free democratic society

You have no idea....

If you keep on with this sillyness I'm going to smash you backdoor in.

[Gandalf]

You had a go at me not 24 hours back for inciting trouble on here and yet it appears the logic of posting this thread is to put another capitalist-socialist divide on the lets get it on

Of course they shouldnt, both made a tough, life changing call but chose to back their instincts for the sake of eventual peace one day within the middle east.

100s of brave heroes have been lost. But in the long run iraq and afghanistan will be free of tyrany and men and women can finally live in a free democratic society

In what way am I trying to incite trouble?

At no point in this thread have I tried to push a socialist agenda, so I don't know where you are coming from when you say that. And stop trying to paint it into such a black and white capitalist/socialist divide. At the end of the day I like the freemarket, but I would like a freemarket that operates with responsibility and provides benefits to society. It's hardly the stuff of a raving communist. Surely, you don't think the system is working too well right now either?

In this case I simply started a thread looking for views on whether Bush and Blair lied to their respective countries, invaded a country illegally and have the blood of thousands of service men and hundreds of thousands of civilians on their hands or not. I have contributed a little myself and have my own views, but most of all I am interested to see what other people have to say about it. I included the poll too, because quite frankly I like to know where my views stand in terms of where others are at in their thinking too. If only I vote yes and a hundred others are voting no for something, then I can see that perhaps my thoughts have become somewhat skewed.

So, you think telling porkies to your own people in an effort to incite fear and to then go ahead and invade without U.N. support is the correct procedure for going to war? Now, if it was solely about regime change and wanting greater influence in the middle east and open access to oil supplies....do you think that would have worked so well? Would we have bought into that so easily. It wasn't just our respective populations that were lied to, it was our armed forces too. Hundreds have died, in this war alone and for what? WMD? There were none! Saddam was a toothless tiger, handicapped for years by sanctions! Yes, he was a bit of a bastard, but even he never wreaked the kind of havoc upon Iraq that we did. And on what pretext was that again? Lies, misinformation, and more lies.

It's all too easy to sit there and with the benefit of hindsight say "at least the evil dictator is gone, we have brought freedom to the people of Iraq". This is called backtracking. What about the democracy in Afghanistan? The government is inneffective, corrupt and women have no rights. Is that what we are fighting for out there?

All in all it makes our nations look like the imperialist aggressors that they are. North Korea has armed itself just in case, and all other nations would be sensible to do the same. Our nations can no longer claim the high ground in anything they do, we have been shown up as lacking in credibility and principles. It will have hurt us in the long run.