War Criminal Blair?

[DavidUK]

Before the war started, Mark Thomas and some anti-war groups said that, if we went to war, they would start a legal action against Blair for war crimes. Does anyone know what is happening on this?

[PaulYukochan]

I think it was just for publicity

[incitatus]

personally hope they do.

[Quizmonster]

Given that the Attorney General - the senior Law Officer of the Crown - stated that Resolution 1441 was sufficient legal reason for military action against the Iraqi regime, it seems rather improbable that any such action as you describe would get off the ground. And rightly so.

[mikewith]

I imagine that any war crimes action would take place in an international arena and under the auspices of international law. In which case, the UK Attorney General's opinion would be just that - an opinion, rather than the law. And lest we forget, that opinion was strongly and prominantly disputed by assorted legal types at the time (as if lawyers ever agree about anything!).

[Obo]

Surely a war criminal is not judged by the law of their own land or all Slobodan Saddam and Co would have to do is make up their own law so they can do what they like! Isn't there a War Crimes commmission in the Hague who decide these things?

[Moog]

*** WEST END FINAL*** Quizmonster wrong in Answerbank shocker!!!!!!

[Quizmonster]

I may well be wrong, Moog, but if so the ramifications are immense. As long ago as the Nuremberg Trials post World War II, the defence of: "I only did it because I was ordered to" was dismissed as an excuse.

Consequently, if Blair's order to go to war was illegal - which it would have to be if he were to be branded a criminal - then all the British generals, colonels, sergeants, corporals and even the squaddies would be equally guilty. That's going to be one heck of a trial! They'll need to hire the Nou Camp as the dock. I'll stick with my original statement...it won't get off the ground, nor should it.

[mikewith]

With respect, I think Quizmonster is being disingenuous. To follow his line, if Nuremberg set a precedent that following orders was not an excuse, why weren't all German military personnel prosecuted?

The more interesting question, in my view, is whether we will see an attempted (successful or otherwise) prosecution of the 'coalition' - a chance to disprove that theory of history being written by the winners.

[Quizmonster]

Mike, I can only repeat my view that we will not see any such successful - or otherwise - prosecution as you hypothesise. Was there not a recent attempt in The Hague to arraign Ariel Sharon for his claimed war-crimes committed over decades? Nothing came of it, though a rather more convincing case could be made for prosecuting him, in my opinion. If ever charged, Bush and Blair could at least offer in mitigation the evidence that they almost certainly saved further thousands of Iraqis from death and destitution at the hands of their rulers. The only people who might benefit from any such case would, of course, be the lawyers. For that reason alone, it would be a bad idea!

This is my last contribution to this thread. I must try to get back to being 'ingenuous'.

[Moog]

Think the Quizmonster is rattled! Not sure anyone disagreed with the fact that it is unlikely to happen, but your reasons are clearly incorrect, nothing wrong with not been right all the time, nobody liks a smart ar5e!

[bazwillrun]

Thers's as much chance of Blair or anybody else standing trial as there is of my hair growing back, None, Zero, Zilch. These people only want one thing and that is power and that is the one thing we can take from them by voting against them. So you might not be able to try him in a court of law but you can help take away the only thing that matters to him and that is his power