Donate SIGN UP

Warcrimes?

Avatar Image
darth vader | 14:00 Wed 30th Apr 2003 | News
5 Answers
Jack Straw admitted yesterday that there probably aren't any WMD in Iraq and the British/USA government knew this before they went in. Add this to the fact that troops have found nothing (as did the weapons inspectors) - enough evidence to arrest Blair and Bush for warcrimes?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 5 of 5rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by darth vader. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, Darth, I must have missed the Straw story..... can you post a link?

If they did invade knowing there were no WMD then I think Bush/Blair are indeed on rocky ground - more to the point, what did Blair tell the cabinet to justify the invasion......?
Question Author
saw the article on the Daily Mirror online yesterday so can't post the link i'm afraid.

I see Putin has basically insinuated the same accusation in his meeting with Blair (today in the mirror - www.mirror.co.uk). In answer to your question the dossier on Iraq was supposed to be the evidence to justify the invasion. In fact looking back it adds up that they started to use the "torture and crimes on humanity" angle rather than the WMD, when convincing MP's in the house of commons, as i remember
Do you really believe what you read in a British tabloid in particular the Daily Mirror!!!!!!
I think there's a tricky legal point on this that I heard being discussed a couple of days ago. Although the war may(?)have been illegal, if it was carried out legally technically you are not guilty of war crimes, unlike a legitimate(?) war carried out using illegitimate means leaving you open to prosecution.
Interesting question. Hypothetically, if Saddam and the Iraqi army had invaded the UK or US on the grounds that we did have weapons of mass destruction and were supporting their Israeli enemies with military and financial aid, would that have been legitimate? If we think that it would not have been, despite the evidence supporting the Iraqi decision to invade being available, surely the Bush/Blair decision is even less defensible because they have no supporting evidence. It was fairly obvious that B/B didn't believe there were any WOMD too devastating in Iraq or they wouldn't have been dropping bombs all over the place and taking the chance of detonating them.They won't be arrested for war crimes because they are major players in and contributors to the UN.

1 to 5 of 5rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Warcrimes?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.