Tony Blair should be tried for War Crimes... says former top British Army General Michael Rose

[CrayonVonCaesar]

Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes, by General Sir Michael Rose

Blair today swans about the world making millions from business contracts and lectures. And, to make matters still more distasteful, much of these earnings are only made possible because of the American and Middle Eastern contacts he made as a result of his unconditional support for Bush during the Iraq war.

In going to war, against the will of the people, Blair has gravely damaged democracy in this country. Is it any surprise that only a minority of the voting public in Britain now turn out for general elections?

That is why I believe that, if justice is to prevail, and faith in democracy is to be restored in this country, Tony Blair and those officials responsible for the disasters of the Iraq war should appear in a court of law which could lead to them being indicted for war crimes.

We owe this much at least to those many brave and courageous people who have died or been injured in Iraq as well as to their families.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html#comments

Very damning, do you support this?

[The Alcotroll]

Very much so.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic blunders of unforgivable magnitude, with far-reaching consequences for British and western interests in the middle east, and indeed long-term peace and stability in that region. Not only that, the negative press generated by a deftly waged insurgency in both countries has painted the British Army as inept villains in domestic public opinion, tarnishing our reputation at home and abroad. The financial and physical cost of the continuing war has taken a massive toll on the defence budget, which Blair's government had already pared to the bone, and Afghanistan will continue to tie up the resources of the British Army for years to come.

As if that wasn't enough, the Chilcot inquiry is beginning to reveal what most of us had already suspcted- that the entire war was based on a lie, that there was never any attempt to plan for the inevitable nation-building and counter-insurgency campaign that followed the ground war, and that the docile British public (those of them that could tear their attention away from their TV screens long enough to give a ) were misled by Blair and his chorts from the start.

I want to see the bastard swinging from a rope for this.

[Poach]

I certainly think he should atleast stand for trial (for war crimes or just breaking law) for Iraq, though I'm not going to start baying for his blood.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Sure, why not, he should be tried. He won't be though. This all just pie-in-the-sky conjecture.

And the dail mail as a source? Come on guys, the Daily Mail's opinion peices suggest that we should throw out all the brown people, and that the BBC is run by communists.

[Nevins]

Why I believe Blair should stand trial - and even face charges for war crimes, by General Sir Michael Rose



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html#comments

Very damning, do you support this?

What actual war crimes has he committed? Sure he helped start the Iraq War, but that does not make him a war criminal.

[Bovril]

What actual war crimes has he committed? Sure he helped start the Iraq War, but that does not make him a war criminal.

Starting a war is not a war crime, but wars of aggresion are, targetting civilian infrastructure is, not making provision for the administration of occupied area is (and this is so easily demonstrable as to be trivial, the UK gov. insisted the MoD did not make provisions for occupation in order to keep up the story about disarmament rather than occupation being the goal), and so on. According to the standards of Nuremburg agression is a crime that includes within it all the crimes comitted in the conflict precipitated.

And the dail mail as a source? Come on guys, the Daily Mail's opinion peices suggest that we should throw out all the brown people, and that the BBC is run by communists.

Whilst I have nothing but disdain for the Mail, I feel obliged to point out that this is not written by one of their hack commentators.

[justicar5]

What actual war crimes has he committed? Sure he helped start the Iraq War, but that does not make him a war criminal.

technically it does, crimes against peace, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace but good luck with prosecuting for that.

[Erik]

Sure he helped start the Iraq War, but that does not make him a war criminal.

I am pretty sure it does.

Remember it was an illegal war, and his (official) motivation was a complete lie.

[tristram1]

and his (official) motivation was a complete lie.

this literally cannot be stated enough

[motiv-8]

In going to war, against the will of the people, Blair has gravely damaged democracy in this country. Is it any surprise that only a minority of the voting public in Britain now turn out for general elections?

That sounds like patent nonsense.

[s.rwitt]

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic blunders of unforgivable magnitude, with far-reaching consequences for British and western interests in the middle east, and indeed long-term peace and stability in that region. Not only that, the negative press generated by a deftly waged insurgency in both countries has painted the British Army as inept villains in domestic public opinion, tarnishing our reputation at home and abroad. The financial and physical cost of the continuing war has taken a massive toll on the defence budget, which Blair's government had already pared to the bone, and Afghanistan will continue to tie up the resources of the British Army for years to come.

British participation in Afghanistan is the result of obligations stemming from an agreement which has been benefiting the UK for generations. After 9/11, it was time for the UK to follow through on what it had promised to do, and it did just that.

[BNS]

I very much doubt he'll be tried for anything as trivial as this.

[Bovril]

I very much doubt he'll be tried for anything as trivial as this.

What's the "this" you are refering ? Because if it's an invasion that has caused tens of thousands of violent deaths, it hardly seems "trivial".

[BNS]

What's the "this" you are refering ? Because if it's an invasion that has caused tens of thousands of violent deaths, it hardly seems "trivial".

Maybe I worded it wrongly. However it's very unlikely for someone like him to be tried over such indirectly linked and ill defined accusations.

[Tiwaz]

British participation in Afghanistan is the result of obligations stemming from an agreement which has been benefiting the UK for generations. After 9/11, it was time for the UK to follow through on what it had promised to do, and it did just that.

That could cover him for Afganistan but not for Iraq. So he could be put to trial for that one.

[danzig]

He also said Iraq was hopeless and doomed and compared it to US Revolutionary War....General Ross sounds like a few cards short of a full deck. I mean he does understand what a warcrime is does he not? Blair could have been the world's biggest fool when he agreed with the invasion but that doesnt make him a war criminal.

[Bovril]

He also said Iraq was hopeless and doomed and compared it to US Revolutionary War....General Ross sounds like a few cards short of a full deck. I mean he does understand what a warcrime is does he not? Blair could have been the world's biggest fool when he agreed with the invasion but that doesnt make him a war criminal.

But Blair is not the world's bigest fool, and his government's war crimes are trivial to prove. Like I said earlier, not making provision for administration of occupied areas is contrary to the geneva convention. The Blair government's refusal to do this is amply demonstrated.

[motiv-8]

The Blair government's refusal to do this is amply demonstrated.

That's because they deferred to the American CPA, is it not? How is it that the British did not make a provision for administration of occupied territories when they were part of the Coalition that set up the Coalition Provisional Authority?

[Bovril]

That's because they deferred to the American CPA, is it not? How is it that the British did not make a provision for administration of occupied territories when they were part of the Coalition that set up the Coalition Provisional Authority?

Nope, its because they expressly denied calls from inside the MOD prior to the invasion to let them set up planning groups for the occupation despite advice that this would result in chaos after the invasion, as it did. That's a war crime.

[Captain Jin]

Nope, its because they expressly denied calls from inside the MOD prior to the invasion to let them set up planning groups for the occupation despite advice that this would result in chaos after the invasion, as it did. That's a war crime.

What Geneva Convention says that's a war crime?