Tony Blair faces Inquiry

[Sir Bandelot]

Explosive secret letter exposes how Tony Blair lied over the legality of the Iraq War.

The Chilcot Inquiry into the war will interrogate the former Prime Minister over the devastating 'smoking gun' memo, which warned him in the starkest terms the war was illegal.

The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote a letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.

It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.

If he knowingly did something illegal I'd like to hear his excuse for it. Blair may even face charges for war crimes-

The disclosures deal a massive blow to Mr Blair's hopes of proving he acted in good faith when he and George Bush declared war on Iraq. And they are likely to fuel further calls for Mr Blair to be charged with war crimes.

But will he face justice, or will the truth be swept under the rug as it has done so many times before in history? Here's the litmus test for democracy, if there ever was one.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

....But will he face justice, or will the truth be swept under the rug as it has done so many times before in history? Here's the litmus test for democracy, if there ever was one.

Hell no....not until Chirac, Clinton, Chretien, and Schroeder first face justice" for the "illegal" campaign against Serbia.

Name dropping "George Bush" won't improve their chances for a "crimes trial" either.

"Democracy" has nothing to do with war crimes trials....largely held by the victors.

Edited November 30, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

Hell no....not until Chirac, Clinton, Chretien, and Schroeder first face justice" for the "illegal" campaign against Serbia.

Name dropping "George Bush" won't improve their chances for a "crimes trial" either.

"Democracy" has nothing to do with war crimes trials....largely held by the victors.

Correct, "democratic justice" is mostly reserved for obscure african dictators. Blair could claim whatever he likes to claim, and will keep on leading miscellaneous Peace initiatives. One of a key initiators of an illegal, destructive war as a world leader of Peace. We get exactly what we deserve and not an ounce less.

[jbg]

The Chilcot Inquiry into the war will interrogate the former Prime Minister over the devastating 'smoking gun' memo, which warned him in the starkest terms the war was illegal.

The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote a letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.

Was the U.S.S.R.'s invasion of Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Poland in 1981 legal? Or Saddam's invasion of Iran in 1980 or Kuwait in 1991?

[Sir Bandelot]

It is of course appropriate to compare Tony Blair with the likes of ruthless types such as Saddam Hussein, and the dictators of the Soviet Union during their military campaigns of aggression. Yes, a most fitting legacy...

Edited December 1, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

It is of course appropriate to compare Tony Blair with the likes of ruthless types such as Saddam Hussein, and the dictators of the Soviet Union during their military campaigns of aggression. Yes, a most fitting legacy...

Ummm...OK...then we will just start with the overthrow of a democratically elected president in Haiti with "military aggression". Gee...I wonder who did that, eh?

[M.Dancer]

The Mail on Sunday can disclose that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote a letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 - a full eight months before the war - telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.

IS that what he told him?

No, not quite....

In the memo, Lord Goldsmith discussed whether the use of force in Iraq could legally be justified by Iraq's 'material breach', as established in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, of its ceasefire obligations as imposed by Security Council Resolution 687 at the end of the First Gulf War. Lord Goldsmith concluded that 'a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation [of the use of force] in Resolution 678 without a further resolution.' However, Lord Goldsmith did concede that 'a court might well conclude that operative paragraphs 4 and 12 do require a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation.'

snip

In his final advice to the Government, written on 17 March 2003, Lord Goldsmith stated that the use of force in Iraq was lawful.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Goldsmith,_Baron_Goldsmith

Edited December 1, 2009 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

IS that what he told him?

No, not quite....

No, he probably said something more similar to..."its not RAPE rape"...

[Sir Bandelot]

IS that what he told him?

No, not quite....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Goldsmith,_Baron_Goldsmith

I'm glad you can read wikipedia, Mr. Dancer.

Read some more-

"because of his anxiety, Goldsmith finally gave Blair what he wanted, according to the Mail. After being "more or less pinned against the wall" by two of Blair's loyal aides, Lord (Charles) Falconer and Baroness (Sally) Morgan, Goldsmith issued a brief statement saying the war was legal on the basis of previous UN resolutions - despite having said the opposite in his July 2002 letter. "

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/56749,news-comment,news-politics,secret-letter-shows-tony-blair-knew-iraq-war-was-illegal

[M.Dancer]

I'm glad you can read wikipedia, Mr. Dancer.

Read some more-

according to the Mail.

Get back to me when it is according to the Baron...

[myata]

And here we are, arguing about whether some scribble in some book would justify a totally unnecessary, hugely destructive war that's taken lives of thousands of innocents? *

Question: how, why and in what way does it appear to be more "civilised" than somebody blasting a hand made bomb because his family's patch of land has been taken away, or because they don't like foreigners running their country?

* and for that reason, exonerate its direct initiators

Edited December 3, 2009 by myata

[Sir Bandelot]

Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britain_iraq_politics_inquiry_military_blair

Professor Philippe Sands, a leading international lawyer, said he believed Blair's comments had left him vulnerable to legal proceedings. "The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties," Sands told The Sunday Herald.

Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix added: "The war was sold on the WMD, and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of deployment of arguments, as he said, it sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up."

And if they do that, we can do that too. In fact we have an obligation for future generations, not to allow the same mistakes and manipulations to be made to start illegal wars, and to ensure that all such crimes are prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law.

"Bring it on..."

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[jbg]

Blair's admission that Britain would have backed the Iraq war even if he knew it did not have weapons of mass destruction sparked outrage Sunday and calls for his prosecution for war crimes.

There's no question that Saddam issued threatening rhetoric. It was not Blair's or Bush II's job to determine Hussein's ability to carry out his threats. It was enough that he made them.

During Gulf War I in 1991 Saddam was lobbing scuds in the direction of Israel. That in itself should have been enough to justify finishing the job when Saddam was not fully cooperative with the world community.

[Sir Bandelot]

Threatening rhetoric is just words, and a lot of them do it. The Chinese are famous for it. Lets invade tem, before they get too strong and become a threat to us.

This is about how a group of leaders from various nations collaborated to prop up false evidence as justification for an illegal invasion. They should have worked within the law and used other options available to them.

The neocons think they are exempt from law because they have a higher moral authority. Thats irrational and dangerous. Thats not unlike what the Ayatollahs might think about themselves. Thats why they must be prosecuted.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The neocons think they are exempt from law because they have a higher moral authority. Thats irrational and dangerous. Thats not unlike what the Ayatollahs might think about themselves. Thats why they must be prosecuted.

Nonsense....the same nations bombed Serbia and invaded Haiti using the same "moral authority". Nobody has been prosecuted for doing so. Your bogus "international law" isn't just for "neocons"...sheesh.

[Sir Bandelot]

Nonsense....the same nations bombed Serbia and invaded Haiti using the same "moral authority". Nobody has been prosecuted for doing so. Your bogus "international law" isn't just for "neocons"...sheesh.

Oh yes people have been prosecuted for the war crimes in what was formerly Yugoslavia. That was a very complicated situation which was already in a state of war due to the breakup of that country. Theres very little (if any) comparison in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

The "bogus" international law was set up and supported by former US presidents. What happened? They knew what war is really about, unlike the chicken hawks we have in charge today. Most of the neocons have never served, I understand. Cheney was a draft dodger. Ironically they are the first ones who want to call in the troops once they get the power to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh yes people have been prosecuted for the war crimes in what was formerly Yugoslavia. That was a very complicated situation which was already in a state of war due to the breakup of that country. Theres very little (if any) comparison in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

Very complicated my ass...you know damn right well what I am talking about...NATO...not Milosevic or his henchmen. Stop being obtuse.

The "bogus" international law was set up and supported by former US presidents. What happened? They knew what war is really about, unlike the chicken hawks we have in charge today. Most of the neocons have never served, I understand. Cheney was a draft dodger. Ironically they are the first ones who want to call in the troops once they get the power to do so.

How long did Chretien serve? How about international law for Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia? Come back when you can get your story straight.

[Sir Bandelot]

Very complicated my ass...you know damn right well what I am talking about...NATO...not Milosevic or his henchmen. Stop being obtuse.

How long did Chretien serve? How about international law for Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia? Come back when you can get your story straight.

All American adventures. In fact you are only supporting my past claims that these events are worthy of investigations and prosecution of the leadership that was in power. Maybe it's because the Brits still have a mere shred of integrity left. The difference is that NATO did not attack preemptively, the war was already on and NATO stepped in to try and stop it. American influence was the tipping factor that undermined the possibility of peace and finally lead to the conflict.

But I was not there. I'm sure that you have a lot more you could tell us, so please feel free to do so.

[bush_cheney2004]

All American adventures. In fact you are only supporting my past claims that these events are worthy of investigations and prosecution of the leadership that was in power. Maybe it's because the Brits still have a mere shred of integrity left. The difference is that NATO did not attack preemptively, the war was already on and NATO stepped in to try and stop it. American influence was the tipping factor that undermined the possibility of peace and finally lead to the conflict.

You are still ignoring the obvious...NATO's Operation Allied Force was not authorized by the UNSC and it violated "international law". Blaming the Americans all the time is something you excel at, even when it was Canadian strike aircraft dropping the bombs.

Canadian forces in Haiti helped to overthrow a democratically elected president.

But I was not there. I'm sure that you have a lot more you could tell us, so please feel free to do so.

Obtuse again...eh? The point, again, is that you cannot invoke "international law" only when it agrees with your own brand of political bias. The invasion of Iraq was based on a continuum of events going back to 1991.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

You are still ignoring the obvious...NATO's Operation Allied Force was not authorized by the UNSC and it violated "international law". Blaming the Americans all the time is something you excel at, even when it was Canadian strike aircraft dropping the bombs.

Canadian forces in Haiti helped to overthrow a democratically elected president.

Obtuse again...eh? The point, again, is that you cannot invoke "international law" only when it agrees with your own brand of political bias. The invasion of Iraq was based on a continuum of events going back to 1991.

I don't think we are in disagreement on the facts, other than I am limiting this to one conflict and you are drawing on others as an example of conflicts that were magically exempted from the law. That does not deter me though. The fact that someone else also broke the law before only shows the double standard thats in place. When and where the empire choses to fight is its own business it seems, and laws be damned. Thats the fact, which you know and I also recognize. Unlike you it doesn't mean I approve or agree with it.

< Insert "your approval does not matter" statement here >

< Insert "Neither does your indifference..." >

We have this whole conversation already scripted, I know what you're gonna say, and you know pretty much what I'm gonna say. But for the record I'll say it anyway.

Also I'd like to point out that these posts could just as easily be in the "Why we distrust the US of A" thread. But then you'll just say I'm being obtuse again.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think we are in disagreement on the facts, other than I am limiting this to one conflict and you are drawing on others as an example of conflicts that were magically exempted from the law.

Yet Tony Blair was involved in both. That you choose to hide from the larger context is understandable, because you cannot prevail.

That does not deter me though. The fact that someone else also broke the law before only shows the double standard thats in place. When and where the empire choses to fight is its own business it seems, and laws be damned. Thats the fact, which you know and I also recognize. Unlike you it doesn't mean I approve or agree with it.

It doesn't matter whether you approve or not, as no domestic UK or international court is going to indict PM Blair. In fact, Mr. Blair has reiterated his conviction on the matter, and would do the same again. Worldly do gooders hoping to salvage something from the affair will go wanting forever.

< Insert "your approval does not matter" statement here >

< Insert "Neither does your indifference..." >

I prefer the reality of no indictments or convictions to date. Hearings or web sites mean nothing.

We have this whole conversation already scripted, I know what you're gonna say, and you know pretty much what I'm gonna say. But for the record I'll say it anyway.

Well, please don't be bitter your entire life because PM Blair got away with breaking "international law"...LOL!

Also I'd like to point out that these posts could just as easily be in the "Why we distrust the US of A" thread. But then you'll just say I'm being obtuse again.

Fine by me....I'm convinced that some Canadians need such an excuse to satisfy the cognitive dissonance in their brain buckets. "The Devil made us do it"...with apologies to the late Flip Wilson.

Edited December 14, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

It's not me who is hiding, this inquiry is about the Iraq war, not Bosnia. Brits are known sticklers when it comes to proper procedure so it will be interesting to see how far this goes.

Fine by me....I'm convinced that some Canadians need such an excuse to satisfy the cognitive dissonance in their brain buckets. "The Devil made us do it"...with apologies to the late Flip Wilson.

Ah, thats only your theory. Try not to project your own nationalist attitude onto everyone else. I personally look at it this way- amongst world leaders of the western alliance there are no separate countries, only a number of corporate entities that work closely together, with the dominant empire calling the shots, and others falling in line to do their part. After the war is over everybody gets a piece of cake. I don't have a sense of disharmony or feel that Canada is being coerced by the devil. More like, our corrupt leadership is in cahoots with yours and willingly does whatever it takes to get the contract. Hence no cognitive dissonance, I accept the fact the Canada has done, and continues to do bad things. We are no longer the "good guys" that we might like to believe, if there ever was such a thing. And same goes for eveyone else.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not me who is hiding, this inquiry is about the Iraq war, not Bosnia. Brits are known sticklers when it comes to proper procedure so it will be interesting to see how far this goes.

As you wish....nothing will become of an "Iraq" inquisition either. Brits are how the entire imperialism paradigm manifested itself, such "sticklers" that they be.

Ah, thats only your theory. Try not to project your own nationalist attitude onto everyone else. I personally look at it this way- amongst world leaders of the western alliance there are no separate countries, only a number of corporate entities that work closely together, with the dominant empire calling the shots, and others falling in line to do their part.

But here is where you meet with a thorny problem, as Canada said "No!" to Iraq. So how can there be independent action on one hand, but dominance on the other?

After the war is over everybody gets a piece of cake. I don't have a sense of disharmony or feel that Canada is being coerced by the devil. More like, our corrupt leadership is in cahoots with yours and willingly does whatever it takes to get the contract. Hence no cognitive dissonance, I accept the fact the Canada has done, and continues to do bad things. We are no longer the "good guys" that we might like to believe, if there ever was such a thing. And same goes for eveyone else.

If you believe this, then why applaud any effort to hold PM Blair to a higher standard? The Nobel committee just gave a peace prize to a US president who is waging war, with the "corrupt leadership" of other nations. Hence, PM Blair needn't worry at all.

[bloodyminded]

Canadian forces in Haiti helped to overthrow a democratically elected president.

That's right. Canada, France, and the United States. Acting as thugs.

[Sir Bandelot]

If you believe this, then why applaud any effort to hold PM Blair to a higher standard?

To get a rise out of you... what else?

The Nobel committee just gave a peace prize to a US president who is waging war, with the "corrupt leadership" of other nations. Hence, PM Blair needn't worry at all.

Yeah maybe Blair ought to get a prize. Berlusconi got his...