Introduction — July 5, 2017
Calls for Tony Blair to stand trial for his part in the Iraq War will be widely welcomed, and not just among Iraqis. Many Britons would also like to see the former prime minister appear before a Nuremberg style trial.
Literally hundreds of thousands died as a result of the 2003 Iraq invasion, most of them civilians. Their deaths, and the hundreds of thousands of others who were injured or maimed, were entirely unnecessary. Criminally so when one takes into account the reasons given by Blair for the invasion.
Iraq was invaded on the basis of the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, or so Tony Blair claimed. He argued passionately to justify military intervention but once Iraq was occupied it became evident that his arguments were unfounded.
Iraq did not have and never did have a program to develop WMD, as Blair claimed in his March 18, 2003, speech to parliament. Nor did Saddam Hussein have the means to deliver those WMD within 45 minutes, as the prime minister claimed in an earlier speech to parliament.
It would be charitable to say that Blair was “mistaken” but we can think of few men less deserving of charity. Apart from being enormously wealthy from his books, investments and speaking fees Tony Blair is also a consummate liar. He even denies being wealthy, despite owning six homes and earning £20 million per year.
More to the point, we suspect that Tony Blair knew that it wasn’t in Britain’s interest to invade Iraq and it certainly wasn’t for Iraq’s benefit.
Crucially, there was never any hard evidence that Saddam had WMD or even had plans to acquire any, as Blair claimed. At best it was all speculation supported by Blair’s earnest rhetoric.
Nonetheless, a combination of big money interests — weapons manufacturers, Zionists, bankers and war mongers — wanted the Iraq invasion. They helped put George Bush and Tony Blair in power and once in office the two puppets delivered the goods.
Together they made the case for a war that some argue was illegal.
As a result Blair is very well off today and the Middle East is a breeding ground for terror, particularly Libya, Syria and Iraq itself.
This is directly attributable to the 2003 invasion, which Blair helped promote along with George Bush and a compliant media.
They should all be put on trial; if only to demonstrate that our leaders can be held to account by the wider public they ostensibly serve.
If the courts were genuine halls of justice there would indeed be an Iraq War Crimes trial. However, we suspect that vested interests will hire the best legal minds and pull a few strings to ensure that never happens.
Finally I’ll hazard a guess and predict that within the next decade Angela Merkel will be viewed in the same light that we now see Tony Blair. As a practised political liar who serves the ruling elite and betrays their own people at their behest. Ed.
Tony Blair should be prosecuted over Iraq war, high court hears
Owen Bowcott — Guardian.co.uk July 5, 2017
The Chilcot inquiry’s conclusion that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and undermined the United Nations requires the prosecution of Tony Blair, the high court has heard.
In his opening argument calling for a war crimes trial in Britain, Michael Mansfield QC said that the offence of waging an aggressive war has effectively been assimilated into English law.
The attempt to bring Blair – with the former foreign secretary Jack Straw and the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith – to court has been launched by the former Iraqi general Abdulwaheed al-Rabbat.
Rabbat, said Mansfield, was motivated by last year’s publication of the report of the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq war.
Mansfield summarised the report’s findings as: “Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to the UK, intelligence reporting about [Iraqi] weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted certainty, that the war was unnecessary and that the UK undermined the authority of the UN security council.”
“Nothing could be more emphatic than these findings,” he said. “It was an unlawful war.”
Mansfield argued that when British prosecutors had opened their cases at the Nuremburg war crimes trials at the end of the second world war, they had acted as though the crime of aggression had already been assimilated into English law.
An initial application to launch the prosecution was dismissed at Westminster magistrates court on the grounds that Blair enjoys immunity and that the crime of aggression does not exist in English law.