The right decision here.
The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and another senior judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, said on Monday that there was no crime of aggression in English law under which the former prime minister could be charged.
Indeed. The decision to go to war was based upon flawed intelligence and was a really, really bad idea. Blair was guilty of foolishness, arrogance and overweening narcissism, but he was not guilty of a crime in law.
The two judges recognised that a crime of aggression had recently been incorporated into international law, but said it did not apply retroactively.
Quite so. If we have retroactive law to prosecute Blair, where will it end? The whole idea is repugnant. Better that Blair for all his failings goes free than we have retroactive prosecutions.
I respectfully disagree. Blair, and Bush have been tried at the International War Crime Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur and both have been found guilty, but the tribunal has no powers of arrest. I understand that there may be no way under English law to bring him to trial, but that does not mean he was not party to the invented intelligence, or that he is not a war criminal. I’m not one to automatically believe conspiracy theories, but at the time it was plain, even to myself that Bush was looking for the slightest excuse to go into Iraq, and Blair was his sock puppet. In my opinion, justice needs to be served, by fair means or foul. You may find it repugnant to have a retroactive law to do this, but let me put something to you.
Liken this case to that of Myra Hindley. She was kept in jail and died there. And quite rightly so in my view. But she had served her sentence years ago, and there was even no retroactive law to keep her there, just public opinion. Do you see the hypocracy? The English find it easy to break their own laws, but only for some.
Blair needs to be tried at the Hague under international law, not under English law. Let’s see how innocent he is then.
Nor does it have any legitimacy, so I’ll ignore it.
Yes, but I believe, having served her sentence, Hindley should have been set free. Public opinion is not good enough and nor should it be.
Nope. The same defence was often attempted at Nuremberg – the crime of waging aggressive war did not exist when WW2 started.
Many of the German defendants were also ex-ministers but from the Telegraph “Westminster Magistrates’ Court refused to issue summonses in November last year on the grounds that the ex-ministers had immunity from legal action.”
Ex-ministers have immunity from legal action. They are above the law.
It wasn’t the aggressive war that did for them, it was the wholesale murder.
Donitz got sent to Spandau but all he did was command the submarine service, which any naval officer from any country would have done. Anyway, waging aggressive war was one of the indictments ie. attacking countries which posed no immediate threat, which is what Tony Blair did. Even if he was merely a fool, the fact that ex-ministers can’t be tried is an appalling situation. Why should any public servant be immune from the consequences of illegal actions undertaken during his public service? Shouldn’t that work for soldiers in Northern Ireland? if a squaddie can be investigated for perhaps over-reacting and shooting one person, forty years ago under very difficult circumstances, why isn’t that other someone liable for attacking an entire country under false pretences?
Donitz as sufficiently close to the Nazi leadership to have been aware of what was going on.
I agree with you on ministerial immunity.
On the main matter, however, there is no English law with which to prosecute, which is the matter under judgement here. You and others here seem to want to put the law aside.
It’s hackenyed now, but nevertheless, applies.
Do you remember Nick Griffin’s so-called hate-speech trial in which he was acquitted? It was in 2006.
John Reid, then Secretary of State, did not say “Well he’s been proven to be innocent and freedom of speech is important even if someone says something you don’t like.”
No, what he said was “If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.”
I think you’re right after all, if there’s no law to get Tony for war crimes then there’s no law.
If only the politicians were as keen on that principle when dealing with the rest of us. They constantly make laws. That’s the problem.
Well, yes. I agree. They are unreliable, deceitful scum and they are the enemy within. What we need is a great repeal act, but that’s not going to happen. 🙁
The judges are wrong. The law was changed so as to allow the prosecution of the killers of Stephen Lawrence. Before that time, no man could be tried twice for the same crime.
The removal of double jeopardy, appalling though it was, meant that they could be tried under law that existed at the time of the offence.
International law- war of aggression.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/War_of_aggression
Then the War Crimes Tribunal can issue arrest warrants…
They haven’t? Well, in that case, nothing more to be done. The judges are correct, there is no such crime in English law.
Are you defending what Blair did to Britain?
I’m not defending anyone. Where have I said anything that remotely suggests this?