Tony Blair - A Smooth Criminal or a True Leader

Is Tony Blair a War Criminal?

Should the Public demand he be punished?

I came across this comment by someone which I think says allot:

First Blair took us into a war on the pretext of Saddam's possession of WMD - which didn't exist, and which he knew full well didn't exist. Now his reasoning has shifted towards supporting invasion because Saddam might have started amassing WMD. If this anaemic defence is in any way considered acceptable, we may as well declare open-house on global military interventions based on the merest suspicion of future hostility - and a descent into barbarism and chaos.

What your take on it...??

Tony Blair was clearly in contravention of the Geneva convention, therefore he is a war criminal. Given that he has been complicit in the actions yaken by the US in Guantanamo Bay, there is no need to argue about WMD.

Other than that he was the first British leader to master the 'sound bite', a rather pathetic americanism used to describe any policy in a few seconds so as to coincide with the attention span of the average member of the 'great unwashed'.

I have a feeling I'll be in a minority - but it's ludicrous to describe him as a war criminal, just because he went to war. If he is, how much more are our PMs during WWI and WWII, including our beloved Churchill. He was the guy responsible for our arguably criminal bombing campaign, remember; including the totally needless fire-bombing of Dresden, a holocaust of civilians surpassed (as a one-off event) only by the atom bombs. Tony Blair, on the other hand, cannot be held directly responsible for the majority of deaths in Iraq, which have been inflicted by Islamic extremists.

The thing is, the people who are saying 'war criminal' now are often the same people who advocated regime change after the first Gulf War (because of Saddam's treatment of Iraqi ethnic minorities) and who, during crises like Rwanda and the Balkans, kept saying 'Why don't "they" do something?'. You can't have it both ways.

To be honest, the whole concept of an illegal war is a bit silly and childish. War is what happens when international law breaks down.

That is why i made the point about Guantanamo Bay, that is unrelated to the actual war, but it is a clear breach of international law. There can be no excuse for torture and detention without legal recourse.

But he can't be a 'war criminal' for that reason alone - it's not a war crime.

Kind of surprised you object to G'mo, Liammons!

gille,
it is a war crime because some of the detainees are prisioners of war, admittedly only a few. The Irish government is also culpable as they have allowed CIA flights to overfly and on occasion refuel in Ireland.
Why would i be against Guantanamo?
It is a basic human principle not to condone torture or a 'process' that allows people to be held without trial for years. Just because i am classified a racist, a xenophobe (quite amusing for someone who has lived in 3 different nations in his life and travelled extensively) and a down right 'rotten egg' by the liberal left does not mean i don't believe in things like due process. Contrary to popular opinion there is a group on the extreme right who are not in any way 'NAZIs', i would consider myself more of a traditionalist.
Do you not agree he should be tried for his actions in G'mo?

I dunno - can there be any PM who hasn't been complicit in that kind of thing?

I've always felt the 'war crime' thing is a bit of a liberal revenge fantasy. They demanded we should not participate in the attack - it's still very difficult to say whether they were right. But Blair wouldn't listen, and that's the thing they really can't forgive.

The Falklands war, for example, was probably just as unpopular to begin with, and Thatcher has also been accused of 'war crimes' (equally without grounds, in my opinion, though I'm no fan of hers). But there's never been the same degree of personal bitterness against her.

Of course, the forces secured a straightforward, successful outcome for her, which makes a big difference. It's the ongoing frustration in Iraq and elsewhere that really gives Blair's accusers their opening.

I think trying to highlight parallel similarities between the recent Iraq invasion and previous military conflicts like WW2 and the Falklands is completely unhelpful. The circumstances are totally different.
As already mentioned, the invasion was illegal by definition. It is my opinion that politicians should be held held to the same standards that they apply to foreign political regimes.

In any case, the most important factor in the invasion is often overlooked whenever I have seen it: the influence of the US government. Would anyone think that our country would have made the decision to invade by itself? The majority of pre-war "intelligence" was collected by US agencies like the CIA. In addition, Bush was planning to overthrow the Saddam as soon as he was in office.

If political leaders are to punished for this (and I doubt they will), what is the idea behind it anyway? It would be a pathetic act for anyone to be punished after the damage has been done to Iraq in the form of 100000 civilian deaths and an infrastructure that takes decades to rebuild.

I think the question needs to be looked at from a different angle. Thousands of people have died and suffered because of the Iraq War. These deaths are murders if we went to war because two men decided they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and used WMD as an excuse. We cannot look into the hearts, minds or souls of these two men, but if they, if only for a moment, decided that they were to going to war at any cost, and were prepared to use 'any means possible, even deception, then they may be guilty of war crimes.
We may not ever know whether Tony Blair and George Bush are War Criminals, but that does not negate their guilt or innocence. They have to live with their conscience, and you cannot 'spin' with that!

Are circumstance that different? What the Iraq crisis proved is that the UN is ineffectual, a dead letter, unable to enforce its own resolutions. So what you're left with is individual states pursuing their own policies with better or worse motives, as there have always been.

The allegation of illegality remains a moot point - but I would argue, if it was illegal for countries to enforce UN resolutions, what is the point of having them?

The fact that the US would've invaded with or without us is possibly an argument we were right to participate (and hopefully moderate their policy) rather than not.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in terms of the ineffectuality of the UN. For too long has it been unable to enforce its own resolutions and at some point action has to be taken by somebody when this happens. What is the purpose of the UN?
Suppose Hussein had been allowed to continue with his regime, what then? Clearly there is evidence of the brutality and insanity of his rule and were we to wait until his agenda changed to something on a more global scale? Typically it is a great failing of human kind to 'see' before proverbially believing and to not act until a crime has been actually commited, and in this case, we're talking about WMD, NOT petty crime mind you, but an international violation of human rights and human life. Sadam Hussein was a murderer and tyrant, and with respect' the lives of all the innocent lost falls squarely on his actions. It was a result of his blatant arrogance and refusal to openly declare his agenda that resulted in the reaction from the USA and UK.
I have studied both sides of the argument carefully and extremely subjectively, and to be honest, I think Tony Blair did the best he could given the weight of the decision. No decision will ever be perfect and credence should be given to noble motives.
There is always accountability for ones actions and war will always cost lives, but to refer to lessons of the past, Hitler was not seen as a threat in the beginning, perhaps only a minor one at that, and the end result went on to cost many many millions of lives, civilian and soldiers. We cannot ignore these occurences. So lets say we left Sadam Hussein alone and kept sending him useless resolutions until the day he 'flicked the switch'. He was clearly capable of this given the evidence of previous 'conquests'.

The only WMD I've seen in the last 10years have all been hijacked aeroplanes crashed into buildings.

The title of teflon tony and the conservatives description of him as the most dangerous of men, made before he wielded the unlawful power of deceit, show that there is no backbone in this country anymore. The country went along with this master of duplicity and only now that the outcome of the invasion is apparent are calling for his downfall.
Bush and Blair along with a Cabinet that had no guts to stand up to the manufacture of circumstantial evidence to fit the scenario, have made the world a more dangerous place and one that will take generations to bring to peaceful conclusion.
Whether or not he is punished all I ask is that no one man ever takes this country to war again, without the countries consent.

I was in the anti- Iraq invasion march in Glasgow. Before this I had left the Labour Party when I saw that Blair held a contempt for his party and more important had embarked on a presidential style of government in the UK although our constitution is firmly based on cabinet government. I knew this would have serious outcomes but never contemplated an invasion of Iraq based on myths and lies. For me the MP`s expenses situation is bad but nothing in my lifetime can match Blair`s approach to government. Had Brown shown courage and stood against Blair after John Smith died none of this might have happened. Brown had a second chance to redeem himself when he could have refused to approve Treasury spending for this illegal war . He would have been sacked but would have been Prime Minister within three or four months. Goes to show that bullies are often cowards when the heat is turned on. Just who is there to admire and trust in UK politics at the moment

Hijacked aeroplanes crashed into buildings certainly have had an impact, however that said, it is not relative to the Iraq War - the difference between international terrorism and domestic affairs is significant.

"No decision will ever be perfect and credence should be given to noble motives." I study both history and politics and what I have seen thus far (I'm only second year, so please excuse my possible lack of on-hand knowledge) is that neither a person nor their motives should be taken at face-value, and while credit where it is due, we can only speculate as to all the motives behind President Bush and Prime Minister Blair's decision.

Blair did not listen to the people of the country nor that of his intelligence service, instead he followed Bush, which as we now see is paying off handsomely for Mr. Blair. We can not expect to receive the respect of the world when we are willing to overlook the fact that Mr. Blair took our country to war illegally, seemly without recourse. This move has caused a complete shift in the world and created a divide that will take a century to recover from. In the short term, invading Iraq has completely destroyed the legitimacy and progress of the legal war in Afghanistan, giving voice to many extremist that have now turned the situation in to a religious battle. The war has also drained significant resources from our country at a time when they are needed.

I could go on, however I will summarise by saying, with power comes responsibility.

It is time for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair to go to the Haag.

Some of you guys are confirming what I said - that his biggest crime was not listening to you. It's another moot point - is a leader to do what the majority want, or what he thinks is right? Tricky one, but I tend to think the latter. It's really Blair's integrity, not the lack of it, that has got him into trouble. If he wanted a quiet life he'd have done what the crowds said and kept out of it.

I think as a nation, we might just be loosing the bottle to do something about it. I mean if you count on your fingers the amount of times our leaders have pulled the wool over our eyes, you be needing more fingers. But what have we actually done to correct things, tell them enough is enough. or make an example of them.

Over time our rights to protest will be slowing capped away, we will have complaints procedures like they have in the States or China, where you call and an automated system tells you to record your complain after the beep.

Come on people, let wakes up

Annie, are you OK? No. I don't think she is. She's unstable and though she certainly did have problems before, there were far better to deal with them rather than lying to everyone, ignoring them and then shooting her.

I think the real point here is being missed. As the Soviet Union collapsed, the Balkan muslim's began a terror campaign designed to drive the christian Serbs from their homeland of Kosovo. To maintain order the duly elected Yugoslavian Government, led by President Milosevic, deployed military force; as Britain had done in Belfast in similar circumstances. Tony Blair was right behind America's bombing of Serbia for these actions, and a prime mover in declaring the Serbian leaders to be war criminals. He also deployed British troops/police officers to hunt down, arrest and prosecute; numerous Serbian leaders for these 'war crimes'.

The World moved on however, and only months later, America suffered her own Muslim terrorist attacks. Again Blair was right behind America as she invaded Iraq/Afganistan, both sovereign nations, without UN approval; far graver actions, which led to far more human misery, than those for which Milosevic 'died in prison' amidst very dubious circumstances. The legal position is crystal clear. Under the same international law used by Tony Blair to imprison Serbian members of Yugoslavia's Government; he has indisputably commited 'war crimes' and of greater magnitude. Serbian forces didn't violate international borders; on his orders British forces did.

So They Came Into The
Outway
It Was Sunday-What A Black
Day
Mouth To Mouth Resus-
Citation
Sounding Heartbeats-
Intimidations

Coincidence???

I may be alone here but hasn't it been generally accepted by the legal community over 5 different Iraq inquiries (yes this latest one is the 6th) that Tony Blair did not fabricate evidence but simply believed the evidence he was given to him by the intelligence services who were themselves rather more mistaken than malicious. I mean it served no purpose to go to war in Iraq from the British point of view, it has been a massive drain on our economy and was always going to be politically unpopular. I think the idea of Tony Blair being a war criminal is frankly ridiculous. As prime minister he had an obligation to act upon intelligence he received. If we hadn't gone to war and Saddam's regime had indeed had WMDs (as was thought by almost everyone including in government and NATO at the time) and these WMD's were circulated and used in acts of war or terrorism Tony, Blair would have been guilty of neglect in office. It is quite silly to try and use him as a scape goat for the aftermath of the war which was really down to poor preparation by the Americans and of course the volatile situation socially where by insurgency became rife.

I think you are mistaken in saying "far graver actions, which led to far more human misery, than those for which Milosevic". What was happening in Kosovo was ethnic cleansing and genocide. The suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan (while terrible, I agree with you there) has not included genocide since the Anglo/American invasions. Before that Saddam was indeed slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Kurds each year which far out ways the death toll since the beginning of the wars in either territory. I do not think that the two events are really comparable due to the targeted attacks by militants on civilians (which however terrible the act of British forces, I do not think it has extended that far) such as the Racak massacre...

What tends to get forgotten in all these hang-Tony-Blair discussions is that Saddam Hussein was one of the most dangerous men on the planet who had caused the death of millions of Iraqis and Iranians, who had used WMD against his own population, who would undoubtedly have re-acquired WMD just as soon as it was politically possible for him to do so, whose dynasty was completely entrenched in the form of two sons at least as psychopathic as himself. Are we saying we would prefer him still to be there?