Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| dirtylittlecunt |
as George Monbiot writes;
|
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won't address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. ...There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes...The second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it. So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former prime minister. |
full article here, at the guardian.
| 26 Jan 10, 7:26 PM BarbieSlutLoki UK(E), 6 yrs |
Perhaps Peter Tatchell could try a citizens arrest, after trying to arrest Mugabe, Blair should be a bit easier I don't think the invasion was anything more than get Saddam, and protect the oilfields, everything else was incidental I don't think we had any real justification, and would have been better served dealing with domestic terrorists in the UK rather than being Americas patsy
The first rule of Brat Club, we don't talk about Brat Club... | ||
| 26 Jan 10, 8:59 PM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs  |
Nice gesture, but I can't see such an arrest being enforced by any Western government, and I bet it don't raise as much money as we are paying to keep Blair in armed bodyguards (keep them in mind if you do try a citizen's arrest). International man of mystery | ||
| 27 Jan 10, 2:02 PM mq1965 UK(DA), 8 yrs |
The trouble with all this argument about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was legal or not is that it tends to assume that there is some sort of clear international law that is in some way equivalent to established national law. What actually exists is a few treaties and some general theorising by lawyers and commentators about what international law is. The reality of international law has always been that it is whatever the strongest countries want it to be. Treaties have only ever been binding until they become inconvenient, and there is no clear international rule making body that is recognised as having the power to make law, and even less of a body that can enforce it. It would be great if we could have some sort of worldwide agreement on "laws" and establish an acceptable way of enforcing it, but too many countries fear they would be over-ruled by other power blocs and lose their autonomy - and that isn't just the United States. The big powers like the US, Russia and China are not going to give up the power they have, and the small countries are too frightened of losing internal power. | ||
| 29 Jan 10, 1:07 AM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs |
Apart from the war possibly being illegal, it seems that Blair lied to cabinet, parliament and the electorate to lead the country into an immensely costly and bloody war, and apparently there is no penalty for doing so. International man of mystery | ||
| 29 Jan 10, 10:42 AM toothbrush UK(LS), 3 yrs |
That was the problem in the first place. Her majesty's loyal opposition failed in their duty to hold government to account.
I refer to the answer I gave a moment ago. The re-election was due to the lack of a credible opposition. Oddly, whilst I think Blair was following an evangical personal agenda with Bush, I think the real shame is in the lack of holding to account by cabinet, opposition, or parliament. Prime ministers will come up with crack pot ideas all the time, it was Hoon, Howard and Straw who let us down.
Edited 29 Jan 10, 10:54 AM by toothbrush | ||
| 29 Jan 10, 10:33 PM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs |
Its seeming more and more that neither the opposition nor his party colleagues believed that the Prime Minister might mislead them. Told that Saddam's weapons programme was "active" and that it was "beyond doubt" that Iraq had WMDs they believed that Iraq was a serious and imminent threat, it was inconceivable to them that the Prime Minister might be lying to them to gain their support for the war. International man of mystery | ||
| 30 Jan 10, 12:11 AM Slavebinder UK(PE), 6 yrs |
So you believe the Iraqi people are so subhuman they deserved what Saddam Hussein had been doing to them for over 25 years and we should have let an entire nation be ruled by violence, torture, murder and fear? Perhaps this enquiry should hear from the people of Iraq themselves about the attrocities visited on them by their corrupt government? It's odd that feel Iraqi citizens do not deserve the same freedom of political opposition as you are exercising here. You are aware that under the previous Ba'athist regieme run by Hussein your entire family would have been executed for the same 'crime' of opposing the government as you are posting here? It's because soldiers die defending your democratic human right to stage a protest that you have that luxury in the first place. Recent surveys carried out in both Afganistan and Iraq are showing that the people of those countries are saying that life is improving. More to the point, now those people are seeing that democracy works when corrupt dictatorships are removed that means more people are turning away from the Taliban and Al Qaeda and looking at the alternative. That in turn means less places for terrorists to find dafe havens in. If you looked at the websites setup during the war you would have seen the link to the records of the Human Rights violations listing literally thousands of individual cases of disappearances, brutal torture, political imprisonment, murder, rape and other acts of violence perpetrated against Iraqis, Kurds, Kuwaitis, etc. during Hussein's rein. Let's not also forget that it was the Iraqi people who sentenced Hussein and 'Chemical Ali' to death under Iraqi law for numerous attrocities. I doubt any surving family members of the 5000 plus Kurdish men, women and children who choked to death on poison gas will support your campaign to arrest Blair. In fact they will probably see it as an insult to their dead loved ones. I for one support any and all military action against terrorists and oppresive regiemes, not just because I missed being on the London underground on 7/7 at the last minute and thank my stars that I am still alive, but also because I feel all people deserve to be given the chance to experience democracy and to have the rights we should all have. I expect there will be opposition to what I say here but, as with your post, I am expressing my human right to protest against something I feel is unjust. A right that my Grandfathers and their colleagues fought to preserve during the second world war. Edited 30 Jan 10, 12:15 AM by Slavebinder | ||
| 30 Jan 10, 12:40 AM Slavebinder UK(PE), 6 yrs |
In fact. To hear what Iraqi Kurds felt in 2003 when the war was being fought, take a look at this article - also from the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/17/worl... The most interesting quote from the article (about a female survivor of the infamous Halabja gas attack on the fifteen anniversary of the attack) is: "Speaking on Sunday, on the 15th anniversary of the attack, Mrs Ahmed, and other survivors of Halabja, said that they were baffled by anti-war demonstrations in Britain and Europe. "The demonstrators don't understand what is going on in Iraq," she said. "If they had suffered in the way we have, they wouldn't bother demonstrating. "I'm not happy about civilians being killed but, at the same time, I would like Saddam to be toppled. We are unable to do it ourselves." Mrs Ahmed and her neighbours are convinced that Saddam still has hidden supplies of chemical weapons. Those sentiments are shared by most people in Iraqi Kurdistan, the autonomous enclave of northern Iraq which has been run by the Kurds since 1991." It's an issue that many people jump on the anti-US anti-UK bandwagon without fully investigating the situation and past events and the views of those who suffered directly first. | ||
| 30 Jan 10, 12:56 AM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs |
I don't defend Sadaam, he was a very naughty boy. However, the way action was taken against him has undermined respect for international law and our own democratic systems. On a global and UK level this is probably worse than leaving him in power but contained. Iraq was bad under Sadaam, but it is hardly a land of milk and honey now we've got rid of him and placed it under the protection of the USA: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ International man of mystery | ||
| 30 Jan 10, 1:43 AM dave_j UK(L), 7 yrs |
i think you would have to search long and hard to find someone who actually thought we should have left Saddam alone. the point people are debating, and the inquiry is about, is whether Blair lied about why he was taking us into Iraq. if he had stood up and said "i think he's a bad boy and needs a spanking" we would all have been reaching for the brain bleach, but the reasons would have been out there in the open. but he didnt. he blathered on about weapons of mass destruction (all of which has been proven to be just a 'tiny' bit incorrect. in fact it was heavily disputed by actual experts at the time too). hence why people are understandably upset about how truthful Blair was at the outset, and how much those around him knew about what was really going on. the central and basic question being asked is whether the ends justify the means. they can have my FREEDOM when they pry it from my cold dead hands. |
