The Tony Blair War Crimes Foundation is collecting signatures.
http://blairfoundation.wordpress.com/signatories/
Includes amongst others, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Ken Loach…
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Thanks for posting this.
Good work.
Hardly a good advertisement, is it? Listing three well-known nut-jobs says all we need to know about your mindset. And you wonder why you got the sack!
Signed!
Off topic but just finished reading “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo” and just wanted to say it is a great, great book and as a fan and scholar of Southern Africa, it has opened my eyes and provided much stimulus for research to the Western part of that continent.
Keep up the good work Craig and ignore the tits!
kardinal,
They are men of conscience; such men get sacked by those who lack it.
I trust you’re gainfully employed?
Luv and kisses JG.
Kardinal Thingy
Craig ‘Got the sack’ because he refused to suck up to corrupt power, or to be intimidated by it. Behaviour that takes REAL guts since it renders you toxic to the ‘The Establishment’ which, to the extent that it is seen as a real threat, can be dangerous to more than just your job prospects. Bliar is an almost archetypal example of just what obsessive sucking up to REAL power does to the soul. The man is a ghastly, transparent hypocrite – but a rich one now eh?
@kardinal birkutzki:
I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the web site that Craig refers to. It is perhaps unfortunate that the address contains the phrase “blairfoundation” as if it is something that Blair supports, or has set up himself. It is no such thing – it is an attempt to bring him to justice for his war crimes in Iraq.
Also: you may be mistaking this for the “Blair Faith Foundation”, which Blair did set up. The two things are not the same.
“…Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Ken Loach…”
All the usual suspects. Yawn. Haven’t these people got better things to do with their time? They know full well that this is a futile exercise. You may despise Blair but I happen to think he was a great prime minister (but then you lot probably think Lenin was a decent sort of bloke and not eally a mass murderer). But see this link for details of Blair’s charitable works. At least he has the power and money to do this sort of thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/15/tony-cherie-blair-charities
@kardinal – I spoke to soon. I release you were referring to Chomsky et al – my apologies for misreading your post!
Well, that they are “nutjobs” is not at all well-known – that is merely your opinion. Perhaps you could tell us either why you think they are nutjobs, or indeed (by implication) why Blair should not find himself in the dock at the Hague?
@eddie – comments about Lenin are totally off-topic. However, if you wish, you could put forward arguments as to why you think Blair should not find himself indicted for war crimes. Surely since there is doubt in the matter, and you presumably are sure he would not be found guilty, why not agree to the trial on the basis he would be freed with an apology from the court?
Or perhaps you are worried that international law might (a) apply to Blair and convict him, and (b) run contrary to your views about UK/US invasions of other countries whenever we feel like it?
Eddie,
You still haven’t answered my question from a previous comment. That question is
Do you work for the intelligence services?
This question now also applies to Kardinal Birkutzk.
Ruth
No I don’t and the question says more about your mindset than about me.
Jon, perhaps it would be more sensible if you set out your legal case for a trial. This has been raised for at least the last six years and the response from the ICC has been? Zero. Perhaps you would point to a single objective, internationally known jurist who would give credibility to such a case?
There is no case to answer. Iraq was freed from tyranny under a UN mandate and the left should applaud it, just as all the millions of Iraqi trade unionists and leftists who suffered under Saddam applaud it. The recent elections, which saw a resounding defeat for Islamists and a victory for secularists, proves that Iraq is on track to be a successful democracy.
Bliar and his self publicist wife are given a puff in this Observer article.
Laughable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/15/tony-cherie-blair-charities
What was that awful book called? Oh yes – ‘Speaking for Myself’ – a snip at Amazon reduced from $30 to $19.80
He is a psychopath and she has what is called chutzpah?
I’ve just posted a fairly detailed reply to eddie. Since it contained links, it has been queued for moderation/approval so, if past experience is any guide, you may be spared my cogitations.
We have no accurate idea of what’s going on in Iraq. We can’t be sure of what is published is correct.
The most worrying thing is the number of mercenaries, I think there are about 30,000, under the overall control of Tim Spicer. Their activities are not scrutinised so how do we not know they subject the Iraqi people to a regime of terror. We have not been given a clear idea of their role. Also how do we not know that the Iraqi election was fixed.
Eddie needs to know that the letter is addressed to ”To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.” and not to the ICC in the Hague.
The foundation has had the opinion of a leading international lawyer in this move.
Eddie will know that the first person to be indicted before the ICC is before it now. Lubunga is charged with various abuses of children including their involvement in fighting.
Eddie might recall that several or more soldiers were sent ill-trained and UNDER SEVENTEEN to Iraq under HM. He might wish to forget the latter peccadillo given the enormity of Blair’s other crimes.
Look again Eddie at Ali Abbas, and with those others who scoff, say whether you are content for more children to suffer. Shame on you and on all those people who, like the people observed by the mother of Amira Hass, who ‘looked from the side’ as the women prisoners were loaded on to railway trucks.
For truth, reason and justice
David Halpin FRCS
We thank Craig for writing of this
The legal case has been set out many times, and I am guessing you are aware of this but reject the various arguments. You are free to do so, but they still exist and stand up to legal scrutiny. They are detailed in the site that Craig supplied, and not for the first time either. It is of note that Cherie Booth’s legal firm released an opinion statement (whilst Blair was still in office) that:
* the power of impeachment does exist in British law, and the courts would probably recognise it
* there were good grounds for starting impeachment proceedings against the Prime Minister
It was comforting to see that at least Cherie was deliberately removed from the process, lest a massive conflict of interest occur. She in any case is on record as believing her husband “did the right thing” (and that he is earnest in his beliefs, which I imagine is true in itself, though no defence).
Anyway, surely if there are grounds for impeachment on “high crimes and misdemeanours” then this would give a solid moral ground for considering “war crimes” or “crimes against humanity” at the ICC? One cannot have one without the other, in my view. It was a shame at the time the corporate media generally left the story well alone, but it was to be expected since it would have effectively indicted them too (in a decent democracy the “free press” would not have allowed the govt to get away with such repeated instances of “big lie” propaganda).
You do make a good point about the response from the ICC – in all honesty I don’t know. I am not an international lawyer, so would not be certain if the call for a trial would need to be officially raised by a member state in order for the ICC to respond to it. If so, it is a question of the first country to dare to pop its head above the parapet (in all likelihood to be immediately shot down by US/UK bullies, as the historical record illustrates well).
Alternatively, they may be silent for the same reason that the UN are silent on most things that would make sane people cry: protocol. Kofi Annan in his outgoing speech criticised Bush, somewhat obliquely, and even this was outspoken by usual standards. Whilst in office his criticism of breaches of international law (say of Israel, or the US) were even more muted, or more usually, were completely silent.
Whether the left should applaud invasive humanitarian intervention is debatable, but we should remember this is also a canard put up by hawks to support any invasion they like. If the war was about humanitarianism, then we would not have rushed to install international energy and construction firms whilst denying reconstruction work to local workers and factories. I can hardly do the topic justice here but the aftermath of the invasion brought with it the most remarkable and deliberate corruption, as detailed in Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine. I genuinely hope that Iraq becomes a successful democracy, but that same book details how the US has no intention of allowing it – and that an ex-CIA operative can become Iraqi Prime Minister without arousing substantial worldwide media condemnation is a remarkable feat in itself.
The leftists and trade unionists are incidentally divided on whether the assassination of Hussein was a good thing – whilst he had some support he was nevertheless an atrocious dictator. But the move was nevertheless seen as the heavy fist of imperialism and I have no doubt that this remains the case. But how can we put ourselves forward as saviours if it was the West who put such a nasty man into power in the first place? This sums up the failure of the right: it is in favour of war that accidentally nets huge profits for corporations and the military-industrial complex, taking away tax monies from countries whose citizenry could desparately do with the social programs that the war fund would have purchased, and all the while failing to explain, as is the case with Iraq, that it was the preference for militarism and profit that caused the problems in the first place.
That all aside, you haven’t answered my central question. If you believe there is no case to answer, and you believe the lies pushed out by Blair, and are willing to tolerate the fabrication of (UK and US) intelligence, then surely you would *support* a trial? It would certainly keep us leftists quiet for a bit, and meanwhile the 1 million + dead in Iraq in your “humanitarian” war deserve an answer too.
[Note – my response above was to @eddie, in case that’s not clear]
What Bliar started with his crooked crony Bush along with his cabal, Obama is continuing. I have just read that 31 people have been killed today by a US airstrike close to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, only days after 25 were killed similarly.
US Airstrike Kills 31 in Pakistan
PIR ZUBAIR SHAH, NYTimes
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m51833&hd=&size=1&l=e
Here’s that post of mine without the links – since that seems to be the only way to ensure it appears. (Craig – it really is a big turn off from bothering to comment in these circumstances)
“…perhaps it would be more sensible if you set out your legal case for a trial”
Set out in the letter accompanying the petition.
“This has been raised for at least the last six years and the response from the ICC has been? Zero.”
Illustrative of a syndrome commonly referred to as ‘Victor’s Justice’. In spite of it being largely boycotted by the US, it is nonetheless a ‘Washington Consensus’ creation. To seriously advocate that it concern itself with anyone other than designated ‘enemies of The West’ (as currently interpreted by those in control of such designations) would be a career-ending move for any Legal-Eagle with Establishment aspirations (A bit like Craig really).
“Perhaps you would point to a single objective, internationally known jurist who would give credibility to such a case?”
The Authoritative UN view is reported in The Guardian here: (Link deleted)
It refers to a EuroLegal document summarised thus:
“Among the world’s foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression”. A ‘War of Aggression being the most heinous of the Internationally defined and accepted ‘War Crimes’
As for Iraq being ‘Feed from a tyranny under UN Mandate” – absolute balderdash. There was no UN mandate and the UN itself says so. And Saddam Hussain? – You (we) are very selective in our choices of Tyrants to be deposed aren’t you (we)? How would you characterise Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uzbekistan and a host of other gross and offensive tyrannies that we find it expedient to cultivate as ‘allies’ rather than ‘liberate’ for example?
Your ignorance of the real implications of the recent Iraqi election results is touching in it’s child-like naivety
“International Criminal Court can, if the key countries ratify the Rome Statute in the foreseeable future, effectively end the era of double standards in international criminal justice and thus contribute to a global order of peace. The deterrent effect of an end to impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide should not be underestimated.”…
http://tinyurl.com/dja9n2
Whatever you say, if the legal case is strong then due process will take its course. However, I am willing to give each of you one thousand pounds if Blair ever appears before the ICC. It will not happen. To suggest that he should volunteer to appear is just absurd. Would any person volunteer to appear before a court when they have not been charged? Would you?
David Halpin I respect your views but distrust anyone who puts letters after their name. Why? What’s more I am afraid that I despise pacifism and everything that you stand for. I am glad that my grandfather’s generation stood up to fascism. I wish more of the left would do so now, instead of appeasing it.
Sabretache – perhaps you haven’t studied the results of the recent elections in Iraq? I suggest you do so before passing cynical comments. Iraq will be judged as a success in the long run. We may well have supported Saddam in the early days, but that is realpolitik for you – we supported him against a greater evil – i.e. the theocratic fascists of Iran, the regime that regularly hangs Gay people. As for deposing lesser tyrants before bigger ones, you pose a question that I have regularly asked from the other side. Why are you and yours so obsessed with Gaza when thousands more are dying in Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan and other tyrannies? As it happens I would support action to make any functioning member country of the UN uphold basic principles of free speech, habeas corpus, human rights etc, whether it is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Russia, Iran or a host of other countries. Perhaps I could pose a question to you – are there, or have there ever been, circumstances where the invasion of a sovereign country would be justified? Rwanda? Sudan? Zimbabwe? Do you not think that the suffering of their peoples would ever justify intervention?
‘Tis a nice though to think that maybe Blair has been supported in all these very nicely paid speaking engagements that he’s been doing lately because those who live in the tops of the trees know full well that he’s going to need it all to fund his equally expensive defence team in the not-to-distant future?
And by the way, Iraq is not a member party of the ICC and therefore cannot bring a case in respect of any alleged crime committed on its territory. Only the UN can do that.
In general there is an overwhelming, massive, concensus, amongst lawyers and experts in international law, that the seige of Iraq, the unilateral imposition of the two no-fly zones, the blokade, the invasion, the occupation, the ‘genocide’ were blatantly, monsterously, illegal.
If we lived in funtioning democracy; Blair and most of his cabinet, who were complicit in war crimes, would certainly all be in jail, especially if we tried them using the same kind of victor’s court we used to ‘try’ Saddam, which Blair regarded as fair and impartial.
Only our Western leaders can get away with murder on massive scale and still walk around without fear, even though they are clearly war criminals of the first water.
It’s almost as if we have used a perverted logic that states that the leaders of democratic, Western countries, cannot be guilty of war crimes, therefore, they have carte blanche to do whatever they like and commit any crime with impunity, provided we define the enemy as ‘outlaws.’ Outlaws in the old-fashioned sense of being individuals who are outside the law and can be hunted down like animals and brought in dead or alive.
War in Iraq, nukes which didn’t exist there, 9/11… People, can anyone tell me about the just cause for war in Afghanistan? We are receiving some credible information Afghani invasion had been planned well before 9/11. Particularly, the Uzbekistani regime had secret talks in 2000-2001 with the US and NATO on the subject of military base and transit of convoys thru it’s territory. Craig, did you know about that when you were ambassador in Tashkent?
Eddie, you ask: “are there, or have there ever been, circumstances where the invasion of a sovereign country would be justified?”
My own view is that, yes, there are. In cases where humanitarian abuses are so extreme that it would amount to complicity with murder not to intervene. Unfortunately I can think of no instance where an invasion has taken place for this reason. Where possible I believe the best solution is usually for the mass of the population to rise up and overthrow the offending regimes from within, as happened in Nicaragua, Iran, Chile, Cuba, Grenada, Romania, Philippines etc etc. Note however how many of those were immediately demonised by the West, which obviously preferred its client despots who ruled before and in many instances actively worked (or works) to reverse the populist overthrow.
I find your simplistic acceptance of all the propaganda you are fed astonishing. You mention Zimbabwe, but who is a better example of a western client despot than Mugabe? Reacquaint yourself with the Carrington-led shenanigans at the Lancaster House conference that led to Mugabe’s installation as president if you need convincing.
Regarding Iran, may I ask on what you base your view that it “regularly hangs Gay people”? Although homosexuality is technically a crime in Iran, the evidential requirements to bring a charge (four eye-witnesses who have actually seen the details of the act) are so demanding as to make punishment almost impossible. You’ll be telling me next that you believe Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, or that he denies the holocaust!
Gentlemen,
“Eddie” is winding people up for the “fun” of it, as a kind of exercise. His comments shouldn’t be taken seriously, though this is difficult, as they are so irritating and time consuming. So often with Eddie one has to start with the invention of the wheel and move forward from there. There are so many assumptions, distortions, and so much bias built into his comments, that one doesn’t know where to start, and that’s before one gets to the substance of the individual comment.
Eddie seems accutely aware of the failings of others and the holes in their arguments and logic, yet when it comes to his own blindness, his own faith, and truth, he appears totally oblivious and seems willing to accept authority without question.
“If we lived in funtioning democracy” – er, we do actually. Can you suggest improvements to our parliamentary system? Or perhaps there is a country that is better in your view? If you don’t like our system you are quite at liberty to change it, providing you can get a majority on your side. It’s called the democratic process. I think you are just frustrated because you know that your talk of war crimes is just bluff and bluster. Writerman I would like to see evidence of your “overwhelming consensus” – where is your proof? Have you actually read the Rome statute? Iraq is not a member, as I have pointed out.
MJ – Mugabe won a huge majority in 1980 and was clearly the people’s choice, having led the armed resistance. But I agree, he was a murderous thug even then. I don’t think you could describe him as a friend of the West. Do you have any evidence that “the mass of the population” supported Castro or Khomeini, for example? Interesting point, but I don’t think the people of Zimbabwe will have the strength to get rid of Mugabe now, and in my view it is a clear cut case that justifies intervention, on precisely the conditions you set out. Not to intervene would prolong a greater evil. Regarding Iran, I prefer to rely on the evidence provided by Peter Tatchell on the execution of Gay people. He has documented many, many cases. Your comment about four eyewitnesses (in a police state!!!) is laughable.
“Do you have any evidence that “the mass of the population” supported Castro or Khomeini, for example?”
Just read the history of those revolutions.
“I don’t think you could describe him [Mugabe] as a friend of the West”
Why do you think he was given a kmighthood?
“Your comment about four eyewitnesses (in a police state!!!) is laughable”
That is as may be, but it is the law.