Tony Blair may face impeachment on release of Chilcot report

[transatlantica]

Source: The Guardian


Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, said there “has to be a judicial or political reckoning” for Blair’s role in the Iraq conflict. “He seemed puzzled as to why Jeremy Corbyn thinks he is a war criminal, why people don’t like him,” he told Sky News.

“The reason is 179 British war dead, 150,000 immediate dead from the Iraq conflict, the Middle East in flames, the world faced with an existential crisis on terrorism – these are just some of the reasons perhaps he should understand why people don’t hold him in the highest regard.

“[MPs] believe you cannot have a situation where this country blunders into an illegal war with the appalling consequences and at the end of the day there isn’t a reckoning. There has to be a judicial or political reckoning for that.”

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, did not disagree with the suggestion that he and Corbyn were going to “crucify” the former leader for “being a war criminal”.



Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/tony-blair-may-face-impeachment-on-release-of-chilcot-report

[Else You Are Mad]

1. All of the war criminals that...

got us into the illegal war in Iraq need to be in jail for life for the war crimes they committed.

[yeoman6987]

2. Somebody earlier said no

Now somebody says yes. The dueling stories will go on for years I'm sure.

[Ghost Dog]

4. The International Criminal Court is prevented by the USA from applying

the international law that was applied in the Nuremberg Trials, to any party. See this DU thread.

But the UK can and should put him on trial for this, the Supreme Crime.

[cstanleytech]

6. Doesnt make any sense.

The US didnt sign onto the ICC and isnt part of the court so it should not be allowed imo to have any say on such trials until and or unless it joins the ICC.

[Ghost Dog]

8. ... "Not allowed"?

...By you and whose army? Is the reply to that, apparently. Mediaeval (or Mafia) Might Makes Right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. This isn't a prosecution for war crimes; impeachment hasn't happened since 1806

and is so vague in English law that it could mean almost anything, in terms of what it accuses him of, thebalance of evidence and proof, and in any sanction.

I think it would only happen if the Tories thought there was a political advantage to it (since it needs a majority in the Commons to start it, as well as give the verdict). That would depend on how much they can tie Blair to present-day Labour politicians, and how much it would be seen as a part political move on their part - and perhaps a distraction from both their own splits, and the EU situation they're meant to be concentrating on. Impeachment can end up looking like those doing the impeaching aren't doing the most important part of their job, remember.

I haven't heard of any Tories talking about this, and the article doesn't mention them, though they'd be needed for this to proceed.

[BainsBane]

12. He doesn't hold office anymore, right?

So what would he be impeached from? I find this confusing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. That's the beauty, or uselessness, of impeachment; it's what you want to make of it

because it predates the current judicial process;

Impeachment was a means by which Parliament could prosecute and try individuals,
normally holders of public office, for high treason or other crimes and misdemeanours.
The first recorded impeachment in Parliament was in 1376 and the last in 1806.

Impeachment is considered obsolete, as it has been superseded by other forms of
accountability, and the rules underpinning the procedure have not been adapted to
modern standards of democracy or procedural fairness.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7612/CBP-7612.pdf

About the only impeachment that you learn about in history, of Warren Hastings, happened after he had resigned from his post (effectively, Governor-General of the parts of India Britain controlled then).

I really can't see many politicians wanting to go ahead with it. It would look a bit Ruritanian at a time when they're trying to look serious.

[Jemmons]

3. Regrettably they failed when they tried Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville in a similar case but

perhaps they will have better luck with Tony Blair.

[LiberalLovinLug]

5. If they do charge Blair it would go a long way

A long way towards legitimizing similar actions against Bush and Cheney. Nearly impossible probably, but watching Blair be indicted on war crimes would help convince a lot of those on the fence about the severity of what BushCo. dragged the country through.

[ut oh]

9. If only...

there were a reckoning for Bush & Co.....

[JackRiddler]

10. If there ever is a reckoning with the Bush regime...

the first step will be the prosecution of Blair.

[JackRiddler]

11. And THIS is why the Blairites attempted their coup against Corbyn...

which now appears to have failed miserably. He held tight against their rage and none of them is willing to go at him in a leadership election he will win in a landslide. Really he should insist on it, or else push a campaign to deselect the whole lot of the neoliberal mini-mob who thought to overthrow the democracy of more than half a million party members. This week the worm should turn from Wednesday's presentation of the Chilcot report forward...

[Little Tich]

14. Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time... n/t

[dflprincess]

15. If you can find "The Trial of Tony Blair"

I recommend it. It's satire that came out in 2007 (set in 2010, a little dated as they had Hillary as president in 2010). Basically, the U.S. throws Blair under the bus for Iraq, he can't get anyone to return his calls and he's desperate to avoid being hauled to The Hague.

Perhaps it will turne out to be be accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Tony_Blair

[avaistheone1]

16. k&r

[AntiBank]

17. lock him up for life, with Bush and Cheney right next to this war criminal bampot