Is Tony Blair a war criminal

Great Debates
1

It’s another Guardian piece I’ve thought about, Twiggy Garcia became famous for conducting a citizens arrest on Tony Blair on account of being a war criminal due to what happened in Iraq.

I read some of the comments on the article which got me thinking, is it an accurate assertion to claim he is a war criminal in regards to Iraq, if so, why, I never really understood the reason as to why people think he deliberately lied.

If Iraq had been a resounding foreign policy success would this have been as vocal as it is now in regards to Tony Blair?

2

Morally, of course he is. Legally. he covered his arse by having the Dodgy Dossier created.

Pretty much sums up the value of the misnomer sometimes referred to as ‘international law’.

3

Obviously not.

There’s a reason Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman and co. aren’t viewed as war criminals.

4

They did not do what Blair did, which was to start an offensive war. The equivalent from World War II is not Churchill, it’s Hitler.

5

There are other war crimes besides starting an offensive war. As Robert McNamara noted in The Fog of War, leaders in the US would have (could have) been tried for war crimes had they lost WWII. I suspect that applies to folks across the atlantic, as well.

6

Leaving aside the stupidity of your statement, from the German perspective, Churchill started an offensive war with them just as from the Russian perspective the US and the UK would be starting an offensive war with them if we invaded over the current Russian attempts to take over parts of the Ukraine.

Beyond that, if you really don’t think the allies committed some fairly extreme war crimes in WWII then you need to read up a lot more on it.

7

The UK and France both declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939. They started the ball rolling as far as hostilities as there was no proof that Germany was going to undertake offensive actions against either nation in 1939.

And as someone pointed out there are MANY offenses besides starting and waging an offensive war which could be considered war crimes. They include, but are not limited to:

[ol]
[li]The US Navy policy of unrestricted submarine warfare during WWII.[/li][li]The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden in 1945.[/li][li]The myriad Russian activities in Prussia and what was later East Germany during and after WWII.[/li][li]The UK’s attacking the French Navy in port in Algeria in 1942.[/li][li]Marocchinate - The myriad atrocities committed by Moroccan troops under Free French command during WWII after the Battle of Monte Cassino.[/li][/ol]

When you win the war, you get to write the history.

8

Exactly, only the losing side has war criminals. Though I have to point out that if Tony Blair can be considered a war criminal than obviously George W. Bush is an even bigger one.

9

And you call me stupid.

In response to Germany invading Poland on September 1, 1939. That’s justification for the 1991 Gulf War, not for invading in 2003.

10

That was seriously uncalled for, Grumman. **Ibn Warraq **is absolutely correct. From a neutral legal perspective, the U.K. and France declared an offensive war with no specific casus belli other than that they felt threatened by Germany and wanted to make sure it didn’t acquire any more territory. It is the value judgment of the victors which states that they were right to do so.

11

He didn’t call you stupid. But your argument was absurdly simplistic, as if there are no war crimes less than what Hitler did.

12

Well, they had a casus belli. Germany had declared war on a county they had a defensive alliance with, and the treaty specifically said that they’d declare war on Germany if Germany declared war on Poland. A war in defense of an ally is almost always considered a legitimate casus belli.

13

The war crimes (WWII vintage) would be more along the lines of deliberate targeting of civilians areas for bombing.

14

I didn’t call you stupid, I called your argument stupid.

And yes, comparing Blair to Hitler is stupid.

Anyway, if you don’t think the US and the UK didn’t engage in massive war crimes in WWII that were worse than Blair’s crimes you need to read up on WWII.

15

Well, he used the phrase “offensive war” which is different.

Most people regard Jordan’s invasion of Israel in 1967 as an “offensive war” even though it occurred following Israel’s attack of a Jordanian ally, Egypt, with whom they had a treaty alliance with.

Certainly both Jordan and the UK could have ignored their treaty obligations if they wanted.

Obviously I think there were a number of differences between the two situations which would lead me to disagree with King Hussein while agreeing with Churchill.

16

He became a war criminal even earlier, actually. I wish Pinter didn’t use the word “we.”

17

I just realized I misdirected my quoting; that was original directed at the first half of Grumman’s statement to Ibn Warriq.

I’ll grant that in part, but there are more than a few caveats to that. As other posters have since shown, “Oh, you attacked our ally, guess we’ve just got to go to war, then!” is a an excuse which has been abused many times throughout history. And heck, even this situation wasn’t much different. The English had no great interest in a free Poland and hardly lifted a finger to help her for the next fifty-damn-years. Nor had they taken any interest in the previous hundred-and-fifty. Poland agreed because it was useful to have any allies at the time; but England agreed only out of fear of Germany.

I’m not saying they were wrong to do so, but I do often look at accepted Casus Belli as the excuse for war, not the reason. And certainly in a different world said Casus Belli wouldn’t have protected Churchill from a vengeful Germany even if we somehow assume a completely decent Germany government miraculously took over.

18

Two stupids don’t make a smart.

19

Huh, I said “from the German perspective, Churchill started an offensive war against them”, which was the German perspective of the time. Obviously I disagree with that perspective.

Similarly, from the Israeli perspective, Jordan launched an offensive war against them which justified the occupation of the West Bank when Jordan invaded Israel.

Obviously, the Arabs disagree and argue that Jordan had a cassus belli because they had a defensive treaty agreement with Egypt and Israel had just attacked Egypt.*
*. Obviously, the Israelis argue this was a justifiable, preemptive strike.

20

Of course Tony Blair committed a war crime when he ordered troops to cross the border into Iraq in March 2003 and the first thousand civilians that were murdered by US and UK bombs rockets and bullets. There was no justification for murdering people on the scale that Blair wantonly and recklessly did. There was no humanitarian justification for attacking Iraq in 2003 when Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the UN inspectors.

There were no WMD stockpiles being hidden by the Iraq regime from UN inspectors in February and March of 2003 and that fact has been proven to be true.

It also could be proven that Bush and Blair both knew on March 7 through 10 2003 that they had no actionable intelligence from any agency that could confirm that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD from the inspectors.

We know Bush and Bkair had no intelligence regarding hidden stockpiles because around March 8 Bush and Blair drafted a resolution to get the UNSC to authorize the war to make it legal but withdrew that resolution becsuse it would not pass because if a shortage of yes votes.

That resolution could lead to convictions of war crimes for Bush and Blair becsuse thry messed up when they offered on March 8, within that resolution, to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

The ultimatum in that resolution was directed at the UNSC not Saddam Hussein.

The UNSC were given ten days to declare Iraq total clear of WMD or the matter would be settled by use if military force.

Of course the inspectors had several months of work to do so they could not declare what Bush and Blair wanted within ten days.

Blair’s screw up therefore is his failure to provide the intelligence that according to Bush ‘left no doubt’ that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors at that very moment in time.

Bkair as a UNSC member state was obligated to share all intelligence he had with the UNSC so the inspectors could check it out.

The ten days passed after the draft resolution attempt failed and the intelligence about concealed weapons was not checked out.

I believe Bush and Blair were lying through their teeth to claim they had intel that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors which was their only legal justification for war.

They obviously had no such intel or they would have been compelled to share it with the UNSC and then have the inspectors investigate on that basis and locations.

All that is needed is a desire to prosecute those two liars and frauds who committed murder and lie about it.