War Crimes Indictment

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by paybobsquarepants, Jan 21, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. For all yuou legal beagles there - if the was to be a War Crimes Indictment against a country for starting an illegal war for example - who would be cited as defendant - the Prime Minister of the country at the time or the monarch as Head of State?

  2. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The Monarch is excempt from criminal liability. The Indictment may be issued to the ruling leader at the time (PM/President) but I would imagine that any conviction would be awarded to the lowest common denominator... sh!t rolls downhill :shock:
  3. Legal precedent points towards an individual being named rather than a whole country. The individuals would have to have been involved in the action itself in a tangible way, so to answer your hypothetical question, it would be Tony Blair.

    It will never happen, thankfully.
  4. Any indictment for War Crimes would have to be levelled at the individuals directly implicated starting with those who committed the "War Crime" as defined in the indictment.

    In this case I believe the sh1t would actually roll UP-hill to include not only those who actually did the physical deed but also the person(s) responsible for issuing the executive orders that led to it.

    A good example of the sh1t rolling uphill process, currently in focus is the Rwanda genocide

    I would suggest that although HM the Queen may have signed various "executive orders" there is no question of her being legally responsible due to the clearly laid down nature of her "constitutional powers" - the buck stops with the politicians!
  5. It was rather convenient for the Allies at the end of WWII that Hitler topped himself as the issue of whether he could be tried was a vexing topic for the legal eagles of the time.
  6. Charles Taylor of Liberia and Slobodan Milošević of Yugoslavia both heads of state and government and were charged for the war crimes carried out by their countries. In the case of Britain it would be the Prime Minister as the head of government though numerous members of the cabinent would also be liable if they supported his/her decisions, because the monarch is now more or less legally powerless in government decisions they might be forced to adicate to save embarassment but wouldn't face charges.
  7. In sierra Leon, Serbia, Iraq, and a few other banana republics heads of state have been held accountable for crimes committed whilst they were incumbent.
    It is widely held now that the immunity once afforded heads of state is now consigned to history, except within the boundaries of the country concerned.
    The laws to try the Nazi's at the conclusion of WW11 were produced under the treaty of London, as there was no precedent to try the leaders under International law.
    All so called crimes within Germany were not actually crimes under German law as it stood during the period 1933/45, and thus no German could be tried under existing German law.
    Any occupied country was at the time allowed to be ruled under the law of the occupying regime.
    Hence the dilemma and need to impose a new set of rules before the Nuremberg trials.
  8. Listening to Buff at the Chilcot enquiry, some are obviously trying to distance themselves from responsibility. It's entertaing when someone really gets close to saying "I was watching, but it was the big boys who did it".
  9. ... and then ran away!
  10. Personally I have no doubt that Bliar will eventually have his collar felt - it may take some time but there is no Statute of Limitations for war-crimes.

    There is a prima facie case against Antony Lytton Bliar for war-crimes committed whilst Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and statements being made to Chilcot and Bliar's own admission that he would have invaded Iraq anyway simply reinforce this. The Spanish Judge who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentine military junta, has called for Bliar to be prosecuted for the invasion of Iraq - "one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human historyâ€.

    The International Criminal Court has already received a record number of petitions related to Bliar, but he is presently protected by his fake position as Middle East Envoy. Immediately he becomes a private citizen again then all bets are off. There are a lot of tenacious people and organizations gathering evidence against him. The Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for Bliar's prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and the 1949 Geneva Convention.

    As stated at Nuremberg; aggressive war is - "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

    Most Brits loathe the man and the wide-mouthed frog as national embarrassments and would prefer to forget them, but this would be a mistake. Germans are still being arrested and prosecuted for war-crimes committed in WWII; Argentines and Chileans for war-crimes committed in the ‘70’s & ‘80’s. The Israelis who dropped WP on women and kids are now squealing like pigs because they are under threat of arrest in Europe. Bliar is our very own war-criminal and should be treated as such.

  11. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Concur that he should be tried in the Hague - if he's innocent as he claims then he has nothing to fear & it would surely vindicate his stance. Then again.... :wink:

    What's the odds of Bush getting prosecuted?
  12. I personally think our intervention in Iraq was justified. The occupation is another agenda.
    If the UN had the balls to instigate what it advocates then individual states would not have to act unilaterally.
    I cannot envisage a state where we should live in fear and repression, and cannot say the thought of others having to do so sits well on my conscience.

    We stood by and watched genocide in Rwanda, are allowing the same in Zimbabwe, and Burma. If these tin pot dictators knew from day one that the world would act , quick and clean, then I doubt very much if you would see oppression on this scale very often.
    Funny how the more some folks have the quicker they forget the have nots.
    Good job someone stood up for democracy and freedom in 1939 is it not.
    And please don't tell me it was for oil. If it was, then where the fcuk is it as its gone up ten fold since the Gulf war.
    I am not a bleeding heart Liberal, but was unfortunate enough to enter Uganda shortly after Idi Amin's exit, and could hardly grasp what a person could inflict on his own.
    You get folks coming on RR beating their gums about fascism and Nazi's but seem happy to take the view that "Its not our business" with a lot of associated regimes.
  13. Ah Bergen! Your optimism gives me hope ....I can picture it now, crowds of people lining the banks of the Thames, jeering and shouting for joy as The Bliar, escorted by Yeoman Warders, is conveyed by barge into Traitors' Gate, there to be incarcerated in a draughty and spartan cell.
    Some thought too, is needed regarding a suitable cellmate. My preference would be for a large, butch homosexual Somalian with halitosis that would sicken a dog, and chronic flatulence. In this way, The Bliar could 'celebrate' the diversity he has imposed, unmandated, on a largely unwilling electorate. :evil:
  14. Although it would be most satisfying to see the smug, arrogant, grinning bugger sweating under the threat of prosecution, do we really want all the s**t that would attach to us, as a Nation? We’ve already touched on the role the Head of State. Do we really want to open up a new constitutional bag of worms? Do we want foreigners seriously questioning the possibility of HM’s culpability? There are people out there who would be delighted to put her on the spot, no matter how thin the argument.

    What would it do to our standing on the UN Security Council, G8 and our own Commonwealth?

    Some would argue that it would air the truth and show openness and fairness while confident that exoneration would be the result. If there is not a reasonable possibility of guilt, though, the entire exercise would be a frivolous waste of time, facilities and resources. Ironically, it would be the very legal professionals, of the likes of the Blares, who would gain the most from such a circus.

    Another point; if our grinning joke should get nailed for this, we’d have to be damned sure that the former grinning joke in Washington was right there with him.

    Let’s be very careful what we wish for.
  15. Good god, we agree. 8O :wink:
  16. The chief US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, said “If, in future, we do not apply these principles to ourselves International law would be mere farceâ€.

    As for saving face - neither the British Armed Forces nor the British people need to save face - the biggest demonstrations in recent history were made by the public trying to avert the invasion of Iraq. They knew that they were being lied to and they have a degree of common sense which evades politicians. The only people who will be shamed by war-crime proceedings will be Bliar and Co.

    As for the financial cost - a mere drop in the bucket compared to the costs inflicted on my country by these traitorous barstards and the costs of Bliar's trial and incarceration will be more than covered by the savings in his ongoing close protection needs which are currently running at GBP 6m PA.

  17. By that defination Reagan would have been charged for Grenada, Bush Snr should probably have been charged for Panama, Clinton for the bombing of a supposed WMD site in Sudan which turned out to have zero traces of anything according to the UN and of course Bush Jr for Iraq. Not to mention Putin for Chechneya a scene of far greater crimes (in both scale and nature) than anything that happened in Iraq. Unfortunately like most international bodies the ICC is lacking any real teeth and will only ever get its hands on the leaders of the losing countries.
  18. You seem to overlook the fact that all these people he lied to, this vast majority of sensible electorate, returned him to power two years later.
    Quoting demonstrations on the street does not in this country show majority solidarity.
    We are famous in this country for being the epitome of silent majorities.
    I concur he lied about the reasons behind the invasion, but when the depth of human abuse was uncovered after the deed, I think many chose to forgive or forget.
  19. You are at least correct on the human abuse.

    Iraq. Population 29 million.

    655,000 dead.

    5,000,000 orphans

    2,000,000 internally displaced refugees.

    2,800,000 externally displaced refugees.

    They will not choose to forget and they will not want to forgive.

  20. it is clear from what JackStraw said today at the Chilcott Inquiry
    that Bliar knew that to invade Iraq for regime change would be illegal.Therefore much energy was expended trying to convince everyone that Saddam had WMD and we could invade legaly to disarm him.As there were no WMD we were misled and went to war on a false licence.Bliar is culpable for everything that went on and should be brought to book either in this country or in the Hague.
    There are it seems letters from Bliar to Bush that are being withheld from the Inquiry which may hold the key to all this.The smoking gun :?:

Share This Page