Call for Blair to face trial in Scotland

Source: Scotsman

TONY Blair should be tried in a Scottish court for his decision to take the country to war in Iraq, according to a group of SNP MSPs.

The Crown Office, which leads prosecutions, is examining their arguments following the former prime minister's appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry last week, in which he expressed "no regrets" over deposing Saddam Hussein.

A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.

The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.

Read more: http://www.scotsman.com/news/Call-for-Blair-to-face.6029526.jp

example from people who don't give a rats ass who you think you are. May this not go well for the poodle.

The findings of the Dutch commission stand to debate, even in the Netherlands. Furthermore, Dutch law does not equal international law. Unless the Scots can prove that the findings of the Dutch commission is binding for Scotland, regardless of their reception in The Hague, trial for Mr Blair is unlikely and conviction near-impossible.

Sentence him to life in prison and a strict haggas and water diet!

blood of 4000 U.S. soldiers on his hands. Blair, probably, has more of a heart that Bush, so he, probably doesn't sleep too well.

I'd sure hate to be gwb, I wouldn't trade places for all the money his whole family has.

Somebody has to pay for this wrong. It cannot stand!

between England and Scotland, or are there any.

Just drag him over Hadrian's Wall...the part with the sharpest rocks. lol.

and I suspect without a specific charge of breaking a Scottish law, nothing will come of this. "Breaking international law" will be too nebulous.

I'm anxious to read the language that will be used to see that translate into charges.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8453305.stm

Dutch inquiry says Iraq war had no mandate

An inquiry into the Netherlands' support for the invasion of Iraq says it was not justified by UN resolutions.

The Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said UN Security Council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003".

- snip -

The report demolishes the Dutch case for supporting the invasion, says the BBC's Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond.
It could also be taken to reinforce the international case against the Iraq war, he says.

The report accuses ministers of a selective use of intelligence reports, and says Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende "gave little or no leadership to debates over the Iraq question", which was steered by the foreign minister at the time, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Mr Balkenende formally thanked the committee for its report, but said he needed time to study it before responding.

Mr Balkenende decided to join the "coalition of the willing" assembled by US President George W Bush because, he said, Saddam Hussein had consistently flouted UN resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The Dutch parliament opposed the decision to back the invasion.

Committee chairman, Willibrord Davids, said the Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK had taken precedence over the need to ensure the legality of the invasion.

The committee said there had been no UN mandate for the attack, putting the decision to join at odds with international law.

It said "the wording of Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".

Iraq's alleged breach of Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify its invasion.

However, a memo from the time by Dutch foreign ministry lawyers, subsequently leaked, suggested the war was in fact illegal under international law.

MORE

http://www.pinkyshow.org/archives/episodes/070525/070525_credits.html

Transcript: The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal?

- snip -

Back to our original question - the second condition - Did the UN Security Council ever authorize the use of force against Iraq?

This question is much easier to answer - the answer is 'no' . The Bush Administration did attempt to convince the UN Security Council that it should authorize the use of force against Iraq. They did this because only the Security Council has the authority to enforce the resolutions of the charter. If the Security Council had authorized the use of force, the invasion would have been considered legitimate - i.e., legal - under international law. But when the UN wasn't swayed by the so-called evidence, the U.S. went ahead with the invasion anyway. This was an obvious violation of the Charter of the UN, prompting UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to famously state: "I have indicated it (the invasion) was not in conformity with the UN charter... From the charter point of view, it was illegal."

MORE

Thank you for that Hissy! This is awesome and hopefully will lead to charges, which should lead back to Bush/Cheney...at least perhaps on an
official inquiry level.

we may never have gotten into the mess in Iraq (I'm taking into account Bush's stupidity).

Way to go, Scotland! As usual you're miles above the rest of the UK, with the possible exception of Wales.

and would put pressure to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al on trial too.

We just say 'oh, well,' and move forward.

:toast: :yourock:

and not from the top down.

When justice returns to America it will be due to some small town in NH or VT or elsewhere that demands it and upon which public interest will build even though the media will attempt to cover it up.

There is no doubt that those on top rungs of the ladder are involved and heavily implicated. Why did our illustrious Speaker of the House take impeachment of Bush off the table? Impeachment would have been a cleansing of America. The heading and results are unknown because once the process starts it and the witnesses become an uncontrollable series of events that develop a life unto itself.

Impeachment could have uncovered the subversive activities around Iraq and 9-11 and the corrupt corporate bubbles, etc that have long since been covered up by the media and their friends and others. Impeachment was taken off the table by powerful interests who understood the unknown path that such an investigation would lead and the embarrassment it could have caused.

:bounce:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: