Inside Story: After His Admission That He Lied, Can Tony Blair Now Be Prosecuted For War Crimes?

[Turborama]

Run time: 25:09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an55wU0-kAE   Posted on YouTube: December 15, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 17, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 965

 
Today we're looking at the surprise admission by former British prime minister tony Blair, that he would have gone to war against Iraq even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet at the time it was the WMDs which justified the action. So what does this mean for the public inquiry into the war? And can Tony Blair now be prosecuted for war crimes?

---- --- ----

I don't get why that guy from the Atlantic Council thinks anyone believes him when he says he was against the Iraq war, everything that comes out of his mouth sounds like an attempt to justify it.

Here's former International Development Secretary Clare Short's resignation letter... She and Anas Altakriti both make some very important points in this. Saddam Hussein should have been handled the same way Slobodan Milosevich was, and Bliar should now be charged and put on trial for war crimes and the fact that he http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4181061&mesg_id=4181186">lied to the British Parliament about his intentions used as evidence.



Related articles

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/politics/2003/may/12/labour.voluntarysector1">Short quits Blair's government

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/politics/2003/may/12/labour.clareshort2">Reaction in quotes

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/politics/2003/may/12/labour.uk3Z">Another one bites the dust ...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/politics/2003/may/12/labour.clareshort1">Profile: Clare Short

[chandler2]

1. . SHOULD he be? Sointly. Will he be? HELL no. nt

[defendandprotect]

2. We need truth hearings .. . and after that I'd put Bush/Cheney/Blair ...

in prison --

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Yep, white man's defense.

They either have to admit what they did, or admit they made a mistake and the law passes them over.

Doesn't work quite the same for minorities.

[burning rain]

4. Bliar might actually find himself in serious trouble.

Europe takes war crimes more seriously than does the US. Here I'm sure even Cheney won't have to so much as testify or give a deposition. Fucking banana republic. :grr:

[Turborama]

5. I'm wondering if Blair is charged and forced to stand trial

Could Busch et al be charged as co-conspirators and be brought to trial over there too?

[burning rain]

8. Well, the UK adjudicated Spanish judge Balthasar Garzon's indictment of Augusto Pinochet....

so there is a precedent. But going after US titans like Bush, Cheney, Wolfie, and the rest would be a whole lot of steps up. And absent a public firestorm demanding punishment for those blood-glutted criminals, I can't picture even a Democratic administration handing them over to a foreign power, and risking the political heat. I'm sorry to say, it seems pretty clear the broad US public has gotten past BushCo and is fixated on the current economic situation, however bad a precedent that sets for blandly ignoring crimes of leaders who've left office. That doesn't mean we should stop pushing for the deceiving warmongers to be held to account--I sure wont!--but you asked for my opinion, and there you have it. :(

[avaistheone1]

7. Or they lie and say they can't remember.

[ihavenobias]

6. K & R n/t