BBC War in Iraq Panorama

areksnumbr1sxylady · 19 Mar 2013 at 16:58

Did anyone else watch this program? Which pretty much concluded that whole invasion of iraq was load of crap... based on 2 liars.

I love how they abstained to mention any links to Oil in Iraq or gold...

Cosimo · 19 Mar 2013 at 17:00

Based on this review I'll give the catch up a miss.

Biohazard · 19 Mar 2013 at 17:01

Which is something we all knew anyway.

Tony Blair is a war criminal. The whole of Westminster has innocent blood splattered all over it.

I hope the Labour legacy is worth it.

areksnumbr1sxylady · 19 Mar 2013 at 17:09

Moses said:
In your opinion, perhaps. It's not a fact.

based on last few threads, I dont know whether the earth being round is a fact...

Von Smallhausen · 19 Mar 2013 at 17:48

Blair makes an interssting point in what would have happened in Iraq had it not been invaded a second time and the Arab Spring came about.

Biohazard · 19 Mar 2013 at 19:28

It's no different from saying, 'Look, there's a squirrel'.. forget about my immoral and illegal invasion of a sovereign state leaving countless thousands dead missing or injured.

It could have been worse!!!

:rolleyes:

Biohazard · 19 Mar 2013 at 19:30

Moses said:
In your opinion, perhaps. It's not a fact.

Not until he's brought before the Hague.

There has been some interesting conjecture about being able to effectively 'indict' him in an independent Scotland.

At worst, it means he'd never be able to set foot here again. I could almost settle for that.

gettothechopper · 19 Mar 2013 at 19:51

Biohazard said:
Not until he's brought before the Hague.

There has been some interesting conjecture about being able to effectively 'indict' him in an independent Scotland.

At worst, it means he'd never be able to set foot here again. I could almost settle for that.

you do talk some guff at times

Biohazard · 19 Mar 2013 at 20:38

Moses said:
Why would that happen? You sound sure he's guilty*... but on what basis do you say that?

*that seems a reasonable reading of what you've said so far...

Yes, I'm quite sure he's guilty from the public evidence so far.

Moses said:
An independent Scotland would be able to retrospectively apply new laws?

Any sovereign state can but it wouldn't be a new law. A small change by way of amendment clarifying the waging of aggressive war with the intention of regime change illegal within the auspices of the ICC Scotland Act 2001 would pave the way. It would need then need a petition to the High Court.

This would be out of the competency of Scotland within the Union.

Ahleckz · 19 Mar 2013 at 22:14

Biohazard said:
.

There has been some interesting conjecture about being able to effectively 'indict' him in an independent Scotland.

Have I mentioned I'm voting Yes?

Biohazard · 19 Mar 2013 at 22:44

Ahleckz said:
Have I mentioned I'm voting Yes?

In all seriousness it is a legitimate possibility, international criminal law is already incorporated into Scots law. The UK government passes retrospective legislation all the time on a variety of matters, as do many others including the devolved Holyrood. We would need to ratify the Rome statute in relations to crimes of aggression that the UK government has so far failed to do.

Et voila, Tony Blair effectively banned from Scotland unless he wants to face trial as long as there are vocal opponents of his actions. I suspect that will remain the case for a while to come.

Biohazard · 20 Mar 2013 at 00:53

Moses said:
Guilty of what?

War of aggression.

Moses said:
The crime of aggression was introduced/adopted by the ICC after Blair left power. Years after. It is also requires thirty state parties to have ratified the amendment (only four have, so far - Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Trinidad and Tobago and Samoa), and only comes into force in states which ratify it a year after that ratification.

The Rome statute encapsulated several core war crimes, including war of aggression. It was agreed in 1998 and came into force in 2002.

There are 121 states who have ratified the statute, with a further 30 signed up yet have not ratified.

That would include us.

Biohazard · 20 Mar 2013 at 12:44

Moses said:
War of aggression... which won't apply to Blair, as his actions occurred before the crime was created. Not that I agree that he'd be guilty of it, if it had existed prior to the well known events of his term of office.

Yes, I understand the history of the Rome Statute/ICC ... whilst you evidently don't. Only genocide/crimes against humanity/war crimes were included, initially.

Act of aggression was only agreed at the 2010 review conference. That particular amendment only comes into force when thirty parties have ratified it... and only four have. Furthermore,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_aggression#State_Parties_to_the_Amendments

Act of aggression was a founding core crime in 1998.

Wiki said:
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998[5][6] and it entered into force on 1 July 2002.[2] As of 1 February 2012, 121 states are party to the statute.[2] Among other things, the statute establishes the court's functions, jurisdiction and structure.

The Rome Statute established 4 core international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression). Under the Rome Statute, the ICC can only investigate and prosecute the core international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression) in situations where states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves. The court can investigate crimes only in states that signed the Rome Statute unless authorized by the U.N. Security Council.

Blairs illegal war and invasion will fall within the scope and auspices of the statute, it did exist when he was lying to the British people with empty threats the British state just didn't want to ratify it - and hold itself accountable for its own actions.

This is something that will be visited upon if Scotland grants itself independence and we should at the minimum level charges of war crimes against him.

"Not in our name."

Biohazard · 20 Mar 2013 at 14:23

BBC said:
Salmond says Tony Blair guilty of 'gross deception' over Iraq war

MSPs have voted 73 to 10, with 33 abstentions, in favour of a Scottish government motion, regretting "the decision of the Labour Government, with the support of the Conservatives, to press ahead with the invasion despite considerable opposition and many warnings about the danger of armed conflict; are of the view that the intervention was illegal under international law".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-21851145

Biohazard · 20 Mar 2013 at 17:06

Moses said:
As I've already shown, the crime of act of aggression was introduced properly later. It was only defined at the review conference I mentioned. That means that Blair's actions cannot fall under crime of aggression, as it wasn't a defined crime until 2010, and won't come into force until thirty state parties have ratified the amendment and parties vote on it in 2017.

It wasn't, it was a founding principle in the Rome Statute in 1998 as already shown.

Moses said:
You've now changed from aggression to war crimes?! And what about pre-emptive self defence? Or the revival argument?

Aggression is a war crime as per the Rome Statute. There is no excuse.

Biohazard · 20 Mar 2013 at 17:07

Moses said:
Is he going to release that legal advice?

What legal advice?

Moses said:
I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the academic community has mixed views on the legality of the Iraq war... it's not clear-cut.

It's quite clear cut, and if Scots vote for independence we will more than likely see the arguments tested.

Biohazard · 20 Mar 2013 at 21:24

Moses said:
It was a joke re: the legal advice to do with EU membership in the event of an independent Scotland. Don't worry.

I thought so, it's just there's been a few of these 'legal advice' issues outwith the indyref.

Moses said:
Well, it's not. There's a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Iraq was was legal. Unless you want to demonstrably prove that's not the case.

Not much of one, opinion is clearly weighted towards it being an unwarranted and illegal invasion with no justification other than some retrospective argument.

I suspect we've not heard the end of Blair, Labour and Iraq.

ubersonic · 21 Mar 2013 at 15:31

Moses said:
In your opinion, perhaps. It's not a fact.

Actually it is, he has admitted to lying to his government, his people and to the UN in order to gain support for an invasion of a sovereign nation that he knew could not be gotten by telling the truth, that invasion resulted in countless civilian casualty's, he is by definition a war criminal due to committing and even admitting to war crimes.

Moses said:
Well, it's not. There's a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Iraq was was legal. Unless you want to demonstrably prove that's not the case.

The reason the is a difference of opinion is because the are two (modern) Iraq wars, the is the "legal" one all the politicians/governments signed off on which was the invasion of Iraq to counter the imminent WMD threat to global security, then the is the "illegal" one where we invade a sovereign country to effect regime change which nobody would have signed off on.

The issue, is that we were lied to about which one was going to take place, Blair has admitted that regime change was the plan from day one, effectively admitting he and Bush deliberately conned the world into giving the go ahead for a war that would have been classed as illegal if it were put to court under its own merit.