Blair should go on trial for 'going to war'? Well, then he's guilty... because we did go to war...

What next? 'Pope should go on trial for being Catholic' etc?

It would have to be definitively decided that it was illegal. Some are saying legal, some illegal. It cannot be both. Wiki says "a war of aggression is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defence". That is illegal. It is becoming clear now during Chilcot, and especially after Clare Short, that self-defence cannot be used. They were going into Iraq anyway. Great live blogging during the Inquiry by the way!

The good news, in terms of the nation's sanity, is that nearly two thirds don't.

When you look at the ubiquity of the 'flog him, hang him' commentators (both paid and unpaid), it's quite amazing - and heartening for those of us who can still think for ourselves - that it's only a third who think Blair should stand trial.

Don?t ask the 2003 question, but ask the 1938 question!

During the enquire Blair said : "Don't ask the March 2003 question, but ask the 2010 question?, meaning what would have happened today if Saddam had not been removed. Of course no one can know the ?correct? answer to this question, the only thing we know is what he did and that he had no intention to stop, on the contrary I would say. An extrapolation should be enough for everybody to understand what could have happened.

I would like to ask the 1938/39 question! During these two years the Nazi-Germany invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Imagine if the UK and the US had managed to ?remove? Hitler from power at that time? Imagine if that had prevented the World War II?

Is it possible that the removal of Saddam Hussein actually prevented a World War III?

Looking from the outside I?m very surprised that so many people find it so easy to attack and blame Blair. I think we should actually start to blame politician for what they don?t do!

I had the honor of meeting the former PM of Finland, Mr. Esko Aho a couple of times and he ones said to me: ?Most politicians are taking decisions in order to ensure being re-elected rather than taking decision in which they really believe in. I think it is better to try to do what you believe in when you are in power, because in the end you will loose power anyway, and it is better to leave with the believe that you done what you wanted to do?.

I understand that there are an enormous number of tragedies related to the invasion of Iraq and I do indeed understand what all the relatives of the victims have to go through (my own father survived the Nazi concentration camps) and that one would like to find a scapegoat. But we should also try to ask ourselves what we could have done to prevent the tragedy of so many millions of lives which Saddam has on his conscience. Why did we let this happen ? and who was guilty of this? Don?t judge Blair and those who stopped him.

Dan Andrée
Brussels

I can think for myself and I think that the legality of the whole affair should be examined, and if the war was launched without legal backing should have appropriate charges made against them. If this means that Blair and his cronies need to be tried then so be it.

Starting a war is a serious business. saying it was just a judgment thing is not a good legal defense ("your honor, my mate told me that stealing that car would be legal, as it was raining and we had a long way to go. It was a judgment thing and I don't regret it." does not quite cut it when it comes to a credible defense does it?)

It is all too clear exactly what part Mr Blair's government played in the Iraq affair.

I also believe that as an ex-prime minister of the UK he should not be meddling in middle eastern affairs on behalf of USA because he is simply an embarrassment to this country in his failing role as a 'peace envoy'.

I'm amazed it's only 37%

As is the style of Politicians, Blair and Bush totally misunderstood Saddam Hussein's character and Bliar committed us to a war to help his mate George settle an old family fued...i.e finishing the unfinished business between his daddy and Saddam.

Don't look at Iraq with a western European mind-set, yes Saddam was a Tyrant and a Despot but he didn't have ambitions to take over the Middle East, all Saddam cared about was Saddam. He rattled the occasional sabre to stop the Shias and Sunnis from killing each other but his priority was drinking whiskey and living in opulence.

Big big mistake guys and you should be punished, the Middle East is more unstable now than it's ever been and between them Bliar and Bush have very stupidly empowered Iran who really are a rogue nation with an agenda.

As for WMD......what part of ' there aren't any WMDs ' didn't Bliar understand, if they did exist where was Saddam hiding them, under his bed, in his wife's wardrobe.....I think not, a total fabrication to give a bit of credibility to what was otherwise a very ill conceived war.

As for Bliar's moral mission to deal with Saddam because he was a bad man, what about Mugabe or your man in North Korea......oh of course, I forget.....they don't have oil.........silly me !!

Ermmmmm.... this means 63% don't think he should stand trial.

Almost 2/3rds... a clear majority... despite the furious press /blog anti-blair banter.

77% don't think he's should be tried as a war criminal

If I were Tony I'd be rather reassured.

Hmmmm... I'd tentatively offer that some might conject that this suggests the average blogger on the grauniad is also a tad out of touch.

Aaaah yes... but the majority isn't always right.*

Love and cuddles.

R

*but then again... that's not to contradict that sometimes the majority is indeed actually right ;-)

Of course now... this article was only a half page summary of the british populace legal opinion.

Perhaps in the passage of time, they might conclude that "an argument could be made that he should stand trial"...

And then with a trial already set up, the judge ready with gavel, jurors assembled in court and lawyers chomping at the bit... well maybe the populace might change their opinion and agree that the trial should indeed go ahead.

R

if it was 99.99 per cent it still wouldn't happen
as long as there are a handful of people in the right positions of power (who decides that the files on Kelly can't be seen by johhny public ?) they will protect one of their own, which blair most definitely is.

the bastard walks, as we always knew he would.

I think he should go on trial for treason for using the resources of this country and its armed forces for the purposes of theft. Millions of barrels of oil have vanished out of Iraq in a way that could only be done by a military force. Bush has made his fortune even greater and Blair is now reaping the cash benefits by his suspiciously well attended speeches, check out how much he's made and who attends these expensive events. Yes he should go on trial, absolutely - the whole country knows Iraq was a scam. Should be put on trial for 7/7 as well.

I was particularly impressed by him insisting that it was regime change and not necessarily WMD that justified removing Saddam:

Dec 09/ Fern Britton "....if there were no WMD?" "I would still have thought it right to remove him"

At Chilcot, while commenting on the Fern B exchange "It was in no way a change of position"

Wonderfully up-front, considering that that ought to be enough for an arraignment at the Hague. Full marks

I firmly believe that I have a right to kill people, before they kill me.

(Even if I'm wrong about their intentions.)
Good. There is now in existence a useful precedent for my not having to face punishment for my future actions, and anyway the majority of people wouldn't be concerned if I didn't even stand trial for any consequent premeditated killing. Neat.

(Thank Heaven I was wise enough to state my strongly held belief, publicly.)

ps in case you're worried: I'm not a fool; neither am I Tony Blair (possibly the same thing), so I won't be acting on any such wrong headed sentiment.

Or ......... Nearly 2 thirds of voters think tony blair shouldn't go on trial for going to war........

What a crock of shite, we went get over it, so did about 50 other countries.

The point is not what would or would not have happened in Iraq. The point is what DID happen! The leader of your country manipulated you on purpose into something he figured you would not want to do, based on all that he knew and did not know. For months and months he pretended that he was on the up and up, parsing every word that came out of his mouth so that in hindsight, he could manipulate you some more.
Let's suppose he were frank with you and, putting the best face on it, he was so concerned about Saddam Hussein and the possibility of WMD that he made his best case for removing Saddam Hussein. Your country would have been involved in a worthy and difficult decision and the more honest he was with you, the more that you would respect whatever conclusion was reached, even if you disagreed with it.
Instead, he treated you like fools or babies, too dumb? or maybe too smart! to be able to reach the 'right' decision. He tried and succeeded in many cases to scare you into following his lead, making mountains out of scarce evidence, questioning the patriotism of those who didn't follow blindly, or their naivete.
One must question the motive of someone who would betray his people and country . What would make it worth it? Of course Tony Blair must be blamed! We must make progress in this world and not accept, "It was ever thus". Don't we want to grow up and demand to be treated as the shapers of our government policies and not victims? I thought we (USA) would not go to war because Tony Blair was not George Bush and I remain so very disappointed that he had his own fatal flaw, although I can't define what it is exactly. But he manipulated his people into participating in the deaths of your troops who deserved better. He didn't even provide the proper equipment for them, as dedicated as he was to his pretense that the war was not inevitable. Sad, sad, sad. But, at least, you are asking what happened. We Americans don't seem to care.

newhampshireusa

i wish you were right - i wish i could at least hope that this 'inquiry' had some sort of authenticity, some semblence of a genuine search for justice, but it doesn't, and there will be no consequence to blair's illegal actions.

i don't think for one second that bush misled or fooled anyone - certainly not blair. blair made up his own mind, obsessed as he was - and is - with his own reputation, and with more than an eye to the future of his after dinner speaking fees.

whilst bush is patently an idiot, blair is much, much worse.

and i'd have to disagree with you in your final line - seems to me that plenty of Americans do care, and it's good to know. it doesn't mean that it gets us anywhere with these self obsessed criminals, but what's the alternative - leave the bastards entirely to play their games without scrutiny, which is exactly what they want ? not fcuking likely.

good luck, newhampshireusa

@newhampshireusa

I agree with you that T. Blair was not fooled; no doubt he made up his egoistical mind. Since 2002 I have realised that T. Blair is more deviant than G.W. Bush.
Blair's show on the Chilcot Inquiry last week fully confirmed my worst suspicions.
(By comparison, Bush seems human, at least).

But even worse that T. Blair are the sinister PNAC men who whispered in Bush's ears, manipulated and ruled him. They may not be very visible right now, but they are very busy.

If the big issue is over whether this war was legal or not then the place for that issue to be sorted out is in a court of law. Isn't it? Isn't that what the Law Lords do?
That is why this issue will never go away because we have had non-law binding enquiries run by establishment figures with witnesses not on oath. If the war was judged to be illegal, then Tony Blair should stand trial along with the Cabinet. Simple.

I think Tony Blair should welcome a chance to be on trial in court and to establish his innocence once and for all. (Hehehe)

It'd be fantastic seeing him only being allowed to speak when spoken to, being told to keep to the question, and to shut up when going on for too long.

God, I can't wait for it.

37% + 2

@Northener

You may also like to help move things along by adding your name to this:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/blair/#sign_petition

37% in support of a war trial is a lot

For the same reason that a leader who goes to war invariably gets re-elected, putting your leaders through a war trial always figures low in the minds of the majority of the people, because:
1) there is an instinct to back our leaders over the issue of war,
2) the majority of us would have a feeling of guilt for something 'illegal' which we supported (even if, like me, you feel duped and betrayed by the '45 minute threat' trick) a trial would to some extent put our country on trial - if persons were found guilty then I am sure that the country would have to make reparation to the wronged people,
3) time is what brings a sane view of the matter: to maintain its credibility, a democracy must reach a just verdict on its wrong actions.

The citizens of the UK are now starting to yearn for the truth. We have had enough of the false promises and lies of politicians ('no more boom or bust' and MPs' expense claims - for two examples), we do not now trust them now, if they have not already noticed, even if they are so clever at presenting and at covering up.

We do not want the scapegoat mentality, as has seemingly been the way much government has been conducted. We want the truth to be known clearly for the sake of our own consciences and so that we can get some respect by more of the world. If we do not get this from an enquiry, more and more people will say a trial is needed to get at the truth.

In other news, a similar poll found that 37% of the British population are morons.

I'm actually surprised that percentage wasn't higher. There may be hope for two thirds of Great Britain after all.

In other news, a similar poll showed that 37% of Britains are morons.

I'm actually surprised that it's only one in three who want to do this absurd thing. There may be hope for you yet.

I think this poll is being misinterpreted by many on this thread. In most cases 37% is only good news in baseball statistics.

Imagine a third of Brits wanted you on trial and in jail. Would you be dismissing them as morons, nutters, etc? Would you be worried? Shit scared? Undergoing plastic surgery and an identity change? Should Tony be worried? Sadly, not in the slightest -- and that says it all.

Bliar, on trial for war crimes, YES.
I will donate the rope.........

My own opinion about Mr. Blair and Iraq is that he will walk away a free man,
not because he has no case to answer, but because that is how the system works - it protects its' own.

As I see it, the only way to bring Mr. Blair to account is through his one weakness,
which is money, and his love of same. Study his various "projects," and one hits a brick wall as to the financing of these "charities?", and where the money goes.

Now although I do not condone such activities, I am surprised that nobody with the necessary electronic expertise has tried to access Mr. Blair's financial affairs.

K.