The case for treason - written by Tankus
Uncategorized - 38 Comments » - Posted on November, 29 at 11:01 am
Surely with the amount of ”evidence” contradicting the government’s version of events (dear boy !) coming out of the Chilcott inquiry , there has to be a legal aspect, to begin after Chilcott .
There is too much blood spilled , just for the government censored and restricted inquiry to be filed and shelved upon its completion.
If there is liability ….. it must be severely punished.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-the-uwaru-was-illegal-1830508.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231746/Secret-letter-reveal-new-Blair-war-lies.html
British governments integrity is at stake ,its military’s faith in it ,and also trust in the electorate ( regardless of party) in its decision for future deployment of the military if needed .
Posted in Uncategorized | 38 Comments »
Nothing said so far would worry Brown or Blair, because the fact are the papers locked up under the Official secret act, release these and then we seen the shit hitting the fan.
This is a committee meeting with no real teeth, all you have right now is a group of civil servants protecting themselves, hitting back at Blair because he has now gone, while watching their future jobs with Brown.
lets get this hearing with real teeth allow it to see the secret hidden papers.
I was just hearing Brown believes the war in Afghanistan could be over in a year, now come on folks are you really saying we have won, if we have then fly the flags, if we have not, please tell me what did out lads die for.
Today we are told they are not sure about Bin Laden they nearly caught him in 2001, so is he alive if so how the hell can the war be over.
How is it all of a sudden the war is over.
Well treborc/tankus for what it’s worth I believe everyone who knew this was a lie should at the very least be debarred from any form of public service for the rest of their lives – not least because they were obviously spineless. Those on the inner circle – Blair, Campbell etc, who actually conspired, should be tried in a Court of Law at the very least.
As for Brown and Afghanistan. Remarkable. He puts targets on Kharzi. Trouble with that is, exactly what will he do if Kharzai doesn’t meet the targets? Only 2 choices – walk away or shift the goal posts. Does he have the guts to walk away? I very much doubt it so that leaves shifting the goal posts. The minute that happens his credibility goes into the bin on the spot.
I bey he’s glad he won’t be PM in a year’s time when Kharzai fails.
His credibility went ages ago, I cannot stand the bloke.
The main protagonists can only be criminally liable if they knowingly misled … and I don’t believe that could be said of the main protagonists here in Britain; but it could be said of the American neocon warmongerers that persuded the Govt to go down this wretched route of regime change. The Govt was trying to get consensus at the UN to back the invasion of Iraq, but failed. The USA pressed ahead. Blair was in a delemma: should he go along with the Americans and exert a civilising influnce on them or sit back and watch them make a pigs ear of it. Nobody imagined that the populace would turn on the liberators with such ferocity once Saddam was removed. Thats why there was no contingency plan. Which just goes to show that one type of oppression has to be replaced by another slightly more benevolent form of oppression, otherwise the whole thing falls apart.
The best thing would if the whole of Blair’s old cabinate were put under oath just before every single document on the Iraq war was leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
swatantra, that’s defending Blair. Blair stood upo in Parliament and stated quite categorically that Saddam had WMD. He had no evidence to base that on and what reports there were had been altered by his people with his knowledge. He refused to accept what people like Hans Blix were saying and refused to even accept what our intelligence agencies were saying. He knowingly lied.
What makes matters even worse, it now appears that the government has subsequently destroyed archive material that contradicted it’s chosen path to war. Last week, Sir Christopher Meyer – the UK Ambassador to Washington, said basicaly the whole thing was a cover for regime change and that many of his reports warning of problems to come were “missing from the Inquiry’s archive”. These documents were amongst those supposed to be disclosed. Now apparently, they don’t even exist.
“The main protagonists can only be criminally liable if they knowingly misled … and I don’t believe that could be said of the main protagonists here in Britain”
The intelligence dossier was prepared by the PM’s press secretary.
What was his involvment except to knowingly mislead.
I’ll give you this Swatanatra, you are loyal to the end
This is a letter from Lord Goldsmith that if the media are to be believed states categorically that military action would be illegal. He will defend that letter in his testimony to the inquiry after Christmas. Blair isn’t wriggling out of this one, and to those nulabour disciples who can’t bring themselves to accept this; your idol is a war criminal, and the British sense of natural justice will see him punished sooner or later.
Time to look for a new poster boy, preferably one with some honesty and decency. The lack of a messianic complex would also be a bonus.
The problem is that they all voted for it – with some honourable exceptions.
In theory Blair could be tried at the bar of the House of Commons. But they were all complicit. Most MPs.
Why was something obvious enough to 2 million citizens, to make them come to central London to march against the impending war? But it was not obvious to MPs, to the cabinet. I don’t think, by and large, that they were gullible or stupid. The Labour MPs were, by and large, probably sceptical in their hearts but not wishing to lose government posts, or wreck their career prospects. And so some three quarters of a million Iraqis had to die.
We all know it was a big lie. Most of us knew at the time. The inquiry is perhaps better than nothing (toothless and cosy as it is) but the problem is that nearly all the Labour cabinet would have to put themselves on trial.
The Tories were genuinely enthusiastic by and large and less worried about the reasons for war – with honourable exceptions like Douglas Hurd and Ken Clarke.
But the Tories were not in power New labour was, Blair lied his teeth out, and you can see looking at the new labour MP’s and the way they have voted, including voting against an inquiry. My MP has dreams about Blair she thinks he is the greatest leader we have had, of course when he asked her to vote she voted my god she voted.
I have to admit that at the time I fell for the lies hook line and sinker.
In those days you tended to believe the govt when it said they have evidence of WMD, Sadam was developing a supergun to deliver these together with balistic missiles capable of reaching southern Europe in 45 mins etc etc.
I and many other people including MP’s based their decisions on these ” facts ”
All those complicit in this lie, which has cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people, should be locked up.
Sod the innocents look at our young dead, war is nasty business people die, they better die for a reason.
treborc
I’m not sure I would say sod the innocents but you are, of course, absolutely right re our own war dead.
It makes me feel nauseous when you hear those politicians responsible for the war, spouting righteous plattitudes and expressing sadness for the dead when it was their politicking that was the cause.
Ordering British troops into war for political reasons are the actions of people of no conscience, self interested and lacking in empathy. In short, sociopaths.
Nope they are millionaires. war always makes millionaires.
“The problem is that they all voted for it – with some honourable exceptions.
In theory Blair could be tried at the bar of the House of Commons. But they were all complicit. Most MP”.
Hold on there – I votes Yes to the 1973 referendum on the Common Market. But to get that yes vote out of me, Heath and his lot lied – and have since admitted they lied. Does that make me complicit in that decision?
yes but we all know that MP’s are greedy so and so, and some of the people that voted for the war dam well knew something was up,and like everything else we are told if your Innocent you have nothing to worry about.
Steve
Are you complicit?
Well the difference is – you are not an MP.
If MPs, who were there to do this, were not able to get information and form accurate judgements and reach the right decision on our behalf, or, worse, for reasons of career voted for this war, then they are at best pathetic and gullible, or, at worst, guilty of a war crime. After all, it was obvious to the two million people who marched against the war, in the largest demonstration in our history, that it was unjust.
A friend of mine, a doctor, had a conversation with two Iraqi doctors in the build up to the war. They told him two things. Firstly Sadam had no weapons of mass destruction because he had got rid of them. Second, the Iraqis would be pleased to be rid of Sadam but would not like to be occupied. What more would you need to know?
Can anyone seriously tell me that our own intelligence services and Foreign Office did not also understand this?
Were MPs really just stupid and gullible? I think it’s worse. They were protecting their political careers. Maybe I’m wrong.
The most serious implication of all this is actually that we have arrived at a situation in which the executive has an unparalleled (in modern times) hold upon Parliament (despite allowing a vote on the war). Exercised through an overbearing whips system, the treating of the role of MP as merely a career, and extensive patronage. You can add in the progressive dismantling of democracy in our party – which made MPs less responsive to their own local CLPs.
I wonder how many Labour MPs gave their CLPs the finger when the party membership spoke out against the war.
Personally I believe it was combination of factors. Some MPs (Labour and Tory) were duped, which makes them naive and foolish. Many of these people would have been bullied by the whips. Some of these (e.g. Cruddas) have now ‘repented’ and admitted that they agreed to war on a lie and would have voted against it if they knew what we now know. Some on the Labour and Tory benches are inherently hawkish – justification was never important, they support overthrow of unfriendly governments no matter what. Others, on the Labour benches, supported the war because they wanted to further their careers within the Blair administration. They may have privately not ‘bought’ the justification, but they were happy to support the government to further their careers.
Like it or not Tony Blair has a nice shinny medal, and about £12 million quid in the Bank, all because he backed America, he has no blood on his hands, because the pope gave him absolution.
The problem with the dubious legality was that the UN charter expressly forbids regime change, which was the original argument by Bush and Blair.
So in order to hoodwink the UN they had to bring about an elaborate plot and conspiracy [This government seems to have been full of 'em, the immigration conspiracy, the secret bank loans conspiracy, the Iraq War...] to argue that Iraq, a knackered state by most definitions militarily was still a threat after 2 grueling wars as well as an Israeli airstrike destroying their nuke-factory-come-power plant.
That’s where the support dropped out, and that also is where the French started to withdraw troops it had actually deployed alongside UK and US forces.
@Free Radical “MPs really just stupid and gullible? I think it’s worse. They were protecting their political careers. Maybe I’m wrong”
half and half methinks …. as for the conservatives , mostly gullible.
But Tony is a good east end car salesman , I’ll give him that .
Treborc
The Pope did not give Blair Absolution. Blair would have had to make a “confession” before being received into the Catholic Church. Absolution would have been given by the Priest hearing the confession. HOWEVER, absolution only “works” if the sins have been truly repented and that is known only to the penitent and the Almighty. Just saying that he was sorry does not count. If Blair truly does not believe he has sinned then he might be in for a nasty shock later.
To me the thing that says Blair and company knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction at the start of the war is that they committed the UK forces into battle while the majority of them still had no NBC protection. (Not available as the timescale from authorization to purchase to start of war was too short)
Of course, it is possible to believe that they did in fact commit them in that condition whilst believing that Saddam did have WMD, in which case I would be happy to be the one who puts the rope around his neck and pulls the lever.
Treason Dear boy you only hang the lowest of the lowest, Blair would be tied to a post and shot at the Tower. hopefully with a blunt bullet.
Steve – expanding on the NBC equipment, I know soldiers who were concerned about the lack and were quite specifically told that it didn’t matter as he didn’t have the weapons.
So if the Army knew Saddam had nothing, they must in turn have been briefed by the MOD, who in turn must have been briefed by the intelligence services, who in turn were briefing Cabinet.
“So if the Army knew Saddam had nothing,…”
Or else the army decided to soothe dissension in the ranks by flanelling them.
Kind of like politicians do to the public…..
FV, I think you’ll find there was no flanelling. I think you’ll find that nobody thought Saddam had the weapons – and by nobidy I include Blair.
Oldham Avenger
‘…Steve – expanding on the NBC equipment, I know soldiers who were concerned about the lack and were quite specifically told that it didn’t matter as he didn’t have the weapons.’
That’s pretty amazing on the face of it, though it all fits. Everyone knew Sadam had no ‘WMD’ except for gullible MPs (like Jon Cruddas…) and the poor British public who weren’t on the march and believed what they read in the Sun.
Treborc
‘…If Blair truly does not believe he has sinned then he might be in for a nasty shock later.’
We live in hope. Though it’s a shame if Divine retribution is our best hope for justice.
Thats why they sent them ski’s they thought it was going to be a holiday camp.
Treborc
‘…If Blair truly does not believe he has sinned then he might be in for a nasty shock later.’
Yes Saddam waiting at the pearly gates.
heating up
“Why I believe Blair should stand trial – and even face charges for war crimes, by General Sir Michael Rose”
http://tinyurl.com/y9qafgf
Interesting that one of Blair’s trusted Generals has knifed him. The Times is carryin a column basically saying that senior civil servants are queuing up to do likewise.
Cpouldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke. Iraq qill hang over his name like a black cloud long after he’s dead and buried.
I would like to see Campbell at the top of the list . At least Blair was elected.
Cpouldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke. Iraq qill hang over his name like a black cloud long after he’s dead and buried.
The day Thatcher and Blair are placed into the ground I will organize a street party like no other.
But Blair is not having a great time at the moment although the day he shows up I suspect he will have enough evidence to show he is completely innocent, I cannot see the little shit getting much work after this.
Money
after reading this …… http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/01/mystery-tony-blair-finances …
It doesn’t half seem like money laundering .
Who is paying what for what ? and why ?
Job done ?
PM accused of ‘muzzling’ Iraq inquiry
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pm-accused-of-muzzling-iraq-inquiry-1833672.html
“Gordon Brown has been accused of “muzzling” the Iraq inquiry after refusing to alter rules that allow Government departments to withhold crucial documents from the public”
quelle surprise.
Dulux awaits a big order!
Ah well nothing surprises me anymore.