Blair faces war crimes trial after Iraq war

[Maciamo]

Blair faces war crimes trial after Iraq war

LONDON (Reuters) - A group of lawyers aims to prosecute Prime Minister Tony Blair for war crimes at the new International Criminal Court (ICC) if an Iraqi war goes ahead.

They said national leaders could be held individually responsible for war crimes and be tried as ex-Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has at a separate court for former Yugoslavia.

Good point ! Not that I dislike Blair ; I actually used to like him and I still have nothing against him if it weren't for his excessive pro-americanism. But this move from this group of lawyer seems historic to me. Pressuring their own government by menacing to sue them is an idea I appreciate very much. I often find that ministers and presidents are too free to do anything they like without taking public opinion into account. This is particularily clear in the current Iraqi "crisis" at the moment, in Europe as well as in the US. Maybe Italians, Spanish and Portuguese should sue their own leaders too for following the Blair-Bush couple.

The United States fiercely opposes the ICC, saying it would infringe U.S. sovereignty, but Britain has ratified its treaty and would have to give up any citizen the court wanted to try.

Of course, the US are less democratic than Europe (not a scoop...) and it's only normal that they should refuse anything that could limit their supreme power, be it an International Criminal Court or just a Kyoto Treaty (why d'you think Bush is trying so hard to put his hands on Iraqi petrol if it were not to use it and abuse it at home afterwards).

[Gaisaradatsuraku!]

Maciamo,

it's not that the British are pro-American. Rather, the Brits, as a former world power also have a pro-active mindset and understand that they have a responsibility in maintaining the safety of their citizens and world peace. The French, Spanish, Italians and other assorted continental riff raff have no such mindset and just want to take the easy way out.

Continental Europe is a lot like your little brother. When the big boys came to pick a fight he runs to you and when you get your but whippped he just stands there simpering.

Frankly, the passivity of the continental Europeans is disgraceful. No wonder Germany was able to just walk through. All you guys think about is coffee, cigarettes and whores.

[cstaylor]

Gai,

You got it wrong on this one. The Italians, Spanish, and all of the former Warsaw pact countries are siding with the U.S.

These lawyers are the very reason that the ICC is a very bad idea... it's not like Blair and Bush are whackin' Nelson Mandela. I'm confused why Europe found Milosovich's genocide worthy of attack, but Saddam's oil buys silence from the same European governments? And I wonder how many millions of bottles of baby food and medicine could have been purchased with the funds wasted on a single Hussein palace?

[Steve Bildermann]

Maciamo,

it's not that the British are pro-American. Rather, the Brits, as a former world power also have a pro-active mindset and understand that they have a responsibility in maintaining the safety of their citizens and world peace. The French, Spanish, Italians and other assorted continental riff raff have no such mindset and just want to take the easy way out.

Continental Europe is a lot like your little brother. When the big boys came to pick a fight he runs to you and when you get your but whippped he just stands there simpering.

Frankly, the passivity of the continental Europeans is disgraceful. No wonder Germany was able to just walk through. All you guys think about is coffee, cigarettes and whores.

Grand sweeping generalizations aside, what is true is that the UK has always received substantial direct and indirect financial benefit from joining the US in any military action. A couple of examples:

A great amount of overseas revenue is generated by the UK arms business which has always operated widely in the Mid-East with the full knowledge and active co-operation of US administrations. Certainly that revenue could be quickly cut if the US chose to do so.

The financial conduit between the US and Europe remains the trading house of London. A full 12% (read that as a great big fucking mountain of money) of the US's overseas investment is placed through UK Banks and institutions. A mere 0.2% reduction in that business would bring the UK to bankruptcy in a matter of weeks.

Although there is some element of global altruism in the UK's pro-active stance it is commonly known that the brits 'fight for a price' and the US makes a damn good paymaster.

If Iraq is invaded and the fighting changes from open desert warfare to urban policing then the US plans to make great use of the UK's expertise in that area.

Our Irish 'troubles' make the UK army the world's most experienced house to house fighters and population control forces.

[Steve Bildermann]

Of course I could be mistaken and it could all be about Anti-Gravity

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534050248.html

[Maciamo]

A full 12% (read that as a great big fucking mountain of money) of the US's overseas investment is placed through UK Banks and institutions. A mere 0.2% reduction in that business would bring the UK to bankruptcy in a matter of weeks.

This is valid both ways. Have a look at EU's investments in the US compared to US investments in the EU on
the EU official site

Facts are clear :

65% of the EU's Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) come from the US, but 66% of all EU's FDI are also redirected to the US.

45,2% of all US stocks abroad are in the EU, which makes up 56% of the EU's foreign stocks.
And vice versa, 60,5% of EU stocks abroad are in the US, which represents 53,5% of foreign investments.

If the EU reduce its stocks in the US, that would hurt the US as much as if the US did the same in Europe.

[/quote]

[Taro Toporific]

Of course I could be mistaken and it could all be about Anti-Gravity

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534050248.html

Put on your tinfoil hats folks! But personally, I like the theory, "US was blackmailing both leaders over continued supply of intelligence information gained from the Echelon system via the UKASA agreement."

So why are Blair and Howard, both consumate political operators, taking such a huge political risk for a war that no-one but the Americans want, which could destroy the structure of international law and result in both the UK and Australia becoming international pariahs?

My hypothesis is the supply of information from the United States that is so secret it is only known to the very highest levels of government and is of such strategic importance that it is worth taking such risks.

My initial thoughts were that the US was blackmailing both leaders over continued supply of intelligence information gained from the Echelon system via the UKASA agreement. But that could have been done at any time over the last couple of decades.
...
What if this other US-UK [weapons] technology was so revolutionary that the inner partners' versions of the JSF would have a massive advantage over anything else in the air for years to come, something that could give them a colossal and unassailable strategic advantage, as great as, perhaps, the atomic bomb?

There is such a technology on the horizon: anti-gravity