- Calendar
- Map
- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Languages
- Projects
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate@Europe
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
Put Tony Blair on trial.
Put Tony Blair on trial.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has argued in the Observer that Tony Blair should face trial for his role in starting the Iraq war. He is damming of the number of people, both military and civilian, who were killed in the war and says that “in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.” In other words they should be put on trial in the International Criminal Court. Moreover Tutu does not just blame Blair and Bush for Iraq but argues “the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.” Not only was the war sold on a lie; there never were any weapons of mass destruction, but that it has not helped the war on terrorism , and has driven the Muslim and Christian worlds apart. Tony Blair has argued that getting rid of the tyrant that was Saddam was a worthwhile endevour in itself but for Tutu “The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.”
Debatabase debate: This House believes that the war in Iraq was worth the cost? http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/international-affairs/house-believes-war-iraq-was-worth-cost
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq
37 weeks 1 day ago
There is something to be said though for guilt by association. Bush is a criminal in many, many ways and his family history is one of each predacessor funding the enemies of and picking the fights for their offspring, all the while investing heavily in politics and military industries and finding themselves in positions of power. When the Bush family and their international counterparts essentially bullied both the States and the U.N. into providing support for a war no one but them and their associates were really interested in, what Blair supported and had to be aware of was the very real and vast conspiracy (sometimes they take a while to prove as this one did) occuring in the States to wage war in the Mid East at any cost using any means necessary. (Why this was occuring doesn't seem immediately relevent here although I'd be happy to expound if requested.) Lastly, it is my understanding the number of Muslim citizens killed in the first years of Iraq technically qualifies as genocide. Although I might very well be mistaken on this last point, if Blaire was in any way associated with the approval of this, he is just as guilty as those who carried it out.
37 weeks 21 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
There is something to be said though for guilt by association.
Tut tut! There certainly is in the court of public opinion but I challenge you to find me that crime in British or international law!
Bush is a criminal in many, many ways and his family history is one of each predacessor funding the enemies of and picking the fights for their offspring, all the while investing heavily in politics and military industries and finding themselves in positions of power.
If he is criminal in many ways you should be able to tell us a few of them! Bush's family seems to me to be irrelevant; Bush snr presided over the end of the cold war and as president from 1989 to 1993 presided over a big drop in the defence budget. See this graph. That said investing in either politics or the military is hardly a crime.
When the Bush family and their international counterparts essentially bullied both the States and the U.N. into providing support for a war no one but them and their associates were really interested in,
If you can call negotiations bullying then I guess this is the case; however of course many states did not go along with it so if it was it was not very effective bullying!
what Blair supported and had to be aware of was the very real and vast conspiracy (sometimes they take a while to prove as this one did) occuring in the States to wage war in the Mid East at any cost using any means necessary.
While I agree that the US was probably not going to be stopped from invading Iraq barring immense concessions this does not necessarily make it criminal, or Tony Blair liable.
Lastly, it is my understanding the number of Muslim citizens killed in the first years of Iraq technically qualifies as genocide.
Shall we have a look at the definition of genocide ""genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". Iraq could potentially count under "(a) Killing members if the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to emmbers of the group" as there is not a set number (so the number killed makes no difference). However you need to remember that the initial phase of the invasion killed about 7500 civilians - a very low number for a full scale invasion. There would then be two problems in establishing guilt; how do you prove that this reletively small loss of life was targeted at a particular group? And much more seriously how could you establish the intent to destroy that group? If there was such an intent Blair had the weapons at his disposal to carry out this intent far more effectively.
Although I might very well be mistaken on this last point, if Blaire was in any way associated with the approval of this, he is just as guilty as those who carried it out.
I certainly agree that the leaders are responsible as much or more than the soldiers but you do need to pin a crime on them first!
37 weeks 7 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
What makes a given act criminal has less to do with written law and more to do with universal moral code. And yes, there are certain maxims that apply universally to all when it comes to the issue of morality. I'll use this oportunity to kill two birds with one stone and both answer your question about the Bush family as well as justify my last comment. I would assert that it is universally immoral to send massive amounts of military and monetary aid to a force that you know will soon become a tyrannical machine of terror and genocide and then lie to your own people to get them to build the war machine you need to take out the enemy you helped create in the first place all the while being one of only a few who truly profits from it while millions die and are forced into poverty. This must not be technically illegal because Prescott Bush did for his son when he sent massive funding and formed business relationships with one Adolf Hitler. And that allowed George H.W. Bush into priviliged positions of power including a gig as the head of the CIA. That allowed him into Ronald Reagan's inner circle at which time there was no one for them to immediately attack so they created a straw man called "the commies". And even though the Cold War was over they revived it anyway to keep the military machine making money for them. In the mean time they also created a little organization called Al Queda which was run largely by oil companies, the Bush family, Charlie Wilson, and the Bin Laden family (specifically Osama Bin Laden who was at the time a friend of George W. Bush) and which trained the fighting forces to push back the Russians from our Trans-Siberian oil pipe line in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussien was a close trusted family friend of the Bush's but kept trying to expand his empire into more oil-rich Muslim countries . The problem came in when after Al-Queda had done their job "we" left them high and dry as well left a huge back door open for Saddam and guess what.... Suddenly George W. Bush, son of George H.W. Bush, now has an enemy to take his country to war against. See how that works? Well the U.N. saw it too. And they did't think a war was the right answer. So Bush lied to us, his countrymen (I'm in the States, BTW), completely ignores the wishes of the U.N. and then goes in anyway creating an international incident the U.N. can't ignore. If that's what you call negotiations.... What is important here at the end of this is that Blair and the support of Britain was absolutely necessary to make it happen for Bush. What makes Blair a possible criminal is the fact that he did nothing to stop what he had to know was a completely immoral act even if it was technically "legal".The entire point behind putting Bush and Blair on trial is not to ascertain whether or not they've broken written laws, but rather whether or not they've broken natural laws that maybe should be added to the books. Not "guilty until proven innocent". More like "possibly as sick as Hitler but somehow more socially acceptable and never the less we need to find out for sure exactly what really happened."
36 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
As much as one might agree that Bush and Blair are morally dubious characters (frankly most people who are interested in power are) putting people on trial for being morally dubious is even more abhorrent because it has to be arbitrary. If we arbitrarily put people on trial for such things then we are on the road to tyranny (of the mob such as revolutionary France rather than of an individual). The letter of the law very much does matter because if it does not then there might as well be no law. The discussion was meant to be about putting blair on trial in the current system we have rather than creating a new system with which to accuse him. While I am sure it would be possible to do retroactively making things criminal would be a dangerous precedent.
Also I would be surprised if there is actually a need to go down this route, there are probably current written crimes in the UK and internationally that he could be put on trial for, I was interested in finding out what they are.
36 weeks 6 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Sorry to keep kicking the horse here but written law is often not created until it is first broken. For instance, no one just decided drinking and driving was illegal one day. It happened after years of horrible accidents and needless injury. After too many folks were brought to civil trial for running someone else over, it was decided a federal statute should be on the books concerning the issue and now we have DUI (DWI in some states) laws. True in many cases someone is bright enough to introduce a preventative law, but generally speaking very little becomes illegal until damage has been done. I think what we might be aiming for here indirectly is figuring out how we can get Blair (and hopefully Bush as well) into a court where they have to answer frank questions about their role in starting and maintaining a war gone very badly which has resulted in the poverty and death of millions as well making the world a significantly more dangerous place than it was just a decade ago. Perhaps they only get officially charged with the sort of crimes Alex is asking for a list of, but at least they are forced to start opening up in front of the world about the atrocious decisions they made. After that we can begin forming new laws to prevent or at least curb some of that behavior from our future leadership. In the end it is agreed that inventing new laws and then retroactively charging someone with a crime based on them is definitely not the sort of thing we'd hope for in any advanced society. However, to say, "Oh well. What they did was technically legal and so now we just leave them alone about it" is also not the sort of legalistic apathy one would expect from previously mentioned advanced societies. The proper reaction is somewhat of a mix of the former two. Written law is fairly useless if it is allowed to stagnate and become irrelavent over time. The pot must be stirred with inventive legal challenges and occasionally unconventional methodolgy.
36 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Thanks for the clarification, I now understand where you are coming from, although I and still not entirely sure I agree.
I certainly agree that we make things crimes for the most part based upon experience. If no one had ever murdered before then there is a good chance the possibility would not have occured to anyone and the crime would have to be created after the first murder was committed. In such an instance such a law might even have to be applied retroactively despite the worrying implications that I will come onto later. However it is difficult to argue that this is the case in this instance; states going to war! Not like that has ever happened before! It therefore cannot have been an unanticipated possibility so the decision of society had already been made to allow leaders to take their countries to war under certain circumstances (in both US and UK a vote in the legislature). As wars go it was not even particularly amoral in its initial cause (at least assuming Tony and George actually believed that there was or likely was WMD) - there were at least sensible reasons behind it; there is no denying Saddam was aggressive, had in the past threatened US strategic interests, and that it was a tyrannical regime that killed far more Iraqis than the Iraq war did. If we ever believe that getting rid of tyrants is the right thing to do then Saddam would have been pretty far up the list.
I agree with you that "we can get Blair (and hopefully Bush as well) into a court where they have to answer frank questions about their role in starting and maintaining a war gone very badly" but I dont see why this needs to be a court rather than simply inquirys - which can potentially be far more wide ranging. Neither the US or UK has had one that is sufficiently broad. However your "war gone very badly which has resulted in the poverty and death of millions" I consider to be irrelevant. How badly the war went after the initial invasion seems to me to be in large part not Tony Blair's fault - the British (particularly the foreign rather than cabinet office mind) seem to have pushed for having much more preperation for the occupation and wanted more troops which may well have created a better result. Of course he made bad decisions and really should have been fired for them but the electorate decided to keep him on (same with Bush) and fankly in a democracy they are the ones who should decide.
In sum the problem at the moment is that British and American society have not yet decided whether going to war when it is not purely defensive is something that is always bad. In the UK there is the vein of 'humanitarian intervention' that Blair tapped into (and helped create) and in the US there are 'vital strategic interests' everywhere. Neither public is yet convinced that we can do away with such wars entirely and until they are it is unlikely you will get the laws you are pushing for.
36 weeks 5 days ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Fair enough. I suppose putting them on trial for anything is putting the cart before the horse. Inquiries first, then trials if anything is found. Otherwise, it's just another unfortunate historical incident.
36 weeks 1 day ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I would assert that it is universally immoral to send massive amounts of military and monetary aid to a force that you know will soon become a tyrannical machine of terror and genocide and then lie to your own people to get them to build the war machine you need to take out the enemy you helped create in the first place all the while being one of only a few who truly profits from it while millions die and are forced into poverty.
Yes I guess so, but at the moment this is pure assertion with no evidence - you are talking Bush I here, then why blame bush for a program he wound down and was started under Carter and massively expanded by Reagan? It also seems unlikely that anyone in the white house 'knew' the funding would create a 'tyrannical machine of terror' twenty years after the funding started.
This must not be technically illegal because Prescott Bush did for his son when he sent massive funding and formed business relationships with one Adolf Hitler.
Did not bush fight in WWII - and in the pacific so thousands of miles away to boot I suppose that this is just an amazing cover? He was born in 1924 so have been rather young for such things would he not? I really dont see why you need to tar the father with these allegations in order to persuade us that the son should be tried.
And that allowed George H.W. Bush into priviliged positions of power including a gig as the head of the CIA. That allowed him into Ronald Reagan's inner circle at which time there was no one for them to immediately attack so they created a straw man called "the commies".
Check things before you write - Geogrge H.W. Bush was CIA director from 1976-77, so under Ford not Reagan.
And even though the Cold War was over they revived it anyway to keep the military machine making money for them. In the mean time they also created a little organization called Al Queda which was run largely by oil companies, the Bush family, Charlie Wilson, and the Bin Laden family (specifically Osama Bin Laden who was at the time a friend of George W. Bush) and which trained the fighting forces to push back the Russians from our Trans-Siberian oil pipe line in Afghanistan.
There is certainly some truth to the idea that the USA was casting around to work out who the next enemy would be in the 1990s. I might accept that the Saudis were still funding the mujahideen in the 1990s but the Bush family? If they were attempting to defend oil pipelines then private security forces make much more sense. Do you mean a different pipeline; any 'siberian' pipeline is going to still be in Russia so any forces would have would have their work cut out forcing the Russians away! The trans afghanistan pipeline has been a pipe dream since the 90's but has never managed to get anywhere - as you can see from current news reports it is still not finished!
Saddam Hussien was a close trusted family friend of the Bush's but kept trying to expand his empire into more oil-rich Muslim countries . The problem came in when after Al-Queda had done their job "we" left them high and dry as well left a huge back door open for Saddam and guess what.... Suddenly George W. Bush, son of George H.W. Bush, now has an enemy to take his country to war against.
I agree oil probably had something to do with the Iraq war, as may have done the idea that there was 'unfinished business' left over from the gulf war. But a close family friend? I agree the Saudis seem to be but the relationship between Iraq and the US looks to have been entirely political; in order to fight Iran that was in the 1980s considered much more dangerous, an attitude that is not surprising given the hostage situation and its seeming revolutionary regime that could attempt to export theocracy. It also makes no sense - if Saddam was a family friend who would therefore ensure oil supplies then why push back in the gulf war?
See how that works? Well the U.N. saw it too. And they did't think a war was the right answer. So Bush lied to us, his countrymen (I'm in the States, BTW), completely ignores the wishes of the U.N. and then goes in anyway creating an international incident the U.N. can't ignore. If that's what you call negotiations....
So all this circumstantial evidence has got us back to where we started; bush lied. Most people now will agree with that and you dont need to go into a family history for it. However just blaming bush seems a bit rich if you are in the USA - remember congress gave authorisation for the war 77-23 in the senate and 296-133 in the house, evidently many in the US agreed with the white house's assessment.
What is important here at the end of this is that Blair and the support of Britain was absolutely necessary to make it happen for Bush. What makes Blair a possible criminal is the fact that he did nothing to stop what he had to know was a completely immoral act even if it was technically "legal".
Once the UN resolution had failed then how was the support of Britain absolutely necessary, Britain contributed reletively little to the war effort and there were other countries involved in the 'coalition of the willing'. Of course Britain was a useful ally but it was hardly essential. I have no idea if Blair tried to stop Bush but is failing to stop someone criminal? Negligence perhaps but then every other world leader also failed to stop Bush so why single out Blair?
The entire point behind putting Bush and Blair on trial is not to ascertain whether or not they've broken written laws, but rather whether or not they've broken natural laws that maybe should be added to the books. Not "guilty until proven innocent". More like "possibly as sick as Hitler but somehow more socially acceptable and never the less we need to find out for sure exactly what really happened."
I think you do your case no good at all by constantly comparing Bush and Blair to Hitler. It very possible that they were wrong, misguided, and may have engaged in illegal acts but they are nothing like on the scale of Hitler.
Neither the US or UK has had one that is sufficiently broad.
The UK has the Chilcott inquiry that is still going on. Its remit is broad "It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned." however of course this is simply to establish what went wrong - the question will come when it reports, if it finds anything that could be evidence in trials then what happens? We are unlikely to find out for another year or so. However since the UK is likely to be heading towards a general election it might actually be a good time for the government to push for trials if at all possible so as to remind the country how bad labour was!
36 weeks 9 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
[The Chilcott Inquiry] is simply to establish what went wrong - the question will come when it reports, if it finds anything that could be evidence in trials then what happens? We are unlikely to find out for another year or so. However since the UK is likely to be heading towards a general election it might actually be a good time for the government to push for trials if at all possible so as to remind the country how bad labour was!
I dont think a bit of damage to Labour would be worth the price. The Conservatives supported the war so only the Lib Dems might benefit which i dont think would be sufficient motive for Cameron to set a precedent which might catch him or his successors. I dont think there is the slightest chance of any trials in the UK, and even less I guess for Bush in the US. And to most people really putting Blair on trial without Bush would be missing the real target, if Robin Cook had been prime minister and flat out opposed invasion, would it have made any difference, probably not.
36 weeks 9 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Putting ex Prime Minister Blair on trial would have the benefit that it would allow him to show to others that he is not guilty; it would bring out all the evidence and show one way or another so would provide closure to the Iraq war.
37 weeks 9 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Guilty until proven innocent eh? While such a trial would be interesting it would be contrary to the fundamental principles of justice to hold a trial for this purpose.
37 weeks 7 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
Quite a few people go to court to clear their name - Libel.
On this guilt by association thing, Im strongly in favour because then we can lock David Cameron up for being 'the heir to Blair'!
36 weeks 9 hours ago
- Login or register to post comments
- Login to reply
I am all for TB being on trial, but the reasons given by Tutu are not sufficient. The amount of suffering caused does not matter if the laws of war were not violated, similarly liying is not a crime and regardless it would also be very difficult to prove that TB did not believe that there was WMD.
The 'crime of aggression' would seem to be the most obvious but since it was not actually defined at the time of the start of the Iraq war it would be rather odd to charge Blair with it. http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=swgca-proposal