Skip to main content

View Diary: Blair Defends Iraq Invasion at Chilcot Inquiry (87 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nope. You make no case for "war criminal". (0+ / 0-)

    UN declaring war or not has nothing to do with definition of a "war criminal" which is defined by Geneva Convention.

    Blair can be excoriated for misleading the nation to war in Iraq but that is not the definition of a war criminal.

    •  "It is the supreme international crime..." (12+ / 0-)

      The Nürnberg Tribunal condemned a war of aggression in the strongest terms: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." It held individuals accountable for "crimes against peace", defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing..." When the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed the Nürnberg principles in 1946, it affirmed the principle of individual accountability for such crimes.

      A. Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions
      The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 extend special protections to certain categories of persons -- wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; POWs; and civilians during wartime. The ICC draft statute enumerates "grave breaches" as "any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

         * wilful killing;
         * torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
         * wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
         * extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
         * compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
         * wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
         * unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; and the taking of hostages."

      B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts
      As noted previously, these provisions are derived largely from the Hague law. The list is quite extensive, and largely consists of rules of warfare recognized since the turn of the century or before, but also takes into account more recent developments in international humanitarian law. It enumerates as crimes such acts as:

         * targeting civilians;
         * targeting buildings devoted to art or science;
         * killing combatants who have laid down their arms and surrendered;
         * declaring that no quarter will be given;
         * pillaging;
         * using a flag of truce or other flag or insignia falsely, resulting in death or serious injury;
         * rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, enforced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other forms of sexual violence;
         * using civilians or other protected persons to protect specific locations from military attack;
         * intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 02:04:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Conducting a war of aggression (5+ / 0-)

      (with a potential aim to seize the natural resources of another country) is the ultimate war crime; even if you want to discount the seizure of another country's natural resources, this is an illegal war ... regime change is illegal according to international law.

      No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

      by NY brit expat on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 02:07:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eiron, SomeStones, ezdidit, renzo capetti

      ... if Iraq is shown to be a War of Aggression, said war is considered a war crime in and of itself.

      Thus, their knowledge that the intel was bogus and the failure to wait for the UN resolution are both germane.

      The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

      by JRandomPoster on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 02:08:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the Downing Street memo. (5+ / 0-)

      Prosecution of aggressive warfare against a nation that has not attacked IS the very definition of "war criminal." Blair knowingly went along with it.

      The intelligence was fixed around the policy. It was on Bush's agenda from 1998-1999, seen in revelations from Mickey Herskovits off-the-record remarks.

      They only call it class war when we fight back!

      by ezdidit on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 02:11:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nuremberg tribunal said waging aggressive war (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, ezdidit, renzo capetti

      is the worst of war crimes.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 02:19:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Aggressive war is Saddam vs. Iran and Kuwait. (0+ / 0-)

        US and Britain were still in conflict with Iraq with UN authorized troops patrolling and the aggressive Saddam threatening nuclear and chemical war...the case just falls apart as a "war crimes".

        Bush and Blair can correctly argue they were responding to a threat by an aggressor. It just doesn't hold up. War crimes would be the Abu Gharib stuff.

        Are China's leaders charged with war crimes in Tibet? Russian in Chechnya?

        A war crimes case against Blair is pointless hyperbole.

    •  Finally banned (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, mydailydrunk

      Good damned riddance.

      "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - Obama

      by glower on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 03:05:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Couldn't have expressed it better (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueyedace2

        ditto.

        Show me on the doll where Rahm touched you.

        by mydailydrunk on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 03:23:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Blair is "banned"? (0+ / 0-)

        From what?  Taking a nation to war, even misleading a nation to war does not make one a war criminal. That's defined by Geneva Accords.

        •  Cute... (0+ / 0-)

          now try logging off and back on.

          The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

          by blueyedace2 on Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 05:38:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure I'm following your police work Norm. (0+ / 0-)

            Yes wars of aggression can be considered crimes but that is the rub defining them as wars of aggression in some kind of neutral court.

            Iraq conflict from Gulf War I was never finally resolved and US and British troops were already in Iraq and had UN approval and were responding to direct threats from a known aggressor who was (stupidly for him) threatening nuclear and biological war with weapons he did not have.

            •  This asshole was just (0+ / 0-)

              stripped of its rating ability, and not banned, sadly.

              "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - Obama

              by glower on Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 06:19:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site