Monday, 1 August 2011

Chilcot - 'Blair was to blame'....what now?

It would appear that the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War are being leaked to the mainstream media. Despite my misgivings about these leaks it is being reported that Chilcot did not believe Blair's version of events (surprised?). Most people who have reviewed the events which took us to this illegal war have come to the same conclusion.

So what happens now? What happens when the Chilcot Report is actually published? It appears that there is a case for accusations of war crimes but is that how it works? Well I will bet that somewhere in this morass a clause will exist which states that, even though the Chilcot Inquiry has been very valuable (and cost a lot of money), it has no legal standing and therefore further legal proceedings cannot proceed.

You see this is how they work! I think that most of the public now believe that Blair was a wrong 'un. Alright he conned me as well back in 1996 (when we were desperate to get rid of the Tories) but I soon realised that he was not working for the best interests of Britain. In fact I got the impression that the government of the day was actively working against British interests as the world walked through our porous borders.

It was clear that Blair had made some kind of pact with George Bush and that he became increasingly desperate to fulfill that pact to such an extent that Alistair Campbell apparently 'adjusted' the Intelligence reports. Now during my time with the military I had some interest in missiles and the thought that Iraq had a missile which could threaten us in 45 minutes was ludicrous!

There appears to be little doubt that Tony Blair has serious questions to answer in a court of law where he would be on oath (I suspect that wouldn't matter too much) but where he would be subject to the laws on perjury. In fact I cannot think of anyone that I would rather see facing a judge and that is precisely the reason that it will never happen!


Anonymous said...

War crimes tribunal, methinks.

GrumpyRN said...

I agree with what you are saying.
War crimes however? I'm not so sure. As the prime minister he took us to war with the permission of parliament (wrongly in my view) so I don't see that there is anything illegal about what he has done under British law. He was the democratically elected leader of the UK and took us into a war much the same as Chamberlain in 1939.
International law may be different but who is going to prosecute? Who is going to take the USA to court - never happen.

Anonymous said...

Hitler was elected to office and therefore the legitimate representative of the German people.

Iraq was an "invasion" for which the Government, personified by Blair, is responsible.

The Chilcot enquiry, it would seem, is casting doubt about the legality of the "invasion".

The UK is signed up to the International Criminal Courts, the USA is not.

Charges need not be brought, charges can be made by the ICC as with Gaddafi.

bryboy said...

Tks for your interest guys. It does seem to be a legal problem as opposed to a moral problem. I just think that we were all duped by Blair and in the interests of justice it should be investigated. I want some smart barrister standing in front of him and Alistair Campbell and Gordon Brown and asking questions that they cannot wriggle out of. So far everyone has been far too nice!