Tony Blair

[rich]

Is Tony Blair a war criminal?
Given that he lied about the weapons of mass destruction and went to war without the approval of the UN it seems to me he is. We can't have one rule for Milosevitch and another for Blair.
Which leads to a second question.
What is the collective responsibility of the British people for the criminal acts of our government?
I was amused, as I am sure many of you were, by the behaviour of the proprietor of the Daily Express when he learned his bid for the Daily Telegraph had been trumped by the German, Axel Springer press. He did his John Cleese goosetep and shouted Seig Heil and accused averyone of being Nazis.
The Germans have no soldiers in Iraq. They opted out of the charade. It seems to me that the Nazi label might be more appropriately placed on the present British government.
Might it not be time for the people of Caithness to follow the Quaker example and deduct the portion of their income tax that goes on the military?

[jjc]

So many questions, Rich ;)

Blair certainly seems to have taken us to war on false pretences. If he did that purposefully (i.e. was in full possession of the ‘facts’ before we went to war but chose to cover them up with lies) then yes, I think he has acted illegally and should be brought to account. If, on the other hand, he was simply too eager to support Bush to question the situation (such as not bothering to ask what sort of munitions were deployable in 45-minutes) then he’s just plain incompetent. In either case, it doesn’t reflect well on his ability as a leader.

In answer to your second question, I do feel some responsibility for the debacle in Iraq. Sure, I debated the issue here (and elsewhere) and made my feelings known to the select few who would listen. I wrote to my MP telling him I wanted him to vote against the war in Iraq (and got quite a condescending letter back). I even wrote to big Tones himself. Could I have done more? Of course I could. I don’t know that that makes me legally responsible for the actions of Blair, but I’m certainly responsible for my own inaction.

It’s easy to answer your third point on Nazism… just look at any white paper presented by Blunket!

As for your final question… if the good folk of Caithness ever manage to separate themselves from central government in the way you suggest I’ll be back like a shot – sod the employment prospects!

[gleeber]

Ive asked this before but what the would you do about it now? After all yer moans about the war, it happened and its a mess. Off course Blair and Bush are terrorists and should be hung by the ankles until they wake up, but they are my terrorists. The worlds a dangerous place. Fundamental nutterism is allowing young people to blow themselves up. Its a terrorists war and i know which side i want to win. To compare David Blunkett’s character with nazi philosophy in any way is pretty insulting .
That being said jjcs experience with officialdom proves that at the end of the day democracy is a prison where the warders are government.

[JAWS]

What is a "Legal War" please?

[jjc]

Gleeber,

I have no idea how to clean this mess up. What we are doing doesn’t seem to be working too well, but then just abandoning Iraq now isn’t an option either. One thing I do know is that I didn’t draw any lines under anything, whatever Blair may have wanted. The end, if we ever get there, does not and cannot justify the means and at some point Blair is going to have to be held to account.

I’m a little concerned that you think we are ever going to win this war on terrorism. Much as I’d like to share your optimism, I just can’t see how we are going to convince anybody that they don’t want to kill us by… well… killing them. All we are doing by following Bush’s smack-them-till-they-agree policy is breeding ever more terrorists to smack tomorrow.

As for Blunkett… this man is the Home Secretary yet he sees nothing wrong with publicly passing judgement on suspects before they have been to trial. He wants to remove confidentiality between lawyers and their clients. He wants to lower the burden of proof so the prosecution will only need to prove probable guilt, leaving the defendant to prove himself (or herself) innocent. He finds nothing reprehensible in locking people up for years without trial, without charge and, in at least one case, without even having them interviewed by the police. In fact, he is so confident in his own ability to act as judge, jury and executioner that when the Special Immigration Appeal Commission, the body responsible for ensuring that he doesn’t overstep the mark with the prisoners in Belmarsh, tells him that he has overstepped the mark with a prisoner in Belmarsh his first response is to call for a change in the law so that the SIAC can’t tell him he’s overstepped the mark with the prisoners in Belmarsh.

Blunkett is systematically destroying our legal system and removing our freedoms and he is doing it all under the excuse of keeping us safe from terrorism. Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps comparing his drive to reduce our nation to a police state with nazism is an insult. I’ll make a note to send him an apology… just as soon as he stops doing it.

[gleeber]

For someone who hasn’t got a clue what to do about it, you hold insulting and patronising opinions about those who are trying to do something about it.
Hindsight is a wonderful foresight.
Rich’s notion of collective responsibility is the only thing which doesn’t smack of personal prejudices from both of you.
If Rich was Bush and jjc was Blair I wonder what kind of utopia we would all be living in today.
Imagine, no wars, our only struggles would be paying the rent and finding a dentist or would our 2 intrepid leaders have that in hand too?
Oops another young Muslim kid just blew himself up in the chip shop tonight. Thats the 4th this week and its only Monday.
What are we to do about it jjc? Gosh Rich I dunno!

[Drutt]

Blunkett is systematically destroying our legal system and removing our freedoms and he is doing it all under the excuse of keeping us safe from terrorism. Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps comparing his drive to reduce our nation to a police state with nazism is an insult. I’ll make a note to send him an apology… just as soon as he stops doing it.
Blunkett is one scary man. I thought Michael Howard was a shocking Home Secretary, but Blunkett takes the biscuit.

[Anonymous]

And this government think its a good idea for all to have ID cards. Will they be handing out gold stars and pink trangles next... :roll:

[jjc]

Gleeber,


For someone who hasn’t got a clue what to do about it, you hold insulting and patronising opinions about those who are trying to do something about it.
Not having all of the answers to the problems in Iraq precludes me from pointing out that the course we are currently on is madness?? Well that’s sensible. I guess we’d best all just abandon free thought now and give ourselves over to the state?

If your complaint refers to my lack of respect for Blunkett’s abuse of the legal system then I’d like to offer a solution. He could leave the flippin’ thing alone!!!

If a person is suspected of terrorism offences then arrest them, charge them and prove the case in court. Simple really. There’s no justification for locking people up for years without charge. There’s no justification for removing a person’s right to defend him/her self. There’s no justification for lowering the burden of proof. There’s no justification for him appearing on television and declaring a person suspected of committing a crime as guilty before that person has been to trial.


Hindsight is a wonderful foresight.
Isn’t it? Unfortunately in this case it isn’t hindsight. Many of us made exactly these arguments before Blair took us to war in Iraq. That I have been proven right does not make me feel vindicated; just very sad and very angry.

[rich]

Gleeber, according to you I am demonstrating hind-sight.
In other words I believed Bush and Blair about mass weapons of destruction?
I never believed it for a moment.
I dont want to go around telling you I told you so but I told you so.
As for solutions to the problem of Iraq - well we would not be looking for solutions had we never invaded the place. Iraq - a scant 10 years ago was not a problem; it was the solution. It was the USA's bulwark against Iran. So what happened since? You tell me!
As for your remarks about suicide bombers in fish and chip shops and how to deal with them I have no idea. Send in the Marines, perhaps? In the meantime I will be anxiously watching Al Jazeera for any word on the up and coming e fish and chipper jehad in Caithness.

[gleeber]

He who proclaims his own rightness canna see his wrongness.(old Scots sooth)

It’s easy to be right. Being wrong is also ok but it’s not so easy. It’s just a different way of doing things. A blind man (apologies to Mr Blunkett) could see the outcome of the West’s attack on Iraq. Claiming that insight as your own is surely beneath 2 such enlightened moaners as yoursels. I will give you both your moments though without further comment.

I watched a programme on telly recently about radical Islamic clerics in the UK and the stuff they are feeding their flock of budding chip shop martyrs. Its awful stuff and needs to be confronted. There are at least hundreds maybe thousands of young Muslim kids being contaminated with suicidal fantasies and nationalistic/cultural fervour. They need to be watched and if any of them overstep the mark they need to be grilled. Two young and educated English Muslims have already been killed in Israel as suicide bombers. Tightening the legal system to combat such atrocities is not just an attack on civil rights its also a defence against murderous idealism. Its not an ideal situation but then neither are suicide bombings. The Islamic Council for Great Britain also condemns their activities.
Once you have decided what to do about the chip shop bombers, which is different from what the British government is doing, let me know. :~(

[jjc]

Gleeber,


Claiming that insight as your own is surely beneath 2 such enlightened moaners as yoursels.
I didn’t claim it was my own… there were a great many people saying exactly the same thing – we were universally ignored by those making the decisions. You may see my wanting to know just what Blair thinks he is doing as moaning, but I guess I’m just not ready yet to give up on the idea of a government that serves the people instead of a people who serve their government.


Two young and educated English Muslims have already been killed in Israel as suicide bombers. Tightening the legal system to combat such atrocities is not just an attack on civil rights its also a defence against murderous idealism.
That’s right… two!!

Are you seriously suggesting that we should curtail the right to a fair trial, imprison people indefinitely without charge and generally live our lives cowering under our beds because of the actions of 0.000000034% of the population? Perhaps considering the whole population is a little unfair? After all, reducing our freedoms because of the actions of 0.0000013% of the UK's Muslim population seems much more reasonable… doesn’t it? :roll:

[jjc]

Oh, and:


Once you have decided what to do about the chip shop bombers, which is different from what the British government is doing, let me know
I’d start by looking at our foreign policies in the Middle East.

We could address the blatant hypocrisy of our support for Israel’s state sanctioned terrorism. We could tell Israel that they must now adhere to the numerous UN resolutions that they are in breach of with the same conviction that we told Saddam. We could try to look a little less apathetic the next time that the Israeli government authorises an execution by air-to-ground missile rather than follow due legal process. We could put pressure on the US to ensure that the next time they hold ‘peace’ talks with Israel they consider inviting a representative from Palestine. Perhaps the next time we criticise Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons we could also cast a scornful gaze over Israel’s stockpile?

In the wider picture, we could try to stop treating our Islamic neighbours as ungodly evildoers whilst shaking their hands behind closed doors as we make deals to ensure oil production. We could also try not to keep using them when it suits (bin Laden vs. USSR, Iraq vs. Iran) and then cutting them loose when they’ve done our dirty work.

[Anonymous]

So really, once again, it comes back to who is talking to the bad guys?

Where is the big show of talking about the problems they have? Oh, I forgot, no talking with terrorists.

Well that line helped a great deal in Northern Ireland, decades of death, until they finally sat down with a cuppa and started sorting it out. For how long did people with irish accents undergo this sort of "singling out", how many wary looks did they have to put up with every time they opened their mouth to speak. Is is purely down to the fact that they spoke the same language as us that finally got everyone round the table?

You can see the same attitude creeping into certain posts on here now, people have started to name the bad guys here as Muslims and the separation between religion and fundamentalism becomes a fuzzy grey line. Are we going to allow this to become a "reds under the bed" situation? Is everyone who mearly looks like they might be a Muslim going to be put under the interrogation lamp.

Tony has got a lot to answer for, blood is on his hands, the blood of his own people for that matter. Its all very well to talk about hindsight as if this is something reserved for a blessed few. The difference between most of us and the Bush brothers, is that we are prepared to say that what was done was not done for the right reasons. We have still not heard a satisfactory explanation from any of the leaders involved here. I feel that a great deal of blame lies with the way our society has changed over the last 20 years or more. Mistakes are no longer an option. Look at the vultures right now, waiting for any sign that Tony is admitting a mistake on virtually any issue, so they can say, he's admitted a mistake, sack im!!!

These days a mistake is basically the prelude to a resignation. Whatever my feelings on a Labour government, I really dont think this is a healthy environment in which to get anything done. It takes a big person to admit an error, especially an error in judgement, however should anyone be big enough to admit to a mistake, we're all calling for their head. So we've removed the option of learning from their mistakes as they now have to defend their position to the end to ensure their employment. So what option have we (society) left for our leaders, none, they have to back their own decisions until it either works out or goes completely pear shaped and they get the elbow. At which point they are left with the same choice, cling on to their original stance and dissappear into obscurity or admit their mistake and be thrown to the dogs.

I think if Tony thought that he could climb down from his position on Iraq and his relationship with GW without losing his job (and probably his party's position) he would admit that he was wrong and set about getting it right. But he can't, the moment he tries to change his position, he'll be ripped to shreds. So in this climate of "perfection" the best we can hope for is a change of government so that someone can take a better stance and run with that flag for a while. Until that happens all we are going to see is changes in legislation to try and support the position he holds. If this situation is allowed to go on for long enough, the legal changes will become more and more outrageous and people will have less and less concrete on which to base their opinions.

How many times did the people of Germany hear "if you're not a jew then what do you have to hide?" as hitler began to take power, I'm sure hindsight in Germany is sharp as a tack. How many pieces of legislation are we going to see applauded on its way with cries of "if you're not a terrorist what do you have to hide?", as we've already waved on things like the criminal justice act with "if you're not a criminal, what's your problem with it?" ringing in our ears. Legislation put to us in such a way that we are not allowed to disagree. Witch hunters have used the same arguments for hundreds of years.

"NOBODY expects the spanish inquisition!!!" :roll:

[Anonymous]

I think Tony Blair is really a good guy who tries hard to do the right thing but who is being seriously misled by those around him. Sadly he really believes there are WMD.
When the 2nd Gulf War blew up we were told by the cynics to expect the whole middle east to blow up, it hasn't.
Syria, Jordan, Iran have all accepted that the fall of Saddam was a good thing for the region, the insurgents in Iraq only want democracy crushed and they will kill as many Iraqi's they can to stop democracy.
I have talked to many Iraqi people and they want freedom, they want peace, they don't want heavy handed USA soldiers stamping across their land and homes. What we can do is give them that freedom, support the coalition to end the insurgency and give the country to their people to rule from the end of June.
Okay ......................there is no WMD .........move on.
Thankfully the Iraqi people themselves with the will of the FREE world will prevail and Iraq will be free. But what about the Palestinians, who will free them?? We won't. Tony won't because he won't listen.

Where I am, the serious worry is the BMP. They talk the talk, (or so they think) this is compounded by the press that encourage the racial stereo typing. Especially the tabloids.
The BMP candidates really don't know what they stand for but just expound their party dictact, often caught wrong footed when a serious question is asked!! Then they leave the building!!! They prey on people for votes!!
This is the famous enemy within. Maybe Enoch Powell was right. :eek: :eek: :eek: