A Way To Lock Up Bliar - seriously!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Apr 28, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. There is likely to be regime change in Scotland on May 3rd 2007 and the smart money is on a SNP/Lib coalition.

    Although Scotland has a seperate Parliament, many matters are "reserved matters" for Westminster - foreign affairs, defence.

    Nevertheless, Scotland has a seperate legal system and Lord Advocate. The seperate legal system has associated legislation, including the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001. This covers genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to the aforementioned misdeeds.


    I'm not a lawyer, but on May 4 I will be writing to my new MSP, or direct to the Lord Advocate's office to request that an investigation is undertaken with a view towards issuing an indictement for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair for war crimes and conduct ancillary to war crimes.

    Is this simply urinating in the breeze, mischief-making urinating in the breeze, or the start of something beautiful?
  2. well on independence , Bliar is effectively a Scottish Citizen and should be deproted to Scotland to do what you will with him, also his royal gimpness Broon
  3. Do people really wonder why the american's refuse to ratify the international criminal court citing that if ratified there would be large numbers of politically motivated attempts to prosecute american citizens, Yet here, on this thread its lets prosecute Blair in the ICC
  4. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Oooooh, that could be interesting.

    Sadly, I think you may have to wait until independence is a fact and Scotland is a seperate nation state before you get a result. I suspect the powers that are needed won't be available until that time.
  5. Cheers, Cheapseats, for p*ssing in my cornflakes. I was having such luvverly visions of Blair banged up in Barlinnie with 'Big Shug fae Possil'.

    "Coo, Mr. Shug! I've never met a murderer before!"
    "F*ckin' pity, ya bawbag".
  6. Agreed, the Scottish parliament does not have any remit for foreign or defence policy. However, this would be the seperate Scottish legal system, presided over by the Lord Advocate. The Scottish parliament has devolved justice responsibilities and the 2001 act I highlighted is a Scottish Act of Parliament pertaining to the devolved administration. In theory I think a prosecution is possible without independence, the key requirement being the political will - which should be forthcoming after next Thursday. It's a nice thought, especially the thought of Big Shuggie's romantic advances:

    Shug - Dae ye wanna be daddy or mummy?
    Bliar - Can I be daddy please?
    Shug - OK. Noo get over here and suck oan mummy's c0ck!
  7. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I know, I know, I'm really sorry. It annoyed me too.

    Just remember though, your vision could be but a few years away.

    Never heard the proverb

    "All good things come to those that wait" ? :D

    Keep the dream......
  8. Big Shug before they banged him up.

  9. Stop it gents.
    The thought of Dear Leader getting his dues brings a smile to my face, but even in my most twisted dreams the barsteaward will cum up smelling of roses and with a vastly increased bank balance.
    Oh for the Yank to see him in his true light.
  10. pmsl :lol: i would pay to see big toni b banged up in bar_L or gateside for that matter lol but to be honest it doesnt matter what politician you have they are all fanny's that take back handers off of who ever has the money
  11. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I am sorry to piss on your cornflakes as well, but exactly which war crime has Blair committed? You may not agree with his policies, you may not like him - but lets get a bit of a reality check here.

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Amin, Milosovitch, Kim, Mugabe are all war criminals guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity - and the list could go on and on - but when you accuse Blair you trivialise that list and insult the victims of those crimes (I know thats not your intention). You also give succour to the real criminals and to people who really are our enemies.
  12. for a good number of reasons blair decided we were going into iraq and afganistan, instead of complaining about him why not direct your anger and frustration to the other EU leaders for their lack of support in both Iraq and/or Afganistan after all did not spain withdraw when they changed governments.
  13. Negligence to the forces under his care during a time of war?

    I'm sure I read some snippet somewhere (soldier I think) that a % of troops deployed on Telic 1 where not issued with NBC gear. Now given the aims of said war that does rather lead me to question how much fibbing Tony was doing.
  14. I don't want to belittle the suffering of the victims of truly evil dictators. Quite to the contrary, the actions of Bliar and Bush mean that future dictators are less likely to be challenged. For example, EU nations would be less reluctant to supply troops to the Afghan mission if it hadn't been for the lies and blundering over Iraq (he says in optimism!). Also, by stooping to moral lows - questionable interrogation techniques for one - Bush and Bliar have dragged us closer to the level of the truly evil dictators.

    Why is Bliar guilty?

    He is clearly guilty of the crime of "aggression", as there was no UN resolution authorising war and no direct threat to the UK - contrary to the WMD lies, which were cynically spun at the time. The downside of this is that there is no internationally agreed definition of "aggression" and it is not included within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which the legislation highlighted in this thread was enacted to comply with. However in due course, aggression should be included within the ICC jurisdiction.

    What about "war crimes"? I have found the following definition of war crimes:


    How would they apply to Bliar? If the UK was complicit in any US plan that involved conduct as defined above, then the finger may be pointed at Blair. For example, in my opinion, the reason the book is being thrown at the civil servant and researcher responsible for leaking the Bush-Bliar memo, is that the content relates to conduct defined as war crimes, ie. the flattening of Fallujah. It goes without saying that I believe Dubya should be banged up, preferably in a penitentiary populated almost exculsively by Nation of Islam and Black Panther sex-starved hard-cases. However, the US have opted out of the ICC...nevertheless, I can see Buch being impeached in the next 12 months or so!
  15. Mr PVRd. Your quote above reads very much like the requirements list when applying to attend a Donald Rumsfeld dinner party.