• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

A Way To Lock Up Bliar - seriously!

#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.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/billsPassed/b27bs1.pdf

Interestingly:
(3) If an offence is committed outwith Scotland proceedings may be taken in any place in Scotland; and the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed in that place.
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
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
in_the_cheapseats said:
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.
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
smartascarrots said:
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".
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.

Cuckoo!
 
#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.
john
Oh for the Yank to see him in his true light.
 
#10
smartascarrots said:
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".
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
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#11
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
sknn said:
I am sorry to urine on your cornflakes as well, but exactly which war crime has Blair committed?
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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Definition

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:

Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
The following acts as part of an international conflict:
Directing attacks against civilians
Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilian shields
Using child soldiers

The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:

Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Taking hostages
Summary execution
Pillage
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes" [2]
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!
 
#16
These calls of 'war crimes' are ludicrous! As above - those are 'war crimes' - what has happened in Iraq is not.
This is typical government/politics baiting - oh so fashionable now but with little reason behind it.

The danger with this sort of thing is that it ties the hands of world powers - if we refuse to intervene in Iraq, where else might we want to avoid in the future? First we begin to call war crimes, next we become isolationist and say that the problems in the world can't be sorted and we should leave them to rot in their own misery.
 
#17
Scotty1 said:
These calls of 'war crimes' are ludicrous! As above - those are 'war crimes' - what has happened in Iraq is not.
This is typical government/politics baiting - oh so fashionable now but with little reason behind it.

The danger with this sort of thing is that it ties the hands of world powers - if we refuse to intervene in Iraq, where else might we want to avoid in the future? First we begin to call war crimes, next we become isolationist and say that the problems in the world can't be sorted and we should leave them to rot in their own misery.
The invasion of Iraq was unlawful, although the occupation is not thanks to a UN resolution - shame there wasn't one in March 2003. The conduct of the invasion and occupation was characterised by restraint on the UK's part and a US attitude that verged on the Nazi attitudes towards untermensch and the routine use of torture. In the latter case this came from the very top. There is evidence that Bliar and Bush discussed the flattening of Fallujah, contrary to the laws of war as I was briefed. In fact, the siege of Fallujah was akin to mediaeval siege warfare or practices on the Eastern Front in World War 2 - get out or take what is coming.

International laws exist for a reason, and although they are often flouted they are even more likely to be flouted if the West indulges in double standards. Bliar must be held to account. This must never happen again.
 
#18
The invasion of Iraq was unlawful, although the occupation is not thanks to a UN resolution - shame there wasn't one in March 2003. The conduct of the invasion and occupation was characterised by restraint on the UK's part and a US attitude that verged on the Nazi attitudes towards untermensch and the routine use of torture. In the latter case this came from the very top. There is evidence that Bliar and Bush discussed the flattening of Fallujah, contrary to the laws of war as I was briefed. In fact, the siege of Fallujah was akin to mediaeval siege warfare or practices on the Eastern Front in World War 2 - get out or take what is coming.

International laws exist for a reason, and although they are often flouted they are even more likely to be flouted if the West indulges in double standards. Bliar must be held to account. This must never happen again.

The problem with 'international law' is that it's still being written and the vast majority of it hasn't been written yet! The world's inability to deal with dictators and tyrants highlights the problems with the 'laws' as much as does the US and UK invading Iraq without a UN mandate. They are technically flouted everyday from Sudan, North Korea and even in places as moderate Turkey - and thats been going on before Iraq ever happened!

I'd like to see that evidence and second, we're living in a new world and the problems of western military/government is that they don't know how to handle it. From Somalia in '93 to Iraq in '03 - we don't know how to get at an enemy that for all intents and purposes are civilians, who use them as cover and who blend back within the population once they decide to stop shooting at us. I'd like to see a more objective analysis of the Fallujah battle aside from what we get from those who have political aims on both sides of the dividing line.

You can't paint this as simple back and white, it isn't and your calls for 'Bliar to stand trial' is as much political bias as it is tactical/reasonable assesment.
 
#19
The majority of the Scottish people don't want Independence. But the way Scotland has been administered over the last seven years by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, it has caused big problems for the average Scottish family with very high Taxes being imposed on us from the central government in London.We were supposed to be looking after our own affairs but this has not been so. With the so called Scottish MP's causing big problems down south for the rest of the country we have been hammered by the muppets up here.In my own town they have postponed charges for parking in our local hospital until after the election and they have given us the lowest council tax charges ever 1.9%. No doubt they will hype it up next year to pay for the shortfall from central government. We have a sort of proportional representation this year and I expect it will work for the people this time but next time round it will be back to the same first past the post.
 
#20
TartanJock said:
The majority of the Scottish people don't want Independence. But the way Scotland has been administered over the last seven years by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, it has caused big problems for the average Scottish family with very high Taxes being imposed on us from the central government in London.We were supposed to be looking after our own affairs but this has not been so. With the so called Scottish MP's causing big problems down south for the rest of the country we have been hammered by the muppets up here.In my own town they have postponed charges for parking in our local hospital until after the election and they have given us the lowest council tax charges ever 1.9%. No doubt they will hype it up next year to pay for the shortfall from central government. We have a sort of proportional representation this year and I expect it will work for the people this time but next time round it will be back to the same first past the post.
What is the relevence of this post to the thread? Come on man - keep up with it. There are enough threads on the local elections for you to bore people there rather than posting drivel here.
 

Latest Threads

Top