Blair's immunity from prosecution over the Iraq War

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Andy Farman, Aug 1, 2017.

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:

Tags:
  1. The Official Secrets Act prevents his being tried... really?

    At least we all now have a Get Out Of Jail Free card if we are accused of treason if that is the case, which of course it is not, it is the establishment (elite) covering their posteriors.

    Blair's immunity from prosecution over the Iraq War
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. However, could the International Criminal Court not bring him to justice?
     
  3. Official secrets act? I'm surprised they tried that load of old balcony, instead of the usual, "not in the public interest" rubbish.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Cases can only be referred to the ICC if there is no due judicial process available in the home country, basically, or that domestic judicial processes have been exhausted without a proper investigation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Friends in low places, mate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Not without bringing G.W.Bush, and all the senior Generals (ve were only following oders!)
     
  7. I'd expect nothing less from the Teflon Phallus.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  8. Well he has got form for giving away amnesty letters.
    Just put his own name on one instead.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    Guesswork from my armchair, but even if this general found a reworded charge that be valid in British law - and the idea of Iraqis using our courts like this sticks in the gullet - if Blair were to be prosecuted it should come from our side - Blair would easily be able to find things to use in his defence that he could not use because the evidence would breach OSA. Even if the construction Blair wanted to put on the evidence were totally bogus, for an accused to be denied the use of evidence would necessarily result in an acquittal.

    I can't imagine anyone gives two beans for Iraq and its people, but what was wrong was misrepresenting the WMD intelligence as an excuse to splurge billions on a personal ego trip involving the death and maiming of British subjects.
     
    • Like Like x 12
    • Informative Informative x 2
  10. The IBT is (surprise!) being disingenuous here. The general might as well have attempted to have Blair indicted on the charge of 'failing to use the search function on Arrse'. While reprehensible, there is no offence in law committed here, so quite how an experienced QC ended up taking this to appeal using wording which clearly could never succeed rather than something which might have had a chance of at least being taken seriously does give pause for thought (yes, it's Mansfield which leads to cynicism, but he could quite easily have been told 'You say it stands no chance, but I am your client, proceed') - not least in terms of 'who has been paying for this, and why?'

    I'm also a little concerned that someone who was clearly a Saddam Hussein supporter and thus potentially involved in the commission of all sorts of things when he was a little further down the chain of command - things which would most definitely have seen him placed in a cell under UK law were he to have been found to have been associated with them - seems to have been so easily able to make use of UK law to attempt to undertake a fruitless prosecution of our former PM, git though the latter is. We didn't take kindly to Mr Balzon attempting this against Pinochet and, if memory serves, various IDF officers - the view being 'You're not a UK citizen, kindly Foxtrot Oscar in short, jerky movements, leaving any legal aid money with you', and I can't quite see why this should apply now.

    I can only assume that what'll happen next is that the case will go to the ICC on the grounds that the complainant has attempted to pursue this through the UK legal system, has not been taken seriously, and thus Crash's observations above about lack of proper investigation would apply.

    I daresay that before any of this came to pass, the press here would start to be filled with stories of 'Blair accuser shot kittens' and 'how dare foreigner abuse our legal system', giving the General the unenviable reputation of being a useless CGS whose army was utterly defeated in battle and the man who got the tabloid press showing some sympathy to Blair...
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Informative Informative x 2
  11. Basically

    "I could answer that question, but then I would have to feed everyone in the room, except me, through a shredder."

    That is what in-camera is for, among other things, to prevent the OSA inhibiting the pursuit of justice.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    In Camera in this case would presumably include the Iraqi chappie who would become privy to all sorts of our intelligence secrets.
     
  13. We have some of those? Crikey.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Aren't heads of government immune from prosecution? As long as they're the heads of the right sorts of governments at least.
     
  15. It would be poetic justice if the creature was found bled out in the countryside with a little penknife by his side.
    Maybe his dreadful wife could sell signed copies of the subsequent inquest.
    Shower of shits the lot of them.
     
    • Like Like x 12