ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

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. Your Cherman ist Schiess.
    Ve ver only following befehls.

    However I don't want foreign Generals or indeed any other fcuker trying to bring charges against our own - particularly using our own cash.

    And yes I do see the irony!
     
    • Like Like x 6
  2. meerkatz

    meerkatz On ROPs

    He knows where all the bodies are buried.
    He's untouchable.
     
  3. I'm curious as to why so many people on ARRSE loathe Tony Blair while former PMs who sent British forces to war get a free pass. I'm thinking Thatcher and GW1, Cameron in Libya. Would Blair begetting these brickbats hoisted at him if he was a Conservative?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Blair is a bit like Jimmy Saville. You just know that 10 minutes after he carks it the entire world is going to go "Hang about. Dodgy dossier... God told him and his chum Bush to do it... he was a secret soap dodger all along... his Missus is a minger (etc).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. GW1 was short (in comparison) and once the poorly defined job was done, we stopped. No mission creep, no promises of it'll be over without a shot being fired. It just stopped while the US promised some rebel chaps we'd help out if they revolted.
    They did, we didn't, they died.
    We had light losses, we treated more injury from live fire exercises afterwards than we did through the conflict. (the funniest being white phos to the arse)

    Funny though as Thatcher is still being blamed for stuff today, but not GW1.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. I wonder who he is, well blackmailing is such an ugly (and probably racist) word, but who does he have sufficient power over ?
     
  7. TheIronDuke

    TheIronDuke LE Book Reviewer

    Yep. George 111 was a Conservative. He lost us our colonies in the west, saw fFrance and Spain declare for the traitors and Mysore attack our attempt to bring the Rule of Law to the savages on our Indian sub-continent. In short, the man was a dribbling clusterfuck. But he did not rely upon dodgy dossiers and Charlotte Mecklenburg-Strelitz was a looker who gave him 10 sons unlike Blairs Missus who is a right rat faced minger.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  8. English courts refusing to try him is the best thing that could happen. There's no way they would convict him, so it's better to let the ICC try him.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. If you read 'Bliar's Wars' Kapmfer, J. (2003) he asserts that the WMD argument was pushed in the UK, but featured very little in the US, almost like a background note.

    Obviously there was Colin Powell's speech to the UN, but a frightening number of the American public believed (and still believe) that the Iraqi regime was connected to 9-11.

    Bush had his own personal motives (the assassination plot against Bush Snr.) and Blair. Wanted to be on side.

    Will he ever face justice, doubtful. A friend of mine was told the kick off date 12 months in advance, so he could begin planning. So the idea of last minute inspections and negotiations was a nonsense. So he tells me. The date slipped by about 4 days, if he remembers correctly.
     
  10. NSP

    NSP LE

    Found in similar circumstances to those surrounding Dr. Kelly...? Surely not...?!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Fair enough although your answer lacks logic.

    According to Wikipedia Op Granby cost 47 fatalities in 7 months while Telic cost 179 in more than 6 years. In relative terms (of fatalities at any rate) therefore, Granby was worse than Telic.
     
  12. Not quite, there is Sovereign Immunity but that does not extend beyond the monarch.

    Impeachment is necessary in order to prosecute a sitting PM and that has never happened in modern times. Parliament dismantled the process, stating these grounds on their website.

    "...it should be stated unequivocally that for all practical purposes the procedure of impeachment is obsolete. The last (unsuccessful) prosecution of an impeachment case was in 1806. The 1967 Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that the right to impeach should be formally abandoned, for which legislation would have been necessary. The recommendation was repeated in the third report from the Committee on Privileges in 1976-77. However, the 1999 Report from the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege stated that ‘the circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that that the procedure may be considered obsolete’."

    But they would say that, wouldn't they.

    This is a brief history of impeachment, though.

    1. The earliest recorded impeachment was that of Lord Latimer in 1376 and the last was in 1806, when Lord Melville (Dundas) was charged by the Commons, but acquitted, of misappropriating official funds. Before Melville, the last impeachment had been against Warren Hastings in 1787 in relation to his role in India. An attempt to impeach Ministers occurred in 1713 for their part in the negotiating the Treaty of Utrecht. The Jacobite lords were impeached in 1716 and 1746 for rebellion. The last attempt to persuade the Commons to bring an impeachment was against Palmerston as Foreign Secretary, when private members alleged a secret treaty with Russia. The preliminary motion was not successful. Impeachment has not been used since 1806.
      There have been fewer than seventy impeachments during the whole course of English history. There are two distinct periods in which impeachment was relatively common; firstly in the 14th century until the establishment of the Tudor dynasty and secondly in the 17-18th century. A quarter of all of them occurred in the years 1640-2.
    2. Has a Prime Minister ever been impeached?
      No Prime Minister has ever been impeached.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Thatcher joined the alliance to restore sovereignty to an invaded state.
    Happy to see anyone involved in the 'Arab Spring' idiocy brought to trial but on what charge, being so utterly stupid as to not seeing the consequences. L/Cpl Cameron, Eton ACF, would only wiggle out using the now existing stated case from the Blair ruling.

    Wasn't New Labour the same as The Conservatives?
    I still believe he had Dr Kelly murdered.
     
    • Like Like x 3