• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Blair's immunity from prosecution over the Iraq War

#21
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).
I wonder who he is, well blackmailing is such an ugly (and probably racist) word, but who does he have sufficient power over ?
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#22
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?
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.
 
#23
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.
 
#24
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.
 
#25
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.
Found in similar circumstances to those surrounding Dr. Kelly...? Surely not...?!
 
#26
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.
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.
 
#27
Aren't heads of government immune from prosecution? As long as they're the heads of the right sorts of governments at least.
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.
 
#29
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?
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.
 
#31
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.
look at injuries not just deaths, then add in the civis injured and killed.

edited to add I still dealt with more injury after the actual combat phase, and the only (allied) death i had was after the combat phase. More injury (from my perspective) was related to pointless and badly run live fire exercises afterwards when safety was thrown out of the window as 'we've done it for real, we know what we are doing'
 
Last edited:
#32
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?
GW1 - covered by a UNSCR. Main opposition in the UK from the likes of CND, Tony Benn et al

Cameron - Libya just about covered by a UNSCR; fact that the dear Colonel was a loony who was held to be responsible for a 747 landing on Lockerbie, plus the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, plus evidence that he was intent on killing lots of his own people meant that there was a fair degree of 'Meh!' amongst the public.

Blair - don't forget that, on the whole, he was doing OK up until 2003. People saw the point of Kosovo (apart from the likes of CND, et al)¹.

Ditto Sierra Leone - brutal civil war, dreadful massacres, memories of Rwanda still fresh. Peacekeeping a good thing. Some uppity, violently deranged locals take British troops hostage. Said locals are jolly unpleasant and say rude things about HM the Queen. Nation generally applauds as members of 1 PARA plus some gentlemen with a boathouse of uncertain colour teach them some manners. Afghanistan - yes, fair enough in the eyes of most of the public: UNSCRs, AQ clearly a vile lot (who'd murdered several hundred Brits on 9/11), help Uncle Sam sort them out.

Then he bodged it all over Iraq.

¹ I say CND, since much of the public voice against these ops came from them, before Stop The War appeared on the scene (with a not inconsiderable cross-over between the two, I think it's fair to say).
 
#33
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).
We have all pretty much been saying that for the last ten years, are you saying he is the living dead?
 
#35
I wonder who he is, well blackmailing is such an ugly (and probably racist) word, but who does he have sufficient power over ?
Don't know about now, but he certainly had the black on Goldsmith (Attorney General) over his advice on legality of the war.
On 30th January 2003 it would apparently be an illegal war, but on 7th March was suddenly legal after all.
Nothing changed factually between those dates at all, just his finely tuned legal mind, obviously.
Absolutely nothing to do with Goldsmith being over the side with a lady QC and others at all.
That would have cost him a few bob at the time.
 
#36
There are plenty of anonymous, neutral, non political people with access to those 'secret documents'. It would be easy to try Blair and where he relies on any evidence which is 'secret' an intermediary can decide if there is sensitive information and if the bits of that information relating to the charges are sensitive and if they make a difference.

Put the guy on trial already.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#37
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?
1. GW1 was about rectifying an attack on a UN-recognised sovereign state

2. The only reason Cameron isn't being pilloried on this thread is because it's about Blair, not Cameron. While the immediate attack on Libya didn't cause any Brit casualties (to my knowledge, I stand to be corrected?) this PM ego trip was a crashing exhibition of naivety and ignorance and has unleashed unbelievable ghastliness on the West in the form of terrorism and a channel for million of unwanted migrants.
 
#38
1. GW1 was about rectifying an attack on a UN-recognised sovereign state

2. The only reason Cameron isn't being pilloried on this thread is because it's about Blair, not Cameron. While the immediate attack on Libya didn't cause any Brit casualties (to my knowledge, I stand to be corrected?) this PM ego trip was a crashing exhibition of naivety and ignorance and has unleashed unbelievable ghastliness on the West in the form of terrorism and a channel for million of unwanted migrants.
Three civilians raped at Bassingbourn though.
 
#39
1. GW1 was about rectifying an attack on a UN-recognised sovereign state

2. The only reason Cameron isn't being pilloried on this thread is because it's about Blair, not Cameron. While the immediate attack on Libya didn't cause any Brit casualties (to my knowledge, I stand to be corrected?) this PM ego trip was a crashing exhibition of naivety and ignorance and has unleashed unbelievable ghastliness on the West in the form of terrorism and a channel for million of unwanted migrants.
Good points. Although I've yet to see Cameron on other threads attract the same level of visceral hatred as Blair does on all threads.

I would say that the migrant crisis and the route through Libya were caused more by the war in Syria (and the western desire to overthrow Haddad) and by the ousting of Gadaffi in Libya than by the war in Iraq. Cameron is getting off light in my opinion.
 
#40
Good points. Although I've yet to see Cameron on other threads attract the same level of visceral hatred as Blair does on all threads.

I would say that the migrant crisis and the route through Libya were caused more by the war in Syria (and the western desire to overthrow Haddad) and by the ousting of Gadaffi in Libya than by the war in Iraq. Cameron is getting off light in my opinion.
The Arab Spring coming home to roost.
 

Latest Threads