Families of dead soldiers plan to sue Blair

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Tooldtodieyoung, May 3, 2005.

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. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050503/325/fhzai.html

    News that families will be looking to sue Billy Liar over Iraq.

    Its good and bad.

    Good that it reminds the electorate about Iraq and the lies this government has spun.

    ...........Bad that so many have had to pay for one man's ambitions.

    Question I would ask is .."where next Mr Blair? Iran? Korea?"
     
  2. and between them and Blair is Goldsmith.

    No chance.
     
  3. Question you should really ask is where next Mr Bush? Blair sadly only does what he is told as to keep friendly with Dubbya. Who is the biggest fcuking cnut ever to walk the earth :)
     
  4. This is interesting....

    The government will have 14 days to respond to a formal request for an independent inquiry.

    After that it goes to the High Court.

    After that, conceivably the House of Lords and European Court.

    This could be unpredictable and interesting. There are many damaging outcomes short of a verdict of "war criminal" Bliar.
     
  5. Yes, despite the minute chance that it goes all the way to 'war-crimes' court, it could be potentially very damaging for blair et al, and may in fact be the chance to seize power that greedy gordon was waiting for. :?
     
  6. Is it not a fact, that the whole of the British parliament voted on the decision, whether to go to war or not?
    Therefore, is it not also a fact, that all MPs who voted for war should be indited on the same ticket?
    Shame so many good people have to die for politicians vanity.
     
  7. They voted on the basis of misleading information. Cabinet did not see the entire advice. That is a breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, and maladministration. An independent inquiry may well reach such a conclusion!
     
  8. "Families plan to sue Tony Blair"

    Wot a load of bollox!

    I am sorry for their loss but those lads were not conscripted, they volunteered to join the army, they knew the dangers.

    If anything they are making their deaths dishonourable and shaming them.

    They died heros not political tit for tat material or a way of making a quick buck!
     
  9. Not quite the way I would have put it but I see what he is saying. The resources available to B Liar are such that any legal campaign would be worn down by time wasting and expense.
     
  10. Could I ask - whilst I agree with you that this needs to be addressed - What about those serving and the ICC - if Blair is found guilty - what about the Officers and Soldiers who followed orders
     
  11. Because the war in Iraq has just about secured Tony's tenure at the top for all time hasn't it?
     
  12. It galls me to see this in the press. These are a few very upset and grieving relatives who need something to help them come to terms with their grief (the septics use that horrible phrase 'closure'). My unit lost guys on TELIC and I have also have friends who have lost guys in their units as well. It is deeply sad but the vast majority of those relatives who have been unlucky enough to have lost loved ones have not been turned into political pawns but choose to grieve and remember.

    You ask any mother (including my mum who had both myself and my brother on TELIC 1 and my dad, brother and me on Grapple 6) about war and she will make some pretty cutting remarks about a politician trying to take her son away. However, the vast majority of relatives understand that it is our job and what we get paid for. This fact has been mentioned very rarely if at all (although it got a small mention on R4 this morning).

    The idea that Blair is guilty of war crimes (and by association my brother and I) is an insult both to me (I would not carry out what I considered an illegal order) and those who have truely suffered war crimes in the Balkans, Nazi Germany Rawanda etc. It simply cheapens the term.
     
  13. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Short-fuse, I know exactly where you are coming from but you have to separate the Army from the political arm of government. By implying Blair committed a crime in taking the country to war on false testimony in no way takes away the achievement and honour of every single solder that served on Telic. There is no, and cannot be any comparison between soldiers following what they understood at the time to be the legal orders of their government and Nazi war crimes. Simply not in the same ballpark.

    BTW well done mate you guys did a great job. 8) I sat this one out on the side lines with the fat weazy boys with a note from matron. :oops:
     
  14. The ICC has no jurisdiction over "crimes of aggression". If military action in Iraq was contrary to international law, the invasion itself would fall under that category. Therefore, the ICC would not be able to prosecute political leaders or armed forces personnel.

    It should be of the greatest concern that this war did not have a cast-iron copper-bottom legal case. The only legally fireproof option was a war supported by a specific resolution. Anything else is open to legal challenge. It is a disgrace that Parliament, the cabinet and CDS were not made aware of the uncertainty. As those organs of state were kept in the dark, the buck stops with Bliar for misleading Parliament, maladministration and any breaches of international law. The liar should be impeached, but it is more likely that an independent inquiry ordered by the High Court or House of Lords will find his conduct wanting, and this should be the kiss of death for the greatest liar that UK public life has ever seen.
     
  15. I think hackle summarised it well when he said that (and im paraphrasing here)

    The CGS asked the PM and AG for a written guarantee that the war was legal, and in doing so removed any blame from himself, the armed forces and all those that served in iraq. After all they were following what was deemed to be a legal order from up above, and as such they cannot be held responsible for the legality of the action taken.