General Sir Micheal Rose thinks BLiars a war criminal

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Semper_Flexibilis, Nov 28, 2009.

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. It's not quite as simple as all that. Getting an international warrant out on him will not be easy...check out the International Criminal Court's website for a clearer(?) picture.
     

  2. We arrested General Pinochet for less
     
  3. The difficulties of getting a warrant for his trial are no reason for not trying. He has a case to answer.
     
  4. maguire

    maguire LE Book Reviewer

    well put.
     
  5. War crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity are crimes under British law (including the International Criminal Court Act 2001) and can be prosecuted in British courts. The ICC is a "court of last resort", in other words it only comes into play where the national authorities have failed to take appropriate action. "Aggression" (preparing, instigating and waging an aggressive war) is a more problematic matter and cannot at present be prosecuted in the ICC.

    I dont think General Sir Michael Rose's article mentions the ICC, merely "a court of law".
     
  6. Sorry did we? I think you'll find that building a criminal case against pinochet would be much more simple.

    This is not a defence of blair, more jsut an observation of the use of the phrase "War Crime". I find it's normally used as an emotive term rather than what Blair is guilty of. Blair may be a liar, and may have decieved parliament, this country and the international community but a war criminal? I doubt it.

    War Crimes are defined by the geneva convention. The most common war crimes involve...

    * Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
    * Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
    * Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
    * Plunder of public or private property.

    As well as crimes against humanity including

    * Murder
    * Extermination
    * Enslavement
    * Deportation
    * Imprisonment
    * Torture
    * Rape
    * Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

    I'm not a lawyer but I imagine to prosecute Blair it would have to be proven that British troops committed these acts and these were done under orders or done with the knowledge of Blair.

    I'm sure somone more informed will come along and correct me but although guilty of breaking "international law" I doubt a war crimes case would be possible
     
  7. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Remember, if Bliar is prosecuted for war crimes by sending troops into Iraq, then the generals who made this happen could be prosecuted also.

    The excuse "I was only obeying orders" has not worked since the Nuremburg trials.
     
  8. 'Waging of aggressive war' has been illegal under international law since Nuremberg. LINK.

    The causus belli presented was that Sadaam had a WMD capability which he was prepared to use in an aggressive manner. Now that we've heard formal testimony at the Chilcot Enquiry that it was know beforehand he didn't, the 'immediate self-defence' excuse looks increasingly shaky.

    I for one would love to see the murdering bastard tip-toeing on a trapdoor with a hemp neck-warmer.
     
  9. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Not necessarily in this case.

    The Generals can claim (I would imagine pretty honestly) that they were asked to go to war on an assertion of a threat, based on evidence that they were not party to. This being that the intelligence services supposedly went to No. 10, stated the nature of the WMD threat, and on that basis, the generals got told it was true and got sent to war.

    Looking at the attacks on Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt because he 'got political', I would suggest that any general demanding to see the evidence provided by GCHQ before he would commit would be told to go away in short, jerky motions, or he would have been shown the dodgy dossier - a fairytale of monstrous proportions.
     
  10. General Sir Michael Rose has got it right. Now they need to issue the warrant, and there is a very strong case. I note in the thread people have forgtten the bombings of towns in the 'no fly zones' in Iraq, and that was pre-war.

    I would dearly love to see others accompany him in the dock too, the usual suspects. Problem being, they are all from the biggest old boys club on the planet, and as the Pinochet case demonstrated, the 'establishment' never turns on itself. Lets remember one thing, whilst the Pinochet case established a firm legal president through the law Lords, the government went out of its way to block any formal proceedings taking place. The Spanish asked for extradition, the Brit govt refused, and eventually they let the criminal go! That will be the biggest battle in any prospective B.Liar case. However, if you don't try you'll never know, so I say go after B.Lair and prosecute to the full extent of the law.
     
  11. CDS at the time insisted on written legal advice confirming the legal basis for military action, and eventually got it. How that came about is likely to be examined by the Chilcot Inquiry.
     
  12. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Biped. I understand what you are saying and agree. However, if Bliar were to be indicted then you can bet your boots he won't go alone. He will bring all and sundry into the case and people will have to defend themselves. I would bet he would blame the Generals/Admirals/Air Marshalls saying that he was only acting on their advice and that if he (Bliar) had his choice he would have gone the "Third Way" and not gone to war.

    No way is Blair going to accept one iota of blame.
     
  13. Ah yes, the Chilcot Inquiry. Another example of the establishment looking after its own best interests.

    Chilcot was a member of the Buttler inquiry too! He was seen as the weakest questioner, not the sort of person to pick to front an inquiry! What is needed is an inquisator :D This inquiry will be another whitewash. What is needed is a prosecution, not another lame duck inquiry.
     
  14. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    We all know that the 'legal advice', given by a political legal appointee is going to get a drubbing during this enquiry - either way, it would clear the CDS who can only be commended for his efforts at due diligence, despite being lied to.