How Much Will The Bounty Be On So-called Leaders Who Start Wars?
Joseph Raglione
January 27, 2010
Gentle readers of this American Chronicle, if the reward is high enough on the heads of those who started the illegal aggression against Iraq, somebody somewhere will collect.
>
Below is an article published on (Tuesday, January 25, 2010 in The
Guardian
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot),
a British newspaper. It calls for Tony Blair to be arrested as a war
criminal for his government's decision to join Bush in attacking Iraq.
Blair was initially regarded as a smart politician for his "third way"
attempt to blunt the neo-liberalism sweeping the world. His
participation in the Iraq fiasco has left his reputation in tatters.
Staking positions for political convenience is never the right decision.
Here in Canada, for example, Jean Chretien is still praised for keeping
us out of Iraq - however mistaken that praise might be.
Most Canadians have also come around to the NDP position that we should
not be in Afghanistan. It wasn't always the case, especially back in
2002. Moreover the press continually jump on each weakening or
adjustment of the position. The principled decision that we should not
be involved in wars of aggression, no matter how abhorrent the enemy is
made out to be, should not be abandoned nor weakened.
The converse also holds true, that we should aid victims of aggression,
no matter what excuses are offered up by the aggressors.
Anyway, here's the article:
Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes. Arrest him and claim your reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we
won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished
Comments (1093)
Buzz up!
Digg it
George Monbiot
o George Monbiot
o guardian.co.uk , Monday 25
January 2010 19.30 GMT
o Article history
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry
won't address: was the
war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war
is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who
commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg
tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.
But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the
government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference.
It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what
the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on
the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November
:
"Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government
wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either
because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political
pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked
because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry
,
led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no
sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law
lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising
invasion, it was illegal
".
In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that,
without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of
international law and the rule of law
".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a
war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a
solution by negotiation" (article 33)
. They can take
up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only
"if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51
). Neither of
these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's
attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even
announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from
resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website
). Iraq had launched no armed attack against
either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended
to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained
that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law
officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith,
the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only
"three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence,
humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation.
The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair
later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth
Wilmshurst ,
then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office
had "consistently" advised that an invasion would be unlawful without
a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on
such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and
her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot
inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass
murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who
commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against
peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning,
preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in
violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in
international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the
international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's
government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction
over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should
be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the
opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious
reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The
second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The
governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering
furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the
ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has
not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have
incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is
not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national
for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear
an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder
commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments
to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to
start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its
adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this
nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war,
have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as
Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow
his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe
that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton
,
one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay
festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain
Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an
attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to
which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to
arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He
didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we
should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org
– whose purpose is to raise money as a
reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former
prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to
match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to
one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until
Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the
number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are
likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure
builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these
attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no
hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No
civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
>
Below is an article published on (Tuesday, January 25, 2010 in The
Guardian
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/25/bounty-blair-war-criminal-chilcot),
a British newspaper. It calls for Tony Blair to be arrested as a war
criminal for his government's decision to join Bush in attacking Iraq.
Blair was initially regarded as a smart politician for his "third way"
attempt to blunt the neo-liberalism sweeping the world. His
participation in the Iraq fiasco has left his reputation in tatters.
Staking positions for political convenience is never the right decision.
Here in Canada, for example, Jean Chretien is still praised for keeping
us out of Iraq - however mistaken that praise might be.
Most Canadians have also come around to the NDP position that we should
not be in Afghanistan. It wasn't always the case, especially back in
2002. Moreover the press continually jump on each weakening or
adjustment of the position. The principled decision that we should not
be involved in wars of aggression, no matter how abhorrent the enemy is
made out to be, should not be abandoned nor weakened.
The converse also holds true, that we should aid victims of aggression,
no matter what excuses are offered up by the aggressors.
Anyway, here's the article:
Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes. Arrest him and claim your reward
Chilcot and the courts won't do it, so it is up to us to show that we
won't let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished
Comments (1093)
Buzz up!
Digg it
George Monbiot
o George Monbiot
o guardian.co.uk , Monday 25
January 2010 19.30 GMT
o Article history
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry
won't address: was the
war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war
is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who
commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg
tribunal called "the supreme international crime": the crime of aggression.
But there's a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the
government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference.
It's the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what
the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on
the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November
:
"Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government
wants. And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either
because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political
pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked
because they don't want the answer."
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry
,
led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had "no
sound mandate in international law". Last month Lord Steyn, a former law
lord, said that "in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising
invasion, it was illegal
".
In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that,
without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was "a serious violation of
international law and the rule of law
".
Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a
war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first "seek a
solution by negotiation" (article 33)
. They can take
up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only
"if an armed attack occurs against [them]" (article 51
). Neither of
these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq's
attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even
announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent the Iraqis from
resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website
). Iraq had launched no armed attack against
either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended
to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained
that "a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law
officers' advice, none currently exists." In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith,
the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only
"three possible legal bases" for launching a war – "self-defence,
humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation.
The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair
later failed to obtain security council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth
Wilmshurst ,
then deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office
had "consistently" advised that an invasion would be unlawful without
a new UN resolution. She explained that "an unlawful use of force on
such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression". Both Wilmshurst and
her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot
inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass
murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who
commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against
peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as "planning,
preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in
violation of international treaties". They have been recognised in
international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the
international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair's
government in 2001, provides for the court to "exercise jurisdiction
over the crime of aggression", once it has decided how the crime should
be defined and prosecuted.
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the
opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious
reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The
second is that the required legal mechanisms don't yet exist. The
governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering
furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the
ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has
not been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have
incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is
not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national
for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear
an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder
commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments
to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to
start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its
adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this
nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war,
have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as
Blair requested, "moved on" from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow
his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe
that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton
,
one of the architects of the war in George Bush's government, at the Hay
festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain
Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an
attempted citizen's arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to
which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to
arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He
didn't of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we
should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org
– whose purpose is to raise money as a
reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former
prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to
match it. Anyone meeting the rules I've laid down will be entitled to
one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until
Blair faces a court of law. The higher the reward, the greater the
number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are
likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure
builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these
attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no
hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No
civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
Print
Email
