anfisa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 You think that because you are like Mecky and don't know what a war crime is... it isn't a subjective definition that you make up for yourself. Military action against a sovereign country when it is not an act of self-defence and hasn't been sanctioned by the UN, is a crime against peace and therefore a war crime. If it transpires that Blair and Bush agreed to go to war and then went about manufacturing and misrepresenting evidence to pretend it was a preemptive act of self-defence, then they are guilty of a war crime. If it transpires that they saw what they wanted to see in the evidence and then decide to go to war then it more a case of gross incompetence. We need to know when the decision was taken and I can't think of any reason people would want to delay, block or censor the report if the decision came after the evidence can you? All evidence to the contrary. There is nothing in the Geneva convention that would suggest that military action against another country can be defined as a war crime, war crimes can be committed during a war but the act of starting a war is not a war crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 There is nothing in the Geneva convention that would suggest that military action against another country can be defined as a war crime, war crimes can be committed during a war but the act of starting a war is not a war crime. If you're a government. If I started a war, I'd be a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 We need to know when the decision was taken and I can't think of any reason people would want to delay, block or censor the report if the decision came after the evidence can you? You mean, other than the political risk that this report may well sway a non-trivial number of voters away from the Cons, LibDems and/or Labour (all of whom eventually supported military action), ultimately for the benefit of UKIP/the Greens? Notwithstanding the legitimate reason provided for the delay (i.e. to give people who are cited in the report in negative terms an opportunity to consider the report and respond/file a 'defence', as it were...and yes, that is an entirely legitimate reason to delay its publication), I'd have thought the above to be a glaringly obvious reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 You mean, other than the political risk that this report may well sway a non-trivial number of voters away from the Cons, LibDems and/or Labour (all of whom eventually supported military action), ultimately for the benefit of UKIP/the Greens? That would be the consequence if it transpires the decision came before (manufactured/misrepresented) evidence. I suppose there will some of that regardless but not reporting is likely to have much the same effect anyway. Notwithstanding the legitimate reason provided for the delay (i.e. to give people who are cited in the report in negative terms an opportunity to consider the report and respond/file a 'defence', as it were...and yes, that is an entirely legitimate reason to delay its publication), I'd have thought the above to be a glaringly obvious reason. The report was commission in 2009 and Chilcot said it would be months not years. It has been reported that there has been constant toing and froing with those criticised and I think Clegg is right that this is going to result in a 'sexed down' report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 All evidence to the contrary. What evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Would its publication really affect how people would vote in the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 The report should be published, it should have been commissioned and published ten years ago. I suspect it is being hidden from view for longer due to the terror-threat, which I suspect is the next reason not to publish it, completely counter productive however - being honest and open increases trust, not hiding stuff from view and trying to wait with publication until it can be buried under a rampant news story (like the outcome of the general election?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 There is nothing in the Geneva convention that would suggest that military action against another country can be defined as a war crime, war crimes can be committed during a war but the act of starting a war is not a war crime. You're looking in the wrong place. The Geneva Convention covers conduct during war. The United Nations Charter is where you need to look. Invading a country because you want regime change is not legitimate and a war crime. If it transpires that the regime change decision came first and the evidence subsequently made to present a false threat (and we all now know for certain that the threat was false) then there is a case to answer. ---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 10:08 ---------- What evidence? The evidence that you don't know what a war crime is. Would its publication really affect how people would vote in the election? You would hope that people would not vote for a party that lied to the public, took us into an illegal war, caused countless death, ruined millions of lives, wasted 100's of billions of pounds, increased the terrorist threat and began a process of gradual civil liberties erosion. Unfortunately, the bedroom tax is considered by many to be more of a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 To be honest Bush and Blair don't fit any definition of war criminals but I can understand the desperation of some people to try and nail them, especially before an election - Neither of which intend to stand for election. (Might have to check that) If you're trying to score political points to try and influence the general election, I wonder why the headlines are not about the tories and Operation Fernbridge being delayed? So lying about the capabilities of a soverign state and then attacking them is OK? I seem to recall you accused Thatcher of being a war criminal for the Falklands. Presumably defending people under your protection is a problem them... Or is the real reason for your choice of war criminal the colour of the rosette they wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 You would hope that people would not vote for a party that lied to the public, took us into an illegal war, caused countless death, ruined millions of lives, wasted 100's of billions of pounds, increased the terrorist threat and began a process of gradual civil liberties erosion. Unfortunately, the bedroom tax is considered by many to be more of a crime. But it wasn't the party that lied to the public and took us to war it was individuals with their own agendas. The dodgy dossier wasn't written by The Labour Party, it was written by Campbell and Blair with the connivance of various others in Whitehall. There wasn't much support for the war amongst ordinary people or traditional Labour MPs. The wool was pulled over the eyes of a lot of people in the Labour Party, as it was over the eyes of all the Tories and LibDems who supported the war. Strangely the BBC was giving much airtime to one of Blair's longtime cronies, Mandelson, yesterday as he attempted to undermine the current leadership. The lesson for Labour should be to distance themselves as far as possible from Blairism and New Labour, unfortunately there are some in the party who look back dewy eyed at the New Labour Blair governments, a period in power, and would jettison any principles (if they had any) in order to achieve the same power. Those who bang on about "Red Ed" would do well to remember that the Blairites are still just below the surface, smarming and plotting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts