As fierce as Thursday's debate between GOP presidential candidates will likely be, it's hard to imagine any of them suggesting that a recent Republican president could face trial over an 'illegal' war. In Britain, however, it happened.
When Jeremy Corbyn, the current front-runner in the Labor party leadership race, was asked whether Tony Blair, the former Labor prime minister who led the country into the Iraq war, should be tried for his role in the conflict, he said: "If he's committed a war crime? Yes."
Pressed on whether he personally thought Blair had committed a war crime, Corbyn responded that the Iraq war was "illegal" – and that it was possible Blair could face trial for it.
Okay is it just me or does anybody else's nipples get erect at the very thought of Tony Blair, and dare I say it, George Bush, facing trial for their part in selling and then waging this illegal war?
It is just me isn't it?
Excellent idea but it's not going to happen - Tony Blair is a robot and George W had the remote control. The institutions will protect both of them and, in his own opinion, Tony Blair is always right
ReplyDeleteActually, I wouldn't stop at those two. Alberto Gonzales, Doug Feith, David Addington, John Yoo, Jay Bybee and William Haynes were all involved with coming up with the legal arguments to allow torture. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Heck, I might even throw in certain members of the media who led the cheerleading.
ReplyDeleteDitto. Tony Blair is only the start. Of course people like these elites never suffer consequences.
DeleteOff topic. Did u see where former All Pro running back Arian Foster has come out of the closet in an interview with ESPN? No, he's not gay. It's worse. In a sport where according to some players, God picks winners and losers, Foster has let it be known he is an Atheist. Can't wait to see heads explode, especially that hypocrite Ray Lewis.
ReplyDeletePlease make it so.
ReplyDeleteAnother important voice silenced.
ReplyDeleteHe spoke for me!
It's not just You Gryphen.
ReplyDeleteI saw little starbursts and got a tingle up my leg at the thought.
"the very thought of Tony Blair and ... George Bush facing trial for their part in selling and then waging this illegal war."
ReplyDeleteFrom your lips to Thor's ear, Gryph-dude. As the worst president in American history likes to say, recklessly, "bring it on!"
More like a tingling sensation down there.
ReplyDeleteNo tingles here.
ReplyDeleteA cold clear sense of Justice delayed far too long.
I had hoped that a Constitutional scholar would restore the Constitution, but alas, Obama covered up and continued many of those illegal policies. Pelosi abandoned her sworn oath and took Impeachment off the table.
War Crimes? Oh, yes! The "gang of eight" was read into the torture program, and accepted what was done in the name of America. All for the sake of personal profits from the war machine.
Another illegal war-for-profit, but mismanaged so brazenly and catastrophically that the wheel of Justice will crush more than Bush and Blair and Cheney. How many were tried at Nuremberg? They will have to build a special courtroom at The Hague to try those guilty of the Middle-East disaster.
The people of Germany have spent decades being shamed for what was done in their name. They elected a monster, and survivors live with the consequences. And now we are poised to elect yet another Bush? Unquestioned?
The Bush family is huge and brimming with psychopathic monsters, being groomed for power. "Patricians?" Nero and Caligula are such great role models!
However, today we do have international laws and treaties regarding unacceptable behavior. Civilized nations do not accept invasion without just cause, the deliberate targeting of hospitals and water plants, the murder and torture and indefinite capture of citizens, the destruction of antiquities.
These men and women will be dragged to Justice. Those who aid, abet, and cover-up War Crimes are also guilty of War Crimes. There will be trials and examinations. The only question is when and how thoroughly.
I'd have preferred that the United States would be the first to right this wrong. I still believe President George W Bush was handed the keys to the White House by way of his brother, Jeb Exclamation Point and his pregnant chad, hanging chad and dangling by a thread chads, hand count.
ReplyDeleteImagine the good that a President Gore could have done with the surplus President Clinton and VP Gore left? And how further advanced we'd be now with President Obama.
Imagine the lives and limbs saved,
Justice delayed is justice denied, at this point I'd take "better late than never" How any involved in that regime can sleep at night is beyond me.
Not a chance in hell it will happen
ReplyDeleteYeah, Gryphon, it probably just is you. Not that you're going to believe it, or even be capable of understanding it but this is why your assessment that the war with Iraq was illegal doesn't pass the laugh test.
ReplyDeleteThere was a case that went before the Supreme Court (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579).
President Truman believed he had constittional authority to seize private property during the Korean War. Justice Black wrote for the majority, advancing an absolutist view, holding that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.
Justice Jackson, however, argued that "The President’s powers vis-à-vis Congress, including especially his Commander-in-Chief power, were "not fixed but fluctuate."
If, due to your legal illiteracy, you are not already totally lost, there may be a one ina thousand chance you'll get this:
The post-September 11th "Authorization for use of military force" CONGRESSIONAL JOINT RESOLUTION. provided "That THE PRESIDENT is authorized to use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons HE DETERMINES planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. The word "HE" the word is emphacised because the Joint Resolution expressly delegates ("authorizes") to the PRESIDENT the discretion to determine against whom to use force in defending the United States against international terrorism.
That should be pretty simple to understand. It is in fact so easy, high school kids in "mock courts" get it.
Now, had Congress not signed off on the Joint Resolution and Bush went to war, you might have justification for your hard nipples. But since they drafted the resolution, it gave Bush a free hand to make the call LAWFULLY.
And here's the kicker, the constitutional consequences of "Youngstown" were that even if Congress was opposed to presidential action, that opposition need only be "scrutinized with caution."
So, let's say Congress had expressly prohibited President Bush from attacking Iraq (and it did the exact opposite), removing Hussein, changing that regime, and starting to create a pluralistic fledgling democracy in the Middle East, in a judicial showdown the Supreme Court would "scrutinize with caution" whether the Commander-in-Chief possessed that power and it is a legal certainty that under separation of powers doctrine Bush would prevail.
So dream on, Gryphon. Hold tightly to your constitutional ignorance along with your fellow legal illiterates who inhabit some parallel universe where a war fought after congress grants a president authority to use his discretion on the course to be taken is an "illegal war for profit" and "justice denied... " .
It seems stupidity is a virtue on this blog.