Tony Blair facing prosecution over the Iraq war

TB should be held accountable for his actions - not sure this is the right way to go about it though.

I think the war was the one huge blot on his administration and I don't believe he could have ever truly believed Iraq had any meaningful WMD capacity, but no way would I support the idea of a prosecution.

Definitely not, there could never be a fair trial because Blair couldn't divulge what the secret services both here and in America said or Bush , could he call
Bush as a witness or those in the secret services at that time ?

Of course TB should be brought to trial and held accountable. If there was some serious threat to national security (and it was 14years ago so any information would probably be out of date) it would be possible to take testimony in camera. It was an illegal war and a prosecution would send a message to those who consider the West corrupt that we are willing to apply the law to every one and to every situation.

My feelings to Trisher. It will be interesting to see what machinations are brought in to try and avoid this action.

In what way was it 'illegal'?

I note the thread title states he is facing prosecution, premature? Wishful thinking?

Oh blimey not this again.

Possibly premature Annie but it would appear that legal papers have already been drawn up. The attempt is being resisted by District Judge Michael Snow and QC Jeremy Wright. My OP clearly said that I, personally, would like to see TB face an independent court hearing that may well be wishful thinking . I asked what opinions others had about the possibility of TB facing prosecution. That's all.

Craicon It was an illegal war because it was entered into without a UN decision ( Kofi Annan declared it an illegal war at the time)
The Chilcot report concluded that Britain rushed to join the conflict before all other bloodless alternatives had been exhausted.
Tony Blair limited the information given to cabinet and had previously told Bush that we would support him whatever.

Surely every one is entitled to a fair trial ? In this case it would not be possible

Why so Annie? To be fair, it's already being challenged on the grounds that there is no such crime as "aggression " in UK law and so a case may well be a non starter. But it was agreed, in the Chilcott enquiry, that the Iraq war was illegal and Imran Khan (one of the prosecution lawyers) has said that those responsible should be brought to court. Why do you feel that any court hearing would not be fair one, especially if it was heard in the UK?

Was it declared ilegal and by whom?

I believe your question was answered by Trisher @ 20.20. Kofi Annan, UN secretary general. 2004.

But was thst a verdict or his opinion?

John Prescott also declared his belief that the war was illegal, although he had voted for it. He gave the lack of information supplied to cabinet as his reason.

Kofi Annan has given his opinion, but that doesn't make it an illegal war. That would require a court decision. If anything ever gets off the ground, which I doubt it will, I would foresee years of litigation. Thee would be a whole host of hurdles to overcome before TB could be found guilty. It will never happen.

Why don't you read up on it Annie , there's loads of data out there. My opinion was asking only for opinions on whether TB should face prosecution and I'm gathering, from your posts, that you do not. That's fine, no bother at all, thanks for responding.

When people are in positions of power they do have to take decisions some of which will be controversial and some will be deemed wrong. At the time of the war the Iraqi people were happy to have an invasion to depose Saddam. Countries have gone to war in foreign lands for centuries and looking back maybe a better solution could have been found. Hindsight is a great thing - there is nothing really to be gained by holding a trial even if it were legal and possible and not all the ones at fault could be brought to book. Deciding to go to war can never be an easy decision and we can but hope that the people in power do make the best decision with the facts as they believe them to be. It would put a lot of money in lawyers pockets if there was a trial.
What would the punishment be if he were found guilty?

John Prescott and Kofi Annan have given their opinions, for me even though I was against the war I cannot help but think what it was like to be a president or PM following the twin towers , so easy to sit in the comfort of the home and judge

It's a funny old world isn't it. Mentally ill people are sent to prison for petty crimes, often committed because they are addicted to drugs. And yet someone who misleads parliament and leads the country into a war that has caused mayhem and tragedy throughout the world is said to have "implied immunity".

What exactly had the "twin towers" to do with the invasion of Iraq (or Afghanistan)? Almost all the perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia.

It is not about hindsight. At the time, many expert voices were advising that attacking Iraq was not only unjustified and illogical but that it would cause even greater conflict within and between nations.

And so it has Eloethan, so it has.

I wonder who's funding this.

General Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat was Saddam Hussein's Chief of Staff at the time of chemical attacks by the Iraqi government and has allegedly been linked to Iraqi rebels currently fighting the Iraqi government. He's in exile in the UAR.

This latest move is actually an appeal against a decision to dismiss his case last year.

Maybe I'm being cynical, but I'm suspicious.

At least one aspect of illegality is that the invasion was with the specific purpose of regime change, although this was denied at the time. Iraq was no threat to any of the so-called coalition of the willing and was, at that time, the most closely overlooked country in the world. It was Bush and Blair who withdrew the weapons inspectors; it was not at the behest of Sadaam Hussein, although his degree of co-operation with them was fairly lukewarm. There were no grounds for believing that there were still WMDs present in the country and all "evidence" produced was completely spurious. Remember the dodgy dossiers, one of which was plagiarised by Alistair Campbell from outdated research that had previously been published on the internet. Does anyone else remember Colin Powell being made a complete fool when he demonstrated the mobile chemical weapons factory – something rather more like an ice cream van? Robin Cook, who had been Foreign Minister, seems to have been the only member of the government with a conscience.

The Chilcott Enquiry was pretty much an expensive whitewash. The UK and USA are both members of United Nations and no-one should be above the law.