The Hague, not the Chilcot Inquiry
By Anwaar Hussain
Chilcot Inquiry was set up by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to inquire into Iraq war covering a period from 2001–2009. The hearings are being held in public unless there are “compelling reasons” for witnesses to be heard in private. The inquiry started at the end of July 2009, after the return of most British troops from Iraq.
On Friday, the 29th of January 2010 the great deceiver, the past master at selling honey drenched lies, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of England took the podium. Those inside the tiny inquiry room reported that at first his hands shook while trying to uncap a water bottle with his lips parted in an expression of uncertain caution. But soon thereafter, he got into his old self of being a seller of student essays dressed up as ‘intelligence’, spewing out lies couched in half truths at the inquiry commission one after another.
He denied making a covert deal with George Bush to invade Iraq. He denied that he ever said that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. He said he believed the invasion was authorized by Resolution 1441. Shamefacedly, he also said that not a day goes by when he doesn’t reflect on what happened, but he believed that the world was, note please, a safer place as a result of the invasion.
Gone in the brouhaha is the fact that the Chilcot Inquiry is not the venue for this comic sidekick of the murderous neoconservatives to be interrogated. The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague across the English Channel in The Netherlands waits just for the likes of him. For here at the Chilcot Inquiry, he continues to repeat his old mantra without batting an eyelid and without remorse for the death and destruction he caused.
Not only that, the Chilcot Inquiry itself, though laudable as a first effort, is a toothless little charade for accountability. It is powerless to receive evidence under oath and therefore powerless to recommend a punishment. Of its five members, one is a civil servant, one a former ambassador, one a cross bencher and two historians. None are either well versed in international law or have any first hand military experience. What is more, Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the two historians, supported the invasion of Iraq and claimed in 2004 that George W. Bush and Tony Blair may one day “join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill.”
It is at The Hague that the man can be prosecuted for being a party to authorizing and directing, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed while he was prime minister during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. None of these accusations have been dismissed by a court of law. On the contrary, there is an overwhelming amount of credible evidence from believable sources out there to support the accusations.
According to Canadian organization Lawyers against the War there even are court decisions in Canada and the U.S. that have confirmed the involvement of the Bush Administration in war crimes. In September 2004, the incumbent UN Chief Kofi Annan made a very clear statement. Talking to BBC Annan said “the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.” Being the UN Chief, and the custodian of International law, he knew what he was talking about. The consequent unlawful war of aggression, the killing of civilians and abuse of prisoners all, therefore, clearly constitute war crimes.
Plentiful evidence is now available that shows that Bush and Blair administrations intended to wage a war of aggression. The Downing Street memo clearly shows that the two leading coalition members, the US and Britain, were fully engaged in “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression” and “fixing” intelligence to suit these aims. The events now bear out that the US administration had plans ready well before the 9/11 crime to not only invade Iraq, but also target much if not all of the Middle East. All alibis put forward by Blair and Bush administrations for the Iraqi invasion, and the resultant near-genocidal massacre, have now been fully exposed as fraudulent motives.
Laws against war crimes are unambiguously explained in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The modern concept of war crime was further developed under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials based on the definition in the London Charter that was published on August 8, 1945. Along with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which were plainly committed during the Iraq war by the Bush-Blair combo.
Though at the modern international tribunals capital punishment is banned and convictions result in a sentence for a term of years, the actual punishment for committing war crimes is capital punishment. Nothing says that the punishment cannot be revived to set an example.
However, even if Tony Blair is sent into the hands of Her Majesty’s Prison Service to live out the rest of his life in a British jail, it will be no less a pleasure. The scribe can then suggest HMP Wakefield, Britain’s most notorious prison where a thriving Afro-Caribbean gang-culture flourishes on the wings. Black prisoners, including murderers and rapists, have formed up clans and are allowed to wear black bandanas. They reportedly do unmentionable things to newcomers. It will be a delight to see Tony Blair receive some ‘justice’ at their hands.
Or else we would be left with no option but to make a citizen’s arrest of the criminal just like George Monbiot, the British activist and columnist who tried to arrest John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, in May 2008. All that one of us needs to do is call out to the criminal, “Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, I am arresting you for the charge of aggression, the crime of aggression, as defined by the Nuremberg Principles.” The rest will be history written in shining letters.
But let us hope it is The Hague, ladies and gentlemen, The Hague. Not the Chilcot Inquiry.
X-X-X-X
Having worked around jails for many years I can assure you that a Head of State is going to be put in a general prison population under any circumstances. Nuremburg was a tool used by the Allies against those it had waged war with. Our friends at that time the USSR has murdered many millions in something they invented called concentration camps while the Allies had perfected saturation firebombing of civilian populations including those nuclear strikes precipitated by a well meaning Democratic US administration. I think the notion of international justice is a good one but with the misery ineptness caused time and time again by the UN selling “international law” it is clear to see who is not capable of dishing out real justice. Aanwar, President Obama promised the US would be out Iraq in 2009. Ask yourself: is this the policy of just a single person and can going after that person accomplish your goals? I don’t think so. A good reason for not trying to use law to precipitate a diplomatic solution.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:51 pmThe USSR killed, invaded and then went on to kill a MILLION Afghans. I hope one day we will see some justice done.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:27 pmIt matters not what other nations have or haven’t done, we the people need to insist this happen, or expect war without end, for war is highly profitable to the war lords of the Anglo-American Empire. Our problem now is all the people in power during those years from the US Congress, the British Houses, and top civil-servants have their own level of culpability and don’t want to touch that can of worms. Well here in the US, if we can get a local prosecutor or a states congress to bring charges against these men for crimes that affected that state or it’s citizens, these men can be compelled by law to be brought before a grand jury and then charged under state statutes. As individual citizens our power comes through trial by jury, not the vote, and we must convince prosecutors and or our state congresses to do what is right, and bring these people to justice, or we remain slaves!
February 6th, 2010 at 7:55 amI add that I don’t believe the Hague will do anything, not as long as the most powerful nations of the world mostly continue their bad world citizenship. The world power brokers will not let this happen, should many more real truths come out, truths that get at the real powerful of the world. They cannot wish exposure of their darkness to light, they would be finished should it happen.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:00 am“It is a shame for the world community to be led by such irresponsible leaders who make this world and their own people unsafe. History will be known by tyrants like Bush, Musharraf and Tony Blair of this era and the human sufferings their decisions led to. I wonder what will happen to them… I wish it will be a history, too.”
February 6th, 2010 at 9:24 amMr Hussain! Just as leaders of the major powers have a responsibility to contribute to peace keeping, they also have to take responsibility if their actions are proven wrong by history. That said, the ICJ can only act (to my limited knowledge), if a state or a group of states makes a formal plea. Chilcot is a good beginning, which must lead to further following up. The question is who would draw attention of the UN to assess this under its chapters 6 or7 and who would bring it to the notice of ICJ. Regs SB
February 6th, 2010 at 8:52 pmIts high time we put these criminals in jail where they belong. Running the world into the ground has been their goal, and I must say they are getting close. Its sad to see all the fools who go along with them, all of which are in it for the money…..which is another scam of these evil rulers. I think I’m going to stop watching the news and all media in general, because they write articles like this and NEVER do anything legitimate about arresting these criminals. Put your ideals where your mouth is, and actually get something done. These articles do nothing but to further aggravate those who are subject (without choice) to these powers that be. You are just as bad as them if you only SAY whats going on and ALLOW it. Shame on the media, and you are one of them sir.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:03 pmSir, no sane person this side of the Atlantic has any doubt about the role of Bush Blair duo in perpetrating crime against humanity; causing human massacre directly or indirectly. Yet no Hague commission or trial appears on horizon. What does it require to initiate this process of justice and who will do that?
February 7th, 2010 at 11:01 amAs a military officer who is aware of the rank on her shoulder, not yet a retired military who can shoot off her mouth, my words will show restraint. smile
As befits our mortal frame and the human condition I have made an observation. It involves analogy.
http://thevinylvillage.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/kaleidoscope.jpg
Each one of us posting presents the kaleidoscope of ideas which represent our station on the historical timeline, geographical root system, patriarchal values and education moorings. So when twisting the kaleidoscope for a look, the shiny fragments of color provide a constantly twisting glimpse of the light. Being mortals we tend to admire most, the light which falls upon our fragment of truth.
Regarding my own Commander in Chief, President George W. Bush and his decision to enter Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot second-guess the decision as I have not had access to top secret documents or conversations. But I do present one small truth. The massacre visited upon innocent citizens in America opened the door for a presidential response. Our Commander released our troop strength as both shield and magnet for those who would harm us again.
I remain grateful, that our nation has not sustained 9/11, the sequel.
And who should be tried and convicted for allowing the rise of a strong sectarian and violent flank in the nation of Pakistan since the days of General Zia ul-Haq?
There you have it, my small fragment in the kaleidoscope.
Best Regards, Anwaar:
LCDR Tammy Swofford, USNR, NC
February 8th, 2010 at 6:05 pm