Inside Iraq - Are Bush and Blair above the law?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Seshmeister
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    • Oct 2003
    • 35211

    #16


    ...Fellow lawyer Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London, said Mr Blair could face prosecution in another country – and claimed the former PM had already started altering his travel arrangements as a result.

    Mr Sands said: “When Tony Blair travels he now gets legal advice on where he can go and the pattern of extradition agreements.”

    He said there were about 50 countries in the world which had enshrined the crime of aggression into their law and would therefore be unsafe for Mr Blair to visit.

    These include many South American states and some Eastern European countries including Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.

    Mr Sands added: “The possibility of a national prosecutor going after Blair in some foreign jurisdiction is reasonably high.”

    “I cannot think of a single international lawyer who thinks the war was lawful. Not a single name comes to mind.

    “That’s got to be telling.”

    Comment

    • Hardrock69
      DIAMOND STATUS
      • Feb 2005
      • 21888

      #17
      BigBadBrucie wants to open the entire "Invasion Of Iraq Without Legal Justification" can of worms again.

      Go use Google, bozoboi.

      Comment

      • Seshmeister
        ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

        • Oct 2003
        • 35211

        #18
        Originally posted by BigBadBrian

        no international law trumps the US Constitution.
        Only when they are in the US. Why do you think Blair spends so much time there these days?

        I think Blair is much more vunerable than Bush.

        For a start like most countries the UK is a signatory to the international criminal court unlike the US, North Korea and Burma.

        Secondly a lot of people in the UK would support it.

        To be honest I don't think it will happen but it's definitely not impossible and I'm glad it's a threat he needs to live with.

        Comment

        • Blaze
          Full Member Status

          • Jan 2009
          • 4371

          #19
          This link has an interesting documentary

          Friday, 6 September, 2002, 03:49 GMT 04:49 UK
          Kaufman pessimistic over Israel's future

          Gerald Kaufman - an outspoken critic of Ariel Sharon's policies - revokes his public vow never to return to Israel for a new BBC documentary, and finds less reason for optimism than ever before.
          BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service
          "I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind. - Some come from ahead and some come from behind. - But I've bought a big bat. I'm all ready you see. - Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!" ~ Dr. Seuss
          sigpic

          Comment

          • BigBadBrian
            TOASTMASTER GENERAL
            • Jan 2004
            • 10625

            #20
            Originally posted by Hardrock69
            BigBadBrucie wants to open the entire "Invasion Of Iraq Without Legal Justification" can of worms again.
            Yeah, let's open it up again, Shortbus!

            Take your pick:
            a. We should have taken Saddam out in '91
            b. Taking Saddam out in 2003 was the right thing to do
            c. We should have left Saddam in power, he was a great neighbor to everyone in the Middle East and caused no trouble
            “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

            Comment

            • ELVIS
              Banned
              • Dec 2003
              • 44120

              #21
              What was accomplished by taking Saddam out ??

              Comment

              • Seshmeister
                ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                • Oct 2003
                • 35211

                #22
                Originally posted by BigBadBrian
                Yeah, let's open it up again, Shortbus!

                Take your pick:
                a. We should have taken Saddam out in '91
                b. Taking Saddam out in 2003 was the right thing to do
                c. We should have left Saddam in power, he was a great neighbor to everyone in the Middle East and caused no trouble
                LMAO!

                So now it's about how good a neighbor he was.

                And how exactly do you think the US or Israel stands up in this new 'Good Neighbor' criteria to avoid having 100s of thousands of your civilians killed?

                Top 10?

                Top 50?

                Top 100?

                Comment

                • BigBadBrian
                  TOASTMASTER GENERAL
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 10625

                  #23
                  Originally posted by ELVIS
                  What was accomplished by taking Saddam out ??
                  Liberals bitched that we didn't do it in '91. I think they are right on that one. I got fucking tired of going over to that sandbox everytime Saddam got his courage up and rattled his sword (or the one time Bill Clinton wagged the dog). Saddam would have needed taken out sooner or later. We thought the Shiites and Kurds would do it after the Gulf War in '91. That didn't happen....we let Saddam slaughter the rebels while the coalition still had 500,000 combat troops in kuwait and Iraq.
                  “If bullshit was currency, Joe Biden would be a billionaire.” - George W. Bush

                  Comment

                  • Seshmeister
                    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

                    • Oct 2003
                    • 35211

                    #24
                    Nope.

                    Comment

                    • ELVIS
                      Banned
                      • Dec 2003
                      • 44120

                      #25
                      I asked what was accomplished...

                      Comment

                      Working...