Attempt to prosecute Blair over Iraq fails in London High Court

[webfact]

Attempt to prosecute Blair over Iraq fails in London High Court

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a meeting of the European People's Party in Wicklow, Ireland, May 12, 2017. REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - A British court on Monday rejected an attempt by a former Iraqi general to bring a private prosecution against former Prime Minister TonyBlair over the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

 

Blair's decision to join the U.S.-led coalition that toppled Saddam Hussein has tainted the legacy of his 10 years in office, and his critics in Britain and Iraq have been calling for him to face criminal action for years.

 

Iraqi General Abdel Waheed Shannan al Rabbat has been trying to bring a private prosecution against Blair and two of his former senior ministers for what his lawyers described as the crime of aggression.

 

But the High Court on Monday refused permission for a judicial review of an earlier ruling by a lower court that the action could not go ahead as there was no such crime under the law of England and Wales.

 

The general's lawyers had argued that the earlier ruling, delivered in November last year, was based on an incorrect premise and that it should be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

 

But two senior High Court judges rejected their arguments, saying they had no prospect of success in the Supreme Court and therefore the judicial review should not be authorised.

 

The judges accepted that there was a crime of aggression under international law, but said there was no such crime under domestic law, which meant a prosecution for that crime could not take place in domestic courts.

 

Blair and the two other targets of the action, former foreign affairs minister Jack Straw and former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, have taken no part in the legal proceedings.

 

Blair's reputation has been severely damaged in the eyes of many Britons by his unpopular decision to go to war in Iraq and by the chaos and conflict that have continued to plague that country since.

 

In a scathing report on Britain's role in Iraq published last year, a seven-year inquiry described a catalogue of failures in Blair's justification, planning and handling of the war.

 

Eight months before the 2003 invasion, Blair told then U.S. President George W. Bush "I will be with you, whatever", eventually sending 45,000 British troops into battle when peace options had not been exhausted, the inquiry said.

 

Blair has always denied lying to parliament and to the British people when he made the case for going to war, and continues to argue that the world is a better and safer place as a result of the toppling of Saddam.

 

"I did not mislead this country. There were no lies, there was no deceit, there was no deception," the former prime minister said after the inquiry published its report.

 

(Reporting by Estelle Shirbon, editing by Ed Osmond)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-01

[canopus1969]

Sorry the last sentence is wrong - he did mislead / lie and deceive the country - the nasty two faced little git should be in jail 

[colinneil]

I did not mislead the country!!!!

You lying piece of s++t, you not only mislead, you gave out false information about the so-called weapons of mass destruction.

Sad to say, my home country has been going down the pan in recent years, and that scumbag Blair helped it on its way purely for financial gain.

[Rancid]

But in all honesty it wouldn't set a good precedent would it? Imagine if politicians were actually held accountable for the illegal wars they start or join, sending how many young people off to die while they are safe at home in their a/c offices. Let alone the civilian body count and untold misery and suffering they create.

[Morch]

Probably be a tad more credible if the side wasn't one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Blair has always denied lying to parliament and to the British people when he made the case for going to war

Blair put his faith in American intelligence agencies and personal recommendations of Bush/Cheney rather than an independent confirmation from British intelligence. But then so must the Parliament. Plenty of blame to go around in hindsight.

[KunMatt]

Does anyone think that Blair shouldn't face war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq which wasn't allowed at the time?

[jesimps]

Can't stand the lefty little jobby, but I believe he did what he thought was right at the time. As a patriot you have to back your PM, so I think the court made the right decision.

 

Now if we all had a crystal ball.....

 

[Grouse]

54 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

Does anyone think that Blair shouldn't face war crimes over the illegal invasion of Iraq which wasn't allowed at the time?

me

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

Can't stand the lefty little jobby, but I believe he did what he thought was right at the time. As a patriot you have to back your PM, so I think the court made the right decision.

 

Now if we all had a crystal ball.....

 

 

Everybody does what, in their opinion, is right. Blair lied to the Lower House in order to get involved in an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. And many more have lost their lives since because of the whole region being destabilised by the war. That makes Blair a war criminal of the highest order. The fact that there is no appetite amongst the Establishment to see him put on trial doesn't change that.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

me

Now two characters here react "sad", but what do they mean? It could be that they are upset and close to sobbing? Seasonal Adjusted Disorder? S**k A D**k? Or some sad Estuary English usage. If we're going to have reaction comments we need a greater range. Sad.

[Dave67]

Telling Bush  "I'm with you whatever, "tells me he made the decision to got to War and did anything he could to get it voted through