permalink for this thread :
Buddy Posted on 24/11 10:03
Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

should he be convicted of multiple offences against international and domestic law?

Link: Funding

speckyget Posted on 24/11 10:08
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

White collar criminal though. Might just get off with one of those big tags strapped to his ankle. Stop him invading countries after 8pm style of thing.

Buddy Posted on 24/11 10:28
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

The_Commisar Posted on 24/11 10:37
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

is it true if he's stopped and he has a WMD in his pocket the police will take him straight home to his parents ?

The_DiasBoro Posted on 24/11 11:47
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Apparently the reason he hasn't quit yet is because he has to cover up the cash-for-peerages dirt whilst he still has power. He is our Richard Nixon, except that Nixon had some success as his legacy (opening up China).

red_rebel2 Posted on 24/11 12:16
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

He'll get off. He knows a good lawyer.

Easy_Livin Posted on 24/11 12:30
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

He is wanted for questioning, but is trying all ways possible to avoid this and is directing his political heavyweight cronies to pressurise and discredit the Met detective in charge of upholding the law in this case - isn't this perverting the course of justice?

Also, read in the paper the other day that he is negotiating the manner and timing of his arrest.

TeessideCleveland Posted on 24/11 12:35
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Nice to know you now believe what the Mail says

Camsell_345 Posted on 24/11 12:36
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Pointless thread as it will never happen.

see also the people who want Bush to stand trial in the hague, even though the US administration doesn't recognise the hague or international law.

--- Post edited by Camsell_345 on 24/11 12:42 ---

Lamb_shank Posted on 24/11 13:40
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

given that he's currently appointing new members of the judiciary, it's fair to assume he's likely to tried in front of his mates and will walk away without so much of a slap on the wrist.

Lefty3668 Posted on 24/11 14:03
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

I think it is possible he will be facing two trials. I hope that this affair does not overshadow or impede any charges over Iraq.

Public opinion is key to charges being brought over Iraq. If Blair is already locked up the public may feel it is not so important to try him over Iraq.

In fact just him being out of office may appease many people who are angry with Blair at the moment.

Camsell_345 Posted on 24/11 14:06
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

come on do you really think an incumbent or ex Pm (depending on the time this takes) will face trial let alone go to prison, seruiously?

Blair is only going one place once he leaves No 10 on the lucrative US College lecture circuit.

Lefty3668 Posted on 24/11 14:16
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

I think it is just possible. There are many steps still to go to get this to court, but these steps are being followed carefully.

If it happens it will be after he has left office though and by then it would not surprise me if he is in America and refuses to come back. I am not sure if it would be possible to extradite. It may all depend on the continuing fall out in America over Iraq and that still has a long way to go.

Camsell_345 Posted on 24/11 14:19
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

I agree it is plausible in law but in reality mate it is never going to happen certain things are above the law, and to open this can o worms it simply won't happen.

TheYak87 Posted on 24/11 14:21
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

why would Blair face charges over Iraq? I supported the war and i still do. If you're thinking about the possibility of Blair being extradited from America you're in cloud cuckoo land.

Camsell_345 Posted on 24/11 14:24
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Blair has nothing to fear over iraq this is just a left wing fantasy but there is a case ie the cash for peerage investigation but again it won't happen and a "clive ponting" will be found to take the flak.

Kilburn Posted on 24/11 14:32
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Blair is as likely to serve a sentence as Bush is to speak a whole one without mangling it.

Buddy Posted on 24/11 14:51
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Yak - because you're not technically allowed to invade somebody else's country without a jolly good reason. While there may well have been one or two good reasons to invade this particular one, he didn't use any of them until it became obvious that his original ones had gone arse up. A half decent lawyer shouldn't have much trouble convincing an international war crimes court that this was an illegal act.

Having said that, the fact that you supported the war and still do should count in his favour.

--- Post edited by Buddy on 24/11 14:52 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 24/11 15:03
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Even Bush has gotten the odd sentence right, Kilburn. Presumably at his wedding.

‘why would Blair face charges over Iraq?’

Are you serious, Yak?

Let me ask you this, why did you/do you support the war?

Downilson Posted on 24/11 17:23
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

UN Resolution 1441. Case dismissed.

Lefty3668 Posted on 24/11 17:33
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

What do you mean 'case dismissed'? Are you saying he is bang to rights or that it is a watertight defence?

Downilson Posted on 24/11 17:56
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Left it purposely ambiguous. But you know what I think, already. I honestly don't think that a) there's a chance in hell that he'd be brought to trial and that b) even if in the event of a) there's no way he'd be convicted. Very minute multiplied by zero equals zero. International Law covers both Bush and Blair. There is more than 1441, but 1441 will suffice.

Lefty3668 Posted on 24/11 18:53
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

Resolution 1441 did not allow the invasion. Even if you accept the extremely thin and dubious argument that it did allow the revival of resolution 678 without a further resolution from the security council (and hardly any international lawyers outside the Bush administration do), and that Iraq posed an increasing threat not a reducing one, you still come back to the assertion that resolution 678 must have allowed an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam.

But Resolution 678 did not allow this.

It only allowed the allies to use force to expel Saddam from Kuwait.

This is why Bush snr stopped the US advance in the first Gulf War when he did and did not carry on to Baghdad to remove Saddam. Not only did John Major say as much in his memoirs, but so did ColinfuckingPowell!

So you tell me, if resolution 678 did not allow an invasion of Iraq in 1991, how could it possibly authorise one in 2003?

Get them into court and they will be convicted. Getting them into court is the hard part, but it is not out of the question. Blair planned and waged a war of aggression. Most of the people who were tried at Nuremberg were charged with that offence.

To be able to charge Blair we need to know the motives behind the war. This is why the action from the families of the soldiers who have been killed is so important.

For me, it is the motivation behind this war that is important, not whether the law was broken. However, if you are going to break a law you damn well better be sure it is for a good reason.

If you saw someone knocked over and you could tell that the ambulance would not arrive in time so you put them in your car and sped them to the hospital, you would have broken the speed limit. I would not expect the Police to prosecute however as you had a damn good reason for breaking the law. If they did prosecute, I would expect the judge to throw it out or at the very least find you guilty but impose no punishment.

If you sped because you just wanted to get home early so you could have a wank before the family came home then I would expect them to throw the book at you.

Of course, even if you act out of the best of motives you cannot be protected from the consequences of your actions.

To take a slightly different scenario, if you were rushing someone to hospital because you thought they had a life threatening injury and on the way you knocked someone over, what should happen then?

And if the injured person you were transporting turned out to not have a life threatening injury after all?

What about if you had ignored the advice of a nurse who was at the original scene who said that the victim might not be dying but you might do more harm than good and put them in your car anyway?

The mess that Iraq is in now and the huge number of lives lost – don’t give me thatcrap that Iraq Body Count of 50,000 is more accurate than the Johns Hopkins survey when it is based purely on reported deaths in the press and history tells us that press reports almost always under report the number of civilian deaths in a conflict by at least a factor of 5, or that mortuary records in a country that had all its civil servants dismissed because they were Baath Party members and in any case it was often far toofucking dangerous to travel to risk your own life to take a dead body to a hospital or mortuary are more accurate either – is too important for people to not be held to account. The true motive of the war is crucial as to whether they should only face charges based on negligence or incompetance or effectively premeditated murder.

Downilson Posted on 24/11 19:29
re: Wil Blair get concurrent sentences

I'm not getting drawn into the same old thing about Iraq, in any case, there's an argument pending about the casualty figures there that you said you'd get back on (unless "don’t give me thatcrap" is your response).

Let's stick to the point in hand - the legality. Not only did 1441 promise "serious consequences" should its demands not be met, but the cease-fire resolutions agreed to by Iraq warned that "all available means" would be used for their enforcement.

This is before we get into the complex rights of states to intervene in cases of genocide, aggression, harbouring wanted terrorists and the seeking of WMD (and yes, as we thought, the possession of them), and whether partaking in any or all of the above activities affects your sovereignty. You will notice that Iraq ticks all the 4 boxes.

Legally therefore, I'm pretty happy just by googling some crap that there isn't a case. Now imagine a whole team of expensive international lawyers working on the defence. Not a chance.

Morally, it gets murkier, and more partisan, but all I would add to that score is, your premise seems to be that the UN is the be all and end all, which given its record, is not necessarily what I'd subscribe to. Two things, you know as well as I do that you'd still be calling this war illegal, or else protesting it on other grounds, if the UN Security Council had passed a Second Resolution (which was an impossibility in any case given the veto of 2 certain nations on it). And the second one is, France would, probably (and I await a defamation suit from Marianne if I'm wrong) have vetoed any kind of resolution on Rwanda too, given their interests there, whereas I'm sure military intervention there to prevent the massacre would have been welcomed by all parties. So to give the UN Security Council the final say in either legality or morality, is, for me, a bit of a stretch. Which I admit, is depressing, but look at its record.