Blair Can Be Tried For War Crimes 123

There is no requirement in international law for the appropriate jurisdiction of a tribunal – or even the tribunal itself – to be in place before a crime is committed, in order for it to try that crime. The most obvious evidence of this is the Nuremburg Tribunal, which did not even exist when the crimes which it tried were committed. But in fact international law has a long tradition of arbitration or judgement by bodies which were set up after the event, but judging by the law applicable at the time of the event. It is the crime itself which must be a crime at the time it is committed. The jurisdiction of the body which tries the criminal can be created after the crime itself.

Total nonsense has been written widely that it would be retroactive law, and thus unacceptable, for Tony Blair to be tried at the Hague for the crime of waging aggressive war. But the crime itself was very plainly already in existence when Blair committed it.

Indeed, Blair apologists claim that the Statute of Rome of 1998, which set up the International Criminal Court, means that Blair cannot face trial because it specifically exempts aggressive war from the jurisdiction of the court. But in fact that is the opposite of the truth. The Statute of Rome unequivocally confirms the existence of the crime of waging aggressive war. It states that the tribunal “shall not exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression”. That is in itself sufficient evidence that the international community reconfirmed the existence of the crime of aggression in 1998, shortly before Blair committed it in 2003.

It just means that at present the crime has to be prosecuted somewhere else. The FCO’s Legal Advisers, a department of extremely able professional international lawyers, unanimously believed the invasion of Iraq was an act of aggressive war, as plainly told to Chilcot by their then Head Sir Michael Wood.

If the Hague tribunal obtains, as expected, power to cover this crime, there is no reason in principle why it should not investigate such crimes which were committed before it had that jurisdiction. Except that we can be sure that the British government will ensure there is a clause in the agreement forbidding that. Then there is the fact that Blair is not a black African and has never been bombed by NATO. Nobody who fails to meet those criteria will ever be tried at the Hague.

Blair is a war criminal. He can be tried by n international tribunal, or he can, more satisfactory still, be tried in the UK. The attempts of his defenders to claim it is impossible technically to try him gives some sign how desperate they have become. Aggressive war was a crime at the time he committed it.

Tomorrow the Chilcot whitewash will be liberally splashed around. I do strongly recommend that you buy and read Peter Oborne’s Not the Chilcot Report to get the real picture.

Liked this article? Share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts

123 thoughts on “Blair Can Be Tried For War Crimes

1 2
  • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype

    Am going to order my copy Right Now!

    Let the Truth prevail!

    Life is Long, Tony, even though you shortened some millions, you Evil Bastard!

    You will see, and we shall see you.

      • fwl

        Will blow the budget for public libraries reference section. Will they buy it? Probably not? Why do public libraries not stock such reports and all new laws as a matter of course? How many public libraries even stock Halsbury’s Laws these days (1 in 100?). Hopefully they will stock Peter Oborne’s Not the Chilcot Report. I was at least able to find a copy of Murder in Samarkand in my local library.

  • lysias

    There was a real ex post facto law problem with the Nuremberg tribunal that declared waging aggressive war to be the worst of crimes. Obviously, ever since that court’s judgment in 1946, that has been a basic principle of international law. So ex post facto is no longer a problem.

    • n

      “There was a real ex post facto law problem with the Nuremberg tribunal that declared waging aggressive war to be the worst of crimes. ”

      Could you explain what you mean? I take it to mean that declaring 2WW German activities war crimes ex post facto is not legitimate. From my point of view, the Nuremberg decisions are useful for the future.

      • lysias

        Nullum crimen sine lege has always been a basic principle of the rule of law. The new German government in 1933 violated it flagrantly both in making Lubbe’s arson a capital crime after the fact and then in legislating that in that case ex post facto legislation was not a problem.

  • Dave

    I often wondered if he could have been tried for treason since he clearly acted in the interests OF another state USA rather than the Crown and he has certainly stirred and moved foreigners to attack the UK.

    • Republicofscotland


      Is there a political will within the UK or the Hague to do so?

      You just have to watch the machinations in sections of the Labour party, in their attempt to try and oust Corbyn, to deflect criticism from Blair.

      Also looking at the state of Westminster politics at the moment, with Brexit, Tory and Labour infighting and the Bank of England’s Mark Carney predicting gloom and doom. One wonders if Blair’s neferious actions with regards to the illegal war in Iraq, will receive the coverage or have the impact it so rightly deserves.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      What about genocide, Dave, or does that Convention not apply to the West?

    • lysias

      That’s basically what Robert Harris’s roman a clef The Ghost accuses Blair of. And Harris was a former friend of Blair’s.

    • Martinned

      Acting in the interests of another state isn’t treason. Treason is waging war on the Queen’s Majesty or giving aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies.

  • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leader'

    When we came through the eye of the Millennium, we were lead to believe by our Dear Global Leaders that we were all walking into the Rainbow. The media’s hot stories then were Y2K and the Revolution.Beautiful firework displays were orchestrated throughout the Globe and the happy, ordinary earthlings celebrated with their every fervour.

    Then, less than 2 years later 911 happened. The World commiserated with the beloved United States of America. Bush declared he would get OBL dead or alive. But instead of gunning for the scalp of one man, the alleged chief Perpetrator, the hugely backward Afghanistan was invaded. That wasn’t enough for the bloodthirsty champions of Democracy, so Iraq was invaded by this trigger-happy infamous duo of Bush & Blair.

    Blair should’ve known better, indeed Great Britain with her glorious colonial past and depth of millennia of Culture should have known better, and millions did. And should have if anything provided a counter-balance to the trigger-happy, wilder, more desperate, less historically-cultured USofA. Millions of people here were unhappy with such a prospect and knew better. But Blair had his own agenda, very personal, very close to his heart and even closer to his wallet. The only surprise has been that instead of lining up a bunch of Board Directorships in US multinationals, he has chosen to continue his yen for meddling with authoritarian regimes to massive, corrupt and disgraceful financial gain, hitherto unparalleled-by-retired-politicians in the UK.

    I hope when he is tried, and subsequently sentenced that he will be made to compensate the Iraqi People.

    • SA

      “Blair should’ve known better, indeed Great Britain with her glorious colonial past and depth of millennia of Culture should have known better, and millions did.”

      It is exactly because of the unchallenged colonial past that Blair behaved the way he did. After all when Great Brittania ruled the wave there was no ICCJ.

    • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leaders'

      I get your drift, but Blair was no product of the Imperial past. Besides, when he joined the Labour Party as a young man (I care not to research his earlier background and thankfully am not a historian), its fair to speculate, if not assume, he must have had some wider ideals and values, which he later happily tore up.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      Tried, and sentenced, then handed over to the Iraqis, whose country he destroyed, for punishment.

  • Republicofscotland

    Craig I posted this link the other day, what do you make of the claims.

    “The International Criminal Court (ICC) said its prosecutors would comb through the 2.3 million word report for evidence of war crimes committed by British troops but that decision to go to war remained outside its remit.”

    “Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court will examine the Chilcot report for evidence of abuse and torture by British soldiers but have already ruled out putting Tony Blair on trial for war crimes.”

    “As already indicated by the Office in 2006, the ‘decision by the UK to go to war in Iraq falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction’.”

    “The ICC prosecutor’s office said the ICC was looking at introducing a “crime of aggression” which would cover illegal invasions but that “has not yet crystalised and in any event, will not apply retroactively.”

  • Eric Smiff

    Leaks suggest Chilcot will blame MI6 and their dodgy dossiers/ information for Iraq. No doubt acting in concert with the CIA. Quite rightly in my opinion. Politicians are really only a front for their advisers. A statement I made to a former personal assistant to Margaret Thatcher who agreed. Thatcher’s favourite television programme was of course ‘Yes Prime Minister.

    I have more than average contempt for the Mandelson (Blair) administration, but he’s only a figurehead. Retired MI6 figures will be blamed but never prosecuted.

    • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leaders'

      “Politicians are really only a front for their advisers. ”

      You can not be serious!

      Such shallow, lazy thinking is dangerous. Little wonder the World remains such a dangerous place.

        • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leaders'

          Eric, I’m not going to be distracted by your favourite videos. That was a pretty irrresponsible, cavalier statement. It’s for you to think harder. Unless, of course, you are resigned to lots of gray hair but now wisdom. You’d be comfortably in the sleepy majority there.

          Please stop digging.

          • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leaders'

            ‘now wisdom’ = no wisdom

    • Laguerre

      “Politicians are really only a front for their advisers. ”

      Really not. Politicians consult advisors, then decide for themselves, according to their own prejudices. If Blair had trusted his advisors, he would not have invaded Iraq.

    • Shatnersrug

      Eric, politicians man be the salesmen, but they still work for the company

    • Mulga Mumblebrain

      The West knew that Iraq was fully disarmed from the mid-1990s, so Blair et al need to face charges under the Genocide Convention, too, for the mass slaughter, particularly of over one million children (500,000 under five)under the Sanctions of Mass Destruction.

  • Abdul Aziz

    Who would bring any legal action against Blair, would it be the Iraqis the relatives of the British war dead.
    If members of the government at the time knowingly agreed to an illegal war they would have colluded with a war crime does collusion make them indictable.

    • Anon1

      The Iraq War was a long time ago, Abdul. I personally wouldn’t care in the slightest if Blair was strung up. I would like to see him swaying from a lampost for many reasons, one of those being the Iraq War.

      But are you on message with the day in/day out Muslim hatred, intolerance and violence around the world, committed in the name of Islam? Does it register?

      • Laguerre

        “The Iraq War was a long time ago,”

        Not for the rest of us.

        “committed in the name of Islam”

        You’re an Islam-hater, as many of your recent posts have shown. I would have complained, had not Craig clearly declared that any free speech is valid.

      • spectacular failure

        You, of all people calling someone else out on hatred and intolerance?

      • Mulga Mumblebrain

        Yes, Anon, the glorious West slaughters a mere several million Moslems (leaving your type indifferent or celebrating) turns a blind eye to the eternal brutalisation of the Palestinians, and supports evil despotisms across the Moslem world, and some Moslems dare hate their betters for it. How outrageous! Let’s bomb Syria and Iran back to the Stone Age, to teach them a lesson about ‘Western moral values’.

      • DomesticExtremist

        The Iraq War was a long time ago

        It is still very much with us in the form of the ISIS insurgency in Iraq and Syria, still killing hundreds and thousands.
        Blair was warned that invading Iraq would destabilise the entire region and those warnings proved fatally correct.
        If it were up to me I would have him legally renditioned to either Baghdad, Tripoli or Damascus and let them organise legal proceedings.

  • DtP

    You can’t just cite some vague crap about the location of the trial and a couple of conventions and then issue judgement that ‘Blair is a war criminal’. Is this the fucking Beano all of a sudden?

    • Shatnersrug

      Why not? it’s his blog. Craig is of the opinion that Blair’s criminality is beyond refute. Did he know there were no wmd – yes, did he start a war of aggression – yes. I’m sure should he be called on, Craig will testify against Blair too.

      We are of course, all expecting a whitewash, but with Corbyn and McDonnell leading the Labour Party we are at least a step closer. This may go on for years, but as long as that man is drawing breath the fight for justice will go on.

  • Aidworker1

    I don’t expect Chilcot to comment on to what extent this war was to remove a potential threat to Israel.

    After he left, Tony Blair then got his big payback for lying to parliament and it was simply incredible that he was appointed as a representative of the Quartet.

    I expect Chilcot to be a whitewash like Hutton – as Craig said Peter Oborne will be better and George Galloway’s film better still.

    • Laguerre

      “I don’t expect Chilcot to comment on to what extent this war was to remove a potential threat to Israel.”

      Israel wasn’t the only thing, though important. The NeoCons were slavering at the possibility of getting Iraqi oil in their hands, which they didn’t succeed in the end.

  • farrukh

    I fail to comprehend how a human rights lawyer gets off by sleeping with a war criminal? The Cherie and Tony puzzle is confusing indeed.

    • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leaders'

      Their fingers are way too deep in the jam and cookie jars than to be getting off. They’re in it together. And she’s hardly a trophy of an Angel herself.

      And do you think that Hillary will get her chance of revenge and following suit with BJ’s in the Oval Office?

  • Ben Monad

    ‘Can’ is lightyears from ‘will’. check out the Dubya/Cheney Bund. They aren’t even working up a sweat because they know it’s a bridge too far to prosecute former elected members of state.

    Hillary Clinton has escaped the net. they will never bring their own to justice. It’s too much of a bother and way too embarrassing for their former supporters/enablers.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    It’s not inconceivable that Blair went into Iraq having been advised that the ICC couldn’t touch him, but, hey, ignorance of the law is no excuse, after all.

    For reference,

    Dedicated site, ongoing commentary and updates.
    Includes an interesting reverse ferret by Butler, and the obvious response (‘balls!’, en clair) to Sarah (nee Helms) Powells assertion that bad mans Bush bullied Blair into committing.

  • Anon1

    Craig made a special thread for nutters interested in chemtrails and molten steel.

  • David Halpin

    This is the link to an essay I wrote in the Autumn of 2010

    Blair was in the dock. He was being interrogated about his crimes, this paramount psychopath and war criminal.

    The incineration of the arms of 9 year old Ali Abbas, the deep burning of his trunk, the incineration of his Mum and Dad and 10 relatives were reason enough in a CIVILIZED country to indict and imprison Blair. Otherwise, NO western leader with the same terrible flaws will ever be inhibited in killing and maiming millions.

    I am certain the cause of the incineration was a neutron weapon. It destroys tissue rather than inert material, and there is less blast. Ali’s village lay between the Al Rashid base where the Iraqi Republican guard were quartered and Baghdad Airport. There was a tremendous fight for it – for an aerial bridgehead. (I cannot find the reference now but there was a report of the surface layers of the airport being removed. Neutron bombs produce isotopes.)

    Kelly. June 2003. The germ warfare machines in the deserts. He ‘they are what the Iraqis say they are. Machines for producing hydrogen for artillery balloons.’ (BAE sold them to Iraq.)
    Kelly was going off message for the sofa psychopaths. He would have known what weapons were used. 5 hard discs with encryption in his house. Just think – a nation destroyed on a pretext plucked from thin air – WMD, Hussein a ‘threat to the world.’ But NO WMDs. And evidence that the ‘Christian’ west had used WMDs in Iraq. ** The ‘war’ was even more unpopular at that time. The dirty cat could not be let out of the bag.

    13 years ago Dr David Kelly was likely assassinated. this one of 8 essays, 6 by me on David Kelly

    ** I believe the same weapon was used in the 1991 ‘turkey shoot’.

    • Ben Monad

      I see consistency amongst the Chief Patsies of State. Dubya, Bliar, Obummer and Hillary are just the house niggahs who have just enough control (like what’s being served for dinner) and titling so that we assume they are the fulcrum of evil. Bollocks. They are just the android servants performing their marching orders. They see some moral victory like Gay Marriage and use that to justify every other act of treachery, but the trail of bodies doesn’t deter them from the greater good.

    • Pyewacket

      From all the comments I’ve so far read David, yours appears to be the first to mention the alleged suicide of Dr Kelly, and his role in refuting the WMD myths, like 45 minutes and all that. Sadly his memory, and the strange circumstances surrounding his death appear to have slipped from public consciousness, and are now regarded as something that was sad, but well, happened a long time ago, and is now well buried, with a big fat time limited disclosure (100 years ?) to make sure it stays that way for a long time. Getting to the point; I was wondering whether there is anything mentioned in Chilcot’s Report relating to Dr Kelly, it would be strange if there wasn’t, but if there is, it should make interesting reading.

      • David Halpin

        Thanks Pyewacket.

        Carne Ross who headed the UN arms control unit in NY (I recall only) which was steered no doubt towards Hussein and his ‘real and present threat’ to our world, was called to give evidence at the Chilcot Conversation/Tea Party. He was instructed NOT TO MENTION KELLY. Thats the way to handle witnesses as they come forward to a committee of 5, one of whom, a Zionist, wrote Blair’s war speech for ? Chicago.

        You grasp, I am sure, how welcome would be the leaking of the use of a ”WMD” to the sofered cabinet 2 months after an invasion and massive bombardment which a majority in the world opposed?

        I have not had ONE word either in agreement or opposition to my strong belief, based on analysis of Ali’s injuries, that a neutron weapon was used.

        Britain never never shall be slaves. Sic, sic.

  • Alcyone: Our Type Zero Global Civilisation Archetype 'Leaders'

    Ben, do you pay your taxes?

    This meter here is for real:

    ” Every hour, taxpayers in United States are paying
    $8.36 million for Total Cost of Wars Since 2001.”

    You poor sods. And do you feel any sense of urgency to sort out the politics in your own country, rather than ‘back-dooring’ here?

  • James

    So…. where does the “buck” stop ?

    Being “Number One” in “Number 10” seems to be a great job.
    It comes with “all the benefits” and “zilch” blow back.

    It’s that old “we are a democracy” thing again.
    The Party chose the leader …..and the people chose the Party.

    Democracy is rapidly becoming the byword for “kop out”.

  • glenn_uk

    I like the way Blair’s apologists try to claim it’s technically impossible to try him, rather than deny the fact that he IS a war criminal.

    ps – typo : 6th para, “He can be tried by n international tribunal…”

  • charles drake

    tory blair is a survivor
    in some ways are
    kissoff kissinger a
    rapper are
    david fockerfella skank.
    do not writ or write off
    a giant man walking amongst us
    tory blair a
    living malthus thomas robert
    for are age
    with 24 and 7 police prtotection.

    do not curse or make threat for a man
    with such bild burger chatham house
    brookings pinac connections
    thats the chatham house rules boyz
    do not mess with the flesh
    you pass the skull bone test.

    i met reggie and ronnie once at a shindig hosted by
    lord boothby even though they where working class scum
    i was very respectful not because they crushed heads for kicks
    but because of the boyz masonic connections.
    fear and respect of the club who protects member.
    leon britainski lord mcalpine robert maxwell and cuddly
    lord janner and today bilery fbi clear clinton .
    some folks
    have castle walls of common purpose protection.

    above the law no
    when your friends own and write it.
    be assured
    leveson enquires chilcot reports
    lessons will be processed and learned.
    next time stronger depleted uranium bombs munitions will be used
    2 million dead poor bomb ratio to kill zone show

  • Mark Golding

    It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

    Jack Straw – 23 July 2002
    Private meeting on Iraq-
    chaired by the PM Blair.

    Published in the Sunday Times on 1 May 2005.

    Jack Straw must be subpoenaed to give evidence after Blair’s indictment for war crimes.

    • bevin

      Ther’ve got the UNSC stitched up.
      The job is one that must be done in the UK and impeachment is the obvious way to do it- after a General Election in which candidates are required-by electors- to signify whether or not they would support a motion to impeach.
      Compared to Blair and his entire gang Warren Hastings was an angel.

    • Martinned

      The Security Council can simply refer a situation to the ICC. No need to set up a separate tribunal. (The whole point of the ICC is to dispense with the need for separate tribunals.)

      That still doesn’t solve the nulla poena problem, though.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    UN Charter – Article 2, paragraph 4 :-
    “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
    George Galloway:-
    “The members of parliament long ago reached the judgment that Tony Blair lied to the House, which is [as] grave an offense [as] any prime minister can commit against democracy, against the parliament,”
    Charge, trial – or – impeachment

    Comment: Attempts at Corbyn ouster relates to the Chilcot report and the implications for Blair post-publication.

  • Courtenay Barnett


    Tony Blair claimed ‘‘we know that he [Saddam Hussein] had stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons, we know that he is trying to acquire nuclear capability, we know that he is trying to develop ballistic capability of a greater range’’.
    “There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,” said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat

  • fwl

    The wiki page on War of Aggression is v informative and easy to understand. There does not seem to be a doubt that there is this established concept within international law. There is a practical difficulty of how the strong resist the call to be tried.

    • Martinned

      There is now, after years of negotiation. And even now the relevant legal instruments haven’t entered into force yet. (They will some time next year, IIRC.)

1 2

Comments are closed.