High Court Judges Defy Reason to Protect Tony Blair 121

There were a number of errors (by me) in this original posting and therefore I have decided to remove it now I have seen the judgement itself. That these errors were in large part caused by erroneous mainstream media reports is a fact, but not an excuse for my being so outraged I rushed in without checking.

In fact, the judgement does accept there is a longstanding crime of waging aggressive war as part of international law, and does not (contrary to the Guardian’s report) argue at all that the international law only came into existence recently.

It argues however that international law is only captured in UK Law when this is done specifically through an Act of Parliament. Indeed the judgement goes so far as to state:

“the clear principle that it is for Parliament to make such conduct criminal under domestic law. Parliament deliberately chose not to do so.”

This surely is problematic. The judgement states that the UK, deliberately, does not follow international law in its domestic law. So the UK is an institutionalised rogue state. Its internal arrangements allow its rulers, its armed forces and other actors to commit international crimes and flout international law with no fear of domestic repercussion as a matter of conscious choice.

It would not be beyond the wit of man to draft domestic legislation making it a crime for those acting in service of the British state to breach international law; it would not be necessary to have separate legislation enacting each piece of international law individually. Separate legislation is however possible and often done – when in the FCO I was often concerned with the enactment of treaty or other international obligations into domestic law, which is generally by secondary legislation.

When Sir Michael Wood, the FCO’s chief legal adviser, told Jack Straw it would be illegal to invade Iraq, Straw replied that there was no court that could try the case. The full significance of that did not really strike me until today. It is no accident; the UK is deliberately set up to be psychopathic entity, its elite breaking international law at will, with no fear of retribution.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

121 thoughts on “High Court Judges Defy Reason to Protect Tony Blair

1 2 3
  • Ezra Cohen-Watnik, Secret Agent

    There is a silver lining. The foregone conclusion of municipal-law impunity bolsters admissibility in the ICC. The apex court’s affirmation of impunity has forced America’s British satellite to state plainly that it is unwilling or unable to prosecute these crimes, invoking Rome Statute Article 17(b).

    Such bad-faith interpretation of the Rome Statute compromises British sovereignty in law. In practice, the British state has ceded its sovereignty to the USG. The US commands British use of force to save US government face, and in the NATO bloc that supersedes jus cogens. Illegal British use of force in Iraq was dictated to palliate US diplomatic isolation. Britain’s ‘key role’ in Libya was dictated as delayed retribution for the black eye Libya gave the US a quarter-century ago: Libya shot down 10 US aircraft and lost five of 25 SAM units.


    That kind of cost imposed on a thin-skinned, discredited aggressor triggered US threats of force in 1991 (deterred by Libya’s resort to pacific dispute resolution at the ICJ) and again in 2011.

    As the US weakens and loses influence, the British regime will be forced to be increasingly servile. That’s where Brexit comes in. Does anybody think the vote for Brexit would have been permitted if CIA didn’t approve?

    • Peter Beswick

      Wot Ezra sez, except for last sentence.

      As US weakens and loses influence (as is happening now) Britain will become less useful.

      Brexit leaves the EU as an unknown quantity. Unknowns are always badly managed. (Well knowns cause the CIA deep problems in management).

      June 16 (Brexit Ref) the CIA had other problems. Again left alone by the British media.


      The US is in the shit it is largely thanks to the CIA.

      May they continue to fuck up and hasten the inevitable collapse of their cancerous empire.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Peter Beswick August 1, 2017 at 23:05
        ‘….The US is in the shit it is largely thanks to the CIA.
        May they continue to fuck up and hasten the inevitable collapse of their cancerous empire…….’
        I wish you were right; unfortunately history tells us otherwise. When was the last time they fucked up? Bay of pigs? Well, we know what happened to JFK.
        Vietnam? Plenty of arms manufacturers would disagree (beaucoup flooce!).
        Ditto for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc.; the desired ‘Yinon Plan’ Balkanisation of Arab and Muslim countries surrounding Israel, plus ‘beaucoup flooce’ for the arms contractors.
        I’m afraid we’re in for a rough ride…

  • Peter Beswick

    Good commentary here for those unqualified in legal stuff, like me.


    It pushes at the absurdity of English Law being perverted by politicians with the help of the judiciary.

    One Law for the ruling class, another for the rest of us.

    But it also gives a glimmer of hope to those that want justice. It wasn’t the British public who wanted war with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and soon Iran, Russia, North Korea and China. It was / is the politicians (noted that it is the publics fault for allowing them to be in parliament). They have committed very serious crimes that must be addressed or Britain will fall into anarchy or formal dictatorship (most probably both, the latter first)

    For the rest of his days on Earth Blair will be hunted down, I hope a chill went down his spine when the 96 year old Nazi got banged up for 4 years this week for his part in WW2 atrocities.


    And how the propagandists would have you see it;


  • Peter Rix

    Surely the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces should be in the frame for permitting aggressive war crimes to take place during her watch. Jack Straw is right, there is no court big enough to take this one on as it would cascade a constitutional crisis not seen since the 1640s. Unless we want a really big shake up that is!

    • Sharp Ears

      No unfortunately not. Her Maj’s powers have been divested to her underlings and thus any culpability.

      ‘The Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces is a position vested in the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, who as Sovereign and head of state is the “Head of the Armed Forces”. Long-standing constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority, by the exercise of Royal Prerogative powers, in the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Prime Minister (acting with the support of the Cabinet) makes the key decisions on the use of the armed forces. The Queen, however, remains the “ultimate authority” of the military, with officers and personnel swearing allegiance only to the monarch.’

      A grey area though, as she has ultimate authority.


      • Peter Rix

        Thanks Sharp Ears,
        I noticed this Wikipedia quote too.
        The grey area you refer to about the ‘ultimate authority’ for the armed forces, as with the judiciary(?) is that the State’s responsibility for war crimes ( both in this country and internationally ) is above the Law, and we are therefore as subjects already living in the dictatorship mentioned in Peter Beswick’s post. With the anarchy exported to Iraq, Syria, Libya ad infinitum.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.