Blair prosecution opposed by attorney general, says paper

The attorney general hopes to block a private prosecution against Tony Blair over the Iraq war, a report says.

The Guardian claims that Jeremy Wright QC will step in over the case raised by the Iraqi army’s former chief of staff.

The newspaper says it has seen legal papers showing General Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat wants to prosecute the former Labour prime minister for the crime of “aggression”.

But it says a court ruled in 2016 Mr Blair could not be prosecuted.

The Guardian says the case also wants to bring the prosecution against former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and ex-Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

Read on…


15 thoughts on “Blair prosecution opposed by attorney general, says paper

  1. And our local MPs all voted for the illegal war and mass killing of iraqi civilians and deaths of our armed forces.

    Helping to make the UK a more unsafe place


    • The Iraq war wasn’t illegal. The ceasefire resolution in the first gulf war was dependent on various conditions, almost none of which Saddam fulfilled. The US and UK took from the start the position that in such an event the ceasefire would be void. China and Russia took the view that the matter should be referred back to the security council in the event of a violation. As permanent members of the security council who refrained from exercising their veto on condition that they might interpret the ceasefire resolution thus and so the interpretations of both US/UK and China/Russia were arguable pending a clarifying resolution. In this case there was a clarifying resolution passed in the aftermath of the invasion. It empowered US/UK to act as occupying powers. If the invasion was illegal the Security Council was complicit, which is incoherent as the Council makes international law.
      Nor did the war kill a million people. That figure is based on treble and quadruple counting and the assumption that the Iraqi death toll if we hadn’t invaded would have been half that estimated by the UN for the years immediately prior to the war and a fraction of what it had been when Saddam was waging war on Iran/Kuwait/his own people.
      I opposed the war but I can’t stand the lazy rehashing of fashionable but false claims


      • Extraordinary Rendition on the other hand was entirely illegal and the Blair Government lied to Parliament about our role in it.


      • George
        What about the lies to mislead parliament and ignore the public opposition and record protests.

        Then campbell and his dodgy dossier etc etc etc


        • I agree 100%. I was against the war and never believed Saddam had usable weapons of mass destruction. The war was a disaster and accompanied by crimes. But it wasn’t a crime under international law in my opinion though you can find international lawyers on both sides of the issue.


        • I remember one guy, in the lead up to the war, when the UN inspectors were still in Iraq, saying “this is the first time in history we have been allowed to check a country doesn’t have any weapons before invading them to disarm them of the weapons we know they haven’t got”. Pretty much nailed it.


  2. I’m sorry but why are we bothered about prosecuting Tony Blair?

    Wouldn’t we be better jailing the abusive British Army soldiers who raped, beat and humiliated the civilians you lot seem to care so much about?


  3. ‘better jailing the abusive British Army soldiers who raped, beat and humiliated the civilians…?’

    Fake news peddled by people who love to denigrate our armed forces.
    I didn’t see your post protesting about the suicide bomber who killed innocent refugee women and children whose bus was blown up by a jihadist last week?

    Let’s see real valid evidence of the so called “crimes” committed by our armed forces. I don’t want second or third hand tales from anti-western stooges, just solid, unrefutable evidence.
    As for Blair, why wouldn’t you support a prosecution against him?


    • Prosecute both Colin…

      I’ve no reason to tell lies about my claims, in fact there is a film being made about it right now. Hows that for you?


  4. I did not accuse you of lying, please don’t infer other meanings to my post.

    ‘in fact there is a film being made about it right now……’ All well and good except………………………..
    Who is funding the film, who’s written it and who’s directing it?

    If it is anything like the left wing dirge “I Daniel” it will be a waste of space.


    • Sorry Colin but you called it fake news…and its not. There are videos on line and a small amount of media coverage you can refer to but this isn’t about that. This is about something much bigger.

      So, in order;

      Who is funding? A friend of mine.
      Who is writing the film? He has.
      Who is directing it? Its a documentary with very few ‘scenes’ per se as the information is all referenced, checked, double checked, backed up, so there is no chance any of its ‘fake news’ so there will be very little directing needing.

      Its quite interesting actually as it blows the whole issue wide open and there are certain people who have a lot to fear simply cause those who do wrong are morally bound to fear exposure.

      My views didn’t stem from meeting this chap, they came from a variety of experiences which ceased and my views were present but not active for about a year and then I met this guy. Its not something I am forcing on people but I intend to speak out as/when I can as not many people do.

      I spoke out against abuse in Rotherham and that got me in to bother, and I’ll speak out against what Brit Army did in countries the world over, which will get me in to bother. I can’t allow injustice to slide.

      Any other issues? Wait for the film/book.


  5. I fail to understand your fixation/obsession with the alleged wrongdoings of British armed forces in Iraq while at the same time appearing to ignore the rapes,looting and executions carried out by the insurgents.


    • Colin’s question for Paddy may come up in this election for Corbyn. The officers of the Stop the war coalition (Corbyn was President) circulated a draft resolution supporting the insurgents right to use any means they considered necessary. The wording was changed after the execution of Ken Bigley I think. But the debate was between those who supported only attacks on Coalition troops and those who refused to condemn even the slaughter of civilians. If Corbyn held to a third view favouring non violent resistance only he was silent about it. Indeed, if he had, he would never have approved the initial draft. Being charitable and assuming Corbyn supported the moderates we are left with a man who supported attacks on British troops contending for the premiership.


      • BTW, though I can’t be bothered to find the link that’s all from a left website that opposed the war, not the Daily Mail.


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.