Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Bush and Blair to face war crimes trial

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6336333.stm
























Well we an all have a dream can't we? :p

Intersting concept though, the 'criminalisation of war'. If only those who instigate war got locked up, Presidents, Prime Ministers et al, perhaps the world would be a far better place.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Certainly an interesting concept - though the subtext doesn't seem be to criminalise war, but to criticise Blair and Bush, which is different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Certainly an interesting concept - though the subtext doesn't seem be to criminalise war, but to criticise Blair and Bush, which is different.

    :yes:

    Interesting concept though, which once again begs the question, who would enforce such legislation?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :yes:

    Interesting concept though, which once again begs the question, who would enforce such legislation?

    Human rights lawyers with flak jackets, Warrior APCs and rifles?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whereas in some cases it'd be easy to prove who started hostilities, in other cases it would be a lot muddier. And what could you do then? Sending someone to trial for defending themselves doesn't sound right.

    But in the cases where there is a clear instigator it would be a welcome move and might save a lot of lives in the long term.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about when a bunch of "freedom fighters" rise up to fight a dictator? Would you punish the people of Zimbabwe for attacking Mugabe, for example? Because technically Mugabe isn't involved in war, he's involved in "law enforcement." So you're still ending up with someone needing to judge what is unprovoked aggression, and what is justified violence. Not much different then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is the point of this?

    Who is going to define what war is?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The point isn't to criminalise war but to criticise the US. Fair do's, but lets not be hypocritical and admit that's the entire point...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Whereas in some cases it'd be easy to prove who started hostilities, in other cases it would be a lot muddier. And what could you do then? Sending someone to trial for defending themselves doesn't sound right.

    But in the cases where there is a clear instigator it would be a welcome move and might save a lot of lives in the long term.

    As much as I'd love to see him go down, the USA withdrew from the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

    So really, what can be done?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    What is the point of this?

    Who is going to define what war is?
    In the old days they were grand multi-page declaration of wars. I guess nowadays the only declaration that's felt is needed is sending the first wave of Tomahawks over.

    Hell, you even get nations claiming to wage war not on nations or individuals but abstract concepts (war on 'terror').

    Though since the attacker in this case is more than happy to claim themselves they are 'at war' I guess that's all the evidence a tribunal would need.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    As much as I'd love to see him go down, the USA withdrew from the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

    So really, what can be done?
    Was Milosevic a signatory of either body?

    I thought anyone can be sent to The Hague if they are thought to have commited serious war crimes or crimes against humanity. In the case of of Dubya and Blair that's a no brainer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes...
    But war is not the same as occupation, invasion, systematic extermination and genocide... and this malaysian dude is actually talking about those... not war.

    Sounds better though, doesn't it .... criminalize war!
    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :yes:

    Interesting concept though, which once again begs the question, who would enforce such legislation?

    Which begs the question, why the need for legislation ?

    I recall someone came up with, some have said,a very radical hypothesis a decade ago.

    It turned out to be VERY unpopular with the legislators and they declared war on him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    In the old days they were grand multi-page declaration of wars. I guess nowadays the only declaration that's felt is needed is sending the first wave of Tomahawks over.

    As a matter of interest declerations of war have always been a rarity. There was no decleration of war by either side during the Falklands, Korea, Soviet invasion of Hungary or Afghanistam
    Hell, you even get nations claiming to wage war not on nations or individuals but abstract concepts (war on 'terror').

    So, how's that different from say war on want or war on child poverty?
    Though since the attacker in this case is more than happy to claim themselves they are 'at war' I guess that's all the evidence a tribunal would need

    It would be an odd sort of tribunal if the only evidence is needed to decide whether it was a just war was the fact that someone is at war. Still as I said we're not really seeking to criminalise war are we?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, how's that different from say war on want or war on child poverty?
    A war on child poverty is not a 'war' in the traditional meaning of the word- for the purpose of this discussion anyway.


    It would be an odd sort of tribunal if the only evidence is needed to decide whether it was a just war was the fact that someone is at war. Still as I said we're not really seeking to criminalise war are we?
    It's only an idea to pass the time on a Friday... :D

    though if there was a serious international commitment to seek the arrest and trial of any world leader who starts a war of agression or otherwise unjustified, perhaps some conflicts and misery could be avoided.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    A war on child poverty is not a 'war' in the traditional meaning of the word- for the purpose of this discussion anyway..

    Arguably neither is the 'war on terror'


    It's only an idea to pass the time on a Friday... :D

    I'm bored as well
    though if there was a serious international commitment to seek the arrest and trial of any world leader who starts a war of agression or otherwise unjustified, perhaps some conflicts and misery could be avoided

    Only if you could arrest him. Frankly if the Swiss wandered in and tried to arrest Blair I think that there would be a lot of very miserable widows very shortly afterwards.

    Anyway it even the criminalisation of war wouldn't avoid conflict and misery. Without war Hitler would still be in power (OK he'd be very old), Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein etc, etc and plenty of people would still be under fear and misery. Fear of force by others (or war) is one of the few limiting factors on people like Mugabe, the regime in Darfur etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Based on this, technically as the war on terror is not a real war, then any action taken as part of the war on terror can be justified as not war. But in the case of saying war-like actions are indeed war, then shouldnt all freedom fighters/terrorists, depending on which side you are on, be called criminals? Wasnt both the leaders of Israel AND hamas, hezbollah, that bloke who wore a tea towel on his dead and was leader of the PLO all criminals? Were the IRA waging war or were they "disturbances"?

    It all seems a little took murky, to single out individual cases purely because it is cut and dry and ignore other cases, even though the same rules would apply.

    Like, the Croat leader was a western "ally" in the Balkans war, yet he was just as bad as Milosevic and the Serb leadership was. It is all murky.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Arguably neither is the 'war on terror'.
    Well no. I was referring to wars in the traditional meaning of the word, i.e. chaps kitting up with various weapons and chopping each other off or civilian population they come by.

    A war on poverty is not fought by dropping bombs on fields so crops will be coerced into growing faster you know... :p




    Only if you could arrest him. Frankly if the Swiss wandered in and tried to arrest Blair I think that there would be a lot of very miserable widows very shortly afterwards.
    Normally yes. In the case of Tony Blair I would have thought most British soldiers would have gladly stepped aside and even given the Swiss directions to Downing Street :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well no. I was referring to wars in the traditional meaning of the word, i.e. chaps kitting up with various weapons and chopping each other off or civilian population they come by.

    That's the War on terror of that list as well then, because its not about just killing the enemy (war never is), but about the use of force together with political and economic means
    Normally yes. In the case of Tony Blair I would have thought most British soldiers would have gladly stepped aside and even given the Swiss directions to Downing Street :D

    There is that of course...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    what kind of jackass tries to legislate war? War is the final and most decisive way of effecting change, you can't just declare it illegal and expect it to go away

    1) "War is terrible! We're going to make it illegal!"

    2) "Ok, so I guess that means prosecuting those who start wars eh?"

    1) "Of course! They are guilty of committing crimes against humanity"

    2) "Ok, and how exactly are you planning on arresting the leaders of a country or armed factions who choose not to turn themselves in?"

    1) "We'll arm and train soldiers to invade and take them by force!"

    2) "........riiiiiight"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Was Milosevic a signatory of either body?

    I thought anyone can be sent to The Hague if they are thought to have commited serious war crimes or crimes against humanity. In the case of of Dubya and Blair that's a no brainer.

    Yugoslavia are signed up to the ICJ, but Serbia are not. I'm unsure about the ICC, which I think would have been the court he went to?

    I'l research it for you if you like, but rght now I need a beer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair court or no court we got Milosevic because we slammed sanctions on Serbia after bombing the shit out of them... Hardly a good example of the criminalisation of war (and to be fair whilst the Serbs were nasty bastards who committed some hideous war crimes the actual cause of the war was more complex than nasty Serbs bullying their neighbours)
Sign In or Register to comment.