Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Part 2 Tutu Gets Blair Closer To Hague Proceeding

The masonry is cracking, the edifice crumbling, and with a major figure speaking truth to all people, including the infamous "power," the words of Desmond Tutu have gotten Tony Blair closer to a Hague proceeding for war crimes.

Please read the linked articles, and the articles linked within the Guardian sidebar.

Check this out: from the Guardian.
Desmond Tutu also made statements on why he spoke out about Blair.
While Mssrs Blair and Bush took their respective countries into an invasion of a sovereign nation that had not damaged, invaded or threatened either, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands to more than a million. It was a blatant invasion of aggression, according to many, and even the dwindling apologists for both can no longer keep solid the facade of justification for that war. That is a Nuremberg level war crime including breaking rocks on a chain gang sorts of imprisonment as its just punishment.

These walls that have protected the architects of the Iraq invasion are beginning to crumble. While leaders and candidates have claimed they would 'do something' the action taken has been less than, well visible. It's been nonexistent. As a result, Blair has walked free for years, collecting monies for speaking engagements and enjoying the emoluments of a former PM. While the focus also is on Blair alone, his own story brings, of necessity, the stories of others who were cheerleading, amassing forces, ignoring the UN, ignoring the requirements for launching an aggressive action, and ignoring the Law of War, and the international laws surrounding such an invasion.

There is a new article in the Guardian, published after the initial statements of Desmond Tutu, which had focussed on a message of the lawlessness of Mr. Blair, ending with a question directed at us all. What do we tell our children when leaders can lie facilely to initiate wars, and then turn around to tell those same little ones that lying is bad. Being a religious, not a political figure alone, Archbishop Tutu brings moral suasion, moral authority, and the backing of the Anglican Communion when he speaks truth to power.

This might be the reason focus is shifting form "he's a Teflon Leader" to "he might have to stand in the dock." It had to take a leader of Tutu's stature to start the ball rolling. Let us all hope and work toward leaders that lie, whether starting wars or running up huge bills paid with other people's money, stopping as a tolerated way for governments to do business.

It is up to all of us to speak out and take politics back from the mendacious, for if not us, who? If not now, when?


The first related post regarding Archbishop Tutu's comments regarding Tony Blair are here.

It would be nice, but both these guys are artful dodgers. We can only hope, Lillibet.

Siannan, nice to see you again.

Quick question. Which two guys are you referring to as "both"?

Inquiring minds. Okay, it's pretty obvious, but you wouldn't believe what I've been reading today, nor the twisted ways things are described and identified, so I'll not burden you with the nonsense. Much more of this, and I'm going to be convinced gravity can be reversed due to sunspots.

No.

Don't go there...please.

Lillibet, do you really think, based on your readings and analysis, these men will come to be questioned by a world court?

Why do you think the Obama Administration has done nothing to ensure that these human rights violators - Mssrs Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al - see the inside of a criminal court building?

I think that the march to the Hague will happen one of two ways. Either the public in the US and UK will make it impossible to avoid going to the Hague, or another nation will force the issue.

Thus far, our own Justice Department, now filled with former defense lawyers, has shown that barring a case that has no possible, scintilla of evidence showing a not guilty, then nothing will be done. The current crop at Justice take no chances, and we've seen this time and again. Recently, in an unrelated stream of cases, Justice has given a pass to Goldman Sachs. Holder actually claimed there was no 'evidence' sufficient to commence a prosecution, and with time running out, filed nothing that would have stopped the clock. By the time the statute of limitations runs out, in the near future, Goldman Sachs and other similar banks/investment firms, will know their bad deeds are just fine with law enforcement.

For example, in matters criminal but not war crimes, we have an article by Matt Taibbi regarding Goldman Sachs:The reason for no one showing up at the Hague is the same reason that so much criminal activity has gone unpunished in this country.

Yet, the public could raise its own voice, and with enough shouting in the streets, ears would unplug and cases would be filed.

The problem with staffing a prosecutors office with defense lawyers is that defense lawyers think that if they can find the hole in a case, even a small one, that small hole will doom the entire case. This isn't true for two reasons.

First, not all defense lawyers will spot the hole. Plain and simple, not all lawyers are created equal in the brains department. And juries, even if they hear of the hole in the case,might not think it is of such weight that it forms reasonable doubt regarding all charges.

The other reason to not staff the prosecutors office with defense lawyers is that the defense bar is filled with wusses when it comes to prosecution. They are so afraid to lose, which risk is low because prosecutors win about 90 percent of the time at trial, they won't file a single case.

Such has been the last four years.

In England, the House of Commons is exquisitely sensitive to pressure from constituents. On that side of the ocean, the pressure can be brought to file a case.

Or, another nation could bring it to the Hague, which would mean neither the US or UK would have anything to do with making the case to prosecute.

When prosecutors forget they are almost always able to indict the ham sandwich, enforcement of laws becomes a joke. Failing to prosecute means laws can be flouted.

Finally, after Clinton was indicted, then impeached, for a private act that had no business being raised to the level of impeachment, the Republicans ensured that going forward, impeachment would be off the table for every president, at least until those living through the Clinton debacle were all long in the ground. They reduced impeachment to a political sideshow.

It's going to take leaders like Tutu to make leaders accountable for war crimes. There are no such leaders within the partisan US government, where party matters more than law or honor. I hold no illusions that our system will change, but I do hold hope that somewhere there is a leader willing to stand up to the political machine of the US. Failing that, there is no law that will function to keep heinous acts from becoming business as usual.

That is, more than the situation today.

'
You are quite correct, Lillibet.
However, until such time as there are monumental upheavals in governance in the US and UK, the public are irrelevant in both of the two totalitarian nations -- and the ruling classes will never permit one of their own to be thrown to the wolves ; it sets a "bad precedent" that could affect other members of their class.

So, in the foreseeable future, Blair and Bush would need to be arrested and detained by the courts of other countries they might visit. At present, Blair is more vulnerable to such an outcome, though, as time goes on, and Bush and his cronies become more and more last week's moldy hash, they, too, might finally get more than they bargained for.

Which brings to mind the finding that Bush and Blair were ruled war criminals recently.

If you recall, Bush, Blair and the 'gang' were all accused and tried in Kuala Lumpur. Similarly, warrants have been issued in Europe, prompting Bush to cancel travel to Switzerland, while Rumsfeld is not going to other European nations for the same reasons.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others were separately accused of and tried for committing war crimes including torture, and other crimes in violation of the International Laws of War.

Please do a little snooping around the various search engines to find articles on this. There is much information regarding the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes hearings.

It will be up to the people in many nations to pressure various governments and institutions such as the UN, The Hague, and others to take action. Obviously the US isn't interested, and the UK is showing less enthusiasm than the US demonstrates. I'm not advocating for unwarranted punishment, but for proceedings to be instituted, and upon obtaining information that warrants a trial, for such trial to occur. It was important in the past for such trials to take place, when the US was more or less on the side of the angels. Now that the position of the US has changed, we still need to go through with this, or acts done in our name will haunt our children, their children, and so on for generations to come.