|
Letter to the Editor - Kiwi judge calls Blair a criminal by Larry Ross, May 15, 2007
51a, Parklands Drive
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kiwi judge calls Blair a criminal by Irene Chapple - Sunday Star Times, May 13, 2007
A New Zealand Supreme Court judge has launched a blistering attack on outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, effectively calling him a war criminal for his role in the Iraq conflict. Justice Ted Thomas, who retired last year but still presides over ongoing cases, told the Sunday Star-Times yesterday that Blair "deceived Cabinet, parliament and the British people" over the war. And in a hard-hitting essay published in British journal The Spokesman this month, Thomas writes: "As extreme as it sounds, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that, should he be prosecuted at a time when the plea of sovereign immunity is not available, Mr Blair would be found guilty of a war crime." Thomas said Blair would be guilty of the customary international law crime of aggression as the war was launched without legal basis. "A regime change is not the basis for conducting an invasion of another sovereign state." He said Blair misrepresented - and must have known he was misrepresenting - his attorney-general's advice on the legality of the war. The essay has drawn conflicting opinion from across the political spectrum. Act Leader Rodney Hide said he was "astounded" a member of the New Zealand judiciary would launch such an attack. "We get taught at politics 101 there's a distinction between parliament, politics and the judiciary, but here is a judge attacking this PM... his job is to interpret the cases before him, not to engage in politics." National Party shadow attorney-general Chris Finlayson said the commentary was "not proper - but (Thomas) has always made his own rules". But Green MP Keith Locke agreed with Thomas and said Blair had personal responsibility for misleading the public. Locke said it showed admirable judicial independence and could provide Prime Minister Helen Clark with ammunition should she try to talk to the incoming British PM about withdrawing troops from Iraq . Clark was unavailable for comment at press time. Last week, Blair, his leadership crippled by the decision to invade Iraq , announced he would stand down on June 27. He defended the decision to send troops, saying "hand on heart, I did what I thought was right". But Thomas's savage essay accuses Blair of treating the foreign affairs portfolio as his "personal fiefdom". Blair, says Thomas, became "almost like a parrot" to the neo-conservatism of US president George W Bush's administration during his tenure. He says the war is "also an indictment on the political system" which failed to hold him to account over the manipulation of intelligence. The lack of political checks meant Blair "was not constrained from committing political, immoral and illegal misdemeanours". The US-led invasion began in 2003 after the Bush administration declared Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein held weapons of mass destruction, a claim later found to be false. Hussein was hanged in December for his role in the 1982 Dujail massacre. Since the war began, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of coalition troops have been killed. Thomas wrote Blair also showed "effective complicity" in the US practice of extraordinary rendition - in which prisoners are deported to countries where they can be tortured. The essay, written as a judicial investigation, said it was "incongruous" Blair had not resigned or been forced to resign over the war, which "was based on a delusion, and which has had such calamitous and humanly tragic consequences. In short, he has not been held accountable in parliament for the manipulation of the intelligence or the deception he practised in pursuit of the war". But speaking yesterday to the Star-Times, Thomas said it was "beyond feasibility" Blair would ever stand trial for a war crime. "It will never happen, but (Blair) may have to be circumspect as to which countries he visits." Thomas has not shied from controversy. He successfully took an injunction to stop the All Blacks touring South Africa in 1985 and worked on a case in which Greenpeace obtained damages against the French government for sinking the Rainbow Warrior. But he told the Star- Times he considers himself a "political eunuch". He published the essay after announcing his retirement because judges should be "aloof" from politics.
Editorial War Crimes by Ken Coates, The spokesman Review, May 2007
On the 3rd April 2007, the Russian News Agency, Novosti, reported a statement by Yuri Baluyevsky, the head of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff. He warned that ‘ Washington needs to think twice before launching a military campaign against Tehran, as such an attack would have global implications'. The General said that it might be realistic to anticipate that the Americans could inflict damage on Iran's military and industrial potential: ‘but winning the war is unachievable – its reverberations would be heard across the world'. General Baluyevsky said that when deciding upon military action against Iran, the US leadership should bear in mind the negative experience it had garnered in other countries of the region. He warned that if the US goes to war with Iran as well as Afghanistan and Iraq ‘the world may see America decline as the world's mightiest and most powerful state'. Other Russian spokesmen had previously warned of possible American air strikes on April 6th, Good Friday. There have also been repeated warnings by critics of the regime in Washington , not so specific, but pointing up strong possibilities of such military initiatives. White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, denied all these stories at a news briefing on Monday 2nd April. The news had been widely reported that the American aircraft carrier, Nimitz, with a supporting flotilla of lesser ships, was bound for the Persian Gulf to join other aircraft carrier strike groups already hovering there. The American military claimed that the presence of two major carriers in the Gulf was ‘intended to demonstrate US “resolve to build regional security and bring long term stability to the region”.' Previously fifteen British sailors and marines had been detained by Iranian forces, when they were alleged to be operating in Iranian territorial waters. This allegation had been strenuously, even belligerently, denied by Tony Blair , although Craig Murray, the former Ambassador in Tashkent, who was victimised by the Foreign Office for undiplomatically speaking up for human rights in Uzbekistan, offered rather compelling testimony to show that arguments about the positioning of the frontier between Iraqi and Iranian territorial waters were somewhat metaphysical in nature. Before his time in Tashkent, Mr. Murray spent several years in a basement in Whitehall, seeking to determine maritime boundaries for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He had been personally responsible in the Embargo Surveillance Centre for getting ‘individual real time clearance for the Royal Navy to board specific vessels in these waters'. He says of the present dispute: Mr. Murray continues: Apparently the boundary line between the waters of Iraq and Iran is based upon an extrapolation of the boundary which divides the Shatt Al-Arab Waterway. This boundary shifts with the shifting banks of the Waterway itself, so that manifestly its extension can be subject to important variations. As Murray tells us, the Stars and Stripes magazine (October 24 h 2006) reports: None of these considerations inhibited the rhetoric of Mr. Blair. President Bush, however, was even less restrained. He called the detainees ‘hostages', a term which not even the British had evoked. At the time of writing, although we are very agnostic about the anticipated Good Friday aerial bombardment of Iran, and although we remain hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the argument about the detention of British military personnel, it is clear that events are very mobile, and that rationality dawns very much in fits and starts among some of the senior personnel. Is there any evidence that the British diplomats and top military brass have been able to restrain Mr. Blair , or lock him in a cellar until the dispute is satisfactorily settled? Fortunately, he will soon be gone, but these contemporary crises do show that we remain in rather dire danger right up to the actual point of his departure. For a long time we have tended towards the opinion that the extension of American hostilities into Iran was improbable for the very reason given by Yuri Baluyevsky. Even if the realities of the power balance may elude President Bush, it is perfectly evident that large numbers of senior American statesmen, not to say Generals and diplomats, have a greatly more realistic appreciation of the balance of military force. Long ago, we reported the judicious assessment of General Odom, of the effects of the American conquest of Iraq , which, he said, had strengthened America 's enemies, revived Al Qaeda, and made Iran the unchallenged power in the region. Even if the weight of informed opinion in Washington may not be quite enough to cancel the aggravated imbecility of the man in the White House, there is the further weight of America 's allies. Saudi Arabia , in particular, is expressing open criticism of war talk against Iran . If the neo-cons were to succeed in unleashing the malnourished dogs of their wars on Tehran , they could wind up not only strengthening the Iranians, but fatally undermining their long-term Middle Eastern allies. There was once a time when a famous strategist declared that ‘imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers'. We took leave to doubt this presumption when it was fashionable in some places. But due to the exertions of Mr Bush, ably assisted by Mr. Blair, it almost begins to be true. We are about to see the end of the Blair administration. The elections at the beginning of May 2007 give rise to dismal forecasts about the prospects for the Labour Party, and it is generally presumed that the Prime Minister will make his farewells shortly after those elections, while there may remain two or three supporters to whom he can bid goodbye. Our grief will not be measureless, and many people may even share in the sense of relief which will accompany Mr. Blair 's departure. But a judicious assessment of the events which have given rise to this dismal balance sheet will most probably reflect the wisdom of the title chosen by Judge Thomas of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, for his magisterial paper. We have been persuaded to publish this text, because it is not only ‘an indictment of Tony Blair ', but also because it documents ‘the failure of the political process' which has given rise to the horrors in Iraq, and a major crisis of confidence in Government and democratic institutions more widely. Where does the writ of the democratic process run, when that process has been so widely travestied, ignored, and even violated? The cogent case for impeachment of the Prime Minister was made in England by a group of British Parliamentarians, led by the spokesmen of the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist Parties. A debate was secured by Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party, and supported by a cross-Party coalition of members. One hundred and sixty-four signatures were obtained for Early Day Motion 1088, Conduct of Government Policy in Relation to the War against Iraq . Among these were thirty-three Labour members, sixty Conservatives and fifty-nine Liberal Democrats. Adam Price MP explained the thinking behind this motion: He was supported by Alex Salmond, SNP Leader: The text of the motion is based on Early Day Motion 1088: But here we now have the considered opinion of a senior Judge from New Zealand, who, weighing every word, offers us conclusions and refreshing candour long missing in British official pronouncements. ‘I believe that the forty-five minute claim had to be a knowing lie'. How many British Ministers and senior public servants must have known this? How many Judges must have swallowed deeply, and found more decorous descriptions to cover it? And how many British people have pondered the implications in deep frustration? Deliberate lies at the head of Government annul the foundations of trust by the governed, and lower all official thinking to new levels of duplicity and hypocrisy. Judge Thomas has laid down a powerful challenge. ‘The shortcomings in the political process are self-evident', he says, ‘in that the Prime Minister was not constrained from committing the above political, immoral and illegal misdemeanours, nor has he been held accountable for them.' Until accountability is reimposed, we cannot re-establish honest, political discourse. Evidently politicians have told lies before. But now we live with untruths that cannot be corrected, with falsehoods that have become official. Where the lie rules, logic itself gives way to unreason. Ken Coates ~ Footnotes
The Original Essay ~~ An Indictment of Tony Blair, and the Failure of the Political Process by Judge E W Thomas Terrorism has undoubtedly put a strain upon democratic institutions, the democratic process and basic democratic precepts. Many people are concerned that the effectiveness of the political process has been eroded and that the rule of law and fundamental human rights and civil liberties have been placed in jeopardy. They are troubled by the feeling that democracy is more fragile and their freedoms more precarious than previously though. Some look to the judiciary to maintain the rule of law and protect human rights and civil liberties. But axiomatic that the rule of law and human rights and, indeed, democracy itself, will not survive, much less flourish, if the only safeguard is to be found in the legal system. The judiciary's power and influence is limited, especially in a legal system where the judges are regularly reminded by lawyers, legal academics, political scientists, politicians, writers of letters to the editor and others to accept obeisance to the Diceyean concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Primary responsibility for the preservation of the rule of law and human rights, and accountability for any departure from the rule of law or breach of those rights, must exist within the political system. Unless that political responsibility is discharged democracy, or the kind of democracy the people esteem, is in no danger of being undermined. I am not satisfied that, in this age of terrorism, the probity of government and the ability of democratic institutions is adequate to prevent serious inroads into the rule of law, or to monitor the boundary between human rights and their breach or, indeed, to safeguard and secure the democratic process. Nor am I satisfied that those politicians who seek to redefine the rule of law, or those who cross the boundary between the observance of human rights and their breach, or who show less than constitutional respect for the democratic process will be effectively held to account for their default. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To continue reading, print out the PDF in full. It is 37 pages long.
|
