International Cat Speculators Since 2006

No Right Turn is encouraging vigilantism for PR purposes.

Enter the Arrest Blair campaign. They’re offering a bounty to anyone who attempts a peaceful citizens arrest of Tony Blair for crimes against peace. The attempt doesn’t have to be successful, but it does have to be reported in the media. The aim is to embarrass the government into enforcing the law; making the rat live in fear of justice for the rest of his life (as Pinochet did) is just a bonus.

The idea is suggested in this Guardian article.

Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had “no sound mandate in international law”. Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that “in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal“. In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law“.

Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first “seek a solution by negotiation” (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only “if an armed attack occurs against [them]” (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq’s attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would “go into thwart mode” to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.

All of which ignores several things, such as the invasion of Kuwait, the cease fire, Saddam’s undermining of the inspections, Saddam’s undermining of the sanctions, The UN’s constant dithering over whether do do anything about that, Saddam’s use of the Oil for Food program to enrich himself, the suffering of the Iraqi people under the sanctions, the many UN resolutions threatening but never actually restarting the Gulf War, and finally the well-known fact that Saddam had fixed the UN votes by bribing key members, Saddam’s support of terror, and the lessons of 9/11.

In other words, they ignored the entire history of what brought us to this point. Not to mention that terrorists, not the US, caused most of the human suffering.

Anyway, strangely for an article that encourages people to break the law based on utterly flawed logic, comments are moderated. You’d think that if they give their columnists free reign to spout illegal nonsense then everyone else would get the same privileges.

But it sums up the whole debate I think, to read this comment.

Heiland Heiland

25 Jan 2010, 7:45PM


“Saddam killed two million not counting Iranians and tortured ethnically cleansed many more.”

Could you please provide links and proof for this assertion?

Poor Blair, he’s going to be hounded for life by these idiots.

Nice to see somone reply to the “Saddam was armed by Americans” point though.

These would be his Chinese Type 59/69 tanks would they? Or his ex-Soviet T55s and T72s? Or his MiG fighters, perhaps?

Maybe America sold him his French Mirage jets? He did have some old British Corvettes in his Navy, perhaps you mean those?

The vast bulk of Saddam’s military equipment was either supplied by the USSR or was a Chinese copy of a USSR original.

If you mean, the West bought Iraqi oil and he used the money to buy weapons from Russia and China, well, yes. That is why Iraq’s oil was such an issue. It allowed the dictator to build an army big enough to wage war on his neighbours.

Emphasis mine.

I think that last point is critical. It’s the real reason wars occur around oil producing nations. Not because “we” want the oil (and the US hasn’t taken any, much to moonbat confusion) but because of what the oil wealth means to dictators like Saddam.

But for Saddam, the army paid for by oil didn’t just fight Iran who had equal military might, it attacked the peaceful nation of Kuwait on a whim, then using any innocent foreigners present as hostages. Saddam richly deserved the noose given him by the free Iraqi people. Enabling that trial should have earned Blair the thanks of the peace movement.

But now they just want to “arrest” him.

Go figure.

Where are the human shields when  you need them?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: