As per the article, I don't see the ICC bringing it (who obviously aren't under the thumb of the UK), and if they don't, I really don't see the CPS coming to the conclusion that there's a reasonable chance of conviction, or that it would be in the public interest. Depends what the report says I guess.
Can we also just take a moment to consider the monumental stupidity in accusing Blair of "war crimes" for "crimes against peace" by invoking the Nuremberg principles?? If it's "crime against peace", then it is - under the Nuremberg principles - not a war crime.
Personally, I don't see what is stupid about charging him with an appropriate crime here in the UK (if there is one - IANAL) if he lied to parliament to start our involvement in a war.
This ruling is issued by a kangaroo court that isn't like a normal court, and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. So I'm afraid this stuff moved outside the realm of law and democracy a long time ago.
Comments
The UK has a pretty good track record of nobody being above the law.
Lets see what happens to Tony Blair after the Chilcot inquiry report is published:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-bl...
As per the article, I don't see the ICC bringing it (who obviously aren't under the thumb of the UK), and if they don't, I really don't see the CPS coming to the conclusion that there's a reasonable chance of conviction, or that it would be in the public interest. Depends what the report says I guess.
Can we also just take a moment to consider the monumental stupidity in accusing Blair of "war crimes" for "crimes against peace" by invoking the Nuremberg principles?? If it's "crime against peace", then it is - under the Nuremberg principles - not a war crime.
Personally, I don't see what is stupid about charging him with an appropriate crime here in the UK (if there is one - IANAL) if he lied to parliament to start our involvement in a war.
Oh, really? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/15/saudiarabia.armstr...
This ruling is issued by a kangaroo court that isn't like a normal court, and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. So I'm afraid this stuff moved outside the realm of law and democracy a long time ago.
No it doesn't!
Oversight might have failed but there are laws and GCHQ are expected to obey those laws.
Oh well if it's just the oversight of on of the most powerful agencies that failed for a measly seven years then everything is fine.
Watch as nothing changes.