Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in fighting apartheid, speaks in Dharmsala, India, on Feb. 10.
By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press
Tutu: Bush, Blair should face trial at the Hague
LONDON – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Desmond Tutu called Sunday for Tony Blair and George Bush to face prosecution at the International Criminal Court for their role in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
Tutu, the retired Anglican Church's archbishop of South Africa, wrote in an op-ed piece for The Observer newspaper that the ex-leaders of Britain and the United States should be made to "answer for their actions."
The Iraq war "has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history," wrote Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984.
"Those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague," he added.
The Hague, Netherlands, based court is the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal and has been in operation for 10 years. So far it has launched prosecutions only in Africa, including in Sudan, Congo, Libya and Ivory Coast.
Tutu has long been a staunch critic of the Iraq war, while others opposed to the conflict — including playwright Harold Pinter— have previously called for Bush and Blair to face prosecution at the Hague.
"The then-leaders of the U.S. and U.K. fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand — with the specter of Syria and Iran before us," said Tutu, who last week withdrew from a conference in South Africa due to Blair's presence at the event.
While the International Criminal Court can handle cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, it does not currently have the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes of aggression. Any potential prosecution over the Iraq war would likely come under the aggression category.
The U.S. is among nations which do not recognize the International Criminal Court.
In response to Tutu, Blair said he had great respect for the archbishop's work to tackle apartheid in South Africa, but accused him of repeating inaccurate criticisms of the Iraq war.
"To repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown," Blair said. "And to say that the fact that Saddam (deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein) massacred hundreds of thousands of his citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre."
However, Blair said that "in a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree."
In Britain, a two-year long inquiry examining the buildup to the Iraq war and its conduct is yet to publish its final report. The panel took evidence from political leaders including Blair, military chiefs and intelligence officers. Two previous British studies into aspects of the war cleared Blair's government of wrongdoing.
The Iraq war was bitterly divisive in the U.K. and saw large public demonstrations. However, Blair subsequently won a 2005 national election, though with a reduced majority.
Send Comments
Your comments will be added to the article that you write about, so include the article title
Today is
Bush & Blair, should face a trial for
"War Crimes"
On every corner of this earth, there isn't a group of people, who would believe that former President Bush & Blair, should not face charges of "War Crimes" for the attack of Iraq.
Sure, there are those who believe that Bush & Blair should not be tried, justifying their position, by suggesting that Saddam Husain's murdering of his own citizens, warranted an attack on his country.
However, as Tutu states, Taylor, an African Leader, was recently found guilty, in a trial at the Hague, for his support of the rebels who were responsible for the "Blood Diamond" murders, in that, Taylor's purchasing of the Diamonds, encourage the rebels to kill, rape and torture citizens in an effort to attain the Diamonds.
In the case of Bush & Blair, the premise for attacking Iraq, was the specific claim that Husain had "Weapons of Mass Destruction", a claim that the Bush Admin worked on for months to prove to be true, against all those who argued against those allogations, costing the careers of at least two well respected people in their area of expertise, one of which, victimized by the Bush Admin in the form of being "outed".
The Subsequent admittance of the Bush Admin, that there were not any WMD's in Iraq found, in itself, should have caused the international community to commence legal actions against the Bush Admin, with the purpose of the investigation being to ascertain, how the Bush Admin attained it's information that there were WMD's, and how that information could have been so wrong, costing millions of lives to be affected negative, if not death.
The Secondary Investigation of the Bush Admin should have been "The Consequences of False Allegations and their ramifications on a Nation after a full Military Invasion".
The Results of the Bush & Blair attacks, have in fact, destabilized the entire region, in that , Iraq provide a practice grounds and training for Al-Qaeda's designs for Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's), which are that exact tools used to this day, in nations around the world.
Before Bush & Blair's attack of Iraq, there were "no suicide bombings, no IED's, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, no Iran threats, and no insurgents of any kind.
I've been completely baffled as to the lack of action, or lack of legal actions by any nation, or any legal authority around the world, to include the legal authorities within the U.S., why haven't anyone, or anybody, even have formally requested any degree of "questioning" of the Bush Admin?
Attacking a nation, with the reasoning that "they deserved it", or "it was the right thing to do for their people", does not qualify as legal or humane reasons for destroying a nation and it's people.
One must wonder, exactly why, the U.S. Judicial System, have chosen to not investigate Bush? One must wonder , exactly why, the nations of the world, haven't demanded an investigation of the Bush Administration's attack of Iraq in totality?
Two things that helps any person to get away with crimes of all kinds is money, and power, and if you look at the Bush Family, they have been in power since 1930s, with the father of the recent Bush, having a extensive list of power credentials, check out daddy Bush's history in power:
Bush's G. W., family was actually admonished by the U.S. Government during WWII, and his father H. W. history:
* Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, from Texas's 7th district - In office January 3, 1967 – January 3, 1971
* United States Ambassador to the United Nations - In office
March 1, 1971 – January 18, 1973
* Chairperson of the Republican National Committee - In office
January 19, 1973 – September 16, 1974
* Chief of the Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China - In office September 26, 1974 – December 7, 1975
Director of Central Intelligence - In office January 30, 1976 – January 20, 1977
* 43rd Vice President of the United States - In office
January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
* 41st President of the United States - In office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
Need I say more?
The Bottom Line, a nation was destroyed, millions of lives were lost or negatively harmed by the invasion of Iraq, and lesser offensives have resulted with nation leaders in jail.
If we went by the reasoning to attack Iraq, based on the Bush's reasoning to invade Iraq, then we have every right to invade Syria.
In My Opinion
ASKFMB
5/1/2012
Send Comments
Your comments will be added to the article that you write about, so include the article title
