Comment at end
Monbiot: “Making this ruthless liar EU president is a crazy plan. But I’ll be backing Blair”
“If the man who waged an unprovoked war in Iraq gets this job, it could be the chance to hold him to account for his crimes”
Le Roi de l'EU? Aka Tony 'El Presidente' Blair. Pic: Francois Lenoir/Reuters
You have to read this by George Monbiot at The Guardian. No, honestly, you do. (Don’t forget to call back here afterwards. I’ve used a sample of the comments to save you an hour reading them!)
I’ve seen a lot of irritating trash in recent days at the Guardian, the Independent and the Mail, as they all hyperventilate in unison with increasing andrenaline-laden panic over the possibility of El Presidente Blair. But this ‘article’ takes the proverbial.
BLAIR THE ‘LYING WAR CRIMINAL’
As I have mentioned once or twice before I find it increasingly INFURIATING that such as these feel that THEY are the moral arbiters and sole judge of Mr Blair’s honesty. His ‘war criminal’ culpability and ‘guilt’ are taken for granted, of course. And that is BEFORE he has been tried and found guilty of ANYTHING!!!!
What utter trash! What extreme left-leaning anti-liberal, anti-justice, anti-democracy ‘thinking’.
One of the intriguing aspects of the thing is that there are almost as many who support Mr Blair as who offer to contribute to the “bounty” on his head. Seldom do I have a lot to say in favour of a Guardian article and/or its Cif commenters, but since it’s clear that the pro-Blair people are better at putting together an argument and a paragraph than the antis, well – I rest my case.
For your gratification and amusement I have used some of the comments here. (If any Cif commenters are unhappy with this, please let me know, and I’ll remove said comments.)
Monbiot himself adds a comment here. He seems to have realised, if belatedly, that his article may have backfired somewhat:
Monbiot
27 Oct 09, 3:49pm
Contributor Sorry to come in so late, busy day.
One point which keeps coming up is diplomatic immunity. From what I understand, the issue isn’t clear-cut. I’m told that the International Criminal Court (which, incidentally, does not yet have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression – it is currently a matter for national courts) does not recognise the concept of immunity. Nor did the Nuremberg Tribunal. It is at the very least worth testing. As Berlusconi has found, even a guarantee of immunity doesn’t necessarily stand.
As for initiating a prosecution, I agree that the chances of success are small. One of the tasks of the network of welcoming committees would be to devise and select the most effective tactics. But even a failed citizen’s arrest, if it gets enough coverage, keeps the issue live. A series of attempts throughout his presidency, with the ever-present possibility of eventual success, will show that this greatest of crimes has not been forgotten, and revitalise the demand for official prosecution.
Of course, though some have missed it, the underlying intent of the article is sardonic. How could someone who should be – and could be – prosecuted for the supreme international crime be elected president of the EU? My real hope is that other EU leaders might understand what they are dealing with and see that Blair should be an international pariah, not an international leader.
Here’s a question for you all: if Blair is not appointed president, should I put up the bounty anyway?
Here follow some of the CIF comments:
haldir
27 Oct 09, 12:51pm
I’d be happy to front some money – but only to hire the services of an elite snatch squad, probably ex-SAS guys who could ‘rendition’ him to the Hague. If anything, ahem, terminal, happened when he was resisting arrest – well too bad.
timnicholls
27 Oct 09, 1:07pm
The only thing more ridiculous than this rant of an article is the complete ignorance, within it, of sovereign immunity. Even if you were to try to arrest Blair, as EU President, you would not be able to. Even functional immunity depends on the individual no longer being in the ‘immune’ position (a la Pinochet). And if you want him before the ICC, you’ll have to set up one of your national arrest Blair centres there.
What complete, utter nonsense: and that’s without even going into the Iraq War legality arguments ably dealt with by other comments.
logos
27 Oct 09, 1:51pm
They say that excrement attracts flies who feed on it and this certainly seems to be so in the case of this article which is a classic example of muck spreading.
bill2
27 Oct 09, 2:24pm
We can’t arrest him, not when we are spending £3m a year to keep him safe from us.
ElleGreen
27 Oct 09, 2:26pm
Was the war in Iraq a mistake? Probably
Did Tony Blair enter into the the war with malicious intentions? Probably Not
Are there still people suffering in Iraq who need our time and money to stop the catastrophe that the war has begun? Definitely.
Would it be better to spend our time and money on a lengthy and tedious arbitration process to have Tony Blair tried for a crime that may or may not have been committed? Definitely not.
(and for those who think that such a decision will act as a deterent for future international crimes think again a) has it worked before? b)the decision if taken at a nation state level would have no binding effect on any other jurisdictions so all a “war criminal” has to do is avoid holidaying in Estonia)
George, I always basically agree with what you say however please just once could you refrain from taking the shock and awe approach and present your arguments in a balanced and reasonable fashion.
JoshRogan
27 Oct 09, 2:37pm
Where’s Judge Dredd when you need him?
You realise, George, that you will now be put on (if you are not already) on the ‘Domestic Extremist’ photo card along with Mark Thomas.
I will arrest Blair for free!
But you know that only dirty foreigners go to the Hague and face international law.
Western leaders and G.I.s, marines, etc are immune.
Blair is such an evil little slimeball he will manage to squirm his way out of any legal wrangle.
He’s probably a mason and also a member of that super secret Cheney Gang.
I’d love to see his head on the block, but alas it will never happen.
Citizens arrest … is there a citizen’s execution?
Bobagain
27 Oct 09, 11:19am
The only good thing about Blair being made president is that the likelihood of him being assassinated would exponentially increase.
firsttimer
27 Oct 09, 8:27am
This thirst for revenge is futile and even counterproductive.
Indulging a legalistic case against Blair won’t do a damn thing for world peace and will just damage Europe’s place in the world.
The US has already destroyed its ability to conduct such wars in future – does anyone seriously think a risen China would feel itself restricted by whatever happened in a court in The Hague?
It just shows a lack of sense of proportion that people would put that before establishing a credible European role in the world that might prevent such adventurism in future.
The UK might never have gone out on a limb for the US had the EU had a more formal foreign policy agreement.
Let’s focus on the future, people – that’s where we’re all going to be living.
DrChris
27 Oct 09, 5:59pm
The ‘possession weapons of mass destruction itself does not amount to an armed attack’ – true, but it does amount to a violation of UNSC resolutions that authorize the use of force. Not to mention that Saddam’snon-compliance was a gross violation of the ceasefire that essentially authorised a resumption of the Gulf War.
DanielRM
27 Oct 09, 6:06pm
I find it disquieting that one of the Guardian’s more prominent writers, one who is otherwise so sensible in many areas, particularly the environment, can possibly make such a ludicrous and positively infantile cry of support for a man to become president of the EU simply on the basis that he may then be prosecuted for an action which, whilst unpopular, was most likely the correct course of action and indeed was a moral course of action, given that the suffering currently experienced by the Iraqi people will be far less and will occur for a much shorter period of time than that which would have been experienced under the continued reign of such an immoral dictator as Saddam Hussein was.
PogueMahone
27 Oct 09, 3:43pm
There was no improvement of getting rid of him
I’ll assume you are trying to state that getting rid of Saddam represented no improvement for the people of Iraq
Of course you are not Iraqi – more to the point you are not a Shia or Kurdish Iraqi – or indeed just about any Iraqi who ran afoul of Saddam and his goons
You simply pontificate from thousands of miles away about how getting rid of this despot was “no improvement”
The murderers have no better allies than you and George and all your lot – you excuse their every atrocity and work only to tear at those who finally stepped in to do JUSTICE to these evil men
There was a time when a liberal would stand with those who sought freedom
that time has passed
BTW Peter – great post – like shooting fish in a barrel but it must be said again and again
You won’t penetrate the hardest core libtards – but some will recognize their own hypocrisy
keep it up
Cairncross
27 Oct 09, 3:45pm
waging an unprovoked war, described by the Nuremberg tribunal as “the supreme international crime”
Saddam Hussein launched two such wars. By Moronbiot’s very own logic, this justified his removal.
Durrrr….
littleoleamerican
27 Oct 09, 4:43pm
This arm-chair-conjured-up-hatred coming from this article and most of the commentors is almost laughable. No facts here. Fact is we went into Iraq, not because of WMD’s, but because of Saddam’s violations of the articles set down by the UN. That made the invasion LEGAL. This will be proven in the Iraq Inquiry. There were only what , 5,000 British troops in Iraq? Hello? But, what a hard-fighting, lovely, proud, patriotic group they are, too. They may have been small in number, but very big on training the Iraqi police correctly and leaving a “positive” influence on the Iraqi people. That is a FACT. Iraqis have told us so at the Ban Blair Baiting petition (google it).
Do you really think Bush would have gone into Iraq, along with friend Blair, Williams, and 25 other countries, if we had not first consulted with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and especially Kuwaite? Come on, put your thinking caps on. We would not have gone in there if we feared a backlash from the other Middle Eastern countries now would we? So perhaps you have this ass-backwards. Perhaps it was King Abdullah himself who asked for our assistance (the U.S. and the U.K.) with that pesky Saddam. (just a theory).
At any rate, for Blair to have committed all these crimes, war crimes, stealing, lying, cheating and what all…….he would have to have been more than one person. He would have to have been in 10 places at 12 times. It’s ludicrous.
He’s simply not capable of all this wrongdoing. He is a better man than you, Mr. Monbiot. A much better man. The EU would be fortunate to have someone like him on board. With someone like Blair, the United States would feel comfortable dealing with the “new” EU. Everyone knows Blair and MOST leaders of FREE countries respect and admire him. THAT is what is really counts isn’t it?
And this is one of mine:
ThisStinks
27 Oct 09, 10:41pm
@ Monbiot
“One point which keeps coming up is diplomatic immunity. From what I understand, the issue isn’t clear-cut.”
Well blow me down with a Guardianisto rant article! NOT clear -cut? So Blair, aka El Presidente, may be immune from prosecution after all?
Your bounty fund may be all for nothing, Monbiot! A little like your rabid yelps of “lying war criminal” towards one of the finest politicians of his generation.
It seems you are keen on global warming issues, though I must say I hadn’t noticed your writings on this. So THAT’S your anti-Blair gripe! He’s hi-jacked your baby! You want him locked up so that he can’t fix the climate before YOU can!?
A little late now to explain the sardonic nature of your article, btw. The gullible believed you meant it.
As for other leaders – others are not so blinded by YOUR distorted “facts” on Iraq.
Give it up and do something that makes you happy. Or as I often say to people like you – what have YOU done today to make you feel proud?
And, by the way – to this:
Here’s a question for you all: if Blair is not appointed president, should I put up the bounty anyway?
Sardonic? Again?
You could always send it to the Iraqi people whose fate you have always, presumably for decades, had at the front of your mind.
- Lord David Owen slanders Tony Blair – Join the growing queue, Lord Owen, of those who should end up in court for this.
- Cameron distances himself from Hague on Blair. Cameron says Tories WOULD work with a President Blair. Hmmm…
- But in this video clip he says that the Tories don’t support Blair. Hmmm… again! Ambivalence, Mr Cameron?
- On the other hand – to other EU leaders – Cameron says he doesn’t want an all-singing, all-dancing El Presidente.
- Pro-Blair Labour blogger trying to work out Cameron on Blair. It’s simple, really. DC loves TB and william Hague is kind of jealous … or ambitious. Probably both. (Hague on Blair for President: “Over my dead body”)
- Oliver Kamm – also on Owen on ‘President’ Blair.
- Blair urged to “seize the day”
- Juncker set to challenge Blair for presidency. Who?
- FT says battle heating up
- Lisbon – the Endgame. Brown denies civil servants will lobby for Blair in Europe. Update – Brown says HE will lobby for Blair to Merkel and Sarkozy.
- Blair as President – a “no brainer”
Tags: bounty to arrest Blair, David Cameron, david owen, EU President, George Monbiot, Oliver Kamm, the Guardian, Tony Blair
October 28, 2009 at 9:33 pm |
[...] you DO write so much better and far more accurately (in this post, anyway) than that other user of sardonic wit – George Monbiot. I just couldn’t [...]