Chilcot report: MPs plan to impeach Tony Blair over Iraq War using ancient law

[Denzil_DC]

A number of MPs are seeking to impeach former prime minister Tony Blair using an ancient Parliamentary law.

The move, which has cross-party support, could be launched in the aftermath of the Chilcot Inquiry report because of the Labour leader’s alleged role in misleading Parliament over the Iraq War.

MPs believe Mr Blair, who was in office between 1997 and 2007, should be prosecuted for breaching his constitutional duties and taking the country into a conflict that resulted in the deaths of 179 British troops.

Not used since 1806, when Tory minister Lord Melville was charged for misappropriating official funds, the law is seen in Westminster as an alternative form of punishment if, as believed, Mr Blair will escape serious criticism in the Chilcot Inquiry report.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war-report-impeach-law-a7115266.html

How much legs this story has, I've no idea, but it's likely to be part of a series of conjectures and rumblings you'll see this week in anticipation of the report's delivery on Wednesday.

I've heard rumors from people who may know what they're talking about that Chilcot will be something of a whitewash of the government's conduct, and will instead focus more on shortcomings in the military, and possibly in the intelligence community. The ICC has already indicated it has no standing to pass judgment on the decision-making that led to the war, but will be interested in any evidence in the report indicating lawbreaking and breaches of human rights by British soldiers etc.

Misleading Parliament in the run-up to war is a different issue. Whether any government - particularly the current one - will have an appetite to set a new precedent for such charges, even if it means skewering Labour in the current climate, I'm doubtful.

By Wednesday, we'll begin to find out. I think it's inevitably going to stir up unpleasant memories and anger among those of us who bitterly opposed the war and were demonized for doing so, and not least the families who lost loved ones during it, not to mention since. And a whole new generation has grown to political awareness in the intervening years, and may hear about some of what went on for the first time.

Will the media capitalize on that to add another dimension to Labour's turmoil at the moment? That's a rhetorical question. It's more whether they'll ask the right questions.

[napi21]

1. Hmmmm, I wonder if that will revive desires to penalize the Shrub?

Every once in a while I ear someone say they're still upset that the Shrub got away with war crimes, so it's not forgotten. If Tony has to suffer, surely the guy who started it all should have to as well.

[Ken Burch]

2. Wednesday is when Chilcot is released?

Has the Labour Right now accepted that Corbyn will still be leader on Wednesday?

[Ghost Dog]

6. ...

One can almost hear the machinations grinding even from here...

[LeftishBrit]

3. I don't think it will happen

Firstly, even though Blair was a Labour Prime Minister (well, nominally!) most Tories voted for the war, so they're unlikely to want to stir the issue up. Also it might build up the left wing of Labour, which the Tories also don't want. Secondly, even if they wanted to, the current government (a bit of a misnomer; there basically isn't one!) couldn't organize the proverbial in a brewery, let alone an impeachment. Thirdly, the politicians, not to mention lawyers, civil servants, etc. have their hands full with dealing with the ramifications of fucking Brexit, without also working out how to revive a process that hasn't been used here in over 200 years, and where the designated court - the House of Lords - has undergone HUGE changes in the intervening time. Fourthly, what would one do with him if he did get impeached? - he hasn't been PM for ages, and how can you remove someone from office retroactively? I suppose you could revive the old custom of sending people to the Tower!

[Denzil_DC]

4. "Impeachment" in the UK sense

doesn't relate to procedures in the US, for instance, to remove a sitting politician. It's an obscure judicial avenue to pursue accountability for misconduct in office. I believe The Tower is one option if it did go ahead, though!

I don't think it's likely either, as I pointed out above, but it does look like there's a cross-party appetite for a serious reckoning of some sort, aside from what public opinion (and not least the bereaved families the media's been so keen to exploit in the past) may call for.

[Ghost Dog]

5. The ICC is prevented by the USA from applying International Criminal Law

to cases of Illegal Invasion, although this is very much the ICC's jurisdiction.

See this DU thread.

Surely, a UK High Court can put this, um, presumed right honourable gentleman on trial for this, the Supreme Crime, as the Nuremberg Trials so put it, if the evidence so merits?