It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Tony Blair be prosecuted for treason ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 03:14 PM
Tony Blair has to be the most self-serving treacherous bastard to ever 'lead' Britain. Actually, I use the word guardedly since from the very beginning all he's done is push the country closer to the edge. Lead Britain ? - he couldn't lead a kindergarten.

With George Bush as a role model, Blair has just one desire. To become President of the European Union. Prime Minister is no good, he wants to be Prez, just like good old Dubya.
Talking of Dubya, whenever he meets with Blair, I check carefully afterwards to see if Tone has any brown smudges on his nose.

And now I see that with his normal respect for British history, he has decided to sign our sovereignty over to the EU on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Tosser.

Many people don't realise that although the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965, it was still on the statute books for acts of treason and piracy with violence. Until 1998 when Blair changed the law, it was still feasible to be executed for those crimes.

It was Tony Blair who abolished the death penalty for treason. It is Tony Blair who is now selling us up the river to the EU. In point of fact, he is committing a treasonous act by signing away British sovereignty. Now, I don't think that was a coincidence. Whereas I doubt he would have been executed had the law still been extant, it must have concerned him so much that he needed to change the law. After, no Prime Minister has ever stood trial on a charge that could lead to his execution.

My Question is this.
Should Tony Blair be prosecuted for treason and if found guilty, strung up as the traitor he is ?

Blair's Waterloo surrender

Law - Death penalty

posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:50 PM
I see what you mean, but I don't think he should be executed. He's no good for Britain and should be voted out but I don't think much of Howard either. The only thing Howard has got going for him is that he's not going to give up our laws to Brussels, and he's not Blair.

posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:12 AM
That's a good question, Pisky. It probably comes down to whether or not a majority of the people support his EU policy, right?

Interesting point you made about him changing that law. That's very interesting, indeed. Did he give a reason for that at the time?

I don't know if he should be executed for his actions in that sense. As an American, I would say that's for his countrymen to decide.

I do think his sorry a$$ should be hauled in front of the ICC where he should stand trial for war crimes. In that sense, I think he's a cowering and devious Bush sycophant who has gotten your country into an illegal and immoral war of aggression. I say hang his sorry a$$.

posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:14 AM
I like Blair, he seems like a strait shooter. I think he was bambozled. I dont know, what ever he gets the white house should too.

posted on Mar, 31 2004 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I like Blair, he seems like a strait shooter. I think he was bambozled. I dont know, what ever he gets the white house should too.

Blair's way too smart for that, SC. But I do agree with you - Bush et al should be prosecuted as well.

posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 08:14 AM
Not my place to say either, but I don't think you should kill him for it. Everyone in the govt. over there would be somewhat restricted because of fear that someone might think of them as traitors.

Besides, it may be a good thing. It worked good for us. There are still people over here trying to re-instate the Republic of Texas, and everyone knows that if that ever happened, Texas would be Mexico Jr. Or maybe Texaco.

Also, if you kill him, why don't you guys chop his head off. Didn't that used to be y'alls thing.

new topics

top topics

log in