It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Iraq inquiry to recall Tony Blair over possible conflicting evidence

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Iraq inquiry to recall Tony Blair over possible conflicting evidence


www.guardian.co.uk

The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war is to summon Tony Blair back to give evidence and he will be asked to testify in both public and private, officials saidlast night.

The former prime minister, who gave nearly six hours of evidence on Friday, is expected to be asked about intelligence reports. His second public appearance could take place before the general election.

The panel are concerned in particular about his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion, the Guardian has learned.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Let's hope that he has to face some tougher questions. Friday was a joke. They took a very softly softly approach to him. His body language screamed LIAR. UNfortunatly, I live in the real world, and he'll be able to squirm his way out of it one more time. Probably come out smelling of roses and get a knighthood or something. I think there'd be the biggest party on the streets if he got banged up. I'm holding on to that thought, maybe it'll bring some luck.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
At least your country is doing something about the illegal occupation of Iraq.


Here in the good ol' USA the war criminals who perpetrated these acts are currently enjoying complete immunity. No one is even bothering to question the treacherous acts of the last administration anymore.

That's how it works over here. The president is elected, does as much damage as he can to the country, and retires to his ranch in Texas. Nobody asks any questions, and those that do are promptly silenced. Dick Cheney even has the nerve to regularly criticize the current administration on how it is handling the mistakes his administration made.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Yes well, I guess I'll have to agree with you there. Though it's hard to prossecute people who've given themselves comeplete immunity. I bet poor old Tony's cursing the fact he forgot to do it



10 to 1 on that he gets a knighthood for his troubles.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
This is a repost: Blair: I regret nothing



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Unfortunately I hold a similar opinion on the likelihood of Tony Blair being bought to acceptable justice for his crimes against both the nation of Iraq and the assault on Britains legitmacy as a democracy. Million person march in the capital, and nothing changed. I think that speaks for itself.
But he will not get what he deserves because in law, he cannot be scentenced to be molested to death in the street by robotic, anatomicaly correct gorrilas.
I too saw the questioning on friday. He never gave a straight answer to a single question. The biggest problem I have with this man, is his complete lack of regret, his utter refusal to accept the legal holes in his argument, and the fact that he is such a slick operator. Even IF it were proven that the argument for war was flimsy as I believe it was, he will worm his way out and blame the intelligence, or the americans, and somehow, he will recieve either no punishment, or a ridiculously light pennance.
I hope he goes to hell. Heck, I hope I get to send him there!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
He's not being called back to example conflicting evidence. Staff from the inquiry are applying "cold water" to the story i.e suggesting the claims are not true.

That's the words from a source I know



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
call him in to give evidence, disrepute his evidence, then acquit him. this will only serve to make his evidence (and thus the whole justification for the war in iraq/afghanistan) seem more legitimate as it has been questioned (thus giving the impression of a fair and proper trial rather just accepting it). this, and the whole trial, is nothing more than a media circus to justify the war and other future conflicts we will no doubt be entering in the future.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pangaea
 


As horrific as it is, I cannot help but believe that you have the right of it. What you have said , echos directly with my angle on this issue. Appalling isnt it ?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


sadly, nothing our country does shocks me anymore.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by pangaea
 


Oh I wouldnt mind a shock. The only thing that would shock me is a proper attitude to morality and responsibility from those in power!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pangaea
 


I also agree with this. I'm sure that the conclusion to this whole farce will be that the Tony B-liar was justified in going to war in Iraq and "Oh look, Iran needs to be invaded too!".

I'm sick of it all.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by nik1halo
 


Do you know what makes me truely sick ? If you , me , and everyone who thinks like we do , rose up and tried to take the power away from the warmongers we would be tried under terrorist legislation and banged up for life. I ask you , is this a democracy ?



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Well, considering we have an unelected leader, who doesn't listen to one word of the people's wants or needs and does anything he damn well wants to, I would have to say no, this is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship.

I tell ya, we need another Guy Fawkes, except successfull!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Million person march in the capital, and nothing changed. I think that speaks for itself.


Yes, it shows only "1 million" out of 61 million marched. So 60 million did not bother to march, so democracy worked!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nik1halo
Well, considering we have an unelected leader,


wrong, he was elected. But do not let that stop you not understanding the Westminster system!



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Hardly ! Those 1 million were the people who had the time and the freedom to act. You may be suprised to hear that most people who would have been there, would have had to have risked loosing jobs over thier absence. Others like abulance personel and firefighters would have been remiss to take time off to go to the march, and many people who have known war on our territory were too old and frail to make the trip, and they account for a large section of the anti war movement!On top of that , you have the millions of people in this country who cannot afford the ludicrous train fares to places where marches occured. Further to that you have the boat loads of emails, petitions and so forth , before and during and since the war in Iraq, demanding immediate withdrawal of our forces.
Even the families of personel killed and injured, have taken to the streets in the years since the war began, trying to make it clear that this war is bogus, and should stop. One military man marched in the face of court martial to that effect, and I fail entirely to believe that he was the only man in the military to believe that the war was wrong. Democracy failed. The system worked, but the system is prohibitive. Marching that day would have meant sacrifices that only a few can feel free to make. In a choice between loosing your job and having your kids go hungry, or staying at work weeping for your nations morals but keeping your kids in food , I think many people would be forgiven for focusing on what is near them. However you cannot claim that those million in the streets were in a minority . You can suggest that not all those who opposed war were on the streets , and thats certain. If they had been , then whole cities worth of people would have been there.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I don't know one person who voted for him, do you? No, because the people did not get a vote. Hell, half of his own party didn't want him in power!

I understand that the people vote in the party and not the leader, but a more moral man would have called for a general election as has been the case in previous years when the leader of the party steps down.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Totally agree. I know I wanted to be there, but location, commitment to my job and my family and time contraints prevented it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was in that position.



posted on Feb, 1 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
There is an attempt in Scotland to bring Tony Blair to court

Call for Blair to face trial in Scotland


Oh and I just noticed this other possible attempt as well starting on the back of the Chilcot Enquiry

Pr ofessor to launch Nuremberg war crimes trial against Blair

Mr Blair is'nt going to be very happy at all.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by bigyin]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join