British Man Tries to Arrest Tony Blair During Lecture in Hong Kong by Patrick Henningsen

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   


Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
June 18, 2012

An unsuspecting Tony Blair was door-stepped once again during one of his recent high-paid “lectures” in Hong Kong late last week by a British activist.

Tom Grundy, who hails from the city of Wednesbury in the West Midlands, England, confronted the UK’s most notorious modern war criminal last Thursday, attempting a citizen’s arrest for Blair’s own deceptive role in the Iraq War citing a violation of the Nuremberg Principles – the internationally recognized rules of engagement put into place following the Second World War in order to prevent unnecessary aggression by one state against another.






Cheers to Tom Grundy







posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
hmm why are we wasting time trying to arrest Blair/Cheney/Bush... when there are far worse people in the world literally getting away with murder, that the rest of the world expects us to take out of because they cant.

need I remind you all again that the wars had full international support, UN, Europe etc. top dem leaders supported the war.... even Ron Paul gave support to bush. so you all in the lynch mob need to go after ALL of the above. not just the leaders at the time who are easily blamed for all things bad. Remember.. Coalition forces waited for permission before entering Iraq.

In all of the Nuremberg principles not one says anything about waging sanctioned war

since the wars were sanctioned under international law in the first place.. you cant go back and change the rules to suit ones political stances...otherwise the rule of law become void.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts

This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:

The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[14]
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[14]

Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.

When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Insurgents cannot be protected under the Geneva conventions because they are not a signatory nation and did not represent a signatory nation.

And Saddam Hussein Allowed weapons that fell into the hands of insurgents in Afghanistan to pass through his country
edit on 18-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
fidel castro could be considered an insurgent. he over threw the american backed puppet regime of batista.

why is he now covered by the geneva convention.

afghanistan is also a signatory of the geneva convention. therefore the taliban, the lawful government before the invasion, cannot be considered insurgents, yet there are many taliban held in gitmo.

it's all b.s. and international law is just another weapon of war, used to destabilize and attack your enemies.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
hmm why are we wasting time trying to arrest Blair/Cheney/Bush... when there are far worse people in the world literally getting away with murder, that the rest of the world expects us to take out of because they cant.


Yeah, ignore the gunman in the street because there's a serial killer on the loose. And why do you think people want "you" to take out the bad guys? Damn, I am so fed up of this American "super hero" self-congratulatory BS! You are not as important as a nation as you seem to think. The rest of the world is quite happy doing things on their own without America trying to act as a global police force!

Hundreds of thousands of violent and dangerous criminals are brought to justice around the world every year without our "saviors the Americans" doing anything.

And would you prioritize global criminal cases based on priority? How would you go about doing that exactly?

Is it based on the number of people at risk of injury or death, or the number of people already killed?

You know, it is possible for the many millions of law enforcement, legal professionals and courts all over the planet to deal with more than one criminal at a time.


Tony Blair is a war criminal by the very definition as stated by the UN. He should be in a court along with Bush, Cheney and Rice, all facing charges.
edit on 18-6-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


American superhero self-congratulatory BS.

Have you heard of whats going on in Syria? how all the UN can do is send in "Observers"? women and children are being slaughtered and they cant or wont do anything about it.

The US is the biggest contributor to the UN, thus it is also the go-to nation when the UN cant handle something.
It's pathetic really, we will probably get dragged into Syria because nobody over there can or wont do anything about it.

I do not care what happens in Egypt, Libya, or Syria.. I don't want the US dragged into it.
edit on 18-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Afghanistan's only recognized government throughout the world in recent history was the Islamic State Government under Ahmad Shah Massoud. Pakistan was the ONLY country to recognize Taliban rule, the rest of the international community did not.

The Taliban had taken control of certain areas within Afghanistan only after massacring thousands of civilians.
but they were never an elected government and they had never controlled the entire country to where there was no choice but to make them the governing body.

Thus, they do NOT qualify under Geneva conventions.
edit on 18-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-6-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual


Tony Blair is a war criminal by the very definition as stated by the UN. He should be in a court along with Bush, Cheney and Rice, all facing charges.


What charges? going to war with the full approval of congress, parliament, and the UN?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LoonyConservative
 


The support of these organisations is nothing in comparison to the massive LACK of support that Tony Blair had from the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. For as many people to have shown up to protest against the war, as was eventually the case, and for as many people to petition against the war as they did, one could say that he did not have the support he needed, and acted against the wishes, and the interest of the British people in doing so.

Screw the war crimes, before we even get to those, how about arresting him for taking our armed forces to battle without the consent of the population. That, surely , is something which a modern democracy cannot allow or accept.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 

isn't it a crime to lie to Queen and deceive her...same way they did everyone else with weapons of mass destruction, or does she and the rest, just let it slide, same way Bush and administration got away with it..?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoonyConservative

Originally posted by detachedindividual


Tony Blair is a war criminal by the very definition as stated by the UN. He should be in a court along with Bush, Cheney and Rice, all facing charges.


What charges? going to war with the full approval of congress, parliament, and the UN?


Why don't I remember the UN part? Maybe I'm confusing wars, but I thought the UN was against the Iraq war? I thought that U.S. and Britain went in all by themselves?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Tony Blair is a war criminal by the very definition as stated by the UN. He should be in a court along with Bush, Cheney and Rice, all facing charges.
edit on 18-6-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)


My mind keeps screaming, "NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!" Just on this alone I wouldn't find it unreasonable to bring the major players to trial. At best, the truth will come out and these people will pay for any crimes committed. At worst, it will send a message to all future power players: "Hey, you screw up and you'll answer for it."



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Tony Blair is a war criminal it is as simple as that. I am ashamed that he calls himself British, he should be tried for crimes against humanity just like the dictators he supposedly overthrew.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Physic
 


Unfortunately, the law on this topic very probably is written to make it well nigh impossible to PROVE that Tony Blair committed it. Because there are various bodies, many of whom have the advantage of being able to hide behind the official secrets act, involved with this case, it makes it even harder to prove. If he was guilty of treason it would probably be under the terrorism section of the acts which cover the offence.

He certainly didnt act to threaten the safety or life of the Queen directly, or indeed her family. Although it could be said that his actions lead to a scenario which ended up with the Princes involving themselves in the military. Mind you it could be argued reasonably that they would have ended up getting stuck in no matter what the fight was about, or who started it, yet another grey space in the whole affair.

However, what one can prove, and what one knows are often two different things. I know that the government do not have the best interests of working class folk at heart when they decide to bail out banks, allow people to be put out on the street, when they fail to prevent child molesters and murderers walk free from courts and or jails. But because I cannot prove that they do these things deliberately, with intent to cause harm, I cannot act against them openly without drawing down the fury of the law.

Men like Tony Blair can do what they do with impunity, precisely because they know how to use the law, and its blinkered, blind approach to escape justice. Their intent can be as plain as the nose on ones face, and yet their legal liability can moulder in the shadowy, damp realms of the law, untouchable and virtually unseen by the law itself.

That is why I advocate a stronger importance being placed on JUSTICE. Justice is ,for me at least, far more important than the law. Justice being served ought to outweigh the importance of fulfilling the letter of the law, ought to be held above all other concerns, moral, legal , and temporal. Without justice, the actions of evil people live on in their victims, and are far more toxic to the future of mankind, than if justice is served. The pain of being wronged will remain, but when justice is served the victims sorrow is tempered by the steely resolve that comes of knowing that the wrong has been measured and the perpetrator bought low, as if by his own hand.

Without it, the whole system of Law is irrelevant to the moral amongst us. If it does not serve the people, then it is against the people. Right now, the law serves as a smokescreen in all the highest matters in the land, with the majority either unaware or complacent about the abuses of the system conducted by those meant to uphold its values and virtues. In the matter at hand, of Blair and his scheming and his lack wit American counterpart at the time, the law serves only to obfuscate, to enshroud the scum, and hide it from the light of truth.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
Tony Blair is a war criminal


So which court did he face trial in? Oh, you mean you want him to be a war criminal.... not based on anything factual!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by michael1983l
Tony Blair is a war criminal


So which court did he face trial in? Oh, you mean you want him to be a war criminal.... not based on anything factual!
Based on an illigal invasion of another country and the resulting deaths because of. You don't need a court to tell you that he is guilty of that, especially when due to political reasons he will never be tried.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
]Based on an illigal invasion of another country


except that it was NOT illegal!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by michael1983l
]Based on an illigal invasion of another country


except that it was NOT illegal!


But it was, there was no UN mandate to go to war with Iraq but Bush and Blair did it anyway based on proven to be phoney evidence of weapons of mass distruction. They misled their people, had no UN mandate, lied about the evidence and did not have the suppoort of the British people to go to war in the first place. What do you believe made it legal under international law?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by michael1983l
there was no UN mandate to go to war


What makes you think there has to be a UN mandate?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


what about misleading her majesty, would that not be the death penalty if the Queen was not giving the nod, as doubt they fooled her, as that is a crime is it not..deceive the people we know is fine, but the Queen, i think not, she has to have been made aware of the full deal or else she was tricked and we know that if the later was the case, would that be acceptable?




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Physic
what about misleading her majesty,


When was she misled?


would that not be the death penalty


no


but the Queen, i think not, she has to have been made aware of the full deal


Why do you think that?





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join