Lord Hutton - Patron Saint of Apologists

Introduction Part 1 of 3

The invasion of Iraq was illegal. Every applicable law unequivocally confirms this conclusion. There are no grey areas, no extenuating circumstances. Not according to the law.

When Tony Blair and George Bush decided to abandon the United Nations and launch their aggressive war against Iraq in March, 2003 they committed themselves to the most serious of all breaches of International law, “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”, as defined by the prosecutors at Nuremberg following the defeat of the Nazis.

For members of the Tony Blair apologist’s club, far from being the worst kind of war criminal, their patron saint is a courageous champion who faced the ultimate moral dilemma and emerged in triumph, tortured by having to choose the lesser of two evils yet vindicated by the shining light of democracy now rising in the Middle East.

When Blair and his fan base flirt with the law of war, they construct their case not as a reasoned, legal argument based on the facts, prevailing laws and treaties or precedent set down over centuries. Instead they approach the law as an obstacle to be circumvented or entirely dispensed with if they can get away with it. When no remotely credible legal position is available they simply substitute supposedly moral pleadings based on cost and benefit calculations.

They speak of the cost of not acting, or how a benefit allegedly derived from their action outweighs a cost. If a desired benefit fails to materialise and the cost is all too evident and cannot be spun away they console themselves with whimsical visions of what might have been, if only their good intentions had yielded the desired result.

They justify their actions by their own interpretation of what is right and what is wrong, regardless of what the law might actually reveal. Such judgements they see only themselves as being qualified to make. When the law or a part of it is inconvenient to their self-assessment of their righteousness they toss it aside, they leave it out of the reckoning. Or they unilaterally redefine it to suit their purpose.

So it is we are treated to talk of others “forcing” Blair and Bush into sending their bombers against Iraq, and “terrible mistakes made in the post-war period”, or “the depraved enemy”, who resisted the invaders instruction to throw rose petals and resorted to rocket propelled grenades.

The idea that none of the carnage and tragedy would have unfolded were it not for the unforced decisions taken in London and Washington to abandon the law and launch an aggressive war is considered too fanciful for consideration. In more reflective moments they might consider how many people Saddam would have murdered had it not been for their intervention, and so begins another round of congratulations as they conclude they saved lives by bombing cities and towns and villages in Iraq.

They pragmatically lament, at dinner parties a thousand miles behind the lines, that “war is hell”, all the while reminding us their heroes were forced, had no choice, acted in self-defence, killed to avoid being killed.

Indeed their heroes are the real victims. Great men misunderstood by ignorant and eternally ungrateful masses who couldn’t possibly comprehend the difficult decisions faced by the reluctant invaders as they hurriedly and with darkly comical amateurism “sexed up” their propaganda in an attempt to undermine the efforts of those seeking peaceful routes to resolve the conflict.

Apparently, it would take a person of “all-knowing wisdom” and “insight… of God-like proportions”, to understand the great complexities behind decisions that resulted in hundreds of British soldiers being killed, thousands more injured, a hundred thousand to a million Iraqis dead, four million made homeless, a smashed, polluted country and billions of pounds consumed in flames.

The fault is mine if I cannot see that such a horrific result is actually, when all things are considered, an outcome steeped in morality and altruism of the noblest form.

I have neither all-knowing wisdom nor God-like insight, so perhaps it is true, perhaps in the mind of God there exists some proviso to His most celebrated directives, “You shall not kill, Neither shall you steal, Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour, Neither shall you desire anything that belongs to your neighbour,” and, most pertinently, “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”

I am familiar enough with the words from God to guess that when Blair smugly turns his nose up at the law of man and informs us God will be his judge, he has spectacularly miscalculated. Again we see his blind spot for law, this time law set down literally in stone. God’s laws are explicit. So is the law of war.

Nowhere in God’s law will the aggressor find the legal defence, “the ends justify the means.” Does the law of man allow such latitude? Can the apologist bolster the flagging moral argument by subverting a legal concept so that his violence may be condoned under certain circumstances? Only when the aggressor can be transformed into the victim can all the death, mayhem and destruction be justified – as an act of self-defence. This is the centrepiece in the apologist’s legal case.

Taken together with a casual rewriting of the United Nations Charter, United Nations resolution 1441 and a faded memory of events in New York in 2002, it’s a poorly manufactured, shabby and unconvincing case that’s as easy to brush aside now as it was at the time. It’s a case entirely unsuited to underwrite a grand act of statesmanship, rather it is a fig leaf to dress a fait accompli staged by criminals who have enough influence to deter the machinery of justice from acting against them.

In a recent article, “Apologising for Blair”, I wrote about the outrage in certain circles at the prospect of Blair having to attend the Iraq Inquiry to assist us all in determining why it was necessary to kill so many people in Iraq.

Originally Gordon Brown, unelected successor to Blair’s old job at 10 Downing Street, had declared the promised Iraq Inquiry would be held in secret and bound by a tight remit. The intended aim of the game was to “learn lessons”, which is a euphemism for absolving all concerned parties of wrongdoing when the public demands government corruption is investigated.

A hallmark of the Blair administration was its readiness to hide behind a shield of national security interests whenever its misdeeds leaked into the public domain. Most recently, and despite considerable pressure from an incredulous public, Brown and his partner in war crimes Jack Straw continued the tradition when they once again succeeded in suppressing the crucial minutes of the cabinet meeting during which the war criminal Blair and his initially reluctant but by then rehabilitated crony, Lord Ashcroft Goldsmith, set down their phoney legal case for pre-emptive aggression.

In the next two postings to this blog I will examine bomber Blair’s legal case and set it against the laws that explode each of his disingenuous and immoral arguments just as thoroughly as his high explosives ripped through roads, bridges, water treatment plants, power stations and even hospitals in Iraq. As I list the apologists’ excuses for the illegal war, see how many of the bahavioural traits discussed in this posting you can identify. And at the same time, see if you can spot even a single, valid, legal justification for the aggression against Iraq.

But to begin with it would be wise to consider motive. Assuming what any rational person capable of intelligently observing the progress of Blair’s terrible crimes is forced to conclude, that Blair’s frivolous and insulting claims of liberation, freedom and democracy are a sham, what could drive a British Prime Minister to betray the trust of a nation by selling out to a foreign power and in the process murder or dispossess millions of innocent victims? It’s the oldest of motives – greed.

With motive, the means and the will, Blair committed one of the greatest atrocities in British history. How long shall we apologise for his actions on his behalf? How long will we attempt to understand his position? How long shall we allow him to evade a justice that would fall on us from the heavens were we to engage in such acts ourselves?

Are there thousands upon thousands dead and millions homeless, or not? Has a whole nation been smashed, or not? Has even a shred of evidence emerged that Iraq was a threat to Britain, or not? Has any linkage between Saddam Hussein and Al’Qaeda ever been established, or not? Is it pure misfortune that every single claim made to justify the illegal war has turned out the be a lie, or something else? Has Blair benefited massively from his close ties to his warmonger friends since he left office, or not? And should Blair be at least forced to answer the many questions raised by his actions, or not?

Is he a victim of circumstances or a quisling and a war criminal? The answer is obvious but, unfortunately, given his powerful friends and a legion of bag holding, coat throwing attendants, the obvious must be stated and re-stated so the truth does not vanish down the media memory hole.

Blair and Bush at the Whitehouse, 2003

Despite the long since uncovered lies, the deceit and corruption, the intensifying violence of the state, the broken lives, shattered families, splintered society, breakdown of law and order, looting and collapse of the economy and disenfranchisement of the people under a nightmare parody of democracy, there remains a small body of loyalists who cover their eyes, block off their ears, hold their noses and speak sweetly and softly of the warmonger, the serial bomber, the self-obsessed man monster who is Tony Blair.

Not only in Britain did he leave such a trail of destruction, he reserved a special malevolence for his overseas victims. Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan and then Iraq again fell under his blood-drenched, openly criminal policies. Driven by his self acclaimed vision of “right” and “wrong” and in contempt of any and all other opinion, most notably the British peoples’, like his accomplice in Washington Bush the “Decider“, he swept the nation through a state sponsored crime wave, outright terrorism by any definition.

He heaped bloodbath after bloodbath on our shoulders whilst allowing his corporate friends to lavish the treasure of nations upon themselves. Thus he doubly loaded the average citizen’s burden, both physically and morally. To this day he has made no apology for his despotic behaviour, indeed he unashamedly defends himself with the idea that his beliefs alone are sufficient to explain and excuse every crime, every murder, every theft and every lie.

It is necessary to make leaders hesitate before indulging in “the paramount war crime” to quote the judges of Nuremberg, of “unprovoked aggression against a defenceless country”. Unless leaders fear that they might be tried for their war crimes, we will live in an increasingly violent world, where The Geneva Conventions are treated as a joke, the UN is of no account, and death, destruction, torture, and repressive policing are commonplace. At the moment such leaders enjoy more and more trappings of power, and retire with vast sums of money, houses, medals and lucrative contracts. –
Blair War Crimes Foundation

Usefully for Blair, his small and faithful army of disciples is more than willing to apologise on his behalf and even now, many months after he was finally levered from power and cast aside in scorn by the British people, this workforce busily promotes the agenda of Blair, the man of peace, Blair, EU President most perfect. A man of conviction they proudly suggest and without a trace of irony as others, more willing to examine the stark evidence, insist a very different type of conviction is long overdue.

This is why the upcoming Iraq Inquiry is of such a worry to the loyalists. Already they have positioned their champion as being forced between a rock and a hard place, damned if the inquiry has teeth and he is forced to break the habit of a political lifetime by telling the truth, damned if the inquiry is a re-run of the Hutton and Butler whitewashes and he evades responsibility once more – to the disbelief of the watching public.

The “Get Blair” crowd, apparently, won’t be satisfied until their prey is shackled and incarcerated. For them, much like the “Get Myra Hindley” mob or the “Get that guy who we just saw with our own eyes commit a huge crime” rabble, nothing but direct punishment will be sufficient. The Blair faithful are horrified at the injustice of it all. I can see (right through) their point, which after the bluster is set aside is to suggest a British leader should never have to answer for his actions. How else can their open hostility to the idea of an inquiry be explained? They use other excuses that are just as unlikely. National security will be put at risk if he testifies, for example. Or a leader cannot lead effectively if he is challenged. Or even that British sovereignty itself is placed under threat when the representatives of the people are quizzed by the people, for the people. What is their definition of representation, I wonder?

All of these excuses distil to a basic idea. The state must be allowed to proceed in whatever manner that supposedly promotes the interests of the nation and the governed are not permitted to ask any questions in order to determine whose interests are actually being served. The assumption exists that the state will always act in our best interests. Beside that assumption is a mountain of woeful evidence that dispels the far fetched lie. Ask yourself these simple questions. Whose interests were served when Blair lied us into war? Whose interests were served when he handed the keys of the city to the profit lusting bankers? Whose interests were served as he embarked on his program of destroying education, or converting our health services into faceless corporations, or inviting his cronies into public office, or pocketing cash for favours, the list goes on but the questions remain. Whose interests?

Will national security be compromised simply because Blair has to explain himself? Does anyone seriously imagine the establishment will openly discuss its dirty little secrets on national TV? It’s a preposterous claim and can be rejected outright as a reason for excusing Blair’s appearance at an Inquiry. Is the leadership role diminished or undermined if we question our leaders? Tell me, what sort of leader cannot tolerate scrutiny? If a leader is acting in the interests of those being led then his role is greatly enhanced and his chances of successfully leading the group are multiplied if he is as open and honest in his intentions as possible. Leadership in the dark is counter-productive and highly suggestive of a hidden agenda designed to bring followers to places they may not willingly wish to go. Leadership by decree is not leadership at all, it is dictatorship.

Is British sovereignty at stake when we insist our leaders be held accountable for their deeds? I think not and I’m looking forward to meeting the people who suggest as much at the next anti-Lisbon “Treaty” rally – a process that Blair and the recipient of his soviet style succession, Brown, have denied us a voice in despite their repeated promises. Once a liar… How can Britain suffer if it shows the world it is prepared to treat each and every one of its citizens equally under the law? How can it not fail to be harmed when it demonstrates the opposite?

As for Blair’s right to follow his own course regardless of the will of the nation, or even his cabinet as it turns out, has he the right to take any action and provoke any consequence, no matter how catastrophic, just because he has been elected as the senior administrator in parliament? Is he a dictator, a monarch of old, above the people, above the law? This is precisely what Blair’s advocates seem to be suggesting. Even the thought of him answering a few questions amongst friends is abhorrent to them.

Would it be fine if this notorious war criminal entered your home, shot your family, claimed you were a terrorist, blew up your house, locked you up, tortured you and kicked you out on the street years later without any explanation for what had been done to you and with a dismissive claim that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time? Would you be satisfied with that kind of treatment? Rinse and repeat thousands of times and you begin to reach the horizon of Blair’s criminality. Of course he may not be done yet, there are many more special interests that might require his unique brand of humanitarianism and Europe beckons.

If you had been the victim of what so many others have had to suffer and were driven by a desire for justice (why wouldn’t you be?) who would you call on for assistance? What if the police simply weren’t interested and sent you away for “lack of evidence?” What if your MP crossed the road to avoid you? What if the BBC planted Nick Robinson outside your tormentor’s door to fawn over his moral courage? Would that upset you? How badly would it upset you? And if justice was denied to you, would you settle for revenge? Or would you instead start hating your neighbour “because he is free?”

This has been the full extent of Blair’s “interrogation” to date, protection by a thoroughly corrupted establishment, praise from on high blasted at a volume that drowns out the torrents of criticism and contempt surging up from the general public. Oh yes, the mix-up over WMD was unfortunate but for the small price of an uncounted number of dead, let’s say a mere 100,000 compared to the ridiculous claims of those that have actually tried to count, Iraq is now a bombed out, radiation poisoned, non-functioning, hell hole of a democracy. Democracy meaning, as always, control by an elite few who ignore the people and operate in the interests of big business.

So now Blair will have to sit in front of a carefully selected panel of insiders and play out the lead role in another theatre for the masses. Only the most naive will have to wait until the end of the show to determine the outcome, and even if they don’t fully grasp all the plot twists and limited hang-outs the media will be on hand with a study reader.

I’ve no doubt even the highest and mightiest will suffer mild criticism here or there, “Oh Tony, you must be more careful in the future… Tony, Tony, Tony, you have to learn to share with the other boys and girls…” The euphemism for avoiding all consequences, “Lessons learned”, will become a catchphrase again as we are informed in cosy terms that it’s true, our leaders are above the law and they can kill when they like, who they like, how they like and steal what they want, when they want, how they want. Because in the end they did it for us, in our best interests and with the best will in the world. Case closed, bury the dead, move on to the next lesson to be learned again.

Are you still buying it? All the dead bodies, the destruction, the rip-off bankers and their new round of bonuses, the crumbling national infrastructure that could have been rescued for a fraction of the hand-outs laid at the feet of the swindlers in the city or the billions of pounds converted to bombs and dropped on Iraq? The crimes, the lies the corruption. All for you, all done on your behalf. Are you grateful? Indifferent? Do you feel helpless, powerless? Do you believe I am mad for deviating from the mainstream script? Should I be punished, interrogated maybe, forced to face the consequences of my words even though I have thrown no sticks or stones?

Because you see, the law applies to you and I. Every law you can think of and thousands of new ones since Blair infected the nation in 1997. Leave your bin handles pointing out or be fined, Don’t speed on empty roads, or be fined. Pay your ballooning taxes, or be fined. Don’t let your child drop his food on the pavement, or be fined. All of these serious crimes are punishable when we wreak them upon society.

But lie to a nation, wage the very worst kind of war as defined in the Nuremberg Principles, open the safe to every crook in a suit and watch the innocent thrown from their jobs and homes or blown in pieces out of them and apparently there’s no need to even turn up and account for such acts, according to those who make it their mission to apologise for Blair.

What have they to fear? Can’t they spot a whitewash as it appears over the horizon? They’ve had enough practise by now. Maybe they are engaged in pre-emptive apology, just in case the world goes mad and justice is done.

Bernie Ecclestone

In assembling a list of Tony Blair’s top ten lies to the British people, Iraq and Saddam’s fabled weapons of mass destruction would surely top the charts. This was the lie that finally knocked Blair’s halo askew in the eyes of the public. Until that point many took him at his word when he claimed he was “a pretty straight sort of a guy”.

A liar would say that, wouldn’t he? A dishonest man is hardly going to admit his dishonesty, it’s simply not in his nature.

When thinking back to Bernie Ecclestone’s purchase of Tony Blair, New Labour’s first major scandal though certainly not the last, the sum of £1,000,000 probably jumps into your head. That was the amount Ecclestone donated to Blair’s party in secret in January, 1997 before Blair became the PM.

To dwell on the million pounds would be to miss the key issue in the “cash for access” affair. In those early days of New Labour’s reign Blair was already developing the methods of deception and corruption that he would return to repeatedly during his time in office.

Smoking is the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. We will therefore ban tobacco advertising. – 1997 Labour Party Manifesto

In the election manifesto Blair had pledged to put an end to all tobacco advertising. No exceptions were indicated. Health Secretary Frank Dobson and Minister for Public Health Tessa Jowell were responsible for driving the new policy through. Jowell, in particular, had a reputation for being staunchly anti-tobacco.

On October 16th, 1997 Ecclestone and FAI boss Max Mosley meet Tony Blair to argue against the proposed ban. Literally hours after the meeting Downing Street wrote to Jowell instructing her “to look for ways of finding a permanent derogation for sport, in particular F1.” Despite the about face, and in a demonstration of the principles and integrity of the woman, on 4 November she argued in Brussels for an exemption for Formula One.

Ecclestone and Mosely had warned Blair, “Motor racing was a world class industry which put Britain at the hi-tech edge. Deprived of tobacco money, Formula One would move abroad at the loss of 50,000 jobs, 150,000 part-time jobs and £900 million of exports.”

Considering the meeting lasted all of 20 minutes it’s doubtful whether these claims were examined in any detail. And taking into account what we now know, that it only took a few hours for Blair to issue his instructions to Jowell, it’s safe to assume little or no attempt was made to verify the claims.

By this stage journalists were trying to establish whether New Labour had received any donations from Formula One. On November 9th Downing Street admitted Mosely was a party supporter but remained silent on whether Ecclestone had made any donations. The next day Gordon Brown claimed he had no knowledge of any contributions from Ecclestone. With pressure growing, on the 11th November New Labour eventually admitted to the £1,000,000 donation.

Stretching credibility to breaking point, Blair tried to sell his policy reversal as an attempt to protect British jobs. Think about that for a minute. If he was telling the truth, he was effectively admitting the manifesto was prepared without due care and attention. If he was telling the truth the proposed tobacco advertising ban was nothing more than a thoughtless and cynical pre-election sound-bite.

In late November the government was condemned by two cross-party parliamentary committees for reversing its policy on the ban. Jowell admitted the number of jobs lost if Formula One left Europe might not be as high as previously estimated. By estimation I assume she meant the instruction taken from Ecclestone and Mosely.

Unknown at the time a November memo from the DTI to the health department stated, “We believe it is unlikely that if F1 should leave the UK there would be an immediate effect on the industry as a whole.” A little late considering Blair had taken no time to make his decision and even going by his own spin the decision to exempt Formula One was made in October.

Eventually Blair had to hand the million back to Ecclestone. After issuing the cheque Downing Street announced if it was not cashed the total amount would be donated to charity. Ecclestone, down to his last billion, cashed the cheque. There would be no honourable conclusion to the sordid episode and Ecclestone triumphed by having his cake and eating it.

We had to wait until 2008 before documents released under the Freedom of Information Act finally confirmed Blair had lied, lied and lied again about his role in the Ecclestone affair. The year after Blair resigned, internal Downing Street memos revealed the decision to overturn the Formula One ban had been made at the time of the meeting, and not two weeks later as Blair stated in Parliament.

The transcript of Tony Blair’s meeting with Bernie Ecclestone

Rupert Murdoch

In his latest article in the New Statesmen John Pilger recalls some of the worst journalistic breaches of integrity by Rupert Murdoch’s “news” papers and remembers a young “aspiring war criminal” who, at an early stage of his political ascent, made it his business to court favour with the dangerously influential press baron.

The starry-eyed acolyte conveyed first-class to Australia was Tony Blair. He spoke of “the need for a new moral purpose in politics.” The rest is history and since that day millions of people around the planet have tasted Blair’s morality first-hand, many of them as they prayed whilst his bombs fell on their heads.

The saying goes that people are known by the company they keep. This was never more true than for Tony Blair. And a look at his friends begins to explain just how it is he has managed to evade justice since 1997 as he prosecuted one war after the next, with innocent civilians always paying the toll for his ambitions.

Blair, a man who once taunted John Major when he claimed the difference between them was that he, Blair, actually lead his party, later became an object of ridicule as he slavishly followed former US president George Bush around the globe on bombing sprees. “Poodle Blair”, has never really been a leader as many claim, not in the true sense at least. He’s always attached himself to the powerful and the famous, drawing on their publicity to boost his own.

Unfortunately for Blair. Nuremberg tells us that following orders is no defence.

Lies, damn lies – John Pilger