"Arrest Blair!"

[The Voice of Time]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=543Ul8w-LcM

"More than a fifth of Britons believe Blair should be tried as a war criminal. How far-fetched is this idea? What are the legal impediments? And should politicians of all ranks be held accountable for their actions?"

I of course agree he should be tried, and that his example should set a precedence and introduce new laws around the world's nations that makes exploitative behaviour of leaders to wage (unjust) wars punishable by imprisonment of up to several years, and that it should include a responsibility of, not just military, but also civilian leaders to ensure the safety of civilians in the territories of war and critical infrastructure (for instance, hospitals) as best as possible (following sets of criteria that has to be worked out) and that negligence of this or outright counter-behaviour should be punishable by imprisonment as well. Lastly, the ordering of illegal treatment of prisoners of war or otherwise people imprisoned for security purposes or the neglecting to counter this (following a set of criteria) should also be punishable by imprisonment.

Leaders, not just military ones, has to be held accountable for the choices they make and the consequences that they should expect to follow from them!

[bobevenson]

Are you suggesting that government officials be tried for what you consider to be bad judgment as opposed to actually violating the law?

[The Voice of Time]

Are you suggesting that government officials be tried for what you consider to be bad judgment as opposed to actually violating the law?

To say it's "bad judgement" is a very strong trivializing of the facts. Blair didn't just "do a mistake", he made judgement based on lies (he knew were lies) and broke international law with his involvement in the treatment of prisoners (not to mention going against UN-mandate).

So he did actually break law, it's just that the laws he broke weren't of the kind that would make him face any automatic legal authority, they were treaties and the likes.

My biggest point is that we need to introduce laws to tame our leaders into not being able to just do mistakes that costs extreme amounts of money, kills thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of humans, and have serious implications on the quality of the lives of those who fights and those who are the living victims. If you are a terrible person, you shouldn't be able to just walk away from it when you make "bad judgements", it's not enough that you get ousted from a political party and from the government, you need to be held personally accountable. If people aren't held personally accountable, they'll continue to abuse power. Loosing power may simply be a gamble many leaders are willing to take to just get what they want, and sometimes that thing is beyond modesty and enters an extreme which cannot ever be accepted.

[bobevenson]

The guy was elected, wasn't he? If people didn't take the necessary steps to recall him, it is they who are responsible. Why don't you just indict the entire population of England? Who are you to judge what are lies and whether somebody knew they were lies? International law has absolutely no legal force upon any country and treaties can be broken at any time.

[The Voice of Time]

If you don't care about people or about trust and honour, Bob, I know it's easy to think like that. But not everybody can accept the death of hundreds of thousands of people and say "that's just how democracy works". You can't recall somebody you have elected anyways, it doesn't work that way. Besides, ordinary people can't go about looking at all the things the prime minister does (and it's not that easy to stop him anyways if he tries to do anything bad), they must be able to depend upon him doing the right thing, so they can live their own lives in safe knowledge that whomever is in charge does the right thing, and killing people for no good reason is a very bad thing.

Bob, something is either true or not. Either you bought the banana or you didn't. There is no controversy whether Blair lied (supported a lie) or not. The controversy is between those who thinks he should be made formally accountable and punished for the terror he inflicted upon people as a driving force for the whole situation or whether things like national pride or people's fear of being part of the blame themselves (voter's and participant's guilt) should go ahead of any persecution. I sense the shame is so high that people don't want to go the extra step necessary to make a big case out of this.

[bobevenson]

Bob, something is either true or not. Either you bought the banana or you didn't. There is no controversy whether Blair lied (supported a lie) or not.

I'd sure hate being tried before a jury of twelve people like you, where I could be found guilty without any witnesses or testimony because it was obvious that I was guilty.

[The Voice of Time]

I'd sure hate being tried before a jury of twelve people like you, where I could be found guilty without any witnesses or testimony because it was obvious that I was guilty.

Ask Blair yourself.

[bobevenson]

I'd sure hate being tried before a jury of twelve people like you, where I could be found guilty without any witnesses or testimony because it was obvious that I was guilty.

Ask Blair yourself.

You just want to convict people, you don't want a fair trial, a defense attorney, a jury of one's peers. Oh, I forgot, you're from Norway, where my grandparents escaped from many years ago!

[The Voice of Time]

I never said I wanted to convict anybody without fair trial, why do you presume that?

[bobevenson]

I never said I wanted to convict anybody without fair trial, why do you presume that?

My God, you've already convicted Blair, and he hasn't even been indicted for anything!!!

[The Voice of Time]

We all know what he did. I'm just expressing my opinion on justice. I'm not a formal judge to convict anybody. I think you are blending metaphors with reality here, which makes you somewhat stupid.

[bobevenson]

We all know what he did. I'm just expressing my opinion on justice. I'm not a formal judge to convict anybody. I think you are blending metaphors with reality here, which makes you somewhat stupid.

"We all know what he did." And you call me stupid???

[The Voice of Time]

Do we not all know what he did, Bob?

[bobevenson]

Do we not all know what he did, Bob?

Too bad England can't be like Norway, where people like you are judge, jury, prosecutor and jailer, all rolled up into one.

[The Voice of Time]

Do we not all know what he did, Bob?

Too bad England can't be like Norway, where people like you are judge, jury, prosecutor and jailer, all rolled up into one.

Actually, there's something called "lekdommer": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge#Norway

Read an article that people from the US was taking a look at the system and might want to copy it.

I probably wouldn't be allowed to be judge or jury as I'm not up for very serious jobs like that (theoretically speaking I could be prosecutor, and if I applied and got good degrees on the police academy, I might theoretically become a jailer, both of course are too serious jobs for me), but I have no interest in that either, my foremost thoughts is that he should be tried and that there better be some seriously good reasons if he's not found guilty (the option is there always, but it's thin).