Source: Craig Murray Supreme Court Judges Defy Reason to Protect Tony Blair
Today’s judgement by the Supreme Court that there is no crime in English law of waging aggressive war for which Tony Blair might be prosecuted – or at least that there was not in 2003 – is truly appalling. I have not yet seen the full judgement, but newspaper reports indicate that part of the decision was dependent on the idea that the crime of waging aggressive war was not incorporated into international law before the 2010 amendments to the Statute of Rome.
This is plainly a nonsense. The crime of waging aggressive war was specifically cited in the Nuremberg trials, and so its existence in international law is at a minimum 70 years old. And while it may be argued that the entire international community did not explicitly endorse the Nuremberg proceedings, there is no doubt that the British state endorsed them. The British state was a lead player and key participant in the entire process. So the British state has plainly recognised the crime of waging aggressive war at least since Nuremberg.
The Nuremberg Tribunal plainly declared in its judgement – a key piece of hard international law – that
“To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
For the Supreme Court to argue that the crime of aggression did not exist for another 63 years is plainly absolute nonsense. It is worth noting that this crime of aggressive war related to the false pretexts and excuses on which the law was launched, and was an entirely separate matter from consideration of the Holocaust. There is a very exact parallel between the Nuremberg exposure of the false pretexts for Hitler’s invasions, and Blair’s false justification for invading Iraq. This 1946 report by the Economist brings that startlingly to life.
For the rich fat-arsed judges of the Supreme Court to argue that the British state does not recognise a crime of waging aggressive war, is to deny a key fact of history. It can only be consistent if they believe the British state was acting illegally at Nuremberg, which they do not argue (and neither do I). It is an example of the way that establishment corruption knows no bounds in the compulsive desire of the governing elite to protect one another.
To put it another way, if the Nazis could be prosecuted by the British state for waging aggressive war, so should Tony Blair.
The Supreme Court is a lie, a cheat and a disgrace, which stands today exposed for all to see.
The post Supreme Court Judges Defy Reason to Protect Tony Blair appeared first on Craig Murray.