Thursday, 28 January 2010
the rule of law
is a subject close to my heart, and one on which the Filth has an editorial today apparently. Norman Geras posts about it like this, correctly saying that the editorial appears to have been written by some kind of lunatic (the last words in his post are "Rave on") as it says, inter alia, that there is "room for dispute" about the legality of the Iraq war (like, derrh) and concludes by saying that "Blair and Straw" committed a crime. Insane. But if they did, and of course they did not, but if you dear reader think they did, and whenever I mention this subject hordes of people start commenting about "Bliar" and other Guardian-speak nonsense, then all those MPs who voted in Parliament for the action, like me, have committed war crimes too, and all those who abstained, like Martin Salter (although he told everyone he had voted against it) are accessories to war crimes. Excellent. Makes you proud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Jane, what were your grounds for voting for the Iraq war? Were you convinced by the inaccurate evidence of weapons of mass destruction or did you just think "Never mind international law, I want to depose Saddam"?
I did not think "never mind international law" Of Course. I wanted the job finished that was left unfinished by Bush senior in 1991 and by the pusillanimity of the UN which will not follow through on its own resolutions. It was the right thing to do. Next!
Laws are made by governments etc. (preferably democratic ones) and interpreted by lawyers. What, if any, democratic body (consisting of democrats) has made international laws?
Jack Straw, according to the Chilcot enquiry, dismissed as "dogmatic" the opinions of his own lawyers that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal!
Would that defence get off anyone else accused of a crime?
Hello Anonymous. Are you suggesting that international law has no legitimacy? If so, what rules should govern the conduct of wars?
Post a Comment