Nine members of the public decided to use Prime Minister's Question Time today to question directly Tony Blair on the important issues of the occupation of Iraq, and the real reasons that the United Kingdom went to war. Refusing to be silent on hearing the Prime Minister's evasions on these important issues, each stood up and made one simple demand: "No more whitewashes, Tony!"
House of Commons, Wednesday February 4th.
Nine members of the public decided to use Prime Minister's Question Time today to question directly Tony Blair on the important issues of the occupation of Iraq, and the real reasons that the United Kingdom went to war. Refusing to be silent on hearing the Prime Minister's evasions on these important issues, each stood up and made one simple demand: "No more whitewashes, Tony!"
The Oxford residents are all furious at Parliament's inability to hold the Government to account over its war, which resulted in the deaths of over 10,000 Iraqi civilians, and the subsequent occupation which has killed thousands more Iraqis, as well as hundreds of American and British soldiers. The protestors were keen to point out that the war on Iraq, as well as the occupation, was illegal under international law [1], regardless of the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction. They also expressed their disgust at the latest governmental inquiry into the war, which is to be held in secret and will not address the political reasons for the invasion. Simon Little said: "Two million people told Tony Blair on February 15th that his intelligence on Iraq was laughable, and no basis on which to launch a war. We all know that the government was determined to go to war regardless of the intelligence they received, and Parliament must impeach the Prime Minister on charges of war crimes immediately. He intentionally launched a war of aggression; he is a mass murderer."
The protestors were not just angry over the decision to invade, but also with the current situation in occupied Iraq. Without any democratic mandate, the US and UK occupation forces have imprisoned over 13,000 Iraqis without trial, as well as shooting unarmed protestors and children. The CIA itself has warned that Iraq is at risk of slipping into a three-way civil war; exactly the warning given by the anti-war movement before the invasion. Similarly, the economy of Iraq has been taken over by multinational corporations; trade tariffs have virtually been abolished, US companies are being given billion-dollar contracts at the expense of Iraqi people, and over 200 state-owned enterprises have been privatised[2]. Hannah Dyson said: "We would never do this to our own economy, and yet we are handing the fate of the Iraqi people over to unaccountable corporations, who are treating Iraq as their own private playground."
Notes to Journalists:
[1] Resolution 1441 did not legalise the invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorization for war. According to Mexico's Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, force could only be valid, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council." Clearly, a unilateral act of war by the United States and the UK would be a war of aggression, falling outside the norms of international law and thus qualifying as a serious war crime. Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles of 1946 explicitly states that the 'planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties' is a war crime. Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
[2] The anti-war movement's contention that one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the demand for new markets has been born out in President Bush's recent statement that "reconstructing" Iraq would serve as the starting point for a "US-Middle East free-trade area" incorporating 22 nations and based on the "free market system". Paul Bremer, the administrator of Iraq, has spoken of the need to "overcome" the Iraqi people's "sense of entitlement" when it comes to basic rights such as health care, food, and education. Importantly, it is clear that the radical economic 'reform' of Iraq is also illegal under international law, as has been confirmed by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in whose opinion: "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law". He expands: "the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective [of disarming Saddam], the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation."
Contact on: 07753266302 or write to
impeach_blair@hotmail.com with your own contact details.
Nine members of the public decided to use Prime Minister's Question Time today to question directly Tony Blair on the important issues of the occupation of Iraq, and the real reasons that the United Kingdom went to war. Refusing to be silent on hearing the Prime Minister's evasions on these important issues, each stood up and made one simple demand: "No more whitewashes, Tony!"
The Oxford residents are all furious at Parliament's inability to hold the Government to account over its war, which resulted in the deaths of over 10,000 Iraqi civilians, and the subsequent occupation which has killed thousands more Iraqis, as well as hundreds of American and British soldiers. The protestors were keen to point out that the war on Iraq, as well as the occupation, was illegal under international law [1], regardless of the presence or absence of weapons of mass destruction. They also expressed their disgust at the latest governmental inquiry into the war, which is to be held in secret and will not address the political reasons for the invasion. Simon Little said: "Two million people told Tony Blair on February 15th that his intelligence on Iraq was laughable, and no basis on which to launch a war. We all know that the government was determined to go to war regardless of the intelligence they received, and Parliament must impeach the Prime Minister on charges of war crimes immediately. He intentionally launched a war of aggression; he is a mass murderer."
The protestors were not just angry over the decision to invade, but also with the current situation in occupied Iraq. Without any democratic mandate, the US and UK occupation forces have imprisoned over 13,000 Iraqis without trial, as well as shooting unarmed protestors and children. The CIA itself has warned that Iraq is at risk of slipping into a three-way civil war; exactly the warning given by the anti-war movement before the invasion. Similarly, the economy of Iraq has been taken over by multinational corporations; trade tariffs have virtually been abolished, US companies are being given billion-dollar contracts at the expense of Iraqi people, and over 200 state-owned enterprises have been privatised[2]. Hannah Dyson said: "We would never do this to our own economy, and yet we are handing the fate of the Iraqi people over to unaccountable corporations, who are treating Iraq as their own private playground."
Notes to Journalists:
[1] Resolution 1441 did not legalise the invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorization for war. According to Mexico's Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, force could only be valid, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council." Clearly, a unilateral act of war by the United States and the UK would be a war of aggression, falling outside the norms of international law and thus qualifying as a serious war crime. Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles of 1946 explicitly states that the 'planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties' is a war crime. Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at the first Nuremberg trial, called waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
[2] The anti-war movement's contention that one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the demand for new markets has been born out in President Bush's recent statement that "reconstructing" Iraq would serve as the starting point for a "US-Middle East free-trade area" incorporating 22 nations and based on the "free market system". Paul Bremer, the administrator of Iraq, has spoken of the need to "overcome" the Iraqi people's "sense of entitlement" when it comes to basic rights such as health care, food, and education. Importantly, it is clear that the radical economic 'reform' of Iraq is also illegal under international law, as has been confirmed by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in whose opinion: "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorised by international law". He expands: "the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective [of disarming Saddam], the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation."
Contact on: 07753266302 or write to
impeach_blair@hotmail.com with your own contact details.
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
Well done!
04.02.2004 17:21
sociétélibre
Fantastic!
04.02.2004 19:33
Suzie
'You Would Have Been Hanged'
04.02.2004 22:47
Serious Roy
won't be long now
05.02.2004 05:18
and secret trials , no jury?
selective evidence available to the public?
eh???
mmmm???
we must use our freedoms while we have them, must't we...
i mean, what would be the point of
having freedoms if we couldn't use them?????
of course i'm speaking only for myself...
it is another kettle of fish if you happen to be
homeless, a gypsie, jewish, brown skinned,
wear a turban or similar atire...etc etc...
i don't think any of us are failing to realize anything...
especially when over the pond the leading democret nominee
John kerry (Yale- skull+Bones...)
says he is in favour of the death penalty for 'terrorists'
mmm...the world is shaping up nicely
Just not for anyone who gives a shit about real freedom...
or REAL democracy...
THEY can't fool all of us...
love cw
Captain Wardrobe
Guardian article
05.02.2004 11:09
sociétélibre
Serious Roy . . .
05.02.2004 12:39
I understand how people may support a humanitarian war of liberation, but this was not the war that was (and still is being) fought. Hundreds of tonnes of Depleted Uranium, a low-intensity chemical weapon (i.e. it affects the children of the present generation worse than them) have been spread all over Iraq.(2)
The Iraqi people are not 'free'. The US have re-hired the feared mukhabarat, Saddam's gestappo, and are reluctanct to see real democracy because they can't control the outcome.(3)
By all means support liberation, but this war is no liberation, just a continuation of the power politics that have claimed millions of lives in the post-WW II period.
The MoD even has a document on its website boasting about the success of its propaganda operations AGAINST the british public.(4)
SOURCES:
(1)
(2)
(3)Washington Post 24/8/03, see
(4)
Tom
Free Elections (I laugh)
05.02.2004 16:12
Serious Roy
Serious Roy is right - let's bring down some more US/UK puppet regimes
05.02.2004 19:46
Lilith
You can't be Serious Roy
06.02.2004 16:04
I am however immensly proud to have been born in the arbritrary patch of earth we call the 'west'. Look at free countries, like the USA. It would be impossible to rig an election there!
Essentially the difference between Saddam-style dictatorships and 'western' democracy is not the level of democratic expression but the level of brutality. Both systems are essentially totalitarian, in that power is centralised and the desires of the public marginalised. In the 'west' we get to select which faction of the oligarchy has the loudest voice every 4 or 5 years, but that is all. The primary difference is in the level of overt state repression. I am certainly glad that the British government does not boil dissenters alive (unlike it's clients). This does not make the UK democratic as it merely means you can say whatever you please, and be ignored.
Parliamentary elections are to democracy as paint is to cars. Almost all examples have it, although it can sometimes function without. Democracy is about decentralisation of power and enfranchisement. The absolute most flattering description of the UK system is an 'elective oligarchy'. As a result of the first-past-the-post party manifestio-based elections and the subesquant 'tactical voting' etc the swing required for a new party to enter the fray, although theoretically permitted, would be nothing short of revolutionary. If nobody votes for them, they won't get in; so nobody votes for them.
The war against Iraq was clearly a gross crime of aggression. Liberation is not DU. Liberation is not UXO. Liberation is not appointed governments. Liberation is not getting shot dead at demonstrations. Liberation is not electrical blackouts. Liberation is not a lack of clean water.
Liberation is something the Iraqi people can give themselves, at best we could support them. It seems we are opposing them.
Tom