Blair REVEALS true nature at CHILCOT - International Injustice/Law

Most media reports on the inquiry to date seem designed to support a pre-planned outcome, ‘you’re a naughty boy (psychopath) Tony, but you can go and play now!’ Whereas Blair should have been the first Western leader to FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for his historically recorded CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY!

The most underreported aspect of this inquiry so far is Blair’s classic sociopathic behaviour! From his classic narcissism to his grotesque inability to EMPATHISE with MILLIONS of his VICTIMS or indeed APPRECIATE the profound CONSEQUENCES of HIS criminal ACTIONS – the man is clearly as SICK as they come; and I take this opportunity to challenge any professional specialist to counter that observation!

Note (below) the slick methods utilised by the Corporate media to dupe and placate the masses; however, we should never forget that it is pathological personalities like Blair that ruling elites seek out and enlist to do their bidding!

The following piece from the formerly trusted, Guardian, is typical of the mass media coverage. I include the entire article here and highlight examples of subliminal techniques deployed to actually praise, exonerate and hold Blair in high regard, as a crafty, privileged villain above the reach of common people and the LAW: [All emphases and insertions are mine.]

The Chilcot inquiry will be remembered for not pressing Blair over his HUGE LIE regarding Saddam's ability to launch a WMD strike in 45 minutes -- a pivotal claim/LIE that led to the ILLEGAL, pre-emptive invasion, WAR with Iraq.

Blair's Foreign Office also received legal advice that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was illegal; however, Blair chose to ignore the advice of his own Foreign Office and run with the Bush propaganda line instead. Blair stated at the inquiry that, faced with legality issues, he had to make a "definitive decision!" In Blair's own words HE chose to flout the LAW and proceed down the CRIMINAL course outlined (PNAC) years earlier by the criminal American neo-cons.

But the most damning aspect of the whole Chilcot whitewash is the total disregard of the HUMAN COST of the ILLEGAL INVASION. Responsibility for the millions of people killed, displaced, maimed and traumatised rests with Blair and his coalition partners! Yet the civilian death toll barely rated a mention!

As much as with Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands, Britain's role in the Iraq conflict has been personally identified with Tony Blair. He often referred to it as "my decision", and did so again in his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry on Friday. Yet one of the important themes emerging from the inquiry is the extent to which the Iraq war was a collective enterprise.

This newspaper, which opposed the war more strenuously and consistently than any other, has always tried to avoid the simple view of the decision-making process as that of an over-mighty prime minister riding roughshod over a supine Cabinet and a feeble House of Commons. Mr Blair was the principal architect of British policy – even if the original mover of the invasion was George Bush – but he was not an absolute monarch.

It ought to be one of the functions of the Iraq inquiry report, which Sir John Chilcot said on Friday that he hopes to publish at the end of this year, to name the other guilty parties. Sir John did say at the outset that his committee "cannot determine guilt or innocence", but he went on to say: "We will not shy away from making criticisms where they are warranted."

The inquiry has heard more than enough evidence to know that criticisms are warranted. In particular, the new information about the way in which the legal case for war was constructed has vindicated the stance taken by The Independent on Sunday from the start.

This was not Mr Blair's responsibility alone. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6; Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, at No 10; they all played their part. But Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, and Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General, were two of the main villains of the piece. Mr Straw, who returns for a second session at the inquiry next week, seems to have regarded it as his job to insulate No 10 from the lawyers in his department, knowing that all 27 regarded military action in Iraq as contrary to international law. Once Mr Straw had lectured his own lawyers on how he knew the law better than they did, and had been proved right in the courts when he disagreed with the lawyers at the Home Office, he turned his attention to writing a long letter to Lord Goldsmith.

The Attorney General, we now know, thought that military action required further United Nations authorisation after resolution 1441. But then, after consulting Mr Straw and Bush administration lawyers in Washington, he changed his mind. Had he refused to do so, British forces would have been unable to join the invasion, whatever Mr Blair wanted.

The heroine of the story so far is Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office until the invasion. As we reported exclusively last week, in holding that military action was illegal, she was far from the "voice in the wilderness" that she was presented as being by the Government. She was the only official to resign on that point of principle, and for that brave stand as much as for the integrity of her evidence she deserved her round of applause from the public gallery on Tuesday.

The position of her boss, Sir Michael Wood, was more ambiguous. He thought the war was illegal, and said that his advice had not been overruled before, but he stayed in post. He also told the inquiry that someone at No 10 had asked, "Why has this been put in writing?", when he submitted a paper on the consequences of going ahead without legal approval. That is a damning indictment of the way that the inner court operated.

The political case for war was no more robust than the legal case – although who knows what the attitude of the Cabinet would have been had they known how "finely balanced" the legal case was, in Lord Goldsmith's unheard words.

Here Mr Straw was arrogant enough to tell the inquiry that, had he opposed the invasion, Mr Blair would not have been able to persuade Cabinet and Parliament to back it. He is right, which should be a cause for shame rather than pride, a shame compounded by the way in which Mr Straw has consistently sought to suggest that he was less gung-ho than Mr Blair, as if he were trying to keep his options open in case another colleague discovered his principles.

That other colleague, of course, was Gordon Brown. His opposition would also have been sufficient to ensure that British forces would have stayed out of the war. He must be held to account for that decision when he appears before the inquiry in a few weeks' time.

© 2010 Independent News and Media Limited

Thank you for alerting me to Blair's lack of empathy and other characteristics that clearly define him as a sociopath.

The Oz ABC recently re-broadcast an informative program on "Corporate Psychopaths" -- not surprisingly social psychopaths thrive in Corporate environments and we are ALL aware that corporations have no conscience whatsoever!

The link (below) provides Media Player and Real Player versions of the program which is 'MUST SEE' for anyone that wishes to understand the sick personality types that rise to power in the Corporate and Political world.

The program ends with a sober warning that psychopaths, though initially appealing, are in FACT extremely destructive and eventually subvert the companies, orgs, and NATIONS in Blair's case, they operate in! An excellent, informative program! I still can't get over how Blair fits the description to a tee!!!

What's a million innocent lives to a remorseless PSYCHOPATH now that he earns millions in blood money! However, Blair's name and current status as a murdering PSYCHOPATH are LIABILITIES for anyone stupid enough to be associated with this NOW infamous, universally despised, WAR CRIMINAL!

Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oil and trade deals in return for regime change.

A secret plan to foster an internal coup against Saddam Hussein was drawn up by the Government two years before the invasion of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.

Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.

The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law.

"The Iraqi people have the right to live in a society based on the rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest; to enjoy respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity," the contract reads. "The record of the current regime in Iraq suggests that its priorities remain elsewhere.

"Those who wish to promote change in Iraq deserve our support," it concludes. "We look forward to the day when Iraq rejoins the international community." A new regime was to be offered "debt rescheduling" through the Paris Club, an informal group of the richest 19 economies, given help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and handed an EU aid and trade deal. Companies were to be invited to invest in its oil fields. A "comprehensive retraining programme" was to be offered to Iraqi professionals.

During his evidence to the inquiry last week, Mr Blair said it was only after 9/11 that serious attention was given to removing Saddam as the attack changed the "calculus of risk". However, another classified document released by the Iraq inquiry on Friday night showed that No 10 explicitly saw the Contract with the Iraqi People as an early tool to remove the former Iraqi dictator. A memo issued in March 2001 by Sir John Sawers, then Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, cited the document under the heading "regime change".

"Regime change. The US and UK would re-make the case against Saddam Hussein. We would issue a Contract with the Iraqi People, setting out our goal of a peaceful, law-abiding Iraq," the memo states. "The Contract would make clear that the Iraqi regime's record and behaviour made it impossible for Iraq to meet the criteria for rejoining the international community without fundamental change."

Officials planned to release the contract alongside tougher sanctions against Saddam's regime being negotiated in 2001. When no agreement was reached and the US began to seek more active measures to remove the Baghdad administration after 9/11, the contract was dropped.

The document was not released by the Iraq inquiry, despite being cited as significant by Foreign Office officials. Sir William Patey, the Government's head of Middle East policy at the time it was drafted, said it was "our way in the Foreign Office of trying to signal that we didn't think Saddam was a good thing and it would be great if he went". He said it was used in place of an "explicit policy of trying to get rid of him".

"It was a way of signalling to the Iraqi people that because we don't have a policy of regime change, it doesn't mean to say we're happy with Saddam Hussein, and there is life after Saddam with Iraq being reintegrated into the international community," he said.

Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."

* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

© 2010 Independent News and Media Limited

The Blair War Crimes Foundation is pleased to announce that we are now utilising our resources for Bill Bowring, Professor of International Law at Birkbeck College, University of London, and his colleagues, in their submission to the International Criminal Court at The Hague asking for a preliminary investigation of Blair and his colleagues for war crimes committed in 2003-4.

The Foundation's Declaration has been signed by Derek Jacobi, Naji Haraj, John Pilger, Noam Chomski, Ben Griffin, Bruce Kent, Ken Loach, Haifa Zangana, Tahrir Swift, and 6,113 other signatories

It is hoped that the unexpected revelations emerging from the Chilcot Inquiry, added to the Report prepared by Prof Bowring and his colleagues in 2004, will help to persuade the Prosecutor at the ICC to commence an investigation. The Report not only found substantial evidence of commission of war crimes, but also asserted that under the international legal principle of "joint enterprise", Blair and others could be held liable for crimes committed by US forces, since both the USA and UK had embarked on an illegal course of action.

Signed by Joint Secretaries the Blair War Crimes Foundation, Dr. David Halpin and Nicholas Wood on behalf of 6,113 other signatories (as of 2 Feb 2010).

Topics

Other Press

Cleaves on Disc/Stick