‘Blair is war criminal over Iraq, but so is George W. Bush’
The High Court in London has rejected an attempt to prosecute former Prime Minister Tony Blair over the Iraq War.
RT: Following the High Court ruling, does this lay the matter to rest and Tony Blair will never have to face any form of prosecution?
OM: I don’t think he will. I am not a lawyer, and I am not absolutely certain that this is the end of the matter legally because this is the High Court and we have Supreme Court. But whether there is to be an appeal I couldn’t say. But I don’t believe that it will ever be a matter for a British court to decide because apparently, the crime of aggression doesn’t exist in British law. And I think that is the end of the matter until parliament decides otherwise and they won’t.
RT: Do you believe Tony Blair has something to answer for over the war?
OM: I’m on the record saying I think Tony Blair is a war criminal. But then of course so is George W. Bush. In a sense it wouldn’t be very satisfactory if Blair was to be brought before a British court, but nothing was to be done about America. The fact is – we don’t have a world government, we don’t have an international criminal court which is fully effective…
Blocking Tony Blair’s prosecution for Iraq War ‘an attack on democracy’ - campaigners. https://t.co/be1VPhafOv— RT UK (@RTUKnews) July 31, 2017
RT: Would you expect any response from Tony Blair over this?
OM: Tony Blair is adept at responding, saying at great length nothing, in particular, hoping he will win back support and public opinion. But I think he is pretty played out on that. I don’t expect any meaningful response from him. I think he will have to live with the fact that a lot of people in Britain think he was a war criminal.
RT: If Blair is now off the radar, does it mean they'll target someone else instead? Does the ball move to people perhaps in Blair’s then administration?
OM: If anyone can think of a way of bringing the law of the land to bear on Jack Straw or any of the other people who were involved at the time, then, of course, the courts are open to that possibility. But I don’t see it myself; I think if it were the case that some legal recourse existed, somebody would have found it by now. What we have had is a thorough investigation that took a hell of a lot of time, but when it eventually came out, I am talking about Chilcot Report, John Chilcot spoke quite strongly and clearly about responsibility for the war. But he is not a court of law, and he can’t punish those who are responsible.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.