Forum

joe emersberger

On 19 December 2011 14:41, <jemersberger> wrote:

Dear Deborah Orr
Would you be willing to explain - to me in a reply to this email or perhaps in your Guardian column - why you don't feel Bush or Blair should be prosecuted for invading Iraq?
Joe Emersberger

From: Deborah Orr <deborah>
To: jemersberger <jemersberger>
Sent: Mon, Dec 19, 2011 9:50 am
Subject: Re: Question re Bush and Blair

Because they had the approval of their democratically elected parliaments, so those members would all have to be prosecuted too, unless they all decided to testify that they were misled. Which seems unlikely.

On 19 December 2011 15:07, <jemersberger> wrote:

Thanks for the quick reply.

You could certainly make a case for prosecuting the members of parliament who voted in favor, and memebers of congress in the USA.
Some legislators may be able to argue persuasively in court that they were misled by the WMD haox - though millions of people around the world took to the streets before the war was even launched becasue it was obvious to them that it was a load of BS.

In the USA, congressmen could also argue that the high level of power the Presidecy has concentrated in its hands over the years makes them less culpable.

The guys at Nuremberg could - and did - make those kinds of arguemnts
Regardless, why wouldn't you want to see those trials happen?
Saying that because Bush and Blair shouldn't be singled out all by themselves seems extremely weak to me.

Would you extend that objection to other democratic governments?
If Venezuela invaded Colombia on utterly bogus pretexts, would you similarly argue that you would not want to see Hugo Cahvez put on trial for it becasue the many in the Venezuelan Natinoal Assmebly would also have to go on trial?

Your argument gives deomcracies the right to aggression with impunity.

Joe Emersberger

From: Deborah Orr <deborah>
To: jemersberger <jemersberger>
Sent: Mon, Dec 19, 2011 10:36 am
Subject: Re: Question re Bush and Blair

Look. I'd be perfectly happy to see these people prosecuted if there was a) the evidence, and b) the will. There isn't. Saying that it can and should be done might make you feel good about yourself and about those of like mind. But that's all it really achieves.

My FINAL REPLY

The evidence is a no brainer. The war took place. The pretext for it was bogus. As for the will - as a Guardian regular you're well positioned to do something about that.