Decided whether Blair committed war crimes

Great Britain was a key member of the United States-led coalition that invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to groups and terrorist attacks.

However, it now seems that no one will face trial for their role in planning and executing the conflict after several months of speculation and legal disputes, Judge Thomas of Cwmgied and Judge Wesley rejected the former general's request, saying there was no prospect of winning the case.

“Bush and Blair started the war, and they said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then they discovered that Iraq had nothing. Blair has apologized for that, but this is not acceptable. A lot of people died and lost their families. If this had happened in Western countries, it would have been a big deal, but no one cares about Iraq. Blair must be tried”, someone from the public told Sputnik.

This is the protection of elites and their reputation, not ordinary people. War has been terrible. It's disturbing that people in such high positions did this”, said another.

The general, who lives in Muskat, Oman and does not own a passport to allow him to travel to Great Britain, wanted Blair and two other key ministers at the time Jack Straw, then Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Lord Goldsmith, the Prosecutor General, to be prosecuted.

His lawyers urged the Supreme Court of London to seek a trial in an attempt to make the Supreme Court, the highest court in Great Britain, to overturn a 2006 House of Lords ruling that there was no such crime as the crime of aggression under the Law of England and Wales.

Chris Nineham, a spokesman for Stop War, says the decision will certainly be controversial.
“People will be cynical, there have been a series of attempts to prosecute Blair, which have been blocked. He bears massive responsibility for this. He was the main architect and motivational. He was isolated in the time establiment while in the U.S. he was on board, in Great Britain many people were worried, but he spent it and managed to lie to the government, parliament and public to do so. However, even those who had doubts did not speak up, so I would say that all political, military and intelligence institutions in the United Kingdom, in addition to deputies who voted against the war, bear responsibility”, Nineham told Sputnik.

Mr. Nineham added that the decision cannot be the last word on Blair's guilt for war crimes he believes UK courts are very political and are easily influenced by the politics of the day.

“has a shift in Great Britain for foreign policy, and in the future those responsible for Iraq may face prosecution”.
In case v Jones” The Lords found that although there was a crime of aggression according to international law, there was no such crime under English law.

This stance has since been clearly violated by Goldsmith himself before the war in a memo on the legality of the conflict written two weeks before the invasion, Goldsmith acknowledges that aggression wars were a crime “according to international custom law” which “automatically” is part of local law in every country of the world.
So starting a war of aggression is not just an international crime. It is the highest international crime that differs from other war crimes only because it contains within itself the accumulated evil of all”, the Nuremberg courts tried.
The infamous story of Downing Street, a recording of a meeting in July 2002, showed that Blair and others knew that the decision to invade Iraq had been taken long before his excuse was determined.

In it, Sir Richard Dearlove, then MI6 director, told Blair and others that in Washington “military action was now seen as inevitable”.

“Bush [wants] to remove Saddam through military actions justified by uniting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but intelligence and facts are fixed about politics”, he said.

Straa added that the case for war was “delics”.
“Saddam is not threatening his neighbours, and his ability for weapons of mass destruction is less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We must draft a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back inside UN weapons inspectors. That would also help legal justification for using force”, the then secretary said.

While the legal team tried to counter that Jones's case was wrongly decided and that General Al-Rabbat should be allowed to review the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no prospect for that court to prove the verdict wrong, or that the reasoning supporting it is no longer applicable.
Moreover, the Westminster Magic Court refused to issue an appeal in November 2016 to the accused, arguing that former ministers had immunity to legal acts. In any case, current Attorney General Jeremy Wright made it clear that he would refuse the consent.
Wright directly intervened in the case, with his legal team asking Judge Thomas and Judge Wesley to block the legal challenge because it was hopeless “” and unequivocally.
Michael Mansfield, representing General Al Rabat, had argued that the investigation group Chiclot, who has investigated the invasion, justified the pursuit of Blair and others.
Mansfield said the main findings were included in an early paragraph in the 12 volumes report and could be summed up in the conclusion that Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to the interests of the United Kingdom, that peaceful alternatives had not been exhausted, that intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction was presented with unwarranted” and that war was not necessary.
He also argued that the international crime of conducting aggression wars was accepted by then UK Attorney General Sir Hartley Shawcross in the 1940s at the time of the Nazi War Crimes Nuremberg trial.
He claimed that since the international community considered those responsible for World War II responsible for aggression in these judgments, it was up to the U.K. courts to follow this example in the Iraq war.
Despite the failure of the prosecution, some sources suggest the war was undoubtedly a war crime according to a detailed investigation conducted by an independent commission established by the Dutch government, the invasion was a clear violation of international law.
The Commission found that UN Resolution 1441 “could not reasonably be interpreted” as authorising member states to use military force to force Iraq to reconcile with Security Council resolutions