BNP leader to lay charges against Tony Blair over NATO attacks

[Guapo]

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/06/establishment-parties-have-turned-britain-into-a-multicultural-bankrupt-slum-says-bnp-leader/


In a wide ranging speech which covered several topics, Mr Griffin also revealed that he would personally be laying a war crimes charge against Tony Blair over an incident in the Balkans.

“We all know that they have announced that there will now be another inquiry into the Iraq War,” Mr Griffin said. “Of course there should not be an inquiry, but rather a war crimes trial, based on the principles established during the Nuremburg Trials.

“The accused must include the politicians and the propagandists who generated the background to the war,” he continued. “This will include the newspaper editors and media owners who are just as responsible for the lies which led to that war.

“However, we have enough evidence right now to make a case against Jeff Hoon and Tony Blair for an incident during the Balkans War when a Serbian TV station was bombed. I will be laying a charge with a central London police station very soon over this matter.

“Even if they do not want to take it any further, the groundwork has been laid for it to be taken to the war crimes commission in The Hague. As an MEP, I have the right to pursue this matter, and Tony Blair is going to have that hanging over him,” Mr Griffin said to applause from the crowd.

I dont believe it. :D

[Freomæg]

Superb! I'm beginning to find Nick Griffin to be quite the admirable leader.

[Groenewolf]

I would just love seeing the TV-images of Blair being dragged to the cells of the International Tribunal :D .

[RoyBatty]

Fantastic news, I wish Mr Griffin every success with this endeavour! It's time that this slimey little warcriminal (and his co-conspirators) be held to account for their numerous crimes against humanity and warcrimes.

[Crvena zvezda]

Thiswill amount to nothing. It reminds me of a similar lawsuit involving American parliamentarian Ron Paul back in 1999 and 2000 to take Clinton to war over the bombing. As Ron Paul wrote back then his case was dropped under flawed constiutional and legal pretenses.

I don't know much about the British legal system. But chances are something similar will happen.

Here's an article from Ron Pauls site regarding this [http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr060999.htm]

Judge sides with Clinton
Members of Congress to appeal dismissal

WASHINGTON, DC -- A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the lawsuit of a bipartisan coalition of 31 congressmen against President Clinton for his violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regards to the ongoing military action in Yugoslavia. Their lawsuit stems from the fact that the President has violated the Resolution by not making required reports and proceeding without the explicit approval of the Congress.

"It should not be surprising that the courts, like the administration and more than fifty years of congresses, disregard the clear wording of the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8, which gives the power to declare war to the House of Representatives and the Senate," said Rep. Ron Paul, an original plaintiff in the case. He said the plaintiffs, led by Rep. Tom Campbell (R, CA), will appeal the decision to dismiss.

"The opinion of the federal district court, in its own terms, rejects all previous opinions of the district court and circuit court, holding instead that the Supreme Court's opinion in Raines v. Byrd is the only relevant precedent," said Rep. Tom Campbell. "In Raines, a group of legislators sued over the line-item veto, but they were denied standing because they were not in a position to state their votes on any particular issue had been entirely nullified. By contrast, the group of Members of the House who are plaintiffs here had their votes against the war in Yugoslavia completely nullified by the President's continuing with that war. Accordingly, the federal district court reasoned further that the actions of the House in approving appropriations for the war constituted a significant indication that the Congress does not seek a conflict with the executive. That belies the statement in the War Powers Act that no appropriation should be taken as authorization, in light of the fact that Members of Congress will often vote funds for a war once American troops are engaged in it. The court also said that the failure of the House to pass a concurrent resolution calling for the immediate removal of the troops deprived the House Members of standing. This, to my knowledge, is the first time in judicial history where the failure of a House of Congress to do something is held to have legal significance."

Rep. Paul said he believes the courts action on Tuesday seriously undermines the constitutional provision for war-making.

"Today's ruling essentially prevents a Member of Congress from contesting a war that the President initiates without a declaration of war from Congress. It essentially creates a constitutional impasse that the courts are supposed to be there to resolve in the clear light of the Constitution. It is a shame the judge has rejected his constitutional obligation to hear the merits of the case," said Rep. Paul. "I am pleased the our bipartisan coalition is going to stand firm on this issue and immediately appeal the decision the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."