I've been a Labour voter all my life. As soon as I could vote, I voted for Labour. I swore, when Thatcher was glorying in slaughter after the Falklands, that I'd never vote for another party in my lifetime.
Very soon, Britain will have its local council elections. And I won't be voting Labour.
Why? Because I will not vote for a party which is lead by someone who could be tried as a war criminal. If that statement strikes you as insane slander, consider the following, taken from an article on Al Jazeera:
|The majority of international law experts say that the US, Britain and? Australia are acting in breach of global legal instruments in attacking Iraq without a United Nations resolution, and risk facing serious criminal charges.
The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has said that any US-led attack on Iraq was illegal without UN Security Council backing. “In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against armed attack…This rule was enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1946 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined,” said ICJ Secretary-General Louise Doswald-Beck.
Forget the spin of the mass media, forget the sickening triumphalism of The Sun or the other apologists for the slaughter of babies and children. These sources are as reliable and impartial as Riefenstahl's 'Triumph Of The Will.'
The insanity we are now undergoing is that so little is being questioned by the supposedly 'free press.' Yes, a few articles do slip through, here and there. But where is the mass media criticism of the USK invasion of a tiny, beleaguered country suffering under the twin evils of UN sanctions and a despot installed by the US? When have you seen the following on television?
|Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney General, is also on record as saying that “a military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come.”
The above isn't a rant by a raving “peacenik” (though I'd rather be called a peacenik than a warnik anyday), it's by a former US Attorney General! And yes, I know the right-wing US mass media now label Clark as “an extreme left-winger.” I doubt that – would the FBI have let a Marxist reach the position of Attorney General? Clark is merely a man of conscience, something that the fetid, slavering right-wing of US politics has no conception of. For them, Iraqi lives are unimportant. As Howard Zinn recently pointed out:
|We will get precise figures for the American dead, but not for the Iraqis. Recall Colin Powell after the first Gulf War, when he reported the “small” number of U.S. dead, and when asked about the Iraqi dead, Powell replied: “That is really not a matter I am terribly interested in.”
They're “the enemy”, their lives mean nothing. In this mindset, it's obvious that Colin Powell shares a lot with Osama Bin Laden. And yet, we're told Powell is the “moderate” in the US administration. Oh yeah, he's a real kitten!
With all the attention focussed on the Bush regime and its major hitters, there is a danger that Blair will be let off the hook. This must not be allowed to happen. As much as Bush, Pearle, Cheney, Powell or the other US warniks, Blair is directly responsible for the illegal invasion of a foreign country in an unprovoked attack.
Back to the Al Jazeera article:
|British Prime Minister Tony Blair received a letter from the Public Interest Lawyers group earlier this year saying: “We, and others, will take steps to ensure that you, and other leaders of the U.K. government are held accountable.”
Canada-based Lawyers Against the War said in its letter dated 20 January 2003 that they “will pursue all responsible government officials on charges of murder and crimes against humanity in both the Canadian and the international criminal courts.”
And consider this quote from an article in the Toronto Sun by Eric Margolis:
A California superior court judge sent me the following quotation, which is well worth pondering:
“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.”
This declaration was made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, America’s senior representative at the 1945 Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the tribunal’s chief prosecutor.
If you're reading this and you're a Labour voter, please think carefully this May. Do you really want to vote for the poltical party of an alleged war criminal?