UK High Court Blocks Prosecution Of Tony Blair Despite Fact Iraq Invasion Planned 1 YEAR Prior Pushed With Fake Downing St Report
The U.K. High Court blocked a bid by a former chief of staff of the Iraqi army General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat, to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair for his “crime of aggression” over the Iraq war citing there was “no prospect” of the case being successful.
However, according to a memo dated from 2002 from Colin Powell to former President George Bush in Hillary Clinton's emails Tony Blair and George Bush planned the 2003 Iraq war invasion an entire year prior.
Despite this evidence, Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC recommended Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, and Justice Duncan Ouseley dismiss the attempted case against Blair blocking Rabbat's legal challenge against him.
That's not the only evidence that the invasion of Iraq was a "crime of aggression" there is also the fact that in 2007 former NATO Four Star General Wesley Clark whistleblew, there was a plan developed within the Pentagon to "invade seven countries within five years a mere weeks after the terrorist attacks on 911."
In those list of countries Clark named "Iraq" as one of the seven targets this cabal conspired to invade.
“I want you to know were going to attack Iraq, I asked why? We don’t know we just figure we have the military and man power to do so,” Clark stated.
Then there is the fraudulent cut and paste hack-job known as the Downing St. memo which collaborates Clark's claims.
The Downing St memo was the first move made to officially sell the British and American people the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to further the military industrial complex ambitions in Iraq.
The problem was that the report was entirely based on forgeries of academic papers according to experts.
The United States and Britain then used the claim within the report that Hussein was seeking to buy uranium in Niger to bolster their case for the invasion of Iraq.
Even the CIA and MI5 were told before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD through secret channels by Hussein's foreign minister and his head of intelligence according to the Guardian. This claim was backed up by an Italian Senator Sen. Massimo Brutti who stated to the press in 2005 that the U.S. was told that the Iraq documents were fake.
“we could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It was clear to me that pressure was being applied to the Joint Intelligence Committee and its drafters. Every fact was managed to make the dossier as strong as possible. The final statements in the dossier reached beyond the conclusions intelligence assessments would normally draw from such facts,” Major General Michael Laurie, the head of the Defense Intelligence Staff at the time of the dossier said.
One year after the invasion in 2004, senior American officials concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq yet the war continued killing hundreds of thousands for almost a decade before troops pulled out in 2011. All while war criminal George W. Bush made jokes about still not finding WMDs as soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians died throughout the years.
Of course, all this was told to the public when weapons expert Dr. David Kelly leaked information to then BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and stated that the dossier had been "sexed up" by Alastair Campbell, then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s director of communications. All with the goal to exaggerate the Iraqi threat in 2003. Kelly was then found dead in the woods after he was outed as one of Gilligan's sources.
This spawned the Hutton inquiry, the first of three investigations into the Iraq war. Eventually the Hutton inquiry concluded that Dr. Kelly's death was a suicide, and that the Government was not at fault, but it was the BBC who was to blame. The Hutton inquiry was accused of being whitewash by the public while many believe that Dr. Kelly was assassinated for what he knew before he could speak out. This sentiment was shared by doctors who disputed the Hutton inquiry in 2004 and again in 2013.
Dr. Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry, concluded that Dr. Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound to his left wrist.
Writing in an open letter to the Guardian in 2004 the doctors said: "We view this as highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to life-threatening blood loss. We dispute that Dr. Kelly could have died from haemorrhage or from Co-Proxamol ingestion or from both."
Ten years after Kelly's death doctors said in a statement "there are serious deficiencies in the investigation of Dr. Kelly's death by Thames Valley Police."
The second inquiry was a review of the intelligence reports by the former head of British civil service, Lord Butler. Butler's conclusion was that the Iraq war happened because of the attacks on September 11th, not because of "faulty intelligence" (a fake report) had caused the U.S. and British governments to falsely believe Iraq had WMDs in its possession.
The final inquiry into the invasion was known as the Chilcot Report conducted by Sir John Chilcot last year. Which concluded in the report there was a "justification for the prosecution of Blair" and that he "deliberately exaggerated the threat" contradicting what the UK high court has just stated today that there was “no prospect” of the case being successful.
Once again we are witnessing corruption at the highest levels of government to protect their own from prosecution in spite of this mountain of past evidence that suggest Tony Blair and his co-conspirator George Bush are guilty war criminals, who invaded a sovereign nation when there was no credible threat to the U.S. or Britain causing everlasting damage. Both former world leaders have blood on their hands.
AK OUT.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Support REAL Independent Journalism And Research:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/AKswriting
BTC: 1DBH9kAvPjYQS9Eq7zqTdxiPpKXihwCejw
Etherum: 0xE6F0037f504DCacC2909696bF466D4824F895820
Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charlie Manson, wrote a book called The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder where he laid out the facts a prosecutor in any of the United States could use to bring a case to trial and win.
Anyone could do it without a law degree if they knew all the shit he was involved in.
This post received a 3.4% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @an0nkn0wledge! For more information, click here!
rsteemed. Hope it helps get some air.
Thanks brother! <3
Synchronistic post! I just posted about a UK ambassador who published numerous documents regarding his whistleblower testimony that the war was based on entirely fake claims.
Upvoted and resteemed nice synchronistic post.
Thanks, I did the same for yours.
How shameful that the elite class are not held accountable! They will have to answer to God the ultimate judge for the satanic war crimes! Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, that globalist - socialist - satanic vermin won't prosecute itself.. Proof positive that there is no court in the name of the people in that fallen land that was once great: Britain. Vermin!
With a halfwit like 'Dubya' going around shooting his mouth off I'm surprised more people don't ask questions.
The PTB will stop at nothing to keep a lid on this, but with a bought and paid for media and a cognitively dissonant public I don't ever see these scumbags being dragged into court.
The real story of the Iraq war is one of the worst kept secrets in modern times yet here we are still trying the get the truth out over a decade later.
Great work trying to wake people up I fear most of them never will but you have to try.
100% upvoted. Thanks for posting quality activism. One love!
Thanks, Don I Followed and keep Steeming On! :)
That would have been a dangerous precedent for the high court to set. If Blair and Bush faced a firing squad, as they should, then many other politicians and corporate scumbags would need to follow suit. And the ruling class can’t have that, can they.
One more point – being a civilian (Iraqi or not) doesn’t imply innocence.
Excellent post once again AK - keep steemin brother!