Some days there is no doubt about what is the biggest talking point of the day. As I’m typing this, every single TV screen here at the BBC’s newsroom is tuned to the same story and the blogosphere is abuzz with talk of Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcott Inquiry today.
Over the course of the day, Blair’s arguments on going to war will face forensic scrutiny. But can wars ever be justified on legal grounds?
Can this be answered on ideological grounds? It’s a difficult subject for the left here in the UK as journalist Nick Cohen has written about. He argues that the those on the liberal left should have argued for going to war back in 2003 on human rights grounds.
The Iraq war certainly removed Saddam, something this Iraqi blogger is happy about.
Iraq Inquiry gets into full swing, more and more people are coming to the dock to say that the 2003 Iraq invasion was illegal under international law. And on Friday it’s Tony Blair’s turn.
This blogger disagrees with illegality of the war. He feels that by overthrowing Saddam’s brutal regime, the war was justified.
‘I’m proud of the fact the United States and Great Britain, together with key allies like Australia, liberated 60 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan while much of the rest of the world stood by. ‘
Blogger Adam Collyer asks:
‘All this talk about whether the war was “legal” leaves me feeling queasy. Who decides what is “legal” and what is “illegal” in terms of international law? And by what right? And what is international law anyway?’
And this commentary by Jeremy Greenstock questions whose law was Tony Blair breaking anyway. He continues:
‘…we must also recognize that, if the United Kingdom so chose, it could —even against existing laws —simply act as nations have done in the past, and remove itself from a legal framework to which it takes exception.’