Treason and Impeachment?

The last time any major figure in the West was impeached, it was President Clinton, over the Monica Lewinsky case, and he was acquitted. Nixon came within a gnat's whisker of being impeached but was pardoned. Others have withstood half-hearted attempts, but most, like dear Silvio Berlusconi, had the sense to make sure the rules were changed in his favour before it became an issue. Oh, wait a minute..changing the rules in order to avoid justice? Surely that could not happen here, Baroness Uddin and Lord Paul?

As you may know, there was an attempt to impeach Tony Blair for conducting an illegal war, being in effect, charged with "high crimes and misdemeanours"

Let's first though, remind ourselves what the process is and what it involves.

Under this ancient procedure, all persons, whether peers or commoners, may be
prosecuted and tried by the two Houses for any crimes whatever. The House of
Commons determines when an impeachment should be instituted. A member, in his
place, first charges the accused of high treason, or of certain crimes and
misdemeanours. After supporting his charge with proofs the member moves for
impeachment. If the accusation is found on examination by the House to have
sufficient grounds to justify further proceedings, the motion is put to the House. If
agreed, a member (or members) are ordered by the House to go to the bar of the
House of Lords. There, in the name of the House of Commons and of all the
commons of the United Kingdom, the member impeaches the accused person. A
Commons committee is then appointed to draw up articles of impeachment which are
debated. When agreed they are ingrossed and delivered to the Lords. The Lords
obtain written answers from the accused which are communicated to the Commons.
The Commons may then communicate a reply to the Lords. If the accused is a peer,
he is attached by order of that House. If a commoner, he is arrested by the Commons
and delivered to Black Rod. The Lords may release the accused on bail. The
Commons appoints ‘managers’ for the trial to prepare the evidence; but it is the Lords
that summons witnesses. The accused may have summonses issued for the attendance
of witnesses on his behalf, and is entitled to defence by counsel. When the case,
including examination and re-examination, is concluded, the Lord High Steward puts
to each peer, (beginning with the junior baron) the question on the first of the charges:
then to each peer the question on the second charge and so on. If found guilty,
judgment is not pronounced unless and until demanded by the Commons (which may,
at this stage, pardon the accused). An impeachment may continue from session to
session, or over a dissolution. Under the Act of Settlement the sovereign has no right
of pardon.1
It rests, therefore, with the House of Commons to determine when an impeachment
should be instituted.


 Turkeys voting for Christmas? I think not. Given that the whole Parliamentary system is now crooked through and through it is unlikely that anybody will ever come to justice this way.

Of course, despite support from within and without Parliament, the campaign to impeach Tony Blair never stood a chance. All the powers of hell would have been let loose in order to make sure it fell before it had any chance of being enacted. The process is described well by Dan Plesch, HERE, but even he concedes it would have fallen, given that the terms of reference would be almost certainly set by a Parliamentary Committee, and therefore emasculated long before it was brought to the Commons.

So what of Treason? According to a recent report by the BBC; There is in fact a fascinating debate at the top levels of law and politics in Britain and beyond - about using treason law.
This was in the context of an article about using such a law against Islamic Extremists. Personally, it is not Islamic Extremists I worry about, it is the very heart of our Government and those in power over us that I worry about.

So what is it? "Treason's like an elephant on the doorstep. You recognise it when you see it", said Lord Rooker, former Minister of State for Asylum and Immigration.

The BBC piece concludes: There is, for many, still a sense of a line not to be crossed, a betrayal too far in undermining your country.

I ask you, can you, with hand on heart, deny that Treason has anything to do with Labour's conduct of the last 12 years?

Would you, dear visitor, be prepared to put your name to a campaign for the renewal and re-assertion of the laws of Treason, with a view to prosecuting Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Michael Martin and others under such a law? Please, please, this time, let me know.

UPDATE 1: It would seem that a prosecution for Treason against all or any member of the Government would not happen, because the Government itself is the only body which can bring such a prosecution. The only way this might happen would be if the entire Government was replaced with a body which was committed to bringing people to justice. We would then have a situation similar to Nuremberg, where an international ad hoc court was convened to prosecute Nazi Leaders, most of whom refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the court.

 It seems to me there are two, possibly three alternatives: the first is to see if international law can be invoked, the second is a revolutionary council or coup of some kind, and the third is a private prosecution. I'll leave that for the legal types to think about. I wonder if any of them are thinking what I am thinking?

As for the substance of such an action, I can think of many, but the chief ones being, pursuing an  illegal war, compromising sovereignty, lying to Parliament, allowing MPs to be arrested for political reasons, destroying the financial infrastructure, undermining the social fabric by covertly allowing mass immigration, undermining democracy and the rule of law. The list, as they say, is endless. Far fetched? Did you see Ceaucescu? he was totally confused; he thought the people loved him. What about Karadic? What about Nixon? He only got away with it because of a deal with President Ford. These people behave like "Statesmen" until they are brought, blinking, into the cold light of moral reality and justice. The time has come. This is the "Elephant on the doorstep". It's treason, undertaken for a political ideology which has been misrepresented to the public and gerrymandered by massive public spending.


Richard said...

Yes, I would. But it would only be symbolic; as you say above, it would stand no chance whatever of succeeding. Too many vested interests in powerful positions. I'd also support a campaign to get Blair in the Hague on war crimes, but that won't happen either.

Dave said...

I'm in.
Rosinante saddled up

Martin said...

I understand one meaning of treason to be to conspire with a foreign power to wage war on a third party, without the consent of parliament. So I'm all for the arrest and trial of Tony Blair. I believe he first tried to persuade Clinton, then Bush, to wage war on Iraq.

Not so sure about Brown and Martin, though. Did they have treasonable desires of the Queen's consort perhaps? You don't indicate as such, and it is my first visit here, so I am not familiar with you line of reasoning.

strapworld said...

Could not agree with you more. However, the final decision on charges of treason is with the Attorney general!!

so....end of story!

Whilst law offices of state are in the hands of politicians we have no chance. Whilst law officers of state have to be from that pampered and highly questionable sector of society 'lawyers' who control their own club. How can we ever get the judges and law officers we deserve?

I am afraid I agree with you, WW, where you wrote, on another blog, that we need people taking to the streets to achieve such changes to our system. We need the military to take over, sweep parliament of these scoundrels, change the judges and the criteria in which such people are appointed and bring back citizen justice.

Cromwell, where are you when we need you?

Anonymous said...

Yes I support the return of the crime of Treason.
However Strapworld is correct,,it would need an armed takeover,,just like that proposed by David Stirling in 1969,,to achieve it.
Frankly, not just Blair, Brown and the rest of the Zanulbour scum that should be tried, but also the EU loving Tories, Lib Dems and most of the MSM especially the BBC.
One must also ask,, what has the Queen been doing whilst our country goes to rack and ruin plus sold out to the EU without our permission.
Queen Elizabeth I rode her horse at the head of the armies encouraging the troops against our countries enemies.
Queen Elizabeth II has connived with the establishment in the surrender of our country to our enemies.
We need our army back here, marching down Whitehall and taking down our internal enemies,,,,I for one would give them all my support.
John F, Aberdeen

Anonymous said...

Mr Weasel,

The first option for international law is problematic - what international organisation should be dabbling with our domestic justice? the third option for a private prosecution can and will be blocked by the Attorney General. whatever the government we have seen that politictions will look after their own. The second option for a revolutionary coup, well I'm all for that. Hang on, though. I believe I have just committed treason...