"Allies on Trial" - more of your comments

YOUR VIEWS

THIS FORUM IS NOW CLOSED

At last, a serious debate on what up until now has been an un-touchable subject by the mainstream media Gus

The British have signed up to the ICC (International Criminal Court) to try cases of war crimes. Why does the BBC need to go ahead with this programme when the ICC hasn't deemed it necessary to prosecute anyone?
Frank Brown, Leeds

At last, a serious debate on what up until now has been an un-touchable subject by the mainstream media. A healthy democracy needs to be self-analytical; self-questioning is a vital mechanism to stop totalitarian regimes taking control of a society. Let's also clear one myth up - those against this war are not the "soft left" Guardian readers. I am right wing, ex-forces, etc., and like many similar, profoundly against this war.
Gus, Geneva

The BBC is the best broadcasting organisation in the world - well done, the BBC, I look forward to the programme Arnie

Good idea. Rather than brushing allegations under the carpet a little honesty and self examination will, I think, give the war effort more credibility. It's just a shame it's the BBC doing this and not the governments involved with Iraq and the "War on Terror".
Mike, Bristol

Without question, the BBC is the best broadcasting organisation in the world - I happily pay my licence fee. Well done, the BBC. I look forward to the programme. For far too long have we had the wool pulled over our eyes! Countless people have been killed and lives destroyed and for what? Let's follow the money and see who is getting rich out of this war. And as for the critics, if you would rather watch Pop Idol, feel free.
Arnie, London

I am absolutely disgusted at the BBC, though unfortunately not surprised - the BBC seems to be run as a broadcasting corporation for Guardian views Anon

If I thought the BBC could be objective about such a subject, I might agree that it could have some value. As it is, I fear that it will be just another opportunity for the BBC to thrust its anti-war, anti-Bush agenda down the throats of the long-suffering licence payers.
Steve Holmes, Moscow, Russia

Please ask if there is an important distinction between "at war", whereby international law is held in abeyance, and a "war on" something like disease or poverty? "Terror" means extreme fear, a nebulous notion to have a "war on".
Heather Bolton, Workington

I am a reluctant supporter of the war, and I believe I speak for a large number of young people Kevin Stephen Wright

Putting the Coalition "on trial" is fair enough if the BBC also devotes as much energy, time and research to explaining the good it is doing. Will the BBC do that? I very much doubt it!
M Peck, N Lincs

I am absolutely disgusted at the BBC, though unfortunately not surprised. The BBC seems to be run as a broadcasting corporation for Guardian views. The proposed programme is an insult to the brave Coalition soldiers, along with the Iraqis fighting alongside them to build their democracy. You are beyond contempt, BBC.
Name withheld on request

In my opinion, they had a moral question to answer before they rallied 'round the flag: Is it JUST AND MORAL, or just another corporate grab for other nations' resources?
Peter Schnapp, Denver, USA

My father is a commanding officer in Iraq and I'm tired of commentators belittling or getting angry at the soldiers Kevin Stephen Wright

It astounds me how some people can shout out such firm views despite such ignorance. Britain was never shown to have anything to do with Iraqi WMD programmes. If depleted Uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years then it is completely safe, as its radioactivity must be extremely low. White phosphorous is nothing like the media have tried to lead us to believe, giving irritant fumes, not deadly gases - and its use is not illegal. Saddam Hussein killed more people a year, on average, than have been killed since the war began by all sides.
Richard Dale, Bournemouth

I am a reluctant supporter of the war, and I believe I speak for a large number of young people. There is a wrong pre-conception that all young people are against the war due to the large scale student demonstrations, etc. What people forget is that for whatever reason we find ourselves in war, we made a decision and we must follow it through. My father is a commanding officer in Iraq and I'm tired of commentators belittling or getting angry at the soldiers. They are at the front line to save lives, they are doing things to protect strangers in a foreign land. We are so quick to accuse as a nation. We should be more like America and France where we criticise the politicians but we are still proudly patriotic towards the army, thus continuing to show them our support.
Kevin Stephen Wright, St Andrews, Scotland

I congratulate you on having the courage to air this programme, and look forward to watching it Michael Eller

I hope you will call witnesses from within the UK cabinet, such as Clare Short and the writings of Robin Cook, as well as those who support Blair. I also hope you will explore the motives behind the Neocons who proposed the action so long ago.
Dr Tim Bushell, Chichester

I congratulate you on having the courage to air this programme, and look forward to watching it. The minute we leave Iraq, the Shias are going to take everything. The Sunnis will be powerless to stop them. Why do you think they're using force now? It's because they don't have any other bargaining chips. They are a permanent minority, they have almost no oil in their territory and they are disfavoured by the US.
Michael Eller, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland

No amount of hogwash can justify such death, destruction and mayhem unleashed by this folly, against the better judgement of the collective consciousness Paddy Adamson

If we are to believe we live in a democracy (and I have serious doubts about whether we are) then we must know what is happening in our name. How can we act democratically with any responsibility at all if we are not permitted to question our institutions, and what the government tells us. Have the allies committed war crimes in Iraq? I don't know. But if so I certainly want to know about it so that I can play my part in making sure that it doesn't happen again. So, for giving me the opportunity to judge for myself: thank you Jeremy, thank you Newsnight, and thank you BBC.
MJ Marchant, York

I'm seriously looking forward to "Allies on Trial". No amount of hogwash can justify such death, destruction and mayhem unleashed by this folly, against the better judgement of the collective consciousness.
Paddy Adamson, London

As I think Churchill said, 'Jaw Jaw is better than War War' Bernard J Moss

Let's get one thing straight: our troops are not killing Iraqis, we are saving them; saving them from the most disgusting thugs on the planet who are so revolting in ambition that the soft left cannot comprehend their existence. Because they cannot understand how human beings can grow to become so full of hatred and evil, they find it much more comforting to blame Western troops for the disgusting crimes against humanity committed by the terrorist thugs against innocent Iraqis.
Sebastian, Oxford

In a speech before the war President Bush said, "If the Iraqi President and his generals take innocent life and if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals". I would assume this should also apply to the allies.
Um Ayad, Berkshire

Let the debate commence; as I think Churchill said, "Jaw Jaw is better than War War".
Bernard J Moss, Portsmouth

Well, this sounds like a good idea as long as Newsnight is prepared to put on another programme called "BBC on trial" where we can examine BBC bias on this and a range of other issues.
Kevin, Sutton, Surrey

I can tell you in advance that to produce a programme like this has ruined any credibility and respect I may have had for the BBC Krys Lanowski

I am writing to you in advance of the show scheduled for tomorrow night's edition of Newsnight. I am disgusted that the BBC can stoop so low as to stage a "mock trial". I will be incensed if British serviceman are subjected to further stress by a programme initiated by, run by and including the pathetic human rights PC brigade.

As if serviceman of all nations do not have enough to contend with on the frontline without finding out that their home country is subjecting them to this utter bull****. Life on the frontline is the most nerve-wracking and stressful thing I have ever done during my two tours as a serviceman in Northern Ireland.

As far as I am concerned you may as well put every serviceman that has served in the dock. The people who have initiated this programme and are running this should put their lives on the line on a daily basis and see how it feels to then have someone put you in court for incidents that happen in split seconds.

I will be watching this programme, making notes and will write again with my views. But I can tell you in advance that to produce a programme like this has ruined any credibility and respect I may have had for the BBC.
Regards,
Krys Lanowski

Never mind if it's trial by television, it's the very best way to rehearse the arguments for and against Joanna Cary

There will be no winning in Iraq without winning the hearts and minds of its people. We can never do that so long as we continue to kill them, destroy their homes and cities and continue to occupy their country. 80% of the Iraqi people do not want us there and their interim government has said that they too want us out. It's time to bring our men and women home and stop the spending spree of Bush and this administration.
Ronald E Baker, Palm City, Fl. USA

Let's not forget that one of the greatest crimes of this war has been the use of depleted uranium shells. We have fired about 5000 tonnes of this radioactive and toxic waste into Iraq turning areas into nuclear waste dumps. It causes cancer and birth defects. Its radioactive half-life is 4.5 billion years. If that's not a war crime I don't know what is.
Mervyn Carter, Colchester

I'm looking forward to the "War Crimes Trial" program. We have to turn down the inhumane final "solutions" imposed on us by the criminal Bush-Blair cabal. In the quest for the better world we need to reject the lies devised for us by our "leaders". To make the world better, let's follow the ways suggested by our Nobel giants Harold Pinter and Albert Einstein who represent our conscience.
Mark Goretsky, Plainview, USA

The Iraq invasion was, and is, a disaster. Given the UK's long history of dealing with insurgents in the far-east, Cyprus and Northern Ireland it could have been assumed that the use of heavy, large-scale armoury was not going to be effective. Soldiers on their own cannot solve problems which are mainly social and political. In addition our experience of having to deal with, and becoming the enemy of the two tribes in NI should have given us cause to hesitate before assuming we could deal with the multi-tribal population in Iraq. Blair's legacy is to leave this country with years of problems with Islam both at home and abroad.
Leonard S. Holland, Chelmsford

Considering that the reason for going to war was Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD, why, if he was too irresponsible to possess them, did the UK sell them to him in the first place?
Stephen Walker, Liverpool

A lawless war promotes lawless military behaviour and it has become impossible to conceal that this is widespread and routine. Protest by British serving military personnel against the illegality of the war is another indication of the moral crisis provoked by the Government's deception. Public belief that the Government's case for joining the US coalition against Iraq was a pack of lies is now overwhelming. A "trial of the Allies" must address the attack and occupation of Iraq as a war of aggression, which at Nuremberg in 1945-6 was established in international law as the most serious of all war crimes. It was from the conspiracy to deceive parliament and the British and American people that further crimes followed; more than 100,000 Iraqis killed, many tortured, hundreds of American and UK soldiers' lives frittered away on an adventure; and the widespread theft of the national resources of Iraq by American corporations.
Bern Joseph, London

Iraq posed no threat to us, and for this reason alone the war was unjustified. The claim that Saddam had WMD that could be made ready in 45 minutes is patently rubbish. At best Iraq was a third world power and they simply did not have the technology. The US and the UK should have known exactly what weapons Iraq had as we sold them to them. This appears to be conveniently forgotten. The claim that he used WMD on his own people does have to be taken seriously but this could never be used as a justification for invading the country, if it was, why haven't we invaded Zimbabwe? I would also point out that there was and is not one shred of evidence linking Saddam with the outrage of the WTC on 9/11. What the west has done is act as a recruitment sergeant for al Qaeda.
Michael Vick, Sittingbourne Kent

Great idea, please find some way for USA to view.
Lance Drewes, Dallas, TX USA

Please find out how many civilians have died in Iraq. The Government won't tell us in the States. How often has white phosphorus been used? If extraordinary renditions are called for in the case of exceptionally valuable sources, why are there so many? Certainly everyone isn't that valuable. How would more transparency aid the enemy? Whenever anyone says something negative, they are accused of being unpatriotic.
Marilyn Hanson, Los Angeles, USA

Never mind if people say it's trial by television; it's the very best way to rehearse the arguments for and against, and allow viewers to think through the problem as a whole. Good decision, just as long as it is conducted in a court-like manner, although without wigs, gavels or ponderous legal arguments about minutiae.
Joanna Cary

Wonderful to hear you will be doing this "trial" on Wednesday. The whole Iraq mess has been something we all need to be deeply, deeply ashamed to have allowed our governments to get into. WHY, WHY, WHY has the matter of oil rarely been brought up? We will watch Newsnight on Wednesday with great interest. Good luck! Sarah
Sarah Clayton, Epsom, Surrey, UK

I would like to know what exactly the American and British Governments mean by "torture" when they claim respectively that they do not practice it and do not condone it. I suspect that what others do is "torture" while what the American authorities do is "interrogation". The term "plausible deniability" also comes easily to mind.
Michael Thomas, Swansea

I look forward to next Wednesday's programme. Does it mean that the BBC will fall out with this government again? Regards, Dave P.
David Price, Newport Isle of Wight

Firstly, remember who put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place. Secondly, he may have been a tyrant and a murderer, but he knew how to control all the different factions in Iraq. Getting rid of him was like opening Pandora's Box and now it's open it cannot be closed.
D W, London

American policy is full of hypocrisies. George Bush tells us that the war in Iraq was justified on the grounds of spreading freedom, democracy and the rule of law around the world. While preaching this doctrine their current actions belie it. Holding people without trial doesn't sound like freedom and holding them in foreign lands (secretly or otherwise) to avoid the reach of the pesky American judiciary doesn't sound like upholding the rule of law to me. By saying one thing and doing the opposite, they completely destroy their credibility all around the world. The Americans should get their own house in order before destroy any more of anyone else's.
Andrew Hancock, Kyushu, Japan

Justice is relative and imperfect Nick

Blair and Bush are responsible for the death of thousands innocent civilians in Iraq. Even Saddam Hussein hadn't killed this many people in the 30 years he was in power. Perhaps Bush and Blair should be sitting beside Saddam in court.
Iftikhar Ahmed, London

I sympathise completely with the ousting of Saddam Hussein, and all of his entourage, if the idea was to get rid of this great evil - but I am concerned that behind them were countless hundreds of others who performed all sorts of evil acts in their name. Do they not carry blame for their actions also? Justice is relative and imperfect. Also, it is how the post invasion was handled and the pretexts that were so erroneously put forward, and ludicrously, by the two invading countries that were transparently so at the time. These are my concerns.
Nick, Brynteg, Anglesey

This is a golden opportunity for the BBC to get down to some serious truth seeking for a change John Morrison

Apparently "to bring about democracy" the Americans have bombed some country every decade since they dropped the bomb at Hiroshima. Why are the British aligning themselves to such an obvious aggressor?
Jim Anderson, Crieff, Scotland

1. Please discuss the concept of victor's justice. 2. Please discuss the concept of United Nations human rights principles. 3. Issue 1: Yellowcake. The focus on the US seems odd when British intelligence was identified as the source. It still stands by this information that is called an American "lie". 4. Issue 2: White Phosphorus. The military never denied using it. The State Department was, however, confused in its briefings. The story here is the lengths some went to to turn this story into a war crimes allegation. Pure propaganda.
Carl Bergquist, Berlin, Germany

I think it might be instructive to have a prominent psychologist talk about "groupthink" and examine the extent to which this phenomenon has infected the corridors of power in the US and the UK. He/she might also talk about methods of guarding against it. I find it hard to believe that our government took a totally cynical decision to go to war, but I'm entirely ready to believe that the safeguards against phenomena such as "groupthink" have been swept aside both here and in the US.
Alastair Ross, Alford, Scotland

Iraq is on the verge of civil war and if that happens it will be a total disaster Barry Reed

This is a golden opportunity for the BBC to get down to some serious truth seeking for a change. I think that Ian Neal from Richmond is asking for the right people to be on the panel for the prosecution and I would also include Harold Pinter. I further believe that if the BBC actually allows such serious investigation to be undertaken we will truly be able to prosecute this case with some justice, which has not happened to date.
John Morrison, Wiltshire

If someone ever argues that we must accept that Blair "acted in good faith" whatever the evidence now might show, please, please do not let them get away with believing that this puts an end to any further discussion (as happened repeatedly throughout the last General Election). It is an attempt to get away with a lower burden of proof that their actions were defensible and should not be tolerated by Newsnight.
David Symes, Sheffield, South Yorkshire

We were told first we had to go to war to stop WMD. After that was proved a lie we were told we had to topple Saddam because of all the people he killed! Well, how many civilians have the US and UK killed? We weren't even keeping records, probably because it was too embarrassing. We have opened a whole can of worms - Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and if that happens it will be a total disaster not only for the Middle East but the West as well - if not the whole world.
Barry Reed, Hounslow

It is a damning indictment of the quality of western political debate that we need to have this 'trial' at all David Wearing

"Allies on Trial"? Nice job. You are making common cause with the darkest and most reactionary forces in human history. And to add insult to injury - aren't UK taxpayers paying for this slop? God help us.
Gerard York, Tallahassee, Florida

The Nuremberg judges described launching a war of aggression as the "supreme international crime" because it contains within it the "accumulated evil" of everything that follows. The invasion of 2003 was unambiguously a war of aggression. Whether or not Saddam possessed some pathetic smidgen of WMD, the idea that he was a threat to the greatest military power in all history was patently ridiculous. It is a damning indictment of the quality of western political debate that we need to have this "trial" at all.
David Wearing, London

I, unlike many, am still a strong supporter of the war. I wasn't during the build up but I have become one because I still believe complete freedom for Iraqis can be achieved. Our leaders were wrong to suggest it would be a short war. War and peacekeeping are never short. I do still believe we can win through even if all evidence points the other way.
Tom Brewerton, Northwood, Middlesex

If everyone authorised the build up of troops, then the war was legal Stan Slater

There is so much fear about a civil war in Iraq if we pull out too soon. I suggest it simply doesn't matter when we pull out; they will have a civil war, just like EVERY other nation in history. If the allied leaders have an answer to this which has eluded other leaders for millennia I would very much like to hear it.
Gerard Flynn, London

Was the war authorised? Did the security council authorise the build up of troops? The answer must be yes. Was anyone on the security council so stupid to think the troops would be sent home without a complete surrender of Saddam's forces? The answer could be YES. Just to try to embarrass the USA. But if everyone authorised the build up of troops, then the war was legal.
Stan Slater, Padiham, Lancashire

I hope you will invite Harold Pinter to assist the case for the prosecution M Lovell

A message for the Prosecution: It's time to present the most shocking proof of coalition intentions. When seeking Saddam Hussein and his sons, the coalition offered millions of dollars as reward for their whereabouts. They did this because they were desperate to find the Husseins. But not a penny was offered for information about weapons of mass destruction - because it wasn't needed. How embarrassing it would have been to see a multi-million-dollar prize not taken up. No one has noticed this, and yet the staggering fact has been right in front of us for over a year.
Jim Lynham, Hitchin

Following his Nobel lecture, I hope you will invite Harold Pinter to assist the case for the prosecution.
Mr M Lovell, Swindon

This is outrageous. Putting the Coalition "on trial", when they are there at the request of the legally constituted and elected interim government with the express authorisation of the United Nations, is a moral outrage. The BBC spends more time attacking the Coalition, no time on the improvement in conditions in Iraq for the majority of Iraqis, and no time exploring or attacking the motives and operations of the insurgency. Does the BBC really think there is moral equivalence between the Coalition and the head sawing-off, Shia mosque bombing, funeral cortege bombing insurgents?
Jeffrey Mushens, Chelmsford

In the absence of transparent intentions, people of good conscience will always be deceived Jennifer J Harris

There was much debate at the time of Hutton about whether Tony Blair was guilty of lying about WMDs - ie telling a knowing untruth. It is important to recall, though, that in defending himself against this charge he admitted that he had not understood, or inquired into, the difference between battlefield and more long distance WMDs. I suggest this was, if not dishonest, at least reckless and the same result pertains - ie the basis for invasion was not made out in law and the PM is personally responsible in law.
Mr T Hodgkinson, Sussex

With all the deaths on both sides; the attempts to discredit those that stood against the war; after the negative affects on race relations in America and Britain against anyone who looks Muslim or black; after the illegal imprisonment of individuals because they "might" be terrorists; after the lies told on both sides of the ocean (America and England); after the largest protests in world and British history; after the much predicted terrorist attacks in London a year or so after Iraq was invaded; and as the war in Iraq and global terrorism are being cited as the reason why everyone's human and civil rights are being taken away unjustly. We are now at the stage that most people (including me) had predicted - we NEVER should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place. In the absence of truth, people will always suffer. In the absence of transparent intentions, people of good conscience will always be deceived. When Saddam's trial has been concluded will they put Tony Blair and George Bush in the dock?
Jennifer J Harris, London

I am an officer who served with the Joint Helicopter Force in Iraq last year. One of my fellow officers was awarded a DFC whilst flying in support of the Black Watch near Fallujah. On one particular occasion he was engaged by small arms and his doorgunner returned fire. At the point when they ceased firing and got back into a car to drive off he ordered his doorgunner to cease fire because they no longer posed a direct threat. I mention this to illustrate how disciplined the British Army can be and how thin the line can be between right and wrong. A couple of days later the rules of engagement were re-interpreted (not changed) and would have allowed him to continue to prosecute the engagement to a conclusion. I do not believe it is possible to sit in a studio and cast stones. That said, where British soldiers have clearly behaved criminally as in the example of the Fusiliers at Camp Bread Basket, then they should be prosecuted with vigour. A Court Martial is the right place to do this. I hope your jury will include some members of the Armed Forces who have served in Iraq. Secondly, I would point out that I, like many of my peers, believe that the war was wrong and probably illegal. I certainly think it has made the world a less secure place and put the so called war on terror back by several decades. I knew as far back as Easter 2002 that we would be going to war. The mood music in the MOD was plain. Scarlet did not have to be told what to write as he would have known only too well what was required. My point is that I would put Tony Blair firmly in the dock. He is responsible, not the soldiers who become caught up in a maelstrom of his making. By sending us to war he unleashes forces that are difficult to control. When you are at war, the rule of law cannot apply in the same way as on the streets of London. And whilst I agree that it must apply, it can only be done through the chain of command. To insist on an independent body would fatally undermine operational effectiveness.
Name withheld on request

I call on Clive Stafford Smith to call Michael Meacher MP or other prominent 9/11 truth campaigners as witness. These witnesses could provide damning and irrefutable evidence that seriously challenges and undermines the official account, implicates elements of the US administration of involvement in the crimes of 9/11 and totally undermines the whole rationale for the war on terror. I would also call on Adam Curtis to make the case that al-Qaeda is not what it appears. If these two issues (the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement and the evidence on the true nature of al-Qaeda contained in the BBC's Power of Nightmares documentary) are not cited in the programme I would like an explanation. Thank you and good luck.
Ian Neal, Richmond

THIS FORUM IS NOW CLOSED