Should Tony Blair be impeached for lying to parliament?
412669
Although there were many aspects of the British political system that the USA did not want to copy such as the monarchy and a hereditary second chamber there were influences of British rule that were to remain such as jury trial, an independent judiciary, the voting system and freedom of the press and association. Two influences that have remained in the American system but were dying out in Britain even at the time of the Declaration of Independence were grand juries and impeachment.\n\nImpeachment, in which Crown officials (which included ministers and judges) could be tried before a committee of the House of Lords (chaired by the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor) after the House of Commons had prepared and voted on an indictment and was mainly used for cases of corruption and bribery whilst in office, was fading out as ministers became more responsible to Parliament, rather than the Crown, for their actions and ministers accepted responsibility for their officials' actions.\n\nThe last major impeachment proceedings were against Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India, who was accused of privately profiting from his official post. The trial lasted 7 years from 1788 to 1795 and among the prosecutors were Edmund Burke and the playwright, Richard Sheridan, but it was really a thinly-veiled attack on the government of Pitt the Younger who had a solid majority in the House of Lords which would never have voted to convict Hastings and the presiding officer was also a member of Pitt's Cabinet and the proceedings swiftly developed into farce along the lines of the O.J.Simpson trial.\n\nThe attempt to revive this antiquated procedure by a few Scottish & Welsh Nationalists with the support of a few Labour left-wingers arises from the fact that they lack the political support to oppose Mr Blair's foreign policy. It is also extremely undemocratic as it involves using a judicial procedure to override the doctrine of ministerial accountability to the elected chamber of the House of Commons. Before the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 a debate was held in the House of Commons to discuss the matter and the government's policy was approved by a majority of 200 (as the opposition Conservative Party joined in supporting the government). According to subsequent reports Mr Blair made it clear that had he lost that vote, or even if less than half the number of Labour MPs had supported him (in the event slightly more than half supported him) he would have resigned. Since that vote a General Election has been held in May 2005 in which the electorate were given a chance to express their feelings about the Iraq issue (as well as other matters)and could have forced Mr Blair to stand down if they had wanted to and felt strongly enough about it. In the event, although there was some rise in support for the Liberal Democrats (although Iraq was not the only reason for this) Mr Blair was returned to power with a majority of 65 seats. 66% of the electorate voted for the two major parties which had supported the invasion of Iraq and anti-war Labour MPs suffered as big a swing against them (in some cases much larger) as pro-war Labour MPs.\n\nI agree with the Democrats who, during the impeachment of Present Clinton, argued that to remove a head of government by this method while he still retains the confidence of the electorate would be tantamount to a "legalised coup d'etat". The best and most democratic way to express dissatisfaction with a sitting Prime Minister under our system is to pass a vote of censure or no confidence in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister would then be faced with two choices, he would either have to resign, as Neville Chamberlain did after the Norway fiasco in 1940 or call a general election as James Callaghan did in 1979 (which he subsequently lost).
619604
No !\nIt is outdated and a waste of our public money now,\nAll they are now is a figure head of Britain without any powers they are a puppet monarchy.\nWe elect our own government without a say from the monarchy\nBut still our leaders out of respect have to ask the monarchy if it can dissolve Parliament. It is a Farce\nIn today's Britain we have enough people sponging off the state without a family that is so privileged that it doesn't know what it like to live month to month.\nIt is time that all this tradition is done away with once and for all.
710854
Let's see...why should Bush be impeached? He lied in office...just like Clinton just about different things. He also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and had his rubber stamp Republican congress pass laws that basically ignore the law of the land. Spin it anyway you want...Bush should be impeached for his conduct as president...which has been anything but "Presidential".
298112
Better yet.. I think we should impeach em'!
609361
Well, there are a few variables that would need to come into play if that were to happen.\nFirst of all, YES, HE DID LIE UNDER OATH:  the oath he took when "sworn in" as president.. so, I don't want any more comparisons to "Clinton lied, bush didn't".. bacause, again bush has lied to all of us!\nHowever, in order for this (UGH) president to be impeached, we will have to have a democratic (or liberal) congress.  If this does finally take place in November, the boy may be impeached, after all!\nMe; I'm all for it!  \nAnd, by the way:  Nixon was impeached during Viet Nam.. so, yes;  we can impeach him even though we are at war!  Of course, the boy did say the war was over about 3 years ago.. hmmm... rmeember the whole "Mission Accomplished" fiasco?
607457
I would say yes but you could be penalized for lying if it went back to court\n\nGood Luck and God Bless!!
1037921
I absolutely do not think that Tony Blair and George Bush should be tried for anything whatsoever ... they are brave, courageous gentlemen who have placed themselves in harms way out of love for their respective countries and humankind ...\n\nIt is difficult to understand fully the plight of war; however, this is a necessary one, an extremely important and necessary one ... \n\nEach and every time I read that one of our beloved guys have been murdered in the Middle East I sit and shed tears of sorrow; yet, nonetheless, I know that it is necessary ... sometimes I get 'mad' at President Bush ... I think \n"what is he doing" ... "what has he done" ... but then I realize that what he has done will make life so much easier down the road ... of course, realizing that we will always have a presence in the Middle East forever and ever ...\n\nWe can never allow the horrific 9/11 event to reoccur ... ever ...
668692
Instead of impeaching them, I'd get more satisfaction at throwing peaches at them. But, I don't see how we can try to impeach Clinton because he lied about his personal life (something the press should've never gotten into), but impeachment is impossible for a man who is ruining the country. What a place!
358999
No.  You can't impeach someone because you disagree with them or because they are unpopular.  The Constituion specifies impeachment only for High Crimes and Misdemeanors.  Nixon's covering for the Watergate Break In probably counts, everything since (the Whitewater stuff is a stretch the evidence was a little thin) just lacks proper legal standing.  Congress needs to stop treating impeachment as a political toy and reserve it for what it is, a very serious proceding not to be undertaken lightly or in a partisan manner.
1011442
if you mean impeached, then no he should not be.\n\nhe hasn't really been a good leader for the US, but that isn't something that causes an impeachment.
486666
I think Tony Blair is a decent person. As a politician, however, his refusal to admit wrong doing in entering Iraq has scarred him very deeply in peoples opinion of him . His term in office has seen several deceptions of the British (and international) public, from Iraq to the trusworthiness of the cabinet whom he surrounds himself with.\nIf his argument is one of compassion, then why not depose Robert Mugabe, who is as deplorable as Hussein. \n\nCompassion cannot be selective, It would seem that Blair's has been shown to be.
46758
Yes, of course he has broken the law.  Regardless of his representations to the contrary, there is no such authorization in the Constitution, in case law, or in the statutes or regulations.  His behavior is impermissible and he should most definitely be impeached for illegal wiretapping and, if found guilty, be removed from his office in disgrace.
70558
yes , why not ? this Philippine government made our lives so hard, we cant tell who is telling the truth and whom to believe then. Many bebefits are not given to the government employees. So we need a change , and that change shall take efect soon. impeachment is one of the solutions.
946267
well let me see Tony Blair:\n\nLied about the war\nCreated foundation hospitals\nIncreased higher education fees\nAllowed buy to let mortgages (which has priced me and many others out of the market)\nWas the Creator of ASBO'S (cos they really work)\nCreated around 1,000 new pieces of legislation that's more than any other government.\nOh and his people let out some of the most dangerous crimminals rather than deport them.\n\nSo I'd say yes!
944955
Well he does lie like a politician so why not.
181470
Because he lied under oath, which is a FEDERAL CRIME.  If you intentionally lie under oath, no matter how slight, it is a federal offence, and an impeachable crime.\n\nthere seems to be some mis-understandings of what impeachment is.  Impeachment determines whether you will or won't be removed from office.  Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.  It's a common misconception.
819946
yes the president should be impeached.the lies he has told are far more damaging to this country and this country's credibility throughout the world than the lie Clinton told about an affair.goes to show you what too much power in the houses for the republicans will do.i believe since this administration has failed our country that they blew their chance and the democrats should be voted into power.but i think if we can survive the rest of this president's term,we should impeach when his term is up.just like they did to Clinton.i think this would be the best way because :do we really want Dick Cheney running this country?in my opinion attacking someones country under false pretenses no matter how bad the leader of that country is is a far more greater crime to warrant impeachment than a man not telling the truth about an affair with a woman.