Guardian columnist tries to arrest John Bolton

Wed, 05/28/2008 - 4:32pm

John Bolton got a rude surprise today when George Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian newspaper, tried to arrest the former Bush administration official after he finished a talk at a literary festival in Wales. Monbiot, who was stopped by security guards as he tried to make a citizen's arrest, defended his action:

This was a serious attempt to bring one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war to justice, for what is described under the Nuremberg Principles as an international crime," he said.

Apparently, festival organizers had investigated the matter beforehand and determined that the arrest would be unlawful. That makes sense to me, since Bolton isn't a British citizen and it's not at all clear that citizens arrests apply to matters of international law. Nor, in any case, has any relevant international body declared the war illegal. And why would Bolton specifically be culpable when he was never responsible for setting policy? It's also worth noting that both the British and U.S. governments consider the war legal.

But if any Passport readers out there have expertise on this question, please weigh in below or by e-mail. Was Monbiot's stunt as stupid as it seems?

UPDATE: Gideon Rachman comments.

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Pessimist

by Sam on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 3:55pm

Maybe he wanted to look stupid, I've heard it's so popular in England, he might even get a raise!

In terms of affecting the common sense about the war here in the US, YES IT IS STUPID. People of America don't care about what their government does abroad. The only thing they might (just might) care is tax burden of it, which at the end of the day according to an interesting percentage of Americans is far less important than wearing the flag pins, let alone that taxes of this war has been imposed on future generations who can not vote today. so YES IT WAS STUPID.

Still...

by thabet on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 8:20pm

at least Monbiot's stupid stunt didn't cost a million lives.

My understanding is that for

by Adrian on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 8:33pm

My understanding is that for Monbiot's stunt to have any prayer of success a relevant English body would have had to declare that the war was illegal (massively unlikely) and that Bolton specifically was culpable. If the ICC had deemed the war illegal and Bolton a war criminal, I believe legitimate agents of a signatory government would have had to apprehend them on their soil.

--
Some could not bear nor break the young and mourn for / The wounded myths that once made nations good. -- W.H. Auden, "In Time of War"

It's the mustache, stupid.

by elan4444 on Thu, 05/29/2008 - 1:34am

It's the mustache, stupid. That would drive anyone in their right mind right out into the street in order to put a stop to it. I certainly don't blame him, because it was beginning to get to me, too.

Also, consider the source: it's the Guardian. The writers had to have a break from writing those lengthy columns that purposely send you to the dictionary at least three times for any article, even in the sports section. Just to show that they can.

Cheers!

If only...

by Yank in Vienna on Thu, 05/29/2008 - 5:31am

Now it really would have been something if it had been Scott McClellan attempting the arrest.

Spirit of Resistance.

by unforgiven on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 2:14pm

"Was Monbiot's stunt as stupid as it seems?"

The question prejudges the answer; not a very open-minded or democratic kind of stance to take.

Is it necessarily a stunt or stupid to make a gesture of protest and defiance about something one sees as being fundamentally wrong; in this case something perceived by many as amounting to genocide, merely because the gesture itself may have no immediately discernible effect?
Or could it be that it is inherent in the nature of the human spirit, as opposed to that of the animal kingdom, to attempt to address problems which might seem, at first sight, insurmountable?
Churchill was supremely clear on these points.
His speech for example, could be construed as a statement of the worthiness and nobility of the human spirit in continuing to make even the most apparently futile gestures of resistance and defiance when confronted by overwhelming odds in the face of evil:

"...we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

Churchill, it would seem to me, had a higher agenda than even winning or surviving. It was about 'who you are' as a nation or as an individual. He was making it clear that it could never be right to accept wrong.
I would applaud Monbiot, in this instance, for this reason.
And I would say to him; we must never, never, give up.
Lest we lose sight of who we are.