RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq

[Tigs2]

From the Sunday Times 16 Oct

"RAF officer faces jail over ‘illegal war’

David Leppard



AN RAF officer could be jailed for refusing to serve in Iraq because he believes that the war there was illegal.
Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith is to be court-martialled for “refusing to obey a lawful command” after he told his commanding officer that he would not go to Basra.

He is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of war.

Kendall-Smith, 37, unit medical officer for RAF Kinloss in Morayshire, has been decorated for his role in support of military operations in Afghanistan and for two previous tours in support of the RAF in Iraq.

However, after studying the legal position, including the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, he decided this year that the war was unlawful and it would therefore be wrong for him to return.

Justin Hugheston-Roberts, his solicitor, said preliminary court martial proceedings were expected to begin this year. He said that Kendall-Smith did not object in principle to serving in any war, provided it was legal.

“This is the first case of its kind involving Iraq. My client has considered this very carefully and in great depth. He is not arguing that he is a conscientious objector. He is arguing that the war is manifestly unlawful,” he said.

Kendall-Smith, as a serving officer, is barred by military regulations from talking to the media. A colleague said: “Malcolm joined the RAF out of a spirit of idealism. He felt he wanted to do something good, to make a difference. It was good old battle of Britain stuff, helping the good guys fight the fascists.

“When he first went to the Gulf in 2003, his awareness of the legal position was far less than it is now. He is now in no doubt that the war was illegal and that the government has spun its position on the evidence. He takes the view that this is something which is worth going to prison for.

“When he explained to his commanding officer that he thought the war was unlawful, he was told that the attorney-general had declared it legal. Malcolm simply replied that the attorney-general had said one thing, then later said more or less completely the opposite.”

A central part of Kendall-Smith’s legal case will be the manual of RAF law which states that a serving officer is justified in refusing to obey a command if it is illegal. His lawyers will also argue that his commission, granted by the Queen, requires him to act according to “the rules and discipline of war”.

International lawyers have argued that there was no legal justification for invading Iraq because Britain and America failed to wait for the United Nations to pass a second resolution specifically sanctioning military force.

Kendall-Smith was born in Australia but brought up in New Zealand where he studied to become a doctor. He has dual British-New Zealand citizenship and was commissioned as an officer in 2000. He earns about £40,000 a year.

He is posted with a staff of four at the regional medical centre at Kinloss, which employs more than 3,000 military personnel and is home to the Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance Aircraft fleet.

He was suspended on full pay after being interviewed by the Royal Military Police in June. On October 5 he was charged after being served with court martial papers by the RAF prosecuting authority in Innsworth, Gloucestershire.

The Ministry of Defence said: “An RAF officer is due to appear before a general court martial on a date and location yet to be confirmed. The officer will be charged with four counts of disobeying a lawful command. It would be inappropriate to give further details.”

Hugheston-Roberts said: “We will be seeking a judge’s ruling on a huge volume of jurisprudence as to the legality of the armed conflict.”

The court martial will be heard at a military base by a senior judge and a board of at least five high-ranking officers, with an air commodore as president. There will be no jury and the case will be heard on a military base. The RAF will pay his defence costs but the reserves the right to reclaim the money if he is convicted.

Two years ago Leading Aircraftsman Mohisin Khan, a Muslim reservist from Ipswich, was disciplined after he refused to serve in Iraq because of his religious beliefs. "



This ones going to be interesting then!! How many folks will be volunteering to be officer under instruction on this one?

The consequence of this chap continuing through the courts and setting precedence in Brussels would be very interesting. I think it might be dropped somehow.

A central part of Kendall-Smith’s legal case will be the manual of RAF law which states that a serving officer is justified in refusing to obey a command if it is illegal. His lawyers will also argue that his commission, granted by the Queen, requires him to act according to “the rules and discipline of war”

International lawyers have argued that there was no legal justification for invading Iraq because Britain and America failed to wait for the United Nations to pass a second resolution specifically sanctioning military force..


Any Comments??

[NDB]

Rock on!!!!

Docs are few and far between..... I think we should pull out of any possible war/combat/hostile area until we can afford to bring them back on time and get serco to provide medical cover... (Which I know will never happen).

[Impiger]

OK here's a thought which the crewroom lawyers might like to argue around.

The original invasion of Iraq may or may not have been illegal.

However - we are no longer at 'war' as we are now in support of the recognisied Iraqi administration.

The MO has been given an order to deploy and administer medical services to British Servicemen - he is not prosecuting a war of any kind - legal or illegal.

Therefore the order to deploy is legal and must be complied with.

Points! questions?

And for the record: Trench dodging is trench dodging no matter how many lawyers you have on your side.

[Clockwork Mouse]

We are not at war now so the legality of it is not relevant to his case.

And a posting order can scarcely be construed as illegal.

His action, in refusing the order to go to Iraq, is intolerable and indefensible, however much one may sympathise with his views of the legality of the second Gulf War and our reasons for being there now. He volunteered to serve his country and has been well rewarded for doing so. Soldiers (and I include sailors and airmen) cannot cherry-pick the orders they will obey or we may as well contractorise the whole of our Armed Services.

If he feels that strongly, good for him but he should have resigned his commission. He could then have gone public. There will be no winners from this. He has disgraced us all.

[An Teallach]

However, NuLabour lawyers are quick to analyse and pick over Servicemen's actions committed in the heat of their illegal war from the quiet comfort of a Fiscal's office, and to bring charges against the men who serve Queen and Country.

The 'Nuremberg Defence' is denied to those Servicemen and, I have to say, this chap's action looks to me like a principled stand. By bringing lawyers onto the battlefield, the Government have only themselves to blame. It was only a matter of time before individual Servicemen started to think:

"If the Govt lawyers will happily crap all over me if I shoot back while I'm under a hail of petrol bombs / being fired upon, then why should I put myself at risk from lawyers by going to a war that many lawyers say is illegal? Under the current regime, I have an absolute duty not to obey an unlawful order."

[Impiger]

Yes but what order is he failing to obey and is that order legal?

I believe the order to deploy to Basra to be legal.

If the individual wishes to disregard he should resign/PVR on a matter of principle and make his stand in that way. This smacks of the opponents of military engagement using him to publicise their point - no matter how valid their point this method of publicising it damages us all.

[JessTheDog]

The doc in question appears to be looking for a fight over the Iraq issue.

The verdict of the court-martial is a foregone conclusion for a number of reasons but primarily because there is a UN resolution regarding the rebuilding of Iraq and a continued military presence which is permitted by the interim Iraqi government. However, his lawyers will be looking towards the House of Lords and Strasbourg for the real action. I doubt this action will achieve anything - if the doc has a moral objection towards UK foreign and military policy then he should resign his commission - he is two years too late to use the illegal war argument.

However, if there was another war (against a certain neighbouring country beginning with "I" for example) following a similar pattern to the Iraq invasion, then a refusal to obey an illegal order to participate may have a significant chance of success. It is clear from the evidence to Hutton and Butler that the Iraq invasion (no UN resolution, lies over WMD) was emphatically not legal and the leaked advice of the Attorney General blew apart any remaining credibility of the case made for war. In the unlikely event of such military action against Iran, I can forsee quite a few cases of service personnel refusing to participate on the grounds that there is no legal authority for military action and that any such action is in breach of international law, and that orders arising from such operations are likely to be illegal. Back in 2003, no one really thought that HMG would lie over an illegal war but we know better now.

[Red Line Entry]

Clockwork Mouse, you say,

"Soldiers (and I include sailors and airmen) cannot cherry-pick the orders they will obey".

NO, NO, NO and NO! A serviceman is OBLIGED to ensure that an order is legal before he carries it out. Mindless obediance is something that sent the Germans down the wrong route a few years ago. If I felt I truly served in a Service that did not wish its officers and men to be independent thinking human beings, my resignation would have been submitted a long time ago.

I make no judgement on the merits of the case involved here - although it is clear that the Government cannot afford to lose it. But I disagree with Impinger - Kendall-Smith is right to act the way he has, while still remaining an officer. He appears to be acting on principle, so why should he relinquish the Queen's uniform while he persues what he (apparently) believes is right?

[Clockwork Mouse]

AT

I support your disgust at the way our troops are now being forced to include possible legal action by their own side in their tactical threat assessment.

However, that situation is not relevant to this officer's case. Despite the on-going violence we are not now at war. He cannot plead illegality in respect of his posting or detachment order.

He has decided to pick a political fight with the system. He has chosen the wrong fight and in the process has done no-one, himself included, any favours. He has left the RAF no other choice but to prosecute him with all the attendant damage and bad publicity for us all. If publicity for his views is what he wants, why on earth didn't he resign first before going public? He is a commissioned officer in the RAF but has has not behaved appropriately. He has shown himself to be miguided and disloyal and must now face the inevitable consequences.

I'm afraid he must go.

RLE

This is not a question of blind obedience to illegal orders. And he has not picked a fight with the Government, even if that was his misguided intention. He has taken on the RAF, and for all our sakes he cannot and will not win. The government is probably laughing its collective socks off.

Tim Collins handled it correctly.

[DESPERADO]

Perhaps I have missed something here, but you lot seem to be arguing the toss over points of law. Who cares about that cr@p right now? The bottom line is that our guys and girls are getting shot at, wounded and killed on a daily basis. I joined up along time ago now with dreams of the Battle of Briatin, serving my country etc. Quite often it seems that many people in my country aren't that grateful any more, but what makes it all worthwhile are the friends and colleagues that I work with. I lost a lot of my idealism a long time ago but I replaced it with a loyalty to the common cause of looking after each other. I hope that this is the same for most people out there. I am still undecided about the rights and wrongs of Tony's war but I can tell you that plays little on my mind when I go there (Iraq) every year. I am trying to do my best for the people who are in the dwang - our troops.
This guy is a disgrace to his country, his uniform, his service and more important than all of that he is letting down those that need him most - his comrades. What he is doing is unforgiveable, politically motivated, cynical and selfish. I am quite happy to tell him that to his face if he wishes. He can be a big hero going to Colchester for a few weeks so that the Guardian readers can crow, but he is only giving the bird to the other people who have the sense and the understanding to get on with the job and not whine about it.
I don't have much time for Tony Blair, but guess what most of the other guys and girls would rather not be there either. Because of this idiot someone else has to go, or do back to back tours, someone elses husband/wife/daughter/son has to do more time in the line of fire. This man is supposed to be a medical professional but is effectively refusing to treat British troops who may need his help. His attitude that he seems to be making a 'stand' for the silent majority is patronising and selfish in the extreme.
Stop dancing around the issue and tell it how it is - think about your friends and colleagues out there who are on a daily basis struggling with a very difficult and dangerous situation and then take a look at this immature self-publicist who should never have got past the interview stage for joining the military. I am so angry about this. Why should he even still get paid? Does he not realise that it isn't Tony B that is relying on him, its his peers? This 'stand' will not affect anything - Tony B and his friends could care less. It hurts all of the rest of us.

[An Teallach]

Clockwork

Wasn't one good officer charged with "Negligently performing a duty" or some such?

I would have thought that, standing the legality / illegality of the invasion itself, the current situation to my mind amounts to criminal negligence on the part of those who ordered the war. To invade a country having not the first idea what you are going to do with it once you've conquered it to my mind amounts to criminal negligence.

Perhaps this chap will argue that he did not want to become an accomplice in the furthering of such criminal negligence?

BTW, I'm not saying here that I would have done what he's done. However, I can see where he's coming from.

[althenick]

In my opinion this guy is using the RAF to play politics. Since the RAF (Should) be non-political, then I find his behavior totally inappropriate. Why doesn't he resign his commission and lobby his local MP if he feels so strongly?:confused:

[oldfella]

It's not just a matter of principle and doesn't require resignation.
Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is perfectly entitled to question the legality of his orders.

Once it's pointed out that the order is legal then he is in the wrong. The outcome should be interesting - legally not at war, refusal to obey a legal order - reposted into theatre - refusal - what then?

[An Teallach]

Once it's pointed out that the order is legal then he is in the wrong. The outcome should be interesting - legally not at war, refusal to obey a legal order - reposted into theatre - refusal - what then?

Despite my legal musings above, I'd have thought the answer was obvious: Dismissal, possibly followed by prison.

[Red Line Entry]

Siegfried Sassoon criticised a war that he felt was being unjustly prolonged by the politicians without feeling the need to resign his commission (and instead was labelled as suffering from shellshock and bundled off to Craiglockhart). Yet who today would say that his stance was reprehensible?

I appreciate Sassoon was prepared (and keen) to serve back at the front but my point is that his vocal anti-war protests were made while he was still a serving officer.

[JessTheDog]

I suspect this bloke will be dismissed as quickly and as painlessly as possible to save further embarrassment. Jail time is highly unlikely and, no matter what the officers on the court-marital believe, the word from on high will be "bury this quickly".

Siegfried Sassoon refined his anti-war stance in later life, after the Second World War, and concluded that he may have been wrong.

With regard to the officer at the source of the current controversy, I completely agree with his views regarding the legality of the 2003 outing but disagree with his decision to refuse this order as the order is legitimate because of the post-war UN resolution and the position of the Iraqi government.

[countonme]

Unbelievable, utterly unbelievable. Hang him for treason at Traitors Gate.

No place in the Armed Forces for this. Wouldn't have happened in my day. Would have shot them. If you can't take the heat then you shoudn't have joined and sworn allegence.

I'm just sitting on the fence of course as I might just get a bit mad at this if I'm not too careful.

Grrrr:mad:

[Compass Call]

If he does not want to go and fight what he considers to be an 'illegal' war, that's OK with me. He can go and dig latrines for those who are prepared to do their duty:E

Failing that, he can be shot at dawn and buried in an unmarked grave. He is a traitor to Queen and Country:yuk:


CC

[The Gorilla]

God listen to you lot and you wonder why you are so reviled in Civvy Street!!

It's his conscience and it's his choice, like others before him who have made a brave stand he will pay a price. Luckily for him, unlike Kelly it won’t be with his life!

:mad:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Could'nt agree with you more Gorilla, his choice, his decision and you have to admire the courage of his conviction. I happen to think he is wrong but fully defend his right to challenge in this fashion.

Traitor/hang him/shoot him/dig latrines etc Pathetic, absolutely pathetic and "grown up's" should know better.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[An Teallach]

Yes, it might be interesting to hear what front-line service the hanging / shooting brigade have to their credit. :rolleyes:

[Climebear]

I just hope he has a good brief that understands the laws of armed conflict and the difference between Jus an bellum and Jus in bello (I think that's the correct spelling). Ie there is a difference between declaring a war justly - the breach of which is considered an offence by a nation state's leadership - and the conduct of a war justly - the breach of which is an offence by combatants.

It is a principle of law that an officer/sailor/soldier/airman cannot be committing a 'war crime' if the war itself is illegal - that is the domain of the leadership. They can commit a 'war crime' if they breach the laws and customs of armed conflict during the prosecution of the war (legal or not).

As for the current situation. The coalition forces are in Iraq to fulfill a UN mandate. Therefore, the current deployments are legal (no matter what you opinions of the legality of the invasion are).

[Stafford]

Sorry,

Sounds like the New Labour 15 minutes of fame slot to me so prevalent in our celebrity cult country which Bliar has created.

If he wanted to make a principled stand, he should have resigned but of course in civvies his voice would have been a fart in a thunderstorm. He's using the uniform to make a personal point and we are all the poorer in the public eye for it.

[DESPERADO]

I'll say it again for those of you without the sense to see the issue here - this man is a disgrace, this is not a matter of conscience, his brief even admitted it wasn't conscientious objection is was just that his client didn't think that the war was legal! What legal training and special insight does he have to allow him to make such a high-minded judgement?
Gorilla, over all the years that I have read posts on this site you have been a continuous source of whining and barrack room lawyer cr@p - I don't believe that we are 'reviled by the general public', I understand that you have left the service that disgusts you so and I for one am glad to see the back of you. You were supposedly once one of us, but I bet you were one of those guys continually passed over for promotion because 'my boss didn't like me' - or was it because you were a pain in the butt for all your colleagues?
I hope that this man does the honourable thing, resigns his commission and b~ggers off back under the rock that he popped out from under. I reiterate, I am not a fan of Tony B, I didn't vote for him, but he is the elected leader of this country and despite his mistakes the people recently re-elected him - that should tell you something.
This is not about politics but about individuals in the service who have taken the kudos and money living up to their responsibilities to their comrades. Anyone that has been in combat knows that when the sh!t starts flying its about looking after the friends around, trust and respect for the guys and girls in the same trouble as you. Politics is the last thing on your mind when your wingman has a mx directed at him, its about not letting him down. I believe strongly that this man is not making a principled stand - he is letting the RAF and the troops on the ground down. As an Officer and 'leader' he is letting me down. Many of us in the services have lost friends or had them badly injured out there - this mans behaviour is not honourable and is not honouring them.
If you want a big hug fella then clearly Gorilla is your man, he 'reviles' the services, personally I'd like to give you a kick up the @rse and send you on your way.

Oh and while I am on a roll, An Teallach, I have plenty of time in that place and others as bad to my credit thats why this t0sser has me so infuriated - why should my wife have to put up with me going away, again and again, when I wear the same uniform as this political pawn who as a Doctor probably gets paid more than me for doing nothing. I go back to my earlier post, of all people a Doctor should be apolitical in all this. The guys on the ground in Basra need his expertise more than mine right now.

[Jackonicko]

Instinctively, I'd side with (gulp) 'Always Broken'. Talk of treason, shooting at dawn and latrine digging sounds like ignorant far right nonsense to me.

Had he refused to go to support the initial invasion, I'd line up with AT and RLE and would support the bloke's right to refuse to obey what he may have believed was an illegal order.

Except that he's a medic. Shouldn't he be going (like a WWI CE ambulance driver) whether the war was morally right or wrong? Isn't his part in ops always morally right (saving lives, looking after the health and welfare of his patients and comrades)? No-one's asking him to go and kill as part of an illegal war, after all.

And above all, I'd ask (as JtD asked more intelligently) what's illegal about the PRESENT, ongoing op.

There must be people here, from Kinloss, who know the bloke and who will know whether he's genuine but misguided, or is simply looking for an easy way out and a way to avoid unwelcome service in the sandy shi.thole.

[N Joe]

Reading the comments above, you're all missing the point. This idiot is a doctor so is not being sent to fight anyone. He's being sent to provide medical care to those Servicemen and Servicewomen already based out there. Indeed, the Hipocratic Oath dictates that he must provide equal care to all he treats, whichever side they're on (if 'sides' can be applied in this situation).

I knew one of the Padres sent to Iraq in the very early stages of the conflict. He had similar deep-seated misgivings about the morality of the action but took the view that his duty was to support the troops that were sent so that is what he did. I doubt he ever 'came round' to supporting the intervention but he did the job he was paid to do.

This Kendall-Smith clown should do his job or resign his commission.

The controversial and flippant punchline:

If he just doesn't want to go, why doesn't he just get himself downgraded like everyone else!!

N Joe

(Clearly Jackonicko hasn't missed the point, he just typed quicker than I did)

[4fitter]

Desperado - take a chill or you'll soon be needing the services of said officer's colleagues. I suspect he will only get paid more than you if you are no higher than flt lt aircrew or an NCO. I do not agree with his stand as I have also had to do my time sausage side a few times, however, the info in the public domain is that this man has also done his operational wack. Therefore, he is probably not a war-dodger and is either a highly principled individual with big balls willing to take a stand for his views or is attempting to get out of paying his medical cadet scholarship back for an early PVR.

I have lost friends through action but do not see him in the same light as you. Do you honestly believe he would forsake his medical obligations by refusing to go back to Iraq.

I don't know the man, would probably avoid him in the bar but do I see him bringing disrepute to my Service in the manner you describe No. Let the courts do their thing, allow him his 15 minutes of fame and thank whatever your god is that there are hundreds more RAF medics who have and will continue to serve with distinction.

Time for my chil pill now :ok:

[An Teallach]

Deep breaths, Desperado. And ... relax.

Actually, I hadn't counted you as being in the hanging / shooting brigade. Although your ire is well vented, I didn't see any advocacy of death for this chap in your earlier post.

Jackonico

I'd line up with AT and RLE and would support the bloke's right to refuse to obey what he may have believed was an illegal order.
I believe I said I could see where this chap was coming from and that the Govt had contributed to this mess by bringing lawyers to the battlefield.

Extrapolating from that that I support what this chap has done is perhaps stretching my words a bit far, is it not?

[Ali Barber]

If the law is as climebear suggests (and I don't doubt it) he doesn't have leg to stand on. It's not his fault his Government decided to go to war, but it's up to him to fight it within the "rules of law". Except that he's a doc so he doesn't fight and he's been before so he didn't think the problem was big enough then. Eejit's heading for a sacking at best and jail at worst (switch best and worst depending on how you feel).

[DESPERADO]

Do you honestly believe he would forsake his medical obligations by refusing to go back to Iraq
err, 4fitter, have I missed something or is that not precisely what he has done? Forsaken his medical obligations as a Doctor and an Officer? He is refusing to go to Iraq.
I don't need to be told to chill thanks my friend I am perfectly calm, I just happen to believe that things such as honour, integrity and loyalty in the face of adversity still matter. Perhaps I am old fashioned (still in my mid thirties) but this man has completely missed the point of being in the service. How is this not bringing disripute to the service??????? I would imagine our colleagues in the Army who are currently deployed in Basra, yet again, might have something to say about that.
The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it. People who wear the uniform of the UK should have the knowledge that whatever our sometimes corrupt and misguided politicians put them through, they can rely on their mates to help them out. I could care less if this bloke has been to Afghanistan or wherever, he is needed in Iraq and he should get off his @rse, sack his cardigan wearing Barrister and get himself where he can do some good. If not lets dishonourably discharge him and forget he ever existed. I don't wish to hang him or shoot him but I would like to look him in the eye and tell him to his face what I think of him.
I really do get tired of the cuddly, PC 'everyone is entitled to set free their feelings' kind of world we live in. This guy is not entitled to do this while countrymen in uniform are getting hurt, period. Dress it up any way you want but he is a fraud as a Doctor and an RAF Officer and he shames us all.
Damn, I am getting all angry again.
An Teallach, if I misunderstood you I apologise.
Gorilla, still want to know where it is that you live that everyone 'reviles' us in the RAF?

[RileyDove]

The guy will get his 15 minutes of fame and then leave the service. I think the days of honesty and loyalty in government
and the services are very much on the slide. For instance the soldiers prosecuted in Germany in the summer can hardly have had unbiased public opinion when the Army chose to release
pictures of their activities long before the court martial was over.
Similarily the 'spikes of activity' levelled against Iraq long before the war started in earnest can hardly be described as coming within any UN mandate . It's great to think that the 'war'
is over - however the indications seem to suggest that whilst
we might have signed the paperwork to say so - the insurgents
have only just started their war.

[SmilingKnifed]

Whilst I agree with the guy's sentiments regarding the (il)legality of the 'war', I can't help but feel his argument is cheapened by the shock value of him being a serving Officer. An extremely talented bloke with a bright future was prepared to leave the service he loved in order to stick to his principles. I believe he should do the same.

However, talk of hanging etc is simply purile.

[mini]

“Malcolm joined the RAF out of a spirit of idealism. He felt he wanted to do something good, to make a difference. It was good old battle of Britain stuff,

Oh my god...

As for his legal point - good luck to him. It will be interesting.

:sad:

[BEagle]

"The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it."

I really hope you didn't mean that.

Bliar took the UK into Iraq quite illegally, it seems to have been concluded. But whether this doctor's actions are contrary to military law is something for the court to decide, not PPRuNe.

And as for senior officers making judgements on here whilst the case has yet to go to trial, sorry mate, but I think you're playing into the hands of the defence.

[jstars2]

“The consequence of this chap continuing through the courts and setting precedence in Brussels would be very interesting.”

On appeal, following a guilty verdict against Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith at a General Court Martial, would defence solicitor Justin Hugheston-Roberts be briefing QC Cherrie Booth, luminary of Matrix Chambers, Gray’s Inn, London, in preparation for pleas to both the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, at which latter court, she has so far achieved unparalleled success?

[DESPERADO]

"The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it."
Sorry Beagle, I really do mean it when it comes down to the responsibilities this man has to perform his duties. I don't subscribe to the 'plucky chap - good luck to him - I support his right to make a stand' etc philosophy that many/some on this forum seem to have. There are 2 different issues here - the legality of the war is one of them, I am undecided as I said before, because I still don't believe that all of the facts have been laid bare by the Govt and the advice that was given by the Attorney General - therefore any decision I make is weighed down by my philosophical political disagreements with the Labour party.
The second issue is one of loyalty to friends and colleagues in the line of fire. Looking after each other in a time of need. This is apolitical and has nothing to do with Tony and his chums. It is what I believe should still count for a lot in the military - we don't have the real support of the govt all we have is each other and if you think that is unimportant in relation to the pompous political claptrap that this guy is stirring up then I believe you are wrong. A serving Officer, a Doctor, takes it upon himself to patronise the rest of us in this way is a disgrace. He should leave and join the Lib Dems if he wants to play politics, or he should get on with his job and stop whining. In case some hadn't noticed, he is still in the military - that still comes with some basic responsibilities that this guy seems to think don't matter.
Perhaps I am too jaded from all the other cr@p that we have to put up with these days, but to me this really feels like a betrayal by one of our own. Like it or not, thats how I feel.

Bliar took the UK into Iraq quite illegally, it seems to have been cocncluded. But whether this doctors actions are contrary to military law is something for the court to decide, not PPRuNe.
I think that this Forum has gone soft and lost its sting because of this kind of comment - I refuse to feel guilty about making judgements on this issue. If we can't comment on something like this on this Forum then what is it that you think we should discuss? - I have not bothered with this site for a while because there seems to be an element of thought police who frown everytime there is a bit of contoversy.
Beagle I respect your 'zen master of the mil forum' status that you have cultivated and your military credentials but I believe that this Forum needs to discuss these issues to their logical conclusion not tip toe around it nervously. We are not 'deciding', this is a discussion forum, not one of Tony's cabinet meetings.

[jstars2]

Nine paragraphs took UK to war
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph
11/03/2005

Britain went to war in Iraq on the basis of a brief, nine-paragraph summary of legal issues produced for Cabinet ministers by the Attorney General, it emerged last night.

The absence of a full legal opinion from Lord Goldsmith was seized on by opponents of the war as evidence of chaos in Tony Blair's government as he prepared for the attack on Saddam Hussein's regime.

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said it was beyond belief that Cabinet ministers were given such an inadequate explanation, which was also published on the same day as a parliamentary answer.

"This is an astonishing revelation which suggests utter confusion at the heart of government," said Mr Kennedy.

"The Prime Minister must now clarify the situation, which is undermining public trust. He must provide a clear statement about what took place regarding the legal advice."

"Can it really be true that the legal basis on which we went to war consisted of a parliamentary answer and not a full legal opinion?"

Previously, critics of the war have claimed that Lord Goldsmith's short summary produced at Cabinet on March 17, 2003 was a condensed version of a more detailed legal opinion in which he had expressed some serious doubts about the legality of war.

Suspicion of a cover-up has been fuelled by the Government's consistent refusal to publish more of the legal advice given by Lord Goldsmith in the run up to war.

Full Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/11/nwarr11.xml)

PS. DESPERADO. Could I ask you to format with more paragraphs please? I think that some of your points are valid but I'd like to spot 'em with more ease than I can at present!

[Purr Harder]

So this guy has so called principles? He does not go to Iraq, so what happens? Some other poor sap has to go in his place. Sounds like a lack of moral fibre to me, or is it a big yellow streak down his back due to the increase in tension in and around Basra. Never mind the guy or gal who has to go on his place will face the mortar attacks instead.

This guy should be paraded in front of his unit in his No 1s have his rank badges and buttons ripped of his uniform and then be put to work sweep the airfield.

[jayteeto]

Yellow streak?? Hardly!! He has been there twice already...
The point about illegal orders is well documented, the germans all said 'we were only obeying orders' in nuremberg and it was not a valid defence. You are obliged to refuse illegal orders. That said, the war is over now so I agree with the others, just do your duty or else someone else has to go. If you don't like Bliars orders (like me) then do exactly what I did two years ago..... LEAVE!

[Hanse Cronje]

Nice to see that somebody has the moral courage and convictions to stand up for what he believes, it is ashame that our so called senior and superiors do not have the conviction to this more often. As for me the desert beckons again but might just be back for christmas, then again.....

[Maple 01]

No, not a man of principle, he's just trying to weasel out of a det - the UNSCR HAS PASSED a resolution authorising the re-construction of Iraq which is the mandate for UK involvement in the country.

IF he is doing what he claims the time for protest was 2003 and the honourable thing was to resign – but no, keeps his head down keeps taking the Queen’s shilling until calledsomewhere nasty once too often, then, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, sees the light ‘this war was illegal!’ and expects someone else to pick-up his duty.

[RileyDove]

Maple- Interesting point that the UN has passed as resolution to rebuild the country! Has the U.N ever not passed a resolution to help rebuild a country post conflict? I find it amazing that the U.S didn't have a good word to say about the U.N prior to the war!
When it's all 'over' and the cash starts pouring in they are
best friends!

[Maple 01]

As I understand it his complaint is that because there was no UNSCR to authorise the invasion of Iraq he doesn’t have to go - ignoring for the moment UNSCR 678, his argument falls down because subsequently there has been a UNSCR that DOES authorise UK deployments - therefore I would of thought he has no argument

As for the sly dig about the Americans - how many of the 'incorruptible' UN officials are still under investigation over oil for food? How many UNSCR member nations are on record as saying under virtually NO circumstances would they authorise action against Saddam (clue Russia and France were both owed billions by Saddam's regime)

[The Real Slim Shady]

Maple,

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the officer's action, perhaps the belief that the subsequent UNSCRs are founded on the back of an illegal action may have some influence.

For example, a burglar who breaks in to your house and is in the process of stealing your belongings happens to be upstairs when your TV downstairs, on standby - not off- bursts in to flames.

To save his own skin, he has to exit through your bedroom and, in a gesture of humanitarianism, rouses you from your alcohol induced sleep, therby saving your life.

Does the latter action mitigate the former?

[Maple 01]

So now you're sugesting that UNSCRs may be illegal? Hells teeth, if that was his argument what a fine legal mind has been waisting its time as a doctor!

Either there is a UNSCR in place which authorises UK involvment in Iraq or there isn't

If there isn't he might have an argument, but as there is, he hasn't - section 69 (not as much fun as it sounds) and failure to obey a direct order

March in the guilty bastard!

BTW Anyone going to support the first barrack room lawyer to try and avoid the Falklands draft with 'there was no UNSCR to authorise the liberation so I’m not going?'

[Hanse Cronje]

Obviously busy in the Int world at Marham then....NOT!

[An Teallach]

Maple, me old

March in the guilty bastard!

Did this chap shoot Speckled Jim or something? :uhoh:

I think a lot of folk should calm down, lest this chap's colleagues are unable to cope with the rush of apoplectic PPRuNeRs!

[Maple 01]

Obviously busy in the Int world at Marham then....NOT!

Wouldn't know, retired hurt, much like your alter ego!

(must change PPRuNe bit to read ex)

but thanks for your concern, now can you find any holes in my argument or are you more interested in my work arrangements :)

Wasn’t Marham BTW

An Teallach

Should have put a ;) in there - having been the 'guilty bastard' on occasion!

[SID East]

There was a guy a couple of years ago who withdrew from the very last stages of advanced weapons and flying training at a well-known airfield in North Wales. He too was disgraced and disturbed at the perceived legality of the war in Iraq and had the courage of his convictions to up and leave the service!

They say that the forces are supposed to "reflect society". Given the doubts / anti-Iraq war feeling in greater British society there are bound to be some in the armed forces - right? I do not necessarily agree with their standing but personally have the utmost respect for these guys who are prepared to "stick it the man" when they feel they have to.

About this Doctor's reasons for joining the Service. I am too young to remember the end of the cold war in the forces but was is not the case that many "Cold War Warriors" refused to go to Gulf War 1 on the basis that they had joined up to fight the communist block and attacks from Ivan?

SID

[An Teallach]

Maple 01

You've recovered from the loss of your favourite pigeon then? ;) And I thought the Int world had moved on since my day.:8

Cx your PMs - The paper you seek has not been written, there is an entire book on it and it is a hilarious read.

[RileyDove]

Maple- Nothing 'sly' about the dig! The family album of Donald Rumsfelt must have quite a few snaps of him and Saddam shaking hands .You forget that when Iran wasn't flavour of the month with the U.S in the early 1980's -Saddam was more than welcome to the Reagan administration.
As for the UN mandate saying we have a legitamate right to be there ! Well yes I even agree on that! We made the mess
so we should try and clear it up!

[KENNYR]

You can all try and justify this cowards actions by quoting "illegal war", UNSCR, "illegal order" etc., etc.. However lets call a spade a spade shall we. This Officer signed on the dotted line and by doing so agreed to comply with any orders issued by the Government of the day. He also, being a Doctor, signed the hypocratic oath. His comrades in arms are dying every day in the sand pit and all he can do is "belly-ache" about the legality of war. Give me a break !!!

Kick this miscreant out of the services and take his license to practice medicine off him so that he cannot benefit from experience he has gained from service with HM Government.

[Maple 01]

was is not the case that many "Cold War Warriors" refused to go to Gulf War 1 on the basis that they had joined up to fight the communist block and attacks from Ivan?

Er, no, I remember a RA gunner refusing to go but that's about it - stands-by to be deluged with lists of chonchies.....

Edited to add from the Guardian:

In 1991 Gunner Vic Williams was jailed for 14 months after refusing to fight in the Gulf war.

[Squirrel 41]

(Pulls up stool...)

Ok, this is a very interesting and pertinent debate.

As members of the military, we are required to consider every order we receive and check that it is legal. When satisfied with the legality, we will go ahead and implement.

AFAIK, the legal position for orders is as follows:

Illegal orders are those that will break the customary laws of war, and those codified in the 4 Geneva Conventions (1948), the two Additional Protocols (1977) and for those states that have signed up, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). (The ICC statute in Article 8 outlines what crimes it will prosecute.) In addition, the ICC also has jurisdiction over all nationalities for crimes committed in states which have joined the ICC.

As has already been pointed out, Nuremberg onwards enshrined two principles that matter here: individual criminal responsibility and inadmissibility of superior orders. In other words, it is up to you to satisfy yourself that the orders are legal and you have a hard time claiming that orders meant that it was ok.

In this case, the issue is this: if the war is illegal (a state responsibility issue) can the orders (individuals' responsibility) to fight it be legal?

Those (including me) who think that GW2 was illegal, mostly do so because there was no second resolution explicitly authorising the use of force. As a result, whatever you think of Saddam Hussein's regime (in my case, that it was a brutal dictatorship), US/UK et al forces were engaged in aggression, or in Nuremberg's terms, Crimes Against Peace. The crime of aggression can theoretically be tried in the ICC; it is the subject of dispute as to what it means, but in customary and ICC law, aggression is a crime.

So, if any order to commit a crime is illegal, then orders to commit aggression - what Nuremberg called "the ultimate crime" - must be illegal, and ignored; which is why I guess the grown ups had a little chat with the PM and the Attorney General before GW2 to ensure that they were legally defensible. (Pity that virtually every other international lawyer thought that the rationale was bizarre, and worse, b0ll0cks.)

On this basis, where does our happy chappy medic fit in? The question of whether there is a war or not going on seems nonsensical to me: there is clearly an insurgency going on and lots of people are dying violent deaths - if looks, walks and talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck: this looks like a war. Under the 1977 Second Additional Protocol (AP II), the laws of war include civil wars, so the law applies.

On this basis, we have a war, and a coherent case can be made that it's one we started illegally. Therefore, does our happy chappy medic, having served two tours out there, come back and looked at the law, realised that the orders he's been given are illegal, now have a case?

The answer must be yes.

But will he win? Much more difficult, because the argument that orders to commit aggression are illegal hasn't (AFAIK) been tried recently. So the good Flt Lt is making important legal history. Personally, and based on no more evidence than is in the press, I think that he's got a good chance; and if he does win, we're all beneficiaries, as it will make politicians much less likely to launch aggressive wars.

None of which answers Desparado and others.... should you stand by your mates?

S41

[The Gorilla]

Indeed there were many people who expressed concern at and some who refused to accept that GW1 was legal. The top brass were sufficiently concerned to place a couple of Padres out at Akrotiri, which as we know was one of the main staging posts to GW1. I knew one of the Padres very well. His job was to provide moral support and of course eventually be the first to blackmail those who expressed a wish not to partake in the biggest desert party ever known. He told me that he had a very busy time!!

As for this man, if he wishes to make his stand so be it. But I don't think he is going about it in the correct manner, there are lots of easier ways to do it. In his profession it should have been easy to get signed off on the sick and PVR whilst waiting to get his med cat back. So maybe he is making a stand but isn't that what sets the Royal Air Force apart from any other service?

Isn't it true that ever since its creation RAF members have always questioned orders and sought better ways to do things? Isn't it true that after WW2 those in the Far East mutinied to get what they wanted, taking a stand against an illegal ruling back home? Yes the ringleader did pay a heavy price but they got what they wanted in the end.

The RAF has always, in my time any way, been populated by intellectuals and not automated yes sir killers. Such people have always known the difference between right and wrong. If this guy has made a call that he thinks the British Occupation Forces in Iraq are there illegally good luck to him, it is his call and it is his right to do.
Of course he won’t win, the MOD and HMG will make sure of that, whether he is correct or not!!

I know that many people within my Sqn expressed serious concerns over the issue of GW2 back in Feb 03. Many people were brow beaten and blackmailed into taking part. Myself included - we are doing this or you face a court martial! In my case I found a way out and unlike my now ex colleagues I have no blood of the innocents on my hands, well apart from maybe the odd wedding party in Afghanistan but that's another story!!

I must agree with Desperado that sometimes I have also felt the thought police have intervened too early on some other threads. I must congratulate every one thus far that this highly emotive thread has not yet degenerated into a personal insults slinging match. Keep up the good discussion!! Maybe PPrune can get back to the good old days!!!

As for the reviled comment Desperado, I meet hundreds of people from all walks of life every week. Unfortunately I have to talk to a large number of them. A large majority of the people in this country did not and do not support the entire Iraq thing. As the story continues to unfold the military is becoming embroiled in and tarred with the same brush as HMG. There is a lot of anti forces feeling out here now and there are no heroes’ returns waiting for you lot from a grateful nation, quite the opposite in fact.

For example just take a look at the way the media is portraying you at the moment.
This last week alone, stories about the Army Pay Core and its bogus Regt. The Doc story from Kinloss, PVR rate from Princess Wales Royal Regt gallantry medal winners, recruiting problems faced by all three services, compensation for the SAS breakout in Iraq as well as compensation for those who are being bullied back in the UK and finally the cost over run of the two new aircraft carriers. All such stories carried in a heavy negative slant and not a single good news story anywhere.

The facts are that this war on terror will not go on forever and IMHO there will be a payback required by the British Public. When this is all finished most people will expect\demand our Forces to be cut right back to prevent any such action from ever taking place again.

Back to the Doc issue, I don't smoke but I will always defend the right of those who do to continue to do so. If the Doc wants to stick it the man on his way out the door, his bravery must be applauded, even if it is foolhardy and absolutely pointless.


:ok:

[JimNich]

Hi All,

Haven't looked in for a while but couldn't resist a peek at this one.
Great to see that the full spectrum of outrages are being vented, from the solopsistic 'He brings disgrace to us all' to the neanderthalic 'Shoot him at dawn' and the lefty pinko 'He's making a self sacrificial stand just like Jesus did'.

Keep it up, smashing entertainment.

I still think his Missus put him up to it, simple as that.:p

[Twonston Pickle]

There are two very seperate issues here: first is the issue of the legality of the war; second is the charge of disobeying orders. Now, my personal feeling is that this Doc is taking a very brave, and principled stand. However, he has confused the 2 issues, much as a number of posts here have done. We have all been given plenty of info here as to what consitutes an illegal order. The key point is that the order must be defined as legal or illegal and NOT the circumstances surrounding it. Thus, an order to deploy to Iraq does not constitue an illegal order as it does not contravene any regulations (Geneva, ICC etc) but an order to kill an unarmed civillan would be illegal and, therefore, would not have to be obeyed. The Doc has potentially contravened a legal order and will stand trial accordingly. The "defence" he is quoting is the legality of the war; this cannot be used as a defence for not obeying a legal order but merely as mitigation for not doing so. MAFL (Manual of Air Force Law) covers a Sect 34 offence quite well, inlcuding references to International Law: (note 3 being the key para)

Disobedience to lawful commands

34.1 Any person subject to air-force law who, whether wilfully or through neglect, disobeys2 any lawful command3 (by whatever means communicated to him)4 shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to imprisonment or any less punishment provided by this Act.

Notes:

1 (a) For forms of charge, see pp 435-446.

(b) It is not necessary to show that the command was given or sent to the accused personally.

(c) Persons can be charged jointly with the offences created by this section, other than disobedience through neglect, but as such joint offences may constitute mutiny they should not be charged without advice from DLS(RAF) or his deputy abroad.

(d) An accused should not be charged in one charge with disobeying two separate orders as such a charge would be bad for duplicity.

(e) A breach of standing orders or other routine orders of a continuing nature should not be charged under this section but under s.36.

2 The disobedience must relate to the time when the command is to be obeyed. If the command demands a prompt and immediate compliance the accused will have disobeyed it if he does not comply at once. If the command is one which has to be complied with at some future time, however short, eg an order to "parade in ten minutes time", the person to whom it is given cannot be charged under this section till he has had, and fails to take, a proper opportunity of carrying out the command, notwithstanding that he may have said that he would not obey the command when given it. Such a statement by itself is not disobedience because the accused may subsequently repent and carry out the order. It may, however, amount to insubordinate language under s.33(1)(b).

3 Lawful command.

(a) To constitute an offence the command disobeyed must be lawful: this means it must not be contrary to English law or international law, or, outside England and Wales, to any relevant local law. In addition, there must be a good air-force reason for the command. A superior has the right to give a command for the purpose of maintaining good order or suppressing a disturbance or for the execution of an air-force duty or regulation or for a purpose connected with the welfare of his men. He has no right, however, to take advantage of his air-force rank to give a command which does not relate to air-force duty or usage or which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end. If a command is unlawful the person to whom it is given would be justified in questioning or even refusing to execute it.

(b) Below are given examples of what are and what are not lawful commands. These examples should not be regarded as constituting hard and fast rules. Circumstances alter cases and it is possible for the same command to be in one instance lawful and in another instance unlawful, according to the attendant circumstances. For instance, an order to submit to an inoculation may be lawful although each case should be judged on its own merits and legal advice should always be sought before giving such a command.

Lawful commands:

To get hair cut.

To obey a traffic signal or instructions given by a person on traffic control (even of inferior rank).

To do urgent work of national importance when the Defence Council have issued appropriate instructions.

To undertake duties and training in connection with civil defence, see the Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Act 1954, s.2.

Unlawful commands:

To sign for pay when not received.

To exercise the officer’s dog.

To take part in private theatricals.

To undergo an illegal punishment.

(c) Air-force personnel travelling by aircraft can be given lawful commands within the meaning of this section by the captain of a civil aircraft, see s.177(2) and QR 118. See also s.208A as to the application of Part II of the Act to passengers in HM aircraft.

(d) In the case of naval or military forces co-operating with bodies of the regular air force, lawful commands can be given by members of such naval or military forces, see s.178.

(e) Where United Kingdom forces are co-operating with foreign forces or a civilian authority, if an order is given by the senior United Kingdom officer of the force that all members of the United Kingdom component will comply with lawful instructions given by members of the foreign component forces or by members of the civilian authority, a member of the Royal Air Force who refused to obey such an instruction could be charged with an offence under this section or under s.36(1). The lawful command or standing order disobeyed will be that issued by his superior officer. The act of disobedience will be the failure to comply with the instruction of the foreign officer or of the civilian. The person disobeying the instruction must, however, have been subject to air-force law at the time of the disobedience, see s.205.

(f) This section does not require that the command should necessarily be given by a superior officer of the accused but it must have been given by someone entitled to give it: eg an airman who has been detailed by a competent authority to direct road traffic can give lawful commands while he is carrying out that duty to officers or airmen who are driving service vehicles.

4 It is not necessary to prove that the command was given directly; it is sufficient to show that it was given by a deputy or agent of the person authorised to give it and whom the accused might reasonably suppose was so authorised. It must be a specific command emanating from the person authorised to give it. In such a case evidence of the fact that the person from whom the command originated told his deputy what command to give may be proved, although the accused was not present at the time, because what has to be proved is the fact that the order originated from a person authorised to give it.



Specimen Charge
Disobeying a Lawful Command
Contrary to Section 34
of the Air Force Act 1955
In that he
at____________ on____________ when ordered by No.____________ Corporal____________ to leave the canteen did not do so.

[An Teallach]

I think we'd better caw canny here, chaps. Otherwise, we may as well convene the Court Martial here on PPRuNE!

What say you, Proone as JAG and then we get the Wee Weasly Welshman to run some randomizer code on the list of posters to Mil Aircrew to select a panel?

[Squirrel 41]

Twonston Pickle

Thanks for raising the distinction: the difference in this specific case seems to be that these two policies collide, and the distinction is lost. If the operation is illegal - crime of aggression - it can be sensibly argued that there are no circumstances under which it can be fought legally, and that therefore the order is de facto illegal. It is this definitive legal assessment of the crime of aggression - and it's impact on the individual - that will determine whether the Flt Lt is condemned or exonerated.

And for those wishing to slag him off for taking this stand, you all stand to benefit from a definitive ruling on this. (Which, being the law, will stay the same until some changes it again, but there you are.) I, for one, will buy the man a beer if I ever get the chance; a very gutsy move - much easier to swallow your moral qualms and trundle off to the desert.

S41

[cazatou]

During the late 1960's the author Leon Uris was sued by a former Concentration Camp Prisoner/Doctor over a reference to him in the book "Exodus".

A very eminent surgeon, appearing for the defence, quoted the Hippocratic Oath from the witness box to support his evidence that even in those circumstances a doctor should refuse to obey an illegal order.

The issues here are not so clear-cut, but it could provide some very interesting newspaper headlines.

[Twonston Pickle]

S41,

I agree; the distinction has been blurred by a number of interested parties - the tabloids, politicians and the MOD to name a few. However, the risk is that, should the Doc win his case, it could also then be sensibly argued by parties with vested interests that servicemen like myself who have served in Iraq have obeyed an illegal order and, therfore, all 60k plus troops could be rendered liable for trial by the ICC (Bliar et al included) This seems extreme but there are some out there who will jump on the doc's train and take it down a different track for their own purposes.

I still believe that the 2 issues should remain distinct and seperate and that the Doc, whether he is right or wrong, should stand trial to resolve the issue (my advice to him would be NOT to include Mr Blades in his defence team). May I echo what S41 has said already and show my dismay at how many here are willing to condemn the Doc without knowing his circumstances. We may surmise that it is one tour too many or that it is "draft dodging" etc but, yet again, these are all issues for a GCM to hear. May I emphasise that in my previous post, I merely point out the law as it stands and that the Doc has "potentially" contravened it, i.e. there is a prima facie case to answer and therfore a GCM will be convened. I await the trial with interest.

[The Gorilla]

Twonston and S41

Both well said and I too await the outcome with eager anticipation. If I was the Doc though I wouldn't think about lonely walks near secluded woods before the trial is over!!

Regards
TG

[Climebear]

Twonston Pickle

it could also then be sensibly argued by parties with vested interests that servicemen like myself who have served in Iraq have obeyed an illegal order and, therfore, all 60k plus troops could be rendered liable for trial by the ICC (Bliar et al included)

This is wrong. There are differences in law:

the laws of armed conflict and the difference between Jus an bellum and Jus in bello (I think that's the correct spelling). Ie there is a difference between declaring a war justly - the breach of which is considered an offence by a nation state's leadership - and the conduct of a war justly - the breach of which is an offence by combatants.

It is a principle of law that an officer/sailor/soldier/airman cannot be committing a 'war crime' if the war itself is illegal - that is the domain of the leadership. They can commit a 'war crime' if they breach the laws and customs of armed conflict during the prosecution of the war (legal or not).

[Twonston Pickle]

Climebear,

I do agree with you and, indeed, the points of law that you raise. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate. However, my point is that this trial will blur that distinction and, if the Doc wins, will render the argument obsolete. (The Doc is after all saying that he believes he will be acting illegally if he goes despite the points you raise) I do not think that is a good move but it is a possibility of the outcome of the trial.

Let's not forget that GCMs are not just military courts but are presided over and guided by Judge Advocates - civilian lawyers/judges of some considerable experience who can decide on the points of law that have been raised; the military members have no knowledge or ability to decide on points of law, just on guilt or innocence. It is also the JA who will decide on punishment.

This trial and its outcome may have massive implications for Service discipline, morale and the future conduct of War - Do we ask for the consent of all servicemen before deploying on operations?

The key point is that I support neither the Doc nor the Goverenment but the Law.

[DESPERADO]

Yeah right, whatever guys.

Meanwhile some other poor b#gger has to go in his stead. Thats the bottom line. Someone else's kids and family have to say goodbye to him/her - probably now at short notice. This will make not the slightest bit of difference other than to cause hurt for his colleagues and peers. I genuinely couldn't care less about all of the tedious legal point scoring going on here - the bottom line is he is shafting his mates and helping nobody.

Scenario 1, he wins his case - against the odds an RAF GCM gives him a hug and sends him on his way with their grateful thanks. T. Blair, realising he is beaten decides to pull the troops out to prevent himself and the boys being up in front of the ICC. Not really very likely is it? I doubt if it will even feature in TB's in-tray.

Scenario 2, he loses - booted out (and good riddance I say), he rights a book, makes a million and retires to tend sheep back in NZ.

Either way it makes no difference to anyone else. What is the final outcome? Everyone else is still doing their job in a heroic fashion despite him. This is doing nobody any good whatsoever except the lawyers.

Gorilla, I say again that I don't believe the military are reviled in this country. No doubt there are many, a majority I am sure who want us to pull out but I very much doubt that this translate ever into general hostility to the troops. The G/great British public are not as stupid as you might think and realise that all but a very few in the military want to be there.

There is a big difference between not wanting to be there but going anyway because you want to help your comrades - and prostrating yourself to the political aspirations of a Barrister because of someones different interpretation of the law.

Personally I would like to hear from those of you out there who have been in real combat and I am not talking about the E3D orbit guys - I suspect from the barrack room lawyer stuff many here haven't got the slightest clue. If you have been in combat, what do you think of the Doc's actions. Pawn or Prince?

The key point is that I support neither the Doc nor the Goverenment but the Law
very high-minded of you Twonston, but not really of much interest to the squaddy on the streets of Basra or Mrs 'the next Doc of the list' tearfully waving goodbye to her husband.

Do you lot really believe that what counts here is a point of law? I am saddened, I really am that this is what it is coming to. Loyalty and integrity must come first.

[JessTheDog]

The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it. People who wear the uniform of the UK should have the knowledge that whatever our sometimes corrupt and misguided politicians put them through, they can rely on their mates to help them out.

I must humbly disagree. I had grave misgivings about the wisdom and legality of GW2 whilst in uniform - no definitive resolution, the threat of missiles that could hit Cyprus? Hmm. Anyway, I put these doubts to one side and did my (little) bit, thinking that there must be some concrete intelligence that could not be released for whatever reason.

However, if I had known in March 2003 what we all found out after Hutton and Butler, I would have done exactly what the good doctor is doing now. The depths that the UK government plumbed in order to concoct a bogus case for war are the most reprehensible act of political maladministration in this country's modern history. I PVRd in the wake of Hutton and Butler but kept my mouth shut until I handed my kit in.

Nevertheless, the good doctor is wrong. There is a UN mandate for the continued presence in Iraq and troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government. It is, of course, his right to disobey Queens' Regulations and the Air Force Act (etc) and face the consequences at a court-martial. However, I fail to see the wisdom of his actions. His argument would have carried weight (admittedly with hindsight) in 2003 and there may be a future occasion to use it. The US and the poodle Bliar are eyeing up Iran and concocting similar lies to 2003. A WMD capability that could reach Europe? Really? Russia have opposed any moves to report Iraq to the UNSC, so it is unlikely that a future military undertaking would have a resolution...deja vu?

I can cheerfully confirm now that if Bliar and Dubya (only 2 years left) took military action against Iran (or anywhere else) under such circumstances, that I would refuse any mobilisiation instruction and send my cobwebbed scroll to Downing Street with exact instructions what to do with it. For those who hold a contrary view with regard to the duty of an officer to obey orders, I would remind you of a certain conflict that kicked off in 1939. I know what side we were on then, and it feels like we are batting for the other side nowadays.

[The Gorilla]

Desperado

Under no circumstances have I ever said anywhere that I think the public are stupid. Indeed I am now one of the public and what I say comes from my direct dealing with Joe each and everyday. You sir underestimate the depth of feeling on this matter out on the streets.

Remember that those of you who serve make up less than 0.3% of the UK population and that 2% supported by a whole lot more actually walked down the Mall one cold day with banners saying not in my name.

The longer that this fiasco continues the more resentment will be shown towards our Forces. I see this last few weeks that some councils are starting to demolish war memorials!

The bottom line guys is that if you don't like what you see today you can always leave. The Doc has clearly decided to go down that path and yes it's a tadge unfortunate that some other poor soul will have to pick up the depoyment. But hey that's covered by rule 46 - Nobody ever said life is fair and that is especially so in the forces. Take the cr*p or leave!! Simple eh??

Very few of us here are lawyers and even less have ever seen real combat. Some of you speculating here may have similar decisions to reach when you eventually take on Iran.

Good luck.

[Hueymeister]

The Mail had an article stating that the Regiment that the VC awardee serves with has the biggest manning problem in the british army, with a mass exodus due before they go back next April....some of them are other medal awardees who think that the time interval between Iraq deployments is too small. So he's not alone in not wanting to go back!

[DuaneDibley]

Gorilla,

That old bile is still there isn't it squire......

If, as you assert, 2% of the population marched against the war, and 0.3% of us ( were you still in then?) were actually members of the Armed Forces, doesn't that mean that about 97.7% of the population did not revile us at the time?

From your stance on this and other threads, it appears that you still haven't "got over it" - if you HAD been offered 55, do you (honestly) think your views would be the same?

The Doc's case is an interesting one, let's see how it pans out.....

[BackfromIraq]

The RAF are so short of Docs that they will probably have thought long and hard about opening this can of worms. the number of unifromed Docs must be close to a level at which Ops, keeping clinical skills up and sitting the exams (meaning months of studying) are unsustainable.

I'm sure the powers that be wouldn't want to get rid of another one lightly. They're not like No 10 buses anymore: there won't be another along in a minute, in which case we're going to need more civilian Docs.

BTW there are already civilian nurses out in the Fd Hosp in Shaibah because we don't have enough adequately trained nurses in each discipline. How long before the Docs follow suit?

[Fg Off Kite]

So when is a war not a war?

Is must only be to do with the scale of offensive operations, as we have not ceased offensive operations against Iraq since GW1.

Claimed death toll of 70 today on the news from air strikes by the spams.

Not war? Just a dicking,

[Radar Muppet]

Blimey Desperado, I hope you get another stripe for your blind loyalty to the MOD line - or are you the MOD line?

I haven't yet decided an opinion on this bloke's action...I haven't got enough facts yet. I have however, really enjoyed this forum - for the first time in a long while.

What disappoints me is that some 'colleagues' would seem to be prepared to carry out an illegal order just to save somebody else having to do it in his place. God, how American.

[The Gorilla]

Radar - Enjoying it? me too

Duane - Honestly? Well even if I had been offered 55 I wouldn't be in now, I retired with still over 4 years left of my engagement and at the time you are correct 97.7% didn't revile. We are of course now over 2 years further down the road. I have stopped telling people of my previous, it's easier that way and I don't have to keep taking flak for GW2.

I have gotten over everything as you so quaintly put it and have actually done something a lot of you guys are seemingly very frightened of. I have left the military and rebuilt my life whilst enjoying a superb pension.

I still frequent this board because if only a fraction of what is said on here is true, it reminds me just how lucky I am to be where I am today.

I am contributing to this discussion in particular because for a change the board is living up to it's purpose. I hold strong views on the MOD and I am not frightened to air them. If you find that to be bile then I am afraid that's your problem me old fruit. And my blood pressure is always well within limits these days ta!!

Hee hee

:p

[Sven Sixtoo]

Twonston

Minor point - the military members of the Court decide on sentence, not the JA. He will advise on what is within the Court's powers, but the military decide (with the most junior officer giving his opinion first).

Sven

[Trumpet_trousers]

I have gotten over everything

..is that in between being in possession of nine items and eleven or something?

[Unmissable]

We should not let this guy's personal agenda be raised to the point where it affects us all.

Oh bugger, this is the 50th post on this subject and it has a 5-star rating already!!!!


He has already acheived his aim of publicity, and I am 1/ 50th responsible for it.

[MarkD]

Maybe the doc should be offered an alternative posting? Say MPA or points further south?

[DESPERADO]

Thanks Gorilla for putting me right there, after all you have no history of wildly inaccurate sweeping statements:
God listen to you lot and you wonder why you are so reviled in Civvy Street!!
Obviously I don't know you from adam but in all the years that I have followed this Forum you have always seemed to me to be a particularly bitter chap. Its good to hear that now you are out you have picked up the city 'vibe' and have learned to be at one with the 'streets' so that you educate us poor deluded military folk on what it is like in the big wide world.
I agree that in general the public are not infavour of this conflict/war/police action but that does not translate into revulsion at the guys in uniform.

Radar Muppet, I think that if you read my posts you will see that I am not blindly loyal to the MOD - indeed I have a large number of problems with the way that this whole shambles has been conducted by our elected officials - none of that changes my essential point that this man is scoring political points and letting down his mates.

For those of you that condone his actions, but have any desire at all for us to be a professional, effective and loyal fighting force this is the thin end of an enormous wedge. As a Doc he can very easily pvr and b\gger off. Instead he is playing politics with an organisation that needs his support at the grass roots level.

If it is a crime to love your job and enjoy life in the services then I am guilty on both counts. I am not ashamed to feel this way but there seems to be many here who think that I should be! Perhaps you need to look in the mirror - what do you believe in?

Ultimately I have never been a yes man, anyone who knows me will testify to that - I am off in a couple of years at my option - my family have had enough and they matter more than anything (which is why I'll never make anything other than my current rank) but I will leave with my conscience clear having never shirked from doing my bit or whined about it or deserted my mates.

[Twonston Pickle]

Sven Sixtoo,

Point taken; I got confused with the recommendation of the JA, as opposed to the decision by the members - Thanks.

Desperado

Personally I would like to hear from those of you out there who have been in real combat and I am not talking about the E3D orbit guys - I suspect from the barrack room lawyer stuff many here haven't got the slightest clue. If you have been in combat, what do you think of the Doc's actions. Pawn or Prince?

I have been to Iraq and witnessed what the Doc does not want to see again - I even understand why he is reluctant.

very high-minded of you Twonston, but not really of much interest to the squaddy on the streets of Basra or Mrs 'the next Doc of the list' tearfully waving goodbye to her husband.

Disagree - this is of massive importance to the squaddie on the streets etc; if the Doc wins his case, more of our colleagues could potentially refuse to go, increasing the burden on the rest of us who practice loyalty (to our Service/Country).

[eagle 86]

Sorry chaps got into this late - two points:
Can someone explain to me what a LEGAL war is - surely there would be fores and against any war being legal/illegal,

Secondly RAF OFFICER - I doubt it - he is a Doctor!

GAGS
E86

[Twonston Pickle]

E86

For "Legal" war read "whatever Bliar and Brush decided is in their interests". Seriously, an illegal war is (very simplistically) the act of declaring war by (a) sovereign nation(s) against another; i.e. a war of aggression (Germany vs Poland). Very simplisitc, I know, but we (countries) have all agreed not to start this kind of war (via the medium of the UN). The reverse is true for a legal war; it is legal if the defending nation(s) declare war on the aggressors (think Pearl Harbour and the US response). The rules have become somewhat blurred since the end of WW2 as, to my knowledge, at state of war has never been declared; it has always been called a conflict or operation with no formal declaration by PM, President or ambassador.

In response to your second point: very valid as he has only done the knife, fork & spoon course.

TP

[The Gorilla]

Desperado

That's your opinion and I defend your right to voice it. Your choice, as I simply defend the choice of the Doc's to go down whatever path he chooses. At least the calls for his prompt execution and disembowelment appear to have stopped. For the record I think he is wrong and ill advised to do this but I once again applaud his bravery.

Regards
TG

[Squirrel 41]

Twoston, Desparado, JTD, Gorilla, ABIW, et al

Perhaps I should've been clearer yesterday afternoon: wars can be legal or illegal at the overall level (normally state responsibility) and individual actions can be illegal (e.g. war crimes). In considering the law of war there are four possibilities:

Legal War, Legally fought: Tick-vg, all home in time for tea and medals.

Legal War, Illegally fought: Something like the Falklands (legitimate self-defence under UN Charter), where either an individual (e.g. murder, rape) or a system (e.g. targets) breaks the law of war. Result? Individuals prosecuted for war crimes.

Illegal War, Illegally fought: What the senior Nazi leadership was charged with in 1945. Charges included aggression (as "crimes against peace"), war crimes (treatment of enemy military and civilians in occupied territory) and crimes against humanity (essentially war crimes against German citizens).

Which brings us to the Flt Lt - from the press, he belongs in the final group. No question that he is personally responsible for war crimes (or, without evidence of wrong-doing, the other 60k UK service personnel in Iraq), but that the conflict was an Illegal War, Legally Fought.

Illegal War, Legally Fought: If the international community accepts that aggression (as "crimes against peace") is a crime, then orders to begin it are also criminal, and therefore illegal. As a result, it is down to the individual to determine whether or not their orders are legal, and if not, they are obliged to disobey.

If the Flt Lt were to win, the impacts on the UK armed forces - and the rest of western forces (minus perhaps the US, though this isn't at all clear cut) - is that the politicians could order an illegal war (for which they would be personally criminally responsible), but that the military leadership would have to determine if the war were legal before obeying the orders to ensure that they were not committing the crime of aggression.

The question that makes this very difficult is the status of UK forces under UN Security Council Resolution 1546. It is possible argue that the war is over and that 1546 covers UK peacekeeping forces, and that therefore there is no war, and therefore no aggression and therefore no illegal orders. If this is the case made, it will not resolve the important issues surrounding the crime of aggression and illegal orders. This would be tragic as the question will simply arise again if UK forces are sent to war without Security Council authorisation, or (like Kosovo), an overwhelming humanitarian case.

S41

[Purr Harder]

Legal or not, it does not change the fact that he did not go and some one else had to go in his place, at short notice no doubt; hope he can sleep at night. Total Lack of Moral Fibre, he should busted to AC.

[jstars2]

DESPERADO

Nice post of 18 Oct 2005. I also like your earlier sentiment that individuals in the UK armed forces look after their own in routine and operational (shooting and being shot at) settings. This key attribute, utterly bewildering to the New Labour geniuses currently conducting affairs, is what, I believe, uniquely differentiates the UK armed forces from “the others”. I sincerely hope that it is not ever stamped out. Please keep promoting it!

Currently serving cynics need not bother posting – I’ve heard it all before.

[Squirrel 41]

Someone raised the question of whether the 60k British service personnel could be indicted by the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression, and it's taken me a couple of days to dig out the reason that the answer is no.

The ICC was created by the 1998 Rome Statue (poorly named as it is a Treaty rather than a statute, but there you are :rolleyes: ). To ensure that the Court deals only with the most serious offenders for the world's most serious crimes, (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression), Article 17 deals with issues of admissibility.

--------------------
Art 17 reads in part:

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: ...

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

---------------------

It would be reasonable for the Court to take the position that though the Crime of Aggression is very serious - and therefore (rightly) within their remit - it would only be meaningful to prosecute the political leadership and the most senior military leadership of a violating country: ie, the people who ordered it and those responsible for the orders to carry it out. Therefore, it is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of service personnel would run the risk of prosecution for aggression (though as above, in a tiny number of cases where their actions were war crimes, clearly they could be tried for those.)

A different matter for CDS and his chums, which makes me wonder if these concerns that prompted Admiral Boyce to ask for confirmation of the legal position before TELIC kicked off.

S41

[RubiC Cube]

If I remember correctly, all war has been illegal since after WW2, therefore we don't declare war anymore (Archimedes might care to comment if he/she is out there).

In my last few years in the Mob, I had a lot of contact with young officers who had spent a lot of time on operations and there was a fair percenatge of them who were unhappy with the action they were taking on behalf of Tony Bliar, especially those dropping bombs before the last conflict in Iraq. Of course there were also those who didn't question what they were doing.

I seem to remember that I swore to "defend Queen and Country" all those years ago, don't know if they still do, but one could question what the threat is now we know they didn't/don't have immediate access to WMD.

[Archimedes]

Er... I am out here, but I'm not a legal type so can't really comment from an expert point of view.

Speaking with my historian's hat on though, you're right- since 1945, the legal complexities that go with declaring war on someone seem to have persuaded the government against doing so.

The UN Charter, debates over customary law, what actually constitutes international law etc, etc, coupled with the concerns re: vicarious opposition in the UN to the authorisation of the use of force even when criteria for just wars seem to be met make it rather tempting for governments to brand wars 'conflicts', etc.

War hasn't been banned outright, despite article 2 of the UN Charter, since Article 51 (Self Defence) and Chapter VII (upholding international order) allow some leeway.

This is the point where my confidence in understanding culminates and I search for someone who understands the law to conduct a relief... Pr00ne??

[Squirrel 41]

Archimedes, RubiC Cube et al

I’ll lay out a starter for 10, and then pr00ne and others can correct the errors / have a discussion.

Aggression (“crimes against peace”) have been illegal since the adoption of the UN Charter and were prosecuted at Nuremburg – though in this case, on the basis of customary international law stemming from the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1925, (Pact of Paris, also rather unfortunately as the “Pact of Perpetual Peace”, which banned offensive wars).

The UN Charter allows wars in three categories:

1. Self defence under Article 39. (Think Falklands)

2. UN Security Council sanctioned conflicts – with resolutions that authorise “all necessary means” – and state a definitive end state “ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait”. (Think Gulf War I).

3. In those cases where the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act and there is a overwhelming human rights crisis leading to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, States can intervene to protect human rights. This is contentious, and is still under development. (Think Kosovo.)

And that’s about it.

S41

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Pr00ne.......discussion, no chance he's ALWAYS right:E

all spelling mistakes are "df' alcohol induced

[eagle 86]

Not only have we lost the Ashes but this weasel appears to be Oz-born!!
GAGS
E86

[Training Risky]

I wonder if the latest loss of a soldier in Basrah has pricked the Doc's conscience as he sips whisky up north?

:(

[air pig]

As an ex member of the PMRAFNS, ( RAF Nursing Service) I find that a doctor refusing to undertake his professional duties abhorant. We do not ask your politics, views or thoughts when we treat you. We do not carry weapons unless it is to protect you when in our care.

We undertake the duties to care for the ill and injured in times of conflict or peace, irrespective of who you are or where you come from, be it friend or in many cases an enemy, or just as distressing innocent civilians when you arrive at a medical facility.

Members of the medical teams, have risen above the discussion of illegalites and the rights and wrongs of war, and discharged their obligations with pride, distinction and has been shown from the Medical Officer from the RAuxAF surgical team great bravery.

This one individual has let down the fine tradition of selfless duty shown by military medical personnel of all ranks from time immemorial.

The world is poorer for his stand in that others will step into his place without complaint.

I hope that no one will die because of the skills that he has, have not been used irrespective of whether it is a member of the services or a child, the innocent victim of mans inhumanity to man.

I can only say " leave, in the name of God go" as you have proved yourself a worthless individual who lets his comrades and humanity down by trying to take a moral high ground, when in reality he has a higher duty and calling. I do hope that one day he does not require others to help him as he has denied others that same help.

A friend returned from Op Telic , A TA nursing officer much changed after what he saw in a field hospital in particular the injured children who suffered their wounds with great courage. He probably will be deployed in then near future again.

I always thought that look after you medics and they will look after you, but this man has broken that bond that keeps us all together.

[RileyDove]

The actual basis of his refusal to go is the legality of the war .
The basis of what was used to go to war has been largely discounted - for example lifting coursework off the internet
and adding a little spin like the '45minutes warning' to make the infamous dossier. I think no matter what you think about loyalty and service - the forces do not deserve to be lead blindly into something for which there has been little justification.
Undoubtedly someone else will go to Iraq in his place - however as numerous posted have indicated that is the duty
of someone in the forces - therefore the fact that someone else will be going is immaterial.
Whether he is in Iraq or the U.K he is a doctor - he does indeed have a duty of care but that can be exercised
anywhere - suffering isn't just limited to Iraq.

[air pig]

He has a duty of care to his potential patients, and also a duty of obligation to his employer and his colleagues. If you do not like the heat get out of the kitchen. He wants it both ways.

I would suggest that the doctor in question take himself off to work for an organisation like MSF, and put himself into a situation where force protection is not just around the corner.

Legalities aside, he has aready served previous tours in Iraq, what is so different about this one.

Remember, that at all times the patient comes first, arguments can be made later.

[oldfella]

Well said air pig.

The war, legal or not, is over as such. It's now an operational theatre with guys and gals at risk. He has a duty, as an officer and as a doc, to serve as ordered.

[southside]

Well said all of you. This weed should be plucked from the ground and discarded......




We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!

[Maple 01]

Southside :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

I think I prefered Tom Cruise in the film, and anyway we've all got duvets now........

[RileyDove]

Oldfella - The war decidedly isn't 'over' ! Part of the remit for attacking Iraq was to flush out Al Qaeda operatives which were supposedly in Iraq. This comes under the 'war on terror' - the operations are ongoing so the 'war' as such hasn't finished.
As for your comments Southside -I think possibly you have
a version of reality which is decidedly Walt Disney. There is nothing 'heroic' about freeing a country from a dictator and then turning the place into the biggest terrorist melting pot in history.
If you think it's a good thing spare a thought for the people of Zimbabwe who are former Commonwealth citizens and getting slaughtered and made homeless by another dictator . Oh I forgot there is no oil there so who cares!

[BEagle]

And since that bumbling Texan half-wit cannot even pronounce Zimbabwe, let alone knows where it is, Mugabe will remain in power for the foreseeable future, I guess...

Bliar is too interested in licking Bush's bottom to worry about getting rid of Mugabe. Anyway, that'd be 'regime change' - which we know isn't allowed....:rolleyes:

[RileyDove]

I don't think Bush would have any problem finding Zimbabwe !
It's straight to the back of the atlas index under 'ZEE' - I can
understand his difficulty in finding New Orleans - is it under
'nnn' or 'ohh' !

[pr00ne]

Hhhmmmm…………………………………………………

Where to start?

I suppose it all depends on what the guys defence is going to be; that he was asked to carry out an order that he considered illegal, that he was asked to carry out an order which he thought would then involve him in a war he thinks is illegal, or that he cannot carry out an order that would commit him to an action that he believes will involve him in something that is morally unsupportable?

If I were defending such a hypothetical case there would have to be a very clear definition of the above, if I were prosecuting and no such definition existed then, hypothetically, the task would be extraordinarily straight forward.

Any case that depends on the “legality” of a war would be fraught with difficulty, war as such is not really a state of affairs that is easy to define in the modern post war world, “fighting between structured armed groups” tends to be how the UN describes it nowadays, nobody “declares war” these days, despite what Bush said about declaring war on Global terrorism he did not formally declare war against another state, Roosevelt was the last US president to do such a thing.

So Impiger, the state of affairs existing in Iraq now is precisely the same as that when we invaded, it wasn’t a “war” then, it isn’t a “war” now but it is very much the same.
There is a lot of tosh on this thread so far about illegal wars, just wars, unjust wars and what can or cannot happen to a participant be they rank or file or the leadership. If half of what is being trotted out was true then Nuremburg would not have happened and the Hague would not be the centre for the activities it currently is!

This chap has done a very brave thing, there is a very thin line between bravery and stupidity.

Stafford,

Totally amazed that you appear to blame Tony Blair for the cult of instant 15 minute fame, did that not exist prior to 1997? Just what planet do you inhabit man? Truly amazing…………………..

Squirrel 41

Your attempts to identify and classify the various kinds of war ignore one rather large and important fact, there actually hasn’t been a declared war since 1945, the UN has made it rather difficult to justify any armed aggression be it legally fought or not, it’s no coincidence that we now fight conflicts or participate in incidents rather than fight wars.
The UN charter identifies three scenarios where armed action is permitted, but this in no way condones a declaration of war, it permits self defence and intervention, it does not permit you to declare war.

Afraid I cannot see how GW2 is covered by any of the UN charter scenarios or Security Council mandated actions.

[oldfella]

Did an air exercise in Alaska a few years back and the first death by powerpoint was on the subject of what was and what wasn't a legal war.

Not what we were expecting but it was obviously something the Americans wanted aired. It concentrated on the legal aspects but the perception has probably changed since 9/11.

[Impiger]

pr00ne

There is one big difference between the Iraq action today and in 2003. Then we were forcing ourselves in against the will of the dictatorship. Now we're there to help at the request (no matter how orchestrated) of the elected representatives.

[An Teallach]

Being a former terrier from the days when we were volunteering to defend W. Europe from the Russian hordes, I have to say that anyone willing to be in the reserves nowadays and basically be a cheap soldier is being a bit daft.

There are reserve Service-people with more operational service than some regulars. Yet, because reserve service is non-pensionable; if they get slotted, wifie and kids get something like a one-off grand total of @ £14K from MoD to see them through for the rest of their puffs. :ugh:

[Stafford]

Proone

A quick glance back at your postings displays breathtaking arrogance and, frankly, an ego which is not backed up by substance.You have been found wanting in failing to support your point of view so often that I will reply to your supercilious arrogance just this once.

I suppose at your elevated position in life ordinary folk kind of pass you by so I'll explain my point again, just for you. Blair has inculcated in the British psyche the "Peoples Princess" ethos whereby the spin meister rules all, including orchestrating emotional responses from the masses.

Blair and his pathological need to lie or spin his way through life is certainly responsible for the low esteem in which Politics and politicians are now held, and I fear this is rubbing off on the image of the forces.

Actions such as the one we are debating are born of such political deceit. My view is just as valid as yours but of course, I and millions of others can see through the New Labour project and its breathtaking hypocrisy and mendacity where you are obviously a convert to the evangelical Blair and his discredited regime.

[pr00ne]

Stafford

What a remarkably hypocritical post, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

We disagree, we have different points of view, you may care about that, frankly I don’t. As to being “found wanting” I have no intention of indulging in petty squabbles about my opinions, line by line justifications and providing detailed information to support my point of view. I hold my own points of view and do not have to justify them to the likes of you.

“An ego which is not backed up by substance”?? What the hell is that supposed to mean, how on earth do you know? Did you go through flying training with me? Did you serve on a Squadron with me? Did you go to University with me? Do you work in Chambers with me?

Glad to see you seem to think Tony Blair has a pathological need to lie, on what basis do you make that libellous statement?

Finally you are making way too many assumptions about my opinion of Blair and this regime, I merely pointed out that to blame Blair for the culture of “15 minutes of fame” is a nonsensical statement seeing as that particular phenomenon was first discussed in the sixties and has been around ever since. Do you think Blair is responsible for reality TV?

Now this thread is about the Dr, not me, so let’s get back on track.

[Squirrel 41]

pr00ne,

Not missing the point, merely making the point that theoretically the UN Charter limits the legitimate use of force to the three cases I outlined - Self Defence, UN Security Council sanctioned action under Chapter VII, and the vexed question of humanitarian intervention.

I come down on the side of the legality of humanitarian intervention, though not uncritically. The Michael Walzer / Ian Brownlie brand of narrow positivism, and the Simon Chesterman / Thomas Franck pragmatic positivism presents a conundrum - how can the UN, a body expressly created to define and police new human rights protections in a world shocked by WWII’s horrors, deprive its members of the means to stop such abuses?

My answer is that the international community should not stand by in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and if the UN is deadlocked, the UN Charter should not stand in the way of effective (military) action to stop these crimes occuring. On this basis, one finds that Kosovo was legal, whereas Suez was not. (That having been said, the manner of the Kosovo campaign does invite some valid criticisms.)

Unless you beleve that the post WW-II humanitarian treaties were purely decorative, and that no-one actually intended human rights considerations to interfere with the serious business of classical state policy driven by self interest, then you are obliged to accept that the signatories did indeed expect them to work approximately as designed.

Collective security’s failure during the Cold War does not vitiate the intent of its’ creators: instead the expectation that collective security could be invoked in support of human rights supports the notion in the rationale that human rights were important, and that where the collective security framework failed, the protection of human rights would remain a priority. If so, then the right of states to intervene to uphold them was not designed to be constrained by the UN Charter.

And yes, I agree that the A-Gs legal advice before GW2 was risible, and that the conflict was an illegal act of aggression. The problem I forsee for the (very brave) Flt Lt, is that the presence of UK forces is mandated by UNSCR 1546 and that therefore the process will be short-circuited without any serious consideration of the "crime of aggression = an illegal order" argument.

S41

[pr00ne]

Impiger,

Of course you are right, though the intervening powers involvement in that “democratisation” would cast the morality of such a move in a state with no previous history of democracy into some doubt! You have however, acknowledged that with your orchestration point, so it is being rather petty to agree but still point out that there is still a “war that isn’t a war going on there.

Squirrel41,

Yes, I broadly agree; what actually happened in no way invalidates what should have happened nor discredits the original aim of those who created such treaties.

BTW; an ageing Barrister in my very junior days warned me always to be wary of a man who uses the term vitiate in every day conversation as; “he is a man who knows the language and how to use it selectively to include those he wants and, more importantly, also to EXCLUDE those he wants!”

Uncle Ginsters,

Yes, how simple, and HOW TOTALLY and REPUGNANTLY WRONG!

(OK, where'd that post go?)

[Squirrel 41]

pr00ne writes:

__________

BTW; an ageing Barrister in my very junior days warned me always to be wary of a man who uses the term vitiate in every day conversation as; “he is a man who knows the language and how to use it selectively to include those he wants and, more importantly, also to EXCLUDE those he wants!”

__________

I see.... the definition of a lawyer, perchance? :D

S41

[pr00ne]

Squirrel 41,

ER, well........................................................ ........

[moggiee]

Good luck to him - I am full of admiration.

I happen to agree with him and would have found it very hard to go to Iraq myself.

[Stafford]

Proone

More New Labour bluff and bluster from you I see. If I am guilty as you charge of a libellous statement, I look forward to standing in the dock alongside a vast number of the British people who share my views regarding dodgy dossiers and the like. Frankly I'm glad I didn't train with you, served in a different Squadron, went to a different University and the nearest I've been to Chambers is not far enough away given the impression of the legal profession you are providing.

I do however note your learned qualifications and frankly don't give a s:mad: t how clever you think you are. I'll leave it to many others on the forum who have to put up with your insufferable Blair bias.

[An Teallach]

Boys, boys

While I myself remain perplexed by Pr00ne's apparent love of Bliar, it is largely irrelevant to one of the more interesting discussions we have had on PPRuNe of recent months.

Believe me, I have no particular love for lawyers, having had to fight one of the more repellant members of the species for nigh-on 10 years but I would not tar them all with that brush.

Here we have a legal point under discussion and the benefit of a legal mind (and former pilot) to contribute to the discussion. Can we not leave the personal bile out and play the ball rather than the man? :ugh:

[pr00ne]

An Teallach,

Fair point well made. Though all I did was express astonishment that the Staffordshire loon blamed the cult of “15minutes of fame” on Tony Blair????????????????

Stafford

If you think that was bluff and bluster then boy you have not lived! As to you standing in the dock with the British public, would that be the same British public who voted Blair back in for yet another term? Thankfully the private mails I receive don’t quite stack up to your rather low opinion of me but I really don’t care two hoots, are you SURE you didn’t ever fly Jaguars?

[An Teallach]

Pr00ne

I had no idea you spoke the Doric. I am, of course, assuming you are using loon as the opposite to quine (man / woman!) and don't mean anything derogatory by it! ;)

[RileyDove]

Proone- I think it's possibly a little wide of the mark to suggest that the British public voted Tony back in - a percentage did, but a great many didn't hence the reduced majority in parliament.
As for whether he is honest or not - the best way to blame
someone else is start an inquiry as George and Tony both know !

[pr00ne]

RileyDove,

Er……………no, I think it 100% accurate to say that British public voted him back in, because, they err………….….voted him back in!
Which is why he’s still Prime Minister and Michael Howard’s out of a job.

It may be a reduced majority but it’s still better than Thatcher got in 79.

BTW;
Is that a Mcalpine RileyDove?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just to try and get the debate back on track....

As the Dr in question was being sent to Iraq for the 3rd time, and he did not claim it was an illegal order on the 2 previous occasions, what justification does he now have for refusing said order? Furthermore as the situation has now changed vice invasion of a sovereign country (then) and a police action approved by the duly elected sovereign government (now [and with or without BLiar's majority/minority]) then how can he say he is now being given an illegal order.

And although 15 minutes of fame has been around since the 60's it has exploded under this government but I would not say that it is the fault of New Liarbour just that they were the government in power at the time of the explosion in reality(?) TV shows, just as Maggie was in power when a large number of bloated and under productive industries went to the wall.

[Squirrel 41]

Roland et al

The fact that the Dr has been twice before - and at least one trip to Afghanistan, according to the press - is rather in his favour. It shows that this is unlikely to be a case of "don't want to do it" and "can't be ar$ed", but more likely is instead a principled stand based on an assessment of the evidence available to him.

The Hutton Enquiry demonstrated the paucity of the intelligence used, and the manner in which was presented; it is now hardly a contentious position to argue that the first "Dossier" was designed to mislead, and the less said about the second, the better. This information was not in the public domain in 2003 of the first half of 2004.

Moreover, the issue of the legal advice only came into the public domain in 2005. The A-G's initial legal advice was IMHO gung-ho but defensible; a follow-on resolution to UNSCR 1441 was required for legality and the first time around the A-G accepted that this was a reasonable view. In the second, a week or so later, he decided it was not. Prof Philippe Sands put together a devastating critique of the whole thing in the second half of the 2005 Mishcon lecture (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/mishcon/docs/Mishcon_2005_Sands.pdf) - it's about 25 pages, and the the second half is better than the first.

The point here is that there is that as the information available to you changes, it must be possible to change your mind. If the Dr is saying he now has information that he didn't previously (and with Hutton and the legal advice this is perfectly possible), and that with this new information, he has changed his mind, that to me seems entirely reasonable.

And pr00ne is entirely entitled to his view; those serving are doing so to protect his right to believe and express his views, as he did yours when he was serving... Big Picture, People!! :hmm:

S41

[burpblade]

Thank you for that link S41. No doubt we'll all be watching the outcome of this with interest.

Having witnessed at first hand the difficulty MoD LA had pre TELIC and the 180 deg repositioning that went on, the structure of the MoD case should be good to watch.

The much wider implications of the increasing appetite for legal questioning of military employment have not made it to the levels where it is required, i.e. the coal face.

Let no one be in any doubt - legal advice changes (is made up) as we go along. People need to be damned sure where they stand and ready to ask/challenge if they're not comfortable.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Has anyone else noticed that no matter how obscure the thread title the second Pr00ne gives us all the benifit of his "I'm right your wrong" arguement it turns into the "I Love Tony" show:yuk:

Pr00ne what you fail to understand is that a huge swathe of us in todays military did not vote for him, do not trust him and believe he is a liar, believe he took us to war on a tissue of not even half truths.

We know you love him and all he stands for, but please try to understand that lots of us do not next time you want to spout in your mainly patronising manner:yuk:

"Er……………no, I think it 100% accurate to say that British public voted him back in, because, they err………….….voted him back in!
Which is why he’s still Prime Minister and Michael Howard’s out of a job."

You can almost hear the smug sneer in your voice which, despite what you had hoped for does not make you look clever, just silly":rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Squirrel 41]

Burpblade

Thanks for that - an interesting perspective - value your thoughts as this plays through.

I've found the original legal advice (07 Mar 03) released by No. 10. (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf).

Discounting self-defence, humanitarian intervention and fresh explicit UN Security Council authorisation, the only hope for the legality of the war was the so-called revival argument - i.e, that the UN authorisation for GW1 had not ended and could be "revived". It is worth quoting the A-Gs advice in para 9 in full.

Sorry for the length:

9. Law Officers have advised in the past that, provided the conditions are made out the revival argument does provide a sufficient justification in international law for the use of force against Iraq. That view is supported by an opinion given in August 1992 by the then UN Legal Counsel, Carl-August Fleischauer. However, the UK has consistently taken the view (as does the Fleischauer opinon) that, as the cease-fire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US has rather a different view they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States. I am not aware of any other state which supports this view. This is an issue of critical importance when considering the effect of resolution 1441.

This was written by the A-G and dated 7 March 2003.

In other words, two weeks before the war kicked off, the A-G is saying that the UK could not go to war on the basis that it did, unless it joined the Americans in a minority of 1 in their assessment of the legal position.

Did international law fundamentally change in those two weeks? No.

Did the Secuirty Council authorise force? No.

Did the Bush Administration decide that they were going to invade Iraq anyway? Yes.

What were Blair's intentions / actions? Draw you own conclusions.

S41

[pr00ne]

Always_boring_in_wilts,

Oh dear! ABIW I understand FULLY! It may have been some time ago but I did
spend some years in the RAF as GD(P), went right through the training regime and two tours CR, and I still have some serving friends, I know what the majority think of him and they have every right to hold those opinions.

I have spent far more time in this thread discussing the legal elements of
the old Dr’s case than I have talking about Blair. I merely commented on a
ridiculous claim made by another poster, I wasn’t pro Blair in any way
shape or form.

You have no idea what I actually think of Blair, you have no idea who I
voted for and you really are making a HUGE assumption (totally incorrect
BTW) if you think I even tolerate some (not all) of the things Blair stands for.

There was nothing smug, and certainly nothing clever, about pointing out
that he did actually win the last election, it’s just a fact, plain and
simple, you may not like it, but he did.

To get back on topic(!?) Squirrel 41/burpblade,

Couldn’t agree more, this is going to be a fascinating case and one that
could well have considerable consequences totally unseen and unsought at
the outset. The decision to prosecute could well be a very grave mistake.

On a wider note, despite his best intentions, I think this debacle will be what Blair will be remembered for for all time.

[The Gorilla]

Pr00ne


I agree the trial will be fascinating but I don't see it lasting long. Under no circumstances will HMG allow a challenge to the legality of the war. So I think that it may be stopped on some technicality or something might happen to prevent it from coming to trial in the first place.

Any one seen a trial date set yet?

[nutcracker43]

I'm amazed at the broadness of support for this Dr who has suddenly decided that the war is illegal and therefore does not wish to serve. Well, that was jolly thoughtful of him and so self induldent too. What a wonderful bunch we are having decided, with 20/20 hindsight of course, that the war was illegal.

Whether one in today's military voted for Tony Blair, or even like him, is totally irrelevant. One does not pledge one's support on the basis of personally liking someone. I personally do not for one minute, believ that the decision to go to war was taken lightly (even Bill and Hillary thought it was justified). To all the people here who have hinted that the war was illegal, and yet continue to serve, are you yourselves not guilty of supporting an illegal war and therfore culpable. To them I should like to say: put up or shut up.

This talk of putting him up against a stake is nonsense and we all know it, however he does not have my support and I do not have any sympathy for his views, or those of others who support him.
It's a bit like leaving a scene of an accident because the patient did something thought to be illegal.

[Squirrel 41]

Gorilla / pr00ne / Burpblade / ABIW

I'm not surprised that they're prosecuting this - after all, what else could the MOD do? Failure to prosecute would be to invite anyone who simply doesn't fancy a trip to Iraq to decide that they'd rather stay home, and the breakdown in military discipline could be distinctly problematic.

But as has been pointed out, prosecution is not risk-free either. UNSCR 1546 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement) authorises the position of the forces on the ground, and if I were the MOD, I would use this in an attempt to avoid any discussion of the legality of the war, on the grounds that in light of UNSCR 1546, it's just not relevant.

I'm not sure whether I agree with this, but since UNSCRs are international law, it makes it very difficult to argue against, so it will be very interesting. The key will be if the good Dr loses his GCM, is discharged and appeals to the conventional judicial system, how the civilian judiciary deal with it. And once in civilian courts, a recourse to the European Courts (presumably by then on points of employment law).

We shall see: but as Burpblade points out, "People need to be damned sure where they stand and ready to ask/challenge if they're not comfortable." Amen to that, Burpblade: this is why all commanders need to ensure that their people get their law of war update and take it seriously.

S41

[Twonston Pickle]

Hello All,

I ahve been away for a while and I am just catching up on the the thread. It's a ggod point that discussing the legallity of the war is probably pointless because the Doc's Court-Martial is not actually about whether the war was legal or not but whether he disobeyed an order (written or verbal) to deploy to Iraq. The legallity of the "War" is something the Doc clearly wants to bring up at trial but, as Squirrel 41 points out, the MOD could avoid the discussion of legallity by focussing on the simple facts of the case: Was the Doc ordered to go, and did he actually go? The answers are already well known (yes to the first and no to the second question). Without mentioning the legallity of the "War", the MOD seem to have sufficient grounds for securing a conviction hence bringing the Doc to trial and maintaining military discipline. Please note that I am not making a judgement as to the outcome, only surmising the MODs chain of thought.

[Squirrel 41]

Twoston

Welcome back. I share your summary, which is why I think that the decision of the GCM is predictable. This is a shame, as the specific question of whether a war of aggression is per se an illegal war, meaning that the individual's duty - not, pls note a right, but an obligation - to refuse illegal orders will not be tested. Which also means that if we are ordered to commit aggression again, we will not know the state of the law, and what we're supposed to do; I'd certainly welcome some clarity on this.

I stress that I'm not condemning those who fought in TELIC as "war criminals" for being involved in an illegal war, as the Government's unpublished legal advice to commanders was that it was legal. Those at the tactical and operational level were unlikely to have known how dubious the advice was, or how tendentious the use of intelligence was shown to be by Lord Hutton. Had I been involved in TELIC - which I was not - and I had been told that the A-G had determined it was legal, I would have followed my orders to the letter. (As this guy has done twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan.)

nutcracker43

You and I agree that whether we voted for Blair or not is completely irrelevant. (As it happens, I did not.) But surely the issue is the legality of the orders? For you to say:
__________________
To all the people here who have hinted that the war was illegal, and yet continue to serve, are you yourselves not guilty of supporting an illegal war and therefore culpable. To them I should like to say: put up or shut up.

This talk of putting him up against a stake is nonsense and we all know it, however he does not have my support and I do not have any sympathy for his views, or those of others who support him.
__________________

I support the right of the guy to stand up and question whether his orders were legal - as above, you know we should all check all our orders are legal before carrying them out. He has declined to follow orders which he believed to be illegal (pls note, I think that he's made a mistake, based on UNSCR 1546).

I support his obligation to check the legality of his orders, and has this occurred before the end of the war (arguably the adoption of UNSCR 1546 on 08 Jun 04) then knowing what we know now , I think that he would be right.

And if I'm faced with the situation where I am being asked to carry out what I genuinely believe to be illegal - not merely immoral, but illegal - orders, I hope that I have the moral courage to do the same thing. Does this mean that in your world I should resign from the forces? :hmm:

If anyone's having difficulty with the previous UN link, this one works for all of the 2004 resolutions:

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html

S41

[edited for spolling...]

[RileyDove]

Nutcracker - This isn't a case of people deciding with 20/20 hindsight that the war was illegal. It's the fact that when the various dosiers that justified the war were produced - supposed 'facts' were included which should have been left out
because of the inability to verify them. An enormous amount of planning was carried out long before the U.N was consulted on the possibility of using force. The Iraqi air force was rendered
useless through bribes paid to senior officers - this took months not days of planning. It is patently clear that the coalition forces were going to war against Saddam no matter what.
A great many of the British public disagreed with the war and members of the forces cannot have been impervious to this. If your about to spill other peoples blood - there cannot be any
margin for error in the facts that you present to justify the case.
The old priciples used to be based on defence of the realm and
latterly the war on terror. The justifications of the war on Iraq
were decidedly slim even before the war started - the legalities
of whether it was legal or not is fairly irrelevant - the WOMD were
never found-the portable labs not found and the links with Al Qaeda never established . Based on what did happen - was regime change a mistake or was it the purpose to begin with?

[nutcracker43]

Squirrel 41, thanks for that. You state: "And if I'm faced with the situation where I am being asked to carry out what I genuinely believe to be illegal - not merely immoral, but illegal - orders, I hope that I have the moral courage to do the same thing. Does this mean that in your world I should resign from the forces? "

If a situation such as the above should arise and you feel you cannot take part in a war because you believe it to be illegal, then yes I do feel you should resign your commission. Serving in the military is not 'a la carte', and if the menu is is not to your liking then I think you should leave. If you are given an order which you feel is illegal then, yes, you shold indeed question the illegal order, you have an obligation to. And if you are still at variance with the powers that be, then do the decent thing and leave. As I understand it the war was legal, then it was not. Who decided it was not? The good doctor's order seems to be perfectly legal, it's the war he feels to be illegal and yes I feel he should have resigned. Robert E Lee was offered the command of the Union Army by Lincoln in their civil war and he, one of the most honouurable people ever, resigned his commission because he 'could not take up his sword against his native state'.

Call me a cynic if you like, but I do suspect this doctor is coming towards the end of his time in the Royal Air Force and this sort of thing, should things go his way, could give him all the publicity he needs. My son tells me there was a programme on the TV programme 'JAG' where a similar scenario was enacted. One hopes for the same result!

[Squirrel 41]

Nutcracker43 wrote:

If a situation such as the above should arise and you feel you cannot take part in a war because you believe it to be illegal, then yes I do feel you should resign your commission. Serving in the military is not 'a la carte', and if the menu is is not to your liking then I think you should leave. If you are given an order which you feel is illegal then, yes, you shold indeed question the illegal order, you have an obligation to. And if you are still at variance with the powers that be, then do the decent thing and leave.
__________________

Interesting. I agree with virtually all of this, except your conclusion, because I think that you're missing one important point. Given that the only time you would question orders on the grounds of legality is when you seriously believe you are being asked to commit a crimnal act, the answer must be to kick the question back up the chain, rather than simply resigning. At the point at which you are told to "do it or resign", if I believed I was right, I would refuse to follow the order and get CM'd. I would not resign.

Why? Because in forcing the powers-that-be to CM me (something that would not be done lightly and would be noticed by the senior leadership), I would be protecting those under my command from following what I considered to be an illegal order, which is my responsibility as their leader. In resigning (presumably in favour of someone who would follow the order I believed to be illegal), I'd be putting my troops in a position where they could be coerced into implementing illegal orders.

S41

[nutcracker43]

S41,

Thanks again for that! Can't fault the logic...from my perspective and reasoning it's probably a difference in style.

Thank you.

NC43

[buoy15]

Hey Guys

Look at, Listen to and watch

Isn't Koffia Annan the most gentile man in the world

Never angry, always polite, soft spoken, diplomatic, like you want him to be your dad!

He's got a **** job to do, but he has the bollocks to do it - we must support him

[Maple 01]

I wish I was related to the saintly man, then I'd have got some of that money from oil for food too......

[An Teallach]

Isn't Koffia Annan the most gentile man in the world

Who said he was Jewish? What's he got to do with this (or his religion for that matter)?

[mso]

Just because no-one in the House of commons or the Lords had the balls to tell Blair to be cautious and consider his decision to dive headlong behind the Americans ,doesnt mean that we should blindly follow.Although the gentleman in question has his misgivings ,I must applaud him for the stand he makes.He hasnt a hope in hell of winning and will be hung out to dry,for political expediency.But if those in theknow at the time had thought matters through more ,then our Armed forces would not be the position they find themselves ie between a rock and a hard place.
If the government are more than happy for serving personnel to be subject to the rigours of the Law while on active duty,then it is only right that they too answer in the courts if these people find themselves being put in an impossible position and comprimising their own safety.

[Twonston Pickle]

MSO,

I disagree with the intimation that politival expediency has anything to do with the Doc's case. If you re-read the posts by Squirrel 41, myself and others, you will note that the Doc is being tried purely under military law and the trial cannot be influenced by politicians (despite the opinon of some cynics out there), just as a trial at the Old Bailey cannot be influenced by Bliar & Co. If he wished to air his misgivings about the "War", allegedly refusing to obey a legal command is not the way to do it as it does not bring the politicians to account.

I do agree though that if we (the military) are being subject to serious scrutiny of all our actions, then the politicians should also be culpable for the end result. However, as the laws are made by politicians...............................

[nutcracker43]

Buoy15,

Is this a windup?

You been standing in the sun too long?

KA probably the most polite, gentle man in the UN. but also the most ineffective. Please tell me of serious achievements I might have missed.

And please teel me how we have ended up discussing KA, rather than RAF Officers who have suddenly become experts on international law and refuse to obey correct orders.

Many thanks,

NC43

[mso]

Twonston , I may be being naive here ,but surely any Senior RAF officer will find this individual guilty under military law regardless of the International law upon which the decision to go to war was taken.Even though the war is on a shaky grounding according to various legal experts.The Mod are a political animal and will toe the party line when told to.
You only have to look at the variouxs whitewashes which have taken place in the past ie mull of kintyre chinook crash,Boscombe stop flying them due technical problems,but when it crashes it is the dead crews fault.

If by some miracle he wins then maybe the world will be a safer place.We may nort be quick to rush in

[sarboy w****r]

Twonston Pickle, I don't see how politics can remain out of this trial. The Officers on the CM are being asked to decide 3 things:

1) Was the man given an order? Yes

2) Did he carry the order out? No

3) Was the order lawful? Hmmm....

Point 3 seems to me to be the crux of the issue - we swear to carry out "all lawful orders" (not "all orders") when we are attested.

I can't see how they can consider the case without considering the legality of the order. And in so doing, they are being asked to decide on whether what our chain of command has told us from 2003 (from the PM and CDS down) is in fact correct, i.e. that our continued presence/occupation (depending on your point of view) is lawful.

Those on the CM are being asked to judge their superiors (including our political leaders). Therefore who in their right mind thinks that the outcome of the CM is not a foregone conclusion? How on earth can the trial be seen to be impartial? (let alone actually be so...)

The political and military ramifications of a not guilty verdict are potentially massive. Because if they decide that the order wasn't legal, do we then have to withdraw all our forces from Iraq unilaterally? Certainly I cannot see how we would possibly get anyone to serve in Iraq again. How many of us that have been over there would like to go back to that Godforsaken country if we were given the choice? Not me, for one. Unless they offered the same rates of pay as Blackwater Consulting...

I think the outcome of the trial is a foregone conclusion because of the potential consequences if he is found not guilty, but I guess the man in the dock will wait for the trial to leave the hands of the military, and appeal his conviction in the Lords/Europe.

Whatever the outcome of the case, I admire the man for his courage in making a stand for what he believes in.

SBW

[BobColgate]

I wonder how he would have been treated if he wasn't commissioned.......?

Locked up - swept under the carpet?

[Squirrel 41]

SBW wrote:

---------------------------
The political and military ramifications of a not guilty verdict are potentially massive. Because if they decide that the order wasn't legal, do we then have to withdraw all our forces from Iraq unilaterally? Certainly I cannot see how we would possibly get anyone to serve in Iraq again.
---------------------------

You've hit the nail on the head. However, as stated earlier, I think that the answers to your questions at the GCM will be as follows:

Q1. Was the Officer given an order? Yes.
Q2. Did he carry the order out? No.
Q3. Was the order legal? Yes, because UNSCR 1546 mandates the position of UK and allied forces.

Therefore, guilty as charged.

However: if these questions were asked before the passage UNSCR 1546 - ie, anytime between commencement of operations and 08 Jun 2004 - then the answers would be more difficult, because they would have to consider the international legal position in consideration of the legality of the orders.

Irrespective of the result in this case, in any future operation, this case has underlined that if the war is not legal - as we've seen, either self-defence, UN Security Council Authorisation, or humanitarian intervention to stop genocide and crimes against humanity, then I believe the orders will be to commit the crime of aggression, and therefore would be illegal.

So, we agree that everyone should always follow all legal orders: but that we're obligated to refuse illegal ones; and what this case has highlighted is a small, obscure and developing corner of international law that needs to be addressed - and soon.

S41

[ORAC]

In which case the operations in the Balkans were an illegal order and members should refuse to obey any order which involves similar operations?

If, for example, another case of genocide such as Rwanda occurred, the majority of the U.N., security council and OAS pleaded for action, but the Chinese used their veto because it "was an internal security matter", then it would be illegal and the members of the armed forces would be entitled to disobey any order to take part?

A few years ago I saw a list of the number of "actions" the UK had taken part in since 1947, Borneo, Indonesian confrontation etc, it was over 50 long. None were approved by the UN, (the USSR or China would have vetoed all of them), none were declared as a war.

[nutcracker43]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORAC, you say:

If, for example, another case of genocide such as Rwanda occurred, the majority of the U.N., security council and OAS pleaded for action, but the Chinese used their veto because it "was an internal security matter", then it would be illegal and the members of the armed forces would be entitled to disobey any order to take part?

It didn't happen like that at all. Suggest you click on google and type in Rwanda and the UN. All will be properly revealed.

NC43

[Squirrel 41]

ORAC,

This highlights the point that satisfying one of these three requirements is not a high hurdle to cross: Former Yugoslavia was covered by a slew of UN Security Council resolutions from 1991 onwards, (e.g. IFOR covered by UNSCR 1031 of 1995 http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1995/scres95.htm; Kosovo, UNSCR 1244 of 10 Jun 99, http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1999/sc99.htm). East Timor by UNSCR 1262 (27 Aug 99) and 1264 (15 Sep 99) amongst others.)

Sierra Leone was a case of coming to the aid of a sovereign government, and in any event would have been legal to stop the crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the RUF.

As Kosovo shows, if the Security Council is deadlocked, humanitarian intervention was a legal - though controversial - basis for intervention. Happy to provide more detail if reqd.

As a result, UK operations since 1990 (GW1, Former Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone) have been clearly legal - except GW2.

S41

[ORAC]

The Times: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-1846620,00.html)

An RAF doctor who has been charged with disobeying orders to serve in Iraq is at the heart of a legal test case over the validity of the war. Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, whose court martial is expected to start next March on four charges of “disobeying a lawful command”, said through his lawyer that he believed the decision to go to war in Iraq was “manifestly illegal”.

At a private hearing at Bulford Camp in Wiltshire, Justin Hugheston-Roberts, the RAF doctor’s lawyer, said there would be a long legal argument about the war’s legality before the court martial was opened.

Guardian:

.......Mr Hugheston-Roberts said the case had been adjourned until the first week of December for another private preliminary hearing. He added: "There will be a very lengthy legal argument taking place some time in March 2006. That hearing will be open to the public. That will precede the trial proper." Issues such as the legality of the Iraq war would arise at the hearing in March.......

[The Gorilla]

Oh so no rush then on the MOD's part!

A lot can happen in six months...

[16 blades]

The 'legality' of GW2 is totally irrelevant to this case. The bottom line here is that this disgrace of an individual was ordered to deploy to Basrah. There cannot possibly be anything 'illegal' about getting on an aircraft and flying into theatre. Once there, IF the war was illegal, and IF he recieved orders to partake in some capacity, he may then have argued about the legality of THOSE orders, NOT the initial order to deploy (which was perfectly legal regardless of circumstance). This view is further reinforced by the fact that this chimp is a NON COMBATANT, and as such could not under any circumstances be ordered to carry out a 'crime of aggression'.

The various applicable conventions, treaties and statutes lay out specifically what constitutes 'legal' and 'illegal' orders during the conduct of warfare - simply arriving in a well-established and ongoing theatre of operations cannot possibly constitute an 'illegal act'.

If you are of the opinion that the war was 'illegal', it is just that - an OPINION, NOT a legal fact. There exists a legal justification for the war in UNSCRs 678 & 687. Some are of the OPINION that this justification may be suspect. The only body that can rule effectively on this is the UNSC - they haven't, so the justification remains. (forget the ICC - they have no jurisdiction over the USA, so any ruling from them would be largely meaningless). One could even argue that UNSCR 1546 lent some legitimacy to the view re. 678 / 687.

My point is this - until any ruling to the contrary, any opinion about the ongoing validity of 678 / 687 is simply that - an OPINION. Given the amount of political furore surrounding the issue, one can quite easily argue it is a POLITICAL OPINION. We are here to serve the Crown, not T. Blair esq. The Crown is an apolitical body, which requires us to serve with disregard to our own personal politics. This medical officer has refused a deployment on the basis of his own political opinion of the legality of the war, something he cannot justify. He will quite rightly be strung up by his b0ll0cks for it.

16B

[BEagle]

16B, if it was that cut and dried, his defending lawyer would have told him he didn't have a cat in hell's chance. As he obviously hasn't, there are clearly some who do not view the case as you do - and perhaps consider the legality of the UK's involvement in the whole GW2 affair as being directly significant.

[ORAC]

But the, he's a lawyer after all.........

[16 blades]

But then again, BEags, lawyers will often take on any case regardless of its merits - many may even see a weak case as a good professional challenge - since they get paid regardless of outcome.

He has no case. Period. But his brief still gets his fat slice of pie. Only blind political ideology could see it any different. But ideology, opinions (even legal ones), or even morality do not make the law.

16B

[JessTheDog]

For the record:

If any brown envelope pops through my door with regard to any of the Dear Leader's intended military ventures (admittedly not likely) then I will engage a lawyer to send a response to MoD stating I will not be obeying the mobilisation order as it is illegal, and will continue to disobey it unless:

a. The military undertaking is legal under international law (ie UN resolution or self defence);

b. The Attorney General has declared military action to be lawful;

c. The full decision of the Attorney General has been made public;

d. Parliament has voted to authorise military action after considering the above items.

There are precedents (voluntary and involuntary!) for all the above items. So, Bliar, you can send your ugly missus (in her armoured car) and your wastrel son before knocking on my door!

[nutcracker43]

JtD

Splendid stuff. You know how unlikely a brown envelope is likely to be popping through your door so you can be as stroppy and as full of crap as you like. We all know that were it to happen you would be doing the decent thing.

16B Agree with everything you said, but next time old lad, don't sugercoat it, tell it like it really is with regard to the apology for a doctor.

NC43

[Michael Edic]

Sorry for the very, very late entry to the thread but one point. It has been stated time and again that prevention of serious crimes against humanity/genocide is a legal reason for going to war.

Now I don't pretend to be an expert on middle Easern affairs but wasn't Saddam quite a nasty bloke engaged in some fairly nasty goings on? Wouldn't that make the war legal and thus not give the accused even a stump to stand on, let alone a whle leg.

End of the day we have this moral point plus the UNSCR lending legitimacy to our involvement, he was given a direct order, he refused to obey said order, he's guilty.

Michael Edic QC

[BEagle]

In which case, why do we hear nothing about taking similar action against the tyrrany of Mugabe?

Is it because there's no oil - or because there are no Americans to help us?

When some pratt from PJHQ once came to visit us and tried to explain what we were doing in Sierra Leone, he was a bit stumped when asked about the situation in Southern Rhodesia.....

[Tigs2]

Michael

It has been stated time and again that prevention of serious crimes against humanity/genocide is a legal reason for going to war.

But this was not the reason we were given, we were sold down the swanny with a pack of lies and so far well over 2300 soldiers, sailors and Airmen have died and god only knows how many have been injured (huge amounts i would guess), let alone the 10s or 100s of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

If we take the moral highground and invade because of crimes against humanity and genocide then why have we left the people of Zimbabwee to suffer so much. Answer, - it has got nothing we want. The country was once known as the bread basket of africa. The farms are now in ruins. Wait another 2 years for the largest famine and starvation that africa has ever witnessed. Yet we do nothing and Mugabe is

quite a nasty bloke engaged in some fairly nasty goings on


BEags - couldnt agree more!

[Michael Edic]

Please don't get me wrong, I agree that the way the whole affair was handled by the government was far from ideal, equally I agree with Beags that there are other equally tyrannical regimes that we haven't invaded that we probably have an equally strong moral obligation to do something about.

Neither of these change the basic premise of my point though, I think the prevention of crimes against humanity provided a legal reason for the war therefore this doctor can't defend himself.

Whether or not we made the correct tactical/political decision by embroiling ourselves is I think a seperate matter.

Mike

[16 blades]

We haven't become involved in Zimbabwe because we would be setting ourselves against black people - and Blair is so terrified of being accused of the greatest crime committable in his cosy, metropolitan, PC, Islingtonite little world - being a 'Racist'. We are white, and they are black. Despite the fact that the oppressed minority in that country are white, on planet Blair, this makes 'them' automatically right and 'us' automatically wrong. Mugabe shouts 'Racist!' and Blair jumps out of his skin and runs a mile, refusing to even grant refugee status to these poor beleaugered white folk.

Sorry, a bit off-topic.

16B

[pr00ne]

16 blades,

Off topic and totally wrong!

What colur do you think your average Arab is, white????????

[Seat 17]

pr00ne,

16 blades is actually spot on! It doesn't matter what colour you think Arabs are - since 9/11 and in the wake of other Islamic extremist attacks, they have lost the moral highground in the world's eyes and it appears to have bcome perfectly acceptable to wage war and invective against them at will.

The Black/White debate has become such a sacred cow however, (no offence to any Hindus present!) that any hint of conflict becomes 'The white man grinding the Black man into the dust again' and obscures whatever worthy intent was attempted in the first place.

Seat 17

[nutcracker43]

prOOne,

There you go again telling people how wrong they are, and again, without offering any explanation as to where they have gone wrong.

I should be most grateful to learn why 16B is so wrong; off thread he certainly is, but then again he acknowledged that.

Intervention in Zimbabwe would be seen by the PC brigade as an attack on the blacks in support of the whites...or am I wrong here, as well and if so, please present me with a logical cogent reply as to why I am wrong. and not: You're totally wrong'!

Uncertain as to your comments about the colour of your average Arab...totally different situation, totally different context.

Thank you.

NC43

[Dave Martin]

Seat 17,

No, he was wrong -

We haven't become involved in Zimbabwe because we would be setting ourselves against black people

With the support of a lot of black people at the same time. And why has blair agreeed with UN mandates involving us in other African nations?

You might have issues with Blair, but the reason we aren't in Zimbabwe isn't race. Zim simply isn't a geopolitical pivot as it has no energy resources we need. In simple terms, it's about oil.

Blair is so terrified of being accused of [.....] - being a 'Racist'

That'll be why he is quite happy to back up anti-terror legislation that will overwhelmingly target non-whites?

I suspect he is a little concerned of being labelled racist, as it is one of the few things that maybe discriminates him from the tories.

Despite the fact that the oppressed minority in that country are white,

And black aren't being oppressed? Having ther homes bulldozed?

refusing to even grant refugee status to these poor beleaugered white folk.
...and sending black failed refugees back to Zim to be harrassed by Mugabe's mob.

Zimbabwe is just one of many countries we could be involved in, but aren't.

Thus the reason for our involvement in Iraq (and given the civilian casualty counts quite obviously!) is not for altruistic reasons. It is about securing a slice of the pie.

In that sense it is an invasion to secure resources that belong to others and in my books morally and legally wrong. It is quite right for this doctor to be indignant about being sent to participate in this.

If it was an ethically based war of liberation, we might have done well to count civilian casualties as we saved them. Or is this a case of destroying the village to save the village?

The legal standing of his case is of course open to question, but morally, thumbs up the guy. He's showing more balls by standing up to the govt and the military by refusing to go than by following the herd.

[16 blades]

It is quite right for this doctor to be indignant about being sent to participate in this.

He can be indignant as he likes - he has no legal right to refuse to go. End of.

16B

[Maple 01]

Have to agree with 16B, the time to stage his little protest was before the UNSCR authorised the UK presence under UN Security Council Resolution 1483. It was passed in May 2003.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0522resolution.htm

Not that I think he's case had any merit before then, but to try-it on now looks like column-dodging, If he feels so strongly he can do his tour then leave.

[pr00ne]

Seat 17,

Actually, it DOES matter what colour folk in places like Iraq are because 16blades claimed that Blair would never contemplate intervention in Iraq because of the colour of the skin of the majority of inhabitants, conveniently forgetting just where we have been doing most of our “intervening” in recent decades.

nutcracker 43,

See explanation above, Dave Martin has also done a rather good job of the same thing.
BTW, it’s called holding an opinion!

I still think you are wrong!



Zimbabwe is a shaming condemnation of the UN’s lack of ability to deal effectively with Africa, but how come we see such outrageous double standards on this board about Blair?

On the one hand he is an unprincipled scoundrel for intervening in Iraq, yet you are baying for his blood over his LACK of intervention in Zimbabwe, sorry folk, but you can’t have it both ways!

If Blair DID intervene in Zimbabwe, would we see you bleating on about another of “trust me Tone’s wars”?

I think that in invading Iraq we were wrong, totally wrong. Invading Zimbabwe would be no different.

16blades,

“He can be indignant as he likes - he has no legal right to refuse to go. End of.”

I don’t think it is anywhere near “end of” but I think you will be proved right eventually. Interesting to see how far the guys brief takes this on appeal.

I think he will lose but will cause some severe discomfort on the way.

[Climebear]

Thus the reason for our involvement in Iraq (and given the civilian casualty counts quite obviously!) is not for altruistic reasons. It is about securing a slice of the pie.

When has any nation done anything for alturistic reasons? Nations only act when it is then national interets to do so - that's what diplomacy has always been about and always will be. Globalization has, however, meant that our national interests are not as clear cut as they once may have been - the world's economies are interdependant. The Prime Minister highlighted this during a speach in Apr 99 (http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1297.asp) : By this I mean the explicit recognition that today more than ever before we are mutually dependent, that national interest is to a significant extent governed by international collaboration and that we need a clear and coherent debate as to the direction this doctrine takes us in each field of international endeavour. ... But now we have to establish a new framework. No longer is our existence as states under threat. Now our actions are guided by a more subtle blend of mutual self interest and moral purpose in defending the values we cherish. In the end values and interests merge.


Therefore, our own Defence Vision (http://www.mod.uk/aboutus/mission.htm) is a tautology.

Defending the United Kingdom and its interests.

Strengthening international peace and stability.

International peace and stability are in our national interest as the world economy - and therefore ours - is affected by instability.

[teeteringhead]

Just to put a different spin on it .....

.... as a doc he was there of course to fix sick/injured people, mostly, but not exclusively (if previous incumbents are a benchmark) our own military.

By refusing to go, is he not also going against elements of his Hippocratic Oath, by refusing to treat patients .... I assume he is suspended from duty pending the CM. And of course, as usual, some other poor b%gger had to fill the slot .....

IIRC, redresses against MOs are copied to the GMC for possible action... might they be involved in this case? Any comments from doctors? I think we've had enough (pace Pr00ne) lawyers for now.....

[Anton Meyer]

For the GMC to be involved there would have to be a case of clinical negligence that could prove he owed a duty of care, there was a breach of that duty and that harm followed as a result.

You lot can argue that out.

[Twonston Pickle]

I have to protest at the intimation that politics will be involved in the GCM and that "they" will "toe the party line". A GCM cannot be given any external direction; the Doc's lawyers would have a field day if this was the case. Additionally, some have cited the fact that a discussion on the legality of the war will preceed the trial - this has been originated by the Defence team who have an obvious interest in raising the issue and the GCM is obliged to give him his 15 mins of fame. Moreover, the point still has not been conceeded by some that the order itself needs to be considered in isolation from the legality of the "War" - It is a straightforward order that does not request the Doc to contravene international law, British law or the Geneva convention. The only thing the order seems to be at odds with is the Doc's morals and the salary of his legal team.



Edited due to pore spolleng and getting a quote wrong!

[An Teallach]

Twonston
"they" will "toe [sic] the party line"
Why the [sic]? MSO is quite correct. The actual phrase in common usage is to toe the line.

[Twonston Pickle]

AT & MSO

My apologies - I'm now back in my box!

[A2QFI]

There are a number of reasons why we aren't doing anything in Zimbabwe; these include but are not limited to:-

1. We don't have enough uncomitted resources to do anything
2. There isn't any oil there
3. The poodle hasn't had permission from his owner to do anything anyway.
4. It doesn't look like a fight against TeRRRRRR, as Bush pronounces it.

[Dave Martin]

Maple01

If he feels so strongly he can do his tour then leave.

If he feels so strongly, completing another tour in Iraq defeats the purpose. Part of his case is surely to make a point, as much as anything else.

If he does not wish to be part of a political policy then he can't be expected to contribute towards it, then make a meaningless resignation.

Climebear,

That is a very cynical way of washing our hands of this issue.

I act in my own interests in acting ethically towards others, trying to take a low impact on my physical environment in general.

Someone else acting in their own interests does none of the above.

Merely claiming we act in our own interests is therefore utterly insufficient. My interests are based on an intention to be altruistic even when the gain will be negligible. Others acting in their own interest seek merely to maximise personal gain at the expense of others.

Many countries operate in the same way. Just because ours doesn't doesn't mean all don't.

teeteringhead,

There is a flaw with that argument: by not going, will he cease to be saving peoples lives? I doubt that.

[Squirrel 41]

Michael et al,

Sorry for the delay in responding. The question of whether human rights abuses alone could sanction the conflict is controversial - and therefore very interesting. However, humanitarian intervention demands a very high level of human rights abuses that can only be stopped by the immediate use of military force, especially if it is unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. This in effect means genocide - and the threat must be imminent.

Though Saddam's rule was tyrannical, as has been pointed out, it was not materially worse than lots of other places, and though the campaign against the Marsh Arabs post GW1 and the Anfal campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s could be classed as genocide, neither were happening in 2003 , and therefore the humanitarian intervention argument probably fails; in Darfur, however, it could probably succeed, as it did in Kosovo.

So, GW2 was illegal; but as has been discussed previously, this is not what this GCM is about.

S41

[Tigs2]

Squirrel 41

Is it a point of law that the threat must be 'imminent'?

If so are Dubya and Bliar war criminals?

[Squirrel 41]

Tigs2

The imminence requirement is good law, because without it, you could drive a coach and horses through both the non-intervention and non-agression doctrines on which the UN is founded.

As for the second question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to Kofi Annan's BBC interview of 16 Sep 04 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm, about halfway down). Annan thought that GW2 was illegal, and if so, Blair and Bush were the people who ordered it; people who are found guilty of illegal acts are often called criminals. Draw your own conclusions...

S41

[Maple 01]

Same Kofi Annan who wasn't exonerated in the Oil for Food scandal as he likes to claim?

And since when was he chief judge, jury and executioner?

[teeteringhead]

There is a flaw with that argument: by not going, will he cease to be saving peoples lives? I doubt that. ... I must bite DM....

If he is still working as a doctor then you are theoretically right, but it is usual to be suspended from duty pending a CM.

However, in practice (no pun intended) there might just be a few more lives to save in Iraq than Lossie (?).

[apologies for overuse of bold key]

[Squirrel 41]

Maple,

Was Annan found to have acted criminally in the Oil-for-food mess? As I understand it, the Volker enquiry thought not - and if they had, do you really think that he'd still be there? Was he foolish in not questioning his son Kojo harder about the company he was working for and keeping? Yes, IMHO he absolutely was.

But this is hardly relevant to your point - the overwhelming majority of international lawyers also think Annan's interpretation of the 2002 Iraq Resolution (UNSCR 1441) was right - indeed, even the UK Attorney-General agreed that the US was in a minority of one in interpreting UNSCR 1441 to mean that member states could decide whether or not Iraq was cooperating, rather than returning the question to Secuirty Council for discussion. So on this basis, and given the importance - symbolic or otherwise - of the UN, and the cautious but influential position of the Secretary-General, Annan's views, on behalf of the UN, are important.

S41

[Maple 01]

All of which flim-flam doesn’t aid the good doctor as UNSCR 1441 isn't the mandate British forces are operating under, it's 1483, so even by your logic actions under 1483 ARE legal, therefore he has no case - Get you kit together and get out there doc.......


And Friend Kofi claimed he was exonerated - he wasn't

sacrificial lamb time

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4601349.stm

BTW, nice to see the Boutros Boutros-Ghali family snouts in troughs - and they wonder why the UN is not taken seriously when it talks of political corruption

Initial report with link to PDF

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4391031.stm

The BBC's Jonathan Beale reports from New York that while Kofi Annan and his staff will claim he has been exonerated, they still face the difficult task of restoring confidence in him and the UN.

Just because Kofi declares himself pure doesn’t mean he is

[Twonston Pickle]

A bit like Bliar saying that's the end of the matter (insert Blunkett/mandelson/disaster of your choice)

[Squirrel 41]

Maple,

As above, agree that the Doctor is likely to lose on the facts, as I said earlier on.

Nonetheless, this shouldn't be allowed to obscure the important point that in this rapidly evolving area of international law, all future conflicts will need each of us to carefully assess whether our orders are legal, based on whether the war is legal.

S41

[eagle 86]

Ah - we bumble and stumble and argue amongst ourselves as to whether a particular war is legal and should we play - meanwhile the terrorists are laughing their tits off - they are achieving their aims - getting us ****scared and confused.
GAGS
E86

[Charlie Luncher]

I hear, and the DQI is low, that this cad is not the only one, is their any truth in the fact that there has been more than one from ISK to object and return home?
Charlie sends form the frontline

[RileyDove]

Maple - Admittedly there were indeed noses in the trough at the U.N. However rather than the U.N try and administer something that had great merit for fraud would it not have been easier to end the sanctions earlier and let Iraq sell the oil on the world market? If the sanctions and 'no-fly' zones had little effect was there really any justification for the length of them at all?
As for Zimbabwe - there is an opposition party that is actively oppressed by Mr Mugabe - it's not a matter of a white minority
which would put us directly into a 'race card' issue . The issue is that the country is being made destitute and people are dying.
Having created the biggest terrorist melting pot in history in Iraq we could hardly do worse in Zimbabwe.
As for the UNSCR resolutions 16 Blades - the initial resolution
asking Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and the second authorsing
force clearly had ceased to be valid when they had achieved theri aim. It shouldn't have been a case of tailoring the language to suddenly revive the opportunity to use force. Closely examine the 'spikes of activity' as the coalition called the airstrikes in the months before GW2 and you will find it very difficult to find a legal basis for them. The 'No-Fly' zones were supposed to protect the
oppressed in the North and South of Iraq - they were no designed as a means of destroying the air defence network of Iraq.

[oldfella]

Blair / Bush / Iraq / Zimbabwe - what does it matter in this case?

Was the Doc given a legal order? Did he refuse to comply with a legal order?

Yes / yes - guilty.

No / doesn't apply - not guilty.

[RileyDove]

Oldfella - Bush and Blair started the war so they play more than a passing part in the thread. Add to that Iraq where it's happening so yes they are relevant.

[SASless]

Let's accept the thesis that the good doctor is right on all counts.

Would it not logically follow then that all could then refuse orders to Iraq.

Then....anyone who accepted those orders would be accepting an illegal order and would be subject to punishment.

The other course would be for all to refuse and what would the government do then.....it would not be "mutiny" or "desertion during time of war".


I served with Conscientious Objector in my military service...he wore a Red Cross and served as a Medic in combat....he did not carry a firearm. He was highly respected and won several awards for gallantry under fire. He could see the need to serve his country and at the same time honor his principles.

Principled stand....I doubt it. He took the oath and understood the obligations of the office. He is a mender of broken bodies....not a fighter. His goal is other than principled in my book.

[bongof4]

I sit tonight in the Middle East, wishing I was somewhere else. I have not the luxury of refusing to be here as I am a volunteer. Quite simply, if the good Doctor wishes not to be here, resign: I shall. There will not be any great publicity and I will not return. What point is he trying to make and how does he feel those who will be made to replace him should react?

[RileyDove]

He is exercising his democratic rights. The same rights that we are trying to install in Iraq. How many people in Saddam's military
could have refused to go to war and not faced the death penalty?
It's a clear sign of a democratic society that people can choose not to go to war and the circumstances of the Doctor's refusal are that he believes he was deceived in terms of the justification to go to war and it's legality in light of new evidence.
There will undoubtedly be a new 'volunteer' to replace him out there and they might enjoy it or indeed they might not - but they have the same rights as him .
I hope the rest of your time out there is a safe one - it might not be to every taste but by the Doctor challenging the order actually strengthens the image of the forces and doesn't weaken it - if people are prepared to fight for our country they need to be able to understand that it can be the ultimate sacrifice they can make.

[Selac66]

It appears to me that this case may clear up some of the political machinations which have been so shrouded in fog since Sep 01. There should be no fear of this in a healthy democracy. Without a commitment to transparency, it may prove tricky to secure the support of the people should a legitimate need to commit forces crop up in the near future - unless of course some Pearl Harbour like event occurs.

[nutcracker43]

Riley Dove,

What tosh you talk at times! So, according you: by exercising our democratic rights, we should now be able to pick and choose whether, as a member of the armed forces, we would like to go to this war but not that war. I am not certain whether you were/are a member of the armed forces, but that is not the way it is done, I'm afraid. As I said somewhere else, being in the military is not 'a la carte'. If he chose not to go then he should have resigned his commission and left. By his not going meant that someone else had to go in his place because he chose to 'exercise his democratic rights'.

A bit like a doctor at at the scene of an accident saying: I don't like the politics of the person so I won't treat him.

Your profile says you are an historian; where, may I ask were you educated as an historian, which societies do do belong to, or, are you simply indulging yourself?

Thank you,

NC43

[The Swinging Monkey]

Riley,

I am sorry to inform you Sir, but servicemen (and women) do NOT have 'democratic rights' like you suggest, Just what planet do you live on and where do you get your misinformed info' from??

When you sign up to join the military, you are NOT given the option to obey this order or that one you fool. You can't pick and choose. Can you imagine it...........'orry general, don't want to fight today, had a go yesterday and got me bum shot off - I'm gonner sit this one out thanks!'

Would you feel the same if the doctor in question refused to help your desperately injured child because he didn't like your accent? or because you were a catholic and he was C of E?? Of course you wouldn't, you would spout on about that 'hypocritical oath' thingy, and expect him to do his job. Thats what its like in the services believe it or not.

And one last point, don't be fooled into thinking that this guy was forced into joining up. He WAS a volunteer, and it was his decision. Unfortunately, if you join a 'big boys' cluben you play by 'big boys' rules, and if you don't like it, then DON'T JOIN!

In the meantime Sir, You need to crawl back under your stone with the rest of the PC brigade, and get off this forum which, as its name implies, is for PROFESSIONAL people, not idiots and fools.

To all my friends and colleagues out there upholding the freedom of this country - 'respect' (as my Grandson says!)

Kind regards
TSM
'caruthers, I need a large Scotch old boy!'

[BEagle]

When you join the military, you certainly DO have the right to refuse an ILLEGAL order.

Whether or not an order to attend a war which many consider was started illegally is open to question.

The TA is 7000 men down, people are leaving the Armed Forces over Iraq by exercising their options or PVR-ing (although they might not state as much at the time) and yet Bliar's gang of liars still have no defined exit strategy.

This CM will be a very interesting event....

[nutcracker43]

Beagle.

'When you join the military, you certainly DO have the right to refuse an ILLEGAL order'. Not sure you are 100% there. I always thought that one had an OBLIGATION to do so, or one accepted the consequences. I do not think that there is any question about whether one 'attends' the war because of its illegality, or otherwise....we are not in a restaurant with an 'a la carte' menu where one pick and chooses. The menu is fixed and one goes elsewhere if it is not to one's liking. The jury still seems to be out on the legality issue, and of course, your well thought out comment re the PM, marks you as an objective observer

Agreed, the TA is 7000 down and perhaps the reasons are varied and many. Some of the people I have spoken to have suggested that the time away and the consequent effect on their jobs/careers at home have much to do with their decisions...the legality issue has not been mentioned to me at all.

I love it when the armchair strategists pontificate in the way that so many do. Have you seen Sen Joe Lieberman's article after his visit to Iraq? Interesting stuff and should do much to balance your thinking (Sen Lieberman is a Democrat in the US Senate). Perhaps not?

Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not forseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped.

Thank you once again.

NC43

[sonicstomp]

We do indeed have a right to refuse an ILLEGAL order - in fact we have a moral and legal responsibility as officers to do precisely that.

The difficulty is determining precisely what consitutes an ILLEGAL order.

In the case of Iraq, post UNSCR 1483, orders to serve in Iraq are most certainly LEGAL (as the SCR legally recognizes the occupying powers). - So Doc appears to be sh*t out of luck....

Iraq, pre-1483 -- more difficult. My interpretation would be that the Attorney General's legal advice to HMG (whether politicised or not - debate all you like) was that use of military force WAS legal, therefore you are on a sticky wicket when it comes to refusal.

The legality of orders is usually more straightforward when it comes to the decision to go to war, it becomes fraught with difficulty during the conduct of said war (most LOAC governs behaviour during war).

The bottom line is that intelligent thinking officers must endeavour to ascertain the legality of orders to the best of their knowledge (huge caveat) under all circumstances.

Blind obedience will not help you when you end up in front of the Hague.....It didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremburg, nor should it have done.

[JessTheDog]

Hmm...so be very careful if you have anything to do with CIA flights that require somewhere to park and refuel, or any other service offered by Airstrip One...you can be sure that no politicians will ever carry the can!

:E

[Flatus Veteranus]

I doubt whether the doctor was ordered to "attend" any sort of "war". He was probably posted to some medical unit in Iraq to help the sick and injured - mainly Bitish servicemen but his professional ethics would have obliged him to tend Iraqis as well. He was not ordered to commit any warlike acts, legal or illegal. He refused a perfectly legal order to go somewhere to perform his normal duties, and should suffer the consequences. In Iraq, I believe his status would have been "on active service", which in my day would have rendered his offence more serious and increased the penalties.

[RileyDove]

Swinging Monkey - So when I was on exercise in the 1990's and we stopped in the afternoon so we could go and vote that wasn't exercising our democratic rights then? What utter nonsence to suggest in any way that the members of the Armed Forces are not allowed democratic rights. Despite what you may think this isn't some dictatorship - the Armed Forces report to Parliament and then to the Queen . Did you think it happened in any other way?
People have given blood to defend the rights we have - if this guy chooses to question the reason for his request to go to Iraq well then good for him. He might be right and he might well be wrong but god help us if we ever end up with a society who's members cannot question the rights and wrongs of what it does.
Please be very aware that whilst ordered to do any order you are also governed by Act's of Parliament - be under no illusion
that being in the military doesn't in any way deminish the publics
right to examine your actions - a check of any democracy.

Nutcracker - Regarding not predicting the insurgency - do you really think that the guys in Washington who wargamed this war really wanted to say to the President that it could all go for a ball
of chalk ? The insurgency certainly wasn't predicted because there wasn't any under Saddam . Al Qaeda wasn't tollerated under his regime - would he really let any group operate in his country that could be a direct threat to his Presidency
The American's clearly showed what they wanted when they protected the Oil Ministry and precious little else.

[nutcracker43]

Riley Dove,

Your allusion to your voting rights during your exercise in the 1990's and the democratic rights you mentioned in an earlier mail is utter nonsense and I suspect you well know it. We all vote, RD, but we all do not pick and choose which conflict we will attend...your argument is unconnected and unsound I'm afraid.

You clearly miss amy point apart from your own. I do not think anyone has even suggested yjat we cannot question the rights and wrongs of what it does; this applies in the armed services as well because one has the duty not to act on illegal orders...he does not have the right to refuse to go to Iraq and perform his duty attending the sick and wounded. And please, do stop banging on about the blood given to defend the rights we have...it's beginning to sound like a cliche.

''Regarding not predicting the insurgency - do you really think that the guys in Washington who wargamed this war really wanted to say to the President that it could all go for a ball
of chalk?'' The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won, and nobody has been denying that...I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime but then nor were the Shiites or anyone else who opposed the man...everybody seems to know that, so what is your point?

Re the oil ministry building not being bombed...so what?

You still haven't answered my questions about the historical society you, as an historian, belong to, nor the qualifications you would have as an historian to come to the conclusions you do. I suspect, from your argument thus far that you have an interest in such things. Certainly you are extremely biased and lack of objectivity is very much in evidence...basically, a load of tosh!

I suspect a wind-up!

Thank you once again.

NC43

[The Swinging Monkey]

OK Mr Dove,
Oh Lord, you were on exercise in the 1990's - congratulations and well done for that.
Well (without wishing to sound like a sketch from Monty Python), when I was on 15 minute standby waiting for the hooter to go off so I could go fly my big yellow egg whisk to pull some unfortunate sod off a mountain or whatever, are you saying that I had the right (democratic or otherwise) to say 'sorry Boss, I'm just off to Elgin to go and vote for another bunch of spineless fools'?? Of course I didn't.
Get a life Man for Gods sake. These are important matters, and comments like yours simply breed this idiotic, foolish and dangerous attitude about PC and other nonesence within the military. That why things are going down hill - idiots like you are actively encouraging others to pull the PC card...... 'Please Sir, the SWO shouted at me!' ...... 'Can I be excused today Sir, its cold outside' heavens above Dove, whats the matter with you?
You were on exercise were you in the 1990's eh? well big deal, so what? what is your point? I would think everyone has been on exercise at sometime. This is NOT an exercise though.
The facts are simple and I think you are wrong and should keep your commenst under wraps. If you think this war is wrong then that is your opinion, but condoning someone who picks and chooses what he will and more importantly WILL NOT do for his service and his country is disgraceful. This is NOT an exercise, this is for real, and the last thing our people in theatre need is someone who they CANNOT rely on, and I suppose that is the thrust of my argumant. My crew and everyone around me know that they can rely on me 100%, unlike your doctor friend, who sadly will never have that label attached to him ever again.
Kind regards to all
TSM

[Tigs2]

Nutcracker

''Regarding not predicting the insurgency - do you really think that the guys in Washington who wargamed this war really wanted to say to the President that it could all go for a ball of chalk?'' The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won, and nobody has been denying that...I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime "


With ref to this and your previous comment on failing to predict the insurgency.

I am in total disbelief that you could consider for one moment that the experts failed to predict the insurgency would occur. If that is what you believe then you have the same IQ as George W (which has been stated as 87, 90 being the avererage for a child subjected to a poor schooling system). Do you think for one moment they thought "I know we will invade their country and everyone will be happy that we are in there? We will invade and everyone that has been oppressed for 30 years wont bother wanting retribution?"



The war was won so it did not go for a ball of chalk...to my mind it's the so called peace which has not been won,

We HAVE NOT won anything. It is a mess. Before we were there the iraqis did not have 50-100 people dying everyday. We did not have TWO THOUSAND dead US troops plus the rest of our UK and coilition forces troops who have died. And the torture by iraqi on fellow iraqi is still going on. Please explain what you think we have won???


As for the fact that you say

I, too, firmly believe that al Qaeda was not tolerated under his regime

Thats because they were not there. They had no interest in Iraq, they wanted the USA. 16 of the 19 bombers on 9/11 came from Saudi, NON were from Iraq, nor did they live in Iraq.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Before we were there the iraqis did not have 50-100 people dying everyday. We did not have TWO THOUSAND dead US troops plus the rest of our UK and coilition forces troops who have died. ...or a three hundred billion dollar bill to pay.


(or whatever the number is)

[SASless]

Tiggsy,

You know naught of what you speak when you suggest Nutcracker is without mental dexterity. I know him to be anything but a dull third grader....thus such a suggestion quickly puts your qualifications to judge the merits of a post...well it does make one wonder how much credibility to give you.

Nuts is one of the most, if not the most articulate persons I have had the pleasure to know. He has the ability to construct a logical argument as well as anyone I have dealt with. Those who cross foils with him have more times than not, wound up oozing hot air.

If you will pause a moment and reconsider history, I do believe you will find the Coalition Forces soundly defeated the Iraqi Government forces in a record setting movement of troops and equipment from Kuwait to Baghdad. That was no small feat of arms.

That same review of history will also show there was a period of time during which the insurgency and influx of foreign terrorists/jihadists was not able to mobilize suffiecient forces to be effective in attacking Coalition, Iraqi, and Iraqi civilain targets.

History will show the current period of hostile action by the insurgents/foreign terrorists/jihadists was a failure and in time will be defeated. The on-going vote by millions of Iraqi's and the growing participation of Sunni's in the political process is a bright indicator of the progress being made.

Rome wasn't made in a day...nor will Iraq be.

WarGames are just that....games. They do not forecast actual events any more than the existence of this wonderful Orb we inhabit can be described by math and physics.

As to Bush having an 87-90 IQ....just what source of information do you base that statement upon?

It is of no matter if he is a village idiot or Einsteins teacher...these decisions are made by more than one Man alone. George Bush may have the executive priviledge/responsibility/liability of making the final decision, however he did it with massive input from others. We know now that intelligence reports from many different sources were wrong....and had been for years. That is not attributable to Bush alone....multiple governments in many countries own a piece of that debacle.

The clamour over the WMD, Connection to Al Qaeda, and all the other trivial issues thrown into the air by the opponents of Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, the United States, and Freedom...ignore the reality of the situation.

The Iraqi people are free, free to vote, free to live their lives and hopefully will be able to do so in Peace, once the insurgency is defeated. The defeat is coming for the insurgency...at some point the Iraqi people shall tire of the car bombers and assassins. When they do....and embrace their new found freedom and all it means....the Insurgency will end. The longterm effect of the Iraqi's having the first democratic government in the Middle East cannot be understated.

Just what price should be paid for freedom?

[Tigs2]

SASless
no wish to get into another jousting match with you, as much fun as we both consider it to be.

I am asking the question of NC43 "What have we won??"

your elequent reply does not answer that, nor do i believe your utopian view of the situation as it will pan out in the ME is representative of what will prove to be the true outcome. Save the text of your message and re-read it in 5 years, i will do the same, then lets have a hat eating competition.

[RileyDove]

Swinging Monkey - I think if you examine my posts you will actually see that have have not condoned the doctor taking the action he has in anyway. What I have said is that he is entitled to question his orders and the legitamacy of them. It is not people like me questioning action like this that is in any way
harming the Armed Forces . Maybe you should examine the actions of your Lords and masters- flimsy evidence - soldiers put on trial for murder when the prosecution cannot even produce a body . Do you not actually think that the people who are pulling the strings are making the armed forces appear less than competent.
The Doctor concerned will get his moment of fame -it's in no way related to anything 'PC' -were the soldiers shot at dawn in WW1 PC? -were servicemen judged to have LMF in WW2 being PC? or indeed objectors to numerous other recent conflicts the same? I think you might well find that PC is nothing to do with it.
As for keeping my comments to myself - well maybe you should remember that the very servicemen you applaud for doing their duty did so so that Iraq could have free speech. Something you don't seem to be able to handle. I am sure you will continue to hate people like me - I can live with that if it means that the Armed Forces don't get blindly lead into a war again.

SASless - the WMD's -Al Qaida et at were the justifications of going to war! Subsequently Bush and Tony have made them trivial issues not the other way round ! The ground war was indeed swift but I think possibly you are taking some of the credit away from the Iraqi generals who were bribed to bury their jets in the desert and ordered the Republican Guard into bombing zones. They were handsomely rewarded with a flight out of Bagdad and new identities in friendly countries.
I would love to think that Iraq will be the first working democracy in the Middle East but surely if we wanted that in the first place we could have started with any number of other states.
For example Saudi Arabia is almost entirely dependent on western military equipment - could we not have put pressure on them years ago to enter democracy if we were than keen on the idea of a 'free' Middle East?

[SASless]

Riley...

No need to bother with hypthethicals....let's deal with reality.

If we bribed the Generals...and won....that is an innovative way of war that worked. The goal of fighting wars is to win....right?

WMD's etc, were all a "part" of the reasons for going to war...let's not forget the UN Resolutions and all of the other reasons. The fact the PR handling of the war has been at best ...."poor"....does not negate the benefit that will come of it.

We started with Afghanistan as I recall....Iraq followed later...Lebanon, Egypt, and other countries are coming along as well. Again, look at the big picture....extend your timeline to beyond this week or the next.

If we look years....decades ahead....we can see better the goal being worth the costs.

If one reviews the past as well....we can see foreign policy failures by the Western governments over the years and usually because we could not project "real" power in the region. We are able to do that now and will be even more capable with the establishment of democratically elected free governments there.

Saudi has its own problems....the House of Saud is getting a bit rickity....at some point the Saudi King will be confronted with a need to accept change in that situation as well.

[JessTheDog]

Iraq is an unprecedented strategic disaster which has fuelled the terrorist threat and has detracted from real efforts in Afghanistan to contain narcotics production and terrorism. The Sunni Baathists were a repugnant bunch, but the replacements are shaping up to be just as bad and their Iranian neighbours are looking on with glee.

The political damage will be as great - if not greater - than that which arose from a certain other US venture some 40 years ago, although at that time the UK did not have a deranged prime minister intent on inserting his poodle snout as far up a chimp's rectum as physically possible, spreading lies about WMD etc....rant continues. Perhaps in the 1960s, the memory of the Suez debacle was still relatively fresh.

[RileyDove]

SASless - I would like to think that things will get better in the Middle East . However whether it's been the British in Suez or the American's helping to keep Israel supplied with weapons our influence in the past hasn't stopped the Middle East being a melting pot. Maybe how we can work for the future is to try and persuade the countries in the region to spend less on military equipment and more on it's citizens.

[Crab Paste !!!]

Tony Blair should be the one facing a jail stint out of all this mess.

Sending soldiers to fight a 'war' based on a lie is the lowest of the low. I find it insulting for those that are serving and it desecrates those that have fallen for legitimate causes. Then he has the gaul to lay a poppy wreath.

How that sack of s**t sleeps at night I'll never know.

He was warned what would happen and you can rest assured that the 'government' won't look after you once you've done their dirty work.

Iraq will be split into 3 different states and the whole region will be up in smoke within a short period of time.

Thousands of soldiers will have died for nothing, again. The Middle East will be in a far worse state than it was 3 years ago.

[SASless]

Paste,

Over a thousand Shia Clerics endorsed the election process and called upon their followers to participate.

Is that not a positive sign?

A recent poll showed over 71% of Iraqi's are "satisfied with their lives".....is that not a positive sign?

Iraq civilians captured and turned over an Al Qaeda terrorist leader the other day....is that not positive sign?

The list goes on....and on....good things are happening....maybe you are not looking for them hard enough.

A famous American humourist once said...." I hope I never wake up to an America as bad as the one the newspapers tell me about."

Will Rogers quote could apply on an international scale I should think.

[Crab Paste !!!]

That is the quickest way that they will get rid of the Allied presence.

Once 'we' are gone, each cleric will want a slice of the cake, the country will break down 100%, civil war will break out and the whole region will be more unstable than ever, as predicted before the 'war'.

Stability is getting worse, not better. If you want to talk about stats, see how many US service personnel were killed in the past month.

Ask the UK forces in Basra if the situation is better or worse than 6 months ago.

Do you really think that the insurgants will pack up and go home once the Allied forces leave ?

As ever, the proof will be in the pudding.

The UK led by the US have made another monumental cock up. The war was about Oil and not weapons or people.

Better the Devil you know.

[nutcracker43]

Tigs 2.

Thanks for your contribution and your comments.

For a start, neither you nor I are privy to what experts may or may not have said so that side of it is pure speculation based, perhaps on your personal prejudices, and therefore not particularly sound. I should like more evidence before I make such statements. What I actually said was: ‘’ Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I should be most grateful if you were in a position to share it with us instead of commenting on GWB’s or my IQ (GWB does have an MBA. by the way which is, I suspect, more than do you).

When I said the war had been won I meant it was a victory according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, viz., defeating one’s enemy in battle, or war, and not, unlike yourself, whatever I wanted it to mean. That way one begins to sound like the Mad Hatter at the tea party in Alice in Wonderland. The coalition forces were not in any way defeated… I imagine you would agree. If you imagine that institutions and mindsets change immediately on the cessation of hostilities then you are naïve in the extreme. This sort of thing will take years to accomplish. Torture by Iraqi on Iraqi will continue long after we have left just as it did before we intervened. It is the nature of things in that part of the world…it shouldn’t be but it is! As for the Iraqis dying I would suspect that more than 50-100 died on average during Saddam Hussein’s 8000 days in power. ‘’The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power". So do please spare me your inaccurate speculation.

I am aware of the fact that al Qaeda was not in Iraq and I do know they certainly would not have been tolerated there. I am also aware that the 911 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia. You are telling me nothing new. A digression: as we speak the Saudis have called together Muslim scholars and leaders to discuss modernising Islam…something that would never have happened in the normal course of events

It is, indeed, tragic that the US has lost 2000 of its soldiers and we and the rest of the coalition, ours. In the meantime the Pentagon has embraced a fundamental change of policy which calls for the US armed forces to be equally adept the making of peace as they are at the waging of war.
‘’The new course, announced in a Pentagon directive (28 Nov 05), follows widespread criticism of the conduct of the war in Iraq, where US forces scored a swift, decisive victory over conventional opponents but found themselves ill-equipped to deal with post-combat chaos and an increasingly effective insurgency.’’ Do you seriously imagine this sort of directive would have been issued if the events occurring at the scale as at this moment had been foreseen? The Pentagon may be many things to many people, but negligent they are not. The directive says that establishing order and security, restoring essential services and meeting the humanitarian needs of the population of a vanquished country were now a “core US military mission.” I imagine you would agree that it is the first time that such activities have been defined as a core function of the US armed forces. In fact ‘’Much of the 11-page policy document reads like a list to address shortcomings laid bare after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing criticism that the United States won the war and is losing the peace’’. This seems to have comprehensively addressed these particular shortfalls, which suggests that they had not been identified before.

Trust you feel better informed.

Thanks again.

NC43

[RileyDove]

SASless- What your forgetting is that under Saddam's regime the percentage of people happy with their lives was far higher - admittedly saying that you wern't happy wasn't a good move!
There is plenty of buzz about things getting better - as long as the troops can get out of there as the papers seem to suggest very shortly -I feel sadly that many in the west won't care what happens then.

[SASless]

Tiggsy,

Since you have gone on record as not wishing to joust with me...and seeing as how Nuts has placed the ball squarely in middle of your court....I do so look forward to your response.

I would suggest I am the much easier opponent....that is why I usually stand back and merely hold Nut's coat for him during these debates.

He rarely joins the argument....but when he does...I do so enjoy it.

As Ross Perot is known to say....I am all ears.

[Darth Nigel]

Here's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4521064.stm) a link from a BBC opinion piece on the current situation, and it comes up with numbers similar to SASless' but adds one datum:
Most of the 71% who say their lives are good are Kurds and Shia; a good proportion of the 29% who say their lives are bad are no doubt Sunnis.
In other words, the polarisation of Iraqi society between winners and losers continues unabated.
And in the meantime the one thing that everyone can agree with is that life is much more dangerous in Iraq than it was when our last opinion poll came out.

It's well-worth a read.

Now I have to wade back through and see how we got from the concept of a legal order to the way the war has been conducted (major cluster-f__k in my armchair opinion, and apparently the Pentagon quite sensibly agrees with me). AFAIK, even an officer in a war going badly can give legal orders and can be given legal orders to show up and do the job.

[nutcracker43]

Riley Dove,

My apologies for commenting on your mail to Sassless. Your statement about the happiness of the Iraquis may be likened to the same situation that existed within the 3rd Reich between 1933 and its demise during which time the Nazis slaughtered 6 millon innocent people. What I remember RD is that under the Hitler regime the percentage of people happy with their lives was far higher too. What are you trying to say.

NC43

[RileyDove]

Nutcracker - Top job getting the figures on Iraqi deaths under Saddam. Pity the information on civilian deaths since the start of GW2 is almost as hard to find as the proverbial WMD's.
Can't really see that it adds much to the debate -no doubt that Saddam was ruthless -it doesn't really reasure that we might
concievably be witnessing slightly fewer deaths under our occupation than his tyranical regime.
As for torture - well yes Iraqi's have in the past and continue to torture their own. Saying it shouldn't happen there doesn't really explain the actions of Lindsey English and her mates at Abu Graib nor the British soldiers who decided their escapades
were worthy of photographing. What goes on in Guantanamo
remains to be seen and the various 'unknown'Boeing BBJ's ,Gulfstreams and Hercules that have visited Europe and the Middle East surely have passengers that don't enjoy luxury travel.

[Onan the Clumsy]

I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen I dunno. It seemed a pretty obvious outcome to me.

[RileyDove]

Nutcracker - What I am trying to say is that polls can be almost completely meaningless. Iraq is clearly a factionalised country and some groups of society are going to be very happy with Saddam's trial. Others are not and what remains to be seen is if any government can actually unite the quite different religious groupings. The poll is a snapshot of opinion - there will undoutedly be dark days ahead for Iraq followed hopefully by peace.
All this does get rather away from the Doctor - however in his case whether he is right or wrong remains to be seen .Either
way it can do he military no harm to show that it's members can think and consider their actions. Far better that then more pictures of staged abuse that makes the Army sink lower in the esteem and reflects on the whole of the Armed Forces.

[nutcracker43]

Onan the Clumsy.

In what way was the outcome obvious to you? The insurgency of the Shias or that of the Sunni's? Be grateful if you could back up your statement with reasoned logic...helpful to all.

Many thanks.

NC43

[Tigs2]

NC43

I think with your answers to everone elses posts its about time you got your self righteous head out of your a**e.

‘’ Not privy to the govt's thinking on exit strategies but I do suspect that after the victory over Saddam, the resultant insurgency was not foreseen and therefore the original exit plan had to be scrapped. If you have any evidence to the contrary then I should be most grateful if you were in a position to share it with us instead of commenting on GWB’s or my IQ

Once again, i will state so that perhaps you may read and understand

"I am in total disbelief that you could consider for one moment that the experts failed to predict the insurgency would occur."
i.e do you really believe that the experts did not foresee the insurgency? If so they should not be advisors on war.

[QUOTE](GWB does have an MBA. by the way which is, I suspect, more than do you).

How wrong you are NC. I Do hope you feel better informed?

When I said the war had been won I meant it was a victory according to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, viz., defeating one’s enemy in battle, or war, and not, unlike yourself, whatever I wanted it to mean.

Now take note SASless as NC impresses you soooo much, this is whats known as back peddling. Bye the way NC i never said i wanted it to mean anything. I asked you the question "What have we won"? You seem to answer everything like a politician NC - avoid the question and give a verbose, elequent but meaningless answer. ( i imagine thats how you write your peoples annual reports)

If you imagine that institutions and mindsets change immediately on the cessation of hostilities then you are naïve in the extreme.

I never said or implied that at all NC. More flowery fabrication.


Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power". So do please spare me your inaccurate speculation.

I said 50-100 per day are dying is that inaccurate speculation?? Mmm me thinks not.

Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran.

Mmm i wonder how many have died in the needless wars we have had??

No NC i do not feel better informed, but thanks for your kind enquiry.

SASless

WMD's etc, were all a "part" of the reasons for going to war...let's not forget the UN Resolutions and all of the other reasons.

No SASless we were told WMD were the reasons for going to war. Its nothing to do with bad PR it was Lies. WMD became a 'part' of it after we found out he didnt have any.

Saudi has its own problems....the House of Saud is getting a bit rickity....at some point the Saudi King will be confronted with a need to accept change in that situation as well.

Wrong here SASless. The current house of Saudi is the most forward thinking in many years, wait and see. ( I hope you feel better informed too)


If one reviews the past as well....we can see foreign policy failures by the Western governments over the years and usually because we could not project "real" power in the region. We are able to do that now and will be even more capable with the establishment of democratically elected free governments there.

A very worrying statement SASless.

Also the statistics you quote are meaningless.

Since you have gone on record as not wishing to joust with me...and seeing as how Nuts has placed the ball squarely in middle of your court....I do so look forward to your response.I would suggest I am the much easier opponent....that is why I usually stand back and merely hold Nut's coat for him during these debates.


No SASless bye the sounds of your love for NC i think you just hold his Nuts!

Its scary that like most of middle america, if you are presented with a few nice statistics and you hear an argument (albeit meaningless) presented in a nice way, then you just get sucked in and believe it. I was in Middle America recently, i never heard anything bad on the news about the situation in Iraq, - scary.

[SASless]

Lets see here....the 29% were in charge under Saddam...they are no longer in charge...some of the 71% have longer memories than others...well DUH! I guess the 29% that are disaffected just might be the Sunni's.

I might be a dumbass helicopter pilot but I can figure that out guys. Might I suggest it is true...and it is of no surprise nor should it be.

If I am out of the palace and back to picking dates or something....will I guess I would be a tad miffed too.

Run another one out....lets see how it plays?

[nutcracker43]

Tigs 2

Seem to have struck a nerve here...did you never learn that by protesting too much, railing against groupings, in this case, Middle America, and abuse such as yours suggests a lost argument?

Please do not keep repeating yourself because I think I answered your questions perfectly adequately and provided supporting evidence thereto. It is not so much a problem for me if you are unable to understand my reply as it seemingly is for you, and for that I am sorry. However since you seem to imply that you have an MBA as well I naturally wish you the very best of luck wherever you choose to use it.

A happy Christmas to you and yours.

NC43

[Crab Paste !!!]

Since when was keeping 71% of Shias 'sort of happy' a valid reason for going to war ?

We wouldn't have been allowed to go to war if that was the reason.

I'd like you to tell that to the families that have lost relatives in Iraq.

Reason 1 : WMD
Verdict: Bolloc*s

Reason 2 : Terrorists (which the Spams created, trained and armed in the first place)
Verdict : Bolloc*s

Reason 3: Well 71% of Shias are happy
Verdict: Fu*k Off, your talking Sh*t.

You don't need the press to know that the politicians are talking BS. Having at least 2 brain cells does the job just as good.

The whole situation stinks and the people that should be in the dock are the ones that sent us there.

They are the ones responsible for deaths of thousands of servicemen.

[SASless]

Crab Paste,

Please describe to us exactly how the Americans created the terrorists in the "first place"? To what group do you refer....and what period in history do you refer please? We are a very young country yet...and I am sure there have been "terrorists" long before we came onto the scene.

Are you saying the Americans are the root cause of Terrorism in the world?

The 71% number refers to all Iraqi's Crab...not just the Shia's. That fact should be abundantly clear to any reading of the posts above.

WMD's....maybe not in the amounts thought...1500 gallons of some version of Sarin was found if I am not mistaken as well as an infrastructure that would be easily returned to use at some point. Thus, it would appear there have been WMD at some point in time and the Iraqi's were not cooperating in the verification of their destruction....or do you ignore those kinds of facts?

The politicians talking out of their hind ends....so what is new in the world about that? The press is supposed to be the purveryors of truth but they fail miserably in that regard. You do recall the approval rate for the media is less than George Bush's was at its lowest point a few weeks ago. The press does not publicize that fact do they?

Is is the politicians that are responsible for your orders or did they stem from a perceived need to combat tryanny and the possible transfer of WMD to terrorist organizations posed by the Saddam Regime?

Being responsible and being culpable are too different issues in regard to deaths of soldiers. Thus far, the courts have declared the war legal thus they may be responsible but they have not been proven culpable.

[Crab Paste !!!]

Well here's a few for you to chew on.

The US supports Israel and their terrorist activities.

They supported the Mujahidin with finances and weapons.

This Mujahidin went on to become a faction of Al Queda.

The eastboard of the US finacially supported the IRA .

Laos.

Haiti.

Bolivia.

Cambodia.

Chile.

Iranian Shah.

El Salvador

Iran Contra.

Panama.


The list is endless mate. I reckon you have some reading to do. The US needs to get rid of the terrorists than run their own country before the ride rough shod over the rest of the world. They are the planets biggest Cancer and now they have the UK involved again.

[SASless]

We shall not discuss the comments about Israel for a host of reasons...beginning with your description of the situation.

Yes we supported the Mujahadin....in their war against the Russians who invaded their country and attempted to ensure a Communist government. The same as we have done other places...say France during WWII and other European nations in their fight against the Nazi's. Are those all not quite the same?

Yes, some of them became Taliban and Al Qaeda. Ho Chi Minh, Tito, and others we helped during their war against invaders went on to oppose us later. Why is that a surprise?

Bad foreign policy on our side maybe....but things happen in the world that are hard to foresee. Who would have guessed Castro would become a communist dictator and last as long as he has?

Americans supported the IRA financially....they did. Until it became a crime by a change in the law....it was legal to do so. It was not official government policy thus you cannot blame the government for that. I seem to remember Americans supporting a lot of other pro-British causes as well. We fed a lot of you during the war as some of you remind us.

Laos...what group of terrorists did we support there? We fought a war against the communists...same in Cambodia...Vietnam.

El Salvador, Panama, other Central and South American countries....again we fought communist expansion.

In case you forgot....the Russian communists folded their tent....we beat them. The Chinese communists are rapidly becoming captialists....in time it will morph into a captialist democracy and we will have won that one politically.

How many people now live in freedom now because of the Americans....depends upon where you wish to start the list I guess.

Tiggsy,

I never said I knew Nuts intimately....I said I knew him....and that was not in the biblical sense. Your juvenile barbs cheapen your argument as Nuts has pointed out to you previously.

Also...if you were in the USA anywhere....and did not hear anything bad about the war in Iraq....you never turned on the Television, listened to any liberal talk radio show, read a newspaper, magazine, or opened a Yahoo page on the internet.
If you wish, you can hit all of the major news networks by a simple clicking of keys on your computer and confirm what I am saying about the negative aspect of the liberal media in my country. Thus, I would ask you to explain where you hear all the neutral or good news that you heard vice the bad news I am hearing broadcast daily.

[Crab Paste !!!]

Don't get me started on World War II, 39 -41 and debt repayments etc etc

I was wondering how long it would take you to get 'Liberal' in to the topic, could you not be more original ?

Every pro Iraq war person always falls to this lowest common denominator. It's getting a bit predictable.

I found this video for you to add to your propaganda collection:

http://www.filecabi.net/video/cryingfan.html

I hope you like it.

The US wants economic growth at any cost, even it's own soldiers lives.

I have nothing further to add to the conversation, the proof is out there if you want to see it.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Sasless, I'm normally very much in agreement with you but you may well have We fed a lot of you during the war as some of you remind us. and helped us in a myriad of other ways but don't pretend it was for atruistic reasons, you guys were well paid. So much so that "Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]..."

"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."...

"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments [sic] commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. " we only just manage to pay you off in 3 weeks time, not forgetting a lot of shared technology at the time. Lets not pretend it was all one sided.

Not bitching per se' just making sure the facts get in there, which will make a pleasant change around here. :E

[SASless]

Let's post the whole article shall we....please note the very last sentence....from your own House of Lords I assume.



According to Hansard, the record of note for the debates that take place in the UK the Houses of Parliament, the debate in the Commons on 28th February 2002 shows that the UK expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31st December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II:

"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]…"

"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."…

"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945. "

Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan.

It is a very advantageous loan for us. "

[Onan the Clumsy]

In what way was the outcome obvious to you? The insurgency of the Shias or that of the Sunni's? Be grateful if you could back up your statement with reasoned logic...helpful to all.
Simple really. They had the home side advantage, same as the VC did in the Vietnam Armed Conflict and the emerging US did in the War of Independence and the Jocks against the Romans and the Micks against the British and the French Resistance against the Germans.

What would YOU do if you were faced with an aggressor enemy with superior firepower and tactics? To fight him on his own terms is a strategy destined for failure, but if you disappear amongst your own population, the majority of whom will support you because you are not the outsider you can continue to snipe at will and for every casualty you take there are two two replace them. It's an old story that has been played out many times, so to think that it anything else would happen was naive at best. The war is not over, it's still going on.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Mr dove,
Firstly I do not hate you Sir as you say. I merely believe that you are wrong and I find it difficult to understand why anyone who has been at the front line would condone and even defend and support the action of the doc'
IMHO your comments are damaging to the military and promote a less reliable service. In our (flying) world, 100% reliability is essential to the task and safety of all concerned. Condoning someone who questions the LEGITIMATE order of a superior or otherwise is harmful in the least.
I hope the doc' finds a nice undemanding job in a quiet cottage hospital somewhere, where he won't be faced with to many difficult decisions that he might have to question.
Kind regards
TSM

[nutcracker43]

OtC

Thanks for that. In answer to your question: ‘what would I do…?’ I imagine I would melt into the general population as you say…but to me the situation is more complex than the simplistic one you suggest. I am not certain that I would put too much reliance on their having a ‘home side advantage’ in the same way that the VC had in their struggle with the US. There, they were homogenous in ethnicity and had a common purpose. Iraq does not have a common ethnic population and they are deeply divided as to branches of religion and purpose…your other examples are dubious as well with the possible exception of the Roman example. There are a number of instances and areas where the coalition forces are found to be welcome However…that there is a mess is not in dispute and it looks increasingly likely that the US cannot leave immediately for a host of reasons, the main ones being that the thug element would claim that they had defeated a superpower and al Qaeda (aQ) will benefit as a result…the likelihood of greater instability in that region would almost inevitably increase. If one reads as much of the information that comes in instead of selecting those that support one’s particular prejudices, a different picture begins to emerge.

I am not all that certain that the majority of Iraqis actually want the US to pull out because of the dangers of a civil war and the resultant fragmentation that would occur.

Sunnis are naturally 100% pissed off about being marginalized (the dissolution of the army, police and political organs were seen as the manifestations of this marginalisation) and for that, Mr Paul Bremner, is entirely to blame. I think the US has realised that mistakes have been made aplenty and have taken steps to redress the problem (they have started to involve the Sunnis and a rumoured to be in dialogue with some of the resistance groups..directly or through third parties I am less able to say). So for me, OtC, the problem is less simple and more complex than that suggested in you mail.

Thank you.

NC43

[SASless]

I normally remove all the forwarded headers when I forward a message.
However, due to the content of this one, I left them in and just removed the
sender's e-mail addresses, so that you could all see who it was that
forwarded the original. I don't know Andrew Nelson personally, but I know
Vern Abshire, as I know many of you do. My only regret in regards to LtCol
Stark's message to Representative Murtha is that it comes from a Soldier
instead of a Marine. I'll never be able to forgive many of the
Representatives and Senators who, in their efforts to defeat the opposite
political party, are giving aid and comfort to this country's enemies during
this war. But for a retired Marine Colonel to allow his political views to
influence him to the point where he voices the kind of harmful messages that
he has been guilty of for the past month or so, is just beyond my
comprehension. I think LtCol Stark has done a fine job of voicing my own
feelings.

Semper Fi
Jim


The signature block indicates that he is a USAR LTC of Infantry.

I called LTC Stark's office number and talked to his receptionist,
who confirmed that the letter was Faxed to both of Rep. Murtha's
offices.

Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005
22:03:14 -0800 (PST)

Subject: WOW!

I rarely get a message that I feel compelled to forward. This is one of
those!

Clarence Nelson, Andrew III
USMC [Retired]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. STARK
1615 S. Ingram Mill Road
Telephone No. 417/887-6969
Building F
Facsimile No. 417/887-7715
Springfield, MO 65804

November 21, 2005

Via Facsimile to: (814) 539-6229
Representative John Murtha
P.O. Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907

Representative Murtha:

During the dark days of the American Revolution the Commanding
General, George Washington seemed unable to win any victories. There were
wholesale desertions, troops were starving, the fledgling government was
sporadic with money, food and ammunition in short supply. Out of this
darkness emerged a genuine American Hero. This officer brilliantly led
his troops in combat and though seriously, and almost mortally wounded,
won victory after victory for the desperate and beleaguered American
Continental Army.

After helping to turn the tide of war in the favor of the
Americans, this officer's fame grew as did his prestige, but his prowess
on the battlefield, his courage under fire and indeed all of his life, is
forgotten because of one act. His name is now synonymous with "traitor" in
the dictionary. General Benedict Arnold, like you, had a brilliant
military career of courage, honor, and sacrifice. Like you, in my
opinion, he was a traitor to his country and to his oath as an American
soldier. It is indeed fitting that you are member of the same political
party as another traitor and seditionist, former Lieutenant John Kerry
USN, who betrayed his country, not only on the very floor of the House of
Representatives that you now serve, but also, secretly, in the presence of
our enemies in Paris, France.

Unlike you, he is a self proclaimed warrior and you earned
your decorations, but the pair of you forgot one important thing. The
United States of America and indeed the world are at war. We are at war
with an implacable enemy. An enemy of racist, bigoted fanatics whose sole
goal in life is to destroy the people of the United States of America,
their culture and their religion. More American civilians have died on
U.S. soil in this war than died in World War I, World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm put together.

We are at war, Representative Murtha, and your actions and
conduct give aid and comfort to our enemies. Just in case you have
forgotten the definition of treason and sedition, I have attached
Webster's definition as Tabs A and B to this letter.

A wise man once said, "There are no former Marines, only dead Marines."

He was wrong. You are not a Marine. You have lost the right to use that
title. You have dishonored all of those who have fought and died up to
the day you stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and
demanded that we withdraw immediately. You lied to the press, when you
said you did not make that statement. I watched you make that statement.
Albeit your Bill, submitted, which I have also read, added a caveat, "as
soon as practicable." That is pure horse**** and you know it. Yes,
Representative Murtha, you have given aid and comfort to our enemies in a
time of war. You have given them hope, which they have fast been loosing,
due to all of the victories and sacrifice by our sons and daughters on the
field of battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have been honored by our
enemies on the front page of Al Jazeera.

No, Representative Murtha, you are no longer a Marine. Your soul is dead.
Your honor is dead, and without a soul or honor, you are nothing.

Be advised, my son is a Marine Officer. He has commanded men in battle
through two (2) tours and he is due to return to Iraq on a third tour. If
he should be harmed in any way as a result of your actions on the floor of
the House this week, I will do everything in my power to see to it that
you are driven from office and that you are charged and tried for treason
and sedition.

The Marine Officer whose message was read on the House Floor by fellow
member of Congress, Jean Schmidt, was right. You are a coward. Marines
do not cut and run.

Fortunately, your obesity prevents you from wearing your Marine Uniform
with even a semblance of pride, but I know your face. If I am in a room
when you arrive, you will not enter. If you are in a room, when I arrive,
you will leave. It is as simple as that.

OUT.

LTC Christopher J. Stark IN USAR

[RileyDove]

Swinging Monkey - I think the detail is that the Doctor doesn't think that the request to go is a Legitamate order on the basis
of the UNSCR and subsequent information gained since that has
proved that the case for war was made stronger.
He is acting on his own and much as it seems to some that he is letting the side down -he can only really be effecting his future. People will continue to join the RAF - I would suggest that the numbers joining the Army will be down based on recent publicity.
This isn't a case of either thinking he is right or wrong -it's a matter of him proving that he has a case not to go and the RAF vice versa. I have no problem with the principle - you can guarantee that if he overstepped the mark in anyway whilst on duty the forces would be down on him like a ton of bricks. Examine how many prosecutions are going through at the moment of servicemen - proving the legitamacy of orders and how they are carried out is of prime importance if we expect our
servicemen to fight for us and not end up in court.

SASless - without wishing to get involved in the whole Democrat/Republican thing . John Kerry might not be to everyone's taste but he spent part of the Vietnam War actually
under fire. George W Bush was I believe in Florida wearing the USAF uniform but I don't believe he got any closer than that.
When I was last over there we got to see all the adverts from his (Kerry's)'comrades' on how he wasn't a hero and all that stuff.
It's really not my kind of thing - he might not be the hero that
some portray him as but he has been in combat and seen people die - that might just make someone more thoughtful when sending people off to war.

[Dave Martin]

SASless,

That was the biggest load of tripe I've read in a long time.

[SASless]

Why is that Dave?

Merely because someone has a differing view than yours?

The man put his name, address, and telephone number in the letter...seems like he was willing to take a stand for what he believes in.

That is the beauty of living in a free society...one can express one's views whether universially accepted and approved or not.

I personally endorse some of what he said....having been a Vietnam veteran and knowing the Paris accusations are true. I am not a politician so I don't have to play nice with words.

Kerry is a skunk. Was then...is now.

The Cut and Run Brigade are indirectly responsible for harm coming to our troops by using the war as a method of hopefully regaining their own lost power. They hate Bush and the Republican Party more than they love the country and forsake National interests for purely personal issues at a time when we are engaged in a war. There is a way to wage politics and also protest the war...but it should be done without giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I do not believe you can understand that concept based upon your statements in most of your posts.

Personal acts as the Good Doctor has taken I can understand despite having nothing but disgust in what he is trying to do. He would not want me sitting on his courts martial board I assure you.

His orders boil down to go to a combat area and attempt to save as many lives as possible.....not kill people. His moral dilemna just does not meet the Bull **** test. If he were assigned to a combat unit whose mission is to engage the enemy in combat and render them combat ineffective ( dead)....then I would have more sympathy for him. That is not his case.

Whether you agree with the reasons given...our countries and society in general are at "War" with a determined enemy which seek to destroy us. Iraq is but one campaign in that war.

Your national leaders have committed us to that if you serve in the military. Last time I checked....the military of both the US and UK are all volunteers. If you do not like what you are being asked to do....then resign....leave....depart....but do so honorably. You signed a contract when you entered....abide by the contract terms. You knew combat service was part of the job...nothing has changed...it still is and will continue to remain so.

For the record Dave....when confronted with the possibility of a third combat tour in Vietnam...I did just that....accepted my Honorable Discharge Certificate and returned to civilian life.

That also allows me to pass judgement on the comparative service records of both Bush and Kerry. Kerry served four months in Vietnam. He claimed wounds on three occasions. He never spent a night in hospital, nor received any stitches or underwent any surgery. He never missed a day of duty as a result of the three wounds he claimed were combat related. One of the wounds was very clearly self inflicted as a result of negligent use of a M79 grenade launcher.

Kerry while a serving Naval Officer (in the Reserves) went to Paris and made propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese. The very same kind of statements that other airmen, soldiers, marines, and sailors were being tortured to make. He protested Abu Grahib....but never...never....protested the torture of his own people by the enemy he was assisting.

I say it again....Kerry is a two faced lying weasel. He did not serve honorably.

Bush on the other hand did not see combat. He served. He did not brag about his service and make it a cornerstone of his campaign. Kerry did. Kerry got caught in that lie.

I would think twice about aligning myself with the likes of John Kerry if I were on active military service. It might be you in the torture chamber and a John Kerry type helping your enemy.

[Darth Nigel]

Nice post SASless, and thank-you for a very clear, forceful and well-put statement of your position. Never knew you were a moderate...

Disagree with this bit
They hate Bush and the Republican Party more than they love the country and forsake National interests for purely personal issues at a time when we are engaged in a war. There is a way to wage politics and also protest the war...but it should be done without giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Possibly in another thread (since this one has wandered into the familiar mud-bog); I'd be interested in how you would want a politician to "protest the war" without giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Serious question -- looking for an example for my education, not as an attempt to nit-pick your position)

[SASless]

Darth,

Start by telling the truth when making public statements.

Take a few fact finding trips to the place....see first hand what is going on.

Read the full intelligence summaries personally....form your opinion from the "best" data possible. Some of the biggest mouths never even read the intel summaries....bad as they were.

Had they...and had been as keen a mind as they claim...they would not have been so quick to vote for the resolution that allowed the President to take the actions he did.

They should attack the policy and not the man...they certainly have not done that.

Quiet statesmanship behind closed doors....persuasion works too....not standing out in front of the cameras getting face time and making such arse hole statements they do.

Every action they take should be weighed against the possible harm it presents....then...after careful consideration of the harm...and considering lives and limbs are at risk....do and say sensible, rational, reasonable things that work to persuade opinon. It would help if they had a real alternative proposal.

One must remember the Cut and Run Brigade....to the man and woman...voted for the Resolution...everyone of them.

It seems a bit two faced now....to shove all of the blame onto the President alone. It is entertaining to listen to sound bites from the period prior to the war starting....and now....from the critics. They sure did not object then....but do so now. I am not comfortable with that myself. You kick off the game....you play till the whistle blows at the end.

[Darth Nigel]

Good post. Thank you, SASless.

[RileyDove]

SASless - You are clear and precise in what you think John Kerry
did in helping the U.S loose the Vietnam War. Much as John Kerry and the likes of Fonda and other peace activists did to bring it to an end - I think the true blame can be put at the feet of some of the political decisions. The premature stop to the bombing of Hanoi which was demoralising the enemy and the inability to do anything about ships docking with SAM's had a lot more to do with it. Mr Kerry did his bit - I am sure with more research you will find that he did nothing there at all and it was all a dream he had . Faced with a choice however I am sure George W got the better posting ! Indeed why would he want to boast about being in Florida during the Vietnam War?
As for giving support to the enemy - your 'war on terror' was always fought abroad prior to 2001. He however had our war on terror at home a long time before the U.S felt outrages at home.
Indeed for a number of years the U.S was a refuge that IRA killer's could use safe in the knowledge that it would take years to get extradited to the U.K. Similarily the last British soldier to die in the troubles was killed by a Barrett 50 calibre sniper rifle.
This was support from within the U.S to aid terrorists - very much
a matter of aiding the enemy if you are this side of the pond.
I cannot remember rallys against this support happening in the U.S - or for that matter congress speaking out against it
and introducing draconian measures against the terrorists and their supporters.

[Dave Martin]

SASless,

Why? Because it is nothing more than a rant, using the tired old lines of putting troops at risk through wanting them safely home. I mean, if Mr. Stark's son on his 3rd tour of Iraq comes to any harm, perhaps Stark Jnr's father is to blame more than Murtha?

Murtha is doing more to save lives on both sides of this conflict than Mr Stark and his son are. That is admirable, and he's taking a lot of stick for it.

No, I love to hear views other than mine (that being most of the reason I loiter around on PPRUNE). Many thoughtful points have been put forward; this rant from Mr. Stark hardly qualifies.

Free Speech? Yep, I'm a big fan too. Kerry is a skunk? Yep, I agree again - I reckon he is from much the same build as the Republican leadership.

It isn't cut and run, SASless....it's a war we shouldn't have been in in the first place. Not that I don't think Iraq needed serious attending to, but it just didn't need us supporting it's **** regime in the first place, it did not need us contributing directly or indirectly to the deaths of tens, hundreds of thousands of people, at a time when we needed the average Muslim in the street to see us as acceptable human alternatives.

The Cut and Run Brigade are indirectly responsible for harm coming to our troops by using the war as a method of hopefully regaining their own lost power.

And the people who got the troops there in the first place, and who refuse to give a clear indication of when Iraq will belong to Iraqi's again are helping our troops stay alive? Orwell was a man ahead of his time.

They hate Bush and the Republican Party more than they love the country and forsake National interests for purely personal issues at a time when we are engaged in a war.

Sadly that is what you get when you run political regime like Bush's, that stridently marches out against half the population, let alone alienating the world population. He is hated to the extreme by most people on earth it would seem. Is it surprising that the Americans who don't support him will do anything they can to get him out? He is a liability and in my mind a bigger threat to America than Osama bin Laden could ever be.

His orders boil down to go to a combat area and attempt to save as many lives as possible.....not kill people.

If I was a doctor in 1939 Germany, I would have serious ethical issues with heading to the front knowing I would be directly supporting a war effort. The saving of lives is one thing, knowing that this role is being used to prop up a bloody and illegal war is another.

It's a fine line, I agree, but this man is putting his balls on the line with his decision, and I doubt very much he is getting an easy ride by chosing this approach.

Whether you agree with the reasons given...our countries and society in general are at "War" with a determined enemy which seek to destroy us. Iraq is but one campaign in that war.

I absolutely disagree with that. Every word of it. This is a convenient line to scare people and motivate them into supporting the unsupportable.

If you do not like what you are being asked to do....then resign....leave....depart....but do so honorably. You signed a contract when you entered....abide by the contract terms.

I enlisted, but I never expected I would be in a situation like Iraq. Fortunately with a bit of thought and using my own countries experience in Vietnam I realised I might just find myself engaging in something utterly wrong and couldn't possibly justify serving further in the knowledge my country could put me in that position. Some people might not have thought it through that far (the army relies on people not thinking these issues through), and I suspect the Doctor is perhaps one of them.

For the record, I certainly don't align myself with Kerry, but if given the choice of Kerry or Bush, Kerry would have it. That's a sad indictment on the state of US democracy.

Enough said from me....we are way off topic here.

[Tigs2]

NC43
Thank you so much for your yuletide greeting, the same of course goes to you. No i do not have an MBA i have an MSc and you still did not answer the questions posed.

SASless

Where did the Iraqis get Chemical and Biological weapons from, including the technology to manufacture these items in the long term???? Mmmm let me think, ooh i know it was the United States of America wasnt it. This entire mess was created by the USA and it all seems to be part of the Bush family 20 year business plan. To which businessman have the Bush family paid 100's of millions to ship Texan oil around the world??? Osama Bin Ladens Father! (owner of Bin Laden shipping), Mmm wondered why the only flights permitted in the USA the day after 9/11 were those flyng Saudi nationals and Royals out of country(including many members of the Bin Laden family -bet they could have helped with the investigation as to their brothers whereabouts!)

Bush wants to get rid of Islamic fundamentalists, when we went to War he said "God is on our side, God has told me to do it". We all worship the same God (there is but one!), why is he on our side?? It sounds to me like Bush is a Christian fundamentalist (we have seen what they are capable of in the 4th century BC and during the years of the Inquisition).

You talk about freedom and free speech, yet the USA is really not the best example example of such is it. With the latest reforms, you are not a free society and speech is not free. Why should i have to tune into liberal radio stations to get a realistic view of world events?Why can that not be done on any radio station? Is it because of things such as the chief press officer appointed to the Bush administration in the whitehouse was the husband of the CEO of CNN?. With the political gerrymandering that goes on in the USA it is not even a democracy. The Bush administration Illegally altered the political maps for the regions in which senetors represented. Even down to the extent of extending borders down particular roads known to be favourable to republicans. During your last elections the results were known before the event. There were only 17 seats that had to be contested because the outcome was unsure. The republicans will also change the law on eligibility for presidential nomination, guess who will be next for president to ensure the republican reign?? Arnold Swartznegger (sp?) mark my words. The USA is not a true democracy.

I have many good decent friends in the USA, and my heart goes out to the brave men and women doing their job in the military, but i get fed up with people who are utterly brainwashed into thinking that the USA should be the world vision of Utopia, because that is really scary. Maybe it would help the USA's outlook on how they should participate in world events if the people travelled more. Are you aware that only 3 % of americans have a passport. Even more scary is that out of the 160 odd countries in the world the USA has a military presence in 142!

Anyway getting back on track, if the Doc doesnt want to go then it is his Human democratic right to make that choice (yes maybe he shouldnt have joined but he has the right to decide, even if i dont agree with him)

merry christmas (seems like we're jousting again!)

Tigsy

[nutcracker43]

Tigs 2

OK I’ll bite just this last time. I imagined I had answered all your questions so I’ll do it in slow time .

What was won? The war was won (coalition were the victors) and events after the war, viz., the peace, is not being won. See dictionary for definition of victory. Whatever you mean it to be is purely up to you. The peace is the restoration of sevices, change of institutions and mindsets.

Do I think the guys did not predict the insurgency, yes I do think that because I fully believe they thought a different scenario would be the result. Iraq is not peopled by a homogenous group of people; they are ethnically diverse and do not have a common purpose. The greater number of the population were those people that SH persecuted and perhaps it was thought that they would be more sympathetic to coalition…the events post GW1 suggested something similar...sadly it has not turned out that way. The peace therefore is a mess and the document to which I alluded confirms that the US think the same way.

You did not say 50-100 per day are dying. Your precise words re deaths in Iraq were: ‘ Before we were there the iraqis did not have 50-100 people dying everyday’. My comprehension of that particular statement is that before our arrival fewer were dying; that before there were less. No Tigs, they had more and the information I provided was a correction of this small error on your part! After a war has been won it often becomes necessary to change the institutions and mindsets and whilst you did not mention mindsets and institutions, from the thrust of your mail I took it to be just that. In fact you never mentioned much and certainly didn’t back it up.

If you re-examine my mail you will see that I answered your questions.

Thank you, I bit (foolishly). Have a good festive season.

NC43

[Maple 01]

Where did the Iraqis get Chemical and Biological weapons from, including the technology to manufacture these items in the long term???? Mmmm let me think, ooh I know it was the United States of America wasn’t it

Wrong, try West Germany gave Iraq the CW capability......unless you mean the dual use stuff - which as the name suggests was civilian technology that could by misused by the end user. Just repeating the same anti-US rhetoric that has been disprooved time and time again doesn’t make it true

Better question is who makes Mirage F-1s, T-72s and Mig-29s?

[Seat 17]

Tigs2,

Why is it that anyone who fancies a bit of Yank Bashing always trots out that tired old stat about how many of them hold a passport?

I believe the number is closer to 5% but it's largely irrelevant. US citizens can travel to Canada, Mexico and most of the Carribean just on a driving license as well as all over their own country which is vast and covers just about every environment you could wish to visit - snow, forests, deserts, cities, coastline.

People do not generally hold a passport so they can expand their minds and knowledge of other cultures but just to go on holiday. If we could visit any country in Europe without a passport, how many Brits would bother having one (apart from the military obviously).

Next time you start equating a balanced, well-informed world view with holding a passport I suggest you consider our beloved chav masses who just hold one so they can go to Ibiza and the Costa del Sol to drink themselves into oblivion for 2 weeks a year!

Rant over.

Seat 17

[RileyDove]

Maple - Iraq became a republic in 1958. We supplied Iraq with Hawker Hunters which were a mainstay of their defences until the 1970's. In 1978 Iraq started to purchase Mirage F.1's and continued into the 1980's under Saddam's regime.
There is no doubt that had we had the chance to supply Iraq with equipment in the 1970's we would have. France was more than happy to take oil in exchange for arms in a very similar way to we did with the Saudi Tornado's.

[nutcracker43]

Riley Dove.

Just a thought. As a budding historian, a good area to look is RUSI (google and type in RUSI). Good, solid, balanced stuff. If you are doing this already, then please disregard.

NC43