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.