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