Conscientious Objection

[Otis Spunkmeyer]

Interesting article in the papers over the weekend comparing Suez Crisis to todays excitement.

Buried in the article was a short reference to a young Flying Officer who refused to go on a bombing mission in his Canberra (from Cyprus), got Court Martialled and served a year’s imprisonment for ‘for not carrying out a warlike operation without the utmost exertion’

I won’t mention his name as a google search reveals a chap of the same name heavily involved in aviation training. They might be one and the same. (Maybe a fellow PPRuNer knows the truth)

In the last year and a bit I’ve heard of two incidents of Hercules captains being threatened with court martials for attempting to refuse missions, unfortunately in both cases they gave way to the threats. Its not my place to elaborate much more on those cases, but in both cases I was amazed that the very chaps who you would hope to back you up, dissapear up their own @rses when the pressure is on, (which is why the Captain's decision should be final)

So, and I think you know where this is going, is it ‘if’ or ‘when’ that someone finally has the balls, and will we get to hear about it? Are there many examples of noble Blackadders telling their General Melchet's to think again?

[juliet]

thinking about this i can come up with only very few times when a captain would be able to refuse a mission, something along the lines of it being ordered in an illegal way. in what instance does someone have the right to refuse a mission? i know people will jump in and say when it means, for eg, the potential loss of the aircraft and crew. does that mean that the captain has the right to refuse to go? i dont really think so. i guess my point is that maybe its not a matter of people having the b*lls to stand up and refuse to do something but whether they even have the right to do so when ordered. feel free to steer my thoughts in a different direction.

[ORAC]

I don't see what the problem is.

If you believe an order is illegal despite being told otherwise then you have the option to refuse to obey it. You may, quite rightly, then be court-martialled for doing so. You may then make your case in a public forum. If you were wrong, you take your lumps.

If you believe the verdict was wrong you could appeal all the way up the international courts. (The publicity would significant and, if you were right, I do not believe it would ever go to trial).

If you wish to refuse on "moral", rather than legal grounds, then you also take your lumps. You should have thought about it when you joined. If someone can't take an order, just because they don't like it, they shouldn't have joined the armed forces in the first place - and should resign forthwith before being placed in such a potential situation.

[Sven Sixtoo]

The regulations (which stem from the law of the land) require you to carry out the mission as briefed. There is a caveat which applies in peacetime only, which says something about due regard for the safety of the crew, passengers and persons below. In war you get on with it. If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined. This does leave room for the lawyers to argue what constitutes a war. I would hope that the courts would take a broad view - if we ain't prepared to go, what have the taxpayers been wasting their money on?

[Used Ink]

Is sending our troops into this war an illegal order ?

1. If saddam was to go into excile, the war would be effectively cancelled.

2. If he stays put, the country gets bombed.

3. The US wants to get rid of one man for the cost of innocent civilians.

4. There is no proof to go to war with.

5. Since the Nurnburg trials, the statement " I was only following orders " stopped being an excuse for murder.

6. What happens when the message is passed "Saddam is dead "? Keep bombing or have a smoker?

Refuse an order on this basis and I'm sure the International courts of law will back you. (Only the US and us want a fight)

Sorry to bring it to basics, but someone has to.

[ORAC]

Used Ink, sorry.

The Gulf War was authorised by the U.N. It never ended, there was just a ceasefire based on Iraq's adverence to the terms of several U.N. resolutions. Breach of these allowed further action. These have been breached, and the U.N. has acknowledged this formally on several occasions. Please see my post here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77956&highlight=resolution)

The U.S.A. and UK established the no-fly zones and have been conducting combat operations almost incessantly for over 5 years based on the above. The legality of these operations has been accepted by the world community and all complaints of Iraq rebuffed. if you believe otherwise, you believe we have been commiting war crimes for several years. Seen any U.N. or Hague International Court accusations, warrants, trials or convictions? No? Point made I believe.

Any further action would be merely of a far greater scale - but based on the same premise. There might be a case for looking at individual actions/attacks based on proportionality and the Geneva conventional, but not for the action as a whole. No declaration of war would be made or required since it would constitute the recommencement of previous operations.

On individual points.

1. Operations have never been against Saddam but always Iraq. If Saddam were to go into exile and be replaced by, say, his son who continued to refuse to adhere to the U.N. resolutions, then operations would continue.

2. If Saddam stays put, but submits and adheres to the resolution, hostilities and sanctions would (after compliance had been confirmed) lifted. I don't think the U.S.A. would like it, and would watch him like a hawk, but I believe they'd agree to it.

3. If Iraq won't comply because of Saddam, then he'll be removed. They can remove him themselves or stand aside.

4. Factually incorrect. The U.N. has documented evidence of the prior presence of WMD material. Iraq has been asked to provide proof of it's destruction. In the absence of such proof the material must be deemed to still be in existence.

5. And your point is?

6. See point 1 above.

Refuse an order on the above grounds and you'll be Court-Martialled, imprisoned and then dismissed in full accordance with regulations and the law for disobedience of a lawful order.

Notes:

1. If you turned around and said you considered any such attack would be immoral and counter-productive, I can't say I'd disagree with you. That would not, however, make it illegal.

2. I would agree that one of the major wishes of Bush is to get Saddam. Legally, however, that's not the basis for any action, it's Just a fortunate side product. Bush was, however, persuaded by Powell and others to allow Iraq a last chance to comply in order to bring the U.N. on side. I think he probably only agreed since he did not believe that there was the faintest possibility of Saddam complying. It would seem he was correct and will achieve his wish.

3. If the U.S.A. believe there is a possibility of the Security Council refusing authorisation for an attack if asked - they won't ask. As stated above it's not a legal requirement. The reason for doing it are to build a coalition and the use of bases in other countries. If needs be, however, they'll go it alone. They have staked to much crediblility in the region to back down now. They shouldn't have got themselves in this situation - but they have. Now they have to go through with it or they'll never be able to face anyone down again, and it could prove disastrous in other crisis areas such as Korea and when confronting any other nascent nuclear power.

[rivetjoint]

What happens if Saddam does a bin Laden and goes off and hides?

14 months on from the start of OEF no one knows where he is, if he's alive, what he's doing, if he's in charge.

BUT if Saddam does the same will it matter as long as Bush gets control of the oil fields?

[ORAC]

RJ,

Saddam retains power because he has a rigid control of the reins of power in the country. If he disappeared for any period he'd lose it and an alternate regime would grasp them. he wouldn't dare appear again, let alone try to regain power.

Or do you think he's loved so much that the people would flock to his side in a popular uprising when he reappeared? :D

[A Civilian]

Well he did just get 100% of the popular vote in a recent poll :)

Nice post ORAC.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Otis

The Canberra captain at Nicosia did not just abort his mission. He raised the gear on the ground and thereby sabotaged one of HM aircraft. IMHO he got off lightly.

Most of those who doubt the morality or wisdom of a possible second Gulf war seem to do so because they think the evidence of Iraqi WMD lacks substance. In 1991 the casus belli was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which was plain for all the world to witness. This time the evidenece is intelligence-based and, as is always with intelligence, the raw material cannot be revealed or the sources would cease to exist very quickly (and horribly). You have to trust those who have implicitly underwritten the intelligence assessments.

Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed.

If the evidence supporting continued Iraqi WMD manufacture/acquisition was too slight or conjectural to justify the commitment of the British armed forces, I am certain that by now these great men would have blown the gaff. We might have seen a letter to The Times signed by CDS, the COS, the Cabinet Secretary, the Chairman of JIC and the DGs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (and of course the Archbishop of Canterbury!). Try sacking that lot!

[Used Ink]

ORAC,

Did you watch question time this evening?

Yes = I rest my case

No = Read my post again.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one" Adolf Hitler: 'Mein Kampf'

War does not determine who is right, only who is left.... Bertrand Russell

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities - Voltai

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Gensha


And finally

No matter how far you have gone on a wrong road, turn back. Turkish Proverb[COLOR=blue]


Thanks to http://www.willnewman-littlesister.co.uk/quotes.htm[SIZE=1]

[ORAC]

I make a case, you ask "did you watch the telly".

No, I'm half a world away, and the talking heads on TV here disagree (and there are more channels!).

I at least took the time to make a case. You either can't refute it or can't even be bothered to attempt to. I pointed out that, if you were right, a formal charge would have been brought over the attacks made over the past 10 years. There haven't. How do you counter this?

As for quotes about war:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill

We make war that we may live in peace
- Aristotle

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke

Moral indignation is in most cases 2% moral, 48% indignation and 50% envy.
- Vittorio de Sica.

The fact that slaughter [battle] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [it does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.
- Carl Von Clausewitz

The justest dispositions possible in ourselves, will not secure us against it [war]. It would be necessary that all other nations were just also. Justice indeed, on our part, will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But how can we prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish often prevents them.
- Thomas Jefferson

There. Didn't prove much did it? :rolleyes:

[Used Ink]

Yep, I guess this will go nowhere.

Open your eyes and see/listen to what the feeling is around you and back in blighty. Half a world away and more channels. mmmm.
Then youre a bit out of touch and watching rubbish!

I like the quote that you chose,

We make war that we may live in peace
- Aristotle :confused:

My last post on the matter, I think will prove how narrow minded you are, goes along the lines of,

'Fighting for peace is like fxxxxxg for virginity'

:D

[ORAC]

Ah, what an intellectual closing remark. "You am out of touch and talking rubbish " - "I will prove you are narrow minded" - followed by another mindless quotation (and not even original :p).

Gosh, you really demolished my arguments there. Picked holes right through them with incisive wit and logic. I feel quite humbled. :D

[shack]

As someone who was in the queue at the holding point behind the aforementioned gentleman when he managed a ground retraction I can assure you that my opinion is unrepeatable.

[Otis Spunkmeyer]

Aha! Back on topic.

Emergency undercarriage retraction with a full bomb bay!!

Barking mad. The Riggers and Bombheads must have been delighted.

Did he claim conscientious objection there and then or finger trouble (or brake failure)?

[A Civilian]

Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed.

Just having watched All the presidents men on TV last night you'd be amazed at what susposedly honest men would do if they think they can get away with it.

Since were all providing quote how about this People with intelligence will use it to fashion things both true and false and will try to push through whatever they want with their clever reasoning. This is injury from intelligence.

Nothing you do will have effect if you do not use truth.

[saudipc-9]

ORAC - 1
Used Ink - 0
:D

[ClearBlueWater]

ORAC may have taken the time to put together a well argued point of view but that doesn't make his opinion correct.

Anyone who takes the time to read the well argued alternative viewpoints, which carry the support of the world's majority (can they all be wrong?), in the quality press will have seen that the reasoning for going to war with Iraq stretches credulity.

As professional military men you are inclined to wish to test your mettle but be prepared for a home coming committee similar to the one the American GIs got following their experiences in Vietnam. Admittedly you don't have much choice in the matter and I wish you all a safe return home. It's just a real shame, most of all a shame on Bush and Blair, that you'll be killing men, women and children without any moral justification on offer from any independent source.

Sorry chaps but that's how most of your nation and the rest of the world feels about this. I work and live in a fairly right wing environment and I don't know anyone who supports the intended war regardless of legalistic argument one way or the other.

The USA and UK will at some point soon present its final case for the need for war but the argument has been lost and a doubting world public will sniff rat in any last minute supporting 'evidence' that has been hitherto missing.

[ORAC]

CBW,

To be fair, I was making the legal case, not the moral one.

Why? Because that was the question asked. If you at the first line of the thread, the question was, "Is sending our troops into this war an illegal order".

If you want to move on, change the subject, and discuss moral arguments, then fine. But I believe I made my case over the question asked. And in terms of the consequences, the effects of disobeying a legal order can be harsh.

The military do not have the freedom to make decisions based on their own moral qualms.

[ClearBlueWater]

ORAC, fair point. However, moving on, whether or not going to war with Iraq is legal is not of genuine interest to anyone apart from the lawyers who want to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful leaders and the leaders themselves who are desperate for a way out of the mess they're digging themselves into. There's a cosy little relationship up for grabs there.

Does anyone think that Bush and Blair give a monkey's cuss if a particular lawyer or the UN opines that a war is illegal. They'll just get someone else to opine it is legal. At the end of the day the situation is so complex that legal opinion will be split and the great leaders (my mistake, that title's already been grabbed by evil Kim) will cling to the one that favours their actions.

It's a right disgrace that makes a change from a right royal disgrace.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Civilian

With due respect, I would hesitate to draw any conclusions from American fiction as to how honourable men behave in the upper reaches of Whitehall.

[A Civilian]

I dont class the bringing down of the Nixon government, the jailing of half a dozen senior Nixon aids for using FBI, CIA and Justice personnel to spy on the Democrats and when discovered attempting to cover it up a piece of fiction.

If this can happen in America what do you think can happen in the UK were any information disclousure no matter if its government secrets or your simply telling telling a person the way to the bus stop is a breech of the offical secrets act. And let me remind you that public librarians have to sign the offical secrets act :confused: Calling this country's leaders 'honourable' is like saying the Soviet Union was full of peace loving workers and peasents. They operate in this way 'because they like it this way'.

No other government in western europe is as oppressive on personnel freedoms as are own, no other government's workings occur in such oppressive secrecy as are own, no other government frankly doesn't give a toss about us chattering classers...err...excuse me voters as are own.

I vote for the party of one as frankly in this Great Britian of are's you can only trust yourself.

[Flatus Veteranus]

I beg your pardon, Civilian, I tried to stay awake for that piece of docudrama and failed. I still find it impossible to believe, having
worked in the MOD as a serving officer and later as a civil servant, that the sort of criminal conspiracy you describe could happen there.

Having been subjected to clearance to the highest levels under the OSA, including regular investigations of my peronal lfe, I need no lectures from you on the rigours and abuse of the Act. Nevertheless, when I refer to men of honour I am not talking about politicians but about very senior service officers and civil servants. Making due allowance for a few human foibles (like a recent CDS's sexual peccadillo) I believe they are as near incorruptible as any public servants who have ever walked the face of this planet.

A very large number of servicemen are having to face up to the probability that they will soon be going to war. They are probably representative of the population at large in doubting that a sufficently convincing casus belli has yet been made. Nevertheless they have to do their duty. Warriors are usually driven, not by high-flown commitment to "God, Queen and Country". (Leave that sort of rhetoric to the politicians and bishops!) Soldiers, sailors amd airmen care above all for the good opinion of their comrades. Their self-esteem depends on not letting the team down.

I do not know what sort of game you are playing at on this forum, Civilian, trying to undermine the confidence of the services in their professional leadership. Perhaps you flatter yourself that you can spark some sort of revolt or mutiny. Well forget it.
You just come across as a rather silly (and semi-literate) little prat.

[A Civilian]

I respect your views but I must state what I think. I gave a promsie not to discuss iraq-uk stuff because quite frankly telling people what to do during war time when I sit at a work station all day with central heating is not on.

I used to also belive in Britian but as I got older and found out more and more how things work the more apathitic I became. I've never been in trouble with the police, never been on any sort of demo's or stuff like that and belive it or not ive never even had a speeding ticket :) All I know is one day whilist at a friends house he rang the police to stop a riot that was going on outside his house and the policemans reply back was 'why are you telling us'. This is the current state of the society we live in, you have to look after yourself in this world, likewise do not expect anyone to help you simply because there the government and thats their job.

[PETERJ]

Could I as a non-miltary person ........broaden the arument . You are in the Uk military you are technically "outlaws" ie you are outwith the laws which apply to non-military UK civilians and you are voluntarily so .......governed by Queen's Regulations . You therefore have no "moral existence"......you exist as a legal entity defined by Queen's Regulations and nothing more. Don't believe me......well the Nuremberg " I was only obeying orders" defence didn't hold up .

So you know that before you join ( or you should) so the argument that "I'm not going to do that someone could get killed " doesn't hold water. You rely on people higher up the chain of command for moral judgements ......just don't try it on your own........Victorian or Feudal...? take your pick!!!!!!!!!

Good luck and thanks to you all especially during the difficult months ahead .

[ORAC]

PeterJ, you do not understand the Geneva Convention, the protocols or their applicability. Stop being patronising, and stick to things you understand.

War crimes are divided into three categories.

a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties.

b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property including, but not limited to, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.

Those liable for indictment under category A are the heads of state and their cabinets, ministers of the armed forces and the senior military leadership of the offending nation. Under this category, "I was only obeying orders" is acceptable - which is why every member of the German armed forces wasn't tried at Nurenberg.

All members of the armed forces are liable for indictment under categories B & C. Which is why you will find many lawyers present in a military HQ to judge the acceptability of a target and advise on themes such as proportionality.

I assure you that, at the AHQ level, I was well aware of the legal and ethical implications of my decisions. I think you will find that those in the military are as much concerned as anyone else, and perhaps more so. But, where it is legal, they also have a duty to obey.

[akula]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


WHAT ARE YOU ALL THINKING!!!!!!!
we work for an organisation that has the word force in it's name, never mind all this chat about illegal orders, get your ar*e in gear and do what you are paid for--the application of force!!!


ALWAYS assume NEVER check

[BEagle]

Befehl ist befehl, nicht wahr?




.

[PETERJ]

Orca,


"where it is legal, they also have a duty to obey."



Sorry if I touched a nerve , didn't mean to . Thought I as making a contribution to a serious discussion.

You make my point perfectly..........who decides what is legal ? Refusal to obey an order on the grounds that it would be in contravention of Classes B and C of the War Crimes definition in the Geneva Convention and therefore illegal is not I suspect likely to go down well in front line, sharp end situations. The assumption appears to be that all orders are legal unless proved not to be so . And that might take some time post facto !!

Not trying to be seditious.......far from it ........just trying to point out that as well as the Queen's Shilling there are other things that go with it ...........like QR's......and that makes you lot different from us lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[ORAC]

I'm sorry, you're missing the point. it's the individual who has to make the decision. He/she can't rely on anyone else.

Lest you think this is an elitist opinion, I can assure that, post the Clegg case and others, it was always forcibly put even by the regiment NCO during firearm training that the written ROE provided were only for guidance and we should all know our responsibilities and rights, as we could well end up having to justify our actions in a court of law.

If an order is illegal, the individual is bound under law and regulation to refuse to obey it. If it is legal he should obey. If there are those who believe that they cannot abide by that, the have a moral obligation to make their point known now, not when they may be placing the lives of others at risk.

[Pindi]

I, too, was in the queue behind that aeroplane at Nicosia during Op. Musketeer. But was it really an act of conscientious objection ?

[Flatus Veteranus]

Pindi

Memories of '56 inevitably grow dim. But I believe his defence at his Court Martial was was one of conscience. Of course there was no Courts Martial Appeals in those days, and the European Court did not exist. But presumably the Court came to the very reasonable conclusion that the pilot could have gone to his boss and said "sod this for a game of soldiers" (or words to that effect) and he would probably have been dealt with administratively under LMF procedures. But you do not sabotage one of HM aircraft as a matter of conscience! :(

[Studly]

What the majority of us forget is:

1. Sanctions don't work! Saddam wouldn't be accused of WMP manufacture if they did, his people wouldn't be malnourished and oil would flow freely to the west!

2. Saddam is a CIA puppet who's gone rogue! Ergo it's him we want not the Iraqi public.

3. The no fly campaign is very manly and dangerous - just ask the bombed people of Iraq about it's success.

4. Islamic people will join together in a crisis; the fifth column is already in place throughout the western world (read about the recent arrests) and we start a war and hell will break out in the homelands.

5. Exile is a good option or total eradication; but the latter could be seen as a "war crime".

6. Let's hope our politicians really tell the truth about how bad things are at home and not try to cover-up with an unneccessary and wasteful war.

[FishHead]

Forgive me if it's off topic, but what's the story behind the Canberra at Nicosia? Sounds like an interesting tale - any links to a BOI report or similar?

FH

[SASless]

For Civvie...

First part of this edited prior to submission (not very flattering to Civvie!)....the vote had exactly one candidate.....except for the state of Florida maybe....it would follow the only candidate would garner all the votes! Sheesh!

Or are you so naive as to believe a "write-in" candidate could have won the poll in Iraq?

[A Civilian]

I can't comment on what I wrote.

[laidbak]

I propose a new forum, for the likes of posters who can't (intellectual limitations) or won't (who knows why) try to apply reason, logic and courtesy in their posts.

This is OK if the subject lends itself to banter,badinage and such ( viz 'The Most Beautiful Woman In The World' thread etcetera), and banter per se is fine on 'serious' subjects if reason etc. obtains in the posts.

This thread contains at least two cogently argued and reasoned submissions with different viewpoints. A lot of it though is just static.

The title of the new forum ?



Jackass.

[Used Ink]

Lets remind ourselves of what was said before some of us got sand between our toes.

Bet some of you are feeling a bit silly now!

[TC27]

If I were the author of this comment I would be feeling very stupid right now, if people doubt the moral justification for this conflict they will take it up with the goverment not the armed forces.
To me it looks like our armed forces went it , did the the job (not forgetting all the people who are still in Iraq) and came back with quiet professionalism which is something the vast majority of people will take pride in.



As professional military men you are inclined to wish to test your mettle but be prepared for a home coming committee similar to the one the American GIs got following their experiences in Vietnam. Admittedly you don't have much choice in the matter and I wish you all a safe return home. It's just a real shame, most of all a shame on Bush and Blair, that you'll be killing men, women and children without any moral justification on offer from any independent source.

Sorry chaps but that's how most of your nation and the rest of the world feels about this. I work and live in a fairly right wing environment and I don't know anyone who supports the intended war regardless of legalistic argument one way or the other.

[Used Ink]

Quote

"if people doubt the moral justification for this conflict they will take it up with the goverment not the armed forces."

I think you'll find that is the case.

People were against the armed forces being ordered in by the government. If you bothered to look at any reportage on the matter you would have seen the protests which were/are against Blair and Bush.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe they have been serving troops in recent times! (literally)

Blair + Bush = government


He shoots...he scores....oops, past his own goalie!

How does the tune go in the last 3 seconds of countdown?

[TC27]

Err, okay so you agree with me then?