RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Just because Kofi declares himself pure doesn’t mean he is
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.
Last edited by Maple 01; 3rd Nov 2005 at 20:44.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Charlie sends form the frontline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!'
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!'
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....
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....
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
'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
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Regaining Track
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by RileyDove; 12th Dec 2005 at 22:52.