RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riley
He absolutely should have been court martialled. Refusing a written, legal order as an officer - it doesn't get much worse.... If he was that abhorrent of our nation's actions then why didn't he resign when we invaded in 2003 (or before he did his two 'cushy' tours in the middle east outside of Iraq).
RileyDove said:
'His defence to be disallowed clearly indicates......an unwillingness to be able to examine the reasoning for the venture'
No, because this argument was appallingly misguided and legally incorrect (which has been dealt with very effectively by Squirrel and co earlier in this thread). This individual proclaims that he is an 'expert' at logic. But logic, allied with international law, cannot state that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (even if there is reason to question it in other ways). But he (or an articulate defence counsel) should have realised that even if a decision to go to war taken by a government was deemed illegal, he would not be in any way be personally liable or be in a position to refuse to partake in it. If (and it's a big if) he was a very senior officer, he may have had umbrage. But as a doctor (hardly SF or infantry) he could not reasonably raise the argument of illegality. He strikes me as one of these sad individuals who wraps themselves up in their own intellectual 'ability' without grasping common sense, the military, or the bigger picture....
If you join the forces you have to take the rough with the smooth....as long as it meets your social conscience. I have questioned things I've done. Yet I have taken the Queen's commission and am paid to do it. If I found it that abhorrent I would resign, as did Trooper Griffin. An SAS soldier, who has volunteered to the highest level of soldiering that his country can offer and fully served on the front line, has earned that right....
This idiot, immersed in his own self-important academia, has not. Yet I suspect he will not reflect on this as he repays (a rather small) part of the expansive salary he has drawn since he so 'vehemently disagreed' with service for a nation allied to one which he compares to the 'Nazi's' (whilst on a salary which happens to be far higher than those actually tasked with risking their lives).
A very poor show by this man......and I will not accept defence of him.
RAFLOO, as far as I have seen, has made some very reasonable comments. I'm curious as to what you object to?
He absolutely should have been court martialled. Refusing a written, legal order as an officer - it doesn't get much worse.... If he was that abhorrent of our nation's actions then why didn't he resign when we invaded in 2003 (or before he did his two 'cushy' tours in the middle east outside of Iraq).
RileyDove said:
'His defence to be disallowed clearly indicates......an unwillingness to be able to examine the reasoning for the venture'
No, because this argument was appallingly misguided and legally incorrect (which has been dealt with very effectively by Squirrel and co earlier in this thread). This individual proclaims that he is an 'expert' at logic. But logic, allied with international law, cannot state that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (even if there is reason to question it in other ways). But he (or an articulate defence counsel) should have realised that even if a decision to go to war taken by a government was deemed illegal, he would not be in any way be personally liable or be in a position to refuse to partake in it. If (and it's a big if) he was a very senior officer, he may have had umbrage. But as a doctor (hardly SF or infantry) he could not reasonably raise the argument of illegality. He strikes me as one of these sad individuals who wraps themselves up in their own intellectual 'ability' without grasping common sense, the military, or the bigger picture....
If you join the forces you have to take the rough with the smooth....as long as it meets your social conscience. I have questioned things I've done. Yet I have taken the Queen's commission and am paid to do it. If I found it that abhorrent I would resign, as did Trooper Griffin. An SAS soldier, who has volunteered to the highest level of soldiering that his country can offer and fully served on the front line, has earned that right....
This idiot, immersed in his own self-important academia, has not. Yet I suspect he will not reflect on this as he repays (a rather small) part of the expansive salary he has drawn since he so 'vehemently disagreed' with service for a nation allied to one which he compares to the 'Nazi's' (whilst on a salary which happens to be far higher than those actually tasked with risking their lives).
A very poor show by this man......and I will not accept defence of him.
RAFLOO, as far as I have seen, has made some very reasonable comments. I'm curious as to what you object to?
Last edited by Pongochap; 14th Apr 2006 at 23:33.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 50'11N 004' 16W
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear the main prosecution subject was the fact that although he disagreed in principle with the war and the ensuing orders,he continued to draw his salary whereas the honourable thing to do would be to resign his commision.
Im sure a glossy career as a celeb TV doctor awaits,as well as a medical column in various wimmins magazines,step aside Dr Hilary Jones or whatever he is called!
Im sure a glossy career as a celeb TV doctor awaits,as well as a medical column in various wimmins magazines,step aside Dr Hilary Jones or whatever he is called!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pongochap,
Well said!! The Military is not a democracy and can never be - even though the limp dick lefties would like it thus. Think carefully about it before you join and then don't if you can't face up to the possible consequences!! Regardless of any change in government in most prominent western democracies nothing on the international scene is going to change in the foreseeable future.
GAGS
E86
Well said!! The Military is not a democracy and can never be - even though the limp dick lefties would like it thus. Think carefully about it before you join and then don't if you can't face up to the possible consequences!! Regardless of any change in government in most prominent western democracies nothing on the international scene is going to change in the foreseeable future.
GAGS
E86
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have had a few different reactions to this story.
I don't agree with the UK, US and Australian and all the other members of the Coalition of the Willings commitment rationale for waging war in Iraq. I can't see that it is justifiable on a whole range of tests - including moral, strategic and political - maybe also humanitarian.
However, I think I must also agree that if this chap thought the same as me he would have done his case a whole lot more good by just resigning his commission.
I don't agree with the UK, US and Australian and all the other members of the Coalition of the Willings commitment rationale for waging war in Iraq. I can't see that it is justifiable on a whole range of tests - including moral, strategic and political - maybe also humanitarian.
However, I think I must also agree that if this chap thought the same as me he would have done his case a whole lot more good by just resigning his commission.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pongochap - Logic and indeed international law does not indicate in any way that the decision to attack Iraq was legal. It's all very well putting some old resolutions in the microwave for ten minutes and instantly making them new again but when you conduct 'spikes of activity' which were the biggest bombing raids since the end of GWI we were clearly in a position of going far beyond the terms of the no-fly' zones.
As for being held not responsible for the decisions of politicians - I should think there are a great number who would question this in relation to the briefings given by Sir Mike Jackson whilst the CM of the abuse soldiers was underway. There isn't a clear demarkation between the decision to go to war taken by politicians and how that war is conducted by the armed forces.
As for being held not responsible for the decisions of politicians - I should think there are a great number who would question this in relation to the briefings given by Sir Mike Jackson whilst the CM of the abuse soldiers was underway. There isn't a clear demarkation between the decision to go to war taken by politicians and how that war is conducted by the armed forces.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RileyDove
There isn't a clear demarkation between the decision to go to war taken by politicians and how that war is conducted by the armed forces.
We all know that he got 8/12 prison and dismissed from the service but somebody said the other day that he will do 4mths in a civvy prison and 4 on licence. My question is that Just because he was an Officer (which he is not now) what is stopping him serving his time in Colchester like other members of the RAF ?? and also will the as he was supposed to be posted to look after the Medical Welfare of all the servicemen and others which he REFUSED TO DO will the GMC take any action as to him practicing medicine after his prison sentence ???
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a GMC issue. They will not get involved.
So what do all you concrete-thinking Pongoes, who want to string him up and reckon Abu-Ghraib would be too good for him, think of the SAS trooper who decided he didn't want to go back to Iraq? That bloke was given a handshake from his colonel and an honourable discharge.
Let's not be under any illusions here. This fellow's real crime was not that he didn't want to go to Iraq, it was that he made a noise and embarrassed HM forces.
QDM
So what do all you concrete-thinking Pongoes, who want to string him up and reckon Abu-Ghraib would be too good for him, think of the SAS trooper who decided he didn't want to go back to Iraq? That bloke was given a handshake from his colonel and an honourable discharge.
Let's not be under any illusions here. This fellow's real crime was not that he didn't want to go to Iraq, it was that he made a noise and embarrassed HM forces.
QDM
So what do all you concrete-thinking Pongoes, who want to string him up and reckon Abu-Ghraib would be too good for him, think of the SAS trooper who decided he didn't want to go back to Iraq? That bloke was given a handshake from his colonel and an honourable discharge.
As for the SAS guy, he did as he was told on numerous occassions and then did the equivalent of resigning. Something the RAF chap didn't want to do. He also NEVER deployed to the actual war zone.
Let's not be under any illusions here. This fellow's real crime was not that he didn't want to go to Iraq, it was that he made a noise and embarrassed HM forces.
Actually it was the fact that he disobeyed a direct, Lawful and legal command.
Perhaps he should have been sentenced to X amount of community service as a NHS A&E Doctor (about 3 yrs would be right!)
Is that not what the SAS did....pat the embarrrasment on the back and show him the door quickish. Now run along lad....wish you well in all your endeavours kind of thing. No sense dragging the Regiment's nose in the muck for something like that.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timex - The Doctor had been deployed to Iraq - he was due another tour out there. He believed that the legality of the war and occupation had changed since his first visit.
Invading a country and installing a puppet government, then using an 'invitation' from those puppets to remain as a defence for the legality of the operation would be no different to the Third Reich using their relationship with Quisling as a justification for the invasion and occupation of Norway.
Trying to establish equivalence between the Nazi invasion and subjugation of Norway, and the invasion of Iraq, is a perversion of logic and demonstrates how desperate the poster must be to make an argument stick by making such an inaccurate comparison.
I don't see any Jews or (in Iraq's case) Muslims being rounded up and used for slave labour by the the Allies?!
But maybe the poster lives in a parallel (and different) world to the rest of us.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RileyDove
Pongochap - Logic and indeed international law does not indicate in any way that the decision to attack Iraq was legal. It's all very well putting some old resolutions in the microwave for ten minutes and instantly making them new again but when you conduct 'spikes of activity' which were the biggest bombing raids since the end of GWI we were clearly in a position of going far beyond the terms of the no-fly' zones.
But it was after, so he had no case. I would have thought, being so intelligent and all, he would have looked into that.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my God! I'm in full agreement with a Pongo. Must go and lie down.
RileyDove - have you read about the case at all? It will help you to construct arguments if you do.
RileyDove - have you read about the case at all? It will help you to construct arguments if you do.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is significant that the Kendall-Smith case has attracted so much debate from those who serve or who have served. I can think of no other time in which such a case would be debated - the consensus would be "lock him up and throw away the key".
This highlights the enormous controversy that surrounds the Iraq debacle - an illegal war based on lies and directed with the utmost incompetence.
This highlights the enormous controversy that surrounds the Iraq debacle - an illegal war based on lies and directed with the utmost incompetence.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as well then, that they don't lock politicians up for telling lies and getting HM Forces out there in the first place.
As for you die-hards that don't want to countenance anything that doesn't fit your world view, or incapable of thinking for yourself. . . . Good luck - one day you may reconsider (you might not of course but you'll have the choice).
As for the doc, I'd buy him a drink. His major crime was embarrassing HM Government - remember Spy Catcher? Governments get over it.
Just consider for a moment, he might have meant exactly what he said.
As for you die-hards that don't want to countenance anything that doesn't fit your world view, or incapable of thinking for yourself. . . . Good luck - one day you may reconsider (you might not of course but you'll have the choice).
As for the doc, I'd buy him a drink. His major crime was embarrassing HM Government - remember Spy Catcher? Governments get over it.
Just consider for a moment, he might have meant exactly what he said.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1991 a conditional ceasefire was signed between the coalition forces and Iraq, over a period of ten years Iraq made no effort to comply with any of the conditions of the cease fire and went out of their way to obstruct anyone tasked with ensuring compliance. Hostilities resumed in 2003. The war was not illegal, no further UN mandate was required. The UN were approached as a courtesy but without the knowledge that several countries that were members of the Security Council had their snouts firmly in the corruption trough by that time.
Had the war been illegal half the lawyers in the USA and many from the UK and elsewhere would have been queueing up to file their lawsuits long before now.
Had the war been illegal half the lawyers in the USA and many from the UK and elsewhere would have been queueing up to file their lawsuits long before now.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The war was not illegal, no further UN mandate was required.
If this premise is used, then there are many UN resolutions for which non-compliance could be cited as authority for war. At the time of the Iraq war, there were almost 90 UN Security Council resolutions being violated by nations other than Iraq. Israel and Turkey were frequent violators, and how desirable would it be to witness an attack on Israel or on Northern Cyprus citing breached resolutions?
The UK attorey-general's advice on the legality of military action was equivocal until he was told to come back with the correct answer. The only reason that no legal action is likely to be brought against the architects of this war is that they are still in power.
Any prospect of military action against Iran should be viewed from the outset as illegal. Nothing has changed since 2002 - no lessons have been learned or mistakes admitted.
Incidentally, I do not agree with Kendall-Smith's argument as there was a UN resolution in place at the time of his refusal, and he was not in a position in which his actions may have been contrary to laws regarding the conduct of war.
Last edited by JessTheDog; 17th Apr 2006 at 09:53.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Jess but you are quite wrong and the only person talking nonsense here is you.
The whole tone of your post is disappointingly subjective. Had a peace treaty been signed in 1991 your argument may have had some merit, but it wasn't and your argument doesn't. In 1991 a ceasefire, subject to certain conditions, was agreed, those conditions were never met and were deliberately ignored or evaded whilst wilful obstruction to the lawful force charged with the task of ensuring compliance was the order of the day. In 2003 hostilities resumed, there was no new war, GF2 doesn't actually exist.
I don't propose to enter the Hamster Wheel and repeat everything I have said but I stand by it, nevertheless.
The whole tone of your post is disappointingly subjective. Had a peace treaty been signed in 1991 your argument may have had some merit, but it wasn't and your argument doesn't. In 1991 a ceasefire, subject to certain conditions, was agreed, those conditions were never met and were deliberately ignored or evaded whilst wilful obstruction to the lawful force charged with the task of ensuring compliance was the order of the day. In 2003 hostilities resumed, there was no new war, GF2 doesn't actually exist.
I don't propose to enter the Hamster Wheel and repeat everything I have said but I stand by it, nevertheless.