RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just hope he has a good brief that understands the laws of armed conflict and the difference between Jus an bellum and Jus in bello (I think that's the correct spelling). Ie there is a difference between declaring a war justly - the breach of which is considered an offence by a nation state's leadership - and the conduct of a war justly - the breach of which is an offence by combatants.
It is a principle of law that an officer/sailor/soldier/airman cannot be committing a 'war crime' if the war itself is illegal - that is the domain of the leadership. They can commit a 'war crime' if they breach the laws and customs of armed conflict during the prosecution of the war (legal or not).
As for the current situation. The coalition forces are in Iraq to fulfill a UN mandate. Therefore, the current deployments are legal (no matter what you opinions of the legality of the invasion are).
It is a principle of law that an officer/sailor/soldier/airman cannot be committing a 'war crime' if the war itself is illegal - that is the domain of the leadership. They can commit a 'war crime' if they breach the laws and customs of armed conflict during the prosecution of the war (legal or not).
As for the current situation. The coalition forces are in Iraq to fulfill a UN mandate. Therefore, the current deployments are legal (no matter what you opinions of the legality of the invasion are).
Last edited by Climebear; 17th Oct 2005 at 16:16.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry,
Sounds like the New Labour 15 minutes of fame slot to me so prevalent in our celebrity cult country which Bliar has created.
If he wanted to make a principled stand, he should have resigned but of course in civvies his voice would have been a fart in a thunderstorm. He's using the uniform to make a personal point and we are all the poorer in the public eye for it.
Sounds like the New Labour 15 minutes of fame slot to me so prevalent in our celebrity cult country which Bliar has created.
If he wanted to make a principled stand, he should have resigned but of course in civvies his voice would have been a fart in a thunderstorm. He's using the uniform to make a personal point and we are all the poorer in the public eye for it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll say it again for those of you without the sense to see the issue here - this man is a disgrace, this is not a matter of conscience, his brief even admitted it wasn't conscientious objection is was just that his client didn't think that the war was legal! What legal training and special insight does he have to allow him to make such a high-minded judgement?
Gorilla, over all the years that I have read posts on this site you have been a continuous source of whining and barrack room lawyer cr@p - I don't believe that we are 'reviled by the general public', I understand that you have left the service that disgusts you so and I for one am glad to see the back of you. You were supposedly once one of us, but I bet you were one of those guys continually passed over for promotion because 'my boss didn't like me' - or was it because you were a pain in the butt for all your colleagues?
I hope that this man does the honourable thing, resigns his commission and b~ggers off back under the rock that he popped out from under. I reiterate, I am not a fan of Tony B, I didn't vote for him, but he is the elected leader of this country and despite his mistakes the people recently re-elected him - that should tell you something.
This is not about politics but about individuals in the service who have taken the kudos and money living up to their responsibilities to their comrades. Anyone that has been in combat knows that when the sh!t starts flying its about looking after the friends around, trust and respect for the guys and girls in the same trouble as you. Politics is the last thing on your mind when your wingman has a mx directed at him, its about not letting him down. I believe strongly that this man is not making a principled stand - he is letting the RAF and the troops on the ground down. As an Officer and 'leader' he is letting me down. Many of us in the services have lost friends or had them badly injured out there - this mans behaviour is not honourable and is not honouring them.
If you want a big hug fella then clearly Gorilla is your man, he 'reviles' the services, personally I'd like to give you a kick up the @rse and send you on your way.
Oh and while I am on a roll, An Teallach, I have plenty of time in that place and others as bad to my credit thats why this t0sser has me so infuriated - why should my wife have to put up with me going away, again and again, when I wear the same uniform as this political pawn who as a Doctor probably gets paid more than me for doing nothing. I go back to my earlier post, of all people a Doctor should be apolitical in all this. The guys on the ground in Basra need his expertise more than mine right now.
Gorilla, over all the years that I have read posts on this site you have been a continuous source of whining and barrack room lawyer cr@p - I don't believe that we are 'reviled by the general public', I understand that you have left the service that disgusts you so and I for one am glad to see the back of you. You were supposedly once one of us, but I bet you were one of those guys continually passed over for promotion because 'my boss didn't like me' - or was it because you were a pain in the butt for all your colleagues?
I hope that this man does the honourable thing, resigns his commission and b~ggers off back under the rock that he popped out from under. I reiterate, I am not a fan of Tony B, I didn't vote for him, but he is the elected leader of this country and despite his mistakes the people recently re-elected him - that should tell you something.
This is not about politics but about individuals in the service who have taken the kudos and money living up to their responsibilities to their comrades. Anyone that has been in combat knows that when the sh!t starts flying its about looking after the friends around, trust and respect for the guys and girls in the same trouble as you. Politics is the last thing on your mind when your wingman has a mx directed at him, its about not letting him down. I believe strongly that this man is not making a principled stand - he is letting the RAF and the troops on the ground down. As an Officer and 'leader' he is letting me down. Many of us in the services have lost friends or had them badly injured out there - this mans behaviour is not honourable and is not honouring them.
If you want a big hug fella then clearly Gorilla is your man, he 'reviles' the services, personally I'd like to give you a kick up the @rse and send you on your way.
Oh and while I am on a roll, An Teallach, I have plenty of time in that place and others as bad to my credit thats why this t0sser has me so infuriated - why should my wife have to put up with me going away, again and again, when I wear the same uniform as this political pawn who as a Doctor probably gets paid more than me for doing nothing. I go back to my earlier post, of all people a Doctor should be apolitical in all this. The guys on the ground in Basra need his expertise more than mine right now.
Last edited by DESPERADO; 16th Oct 2005 at 20:19.
Instinctively, I'd side with (gulp) 'Always Broken'. Talk of treason, shooting at dawn and latrine digging sounds like ignorant far right nonsense to me.
Had he refused to go to support the initial invasion, I'd line up with AT and RLE and would support the bloke's right to refuse to obey what he may have believed was an illegal order.
Except that he's a medic. Shouldn't he be going (like a WWI CE ambulance driver) whether the war was morally right or wrong? Isn't his part in ops always morally right (saving lives, looking after the health and welfare of his patients and comrades)? No-one's asking him to go and kill as part of an illegal war, after all.
And above all, I'd ask (as JtD asked more intelligently) what's illegal about the PRESENT, ongoing op.
There must be people here, from Kinloss, who know the bloke and who will know whether he's genuine but misguided, or is simply looking for an easy way out and a way to avoid unwelcome service in the sandy shi.thole.
Had he refused to go to support the initial invasion, I'd line up with AT and RLE and would support the bloke's right to refuse to obey what he may have believed was an illegal order.
Except that he's a medic. Shouldn't he be going (like a WWI CE ambulance driver) whether the war was morally right or wrong? Isn't his part in ops always morally right (saving lives, looking after the health and welfare of his patients and comrades)? No-one's asking him to go and kill as part of an illegal war, after all.
And above all, I'd ask (as JtD asked more intelligently) what's illegal about the PRESENT, ongoing op.
There must be people here, from Kinloss, who know the bloke and who will know whether he's genuine but misguided, or is simply looking for an easy way out and a way to avoid unwelcome service in the sandy shi.thole.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the comments above, you're all missing the point. This idiot is a doctor so is not being sent to fight anyone. He's being sent to provide medical care to those Servicemen and Servicewomen already based out there. Indeed, the Hipocratic Oath dictates that he must provide equal care to all he treats, whichever side they're on (if 'sides' can be applied in this situation).
I knew one of the Padres sent to Iraq in the very early stages of the conflict. He had similar deep-seated misgivings about the morality of the action but took the view that his duty was to support the troops that were sent so that is what he did. I doubt he ever 'came round' to supporting the intervention but he did the job he was paid to do.
This Kendall-Smith clown should do his job or resign his commission.
The controversial and flippant punchline:
If he just doesn't want to go, why doesn't he just get himself downgraded like everyone else!!
N Joe
(Clearly Jackonicko hasn't missed the point, he just typed quicker than I did)
I knew one of the Padres sent to Iraq in the very early stages of the conflict. He had similar deep-seated misgivings about the morality of the action but took the view that his duty was to support the troops that were sent so that is what he did. I doubt he ever 'came round' to supporting the intervention but he did the job he was paid to do.
This Kendall-Smith clown should do his job or resign his commission.
The controversial and flippant punchline:
If he just doesn't want to go, why doesn't he just get himself downgraded like everyone else!!
N Joe
(Clearly Jackonicko hasn't missed the point, he just typed quicker than I did)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperado - take a chill or you'll soon be needing the services of said officer's colleagues. I suspect he will only get paid more than you if you are no higher than flt lt aircrew or an NCO. I do not agree with his stand as I have also had to do my time sausage side a few times, however, the info in the public domain is that this man has also done his operational wack. Therefore, he is probably not a war-dodger and is either a highly principled individual with big balls willing to take a stand for his views or is attempting to get out of paying his medical cadet scholarship back for an early PVR.
I have lost friends through action but do not see him in the same light as you. Do you honestly believe he would forsake his medical obligations by refusing to go back to Iraq.
I don't know the man, would probably avoid him in the bar but do I see him bringing disrepute to my Service in the manner you describe No. Let the courts do their thing, allow him his 15 minutes of fame and thank whatever your god is that there are hundreds more RAF medics who have and will continue to serve with distinction.
Time for my chil pill now
I have lost friends through action but do not see him in the same light as you. Do you honestly believe he would forsake his medical obligations by refusing to go back to Iraq.
I don't know the man, would probably avoid him in the bar but do I see him bringing disrepute to my Service in the manner you describe No. Let the courts do their thing, allow him his 15 minutes of fame and thank whatever your god is that there are hundreds more RAF medics who have and will continue to serve with distinction.
Time for my chil pill now
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deep breaths, Desperado. And ... relax.
Actually, I hadn't counted you as being in the hanging / shooting brigade. Although your ire is well vented, I didn't see any advocacy of death for this chap in your earlier post.
Jackonico
I believe I said I could see where this chap was coming from and that the Govt had contributed to this mess by bringing lawyers to the battlefield.
Extrapolating from that that I support what this chap has done is perhaps stretching my words a bit far, is it not?
Actually, I hadn't counted you as being in the hanging / shooting brigade. Although your ire is well vented, I didn't see any advocacy of death for this chap in your earlier post.
Jackonico
I'd line up with AT and RLE and would support the bloke's right to refuse to obey what he may have believed was an illegal order.
Extrapolating from that that I support what this chap has done is perhaps stretching my words a bit far, is it not?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the law is as climebear suggests (and I don't doubt it) he doesn't have leg to stand on. It's not his fault his Government decided to go to war, but it's up to him to fight it within the "rules of law". Except that he's a doc so he doesn't fight and he's been before so he didn't think the problem was big enough then. Eejit's heading for a sacking at best and jail at worst (switch best and worst depending on how you feel).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you honestly believe he would forsake his medical obligations by refusing to go back to Iraq
I don't need to be told to chill thanks my friend I am perfectly calm, I just happen to believe that things such as honour, integrity and loyalty in the face of adversity still matter. Perhaps I am old fashioned (still in my mid thirties) but this man has completely missed the point of being in the service. How is this not bringing disripute to the service??????? I would imagine our colleagues in the Army who are currently deployed in Basra, yet again, might have something to say about that.
The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it. People who wear the uniform of the UK should have the knowledge that whatever our sometimes corrupt and misguided politicians put them through, they can rely on their mates to help them out. I could care less if this bloke has been to Afghanistan or wherever, he is needed in Iraq and he should get off his @rse, sack his cardigan wearing Barrister and get himself where he can do some good. If not lets dishonourably discharge him and forget he ever existed. I don't wish to hang him or shoot him but I would like to look him in the eye and tell him to his face what I think of him.
I really do get tired of the cuddly, PC 'everyone is entitled to set free their feelings' kind of world we live in. This guy is not entitled to do this while countrymen in uniform are getting hurt, period. Dress it up any way you want but he is a fraud as a Doctor and an RAF Officer and he shames us all.
Damn, I am getting all angry again.
An Teallach, if I misunderstood you I apologise.
Gorilla, still want to know where it is that you live that everyone 'reviles' us in the RAF?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy will get his 15 minutes of fame and then leave the service. I think the days of honesty and loyalty in government
and the services are very much on the slide. For instance the soldiers prosecuted in Germany in the summer can hardly have had unbiased public opinion when the Army chose to release
pictures of their activities long before the court martial was over.
Similarily the 'spikes of activity' levelled against Iraq long before the war started in earnest can hardly be described as coming within any UN mandate . It's great to think that the 'war'
is over - however the indications seem to suggest that whilst
we might have signed the paperwork to say so - the insurgents
have only just started their war.
and the services are very much on the slide. For instance the soldiers prosecuted in Germany in the summer can hardly have had unbiased public opinion when the Army chose to release
pictures of their activities long before the court martial was over.
Similarily the 'spikes of activity' levelled against Iraq long before the war started in earnest can hardly be described as coming within any UN mandate . It's great to think that the 'war'
is over - however the indications seem to suggest that whilst
we might have signed the paperwork to say so - the insurgents
have only just started their war.
L'enfant Terrible
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The bar of Mumbles rugby club
Age: 42
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I agree with the guy's sentiments regarding the (il)legality of the 'war', I can't help but feel his argument is cheapened by the shock value of him being a serving Officer. An extremely talented bloke with a bright future was prepared to leave the service he loved in order to stick to his principles. I believe he should do the same.
However, talk of hanging etc is simply purile.
However, talk of hanging etc is simply purile.
“Malcolm joined the RAF out of a spirit of idealism. He felt he wanted to do something good, to make a difference. It was good old battle of Britain stuff,
As for his legal point - good luck to him. It will be interesting.
"The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it."
I really hope you didn't mean that.
Bliar took the UK into Iraq quite illegally, it seems to have been concluded. But whether this doctor's actions are contrary to military law is something for the court to decide, not PPRuNe.
And as for senior officers making judgements on here whilst the case has yet to go to trial, sorry mate, but I think you're playing into the hands of the defence.
I really hope you didn't mean that.
Bliar took the UK into Iraq quite illegally, it seems to have been concluded. But whether this doctor's actions are contrary to military law is something for the court to decide, not PPRuNe.
And as for senior officers making judgements on here whilst the case has yet to go to trial, sorry mate, but I think you're playing into the hands of the defence.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Oct 2005 at 15:49.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The consequence of this chap continuing through the courts and setting precedence in Brussels would be very interesting.”
On appeal, following a guilty verdict against Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith at a General Court Martial, would defence solicitor Justin Hugheston-Roberts be briefing QC Cherrie Booth, luminary of Matrix Chambers, Gray’s Inn, London, in preparation for pleas to both the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, at which latter court, she has so far achieved unparalleled success?
On appeal, following a guilty verdict against Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith at a General Court Martial, would defence solicitor Justin Hugheston-Roberts be briefing QC Cherrie Booth, luminary of Matrix Chambers, Gray’s Inn, London, in preparation for pleas to both the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, at which latter court, she has so far achieved unparalleled success?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The legality or otherwise of this conflict/war/police action are really completely unimportant when it comes down to it."
The second issue is one of loyalty to friends and colleagues in the line of fire. Looking after each other in a time of need. This is apolitical and has nothing to do with Tony and his chums. It is what I believe should still count for a lot in the military - we don't have the real support of the govt all we have is each other and if you think that is unimportant in relation to the pompous political claptrap that this guy is stirring up then I believe you are wrong. A serving Officer, a Doctor, takes it upon himself to patronise the rest of us in this way is a disgrace. He should leave and join the Lib Dems if he wants to play politics, or he should get on with his job and stop whining. In case some hadn't noticed, he is still in the military - that still comes with some basic responsibilities that this guy seems to think don't matter.
Perhaps I am too jaded from all the other cr@p that we have to put up with these days, but to me this really feels like a betrayal by one of our own. Like it or not, thats how I feel.
Bliar took the UK into Iraq quite illegally, it seems to have been cocncluded. But whether this doctors actions are contrary to military law is something for the court to decide, not PPRuNe.
Beagle I respect your 'zen master of the mil forum' status that you have cultivated and your military credentials but I believe that this Forum needs to discuss these issues to their logical conclusion not tip toe around it nervously. We are not 'deciding', this is a discussion forum, not one of Tony's cabinet meetings.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nine paragraphs took UK to war
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph
11/03/2005
Britain went to war in Iraq on the basis of a brief, nine-paragraph summary of legal issues produced for Cabinet ministers by the Attorney General, it emerged last night.
The absence of a full legal opinion from Lord Goldsmith was seized on by opponents of the war as evidence of chaos in Tony Blair's government as he prepared for the attack on Saddam Hussein's regime.
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said it was beyond belief that Cabinet ministers were given such an inadequate explanation, which was also published on the same day as a parliamentary answer.
"This is an astonishing revelation which suggests utter confusion at the heart of government," said Mr Kennedy.
"The Prime Minister must now clarify the situation, which is undermining public trust. He must provide a clear statement about what took place regarding the legal advice."
"Can it really be true that the legal basis on which we went to war consisted of a parliamentary answer and not a full legal opinion?"
Previously, critics of the war have claimed that Lord Goldsmith's short summary produced at Cabinet on March 17, 2003 was a condensed version of a more detailed legal opinion in which he had expressed some serious doubts about the legality of war.
Suspicion of a cover-up has been fuelled by the Government's consistent refusal to publish more of the legal advice given by Lord Goldsmith in the run up to war.
Full Article
PS. DESPERADO. Could I ask you to format with more paragraphs please? I think that some of your points are valid but I'd like to spot 'em with more ease than I can at present!
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph
11/03/2005
Britain went to war in Iraq on the basis of a brief, nine-paragraph summary of legal issues produced for Cabinet ministers by the Attorney General, it emerged last night.
The absence of a full legal opinion from Lord Goldsmith was seized on by opponents of the war as evidence of chaos in Tony Blair's government as he prepared for the attack on Saddam Hussein's regime.
Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said it was beyond belief that Cabinet ministers were given such an inadequate explanation, which was also published on the same day as a parliamentary answer.
"This is an astonishing revelation which suggests utter confusion at the heart of government," said Mr Kennedy.
"The Prime Minister must now clarify the situation, which is undermining public trust. He must provide a clear statement about what took place regarding the legal advice."
"Can it really be true that the legal basis on which we went to war consisted of a parliamentary answer and not a full legal opinion?"
Previously, critics of the war have claimed that Lord Goldsmith's short summary produced at Cabinet on March 17, 2003 was a condensed version of a more detailed legal opinion in which he had expressed some serious doubts about the legality of war.
Suspicion of a cover-up has been fuelled by the Government's consistent refusal to publish more of the legal advice given by Lord Goldsmith in the run up to war.
Full Article
PS. DESPERADO. Could I ask you to format with more paragraphs please? I think that some of your points are valid but I'd like to spot 'em with more ease than I can at present!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this guy has so called principles? He does not go to Iraq, so what happens? Some other poor sap has to go in his place. Sounds like a lack of moral fibre to me, or is it a big yellow streak down his back due to the increase in tension in and around Basra. Never mind the guy or gal who has to go on his place will face the mortar attacks instead.
This guy should be paraded in front of his unit in his No 1s have his rank badges and buttons ripped of his uniform and then be put to work sweep the airfield.
This guy should be paraded in front of his unit in his No 1s have his rank badges and buttons ripped of his uniform and then be put to work sweep the airfield.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Yellow streak?? Hardly!! He has been there twice already...
The point about illegal orders is well documented, the germans all said 'we were only obeying orders' in nuremberg and it was not a valid defence. You are obliged to refuse illegal orders. That said, the war is over now so I agree with the others, just do your duty or else someone else has to go. If you don't like Bliars orders (like me) then do exactly what I did two years ago..... LEAVE!
The point about illegal orders is well documented, the germans all said 'we were only obeying orders' in nuremberg and it was not a valid defence. You are obliged to refuse illegal orders. That said, the war is over now so I agree with the others, just do your duty or else someone else has to go. If you don't like Bliars orders (like me) then do exactly what I did two years ago..... LEAVE!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK from time to time.....
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see that somebody has the moral courage and convictions to stand up for what he believes, it is ashame that our so called senior and superiors do not have the conviction to this more often. As for me the desert beckons again but might just be back for christmas, then again.....