RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S41,
I agree; the distinction has been blurred by a number of interested parties - the tabloids, politicians and the MOD to name a few. However, the risk is that, should the Doc win his case, it could also then be sensibly argued by parties with vested interests that servicemen like myself who have served in Iraq have obeyed an illegal order and, therfore, all 60k plus troops could be rendered liable for trial by the ICC (Bliar et al included) This seems extreme but there are some out there who will jump on the doc's train and take it down a different track for their own purposes.
I still believe that the 2 issues should remain distinct and seperate and that the Doc, whether he is right or wrong, should stand trial to resolve the issue (my advice to him would be NOT to include Mr Blades in his defence team). May I echo what S41 has said already and show my dismay at how many here are willing to condemn the Doc without knowing his circumstances. We may surmise that it is one tour too many or that it is "draft dodging" etc but, yet again, these are all issues for a GCM to hear. May I emphasise that in my previous post, I merely point out the law as it stands and that the Doc has "potentially" contravened it, i.e. there is a prima facie case to answer and therfore a GCM will be convened. I await the trial with interest.
I agree; the distinction has been blurred by a number of interested parties - the tabloids, politicians and the MOD to name a few. However, the risk is that, should the Doc win his case, it could also then be sensibly argued by parties with vested interests that servicemen like myself who have served in Iraq have obeyed an illegal order and, therfore, all 60k plus troops could be rendered liable for trial by the ICC (Bliar et al included) This seems extreme but there are some out there who will jump on the doc's train and take it down a different track for their own purposes.
I still believe that the 2 issues should remain distinct and seperate and that the Doc, whether he is right or wrong, should stand trial to resolve the issue (my advice to him would be NOT to include Mr Blades in his defence team). May I echo what S41 has said already and show my dismay at how many here are willing to condemn the Doc without knowing his circumstances. We may surmise that it is one tour too many or that it is "draft dodging" etc but, yet again, these are all issues for a GCM to hear. May I emphasise that in my previous post, I merely point out the law as it stands and that the Doc has "potentially" contravened it, i.e. there is a prima facie case to answer and therfore a GCM will be convened. I await the trial with interest.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twonston and S41
Both well said and I too await the outcome with eager anticipation. If I was the Doc though I wouldn't think about lonely walks near secluded woods before the trial is over!!
Regards
TG
Both well said and I too await the outcome with eager anticipation. If I was the Doc though I wouldn't think about lonely walks near secluded woods before the trial is over!!
Regards
TG
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twonston Pickle
This is wrong. There are differences in law:
it could also then be sensibly argued by parties with vested interests that servicemen like myself who have served in Iraq have obeyed an illegal order and, therfore, all 60k plus troops could be rendered liable for trial by the ICC (Bliar et al included)
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).
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climebear,
I do agree with you and, indeed, the points of law that you raise. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate. However, my point is that this trial will blur that distinction and, if the Doc wins, will render the argument obsolete. (The Doc is after all saying that he believes he will be acting illegally if he goes despite the points you raise) I do not think that is a good move but it is a possibility of the outcome of the trial.
Let's not forget that GCMs are not just military courts but are presided over and guided by Judge Advocates - civilian lawyers/judges of some considerable experience who can decide on the points of law that have been raised; the military members have no knowledge or ability to decide on points of law, just on guilt or innocence. It is also the JA who will decide on punishment.
This trial and its outcome may have massive implications for Service discipline, morale and the future conduct of War - Do we ask for the consent of all servicemen before deploying on operations?
The key point is that I support neither the Doc nor the Goverenment but the Law.
I do agree with you and, indeed, the points of law that you raise. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate. However, my point is that this trial will blur that distinction and, if the Doc wins, will render the argument obsolete. (The Doc is after all saying that he believes he will be acting illegally if he goes despite the points you raise) I do not think that is a good move but it is a possibility of the outcome of the trial.
Let's not forget that GCMs are not just military courts but are presided over and guided by Judge Advocates - civilian lawyers/judges of some considerable experience who can decide on the points of law that have been raised; the military members have no knowledge or ability to decide on points of law, just on guilt or innocence. It is also the JA who will decide on punishment.
This trial and its outcome may have massive implications for Service discipline, morale and the future conduct of War - Do we ask for the consent of all servicemen before deploying on operations?
The key point is that I support neither the Doc nor the Goverenment but the Law.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah right, whatever guys.
Meanwhile some other poor b#gger has to go in his stead. Thats the bottom line. Someone else's kids and family have to say goodbye to him/her - probably now at short notice. This will make not the slightest bit of difference other than to cause hurt for his colleagues and peers. I genuinely couldn't care less about all of the tedious legal point scoring going on here - the bottom line is he is shafting his mates and helping nobody.
Scenario 1, he wins his case - against the odds an RAF GCM gives him a hug and sends him on his way with their grateful thanks. T. Blair, realising he is beaten decides to pull the troops out to prevent himself and the boys being up in front of the ICC. Not really very likely is it? I doubt if it will even feature in TB's in-tray.
Scenario 2, he loses - booted out (and good riddance I say), he rights a book, makes a million and retires to tend sheep back in NZ.
Either way it makes no difference to anyone else. What is the final outcome? Everyone else is still doing their job in a heroic fashion despite him. This is doing nobody any good whatsoever except the lawyers.
Gorilla, I say again that I don't believe the military are reviled in this country. No doubt there are many, a majority I am sure who want us to pull out but I very much doubt that this translate ever into general hostility to the troops. The G/great British public are not as stupid as you might think and realise that all but a very few in the military want to be there.
There is a big difference between not wanting to be there but going anyway because you want to help your comrades - and prostrating yourself to the political aspirations of a Barrister because of someones different interpretation of the law.
Personally I would like to hear from those of you out there who have been in real combat and I am not talking about the E3D orbit guys - I suspect from the barrack room lawyer stuff many here haven't got the slightest clue. If you have been in combat, what do you think of the Doc's actions. Pawn or Prince?
very high-minded of you Twonston, but not really of much interest to the squaddy on the streets of Basra or Mrs 'the next Doc of the list' tearfully waving goodbye to her husband.
Do you lot really believe that what counts here is a point of law? I am saddened, I really am that this is what it is coming to. Loyalty and integrity must come first.
Meanwhile some other poor b#gger has to go in his stead. Thats the bottom line. Someone else's kids and family have to say goodbye to him/her - probably now at short notice. This will make not the slightest bit of difference other than to cause hurt for his colleagues and peers. I genuinely couldn't care less about all of the tedious legal point scoring going on here - the bottom line is he is shafting his mates and helping nobody.
Scenario 1, he wins his case - against the odds an RAF GCM gives him a hug and sends him on his way with their grateful thanks. T. Blair, realising he is beaten decides to pull the troops out to prevent himself and the boys being up in front of the ICC. Not really very likely is it? I doubt if it will even feature in TB's in-tray.
Scenario 2, he loses - booted out (and good riddance I say), he rights a book, makes a million and retires to tend sheep back in NZ.
Either way it makes no difference to anyone else. What is the final outcome? Everyone else is still doing their job in a heroic fashion despite him. This is doing nobody any good whatsoever except the lawyers.
Gorilla, I say again that I don't believe the military are reviled in this country. No doubt there are many, a majority I am sure who want us to pull out but I very much doubt that this translate ever into general hostility to the troops. The G/great British public are not as stupid as you might think and realise that all but a very few in the military want to be there.
There is a big difference between not wanting to be there but going anyway because you want to help your comrades - and prostrating yourself to the political aspirations of a Barrister because of someones different interpretation of the law.
Personally I would like to hear from those of you out there who have been in real combat and I am not talking about the E3D orbit guys - I suspect from the barrack room lawyer stuff many here haven't got the slightest clue. If you have been in combat, what do you think of the Doc's actions. Pawn or Prince?
The key point is that I support neither the Doc nor the Goverenment but the Law
Do you lot really believe that what counts here is a point of law? I am saddened, I really am that this is what it is coming to. Loyalty and integrity must come first.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
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. 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.
However, if I had known in March 2003 what we all found out after Hutton and Butler, I would have done exactly what the good doctor is doing now. The depths that the UK government plumbed in order to concoct a bogus case for war are the most reprehensible act of political maladministration in this country's modern history. I PVRd in the wake of Hutton and Butler but kept my mouth shut until I handed my kit in.
Nevertheless, the good doctor is wrong. There is a UN mandate for the continued presence in Iraq and troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government. It is, of course, his right to disobey Queens' Regulations and the Air Force Act (etc) and face the consequences at a court-martial. However, I fail to see the wisdom of his actions. His argument would have carried weight (admittedly with hindsight) in 2003 and there may be a future occasion to use it. The US and the poodle Bliar are eyeing up Iran and concocting similar lies to 2003. A WMD capability that could reach Europe? Really? Russia have opposed any moves to report Iraq to the UNSC, so it is unlikely that a future military undertaking would have a resolution...deja vu?
I can cheerfully confirm now that if Bliar and Dubya (only 2 years left) took military action against Iran (or anywhere else) under such circumstances, that I would refuse any mobilisiation instruction and send my cobwebbed scroll to Downing Street with exact instructions what to do with it. For those who hold a contrary view with regard to the duty of an officer to obey orders, I would remind you of a certain conflict that kicked off in 1939. I know what side we were on then, and it feels like we are batting for the other side nowadays.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperado
Under no circumstances have I ever said anywhere that I think the public are stupid. Indeed I am now one of the public and what I say comes from my direct dealing with Joe each and everyday. You sir underestimate the depth of feeling on this matter out on the streets.
Remember that those of you who serve make up less than 0.3% of the UK population and that 2% supported by a whole lot more actually walked down the Mall one cold day with banners saying not in my name.
The longer that this fiasco continues the more resentment will be shown towards our Forces. I see this last few weeks that some councils are starting to demolish war memorials!
The bottom line guys is that if you don't like what you see today you can always leave. The Doc has clearly decided to go down that path and yes it's a tadge unfortunate that some other poor soul will have to pick up the depoyment. But hey that's covered by rule 46 - Nobody ever said life is fair and that is especially so in the forces. Take the cr*p or leave!! Simple eh??
Very few of us here are lawyers and even less have ever seen real combat. Some of you speculating here may have similar decisions to reach when you eventually take on Iran.
Good luck.
Under no circumstances have I ever said anywhere that I think the public are stupid. Indeed I am now one of the public and what I say comes from my direct dealing with Joe each and everyday. You sir underestimate the depth of feeling on this matter out on the streets.
Remember that those of you who serve make up less than 0.3% of the UK population and that 2% supported by a whole lot more actually walked down the Mall one cold day with banners saying not in my name.
The longer that this fiasco continues the more resentment will be shown towards our Forces. I see this last few weeks that some councils are starting to demolish war memorials!
The bottom line guys is that if you don't like what you see today you can always leave. The Doc has clearly decided to go down that path and yes it's a tadge unfortunate that some other poor soul will have to pick up the depoyment. But hey that's covered by rule 46 - Nobody ever said life is fair and that is especially so in the forces. Take the cr*p or leave!! Simple eh??
Very few of us here are lawyers and even less have ever seen real combat. Some of you speculating here may have similar decisions to reach when you eventually take on Iran.
Good luck.
The Mail had an article stating that the Regiment that the VC awardee serves with has the biggest manning problem in the british army, with a mass exodus due before they go back next April....some of them are other medal awardees who think that the time interval between Iraq deployments is too small. So he's not alone in not wanting to go back!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Lindum
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorilla,
That old bile is still there isn't it squire......
If, as you assert, 2% of the population marched against the war, and 0.3% of us ( were you still in then?) were actually members of the Armed Forces, doesn't that mean that about 97.7% of the population did not revile us at the time?
From your stance on this and other threads, it appears that you still haven't "got over it" - if you HAD been offered 55, do you (honestly) think your views would be the same?
The Doc's case is an interesting one, let's see how it pans out.....
That old bile is still there isn't it squire......
If, as you assert, 2% of the population marched against the war, and 0.3% of us ( were you still in then?) were actually members of the Armed Forces, doesn't that mean that about 97.7% of the population did not revile us at the time?
From your stance on this and other threads, it appears that you still haven't "got over it" - if you HAD been offered 55, do you (honestly) think your views would be the same?
The Doc's case is an interesting one, let's see how it pans out.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oop North (where the beer is best)
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF are so short of Docs that they will probably have thought long and hard about opening this can of worms. the number of unifromed Docs must be close to a level at which Ops, keeping clinical skills up and sitting the exams (meaning months of studying) are unsustainable.
I'm sure the powers that be wouldn't want to get rid of another one lightly. They're not like No 10 buses anymore: there won't be another along in a minute, in which case we're going to need more civilian Docs.
BTW there are already civilian nurses out in the Fd Hosp in Shaibah because we don't have enough adequately trained nurses in each discipline. How long before the Docs follow suit?
I'm sure the powers that be wouldn't want to get rid of another one lightly. They're not like No 10 buses anymore: there won't be another along in a minute, in which case we're going to need more civilian Docs.
BTW there are already civilian nurses out in the Fd Hosp in Shaibah because we don't have enough adequately trained nurses in each discipline. How long before the Docs follow suit?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: wherever
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So when is a war not a war?
Is must only be to do with the scale of offensive operations, as we have not ceased offensive operations against Iraq since GW1.
Claimed death toll of 70 today on the news from air strikes by the spams.
Not war? Just a dicking,
Is must only be to do with the scale of offensive operations, as we have not ceased offensive operations against Iraq since GW1.
Claimed death toll of 70 today on the news from air strikes by the spams.
Not war? Just a dicking,
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey Desperado, I hope you get another stripe for your blind loyalty to the MOD line - or are you the MOD line?
I haven't yet decided an opinion on this bloke's action...I haven't got enough facts yet. I have however, really enjoyed this forum - for the first time in a long while.
What disappoints me is that some 'colleagues' would seem to be prepared to carry out an illegal order just to save somebody else having to do it in his place. God, how American.
I haven't yet decided an opinion on this bloke's action...I haven't got enough facts yet. I have however, really enjoyed this forum - for the first time in a long while.
What disappoints me is that some 'colleagues' would seem to be prepared to carry out an illegal order just to save somebody else having to do it in his place. God, how American.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar - Enjoying it? me too
Duane - Honestly? Well even if I had been offered 55 I wouldn't be in now, I retired with still over 4 years left of my engagement and at the time you are correct 97.7% didn't revile. We are of course now over 2 years further down the road. I have stopped telling people of my previous, it's easier that way and I don't have to keep taking flak for GW2.
I have gotten over everything as you so quaintly put it and have actually done something a lot of you guys are seemingly very frightened of. I have left the military and rebuilt my life whilst enjoying a superb pension.
I still frequent this board because if only a fraction of what is said on here is true, it reminds me just how lucky I am to be where I am today.
I am contributing to this discussion in particular because for a change the board is living up to it's purpose. I hold strong views on the MOD and I am not frightened to air them. If you find that to be bile then I am afraid that's your problem me old fruit. And my blood pressure is always well within limits these days ta!!
Hee hee
Duane - Honestly? Well even if I had been offered 55 I wouldn't be in now, I retired with still over 4 years left of my engagement and at the time you are correct 97.7% didn't revile. We are of course now over 2 years further down the road. I have stopped telling people of my previous, it's easier that way and I don't have to keep taking flak for GW2.
I have gotten over everything as you so quaintly put it and have actually done something a lot of you guys are seemingly very frightened of. I have left the military and rebuilt my life whilst enjoying a superb pension.
I still frequent this board because if only a fraction of what is said on here is true, it reminds me just how lucky I am to be where I am today.
I am contributing to this discussion in particular because for a change the board is living up to it's purpose. I hold strong views on the MOD and I am not frightened to air them. If you find that to be bile then I am afraid that's your problem me old fruit. And my blood pressure is always well within limits these days ta!!
Hee hee
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twonston
Minor point - the military members of the Court decide on sentence, not the JA. He will advise on what is within the Court's powers, but the military decide (with the most junior officer giving his opinion first).
Sven
Minor point - the military members of the Court decide on sentence, not the JA. He will advise on what is within the Court's powers, but the military decide (with the most junior officer giving his opinion first).
Sven
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should not let this guy's personal agenda be raised to the point where it affects us all.
Oh bugger, this is the 50th post on this subject and it has a 5-star rating already!!!!
He has already acheived his aim of publicity, and I am 1/ 50th responsible for it.
Oh bugger, this is the 50th post on this subject and it has a 5-star rating already!!!!
He has already acheived his aim of publicity, and I am 1/ 50th responsible for it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Gorilla for putting me right there, after all you have no history of wildly inaccurate sweeping statements:
Obviously I don't know you from adam but in all the years that I have followed this Forum you have always seemed to me to be a particularly bitter chap. Its good to hear that now you are out you have picked up the city 'vibe' and have learned to be at one with the 'streets' so that you educate us poor deluded military folk on what it is like in the big wide world.
I agree that in general the public are not infavour of this conflict/war/police action but that does not translate into revulsion at the guys in uniform.
Radar Muppet, I think that if you read my posts you will see that I am not blindly loyal to the MOD - indeed I have a large number of problems with the way that this whole shambles has been conducted by our elected officials - none of that changes my essential point that this man is scoring political points and letting down his mates.
For those of you that condone his actions, but have any desire at all for us to be a professional, effective and loyal fighting force this is the thin end of an enormous wedge. As a Doc he can very easily pvr and b\gger off. Instead he is playing politics with an organisation that needs his support at the grass roots level.
If it is a crime to love your job and enjoy life in the services then I am guilty on both counts. I am not ashamed to feel this way but there seems to be many here who think that I should be! Perhaps you need to look in the mirror - what do you believe in?
Ultimately I have never been a yes man, anyone who knows me will testify to that - I am off in a couple of years at my option - my family have had enough and they matter more than anything (which is why I'll never make anything other than my current rank) but I will leave with my conscience clear having never shirked from doing my bit or whined about it or deserted my mates.
God listen to you lot and you wonder why you are so reviled in Civvy Street!!
I agree that in general the public are not infavour of this conflict/war/police action but that does not translate into revulsion at the guys in uniform.
Radar Muppet, I think that if you read my posts you will see that I am not blindly loyal to the MOD - indeed I have a large number of problems with the way that this whole shambles has been conducted by our elected officials - none of that changes my essential point that this man is scoring political points and letting down his mates.
For those of you that condone his actions, but have any desire at all for us to be a professional, effective and loyal fighting force this is the thin end of an enormous wedge. As a Doc he can very easily pvr and b\gger off. Instead he is playing politics with an organisation that needs his support at the grass roots level.
If it is a crime to love your job and enjoy life in the services then I am guilty on both counts. I am not ashamed to feel this way but there seems to be many here who think that I should be! Perhaps you need to look in the mirror - what do you believe in?
Ultimately I have never been a yes man, anyone who knows me will testify to that - I am off in a couple of years at my option - my family have had enough and they matter more than anything (which is why I'll never make anything other than my current rank) but I will leave with my conscience clear having never shirked from doing my bit or whined about it or deserted my mates.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sven Sixtoo,
Point taken; I got confused with the recommendation of the JA, as opposed to the decision by the members - Thanks.
Desperado
I have been to Iraq and witnessed what the Doc does not want to see again - I even understand why he is reluctant.
Disagree - this is of massive importance to the squaddie on the streets etc; if the Doc wins his case, more of our colleagues could potentially refuse to go, increasing the burden on the rest of us who practice loyalty (to our Service/Country).
Point taken; I got confused with the recommendation of the JA, as opposed to the decision by the members - Thanks.
Desperado
Personally I would like to hear from those of you out there who have been in real combat and I am not talking about the E3D orbit guys - I suspect from the barrack room lawyer stuff many here haven't got the slightest clue. If you have been in combat, what do you think of the Doc's actions. Pawn or Prince?
very high-minded of you Twonston, but not really of much interest to the squaddy on the streets of Basra or Mrs 'the next Doc of the list' tearfully waving goodbye to her husband.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry chaps got into this late - two points:
Can someone explain to me what a LEGAL war is - surely there would be fores and against any war being legal/illegal,
Secondly RAF OFFICER - I doubt it - he is a Doctor!
GAGS
E86
Can someone explain to me what a LEGAL war is - surely there would be fores and against any war being legal/illegal,
Secondly RAF OFFICER - I doubt it - he is a Doctor!
GAGS
E86