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
E86
For "Legal" war read "whatever Bliar and Brush decided is in their interests". Seriously, an illegal war is (very simplistically) the act of declaring war by (a) sovereign nation(s) against another; i.e. a war of aggression (Germany vs Poland). Very simplisitc, I know, but we (countries) have all agreed not to start this kind of war (via the medium of the UN). The reverse is true for a legal war; it is legal if the defending nation(s) declare war on the aggressors (think Pearl Harbour and the US response). The rules have become somewhat blurred since the end of WW2 as, to my knowledge, at state of war has never been declared; it has always been called a conflict or operation with no formal declaration by PM, President or ambassador.
In response to your second point: very valid as he has only done the knife, fork & spoon course.
TP
For "Legal" war read "whatever Bliar and Brush decided is in their interests". Seriously, an illegal war is (very simplistically) the act of declaring war by (a) sovereign nation(s) against another; i.e. a war of aggression (Germany vs Poland). Very simplisitc, I know, but we (countries) have all agreed not to start this kind of war (via the medium of the UN). The reverse is true for a legal war; it is legal if the defending nation(s) declare war on the aggressors (think Pearl Harbour and the US response). The rules have become somewhat blurred since the end of WW2 as, to my knowledge, at state of war has never been declared; it has always been called a conflict or operation with no formal declaration by PM, President or ambassador.
In response to your second point: very valid as he has only done the knife, fork & spoon course.
TP
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperado
That's your opinion and I defend your right to voice it. Your choice, as I simply defend the choice of the Doc's to go down whatever path he chooses. At least the calls for his prompt execution and disembowelment appear to have stopped. For the record I think he is wrong and ill advised to do this but I once again applaud his bravery.
Regards
TG
That's your opinion and I defend your right to voice it. Your choice, as I simply defend the choice of the Doc's to go down whatever path he chooses. At least the calls for his prompt execution and disembowelment appear to have stopped. For the record I think he is wrong and ill advised to do this but I once again applaud his bravery.
Regards
TG
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twoston, Desparado, JTD, Gorilla, ABIW, et al
Perhaps I should've been clearer yesterday afternoon: wars can be legal or illegal at the overall level (normally state responsibility) and individual actions can be illegal (e.g. war crimes). In considering the law of war there are four possibilities:
Legal War, Legally fought: Tick-vg, all home in time for tea and medals.
Legal War, Illegally fought: Something like the Falklands (legitimate self-defence under UN Charter), where either an individual (e.g. murder, rape) or a system (e.g. targets) breaks the law of war. Result? Individuals prosecuted for war crimes.
Illegal War, Illegally fought: What the senior Nazi leadership was charged with in 1945. Charges included aggression (as "crimes against peace"), war crimes (treatment of enemy military and civilians in occupied territory) and crimes against humanity (essentially war crimes against German citizens).
Which brings us to the Flt Lt - from the press, he belongs in the final group. No question that he is personally responsible for war crimes (or, without evidence of wrong-doing, the other 60k UK service personnel in Iraq), but that the conflict was an Illegal War, Legally Fought.
Illegal War, Legally Fought: If the international community accepts that aggression (as "crimes against peace") is a crime, then orders to begin it are also criminal, and therefore illegal. As a result, it is down to the individual to determine whether or not their orders are legal, and if not, they are obliged to disobey.
If the Flt Lt were to win, the impacts on the UK armed forces - and the rest of western forces (minus perhaps the US, though this isn't at all clear cut) - is that the politicians could order an illegal war (for which they would be personally criminally responsible), but that the military leadership would have to determine if the war were legal before obeying the orders to ensure that they were not committing the crime of aggression.
The question that makes this very difficult is the status of UK forces under UN Security Council Resolution 1546. It is possible argue that the war is over and that 1546 covers UK peacekeeping forces, and that therefore there is no war, and therefore no aggression and therefore no illegal orders. If this is the case made, it will not resolve the important issues surrounding the crime of aggression and illegal orders. This would be tragic as the question will simply arise again if UK forces are sent to war without Security Council authorisation, or (like Kosovo), an overwhelming humanitarian case.
S41
Perhaps I should've been clearer yesterday afternoon: wars can be legal or illegal at the overall level (normally state responsibility) and individual actions can be illegal (e.g. war crimes). In considering the law of war there are four possibilities:
Legal War, Legally fought: Tick-vg, all home in time for tea and medals.
Legal War, Illegally fought: Something like the Falklands (legitimate self-defence under UN Charter), where either an individual (e.g. murder, rape) or a system (e.g. targets) breaks the law of war. Result? Individuals prosecuted for war crimes.
Illegal War, Illegally fought: What the senior Nazi leadership was charged with in 1945. Charges included aggression (as "crimes against peace"), war crimes (treatment of enemy military and civilians in occupied territory) and crimes against humanity (essentially war crimes against German citizens).
Which brings us to the Flt Lt - from the press, he belongs in the final group. No question that he is personally responsible for war crimes (or, without evidence of wrong-doing, the other 60k UK service personnel in Iraq), but that the conflict was an Illegal War, Legally Fought.
Illegal War, Legally Fought: If the international community accepts that aggression (as "crimes against peace") is a crime, then orders to begin it are also criminal, and therefore illegal. As a result, it is down to the individual to determine whether or not their orders are legal, and if not, they are obliged to disobey.
If the Flt Lt were to win, the impacts on the UK armed forces - and the rest of western forces (minus perhaps the US, though this isn't at all clear cut) - is that the politicians could order an illegal war (for which they would be personally criminally responsible), but that the military leadership would have to determine if the war were legal before obeying the orders to ensure that they were not committing the crime of aggression.
The question that makes this very difficult is the status of UK forces under UN Security Council Resolution 1546. It is possible argue that the war is over and that 1546 covers UK peacekeeping forces, and that therefore there is no war, and therefore no aggression and therefore no illegal orders. If this is the case made, it will not resolve the important issues surrounding the crime of aggression and illegal orders. This would be tragic as the question will simply arise again if UK forces are sent to war without Security Council authorisation, or (like Kosovo), an overwhelming humanitarian case.
S41
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal or not, it does not change the fact that he did not go and some one else had to go in his place, at short notice no doubt; hope he can sleep at night. Total Lack of Moral Fibre, he should busted to AC.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: berlin
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DESPERADO
Nice post of 18 Oct 2005. I also like your earlier sentiment that individuals in the UK armed forces look after their own in routine and operational (shooting and being shot at) settings. This key attribute, utterly bewildering to the New Labour geniuses currently conducting affairs, is what, I believe, uniquely differentiates the UK armed forces from “the others”. I sincerely hope that it is not ever stamped out. Please keep promoting it!
Currently serving cynics need not bother posting – I’ve heard it all before.
Nice post of 18 Oct 2005. I also like your earlier sentiment that individuals in the UK armed forces look after their own in routine and operational (shooting and being shot at) settings. This key attribute, utterly bewildering to the New Labour geniuses currently conducting affairs, is what, I believe, uniquely differentiates the UK armed forces from “the others”. I sincerely hope that it is not ever stamped out. Please keep promoting it!
Currently serving cynics need not bother posting – I’ve heard it all before.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For completeness
Someone raised the question of whether the 60k British service personnel could be indicted by the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression, and it's taken me a couple of days to dig out the reason that the answer is no.
The ICC was created by the 1998 Rome Statue (poorly named as it is a Treaty rather than a statute, but there you are
). To ensure that the Court deals only with the most serious offenders for the world's most serious crimes, (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression), Article 17 deals with issues of admissibility.
--------------------
Art 17 reads in part:
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: ...
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
---------------------
It would be reasonable for the Court to take the position that though the Crime of Aggression is very serious - and therefore (rightly) within their remit - it would only be meaningful to prosecute the political leadership and the most senior military leadership of a violating country: ie, the people who ordered it and those responsible for the orders to carry it out. Therefore, it is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of service personnel would run the risk of prosecution for aggression (though as above, in a tiny number of cases where their actions were war crimes, clearly they could be tried for those.)
A different matter for CDS and his chums, which makes me wonder if these concerns that prompted Admiral Boyce to ask for confirmation of the legal position before TELIC kicked off.
S41
The ICC was created by the 1998 Rome Statue (poorly named as it is a Treaty rather than a statute, but there you are
). To ensure that the Court deals only with the most serious offenders for the world's most serious crimes, (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression), Article 17 deals with issues of admissibility. --------------------
Art 17 reads in part:
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: ...
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
---------------------
It would be reasonable for the Court to take the position that though the Crime of Aggression is very serious - and therefore (rightly) within their remit - it would only be meaningful to prosecute the political leadership and the most senior military leadership of a violating country: ie, the people who ordered it and those responsible for the orders to carry it out. Therefore, it is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of service personnel would run the risk of prosecution for aggression (though as above, in a tiny number of cases where their actions were war crimes, clearly they could be tried for those.)
A different matter for CDS and his chums, which makes me wonder if these concerns that prompted Admiral Boyce to ask for confirmation of the legal position before TELIC kicked off.
S41
If I remember correctly, all war has been illegal since after WW2, therefore we don't declare war anymore (Archimedes might care to comment if he/she is out there).
In my last few years in the Mob, I had a lot of contact with young officers who had spent a lot of time on operations and there was a fair percenatge of them who were unhappy with the action they were taking on behalf of Tony Bliar, especially those dropping bombs before the last conflict in Iraq. Of course there were also those who didn't question what they were doing.
I seem to remember that I swore to "defend Queen and Country" all those years ago, don't know if they still do, but one could question what the threat is now we know they didn't/don't have immediate access to WMD.
In my last few years in the Mob, I had a lot of contact with young officers who had spent a lot of time on operations and there was a fair percenatge of them who were unhappy with the action they were taking on behalf of Tony Bliar, especially those dropping bombs before the last conflict in Iraq. Of course there were also those who didn't question what they were doing.
I seem to remember that I swore to "defend Queen and Country" all those years ago, don't know if they still do, but one could question what the threat is now we know they didn't/don't have immediate access to WMD.
Er... I am out here, but I'm not a legal type so can't really comment from an expert point of view.
Speaking with my historian's hat on though, you're right- since 1945, the legal complexities that go with declaring war on someone seem to have persuaded the government against doing so.
The UN Charter, debates over customary law, what actually constitutes international law etc, etc, coupled with the concerns re: vicarious opposition in the UN to the authorisation of the use of force even when criteria for just wars seem to be met make it rather tempting for governments to brand wars 'conflicts', etc.
War hasn't been banned outright, despite article 2 of the UN Charter, since Article 51 (Self Defence) and Chapter VII (upholding international order) allow some leeway.
This is the point where my confidence in understanding culminates and I search for someone who understands the law to conduct a relief... Pr00ne??
Speaking with my historian's hat on though, you're right- since 1945, the legal complexities that go with declaring war on someone seem to have persuaded the government against doing so.
The UN Charter, debates over customary law, what actually constitutes international law etc, etc, coupled with the concerns re: vicarious opposition in the UN to the authorisation of the use of force even when criteria for just wars seem to be met make it rather tempting for governments to brand wars 'conflicts', etc.
War hasn't been banned outright, despite article 2 of the UN Charter, since Article 51 (Self Defence) and Chapter VII (upholding international order) allow some leeway.
This is the point where my confidence in understanding culminates and I search for someone who understands the law to conduct a relief... Pr00ne??
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes, RubiC Cube et al
I’ll lay out a starter for 10, and then pr00ne and others can correct the errors / have a discussion.
Aggression (“crimes against peace”) have been illegal since the adoption of the UN Charter and were prosecuted at Nuremburg – though in this case, on the basis of customary international law stemming from the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1925, (Pact of Paris, also rather unfortunately as the “Pact of Perpetual Peace”, which banned offensive wars).
The UN Charter allows wars in three categories:
1. Self defence under Article 39. (Think Falklands)
2. UN Security Council sanctioned conflicts – with resolutions that authorise “all necessary means” – and state a definitive end state “ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait”. (Think Gulf War I).
3. In those cases where the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act and there is a overwhelming human rights crisis leading to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, States can intervene to protect human rights. This is contentious, and is still under development. (Think Kosovo.)
And that’s about it.
S41
I’ll lay out a starter for 10, and then pr00ne and others can correct the errors / have a discussion.
Aggression (“crimes against peace”) have been illegal since the adoption of the UN Charter and were prosecuted at Nuremburg – though in this case, on the basis of customary international law stemming from the Kellogg-Briand Pact 1925, (Pact of Paris, also rather unfortunately as the “Pact of Perpetual Peace”, which banned offensive wars).
The UN Charter allows wars in three categories:
1. Self defence under Article 39. (Think Falklands)
2. UN Security Council sanctioned conflicts – with resolutions that authorise “all necessary means” – and state a definitive end state “ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait”. (Think Gulf War I).
3. In those cases where the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act and there is a overwhelming human rights crisis leading to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, States can intervene to protect human rights. This is contentious, and is still under development. (Think Kosovo.)
And that’s about it.
S41
As an ex member of the PMRAFNS, ( RAF Nursing Service) I find that a doctor refusing to undertake his professional duties abhorant. We do not ask your politics, views or thoughts when we treat you. We do not carry weapons unless it is to protect you when in our care.
We undertake the duties to care for the ill and injured in times of conflict or peace, irrespective of who you are or where you come from, be it friend or in many cases an enemy, or just as distressing innocent civilians when you arrive at a medical facility.
Members of the medical teams, have risen above the discussion of illegalites and the rights and wrongs of war, and discharged their obligations with pride, distinction and has been shown from the Medical Officer from the RAuxAF surgical team great bravery.
This one individual has let down the fine tradition of selfless duty shown by military medical personnel of all ranks from time immemorial.
The world is poorer for his stand in that others will step into his place without complaint.
I hope that no one will die because of the skills that he has, have not been used irrespective of whether it is a member of the services or a child, the innocent victim of mans inhumanity to man.
I can only say " leave, in the name of God go" as you have proved yourself a worthless individual who lets his comrades and humanity down by trying to take a moral high ground, when in reality he has a higher duty and calling. I do hope that one day he does not require others to help him as he has denied others that same help.
A friend returned from Op Telic , A TA nursing officer much changed after what he saw in a field hospital in particular the injured children who suffered their wounds with great courage. He probably will be deployed in then near future again.
I always thought that look after you medics and they will look after you, but this man has broken that bond that keeps us all together.
We undertake the duties to care for the ill and injured in times of conflict or peace, irrespective of who you are or where you come from, be it friend or in many cases an enemy, or just as distressing innocent civilians when you arrive at a medical facility.
Members of the medical teams, have risen above the discussion of illegalites and the rights and wrongs of war, and discharged their obligations with pride, distinction and has been shown from the Medical Officer from the RAuxAF surgical team great bravery.
This one individual has let down the fine tradition of selfless duty shown by military medical personnel of all ranks from time immemorial.
The world is poorer for his stand in that others will step into his place without complaint.
I hope that no one will die because of the skills that he has, have not been used irrespective of whether it is a member of the services or a child, the innocent victim of mans inhumanity to man.
I can only say " leave, in the name of God go" as you have proved yourself a worthless individual who lets his comrades and humanity down by trying to take a moral high ground, when in reality he has a higher duty and calling. I do hope that one day he does not require others to help him as he has denied others that same help.
A friend returned from Op Telic , A TA nursing officer much changed after what he saw in a field hospital in particular the injured children who suffered their wounds with great courage. He probably will be deployed in then near future again.
I always thought that look after you medics and they will look after you, but this man has broken that bond that keeps us all together.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actual basis of his refusal to go is the legality of the war .
The basis of what was used to go to war has been largely discounted - for example lifting coursework off the internet
and adding a little spin like the '45minutes warning' to make the infamous dossier. I think no matter what you think about loyalty and service - the forces do not deserve to be lead blindly into something for which there has been little justification.
Undoubtedly someone else will go to Iraq in his place - however as numerous posted have indicated that is the duty
of someone in the forces - therefore the fact that someone else will be going is immaterial.
Whether he is in Iraq or the U.K he is a doctor - he does indeed have a duty of care but that can be exercised
anywhere - suffering isn't just limited to Iraq.
The basis of what was used to go to war has been largely discounted - for example lifting coursework off the internet
and adding a little spin like the '45minutes warning' to make the infamous dossier. I think no matter what you think about loyalty and service - the forces do not deserve to be lead blindly into something for which there has been little justification.
Undoubtedly someone else will go to Iraq in his place - however as numerous posted have indicated that is the duty
of someone in the forces - therefore the fact that someone else will be going is immaterial.
Whether he is in Iraq or the U.K he is a doctor - he does indeed have a duty of care but that can be exercised
anywhere - suffering isn't just limited to Iraq.
He has a duty of care to his potential patients, and also a duty of obligation to his employer and his colleagues. If you do not like the heat get out of the kitchen. He wants it both ways.
I would suggest that the doctor in question take himself off to work for an organisation like MSF, and put himself into a situation where force protection is not just around the corner.
Legalities aside, he has aready served previous tours in Iraq, what is so different about this one.
Remember, that at all times the patient comes first, arguments can be made later.
I would suggest that the doctor in question take himself off to work for an organisation like MSF, and put himself into a situation where force protection is not just around the corner.
Legalities aside, he has aready served previous tours in Iraq, what is so different about this one.
Remember, that at all times the patient comes first, arguments can be made later.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said air pig.
The war, legal or not, is over as such. It's now an operational theatre with guys and gals at risk. He has a duty, as an officer and as a doc, to serve as ordered.
The war, legal or not, is over as such. It's now an operational theatre with guys and gals at risk. He has a duty, as an officer and as a doc, to serve as ordered.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said all of you. This weed should be plucked from the ground and discarded......
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldfella - The war decidedly isn't 'over' ! Part of the remit for attacking Iraq was to flush out Al Qaeda operatives which were supposedly in Iraq. This comes under the 'war on terror' - the operations are ongoing so the 'war' as such hasn't finished.
As for your comments Southside -I think possibly you have
a version of reality which is decidedly Walt Disney. There is nothing 'heroic' about freeing a country from a dictator and then turning the place into the biggest terrorist melting pot in history.
If you think it's a good thing spare a thought for the people of Zimbabwe who are former Commonwealth citizens and getting slaughtered and made homeless by another dictator . Oh I forgot there is no oil there so who cares!
As for your comments Southside -I think possibly you have
a version of reality which is decidedly Walt Disney. There is nothing 'heroic' about freeing a country from a dictator and then turning the place into the biggest terrorist melting pot in history.
If you think it's a good thing spare a thought for the people of Zimbabwe who are former Commonwealth citizens and getting slaughtered and made homeless by another dictator . Oh I forgot there is no oil there so who cares!
And since that bumbling Texan half-wit cannot even pronounce Zimbabwe, let alone knows where it is, Mugabe will remain in power for the foreseeable future, I guess...
Bliar is too interested in licking Bush's bottom to worry about getting rid of Mugabe. Anyway, that'd be 'regime change' - which we know isn't allowed....
Bliar is too interested in licking Bush's bottom to worry about getting rid of Mugabe. Anyway, that'd be 'regime change' - which we know isn't allowed....