RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Bush would have any problem finding Zimbabwe !
It's straight to the back of the atlas index under 'ZEE' - I can
understand his difficulty in finding New Orleans - is it under
'nnn' or 'ohh' !
It's straight to the back of the atlas index under 'ZEE' - I can
understand his difficulty in finding New Orleans - is it under
'nnn' or 'ohh' !
Hhhmmmm…………………………………………………
Where to start?
I suppose it all depends on what the guys defence is going to be; that he was asked to carry out an order that he considered illegal, that he was asked to carry out an order which he thought would then involve him in a war he thinks is illegal, or that he cannot carry out an order that would commit him to an action that he believes will involve him in something that is morally unsupportable?
If I were defending such a hypothetical case there would have to be a very clear definition of the above, if I were prosecuting and no such definition existed then, hypothetically, the task would be extraordinarily straight forward.
Any case that depends on the “legality” of a war would be fraught with difficulty, war as such is not really a state of affairs that is easy to define in the modern post war world, “fighting between structured armed groups” tends to be how the UN describes it nowadays, nobody “declares war” these days, despite what Bush said about declaring war on Global terrorism he did not formally declare war against another state, Roosevelt was the last US president to do such a thing.
So Impiger, the state of affairs existing in Iraq now is precisely the same as that when we invaded, it wasn’t a “war” then, it isn’t a “war” now but it is very much the same.
There is a lot of tosh on this thread so far about illegal wars, just wars, unjust wars and what can or cannot happen to a participant be they rank or file or the leadership. If half of what is being trotted out was true then Nuremburg would not have happened and the Hague would not be the centre for the activities it currently is!
This chap has done a very brave thing, there is a very thin line between bravery and stupidity.
Stafford,
Totally amazed that you appear to blame Tony Blair for the cult of instant 15 minute fame, did that not exist prior to 1997? Just what planet do you inhabit man? Truly amazing…………………..
Squirrel 41
Your attempts to identify and classify the various kinds of war ignore one rather large and important fact, there actually hasn’t been a declared war since 1945, the UN has made it rather difficult to justify any armed aggression be it legally fought or not, it’s no coincidence that we now fight conflicts or participate in incidents rather than fight wars.
The UN charter identifies three scenarios where armed action is permitted, but this in no way condones a declaration of war, it permits self defence and intervention, it does not permit you to declare war.
Afraid I cannot see how GW2 is covered by any of the UN charter scenarios or Security Council mandated actions.
Where to start?
I suppose it all depends on what the guys defence is going to be; that he was asked to carry out an order that he considered illegal, that he was asked to carry out an order which he thought would then involve him in a war he thinks is illegal, or that he cannot carry out an order that would commit him to an action that he believes will involve him in something that is morally unsupportable?
If I were defending such a hypothetical case there would have to be a very clear definition of the above, if I were prosecuting and no such definition existed then, hypothetically, the task would be extraordinarily straight forward.
Any case that depends on the “legality” of a war would be fraught with difficulty, war as such is not really a state of affairs that is easy to define in the modern post war world, “fighting between structured armed groups” tends to be how the UN describes it nowadays, nobody “declares war” these days, despite what Bush said about declaring war on Global terrorism he did not formally declare war against another state, Roosevelt was the last US president to do such a thing.
So Impiger, the state of affairs existing in Iraq now is precisely the same as that when we invaded, it wasn’t a “war” then, it isn’t a “war” now but it is very much the same.
There is a lot of tosh on this thread so far about illegal wars, just wars, unjust wars and what can or cannot happen to a participant be they rank or file or the leadership. If half of what is being trotted out was true then Nuremburg would not have happened and the Hague would not be the centre for the activities it currently is!
This chap has done a very brave thing, there is a very thin line between bravery and stupidity.
Stafford,
Totally amazed that you appear to blame Tony Blair for the cult of instant 15 minute fame, did that not exist prior to 1997? Just what planet do you inhabit man? Truly amazing…………………..
Squirrel 41
Your attempts to identify and classify the various kinds of war ignore one rather large and important fact, there actually hasn’t been a declared war since 1945, the UN has made it rather difficult to justify any armed aggression be it legally fought or not, it’s no coincidence that we now fight conflicts or participate in incidents rather than fight wars.
The UN charter identifies three scenarios where armed action is permitted, but this in no way condones a declaration of war, it permits self defence and intervention, it does not permit you to declare war.
Afraid I cannot see how GW2 is covered by any of the UN charter scenarios or Security Council mandated actions.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did an air exercise in Alaska a few years back and the first death by powerpoint was on the subject of what was and what wasn't a legal war.
Not what we were expecting but it was obviously something the Americans wanted aired. It concentrated on the legal aspects but the perception has probably changed since 9/11.
Not what we were expecting but it was obviously something the Americans wanted aired. It concentrated on the legal aspects but the perception has probably changed since 9/11.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne
There is one big difference between the Iraq action today and in 2003. Then we were forcing ourselves in against the will of the dictatorship. Now we're there to help at the request (no matter how orchestrated) of the elected representatives.
There is one big difference between the Iraq action today and in 2003. Then we were forcing ourselves in against the will of the dictatorship. Now we're there to help at the request (no matter how orchestrated) of the elected representatives.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a former terrier from the days when we were volunteering to defend W. Europe from the Russian hordes, I have to say that anyone willing to be in the reserves nowadays and basically be a cheap soldier is being a bit daft.
There are reserve Service-people with more operational service than some regulars. Yet, because reserve service is non-pensionable; if they get slotted, wifie and kids get something like a one-off grand total of @ £14K from MoD to see them through for the rest of their puffs.
There are reserve Service-people with more operational service than some regulars. Yet, because reserve service is non-pensionable; if they get slotted, wifie and kids get something like a one-off grand total of @ £14K from MoD to see them through for the rest of their puffs.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone
A quick glance back at your postings displays breathtaking arrogance and, frankly, an ego which is not backed up by substance.You have been found wanting in failing to support your point of view so often that I will reply to your supercilious arrogance just this once.
I suppose at your elevated position in life ordinary folk kind of pass you by so I'll explain my point again, just for you. Blair has inculcated in the British psyche the "Peoples Princess" ethos whereby the spin meister rules all, including orchestrating emotional responses from the masses.
Blair and his pathological need to lie or spin his way through life is certainly responsible for the low esteem in which Politics and politicians are now held, and I fear this is rubbing off on the image of the forces.
Actions such as the one we are debating are born of such political deceit. My view is just as valid as yours but of course, I and millions of others can see through the New Labour project and its breathtaking hypocrisy and mendacity where you are obviously a convert to the evangelical Blair and his discredited regime.
A quick glance back at your postings displays breathtaking arrogance and, frankly, an ego which is not backed up by substance.You have been found wanting in failing to support your point of view so often that I will reply to your supercilious arrogance just this once.
I suppose at your elevated position in life ordinary folk kind of pass you by so I'll explain my point again, just for you. Blair has inculcated in the British psyche the "Peoples Princess" ethos whereby the spin meister rules all, including orchestrating emotional responses from the masses.
Blair and his pathological need to lie or spin his way through life is certainly responsible for the low esteem in which Politics and politicians are now held, and I fear this is rubbing off on the image of the forces.
Actions such as the one we are debating are born of such political deceit. My view is just as valid as yours but of course, I and millions of others can see through the New Labour project and its breathtaking hypocrisy and mendacity where you are obviously a convert to the evangelical Blair and his discredited regime.
Stafford
What a remarkably hypocritical post, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
We disagree, we have different points of view, you may care about that, frankly I don’t. As to being “found wanting” I have no intention of indulging in petty squabbles about my opinions, line by line justifications and providing detailed information to support my point of view. I hold my own points of view and do not have to justify them to the likes of you.
“An ego which is not backed up by substance”?? What the hell is that supposed to mean, how on earth do you know? Did you go through flying training with me? Did you serve on a Squadron with me? Did you go to University with me? Do you work in Chambers with me?
Glad to see you seem to think Tony Blair has a pathological need to lie, on what basis do you make that libellous statement?
Finally you are making way too many assumptions about my opinion of Blair and this regime, I merely pointed out that to blame Blair for the culture of “15 minutes of fame” is a nonsensical statement seeing as that particular phenomenon was first discussed in the sixties and has been around ever since. Do you think Blair is responsible for reality TV?
Now this thread is about the Dr, not me, so let’s get back on track.
What a remarkably hypocritical post, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
We disagree, we have different points of view, you may care about that, frankly I don’t. As to being “found wanting” I have no intention of indulging in petty squabbles about my opinions, line by line justifications and providing detailed information to support my point of view. I hold my own points of view and do not have to justify them to the likes of you.
“An ego which is not backed up by substance”?? What the hell is that supposed to mean, how on earth do you know? Did you go through flying training with me? Did you serve on a Squadron with me? Did you go to University with me? Do you work in Chambers with me?
Glad to see you seem to think Tony Blair has a pathological need to lie, on what basis do you make that libellous statement?
Finally you are making way too many assumptions about my opinion of Blair and this regime, I merely pointed out that to blame Blair for the culture of “15 minutes of fame” is a nonsensical statement seeing as that particular phenomenon was first discussed in the sixties and has been around ever since. Do you think Blair is responsible for reality TV?
Now this thread is about the Dr, not me, so let’s get back on track.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne,
Not missing the point, merely making the point that theoretically the UN Charter limits the legitimate use of force to the three cases I outlined - Self Defence, UN Security Council sanctioned action under Chapter VII, and the vexed question of humanitarian intervention.
I come down on the side of the legality of humanitarian intervention, though not uncritically. The Michael Walzer / Ian Brownlie brand of narrow positivism, and the Simon Chesterman / Thomas Franck pragmatic positivism presents a conundrum - how can the UN, a body expressly created to define and police new human rights protections in a world shocked by WWII’s horrors, deprive its members of the means to stop such abuses?
My answer is that the international community should not stand by in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and if the UN is deadlocked, the UN Charter should not stand in the way of effective (military) action to stop these crimes occuring. On this basis, one finds that Kosovo was legal, whereas Suez was not. (That having been said, the manner of the Kosovo campaign does invite some valid criticisms.)
Unless you beleve that the post WW-II humanitarian treaties were purely decorative, and that no-one actually intended human rights considerations to interfere with the serious business of classical state policy driven by self interest, then you are obliged to accept that the signatories did indeed expect them to work approximately as designed.
Collective security’s failure during the Cold War does not vitiate the intent of its’ creators: instead the expectation that collective security could be invoked in support of human rights supports the notion in the rationale that human rights were important, and that where the collective security framework failed, the protection of human rights would remain a priority. If so, then the right of states to intervene to uphold them was not designed to be constrained by the UN Charter.
And yes, I agree that the A-Gs legal advice before GW2 was risible, and that the conflict was an illegal act of aggression. The problem I forsee for the (very brave) Flt Lt, is that the presence of UK forces is mandated by UNSCR 1546 and that therefore the process will be short-circuited without any serious consideration of the "crime of aggression = an illegal order" argument.
S41
Not missing the point, merely making the point that theoretically the UN Charter limits the legitimate use of force to the three cases I outlined - Self Defence, UN Security Council sanctioned action under Chapter VII, and the vexed question of humanitarian intervention.
I come down on the side of the legality of humanitarian intervention, though not uncritically. The Michael Walzer / Ian Brownlie brand of narrow positivism, and the Simon Chesterman / Thomas Franck pragmatic positivism presents a conundrum - how can the UN, a body expressly created to define and police new human rights protections in a world shocked by WWII’s horrors, deprive its members of the means to stop such abuses?
My answer is that the international community should not stand by in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and if the UN is deadlocked, the UN Charter should not stand in the way of effective (military) action to stop these crimes occuring. On this basis, one finds that Kosovo was legal, whereas Suez was not. (That having been said, the manner of the Kosovo campaign does invite some valid criticisms.)
Unless you beleve that the post WW-II humanitarian treaties were purely decorative, and that no-one actually intended human rights considerations to interfere with the serious business of classical state policy driven by self interest, then you are obliged to accept that the signatories did indeed expect them to work approximately as designed.
Collective security’s failure during the Cold War does not vitiate the intent of its’ creators: instead the expectation that collective security could be invoked in support of human rights supports the notion in the rationale that human rights were important, and that where the collective security framework failed, the protection of human rights would remain a priority. If so, then the right of states to intervene to uphold them was not designed to be constrained by the UN Charter.
And yes, I agree that the A-Gs legal advice before GW2 was risible, and that the conflict was an illegal act of aggression. The problem I forsee for the (very brave) Flt Lt, is that the presence of UK forces is mandated by UNSCR 1546 and that therefore the process will be short-circuited without any serious consideration of the "crime of aggression = an illegal order" argument.
S41
Impiger,
Of course you are right, though the intervening powers involvement in that “democratisation” would cast the morality of such a move in a state with no previous history of democracy into some doubt! You have however, acknowledged that with your orchestration point, so it is being rather petty to agree but still point out that there is still a “war that isn’t a war going on there.
Squirrel41,
Yes, I broadly agree; what actually happened in no way invalidates what should have happened nor discredits the original aim of those who created such treaties.
BTW; an ageing Barrister in my very junior days warned me always to be wary of a man who uses the term vitiate in every day conversation as; “he is a man who knows the language and how to use it selectively to include those he wants and, more importantly, also to EXCLUDE those he wants!”
Uncle Ginsters,
Yes, how simple, and HOW TOTALLY and REPUGNANTLY WRONG!
(OK, where'd that post go?)
Of course you are right, though the intervening powers involvement in that “democratisation” would cast the morality of such a move in a state with no previous history of democracy into some doubt! You have however, acknowledged that with your orchestration point, so it is being rather petty to agree but still point out that there is still a “war that isn’t a war going on there.
Squirrel41,
Yes, I broadly agree; what actually happened in no way invalidates what should have happened nor discredits the original aim of those who created such treaties.
BTW; an ageing Barrister in my very junior days warned me always to be wary of a man who uses the term vitiate in every day conversation as; “he is a man who knows the language and how to use it selectively to include those he wants and, more importantly, also to EXCLUDE those he wants!”
Uncle Ginsters,
Yes, how simple, and HOW TOTALLY and REPUGNANTLY WRONG!
(OK, where'd that post go?)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I see...
pr00ne writes:
__________
BTW; an ageing Barrister in my very junior days warned me always to be wary of a man who uses the term vitiate in every day conversation as; “he is a man who knows the language and how to use it selectively to include those he wants and, more importantly, also to EXCLUDE those he wants!”
__________
I see.... the definition of a lawyer, perchance?
S41
__________
BTW; an ageing Barrister in my very junior days warned me always to be wary of a man who uses the term vitiate in every day conversation as; “he is a man who knows the language and how to use it selectively to include those he wants and, more importantly, also to EXCLUDE those he wants!”
__________
I see.... the definition of a lawyer, perchance?
S41
Squirrel 41,
ER, well........................................................ ........
ER, well........................................................ ........
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone
More New Labour bluff and bluster from you I see. If I am guilty as you charge of a libellous statement, I look forward to standing in the dock alongside a vast number of the British people who share my views regarding dodgy dossiers and the like. Frankly I'm glad I didn't train with you, served in a different Squadron, went to a different University and the nearest I've been to Chambers is not far enough away given the impression of the legal profession you are providing.
I do however note your learned qualifications and frankly don't give a s
t how clever you think you are. I'll leave it to many others on the forum who have to put up with your insufferable Blair bias.
More New Labour bluff and bluster from you I see. If I am guilty as you charge of a libellous statement, I look forward to standing in the dock alongside a vast number of the British people who share my views regarding dodgy dossiers and the like. Frankly I'm glad I didn't train with you, served in a different Squadron, went to a different University and the nearest I've been to Chambers is not far enough away given the impression of the legal profession you are providing.
I do however note your learned qualifications and frankly don't give a s
t how clever you think you are. I'll leave it to many others on the forum who have to put up with your insufferable Blair bias.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys, boys
While I myself remain perplexed by Pr00ne's apparent love of Bliar, it is largely irrelevant to one of the more interesting discussions we have had on PPRuNe of recent months.
Believe me, I have no particular love for lawyers, having had to fight one of the more repellant members of the species for nigh-on 10 years but I would not tar them all with that brush.
Here we have a legal point under discussion and the benefit of a legal mind (and former pilot) to contribute to the discussion. Can we not leave the personal bile out and play the ball rather than the man?
While I myself remain perplexed by Pr00ne's apparent love of Bliar, it is largely irrelevant to one of the more interesting discussions we have had on PPRuNe of recent months.
Believe me, I have no particular love for lawyers, having had to fight one of the more repellant members of the species for nigh-on 10 years but I would not tar them all with that brush.
Here we have a legal point under discussion and the benefit of a legal mind (and former pilot) to contribute to the discussion. Can we not leave the personal bile out and play the ball rather than the man?
An Teallach,
Fair point well made. Though all I did was express astonishment that the Staffordshire loon blamed the cult of “15minutes of fame” on Tony Blair????????????????
Stafford
If you think that was bluff and bluster then boy you have not lived! As to you standing in the dock with the British public, would that be the same British public who voted Blair back in for yet another term? Thankfully the private mails I receive don’t quite stack up to your rather low opinion of me but I really don’t care two hoots, are you SURE you didn’t ever fly Jaguars?
Fair point well made. Though all I did was express astonishment that the Staffordshire loon blamed the cult of “15minutes of fame” on Tony Blair????????????????
Stafford
If you think that was bluff and bluster then boy you have not lived! As to you standing in the dock with the British public, would that be the same British public who voted Blair back in for yet another term? Thankfully the private mails I receive don’t quite stack up to your rather low opinion of me but I really don’t care two hoots, are you SURE you didn’t ever fly Jaguars?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone- I think it's possibly a little wide of the mark to suggest that the British public voted Tony back in - a percentage did, but a great many didn't hence the reduced majority in parliament.
As for whether he is honest or not - the best way to blame
someone else is start an inquiry as George and Tony both know !
As for whether he is honest or not - the best way to blame
someone else is start an inquiry as George and Tony both know !
RileyDove,
Er……………no, I think it 100% accurate to say that British public voted him back in, because, they err………….….voted him back in!
Which is why he’s still Prime Minister and Michael Howard’s out of a job.
It may be a reduced majority but it’s still better than Thatcher got in 79.
BTW;
Is that a Mcalpine RileyDove?
Er……………no, I think it 100% accurate to say that British public voted him back in, because, they err………….….voted him back in!
Which is why he’s still Prime Minister and Michael Howard’s out of a job.
It may be a reduced majority but it’s still better than Thatcher got in 79.
BTW;
Is that a Mcalpine RileyDove?
Just to try and get the debate back on track....
As the Dr in question was being sent to Iraq for the 3rd time, and he did not claim it was an illegal order on the 2 previous occasions, what justification does he now have for refusing said order? Furthermore as the situation has now changed vice invasion of a sovereign country (then) and a police action approved by the duly elected sovereign government (now [and with or without BLiar's majority/minority]) then how can he say he is now being given an illegal order.
And although 15 minutes of fame has been around since the 60's it has exploded under this government but I would not say that it is the fault of New Liarbour just that they were the government in power at the time of the explosion in reality(?) TV shows, just as Maggie was in power when a large number of bloated and under productive industries went to the wall.
As the Dr in question was being sent to Iraq for the 3rd time, and he did not claim it was an illegal order on the 2 previous occasions, what justification does he now have for refusing said order? Furthermore as the situation has now changed vice invasion of a sovereign country (then) and a police action approved by the duly elected sovereign government (now [and with or without BLiar's majority/minority]) then how can he say he is now being given an illegal order.
And although 15 minutes of fame has been around since the 60's it has exploded under this government but I would not say that it is the fault of New Liarbour just that they were the government in power at the time of the explosion in reality(?) TV shows, just as Maggie was in power when a large number of bloated and under productive industries went to the wall.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland et al
The fact that the Dr has been twice before - and at least one trip to Afghanistan, according to the press - is rather in his favour. It shows that this is unlikely to be a case of "don't want to do it" and "can't be ar$ed", but more likely is instead a principled stand based on an assessment of the evidence available to him.
The Hutton Enquiry demonstrated the paucity of the intelligence used, and the manner in which was presented; it is now hardly a contentious position to argue that the first "Dossier" was designed to mislead, and the less said about the second, the better. This information was not in the public domain in 2003 of the first half of 2004.
Moreover, the issue of the legal advice only came into the public domain in 2005. The A-G's initial legal advice was IMHO gung-ho but defensible; a follow-on resolution to UNSCR 1441 was required for legality and the first time around the A-G accepted that this was a reasonable view. In the second, a week or so later, he decided it was not. Prof Philippe Sands put together a devastating critique of the whole thing in the second half of the 2005 Mishcon lecture (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/mishcon/do...2005_Sands.pdf) - it's about 25 pages, and the the second half is better than the first.
The point here is that there is that as the information available to you changes, it must be possible to change your mind. If the Dr is saying he now has information that he didn't previously (and with Hutton and the legal advice this is perfectly possible), and that with this new information, he has changed his mind, that to me seems entirely reasonable.
And pr00ne is entirely entitled to his view; those serving are doing so to protect his right to believe and express his views, as he did yours when he was serving... Big Picture, People!!
S41
The fact that the Dr has been twice before - and at least one trip to Afghanistan, according to the press - is rather in his favour. It shows that this is unlikely to be a case of "don't want to do it" and "can't be ar$ed", but more likely is instead a principled stand based on an assessment of the evidence available to him.
The Hutton Enquiry demonstrated the paucity of the intelligence used, and the manner in which was presented; it is now hardly a contentious position to argue that the first "Dossier" was designed to mislead, and the less said about the second, the better. This information was not in the public domain in 2003 of the first half of 2004.
Moreover, the issue of the legal advice only came into the public domain in 2005. The A-G's initial legal advice was IMHO gung-ho but defensible; a follow-on resolution to UNSCR 1441 was required for legality and the first time around the A-G accepted that this was a reasonable view. In the second, a week or so later, he decided it was not. Prof Philippe Sands put together a devastating critique of the whole thing in the second half of the 2005 Mishcon lecture (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/mishcon/do...2005_Sands.pdf) - it's about 25 pages, and the the second half is better than the first.
The point here is that there is that as the information available to you changes, it must be possible to change your mind. If the Dr is saying he now has information that he didn't previously (and with Hutton and the legal advice this is perfectly possible), and that with this new information, he has changed his mind, that to me seems entirely reasonable.
And pr00ne is entirely entitled to his view; those serving are doing so to protect his right to believe and express his views, as he did yours when he was serving... Big Picture, People!!
S41