RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for that link S41. No doubt we'll all be watching the outcome of this with interest.
Having witnessed at first hand the difficulty MoD LA had pre TELIC and the 180 deg repositioning that went on, the structure of the MoD case should be good to watch.
The much wider implications of the increasing appetite for legal questioning of military employment have not made it to the levels where it is required, i.e. the coal face.
Let no one be in any doubt - legal advice changes (is made up) as we go along. People need to be damned sure where they stand and ready to ask/challenge if they're not comfortable.
Having witnessed at first hand the difficulty MoD LA had pre TELIC and the 180 deg repositioning that went on, the structure of the MoD case should be good to watch.
The much wider implications of the increasing appetite for legal questioning of military employment have not made it to the levels where it is required, i.e. the coal face.
Let no one be in any doubt - legal advice changes (is made up) as we go along. People need to be damned sure where they stand and ready to ask/challenge if they're not comfortable.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else noticed that no matter how obscure the thread title the second Pr00ne gives us all the benifit of his "I'm right your wrong" arguement it turns into the "I Love Tony" show
Pr00ne what you fail to understand is that a huge swathe of us in todays military did not vote for him, do not trust him and believe he is a liar, believe he took us to war on a tissue of not even half truths.
We know you love him and all he stands for, but please try to understand that lots of us do not next time you want to spout in your mainly patronising manner
"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."
You can almost hear the smug sneer in your voice which, despite what you had hoped for does not make you look clever, just silly"
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Pr00ne what you fail to understand is that a huge swathe of us in todays military did not vote for him, do not trust him and believe he is a liar, believe he took us to war on a tissue of not even half truths.
We know you love him and all he stands for, but please try to understand that lots of us do not next time you want to spout in your mainly patronising manner
"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."
You can almost hear the smug sneer in your voice which, despite what you had hoped for does not make you look clever, just silly"
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burpblade
Thanks for that - an interesting perspective - value your thoughts as this plays through.
I've found the original legal advice (07 Mar 03) released by No. 10. (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pd...ion%201441.pdf).
Discounting self-defence, humanitarian intervention and fresh explicit UN Security Council authorisation, the only hope for the legality of the war was the so-called revival argument - i.e, that the UN authorisation for GW1 had not ended and could be "revived". It is worth quoting the A-Gs advice in para 9 in full.
Sorry for the length:
9. Law Officers have advised in the past that, provided the conditions are made out the revival argument does provide a sufficient justification in international law for the use of force against Iraq. That view is supported by an opinion given in August 1992 by the then UN Legal Counsel, Carl-August Fleischauer. However, the UK has consistently taken the view (as does the Fleischauer opinon) that, as the cease-fire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US has rather a different view they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States. I am not aware of any other state which supports this view. This is an issue of critical importance when considering the effect of resolution 1441.
This was written by the A-G and dated 7 March 2003.
In other words, two weeks before the war kicked off, the A-G is saying that the UK could not go to war on the basis that it did, unless it joined the Americans in a minority of 1 in their assessment of the legal position.
Did international law fundamentally change in those two weeks? No.
Did the Secuirty Council authorise force? No.
Did the Bush Administration decide that they were going to invade Iraq anyway? Yes.
What were Blair's intentions / actions? Draw you own conclusions.
S41
Thanks for that - an interesting perspective - value your thoughts as this plays through.
I've found the original legal advice (07 Mar 03) released by No. 10. (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/files/pd...ion%201441.pdf).
Discounting self-defence, humanitarian intervention and fresh explicit UN Security Council authorisation, the only hope for the legality of the war was the so-called revival argument - i.e, that the UN authorisation for GW1 had not ended and could be "revived". It is worth quoting the A-Gs advice in para 9 in full.
Sorry for the length:
9. Law Officers have advised in the past that, provided the conditions are made out the revival argument does provide a sufficient justification in international law for the use of force against Iraq. That view is supported by an opinion given in August 1992 by the then UN Legal Counsel, Carl-August Fleischauer. However, the UK has consistently taken the view (as does the Fleischauer opinon) that, as the cease-fire conditions were set by the Security Council in resolution 687, it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred. The US has rather a different view they maintain that the fact of whether Iraq is in breach is a matter of objective fact which may therefore be assessed by individual Member States. I am not aware of any other state which supports this view. This is an issue of critical importance when considering the effect of resolution 1441.
This was written by the A-G and dated 7 March 2003.
In other words, two weeks before the war kicked off, the A-G is saying that the UK could not go to war on the basis that it did, unless it joined the Americans in a minority of 1 in their assessment of the legal position.
Did international law fundamentally change in those two weeks? No.
Did the Secuirty Council authorise force? No.
Did the Bush Administration decide that they were going to invade Iraq anyway? Yes.
What were Blair's intentions / actions? Draw you own conclusions.
S41
Always_boring_in_wilts,
Oh dear! ABIW I understand FULLY! It may have been some time ago but I did
spend some years in the RAF as GD(P), went right through the training regime and two tours CR, and I still have some serving friends, I know what the majority think of him and they have every right to hold those opinions.
I have spent far more time in this thread discussing the legal elements of
the old Dr’s case than I have talking about Blair. I merely commented on a
ridiculous claim made by another poster, I wasn’t pro Blair in any way
shape or form.
You have no idea what I actually think of Blair, you have no idea who I
voted for and you really are making a HUGE assumption (totally incorrect
BTW) if you think I even tolerate some (not all) of the things Blair stands for.
There was nothing smug, and certainly nothing clever, about pointing out
that he did actually win the last election, it’s just a fact, plain and
simple, you may not like it, but he did.
To get back on topic(!?) Squirrel 41/burpblade,
Couldn’t agree more, this is going to be a fascinating case and one that
could well have considerable consequences totally unseen and unsought at
the outset. The decision to prosecute could well be a very grave mistake.
On a wider note, despite his best intentions, I think this debacle will be what Blair will be remembered for for all time.
Oh dear! ABIW I understand FULLY! It may have been some time ago but I did
spend some years in the RAF as GD(P), went right through the training regime and two tours CR, and I still have some serving friends, I know what the majority think of him and they have every right to hold those opinions.
I have spent far more time in this thread discussing the legal elements of
the old Dr’s case than I have talking about Blair. I merely commented on a
ridiculous claim made by another poster, I wasn’t pro Blair in any way
shape or form.
You have no idea what I actually think of Blair, you have no idea who I
voted for and you really are making a HUGE assumption (totally incorrect
BTW) if you think I even tolerate some (not all) of the things Blair stands for.
There was nothing smug, and certainly nothing clever, about pointing out
that he did actually win the last election, it’s just a fact, plain and
simple, you may not like it, but he did.
To get back on topic(!?) Squirrel 41/burpblade,
Couldn’t agree more, this is going to be a fascinating case and one that
could well have considerable consequences totally unseen and unsought at
the outset. The decision to prosecute could well be a very grave mistake.
On a wider note, despite his best intentions, I think this debacle will be what Blair will be remembered for for all time.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne
I agree the trial will be fascinating but I don't see it lasting long. Under no circumstances will HMG allow a challenge to the legality of the war. So I think that it may be stopped on some technicality or something might happen to prevent it from coming to trial in the first place.
Any one seen a trial date set yet?
I agree the trial will be fascinating but I don't see it lasting long. Under no circumstances will HMG allow a challenge to the legality of the war. So I think that it may be stopped on some technicality or something might happen to prevent it from coming to trial in the first place.
Any one seen a trial date set yet?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm amazed at the broadness of support for this Dr who has suddenly decided that the war is illegal and therefore does not wish to serve. Well, that was jolly thoughtful of him and so self induldent too. What a wonderful bunch we are having decided, with 20/20 hindsight of course, that the war was illegal.
Whether one in today's military voted for Tony Blair, or even like him, is totally irrelevant. One does not pledge one's support on the basis of personally liking someone. I personally do not for one minute, believ that the decision to go to war was taken lightly (even Bill and Hillary thought it was justified). To all the people here who have hinted that the war was illegal, and yet continue to serve, are you yourselves not guilty of supporting an illegal war and therfore culpable. To them I should like to say: put up or shut up.
This talk of putting him up against a stake is nonsense and we all know it, however he does not have my support and I do not have any sympathy for his views, or those of others who support him.
It's a bit like leaving a scene of an accident because the patient did something thought to be illegal.
Whether one in today's military voted for Tony Blair, or even like him, is totally irrelevant. One does not pledge one's support on the basis of personally liking someone. I personally do not for one minute, believ that the decision to go to war was taken lightly (even Bill and Hillary thought it was justified). To all the people here who have hinted that the war was illegal, and yet continue to serve, are you yourselves not guilty of supporting an illegal war and therfore culpable. To them I should like to say: put up or shut up.
This talk of putting him up against a stake is nonsense and we all know it, however he does not have my support and I do not have any sympathy for his views, or those of others who support him.
It's a bit like leaving a scene of an accident because the patient did something thought to be illegal.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gorilla / pr00ne / Burpblade / ABIW
I'm not surprised that they're prosecuting this - after all, what else could the MOD do? Failure to prosecute would be to invite anyone who simply doesn't fancy a trip to Iraq to decide that they'd rather stay home, and the breakdown in military discipline could be distinctly problematic.
But as has been pointed out, prosecution is not risk-free either. UNSCR 1546 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement) authorises the position of the forces on the ground, and if I were the MOD, I would use this in an attempt to avoid any discussion of the legality of the war, on the grounds that in light of UNSCR 1546, it's just not relevant.
I'm not sure whether I agree with this, but since UNSCRs are international law, it makes it very difficult to argue against, so it will be very interesting. The key will be if the good Dr loses his GCM, is discharged and appeals to the conventional judicial system, how the civilian judiciary deal with it. And once in civilian courts, a recourse to the European Courts (presumably by then on points of employment law).
We shall see: but as Burpblade points out, "People need to be damned sure where they stand and ready to ask/challenge if they're not comfortable." Amen to that, Burpblade: this is why all commanders need to ensure that their people get their law of war update and take it seriously.
S41
I'm not surprised that they're prosecuting this - after all, what else could the MOD do? Failure to prosecute would be to invite anyone who simply doesn't fancy a trip to Iraq to decide that they'd rather stay home, and the breakdown in military discipline could be distinctly problematic.
But as has been pointed out, prosecution is not risk-free either. UNSCR 1546 (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement) authorises the position of the forces on the ground, and if I were the MOD, I would use this in an attempt to avoid any discussion of the legality of the war, on the grounds that in light of UNSCR 1546, it's just not relevant.
I'm not sure whether I agree with this, but since UNSCRs are international law, it makes it very difficult to argue against, so it will be very interesting. The key will be if the good Dr loses his GCM, is discharged and appeals to the conventional judicial system, how the civilian judiciary deal with it. And once in civilian courts, a recourse to the European Courts (presumably by then on points of employment law).
We shall see: but as Burpblade points out, "People need to be damned sure where they stand and ready to ask/challenge if they're not comfortable." Amen to that, Burpblade: this is why all commanders need to ensure that their people get their law of war update and take it seriously.
S41
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello All,
I ahve been away for a while and I am just catching up on the the thread. It's a ggod point that discussing the legallity of the war is probably pointless because the Doc's Court-Martial is not actually about whether the war was legal or not but whether he disobeyed an order (written or verbal) to deploy to Iraq. The legallity of the "War" is something the Doc clearly wants to bring up at trial but, as Squirrel 41 points out, the MOD could avoid the discussion of legallity by focussing on the simple facts of the case: Was the Doc ordered to go, and did he actually go? The answers are already well known (yes to the first and no to the second question). Without mentioning the legallity of the "War", the MOD seem to have sufficient grounds for securing a conviction hence bringing the Doc to trial and maintaining military discipline. Please note that I am not making a judgement as to the outcome, only surmising the MODs chain of thought.
I ahve been away for a while and I am just catching up on the the thread. It's a ggod point that discussing the legallity of the war is probably pointless because the Doc's Court-Martial is not actually about whether the war was legal or not but whether he disobeyed an order (written or verbal) to deploy to Iraq. The legallity of the "War" is something the Doc clearly wants to bring up at trial but, as Squirrel 41 points out, the MOD could avoid the discussion of legallity by focussing on the simple facts of the case: Was the Doc ordered to go, and did he actually go? The answers are already well known (yes to the first and no to the second question). Without mentioning the legallity of the "War", the MOD seem to have sufficient grounds for securing a conviction hence bringing the Doc to trial and maintaining military discipline. Please note that I am not making a judgement as to the outcome, only surmising the MODs chain of thought.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twoston
Welcome back. I share your summary, which is why I think that the decision of the GCM is predictable. This is a shame, as the specific question of whether a war of aggression is per se an illegal war, meaning that the individual's duty - not, pls note a right, but an obligation - to refuse illegal orders will not be tested. Which also means that if we are ordered to commit aggression again, we will not know the state of the law, and what we're supposed to do; I'd certainly welcome some clarity on this.
I stress that I'm not condemning those who fought in TELIC as "war criminals" for being involved in an illegal war, as the Government's unpublished legal advice to commanders was that it was legal. Those at the tactical and operational level were unlikely to have known how dubious the advice was, or how tendentious the use of intelligence was shown to be by Lord Hutton. Had I been involved in TELIC - which I was not - and I had been told that the A-G had determined it was legal, I would have followed my orders to the letter. (As this guy has done twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan.)
nutcracker43
You and I agree that whether we voted for Blair or not is completely irrelevant. (As it happens, I did not.) But surely the issue is the legality of the orders? For you to say:
__________________
To all the people here who have hinted that the war was illegal, and yet continue to serve, are you yourselves not guilty of supporting an illegal war and therefore culpable. To them I should like to say: put up or shut up.
This talk of putting him up against a stake is nonsense and we all know it, however he does not have my support and I do not have any sympathy for his views, or those of others who support him.
__________________
I support the right of the guy to stand up and question whether his orders were legal - as above, you know we should all check all our orders are legal before carrying them out. He has declined to follow orders which he believed to be illegal (pls note, I think that he's made a mistake, based on UNSCR 1546).
I support his obligation to check the legality of his orders, and has this occurred before the end of the war (arguably the adoption of UNSCR 1546 on 08 Jun 04) then knowing what we know now , I think that he would be right.
And if I'm faced with the situation where I am being asked to carry out what I genuinely believe to be illegal - not merely immoral, but illegal - orders, I hope that I have the moral courage to do the same thing. Does this mean that in your world I should resign from the forces?
If anyone's having difficulty with the previous UN link, this one works for all of the 2004 resolutions:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html
S41
[edited for spolling...]
Welcome back. I share your summary, which is why I think that the decision of the GCM is predictable. This is a shame, as the specific question of whether a war of aggression is per se an illegal war, meaning that the individual's duty - not, pls note a right, but an obligation - to refuse illegal orders will not be tested. Which also means that if we are ordered to commit aggression again, we will not know the state of the law, and what we're supposed to do; I'd certainly welcome some clarity on this.
I stress that I'm not condemning those who fought in TELIC as "war criminals" for being involved in an illegal war, as the Government's unpublished legal advice to commanders was that it was legal. Those at the tactical and operational level were unlikely to have known how dubious the advice was, or how tendentious the use of intelligence was shown to be by Lord Hutton. Had I been involved in TELIC - which I was not - and I had been told that the A-G had determined it was legal, I would have followed my orders to the letter. (As this guy has done twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan.)
nutcracker43
You and I agree that whether we voted for Blair or not is completely irrelevant. (As it happens, I did not.) But surely the issue is the legality of the orders? For you to say:
__________________
To all the people here who have hinted that the war was illegal, and yet continue to serve, are you yourselves not guilty of supporting an illegal war and therefore culpable. To them I should like to say: put up or shut up.
This talk of putting him up against a stake is nonsense and we all know it, however he does not have my support and I do not have any sympathy for his views, or those of others who support him.
__________________
I support the right of the guy to stand up and question whether his orders were legal - as above, you know we should all check all our orders are legal before carrying them out. He has declined to follow orders which he believed to be illegal (pls note, I think that he's made a mistake, based on UNSCR 1546).
I support his obligation to check the legality of his orders, and has this occurred before the end of the war (arguably the adoption of UNSCR 1546 on 08 Jun 04) then knowing what we know now , I think that he would be right.
And if I'm faced with the situation where I am being asked to carry out what I genuinely believe to be illegal - not merely immoral, but illegal - orders, I hope that I have the moral courage to do the same thing. Does this mean that in your world I should resign from the forces?
If anyone's having difficulty with the previous UN link, this one works for all of the 2004 resolutions:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html
S41
[edited for spolling...]
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker - This isn't a case of people deciding with 20/20 hindsight that the war was illegal. It's the fact that when the various dosiers that justified the war were produced - supposed 'facts' were included which should have been left out
because of the inability to verify them. An enormous amount of planning was carried out long before the U.N was consulted on the possibility of using force. The Iraqi air force was rendered
useless through bribes paid to senior officers - this took months not days of planning. It is patently clear that the coalition forces were going to war against Saddam no matter what.
A great many of the British public disagreed with the war and members of the forces cannot have been impervious to this. If your about to spill other peoples blood - there cannot be any
margin for error in the facts that you present to justify the case.
The old priciples used to be based on defence of the realm and
latterly the war on terror. The justifications of the war on Iraq
were decidedly slim even before the war started - the legalities
of whether it was legal or not is fairly irrelevant - the WOMD were
never found-the portable labs not found and the links with Al Qaeda never established . Based on what did happen - was regime change a mistake or was it the purpose to begin with?
because of the inability to verify them. An enormous amount of planning was carried out long before the U.N was consulted on the possibility of using force. The Iraqi air force was rendered
useless through bribes paid to senior officers - this took months not days of planning. It is patently clear that the coalition forces were going to war against Saddam no matter what.
A great many of the British public disagreed with the war and members of the forces cannot have been impervious to this. If your about to spill other peoples blood - there cannot be any
margin for error in the facts that you present to justify the case.
The old priciples used to be based on defence of the realm and
latterly the war on terror. The justifications of the war on Iraq
were decidedly slim even before the war started - the legalities
of whether it was legal or not is fairly irrelevant - the WOMD were
never found-the portable labs not found and the links with Al Qaeda never established . Based on what did happen - was regime change a mistake or was it the purpose to begin with?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel 41, thanks for that. You state: "And if I'm faced with the situation where I am being asked to carry out what I genuinely believe to be illegal - not merely immoral, but illegal - orders, I hope that I have the moral courage to do the same thing. Does this mean that in your world I should resign from the forces? "
If a situation such as the above should arise and you feel you cannot take part in a war because you believe it to be illegal, then yes I do feel you should resign your commission. Serving in the military is not 'a la carte', and if the menu is is not to your liking then I think you should leave. If you are given an order which you feel is illegal then, yes, you shold indeed question the illegal order, you have an obligation to. And if you are still at variance with the powers that be, then do the decent thing and leave. As I understand it the war was legal, then it was not. Who decided it was not? The good doctor's order seems to be perfectly legal, it's the war he feels to be illegal and yes I feel he should have resigned. Robert E Lee was offered the command of the Union Army by Lincoln in their civil war and he, one of the most honouurable people ever, resigned his commission because he 'could not take up his sword against his native state'.
Call me a cynic if you like, but I do suspect this doctor is coming towards the end of his time in the Royal Air Force and this sort of thing, should things go his way, could give him all the publicity he needs. My son tells me there was a programme on the TV programme 'JAG' where a similar scenario was enacted. One hopes for the same result!
If a situation such as the above should arise and you feel you cannot take part in a war because you believe it to be illegal, then yes I do feel you should resign your commission. Serving in the military is not 'a la carte', and if the menu is is not to your liking then I think you should leave. If you are given an order which you feel is illegal then, yes, you shold indeed question the illegal order, you have an obligation to. And if you are still at variance with the powers that be, then do the decent thing and leave. As I understand it the war was legal, then it was not. Who decided it was not? The good doctor's order seems to be perfectly legal, it's the war he feels to be illegal and yes I feel he should have resigned. Robert E Lee was offered the command of the Union Army by Lincoln in their civil war and he, one of the most honouurable people ever, resigned his commission because he 'could not take up his sword against his native state'.
Call me a cynic if you like, but I do suspect this doctor is coming towards the end of his time in the Royal Air Force and this sort of thing, should things go his way, could give him all the publicity he needs. My son tells me there was a programme on the TV programme 'JAG' where a similar scenario was enacted. One hopes for the same result!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutcracker43 wrote:
If a situation such as the above should arise and you feel you cannot take part in a war because you believe it to be illegal, then yes I do feel you should resign your commission. Serving in the military is not 'a la carte', and if the menu is is not to your liking then I think you should leave. If you are given an order which you feel is illegal then, yes, you shold indeed question the illegal order, you have an obligation to. And if you are still at variance with the powers that be, then do the decent thing and leave.
__________________
Interesting. I agree with virtually all of this, except your conclusion, because I think that you're missing one important point. Given that the only time you would question orders on the grounds of legality is when you seriously believe you are being asked to commit a crimnal act, the answer must be to kick the question back up the chain, rather than simply resigning. At the point at which you are told to "do it or resign", if I believed I was right, I would refuse to follow the order and get CM'd. I would not resign.
Why? Because in forcing the powers-that-be to CM me (something that would not be done lightly and would be noticed by the senior leadership), I would be protecting those under my command from following what I considered to be an illegal order, which is my responsibility as their leader. In resigning (presumably in favour of someone who would follow the order I believed to be illegal), I'd be putting my troops in a position where they could be coerced into implementing illegal orders.
S41
If a situation such as the above should arise and you feel you cannot take part in a war because you believe it to be illegal, then yes I do feel you should resign your commission. Serving in the military is not 'a la carte', and if the menu is is not to your liking then I think you should leave. If you are given an order which you feel is illegal then, yes, you shold indeed question the illegal order, you have an obligation to. And if you are still at variance with the powers that be, then do the decent thing and leave.
__________________
Interesting. I agree with virtually all of this, except your conclusion, because I think that you're missing one important point. Given that the only time you would question orders on the grounds of legality is when you seriously believe you are being asked to commit a crimnal act, the answer must be to kick the question back up the chain, rather than simply resigning. At the point at which you are told to "do it or resign", if I believed I was right, I would refuse to follow the order and get CM'd. I would not resign.
Why? Because in forcing the powers-that-be to CM me (something that would not be done lightly and would be noticed by the senior leadership), I would be protecting those under my command from following what I considered to be an illegal order, which is my responsibility as their leader. In resigning (presumably in favour of someone who would follow the order I believed to be illegal), I'd be putting my troops in a position where they could be coerced into implementing illegal orders.
S41
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys
Look at, Listen to and watch
Isn't Koffia Annan the most gentile man in the world
Never angry, always polite, soft spoken, diplomatic, like you want him to be your dad!
He's got a **** job to do, but he has the bollocks to do it - we must support him
Look at, Listen to and watch
Isn't Koffia Annan the most gentile man in the world
Never angry, always polite, soft spoken, diplomatic, like you want him to be your dad!
He's got a **** job to do, but he has the bollocks to do it - we must support him
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because no-one in the House of commons or the Lords had the balls to tell Blair to be cautious and consider his decision to dive headlong behind the Americans ,doesnt mean that we should blindly follow.Although the gentleman in question has his misgivings ,I must applaud him for the stand he makes.He hasnt a hope in hell of winning and will be hung out to dry,for political expediency.But if those in theknow at the time had thought matters through more ,then our Armed forces would not be the position they find themselves ie between a rock and a hard place.
If the government are more than happy for serving personnel to be subject to the rigours of the Law while on active duty,then it is only right that they too answer in the courts if these people find themselves being put in an impossible position and comprimising their own safety.
If the government are more than happy for serving personnel to be subject to the rigours of the Law while on active duty,then it is only right that they too answer in the courts if these people find themselves being put in an impossible position and comprimising their own safety.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 47
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSO,
I disagree with the intimation that politival expediency has anything to do with the Doc's case. If you re-read the posts by Squirrel 41, myself and others, you will note that the Doc is being tried purely under military law and the trial cannot be influenced by politicians (despite the opinon of some cynics out there), just as a trial at the Old Bailey cannot be influenced by Bliar & Co. If he wished to air his misgivings about the "War", allegedly refusing to obey a legal command is not the way to do it as it does not bring the politicians to account.
I do agree though that if we (the military) are being subject to serious scrutiny of all our actions, then the politicians should also be culpable for the end result. However, as the laws are made by politicians...............................
I disagree with the intimation that politival expediency has anything to do with the Doc's case. If you re-read the posts by Squirrel 41, myself and others, you will note that the Doc is being tried purely under military law and the trial cannot be influenced by politicians (despite the opinon of some cynics out there), just as a trial at the Old Bailey cannot be influenced by Bliar & Co. If he wished to air his misgivings about the "War", allegedly refusing to obey a legal command is not the way to do it as it does not bring the politicians to account.
I do agree though that if we (the military) are being subject to serious scrutiny of all our actions, then the politicians should also be culpable for the end result. However, as the laws are made by politicians...............................
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy15,
Is this a windup?
You been standing in the sun too long?
KA probably the most polite, gentle man in the UN. but also the most ineffective. Please tell me of serious achievements I might have missed.
And please teel me how we have ended up discussing KA, rather than RAF Officers who have suddenly become experts on international law and refuse to obey correct orders.
Many thanks,
NC43
Is this a windup?
You been standing in the sun too long?
KA probably the most polite, gentle man in the UN. but also the most ineffective. Please tell me of serious achievements I might have missed.
And please teel me how we have ended up discussing KA, rather than RAF Officers who have suddenly become experts on international law and refuse to obey correct orders.
Many thanks,
NC43
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twonston , I may be being naive here ,but surely any Senior RAF officer will find this individual guilty under military law regardless of the International law upon which the decision to go to war was taken.Even though the war is on a shaky grounding according to various legal experts.The Mod are a political animal and will toe the party line when told to.
You only have to look at the variouxs whitewashes which have taken place in the past ie mull of kintyre chinook crash,Boscombe stop flying them due technical problems,but when it crashes it is the dead crews fault.
If by some miracle he wins then maybe the world will be a safer place.We may nort be quick to rush in
You only have to look at the variouxs whitewashes which have taken place in the past ie mull of kintyre chinook crash,Boscombe stop flying them due technical problems,but when it crashes it is the dead crews fault.
If by some miracle he wins then maybe the world will be a safer place.We may nort be quick to rush in