RAF Officer Faces Jail - Refuses to Go To Iraq
On the general point - I'm still puzzled. I'm a civvy now, but I'm sure I remember being taught that one should refuse an illegal order. Otherwise, the "Nuremberg Defence" (only obeying orders) would have to be a defence to the charge.
If one cannot plead the Nuremberg Defence, then surely one has to decide for oneself the legality of an order?
I am not implying that I disagree with this verdict, just that I don't understand the logic.
Flatus and others earlier seemed to have covered the point convincingly, but now the judgement (as reported) seems to put that in doubt and re-confused me.
If one cannot plead the Nuremberg Defence, then surely one has to decide for oneself the legality of an order?
I am not implying that I disagree with this verdict, just that I don't understand the logic.
Flatus and others earlier seemed to have covered the point convincingly, but now the judgement (as reported) seems to put that in doubt and re-confused me.
Last edited by keithl; 13th Apr 2006 at 14:34.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rotherham
Age: 68
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it comes down to opinions it is my humble one that the Doc is very wrong to refuse to go.
OK the war might not be 100% right for the reasons the politicos gave us but when you take the shilling you go to war against whoever the legal government tell you to.
It is ok arguing legalities of orders but surely the serviceman does not possess the legal knowledge required to decide whether this war is legal or not and so cannot argue that as an excuse for his timidity (cowardice is too emotive a word)
We can all recognise an illegal order when in theatre, "ie shoot that man who is buying a loaf" or "kick that dog etc" and we are all trained in what is and is not acceptable behaviour on humanitarian and combat situations.
This guy is/was just looking for an excuse to dodge his duty. In WW1 he would have been shot.
OK the war might not be 100% right for the reasons the politicos gave us but when you take the shilling you go to war against whoever the legal government tell you to.
It is ok arguing legalities of orders but surely the serviceman does not possess the legal knowledge required to decide whether this war is legal or not and so cannot argue that as an excuse for his timidity (cowardice is too emotive a word)
We can all recognise an illegal order when in theatre, "ie shoot that man who is buying a loaf" or "kick that dog etc" and we are all trained in what is and is not acceptable behaviour on humanitarian and combat situations.
This guy is/was just looking for an excuse to dodge his duty. In WW1 he would have been shot.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by keithl
On the general point - I'm still puzzled. I'm a civvy now, but I'm sure I remember being taught that one should refuse an illegal order. Otherwise, the "Nuremberg Defence" (only obeying orders) would have to be a defence to the charge.
If one cannot plead the Nuremberg Defence, then surely one has to decide for oneself the legality of an order?
I am not implying that I disagree with this verdict, just that I don't understand the logic.
Flatus and others earlier seemed to have covered the point convincingly, but now the judgement (as reported) seems to put that in doubt and re-confused me.
If one cannot plead the Nuremberg Defence, then surely one has to decide for oneself the legality of an order?
I am not implying that I disagree with this verdict, just that I don't understand the logic.
Flatus and others earlier seemed to have covered the point convincingly, but now the judgement (as reported) seems to put that in doubt and re-confused me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rafloo
you are way too vociferous with your thoughts for this guy. Looking at your profile, just a question, have you ever been in an operational theatre in the military?? You say throw away the key! Give it up. There is a guy just been jailed for 6 months for doing a hit and run on a kid of 9 and killing them. Punishment fitting the crime in both cases? i'm not sure it does. I am not saying the verdict is unsound, but some of the reasons for the verdict do give cause for concern.
As tier2com says ,'what did happen to the asian muslim from Marham who refused to go'? There have been many wars where christian has fought christian, good job they didnt all pull the religious card then isn't it.
you are way too vociferous with your thoughts for this guy. Looking at your profile, just a question, have you ever been in an operational theatre in the military?? You say throw away the key! Give it up. There is a guy just been jailed for 6 months for doing a hit and run on a kid of 9 and killing them. Punishment fitting the crime in both cases? i'm not sure it does. I am not saying the verdict is unsound, but some of the reasons for the verdict do give cause for concern.
As tier2com says ,'what did happen to the asian muslim from Marham who refused to go'? There have been many wars where christian has fought christian, good job they didnt all pull the religious card then isn't it.
Officers don't do Colchester !!!!!
Could send him back to New Zealand in chains and revoke the British part of his dual nationality.
Could send him back to New Zealand in chains and revoke the British part of his dual nationality.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that this will roll on for another couple of years.
There is no conceivable way that K-S would have won his case. If he ever thought that he had a chance at CM, he was clearly sniffing the ether (or whatever). He was on very shaky ground (there was a UN resolution other than the sham of 1441 etc by the time he was due to go and he didn't just refuse to go, he refused to undertake training to go) but the thought that a CM - as opposed to a civilian court - would agree with his argument is laughable.
His lawyer would have realised that from the outset and the goal would have been - and still will be - to fight the case in the UK and European civilian courts. If I were a betting man, I would be putting money on K-S doing no jail time at all, with his custodial sentence suspended or quashed on appeal. He may even have the verdict overturned, if he strikes lucky.
This contrasts with the more sensible approach taken by the ex-SAS trooper, who made his point and left quietly.
Cases like this are the tip of the iceberg - there will be quite a few Armed Forces personnel who left prematurely without making a scene over the Iraq debacle. Myself for one!
There is no conceivable way that K-S would have won his case. If he ever thought that he had a chance at CM, he was clearly sniffing the ether (or whatever). He was on very shaky ground (there was a UN resolution other than the sham of 1441 etc by the time he was due to go and he didn't just refuse to go, he refused to undertake training to go) but the thought that a CM - as opposed to a civilian court - would agree with his argument is laughable.
His lawyer would have realised that from the outset and the goal would have been - and still will be - to fight the case in the UK and European civilian courts. If I were a betting man, I would be putting money on K-S doing no jail time at all, with his custodial sentence suspended or quashed on appeal. He may even have the verdict overturned, if he strikes lucky.
This contrasts with the more sensible approach taken by the ex-SAS trooper, who made his point and left quietly.
Cases like this are the tip of the iceberg - there will be quite a few Armed Forces personnel who left prematurely without making a scene over the Iraq debacle. Myself for one!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Court Martial pigged it and missed a golden opportunity to punish him in the present climate of crime and win the public over:viz
"The findings of this Court Martial are that you will serve 5760 hours of community service, You are to use your skills as a doctor, in a NHS environment of your choice, on a minimum medical wage, to provide your expertise and skill to ensure the well-being of the public, at no expense to the system or the taxpayer. On completion of this service you may be allowed to continue your career without infringement of your human rights, if, by that time, the Government and the RAF have got their act together"
This is a "professionall" crime
80% of "common" street crime community service is ignored - they don't turn up
Thousand are spent chasing them trying to make it happen - the majority of these people are asrs*les with no respect for the community
So, we bang away a doctor for 8 months because a government has told a lie
Is he not allowed to be a concientious objector ( based on religious beliefs, human rights beliefs, personal beliefs) he's already done 2 tours - seen it, smelt it. been in between it and got the medals
How many Mp's have been Court Martialled for disobeying orders from the Chief Whip, or the PM regarding tihis war
OK he took the Queen's shilling! There are lots of mixed feelings on these threads, but there is a vibe about this government, its policies and it's direction
At least he had the Boll*cks to stand against it
It's ironic, that on this anniversary of the Last Supper, that one of my fellow officers should also be denied what he believed in and was crucified!
Happy Easter Aldershot
"The findings of this Court Martial are that you will serve 5760 hours of community service, You are to use your skills as a doctor, in a NHS environment of your choice, on a minimum medical wage, to provide your expertise and skill to ensure the well-being of the public, at no expense to the system or the taxpayer. On completion of this service you may be allowed to continue your career without infringement of your human rights, if, by that time, the Government and the RAF have got their act together"
This is a "professionall" crime
80% of "common" street crime community service is ignored - they don't turn up
Thousand are spent chasing them trying to make it happen - the majority of these people are asrs*les with no respect for the community
So, we bang away a doctor for 8 months because a government has told a lie
Is he not allowed to be a concientious objector ( based on religious beliefs, human rights beliefs, personal beliefs) he's already done 2 tours - seen it, smelt it. been in between it and got the medals
How many Mp's have been Court Martialled for disobeying orders from the Chief Whip, or the PM regarding tihis war
OK he took the Queen's shilling! There are lots of mixed feelings on these threads, but there is a vibe about this government, its policies and it's direction
At least he had the Boll*cks to stand against it
It's ironic, that on this anniversary of the Last Supper, that one of my fellow officers should also be denied what he believed in and was crucified!
Happy Easter Aldershot
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by air pig
Officers don't do Colchester !!!!!
As for Kendal-Smith, I don't agree with his argument, but admire his principled stand and wish him good luck.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ISTR that officer SUS were taken at Colly a few years back, on the premise that one could not be bust below the rank at which one joined. So I guess even a humble 2Lt or Plt Offr would outrank the staff.
In my view, whether it's the Chief of the Air Staff or the newest AC recruit, refusal to obey legal orders (a purely Military offence) should be dealt with at the Military Corrective Training Centre. Corrective training, soldier on. No-one is doubting his medical skills or integrity.
In my view, whether it's the Chief of the Air Staff or the newest AC recruit, refusal to obey legal orders (a purely Military offence) should be dealt with at the Military Corrective Training Centre. Corrective training, soldier on. No-one is doubting his medical skills or integrity.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The gulag
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was in the Royal Air Force I was taught that it was our duty to question illegal orders. He disobeyed a legal order, pure and simple...his duty was not to question the legality of the war...somebody here mentioned that Kofi Annan thought that it was illegal...wonderful...we should hang on his every word, should we? Sorry, but Nuremburg. so often quoted here, dealt with mass murderers...the 'good' doctor was not sent there to commit murder but to aid in the preservation of life. To suggest that some here admire his princiled stand beggars belief...his was not a principled stand. I suggested months ago that it sounded as though he was 'working his ticket'...nothing I have heard has changed my mind. Eight months is about right as well as dismissal from the service...this should also mean forfeiture of pension rights as well.
NC43
NC43
No-one is doubting his medical skills or integrity
Yes, Hell we are.....that is the basic premise here Roadster. Integrity is not situational....either one has it or one does not.
Many Conscientious Objectors have served Honorably and gone on to win awards for Gallantry sometimes at the loss of their lives.
This clown is not a CO nor did he serve honorably.
In our military he would be reduced to the lowest rank...Private or Airman and serve his time in a military prison until dishonorably discharged with fofeiture of all pay, allowances, and pension.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Suffolk
Age: 84
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. I admire his stand on the legality aspect.
2. "Working his ticket" - hardly, there are easier ways of leaving HM Forces!
3. The real point of this whole case is that we 'innocent military simpletons' always believed tht no UK government would send us to war illegally. Our current politcal masters don't seem to know the difference and were I younger and still serving I think I would have a problem.
4. However being in the front line, as I was, I would still have dropped the bombs.
5. Final point, as a strike pilot 25 years ago would I have not slipped them a bucket of sunshine? Was that ethical?
2. "Working his ticket" - hardly, there are easier ways of leaving HM Forces!
3. The real point of this whole case is that we 'innocent military simpletons' always believed tht no UK government would send us to war illegally. Our current politcal masters don't seem to know the difference and were I younger and still serving I think I would have a problem.
4. However being in the front line, as I was, I would still have dropped the bombs.
5. Final point, as a strike pilot 25 years ago would I have not slipped them a bucket of sunshine? Was that ethical?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rafloo,
I have to say that some of your comments in this thread offend me and I would like to think many others have also been offened.
You say "The fact that he chose to run away from his duty"; well that repulses me. He had in fact spent many months in Iraq doing the exact opposite.
You talk about "OUR" brave Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors rather than "US". I have to ask you: are you one of "US".
You mentioned that you served in "South Atlantic in 1982 and more recently in the Congo and Sierra Leone..." - Now if I am right that about makes you the same age as me, give or take 5 years. Therefore I am quite surprised at your attitude.
In between the Argies and Sierra Leone we have had a few problems in the middle east part of the world. Have you been involved in that or are you an ex that sits in an office and pretends to be involved.
Have you served several tours away from your family in a very short time. And I mean 4 X 3 months in a space of 18 months under quite a lot of pressure.
I do think you are being very unfair to somebody that has decided to stand up for his true belief's.
And PS. It does annoy me that the Dr gets 9 months for disobeying an order to go to Iraq and some **** who comes from Iraq will get state benefit and protection from anything he does wrong in our country. Hey!!! lets look after them rather than our own.
Whoops sorry - lost it then!!
I have to say that some of your comments in this thread offend me and I would like to think many others have also been offened.
You say "The fact that he chose to run away from his duty"; well that repulses me. He had in fact spent many months in Iraq doing the exact opposite.
You talk about "OUR" brave Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors rather than "US". I have to ask you: are you one of "US".
You mentioned that you served in "South Atlantic in 1982 and more recently in the Congo and Sierra Leone..." - Now if I am right that about makes you the same age as me, give or take 5 years. Therefore I am quite surprised at your attitude.
In between the Argies and Sierra Leone we have had a few problems in the middle east part of the world. Have you been involved in that or are you an ex that sits in an office and pretends to be involved.
Have you served several tours away from your family in a very short time. And I mean 4 X 3 months in a space of 18 months under quite a lot of pressure.
I do think you are being very unfair to somebody that has decided to stand up for his true belief's.
And PS. It does annoy me that the Dr gets 9 months for disobeying an order to go to Iraq and some **** who comes from Iraq will get state benefit and protection from anything he does wrong in our country. Hey!!! lets look after them rather than our own.
Whoops sorry - lost it then!!
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can he be legally placed in a civil prison if he has committed no criminal offence ?
It's a Forces charge and a Forces sentence. Let the Forces make their own arrangements and save the cell for a chav
It's a Forces charge and a Forces sentence. Let the Forces make their own arrangements and save the cell for a chav
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could send him back to New Zealand in chains and revoke the British part of his dual nationality"
He was actually born in Australia....they're into chains over there on the West Island.....
He was actually born in Australia....they're into chains over there on the West Island.....