Court Martial of American Officer for refusing to serve in Iraq
Thread Starter
Court Martial of American Officer for refusing to serve in Iraq
Kevin Sikes interviewed the only American Officer to refuse duty in Iraq. The young Lieutenant faces six years in jail, a Dishonourable Discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances if incarcerated.
His father sought sanctuary in Peru by serving in the Peace Corps and supports his son's stand against what the Son says is an illegal war....thus making his orders to Iraq with the 3rd Stryker Brigade an illegal order.
The officer attempted to resign his commission but was refused.
For the interview....... http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056
His father sought sanctuary in Peru by serving in the Peace Corps and supports his son's stand against what the Son says is an illegal war....thus making his orders to Iraq with the 3rd Stryker Brigade an illegal order.
The officer attempted to resign his commission but was refused.
For the interview....... http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056
Guest
Posts: n/a
Poor choice for the young Lt. My commission doesn't give me a choice about what wars I want to participate in, fairly sure his doesn't either.
So, if he chooses to make a stand, God bless him for the courage of his convictions, however, another type of conviction is what he deserves and will undoubtedly receive.
So, if he chooses to make a stand, God bless him for the courage of his convictions, however, another type of conviction is what he deserves and will undoubtedly receive.
We all know the requirement to disobey and report illegal orders, but the reality is that such orders are only given by the enemy, or at a very junior level in one's own army. So Lt Caley was guilty, but everyone senior to him was innocent. To act in contravention to that maxim will always land you in deep clag. Therefore, like Lt Watada and Flt.Lt. Kendall-Smith, you better believe that what you do (or rather don't do!) is right, for few others will.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 4th Jan 2007 at 23:17. Reason: wrong name quoted!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unfortunately for the Lt, the fact that the Congress authorized the President and the President ordered the military into action makes the order to deploy legal. What the Lt or his lawyers think of the legality of the war is moot for this issue. The two branches of our government dealing with war spoke Constitutionally, so the Lt is in for a visit to Leavenworth.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bh
Little doubt that the war was/is legal from a US domestic viewpoint but you are on an exceedingly thin sheet of ice with regards to international law. The US' saviour is probably that international law is open to more interpretation than most.
Little doubt that the war was/is legal from a US domestic viewpoint but you are on an exceedingly thin sheet of ice with regards to international law. The US' saviour is probably that international law is open to more interpretation than most.
Guest
Posts: n/a
chug,
Not going to enter into a debate about the basis of the war today, sorry. Regardless of what this young gent thinks about it, he is a member of the US military and the proper US legal and executive branches ordered him to go. If he's strong enough to stand for his beliefs, then a thumb's up to him for that, however, he took Uncle's dollar, he's obligated to go.
rm,
My point regarding the Lt is that under US UCMJ, which he voluntarily put himself under by taking his commission, he is most likely headed for a military cell.
International law would not have priority (not sure what the correct legal term for superseding one set of laws over another, sorry.) over an internal US proceeding which this Lt's court-martial most certainly will be.
Not going to enter into a debate about the basis of the war today, sorry. Regardless of what this young gent thinks about it, he is a member of the US military and the proper US legal and executive branches ordered him to go. If he's strong enough to stand for his beliefs, then a thumb's up to him for that, however, he took Uncle's dollar, he's obligated to go.
rm,
My point regarding the Lt is that under US UCMJ, which he voluntarily put himself under by taking his commission, he is most likely headed for a military cell.
International law would not have priority (not sure what the correct legal term for superseding one set of laws over another, sorry.) over an internal US proceeding which this Lt's court-martial most certainly will be.
Thread Starter
Every time something like this comes up....a few folks proclaim the war "illegal".
Is there anything from a credible source or legal authority anywhere, that has condemned the war as being "illegal" and based their opinion upon specific citations of law?
I am not talking about Barrack's Lawyers here but actual, real, binding venues of legal standing?
Unless someone can provide that.....to me, the answer is simply the war is legal.
We may not like it...we may not agree with it...but shy of some proper authority with the legal standing to declare the war illegal, anything else is mere personal opinion of which each of us is welcome to have and express but has sod all to do with the reality of the war in question.
When nations decide to go to war....does it really matter in the end if it is legal or not. Until the majority of the opposing military forces elect to sit it out on the sidelines....the war is going to be fought.
Think back to the reasons for wars in the past.....an assasination, a trumped up attack upon a German Radio station, the claim to territory clear to the opposite end of the world by a former colonial power, the building of an air strip, the mugging and physical assault upon a Naval Officer and his wife....UN Resolutions....what does it really matter?
If you serve in the military and are given orders to go to war....you throw your Bergen on your back...pick up the rifle and go fight the chosen enemy.
The only thing that makes a war legal or illegal is the decision by the winner who gets to write the After Action Report for the affair.
Is there anything from a credible source or legal authority anywhere, that has condemned the war as being "illegal" and based their opinion upon specific citations of law?
I am not talking about Barrack's Lawyers here but actual, real, binding venues of legal standing?
Unless someone can provide that.....to me, the answer is simply the war is legal.
We may not like it...we may not agree with it...but shy of some proper authority with the legal standing to declare the war illegal, anything else is mere personal opinion of which each of us is welcome to have and express but has sod all to do with the reality of the war in question.
When nations decide to go to war....does it really matter in the end if it is legal or not. Until the majority of the opposing military forces elect to sit it out on the sidelines....the war is going to be fought.
Think back to the reasons for wars in the past.....an assasination, a trumped up attack upon a German Radio station, the claim to territory clear to the opposite end of the world by a former colonial power, the building of an air strip, the mugging and physical assault upon a Naval Officer and his wife....UN Resolutions....what does it really matter?
If you serve in the military and are given orders to go to war....you throw your Bergen on your back...pick up the rifle and go fight the chosen enemy.
The only thing that makes a war legal or illegal is the decision by the winner who gets to write the After Action Report for the affair.
If you don't want to fight in wars and stuff don't join the armed forces; there are plenty of other jobs. If you join the armed forces don't bitch when you have to go fight.
The 'legality' of having to fight is an issue for others to take up at the voting box.
The 'legality' of having to fight is an issue for others to take up at the voting box.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am intrigued by the postings of BH, suggesting that we, the military, should not be concerned about the legality or otherwise of the war. The military chiefs of staff here in the UK were so concerned that with 10 days to go to war they demanded from the Attorney General a clear statement that the war was not illegal. I am also surprised by the naivity of some of the postings. The reason the chiefs demanded legal advice was simply because they were concerned their men could end up appearing before war crimes tribunal. US did not sign up to this but the UK Govt (Blair) did. As a serviceman you should take a view on the legality of war especially with the likes of Blair running the show.
Goldsmith famously changed his mind at the last moment. I have been trying to piece together the threads of evidence. IMO the only reason that Goldsmith could have come to that conclusion was because of the content of the dodgy dossier. It stated that Iraq was planning to use WMD at 45 minutes notice and that a base such as Cyprus could be hit. I laughed at hearing this at the time. In the original advice provided by John Scarlett it was suggested that Iraq had chemical weapons but that these would be used for defensive purposes. The word defensive was taken out at the request of Blair's Govt and so was born the politicisation of the UK Intelligence Service.
I apologise for reposting this legal advice but it has been requested by SASless. This legal advice was issued before the dodgy dossier. The whole basis for war again IMO was a sham. The military chiefs did all they could to challenge the legality and I do not blame them at all. I do blame Blair for ordering the UK to fight a war that was probably illegal in International Law because of a failure to prove a capability and intention to use WMD. As for the US, the President never used WMD as a premise for war and let's face it who is going to take the US to an International Court? Of course no evidence of WMD was ever found even though Special Forces assets were used in a desperate attempt to find them after the war.
I am not saying Kendall Smith should not have been sent down, neither am I saying the US Officer should not be sent down. The legality of the war was not part of the remit of the court that tried Kendall Smith. If it had have been the result could have been very different. Ask a lawyer in the Hague......
Legality of use of force against Iraq
____________________
OPINION
____________________
Introduction and Summary of Advice
We are instructed by ********* to give an opinion on the legality of the use of force by the United Kingdom against Iraq. In particular, we are asked to consider whether:
the right of self-defence would justify the use of force against Iraq by the United Kingdom;
Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 23 UN Security Council resolutions would justify the use of force by the United Kingdom; and
a further UN Security Council resolution would be required.
In summary, our opinion is that:
The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:
Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom’s assistance; or
an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or
the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.
Iraq has not attacked the United Kingdom, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack is imminent.
Our view is that current Security Council resolutions do not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Such force would require further authorisation from the Security Council.
At present the United Kingdom is therefore not entitled, in international law, to use force against Iraq.
Factual Background
The factual background can be outlined briefly. The United States is publicly considering the use of force against Iraq. This use of force would appear to have the aims of (1) destroying such stores of nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have; and (2) bringing about a change of leadership. The United States appears to consider such action to be justified on the basis of the right to carry out a pre-emptive strike in self-defence, the right to respond in self-defence against an armed attack, (in this case the attacks on 11 September 2001), and/or on the basis of current resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The United Kingdom Government is currently considering whether to support any such action by itself joining in the use of force against Iraq but,according to Government statements, no decision has yet been taken. The Prime Minister, speaking on 3 September 2002, stated that he plans to publish a dossier in the next few weeks. This would set out the evidence against Iraq and the arguments in favour of intervention. The Prime Minister relies strongly on the fact that Iraq has breached resolutions of the UN Security Council, which he appears to consider justifies military action.
The factual background to these decisions is unclear to the public. Such information as the United Kingdom has about Iraq’s military capabilities and Saddam Hussein’s intentions is not available to the public. Iraq is known to have chemical weapons, which it first used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq may also have the technology to build nuclear weapons. It appears to have persistently failed to co-operate with the UN weapons inspection programme, violating a large number of resolutions of the UN Security Council, so that the weapons inspection team was eventually withdrawn.1 However, it has recently asked the UN for more technical talks, with a view to resuming the inspection programme. The UN has not yet responded.2...........
.......Is anticipatory self-defence justified in this case?
Although it is not clear that international law recognises the right to use anticipatory force in self-defence, we have concluded above that, if there is such a right, it only exists in situations of great emergency, as set out by Oppenheim.
The evidence about the level and nature of threat presented by Iraq to other countries is not clear. There may well be evidence which is not in the public domain. The United Kingdom Government has not so far made clear the extent of the risk posed by Iraq, making it difficult for the public to engage in informed debate on the issue. The burden of proof is on the Government to demonstrate the existence of a pressing and direct threat. It would also need to show that there is no effective alternative to the use of force. The lack of any effective alternative to force is difficult to demonstrate while Iraq offers to negotiate with the weapons inspectorate.
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. The threat must at least be imminent. However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat. However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........
Goldsmith famously changed his mind at the last moment. I have been trying to piece together the threads of evidence. IMO the only reason that Goldsmith could have come to that conclusion was because of the content of the dodgy dossier. It stated that Iraq was planning to use WMD at 45 minutes notice and that a base such as Cyprus could be hit. I laughed at hearing this at the time. In the original advice provided by John Scarlett it was suggested that Iraq had chemical weapons but that these would be used for defensive purposes. The word defensive was taken out at the request of Blair's Govt and so was born the politicisation of the UK Intelligence Service.
I apologise for reposting this legal advice but it has been requested by SASless. This legal advice was issued before the dodgy dossier. The whole basis for war again IMO was a sham. The military chiefs did all they could to challenge the legality and I do not blame them at all. I do blame Blair for ordering the UK to fight a war that was probably illegal in International Law because of a failure to prove a capability and intention to use WMD. As for the US, the President never used WMD as a premise for war and let's face it who is going to take the US to an International Court? Of course no evidence of WMD was ever found even though Special Forces assets were used in a desperate attempt to find them after the war.
I am not saying Kendall Smith should not have been sent down, neither am I saying the US Officer should not be sent down. The legality of the war was not part of the remit of the court that tried Kendall Smith. If it had have been the result could have been very different. Ask a lawyer in the Hague......
Legality of use of force against Iraq
____________________
OPINION
____________________
Introduction and Summary of Advice
We are instructed by ********* to give an opinion on the legality of the use of force by the United Kingdom against Iraq. In particular, we are asked to consider whether:
the right of self-defence would justify the use of force against Iraq by the United Kingdom;
Iraq’s alleged failure to comply with all or any of the existing 23 UN Security Council resolutions would justify the use of force by the United Kingdom; and
a further UN Security Council resolution would be required.
In summary, our opinion is that:
The use of force against Iraq would not be justified under international law unless:
Iraq mounted a direct attack on the United Kingdom or one of its allies and that ally requested the United Kingdom’s assistance; or
an attack by Iraq on the United Kingdom or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force; or
the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force in clear terms.
Iraq has not attacked the United Kingdom, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack is imminent.
Our view is that current Security Council resolutions do not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Such force would require further authorisation from the Security Council.
At present the United Kingdom is therefore not entitled, in international law, to use force against Iraq.
Factual Background
The factual background can be outlined briefly. The United States is publicly considering the use of force against Iraq. This use of force would appear to have the aims of (1) destroying such stores of nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have; and (2) bringing about a change of leadership. The United States appears to consider such action to be justified on the basis of the right to carry out a pre-emptive strike in self-defence, the right to respond in self-defence against an armed attack, (in this case the attacks on 11 September 2001), and/or on the basis of current resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
The United Kingdom Government is currently considering whether to support any such action by itself joining in the use of force against Iraq but,according to Government statements, no decision has yet been taken. The Prime Minister, speaking on 3 September 2002, stated that he plans to publish a dossier in the next few weeks. This would set out the evidence against Iraq and the arguments in favour of intervention. The Prime Minister relies strongly on the fact that Iraq has breached resolutions of the UN Security Council, which he appears to consider justifies military action.
The factual background to these decisions is unclear to the public. Such information as the United Kingdom has about Iraq’s military capabilities and Saddam Hussein’s intentions is not available to the public. Iraq is known to have chemical weapons, which it first used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq may also have the technology to build nuclear weapons. It appears to have persistently failed to co-operate with the UN weapons inspection programme, violating a large number of resolutions of the UN Security Council, so that the weapons inspection team was eventually withdrawn.1 However, it has recently asked the UN for more technical talks, with a view to resuming the inspection programme. The UN has not yet responded.2...........
.......Is anticipatory self-defence justified in this case?
Although it is not clear that international law recognises the right to use anticipatory force in self-defence, we have concluded above that, if there is such a right, it only exists in situations of great emergency, as set out by Oppenheim.
The evidence about the level and nature of threat presented by Iraq to other countries is not clear. There may well be evidence which is not in the public domain. The United Kingdom Government has not so far made clear the extent of the risk posed by Iraq, making it difficult for the public to engage in informed debate on the issue. The burden of proof is on the Government to demonstrate the existence of a pressing and direct threat. It would also need to show that there is no effective alternative to the use of force. The lack of any effective alternative to force is difficult to demonstrate while Iraq offers to negotiate with the weapons inspectorate.
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. The threat must at least be imminent. However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat. However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........
Last edited by nigegilb; 5th Jan 2007 at 06:38.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With both Kendall-Smith and Watada, why did they wait until they were under orders to move before declaring their hand? If an officer feels that he genuinely cannot support the actions of his Service, then that is the time to act (through formal redress or resignation?) rather than hide from a decision until forced to make one. IMHO that would have represented the highest moral courage.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one who served his time in the US Military (1981-1989), if the Lt. had requested to resign before he/his unit recieved those orders to deploy, then at the very least he would have been placed in "Administrative Hold" status until everything was sorted out, which would have made him ineligible to deploy at that time.
There would be a good 75% chance of the request being granted if his unit had not already deployed by the time the decision was made.
Even if it had, there still would be a ~50% chance of it being granted, with a near 100% chance of being assigned to somewhere other than Iraq/Afganistan, since he declared his conscientious objection before recieving orders.
There have been a number of officers and enlisted that have done exactly that since the beginning of combat operations in Afganistan in 2002, and over 95% have been simply reassigned.
If you wait until you/your unit recieve orders, it is clear that you did not object to the war, just to your personal endangerment, and that gets NO sympathy or understanding.
There would be a good 75% chance of the request being granted if his unit had not already deployed by the time the decision was made.
Even if it had, there still would be a ~50% chance of it being granted, with a near 100% chance of being assigned to somewhere other than Iraq/Afganistan, since he declared his conscientious objection before recieving orders.
There have been a number of officers and enlisted that have done exactly that since the beginning of combat operations in Afganistan in 2002, and over 95% have been simply reassigned.
If you wait until you/your unit recieve orders, it is clear that you did not object to the war, just to your personal endangerment, and that gets NO sympathy or understanding.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GreenKnight
I suspect the answer lies in getting the US mil to pay for some decent education and qualifications while hoping for a posting to somewhere like Japan or Europe.
Alternatively, they joined up since 2003 knowing that they would probably get sent somewhere hot and sandy, always planning to make a well publicised stand against the war.
Either way, in my book, the bottom line was that they refused a legal order from a superior officer, so they deserve their time at the correctional facility.
I suspect the answer lies in getting the US mil to pay for some decent education and qualifications while hoping for a posting to somewhere like Japan or Europe.
Alternatively, they joined up since 2003 knowing that they would probably get sent somewhere hot and sandy, always planning to make a well publicised stand against the war.
Either way, in my book, the bottom line was that they refused a legal order from a superior officer, so they deserve their time at the correctional facility.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both GK and WO are right to point out why these 2 officers were wrong to do what they did when they did. However, I just wonder what this will do for recruitment in the US, a high profile case sending a young man down when the Iraq war is so unpopular. Could be a case of US Mil shooting itself in the foot. On the other hand discipline needs to be maintained.
One thing is for sure, Blair would have been running for cover if Kendall- Smith had taken his stand when the war was still in progress.
One thing is for sure, Blair would have been running for cover if Kendall- Smith had taken his stand when the war was still in progress.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the danger of boring everyone about the argument of the legality or otherwise of the 2003 Iraq War and the subsequent occupation, the legal position is as follows.
1. International law is largely based on obligations freely accepted by states - in other words, in signing up to a treaty, a country agrees to play by the rules that that treaty imposes. For our purposes, the most important treaty is the UN Charter, which at Article 2(4) makes the use of force between states illegal, with two exceptions;
(i) force authorised by the UN Security Council under a Chapter VII resolution or
(ii) self-defence, when there is no option but to defend yourself (this is the so-called "Caroline" test after a case between the UK (in Canada) and the USA in the early 19th Century) .
A third exception has been postulated for actions to stop humanitarian disasters, which is controversial amongst international lawyers and which I personally support.
(this was the basis of the 1999 Kosovo Campaign).
2. As a result, international law trumps individual country's laws, so if it's illegal in international law, it cannot be legal in domestic law. (Brick: this is the same principle as US Federal Law trumping US State laws).
3. The 2003 attack itself (Op IRAQI FREEDOM / Op TELIC) was illegal - it was not authorised by the Security Council and it was not self defence. It was also not covered by the humanitarian exception.
As a result, as the attack was illegal, orders for the 2003 attack were also illegal.
HOWEVER:
The UN Security Council authorized the occupation force in UNSCR 1483 of 22 May 2003 which has subsequently been renewed, provides the Chapter VII resolution required for the use of force. So no orders subsequently issued to deploy are illegal per se, and should be followed.
It is this that Flt Lt Kendall-Smith and this American Lt fall foul of, because they are failing to obey legal orders, and will (correctly and comprehensively) have the book thrown at them, irrespective of the moral courage that they have shown.
S41
1. International law is largely based on obligations freely accepted by states - in other words, in signing up to a treaty, a country agrees to play by the rules that that treaty imposes. For our purposes, the most important treaty is the UN Charter, which at Article 2(4) makes the use of force between states illegal, with two exceptions;
(i) force authorised by the UN Security Council under a Chapter VII resolution or
(ii) self-defence, when there is no option but to defend yourself (this is the so-called "Caroline" test after a case between the UK (in Canada) and the USA in the early 19th Century) .
A third exception has been postulated for actions to stop humanitarian disasters, which is controversial amongst international lawyers and which I personally support.
(this was the basis of the 1999 Kosovo Campaign).
2. As a result, international law trumps individual country's laws, so if it's illegal in international law, it cannot be legal in domestic law. (Brick: this is the same principle as US Federal Law trumping US State laws).
3. The 2003 attack itself (Op IRAQI FREEDOM / Op TELIC) was illegal - it was not authorised by the Security Council and it was not self defence. It was also not covered by the humanitarian exception.
As a result, as the attack was illegal, orders for the 2003 attack were also illegal.
HOWEVER:
The UN Security Council authorized the occupation force in UNSCR 1483 of 22 May 2003 which has subsequently been renewed, provides the Chapter VII resolution required for the use of force. So no orders subsequently issued to deploy are illegal per se, and should be followed.
It is this that Flt Lt Kendall-Smith and this American Lt fall foul of, because they are failing to obey legal orders, and will (correctly and comprehensively) have the book thrown at them, irrespective of the moral courage that they have shown.
S41
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
Unfortunately I think these two cases will just become argueing points in what I see as a polarisation of the American population - those who support Bush entirely and those who can't stand him. Those who support Bush will label these men traitors, those who don't will label them as martyrs to the cause.
Standing by for incoming but it seems that there is a real case of 'if you're not for Bush you're against the USA' feeling among a significant proportion of the population. Countered by a significant proportion who see everything Bush stands for as disastrous for the USA and hence the World.
What impressed me on a recent working visit was that the majority of the population, whether for or against Bush, supported the US Mil in their efforts, if only the same was true over here!
Unfortunately I think these two cases will just become argueing points in what I see as a polarisation of the American population - those who support Bush entirely and those who can't stand him. Those who support Bush will label these men traitors, those who don't will label them as martyrs to the cause.
Standing by for incoming but it seems that there is a real case of 'if you're not for Bush you're against the USA' feeling among a significant proportion of the population. Countered by a significant proportion who see everything Bush stands for as disastrous for the USA and hence the World.
What impressed me on a recent working visit was that the majority of the population, whether for or against Bush, supported the US Mil in their efforts, if only the same was true over here!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument of self defence appears to be the one chosen by UK Govt hence the requirement for the heavily doctored and now rubbished dodgy dossier. No doubt about it we went to war on a lie.
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. (hence 45 min claim) However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat.( hence WMD claim) However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........( No evidence was ever provided or discovered)
Of course what we have not seen is the revised legal advice provided to the Govt, they are not so stupid as to disclose that, are they?
It is clear from the above discussion of the law of self-defence that the capacity to attack, combined with an unspecified intention to do so in the future, is not sufficiently pressing to justify the pre-emptive use of force. (hence 45 min claim) However, the degree of proximity required must also, we consider, be proportionate to the severity of the threat. A threat to use very serious weapons – nuclear weapons being the obvious example – could justify an earlier use of defensive force than might be justified in the case of a less serious threat.( hence WMD claim) However, the existence of the threat, regardless of how serious that threat may be, must still be supported by credible evidence. Such evidence has not so far been made available, although some evidence may be provided when the United Kingdom government publishes its dossier..........( No evidence was ever provided or discovered)
Of course what we have not seen is the revised legal advice provided to the Govt, they are not so stupid as to disclose that, are they?
Last edited by nigegilb; 5th Jan 2007 at 10:25.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the US Army Lieutenant refusing to fight in Iraq, there’s an interesting point of parallel in history with the current war on terror (sorry, War on Terror) and the first time the US more or less officially invaded another country. (We’ll discount Canada in 1812, the pre Louisiana purchase stoushes with the French and the US expansion west into various sovereign North American Indian nations. We’ll also discount the invasion of Mexico in 1836, as that was actually the Republic of Texas, which had not yet joined the USA.)
I'm talking about the Mexican War in 1847-48, when a significant number of US soldiers deserted and fought for the other side.
These were the 'St Patricos', mostly is not all Catholics, mostly of Irish descent and many very recently arrived in the US. There were at least eighty involved. (I'd be guessing more, for eighty were captured by the US Army immediately before Mexico City fell, and apparently they fought very hard against the US forces, surrendering only when their ammunition ran out.)
Apparently they objected to fighting against fellow Catholics. (Anybody seeing any parallels here?) To the overwhelmingly Protestant Establishment in the US - (and not just the US and not just in 1848!!!) - Catholics at the time were a despised (rather large) minority, thought to owe their first allegiance to the Pope – and I suppose one could argue that the ‘St Patricos’ proved the point that there was some substance to this belief.
Fifty of those captured were hanged just before the final assault on Mexico City and around thirty, who were considered not to be hard core malcontents, were branded on their cheeks with a rather large ‘D’. I’d be guessing that there would have been some interesting stories to be told about the lives those thirty men lived after their release from military prison with a very prominent brand on their faces for everyone to see.
****
Reading about the Mexican War only makes me wonder how history so incredibly repeats itself, over and over and over again. A too small US Army is tasked with an impossible task – to invade another country for what many at the time thought were very dubious reasons (who owned the disputed land along the Rio Grande); the enemy army is far larger than the US invasion force; support from politicians back in Washington is half-hearted to non-existent for the Army; the Army – incredibly – does all and more than is asked of it, conquering the Mexican Army in a matter of months - and then suffers badly from guerrilla attack by Mexican irregulars after the very fast victory over the dictator Santa Anna’s far larger army… need I go on?
At least the US Army of 1848 had the good sense not to disband the existing Mexican Government infrastructure after they took over the Mexican Capital – but then again, that’s what the Army wanted to do this time, isn’t it?
I'm talking about the Mexican War in 1847-48, when a significant number of US soldiers deserted and fought for the other side.
These were the 'St Patricos', mostly is not all Catholics, mostly of Irish descent and many very recently arrived in the US. There were at least eighty involved. (I'd be guessing more, for eighty were captured by the US Army immediately before Mexico City fell, and apparently they fought very hard against the US forces, surrendering only when their ammunition ran out.)
Apparently they objected to fighting against fellow Catholics. (Anybody seeing any parallels here?) To the overwhelmingly Protestant Establishment in the US - (and not just the US and not just in 1848!!!) - Catholics at the time were a despised (rather large) minority, thought to owe their first allegiance to the Pope – and I suppose one could argue that the ‘St Patricos’ proved the point that there was some substance to this belief.
Fifty of those captured were hanged just before the final assault on Mexico City and around thirty, who were considered not to be hard core malcontents, were branded on their cheeks with a rather large ‘D’. I’d be guessing that there would have been some interesting stories to be told about the lives those thirty men lived after their release from military prison with a very prominent brand on their faces for everyone to see.
****
Reading about the Mexican War only makes me wonder how history so incredibly repeats itself, over and over and over again. A too small US Army is tasked with an impossible task – to invade another country for what many at the time thought were very dubious reasons (who owned the disputed land along the Rio Grande); the enemy army is far larger than the US invasion force; support from politicians back in Washington is half-hearted to non-existent for the Army; the Army – incredibly – does all and more than is asked of it, conquering the Mexican Army in a matter of months - and then suffers badly from guerrilla attack by Mexican irregulars after the very fast victory over the dictator Santa Anna’s far larger army… need I go on?
At least the US Army of 1848 had the good sense not to disband the existing Mexican Government infrastructure after they took over the Mexican Capital – but then again, that’s what the Army wanted to do this time, isn’t it?