Conscientious Objection
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, fair point. However, moving on, whether or not going to war with Iraq is legal is not of genuine interest to anyone apart from the lawyers who want to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful leaders and the leaders themselves who are desperate for a way out of the mess they're digging themselves into. There's a cosy little relationship up for grabs there.
Does anyone think that Bush and Blair give a monkey's cuss if a particular lawyer or the UN opines that a war is illegal. They'll just get someone else to opine it is legal. At the end of the day the situation is so complex that legal opinion will be split and the great leaders (my mistake, that title's already been grabbed by evil Kim) will cling to the one that favours their actions.
It's a right disgrace that makes a change from a right royal disgrace.
Does anyone think that Bush and Blair give a monkey's cuss if a particular lawyer or the UN opines that a war is illegal. They'll just get someone else to opine it is legal. At the end of the day the situation is so complex that legal opinion will be split and the great leaders (my mistake, that title's already been grabbed by evil Kim) will cling to the one that favours their actions.
It's a right disgrace that makes a change from a right royal disgrace.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont class the bringing down of the Nixon government, the jailing of half a dozen senior Nixon aids for using FBI, CIA and Justice personnel to spy on the Democrats and when discovered attempting to cover it up a piece of fiction.
If this can happen in America what do you think can happen in the UK were any information disclousure no matter if its government secrets or your simply telling telling a person the way to the bus stop is a breech of the offical secrets act. And let me remind you that public librarians have to sign the offical secrets act
Calling this country's leaders 'honourable' is like saying the Soviet Union was full of peace loving workers and peasents. They operate in this way 'because they like it this way'.
No other government in western europe is as oppressive on personnel freedoms as are own, no other government's workings occur in such oppressive secrecy as are own, no other government frankly doesn't give a toss about us chattering classers...err...excuse me voters as are own.
I vote for the party of one as frankly in this Great Britian of are's you can only trust yourself.
If this can happen in America what do you think can happen in the UK were any information disclousure no matter if its government secrets or your simply telling telling a person the way to the bus stop is a breech of the offical secrets act. And let me remind you that public librarians have to sign the offical secrets act
Calling this country's leaders 'honourable' is like saying the Soviet Union was full of peace loving workers and peasents. They operate in this way 'because they like it this way'.No other government in western europe is as oppressive on personnel freedoms as are own, no other government's workings occur in such oppressive secrecy as are own, no other government frankly doesn't give a toss about us chattering classers...err...excuse me voters as are own.
I vote for the party of one as frankly in this Great Britian of are's you can only trust yourself.
Last edited by A Civilian; 25th Jan 2003 at 00:20.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg your pardon, Civilian, I tried to stay awake for that piece of docudrama and failed. I still find it impossible to believe, having
worked in the MOD as a serving officer and later as a civil servant, that the sort of criminal conspiracy you describe could happen there.
Having been subjected to clearance to the highest levels under the OSA, including regular investigations of my peronal lfe, I need no lectures from you on the rigours and abuse of the Act. Nevertheless, when I refer to men of honour I am not talking about politicians but about very senior service officers and civil servants. Making due allowance for a few human foibles (like a recent CDS's sexual peccadillo) I believe they are as near incorruptible as any public servants who have ever walked the face of this planet.
A very large number of servicemen are having to face up to the probability that they will soon be going to war. They are probably representative of the population at large in doubting that a sufficently convincing casus belli has yet been made. Nevertheless they have to do their duty. Warriors are usually driven, not by high-flown commitment to "God, Queen and Country". (Leave that sort of rhetoric to the politicians and bishops!) Soldiers, sailors amd airmen care above all for the good opinion of their comrades. Their self-esteem depends on not letting the team down.
I do not know what sort of game you are playing at on this forum, Civilian, trying to undermine the confidence of the services in their professional leadership. Perhaps you flatter yourself that you can spark some sort of revolt or mutiny. Well forget it.
You just come across as a rather silly (and semi-literate) little prat.
worked in the MOD as a serving officer and later as a civil servant, that the sort of criminal conspiracy you describe could happen there.
Having been subjected to clearance to the highest levels under the OSA, including regular investigations of my peronal lfe, I need no lectures from you on the rigours and abuse of the Act. Nevertheless, when I refer to men of honour I am not talking about politicians but about very senior service officers and civil servants. Making due allowance for a few human foibles (like a recent CDS's sexual peccadillo) I believe they are as near incorruptible as any public servants who have ever walked the face of this planet.
A very large number of servicemen are having to face up to the probability that they will soon be going to war. They are probably representative of the population at large in doubting that a sufficently convincing casus belli has yet been made. Nevertheless they have to do their duty. Warriors are usually driven, not by high-flown commitment to "God, Queen and Country". (Leave that sort of rhetoric to the politicians and bishops!) Soldiers, sailors amd airmen care above all for the good opinion of their comrades. Their self-esteem depends on not letting the team down.
I do not know what sort of game you are playing at on this forum, Civilian, trying to undermine the confidence of the services in their professional leadership. Perhaps you flatter yourself that you can spark some sort of revolt or mutiny. Well forget it.
You just come across as a rather silly (and semi-literate) little prat.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I respect your views but I must state what I think. I gave a promsie not to discuss iraq-uk stuff because quite frankly telling people what to do during war time when I sit at a work station all day with central heating is not on.
I used to also belive in Britian but as I got older and found out more and more how things work the more apathitic I became. I've never been in trouble with the police, never been on any sort of demo's or stuff like that and belive it or not ive never even had a speeding ticket
All I know is one day whilist at a friends house he rang the police to stop a riot that was going on outside his house and the policemans reply back was 'why are you telling us'. This is the current state of the society we live in, you have to look after yourself in this world, likewise do not expect anyone to help you simply because there the government and thats their job.
I used to also belive in Britian but as I got older and found out more and more how things work the more apathitic I became. I've never been in trouble with the police, never been on any sort of demo's or stuff like that and belive it or not ive never even had a speeding ticket
All I know is one day whilist at a friends house he rang the police to stop a riot that was going on outside his house and the policemans reply back was 'why are you telling us'. This is the current state of the society we live in, you have to look after yourself in this world, likewise do not expect anyone to help you simply because there the government and thats their job.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could I as a non-miltary person ........broaden the arument . You are in the Uk military you are technically "outlaws" ie you are outwith the laws which apply to non-military UK civilians and you are voluntarily so .......governed by Queen's Regulations . You therefore have no "moral existence"......you exist as a legal entity defined by Queen's Regulations and nothing more. Don't believe me......well the Nuremberg " I was only obeying orders" defence didn't hold up .
So you know that before you join ( or you should) so the argument that "I'm not going to do that someone could get killed " doesn't hold water. You rely on people higher up the chain of command for moral judgements ......just don't try it on your own........Victorian or Feudal...? take your pick!!!!!!!!!
Good luck and thanks to you all especially during the difficult months ahead .
So you know that before you join ( or you should) so the argument that "I'm not going to do that someone could get killed " doesn't hold water. You rely on people higher up the chain of command for moral judgements ......just don't try it on your own........Victorian or Feudal...? take your pick!!!!!!!!!
Good luck and thanks to you all especially during the difficult months ahead .
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
PeterJ, you do not understand the Geneva Convention, the protocols or their applicability. Stop being patronising, and stick to things you understand.
War crimes are divided into three categories.
a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties.
b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property including, but not limited to, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.
Those liable for indictment under category A are the heads of state and their cabinets, ministers of the armed forces and the senior military leadership of the offending nation. Under this category, "I was only obeying orders" is acceptable - which is why every member of the German armed forces wasn't tried at Nurenberg.
All members of the armed forces are liable for indictment under categories B & C. Which is why you will find many lawyers present in a military HQ to judge the acceptability of a target and advise on themes such as proportionality.
I assure you that, at the AHQ level, I was well aware of the legal and ethical implications of my decisions. I think you will find that those in the military are as much concerned as anyone else, and perhaps more so. But, where it is legal, they also have a duty to obey.
War crimes are divided into three categories.
a) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties.
b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property including, but not limited to, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, the killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.
Those liable for indictment under category A are the heads of state and their cabinets, ministers of the armed forces and the senior military leadership of the offending nation. Under this category, "I was only obeying orders" is acceptable - which is why every member of the German armed forces wasn't tried at Nurenberg.
All members of the armed forces are liable for indictment under categories B & C. Which is why you will find many lawyers present in a military HQ to judge the acceptability of a target and advise on themes such as proportionality.
I assure you that, at the AHQ level, I was well aware of the legal and ethical implications of my decisions. I think you will find that those in the military are as much concerned as anyone else, and perhaps more so. But, where it is legal, they also have a duty to obey.
Last edited by ORAC; 25th Jan 2003 at 23:28.
WHAT ARE YOU ALL THINKING!!!!!!!
we work for an organisation that has the word force in it's name, never mind all this chat about illegal orders, get your ar*e in gear and do what you are paid for--the application of force!!!
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca,
"where it is legal, they also have a duty to obey."
Sorry if I touched a nerve , didn't mean to . Thought I as making a contribution to a serious discussion.
You make my point perfectly..........who decides what is legal ? Refusal to obey an order on the grounds that it would be in contravention of Classes B and C of the War Crimes definition in the Geneva Convention and therefore illegal is not I suspect likely to go down well in front line, sharp end situations. The assumption appears to be that all orders are legal unless proved not to be so . And that might take some time post facto !!
Not trying to be seditious.......far from it ........just trying to point out that as well as the Queen's Shilling there are other things that go with it ...........like QR's......and that makes you lot different from us lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
"where it is legal, they also have a duty to obey."
Sorry if I touched a nerve , didn't mean to . Thought I as making a contribution to a serious discussion.
You make my point perfectly..........who decides what is legal ? Refusal to obey an order on the grounds that it would be in contravention of Classes B and C of the War Crimes definition in the Geneva Convention and therefore illegal is not I suspect likely to go down well in front line, sharp end situations. The assumption appears to be that all orders are legal unless proved not to be so . And that might take some time post facto !!
Not trying to be seditious.......far from it ........just trying to point out that as well as the Queen's Shilling there are other things that go with it ...........like QR's......and that makes you lot different from us lot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I'm sorry, you're missing the point. it's the individual who has to make the decision. He/she can't rely on anyone else.
Lest you think this is an elitist opinion, I can assure that, post the Clegg case and others, it was always forcibly put even by the regiment NCO during firearm training that the written ROE provided were only for guidance and we should all know our responsibilities and rights, as we could well end up having to justify our actions in a court of law.
If an order is illegal, the individual is bound under law and regulation to refuse to obey it. If it is legal he should obey. If there are those who believe that they cannot abide by that, the have a moral obligation to make their point known now, not when they may be placing the lives of others at risk.
Lest you think this is an elitist opinion, I can assure that, post the Clegg case and others, it was always forcibly put even by the regiment NCO during firearm training that the written ROE provided were only for guidance and we should all know our responsibilities and rights, as we could well end up having to justify our actions in a court of law.
If an order is illegal, the individual is bound under law and regulation to refuse to obey it. If it is legal he should obey. If there are those who believe that they cannot abide by that, the have a moral obligation to make their point known now, not when they may be placing the lives of others at risk.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pindi
Memories of '56 inevitably grow dim. But I believe his defence at his Court Martial was was one of conscience. Of course there was no Courts Martial Appeals in those days, and the European Court did not exist. But presumably the Court came to the very reasonable conclusion that the pilot could have gone to his boss and said "sod this for a game of soldiers" (or words to that effect) and he would probably have been dealt with administratively under LMF procedures. But you do not sabotage one of HM aircraft as a matter of conscience!
Memories of '56 inevitably grow dim. But I believe his defence at his Court Martial was was one of conscience. Of course there was no Courts Martial Appeals in those days, and the European Court did not exist. But presumably the Court came to the very reasonable conclusion that the pilot could have gone to his boss and said "sod this for a game of soldiers" (or words to that effect) and he would probably have been dealt with administratively under LMF procedures. But you do not sabotage one of HM aircraft as a matter of conscience!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Comment
What the majority of us forget is:
1. Sanctions don't work! Saddam wouldn't be accused of WMP manufacture if they did, his people wouldn't be malnourished and oil would flow freely to the west!
2. Saddam is a CIA puppet who's gone rogue! Ergo it's him we want not the Iraqi public.
3. The no fly campaign is very manly and dangerous - just ask the bombed people of Iraq about it's success.
4. Islamic people will join together in a crisis; the fifth column is already in place throughout the western world (read about the recent arrests) and we start a war and hell will break out in the homelands.
5. Exile is a good option or total eradication; but the latter could be seen as a "war crime".
6. Let's hope our politicians really tell the truth about how bad things are at home and not try to cover-up with an unneccessary and wasteful war.
1. Sanctions don't work! Saddam wouldn't be accused of WMP manufacture if they did, his people wouldn't be malnourished and oil would flow freely to the west!
2. Saddam is a CIA puppet who's gone rogue! Ergo it's him we want not the Iraqi public.
3. The no fly campaign is very manly and dangerous - just ask the bombed people of Iraq about it's success.
4. Islamic people will join together in a crisis; the fifth column is already in place throughout the western world (read about the recent arrests) and we start a war and hell will break out in the homelands.
5. Exile is a good option or total eradication; but the latter could be seen as a "war crime".
6. Let's hope our politicians really tell the truth about how bad things are at home and not try to cover-up with an unneccessary and wasteful war.
For Civvie...
First part of this edited prior to submission (not very flattering to Civvie!)....the vote had exactly one candidate.....except for the state of Florida maybe....it would follow the only candidate would garner all the votes! Sheesh!
Or are you so naive as to believe a "write-in" candidate could have won the poll in Iraq?
First part of this edited prior to submission (not very flattering to Civvie!)....the vote had exactly one candidate.....except for the state of Florida maybe....it would follow the only candidate would garner all the votes! Sheesh!
Or are you so naive as to believe a "write-in" candidate could have won the poll in Iraq?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Florida,USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conscie thread
I propose a new forum, for the likes of posters who can't (intellectual limitations) or won't (who knows why) try to apply reason, logic and courtesy in their posts.
This is OK if the subject lends itself to banter,badinage and such ( viz 'The Most Beautiful Woman In The World' thread etcetera), and banter per se is fine on 'serious' subjects if reason etc. obtains in the posts.
This thread contains at least two cogently argued and reasoned submissions with different viewpoints. A lot of it though is just static.
The title of the new forum ?
Jackass.
This is OK if the subject lends itself to banter,badinage and such ( viz 'The Most Beautiful Woman In The World' thread etcetera), and banter per se is fine on 'serious' subjects if reason etc. obtains in the posts.
This thread contains at least two cogently argued and reasoned submissions with different viewpoints. A lot of it though is just static.
The title of the new forum ?
Jackass.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I were the author of this comment I would be feeling very stupid right now, if people doubt the moral justification for this conflict they will take it up with the goverment not the armed forces.
To me it looks like our armed forces went it , did the the job (not forgetting all the people who are still in Iraq) and came back with quiet professionalism which is something the vast majority of people will take pride in.
To me it looks like our armed forces went it , did the the job (not forgetting all the people who are still in Iraq) and came back with quiet professionalism which is something the vast majority of people will take pride in.
As professional military men you are inclined to wish to test your mettle but be prepared for a home coming committee similar to the one the American GIs got following their experiences in Vietnam. Admittedly you don't have much choice in the matter and I wish you all a safe return home. It's just a real shame, most of all a shame on Bush and Blair, that you'll be killing men, women and children without any moral justification on offer from any independent source.
Sorry chaps but that's how most of your nation and the rest of the world feels about this. I work and live in a fairly right wing environment and I don't know anyone who supports the intended war regardless of legalistic argument one way or the other.
Sorry chaps but that's how most of your nation and the rest of the world feels about this. I work and live in a fairly right wing environment and I don't know anyone who supports the intended war regardless of legalistic argument one way or the other.