Conscientious Objection
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conscientious Objection
Interesting article in the papers over the weekend comparing Suez Crisis to todays excitement.
Buried in the article was a short reference to a young Flying Officer who refused to go on a bombing mission in his Canberra (from Cyprus), got Court Martialled and served a year’s imprisonment for ‘for not carrying out a warlike operation without the utmost exertion’
I won’t mention his name as a google search reveals a chap of the same name heavily involved in aviation training. They might be one and the same. (Maybe a fellow PPRuNer knows the truth)
In the last year and a bit I’ve heard of two incidents of Hercules captains being threatened with court martials for attempting to refuse missions, unfortunately in both cases they gave way to the threats. Its not my place to elaborate much more on those cases, but in both cases I was amazed that the very chaps who you would hope to back you up, dissapear up their own @rses when the pressure is on, (which is why the Captain's decision should be final)
So, and I think you know where this is going, is it ‘if’ or ‘when’ that someone finally has the balls, and will we get to hear about it? Are there many examples of noble Blackadders telling their General Melchet's to think again?
Buried in the article was a short reference to a young Flying Officer who refused to go on a bombing mission in his Canberra (from Cyprus), got Court Martialled and served a year’s imprisonment for ‘for not carrying out a warlike operation without the utmost exertion’
I won’t mention his name as a google search reveals a chap of the same name heavily involved in aviation training. They might be one and the same. (Maybe a fellow PPRuNer knows the truth)
In the last year and a bit I’ve heard of two incidents of Hercules captains being threatened with court martials for attempting to refuse missions, unfortunately in both cases they gave way to the threats. Its not my place to elaborate much more on those cases, but in both cases I was amazed that the very chaps who you would hope to back you up, dissapear up their own @rses when the pressure is on, (which is why the Captain's decision should be final)
So, and I think you know where this is going, is it ‘if’ or ‘when’ that someone finally has the balls, and will we get to hear about it? Are there many examples of noble Blackadders telling their General Melchet's to think again?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thinking about this i can come up with only very few times when a captain would be able to refuse a mission, something along the lines of it being ordered in an illegal way. in what instance does someone have the right to refuse a mission? i know people will jump in and say when it means, for eg, the potential loss of the aircraft and crew. does that mean that the captain has the right to refuse to go? i dont really think so. i guess my point is that maybe its not a matter of people having the b*lls to stand up and refuse to do something but whether they even have the right to do so when ordered. feel free to steer my thoughts in a different direction.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I don't see what the problem is.
If you believe an order is illegal despite being told otherwise then you have the option to refuse to obey it. You may, quite rightly, then be court-martialled for doing so. You may then make your case in a public forum. If you were wrong, you take your lumps.
If you believe the verdict was wrong you could appeal all the way up the international courts. (The publicity would significant and, if you were right, I do not believe it would ever go to trial).
If you wish to refuse on "moral", rather than legal grounds, then you also take your lumps. You should have thought about it when you joined. If someone can't take an order, just because they don't like it, they shouldn't have joined the armed forces in the first place - and should resign forthwith before being placed in such a potential situation.
If you believe an order is illegal despite being told otherwise then you have the option to refuse to obey it. You may, quite rightly, then be court-martialled for doing so. You may then make your case in a public forum. If you were wrong, you take your lumps.
If you believe the verdict was wrong you could appeal all the way up the international courts. (The publicity would significant and, if you were right, I do not believe it would ever go to trial).
If you wish to refuse on "moral", rather than legal grounds, then you also take your lumps. You should have thought about it when you joined. If someone can't take an order, just because they don't like it, they shouldn't have joined the armed forces in the first place - and should resign forthwith before being placed in such a potential situation.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regulations (which stem from the law of the land) require you to carry out the mission as briefed. There is a caveat which applies in peacetime only, which says something about due regard for the safety of the crew, passengers and persons below. In war you get on with it. If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined. This does leave room for the lawyers to argue what constitutes a war. I would hope that the courts would take a broad view - if we ain't prepared to go, what have the taxpayers been wasting their money on?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat amongst the pidgeons. aka, lets get real.
Is sending our troops into this war an illegal order ?
1. If saddam was to go into excile, the war would be effectively cancelled.
2. If he stays put, the country gets bombed.
3. The US wants to get rid of one man for the cost of innocent civilians.
4. There is no proof to go to war with.
5. Since the Nurnburg trials, the statement " I was only following orders " stopped being an excuse for murder.
6. What happens when the message is passed "Saddam is dead "? Keep bombing or have a smoker?
Refuse an order on this basis and I'm sure the International courts of law will back you. (Only the US and us want a fight)
Sorry to bring it to basics, but someone has to.
1. If saddam was to go into excile, the war would be effectively cancelled.
2. If he stays put, the country gets bombed.
3. The US wants to get rid of one man for the cost of innocent civilians.
4. There is no proof to go to war with.
5. Since the Nurnburg trials, the statement " I was only following orders " stopped being an excuse for murder.
6. What happens when the message is passed "Saddam is dead "? Keep bombing or have a smoker?
Refuse an order on this basis and I'm sure the International courts of law will back you. (Only the US and us want a fight)
Sorry to bring it to basics, but someone has to.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Used Ink, sorry.
The Gulf War was authorised by the U.N. It never ended, there was just a ceasefire based on Iraq's adverence to the terms of several U.N. resolutions. Breach of these allowed further action. These have been breached, and the U.N. has acknowledged this formally on several occasions. Please see my post here.
The U.S.A. and UK established the no-fly zones and have been conducting combat operations almost incessantly for over 5 years based on the above. The legality of these operations has been accepted by the world community and all complaints of Iraq rebuffed. if you believe otherwise, you believe we have been commiting war crimes for several years. Seen any U.N. or Hague International Court accusations, warrants, trials or convictions? No? Point made I believe.
Any further action would be merely of a far greater scale - but based on the same premise. There might be a case for looking at individual actions/attacks based on proportionality and the Geneva conventional, but not for the action as a whole. No declaration of war would be made or required since it would constitute the recommencement of previous operations.
On individual points.
1. Operations have never been against Saddam but always Iraq. If Saddam were to go into exile and be replaced by, say, his son who continued to refuse to adhere to the U.N. resolutions, then operations would continue.
2. If Saddam stays put, but submits and adheres to the resolution, hostilities and sanctions would (after compliance had been confirmed) lifted. I don't think the U.S.A. would like it, and would watch him like a hawk, but I believe they'd agree to it.
3. If Iraq won't comply because of Saddam, then he'll be removed. They can remove him themselves or stand aside.
4. Factually incorrect. The U.N. has documented evidence of the prior presence of WMD material. Iraq has been asked to provide proof of it's destruction. In the absence of such proof the material must be deemed to still be in existence.
5. And your point is?
6. See point 1 above.
Refuse an order on the above grounds and you'll be Court-Martialled, imprisoned and then dismissed in full accordance with regulations and the law for disobedience of a lawful order.
Notes:
1. If you turned around and said you considered any such attack would be immoral and counter-productive, I can't say I'd disagree with you. That would not, however, make it illegal.
2. I would agree that one of the major wishes of Bush is to get Saddam. Legally, however, that's not the basis for any action, it's Just a fortunate side product. Bush was, however, persuaded by Powell and others to allow Iraq a last chance to comply in order to bring the U.N. on side. I think he probably only agreed since he did not believe that there was the faintest possibility of Saddam complying. It would seem he was correct and will achieve his wish.
3. If the U.S.A. believe there is a possibility of the Security Council refusing authorisation for an attack if asked - they won't ask. As stated above it's not a legal requirement. The reason for doing it are to build a coalition and the use of bases in other countries. If needs be, however, they'll go it alone. They have staked to much crediblility in the region to back down now. They shouldn't have got themselves in this situation - but they have. Now they have to go through with it or they'll never be able to face anyone down again, and it could prove disastrous in other crisis areas such as Korea and when confronting any other nascent nuclear power.
The Gulf War was authorised by the U.N. It never ended, there was just a ceasefire based on Iraq's adverence to the terms of several U.N. resolutions. Breach of these allowed further action. These have been breached, and the U.N. has acknowledged this formally on several occasions. Please see my post here.
The U.S.A. and UK established the no-fly zones and have been conducting combat operations almost incessantly for over 5 years based on the above. The legality of these operations has been accepted by the world community and all complaints of Iraq rebuffed. if you believe otherwise, you believe we have been commiting war crimes for several years. Seen any U.N. or Hague International Court accusations, warrants, trials or convictions? No? Point made I believe.
Any further action would be merely of a far greater scale - but based on the same premise. There might be a case for looking at individual actions/attacks based on proportionality and the Geneva conventional, but not for the action as a whole. No declaration of war would be made or required since it would constitute the recommencement of previous operations.
On individual points.
1. Operations have never been against Saddam but always Iraq. If Saddam were to go into exile and be replaced by, say, his son who continued to refuse to adhere to the U.N. resolutions, then operations would continue.
2. If Saddam stays put, but submits and adheres to the resolution, hostilities and sanctions would (after compliance had been confirmed) lifted. I don't think the U.S.A. would like it, and would watch him like a hawk, but I believe they'd agree to it.
3. If Iraq won't comply because of Saddam, then he'll be removed. They can remove him themselves or stand aside.
4. Factually incorrect. The U.N. has documented evidence of the prior presence of WMD material. Iraq has been asked to provide proof of it's destruction. In the absence of such proof the material must be deemed to still be in existence.
5. And your point is?
6. See point 1 above.
Refuse an order on the above grounds and you'll be Court-Martialled, imprisoned and then dismissed in full accordance with regulations and the law for disobedience of a lawful order.
Notes:
1. If you turned around and said you considered any such attack would be immoral and counter-productive, I can't say I'd disagree with you. That would not, however, make it illegal.
2. I would agree that one of the major wishes of Bush is to get Saddam. Legally, however, that's not the basis for any action, it's Just a fortunate side product. Bush was, however, persuaded by Powell and others to allow Iraq a last chance to comply in order to bring the U.N. on side. I think he probably only agreed since he did not believe that there was the faintest possibility of Saddam complying. It would seem he was correct and will achieve his wish.
3. If the U.S.A. believe there is a possibility of the Security Council refusing authorisation for an attack if asked - they won't ask. As stated above it's not a legal requirement. The reason for doing it are to build a coalition and the use of bases in other countries. If needs be, however, they'll go it alone. They have staked to much crediblility in the region to back down now. They shouldn't have got themselves in this situation - but they have. Now they have to go through with it or they'll never be able to face anyone down again, and it could prove disastrous in other crisis areas such as Korea and when confronting any other nascent nuclear power.
Last edited by ORAC; 23rd Jan 2003 at 12:43.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens if Saddam does a bin Laden and goes off and hides?
14 months on from the start of OEF no one knows where he is, if he's alive, what he's doing, if he's in charge.
BUT if Saddam does the same will it matter as long as Bush gets control of the oil fields?
14 months on from the start of OEF no one knows where he is, if he's alive, what he's doing, if he's in charge.
BUT if Saddam does the same will it matter as long as Bush gets control of the oil fields?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
RJ,
Saddam retains power because he has a rigid control of the reins of power in the country. If he disappeared for any period he'd lose it and an alternate regime would grasp them. he wouldn't dare appear again, let alone try to regain power.
Or do you think he's loved so much that the people would flock to his side in a popular uprising when he reappeared?
Saddam retains power because he has a rigid control of the reins of power in the country. If he disappeared for any period he'd lose it and an alternate regime would grasp them. he wouldn't dare appear again, let alone try to regain power.
Or do you think he's loved so much that the people would flock to his side in a popular uprising when he reappeared?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otis
The Canberra captain at Nicosia did not just abort his mission. He raised the gear on the ground and thereby sabotaged one of HM aircraft. IMHO he got off lightly.
Most of those who doubt the morality or wisdom of a possible second Gulf war seem to do so because they think the evidence of Iraqi WMD lacks substance. In 1991 the casus belli was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which was plain for all the world to witness. This time the evidenece is intelligence-based and, as is always with intelligence, the raw material cannot be revealed or the sources would cease to exist very quickly (and horribly). You have to trust those who have implicitly underwritten the intelligence assessments.
Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed.
If the evidence supporting continued Iraqi WMD manufacture/acquisition was too slight or conjectural to justify the commitment of the British armed forces, I am certain that by now these great men would have blown the gaff. We might have seen a letter to The Times signed by CDS, the COS, the Cabinet Secretary, the Chairman of JIC and the DGs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (and of course the Archbishop of Canterbury!). Try sacking that lot!
The Canberra captain at Nicosia did not just abort his mission. He raised the gear on the ground and thereby sabotaged one of HM aircraft. IMHO he got off lightly.
Most of those who doubt the morality or wisdom of a possible second Gulf war seem to do so because they think the evidence of Iraqi WMD lacks substance. In 1991 the casus belli was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which was plain for all the world to witness. This time the evidenece is intelligence-based and, as is always with intelligence, the raw material cannot be revealed or the sources would cease to exist very quickly (and horribly). You have to trust those who have implicitly underwritten the intelligence assessments.
Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed.
If the evidence supporting continued Iraqi WMD manufacture/acquisition was too slight or conjectural to justify the commitment of the British armed forces, I am certain that by now these great men would have blown the gaff. We might have seen a letter to The Times signed by CDS, the COS, the Cabinet Secretary, the Chairman of JIC and the DGs of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (and of course the Archbishop of Canterbury!). Try sacking that lot!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
Did you watch question time this evening?
Yes = I rest my case
No = Read my post again.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one" Adolf Hitler: 'Mein Kampf'
War does not determine who is right, only who is left.... Bertrand Russell
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities - Voltai
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Gensha
And finally
No matter how far you have gone on a wrong road, turn back. Turkish Proverb[COLOR=blue]
Thanks to http://www.willnewman-littlesister.co.uk/quotes.htm[SIZE=1]
Did you watch question time this evening?
Yes = I rest my case
No = Read my post again.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one" Adolf Hitler: 'Mein Kampf'
War does not determine who is right, only who is left.... Bertrand Russell
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities - Voltai
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Gensha
And finally
No matter how far you have gone on a wrong road, turn back. Turkish Proverb[COLOR=blue]
Thanks to http://www.willnewman-littlesister.co.uk/quotes.htm[SIZE=1]
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I make a case, you ask "did you watch the telly".
No, I'm half a world away, and the talking heads on TV here disagree (and there are more channels!).
I at least took the time to make a case. You either can't refute it or can't even be bothered to attempt to. I pointed out that, if you were right, a formal charge would have been brought over the attacks made over the past 10 years. There haven't. How do you counter this?
As for quotes about war:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill
We make war that we may live in peace
- Aristotle
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke
Moral indignation is in most cases 2% moral, 48% indignation and 50% envy.
- Vittorio de Sica.
The fact that slaughter [battle] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [it does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.
- Carl Von Clausewitz
The justest dispositions possible in ourselves, will not secure us against it [war]. It would be necessary that all other nations were just also. Justice indeed, on our part, will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But how can we prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish often prevents them.
- Thomas Jefferson
There. Didn't prove much did it?
No, I'm half a world away, and the talking heads on TV here disagree (and there are more channels!).
I at least took the time to make a case. You either can't refute it or can't even be bothered to attempt to. I pointed out that, if you were right, a formal charge would have been brought over the attacks made over the past 10 years. There haven't. How do you counter this?
As for quotes about war:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill
We make war that we may live in peace
- Aristotle
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
- Edmund Burke
Moral indignation is in most cases 2% moral, 48% indignation and 50% envy.
- Vittorio de Sica.
The fact that slaughter [battle] is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but [it does] not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.
- Carl Von Clausewitz
The justest dispositions possible in ourselves, will not secure us against it [war]. It would be necessary that all other nations were just also. Justice indeed, on our part, will save us from those wars which would have been produced by a contrary disposition. But how can we prevent those produced by the wrongs of other nations? By putting ourselves in a condition to punish them. Weakness provokes insult and injury, while a condition to punish often prevents them.
- Thomas Jefferson
There. Didn't prove much did it?
Last edited by ORAC; 24th Jan 2003 at 01:13.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S.Yorkshire
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
half a world away, must be wet!
Yep, I guess this will go nowhere.
Open your eyes and see/listen to what the feeling is around you and back in blighty. Half a world away and more channels. mmmm.
Then youre a bit out of touch and watching rubbish!
I like the quote that you chose,
We make war that we may live in peace
- Aristotle
My last post on the matter, I think will prove how narrow minded you are, goes along the lines of,
'Fighting for peace is like fxxxxxg for virginity'
Open your eyes and see/listen to what the feeling is around you and back in blighty. Half a world away and more channels. mmmm.
Then youre a bit out of touch and watching rubbish!
I like the quote that you chose,
We make war that we may live in peace
- Aristotle
My last post on the matter, I think will prove how narrow minded you are, goes along the lines of,
'Fighting for peace is like fxxxxxg for virginity'
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ah, what an intellectual closing remark. "You am out of touch and talking rubbish " - "I will prove you are narrow minded" - followed by another mindless quotation (and not even original 
).
Gosh, you really demolished my arguments there. Picked holes right through them with incisive wit and logic. I feel quite humbled.
). Gosh, you really demolished my arguments there. Picked holes right through them with incisive wit and logic. I feel quite humbled.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha! Back on topic.
Emergency undercarriage retraction with a full bomb bay!!
Barking mad. The Riggers and Bombheads must have been delighted.
Did he claim conscientious objection there and then or finger trouble (or brake failure)?
Emergency undercarriage retraction with a full bomb bay!!
Barking mad. The Riggers and Bombheads must have been delighted.
Did he claim conscientious objection there and then or finger trouble (or brake failure)?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, having hung around the MOD for a few years after I retired, I cannot bring myself to believe that Blair, Straw and Hoon could conspire to pull the wool over the public's eyes in order to curry favour with Bush and get away with it. There are just too many men of the highest integrity they would have to take with them for such a ploy to succeed.
Since were all providing quote how about this People with intelligence will use it to fashion things both true and false and will try to push through whatever they want with their clever reasoning. This is injury from intelligence.
Nothing you do will have effect if you do not use truth.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC may have taken the time to put together a well argued point of view but that doesn't make his opinion correct.
Anyone who takes the time to read the well argued alternative viewpoints, which carry the support of the world's majority (can they all be wrong?), in the quality press will have seen that the reasoning for going to war with Iraq stretches credulity.
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.
The USA and UK will at some point soon present its final case for the need for war but the argument has been lost and a doubting world public will sniff rat in any last minute supporting 'evidence' that has been hitherto missing.
Anyone who takes the time to read the well argued alternative viewpoints, which carry the support of the world's majority (can they all be wrong?), in the quality press will have seen that the reasoning for going to war with Iraq stretches credulity.
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.
The USA and UK will at some point soon present its final case for the need for war but the argument has been lost and a doubting world public will sniff rat in any last minute supporting 'evidence' that has been hitherto missing.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
CBW,
To be fair, I was making the legal case, not the moral one.
Why? Because that was the question asked. If you at the first line of the thread, the question was, "Is sending our troops into this war an illegal order".
If you want to move on, change the subject, and discuss moral arguments, then fine. But I believe I made my case over the question asked. And in terms of the consequences, the effects of disobeying a legal order can be harsh.
The military do not have the freedom to make decisions based on their own moral qualms.
To be fair, I was making the legal case, not the moral one.
Why? Because that was the question asked. If you at the first line of the thread, the question was, "Is sending our troops into this war an illegal order".
If you want to move on, change the subject, and discuss moral arguments, then fine. But I believe I made my case over the question asked. And in terms of the consequences, the effects of disobeying a legal order can be harsh.
The military do not have the freedom to make decisions based on their own moral qualms.