RAF doc found guilty
- Thread starter likesfish
- Start date
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
He was told it wasn't a valid defense before the trial. He tried to bring it up but got slapped down by the judge.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
I don't think ever trying to use goverment policy as justification for your direct action or in this case inaction (although difficult to tell with the raf 
)
ever goes down well with the courts even less with a military court.
He'd have been better off resigning his commision and makeing a big stink of it in public
)ever goes down well with the courts even less with a military court.
He'd have been better off resigning his commision and makeing a big stink of it in public
Col_Buendia
sort code
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
So, he has the right to disobey illegal orders - but he wasn't given the chance to prove those orders were illegal - Nice to see the establishment behaving true to form. 
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
He had the right to resign if he thought they were illegal. He was not being asked to carry out war crimes, he was a sodding doctor that decided to use himself as a sacrafical lamb for a PR campain rather than do his job.
Col_Buendia
sort code
So, being a member of the armed forces that are engaged in an illegal war doesn't make you part of the war crime? 
Don't follow your logic there, BtL
He has the right, nay, the obligation not to participate in a war of aggression.
Don't follow your logic there, BtL
He has the right, nay, the obligation not to participate in a war of aggression.
Col_Buendia
sort code
laptop said:
Hmmm... yr an optimist, then
Can't see this bloke being allowed to set an example, no matter what anybody said in the past, present, or in the UN
Call me a sceptical pessimistic realist
German soldiers had no excuse in saying they were just following orders.
I wonder why this did not have any weight in this case.
I believe the Iraq war to be wrong. I would be concerned that it is illegal as the main reasons for the war are proven, and admitted, to be false.
I am guessing that if the court had accepted the defence that would be a new can of worms for Blair and one that may have been too great a blow for him to survive.
In short a political decision.
I wonder why this did not have any weight in this case.
I believe the Iraq war to be wrong. I would be concerned that it is illegal as the main reasons for the war are proven, and admitted, to be false.
I am guessing that if the court had accepted the defence that would be a new can of worms for Blair and one that may have been too great a blow for him to survive.
In short a political decision.
MatthewCuffe
New Member
Perhaps he joined the RAF because he felt that his people needed protection. The war on Iraq was sold to us on a number of criteria. The central one was not righting the torturous wrongs of the Saddam Hussein regime. It was a 'pre-emptive strike' against a potential aggressor deemed so potential that the threat required 'neutralising' before it could become 'real'. 45 minutes blah blah.
In thousands of ways this has been proved to be entirely faulty thinking. Kofi Annan declared it illegal.
Some would say all members of the armed forces are either wrong to join armed forces in the first place or are under an obligation to follow orders, regardless of those orders. But, hypothetically, should an RAF man rape people or jump off a bridge if that is what he is commanded to do?
The overwhelming problem for the British justice system at the moment is that the war was illegal. Until that is cleared up, we will continue to scapegoat people in the place of those who have commited the original crime.
In thousands of ways this has been proved to be entirely faulty thinking. Kofi Annan declared it illegal.
Some would say all members of the armed forces are either wrong to join armed forces in the first place or are under an obligation to follow orders, regardless of those orders. But, hypothetically, should an RAF man rape people or jump off a bridge if that is what he is commanded to do?
The overwhelming problem for the British justice system at the moment is that the war was illegal. Until that is cleared up, we will continue to scapegoat people in the place of those who have commited the original crime.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Col_Buendia said:So, being a member of the armed forces that are engaged in an illegal war doesn't make you part of the war crime?
Don't follow your logic there, BtL
He has the right, nay, the obligation not to participate in a war of aggression.
No it doesn't, perhaps you should look at what a war crime is defined as and then look at what he was objecting to.
If he didn't want to participate then he could have resigned. Instead he's playing the martyr.
Col_Buendia said:Hmmm... yr an optimist, then
When I say "not entirely preordained" I'm using physics measures
I can see a lot of Appeal Court (or Appeal CourtMartial - where's it go next?) judges having a very sudden bout of summer 'flu when the day comes to dole out this case.
Shame he won't be getting a civilian jury... nor a certain Scottish Sherriff...
E2A: He tried to resign. Part of the argument was over when he tried to resign.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
The quote i read say he considered resigning, but decided to take it to court instead. Links and corrections more than welcomed.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
That doesn't say that he tried to resign and was refused, it doesn't say he tried to resign at all. As an officer he is allowed to resign if he thinks he's being asked to carry out an order that is not morrally acceptable. Looking at this bit:
Normally being the active word, the terms of your contract say 1 years notice, but exceptions are made in these cases.
Normally being the active word, the terms of your contract say 1 years notice, but exceptions are made in these cases.
The situation is complicatified by the fact that the war was illegal but the troops are now there with the UN's blessings. So the UN's blessings would not have happened unless the illegal war had come first.
If he was able to resign then he should have done so. If the only way to avoid going to Iraq again was by refusing an order, then he made the right choice IMO and unfortunately simply has to accept the consequences.
If he was able to resign then he should have done so. If the only way to avoid going to Iraq again was by refusing an order, then he made the right choice IMO and unfortunately simply has to accept the consequences.
Genghis Cohen
Minister For Scrabble
The judge sounded dodgy as fuck whenever I heard about his latest bout of shit on r4, kept making wild assertions like they were established points of law.
And if it were the case that he stopped trying to resign and decided to take the consequences at Court Martial...
He seems pretty angry about having been lied to go get him to go the first time.
Ticking the "maximum publicity" box is also his right.
It always upsets military and ex-military people - it shows lack of solidarity with his brothers in arms. Them's the breaks.
But ages ago I interviewed an officer who'd done much the same over the Falklands. He indicated that while ex-comrades were in public very upset with him for breaking ranks, not just resigning, and so on, one-to-one they were much more understanding.
He seems pretty angry about having been lied to go get him to go the first time.
Ticking the "maximum publicity" box is also his right.
It always upsets military and ex-military people - it shows lack of solidarity with his brothers in arms. Them's the breaks.
But ages ago I interviewed an officer who'd done much the same over the Falklands. He indicated that while ex-comrades were in public very upset with him for breaking ranks, not just resigning, and so on, one-to-one they were much more understanding.
Sorry chaps - IM not pro War or anything, but fuck him.
He joined up & volunteered to do whatever he was told - thats whats the Forces are about - Its not as if he was press ganged into it - hes an intelligent man, he made his decison a long time ago & took the "queens shilling" when he got a bursary to go to Uni. His problem.He has to face the consequences, whether he thinks it is unjust or whatever.
Unlucky.
He joined up & volunteered to do whatever he was told - thats whats the Forces are about - Its not as if he was press ganged into it - hes an intelligent man, he made his decison a long time ago & took the "queens shilling" when he got a bursary to go to Uni. His problem.He has to face the consequences, whether he thinks it is unjust or whatever.
Unlucky.
zoltan69 said:
Not quite. He volunteered to obey all legal orders.
His account is coherent. He obeyed orders and went to Iraq twice. Then he started looking into whether those orders had been legal, and found that they weren't.
Imagine for a moment that justice is done instead of law, and Blair and co are prosecuted and convicted. How much compensation should he then get for the time he spends in the brig?
Yes apparently his defence was 'grandstanding'Bob_the_lost said:
I don't really understand a possible legal distinction between someone shooting the bullets and someone patching up the bodies. It seems contrived. After all, they could lock you up for 'fraternising with the enemy'.
laptop said:
he joined the forces - its not a la carte - you cant decide when & how you want to participate - he wasnt conned into anything - he is brighter than the average dumb squaddie who gets sucked into the army cos he has no alternative. fuck him. he made his choice as an adult , he has to accept his decision and see it though.
zoltan69 said:
But you must. You have a duty to decide. It's called the Nuremberg Principle.
'Course it's bloody difficult to get a court martial to accept that you've done that duty, and the way that military personel are briefed on it probably starts "in a hypothetical universe far, far away"...
I forget, are you military or ex-?
Col_Buendia
sort code
Bob_the_lost said:No it doesn't, perhaps you should look at what a war crime is defined as and then look at what he was objecting to.
If he didn't want to participate then he could have resigned. Instead he's playing the martyr.
Well why don't you enlighten me, BtL, as you're obviously a well-experienced, currently practising international lawyer, to judge by your tone of condescension.
BBC said:
BBC - What is a War Crime?
Now forgive me for not having a better source than the Beeb to quote from, but it seems to me that nearly every item on that gruesome list has been made manifest in Iraq by "our" forces. Hence by participating in an illegal war, as generally understood by (your bretheren the) international lawyers, national governments and about 99% of the world's population (minus a few numbskulls in Washington and London etc etc), this man would have been complicit in a war crime.
Your arsey question still hasn't shored up the flawed logic of your original post. The fact that he was a doctor has no bearing - he's a member of the armed forces and has the obligation to act in accordance with the law.
Zoltan - you're a bona fide idiot, you'd have made great SS material. "Was only doing my gov, guv"
[
Zoltan - you're a bona fide idiot, you'd have made great SS material. "Was only doing my gov, guv"[/QUOTE]
Ah the old Nazi jibe. fantastic insult. Original too.
Heres a scenario. man takes job. man likes money & prestige & uniform. man like cheap champers, tax free sports car & lifestyle. man goes to war, as part of his contract. man doesnt like that particular part of his job & tries to avoid it. Court tells him to fuck off.
I one had a car I bought on HP. I wrote it off, without adeqate insurance to cover remaning debt. People told me to tell the finace company to fuck off, as I did have the car any more. I accepted my obligations & repaid the loan, even though it killed me financially .You accept that responsibility when you become an adult& decide to jon in or opt into something.Aformentioned Dr tried to get out when he didnt like the risks involved - thats only natural - but thats also his hard fuckin luck.
Soldier + war=risk of death.
not a complex formula.
his problem, irrespective of my opinion of this absurd & sad conflict.
Zoltan - you're a bona fide idiot, you'd have made great SS material. "Was only doing my gov, guv"
[/QUOTE]Ah the old Nazi jibe. fantastic insult. Original too.
Heres a scenario. man takes job. man likes money & prestige & uniform. man like cheap champers, tax free sports car & lifestyle. man goes to war, as part of his contract. man doesnt like that particular part of his job & tries to avoid it. Court tells him to fuck off.
I one had a car I bought on HP. I wrote it off, without adeqate insurance to cover remaning debt. People told me to tell the finace company to fuck off, as I did have the car any more. I accepted my obligations & repaid the loan, even though it killed me financially .You accept that responsibility when you become an adult& decide to jon in or opt into something.Aformentioned Dr tried to get out when he didnt like the risks involved - thats only natural - but thats also his hard fuckin luck.
Soldier + war=risk of death.
not a complex formula.
his problem, irrespective of my opinion of this absurd & sad conflict.
Similar threads
- Poll
