RAF doc found guilty

[Col_Buendia]

My apologies, it wasn't meant as a jibe, it was a reference to the Nuremberg principles, of which you obviously haven't yet heard.

Tell you what, until such times as you actually have a basic scooby doo about what the topic is, why don't you refrain from posting inane drivel about "money & prestige & uniforms", eh? There's a good boy.

OK, in the spirit of comradely debate which charaterises this board, here's a snippet to get you going.

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

 

[Genghis Cohen]

Just talking about it on r4, they had that guy who left the SAS because he refused to work alongside the terrorists, he said he was meant to give evidence but recieved a notice from the judge saying he wouldnt accept any statements on behalf the defence.

So, as far as I can make out (and the former may well be wrong,) he wasnt allowed witnesses and any defence he had was arbitrarily and with no basis in law, ruled 'invalid' before they'd even started.

 

[zoltan]

My apologies, it wasn't meant as a jibe, it was a reference to the Nuremberg principles, of which you obviously haven't yet heard.

Tell you what, until such times as you actually have a basic scooby doo about what the topic is, why don't you refrain from posting inane drivel about "money & prestige & uniforms", eh? There's a good boy.

OK, in the spirit of comradely debate which charaterises this board, here's a snippet to get you going.



Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

I am well aware of these oft quoted principles, but thank you anyway, lets be honest here - this whole meandering subject is a diversion - its obvious he wanted out & used whatever he could to do it & do it publicly....and he gets found out. Unlucky, but hardly unexpected was it? he joined the system & bobbed along when it suited him., but tried to circumvent it when it got too messy for his personal tastes.

fuck him. his problem.What else did he expect ?

 

[zoltan]

So, as far as I can make out (and the former may well be wrong,) he wasnt allowed witnesses and any defence he had was arbitrarily and with no basis in law, ruled 'invalid' before they'd even started.

Erm.. he was in the forces - he joined up, this is how they operate & its well documented what the rules are - rightly or wrongly - what the fuck does he expect them to do when they get dissenters ?

 

[Jazzz]

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.

He's acted extremely responsibly, to his own detriment. It is the responsibility of everyone not to break the law. This includes soldiers who have been instructed to break it.

The experience of German soldiers in WWII is not a 'jibe' but a case in point.

 

[Genghis Cohen]

Erm.. he was in the forces - he joined up, this is how they operate & its well documented what the rules are - rightly or wrongly - what the fuck does he expect them to do when they get dissenters ?

Erm, why did they bother with this farce then and presumably will continue to bother with it, when he and, if what you say is true, others, have no chance to defend themselves ?

 

[jiggajagga]

Just think,
if all the soldiers of WWI and WWII had said 'Fuck you' when told to 'charge!!!' there would have been no wars at all. Its only soft cannon fodder cunts like us who believe everything 'they' tell us about 'loyalty', 'honour', and 'country'.

Load of old bollocks the lot of it!!
I'm with the airman 100%. Takes balls to be different.

 

[Col_Buendia]

its obvious he wanted out & used whatever he could to do it & do it publicly....

Bollocks.

 

[TAE]

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.

Bollox. Really.

Try this - man takes job. man likes job. man gets told to break the law by his boss. What should man do?

 

[Bigdavalad]

Brought it on himself. It's not up to him to decide that the war's illegal, it's up to proper courts of law.

Hope he enjoys himself during his eight month stay at the Motorcycle Training Centre.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

If he resigned he could still be held to his contract and compelled to complete his service IIRC, and although he likely could have bought himself out, would the RAF have let him?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What, they're purple?

I was going to say piss yellow, meself.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am well aware of these oft quoted principles, but thank you anyway, lets be honest here - this whole meandering subject is a diversion - its obvious he wanted out & used whatever he could to do it & do it publicly....and he gets found out. Unlucky, but hardly unexpected was it? he joined the system & bobbed along when it suited him., but tried to circumvent it when it got too messy for his personal tastes.

fuck him. his problem.What else did he expect ?

You make quite a lot of assumptions without anything to back them up, don't you?

For instance, you assume he could have got out easily, which, if you've never been in the forces is an easy assumption to make. It's also inaccurate. There's no surefire "get out quick" route like on civvie street, not "fuck off" to the boss and you're fired, or even handing in your notice and being free after a month.

You assume he was using any possible excuse to carry out his supposed desire to leave, but neither you, the RAF or many many journos have actually served up anything approaching proof, just speculation.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my gist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Brought it on himself. It's not up to him to decide that the war's illegal, it's up to proper courts of law.

What you're in effect saying there is that a war will only be ruled illegal after the event (given that a judge wouldn't be likely to hear a case in which there was limited info) then?

Hope he enjoys himself during his eight month stay at the Motorcycle Training Centre.

4. Sentence was 8 but he's entitled to an automatic reduction, apparently.

 

[Bigdavalad]

What you're in effect saying there is that a war will only be ruled illegal after the event (given that a judge wouldn't be likely to hear a case in which there was limited info) then?

I'm saying that it's not up to him to decide the war's illegal.

4. Sentence was 8 but he's entitled to an automatic reduction, apparently.

Would still be nice to see an officer doing a high speed tour of MCTC in covvies, especially a Crab one .

 

[Col_Buendia]

I'm saying that it's not up to him to decide the war's illegal.

Simply put, you're wrong on that one. Nuremberg principles establish that it is up to each individual member of the armed forces to determine for themselves that the action they are commanded to participate in is legal.

Wrong, you are. Simple.

 

[laptop]

Everyone who's been in the armed forces should of course have had some tuition on the Nuremberg Principles in training.

Before any respond further to this thread, I'd like to ask if they might perhaps take a brief pause for quiet reflection.

Might that tuition have been... you know... a teensy bit...

 

[Ozric]

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.

That's my feeling on this aswell. There is no way the judge could have allowed the defence to make a case on the war being illegal as it would mean the judge ruling on the legality of the war which has already been dodged by many officials better than him.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If he resigned he could still be held to his contract and compelled to complete his service IIRC, and although he likely could have bought himself out, would the RAF have let him?

I don't know. From at least one chat with a fairly senior (army) officer on the topic resignation is the path to follow, in wich case it's pretty much a "thanks very much, bye" procedure for officers. If my memory served he knew of a couple of cases of this happening, if memory fails me then at the very least that is what the propper course should have been if duty to your service and moral code came into opposition.

As such he should (in theory at least) have been discharged (honourable or not i have no idea, but probably honourable if he played it straight) either imediatly, or as soon as practicable. For enlisted soldiers it's a lot harder, but for officers there is a way out, that this medic seems to have avoided, hence my lack of sympathy.

Col_Buendia: You're a jibbering idiot. Maybe once i've fully sobered up and gotten more patience with you i may waste my time trying to hammer the information through your unyeilding skull, but for the mean time: HOW THE FLYING FUCK DOES A DOCTOR PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED?

 

[likesfish]

I guess its one thing flying officer x go bomb that refugee column
NO sir thats a war crime won't do it, fairly clear cut case.
blokes served two tours already so by his own viewpoints already a war criminal

 

[TAE]

It's not up to him to decide that the war's illegal, it's up to proper courts of law.

Hange on, I thought the courts of law had decided that it is not up to the courts of law to decide this.

Also, let's say he had wanted to refuse an order which (in his opinion) is illegal. Does that really compell him to leave the forces all together? What does that mean for a soldier on the front line who is told to execute a prisoner? Is he supposed to just walk away and leave the army there and then? Surely not.

 

[London_Calling]

I think the probem we have is in the misnomer 'International Law'.

'tis only a 'law' if universally applicable, which this UN Resolution nonsense is not - anyone got a cite for a prosecutuion for a breach of an International Resolution that wasn't ultimately at the behest of the US/UK ?

Internatioanl 'law' is a stitch up; we make the 'law', we police the 'law', we prosecute the 'law' and we judge the 'law' - and we break it at will.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Col_Buendia: You're a jibbering idiot. Maybe once i've fully sobered up and gotten more patience with you i may waste my time trying to hammer the information through your unyeilding skull, but for the mean time: HOW THE FLYING FUCK DOES A DOCTOR PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED?

"Jibbering idiot" - oooh, such rhetorical dexterity, Bob! Sober up? I thought your posts from the beginning of the thread had all the hallmarks of a drunken raving lunatic, but apparently it's only now that you're drunk

Anyway, save your patience for your reading skills, you obviously need it. Look, for the benefit of your slow-witted mind, I'll run through the logic one last time, to see if you can follow it. Btw, apart from your splenetic splutterings, you haven't actually made a counter-critique of what I'm saying. Calling me an idiot doesn't invalidate my argument, no matter how much beer you've consumed.

1. Doctor is member of armed forces.
2. Armed forces are engaged in what everyone from the UN down agrees is an illegal war.
3. Actions committed in breach of the law (see point two above) are generally considered as "crimes".
4. Being part of the armed forces engaged in an illegal war makes you part of the crime, regardless of whether you're there to torture prisoners or shine Blair's shoes.
5. From the Nuremberg Principles (one last time, eh?)

   Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.

Now, have I lost you with the logic, Bob, or is that plain enough even for you to see through the fog of alcohol? Doctor is in forces, forces break law, doctor in part of law-breaking and thus responsible. He doesn't have to pull any triggers, numbnuts, he just has to be part of the big picture. And this man has chosen not to be part of that big picture any more, and should be applauded for it.

 

[likesfish]

actually the UN has authorized the Occupation (well not like anyone else was going to sort the messout was there ).
so thats him in the poo right there and then.
can't be tried for war crimes for just being member of an army.
The reason a doctor may be present at interrogations is for the protection of the prisoner apart from humantarian reasons. UK forces don't just interogatte prisoners for shits and giggles its to gain information if they die you don't get information .
also if there interogatted properly by the intelligence corp its done by professionals who know what there doing, hence a doctor present and the geneva accords are observed (for all the wankery about torture its not effective and professionals don't use it ).
it goes wrong when some officer or nco decides a bit of rough handaling will get results

 

[Col_Buendia]

Hmmm, we're moving the argument along nicely here now. I love the complete abandonment of any sense of moral standards. I mean, you must surely admit that we've slipped a couple of rungs back down the evolutionary ladder when the choice offered to the doctor (following your logic here, likesfish - I mean the logic you've described, I don't actually know if you subscribe to or support it) seems to be something like:

We're going to torture the prisoners. Either you go and we'll torture them less, or you don't go and we'll torture them more.

Jesus, nice moral universe that one Whatever happened to the "I want a world without torture" option?

Anyway - likesfish, can you say some more about this bit: "can't be tried for war crimes for just being member of an army." I've already said that I'm not an international lawyer, but what you've stated seems not to concur with the Principle VII that I posted above.

 

[laptop]

Hange on, I thought the courts of law had decided that it is not up to the courts of law to decide this.

A Court-Martial - a court of first instance - has decided it's not going to decide this.

It's understandably common for courts of first instance to say "fuck it, not dealing with this, let's boot it to the appeal and let them handle it."

 

[TAE]

actually the UN has authorized the Occupation (well not like anyone else was going to sort the messout was there ).
so thats him in the poo right there and then.
can't be tried for war crimes for just being member of an army.
The reason a doctor may be present at interrogations is for the protection of the prisoner apart from humantarian reasons. UK forces don't just interogatte prisoners for shits and giggles its to gain information if they die you don't get information .
also if there interogatted properly by the intelligence corp its done by professionals who know what there doing, hence a doctor present and the geneva accords are observed (for all the wankery about torture its not effective and professionals don't use it ).
it goes wrong when some officer or nco decides a bit of rough handaling will get results

There should be no need for a doctor! Geez, what are 'our boys' doing to these prisoners?

 

[Azrael23]

UN = Good Cop

US Administration = Bad Cop

Both on the same side.

BTW I`m not sure if injecting someone with a paralysing drug and then putting them on a mechanical respirator is in accord with the Geneva Convention. Anyone who thinks our rulers pay attention to human rights is living in bloody Narnia.

I advocate common sense, this guy should not be found guilty because the war is a fraud. Why should he put his life on the line for other mens profit or dreams of global empire? I`d love to tell this judge exactly what i think of him, but then again "justice" would probably find me guilty of inciting terrorism.

 

[likesfish]

you grabbed a prisoner . he may have been injured in the capture. he may have been injured before capture. he may try to self harm. he could actually be completely insane. thats why you have a doctor so you cover your own back . the doc signs the prisoner was fit for interrogation and signs the prisoner was not injured in interrogation.
Otherwise how can you prove the blokes not been tortured when he pops up on aljazera after being realised the object is togather information.
the army has a duty of care over prisoners and intelligencie take that very seriously. the cases where abuse has taken place in the british army have been at low level if a prisoner is handed over to the people who suppoused to look after them there well treated that way your more likely to get info out of them.

 

[Col_Buendia]

the army has a duty of care over prisoners and intelligencie take that very seriously.

Dunno why you're ignoring my first question, above, but here's another one for you.

How do you know "intelligence" takes prisoner care very seriously? Are you ex-MI6? On what basis are you making this claim? Genuine question...

Oh, and with respect to the army's "duties" (of care over prisoners etc), you seemed to have skipped one of the more important ones... the army has a duty (nay, obligation?) not to engage in wars of aggression.