nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Barking_Mad said:
Exactly and bob's posts reveal this "shut up and follow the leader" mentality. I guess these folks have have never had a crisis of conscience.
RAF doc refuses to go to Iraq
- Thread starter fishfingerer
- Start date
Exactly and bob's posts reveal this "shut up and follow the leader" mentality. I guess these folks have have never had a crisis of conscience.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
yeah, doesnt look like consience and morality comes into it. The power of the state, rules and and institutions seem to be more important. Authoritarians....GRRR! *shakes fist*nino_savatte said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Barking_Mad said:
I won't argue with you there, Barking. Authoritarians can't think for themselves and here, in this case, if it isn't in the Army Code, then it isn't much good.
Barking_Mad said:
Not if he wants to stay in it! By all means he can have his views and, within reason, make them known. But he can't duck out of doing the job he is employed to do.
There are many civilian jobs that have risks and distasteful aspects, but if someone was tasked to do them but refused then they would be disciplined or even sacked for it. Why should the forces be any different. To repeat my point, it is not up to a serving individual to decide on the legality of the conflict, only to refuse specific illegal orders.
I've had to do that when I'd been ordered to pinch some kit, it takes a measure of diplomacy, thankfully the officiers who ordered me to do so weren't in my 'reporting chain', so couldn't affect my career. When I got collared to go to NI, I made my point to the troop commander that I hadn't volunteered, but having been picked I would do the best that I could, he was happy with that and it was the last time it was mentioned.
If servicemen have serious issues about this matter, they should get the hell out, as I mentioned in a previous post no-one would have had a problem if he had done so for those reasons. It's not as if he would have a problem getting employment elsewhere.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Unless he has given his notice in and they still want to send him out
can't see he has a leg to stand on .It might be he went to medical school on a scholarship and has years to pay back .Either way he voluntered.
can't see he has a leg to stand on .It might be he went to medical school on a scholarship and has years to pay back .Either way he voluntered.
fishfingerer
sultan of cringe
Because most civilian jobs don't involve working for an organisation that kills lots of people in illegal wars?MikeMcc said:
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
That choice does not appear to be available to the officer in question. The war was illegal and those who partake in it share in the culpability of the poloiticians who ordered such an ill-advised adventure.
nino_savatte said:
So you would want to jail the vast majority of the German male population over the age of 75 then, because by the same simplistic view they must be culpable for the actions of the Nazi ledership then?
And no, I'm not seriously suggesting you would, but that is the natural contination of the comment in your reply.
There are those who have gotten out and made their point, fair does to them for doing that, we live in a society where they can do that. But no-one should be in any doubt that if they join the military they run the risk of being sent on operations. They have effectively surrendered the rights to voice their opposition to the rights and wrongs of the situation because they have to swear an oath to obey lawful orders. The order to deploy to Iraq is not unlawful. The General Staff made damned sure that their arses were covered in writing that the Government considered the orders to wage the war were legal (even if they weren't, I might not entirely agree with you, but that's not the point thats being argued). It is not up to the guys below that level to question that. Frankly this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on in this matter, he disobeyed a direct and lawful order.
Whether you guys like the idea of servicemen and women not being able to make a political point like this is immaterial - that is the way that it is and has been for years.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Bob_the_lost said:
What a surprise!
Repeat after me
<bleat>
UN law broken - GOOD
Army law broken - BAD
<bleat>
ad nauseum........
Bigdavalad
New Member
The way I see it:
(a) He's a doctor, it's not like he'd be involved in any killing that could happen over there. Whatever his opinion about the war, as a doctor those politics shouldn't be involved.
(b) He signed on the dotted line and promised to follow orders. Nothing in your attestation (sp?) mentions following orders if you agree with them or if you want to. It just says follow orders. If he doesn't want to follow those orders, he should resign his commission and get out.
(c) As Mike Mcc has already said, servicemen do not have the right to refuse a legal order - his orders to go to Iraq are legal, whether or not the war is.
Balls. Servicemen are in no way culpable for the war, blame the government not us. There's nothing stopping an officer from resigning his commission whenever he wants and leaving pretty much immediately, so there's no reason why that course of action is not open to him.
Neither does a military medical post - they're only alloed to carry weapons for self defence and the defence of casualties. They have nothing to do with killing anyone either.
(a) He's a doctor, it's not like he'd be involved in any killing that could happen over there. Whatever his opinion about the war, as a doctor those politics shouldn't be involved.
(b) He signed on the dotted line and promised to follow orders. Nothing in your attestation (sp?) mentions following orders if you agree with them or if you want to. It just says follow orders. If he doesn't want to follow those orders, he should resign his commission and get out.
(c) As Mike Mcc has already said, servicemen do not have the right to refuse a legal order - his orders to go to Iraq are legal, whether or not the war is.
Balls. Servicemen are in no way culpable for the war, blame the government not us. There's nothing stopping an officer from resigning his commission whenever he wants and leaving pretty much immediately, so there's no reason why that course of action is not open to him.
Neither does a military medical post - they're only alloed to carry weapons for self defence and the defence of casualties. They have nothing to do with killing anyone either.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
MikeMcc said:
But no one should be in any doubt that if countries like the USA join the UN they can flout its decisions as they see fit if they have the most guns. Because the military might of the USA means all other countries have effectively surrendered their rights to a voice.
Bonkers
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
Bigdavalad said:
More bonkers on the fundamental importance of national law and the absolute irrelevance of international law
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
exosculate said:
No, no no that's different because ermm, well.........ermm.....im sure they have a reason.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
If the occupation of Iraq is illegal then isn't he well within his rights not to take any further part of it?MikeMcc said:
And another point, it is not for individual member states to decide which UN sanctions had been broken and what action to take, it is for the UN to decide and they never authorised military action.
fishfingerer
sultan of cringe
Read this slowly. He's a member of the british armed forces which are involved in an illegal war which has killed and maimed many many people. He does not work in a fluffy dice factory. Comparing the armed forces to civilian occupations is even more bonkers.Bigdavalad said:
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
We vas only folloving orders - bs of the highest order.
Bigdavalad
New Member
fishfingerer said:
HE IS A DOCTOR, THEY DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. He would have nothing to do with a single dead Iraqi (unless he treated them, which would be unlikely).
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
If you're an army doctor you're part of the army and you increase its overall effectiveness. Otherwise they wouldn't bother hiring you, would they?
sleaterkinney said:
WRT your first point - of course, in which case he should have resigned his commission. He does NOT have a right to make his point whilst still serving - it's against the law, which is why he is being done.
I'm not arguing against the second point - though in which case the UN will get nothing done because one or more of the other members will always have a vested interest. The US and the UK acted unilaterally after the French said that they would never support the action.
fishfingerer said:
Don't be so fucking patronising.
Why can't you compare the military to working in a civilian job, except that you don't like the idea of it? The bloke joined up, got paid a fair amount, probably got alot of medical training from it and now doesn't want to fulfill his part of the contract.
Lets face it, as an officer he is hardly likely to serve any sort of custodial sentance, he'll probably just be fined and kicked out with a dishonourable discharge.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
MikeMcc said:
Are you sane? With your pick and mix attitude to the rule of law!
Beggars belief!
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
You've just answered your own question there MikeMcc. The way I read it isn't that he's refusing to challenge legal orders, it's my understanding that he's refusing to follow illegal orders, in that the premise for war itself was illegal, so therefore any orders pursuant to that commencement of hostilities are by their very nature, illegal.MikeMcc said:
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
First point, does he not have the right to disobey an order he considers unlawful?MikeMcc said:
Second point, No, it hasn't stopped things like gulf war 1 going through, it's just that that this time the rest of the council stood it's ground, the lack of WMD afterwards prove they were right.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Again, you've answered yourself. The doctor's point is that the orders to deploy to Iraq *are* unlawful, because the war itself is illegal.MikeMcc said:
I disagree with you. I don't think he disobeyed a direct and lawful order. Again, his argument is that it's not lawful, because the war is illegal.MikeMcc said:
And yes, the top brass sought to cover themselves (and didn't that tell you something about their general unease, the very fact that top brass were so publicly questioning the legality and publicly seeking confirmation as to the legality of their orders?) Yes, at the time, the top brass dotted the Is and crossed the Ts, covered their arses by asking 'Are you really sure this is legal?' To which Tony Bliar says: 'Yes, of course, the Attorney General says so'. But refuses to publishes that Advice. All the top brass had to go on was a politician's word.
What's changed now is that the Attorney General's Advice (at least extracts, don't know if it's been published in its entirety), has been published. And anyone who is fluent in legalese can see how it was very cleverly drafted to enable Tony Blair to say that the war was legal. It's also full of caveats that could lead a person fluent in legalese to draw the conclusion that the Attorney General was far from 100 per cent certain of the legality of war. But unless you're fluent in legalese, you won't recognise the slight nuances in meaning.
It's questionable enough, IMHO, for any service personnel to reasonably wonder about the legality of their orders, and to challenge them. In fact, when the Attorney General's Advice was published, I was so concerned that I mailed a friend who's serving out there and told him I thought he needed to take legal advice.
The fact that so many service personnel choose not to rock the boat isn't a poor reflection on this particular doctor. Other service personnel might not question their orders for any number of reasons: they don't understand the legalese; they don't want to face the possibility that what they've done/are doing may be morally and/or legally questionable, because being in combat is difficult enough without asking yourself those difficult questions; they have a sense of comaraderie, and don't want to let their comrades in arms down; etc., etc.
I think some people here have assumed that because the chap has been in theatre twice before, his decision *must* be based on cowardice and not wanting to be sent back. I disagree. The fact that he's served over there *twice* before, shows that he's been there, done that, and gone back for more. The difference is that he's since read the Attorney General's Advice and realised for himself that the basis for war (and therefore all subsequent orders relating to it) are very dubious.
On the contrary, I think it must have taken him a lot of courage to do what he's done. Some people have said, 'Why didn't he just resign his commission?' Again, integrity? Principle? You think his actions demonstrate his lack of those qualities, I think his actions demonstrate that he has them in spades. Yes, no doubt claiming PTSD or whatever would have been an easy way out, and as a doctor, he would have known what symptoms he would need to demonstrate.
I think what he has done is very honourable. In effect, he's the only one with the guts to stand up to Emperor Blair and say: 'Scuse me, mate, you're not wearing any clothes'.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
You're missing the point. You're argument is that it's against the law for him not to follow orders. Fair enough. If those orders were lawful.MikeMcc said:
The doctor's argument is that the orders are illegal and that therefore it's not illegal for him to refuse to follow them.
BTW, have you read the Attorney General's Advice?
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
I disagree.MikeMcc said:
Surely, if it was just a matter of this chap not wanting to fulfil his part of the contract, he could buy himself out. He could resign his commission.
It strikes me that the reality is the opposite of your argument. He doesn't want to bail out on his contract. By remaining in the RAF as opposed to resigning or wangling a medical discharge (which I'm sure a doctor would find relatively easy
), it seems to me that he wants to fulfil his contract. But honourably. By not participating in an illegal war. If it was just a matter of him wanting to leave, I'm sure he could do so more easily than through making a stand on a point of principle and subjecting himself to a court martial and possibly a dishonourable discharge. He must have weighed up his situation and his legal arguments very carefully before taking this route.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
MikeMcc said:
Have you got a point or would you rather resort to histrionics as you have in your first paragraph? It's funny how the feeble-minded and those who are incapable of thinking for themselves fall back on the Nazis. to get them out of jail.
You may not agree with this officer's stand, but I think he has guts to do what he has done. It's a shame others can't learn by that example.
Similar threads
