News Court Martial of RAF Dr who rejected Iraq tour.

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=Doctor guilty&ct=5

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal, on the other a soldier has a duty to his country. Of course the army couldn't do anything but find him guilty or open the floodgates on simillar cases, but does the RAF officer have a point? Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

 

[Pengwuino]

What exactly separates a "legal war" from an "illegal war" anyhow? I didn't know there was some sort of all-powerful non-corrupting entity in existence that was allowed to make laws governing what countries can declare war and what countries can't and what regulations must be followed when attacking other societies.

Kinda backwards to think this entity is the "UN" since half of their security council was being payed off by the Iraqi government for years.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well yes but 145/191 of the UN's member countries refused to support the US in it's plans for war, so the UN declared against the US. I'm sure those countries were well aware of Iraqs actions. The US chose to ignore the UN's resolution thus it is illegal. That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

 

[Anttech]

What exactly separates a "legal war" from an "illegal war" anyhow? I didn't know there was some sort of all-powerful non-corrupting entity in existence that was allowed to make laws governing what countries can declare war and what countries can't and what regulations must be followed when attacking other societies.

Kinda backwards to think this entity is the "UN" since half of their security council was being payed off by the Iraqi government for years.

The Iraq war is against the UN charter. Your comment on what individual countries did with respect to Oil for food, is irrelevant IMO. Its like saying, because one Judge is bent and does something wrong, the whole judicial system in a country is thus obsolete. The war is internationaly recongnised within the international UN treaties as being unlawful.

That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

I don't think so, if he joined the military and was ordered to do something he is obliged by the military law to do as ordered. However it is a very interesting point he has. For example if he was ordered to murder civilans (which would be an unlawful order) then he would have grounds to ignore the order.. Could the same be said about what he has done here?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What exactly separates a "legal war" from an "illegal war" anyhow? I didn't know there was some sort of all-powerful non-corrupting entity in existence that was allowed to make laws governing what countries can declare war and what countries can't and what regulations must be followed when attacking other societies.

Kinda backwards to think this entity is the "UN" since half of their security council was being payed off by the Iraqi government for years.

Yes it's called the UN and your country was instrumental in founding it and it's ideals:-

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And for these Ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

 

[Art]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=Doctor guilty&ct=5

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal, on the other a soldier has a duty to his country. Of course the army couldn't do anything but find him guilty or open the floodgates on simillar cases, but does the RAF officer have a point? Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

The summing up of the judge advocate was interesting;

"Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Disobedience of orders means it is not a disciplined force, it is a disorganised rabble.

"Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they obey and those who do so must face the consequences."

He added that the sentence would send a message to other members of the armed forces of the importance of obeying orders.

The armed forces in their enthusiasm to make an example of him seem to have forgotten that at Nuremberg soldiers were convicted of war crimes and hanged when the judges there ruled that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defence. The ruling said then that it was incumbent upon soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

It seems this court-martial neatly side-stepped the issue of whether or not the war itself was illegal which was central to the defence. Perhaps this aspect will get a better (and fairer) hearing at the appeal.

 

[Anttech]

The armed forces in their enthusiasm to make an example of him seem to have forgotten that at Nuremberg soldiers were convicted of war crimes and hanged when the judges there ruled that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defence. The ruling said then that it was incumbent upon soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

It seems this court-martial neatly side-stepped the issue of whether or not the war itself was illegal which was central to the defence. Perhaps this aspect will get a better (and fairer) hearing at the appeal.

Yeh, I aggree. Could set a presidence, if the ruling was overturned.. No doubt some judges out there with an axe to grind against the Iraq war will speak up.. Hope so!

Sentencing Kendall-Smith, Judge Advocate Bayliss told him: "You have, in this court's view, sought to make a martyr of yourself. You have shown a degree of arrogance that is amazing."

He added that Kendall-Smith may have acted out of his moral viewpoint but his interpretation of the presence of British forces in Iraq as illegal was incorrect.

Incorrect to who, and which laws. He should appel to the European courts, if the occupation of Iraq in the viewpoint of the british judical system is not unlawful, within the framework of the EU judical system the Iraq war could be found as Unlawful, and thus he maybe found NOT guilty, what a political scandal that would cause...

A broader point of view is found in the European Council Directive 2004/83/EC of April 29, 2004, on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. This directive defines when persecution according to the Geneva Convention should give the right for protection. The Directive rules in Article 9 and 12 that ,,acts of persecution can take the form of prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations".

http://www.wri-irg.org/news/2006/friedrich-en.htm

 

[Curious3141]

He added: "Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Disobedience of orders means it is not a disciplined force, it is a disorganised rabble.

"Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they obey and those who do so must face the consequences."

He added that the sentence would send a message to other members of the armed forces of the importance of obeying orders.

Sentencing Kendall-Smith, Judge Advocate Bayliss told him: "You have, in this court's view, sought to make a martyr of yourself. You have shown a degree of arrogance that is amazing."

Those are the presiding Judge's comments in judgement. I find it fascinating to consider how ironic these words become when you consider the precise nature of the prosecution used by the same courts in going after German Officers during the Nuremberg trials.

 

[Astronuc]

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal, on the other a soldier has a duty to his country. Of course the army couldn't do anything but find him guilty or open the floodgates on simillar cases, but does the RAF officer have a point? Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

I suppose if the doctor felt strongly, then he should have resigned his commission in protest, thus doing it legally. However, perhaps he chose to make a strong statement - sort of civil disobedience.

In the US, one can elect a 'conscientious objector' status, but joining the military, of which one function is war, seems a bit contradictory.

On the other hand, a doctor presumably would not be engaged in the violence of war, but simply administer medical treatment, so a doctor should be able to declare himself a 'conscientious objector', assuming there is such a provision in the British military.

 

[russ_watters]

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal...

Just because he believes that or you believe that, doesn't make it true. A court would have to rule the war illegal. And the court in this case ruled that his orders were legal. It did not rule on whether the invasion itself was illegal because the question was irrelevant: the defendant was not ordered to take part in the invasion, and ruled that at the time the orders were given the coalition presence was "unquestionably legal".

Reading some of his statements in the article, it sounds to me like he is a candidate for a psychiatric discharge anyway. Though that could just be a defense tactic.

 

[russ_watters]

Well yes but 145/191 of the UN's member countries refused to support the US in it's plans for war, so the UN declared against the US. I'm sure those countries were well aware of Iraqs actions. The US chose to ignore the UN's resolution thus it is illegal. That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

Come again? Which resolution did the US ignore? The only relevant resolution for this conversation I know of was 1441 and it passed unanamously.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html" is a list. Which resolutions are you talking about?

Edit: in fact, 1483 recognizes the US and UK as occupying powers, implying approval of the occupation (without mentioning the invasion). It also states that Iraq is still a threat, but one that has improved - implying progress toward the goal of 1441 (eliminating the threat Iraq posed). Resolution 1500 has the UN taking part in the assistance portion of the mission in Iraq. 1511 goes further to authorize UN security forces - which is the very mission that this guy was court martialed for not participating in.

 

[russ_watters]

The summing up of the judge advocate was interesting; The armed forces in their enthusiasm to make an example of him seem to have forgotten that at Nuremberg soldiers were convicted of war crimes and hanged when the judges there ruled that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defence. The ruling said then that it was incumbent upon soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

Not true, Art. At Nuremberg, the court ruled that the orders were illegal. In this case, the court ruled that the orders were legal. The cases are not comparable.

It seems this court-martial neatly side-stepped the issue of whether or not the war itself was illegal which was central to the defence.

I don't think so at all. I think the question is more complicated than people want it to be because some phases might be legal while others illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

Incorrect to who, and which laws.

Incorrect to the court who made the ruling (obviously) and according to British and international (UN) law - as stated in the article.

He should appel to the European courts...

I'm not clear on how the EU works, but I wouldn't expect them to have jurisdiction here.

 

[russ_watters]

I suppose if the doctor felt strongly, then he should have resigned his commission in protest, thus doing it legally.

Agreed, though we don't really know the terms of his service.

I don't think the conscientious objector thing applies, though - he didn't say he objected to the concept of war, just this war.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just because he believes that or you believe that, doesn't make it true. A court would have to rule the war illegal. And the court in this case ruled that his orders were legal. It did not rule on whether the invasion itself was illegal because the question was irrelevant: the defendant was not ordered to take part in the invasion, and ruled that at the time the orders were given the coalition presence was "unquestionably legal".

I did already say this.

That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

Come again? Which resolution did the US ignore? The only relevant resolution for this conversation I know of was 1441 and it passed.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html" is a list. Which resolutions are you talking about?

The UN deemed the war illegal, the US and the UK ignored them and fought it anyway(so yes technically, it is deemed illegal) let's not get hung up on semantics please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Unless this man is lying of course. This is what I meant.

Anyway as I said and you reiterated, it's beside the point. Legal or not: is this grounds for disobeying an order?

 

[Anttech]

Just because he believes that or you believe that, doesn't make it true. A court would have to rule the war illegal. And the court in this case ruled that his orders were legal. It did not rule on whether the invasion itself was illegal because the question was irrelevant:

ehh? The question is NOT irrelevant, it is totally revelent. His WHOLE defence is based on that fact! If the war is Illegal, then he is totally within his rights to ignore any order given to him to participate in the illegal action. The question is, was the war legal or not? As I said before he should present his case to the EU courts..

 

[Anttech]

I'm not clear on how the EU works, but I wouldn't expect them to have jurisdiction here.

I think you will find they do, they could overrule the judgement. The only problem he can't asked for asylum because the UK is already in the EU... It would be a presidence that's for sure

 

[russ_watters]

I did already say this.

Didn't see it...

That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

Which, again, is a matter for the courts.

The UN deemed the war illegal, the US and the UK ignored them and fought it anyway(so yes technically, it is deemed illegal) let's not get hung up on semantics please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Unless this man is lying of course. This is what I meant.

Oh, we're going to get hung up on that issue if that's what you meant. You're flat-out wrong. Anan may be the UN Secretary General, but he isn't the UN general assembly, nor is he a judge in the World Court. His opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine and isn't relevant here. When you say "The UN..." you are or should be referring to the Security Council or the General Assembly. The Secretary General is not "the UN". The relevant opinions here are the UNSC, the UNGE, the World Court, and the court in the UK that ruled on the issue.

If Anan thinks the war is illegal, why doesn't he press the UN to declare it illegal? My guess would be he knows his opinion on the subject doesn't carry much weight.

Anyway as I said and you reiterated, it's beside the point. Legal or not: is this grounds for disobeying an order?

See my edit on what "the UN" really had to say on the issue.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was you have to separate the phases of the war. The specific one that he objected to was ruled by the court to be legal and as a result, his orders were legal. It really is that simple.

 

[russ_watters]

ehh? The question is NOT irrelevant, it is totally revelent. His WHOLE defence is based on that fact! If the war is Illegal, then he is totally within his rights to ignore any order given to him to participate in the illegal action. The question is, was the war legal or not?

Same as I said above: you need to separate the phases. If you refuse, you force yourself into accepting that the entire war was legal, as ruled by the court in question and as implied by the UN.

The way the ruling actually worked, they left open the possibility that the invasion itself was illegal. It may also just be a reaction to his realization that the UN is impotent.

As I said before he should present his case to the EU courts...

I think you will find they do, they could overrule the judgement.

Can you point me to where I can read about that? A quick google finds http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/about/pap/process_and_players5.html" , which says one specific court anyway only deals with disputes between nations and disputes between individuals and the EU - not internal issues.

 

[Anttech]

http://europa.eu.int/institutions/court/index_en.htm

here for a start.. The EU court is the highest you can get in Europe

 

[russ_watters]

Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

I didn't see that in the article, but if true, isn't he cutting his own argument off at the knee? If the war is illegal now, why wasn't it illegal when he was ordered on his first tour? It does indeed sound to me like he's just had enough and is trying to get an easy ticket out.

 

[Anttech]

I didn't see that in the article, but if true, isn't he cutting his own argument off at the knee? If the war is illegal now, why wasn't it illegal when he was ordered on his first tour? It does indeed sound to me like he's just had enough and is trying to get an easy ticket out.

Why go to all this trouble, there are FAR easier ways to avoid doing another tour. He is trying to make a political point IMHO

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

If Anan thinks the war is illegal, why doesn't he press the UN to declare it illegal? My guess would be he knows his opinion on the subject doesn't carry much weight. That's not exactly what I said. What I said was you have to separate the phases of the war. The specific one that he objected to was ruled by the court to be legal and as a result, his orders were legal. It really is that simple.

I think we can agree that the first phase of the war was considered illegal by the UN, in that ignored the UN's mandates to impose more sanctions, or maybe we can't agree, anyway let's agree to disagree, it really has no huge relevance to this, although is obviously his given reason for disobeying orders.

I didn't see that in the article, but if true, isn't he cutting his own argument off at the knee? If the war is illegal now, why wasn't it illegal when he was ordered on his first tour? It does indeed sound to me like he's just had enough and is trying to get an easy ticket out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098768.html

It's in here, a few more details to the case.

I'd be wary of drawing assumptions like that, that's speculation IMO, you could also say if he wanted to leave because he hated it, why not do it at the end of the first tour when his opinions might of carried more weight?

 

[Art]

Not true, Art. At Nuremberg, the court ruled that the orders were illegal. In this case, the court ruled that the orders were legal.

Read what I wrote Russ. I said the judges summing up was interesting. The interesting part being that all the emphasis was on serving soldiers must follow orders. He didn't differentiate between legal orders and illegal orders. That was the bit I found interesting.

In fact he also said this

But Mr Bayliss said that even if the Government had committed an act of illegal aggression in invading Iraq, Dr Kendall-Smith was wrong to imagine that he had any responsibility for it. "If a defendant believed that to go to Basra would make him complicit in the crime of aggression, his understanding of the law was wrong," he said.

This is totally contrary to the findings of the Nuremberg courts which ruled soldiers are individually responsible for participating in illegal acts.

I don't think so at all. I think the question is more complicated than people want it to be because some phases might be legal while others illegal.

This case received wide coverage in the UK when charges were first levelled against him. It was thought that it could be a test case as to the legality of the initial invasion. The defence reasoning being that if the initial war was illegal then all subsequent orders emanating from an illegal act are also illegal. As I pointed out the court side-stepped this whole issue by drawing a line between the initial invasion and the subsequent 'nation building' (sic) role.

As he had already served 2 tours in Iraq this probably wasn't the best case to test the legality of the war itself. There were a few soldiers who refused to take part in the initial invasion but to my knowledge none of these have been charged with 'refusal to follow orders' probably because the powers at the top do not want to risk opening that particular can of worms.

BTW Antech is right. The highest court in europe is the European Court of Justice. The court rules on member states implementation of EU law. However in this particular instance the soldier (after having pursued all legal avenues at home up to and including the House of Lords) could bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights, which is also superior to national courts, for infringement of his human rights as Britain is a signatory to this EU treaty.

Edit - Here's another case the UK Defence Ministry decided to let pass

No court martial for British soldier who quit in disgust over 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq

by Sean Rayment, The Telegraph [London, UK]

March 12, 2006

A Special Air Service (SAS) soldier has refused to fight in Iraq and has left the Army over the "illegal" tactics of United States troops and the policies of coalition forces.

After three months in Baghdad, Ben Griffin told his commander that he was no longer prepared to fight alongside American forces.

He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" -- the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

The decision marks the first time an SAS soldier has refused to go into combat and quit the Army on moral grounds.

It immediately brought to an end Mr Griffin's exemplary, eight-year career in which he also served with the Parachute Regiment, taking part in operations in Northern Ireland, Macedonia and Afghanistan.

But it will also embarrass the Government and have a potentially profound impact on cases of other soldiers who have refused to fight.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098768.html

It appears the UK government are being very careful who they prosecute thus avoiding any possibility of a court finding coalition forces are perpetrating war crimes.

 

[Astronuc]

I think one issue in this discussion is - who decides what is or is not an illegal act (of war).

Can any individual in any society decide that any particular act is or is not legal or illegal? No.

Can civil (local, state, national, international) institutions (authorities, governments) decide legality or illegality? Yes.

Who has the power impose sanctions/punishments for illegal acts? Civil authorities/governments.

 

[Art]

I think one issue in this discussion is - who decides what is or is not an illegal act (of war).

Can any individual in any society decide that any particular act is or is not legal or illegal? No.

Can civil (local, state, national, international) institutions (authorities, governments) decide legality or illegality? Yes.

Who has the power impose sanctions/punishments for illegal acts? Civil authorities/governments.

The ultimate authority is the International Criminal Court which sits in the Hague.

Britain is a signatory of the ICC and so in theory if the Iraqi invasion was found to be illegal by the British (or conceivably other countries' courts) the ICC could request that Tony Blair be delivered to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. This is what many of the anti-war protestors in Britain are pushing for. The sanctions available to the court include life imprisonment but not the death penalty.

The US as a non-signatory of the ICC treaty (Clinton signed it but it was never presented for ratification by congress and was subsequently negated by Bush) is therefore not bound to hand over it's citizens for trial and so Bush is safe . Theroetically US citizens could be arrested whilst abroad and charged but the US has threatened military action if this ever happens.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well yes but 145/191 of the UN's member countries refused to support the US in it's plans for war, so the UN declared against the US. I'm sure those countries were well aware of Iraqs actions. The US chose to ignore the UN's resolution thus it is illegal. That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

So it's pretty much like the police asking Al Capone whether or not it's legal to arrest him for tax evasion?

Maybe the UN should be declared illegal since the UN has turned into the Russian arms market.

 

[loseyourname]

In fact he also said this This is totally contrary to the findings of the Nuremberg courts which ruled soldiers are individually responsible for participating in illegal acts.

They're not responsible for being part of an army taking part in an illegal war, though. The court didn't convict every single Nazi infantry soldier.

 

[ukmicky]

Agreed, though we don't really know the terms of his service.

I don't think the conscientious objector thing applies, though - he didn't say he objected to the concept of war, just this war.

Just to let you know according to the BBC news here in the uk he had a way out and could have chosen to be a consientious objector but he chose not to.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little drunk and I'm going away for the weekend, but I couldn't pass this up:

Read what I wrote Russ. I said the judges summing up was interesting. The interesting part being that all the emphasis was on serving soldiers must follow orders. He didn't differentiate between legal orders and illegal orders. That was the bit I found interesting.

I know what you wrote, Art: The court did specify that the orders were legal and that that question was the entire issue! You couldn't be any more straightforwardly wrong:

David Perry, prosecuting [and he was convicted, so the court agrees], said the case against Kendall-Smith was that the orders were lawful and he had a duty to obey them as a commissioned officer.

 

[russ_watters]

http://europa.eu.int/institutions/court/index_en.htm

here for a start.. The EU court is the highest you can get in Europe

That says nothing at all about criminal, much les military crimes. Can you at least cite a case where a criminal trial went to that court? It doesn't look to me like that is possible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In fact he also said this This is totally contrary to the findings of the Nuremberg courts which ruled soldiers are individually responsible for participating in illegal acts.

They're not responsible for being part of an army taking part in an illegal war, though. The court didn't convict every single Nazi infantry soldier.

Between the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal and the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals only 209 people were put on trial. The other occupying governments held their own trials as well. The first Wiki article also mentions organizations that were put on trial but does not specifically mention any individuals from those organizations as defendants. I could be wrong but it appears as though the members of these organizations that were put on trial were handled by the subsequent trials.

Funny enough it seems that the SS would not prosecute it's soldiers if they refused to participate in the Holocaust. They simply transferred them to other branches since the acts weren't even legal by German law.

 

[Art]

Between the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal and the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals only 209 people were put on trial. The other occupying governments held their own trials as well. The first Wiki article also mentions organizations that were put on trial but does not specifically mention any individuals from those organizations as defendants. I could be wrong but it appears as though the members of these organizations that were put on trial were handled by the subsequent trials.

Funny enough it seems that the SS would not prosecute it's soldiers if they refused to participate in the Holocaust. They simply transferred them to other branches since the acts weren't even legal by German law.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but if it is to suggest that the lower ranks are exempt from prosecution for taking part in illegal activity whilst following orders or that only the people behind the illegal strategys can be held accountable then you should note that although only 209 people were tried immediately after the war, these were only the highest profile figures involved and does not in any way exonerate those of lower ranks.

Following the Holtzman Amendment allowing for the denaturalisation of suspected war criminals a special investigations unit was set up in the US to try and find some of the 70,000 nazi war criminals believed to have fled there there after WW2.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but if it is to suggest that the lower ranks are exempt from prosecution for taking part in illegal activity whilst following orders or that only the people behind the illegal strategys can be held accountable then you should note that although only 209 people were tried immediately after the war, these were only the highest profile figures involved and does not in any way exonerate those of lower ranks.

Following the Holtzman Amendment allowing for the denaturalisation of suspected war criminals a special investigations unit was set up in the US to try and find some of the 70,000 nazi war criminals believed to have fled there there after WW2.

I was not suggesting that the lower ranks were exempt but that not all soldiers that were "just following orders" were tried as war criminals. If they were to take every Joe Krout who was involved in the war to court there would have been thousands upon thousands of defendants. The SS alone had more members than the regular german army at one point.
The highest profile figures were tried in the first trial. There were 24 of them total. The secondary trials were against the lesser lower ranking defendants.
I just looked up the Holtzman Amendment and I don't have much time at the moment but all I see is that it makes any person who was involved at all in the death camps deportable.

 

[Art]

I was not suggesting that the lower ranks were exempt but that not all soldiers that were "just following orders" were tried as war criminals. If they were to take every Joe Krout who was involved in the war to court there would have been thousands upon thousands of defendants. The SS alone had more members than the regular german army at one point.

Again I am unsure of what you are saying here but if you are mistakenly agreeing with Russ that the war was illegal then perhaps you should consider who declared war on whom.

The highest profile figures were tried in the first trial. There were 24 of them total. The secondary trials were against the lesser lower ranking defendants.
I just looked up the Holtzman Amendment and I don't have much time at the moment but all I see is that it makes any person who was involved at all in the death camps deportable.

Yes - "any person involved at all" which is the point I was making.

 

[Entropy]

Whether or not this is a legal or illegal war is irrelevent.

The fact is this man signed a legal document that said he agreed to go to war if the UK (corrected) government asked him too. He broke the agreement and should pay the consquences.

Does it say any where in the contract that he can refuse to participate during a time of war because he doesn't like it? No. End of debate.

 

[Curious3141]

Whether or not this is a legal or illegal war is irrelevent.

The fact is this man signed a legal document that said he agreed to go to war if the US government asked him too. He broke the agreement and should pay the consquences.

Does it say any where in the contract that he can refuse to participate during a time of war because he doesn't like it? No. End of debate.

UK government.

 

[loseyourname]

Again I am unsure of what you are saying here but if you are mistakenly agreeing with Russ that the war was illegal then perhaps you should consider who declared war on whom.

Under what twisted interpretation of legality could it be considered illegal for the US and UK to invade Iraq but not illegal for Germany to invade Poland, Belgium, and France? Were any Italians even convicted for what they did to Ethiopia? Japanese for what they did to Manchuria and the South Pacific islands?

Yes - "any person involved at all" which is the point I was making.

These were soldiers that were involved in war crimes, not every soldier involved in a non-sanctioned invasion and occupation. Seriously, what on Earth makes you think it would be possible, under any scenario, to convict every single American and British soldier/sailor that did a tour of duty in Iraq in the last four years? Neither country would have an armed forces after that.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The Germans invasion of Poland, Romes destruction of Carthage,Englands conquest of India, Alexander's conquering of the mighty Persian Empire, Napoleons conquest of western Europe. None were deemed illegal for the same reason, the UN didn't exist in any form until the late 40's. It was set up to ensure that imperialism either of ideology or military might no longer became a threat.

Thus it is firmly against wars started for reasons other than the interest of humanity. I.e any war started on a shakey premise, any war where the indeginous populaces's beliefs are questioned and ignored and an idealogy is force on them or the motivation is suspect anyway, the UN's mandate is simply to make sure the reasons for war are justified before the worlds nations.

Iraq wasn't so it is highly unlikely it considers it's actions legal, 46 out of 192 countries in support the rest neutral or against. Well make up your own mind what the UN found illegal, it's not diplomatic for it to say so necessarily, but you can be damn sure that 146 of the countries who's votes were ignored will consider it illegal, regardless of the semantics of the situation.

It is besides the point in this situation because he was in a conflict that is currently legal, even if there is some debate as to whether it was originaly and of course his duty is not to question legality in such circumstances that are pronounced legal. This is the point.

You could spend the next 4 years discussing whther Iraq was or was not legal, but Kofi Anan saying it wasn't legal is good enough for me, and just confirms what I already think, right or wrong though my thinking may be. For what it's worth, I'd imagine about 2/3rds of the Earths population also think the same thing or would if they cared or knew what there leaders voted, legally right or wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

The Germans invasion of Poland, Romes destruction of Carthage,Englands conquest of India, Alexander's conquering of the mighty Persian Empire, Napoleons conquest of western Europe. None were deemed illegal for the same reason, the UN didn't exist in any form until the late 40's. It was set up to ensure that imperialism either of ideology or military might no longer became a threat.

The League of Nations, of which Germany, Italy, and Japan were all a part, existed, and performed exactly the same function, or at least tried to. Nonetheless, no Nazi, Italian, or Japanese soldiers were charged with taking part in illegal invasions. They were only charged with actual war crimes, which brings us back to the precedent set for what this guy can legally be held accountable for, the real point of this thread, no?

It is besides the point in this situation because he was in a conflict that is currently legal, even if there is some debate as to whether it was originaly and of course his duty is not to question legality in such circumstances that are pronounced legal. This is the point.

You could spend the next 4 years discussing whther Iraq was or was not legal, but Kofi Anan saying it wasn't legal is good enough for me, and just confirms what I already think, right or wrong though my thinking may be. For what it's worth, I'd imagine about 2/3rds of the Earths population also think the same thing or would if they cared or knew what there leaders voted, legally right or wrong.

Again, though, this doesn't really matter. The question being raised here, at least secondarily, is whether Nuremberg found that a soldier could be convicted for taking part in an illegal war, in which case this guy's defense, were this war actually found to be illegal, would have some merit and the judge's ruling would be in conflict with the Nuremberg ruling. However, history shows the world court, and whatever other special tribunals may be set up, prosecuting people for taking part in war crimes, not for taking part in criminal wars, both during the League of Nations era and now in the UN era. The point being, his defense holds no water and the judge was correct. He has a job to do, which does not include his committing war crimes, but which does include his reporting for duty and deploying whenever and wherever he is ordered, regardless of his feelings about the larger use of force in the general conflict.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Oh I agree, but then I'm just making a point about legality. Did you know that in the US 98.5% of court martials result in a guilty verdict I would assume the UK is no different, I suspect this is because they only tend to fight battles they know or at least are sure they can win. This trial was over before it went to court.

The victor gets to decide what is legal in any war, at least they did pre 1950. I'm sure Saddam Hussain would say it's illegal and so would I and maybe the 146 countries who would not support the war, but who cares what we think certainly not the US

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, though, this doesn't really matter.

It doesn't appear that a guilty verdict would be in violation of the Nuremberg precedent. However, I don't see how a questioning of the legality of the war is not a fair defense strategy for the lawyers of the defendant.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

However, I don't see how a questioning of the legality of the war is not a fair defense strategy for the lawyers of the defendant.

Whether the invasion was legal or illegal it is now over and the current operations, which his orders would have made him a part, are at the request of the current Iraqi government and sanctioned by the UN. There is currently no question of legality.
Considering this and his argument that he refuses out of a sense of moral responsibility it could be argued that he is actually morally failing. He refuses to honor his duty and render his service as a doctor in the UN sanctioned effort to assist Iraq solely for the purpose of making a political statement. This doesn't seem very 'moral' to me.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Again I am unsure of what you are saying here but if you are mistakenly agreeing with Russ that the war was illegal then perhaps you should consider who declared war on whom.

Britain had an alliance with Poland. When Poland was attacked Britain declared war on Germany in defence of it's ally. Germany declared war on Russia. Japan declared war on the US. Japan was allied with Germany so by extension Germany was the enemy of the US aswell.
Not only were they the aggressors but they also breeched treaties and ignored the League of Nations of which they themselves were members. I would say that at the very least meets the criterion used by those who say the Iraq invasion was illegal.

 

[luckycharms]

UK courts have no obligation to acknowledge the opinion of 146 nations or Kofi Annan, particularly when there has been no official ruling by any authoritative body. Until then, it is most certainly an internal matter, so the UK courts get to make up their own rules. The whole point of is academic anyway. Jurisdiction implies an ability to enforce law, something the UN can barely manage against tin pot dictators let alone its two most powerful members gone off the reservation.

On the subject of the Nuremberg trials, the issue at hand there was not participation in an illegal war but illegal acts during war. In other words, if a German soldier shoots a Polish soldier, then that's legal. If he shoots a Polish civilian, then that's illegal. That is irrespective of the legality of the war as a whole. Unless the doctor was ordered to go shoot Iraqi babies, he probably has no grounds to refuse his order. That he was ordered to, in fact, help people by providing medical services further erodes his case.

 

[Gokul43201]

Whether the invasion was legal or illegal it is now over and the current operations, which his orders would have made him a part, are at the request of the current Iraqi government and sanctioned by the UN. There is currently no question of legality.

True. Further, it would seem that his willingness to participate in the "illegal" part of the war but refuse now, can only weaken his case.

 

[russ_watters]

...agreeing with Russ that the war was illegal...

I get tired of pathetic threads and often don't check back after the rhetorical nonsense has been exposed, but that doesn't give you a free pass to put words in my mouth. Though I'm sure no one else who read the thread interpreted my statements to say that I think the war was illegal, I just wanted to point out to you that I saw what you wrote.

You've miraculously managed to come through recent problems in this forum unscathed, Art, but don't interpret that to mean that you are bulletproof.

 

[Art]

I get tired of pathetic threads and often don't check back after the rhetorical nonsense has been exposed, but that doesn't give you a free pass to put words in my mouth. Though I'm sure no one else who read the thread interpreted my statements to say that I think the war was illegal, I just wanted to point out to you that I saw what you wrote.

So to clarify are you saying in your opinion WW2 was legal or illegal? From your comments I concluded you thought WW2 was an illegal war but from this diatribe I presume you believe it was in fact legal??

You've miraculously managed to come through recent problems in this forum unscathed, Art, but don't interpret that to mean that you are bulletproof.

Relax Russ - Chill out a little. Many would see this rant by you as a personal attack on me which as you are aware is against the rules of this forum.