News Court Martial of RAF Dr who rejected Iraq tour.

[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.