Illegal orders...

[Ace42X]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4897960.stm

Didn't have the responsibility? Surely Nazi concentration camp guards "didn't have the responsibility" to refuse orders?

[Ace42X]

The case continues Wednesday

[Ace42X]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1753966,00.html

This angers me, greatly.

[D_Raay]

would send a message to all those who wear the Queen's uniform that it does not matter if they refuse to carry out the policy of Her Majesty's government".

This is what they are afraid of. Ridiculous notion as well it is, as this Judge can hardly speak for thousands of soldiers and officers.

[Ace42X]

My angry letter to my MP reproduced here:

Dear <mp>,
I am writing to express my concerns relating to the imprisonment of Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith for nothing more than acting in accordance with his conscience.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1753966,00.html)

I have many problems with the way this matter has been conducted. Whilst I am aware that comparisons with Nazism tend to have one labelled as reactionary, when discussing wars of aggression, invasions and war-crimes, it is an obvious and justified frame of reference. With this in mind, as an antidote to the "it couldn't happen here. We're the good-guys" mentality that has apparently clouded the issue, the following is apparent to me:

"Judge Bayliss had already ruled that the legality of the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant to the case."

Would the legality of gassing Jews be irrelevant to a courts-martial of a concentration camp guard?

"He said yesterday: "Legal opinion may be divided as to the correctness or otherwise of the advice given by the attorney general [on the legality of the war]. But when such advice has been given, members of the armed forces cannot go behind it."

Again, apply this to someone refusing unethical orders in Nazi Germany. All of those atrocities were sanctioned by the establishment, and carried out by soldiers who deferred to this authority. This was in an environment where opinion was substantially *less* divided. The judge's statement amounts to "We might be wrong, but you are obliged to do the wrong thing anyway." While this might make perfect sense to the military mind, to those of us who are opposed to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians, "we might've been wrong when we killed all those people" doesn't cut it.

When the judge says 'A non-custodial sentence "would send a message to all those who wear the Queen's uniform that it does not matter if they refuse to carry out the policy of Her Majesty's government".' I personally feel that he is lying. What he is actually trying to convey is that a non-custodial sentence might set a legal precedent which calls the legality of the war into question. This is not about one soldier following his conscience, but about refusing to deal with a subject that the government and military are unwilling to address.

To *officially* question the legality of the war would open Pandora's box. The endpoint could not fail to be accusations of war-crimes going all the way to the top for what is, undeniably, an illegal war. This is not an option for the military, or the government, and as such the administration is trying to side-step the issue and pretend that there is not an elephant in the room.

While this is no doubt expedient for the government, it also makes a mockery of British law. We do not lock-up individuals just because to allow them their freedom would put those in charge into an awkward position. Again, this is something one would expect to see in Nazi Germany, not modern England.

"Yesterday the judge said Kendall-Smith's understanding of the crime of aggression under international law was "seriously flawed". The judge described it as a "crime which can only be committed by those responsible for the policy of a nation at the top of government or of the armed forces and that responsibility for it does not trickle down to those at lower levels of the chain of command"."

Here the judge is apparently saying "it is ok to commit crimes, as long as someone higher up has ordered you to do so."

While this may well be the case in the army, it should not be. Firstly, those "higher up" have so far failed to take any responsibility for their actions whatsoever. Tony Blair is unlikely to submit himself to an international war-crimes trial, and as such those responsible for the "crime of aggression" are not going to receive punishment. As we have seen with the US in Abu Ghraib, it is the "lower orders" who become the fall-guy for the administration when these crimes are exposed.

Secondly, in any other situation, abrogating personal responsibility would be no defence. If carried to its logical conclusion, the judge's ruling means that he must, personally, find it right and proper for the Second World War to have occurred, atrocities and all, as any German objectors should've been court-martialled (and shot, in accordance with the law of the time) for their refusal to fight. After-all, justice was apparently served at Nuremberg. His judgement justifies the actions of Germany's armed forced, even if it does not justify the handful of men at the top who ordered it.

If the judge would agree with this, then personally I think he should be removed from office. Someone who supports this rationale is not fit to stand judgement on other people. If he does not agree with this, then he should be stripped of office as someone who is unable to form a logically consistent argument shouldn't be presiding over men either.

The whole affair appals me, and it is about time that our armed forces, and our government answer to the people, rather than dictating terms to them.

I do not know what you could do to help this matter, but I feel it is our duty to humanity, to the ideal of justice, and to every moral virtue to protect this individual's fundamental right and freedom. The right to not be a party to, to not aid and abet, the killing of other human beings. Strip away the legal retorts, the writs and the rhetoric, that is the core of this case. When the government can oblige a man to take another's life, or even merely to be complicit in that, it is if our own bodies were in the firing line.

Yours sincerely,
blah

[D_Raay]

You should run for something Ace, I would certainly lend you my support and help in doing so.

[yeahwho]

Three Things:

1st, The letter is great, especially the last two paragraphs,

The whole affair appals me, and it is about time that our armed forces, and our government answer to the people, rather than dictating terms to them.

I do not know what you could do to help this matter, but I feel it is our duty to humanity, to the ideal of justice, and to every moral virtue to protect this individual's fundamental right and freedom. The right to not be a party to, to not aid and abet, the killing of other human beings. Strip away the legal retorts, the writs and the rhetoric, that is the core of this case. When the government can oblige a man to take another's life, or even merely to be complicit in that, it is if our own bodies were in the firing line.

2nd, It didn't dawn on me until I re-read the article that it wasn't Ben Griffin (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/sas-soldier-refuses-to-fight-in-iraq/2006/03/12/1142098343662.html)

3rd, blah? What's that? D_Raay should probably checkout the runability of somebody named "blah"

[Funkaloyd]

He's got dual citizenship. I might just write to the NZ embassy or something.

[Ace42X]

I have received a reply, which reads as follows:

Dear <blah>,

Many thanks for your recent e-mails dated Apr 10th and 20th regarding Iran and the imprisonment of Flight Lieutenant Malcom Kendall-Smith. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you, which is due to the high volume of casework my office is currently experiencing.

In regards to the case of Flight Lieutenant Malcom Kendall-Smith, I understand your concerns over his imprisonment, and they are concerns I very much share. I feel that service personnel with strong moral or religious objections to specific conflicts should be given every opportunity to make their views known and have their cases heard through a proper appeals procedure. My colleague Nick Harvey MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Defence Secretary, has recently pressed the Government for more information about the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objection, which we believe is poorly publicised within the services, and is not currently functioning as it should.

As I am sure you are aware, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues were against the invasion of Iraq, and we still stand by our opinion that this was an illegal war. In addition to voting against the decision to invade Iraq when the matter was put before Parliament, the Liberal Democrats have constantly sought to hold Tony Blair and his government to account, before, during and since the war. Menzies Campbell and his predescessor Charles Kennedy have regularly tackled Tony Blair on Iraq, at Prime Minister's Questions, and elsewhere, and we have used several of our precious opposition day debates to force the Government to answer questions on their actions in Iraq and the poor and inadequate intelligence that has lain behind them. We havesought to ask hard questions and provide effective opposition to the war - speaking up for the many British people who were opposed to sending our troops to Iraq.

Your correspondence also mentions your concerns over Iran. This is obviously a pressing and serious issue, and I have raised questions in Parliament about how the Government intends to proceed with this crisis. It is my opinion that the west has not dealt with the matter in a sensitive way. The American government has been full of bluster for several months, discussing plans for military action and pointedly keeping "all options on the table". The British government has not helped to reduce tension and the Prime Minister's refusal to rule out the use of force, or even the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, is a disturbing development.

The former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, on the other hand, has said that military action would be "inconceivable" and described as "nuts" the suggestion that nuclear weapons might be used. It is easy to see why he holds these views. Any strike without UN authority would be illegal - and any strike would would struggle to find legitimate targets since no one knows where the nuclear installations are. A strike would be the quickest way to strengthen Iran's determination to acquire a nuclear weapon, and it would foment instability across the region, particularly in Iraq and in Israel-Palestine. It could also trigger hostile measures in the straits of Hormuz, the bottleneck of the Gulf's oil supply.

Dr El Baradei and former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix have supported the ide aof applying the North Korean model to Iran. North Korea withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2003 amid disputes over IAEA inspections. For months the US resisted talks but in the end climbed down. Security guarantees and energy aid were offered to North Korea in return for an end to enrichment and tough inspections. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues feel that this is an eminently sensible suggestion.

Iran is not a rogue state. It cares about international opinion: it has signed the NPT, while India, Pakistan and Israel have not. The talks with the EU troika made progress towards the shape of a final agreement. The best way to keep Iran nuclear-free is to do whatever is diplomatically necessary to keep IAEA inspectors in the there, not blustering about military action and giving Iran excuses to press ahead unsupervised.

I hope I have been able to clarify my opinions on the matters you have raised; however if you have any further questions or comments then pelase to come back to me. In the meatime however I would like to assure you that my Lib Dem colleagues and I will continue to monitor this situation.

Yours Sincerely,"

[catatonic]

.