RAF Doctor who refused to return to Iraq as he believes, rightfully, that the war is against the Geneva conventions, is jailed for a year and fined 20Kgbp for legal costs.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article357656.ece
Hes right. All of us sane folks knew that the war was a crime to begin with--and now the UK is starting to jail people that refuse to participate in that crime.
:shock:
He deserved it tbh... he could have resigned instead he decided to play silly buggers. Hes doen 2 tours of Iraq already anyway & wtf.. did he expect to be getting up to as a doctor - oh no he may have to perform a few medical checks on prisoners......
max - you are talking crap as usual - he wouldnt have been participating in a crime at all - the presence of UK troops in Iraq is legal & he was disobeying a legal order - so no the UK governemtn isnt jailing people for refusing to participating in a crime - they are jailing a military officer for refusing to obey a lawful order - regardless of peoples personal, moral or legal views regarding the initial invasion of Iraq the presence of troops there at the moment is not illegal or a crime.
He should not have to resign as he is not in the wrong. He was disobeying illegal orders, something most militaries recognize as being fully within protocol.
Hes setting precedent--resigning is giving up, it would never get attention. Boldly refusing to obey a criminal order--yeah, it gets him jail time, but it also makes a difference, and gets the debate onto the front page of the Independent.
this is not far off the firing squad for not going "over the top" in WW2 imo.
Quote from: maximusotterHe should not have to resign as he is not in the wrong. He was disobeying illegal orders, something most militaries recognize as being fully within protocol.
hes disobeying legal orders - stop being so dumb - just becuase you dont like the fact there are troops there doesnt mean that the fact they are there is illegal regardless of whether the initial invasion of Iraq itself was legal or not.
He might have had some credibility if hed refused to go during the initial invasion - the fact is that hes been there on two tours already (RAF do short 4 month tours at a time).
What is he actually refusing to do here - he isnt a front line soldier, hes not likely to ever go beyond the fence except to perhaps zero his personal weapon - all hed be doing out there is working in a medical facility probably at basra air station or shibah logistics base treating patients - military personel, contractors & the odd iraqi - the military personnel are there with the permission of the Iraqi governement & acting under a UN mandate. -Hes not being ordered to do anything illegal & if he wants to play politics he should resing from the military prior to doing so.
when you sign on that line your life and every part of it belongs to the military. There are obvious orders you can disregard, or indeed arrest your superior officer for, but refusing to go into a warzone isnt one of them. Ive vairous mates in the military and their opinion of this guy is very low.
The Military go where the civilian government tell them, regardless of wanting to go or not. If they let one guy use this this excuse for not going into a warzone then lots of others will do the same. You join the Army/Navy/RAF with the full knowledge that you will go where you are told, if you like it or not. Trying to wheedle out of this by saying the war is illeagal is a bit dumb really. Im still trying to figure out what a legal war actually is TBH. "Illeagal" wars in the past 50 years have been very common if you take it to mean wars without UN Sanction.
Illieagal orders within military organisations are things like being ordered to Attack Unarmed civilians, loot, rape, torture and the like. _anything_ else is a legal order.
Its very simple: this war is illegal. Its a big lie. It violates the Geneva Convention.
He has refused to participate in crime. Its that simple.
If a military commander commands you to rape a woman or steal Cadburys from the corner market, you may also refuse.
I dont care what other military yahoos say about this guy, as most folks in the service, regardless of smarts, are in a continual brainwash cycle.
Ã,Â
In ze vorld var two, zere vaz soldiers who vas only obeying ze orders.
And look what happened to them. :roll:
I support him and his stand. Hopefully, more will follow and show this "government" we arent gonna take it any more.
Ã,Â
Quote from: maximusotterIts very simple: this war is illegal. Its a big lie. It violates the Geneva Convention.
He has refused to participate in crime. Its that simple.
If a military commander commands you to rape a woman or steal Cadburys from the corner market, you may also refuse.
I dont care what other military yahoos say about this guy, as most folks in the service, regardless of smarts, are in a continual brainwash cycle.
*sigh*
Well as far as violating the Geneva Convention goes that goes out of the window. The geneva convention lays out the rules for conducing war, not if someone can go to war or not.
If you want other non-sancitoned wars then lets us look at Isreal and its little punchups with its neighbours over the years, Turkeys invasion of Cyprus, the Falklands war wasnt sancioned by the UN until the ships where on the way, we where going to war regardless of the UN. While I dont see the Iraq war as a great idea, we are there now, and if you are a military serviceman then you _will_ go to war if you are told to. If you dont want to go then you should never have signed that contract in the 1st place. The guy has obviously no respect for the Queens Commission, and no loyalty to his collegues if he is willing to leave them when they will probably need him the most.
Whatever you think about Iraq, at least have respect for the guys who are actually putting their lives on the line by entering warzones. Some of them may have done it to actually make a life for themselves rather than rot on social security, signing on the line every two weeks for their dole money. Others do it because they want to belong, others for a career. This guy probably had a military bursary to attend medical school, many specialist officers do. He was quite happy to take the benefits from military service, until something turned up that he doesnt believe in.
Quote from: maximusotterIts very simple: this war is illegal. Its a big lie. It violates the Geneva Convention.
It is very simply actually max - hes not been asked to go to war - the war whether legal or illegal finished some time ago.
- hes been charged for refusing to obey legal orders - again you are being rather stupid and looking to your personal moral viewpoints rather than facts. He was charged on 5 counts of disobeying orders four of these relate to refusing to turn up to uniform fittings etc.. & one relates to refusing to deploy to Iraq.
QuoteHe has refused to participate in crime. Its that simple.
no he refused to deploy to Iraq - nothing illegal about that - if he didnt want to go to Iraq he could have resigned - he was a military officer & through his own arrogance decided to take on the system in a political protest. For some reason a bunch of brainwashed lefties have made him a bit of a champion because for them anything & everything to do with Iraq = Bush = Oil = evil etc.. when the real issue is simply that he held a commission in the armed forces & refused to carry out a perfectly legal order as some sort of political protest - allowing him to get away with it would undermine the whole structure of the armed forces - members of the armed forces are not supposed to be openly involved in politics nor are they allowed to disobey legal orders at will.
/me thinks max should be taken to Iraq, and left there tbh.
As for calling this idiot a hero i think various other people may disagree, Johnson Beharry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Beharry) for one.
He is commiting a crime by disobeying an order from higher command, if the war is illegal then HC face the punishment, not the squaddies.
I personnally think hes wrong!
His orders to go to Iraq were legal. He should have gone. Had he gone to Iraq, been commanded to do something illegal and then refused, he would have my support. He disobeyed legal commands because his opinion was that the war was wrong. He was never ordered to do anything illegal. If he had been ordered to do something illegal or saw something that was illegal in his first two tours in Iraq he should have spoken up at that time.
JMO
He should be out there. Not able to "opt out" due to personal opinion.
They were legal orders. He refused. Why do we pay him (as taxpayers) to train in medicine, subsidise his living quarters, food, and kit. For him to decide what he wants to do. When hes asked by his country to fight then he should obey those orders unless they are illegal. They arent illegal, so he should have obeyed them.
He chickened out imo.
Quote from: Christopher MonkeyHe is commiting a crime by disobeying an order from higher command, if the war is illegal then HC face the punishment, not the squaddies.
Its not allways the case, as Eagle was trying to point out with the German soldiers that have been commited of war crimes over the years that could have easily said no. Your are respnosible for your actions. Which is why I can understand why he took a stance.
I really dont have a strong opinion on this though whether he was right or not. One on hand no one should blindly follow orders when it is clear they are wrong for whatever reason. Moralls, Legal Reasons, whatever.
But on the other case, he was wearing the uniform, you represent the queen, you cant just pick and choose which orders you like. Imagine the problem that there would be in the chain in the command if all orders were debated. I get the feeling the judge was making an example of this.
bit of a difference to having political views re: Iraq & gassing a bunch of jews - hes not getting done for refusing to take part in the war/invasion/whatever - hes refused to go there after the invasion has already taken place when there is a UN mandate for the troops to be there & the permission of a democratically elected government.
taking into account both sides of the argument i can see max, sadly mate i disagree with you on this.
firstly he knew what he was doing when he went into the recruiting office. to become an officer, let alone a doctor you need to approach the army to ask them to put you through their training to get any sort of benifits. he is an adult, he makes his own descisions and he cannot go back on something he signed a legal contract for.
also the moral obligation. without him deploying to iraq, there is one less doctor to treat wounded civillians.
seeing as the current tide of car bombings are against civillians. so if his job is to treat civillians (which a main part of the reason we are out there, hearts and minds etc...) there is one less trauma trained medical practicioner out there to save little sammy from the horrible extreemists and their exploding cars.
the guy should be shot. its the rules of life.
you are governed by the decisions you make now, will decide what future you will have.