BBC news alert

[Roxsie]

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3395/bbcnews2nf.png


RAF doctor disobeyed Iraq orders
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41555000/jpg/_41555692_kendall_afp203bod.jpg
Flt Lt Dr Malcolm Kendall-Smith was based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland
An RAF doctor has been found guilty of disobeying orders at a court martial after he refused to serve in Iraq.

Flt Lt Malcolm Kendall-Smith, 37, who was based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland, was found guilty of five charges after he refused to go to Basra last June.

He claimed his actions were justified as the UK involvement was illegal.

But the panel agreed with Army lawyers that his position did not require him to question the war's legality.

He told the panel on Wednesday that he "had evidence" the Americans were "on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf".

"This is on the basis that ongoing acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany."

The court martial panel in Aldershot will announce its sentence later on Thursday.

[Smokey]

Lucky for him we've come a long way since the first world war. He would have been shot back then.

[Meadow]

Personally, I have to side with the forces on this one. When you join the forces, you agree to do whatever the Queen and her representatives tell you to do, regardless of your ideologies. If he had quibbles with British foriegn policy (as I do) he shouldn't have joined the RAF. (hence why I have no intention of joining the forces)

[sirch]

I would personally prefer to be shot by an English man than being held hostage or shot by an Iraqi!

[Meadow]

I would personally prefer to be shot by an English man than being held hostage or shot by an Iraqi!

Thanks for letting us know.

:rolleyes:

[renatzu]

He joined the army, and he swore to follow orders and fight wherever he was told. If he was this strongly against the Iraq war, he shouldn't have joined (or re-enlisted in) the army.

[steffie]

i do think it's a bit hypocritical to become a career soldier but pick and choose which wars you want to fight in. fair enough, he stood up for what he believed was right and accepted the consequences of his actions, but surely going to fight in a war and taking orders is part and parcel of being in the military. if every soldier started to object to things they didn't like doing there would be chaos.

[Roxsie]

A lot of young people are attracted by the adverts but don't fully realise what they are getting themselves into.

However he made it to Lieutenant so he must surely have realised that he might be sent into a war.

[CodingTim]

Personally, I have to side with the forces on this one. When you join the forces, you agree to do whatever the Queen and her representatives tell you to do, regardless of your ideologies. If he had quibbles with British foriegn policy (as I do) he shouldn't have joined the RAF. (hence why I have no intention of joining the forces)

That's exactly my view on this: although it is unfortunate for him to be asked to do something that he finds morally objectionable, he is bound to the agreement he has made to follow his orders. There is no point in having armed forces with strong leadership and power if individual members of the military can boycott a war by their own choosing.

As an aside, and obviously the following does not apply these days, but I always found the idea of shooting deserters to be rather terrible (after all, what is the point of going to war to protect your citizens if you are going to shoot them yourself?) - however, I appreciate that, like all punishments, it is there as a deterrent.

Anyway, back on the topic - he will have to face the consequences of not following what have been deemed to be 'legal orders', whatever those consequences turn out to be.

I do feel somewhat sorry for him, but I'm afraid it is his fault.

[Kiwi Man]

A lot of you are talking about him fighting in wars, but you don't seem to have read the part about him being a doctor. Slightly irrelevant, but if you can't factor in that detail, I don't think your opinions are valid.

[CodingTim]

I did know he was a doctor. That doesn't change the nature of my argument, though. His orders were to go to Iraq and assist there as a doctor. He is obliged to do so following his enlisting in the armed forces, and thus he faces the consequences of refusing to do so. It doesn't really matter what he was asked to do there, just that those orders were legal, and he refused to obey them.

edit: sorry if I sound a bit, er, barbed - I'm tired :p

[steffie]

even doctors are required to fight in a war-zone if the occasion calls for it. he's still a career soldier, it just happens that he is also a trained doctor.

[Meadow]

A lot of you are talking about him fighting in wars, but you don't seem to have read the part about him being a doctor. Slightly irrelevant, but if you can't factor in that detail, I don't think your opinions are valid.

You don't seem to read the parts which say he's a military doctor. And the fact he wears military uniform. And the fact he's a career soldier.

If you can't factor in all those ACTUAL details, rather than ones you're making up, I don't think your opinion is valid.

[sirch]

I would personally prefer to be shot by an English man than being held hostage or shot by an Iraqi!

Out of interest, Is that a racist comment? Apparently, according to one dosy individual, that that seems to be racist. Just because I don't want to be tortured and kept in awful conditions!

[Meadow]

You didn't say that in your post. What you said could very easily be taken as English people somehow being 'better' than Iraqis.

[sirch]

Well I really didn't mean that! Sorry to anyone who took offence to it!

[Smartie]

Quick comment here - has he been to war before?
What i'm saying is that he's a career soldier and is therefore likely to have served in conflicts previously, and maybe it's just this one he's not happy with.

No-where does it say that this is his first posting and suddenly he's against war, full-stop.
What it says is that he now disagrees with the iraq war.

I think this point has been overlooked, so before we start lambasting him from being a soldier who won't go to 'war', lets check it out. In fact, he has twice served in Iraq before he refused this latest assignment last year.

He's obviously had a change of heart, people do, that's life. Yes, he's a soldier and that's his job, but you can't just quit the RAF in one day. And imagine the struggle he's had, mentally, trying to justify his employment, which he clearly loves, with a 'war' in which he feels such a passionate abhorrence of.

Kendall-Smith began his RAF career in August 2000. He had flown to the UK to join the RAF as a commissioned officer at the rank of flight-lieutenant on a six year short-service commission.

He had served twice in Iraq before he refused his deployment, deciding that the invasion was illegal after studying various books and articles.

From November 2000 to August 2001, he was based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire before working at Peterborough Hospital.

In 2002, he was based at RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, before becoming a senior house officer in psychiatry based at Brize Norton.

On July 1, 2002, he was deployed as a GP registrar at RAF Thumrait, Oman, and on February 1, 2003, he was posted to RAF Ali Al Salem in Kuwait for the Iraq invasion.

In October 27, 2003, he was deployed to RAF Al Udeid, Qatar. Since September 2003 he has been based at RAF Kinloss in Scotland and on October 27 2003 he was deployed to RAF Al Udeid in Qatar.

Incidentally, he has been given 8 months in jail - i've seen scumbag drunk drivers who've killed people serve less.

[SPACKlick]

I would like to mention to all of you out there who say it isn;t hsi right once he's signed up to pick and choose, a soldier is obliged to disregard all orders which would contravene sovereign laws or laws which the sovereignty is party to. Therefore if he believed he had evidecne that the iraq war was injust he was not only morally btu legally obliged to refuse to go.

Think of other situations where a soldier could disregard orders, if ordered to shoot a POW a soldier must not comply. This, as far as he was concerned, was the same situation.

[InstaCpu]

SPACKlick check your spelling. ;) Just a question, how many here would consider a German soldier who refused to serve in Hitler's war a hero, even if it was his duty to serve Germany? Soldiers must obey but as SPACKlick indicated is that at any cost?

[Roxsie]

That comparison doesn't hold up as if a German soldier refused to serve his family would have been killed or at the very least severely victimised. Which is why so many Germans who disagreed with Hitler still were in the army e.g Darkscull's grandfather.

[Meadow]

But it must also be remembered that many, many Germans fell to the propaganda machine and joined up themselves.

Yes, Smartie, it is clear that he had only got a problem with the Iraq War. I have one too, but I didn't join the RAF. Has the United Nations outright condemned the war? No, in fact it currently supports the occupation (not the invasion). When you join the forces, you understand that you will have to obey orders regardless of your own opinion, unless international law is being broken. If this man was going to be told when he arrived in Iraq to personally shoot a group of unarmed children, then he may have a point, but somehow I doubt it.

[Roxsie]

Yes, but he was talking about those who refused.

[Meadow]

Yes, I know that. It's just that German soldiers are a very difficult subject and the whole story must be presented each time they come up.

[Roxsie]

Well the whole subject is difficult. :) Due to all the emotional factors.

/offtopic wow i can see my school being dismantled from my room :)

[SPACKlick]

Guy's it's a simple point. Soldiers are meant to follow any order unless they are certain that order is unlawful. If they are unsure they should express there lack of sureity[sp] to their CO and then follow through with it anyway.

This officer claims to have had evidence that the war was unlawful before he was ordered to go out there and as such refused to go. It all boils down to the weight of this evidence which none of us can be told about because it is being held under cencorship until 2055 or 2056.

[titanic]

i find it odd that this is sentiment despite being a doctor,

if he were an average grund then yes i can see why he would have a problem, because he would be orded to kill in the "illegal" war, however he was a doctor, and so should have gone to be helping to save the lives of those who did not refuse,

i hate the line "on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf". thats just bullshit, why? did they isolate one group of the populace and systematicaly wipe them out? killing millions? did they invade countrys simply to further there own empire? (well posibly but its not even close to the nazi's they went fore entre countrys and all there people the usa just want the oil)

his whole argument just reaks of anti americannes which i know the armed forces is full of, he had chosen a very poor way of getting his message across

[Stringy Pete]

When you accept the Queen's shilling you say that you will carry out whatever order is given to you as long as it is Legal. The order he was given is legal, as it isn't currently an illegal occupation - we are there with the support of the Iraqi government. Opposing the original invasion may have been a different kettle of fish, as the legality would've needed to have been proven, but as it stands it is legal. The man is a fool, and should be stripped of his pension and given a dishonourable discharge.

[Roxsie]

i hate the line "on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf". thats just bullshit, why? did they isolate one group of the populace and systematicaly wipe them out? killing millions? did they invade countrys simply to further there own empire? (well posibly but its not even close to the nazi's they went fore entre countrys and all there people the usa just want the oil)


There is an argument that america is doing this to furthur their influence in the middle east as a stepping stone to creating an empire.

But Americans don't still feel envy of the Uk because they were part of the Empire where the sun never sets do they?

They don't still vilify the British do they?

Their envy isn't leading them to interfere and attempt to create an American Empire is it?

They aren't rigging elections and putting their people into power around the world are they?






Disclaimer - not intetended as an attack on the U.S only on some policies as reported in the U.K. Also inferred from previous policies - You put saddam into power and trained Al-Quada for fucks sake.

[God.]

Well he is a solider isnt it his job to kill and do what he is told. Dont they sign something that says they have to follow orders no matter what?

[Major Disaster]

I can tell you that he has the right to concienciously object if he feels that it was wrong to be in Iraq. He should then be honorably discharged. His officers are bang out of line for draggin him through the mud.

This is Law, and not only common law but military law also.

And before anyone questions me, I am in the RAFR and so know a thing or to about how the RAF should work.

[Stringy Pete]

I can tell you that he has the right to concienciously object if he feels that it was wrong to be in Iraq. He should then be honorably discharged. His officers are bang out of line for draggin him through the mud.

This is Law, and not only common law but military law also.

And before anyone questions me, I am in the RAFR and so know a thing or to about how the RAF should work.
He's been there before though, so what is so special about him not wanting to go this time, other than it doesn't suit him?

This time it isn't illegal, we are there at the express wish of the Iraqi Government.
And we're not at War, and he's a Doctor, so I wouldn't say that conciencious objection is really a relevant argument here.

As it stands he refused to go to Iraq, an entirely legal order, and one which is supported by numerous UN Mandates which have come about since the fall of Saddam Hussein, he only refused to go to Iraq because it didn't suit him, and after he used the cock and bull defence of it not being legal, which is complete tosh.

To quote a Judge presiding over the case
"Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Refusal to obey orders means the force is not a disciplined force but a rabble. Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they will obey. Those who seek to do so must face serious consequences.

We have considered carefully whether it would be sufficient to dismiss you from the Royal Air Force and fine you as well. We do not think that we could possibly be justified in taking such a lenient course. It 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."

[Roxsie]

This time it isn't illegal, we are there at the express wish of the Iraqi Government.


You mean the Iraqi government supported and run by the Americans?

The government which was put in place so that there would be a pro-american presense in Iraq so they could get oil.

[Meadow]

Get off the soap box this time Rox, the UN does support the occupation. The invasion was illegal, but the occupation, according to the UN, is legal.

[Roxsie]

Never said the occupation wasn't 'legal' just that there are circumstances that should be looked at before talking about the wishes of the Iraqi government and people.

And i'll never get off the soapbox, in fact i'm gonna go to speakers corner just to spite you :p

[Lured]

NARF! Hey brain whats your view on this?

Well pinky i think i could use this article to smash back in the bbc's face and take over the world! muhahahahhHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.....

NARF but brain

No buts pinky. no buts. just power!

[Meadow]

NARF! Hey brain whats your view on this?

Well pinky i think i could use this article to smash back in the bbc's face and take over the world! muhahahahhHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.....

NARF but brain

No buts pinky. no buts. just power!

Get off my internets.

[metalchris]

There is a moral precedence for Soldiers disregarding orders that contravene International Law. Arguably, the invasion of Iraq contravened International Law, according to the UN Charter:


Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Arguably, there was no potential breach of the peace in this situation, thus meaning that the invasion was against International Law.

However, the occupation of Iraq is fully supported by International Law as we are there at the request of the Iraqi Government. Now, you can question the legitimacy of the current Administration (personally, I see it as being more legitimate than the last one, seeing as it was democratically elected), but according to International Law, the occupation is legitimate. The Officer in question therefore was incorrect in perceiving his posting to Iraq as illegal.

As for the moral comparisons this man claims between the Third Reich and the United States, that (in my opinion) is completely over the top. The Nazis set out to commit systematic genocide and enslave anyone that wasn't of the 'Aryan' race. Now, you can question America's objectives regarding Foreign Policy objectives, but anyone who thinks the US is doing that anywhere needs to get some perspective.

[Lured]

sorry, i wasn't aware how serious the debates were
next time i shall be serious

[Roxsie]

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over.
n.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife. :eng101:

To enter in debate you must have the right frame of mind. Try reading back over previous debates to see the seriousness. Don't let the titles and subjects fool you, we are very learned people who come to debate earnestly and seriously.

[eleanor]

Don't let the titles and subjects fool you, we are very learned people
And so modest! :o ¬_¬

[SPACKlick]

The Kid has a point about the US and the third reich, but it isn't what people thought he was making. The US seem to be stripping the world of other dultures and by that would be fascist not in terms of race but culture and also they are invading countries they really oughtn't to.

But since this boy was posted in the occupation and not the invasion he has no right to refuse and as such brokeded the law.

[Martinus]

Surely irrespective of what's written 'on paper' as soon as you join the military you give up your rights to judge morality on your own behalf?

Orders have priority over what is good and moral afterall.

[Stringy Pete]

Surely irrespective of what's written 'on paper' as soon as you join the military you give up your rights to judge morality on your own behalf?

Orders have priority over what is good and moral afterall.
The long and the short of it is that you follow orders as long as they are legal.

[Meadow]

The long and the short of it is that you follow orders as long as they are legal.

And as far as I understand it, the basic order to return to Iraq was not illegal. QED.

[Martinus]

The long and the short of it is that you follow orders as long as they are legal.
Indeed but legal != moral.

I guess that's what I'm getting at.

[SPACKlick]

True, but the legality of the military has a lot to do with morals.

Since this was the return to iraq and not the invasion there is no doubt as to the legality of the action.