Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 68014	2006-04-14 03:37:00	UK RAF Doctor.	Poppa John (284)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
446237	2006-04-15 04:09:00	What happened to those soldiers who said "We were just following orders"? A lot of them were. They got executed for war crimes. I don't think that's right. Following orders is/was a legitimate defence as I understand it.	Greg (193)
446238	2006-04-15 04:32:00	I don't think that's right. Following orders is/was a legitimate defence as I understand it. Depends on who and what situation. Plenty of Nazis discovered it wasn't allowed as an excuse.	pctek (84)
446239	2006-04-15 05:18:00	Greg. No - following orders is not a legitimate defense. Just about everybody could have made that claim. I do know that even when I served HM (1950 - 1952) and the British Intelligence Corps at that, we had misgivings about certain actions that could be expected. But how many of us would have had the courage to stand up for them? There has to be a time when people stand up and say "NO" I don't neccessarily agree with the officer - he was after all a doctor - but I do agree about his concern. I too have a concern now. In my time we always understood that prisoners of war were NOT criminals and were not to be handcuffed. During the 39-45 war the British did handcuff some prisoners and the Germans responded by handcuffing prisoners already in their camps. The action was stopped. But now I see the Americans do it constantly. It doesn't surprise me - I once watched a sickening episode down town in LA when a couple of kids who looked about 12 - 13 were handcuffed by the police and bundled into a police car. The police were loudly encouraged and cheered by the bystandrs. These were children. Just what is the legal situation these days for prisoners of war? Tom	Thomas01 (317)
446240	2006-04-15 05:30:00	Greg. No - following orders is not a legitimate defense.It sounds like a lot of people were and are in between a rock and a hard place. Wouldn't want to be there myself.	Greg (193)
446241	2006-04-15 05:53:00	Hi Folks . If we are still discussing this "foolish" (my opinion) doctor, I would point out that somewhere in the thread we moved from talking about a "lawful command" and started talking about "following orders" . Some of the lawful commands he refused to obey included having pistol practice and going to have his helmet fitted . Quotes . . . . . "" The officer is charged with disobeying orders to attend training and briefings before deployment to Iraq . “There can have been no possible illegality in complying with the orders to attend for pistol and rifle training, to attend for a helmet fitting and sizing, or to attend an initial response training course,” the judge said . “Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre . ” In pre-trial hearings last week on the issue of the legality of the war in Iraq, Philip Sapsford, QC, defence counsel, argued that Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith had refused to return to Iraq because he did not want to be complicit in a crime of aggression . However, the judge said: “The law is clear . The crime of aggression, even if it were a crime which the domestic courts of the United Kingdom would take cognisance, cannot be committed by those in relatively junior positions such as that of the defendant . ” He added: “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 . “In argument Mr Sapsford said his client regarded himself as a leader, not a foot soldier . If that was the defendant’s belief, it was based on a greatly inflated sense of his own position . He was a non-combatant of relatively junior rank and cannot possibly have been in any way responsible for policy . ” The judge said it was also “fanciful” to argue that Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith might be ordered to supervise the interrogation of prisoners that could be in breach of the Geneva Convention . If he was concerned that an order might breach the Geneva Convention, he would have been entitled to refuse to obey the specific order in accordance with Article 16 of Protocol 1 of the convention . The judge concluded: “There can have been no illegality in the defendant obeying any of the five orders he was given which form the subject of the charges . All five orders had a specific service purpose and all were therefore lawful orders . ” This man had ample time to resign his 60K Pounds per year commission .	Scouse (83)
446242	2006-04-15 06:06:00	Yes Good point Scouse. That's what I thought. What is this guy trying to do? He's in the Army. You don't join up and then decide which operation you'll be on or not. That's why I wouldn't ever want to be in the Armed Services. Quite, you don't join the military for a holiday (or as has been mentioned in a previous thread - for an education), you join up to shoot people and other nasty things. If you dont want to shoot people don't join up.	dvm (6543)
446243	2006-04-15 09:46:00	Hi Folks . If we are still discussing this "foolish" (my opinion) doctor, I would point out that somewhere in the thread we moved from talking about a "lawful command" and started talking about "following orders" . Some of the lawful commands he refused to obey included having pistol practice and going to have his helmet fitted . Quotes . . . . . "" The officer is charged with disobeying orders to attend training and briefings before deployment to Iraq . “There can have been no possible illegality in complying with the orders to attend for pistol and rifle training, to attend for a helmet fitting and sizing, or to attend an initial response training course,” the judge said . “Those are all activities ancillary to any deployment to an operational theatre . ” In pre-trial hearings last week on the issue of the legality of the war in Iraq, Philip Sapsford, QC, defence counsel, argued that Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith had refused to return to Iraq because he did not want to be complicit in a crime of aggression . However, the judge said: “The law is clear . The crime of aggression, even if it were a crime which the domestic courts of the United Kingdom would take cognisance, cannot be committed by those in relatively junior positions such as that of the defendant . ” He added: “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 . “In argument Mr Sapsford said his client regarded himself as a leader, not a foot soldier . If that was the defendant’s belief, it was based on a greatly inflated sense of his own position . He was a non-combatant of relatively junior rank and cannot possibly have been in any way responsible for policy . ” The judge said it was also “fanciful” to argue that Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith might be ordered to supervise the interrogation of prisoners that could be in breach of the Geneva Convention . If he was concerned that an order might breach the Geneva Convention, he would have been entitled to refuse to obey the specific order in accordance with Article 16 of Protocol 1 of the convention . The judge concluded: “There can have been no illegality in the defendant obeying any of the five orders he was given which form the subject of the charges . All five orders had a specific service purpose and all were therefore lawful orders . ” This man had ample time to resign his 60K Pounds per year commission . Hear hear . Some accuracy at last . All we heard from the media was that he refused to go to Iraq . We can admire his principles - no problem with that -but he's in the Army and can't get too suprised when he's posted off to a war zone . Besides, he's a doctor and hardly likely to be ordered to shoot-up insurgents . And he could refuse illegal orders as the Judge pointed out .	Winston001 (3612)
446244	2006-04-15 09:58:00	Not so . Most governments, the UN, even China, thought there were WMD in Iraq . It wasn't just the American intelligence agencies that made the mistake, European agencies as well . We seem to forget how clever Sadam was in fooling the world, and the many times he disregarded UN resolutions (for WMD inspections, etc . ) . With an idiot like GWBush in power it is so easy to slam the Yanks in general and especially American soldiers . The overwhelming firepower/bombing of Iraq has not "won the hearts and minds", but contrary to comments above, there are plenty of American soldiers who know better and who try their best to deal with Iraqis in sensitive ways . Don't believe this? Then go read their blogs and listen to the numerous interviews . Cross purposes Steve . What I meant is that most of the world knew there was no direct link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein . But strangely, even today, many Americans believe the two were working hand in hand . I like the USA but they live really sheltered lives . :D As for George Bush being an idiot - unfortunately that is nonsense but accepted by many people as fact . Pause for a moment - this is a successful businessman who was selected by at least 10 million republican party voters to contest the presidency . He then won tens of millions of ordinary American's votes to be elected President . Not once but twice . He participated in television debates against some very sharp operators such as Al Gore and came out looking good . You don't have to like the man, or his politics but be realistic about his abilities . I don't like Helen Clark but I respect her and she's a (choke)good Prime Minister .	Winston001 (3612)
446245	2006-04-15 11:04:00	Whether 1 million or 10 million voted for Bush to stand for presidency neither proves nor disproves whether the man is able and capable, or whether he is an idiot or not, neither does being a successful business man, IMHO. I'd prefer George Mcgoverns assessment of the man, 3 years old now but still relevant, which turned up when looking for Tennyson's poem: www.thenation.com :) Then we have the various "Dubya" sites: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ http://www.thedubyareport.com/ Edit: and incidently 85% of American soldiers polled in Iraq think that they went there in retaliation to Sadams involvement in the 9/11 attack: www.zogby.com	Terry Porritt (14)
446246	2006-04-17 01:59:00	Whether 1 million or 10 million voted for Bush to stand for presidency neither proves nor disproves whether the man is able and capable, or whether he is an idiot or not, neither does being a successful business man, IMHO. I'd prefer George Mcgoverns assessment of the man, 3 years old now but still relevant, which turned up when looking for Tennyson's poem: www.thenation.com :) Then we have the various "Dubya" sites: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ http://www.thedubyareport.com/ Edit: and incidently 85% of American soldiers polled in Iraq think that they went there in retaliation to Sadams involvement in the 9/11 attack: www.zogby.com Good link to McGovern and worth reading. Unfortunately he is a Democrat and not independant which softens the message but I agree with much of what he says. As for Bush jokes - part of freedom of speech. Can we find any China-based sites lampooning the Chinese Government? Not likely. I'm perplexed at the seemingly willful blindness of the average American. There is nothing to directly conect Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't seem to be a story their media can be bothered with, although plenty of American commentators have pointed it out.	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5