I thought this case was interesting in a way.
In a way this court case for the RAF guy refusing to go to Iraq was quite interesting. The court martial panel agreed with prosecution lawyers that the doctor could not "pick and choose" orders he obeyed. Read the full story here.An interesting point. But didn't Nuremberg prosecute and execute people who simply obeyed orders. The environment was different as well. Refusal could have meant summary execution. So people got on with it and paid the price later. A no win or a no win later situation.
How exactly are we to draw this line then in this modern age? Clearly the lessons we learnt are worthless. Unless of course the lesson is don't leave any witnesses.
posted by Bag @ 7:58 pm
4 Comments:
British servicemen can refuse to follow illegal orders. If for instance, an officer ordered his men to shoot POWs they are quite within their rights under military law to disobey those orders. If the soldiers did execute the prisoners then, like Nuremberg, they could not claim that they "were only following orders"- as those orders were illegal in the first place.
Here's the key point- "British troops are operating in Iraq under a United Nations mandate and at the invitation of the Iraqi government."
As such, this man is not entitled to disobey the orders he was given.
I did think of that when I was writing the article but I have a vague recollection of people being tried for just being guards.
Of course it is easy when it's something like lining up prisoners but what about less obvious things like leading phospherous rounds.
And not everyone thinks that there is a UN mandate and the Iraqi government has invited them in.
However, after saying all that I actually agree with what you say. The orders were legal and the arguments were around the politics.
Just a quick point on WP- it's not a chemical weapon and has never been designated as such. That was a completely media fabricated "scandal".
Good explanation of it all here-
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/radley_balko_ne.html
Soldiers are usually very aware of what they are and aren't allowed to do- rules of engagement are very strict.
Interesting website you linked to. I have read similar comments about WP before and although I understand the distinction I think if it is used for anything else it is still a terrible weapon even if it is not classed as a chemical weapon. It makes little differnce to someone to know that it's not a chemical weapon. Neither is beheading but that seems to have a bad press.
Up until Abu Graib I would have agreed about soldiers knowing what is right and wrong. But there is clearly a difference between what is morally acceptable and what they will do. This type of warfare brings out the worst in us. It's a test and we all seem to go to the lowest common denominator.
Post a Comment
<< Home