Legality of Britain enetering Iraq War to be challenged

James,

This is very good news indeed. Thank you for the link.

Erik

You beat me to it James, but I'm going to make myself unpopular here anyway.
I have no sympathy with the war in Iraq, or Bush or Blair, but I do not understand how the families of killed soldiers can question the legality of the war. The public can obviously, but this is something else, and I know the families are the public, but bear with me here:
These soldiers are professionals who presumably chose to join the army. When did it happen that these soldiers are able to say "Well, actually I don't agree with this war so I'm not going"? Was it not explained to them what soldiers do for a living? Of course they know what they are signing up for, and I am sure all soldiers accept the consequences. So how does it look when mummy steps in to do battle with the government over the death of her little soldier? It looks pathetic, and it does nothing for the dignity of the soldiers that died.
If there is a challenge to the legality of the war (and I agree that there should be), it should have come from somewhere else, because this looks either unprofessional on the part of the soldiers involved, or it looks like a compensation claim.
I have to admit to not understanding wanting a job championing war and the deaths of innocent men, women and children anyway.
I'll go back under my rock now.....
Sorry guys - just my opinion

And a perfectly valid one, Rasher.

Your point about the desirability of having some 'distance' between the act of challenging the legality of entering the Iraq war and the people mounting the challenge is well made.

But, from a practical point of view, in the way our society seems to work (running, as it does, largely on emotion), I suspect a dispassionate legal challenge would/will not work (hasn't this tack been taken before?) and that - as with so many things - it will have to have the regrettable impetus of 'emotional charge' in order to even get onto the starting blocks...

Does this mean I'm joining you under the rock? (Opportunity to have that beer, perhaps? - Haven't forgotten ...)

James

Rasher,

I see where you are coming from on this and in part I agree with you. However, military law requires that all military service men/women obey LEGAL orders and no one is expected to follow illegal orders and they have the right to disobey an unlawful order. 'I was only following orders' is no defense in law, military or civil. All officers are trained in basic military law and know what an unlawful order is and that it need not be followed.

If it can be proven that the Iraq war was indeed illegal (which is my view)then it can be domonstrated that all subsequent and concommitant orders were illegal too. Expecting individual servicemen to be able to tip-toe through the mine field of international law and have the moral wherewithal to stand up and say 'I am not legally obliged to follow these orders' as at least one Royal Navy officer did is asking for way too much of them. They do not have the training and the pressure to conform and not step out of line is overwhelming.

Military personnel are trained to accept orders and accept them they do. Theirs is a position of trust. They trust their superiors to give lawful orders . In this case that trust, was and is, being abused. IMO.

In the months before the invasion kicked off a number of legal objections were being raised in the US,UK and UN and even in the media. Additionally there was no sign of any WMD. Now, since the decision to invade Iraq (based on supposedly legal grounds and the alleged fact of Iraq having WMD and the unproven intention to use them in unprovoked attacks)had, in fact, already been made (the real reason having nothing to do with WMD - the whole invasion timings were brought forward and in the media frenzy generated by the invasion the analysis of the finer points of International law were forgotten - for awhile.

The fact is the US would have invaded without the UK and without the UN. I believe the war was/is illegal and that was known in the White House and Downing Street and ignored. The UN ignores any laws and even the UN when it suits them yet castigates other countries for doing so. Blair the poodle follows sheap-like but he has to - he was groomed for the premiership by the US and he is their man.

I support any steps to make public any wrong doing in this area and I hope the whole truth is finally made public. Britain should seek more alliances and cooperation with Europe and break away from the US. This country is little more than a satelite state of the US imo.

All the best,

Erik

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rasher:
These soldiers are professionals who presumably chose to join the army. When did it happen that these soldiers are able to say "Well, actually I don't agree with this war so I'm not going"? Was it not explained to them what soldiers do for a living? Of course they know what they are signing up for, and I am sure all soldiers accept the consequences.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rasher, I have had the privilege of hearing Rose Gentle and Reg Keys, whose sons have died in Iraq, speak in public. I was humbled and inspired by their bravery. They have undergone the worst tragedy a that can happen to a parent; the loss of their child. They have decided that their children's life will not be in vain and are campaining to ensure no other parent ever has to lose their child in a war.
Both families are from working class backgrounds, from where the majority of combat troops are drawn, as is my nephew who is currently serving in Iraq. The term used is 'economic conscript' i.e. kids from areas who would formerly have got a job in industry now have very little prospect of learning a trade or getting a decent job. The choice is the dole, a job in a call centre or McDonalds, or joining up in the hope of learning a trade. Actually fighting in a war is not the main motivation for joining. I don't know about the UK, but Michael Moore made the point in Farenheit 911 that the US army actively targets such communities for recruitment.

Well said Malky,

It may seem very strange to a civilian but I know/knew very few who joined the army because they wanted to or even expected to EVER fight in a war. Believe me this is absolutely true. I have met many serving soldiers who have never even considered it and I was constantly amazed by this, as personally, I considered it very deeply.

Many are, as you rightly point out joining for other reasons and many actively NEED to be told what to do. This makes them good tools to be used. It also makes them vulnerable. When trust breaks down in the armed srvices or beween the armed services and politicans everything breaks down.

Malky - You are absolutely right, of course.
I have no idea, thankfully, what it is like to lose a child (under any circumstances) and I wouldn't assume to understand their pain and consequential actions. I was trying to avoid that very personal issue because I don't believe it is a relevance in the overall political argument, and is why I question whether this is the correct channel to challenge the legality of the war. These families would not be undertaking this action if their children were alive , so whatever the situation with regard to the politics, politics isn't their motivation! You can't deny that. Therefore, this isn't the way to do it.
I do understand the employment angle of joining the army, but find it hard to be sympathetic to that level of avoiding the responsibilities of their choice to be there.
I agree on the point of trust, which is another reason why the challenge should come from somewhere else, otherwise it'll be necessary to take a courtroom onto the battle field. But at what point do you turn off that trust and take the government to court? I don't see that you can.

Yes, taking the government to court is hard enough - winnning will be impossible. The Royal Navy chap tried (I think)to use the illegality of the war tactic in his defense and got nowhere but I did not follow the case not know the details (does anyone here?). I think the government will crush this (not that they are supposed to be able to pressure the Judiciary but they will)but at least the whole thing will get a public airing. Yes, I doubt these families would be doing this if their sons were still alive.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Yes, taking the government to court is hard enough - winnning will be impossible. The Royal Navy chap tried (I think)to use the illegality of the war tactic in his defense and got nowhere but I did not follow the case not know the details (does anyone here?).

I think the bloke in question was in RAF rather than the Navy. A judge ruled that the legality of the war was not the issue:

'The doctor ... claimed that after studying legal arguments about the war in Iraq, including the advice of the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, he had come to believe that the British presence in the country was illegal.

But Mr Bayliss said that even if the Government had committed an act of illegal aggression in invading Iraq, Dr Kendall-Smith was wrong to imagine that he had any responsibility for it. "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," he said.

Mr Bayliss said Dr Kendall-Smith's junior rank absolved him of responsibility, a subject he returned to when he addressed Mr Sapsford's argument that Dr Kendall-Smith had conceived himself as a leader rather a foot soldier in the war.

"If that was the defendant’s belief it was based on a greatly inflated sense of his own position," said Mr Bayliss. "Whatever may have been the defendant’s belief as to his status, it is disingenuous to argue that he was a leader. He was a non-combatant of relatively junior rank and cannot possibly have been in any way responsible for policy."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098768,00.html

Thanks Joe. Right you are.