Serving Soldier Leading Anti-War March

[Betty Boop]

Well done L/Cpl Joe Glenton who will lead the 'Bring the troops home from Afghanistan' march organised by Stop the War Coalition. He faces a court martial after refusing to return to Afghanistan, and is disobeying military orders to join the demonstration. Hats off to him, very brave.

[H18sry]

Well done L/Cpl Joe Glenton who will lead the 'Bring the troops home from Afghanistan' march organised by Stop the War Coalition. He faces a court martial after refusing to return to Afghanistan, and is disobeying military orders to join the demonstration. Hats off to him, very brave.

Very stupid, when he joined up he chose to sign the paperwork to obey his orders, and to refuse to carry out operational orders is verging on treason, the MOD PLODS will just arrest him and he will be sent to Colchester military prison.

[Betty Boop]

Very stupid, when he joined up he chose to sign the paperwork to obey his orders, and to refuse to carry out operational orders is verging on treason, the MOD PLODS will just arrest him and he will be sent to Colchester military prison.

Why stupid? He has developed conscientious objections to the war, which is recognised by the UN Commision on Human Rights.

[H18sry]

Why stupid? He has developed conscientious objections to the war, which is recognised by the UN Commision on Human Rights.

I cant see that as part of his argument, if that was the case we would not have an armed forces, as we are all asked at times, during your service to do something that we dont agree with, but you just have to get on with it.

[--------]

Well done L/Cpl Joe Glenton who will lead the 'Bring the troops home from Afghanistan' march organised by Stop the War Coalition. He faces a court martial after refusing to return to Afghanistan, and is disobeying military orders to join the demonstration. Hats off to him, very brave.


I was wondering when something like this would happen. IMO it's been coming for a while.

I would imagine that the only legal basis upon which he can refuse duty this way is on the grounds that the war in Afghanistan is illegal in international law and that therefore his orders to report back to duty in Afghanistan are illegal. Whatever happens, he has a long and difficult road ahead of him.

[hibsdaft]

if we'd not got dragged into Iraq by Blair and Bush we'd probably be out of Afghanistan by now.

what a mess.

[ArabHibee]

Very stupid, when he joined up he chose to sign the paperwork to obey his orders, and to refuse to carry out operational orders is verging on treason, the MOD PLODS will just arrest him and he will be sent to Colchester military prison.

:agree:

[Allant1981]

Why stupid? He has developed conscientious objections to the war, which is recognised by the UN Commision on Human Rights.


So why bother joining if he didnt want to do as he is told. Most people who have joined recently or join now must know they will be going to war at some point. I have a friend who is still in and she has been in cyprus for the last 3 years doing pretty much hee haw and is yapping now as she is going on tour in the falklands. I asked her what she was expecting and got a shrug of the shoulders. I think some people expect the army to be a nice wee number and dont really know what its all about

[ArabHibee]

So why bother joining if he didnt want to do as he is told. Most people who have joined recently or join now must know they will be going to war at some point. I have a friend who is still in and she has been in cyprus for the last 3 years doing pretty much hee haw and is yapping now as she is going on tour in the falklands. I asked her what she was expecting and got a shrug of the shoulders. I think some people expect the army to be a nice wee number and dont really know what its all about

If people joining the armed forces now think they are not going to be sent into a war zone, then they must be really stupid.

I know someone who has been in for about 4 years and wasn't sent to any of the 'hot spots'. Why? Because he was good at playing football, believe it or not, and was in the army team. Postings between Britain and Germany so he could play with the team. He has only just been posted to Afghanistan.

[AndyP]

Well done L/Cpl Joe Glenton who will lead the 'Bring the troops home from Afghanistan' march organised by Stop the War Coalition. He faces a court martial after refusing to return to Afghanistan, and is disobeying military orders to join the demonstration. Hats off to him, very brave.

Its classed as desertion, it isn't big, it isn't brave, it isn't smart and it isn't funny.

If he objected he could and should have signed off, he didn't and instead left his mates in the lurch and somebody who had just come back from a hot sandy place, had to go back out to cover for the piece of ****.

[AndyP]

If people joining the armed forces now think they are not going to be sent into a war zone, then they must be really stupid.

I know someone who has been in for about 4 years and wasn't sent to any of the 'hot spots'. Why? Because he was good at playing football, believe it or not, and was in the army team. Postings between Britain and Germany so he could play with the team. He has only just been posted to Afghanistan.


You'll find that his records office will have sent him to units that contained the bulk of his corps/arms team and his missing deployments will have been down solely to luck of the arms plot. The days of guys being kept on rear party because of their sporting ability are long gone

[AndyP]

Why stupid? He has developed conscientious objections to the war, which is recognised by the UN Commision on Human Rights.


He joined the Army in 2004, we were already in Afghanistan and were getting embedded into Iraq by the time he decided to take the shilling. His subsequent objection to the war is horse dung, he just didn't fancy another trip to hot zone and couldn't get signed off in time.

It's OK he'll be officially out the Army very shortly, although his subsequent stretch at HMs pleasure will not be long enough it will at least mark him as unreliable to any future employer and prevent him getting any job that requires a CRB check.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Either this guy confesses to being mad, and accepts treatment, or he'll be facing a court marshall. This prompts the question - is he insane to cast doubt on the purposes of the war in Afghanistan? It's the same thing they did to Sassoon in WW1.

[sleeping giant]

Its classed as desertion, it isn't big, it isn't brave, it isn't smart and it isn't funny.

If he objected he could and should have signed off, he didn't and instead left his mates in the lurch and somebody who had just come back from a hot sandy place, had to go back out to cover for the piece of ****.

I agree with that:agree:

[ArabHibee]

You'll find that his records office will have sent him to units that contained the bulk of his corps/arms team and his missing deployments will have been down solely to luck of the arms plot. The days of guys being kept on rear party because of their sporting ability are long gone

Thanks for clearing that up Andy. Lots of very good luck IMO!!

[hibsdaft]

His subsequent objection to the war is horse dung, he just didn't fancy another trip to hot zone and couldn't get signed off in time.

that doesn't explain his very public protest though does it?

haven't there been many going AWOL/ deserting in the last few years but only this guy is doing these protests which suggests to me that it is a matter of conviction whether people agree with it or not.

personally not sure how i feel about this, certainly not for me to condemn him as i have never been to war but not really comfortable with it either.

[Betty Boop]

Its classed as desertion, it isn't big, it isn't brave, it isn't smart and it isn't funny.

If he objected he could and should have signed off, he didn't and instead left his mates in the lurch and somebody who had just come back from a hot sandy place, had to go back out to cover for the piece of ****.

Who is saying it is big, smart and funny? I would imagine the guy knows fully the consequences of his actions, so he is brave to take this stance IMO.

[--------]

Who is saying it is big, smart and funny? I would imagine the guy knows fully the consequences of his actions, so he is brave to take this stance IMO.


:agree: The consequences could be dire. Easy way out is to buy himself out - doing what he's doing certainly suggests to me that his stance IS a conscientious one.

I believe that there's a difference between 'desertion' and 'refusing duty', btw - 'desertion' is what it says on the tin, disappearing AWOL without explanation. 'Refusing duty' is what this lad has done - saying 'no' to a particular order, stating his reasons, and staying around to take the consequences.

[AndyP]

Who is saying it is big, smart and funny? I would imagine the guy knows fully the consequences of his actions, so he is brave to take this stance IMO.

Wonder if the coward would be as brave if desertion was still a capital offence (God damn the Human Rights Act).

Oh and if he wanted to be so brave he wouldn't been on the run for over 2 years before deciding to hand himself in, obviously life on the outside without dosh wasn't what he imagined (and yes I know off him, the jungle drums have a long reach within the "triangle").

Many soldiers have disagreed with the war and used their legal right to express their disconcern, in fact many have written to the papers about it making their opinion public. Only in 2 cases have they thought that they could get out of their duty by deserting, Glenton will get whats coming to him, either in MCTC or when he gets to Chelmsford nick.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Wonder if the coward would be as brave if desertion was still a capital offence (God damn the Human Rights Act).

Oh and if he wanted to be so brave he wouldn't been on the run for over 2 years before deciding to hand himself in, obviously life on the outside without dosh wasn't what he imagined (and yes I know off him, the jungle drums have a long reach within the "triangle").

Many soldiers have disagreed with the war and used their legal right to express their disconcern, in fact many have written to the papers about it making their opinion public. Only in 2 cases have they thought that they could get out of their duty by deserting, Glenton will get whats coming to him, either in MCTC or when he gets to Chelmsford nick.

Interesting stuff, it's easy for us on the outside to speculate, but it's good to get another angle on the story.

Out of interest, do you think he is using the anti-wae campaigners, or is it the other way round? I know that a lot of these types don't give a sh*t about the soldiers, and are happy to have one on board to get people to listen to them.

[--------]

Wonder if the coward would be as brave if desertion was still a capital offence (God damn the Human Rights Act).

Oh and if he wanted to be so brave he wouldn't been on the run for over 2 years before deciding to hand himself in, obviously life on the outside without dosh wasn't what he imagined (and yes I know off him, the jungle drums have a long reach within the "triangle").

Many soldiers have disagreed with the war and used their legal right to express their disconcern, in fact many have written to the papers about it making their opinion public. Only in 2 cases have they thought that they could get out of their duty by deserting, Glenton will get whats coming to him, either in MCTC or when he gets to Chelmsford nick.


Andy, what exactly do you know about this guy? I'm going on what I'm reading in the papers - if that's inaccurate, I'd like to know what IS accurate?

[AndyP]

I was wondering when something like this would happen. IMO it's been coming for a while.

I would imagine that the only legal basis upon which he can refuse duty this way is on the grounds that the war in Afghanistan is illegal in international law and that therefore his orders to report back to duty in Afghanistan are illegal. Whatever happens, he has a long and difficult road ahead of him.

Nope, both the Hague protocols and Geneva Conventions make it clear that soldiers are not accountable in a court of law for a governments waging of an illegal war, only for his personal conduct during it can he be held accountable.

[--------]

Nope, both the Hague protocols and Geneva Conventions make it clear that soldiers are not accountable in a court of law for a governments waging of an illegal war, only for his personal conduct during it can he be held accountable.


OK. Can you answer my other question - truly not being argumentative, just seeking the information.

[AndyP]

Andy, what exactly do you know about this guy? I'm going on what I'm reading in the papers - if that's inaccurate, I'd like to know what IS accurate?

I know OF him on a short professional acquaintence, still have many friends and contacts down in the Oxford base and I keep in touch with them as well. Glenton was posted to the base just before I left let's just say first impressions were not favourable but I must stress that this is a personal opinion (granted the same one a few others shared though).

His "bigging" up of the stress of his role in the 'Stan also brings up a lot of questions, his claims that because he sent the coffins "up country" he was traumatised, yeah right!!!!

You need to try and read a bit deeper into his claims as well, again I know what job he was doing over there so it makes it easier for me but I wont comment on any potential PTSD problems, events hit us all differently and at different times for instance I can't stand the smell of hospitals because of events that happened in Bosnia over 15 years ago.

However I would question why he only became an objector when he knew he was going back out and I would also question the role that his wife "may" have played in his decision to desert. There is little chance of him getting away with it, the RAF doctors Courts Martial set the precedence that it was an illegal war.

[--------]

I know OF him on a short professional acquaintence, still have many friends and contacts down in the Oxford base and I keep in touch with them as well. Glenton was posted to the base just before I left let's just say first impressions were not favourable but I must stress that this is a personal opinion (granted the same one a few others shared though).

His "bigging" up of the stress of his role in the 'Stan also brings up a lot of questions, his claims that because he sent the coffins "up country" he was traumatised, yeah right!!!!

You need to try and read a bit deeper into his claims as well, again I know what job he was doing over there so it makes it easier for me but I wont comment on any potential PTSD problems, events hit us all differently and at different times for instance I can't stand the smell of hospitals because of events that happened in Bosnia over 15 years ago.

However I would question why he only became an objector when he knew he was going back out and I would also question the role that his wife "may" have played in his decision to desert. There is little chance of him getting away with it, the RAF doctors Courts Martial set the precedence that it was an illegal war.

Ta. That's very helpful. Doesn't sound from that like the sort of principled stand I thought it might be. Cheers.

[hibsdaft]

Andy - you seem to be saying that he wasn't doing a frontline, stressful job over there (i understand he was a fork lift driver) but you're calling him a coward at the same time. what was it he feared?

i still don't see why he'd be doing this public protest if he didn't mean it - unless it was simply for attention that is, but that doesn't seem to be your argument. are you saying he's simply using the public protest to try and get out of his punishment by making it a political decision ?

[Betty Boop]

Wonder if the coward would be as brave if desertion was still a capital offence (God damn the Human Rights Act).

Oh and if he wanted to be so brave he wouldn't been on the run for over 2 years before deciding to hand himself in, obviously life on the outside without dosh wasn't what he imagined (and yes I know off him, the jungle drums have a long reach within the "triangle").

Many soldiers have disagreed with the war and used their legal right to express their disconcern, in fact many have written to the papers about it making their opinion public. Only in 2 cases have they thought that they could get out of their duty by deserting, Glenton will get whats coming to him, either in MCTC or when he gets to Chelmsford nick.

You would seriously want somebody killed that doesn't want to fight in an illegal war? Jeezo!

[AndyP]

Andy - you seem to be saying that he wasn't doing a frontline, stressful job over there (i understand he was a fork lift driver) but you're calling him a coward at the same time. what was it he feared?

i still don't see why he'd be doing this public protest if he didn't mean it - unless it was simply for attention that is, but that doesn't seem to be your argument. are you saying he's simply using the public protest to try and get out of his punishment by making it a political decision ?


Glenton was not out patrolling the Green Zones, AFAIA, now whether or not he was in a Forward Logistics Base though is another matter however the level of immediate stress on the rear echelon guys is a lot less than the grunts in the front, there is stress in whatever combat zone you're in but it is different and slightly easier to handle.

I don't know what the man was frightened off although I do suspect that the realisation that his future career would see him in Afghanistan 6 months out of every 18 may have made him think twice about his mortality, but it is no more or less than most guys in the Corps are being asked to do.

I tend to side with the opinion that he is using the STW gig to try and garner some public sympathy and somehow ease the sentance, fat chance IMO. Military Courts Martial are barebones justice, no jury and a 3 man panel including one Judge and 2 Officers with not much sympathy in regards to public outbursts by the accused. Plus if you're going to play the Concientious Objector (and those guys really were morally brave) you can't throw in as a defence after you have commited the crime it needs to have been known before hand.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:23 PM ----------


You would seriously want somebody killed that doesn't want to fight in an illegal war? Jeezo!

The Afghan conflict is not illegal,FACT END OFF!!!! UN REsoloution 1890 (2009) is the current one authorising ISAF presence in the country, check it out and all the others that are listed as being reaffirmed. No such resoloutions were published for Iraq, BIG difference.

Don't get it mixed up with the Iraq invasion which didn't fulfill the criteria for a state to engage in war

EDITED TO ADD

Do you really think Glenton would have deserted had there been the chance he would be hung (highly unlikely event anyway since we didn't execute one deserter during the Second World War and there was a fair number of them BTW). Because that would have shown just how much a man of conviction the little scrote bag was

[Betty Boop]

The Afghan conflict is not illegal,FACT END OFF!!!!

Don't get it mixed up with the Iraq invasion which didn't fulfill the criteria for a state to engage in war



A fact which is disputed.

“
"The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men - 15 from Saudi Arabia - did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal."
”

— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild[3][4]

[AndyP]

The Afghan conflict is not illegal,FACT END OFF!!!!

Don't get it mixed up with the Iraq invasion which didn't fulfill the criteria for a state to engage in war



A fact which is disputed.

“
"The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men - 15 from Saudi Arabia - did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal."
”

— Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild[3][4]

Read the Security Council resoloutions, these are the frameworks which in an international court would be directed by should the bring a nation (or it's government) to trial. The resoloution for ISAF to go into Afghanistan under Security Council orders is framed within, the last resoloution number I gave is the current one authorising these forces to remain in situ. Ergo the war in Afghanistan is not illegal as the original reasoning is still current, again check the resoloutions.

[Nakedmanoncrack]

Its classed as desertion, it isn't big, it isn't brave, it isn't smart and it isn't funny.

If he objected he could and should have signed off, he didn't and instead left his mates in the lurch and somebody who had just come back from a hot sandy place, had to go back out to cover for the piece of ****.

But of course as a fellow volunteer who knew the risks that big brave mate could have no complaints about being in the lurch and having to go back to cover for him though.

[Sir David Gray]

So let me get this straight, this is a guy who joined the army in 2004 (THREE YEARS after the war in Afghanistan had started). He must have known that there was a better than even money chance that as soon as he signed up, he would be sent to Afghanistan. If he didn't realise that then, at best, he is extremely naive.

I don't believe that it is up to a soldier to debate the legalities of war. The politicians make the decisions and they are the ones who should be held accountable for their decisions. All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.

Imagine if all our Armed Forces personnel had the same attitude as L/Cpl Glenton. We would be in a very worrying state.

[Phil D. Rolls]

So let me get this straight, this is a guy who joined the army in 2004 (THREE YEARS after the war in Afghanistan had started). He must have known that there was a better than even money chance that as soon as he signed up, he would be sent to Afghanistan. If he didn't realise that then, at best, he is extremely naive.

I don't believe that it is up to a soldier to debate the legalities of war. The politicians make the decisions and they are the ones who should be held accountable for their decisions. All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.

Imagine if all our Armed Forces personnel had the same attitude as L/Cpl Glenton. We would be in a very worrying state.

This case aside, are there not situations where soldiers can act on conscience and refuse to carry out an order? For example, if they were asked to shoot innocent civilians.

I don't know if that is the case, but I'd be interested what the legal position is.

[AndyP]

But of course as a fellow volunteer who knew the risks that big brave mate could have no complaints about being in the lurch and having to go back to cover for him though.


The guy turned took it on the chin (admittedly after a good whinge to those in the vacinity) but not once did the thought of deserting enter his head (the thought of the car he was going to buy with the extra cash certainly did though :greengrin)

[AndyP]

This case aside, are there not situations where soldiers can act on conscience and refuse to carry out an order? For example, if they were asked to shoot innocent civilians.

I don't know if that is the case, but I'd be interested what the legal position is.


The legal position is that a soldier can not be held responsible for the actions of his government therefore participating in a war is not illegal however his conduct during any conflict is controlled by 4 things:

Geneva Convention (the example you gave)
United Kingdom Criminal and Civil Law
The Law of the Country in which he is serving
Manual of Military Law

Which ever law holds the offence is the one he is tried under, although the military will attempt to take primacy when dealing or investigating a criminal offence on an operation.

[Green Mikey]

All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.



Even to Auschvitz to commit genocide?


The legal position is that a soldier can not be held responsible for the actions of his government therefore participating in a war is not illegal however his conduct during any conflict is controlled by 4 things:

Geneva Convention (the example you gave)
United Kingdom Criminal and Civil Law
The Law of the Country in which he is serving
Manual of Military Law

Which ever law holds the offence is the one he is tried under, although the military will attempt to take primacy when dealing or investigating a criminal offence on an operation.

Rules and laws. Surely people are not always bound to the rules that are determined by the state or military. At some point people will always choose to make a stand outwith these boundaries.

IMO If someone decides that war is wrong and conscientously objects then it has little do with the punishment that courts will impose for his decision or how international law categorises the conflict. The fear of being punished for illegal actions is not what motivates these people, it is the desire not to be involved in the conflict.

[Dashing Bob S]

As an ex-army chap who opposes the war in Afghanistan, I can see both sides. The last thing any solider wants is to be around someone who isn't pulling their weight and is undermining you and your comrades.

However, he's been in the army for three years before the war, has presumably thought about it, and made a judgment.

As a citizen in a democracy, people are entitled to think, deliberate and change their minds. As a solider, it's almost taken as given that you suspend a large part of that element, and focus entirely on operational issues. That's the conflict.

I do have to say though, that people who accuse him of cowardice are wide of the mark. It takes a different kind of courage to do what he's done; the fact is I believe that most people in his situation would rather face the lottery of enemy bullets and landmines than the certain wrath of the state. Our government and military establishments will not look kindly on this behaviour (to be fair, they simply can't afford to, for reasons expressed here) and their justice in this matter is certain to have a vengeful aspect.

An interesting subject but an important one. I agree that this will become more common over the years. It raises issues about the future of the armed forces in a supposedly modern, democratic, rights-orientated society.

[Twa Cairpets]

Even to Auschvitz to commit genocide?



Rules and laws. Surely people are not always bound to the rules that are determined by the state or military. At some point people will always choose to make a stand outwith these boundaries.

IMO If someone decides that war is wrong and conscientously objects then it has little do with the punishment that courts will impose for his decision or how international law categorises the conflict. The fear of being punished for illegal actions is not what motivates these people, it is the desire not to be involved in the conflict.

GreenMikey you have very selective reading of Andys very clear information on this subject. The comparison with Auschwitz is crass in the extreme. Current rules regarding the conduct of soldiers are in place exactly to ensure as far as possible that such atrocities are not carried out in future. comparing Nazi camp guards with the current UK military is genuinely offensive.

On your second point, if you want to object to the war, dont become a soldier. If there is any place or career in the world where adherence to rules, laws and instructions is utterly critical, I would have thought that beng a soldier in Afghanistan would be it.

[--------]

Even to Auschvitz to commit genocide?

Most armies admit the concept of unlawful orders in their Code of Military law. The British Army certainly does, and the Nuremberg defence ("I vass only obeyink orders") is no defence for a British soldier if he or she is accused of a criminal offence in terms of the four codes Andy has listed above.

There are actually quite a number of recorded instances where German soldiers either refused postings to units involved in genocide, or refused to obey orders to commit acts of genocide, during the Second World War. they might have found themselves posted to nasty places, but they weren't just put up against walls and shot.

Rules and laws. Surely people are not always bound to the rules that are determined by the state or military. At some point people will always choose to make a stand outwith these boundaries.

IMO If someone decides that war is wrong and conscientously objects then it has little do with the punishment that courts will impose for his decision or how international law categorises the conflict. The fear of being punished for illegal actions is not what motivates these people, it is the desire not to be involved in the conflict.


There's a difference between a moral objection to taking part in a particular war and refusing duty on the grounds that the orders you have been issued with are illegal.

In the first case all you can do is state your objection and take the consequences. This usually will involve a fair degree of unpleasantness. In some countries it will probably mean a painful but not necessarily rapid end to your life.

In the second case you argue your case before a tribunal or court. If that tribunal or court is a fair one, your case will be judged on its merits. If not, then you're deep in the brown stuff again.

But there are a number of cases on record in a number of countries - including the UK and USA - of enlisted men refusing illegal orders and being vindicated - either at a court-martial, or simply by the fact that no court-martial was held.

[Phil D. Rolls]

GreenMikey you have very selective reading of Andys very clear information on this subject. The comparison with Auschwitz is crass in the extreme. Current rules regarding the conduct of soldiers are in place exactly to ensure as far as possible that such atrocities are not carried out in future. comparing Nazi camp guards with the current UK military is genuinely offensive.

On your second point, if you want to object to the war, dont become a soldier. If there is any place or career in the world where adherence to rules, laws and instructions is utterly critical, I would have thought that beng a soldier in Afghanistan would be it.

I'm not stirring it here, I'm genuinely curious. What if the government takes troops to war on one pretext, and then changes its objectives once the conflict is underway. Where would a soldier stand morally if he decided that he could not accept the new objective?

I know that in the first war, people like Siegfried Sassoon caused a furore by refusing to fight until such time as the government clearly stated what the objectives of the war were. That makes sense to me, because if you are being asked to kill somebody you would surely want to know in your own mind that it was a just and necessary action.

[Green Mikey]

GreenMikey you have very selective reading of Andys very clear information on this subject. The comparison with Auschwitz is crass in the extreme. Current rules regarding the conduct of soldiers are in place exactly to ensure as far as possible that such atrocities are not carried out in future. comparing Nazi camp guards with the current UK military is genuinely offensive.

On your second point, if you want to object to the war, dont become a soldier. If there is any place or career in the world where adherence to rules, laws and instructions is utterly critical, I would have thought that beng a soldier in Afghanistan would be it.

TwoCarpets you have selective reading of my post on this subject at what point did I compare the UK military with Nazis when I posed a hypothetical question to Falkirk. If you read my post again I was responding to Falkirks assertion that 'All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.'.

Again re my second, I was commenting on the why I think people object to war. A few posts have centred on the argument that the soldier in question is objecting due to the war is due to the legality of the war and possible prosecution for his part. IMO motivation for objecting may not come form the legality of the war but from the soldier not wanting to take part in something that is now contrary to his morals.

[Green Mikey]

There's a difference between a moral objection to taking part in a particular war and refusing duty on the grounds that the orders you have been issued with are illegal.

In the first case all you can do is state your objection and take the consequences. This usually will involve a fair degree of unpleasantness. In some countries it will probably mean a painful but not necessarily rapid end to your life.

In the second case you argue your case before a tribunal or court. If that tribunal or court is a fair one, your case will be judged on its merits. If not, then you're deep in the brown stuff again.

But there are a number of cases on record in a number of countries - including the UK and USA - of enlisted men refusing illegal orders and being vindicated - either at a court-martial, or simply by the fact that no court-martial was held.


Thanks for the info Doddie, this is what I was getting at with my post. There is a structure in place where soldiers can question the legality of order.

[Twa Cairpets]

TwoCarpets you have selective reading of my post on this subject at what point did I compare the UK military with Nazis when I posed a hypothetical question to Falkirk. If you read my post again I was responding to Falkirks assertion that 'All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.'.



The hypothetical point you raised was, indirectly at least, comparing the requirement for a British soldier to obey an order legally given and the oft repeated example of "I was only obeying orders" in relation to Auschwitz.

The two are incomparable examples, and do nothing to advance your argument.

[BravestHibs]

GreenMikey you have very selective reading of Andys very clear information on this subject. The comparison with Auschwitz is crass in the extreme. Current rules regarding the conduct of soldiers are in place exactly to ensure as far as possible that such atrocities are not carried out in future. comparing Nazi camp guards with the current UK military is genuinely offensive.

On your second point, if you want to object to the war, dont become a soldier. If there is any place or career in the world where adherence to rules, laws and instructions is utterly critical, I would have thought that beng a soldier in Afghanistan would be it.

I'm pretty sure people join the forces with a view to helping their country defend itself or go into war to fight on the side of good. What happens then, when the government you signed up to protect makes decisions such as going to Iraq to steal oil?(I'm aware that's a simplistic way of putting it but you get my drift)

From what you're saying, a soldier has to keep their end of the bargain no matter what but the government can do whatever it likes? The soldiers who joined up under one pretence, such as protecting the citizens of his/her country, suddenly finds themselves in the regrettable situation of having to kill civilians for no good reason other than securing Tony Blairs legacy and yet they have to carry on because 'they became a soldier'. I have to say I don't really agree with your logic on this one.

[Green Mikey]

The hypothetical point you raised was, indirectly at least, comparing the requirement for a British soldier to obey an order legally given and the oft repeated example of "I was only obeying orders" in relation to Auschwitz.

The two are incomparable examples, and do nothing to advance your argument.

Falkirk said soldiers should always undertake their orders. I used a historical example in the form of a question pertaining to the the atrocities commited during WW2 to highlight my point in relation to his post. It seems clear that I was challenging the concept that a soldier should always follow orders not attacking the UK military.

You don't think this point advances my argument however at least I have an argument not unfounded and emotive responses that that have little resemblance to a coherent argument.

[hibbytam]

Quite interested by this thread. Personally against all forms of murder, so I struggle to have any sympathy for the army/MoD.

Anyway, if anyone's interested, there's a program on 4OD about the conscious objectors from the first world war.

link.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/not-forgotten/4od#3005549

[marinello59]

Quite interested by this thread. Personally against all forms of murder, so I struggle to have any sympathy for the army/MoD.
Anyway, if anyone's interested, there's a program on 4OD about the conscious objectors from the first world war.

link.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/not-forgotten/4od#3005549

Why not just say you are a pacifist rather than label soldiers as murderers?

[AndyP]

I'm not stirring it here, I'm genuinely curious. What if the government takes troops to war on one pretext, and then changes its objectives once the conflict is underway. Where would a soldier stand morally if he decided that he could not accept the new objective?

I know that in the first war, people like Siegfried Sassoon caused a furore by refusing to fight until such time as the government clearly stated what the objectives of the war were. That makes sense to me, because if you are being asked to kill somebody you would surely want to know in your own mind that it was a just and necessary action.


Soldier is unaffected as he cannot be held responsible for the actions of his governmen, one of the reasons that Argentinian Soldiers were not hauled over the coals for the invasion of the Falklands. The head of their Junta and its cabinet were, however, prosecuted IIRC.

[AndyP]

Thanks for the info Doddie, this is what I was getting at with my post. There is a structure in place where soldiers can question the legality of order.

Yes there is a structure in place and despite the often held belief, soldiers are not non thinking automatons, in fact they are encouraged to question and reason things they are told, there is though a time and a place and the middle of a fire fight is not one of those.

If we use your Auschwitz analogy for a second, a soldier cannot legally refuse an order to go there however he should refuse the order to shoot a prisoner or take an active part in herding them into the gas chambers. Likewise he couldn't refuse the order to stand guard in one of the towers or main entrance or treat in a medical facility or even cook food for the prisoners or staff.

[Sergio sledge]

Am I right in thinking he actually went AWOL in 2007, and went on the run to Asia, or Australia, before finally deciding to hand himself in in 2009?

Where were his conscientious objections in 2007? Surely there is a structure in place for these people who have these objections to have their case heard fairly? If so why didn't he do this in the first place instead of running off and hiding for two years?

[Twa Cairpets]

Falkirk said soldiers should always undertake their orders. I used a historical example in the form of a question pertaining to the the atrocities commited during WW2 to highlight my point in relation to his post. It seems clear that I was challenging the concept that a soldier should always follow orders not attacking the UK military.

You don't think this point advances my argument however at least I have an argument not unfounded and emotive responses that that have little resemblance to a coherent argument.

Run that one by me again?

If an order is given that contravenes the prevailing articles and rules of war/engagement then they are illegal and clearly should not be followed.

AndyP I think had explained this pretty succintly above.

I would like to think that I was trying to be coherent, if not a little black and white on the matter.

I'm not in the army, nor have I ever been, but I do believe that the standing army of the UK should be deployed to whatever theatre of operations is deemed best for them to be the democratically elected Government of the day. If the populationdecide this is not the right thing to do, then vote the politicians out. Dont undermine the serving soldiers.

[Green Mikey]

Run that one by me again?

If an order is given that contravenes the prevailing articles and rules of war/engagement then they are illegal and clearly should not be followed.

AndyP I think had explained this pretty succintly above.

I would like to think that I was trying to be coherent, if not a little black and white on the matter.

I'm not in the army, nor have I ever been, but I do believe that the standing army of the UK should be deployed to whatever theatre of operations is deemed best for them to be the democratically elected Government of the day. If the populationdecide this is not the right thing to do, then vote the politicians out. Dont undermine the serving soldiers.

I won't run it by you again because it is clearly evident that you can't comprehend my posts. It seems you have tarred me as some kind of 'anti-soldier' person without taking due time and consideration to understand the point that I was making.

[Twa Cairpets]

I won't run it by you again because it is clearly evident that you can't comprehend my posts. It seems you have tarred me as some kind of 'anti-soldier' person without taking due time and consideration to understand the point that I was making.

Ok. Here are all your posts - your responses enboldened

#36
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee

All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.

Even to Auschvitz to commit genocide?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyP
The legal position is that a soldier can not be held responsible for the actions of his government therefore participating in a war is not illegal however his conduct during any conflict is controlled by 4 things:

Geneva Convention (the example you gave)
United Kingdom Criminal and Civil Law
The Law of the Country in which he is serving
Manual of Military Law

Which ever law holds the offence is the one he is tried under, although the military will attempt to take primacy when dealing or investigating a criminal offence on an operation.

Rules and laws. Surely people are not always bound to the rules that are determined by the state or military. At some point people will always choose to make a stand outwith these boundaries.

IMO If someone decides that war is wrong and conscientously objects then it has little do with the punishment that courts will impose for his decision or how international law categorises the conflict. The fear of being punished for illegal actions is not what motivates these people, it is the desire not to be involved in the conflict.

#41
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
GreenMikey you have very selective reading of Andys very clear information on this subject. The comparison with Auschwitz is crass in the extreme. Current rules regarding the conduct of soldiers are in place exactly to ensure as far as possible that such atrocities are not carried out in future. comparing Nazi camp guards with the current UK military is genuinely offensive.

On your second point, if you want to object to the war, dont become a soldier. If there is any place or career in the world where adherence to rules, laws and instructions is utterly critical, I would have thought that beng a soldier in Afghanistan would be it.

TwoCarpets you have selective reading of my post on this subject at what point did I compare the UK military with Nazis when I posed a hypothetical question to Falkirk. If you read my post again I was responding to Falkirks assertion that 'All members of the Armed Forces are there to take orders and they should always undertake those orders and go wherever they are sent.'.

Again re my second, I was commenting on the why I think people object to war. A few posts have centred on the argument that the soldier in question is objecting due to the war is due to the legality of the war and possible prosecution for his part. IMO motivation for objecting may not come form the legality of the war but from the soldier not wanting to take part in something that is now contrary to his morals.


#42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doddie
There's a difference between a moral objection to taking part in a particular war and refusing duty on the grounds that the orders you have been issued with are illegal.

In the first case all you can do is state your objection and take the consequences. This usually will involve a fair degree of unpleasantness. In some countries it will probably mean a painful but not necessarily rapid end to your life.

In the second case you argue your case before a tribunal or court. If that tribunal or court is a fair one, your case will be judged on its merits. If not, then you're deep in the brown stuff again.

But there are a number of cases on record in a number of countries - including the UK and USA - of enlisted men refusing illegal orders and being vindicated - either at a court-martial, or simply by the fact that no court-martial was held.

Thanks or the info Doddie, this is what I was getting at with my post. There is a structure in place where soldiers can question the legality of order.

#45
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
The hypothetical point you raised was, indirectly at least, comparing the requirement for a British soldier to obey an order legally given and the oft repeated example of "I was only obeying orders" in relation to Auschwitz.

The two are incomparable examples, and do nothing to advance your argument.

Falkirk said soldiers should always undertake their orders. I used a historical example in the form of a question pertaining to the the atrocities commited during WW2 to highlight my point in relation to his post. It seems clear that I was challenging the concept that a soldier should always follow orders not attacking the UK military.

You don't think this point advances my argument however at least I have an argument not unfounded and emotive responses that that have little resemblance to a coherent argument.

Right. I've re-read them, and I dont think Ive tarred you with anything. Your posts suggest - rightly or wrongly - that a soldier should have the right to dispute orders or object to the moral righteousness (my words) of a conflict.

Your first contribution on the thread referred to Auschwitz. Now call me a cynic, but for you to then throw a hissy-fit because someone responds "emotively" suggests to me that it might not have been the best thought out opening gambit.

I hope I've made what I think relatively clear - but as this whole question is divided between points of view on (a) the appropriateness of a serving soldier leading an anti-war demo, and (b) the wider question of the extent of the validity of an individuals soldiers view on the morality of a war or specific actions within a war (both of which are moral debates rather than absolutes), the nature of it is is to discuss and explore ideas, rather than seek scientific evidence. I'd like to hear your views if you want to retrieve your toys from the side of the pram.

[Green Mikey]

GreenMikey you have very selective reading of Andys very clear information on this subject. The comparison with Auschwitz is crass in the extreme. Current rules regarding the conduct of soldiers are in place exactly to ensure as far as possible that such atrocities are not carried out in future. .


The two are incomparable examples, and do nothing to advance your argument.


I'd like to hear your views if you want to retrieve your toys from the side of the pram.

My toys are firmly inside the proverbial pram. **cough** **cough** hissy fit? Read above.



comparing Nazi camp guards with the current UK military is genuinely offensive

After reading my posts again, after you kindly highlighted them, I never made this comparison.



Dont undermine the serving soldiers.

At what point did I mention serving soldiers in my posts? Maybe you need to read them again...

I think my accusation of you misinterpreting my posts is justified considering the two quoteas above.

The other posters on this thread have posted good balanced answers on this subject and some in response to my posts. At no point did I intend to antagonise with using Aushvitz as an example I was trying to question an assertion made by FalkirkHibs using a real life example.

[Twa Cairpets]

My toys are firmly inside the proverbial pram. **cough** **cough** hissy fit? Read above.




After reading my posts again, after you kindly highlighted them, I never made this comparison.




At what point did I mention serving soldiers in my posts? Maybe you need to read them again...

I think my accusation of you misinterpreting my posts is justified considering the two quoteas above.

The other posters on this thread have posted good balanced answers on this subject and some in response to my posts. At no point did I intend to antagonise with using Aushvitz as an example I was trying to question an assertion made by FalkirkHibs using a real life example.

But not a very good or relevant one. That was all I was saying.

[Hibrandenburg]

Well done L/Cpl Joe Glenton who will lead the 'Bring the troops home from Afghanistan' march organised by Stop the War Coalition. He faces a court martial after refusing to return to Afghanistan, and is disobeying military orders to join the demonstration. Hats off to him, very brave.

Personally I think the lads who're out on the front line trying to stop the Taliban monster from oppressing/murdering/raping/robbing and generally raking havoc amongst the locals to be the brave ones and not this quisling who undermines the sacrifices of his mates and the lads already brought home in boxes by his actions.

Hope the army throw the book at him, throw him in a cell and then throw away the key.

[hibbytam]

Why not just say you are a pacifist rather than label soldiers as murderers?

Soldiers kill. People who kill are murders. Seems simple, really.
And yes, on the other side, their soldiers kill, their soldiers are also murderers. Not taking sides. I just think there's something better we all could be doing with our time.

[ArabHibee]

Soldiers kill. People who kill are murders. Seems simple, really.
And yes, on the other side, their soldiers kill, their soldiers are also murderers. Not taking sides. I just think there's something better we all could be doing with our time.

That's a very naive view if you think that, IMO.

[marinello59]

Soldiers kill. People who kill are murders. Seems simple, really.
And yes, on the other side, their soldiers kill, their soldiers are also murderers. Not taking sides. I just think there's something better we all could be doing with our time.

So are you saying we should have no Armed Services at all? If it really is that simple then I look forward to reading your reasoning.