what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[brogdale]

Well if you want to join you have to play by their rules.

err...exactly.

 

[Sasaferrato]

well you are supposed to not obey an order you know to be illegal but I don't know how that squares with the oath.

It squares perfectly well. If ordered to shoot an unarmed prisoner, then you refuse the order. That is absolutely black and white.

The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are much more problematic, decisions taken at a much higher leveltha

Does raise the issue of conflict that Dotty raised...oath says all orders must be obeyed, but LOAC says not so if illegal.

e2a : Army's own manual appears unwilling to acknowledge that a refusal to obey orders might well be the correct course of action for a soldier...

Selective posting is selective posting. Unfortunately, I don't have a MML to hand, and am unable to provide a direct quote, but, right from the very beginning of basic training it is made quite clear that an order may be illegal. Our squad corporals used a very simple example. 'Go and pick up litter around the barracks' is a perfectly legal order 'Go round to my quarter and mow the lawn' is not. An illegal order should not be obeyed, and the soldier has protection under Military Law for refusing. Obeying an illegal order opens the soldier to the consequences of doing so. Political indoctrination was not part of basic training, the Geneva Convention was.

 

[brogdale]

It squares perfectly well. If ordered to shoot an unarmed prisoner, then you refuse the order. That is absolutely black and white.

The engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are much more problematic, decisions taken at a much higher leveltha


Selective posting is selective posting. Unfortunately, I don't have a MML to hand, and am unable to provide a direct quote, but, right from the very beginning of basic training it is made quite clear that an order may be illegal. Our squad corporals used a very simple example. 'Go and pick up litter around the barracks' is a perfectly legal order 'Go round to my quarter and mow the lawn' is not. An illegal order should not be obeyed, and the soldier has protection under Military Law for refusing. Obeying an illegal order opens the soldier to the consequences of doing so. Political indoctrination was not part of basic training, the Geneva Convention was.

Which, once again, kinda begs the question about the wording of the oath. If service personnel, from the very outset of their induction, are expected to interpret the legality of orders they are given, and act according to the LOAC, why would the solemn oath commit them to the very opposite?

 

[Lo Siento.]

It is or course a coincidence that soldiers commit themselves to following orders (with no legal caveats) and the fact that historically they've committed all this torture, those extrajudicial killings and war crimes. But still if you don't fancy it you can just quietly resign I suppose - anything else would just be cowardly attention-seeking

 

[coley]

That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....

How can anyone with any dignity swear that?

Aye trooping back and forward to the dole office, jumping through the hoops laid out by the 'officers' of the DWP, or trudging/ commuting back and forth to a dead end job,having to obey the instructions of the arseholes set above you! whey aye dignity inspiring stuff.

 

[Sasaferrato]

It is or course a coincidence that soldiers commit themselves to following orders (with no legal caveats) and the fact that historically they've committed all this torture, those extrajudicial killings and war crimes. But still if you don't fancy it you can just quietly resign I suppose - anything else would just be cowardly attention-seeking

Never served, did you? Thought not.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Some people have some very odd misconceptions regarding the military, but takes all sort I suppose.

Only those who have never served, ergo haven't a fucking clue. Doesn't stop them expounding on a subject of which they have no knowledge of course.

I would dearly have loved to have had one or two of them under my direct command.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That's as maybe, but anyone serving swore that oath....

How can anyone with any dignity swear that?

I take it the concept of service and the necessary discipline are alien to you?

 

[brogdale]

Which, once again, kinda begs the question about the wording of the oath. If service personnel, from the very outset of their induction, are expected to interpret the legality of orders they are given, and act according to the LOAC, why would the solemn oath commit them to the very opposite?

Yeah, the old "if you ain't done it, you can't comment on it" line. Brilliant!

Doesn't stop me asking questions that you seem unwilling to engage with, though.

****radio silence continues****

 

[brogdale]

I take it the concept of service and the necessary discipline are alien to you?

Yeah, completely alien if they can only occur after swearing an oath that contradicts the very basis upon which that disciplined 'service' depends.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Never served, did you? Thought not.

Have you ever been a Labour MP, sas?

 

[coley]

Yeah, completely alien if they can only occur after swearing an oath that contradicts the very basis upon which that disciplined 'service' depends.

How does it contradict it?

 

[brogdale]

How does it contradict it?

If what Sas says is correct, from the very outset of training a recruit would be under obligation of evaluate the legality of any order he/she was given, and acting according to the LOAC, refuse to obey if necessary. Oath says " I will.....observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me."

That.

 

[coley]

If what Sas says is correct, from the very outset of training a recruit would be under obligation of evaluate the legality of any order he/she was given, and acting according to the LOAC, refuse to obey if necessary. Oath says " I will.....observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me."

That.

You are taking it to daft levels of hairsplitting, but think on it, someone orders you to mow their lawn or kick the living daylights out of an unarmed prisoner you are perfectly entitled to refuse.
Someone else orders you to a secure a building while under fire than you are not entitled to refuse, that's the difference.
In the final analysis,when you take the shilling and the oath you are starting a process that ultimately could see you being killed and the oath and all the other archaic traditions that civvies find strange are part of the process of binding you to your unit and your mates.

 

[Lo Siento.]

You are taking it to daft levels of hairsplitting, but think on it, someone orders you to mow their lawn or kick the living daylights out of an unarmed prisoner you are perfectly entitled to refuse.
Someone else orders you to a secure a building while under fire than you are not entitled to refuse, that's the difference.
In the final analysis,when you take the shilling and the oath you are starting a process that ultimately could see you being killed and the oath and all the other archaic traditions that civvies find strange are part of the process of binding you to your unit and your mates.

History is not exactly littered with British Army soldiers refusing illegal orders, is it. (Whereas war crimes are pretty easy to find)

 

[coley]

History is not exactly littered with British Army soldiers refusing illegal orders, is it. (Whereas war crimes are pretty easy to find)

Because, on the whole,most in the British Army don't issue illegal orders.
Your other point, war crimes are easy to find? What few their are, are a matter of record, and I don't think 'war crimes' is an accurate description, instances of squaddies behaving badly are not 'war crimes' however the fact these incidents are a matter of public record should be a reassurance should it not?
And when you make reference to history, could you be a bit more specific? I tend to think of the contemporary British Army, wouldn't want you or others,making your points using Cromwell's modern army, ta.

 

[unitedbrands]

I'll wear a red one.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Because, on the whole,most in the British Army don't issue illegal orders.
Your other point, war crimes are easy to find? What few their are, are a matter of record, and I don't think 'war crimes' is an accurate description, instances of squaddies behaving badly are not 'war crimes' however the fact these incidents are a matter of public record should be a reassurance should it not?
And when you make reference to history, could you be a bit more specific? I tend to think of the contemporary British Army, wouldn't want you or others,making your points using Cromwell's modern army, ta.

Is Kenya modern enough for you? British troops acting under orders committed massacres, engaged in torture, mass forced displacement, extrajudicial executions, mutilation, forced labour and more.
Of course we only know all this because of the testimony of the people it happened to because the people who did it destroyed virtually all the documentation (with the approval of their superiors) and what remains is kept classified by the government for "national security reasons" (ie. Possible legal expenses).

 

[Pingu]

Is Kenya modern enough for you? British troops acting under orders committed massacres, engaged in torture, mass forced displacement, extrajudicial executions, mutilation, forced labour and more.
Of course we only know all this because of the testimony of the people it happened to because the people who did it destroyed virtually all the documentation (with the approval of their superiors) and what remains is kept classified by the government for "national security reasons" (ie. Possible legal expenses).

even sas isnt old enough to have served in the mau mau stuff

 

[littlebabyjesus]

even sas isnt old enough to have served in the mau mau stuff

Still, living memory, post-WW2. What has happened in Afghanistan/Iraq that we don't know about? We know something from what Bradley Manning revealed about US crimes. What did the UK do? It's naive to think that they would not have attempted to cover up a bad crime such as blowing up a school or hospital on purpose.

It's what happens when you start wars. And govts lie to their people about it, always. Yet somehow some people seem to think that this time it is different.

 

[Lo Siento.]

even sas isnt old enough to have served in the mau mau stuff

And?

I was answering the question as posed.
The British Army committed various war crimes in Kenya within living memory, then covered it up and the British state to date still denies responsibility for it.
As in, when British Army officers did issue illegal orders, many British soldiers did follow them unquestioningly. The resulting atrocities were neither examples of "squaddies behaving badly" nor were they accepted as a "matter of record" by the British government. No responsibility has been accepted by the British state and no soldier serving or retired was ever prosecuted for anything.

 

[toggle]

different age. different viewpoint. one which we see differently today
not exactly a direct comparison but when they used to burn witches at the stake it wasnt a punishment. they genuinely thought they were being merciful and cleansing the soul. its hard to look at different periods in time with the values we have today.

different viewpoint as long as it was w/c kids.

and no, the witch burnings were less to do with cleansing fire and more to do with who had the power and who could gain. the motives have changed little

 

[brogdale]

You are taking it to daft levels of hairsplitting, but think on it, someone orders you to mow their lawn or kick the living daylights out of an unarmed prisoner you are perfectly entitled to refuse.
Someone else orders you to a secure a building while under fire than you are not entitled to refuse, that's the difference.
In the final analysis,when you take the shilling and the oath you are starting a process that ultimately could see you being killed and the oath and all the other archaic traditions that civvies find strange are part of the process of binding you to your unit and your mates.

"Hairsplitting"? Really?

Try to face up to the objective facts...sworn oath says one thing, but the job requires something else (apparently). Surely your loyalty is not so deeply institutionalised that you can't see that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In modern warfare, war crimes are as often as not committed far from any front. They are not committed by men on the ground staring into the eyes of people they rape and murder. They are committed in a control room by people who will never even know exactly who they killed.

This is about far more than torturing prisoners (not to underplay how disgusting that is). The criminal orders also involve technicians flying unmanned drones and pressing a button. And the chain of responsibility for such crimes extends all the way back to the top.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thing is that said technician may never know that the order was criminal. They may never be told exactly what the target was, or they may be told a lie about it. They may have no way of knowing at the point of action whether or not they are being told to do a criminal thing, which for me means that in order to take responsibility for their actions, they must see far wider. They must in fact ask why they are there in the first place.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Meanwhile, the Royal Mint gets in on the act. Ah, Lord Kitchener lying to young lads so that he can have them killed. How lovely.

Only a fiver now. Bargain.

 

[coley]

And?

I was answering the question as posed.
The British Army committed various war crimes in Kenya within living memory, then covered it up and the British state to date still denies responsibility for it.
As in, when British Army officers did issue illegal orders, many British soldiers did follow them unquestioningly. The resulting atrocities were neither examples of "squaddies behaving badly" nor were they accepted as a "matter of record" by the British government. No responsibility has been accepted by the British state and no soldier serving or retired was ever prosecuted for anything.

I am not denying that atrocities were committed,they clearly were,but by a generation with a totally different outlook to the ones held by today's or even yesterday's generation.
You are talking about a generation that had just come through one of the bloodiest wars in history and who weren't particularly sensitive towards the human rights issue, to them the idea of meeting force with even more force was perfectly natural.
It was clearly brutal and,in retrospect, a disgrace to the values we hold today and if we had continued, as a society behaving in such a manner then we would have need to be totally ashamed but we didn't.
Documents from that time testify there was a lot of disquiet about the policy's employed at local and colonial level and I believe Kenya was a turning point in how the armed forces behave when deployed in a peacekeeping/insurrection role.
I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most.

 

[8ball]

Meanwhile, the Royal Mint gets in on the act. Ah, Lord Kitchener lying to young lads so that he can have them killed. How lovely.

Only a fiver now. Bargain.

Fuck me.

 

[coley]

"Hairsplitting"? Really?

Try to face up to the objective facts...sworn oath says one thing, but the job requires something else (apparently). Surely your loyalty is not so deeply institutionalised that you can't see that?

My 'loyalty' isn't deeply institutionally in any respect, your arguments don't make any sense on a common sense basis, we take an oath, same as you sign an employment contract, if we find that we are expected to do something that wasn't agreed in the contract we can refuse and follow various lines of arbitration etc.
You will find, I imagine, broadly the same rights and obligations, in any employment contract as in the oath.

With the exception that we accepted the fact we might have to kill people or if we were careless, be killed in turn.

 

[N_igma]

I believe Kenya was a turning point in how the armed forces behave when deployed in a peacekeeping/insurrection role.
I wouldn't even begin to say we are perfect but in situations where armed forces are put into seriously difficult positions,then I think our behaviour, though lacking on occasion, is better than most.

Yeh their behaviour in Northern Ireland was exemplary, really turned it out around there.