New law could hand out life sentences for Iraq deserters
In the clearest sign yet that the British government are losing the battle for people's hearts over the Iraq war, it has now been proposed that soldiers who refuse to serve there could face life imprisonment under a controversial new plan to rewrite the rules of court martial.
The present punishment for going AWOL is two years in jail, but in the new Armed Forces Bill this will be replaced with the possibility of life imprisonment.
The duties imposed on individual soldiers by the Nuremberg trials was one of the reasons that I found the jailing of Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith to eight months imprisonment for refusing to serve in Iraq so puzzling, especially as his defence was that the war in Iraq was illegal and that he was willing to go anywhere else the army sent him.Alan Simpson, a Labour MP and leading member of the Campaign Group, said: "It is bizarre and nonsensical that you get early release for murder or rape but you face the prospect of life imprisonment for refusing to kill."
Former army officers briefed Labour MPs at a private meeting in the Commons this week and urged them to reject the Bill. Ben Griffin, who refused to return to Iraq and resigned from the SAS, said: "I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy."
Atease, a campaign group for soldiers and their families, said: "The UK Government, worried that the number of soldiers absconding from the Army has trebled since the invasion of Iraq, is legislating to repress this movement in the military." They claimed that the Bill contravened the principles outlined at the Nuremberg hearings for the former leaders of Nazi Germany enshrining in international law the responsibility of individuals to refuse to obey illegal and immoral orders from any government.
Judge advocate Jack Bayliss appeared to me to turn international law on it's head when he argued that that the legality of the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant to whether or not a soldier had a duty to go there.
This appears to be a disturbing trend of the conflict in Iraq, where international law is bent to suit the wishes of the US and UK with no thought given to future consequences.
Indeed the war itself contravened the principles outlined at Nuremberg:
At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime".
It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged.
It would now appear that, having ignored the principles established at Nuremberg by invading Iraq without a UN resolution, Blair now seeks to impose draconian punishments on any soldiers who accepts the responsibilities that this same piece of international law places upon them.
This is merely the latest example of how Bush and Blair are ripping up the international rule book for no better reason than there is no-one to stop them.
The consequences of their illegality is, as yet, unknown. But what remains certain is that, were India to launch a war of pre-emption against Pakistan, our ability to condemn them has been severely weakened by the actions of Bush and Blair.
The practices of powerful nations will always be copied by weaker ones, using the former's behaviour as justification.
By ignoring long established international laws, Bush and Blair are making the world a more dangerous place for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment