1000 deserters since 2003 in the British military

[Garbarsardar]

As it would seem the prospect of going to Iraq is not very appealing for the British cadets...and the Parliament will try to legislate a way out.

I am approached regularly by people who are seeking to absent themselves from service
Justin Hugheston-Roberts

More than 1,000 members of the British military have deserted the armed forces since the start of the 2003 Iraq war, the BBC has discovered.

It comes as Parliament debates a law that will forbid military personnel refusing to participate in the occupation of a foreign country.

During 2005 alone, 377 people deserted and are still missing. So far this year another 189 are on the run.

Some 900 have evaded capture since the Iraq war started, official figures say.

The Ministry claims it does not keep details of whether desertion is on the rise, but Labour MP John McDonnell told Parliament this week there had been a tripling in cases over the past three years.

He was speaking in a debate about new laws which would make refusal to take part in the occupation of a foreign country punishable by a maximum life sentence in prison.

It is unclear how many troops are deserting because they do not want to go to Iraq and how many are doing so because of personal reasons such as family problems.

Lawyers who represent members of the military at courts martial say that they are increasingly being contacted by people who want advice about getting out of having to serve in Iraq, even if they do not want to go to the extreme of deserting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5024104.stm

[Tom Paine]

So.... we're making a law that violates international law, which allows as a defence that they were refusing to follow illegal orders?
And of course, this defence was ruled as inadmissable in a courtmartial of an RAF doctor who refused to go to Iraq. So it seems international law isn't important to the Blair government any more.

[Garbarsardar]

So.... we're making a law that violates international law, which allows as a defence that they were refusing to follow illegal orders?
And of course, this defence was ruled as inadmissable in a courtmartial of an RAF doctor who refused to go to Iraq. So it seems international law isn't important to the Blair government any more.

The greatest illusion is that this is going to curb the number of desertions...

[Carach]

So.... we're making a law that violates international law, which allows as a defence that they were refusing to follow illegal orders?

they are carrying out the illegal actions, by deserting squeakus.

Actually... they can perfectly well call it illegal. Its in a grey area, see?

a 'grey' area does not make it illegal.

[Richard the Lionheart]

It's interesting. Why do people join the armed forces if they don't want to go to war?

If you're going to join the armed forces, then you're going to be sent into combat. So why do people join in the first place if they're going to chicken out of it when it comes down to the real thing?

See, this is why you should think everything through before you go into the military.

[Freddie]

It's interesting. Why do people join the armed forces if they don't want to go to war?

If you're going to join the armed forces, then you're going to be sent into combat. So why do people join in the first place if they're going to chicken out of it when it comes down to the real thing?

See, this is why you should think everything through before you go into the military.

The pension. Its bad pay and you run the risk of getting killed but I understand insitiutions such as th police and the Army offer really good pensions. For some peope it offers them the chance to change their lifes and do something worthwhile, some people may not have family or come from broken families the Army gives them a sense of family that they don't get in civilian life.

BTW Is it still legal to shoot/hang/mill deserters? A few hangings should stop any thought of deserting that a soilder might have.

[Tom Paine]

BTW Is it still legal to shoot/hang/mill deserters? A few hangings should stop any thought of deserting that a soilder might have.

No, capital punishment is entirely illegal under all circumstances under British law.

In germany a soldier has to disobey an illegal order. He is legally forced to so. Normally the state is expected to not issue orders against international law. If it does, it is in the hands of any soldier to refuse them. He is running the risk to be turned down by a court of law on the issue but will not be punished if his point of view is legally valid.

I believe that's a position also reflected in international law; soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal orders, rendering the Nuremberg defence more damning to those who employ it than a defence of their actions!

[Tom Paine]

Well H&G, one man who was done for desertion was accused of it because he refused to obey orders he considered illegal; if others are just leaving, considering their orders illegal, then its the same thing.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Well H&G, one man who was done for desertion was accused of it because he refused to obey orders he considered illegal; if others are just leaving, considering their orders illegal, then its the same thing.

I don't know about the British military, but the U.S. has a clear Rules of Engagement, which specifically states that soldiers cannot and must not obey orders that violate the Rules of Engagement, or orders which can be considered unethical, immoral, cruel, or inhumane. In other words, soldiers must disobey unlawful orders. Period.

[Tom Paine]

I don't know about the British military, but the U.S. has a clear Rules of Engagement, which specifically states that soldiers cannot and must not obey orders that violate the Rules of Engagement, or orders which can be considered unethical, immoral, cruel, or inhumane. In other words, soldiers must disobey unlawful orders. Period.

Yes... exactly. And soldiers are considering these orders unlawful, but the governemnt has ignored and ruled impermissible such defence. People are deserting rather than obeying illegal orders or getting courtmartialed for disobeying those same orders.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Yes... exactly. And soldiers are considering these orders unlawful, but the governemnt has ignored and ruled impermissible such defence. People are deserting rather than obeying illegal orders or getting courtmartialed for disobeying those same orders.

Well it depends on what types of orders they're disobeying. They can't just disobey any order and label it as "unlawful".

[Tom Paine]

Well it depends on what types of orders they're disobeying. They can't just disobey any order and label it as "unlawful".

They view the Iraq war as unlwful thus any order relating to it is, by definition, unlawful.

[the Black Prince]

ahhh garb garb, you missed the best part of the article out though!!!

its not just a question of combat...

Ben Griffin was a member of the elite SAS. He told his commanding officer, earlier this year, that he was not prepared to return to Iraq because he said he saw American forces carrying out what he thought were illegal acts.

He was allowed to leave the military and he now says: "I was disturbed by the general day-to-day attitude of the American troops. They treated Iraqis with contempt, not like human beings. They had a complete disregard for Iraqi lives and property."

Mr Griffin would never have considered deserting but he says that his views are shared by many others in the British military.

He told the BBC: "I can't speak for others but there's a lot of dissent in the Army about the legality of war and concerns that they're spending too much time there".

He says Iraq is different to other conflicts because, in other operations, the main aim is to improve life for the local population and he believes that is not what has happened in Iraq.

Mr Griffin says: "There's contempt for the locals. We don't even know how many have been killed."

His advice to others is not to desert - but that if they have doubts, they should follow their conscience, speaking out if they think that the Iraq conflict is wrong.

soldiers should have no problems fighting a war or keeping the peace... its what they signed up for... but whats going on in Iraq is hardly the siutation british troops are acustomed to finding on their other deployments in places like Belize, Afganistan etc etc

[Garbarsardar]

ahhh garb garb, you missed the best part of the article out though!!!
its not just a question of combat...
soldiers should have no problems fighting a war or keeping the peace... its what they signed up for... but whats going on in Iraq is hardly the siutation british troops are acustomed to finding on their other deployments in places like Belize, Afganistan etc etc

Indeed. I remember this story...wait...here it is:http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46838 :wink:

[Tom Paine]

Actually, Boudicca, the court has been told its not allowed to; a soldier, an RAF doctor, was court-martialled for disobeying orders... and his defence was that, because they related directly to going into Iraq, they were illegal orders. Now this defence was ruled by the advocate-judge to be inadmissable; this does not mean the war was ruled legal, simply that the defence was not applicable... when legally its perfectly applicable, just possible wrong. So its not being allowed as a defence, at all.

[Tom Paine]

To go to legal wars, yes. A soldier has a duty to disobey any illegal order; an order sending you to an illegal war is an illegal order, and thus the matte ris of utmost importance to all concerned.

Illegality and immorality are not the same thing; that's setting up a strawman.

[Richard the Lionheart]

To go to legal wars, yes. A soldier has a duty to disobey any illegal order; an order sending you to an illegal war is an illegal order, and thus the matte ris of utmost importance to all concerned.

That's not how things work. When you join the military, you have to sign a contract and you're doing so out of your own choice. When you join the military you are expected to go where you are told to go. And remember, going to war isn't a choice for the military to make, it's a choice for the politicians to make.

If they think the war is illegal, according to their own beliefs, then they shouldn't have joined in the first place.

[Tom Paine]

So wait. If they joined before the war started, as many of these people did (notice its been losing the army men since it began), then they shouldn't have joined because they might be sent into an illegal war?
And you are expected to go where you are told if it is legal to do so. Again, if it is illegal under national or international law, you have a duty not to go. That's not a right, a duty, to disobey those orders. Iraq's legality is at best murky and thus the solderis themselves are forced to decide whether they believe it is an illegal war or not. War is not a choice for the military, you are right, but the military does not expect to be sent into an illegal war either.

[Richard the Lionheart]

So wait. If they joined before the war started, as many of these people did (notice its been losing the army men since it began), then they shouldn't have joined because they might be sent into an illegal war?

They can't call it "illegal". They can calll it "immoral".

Either way, when you join the military, you have to expect these types of stuff. Most enlistees do. You join the military to go to war. And you have to consider the fact that you might disagree with some wars and you also have to understand that once you sign that contract you have to go to war no matter what you think of it.

And you are expected to go where you are told if it is legal to do so. Again, if it is illegal under national or international law, you have a duty not to go.

How exactly is the Iraq War "illegal"? At least according to these deserters...

[Tom Paine]

They can't call it "illegal". They can calll it "immoral".

Actually... they can perfectly well call it illegal. Its in a grey area, see?

Either way, when you join the military, you have to expect these types of stuff. Most enlistees do. You join the military to go to war. And you have to consider the fact that you might disagree with some wars and you also have to understand that once you sign that contract you have to go to war no matter what you think of it.

no, I repeat. If you think it is illegal you are not allowed to go to war; that's why the Nuremberg defence did not work. You are required not to follow orders you think are illegal, meaning you have to interpret the laws. Disagreeing with a law is not the same as believing its illegal, they are on a whole different scale.

How exactly is the Iraq War "illegal"? At least according to these deserters...

Under international law, it was not sanctioned by the UN nor was there cassus belli.