Conscientious Objector or Deserter?

[bignumber5]

I don't know if this is interesting to anyone else, but I've only recently heard about Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who (after completing a first tour in Afganistan) is refusing to return to active service, having written to Gordon Brown with the justification that the conflict is unlawful. He intends to use the same reasoning to defend himself in an upcoming court martial for desertion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/03/british-army-alleged-deserter-court

Does an objection of this type, of logical reasoning rather than of conscience, justify a refusal to return to service? Is this the 21st Century equivalent of the conscientious objector, or is this man a deserter?

[Marmora Man]

I suspect it's a little more complicated. He's probably someone that has decided that he does not wish to return to the conflict / war. This is quite rational - however, he will probably feel that he's letting his old colleagues down, he doesn't want to be so obvious as to desert so - pursuing a legal objection gives him a justification for his actions.

Pacifism and conscientious objection has a long and honourable history. I fear that Joe Glenton is confusing the issue. The Seigfried Sassoon position - that troops are being killed to no good purpose and that a negotiated settlement is the best way ahead seems, perhaps, closer to the corporal's thinking.

I'm sure Santerme, as an Army man can make a better argument than I.

[mockney piers]

have wondered about thus myself. I asked santerme whether the military needed legal assurances before getting involved in Iraq, and was answered the military only enact policy, they do not get involved in politics.

I hate to Godwin this before it starts but isn't that unnacceptable post Nuremberg, 'i was only following orders guv'. I ralise this is a long way from concentration camps, but our position as good guy is vetting tainted, rendition, complicity in torture, deaths in custody...

[Brendan]

Have I just heard you offer the apology for all the monsters of our time?

[mockney piers]

Crikey, the difference one keystroke can make!!

[Marmora Man]

MP - while Santerme is correct that the military do not involve themselves in politics the Chief of the Defence Staff and his service chiefs (Army, Navy & Air Force) will want to know and understand the rationale for the military action and, on occasions if it is not clear, be assured that it is legal.

I understand that the last time this occurred was prior to Iraq 2 - when the then Chief Of Defence Staff asked for legal assurance, which resulted in the legal stitch up that will be reviewed in the course of the Iraq enquuiry.

[DaveR]

In answer to the original question, he is a deserter. He went off backpacking for a couple of years whilst AWOL and now needs an excuse.

[Santerme]

I listened to Tim Collins being interviewed on this subject and he almost nailed it for me.

He said serving in the armed forces does not give you access to a buffet of jobs which you can pick and choose.

We are a volunteer force and once in you are contracted to follow all orders given by superiors, as long as they are legal.

Obviously, this individual has served in AFG before and does not want to deploy there again.

If this is a case of genuine conflict with his beliefs, then I would have no problem with him not going.

But I have zero sympathy for those who desert....the raw truth is someone else has had to go in your place!

So you are not just saving yourself, you are endangering another by your actions.

Clearly he would be a liability in theatre, perhaps he has already done enough to ensure he is never deployed again.

As for legality.

There are effectively two wars being fought in AFG.

One is a purely American operation and the other an ISAF mission conducted under UN control with NATO providing the structure for the mission.

This is conducted under a UN mandate and in cooperation with the Mayor of Kabul, sorry the President of Afghanistan.

It is not a NATO mission, however, and contributing to it is voluntary, not mandatory.

For the last few years the saying has been it is not NATO, but ACAB (America, Canada, Australia, Britain), which is a tad unfair to the Danes and Norwegians especially.

But also to some of the countries contributing SF's too.

For example, hostage rescue is invariably done by the Italians (they seriously ruin the kidnappers day), and the Germans and mountain warfare is a match made in heaven, it can completely sap your morale when you have scaled a rockface to 7,000 feet and a German in a tee shirt shoots past you barely breaking a sweat and looking down at you as a lesser mortal.

Back to the point.

It is arguable whether the initial invasion was legal under Article 51.

Certainly since 2003 it has been and continues to be a UN sanctioned operation.

If ordered to deploy, that is in my mind a legal command.

I can see no defence in law to the contrary and having deserted, to me. he deserves the full force of military justice to be applied against him.

[Huguenot]

It absolutely escapes me why Mockers is pursuing this legal debate. It's infuriating. Is it some sort of Capone entrapment - we'll get them with tax evasion?

Old chap, do you really expect every squaddie to sit down with 'The Classical Lectures' before they go and get some water?

I suspect the reason you enforce this frankly ridiculous position is because you're aware that the consequence is anarchy, and that's probably an end goal.

A man with a gun has moral issues on a minute by minute call-up, but to expect the army to haul out the law book on every command is plain silly.

The armed forces can and do expect other people to have those debates on their behalf, and then are rather obliged to do as asked.

If there's a glaring exception then I'd expect the armed forces to highlight it, but the fact that there's debate to this day on the Iraq issue demonstrates that it's not that effing clear. To pursue this inane argument demeans you.

[Huguenot]

And, since I'm on a roll.... what the blinkers makes you think that 'legality' confers 'legitimacy'????

If someone actually proved beyond all question that there was a 'law' that allowed all in question to do as they did, would you suddenly stop arguing against it and start smiling?

Like flip you would.

Although maybe the implication that you would is what I find so infuriating?

So why pursue this course of debate, since it's not the issue?

The legitimacy of this war is a social issue and a moral issue. It was a war fought to protect the lifestyle of greedy western bigots from the threat of oil profiteering.

It was pointless only in so much that it was delaying the inevitable.

It was macro-socially effective in that it highlighted to greedy western bigots what a dreadful, dreadful pickle we're all in. Was 600,000 dead a small price to pay to save a billion?

There are clearly those that argue no, it wasn't too small. I'm with you in the belief that it was 600,000 too big if all the outcome we hoped for was a few people to change their minds about greed.

[mockney piers]

I'm merely pointing out that our society isn't supposedtoolerate on might

makes right. Had we lost they'd have probably been within their right to charge our boys with war crimes, to which the defence I was only following orders would not have been acceptable. The fact that that was never going to happen means legitimacy was simply conferred by superior might, not a trend I'm particularly happy about on a democratic and progressive society.

If the war, suppression of liberties and scaremongering, leave alone rendition and torture, pointed out that this government were remoulding our society as a regressve one then the lesson clearly passed too many people by and the 600,000 did indeed die in vain.

I know you supported the war, but Saving a billion?!? You're overplaying your hand there somewhat, old chap, have you been talking to Nick Cohen again?

[Huguenot]

Get me again, you don't support the war because a few of our boys might end up in jail? That's it?

In any case, you misread my position then and now: I didn't support the war, I merely reflected that if the UK and the US wanted to pursue this greedy lifestyle, then the war was a natural consequence of it.

The lifestyle and the war are linked at the hip, in a filthy bestial coitus.

What I thought was ridiculous was the arguments against the war:

'No war for oil'... what really? grow up

'It's not legal'... what has that got to do with anything, 'law' is what you make it

'The public was deceived'... no they weren't, they accepted a convenient excuse that was obviously fabricated by a weak government meeting unreasonable public demands

'There's a conspiracy'... the only conspiracy is to meet the demands of the electorate.

I'd like to have seen no war, but that could only be achieved by the eradication of the need for it, not by whinging around Whitehall having driven down in your private car in your favourite nylon raincoats and imported cotton slacks.

That was the ultimate in hypocrisy, and I wanted no part of it. Disgusting and shameful.

If the UK continues to demand well beyond its means, it will reap the violence this pillage requires.

[mockney piers]

Thanks for twisting my words and realpolitik 101.

Whilst consideration of resources may have been present in the war designers plans, this was a war about the application of military power. About drawing a line in the sand and daring people

to cross it. It was purely about the US trying to maintain a slippery grip on a shortlived world hegemony.

It was about oil only insofar as it said to the Saudi people careful what you wish for.

Killing was an end not a consequence.

The obvious consequence was that Russia would pour troops

into Georgia, perhaps next Ukraine. China will crush Tibet, maybe next stop eastern Russia or Vietnam. It was adventurism and may yet usher a new age of imperialism.

It's shameful we signed up to it.

Law is what you make it, I know we argue these thing but I don't belive you're thy cynical. You argue that legal frameworks are necessary for a functioning society, but thatight makes right is fine in the international arena? Phooey.

[mockney piers]

Thinking about it the main benefit of it all is that thus far Iraq and Georgia have demonrtrated the limits of their power, America will be cleverer under it's new leader and Russia unsurprisingly has kicked off a program to modernise it's shabby armed forces so that may be a little short term.

[mockney piers]

And while I'm at it (and join the tls/Brendan triposterate) I totally concur that the electorate areto blame, and we happily carry on with the status quo.

But energy issues, leave alone climate change, and their consequences aren't exactly unforseeable. Wouldn't the nillins have been far better invested in alternative energy sources, into research on better crop yields, distribution of water

etc?

[The Chair]

Please stay with the original thread. Perhaps you need to start a new one on the rights/wrongs of the war.

[bignumber5]

Not to wantonly disagree with The Chair, but I think that whether or not the war can be/should be assessed as illegal or legal by a serviceman does have a bearing on the original topic... After all, if a war can never be shown to be absolutely one or the other, then what impact does that have on the serviceman's defence for desertion?

(Thanks, sorry Madame Chair... *ducks*)

[The Chair]

Agreed BN5, in relation to the serviceman, but this somewhat abstract argument has gone beyond that.

[mockney piers]

No no, quite right. Legality is an important point, energy security and Russian resurgency really aren't.

[Jeremy]

"triposterate"?

[Huguenot]

No, legality is a red-herring.

He made a commitment to the army with all that entails, and undertook a mission that was recognised as legal in multiple jurisdictions at the time it was embarked upon.

It is the responsibility of the top brass to ensure they're operating under a legal mandate, which they did in this case, twice. You cannot keep revisiting legal issues until you hear the answer that you want.

It was not and is not the position of a serviceman to manufacture an opportunity to embark upon time wasting and costly legal enterprises every time they receive an order they don't like.

It would be the end of our armed forces - an objective that I suspect is the agenda of his varied supporters.

[Huguenot]

Besides which, if I remember rightly, Glenton isn't even protesting about Iraq, but about Afghanistan.

Regardless of the initial intervention, the armed forces are now operating under UNAMA in Afghanistan,all nice and legal - unless Glenton is protesting that the UN is itself illegal, and has no mandate for armed interference.

Anyway, if he wanted to make a case for legality he needed to do it before he went AWOL, not after a two year holiday when he wants to come home.

The phrase 'jumped-up attention seeking twot' springs to mind.

[mockney piers]

It's not a red herring it's absolutely paramount. A legal mandate is not a carte blanche to do anything you want.

As Santerme states we've essentaully been making it up as we go go along ever since that tit Hoon said we're going in and no shot will be fired.

In this case I think we are staying within our legal remit, I just think it's strategically and politically a vert poorly executed policy. Full force of military law will doubtless be hefted at this fella an I'm not qualified to judge myself, but in any decent society a soldier must at least have recourse to defend himself in the courts and make personal choices regards orders based upon morality.

[mockney piers]

Well if he did just bugger off backpacking with a fancy lady and his moral defencenia after the fact rather than face the music and then go on his hols, then I'm sure a bit of leisure at her maj's pleasure is inevitable.

[Santerme]

I am not quite sure where this soldier is being fed his lines, he seems fairly intelligent and coherent, but he is 180 degrees wrong.

There is much to criticise, and I would be the first in line so to do regarding the conduct of operations and the farce which represents itself to be reconstruction efforts going on in AFG, herein lies the real failing.

In fact, I have done both professionally and privately to senior officers and civil servants in the MOD.

To Mockney, I would say this.

The idea of British armed forces personnel running riot just does not gel with the 24 odd years I served, even under intense pressure, incredible provocation and threats to their own safety, I have witnessed 18 year olds behave with a tolerance and compassion well beyond their years and maturity.

They are highly trained individuals who know the strategic importance that the lowest private can have not only on an operation, but on the conduct of the whole campaign by their actions.

Lynddie England at Abu Ghraib probably cost the lives of some hundreds of US personnel.

What we ask of those who take up the profession of arms is that they perform their tasks with humanity.

Members of the armed forces understand the inherent violence of armed conflict, characterised at an extreme by death and destruction.

While troops must act resolutely, and sometimes with lethal force, the concept of humanity forbids any notion of a carte blanche or unbounded behaviour.

Codes of conduct we insist upon go beyond the legal constraints of International Humanitarian Law

Moreover, for the individuals who must fight on their nation?s behalf, such codes provide the reconciliation between individual morality and actions that would otherwise be entirely contrary to modern social mores.

What must be remembered, is that todays battlefield has changed from the pre Westphalian days where civilain casualties were a coincidental side effect of battle, and massive field armies fought it out on pre determined arenas, to one where the conflict exists by virtue of destatization amongst the populace.

It is an irrefutable fact that organised violence on behalf of the state remains a necessary evil, but it is tempered in the West by a code of ethics.

Contrast this to the moral position of the asymmetry which is the character of modern conflict and those we engage with whose moral outlook is entirely alien.