🚀 go-pugleaf

"Neville Duguid" <nevilled@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:1fpb5wk.rel5rye80ke0N%nevilled@bigpond.net.au...
> Phil <phil@leftof.centre.org> wrote:
>
> > Don't those about to possibly snuff out innocent lives deserve to
understand
> > that what they are being sent to do is possibly illegal and without the
> > support of the parliament or the people?
> >
> > If not? Why not?
> >
> > Why would you like Simon Crean to lie to them?  Our soldiers deserve
better
> > than that. They deserve to know the truth. Isn't that what they are
going to
> > fight for?
>
> Soldiers need to be ready for action and in the right frame of mind to
> act if and when required.  Letting the Leader of the Opposition address
> troops about to go into action is lunacy - burdening soldiers with stuff
> that is someone else's responsibility to sort out, and nothing to do
> with them.

Ah Nev, we've already established that they have a duty not to obey an
unlawful order. There appears to be some discussion about the legality of
orders they have received and might be about to receive. Therefore it has a
lot to do with them.

> The last thing that soldiers who are prapared to put their
> lives on the line need is doubts being sown about whether they should be
> doing what their commanders have asked them to do or not.

So you believe they should obey unlawful orders?

> They are the
> ones being placed more at risk than anyone else.

Do you think so?

Which line are you taking here? Are they off to war or not? (The war-mongers
seem to be undecided as to whether they are or not) Let's deal with both
possibilities...

 A) THEY ARE OFF TO WAR
See I would have said that bombardier at 30,000 feet was at less risk than
the Iraqi family eating dinner where it's about to detonate...

B) THEY ARE NOT OFF TO WAR
What risk?

> They don't want to hear
> why they shouldn't be there - only why their country _needs_ them to be
> there.

Well the Iraqi family doesn't want a bomb dropping on their dinner table? So
whose feelings get first priority?

And I certainly don't want loyal young servicemen and women bearing the
burden for a political mistake. And please do not deceive yourself about
this, that's exactly what will happen. The Vietnam War was a mistake, most
rational people can admit this today.  But who paid the price, on their side
it was a couple of million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and our side
it was our service men and women - the ones who came back and those who
didn't.

> It is like psyching up a sportsman before a match. The last
> thing any combatant wants to hear is how his opponent is only doing it
> because his poor poverty-stricken mother is in intensive care waiting
> for enough money to afford an organ transplant if only some
> heard-hearted meanie would give her only surviving offspring a break. If
> someone did that to one of your favourite sportsmen, you would not
> hesitate to see it for what it is - sledging.

That is not my definition of sledging...

> And sledging in behalf of
> the enemy whose only interest is the defeat of our boys.

So we are at war, then.

Thanks Nev but I understand my motivation.

> > See I would have gone further and explained that initially they would
only
> > be used as a force that was being assembled to attempt to coerce Iraq to
> > cave in to American demands. I would have explained that there is some
doubt
> > about whether this attempt to threaten a sovereign state is, of itself,
a
> > breaching of an international treaty or international law.
>
> That stuff is for their commanders to sort out.

No throughout world history too many people have been able to use that as an
excuse. I would definitely point it out to them.

> When they go into
> action, whether civil or military conditions are in force translates
> into the rules of engagement they will be given before they are sent
> into the field.  The sort of things they need to know is whether to
> shoot on their own initiative or only when ordered, and whether to shoot
> to kill or only after firing a warning shot first.
>
> > However
> > ultimately, should they be called on to invade or otherwise attack Iraq,
> > there is no doubt. They will be part of an unprovoked attack, no
different
> > to that launched by Hitler on Poland in 1939. Not only would it be
breach of
> > an international treaty, it would be a violation of international law.
As
> > such each of them should weigh up carefully whether the orders they were
> > carrying out were in fact lawful.
>
> That is precisely the reason they should not be asked to exercise their
> own political judgment - because it could conceivably place them at risk
> of criminal prosecution for exercising discretion as (therefore
> implicitly responsible) individuals.  If the instructions of government
> are conveyed through the proper channels, only those legally responsible
> for making the critical decisions can be accused of acting
> inappropriately or overstepping their authority when things go wrong.

And as each order is passed down the chain of command it is usually
translated and passed to smaller organisational units. At each level, all
service personnel have an obligation to ensure that they are receiving and
giving are lawful.

> A
> soldier's job is to get on with the job and back up his mates in the
> field. The last thing a soldier needs is to see his backup paralysed by
> indecision about whether he should be doing what he is doing or not. All
> soldiers depend on all other soldiers in their unit being of like mind
> on that point. At least in the Australian army and navy they do - or at
> least I hope they still do.
>
> > I would explain that we were endeavouring to clarify the legal situation
as
> > quickly as possible and we regretted that the current government had
decided
> > to put them in this invidious position.
>
> They are simply men (and women?) doing their job. No one, least of all
> government employees, should have to worry about whether what they are
> being ordered to do is legal.  That is the job of someone with
> specialised legal knowledge and a bigger pay packet to work out before
> they even become involved.

No-one appears to be doing that.

>
> > However, I would also make it very plain that Australia is a nation that
> > respects the rule of law and that no politicians or service personnel
are
> > above the law.
>
> If they are sent into civilian areas still under civilian law, it is the
> responsibility of their officers to ensure they are correctly briefed in
> such a way as not to bring them into conflict with the laws and civilian
> authorities whose jurisdiction they are cooperating with.
>
> > After all, it is to defend the rule of law, the current government
believes
> > in its own misguided way, that they are being dispatched.
>
> From the soldiers' pov it is simply being sent wherever they are sent to
> do whatever they are ordered to do.  They are already prepared for it.
> There is no reason to start plying them with propaganda that can only
> undermine their morale and weaken their effectiveness in the field.  To
> commit them to action or not to commit them is someone else's decision
> and provision for public debate to provide input from all citizens
> (including defence force personnel an their relatives) exists at that
> prior level.

Doesn't seem so does it? They have been injected into what is an
increasingly volatile situation and the likelihood that they (and Australia)
will be drawn into conflict is heightening each day. And yet there has been
no opportunity for a parliamentary debate or vote. They have gone knowing
that the majority of the population do not support a war.

In effect, Howard has denied the Australian people an opportunity to give
the troops our support.

>  It is best for all concerned if such decisions are taken
> at the higher level rather than have the whole force rendered unreliable
> and unpredictable through hoping miscellaneous propaganda from
> extraneous sources will somehow magically combine to produce a better
> outcome.

Hey if someone can demonstrate how any attack on Iraq by Australia would be
lawful I will cease this line of attack, but no-one seems capable of that

> Let our soldiers and sailors go in as a unit and come out as a
> unit. To them, anything else is defeat.
>
>
> --
>                       AUS.CULTURE.TRUE-BLUE FAQ:
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1fol93g.i1707q5e1glkN%nevilled@big
> pond.net.au>