Spot on!

[whotheheckami]

I would like to say that I'm pleased and relieved at the result of this trial. To me the individual's issues about the legality of the war in Iraq are utterly irrelevant to the case. He refused to carry out lawful orders from his superior officers - end of debate. He is more than welcome to have personal feelings about the conflict and I admire him for taking such a strong moral stance. However, he was a volunteer memeber of a fighting force and is being justifiably punished for disobeying orders.

Forgive my cynicism, but I only hope his moral purity continues to the point where he donates any profits from subsequent book deals to charity.

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

He would have been committing a crime by obeying an illegal order to be part of the occupation of Iraq.

Of course, he was highly unlikely to be prosecuted for committing that crime - we pay only lip-service to the notion that members of the British armed forces are obliged to refuse illegal orders - but I admire his backbone in refusing.

(Please ignore previous comment: accidentally posted.)

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

Yes he would if the occupation of Iraq was illegal. However, when he refused the order the occupation was not illegal.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

However, when he refused the order the occupation was not illegal.

That's dubious, actually: the invasion/occupation of Iraq was undoubtedly illegal, and the military rule of Iraq is being enforced without regard for law. Whether a crime "becomes legal" is an interesting technical point.

However, it is certain that no lower court would venture to declare the occupation illegal: Kendall-Smith can of course appeal upwards.

Further thoughts on the matter in my journal.