|
October 1, 2004
The Government Must Be Held To Account
My Son Died for a Lie
By ROSE GENTLE
Tony Blair says we are now fighting a "new war" in Iraq. That may suit him, to
distract people from questions about the "old war" there. The one which killed
my son Gordon at the age of 19. Sent to Iraq with just six months training at
Catterick, with inadequate protection, he was killed by a bomb in Basra in June.
Gordon wanted to be a soldier to defend his country. Not to die in a war of
aggression. My family is one of nearly 70 grieving for a lost son because of
this war. Two more families joined the list yesterday. Many more of our soldiers
are suffering from serious injuries.
Some people say that soldiers have to expect to die or be injured when they sign
up for the armed services. Maybe so. But they also have the right to expect that
they will only be sent to fight for a proper cause, by a government which tells
the truth.
These poor boys are being sent to Iraq to die for this government's lies. Where
are the chemical and nuclear weapons they were supposed to be looking for? And
if the war was about upholding the UN, why has the UN secretary general now said
it is unlawful? Blair hasn't answered that either.
He said our troops would be welcomed by the Iraqis. Instead, it is all endless
bloodshed and chaos there. Yet he hasn't apologised. If my children had the same
regard for honesty as the prime minister, I would be ashamed.
It seems to me that Blair cares more about George Bush than about British
soldiers. He made secret promises to the president behind our backs, without a
thought for people like Gordon, or like my daughter Maxine, deprived of her
brother.
If he cares, why doesn't he bring our troops back home before more are killed?
After all, power is supposed to have been handed over to the Iraqi government.
There are no more weapons of mass destruction to look for. The Iraqis should be
allowed to sort out their own problems now.
Instead, I heard Geoff Hoon talking about sending more of our lads and lasses
over to Iraq. That will mean more dead, more injured, to stop the government
facing up to what it has done. I am working with other service families to
ensure that our voice can be heard too. Many have already got in touch.
I grieve also for all the Iraqis who have died in this war. It all seems to have
been completely unnecessary.
Blair may be let off the hook by Lord This and Justice That in their inquiries.
The establishment will stick together. But I do not believe the ordinary people
will forgive him so easily.
I want the government to be held to account. The prime minister says he wants a
democracy for Iraq. If we had a proper democracy here, we would never have got
into this war. And Gordon would be with us at Christmas.
Rose Gentle is the mother of Gordon Gentle, a British soldier killed in Iraq
this year. She can be reached at: office@stopwar.org.uk,,,,
|
| |
| |
Gordon wanted to be a soldier to defend his country. Not to die in a war
of
aggression. My family is one of nearly 70 grieving for a lost son because
of this war. Two more families joined the list yesterday. Many more of our
soldiers are suffering from serious injuries.
Some people say that soldiers have to expect to die or be injured when
they sign up for the armed services. Maybe so. But they also have the
right to expect that they will only be sent to fight for a proper cause,
by a government which tells the truth.
(My son) Gordon wanted to be a soldier to defend his country. Not to die
in a war of
aggression. My family is one of nearly 70 grieving for a lost son because
of this war. Two more families joined the list yesterday. Many more of our
soldiers are suffering from serious injuries.
Some people say that soldiers have to expect to die or be injured when
they sign up for the armed services. Maybe so. But they also have the
right to expect that they will only be sent to fight for a proper cause,
by a government which tells the truth.
I sympathise with this bereaved mother, but she cannot get away with this. A
soldier fights not for his country nor for an ideal. He fights in the way
that his officers order him to. No soldier may question orders.If you join
the forces, you agree to obey the orders of democratically elected
politicians. Obey first, question later. Sorry, but that's how it is.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 22:13:29 +0100, "Bystander" <marlovian@fsmail.net>
wrote:
Some people say that soldiers have to expect to die or be injured when
they sign up for the armed services. Maybe so. But they also have the
right to expect that they will only be sent to fight for a proper cause,
by a government which tells the truth.
I sympathise with this bereaved mother, but she cannot get away with this. A
soldier fights not for his country nor for an ideal. He fights in the way
that his officers order him to. No soldier may question orders.If you join
the forces, you agree to obey the orders of democratically elected
politicians. Obey first, question later. Sorry, but that's how it is.
Of course that's how it is and that's how it went. A soldier expects
and he will only be sent to fight for a proper cause, by a government
which tells the truth. The soldier will go anyway, that's his job and
his duty, but he still has the right to expect that his leadership
will act responsibly and honourably while he is doing his duty.
Blair is an immoral, lying and spineless prime minister who betrayed
the trust and dedication of those who anyway went to perform their
duty at the order of that despicable person.
Clough
|
| |
| |
I sympathise with this bereaved mother, but she cannot get away with this.
A
soldier fights not for his country nor for an ideal. He fights in the way
that his officers order him to. No soldier may question orders.If you join
the forces, you agree to obey the orders of democratically elected
politicians. Obey first, question later. Sorry, but that's how it is.
I follow what you are saying, but it is not quite as simple as that. A
soldier has a duty to question or disobey an unlawful order, eg an order to
massacre prisoners or civilians. That was made clear at the Nuremberg
trials. There are plenty of anti-war websites which cite this principle if
you google for "unlawful orders disobey soldier" or similar. See eg
http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=421&tribunalID=1
If the invasion of Iraq was unlawful in international law, it would be
interesting to hear submissions from experienced international lawyers as to
whether any of our soldiers were under a duty to refuse to obey orders. It
was reported in some of the quality papers that prior to the invasion our
top military commanders demanded that Blair reassure them of the legality of
the invasion before they felt able to consent to troops being committed.
Hence the dishonest advice produced from the Attorney General, which Blair
does not dare make public in full because it will be seen that the AG put
forward various assumptions as the basis on which his advice was given.
|
| |
| |
In article <Uej7d.53$rO6.40896@news.uswest.net>, so@damocl.es says...
/October 1, 2004
//The Government Must Be Held To Account
/My Son Died for a Lie
/By ROSE GENTLE
/My sympathies to you. Unlike American believers, I don't feel that a
blind rush into battle is necessary. American's do it to prove their
brave and for bragging rights. I have no idea why Blair took the
Americans side and showed no faith in others. Perhaps he felt it was
better to get on the Americans good side, which in itself shows fear.
The world economy can not be reliant on the Americans. And it appears
that is what this war is about. If anything, your son died getting rid
of a monster!
--
* Barney
|
| |
| |
The Todal wrote:
Gordon wanted to be a soldier to defend his country. Not to die in a war
of
aggression. My family is one of nearly 70 grieving for a lost son because
of this war. Two more families joined the list yesterday. Many more of
our soldiers are suffering from serious injuries.
Some people say that soldiers have to expect to die or be injured when
they sign up for the armed services. Maybe so. But they also have the
right to expect that they will only be sent to fight for a proper cause,
by a government which tells the truth.
I follow what you are saying, but it is not quite as simple as that. A
soldier has a duty to question or disobey an unlawful order, eg an order to
massacre prisoners or civilians. That was made clear at the Nuremberg
trials.
AFAIK, "Army Regulations" (and Navy RAF equivalents) do allow that any
commissioned officer can question the orders he/she is given in advance
of having to carry them out. Provided that there is time to do so. This
right is not extended to NCOs and below. Thus, before the War, officers
were in a position to object, without any fear of punishment. I do not
know how many, if any, availed themselves of this right. Possibly not a
good career move.
There are plenty of anti-war websites which cite this principle if
you google for "unlawful orders disobey soldier" or similar. See eg
http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=421&tribunalID=1
If the invasion of Iraq was unlawful in international law, it would be
interesting to hear submissions from experienced international lawyers as to
whether any of our soldiers were under a duty to refuse to obey orders. It
was reported in some of the quality papers that prior to the invasion our
top military commanders demanded that Blair reassure them of the legality of
the invasion before they felt able to consent to troops being committed.
I do wonder whether their questions were not related so much to the
legality of the War but the legality of the means and methods to wage
it. Such as the clarification of which weapons systems and tactics could
or could not be used. HAd they envisaged it, I am sure that they would
also have required clarification on the possibility of a civilian trial
for a soldier already acquitted by a military court.
Hence the dishonest advice produced from the Attorney General, which Blair
does not dare make public in full because it will be seen that the AG put
forward various assumptions as the basis on which his advice was given.
I haven't seen this advice. However, does not the AG have a greater
responsibility to the rule of law than to protecting HMG? Surely, if the
AG considered that the legality of the War was mis-represented, he has
a duty to present the truth? Or at least resign over it, making the
reasons clear, if not the advice given.
I suspect the majority of serving officers were prepared to believe HMG
that going to War was essential. They took it on trust that there was
information to which they were not privy that made the case for
immediate hostilities. They now know that that trust was misplaced. I
cannot see that they will ever take HMG on trust, in that way, again.
Yet there have been no hordes of senior officers resigning. I expected
better. That the Commons are full of politicians whose only concept of
honour is how much one costs, I can understand. But I did have hopes
that senior officers, officers and gentlemen all, would have done the
honorable thing and resigned in hordes at having been deceived by HMG in
this way. That they would not want to stay in a position where they
would be expected to follow orders passed down from these politicians
again. Most senior officers could resign and still keep a substantial
pension- more than enough to live and retire on. Is it really worth
hanging on to a job under such circumstances? Do they really want
further promotion and then be even closer to taking orders directly from
the likes of Hoon and Bliar? Have they no sense of what is right, what
is honorable, either?
I despair.
--
Sue
|
| |
| |
Palindr?me wrote:
The Todal wrote:
AFAIK, "Army Regulations" (and Navy RAF equivalents) do
allow that any commissioned officer can question the orders
he/she is given in advance of having to carry them out. Provided that there is
time to
do so. This right is not extended to NCOs and below. Thus,
before the War, officers were in a position to object, without any fear of
punishment. I do not know how many, if any, availed themselves of this right.
Possibly not a good career move.
There are plenty of anti-war websites which cite this
principle if
I do wonder whether their questions were not related so
much to the legality of the War but the legality of the means and
methods to wage it. Such as the clarification of which weapons systems and
tactics could or could not be used. HAd they envisaged it, I am sure that
they would also have required clarification on the possibility of a
civilian trial for a soldier already acquitted by a military court.
I haven't seen this advice. However, does not the AG have a
greater responsibility to the rule of law than to
protecting HMG? Surely, if the AG considered that the
legality of the War was mis-represented, he has a duty to present the truth?
Or at least resign over it,
making the reasons clear, if not the advice given.
I suspect the majority of serving officers were prepared
to believe HMG that going to War was essential. They took
it on trust that there was information to which they were
not privy that made the case for immediate hostilities. They now know that
that trust was
misplaced. I cannot see that they will ever take HMG on trust, in that
way, again. Yet there have been no hordes of senior officers resigning.
I expected better. That the Commons are full of politicians
whose only concept of honour is how much one costs, I can
understand. But I did have hopes that senior officers, officers and gentlemen
all, would
have done the honorable thing and resigned in hordes at
having been deceived by HMG in this way. That they would
not want to stay in a position where they would be expected to follow orders
passed down from these
politicians again. Most senior officers could resign and still keep a
substantial pension- more than enough to live and retire
on. Is it really worth hanging on to a job under such circumstances? Do they
really want further promotion and then be even closer to taking orders
directly from the likes of Hoon and Bliar? Have they no sense of what is
right, what is honorable, either?
I despair.
Too funny!
The same, obsequious, handwringing excuses that ALL the
Nuremberg defendants tried -- and failed!
The only people in the entire UK Gov't / Military with any
spine were the MPs that resigned in protest, Clair Short, et al.
The rest of you cowardly limeys are guilty!
|
| |
| |
"Bystander" <marlovian@fsmail.net> wrote in
news:2s5vjlF1glvhsU1@uni-berlin.de:
I sympathise with this bereaved mother, but she cannot get
away with
this. A soldier fights not for his country nor for an ideal.
I DIED FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR KINGS.
I DIED FOR MY COUNTRY NOT FOR THINGS.
An inscription that reads from my uncles grave.
John
|
| |
| |
John wrote:
"Bystander" <marlovian@fsmail.net> wrote in
news:2s5vjlF1glvhsU1@uni-berlin.de:
I DIED FOR PEOPLE, NOT FOR KINGS.
In this case, they died for the lies and corruption
of their kings.
I DIED FOR MY COUNTRY NOT FOR THINGS.
In this case, it was lies, greed, arrogance and oil.
An inscription that reads from my uncles grave.
Your uncle fought in a different war, in a different time.
John
|
| |
| |
In message <2s5vjlF1glvhsU1@uni-berlin.de>, Bystander
<marlovian@fsmail.net> writes
I sympathise with this bereaved mother, but she cannot get away with this. A
soldier fights not for his country nor for an ideal. He fights in the way
that his officers order him to. No soldier may question orders.If you join
the forces, you agree to obey the orders of democratically elected
politicians. Obey first, question later. Sorry, but that's how it is.
I disagree with your criticism.
Since a war of aggression is always illegal under international law, she
is absolutely right in saying he had a right not to be required to die
in a war of aggression. She is not saying he should have questioned
orders. She is not even saying that he shouldn't have had to accept the
risk of being injured or dying if the cause was legal. She is saying
that those orders that led to his death should never have been given in
the first place. And she is right.
--
Richard Miller
|
| |
| |
I sympathise with this bereaved mother, but she cannot get away with this.
A
soldier fights not for his country nor for an ideal. He fights in the way
that his officers order him to. No soldier may question orders.If you join
the forces, you agree to obey the orders of democratically elected
politicians. Obey first, question later. Sorry, but that's how it is.
That's daft. He's dead, so how can he question it?
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which providers main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
If the invasion of Iraq was unlawful in international law, it would be
interesting to hear submissions from experienced international lawyers as
to
whether any of our soldiers were under a duty to refuse to obey orders. It
was reported in some of the quality papers that prior to the invasion our
top military commanders demanded that Blair reassure them of the legality
of
the invasion before they felt able to consent to troops being committed.
To cover their backs, that's all.
--
2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which providers main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 22:13:29 +0100, "Bystander" <marlovian@fsmail.net>
wrote:
No soldier may question orders.If you join
the forces, you agree to obey the orders of democratically elected
politicians. Obey first, question later. Sorry, but that's how it is.
And ...? The soldier obeyed orders without question. It is now
"later", and those orders are being questioned. You have stated that
you agree with that, so why are you critical?
Or do you *really* believe that orders, once given and carried out,
should never be questioned and if found wanting, those culpable be
brought to justice?
--
Cynic
|
| |
| |
Richard Miller wrote:
In message <2s5vjlF1glvhsU1@uni-berlin.de>, Bystander
<marlovian@fsmail.net> writes
I disagree with your criticism.
Since a war of aggression is always illegal under
international law, she is absolutely right in saying he had a right not to be
required to die in a war of aggression. She is not saying he should have
questioned orders. She is not even saying that he shouldn't have had
to accept the risk of being injured or dying if the cause
was legal. She is saying that those orders that led to his death should never
have
been given in the first place. And she is right.
So why is the War Criminal Tony Bliar still in office?
|
| |
| |
Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 22:13:29 +0100, "Bystander"
<marlovian@fsmail.net> wrote:
And ...? The soldier obeyed orders without question. It
is now "later", and those orders are being questioned. You
have stated that you agree with that, so why are you
critical?
Or do you *really* believe that orders, once given and
carried out, should never be questioned and if found
wanting, those culpable be brought to justice?
So why is the War Criminal Tony Bliar still in office?
|
| |
| |
Barney <shanty@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bc797c9edd45082989682@news.individual.net>...
In article <Uej7d.53$rO6.40896@news.uswest.net>, so@damocl.es says...
/October 1, 2004
/
/The Government Must Be Held To Account
/My Son Died for a Lie
/By ROSE GENTLE
/
My sympathies to you. Unlike American believers, I don't feel that a
blind rush into battle is necessary. American's do it to prove their
brave and for bragging rights. I have no idea why Blair took the
Americans side and showed no faith in others. Perhaps he felt it was
better to get on the Americans good side, which in itself shows fear.
The world economy can not be reliant on the Americans. And it appears
that is what this war is about. If anything, your son died getting rid
of a monster!
There is a very significant error in your thinking, that is
in all propability, there are more Iraq civilians alive today than
would be alive if the liberation had not taken place.
Jim
|
| |
| |
Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> had
writtennews:8jHzFICV2lXBFwTZ@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
Since a war of aggression is always illegal under international
law, she is absolutely right in saying he had a right not to be
required to die in a war of aggression. She is not saying he
should have questioned orders. She is not even saying that he
shouldn't have had to accept the risk of being injured or dying if
the cause was legal. She is saying that those orders that led to
his death should never have been given in the first place. And she
is right.
Agreed!
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
|
| |
| |
"Fed Up" <returntosender@MtEverest.peak> had
writtennews:fvy7d.1217$xb.1019@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
That's daft. He's dead, so how can he question it?
Not only heartless but you are daft as well.
I do question your ability to think.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and Idiots"
|
| |
| |
Jim wrote:
There is a very significant error in your thinking, that is
in all propability, there are more Iraq civilians alive
today than would be alive if the liberation had not taken place.
"liberation" ?
You really are a pig-ignorant son of a #@&@
, aren't you moron?
Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
Minimum
12976
Maximum
15033
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Jim
May you and yours be the next "collateral damage" when
your insane criminal leaders attack and "liberate" the next
sovereign state.
|
| |
| |
In message <ce9dca95.0410021335.502777f1@posting.google.com>, Jim
<Info5eek@aol.com> writes
There is a very significant error in your thinking, that is
in all propability, there are more Iraq civilians alive today than
would be alive if the liberation had not taken place.
Jim
I don't know where you get that from, but I disagree. Given the
thousands of innocent civilians we have killed and the terrorism we have
unleashed, I think it is highly unlikely that Saddam would have killed
as many as we have.
--
Richard Miller
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 14:38:11 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
October 1, 2004
Article 104 - Aiding the enemy Text. "Any person who- (1) aids, or
attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies,
money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives
intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any
intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall
suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military
commission may direct."
Kerry was not discharged from the Naval Reserve until 1978.
Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam By Michael Kranish and
Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 3/25/2004
"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both
delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all
eight of Madam Binh's points . . . ."
The latter was a reference to a communist group based in South
Vietnam. Historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History,"
described the Provisional Revolutionary Government as "an arm of the
North Vietnamese government." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was a leader of
the group and had a list of peace-talk points, including the
suggestion that US prisoners of war would be released when American
forces withdrew.
After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife,
Julia Thorne, on a private trip, Meehan said. Kerry did not go to
Paris with the intention of meeting with participants in the peace
talks or involving himself in the negotiations, Meehan added, saying
that while there Kerry had his brief meeting with Binh, which included
members of both delegations to the peace talks.
"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both
delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all
eight of Madam Binh's points
|
| |
| |
|
