Sailor jailed for refusing a training course

[Lucio]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-months.html

I'm curently debating this with a friend, the two viewpoints are that it's wrong for the sailor to have been jailed for upholding his beliefs vs the need for soldiers to follow orders to stop people dying needlessly. Curious as to what Hexites think

[oolon]

Sorry he knew we were at war there before he joined, he could and should have not joined. I my book you can't become "conscientious objector" after joining the military during an existing war. At the end of the day the Military is paid to fight what ever war the government sees fit, if you don't like that don't join up. If a war started you don't like quit as soon as you can. The military is also used a "strike breakers" and may other tasks that are less "fun", it comes with the job.

[roachcoach]

What oolon said.

"Yay I'm joining the navy!"
"Wait, I need to fight? Lemme out, lemme out!"

[redddraggon]

People have a right to be a conscientious objector, but the military has been a wholly volunteer force since the end of National service, and if you have joined up in the last 10 years (well 9 year 9 months) you know what's been going on and it was your choice.

OK he might be sailor and might never have been expected to deploy Afghanistan, but when you join up you agree to a whole tonne of terms and conditions, so I have no sympathy - He should have upheld his beliefs as a civilian not a serviceman.

[Stephen C]

Sorry he knew we were at war there before he joined, he could and should have not joined. I my book you can't become "conscientious objector" after joining the military during an existing war.

"Military police later interviewed Lyons and he told them: ‘My political and moral beliefs since I joined the Navy at 18 have changed considerably."

I have no idea on the process but couldn't he have just left or atleast ask to be re-assigned or something prior to this, when his views changed?

[kalniel]

It would seem to be a direct conflict of the Hippocratic oath to participate in the act of firing a gun with the intention of taking a life, so I'm not sure why he would need to be trained in that purpose given he's a medic.

On the other hand, is it health and safety to at least learn about the things? given you may be required to do you job on someone who has one and potentially have to handle them (to at least remove them from said person) as part of your work.

[redddraggon]

"Military police later interviewed Lyons and he told them: ‘My political and moral beliefs since I joined the Navy at 18 have changed considerably."

I have no idea on the process but couldn't he have just left or atleast ask to be re-assigned or something prior to this, when his views changed?

I presume the guy joined on an initial 3yr contract like is normal in the army, which you can you can then renew.

It sounds like his "political and moral beliefs" changed substantially since he got told he was deployed to somewhere dusty.

[oolon]

I was impressed by a general interviewed on Newsnight, the questioning kept trying to get him to say how he "felt" about the war and cuts. He was great and reiterated the line I am not paid to make policy decisions, it is my job to go where I am told and do the best with what I have. While fighting is something I do not wish to do, I have great respect for those who do it on my behalf, I also have respect for those who object. You just cannot be both, and we cannot run a military with a 30 day notice period, as many would quit as soon as a war started!

As redddraggon said signing up is for a period of time, (not that long), he has been in the service for a number of years, he could have put up with it a little longer or should have exited sooner. I also agree he was in the navy and thought he would not be posted somewhere dusty.

[kalniel]

So you're seriously suggesting there can't be any doctors or chaplains in the forces?

[redddraggon]

It would seem to be a direct conflict of the Hippocratic oath to participate in the act of firing a gun with the intention of taking a life, so I'm not sure why he would need to be trained in that purpose given he's a medic.

The Hippocratic Oath is to the patient surely? Not the Taliban, who are firing at you trying to kill you and your patient.

[roachcoach]

It would seem to be a direct conflict of the Hippocratic oath to participate in the act of firing a gun with the intention of taking a life, so I'm not sure why he would need to be trained in that purpose given he's a medic.

Where would the oath stand faced with an enemy combatant who will quite happily shoot you, and the two men next to you if you don't shoot him? Do nothing and lose three lives? Shoot and [maybe] lose one?

Similar dilemma to those refusing to lifesaving consent to treatment for their kids or whatever on religious grounds, the docs can't force it I don't think.

[kalniel]

The Hippocratic Oath is to the patient surely? Not the Taliban, who are firing at you trying to kill you and your patient.

Could be.

[aidanjt]

As above really.

Anyone who signs up to the military are given no illusion that they may be placed in a situation where they have to use lethal force, that's why every serviceman is given a minimal basic training. I'm sorry, but if you voluntarily sign a contract which states that you will obey every reasonable and legal order given to you by your superior, with such foreknowledge, and completing basic training, you can't hide behind 'conscientious objector'. No rational, stable person *wants* to kill, it just comes with the job and military life.

I mean, what did he think he was firing rifles down the range for? ****s 'n giggles?

[oolon]

One of the good things I guess is he was only jailed, no to long ago he would have faced execution for that behaviour. People should be under no illusion, you join up you fight if you are asked to. My father thought I should join the navy but it was because of this fact, and I could not be 100% sure I would be able to kill if I was asked that I didn't join.

[Sprite]

Instructor WO Robert Bainbridge said: ‘He felt the war in Afghanistan was unjust but I wasn’t there to send him to war, I was there to teach him how to use a rifle.’

Exactly how I feel, he refused an order to practice on a rifle range, he wasn't being told to ship out immediately to Afghanistan.

[Saracen]

The correct decision, in my view.

He's a military medic, and part of their duties as I understand it, is to use force to defend themselves and/or their patients. If he is unable to do that, he puts the lives of others at risk.

If you are in the military, and as long as an order is lawful, you do not get to pick and choose which you obey, and you do not get to second-guess command structures on whether to go to a war or not. Without discipline, the military cannot function.

As daniel.phillips said, even without the above, this was a training course.

On all the above grounds, from what I can tell, guilty as charged.