Soldiers who refuse to serve in Iraq
could face life imprisonment under controversial plans to reform
the existing system of courts martial.
Campaigners for justice in the
armed forces claimed yesterday that the Government was clamping
down on dissent because of the growing opposition to the war.
Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith was jailed for eight
months by a court martial for refusing to serve in Iraq, but
campaigners said the Armed Forces Bill will open so-called
"refuseniks" to a life sentence.
Rebel anti-war Labour MPs tabled an
amendment to the Bill's final stages this week to remove the
clause which they claim could lead to life imprisonment. They
propose replacing life imprisonment for desertion with a maximum
of two years in jail.
John McDonnell, chairman of the
left-wing Campaign Group of Labour MPs, said: "These new
provisions are a heavy-handed attempt to intimidate those in the
armed forces who out of conscience might object to participating
in a military occupation of a foreign country, such as Iraq."
Alan Simpson, a Labour MP and
leading member of the Campaign Group, said: "It is bizarre and
nonsensical that you get early release for murder or rape but you
face the prospect of life imprisonment for refusing to kill."
Former army officers briefed Labour
MPs at a private meeting in the Commons this week and urged them
to reject the Bill. Ben Griffin, who refused to return to Iraq and
resigned from the SAS, said: "I didn't join the British Army to
conduct American foreign policy."
Atease, a campaign group for
soldiers and their families, said: "The UK Government, worried
that the number of soldiers absconding from the Army has trebled
since the invasion of Iraq, is legislating to repress this
movement in the military." They claimed that the Bill contravened
the principles outlined at the Nuremberg hearings for the former
leaders of Nazi Germany enshrining in international law the
responsibility of individuals to refuse to obey illegal and
immoral orders from any government.
The Ministry of Defence denied that
the Bill imposed tougher sentences. But Gilbert Blades, a lawyer
specialising in courts martial cases, said: "They are making a
tougher definition of desertion." Mr Blades, who gave evidence to
a select committee hearing on the Bill, said it could be
challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
Section 8 of the Bill makes it
clear that a soldier commits an offence if he deserts by going
absent without leave permanently, or to avoid any particular
service in the armed forces.
The punishment for some forms of
desertion - such as going AWOL for a short time while not trying
to avoid service - is currently limited to a maximum of two years'
imprisonment. But the Bill specifically states that those going
AWOL to avoid serving during a military occupation, as in Iraq,
could be jailed for life.
Soldiers who refuse to serve in Iraq
could face life imprisonment under controversial plans to reform
the existing system of courts martial.
Campaigners for justice in the
armed forces claimed yesterday that the Government was clamping
down on dissent because of the growing opposition to the war.
Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith was jailed for eight
months by a court martial for refusing to serve in Iraq, but
campaigners said the Armed Forces Bill will open so-called
"refuseniks" to a life sentence.
Rebel anti-war Labour MPs tabled an
amendment to the Bill's final stages this week to remove the
clause which they claim could lead to life imprisonment. They
propose replacing life imprisonment for desertion with a maximum
of two years in jail.
John McDonnell, chairman of the
left-wing Campaign Group of Labour MPs, said: "These new
provisions are a heavy-handed attempt to intimidate those in the
armed forces who out of conscience might object to participating
in a military occupation of a foreign country, such as Iraq."
Alan Simpson, a Labour MP and
leading member of the Campaign Group, said: "It is bizarre and
nonsensical that you get early release for murder or rape but you
face the prospect of life imprisonment for refusing to kill."
Former army officers briefed Labour
MPs at a private meeting in the Commons this week and urged them
to reject the Bill. Ben Griffin, who refused to return to Iraq and
resigned from the SAS, said: "I didn't join the British Army to
conduct American foreign policy."
Atease, a campaign group for soldiers
and their families, said: "The UK Government, worried that the
number of soldiers absconding from the Army has trebled since the
invasion of Iraq, is legislating to repress this movement in the
military." They claimed that the Bill contravened the principles
outlined at the Nuremberg hearings for the former leaders of Nazi
Germany enshrining in international law the responsibility of
individuals to refuse to obey illegal and immoral orders from any
government.The Ministry of
Defence denied that the Bill imposed tougher sentences. But
Gilbert Blades, a lawyer specialising in courts martial cases,
said: "They are making a tougher definition of desertion." Mr
Blades, who gave evidence to a select committee hearing on the
Bill, said it could be challenged in the European Court of Human
Rights.
Section 8 of the Bill makes it
clear that a soldier commits an offence if he deserts by going
absent without leave permanently, or to avoid any particular
service in the armed forces.
The punishment for some forms of
desertion - such as going AWOL for a short time while not trying
to avoid service - is currently limited to a maximum of two years'
imprisonment. But the Bill specifically states that those going
AWOL to avoid serving during a military occupation, as in Iraq,
could be jailed for life
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article548953.ece
UNPUBLISHED LETTER TO THE
INDEPENDENT
HOME