Brought to Book

#369 can be quoted as saying that 'Sadly, right or wrong a soldier's lot is to do what he's told to do', now I would disagree with that, and the reason why?

I go back to Germany at the cessation of WWII, when some people claimed that the reason why they broke the rules of war was that they were following orders, not all of which were written down so could not be referred to, as a formal defence.

Now, I am sure that Tony Blair never wrote down how prisoners should be treated, neither did Geoff Hoon. However, some of these prisoners did end up being extra-ordinarily renditioned, and then either maltreated, or even worse tortured and killed. There is sufficient evidence to support this allegation, of maltreatment, torture and killing.

What also has to be understood is that even at the cessation of WWI, when on signing the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to admit to responsibility for the war, even though most fair minded people would not place all the blame on the Kaiser. However, the Kaiser had taken refuge in Holland, and lived there until his death. Holland, would not extradite the Kaiser to face any trial, because he may have faced execution.

My point, that British soldiers under international law, should not have accepted orders when they knew what would result from their actions. I think that you will find that an inquiry held by senior MPs have taken legal advice and confirmed my comment, and earlier ones.

So, I would totally disagree with anybody who asserts that 'a soldiers lot is to do what he's told', in fact I would disagree most strongly! Bush and Blair must be brought to book, they have blood on their hands, and I would also say that the senior officers in the army should also be brought to book, if a soldier is meant to do as he's told then who does the telling.