Court Martial of RAF Dr who rejected Iraq tour.

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=Doctor guilty&ct=5

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal, on the other a soldier has a duty to his country. Of course the army couldn't do anything but find him guilty or open the floodgates on simillar cases, but does the RAF officer have a point? Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

 

[Pengwuino]

What exactly separates a "legal war" from an "illegal war" anyhow? I didn't know there was some sort of all-powerful non-corrupting entity in existence that was allowed to make laws governing what countries can declare war and what countries can't and what regulations must be followed when attacking other societies.

Kinda backwards to think this entity is the "UN" since half of their security council was being payed off by the Iraqi government for years.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well yes but 145/191 of the UN's member countries refused to support the US in it's plans for war, so the UN declared against the US. I'm sure those countries were well aware of Iraqs actions. The US chose to ignore the UN's resolution thus it is illegal. That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

 

[Anttech]

What exactly separates a "legal war" from an "illegal war" anyhow? I didn't know there was some sort of all-powerful non-corrupting entity in existence that was allowed to make laws governing what countries can declare war and what countries can't and what regulations must be followed when attacking other societies.

Kinda backwards to think this entity is the "UN" since half of their security council was being payed off by the Iraqi government for years.

The Iraq war is against the UN charter. Your comment on what individual countries did with respect to Oil for food, is irrelevant IMO. Its like saying, because one Judge is bent and does something wrong, the whole judicial system in a country is thus obsolete. The war is internationaly recongnised within the international UN treaties as being unlawful.

That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

I don't think so, if he joined the military and was ordered to do something he is obliged by the military law to do as ordered. However it is a very interesting point he has. For example if he was ordered to murder civilans (which would be an unlawful order) then he would have grounds to ignore the order.. Could the same be said about what he has done here?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What exactly separates a "legal war" from an "illegal war" anyhow? I didn't know there was some sort of all-powerful non-corrupting entity in existence that was allowed to make laws governing what countries can declare war and what countries can't and what regulations must be followed when attacking other societies.

Kinda backwards to think this entity is the "UN" since half of their security council was being payed off by the Iraqi government for years.

Yes it's called the UN and your country was instrumental in founding it and it's ideals:-

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And for these Ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

 

[Art]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=Doctor guilty&ct=5

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal, on the other a soldier has a duty to his country. Of course the army couldn't do anything but find him guilty or open the floodgates on simillar cases, but does the RAF officer have a point? Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

The summing up of the judge advocate was interesting;

"Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Disobedience of orders means it is not a disciplined force, it is a disorganised rabble.

"Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they obey and those who do so must face the consequences."

He added that the sentence would send a message to other members of the armed forces of the importance of obeying orders.

The armed forces in their enthusiasm to make an example of him seem to have forgotten that at Nuremberg soldiers were convicted of war crimes and hanged when the judges there ruled that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defence. The ruling said then that it was incumbent upon soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

It seems this court-martial neatly side-stepped the issue of whether or not the war itself was illegal which was central to the defence. Perhaps this aspect will get a better (and fairer) hearing at the appeal.

 

[Anttech]

The armed forces in their enthusiasm to make an example of him seem to have forgotten that at Nuremberg soldiers were convicted of war crimes and hanged when the judges there ruled that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defence. The ruling said then that it was incumbent upon soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

It seems this court-martial neatly side-stepped the issue of whether or not the war itself was illegal which was central to the defence. Perhaps this aspect will get a better (and fairer) hearing at the appeal.

Yeh, I aggree. Could set a presidence, if the ruling was overturned.. No doubt some judges out there with an axe to grind against the Iraq war will speak up.. Hope so!

Sentencing Kendall-Smith, Judge Advocate Bayliss told him: "You have, in this court's view, sought to make a martyr of yourself. You have shown a degree of arrogance that is amazing."

He added that Kendall-Smith may have acted out of his moral viewpoint but his interpretation of the presence of British forces in Iraq as illegal was incorrect.

Incorrect to who, and which laws. He should appel to the European courts, if the occupation of Iraq in the viewpoint of the british judical system is not unlawful, within the framework of the EU judical system the Iraq war could be found as Unlawful, and thus he maybe found NOT guilty, what a political scandal that would cause...

A broader point of view is found in the European Council Directive 2004/83/EC of April 29, 2004, on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. This directive defines when persecution according to the Geneva Convention should give the right for protection. The Directive rules in Article 9 and 12 that ,,acts of persecution can take the form of prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations".

http://www.wri-irg.org/news/2006/friedrich-en.htm

 

[Curious3141]

He added: "Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force. Disobedience of orders means it is not a disciplined force, it is a disorganised rabble.

"Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they obey and those who do so must face the consequences."

He added that the sentence would send a message to other members of the armed forces of the importance of obeying orders.

Sentencing Kendall-Smith, Judge Advocate Bayliss told him: "You have, in this court's view, sought to make a martyr of yourself. You have shown a degree of arrogance that is amazing."

Those are the presiding Judge's comments in judgement. I find it fascinating to consider how ironic these words become when you consider the precise nature of the prosecution used by the same courts in going after German Officers during the Nuremberg trials.

 

[Astronuc]

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal, on the other a soldier has a duty to his country. Of course the army couldn't do anything but find him guilty or open the floodgates on simillar cases, but does the RAF officer have a point? Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

I suppose if the doctor felt strongly, then he should have resigned his commission in protest, thus doing it legally. However, perhaps he chose to make a strong statement - sort of civil disobedience.

In the US, one can elect a 'conscientious objector' status, but joining the military, of which one function is war, seems a bit contradictory.

On the other hand, a doctor presumably would not be engaged in the violence of war, but simply administer medical treatment, so a doctor should be able to declare himself a 'conscientious objector', assuming there is such a provision in the British military.

 

[russ_watters]

On the one hand technically the war in Iraq is illegal...

Just because he believes that or you believe that, doesn't make it true. A court would have to rule the war illegal. And the court in this case ruled that his orders were legal. It did not rule on whether the invasion itself was illegal because the question was irrelevant: the defendant was not ordered to take part in the invasion, and ruled that at the time the orders were given the coalition presence was "unquestionably legal".

Reading some of his statements in the article, it sounds to me like he is a candidate for a psychiatric discharge anyway. Though that could just be a defense tactic.

 

[russ_watters]

Well yes but 145/191 of the UN's member countries refused to support the US in it's plans for war, so the UN declared against the US. I'm sure those countries were well aware of Iraqs actions. The US chose to ignore the UN's resolution thus it is illegal. That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

Come again? Which resolution did the US ignore? The only relevant resolution for this conversation I know of was 1441 and it passed unanamously.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html" is a list. Which resolutions are you talking about?

Edit: in fact, 1483 recognizes the US and UK as occupying powers, implying approval of the occupation (without mentioning the invasion). It also states that Iraq is still a threat, but one that has improved - implying progress toward the goal of 1441 (eliminating the threat Iraq posed). Resolution 1500 has the UN taking part in the assistance portion of the mission in Iraq. 1511 goes further to authorize UN security forces - which is the very mission that this guy was court martialed for not participating in.

 

[russ_watters]

The summing up of the judge advocate was interesting; The armed forces in their enthusiasm to make an example of him seem to have forgotten that at Nuremberg soldiers were convicted of war crimes and hanged when the judges there ruled that "I was just following orders" was not a valid defence. The ruling said then that it was incumbent upon soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

Not true, Art. At Nuremberg, the court ruled that the orders were illegal. In this case, the court ruled that the orders were legal. The cases are not comparable.

It seems this court-martial neatly side-stepped the issue of whether or not the war itself was illegal which was central to the defence.

I don't think so at all. I think the question is more complicated than people want it to be because some phases might be legal while others illegal.

 

[russ_watters]

Incorrect to who, and which laws.

Incorrect to the court who made the ruling (obviously) and according to British and international (UN) law - as stated in the article.

He should appel to the European courts...

I'm not clear on how the EU works, but I wouldn't expect them to have jurisdiction here.

 

[russ_watters]

I suppose if the doctor felt strongly, then he should have resigned his commission in protest, thus doing it legally.

Agreed, though we don't really know the terms of his service.

I don't think the conscientious objector thing applies, though - he didn't say he objected to the concept of war, just this war.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just because he believes that or you believe that, doesn't make it true. A court would have to rule the war illegal. And the court in this case ruled that his orders were legal. It did not rule on whether the invasion itself was illegal because the question was irrelevant: the defendant was not ordered to take part in the invasion, and ruled that at the time the orders were given the coalition presence was "unquestionably legal".

I did already say this.

That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

Come again? Which resolution did the US ignore? The only relevant resolution for this conversation I know of was 1441 and it passed.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html" is a list. Which resolutions are you talking about?

The UN deemed the war illegal, the US and the UK ignored them and fought it anyway(so yes technically, it is deemed illegal) let's not get hung up on semantics please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Unless this man is lying of course. This is what I meant.

Anyway as I said and you reiterated, it's beside the point. Legal or not: is this grounds for disobeying an order?

 

[Anttech]

Just because he believes that or you believe that, doesn't make it true. A court would have to rule the war illegal. And the court in this case ruled that his orders were legal. It did not rule on whether the invasion itself was illegal because the question was irrelevant:

ehh? The question is NOT irrelevant, it is totally revelent. His WHOLE defence is based on that fact! If the war is Illegal, then he is totally within his rights to ignore any order given to him to participate in the illegal action. The question is, was the war legal or not? As I said before he should present his case to the EU courts..

 

[Anttech]

I'm not clear on how the EU works, but I wouldn't expect them to have jurisdiction here.

I think you will find they do, they could overrule the judgement. The only problem he can't asked for asylum because the UK is already in the EU... It would be a presidence that's for sure

 

[russ_watters]

I did already say this.

Didn't see it...

That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

Which, again, is a matter for the courts.

The UN deemed the war illegal, the US and the UK ignored them and fought it anyway(so yes technically, it is deemed illegal) let's not get hung up on semantics please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

Unless this man is lying of course. This is what I meant.

Oh, we're going to get hung up on that issue if that's what you meant. You're flat-out wrong. Anan may be the UN Secretary General, but he isn't the UN general assembly, nor is he a judge in the World Court. His opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine and isn't relevant here. When you say "The UN..." you are or should be referring to the Security Council or the General Assembly. The Secretary General is not "the UN". The relevant opinions here are the UNSC, the UNGE, the World Court, and the court in the UK that ruled on the issue.

If Anan thinks the war is illegal, why doesn't he press the UN to declare it illegal? My guess would be he knows his opinion on the subject doesn't carry much weight.

Anyway as I said and you reiterated, it's beside the point. Legal or not: is this grounds for disobeying an order?

See my edit on what "the UN" really had to say on the issue.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said was you have to separate the phases of the war. The specific one that he objected to was ruled by the court to be legal and as a result, his orders were legal. It really is that simple.

 

[russ_watters]

ehh? The question is NOT irrelevant, it is totally revelent. His WHOLE defence is based on that fact! If the war is Illegal, then he is totally within his rights to ignore any order given to him to participate in the illegal action. The question is, was the war legal or not?

Same as I said above: you need to separate the phases. If you refuse, you force yourself into accepting that the entire war was legal, as ruled by the court in question and as implied by the UN.

The way the ruling actually worked, they left open the possibility that the invasion itself was illegal. It may also just be a reaction to his realization that the UN is impotent.

As I said before he should present his case to the EU courts...

I think you will find they do, they could overrule the judgement.

Can you point me to where I can read about that? A quick google finds http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/about/pap/process_and_players5.html" , which says one specific court anyway only deals with disputes between nations and disputes between individuals and the EU - not internal issues.

 

[Anttech]

http://europa.eu.int/institutions/court/index_en.htm

here for a start.. The EU court is the highest you can get in Europe

 

[russ_watters]

Having allready served two tours there I doubt he's just trying to get an easy ticket out and I'm sure he believes in what he is saying. What do you think?

I didn't see that in the article, but if true, isn't he cutting his own argument off at the knee? If the war is illegal now, why wasn't it illegal when he was ordered on his first tour? It does indeed sound to me like he's just had enough and is trying to get an easy ticket out.

 

[Anttech]

I didn't see that in the article, but if true, isn't he cutting his own argument off at the knee? If the war is illegal now, why wasn't it illegal when he was ordered on his first tour? It does indeed sound to me like he's just had enough and is trying to get an easy ticket out.

Why go to all this trouble, there are FAR easier ways to avoid doing another tour. He is trying to make a political point IMHO

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

If Anan thinks the war is illegal, why doesn't he press the UN to declare it illegal? My guess would be he knows his opinion on the subject doesn't carry much weight. That's not exactly what I said. What I said was you have to separate the phases of the war. The specific one that he objected to was ruled by the court to be legal and as a result, his orders were legal. It really is that simple.

I think we can agree that the first phase of the war was considered illegal by the UN, in that ignored the UN's mandates to impose more sanctions, or maybe we can't agree, anyway let's agree to disagree, it really has no huge relevance to this, although is obviously his given reason for disobeying orders.

I didn't see that in the article, but if true, isn't he cutting his own argument off at the knee? If the war is illegal now, why wasn't it illegal when he was ordered on his first tour? It does indeed sound to me like he's just had enough and is trying to get an easy ticket out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098768.html

It's in here, a few more details to the case.

I'd be wary of drawing assumptions like that, that's speculation IMO, you could also say if he wanted to leave because he hated it, why not do it at the end of the first tour when his opinions might of carried more weight?

 

[Art]

Not true, Art. At Nuremberg, the court ruled that the orders were illegal. In this case, the court ruled that the orders were legal.

Read what I wrote Russ. I said the judges summing up was interesting. The interesting part being that all the emphasis was on serving soldiers must follow orders. He didn't differentiate between legal orders and illegal orders. That was the bit I found interesting.

In fact he also said this

But Mr Bayliss said that even if the Government had committed an act of illegal aggression in invading Iraq, Dr Kendall-Smith was wrong to imagine that he had any responsibility for it. "If a defendant believed that to go to Basra would make him complicit in the crime of aggression, his understanding of the law was wrong," he said.

This is totally contrary to the findings of the Nuremberg courts which ruled soldiers are individually responsible for participating in illegal acts.

I don't think so at all. I think the question is more complicated than people want it to be because some phases might be legal while others illegal.

This case received wide coverage in the UK when charges were first levelled against him. It was thought that it could be a test case as to the legality of the initial invasion. The defence reasoning being that if the initial war was illegal then all subsequent orders emanating from an illegal act are also illegal. As I pointed out the court side-stepped this whole issue by drawing a line between the initial invasion and the subsequent 'nation building' (sic) role.

As he had already served 2 tours in Iraq this probably wasn't the best case to test the legality of the war itself. There were a few soldiers who refused to take part in the initial invasion but to my knowledge none of these have been charged with 'refusal to follow orders' probably because the powers at the top do not want to risk opening that particular can of worms.

BTW Antech is right. The highest court in europe is the European Court of Justice. The court rules on member states implementation of EU law. However in this particular instance the soldier (after having pursued all legal avenues at home up to and including the House of Lords) could bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights, which is also superior to national courts, for infringement of his human rights as Britain is a signatory to this EU treaty.

Edit - Here's another case the UK Defence Ministry decided to let pass

No court martial for British soldier who quit in disgust over 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq

by Sean Rayment, The Telegraph [London, UK]

March 12, 2006

A Special Air Service (SAS) soldier has refused to fight in Iraq and has left the Army over the "illegal" tactics of United States troops and the policies of coalition forces.

After three months in Baghdad, Ben Griffin told his commander that he was no longer prepared to fight alongside American forces.

He said he had witnessed "dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" -- the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

The decision marks the first time an SAS soldier has refused to go into combat and quit the Army on moral grounds.

It immediately brought to an end Mr Griffin's exemplary, eight-year career in which he also served with the Parachute Regiment, taking part in operations in Northern Ireland, Macedonia and Afghanistan.

But it will also embarrass the Government and have a potentially profound impact on cases of other soldiers who have refused to fight.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2098768.html

It appears the UK government are being very careful who they prosecute thus avoiding any possibility of a court finding coalition forces are perpetrating war crimes.

 

[Astronuc]

I think one issue in this discussion is - who decides what is or is not an illegal act (of war).

Can any individual in any society decide that any particular act is or is not legal or illegal? No.

Can civil (local, state, national, international) institutions (authorities, governments) decide legality or illegality? Yes.

Who has the power impose sanctions/punishments for illegal acts? Civil authorities/governments.

 

[Art]

I think one issue in this discussion is - who decides what is or is not an illegal act (of war).

Can any individual in any society decide that any particular act is or is not legal or illegal? No.

Can civil (local, state, national, international) institutions (authorities, governments) decide legality or illegality? Yes.

Who has the power impose sanctions/punishments for illegal acts? Civil authorities/governments.

The ultimate authority is the International Criminal Court which sits in the Hague.

Britain is a signatory of the ICC and so in theory if the Iraqi invasion was found to be illegal by the British (or conceivably other countries' courts) the ICC could request that Tony Blair be delivered to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. This is what many of the anti-war protestors in Britain are pushing for. The sanctions available to the court include life imprisonment but not the death penalty.

The US as a non-signatory of the ICC treaty (Clinton signed it but it was never presented for ratification by congress and was subsequently negated by Bush) is therefore not bound to hand over it's citizens for trial and so Bush is safe . Theroetically US citizens could be arrested whilst abroad and charged but the US has threatened military action if this ever happens.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well yes but 145/191 of the UN's member countries refused to support the US in it's plans for war, so the UN declared against the US. I'm sure those countries were well aware of Iraqs actions. The US chose to ignore the UN's resolution thus it is illegal. That said I don't think the majority of the world's countries being neutral or against the war is an issue, the issue is, is this sufficient grounds for refusing to obey an order?

So it's pretty much like the police asking Al Capone whether or not it's legal to arrest him for tax evasion?

Maybe the UN should be declared illegal since the UN has turned into the Russian arms market.

 

[loseyourname]

In fact he also said this This is totally contrary to the findings of the Nuremberg courts which ruled soldiers are individually responsible for participating in illegal acts.

They're not responsible for being part of an army taking part in an illegal war, though. The court didn't convict every single Nazi infantry soldier.

 

[ukmicky]

Agreed, though we don't really know the terms of his service.

I don't think the conscientious objector thing applies, though - he didn't say he objected to the concept of war, just this war.

Just to let you know according to the BBC news here in the uk he had a way out and could have chosen to be a consientious objector but he chose not to.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little drunk and I'm going away for the weekend, but I couldn't pass this up:

Read what I wrote Russ. I said the judges summing up was interesting. The interesting part being that all the emphasis was on serving soldiers must follow orders. He didn't differentiate between legal orders and illegal orders. That was the bit I found interesting.

I know what you wrote, Art: The court did specify that the orders were legal and that that question was the entire issue! You couldn't be any more straightforwardly wrong:

David Perry, prosecuting [and he was convicted, so the court agrees], said the case against Kendall-Smith was that the orders were lawful and he had a duty to obey them as a commissioned officer.

 

[russ_watters]

http://europa.eu.int/institutions/court/index_en.htm

here for a start.. The EU court is the highest you can get in Europe

That says nothing at all about criminal, much les military crimes. Can you at least cite a case where a criminal trial went to that court? It doesn't look to me like that is possible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In fact he also said this This is totally contrary to the findings of the Nuremberg courts which ruled soldiers are individually responsible for participating in illegal acts.

They're not responsible for being part of an army taking part in an illegal war, though. The court didn't convict every single Nazi infantry soldier.

Between the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal and the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals only 209 people were put on trial. The other occupying governments held their own trials as well. The first Wiki article also mentions organizations that were put on trial but does not specifically mention any individuals from those organizations as defendants. I could be wrong but it appears as though the members of these organizations that were put on trial were handled by the subsequent trials.

Funny enough it seems that the SS would not prosecute it's soldiers if they refused to participate in the Holocaust. They simply transferred them to other branches since the acts weren't even legal by German law.

 

[Art]

Between the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal and the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals only 209 people were put on trial. The other occupying governments held their own trials as well. The first Wiki article also mentions organizations that were put on trial but does not specifically mention any individuals from those organizations as defendants. I could be wrong but it appears as though the members of these organizations that were put on trial were handled by the subsequent trials.

Funny enough it seems that the SS would not prosecute it's soldiers if they refused to participate in the Holocaust. They simply transferred them to other branches since the acts weren't even legal by German law.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but if it is to suggest that the lower ranks are exempt from prosecution for taking part in illegal activity whilst following orders or that only the people behind the illegal strategys can be held accountable then you should note that although only 209 people were tried immediately after the war, these were only the highest profile figures involved and does not in any way exonerate those of lower ranks.

Following the Holtzman Amendment allowing for the denaturalisation of suspected war criminals a special investigations unit was set up in the US to try and find some of the 70,000 nazi war criminals believed to have fled there there after WW2.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is but if it is to suggest that the lower ranks are exempt from prosecution for taking part in illegal activity whilst following orders or that only the people behind the illegal strategys can be held accountable then you should note that although only 209 people were tried immediately after the war, these were only the highest profile figures involved and does not in any way exonerate those of lower ranks.

Following the Holtzman Amendment allowing for the denaturalisation of suspected war criminals a special investigations unit was set up in the US to try and find some of the 70,000 nazi war criminals believed to have fled there there after WW2.

I was not suggesting that the lower ranks were exempt but that not all soldiers that were "just following orders" were tried as war criminals. If they were to take every Joe Krout who was involved in the war to court there would have been thousands upon thousands of defendants. The SS alone had more members than the regular german army at one point.
The highest profile figures were tried in the first trial. There were 24 of them total. The secondary trials were against the lesser lower ranking defendants.
I just looked up the Holtzman Amendment and I don't have much time at the moment but all I see is that it makes any person who was involved at all in the death camps deportable.

 

[Art]

I was not suggesting that the lower ranks were exempt but that not all soldiers that were "just following orders" were tried as war criminals. If they were to take every Joe Krout who was involved in the war to court there would have been thousands upon thousands of defendants. The SS alone had more members than the regular german army at one point.

Again I am unsure of what you are saying here but if you are mistakenly agreeing with Russ that the war was illegal then perhaps you should consider who declared war on whom.

The highest profile figures were tried in the first trial. There were 24 of them total. The secondary trials were against the lesser lower ranking defendants.
I just looked up the Holtzman Amendment and I don't have much time at the moment but all I see is that it makes any person who was involved at all in the death camps deportable.

Yes - "any person involved at all" which is the point I was making.