Assassination and the law

As I understand it the assassination of Iran's General Qasem Soleimani is at first sight something that must surely be regarded as a violation of international law and by this act of aggression confers upon those who commissioned and delivered the act, the label 'terrorists!'.

Even though I am assured, and quite confident, that General Soleimani had indeed planned and commissioned acts of aggression in Syria and Iraq (and other places too perhaps) the action in which Soleimnai was killed can not be justified on the grounds of his tyranny and as no state of war exists and the General was on foreign soil and effectively hors de combat this is both a wrong and dangerous action to have taken. For as General in Chief, surely the President has set aside diplomacy and publicly placed on the table state sponsored acts of aggression.

Now I am of the mind that this has been the case in the actions of the Iranian sponsored involvements in Syria, where nationals who oppose the current regime have been killed, and also feel that there is enough suspicion to support the claims that Iranian involvement in Iraq has resulted in the loss of coalition life. That this is covert does not remove the warrant of international law or God's law. There is the case that 'tyranny' can be used as a just cause for such acts, I don't think that this applies here. Neither do I think the action can be considered to be 'preemptive or anticipatory self-defence' (unless the US can provide evidence that by removing this man from power as act of aggression (or terrorism) was prevented.

Some might say that there is evidence of belligerency (that is warlike or aggressive behaviour) on the part of Iran and so the act of assassination cannot be considered the be terrorism. The problem here is that so many motion pictures, historical books and first-hand accounts can lay the same charges as those Gen Soleimani was accused of at the door of US armed forces or agencies. If we take this as the case, what not precludes Iran for engaging in 'tit for tat' responses?

As a final thought, what of 'protected persons'? The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism brings into view the fact that"a serious offence involving an attack against the life, physical integrity or liberty of internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents; by means of bombs, grenades, rockets, automatic firearm or letter or parcel bomb is an act of terrorism.

As one who is concerned with maintaining the rule of law (something British forces do by abiding by the Law of Armed Conflict [LOAC] and keeping within the Rules of Engagement [RoE] and operating within the Geneva and other conventions and treaties) I am struggling with today's actions. Coupled with the jingoistic Tweeting of an American Flag by the President of the United States and the baying masses who champion acts that appear to be wrong, we find ourselves in a difficult moral situation today. The Bible offers us this thought in Exodus 20.13: "You shall not commit murder!" Taking a life in combat is to kill another person: A combatant. We, the British forces are taught that we are Lawful, Professional and always act Appropriately in all situations (Thats what LOAC, RoE, and the various conventions and treaties challenge us to be and do. Anything outside to that is the felonious taking of life and any act of murder removes from us any higher moral ground and removes from us our moral compass.

Even if this does not promulgate state-sponsored action, the potential for this to ignite a response from members of the Islamic faith against what is (erroneously in my opinion) labelled as Christian is great. It is an act that is in many ways the same as striking a tinderbox in a gunpowder store (which didn't work for Guy Fawkes and his covert strike team but might for others in today's context.

We should be circumspect when the conditions so dictate such action. Anything else is a recipe for something tragic and costly in terms of lives and the potential for peace. Dialogue rather than military engagement is always the preferred path, and when this fails is the time when I and those who wear uniforms are called upon to fix the mess politicians have made.

Please pray for the players in this tragic and sorry episode.

Please do not cheer at the demise of a life which appears to have been taken wrongly, for their is no victory for anything but the forces of darkness and the rule of stupidity.

Please reflect and, if I am wrong, offer me correction, and if not - work to bring about peaceful results from this sad and sorry situation. I will hopefully revisit and where necessary add sources - but in this splurge from somewhere in my head, I have not had the memory or time to do so.

Pax

International Conscientious Objector Day and the fog of . .

Well it should be war but instead it has to be misinformation and manipulation! I say this because so far this morning I have heard three people speak on the issue of conscientious objectors. All were spot on when they spoke of the integrity and courage of so many of those who were abused and berated for maintaining their position and the attitudes that existed in 1914-18 and into today's mindset.

One spoke of the courage that so many of them exhibited as they formed part of mobile hospitals and carried the wounded from the jaws of death (facing death themselves at every turn) - one of them, Lance Corporal William Harold Coltman, VC, DCM and Bar, MM and Bar, one of the highest awarded soldiers being a hero of mine, was sadly not mentioned (but deserved to be).

Another spoke of the inner sanctity of life and how this needed to be heard to stop us being involved in taking life around the world in the name of serving the oppressed.

The error, and perhaps intentional misrepresentation, came when all used the word 'kill' in the context of Exodus 20.13 and explained how this shaped conscientious objectors then and now and this is the focus of my concern for the word, as I understand it, is of not 'kill' but 'murder'.

Now in a world where we can move from 'sex' and 'gender' and assume them to be one and the same it is perhaps no surprise that many also view 'kill' and 'murder' in the same way - but of course there is a great, and most important, difference.

Murder is the unlawful taking of life - regardless of the circumstances or situation - it is something that the British Forces take extremely seriously (as do all who are signatories of the Geneva and other conventions). There are strict rules regarding conflict and the way that it is enacted. This is why we have extensive teaching on the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and why all those on operational duties have in their possession a 'Rules of Engagement' (RoE) card - something that outlines when, why and how deadly force might be taken up - because soldiers don't (or should not) murder anyone!

Killing is the taking of life in circumstances that are not regarded as murder. If someone is sentenced to capital punishment, regardless of how one might view that issue, they have been killed. If someone loses their life through an act of self defence, then the other party walks away without the stigma, or penalties, that is associated with being a murderer. Taking a life to stop a criminal act, always regrettable as it is, is not murder either.

The Bible is quite explicit on the use of the word 'Murder' and this is how it is translated in the majority of the translations (the King James Version and it's many variants being the majority user of 'Kill'). Murder, in the Exodus context was (and for this I draw on the rabbinic teaching I received whilst studying Jewish Christian dialogue): The unlawful taking of life and the taking of life by mischievous or culpable negligence. The negligence part amazed me for it meant that should a workman cut corners to complete a job (say fitting a wheel to something or building a wall) and that causes a failure that takes life - they were guilty of murder.

So having made the point that life may be taken legally or illegally and, I hope made it clear that military engagement is not about committing murder but stopping it, let's move on to pay tribute to Coltman (and the many like him). If you can make it to the Staffordshire Regiment's museum at Whittington (between Lichfield and Tamworth) you can find his medal and WWI trenches named in his honour too.

Coltman saw action but came to the decision that his Christian values were in conflict with carrying a weapon and so, already tested by war, exchanged his rifle for a stretcher and served his nation and his God. A man of undoubted courage and Christian commitment - but don't take my word for it. Here's his entry in the London Gazette:

For most conspicuous bravery, initiative and devotion to duty. During the operations at Mannequin Hill, north-east of Sequehart, on the 3rd and 4th of Oct. 1918, L.-Corp. Coltman, a stretcher bearer, hearing that wounded had been left behind during a retirement, went forward alone in the face of fierce enfilade fire, found the casualties, dressed them and on three successive occasions, carried comrades on his back to safety, thus saving their lives. This very gallant NCO tended the wounded unceasingly for 48 hours.

William Harold Coltman VC, DCM & Bar, MM & Bar

So today, please take a moment to remember ALL who have for reasons of conscience made decisions that have changed the direction of their lives and the regard of those around them. I applaud people who think and challenge that which is before them because of their belief (and lack of belief too) and act with integrity.

Please pray for those who seek to be peacemakers in wars that deny the taking up of arms and for those who do bear arms and travel to foreign lands.

Please pray for those who through ignorance might decry and belittle those who for reasons of faith or philosophy that they would find within themselves charity and understanding - if not to accept then not to oppose in ways that deny God's love.

________

One of my desires is to help people with their choices and to remove misinformation and misunderstanding wheresoever I can - hence part of this entry today. Another is to recognise, honour and celebrate courage, integrity, justice and mercy - after all that's what God calls all people to exhibit isn't it?*

ps. The 1916 Conscription Act brought into be a 'conscience clause' which gave the right to claim exemption from military service and yet the instructions to the panels who heard the applications (and there were almost 17,000 of them) was to deny them and get as many in uniform as possible. All part of the same mindset that shot brave men who had been broken in mind and spirit. A sad part of our history indeed!


*Micah 6.6-8