Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by BreathingOutOnTheWayUp, Mar 28, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No intention to interfere with the course of justice here but simply a question/observation. I thought that the idea of medics bearing arms was for the protection of their patients/injured persons in their care. Can't really see a problem with learning how to use a weapon - very different indeed from being expected to use it offensively in combat.
  2. The Daily Telegraph readers are discussing the merits of the case too. Outrageous.
  3. We carry arms for personal protection and that of our patients. If we fire aggressively (ie not simply as protection) then we lose the shield of the Geneva Convention.

    The level to which one uses their personal weapon is an individual decision, as you would find if you surveyed us.

    I'm not going to get into discussion of thus particular case, despite it's mention in the other place! Suffice to say I believe there are ways of making objections, and those which involve civilian support groups and the media wouldn't be my personal choice nor a course I would advise. Airing one's dirty laundry and all that.
  4. One extreme to the other. One medic was awarded the military cross to this person refusing to undergo weapons training.
  5. And in fact used her weapon during a firefight rather than for the protection of a casualty.
    Yes this is subjudice and one shouldn't comment. There is a very good article in the winter British Army Review. It is written by a young officer; presumably recently returned from Afghanistan; and is about maintaining morality on ops at the tac level. In he he states (precis from memory) that if you are not prepared to die, be maimed, kill and risk yourself to aid or protect others quote "leave the Armed Forces now" unquote. A point well made I beliieve.

  6. The question here is would he be willing to serve as a medic in Afghanistan without having to carry a weapon?
  7. Why join in the first place? It's a military service and its the nature of the trade. Enforcing this countries foreign policy, firing weapons is more or less a forgone conclusion.
  8. No, the question is should he be ALLOWED to serve in Afghanistan without carrying a weapon (which could provide personal and dependent protection IF REQUIRED. The alternative is that other people have to stick their necks out and put themselves at potential risk to protect him.
  9. Very good question Finks.
  10. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

  11. I think you need to remember that he is a medic whose job is to save life not take it, he is not a combat soldier.
  12. I wonder if it's a case of he has been on easy street for his career and now he has to go in an environment where his life is going to be put at risk.
  13. Correct. He is a sailor who is taking the Queens schilling and now that it gets a bit tough for him he decides to disagree with the war. He has been put in an "Army" environment. If he wanted that, he would have joined the Army. I am not defending him in any way as I think he should be discharged as he is no longer functional or safe in a "miltary" environment where people are expected to act on orders without question. He is putting others at risk as he doesn't want to conform. Get rid.
  14. I agree he should go, if he thought that strongly about it he could have just banged his notice in, not gone running to the press. The cynic in says people only do this for the 5 minutes of fame and money they think they may get out of it. Not carrying a personal weapon for self defence just means others have to constantly watch your back for you, you just need to be careful when you use it if you need to.

    In modern times, most combat medics carry a personal weapon, to be used to protect themselves and the wounded or sick in their care. When and if they use their arms offensively, or carry arms that qualify as offensive, they then sacrifice their protection under the Geneva Conventions.

    edited to add it is classed as a war crime iaw the Geneva Conventions to knowingly target a medical person on the battlefield, unfortunately the Taliban don't play by the rules so not to be armed is a almost suicidal IMO.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011
  15. I not only remembered that, it is a vital cornerstone to my argument that the carrying of a weapon for personal protection (and for the defence of any wounded personnel in his care) is fundamental to him being able to fulfil his aim of saving life. A weapon is only an offensive weapon if used for that purpose - he is not only totally within his rights to refuse to use his weapon offensively, I would EXPECT him not to do so as a medic. None of the above absolves him from any obligation as a member of the military to undertake appropriate training in the use of a firearm.
  16. As an aside, Flt Lt Kendall-Smith was an RAF MO who refused to take part in pre-deployment training a few years ago and was CM'd for it. He was not a conscientious objector, but decided in his own head that the Iraq war was illegal. His crime was to refuse to take part in pre-deployment training. The Judge Advocate threw Kendall-Smith's argument out pretty sharpish - I wonder if this is a precedent that this Medical Branch Rating should consider. (Wikipedia article)
  17. Bear in mind that Medics, like anyone else on a deployment, may be needed to carry arms, offensively, not in the course of their medical duties. I'm sure this is explained to them at the AFCO, and something this chap needs to remember!
  18. That man will get get discharge SNLR!.No more less although he is a disgrace .When a twenty year old female won the MC not so long back.mMy way of thinking he should do some time but wont !!
  19. I think it is worth considering a hypothetical scenario, SBA C.O. Dean is out on patrol with Royal and they come under fire, would you think that Royal would appreciate Jolly Jack/Jackess with his/her 30 minutes acquaint on the range firing off live rounds, they could well be more of a liability than an asset.

Share This Page