Talk:Malcolm Kendall-Smith

UN Resolution 1546 referred to by The Independent

Martin Halfpenny, for The Independent, refers to UN Resolution 1546 in this article:

Mr Sapsford added that the defence team was prepared to produce expert evidence to show that UN Resolution 1546, relied upon by the UK and US governments to justify the invasion, was no defence in international law.

Does anyone know what he is referring to exactly. Is it UN Security Council Resolution 1546? --Christiaan 12:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the reference. Still, it doesn't make much sense. How could the government seriously be using as its argument for the lawfulness of the 2003 invasion a resolution that wasn't passed until the 8th of June, 2004? It would make much more sense if the actual argument is based on resolution 1441 (November 8th, 2002), where Iraq is faced with "serious consequences" if it does not comply with its obligations to disarm. 1441 is the resolution that the U.S. government, having failed in the spring of 2003 to obtain a second resolution explicitly authorising the use of force against Iraq, relied on as the international justification for the invasion. Was not the same argument used by Britain, its principal ally? --Anders Püschel 13:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense here because Kendall-Smith was ordered to go to Iraq on July 12, 2005, long after UNSCR 1546 authorized his presence. That makes the legality of the initial invasion irrelevant to the case. -- Randy2063 19:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Most appropriate sidebar?

I've added the RAF sidebar (Template:RAF) but I'm not sure that this is the most appropriate one. For instance the Anti-war topics sidebar might be better (Template:Anti-war topics), but then this isn't really anti-war, it's only anti-Iraq war. --Christiaan 13:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Transcripts

This would be a whole lot easier if we didn't need to rely on journalists filtering the court proceedings. Do transcripts of these things get released to the public? Maybe we can get hold of them. -Christiaan 21:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Usually full transcripts are only released when someone pays the fee, which is substantial. The only thing you can expect to get for free is the judgment issued by the court. Try contacting the defence lawyers to see what they can provide.

Links

Does anyone know if there is a support organization for this chap? If so, a link to that would be good.

According to [1]"(Messages of support can be sent via justin@roselaw.co.uk for anybody who is interested)". Ah, this appears to be the email address of Mr. Kendall-Smith's Lawyer, Justin Hugheston-Roberts[2].

Judges comments

I found the judges remarks that servicemen cannot pick and choose which orders they follow to be very interesting. I can say for sure, as a holder of a commission, you are not allowed to follow an order you believe to be manifestly illegal. Stand-by if it is proved to be legal but nonetheless he (the judge) surely ought to have phrased that better?

Birthdate

Why the uncertainty (68/69) in his birthdate? --172.132.121.61 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malcolm Kendall-Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514194323/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article351482.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article351482.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)