Iraq protest officer says US behaved 'like Nazis'

Published on 13/04/2006 01:14

AN RAF doctor facing a court-martial for refusing a posting to Iraq said yesterday he believed the United States to be the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.

Flight Lieutenant Dr Malcolm Kendall-Smith could face an unlimited jail sentence for disobeying an order to go to Iraq last year, and four orders to prepare for his deployment. The case is the first of its kind in Britain over the war in Iraq.

Kendall-Smith made his remarks amid a series of bitter exchanges with David Perry, prosecuting, at a hearing in Aldershot, Hampshire.

"As early as 2004 I regarded the United States to be on par with Nazi Germany as regards its activities in the Gulf," Kendall-Smith told the court.

Mr Perry, asking Kendall-Smith for clarification, said: "Are you saying the US is the moral equivalent of the Third Reich?"

Kendall-Smith replied: "That's correct."

He then continued: "I have documents in my possession which support my assertions.

"This is on the basis that ongoing acts of aggression in Iraq, and systematically applied war crimes, provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany."

The medic had told his wing commander he would not go to Basra, after carrying out extensive research and deciding the allied invasion was "unlawful".

He had been decorated for two previous tours in the Gulf, but failed to return in July last year and was suspended from his post as unit medical officer at RAF Kinloss in Moray.

The judge in the case has already ruled that orders for British troops to deploy to Iraq in 2005 were legal, because the British presence was covered by a United Nations Security Council resolution passed after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Speaking firmly but often emotionally, Kendall-Smith testified in his own defence as the only witness called in the case.

He said he initially attempted to resign on learning he was being sent to Iraq, but later concluded it was his duty to remain in the air force and refuse the order.

"I love the air force today as much as the day I volunteered, sir," he said.

The case, before Jack Bayliss, a civilian judge advocate, and a panel of five officers, concluded yesterday and the panel will return today to consider a verdict.

Mr Bayliss provided no room for the panel to accept Kendall-Smith's argument that the orders were illegal.

"My direction to you, gentlemen, as a matter of law, is that each of the orders was a lawful order. The defence contention that the orders were unlawful is wrong," Mr Bayliss said.

Kendall-Smith's lawyers have conceded their client did not obey orders. But they presented him as a conscientious officer trying to carry out his duty.

"All I ask you to think about is that he is a human being, and he has wrestled with his conscience and has taken a great moral stride," his lawyer, Philip Sapsford, told the panel.

Prosecutors described Kendall-Smith, who holds both British and New Zealand citizenship, as an aggrieved officer who had repeatedly clashed with his superiors.

Kendall-Smith's testimony showed that he was "an easily moved, stubborn individual, prone to displays of temper and resentment", said Mr Perry.