Talk:Malcolm Kendall-Smith

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Military history: Biography / South Pacific / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

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)[reply]