http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11753050

I'd heard some of that story before, it might even have been on Top Gear... Anyway, he's still responsible for absolute atrocities

It don't think that was mentioned on top gear. He did talk about being the first in, but there was no mention of Russians or airports.

Does he have some kind of new musical offering for us to buy?

It is actually a soldiers responsibility to ignore and even report orders that are illegal and criminal.

By the sound of the article, the order he as given wasn't actually either. It was just monumentally stupid. It's the easiest thing in the world to just 'do as you're told', especially in the armed forces. Having the brains to figure out an order is going to cause far more harm than good and the guts to do something about that is not something to be sniffed at. Having said that, it sounds from the report like it was Gen. Mike Jackson who actually 'saved the day' in the end. If Blunt had stuck to his guns as it were, Clark would probably just have relieved him of his command and told someone else to do it. You can't do that to a fellow general though.

I saw the Top Gear interview, Blunt came across as a thoroughly decent and quite intellgent sort. Exactly the type you want as an Army junior officer in fact. His music is god-awful of course but you don't have to listen to it.

Though Blunt would not have committed a potential war crime. It would have meant that Clark would have as well as the commander who actually followed through his orders.

Surprisingly enough, firing on another nation's armed forces is not generally defined as 'a war crime'; which is a contravention of the Geneva convention protocols and/or the 'child' international regulations. Even if there's no legal declaration of war it's considered an act of war, but that's a very different thing. Starting WWIII might legitimately be considered 'a crime against humanity' considering how many people it would eventually kill (more than likely 'all of them' in fact) but again, that's a different thing.

If you're thinking about the whole 'I was only following orders' thing with the Nuremberg trials, you're right insofar as you can't get out of a war crime by saying 'I was told to do it' and ordering a war crime to be committed is considered the same as actually doing it. But shooting someone who isn't shooting at you isn't 'a war crime' just because you're a soldier when you do it.

Yes it was the Nuremberg defence I was thinking of. If any action becomes a war crime depends on what actually happens. Though to effectively declare war without government authorisation might be something that the court martial might not accept.