# U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread



## Devlin

U.S. soldier seeks Canadian refugee status 

Last Updated Thu, 19 Feb 2004 7:51:49 

TORONTO - A U.S. soldier who is absent without leave is seeking refugee status in Canada as a conscientious objector. 

Jeremy Hinzman, who faces prosecution in the U.S., left the 82nd Airborne Division in North Carolina last month and fled to Toronto with his wife and baby. 

Hinzman told the Fayetteville Observer in a phone interview that he had "a romantic vision" of the army when he joined three years ago. 

He said the structure of army life, complete with subsidized housing, groceries and money for education, appealed to him. 

But at the start of basic training, he became disillusioned and horrified by chanting about killing during marches, shooting at targets without faces and the dehumanization of the enemy. 

Hinzman applied as a conscientious objector, saying he wanted to fulfil his service obligation but not fight in combat. 

His application was rejected while he was in Afghanistan. 

Hinzman said he and his wife decided to flee to Toronto before he could be shipped off to Iraq. 

Canada‘s Immigration and Refugee Board said none of the 268 American applicants for refugee status last year were accepted. 

Sgt. Pam Smith, a spokesperson for the 82nd Airborne based at Fort Bragg, N.C., said Hinzman could be arrested in the U.S., and would be put on a national database. 

But she said the army won‘t search him out. 

"We don‘t have time to go and track down people who go [absent without leave]," she said. "We‘re fighting a war."


----------



## Pikache

Send the coward back.

Romantic vision my ***. He should have known what he might be doing when he signed his life away, esp. in infantry.


----------



## kurokaze

This part was interesting:


> Canada‘s Immigration and Refugee Board said none of the 268 American applicants for refugee status last year were accepted.


I‘m curious what kind of claims these 268 so-called refugees filed.

But yes, from what I‘ve read he sounds like a free-loader.  Hand him over to the US authorities I say.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

How could anyone realistically claim refugee status in Canada from the USA? What grounds could he claim S_Baker? This guy sounds like a non-hacker(except for being a jumper) to me and conveniently claims CO. 
Canada has let slackers like this in before and it wasn‘t right back then either. We‘ll be better off when this little girl gets escorted back to the border into the loving sympathetic arms of the MP‘s.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hmmmmm, lets see...." complete with subsidized housing,grocerys and money for education, appealed to him". Sounds like he went were he could get the same things by enlisting in our "immigration army". No insult to those who came here to workand contribute.    CHEERS


----------



## The_Falcon

Maj Baker, you ask why he did not go to Mexico, cause Canada has a history of allowing people to claim refugee status for pretty much whatever reason they can think off. And then our government will give them all the help and support they need until they figure out how to disappear.  He is coward and an idiot, I hope we send him back.


----------



## The_Falcon

Maj Baker, you ask why he did not go to Mexico, cause Canada has a history of allowing people to claim refugee status for pretty much whatever reason they can think off. And then our government will give them all the help and support they need until they figure out how to disappear.  He is coward and an idiot, I hope we send him back.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja

"But at the start of basic training, he became disillusioned and horrified by chanting about killing during marches, shooting at targets without faces and the dehumanization of the enemy."


Somebody better call this guy a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMBULENCE!  Me thinks he should have stuck with stalking shelves at Wal-Mart...now how much money did the US Army waste training this guy?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

He was assigned to the 82nd and did not expect to fight??? Ummmm hello....


----------



## Infanteer

We are at war, he left his buddies hanging.

Hang him.


----------



## Jungle

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] We are at war, he left his buddies hanging.
> 
> Hang him. [/qb]


"OLD SCHOOL, still got a piece of that rope ???"
Man, we‘re gonna be some busy on that road trip !!!


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

Won‘t waste rope on this little feller.
I say drop him at night into the mountains of Pakistan alone and tell him not to come back without Bin Laden‘s cock and balls secured in his ruck. Then he can object to whatever he wants.


----------



## tree hugger

Sorry boys, I‘m going to have to say something unpopular I‘m afraid.
This guy apparently didn‘t know what he was getting into (maybe some blame on the recruiter and himself).  I hardly feel that standing up for something you believe in is being cowardly.  He attempted to resolve it using proper channels and was still willing to serve in another capacity.
I can only imagine how difficult it was for him to leave his home, buddies etc., but apparently he felt very stongly about this.  
I‘m a firm believer of finishing what you start and I‘m willing to concede that he should have stayed and sucked it up.  No matter the research and discussion about the military you do, you don‘t really know what you‘re getting into until you are in.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

Hang on to that tree tightly because I think you are in a mine field.

We would para some guys in to help you out but they objected and went home.


----------



## Paul F

> Originally posted by tree hugger:
> [qb] Sorry boys, I‘m going to have to say something unpopular I‘m afraid.
> This guy apparently didn‘t know what he was getting into (maybe some blame on the recruiter and himself).  I hardly feel that standing up for something you believe in is being cowardly.  He attempted to resolve it using proper channels and was still willing to serve in another capacity.
> I can only imagine how difficult it was for him to leave his home, buddies etc., but apparently he felt very stongly about this.
> I‘m a firm believer of finishing what you start and I‘m willing to concede that he should have stayed and sucked it up.  No matter the research and discussion about the military you do, you don‘t really know what you‘re getting into until you are in. [/qb]


He didn‘t know what he was getting himself into? He joined the infantry! What did he expect ... to sit on his near end the whole time he was in and do absolutely nothing? Infantrymen are the core of any military, they are the ones that do the majority of the ground fighting, it‘s absurbed for his guy to think he wouldn‘t be deployed overseas to fight when the US is fighting a 2 front war (Iraq and Afghanistan). Heck, they are calling up National Guard soldiers. Why would they be calling up National Guard soldiers to serve overseas and this scumbag thinks somehow he wasn‘t going to be deployed? 

He isn‘t a coward for standing up for what he believes in, he is a coward for deserting his fellow infantrymen and his country. 

He might not have known exact what he was getting himself into, but he should have at least known, especially in the infantry, that he would be deployed overseas and have to risk his life for his country. Everyone in the military‘s life is in danger overseas, each and every day, ... mechanics, cooks, infantrymen, etc. ... this guy is a waste of life for not fulfilling the duty he committed to fulfilling. 

I hope Canada sends his *** back to the US and the US gives him the death penalty for betraying his country.


----------



## tmbluesbflat

Now perhaps it can be seen that which I tried to get accross in another thread. That is understand what being a soldier means, it mean that you basic function is to find, close with, and kill the enemy. You are not joining to be policemen/women you are dillusional if you have that impression. That said, other requirements may arise, aid to civil power Ie: firefighting, flood and other diaster relief, good on you! However the reality is you are trained to kill! If you chose to be a soldier then bloody well get good at it!!!!!


----------



## sgt_mandal

[qb]   





> Originally posted by tree hugger:
> I hope Canada sends his *** back to the US and the US gives him the death penalty for betraying his country. [/qb]


I agree with what you all are saying, but don‘t yout think the death penalty is a bit of an easy way out for this guy?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead

Sorry tree hugger, but you could not be anymore wrong. I won‘t get into the ways that you are wrong but I will say that this guy broke his word. He has no honour. He is a scurvy little dog.

Just saw that his lawyer is another little scurvy dog who ran away from his duty to serve when called upon by the US Govt during the Vietnam war. Birds of a feather...


----------



## tree hugger

Sgt. Mandel - watch the use quotes button...I didn‘t say that....


----------



## The_Falcon

I just saw this little weeny on Global news, he looks like a coward and weak piece of crap.  Global went on to show US soldiers doing training and they highlighted the stuff he did not like ie all the stuff bout killing.  Well he is my town and now I know what the little puke looks like, maybe I should hunt his *** down and hand him over to states.  Major Baker are there bounties on Deserters?


----------



## sgt_mandal

Tree hugger

What do you mean Sir?


----------



## tree hugger

I believe you were trying to quote Paul F. Oh, and I‘m not a Sir


----------



## sgt_mandal

OH! oops sorry :$


----------



## chrisf

I see nothing cowardly about deciding you‘re not cut out for the army... but if he became disillusioned during basic, why didn‘t he leave then or shortly afterwards?


----------



## chrisf

Not arguing with you in any way Maj. Baker, as I said, I can‘t understand why he didn‘t apply to leave immediately after basic training, or better yet, during basic training...


----------



## nULL

I know i‘m still a civilian and shouldn‘t REALLY be contributing here, but I was just wanting to comment on somee things, perhaps pose a question....

Given the sanitized view of war these days....given the countless number of "action-commando-blah-blah" video games that show Captain Jimmy saving the world and carrying Private Bob off to safety in one piece....given the fact that the media is made to show war in a "popular" way (not showing US casualties, coffins arrival home etc.)....given that the majority of the public knows what they know about the military from action movies....could you blame someone for joining up with the wrong idea in their head about what they would be getting themselves into?

...and if they have a wife and a new child? 

I dunno. I‘m not condoning it, but i would think that he joined with the wrong view in his head and feared for his life, and those of his family, were he to be sent to Iraq (and possibly killed). 

What‘s wrong with being scared? It doesn‘t make you any less of a man. Unless you were in his position, it‘s hard to imagine what you‘d do.

Unpopular comment probably but who‘s to say what he was thinking?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> I know i‘m still a civilian and shouldn‘t REALLY be contributing here,


Not true, everyone should be contributing here.  Everyone in Canada has a right to know what their soldiers think, and why.



> Given the sanitized view of war these days....given the countless number of "action-commando-blah-blah" video games that show Captain Jimmy saving the world and carrying Private Bob off to safety in one piece....given the fact that the media is made to show war in a "popular" way (not showing US casualties, coffins arrival home etc.)....given that the majority of the public knows what they know about the military from action movies


You need to watch better movies.  Take another look at Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, When Trumpets Fade, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, etc. and tell me that there are no US casualties or suffering in them.  Even better, check out We Were Soldiers; plenty of violence PLUS a view of the homefront.



> ....could you blame someone for joining up with the wrong idea in their head about what they would be getting themselves into?


Doesn‘t matter what they "think" a war might be like, they signed on the dotted line, had their education, dental, medical paid for, a GREAT pension promised, benefits for family.  With that came the responsibility - well spelled out for them - that they might have to go to war some day.



> I dunno. I‘m not condoning it, but i would think that he joined with the wrong view in his head and feared for his life, and those of his family, were he to be sent to Iraq (and possibly killed).


No ****.   You don‘t think the other million US soldiers in theatre aren‘t in fear for theirs?  Policemen and firemen fear for their lives, too, but they do their jobs anyway - because that is what they are paid to do.



> What‘s wrong with being scared? It doesn‘t make you any less of a man. Unless you were in his position, it‘s hard to imagine what you‘d do.


This is irrelevant; no one is accusing him of being "scared", he is backing out on his commitments.  That DOES make you less of a man.



> Unpopular comment probably but who‘s to say what he was thinking?


It doesn‘t matter what he was thinking; what kind of moron joins the Army without considering the fact they might have to risk their life some day?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Null....Part of being in the military is knowing you can rely on your fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen. What message will this send to members in a military unit thats its ok to desert your unit in time of war if this guy is not dealt with. I feel sorry for his family but he could have done research or talked to vets. There are always options. Desertion though is not one!


----------



## nULL

> No ****. You don‘t think the other million US soldiers in theatre aren‘t in fear for theirs? Policemen and firemen fear for their lives, too, but they do their jobs anyway - because that is what they are paid to do.


you know, i hadn‘t thought of it that way before. that‘s a really good point.


----------



## winchable

Major are you referring to the fact that his lawyer is a vietnam Draft dodger?

Birds of a feather, flock together I suppose.

Although it is somewhat different, there was a draft for vietnam, no Draft to run from for this war. He joined the army knowing it was the army and not scouts, he must have had the wits about him to figure this out if he could pass an aptitude test to get in.


----------



## Yes Man

I don‘t know how the U.S. army works, but would there not be a way that he could complete his contract and not have to sever as a combat arm?

I don‘t know what he was thinking when he chose joining the infantry, maybe he thought it would be different? less violent? less training on killing?(I hate giving sympathy for negligence but that the best I can offer in his defense)


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I suspect he stayed in the infantry because he was also drawing jump pay, no?


----------



## Marauder

Thi little cacksucker should be rounded up and shipped back to Bragg post haste. The only person to feel sorry for in this is the kid. It will have to grow up knowing Daddy was a cowardly waster who ran like a bitch. This punk also shows why harping on free housing and college money as enticments only hurt volunteer armies. 

Maybe the military should put a huge disclaimer on every contract: YOU MAY HAVE TO KILL PEOPLE IF YOU JOIN THE ARMED FORCES. That way these cowadly little sh1ts can‘t say they didn‘t know about that little clause.

God, this story makes me want to wash my hands.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten

Here was just another guy looking for a free ride and when they told him that he might actually have to do what he signed up to do he turned tail and ran.  He has truly no good excuse to why.  I think without a doubt, no matter how stunted you are mentally, you know what the army does when you join.  I do think that his case is different then a draft dodger though mainly because this idiot signed up to join.  His number wasn‘t pulled by some civil servent telling him he would have to join, he made a conscience decision to not only apply, but to sign the contract too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Portcullisguy,
Here‘s your chance to put up or shut up    An immigration question if we ever heard one. Where does our pinko government stand on the issue? There has to be some sort of notice or order in council that covers this stuff. Talk to us.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL

One would almost shudder and hold their breath when wondering what our Pinko government thinks about this. But...individualy they might be wankers and give him a place to stay but as a government they will send him back to the waiting arms of the U.S MP‘s. He came to the wrong Country. Maybe he believed the propaganda that says Canada is a terrorist haven and security threat to the U.S... Wrong.


----------



## Slim

I can‘t believe that a para from any nation would pull something like this...


----------



## Franko

He‘s not Para...he‘s a jumper   

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar

One last thing, why didn‘t he go to Mexico?

heh, you boys like meh-hee-co? Yee haw

Atleast this slug wasn‘t in the reserves and joined for the college money.

Throw his *** in jail, maybe take away his citizenship if hes not willing to fight for his country.


----------



## The_Falcon

Recce Guy, if I see PortisCully Guy tonight I will ask him for you, but I am pretty sure he is Customs Officer not an Immigration Officer.  Either way, given our governments record of allowing just about anybody to make a refugee claim, and then losing track of them, I wouldn‘t hold my breath.  We (our government) has refused to extradite criminals to US in some cases because they might face the Death Penalty for the crimes they are charged with.  If Canada wants start improving relations with US we can start by throwing this little turd out on his ***, and show anyone else with a like mind not to come here.  :tank:


----------



## patrick666

While he is an ultracoward, better going AWOL and whining like a sissy then actually going to war and getting somebody killed because he didnt have the cahones to pull the trigger.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

First he goes through basic....doesn‘t apply there or tries to flunk out...why, because he wants his benifits

Then infantry school and Then jump training, then posting to a frontline combat unit!!! if he belonged to the 501st Latrine Maintenance Unit, then I might have some pity on him. He decided to join and thought that it would be cool to be part of a famous paratrooper unit. But when the time came for him to pay the piper he ran. I hope he enjoys breaking rocks in Levenworth.

At least the guys in the IDF who refused to fight in the West Bank, stayed to face the music for their choices.


----------



## D-n-A

If he‘s offended an doesnt like shooting at human shaped targets, learning how to fight/kill why did he even enlist........ he should have atleast thought about this before he thought that he‘d have it easy in the army(ie, housing, education, etc)

I guess  lucky for him he didn‘t join the Marines if he‘s so easily offended or whatever..


Devildogs, Shocktroops, Blood-Sucking War Machines, Ready to Fight, Ready to Kill, Ready to Die but Never Will, Marines make the Blood Flow, Blood Makes the Grass Grow-Semper Fi Do or Die! oo-Rah!!


also, why are you people assuming he‘s Infantry? he could just be a clerk who doesnt want to be deployed to Iraq.


----------



## nULL

you guys do know he served in afghanistan, right? and why the **** are my fellow civilians calling him a coward? only SOLDIERS who have actually been in a dangerous place should be able to do that. it‘s easy to imagine yourself being brave on the net, or a place of absolute safety...


----------



## Yes Man

> Originally posted by nULL:
> [qb] you guys do know he served in afghanistan, right?[/qb]


Then it looks like more of an issue of, "take the money and run" then it does of being a cowered.


----------



## sgt_mandal

Either way, he is still frowned uppon by our society.


----------



## cathtaylor

It would be interesting to see what would happen to the Canadian Soldier if the situation were reversed.  Not only would we want to kick his **s but the U.S. wouldn‘t look twice at us. There are many reasons to send the coward back home and a very important part of NOT keeping him here is that if we did it would be one big f***ing can of worms to deal with.


----------



## sgt_mandal

*Tsk tsk tsk* to all moochers.


----------



## Bill Smy

From the St Catharines Standard, Tuesday, 13 April 2004 

DESERTERS FACE DIFFICULT REFUGEE CLAIMS 

No Program to grant asylum to Americans who leave army, but lawyer doesn‘t rule out possibility 

If United States Army deserter Brandon Hughey needs any information from Walt Lastewka, he can get it. 

But the St Catharines MP stopped short of supporting the 18-year old‘s bid for refugee status in Canada, saying it is up to the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine if US military deserters are legitimate refugees. "It‘s not up to me to comment on that", Lastewka said. "But we should allow them exactly the same process as anybody else". 

A private with the 1st Cavalry division based in Fort Hood, Texas, Hughey left the base early on March 2, the same day his unit was supposed to be heading to the Middle East. Three days later, he entered Canada at Niagara Falls. He is living with a St Catharines family as a refugee claimant. 

"We have no comment on it right now", said US Army civilian staffer Dan Hassett in the public affairs office of Fort Hood. "The case is under investigation". 

There is little precedent for granting refugee status to a US Army deserter. 

"An American deserter, or anybody coming from any democratic country, is going to have an extremely difficult time getting refugee status in this country", said Thorold-based immigration lawyer Peter Jurmain. 

"I find it very hard to believe we would be accepting American deserters or evaders under refugee determination. I don‘t think the politics would permit it". 

Jurmain is not aware of the specifics of Hughey‘s case, but said in general terms there is no program to grant asylum to American army deserters. But he didn‘t rule out the possibility. 

"Being a draft evader or deserter doesn‘t preclude you from making a refugee claim, but it doesn‘t entitle you to become a refugee", Jurmain said, "You have to look at the punishment such a person would face if returned to their country of citizenship. They could deem desertion as a political act, and perhaps they could find refugee status on political grounds. But if you are talking about an American, it is going to be extremely difficult and rare." 

Lastewka said he supported Hughey as far as processing his refugee claim, but he wouldn‘tsay whether or not he thinks it is a legitimate claim. 

"I don‘t think we should be treating those people any differently than people from any other country," Lastewka said. "They have their reasoning and they will have to explain their reasoning to the board>" 

Immigration lawyer Jeffry House, who represents Hughey and Jeremy Hinzman, another US Army deserter holed up in Canada said Hughey has filed the proper paperwork and is awaiting a hearing date. 

House said Hughey has a legitimate claim at refugee status, but recognizes nothing in law is a certainty. "It is pretty clear the war in Iraq violates International law," he said. "He didn‘t want to participate in such a war." 

"If you think, as Khofi Anan thinks, as Hans Blix thinks, even as I would argue the Canadian government thinks, it is a manifestl unlawful war and you have the right to refuse it," House added. 

Desertion is an act punishable by death in the US during times of war, but in most cases the penalty is determined by a court martial. A deserter has not been sentenced to death since the Second World War. 

House said the penalty facing Hughey will form part of his case, but is by no means a pillar of his argument. "Canada does not remove anyone to face the death penalty," he said. 

House expects Hughey to have his hearing by July 1, with a relatively quick decision. 

A message left with Citizenship and Immigration Canada was not returned.


----------



## Slim

This country is going to wind up as the recipient for the world‘s trash!


----------



## The_Falcon

Great another one.


----------



## Jason Bourne

That idiot should be turned over to the American Army and tried as a criminal. Deserting, in my opinion, is a serious offense and should be dealt as such. When you signed on, you signed with the knowledge that you might not be doing something that could be construed as right in your head..nevertheless it has to be done. Thats how you earn your payeheck. Jeebus.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"This country is going to wind up as the recipient for the world‘s trash!"

We arent already?


----------



## stukirkpatrick

*cough*draftdodgers*cough*

It was only a matter of time, wasn‘t it?  And what will this planned U.S. tour extension plan do in the long run?


----------



## Infanteer

I‘m not even gonna bother getting worked up over another coward.

I‘m just curious though.  If we had a major mobilization and sent a good chunk of our military overseas, how many of our troops would do the same?  I bet not too many, as they would just component transfer to the reserves and claim that they need to study for an exam.


----------



## Marauder

**** the punk bitch coward. He‘ll have to live with being a nutless wonder cowering in the corner until the day he dies. I hope his family disowns him.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] I‘m not even gonna bother getting worked up over another coward.
> 
> I‘m just curious though.  If we had a major mobilization and sent a good chunk of our military overseas, how many of our troops would do the same?  I bet not too many, as they would just component transfer to the reserves and claim that they need to study for an exam. [/qb]


Yeah, we all know how useless the reserves were in WW II.        Just ask Hoffmeister or John Osborne.

It has nothing to do with cowardice necessarily but it is most certainly about stupidity, if we take his comments at face value.  He joined the Army thinking he wouldn‘t be called upon to live up to his commitment.

Whatever.  I still agree he is a criminal and should be returned to the US for a lengthy prison sentence, or the option of going overseas as scheduled to serve with a combat deployed unit - though the fuss he made about going should not go unpunished.  Perhaps he should serve in Iraq until he has paid back all the tuition money he received from the taxpayers.


----------



## Tyler

To make things worse, he‘s living in my home town!

I should find this guy‘s adress and administer an ***-whoopin‘!


----------



## Infanteer

> Yeah, we all know how useless the reserves were in WW II.


I‘m talking about now, Michael.  My comment was directed towards the fact that it‘s amazing how many reservists can‘t be called to take 3 hours out of their "hectic" lives as a student to show up.


----------



## stukirkpatrick

I went to work Tuesday night, with an exam the next day at 9:00, and 2 more the day after.   

However, our first ex in april had to be basically cancelled, because of so few of us showing up


----------



## K. Ash

Not too sure but I thought the only way a person could claim refugee status was if he was coming from a place where he was being persecuted. 
I wouldn‘t of thought that having to do one‘s duty in a volunteered army would count as persecution.

Throw the ****** back.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we all know how useless the reserves were in WW II.
> 
> 
> 
> I‘m talking about now, Michael.  My comment was directed towards the fact that it‘s amazing how many reservists can‘t be called to take 3 hours out of their "hectic" lives as a student to show up. [/qb]
Click to expand...

My apologies, and you‘re right.  NES rates are always a concern, and some of the excuses one hears are a little embarrassing.  I‘m not so sure that would apply if we mobilized for war, though.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Kirkpatrick:
> [qb] I went to work Tuesday night, with an exam the next day at 9:00, and 2 more the day after.
> 
> However, our first ex in april had to be basically cancelled, because of so few of us showing up       [/qb]


They don‘t put marks on the diploma.  My studying for finals usually began on the train on the way to school on the day of the exam.     

It brings up a good point though, and Infanteer may agree with this - but if you give people the ability to slack off, there will always be people who will take advantage of it.  

Where I work in civvie life, there are many opportunities, thanks to the union, for taking days off without even giving an explanation.  Sick time is also generous.  Most people work well, the odd standout will come in even when sick, not wanting to take time off at all, and then there is also a small percentage who make sure every hour of sick time and possible paid time off is used up to the last second each year, thinking they are "entitled" to it.  Disappointing, but eyeopening. 

In all honesty, I probably used the "got exams" excuse myself when I was much younger, even when it wasn‘t true.

Not sure that really compares to a guy joining the Army and then claming refugee status to avoid his service!


----------



## Bill Smy

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we all know how useless the reserves were in WW II.
> 
> 
> 
> I‘m talking about now, Michael.  My comment was directed towards the fact that it‘s amazing how many reservists can‘t be called to take 3 hours out of their "hectic" lives as a student to show up. [/qb]
Click to expand...

After serving in the Reserves for over 32 years, I don‘t know whether it‘s fair to completely blame the individual for not parading regularly.

All too often I noticed men standing around with nothing to do because the leaders were not organized. The solution to many of these leaders was to have the men do a "little drill."

All too often I noted lectures being given in the classroom instead of the field

When the training is interesting and the leadership dynamic, the parade square will fill up quickly for roll call.

As far as taking time out of their hectic lives,I wonder how that would apply to Reservists on deployment overseas?


----------



## Marauder

Sorry Inf, but gotta side with the good officer here. A month of Tuesday nights of cleaning the same (already spotless) weapons and then standing around with the thumb firmly implanted in the cinammon ring tends to erode the wish to put out the time to come in, when there is clearly little time being put into implementing good training.
Although I never miss it because it‘s an easy $50, and sometimes they suprise me.
We still homies?


----------



## kurokaze

I agree, I have a very difficult time getting my entire battery to show on parade nights.  And due to their level of training (most of them are still on BMQ), there‘s not a heck of a lot I‘m allowed to let them do.  

But if the reserves were mobilized for war, exam or not, you would have no choice but to show up correct?


----------



## Infanteer

Ok, my little attempt at humor backfired.

As a reservist who never missed a training day, despite many lame parade nights, I apologize.

Marauder, I still love you.


----------



## Infanteer

PS,

I got that from this humourous post from another board, read to your hearts content and tell me how far off the mark you think it is    

---



> What would happen if Canada was threatened militarily - My version.
> 
> Ottawa would hold an emergency session in Parliment, the Liberals would denouce the threat and ask all the other parties to offer their support in a show of soldiarity while trying to implement a temporary increase of the GST. The Reform would use this to try to get more aid to the farmers and the Bloc would stage a boycott of
> Parliment until they get total control of the St Lawrence. After 6 months of heated debate, name calling and desk slapping, they agree they must actually DO something.
> 
> The call would go out to the CF to deploy the regs and mobilize the reserves. OH NO! All the regs are understrength and scattered all over the world on UN, NATO, or more likely some Starving Nation, Greenpeace or other Save-the-whale / Rainforest / Ozone causes that don‘t let them even have their bolts in. OH NO! Suddenly most of
> the all-volunteer reserve dosen‘t show up because
> 
> *1) it would interfere with my upcoming term papr/exam/school choir practice *
> 
> 2) can‘t find any of my kit or
> 
> 3) nobody said anything about really having to do some killing.
> 
> The remainder kit up, bomb up, cam up, get ready to kill because even though the rest of the country forgot- they always sucked it up and remembered that‘s what we‘re here for, but
> have to wait until Ottawa can arrange suitable airlift. This cannot be accomplished within 2 months because Air Canada is still pissed about their the CAI merger limitations. The troops are told they will have to use ground transport as
> the Chinooks weren‘t replaced and the Hercs are in the hangar because the pilots are told they must have 8hrs min rest before flying. Now they are forced to use their own vehicles (no mileage allowed either), because half the ML‘s are broke due to lack of parts, and the few drivers left in garrison don‘t have troop lift due to training course cutbacks. With the Trans-Canada looking like the Basra-Baghdad "highway of death", we head merrily off to confront the enemy. Of course by this time, the enemy is already well entrenched in the community and are now contributing to the local tax base and running for public office. They succesfully lobby the RCMP to arrest all the CF personnel with no FAC transporting unregistered restricted weapons. Now all the soldiers are left on their own like a gut-shot nun in a snow bank, and head back to their super-bases but most die in horrible traffic
> accidents after being cut-off by diet-pill crazed soccer moms in large SUV‘s.
> 
> Ottawa appoints a Royal Commision to find out if there is any way of not paying out death and survivors benifits. The CF asks for more funding for recruiting, but all units execpt NDHQ are disbanded due to embarrasing media coverage.
> 
> TM
> Down in "Shut-up-and-die" ranks


----------



## kruger

Hehe, oh thats good:

"It would interfere with choir practice".


----------



## stukirkpatrick

> I got that from this humourous post from another board, read to your hearts content and tell me how far off the mark you think it is


Isn‘t that a security risk to post the government plans outlining our country‘s defensive strategy?


----------



## Bill Smy

From the St Catharines Standard:-

ODDS AGAINST DESERTER‘S BID FOR ASYLUM

Only one American has been granted refugee status in eight years 

By Kalvin Reid, Standard Staff 

Friday, April 16, 2004 - 01:00 

The number of United States citizens crossing into Canada seeking asylum is rapidly increasing, but that hasn't improved the chances of an American successfully becoming a refugee in Canada. 

â Å“People from any country can make a refugee claim,â ? said board spokesman Charles Hawkins. â Å“But they do have to show they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.â ? 

U.S. Army private Brandon Hughey deserted his unit March 2, leaving Fort Hood, Texas, the same day his unit was shipping out to the Middle East. 

Three days later, he crossed the border into Canada and is now residing with a St. Catharines family. 

He is awaiting a hearing to determine if he will be granted refugee status. 

The lone American was granted refugee status in Canada in 1997, out of 71 U.S. refugee cases referred. 

Hawkins wouldn't disclose the factors surrounding the only successful case. 

â Å“We don't discuss the reasons why people are granted refugee status,â ? he said. â Å“We don't discuss the nature of the claims.â ? 

But the number of Americans seeking asylum is on the rise. Between January and September last year, there were 268 refugee claims compared to 203 for all of 2002. 

In making their case, refugees are expected to show how they were being persecuted in their homeland, preferably with documentation, and they are also expected to show that their government didn't do enough to protect them from harm. 

Hughey, who says he came to oppose the war in Iraq, would face arrest and court martial for desertion if he were returned home. 

But there is a sharp line between persecution and prosecution. 

â Å“That is an issue in many, many claims,â ? Hawkins said. 

Hawkins wouldn't discuss the specifics of the Hughey case, but said the board hears claims of conscientious objection to military service, and they are dealt with on a country-by-country basis. 

â Å“A court martial itself could not be said to be persecution,â ? Hawkins said. â Å“But the cases are dealt with on a case- by-case basis.â ? 

Hughey is one of two American army deserters seeking asylum in Canada. 

St. Catharines MP Walt Lastewka said earlier this week that whether or not Canada will become a haven for U.S. soldiers seeking asylum is a matter for the refugee board to decide. 

It is also a tough issue for his opponents in the upcoming federal election. 

St. Catharines Conservative candidate Leo Bonomi said considering the claim of a deserter from the army of a war-torn nation is different than one coming from the U.S. Army. 

â Å“It could become a thorn in the relations between Canada and the U.S.,â ? he said Thursday morning on a local radio show. 

â Å“I don't think this is a great case. I don't know if this person falls within the definition of a refugee.â ? 

It is an issue that has torn St. Catharines NDP candidate Ted Mouradian, who feels the U.S. war in Iraq is unjust. 

â Å“But this guy signed up knowing he could fight,â ? Mouradian said in an interview. â Å“If this turns into another Vietnam War, and it looks like it could, we'll see a lot more of this.â ? 

Mouradian added that any punishment facing Hughey should he return to the U.S. has to be taken into consideration. 

â Å“If he is facing execution, I think we should keep him,â ? he said.


----------



## Freight_Train

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/08/04/pf-568103.html
Deserter booted

U.S. ARMY RUNAWAY TO CANADA LOSES REFUGEE CLAIM 
By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN

THE FIRST of three U.S. Army deserters who fled to Canada to avoid military service has lost his refugee claim and is being booted back across the border. The name of the soldier, who lives in the Toronto area, and details about his case were not released by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) due to privacy concerns. 

Two other U.S. Army privates -- Jeremy Hinzman, 25, and Brandon Hughey, 18 --have also filed refugee claims and appeared for hearings in Toronto last month. 

The IRB, in a decision obtained yesterday, didn't believe the unidentified soldier would be tortured or killed for bolting on his platoon members, adding the soldier was not a conventional refugee or a person in need of protection. 

'FEARED PENALTIES' 

"He feared the penalties imposed for desertion would amount to cruel and unusual punishment," the board said in a partial decision. 

IRB spokesman Serge Arsenault said the full decision wasn't available yesterday. 

"The claimant feared that because of multiple charges he might face eight years in the brig," the board said, adding the man could have faced the death penalty if the U.S. was at war when he bolted. 

The IRB said the soldier was not a conscientious objector and had no religious or moral reason for disobeying orders. 

Meanwhile, Hinzman and Hughey had their hearings before the IRB adjourned until later this year. 

Hinzman served in Afghanistan as a cook, but fled here from the 82nd Airborne Regiment in North Carolina last January when he was called for action in Iraq. 

ORDERED TO IRAQ 

Hughey joined the military in 2002 and was ready to take part in military operations until he was ordered to Iraq. He fled to Canada after slipping past military police in March.

 ;D


----------



## Scott

Hope he has to serve every single one of those eight years. Good for the IRB, I thought that this would be dragged out forever, although there is still an appeal process, no?

These guys deserve all they can be given, they volunteered for the Armed Services and are bound by the laws of such.


----------



## Scott

S_Baker, I know you were waiting for this, sir!! Happy hunting!


----------



## Danjanou

One down, two to go. Don't let the door slam your ass on the way out. 8)


----------



## Pieman

Just a thought, does anything prevent him from moving on to a different country other than the US?
Perhaps he will take a quick trip down to Mexico or some other country. He might find refuge in Spain.


----------



## Tpr.Orange

GREAT! Ive been waiting for this to happen  Good on the IRB for a speedy result.

Instead of 8 years they should give em 15 and then kick them out of the US....


strong feelings from me being a dual citizen, living since i was 8 in Canada, and serving here. I find desertion to be the most disgraceful thing that a person could do at a time like this in any branch of the service


----------



## Slim

Pieman said:
			
		

> Just a thought, does anything prevent him from moving on to a different country other than the US?
> Perhaps he will take a quick trip down to Mexico or some other country. He might find refuge in Spain.



When they say he will be evicted from the country it means that he will be handed over to U.S. Customs...guess where he goes after that!


----------



## Pieman

> When they say he will be evicted from the country it means that he will be handed over to U.S. Customs...guess where he goes after that!



Does that mean he should invest in some soap on at rope?    I am glad he is getting put back as it is not like he was drafted or forced into the Army or anything. They paid for his training, so he has to work off that dept.


----------



## Figure11

Like they used to say in that famous skit from "Saturday Night Live"...................
BUB BYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## karpovage

Oh, Canada! Thank you! ;D

There's a nice prison in Iraq where I hear he could get special treatment from the guards.


----------



## dutchie

What a bunch of bone-heads.

If you don't want to fight in a war, choose an army other than the US to join, or don't join...become a barista at Starbucks and complain about the war full-time if that's your bag.

Idiots


----------



## lfejoel25

just for purpose of conversation, cuz i noticed you guys felt pretty stongly about deserters, and i don't disagree. but what if the same person, were to refuse to go as a conscientious objector, because of any political disagreement, and serve the jail time, (like my dear old grandpa would say, "do it like a man").
same diff?


----------



## 1feral1

Maybe he joined the US Army for the gyms, and the food and the great accomodation, plus the camping, socialising and shooting M16s, never thinks it would be a two-way rifle range one day   .

Maybe his :crybaby: name was PTE Bengiman  :'(? Or he watched Stripes  :-[?

He would not be the first deserter of draft dodger to cross the 49th, nor will he be the last.

 :boring: Personally he is better out of it, as he would be a hinderance in his unit, and is better off disgraced and sent packing.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Jarnhamar

I've always said I'd rather someone be a deserter and run away before reaching a combat zone than have then run away IN a combat zone when i depend on them.

A big issue with me is what happens to them FOR deserting. These guys are paid and trained to do a job and when crunch time comes, they refuse.  When you refuse to do a job as a part of a contract you signed your held accountable. (Like the liberals canceling the helicopter contract andhaving to pay for it anyways)

The deserter should spend time in jail and perhaps  some how be made to pay back the government for their training and education.

Imagine a fire fighter who refuses to go into a burning building or a police officer who refuses to arrest a violent criminal, after spending 3 years getting paid to do just that. Their not only putting their co-workers lives at risk but mine and yours as well.


----------



## Gunnerlove

To play devils advocate, when the cop or firefighter says I can't/won't do this anymore he can quit. Done, collects severance and moves on. 

Not so in any army I know of, thus making comparisons very difficult.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> To play devils advocate, when the cop or firefighter says I can't/won't do this anymore he can quit. Done, collects severance and moves on.
> Not so in any army I know of, thus making comparisons very difficult.



Thats true however that is also assuming the police officer/fire fighter up until he refuses, HAS been doing his job putting himself in danger.

Soldiers train for war but until they actually go to war or on operations, their jobs (aside from training accidents) are not at the same threat level as cops/firemen.    Soldiers are trained for years with the expectation that when called, they will go.

If a soldier was in constant danger i wouldn't fault them for one day having enough and hanging up their gloves.  These guys are quiting before they are in real danger, before their legal contracts are up.


----------



## RCA

They'll do their time, probably reduced if any and get a dishonourable. No loss, no foul. Unfortunately its the system. As for being a conscientious objector, does pan in an all volunteer army.

 From my understanding one was a cook and therefore probably never leaving the base camp.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk

Military personel can break their contract, but its a Lengthy process usually, 
A police man can quit and get severance anytime but are not sent to combat zones.
When a Military Man or Woman runs away from their job, friends and country after they willfuly signed up for that job is somthing else, they should be punished and serve their time.

I am glade Canada didnt accept them, these people should know and realize what they are getting into before they sign that contract.

Even though Canada hasnt been in any real combate zones in many years other then afghanastan, I am still joining knowing full tilt that could change as quickly as i can flip a quarter. Do i want to go to War.. Of course not.... But will i go if called upon by my country..
of course, because its my duty to the country, my family and friends and if it wasnt me going it would be someone else i new and i couldnt live with myself knowing i dodged somthing my country needed me for.

thats just my take on it.


----------



## Fraser.g

The fact of the matter is that each and every one of them, as with us, volunteered to serve their respective countries.
 Then, when asked to do the job that they said that they would do, failed to do it. This makes them not only a coward but not a man that could be trusted with the only thing that can never be taken from you, your word. Hand them over to the military authorities in the U.S. and wash our hands of the entire affair.

On a side note, during the Vietnam war there were more Canadians that crossed the border to support the war than there were American cowards that ran up and crossed into Canada.

As you can see I feel very strongly on this subject. There is little leeway or special dispensation to be evaluated for one that runs from your own country when they call on you.


----------



## nULL

Would it be more cowardly to run from a draft because you don't believe you could do the job, or because you have an anal cyst?

http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm

...while we're talking about vietnam.


----------



## Gunnerlove

Mixing discussion of deserters and draft dodgers in the same topic will only confuse the issue. 
But here I go. 
If your democratic nation has to force a small group of the population to do something because the majority want it done why doesn't the government get a portion of the supposed majority to do the job themselves?


----------



## Robert008

I think these deserters are completely different than draft dodgers. Deserters signed a legal binding contract, accepted pay, were educated (college education) hello? did you think the army would want nothing back. You signed up for the army! there is a war?!

Deserting your army, is deserting your country that's called treason and it was punishable by death. 

These guys deserve to be in jail, or worse.

http://www.brandonhughey.org/

Take a look at the letters section, it's ridiculous. Naturally no one disagree's with his oh so noble decision. He actually ask for a donation too?
What a fool, if i found him I would drag him to the border myself.


----------



## Scott

Desertion and treason are two different things.

Mike Dorosh/Bobbitt, maybe you can clarify how the law in the CF works as far as desertion is concerned. Is there not separate charges for desertion and desertion in the face of the enemy?

S_Baker, I'll let you jump right in about the American side of Military Justice. I am interested to know what sort of charges you can face. It's been a long time since I received any lectures about Military Law.


----------



## Slim

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Mixing discussion of deserters and draft dodgers in the same topic will only confuse the issue.
> But here I go.
> If your democratic nation has to force a small group of the population to do something because the majority want it done why doesn't the government get a portion of the supposed majority to do the job themselves?



When you join a volunteer armed forces, then bugger off as soon as its time to anti up what does that make you...? I just love people who enlist, then run screaming when they are called to fulfill their part of the agreement.



> Would it be more cowardly to run from a draft because you don't believe you could do the job, or because you have an anal cyst?



What does that have to do with the issue being discussed? Or are you only trying to cloud the issue?


----------



## lfejoel25

Personally, the thing that bugs me is how they mask the desertion under the cloak of a political statement.  To me I think it can actually be corageous to be able to stand up for your beleifs if you know there are concequences.  Even though i don't feel like the Iraq situation, and the situation that these soldiers were in, qualify as requiring extreme measures in order to protest.  But even if that is what they were trying to do, they should have accepted the repercussions of their actions.
Running to canada, was nothing more than an act of cowardess.  If one of them had just accepted the jail time, even though i would have disagreed with them, i can at least respect somebody that will stand by their decisions.  But as soon as they decided to run (just my opinion), that confirmed that there were no excuses, and the event was nothing but a bunch of deserters, trying to escape jail time.
I went on that websit and started to read the letters on there.  they were mostly letters from people that said how they didn't beleive in the iraq war, and told him how corageous he was.  But the thing that those people don't understand, they're basing their opinion of him on their opinion of the iraq war.  Their opinion of him would probably be drastically different if he were to have been called to a war that they would have deemed "important".  What if the united states were under an all out attack by some rogue nation (maybe one of bushes "axis of evil"), how would people feel if he refused service then?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I think thats a really good point.

People are leaving messages saying their proud of him and support him but if they supported the war they would be up in arms over it calling hima traitor. Thats pretty selfish thinking of them, do you have a link to the web page?


----------



## Scott

A quote from Brandon's site: Brandon Huhgey is a former member of the U.S. Army who left his country rather than participate in an illegal act of aggression

PISS OFF!

The Brandon Story *GAG* In the summer of 2002, when I was 17, a military recruiter called my house to ask if I had thought about signing up for the military. He told me that if I was interested in going to college, I should stop by and talk to him. I gave it some thought and decided to sign up as it may have been the only way I could have afforded a college education. I signed up on the last day of July, 2002. My dad had to sign a form as well, as I was too young to enlist on my own accord.

I shipped out to basic training in the summer of 2003, just as the pre-emptive war against Iraq was taking place. It was hastily launched without the backing of the U.N. security council, and was declared a violation of the U.N. charter by Kofi Annan and Hans Blix. This act was justified by the Bush administration under the pretense of finding weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorist organizations.

As time wore on, no weapons of mass destruction could be found, nor could any connection to terrorism. I graduated basic training in November, 2003 and arrived at Ft. Hood in December. I had asked my superiors at Ft. Hood on more than one occasion to grant me a discharge from the military, but they refused saying it was not my choice. I was never informed on any route I could take to leave the military, such as applying for conscientious objector status. I had promised myself that under no circumstances would I allow myself to become complicit in the illegal occupation of Iraq. No contract or enlistment oath can be used as an excuse to participate in acts of aggression or crimes against humanity.

According to the Nurenburg Tribunal, which was adopted by the U.N. as law, a soldier has the responsibility to refuse an order that he knows to be wrong. Based on this law, I refused my order to deploy to Iraq, and came to Canada with the help of Carl Rising-Moore, a Vietnam-era veteran and peace activist. I will not allow myself to face persecution by the U.S. government for following the higher international and moral law.

I am currently staying with a Quaker family in Ontario until I am able to get back on my feet.


I can guarantee that Quaker family has no ties to my soldiering one. Get out of my country, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200

This guy really grates at me.

Cheers


----------



## Jarnhamar

Got a link to his home page?

Atleast this guy didn't get a college diploma out of it.


----------



## Scott

http://www.brandonhughey.org/

Why don't you send him a letter, I know I did.

Cheers Ghost


----------



## Scott

www.jeremyhinzman.net

The other oxygen bandit


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Picture being 1500 miles from everything and everyone you know.


yes, lets all feel bad for him being so far away from his family.   It must be pretty hard on him, not like those guys in iraq 8000 miles away from their families, dying.

I couldn't really care less about these guys. I think my biggest concern is if this guy is littering in Canada, that would REALLY piss me off.
He doesn't agree with the war in iraq, big deal. Him standing up for his belief that the war is wrong is just as valid as us saying the war is right.   Being a deserter, well he should go to jail for that and do his time, plain and simple. Cowardly? well I think so. If your that against the war sit it out in jail, i have no problem with that.

What i'm most embarassed about that site is the hatemail the guy has got.
http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/negative.html
What a bunch of morons. "I'm going to beat the shit out of you, im going to pay your prison cell mate to rape you, i hope you and your family die, I'm 52 years old and I would love to confront you with a hammer.. ".

It's embarassing and it makes people look like war mongers. Thats just stupid.     I'm certain he only put the worst of the worst hatemail. I'm going to write him a letter about my views and opinions and challange him to put it on the web page and see what he does.

I noticed both web sites have an option to donate. Nothing like getting a little cash on the side.


----------



## Scott

Ghost, those guys writing the hatemail are just idiots, plain and simple. No one who says that sort of stuff deserves any credibility. I sent the pair of these guys a letter doing the same thing as you, challenging their actions and views as a citizen in the very country they are hiding. It is my right to speak up as they want to remain here and build live here in my country, use our system to protect themselves.

Just thoughts

Cheers


----------



## sgt_mandal

I was watching the BBC World news when they started talking about American forces deserters living in Canada to escape being sent to Afghanistan or Iraq, or back to Afghanistan or Iraq. What do you guys think about this? 

I was also wondering, are all the personnel overseas there voluntarily?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I think that these deserters should be repatriated to the US as per NATO statute of forces agreements which Canada and the US both participate in.

Whether or not you agree with the War in Afghanistan or Iraq, you've got to realize that these deserters volunteered to join the US Armed Forces and thereby made a concious decision to serve despite their political or personal convictions.


----------



## pbi

Before our US friends climb on us for a repeat of the Vietnam asylum policy, I think we need to put this into perspective. To the best of my knowledge, not one single US deserter has yet been granted "refugee" status in Canada because they do not want to serve in Iraq/Afghanistan/etc. (I stand ready to be corrected...) A number have certainly attracted some media attention, but my sense is that it is nothing near the flow that happened in the 1960's and early 1970's. Simply because Immigration "considers" a case or a request does not mean it will be granted in favour of the applicant, especially one who voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of a friendly democratic nation, took the paycheque as long as the going was good, but then skipped when things got nasty. If apprehended by US authorities they will be tried under the Unified Code of Military Justice, probably by Court Martial, in a system not so different from our own Code of Service Discipline (although in Canadian CMs the accused can hire their own lawyers if they wish, and the trial is open to the public-I'm not sure about the provisions of the UCMJ...). They will not be tortured or persecuted (more than any criminal is "persecuted"...) Pack these people up and ship them to the border ASAP, or better yet turn them away at the border. Cheers.


----------



## ark

http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/ one of the guys website

[edit] another one  http://www.brandonhughey.org/


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Mandal I would recommend changing your subject title as its very misleading as it alludes to official policy.


----------



## winchable

Key words: Volunteer Army.
As I understand, claiming concsientius objector status is not difficult if the reasons are valid. They must have known signing on to the American army that they would be considered for active duty.
It's hard to empathize at all.
Desertion is not a small crime either, penalties for it are stiff, always have been.
If they're dishonorably discharged, fined and imprisoned; They're A)Doing better off than a deserter would have done historically and B)Doing better off then the comrades they've chosen to desert are doing.

Ship em home.


----------



## sgt_mandal

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Mandal I would recommend changing your subject title as its very misleading as it alludes to official policy.



What would you suggest?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well look at your title: *Canada* considering to allow US forces deserters to claim refugee status here.
Was the BBC saying that the Goverment of Canada plans or is considering allowing the deserters to stay here?


----------



## sgt_mandal

ahh yes, but there was not enough space. I thought it would have been understood as teh government of Canada?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I know all refugee claimamnts are reviewed but I was not aware that the Liberals were considering allowing deserters blanket amnesty and to stay in Canada which is what I am gathering from your post.


----------



## sgt_mandal

That's what I gathered from the BBC report. I think that's what it is about.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

I say send 'em packing. Desertion is desertion. IMHO Canada would kick and scream to have a Canadian soldier returned to them if one went sideways wouldn't they?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Quote from PBI:
Simply because Immigration "considers" a case or a request does not mean it will be granted in favour of the applicant, especially one who voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of a friendly democratic nation, took the paycheque as long as the going was good, but then skipped when things got nasty.

PBI: My emphasis on the "nasty" relates to this portion of Matt's post:    



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I think that these deserters should be repatriated to the US as per NATO statute of forces agreements which Canada and the US both participate in.



Before I go any further - Matt: you have my attention at the above reference: Can you send or post more information? 
Cheers ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102444861288_51?hub=Canada

CTV.ca News Staff

American war dodger Jeremy Hinzman, who is seeking political refugee status in Canada, says he fled the U.S. military because he didn't want to fight a "criminal war" in Iraq.

He told a hearing Tuesday that the U.S. military considered all Arabs in the Middle East to be terrorists and they were to be eliminated.

"We were referring to these people as savages,'' Hinzman testified, adding he could not in good conscience serve in Iraq.

"This was a criminal war,'' he said. "Any act of violence in an unjustified conflict is an atrocity.''

During the three-day hearing, Hinzman, 26, will be trying to convince the board that his life will be in danger if he returns home. If he does not obtain refugee status, he could be deported to the United States and prosecuted as a deserter. 

While U.S. deserters often get about a year in jail, Hinzman said he believes he would be treated more harshly because of his views on the Iraq war.

"I would be prosecuted for acting upon a political belief ... for refusing to do something that was wrong," he told the hearing.

Senior Canadian immigration officials have ruled that whether the war is illegal is irrelevant in Hinzman's case, but that continues to play a part in his testimony.

If Hinzman is granted refugee status, some critics have said it could open the door for even more U.S. deserters to arrive in Canada.

Conservative MP Randy White says Hinzman's case is an example of someone "evading prosecution, and not persecution." 

Hinzman joined the army in 2000 and trained as a paratrooper. He said he signed up at his father's urging because it would allow him to receive a university education, adding that he wanted to study law, medicine or become a teacher. 

But he says his thinking changed after going through extensive combat training.

"When we marched, we chanted 'Trained to kill and kill we will'," Hinzman told the board Monday. "I remember becoming hoarse from shouting this ... it really hit me. I learned I have a big inhibition about taking human life."

By August 2002, the practising Buddhist applied to be a conscientious objector -- meaning his personal beliefs prevented him from participating in war. 

"I signed up to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic -- not to carry out acts of aggression," Hinzman was quoted as saying earlier this year.

His application was delayed and he was sent to Afghanistan but served in a non-combat post. His application was turned down while he was serving there.

When he got his orders to ship out to Iraq in late 2003, he fled his North Carolina base and moved to Canada with his wife and toddler son. His wife is also seeking asylum.

The U.S. army has declared him AWOL: absent without leave.

Deserters from countries with compulsory military service have been granted refugee status in Canada. But this case is different, since Hinzman volunteered for military service.

Another U.S. deserter, Brandon Hughey, 19, is also seeking refugee status here. He slipped past military police in Texas in March, a day before his unit was scheduled to go to Iraq.

Hughey will get his refugee hearing after Hinzman's case is complete.

With files from CFTO's John Musselman and The Canadian Press


----------



## Infanteer

You know what I think is an atrocity - the fact that this weasel is still gathering media attention.


----------



## 1feral1

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You know what I think is an atrocity - the fact that this weasel is still gathering media attention.



Too right Infanteer!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## stukirkpatrick

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/12/08/772461.html
Deserter is not a draft dodger

By PETER WORTHINGTON -- For the Toronto Sun

While one can't guess what the refugee board will rule, from the evidence it's hard to conclude that Jeremy Hinzman deserted from the U.S. army for any reason other than he was scared. 

This isn't to suggest he was a coward, because it takes a certain kind of courage to leave your country and claim refugee status rather than go to a dangerous area. 

And it's not a comfortable feeling knowing that most of your countrymen will view you with disdain -- as will many Canadians -- if the refugee board accepts you as a "refugee" from what Hinzman claims is an "illegal war" in Iraq. 
   
There's a certain amount of irony in this and other desertion cases, when Canada is in the midst of a campaign to raise money to buy the Victoria Cross won by Cpl. Fred Topham in World War II, that's being sold by his late wife's family. 

Topham and his comrades of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion were undoubtedly scared in 1945 when they parachuted over the Rhine and Toppy won his VC -- the only VC won in the Sixth British Airborne Division to which Toppy's unit was attached. 

The 1st Paras did more fighting in Northwest Europe than any other Canadian unit. 

Hinzman was a paratrooper, too -- and deserted the U.S. 82nd Airborne on the eve of it being sent to Iraq. 

Hinzman says the idea of killing people is repugnant to him, and that his application to be a conscientious objector was rejected. 

One wonders why a conscientious objector would join the army. 

Topham and his fellow soldiers didn't like killing either, but they did their duty. 

In fact, Topham didn't kill -- he was a medic who repeatedly put his life at risk saving the wounded under fire. 

Perhaps it isn't fair to compare the two men, but the question begs: Why did Hinzman join a volunteer army if he wasn't prepared to do what soldiers do, which is fight an enemy? 

He wasn't drafted, he enlisted in early 2001. His claim that the war against Saddam Hussein was "illegal" rings hollow. 

That's not a soldier's role to decide. 

And the Vietnam situation doesn't apply either. During Vietnam America had the draft -- a conscript army. 

Many Americans who didn't want to go to Vietnam or be in the military, came to Canada. 

Some Canadian citizens now helping U.S. deserters were once Vietnam draft dodgers. 

Even then, a draft dodger was different from a deserter -- a much more serious offence. 

Most people don't have much use for deserters -- especially from a volunteer army, and before they've been shot at. A guy who deserts because he's been in combat too long, is different from someone who deserts because he doesn't want to risk combat. 

Hinzman says he joined the army to get an education (war is an "education" although not the sort he wants). 

His interest in Buddhism conflicts with his interest in the military, as does his status as a new parent, plus his sudden concern about the legality of wars. 

As Hinzman says, he had no great "epiphany" -- just a growing dislike for the prospect of war. 

It reached a peak when he was due to leave for Iraq. 

Up to then, he'd apparently been an adequate soldier, passing all the training tests required. 

Most likely is that fear dominated his psyche and after the outrage of 9/11, he realized soldiering wasn't for him. 

So he fled to Canada. 

I think Canada should send him home to deal with the consequences of his decisions. 

=====================================================================


----------



## Infanteer

You can some the article up in one word.

_Coward_.


----------



## Alex252

This is the guy from the 82nd right? Hes such a moron, I really hope we turn him back to the states. He was afraid of commiting atrocities? I think Infanteer summed it up by saying hes a coward. How could you not expect to be deployed when youre in a elite fighting unit in the post 9/11 days


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Just remember we have them too.  Cowards that is.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> As Hinzman says, he had no great "epiphany" -- just a growing dislike for the prospect of war.



Wait for it....





> It reached a peak when he was due to leave for Iraq.



Well, duh.

I really hate the use of the word _coward_ to paint objectors and protesters, , as there are many conscientious objectors who are extremely brave, perhaps even as brave as combat infantrymen.

This character, however, does not appear to be one of them.


----------



## Tpr.Orange

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You can some the article up in one word.
> 
> _Coward_.




couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## CBH99

Well hold on a second guys - lets put ourselves in his place for a moment.  Its easy to call someone a coward, but if you stop and think about it - and show some empathy - maybe his actions thus far have been quite courageous, if of a different kind.  (Just feeding debate here).

Lets put ourselves in his position:  Your country tells you your going to war because the enemy country possesses weapons of mass destruction, and is an immediate threat.  Hoo-ah - awesome, thats what we're here to do.  Then you learn that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction, but in fact the reason you were over there was to remove Saddam, who was an evil tyrant.  Okay, fair enough - both are good causes.  Removing Saddam from power was NEEDED, and if in fact there were WMD in country, than there was a NEED to remove them also.

He managed to become a paratrooper, so he's obviously not a pussy.  I know the American standards aren't as high as other countries, especially these days with their drive to fill deployable positions, but still - he managed to make it to the Airborne, which is commendable.  The whole purpose of having a system where people can register themselves as "conciencious objectors" is so that when they really disagree with something, they can object.  He tried to utilize that system, he tried to go through his chain of command, he tried to deal with it administratively - but to no avail.  So, standing firm on his beliefs, he went AWOL - and brought his family to Canada.

Now I'm not saying whether I agree with his beliefs or not - what I'm saying, is that he KNOWS the severity and consequences if his plea is rejected, and he KNOWS how dismal the rest of his life will be if he ends up going back to the US.  But despite the huge risks, he stood firm on his beliefs, he didn't compromise his perception of integrity, and he didn't cave in to pressure from his chain of command.  He believed something was morally wrong, and he refused to carry it out.  How does that make him a coward?

I agree that - on the surface, in the "black and white" world - he may be labelled as a coward.  But if you think of the courage to stand up for his beliefs despite the legal and social consequences of doing so - he certainly isn't a coward.  He said he joined to defend his country from all enemies, not carry out acts of aggression.  WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE WITH HIS MOTIVES, AND WHAT HE CONSIDERS NEEDED AND NOT NEEDED, we still have to understand that he took a stand for his beliefs - despite much criticism.  Remember guys,  the laws of God are higher than the laws of man.  (Not to sound too religious or anything, but there are some things more important than words on a piece of paper).


----------



## Jungle

If he really was courageous, he would stand up and face the consequences of his decision in his own country. He is a coward for running away from his responsibilities...
There is a lesson in this though: this is what happens when people join the Military for selfish reasons. "I want MY degree and I want THEM to pay for it" or " I wanna go on tour so I can buy ME a new car".
Sounds familiar ?? There is more to the Military then pay and benefits; this is clearly explained during the recruiting process.


----------



## Gunnar

> He said he joined to defend his country from all enemies, not carry out acts of aggression



I believe the oath says something about "all enemies, foreign and domestic".   I don't think it says anything about being able to decide on your own what that entails, and when you choose to follow orders.

So maybe he's not a coward.   Maybe he just betrayed his comrades, and his sworn word.   Maybe his beliefs are every bit as valuable as his oaths.   How do you "take a stand" while running backwards so fast?

I mean, wilfully disobeying an order or betraying his oath is one thing.   To claim REFUGEE status in a foreign country he now decides he likes better because he wishes to escape the consequences of his actions?   How is that brave?   How is that not compromising integrity?   How is treating a sworn oath as "words on a piece of paper" an example of integrity?   Integrity is a principle, one of those things that is supposed to be more important that words on paper....it's what makes words on paper MEAN something.   It's what makes the measure of a man...if you can commit his words to paper and they MEAN something,   you've got a person of integrity.   If the words are meaningless, then so is his integrity.

I swear on a stack of bibles I will defend the country....and if I run away like a pansy, and try to get out of the consequences of my actions, well, then, that's integrity...it's just different integrity, right?

Hypocrisy is integrity.   Freedom is slavery.   Truth is a lie.   Let's all cheer for his "integrity".

 :


----------



## JasonH

That's one prospect that has come out of this in the end, following orders and not following orders.

You'll hafto fight a war or conflict sooner or later, and it ain't gonna be pretty.  But I would imagen it be hard for anyone to accept the fact that innocent people will die in war.  War is hell - it's called that for a reason.  Innocent people die, good people die, bad people die.  People will be hurt, injured, maimed, no matter what you can do.  If you do not like these facts then DO NOT take part in joining the military (Although for drafts that's a whole other arguement).  

If you were given an order such as 'apparently' the people at abu-whatever the hell the prison was called to undress inmates and make them some stupid fraternity prank of a naked pyramid and take pictures (I havn't followed that story in awhile so things have probably changed) stand up to the CO who tells you that, or report them.  If it's against the Geneva Convention in anyway and do not wanna face possible court marshal or war crimes trials do not do that shit.  I promise myself if I ever had to be put into a situation like that I would stand up and simply say no, throw me in the damn brig if you want.  But I'll be damned to lower myself to those levels for a laugh or a good photo shoot among friends.  

Now what he said about shooting up civvi's, well.. thats a tough decision but as unfortnate as it sounds you should follow your orders.  Surely there were signs depicting "Stop or slow down" or whatever and what not.  But given the situation following orders would be best.

My long winded 2 cents, forgive me if I come off at a bad note or anything... faults of being a gonnabee and some things might not of come out right, tendency for that heh.   :warstory:


----------



## CBH99

In response to Gunnar's post - "integrity is what makes words MORE than just ink on paper",  or something to that avail.

True - I agree.  People's integrity is what makes things stick, and what makes words more than just ink on paper.  But there is a principal in it also.  Try putting yourself in his shoes for a moment - you gonna do everything they tell you to, just because you signed a piece of paper?

I understand and agree with you that integrity is critical to all aspects of life, especially in this line of work.  However - when you you draw the line between remaining loyal to your oath, and sacrificing loyalty to yourself?  I'm not talking about materialistic reasons for joining, such as "I want to join the army so THEY can pay for my degree,"  Or - "I wanna go on tour so I can buy MYSELF a car".  I'm talking -- when do you draw the line and say,  "This goes against every morality I've been brought up with, this is wrong, they lied to us, this isn't what I signed up for, I gravely disagree - and I'm going to formally object".  Remember, the REASON THEY HAVE a system where people can object is so they can do just that, OBJECT.

I'm not trying to sound like a coward here either, I'm just feeding the debate.  The whole purpose of having a system where people can object, is so they can object.  If people's objections aren't taken seriously, and are thrown out - wtf is the point of having a system where people can object?  If he believes deep down that the mission he is assigned is morally wrong, and goes against his moral fabric - isn't it his duty in some small way to object?  And perhaps he should have stayed in the US to face the consequences of his actions, but he also has a family - a Wife and small child - perhaps that played a role in his decision to flee to Canada?  He could either be cut down and possibly imprisoned in the "Land of the Free" for objecting to something he feels is wrong, and put his family through a very rough time - or he could risk it, and try going to another country where he wouldn't have to leave his family.

I'm just feeding debate here guys, but think about it.  Really think about it - use your hearts in addition to your brains.  Any of you whom have families I'm sure understand at least in some small part his desire not to leave them.  I'm not trying to blindly defend this man's every action or accusation, HOWEVER;  it is important for us to realize that perhaps his reasons go deeper than just the surface.


----------



## Infanteer

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Well hold on a second guys - lets put ourselves in his place for a moment.



Ok.



> Its easy to call someone a coward, but if you stop and think about it - and show some empathy - maybe his actions thus far have been quite courageous, if of a different kind.   (Just feeding debate here).



I'm trying to do this empathy thing.   Maybe he should have empathized with his squadmates who came to depend on him as part of a team; obviously he didn't really give a shit about them since he left their ass exposed while he beetled off to Toronto.



> Lets put ourselves in his position:   Your country tells you your going to war because the enemy country possesses weapons of mass destruction, and is an immediate threat.   Hoo-ah - awesome, thats what we're here to do.   Then you learn that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction, but in fact the reason you were over there was to remove Saddam, who was an evil tyrant.   Okay, fair enough - both are good causes.   Removing Saddam from power was NEEDED, and if in fact there were WMD in country, than there was a NEED to remove them also.



Do you think he had that hindsight going into the war?   Remember, the WMD thing only became an issue after they were shipped to Syria....err....failed to show up in occupied Iraq.



> He managed to become a paratrooper, so he's obviously not a pussy.   I know the American standards aren't as high as other countries, especially these days with their drive to fill deployable positions,



How do you know that?   Or are you talking out of your ass.   I have a good buddy (a member of this forum actually) who just got out of the CF and is now Airborne qualified and on his way to the SF.   He'd beg to differ about your perception on standards.



> but still - he managed to make it to the Airborne, which is commendable.



Which probably should have made him more cognisant of what he was going to do.



> The whole purpose of having a system where people can register themselves as "conscientious objectors" is so that when they really disagree with something, they can object.   He tried to utilize that system, he tried to go through his chain of command, he tried to deal with it administratively - but to no avail.



He tried to do it after he figured he would be put into harms way.   He didn't seem to do much "conscientious objecting" when the Army was paying him well and providing him with great benefits for jumping out of planes and playing with neat kit.



> So, standing firm on his beliefs, he went AWOL - and brought his family to Canada.



So, when he realized the Army was no longer beneficial to him, he ejected and ran away from his responsibilities.



> Now I'm not saying whether I agree with his beliefs or not - what I'm saying, is that he KNOWS the severity and consequences if his plea is rejected, and he KNOWS how dismal the rest of his life will be if he ends up going back to the US.   But despite the huge risks, he stood firm on his beliefs, he didn't compromise his perception of integrity, and he didn't cave in to pressure from his chain of command.   He believed something was morally wrong, and he refused to carry it out.   How does that make him a coward?



I don't know where you get your definition of "courage" and "cowardice" from, but it's not from the same book I do.

Courage usually indicates a measure of self-sacrifice (perhaps the ultimate sacrifice) for others.   What this guy has done has put "self-preservation" on a pedestal over his Country, the Army, and most importantly, his mates.   I don't care if he's standing up for how he feels - he signed the dotted line and the Army held up it's end of the bargain; when the balloon went up he shirked from his legal obligations as a professional soldier and abandoned his team.

Where you find courage in that, I don't know - but if you find it acceptable, then I hope you stay away from my Army.



> I agree that - on the surface, in the "black and white" world - he may be labelled as a coward.   But if you think of the courage to stand up for his beliefs despite the legal and social consequences of doing so - he certainly isn't a coward.   He said he joined to defend his country from all enemies, not carry out acts of aggression.



And how, being in the 82nd Airborne, do you think he expected to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic?   By talking to them nicely or giving them MREs and a few bucks?   He knew from day 1 what was expected of him.   The fact that he waited until after being informed of his deployment only means that not only is he a coward, but he is a hypocrite as well.



> WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE WITH HIS MOTIVES, AND WHAT HE CONSIDERS NEEDED AND NOT NEEDED, we still have to understand that he took a stand for his beliefs - despite much criticism.



Taking a stand on your belief is besides the point.   The rednecks in Texas who dragged the black kid from the bumper of their pickup were also "standing up for their beliefs" - which happened to be racially biased.   Its the quality of his beliefs that count - and as far as I'm concerned, this guy doesn't rate the paper his story is printed on.



> Remember guys,   the laws of God are higher than the laws of man.   (Not to sound too religious or anything, but there are some things more important than words on a piece of paper).



Well, I fail to see how any notion of "God" or "divinity" plays into this at all.



JEREMEY HINZMAN - YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK; GOODBYE....


----------



## Acorn

There is civil disobedience. That is what US "draft dodgers" of the Vietnam era were engaging in. Canada abetted that. I know there is not much sympathy for draft dodgers here. Understandable given the audience. However, there is a fundamental difference between an individual that chooses to flee when compelled to serve in his nation's armed forces, and one who flees after volunteering for his nation's armed forces, when they get committed to combat.

If Hinzman truly had courage of conviction he would face the consequences of his nation's legal system. Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali did. Martin Luther King did. Many greater men did.

I don't see civil disobedience in the actions of Hinzmann and co. What I see is an opportunist who is attempting to capitalise on history. I see an individual who mocks Canadian soldiers, who volunteered, and who missed the birth of a child, or in some cases will never see that child grow up. I see a selfish man. If he was a true CO, he would do what so many have done before - serve his country in a non-combatant role and risk his life alongside the soldiers he once committed to.

He may not really be a coward, but he is certainly selfish.

Acorn


----------



## CupFrantic

Here's my Take

If he was so against the war and decided morally that he couldn't go to Iraq, then he should of stayed in the USA and taken the consequences for his action(probably only a year in jail not bad considering what he is facing now). But instead of taking the moral high ground, this soldier decided to run away(to Canada). This is why I consider him a coward, an honorable man stands by his believes even when he could be penalized for them. Also their should be no comparison to Vietnam draft dodgers because they were drafted into the army, they didn't join by choice. I say send him back..... 

                                                                         Just My Two Cents(Its been an interesting topic to talk about in my poli science class)


----------



## elbarto

Sixty minutes had a feature on the deserters this evening.  It included interviews with Jeremy Hinzman and two others who have come to Canada.  All are seeking refugee status.   It was also mentioned that there is upwards of five thousand other deserters at this time - although  most are not in Canada.


----------



## ramy

Art Vandelay said:
			
		

> Sixty minutes had a feature on the deserters this evening.   It included interviews with Jeremy Hinzman and two others who have come to Canada.   All are seeking refugee status.     It was also mentioned that there is upwards of five thousand other deserters at this time - although   most are not in Canada.



That deserter from the 101st is living 35 minutes from me, would love to grab him and drop him off at the border... hahaha they will have fun with him at ft. lewis for sure


----------



## winchable

Well it's pretty obvious this is opportunism.
This didn't come up until the other story came up about the soliders talking about atrocities.

As I see it he's had three chances to take the upper road:
1) Not joining the army in the first place, or discharging after seeing all the mean things they say at bootcamp.
2) Applying for Conscientius objector status (I've heard it's not impossible to get) while still in the army.
3) Doing what Muhammad Ali/ MLK Jr. etc. have done and stood their ground and faced the consequences which is what civil disobedience is as far as I know.

As it stands, deserters is one of the few things I'm radically hardline about. Short drop/quick stop.


----------



## The_Falcon

This puke is a self-fish, hypocritical, *COWARD*, plain and simple.  He admits on his website http://www.jeremyhinzman.net that he joined the Army for pragmatic reasons (ie he liked and wanted all the benefits, the US Army doles out).  He felt uncomfortable yelling 'Trained to kill and kill we will' and the he felt uncomfortable with the idea that he might actually have to take someone elses life. Gee, i went the the US Army website and what do I see, well a heading called "What's it like being a soldier?" and right under that a link for Basic* COMBAT* Training (note the emphasis on the word "combat").  What did he think he was joining the Peace Corps. No cause they don't pay your school for you.  What else did I see, oh the "Airborne incentive bonus" of $3000.00, just for volunteering to go to jump school, if you come into the army right off the street.  But no, I don't suppose he would have volunteered for airborne duty soley for the extra cash, not knowing he might actually have to fight. Lets see here, 9 weeks of Basic, another 8-24 for trade training (I don't know what trade he was) and another 3 weeks for jump school. Looks like a minimum of 20 weeks training, and only after he had completed all his training, firmly cementing him into the army, he decided that he no longer liked the prospect of killing. Come on he had at least 5 months to say to himself you know what, maybe I should just take the financial hit and leave, because I don't like the thought of killing people.  That would have been the honourable thing to do.  But he decided to stay, and hopefully skirt by as CO, collect his benfits and leave.  "I signed up to defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic -- not to carry out acts of aggression," Look at his own statement, I mean you join the army to defend your country, but you will not act aggressively towards that defence.  What was he planing to do use harsh language?  Appeal to the intellectual/ethical/moral being of Bin Laden and his ilk.

Bottom line is this kid and others who follow him are freeloading, cowards.  They should be sent back to the states and accept their punishment like the MEN they obviously are not.


----------



## Goober

Che said:
			
		

> ...
> 3) Doing what Muhammad Ali/ MLK Jr. etc. have done and stood their ground and faced the consequences which is what civil disobedience is as far as I know.
> 
> ...



If he wasn't a coward, he would be doing #3 right now. Instead hes running away. When it comes time to face the music, Jeremy is searching for a new band, there is no courage in that.


----------



## CBH99

Hey Infanteer - not to sound disrespectful of a staff member like yourself, but in your comment "I hope you stay away from my army" - I've already been in your army for 4yrs now (Reserve).  So, no disrespect - but get to know someone before you chomp down on em'.

I was trying to feed debate.  There are two sides to every story - and always a multitude of ways to look at something.  I was simply trying to expose what some of those other ways might be.  Its easy to call him a coward and close the book on em', sure.  I was merely trying to expand on a sense of empathy - NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SYMPATHY - as to why he might have chosen the actions he did.  Did he demonstrate courage in regards to his unit and fellow soldiers?  No.  But did he demonstrate courage in regards to standing up for personal beliefs?  Perhaps.  I'm just saying - there are a lot of ways to look at a situation.  Remember,  perception is reality - if he perceives things differently than us, than obviously he's going to react differently.

Just trying to feed debate is all.   :threat:


----------



## Slim

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Hey Infanteer - not to sound disrespectful of a staff member like yourself, but in your comment "I hope you stay away from my army" - I've already been in your army for 4yrs now (Reserve).   So, no disrespect - but get to know someone before you chomp down on em'.



Let me ask you this. Have you looked at Infanteer's profile, or the profile of anyone else here for that matter. Sorry bud. It takes more than showing up for a bunch of Tuesday nights for a couple of years, to make a soldier. 

You might want to remember that the next time you start claiming to be one too.



> I was trying to feed debate.   There are two sides to every story - and always a multitude of ways to look at something.   I was simply trying to expose what some of those other ways might be.



If he refused to do his duty as an American soldier I believe he would have been (or could've been) charged with cowardice-A much worse crime than simple desertion, and the penalties are far higher. Death in the most extreme circumstances!



> Its easy to call him a coward and close the book on em', sure.   I was merely trying to expand on a sense of empathy - NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SYMPATHY - as to why he might have chosen the actions he did.   Did he demonstrate courage in regards to his unit and fellow soldiers?



Well, if any good will come of this at least the rest of the guys in his unit won't have to worry about someone that could've cut and run once the sh*t hit the fan in-theatre...Or go to pieces because he couldn't face the prospect of not coming through the tour unscathed. That is the part of soldiering that apparently didn't sink in when he was enquiring about the free education he got.

  





> But did he demonstrate courage in regards to standing up for personal beliefs?   Perhaps.   I'm just saying - there are a lot of ways to look at a situation.   Remember,   perception is reality - if he perceives things differently than us, than obviously he's going to react differently.



I believe that the main issue in this situation-his knowing, understanding, and accepting- the obligations of voluntarily joining a volunteer army. The army fulfilled their pat of the deal. He got an education and a good, decent and honourable employment, a good home for his family, a good support network and all of the other beni's that come along with being in the US Army.

 However when it came time for him to do his bit he chucked in the towel...Kind of makes anything he says at that point rather suspect, wouldn't you agree?!


----------



## jc5778

When you sign the dotted line, you agree to put your personnel wants, feelings and fears aside for what your country tells you to do.  NO US army deserter should be allowed to stay in Canada period.  He's lucky that they no longer shoot deserters.  Now if your forced to join, say conscription, well then maybe you would have a leg to stand on.  Be a man, not a coward.  When you sign up for the infantry, especially in the US, you HAVE to be prepared to serve anywhere in the world and do the dirty deeds.  This is not a video game that you can quit.  :threat:


----------



## Slim

> This is not a video game that you can quit.



Bang on!


----------



## mrosseker

What concerns me about all of this isn't so much the guy deserting, or his reasons, but the fact that he came to Canada. I don't think we need any bad PR with the U.S., especially not now.
And, if this guy cant either stand up to a commitment or face the consequences in his own country, what kind of Canadian citizen will he be?

I dunno, just my .02


----------



## Slim

For some reason it seems that we are the haven for every PC slimeball that comes down the pipe!

Why can't they go someplace in Europe?


----------



## Bograt

Slim said:
			
		

> Why can't they go someplace in Europe?



Its too cold to swim.

I am curious to know what happens when the refugee board rules against him. Will he disappear like some many others who hear unfavorable immigration hearings. Will he volunteer at Sgro's next campaign? Will he decide to strip for a living?

I watched the 60 Minutes story last night. They are apparently the darlings of Canada's anti-war movement. I wonder what is more humiliating- Darling of Canada's ant war campaign, or poster boy for Erectile Dysfunction Disorder.


----------



## FastEddy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Hey Infanteer - not to sound disrespectful of a staff member like yourself, but in your comment "I hope you stay away from my army" - I've already been in your army for 4yrs now (Reserve).   So, no disrespect - but get to know someone before you chomp down on em'.
> 
> I was trying to feed debate.   There are two sides to every story - and always a multitude of ways to look at something.   I was simply trying to expose what some of those other ways might be.   Its easy to call him a coward and close the book on em', sure.   I was merely trying to expand on a sense of empathy - NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH SYMPATHY - as to why he might have chosen the actions he did.   Did he demonstrate courage in regards to his unit and fellow soldiers?   No.   But did he demonstrate courage in regards to standing up for personal beliefs?   Perhaps.   I'm just saying - there are a lot of ways to look at a situation.   Remember,   perception is reality - if he perceives things differently than us, than obviously he's going to react differently.
> 
> Just trying to feed debate is all.     :threat:



"i WAS TRYING TO FEED DEBATE"   No, you sound like a Defense Attorney.

"IF HE PERCEIVES THINGS DIFFERENTLY" So do Serial Killers,Child Molesters,Rapest and Kidnappers.

"I"VE BEEN IN YOUR ARMY FOR 4 YEARS" I'm sure we all can draw our own conclusions to that statement.

I'd rather take my chances living next door to any of the above Criminals than a Deserter, at least they will be aventually arrested. But having to look at him every day, well I guess even you can figure that one out.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

I simply can't believe that Canada, as a responsible country, is actually harbouring a deserter from the army of our closest ally - and allowing him this travesty of a refugee hearing (which is done before political appointees - _Liberal_ political appointees).  We should have arrested his ass the moment he crossed the border and handed him over to the US Military Police - just as we would like them to do if Pte Bloggins from the West Nunavut Fusiliers deserts the moment he's put on orders for deployment to whatever 'Stan is the target of the moment.


----------



## pbi

If he is trying to make a case against the war, his best bully pulpit will be in the US, where domestic media and US anti-Bush and anti-war groups can easily get access to him and give him far more exposure. But, of course, that would mean that the US MP's could get access to him too, amd by now he'd be cooling in Leavenworth.

As for his contention that he would be more severely punished because of his political beliefs, he is obviously playing on Canadian ignorance of (or left-wing antipathy to...) the Universal Code of Military Justice (=our Code of Service Discipline). It is very unlikely that his defenders or supporters would sit still for that kind of distortion of the court martial process. And, as far as I can make out, the US Army seems to be handing out rather less than draconian punishments these days. 

Finally, as other posters have noted, Mr H may be an example of what you get when your recruiting stresses benefits over service.(A sin we often guilty of, IMHO...)I wonder what his squad mates, NCOs and officers remember about him. After all, _he_ deserted _them_. That's why it's called "desertion" not "expressing one's political stance by abrogating a contractual obligation as a defence worker".

Cheers.


----------



## Marauder

Hinzman is a failure. First, he is a failure as a man. He took the coward's way out. If he was so interested in his beliefs and standing up for them, he would have manned up and spent a few years making big rocks into little rocks. But instead he ran. Yeah, way to *stand* for anything.

Second, he is a failure of the training system. He should have been tagged as a washout who's sole purpose in uniform was extracting "free" college money. Nuff said on that.

Last, he is a failure of the Canadian refugee system. If cases like this can't show the sheeple how broke our immigration system is, then nothing else can, I don't think.


----------



## axeman

I agree with you on that he joined so he would get the benifits of the payout in the end , but he did not think that to get to the end you have to go somewhere. It is the American Army , one of the other reasons ppl join is to travel   boy   in th CF have i ever done that   in the US Army you will definitly do it also .   the 101 Rakkasann's deployed to Afghanistan   with us in tow   and shortly after deploying back to the US they were packing up to go to iraq. In my thoughts some one   should drop him off at the border . but hey thats me , i dont think   and again its just me   that he should be allowed to stay . hell cassius clay you may know him as mohhamad ali did 2 years in a lot less freindly envirions then here in canada he stood up and was counted . it cost him yes but he made his stand where it was heard, not here in canada. let the deserter   go back or be allowed to leave the country which he has fled to   not stay .


----------



## jrhume

Just a quick note:

Concientious Objector status is available only to draftees.  People who enlist of their own free will are not covered by the law(s) establishing the category.  In addition, CO status does not exempt one from military service, it merely ensures that the CO will be placed in non-combat roles.  At least one CO won the MOH in WW2 while serving as a medic. That's courage.  Courage of conviction and physical courage.

Jim


----------



## Bill Smy

I went to his website. Thought I'd let him know what I thought. Guess what? No email capability. But if you want to send money, his lawyer's address is there.

Peter Worthington's article hit it on the head.

 :gunner:


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> I simply can't believe that Canada, as a responsible country, is actually harbouring a deserter from the army of our closest ally - and allowing him this travesty of a refugee hearing (which is done before political appointees - _Liberal_ political appointees).   We should have arrested his ass the moment he crossed the border and handed him over to the US Military Police - just as we would like them to do if Pte Bloggins from the West Nunavut Fusiliers deserts the moment he's put on orders for deployment to whatever 'Stan is the target of the moment.



He's entitled to a fair hearing.  He's also entitled to be shackled immediately after and send south on the first cattle car.


----------



## Horse_Soldier

As long as he eventually gets to prove his committment to his personal convictions (whatever they are) in an appropriate place like Leavenworth, and not befouling Canadian soil, I'm happy. ;D


----------



## JasonH

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> As long as he eventually gets to prove his committment to his personal convictions (whatever they are) in an appropriate place like Leavenworth, and not befouling Canadian soil, I'm happy. ;D



Well said


----------



## vangemeren

I do not have any sympathy. He joined the army voluntarily. It's not like he was forced to join through conscription. 



> He said he signed up at his father's urging...



The brave thing to do, would have been telling his father, "Dad, killing people is not my thing, the Mc Donalds down the street sounds better." Then he would have  no obligations to the army what so ever. What I would like to know is, what did he expect to do in the Airborne? Parachute into enemy territory and spread sunshine, lollipops, flowers, and good feelings to the Iraqi National Guard?



> ...the practising Buddhist...



I'm no expert in theology or religious studies, but since when did a Buddhist worry about money?


----------



## Bograt

vangemeren said:
			
		

> I'm no expert in theology or religious studies, but since when did a Buddhist worry about money?



They don't like it when you point out the hypocrisy. SHHHHHH.

 ;D


----------



## buzgo

How many combat jumps have members of this board got? I believe he's got 18 in Afghanistan... Doesn't sound very cowardly to me.


----------



## vangemeren

I think it's more the IvolunteeredtojointhearmytogetfreemoneyandnowwhenthearmyneedsmeIrunaway atitude thing rather than the airborne thing.

Personally I would never jump out of a working airplane or is it just me?


----------



## Goober

vangemeren said:
			
		

> I do not have any sympathy. He joined the army voluntarily. It's not like he was forced to join through conscription.
> 
> I'm no expert in theology or religious studies, but since when did a Buddhist worry about money?



Just because someone is a Buddhist it doesn't mean they don't worry about money. You don't need to be an expert in Buddhism to realize that a Buddhist needs to pay rent just like a Christian or Muslim would. Buddhism teaches mindfulness and awareness so one can deal with emotions such as worry, but they are not immune to those emotions.


----------



## Scott

signalsguy said:
			
		

> How many combat jumps have members of this board got? I believe he's got 18 in Afghanistan... Doesn't sound very cowardly to me.



Jumps have nothing to do with it for me. He signed up, knew the possible consequences, nuff said. In fact, an argument could be made that this guy should know way better because of his experience in Afghanistan, no?



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> He's entitled to a fair hearing. He's also entitled to be shackled immediately after and send south on the first cattle car.



I totally agree.


----------



## vangemeren

> Just because someone is a Buddhist it doesn't mean they don't worry about money. You don't need to be an expert in Buddhism to realize that a Buddhist needs to pay rent just like a Christian or Muslim would. Buddhism teaches mindfulness and awareness so one can deal with emotions such as worry, but they are not immune to those emotions.



I guess you're right, I was getting at the worldly possestion thing. When he lands in the brig, he will have lots of time to meditate.


----------



## Infanteer

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Hey Infanteer - not to sound disrespectful of a staff member like yourself, but in your comment "I hope you stay away from my army" - I've already been in your army for 4yrs now (Reserve).   So, no disrespect - but get to know someone before you chomp down on em'.



Well, now you know why we keep asking people to fill out their profile.



			
				signalsguy said:
			
		

> How many combat jumps have members of this board got? I believe he's got 18 in Afghanistan... Doesn't sound very cowardly to me.



Did the 82nd do 18 combat jumps in Afghanistan?  That's more then WWII veterans have.


----------



## camochick

the way I see it is that there are plenty of families who have lost love ones in iraq, and here is this guy sitting prietty up here in Canada. He gets to live the rest of his life , meanwhile, others who chose the same path he did with the exception that they followed orders, don't have that option. If he really wanted to take a stand he should have done it in the U.S., instead of running away. I think the one word that is constant in this thread sums it all up. Coward.


----------



## buzgo

Well I guess its easy for us to sit here and judge this guy, since none of us (Canadians that is, I know there are Americans here too) have to face what he has faced...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

There is a big difference between a training jump and a combat jump people....


----------



## RCA

It is pretty cut and dried. You sign the dotted line, you make a commitment. Like a marriage, or richer or poorer, in good times or bad.... As a soldier (no matter how much or how little TI) doesn't t get to pick and choose with war to fight in. You get set where your told. I hesitate to use the "c" word but if he had problems with actually engaging in combat, then he could have become a medic and helped his fellow soldiers. 

  I think this is a prime example of an individual rights superceding the collective. As I said somewhere else, the group is more then important then individual, but you see more and more that isn't so anymore. How can any true soldier abandon his fellow teammates.

 Why did the peckerwood come to Canada instead of Mexico. My guess is we speak English and have a high standard of living. Another sign of his character. He could of hid in Mexico easier. 

 But this is Canada, and we do have  a refugee policy (as well as immigration - separate issue). It is not up to the individual customs officer etc to evacuate his claim. We, also being a free country has process of law. And before anyone jumps in, the goal of refugee status is good, its the execution that is flawed (We actually do believe in "taking in your huddled masses). Once his refugee status is refused (I seen it for less and dis happen before), then off to the border he goes.

My politics tends to be left of centre, so I do not believe in the leftist conspire theories. I do believe in one doing ones duty, especially if you volunteered for it.


----------



## vangemeren

RCA,
That was an excellent post, I was starting to get at way before. When you're in the Army, you can't expect to get free money. You only get free money if you are a politician/friend of one.



> My politics tends to be left of centre...



Haven't seen too many others, I thought I was the only one. (Before I get made fun of, no I'm not communist/Marxist/hippie/other sterotype)


----------



## Cloud Cover

I don't know if Divorce was good analogy, since divorce is legal and is always preceded by separation. If the RB does not find in his favour, he can and will apply for a review. In any event, we let worse people than him stay here, on a daily basis. Using the RB aproach was a mistake, but it's a correctable one. Nobody really cares about his contract to serve in the US forces. That's not even relevant .. what is relevant is what might happen to him if he is sent back home. Can anybody speak to that point with authority, I'm curious to know what due process he will be entitled to, or whether he will be dealt with summarily.  Cheers.


----------



## axeman

Re: U.S. army deserter feared committing atrocities 
 « Reply #41 on: Today at 15:05:42  »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many combat jumps have members of this board got? I believe he's got 18 in Afghanistan... Doesn't sound very cowardly to me. 


18 combat jumps hmmm . well lets see i havent seen anything from many of my friends down south in ref to this . it all depends on what you call combat .  in some cases i know of ppl getting a "combat" jump when the combat was  way far away and they were just training is that what happend here ?i know of many ppl in the US army  / sf and they dont know of anyone with 5 + jumps into a hot area ....


----------



## Jungle

He probably has 18 jumps TOTAL. The 82nd AB Div is not a jump club  :
Apart from small SF drops that may have happened, the only operational para drop in Afghanistan was a Coy of Rangers jumping into Kandahar Airfield on Oct 19th 2002.
In Iraq, about 1000 troops from the 173rd AB Bde were para-inserted in Northern Iraq.


----------



## camochick

I hate the fact that tax dollars are being wasted on this guy. He is also wasting time that could be spent on refugees of a more urgent nature. People who cant go home because they actually face death.


----------



## the 48th regulator

You wanna know what pisses me off more than anything?   it's not the fact he ditched his duty, funny how he wasn't a conscientious objector in the recruiting office, it's the fact he is up here and he is wasting the time and money of our system.

So Hinzman, from Tess, "On yer bike!"



> Let me ask you this. Have you looked at Infanteer's profile, or the profile of anyone else here for that matter. Sorry bud. It takes more than showing up for a bunch of Tuesday nights for a couple of years, to make a soldier.
> 
> You might want to remember that the next time you start claiming to be one too.



Hey Slim

What the F*** is up with that comment??   I showed up for many a Tuesday and am proud to call myself a soldier.   PM me if you want to know a little bit more about my "Tuesday Soldier" experience.  

tess


----------



## axeman

hey regulator i ll back you up on that . before i joined the regs i was a reservist . when i went out with the regs i brought in a lot of experience that the  jnr nco's did not have  i had worked with all 3 PPCLI bns and 1 of the  RCR and a short stint with the RCDs  when i said something i was scoffed at till they tried my way and it worked . I was ranked #4 in the entire  coy when deployed operationally . thats with all the a mech coy . so while yes there are troops out there who do not have the knowledge their rank may req there are troops out there with knowledge / experience that their rank may not show .....


----------



## 104thNBR

I agree with many of the opinions, when you raise your right hand and do solemnly swear--- then by god they have your a$$ for as long as you signed up for.  But you wait and see this country of ours, though I love it dearly and would defend it to my last breath, is full of bleeding hearts that will treat this slug like a hero.


----------



## Infanteer

Umm...just as a disclaimer, I was a reservist to.


----------



## GGboy

camochick is right ... the travesty here is that this twerp is tying up an overloaded refugee system that could be hearing REAL refugee claims. People who have been tortured or jailed for their political beliefs, religion or skin colour and who would be killed if sent back to their home country. And the whole thing costs us taxpayers $50,000 to $100,000 a day.
If he loses this round, as seems likely, his lawyer (a former Vietnam draft dodger, go figure) appeals and appeals and appeals. Meanwhile this guy collects welfare and we pay for the whole tortuous process, which will take years. One refugee claimant -- a convicted terrorist -- has been appealing for 17 years! If Hinzman takes his case to the Supreme Court and loses, he can then make a humanitarian appeal directly to the Immigration Minister based on the fact ... you might want to sit down for this ... that he's been in the country so long it would be an undue hardship to deport him.
There oughta be a revolt over this refugee system. It makes a lot of Liberal lawyers rich, but has turned us into an international laughingstock. Again.


----------



## Slim

> Hey Slim
> 
> What the F*** is up with that comment??   I showed up for many a Tuesday and am proud to call myself a soldier.   PM me if you want to know a little bit more about my "Tuesday Soldier" experience.
> 
> tess



I've been reserve...I've been reg. As a reservist I thought I knew all that there was to know about being a soldier...

Then I hit Cornwallis...And the Armoured Battleschool...Then was an armoured recce soldier for 7 years...Full time service. I've seen reserves who can't hold a candle to to a reg force second year trooper in terms of dedication, drive, job knowledge, professionallism...the list goes on.

I realize that reservists these days do alot more than I did as one...However, for the most part, regs and reserves are NOT equal in terms of training, job knowledge, drive and experience.

If some of you disagree...Well I am speaking from my own personal experience and feelings on the matter. No doubt there are those who will dispute this. So be it.

As for the person that those remarks were aimed at. At the time of my post his profile was blank...Which says to me that he has none.

Slim


----------



## gun plumber

I went to that guys website,into his scrap book section and looked at his pictures.
The one thing that really made me sick is all the pictures he took in front of Pier 21 in Halifax.How can this,cowardly and selfish individual,try and put himself on the same plateau as all the other people who came to Canada through those gates.Every war bride and honest to goodness refugee must be spinning in thier graves........
Boil em in oil!


----------



## pbi

> I've seen reserves who can't hold a candle to to a reg force second year trooper in terms of dedication, drive, job knowledge, professionallism...the list goes on.



And both you and I, (if we are honest with ourselves as RegF soldiers...) can point out any number of people in the RegF who are not "soldiers" at all but just time-serving ration thieves. It goes both ways. IMHO the last thing we need on this site is one component slanging the other with a broad brush. I thought we were past that in this group. Cheers.


----------



## Gunner

> IMHO the last thing we need on this site is one component slanging the other with a broad brush. I thought we were past that in this group. Cheers.



Amen, brother, Amen.


----------



## Limpy

Well I don't think that the Iraq war was fully justified, but if in your mind you don't agree with the politicians sending you there don't go for them, go to support the man next to you in the trench.

If I was him, I would be ashamed of what my buddies would be thinking of me.

Just my thoughts


----------



## the 48th regulator

Slim,

Listen, let's not sabotage this thread.   You obviously have an inferiority complex, and need to find any chance to take a dig at a reservist.   As I said, PM me and we can discuss. I don't have to broadcast to everyone on this thread who I am or what I have done.

This thread is about a coward that feels he needs to let everyone feel sorry for him, when in reality he wanted an easy way to pay his bills, or so he thought.   When push came to shove and his country asked that he answer the call, well his true self came out and tucked tail and ran.

Funny how that happens to some...

tess


----------



## Infanteer

Ok, enough.  Since the comment was about a page and a half ago, take it to the PMs.  No point getting into an arguement over this Hinzman turd....


----------



## Pieman

Hinzman has a nice little webpage

http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/

Now you can all write Hinzman and tell him how you feel:
support@jeremyhinzman.net 

Some of the emails he got are posted on his site. I have a funny feeling that most of you * won't * be writing a letter like this:



> Dear Jeremy, Nga and Liam,
> 
> I want to wish all of the best for you and your family as you start your new life here in Toronto. I have lived here all of my life and cant think of a better place for you to raise your son.
> 
> I have unspeakable respect for the amount of courage which you have shown in resisitng the forces of corruption that unfortunately plague the most powerful military in the world. Can you imagine if all of those troops you were stationed with were fighting for true justice and not just playing security guards for Bush the inferior and his Oily friends?
> 
> In any event, I am glad that you are a warrior for the truth, and I hope that your message is spread far across the world. You will be a symbol of courage for those who stand up for themselves against immense injustice and seemingly impossible odds.
> 
> Thank you for standing up for what you believe in. Thank you for proving that all Americans are not mindless dronesdoing what Fox tells them to do, but rather, they can be compassionate, peace-loving individuals who think for themselves. Thank you for coming to Toronto.
> 
> You are welcome in my home at any time.
> 
> Warmest Regards,



Funny how the definition of 'hero' and 'coward' is so different for different people. Sigh, if he was being drafted and forced into the war, I could probably take his side...but he signed up, it is pretty rotten he is portraying himself as a 'conscientious objector' when he is really walking away from his responsibilities.


----------



## Infanteer

Here is what I sent along:

_As a Canadian soldier I cannot wait to see you tossed back over to the United States.  The only atrocity of this whole story is that the mainstream press is still giving you attention.  As far as I'm concerned, you left your squadmates behind and screwed the team you had sworn to serve alongside (remember, you signed that contract) - you are a selfish shirker and a coward; you don't rate the paper your story is printed on.

Hopefully, a few years in Levenworth will teach you something about responsibility and obligation._


----------



## Horse_Soldier

I sent him something a little more pungent, but with the same general idea.  Maybe if enough of us do it, he'll get the message that he's unwanted here by everyone other than the left-lib media and their followers - who don't have the brains to pour piss out of a boot anyways.


----------



## Peace_Keeper

I like how some of the letters on his site state "we as Canadians" and we is bolded and capitalized......since when the hell does a single person from toronto state a country's opinion..... sure would like to see the prick sent back home and get what he deserves......hes basically trying to steal a education and get out of his responsibilitys.....


----------



## camochick

I wrote the tool an email. I was really nice considering he pisses me off. I'm sure they wont be posting it on his site. hehe


----------



## bossi

Yup - I've no doubt they won't post my e-mail to him, either:



> Jeremy,
> You signed a legally binding contract when you enlisted in the US Army - in return for wearing the uniform, you wanted the Army to pay for your university education.
> 
> Now you want to break the contract by running away to Canada?
> 
> Please go home - we have enough thieves here already - we don't need to import American ones.
> 
> Sincerely,
> A Canadian soldier who served in Afghanistan


----------



## armyrules

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You know what I think is an atrocity - the fact that this weasel is still gathering media attention.


 great post infanteer that little wussy is a disgrace to the Marines


----------



## pbi

armyrules said:
			
		

> great post infanteer that little wussy is a disgrace to the Marines



Yes-especially because he is in the Army. Cheers.


----------



## armyrules

So the guy is in the army? The article that I read about him said that he was a marine.


----------



## armyrules

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I want to know why didn't he go to Mexico or even better N-Korea? He is a punk and if I ever see him on the street I would kick his goat smelling AZZ!



    ;D great post S_Baker that guy makes me so  :rage: I share the same opinion as you do and probably most people on the boards.


----------



## Gunnar

Closing the famed Leavenworth?  That's like the closure of Sing Sing....a momentous moment in history.

What are they replacing it with?  What's the plan?


----------



## quebecrunner

Believe me this guy put me in trouble  ;D

my girlfriend  (wife next year) asked me yesterday if i'll do the same thing for my family if i join the cf...  since joining the CF as an infantry officer is my goal, she's now worried since this coward story.

I will not tell you what i told her, but since i'm volunteer to give a nice trip  throught the frontier to this bloody coward who betrayed is comrades, she know now. Never in my life i will betrayed my comrades.

I think that the worst part of this tragedy is that guy, did sign a contract, was volunteer and betrayed is brothers. 

In french, C'est un égoiste, un menteur et un profiteur de première. Un beau trou de cul quoi ;D


----------



## camochick

I used his site against him. I got the pm's email addy from there (not like I couldnt find it elsewhere) and sent him an email about not letting this guy stay. They sent me some form letter about how they would forward it to Judy Sgro and that my email was now on file. Great, now they know me hehe.


----------



## armyrules

camochick said:
			
		

> I used his site against him. I got the pm's email addy from there (not like I couldnt find it elsewhere) and sent him an email about not letting this guy stay. They sent me some form letter about how they would forward it to Judy Sgro and that my email was now on file. Great, now they know me hehe.


                Nice job I think I will also send a letter letting them know my opinion.


----------



## Acorn

Careful camochick. Sgro might be looking for other sources to replace the Romanian strippers she no longer provides support for.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer

That seems silly.  There are no U.S. citizens being pressed into service in Iraq right now.  There are professional soldiers who are being deployed - so he'd only be shielding people who've abandoned their obligation.

Is Martin trying to get at not supporting a U.S. Draft?


----------



## Edward Campbell

The only 'signal' Paul Martin is sending is that he has _dithered_ himself into a bad corner â â€œ surrounded by rocks and hard places.

Missile Defence was, is and will remain a contentious issue.   Jean Chrétien, crafty old political hack that he was, laid all the groundwork for an unpopular, but _strategically_ essential decision to join up â â€œ then he left it to Martin to announce the _bad news_ to a sceptical but, all the same, compliant and prepared Canadian populace.

Martin dithered.

Opposition grew â â€œ especially in the _leftish_, anti-American, Toronto based Parrish/Godfrey wing of the Liberal Party and in French speaking Québec.

Martin dithered.

George W. Bush very explicitly asked Canada to join.

Opposition grew, more and faster ... Martin dithered more and more.

Well, you get the picture.   Martin needs to improve relations with Washington â â€œ desperately needs that; Washington wants Canada's open, public support for missile defence â â€œ expressed by joining the programme.   Martin must hold Toronto and make big gains in Québec if he ever wants to form a majority government ... Toronto and Québec hate missile defence.   The Bloc hates missile defence, too, and if Martin says 'No!' the Bloc will claim, and get, most of the credit.   Jack Layton will use missile defence to try to steal Liberal seats in Toronto.

Talking about deserters in the same breath as legitimate immigrants is even more dithering.   Paul Martin is pathetic.

Dithering doesn't pay ... not in politics, not in army operations, either, by the way.


----------



## 48Highlander

Is it just me or is Martin turning out to be even more idiotic than Chretien?  He won't contribute to ABM with either money or by allowing them to build facilities on Canadian soil...he uses the "weponization of space" blurb to justify it, which clearly shows he has no clue what he's talking about....then he goes on to say (in a roundabout way) that we're willing to take in deserters....and finaly he tops it off with this little blurb:

"....but finally decided same-sex weddings were a right entitled to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation."

I couldn't help laughing at the last one.  I'm just wondering if he actually said it that way or if the reporter goofed.

Anyway, I'm starting to see a pattern here.  Both Martin and Chretien started off their terms as PM's seeming fairly intelligent, and then degenerated into utter imbecility.  Maybe someone should check the office for asbestos and lead-based paint.


----------



## McG

S_Baker said:
			
		

> If people want to emmigrate to Canada from the US, more power to them, however if they are members of the US military and are trying to get out of doing their commitment . . .


I don't see how he could conscionable make such an invitation unless:

A) he thinks the US is still fighting Vietnam and drafting soldiers, or

B) he believes people should be allowed to join a military of their own free will for a free ride and not be expected to live up to any commitments (like military duy) in return.


----------



## 54/102 CEF

I would guess from the dithering he is doing and statements that appear that he is inviting signed up US soldiers to the north - as very poor staffing of his inside staff - and possibly Steven Harper should pay attention - let Martin talk - the more the better!

That pre-supposes there is a defence vote - which there isn't.

So - does the US hurry things along? 

If so - how would that be? 

In the early sixties the Pearson Liberals and political staff from the Democrats used the duncery of Diefenbaker against him at the polls see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SAN303D.html (this ref tags the time rather than the all view content)   - and with that was before the Autopact was announced in 1965 

My point is many jobs came to Canada with the Autopact when we decided that the USA and Canada had mutual interests. At the same time we were the closest place that an expanding industrial Auto industry could rationalise its plants. 

A well-equipped military that does not deploy a lot - still indicates mutual interests.

An under funded and stripped down military that - by its own admission needs a well earned break - may not if the auto industries have to rationalise again. 

My readings say its only a matter of time until major offshore actions happen that move auto production to lower wage areas of the world. 

You think it can't happen? Chevy Avalanche trucks come from Mexico... and they are very good looking trucks.

If we don't show some respect one way being a pumped up Army/Navy/Air force - GM can now email plant drawings anywhere in the world as a gesture of goodwill and foreign aid to help redress the lack of jobs in those areas which grow freedom fighters as well as they grow poppies.


----------



## McG

Acorn said:
			
		

> If Hinzman truly had courage of conviction he would face the consequences of his nation's legal system.





			
				Che said:
			
		

> As I see it he's had three chances to take the upper road:
> ...
> 3) Doing what Muhammad Ali/ MLK Jr. etc. have done and stood their ground and faced the consequences which is what civil disobedience is as far as I know.





			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> Did he demonstrate courage in regards to his unit and fellow soldiers? No. But did he demonstrate courage in regards to standing up for personal beliefs? Perhaps.



CBH99,
I would say that the answer to both your questions is the same:  No.  He did not demonstrate courage in regards to his fellow soldiers or standing for his personal beliefs.  As was stated in the other to quotes, standing for his beliefs would have involved allowing a US court to decide (not Canadian refugee systems and Canadian courts).  

If his religious rights are being impinged on because he adopted a new religion & cannot get conscientious objector status, then why did he not choose to fight this issue in a US court?  Why did he not choose to fight in a court which could make a finding that would lead to change for himself and everyone else in his position?  

His desertion was about getting what he wanted for him.  It was not about making a stand.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I remember we had a thread here about this guy when it first hit the news.   Comments were pretty much the same then as they are now.

He made a decision. Not one that I would make but i guess it's something he felt he had to do. He refused to follow his country to war and perform his duty as a soldier.   I don't know if he's afraid of dying, is afraid of committing war crimes or wants to simply enjoy free health care. He's the only one that can actually answer that. If he's religious then he might have some explaining to do when he dies.

In any case, he chose to run away and hide from the aftermath of his actions instead of accepting responsibility for them like a soldier. I don't care what his shitty justification for it is. He ran away instead of being an adult.   If he wants to claim this objector status then let him do it in the states. When you make a decision in the army, possibly wrong with consiquences, you accept it and carry on. Not run and hide from the platoon warrant and not come out until he promises not to be mad.

I remember   the previous thread making mention of people sending him threatening letters. Death threats and all that stuff. Frankly I couldn't be bothered to write the kid. If you send him a support letter he's going to post it for everyone to see (and piss us off). If you send him a hate mail he's going to delete it or post it and get sympathy and paint him self like a victim. Guys like this LOVE hatemail and they love playing the victim card.   
I have to admit, it does look bad for us soldiers as a whole when you have soldiers (or people signing their names as soldiers) threatening to rape the guy and his wife or murder them. (I remember there was a sort of anti-hinzmen type web page full of hate mail).   It paints the perfect picture of monsterous soldiers who will kill this guy if canada sends him home. 

In the end I would much rather a soldier who wants to desert hiding in Canada rather then covering my ass in Iraq of Afghanastan.

edit: I should be more clear. I don't mean to say sending people like this "I think your wrong and heres why" kinda emails is bad. I sent one like that myself when this whole thing hit the news the first time to him, friends friends website and the opposing website.
I ment the over the top graphically violent stuff thats all.


----------



## aesop081

U.S. army deserter denied refugee status in Canada
Last Updated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:09:38 EST 
CBC News
TORONTO - An immigration panel in Toronto has denied refugee status to a former paratrooper who fled the United States to evade the war in Iraq. 

Jeremy Hinzman is seen as a deserter by the American military, but his supporters say he is a war resister who should be given refugee status in Canada. 

Hinzman enlisted in the U.S. army three years ago as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. He deserted last year, rather than go to Iraq, and moved to Canada with his wife and small child. 

"It's a disappointing decision," Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffrey House, told CBC Newsworld after the panel made its ruling Thursday afternoon. 

Hinzman sought refugee status because he was morally opposed to the war in Iraq and thought the U.S. invasion violates international human rights. 

But the panel decided that Hinzman was not a conscientious objector. 

Hinzman is now considering an appeal of the decision, House said. 

In an interview several months ago Hinzman said he enlisted "for pragmatic reasons, because I wanted a college fund." 



Its about time.....


----------



## Danjanou

While I applaud the decision, you just know this one ain't over. I can guarantee that the appeal has already been filed. Knowing our byzantine like Immigration structure (and I do) appeal(s) could last years before we get to toss this guy.


----------



## Torlyn

What bothers me the most is that wonderful appeal (and the original refugee claim) will most likely fall on the Canadian Taxpayer to boot...  fantastic.

T


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

Now that the story has hit the media, I wouldn't be suprised if the granola eaters started petitioning our mr dithers to keep them here.


----------



## goodform

What an arse. If he was pragmatic, he would've applied for scholarships and bursaries. He ran away from the duty he swore to do. He promised legally to do as he was told, to be a soldier. You play the game, you take the pain, Cliches ad nauseum.


----------



## aesop081

....you don't have to like it but you have to show up !


----------



## JimmyPeeOn

If he won't fight.  What good is he to us as a nation anyway?


----------



## civvy3840

People like that disgust me. They enlist in their countries army take an oath yet run away when their country needs them. i would do anything to get into the CF and would go to war proud to be a soldier. Sure you'd probably be scared to go but it's in the job. That guy was just taking up a place that another person deserved.


my thoughts


----------



## Island Ryhno

"To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice." Confucius.

Off ya go to gitmo bro


----------



## dutchie

Hopefully this will disuade similar cowards from coming here. Personally I would make sure he spends as uch time as possible breaking big rocks into little rocks.



			
				Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> Off ya go to gitmo bro



He's not a terrorist, so he'll go to San Quentin.


----------



## aesop081

Caesar said:
			
		

> Hopefully this will disuade similar cowards from coming here. Personally I would make sure he spends as uch time as possible breaking big rocks into little rocks.
> 
> 
> He's not a terrorist, so he'll go to San Quentin.



Actualy since he is a military deserter he wil most likely go to Ft. Levenworth.  But realy , who cares as long as he gets the hell out of my country


----------



## P-Free

Morally opposed to the war in Iraq? Heh, funny he wasn't morally opposed to the education money, the health care benefits, the pay or any of the other perks he was getting. 

But it isn't in the job description to decide what orders to follow and which to not follow. He's there to do the job his government pays him to do, nothing more and nothing less. If he isn't willing to do that, he shouldn't have signed on the dotted line.

P.S. Another desserter just turned up in Toronto. Hallelujah!


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

MMMMMMM  Dessert!!!!


----------



## Infanteer

Hope Jeremy enjoys the cell he's got waiting....


----------



## P-Free

Sorry, I ment deserter. Grammar never was my strong suit in school.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> I wouldn't be suprised if the granola eaters started petitioning our mr dithers to keep them here.



But I eat a lot of Granola 


As for Jeremy, see ya loser. Thanks for visiting EH


----------



## The_Falcon

Just saw this on CityTV a few minutes ago

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050324-015/page.asp

Things have changed in Canada since the Vietnam era. Jeremy Hinzman found that out the hard way Thursday, after the U.S. soldier lost a bid for refugee status and was ordered sent back home. 

Hinzman is an American army deserter who fled across the border just days before his regiment was scheduled to leave for the war in Iraq. 

He called the conflict â Å“illegalâ ? and claimed that meant it wasn't against the law to refuse to fight in it. And he insisted he'd face persecution across the border if he were forced back. 

But the Immigration and Refugee Board refused his application to remain here, claiming the A.W.O.L. soldier didn't make his case. 

"Mr. Hinzman is disappointed," admits his lawyer, Jeffry House, in something of an understatement. 

Judges had previously warned the officer his views on the war weren't enough to support his claim. 

Hinzman will likely pay a steep price for his decision to flee. He faces court martial in the U.S. and could get at least five years in jail. But the army may decide to come down even harder on him because he chose to run and was vocal about his position. 

The decision doesn't bode well for 12 other clients of House â â€œ they're in the same legal boat as Hinzman, and the decision could well mean they'll be sailing back across the border to face their own punishment soon. 

During the Vietnam war in the 1960s, Canada became a haven for many who also insisted they were fleeing an immoral conflict. But the political climate and the laws were different, and they were allowed to stay virtually unchallenged. 

The U.S. has since granted almost all of those who chose to avoid that draft clemency, ending a long and bitter divide that lasted several decades. 



I hope this send a message, don't come here, we don't want you!!


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ

TORONTO (CP) - An American war dodger who fled the U.S. military because he believed the invasion of Iraq was criminal has lost his bid for refugee status in Canada in a case closely watched on both sides of the border. 

In a written ruling released Thursday, the Immigration and Refugee Board said Jeremy Hinzman had not made a convincing argument that he faced persecution in the United States. 

Also denied asylum was Hinzman's wife and pre-school son. 

"Removal to the U.S. would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment," the board decided. 

"There are no substantial grounds to believe that their removal to the U.S. will subject them personally to a danger of torture." 

There was no immediate comment from Hinzman but his lawyer Jeffry House said he was "disappointed" and would ask the Federal Court to review the decision. 

"I'm hopeful, and there's a reasonably good chance that, in the long run, we'll be successful," House said in an interview.   


Hinzman, 26, deserted his regiment in January 2004, just days before being deployed to Iraq. 

During his three-day refugee hearing in December, he said any violent acts he would have committed had he gone to Iraq would have amounted to an atrocity because the war itself was illegal. 

He said the U.S. military regarded all Arabs in the Middle East - Iraqis in particular - as potential terrorists to be eliminated and were referred to as "savages." 

His case was bolstered by a former United States marine, who said trigger-happy American soldiers in Iraq killed unarmed women and children, and murdered other Iraqis, in violation of international law. 

Adjudicator Brian Goodman had previously ruled the soldier's view of the legality of the war on Iraq could not be used to support his refugee claim. 

That meant Goodman's view was only "partially informed because he didn't hear that evidence," House said. 

As a deserter, Hinzman faces court martial if he returns to the United States and a potential five-year jail term. 

A federal government lawyer said U.S. military deserters are normally sentenced to one year, but Hinzman said he would be treated more harshly because of his views on the Iraq war. 

In any event, he said previously, having to serve even one day in prison would be too long because he was being prosecuted for acting on a political belief and for refusing to comply with an illegal order. 

"Hinzman has brought forward no evidence to support his allegation that he would not be accorded the full protection of the law pursuant to the court-martial process," Goodman wrote. 

"The U.S. has in place military regulations that allow for both exemption from military service and for alternative, non-combatant service for persons who can invoke genuine reasons of conscience." 

While Hinzman was the first, about half-a-dozen other American soldiers are also believed to be trying to gain refugee status in Canada and as many as 100 may be in the country. 

The group War Resisters Support Campaign planned a rally in Toronto on Thursday to press its demand the government allow U.S. war resisters to stay in Canada. 

"We're disappointed but not surprised," said spokesman Lee Zaslofsky. 

"We believe that in the end, Canada will do the right thing and allow these courageous young men to stay." 

Hinzman, whose only prior knowledge of Canada was CBC radio broadcasts, has admitted that seeking asylum in Canada was seemingly "preposterous." 

He enlisted voluntarily in the U.S. army for four years in November 2000, planning to have the military later pay for his university education. 

He worked his way up to the rank of specialist, and was a crack infantryman with the 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, N.C., until he deserted. 

He served in a non-combatant role in Afghanistan, where his application as a conscientious objector was refused.


God i'm so proud to be a


----------



## Big Foot

Already posted below. Mods, I think these threads can be merged or one deleted.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ

Darn it thats twice now, they gotta put the fresh stuff in a different forum so we can keep on top of it lol. Cheers!


----------



## Infanteer

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28715.15.html

Please look at the topics of "Today" before putting up a new newstory.


----------



## tomahawk6

Ft Bragg is looking forward to Hinzman's return. If convicted he will get some jail time then he can be on his way.


----------



## Island Ryhno

Caesar said:
			
		

> He's not a terrorist, so he'll go to San Quentin.



Yeah, I know he will not go to Gitmo, most likely Fort LeavenWorth actually, but it sounded sooooo much better. Give a guy a break, I did a drama class in grade 11 ya know   ;D


----------



## pbi

Good. Finally. Face the music like his squads buddies had to, only his chances of getting shot are nil.

Cheers.


----------



## kincanucks

Send your condolences here:

support@jeremyhinzman.net

He didn't appreciate my offer of a ride to the border. >


----------



## Torlyn

kincanucks said:
			
		

> He didn't appreciate my offer of a ride to the border. >



Maybe it was just you...  I sent one offering to help him get there as well.   ;D

T


----------



## Aislinn

The first time I heard about the Hinzman case I felt pretty much the same way: Face your responsibilities, this is what you agreed to. After reading the article about him in the Saturday post, however, I realized it's not that simple. He became a Quaker after joining the army. Quaker's do not believe in taking a life for any reason. As he said, "I didn't want to go out some chickenshit way," which means he didn't do anything that would get him kicked out. Instead he applied for conscientous-objector status. According to Hinzman, the army screwed around with his application, then eventually denied it. He tried again. Eventually he ran to Canada. 
To me he's not quite the asshole I first thought. He tried to do this the right way. I'm not saying that I agree with him, but the issure isn't as clear-cut as I first thought.  It's an interesting article for anyone who wants the whole story before forming their own opinion. 
Cheers.


----------



## camochick

Wow another waste of tax paying money. I dont care if he is a quaker or the gosh darn queen of england. He signed on the dotted line and then decided to chicken out, after getting all the benefits he could from the army. Send him back and let him rot in jail. Others went to war and lost their lives, i'm sure their families would love to hear his sob story.  >


----------



## The_Falcon

Enami said:
			
		

> The first time I heard about the Hinzman case I felt pretty much the same way: Face your responsibilities, this is what you agreed to. After reading the article about him in the Saturday post, however, I realized it's not that simple. *He became a Quaker after joining the army*. Quaker's do not believe in taking a life for any reason. As he said, "*I didn't want to go out some chickenshit way*," which means he didn't do anything that would get him kicked out. Instead he applied for conscientous-objector status. According to Hinzman, the army screwed around with his application, then eventually denied it. He tried again. Eventually he ran to Canada.
> To me he's not quite the ******* I first thought. He tried to do this the right way. I'm not saying that I agree with him, but the issure isn't as clear-cut as I first thought.   It's an interesting article for anyone who wants the whole story before forming their own opinion.
> Cheers.



Right not because he is weak kneed, got his free education and when the time came to pay up he bolted.  He VOLUNTEERED for the army, he also VOLUNTEERED for airborne training.  It was only after being posted to the 82nd Airborne and learning he was going to the STAN did he suddenly become a pacifist.  I don't know about you but there is nothing more chickenshit the deserting in a time of war.  Hell faking an injury or even giving ones self a self inflicted injury, while still despicable if found out, is a lot better that deserting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Quit trying to analyse the poser. He tried for a free ride, got called on it, and chickened out. All the peripheral shit, Quaker, conscientious objector, etc is bullshit. He just didn't have the parts and can't admit it. Let him try explain it to his grandkids. If he has the balls to have any. It's his shame to live with, not ours to discern or debate.


----------



## Slim

*Decision slammed as pro-war*



By KEVIN CONNOR, Toronto Sun

SUPPORTERS of a U.S. soldier who deserted because he opposed the war in Iraq say Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board has legitimized an illegal war by refusing to grant the man refugee status. Jeremy Hinzman, 26, was the first of several U.S. deserters to file asylum claims in Canada. He fled the 82nd Airborne Division two years ago and sought refugee status in Canada. 

"The immigration board ignored the fact it is an illegal war. They refused to offer protection to the men who won't become a criminal, a murderer for George W. Bush," Lee Zaslofsky, who came to Toronto in 1970 to avoid the Vietnam draft, said at a protest yesterday at the University Ave. courthouse.  

These U.S. soldiers have the support of the Canadian population, said Caroline Egan with the War Resisters Support Campaign. 

"We are saddened by the news and the narrow interpretation of the refugee claim," she said. 

"This decision is just the first step in our legal process and we will continue on to help these men of conscience who have refused to fight." 

The immigration board has bought into U.S. propaganda, said Darrell Anderson, 22, who was in the U.S. army and fled to Canada from Kentucky last Christmas while on leave from Iraq. 

"I believed in the lies. I believed in my country. Then I saw the murder of innocent people who didn't want us there," said Anderson, who has a pending refugee claim in Canada. "The best way to support the troops is to bring them home." 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/25/972058-sun.html

These people make me ill!

"These U.S. soldiers have the support of the Canadian population, said Caroline Egan with the War Resisters Support Campaign"

They do not have mine!
Slim


----------



## Jarnhamar

I got a kick out of him being sent home. Honestly I'm surprised as hell. I'm not going to be a dummy and send him an email "HAHA U R a fag i hope you die in prison" bla bla bla. Thats weak. He's going home, good.



> The first time I heard about the Hinzman case I felt pretty much the same way: Face your responsibilities, this is what you agreed to. After reading the article about him in the Saturday post, however, I realized it's not that simple. He became a Quaker after joining the army. Quaker's do not believe in taking a life for any reason. As he said, "I didn't want to go out some chickenshit way,"



If this guy honestly had this huge change of perspective, found a god, wants to be a pacifist or whatever then thats good for him. I respect that and if it's not just some ploy then I respect his decision to stand up for what he believes in.
Be that as it may, he still took "some chickenshit way".  Instead of standing up for what he believes in, he ran away.
respect = zero.
I think the draft was bullshit. Make me fight for something I don't believe in? thats shit.  This guy volunteered. Yes he had a change of heart. He should have took responsibility, did his time and left the army all the wiser.
First thing you learn as a soldier. if you make a mistake you don't hide it, you don't run from it, you own up to it.


----------



## Shec

Call me an optimist but I presume he will get the opportunity to further his post-secondary education after all:   studying penology at Stockade U.


----------



## aesop081

Unfortunately this guy will walk among us for quite some time after this decision. I'm sure that his lawyers will appeal this as far as they can, wasting our tax dollars and our cout's time the whole way. I had a good chuckle at the article that was quoting a woman saying that he head the support of the Canadian people, he certainly doesn't have mine as i wrote him to offer a ride to Ft. Levenworth and i doubt you could find much support for him here.  I hope that the news of this decision is all over the news in the US as a deterent to any other "war resisters".


----------



## MdB

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I'm sure that his lawyers will appeal this as far as they can, wasting our tax dollars and our cout's time the whole way.



Come on, let it go now. If Canada is one of the 8 richest country in the world, that's because there's a whole bunch of American south of our border swallowing up like 85% of all our exports!!

As for Hinzmann, that's worth a try. The way he did that is questionable, I give it. He volunteered after all. Still, I believe this war is unlegitimate (for once, I agree with my Fed. Govt. ;D) and that he should have had the right to oppose it as conscious objector. Now, he's here and escaped it. I do think now he'll have to go south again and face the music, BECAUSE he volunteered and didn't respect his engagement. He just has to darn suck his hard time up and come here again after. It'll be legally afterall. I think any intelligent people can help Canada, yet intelligent people do make judgment errors, but that's won't crucify them.

Cheers,


----------



## aesop081

MdB said:
			
		

> Come on, let it go now. If Canada is one of the 8 richest country in the world, that's because there's a whole bunch of American south of our border swallowing up like 85% of all our exports!!
> 
> As for Hinzmann, that's worth a try. The way he did that is questionable, I give it. He volunteered after all. Still, I believe this war is unlegitimate (for once, I agree with my Fed. Govt. ;D) and that he should have had the right to oppose it as conscious objector. Now, he's here and escaped it. I do think now he'll have to go south again and face the music, BECAUSE he volunteered and didn't respect his engagement. He just has to darn suck his hard time up and come here again after. It'll be legally afterall. I think any intelligent people can help Canada, yet intelligent people do make judgment errors, but that's won't crucify them.
> 
> Cheers,



He was refused CO status because he did not meet the stablishe criteria.  He joined for personal gain ( which is ok) but did not want to hold up his end of the bargain when the time came to earn his pay.  His argument that he earned his pay during regular working hours in the states is rubbish.  The purpose of the military is to enforce the will of the government by the use of military force, not to sit around and push a broom in troop stores.  He was part of the 82nd airborne for pete's sake !!   The military doesn't give you a gun just to look cool.  He became "anti-war" after he joined up.....fine...he should have refused to obey the order to deploy and face the music in his own country. A deserter is a deserter is a deserter. It seems to me that he is not willing to take responsability for HIS own actions and i find that particularly despicable.


----------



## karl28

Well at least he is on his way home .   Hopefully this will show others not to come here .   I   don't need or want that kind of people coming to Canada .


----------



## Kat Stevens

He just has to darn suck his hard time up and come here again after. It'll be legally afterall. I think any intelligent people can help Canada, yet intelligent people do make judgment errors, but that's won't crucify them.

Cheers,
Actually, he'll have a criminal record, and therefore ineligible to enter Canada...Win/Win for us....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Korus

> These U.S. soldiers have the support of the Canadian population, said Caroline Egan with the War Resisters Support Campaign.



They don't have *my *support. *MY* support is reserved for our Brothers in Arms who are in Iraq right now, putting their necks in harms way doing their duty as soldiers. May they make it home to their families safe and sound.


----------



## Infanteer

MdB said:
			
		

> Still, I believe this war is unlegitimate (for once, I agree with my Fed. Govt. ;D) and that he should have had the right to oppose it as conscious objector.



What you believe is irrelevant.  As a soldier, you have no right to pick and choose which orders to obey - if you don't like that, turn in your kit.  If Canada had sent soldiers to Iraq, you would be obligated to go and if you chose to skip out, you would be sharing a cell with Hinzeman.


----------



## MdB

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What you believe is irrelevant.   As a soldier, you have no right to pick and choose which orders to obey - if you don't like that, turn in your kit.   If Canada had sent soldiers to Iraq, you would be obligated to go and if you chose to skip out, you would be sharing a cell with Hinzeman.



Am I missing something? Why does conscious objector status exists then?

As for going for war, I believe Canada would ponder the choice very cautiously, they don't have any chin anyway (or gut), and I would feel safe in that case. This is not American army, this is Canadian, no problem with that.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Conscientious objector implies a conscience.  He didn't stand his ground and defend his position,, he deserted, and left his brothers to twist in the breeze... Despicable, in my book...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Infanteer

MdB said:
			
		

> Am I missing something? Why does conscious objector status exists then?



You can't pick and choose where you want to apply your "conscious".   For Pete's sake, the guy was in the 82nd Airborne - the grunt and sing (like any other sharp end) about killing humans on a daily basis.


----------



## aesop081

MdB said:
			
		

> Am I missing something? Why does conscious objector status exists then?
> 
> As for going for war, I believe Canada would ponder the choice very cautiously, they don't have any chin anyway (or gut), and I would feel safe in that case. This is not American army, this is Canadian, no problem with that.



CO status exists for legitimate cases where some one would, under aby circumstance, refuse to kill another human being, including self-defence.  This peice of shit did not qualify for CO status because he indicated that in certain instances he would kill. Legitimate cases of CO are promptly disscharged from the military.  He is a deserter and that all there is to it and he should be treated accordingly. The fact that he has been allowed to be here for this long and the fact that even thought he was denied refugee status , he will continue to be in this country for some time.  canadian society does not need an indivudual lacking any sort of moral fiber such as this clown.  What if Canada started giving out college money, would he join the CF because canada never goes to war anywhere ? What about the day canada does, what would he do then ?

He is nothing more than sub-human trash...if he wants to redeem himself he should go back to the states and face the music.......or he could take up my offer to take him to Iraq myslef ( on my dime) and close with and destroy ( which is what US citizens payed him to do).


----------



## The_Falcon

MdB said:
			
		

> Am I missing something? Why does conscious objector status exists then?
> 
> As for going for war, I believe Canada would ponder the choice very cautiously, they don't have any chin anyway (or gut), and I would feel safe in that case. This is not American army, this is Canadian, no problem with that.



I believe S_Baker explained some time ago in a related thread, that the CO status really only applies to people who where drafted, along with certain highly specific cases of those who volunteer.   The American Army saw right through this puke, and his CO claim.   The American military machine has never put itself out to be a kind and friendly "peacekeeping" force.   He is also a classic example of what is wrong with our refugee system.   The fact he was not punted the moment he claimed refugee status is revolting.   You can believe his rhetoric about facing "persecution" (in addition to prosecution), but the "persecution" he would face would amount to being shunned, and having eggs thrown at his house, unlike some other countries where he would be put to death.

Also what are implying about the Canadian military?  That we would simply allow him to leave without facing the music, because we are weak?  Please clarify your comments, I would really love to hear your answer.


----------



## Torlyn

With all of this, I do have to offer a Kudos to the people at CIC.  Looks like they got one right.  What does worry me is the cost of all this, and the length of time his appeal may take.  I wonder if a response like this from CIC (punting him out) will do anything for CDN-US relations?

T


----------



## Korus

> You can't pick and choose where you want to apply your "conscious".  For Pete's sake, the guy was in the 82nd Airborne - the grunt and sing (like any other sharp end) about killing humans on a daily basis.



I think that just may be the biggest hole in his story. Did he join up as Infantry, or was he some other support trade that was attached to the 82nd infantry and just so happened to have been on 18 combat jumps in Afghanistan. [ref: http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/background.html ].

Either he was lying, and fully accepted that he might have to kill, then was afraid of the risks (In all reality, what sane person wouldn't be?) and chose to run away (When he couldn't conquer the fear as a soldier must), "or" he was an idiot, pure and simple.


----------



## Cpl.Banks

Hopefully we'll be rid of this guy and he can go face the music down south. Hopefully this will help our relations with the US slightly, after the missile defence sheild incident the US has been pretty distant...But thats my humble opinion
UBIQUE!!!!!


----------



## Island Ryhno

The real losers unfortunately in all this will ultimately be his wife and son, they will now be without a father and husband for some undetermined time. He should have thought of that before bolting also. What a sad, sad web this kid is weaving.


----------



## MdB

aesop081 said:
			
		

> CO status exists for legitimate cases where some one would, under aby circumstance, refuse to kill another human being, including self-defence.   This peice of crap did not qualify for CO status because he indicated that in certain instances he would kill. Legitimate cases of CO are promptly disscharged from the military.   He is a deserter and that all there is to it and he should be treated accordingly. The fact that he has been allowed to be here for this long and the fact that even thought he was denied refugee status , he will continue to be in this country for some time.   canadian society does not need an indivudual lacking any sort of moral fiber such as this clown.   What if Canada started giving out college money, would he join the CF because canada never goes to war anywhere ? What about the day canada does, what would he do then ?



Thanks, it's clearer for me now.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Also what are implying about the Canadian military?  That we would simply allow him to leave without facing the music, because we are weak?  Please clarify your comments, I would really love to hear your answer.





			
				MdB said:
			
		

> As for going for war, I believe Canada would ponder the choice very cautiously, they don't have any chin anyway (or gut), and I would feel safe in that case. This is not American army, this is Canadian, no problem with that.



The only thing it means is that Canada would only join a war the Government feels legitimate. As we saw, it refused to participate in the last conflict in Irak. I don't really feel that the Federal Government has the political leadership to assume such a conflict right now. The last political leaders that were PMs were without vision, not proactive, rather reactive to any poll or opportunity they can lay the hand on, I cannot imagine right now a Government that would assume such responsability in the face of Canadians, unless it has a big support from them. So, all I say is that I trust the Government not to put CF uselessly in harms way. After all, Canada went to Afghanistan and not Irak and I believe it's the right choice.

This is to say the CF are not the American Armed Forces in that it is not an Armed Forces focused on aggression. I do believe the CF can defend themselves and be so aggressive as needed (which I support), but it will never be to 'secure' some region in order to ensure our economic interests are preserved. Rather, as I understand it, Canada want to make a peacer world with other nations by fighting terrorism, deploying to stabilize regions and populations, use our diplomatic influence to lessen poverty in the world. (Well, that last one I'm not so sure...) As for economic fight, it will rather use diplomatic and world economic organizations, not unlike the US.

I hope this is clearer.



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> He is nothing more than sub-human trash...if he wants to redeem himself he should go back to the states and face the music.......or he could take up my offer to take him to Iraq myslef ( on my dime) and close with and destroy ( which is what US citizens payed him to do).





			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You can believe his rhetoric about facing "persecution" (in addition to prosecution), but the "persecution" he would face would amount to being shunned, and having eggs thrown at his house, unlike some other countries where he would be put to death.



Well, what is it here if it's not persecution?? I mean, instead of only saying he was wrong and should have the gut at least to make some jail time because he has not honored the contract he signed, you call him a sub-human, a piece of crap, whatever... I really don't like it and it should be moderated for the best of Army.ca website.


----------



## aesop081

MdB said:
			
		

> Well, what is it here if it's not persecution?? I mean, instead of only saying he was wrong and should have the gut at least to make some jail time because he has not honored the contract he signed, you call him a sub-human, a piece of crap, whatever... I really don't like it and it should be moderated for the best of Army.ca website.



I beg your pardon, what is it you dont like ? The fact that i call him a peice of sub-human trash ? Fair enough.  You consider what he faces in the states persecution ?  I submit that you consider what other soldiers, soldiers who had the moral fortitude to do their duty, have to face in Iraq.  Not all of them over there like what they do but they are there, they go back  and will go back again if told to because it is what soldiers do.  You are a DEO candidate right ? May i ask for what trade ? How would you react if one of the soldiers under your charge behaved like this ?

 I stand by my opinion of this guy , wether you like it or not..if you feel anything else needs to be said on that, you can PM me.


----------



## The_Falcon

MdB said:
			
		

> The only thing it means is that Canada would only join a war the Government feels legitimate. As we saw, it refused to participate in the last conflict in Irak. I don't really feel that the Federal Government has the political leadership to assume such a conflict right now. The last political leaders that were PMs were without vision, not proactive, rather reactive to any poll or opportunity they can lay the hand on, I cannot imagine right now a Government that would assume such responsability in the face of Canadians, unless it has a big support from them. So, all I say is that I trust the Government not to put CF uselessly in harms way. After all, Canada went to Afghanistan and not Irak and I believe it's the right choice.



So you don't believe the CF is in harms way in Afgahnistan.   Either now or when or when 3VP was with the 101st.   



> This is to say the CF are not the American Armed Forces in that it is not an Armed Forces focused on aggression. I do believe the CF can defend themselves and be so aggressive as needed (which I support), but it will never be to 'secure' some region in order to ensure our economic interests are preserved.



So you believe the media when they tell you it's all about oil.   If that were the case why are oil prices skyrocketing.



> Rather, as I understand it, Canada want to make a peacer world with other nations by fighting terrorism, deploying to stabilize regions and populations, use our diplomatic influence to lessen poverty in the world. (Well, that last one I'm not so sure...) As for economic fight, it will rather use diplomatic and world economic organizations, not unlike the US.



And exactly how would you fight terrorism without proactive agressive military action, because that is all they can understand.   The successive Liberal governments aided by the CBC have brainwashed the Canadian public into believing that is all the military is good for "peacekeeping".   The first thing you learn when join a combat trade in the army (even the Canadian army), is your primary mission is to KILL the enemy.   If can not accept the fact that is what the primary job of all nations (including Canada) militaries, to DESTROY/KILL the enemies of that nation, then there is no way of convicing you otherwise.
   



> Well, what is it here if it's not persecution?? I mean, instead of only saying he was wrong and should have the gut at least to make some jail time because he has not honored the contract he signed, you call him a sub-human, a piece of crap, whatever... I really don't like it and it should be moderated for the best of Army.ca website.



You need a thicker skin, especially when talking to military types and thier opinions of deserters.   He may be shunned in his community backHe home or have some eggs thrown at him, boo hoo.   That may be what he thinks is persecution, but the majority here will agree with me that doesn't cut it.   Real persecution is what the Jews faced under Hitler, members of Falun Gong and what the Chinese government does to them, people who spoke out against Hussein/The Taliban/Stalin etc.   What he may suffer under his view of "persecution", is nothing compared to what these people suffer(ed).


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Rather, as I understand it, Canada want to make a peacer world with other nations by fighting terrorism, deploying to stabilize regions and populations, use our diplomatic influence to lessen poverty in the world. (Well, that last one I'm not so sure...) As for economic fight, it will rather use diplomatic and world economic organizations, not unlike the US.






> And exactly how would you fight terrorism without proactive agressive military action



The problem about making a "peacer" world is that the people we are facing do not want peace. They do not want to just be left alone. They do not just want us out of their country, away from them. (I admit some may but i doubt this is the driving purpose behind their actions considering they kill their own people)

They don't want to be tollerant of other races or religions. 
They want to kill. 
They want to drive cars packed full of explosives into markets crowded with men women children and senior citizens and murder them.

Sometimes you get to a point where you can't talk your way out of a situation. The person/s are intent on killing you and your only option is to be stronger and kill them first, or, let them kill you. It's a shitty thing i agree, but it's true.

The US is so evil, their so bad. Their going to prosicute this guy.  How do you think a deserter in Iraq would fair? (If you were a terrorist there or iraq soldier pre gulf war)
Now i remind you in iraq you and your whole family can be killed for working for the americans trying to feed your family currently.

This guy is going to do some jail time for deserting? Maybe have some prank phone calls and be called some bad names?
Forgive me if i'm none too sympathetic for his "Noble and rightious plight"


----------



## Korus

> Well, what is it here if it's not persecution?? I mean, instead of only saying he was wrong and should have the gut at least to make some jail time because he has not honored the contract he signed, you call him a sub-human, a piece of crap, whatever... I really don't like it and it should be moderated for the best of Army.ca website.



Judging from your signature that you're not in the CF yet, when you do get in you will learn that a unique bond forms between soldiers. Deserting when the time comes to face the music is one of the absolute worst ways you can betray this trust. It's not just about 'honouring the contract' at that point, it's about ditching your buddies when you need each other the most. That is why soldiers on this board have such a disgusted reaction to the US deserters.


----------



## Love793

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Judging from your signature that you're not in the CF yet, when you do get in you will learn that a unique bond forms between soldiers. Deserting when the time comes to face the music is one of the absolute worst ways you can betray this trust. It's not just about 'honouring the contract' at that point, it's about ditching your buddies when you need each other the most. That is why soldiers on this board have such a disgusted reaction to the US deserters.



Well put!


----------



## MdB

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I beg your pardon, what is it you dont like ? The fact that i call him a peice of sub-human trash ? Fair enough.   You consider what he faces in the states persecution ?   I submit that you consider what other soldiers, soldiers who had the moral fortitude to do their duty, have to face in Iraq.   Not all of them over there like what they do but they are there, they go back   and will go back again if told to because it is what soldiers do.   You are a DEO candidate right ? May i ask for what trade ? How would you react if one of the soldiers under your charge behaved like this ?
> 
> I stand by my opinion of this guy , wether you like it or not..if you feel anything else needs to be said on that, you can PM me.



Hey, I'm not saying he's right. I say he should have done his hard time for what he believed and suck it up. Assume what you do.

Yes, I would be really shocked if one or more soldiers under my responsability would ever behave like this. All that trust you have in those guys suddenly breaks away.

Still, I understand he deserves no respect for what he did. He deserves rights because we live in a society based on rights and laws. You can believe what you want, he still has rights. If not, what else is this all about?

And, I applied for Infantry Officer. So it would damn piss me off if any of the soldiers which I'm responsible of would get away with this, with what I believe in most and him the contrary. Like I said, I may not respect him and think shiit of him, would it be reason enough to speak it out? He has right like I have and we have.



			
				~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Judging from your signature that you're not in the CF yet, when you do get in you will learn that a unique bond forms between soldiers. Deserting when the time comes to face the music is one of the absolute worst ways you can betray this trust. It's not just about 'honouring the contract' at that point, it's about ditching your buddies when you need each other the most. That is why soldiers on this board have such a disgusted reaction to the US deserters.



Thanks to share it with me. Every day, I force myself to be humble and say I'll learn something today. Well, I have and I'm not finished realizing it every day that because of stakes, it may be the most humble and yet frustrating at times of profession. I have a glimse now of your feelings of this whole thing. I will not condemn any soldiers here for thinking what you think.



			
				Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Sometimes you get to a point where you can't talk your way out of a situation. The person/s are intent on killing you and your only option is to be stronger and kill them first, or, let them kill you. It's a shitty thing i agree, but it's true.



That's why any army should and have the duty of retaining offesive capabality. It's only when you able, and can show, the capacity to kill if needed that you will force an opposing party to respect and table the negociation. If the force is no more than a show, it won't lead anywhere, only to more deads. (Hmm, dissuasion force is still current... hehe)



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So you don't believe the CF is in harms way in Afgahnistan.   Either now or when or when 3VP was with the 101st.
> 
> So you believe the media when they tell you it's all about oil.   If that were the case why are oil prices skyrocketing.



I never said the CF weren't in harms way in Afghanistan. Soldiers are dead there. How would I have the right to say that?? I said that the Canadian Government won't put the CF soldiers in harms way needlessly. In Afghanistan, it was needed and it still is. For Irak, it's now a big training ground for all terrorists from all over the Middle East. The American pay a dear price for such a mistake.

As for the whole oil thing. What else would it be? Because Hussein so dangerous to the US? Iran and North Korean, even China is more dangerous than Irak. Terrorists are more dangerous than the Hussein regime to the US. I will turn question the other way around, do you think Bush did all this in an excess of gratitude for the Iraki people?

And I'm none of an world economist expert, but the barrel price going upward IHO because of all of that instability. Economic markets most dislike what can go wrong. And as I heard, the price is also going upward because the US reserve is rather depleted, so the increased demand ask for bigger price. 



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And exactly how would you fight terrorism without proactive agressive military action, because that is all they can understand.   The successive Liberal governments aided by the CBC have brainwashed the Canadian public into believing that is all the military is good for "peacekeeping".   The first thing you learn when join a combat trade in the army (even the Canadian army), is your primary mission is to KILL the enemy.   If can not accept the fact that is what the primary job of all nations (including Canada) militaries, to DESTROY/KILL the enemies of that nation, then there is no way of convicing you otherwise.



See my other comments up.
   


			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You need a thicker skin, especially when talking to military types and thier opinions of deserters.   He may be shunned in his community backHe home or have some eggs thrown at him, boo hoo.   That may be what he thinks is persecution, but the majority here will agree with me that doesn't cut it.   Real persecution is what the Jews faced under Hitler, members of Falun Gong and what the Chinese government does to them, people who spoke out against Hussein/The Taliban/Stalin etc.   What he may suffer under his view of "persecution", is nothing compared to what these people suffer(ed).



I'm getting a thinker skin every passing days. This is why I love such discussions, it helps me be better. As I said, I now understand what it can implie talking of deserting with soldiers.

See my other comments on rights for my answer about persecution. It's a low level of persecusion in here and it'll a lot more active down and back in the US, not to mention jail. Jews faced genocide under Hitler, not only persecution. Chinese government is killing its own people as I understand it, jailling anyone who dares opposing the established power and it's a lot more than persecution. Stalin, genocide again, purged anyone saying a wrong word. See my other comments for the rest. I just believe he has the right of conscience as we all have. For the respect, he lost it in your eyes forever. I understand.


----------



## Torlyn

MdB said:
			
		

> As for the whole oil thing. What else would it be? Because Hussein so dangerous to the US? Iran and North Korean, even China is more dangerous than Irak. Terrorists are more dangerous than the Hussein regime to the US. I will turn question the other way around, do you think Bush did all this in an excess of gratitude for the Iraki people?



Still the oil...  Why is it always the oil???  So, the Americans are better off by having the majority of their military either on alert or in theatre, using up all that oil that the military machine needs, and doing so at $53 dollars a barrel?  Given the cost of this war for them so far, they could squeeze every last drop of oil out of Iraq, keep the $53/bbl for themselves, and it still wouldn't pay for the cost so far.  It is NOT about Oil.

Why did he go to Afghanistan and Iraq?  Has there been one single attack on US soil since?  No, there sure hasn't.  Perhaps GWB isn't so stupid after all.  The US seems to have been fairly well protected since Sept. 11, wouldn't you say?

T


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Still, I understand he deserves no respect for what he did. He deserves rights because we live in a society based on rights and laws. You can believe what you want, he still has rights. If not, what else is this all about?



I don't think anyone was suggesting we take away his rights were they?

I think the guy has the right to a fair trial for deserting.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Agreed. March the guilty b*stard in. We'll give 'im a fair trial, then we'll hang 'im.

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## MdB

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone was suggesting we take away his rights were they?
> 
> I think the guy has the right to a fair trial for deserting.



Hehe, you take words out of my mouth... look down...



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Agreed. March the guilty b*stard in. We'll give 'im a fair trial, then we'll hang 'im.
> 
> CHIMO,  Kat



... that's really what I hate (really dislike).

Cheers,


----------



## MdB

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Still the oil...   Why is it always the oil???   So, the Americans are better off by having the majority of their military either on alert or in theatre, using up all that oil that the military machine needs, and doing so at $53 dollars a barrel?   Given the cost of this war for them so far, they could squeeze every last drop of oil out of Iraq, keep the $53/bbl for themselves, and it still wouldn't pay for the cost so far.   It is NOT about Oil.



How do you know it's not about oil? It just happens that Irak is the 3rd more important oil producer?



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> Why did he go to Afghanistan and Iraq?   Has there been one single attack on US soil since?   No, there sure hasn't.   Perhaps GWB isn't so stupid after all.   The US seems to have been fairly well protected since Sept. 11, wouldn't you say?



No attack on US soil? Is that a proof?

Let's remember over a thousand American soldiers are dead by terrorists since the beginning of this 'war' in Irak. Everyday, there's at least 5-6 more deaths...

But that's not to say we shouldn't fight terrorism... Just not give them a turf to train and that's what Irak is right now, unfortunately.


----------



## Infanteer

:boring:

We've done this before, MdB - fortunately more US soldiers (at least all the ones I know and talk to) are more willing to follow orders then to believe Michael Moore's latest screed.   I only hope you can do the same and put loyalty over politics if you make it into the CF.

You'd do best to remember that you're defending a coward who left his mates to hang in the wind when he decided to all of the sudden become a conscientious objector - something most of the soldiers here deeply resent here.   When you put the boots on you'll understand this.


----------



## Bill Smy

I don't agree with this guy's refusal to go, but at least he's got the guts to stand and answer for his decision, not run away to Canada.

And look at how the USN treats him! Persecuted? I think not.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7297855/

Sailor Who Refused To Deploy Faces Court-Martial

KNSD-TVSAN DIEGO 25 March 2005

A Navy sailor opposed to the war in Iraq who refused to board his ship bound for the Persian Gulf will face a special court-martial, the military equivalent of a civilian misdemeanor trial. 

The Navy said it has referred charges of absence without leave and missing movement against Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes, whose refusal to report as ordered in December has been labeled both an act of courage and one of cowardice. 

"I'd rather do a year in a prison in the military than do six months of dirty work for a war I don't believe in -- and not many people believe in -- and get Marines in harm's way," Paredes told NBC 7/39 in December. "It's sad to me that some people don't understand what I'm doing, don?t understand that this fight takes a lot more courage and that I'm fighting for the very people that they're putting in harm's way." 

Paredes, a 23-year-old from the New York City borough of the Bronx, faces a maximum of one year in jail, a forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank and a bad-conduct discharge if he's convicted. No date for a court-martial has been set. 

Paredes remains on legal hold, assigned to a transient personnel unit at Naval Base San Diego. Jeremy Warren, a civilian attorney who is representing Paredes, said his client is looking forward to defending himself and moving on with his life.


----------



## aesop081

MdB said:
			
		

> How do you know it's not about oil? It just happens that Irak is the 3rd more important oil producer?



You realy have to start looking at things from a perspective you didnt pick up watching Michel Moore movies. You would think thats since you are educated , you would be able to do that.  Why does it have to be about oil ? is it because there's alot of it in Iraq ? So what....does it look like the US has gained anything by it so far ? Do you honetsly think that the US would have gotten itself involved in a predictable mess which will take years to sort out, over oil ? Give me a break and step out of your left-wing , media driven conspiracy thoeory paranoia.


----------



## Canadian Sig

MdB. Let me say, from the bottom of the food chain, that I hope to never follow an officer who condones the abandonment of comrades in the face of danger. I dont care what contract he had or what promises he made the government, what about his contract and promises with his fellow soldiers. Is my life to be forfiet because the troop who should have been in the trench with me did'nt "feel" like it was right? If you want to lead soldiers MdB you had better re-evaluate your opinions of this coward. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Spr

This is my first post so be nice.....

 Quick comment on the requirement or not to take down Hussein. In the 1930's appeasement was the first response to Hitler by the Western democracies, we all know how that ended. Is it about oil? So what if it is...our civilization exists because of oil (the components of the PC your using are a product of oil). Neanderthal's fought over fire, because it was required to survive. Was it about containing WMD?  The intel of every Western nation, not just the US, believed Hussein was capable and willing to use WMD..his bluff was called. 

WRT this thread. They are deserters, bottom line and should be detained and extradited back to the US for trial...cowards perhaps, but that's not my place to judge. .To mount a TF we need to DAG 3 times more pers then the TO&E requires. Why do so many pers DAG yellow for a PSO? It would be interesting to sees the stats if were sending pers to a Iraq for "war fighting".  

How can you claim CO in a volunteer armed force? During the war a CANFORGEN was released to instruct the the CF Leadership on how to deal with COs, this tells me it was a problem..and we weren't directly engeaged in combat


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Hehe, you take words out of my mouth... look down...
> 
> 
> Quote from: Kat Stevens on Today at 01:16:08
> Agreed. March the guilty b*stard in. We'll give 'im a fair trial, then we'll hang 'im.
> 
> CHIMO,  Kat
> 
> 
> ... that's really what I hate (really dislike).



I hear where your comming from. Theres a lot of guys here I have a lot of as admiration for as professional soldiers. The odd time something will be said I don't really agree with but you gotta take that stuff with a grain of salt here and there.

In the article Bill Smy posted, I don't like the fact that the sailor refused to do his duty BUT he chose to accept the punishment. I have a lot of respect for him and I'd probably sit down and buy him a beer.  In my opinion he's a conscientious objector and not a deserter.

I'm sure I said it somewhere in this post before. I would rather someone object to going to war right now here in north american, than have a change of heart when he or she is covering my back in a firefight.


----------



## Dare

MdB said:
			
		

> Let's remember over a thousand American soldiers are dead by terrorists since the beginning of this 'war' in Irak. Everyday, there's at least 5-6 more deaths...
> 
> But that's not to say we shouldn't fight terrorism... Just not give them a turf to train and that's what Irak is right now, unfortunately.


And that is what the media painted Afghanistan as before they went to Iraq. Every arguement against Iraq was used in Afghanistan as well. Afghanistan was supposed to be another Vietnam. Islamic terrorists have more than enough "turfs to train" in. Chechnya, Philippines, Western China, Pakistan, Sudan, Aceh, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, and so on.


----------



## Spr

So what's your point?


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ

Dare said:
			
		

> And that is what the media painted Afghanistan as before they went to Iraq. Every arguement against Iraq was used in Afghanistan as well. Afghanistan was supposed to be another Vietnam. Islamic terrorists have more than enough "turfs to train" in. Chechnya, Philippines, Western China, Pakistan, Sudan, Aceh, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, and so on.





I agree with Spr, elaborate on what you are saying, what does this have to do with desertion?


----------



## CH1

Personally I think the 2 desserters should be returned to the US as they are facing criminal charges. If one of ours was facing the same charges here, you can bet they would be escorted north to the border, quicker than you can say CO.

As for "peacekeeping & friendly fire" what's friendly or neighbourly about bullets & bombs. As stated in previous posts the average CDN, doesn't know the difference between bullets, bombs or post holes. I wish the masters would cut the fleece, and tell Mr. J.Q. Public, the truth. You younger soldiers are in COMBAT zones! Not on vacation.


----------



## Dare

FGH_Recce_DJ said:
			
		

> I agree with Spr, elaborate on what you are saying, what does this have to do with desertion?


It has about as much to do with desertion as the post I was replying to (not much).


----------



## Spr

Dare,

Good come back....again what's your point?


----------



## aesop081

Spr said:
			
		

> Dare,
> 
> Good come back....again what's your point?



He has none.


----------



## Spr

Sort of like all the "anti-war" activists out there...they have no suggested solution.

Funny how they forget that it was a war that won them the right (no privilege) to be an activist.


----------



## Jarnhamar

People need to use some common sense, too, and remember the atmosphere of the site they are on.


----------



## Dare

Spr said:
			
		

> Dare,
> 
> Good come back....again what's your point?


I thought it was self explanitory, but *apparently not*. The point is, Afghanistan is not Vietnam, nor was Afghanistan a war for oil. It was a lie. Just like the Iraq being a war for oil was a lie. The idea that the Iraq war has created a training ground for terrorists where none existed before is also a lie. If people (MdB) want to interject their ridiculous conspiracy theories into a debate about desertion, expect it to be refuted.


----------



## Spr

Just so its clear, I've been a member of the Profession of Arms for 20 years and have been to enough places to see the result of applied violence on other human beings, in no way am I a war monger, but I believe in military force once all diplomatic paths are exhausted...as they were in Iraq (contrary to what anti-war types profess). 
 To focus on the thread here..deserters....my understanding is one of them had been three and went AWOL while home on leave, the other never even made into theater...just cut and ran at the thought. The guy that was there and didn't return deserves the benefit of   the doubt that he had seen and done all all he could manage, his COA to avoid going back is questionable..but at least he was basing it on experience. Now the other guy..who enlisted for the education benefits then when it meant deploying ran...his actions are wrong on so many levels a thread could be stared to delve into that on its own.
It comes down to duty and loyalty. They made a contractual obligation...they've broke it ..now they should step up and face the consequences for their actions..if they were truly committed to their postion and choice they would let it run through the legal system so that it gets challenged and perhaps their postion will be substantiated. But its easier to hide up here and let the media fight your fight. In   my original post I said it wasn't may place to judge these guys as cowards but the more I think of their behavior the more I want to recant that comment.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> The idea that the Iraq war has created a training ground for terrorists where none existed before is also a lie.



I would say it created a sort of training ground. Our forces there DO in fact give them someone to shoot at, to hate, to target.
It's attracting terrorists from other countries.
Our soldiers are learning how to really fuck their shit up.   I'm pretty sure THEY are learning how to hurt us better as well, don't you think?

Just for an off the wall example, if you pit a platoon or company of canadian soldiers, lets say reserves, against a platoon or company size group of these guys who have been fighting (and learning from fighting) the americans for a year +, in an OBUA setting (whatever) who do you think would have the advantage?
I would even guess the regs would get a hell of a bloody nose simply because they have a hell of a lot more "lessons learned" that we do at this point in time.



> the Iraq war has created a training ground for terrorists where none existed before is also a lie.


Probably not done on purpose for some evil conspiracy, but Iraq is a HUGE training ground for both sides.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ

"In  my original post I said it wasn't may place to judge these guys as cowards but the more I think of their behavior the more I want to recant that comment."

Again i agree with Spr comments about them being cowards, any guy who deserts there brothers and sisters during time of war or even a small conflict is not a deserter they are a traitor, maybe thats a little harsh but thats the reality. When you sign up you take an oath to do your duty no matter what, whether you believe in it or not. These guys who sign up for educational burrsaries and other such reasons do it because they think they will never have to serve in a war zone, well times are changing and so is the world, gone are the days of just walking around in a uniform looking pretty, when you wear that uniform you better be prepared to serve, no matter at what cost, thats your job!! (Oh and when you desert, you make your regiment, fellow soldiers and country look like a fool, but maybe thats just my belief!)


----------



## BKells

Spr you make fun of activists and claim not to be a war monger (although you truly come across as one), and state that it is a privlege of these activists to be able to protest. With your train of thought and obvoius desire for military force, it makes me wonder, what the hell am I, are we, fighting for?


----------



## Spr

BKells,

Ah the enthusiasm of youth...the reason why the age of conscription is generally 18 and why children soldiers are so fanatical.

I fully understand the vitality of my job and the responsibility it brings, additionally I've seen the effect of the violence we in the profession of arms have been granted domain over. That being said its also our duty to be as proficient and competent....if you're going to be good at something you'll be much more effective if you enjoy it. 


If you want let's start a new thread to discuss why professional armed forces are a requirement for the survival of a democratic sovereign state . 

This thread's topic is desertion.


----------



## aesop081

Spr said:
			
		

> If you want let's start a new thread to discuss why professional armed forces are a requirement for the survival of a democratic sovereign state .



I think i would rather enjoy that !


----------



## Spr

aesop081,

I figured you would...good topic for tommorow. Have to go do the Easter Dinner thing.

Spr


----------



## Canadian Sig

Spr said:
			
		

> BKells,
> 
> If you want let's start a new thread to discuss why professional armed forces are a requirement for the survival of a democratic sovereign state .


  I'm definatly in for that one.


----------



## Infanteer

Cowards or not, it is not up to these folks to decide on the legality of the actions undertaken by the legitimate government of their country - as soldiers, they do not decide what is right and what is wrong.

We've got a good discussion going on about this right now here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28884.0.html


----------



## BKells

Spr,

Ah the cynicism of old age. That's why the retirment age is 65 to help weed out to grumps from the upper echelons of bureaucracies.

If you want to take a low blow at me about my age, at least do some research first.


----------



## Canadian Sig

BKells said:
			
		

> Spr,
> 
> Ah the cynicism of old age. That's why the retirment age is 65 to help weed out to grumps from the upper echelons of bureaucracies.
> 
> If you want to take a low blow at me about my age, at least do some research first.



 I think your making assuptions because Spr's profile does'nt list his age (just like yours).


----------



## aesop081

BKells said:
			
		

> Spr,
> 
> Ah the cynicism of old age. That's why the retirment age is 65 to help weed out to grumps from the upper echelons of bureaucracies.
> 
> If you want to take a low blow at me about my age, at least do some research first.



There is a 5 second rule for comebacks......that includes modifying your posts to make them more clever !

Maybe try getting some time in before getting smart........ :


----------



## Infanteer

BKells said:
			
		

> That's why the retirment age is 65 to help weed out to grumps from the upper echelons of bureaucracies.



Experience goes a long way in this line of work - don't single yourself out as a smartass.


----------



## aesop081

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Experience goes a long way in this line of work - don't single yourself out as a smartass.



too late  ;D


----------



## Spr

Hey BKells,

 I wasn't taking a pers shot at you, or lack of maturity.  My comment was more a general comment on how it's easier to get a teenager indoctrinated into an idealogy...recruiters, before PC and the CF's transformation into an employment equity agency targeted 18-20 year old males for the combat arms, Hitler Youth units in WWII  average age was 15 and theire viciousness in battle is well documented, it would be safe to say that the average age of Suicide Bombers and the most tenacious insurgent is around 19. Take a look at the age of WTO protesters. Why do you think end of the spectrum political  groups target university campusses?

Its a clinical fact that the logic processing function of the human brain doesn't fully develop until around age 20.

It would be interesting to find out what the average age is of the 2000 or so US deserters is. I would bet money most of them are 20+.

WRT your comment about "old age" I totally concur with avoiding the dinosaur effect, basic rule should be if you've been around for more then two iterations of the service weapon its time to go, and I'll hold myself to that. That being said...ever heard the story of the old and young bull on the hill? So the place for us cynical old guys is to focus and curb your youthfull enthusiasm to make you more effective and increase your life expectancy. Some of the best life lessons I've had is from the experience of others.

I may add, in my last job I add the privilege of developing young soldiers...on morning PT the majority finished behind me.


----------



## aesop081

Spr039 said:
			
		

> I may add, in my last job I add the privilege of developing young soldiers...on morning PT the majority finished behind me.



I can personaly attest to that  ;D


----------



## BKells

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Experience goes a long way in this line of work - don't single yourself out as a smartass.



Our discussions on the Hinzman case and the practicality of war pertain not to either of our lines of work. My rebuttal is a smartass but the initial agressor is a grizzled old war hero.




			
				Spr039 said:
			
		

> Take a look at the age of WTO protesters. Why do you think end of the spectrum political groups target university campusses?



I'd be interested to see the studies on the demographics of World Trade Organization protestors, please enlighten me. While I haven't been to Cancun lately(the last WTO meeting..), I did witness the Bush protests here in Ottawa, having the misfortune of living right in the middle of it. I can tell you that I saw the young 'uns skipping school, and I also saw grandmothers protesting bush and missle defense. I saw middle aged people, I saw disabled people, I saw gay people, I saw anarchists, I saw politicians, I saw war-supporters.

I've heard of the Young Liberals. They are a key aspect in forming Liberal policy to keep in touch with the up and comers. I've also heard of the Young Conservatives. I've seen ads on T.V. for these, and our other official parties. What I haven't seen is a widespread recruitment campaign by the Communist Party, the Anarchists, The Hippies, or the other end of the spectrum groups the Facists. I might need you to explain this claim a little more.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=4f09e47c-222a-4555-82b8-1afc18575bf2
Refugee board made right move
U.S. soldier's asylum argument simply didn't hold water
  
Calgary Herald 
Monday, March 28, 2005

It never looked for a minute as though U.S. army deserter Jeremy Hinzman was a genuine refugee. Thus, the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision to refuse his bid for political asylum gives us some assurance that Canada's creaky system for considering refugee claims can produce a right answer, despite the copious criticism justly heaped upon it.
We are concerned, however, at how long it takes to do it. Determining citizenship is a key element of sovereignty; that it took 14 months to deal with such a straightforward case suggests the board needs to be better resourced.

Hinzman joined up for a four-year engagement in November 2000. Later, he volunteered to be a paratrooper, and ended up in the 82nd Airborne Division. While in Afghanistan with his unit, he was apparently affected by pacifist ideas, applied for conscientious objector status, and was allowed to serve out his tour of duty on non-combatant duties.
His application to be considered a conscientious objector was later denied, however. So, days before his unit was to leave for service in Iraq, Hinzman decamped to Canada and claimed asylum as a refugee.
The basis of his appeal was that the war in Iraq was illegal, that if he hurt or killed anybody he would be guilty of a criminal act, and that if he was returned to the U.S., he faced cruel and unusual punishment.

It is good the board didn't buy his story, for this young man seems to be badly mixed-up on some basic principles. For instance, he is a volunteer. Nobody pushed him into the army, unless one considers the prospect of financial assistance through college to be a conscience-bending drug, too powerful for ordinary people to decline.
There is also an unwritten understanding that while merely following orders is a poor defence against accusations of immoral conduct, one doesn't get to pick and choose one's wars.
Having taken the oath, Hinzman's job for four years was to serve. And indeed, the board declared the legality or otherwise of the war in Iraq to be irrelevant.

It also rightly held that Hinzman's case failed the basic test of what constitutes a refugee, namely someone with "a well-founded fear" of persecution. If returned to the U.S., that's not what Hinzman is facing, just a court martial on charges that could net him up to five years in the stockade. No holiday camp, certainly, but hardly cruel and unusual punishment, either.
Unfortunately, the board's decision merely places Hinzman on the next rung of an appeals ladder that capable attorneys have used to prevent the deportation of far less desirable refugee applicants than he.
Heaven forbid Canadians should deny justice to strangers within their gates, but they would do well to administer it more speedily.

© The Calgary  

 http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2005/03/28/pf-974116.html
Mon, March 28, 2005 

His legacy's painted in yellow

By Peter Worthington

Although some are disappointed, no one should be surprised that U.S. army deserter Jeremy Hinzman's bid to be a "refugee" has been rejected. 
Hinzman himself says he expected this decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and will launch his appeal today. It will likely enable him to remain in Canada for years like other illegals. 
Looking at it objectively, it's hard to imagine a case weaker than Hinzman. His three main themes for deserting are: 1. Iraq is an "illegal" war (what's a "legal" war, one wonders?); 2. He was afraid he'd have to commit atrocities in Iraq; 3. He decided he was a conscientious objector, even though he volunteered to become a paratrooper in America's most gung-ho unit, the 82nd Airborne. 

'Fear of combat' 

While good manners dictate that no one wants to come out and say it, it's hard to escape the stark conclusion that Jeremy Hinzman is a coward. 
A Globe and Mail editorial put it gently -- and I'd agree: "A person (Hinzman) is clearly not a refugee if his only reason for desertion is his dislike of military service or fear of combat." 

The army was fine when he joined 10 months before 9/11, and being a macho paratrooper gave him status until on the eve of being sent to Iraq when he ran away to Canada. 
True, he served in Afghanistan -- where he was refused conscientious objector status. Perhaps out of deference to his newly found pacifism, he was relegated to kitchen duty. Safe but unheroic. 
No one is sure how many U.S. deserters are hiding out in Canada. Maybe 100, maybe 200. Interestingly, their lawyers and supporters tend to be former Vietnam draft dodgers. 

But these guys today aren't draft dodgers -- a qualitative difference. There is no draft in the U.S. It's a volunteer army, like ours. 
These guys are deserters, and there's a certain disdain for deserters. Even during Vietnam, a draft dodger was more acceptable than a deserter, which reeks of cowardice no matter how one sugarcoats it. 
That said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press and others, Hinzman's lawyer Jeffry House came up with a novel defence on the CBC: "We don't believe people should be imprisoned for doing what they believe is illegal." 

Bicycle courier 

Hmmm. 
A poster boy for deserters, today Hinzman is a bicycle courier. It's a far cry from the university education he says he joined the army to get -- until the shooting started. 
The "cruel and unusual" punishment he thinks he'd get if he returned to the U.S. would be at most five years in prison, but more likely one year. Neither very cruel, nor unusual. 

Despite Canada's meek support for U.S. policy and our opposition to the war in Iraq, Canadians are generally admiring of their own military and not enthusiastic about deserters. 
Canada, with Paul Martin as PM, is different from Canada when Jean Chretien was PM and his party striving to loot the till. 
Martin clearly seeks to restore damaged relations with the U.S. Despite his verbal opposition to missile defence it doesn't mean a damn thing because, under NORAD, Canada is already a partner in continental defence. 

Hinzman will be an anti-war hero to those aging anti-Vietniks who came here 30 to 40 years ago, and to the CBC which viscerally dislikes our military and revels in anything anti-American. 
He can attend anti-U.S. rallies and ride his courier bike on our streets and live a sort of twilight life and never amount to much. But mostly he's a sad young man whose judgment is flawed and whose courage is questioned. 

Not much of a legacy.


----------



## armyrules

LeGars said:
			
		

> What an arse. If he was pragmatic, he would've applied for scholarships and bursaries. He ran away from the duty he swore to do. He promised legally to do as he was told, to be a soldier. You play the game, you take the pain, Cliches ad nauseum.



   I agree this guy comes here to run away from the duties that he signed up for and he should stand up ti that responsibility it really makes me mad because all these guys that are itching to join the army and this loser deserts because he doesn't want to do his job. What a loser


----------



## Spr

I've heard of the Young Liberals. They are a key aspect in forming Liberal policy to keep in touch with the up and comers. I've also heard of the Young Conservatives. I've seen ads on T.V. for these, and our other official parties. What I haven't seen is a widespread recruitment campaign by the Communist Party, the Anarchists, The Hippies, or the other end of the spectrum groups the Facists. I might need you to explain this claim a little more.

Without a doubt protesters cover the demographic spectrum,  probably some soldiers in that group also..maybe even gay ones. 
Here's a sample of links off Google of activist groups affiliiated with campuses: 
http://dmoz.org/Society/Organizations/Student/Political/
http://www.campusactivism.org/
http://www.utwatch.org/student_groups.html
http://www.brown.edu/Students/BEC/
http://www.jour.unr.edu/zephyr/spring05/story2/activism.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1995/09/weiss.html
http://www.campusaction.net/links/links_student_activists.htm
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=46fb7c0d-5ce4-4652-a431-2c0c0526f8ae - current student action in Quebec


BKells,

 Not sure when I became the aggressor, did I touch a nerve? Let me guess you're a student/reservist on yout first BE?

 No need to get personal (" grizzled old war hero"??) . I'm neither, definetely not grizzled and farm from a hero/vet. The last vets we have are from the Korean War. Exposure to hostilities during a 6 month tour doesn't qualify, as far as I'm concerned as Veteran Status. Yes there may be some tough moments, being shot at and targeted by "mad bombers" has a certain level of stress, but pales in comparison to waht was experienced by troops  in Dieppe, NW Europe, SE Asia and Kap Yong etc.... 

Anyway..enough said. I think the today's posted articles sum up everyone's sentiments quite well.


----------



## Hedgehog18

they sign the papers no one held a gun to there face forget about sending them back to american send there asses to iraq... if nothing good comes of it it wil llet deserter think twice beofr comnig to canada .. (dam deserters) :threat:


----------



## FastEddy

BKells,

 Not sure when I became the aggressor, did I touch a nerve? Let me guess you're a student/reservist on yout first BE?

 No need to get personal (" grizzled old war hero"??) . I'm neither, definetely not grizzled and farm from a hero/vet. The last vets we have are from the Korean War. Exposure to hostilities during a 6 month tour doesn't qualify, as far as I'm concerned as Veteran Status. Yes there may be some tough moments, being shot at and targeted by "mad bombers" has a certain level of stress, but pales in comparison to waht was experienced by troops   in Dieppe, NW Europe, SE Asia and Kap Yong etc.... 

Anyway..enough said. I think the today's posted articles sum up everyone's sentiments quite well.

Nicely put Spr039, no truer words have ever been spoken.

But to young pups like "Bkells", guys like us with a number of hitches under our belts might seem a little
long in the tooth. But to this day, I'd rather go into the line with a Grizzled old Sargent than a 90 day wonder
straight from ROTC. (no disrespect to 2/Lts intended).

To make a point, why does "BKells" figure that a newly Graduated Police Officer is assigned to a Seasoned
Police Officer for two years, I can vouch for this, so he doesn't get his head split open, so he doesn't get himself shot, or worse still, unnecessarily shoot someone else or try to Arrest or Ticket half the City.


But back on topic, IMOP, any discovered Military Desertor should be arrested and put on the next bus back to the U.S. and the waiting arms of the M.P.s. The sooner we rid our selves of this garbage the better.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> BKells,
> 
> Not sure when I became the aggressor, did I touch a nerve? Let me guess you're a student/reservist on yout first BE?
> 
> No need to get personal (" grizzled old war hero"??) . I'm neither, definetely not grizzled and farm from a hero/vet. The last vets we have are from the Korean War. Exposure to hostilities during a 6 month tour doesn't qualify, as far as I'm concerned as Veteran Status. Yes there may be some tough moments, being shot at and targeted by "mad bombers" has a certain level of stress, but pales in comparison to waht was experienced by troops  in Dieppe, NW Europe, SE Asia and Kap Yong etc....
> 
> Anyway..enough said. I think the today's posted articles sum up everyone's sentiments quite well.
> 
> Nicely put Spr039, no truer words have ever been spoken.
> 
> But to young pups like "Bkells", guys like us with a number of hitches under our belts might seem a little
> long in the tooth. But to this day, I'd rather go into the line with a Grizzled old Sargent than a 90 day wonder
> straight from ROTC. (no disrespect to 2/Lts intended).
> 
> To make a point, why does "BKells" figure that a newly Graduated Police Officer is assigned to a Seasoned
> Police Officer for two years, I can vouch for this, so he doesn't get his head split open, so he doesn't get himself shot, or worse still, unnecessarily shoot someone else or try to Arrest or Ticket half the City.
> 
> 
> But back on topic, IMOP, any discovered Military Desertor should be arrested and put on the next bus back to the U.S. and the waiting arms of the M.P.s. The sooner we rid our selves of this garbage the better.



If I were you I would quit while your ahead pal.  I am not gonna waste my time to argue this one!

If you need my opinion on reservists and veterans we can either take it to PM's or look at some of my previous threads

dileas

tess


----------



## FastEddy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> If I were you I would quit while your ahead pal.   I am not gonna waste my time to argue this one!
> 
> If you need my opinion on reservists and veterans we can either take it to PM's or look at some of my previous threads
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess




Your quite right!, lets not waste to much time on this, Reservists or Veterans never came into the
question. Maybe your confusing posts, the wording "Student/Reservist" was made by spr039.

But even at that, there was nothing derogatory or demeaning towards Reservist and only praise for our
Veterans by spr039.

As far as carrying on a discussion with you on any subject by PM.s, anything ,anytime I have anything to 
say to you I can do it in open Forum.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Excellent!!

Game On!!!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29033.0.html

See you there F.E

dileas

tess


----------



## MAJOR_Baker

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1119448188359_114857388/?hub=Canada

I understand that this NDP MP wants to allow US deserters to stay in Canada; the term Blow Back comes to mind as it was thrown around for a long time about Afghanistan.  Well I think this could be very disasterous for US-CDN trade and relations.

Unfortunately these deserters seem to have a following in Canada, I would personally like to have a chat with them and remind them of the oath they took.  This oath was taken freely without mental reservation and they better be held to it!


----------



## The_Falcon

This is perhaps the most ludacris statement I have heard yet about this subject 


> Canada should welcome such ex-soldiers, Siksay said, inviting the message it would send the world.
> 
> "We don't want soldiers who check their conscience at the door when they sign up," the NDP MP said.



It has nothing to do with conscience and everything to do with cowardice.  How can people support these idiots, they signed on the dotted line voluntarily.  And now they don't have the guts to fulfil their obligations.   We should in all rights send these people straight back, no hearings no nothing, they are NOT refugees.  They are making a mockery (if that is still possible) of our refugee system.  If Canada lets these cowards stay it WILL come back to bite us in the @$$ there is no doubt in my mind about that.  Vietnam and the draft was over 30 years ago people, time to let it go.  They volunteered and then they reneged, put in prison where they belong.


----------



## c4th

Does Canada and the US not have an extradition treaty?

These cowards should be happy to go back to the US.  They can't be in Leavenworth and Iraq at the same time.



> When asked whether that's not just part of the job, Key told Canada AM his Iraq tour wasn't exactly what he enlisted for.



BAHAHAHA.  Yeah, I'm sure he joined for the money and women the same as the rest of us.  Nothing builds character like wearing coveralls and eating slop off of trays for a few years.


----------



## Danjanou

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> ...It has nothing to do with conscience and everything to do with cowardice.



Damn straight. I have no problem (well maybe a few) with someone opposing this or any conflict for whatever reason *in the country itself*. Make your stand and then accept the consequences of those actions whatever they may be. I may disagree with that petty officer in San Francisco who missed his ship as he refused to go to Iraq., but I'd buy him a beer. He stood up for what he thought was right and was court-martialed for it.

He didn't slink off across the border and then try and hide his cowardice in some cloak of pathetic self serving self righteousness like those oxygen thieves now lurking here in Toronto and being feted by the granola brigade as â Å“heroes.â ?

You accept all a society has to offer you that, then you do not turn around and run and hide when it wants something back in return. Especially as in the case of these â Å“individualsâ ? who willing agreed to serve knowing full well what the consequences of their actions.

Major Baker anytime you feel like a road trip to the big smoke sir, be my pleasure to help you track down these errant spoiled children so you can have a little face to face chat with them on â Å“responsibilities.â ?


----------



## dutchie

Some interesting quotes from the article:

Joshua Key is one of dozens of U.S. soldiers who fled their army to seek refuge in Canada. After an eight-month tour in Iraq, Key said he couldn't face a return trip. When asked whether that's not just part of the job, Key told Canada AM his Iraq tour wasn't exactly what he enlisted for. "_Everybody has a false interpretation that battle's supposed to be fought with tanks or between soldier and soldier_," Key said, describing his frustration fighting a more amorphous enemy. "_It's just like you don't know what who it's going to be from one day to the next. You can't get rid of the whole population._"

So, you're not actually philosophically opposed to the War, you're just a coward...is that right? "Uh, Sorry Sir. I'm not goin on that patrol....there's bad guys out there for God's sake! I thought this was supposed to be like Nintendo Duck Hunt?!?"

And from NDP MP Siksay: "We don't want soldiers who check their conscience at the door when they sign up," the NDP MP said.  

Who is 'we' Bill? They aren't our soldiers. Speaking of conscience though, what does it say about the conscience of this coward that he would desert his buddies during war? Siksay talks as if this guy has great courage and strong integrity, but really it's the exact opposite. 

And finally: "So far, that support has translated into 15,000 signatures on a petition organized by the community-based War Resisters Support Campaign."

15,000 signatures out of 35 million (or so) Canadians? Wow. Those Americans must be shaking in their boots!


----------



## bled12345

Althought I don't agree with the "motives" behind the war in iraq, if you sign up in the military, especially the american military, don't be suprised if you have to go see some action. My sympathy towards him would be alot greater if he had been drafted, and then went to Canada, but to voluntarily sign up for the military and then run as soon as you're asked to do your job is ridiculous.


----------



## paracowboy

genetic debris. The deserters and anyone who supports them. Someone add more Chlorox to the gene pool.


----------



## -rb

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I understand that this NDP MP wants to allow US deserters to stay in Canada; the term Blow Back comes to mind as it was thrown around for a long time about Afghanistan.   Well I think this could be very disasterous for US-CDN trade and relations.
> 
> Unfortunately these deserters seem to have a following in Canada, I would personally like to have a chat with them and remind them of the oath they took.   This oath was taken freely without mental reservation and they better be held to it!


I'm hoping that the Jeremy Hinzman case will set a precedent for the others, long story short the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board denied his bid for asylum, rejecting his argument that he would face unfair persecution if he was to returned to the US. It's been a while since I looked in to his case but I'm sure he'll be appealling the verdict. 

One can only hope that our (Canada's) stance so far will hold true with the numerous other cases as well.



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> genetic debris. The deserters and anyone who supports them. Someone add more Chlorox to the gene pool.


couldn't have summed up my thoughts better.

cheers.


----------



## aesop081

paracowboy said:
			
		

> genetic debris. The deserters and anyone who supports them. Someone add more Chlorox to the gene pool.



We debated this very subject " ad nauseum" not so long ago and this was a popular opinion as far as i can remember  ;D


----------



## The_Falcon

aesop081 said:
			
		

> We debated this very subject " ad nauseum" not so long ago and this was a popular opinion as far as i can remember   ;D



Well that kind of opinion is to be expected on a military board made of mostly military people.   As far as the general public, most of the people I know, this subject isn't even something they know about, and if they do know about it they are indifferent (typical Canadians) or for allowing these things to stay here.


----------



## CH1

Hello  Hello is any body home in Customs ?  How are ppl that have warrants on them getting by our highly touted Border Security.

Some thing is terribly wrong here.  Send them home special delivery!  

I can not for the life of me, figure out why we have to import our problems.  Guess the politicians like the higher quality imported crime over the low domestic grown type.

It is ridiculous that we have all left pieces of our bark in all sorts of crap holes, to come home & be told that even when we are born here we have no rights or say in the way this country is run. 

guess thats why the the spelling has changed to Kanada.

Cheers


----------



## tomahawk6

Not to mention that they are taking jobs that Canadian's can do.
Initially my attitude was to bring the cowards back for justice. Now I think a permanent exile is more fitting. They can never return to the US without running the risk of arrest as deserters. I dont want them back as they are a disgrace.


----------



## The_Falcon

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Not to mention that they are taking jobs that Canadian's can do.
> Initially my attitude was to bring the cowards back for justice. Now I think a permanent exile is more fitting. They can never return to the US without running the risk of arrest as deserters. I dont want them back as they are a disgrace.



What makes you think we want to keep them, although if they really really wanna stay I am sure some remote community in Nunavut can use the extra helping hands


----------



## cgyflames01

> I shudder to imagine the day that the NDP rules Canada (sorry, it'll be the Union of Canadian Socialist Republics when that happens).


Amen!!!
If a American were fleeing his country, to aliveate harm from the countries leadership (War in Iraq) . Would that make him a refugee? In no way do I support desertion, but if a Afghani serviceman were to flee to Canada, would we send him back?
Anyway, the American culture was built on desertion, the pilgrims left Europe in fear of religious persecution. When the going gets tough the Americans get running.


----------



## paracowboy

cgyflames01 said:
			
		

> Amen!!!
> If a American were fleeing his country, to aliveate harm from the countries leadership (War in Iraq) . Would that make him a refugee? In no way do I support desertion, but if a Afghani serviceman were to flee to Canada, would we send him back?
> Anyway, the American culture was built on desertion, the pilgrims left Europe in fear of religious persecution. When the going gets tough the Americans get running.


uuhh, you may want to crack open a history book, dude. The same people that founded the USA founded Canada. And yeah, the Yanks are runnin' all right: into the fight. While we sit back, under their protection, and pretend we have some sort of moral high ground. 

As for the Afghani: if he were a felon (as deserters are) then I would certainly hope we would send his ass back.  And what does this sentence even mean? 





> If a American were fleeing his country, to aliveate harm from the countries leadership (War in Iraq) .


----------



## larry Strong

Not to mention tax dollars going into court cases. Hell we are probably paying for their lawyers also! Don't even let them cross the border in the first place.


----------



## Baloo

There is quite good support for this guy to stay. I had a conversation, which eventually turned into an argument about the deserters, and the commie campuses (in Toronto at least) circle leaflets and petitions to have him stay in Canada, and support resisting the war. I found it quite astonishing how much support he has. 

Eventually, the argument boiled down to this. She couldn't understand the military perspective. My views were innately expressed with a certain amount of military comeraderie and duty involved, and she didn't get it, in her words. A lot of people think that you need to stand up for what you believe in (even if it means running away and tying up a system meant to be the genuinely disadvantaged...).

I don't understand that logic. So, in other words, I can get all the benefits of something, but when it comes down to it, if I don't believe in the commitment phase, I can turn my back? That's like me receiving welfare, but when I get a job, I refuse to pay taxes because I don't want to feed the system. Perhaps we should do an elective system, where I can only pay to support whom I want, when I want.


----------



## winchable

Short drop, Sudden stop.
Desertion (make no mistake, being a conscientious objector requires one to stand their ground) is one subject I am far from liberal on, there's no excuse for it in a modern professional and most notably _volunteer_ army.
When the draft is initiated, come talk, though even then you should stay in your country and fight for your principles, if not your brothers in arms.


----------



## Kunu

> Anyway, the American culture was built on desertion, the pilgrims left Europe in fear of religious persecution. When the going gets tough the Americans get running.



The pilgrims left England for completely different reasons than these deserters.  To make a long and vivid story short, England at the time was for the most part ruled by oppressive, unelected monarchs and a system which allowed very little opportunity for personal advancement if one didn't agree with the system (such as by way of religious beliefs, for example).  The pilgrims left behind the certain (albeit arguably crappy) life they had in order to travel to an unknown land for the hope that they could help build and live in a system governed by fair principles of their choosing.  It is an insult to associate these courageous people with cowards who blatently signed on for the various perks but then hightailed it once their end of the bargain came up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cgyflames01 said:
			
		

> Anyway, the American culture was built on desertion, the pilgrims left Europe in fear of religious persecution. When the going gets tough the Americans get running.



What an utter load of tripe! Where did you spend your last 20 yrs? Likely in your backyard, listening to the CBC and reading the G&M.

Try bending way over at the waist. Reach back and gently spread your butt cheeks. Hear that "pop"?................... That was your head coming out.


----------



## Dogboy

As much AS I don't agree with the US foreign policy or much of what it stands for I don't feel as sorry for the guys who Enlisted with the US army Reg. force and now want out 
any look at history shows that the US loves war and has prity much bin in other country's business since its inception.
now say someone in the National guard who joined just to protect the home land or as something to do on weekends they have more of a Case for desertion.


----------



## Gouki

No they don't, they sign the dotted line like everyone else and are told of what may happen.


----------



## x-grunt

Dogboy said:
			
		

> now say someone in the National guard who joined just to protect the home land or as something to do on weekends they have more of a Case for desertion.



Army is Army, be full or part time. Just like our Militia, if war is declared and you have signed on, you go or if you must object, stand your ground and take your lumps like a man. That's the USANG agreement, just like us. Deserting is for conscripts and cowards IMO.

Baloo:


> ...commie campuses...


Gotta say I hate inflamatory language like that. I attend one of those "commie campuses" part time and have had some great conversations with left-leaning types, and met lots of right-leaners too.



> She couldn't understand the military perspective.


Yeah, I have had that too. It helps to describe the Military to university types as a distinct sub-culture, with cultural norms that differ from others. Much like some people have a hard time understanding Native issues (as an example), the military is often misunderstood too. When I have approached these conversations as educational opportunities they seem to go better.

Canada has never seemed to integrate the military into the main culture to the extent the US or the UK have. Then again, they've both suffered wars/conflicts on their soil in the last century or so, and we haven't. I'll bet the populations of those countries would have less tolerance about the desertion issue if the situation were reversed.

But I digress from the topic, my apologies. Has this been beaten to death, or what?


----------



## paracowboy

Dogboy said:
			
		

> any look at history shows that the US loves war and has prity much bin in other country's business since its inception.


elaborate, please. Elucidate us, because I have never seen this, and I consider myself to be fairly wide-read.


----------



## Danjanou

paracowboy said:
			
		

> elaborate, please. Elucidate us, because I have never seen this, and I consider myself to be fairly wide-read.



Yeah what he said. ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The US of A has been at one war or another, for every generation since WW1 and even before. All the conflicts have taken major resources as far as personnel. Anybody over there that decides to join and make any sort of career of it, should know he's likely to be called. He should expect it and accept it. If he gambles and loses, to bad. If you roll the dice and they come up snake eyes, you reach in your pocket and pay the piper. Joining the game, losing, then saying you don't have the money (guts) makes you the biggest asshole in the world, worthy   only of being shunned by the rest of the players.


----------



## Infanteer

Didn't one of you guys give these dudes a ride to the border or something - why are we still hearing about them?  ^-^


----------



## Dogboy

OK to save time Ill just start from after WW2
1948. Marines in China to Protect the Embassy and evacuate citizens when Shanghai fell to the communist
1950-53. Korea
1950-63. USA helps fund French war with North Vietnam and has advisor's on the ground
53-79. CIA and MI-5 help put the the Shah in power in Iran after the government threatened to nationalize the oil holdings 
54. USA funded a Right wing Military Coup   in Guatemala
58. 8,000 in Lebanon
59.US Marines in Haiti to Advise "Papa Doc's" gov.
60.CIA sponsors a Military Junta takeover in Ecuador
62. CIA backs Military Coup in Brazil
64.   CIA backs Military Coup in Zaire
64-75 Gulf of Tonken incident starts heavy US involvement in Vietnam
65. US Intervened in Dominican Republic 20,000 us troops on the ground 
65. CIA backs Military Coup in in Greece
66. CIA backs dearth squads in El Salvador
70. US invades Cambodia 
71. CIA backs Military Coup in Bolivia
72. US gov. funds and backs Military Coup in Uruguay
81. USAF plane shot down 2 Libyan jets
82 US  support of Coup in Guatemala
83.US invades Grenada over 7,000 troops on the ground 
86. US attacks drug Refineries in Bolivia they are back in full production in 6 months
88. USS Vincennes invaded Iranian waters and shot down Iran air flight #665 killing 290 civ.
89. 600+ advisers in Colombia, Bolivia , and Peru 
89. Gen. Noriega finaley lost US support and was Captured. 
he was  supported since 66 and was a know drug smuggler since 72
90.the US NED (National Endowment for Democracy )   funds more then $2 mill. to try to prevent socialist gov. from being elected. after the socialist won a 6 month destabilization campaign forced them out.
91. Desert storm 1 starts up
92. US troops in Somalia 30,000 on the ground 
94. US invades Haiti to restore the rightfully elected gov.(for a change)
96. US admits to providing training to Rwandan soldiers who invaded Zaire(tho some witnesses clam seeing US men)
2002. US supported the overthrow of the elected gov. in Venezuela . popular uprising returned it to power.


----------



## Hedgehog18

If you got what it takes to sign up do Boot camp and what not then when  your country goes to war shut up turn of your moral objections and do what your told to do !  not run away like a lil B****  .. its not like anyone ponited a gun to there head  

IMO 
Howie


----------



## paracowboy

and this list proves the "US loves war" how? I see several distortions of fact (readjust your tinfoil beanie, some of the rays must be getting through), and a number of actions in which many nations participated (including, oh, CANADA).

Seek therapy. Seriously.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Speaking as a soldier who has trained with many of our allies and enjoyed/learned something from all of them I definely take offense to Dogboy's obvious dislike for anything American! It's been said that bashing Americans has become a sport in Canada and Dogboy seems to be one of those players! Grow up, the US might not be perfect but I'd take them as a neighbour anyday over most others!


----------



## c4th

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> that bashing Americans has become a sport in Canada



Yeah!, let's get back to bashing Toronto.


----------



## canadianblue

I think thats pretty typical of the left to make a few distortions in order to make our neighbour look like the worst nation in the world. Who would we prefer to have as a superpower, China, I'm kindof wondering what nation Dogboy would prefer to have military supremacy and economic supremacy. As far as I can tell were lucky to have the US in that position, and I don't mind them trying to be the worlds policeman as the UN seems to be a failure in world affairs.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Dogboy said:
			
		

> OK to save time Ill just start from after WW2
> *snip*



Oh God, where to start with this claptrap?  I had thought to stay away, but this is exactly the sort of nause spouted by the loony-lefties during my time as an undergrad.  One by one:



> 1948. Marines in China to Protect the Embassy and evacuate citizens when Shanghai fell to the communist.


And how does this serve as an example of US hegemony?  There have been dozens of similar interventions conducted by dozens of countries - including Canada.



> 1950-53. Korea


  And what was the Canadian Brigade doing there?  Picking flowers?  Ask S. Korea what it thinks about US participation in this UN-authorized action...



> 1950-63. USA helps fund French war with North Vietnam and has advisor's on the ground


  Advisors?  To whom?  The French?  Source, please.



> 53-79. CIA and MI-5 help put the the Shah in power in Iran after the government threatened to nationalize the oil holdings.


  The Shah was already in power.  The PM was overthrown in a coup.  There is still no positive evidence that I've seen (admittedly I've been away from this for awhile) that the West sponsored the coup.



> 54. USA funded a Right wing Military Coup  in Guatemala


  Again, the evidence is generally from the various left-wing sources.  Perhaps true...after shipment of Soviet arms to the Guatemalan government, something usually forgotten by the conspiracy theorists.



> 58. 8,000 in Lebanon


  And?  Some context, please.  The deployment of US Marines to Beirut was in response to a request by the Lebanese government, after some rather frightening events in Iraq and the coup in Baghdad.



> 59.US Marines in Haiti to Advise "Papa Doc's" gov.


  Got a non-political source for this?  2nd Marines ran a series of exercises in the Caribbean in 1959 in response to Castro's victory in Cuba...so?



> 60.CIA sponsors a Military Junta takeover in Ecuador


  Source?



> 62. CIA backs Military Coup in Brazil


  Source?



> 64.  CIA backs Military Coup in Zaire


  A unproven allegation, as is CIA involvement with Patrice Lumumba's murder.  The CIA was involved in the Katanga business, for other reasons.



> 64-75 Gulf of Tonken incident starts heavy US involvement in Vietnam


  And there was involvement before then, too.  What's your point?  That the US was dragged into an unpopular (and perhaps unwinnable) war by a series of bad political decisions based on a flawed political theory?  Yeah - tell us something we don't know.



> 65. US Intervened in Dominican Republic 20,000 us troops on the ground


  Some context - again - is in order.  This was after the killing of Trujilo - the DR's dictator...and after a military coup overthrew his elected successor.  Forgot that, did you?



> 65. CIA backs Military Coup in in Greece


  Source?  Context?  Evidence?  Backs how?



> 66. CIA backs dearth squads in El Salvador


  Yup, I'm sure they were.  Probably trained them too.  Evil CIA... >   :



> 70. US invades Cambodia


  As part of an armed conflict with an identifiable enemy.  I would have done it too...



> 71. CIA backs Military Coup in Bolivia


  "Backs"?  How?  Source?  Evidence?  Reasoning?



> 72. US gov. funds and backs Military Coup in Uruguay


  Again, source?  The coup had more to do with an ineffectual government response to the Tupamaros terrorist group than any US intervention/interests.



> 81. USAF plane shot down 2 Libyan jets


  If memory serves, this involved 2 x Libyan SU-22s.  They engaged 2 x VF-41 F-14As with AA-2 missiles over international waters and were promptly shot down.  Self defence, pure and simple.  Get your facts together before you make assertions.



> 82 US  support of Coup in Guatemala


  Source, evidence?  Yet another "spies everywhere" accusation...  In fact, the coup was organized by junior officers, who installed Gen Montt, who reigned in the death squads and expanded political freedom in the cities...



> 83.US invades Grenada over 7,000 troops on the ground


  In direct response to Cuban intervention and an attempted coup against the government.  One of the things the Americans did was rescue the Governor General.  You can still see "thank you" murals in Georgetown...I know, I've been there.



> 86. US attacks drug Refineries in Bolivia they are back in full production in 6 months


 Good on 'em!!



> 88. USS Vincennes invaded Iranian waters and shot down Iran air flight #665 killing 290 civ.


  "Invaded"?  Good lord.  You do know that this was an accident, don't you?  Do you  remember the context of US/Iranian relations at the time?  The activities by Iranian patrol boats in the Gulf, etc..  Again, context.



> 89. 600+ advisers in Colombia, Bolivia , and Peru


... And?  You know that Canada has deployed advisors to countries too, don't you?  Just not these particular ones...  If I recall, we're currently doing something with Bolivia...  Hmmmm....



> 89. Gen. Noriega finaley lost US support and was Captured.


 ...by the US!



> 90.the US NED (National Endowment for Democracy )  funds more then $2 mill. to try to prevent socialist gov. from being elected. after the socialist won a 6 month destabilization campaign forced them out.


  What government??



> 91. Desert storm 1 starts up


  And?  If I remember correctly, this was in response to the invasion of a soverign country by a brutal dictator.  Or did I miss something.  I don't suppose you remember how many Canadians were involved in this conflict or the roles we performed?



> 92. US troops in Somalia 30,000 on the ground


  At the request of the UN, by the way.  Also - by the way - Canada deployed troops here too!



> 94. US invades Haiti to restore the rightfully elected gov.(for a change)


  So, you're selective in your interventions...?



> 96. US admits to providing training to Rwandan soldiers who invaded Zaire(tho some witnesses clam seeing US men)


  Admits?  When?  How?  "US men"?  Context?  Sources?  Evidence?



> 2002. US supported the overthrow of the elected gov. in Venezuela . popular uprising returned it to power.


  Supported how?  Guns?  Funding?  SF?  This would be the same government spending millions of dollars on Russian arms and supporting the terrorists in Columbia, right?

You need to do more reading beyond Blackflag.org and rabble.ca...

To everyone else:  yes, I was bored and I couldn't let such a slanted diatribe go by unmolested...  Back to deserter slamming...   ;D

Jockeying now...

TR


----------



## Infanteer

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> That the US was dragged into an unpopular (and perhaps unwinnable) war by a series of bad political decisions based on a flawed political theory?   Yeah - tell us something we don't know.



Actually, judging by the condition of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia since the end of the Vietnam War, I'd say that perhaps there is a bit of truth to the Domino Theory.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

True enough, but I was referring more to the theory of monolithic communism (ie: Russians everywhere in control of everything) than the domino theory (although I don't place much stock in the latter as a communist revolutionary geopolitical concept)...


----------



## Infanteer

Oh, Monolith theory - ok.  Mixed up with the now defunct IR theories....


----------



## Dare

Dogboy said:
			
		

> OK to save time Ill just start from after WW2
> 1948. Marines in China to Protect the Embassy and evacuate citizens when Shanghai fell to the communist
> 1950-53. Korea
> 1950-63. USA helps fund French war with North Vietnam and has advisor's on the ground
> 53-79. CIA and MI-5 help put the the Shah in power in Iran after the government threatened to nationalize the oil holdings
> 54. USA funded a Right wing Military Coup  in Guatemala
> 58. 8,000 in Lebanon
> 59.US Marines in Haiti to Advise "Papa Doc's" gov.
> 60.CIA sponsors a Military Junta takeover in Ecuador
> 62. CIA backs Military Coup in Brazil
> 64.  CIA backs Military Coup in Zaire
> 64-75 Gulf of Tonken incident starts heavy US involvement in Vietnam
> 65. US Intervened in Dominican Republic 20,000 us troops on the ground
> 65. CIA backs Military Coup in in Greece
> 66. CIA backs dearth squads in El Salvador
> 70. US invades Cambodia
> 71. CIA backs Military Coup in Bolivia
> 72. US gov. funds and backs Military Coup in Uruguay
> 81. USAF plane shot down 2 Libyan jets
> 82 US  support of Coup in Guatemala
> 83.US invades Grenada over 7,000 troops on the ground
> 86. US attacks drug Refineries in Bolivia they are back in full production in 6 months
> 88. USS Vincennes invaded Iranian waters and shot down Iran air flight #665 killing 290 civ.
> 89. 600+ advisers in Colombia, Bolivia , and Peru
> 89. Gen. Noriega finaley lost US support and was Captured.
> he was  supported since 66 and was a know drug smuggler since 72
> 90.the US NED (National Endowment for Democracy )  funds more then $2 mill. to try to prevent socialist gov. from being elected. after the socialist won a 6 month destabilization campaign forced them out.
> 91. Desert storm 1 starts up
> 92. US troops in Somalia 30,000 on the ground
> 94. US invades Haiti to restore the rightfully elected gov.(for a change)
> 96. US admits to providing training to Rwandan soldiers who invaded Zaire(tho some witnesses clam seeing US men)
> 2002. US supported the overthrow of the elected gov. in Venezuela . popular uprising returned it to power.


The real question is, even if all stated were true, where is your list of what the Russians and Chinese were doing in the world to require these actions?


----------



## larry Strong

http://danshistory.com/vietnam.shtml#start

Actually I wonder if "Dogboy" might not be Carolyn Parrish


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The online, Dogboy, name certainly describes her. :


----------



## Dogboy

I put the list down as a way to show that the US has a history of getting in to other country's biz. 
some one ask me to show that they do, I sow it then I get flack for proving my point.

also I never said China, or the USSR are free of blame. nor Canada for that matter.
it was simply a way to show that if On simply oped a few history books one can see the US is always doing something with its Army and so if you don't want to go to was its a bad idea to join them (maybe the peace corp. or something would have bin better)
I was merle proving a point 

also the list was from Ad-buster
why is it when you bring up facts like that you immediately called a Left wing nut but when you skew it to the right its called fair and balanced on Fox?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Why is it when called out on something you resort to swerving the topic?


----------



## Dare

Dogboy said:
			
		

> I put the list down as a way to show that the US has a history of getting in to other country's biz.
> some one ask me to show that they do, I sow it then I get flack for proving my point.
> 
> also I never said China, or the USSR are free of blame. nor Canada for that matter.
> it was simply a way to show that if On simply oped a few history books one can see the US is always doing something with its Army and so if you don't want to go to was its a bad idea to join them (maybe the peace corp. or something would have bin better)
> I was merle proving a point
> 
> also the list was from Ad-buster
> why is it when you bring up facts like that you immediately called a Left wing nut but when you skew it to the right its called fair and balanced on Fox?


I've noticed that on many forums, learn to expect it and accept it. There are always some who are a bit too zealous on their need to define, and box people in. I would say your list is fairly accurate, actually, and is missing a whole lot more. I also agree that the US has been at a state of war for some time (just as Canada has). I do not think most of those things listed are "bad things", so only a characterization of those events as such would I be objecting to. If that was not intended, then my response was not meant in any other way but literal.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Dogboy said:
			
		

> I put the list down as a way to show that the US has a history of getting in to other country's biz.
> some one ask me to show that they do, I sow it then I get flack for proving my point.
> 
> also I never said China, or the USSR are free of blame. nor Canada for that matter.
> it was simply a way to show that if On simply oped a few history books one can see the US is always doing something with its Army and so if you don't want to go to was its a bad idea to join them (maybe the peace corp. or something would have bin better)
> I was merle proving a point
> 
> also the list was from Ad-buster
> why is it when you bring up facts like that you immediately called a Left wing nut but when you skew it to the right its called fair and balanced on Fox?


Ad-buster, eh?     



> Adbusters offers incisive philosophical articles as well as activist commentary from around the world addressing issues ranging from genetically modified foods to media concentration. In addition, our annual social marketing campaigns like Buy Nothing Day and TV Turnoff Week have made us an important activist networking group


 "Activist commentary" :

And no one (least of all me) has called Fox "fair and balanced".

Again, the problem with politically-charged lists like yours is that they make accusations without any real foundation or background.   It's as bad as the extreme right-wing nuts and their "black helicopters"...   I happen to agree with Dare that some of what is listed is true (and there were some missing things - Chile, for example), but there was/is no context whatsoever in what you posted.   All you attempted to do was provide "proof" of how evil Americans are...

As Dare points out, you can make a similar list for virtually every major power in the world, including Canada.   The only point you succeeded in "proving" is that you're a firm member of the legion of "experts" who are easily lead astray by "facts" when they suit a preconceived notion -   in this case, knee-jerk US-bashing.

I'm rounds expended on this topic...

TR

_Edit to correct typo._


----------



## 48Highlander

Dogboy said:
			
		

> I put the list down as a way to show that the US has a history of getting in to other country's biz.
> some one ask me to show that they do, I sow it then I get flack for proving my point.



Ok, great, you proved that the US gets itself involved in "other country's biz".   Congratulations, we're all proud of you.   Now were you trying to make a point, or just talking to hear yourself speak?



			
				Dogboy said:
			
		

> also I never said China, or the USSR are free of blame. nor Canada for that matter.
> it was simply a way to show that if On simply oped a few history books one can see the US is always doing something with its Army and so if you don't want to go to was its a bad idea to join them (maybe the peace corp. or something would have bin better)
> I was merle proving a point



Actualy, you showed no such thing since 90% of your list doesn't involve military action.   What you DID prove is that you subscribe to a lot of conspiracy theories about the CIA.   If you're trying to prove that "the US is always doing something with its Army" then stick to listing ways in which their military has been used, and stay away from unproven alegations about CIA coups and funding of foreign groups.



			
				Dogboy said:
			
		

> also the list was from Ad-buster
> why is it when you bring up facts like that you immediately called a Left wing nut but when you skew it to the right its called fair and balanced on Fox?



When you bring up unproven allegations about the big bad CIA, you're labeled a left-wing nut.   Just like whackos claiming that the KGB is corrupting our children would be labeled right wing nuts.   You need to re-examine your stance and perhaps move a bit more towards the center.   Either that or at the very least start researching your "facts" a little more carefuly.


----------



## Bill Smy

The Toronto Sun
Fri, June 24, 2005

DESERTER HERO STATUS A STRETCH 

By PETER WORTHINGTON

A Sun colleague Thane Burnett wrote an interesting column on American deserters being regarded as "heroes" when they flee to Canada. In fact, the word "hero" appears five times in the column and deserters are (twice) compared with blacks who fled to Canada to escape slavery. 

First of all, comparing U.S. military deserters to escaping slavery is not only wrong, it's ludicrous and verges on the obscene, and gives undeserved respectability to slavery. That isn't Thane's fault -- it's the people he's quoting, and reveals a mindset that is dogmatic and immune to reason. 

While I, and most Canadians, have no hostility to deserters who seek sanctuary here, most of us do not regard deserters of any form as "heroes," or heroic. Especially not today, when the U.S. has a volunteer military, and everyone who wears a uniform does so by choice. Those who enlist and decide when they are slated to go to Iraq that they're really "conscientious objectors" (or that their role in Iraq consisted of "killing children and civilians") are rationalizing and justifying their decision to run away. 

If most Canadians oppose the war in Iraq, I also think most don't admire desertion. Even during the Vietnam War, there was a qualitative difference in the minds of Canadians about draft dodgers who sought sanctuary here, and U.S. army deserters who fled here. As a people, we are uneasy with desertion, be it from America's volunteer army or our own. 

Of course there are those among us who welcome and exploit deserters -- use them for ideological, anti-military or anti-American purposes. Deserters here make speeches attacking America and are lionized by those who'd resent them if they still wore their country's uniform. 

Thane's column was mostly about Darrel Anderson, 22, whom he called one of the "new wave of poster boys for the U.S. armed forces." I'm unsure what he meant by that, but he notes Anderson "won" a purple Heart in Iraq, before refusing to go back to Iraq and instead fled with his family to Canada, to be welcomed as a "hero." Another thing Canadians -- and especially our military -- find odd about the U.S. military, if they think about it, is "winning" a medal if you are wounded. 

The Canadian army prefers its soldiers not to be wounded, and doesn't encourage the attitude that being wounded deserves a medal. American propaganda insists Purple Heart "winners" are somehow heroic. 

Anderson's wound came from a roadside bomb when he was with an artillery unit attached to the 1st Armoured Division. Sen. John Kerry exploited three Purple Hearts he "won" in Vietnam into justifying why he felt he deserved to be U.S. president, with no examination of the severity of the wounds that won him the medals. 

Unlike fellow deserter Jeremy Hinzman, whose bid to remain in Canada was rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Anderson hopes he'll have better luck. If you look up Hinzman or Anderson on the Internet (google.ca) you'll find considerable support and favourable comment from "war resisters." But these aren't necessarily the Canadian people. 

Hinzman, who fled to Canada after the U.S. army twice rejected his request for Conscientious Objector (CO) status and his battalion was ordered back to Iraq, argued that Canada is legally obligated to give him refugee status because he'd be persecuted if deported to the US for having refused to participate in an illegal war. As it turned out, the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his application -- as it probably will Darrel Anderson's. 

It'd be interesting to know how Sun readers feel about deserters: Should they be welcomed as heroes, sent back to the U.S., or simply ignored?


----------



## ArmyRick

Imagine if you will

-A fire fighter backing out the moment he is about to rescue one of your relatives?
-A police constable letting you get beat beaten to a pulp by street thugs because he has changed his mind?
-A doctor deciding part way through heart surgery that he would rather not do it?

When you make a commitment to something where people lives depend on you doing your job, THAN BLOODY WELL MAN UP and MEET YOUR OBLIGATIONS!!!

Deserters deserve no recognition !!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...except from the American customs agent as he places him under arrest.


----------



## EW

Always considered myself a bit left-wing, for a career soldier that is - I don't plan on voting NDP anytime soon, but even I can't substantiate these guys even being looked at for refugee status.   I mean come on, they willingly signed up as professional soldiers, at least one of them was bankrolling points for his Army GI bill, and they were collecting a decent paycheque.   Than when the balloon goes up they decide that thanks for everything, but no thanks, I don't want to go.   Let my buddies do the nasty part. 

The U.S. is a democratic fair country.   They should go back, speak their piece, and if (very likely) they are guilty they do their time in a military prison, and then at the end of their sentence they go free and their debt to society is paid.   

I still can't believe there are Canadians who somehow equate this to Vietnam.   Forget the theatre of war.   Vietnam involved draftees, Iraq (to date) are all volunteer soldiers.   These guys seem to be of at least normal intelligence and education, and knew that there was a chance.

Even if the US had gone with the draft after 9/11, I could to some degree understand; they were attacked at home by an enemy, the country has to have the resources to guarantee safety to their civilian populace.

Now draftee's for Iraq, that is totally different than Afghanistan - but I digress - these guys were not draftees.   Send them back, after our democratic process has run its course, and our courts have spoken.


----------



## Canadian Sig

You know when I was growing up ( many years ago ) and saying how bad I wanted to be a soldier my father would tell me to remember that " if you take the Queen's shilling you do the Queen's work". That work may suck, it may be scary or distastefull but damnit it's your job. 

end rant


----------



## wdewitt

They should be escorted to the USA border and turn over to the USA authority's. :crybaby:
When they finish his contract he then could apply for Canadian Status.


----------



## TheNomad

Actually I see no problem with deserters from the US being allowed to stay in Canada.

Is it against Canadian law to desert from the US?

Are these people a threat to the people of Canada?

I am no fan of deserters as my avitar might suggest, but why should Canada deport people to the US just because the US thinks they should.  Desertion is a specifically military offence and has no equivalent in civilian law.  If these people were wanted for civilian offences such as murder, or other "true crimes" then it would be appropriate to send them back.

Question:  How often does the US deport either Canadians or its own citizens to face charges in Canada?


----------



## George Wallace

I just think of them this way....As an employer; what kind of dedication would they have to their job?  If I had to deal with them through a 'Contract'; would they honour that contract or break it?  If their previous history of breaking a 'Contract' with the US Forces is taken into account, I would deem them undesirable as employees or clients.  My 'Trust' in them is non-existant.


----------



## Redeye

It seems the highest profile of this gang of crooks, Jeremy Hinzmann, is speaking in my town some time this month.  I can't believe he's still here, I hope the Federal Court throws out his appeal and he's marched straight to the border and into the open arms of the MPs.

It's no wonder so many denied refugee claimants end up staying in Canada, after they lose their case, we don't throw them out!


----------



## Glorified Ape

Dare said:
			
		

> The real question is, even if all stated were true, where is your list of what the Russians and Chinese were doing in the world to require these actions?



Ah, I see - the US isn't responsible for anything it does - it's the evil commies. Ok McCarthy. :




			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Again, the evidence is generally from the various left-wing sources.   Perhaps true...after shipment of Soviet arms to the Guatemalan government, something usually forgotten by the conspiracy theorists.



http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/03/990311-guat2.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/clinton11.htm

But then I guess their decision not to opt for US preferences justified that. Again, not the US' fault - it was the evil commies that made them do it. I swear, the Ameriphiles sound more and more like what cons think "Liberals" say every day - "It's the victim's fault".."It's not the criminal's fault, it's society's"..etc. Blame everyone but the one responsible. 

As for deserters, if the deserter can establish that the War in Iraq is illegal, he has every right to stay. I believe that was addressed by the courts, however, and they couldn't find that the war was illegal so ruled against the deserters. Pretty clear. While I don't support the deserters (necessarily), I think "cowardice" is a little too simplistic a descriptor. I wouldn't characterize someone's desertion, based on conscience, to be cowardice, regardless of its legality or illegality, unless the case for conscientious objection was so far-fetched as to be fabricated. Would you be a coward if you deserted from the Canadian military because its invasion of Belgium over a trade dispute conflicted with your conscience? I don't believe you would be. You'd be responsible for your actions but I wouldn't say you'd be a coward.


----------



## 48Highlander

They're not cowards because they refused to go to war, they're cowards because they ran away to Canada.  That's been stated numerous times already.  If you want to desert that's your decision, but stay in the country, take responsibility for your actions, and try to fight for what you beleive is right.

And what the hell was that about commies and guatamala?  Your point got lost somewhere in the rest of the gormless diatribe.


----------



## 48Highlander

2332Piper said:
			
		

> No, they are cowards because they refused to fight. They signed on the dotted line (and this Jeremy Numbty-F*** did it for education money) and when the poo hits the fan they run away like scared little rabbits. They are cowards and traitors pure and simple.
> 
> Let 'em hang for all I care.



Signing on the dotted line is not equivalent to selling your soul.   If fomeonse orders me to mow down a crowd of unarmed women and children, I don't care if it's the Minister of National Defence himself, I'll tell 'im exactly where to shove it.   Nowhere during the swearing in ceremony, and certainly nowhere in any contract I've signed, did I ever promise to do something I beleive is moraly wrong.

Therefore:   if these individuals truly did beleive that the war in Iraq was wrong and immoral, they should have refused to go, faced the consequences, and used their court cases as a rallying point for others.   Running away is what makes them cowards.


----------



## J.J

> Is it against Canadian law to desert from the US?



MP,
It is actually against several laws. To name a few....These "refugee's"  as they like to call themselves would not be claiming refugee status at the Point of Entry as their application would be refused as it would not meet "Safe Third Country" and they would be sent back to waiting arms of CBP, they would have to to make the claim inland. Therefore they would have to lie to the Border Services Officer on their intentions on entering Canada. They would be in violation of the  Customs Act, Immigration Act & The Criminal Code of Canada. It is against the law to lie to a Border Services Officer. If you commit an offence in another country that would be an offence in Canada it is a criminal act in Canada. The Mounties use this provision to arrest/convict the  Canadian dopers who do business in the US. I believe because of the left leaning government we have in place is why they are being coddled and not arrested but eventually their claims are denied, they are returned to the US and they will receive what they deserve.


----------



## Cloud Cover

WR said:
			
		

> MP,
> It is actually against several laws. To name a few....These "refugee's"   as they like to call themselves would not be claiming refugee status at the Point of Entry as their application would be refused as it would not meet "Safe Third Country" and they would be sent back to waiting arms of CBP, they would have to to make the claim inland. Therefore they would have to lie to the Border Services Officer on their intentions on entering Canada. They would be in violation of the   Customs Act, Immigration Act & The Criminal Code of Canada. It is against the law to lie to a Border Services Officer.





> If you commit an offence in another country that would be an offence in Canada it is a criminal act in Canada. The Mounties use this provision to arrest/convict the   Canadian dopers who do business in the US. I believe because of the left leaning government we have in place is why they are being coddled and not arrested but eventually their claims are denied, they are returned to the US and they will receive what they deserve.



Just for clarification, must the rule you have pointed out only apply to Canadian citizens or landed immigrants and even then for certain designated offences? Are criminal code offences that constitute certain property offences in Canada, or Canadian tax offences that carry potential prison sentences actual offences when they are not even known to law in some foreign jurisdictions and committed in foreign jurisdictions? Is that not why the off shore banking and investment industries are attractive to many Canadians with enough money to hire experts to look after their money?     

As far as the deserters go, I wish the US would just come and grab them or perhaps arrange to smuggle them out in one of those garbage trucks from Toronto that cross the border everyday.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If you're a Conscientious Objector, you don't join armed forces. Period. If you're drafted despite your claim to CO status, you ask to fill a GC non-combatant position (eg. medical).  There's no excuse for desertion, ever.  If you are active in a war you believe to be unjust or illegal, or given what you believe to be a manifestly unlawful order, you refuse to "pull the trigger" and accept the consequences.


----------



## Danjanou

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> As far as the deserters go, I wish the US would just come and grab them or perhaps arrange to smuggle them out in one of those garbage trucks from Toronto that cross the border everyday.



Now this has possibilities. Anyone up for a planning session over a beer?  ;D


----------



## 48Highlander

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Now this has possibilities. Anyone up for a planning session over a beer?   ;D



You buying?


----------



## Danjanou

Sorry already reached by quota of " the rival oatmeal savage regiment" members I've had to buy for this month. Ask Tess or Bossi. ;D


----------



## TheNomad

Are people really suggesting that the US should be able to just walk across the border and take these people?  Are there any other circumstances that you feel the US should be able to just walk in and do what it likes in Canada?

I always thought that Canada was an independent country and proud of it.

Like many of you I am no fan of deserters, but I would rather keep them than allow a foreign country to breach the soverignty of my country to exercise its laws where they do not apply.


----------



## Redeye

Not that this is on topic, but most of the actual battlefield at Crysler's Farm is underwater now because of the Seaway.  There's an impressive little museum on the Seaway Parkway about the battle though.


----------



## J.J

whiskey601,
The C.C. of C. applies to anyone in Canada, regardless of their citizenship or residency. The application of the C.C. of C. is another story.


----------



## 48Highlander

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Sorry already reached by quota of " the rival oatmeal savage regiment" members I've had to buy for this month. Ask Tess or Bossi. ;D



Damn.



			
				TheNomad said:
			
		

> Are people really suggesting that the US should be able to just walk across the border and take these people?   Are there any other circumstances that you feel the US should be able to just walk in and do what it likes in Canada?
> 
> I always thought that Canada was an independent country and proud of it.
> 
> Like many of you I am no fan of deserters, but I would rather keep them than allow a foreign country to breach the soverignty of my country to exercise its laws where they do not apply.



Guess you're not buying either?

We were advocating (and largely as a joke) driving the bastards back to the US in one of those garbage trucks that we send to Michigan every day.  You, ofcourse, decided to focus on the other part of that quote.


----------



## 48Highlander

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Was he asked to mow do children? No.
> 
> He was asked to fight he was for his country.
> 
> He refused to fight. Therefore he is a coward seeing as he had no good reason to refuse.



How the hell did you pass your aptitude testing?  Listen, they were asked to do something which they claim conflicts with their morals.  What that something is is immaterial.  If you can't understand that there's not much more I can say to you.


----------



## Brad Sallows

In that case, signing on the line conflicted with their morals.  Such people should not join armed forces in the first place.


----------



## 48Highlander

Ok, either I'm going insane, or your statement has absolutely no logical connection to what I was saying...


----------



## paracowboy

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Ok, either I'm going insane, or your statement has absolutely no logical connection to what I was saying...


I thought both arguements tied in well with yours. Actually, you're all saying the same damn thing, but you're all picking fly shit from pepper. It's kinda funny from the outside.  ;D


----------



## Sapper Bloggins

Canada is neither a safe-house of Al Qaida sympathizers, nor is refuge stop for US deserters shirking their national responsibility as volunteer soldiers. This isn't the Vietnam War, and these bumpkins volunteered to enlist, with the attendant benefits and risks that the profession brings.

You suck it up, shut up, roll the dice, and take your chances as a voluntary member of the military, whichever country you have enlisted with, irrespective of your CIC's policies.

Just like these deserters must face the consequences of their fears of going to Iraq, now they'll have to face the fear of a prison term. I'd bet the odds would have been better for them had they fulfilled their obligation.

What a sad statement to be remembered as someone who didn't honor their word. Sad because now their families will be stigmatized as a result of their choices. They had other choices besides running and should have made them to lessen the consequence of time in jail. They all knew what they were choosing and the gamble required _*NO BALLS*_. Successful gamblers know the odds of winning have to be in their favor, not against, or there isn't anything to gain. That's the whole point of a gamble...to win, or why bother.
Of course a gambler just looses his money, these boys are loosing more than money, they loose their dignity.


----------



## RangerRay

They should be deported poste haste.  They are criminals in their own country.


----------



## Canuckx5

Personally, if by deserting the US Army they piss off the majority of Americans, then I say let them in lol.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Canuckx5 said:
			
		

> Personally, if by deserting the US Army they piss off the majority of Americans, then I say let them in lol.


Definitely ranks as one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time.


----------



## RangerRay

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Definitely ranks as one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time.



I agree.


----------



## Canuckx5

You can call my comment stupid and dismiss it all you want, but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of people who feel the same way I do.


----------



## 48Highlander

Yeah, I think it was around the age of 15 that I first realized that MOST people are fucking stupid...


----------



## Canuckx5

From the time that I was a little kid I remember watching American TV and hearing anti-Canadian gibberish, then as I got older i started learning more about history and hearing the American involvement in WWI & WWII and if you listened to most of what the yanks had to say you'd think it was solely their country against the world (even though they came into both wars late), they start ridiculous wars like the one in Iraq and base it off of WMD's and links to Al-Qaeda (and don't say that they didn't cause that's all I f****** heard about, out of that moron's mouth in the months leading up to the war) and once all that was disproved they turned it into a operation to 'liberate' the Iraqis.   That's just the military stuff to, then you read about all the stuff going on back at home such as the Softwood Lumber dispute which directly effects my province, every time the WTO makes a decision that benefits the USA, America makes sure they get what they are promised but when the WTO makes a decision that benefits Canada such as the US having to pay us a large sum of money due to the illegal tariffs they have set up on our lumber, they ignore it and don't own up to it.   And this is the dishonest, and disgraceful country you are expecting me to respect? that you want me to say good things about?   As far as I'm concerned, F*** the States!

I apologize for the off topic remark btw, just had to back up my original opinion because some people still can't accept that others may not think the same way they do, unfortunately.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Canuckx5,
I really wanted to ban you but instead I'll make it so you can "read-only". Maybe spend some time in Foreign Militaries and read posts from some of our American FREINDS and COLLEGES. You complain about softwood lumber, maybe you should Google bicycle tariffs......


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Canuckx5 said:
			
		

> From the time that I was a little kid I remember watching American TV and hearing anti-Canadian gibberish, then as I got older i started learning more about history and hearing the American involvement in WWI & WWII



Oh Juicy target!

For your info - the USA provided a massive industrial base for the Allies while they got their large scale manpower ready to go in both wars.

In post VE DAY 1945 the Canadian markets were all oriented to the UK - which had no cash - and so when the Marshall PLan came around - to re-juvenate European industry the USA provided the contracts through the Marshal plan to keep Canadian industry afloat - hardly the picture you paint.


----------



## RangerRay

Canuckx5,

Regardless of your Mikey Moore inspired rant, the fact of the matter is that these people signed a contract with Uncle Sam and swore an oath to serve their country's miltary *voluntarily*.  That makes them deserters, which makes them wanted criminals.  Canada should not be letting criminals into the country.

Last I checked, the US was a democracy and was not gang-pressing people into their military like some other countries in the world.  These deserters do not have a leg to stand on and should be deported immediately


----------



## paracowboy

Jan Brady Syndrome. A highly advanced case, I'm afraid.


----------



## Glorified Ape

48Highlander said:
			
		

> They're not cowards because they refused to go to war, they're cowards because they ran away to Canada.  That's been stated numerous times already.  If you want to desert that's your decision, but stay in the country, take responsibility for your actions, and try to fight for what you beleive is right.



So they're cowards for trying to avoid prison time, but they're not cowards for not fighting. They can just as easily spout whatever rhetoric they want to spout (and much more comfortably) from Canada as they can from in a US prison, thus why would anyone in their right mind NOT at least make the attempt at avoiding prison? The outcome, if they fail, is the same - they go to prison. If they succeed, they avoid prison. They have nothing to lose by trying it. If they succeed, they set a precedent which, in their minds, would "liberate" others like them. 



> And what the heck was that about commies and guatamala?  Your point got lost somewhere in the rest of the gormless diatribe.



It was pretty obvious that I was addressing the statements regarding Guatemala/central & south America/US foreign policy et al. which others had posted. In fact, I even quoted the points I was responding to, which I'm sure you saw. Of course, simple acceptance of that fact wouldn't allow for making inane and peurile jabs, would it? On the brighter side, I learned a new word (gormless).


----------



## 48Highlander

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> So they're cowards for trying to avoid prison time, but they're not cowards for not fighting. They can just as easily spout whatever rhetoric they want to spout (and much more comfortably) from Canada as they can from in a US prison, thus why would anyone in their right mind NOT at least make the attempt at avoiding prison? The outcome, if they fail, is the same - they go to prison. If they succeed, they avoid prison. They have nothing to lose by trying it. If they succeed, they set a precedent which, in their minds, would "liberate" others like them.



The word "exasperated" doesn't even begin to describe the way I'm feeling after numerous repeated attempts to explain this.  However, one more try won't kill me.  Try this example:

Your section commander orders you to shoot an unarmed prisoner.  Or to help him steal a car.  Or to go take a lolipop away from a baby.  Whatever.  In any event, you're given a direct order to do something which you feel is wrong.  Do you:

A)  Carry out the order.
B)  Say "I think this is wrong", and then do it anyway.
C)  Say "I think this is wrong", and refuse to do it.
D)  Run away to Canada and claim to be a refugee running away from oppression.

For me it'd be C.  Personaly, I think anyone who choses any of the other 3 options is a coward.  In the case of "A" and "B", because you're not willing to stand up for what you beleive in, and in "D" because, well, that one should be obvious.  Jeremy Hinsmen and his ilk picked D.  If they had picked C, I would have had nothing but respect for them.  I'd still think they were WRONG, but I'd respect them for standing up for their beleifs.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> It was pretty obvious that I was addressing the statements regarding Guatemala/central & south America/US foreign policy et al. which others had posted. In fact, I even quoted the points I was responding to, which I'm sure you saw. Of course, simple acceptance of that fact wouldn't allow for making inane and peurile jabs, would it? On the brighter side, I learned a new word (gormless).



Actually, I was really confused about what the hell you were trying to say.  You didn't phrase it very well.  I'm pretty sure it was irrelevant anyway, so forget it, and I'm glad I was able to teach you something new


----------



## Infanteer

2332Piper said:
			
		

> No, they are cowards because they refused to fight. They signed on the dotted line (and this Jeremy Numbty-F*** did it for education money) and when the poo hits the fan they run away like scared little rabbits. They are cowards and traitors pure and simple.





			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Was he asked to mow do children? No.
> 
> He was asked to fight he was for his country.
> 
> He refused to fight. Therefore he is a coward seeing as he had no good reason to refuse.



Tough talk - have you been in his shoes?   The guy did deploy to Afghanistan.

Hinzeman (along with the other deserters) have their motives for not wanting to to partake in the war and in a free society we respect that - I read his FAQ on his page and he has his own views; whatever floats his boat I guess.

I come down hard on them because they are deserters, not because I believe them to be cowards running from the battle.   I haven't been bloodied in combat, but I have some friends who have, so I ain't going to cast stones at Hinzeman's thought process on why or why he doesn't want to fight.   However, I have had responsibility in my lap, and I expect Hinzman or any other person who signs on the dotted line to live up to their responsibilities.   If it means going to war or going to jail, than live with it.   Going AWOL and leaving your teammates hanging in the breach is despicable; for that, I think all of them should be sent South ASAP and dealt with severely.

Prosecution shouldn't attempt to send the lesson that one must agree with the policies of their nation, but it should send out the message that we expect citizens to honour their obligations and fulfill their responsibilities.


----------



## x-zipperhead

2332Piper said:
			
		

> There is a difference between being asked to do something obviously illegal (i.e murder) and being asked to do something that may conflict with your moral values (something easily chnaged in many people).



I believe this guys whole case was that the war in Iraq was illegal.  Now, I understand he lost that case but that was his argument.  Did he truly believe that or was it just a belief of convienience so he didn't have to serve.  I think it would presumptuous either way to say any of us knew what he truly belived.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> The word "exasperated" doesn't even begin to describe the way I'm feeling after numerous repeated attempts to explain this.   However, one more try won't kill me.   Try this example:
> 
> Your section commander orders you to shoot an unarmed prisoner.   Or to help him steal a car.   Or to go take a lolipop away from a baby.   Whatever.   In any event, you're given a direct order to do something which you feel is wrong.   Do you:
> 
> A)   Carry out the order.
> B)   Say "I think this is wrong", and then do it anyway.
> C)   Say "I think this is wrong", and refuse to do it.
> D)   Run away to Canada and claim to be a refugee running away from oppression.
> 
> For me it'd be C.   Personaly, I think anyone who choses any of the other 3 options is a coward.   In the case of "A" and "B", because you're not willing to stand up for what you beleive in, and in "D" because, well, that one should be obvious.   Jeremy Hinsmen and his ilk picked D.   If they had picked C, I would have had nothing but respect for them.   I'd still think they were WRONG, but I'd respect them for standing up for their beleifs.




I agree with you whole heartedly in that I, too, would choose C ( at least I like to think I would ).  However, is there a difference in carrying out an illegal/immoral order from your section commander and one from your President.  Now before everyone lines me up in their crosshairs I am not commenting one way or the other on the legitimacy of the Iraq war. I am talking about what Jeremy Hinsen* believed or claimed to believe*.  What I am saying is, by your logic Hinsmen and his ilk would have been cowards by following orders and going to Iraq ( assuming these were their true beliefs ).

Maybe it's easier to see things black and white even if they are not.

Iraq asside.  Assume your country went to war for something you really felt in your heart was wrong and you decided you were going to stand by your principles and just not take part and instead stand up for what you belive in and try to change peoples opinions.  You've also got a young family to support.  Do you think you could do that more effectively from a prison cell or take your chances in a neighboring country that has taken a stance more in line with your personal beliefs?  Honestly.

Now I don't know if Jeremy Hinsen is a coward or not because I don't know what is truly in his heart.  I think it is worthy to remember that this guy did serve his country in Afganistan.


----------



## paracowboy

there are many other options available to those in the US Army who choose not to fight. These scumbags chose an illegal one. They are cowards, because they chose not to follow the hard road, and fight for their professed, new-found "beliefs". They chose instead to run. That is cowardice.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> I think it is worthy to remember that this guy did serve his country in Afganistan.



Right.   He did seven months duty in the Bagram kitchen...let's be up front here.   

Moreover, the fact that he served on one mission tells me that he picks and chooses the conflicts in which he's willing to serve.   It is not a soldier's lot - in a democracy - to determine the legality or illegality of a democratically elected government's actions.   A soldier has a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful.   That is, the order must be unlawful to a "reasonable person".   Hinzman cannot, in any reasonable sense, argue that the Iraq invasion was manifestly unlawful - the best he could argue is that opinions were murky.

So, what have we established?

1.   Hinzman did not receive a manifestly illegal order.   Therefore, he was bound to obey it.

2.   He was a volunteer in a volunteer army.   He had no objection to the use of military force, as his deployment to Afghanistan indicates.   Ipso facto, he is not a consciencious objector - at least in a traditional sense.

3.   The US is a democracy, with a democratically elected government - whether you agree with it or not.   There is no evidence that the constitutional process has been violated by the US policy in Iraq - to the contrary, the policy has (rightly or wrongly) been supported in Congress.

4.   His service in Afghanistan makes it impossible to determine if he's a "coward" or not.   It not really relevant to the discussion at hand anyway.

He hasn't got a leg to stand on legally or (really) morally.   Time for him to leave....


----------



## Infanteer

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Right.   He did seven months duty in the Bagram kitchen...let's be up front here.
> 
> Moreover, the fact that he served on one mission tells me that he picks and chooses the conflicts in which he's willing to serve.   It is not a soldier's lot - in a democracy - to determine the legality or illegality of a democratically elected government's actions.   A soldier has a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful.   That is, the order must be unlawful to a "reasonable person".   Hinzman cannot, in any reasonable sense, argue that the Iraq invasion was manifestly unlawful - the best he could argue is that opinions were murky.
> 
> So, what have we established?
> 
> 1.   Hinzman did not receive a manifestly illegal order.   Therefore, he was bound to obey it.
> 
> 2.   He was a volunteer in a volunteer army.   He had no objection to the use of military force, as his deployment to Afghanistan indicates.   Ipso facto, he is not a consciencious objector - at least in a traditional sense.
> 
> 3.   The US is a democracy, with a democratically elected government - whether you agree with it or not.   There is no evidence that the constitutional process has been violated by the US policy in Iraq - to the contrary, the policy has (rightly or wrongly) been supported in Congress.
> 
> 4.   His service in Afghanistan makes it impossible to determine if he's a "coward" or not.   It not really relevant to the discussion at hand anyway.
> 
> He hasn't got a leg to stand on legally or (really) morally.   Time for him to leave....



That's what I was getting at - I was just getting a little perturbed with the chest-thumping "he's a coward running from battle" comments.  He is a shirker and a coward for running from his responsibilities and should be prosecuted; but as you said, his reaction to fighting is irrelevent.


----------



## Blue Max

Good summation Teddy.  8)

Now lets kick these deserters out and get on with more important work, these guys are wasting everyone's time and money. :threat:


----------



## x-zipperhead

Good points from all.  I am not on a Jeremy Hinsmen defense crusade here.  I didn't know he served in a kitchen.... on the other hand I don't know how that matters.

I agree that he doesn't have much of a legal leg left to stand on.  But morally I believe there is an assumption here that this is a belief of convienence and again I think that is presumtuous.  

Yes he is a volunteer in a volunteer army but he volunteered before his country illegally ( his belief -* not *  mine ) invaded Iraq.  I agree that it is not the soldiers place to determine the legality of wars but as a man/woman you have a moral obligation to do what you think is right.  If the cause truly violates your moral beliefs than "I was just following orders" is not going to cut it when dealing with your conscience.  

I'm not just trying to rattle the cage here and I don't necessarily disagree with you guys.  Legalities aside.  The word coward is thrown around a lot.  That may be because it fits.  That is on the assumption though that he is using this as a convienient excuse to escape duty.  



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> there are many other options available to those in the US Army who choose not to fight. These scumbags chose an illegal one. They are cowards, because they chose not to follow the hard road, and fight for their professed, new-found "beliefs". They chose instead to run. That is cowardice.



What are the other options?  Besides marching yourself straight to cells ;D  Agreed though, it hardly seems brave running to Canada.


----------



## paracowboy

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> Good points from all.   I am not on a Jeremy Hinsmen defense crusade here.   I didn't know he served in a kitchen.... on the other hand I don't know how that matters.
> 
> I agree that he doesn't have much of a legal leg left to stand on.   But morally I believe there is an assumption here that this is a belief of convienence and again I think that is presumtuous.
> 
> Yes he is a volunteer in a volunteer army but he volunteered before his country illegally ( his belief -* not *  mine ) invaded Iraq.   I agree that it is not the soldiers place to determine the legality of wars but as a man/woman you have a moral obligation to do what you think is right.   If the cause truly violates your moral beliefs than "I was just following orders" is not going to cut it when dealing with your conscience.
> 
> I'm not just trying to rattle the cage here and I don't necessarily disagree with you guys.   Legalities aside.   The word coward is thrown around a lot.   That may be because it fits.   That is on the assumption though that he is using this as a convienient excuse to escape duty.
> 
> What are the other options?   Besides marching yourself straight to cells ;D   Agreed though, it hardly seems brave running to Canada.


other options are to declare yourself a Conscientious Objector, go see the Padre, or simply march yourself to cells and fight for what you believe in.

However, it was established in interviews conducted by independent media (back when this was the topic du jour) that our good buddy Jeremy is a coward. The words of the men in his platoon. That is why he washed dishes in a kitchen in Afghanistan. He refused to go into combat, and so, they put him to work in a position where he wasn't just converting rations.

Jeremy enlisted to get the benefits. He didn't reckon having to do his duty to earn them. Jeremy should be marched to the border and turned over to the nearest Law Enforcement Officer. Or simply tossed over the Falls.


----------



## x-zipperhead

Okay, starting to see that in this guys case maybe the shoe fits.    I imagine though that any conscientious objector would be viewed as a coward by the rest of the platoon regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his stance.  Especially in a combat situation.





			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> Jeremy enlisted to get the benefits. He didn't reckon having to do his duty to earn them.... .



You probably are quite right but none of us can say that for certain.


----------



## North Star

Did anyone read the book "Fields of Fire" by James Webb? Really good book that covers this debate (in the form of the father of the anti-hero) and points to a disturbing cultural split in the US during Vietnam (Ivy-League elites burning draft cards and shirking obligations, while working-class people don't).


----------



## Brad Sallows

The difference between the fly shit and the pepper is the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

Governments (and citizens, in the case of representative governments) are responsible and accountable for the decision to make war, and whether it is just or not.

Soldiers are responsible and accountable for how they wage war.

It is critically important to not blur that line, or permit it to be blurred.


----------



## Glorified Ape

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The word "exasperated" doesn't even begin to describe the way I'm feeling after numerous repeated attempts to explain this.   However, one more try won't kill me.   Try this example:
> 
> Your section commander orders you to shoot an unarmed prisoner.   Or to help him steal a car.   Or to go take a lolipop away from a baby.   Whatever.   In any event, you're given a direct order to do something which you feel is wrong.   Do you:
> 
> A)   Carry out the order.
> B)   Say "I think this is wrong", and then do it anyway.
> C)   Say "I think this is wrong", and refuse to do it.
> D)   Run away to Canada and claim to be a refugee running away from oppression.
> 
> For me it'd be C.   Personaly, I think anyone who choses any of the other 3 options is a coward.   In the case of "A" and "B", because you're not willing to stand up for what you beleive in, and in "D" because, well, that one should be obvious.   Jeremy Hinsmen and his ilk picked D.   If they had picked C, I would have had nothing but respect for them.   I'd still think they were WRONG, but I'd respect them for standing up for their beleifs.



I understood you the first time - you feel their cowardice is a result of their refusal to take responsibility for their actions (IE refusing to go to war). I disagree that their actions constitute cowardice. Take your same example - you refuse to shoot a prisoner when ordered to do so. You're now being charged for refusing the order because your country doesn't think it was illegal, indeed CAN'T agree it was illegal without admitting that the entire cause which brought you to your current situation is illegal. You have two choices - stick around and go to prison for refusing an illegal order or take off and possibly avoid prison. I wouldn't call you a coward for picking the latter. I don't view stoic acceptance of perceived injustice to be admirable or brave. 



> Actually, I was really confused about what the heck you were trying to say.   You didn't phrase it very well.   I'm pretty sure it was irrelevant anyway, so forget it, and I'm glad I was able to teach you something new



I thought I phrased it just fine. As for the topic being irrelevant to the deserter discussion, no arguments there - I was responding to an erroneous assertion on an irrelevant topic.


----------



## Infanteer

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I understood you the first time - you feel their cowardice is a result of their refusal to take responsibility for their actions (IE refusing to go to war). I disagree that their actions constitute cowardice.



So, you don't think shirking from one's obligations constitutes some form of cowardice?  _"I liked it when everything was going my way but now (for whatever reason) I don't like it so I'm going to leave the military high and dry, despite my legal obligations to my government and my moral obligations to the men in my unit."_  Doesn't really strike me as speaking out for the "right thing".

You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?  As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.


----------



## larry Strong

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?   As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him* morally defunct * in my books.



 Well that must be a global epidemic, as it's getting harder all the time to find people who will stand up and accept their responsibilities, Starting from political leaders, all the way down thru society.


----------



## Infanteer

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Well that must be a global epidemic, as it's getting harder all the time to find people who will stand up and accept their responsibilities, Starting from political leaders, all the way down thru society.



Yup - and that is why Hinzeman and Co. are still here and not in Leavenworth where they belong....


----------



## x-zipperhead

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?   As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.



Just because you've signed the dotted line doesn't mean you've sold your soul.  Legally, yes he has an obligation.  But in calling him a coward you are calling his morals and ethics into question.  It is a fine line between what one person calls a moral coward or another calls a moral hero.  Take a german soldier in WW2.  Suppose the first time he sees a concentration camp he decides he is going to desert.  Even though he signed the dotted line and has a legal obligation to fight for his country, on a moral level he decides he cannot fight for his country based on what he saw.  Moral coward or moral hero?  I guess it depends upon whether or not you agree with his stance.

I am in no way trying to draw a paralell between the US and Nazi Germany.  Period.

My point is this whole ' you signed the dotted line - do what you are told and let others determine if it is right or wrong ' doesn't cut it with me.  Governments have a duty to the soldier above all else to use war as a last possible solution.  If they must go to war they owe to the soldier above all else that the war be based on just cause.  It is the soldier who must risk his life and take others lives.  If you would go to war on a premise that you felt very stongly was unjust ( remember this is assuming he belives everything he is saying ) just because you signed the dotted line I would have to question those morals.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So, you don't think shirking from one's obligations constitutes some form of cowardice?   _"I liked it when everything was going my way but now (for whatever reason) I don't like it so I'm going to leave the military high and dry, despite my legal obligations to my government and my moral obligations to the men in my unit."_   Doesn't really strike me as speaking out for the "right thing".
> 
> You've signed a contract with the government of Canada (and gotten something good in return); do you not think that if you or somebody else decided to cash out by running away because you didn't like having to hold up your end of the bargin wouldn't constitute moral cowardice?   As I said, I'm not going to condemn the guy or call him a 'fraidy-cat for not wanting to fight or disagreeing with state policy, but he has clearly failed to uphold his legal duties - the fact that he did that willingly makes him morally defunct in my books.



No, I wouldn't call it cowardice. I might call it low and immoral depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't call it cowardly any more than I'd call someone a coward for trying to avoid a fine for illegally parking.


----------



## Infanteer

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> I am in no way trying to draw a paralell between the US and Nazi Germany.   Period.



If you aren't, than why bring up the allegory of a concentration camp to strengthen your argument?  Stick to the case at hand and try not to enact Godwin's Law.



> My point is this whole ' you signed the dotted line - do what you are told and let others determine if it is right or wrong ' doesn't cut it with me.



I've never stated that - what I have stated is that he obligated himself to the US Army; there a legal and moral implications in the fact that he, as a free and rational citizen, signed on the dotted line.  As I and many others have stated, he could have said "No", accepted his jail time, and moved on and let history be the judge.  Instead he decided to run away; running away is what most of us are focused on here.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> No, I wouldn't call it cowardice. I might call it low and immoral depending on the circumstances, but I wouldn't call it cowardly any more than I'd call someone a coward for trying to avoid a fine for illegally parking.



Fine, I'll settle for low and immoral (which sits on the same plain as shirking coward in my books) than.  And I think this is a circumstance where either can apply; as somebody who's been part of a tight-knit team and relied on the others, I find Hinzeman's type especially low.  I could give a shit about the politics of Iraq, his claims to CO, or the fact that it was the US Army - I'd feel the same way if it was someone in a Canadian unit that didn't want to deploy to Kosovo or Afghanistan.


----------



## x-zipperhead

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If you aren't, than why bring up the allegory of a concentration camp to strengthen your argument?   Stick to the case at hand and try not to enact Godwin's Law.



I never knew what Godwin's Law was.  After looking it up, your right, that was poor form.  I apologize if I offended anyone.  I could make any other allegory using say an Iraqi soldier but I think you got the point any way.  You are equating his legal obligation with his morals.  I have to disagree and I guess just leave it at that.


----------



## Infanteer

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> I never knew what Godwin's Law was.  After looking it up, your right, that was poor form.  I apologize if I offended anyone.  I could make any other allegory using say an Iraqi soldier but I think you got the point any way.  You are equating his legal obligation with his morals.  I have to disagree and I guess just leave it at that.



Well, what I was really getting at is the context of the legal obligations.  Comparing the legal and moral obligations in an all-volunteer US Army to that of Nazi Germany or Saddam's Iraq makes no reference to the proper context which Teddy Ruxpin so clearly highlighted:



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> So, what have we established?
> 
> 1.   Hinzman did not receive a manifestly illegal order.   Therefore, he was bound to obey it.
> 
> 2.   He was a volunteer in a volunteer army.   He had no objection to the use of military force, as his deployment to Afghanistan indicates.   Ipso facto, he is not a consciencious objector - at least in a traditional sense.
> 
> 3.   The US is a democracy, with a democratically elected government - whether you agree with it or not.   There is no evidence that the constitutional process has been violated by the US policy in Iraq - to the contrary, the policy has (rightly or wrongly) been supported in Congress.
> 
> 4.   His service in Afghanistan makes it impossible to determine if he's a "coward" or not.   It not really relevant to the discussion at hand anyway.
> 
> He hasn't got a leg to stand on legally or (really) morally.   Time for him to leave....


----------



## x-zipperhead

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, what I was really getting at is the context of the legal obligations....



Ok



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've never stated that - what I have stated is that he obligated himself to the US Army; there a legal and moral implications in the fact that he, as a free and rational citizen, signed on the dotted line.   As I and many others have stated, he could have said "No", accepted his jail time, and moved on and let history be the judge.   Instead he decided to run away; running away is what most of us are focused on here.
> 
> Fine, I'll settle for low and immoral   (which sits on the same plain as shirking coward in my books) than.   And I think this is a circumstance where either can apply; as somebody who's been part of a tight-knit team and relied on the others, I find Hinzeman's type especially low.   I could give a crap about the politics of Iraq, his claims to CO, or the fact that it was the US Army - I'd feel the same way if it was someone in a Canadian unit that didn't want to deploy to Kosovo or Afghanistan.



Sorry, I didn't realize we were only talking about the legal aspect here. 

Ok


----------



## Infanteer

x-zipperhead said:
			
		

> Sorry, I didn't realize we were only talking about the legal aspect here.



Are you confused?  We're not, which is why I spoke of both moral (which you so clearly highlighted) and legal obligations and drew some links between the two that pertained to Jeremy Hinzeman's case.


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Hot pursuit is an established practice.... not enforced lately it seems  

USA get your snatch teams ready!

In May 1876 a US Officer brought back a deserter by force from Manitoba to United States 

Ref RG2 , Privy Council Office ,  Series A-1-a, For Order in Council see volume 344 , Reel C-3316 

http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255194.jpg
http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255195.jpg
http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255196.jpg
http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/e/e091/e002255197.jpg


----------



## Jarnhamar

> No, I wouldn't call it cowardice. I might call it low and immoral depending on the circumstances



What would you call a firefighter who all of a sudden chose not to run into a burning building.

Morals in this guys case is like the soldier who's always hurt missing PT whom throws out his back right before an excersise. (Surprise surprise he's out at the bar that night)
Everyone knows whats going on, actually proving it is another story.

I'm always amazed at peoples ability to argue over anything on the internet.
This guy had a legal and moral obligation and he shit the bed.


----------



## geo

During the days of the American Draft, there were plenty of "consciencious objectors" who stood their ground, faced the music and paid the price. Some were given the oportunity to participate in the peace corp while others were invited to do some sort or other of community work..... in the end, the american people pulled out of Vietnam AND suspended the forced enlistment of draftees... though americans are still expected to register for SSS

Time for these guys to fess up and face the music.

if there are as many deserters as the article states (6000) then the people of "we the people" have a right and obligation to do something about it.... and these guys should be the catalyst.

Farewell, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, bye bye.........


----------



## x-zipperhead

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Are you confused?



No.


----------



## a_majoor

While what he did is pretty low, the idea that Canada would shelter such a person isn't as far fetched as it seems. Much of the modern political discourse is based around the idea that people should not have to face the consequences of their actions.

If an American serviceman volunteers to get the benefits the American Army offers, but declines to honour his part of the bargin, we see it as trying to cherry pick the good stuff but avoiding the obligations he voluntarily undertook to get them. The Canadian "elites", the CBC and fellow travellers see it differently, since they see no need to match effort to gain, and the idea of civic obligations or duties seems to be totally alien to that mindset (except of course our "obligation" to turn over our taxes to support their ends....)


----------



## Glorified Ape

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> What would you call a firefighter who all of a sudden chose not to run into a burning building.
> 
> Morals in this guys case is like the soldier who's always hurt missing PT whom throws out his back right before an excersise. (Surprise surprise he's out at the bar that night)
> Everyone knows whats going on, actually proving it is another story.
> 
> I'm always amazed at peoples ability to argue over anything on the internet.
> This guy had a legal and moral obligation and he crap the bed.



I wouldn't call a firefighter who refused to enter a burning building a coward since I've never been in his position and thus I cannot sit in judgement of his cowardice or lack thereof. Would you call a firefighter who had entered the burning building before but refused this time a coward?


----------



## geo

think the firefighter analogy probably a bad one - the firefighters I know would most likely go into burning buildings one time too many at his / her risk & peril.
BUT, I think the point is:
if the man is sick, look after him, if he isn't, get to the bottom of it and redress the situation.
If the american people decide that their occupation of Iraq is immoral and they are dead set against it - then they should speak out; stand up and be counted.

The alternative, get back out there and help us put out the fires.

Canada adoes not have much of a need for deserters who have taken the king's penny.

IMHO


----------



## Pte_Martin

I totally agree they should be back We send other criminals back so why not them


----------



## dapaterson

They are still here because they are entitled to due process under Canadian law, which permits appeals of the initial decisions.  The wheels of refugee determination are slow to turn in Canada (a different subject); these cases are not atypical in their speed (or lack thereof).


----------



## Bart Nikodem

> They broke US law, we want them back


Have they been convicted in absentia? Otherwise they _allegedly_ broke US law. 
I have nothing meaningful to add.
Bart


----------



## Cloud Cover

He didn't say they were found to have broken the law, he said they broke the law. 

It is not for a Canadian court to determine if they broke US law, only a US judge of competent jurisdiction can do that. It is  proper for a Canadian judge to determine whether they have jumped the immigration que for a valid reason. Doesn't look like they a valid reason that is known to our system of law. Unless the judge invents new law (a distinct possibility) they will be south bound soon enough.   Its not like they are going to be shot for desertion, or face torture, or be sent to Iraq - so the decision should be interesting. 

S_Baker: you guys just might have to come up here and take them home.  Go on ... make it a moot point for us all.


----------



## dapaterson

S_Baker said:
			
		

> well not to offend my dear CDN brothers and sisters but they are not refugees, they are desserters/criminals.  So no matter how much I hear about them deserving due process....send them back and they will get their due process where they broke the law!
> 
> I thought there was suppose to be a decision yesterday?



I never said they were refugees.  I said that the refugee determination process is slow.  If it is determined that they do not meet the criteria to be granted refugee status they will be refused and a deportation order issued.

Until that determination is made, they can not be deported.


----------



## Kat Stevens

We regularly send back rapists, murderers, armed robbers, and hockey players with a DWI, why not these guys?  Were there not lawfully obtained arrest warrants issued on these clowns?  Begone, rabble.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Much as I want these dirtbags out, take the time, do it right, do it openly and that takes away any further attempts to deride our immigration system, ....from deserters, at least....


----------



## Danjanou

I told you Major I keep emailing them and offering a free ride to Buffalo, but they never get back to me. ;D

Hinzman’s refugee claim was denied in March 2005. His appeal was two days ago (Feb 7th). The Judge has yet to release her decision, if the appeal is successful then it goes back to the Refugee Board for another hearing. If not it should be a short time before he’s gone, i theory. I'm sure they'll try another ploy like using a local church as "sanctuary."

He was the first, and therefore the first through the bureaucratic process. Hopefully the courts will stand by the IRB decision that his refugee claim is not credible and that will help with precedents for the rest of these self absorbed opportunists.

Here’s a list of the known ones: http://www.resisters.ca/resisters_stories.html

They’re also looking for cash donations to help out there Sir, seems the little darlings don’t qualify for welfare and have to pay for their extra foam extra grande double lattes somehow. ;D


----------



## Bart Nikodem

Bruce,
The point of my post was that both men are yet to be convicted of the crime of desertion, either by a military or civilian court. At least that is the impression I got from perusing various websites today, unless as I said before they were tried in absentia and already convicted. As such it makes them alleged deserters not actual deserters as most people on this thread seem to be making them out to be. I understand this is semantics but It's important as a principle to me.
All the best,
Bart


----------



## ChopperHead

why do we even let these people into the country in the first place? dont you have to go through customs or something that regulates who comes in and out of Canada? if so then why didnt we just say ok America is that way see ya. American desserters have been coming to Canada forever, Why? cause they know they can probably stay here. We need to get tough on this and stop these people from getting into the country at all or if they do make it in have like a Zero tolerance policy provide a map for a nominal fee and point them in correct direction to the USA. I feel the same way for any criminals not just deserters. send em packing


----------



## Danjanou

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> why do we even let these people into the country in the first place? don’t you have to go through customs or something that regulates who comes in and out of Canada? if so then why didn’t we just say ok America is that way see ya. American deserters have been coming to Canada forever, Why? cause they know they can probably stay here. We need to get tough on this and stop these people from getting into the country at all or if they do make it in have like a Zero tolerance policy provide a map for a nominal fee and point them in correct direction to the USA. I feel the same way for any criminal’s not just deserters. send em packing



Simple they don’t stroll in with big neon signs screaming “deserter” on their heads. How many people cross the border on a daily basis either way. Last time I checked if the wife and I want to go spend a weekend in Buffalo, Rochester or Detroit no problem, hop in the car and drive there. Proof of citizenship and a wave through right.

Check their “stories” many were on leave and simple went AWOL and came up here. No list created for Customs and Immigration to check names against, as at that point they technically weren’t deserters right. “Evening sir, US citizen s yup the missus and I thought we’d come over the border for a night of gambling, see the falls and show the kids marine land tomorrow.”


----------



## ChopperHead

good point. I wasnt thinking of it like that. I was thinking more along the lines of that people already knew they had desserted. but either way in 2 weeks or whatever the time limit is when the RCMP comes looking for them shouldnt they simply be deported back to the US. even if we didnt know they were desserters or whatever else they broke Canadian policy and law and tried to stay in the country longer then permitted so they have already broken laws right there.


----------



## 3rd Herd

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Now,
> 
> Will we get them back or ?



I would not hold my breath. It seems historically that ever time there is the smell of gunpowder south of the line Canada's immigration rates showed a blip in increased migration. I do have a few names to add to the list from the last experience and yet thirty plus years later they are still here.


----------



## dapaterson

3rd Herd: But there's a difference between most Vietnam era migrants and those today.  I have no particular quarrel with granting asylum to those fleeing the draft (I call it involuntary servitude, regardless of the US Supreme Court's opinion); this group is deserters, an important distinction.  The new group made a commitment and swore an oath that they are now repudiating, something I find morally offensive.

(And if anyone wants to discuss/debate the legality or advisability of the draft, please find an existing thread, rather than hijacking this one)


----------



## ChopperHead

i agree with 3rd. I doubt they will be sent packing or if they are it will take so damn long being tied of with appeal after appeal and public lbbying etc etc etc if it's going to happen probably wont for like 5 years


----------



## 3rd Herd

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 3rd Herd: But there's a difference between most Vietnam era migrants and those today.  I have no particular quarrel with granting asylum to those fleeing the draft (I call it involuntary servitude, regardless of the US Supreme Court's opinion); this group is deserters, an important distinction.  The new group made a commitment and swore an oath that they are now repudiating, something I find morally offensive.
> 
> (And if anyone wants to discuss/debate the legality or advisability of the draft, please find an existing thread, rather than hijacking this one)



let me me qualify my earlier post. The ones I was referring too had short hair cuts, last place of residence was FT Lewis, or Camp Pendleton and had either just finished AIT or were just going on AIT. And yes to me personally those that fled the draft are just as bad in MY books.


----------



## ChopperHead

I think the draft dodgers are just as guilty as well. However i did not live in that time so I dont really understand the political and all the other factors involved but to me those are just making excuses. But we wont turn this into another Draft doging thread so back to the topic at hand.


----------



## dapaterson

There is no foot dragging.  There is the usual inertia of courts in determining what the legal residency status of the individuals concerned, particularly since there is no handy precedent to which they can refer.

And while some people have tried to expand the scope of the court's deliberations, the court currently reviewing the initial rejection of their claim to refugee status has as its mandate to review whether that decision (and any decisions made in support of that determination) were well-founded legally.

Due process in this instance refers to the courts determining whether these individuals meet the criteria for refugee status within Canada.  That's completely apart from any determination under the UMCJ (I believe that's the American acronym, though I'm willing to be corrected).

The other question is this:  has the US government ever requested that these individuals be extradited?  Basic, but sometimes the basic things do get overlooked.


----------



## tomahawk6

With a new government in Ottawa these deserters may well be escorted to the border and handed over. These boys need to be locked up for five years and dishonorably discharged. Had they returned
no big deal. We had 2,011 deserters last year 50% less than 2001 and 2002 levels [ 4,597 deserters in fiscal 2001 and 4,483 in 2002]. This is because the Army is rehabilitating and returning to duty folks would otherwise been released from service.


----------



## Good2Golf

Last time I checked the States doesn't run over its citizens with M1A2 Abrahms in large public areas...so...the judge should find in the case, and send them packing.

Duey


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Dapaterson,
A very good question, if you dont mind, I would like to repeat it all by itself.

_The other question is this:  has the US government ever requested that these individuals be extradited?  Basic, but sometimes the basic things do get overlooked._


----------



## rifleman

Actually, I doubt we would waste any resources on deserters. 

If they got in trouble with the law, we'd add that they were AWOL too.


----------



## geo

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Does anyone know that they have not asked for extradition and my buddy EX-PM Paul Martin told them to go fligh a kite?  *That is worth repeating*....Does anyone know that they have not asked for extradition and my buddy EX-PM Paul Martin told them to go fligh a kite?
> 
> Listen folks this is one thing that gets my dander up so please spare me the due process crap!  You know darn well, that if the US was harboring CDN deserters your dander would be up too and there would be a lot of name calling and allegations that the US does not respect CDN law!


Matter of fact; the US is holding (or did hold) onto a Cdn Deserter. A certain Pte / Cpl  Schumacher who skipped out on the Royals, shot a Toronto Policeman in the face and fled over the US border. He eventually got caught in the US after he opened fire on a Maryland state trooper. From what I remember - the US did hang on to him - preventing Cdn justice from proceeding with trial for his assault with intent.

(BTW - you can keep him as far as I'm concerned but.... )

BBTW - where was it that Paul Martin in person told someone in the US to fly a kite?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

S_Baker,
You mean like you just did?

Either way, I will repeat myself,......as much as these dirtbags should be sent back ASAP, the process must be fair, open and have NO HINT of politcal meddling, and this way all the rest have no footing to even file a "refugee" claim. They can be sent back posthaste, why do these two work you up so much and not the other 198? You want them to be able to drag it out also because of some percieved meddling/ etc.?
And remember,
these losers are entitled to an immigration hearing, THE SAME WAY I WOULD BE IF I WENT TO THE STATES and claimed refugee status.
Thats life, no use losing ones cool over it.....


----------



## Danjanou

And I’m unlocking it. Sorry Major it’s a good topic and everyone in has been civil so far and therefore probably debate should be allowed to continue.

Aside from the usual coalition of hand wringers and granola munchers now supporting them, we don’t want them here either, a fact that this thread continues to show.

The fact is to get rid of them properly and hopefully prevent more from showing up does take time. As pointed out all the eyes have to be dotted and the tees crossed and with no hint of political interference especially with our new Government walking a political tightrope.

Patience my friend, patience, all things come to he who waits. As soon as they’re on the way will let know so you can arrange a special welcome home on your side of the Peace Bridge.


----------



## Kat Stevens

And when they are returned and tried, they will probably get a dishonourable discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.  So, pretty much what they've got now, just back where they belong.


----------



## geo

Better to ship em home, give em a dishonorable discharge (with forefeitures) and refuse em Social Security. 

They are educated, they took the err.... King's shilling, they knew what they were getting themselves into, they should face the consequences of their acts... let's get the paperwork and procedures taken care of & send em packin.


----------



## 54/102 CEF

Hinzman has been rejected as of 31 Mar


----------



## geo

now he can only look forward to umpteen appeals & various stall tactics


----------



## Scott

There are many more of them and they seem to have gathered support in this great country.

http://www.resisters.ca/resisters_stories.html


----------



## JBP

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Does anyone know that they have not asked for extradition and my buddy EX-PM Paul Martin told them to go fligh a kite?  *That is worth repeating*....Does anyone know that they have not asked for extradition and my buddy EX-PM Paul Martin told them to go fligh a kite?
> 
> Listen folks this is one thing that gets my dander up so please spare me the due process crap!  You know darn well, that if the US was harboring CDN deserters your dander would be up too and there would be a lot of name calling and allegations *that the US does not respect CDN law! *




I thought we all already knew that because of the whole Softwood lumber thing?



I'm just poking you in the ribs really...

As soon as I seen thier faces on the news (years ago now) I wanted them out of the country. Cases like this shouldn't even have an appeal, they should have thier 1 big trial, then it should be done with. Maybe even a last-ditch decision by the PM or Governor General, just speed up the process abit eh? I have to say I don't mind DRAFT dodgers as much really, I can see why they'd run for the most part being civvies and all, but I can't see how these freaks think they can get away with this... Like c'mon, wasn't this Jeremy guy in the 82nd Airborn? I'm pretty sure that organization has seen more than it's share of actual combat...  :  And I think when reading about his crappy story before, he's been deployed once already also. 

Anyway, S_Baker, come to Toronto, you'd be welcome, problem is, you'd have to assault someone to get arrested! Protest all you want, I'm sure you'd be able to create quite the group in no time, just make sure to kick out the homeless that join you since the government won't listen to them so they won't help your cause!

Let's give'm the big boot!


----------



## GAP

I disagreed with a member of my AIT platoon (he was Canadian) deserting back to Canada on his first leave, and I disagree with it now. I should think the Immigration Minister would have a simple task of amending the refugee rules to disallow military deserters from a friendly nation


----------



## George Wallace

Actually those rules are in place.  These guys, however, found Leftie Civil Rights Lawyers who went for a Civil Rights angle that made the US look like a State that would greatly discriminate against them if they should be returned; along the lines of a Third World Dictatorship or something.  We all know that Defence is flawed, but it got into the Court System and had to be tried.  If only the Judges had the common sense to tell them that it was a BS Defence and throw it out, then we wouldn't have this mess.


----------



## scoutfinch

With all due respect, S_Baker... Canadian law prevails north of the 49th parallel and the pieces of crap which are claiming refugee status are entitled to due process.  I am familiar with the Canadian legal system and I am confident that you can  have said pieces of crap back once the matter has worked its way through the system.  

I do have sympathy for conscripted soldiers who have a moral or ethical aversion to service.  I do not want to see anyone FORCED to betray their own moral code against their will; hence, I can find some room for those who fled the Vietnam war.... but as you can probably tell, I have little sympathy for people who take the system for all they can get out of it, KNOWING what may be demanded of them and then cut and run when they actually have to show some gonads.  

These pieces of crap were not draft dodgers.  One of them decided to join the military because he was 21 years old and had 3 kids and wanted to earn more tha $7.50/hr as a welder.  He claims that he was told he was going to a non-deployable unit and that he would NEVER have to go overseas to fight.  (Gimme a fu*#@^  break -- whatever).  This particular piece of crap decided that he didn't like the job that paid him much better than his crappy civie job and thought he would just quit (LOSER!)  As an aside, while he and his wife were on the run, living in hotels in Philly, they decided to have another child.  Nice.  I am overwhelmed by their sense of responsibility. (I need a gremlin that has a hammer banging on its head -- the *duh* gremlin, we shall call it!)

While I feel sorry for this piece of crap's pathetic existance, he probably should clue into the fact that he VOLUNTEERED for service, reaped the benefits of service and should probably pony up.  These clowns are not refugees.  Much like *economic refugee claimants* (ie.  I can't make enough money in my home country therefore I am a refugee and should be permitted refugee status in Canada)  of the 80s  -- which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada -- these types of refugee claims makes a mockery of those legitimate refugees who are fleeing horrific circumstance in order to salvage what is left of their respective lives.


----------



## scoutfinch

These clowns are not applying to come to Canada as immigrants.  They are claiming refugee status, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Immigration is necessary for Canada.  As it stands now, we are soon to be desperate for taxpayers in order to afford the baby boomers as they hit retirement.  I don't care where those taxpayers come from.  (By the way, it is a myth that most immigrants are a drain on the system.  In fact, most immigrants are employed or are employable when they arrive in Canada.)


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe you could take a few million mexican's off our hands in the spirit of NAFTA ? :


----------



## scoutfinch

Hmmmmm... are they skilled workers or unskilled labourers?

We'll take the immigrants who have skills or $250,000 capital to invest in a job-making enterprise.  

Unskilled?  Thanks for coming out but you can't come here.


----------



## JBP

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Hmmmmm... are they skilled workers or unskilled labourers?
> 
> We'll take the immigrants who have skills or $250,000 capital to invest in a job-making enterprise.
> 
> Unskilled?  Thanks for coming out but you can't come here.



Problem is, if we decide to only take those who are wealthy or could start/make jobs in the country we'd end up having an empty Canada. Especially since our death rate is higher than our birth rate, the only thing that keeps us growing IS immigration. I hate to say it, but it's true. I'm not racist at all either and I fully believe that many immigrants can come to Canada and do US some good and themselves. I believe those that come here with good intentions do well, even if they get stuck driving a taxi for 5 years while all thier paperwork straightens out. Those that come here on honest good terms work thier a$$es off, much harder then many native-born (as in born here, not North American Natives) Canadians have had to in thier lives. 

Anyway... Side topic.

Bash on lads


----------



## scoutfinch

(1)  Canadian law requires that due process, including a determination under a refugee application, be carried out prior to extradition.  That is the application of Canadian law to which I was referring.  Conflicts of law doctrines would require this to be completed prior to meeting international obligations. 

(2)  1812 was almost 200 years ago.  Canada didn't exist as a country.  So what the Brits did then is entirely irrelevant to me with respect to this discussion.

(3)  Since we are mixing apples and oranges and then comparing them willy-nilly in our discussion of treaties signed between our two countries, how 'bout you guys give us our $5 billion back from softwood lumbar tariffs and will send you back your two a** holes that deserted.  Deal?  

By the way, we see eye to eye on the desertion question.  I have no doubt you will get these clowns back.  What you do with them is up to you.... just make sure it is painful, okay? 8)


----------



## karl28

How about instead of 5 billion cash for the deserters we get 5 billion in arms deals get the CF some new equipment  to replacing aging equipment. Probably wont happen but its just a thought .


----------



## scoutfinch

For the sake of accuracy, the deserter to which I was referring above is Joshua Key.  For particulars on Key, see http://www.cbcunlocked.com/artman/publish/article_243.shtml

And for the record, he was *loose* in the US for 14 months after deserting while on leave from Iraq before coming to Canada.  It doesn't seem the US had a lot of interest in arresting him before he came across the border.   :.  So, I think there may be an element of "thou protesteth too much" when the US starts screaming for us to return on the basis of the violation of international treaties.  

Hell, I think the States should be grateful because atleast now they know where to find 'em.

edited to add another link to information on Key:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060330/war_deserter_cp_060330/20060330?hub=Canada


----------



## scoutfinch

I should note that Key is the only deserter to have seen combat.  I do not think this will change his refugee claim although it may give him grounds for a appeal of any decision not falling in his favour whereas the others will all fall in the same class of claimant.  Once the one claim is finally rejected, the rest will follow in fairly short order although it may take a trip to the Supreme Court of Canada before it is done.


----------



## HItorMiss

Are we not bound by NATO law's to not harbour deserter's from allied Nations?

I mean if I went AWOL from the CF and say tried to do anything in a NATO country I'm pretty sure I could expect to see that countires MP's arrive shortly with Canadian officials in tow to return my butt to the good old True North strong and free, and I would say rightly so.


----------



## William Webb Ellis

OK, i just listened to Sounds Like Canada while driving in the car. They interviewed another (to use CBC's term) "war resistor".  

Why is this fella and others like him on the airwaves on my tax dollars?  The CBC is becoming more transparent in it's view on the war in Iraqi and by extension the war in Afghanistan.  This fella, I believe his name was Darryl, said he always wanted to fight in a war....Well he go this chance and appeared not to like it.

The CBC also had the gall to ask him his opinion on Canadian troops in Afghanistan...guess what he is opposed.

The CBC is really ticking me off.....


----------



## scoutfinch

The problem is that there are two legal regimes at play here at the same time and the two regimes have conflicting results:  Canada's domestic refugee law and Canada's international commitments resulting from treaties.  The issue is which law is Canada to follow and in what order:  domestic law (due process during the refugee claimant process) or international law (extradition or NATO commitments).  

The principles of conflicts of law for these types of problems suggest that Canada is obliged to deal with the domestic law process prior to dealing with the international legal issue in these circumstances.


----------



## HItorMiss

W.W.E:

I heard the same show on CBC this morning, I was literally yelling at me radio (like that would do any good)

I think I will write to that show and ask where do they get off asking a deserter about his vies on our troops and their deployments..seeing as they have the _*BALL'S*_ to do their job with no complaint. The gall of the that thing to even suggest he knows what he is talking about has me riled up even now.

Shame on the CBC for the tripe they just put on the airways.

Now back to the topic at hand:

Why should domestic law take precedent over international treaties?

If we saw fit to sign that agreement we should be bound by it over our own federal law.


----------



## scoutfinch

That is problematic because the fundamental principles of international relations would suggest that Canada should make decisions with the intent to only advance its own interests.  Permitting international obligations to *trump* domestic law results in a greater commitment to the interests of other countries than to the laws of  Canada. 

At the end of the day, these deserters will be returned to the United States to face justice there.  In the meantime, I do not want the integrity of the Canadian legal system to be impunged for the sake of pandering to American political interests.  As I mentioned earlier, Joshua Keys was in the US for 14 months after deserting before he came to Canada.  The US only started making noise about getting him back after he came here.  It has been made into a political matter, not a legal or defence matter by all sides involved.


----------



## HItorMiss

Let's be honest Finch, had Keye's stayed quiet upon his arrival in Canada the US would still not know where he was, If he was in the US for 14 months I would hazard a guess that he laid low, it's not easy to find a needle in the haystack Finch. I would not say that they showed no intrest in finding him.

In fact I would say they did what all MP's do they go to your known areas of intrest and ask around they don;t find you they put you on the book's and wait for a lead, If I went AWOL tomorrow I'm pretty sure I could stay in Canada a fairly long time before popping up on any radar's; so long as I didn't go where expected or have been known to go in the past.



As for trumping Canadian Law, that precedent was set by the Hague long ago, If I can deport a War criminal to face charges regardless of the hosting nations Law's on the matter then I am sure Canada could deport (with armed escort) these deserters with little fuss.

Also again I'll say if we signed a treaty saying "If X happens our response will be Y" then I would say we are obligated to do what we put on that paper regardless of our Federal Law's.



			
				scoutfinch said:
			
		

> That is problematic because the fundamental principles of international relations would suggest that Canada should make decisions with the intent to only advance its own interests.



My point exactly! we signed said agreement to advance our intrest, now we have to pony up for whatever that bought us in the past, If I were the US Govt I would be taking Canada to task for this in NATO and other areas...In fact I'm surprised they have not and that our Allies haven't either.


----------



## Mick

> As for trumping Canadian Law, that precedent was set by the Hague long ago, If I can deport a War criminal to face charges regardless of the hosting nations Law's on the matter then I am sure Canada could deport (with armed escort) these deserters with little fuss.



Fact of the matter is, when the Government of Canada signs or ratifies any treaty, it must issue a domestic Canadian law in order to comply with the treaty, unless a suitable law that complies with the treaty already exists.  Nothing "trumps" anything.  Canadian law provides the mechanisms with which the Government honours its treaty obligations.  International laws only work if domestic laws comply with them...Canada is merely doing what our domestic laws require.

So, if Canadian Law requires that these dudes be given time in front of a Canadian tribunal or what-not, so be it...at the end of the day they'll be sent packing, as soon as the Government is satisfied that it's covered all of the bases.  And given the Refugee Board's initial Hinzman decision, looks like the Government ain't buyin it.

BTW, I have no sympathy for these guys: they knew exactly what they were VOLUNTEERING for..."don't let the door hit you on the ass..."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1146779411922&call_pageid=970599119419

 Canada should welcome U.S. deserters, Layton says
May 5, 2006. 01:00 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU


OTTAWA—American deserters dodging military duty in Iraq share Canadian values and should be welcomed in this country, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.

"It makes a lot of sense to welcome these young people, recognize that they've taken a position that's exactly the same position that Canadians took," he said yesterday. "It would be inappropriate to send them back in my view ... We're glad they've chosen our country." 

Layton urged the Conservative government to grant sanctuary to young soldiers, noting Canada became a safe haven for Americans seeking to avoid the Vietnam draft more than 30 years ago.

"We should be looking at it," he said. "These young people are courageous individuals. They've made a decision of conscience."

Layton denied that it would upset ties with the U.S. if Canada suddenly became a place of refuge for those fleeing that country's unpopular war.

"There are tens of thousands of people and their families now all across our country who came to us in an earlier period around the Vietnam War. I don't think that disrupted relations between the two countries."

His comments followed an Ottawa visit by Cindy Sheehan, who has become an outspoken anti-war campaigner after the death of her son Casey in Iraq. She used a Parliament Hill news conference yesterday to urge Canada to offer sanctuary to U.S. deserters.

When Casey expressed his misgivings about fighting in Iraq before his deployment, Sheehan offered to drive him to Canada. He was in Iraq five days before being killed in April 2004.

Responding to Sheehan's pitch yesterday, Immigration Minister Monte Solberg told reporters: "If Mrs. Sheehan has a bone to pick with the U.S. administration about the war in Iraq she should take that to Washington. It'll be Canadians who decide Canadian immigration policy." 

I wonder if he realizes how abhorent his remarks are to every CF Member past and present? Way to go Jack... :

EDIT- modified to add link.


----------



## Trinity

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> OTTAWA—American deserters dodging military duty in Iraq share Canadian values and should be welcomed in this country, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.



I admit. I voted NDP.

I will NEVER AGAIN vote NDP.


----------



## Big Foot

Wow, so Jack is saying that we value busting a contract just to get out of doing something our job requires of us? I wonder if he would be so supportive if any member of the CF decided to desert because they didn't want to go to say, Afghanistan? This man is all the more reason to never vote NDP.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Yappy little ghetto dog.


----------



## military granny

I wonder if they would find *anything* in his head if they did a CAT scan, or if would be just empty space?


----------



## Chimo

Jack needs to get his head out of his fourth point of contact. We, Canadians,  should be immediately turning these felons over to the appropriate US authority for prosecution. 

They fully understood the hazards of their chosen profession when signing on the line. Time to live up to the responsibility you made to the country and her citizens.


----------



## vonGarvin

Jack refers to these deserters as heroes.  They are cowards.  They would be courageous and true to their word if they stood up _in their own country_ and said "Yes, I volunteered of my own free will to defend America.  This war in Iraq is not in line with the defense of America and I will not participate.  You may try me and judge me, but I will stand by my decision and live with the consequences."
Since they ran away, claiming to be in a similar situation as the draftees in the 1960s and 1970s during the Vietnam War, they are nothing but faceless cowards.


----------



## HDE

Jack has gotta play to his audience :boring:

I saw the press conference with the Sheehan lady and whatever folks are putting her out in public to make their point should be ashamed of themselves,


----------



## military granny

Layton urged the Conservative government to grant sanctuary to young soldiers, noting Canada became a safe haven for Americans seeking to avoid the Vietnam draft more than 30 years ago.

"We should be looking at it," he said. "These young people are courageous individuals. They've made a decision of conscience."

If this is what he calls courage then he had better do his best to cover up that yellow streak down his back.


----------



## TMM

I'm a bit dazed after a small car accident and no caffeine so correct my history if it is wrong. 

As far as I know there is no draft in the US right now; there was 40 years ago. The people who came to Canada to avoid the draft back then had not yet  signed on the dotted line. The people who enlisted and are now running off because "I just signed on for a free education - no one told me I might have to fight" I don't have much sympathy for.

It's one thing to not join the military; it's not for everyone. It's quite another when you actually sign on of your own free will and then run off because the government didn't let you pick and choose the war you wanted to fight.

If the hippie has figured this out, why the hell haven't they?

P.S. - Mr. Layton you're really not helping the lefties with stuff like this!


----------



## Docherty

Apparently the new name for these cowards are "War Resistors."


----------



## William Webb Ellis

Jack, Jack......First or shave that god awful 'stache.

I shames me to read this type of drivel.  What if this is picked up by the media in the US.   

commom hard working US citizen: "Let me get this straight, them Canadian's let the terrorists come into the States through there country, and now they are harbouring coward."

It was however nice to read Monty's verbal slap.....


----------



## Scott

Methinks Jack just inserted his foot directly into his yap. If you haven't Jack then just shut up!

I'm disgusted with this. Can't wait to see what Major Baker has to say but I bet he's on my side ;D

To those from Ottawa looking in: Do not listen to Jack's urging, send those law breakers and cowards back where they belong. If they must have due process then give it to them but please do allow their stink to pollute my country any more than it should.

To the reporters eavesdropping on this: You see Jack more than I do - tell him he still ain't got my vote.


----------



## paracowboy

What a reprehensible clown. To turn around after his hypocritical stance on Afghanistan, on top of his hypocritical attendance of a private clinic, and mouth off with something this assinine, this repulsive...

I'm completely at a loss for words. Which don't happen much, as everyone is aware.

how can ANYONE vote for this guy?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

> I admit. I voted NDP.
> 
> I will NEVER AGAIN vote NDP.



Its good that you confess, now repent repent repent


----------



## TMM

I will also confess...that I have met Jack a few times and am surprised that a man who is that sharp would come up with stuff like this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Wow, so Jack is saying that we value busting a contract just to get out of doing something our job requires of us?



Typical NDP,........what was one of the first thing that the Ontario NDP's did when they got power? Yup, passed a law to circumvent their supposed "sacred cow" the  OPs collective agreement[ contract] to mandate we take unpaid days off. [Rae Days]
At least Mr. Harris had the parts to tell us he was trying to screw us.........and waited for the collective agreement to run out.


----------



## medicineman

military granny said:
			
		

> I wonder if they would find *anything* in his head if they did a CAT scan, or if would be just empty space?



Granny, let's put things this way - I think if you cracked his head open, the whole world would in fact be sucked right in.

BTW Mr Layton - draft dodging and willful breach of contract, desertion and borderline treason are actually very different from eachother.  Don't compare apples and oranges, but most important of all:  DON'T SMOKE CRACK!!

MM


----------



## aesop081

Trinity said:
			
		

> I admit. I voted NDP.
> 
> I will NEVER AGAIN vote NDP.



Avert your eyes army.ca members....he may take on other forms.......


----------



## ArmyRick

Once again I rant.

I rant because so many Canadians are ignorant!

How is it that idiots like Layton have even been elected into power?

When will our people see the truth that blindly beleiving and doing anything left wing does not mean your Canadian?

On a similar note, I told someone recently I voted Conservative (we have a conservative MP in our riding) and this unnamed, fat, welfare collecting cheat I know through mutual aquitances basically called me a war mongering pig that wants to destroy our "beautiful nation"  :

Seriously I am all for free speech but not when it has created the myths and bullsh*t that flies around this country.

NO U.S. DESERTERS UP HERE, THEY VOLUNTEERED, THEY SHOULD STAY AND ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES !!!  :threat:


----------



## Brad Sallows

>American deserters dodging military duty in Iraq share Canadian values and should be welcomed in this country, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.

It's not quite the same thing, but I wonder how Jack! feels about people educated at partial taxpayer expense who "desert" Canada in order to "dodge" Canadian taxes.  They are certainly welcome in the US.  At what point does duty (an obligation) kick in, and under what circumstances is one truly justified in shirking it?  How instructive it is that Mr Layton, who presumably aspires to be some sort of leader, thinks blowing off one's obligations - entered into voluntarily and contractually - is a "Canadian Value".


----------



## camochick

I think we should challenge Jack Layton to leave the comfort of his home, toss away those pricey suits and actually visit Afghanistan. Why not actually see what the troops are doing so you can actually form an opinion. Wow, it really is tin foil hate week on the forums hahahaha.  >


----------



## Trinity

camochick said:
			
		

> I think we should challenge Jack Layton to leave the comfort of his home, t



They did that once...  after they caught him living in public housing.


----------



## TMM

Trinity said:
			
		

> They did that once...  after they caught him living in public housing.



It was not public housing. Layton and Chow lived in a co-op. Big difference. They paid full market value for their rent.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hmmmm, not sure about that TMM.....maybe media spin but I thought it was a Govt. subsidized co-op for low income workers and he shared with Chow Baby.

Research time......


----------



## paracowboy

He is a man of no honour. No integrity. No courage.

It disgusts me that a creature like this can rise to some sort of leadership position.

"This we defend."


----------



## TMM

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, not sure about that TMM.....maybe media spin but I thought it was a Govt. subsidized co-op for low income workers and he shared with Chow Baby.
> 
> Research time......



He lived in the same co-op as a friend of mine way back then. Some residents there had subsidised units, including I believe Chow's mum but most were not.


----------



## Scott

How in the name of all that is Holy (help me here Trinity) can any of his supporters buy into this shit? Seriously.


----------



## Trinity

Scott said:
			
		

> How in the name of all that is Holy (help me here Trinity) can any of his supporters buy into this crap? Seriously.



sorry...

Being a former supporter, I have no idea.  See, I had to leave after he opened his mouth.

Hopefully others will follow my lead.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Wow, so Jack is saying that we value busting a contract just to get out of doing something our job requires of us? I wonder if he would be so supportive if any member of the CF decided to desert because they didn't want to go to say, Afghanistan? This man is all the more reason to never vote NDP.



I'd love to see Jack yhelp if they broke his golden-plated pension contract...


----------



## Danjanou

TMM said:
			
		

> I will also confess...that I have met Jack a few times and am surprised that a man who is that sharp would come up with stuff like this.



I'm surprised that you consider Jack sharp.  ;D Yappy, self righteous, opinionated- sure, over educated and boorish- most likely, sharp naah.

For the record the Co-op was market rent (I used to live next to it ). Not sure though if they were originally paying market rent though 8) And IIRC at that time in pre Condo boom in downtown TO "market rent" for a down town co-op was significantly lower than real rent for a private for profit apt building due to the low vacancy rates and land lords charging whatever they could get for a unit. Either way you look at it Jack and Olivia were getting a sweet deal especially considering their then combined salaries as City Council types.

Speaking of Olivia anyone read this month's Toronto Life article that basically implies she or her supporters were guilty of voter fraud in the last election? :


----------



## a_majoor

Jump to this topic and read the article. It may have interesting insight into what is actually going on inside Smiling Jack's head:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42941.0.html


----------



## RangerRay

The deserters should be arrested and returned to the American authorities poste haste.  They are fugitives from a country with whom we have an extradition treaty with.  If they are so "principled" then they should be more than willing to do their time in Leavensworth like real men (or women, if the case may be).  To me, they are worse than draft dodgers.  Deserters signed on the dotted line, trained and served with their mates, then deserted their mates when they needed him most.  Draft dodgers never signed anything, never trained with mates, and never let their mates down as a result.

As for the Vietnam draft dodgers, I'd like to round them up and deport them too.  They too, broke American law and fled to a country with an extradition treaty.  The influx of American socialists into our society coincided with a sharp left turn for this country.  Again, if they were so principled, they should have been willing to emulate Cassius Clay (Mohammed Ali) and do their time in prison.


----------



## vonGarvin

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Again, if they were so principled, they should have been willing to emulate Cassius Clay (Mohammed Ali) and do their time in prison.


EXCELLENT example of true courage: making a decision, standing by it and then accepting the consequences.  Running away and claiming "persecution" is absolute garbage.  Well said.


----------



## canadianblue

What a joke, and what an insult to those Canadian's that have lost their lives in other ways. These "soldiers" decided on their own to join the military and sign a contract. What they are doing is more cowardly then anything, and the only reason they are doing it is because now their afraid. I signed a contract, and will live up to it until its finished, which should be the same for every other service member.


----------



## Kirkhill

> "In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law......That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly and with a willingness to accept the penalty."



Martin Luther King.

Muhammed Ali lived that.  Hinzmann et al have not and are not.


----------



## TMM

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Martin Luther King.
> 
> Muhammed Ali lived that.  Hinzmann et al have not and are not.



+1.

I will sound like an old fart here but I no longer care. 

Unfortunately this attitude of entitlement is not limited to the military but to all walks of life. I deal with university co-op students and they have no clue about consequences. If you believe in something enough to write a letter, desert, protest or partake in civil disobedience you've only done part of the deal. The other part of the deal is that *YOU* not your parents, not your colleagues, not your brothers in arms, but *YOU* have to take responsibility for whatever happens because of that; not run, not duck and cover, not fork over the chequebook. Anyone can stand up and say "I believe this is wrong" "I believe this is right" but very few are willing to pay the piper for singing their tune.

Rant over - off to find a virtual rocking chair and knitting needles.


----------



## medicineman

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Running away and claiming "persecution" is absolute garbage.  Well said.



I'm surprised many haven't filed for refugee status based on they might face "certain death" if required to serve out their service contracts.

MM


----------



## Danjanou

S_Baker said:
			
		

> NDP - well Comrade Jack I am not impressed.  Deserters are my favorite subject  >



Major, how big is the trunk in that car of yours?  >


----------



## Peanutssuck

GOODBYE TROLL


----------



## Danjanou

medicineman said:
			
		

> I'm surprised many haven't filed for refugee status based on they might face "certain death" if required to serve out their service contracts.
> 
> MM



A couple have tried and been denied. They are now starting the lengthy and convoluted appeal after appeal process oft used by foreign drug dealers and other criminals who prefer to stay here and suck at the public trough.  I understand the majority were watching to see how this turned out prior to flodding Immigration with their own claims. :


----------



## aluc

NPD = anarchy

Simply thinking about the moustache makes me shiver! :-\


----------



## Chimo

There is another way an American "Soldier" may seek refuge and that is through Contentious Objectors Status, an Army Regulation that may be applied through the Chain of Command. With this option available, it places Jack into an even weaker position. 

"Conscientious Objection
The issue of the conscientious objector in a volunteer Army also received a great deal of publicity. Inevitably, some Regular Army and Army Reserve soldiers ordered to deploy decided to apply for conscientious objector status. The relatively small number of applicants was not surprising, considering that these soldiers had voluntarily entered the military. However, the small number of potential objectors showed that critics, who believed that many young people entered the military for educational benefits and did not intend to go to war, underestimated the sense of responsibility felt by these soldiers. 
Active-duty and reserve soldiers who decided to apply for objector status were free to do so, but the Army
 required them to deploy with their units while it considered their applications. Those who submitted applications were often assigned duties that provided a minimum practicable conflict with their asserted beliefs. Between August 1990 and April 1991 the Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board reviewed 131 requests from soldiers in the Regular Army and 10 from the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The board approved 89 of the above cases. Seven of the soldiers withdrew their requests.79 

Several reservists and active-duty soldiers who declared themselves conscientious objectors received a great deal of press coverage. Spc. Stephanie Atkinson was the first reservist who refused to report, claiming objector status. Atkinson held that she had joined the Army Reserve for the educational benefits and claimed that she had never really considered." 

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/www/www9.htm

If a Soldier truly believes they are in the wrong business, they need to find the moral courage and address it through their Chain of Command and not through a secondary country like Canada.


----------



## The_Falcon

Not to sound like a wet blanket or anything, but shouldn't this by moved to the already lengthy topic about these yellow bellied bast@rds, cause we are basically going over the same old stuff here, cept now Comrade Layton has added his two rubles.


----------



## medicineman

Octavianus said:
			
		

> NPD = anarchy
> 
> Simply thinking about the moustache makes me shiver! :-\




NDP= Not Destined for Power

MM


----------



## Infanteer

I'm sure Jack Layton would call for sending them back if they were needed to invade Sudan....


----------



## Armymatters

The problem is Layton is a bit beholden to the more left-wing section of the NDP, which has its power base in Ontario. Layton has to pretty much appeal to this section to ensure he survives a leadership review, or garner enough votes to remain in Parliament. Once you leave Ontario however, the members of the NDP are generally more strongly centralist, such as the British Columbian chapter of the NDP, which is fairly strongly centralist (of which I am a member). Layton sympathises with the former NPI faction of the party, which was more left wing, but not as left wing as the real nut jobs in the party (re: Socialist Caucus). We'll see what will happen to him at the next leadership review.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the 11+ Liberal Party leadership hopefuls seem determined to paint Jack Layton as "the Enemy" and move the Liberal party more left, I wonder how much of this is "theatrical" in the sense he wants to seem left wing and Anti American enough to keep his people from flocking to (say) a Bob Rae Liberal Party?

With a rudderless Liberal Party and a cluless NDP contending for the political left, you could be forgiven for thinking the Conservatives might be able to achieve a majority in the next election. It is Mr Harper's to loose.


----------



## Cloud Cover

a_majoor said:
			
		

> With a rudderless Liberal Party and a cluless NDP contending for the political left, you could be forgiven for thinking the Conservatives might be able to achieve a majority in the next election. It is Mr Harper's to loose.



The press corps will do their best to stop a majority for any government. They have a succesful formula to engineer perpetual minority governments by taking up the cause of the moment to cause governments to flip flop on issues. Even Harper is having a tough time staying on message.


----------



## Danjanou

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The problem is Layton is a bit beholden to the more left-wing section of the NDP, which has its power base in Ontario. Layton has to pretty much appeal to this section to ensure he survives a leadership review, or garner enough votes to remain in Parliament. Once you leave Ontario however, the members of the NDP are generally more strongly centralist, such as the British Columbian chapter of the NDP, which is fairly strongly centralist (of which I am a member). Layton sympathises with the former NPI faction of the party, which was more left wing, but not as left wing as the real nut jobs in the party (re: Socialist Caucus). We'll see what will happen to him at the next leadership review.



Hmm I wonder if that little blip in the late 1970’s that saw the Bennet Soc Cred Dynasty  defeated briefly by the NDP under Dave Barret had anything to do with it. The NDP that came to power then under Premier Barret IIRC were so far to the left that they made Bob Rae’s little experiment in socialism here in Ontario look like Ronald Reagan. Like Rae this protest government lasted one term and was promptly tossed.

I guess the NDP out in lotus land regrouped and developed them selves as more centrist.

Anyways, minor thread hi-jack there. Now back to your regularily scheduled lefty bashing ;D


----------



## HollywoodHitman

Jack Layton and his band of left wing wackos will undoubtedly contest our involvement in the Sudan if we are sent there. If we are sent there, he will also end up criticizing the manner in which we do our business. 

The only way I would vote NDP is if someone took my cold dead hand and scratched an X on the ballot for me.

Jack Layton, you and your like minded non militaristic cronies can sit back on the blanket of freedom that the military you detest provides you. Between the hits off your pipe and sticking pins in little dolls of Stephen Harper, maybe you can come up with some new schtik? Your material is boring. :threat:


----------



## vonGarvin

I've emailed resisters@sympatico.ca <resisters@sympatico.ca> and have been involved in a "discussion" with a Mr. "Z" of this organisation.  He is re-writing history.  IF you wish to be witness to what has transpired in these discussions (both what I sent and what I received), let me know.  Here is a brief:
1st send: I mentioned that these guys are dupes (the War Resisters group) for supporting these guys and that the deserters don't face the same situation as the Vietnam "Draft Dodgers"
1st Reply: "the War Resisters Support Campaign will continue to work to ensure that Canada lives up to its great tradition of welcoming Americans who refuse to fight in aggressive wars "
2nd send: "those "resisters" (read: deserters) are criminals, and as such, should be sent back to face whatever faces them for making that decision.  THAT is true courage."
2nd Reply: "We ignored you back then, and we’ll ignore you now, because we know you are a small minority...Please don’t write again."
3rd Send: "You may re-write history any way you wish.  I am NOT in the minority, and I will continue to express my opinion freely, just as you do, and just as you should."
3rd Reply: "There you go writing again. I mention the “minority” issue not to prove I’m right, but to make it clear that the war resisters will likely, in time, be allowed to stay in Canada, because most Canadians are fine with that.  PLEASE no more of your thoughts. I have gotten your point – everyone here is a coward, you’re a hero. Thank you and goodbye."
4th Send: " I certainly hope you truly don't believe that just because someone has a minority (or popular) position, that it makes them right.  If it were, there would be no gay rights now, no women's rights, segregation, etc.  Right is right is right, and regardless of right or wrong, EVERY ONE has an opinion and may freely express it."
4th Reply: "This will conclude our correspondence. I understand you feel strongly about this issue, and I respect your right to your views. But I do not have time to engage in further exchanges with you. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this."

This guy is a piece of work.  He says that he is doing the same noble work as Martin Luther King (though, admittedly, not with the same grace, etc).  I would offer that you email him and state how you feel about these deserters in our country, whether you support them or otherwise.  He is trying to get his message out, but refuses to listen or even want to listen to any dissenting arguments.  He is condenscending, and holier than thou (in my opinion) and not once did I attack him: no ad hominem attacks, please.

Many thanks for listening to the result of my frustrating exchange of emails


Garvin out


----------



## Kirkhill

Hey Von Garvin

I just e-mailed Z to let him know that if you are in the minority it is a minority of 2.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill:
Thanks, dude.  PS: that email address is publicly available on their website, though Mr. Z has been using his own (I believe) in his later correspondence with me.  Out of respect for his privacy, I have not and will not post that email address, just the one available publically on his site (which I hyperlinked from cbc.ca)


----------



## military granny

Edmonton Sun editorial: Dont fight Jack's war

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/05/11/1573962.html

What do you guys think?


----------



## GO!!!

military granny said:
			
		

> What do you guys think?



Excellent editorial, I could'nt have said it better myself.

Methinks Jack is only alienating more voters with opportunistic press conferences like the last one.


----------



## William Webb Ellis

Can you post the "resisters" website?


----------



## vonGarvin

http://www.resisters.ca/

Enjoy


Garvin out


----------



## Edward Campbell

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> http://www.resisters.ca/
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> 
> Garvin out



Can you be surprised?  Here is an excerpt from http://www.resisters.ca/declaration.html 



> We, the undersigned, call on the Canadian government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and the treaties to which it is a signatory, by making provision for US war objectors to have sanctuary in this country.
> 
> June Callwood, journalist and broadcaster
> Shirley Douglas, actor
> Maude Barlow, author and activist
> David Suzuki, broadcaster and environmentalist
> Steven Bush, author, senior lecturer and war resister
> Anton Kuerti, musician
> Bill King, musician and war resister
> Heather Mallick, journalist
> Naomi Klein, author
> Jane Orion Smith, General Secretary, Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
> Margaret Clare Ford, Clerk, Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
> John Hagan, Professor of Law and war resister
> Gale Zoe Garnett, artist
> Zafar Bangash, scholar and journalist
> Wayne Samuelson, President, Ontario Federation of Labour
> Canadian Labour Congress
> Canadian Arab Federation
> Ron Hawkins, musician
> Buzz Hargrove, President, Canadian Auto Workers
> Paul Cliche, author and activist
> Amir Khadir, spokesperson, Union des Forces Progressistes, Québec
> ahdri zhina mandiela, theatre artist
> John Fraser, author
> Moyez G. Vassanji, author
> Ann-Marie MacDonald, author
> Fiona McCall, author and sailor
> David Cronenberg, film maker
> James Lockyer, lawyer
> Françoise David, activist
> Sarah Polley, actor
> Students Administrative Council, University of Toronto
> Jean-Claude Parrot
> Canadian Federation of Students - Ontario
> Union des Forces Progressistes
> Madeleine Parent, trade-unionist and feminist
> Martin Duckworth, film maker
> Bruce Cockburn, musician
> Pierre Jasmin, musician
> Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author
> Arthur Sandborn, trade-unionist
> André Frappier, trade-unionist



This is the (inbred) 'nobility' of the loony left; they have a collective IQ in the low one digit range and are barely able to breathe unaided.  Thankfully the Government of Canada will give them all the attention they have earned: none, nada, zilch, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## a_majoor

> We, the undersigned, call on the Canadian government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and the treaties to which it is a signatory...



Well, that simplifies things. *Since we should uphold our legal and treaty obligations, those deserters should be in custody and on their way to the United States by the end of the day*. See, sometimes the Looney Left can get it right too.  :


----------



## vonGarvin

Funny how they spin things.  In one email response, Mr "Z" said that "there is no Canadian Law that prohibits one from deserting the US armed forces, therefore, they are not criminals".  HA!  But I suppose that there IS a Canadian Law that prohibits Americans from murdering Americans in America?!?!  /sarcasm off/

I just found it amusing that Mr. Z would have none of my arguments, told me to stop emailing, and resorted to ad hominem attacks as opposed to countering my arguments that these guys, right or wrong, should go home and face the music (read: accept responsibility for their actions).  After all, Hinzman, for example, is/was an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne.  Sure, he joined before 9/11, but who cares?  Had he stayed, I'm certain he would have been out of the forces by now.  Perhaps if nothing else, he should repay all pay and benefits to the US military for breach of contract (in addition to any sentencing if convicted by a tribunal)


----------



## Danjanou

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Methinks Jack is only alienating more voters with opportunistic press conferences like the last one.



I hate to disagree with you there but unfortunately it seems that here is an almost endless supply of basically well meaning but naïve hand wringers in this country with their collectives heads shoved so far up their fifth point of contact that we’re in no danger of not hearing the Patron Saint of the Sound Bite and his cheesy porno mustache thrill us with his self righteous and condescending diatribes for some time to come.


----------



## Kirkhill

Given the high proportion of musicians and the artistically inclined in the list of supporters, perhaps a song is appropriate......

"It seems to me I've heard that song before......"

Fortunately many of them are approaching pensionable years. Perhaps they won't miss the government grants that have kept them gainfully employed in the past.

Cheers.


----------



## nd.07

I found this website... 

http://www.jeremyhinzman.net/faq.html

It seems his grandfather is the only member of his family who thinks clearly.


----------



## ArmyRick

I just emailed the web site telling him to get the F*ck out of our country...


----------



## ArmyRick

They have the audacity to ask for donations on Hinzman's "feel sorry for me" web site? What nerve they have  :threat:


----------



## HDE

Ummm...

   Wouldn't the heroic thing have been to stay, make your case and deal with the consequences?  Instead we get this posturing phony trying to recycle himself into "a guy who ran away because it was the right thing to do".


----------



## TMM

HDE said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the heroic thing have been to stay, make your case and deal with the consequences?



No kidding. Soldiers don't get to pick and chose their wars. If they decide to do so, then they must face the consequences, especially since these guys joined of their own free will.

Who would care about Gandhi or Mandela if they fled? The difference between heroes and zeroes is bollocks. Far too many people missing a pair. I'd love to donate some to Hinzman but if he can't grow is own...


----------



## HDE

Exactly!

  Gandhi and Mandela shamed their captors because they stood up for their beliefs, took the pain and grabbed the moral high ground.  Then there's this clown... :crybaby:


----------



## GO!!!

I have'nt seen young Jeremy in the paper lately (been in the field), any word on how long before he can spend some time in Leavenworth?


----------



## RangerRay

Sorry to derail this thread, but this needs rebutting:



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Once you leave Ontario however, the members of the NDP are generally more strongly centralist, such as the British Columbian chapter of the NDP, which is fairly strongly centralist ...



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I'm not sure where you were during Red Dave's short reign in the 70s, or more recently, the Harcourt/Clarke tag team destruction of BC in the 90s, but the BC "chapter of the NDP" is hardly "centralist".  They are rank unionist and environmental ideologues of the first order who succeeded in destroying the best economy in Canada through socialist taxation and overregulation policies.


----------



## Armymatters

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Sorry to derail this thread, but this needs rebutting:
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
> 
> I'm not sure where you were during Red Dave's short reign in the 70s, or more recently, the Harcourt/Clarke tag team destruction of BC in the 90s, but the BC "chapter of the NDP" is hardly "centralist".  They are rank unionist and environmental ideologues of the first order who succeeded in destroying the best economy in Canada through socialist taxation and overregulation policies.



1. I wasn't even born yet in the 1970's, and I was too young to vote in the 1990's.  :
2. The _new_ BC chapter is more strongly centralist than before. The selection of Carole James and her policy of modernization of the BC NDP's ideology and internal structures has moved the party firmly towards the centre, which has alienated the more left wing part of the party, but has built a broader base of support for the party.


----------



## Brad Sallows

So you think BC voters will permit themselves to be fooled a third time?  Campbell's Liberals will have to get pretty fast and loose before that happens.


----------



## RangerRay

There is no such thing as a "centralist" in BC politics.  You're either a free-enterpriser, or you're a socialist.  No middle ground here.

Centralist parties here do very poorly here (pre-1991 Liberals, 2005 Democratic Reform).

EDIT: If the "new" NDP is much more moderate, then why are they tanking in the polls?  Why are they a less effective opposition than when they had only two seats in the Legislature?

http://www.mustelgroup.com/press.html


----------



## tomahawk6

Darrell Anderson sounds like he just wants to face the music. Actually the only reason he is coming back is that his attorney missed the filing deadline for refugee status. I am torn between my desire to see this oxygen thief locked up or sent to Iraq. I will settle for a couple year's at the Disciplinary Barracks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060923/ap_on_re_us/canada_war_deserters_2


----------



## vonGarvin

Good riddance to him.  Enough of him living off of my taxes, no matter how remotely (eg: policing services, whatever)


----------



## GAP

:crybaby:

poor fellow, and after meeting Cindy Sheenin too...

 :nana: :cheers:


----------



## Dirt Digger

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Actually the only reason he is coming back is that his attorney missed the filing deadline for refugee status.



Someone buy that laywer a beer.    ;D


----------



## a78jumper

This idiot was complaining last night on the news that he has no health care here. Hope he gets some at the DB.


----------



## a_majoor

What is the weather like in Kansas this time of year?  > > >


----------



## karl28

Okay 1 down.....what about the rest?

+10 to  that the deserters should never of been aloud to stay here in the first place  just my two cents worth


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We can all take comfort in the fact that the wheels of justice seem to be turning in our favour. However, there's no need to be vindictive and smug about the fate of this guy. It's childish.


----------



## paracowboy

not even a _*little*_?


----------



## Red 6

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What is the weather like in Kansas this time of year?  > > >



It's like Alberta, but the wind blows harder since it picks up speed through Nebraska.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

paracowboy said:
			
		

> not even a _*little*_?



OK.....but just a bit.


----------



## Trinity

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Actually the only reason he is coming back is that his attorney missed the filing deadline for refugee status.



Ok.. now I'm pissed off.

City TV just reported he was going home.  They didn't mention it was because
it was missing this deadline.  Some putz (anti war activist) said it was because
the deserter needed to "do whats right" for himself.

Media is telling half truths again... or is that lying?!

And I used to like City Tv..  Now they sit in the same books as Taliban Jack in my mind.


----------



## vonGarvin

Email them and the CRTC.  I did that about ten years ago when they presented a VERY slanted story on some subject.  At first they said "it was an editorial".  I said "fine, but you didn't label it as such".  After a few emails, all of which involved the CRTC, I noted that whenever this guy spoke (I forget who he was), it had the label "editorial" or "comment" below his speaking head.


----------



## neko

I'm confused as to why he would even apply, exactly how would he have qualified for refugee status anyway?


----------



## medaid

huh...well then...I guess the stories of how he's a prospective detainee at Leavenworth just wasnt working enough for the smart Canadian gals we have...EH?


----------



## Cliff

neko said:
			
		

> I'm confused as to why he would even apply, exactly how would he have qualified for refugee status anyway?



Many Americans remember the Viet Nam era where military deserters headed north, applied for a SSI card by mail then kicked back in Canada. But it isn't like that anymore.


----------



## neko

MedTech said:
			
		

> huh...well then...I guess the stories of how he's a prospective detainee at Leavenworth just wasnt working enough for the smart Canadian gals we have...EH?


Was this comment directed at me? If so why? The man is facing prison time and and a possible dishonourable discharge becuase he was AWOL. He chose to join the military he was not forced into service, he broke the rules and is subject to punishment for doing so. I fail to see how that turns him into a refugee, he is not facing persecution. And he can hardly use 'fleeing a war' as a reason to claim refugee status as he willingly joined the military, which generally implies your willingness to fight. Or do you perhaps think that we should provide shelter for military personnel who were not at work when they're supposed to be and wish to escape disciplinary action?


----------



## paracowboy

neko said:
			
		

> Was this comment directed at me?


sounds like a rhetorical question/joke to me. Geez, grow a thicker skin, dude.


----------



## neko

paracowboy said:
			
		

> sounds like a rhetorical question/joke to me.


  
A joke huh? Generally those contain humour.
Sounded more like sarcasm to me or should I say read like it.


> Geez, grow a thicker skin, dude.


Do you have a workable method? 
Rest assured though my skin is quite thick enough, I wasn't offended but  I did think MedTech a bit daft as I don't see how the possiblity of going to Leavenworth makes him able to claim refugee status so I merely spelled out the reason for my confusion.


----------



## GAP

neko said:
			
		

> I did think MedTech a bit daft as I don't see how the possibility of going to Leavenworth makes him able to claim refugee status so I merely spelled out the reason for my confusion.



I think if you reread the statement

huh...well then...I guess the stories of how he's a prospective detainee at Leavenworth just wasn't working enough for the smart Canadian gals we have...EH?

you will see humor/sarcasm/black humor whatever all through it


----------



## neko

GAP said:
			
		

> I think if you reread the statement
> 
> you will see humor/sarcasm/black humor whatever all through it



Yes I saw the sarcasm as noted in my reply to Paracowboy, which seemed to be in response to my confusion on how he could possibly qualify for refugee status, implying that being a "prospective detainee of Leavenworth" fits the criteria for such status.

However if MedTech meant something else I am sure he can clarify if he wants to bother, this isn't eactly of the utmost importance.


----------



## tomahawk6

If thats the criteria then alot of criminals fleeing US justice and facing prison time would be classified as refugee's ? These deserters have committed a crime and will face some form of punishment whether its prison time or a fine.


----------



## medaid

No...Neko I wasnt being sarcastic towards YOU. I said that as my point of view on the whole matter. Yes! It was meant as a sacrastic/humor/joke. NOT directed towards you.


----------



## neko

Understood, thanks for clearing it up. That being the case I must apologise for thinking you daft for beleiving we should shelter deserters, as that is not the case.   Also for the misunderstanding in the first place.
Regards,
Neko


----------



## J.J

According to IRPA (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) _anyone_ who is not currently a citizen or legal resident of Canada can apply for refugee status. Would a person with a serious criminal record be accepted, it would be very doubtful. Some refugee's who are accepted do have a criminal record, but it is taken into account what the circumstances are and how serious of a crime it is. Is it a perfect system? No it is not, but it is better than most and not as good as some.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

An interview with Darrell Anderson 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/09/28/anderson-canada.html


----------



## GAP

Ahhh....the poor puppy....he's now critical of Canada because we won't let him work or supply free healthcare....so he's going back to good old America .....we really dissappoint him.


----------



## medaid

I must say that these people annoy me. You come to Canada expecting the Pearl Gates of Heaven, the Fountain of Youth and all the other mystical and mythical load of cahooie that you ignorant ppl think Canada is. Then, you turn around and criticize a society that has provided for you for the last however many months or years you have been here, not realizing that if you hadn't ran away to Canada, where our hospitality and welcome is known around the world, you'd probably be back in a theatre somewhere (that somewhere may very well be Iraq). Dodgers and deserters disgust me.... if you didn't have the *$ls to deploy, why'd you join up in the first place? YOU KNEW you resided in a country where deployments of its military was its biggest industry! Where in my opinion, if you threw a rock in to a crowd in the US you'd bound to hit at least a half a dozen ex or current servicemen and women!

UGH!!! HE had the AUDACITY TO CRITICIZE OUR PARTICIPATION IN AFGHANISTAN!!!    :threat: :akimbo: He wants to go back and face the bugle then I say, 'GOOD ON YA YOU DESERTIN B*****D. Astalaveesta, good riddance, aufwiedersehn, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, so long, good-bye, kick rocks and GO!' 

*rant rant rant...rant!! mumble incoherently and posts his thoughts*


----------



## Trinity

MedTech said:
			
		

> ... if you didn't have the *$ls to deploy, why'd you join up in the first place? YOU KNEW you resided in a country where deployments of its military was its biggest industry!



He did deploy before.  He's been there already and doesn't want to return.
Not that I am defending him... but if you're going to rant on the poor guy
at least know the situation a bit better.


----------



## patrick666

_'It will be the freest time in my life, because I'm standing up for what I believe in.'
-Darrell Anderson_

Because you know, his country, comrades and career were asinine compared to going AWOL and hiding in another country. I hope freedom for him is a 8x10 cell where he can stand on the toilet and preach about the fouls of war to the birds outside his window..


----------



## Trinity

Interesting enough... he married a girl while he was up here?

A year and a half he's been here and already has a Canadian bride???

I wonder if that was legit or a ploy to stay!?


----------



## George Wallace

Part and parcel of his Leftie Sponsors.......includes a Left Leaning Blonde Birkenstock wearing Airhead who will marry him to provide him a 'Backup' reason to become a 'Landed Immigrant' and remain in Canada....wait for the next round of 'Claims against the Crown'.


----------



## patrick666

I'm not exactly sure about the laws governing refugee status but I would assume that was his intention, albeit misinformed possibly, to continue with the marriage in hopes of permanent status. Imagine marrying a girl just for that and then you don't even get the status. I hope she's a really great girl.  >


----------



## medaid

Trinity said:
			
		

> He did deploy before.  He's been there already and doesn't want to return.
> Not that I am defending him... but if you're going to rant on the poor guy
> at least know the situation a bit better.




sorry   I didnt mean him in particular, rather, the populace in general... but yes, he did and i knew that... I guess in my ranting moment I just didnt express myself well enough.


----------



## big bad john

To all the Americans on the site:  I am sorry it took so long to get him there.  We are working on all the others.  Take care it won't be long.  your cousin


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03238657.htm

U.S. Army deserter surrenders at Kentucky base
03 Oct 2006 20:04:05 GMT
Source: Reuters
Printable view | Email this article | RSS  [-] Text [+] 
Background
Iraq in turmoil 
More  By Steve Robrahn

RADCLIFF, Ky., Oct 3 (Reuters) - A decorated U.S. Army veteran who was wounded in Iraq and then deserted to Canada to protest the war as a mistake surrendered to the military on Tuesday.

Darrell Anderson flashed a peace sign for news cameras before his distraught mother and Canadian wife drove him to the rear gate of the Army base at Fort Knox under a negotiated surrender that will likely see the 24-year-old Army specialist released in a few days.

Joined at a news conference before his surrender by two dozen anti-war activists and veterans group supporters, Anderson said he felt justified in not fulfilling his four-year military stint.

"They broke their contract before I broke mine," said Anderson, who said he enlisted in the Army two months before the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq to earn money for college. A roadside bomb wounded him there seven months into his first tour of duty, earning him a Purple Heart.

Under the terms of his surrender, Anderson's supporters said, he will receive a less-than-honorable discharge from the Army, but not be court-martialed or face prison time.

James Fennerty, Anderson's attorney, said while there was no military draft, recruits were lured with the promise of $50,000 for college tuition.

Asked if he hoped other soldiers would protest the war by deserting, Anderson said he was forbidden to say. But Fennerty said he hoped others would "take the same stand," and that there were lawyers and support groups who could help them.

The Lexington, Kentucky, native deserted in early 2005 while home on leave with his unit, the 1st Armored Division. He went to Canada where he was unable to gain a work permit or other benefits, and a paperwork problem cost him a chance to claim refugee status, as have some other U.S. deserters.

CAN'T WEAR UNIFORM

Under the surrender terms worked out with the military, Anderson was forbidden from wearing his uniform as he had planned, but said, "I want to put on my uniform on a military base ... and stand against the war."

"I hear people calling Darrell a coward," said Elliott Adams, who wore his Vietnam-era military fatigues and represented the group Veterans for Peace. "Darrell is a hero in the grand American tradition -- trying to show us the right way out of this war."

According to the Pentagon, there were 16,408 desertions from all branches of the U.S. military from 2003 to 2005, 31 percent fewer than from 2000 to 2002. Desertions dropped after the September 2001 attacks.

With his mother weeping and his wife, Gail Greer, clinging to him, Anderson said his wartime experiences gave him nightmares.

"My son served his country and deserved a Purple Heart," said his mother, Anita Dennis. "He got treatment for his physical wounds but they left his emotional wounds open and untreated. It's not fair that military families and soldiers carry all the responsibility for the baggage of this war."

Anderson, who crossed the U.S.-Canadaian border on Saturday, said the Iraqi insurgency enjoys wide support and the United States had no role in what he called the country's civil war.

As the situation in Iraq worsened, U.S. soldiers were forced to adapt, Anderson said.

"It's just like in Vietnam. The more American soldiers die, the more drastic our procedures get just to stay alive," he said.


----------



## Trinity

big bad john said:
			
		

> "It's just like in Vietnam. The more American soldiers die, the more drastic our procedures get just to stay alive," he said.



I think he's way out of his lane trying to state any facts about Vietnam let alone
compare it to Iraq


----------



## big bad john

http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/533049.html

War deserter released



LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) — A Kentucky soldier who fled to Canada rather than redeploy to Iraq and then surrendered to U.S. military officials earlier this week has been released, his lawyer told a newspaper.

Darrell Anderson, 24, of Lexington left Fort Knox Friday morning and was on his way home, lawyer Jim Fennerty told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Anderson said he deserted the army last year because he could no longer fight in what he believes is an illegal war. 

"I feel that by resisting I made up for the things I did in Iraq," Anderson said during a news briefing in Radcliff shortly before he turned himself in at nearby Fort Knox on Sept. 30.

"I feel I made up for the sins I committed in this war." 

His mother Anita Dennis of Lexington, and his Canadian wife Gail Greer of Timmins, Ont., said they supported his decision.

Anderson joined the army in January 2003 to get money for college and to serve his country. He went to Iraq a year later with the army’s 1st Armored Division. He was wounded and received a Purple Heart in 2004. Over the next seven months he was in the thick of the fight against insurgents. 

His mother said the military failed in its responsibility to take care of her son after he returned from war. 

Anderson said he suffered from nightmares and was unable to get the treatment he needed by the time he was ordered to redeploy. 

He fled across the border at Niagara Falls, Ont., in early 2005. 

In Toronto he became a highly visible war critic and spokesman for Canadian peace groups, saying he could no longer support the war in Iraq. 

Anderson said he was able to get some treatment for emotional distress while in Canada. 

He said he had hoped to build a new life north of the border. But his Canadian lawyer missed a deadline for filing paperwork to have him declared a refugee, which would have allowed him to remain in the country.

Fennerty said Anderson would be on extended leave for a month then would receive a discharge of other than honourable.


----------



## GAP

U.S. soldier who fled to Canada is missing, again  
POSTED: 0217 GMT (1017 HKT), November 1, 2006 
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/01/soldier.awol.ap/index.html


LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (AP) -- A U.S. Army soldier who fled to Canada rather than return to Iraq has disappeared again.

Pvt. Kyle Snyder, 23, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, told The Associated Press he was supposed to return by bus to Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri on Tuesday.

But he didn't go. 

He said he went AWOL after Fort Knox officials in Kentucky told him he would be sent back to his unit, the 94th Engineer Battalion.

Snyder returned to the United States on Saturday, after his lawyer said he had reached a deal to receive an other-than-honorable discharge.

"I came back in good faith," Snyder said Wednesday by phone. "I put my trust in them one more time. Why should I put my trust in them again when I can just go back to Canada?"

He did not disclose his current location.

Messages seeking comment from Gini Sinclair, a Fort Knox spokeswoman, were not immediately returned Wednesday night. 

Snyder, a former combat engineer, left the United States for Canada in April 2005 while on military leave to avoid a second tour in Iraq. He said he worked as a welder and at a children's health clinic in Canada. 

Snyder has said he was put on patrol when sent to Iraq in 2004, which he said he was not trained to do. He said he began to turn against the war when he saw an Iraqi civilian killed by American gunfire.


----------



## North Star

Um...what did he expect? I heard stories of deserters living in Canada going back to the US to face the music, and being sent to their old unit from the 70s to clear out/face a quick summary trial! I guess he can't stand the stares and whispers of his former comrades. Too bad - he should suck it up. He made his bed, now he should sleep in it.


----------



## spud

GAP said:
			
		

> U.S. soldier who fled to Canada is missing, again
> POSTED: 0217 GMT (1017 HKT), November 1, 2006
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/01/soldier.awol.ap/index.html
> He said he began to turn against the war when he saw an Iraqi civilian killed by American gunfire.



Funny, this is the same guy I saw on a Global documentary last night and he said he saw a guy taken into a building...minutes later heard a shot...and never saw the guy come out. That's not the same thing  as seeing a civilian killed by gunfire......so who's lying....him or the journalist who wrote it???

potato


----------



## Scott

Hmm, in the battle of who has more integrity - Journalist or Deserter...

Forgive me if I abstain from voting.


----------



## Trinity

Scott said:
			
		

> Hmm, in the battle of who has more integrity - Journalist or Deserter...



In cases like that... I check with my magic 8 ball.  It's more reliable.


----------



## tomahawk6

The idiot has now gone AWOL. His unit is stateside and he was put on a bus to Ft Leanard Wood. He thought he would just be discharged at Knox.


----------



## spud

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> His unit is stateside and he was put on a bus to Ft Leanard Wood.



There lies the problem. Instead of being put on the bus he should have been put under it. 

potato


----------



## GAP

On that note.....

AWOL U.S. soldier reconsiders returning home
Updated Sat. Nov. 4 2006 1:28 PM ET Associated Press
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061104/awol_soldier_061104/20061104?hub=Canada

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Since going to Canada to avoid another deployment to Iraq, Corey Glass has considered returning to the United States. But after hearing that a fellow former soldier who surrendered to the military and was ordered to return to his unit instead of being discharged, Glass may not return at all. 

"They're not going to win the hearts and minds like that," said Glass, 24, who signed on with the Indiana National Guard in 2002. 


Kyle Snyder, a one-time combat engineer who joined the military in 2003, disappeared Wednesday, a day after surrendering at Fort Knox and 18 months after fleeing to Vancouver instead of redeploying to Iraq. 


Snyder, 23, of Colorado Springs, Colo., said a deal had been reached for a discharge, but he found out he would be returned to his unit at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. 


His troubles are complicating efforts for those among the 220 American soldiers who fled to Canada and want to return to the United States, according to lawyers, soldiers and anti-war activists. 

"Nobody's going to come back from Canada anymore," said James Fennerty, a Chicago-based attorney who represents Snyder and other AWOL soldiers. 

Several soldiers who went to Canada have said they don't want to return to Iraq. Sgt. Patrick Hart, who deserted the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division in August 2005, a month before his second deployment, said he felt misled about the reasons for the war. 
More on link


----------



## armyvern

> AWOL U.S. soldier reconsiders returning home
> Updated Sat. Nov. 4 2006 1:28 PM ET Associated Press
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061104/awol_soldier_061104/20061104?hub=Canada
> ...
> "They're not going to win the hearts and minds like that," said Glass, 24, who signed on with the Indiana National Guard in 2002.
> ...
> "Nobody's going to come back from Canada anymore," said James Fennerty, a Chicago-based attorney who represents Snyder and other AWOL soldiers.
> ...


Hearts and Minds?? Holy crap. That's just what we need. A bunch of soldiers who willfully disobey orders and a bunch of left-wing lawyers sticking up for them and wanting no punishment for this willful disobeying of orders and the duty they swore to do.

Disobey orders boys and gals, no punishment necessary, talk a good talk in another country, but don't ever face the consequences of your actions. Talk about coup d'etat in the making. Numpties.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Okay,   I've read this,  please correct me if I don't get this right.

He spoke the the us army,  they had a deal.  He was to return,  get dishonourably discharged get a min sentence (slap on the wrist) and he disappears from the media.  Sounds fair to me.  He goes down there,  finds out they have no intention of honouring their agreement, and now everyone is surprised that the guy took off? (I wonder if he is on his way here or is simply hiding out closer to home until things heat up and then he'll take off)

It is all a little silly at this point. But I am curious how these men are making their living up here.  (I don't think they can rely on hand outs from the hippies)


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Sorry to post right after my post, but a quick question (I did some snooping and I thought this might be interesting)

http://www.valinor.sorcery.net/~liam/pictures/2006/06-pride-toronto/pages/cimg5079/1024x768.html

Why are the resisters marching in Toronto gay pride?  Aren't homosexuals not allowed in the US army? :warstory:

Oh and has anyone seen the Documentary "Let them Stay"?  http://www.saramarlowe.com has a free mp3 with the theme song.  (sorry if this was brought up before)


----------



## geo

-  Lots of church basements & women looking for a spouse


----------



## Danjanou

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> But I am curious how these men are making their living up here.  (I don't think they can rely on hand outs from the hippies)



The minute they (or anyone for that matter) make a formal Refugee Claim and receive documentation verifying they have done so, they become eligible for Social Assistance (welfare) and remain so (pending any other compliance/eligibility issues etc as per the authourity issuing said benefits) until their Refugee claim is resolved. Should they be granted Convention Refugee Status they of course can continue to receive beneits providing they comply with the eligibility criteria same as any other resident of the municipality/province they reside in. 

If denied and they appeal their Deportation Order they will also continue to receive benefits until they leave the country. In theory they could work as they will be issued Employment Authorizations and temp 900 series SINs and therefoe be able to seek work after making their claims and prior to their hearing. 

Oh yeah they are also covered under the Canada Health Act for medical benefits/health coverage.

Your hard earned tax dollars at work boys and girls. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Okay,   I've read this,  please correct me if I don't get this right.
> 
> He spoke the the us army,  they had a deal.  He was to return,  get dishonourably discharged get a min sentence (slap on the wrist) and he disappears from the media.  Sounds fair to me.  He goes down there,  finds out they have no intention of honouring their agreement, and now everyone is surprised that the guy took off? (I wonder if he is on his way here or is simply hiding out closer to home until things heat up and then he'll take off)



Did anyone from the military say there was an agreement or was it just his lawyers?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Did anyone from the military say there was an agreement or was it just his lawyers?



(bad joke here)

I believe that the balance of probabilities is that the American armed forces is in contact with these gentlemen. I also believe that in an effort to minimise the bad PR effect they are having they offered "minimum sentences" in exchange for his future silence.  I don't think he would have just thrown up his hands and went back - there would have been an agreement.  He wasn't arrested immediately at the border and submitted himself to the Army.  After doing all of that he then suddenly takes off saying that they aren't honouring their agreement.  Sounds to me like one department was responsible for getting them to come back to the states and another was responsible for dealing with them once they're back.  (Gee in the Government one department not honouring the agreements made by another - shocking,  I've never seen that here)


----------



## Jarnhamar

How do I join one of those peace groups??
Links?


----------



## Trinity

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> How do I join one of those peace groups??
> Links?



www.npd.ca


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> How do I join one of those peace groups??
> Links?



Um,  I respectfully submitt that if civilians want to give aid and comfort to American deserters - they have every right to.  However,  as a member of the CF there are some things that we don't get to do.  I most likely am wrong on this but I thought  that taking direct political action to undermine the strength and efforts of the CF or its allies was .. well a no no for all members of the CF. :warstory: (yes including reservists who are in street cloths and are not known commonly to be a CF member)

As much as I may ... or may not agree with the actions in Iraq,  the Americans are very necessary to our efforts in Afghanistan.  If we start eroding the American ranks out of our outrage over a perceived illegal war of aggression and the moral free fall they may or may not be in, then we are ultimately reducing the strength of Canada. Working against the military/security intrests of Canada ... yes a big no no. ( I don't know if the argument that it is more in our intrest to provide a sanctuary to these men could be made satisfactorily,  as you can read on this thread emotions run high on this issue)

** I don't know if supporting a deserter of an ally would even show up on the radar screen here in Canada - even as a member of the CF, but, I do know that in the States anyone found encouraging someone to desert, giving aid to a deserter (or the seventeen thousand variations of that) is guilty of a felony. If you really do want to help those guys out http://www.resisters.ca they have a donate page,  or you could mail them a cheque ... **


----------



## Trinity

One of the most important things to think about before donating is....

What is my donation used for? Does it all go to administration costs
and paperwork or does it go to the resisters who have no money
and need food for their family?

I looked briefly on that site but saw nothing.  It's important for
any organisation that takes donations to be transparent with their
donations so you know your money is going to where you think it is.

Sorry to be serious...  :-\


----------



## Jarnhamar

> ** I don't know if supporting a deserter of an ally would even show up on the radar screen here in Canada - even as a member of the CF, but, I do know that in the States anyone found encouraging someone to desert, giving aid to a deserter (or the seventeen thousand variations of that) is guilty of a felony. If you really do want to help those guys out http://www.resisters.ca they have a donate page,  or you could mail them a cheque ... **



I was just thinking the peace groups had pretty university girls and free food    ;D


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I was just thinking the peace groups had pretty university girls and free food    ;D


Well it has been my experience that the peace groups have ... well I'll just say it hippies.  I'm not talking about hippies as the peace loving idealist,  I'm talking about hippies as the group that smells like homeless people during a prolonged garbage strike.  (Apparently harming mother earth isn't okay but harming the noses of everyone within 40 meters - more with a breeze - is okay.) :-X

And as for the girls... there are better places to pick up.  If you're DT toronto you can have good odds with basically anywhere... and that would come with way less drama


----------



## FastEddy

Trinity said:
			
		

> One of the most important things to think about before donating is....
> 
> What is my donation used for? Does it all go to administration costs
> and paperwork or does it go to the resisters who have no money
> and need food for their family?
> 
> I looked briefly on that site but saw nothing.  It's important for
> any organisation that takes donations to be transparent with their
> donations so you know your money is going to where you think it is.
> 
> Sorry to be serious...  :-\




And on a less serious note, who the sweet ...., cares whether they have food or money.

So far what I've read, these assholes are mostly single.

As to the point of your post, I'm trying to figure out if you are being, explanatory. condescending, sympathetic or supportive.


----------



## Trinity

FastEddy said:
			
		

> As to the point of your post, I'm trying to figure out if you are being, explanatory. condescending, sympathetic or supportive.




Sorry.. my bad.  I did a course on Non Governmental Organisations years back. 
Being with the church, I recognize the need to have donations to survive. However,
who wants to support an organization where they don't know that their money
goes to the goal as they claim.

Many organisations have huge overhead and very little actually makes it to 
the intended cause.

I was more trying to explain that THIS organization is not transparent in their finances
and therefore, if you donate...  how do we know it doesn't go into someones personal
pocket or anywhere else? Thus, even IF i supported war resistors (which on the face
of it I don't), that I still wouldn't donate because I can't tell where my money would be going.

I don't support this organization.  It was more of an explanation of how they
aren't transparent and that doesn't lend credibility to their cause.


----------



## proudnurse

My thoughts and feelings, on US Army Deserters coming to Canada.....

The thing that annoys me mostly, when I read thier stories is they always say "Well, I joined the Military for College money" Did you not ever think that if you joined the Military the possibility of Deployment is not there? I would be sad to think, that ANY of mine or anyone elses tax dollars are going to be supporting them when they are HERE and their brothers and sisters in arms are deployed out. 

And to think, while thier brothers and sisters in arms are deployed out, leaving thier own wives, husbands and children at home, to go and fight the good fight, while they are running here and trying to hide? What did they join the Military for in the first place? Only for college money? Did they not join because they wanted to serve thier country? Well, if the only reason they joined is for that college money, to me they did not earn the right to wear that uniform in the first place. I'm sad it's thier story that will possibly be the next feature Michael Moore movie. 

Rebecca


----------



## Trinity

Well  Rebbecca

To some...  Honour, Duty, Loyalty, Service

are just words written on their commission scroll, or creed, or motto.

However, the rest of us actually understand and embrace what it means.
I would be pretty scared to go to the sandbox... but I'll go.  Why? A 
few words I ascribed to 13 years ago.

I want to teach everyone a favourite saying of mine.

*Words Live.*


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

proudnurse said:
			
		

> they are running here and trying to hide?
> 
> What did they join the Military for in the first place? Only for college money? Did they not join because they wanted to serve thier country? Well, if the only reason they joined is for that college money, to me they did not earn the right to wear that uniform in the first place.



**warning I might get flamed for this post** -and I don't mean the good kind with techno music and snappy outfits.

     Several of those former soldiers who are up here have already served on tours in Iraq, a few were wounded there and slated to go back. I'm sure that those who went to war (wounded or not) deserve the uniform while they wore it.  When they decided to stop then they have to take it off.  While I am sure there are a few who came up here because of the fear of getting shot,  there are those who came up here because they believe it is their moral duty to not support an illegal war of aggression or to take part in systematic human rights violations. If those who went there refuse to go back because of what they say they can not support,  I am far more inclined to believe them than for example a mainstream media network that receives millions from companies which make profits from that war.  I think the phrase I heard as a child was " Getting killed sucks, Getting killed for something you know is a lie is horrible, killing for something you know is a lie is true death."  

     Yes, in order to provide security for the country the armed forces must accept the orders of the command.  Go there, shoot these people,  go there shovel snow.  An order given should be an order executed. If a country has a military force that picks and chooses which orders it wants to follow,  it isn't a country for very long.  It is necessary for a country to have an army that follows orders, without question, without hesitation.  The exception to this is when the orders are illegal.

International laws do not excuse a soldier from his actions because s/he was only following orders. Now I know in Canada we've changed our laws to try and stop  Americans from claiming refugee status,  but, unfortunately for those who want to give these guys the boot, we still need to be compliant with international laws the obligate us to give refuge to those who dissent from illegal acts. ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/245769.html    <-- summary not the official version)


----------



## Trinity

S_Baker said:
			
		

> The "soldiers" I use the word loosely, are criminals and fugitives under U.S. law, no matter how you spin it!



YUP

No matter how SAD or empathetic we may be to their situation (if you are or not), I think Baker is bang on.
If these people have justified reasons for not going then they have a fair and impartial court to explain their case to.


----------



## Red 6

Zell: I respect your position, but these folks volunteered to serve a specific length in the armed forces. Nobody forced them to enlist in the first place. The armed forces is built on a bedrock of discipline. There is a bigger argument embedded in some of your posts: Is the war in Iraq a legal one under international law and customs? That's a good question, but it doesn't excuse or mitigate the actions of a service member who decides to just quit without any authorization. 

Most deserters were a lousy Soldiers to begin with. Somebody in my platoon deserted right before we went overseas in 90 for the Gulf. He was a zero before he left, and other than the fact we had an empty slot on our platoon roster, nobody even missed him. That's one of the little secrets of most of these people. They were lousy Soldiers to begin with. And then they figured, "I'll quit and go to Canada where I'll get some sympathy." 

It doesn't matter whether or not they already served in combat or got wounded. There are plenty of service members who wear Purple Hearts and are serving in subsequent combat deployments. Receiving honor as a veteran takes committment to do the right thing up to the day your service is complete. It takes maturity to be a Soldier. It shows a lack of same when a person decides to break his/her enlistment contract without any authorization. If they want to leave, good riddance.


----------



## amberaston

Although I agree that this person shouldn't be allowed to flee to another country to avoid the commitment he made in swearing to defend our country, I have to wonder how would all of the many Americans already serving in Iraq or anywhere else feel to have this kind of guy next to them. As I understand it, there is a faith that each soldier has that the guy next to him has his back?  When my son goes I know he will do what he has to do and he is fully aware that most likely he will go to Iraq, but I wonder how well would he be able to do his job with someone like this next to him.  At the first sign of trouble will he bail out on him or when his life depends on him will he be there?  To me our soldiers already have too much to think and worry about while deployed.  I don't think he should be forced to go, but he swore an oath and then took it back and to me that is criminal under the circumstances.  I don't think he should be free to be a burden on another country either. I think we should just let his fellow soldiers take care of him and show him what  happends when you back out on your word. I find him to be a disgrace.


----------



## poko

Nobody but a gun to there head and said sing on the doted line. Do your time if you like it keep going if not get out. 
Canada should round them up and send them where they came from and face the consequence to there action. I think buddy had a point there I'm sure nobody would want them guy next to them in battle but there always spot for dumb dumb like pealing potato's.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Red 6 

     That was an excellent post. I am kind of embarrassed that you took the time to read through some of my posts on this site.  Honestly I'm not terribly opinionated, I just really hate to see one sided discussions without real debate - hence why I try to challenge assertions, fundamental assumptions and on a few threads play devils advocate.  Yes, technically the war in Iraq is legal under international law. I don't believe it to be a war of aggression or conquest. Respectfully, if I - as poorly informed as I am - can pull the rug out from underneath an argument it shows how poor that argument is. And on an aside, if Canada jumped into help out in Iraq and I got sent, I would go (and feel privileged that I get to serve, which is how I feel now).

Back to the thread:

     How one enlisted into the armed forces (volunteer or conscription), why one enlisted ( desire to serve or other ) doesn't matter when it comes to ones duty.  Yes a country needs a reliable armed forces, one that will do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. Like I said, the chain of command needs to have the ability to command unquestionably.  

     This ability needs to be curtailed when it comes to illegal orders.  What is the litmas test to see if an order is illegal?  Good question (with a really really long answer) but ultimately the decision to follow or not rests with the individual soldier.  S/he needs to decide if they can follow that order or if it is illegal.  I can't say I really agree with the deserters up here, however I'm sure there is at least one or two of them who honestly believe they are making the moral choice.  Because they face persecution for their moral beliefs they have more than a very good case for refugee status.  I know the old one good Apple in a bunch argument, but I'd rather see 200 wussy guys (not to imply anyone of those men are wussies I'm just saying) get a free ride than to see one person of good conscience thrown in jail.

     I brought up the fact that some of these guys had served and were wounded only to diffuse the "sniveling cowards who never earned the uniform" argument. I must differ to your assessment as to the quality of the soldiers who are leaving,  in my unit we actively try to drum out people like that.  If a person in my unit 'wouldn't be missed' that's usually seen as a sign we are going to have a fresh face around.

     With politics as they are right now,  Canada does NOT want to give blanket refugee status to deserters.  However, under our laws we can't do anything else.  The solution is typically Canadian, do the paperwork really really slowly and hope that when it is finally through the system the result wont matter anymore.  (Refugee claims taking 10-15 years to process -  new meaning to the phrase 'moving at the speed of unionised government') And of course both sides complaining about the slow processing time, but both glad of it.

Edited: Removed stereotypical reasons for joining.


----------



## FastEddy

Trinity said:
			
		

> Thanks, 10-4
> 
> Cheers.


----------



## FastEddy

Red 6 said:
			
		

> Zell: I respect your position, but these folks volunteered to serve a specific length in the armed forces. Nobody forced them to enlist in the first place. The armed forces is built on a bedrock of discipline. There is a bigger argument embedded in some of your posts: Is the war in Iraq a legal one under international law and customs? That's a good question, but it doesn't excuse or mitigate the actions of a service member who decides to just quit without any authorization.
> 
> Most deserters were a lousy Soldiers to begin with. Somebody in my platoon deserted right before we went overseas in 90 for the Gulf. He was a zero before he left, and other than the fact we had an empty slot on our platoon roster, nobody even missed him. That's one of the little secrets of most of these people. They were lousy Soldiers to begin with. And then they figured, "I'll quit and go to Canada where I'll get some sympathy."
> 
> It doesn't matter whether or not they already served in combat or got wounded. There are plenty of service members who wear Purple Hearts and are serving in subsequent combat deployments. Receiving honor as a veteran takes committment to do the right thing up to the day your service is complete. It takes maturity to be a Soldier. It shows a lack of same when a person decides to break his/her enlistment contract without any authorization. If they want to leave, good riddance.




Excellent post. But I also feel they should be in a Stockade serving out the remainder of their Hitch and/or Sentence, instead of collecting Welfare in Canada.

Regardless of their Worth, Reasons or Circumstances, they should be punished. 

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Red 6

I agree with you there, Eddy. No argument at all.


----------



## medaid

Eddy +2


----------



## Trinity

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Regardless of their Worth, Reasons or Circumstances, they should be punished.



I can't say regardless....  

I'm sure some of legitmate LEGAL reasons.... not many though.
If someone developed severe mental deficiency... I think that would be
a valid excuse to go AWOL.  Now..  I'm not trying to defend anyone or
say they're all ill... Simply saying a select few could *possibly *have a
good legal reason that none of us can forsee.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had they refused to go and stayed to faces the consequences, then I could have some respect for them. The more I learn about this guy the more I realize that avoiding consequences is a pattern that runs through his life, he decided to have 3 kids even though he didn't have a job!


----------



## Victor17

Trinity said:
			
		

> I can't say regardless....



Must agree with Trinity on this one. Its too easy to just blanket the statement and send them all home. I have no doubts some of them have what any of us could view as a valid reason. The details remain to be seen with the current bias of the media (and fear of not constantly saying "i support our troops" to actually address an issue on the matter).


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Trinity said:
			
		

> I can't say regardless....
> 
> I'm sure some of legitmate LEGAL reasons.... not many though.
> If someone developed severe mental deficiency... I think that would be
> a valid excuse to go AWOL.  Now..  I'm not trying to defend anyone or
> say they're all ill... Simply saying a select few could *possibly *have a
> good legal reason that none of us can forsee.



Trinity, 

     With respect, if they had a legitimate legal reasons for not going overseas, I'm sure the US Army has procedures to have them removed off of the rotation, or removed from the force alltogether.  I know they have a reputation for not allowing people out of their contracts,  but I am sure that they have procedures for discharge in legitimate cases. 

     By breaking their contract they are fugitives under US law. It is a good thing for them they are in Canada.  Funny thing is that US laws don't really apply in Canada - I think it is a throwback to that whole "we are a separate country and we have our own laws" thing.  We want to be a good neighbor, but our first duty should be to the laws in this Country.

     From what I've seen of their literature and media appearances it seems the fundamental assertion they are making is that Iraq is illegal and there for they can not support it.  Now Canada is in a tricky situation,  their argument is sufficient to be granted refugee status, we've given blanket refugee status to larger groups for reasons that aren't nearly as good.  So like I said,  we pull out that fun tradition of allowing function (they are staying here, until they choose to leave) but denying form (we don't formally recognize Iraq as an illegal war of aggression and grant all American deserters sanctuary) Everyone gets basically what they want.  :warstory:


----------



## Trinity

Let's say one of them has severe PTSD.

And instead of doing the normal thing and go to the army and
say.. HEY.. I'm messed up... they panic an run because they're not
thinking straight due to their illness.

Who knows...  even with legit reasons. people do stupid things.
I'm not saying they shouldn't face court but they could still have legitmate
reasons for not going and yet still have come here.


----------



## Red 6

Nobody in the US armed forces, regardless of their reason, has the authority to decide on their own that they're not going to serve. Discipline is the bedrock of military service. These people weren't draftees that were forced into the service with no say in the matter. They volunteered, and nobody pushed their hand to the contract. Anybody who flees his/her colors and country, especially in wartime, is an absolute coward. No medical condition, mental problem or anything else can mitigate it or lessen the reality of being a deserter.

There's a fundamental difference between a conscientious objector and somebody who enlists of their own free will. In the US armed forces today, there are no CO's. They're not accepted for enlistment and would only be called to serve if the draft were in effect. Just deciding you're tired and don't want to play any more is not a valid reason to leave. We're not talking about working in a department store here.


----------



## geo

+1 Red


----------



## Trinity

Red 6 said:
			
		

> Just deciding you're tired and don't want to play any more is not a valid reason to leave. We're not talking about working in a department store here.



I agree 100%



> No medical condition, mental problem or anything else can mitigate it or lessen the reality of being a deserter.



Lessen the reality they are a deserter... ok.. I agree.  Is it possible that they are a deserter but not guilty

  There are two distinct requirement for being guilty
1) mens rea (guilty mind)
2) actus rea (guilty act)

If someone has a mental disability or condition they MAY NOT fulfil the Mens Rea requirement to be guilty.

Simply put.. that is my point.  
I would say 95% of them are guilty on the face of it.
I just don't like to blanket statement all of them as guilty and condemn everyone.


But yes.. technically even those remote few with a legal excuse are still deserters until they 
go back, face the music in court and are found innocent.


----------



## FastEddy

Trinity said:
			
		

> I just don't like to blanket statement all of them as guilty and condemn everyone.
> 
> 
> But yes.. technically even those remote few with a legal excuse are still deserters until they
> go back, face the music in court and are found innocent.




We all know what constitutes a act of Desertion or AWOL or place of Duty. You are 100% guilty by the commission of the act. To be found Innocent of the act you would have to have been Forcibly & against your will abducted by a Foreign or Hostile Element or persons or the Confused or Mistaken Orders of a Superior.

Any argument in your Defense would or could only influence the degree of punishment. Regardless of the Mitigation submitted, you are still guilty of Desertion or AWOL, hence the wide paint brush.

 Deserters are Deserters no matter what their reasons for deserting are.

Cheers.


----------



## Trinity

Well... then we have to agree to disagree...

Cause I think my points are valid and you don't.

Only a JAG will be able to lend a suggestion to this I fear.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They deserted a volunteer army, from a democratic country with strong institutions and a functioning legal system. There is a legal system in place that could have heard their cases and give them a relatively fair trial. They are not in danger of being executed or tortured.

To compare them to refuges that escape deathsquads, ethnic cleansing, starvation and brutal government oppression is an insult to these people.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Trinity,

     I think you are 100% right.  If they are crazy then they can't be guilty because they essentially lack free will.  I respectfully submitt that the standard criteria applied to check for mens rea are easily met.  I think that most of them know exactly what they are doing,  they know they are breaking US law and they are aware both of right and wrong and they can interpret the situation. (And if they were the other criteria for mens rea they wouldn't have gotten into the US army in the first place)  There may be some who have a mental disorder, but I sumbit that the majority are fit for trial.

     Now,  it doesn't matter if you volunteered or were drafted it doesn't matter if you are a NCM, Sgt or a 5 Star General, every soldier has a duty to conduct themselves in a moral manner consistent with military law.  If you are given an illegal order, you have a duty to not comply.  Weather or not the war in Iraq is an illegal war they have a moral obligation to dissent from, or if in that war they are ordered to conduct illegal acts is debateable.  From what I've read that is their assertion.

     It doesn't matter if they are Fugitives from US law.  They are in Canada.  Canadians need to decide what they will do.  Under Canadian law,  they are entitled to due process.  It appears extremely likely they meet the conditions under our laws and regulation to qualify for refugee status.  If that is a good thing or a bad thing is another debateable topic.

     On a positive note,  historically after the war is over deserters are given blanket amnesties.  So in 15 years they'll stop being an issue.  (that was a joke  :warstory


----------



## niner domestic

Just a few of points that need to be cleared up. We don't have due process in Canada (that's too much American TV).  We have Administrative Fairness here.  Due Process is an American jurisprudence term.  Not all crimes have a mens rea component to them.  So if the section that runs contrary to the USMCJ for desertion does not include a mens rea component it is otherwise known as a strict or absolute liability offence (which means you either did it, or you didn't - as in parking tickets - you either parked illegally or you didn't park there at all).  You can tell it's a mens rea offence by the wording. (and I'm too lazy to go look it up).  Now, defences for criminal acts are few and far between and depending on the actual offence will depend on the defences allowed.  Not sure about the US but up here, if you are going to use the defence of alibi or insanity it has to be declared at the time of your plea.  If you are pleading small "i" insanity (and again, there are only a few crimes that allow that for a defence), you would have to pass the M'naughten rules of insanity threshold.  Only a murder charge allows for a capital "I" defence of insanity.  And if you are going to plea insanity, up here, it's a one way trip under a Lt. Governor warrant to a psychiatric facility - reviewable every 12 months. As you are probably aware, a plea of insanity is an admission of guilt but you are mitigating the severity of it from not having the requisite ability to form intent through insanity.  Now, being fit to stand trial for reasons of insanity are a whole other process and charges can be stayed until you are deemed fit to stand trial.  

The kicker for any lawyer representing a client that wants to plead insanity is that if you fail to prove the insanity, you've hung your client as being guilty through the testimony required to prove insanity. Lawyers tend to run far far away from advising a client to entering that plea. 

Zell I'm not sure why you would think that a US deserter would be entitled to a hearing under Canadian law? Are you suggesting that a deserter be tried up here in Canada? Or are you referring to an immigration/refugee hearing? Or a Canadian law enforcement agency executing an arrest warrant on behalf of the US Military? If the states ask for him back, the only hearing he's going to get is an extradition hearing.  Can you clarify what you mean?


----------



## FastEddy

Trinity said:
			
		

> Well... then we have to agree to disagree...
> 
> Cause I think my points are valid and you don't.
> 
> Only a JAG will be able to lend a suggestion to this I fear.




I am sure there are considerable persons on this Forum other than the JAG that can rule on this point.

If such a ruling is unfavourable, what would your stance then be.

Admittedly, Times and Regulations may have changed over the years. But after working a considerable number of cases of AWOL Service Personal, I never once came across a Service Detainee that was found innocent. 

As previously stated, reasons for such behavior were taken into consideration on sentencing, i.e
                     AWOL,  3 days, Drunk, missed Sailing of Vessel, = 21 Days Detention.
                     AWOL, 28 days, Didn't think, Didn't apply for Compassionate Leave, Left after
                                receiving wire, Mother Dying, = 14 Days CB, Loss of pay & $25.00 fine.

Cheers.


----------



## Bobbyoreo

Bottom line is these people got what they wanted from the forces...and when the forces asked for something back..they ran. POint in life in the forces..you can't pick your war...


----------



## Trinity

niner domestic is a lawyer... I look fondly upon her claims

If a US jag came on and say... nope trinity.. I'd bow politely
and say Thank you.


I'm not a simple peon arguing because I think my point is right.
Sadly I have plenty of 3 diplomas of which 2 involve law other
wise I wouldn't be entering an argument with what I thinkthought
was a valid opinion.

Niner domestic has pointed out a slight difference in the American
legal system.. WHICH.. if correct.. means my logic is based on the
wrong system and therefore could be incorrect.  So I must review
the American justice system now.

I did try to google also.. I found cases were desertion in the US was
found not guilty but AWOL was replaced.  Is it possible that someone
here could be found guilty of AWOL instead of desertion. Play on words?
Yes and no.  Still a failure of obligation towards one's country in a time of
war which is very serious but they're not deserters.

Eddy.. I promise you I'm not closed minded here.  My argument is for the
2% of all deserters who MIGHT actually have a legal claim.  That's all I saying.
I do most of these people made clear choices to violate their law and need to
face the music.  


Which leads to a question I don't know.  Why has the American government not
asked us to arrest and deport them? And if they have, why has Canada not done so?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Zell I'm not sure why you would think that a US deserter would be entitled to a hearing under Canadian law? Are you suggesting that a deserter be tried up here in Canada? Or are you referring to an immigration/refugee hearing? Or a Canadian law enforcement agency executing an arrest warrant on behalf of the US Military? If the states ask for him back, the only hearing he's going to get is an extradition hearing.  Can you clarify what you mean?



Once a person steps foot onto Canadian soil and says "I claim refugee status" (or something to that effect) we do have a process that has to be performed. (Discussed to death already on this thread) From what I've seen, this is independent of how legitimate their claim may be.  I did mean an Immigration hearing to review the legitimacy of their claim. From what I know of the regulations as they stand now and how they've been applied in the past this group would likely get refugee status.  

From my understanding the police here in Canada routinely arrest people for American warrents and after a quick extradition hearing they are sent back.  Imagine a person fleeing a country because of very legitimate reasons,  imagine that government of that country wanting them back for very non-legitimate reasons.  That government asks for them back,  what do we do? Do we automatically give back refugee claimant to the country they are fleeing from or do we have a set procedure in place to determin what to do.  My understanding is that we do the latter.

Unlike Trinity and Niner all of my legal training has been exclusively in commercial law and civil law. And even this mainly focused on torts and contracts.  My exposure to immigration law comes from my socail contacts here in Toronto,  one of my friends is an immigration lawyer and a few others are refugees.  Back when I lived in Alberta I had a Serbian friend who fled to Canada, deserting his military duty, because he could not in good conscience perform his duties.  If I accept his right to come to this country and claim refugee status,  I have to accept that soldiers from other countries can do it. (And just to be extremely clear I am in NO way linking the actions of the two, I am only pointing out that we have one process for all)  Yes we'll have trials to see if they are legitimate or not but until a decision is made they get to stay here under our protection. 

And before I forget,  thank you for correcting me for the term Administrative Fairness. I guess I lived to long in the states. (well any length of time is too long - kidding)


----------



## Trinity

Another question to answer

is Desertion an offence that requires Mens Rea....
or just actus rea (guilty act) like some other offences...

If we know the answer to that... we can solve this question much faster.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Trinity said:
			
		

> Another question to answer
> 
> is Desertion an offence that requires Mens Rea....
> or just actus rea (guilty act) like some other offences...
> 
> If we know the answer to that... we can solve this question much faster.



http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r630_10.pdf Has a brief rundown of definitions they use and their procedures.


I see they are classified as defectors,  not deserters. From what I am reading there seems to be an assumption that a soldier in service is of sound mind and is fully cognisant of his actions. (I feel this is a safe assumption because if a soldier isn't of sound mind, they shouldn't be in the Armed forces.)  I think in order to get out of this with the "crazy" defence,  they would have to really be "really" crazy,  not just stressed and not thinking clearly.   But, I can see this is a case by case thing.

I'm sifting through as much as I can see on line... but I think there is more I'm not seeing. But,  in any case they're in Canada.  We have to deal with them first.


----------



## niner domestic

885. ART. 85. DESERTION 
(a) Any member of the armed forces who-- 
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with *intent* to remain away therefrom permanently; 
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with* intent * to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or 
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion. 
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion. 
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#885.%20ART.%2085.%20DESERTION

Ok, so there you go, it requires the accused to have *intent*, which is a mens rea word.  Interestingly, the article on AWOL does not have mens rea.  

Now has for a defence of lack of mental responsibility aka, insanity.  The Code reads as thus:
* 850a. ART. 50a. DEFENSE OF LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 
(a) It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a sever(sic) mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. 
(b) The accused has the burden of proving the defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence. 
(c) Whenever lack of mental responsibility of the accused with respect to an offense is properly at issue, the military judge, or the president of the court-martial without a military judge, shall instruct the members of the court as to the defense of lack of mental responsibility under this section and shall charge them to find the accused-- 
(1) guilty; 
(2) not guilty; or 
(3) not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility. 

The accused carries the burden to prove their mental defect however as with most defences of mental incapacity and/or defect if one does prove the mental defect then other factors kick in such as capacity to be further employed.  Now in this case of the alleged deserter, I doubt he's going to care if once he proves his mental defect that the military considers him unfit for duty and tosses him, but in the case of a lesser offence where the accused wants to remain in service, it could prove their undoing (but then if they really are mentally defective or diseased of the mind, they aren't going to really care.)

As for an immigration hearing, I would suspect the clause that is affording the application for refugee is the proposed death sentence, if found guilty of desertion during a declared war.   Quite the political matzo ball for the immigration tribunal to have to decide if that were the case.  To grant him his status as a refugee, would mean making a finding that the states are in a legal war and therefore he would be subjected to a harsher sentence should he be found guilty, to turn him down would mean they made a finding that there is no direct threat to his life should he be refused and returned to the US as there is no state of war.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

niner domestic said:
			
		

> As for an immigration hearing, I would suspect the clause that is affording the application for refugee is the proposed death sentence, if found guilty of desertion during a declared war.   Quite the political matzo ball for the immigration tribunal to have to decide if that were the case.  To grant him his status as a refugee, would mean making a finding that the states are in a legal war and therefore he would be subjected to a harsher sentence should he be found guilty, to turn him down would mean they made a finding that there is no direct threat to his life should he be refused and returned to the US as there is no state of war.



I thought we routinely handed back people who could face the death penalty we only say "do what you want just don't kill him".  I thought that the immigration hearing doesn't have to only decide if the war is legal, or not, but they have to also look at if that soldier had reasonable ground to perceive that they were going to be forced to commit illegal acts.  If they face punishment for doing the moral thing, they have a much stronger case for refugee status.

On a really funny note (please don't respond to this, but I do have to say it)  I was reading the link provided by niner and read this http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#925. ART. 125. SODOMY   I loved that "however slight".  Only the part with an Animal is a crime here now.  Oh and on a not so funny note http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#920. ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE  "not his wife, by force and without consent"  So if you're married it is okay? (No it is not)  I think that when we look at the details I think we see some sharp differences between our two cultures.  Personally I was disturbed by some of the implications of these laws and I'll admit that I did have a moral indignant moment.

But enough about American military law, these guys are facing Canadian immigration regulations – and they’re a much harder read


----------



## geo

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Unlike Trinity and Niner all of my legal training has been exclusively in commercial law and civil law. And even this mainly focused on torts and contracts.  My exposure to immigration law comes from my socail contacts here in Toronto,  one of my friends is an immigration lawyer and a few others are refugees.  Back when I lived in Alberta I had a Serbian friend who fled to Canada, deserting his military duty, because he could not in good conscience perform his duties.  If I accept his right to come to this country and claim refugee status,  I have to accept that soldiers from other countries can do it. (And just to be extremely clear I am in NO way linking the actions of the two, I am only pointing out that we have one process for all)  Yes we'll have trials to see if they are legitimate or not but until a decision is made they get to stay here under our protection.



Zell,
Your buddy in the Serbian / FRY army was prolly not a volunteer - lots of conscripts in the past.  Also, when a country goes onto the rocks and civil war ensues, we're dealing with something a whole lot more complicated than what decided these soldiers to desert the US military.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Were there any cases of Canadian Army deserters going to the USA during the USA neutrality of WWI and II ?  It would provide an interesting comparison.


----------



## niner domestic

IIRC, the National Resource Mobilization Act didn't come into effect until April 1941, so any Canucks fleeing conscription to the US would have been pounding salt by Dec.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

True enough (I think there was similar timing for WWI as well), but I was more curious as to volunteers (as opposed to draftees) who may have deserted since that is  similar to the current situation.


----------



## Trinity

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28783/post-485481.html#msg485481


> 885. ART. 85. DESERTION
> (a) Any member of the armed forces who--
> (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
> (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
> (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.
> (b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
> (c) *Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct,* but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Canada does not support death sentence so logically if we were to send him back wouldn't that be the same as sentencing him to death?

(hypothetically speaking)

Further PS: (no understatement here ;D)


----------



## GO!!!

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> Canada does not support death sentence so logically if we were to send him back wouldn't that be the same as sentencing him to death?
> 
> (hypothetically speaking)
> 
> Further PS: (no understatement here ;D)



No.

His court martial will decide on his punishment, and it is not especially common for deserters to be executed remember the "or some other punishment". Usually they seem to be sentanced to death, but have it commuted to life imprisonment on appeal.

A US muslim soldier who threw a few grenades into a CP and then shot the people escaping was sentanced to death, but the appeals will take about a decade - so is it really a death sentance?

Also, keep in mind that he knew the consequences of his actions when he deserted. He was a volunteer who elected not to fulfill his contractual obligation, and now, hopefully, will reap the consequences.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Not that I'm particularly in the mood to draw fire, but here goes.  Does Canada's extradition policy not prevent us from returning anyone who has even the slightest possibility of a death sentence in their homeland?  Not that I give a soaring rodent's rectum either way, do the crime, do the time.


----------



## geo

Kat  +1


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not that I'm particularly in the mood to draw fire, but here goes.  Does Canada's extradition policy not prevent us from returning anyone who has even the slightest possibility of a death sentence in their homeland?  Not that I give a soaring rodent's rectum either way, do the crime, do the time.


Yes and no.

We send them back under the agreement they receive a punishment other than death.


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Not that I'm particularly in the mood to draw fire, but here goes.  Does Canada's extradition policy not prevent us from returning anyone who has even the slightest possibility of a death sentence in their homeland?  Not that I give a soaring rodent's rectum either way, do the crime, do the time.



Well that's true. And I feel as you do. I figure if we can ship back Charles Ng, to what surely was an absolute death penalty sentence (and which I had zero problems with by the way); why not a deserter, who's odds of actually being sentenced to death are the least of my worries. As was stated below, no ifs, no ands, and no buts, just a big bye-bye, see ya!!


----------



## schart28

you bet!!



			
				S_Baker said:
			
		

> U.S. Military deserters should be returned immediately, no if ands or buts!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Well that's true. And I feel as you do. I figure if we can ship back Charles Ng, to what surely was an absolute death penalty sentence (and which I had zero problems with by the way); why not a deserter, who's odds of actually being sentenced to death are the least of my worries. As was stated below, no ifs, no ands, and no buts, just a big bye-bye, see ya!!



Just a point Miss Librarian, Ng only caught sent back because a coilition of Police services pulled a fast one on his lawyers/Canadian polititions........ 


Almost certain favourable ruling+fueled jet with flight clearance+ co=operation = over the border before his lawyers got thier ruling.


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just a point Miss Librarian, Ng only caught sent back because a coilition of Police services pulled a fast one on his lawyers/Canadian polititions........


That's OK...it was allowed to happen. We all knew he was here.... ;D and, I'd think, the overwhelming majority of us were more than pleased to see the door hitting his butt on the way out.  ;D


----------



## wannabe SF member

S_Baker said:
			
		

> U.S. Military deserters should be returned immediately, no if ands or buts!



I agree, but wouldn't the authorities get problems with human right activists and such?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Just look at them as missing US govt property, screwdriver, wrench, coward, hammer.  Send all lost US kit back to its rightful owners.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> I agree, but wouldn't the authorities get problems with human right activists and such?



Human Rights should not be ignored........... Activists and such should be.


----------



## geo

Hmmm...

US army deserters,
Russian spies.............. what next?

Someone please close the door, there's a draft bringing em in


----------



## Danjanou

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> US army deserters,
> Russian spies.............. what next?
> 
> Someone please close the door, there's a draft bringing em in



Let’s not forget Canada’s first family of terrorism Scarborough’s very own Kadr family

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/03/04/khadr_040304.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060110.wguankhad0110/BNStory/International/?page=rss

If there's a door it's a revolving one with no lock. :



Edit because the alzheimers is affecting my spelling  :-[


----------



## geo

Sigh!


----------



## wdewitt

During the Second WW2 all personnel were order to step forward if they would fight. Two corporals refused and they were drum out of the PPCLI. Why bother having them and just get rid of them. Less hassle and less problem dealing with them. It a volunteer force and dragging useless one give use nothing but problems.
Nobody want them and they should pay back all there training it cost the forces.


----------



## geo

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> During the Second WW2 all personnel were order to step forward if they would fight. Two corporals refused and they were drum out of the PPCLI. Why bother having them and just get rid of them. Less hassle and less problem dealing with them. It a volunteer force and dragging useless one give use nothing but problems.
> Nobody want them and they should pay back all there training it cost the forces.



Hmmm....
during WW1 and WW2, Canada had a volunteer army AND conscripts.  For the most part, the conscripts (aka Zombies) and the Old guard provided troops for the Home front while the volunteers went overseas.  What were the circumstances of the Patricias you are talking about?  (reference?)

Then again, it all depends on how well motivated you make your conscripts.  In the old USSR, the NKVD did a commendable job of inspiring young troops of always moving forward - Or else!


----------



## GO!!!

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> During the Second WW2 all personnel were order to step forward if they would fight. Two corporals refused and they were drum out of the PPCLI.



Guess I missed that day in regimental history  ;D

I'd love to see a source for that - I have most books pertaining to my regimental history, no mention of that instance that I remember.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

All those who don't wish to fight get posted to CFS Alert for the winter! Any surplus will be posted to various DEW lines sites with a large crate of C-rations, can opener and gas stove.


----------



## Journeyman

US Army deserter Kyle Snyder is back in the news, beaking off at an Edmonton anti-war demonstration.


----------



## 3rd Herd

In Calgary on Friday we had "US War Resister Ryan Johnson" solicitating 5.00 donations to support their efforts to stay in Canada. I was kind of interested  to hear what he had to say but was not allowed in as I did not meet the dress code. I thought my PPCLI ball cap and CAV vest(was riding that day) is almost formal attire. Their website is www.resisters.ca


----------



## axeman

http://www.resisters.ca/contact.html
i think every one should contact these offices and let them know that withought ppl willing to sacrifce for their country their country would be very differnt today.  . I personally think they should be dropped off on the US side of the border at the guards station , with a note stateing their beliefs . if they had true determination the would join ranks of cassuis clay [AKA] muhammad ali . spend time in jail and thusly have served his time ,and debt to the societity that gives them the right to do so . I presently live in victoria and was downtown for the Protest lets get our soldiers out of Iraq march . funny i tell my wife we are not involved in that war. this is only hours after crossing the gangplank after setting foot back in canada after 6 .5 months overseas. after much thought i now know the GREAT UNWASHES MASSES are idiots too.

  to you all


----------



## GAP

Deserters lose refugee status bid
 TheStar May 06, 2007 Jack Lakey Staff Reporter
Article Link

Face return to U.S. in blow to Iraq war foes

Two U.S Army deserters have exhausted their appeals for Canadian refugee status and now face deportation.

In a ruling released yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeal upheld decisions by the Federal Court and the Immigration and Refugee Board that Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey are not entitled to refugee status.

The ruling is a blow to at least 17 other war resisters in the Greater Toronto Area, as well as many others across the country, who insist the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates international law, and that those who refuse to participate should not be punished.

Hinzman and Hughey could face lengthy prison terms if convicted of desertion upon their return to the United States.

Hinzman, 27, joined the U.S. Army for a four-year stint in 2000, but fled to Canada with his wife and son in March, 2004, seeking refugee status just days before he was due to ship out to Iraq.

Hughey signed up for the army in 2002, while still a 17-year-old high school student, but crossed into Canada in 2004 after learning his unit was heading to Iraq.

They argued they were conscientious objectors and had well-founded fears they would face persecution if returned to the U.S.

The board, Federal Court and its appellate division rejected those arguments. 
More on link


----------



## stealthylizard

Well, duh, of course they would be persecuted.  Breach of contract, and desertion at minimum.  It isn't like they will be executed by a firing squad.  Most likely a dishonourable discharge, and away they go, back to civy world.   :rage:


----------



## medaid

suites them right.


----------



## proudnurse

GAP, thanks for the current update in posting this article. I'm very pleased with the descision that was made. Good on them! 

 Rebecca


----------



## ArmyRick

Good decision made there  
They were an insult to proffessional VOLUNTEER soldiers everywheres!


----------



## GAP

U.S. deserters lose appeal
 TheStar.com - Canada -TORONTO STAR STAFF November 15, 2007 THE CANADIAN PRESS
  Article Link

U.S. army deserters Jeremy Hinzman (left) and Brandon Hughey have lost their bids to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases. Supreme Court won't hear refugee appeals from pair who fled after their units were ordered to Iraq

OTTAWA – Two U.S. army deserters who fled to Canada and sought refugee status on the grounds of their opposition to the war in Iraq have lost their bids to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their cases.

The court refused today to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, who were rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board in 2005.

The board ruled they would not be at risk of their lives if they returned to the United States, nor were they at risk of "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

Both would face jail time if convicted of desertion.

Hinzman and Hughey deserted the army in 2004 after learning their units were to be deployed to Iraq. They say they refuse to participate in what they call an immoral and illegal war.

Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal refused to review their cases.

As is usual in such cases, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for the decision.

Green party Leader Elizabeth May said Canada should not ``facilitate the persecution of American war objectors by deporting them to the United States."

"Canada is a peaceful country and we have a proud tradition of welcoming conscientious objectors, most notably American soldiers who fled to Canada while the United States waged war in Vietnam," she said.

Canada should be a sanctuary for war resisters and their families, she said.

Hinzman flew to Canada in January 2004, along with his wife and son.
More on link


----------



## Kat Stevens

At last!  Pack your shit and get out.  There's a bus heading South in one hour, be under it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I bet they stuffed their pockets with Canadian Dollars too!


----------



## ArmyRick




----------



## JesseWZ

At long last... the justice system working the way it should. 
Ciao boys.


----------



## 3VP Highlander

Send them back to the States and let them face the US military justice system.


----------



## Traveller

I would not want to be those guys. I am sure military prison is not... NOT... a fun place to be.

Impressed that they had the stones to take a stand on the matter though. But dont mistake that for admiration. I was brought up that a man follows through on what he says, and is judged by his actions. These guys pulled out. Would have been easier to let their contract run out and leave than face X years in prison.


----------



## ixium

They left in 2004...the Iraq war started in 2003...

They had one year before their were told their unit was told they were going over. You can't tell me that they didn't expect to go over.

Looks like they tried to milk the system and then leave as late as possible.


----------



## Scott

Seeya, assholes!


----------



## tomahawk6

Great news. Just in time for them to deploy. ;D


----------



## RangerRay

Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out!  ;D



			
				Traveller said:
			
		

> Impressed that they had the stones to take a stand on the matter though. But dont mistake that for admiration. I was brought up that a man follows through on what he says, and is judged by his actions. These guys pulled out. Would have been easier to let their contract run out and leave than face X years in prison.



I would disagree.  Were they to man up to their convictions and serve their time in Leavensworth (like Casius Clay, aka Mohammed Ali), then I would be impressed with their "stones".  Instead, they put their tails between their legs and ran away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out!  ;D
> 
> I would disagree.  Were they to man up to their convictions and serve their time in Leavensworth (like Casius Clay, aka Mohammed Ali), then I would be impressed with their "stones".  Instead, they put their tails between their legs and ran away.


Having read the life story of one of them, it appears to be his standard approach to life. I am the same, those that choose not to go and stay to face the consequences I have some respect for, these guys I have none.


----------



## jimb

What disturbed me the most, in this story,  was that there are about 330 more of these people hiding out in Canada. WTF? 

Jim B. Toronto.


----------



## GAP

Canada Court: AWOL U.S. Soldiers Not Refugees
Kari Huus MSNBC  POSTED: 5:21 pm EST November 15, 2007 UPDATED: 9:43 am EST November 16, 2007
Article Link

The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear an appeal by two U.S. military deserters who sought refuge in the country to avoid deployment to Iraq, a conflict they argued is "immoral and illegal." 

The announcement ends a bid by American soldiers Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the plaintiffs in the case, to win refugee status and opens the way for them to be deported to the United States, where they could face court martial for going AWOL and missing troop movements. It also could lead to deportation of dozens of other American soldiers who have filed formal applications for refugee status. 

"Theoretically they (are) facing immediate removal," said Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents most of the U.S. refugee applicants, including Hinzman and Hughey. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case, "vastly advances the government's agenda to remove them," he said. 

The rejection also closes off that legal avenue for other U.S. military personnel who have gone to Canada and remained illegally. House estimates there are at least 300 AWOL U.S. soldiers living in Canada. 

Board deems legality of conflict irrelevant
Hinzman and Hughey both deserted from the U.S. Army and came to Canada to avoid imminent deployments to Iraq. Their case for refugee status rested on the argument that the military action in Iraq is illegal and, based on the United Nations convention on refugees, they cannot be prosecuted for failure to serve in an illegal conflict.

The men's argument failed to sway Canada's Immigration Review Board and two Canadian courts before their appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. 

"The immigration board said, with input from the government, that the illegality of the war is irrelevant to these immigration claims, " said Michelle Robidoux, a Toronto-based activist with the War Resisters Support Campaign. "We believe it is very much connected."

Canada, under then-Prime Minister Jean Chretién did not commit troops to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and most Canadians do not support the war, polls show. The country does have troops serving in Afghanistan.

Canadian immigration officials said that no more than 40 refugee claims have been filed by American soldiers. House, however, said the number is significantly higher, noting that he has handled 45 to 50 claims himself. Based on the number of inquiries he has received from AWOL U.S. soldiers, he estimates there are about 300 American military deserters living in Canada, adding that many of them entered the country after serving combat tours in Iraq. 

Support from Vietnam era runaways
The new arrivals have been coached, housed and supported by some of the Vietnam era anti-war activists and draft dodgers who took advantage of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's famous declaration of his country as a "refuge from militarism."

House himself left the United States and came to Canada in 1970 after he was drafted. 

There are significant differences between Canada's position on the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq, however. The most obvious is that the current deserters were not conscripted, but signed up to serve in a volunteer military.
More on link


----------



## medaid

I don't think we should be kind to those who desert when they voluntarily chose to serve during a time of crisis. What, you want to take all of the benefits and do none of the work? No, not gonna work like that. The SCC have spoken, that they do not believe that their case is worth hearing, so no more appeals, nothing. Deport them now. Drive them to the boarder, contact the nearest MPs and have them arrested by  US Border Service and then escorted to the MPs for Pre-Trial Confinement. We should not harbor those who cannot live up to their end of the bargain. They knew the deal when they signed on the dotted line and they did it anyways. Serve out your time gentlemen, and those other deserters should be located and deported as well. Based on immigration law alone, they are here illegally and hence should be deported. Now they don't even have the refugee card any longer. Not that they ever were.


----------



## garb811

The best part of this is the refusal to hear the appeal.  Nothing says your case has absolutely no merit than the SCC not even letting you in the front door.


----------



## Danjanou

And for a nice parting gift it appears it was dismissed with costs. 

Thank you for visiting Canada and milking our welfare trough, here's a bill for tying up our legal system now get out  8)

The reaction of the progressive moonbat brigade is as expected :

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009608


----------



## JBoyd

Good on the SCC, I am happy to see this. I agree with MedTech, they were not drafted they volunteered, they should have VR'ed if they didnt want to go to war, they knew the rules when they signed up. I hope that canada deport all american military deserters so they can face the consequences. We may be a melting pot, but we dont harbor or support useless twits


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And for a nice parting gift it appears it was dismissed with costs.
> 
> Thank you for visiting Canada and milking our welfare trough, here's a bill for tying up our legal system now get out  8)
> 
> The reaction of the progressive moonbat brigade is as expected :
> 
> http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009608



And how many did turn out for their rally.........Love to see what a "good turnout" is.


----------



## medaid

Colin P said:
			
		

> And how many did turn out for their rally.........Love to see what a "good turnout" is.



A "good turnout" Colin, is when the other "300" deserters also participate in this. Get nabbed and have their deserting a$$es shipped home with these two clowns.


----------



## Danjanou

MedTech said:
			
		

> A "good turnout" Colin, is when the other "300" deserters also participate in this. Get nabbed and have their deserting a$$es shipped home with these two clowns.



I don't have that much room in my car trunk for the drive to Fort Erie  >


----------



## pbi

All's well that ends well...

I have to agree with an observation that Danjanou made way back near the start of this thread: if you want to defy orders-fine: defy orders but be prepared to face the consequences, just like any other decision you make in life. In the case of these guys those consequences would probably have been a court martial with all the usual legal protections, then imprisonment in a service prison. I highly doubt that they would have been executed.  But, instead of taking a stand and facing the consequences, they scampered.So, I have to wonder on what grounds they even mounted their cases? In the end they were treated as common lawbreakers from a friendly democratic country with a fully developed legal system, not heroic political refugees.

Cheers


----------



## Roy Harding

pbi said:
			
		

> ...In the end they were treated as common lawbreakers from a friendly democratic country with a fully developed legal system, not heroic political refugees.
> 
> Cheers


+ 10 million, pbi.  

I have always admired Cassius Clay (as someone else mentioned in this thread) - he was DRAFTED, objected, and did his time as a consequence.  These modern punks VOLUNTEERED - and then got cold feet.  They get no sympathy from me, and my faith in Canada's immigration and justice policies has_ begun_ to recover, barely.


----------



## Flip

pbi said:
			
		

> So, I have to wonder on what grounds they even mounted their cases? In the end they were treated as common lawbreakers from a friendly democratic country with a fully developed legal system, not heroic political refugees.



It appears to me that the whole effort was designed to have a Canadian court agree
that the Iraq war is illegal.  Every time CBC runs this story this is their stated defence.
( my observation )  Local war protesters ( in BC ) hailed them like rock stars.
No, this noise is right out of the '75 copy of War Resisters Handbook.(not a real title)

As it's been pointed out, these guys had other options.  They chose to go political.


----------



## Strike

Posted with all the usual caveats.

PUBLICATION:  Kingston Whig-Standard (ON) 
DATE:  2008.02.06 
SECTION:  Front 
PAGE:  1 
BYLINE:  Jennifer Pritchett Whig-Standard Staff Writer 
PHOTO:  Michael Lea/The Whig-Standard 
ILLUSTRATION: Iraq war resister Chuck Wiley pauses to collect his thoughtsbefore speaking at Queen's University yesterday afternoon.  
WORD COUNT:  702 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soldier seeks refuge from war; Former U.S. navy officer fled country to avoid serving in Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck Wiley crossed the border into Canada during a snowstorm last winter with little more than a car chock full of belongings and a hope he would one day become a Canuck. 

The former U.S. navy chief petty officer and his wife now live in Canada with an uncertain future. 

Wiley, 35, is one of an estimated 200 American soldiers who have moved to Canada after deserting their homeland to avoid serving in Iraq. Many have found refuge in Toronto, where they are members of an organization called the War Resisters Support Campaign, which is working to find a way to allow them to legally stay in Canada. 

Yesterday, he spoke to students and faculty at Queen's University to drum up public support for a motion expected to go before the House of Commons that would allow war resisters and their families to seek asylum in Canada. The motion, from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, also calls for an immediate halt to deportation proceedings in these cases. 

Wearing jeans and a black T-shirt emblazoned with "Say Yes to Soldiers Who Say No," Wiley told the crowd that he would like to see Canada become "a refuge for those who don't want to participate in an unjust war." 

Currently, there are no known resisters living in Kingston. But that may soon change if federal politicians pass new legislation to permit war resisters to stay in Canada. 

As a border city, Kingston could become a popular new home for American war resisters as it did during the Vietnam War. During the 1960s and 1970s, many of the 65,000 draft dodgers who came to Canada ended up in the Limestone City. 

Wiley estimates that passing such a law could send roughly 5,000 former U.S. soldiers into Canada as a way of avoiding deployment to Iraq. 

If the proposed law isn't passed and Wiley is deported, he could face jail time and other serious consequences in the U.S., including receiving a dishonourable discharge or a bad conduct discharge from the military that will impact his employment opportunities. 

Wiley was aware the stakes were high when he decided to give up his life in the U.S. as a way of avoiding a deployment to Iraq. 

Wiley sold off most of his belongings and his home in Norfolk, Va. He and his wife, who was also a member of the U.S. military, stuffed their clothes, computers and whatever else they could fit into their car before they drove across the border into Canada on Feb. 11, 2007. 

They told the border guards they were going on a three-day camping trip in Canada. The guards never questioned their reasons for entering the country. 

The Wileys have been trying to make a life for themselves in Canada ever since, but it has been a difficult transition. 

Wiley also hasn't spoken to his family since he came to Canada and doesn't know when he'll be in touch with them. 

"The last time I talked to my parents was the second week of February last year," he said. "They told me how wrong [deserting] was." 

Wiley was born in Kentucky and comes from a family with a long line of military personnel. His family boasts it has had a relative in every war. He said it was a "foregone conclusion" that he would choose the military as a career as well. 

"I wasn't an economic poverty draft," he said. 

Until 2005, he said, he believed in the U.S. military and its mission in the Middle East. 

"I believed in the mission ... I believed we were there to help the world," he said. 

But it was during his deployment on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf that Wiley started to change his opinion about the war. He came home from the Middle East knowing he didn't want to go back. Eventually, he decided he had to leave the military before he was sent back to Iraq. 

Wiley started to look for ways to get out. He was still too far away from retirement and saw no other option but to leave the U.S. 

He researched English-speaking countries where he could seek refugee status without the risk of extradition. 

He learned about the War Resisters Support Campaign and has never looked back. 

Wiley, who has a job as a maintenance worker at a school, lives in Toronto with his wife, who works at a pet store. They live in a basement apartment. 

They desperately hope they can stay in Canada. 

To help the Wileys and others like them, the War Resisters Support Campaign is organizing a day of national action on Tuesday, when its members are encouraging Canadians to contact their local MP to express support for a program to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. The organization is also urging the Canadian public to sign petitions and to write letters to federal politicians to encourage them to support the motion when it comes before Parliament. 

For more information on the War Resisters Support Campaign, go to www.resisters.ca 

jpritchett@thewhig.com


----------



## The Bread Guy

Ya volunteer, ya do the job, and if ya don't wanna do the job, ya have to face the music BECAUSE ya volunteered.


----------



## tabernac

One acronym that comes to mind is:

*N*ever
*A*gain
*V*olunteer
*Y*ourself


----------



## CrazyCanuck

Deport him


----------



## Sythen

He's a coward, plain and simple. People are trying to compare them to the Vietnam era ones, but last time I checked, the US had an all volunteer army this time around.. Hell, he's not even army, he's navy.. I wonder how much schooling the US Navy paid for for this guy?

//Wearing jeans and a black T-shirt emblazoned with "Say Yes to Soldiers Who Say No,"//

Sorry, but real soldiers don't abandon their country and brothers.


----------



## Roy Harding

When my wife and I were considering where we wanted to move to after we retired from the CF, we came REAL close to settling in Creston, BC (about a half hour drive from Nelson, BC).

At the last minute - AFTER we had made an offer on a property, my wife told me she couldn't see me being happy there - Nelson is a hotbed of US Vietnam draft dodgers, and more recently, US Iraq service deserters.  (Plug the words "nelson deserter" into Google and start reading.)  She was right - I wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut and stay out of difficulties with such folks.

I have SOME sympathy for the Vietnam draft dodgers - they were, after all, being conscripted.  I have NO time for a deserter, and the next time I hear one claiming to be a "refugee" I'll lose my lunch.


----------



## GAP

Boater said:
			
		

> *Deport him*


----------



## char9409

It is true that we join to defend the country that we are proud to be a part of. But what happens when that country no longer stands for those beliefs? If more german soldier's would have taken a stand against the Nazi's in WWII, would not more jews lives been saved? And even if this soldier did refuse to shoot the innocent person, thus being killed himself, knowledge of intention is sent to other soldiers and those soldier's realize that something is wrong here, then they are influenced to see what is right and what is wrong. They begin to question their beliefs. WWII reeked of propaganda thus causing soldier's who morally questioned their actions but were ignorantly told that what they were doing was right. Sure they are not in the wrong by german law, but international they were seen as war criminals. Now, it has been acutely stated that the war in Iraq has been falsely sold to the American people by lies. There were no WMD's and they knew it. So now, one man stands against this because he is no longer fighting for the country he believes in, but a country built on deceiving it's people. A parallel to what the Nazi's did. So, as a soldier, do you condemn him for being a coward, because he 'volunteered' his life to defend a country he loved, or do you condemn him to death as a true hero for doing something he finds, and possibly one day the American people will find one day (as history has taught us with the German population and how they felt about the Nazi's years later when they learned of the propaganda that they were fed) absolutely unjust and morally wrong as an individual? If you choose to condemn him to death, do you not fall within the stereotypical line that a soldier must not think but only act. Will this only uphold the image of a soldier being a puppet rather than a hero? Sure the war will be fought, whether this man stays in Canada or not, but the action he has taken  will start a dialogue. His intent to stand up against something that he knows is wrong will be heard by everyone and then possibly one day unjust wars fought by propaganada can be extinguished. But until we are coherant of our weaknesses  that allow ourselves to be sold something so easily, we cannot begin to cease the spinning cycle of history and it's repetitions.


----------



## OkotoksRookie

This is an interesting article. 
On the one hand he's allready been deployed and returned. He's been there and no longer believes in the war but no mention as why? 
On the other hand, he lied to gain entry into Canada, abandoned his families (both biological and military)



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> Wiley was aware the stakes were high when he decided to give up his life in the U.S. as a way of avoiding a deployment to Iraq.



It's sad that he feels he has to run, 
it's also sad he's using Canada as a shield to avoid the consequences of his actions...


----------



## Roy Harding

char9409 said:
			
		

> It is true that we join to defend the country that we are proud to be a part of. But what happens when that country no longer stands for those beliefs? If more german soldier's would have taken a stand against the Nazi's in WWII, would not more jews lives been saved? And even if this soldier did refuse to shoot the innocent person, thus being killed himself, knowledge of intention is sent to other soldiers and those soldier's realize that something is wrong here, then they are influenced to see what is right and what is wrong. They begin to question their beliefs. WWII reeked of propaganda thus causing soldier's who morally questioned their actions but were ignorantly told that what they were doing was right. Sure they are not in the wrong by german law, but international they were seen as war criminals. Now, it has been acutely stated that the war in Iraq has been falsely sold to the American people by lies. There were no WMD's and they knew it. So now, one man stands against this because he is no longer fighting for the country he believes in, but a country built on deceiving it's people. A parallel to what the Nazi's did. So, as a soldier, do you condemn him for being a coward, because he 'volunteered' his life to defend a country he loved, or do you condemn him to death as a true hero for doing something he finds, and possibly one day the American people will find one day (as history has taught us with the German population and how they felt about the Nazi's years later when they learned of the propaganda that they were fed) absolutely unjust and morally wrong as an individual? If you choose to condemn him to death, do you not fall within the stereotypical line that a soldier must not think but only act. Will this only uphold the image of a soldier being a puppet rather than a hero? Sure the war will be fought, whether this man stays in Canada or not, but the action he has taken  will start a dialogue. His intent to stand up against something that he knows is wrong will be heard by everyone and then possibly one day unjust wars fought by propaganada can be extinguished. But until we are coherant of our weaknesses  that allow ourselves to be sold something so easily, we cannot begin to cease the spinning cycle of history and it's repetitions.



Firstly - there are things called "paragraphs", they are usually denoted with a blank line between them (indentation of the first line is also the convention - but not not used on internet forums).  Lack of them made reading and understanding your post a hard slog.

Secondly - I think I understand where you are coming from, but I would submit that if he did, indeed, have a "change of heart" then he needed to either finish his service, and THEN become an anti-war activist, or approach his chain of command and go through the hoops required to become a Conscientious Objector.  He didn't do either - he ran away, abandoning his fellows on the field of battle, leaving a hole in the organization to which he belongs, caused a MASSIVE amount of unnecessary angst to his family - not to mention the MASSIVE amounts of unnecessary work he caused the government agencies of TWO countries.

He gets no sympathy from me.


----------



## Danjanou

Boater said:
			
		

> Deport him



We will, however the system moves slowly. We need to do it by the book to ensure they can't use some pathetic loophole to stay here. 

The first of these pathetic cowards have already had their hearings, been denied, appealed, been denied and will soon be receiving their deportation orders. Soon they will pick up their last welfare cheques, say their tearful goodbyes to the misguided here who "help" them and cross the border. Their countrymen and former comrades and arms will be waiting to ensure they receive an appropriate welcome home.


----------



## Koenigsegg

> His intent to stand up against something that he knows is wrong will be heard by everyone and then possibly one day unjust wars fought by propaganada can be extinguished.



It has happened before, from this article about 200 times...and most people don't care.  One more time, won't really change a thing except for the one individual.
I say deport him.  Because even though some may see the war as unjust, by allowing people to hide out in this country now, we are setting a precedent for all future wars.  Even if they are just, some people still won't want to go and they'll come here.  What a GREAT reputation Canada will get by allowing soldiers who don't want to do their jobs (that they signed a contract for) to run away and hide here.

The needs of the many outweigh the "needs" of the few or the one.  You have a problem with the war?  Well get lost and take what's coming to you, we have a country to look after here.


----------



## Bartron

Koenigsegg said:
			
		

> It has happened before, from this article about 200 times...and most people don't care.  One more time, won't really change a thing except for the one individual.
> I say deport him.  Because even though some may see the war as unjust, by allowing people to hide out in this country now, we are setting a precedent for all future wars.  Even if they are just, some people still won't want to go and they'll come here.  What a GREAT reputation Canada will get by allowing soldiers who don't want to do their jobs (that they signed a contract for) to run away and hide here.
> 
> The needs of the many outweigh the "needs" of the few or the one.  You have a problem with the war?  Well get lost and take what's coming to you, we have a country to look after here.



We already set that precedent during Veitnam.


----------



## Danjanou

Charlotte

Nice try comparing the present situation in the USA with Germany in World War 2.  However now that my colleague has given you a basic lesson in English composition shall we move on to one in history.

There were many Germans both Military and Civilian who opposed Hitler and the Nazis and paid the terrible price for doing so. I suggest a quick Google on Oberstleutnant Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, General Ludwig Beck and Operation Walküre, or Die Rote Kapelle, or Sophie Scholl and die Weiße Rose.

To even attempt to compare today's crop of self styled “war resistor" to those brave men and women is an absolute travesty.

There was resistance in the US during the Vietnam War and there is again today during the present conflict and one can argue the merits pro or con for it.

Like many others I could have a grudging respect for someone who chose not to serve for whatever reason and remained in his country and faced the consequences of that action no matter what they may be including possible imprisonment.

I have no respect for cowards who flee their country in the middle of the night and then attack it from the sanctity of another wrapping their callous selfish actions in a thin veneer of pompous self righteousness.


----------



## Koenigsegg

True...
...damn  

But I would rather that not continue, and now is the best time to get on it in my opinion.  Slight differences as well.  Vietnam was conscription, now it is purely volunteer.  I'm not saying it is ok as long as you are conscripted, just that it's a little more stomachable.

But as Danjanou said, it looks like things are working themselves out.


----------



## OkotoksRookie

Bartron said:
			
		

> We already set that precedent during Veitnam.


Vietnam was different then this scenario. 
There was a draft for Vietnam, there was no little choice for those who did not believe with that war.
This man Volunteered and is now backing out of that obligation.

Maybe others feel differently but I have no problems with the precedent that Canada is a place that will not FORCE you to go to a war that you do not believe in. I do have a problem with the precedent that Canada is a place to hide out while trying to avoid your obligations.


----------



## medaid

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> One acronym that comes to mind is:
> 
> *N*ever
> *A*gain
> *V*olunteer
> *Y*ourself



Good one... from someone who has never served a day in his short life.


This man gets no sympathy from me. He's worried about being deployed back to Iraq?! Give me a fracking break! He was in the Gulf on a carrier, he never had boots on the ground and he's afraid to go back to a cushy fracking life on a carrier? Where he has hot showers, nice meals three times a day and gets unlimted internet?! Get the frack out of here! Unfracking believable!

Frack him! Send him back to the States. Frack him! FRACK! This idiot makes the rest of us in the Navy look bad... FRACK HIM!


----------



## retiredgrunt45

What do these people think, that we're a bunch of pacifist's up here and we'll greet them with open arms. God give me a break.

 Send them all back, every last one of them!! It seems Canada is becoming a haven for malcontents, war resisters, terrorist's and god only knows what else, find them all and send them back to were they came from. 

You volunteered to serve your country, you serve period. All he had to do was quit and not run away like a coward.

Theres only one place for these people "Leavenworth"


----------



## teddybear

Just out of curiosity...are the regs that different in the States that these soldiers can't just release? If you don't want to deploy, then get out of the military. Or is it that once you're in, they can deny a release or call you out of retirement and require you to deploy?


----------



## Roy Harding

teddybear said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity...are the regs that different in the States that these soldiers can't just release? If you don't want to deploy, then get out of the military. Or is it that once you're in, they can deny a release or call you out of retirement and require you to deploy?



To be fair - type these words into Google, and start reading.  "tour extension Iraq"


----------



## CougarKing

I was a little confused about the headline, since it said "former US Navy officer" when it states in the article this Wiley guy was a Petty Officer (E-4 through E-9, though they didn't specify whether he was a CPO or not) before and therefore an NCO, not a commissioned officer. Just an annoying little detail- perhaps a mod can correct the headline.


----------



## tabernac

Strike said:
			
		

> The former U.S. navy chief petty officer and his wife now live in Canada with an uncertain future.



He was a CPO.


----------



## medaid

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> He was a CPO.



Doesn't matter. Not an officer. A NCO sure, and a senior one at that, but not an officer.


----------



## TN2IC

Boater said:
			
		

> Deport him




Now if we did it... where would we run to? States? North pole? Russia? 





MEXICO!

;D


----------



## medaid

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> MEXICO!



Should've been smart and went there the FIRST time... jeesh dumba$$


----------



## Bigrex

teddybear said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity...are the regs that different in the States that these soldiers can't just release? If you don't want to deploy, then get out of the military. Or is it that once you're in, they can deny a release or call you out of retirement and require you to deploy?




They are actually releasing a movie soon called "Stop-Loss", where a Marine Sgt  has his release squashed and redeployed to Iraq, and I guess this is like someone coming to the end of their BE or BE2 and without signing another contract, being forced to go to Afghanistan to fill a billet, because the Yanks are losing more soldiers due to death and injury faster than they can recruit and train replacements, so they can't afford to lose able bodied soldiers over the minor detail of a contract, almost like the draft, but at the other end of service. Mind you this guy was Navy and having served on ships in the gulf, I know it can be stressful, but hardly something that requires one to run away from, leaving you country and life behind and being branded a coward.


----------



## TCBF

Bigrex said:
			
		

> ...because the Yanks are losing more soldiers due to death and injury faster than they can recruit and train replacements, ...



- Actually, they are losing more to mandatory retirement than they are in battle.   But wastage is wastage.


----------



## medaid

if I remember correctly, their contracts state something like this:

"... for the duration of xxxx amount of years, and or as long as Congress and the President of the United States deem necessary during a time of war or a state of emergency"


----------



## dapaterson

Pot, this is kettle.

The National Defence Act reads, in part,



> Except during an emergency, an officer or non-commissioned member who is not on active service is entitled to be released at the expiration of the term of service for which the officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged.
> 
> ...
> 
> Where the term of service for which an officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged expires during an emergency or when the officer or non-commissioned member is on active service or within one year after the expiration of an emergency or after he has ceased to be on active service, the officer or non-commissioned member is liable to serve until the expiration of one year after the emergency has ceased to exist or after he has ceased to be on active service, as the case may be.



Since all members of the Regular Force were placed on active service via an order in council in 1989 (see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SI-89-103///en), the CF can legally hold on to anyone in the Regular Force and deny them a release.  We haven't had to do that, nor would there be a political will to do so.  But the law is in place to do so here in Canada as well...


----------



## Roy Harding

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pot, this is kettle.
> 
> The National Defence Act reads, in part,
> 
> Since all members of the Regular Force were placed on active service via an order in council in 1989 (see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SI-89-103///en), the CF can legally hold on to anyone in the Regular Force and deny them a release.  We haven't had to do that, nor would there be a political will to do so.  But the law is in place to do so here in Canada as well...



Excellent point.


----------



## teddybear

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pot, this is kettle.
> 
> The National Defence Act reads, in part,
> 
> Since all members of the Regular Force were placed on active service via an order in council in 1989 (see http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SI-89-103///en), the CF can legally hold on to anyone in the Regular Force and deny them a release.  We haven't had to do that, nor would there be a political will to do so.  But the law is in place to do so here in Canada as well...



That is along the lines that I was wondering. So, then his choice becomes deploy or face the music. My opinion: suck it up and face the charge. Although, easy for me to say when I'm not in that position.


----------



## Bigrex

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Actually, they are losing more to mandatory retirement than they are in battle.   But wastage is wastage.



That is true, but I was talking more about front line soldiers, who's ages range from 18-40, as I highly doubt there are any Privates, Corporals and Sergeants, or even junior Officers ( below Major), being forced out for being too old.


----------



## JSA

Deport him.  Nothing else will do.  js


----------



## CougarKing

Bigrex said:
			
		

> They are actually releasing a movie soon called "Stop-Loss", where a Marine Sgt has his release squashed and redeployed to Iraq...



BigRex,

Umm...if you watched the trailer the main character is a US Army Sgt., not a US Marine; some of the soldiers you see in the trailer were wearing ACUs and class Bs, not the MARPAT uniform which US Marines are known to wear. Just another little detail to nitpick.  

Here is the trailer of the said movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgB59niSuM0


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

where do i sign up to be his escort back to the land of the BIG PX?
we use to have a shuttle run from Ottawa airport to Washington DC so our brass could visit the US brass. if they  still run it, put him and the rest of the run aways on the next flight and send a couple members just back from the latest overseas unit as escort detail.
they  signed the dotted line, collected a pay cheque when the worst thing was getting up for PT  and breakfast, now they  want out when it comes doing the job, toss them back., We must have room on the aircraft taking the troops to Texas for the big exercise, one stop flight, right to the base jail after the ride from the flight line...........................no respect for them


----------



## FullMetalParka

char9409 said:
			
		

> Now, it has been acutely stated that the war in Iraq has been falsely sold to the American people by lies. There were no WMD's and they knew it. So now, one man stands against this because he is no longer fighting for the country he believes in, but a country built on deceiving it's people. A parallel to what the Nazi's did.



I predict your time on this site will be rather short.


----------



## Bigrex

good catch Cougar, I didn't even realize I said Marine. I had just finished playing COD4 and had marines in my head. Thanks for the clarification, but the point is still valid.

And I agree FHG, send him back, but since he was Navy, have him shipped back as a prisoner on a CPF on its way to Norfolk, then have the MPs pick him up at the jetty. This way we can make him suffer, eating ship food and hopefully hit a storm like which he has never seen on an carrier, while other sailors shun and laugh at him.


----------



## Roy Harding

fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> I predict your time on this site will be rather short.



Actually - compositional shortcomings aside - I think she made a reasoned argument (as much as I disagree with it), from her point of view.

And I give her full points for having the temerity to come to this den of war mongers arguing _against_ the war.

I hope she comes back - and rebuts what we've said.

I'm all for an open, reasonable discussion - which, as far as I can recall, is partially what I and my peers fought, and continue to fight, for.


----------



## FullMetalParka

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Actually - compositional shortcomings aside - I think she made a reasoned argument (as much as I disagree with it), from her point of view.
> 
> And I give her full points for having the temerity to come to this den of war mongers arguing _against_ the war.
> 
> I hope she comes back - and rebuts what we've said.
> 
> I'm all for an open, reasonable discussion - which, as far as I can recall, is partially what I and my peers fought, and continue to fight, for.



I agree, this person did make a rather informed statement, but what I meant was that a heated argument on a subject as controversial as this generally spirals down into the abyss of personal insults and high-running emotions. I have zero problem with someone posting their opinion, but from what I've seen, flame wars generally result in bans and locks.


----------



## Danjanou

I'm with the English teacher on this one. Anyone is welcome here as long as they have something to contribute and adhere to the site guidelines. Ironically try visiting one of the "progressive" forums like babble.ca and deviating from the party line and see how long you last.


----------



## Shamrock

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Actually - compositional shortcomings aside - I think she made a reasoned argument (as much as I disagree with it), from her point of view.
> 
> And I give her full points for having the temerity to come to this den of war mongers arguing _against_ the war.
> 
> I hope she comes back - and rebuts what we've said.
> 
> I'm all for an open, reasonable discussion - which, as far as I can recall, is partially what I and my peers fought, and continue to fight, for.



With the notable exception of Char9409's closing sentence, I absolutely agree with Mr. Harding's assessment.

However, I wonder, at what point did we Canadians decide it was acceptable for our country to function as a dumpster for morally bankrupt Americans who lack the satchel content to face the ramifications of their actions babysitting service for individuals who mask their watery equivalent to conscientious objections as unjust persecutions and lack the dedication and perseverance to follow their ideals regardless of the consequences?


----------



## Roy Harding

fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> I agree, this person did make a rather informed statement, but what I meant was that a heated argument on a subject as controversial as this generally spirals down into the abyss of personal insults and high-running emotions. I have zero problem with someone posting their opinion, but from what I've seen, flame wars generally result in bans and locks.



Exactly - which is why we have Mods.  AND, by the way, the reason I posted as an individual - NOT as a Mod.  This thread hasn't required moderation yet - I'm proud of y'all.

Let's keep it that way.


----------



## Kilroy

A couple of things that puzzle me about this guy is that he says that just getting out of the army was not an option. Did he mean he COULDN'T get out, or if he quit, he wiouldn't be able to make ends meet? Well, by coming to Canada, hasn't he effectively done this?? He also says he is concerned about a dishounorable discharge. Well, what does he think he is going to receive by coming to Canada, an hounourable discharge??

While I support the freedom of speech, and the freedom to join or not join the military or anything else, I gotta agree with alot of people on here, that this guy joined of his own free will, and if he doesn't want to go over again, or stay in the military, then get his release FIRST, then come to Canada if he so desires. 

I'd really hate to think Canada would become a hideaway for people want to skirt thier military duty. This would be sure to give us a good trading stance with the US!!!!


----------



## char9409

> Charlotte
> 
> Nice try comparing the present situation in the USA with Germany in World War 2.  However now that my colleague has given you a basic lesson in English composition shall we move on to one in history.
> 
> There were many Germans both Military and Civilian who opposed Hitler and the Nazis and paid the terrible price for doing so. I suggest a quick Google on Oberstleutnant Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, General Ludwig Beck and Operation Walküre, or Die Rote Kapelle, or Sophie Scholl and die Weiße Rose.
> 
> To even attempt to compare today's crop of self styled “war resistor to those brave men and women is an absolute travesty.
> 
> There was resistance in the US during the Vietnam War and there is again today during the present conflict and one can argue the merits pro or con for it.
> 
> Like many others I could have a grudging respect for someone who chose not to serve for whatever reason and remained in his country and faced the consequences of that action no matter what they may be including possible imprisonment.
> 
> I have no respect for cowards who flee their country in the middle of the night and then attack it from the sanctity of another wrapping their callous selfish actions in a thin veneer of pompous self righteousness.



In regards to the above, Mr. Danjanou, thank you for the history lesson, but I did not say that there were not German soldiers who stood up against the Nazi party. Merely stating an example to uphold my position. 

Now, a political pop quiz for you:

1. Did you know that President Bush is currently pushing a bill through congress that will pardon him from being charged with any war crimes associated to the war in Iraq? 

2. Did you know that the reason for going into Iraq was the reason for a WMD search, or a perception that the Iraq's had such weapons?

3. Did you know that now, Dick Cheney as well as the rest of the Bush Administration deny that they ever said that there was an imminent threat of WMD's in Iraq, even though the media has video of them clearly stating that there is an imminent threat of WMD's in Iraq?

4. Did you also know that "A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events. Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?" That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004. Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran."? quote courtesy of http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html.

5. Does the above quote not smell of propaganda, or is it the ignorance of their own people at their own demise?

Perhaps it is questions we need to ask such as what are the man's motives for leaving the US?


----------



## Roy Harding

Kilroy said:
			
		

> A couple of things that puzzle me about this guy is that he says that just getting out of the army was not an option. _*Did he mean he COULDN'T get out, or if he quit, he wiouldn't be able to make ends meet? Well, by coming to Canada, hasn't he effectively done this?? *_He also says he is concerned about a dishounorable discharge. Well, what does he think he is going to receive by coming to Canada, an hounourable discharge??
> 
> While I support the freedom of speech, and the freedom to join or not join the military or anything else, I gotta agree with alot of people on here, that this guy joined of his own free will, and if he doesn't want to go over again, or stay in the military, then get his release FIRST, then come to Canada if he so desires.
> 
> I'd really hate to think Canada would become a hideaway for people want to skirt thier military duty. This would be sure to give us a good trading stance with the US!!!!



Bingo!!

I'm tired of these idiots running away from* their voluntarily acquired responsibilities *(familial, service and otherwise), and *then* claiming refugee status.

I'm MORE tired that we as a nation continue to tolerate their presence.


----------



## Roy Harding

char9409 said:
			
		

> Charlotte
> 
> Nice try comparing the present situation in the USA with Germany in World War 2.  However now that my colleague has given you a basic lesson in English composition shall we move on to one in history.
> 
> There were many Germans both Military and Civilian who opposed Hitler and the Nazis and paid the terrible price for doing so. I suggest a quick Google on Oberstleutnant Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, General Ludwig Beck and Operation Walküre, or Die Rote Kapelle, or Sophie Scholl and die Weiße Rose.
> 
> To even attempt to compare today's crop of self styled “war resistor to those brave men and women is an absolute travesty.
> 
> There was resistance in the US during the Vietnam War and there is again today during the present conflict and one can argue the merits pro or con for it.
> 
> Like many others I could have a grudging respect for someone who chose not to serve for whatever reason and remained in his country and faced the consequences of that action no matter what they may be including possible imprisonment.
> 
> I have no respect for cowards who flee their country in the middle of the night and then attack it from the sanctity of another wrapping their callous selfish actions in a thin veneer of pompous self righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to the above, Mr. Danjanou, thank you for the history lesson, but I did not say that there were not German soldiers who stood up against the Nazi party. Merely stating an example to uphold my position.
> 
> Now, a political lesson for you:
> 1. Did you know that President Bush is currently pushing a bill through congress that will pardon him from being charged with any war crimes associated to the war in Iraq?
> 2. Did you know that the reason for going into Iraq was the reason for a WMD search, or a perception that the Iraq's had such weapons? 3. Did you know that now, Dick Cheney as well as the rest of the Bush Administration deny that they ever said that there was an imminent threat of WMD's in Iraq, even though the media has video of them clearly stating that there is an imminent threat of WMD's in Iraq?
> 4. Did you also know that "A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events. Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?" That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004. Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran."? quote courtesy of http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html.
> 5. Does the above quote not smell of propaganda, or is it the ignorance of their own people and their own demise?
> 
> Perhaps it is questions we need to ask such as what are the man's motives for leaving the US?
Click to expand...


Thank you for coming back - I was afraid you might not.

I think you've provided some very provocative statistics there - do you have sources for them?

I find myself in the awkward position of defending your right to speak your piece, and at the same time disagreeing with you.

Let's make a deal - as a moderator here, I'll do my best to keep away the "dogpile" which MAY happen.  In return - please provide sources for your assertions of fact.

I MIGHT become involved in the forthcoming debate - when I'm Moderating, my comment will be signed with a red "Milnet.ca Staff" annotation - anything not so annotated is my personal opinion.

I respect your point of view - regardless I disagree with it - and I welcome your contribution to these forums.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## willsfarm

I think the United States have created a global state of affairs that probably transcends the notion that "ya join up, ya do as ya'r told".


----------



## Roy Harding

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I think the United States have created a global state of affairs that probably transcends the notion that "ya join up, ya do as ya'r told".



Can you elaborate on that?

The last time I looked, when I sign a contract it means that I accept ALL the conditions contained therein - failure to do so usually means that I pay the penalty.


----------



## gryphonv

I've been reading this post and I want to give my feelings toward it.

I'm not enrolled yet (going to be sworn in March 31st), but these types of people make me sick. 

I personally have a strong work ethic, what ever job I sign up to do, I do my best to honor my part of the agreement, whether its through a contract or a verbal agreement. And this is the same attitude I will have when I am under contract with the Forces, infact I plan on continuing past my initial contract of 10 years. 

This is the same as walking out on any agreement. I even compair this person to that of a Dead Beat father, someone who is abandoning their family. And I'm positive not everyone in the military are pro war, that is a big misconception, I am anti war, but on the flip side I am willing to do anything required of me for my country, that would even include a draft if it ever came down to that.

I remember seeing a quote years back, cant seem to recall it all together, but I think it was from Napoleon and was something like "The best kind of soldier would walk into a lake and drown if ordered to do so." Now this is a bit of an extream example, but I believe a soldier should do whatever he is ordered to do so by a superior.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit crude with this, but its how I feel.

People like this is why we need contracts.


----------



## willsfarm

What I meant to say more elaborately was that I can understand the assertion that he not only violated a contract but fled his home country and therefore should endure a penalty.  It seems to me that that's *not* what the majority of you guys are debating (or overwhelmingly agreeing about).  

Isn't the situation in Iraq enough of a miscarriage of everthing the military stands for that an individual's protest deserves some attention of a different variety? Isn't what's going on over there bad enough for ANY of you to stop and say "Well, something does have to be done soon," and not so cold and dismissive as "Deport him."

Or are you all so jealous that you're not in Iraq as well that you it angers you when someone voluntarily opts out.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> With the notable exception of Char9409's closing sentence, I absolutely agree with Mr. Harding's assessment.
> 
> However, I wonder, at what point did we Canadians decide it was acceptable for our country to function as a dumpster for morally bankrupt Americans who lack the satchel content to face the ramifications of their actions babysitting service for individuals who mask their watery equivalent to conscientious objections as unjust persecutions and lack the dedication and perseverance to follow their ideals regardless of the consequences?



Probably sometime around the date when we erected a statue in Nelson BC (at the Dukhabor Museum, it looks like) to commemorate Vietnam era draft dodgers. AFAIK, no other coutry in the world can claim that they have such a statue. Maybe we should be in the Guiness Book of World records?

http://www.spirit-wrestlers.com/excerpts/Our_Way_Home_2006.html


----------



## Roy Harding

willsfarm said:
			
		

> What I meant to say more elaborately was that I can understand the assertion that he not only violated a contract but fled his home country and therefore should endure a penalty.  It seems to me that that's *not* what the majority of you guys are debating (or overwhelmingly agreeing about).
> 
> Isn't the situation in Iraq enough of a miscarriage of everthing the military stands for that an individual's protest deserves some attention of a different variety? Isn't what's going on over there bad enough for ANY of you to stop and say "Well, something does have to be done soon," and not so cold and dismissive as "Deport him."
> 
> Or are you all so jealous that you're not in Iraq as well that you it angers you when someone voluntarily opts out.



I've lived such a life that I'm not "jealous" of anyone.

Whether I agree with your assessment of the Iraq war or not is immaterial - the individual we're discussing has violated a sacred trust, and has run away from his responsibilities, his family, and his country.

If he disagrees with his country's foreign policy he has the right to campaign against it.  BUT, as a *voluntary* member of his country's military he does not get to decide which war is worthy of participating in.

Canada should not be seen as a haven for opportunists such as him.


----------



## gryphonv

willsfarm said:
			
		

> What I meant to say more elaborately was that I can understand the assertion that he not only violated a contract but fled his home country and therefore should endure a penalty.  It seems to me that that's *not* what the majority of you guys are debating (or overwhelmingly agreeing about).
> 
> Isn't the situation in Iraq enough of a miscarriage of everthing the military stands for that an individual's protest deserves some attention of a different variety? Isn't what's going on over there bad enough for ANY of you to stop and say "Well, something does have to be done soon," and not so cold and dismissive as "Deport him."
> 
> Or are you all so jealous that you're not in Iraq as well that you it angers you when someone voluntarily opts out.



Broad generalizations really show a lack of respect. It seems like your trying to troll. 

I feel the war in Iraq is unjust and was a wrong move, but on the opposite I would go if asked to do so for Canada.

But this is a moot point, its not the fact hes dodging the war, he's dodging his commitments. Bet you if he was stationed in the Carribean somewhere on a Navy Frigate, able to enjoy the weather and see some beauty, he wouldnt be here in canada freezing his butt off.


----------



## aesop081

willsfarm said:
			
		

> Isn't the situation in Iraq enough of a miscarriage of everthing the military stands for that an individual's protest deserves some attention of a different variety?



Please explain how it is a miscariage of what the military stands for. Lat time i checked we followed the orders of our democraticaly elected leaders. The US Military is doing exactly that in Iraq.



> Isn't what's going on over there bad enough for ANY of you to stop and say "Well, something does have to be done soon," and not so cold and dismissive as "Deport him."



No



> Or are you all so jealous that you're not in Iraq as well that you it angers you when someone voluntarily opts out.



Ok, you got me. I dont want them here because i'm jealous of the fact that they are too spineless to stick to their principles and face the consequences of not honouring their - freely undertaken - obligations to their society. Thanks for setting me straight.

 :


----------



## willsfarm

He is dodging his commitments, his military family and his country.  If the United States were _my_ country I'd be dodging it as well, but nevertheless, there are punishments in place for this brand of desertion and it would be reasonable for him to expect to endure them at some point in the future.  

I guess you're all extremely skilled at separating politics from military service, even in a situation so rife with unconstitutionalism, collateral damage, imperialsm, financial and political greed, propaganda and unnecessary human loss as Iraq.  I can't help but be impressed with that level of compartmentalization. (No sarcasm intended whatsoever.)

He shouldn't run to Canada, I agree.  He shouldn't run anywhere.  But I couldn't take myself seriously for condemning his or any other U.S. Serviceman's  decision not to return to Iraq.


----------



## aesop081

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I guess you're all extremely skilled at separating politics from military service,



Thank you



> even in a situation so rife with unconstitutionalism, collateral damage, imperialsm, financial and political greed, propaganda and unnecessary human loss as Iraq.  I can't help but be impressed with that level of compartmentalization. (No sarcasm intended whatsoever.)



Thats you opinion only based on no fact whatsoever.




> He shouldn't run to Canada, I agree.



Great. Join the crowd and demand he be sent back


----------



## medaid

Who are you? Your profile doesn't say much about who you are and what kind of experience you have. Around here, if you want some credibility for your views, you've got to earn it, and one way of earning trust and credibility with us is filling out your profile. It's really simple to do actually. 



			
				willsfarm said:
			
		

> What I meant to say more elaborately was that I can understand the assertion that he not only violated a contract but fled his home country and therefore should endure a penalty.  It seems to me that that's *not* what the majority of you guys are debating (or overwhelmingly agreeing about).



I thought this was exactly what we were debating about. Care to give an example of where we weren't?



			
				willsfarm said:
			
		

> Isn't the situation in Iraq enough of a miscarriage of everthing the military stands for that an individual's protest deserves some attention of a different variety? Isn't what's going on over there bad enough for ANY of you to stop and say "Well, something does have to be done soon," and not so cold and dismissive as "Deport him."



What do you know about what the military stands for? Which military? US military? Canadian Forces? Care to elaborate some more and clarify that statement?

He got is 5mins of fame, so what type of attention should I pay to him that's of a "different variety" ? Have YOU been over there? Or are you just another couch potato civi that loves to critique everything the government and the military does, but never had the will or the ability to do something about it? 

What would you like US to do? You're sort of barking up the wrong tree there aren't you? He's a deserter from the United States Navy. NOT the Canadian Forces. Why is it cold? Have you SERVED a DAY in your life? DO YOU understand what it means to SERVE with HONOUR and INTEGRITY? If you can answer YES to any of the above, then I will give you an answer to WHY we want him deported. Actually, if you've answered YES to anything of the above, then you'll have had the answer yourself.



			
				willsfarm said:
			
		

> Or are you all so jealous that you're not in Iraq as well that you it angers you when someone voluntarily opts out.



I take that statement as a personal affront for every single servicemen and women both in the Canadian Forces and the United States Military. I have had buddies who bled, some more so then others in both Afghanistan AND Iraq. I've had people I know killed in Iraq, and people I knew of distantly who were killed in Afghanistan. 

I WILL NOT HAVE YOU DEFAME THEIR NAME and THEIR SACRIFICE by you, some anonymous TROLL who probably can't and won't say these things to them face to face, eye to eye. 

YOU have NO idea what it means to serve. What DUTY means, what INTEGRITY means, what HONOUR means. These aren't the terms and action sequences that you see on JAG, NCIS, Navy SEALs or any other movie or t.v. show. These are the values that many of us live by day in and day out. I will NOT have you come in here and insult us.


----------



## willsfarm

I'm not here to insult anyone.  For a group of guys so apparantly for rational discourse you're making a lot of generalizations as well.  I'm not stupid; no I don't get my opinions from movies. You don't need to hurl buzzwords at me.  I can see you're very upset, MedTech, but I think I'm making some reasonable points.

If we're not all under the assumption that the U.S. military is carrying out some questionable directives in Iraq then I'll bow out.

I don't think there's a shortage of proof of "unconstitutionalism, collateral damage, imperialsm, financial and political greed, propaganda and unnecessary human loss", that's not my opinion, I refuse that accusation and give me a day or two to gladly provide you with those facts.  

I am behind the opinion that he be sent back.  But that's an individual case representing the larger situation.


----------



## aesop081

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I don't think there's a shortage of proof of "unconstitutionalism, collateral damage, imperialsm, financial and political greed, propaganda and unnecessary human loss", that's not my opinion, I refuse that accusation and give me a day or two to gladly provide you with those facts.



I await your "facts" and, btw, wikkipedia is not "fact"


----------



## willsfarm

Can you narrow down which of those products of the war you've been ignoring? I can't accept that you think it's merely my "opinion" that some significant collateral damage has occured, or that the PsyOps Division hasn't been busy, or that some people have died that shouldn't have.


----------



## medaid

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I'm not here to insult anyone.



Doing a pretty good job at it.



> For a group of guys so apparantly for rational discourse you're making a lot of generalizations as well.



Uh... I never said I was part of any groups of guys...



> I'm not stupid; no I don't get my opinions from movies.



Never said you were, and good for you that you don't get your opinions from movies.



> You don't need to hurl buzzwords at me.



What *buzzwords*? What? Duty, Honour, Integrity? Those are buzzwords? Those apply to civilian life too you know, not just the military. With any job, and place. Even those _*buzzwords*_ exist amongst criminals.



> I can see you're very upset, MedTech, but I think I'm making some reasonable points.



Meh, I'm a little annoyed, but to go as far as say I'm upset? Not really. I don't have that kind of time to waste.



> If we're not all under the assumption that the U.S. military is carrying out some questionable directives in Iraq then I'll bow out.



Nice generalization there too! I repeat my question to you. Have you served in the US Military? No? Do you KNOW anyone in the US Military? I don't mean you talk to one at a rally or anything like that, or watch them on t.v. I mean actually KNOW them?



> I don't think there's a shortage of proof of "unconstitutionalism, collateral damage, imperialsm, financial and political greed, propaganda and unnecessary human loss", that's not my opinion, I refuse that accusation and give me a day or two to gladly provide you with those facts.



I await those as well. BTW if you're really serious about this, you'd bring the points that support your argument and points that COUNTER your arguments as well. That's how you get a rounded argument.



> I am behind the opinion that he be sent back.  But that's an individual case representing the larger situation.



You really still haven't answered the question of, have you served in the US Military? Know why people join the US Military? Talked to the people that joined the US Military? Know the background and organization of the US Military?


----------



## S.Stewart

My friendly advice for the day willsfarm, is fill out your profile, figure out your place, and stay there. It will make life alot less complicated for you. No one is out to get you, but the way this little community of ours works is...if you are going to make comments, and assumptions you best have fact to back them up. Some may call it being over critical, I call it thorough. Think before you speak, it will save you alot of energy, and explaining in the long run.


----------



## willsfarm

Regardless of my knowledge of U.S. military personnel, I thought that everyone agreed that perhaps what is happening in Iraq is less than honourable, if that's not the case - that some people disagree with that - then I'm sorry. Surprised, but sorry.  I don't think knowing U.S. servicemen intimately is necessary to be aware of some of what's happening there.

I'll concede to the fact that this isn't the point of the original post anyways.  If a similar discussion is taking place in another ... place .. then I'll take it there.



			
				S.Stewart said:
			
		

> My friendly advice for the day willsfarm, is fill out your profile, figure out your place, and stay there. It will make life alot less complicated for you. No one is out to get you, but the way this little community of ours works is...if you are going to make comments, and assumptions you best have fact to back them up. Some may call it being over critical, I call it thorough. Think before you speak, it will save you alot of energy, and explaining in the long run.



I'm more than happy to explain, I just thought every globally aware citizen took some of this as a given.  Thanks for the advice, but give me a chance, I'll do fine.


----------



## Delicron

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I'm more than happy to explain, I just thought every globally aware citizen took some of this as a given.



Thus is the problem with people who see themselves as such, they are often people so blinded by their own world view that they assume everyone thinks the same as they.  The next person I see who claims to be so "globally aware" is likely to be someone who is least qualified to assess themselves in that way.  This comment strikes me as condescending, not to mention ignorant.


----------



## willsfarm

I didn't assume that anybody thought the same as me I assumed that people that were aware of the current global state knew that the Iraq war is plagued by controversy surrounding some questionable incidents and practices.


----------



## S.Stewart

In my opinion "Globally Informed", means media fed, but once again thats just my opinion.


----------



## Delicron

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I didn't assume that anybody thought the same as me I assumed that people that were aware of the current global state knew that the Iraq war is plagued by controversy surrounding some questionable incidents and practices.



Granted, there is controversy.  But what I said is evident in your last post: you believe (given the evidence) that there can be only one conclusion to be made about the situation.  Whatever that conclusion is (I don't care really), is likely to be incomplete, based on hearsay, and has likely not gone through the rigors of any actual informed debate.  A difference of opinion is understandable when given the same evidence, several conclusions can reasonably be made.  That is the case here. However, you only seem able to recognize the validity of one opinion; those of the "globally informed" who happen to agree with you.


----------



## Bigrex

char9409 said:
			
		

> Now, a political pop quiz for you:
> 
> 1. Did you know that President Bush is currently pushing a bill through congress that will pardon him from being charged with any war crimes associated to the war in Iraq?
> 
> 2. Did you know that the reason for going into Iraq was the reason for a WMD search, or a perception that the Iraq's had such weapons?
> 
> 3. Did you know that now, Dick Cheney as well as the rest of the Bush Administration deny that they ever said that there was an imminent threat of WMD's in Iraq, even though the media has video of them clearly stating that there is an imminent threat of WMD's in Iraq?
> 
> 4. Did you also know that "A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events. Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?" That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004. Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran."? quote courtesy of http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html.
> 
> 5. Does the above quote not smell of propaganda, or is it the ignorance of their own people at their own demise?
> 
> Perhaps it is questions we need to ask such as what are the man's motives for leaving the US?



1. In every conflict, one persons war hero is another persons war criminal, legislation in place or not.

2. Iraq has had WMDs and have used them, so it wasn't such as stretch, and if Bush Sr had gone into Iraq in the first place, people would haven't blinked an eye. And it isn't a stretch to say that Saddam was above using terrorist like AQ to strike a blow against his enemies.

3. As far as not finding WMDs, what do people expect when the inspection teams give the guy notice. It would be similar to police calling a drug house and saying they want to come in and search, and then wait several days or weeks for them to receive permission, then claim they are surprised no drugs were found. In the 90's, Iraq sent the majority of their jets to Iran to avoid destruction, so why not other weapons

4. the American people have never been extremely wise when it comes to current affairs outside their borders. A few years back, Royal Canadian Air Farce went around asking Americans to say something about Canada getting their first paved road, and they went on congratulating us on entering modern times, including a professor from a prominent university, so their lack of knowledge about the other side of the world isn't surprising.


----------



## Danjanou

willsfarm said:
			
		

> ....I thought that everyone agreed that perhaps what is happening in Iraq is less than honourable, if that's not the case - that some people disagree with that - then I'm sorry. Surprised, but sorry.


  

Well I guess you thought wrong there skippy. take off the rose coloured glasses and join the real world, it's scary sure but it can be fun.



> I just thought every globally aware citizen took some of this as a given



And let me guess your definition of "globally aware" is limited those who think like you and parrot the same phrases right. Us poor knuckle dragging warmongers don't qaulify.

As has been said before fill in the profile tell us who we're dealing with here. If not military, maybe well travelled, former tour with CUSO, Peace Corps, Medicien sans Frontiers or do you sit in mommy's basement surfing progressive blogs and trollign while figuring out another way to stay in grad school for the 10th consecutive yeat to avoid real responsibility.


----------



## Harris

gryphonv said:
			
		

> I remember seeing a quote years back, cant seem to recall it all together, but I think it was from Napoleon and was something like "The best kind of soldier would walk into a lake and drown if ordered to do so." Now this is a bit of an extream example, but I believe a soldier should do whatever he is ordered to do so by a superior.



Personally, I have no desire to have soldiers like those in your example.  I prefer to have soldiers who obey *lawful* commands, but who also display initative, and exercise Mission Command.  I'm not a fan of the "Do what I say because I'm an Officer and you have to", style of leadership.


----------



## char9409

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Thank you for coming back - I was afraid you might not.
> 
> I think you've provided some very provocative statistics there - do you have sources for them?
> 
> I find myself in the awkward position of defending your right to speak your piece, and at the same time disagreeing with you.
> 
> Let's make a deal - as a moderator here, I'll do my best to keep away the "dogpile" which MAY happen.  In return - please provide sources for your assertions of fact.
> 
> I MIGHT become involved in the forthcoming debate - when I'm Moderating, my comment will be signed with a red "Milnet.ca Staff" annotation - anything not so annotated is my personal opinion.
> 
> I respect your point of view - regardless I disagree with it - and I welcome your contribution to these forums.
> 
> 
> Roy Harding
> Milnet.ca Staff



Yes here are some of my resources for the previous statements

1. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3416. You can read the report, plus you can google Bush pardon's himself as well and get pages and pages of information.

2. & 3. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e17_1194117001 for actual video of donald rumsfeld stating that there were in fact WMD's and several other video's including Bush. Again you can google bush lies about WMD's or 'mislead' the American People.

4.  I left the source in my statement.

5. Was just a general question.

I really appreciate it that more than 1 view is allowed to be heard on this forum. I believe that it is incredibly important to look at both  sides of an argument. Personally, if I make a committment I would seek out to fullfill this committment to my full ability, which I know I am capable of entirely. 

It is true that soldiers do not get to choose their wars, but only fight the wars that politicians have decided, who are generally elected by the people of that country. Serving your country should always and is always an honorable thing, it is when those politicians who use the military to fulfill their own agendas and not those of the American people that a division in ideals is prevelant. 

Just because we are a western civilization does not mean that we are prone to propaganda and weaknesses that have occured in our history as a human race. We learn history to avoid repeating it, but when we denounce historic events as irrelevant due to their outrageous and inhumane outcomes is a dangerous analysis. We have all learned that history does in fact repeat itself. I believe we should use this pattern to the best of our abilities. We use patterns in math, science, and all other areas of life, why not in war and politics?

-Charlotte


----------



## George Wallace

char9409 said:
			
		

> Yes here are some of my resources for the previous statements
> 
> 1. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3416. You can read the report, plus you can google Bush pardon's himself as well and get pages and pages of information.




Ah!  I see you didn't dig too deep into the reliability and credibility of your sources.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=about



> About Global Research
> 
> The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists. The CRG is based in Montreal. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada.



I do believe we have dealt with people from this organization before.  The letters to Soldiers from BFC Valcartier come to mind.


I think their rating in the Reliability and Credibility "world" is something like a   J 9 .  In other words, they really don't have any.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> As has been said before fill in the profile tell us who we're dealing with here. If not military, maybe well travelled, former tour with CUSO, Peace Corps, Medicien sans Frontiers or do you sit in mommy's basement surfing progressive blogs and trollign while figuring out another way to stay in grad school for the 10th consecutive yeat to avoid real responsibility.



+2 Danjanou

I'm very familiar with the type, my youngest daughter was dating one. He didn't like when I told him to get a haircut and get a real job. But my plan worked, he never came back to our house.

Willsfarm, why don't you go and speak with Jack layton, some thing tells me that you two would get along very well indeed. Afterall you both seem to be suffering from the very same ailment, "foot-in-the-mouth syndrome".

Many of us here have served for years and we know all to well what it means to committing one self to serving our country. Many of us have been in those deep dark places and seen first hand the atrocities of war, but that didn't mean we runaway because we didn't agree with what was going on. From what i've read so far in your postings, you seem to be the odd ball out at a poker game, a lot of lip service, but you know absolutely nothing about the game. Unless you've been there and done it, (not just read it or heard it from the MSM or seen it on the WWW)your not qualified in any way to make presumptions. Until I see something in your profile to change my mind, i'll add you to my growing list of misguided, uninformed individuals.


----------



## char9409

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  I see you didn't dig too deep into the reliability and credibility of your sources.
> 
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section&sectionName=about
> 
> I do believe we have dealt with people from this organization before.  The letters to Soldiers from BFC Valcartier come to mind.
> 
> 
> I think their rating in the Reliability and Credibility "world" is something like a   J 9 .  In other words, they really don't have any.



I did also mention to google it. There are thousands of resources. Perhaps you could have read the rest of the sentence that stated the googling capabilities. And what are the sources of credibility for your comment?


----------



## Edward Campbell

I fail to see why so many people get _sooooo_ upset over the few deserters who flee to Canada in the (misguided) belief that this is some sort of pacifist paradise.

It appears to me, based on the cases already heard and the polls I have noticed, that our courts and Canadians agree that deserters from an all volunteer US military have no legitimate claims to refugee status. Some Canadians and some Americans disagree.

We have had deserters of our own – from wars and from _peacekeeping_ and from simple garrison duty and training. We probably have one or two on the books today. The *A*ustralians have deserters, ditto the *B*elgians, *C*hileans, *D*anes and so on. Why are a few confused Americans of such overwhelming interest?

A whole lot of Canadians and about half of Americans, too, (if I remember the most recent poll data) oppose the war in Iraq – some on moral ground, some on practical grounds (it’s the wrong way to prosecute the current “clash of civilizations”) and some because they just vehemently oppose George W. Bush and all his works. Some of those who oppose the war have legitimate, defensible points of view, some are just juvenile, ill-educated, knee-jerk anti-Americans (including some Americans, as counterintuitive as that may appear at first glance).

The great thing about Canada (and the USA) is that you can come here, make your case to stay – however silly it may be – get turned down (over and over and over again, unfortunately) and, civilly, be returned to your place of origin for fair treatment.

It’s no big deal, boys and girls. The guy is looking for an easy way to avoid something he finds unpalatable; he’ll almost certainly be disappointed when Canadian officialdom deals with him. Too bad for him; no issue for most anyone else.


Edit: punctuationand a typo


----------



## willsfarm

What am I uninformed about? Your posts are all amusing but I'm still unclear what you guys think I'm so plain wrong about.  I don't support this guy's decision. I just made a couple of statements about the situation in Iraq.  How exceptional....

Talk about knee-jerk reactions!  

No I'm not in my tenth year of grad school, i'm in my second and last year of engineering and I work in residential construction.  

I haven't made personal assumptions about any of you, I won't be insulted by your assumptions about me, they're way off anyways, so knock it off.


----------



## aesop081

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I just made a couple of statements about the situation in Iraq.  How exceptional....



And you made statements, implying that they are fact, without backing them up with any credible evidence. I have asked you to do so and, after several posts, you still have not done so.


----------



## KevinB

willsfarm said:
			
		

> Regardless of my knowledge of U.S. military personnel, I thought that everyone agreed that perhaps what is happening in Iraq is less than honourable, if that's not the case - that some people disagree with that - then I'm sorry. Surprised, but sorry.  I don't think knowing U.S. servicemen intimately is necessary to be aware of some of what's happening there.
> 
> I'll concede to the fact that this isn't the point of the original post anyways.  If a similar discussion is taking place in another ... place .. then I'll take it there.
> 
> I'm more than happy to explain, I just thought every globally aware citizen took some of this as a given.  Thanks for the advice, but give me a chance, I'll do fine.



I serve in Iraq -- and having served with the CF in Afghanistan - do not feel it any less of an honorable mission.

  I would not piss on someone who shirks their duty (especially an Officer) if they where on fire.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The difficulty here, willsfarm, is that you're confusing two issues.  Whether or not the mission in Iraq has questionable motives and consequences is neither here nor there.  The only issue is that this guy refused to perform a duty that he volunteered to complete, and was lawfully required to complete.  He chose to disavow his sworn duty, and ran, rather than face the consequences of his moral, ethical, religious, or just outright selfish beliefs, full stop.


----------



## Roy Harding

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The difficulty here, willsfarm, is that you're confusing two issues.  Whether or not the mission in Iraq has questionable motives and consequences is neither here nor there.  The only issue is that this guy refused to perform a duty that he volunteered to complete, and was lawfully required to complete.  He chose to disavow his sworn duty, and ran, rather than face the consequences of his moral, ethical, religious, or just outright selfish beliefs, full stop.



Thank you.  You articulated what I was thinking - and brought this thread back on track.


----------



## willsfarm

I realize those are two different issues and I'm only debating the other issue, since I've been asked to provide proof for my statements, which I am doing.  We all (including me) agree that this U.S. Serviceman has violated his contract and illegally fled the country for which he should be returned to the United States and held responsible for his desertion.

There's no "difficulty", I'm not "confused"; it's very simple.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Mods please spin this off then, as there are now two separate and distinct topics at issue here.


----------



## George Wallace

willsfarm said:
			
		

> There's no "difficulty", I'm not "confused"; it's very simple.



Very good then!

So now, don't confuse the issues.  This topic is about a US Navy Chief Petty Officer who served on an Aircraft Carrier......OFF the coast of Iraq.  This topic has nothing to do with United States Foreign Policy.  It is about a DESERTER who is seeking refuge in Canada, a nation that is allied with the US in the WOT.   His coming to Canada avoid Service is what is at issue.


----------



## willsfarm

Well if that's the case then there really is no more issue since we're all in agreement.

I hope I still have the opportunity to provide what's been fairly asked of me though by CDN Aviator.


----------



## George Wallace

Then start a topic on that issue.


----------



## willsfarm

I don't know how to do that.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Mods please spin this off then, as there are now two separate and distinct topics at issue here.


----------



## Roy Harding

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Mods please spin this off then, as there are now two separate and distinct topics at issue here.



Good idea.  I'll do that this evening when I have the time to concentrate.


----------



## willsfarm

*The Iraq War is Unconstitutional*
Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution states that it is the duty of congress "To declare war".  They have transferred this responsibility to the executive branch without majority vote, according to a number of US Senators (both republican and democratic).  This action requires constitutional amendment.  This is in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  The Iraq War is unconstitutional.

*Collateral Damage*
"a Marine communique from Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi reported that ... 15 Iraqi civilians were killed by the blast." -Time Magazine March 19, 2006.

"Fifteen Iraqi civilians -- all women and children -- were killed by coalition forces during an operation targeting senior leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, according to the U.S. military," -CNN, October 12, 2007.

I've given examples from each side, the Iraqi insurgency/resistance as well as coalition forces.
The Iraq War causes collateral damage.

*Imperialism*

"1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries" -Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Should we all assume that the rest of the world is enamoured with the American way of life? And strives to emulate their systems of government and economy? I find that very egotistical.
The United States is the rule and authority in Iraq.
The Iraq war is an imperialist action on the part of the United States.

*Greed*

Financial

_"“There is such a thirst for gain among military suppliers that it is enough to make one curse their own Species, for possessing so little virtue and patriotism.”  -- President George Washington, 1778_

The Iraq war costs roughly $200 *million* dollars *every day*. (Martin Wolk, Chief economics correspondent, MSNBC, 2006) The money to pay for this comes from the US Federal Reserve, after the White House asks congress to provide additional funding. Usually to the tune of dozens of billions of dollars per request. The money is being spent not only on providing servicemen and women with the tools they need, but also to private companies such as Halliburton, KBR and Bechtel, who are tasked with the reconstruction efforts on Iraq's infrastructure. The contracts for these reconstruction efforts are worth millions, though Iraqi's complain of shoddy work, cut corners and even "One 'repaired' school was overflowing with unflushed sewage" -Iraqi teacher, Baghdad. 

 "War profiteers in Iraq pursue quick fixes and high profits by overcharging for shoddy work, while Iraqis protest that they could do the work better and cheaper." -Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena, Institute for Southern Studies, Baghdad, 2004.

Political

The Patriot Act. A near-Orwellian piece of legislation that wages a campaign of fear and oppression against the American people under the guise of national security.

Fear...

*Propaganda*

The fear mongering Bush administration has produced some classic and timeless examples of propaganda.  The American public are made to believe that the world outside their homes is as dangerous as the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad.  They are assaulted constantly by "Action News" telling of the latest homicide and vague terrorist threat.  Buzzwords are shoved down their throats via the news media about terrorists and foiled plots and home bases for terrorism. Their leaders tell stories of "cutting and running", they're made to feel like complete cowards if they think the war should end. What is an insurgent? What is an insurgent, more than a resistor?
Peter Phillips of Global Research writes:

"Three years ago I met a Dutch journalist, Willem Oltman, at the International Campaign Against US Aggression on Iraq in Cairo, Egypt. Oltman described his teen years during World War II in the Dutch resistance movement. "The Nazi's called us terrorists," he exclaimed. "Now as the US invades and occupies other countries you do the same thing," he added.


----------



## OkotoksRookie

Strike said:
			
		

> But it was during his deployment on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf that Wiley started to change his opinion about the war. He came home from the Middle East knowing he didn't want to go back. Eventually, he decided he had to leave the military before he was sent back to Iraq.



It's a shame we don't have more information on he exact reasons for not wanting to go back. All we know is he changed his opinion, all else is speculation. 
However, regardless of his reasons, it's not right he's using Canada as shield to avoid the punishment of his actions.


----------



## KevinB

Dude -- lay off the crack pipe -- I work for USAID in Iraq -- 99.9% of Iraqi's are VERY VERY happy with the regime change and the ability of the individual to try to better themselves.  Sure its not great -- but it is a hell of a lot better than it was -- and it gets better day by day ---- the trip you spew would have had us leave German and japan in post war ruins and not attempt to rebuild.


----------



## willsfarm

That's your assessment of the situation? It's not great?

99.9%, that's a good number.  No source required by the mods on that one I'm sure.  That's fair.

Don't tell me to lay off the crack pipe.  I don't use drugs.


----------



## Roy Harding

willsfarm said:
			
		

> That's your assessment of the situation? It's not great?
> 
> 99.9%, that's a good number.  No source required by the mods on that one I'm sure.  That's fair.
> 
> Don't tell me to lay off the crack pipe.  I don't use drugs.



I6 - he's got a valid point on the stats.

ALL - lets keep away from the personal attacks.

And YES - I'll split this topic tonight (I'm on the West coast - so it'll seem later to some of you) - splitting takes a little concentration, which isn't available to me when "driving by" during the day.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## KevinB

I'm a primary source -- I can make up stats just like anyone else -- however unlike the sources you quoted I am here.

  Its a war zone in some areas, would you like me to lie to you and say it has raibow fields and jellybean rivers (or whatever tripe Sean Penn was spouting).
However the ruler is democratically elected -- and not the one we wanted so you know it was fair.
  The gov't is some what (haphazardly) responsible to the people (we shall see in the next election who gets re-elected).

 OIF removed one of the worlds worst tyranical dictators, no there have been hickups and some incredibly stupid (Bremmer) decisions.
However give Iraq 5 year...


----------



## Sig_Des

Knowing I-6 is there, and knowing people whom I respect who know him and respect him as a source, I'm inclined to accept what he's saying over someone who has never been there or in situation like Iraq and pulls stats off the internet. But hey, that's just me. Maybe I'm a sheep.


----------



## willsfarm

I'm just saying I think 99.9% is an exaggeration.  I'm disinclined to accept that.


----------



## Sig_Des

See, those of us actually in the military learn that one of the best sources of intelligence and of local feeling and attitude is those with boots on the ground.

You're arguing semantics here. Sure, maybe it's not 99.9% mathematically, but we all get the point that I-6 is saying the large majority of those he interacted with.


----------



## KevinB

Well when you consider how I framed it...

  I have yet to meet anyone Sunni or Shiite (or Khurd for that matter to go figure) who is a Big Sadam fan.  Granted I've not been to old Sadam's home town and thus the Sunni there may really like the guy.
  Do they all like the US invasion -- most do -- do they like what happened after -- well not really, however most I've dealt with seem to accept that mistakes are made and need to be dealt with -- others simply mumble insha allah.

  Of course BigRed and I also generate carbon credits with those who don't like my math


----------



## Danjanou

willsfarm said:
			
		

> I'm just saying I think 99.9% is an exaggeration.  I'm disinclined to accept that.



Well here's an idea. You head on over yourself, take a poll of the locals and come back and let us know what percentage is more accurate. until then I'll take I-6s someone I know as opposed to someone in cyber space.

( Hey Roy got volunteered to be Duty Mod on this thread, so I'm just posting as a regular site member)


----------



## medaid

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Of course BigRed and I also generate carbon credits with those who don't like my math



Oh ho ho ho ho! Funny! ;D


----------



## Roy Harding

Danjanou said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> ( Hey Roy got volunteered to be Duty Mod on this thread, so I'm just posting as a regular site member)



The whole world loves a smartass.

 :-*

Roy


----------



## KevinB

I will admit BigRed and I got a hell of wake up last year with our neighbour firing his Ak in celebration of Sadam dropping to his fate, all 4m from my bedroom -- he had lost a brother and two sons to Sadam's thugs.  Of course I was a little startled and was up in no time -- naked guy with M4 in the window (no pics sorry saving them for the book  ^-^)


----------



## geo

> If the proposed law isn't passed and Wiley is deported, he could face jail time and other serious consequences in the U.S., including receiving a dishonourable discharge or a bad conduct discharge from the military that will impact his employment opportunities.



If they are sent back to the US what is the very worst thing that can happen to them?  They will be arrested & placed under detention by the SPs.  They will be charged, sentenced & dishonorably discharged.  The US gov't isn't looking for a media Martyr - so asside from stripping them of their rights to a service penison & benefits, they'll probably get tossed out onto the street with their bad conduct dicharge papers & left to their own devices to eek out a living doing minimum wage work with the Illegal immigrants. 

Drive them up to a US border crossing and give em a friendly push to get them started.

PLEASE!


----------



## willsfarm

You're in cyberspace too chief, this is a public forum, much to your chagrin.  I don't care for your attitude, I don't need to be suggested to visit Iraq.  If you care to accept 9.9 out of 10, then your suggestions aren't worth the binary code they're embedded on.


----------



## Roy Harding

willsfarm said:
			
		

> You're in cyberspace too chief, this is a public forum, much to your chagrin.  I don't care for your attitude, I don't need to be suggested to visit Iraq.  If you care to accept 9.9 out of 10, then your suggestions aren't worth the binary code they're embedded on.



What is it about "refraining from personal attacks" that you don't get?

Take it to PMs.

Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## willsfarm

That's not a personal attack.  It just isn't, especially compared to the personal attacks I've endured.  You guys are completely unfair, *completely* unfair when it comes to behaviour and conduct.  I can't seem to figure out how to de-register from this site, so since you're looking to satsfy your compensatory urge to ban me could you please go ahead with that.  I want nothing to do with this forum.  

Thanks, it's been..... "real."


----------



## Roy Harding

willsfarm said:
			
		

> That's not a personal attack.  It just isn't, especially compared to the personal attacks I've endured.  You guys are completely unfair, *completely* unfair when it comes to behaviour and conduct.  I can't seem to figure out how to de-register from this site, so since you're looking to satsfy your compensatory urge to ban me could you please go ahead with that.  I want nothing to do with this forum.
> 
> Thanks, it's been..... "real."



Wow.

I re-read the thread.  From what I read, I'm one of the few defending you.

You're welcome.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## KevinB

willsfarm said:
			
		

> You're in cyberspace too chief, this is a public forum, much to your chagrin.  I don't care for your attitude, I don't need to be suggested to visit Iraq.  If you care to accept 9.9 out of 10, then your suggestions aren't worth the binary code they're embedded on.



Your missing the entire point -- you have a pre-concieved notion that Iraqi's are upset at what has happened.  I'm not trying to start a fight -- only to look at the fact that I am a primary source of data -- I have no reason to try to skew data or info here -- you dont pay my salary and the Cdn public will not influence what happens here despite several people holding theire breath till they are blue in the face.

  Your claiming data to suggest one line - and I am simply saying from my birds eye on the reconstruction side of Iraq, that the views and comments you are expressing are not valid.

This thread has been hi-jacked.


----------



## medaid

willsfarm said:
			
		

> That's not a personal attack.  It just isn't, especially compared to the personal attacks I've endured.  You guys are completely unfair, *completely* unfair when it comes to behaviour and conduct.  I can't seem to figure out how to de-register from this site, so since you're looking to satsfy your compensatory urge to ban me could you please go ahead with that.  I want nothing to do with this forum.
> 
> Thanks, it's been..... "real."



willsfarm,

   I think we've been quite fair with you. We have told you more then once that your beliefs and views are questionable for someone who has yet to back most of his statements up. I've read your PM, and frankly even in private conversation you strike me as someone who thinks they know more about the situations in the world, then the professionals who work in it. You'll have a hard time in the CF if that's your attitude, because frankly you don't know JACK. That was something everyone's been trying to tell you. They've tried it politely soo many time that they got fed up with it and just came out and said it. We've asked you to fill out your profile and identify yourself as to who you are, not your name, but rather that your background is and what you did for a living. You were too good to even do that. 

   Go ahead, leave this forum. You will not be missed, and you'll be dismissed just as quickly. Please don't think you're the first one to come on this forum and spout off the things that you have for the past few days. You have some good points, but most others are clouded by personal views and views from those who have never served a day in their lives. I kept asking you if you've served in either the US Mil or the CF, and you never replied out in the open, but you did in the PM. Good on you, but it doesn't give credibility out here. It sure didn't give credibility to me, even if you were to post it up out here, your views would be dismissed. You want to know why?

    YOU ARE WAY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE. 

   For someone who has never served you sure have many opinions about the forces and how we, professional servicemen and women, no matter full-time or part-time, do things. I am by no means an expert in the forces, but I have served both as an NCM and as an Officer and the so called "Buzzwords" are things that I believe in and strive to achieve in my job every single day. Someone who has never experienced the camaraderie of service, and never understood the bond of brotherhood in service or under fire will NEVER understand what the service is like. 

   You are a civilian looking into a world that you will NEVER understand. Just as I will never understand the world of corporate politics but I will not stride into an office of some CEO and tell him/her that their views on how some other company should handle their employee was wrong. I have never been there. I have never done that. I will never know.

    Good luck to you in your application. If you make it, hopefully you will change your mind in a few years of service.


----------



## Danjanou

willsfarm said:
			
		

> That's not a personal attack.  It just isn't, especially compared to the personal attacks I've endured.  You guys are completely unfair, *completely* unfair when it comes to behaviour and conduct.  I can't seem to figure out how to de-register from this site, so since you're looking to satsfy your compensatory urge to ban me could you please go ahead with that.  I want nothing to do with this forum.
> 
> Thanks, it's been..... "real."



You’re wish is our command. See how helpful and accommodating we can be.

[mod hat on]
For the record you’ve been banned  at your own request. As noted you were welcome to stay. We would have preferred you backed your arguments with some empirical evidence but hey whatever.

As I’ve stated anyone and any opinion are welcome here as long as they adhere to the guidelines. As seen the DS will impartially ensure that they are enforced for and by all irregardless of our personal beliefs and biases.  Too bad that is not the case on several other forums that have a diametrically opposed version of things. There you step out of progressive group think ( which often in out case is saying who we are and why we have a differing opinion on the WOT)  and you’re gone, no warning.
[/mod hat off]


----------



## Foxhound

Damn.  Sorry to see wilsfarm opt for that particular way out.  I was following this thread with some interest.  What I like about this site is that it gives everybody a chance to present their arguments as long as they remain within the realm of fact or, if not fact, opinion backed up by study.  I was looking forward to a good debate.  wilsfarm appeared to be studying at least, but when told he was not studying deeply enough, he chose termination rather than concession or acceptance.

I glean from what MedTech posted, wilsfarm is in the application process.  I do not wish him luck in his endeavor.  First of all,  from the very start he confused the military ideal of service with the political ideal of choice.  This is the same mistake that the USN NCO made in abandoning his service, country and family when he fled to Canada.  I would ask wilsfarm where will he flee to when he has the hard question put to him?  I do not like to think that the CF is accepting candidates who see their oath as less than binding.  So wilsfarm, I hope you wash out real soon.

Next, wilsfarm comes across as someone who is thoroughly indoctrinated in the "no child left behind" ideal of the modern educational system.  His decision to opt out of the debate rather than accept the possible failure of his argument indicates this.  He did come across as erudite and "educated' (whatever that means), but would only accept (and present) information from sources that he would seek, and would not accept sources unsolicited no matter how expert, as in the case of I6's arguments.  He was waiting to be validated by any other means, as in, "We'll give you a C+ for effort rather than an F for failure."  When that validation failed to materialize, he bailed.  This tells me that if his conception of the military does not match the reality (and it won't), he will pull pin and we may end up with another Francisco Juarez on our hands.

Back to the topic at hand, are there any recent developments concerning the fate of the last bunch of "refugee" deserters claimants?  Last news I can find is from Nov. '07 when it was reported that the SCC refused their appeal.


----------



## geo

Must remember that these servicemen were not conscripts who were dragged in "kickin n' srceaming" to do their time.  They were all VOLUNTEERS who willingly signed up, took the oath & took the pay.

They had the option of standing up for their beliefs, say heck no, I won't go & face the music.  There is a Lt in Hawaii who is doing that right now.  While I don't agree with his position, I can at least accept the strength of his conviction.


----------



## 1feral1

willsfarm said:
			
		

> Or are you all so jealous that you're not in Iraq as well that you it angers you when someone voluntarily opts out.



I read all what you posted throughout this thread, and the above quote sums things up pretty quick.

Definatly a hidden agenda.

Your opinion on Iraq appears to be very biased, no doubt fed by a one sided media, and bizarre mislead leftist views, with an anti US and anti war flavour of course.

There is more good going on in Iraq than bad, but bad news sells stories, and you feed off them.

As for this bloke being a coward and deserting, well thats his business. Its piss weak, but its his business.

All he has to claim that he is gay, or wants to harm himself, and he's out of the Army. He is making a political stance here against an unpopular war.  

No real soldier is jealous of another country's involvement in a war. What you are saying is just crap, and you are attempting to label us as some type of baby killing war mongering preying mantids.

Bans on this site are deserved, but you get a gold star.

No waddle off and preach your views elsewhere.


----------



## Stryker_11A

Me thinks there is more to this story than we are being told. A Chief Petty Officer is a senior non-commissioned officer rank with many years of service. His service on board aircraft carriers keeps him relatively out of harms way while deployed. Most of the military who have deserted and crossed the border into Canada seeking refugee status had either been to Iraq/Afghanistan on the ground or were headed that way. I don't agree with their desertion, but I can understand how overwhelming fear can grip the mind and make one make that decision. A senior NCO, on the cusp of retirement from the Navy, who will not be on the ground in combat deserting screams volumes. I have contacts at Norfolk, VA through my civilian occupation. I will look into this.


----------



## TCBF

Odds are, he did something naughty and came up here to avoid facing the music.  Everyone knows that Canada is a haven for criminals and terrorists.  If they found Adolph Hitler living in Prince George, it would take thirty years to deport him.


----------



## Gimpy

TCBF said:
			
		

> Odds are, he did something naughty and came up here to avoid facing the music.  Everyone knows that Canada is a haven for criminals and terrorists.  If they found Adolph Hitler living in Prince George, it would take thirty years to deport him.



It only took 2 years to deport Zundel  

Heres a very interesting story on the total number of deserters throughout the Iraq War and apparently only a small percentage is due to opposition to the war according to a spokeswoman. Also about 58% of Navy deserters just walked back in without coercion.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-deserters_x.htm


----------



## TCBF

Gimpy said:
			
		

> It only took 2 years to deport Zundel



A.H. had good lawyers back in the day (they wote the laws to lawfully create the Nazi state) - I'm sure he would have good ones now as well!


----------



## the 48th regulator

*Alleged deserter living in Alberta arrested at Montana border crossing*43 minutes ago

RAYMOND, Mont. - A man living in Alberta has been arrested by U.S. officials at a border crossing in Montana after being identified as a U.S. military deserter.

Leon Soup, 43, was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Broder Protection officers at the Raymond Port of Entry on Feb. 10.

Officials say a name check disclosed that he was the subject of an arrest warrant as an alleged deserter from the U.S. Marine Corps.

Thomas Schreiber, a customs spokesman in Blaine, Wash., says Soup is a U.S. citizen who has been living in Alberta, and was seeking entry into the United States at the time of his arrest.

Soup has been turned over to the Sheridan County Sheriff's Office pending his handover to military prosecutors.

Copyright © 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.  


dileas

tess


----------



## Pte.Butt

I have zero sympathy for this man. He signed a contract, took his oath, now he has to pay the consequences for deserting his commitment.


----------



## geo

All I can say is.... 
Good for him if he was going back to turn himself in - be a man and face up to your responsibilities.  If you want to say "heck no, I won't go - have your day in court and live with the consequences of your conviction"
If he was going stateside for a visit.... then he's an even bigger idiot than everyone thought he was!

Now.... He's "soap on a rope"


----------



## Wookilar

Given dude's age, I have to wonder how old this desertion charge is? Not that it matters really, but I'm just wondering how long he's been running?

Even in the Marine Corp Times, no mention is made of any particulars. Actually, they pretty much just cut and paste the AP report it seems.

(http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/02/ap_allegeddeserter_080214/)

Wook


----------



## the 48th regulator

*porta decumana * - rear gate 

It was from this gate that soldiers convicted of serious crimes, such as desertion, were led out from the camp to be executed, likely by being stoned to death.  

dileas

tess


----------



## eerickso

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> These modern punks VOLUNTEERED - and then got cold feet.



And then they hear something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzWH7RjM7Jw

And then say to themselves WTF? I don't rememeber saying anything about oil and helping the rich in the oath that I took!


----------



## geo

mountainliving said:
			
		

> And then they hear something like this:
> 
> And then say to themselves WTF? I don't rememeber saying anything about oil and helping the rich in the oath that I took!


They signed up while the US was already at war with AQ & Iraq.  They took the oath and they took the pay.... 
If they have a conviction that the war is wrong - FINE, stand up for your rights, have your say - do it in public even.
Go to trial and face a jurry of your peers.  
Running away to the north to start a new life as an illegal is NOT the way to do it.


----------



## 2 Cdo

geo said:
			
		

> They signed up while the US was already at war with AQ & Iraq.  They took the oath and they took the pay....
> *If they have a conviction that the war is wrong - FINE, stand up for your rights, have your say - do it in public even.
> Go to trial and face a jurry of your peers.  *
> Running away to the north to start a new life as an illegal is NOT the way to do it.



The high-lighted portion pretty much says it all! To do anything otherwise is dishonest and shows a lack of conviction.


----------



## eerickso

Yes, they sure did take an oath. In that oath it say something about domestic enemies.


----------



## 2 Cdo

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Yes, they sure did take an oath. In that oath it say something about domestic enemies.



Okay. :


----------



## geo

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Yes, they sure did take an oath. In that oath it say something about domestic enemies.



The oath does not limit itself to "domestic" or "Foreign" / "Real" or "Imagined" ennemies.

If they felt squeamish at the time it was thrust into their hands, they shoulda spoken up at that time... not years later


----------



## Trinity

> "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that *I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.* So help me God."


http://www.marines.com/page/Oath.jsp

Don't forget the other part of the oath.   

Even if it is about oil and not enemies, I will obey the orders of the President of the United states and of the officers appointed over me


----------



## eerickso

geo said:
			
		

> The oath does not limit itself to "domestic" or "Foreign" / "Real" or "Imagined" ennemies.



You did hear what Greenspan said?


----------



## eerickso

Trinity said:
			
		

> http://www.marines.com/page/Oath.jsp
> 
> Don't forget the other part of the oath.
> 
> Even if it is about oil and not enemies, I will obey the orders of the President of the United states and of the officers appointed over me



Fair enough.

Maybe we should be seeing more Officers coming to Canaada.  Read the oath for Marine Officers.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The Marine Officer Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Here it is, what's your point?


----------



## eerickso

My point is that if the United States starts putting lots of officers in jail, they might gain some practise and impeach the president who also took an oath of office..


----------



## Fusaki

> My point is that if the United States starts putting lots of officers in jail, they might gain some practise and impeach the president who also took an oath of office..



You're grasping at straws here, man.

Deserters are criminals and should be treated as such, regardless of how you feel about the POTUS. I get the feeling you're just arguing now for the sake of it, nevermind the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on... :


----------



## eerickso

True enough.

They are criminals and I agree that most of them are doing it out of their own convenience. 

However, some might be deserting out of disgust for the current president and I feel a little bit sorry for them. Not alot but a little bit.


----------



## Fusaki

> However, some might be deserting out of disgust for the current president and I feel a little bit sorry for them. Not alot but a little bit.



I dont.

When you sign on the dotted line you accept the fact that you might one day deploy to a place you don't want to be, ordered there by a person you might not really like. You also sign on knowing that its quite possible that you may die in military service.

These realities are a necessary part of any professional military. If you can't come to terms with them then you shouldn't be volunteering for military service.

Its not a fucking secret. No one was tricked.


----------



## eerickso

Ok so,

If you are an 18 years old and join the US Army. 
At some time later you realize that you are doing the work of the devil.
Tough crap eh.

Wow, you would make a good RSM.


----------



## George Wallace

mountainliving said:
			
		

> At some time later you realize that you are no doing the work of the devil.



What exactly kind of comment is that?


----------



## eerickso

Sorry, I was giving an example.  Instead of US Army lets say the SS


----------



## LineDoggie

mountainliving said:
			
		

> True enough.
> 
> They are criminals and I agree that most of them are doing it out of their own convenience.
> 
> However, some might be deserting out of disgust for the current president and I feel a little bit sorry for them. Not alot but a little bit.




Wow, what an interesting U.S. Military some would have....

"Joe" gets to choose who he will listen to among his superiors-_Nah, I only will listen to the [Insert choice: Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R., CPUSA, SWA, Kieth Olberman, etc.] screw My appointed Officers & Non-Coms and Elected Leaders_

"Joe" gets to choose where, or if he wishes to fight: _Sorry Sarge, I dont feel like Being a man today, maybe tommorrow. I might be tempted if were fighting in Iceland, but Iraqi's shoot back _

"Joe" gets to run away to Canada where he thinks he should be treated like the Rolling Stones, instead of being clapped in Irons- _Wait , what do you mean I cant live off the Canadians forever. I'm a He-ro Dammit, I fought the "Man", ATTICA, ATTICA_ :

"Joe" gets to avoid ever being personally responsible for his actions, like the man he supposedly was upon Enlistment.


----------



## LineDoggie

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Sorry, I was giving an example.  Instead of US Army lets say the SS



Ahh, the typical Invoking of the Nazi Regime, Godwin is proud of you today


----------



## RangerRay

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Ok so,
> 
> If you are an 18 years old and join the US Army.
> At some time later you realize that you are doing the work of the devil.
> Tough crap eh.



Notwithstanding the "work of the devil" crap...

Refuse to go on tour, turn yourself in to the MP's, go to trial, and do your time in prison like a man, just like Cassius Clay (aka Mohammed Ali).

Or before you even think your unit is being shipped out, put in for VR.


----------



## medaid

Mountainliving... What kind of crack are smoking? What ever it is I think you should put it down. That US Army comparison was uncalled for.


----------



## Fusaki

> If you are an 18 years old and join the US Army.
> At some time later you realize that you are doing the work of the devil.
> Tough crap eh.



You're reading me loud and clear. 

You can't call yourself an adult, then shift the blame onto someone else when you regret your decisions. Real life is not a game where you can just take your ball and go home when things don't go your way. Being an adult is about making choices and accepting the outcomes, for better or worse.  It's called personal responsibility, being accountable for your own actions.



> Wow, you would make a good RSM.



Thanks, but handlebar moustaches just don't suit me.  ;D


----------



## eerickso

Ok, seriously. I am convinced.  Deport them all.

I apoligize.  Replace the SS with the Wehrmacht or some other unfortunate Army.


----------



## geo

Mountainliving:  American citzens are all VOLUNTEERS.

From the US army web site.......

Active Duty is similar to working at a full-time civilian job. There are hours when, as a Soldier, you will be training or performing your job, and then there are off-hours when you can do what you like. For an Active Duty Soldier, your length of service can range from two to six years. Typical deployments are 12 months in length, and after six months, Soldiers are usually eligible for a two-week Rest & Relaxation (R&R) leave. The exact length of deployment depends on each unit’s specific mission.

http://www.goarmy.com/about/active_duty_and_reserve.jsp

The US military (and ours) will only enlist "adults"... not children.  As an adult, you are expected to live up to the committment to which you have agreed to - and taken the pay for.  Note the Military has spent money on training you in the trade of YOUR choice & paid you for your time and trouble.  If you sign up for 2 or 6 years - live up to your end of the bargain and you will be allowed to retire / release - departing on good terms.

If you do not agree - that's a shame... but you should not be making excuses for them


----------



## vonGarvin

The analogy I would like to offer is one of a person who enters into a contract with someone else.  If that person later decides to break that contract, then they are in breach.  Normally (in real life, anyway), there are penalties.  If a person borrows money from a bank, and then cannot pay it back for whatever reason, then that person has broken a contract and penalties are enforced.  There is plenty of precedent for this.  
So, a person may argue that the armed force (in this case) has not put a commitment in as perhaps a bank, which has lent its money out.  I would argue that no, the armed force has indeed made a commitment.  In some cases, that includes education (paid for in exchange for military service, or even in teaching a very marketable trade, such as a vehicle mechanic or what have you).  As well, given that some potential recruits are told to wait until availability, the net result is that the military force in question loses out.

In any event, people who joined the US forces after say February 2003 don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to "CO" status.  Do your time and then get out is one option.  If your objection is really related to concern for your personal safety vice the moral conduct of a war, then I would suggest that said person is a coward.

Cassius Clay (aka "Mohammed Ali") was drafted (against his will) and had a moral objection against the ongoing war in Vietnam, and I believe against military service in general.  In any event, he went public with his objection and faced his consequences, knowing full well what they were.  That is what takes courage, in my opinion, much more than running away and then spouting off in public once you are behind a (real or imagined) wall.


----------



## Roy Harding

I had a hard time abiding Vietnam draft dodgers - but I could at least see their point.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO TIME for current day deserters.  In fact I find them so repugnant that I moved to Terrace, rather than Creston - just so I wouldn't have to interact with them.

Should I, by chance, encounter one on the street, rest assured that I'd effect a citizens arrest and they would find themselves in the custody of the local RCMP, awaiting extradition.

Period.  Full stop.  Don't come here.  

Thar' be grumpy old men thar' (who actually served honourably and have no time for you cowards).

Edit:  Typo


----------



## Colin Parkinson

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Ok so,
> 
> If you are an 18 years old and join the US Army.
> At some time later you realize that you are doing the work of the devil.
> Tough crap eh.
> 
> Wow, you would make a good RSM.



Well they still get to leave when their contract is up, if you make a contract with the devil, who publicly tells you what his agenda is, then to bad. You have a responsibilty as an individual to weigh the result of your choices.
 Had they stayed to face the music I can respect that choice, they used the system when it was to their advantage and when it came time to pay the piper they ran. My Grandfather was a conscientous objector in WWI but he still served as a stretcherbearer risking his life to save others. I am insulted that you would put these people in the same league as my grandfather.


----------



## geo

Hey Colin.... I resent him making reference to RSMs

We work hard to make things work - even when faced with adverse conditions.


----------



## tomahawk6

mountainliving said:
			
		

> Yes, they sure did take an oath. In that oath it say something about domestic enemies.



all enemies,foreign and domestic

Enlistment Oath:


> I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie

Tomahawk in the quote you gave for the Oath a member of the US Military takes you had  "(so help me God)" I was wondering if the servicemember is not a Christian do they still say that? IE) does the so help me God part only apply to Christians And if they are non Christians hey phrase it differently.

Just wondering in this modern Politically Correct world of ours (I think for the most part it's getting Politically Correct).


----------



## George Wallace

NovaScotiaNewfie said:
			
		

> Tomahawk in the quote you gave for the Oath a member of the US Military takes you had  "(so help me God)" I was wondering if the servicemember is not a Christian do they still say that? IE) does the so help me God part only apply to Christians And if they are non Christians hey phrase it differently.
> 
> Just wondering in this modern Politically Correct world of ours (I think for the most part it's getting Politically Correct).



Just a comment on that statement:  It comes across as if you are saying that only Christians believe in God; that other deities in other religions are not Gods.


----------



## medicineman

I think the "so help me God" in brackets is there in brackets for those who solemnly swear vs those that solemnly affirm.

MM


----------



## vonGarvin

NovaScotiaNewfie said:
			
		

> Tomahawk in the quote you gave for the Oath a member of the US Military takes you had  "(so help me God)" I was wondering if the servicemember is not a Christian do they still say that? IE) does the so help me God part only apply to Christians And if they are non Christians hey phrase it differently.
> 
> Just wondering in this modern Politically Correct world of ours (I think for the most part it's getting Politically Correct).


FYI: Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same deity.
As for atheists (or those who would prefer otherwise), they can affirm, vice swear their oaths.


----------



## Celticgirl

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I dont.
> 
> When you sign on the dotted line you accept the fact that you might one day deploy to a place you don't want to be, ordered there by a person you might not really like. You also sign on knowing that its quite possible that you may die in military service.
> 
> These realities are a necessary part of any professional military. If you can't come to terms with them then you shouldn't be volunteering for military service.
> 
> Its not a ******* secret. No one was tricked.



Well-said.

Let's take a police officer for example. Hypothetical situation: Police officer X gets a call and refuses to go because it is a dangerous situation and s/he might get killed. I think most reasonable persons would say "that's the job Officer X signed on for; Officer X knew the dangers involved in police work prior to applying, accepting the position, and being trained to handle life-or-death situations", would they not? The same goes for the military. If you want a cushy government job, there are public service positions out there that don't require military service. People sign on to the military knowing they may someday have to be engaged in a conflict, they may be deployed overseas to help with a mission like the one in Afghanistan, and they may have to 'kill or be killed'. One of the first things they ask in your interview is if you understand this and if you accept it. (I had mine a couple of weeks ago, so it's still clear as a bell to me.) If you cannot answer 'yes' and mean it, then it's not the job for you. 

I think some people don't get what "serve your country" means.  :


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Okay I haven't posted on here for a while.

First,  I am glad no one invoked Goodwin's law.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law  Anytime anyone makes a comparison to WW2 Nazi's etc, that person looses and the thread is dropped.

Secondly there is a good point to be made that when one chooses to enlist in the American Army, you make a commitment.  One that you are fully informed of and the American people have every right to expect you to fullfill.  Many good reasons, reliability of force security of the nation etc...

and lastly there is both a strong moral argument and legal precedent for a soldiers responsibility to disobey orders they know to be illegal.  It doesn't matter if a 5 star general orders you to do something that is wrong.  It is still wrong.

So if you're a soldier and your ordered to go to or support a war you feel to be entirely unjustified morally and illegal you have a choice.  Do it anyways, refuse and accept the consequences - release if you can or jail - or to refuse and run away.

I don't think a reasoned argument could wipe out either of those two points, need for stability in chain of command and personal responsibility to act to ones conscience. All we can really discuss is where those two points overlap and how particular people have chosen to act.  


My current thinking on this issue is this: Some soldiers have gone on a few tours and from their experiences have decided that the actions there are illegal and tried to release - facing jail they chose to flee.  If a person refuses to committ illegal acts of war and are facing punitive measures from their government Canadian refugee regulations do have provisions to allow such persons to take refuge here.  We have allowed soldiers from other countries to take refuge here, even though it was a volunteer force.


----------



## geo

Zell,


> and lastly there is both a strong moral argument and legal precedent for a soldiers responsibility to disobey orders they know to be illegal.  It doesn't matter if a 5 star general orders you to do something that is wrong.  It is still wrong.
> 
> So if you're a soldier and your ordered to go to or support a war you feel to be entirely unjustified morally and illegal you have a choice.  Do it anyways, refuse and accept the consequences - release if you can or jail - or to refuse and run away.



Considering that the US has been at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan for something like 5 or 6 years, I would say to you that it is highly unlikely that a new soldier in the US military could suddenly arrive at the conclusion that the US involvment is unjustified or illegal.

Everyone had a very clear picture of what the military does when he volunteered to serve his country...


----------



## Roy Harding

Zell:

I call BS.  A TRUE conscientious objector refuses to comply with what he perceives to be illegal orders, and takes the consequences.  In the case of the United States, this may be anything from a Dishonourable Discharge to jail time to both.  As has been mentioned previously in this thread, there have been famous cases of such in the past (Cassius Clay comes immediately to mind).

The deserters are not conscientious objectors - they are cowards; criminals in their home country, with which country we have an extradition treaty.  Extradite 'em - they are NOT facing torture or death in their homeland.  If they WERE facing torture or death, THEN and ONLY THEN should we consider them political refugees.

These people have proved they cannot fulfil contractual obligations they freely entered into.  We have enough people like that here already - why would we import more?


----------



## Yrys

U.S. deserter faces deportation from Canada



> (CNN) -- A U.S. soldier who deserted to Canada will not face persecution if he returns to the United States, Canada's refugee agency ruled Wednesday. National Guard
> Sgt. Corey Glass, 25, says he fled to Toronto in 2006 after serving in Iraq because he did not want to fight in a war he did not support. "What I saw in Iraq convinced me
> that the war is illegal and immoral. I could not in good conscience continue to take part in it," Glass said Wednesday. "I don't think it's fair that I should be punished for
> doing what I felt morally obligated to do."
> 
> Glass, who's still on active duty and is considered absent without leave, applied for refugee status at the Canadian border in August 2006 on the grounds of objection to
> military service.
> 
> But Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board denied his application for refugee status Wednesday, prompting the Canadian Border Services Agency to issue a June 12
> deportation order. The agency says it evaluates each case on its own merits to determine whether the applicant faces a "well-founded fear" of persecution or cruel and
> unusual punishment if he returns to his home country. "All refugee claimants have a right to due process," said Danielle Norris, a spokeswoman for Customs and
> Immigrations Canada. "When they have exhausted all legal avenues, we expect them to respect our laws and leave the country."
> 
> Glass, of Fairmont, Indiana, says he joined the National Guard believing that he would be deployed only if the United States faced occupation. After he returned from his
> first tour of duty, he said, he tried to leave the Army but was told that desertion was punishable by death.
> 
> Penalties for desertion range from a demotion in rank to a maximum penalty of death, depending on the circumstances, said Maj. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman.
> "The first thing we try to do is rehabilitate and retrain the soldier to see if we can keep him," he said. "Remember, we're at war, so everybody counts. When you decide
> to desert, you let everybody down." Banks said that it is up to the deserter's commanding officer to decide on an appropriate punishment if the soldier refuses to return.
> 
> Members of War Resisters Support Campaign in Canada, which is providing transitional support to Glass and at least 13 other deserters in Canada, are holding out for a
> political avenue of appeal through the Canadian House of Commons. In December, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on
> the Canadian government to initiate a residency program for conscientious objectors who have left military service "related to a war not sanctioned by the United
> Nations." The motion has yet to receive approval from the entire House of Commons.
> 
> Norris says the agency has received about 40 applications for refugee claims from U.S. deserters since the Iraq war began in 2003. Of the claims that have been
> addressed in public, only five have made it to the country's Federal Court of Appeals, a venue of last resort. All five appeals were rejected, according to Norris.
> The high court has yet to rule on its sixth challenge of this kind from Army combat engineer Joshua Key, who fled to Saskatchewan with his wife and four children in
> 2005.
> 
> "This has been our home for three years now. It's a lot like the U.S., and it's as close to the U.S. as you can be," said Key, who served on the front lines in Falluja before
> he returned to the United States in 2002. Key said that fleeing to Canada was a difficult but obvious choice when faced with returning to Iraq.
> 
> "There was nothing but violence and innocent civilians dying in our hands for no justification," Key said. "We became the terrorists."


----------



## KJK

I can only hope that they will deport him quickly and the rest of the deserters not long afterward. 

KJK


----------



## PuckChaser

Finally time to send the cowards home!


----------



## FastEddy

[quote 
[/quote]

          "ZELL"

If volunteer Service Men/Women can at anytime decide for what ever Grounds their County's Conflicts are Legal or Illegal to not perform or continue their sworn Oaths, why bother having a Military ?.

It is like a SWAT Sharp Shooter, told to take the shot of a Hostage Taker and rationalizing why he shouldn't or won't, i.e. He might have a wife & kids, a sick mother or is it really legal.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Wow,  a few responses.  I'm not here to stir the pot,  but I didn't see anyone raising the other side of the issue in any real way - and it is like chewing on tinfol when I see people refusing to explore different points on an issue. 

I'll deal with the last point first.  FastEddy , I believe the point your making is that the Armed forces, by its very nature, requires integrity of the chain of command - that is to say when an order id given an order is followed.  There is an innate conflict with chain of command and personal responsibility; allot is written and debated on where that line is ....

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CCEL_Conference_CCDEL/engraph/doc/VAdmirMaddison.pdf  <-- an interesting read, taking an almost opposite view I just made. 

"IN CONCLUSION, I REFUTE THE IMPLIED PREMISE THAT SOMEHOW LOYALTY TO THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS IN CONFLICT WITH PERSONAL INTEGRITY." - VICE ADMIRAL (RETIRED) GREG MADDISON

If one examins one situation and realises they can not do something in good conscience, be it directly wrong or in support of something wrong,   .... 
Now in your example, you mentioned a real time situation.  I don't think to many of the deserters here in Canada are fleeing from the battel field while disobeying direct field orders. 


Roy Harding,  your point that the standard for refugee status should be a risk of torture, a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.  ( http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/apply-who.asp ) is very astute.  There are provisions to grant refugee status based upon a well-founded fear of persecution due to "political opinion".  Obviously,  the judges have examined the situation and decided that the deserters should go back.  

Now as for accusations that they are cowards.  Very well may be true (in some cases most certainly)  I must however reject that everyone of them is a coward. in some cases most certainly their motivations must be as they've stated - they can't support the war and want to draw attention to its evils, which they can't do from a prison cell.

Insted of arguing legal points and charactor motivation, (rights/responsibilities)  how about we focus on benefits or detractions.

If we let the deserters stay what would the harm be to us?  If we let them stay what would we gain?  What do we gain by forcing them to go; What does it cost us if we force them to go? 

(Yes, I have abused the semi colon in this posting, flagrantly brought up an example that on the surface doesn't seem to support my point - unless you read the speech, and I've used hyphens more than one should be allowed to in civilized society.  :threat: I'm taking a break from 18 page report assignments on the Canadian income Tax act and issues with compliance with international GAAP in 2010  - I honestly think we should invade America and take over their government for no reason other than destroying FASB and stopping the evil over there before we have to fight it over here.)


----------



## Redeye

Zell, what we'd lose is significant - the ability to point to the primacy of the rule of law.  If we bend the rules for this distasteful bunch, then we set a precedent to break them for any other distasteful bunch.  That means everyone who's been refused refugee status because they don't fit the definition would have a legal precendent to challenge the decision, and they surely would.

The bottom line is that these are people that we should not want in Canada.  They need to cowboy up and go home and face the music for their decisions, show a little courage, like.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

(This is a playfull post - I really consider this a non-issue, the courts have ruled, but I do enjoy a bit of bardic back and forth, especially when I'm on the loosing side.)

I love your tag line of: Palma Non Sine Pulvere 

But I love what comes right afterwards...  vilius argentum est auro, virtutibus aurum. 

Now, on another amusing note you mentioned "the primacy of the rule of law".  This is interesting because an argument that the Iraq war is "contra ius gentium" (against international law) is very strong.  Also, "the primacy of the rule of law" is also used in arguments against Guantanamo and "Abu Ghraib" - which is also used in arguments for why the deserters came here in the first place. 

Which reminds me of another phrase "in conscientiae rebus adhibenda non est maioris partis lex"  - in matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.


----------



## Roy Harding

Zell:

Now that you've admitted to just wanting to stir a hornets nest - and having succeeded at that, be assured that you are now firmly on my "ignore" list.


----------



## Kirkhill

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Which reminds me of another phrase "in conscientiae rebus adhibenda non est maioris partis lex"  - in matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.



The only acceptable law, the only lasting law, is the law of the majority.   Any body of laws that do not have the support of the majority will not last.

Now, if you as an individual, choose not to adhere to that law then that is your prerogative.  You are quite free to be a drug dealer in Iran: your prerogative.  However don't be surprised if the local authorities visit local consequences on you, in accordance with the local law of the majority.

By the way Zell, did you study Latin or just swallow a legal dictionary?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The only acceptable law, the only lasting law, is the law of the majority.   Any body of laws that do not have the support of the majority will not last.
> 
> Now, if you as an individual, choose not to adhere to that law then that is your prerogative.  You are quite free to be a drug dealer in Iran: your prerogative.  However don't be surprised if the local authorities visit local consequences on you, in accordance with the local law of the majority ...



Sorry, Kirkhill, but I think Zell_Dietrich is quoting the correct principle. Matters of conscience must be understood as being related to fundamental principles. They cannot be made up as we go along or they are nothing more than passing fancies. Matters of conscience are related to our fundamental, _natural_ rights - the ones that legally constituted majorities regularly, and *always* improperly, try to limit. Whenever and wherever our _natural rights_ are constrained or threatened then majority and laws be damned, we must all oppose the majority and its improper law.

Thus, resisting conscription *can* be a matter of conscience. Running away and refusing face the proper consequences is not, on the other hand, principled.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward, 

I don't dispute the right of any man to follow his own conscience.  But.  At the same time I don't dispute the right of any group of individuals to create their own body of laws.

If the individual's conscience puts him at odds with the majority then he must needs accept the consequences, OR, find another society more accomodating.  There can't be an expectation that every society will be equally welcoming.

The question that I see in play is whether or not the individual's "Beliefs" cause harm to the society.  Personally I don't believe that anyone's "Beliefs" cause any society harm.  I have less of a problem with the notion of giving sanctuary to a "draft dodger" who would otherwise be coerced by the state to act against their conscience than I do with giving sanctuary to an individual who signs an open contract and then decides he doesn't like the terms.

I do believe that a person is liable for their actions - including their failure to act when action is called for.  

As an individual contributor to the society of Canada it doesn't offend me that people, including US soldiers, oppose operations in Iraq.  I do find that I am less than enamoured by the notion of accepting into our society those who find they can't live up to their freely undertaken obligations.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Zell:
> 
> Now that you've admitted to just wanting to stir a hornets nest - and having succeeded at that, be assured that you are now firmly on my "ignore" list.



It was not my intention to inflame emotions or upset anyone.  But I just saw a few pages of "send the cowards home" and people agreeing.  While I do understand it is a legitimate position (one taken by the courts and government of Canada) I've found though that when there is no debate on the issue, when someone actually does raise an argument it tends to have undue sway.  Besides, exploring different aspects of an issue is a valuable academic exercise,  even if it leads to absurd results.  I've seen people lock themselves into one way of thinking, and they become baffled by facts that don't fit their constructed view.  

I'm reminded of a phrase I learned a very long time ago: "If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death." - Major Motoko Kusanagi (Not a real Major, the character in the movie)



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thus, resisting conscription *can* be a matter of conscience. Running away and refusing face the proper consequences is not, on the other hand, principled.



And bamb.  "You're not facing torture,  you freely chose to obligate yourself, you have no need to require sanctuary here - you can express your political opinions from prison, and Canada will see no discernible benefit from your presence".  This argument trumps the 'these foreigners are refusing to take part in illegal activities and therefore sending them back to be punished would be in support of those illegal activities'.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way Zell, did you study Latin or just swallow a legal dictionary?



Actually both.  Latin was a hobby of mine for a while and I did eat a few pages in a law book. (heated argument over the governments actions in Vancouver during an APEC summit.) But in my law classes I did do fairly well.

Now laws, reasoning and political motivations aside - I don't like the idea of sending foreigners back to a country to be punished for refusing to act against their conscience. (That's more opinion than reasoned argument and I know it.)


----------



## Kirkhill

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> Actually both.  Latin was a hobby of mine for a while and I did eat a few pages in a law book. (heated argument over the governments actions in Vancouver during an APEC summit.) But in my law classes I did do fairly well.
> 
> Now laws, reasoning and political motivations aside - I don't like the idea of sending foreigners back to a country to be punished for refusing to act against their conscience. (That's more opinion than reasoned argument and I know it.)



Just slow a little for those of us whose latin isn't up to the challenge (3 years of it 2 generations ago makes mine pretty rusty   ).

As to your "opinion" - equally my observation about sending them back was an "opinion".  I don't see their action as a reflection of conscience but one of moral turpitude: either on the ground of Wanting In Military Prowess or else of failure to honour a freely accepted and binding contract.

Cheers.


----------



## Loachman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The only acceptable law ... is the law of the majority.



There is a very fine line between majority rule and mob rule, and the difference is mainly window dressing.

Somebody once described democracy as four wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, and liberty as a well-armed sheep disputing the vote.

We have a constitution, and courts to interpret it and laws, partially to limit the effects of that majority/mob rule.

Without constitution and courts, it is too easy to pass laws that cause harm to individuals or certain groups for no morally justifiable reason. It's too easy even with them, but at least they limit negative effects.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Any body of laws that do not have the support of the majority will not last.



"Support" can be defined in any number of ways, and can vary considerably in degree, as can opposition.

There is widespread support for our drug laws, but it's pretty weak and most people probably don't really care. Active opposition is limited, but strong. Passive opposition, those who smoke dope in the privacy of their own homes or social gatherings, falls in between.

Current firearms legislation is similar.

Most such support is based upon uninformed opinion, and given without the supporter being able to explain why.

Just because the majority of people "support" something, to whatever degree and for whatever reason, doesn't make it right. Just ask a certain six million Jews.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree there is a fine distinction to be made between "majority rule" and "mob rule".  However I stand by my contention that without majority support no body of laws can stand.  No matter how "right" a law is, if it is enforced against the will of the majority then the majority will find themselves at odds with a minority perceived as authoritarian and out of touch.  At that point the majority truly risks reverting to a mob.

We do indeed have a constitution and a court to curb the rule of the majority.  I would note that in the example you cited the nation in question also had a constitution and a high court.  That didn't stop the atrocities any more than hundreds of others of courts and constitutions over the millenia.

We need the courts and the laws to limit the mob but the sad fact (or at least in my opinion it is an observable fact) is that the courts contain the seeds of their own destruction.  They are made of people just as the mobs are so constituted.  There is little inherent difference between those people that judge for a living and those that judge for pleasure AND profit.  All judgement, as I have said before, is arbitrary.  The power of the judge comes from having the trust of others to make a reasonable arbitrary decision.

Unfortunately as the people making the judgements do so they invariably cause distress to at least one individual, usually also to their party of supporters.  Occasionally, and this is often seen as the definition of a successfuly judgement, it offends all parties equally.  As the court makes more and more judgements, it makes more and more enemies.  Ultimately it loses legitimacy and is seen as an oppressive other rather than a contributing and fundamental part of society.  It then has to expend more energy and resources enforcing its judgements in an unaccomodating society.

And then the majority exerts itself - often in an eruption of unfettered, and unattractive mob rule.

The results in a cycle of enforced order with authoritarian abuses followed by chaotic disorder with democratic abuses.  In the intervals we get a few years of balance.

The alternative is to accept that you can't impose, you can only persuade.  That means that you have to accept that there will be unpleasantness.  The best you can hope for is to set an example and hope that others will see advantage in following it.

Ultimately I find example in the twin histories of Britain and France over the last four centuries.  In about 1608 there wasn't much to choose between the two States.  Both of them tried authoritarian models under the auspices of the House of Guise.  Britain adopted pragmatism as a governing principle in 1689.  France persisted in the search for the "right".   Britain entered into a 300 year period of prosperity.   France entered into an ongoing cycle of monarchy, republic and revolution.

Constitutions are routinely defined as being cast in stone, an effort to impose stability in a changing and unpredictable world.  However societies grow and expand and move and in doing so create pressure.  If you attempt to contain pressure in a stone vessel you will eventually see the vessel explode.  You can create a vent and govern the pressure but eventually even the governor is overtaken by the accumulating pressure.

I think it is far better NOT to attempt to limit and contain, but rather to watch and follow and divert as the opportunity presents itself.  There is a lot of truth in King Ralph's line about the successful politician finding out which way the parade is going and then getting out in front of it to lead it.

You can't order women not to wear burkas, or hijabs, or commit suttee.  You can only give them the opportunity to see what life is like without out them and then, if they choose to oppose the community standard assist, encourage and protect them.

I think you said as much in your great response to nicky0013.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080530.codeserters31/BNStory/specialComment/home

It looks like that motion will go through,  although in a non-binding form.  With the troubles the tories are having lately, this might be a good wedge issue.


----------



## Redeye

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080530.codeserters31/BNStory/specialComment/home
> 
> It looks like that motion will go through,  although in a non-binding form.  With the troubles the tories are having lately, this might be a good wedge issue.



I doubt it.  It doesn't take much explaining to many people to show the difference between the current deserters and Vietnam-era draft dodgers.  If those like Corey Glass et al were as courageous as people want us to think they are for deserting, they'd have already gone back to the US and faced justice for their decisions.  They would have had the courage to accept the consequences of their decisions instead of running away from them.


----------



## Kirkhill

Zell,

I think,on any of these wedge issues, where the three gang up on the one, the problem of the three will be getting their supporters to unite behind one of them in a general election.  Meanwhile those that disagree with internationalism, social justice, global warming, etc. have much simpler choice.

Chris.


----------



## vonGarvin

Loachman said:
			
		

> Just because the majority of people "support" something, to whatever degree and for whatever reason, doesn't make it right. Just ask a certain six million Jews.


This thread has just jumped the shark, having just achieved "Reductio ad Hitlerum"


----------



## Armymedic

Here is one part of the article I find a bit disturbing:



> Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis put forward a motion in Parliament's standing committee on citizenship and immigration to allow resisters of wars not sanctioned by the UN to stay in Canada. Opposition party MPs joined ranks to pass the motion, which should soon be brought to a vote in Parliament.



Is that legislation only to include war resisters from the US, or is it going to be open to all comers from all over the world?


----------



## Armymedic

And how has the US policy of "stop loss" affecting this issue, and, 

Is any of the US resisters a victim of stop loss?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> This thread has just jumped the shark, having just achieved "Reductio ad Hitlerum"



This thread violated Goodwin's law over 3 times by my count... but it survives - go figure :-S

But it is hard not to make reference to that era since allot of our morality was shaped by the decisions made then.  Even if you're ordered to do something, you are legally responsible for your actions.  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergEinsatzgruppenTrial.html 

Lets say you volunteered for your nation's army,  then your country invades Elbonia.  You're posted to a detention camp and you're ordered to rough up prisoners... (blah blah blah http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 )

Now as a third party,  do you not have a duty to help protect those who say no? By allowing those who are faced with the choice of violating their conscience and international law or face punishment from their homeland a safe refuge, are you not by extention reducing the chance that such violations will occur?  ( I think that was argued before )


----------



## geo

Zell.... you forget that these individuals all voluntarily enrolled into the US military.
I would further a guess that they enrolled after 9/11
They knew exactly what they were committing themselves to do, if required, when they signed all that paperwork.

This is nothing like the 60s when citzens were drafted into the military - regardless of their wants or desires.

Question - what will happen to these deserters if they go home ???
-  Go to jail and throw away the keys ? - I don't think so.  For one thing, it costs too much to incarcerate. They will most likely be charged with being AWOL, released under a less than perfect discharge category and be left to their own devices to earn a living and raise a fiamly.

Send em home!


----------



## LineDoggie

We had a Deserter in My unit in July 2004 before we went to Iraq. He had Lived in Buffalo prior to joining us at Fort Hood, Tx.

It is my fondest wish that someday he faces Justice for running out on his comrades.


----------



## vonGarvin

There was something odd about the motion in parliament by our short sighted members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  They want to allow any person opposed to a non-UN sanctioned "war" to be allowed to enter the nation.  Fine.  What of those members of the Canadian Forces who didn't want to participate in Kosovo?  Remember Kosovo?  NATO resorted to arms without UN sanction.  By the way, for you revisionists out there, the PM at the time was NOT Harper, but Chretien.  And some Canadian Squadrons have "Kosovo" as a battle honour.

Go figure...


----------



## MarkOttawa

A letter of mine in the_ Ottawa Citizen_:

Deserters are refusing to join a UN-sanctioned war
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=7ef667c4-4084-4c12-9e3e-b14b874ee601



> The Ottawa Citizen
> Published: Tuesday, June 10, 2008
> 
> Re: Let them stay, June 9.
> http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=5d43c6e2-ec70-4498-8b4a-8ab7a2a8a5ed&sponsor=Hardly.TheU.S
> 
> Letter-writer Jan Heynen, advocating that the government let American deserters who refuse to serve in Iraq stay in Canada, writes that "The illegality of that war has been demonstrated many times."
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> The U.S. and coalition military presence, and use of force, have in fact been fully authorized by the UN Security Council since it adopted resolution No. 1511 on Oct. 16, 2003.
> 
> That UN resolution "authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq ..."
> 
> Most recently, on Dec. 18, 2007, the Security Council extended the mandate of those foreign forces -- for the last time -- until Dec. 31, 2008.
> 
> After that, their presence will need to be on the basis of agreement with the government of Iraq.
> 
> So, contrary to Ms. Heynen's belief, since October 2003, any U.S. deserters concerned about Iraq are in fact refusing to participate in a UN-sanctioned war.
> 
> Mark Collins,
> 
> Ottawa



And a post at _The Torch_:

Deserters, Iraq, and the UN--and our ignorant politicians
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/deserters-iraq-and-un-and-our-ignorant.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> And how has the US policy of "stop loss" affecting this issue, and,
> 
> Is any of the US resisters a victim of stop loss?




A person who was about to be given an honourable discharge and then hit with a stop loss who snapped and deserted would be somewhat forgiveable. If they returned to face the music I would respect them.


----------



## civmick

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080704.wclaim05/BNStory/National/

Extract follows:

U.S. deserter wins appeal in fight for refugee status

TU THANH HA

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

July 4, 2008 at 9:47 PM EDT

The Immigration and Refugee Board was wrong when it decided that an American deserter couldn't claim refugee status in Canada because the military transgressions he was evading weren't severe enough to be war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Federal Court ruled Friday.

The judgment lowers one of the bars that the recent wave of American deserters need to clear when they seek asylum in Canada.

It said that dodging orders that are “contrary to the basic rules or norms of human conduct” is enough grounds to apply for refugee protection.

“Military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve,” wrote Mr. Justice Robert Barnes, who is also a court-martial appellate judge.


----------



## George Wallace

My reply to that is:

 :


----------



## FastEddy

civmick said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080704.wclaim05/BNStory/National/
> 
> Extract follows:
> 
> U.S. deserter wins appeal in fight for refugee status
> 
> TU THANH HA
> 
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> 
> July 4, 2008 at 9:47 PM EDT
> 
> The Immigration and Refugee Board was wrong when it decided that an American deserter couldn't claim refugee status in Canada because the military transgressions he was evading weren't severe enough to be war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Federal Court ruled Friday.
> 
> The judgment lowers one of the bars that the recent wave of American deserters need to clear when they seek asylum in Canada.
> 
> It said that dodging orders that are “contrary to the basic rules or norms of human conduct” is enough grounds to apply for refugee protection.
> 
> “Military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve,” wrote Mr. Justice Robert Barnes, who is also a court-martial appellate judge.




So does that mean, Any member past or Serving of the Armed Forces of Canada or Primarily the U.S.A., basically violate the basic rules & norms of human conduct and we/they systematically degrade, abuse and humiliate combatants or noncombatants.

It must, because that's what these Bas....s must be fleeing from or its just, they are afraid of getting their Arse's shot off.

Just another group added to the list of Murderers, Rapists, Drug Dealers, Pedophiles, Terrorists, Street Gangs, which our Justice Systems seems to find laws to protect or facilitate them. Is it our Laws or the People who are empowered to intrepid them at fault ?.

So the next time you are outraged and Videotaping your local LEO's psychically restraining and arresting a Falling down Drunk, resisting arrest and who has just ran over a Mother and her Child in a stroller on the sidewalk. Of course be sure as your conscience dictates, to scream the loudest for the punishment of those brutal Police Officers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

“Military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve,”

Nice of the judge to wrap it all up in one short easy-to-replicate sentence, coming soon to all future refugee claims of this nature near you.


----------



## Jarnhamar

FastEddy said:
			
		

> So the next time you are outraged and Videotaping your local LEO's psychically restraining and arresting a Falling down Drunk, resisting arrest and who has just ran over a Mother and her Child in a stroller on the sidewalk. Of course be sure as your conscience dictates, to scream the loudest for the punishment of those brutal Police Officers.


huh?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> huh?



Yeah, I was trying to figure the angle of tying it to LEOs also. Meh.


----------



## Shamrock

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Just another group added to the list of Murderers, Rapists, Drug Dealers, Pedophiles, Terrorists, Street Gangs, which our Justice Systems seems to find laws to protect or facilitate them. Is it our Laws or the People who are empowered to intrepid them at fault ?.



I'm sorry to detract from everyone else's being clueless at your LEO commentary, but are you equating each and every deserter with murderers, rapists, and kiddy-diddlers?


----------



## FastEddy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was trying to figure the angle of tying it to LEOs also. Meh.





Simple, its not only the Judges and the System that seem to favour or facilitate the Criminal element, but a healthy part of Society that care more about the treatment of the Criminal than the Victim.

This is clearly evident by the Public and Medias persuit of the actions of LEO's in the methods used in the arresting of a suspect. Futher, it appears that this attitude is growing with regard to trying to vilify Police Officers.

It is my opinion, that the example given is in tandem with the theme of the Thread. Of course I also expect objections or disagreement with my comments from all those Bleeding Heart Groups or Persons.


----------



## FastEddy

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to detract from everyone else's being clueless at your LEO commentary, but are you equating each and every deserter with murderers, rapists, and kiddy-diddlers?





YES, what category would you put them in ?. Because of Religious Objections BS.

Would you sit down Buddy Buddy and have a Beer with any of the three individuals you've mentioned, including a Deserter (regardless of his reasons) ?.


----------



## Jarnhamar

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Of course I also expect objections or disagreement with my comments from all those Bleeding Heart Groups or Persons.


 :


----------



## Shamrock

FastEddy said:
			
		

> YES, what category would you put them in ?. Because of Religious Objections BS.



Deserters, regardless of their reasons, have committed a reprehensible act.  They have abandoned the country they vowed to serve regardless of how that service would see them employed.  In so doing, they have shown their own craven nature and absence of morality.  But, and this is a big but, that absence is primarily a personal and not a social failure.  Yes, their desertion may have satellite harm, but I'll save discussion on that for a few later.  I am not saying they are committing victimless crimes, however.

Murderers, rapists, and child molestors, however, are a completely different criminal.  These are people, either through direct or indirect action, allow considerable and long-lasting harm to come to another human being.  There is again an absence of integrity, but these criminals have eschewed the commonly held mores that serve to progress and preserve society.  In inflicting harm upon another, these people have committed social failures.

Punishments aside, shirking of civic duty aside, these are individuals who have turned their backs on their fellow soldiers and have placed their personal wellbeing over the wellbeing of their mates and replacements.  That is a massive and unforgiveable failure and a betrayal of trust, yet if being a monumental flake was illegal, then I can think of an entire political party that would be frog marched into the gulag.



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> Would you sit down Buddy Buddy and have a Beer with any of the three individuals you've mentioned, including a Deserter (regardless of his reasons) ?.



I'm fairly certain most people can infer my answer to this.  So, for you, I'll spell it out.

No, I would not have a beer with anyone with such casual disregard for humanity.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Murderers, rapists, and child molestors, however, are a completely different criminal.



Yes we all hate the cowardly rotten deserter but comparing running out on ones responsibility with rape or murder? Thats silly.



> No, I would not have a beer with anyone with such casual disregard for humanity.



Depends. Is it someone who has never deployed and doesn't wanna go play in the sand? Nope wouldn't want anything to do with them.
Is it someone who HAS served a tour/tours over there and said "whoa I've had enough"? Well in that case yes I would sit down with them and hear what they have to say over a beer.


----------



## FastEddy

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Deserters, regardless of their reasons, have committed a reprehensible act.  They have abandoned the country they vowed to serve regardless of how that service would see them employed.  In so doing, they have shown their own craven nature and absence of morality.  But, and this is a big but, that absence is primarily a personal and not a social failure.  Yes, their desertion may have satellite harm, but I'll save discussion on that for a few later.  I am not saying they are committing victimless crimes, however.
> 
> Murderers, rapists, and child molestors, however, are a completely different criminal.  These are people, either through direct or indirect action, allow considerable and long-lasting harm to come to another human being.  There is again an absence of integrity, but these criminals have eschewed the commonly held mores that serve to progress and preserve society.  In inflicting harm upon another, these people have committed social failures.
> 
> Punishments aside, shirking of civic duty aside, these are individuals who have turned their backs on their fellow soldiers and have placed their personal wellbeing over the wellbeing of their mates and replacements.  That is a massive and unforgiveable failure and a betrayal of trust, yet if being a monumental flake was illegal, then I can think of an entire political party that would be frog marched into the gulag.
> 
> I'm fairly certain most people can infer my answer to this.  So, for you, I'll spell it out.
> 
> No, I would not have a beer with anyone with such casual disregard for humanity.





Maybe in the eyes of Past or Present Military Personnel and I imagine those near and dear who has lost a Loveone or Friend, just might regard Deserters with the same contempt and categorize them in with the vilest of criminals . 

I find it difficult to fathom why anyone would attempt to make the slightest case for them or their actions. 

It appears you regard them at least as Monumental Flakes, theres nothing Flakey about them at all, considering that you on one hand make a very eloquent case against them.

As for "whoa I've had enough". Correct if I'm wrong, I must have missed the part when we sign up that says, 
"we get to choose where, when, who and how much or long we fight".

If a Comrade was killed or injured as the result of your absence from your sworn duty, maybe I'm wrong in lumping them in with Murderers and Rapist, but for the moment, I can't think of anyone viler.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Simple, its not only the Judges and the System that seem to favour or facilitate the Criminal element, but a healthy part of Society that care more about the treatment of the Criminal than the Victim.
> 
> This is clearly evident by the Public and Medias persuit of the actions of LEO's in the methods used in the arresting of a suspect. Futher, it appears that this attitude is growing with regard to trying to vilify Police Officers.
> 
> It is my opinion, that the example given is in tandem with the theme of the Thread. Of course I also expect objections or disagreement with my comments from all those Bleeding Heart Groups or Persons.



The thread is about US deserters. If you feel slighted by society, in regards to your chosen profession, collect your thoughts, make a coherent point(s) for discussion, and put it in the proper thread for discourse.

This isn't it.


----------



## FastEddy

recceguy said:
			
		

> The thread is about US deserters. If you feel slighted by society, in regards to your chosen profession, collect your thoughts, make a coherent point(s) for discussion, and put it in the proper thread for discourse.
> 
> This isn't it.




Yes indeed it is, primarily the comments were directed towards a Court Ruling concerning Deserters.

Then all agreed that it seemed to or would Facilitate Deserters.

A suggestion was then raised to the fact that this attitude and thinking was not only confined to the System and Judges, but a part of the General Public (an example was given that sympathy was directed to the perpetrators  than the Victims, we are still bearing in mind Deserters.

Then a banter of how we should or who we should compare these Deserters to.

The fact that certain elements of Society care more to Vilify LEO's than Criminals which Deserters have been included in, not be permitted to be used as a example.

I cannot see how you have come to the conclusion that we have not been discussing Deserters. 

With regard to your reference to  my chosen profession, Decorum and Retribution forbid me at the moment to reply.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FastEddy said:
			
		

> With regard to your reference to  my chosen profession, Decorum and Retribution forbid me at the moment to reply.



Give me a break will ya. : It wasn't a slight, and you know it. Don't try to make something out of nothing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

So FastEddie let me get this straight

Deserters should be held in the same regard as rapists and murderers.
Someone who may have serious PTSD from back to back tours who's job may have been picking up body parts for 14 months a go, who has fulfilled their contract but caught under stop loss and told their going BACK again should just STFU because they signed on the dotted line.
Your pissed off that some people in society sometime vilifies LEOs and it burns your cookies that they may have sympathy for deserters?
It pisses you off when someone video tapes a cop/cops physically arresting someone where violence is present.
Anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a bleeding heart?

As for the whole comrade dying because you didn't get on the plane. That can go both ways.
Example that US soldier who threw a grenade into his headquarters group killing some of them.
Or even hypothetically speaking if someone just DOES NOT want to be in the fight and has done everything they can to get OUT of the fight but go anyways, ends up freezing up during a firefight, runs away from their post, commits suicide etc.. Is it safe to say by that logic that forcing one of these deserter wanna-be's to deploy  actually caused allied soldiers to die?

I'm trying to follow you're point of view but it really seems like you have a chip on your shoulder about how LEOs are treated and I'm not making the connection here.


----------



## George Wallace

OK!

Let's stop picking fly shyte out of pepper.  The "GENERAL" opinion towards Deserters is quite evident.  We are not discussing individual cases.  Everyone is different.  Each of their personal predicaments will have to be judged separately.  However, GENERALLY speaking...........

I really don't care if you want to bring up an individual with PDST or an individual with a seventeenth tour.  Those are individual cases that should be meritted on their own.  

GENERALLY speaking about Deserters coming to Canada from the US is the MAIN topic in this thread.   :


----------



## Greymatters

FastEddy said:
			
		

> As for "whoa I've had enough". Correct if I'm wrong, I must have missed the part when we sign up that says,
> "we get to choose where, when, who and how much or long we fight".



Every person has that choice.  That's why service is voluntary and not compulsory.  Once you sign the dotted line and then change your mind, desertion is more akin to breaking of a contract than with child molestation.  

Even once you're in, you still have the choice to fight or be punished.  What is reprehensible is that deserters we are discussing fail to acknowledge their obligations and are avoiding their punishment.  But you must still consider that we are talking about soldiers who fail to carry out their obligations, not soldiers who desert in the face of the enemy...

What should be discussed is that deserters are recognized as eligible for refugee status.  What a crock!  This smacks of some sort of political agenda...

Oh look at that.  I managed to write my post without unnecessarily capitalizing any words...


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> GENERALLY speaking about Deserters coming to Canada from the US is the MAIN topic in this thread.   :



A) Keep them out of Canada an if they sneak in send them home
or
B) If they REALLY want to stay - Fast Eddie gets to search them without video camera's present  ;D


----------



## axeman

If they really want to stay im sure theres a place to be made for them on Elsmere Island. I believe if they were Truly behind what they say they would do time in the military prision then be released. but as they choose to desert well then they are breaking the law here to  as we are also in the war on terrorism.  maybe if we let DAWG the Bounty hunter up here there would be less of them around as they are living in visible places showing the US that they are not afraid of the US as long as they are hidden behind a refugee claim and not being thrown into a legal extradion ...

ah well my 2 cents being the devils advocate    >


----------



## GAP

News of imminent deportation shocks U.S. army deserter
ROD MICKLEBURGH From Wednesday's Globe and Mail July 8, 2008 at 11:21 PM EDT
Article Link

VANCOUVER — 

Canadian authorities appear to be speeding up efforts to deport U.S. army deserters, despite a key Federal Court decision just last Friday in favour of so-called "war resisters".

Deserter Robin Long, his supporters and his lawyers were stunned yesterday to learn that Mr. Long, currently being held in a Nelson jail, was in danger of being sent back to the United States as early as today.

"His removal is imminent ¡Kprobably within a day or two," Canada Border Services Agency lawyer Rick Lengert„© told a hastily arranged Immigration and Refugee Board hearing.

There had been no warning to Mr. Long that he was in danger of being sent back to the United States so quickly, and it came as a particular shock to his lawyer, Shepherd Moss, in light of last week's court decision upholding deserter Joshua Key's appeal of his failed refugee application. 

Mr. Moss served notice that he would seek an emergency, after-hours sitting of the Federal Court to ask for an immediate stay of his client's deportation. 

Late yesterday, the border agency agreed to make no move to deport Mr. Long until Monday, giving his lawyer a bit more time.

But Mr. Long's supporters were nonetheless outraged by the suddenness of his arrest and near deportation.

The 25-year-old failed refugee claimant was arrested in Nelson on a deportation warrant on Friday, the same day as Mr. Key's victory in the courts.

No one on Mr. Long's side was informed until just before the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing began yesterday afternoon that approval for his deportation had been granted by immigration officials two months ago.

"Basically, they're trying to kidnap war resisters and get them into the hands of George Bush," steamed Bob Ages of the Vancouver War Resisters Support Campaign. "This is the closest thing to rendition we've had in this country since Maher Arar. It's outrageous. What are these enforcement people up to?"
More on link


----------



## Danjanou

All I can say is

_Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye 
_  8)


----------



## RCDtpr

My god, this court decision has rendered me speechless.  The poor guy just wanted to live in Canada, the greatest country on earth, and they won't let him?!  I need a moment to regain my composure I'm so choked up.....

.....ok I'm good now

Later pal  :nana:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Adios amigo. Hope the prison door hits you on the way out....into a US prison where things are so cushy  ;D


----------



## toughenough

Would any other type of criminal be allowed to stay in Canada free and clear? I'm asking honostly, because my assumptions lead me to believe we'd kick out anyone else that the US is after, be they pedophiles, rapists, car thieves, what have you. Using a bunch of colorful adjectives to describe the head of state in the US shouldn't really make a difference...

Hippies are so comical to me.


----------



## bilton090

With Canadian's fighting and dieing in Afgn., there's no way these piece's of C##p should be sitting on there butts here in Canada !  :threat:


----------



## Spanky

The cynic in me says they'll be successful in getting it delayed.  The optimist says, "Here's your coat.  What's the rush?".


----------



## xo31@711ret

There had been no warning to Mr. Long that he was in danger of being sent back to the United States so quickly, and it came as a particular shock to his lawyer,  

No warning...shock to his lawyer....J*****' Mary & Joseph, his yellow ass shoulda been about-turned back across the border as soon as it was realized he was a deserter.


----------



## Shec

Just to amuse himself while he's waiting extradition here's an old movie he can watch:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071477/


----------



## Sandore

Do hippies not like being called hippies anymore? War-resister supporter just doesn't sound right. Go drink some wheat grass juice.....hippie


----------



## Spanky

Shec said:
			
		

> Just to amuse himself while he's waiting extradition here's an old movie he can watch:
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071477/


 :rofl:


----------



## gaspasser

bilton090 said:
			
		

> With Canadian's fighting and dieing in Afgn., there's no way these piece's of C##p should be sitting on there butts here in Canada !  :threat:


My feelings  exactly!!! Here are our troops doing thier duty overthere and some are coming back horizontal, and these _{people}_ want to DESERT to our country.  
MAN up! You signed the line for the military now do the job you signed up for.
 :rage:    :rage:
Guys like this make me upchuck.  
 Our Colours Don't Run


----------



## GAP

Mods....thanks for moving the post to the proper thread....knew it was there, but never thought to look under politics....


----------



## wdewitt

Instead of letting them stay here :they should be discharge from there own outfit and then make them pay for there training they received. :crybaby:
Thus they still have an obligation for there money and benefits they received. 
It a crybaby way to duck there obligation and the NDP and Liberal whiners feel sorry for them. 
Nobody want to work with them and there just a pain in the ass to everyone. :rage:
When the PPCLI 2ND battalion was due to go to England(1939) . All soldier were ask to take one step forward to go over sea. Two Corporals refused to go. They were strip of there rank and discharge from the forces. ;D


----------



## North Star

If our court uphold the concept of a "military vounteer refugee", then aren't there consequences  for the CF?

If we accept deserters from the American peacetime Regular Army, could soldiers here legally "object" to, say, a peacekeeping mission as not being in keeping with their personal convictions? 

Just a chilling thought.


----------



## geo

North star
 Cdn objectors ??? ... they can always go and ask for refugee status in the US....... see how far that will get them


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Bob Rae wades in...I assume that this is official Liberal policy?

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/458270



> *Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada*
> 
> Harper has allowed Canadian legal system to become an extension of American martial law
> 
> The struggles through Canadian courts and prisons by young American soldiers opposed to the war in Iraq has naturally raised the memory of another time, the arrival in our midst of thousands of young men resisting the draft and Vietnam War.
> 
> Forty years ago, American conscription created a lottery that meant a generation – my exact contemporaries – did not have the luxury I had of expressing political opinions without having to disobey the law. Many were able to get their requirement of service deferred. Some enlisted and then deserted, others just came to Canada as visitors and never left.
> 
> It was a different time then. Immigrants were not legally barred from applying for landed immigrant status from within Canada, and immigration officials were given much discretion in allowing young men through without asking too many questions about draft status or military service. That is not to say that decisions were taken lightly.
> 
> At the time, those coming over as draft dodgers and deserters knew they would not be able to return home without facing arrest. It would be years before a general amnesty would allow that to happen, and it applied just to the draft dodgers; deserters are still arrested if they return.
> 
> There was a sense of a deep inner conflict in each decision. Families left behind, parents bewildered, loyalties and values divided, often in ways that proved impossible to resolve.
> 
> The Pearson and Trudeau governments kept the border open, despite U.S. objections, and refused to allow Canadian border officials to become agents of American military policy. It strained the relationship – as did public statements by Canadian officials about the war itself – but it did not break it.
> 
> The Vietnam generation has made an extraordinary contribution to the life of the country. In every walk of life, in every profession, in every community, Canada is a better place because we decided to become a place of refuge for those seeking a different political home, even those who were defying American military law to do so.
> 
> How different life seems today. The young Americans and their families who have come to Canada because of their refusal to obey military orders in Iraq are being given no quarter or refuge by the Harper government. Robin Long is being held in a prison cell in British Columbia. Corey Glass hopes for some solace from a renewed application for refugee status after a judgment of the Federal Court.
> 
> _ad nauseum_



More at link...should you have the stomach.


----------



## wdewitt

I have had the displeasure of having one as a boss in a prison. He was worry more about prisoners rights to have drugs than the safety of staff or inmates. :crybaby:
He went to my local legion and I had him barred from using our legion.
They always look for an easy way to duck responsibility. Sound like a Liberal or NDP.


----------



## GAP

Gee....is that bright orange bleeding through that Liberal Red?


----------



## MarkOttawa

A letter of mine in the _Toronto Star_:



> Iraq action U.N.-sactioned
> http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/458858
> 
> Jul 12, 2008 04:30 AM
> 
> *Re: Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada
> 
> Opinion, July 11*
> 
> Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae claims that a member of the U.S. armed forces ordered to Iraq "... realizes that what he's being asked to do is in no way authorized by international law."
> 
> Not so. The United States and coalition military presence – and use of force – in Iraq have in fact been fully authorized by the United Nations Security Council since it adopted resolution 1511 on Oct. 16, 2003.
> 
> That resolution "authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq."
> 
> Most recently, on Dec. 18, 2007, the Security Council extended the mandate of those foreign forces – for the last time – until Dec. 31, 2008. After that their presence will need to be on the basis of agreement with the government of Iraq.
> 
> So, contrary to Rae, since October 2003 any U.S. deserters concerned about Iraq are in fact refusing to participate in a UN-sanctioned war.
> 
> _Mark Collins, Ottawa_



Here are the references sent with the letter:

Resolution 1511 October 16, 2003 
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/1016resolution.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL, ACTING ON IRAQ’S REQUEST, EXTENDS ‘FOR LAST TIME’ MANDATE OF MULTINATIONAL FORCE
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm

And here's a rather punchy post July 11 at _The Torch_ by Babbling Brooks on the same subject:

All he needs now is the grey ponytail 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/all-he-needs-now-is-grey-ponytail.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## wdewitt

Good quote. If its sanction by the suppose U.N. Council ?
Then its legal and binding war.
It is a pretty lame excuse to said you join to do humanitarian work when you train for war and to fight domestic or foreign enemy's.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> Good quote. If its sanction by the suppose U.N. Council ?
> Then its legal and binding war.
> It is a pretty lame excuse to said you join to do humanitarian work when you train for war and to fight domestic or foreign enemy's.



Anyone else having trouble trying to figure this one out?


----------



## medaid

I have trouble figuring out anything df15 posts... Seriously I do.


----------



## FastEddy

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So FastEddie let me get this straight
> 
> Deserters should be held in the same regard as rapists and murderers.
> Someone who may have serious PTSD from back to back tours who's job may have been picking up body parts for 14 months a go, who has fulfilled their contract but caught under stop loss and told their going BACK again should just STFU because they signed on the dotted line.
> Your pissed off that some people in society sometime vilifies LEOs and it burns your cookies that they may have sympathy for deserters?
> It pisses you off when someone video tapes a cop/cops physically arresting someone where violence is present.
> Anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view is a bleeding heart?
> 
> As for the whole comrade dying because you didn't get on the plane. That can go both ways.
> Example that US soldier who threw a grenade into his headquarters group killing some of them.
> Or even hypothetically speaking if someone just DOES NOT want to be in the fight and has done everything they can to get OUT of the fight but go anyways, ends up freezing up during a firefight, runs away from their post, commits suicide etc.. Is it safe to say by that logic that forcing one of these deserter wanna-be's to deploy  actually caused allied soldiers to die?
> 
> I'm trying to follow you're point of view but it really seems like you have a chip on your shoulder about how LEOs are treated and I'm not making the connection here.




Yes ! I am pissed off, but only at those who constantly confuse an example with my personal concern or as you put it "a chip on my shoulder", I can assure you that is the least of my concerns.

As for Bleeding Hearts, it refers to a group of persons who appear to overly sympathize and have unreasonable concerns for transgressors of society . Or those who try and make a case on their behalf, in this case Deserters. Disagreement does not equal Bleeding Heart.

As for my Grouping or Comparison of Deserters, which you think unfair or inappropriate. Please enlighten us where you would place them on a list of our vile and undesirable members of society.

If for what ever reason a member of the Armed Forces felt that his/her deployment or presence to a action would endanger or jeopardize that action, should and could inform the PTB. What ever the results might be, Discharge or Imprisonmet or reassignment. Desertion is not the answer.

I must apologize to the MOD's for occasionally wandering from time to time from the Topic. However on occasion it is necessary to explane or defend previous statements.

Cheers.


----------



## wdewitt

Volunteer army you join up at your own free will.
I believe if you can't full fill your contract then request discharge or be assign to another job till you are discharge.
No soldier wanted an wild card that can't back up his team out in the field that endanger the hole group
safety and compromise there objective. :-[
Forcing a person to fight in a combat role does not work or having them endanger there fellow members.
During the Second World War the Liberal government force draft dodgers to go to Europe mainly because lack of  troop manpower.
Nobody wanted them there on there front lines because they were consider not trust worthy and they were force there by the government.
A free volunteer  army fight more better than an force enlistment .


----------



## geo

DF15... what,s your point ???

where are you going with this ???

The americans who are hiding here voluntarily enlisted in their military.
If they refuse their deployment, they WILL face disciplinary measures leading up to their final discharge from their service.

Why are they hiding up here - let them go home, have their day in court & pay the price for ALL their decisions.
They decided to enlist
They decided to refuse deployment


----------



## Greymatters

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> Volunteer army you join up at your own free will.
> I believe if you can't full fill your contract then request discharge or be assign to another job till you are discharge.
> No soldier wanted an wild card that can't back up his team out in the field that endanger the hole group
> safety and compromise there objective. :-[
> Forcing a person to fight in a combat role does not work or having them endanger there fellow members.
> During the Second World War the Liberal government force draft dodgers to go to Europe mainly because lack of  troop manpower.
> Nobody wanted them there on there front lines because they were consider not trust worthy and they were force there by the government.
> A free volunteer  army fight more better than an force enlistment .



How about dealing with current issues and reality instead of WW2?  

Adults who sign up arent stupid, they know that the job of a soldier/soldier/airman is to fight.  Its something everyone learns from TV and movies long before they join up.  They know thats its possible they could go to war.  Its not like they join up and go 'oh my god, we have to shoot guns and might kill people? Nobody told me that!".  :

And it is not a 'volunteeer' army - it is a 'contract' army that each person willingly enters for a set period of service.  Failing to abide by the terms of a contract always results in some sort of punishment, regardless of whether it is a service contract, bank loan, line of credit, or employment contract.


----------



## wdewitt

My point  is they sign on the dot line to commit to defend and carry out there duty's. 
As far as I care they should just boot them out of there outfits and make them paid back money wasted on training them.  When you violate your contract there is a penalty to be paid.
Some would go to jail ;others would be boot out. :crybaby:
Society expect certain requirement that go with contract.
In some country not so free they would jail them or have them shot for cowardice. 
USA Forces like our have set protocol's in the military act that enforce there discipline. 
Instead of running up here they should have the military code amend to reflect society displeasure.


----------



## larry Strong

Excellent news, buy the Judge a round. Reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080714/robin_long_080714/20080714?hub=Canada



> Army deserter's bid to avoid deportation rejected
> Updated Mon. Jul. 14 2008 7:30 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> VANCOUVER -- American army deserter Robin Long could be deported to his country as early as Tuesday after a Federal Court judge rejected his application for a stay of his deportation order.
> 
> The 25-year-old fled to Canada in 2005 to avoid serving in Iraq.
> 
> Long was arrested in Nelson, B.C. last October on a Canada-wide warrant.
> 
> He said he sought refuge in Canada because the U.S. army wanted him to participate in what he calls an illegal war of aggression in Iraq.
> 
> In her ruling, Federal Court of Canada Justice Anne Mactavish says Long did not provide clear and convincing evidence that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is returned home.
> 
> Outside the court, one of his supporters said he is unaware of any other recourse for Long and that he will likely be deported on Tuesday.



One down...more to go


----------



## KJK

Good! 

KJK


----------



## fire_guy686

Job well done to the judge for having the spine to make this decision. I'm sure she will be hated now by all those crying to let these guys stick around.


----------



## wdewitt

I am sure the local legion members would help this poor down treat individual a free ride to the border.  They would give him a happy good bye farewell party as he is cuffed and shackled.  
He not far from the border at Trail BC. The local RCMP detachment could spare him a room for the night and hand him over to the USA authority's that is a 10minute run if that. :crybaby: :boring: ;D 
I know they would be just overwhelmed and heart broken if they were turn down to express there feelings towards him. ;D It just such a nice view there crossing the border with the mountains and river there.
An it a free meal and bed for the night at taxpayers expense.


----------



## 2 Cdo

I like the fact that the judge in this case pointed out that Long was not facing any harsh treatment if returned. In the majority of these cases in the US the offender was dealt with administratively and given a less than honourable discharge.(Which is ironic given the fact that these losers have no honour)

Good riddance, good bye and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of our country!


----------



## CountDC

I would like to see the U.S. charge everyone of them as we return them and for Canada to have a policy that bans them from returning here once deported. Forget the court cases too - they deserted, we all know they don't face any punishment that is too harsh so round them up and send them home.


----------



## North Star

Sorry for being a little slow, but I just finished Bob Rae's article. 

Now, I was a kid when he was Premier, and saw what his waffling, half-mooned socialism did to Ontario. So, I don't have much respect for his leadership and reasoning abilities. I do find, however, that as a leftist academic (which does not require reasoning in the slightest) he's ok. Not a compliment for a politician. 

Following his argument, he makes one crucial, blatant error, the reprecussions of which are huge. At one point, he argues that because a few of the reasons behind the war in Iraq turned out not be be completely "true", disobedience to the executive authority is permitted. (note: 550 tonnes of Yellow Cake arrived from Iraq to Canada a few weeks ago)

Think about that - it flies in the face of all military thought from Sun Tzu to the present. All conflict have started for reasons that evolved during the conflict itself. Some of those reasons turned out to be flawed, but did not in the slightest detract from the importance of the conflict. World War Two is an excellent example - it was fought to contain Nazi Germany but as the conflict continued, it became about much, much more. 

Using this logic, when my dad was a teacher in the Rae days, he should have sat on his butt and not gone to work. Rae promised massive improvements to education when he got elected. Instead, once he looked at the books he realized that wasn't possible and instituted poorly-administered cost cuts. The situation had changed. It happens, and the only way to mitigate Rae's damage was for my dad to head into work and to deal with it. 

I hope to God this guy never gets near a cabinet post. 

Endeth the rant.


----------



## larry Strong

And he's gone....good riddance. Reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080715/Army_deserter_080715/20080715?hub=TopStories



> Canada deports U.S. soldier opposed to Iraq war
> Updated Tue. Jul. 15 2008 5:46 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> A U.S. soldier who fled to Canada because he refused to serve in Iraq has been deported, and now faces a possible court martial.
> 
> Robin Long crossed the border into Canada in 2005. Last October, he was arrested in Nelson, B.C., on a Canada-wide warrant.
> 
> He called military operations in Iraq "an illegal war of aggression."
> 
> On Monday, Federal Court of Canada Justice Anne Mactavish said Long did not provide enough convincing evidence that he will face irreparable harm if he's sent back to the United States.
> 
> She noted that the percentage of American military deserters prosecuted in the U.S. has increased since 2002. However, she said the vast majority were not prosecuted, let alone jailed for desertion.
> 
> Between 2002 and 2006, Mactavish said about 94 per cent of U.S. deserters only received "a less than honourable discharge from the military."
> 
> Long, 25, had argued that he would be "singled out for harsh treatment by the Americans because of the publicity associated with his case."
> 
> But the judge ruled that Long failed to provide clear evidence in support of his argument.
> 
> Following the ruling, the chairman of the Vancouver War Resisters' Support Campaign said he believed Long's deportation would be the first time an army deserter has been forced out of Canada.
> 
> Bob Ages said Long will likely be returned to Fort Knox.
> 
> "We will be caucusing, trying to figure out what we can do,'' said Ages.
> 
> Long is one of several U.S. army deserters who claimed refugee status in Canada but none have yet been successful.


----------



## danchapps

It's too bad he's gone already. I wanted to give him some granola bars for the trip. Oh well.


----------



## aesop081

One down, more to go


----------



## rn_sapper

CTV has more on the story here this morning:
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080715%2fArmy_deserter_080715

As said before, one down and many more to go. 
This is not vietnam, there is no draft, you signed on the dotted line, the government is paying you to do a job. NOW DO THE JOB YOU ARE PAID FOR.

Yes, I know that it has been said before....but not by me.....I feel better now.


----------



## OldSolduer

"But (sniffle here) I only joined for the college money" :crybaby:


----------



## danchapps

I thought it was like boy scouts. Get to wear a snazzy uniform, play in the bush sometimes. Play war games. Whoa, got a wake up call today when they issues me my frag vest. You mean I actually have to do work??? What??How do I VR??? (Did I mention I'm NEVER sarcastic? :)


----------



## TrexLink

Douglas Bland has responded to Bob Rae's statement that we should let US deserters remain in Canada.



> [size=12pt]* Does Bob Rae endorse lawful desertion from the Canadian Forces?*
> _National Post
> July 16, 2008
> Douglas Bland_
> 
> In a comment published in the Toronto Star (Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada, 11 July 2008), Bob Rae pleads for Canada to accept any member of the United States armed forces who decides to desert his comrades and country and seek sanctuary in Canada. He argues that because a solider might believe that the war in Iraq is unpopular he or she therefore “faces a conflict of values and loyalties” and thus has a right to desert. Further, Canadians ought to honour this assumed right without question. Mr. Rae puts the "all-volunteer army" in a whole new light — volunteer to enlist and volunteer to leave at any time and on any whim.
> 
> If this concept is sound enough for the US armed forces, is Mr. Rae recommending it for the Canadian Forces too?
> 
> Before he answers that, Mr Rae ought to consider these questions. As foreign minister or justice minister in a future Liberal government, what would he do if a member of the Canadian Forces deserted on the grounds that in his or her opinion Canada was conducting an unpopular war in Afghanistan (as some say is the fact today)? What would Mr. Rae do if Canadian soldiers deserted their unit because they believed that they could not be compelled to serve on any mission not authorized by the UN, as the Liberal government ordered them to do in Kosovo, for example? Would Mr. Rae support the desertion of aboriginal members of the Canadian Forces who refused to follow orders to support the civil authority in a conflict with an aboriginal community as at Oka? More generally, what amendments would Mr. Rae make to the National Defence Act to provide the rules for the lawful desertion by members of the Canadian Forces during government-ordered active operations?
> 
> The fundamental principle of civil-military relations in Canada is that members of the Canadian Forces are obliged under threat of severe punishment to obey all lawful commands issued by the government. In cases were the lawfulness of a command is in question members have several avenues of redress inside and outside the Canadian Forces. To allow, as Mr. Rae suggests, soldiers to simply decide for themselves in every instance what orders to obey and which to disobey and when to report for duty and when not to do so would not only lead to disorder in the armed forces, but might put Canada at risk in times of emergency or conflict inside and outside the country. If Canadians were to accept Mr. Rae’s concepts, no government could trust the Canadian Forces to carry out its orders or to support its foreign policies or defence commitments. Every situation would depend on the voluntary co-operation of individual members of the Canadian Forces; as history shows, a government and a nation in that position is always in grave danger.
> 
> Finally given the very New Democratic Party feel of Mr. Rae’s comments, it is fair to ask him if he is speaking for the Liberal Party of Canada. Moreover, is he implicitly promising that if the Liberals form the next government, the prime minister will not pursue or otherwise take legal action against any member of the Canadian Forces inside or outside Canada who for whatever personal reason decides to desert his or her comrades during preparations for or while deployed on military operations authorized by the Canadian government?
> 
> Mr. Rae surely understands that members of the Canadian Forces, other Canadian, and our allies, especially in Afghanistan, will be asking him these serious policy questions during the coming federal election. So to forestall confusion, it might be useful if he were to issue a Liberal Party policy paper — perhaps entitled "The Liberal Party Position on Lawful Desertion From the Canadian Forces" — to answer them in advance.
> 
> _
> Professor Douglas Bland is Chair of the Defence Management Studies Program at The School of Policy Studies, at Queen's University._ [/size]



Link: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/07/15/douglas-bland-does-bob-rae-endorse-lawful-desertion-from-the-canadian-forces.aspx


----------



## GAP

Ahhhh.....let the weasel words begin.......


----------



## North Star

I think it's a valied point. 

Consider this: I hate the UN. I feel it consists of the most incompetent and corrupt civil servants the third world has to offer. Why should I "peacekeep" for them? What happens if I signed up to defend Canada, but can't see Canadian interests advanced through the UN's agenda? 

Bob Rae has a wonderful gift of not being able to think beyond the immediate consequences of his actions, a gift that led to his stellar performace as Premier of Ontario. He should he asked to defend his article and prove he has what it takes to be involved in the governance of Canada.


----------



## tomahawk6

North Star when you decide to serve your country you go and do whatever you are ordered to do. You dont get to choose which missions you will undertake and which one's you wont.You take the good with the unpleasant because you believe in your country.If you dont like military life at some point you can quit. The US Army deserters are cowards who had signed up to serve their country and when faced with going to the sandbox they run away letting their comrades down.Their unit either deployed short handed or someone was taken from another unit to fill the deserters spot.


----------



## TrexLink

Tomahawk - I think that was NorthStar's point.  Provided that he is not given a clearly illegal order, a soldier's personal preferences, likes and dislikes must be put aside.


----------



## OldSolduer

In WWI deserters were shot....period.
Oh they only joined for the college money, poor darlings!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wonder what Mr. Rae would have done when he was Premier of Ontario if an OPP officer decided not to enforce a legislation s/he felt were wrong? :


----------



## Shec

Its a question of character moreso than of political belief.  And clearly those who renege on a voluntarily taken oath of service have no character.  Claiming political objection is a cop-out, a smokescreen, an excuse.   He just doesn't have the moral integrity to even try to keep his word.  I'd hate to be his kid.


----------



## the 48th regulator

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> In WWI deserters were shot....period.
> Oh they only joined for the college money, poor darlings!



And pardoned.....

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cdnsad/


dileas

tess


----------



## North Star

Tomahawk6,

Just being sarcastic. I love using the example of not recognizing the UN as a legitimate organization and, as such, objecting to being deployed under its flag because it drives lefties nuts to have their own arguments thrown back against them.

We have the same opinion - you sign on the dotted line in a contract with the State, you follow through with it.


----------



## Gunnar

> What happens if I signed up to defend Canada, but can't see Canadian interests advanced through the UN's agenda?



Well then, you'd probably get a medal.

After all, isn't this the same political party that put Canadians who were shot for desertion and cowardice on the scroll of honour for WWI (I forget the exact honour, but I do recall those who were shot got to share the same honour as those who won VC's in the same war).

And actually, "signing up to defend Canada" is exactly what the Zombies signed up for in WWII.  Still, a number of those saw the light (and the contempt in which they were held by the rest of the forces and the public at large) and went on to actually earn their way in Europe.  But I'm sure any day now that the Liberals will champion a special award.  After all, they did protect Canada from overpopulation by tigers.  See any tigers here?  Exactly.  Musta worked.

See, if everyone just loved ENOUGH, then all wars would go away.  And if we put down our guns, then they'll see how much we like them, and wars will end.  Or a genocidal wave from the red team will eliminate our participation anyway...

Same liberal crap.  Actions without consequences.  No honour, integrity, loyalty, beliefs...just range of the moment action.  Want food?  Government provides.  Or just grab some from someone.  Shelter?  Under someone else's deck is fine.  Besides, someone should have given you a house.  Defence?  Defence is violence!  Besides, we're nice, so we're safe.  Besides, the red team shouldn't hurt you, it's not nice.  Wanna shoot cocaine then drive a school bus full of kids?  Well, the public has no right to discriminate against your choice of amusement!


----------



## Love793

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Wonder what Mr. Rae would have done when he was Premier of Ontario if an OPP officer decided not to enforce a legislation s/he felt were wrong? :



He would have given every OPP officer a province wide day off! ;D


----------



## greentoblue

It is interesting to contrast the position of these deserters to that of a soldier who not only refused to go to Iraq but also stayed in the US and is going through the courtmartial process.  While I do not agree with this individual - he let his soldiers got to war without him - but at least he stayed to see through the consequences of his actions: Lt Ehren Watada http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_officers_war  (It should also be noted that many veterans of the Japanese American 100/442nd Regiment of WW2 - America's most decorated unit - have strongly condemned him as besmirching their legacy as he originally invoked their sacrifices as part of his defense.)

On another note, an American soldier was courtmartialed for refusing to deploy with his unit when it was ordered to participate in the peacekeeping operation in Macedonia in 1995.  Specialist Michael New objected to wearing UN insignia and that foreign officers would have command over him.  New cited his conscience, his oath of office and the constitution as his defense; the army told him to pound sand.  No word if Bob Rae or Jack Layton offered their moral support.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This is the horrible fate that one American deserter faced on return to US:

American army deserter given nine months in jail
Resister sought refuge in Ottawa but returned to U.S. earlier this year
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/461887



> An American army deserter who took refuge in Canada before returning to the U.S. voluntarily was given a dishonourable discharge yesterday and sentenced to nine months in jail, a close supporter said...



So, to prevent that, Bobbity would put our relations with the US under severe strain? I don't think Mr Obama approves of desertion, either.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## wdewitt

I just send a letter referring to the fact that you can't expect our troop's decide to leave and use the same bone head excuse as these idiots do. To the Liberal and Conservative party's of Canada.
Your whole command structure would fall apart in time of war. :crybaby: 
Bob Rae is a typical politician with no backbone and left wing nut theory of life. 
The NDP was going to have a discussion weather our armed forces was a terrorist group in Ontario.
With friend like them? You hope they are shot first by an invasion force int :rage Canada. ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

I was going to put this in Radio Chatter but didn't think it deserved it's own thread. Mods move it if it's better placed somewhere else please.


While at he book store picking up some books to read (duh) I was in the war and politics section looking for 'Lone Survivor'. Powerful book. 
I seen a book 'Deserters tale' by Joshua Key. Curiosity got the better of me so I picked it up and read a chapter.

I'm a little more liberal when it comes to deserters. I've said if someone has served in Iraq or something, I'd at least be willing to listen to what they say.

Anyways, as I read a couple of paragraphs I was immediately reminded of comments from the Kadhar thread where someone mentioned a common attitude when a child is faced with work was ohh you don't like me, why do you hate me.
That's the impression I got from the book. It came across as very whiney to me and overly biased. Do people actually believe this stuff? 
Reading about how he was lied to and tricked into joining the combat engineers, I find it quite difficult that a recruiter would promise someone that "Combat Engineers" don't see combat. The "combat" part of the name comes from blowing up bridges before you rebuild them.  In the US I'll add. Apparenty he was promised that he would never have to deploy overseas. By joining the combat engineers he would stay in the US, work 9 to 5, be at home with his family every night and never get sent over seas.   
Because he didn't want to shoot anyone.

Are you kidding me?  Combat Engineers NOT seeing combat?  How about Infantry soldiers meaning they go around protecting infants. Come on now.
I was honestly considering buying the book just to see if the whole thing was like that but I couldn't.  It sounded like a boy coming up with an outlandish lie to his parents.

Horrible. Don't bother picking it up even if you ARE curious.


----------



## Greymatters

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I seen a book *'Deserters tale' * by Joshua Key. Curiosity got the better of me so I picked it up and read a chapter.



AKA "Deserters excuses"?


----------



## OldSolduer

Come on guys!! He only joined for the college money.....

He suffers from "lack of intestinal fortitude". He's a coward, pure and simple.


----------



## FastEddy

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I was going to put this in Radio Chatter but didn't think it deserved it's own thread. Mods move it if it's better placed somewhere else please.
> 
> 
> While at he book store picking up some books to read (duh) I was in the war and politics section looking for 'Lone Survivor'. Powerful book.
> I seen a book 'Deserters tale' by Joshua Key. Curiosity got the better of me so I picked it up and read a chapter.
> 
> I'm a little more liberal when it comes to deserters. I've said if someone has served in Iraq or something, I'd at least be willing to listen to what they say.
> 
> Horrible. Don't bother picking it up even if you ARE curious.




Thanks for the Tip, it sounds like something that would would have as much impact and logic if it were called and on "Why I Raped my 90 year old Gramother".

However it does give rise to, why a Combat Veteran would not seek out his C.O or a Medical Officer (considering the recognition and advancements today) concerning his return to Combat Duty. Rather than immediately Deserting ?.

Cheers.


----------



## wdewitt

I just got letter e-mail from my MP Liberal solidly justify in support these cockroach's.
Send a bad example to Canadians supporting our troops.
Our command structure is integrated with all  US Forces under several treaty's.
Too bad, we could not hold a court marshal up here by our rules and take them to trail here under the Defense Act. Would save taxpayer Hugh money and they could ship them out after there court marshal for cowardice and desertion.
Country gone in to a sorry state because our MP are spineless.


----------



## OldSolduer

If Lester B Pearson could see his "Liberals" now, he'd turn in his grave.....


----------



## GAP

desertfox115, you really need to work on your syntax....your replies are disjointed..


----------



## CountDC

GAP said:
			
		

> desertfox115, you really need to work on your syntax....your replies are disjointed..



you try typing with paws instead of hands. ;D


----------



## wdewitt

Nobody perfect and i do the best i can. ;D


----------



## GAP

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> Nobody perfect and i do the best i can. ;D



I am not critisizing.....well, I am, but with a reason  ;D , .

It looks like your fingers are not keeping up with your thoughts, thus you miss segments (I know, I went through the same thing...had to slow down what I wanted to say to the speed of my fingers/paws)


----------



## OldSolduer

I have to agree. Slow down, as thoughts are usually faster than the fingers that can express them. Lots of pratice will alleviate that.

I have dyslexic fingers......so if you see "Fnigers" instead of "Fingers" etc....you'll  know why!


----------



## geo

Ummm.... Desertfox - and what do you imagine the punishment for Desertion would be in Canada.

If the american soldier has issues with his former employer, let him take them up with same said former employer.

It's not like there is the slightlest danger of being executed for their deeds


----------



## wdewitt

Discharge and pay back benefits and deport back to the USA as an illegal alien.
Prison time would be nice also for desertion.
Criminal record so he can't apply for Canadian citizenship.


----------



## geo

Ummm... you want him to pay back benefits AND then put him in jail ??? at the taxpayer's expense ???
Taking him to the cleaner AND throwing him in jail would be making his case to the court of public opinion.

Best send him home to face discharge and let him survive and make a living by his own witts.


----------



## wdewitt

He commit a crime when he desert?
He live off benefits he abuse and took off when his country need him.


----------



## geo

yup... possibly & most probably BUT, it was done in a foreign and sovereign country.

All we can do is help him take it home so he can have his day in court


----------



## bily052

I haven't seen it posted yet, and I'm not sure it warrents a new post for itself....

The link : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080729.wdeserter0729/BNStory/National/home

The Story :



The Canadian Press

July 29, 2008 at 5:23 PM EDT

FORT ERIE, Ont. — An American man wanted in the U.S. on desertion charges who had apparently been living for months in Canada has been arrested while trying to cross the border back into the U.S.

American customs officials apprehended 23-year-old Tyrone Pachauer of Deltona, Fla., at the Peace Bridge border crossing in Fort Erie, Ont., as he tried to cross into Buffalo, N.Y., on Monday.

Mr. Pachauer told border officials he left his base at Fort Knox, Ky., on Dec. 19, 2007.

A warrant for his arrest was issued in January after he failed to return after Christmas leave.

Mr. Pachauer told officers he had been living with relatives in Brampton, Ont.

He was handed over to Buffalo police and is expected to be extradited to Kentucky to face the desertion charge.


----------



## geo

Arrested ???
Woulda thought they would have received him with open arms... and an all expense paid trip to Ft Knox ready & waiting in the wings


----------



## wdewitt

He does not realize that every border crossing;" The   staff are screening everybody  no matter who you are." :crybaby: :threat: :-*
Things have tighten up allot since 911.
One less for Canada to content with.


----------



## geo

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> He does not realize that every border crossing;" The   staff are screening everybody  no matter who you are." :crybaby: :threat: :-*
> Things have tighten up allot since 911.
> One less for Canada to content with.



DF115... it's the US Border staff that screened & captured Typone.


----------



## wdewitt

Both side are doing more screening; and there was talk at having one Customs office to house both  of them for better policing at on time.
The days of walking or driving across with little screening are over. :crybaby:


----------



## wannabe SF member

AES Op - Jr said:
			
		

> American customs officials apprehended 23-year-old Tyrone Pachauer of Deltona, Fla., at the Peace Bridge border crossing in Fort Erie, Ont.,



Deserter apprehended at the peace bridge? Ironic!


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Heading to Canada eh? Almost made it


-Super troopers


----------



## medaid

" Hey meow, where you headed meow?"

"Um Canada..."

"Oh really meow? Why'd you wanna meow that?"

Hehehehehe.. Couldn't resist..
















MEOW!


----------



## Wookilar

Just came across CTV Newsnet that Hinzman lost another round and was ordered deported. Looking for print-confirmation.

Wook


----------



## Wookilar

LINK: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/08/13/6436051-cp.html

U.S. army deserter Hinzman ordered deported

By THE CANADIAN PRESS
     
MISSISSAUGA, Ont. — One of the first U.S. army deserters from Iraq to seek refugee status in Canada has been ordered deported. 

Jeremy Hinzman deserted the army in 2004 after learning his unit was to be deployed to Iraq. 

He refused to participate in what he calls an immoral and illegal war. 

Hinzman fled to Canada along with his wife and son and sought refugee status. 

Today, he was ordered out of the country by Sept. 23. 

The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his claim in 2005 and the Federal Court of Appeal held that he wouldn’t face any serious punishment if returned to the United States. 

Hinzman took his pleas to the Supreme Court of Canada, which also refused to hear the case.


----------



## aesop081

Nah Nah Nah , Nah Hah Nah Hey Hey Hey Goodbye.........


----------



## Wookilar

hehehehehe you beat me to it lol. 

Do we have a hand-wavy or rasberry-blowing smilie? Need to find one like that....

Wook


----------



## PMedMoe

How about these?


----------



## Snafu-Bar

Why join the forces if your going to call war immoral and flee your country? Seems to me he made a bad choice in offering himself to his country in the first place.

 :


----------



## Strike

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Why join the forces if your going to call war immoral and flee your country? Seems to me he made a bad choice in offering himself to his country in the first place.
> 
> :



Because he wanted the benefits of a free education?   ;D


----------



## Wookilar

Exactly....he'll fight to defend himself but won't go out on an attack? Concientious-objector status has a long history in the U.S. and he didn't make the grade on it. 

Moe: Those are great! Thanx! But I was hoping for something more malicious to use....a mean smilie, if you know what I mean  ;D

Wook


----------



## Danjanou

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Moe: Those are great! Thanx! But I was hoping for something more malicious to use....a mean smilie, if you know what I mean  ;D
> 
> Wook




best I could come up with

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93pbuhbye.phtml


----------



## Jarnhamar

What if he joined because his government said there was proof Iraq had WMD's and he needed to protect his family


----------



## aesop081

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Why join the forces if your going to call war immoral and flee your country?



He did not call war immoral, he called THIS war immoral. Theres a difference there.


----------



## Snafu-Bar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He did not call war immoral, he called THIS war immoral. Theres a difference there.



  I still fail to see how one offers thier services to thier country knowing the full extent of conditions upon entering.  Still makes him look like a turncoat to anyone in the forces. 

 I'm going to assume there are other ways of not going into action if one feels they are detrimental to the troops around them.  :-\

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Still makes him look like a turncoat to anyone in the forces.



I never said he wasnt an idiot, just that what you said was not a correct reflection of what the individual had stated.


----------



## danchapps

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> I still fail to see how one offers thier services to thier country knowing the full extent of conditions upon entering.  Still makes him look like a turncoat to anyone in the forces.
> 
> I'm going to assume there are other ways of not going into action if one feels they are detrimental to the troops around them.  :-\
> 
> Cheers.



Well, it does say he came here in 2004, and he served for 2 years prior to AWOL, so maybe he joined up to get glory after 9/11. It's just a thought, maybe he meant well, but didn't think far enough ahead about what G.W.B. might be doing.


----------



## LineDoggie

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> What if he joined because his government said there was proof Iraq had WMD's and he needed to protect his family



Name one who did?


----------



## old medic

Soldier who fled to Canada to plead guilty in U.S.
Thu. Aug. 21 2008

The Associated Press



> FORT CARSON, Colo. -- An American soldier who fled to Canada when his unit was deployed to Iraq plans to plead guilty Friday to a reduced charge of desertion, his lawyer said.
> 
> Pte. Robin Long, 25, of Boise, Idaho, faces up to three years in prison and a dishonourable discharge, civilian defence lawyer James Branam said Thursday.
> 
> Long fled Canada in 2005, but Canadian authorities denied his request for refuge and deported him in July of this year.
> 
> Branam said Long has reached an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to desertion with intent to remain away permanently, a lesser charge than desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty.
> 
> Army prosecutors declined to comment.
> 
> Branam said Long's sentence will be determined Friday.
> 
> "Yes, he did break the law, he committed a wrong, but he shouldn't be punished harshly because he had a lot of good reasons to do what he did," Branam said.
> 
> "He believes very sincerely he couldn't participate in this war in good conscience," Branam said.
> 
> Long also feared his fellow soldiers would be at risk in combat if Long "couldn't pull the trigger" because of moral qualms, Branam said.
> 
> Another U.S. soldier who sought refugee status in Canada was ordered out of the country this month.
> 
> Jeremy Hinzman deserted from Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2004 after learning his unit was to be deployed to Iraq. Hinzman has said the war is immoral and illegal.
> 
> He said last week he was ordered to leave Canada by Sept. 23.


----------



## geo

> desertion with intent to remain away permanently, VS
> desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty...


Oy vey!!! 
WTF - talk about splitting hairs!


----------



## geo

> Jeremy Hinzman deserted from Fort Bragg, N.C., in 2004 after learning his unit was to be deployed to Iraq. Hinzman has said the war is immoral and illegal.



Figure that the prosecution will propose the same kind of plea bargain......

Desertion with intent to remain away permanently


----------



## OldSolduer

Well let's rid ourselves of a few more. 

Why did they not ask for duty that involves assisting wounded soldiers? That's just as honorable, if not more so.


----------



## geo

I doubt that option was proposed...


----------



## OldSolduer

I will tell you why they didn't ask for conscientious objector status: That requires commitment. These people have no idea what that means.


----------



## old medic

Associated Press Wire (numerous links)
Aug 22, 6:42 PM EDT

Soldier gets 15 months in prison for desertion



> FORT CARSON, Colo. (AP) -- A soldier who fled to Canada rather than fight in Iraq has been sentenced to 15 months in prison after pleading guilty in Fort Carson, Colo., to a reduced charge of desertion.
> 
> Pvt. Robin Long told a military judge at his sentencing Friday that he left the country over moral objections to what he called an illegal war.
> 
> Prosecutors say the 25-year-old from Boise, Idaho, abandoned his duty and his country.
> 
> Long was stationed at Fort Carson when he fled to Canada in 2005. Canadian authorities denied his request for refuge and deported him last month.
> 
> Long reached a plea agreement with prosecutors. He pleaded guilty to desertion with intent to remain away permanently, a lesser charge than desertion with intent to shirk hazardous duty.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

old medic said:
			
		

> Associated Press Wire (numerous links)
> Aug 22, 6:42 PM EDT
> 
> Soldier gets 15 months in prison for desertion



What a weasel, but I'm glad he's finally getting whats coming to him.... don't drop the soap !


----------



## gun runner

"What a weasel" , what a comment to make.. if the shoe was on the other foot,would you still make that same comment? I am sure that Private Long will no doubt be slapped with the same comments during his incarceration,but that country has a long history of fighting unpopular wars. The country was against the Second World War until Japan attacked. And how about Korea? Vietnam, now that was the one conflict where escaping to Canada was worth the trip. But now we are both countries at war..albeit for different reasons. Iraq has proven to be another unpopular war, and Americans are getting tired of seeing the caskets of their dead sons and daughters day after day. 3000+ dead in 7 years.. sad.  It makes sense to me that this member of the U.S. armed forces would make this choice.. and his reasons are probably justifiable as well. As Canadians we have the luxury of criticism, and yes we are losing our sons and daughters as well, but not to the degree that our neighbours to the south are seeing. We have reason to be concerned for our loved ones.. I know, I have a brother in Afghanistan right now..but the U.S. has 1000 times the uniforms in afghanistan, and 6 times that number again in Iraq (150000).Not to mention that a 6 month rotation would be a total wet dream for those in uniform in Iraq. These soldiers are there for the long haul..15-18 months. How about those apples? So, how do you call a man with a conscience, and a concern for his well being a weasel. If I was in the same position(being sent to a conflict with a high mortality rate, and low morale.) I would probably want to review my options as well. But I am not an American.. and I am not in harms way. I am sure if you had seen the wholesale carnage that these soldiers have seen(yes we have too as well) then you could understand what he is trying to avoid. Just my thoughts. Ubique


----------



## brihard

gun runner said:
			
		

> "What a weasel" , what a comment to make.. if the shoe was on the other foot,would you still make that same comment? I am sure that Private Long will no doubt be slapped with the same comments during his incarceration,but that country has a long history of fighting unpopular wars. The country was against the Second World War until Japan attacked. And how about Korea? Vietnam, now that was the one conflict where escaping to Canada was worth the trip. But now we are both countries at war..albeit for different reasons. Iraq has proven to be another unpopular war, and Americans are getting tired of seeing the caskets of their dead sons and daughters day after day. 3000+ dead in 7 years.. sad.  It makes sense to me that this member of the U.S. armed forces would make this choice.. and his reasons are probably justifiable as well. As Canadians we have the luxury of criticism, and yes we are losing our sons and daughters as well, but not to the degree that our neighbours to the south are seeing. We have reason to be concerned for our loved ones.. I know, I have a brother in Afghanistan right now..but the U.S. has 1000 times the uniforms in afghanistan, and 6 times that number again in Iraq (150000).Not to mention that a 6 month rotation would be a total wet dream for those in uniform in Iraq. These soldiers are there for the long haul..15-18 months. How about those apples? So, how do you call a man with a conscience, and a concern for his well being a weasel. If I was in the same position(being sent to a conflict with a high mortality rate, and low morale.) I would probably want to review my options as well. But I am not an American.. and I am not in harms way. I am sure if you had seen the wholesale carnage that these soldiers have seen(yes we have too as well) then you could understand what he is trying to avoid. Just my thoughts. Ubique



Private Long joined the U.S Army the same time the invasion was beginning. He should have known better than to join an army that was fighting a war he did not believe in.

I'm no fan of the Iraq war, but you don't voluntarily join an army and then back out when the time comes to step up.


----------



## Strike

gun runner, if you were to take the time and read the comments found in this thread, all your comments and views have already been addressed.  But because you prefer to rant rather than take a breath before posting (that's okay, we've all done it) I'll throw in the general rebuttals that can be found in here...



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> ...that country has a long history of fighting unpopular wars. The country was against the Second World War until Japan attacked. And how about Korea?



Uh, Canada was also in Korea.



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> Vietnam, now that was the one conflict where escaping to Canada was worth the trip.



You can't really compare Vietnam's deserters to today.  Today's deserters are all volunteers whereas back then they were draft-dodgers.



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> It makes sense to me that this member of the U.S. armed forces would make this choice.. and his reasons are probably justifiable as well.



And how about those who joined after 9/11 and then deserted?  Sure, the US didn't start out in Iraq, but the country was still at war.  Once again, he still volunteered for the military and wasn't drafted.



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> As Canadians we have the luxury of criticism, and yes we are losing our sons and daughters as well, but not to the degree that our neighbours to the south are seeing.



Really?  The day we lost 10 Canadians an American friend of mine decided to do a bit of math and equated that loss (based on the populations of both countries and their commitment to Afghanistan) to something like 150 of their troops.  You can't just throw a number out there with out looking at ALL the numbers involved.

Take the time and read the whole thread.  I'm just repeating what has already been brought up numerous times.


----------



## aesop081

gun runner said:
			
		

> If I was in the same position(being sent to a conflict with a high mortality rate, and low morale.) I would probably want to review my options as well.



Well, thanks for the advance warning that i can count on you to run to Mexico when things heat up.


Ubique this........ :


----------



## Loachman

gun runner said:
			
		

> It makes sense to me that this member of the U.S. armed forces would make this choice.. and his reasons are probably justifiable as well.



Fear, most likely.



			
				gun runner said:
			
		

> So, how do you call a man with a conscience, and a concern for his well being a weasel.



Conscience? On what do you base this claim of "conscience"? Just because these deserters made certain allegations?

While every one of these people has claimed to want out as the Iraq conflict is an "illegal" war, or they were being forced to commit or witness war crimes, I have a really, really hard time accepting their word on that. Of course, their claims are entirely believable to the anti-war crowd as they fit their belief patterns, and these claims thus gain the deserters a sympathetic following. Their claims also imply that every other professional member of the US Armed Forces is a willing participant in illegal and immoral activities. I have not worked with any US military people over several decades whom I would have any reason to believe were/are not professional, ethical, and moral and therefore I have no difficulty in rejecting those claims.

I can understand fear, and I can even sympathize.

For anyone that would stand up and say "I am afraid and do not want to serve any more", I can even feel a degree of respect.

These people have not made that admission.

Instead, in all likelihood, they have misrepresented the reasons for their actions in order to garner sympathy - or, to be less kind, lied.

What also bothers me is that others have had to take on additional risk, and some may even have died, in their place, and the honour of those men and women, and the honour of the US Armed Forces in general, has been smeared by their allegations.

Cassius Clay, later known as Mohammed Ali, chose not to submit to conscription yet he went to court over the matter rather than running and accepted the penalty given to him. That I can respect. Whatever his true motivation was, he manned up.

The deserters could also have resorted to the courts in the US and made their arguments there. Had their cases had merit, ie had they been able to prove that the conflict was illegal as alleged and that war crimes were actually taking place as they claim, they should have had nothing to fear. Instead of standing and fighting their cases - and proving their statements - they chose to run. That would indicate that they have no case, that their allegations of illegality, criminality, and immorality have no basis - and they knew it - and that they have no conscience.

If it walks like a weasel and quacks like a weasel...


----------



## armyvern

Gun runner,

I have only a couple of things to say to you:

The last person on earth who wants to see war --- is the soldier who will be fighting, and possibly dieing in it.

But, an "unpopular war" DOES NOT EQUAL an "unjust war" or an "illegal war". 

They are entirely different matters. _*Most*_ soldiers grasp that concept.


----------



## geo

Gunrunner....

Read lots, post seldom.... it'll work out better for you in the long run


----------



## gun runner

Thank-you to all who have replied to my post..all of it is good advice and a good wake up call to myself. Let me start off with this..I am no fan of deserters,it is a cowardly act for sure,but in the individuals mind it must have been an only option.To CDN AVIATOR, I would have your back in any war this country chooses to send an ex-soldier as myself to..dont worry about that. And yes Canada was in Korea..I know my history, thanks. The current war in Iraq CAN be compared to the U.S. action in Vietnam, both (are)were immensly unpopular with the citizens of the U.S, and if you all will understand my point of view, if you dont have the support at home, the morale is going to fall like a stone. And that leads to desertion. ARMY VERN, you are correct in stating that the last person on earth who wants war is the soldier, that is the best way I have heard it yet.Listen people... Private Long was a soldier,weak as he may have been,but still a soldier. Who knows, maybe he had seen enough of his buddies getting blown up by zealots using all manners of traps to kill Americans.I cant say what went through his mind at the time,but he must have had a good enough reason to desert. You are right in the statement that there were channels to go through for a proper dismissal on consciencious objector grounds,and yes the military courts would have seen to it that he spent not one more day in the forces if that was how he felt about it. But he didnt and that is that. So..that is where it stands, Pte. Long will get his day in court, and his dis-honourable discharge, and life will return to normal.. until the next deserter is deported back and this debate will go on again.  So I will leave it at that, and CDN AVIATOR, I dont shit on the Airforce, leave the Regiment out of your comments. Ubique


----------



## aesop081

gun runner said:
			
		

> leave the Regiment out of your comments. Ubique



I earned the right to use "Ubique" any way i want........

Of course for me it meant " Everywhere" not "all over the place"  ;D

(a reference i'm sure you will get a chuckle out of and know what i mean)


----------



## geo

Sappers
1st in, last out

CHIMO!


----------



## gun runner

Yes I get the joke. Thanks for setting it straight. A gunner for life. Ubique


----------



## OldSolduer

Hostie Acie Nominatae


----------



## geo

Umm... Who was telling a joke ???


----------



## gun runner

Ambedo stercoro. Ubique


----------



## Blindspot

Haven't seen a good latin duel since Tombstone.


----------



## geo

any you probably won,t see one here either....


----------



## kratz

Now US deserters  want Canadian voters to use ther votes to help protect them from being deported back to the US.

Shared from  the Calgary Sun



> U.S. deserter slams Harper
> 
> By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA
> 
> Voters should insist their leaders grant U.S. military deserters asylum for the sake of Canada's own troops, an American deserter said in Calgary yesterday.
> 
> Chuck Wiley, a 17-year U.S. naval veteran who fled to Canada in 2007, said he fears what he calls the Bush administration's abuse of its soldiers will be repeated in Canada if voters allow Ottawa to deport U.S. deserters.
> 
> "They've made it clear in the U.S. the rights of soldiers will be ignored and if they're successful in doing it to us, Stephen Harper will try to enforce the same attitude," said Wiley, 36, who last served aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
> 
> "Harper's always been supportive of everything George W. Bush stands for ... it's not just about us."
> 
> Wiley said unless Canadians elect a more sympathetic government he'll likely be deported to the U.S. within five months and possibly face prison time.
> 
> "I'd love it to be an election issue," he said before speaking to about 50 people at a northwest church.
> 
> Last June, Parliament passed a motion calling for a halt to the deportation of war resisters, noted Calgary Centre NDP candidate Tyler Kinch. "The prime minister should honour the will of Parliament," said Kinch.
> 
> A series of cross-country protests staged in support of American deserters yesterday turned highly partisan, hundreds called for a change in government -- including a Toronto demonstration flush with placards reading "Stop Harper."
> 
> About 20 rallies from coast to coast -- initially scheduled to coincide with the 10-day countdown to deserter Jeremy Hinzman's deportation -- rounded out a day of action to support American soldiers seeking refugee status.


----------



## geo

Hmmm.... why doesn't he go back and become an election issue in his own coutry.
he can be the catalyst for change... if he has the guts to stand up for what he believes


----------



## GAP

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... why doesn't he go back and become an election issue in his own coutry.
> he can be the catalyst for change... if he has the guts to stand up for what he believes



Because wherever he went they would tar and feather him, just before running him out of town on a rail....


----------



## geo

And the problem is ???


----------



## Huzzah

"Guts" is one of the things that these deserters don't have.I could maybe give
them a small bit of respect if they went home to state their beliefs/case in a
court.
 While others from their Units are serving overseas,these people don't even have
the courage to stand up for their beliefs in their own country.


----------



## axeman

thats always been my problem with these "soldiers" is that they have volunteered to serve  then they have run away from their moral obligations. Boo hoo that they will have to serve jail time,  no one is shooting there though. If they had ANY spine they would do the jail time and then walk away from the army/navy/marines /air force. jeez if our country had any spine they would pick em up and  drop them off on the US side of the border and deny them accsess to our country.


----------



## geo

Axeman... Our country DOES have spine.  But we are also governed by the rule of LAW.  Laws that are for everyone... and everyone has the RIGHT to be heard.  If same said individual doesn't have a leg to stand on... then back he goes.


----------



## Danjanou

geo said:
			
		

> Axeman... Our country DOES have spine.  But we are also governed by the rule of LAW.  Laws that are for everyone... and everyone has the RIGHT to be heard.  If same said individual doesn't have a leg to stand on... then back he goes.



Yup while there may be some loop holes in our laws and some take advantage of that, they remain our laws, a representation of our our society and that's the reason we  put the uniform and stood on the proverbial wall in the first place, to defend it.


----------



## gaspasser

What erks me is that this guy was 17 when he deserted from the USN.  What was he doing in the navy at 17???  And now he wants to be a "conscientious objector" and try to sway the voters of this country with anti-war rethoric...IN THIS Country!!   IN MY Country!! 
I agree that he should go back and try it on the US voters, they have an election coming up!  Didn't we just bury a fine bunch of lads who gave all for someone else's country??  
Sorry, no sympathy here.   ^-^
My $0.02


----------



## Strike

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> What erks me is that this guy was 17 when he deserted from the USN.  What was he doing in the navy at 17???  And now he wants to be a "conscientious objector" and try to sway the voters of this country with anti-war rethoric...IN THIS Country!!   IN MY Country!!
> I agree that he should go back and try it on the US voters, they have an election coming up!  Didn't we just bury a fine bunch of lads who gave all for someone else's country??
> Sorry, no sympathy here.   ^-^
> My $0.02



Re-read the article.  It says he was a 17 yr veteran, which I read as saying he was in the Navy 17 yrs.


----------



## geo

My take on things... he figuread that being a Squid, he was safe from being deployed to a theatre named IRAQ.  When he got a message that said something to the contrary, that he was in fact going to spend a year in the sandbox, he figured his conviction in the armed services went out of the window.


----------



## North Star

As a non-citizen landed foreign national, this gentleman should shut his mouth and lobby for political aims in his own country, not for his personal preferences in another. Isn't there a law against foreigners interfering with our elections?


----------



## Gunnar

> Isn't there a law against foreigners interfering with our elections



Yup.  But if they didn't slap Micheal Moore for doing it, they're not likely to slap this guy.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just in, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Judge grants U.S. deserter's last-ditch effort to stave off deportation*
Canadian Press, 22 Sept 08
Article link

TORONTO — A high-profile American deserter has won a last-minute stay of deportation.

A Federal Court judge says *Jeremy Hinzman* can stay in Canada for now. Hinzman was due to get the boot to the U.S. Tuesday morning, where he would face prosecution for fleeing to Canada rather than deploying to Iraq. Ottawa has refused his family's application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The 29-year-old Hinzman, his wife and two young children asked for the stay while the courts decide if they will review that decision.

His lawyer argued today that deserters who have been publicly critical of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq have received harsher punishment.


----------



## Redeye

Damn it!  On what ridiculous grounds are they allowing this guy to stay?  He has no appeals left.  It's clear he is NOT a refugee.  What else do the courts want?  Get him out of here.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This just in, shared with the usual disclaimer....
> 
> *Judge grants U.S. deserter's last-ditch effort to stave off deportation*
> Canadian Press, 22 Sept 08
> Article link
> 
> TORONTO — A high-profile American deserter has won a last-minute stay of deportation.
> 
> A Federal Court judge says *Jeremy Hinzman* can stay in Canada for now. Hinzman was due to get the boot to the U.S. Tuesday morning, where he would face prosecution for fleeing to Canada rather than deploying to Iraq. Ottawa has refused his family's application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
> 
> The 29-year-old Hinzman, his wife and two young children asked for the stay while the courts decide if they will review that decision.
> 
> His lawyer argued today that deserters who have been publicly critical of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq have received harsher punishment.


----------



## Huzzah

Another goof-ball ruling,by another goof-ball judge...the system is chock-full
of 'em.The left is so open-minded that their brains fell out years ago.


----------



## whitey

I haven't read this whole thread (62 pages), but I would like to know what some are your opinions are on soldiers who have been stop lossed. I do feel for some of these guys (not all).


----------



## Strike

whitey said:
			
		

> I haven't read this whole thread (62 pages), but I would like to know what some are your opinions are on soldiers who have been stop lossed. I do feel for some of these guys (not all).



You might want to skim through those 62 pages then because we've all pretty much covered it.


----------



## George Wallace

Strike said:
			
		

> You might want to skim through those 62 pages then because we've all pretty much covered it.



Exactly.  Why else do you figure we have 62 pages?  They are 62 pages of opinionated posts.


----------



## geo

whitey said:
			
		

> I haven't read this whole thread (62 pages), but I would like to know what some are your opinions are on soldiers who have been stop lossed. I do feel for some of these guys (not all).


Ummm... 
Readers Digest version...

The man joined after 9/11
The man was a volunteer - he wanted to join the military & signed on the dotted line - This is not someone who was drafted and forced into the military - like things happened during the Vietnam era...

He wanted in & they let him in...
Now that the Gov't wants the man to exercise that trade they taught him (at considerable cost to the US Public), this man wants out !!!  Does that make any sense ???

Make him face the music & meet the committment that he willingly signed up for.
Else - make him reimburse the US Gov't every last nickle they spent on him.


----------



## armyvern

And, here reproduced under the Fairdealings provisions of the copyright act ...

Is a 'lil update on the Liberal take on this decision 

Liberals back U.S. war resister's bid to stay in Canada



> Last Updated: Thursday, September 18, 2008 | 6:44 PM ET Comments154Recommend54CBC News
> Former U.S. soldier Jeremy Hinzman, shown here in 2006, has less than a week before his deportation deadline Tuesday. (Aaron Harris/Canadian Press)With less than a week before U.S. Iraq war resister Jeremy Hinzman and his family are to be deported, the Liberals have reaffirmed their support for his fight to stay in Canada.
> 
> The 29-year-old Hinzman, his wife, Nga Nguyen, and their children — six-year-old Liam and six-week-old Meghan — have been ordered to leave Canada by Sept. 23 or face deportation.
> 
> If Hinzman is sent back to the U.S., he faces imprisonment and a criminal record.
> 
> Fresh off the campaign trail, Liberal Bob Rae spoke at a Toronto news conference Thursday with Hinzman.
> 
> Rae said the Liberals are still committed to keeping American war deserters in Canada.
> 
> He urged the government to support a motion passed earlier this year by all parties, except the Conservatives, to let conscientious objectors take up permanent residence.
> 
> "I don't think we should be having a situation where we're dead set on deportation in every situation, which seems to be the position of the government," Rae said.
> 
> Hinzman and his family came to Canada in 2004 after his attempts to gain conscientious objector status in the U.S. army were turned down.
> 
> His troop was about to be deployed to Iraq at the time, and he did not want to participate in what he called an immoral war.
> 
> Hinzman, who has applied for a stay of removal, said he's not expecting it to be granted.
> 
> "The Conservatives are ahead and they're not sympathetic to us in the least," he said, referring to opinion polls in advance of the Oct. 14. election.


----------



## karl28

geo  

          I am in complete agreement with you  .  Lots of  Brave Men and Women of the  Canadian Forces are serving in Afghanistan away from there families and he gets to stay here .     Doesn't make sense to me at all  send him back to face the music .


----------



## George Wallace

Right on Bob!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It really is a shame that Bob Rae will in all likelihood continue along the political trail he has set out on and become a sitting member of Parliament.  You all realize what kind of member that is.   :


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Right on Bob!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is a shame that Bob Rae will in all likelihood continue along the political trail he has set out on and become a sitting member of Parliament.  You all realize what kind of member that is.   :



Hehehehe ... now that's an icon that Mike should be adding onto the site with the rest of them. 

It'd go good with a thread "LOCK!!" too...  >


----------



## George Wallace

Well, some of us are feeling a bit.....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.... with what is going on in our legal and political systems lately.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, some of us are feeling a bit.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... with what is going on in our legal and political systems lately.



The elections will soon be over & someone will be put out of their misery; time will tell.

I can't imagine being a US citizen and suffering through months & months of "Campaign" talk. Wow. I'm ready to vote tomorrow already.


----------



## medaid

I want to be the member that gets the assignment of deporting the deserters back to the US. Really, I would! I wouldn't be mean about it or anything. I think I'd just whip out the Honour Roll of the deserter's unit. Maybe they'll know a few of them, and maybe they'll remember them if I read them out loud, with a "May he/she rest in peace" after thei names.

I have ZERO sympathy for deserters. 0.


----------



## Wookilar

Well, not to start a bit of a firestorm   but I am going to have to agree with the Lib's a bit on this.

Now, hold on a second, just let me explain. I think some people are skimming over our friend Bob's support (on behalf of the NDP Liberals) for "*conscientious objectors*"  being allowed to stay in Canada.

I'm all for conscientious objectors being allowed to stay in Canada. These are the kind of people that have conviction in their beliefs and are willing to stand for what they believe in......

However, *NONE*, I say again, *NONE* of these cowards have been able to prove conscientious objector status. Hell, some of them didn't even bother trying that route because they knew it would fail. Hinzman is one of them. He doesn't have a problem with war, just the current one in Iraq. 

That is not a conscientious objector. That, is a coward.

Wook


----------



## George Wallace

Just one point on that.  Conscientious Objectors don't usually join the Military in the first place.  One doesn't join the Military, and then suddenly discover that they are a "Conscientious Objector".

There are other ways for Conscientious Objectors to serve their nations, other than military.  They can work for Police Forces, any of the Emergency Services, Hospitals, etc.  They don't join the Military.

So Bob can talk about "Conscientious Objectors" being allowed to stay in Canada, but they are a completely different animal from the "Deserter" who willingly joined the Military for a wage and education/Trade signing a contract to do "Service in the Defence of their Nations Policies, at home and abroad".   

If Bob condones the breaking of binding contracts, then what else does he condone?


----------



## Wookilar

George,

I agree with you, however, the US Army (at least, not sure about the other services) does have a conscientious objector status (or did, I should say circa 1997). In order to qualify for such, a serving member applies through their CoC and they basically go through a question and answer process to see if they make the grade. Cousin of mine helped one of his buds sort himself out a short time after completing Boot back then. I figured the Chain would be all over this young guy, but supposedly it wasn't that bad.

I'd be interested in finding out how many have successfully done so since 2001? Going to have to make some phone calls and see how much the policy has changed ..... I'll update if I find out anything interesting.

Here, found some interesting stuff. Firstly, from the U.N. (yes I know, but come on)

United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/77” officially recognized that “persons [already] performing military service may develop conscientious objections.” Now, whether the US or anyone else pays any attention to that is another story of course.

US legal framework (some from Wiki, some from Library of Congress):
The U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims." Those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. 
In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form. Second, the objection must be sincere. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, most notably United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (That is an interesting read what I could egt ahold of).  COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O.

And, here is an example of a concientious objector that someone can show to these clowns on how it's done.
http://news.adventist.org/data/2006/1143202005/index.html.en

United States: Adventist Doss, First Conscientious Objector to Win Medal of Honor, Dies at Age 87 

Desmond T. Doss, Sr., who braved ridicule to serve in World War II as a U.S. Army medic without carrying a gun, and who labored on a Sabbath, May 5, 1945, to rescue 75 wounded soldiers pinned down by enemy gunfire on the island of Okinawa, died March 23 at his residence in Piedmont, Alabama. Doss, the only conscientious objector to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II, was 87 years of age.


Wook


----------



## wdewitt

Most of these war resister could have fought this within the USA Armed Forces service and still serve there country.
The recent one was on a aircraft carrier and had no contact ;What so ever? He had 17yrs. in the Navy.
This is more over facing there duty to honour there contract;that they sign of there own free will. :crybaby:  
By criminal law ;"Canada should be honouring sign agreement to turn over the criminal's to USA authority's".
 To face there charges in there own country.
How can we expect the USA to honour agreement between our two country's;"If we harbour deserters in our country.
As far as our gutless pot smoking opposition party 's  should grown up and think of our troops that are defending our country believes.


----------



## geo

Desertfox... some of the navy squids have what we call "purple trades".  Occupations that are common to all branches of the service.  So, there is a chance that the 17 yr navy guy was heading into Iraq - not an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean.


----------



## vonGarvin

I disagree that CO status pers should stay here.  After all, if they go through the process (as outlined by Strike), then they get to stay in the USA.  As for this asshat, he deserted in a time of war.  I wonder what Bob Rae would say about me if I chose to NOT come to Afghanistan, claiming it was all a Harper-Bush conspiracy to get oil from Turkmenistan.  Would Bob Rae, as MND, have the NDA changed to allow me to pick and choose my wars?  (Wait, I already chose: I chose to serve.  My country will tell me where to go, whether I like it or not.  Do you all honestly think I WANTED to go to Haiti?)

Anyway, boot them out!


----------



## wdewitt

The navy  guy was over there but never left the ship. He did not have to get involve with anything. He did not like the navy airforce bombing civilan home and destroying them.
Bob Rae is a joke; and would never fit in a command structure? "That mean business end of a gun barrel in his hole life time." :crybaby:


----------



## OldSolduer

If you don't like the idea of killing other human beings, don't volunteer to join the military. After all, that is what a military body is supposed to do, unless I missed the memo.

Send this guy back, now. No more stays.


----------



## GAP

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If you don't like the idea of killing other human beings, don't volunteer to join the military. After all, that is what a military body is supposed to do, unless I missed the memo.
> 
> Send this guy back, now. No more stays.



Couldn't agree more...


----------



## Danjanou

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Do you all honestly think I WANTED to go to Haiti?)





What’s wrong with Haiti? I went there on my Honeymoon.  8)

Anyway this latest stay of execution does not surprise me at all... disappoints me , but does not surprise me. Ah well time to go over to their web site and offer Jeffrey another ride down the QEW to Buffalo in the trunk. >


----------



## Wookilar

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Ah well time to go over to their web site and offer Jeffrey another ride down the QEW to Buffalo in the trunk. >



hahahahahahahah...that's awesome....you didn't really..did you?  ;D 

Mortarman: I agree. My earlier statement was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. After all, like you say, if they went through the whole process they would want to stay (and be welcome) in the U.S. 

Given the long history of CO status in the U.S. I am surprised we do not hear more from those that do so successfully. I find it hard to believe that here have been no substantiated cases to date with the current conflict. Besides, I would think that the official movement would not want anything to do with these clowns throwing the term around (and trying to use it as a shield) and would try to distance themselves officially. I have yet to hear a report or see a website with a moderate voice for CO's, they all seem to be nutjobs ranting/raving about George and company and these clowns who have "been forced to flee" or some other such nonsense.

OldSolduer: Spectacular picture for your avatar.

Wook


----------



## OldSolduer

The avatar is my son, Cpl Mike Seggie, KIA 3 Sep 2008.

He was one hell of a man and died far too young.


----------



## Danjanou

Wookilar said:
			
		

> hahahahahahahah...that's awesome....you didn't really..did you?  ;D



yup


----------



## GAP

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The avatar is my son, Cpl Mike Seggie, KIA 3 Sep 2008.
> 
> He was one hell of a man and died far too young.


----------



## Redeye

In the case of Hinzman, I don't doubt that he has some degree of conscientious objection.  He got involved with Quakers after joining the military and came to adopt their beliefs to a degree about war.  He failed the US Army's CO "test" by stating that if his friends were attacked he would pick up a rifle and fight to defend them (or words to that effect).  Regardless of that fact, none of that confered upon him a right to desert, and none of that was held relevant by the Board that denied him refugee status, because all they are to assess is whether he meets the convention definition of a refugee, which is this:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being *persecuted* for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.." 

Good luck to any American trying to prove that applies to them.  Persecuted =/= prosecuted.  Get them sent back ASAP.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just one point on that.  Conscientious Objectors don't usually join the Military in the first place.  One doesn't join the Military, and then suddenly discover that they are a "Conscientious Objector".
> 
> There are other ways for Conscientious Objectors to serve their nations, other than military.  They can work for Police Forces, any of the Emergency Services, Hospitals, etc.  They don't join the Military.
> 
> So Bob can talk about "Conscientious Objectors" being allowed to stay in Canada, but they are a completely different animal from the "Deserter" who willingly joined the Military for a wage and education/Trade signing a contract to do "Service in the Defence of their Nations Policies, at home and abroad".
> 
> If Bob condones the breaking of binding contracts, then what else does he condone?


----------



## OldSolduer

Once you sign the dotted line you are obligated to go and do what your told. If that involves the taking of human life.....then so be it. I'm ready to do it.

A lot of these people join for the "college money" and benefits, with little thought for their fellow man.

Send him back.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Funny how those who say soldiers should be able to pick and choose what fights they fight never seem to suggest the same option for police officers or firefighters.....


----------



## Gunnar

> Once you sign the dotted line you are obligated to go and do what your told. If that involves the taking of human life.....then so be it. I'm ready to do it.



I'm just going to point out that you still have a responsibility to refuse illegal orders, etc., etc.

No, I'm not condoning this guys cowardice, nor do I think he is in any way justified.  Just figured as long as we were throwing absolutes around that a little context was in order.

Maybe that's already understood, but I like to see it in black and white.


----------



## OldSolduer

Well said Gunnar....you are correct.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

There were some protesters for the "War resisters" at University and Queen around 5 pm today. I don't mind them expressing their point of view, but expressing THAT particular point of view right next to a war memorial is in very poor taste.


----------



## George Wallace

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> There were some protesters for the "War resisters" at University and Queen around 5 pm today. I don't mind them expressing their point of view, but expressing THAT particular point of view right next to a war memorial is in very poor taste.



I think your last three words summed it up.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Watching CFPL in London tonight, some protestors seemed to get irate with a little old lady whose son is serving in Afghanistan. They forced her to the edge of the sidewalk, nearly out on to a busy street. Nobody did anything to intervene. I am ashamed that such bullies recieve so much support in London, Ontario.


----------



## geo

Thugs & ruffians...
And when things don't go their own way - they claim police brutality OR, complain that the authorities don't do their job

Give em a one way plane ticket to some unpleasant place so they can see for themselves what they are demonstrating about.


----------



## OldSolduer

Hear Hear geo!! I fully agree.

They moan and whine that the government needs to do more, and when the government does, they still whine and moan.
They should be volunteering to be aid workers etc.


----------



## Huzzah

How many of these people have real jobs? I have a feeling that most don't,
they're just professional protestors/bums.


----------



## OldSolduer

I seem to recall a few years ago priort to a G8 conference, protestors were holding classes teaching other protestors how to activley defeat tear gas etc as well as other things.
Who funds these people? Let's follow the money trail. I bet its interesting.


----------



## Huzzah

Good point,OldSolduer,follow the money trail.Somebody has an
agenda in funding these groups.


----------



## OldSolduer

And I bet if you follow the trails....they lead to a city in Eastern Europe and a city in Asia.


----------



## TCBF

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny how those who say soldiers should be able to pick and choose what fights they fight never seem to suggest the same option for police officers or firefighters.....



- You nailed it, Tony!

- Could even add 'Ambulance crews and emergency room staff".


----------



## Huzzah

During the Cold War,"Peace Groups" were always well-funded too.


----------



## wdewitt

Bob Rae has no input to the justice system and can spout all the garbage,he want.
Unless an act in parilment is made or the PMO decide to intervene?
he are out of luck. That is why the war resisters group have no influence or power to push there USA problem in Canada.
Hizman will be return to his home country as a fugitive.
He won't have to pay any carbon tax for heating his cell.


----------



## George Wallace

Peter Worthington, Sun Media, 2008 01 02:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:  Article LINK

*Deserters are fleeing the consequences of their own decisions*

*By PETER WORTHINGTON*

Last Updated: 2nd January 2009, 8:39am

As 2008 ended, a Northwestern University (Illinois) sociology professor made a pitch in a Toronto Sun column on behalf of U.S. military deserters seeking refuge in Canada. 

John Hagan, who is also a University of Toronto professor emeritus, takes issue with Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's view that "U.S. military deserters are not genuine refugees and do not fall under internationally accepted definitions of people in need of protection." 

He says denying U.S. deserters the right to stay permanently in Canada "on humanitarian and compassionate grounds" is untimely, unfair and wrong. 

He also feels Kenney's view contradicts previous immigration minister Diane Finley's promise that each deserter's application to stay permanently in Canada would be determined on an impartial, case-by-case basis. 

Hagan does not think immigration officers are independent or impartial in deciding cases, but follow policies outlined by the minister. He calls Kenney's statements just before Christmas "not only unexpected and untimely, they were unfair." 

Although Hagan is a sociology professor, he specializes in law and criminology and has written books on deserters in Canada, war crimes in the Balkans, youth crime, and such. 

What weakens his overall argument is that former immigration minister Finley's case-by-case "promise" is not necessarily incompatible with the new minister Kenney's more blunt observation that deserters don't qualify as refugees whose lives are in danger. 

In his Sun article, Prof. Hagan doesn't use the word "deserter," but a dozen times in the piece he calls those seeking asylum "war resisters." 

Many seeking sanctuary in Canada call themselves "conscientious objectors." 

But most, if not all of them, enlisted in the military, and it's pretty difficult to view anyone who joins the army as being either a conscientious objector or a "war resister." Yet this is their claim, and the argument of their sympathizers and defenders. 

During the Vietnam conflict there was a draft -- conscription. Draft-dodging is qualitatively different from deserting. The latter carries the taint of cowardice. 

Most Canadians are probably not very admiring of those who join the army (for whatever reason) then cut and run rather than do what soldiers are expected to do. 

Some deserters deported to the U.S. have received prison sentences of up to 15 months, which is hardly life-threatening. 

Kenney is 100% correct -- deserters are not genuine refugees, but individuals trying to escape the consequences of their own decisions. 

As well, they show considerable chutzpah, seeking refuge and favours from a country whose young men and women have volunteered and in Afghanistan are being killed in ever-rising numbers. 

It could be argued that, in this particular war, those in the U.S. who join the army and then change their minds err when they head north for asylum. 

Go south, young American deserter, to a country that is not at war. 

The "fear" Prof. Hagan says many "war resisters" feel about the Harper government sending them back from whence they came, speaks volumes about the type of person fleeing his responsibilities. 

One would think that courage, if not individual decency, would dictate that deserters face the consequences of their act rather than beg for sympathy from a country that is doing more than its share of difficult, dangerous and honourable work in Afghanistan. 

Historically, Canada is not a warlike country; Canadians are not a militaristic people. But when, as a country, we have gone to war, our citizen-soldiers want to get the job done quickly, efficiently and are formidable fighters without losing their humanity. 

Look at the humanitarian work our soldiers do in every theatre. 

Pity "war resisters" lack the ethic that resonates in Canadian soldiers.


----------



## geo

Hmmm... Thank you Mr Worthington!

well said!


----------



## Good2Golf

Perhaps we should actually keep them in Canada, enlist them into the Army, and see how they work out in our own global operations?  ???


----------



## geo

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should actually keep them in Canada, enlist them into the Army, and see how they work out in our own global operations?  ???



Ohh.... that,s cruel!


----------



## wdewitt

They have a moral obligation to full fill on the contracts and thus should have been made to honour.
So far there has been nothing but lame excuses to dodge there contract and try to blame everybody but themselves. :crybaby: :  
Maybe if they keep smoking;  there dope ; it justify there reasoning to  stay in Canada. : :-[ :boring:
I have not seen; one so call educate wonder that will take responsibility for there action by trying to weasel out by playing word games to justify there reasoning.
No matter how you cut it; they are still deserter from there armed forces (USA) and hiding in Canada.
Canadian government on the right track and ship them back to the good ole USA.  
Would the Canada government cut the same attitude to a Canada Armed Forces individual also.
I think not and he would get a pretty rough ride from his comrades also.
They would give him the boot.


----------



## PuckChaser

Another one gone, or will be gone by the 27th of Jan: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090107/rivera_hearing_090107/20090107?hub=Toronto

Good riddance!!!!


----------



## geo

Puckchaser.... don't count your chickens till the eggs have hatched.
The decision to send her back is a good start..... but, talk to me about it again on Jan 28th


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

i think these people should be sent home to finish their contracts out. i wonder would the USA accept one of our soldiers with open arms if he or she would go south to avoid duty in a war zone. you  sign the paper knowing the fact you  might be sent to a war . sign the paper, deal with the cause and effect, taking the pay in peace time is the benefit of taking the money in war time.
feel sorry  for the kid born here to a mom who cannot live with her decesions......


----------



## X Royal

geo said:
			
		

> Puckchaser.... don't count your chickens till the eggs have hatched.
> The decision to send her back is a good start..... but, talk to me about it again on Jan 28th


My thoughts exactly.
I suspect this case will take quite a while to play out in the courts and I wouldn't bet on the outcome. 
In the meantime it will cost us big bucks.


----------



## Kat Stevens

When is the media in this country going to get it's terminology straight?  A "war resister" stands up for their principles, refuses to deploy, and faces the consequences of their actions. Ergo, "resist". These people folded their tents and fled into the night.  They are deserters, full stop.


----------



## MARS

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Toronto Sun_

No sympathy for her
Hard to bleed for U.S. mom who should have known better than to join army
By MICHELE MANDEL

She is the first known female Iraq war resister to have fled to Canada, but Kimberley Rivera is hardly the poster girl for a movement that argues all American army defectors are conscientious objectors who deserve asylum. 

Fact is, I've had some sympathy for the estimated 200 soldiers who have travelled north to escape deployment to Iraq -- men who objected on ideological grounds, who came to believe what millions of others would as well -- that despite their president's assurances to the contrary, there were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties that linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, no reason to be part of a war unsanctioned by the United Nations and opposed by most nations, including Canada. 

Like the majority of Canadians -- 64% in the last poll -- and a non-binding motion passed by Parliament last June, I think they should be allowed to stay. 

But try as I might, I can't drum up much empathy for this young Texas mom of three who was ordered deported on Jan. 27 by an immigration judge yesterday. 

Rivera should have known what she was getting herself into when she went into an army recruiting office in 2006 and signed up for active duty. By that time, most everyone was aware of the non-existent nukes, the quagmire of violence and the war's vague underpinnings. No one promised it was going to be pretty or safe or easy to miss her young family. 

But with just a high-school diploma and two little children at the time to support with her husband, Rivera concluded that a career in the army still beat her photo lab job at Wal-Mart. "I wanted my life to be better for my kids." 

Her husband, Mario, insists the recruiter promised that she wouldn't be sent to Iraq and even if she were, it wouldn't be to a combat zone. "That's why he let me sign," the 26-year-old says, cradling their Canadian-born daughter Katie, born six weeks ago. 

The Americans are running out of soldiers, forcing units to redeploy over and over again, and she wasn't going to be sent to Iraq? 

Even Rivera wasn't that naive. 

"In my mind, I knew I was probably going to Iraq," she admits after the rest of the media have packed up their cameras and left the news conference at the office of the War Resisters Support Campaign. "I was very gung ho. I wanted to make this a career." 

Her goal was to be a warrant officer but when she didn't score high enough on her entrance exams, she was relegated to gate guard duty when her unit was deployed to Iraq in October 2006. After just three months, when she was home on leave, Rivera decided she'd seen enough and wasn't going back to serve out her remaining 12 months. 

So what horrors did she see that led to her desertion? 

Her blue eyes slide away into the past. Yet the first thing she offers is her problem with phoning home. After initially being allowed to call her husband every day, staying on the free line for at least an hour, the military later cracked down and limited calls to just 15 minutes. 

Ah, the rigours of war. 

The Texas native then speaks of her sadness at losing soldiers whom she befriended who didn't come back to the base and her discomfort at hearing the disturbing boasts of those who did. 

But what haunts her most of all is the face of a terrified Iraqi girl who was shaking with terror as she accompanied her father to the base. "I was seeing my little girl," Rivera explains. 

That look of fear changed her life, she says, and her entire opinion about what Americans were doing to Iraqi civilians. It's an epiphany that hardly seems clear but she insists you had to be there. "I don't think you fully understand what you're getting into until you're actually in it." 

Still, I'd argue that coming under intense mortar fire weighed a tad more heavily on her decision not to go back. "There was the stress of not knowing if you're going to live," she admits. "I felt I was just waiting to be killed off." 

So after learning about the War Resisters Support Campaign from the Internet, she and her husband hightailed it to Canada in 2007 with their son Christian, now 6, and daughter Rebecca, now 4, and settled in Parkdale where they've been overwhelmed by a welcoming community. 

Now with their new baby, they are praying to stay. 

If returned to the States, Rivera knows she faces prison. Robin Long, the first war resister deported back to the U.S., is currently serving a 15-month sentence. There are four others facing deportation this month alone. 

So while they are hoping their new incoming president may declare an amnesty for military deserters, Rivera would still rather stay in Canada. 

But on a day when we lost yet another brave Canadian soldier who did not shirk the responsibility he had willingly signed on for, it was hard to put out the welcome mat for someone who did. 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/michele_mandel/2009/01/08/7953646-sun.html


----------



## LineDoggie

We just had Our Boys return home yesterday from Afghanistan: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-webfite0812339156jan07,0,4749729.story

The Company Commander is the father of 8 children and has served in Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Leader on previous tour (OIF II). Many of these Men were Veterans of OIF I, & III.  One Brother is a 2 time OEF , 2 time OIF vet with 82nd Abn.  Why Kimberly Rivera should engender any sympathy is beyond me. I hope she retruns home to the justice she richly deserves


----------



## wdewitt

She join up for the benefits and then realize the demand being a soldier ;she decide to run.  :
They need a better process to weed out ones that should never be allow in the first place. :crybaby: :'(
The courts don't go by emotion ; only by legal president or statue.
The war resisters (deserters) have no choice because of there legal obligation that they sign and sworn an oath to there country.
They are trying to manipulation the politic system to get off the hook and it has failed.
Canadian law will force them; to go back to the USA and face there  law officials
Being a women they will give her less time than a man in jail.
The only one that benefit was the lawyers made a killing on this ; and waste of taxpayers money and resources in keeping them in Canada.
They should of been bar from entering Canada and apply from the USA.
As the Immigration Minister stated that they were not good candidates and waste time and energy for real applicants to come to Canada. 
Suggest the so call war resisters pack there bags and do the right thing and go HOME.


----------



## LineDoggie

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> She join up for the benefits and then realize the demand being a soldier ;she decide to run.  :
> They need a better process to weed out ones that should never be allow in the first place. :crybaby: :'(
> The courts don't go by emotion ; only by legal president or statue.
> The war resisters (deserters) have no choice because of there legal obligation that they sign and sworn an oath to there country.
> They are trying to manipulation the politic system to get off the hook and it has failed.
> Canadian law will force them; to go back to the USA and face there  law officials
> Being a women they will give her less time than a man in jail.
> The only one that benefit was the lawyers made a killing on this ; and waste of taxpayers money and resources in keeping them in Canada.
> They should of been bar from entering Canada and apply from the USA.
> As the Immigration Minister stated that they were not good candidates and waste time and energy for real applicants to come to Canada.
> Suggest the so call war resisters pack there bags and do the right thing and go HOME.



I'll be honest with you. Kimberly Rivera will never see the inside of US Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth(Something she richly deserves). There are no longer any Post Stockades and even Charlies Chicken Farms  (Correctional Custody Facility) have been closed down.

She will be held at her units base and be administratively separated. She wont recieve a Dishonorable Discharge, but a General Discharge with standard 6 month clause.  Personally I'd like to see her and the others Breaking Rocks on a Chain Gang, but it isnt gonna happen. I've yet to hear of a Deserter getting serious time at Hard Labor


----------



## geo

Wearing orange overalls & clearing brush & trash on the side of highways would be a good way for her to complete her term of service


----------



## wdewitt

I see the deserters organization is crying foul that the immigrantion minister was not be fair and optioned? :crybaby:  
He called a spade a spade.
Why should our government waste thousands of dollars on false claimants and tied up our court system; and welfare system on bogus claims.
The only one that made a killing is our ambulance chasers of taxpayers money. :crybaby: :boring:
They have wonderfully ambulance chasers in the good old USA and there welfare system is good there too. :boring: :crybaby: 
They should of send them packing back ;When they first got here and correspond by mail or email to government agency's".
The government immigration dept. should have made them go back to there home country;" Like everybody else and wait for there cleareance to come here."
Maybe when they get off there drug trip and realize that they get no free rides and treat like every body that come here. :rules: :brickwall: :clown: :deadhorse:


----------



## axeman

Umm one point that hasnt been raised yet is she has given birth to a Canadian citizen  who by law can stay in Canada.  When she crosses tha line  if is still more like it . the daughter can come back at her free will probably with the father as he hasnet been charged with anything . THEN he can apply for Canadian citzenship  under the fact that daughter WANTS to live in her Country even if she is only chewing pablum . Then MOM the deserter can also apply for it. I dont know how that will look though being charged with what she has been.  Just the devils advocate here folks  
>


----------



## Redeye

The daughter is a Canadian citizen by virtue of being born here but that does not automatically confer any rights on the parents.  I'll have to look up the immigration rules regarding sponsoring of parents but I'm reasonably certain the sponsoring child must be an adult for that to happen - and mom is facing criminal charges in the United States I would assume, therefore she would be ineligible to immigrate to Canada.



			
				axeman said:
			
		

> Umm one point that hasnt been raised yet is she has given birth to a Canadian citizen  who by law can stay in Canada.  When she crosses tha line  if is still more like it . the daughter can come back at her free will probably with the father as he hasnet been charged with anything . THEN he can apply for Canadian citzenship  under the fact that daughter WANTS to live in her Country even if she is only chewing pablum . Then MOM the deserter can also apply for it. I dont know how that will look though being charged with what she has been.  Just the devils advocate here folks
> >


----------



## geo

... until such time as someone gives her a pardon.... on the US side of the border.

Anyway you slice it, she's gotta go back home.  Sweetheart, it's time to close your eyes, click your heels together & start saying "there's no place like home".....

GBye


----------



## wdewitt

It give dual citizenship to her daughter and she can live on both sides of the border.
When she 18 she can apply to have her parents live in Canada; but still at the government process ; not an immediate OK. 
She need a pardon for her mother to enter Canada and apply for residence or citizenship 5years later. :crybaby:
This does not give any opening to stay in Canada or duck her responsibility that she is facing in the USA.
With all avenues completed ;there is no more stalling tactics left and its home Sweet home. :crybaby: :'( :-* :-[ :
USA local authority's will deal with her and get rid of her as an embarrassment to there Armed Forces.
After that nobody cares to hear about her or her future. :crybaby: :boring:


----------



## J.J

*desertfox115
For the love of God and all that is holy please lay off the emoticon!!!!*

If she is convicted of a criminal offence in the USA and it can equate to a hybrid or indictable offence in Canada, she can be found to be criminally inadmissible. Unless a pardon is given or the conviction is expunged.
At this point she has been given a "Departure Order", if she ignores it a "Deportation Order" will be ordered. Without a criminal record, she would be able to return to Canada with a Departure Order at anytime. If a Deportation Order is in effect, she will not be allowed back to Canada without the Minister's consent and a "Temporary Resident Permit" will have to be issued. If she does attempt to return without permission she then can be charged criminally.


----------



## wdewitt

Sound like you need some medication there bud. Sit back a have a beer and chill out.


----------



## Greymatters

WR said:
			
		

> For the love of God and all that is holy please lay off the emoticon!!!![/b]



I have to agree with that part - more words please...


----------



## X Royal

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> With all avenues completed ;there is no more stalling tactics left and its home Sweet home. :crybaby: :'( :-* :-[ :


What gives you that impression? Could still be tied up on appeals for quite a long time.


----------



## kratz

Looks like she is still to go today. Sadly, the MSN is still calling her a war resister. How can she be a war resister if she has already participated with a tour overseas? I think the media do not want to use the term deserter.

CTV.ca



> U.S. war resister, mom of 3, set for deportation today
> Updated Tue. Jan. 27 2009 7:37 AM ET
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> TORONTO -- A U.S. war resister living in Toronto is scheduled to be deported Tuesday after losing a recent appeal to remain in Canada.
> 
> 
> Kim Rivera served in Iraq with the American military in 2006 but moved to Canada the following year after she refused redeployment. She has been living in Ontario with her husband and three children, including a six-week-old girl who was born in Canada.
> 
> 
> Rivera told her appeal hearing earlier this month that her experience in Iraq left her emotionally scarred and unable to face another tour of duty.
> 
> 
> Last week, Christopher Teske - who had been living in British Columbia for two years - exhausted his last appeal and was ordered to leave Canada.
> 
> 
> War resisters sent back to the U.S. fear a fate like the one that awaited Robin Long, who was sentenced to 15 months in prison after being deported.


----------



## kratz

Kimberly Rivera received a stay from deportation in Janurary 2009, and has received another one yesterday. How many of these can there be before a deportation order has no meaning?

CTV.ca


> War resister gets 11th-hour stay from deportation
> Updated: Thu Mar. 26 2009 8:02:51 AM
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> TORONTO — The first female U.S. soldier who fled to Canada to avoid fighting in Iraq has won more time in her fight to make a home here with her family.
> 
> Kimberly Rivera, 26, celebrated an 11th hour stay from deportation Wednesday night flanked by a group of war resister supporters after she learned she'd won the reprieve. "This is a slight victory, because I don't have to go home (Thursday)," she told the group as she cradled her four-month old daughter.
> 
> "So I am very, very excited. I don't have to be handed over to authorities, so it gives me another day to fight."
> 
> The Federal Court of Canada granted Rivera the emergency stay, pending a decision on whether they'll review a decision by immigration officials that previously rejected her re-removal risk assessment.
> 
> The decision means the Mesquite, Texas woman, who has a husband and three children, will avoid potential time behind bars for the moment.
> 
> Had she been ordered out of the country, there is a possibility she would be court-martialed and sentenced to time in prison.
> 
> Rivera's lawyer, Alyssa Manning, cautioned the reprieve is only temporary.
> 
> "It is only for potentially a couple of weeks, at the most, maybe months," she said.






More at link


----------



## geo

I don't know why she isn't spending as much energy "fighting" in the USA.

The only thing she is hiding from is - "the rule of law"... laws that she agreed to when she enrolled and accepted to draw pay & be trained by the US Army.


----------



## OldSolduer

Hello:
I was at a funeral today for a WWII veteran. He was originally Winnipeg Light Infantry and the in the Engineers. Had the campaign medals, been around. 
There was about 30 people at his funeral. Sad really.

Yet a segment of our population gets worked up in a tizzy over a deserter. This segment, including JACK and OLIVIA, have no shame, no sense of morality. No sense of country before self. It's all "ME ME ME ME"
Rant Ends!


----------



## Rifleman62

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED

I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel (son of Evil Knievel) event at the Encana Center (in Dawson Creek) this weekend.

He's going to try to jump over 1,000 Jack Layton supporters with a bulldozer.

Special guests to include Jack and Olivia Layton, plus Dawn Black who will be intimately colocated with their supporters.

Should be a pretty good time.

Let me know


----------



## Teeps74

I just blew water out my nose, all over my keyboard here... ROFL.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED
> 
> I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel (son of Evil Knievel) event at the Encana Center (in Dawson Creek) this weekend.
> 
> He's going to try to jump over 1,000 Jack Layton supporters with a bulldozer.
> 
> Special guests to include Jack and Olivia Layton, plus Dawn Black who will be intimately colocated with their supporters.
> 
> Should be a pretty good time.
> 
> Let me know



I would pay BIG money to see such an event, alas we can only dream.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE

Deported U.S. soldier pleads guilty to desertion charge 

By Russ Bynum, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 
    
  
FORT STEWART, Ga. - A soldier tearfully apologized for going to Canada to avoid deploying to Iraq and was sentenced Tuesday to a year in prison after pleading guilty to desertion. 

Specialist Cliff Cornell spent four years in British Columbia before the Canadian government denied him asylum as a war objector. 

Cornell came back to the U.S. and turned himself in to authorities in February to avoid being deported. 

The 28-year-old soldier from Mountain Home, Ark., sobbed in a Fort Stewart courtroom Tuesday as he told the judge he was sorry. 

He said he fled to Canada in January 2005, a month before his 3rd Infantry Division unit was scheduled to deploy to Iraq, because he feared for his own life and couldn't stomach the thought of killing. 

"It was wrong for me to leave my unit and go to Canada," Cornell said. "I was very anxious about whether I might be asked to do things that might violate my conscience. I felt trapped. I didn't know what to do." 

The judge, Col. Tara Osborn, also ordered Cornell's rank be reduced to private and for him to receive a bad conduct discharge. 

Cornell is the third U.S. service member to be tried by the military for fleeing to Canada. 

Though Cornell's prison time falls between the sentences of the other two deserters, his attorney, James Branum, said it was too harsh. 

He said Cornell suffered an abusive childhood that left him socially impaired and therefore unable to resolve his qualms about serving in a war zone with his commanders. 

"While he is certainly sane to stand trial, I would say he has some degree of impairment," Branum said. "He doesn't have the social or emotional skills of other people." 

Branum said Cornell would be housed temporarily one of the nearby county jails until he's assigned to a military prison. He said he planned to appeal the sentence to Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo, Fort Stewart's commander, who could reduce the sentence. 

Prosecutors had asked for a 15-month prison sentence and a dishonourable discharge for Cornell, arguing his decision to flee put other members of Cornell's unit in jeopardy. 

"They had to fill his space with a soldier who was not trained up and had to learn on the job," said Capt. Edward Piasta, an Army prosecutor. "And he didn't come back until Canada refused his refugee status and he was threatened with immediate deportation." 

Cornell had trained as a driver and gunner in the 1st Battalion, 39th Artillery Regiment, which deployed to Iraq in 2005 to provide security details for senior officers. 

In Canada, Cornell worked at a grocery store on Gabriola Island in B.C. 

Branum said Cornell hopes to return there after he's released from prison. 

A dishonourable discharge would have made that more difficult for Cornell, Branum said. The bad conduct discharge would be viewed more like a misdemeanour conviction, rather than a felony, on his record, the attorney said. 

Military law defines desertion as leaving the military with no intent to return or to avoid hazardous duty. The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. 

However, Fort Stewart commanders agreed to push for a lighter sentence in exchange for Cornell's guilty plea. 

The War Resisters Support Campaign, based in Toronto, has worked with about 50 U.S. service members seeking refugee status or political asylum in Canada. The group estimates more than 200 have fled to Canada, most of them hiding out illegally. 

During the Vietnam War, thousands of Americans took refuge in Canada, most of them to avoid the military draft. Many were given permanent residence status that led to Canadian citizenship, but the majority went home after President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty in the late 1970s. 


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/04/28/9282251-ap.html


----------



## bdave

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED
> 
> I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel (son of Evil Knievel) event at the Encana Center (in Dawson Creek) this weekend.
> 
> He's going to try to jump over 1,000 Jack Layton supporters with a bulldozer.
> 
> Special guests to include Jack and Olivia Layton, plus Dawn Black who will be intimately colocated with their supporters.
> 
> Should be a pretty good time.
> 
> Let me know


Hahahahaha.


----------



## Jarnhamar

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> FORT STEWART, Ga. - A soldier tearfully apologized for going to Canada to avoid deploying to Iraq and was sentenced Tuesday to a year in prison after pleading guilty to desertion.
> 
> Specialist Cliff Cornell spent four years in British Columbia before the Canadian government denied him asylum as a war objector.
> 
> Cornell came back to the U.S. and turned himself in to authorities in February to avoid being deported.



Good on him for accepting the responsibilities of his actions.


----------



## 2 Cdo

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Good on him for finally accepting the responsibilities of his actions.



You were missing one word from your post.


----------



## wdewitt

Give him credit for at least doing the right thing and getting only one yr. in jail. :2c: ;D
Too bad the rest of these individuals don't grow a back bone and deal with there problems down south of the border. I believe the US is trying not to make it too political ; to finish this problem and get out of the lime light because of the Iraq war.
New government and the stop gape bringing soldier back into wars are not too popular with public.


----------



## PMedMoe

*U.S. war deserter given another stay of removal*
*Article link*

A Federal Court judge issued another temporary stay of removal Tuesday for a U.S. war deserter facing deportation from Canada, ruling immigration officials did not properly weigh whether she would face more severe prosecution for speaking out publicly against the Iraq war.

Kimberly Rivera, reportedly the first U.S. female war deserter seeking asylum in Canada, has been living in Toronto with her husband and children since 2007.

Rivera served in Iraq with the American military in 2006 and moved to Canada the following year after she refused deployment. 

She arrived in the country from Texas with her husband and two children and gave birth to a third child in Canada in November 2008.

Her request to stay in Ontario on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was denied, but Rivera was granted a temporary stay of removal in March.

In his ruling Tuesday in Ottawa, Justice James Russell said an officer from Citizenship and Immigration Canada who performed a pre-removal risk assessment of Rivera did not consider whether she and other outspoken Iraq war objectors would face "targeted prosecution" based upon their political opinion.

"In my view, the officer’s failure to fully address the targeting issue, and the evidence that supports the applicants' position, renders the decision unreasonable and it must be returned for reconsideration," Russell wrote in his decision.

*A new pre-removal risk assessment of Rivera could take up to four months*, according to Ken Marciniec of the War Resisters Support Campaign.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's office said it was reviewing Russell's decision.

More on link

Wonder if she'll use that four month reprieve to get pregnant again?   :


----------



## Edward Campbell

At least this is a regulatory action being reviewed by a court. There are review regulations and procedures in place, everyone is entitled to *proper* review, a judge has found that an official failed to follow the existing procedures and has, correctly in this case, sent the matter back for a proper job.

But, there is a much, much larger problem to which Prime Minister Harper alluded in Mexico a few days ago. Our refugee determination system is broken. It’s manifold flaws begin with the fact that successive governments have not used the “notwithstanding clause” to work around the Supreme Court decision (14 Apr 85) that granted full Charter protection to every person “in” Canada – no matter how they may have gotten “in.”

The entire “broken” system is predicated on the *fact* that everyone who is “here” is fully protected by the Charter. There are other problems, beginning with the use of “arms length” amateurs trying, and failing, to do the jobs of unbiased regulators, but most begin with the _Singh vs. Minister of Immigration_.

We ought to look, very carefully, at how Australia manages.

In this case: the government can win if it will just follow its own rules.



Edit: corrected date of _Sing v. Minister_; thanks dapaterson


----------



## danchapps

I'm sorry to sound like an un-caring prick, but can someone just deport this woman already? I mean seriously? Have the others that have been deported or left on their own free will been treated any different now that they are there? All they get is a little time in prison, and a discharge from the service. These people are not refugees, and therefore should not be overstaying their welcome. just my 2 cents, but I'm sick and tired of seeing this BS in the news all the time.


----------



## dapaterson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, there is a much, much larger problem to which Prime Minister Harper alluded in Mexico a few days ago. Our refugee determination system is broken. It’s manifold flaws begin with the fact that successive governments have not used the “notwithstanding clause” to work around the Supreme Court decision (14 Apr 75) that granted full Charter protection to every person “in” Canada – no matter how they may have gotten “in.”



One minor typo: 14 April 1985, vice '75 - the Charter was not in force in 1975.


----------



## wdewitt

With several deportations;procedure has been set. ;D :crybaby:
It just more drawn out affair for lawyers to make more cash off the public purse.
she know her goose is cook and its a matter of time she face the music. :crybaby: :2c:
there are more people with legal reason that should be allowed in and not waste the taxpayers time or resources. :deadhorse: :brickwall: :crybaby:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

desertfox115 said:
			
		

> With several deportations;procedure has been set. ;D :crybaby:
> It just more drawn out affair for lawyers to make more cash off the public purse.
> she know her goose is cook and its a matter of time she face the music. :crybaby: :2c:
> there are more people with legal reason that should be allowed in and not waste the taxpayers time or resources. :deadhorse: :brickwall: :crybaby:



Jesus H. How about checking your grammar and spelling instead of playing with all the emoticons. That was almost painful to read and understand.


----------



## George Wallace

Almost?  It was painful and difficult to read.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Almost?  It was painful and difficult to read.



I must have a higher pain threshold ;D


----------



## GAP

I must have ADD.....I kept watching the little moving thingys......


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Almost?  It was painful and difficult to read.


Very very painful.


----------



## kratz

Apparently these war deserters will even argue sexual orientation to avoid deployment to Afghanistan.

From the Ottawa Citizen.com


> Lesbian deserter from U.S. pleads for refugee status in Canada
> By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News ServiceSeptember 8, 2009 4:01 PM
> OTTAWA — A lesbian soldier who deserted the U.S. military is seeking refugee status in Canada, claiming she was repeatedly harassed and threatened with death, then denied an honorable discharge because her superiors wanted to send her to Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> Pte. Bethany Smith, who now goes by the name Skylar James, took her case to Federal Court on Tuesday after being denied asylum by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
> 
> 
> Smith's lawyer, Jamie Liew, said she knows of no lesbian or gay American soldiers who has been granted refugee status in Canada based on sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> Smith, 21, said she will face a court martial if she returns to the U.S. and she fears her sentence will be stiff because an anti-gay sentiment persists in the military justice system.
> 
> 
> Justice Yves de Montigny reserved his decision after a two-hour hearing.



For more at link


----------



## Kat Stevens

Horsedookie.  It's not like the US military's policy is a surprise to anyone who signs the line.  Suck it up...err, lick it up, err....whatever.


----------



## PMedMoe

Nice lip piercing, too.   :


----------



## CountDC

My fav part is:

Smith, who works at an Ottawa call centre, describes herself as a war resister because she fled the army instead of going to Afghanistan with her unit.

Always willing to take the money until it is time to pony up. What has she really done to resist the war other than desertion?


----------



## dapaterson

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Nice lip piercing, too.   :



Come on, you know that the day you outclear when you release you'll be first in line to get a visible piercing...


----------



## Shec

> who now goes by the name Skylar James,



Couldn't she have at least picked a more conventional name reflective of her personality, like say "MoonUnit" ?


----------



## Strike

My cat's name is Skyler.


----------



## PMedMoe

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Come on, you know that the day you outclear when you release you'll be first in line to get a visible piercing...



I already have four.  All in my ears.   ;D   Nope, no more piercings for me.  Now more ink?  That's another story.....    >


----------



## The Bread Guy

From Hansard, 17 Sept 09:


> An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
> 
> Mr. Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.)
> moved for leave to introduce Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (war resisters).
> 
> He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in response to the refusal of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to show Canadian sensibility.
> 
> *This is a simple bill with a clear purpose, which would apply Canadian sensibility to the issue of war resisters in Canada. The bill would make sure that people of good conscience who leave a war that is not approved by the United Nations and who would be subject to compulsion and stop loss in their own country would be eligible to become Canadian citizens.*
> 
> The bill reflects the work and the wishes of a great deal of Parliament. It basically takes the spirit of two motions that have already been passed by a majority of Parliament and puts them in the form of law that would have to be followed by the minister and the ministry of immigration and citizenship.
> 
> (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)



From the Associated Press:


> Canadian Parliament will consider a bill introduced Thursday that would allow American and other war resisters to stay in Canada.
> 
> The bill, introduced by the Liberal Party's Gerard Kennedy, would allow other countries' military deserters to stay in Canada if their refusal to serve is based on sincere moral, political or religious objections.
> 
> Parliament has already voted twice to support war resisters, but those were non-binding motions.
> 
> Kennedy's bill would be binding because it would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
> 
> Most war resisters in Canada are U.S. military personnel who have refused to participate in the Iraq War on the grounds that it's illegal and immoral.
> 
> There are thought to be about 200 American military deserters who have come to Canada to avoid service in Iraq....


----------



## Shec

> people of good conscience.





> sincere moral, political or religious objections.



OK, let's see if I've got this right.   An individual who voluntarily signs a contract, knowing full well what the implications of doing so are, and refuses  to honour his/her obligations under that contract is a sincere, moral, person of good conscience ? 

And that is the heart of the matter - lack of character.  Do we really want to shelter such people?   And by doing so are we not implicitly condoning the violation of contract law?  

Political or religious objections are non sequiturs - politics are not the sphere of a soldier and there are plenty of other venues outside of the military open to an individual to pursue their political convictions.   And if one has a religious objection to soldiering then why did they volunteer to become one in the first place? 

This is 





> Canadian sensibility


???  My shattered nerves.


----------



## Neolithium

Shec said:
			
		

> OK, let's see if I've got this right.   An individual who voluntarily signs a contract, knowing full well what the implications of doing so are, and refuses  to honour his/her obligations under that contract is a sincere, moral, person of good conscience ?


This is what really ***es me right off.  This isn't a case of someone from the Lord's Resistance Army who had a gun put to their family and were forced to fight. These are individuals who made a conscious decision to join the United States MILITARY (As far as I know, Military down there doesn't mean you play with wiffle bats and sing show tunes for the rest of your life).  The whole lot of them should be arrested and extradited back to the United States so they can face their court-martial and perhaps take some measure of responsibility for the first time in their lives.  To me this is nothing but all of them spitting on the memories of those who have fallen and the uniforms of those currently deployed.


----------



## ModlrMike

Unless parliament falls before this bill comes to a vote, I'm afraid it will pass. Both the Bloc and NDP are sympathetic to this cause and the Liberals are the proponents of the bill. The Conservatives don't have enough votes to defeat this... although they could delay it in committee and have it die on the order paper.


----------



## danchapps

If this passes into law does that mean I can stop paying my student loans because I feel as though I'm not getting any use out of my college education. If they can break a contract without any re-course why can't I?


----------



## dapaterson

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Unless parliament falls before this bill comes to a vote, I'm afraid it will pass. Both the Bloc and NDP are sympathetic to this cause and the Liberals are the proponents of the bill. The Conservatives don't have enough votes to defeat this... although they could delay it in committee and have it die on the order paper.



And that will likely be the approach - delay, defer, and let it gracefulyl wither on the vine.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And that will likely be the approach - delay, defer, and let it gracefulyl wither on the vine.



As is the fate of almost all private members' bills.


----------



## Petard

I would agree that private members bills are more for the appearance of doing something, but it does indicate that parties position on a subject.

Their argument could come back to the haunt them when one considers the possibility of the effects domestically (especially considering it was a Liberal government that ordered some of the largest troop deployments for Domestic Ops: Oka, and the FLQ crisis).

If the supporters of this bill are saying a volunteer soldier can object to deployment on moral grounds, what would they say if a Canadian soldier made a similar argument against domestic ops?

I hope the proponents of this bill will hear something to counter them that addresses the possible local effects it might have.


----------



## old medic

Iraq war deserter takes sanctuary in Vancouver church
John Bermingham 
The Vancouver Province
19 Oct 2009 

http://news.globaltv.com/world/Iraq+deserter+takes+sanctuary+Vancouver+church/2120676/story.html



> VANCOUVER — U.S. army deserter Rodney Watson has become the first fugitive from service in Iraq to enter church sanctuary in Canada.
> 
> Monday morning, the 31-year-old told reporters he has been living in refuge at the First United Church in Vancouver since Sept. 18.
> 
> "I don't believe it will be just for me to be deported," said Watson, flanked by church ministers and supporters. Watson lost his refugee claim on Sept. 11, and was expecting to be deported back to the U.S., where he faces jail for refusing to do a second tour of duty in Iraq.
> 
> The main reason Watson wants to stay is to be with his 10-month-old son and fiancee, who live in Vancouver. Watson said his son is currently in foster care, but wouldn't say why. He said he plans to get married and settle in B.C.
> 
> Ric Matthews, minister with the First United Church, said Watson has an apartment at the church, and is fed on-site. Watson cannot leave the grounds of the church. Matthews said the church agreed to let Watson take refuge because it doesn't support the Iraq War, or the way the U.S. military treated Watson — who signed up to be a military cook, but was ordered to find explosives.
> 
> "We expect the authorities will continue to respect this place as a place of sanctuary," he said.
> 
> Sarah Bjorknas of the War Resisters Support Campaign Vancouver said three out of the five military deserters who have been deported from Canada since 2008 have been jailed.
> 
> A statement by Vancouver NDP MP Libby Davies said she'll continue to ask the Tory government to honour two non-binding votes in Parliament to allow army deserters to seek asylum in Canada.
> 
> "The government has chosen to ignore the will of the majority view of Canadians," said Bjorknas.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Gawd help us all.  As a thought exercise only, could a few non-authority types take it on their own to black bag these guys (because you know he won't be the last to hide in a church) and hand them over?  Not inciting, just ruminating out loud, as it were.


----------



## bdave

I don't understand deserters. How the hell do you not know what you're getting into when you join the ARMY.


----------



## X-mo-1979

You know I can actually understand maybe a conscientious Objector moving to Canada during the Vietnam draft.I actually can.Some people it would go against all their religious beliefs etc.I get that.

What I don't get is men signing up now and when they are asked to deploy they decide they are against the war.I think its a big scam to get a easy pay check then skip out on your obligations when asked to do so.

What ever happened to men having a bit of pride and honour?Doing what you agreed to do.

As for the church,set up a cordon around the place dont let anyone in or out.The building (and thats all it is) is hiding a illegal.Starve him out.If that doesn't work in a couple days go in and get him so he can be medically treated for starvation.Charge the priest with aiding a felon.then deprot him and put the priest and church members in jail.


----------



## ballz

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Gawd help us all.  As a thought exercise only, could a few non-authority types take it on their own to black bag these guys (because you know he won't be the last to hide in a church) and hand them over?  Not inciting, just ruminating out loud, as it were.



I'm sure if we looked hard enough around here we could find somebody willing to do a cash job ;D I'll go grab my hat for the collection.


----------



## vonGarvin

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> As for the church,set up a cordon around the place dont let anyone in or out.The building (and thats all it is) is hiding a illegal.Starve him out.If that doesn't work in a couple days go in and get him so he can be medically treated for starvation.Charge the priest with aiding a felon.then deprot him and put the priest and church members in jail.


Putting up a cordon?  I agree.  Nothing in or out.  He'll come out eventually.  As for charging the minister (they don't call themselves priests in the UCC) and the church members, then you'd be going against hundreds of years of tradition.  Sticky ground that.  I'd avoid it, personally.


----------



## derael

He eventually has to come out, and he'll be sent back eventually just like everyone else. These guys should really stop hiding in Canada. Not only are they skipping out on their obligations, but they also make their problem someone else's problem as well. Start running to Mexico, its easier to hide. 

Some people's kids...


----------



## Kat Stevens

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Putting up a cordon?  I agree.  Nothing in or out.  He'll come out eventually.  As for charging the minister (they don't call themselves priests in the UCC) and the church members, then you'd be going against hundreds of years of tradition.  Sticky ground that.  I'd avoid it, personally.



The minister may be entitled to some kind of protection from prosecution, but church parishioners are civilians.  Charge every one of them with anything to do with this guy with obstruction, harbouring a fugitive, jay walking, littering, public nut scratching or anything else you can think of.


----------



## gcclarke

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The minister may be entitled to some kind of protection from prosecution, but church parishioners are civilians.  Charge every one of them with anything to do with this guy with obstruction, harbouring a fugitive, jay walking, littering, public nut scratching or anything else you can think of.



Eh, it's sanctuary in a church, not sanctuary at a minister's residence. Members of the church should be freely accorded the right to enter their church, and if they happen to bring along some groceries with them, so be it.

Really the only way to do something about this would be to eliminate the concept of sanctuary from the legal lexicon. Since it's a fairly well established bit of common law, that would of course require an act of parliament specifically eliminating the practice. 

And, well, quite frankly I don't think any of our politicians have the spine to do so. Especially not over something like this. In order to make the change, something will have to occur that will cause actual public outrage. Probably something along the lines of Paul Bernardo holing up in his local cathedral. 

Make no mistakes, the government is going to do what it can to get this guy back to the states, not for any reasons related to justice, but merely to improve foreign relations. But they're certainly not going to go out of their way to do so, and they're not going to do anything that would potentially cause an outcry against them. It's just not worth it. Indeed, same thing would likely occur if it was a deserting Canadian soldier hiding in a church basement.


----------



## TCBF

gcclarke said:
			
		

> .. Really the only way to do something about this would be to eliminate the concept of sanctuary from the legal lexicon. Since it's a fairly well established bit of common law, that would of course require an act of parliament specifically eliminating the practice. ...



- Remember when some churches spoke out and got political during an abortion debate?  A certain Bishop got a call from an 'official' reminding him that tax-free status cold be lost in a case of political influence. the churches shut up.

- Same thing could be done here.


----------



## old medic

Just a house keeping note - The thread title has been shortened back down to 
"US Army Deserters in Canada" and the "[Update: One deported, more to go & some "interesting" comments from Bob Rae]" removed. It was very dated.


----------



## gcclarke

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Remember when some churches spoke out and got political during an abortion debate?  A certain Bishop got a call from an 'official' reminding him that tax-free status cold be lost in a case of political influence. the churches shut up.
> 
> - Same thing could be done here.



This is where we're getting into tricky ground. It is perfectly acceptable for a church to proclaim that abortion is reprehensible, etc. It's not acceptable for them to suggest that their congregation should vote for a particular party because that party would help abolish abortion. Not that there actually is a party in this country that would be willing to do such a thing. Even the Conservatives realize that to do so would be political suicide, and thus they are quite willing to completely ignore the radical fringes of their own party on this particular issue, vocal as they might be. 

But as for the sanctuary thing, is this really a political issue? Or, more accurately, is it a Canadian political issue? Not really. If any political commentary is being done here, it is directed at American policy / politics, not Canadian. And frankly, I don't think that commentary on politics in another country would be even close to being enough to warrant stripping a church of its tax-exempt status under current guidelines.

Which isn't to say that I don't think that this church shouldn't be stripped of that status. I just think they all should be.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Seeking sanctuary (Middle ages)UK
http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/Cambridgeshire/1612.html

If an unarmed fugitive managed to reach a church he could claim sanctuary inside it for up to 40 days. His pursuers were not allowed to follow but someone would have to guard the building during his period of sanctuary. Entire villages and towns could be fined if the outlaw escaped.


USA Law.
http://www.slate.com/id/2147879/

Yet I can find nothing on Canadian law.

If the church members want him inside,fine.As I said shut it all down.Cut power and water.Send in a phoneline and call every 15 minutes to see if he is ok.Once he doesn't answer storm the building and bring him out.For his safety.

Technoviking,why would a minister hold a higher profile than say a physiologist?Is there a law or something?I looked around but couldnt find anything for reference.


----------



## vonGarvin

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Technoviking,why would a minister hold a higher profile than say a physiologist?Is there a law or something?I looked around but couldnt find anything for reference.


I'm not sure what you mean...


----------



## vonGarvin

gcclarke said:
			
		

> This is where we're getting into tricky ground. It is perfectly acceptable for a church to proclaim that abortion is reprehensible, etc. It's not acceptable for them to suggest that their congregation should vote for a particular party because that party would help abolish abortion.


And why wouldn't it be acceptable?  Churches/religions are all about behaviour and codes of conduct.  That sort of stuff.  If church "a" finds behaviour "x" to be reprehensible, then why would they say "x" is reprehensible, but not say "do something about it"?

But, this is OT.

In the end, this fellow will have to leave that church and give up to the authorities.  As for explicit Canadian Law on Sanctuary, I am not 100% certain; however, I believe that English law can be used as precedent, no?

Lawers?  Anyone?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Really the only way to do something about this would be to eliminate the concept of sanctuary from the legal lexicon. Since it's a fairly well established bit of common law, that would of course require an act of parliament specifically eliminating the practice.
> 
> And, well, quite frankly I don't think any of our politicians have the spine to do so. Especially not over something like this. In order to make the change, something will have to occur that will cause actual public outrage. Probably something along the lines of Paul Bernardo holing up in his local cathedral.



The reason politicians haven't proposed changes is not because they are spineless, but because they don't have to; _*they is no such thing as church sanctuary in Canadian law*_. Or U.K. law for that matter.  The previous post by X-mo-1979 has a link giving a brief history on the subject and that it was abolished in 1623, almost two and half centuries years before Canadian Confederation.  

In reality, the police can enter a church to haul your sorry butt down to the hoosegow anytime they want, and I might add have done so the past. The only reason they don't is because (a) its very rare (b) more often then not it becomes a media circus and not worth the aggravation, and (c)there is no immediate reason to do so (the person inside is no threat to Canadian society). On the other hand, if Paul Bernardo had taken sanctuary in a church, the cops wouldn't of hesitated one second before going in and arresting him. 

In fact, the only place in Canada where you could claim "sanctuary" is in a foreign embassy, and that only depends if they want you.


----------



## old medic

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100707/war-dodger-court-100707/
The Canadian Press
Date: Wednesday Jul. 7, 2010 6:46 AM ET



> TORONTO — The Federal Court of Appeal says a Canadian immigration official failed to consider the hardships a high-profile American deserter in denying him permanent residence in Canada.
> 
> In a unanimous judgment Tuesday, the court called the immigration officer's rejection of Jeremy Hinzman's application "significantly flawed" and "unreasonable."
> 
> The court ruled that officials must take another look at Hinzman's application to be allowed to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
> 
> Hinzman was the first U.S. Iraq War resister to seek refuge in Canada.
> 
> He, along with his wife Nga Nguyen and their son Liam arrived in Canada on January 3, 2004.
> 
> Their daughter Meghan was born in Toronto on July 21, 2008.
> 
> The Federal Court of Appeal noted that Hinzman holds "strong moral and religious beliefs" against participation in war.
> 
> The immigration officer "had the duty to look at all of the appellants' personal circumstances, including Mr. Hinzman's beliefs and motivations," the court said.
> 
> "This decision is important for all Iraq War resisters in Canada," said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly said that immigration officers can no longer ignore the sincerely held beliefs of these soldiers."
> 
> Hinzman, of Rapid City, S.D., was a former U.S. Army specialist from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C.


----------



## George Wallace

I am beginning to loose faith in our courts.  This precedence will open up a whole new can of worms.  Canada will now become the refuge for all who want to claim, legitimately or illegitimately, refugee status and our relations with friendly nations, as the US, will deteriorate.   I can see Trade, and other sanctions, being applied on us, all because we accept the unlawful deserters of allied nations.  This weak kneed ruling has now set a precedence that many will now use and abuse. Our international relations will no doubt suffer for it.


Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

*
Federal Court of Appeal rules in favour of U.S. war deserter
*
By Philip Ling, Canwest New Service 
July 6, 2010 

LINK 

OTTAWA — The federal government’s bid to deport an American war deserter from Canada has been dealt a blow by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In a unanimous decision Tuesday by the three-judge panel, the court ruled that an immigration officer’s decision rejecting Jeremy Hinzman’s application for permanent residence in Canada was “significantly flawed and therefore unreasonable.”
The U.S. soldier arrived in Toronto in 2004 in protest of the Iraq war and is seeking a bid to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

His lawyer, Alyssa Manning, told Canwest News Service the appeal was made on the basis that the immigration officer did not take into account Hinzman’s beliefs and motivations — including a belief that the Iraq war violated international laws and human rights — in returning the humanitarian and compassionate decision.

“This officer missed the point and only considered refugee-type questions,” she said, highlighting that refugee cases typically only consider risk to life or risk of persecution.

“A H&C (officer) is supposed to consider humanitarian and compassionate values — the questions inherent with a H&C application,” Manning said. 

“Hinzman’s beliefs, his whole reasons for being in Canada in the first place weren’t considered by the H&C officer, and that’s what was significantly flawed about (the officer’s) decision.”

Hinzman and his family are “quite relieved with the decision,” said Manning. “They’re definitely very pleased with that.”

Hinzman served in Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. He applied for conscientious objector status when the Iraq war began but was denied.

He then moved to Toronto with his wife, Nga Nguyen, and son in January 2004. The couple has since also had a daughter, born in Toronto.

In 2008, he was ordered deported, but Hinzman appealed, saying he will be jailed if he returns to the U.S.

His deportation was put on hold while the judicial review took place, with his deportation case heard in May before the Federal Court of Appeal.

Manning said Tuesday’s Appeal Court ruling can only determine if the H&C officer’s decision was reasonable or not — rather than deciding if Hinzman can stay in Canada.

Hinzman’s H&C application will now go back for reconsideration by a new officer. There is no timeline as to when the application will be heard, Manning said.

Michelle Robidoux, a spokeswoman with the War Resisters Support Campaign, said Tuesday’s court decision “is important for all Iraq War resisters in Canada.”

“The Federal Court of Appeal has clearly said that immigration officers can no longer ignore the sincerely held beliefs of these soldiers,” she said. “It’s time for the Harper government to stop deporting them and to let them stay in Canada.”

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney did not immediately respond to a question for comment Tuesday night.

Since 2008, Canada has ordered the deportation of as many as seven U.S. war deserters and their families.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


----------



## vonGarvin

Wonderful.  I wonder WTF a person who has "strong objections to war" is doing in the military.  It's a volunteer force, for crying out loud.


Now, is this "Federal Court of Appeal" part of the supreme court?  Or is that it?  Open the gates, let the cowards in?


----------



## OldSolduer

If he feels that strongly, he should return to the US and run for public office. He's a coward who does not want to be held accountable for his actions.


----------



## Kat Stevens

In 2008, he was ordered deported, but Hinzman appealed, saying he will be jailed if he returns to the U.S.



So I guess our extradition treaty with the US also becomes null and void?  Same principal.


----------



## GK .Dundas

What I find amusing is  that as far as I know the longest sentence to date has been one year.I suspect  that for a very large majority of these "martyrs to peace " this more about their comforts and sense of entitlement then it is about ethical convictions .


----------



## Jarnhamar

I just had an idea..


Lets pay him 10 Million dollars for the hardships he suffered.


----------



## Redeye

He didn't have those objections when he joined, they developed after (if I remember right) his first tour when he became involved with a Quaker group.  He applied for CO status and went through the process, but was deemed not to be a bona fide CO because he acknowledged that he'd pick up a weapon and fight to defend his friends in a desperate situation.  Again, I don't remember the wording of the question exactly from the original transcript of the first Board Review that ruled against him.

As to Kat's post - re: extradition - extradition only applies if requested by the other country.  The USA has not requested the extradition of Hinzman, and without such a request, so long as he isn't breaking Canadian law during his due process, he's got nothing to worry about with that.

If he wants to show he has some courage to stand for what he believes - if any of them do - they should go back and make their stand before American courts.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Wonderful.  I wonder WTF a person who has "strong objections to war" is doing in the military.  It's a volunteer force, for crying out loud.
> 
> 
> Now, is this "Federal Court of Appeal" part of the supreme court?  Or is that it?  Open the gates, let the cowards in?


----------



## Teflon

> re: extradition - extradition only applies if requested by the other country.  The USA has not requested the extradition of Hinzman, and without such a request, so long as he isn't breaking Canadian law during his due process, he's got nothing to worry about with that.



Unfortunately for Canada I don't think the U.S. is really wanting him back


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, is this "Federal Court of Appeal" part of the supreme court?  Or is that it?  Open the gates, let the cowards in?


I think it can still go to The Supremes if desired, but not 100% sure.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> If he wants to show he has some courage to stand for what he believes - if any of them do - they should go back and make their stand before American courts.


Zackly


----------



## Redeye

Yes - Federal Court decisions can be appealed to the SCC.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I think it can still go to The Supremes if desired, but not 100% sure.
> Zackly


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Canadian Press....


> The Conservative government has given immigration officers tough new marching orders for dealing with military deserters seeking refuge in Canada, painting them as criminals who may be inadmissible.
> 
> The Immigration Department is leaning on officers to give a more critical assessment in new cases and telling them to report more often about existing files.
> 
> The department recently issued a bulletin to field officers saying flight from military service in another country may make certain refugee claimants inadmissible.
> 
> The new directive points to existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — sections that bar refugees from Canada on the "grounds of serious criminality" — in order to make the case.
> 
> "Desertion is an offence in Canada under the National Defence Act," says the notice, issued July 22.
> 
> "The maximum punishment for desertion under section 88 of the (National Defence Act) is life imprisonment, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service. Consequently, persons who have deserted the military in their country of origin may be inadmissible to Canada." ....



.... and this from Postmedia News (used to be CanWest):


> A Canadian war resisters support organization is calling a new rule that requires immigration officers to contact government officials each time a military deserter applies for refugee status in Canada "unnecessary and mean-spirited."
> 
> On July 22, the Citizenship and Immigration office published a bulletin that states "persons who have deserted the military in their country of origin may be inadmissible to Canada," and insists immigration officers notify Ottawa's case management branch of any new refugee claims or updates to the cases.
> 
> "They're calling these cases high-profile and contentious. They're saying (the soldiers) may be criminally inadmissible, creating this perception that they're criminals," said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign ....


----------



## George Wallace

> They're saying (the soldiers) may be criminally inadmissible, creating this perception that they're criminals," said Michelle Robidoux, spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign ....




Well.....Duh?

Where do these people get their educations?  They don't seem to know "right" from "wrong"; what responsibility is, nor what signing a contract (entering into military service) means legally.  Are they all a bunch of oversized three year olds having a tea party or what?  Frackin lunatics.


----------



## stealthylizard

By now it has been pretty much established that Canada is the place for Americans to go if they want to be a military deserter, and they will get full support.  Where do Canadians go to be a deserter, and I wonder how much support they would get?


----------



## George Wallace

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> By now it has been pretty much established that Canada is the place for Americans to go if they want to be a military deserter, and they will get full support.  Where do Canadians go to be a deserter, and I wonder how much support they would get?



Most cases I have heard about; Canada.  No one goes looking for them.


----------



## gcclarke

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Most cases I have heard about; Canada.  No one goes looking for them.



Just be sure to leave your military ID behind when you do so.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Helloooooooooo?  What about deserters from the OTHER war we're in?  From QMI, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> American soldiers that flee to Canada rather than fight in *Iraq* should be welcomed with open arms say opposition MPs.
> 
> The Harper government recently sent out a directive to immigration officers across Canada informing them that people who desert their military posts in other countries and seek refugee status here may be inadmissible to Canada.
> 
> “The *Iraq* war deserters, just like the Vietnam draft dodgers should be able to stay in Canada,” said Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy.
> 
> Kennedy says the government should be allowing these former soldiers to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
> 
> The Liberal MP has tabled a private members bill that would allow military personnel to stay in Canada if they deserted “based on a moral, political or religious objection.”
> 
> “One just has to think back to the days of the Vietnam War and Canada had a very different policy of accepting and even welcoming conscientious objectors,” said New Democrat Libby Davies.
> 
> Alykhan Velshi, a spokesman for immigration minister Jason Kenney says the Liberal position is hypocritical. “Under the logic of this Liberal bill, Canadians who abandon their comrades in arms would continue to be treated like criminals,” said Velshi, “whereas Americans who do the same would be welcomed by Michael Ignatieff's Liberal Party as heroes.”



Interesting take on Twitter, from an analyst of things military in Australia:


> Canadian gov cracks down on US military deserters: http://bit.ly/alt9jn Fleeing to a country whose soldiers are dying in Afghanistan? YDIW


 (YDIW=you're doing it wrong)


----------



## MARS

From the Toronto Star, shared with the usual caveats...


> Refugee board rejects U.S. Army deserter
> Published On Thu Nov 04 2010EmailPrint
> 
> Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board has rejected granting refugee status to Joshua Key, 32, a deserter from the U.S. army who says he is haunted by atrocities he saw committed by American soldiers in Iraq.
> 
> “I find that the claimant is neither a . . . refugee nor a person in need of protection,” ruled Ken Atkinson of the board.
> 
> The negative ruling means the Canada Border Services Agency could move to deport Key.
> 
> However, he said in a telephone interview that he's hopeful the federal court of appeal will agree to hear his case, allowing him to stay in Canada.
> 
> He said that he still feels things will work out, although the negative decision surprised him.
> 
> “Of course, I was optimistic and had high hopes,” he said.
> 
> In reaching its decision, the refugee board noted that the U.S. is a democracy, with human rights protections.


 Link


----------



## HavokFour

Shouldn't have signed up if you're not going to honor your contract.


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie

Does anyone else find it ironic that if any members desert because they feel they dont' want to server in Afghasitan and get refugee status etc, they would be protected by those who live up to their contract in the Canadian Forces and be protected by those fighting in the same war they refuse to deploy too? 

I have sent an email to the Immigration Minster with questions and my thoughts on this matter, if I get a reply (which I doubt unless it's "We appricate your concerns and will look at it or take it into consideration" type of automated resposne) is another matter. Should I get a reply I will post it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board has rejected granting refugee status to Joshua Key, 32, a deserter from the U.S. army who says he is haunted by atrocities he saw committed by American soldiers in Iraq.
> 
> “I find that the claimant is neither a . . . refugee nor a person in need of protection,” ruled Ken Atkinson of the board.



If I witnessed a bunch of dudes killing locals ,  cutting their fingers off  or commiting rape (just for example) I'd be pretty worried about my protection.

if he DID witness atrocites then I say give him protection so long as he testifies in court and starts naming names.


----------



## brihard

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> If I witnessed a bunch of dudes killing locals ,  cutting their fingers off  or commiting rape (just for example) I'd be pretty worried about my protection.
> 
> if he DID witness atrocites then I say give him protection so long as he testifies in court and starts naming names.



There's room for a fair middle ground of 'put up or shut up' on this one. If indeed he was witness to war crimes, I would consider it fair for the U.S. to grant him immunity on charges of desertion IF he were willing to actually testify fully about what he knows and saw, as part of establishing a precedent of safeguarding soldiers who do speak up about abuses. 

If he's just talking bullshit, too bad for him. I reject any inherent claim to refugee status by virtue of deserting form a volunteer military in a nation with a sound rule of law.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> There's room for a fair middle ground of 'put up or shut up' on this one. If indeed he was witness to war crimes, I would consider it fair for the U.S. to grant him immunity on charges of desertion IF he were willing to actually testify fully about what he knows and saw, as part of establishing a precedent of safeguarding soldiers who do speak up about abuses.
> 
> If he's just talking bullshit, too bad for him. I reject any inherent claim to refugee status by virtue of deserting form a volunteer military in a nation with a sound rule of law.



You just took what I said and made it sound smrt 

I agree with the train of thought that they signed the contract so they should honour it.  That said I also believe the US pretty much bullshitted their way into sending troops into Iraq the second time so I'm a little less quick to condem these guys.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I'm not.  I didn't sign my contract with a clause that said I get to pick and choose my deployment schedule.  I'm fairly certain these deserters didn't, either.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> a clause that said I get to pick and choose my deployment schedule.



It's called the reserves


----------



## NSDreamer

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> It's called the reserves


 and yet ironically I'm willing to wager the reserves have far more deserters then the regular forces.


----------



## Jarnhamar

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> and yet ironically I'm willing to wager the reserves have far more deserters then the regular forces.



US is different than Canada in this regard.


----------



## xena

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Just be sure to leave your military ID behind when you do so.


And don't walk into your unit's pay office after being AWOL for six months, and ask why your pay has been stopped....  Unless you really _*want*_ to get reacquainted with the RP's.   >


----------



## brihard

xena said:
			
		

> And don't walk into your unit's pay office after being AWOL for six months, and ask why your pay has been stopped....  Unless you really _*want*_ to get reacquainted with the RP's.   >



This sounds like there's a good story behind it?


----------



## xena

Something like that _*may*_ have happened at the 2RCR pay office once.  Allegedly.


----------



## kratz

My search for Chuck Wiley, who is in the news again, so even though this thread is over two years old, it is relevant. Chuck Wiley seems to be on a speaking tour crying "poor me", trying to drum up support for the federal government to enact legislation to protect Americans who ran to Canada for their choices.



> War resister paid high price
> 'It’s legally wrong, it’s morally wrong'
> By PAT LEE Staff Reporter
> Thu, Mar 17 - 7:06 AM
> 
> By the time he reached the age of 38, Kentucky native Chuck Wiley thought he would be retired from the United States military and working at a civilian power plant "until I was too old to get out of bed."
> 
> Instead, the trained nuclear engineer has been living in Canada since 2007. He has not spoken to his parents since moving north and is waiting to learn if he’ll be deported back to the United States, where he’s sure he’ll be jailed as a deserter from the U.S. navy.
> 
> A former chief petty officer, Wiley has paid a high professional and personal price for his decision to oppose the Iraq war.
> 
> "I wish it could have gone better," he admits. "But at the end of the day, the fundamental problem is that what the military is doing in (Iraq) is wrong. It’s legally wrong, it’s morally wrong and it shouldn’t be happening."
> 
> There are about 50 former members of the American military seeking sanctuary in Canada. They are pressuring Ottawa to enact safe haven legislation for anyone who opposes fighting in a war not sanctioned by the United Nations.
> 
> But as it stands now, the federal government is moving to deport Wiley and the others back to the U.S.



more at link


----------



## Dennis Ruhl

It still escapes me, but why don't these people just resign without the drama?  Wiley could have resigned, possibly less than honourably, and with his education and experience applied for a decent job in Canada.  Assuming a nuclear engineer must have some significant education, he may have qualified for automatic admission under the Free Trade Act.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Headline query:  Why are people who voluntarily signed a contract, then reneged on it, still called "war resisters" in headlines, instead of "alleged* deserters"?

* - I add "alleged" only because if they're here, they haven't been found guilty of said offence in the U.S.


----------



## ModlrMike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Headline query:  Why are people who voluntarily signed a contract, then reneged on it, still called "war resisters" in headlines, instead of "alleged* deserters"?
> 
> * - I add "alleged" only because if they're here, they haven't been found guilty of said offence in the U.S.



Because it fits the "poor oppressed, Bush illegal war, not UN sanctioned, we're better" meme that the MSM champions. Calling them deserters won't sell as many papers.

I know you asked a rhetorical question... I still had to answer it.


----------



## Strike

It's this part here that gets to me:



> Eventually, though, he started asking questions about certain missions that didn’t seem right, he said. The answers he received didn’t add up and, eventually, he questioned the point of the entire exercise.
> 
> "I kind of got into a pissing contest with my chain of command, for lack of a better term. I asked questions and I got responses like, ‘you need to shut up and go back to work. This doesn’t concern you.’ That offended me."
> 
> Wiley said he was reprimanded.



As a Nuclear Engineer on a ship he has no need to know what's going on with respect to the mission as a whole.  It won't help him to carry out his duties so no wonder he was told that it didn't concern him.  As someone who has spent so much time in the US Navy and achieved the rank he had, he should have known better.

I get the impression that he just didn't want to deploy again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update:  another one a step closer to heading back south....


> The first female U.S. war deserter to flee to Canada will be sent back to the United States following an immigration board decision made Thursday.
> 
> Kimberly Rivera, a mother of four young children who lives in Toronto with her husband, served in Iraq as a U.S. Army private in 2006.
> 
> Rivera became disillusioned with the mission and crossed the border into Canada while on leave in February 2007 after she was ordered to serve another tour in Iraq.
> 
> Michelle Robidoux, a spokeswoman for the War Resisters Support Campaign, said Thursday that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has ordered Rivera to leave the country by Sept. 20.
> 
> Robidoux said Rivera will meet with her lawyers to determine her next course of action and was unavailable to comment on the deportation order.
> 
> "We are very upset about this decision," said Robidoux. "The cases of war resisters are not being looked at properly."
> 
> The War Resisters Support Campaign says Rivera, 30, will face harsh punishment in the United States if she's deported ....


CBC.ca, 30 Aug 12

Sign a contract, and break the rules?  Face the consequences....


----------



## fraserdw

Hopefully, we sent enough of these people back that the message will get through that Canada is not a place to hide out from your military contracts.


----------



## medicineman

I do to, but doubt it'll register, as you have the nutbars here that support them without fully digesting what they've really done.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

Vancouver Sun headline:  _"U.S. arrests female Iraq war deserter"_
CBC headline:  _"Female U.S. war resister deported"_ 
CTV headline:  _"Iraq war resister deported from Canada, arrested at U.S. border"_
Sun Media headline, 30 Aug 12:  _"Canada orders deportation of U.S. soldier"_

Sun Media headline, 27 Jan 09:  _"Temporary stay for war resister mom"_
Macleans headline:  _"US war resister deported from Canada, arrested at the border"_

My question still stands (with one change in yellow) to any media folks who frequent the fora here....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Headline query:  Why are people who voluntarily signed a contract, then reneged on it, still *(in most cases) *  called "war resisters" in headlines, instead of "alleged* deserters"?
> 
> * - I add "alleged" only because if they're here, they haven't been found guilty of said offence in the U.S.


----------



## fraserdw

Because media is a business and resister sells more papers than deserter in liberal minded Canadian circles.


----------



## Kat Stevens

"Resister" makes a coward sound noble, "deserter" makes a coward sound, well, cowardly.


----------



## Devo3733

Pulled from Wikipedia:

A long-time resident of Mesquite, Texas, Rivera worked at Walmart prior to her military service, meeting her future husband Mario there. After she and Mario married, they agreed that one of them should join the army for financial reasons, but both were initially too overweight for the army's requirements. Because Rivera shed the weight faster, she enlisted instead of her husband, signing with the US Army in January 2006 for an $8000 bonus.[4]

She served her first tour of duty in Iraq starting in October of that year and worked primarily as a gate guard. She soon became disillusioned with the mission, later stating that she was particularly influenced by seeing a crying two-year-old Iraqi girl coming with her family to claim compensation for bombing by coalition forces. On another occasion, she returned to her bunk to find a piece of shrapnel in it. Though she had been initially interested in supporting democracy for the Iraqi people, she stated that she felt she found only "lies" in Iraq and felt betrayed by the US government.[4]

Perhaps instead of war resisters people should be called "didn't think it through-ers?   Or just good old fashioned deserters.  The parallel being drawn so often between Vietnam draft dodgers and todays deserters is just silly.  Skipping town to avoid being forced into service of a war you don't support is one thing, voluntarily joining in the middle of a conflict and signing a contract and then reneging on that is wholly different.  I wonder if I could make a case for being a "mortgage resister"...


----------



## armyguy1290

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "Resister" makes a coward sound noble, "deserter" makes a coward sound, well, cowardly.



While I may not agree with what the deserters have done, I ask you this: how does standing up and speaking out against something you believe is morally wrong cowardly? Especially when it means your entire way of life could take a turn for the worst...

Again, I'm not a supporter of their actions, but I would hesitate on calling them cowards.


----------



## Kat Stevens

armyguy1290 said:
			
		

> While I may not agree with what the deserters have done, I ask you this: how does standing up and speaking out against something you believe is morally wrong cowardly? Especially when it means your entire way of life could take a turn for the worst...
> 
> Again, I'm not a supporter of their actions, but I would hesitate on calling them cowards.



Very well then, they are dishonourable welchers who refuse to fulfil their part of a bargain negotiated in good faith.  Like that better?  Hope so, wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.  What's morally wrong is that they entered into a contractual agreement, and when one of the terms of that contract came due, they didn't stand up and speak out, they ran for the high heather... THEN they spoke up.


----------



## The Bread Guy

armyguy1290 said:
			
		

> While I may not agree with what the deserters have done, I ask you this: how does standing up and speaking out against something you believe is morally wrong cowardly? Especially when it means your entire way of life could take a turn for the worst...


If they believe in their position so strongly, why don't they accept the consequences of the decision they've made?  





He did the "crime", but he _also_ did the time.

How well would the system work if cops got to pick and choose which laws they enforce, or which areas they agree to enforce the law in - or not because they don't believe in the rules?  Don't like the rules?  Don't get in.  Don't like them when you're in?  Get out, and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.


----------



## Jarnhamar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> How well would the system work if cops got to pick and choose which laws they enforce, or which areas they agree to enforce the law in



Not to argue semantics (?) but cops DO pick and choose which laws they enforce to a lesser extent. They have leeway with traffic stops at the very least.


----------



## armyguy1290

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If they believe in their position so strongly, why don't they accept the consequences of the decision they've made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did the "crime", but he _also_ did the time.
> 
> How well would the system work if cops got to pick and choose which laws they enforce, or which areas they agree to enforce the law in - or not because they don't believe in the rules?  Don't like the rules?  Don't get in.  Don't like them when you're in?  Get out, and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.



And this is why I do not agree with what they are doing (like I said, I do not support them), I would just like to clarify that point.

Sorry if it came off as I was sticking up for them, it was just more probing for more of his opinion.


----------



## The_Falcon

I am pretty sure that point/sentiment has been highlighted numerous times within the 49 pages of this thread, perhaps you should go to the beginning and start there.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Not to argue semantics (?) but cops DO pick and choose which laws they enforce to a lesser extent. They have leeway with traffic stops at the very least.


Good point - I wasn't clear enough re:  situational discretion/legal "triage" vs. "this law is wrong, so I'm NEVER going to enforce it, and you can't make me" in spite of being told to.


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont like deserters,in my book they are cowards.I am heartened that Canada has rolled up the welcome mat.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-soldiers-opposed-war-now-canada-less-hospitable-153458414.html

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — When Army Sgt. Patrick Hart decided a decade ago that he would not serve in the war in Iraq, he expected to follow the same path as thousands of American war resisters during the Vietnam era and take refuge across the border.

But after five years of wrangling with the Canadian immigration system, he came back to the U.S. — and ended up in a military prison.

The country that once welcomed war resisters has developed a much different reputation during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan: Supporters say no U.S. soldier who has sought legal residence in Canada, either as a refugee or on humanitarian grounds, has been successful.

"Nobody's won," said Hart, a Buffalo native who exhausted his legal options then turned himself in to the Army, was court-martialed for desertion and sentenced to two years in prison.

There are an estimated two dozen U.S. military members still waiting out their fate in Canada, and the resisters' movement is seen as nearing a crossroads. With a national election three months away, supporters are hopeful for a Liberal Party victory and more sympathetic stance toward American military exiles, but bracing for the possibility Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper wins re-election.


----------



## tomahawk6

OMG I didnt realize there WAS a megthread for deserters.The most recent post was 2012,holy necrothread batman.


----------



## Kilo_302

The marketing militaries do always shows the glamorous side of war, and always highlights the benefits. People shouldn't be faulted for believing that anymore than people are faulted for buying the evidence used to go to war in Iraq in the first place. This particularly applies to lower income recruits in the US. Recruiting is specifically geared to them as the only realistic way they can get a college education and benefits for their families.

Your average person is not going to understand that they will be chanting "what makes the grass grow" in basic unless they know someone with personal experience. And in terms of being a coward, I would suggest that in many ways facing being ostracized by your peer group, facing jail time and shame is worse than risking death or injury in a war zone. That's EXACTLY HOW young men have been convinced to go to war since the dawn of history. If you're brought up on the idea that when the US uses force it's always just, that the military always tries to protect civilians and then you witness atrocities (accidental or otherwise), or the training you receive has racist overtones of course you're going to doubt the decision you've made. 

The answer is to stop advertising the military as a summer camp with free dental work and start showing what combat/ war is like.


----------



## Strike

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The answer is to stop advertising the military as a summer camp with free dental work and start showing what combat/ war is like.



How about people take responsibility for their choices?  There is no reason NOT to know what war is like.  All one has to do is go to the library or surf the net.  Imagine, doing research before making a huge life choice.  Free education and health care?  Awesome...but what's the catch?  Oh, I might have to go to a war zone?  Maybe they decide to play the odds on that one but, when the call comes, they have to face the reality.

As for advertising, you don't see McDonalds or Burger King ads filled with obese people stuffing their faces.  But we all know that too much of that type of food could lead to just that situation.

Here's one for you.  A CF-18 pilot, really good at what he does.  But realizes that one day he might be ordered to drop bombs on people and he feels that he just can't do that, but he loves the military and wants to stay in.  He became a Padre.

The fact that these war resistors decided to run away as opposed to facing up to their choices to not deploy or go to war and risk jail time gives the impression that they lack any type of personal responsibility.  I wonder if anyone has ever thought that, if they hadn't run to a whole other country, their sentences might have been drastically lower.


----------



## CountDC

I agree Kilo that the marketing is geared towards getting people in but that is the same thing all companies do.  Come work for us and have a great life.  Don't see companies doing recruiting by saying come work for us, be treated like crap, harassed and then fired next year because we have decided to downsize your position.  As long as they don't put false information into the recruiting spin then nothing wrong there. (no more join infantry and then change to what you really want anytime you want).  The numerous war games that teens are now living in and thinking it gives them real cred for the military doesn't help.  Put on all the gear, grab your machine gun and run around like you can in the games.  Die?  Too easy, respawn and carry on.    

In this Sgts case, he was around long enough to get the rank so knew how things were before Irag popped up.  He had the time to quit prior and instead opted to desert when Irag came into play.  If Irag never happened would he have left or continued on with his career until mandatory retirement?  I think his issue was not serving with the military and getting the benefits, it was going to Iraq.  He should have requested his release and then did his job until the release date.

I also agree that it may not be cowardice.  Some may be legitimately opposed to this war but in another situation that they belief in be at the front of the pack ready to go no matter what the risk.  Fortunately that is not how military life works - you do not get to pick which war to participate in, that is done for you.  Don't like it? Then release.


----------



## Kirkhill

This is how it is done.  

But Muhammad/Cassius was coerced into his situation by the state.  The modern "objector" voluntarily put themselves in that position.




> Muhammad Ali was born as Cassius Clay on January 18, 1942, in Louisville, Kentucky. He started boxing at the age of twelve, won two Golden Gloves championships, and in 1960 won the gold medal at the Rome Olympic Games. Patterning himself after the wrestler Gorgeous George, he developed into a showman, and in 1964 he won the heavyweight championship by defeating Sonny Listen. Immediately after becoming heavyweight champion, he joined the Black Muslims and took the name Muhammad Ali. *Two years later his draft board revoked his 1-Y deferment, which he had received for failing the IQ test, and reclassified him 1-A. Ali appealed for deferment as a conscientious objector on religious principles. "I ain't got no quarrel with those Vietcong, anyway," he said. "They never called me nigger." His appeal was denied and he was drafted on April 18, 1967. Ali refused to go, the World Boxing Association stripped him of the championship, and in June 1967 he was convicted of violating the Selective Service Act, fined $10,000, and sentenced to five years in prison.* Ali became a hero of the antiwar movement, as well as for poor people and blacks. In June 1970 the Supreme Court reversed his conviction, and in October 1974 Ali regained the heavyweight championship. He retired from boxing in 1980. Later that year, President Jimmy Carter appointed him as a special envoy to Africa to urge an African boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow.


----------



## Staff Weenie

I cannot possibly believe that anybody is naive enough to not realize that when you join the military, there's a good chance you're going to be sent somewhere nasty.  Americans, of all people, know that their military has been involved in more wars of varying size, that you can count on your fingers and toes.  Their strong patriotism as a nation keeps their military in the limelight, unlike Canada, where most folks haven't a clue what we did between Korea and Afghanistan.

I have no respect for somebody who takes the free education, the pay, the benefits, and then runs for it when they are called upon.


----------



## Old Sweat

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I cannot possibly believe that anybody is naive enough to not realize that when you join the military, there's a good chance you're going to be sent somewhere nasty.  Americans, of all people, know that their military has been involved in more wars of varying size, that you can count on your fingers and toes.  Their strong patriotism as a nation keeps their military in the limelight, unlike Canada, where most folks haven't a clue what we did between Korea and Afghanistan.
> 
> I have no respect for somebody who takes the free education, the pay, the benefits, and then runs for it when they are called upon.



 :bravo:  :goodpost:   :bravo:


----------



## Good2Golf

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I cannot possibly believe that anybody is naive enough to not realize that when you join the military, there's a good chance you're going to be sent somewhere nasty.  Americans, of all people, know that their military has been involved in more wars of varying size, that you can count on your fingers and toes.  Their strong patriotism as a nation keeps their military in the limelight, unlike Canada, where most folks haven't a clue what we did between Korea and Afghanistan.



Agree.  

It's just like 'Call of Duty' except you can get physically injured or die...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Agree.
> 
> It's just like 'Call of Duty' except you can get physically injured or die...



He'll, I can't say I looked that cool in the sandbox...


----------



## Good2Golf

...at least in real life I didn't frag myself with my own grenade...my son would point out my poor X-Box controller discipline hitting the left front bumper (drop grenade command) all the time.  Good thing I had my M67 TOETs sorted out...


----------



## Kilo_302

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Agree.
> 
> It's just like 'Call of Duty' except you can get physically injured or die...



This is pretty hilarious.

http://www.theonion.com/video/ultra-realistic-modern-warfare-game-features-await-14382

_- mod edit to fix link -_


----------



## Harrigan

CountDC said:
			
		

> Fortunately that is not how military life works - you do not get to pick which war to participate in, that is done for you.  Don't like it? Then release.



I think you've hit on the key - once you sign up, you don't get to pick and choose your wars.  

I'd be interested to know if the desertions were predominantly about Afghanistan (where the pretext for the war was pretty clear), or about Iraq (a war in which the pretext for invasion was 'dubious').  My gut feel is that there were very few for the former, and many more for the latter.

Nevertheless, everyone needs to read the fine print in their enlistment contracts. (same with Stop-Loss)

Harrigan


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest on this side of the border ...


> The Liberal government is reviewing Canada’s stance on American war dodgers who have sought refuge in this country rather than fight in Iraq, Prime Minister Trudeau said Friday.
> 
> Trudeau, however, gave no commitments that Ottawa might smooth the path to permanent residency for the conscientious objectors, some of whom have been forced to return to the U.S. to face prison terms, but said the issue was a live one.
> 
> “It’s one that we are looking into actively as a government,” Trudeau said after a transit-funding announcement in Toronto. He did not elaborate.
> 
> Outside the transit yard where Trudeau was speaking, a handful of protesters from the War Resisters Support Campaign quietly held up a banner and signs calling on the government to let them stay.
> 
> ( ... )
> 
> In an email to The Canadian Press last month, a spokesman for Immigration Minister John McCallum said he had “no indication that a decision was made or is about to be made” on the issue ...


I wonder how these war resisters would feel if someone was threatening their family, or breaking into their house, and the cops showed up saying, "You know, violence is not the answer - it's NEVER the answer.  Also, there are historical reasons this person hates us, so maybe non-intervention is the best solution.  In any case, because of the history, I don't believe I'll enforce this particular law."


----------



## PuckChaser

This makes sense, Trudeau wants terrorists to keep their citizenship, might as well let in our country's cowards as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This makes sense, Trudeau wants terrorists to keep their citizenship, might as well let in our country's cowards as well.



Smart way to get reelected lol


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Anyone else wonder if no one has told Trudeau that Obama isn't getting re-elected? 

I can only imagine the political fallout from harbouring deserters if the presumptive GOP candidate gains office. 
:


----------



## TCM621

Had anyone told Trudeau they volunteered for the military? Does that mean I can just walk out on my country if I don't agree with my marching orders? Goose and gander and all that.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Had anyone told Trudeau they volunteered for the military? Does that mean I can just walk out on my country if I don't agree with my marching orders? Goose and gander and all that.



For a man that has never served a day in uniform, I don't think he would necessarily care. Duty, Loyalty, Integrity, and Courage are OUR ethos. Not the Political Class. 

Pissing off the neighbours is more of a deterrent to this policy than trying to explain values to someone that doesn't share them with you. After all, the military is just a slush fund for social development in a Liberal world isn't it?


----------



## cavalryman

The PM is engaging in virtue signalling to please the SJWs out there supporting those poor, poor, courageous souls fleeing an oppressive regime that forced them into uniform to fight horribly unjust wars. people who run out on their obligations, because it's 2016 and one shouldn't be held to a legally binding contract any more because feelz


----------



## The Bread Guy

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> For a man that has never served a day in uniform, I don't think he would necessarily care.


Not the first PM not to have served in uniform - as was said earlier, goose and gander and all that ...


			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> *Had anyone told Trudeau they volunteered for the military?* ...


Good question right there.

Someone should remind the alleged*** deserters that if they REALLY want to be martyrs to the cause, they'd do their time, then protest, saying "I've paid the price for my opposition to war x".

*** - Only using "alleged" because most seem to have left before due process assessing guilt.


----------



## a_majoor

Getting back to the topic, most of the more recent crop of deserters were people who signed up for the pay and benefits offered by the US armed forces, but declined to carry out their part of the contract when they were activated or their units called up. Coming to Canada allows them to continue their parasitical lifestyle (get welfare or other benefits while in Canada), while not offering anything back. Taxpayers in both nations have a large enough burden without having to pay for even _more_ freeloaders.

Regardless of our views of American foreign policy, military actions etc., this is essentially an issue between the American servicemember who _knowingly_ signed a contract and the United States Government as the owner of the contract. (I make an exception for draftees, who did not voluntarily sign the contract). People who behave in this manner will offer nothing to our community; best to send them back ASAP.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FYI, just moved the "what kind of bad guy should have their citizenship revoked" posts here, where they're better ingredients for the already-started discussion stew.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This is how it is done.
> 
> But Muhammad/Cassius was coerced into his situation by the state.  The modern "objector" voluntarily put themselves in that position.



Died on Friday at 74.
http://www.680news.com/2016/06/03/muhammad-ali-who-riveted-the-world-as-the-greatest-dies-2/


----------

