• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Military Deserters in Canada Megathread

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
 
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.
 
Hey Colin.... I resent him making reference to RSMs

We work hard to make things work - even when faced with adverse conditions.
 
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.)
 
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).
 
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.
 
I think the "so help me God" in brackets is there in brackets for those who solemnly swear vs those that solemnly affirm.

MM
 
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.
 
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.  ::)
 
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.

 
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...
 
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?
 
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."
 
I can only hope that they will deport him quickly and the rest of the deserters not long afterward. :cdn:

KJK
 
[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.


 
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.)
 
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.
 
(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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top