Peter F

My goodnes...an opposition party opposing the government. Why they probably sit 'opposite' the government seats in the house too! What we need is an opposition parties that actually support the governing party - that would be true opposition.

But the line of your sig doesn't speak of homosexual acts but of Gay rights. Is the Pope opposed to those too?

What are you talking about? One minute Sid Ryan speaks for us all, the next minute we have multiple voices? Maybe you can try to get your s--t together and be consistent in your trolling.

Im sure many would, Betsy, many would. But you won't hear my voice in that crowd.

Good! They can say F-you all they want, I'm not stopping them. However if the government of Canada determines that these deserters have a legitimate refugee claim then they get to stay in Canada safe and sound. ... and the US taxpayer can say F-you all they want. Hell they can even withdraw their bought and paid for by US taxpayers military umbrella if they wish. But the deserters will still be refugee's in Canada and thats because the US taxpayer has sweet F-all to do with that determination.

The US taxpayer? F* the US taxpayer. The US taxpayer will have their way with them once we reject the refugee claim. And if non-US taxpayers on the refugee board actually believe the claimant has a case then we will shelter and hide them from the US taxpayer.

What would happen is they would run out of soldiers. See War in Iraq and Stop-Loss. If my countries military deserted because they didn't want to fight; Well, what would that say about the justness of the cause?

If they want to take a pass they'll take a pass. Rights only determine legality.

Of course the law matters. Actually every soldier, or anybody else, has the right to pass judgement on the war. It is us as individuals who get to determine wether a war is just or unjust.

Why? So's you can think well of them?

It doe's to Tony. Making a claim for refugee status is not the same as getting refugee status. Now maybe Mr.Saprano shouldn't get refugee status, but he has every right to make the claim. Just like American servicemen and women.

Yes, I understand the logic. If Soldier Smith doe's not follow orders he will be courtmartialed - if not summarily executed - and if the courts martial does'nt buy his defence Soldier Smith will be in jail. Nevertheless, if Soldier Smith honestly believes the war he is fighting is unjust then it is Soldier Smiths duty to himself and those he will be unjustly fighting to not partake. Doesn't matter a hill of beans what anyone else thinks of it. Its what soldier Smith thinks thats the determining thing. And thats the fact. Its up to solder Smith to partake or not as he wills, despite whatever laws apply or whatever anyone else thinks.

I understand. The refugee board agrees. They are being departed because the USofA isn't going to have them executed nor give them life terms. But none of that means the board should not hear their claim. The board did and the claim was rejected. There is nothing wrong here.

Sure...if they can be caught.

I don't know, Muddy. Six of one or half a dozen of the other. Perhaps the deserters thought a refugee board would be more likely to seriiously consider thier case while a courts martial would not. The aim being - wether through a courts martial or refugee board - to avoid the prison sentence that none of them think they deserve. As for them and thier families being branded and penalized for thier actions - The act of refusing to comply has them branded already, long before the courts martials or refugee boards decisions. I doubt the branding carries much wieght for them - nor me for that matter.

True, draft dodgers are not deserters - but serve time just like the deserters. So many draft dodgers sought and were granted refuge in Canada. As for contract law, there is no contract that can't be broken.

We only question orders if we are told to commit a war crime. Absolutely. And if we should believe we are committing a war crime by folliwing orders then the order should not be followed.

Nope. Depending upon the actual circumstances.

No I did not. But there was a time in Aukland NZ when I came very very close to doing such. Very close. But after some sober second thought I realized that it wouldn't do me any good to desert in NZ. So no I did not desert. However, if they had have decided to extend my 5 year enlistment, as they were legally allowed to do, I like to think I would most certainly have refused to serve. Ask the refuseniks War Resisters

Quite so. Any state entering into armed conflict spends huge amounts of time and effort convincing the citizenry of the justness of the war. And they will do so even if its unjust. So best not rely on the government to determine justness or unjustness - The state will lie.

Word of Honour? Ha!. Reminds me of when I signed up in the Navy. "I guarantee you a cruise around the world within a year" the recruiter said. I replied "Gimmee your pen". Word of Honour dont mean crap. As for contracts; Any contract that requires the parties to engage in illegal actions is no longer a valid contract.

Certainly. But first it needs to be determined wether this is something worthless. The Boards have so far rejected every single refugee claim from these soldiers. All is well.

The reality is that any war a state enters into will be a just war. Should a state enter into an unjust war then no one - not even those in the military - are required to serve or continue to serve in the cause of an unjust war.

I am not making it up at all. Stop-Loss, while perfectly legal and written into the contract, nevertheless compels folks to continue to serve or be imprisoned. That is no different than being drafted.

Honour? F*&% honour. They are taking responsibility for their choices. The responisbility led them to take action.