Iraq war resisters

[myata]

Since when is sending a criminal back to his home country to face justice ignoring democracy....Because the oppostion bought into "those poor, poor soldiers plight", and after the group hug said sure we'll let him stay wiping the tears from thier eyes....Can't have those poor american soldiers face justice....thats is just wrong....

Because these aren't just your regular average "criminals". We're talking about unjust unnesessary war. Agression. Which itself should be a crime, by any moral norm or category.

We should not be afraid to say the things as they are, i.e that this is an unjust unnesessary war. And offer refuge to people who refuse to take part in it. And, through our parliamentaries, the majority of them, representing majority of us, we did.

What Harper's government decided to ignore our will, speaks volumes about it. And tells us where we would end up, if they happen to be near power at the time some of their buddies decide to launch another overseas adventure.

[Guest American Woman]

A question for all of you who keep bringing up the fact that the U.S. army today is made up of volunteers:

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

Again. It's not 'going to war' that the soldiers are objecting to; it's the IRAQ war. And again, if the order to fight is arguably illegal, seems to me anyone who believes it is illegal is obligated to follow their conscience. I cannot understand why a nation that's so critical of the war, so critical of the U.S. for going to war, wouldn't support soldiers who don't want to be part of that war.

[Army Guy]

Because these aren't just your regular average "criminals".

And here i thought that a criminal was a criminal...But because he does not want to face justice in his country we should let him, where do you draw the line, when do we say your a bad person you need to go home....

We're talking about unjust unnesessary war. Agression. Which itself should be a crime, by any moral norm or category.

But since it is not, we are left with following the law....Don't like the law get it changed, until then we all must follow them.

And, through our parliamentaries, the majority of them, representing majority of us, we did.

But they don't run the country do they, and those that are in charge are also elected by Canadians as well are they not.

What Harper's government decided to ignore our will, speaks volumes about it.

Ignoring your will, or doing what they think is best for our country, accepting criminals that are fleeing justice is not what is in the best interest of our country.

[Wild Bill]

Because these aren't just your regular average "criminals". We're talking about unjust unnesessary war. Agression. Which itself should be a crime, by any moral norm or category.

We should not be afraid to say the things as they are, i.e that this is an unjust unnesessary war. And offer refuge to people who refuse to take part in it. And, through our parliamentaries, the majority of them, representing majority of us, we did.

What Harper's government decided to ignore our will, speaks volumes about it. And tells us where we would end up, if they happen to be near power at the time some of their buddies decide to launch another overseas adventure.

I'm curious, what do you mean by "What Harper's government decided to ignore our will"? By "our will" do you mean the will of the majority of the Canadian people?

Perhaps you could cite a poll showing how the majority of Canadians agree with you, remembering that the question is NOT how many Canadians wanted Canada to stay out of Iraq but rather how many Canadians approve of granting refugee status to American deserters.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Wild Bill

[myata]

And here i thought that a criminal was a criminal...But because he does not want to face justice in his country we should let him, where do you draw the line, when do we say your a bad person you need to go home....

But since it is not, we are left with following the law....Don't like the law get it changed, until then we all must follow them.

That line of argument can of course be extended to the laws of other countries: e.g China; or Iraq (under Saddam); or times: e.g slavery; Vietnam war. So should we abide by other's law or live by one that conforms to our own values and standards? Pick one;

But they don't run the country do they, and those that are in charge are also elected by Canadians as well are they not.

You've got to brush up on democracy; Harper's party is in minority and they are morally obliged to respect the will of majority; the majority that wants to give right of refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war.

[Wilber]

You've got to brush up on democracy; Harper's party is in minority and they are morally obliged to respect the will of majority; the majority that wants to give right of refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war.

Never confuse politics with morality. This is a game to try and embarrass the government. Only thing is, if the majority of public does not support this, it is the opposition who will be embarrassed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

Irrelevant, except at a personal level. Members of the US Armed Forces swear to execute their duty and the lawful orders of superiors in the CoC. The "war" in Iraq is not illegal.

Again. It's not 'going to war' that the soldiers are objecting to; it's the IRAQ war. And again, if the order to fight is arguably illegal, seems to me anyone who believes it is illegal is obligated to follow their conscience.

This is an untenable position for the US mlitary, where every member can pick and choose which conflict meets with their approval.

I cannot understand why a nation that's so critical of the war, so critical of the U.S. for going to war, wouldn't support soldiers who don't want to be part of that war.

Because the deserters do not meet the requirements for economic or political refugee status. They are criminals who should be brave enough to face their choices and responsibilities if so principled.

[Guest American Woman]

Irrelevant, except at a personal level. Members of the US Armed Forces swear to execute their duty and the lawful orders of superiors in the CoC. The "war" in Iraq is not illegal.

That's your opinion. When your opinion becomes the determining factor regarding the legality of this war, then and only then, will your declaration that the issues I bring up are irrelevant mean anything. I'm tired of hearing "lawful" as a rebuttal when I am bringing up the fact that this war has been deemed unlawful by many. That's what I am trying to discuss here.

This is an untenable position for the US mlitary, where every member can pick and choose which conflict meets with their approval.

Again, I'm not talking about "picking and choosing." Rather than repeat myself, I'll just say to go back and read what I am talking about.

Because the deserters do not meet the requirements for economic or political refugee status. They are criminals who should be brave enough to face their choices and responsibilities if so principled.

I'm not asking an American for an opinion regarding a Canadian decision. Since you and your government do support the war, your opinion would be totally irrelevant to the points that I raised regarding nations/people that don't support it.

I repeat. Americans are so criticized and looked down upon worldwide for this war, yet those who refuse to fight it are given no support. Makes no sense. We're damned if we do, and given no support if we don't.

Edited June 4, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

That's your opinion. When your opinion becomes the determining factor regarding the legality of this war, then and only then, will your declaration that the issues I bring up are irrelevant mean anything.

His opinion is consistant with the law (they swore a legaly binding oath) and the legality of the war is not in question (in any court) or an issue (in the legality of their desertion)....it is simply an opinion...and one without merit in this non issue.

[M.Dancer]

I'm tired of hearing "lawful" as a rebuttal when I am bringing up the fact that this war has been deemed unlawful by many. That's what I am trying to discuss here.

]

Which has all the weight of the fashion police saying white after labour day is verbotten.

I'm okay with white....

[bush_cheney2004]

That's your opinion. When your opinion becomes the determining factor regarding the legality of this war, then and only then, will your declaration that the issues I bring up are irrelevant mean anything. I'm tired of hearing "lawful" as a rebuttal when I am bringing up the fact that this war has been deemed unlawful by many. That's what I am trying to discuss here.

As Dancer points out, there has been no such determination beyond opinions no better than mine. You cannot demonstrate that the war is illegal (i.e. crime against peace, war crime, or crime against humanity as adjudicated by a court with jurisdiction), and neither can the deserters. Such a determination could equally be "opined" about operation Allied Force against Serbia, yet you would invoke this NATO action as legitimate in comparison to Iraq. Please get your story straight.

Again, I'm not talking about "picking and choosing." Rather than repeat myself, I'll just say to go back and read what I am talking about.

That is precisely what you are advocating. If you have served you would know that the individual (and his/her personal belief systems) are subordinate to the unit and mission objectives. That is what discipline is about...sacrificing personal needs to support team/unit objectives.

I'm not asking an American for an opinion regarding a Canadian decision. Since you and your government do support the war, your opinion would be totally irrelevant to the points that I raised regarding nations/people that don't support it.

Free speech does not stop at the border, except for your agenda.

I repeat. Americans are so criticized and looked down upon worldwide for this war, yet those who refuse to fight it are given no support. Makes no sense. We're damned if we do, and given no support if we don't.

This is not a complicated issue. Deserters will have their day in court.

[bush_cheney2004]

Never confuse politics with morality. This is a game to try and embarrass the government. Only thing is, if the majority of public does not support this, it is the opposition who will be embarrassed.

Indeed....this is not about the deserters at all...it is about scoring political points.

[myata]

Never confuse politics with morality. This is a game to try and embarrass the government.

Really? Starting an illegal war, bombing a country into oblivion under obviously false pretence, just politics? Nothing to worry about? They come, they go..

But listen, why is it when a bad buddy does something ugly, we suddenly jump right up? Shouldn't we just relax and let them be, they're doing nothing that is against (their) law, right?

Only thing is, if the majority of public does not support this, it is the opposition who will be embarrassed.

Actually, it does, through majority of its democratically elected representatives. The election will show how popular Harper's policy of treading softly in the Bushes footsteps is with the public. Something tells me though even now, it's not; otherwise, would he (his party) be tight dead spot with such a perfectly accomplished failure of a leader, as Dion?

[g_bambino]

Deleted; completely misread what I was trying to respond to.

Edited June 4, 2008 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The election will show how popular Harper's policy of treading softly in the Bushes footsteps is with the public.

What on earth does this topic have to do with Bush? This is a matter of Canadian immigration law, which is specific about the granting of refugee status. As the rules stand, these fellows do not qualify to be refugees. That's it. They are free to apply as permanent residents or regular immigrants; but, then, that just wouldn't have all the dramatic effect of the quivering victims reaching for mercy at our door, nor of the hero politician riding heroically in on his white stallion to lift these poor souls out of danger and drop them right into a newly opened spot in our big, Canadian, multicoloured, multicultural, multilingual, hand-holding, swaying, Kumbaya singing, circle.

[Army Guy]

That line of argument can of course be extended to the laws of other countries: e.g China; or Iraq (under Saddam); or times: e.g slavery; Vietnam war. So should we abide by other's law or live by one that conforms to our own values and standards? Pick one;

We already have policy here in Canada that we follow, it states that we return those fleeing justice of another nation, as long as there is no death sentence involved....But in this case we change that because a few tears have been shed....and we don't like uncle sam....So you pick one, do we follow our policy or write another one when it suits us....And if we do write another one where do we draw the line....do we allow fleeing child molesters in, perhaps murders, or maybe just common criminals....but it needs to be in black and white and it needs to be followed....

You've got to brush up on democracy; Harper's party is in minority and they are morally obliged to respect the will of majority; the majority that wants to give right of refuge to those who refuse to take part in an unjust war.

Me, brush up on democracy, correct me if i'm wrong, but when has any Canadian polictical party been morally obliged to do anything....i think the Harper government just proved you wrong, they are in Charge of the country, not the oppostion, and they have the final say....If the opposition does not like it then they can follow policy and proceedures and force an election, So back to reality do you think they will, on this trival matter...

[Guest American Woman]

I've received a few responses to my post that had absolutely nothing to do with the issues I was raising, so I'll ask again -- stressing that I'm not asking if you think the war is legal or not, I'm not asking if Canada currently has a legal basis for accepting the objectors, I'm not talking about 'voting about going to war' once one has joined the military. THIS is what I'd like to know/discuss:

A question for all of you who keep bringing up the fact that the U.S. army today is made up of volunteers:

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

Again. It's not 'going to war' that the soldiers are objecting to; it's the IRAQ war. And again, if the order to fight is arguably illegal, seems to me anyone who believes it is illegal is obligated to follow their conscience. I cannot understand why a nation that's so critical of the war, so critical of the U.S. for going to war, wouldn't support soldiers who don't want to be part of that war.

I find it interesting that no one has answered the questions, which I think are very legitimate. If Americans are to be condemned for this war, then those who refuse to fight it should be supported. If a nation is against the war, seems to me supporting those who refuse to fight it would be supporting their position. Sending people off to fight a pre-emptive war they disapprove of is sending people off to kill innocent Iraqis; it's helping the war effort.

Edited June 4, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

You have already received the answer to this question from several other members. The act of volunteering and taking the oath negates any such personal misgivings, and it is very important that this be so. What if military service members decided not to support a war that enjoyed 100% approval? This is why the decision is not arbitrarily left to individual service members.

Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do or die.

The least these cowards could do is return home to face the music.

[M.Dancer]

I find it interesting that no one has answered the questions, which I think are very legitimate. If Americans are to be condemned for this war, then those who refuse to fight it should be supported. If a nation is against the war, seems to me supporting those who refuse to fight it would be supporting their position. Sending people off to fight a pre-emptive war they disapprove of is sending people off to kill innocent Iraqis; it's helping the war effort.

I'm sure the question has been answered repeatedly. It seems you just haven't found an answer you like. If someone is against the war, which is fair, they shouldn't join the army. If someone who has joined the army and who finds this war not to their liking, then he or she is morally and legally obligated to suck it up and perform their legal duty and morally they are bound by their oath.

Personally I was against the invasion. Now that the US created the problem I feel that the US is duty bound to fix it. And I feel that these volunteers who deserted should have their day in US courts, not here.

[Army Guy]

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

Again. It's not 'going to war' that the soldiers are objecting to; it's the IRAQ war. And again, if the order to fight is arguably illegal, seems to me anyone who believes it is illegal is obligated to follow their conscience. I cannot understand why a nation that's so critical of the war, so critical of the U.S. for going to war, wouldn't support soldiers who don't want to be part of that war.

Currently there is policies and regulations that already exist in the US and Canada to allow soldiers already in uniform to claim CO status, and therefore not take part in that conflict, however there is ramifications to doing so, it normally requires that indiv to terminate employment within the service...

That being said each soldier takes an oath to defend his country, from enemies foreign or domestic, It is the commander and chief who decides who gets called enemies of the state....So actually the soldier signs a blank check and hopes his government makes the correct choices....however there is those escape clauses i talked about...There is also requesting to do his combat time in another threater, such as Afagnistan....so there are other options available....

The fact that this war has not been proclaimed Illigal by any court, a soldier has 2 choices get out of the military, or refuse to fight, and try and change it from within....either way one can not do that effectivly hiding out in the BC mountains up a tree.

So what they are doing is running away from the problem...and these guys are not interested in solving the problem,and making a difference for others or making a statement. They just don't want to do any fighting....

[g_bambino]

Do you truly not see that someone could join the military with the belief that the U.S. wouldn't wage a pre-emptive war? A war that's seen as illegal by the majority of international lawyers? A war that your country doesn't support, the UN doesn't support, and NATO doesn't support?

Again. It's not 'going to war' that the soldiers are objecting to; it's the IRAQ war. And again, if the order to fight is arguably illegal, seems to me anyone who believes it is illegal is obligated to follow their conscience. I cannot understand why a nation that's so critical of the war, so critical of the U.S. for going to war, wouldn't support soldiers who don't want to be part of that war.

I believe this was dealt with already: of the conflicts a soldier is told to fight in, which he personally feels are just, and which he feels are not, is of absolutely no consequence. Each soldier is not a lawyer. Each soldier is not an activist. Each soldier is not a politician. And each soldier should know this before they're enlisted; especially those who volunteered for the service. These particular individuals obviously weren't aware of what would be expected of them, or what they'd be giving up (namely that, once enrolled in the army, they lose the ability to chose whether or not to participate in a particular confrontation). However, their lack of forethought is not related to the reasons for the war; one is a matter of personal responsibility, the other of politics, and thus one can have little sympathy for these asylum seekers while simultaneously opposing the conflict they're being ordered to engage in.

[Guest American Woman]

You have already received the answer to this question from several other members. The act of volunteering and taking the oath negates any such personal misgivings, and it is very important that this be so. What if military service members decided not to support a war that enjoyed 100% approval? This is why the decision is not arbitrarily left to individual service members.

Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is but to do or die.

The least these cowards could do is return home to face the music.

*sigh* No, I haven't received an answer to my questions. I know how you feel about the issue you keep responding about; the issue you keep highjacking my post with. So try to understand-- I'm interested in discussing something else entirely; I'm interested in hearing how people/nations can oppose the war, condemn Americans for being war mongers and killing innocent Iraqis, but not support those who are refusing to fight in the war. It makes absolutely no sense. Nations/citizens that don't support the war should be encouraging Americans not to fight in it, rather than doing just the opposite. We're supposed to get rid of Bush, yet we're supposed to fight the war because Bush said so. It's totally contradictory. As I said, Americans are damned for fighting the war but those who refuse to fight get no support. It's bizzare, really.

[g_bambino]

Nations/citizens that don't support the war should be encouraging Americans not to fight in it, rather than doing just the opposite.

Encouraging American citizens not to fight in Iraq is completely different to encouraging American soldiers to mutiny or desert their post.

[Guest American Woman]

I believe this was dealt with already: of the conflicts a soldier is told to fight in, which he personally feels are just, and which he feels are not, is of absolutely no consequence. Each soldier is not a lawyer. Each soldier is not an activist. Each soldier is not a politician. And each soldier should know this before they're enlisted; especially those who volunteered for the service. These particular individuals obviously weren't aware of what would be expected of them, or what they'd be giving up (namely that, once enrolled in the army, they lose the ability to chose whether or not to participate in a particular confrontation). However, their lack of forethought is not related to the reasons for the war; one is a matter of personal responsibility, the other of politics, and thus one can have little sympathy for these asylum seekers while simultaneously opposing the conflict they're being ordered to engage in.

This is an interesting response. It doesn't really answer my question because it's not about "having sympathy" for those refusing to fight; it's about supporting them in their refusal to fight in a pre-emptive war that's killing thousands of innocent Iraqis; a war that Canada doesn't support. A war that's been declared illegal by most of the international lawyers. So it's not a matter of "knowing" something like that would happen before one enlists. As I pointed out, many enlisted NOT knowing their country would ever do such a thing. Like I said, not supporting them is supporting the war effort. Canada is in effect sending these soldiers out to kill innocent Iraqis when it could be preventing that very thing. That's an important part of the issue I am raising, and you didn't touch on that at all. I hope "not showing sypmathy for the soldiers" wouldn't be more important than the Iraqis' lives who are being killed by this war. Again. I'm not talking about sypmathy. I'm talking about putting one's money where one's mouth is. One cannot condemn America for this war and at the same time not support those who are not willing to fight in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Encouraging American citizens not to fight in Iraq is completely different to encouraging American soldiers to mutiny or desert their post.

Precisely....shall Canadians also support American service members who desert from duty in Afghanistan?