Why Are We Deporting Iraq War Resisters?

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I wonder... can the American Army court martial these people in their absence and then have them extradited to America since they would all be convicted felons?

[Smallc]

Aren't Canucks also suckers for anyone facing the death penalty.

Please...you have to keep them....oh the humanity! (sobbing)

You can take them, you just can't put them to death.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder... can the American Army court martial these people in their absence and then have them extradited to America since they would all be convicted felons?

Nope...they have a right to a hearing before being court martialed according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Most of these guys just waive their rights to court martial and accept a discharge other than honorable....forever branding them as cowards and losers!

Also depends on how long they've been gone and under what circumstances. We don't hang 'em anymore (too bad).

[bush_cheney2004]

You can take them, you just can't put them to death.

Ok...we promise....(fingers crossed & wink wink).

[Slim MacSquinty]

So what would be the punishment in their home country for a volunteer who refused active duty in Iraq? What is it that they are escaping?

[bush_cheney2004]

So what would be the punishment in their home country for a volunteer who refused active duty in Iraq? What is it that they are escaping?

Not sure what you mean....disobeying orders to Iraq is different than desertion. Missing movement with his unit is covered by a different set of UCMJ articles.

Deserters over 180 days typically face a court-martial but they waive in favor of OTH discharge. This affects government jobs, federal loans, and other benefits.

[Riverwind]

Nope...they have a right to a hearing before being court martialed according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Most of these guys just waive their rights to court martial and accept a discharge other than honorable....forever branding them as cowards and losers!

I heard an interview with a "resister" who when confronted with the likely punishments whined about losing benefits if they are dishonorably discharged. What a pathetic loser.

[bush_cheney2004]

I heard an interview with a "resister" who when confronted with the likely punishments whined about losing benefits if they are dishonorably discharged. What a pathetic loser.

We use to call 'em "runners"...whenever they met some new sweetie on the beach they would go AWOL...the beginning of a true deserter. The smart ones new the UCMJ limits on days absent, taking the AWOL rap instead of desertion.

[gordiecanuk]

This is the question... I am very surprised about how many Canadians responded yes to it.

The question doesn't appear to me to be biased in any way...doesn't call them war resisters, instead a more neutral term, 'deserters'. I'm suprised 38% of Canadians voted for Harper, but that's democracy...can't bitch only when it serves your purpose.

[gordiecanuk]

I heard an interview with a "resister" who when confronted with the likely punishments whined about losing benefits if they are dishonorably discharged. What a pathetic loser.

Which one? Can you link up the story?

[Wilber]

Just curious...if we put it to a plebescite (sp?) and 2/3 of Canadians wanted to grant them asylum...Should our laws be a reflection of the democratic will of the country?

You can pay for it, I'm not interested, particularly for foreign nationals from democratic countries who are breaking a contract they freely engaged in with their own government. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same thing here if it suited them? There are plenty of people in the world who are in much greater danger of persecution for no fault of their own and far more worthy of our compassion. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to why the US would want these people back.

[KeyStone]

Why on earth would we offer deserters asylum? These people freely joined the US military, and thus gave up a rather important right for the period of their membership. It would be one thing if these were people who had been drafted who objected to the war, but there is no draft in the US, and thus these people joined of their own free will.

Send them back.

Well, in principal, what you say makes sense. However, there are two important considerations.

1) The justification for war in Iraq was founded on lies.

There was no weapons of mass destruction. There was no alliance between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There was no threat to the US from Iraq.

Moreover, the Republicans seem that they would rather continue to lose lives, than pull out and admit they were wrong.

As long as they don't pull out, no one can say they lost, so they can keep the facade going, that things are working.

2) Recruiters are paid commissions to bring in people to sign up. Many of these are low-income, poorly educated young people who make rash decisions. They are targeted and pressured to enlist. In addition, those that are having trouble finding work are often bullied into signing up.

[Wilber]

Well, in principal, what you say makes sense. However, there are two important considerations.

1) The justification for war in Iraq was founded on lies.

There was no weapons of mass destruction. There was no alliance between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There was no threat to the US from Iraq.

Moreover, the Republicans seem that they would rather continue to lose lives, than pull out and admit they were wrong.

As long as they don't pull out, no one can say they lost, so they can keep the facade going, that things are working.

2) Recruiters are paid commissions to bring in people to sign up. Many of these are low-income, poorly educated young people who make rash decisions. They are targeted and pressured to enlist. In addition, those that are having trouble finding work are often bullied into signing up.

So what, this is between Americans and their government. None of our business.

[KeyStone]

So what, this is between Americans and their government. None of our business.

Well, not entirely.

You see, Canada has a refugee policy

The standard (paraphrased) definition is:

One who has left his/her country as result of political events in that country and is unable to return without loss of life or liberty.

We then need to decide if the AWOL soldiers fit this definition. If so, we need to keep them.

Don't worry though. Harper will do everything possible to gain entrance to the Barrick board when he retires.

[bush_cheney2004]

1) The justification for war in Iraq was founded on lies.

There was no weapons of mass destruction. There was no alliance between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There was no threat to the US from Iraq.

So what? US military units were engaged in Iraq long before that. US soldiers don't get to pick which conflict they approve of because of political or human rights considerations.

Moreover, the Republicans seem that they would rather continue to lose lives, than pull out and admit they were wrong.

As long as they don't pull out, no one can say they lost, so they can keep the facade going, that things are working.

So what's Canada's excuse in Afghanistan....Republicans?

2) Recruiters are paid commissions to bring in people to sign up. Many of these are low-income, poorly educated young people who make rash decisions. They are targeted and pressured to enlist. In addition, those that are having trouble finding work are often bullied into signing up.

Nonsense....US military recruiters are not paid "commissions". Many recruits are more educated than the general population with respect to high school diplomas.

[moderateamericain]

So what? US military units were engaged in Iraq long before that. US soldiers don't get to pick which conflict they approve of because of political or human rights considerations.

So what's Canada's excuse in Afghanistan....Republicans?

Nonsense....US military recruiters are not paid "commissions". Many recruits are more educated than the general population with respect to high school diplomas.

LOL what army did you serve in? Most of the guys I knew were country and dumb as a bag of rocks. The smart ones went into logistics. I guess the navy and the airforce probably have the higher IQ though.

[bush_cheney2004]

LOL what army did you serve in? Most of the guys I knew were country and dumb as a bag of rocks. The smart ones went into logistics. I guess the navy and the airforce probably have the higher IQ though.

Success in any branch of the Military depends on a good education, and a high school diploma is most desirable. Candidates with a GED (General Education Development certificate) can enlist, but some Services may limit opportunities. It is very difficult to be considered a serious candidate without either a high school diploma or accepted alternative credential. In any case, staying in school is important for entering the Military.

[moderateamericain]

Success in any branch of the Military depends on a good education, and a high school diploma is most desirable. Candidates with a GED (General Education Development certificate) can enlist, but some Services may limit opportunities. It is very difficult to be considered a serious candidate without either a high school diploma or accepted alternative credential. In any case, staying in school is important for entering the Military.

Hey a highschool diploma does not make you smart. It makes you educated.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey a highschool diploma does not make you smart. It makes you educated.

More importantly...it makes you "educable".

[Wilber]

Well, not entirely.

You see, Canada has a refugee policy

The standard (paraphrased) definition is:

One who has left his/her country as result of political events in that country and is unable to return without loss of life or liberty.

We then need to decide if the AWOL soldiers fit this definition. If so, we need to keep them.

Don't worry though. Harper will do everything possible to gain entrance to the Barrick board when he retires.

Yes we do and so far our courts have decided these people don't meet that criteria. You want to change the criteria for one group based on your own political beliefs, not the threat to their life or liberty.

[M.Dancer]

I see no reason why they should be allowed here.....they are just illegal immigrants of the worst kind...the kind without honour....unwilling to keep their word or abide by their contracts.

I would rather a Honduran illigal who crawled undr barbed wire and endured hardships of the ope road to come here and prosper than someone who feels that their word is worthless.

[betsy]

You missed all the "wepaons of mass destruction" speeches in the lead up?

I understand your point of view, once a soldier signs up they have to obey orders no matter what they're told to do and no matter how it sits with them morally.

What makes you so sure that the real reason for their desertion boils down to what you say - that they find this war immoral? You are letting your romanticism and your strong anti-war sentiment cloud everything else.

For all you know the reasons may just be as simple as....cowardice....or that they can't hack the rigours of military life....the strict discipline...authority....etc..,

It's so convenient these days to hide behind the reason that the war in Iraq is immoral!

If they do indeed find this war immoral, then as soldiers....they should be brave enough to stand up for what they believe in, and face the consequence of their actions.

I do not condemn them for their weakness, and for trying to seek refuge in our country. But now that our court had decided, I do not appreciate the fact that they....or some anti-war radicals or Canadian Iraq supporters....would use these deserters just to score points.

Either that, or we are being reduced to nothing more than irritating busy-bodies who just love to impose our values on our nextdoor neighbors.

There are far more serious matters that should be addressed. The decision regarding American war deserters had already been given.

[Muddy]

If an American in the military of their country decides that the war assigned to him is immoral ,why does he not take his punishment in the USA? He will not be put before a firing squad for gosh sakes. He will be given a small incarceration and a dishonourable discharge and sent on his or her way. Coming to Canada shows nothing but cowardice where staying and taking his or her punishment shows at least a measure of honour.

[segnosaur]

So no matter what they're ordered to do, they should suck it up...do as they're told, pray they don't get killed and tuck their moral compasses away until discharged?

Actually, that isn't true at all...

People serving in the military are expected to follow various rules of conduct. In fact they are actually required to disobey any order which is actually illegal. (If I remember correctly, some of the soldiers involved in the Abu Garib situation actually ended up in jail, even though many were just 'following orders').

Of course, that still doesn't mean that individual soldiers can pick and choose which conflicts to fight in.

Although many may claim that the Iraq war was based on 'lies and deception', it should be noted that:

- At the time of the invasion, even opponents of the Iraq war weren't always saying that Iraq had disarmed.... the common mantra at the time was 'give inspectors more time to work'. Even Blix thought Saddam may have kept some of his biological weapons program, and that Saddam was not cooperating as he should. Saddam gambled that he could continue bluffing. He lost.

- The issue of human rights in Iraq was also brought up prior to the war (in speeches made by Bush himself), as was Iraq's support of terrorism... even if a soldier did not think that the WMD issue was worth fighting for, the U.S. government has engaged in military operations in the past to help prevent human rights abuses (even engaging in such actions pre-emptavely).

What exactly are these deserters expecting to accomplish? Do they think they will force the U.S. out of Iraq by deserting? Won't happen. And if they are supposedly so moral, why aren't they serving in Iraq anyways, rather than leave and let someone (who may not be as 'moral' as the deserter) serve in their place?

What I'm hearing is that democracy is all well and good so long as you agree with the politics of the majority, but if you disagree...well then good, to hell with democratic pincipals.

Direct democracy (voting on an issue by issue basis) is impractical. At best, it would be expensive. At worse, you'll end up with a government trying to implement contradictory measures. We vote for people we assume will best represent and implement our views.

[DFCaper]

Yes we do and so far our courts have decided these people don't meet that criteria. You want to change the criteria for one group based on your own political beliefs, not the threat to their life or liberty.

I agree that being a criminal from another country does not fulfill these criteria.

I am surprised that the numbers supporting keeping them here are that high. I feel for these people, but it's not Canada's fault they made the decisions they made.

And to further answer the original question in this post about majorities' opinions.... Sometimes the government has to go against the majority to do what's right. It's the basis of our human rights act, etc. It would be hard to convince me that majority of this support is emotion based on not agreeing with the war and hating Bush. Not the facts or these cases.