Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 We have no right to protect these people they are not facing death or persecution they are facing a legal court martial for deserting. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 As I said before - there is no such thing as a legal or just war according to the standards of people like "taliban jack" on up. So it does not make a difference what excuses they came with to claim that this particular war is unjust or illegal. The signed up and are now trying to weasel out their obligations. More importantly, soldiers are not qualified to pass judgement on the war in general. They are only qualified to pass judgement on specific orders given to them (i.e. kill this unarmed civilian). In that case they would have a duty to refuse the order - but not in other circumstances. It's just a shame that those that are duty bound get abused by superiors who have no duty to anyone but them selves - If Bush wanted to send men to die - he should be willing to give up his own life and that of his family for the cause - He would never do that...so why do such a man a favour if he is not willing to do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 It's just a shame that those that are duty bound get abused by superiors who have no duty to anyone but them selves - If Bush wanted to send men to die - he should be willing to give up his own life and that of his family for the cause - He would never do that...so why do such a man a favour if he is not willing to do the same? How many Democrat Presidents have served in the last 40 years compaired to Republican? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 As I said before - there is no such thing as a legal or just war according to the standards of people like "taliban jack" on up. So it does not make a difference what excuses they came with to claim that this particular war is unjust or illegal. The signed up and are now trying to weasel out their obligations. More importantly, soldiers are not qualified to pass judgement on the war in general. They are only qualified to pass judgement on specific orders given to them (i.e. kill this unarmed civilian). In that case they would have a duty to refuse the order - but not in other circumstances. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 the Canadian military does not recognize it’s active members, those seeking conscientious objector status, as “law breakers”, as “oath breakers” (your terms) – and yet you would so label the American Iraq war resisters. First off, these are Americans, not canadians....Secondly, these aren't people who have asked to be releases, they deserted, therefore they are law breakers.. and finally if they were Canadians, the canadian position would not apply to them To be a CO you must be opposed to war, not just the Iraq war....it would seem that someone who willingly volunteers to join an armed force would have a hard time convincing a board they are opposed to ALL WAR... clearly, the obtuse need help in reading comprehension: the described conscientious objector eligibility criteria - for active Canadian Forces members is => a CF member has a sincerely held objection to participation in: * war or armed conflict in general; or * the bearing and use of arms as a requirement of service in the CF. your premise is that this eligibility criteria can never be met by any CF member - because, as you state, "someone who willingly volunteers to join an armed force would have a hard time convincing a board they are opposed to ALL WAR". You also appear clairvoyant to be able to ascertain that these so-called American Iraq war resisters, as described conscientious objectors, object narrowly and singularly to only the Iraq war. it's most revealing to read the peacock-strutting, chest pumping, bravado championing types throw the coward label towards the American Iraq war resisters. Clearly, they must also be prepared to, in turn, throw the same coward label toward Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status. Clearly - the confirmations of same await - is that the case - is that your extended position, all you peacock-strutters, you chest pumpers? Are you labeling Canadian Forces members who may seek conscientious objector status - cowards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Its what soldier Smith thinks thats the determining thing.It does not make a difference that Tony Saprono thinks that it is morally wrong to allow an insult go unpunished but that does not mean he should be entitled to refugee protection for standing up for what he believes in.IOW - the law is what matters - not the soliders opinion. The law (ie. the geneva conventions) only allow soliders to refuse direct orders that contravene the conventions. A soldier has no right to pass judgment on the war in general. Edited January 16, 2009 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 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. When was a solder last executed for deserting? IF the solder does not follow lawful orders there is a price to be paid. Tring to claim refugee status in another country is just a weasling out of ones duty. Go home and face the people and justify it to them then take you lumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 It does not make a difference that Tony Saprono thinks that it is morally wrong to allow an insult go unpunished but that does not mean he should be entitled to refugee protection for standing for what he believes in. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 When was a solder last executed for deserting? IF the solder does not follow lawful orders there is a price to be paid. Tring to claim refugee status in another country is just a weasling out of ones duty. Go home and face the people and justify it to them then take you lumps. Why? So's you can think well of them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Why? So's you can think well of them? No to face Justice that the US tax payer deserves we should not shelter or hide these cowards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 IOW - the law is what matters - not the soliders opinion. The law (ie. the geneva conventions) only allow soliders to refuse direct orders that contravene the conventions. A soldier has no right to pass judgment on the war in general. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 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. every soldier has the right to pass judgement, just not the right to take a pass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 every soldier has the right to pass judgement, just not the right to take a pass... If they want to take a pass they'll take a pass. Rights only determine legality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 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. A solder is a solder and gives up that right when they enlist. These laws are their for a reason, really who wants to fight any war, how many solders would rather stay home with their families, many if they didn't have a sense of honour or duty. What would happen if you faced a great force and your countries military deserted because they didn't want to fight it what would happe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 A solder is a solder and gives up that right when they enlist. These laws are their for a reason, really who wants to fight any war, how many solders would rather stay home with their families, many if they didn't have a sense of honour or duty. What would happen if you faced a great force and your countries military deserted because they didn't want to fight it what would happe [/quote We all forget how we were enabled with our rights. They didn`t come about from wishful thinking. They came about because brave individuals joined together a fought for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 If they want to take a pass they'll take a pass. Rights only determine legality. Agreed, legally the US has a right to try them and throw them in jail. I feel it would be wrong to deny the US their rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 A solder is a solder and gives up that right when they enlist. These laws are their for a reason, really who wants to fight any war, how many solders would rather stay home with their families, many if they didn't have a sense of honour or duty. What would happen if you faced a great force and your countries military deserted because they didn't want to fight it what would happe 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 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? What if it wasn't Iraq, what if it had been against the Germans, or the Japanese in the forties? It is not a solders job to evaluate the justness of war it is thier job to fight for their nation and follow lawfull orders. They are not Civilians, I doubt you were eve rin any military organization or you would understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 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? Like the French in the first world war or the russians in the first world war? It said very little about the justness and a lot about the quality of the soldiers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Like the French in the first world war or the russians in the first world war?It said very little about the justness and a lot about the quality of the soldiers... Anyway, we are talking aboiut a handful of deserters....not masses... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 A nation, any other nation - other than Canada would have given santuary - it's just we are so tied in with Germany ----ooops sorry America - that we just do what we are told - Is Bush a bit like Hitler? Why most certainly! Ve muust folo orders! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 A nation, any other nation - other than Canada would have given santuary - it's just we are so tied in with Germany ----ooops sorry America - that we just do what we are told - Is Bush a bit like Hitler? Why most certainly! Ve muust folo orders! Not a bit, was Churchill like Hitler, how about FDR, Truman, Eisenhower? America is nothing like Nazi Germany and to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of political ideology, economics and history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 A nation, any other nation - other than Canada would have given santuary - it's just we are so tied in with Germany ----ooops sorry America - that we just do what we are told - Is Bush a bit like Hitler? Why most certainly! Ve muust folo orders! [/quote With last remark you loss all credibility! Bush is now finished his term and democracy muddles on with a new leader in Obama. Hitler like other mass murders` who were even worse like Stalin and Mao do not step down. Democracy is so much better than what those guys offered. Or do you think Stalin and Mao were benevolent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Not a bit, was Churchill like Hitler, how about FDR, Truman, Eisenhower? America is nothing like Nazi Germany and to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of political ideology, economics and history. Prescot Bush faciltiated the arming of the Nazis. That's common knowledge. Then grandpa Bush took the profits and used them to install not one but two Presidents of America - that sounds a tad Nazi to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 Not a bit, was Churchill like Hitler, how about FDR, Truman, Eisenhower? America is nothing like Nazi Germany and to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of political ideology, economics and history. Prescot Bush faciltiated the arming of the Nazis. That's common knowledge. Then grandpa Bush took the profits and used them to install not one but two Presidents of America - that sounds a tad Nazi to me. Who is without sin and sinisterism in this world? Just because they are our guys does not mean they are the good guys...all commit crimes to strengthen the national tribe - problem with Bush is he does not share the booty - Hitler did - so maybe Hitler was more loyal to his nation...Bush don't give a damn...maybe privateer Nazi would be a better term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.