C 440 Sanctuary Bill Dies

[waldo]

So you're saying it's OK with you if military volunteers can get the full benefit of paid education and career training and then welch on the obligation to served, citing a policy disagreement as the excuse? Maybe universal higher education is a good thing, bt it should be done openly, not in the guise of military recruitment.

that's not the situation in the Canadian Forces: again... "CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance."

particularly as you're an American, are you saying that U.S. military personnel granted conscientious objection status are not subject to repayment of costs associated to, as you describe, 'paid education and career training'. Is that what you're saying?

[eyeball]

So you're saying it's OK with you if military volunteers can get the full benefit of paid education and career training and then welch on the obligation to served, citing a policy disagreement as the excuse? Maybe universal higher education is a good thing, bt it should be done openly, not in the guise of military recruitment.

I guess so.

It behooves the government to ensure the fights it picks are just.

[jbg]

that's not the situation in the Canadian Forces: again... "CF members who are granted a voluntary release for other than compassionate reasons prior to the expiration of a period of obligatory service are subject to repayment of costs associated with the subsidized education or training or to repayment of the Pilot Terminable Allowance, the Medical Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance or the Dental Officer Direct Entry Recruitment Allowance."

particularly as you're an American, are you saying that U.S. military personnel granted conscientious objection status are not subject to repayment of costs associated to, as you describe, 'paid education and career training'. Is that what you're saying?

Waldo, what if they don't have the money for the repayment of close to $100,000 worth of benefits? I'm a successful lawyer in private practice for over 25 years and I'd be hard put to come up with that kind of money. Imagine trying to collect it from a deserter sudden conscientuous objector?

[g_bambino]

I'm not clear exactly what assertion you're referring to...

You know perfectly well that you've been making your best effort to paint these US army deserters as consciencious objectors to war, because, if you were right, there'd be little argument against accepting them as refugees, given that our own policies allow those in the Canadian Forces who come to hold beliefs against conflict to be discharged without negative consequences. You go so far as to dismiss hard evidence as simply out of context and thus utterly meaningless. At least those of us here who disagree with you have put forward evidence, though; short of getting these would-be refugees to join this thread and share their personal opinions, secondary sources are the best we've got. You've provided nothing of the same in response; so, my question to you was: what information is it you have that makes it so easy for you to maintain your belief that these asylum seekers are conscientious objectors to all and any wars?

I'm guessing now, however, that your insisted reference back to your one 'suspect... if there's a chance... maaaayyybee they could be against just one war' comment is your way of admitting you were wrong.

[M.Dancer]

I'll just flat out state you're an idiot... more pointedly, an idiot attempting to save face over a discussion flow you tripped over. I've already repeated the exact quote sequence, several times now... have another, as follows. Again, the direct immediate discussion was on conscientious objection - as applicable to active service personnel - not deserters. That's exactly what the DND-CF criteria apply towards - active service personnel - not deserters. That's exactly how I presented the DND-CF criteria... in the context of active service personnel - not deserters. You chose to attach a cowardice label... in the context of active service personnel. I challenged you to offer your classification of cowardice to the DND-CF criteria - the criteria that only applies to active service personnel - not deserters.

I'm wondering if you repeat it enough, it will sink in. My guess is yes, but your blatant dishonesty prevents you from acknowledging it publicly.

So I will say it again The CO status does not apply to deserters....so inept attempt to link the two would also disqualify you as a CO....given that one of the criteria is a sense of ethics, and you have displayed none.

An example of your dishonestly in the debate is quite evident here....you say

That's exactly how I presented the DND-CF criteria... in the context of active service personnel - not deserters.

In fact, that is a lie...and misleading aswell...given that deserters are by definition, active service personnel....no one who has been hounourably discharged has ever been charged with desertion

Your response to Scrib and my response to you bears this out.

They are not refugees, they volunteered knowing about the wars then simply changed their mind to desert, if they were real conscientious objectors they wouldn't have signed up in the first place.

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers. Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.

So in fact, we were talking about deserters, not someone who has applied for and received his status, or even applied and was rejected and continues in service, this discussion, this thread is about desertion and whether Canada shouyld allow criminals safe harbour.

Edited October 20, 2010 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

if they were real conscientious objectors they wouldn't have signed up in the first place

The problem is, how do you physically disprove a claim of conscientiousness after they signed up, does the military have some sort of newfangled medical tri-corder or brain scanner it's not telling us about?

[Argus]

see Harper Conservatives deny Canada's obligation as a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. Article 33

See stupid whiny deserters breaking bricks in Fort Leavenworth.

[Argus]

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers.

Why would a conscientious objector join the military in the first place?

Lot of Quakers in the CF are there?

[M.Dancer]

The problem is, how do you physically disprove a claim of conscientiousness after they signed up, does the military have some sort of newfangled medical tri-corder or brain scanner it's not telling us about?

You investigate to see if their claims of a higher moral calling are borne out in their life. If they are, fine. If not, back to duty.

I happen to know of a german CO. He was conscripted and he applied for status. They investigated him. They found and interviewed his pastor, his university profs, they found the various social advocacy groups he belonged to, and so on. They found his claim bonafide and granted him status and assigned him a non combat function within the national service program of Germany.

[waldo]

I'm wondering if you repeat it enough, it will sink in. My guess is yes, but your blatant dishonesty prevents you from acknowledging it publicly.

keep dancing Dancer, keep dancing! Your overwhelming need to save face... clearly, the stakes are high for you - any suspect drawing upon the vaunted Dancerspeak, would tarnish your heavily valued pontificating 'end of story' sermon from the mount dispensations - hey?

as you twirl about parsing sentences, you should pay particular attention to the (false) premise that was put forward, now several times by several different MLW members... that, "real conscientious objectors wouldn't have signed up in the first place". That no one - no one - could join the military and, after-the-fact (of joining) be in any position to claim conscientious objector status. The false premise suggesting that, no way, no how, could a soldier be influenced by battle/war, be so negatively conditioned to the experience, so as to develop an objection to war. That false premise is countered by the very existence of the DND-CF criteria that allows active duty soldiers the outlet to seek conscientious objector/voluntary release. (note: purty Green bold highlighting added for Argus' benefit).

I've responded to that false premise in a consistent manner, that always reflects back to my initial post and subsequent linked/quoted references to the DND-CF criteria. The consistency in responding to that false premise started with the post you replied to - this exchange, where you felt it prudent to introduce the cowardice labeling:

and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers

.

Off the top I'm more familiar with the wording associated to the Canadian Forces policy... a policy that speaks respectably of a soldiers decision, particularly one taken in the face of or as a result of active engagement. Are you purposely denigrating the Canadian Forces policy... why don't you support the troops?

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion. It does not and is not used for people who get cowardice. There are other avenues for that. Even so, once given CO status it does not mean that a person is discharged or even kept away from combat zones.

and now, your anonymous vanity (/snarc), has you upping the stakes to attach a 'lie' labeling... cause your thrashing about parsing words has you madly trying to weasel-word, suggesting, by definition, that, as you say, "deserters are active service personnel". Your wild reach has you clamoring for some association to deserters - why? Deserters aren't in the mix in a discussion related to that false premise being put forward, the false premise that holds to a position that, "real conscientious objectors wouldn't have signed up in the first place." The false premise that is countered by the DND-CF conscientious objection criteria that I linked to/quoted from... the DND-CF conscientious objection criteria that applies to, "active deployed soldiers", as I stated in that very first exchange that you replied to (as quoted above), where I stated, "and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers".

keep dancing, Dancer - keep dancing! Clearly, eyeball gets it... and, surprisingly (/snarc) Argus just doesn't.

[M.Dancer]

you should pay particular attention to the (false) premise that was put forward, now several times by several different MLW members... that, real conscientious objectors wouldn't have signed up in the first place. That no one - no one - could join the military and, after-the-fact (of joining) be in any position to claim conscientious objector status.

Poor Waldo

The policy acknowledges that people sometimes get religion

and now, your anonymous vanity (/snarc), has you upping the stakes to attach a 'lie' labeling...

Poor waldo..

My guess is yes, but your blatant dishonesty prevents you from acknowledging it publicly.

My other guess is Walso thinks dishonesty comes only by repeating a falsehood...

Poor waldo...

where I stated, "and both the Canadian Forces and U.S. Military have provisions for applying for and granting conscientious objector status to active deployed soldiers".

Good for you Waldo, <pats Waldo on the head, gives Waldo cookie/> You acknowledge that the US has provisions for CO status....now we can safely dispense with the nonsense you are trying to foist on us that the desrters are refugees or conscientious objectors.

Run along Waldo...

[dre]

Its stupid to try to paint all these people with the same brush. You have to look at them on a case by case basis.

If they believe they are being asked to do something illegal than its their obligation under Canadian, US, and International law to refuse the order, and they should tell the government to go fuck themselves.

If however they dont want to fight at ALL, and just signed up so that they could get free perks, then those people should have to pay back all that money and perhaps recieve punative measures as well.

[M.Dancer]

If they believe they are being asked to do something illegal than its their obligation under Canadian, US, and International law to refuse the order, and they should tell the government to go fuck themselves.

They? the law breakers? If they believe? Internatioanl law? Which?

If an abortion doctor sniper believes he did no wrong be killing a doctor who performs abortions, which the sniper believes is murder, should he be allowed sanctuary too?

[bloodyminded]

They? the law breakers? If they believe? Internatioanl law? Which?

If an abortion doctor sniper believes he did no wrong be killing a doctor who performs abortions, which the sniper believes is murder, should he be allowed sanctuary too?

You don't understand how to use an analogy, genius, so let's educate you:

Your analogy ignores the little matter that dre's post specifically mentions lawbreakers--which doctors who perform abortions are not.

[CANADIEN]

They? the law breakers? If they believe? Internatioanl law? Which?

If an abortion doctor sniper believes he did no wrong be killing a doctor who performs abortions, which the sniper believes is murder, should he be allowed sanctuary too?

There is a difference between a soldier who refuses to continue serving when faced with orders (like deploying in Iraq) they consider to be immoral and people who murder abortion providers. If that's the best you can come with, then you don't have much to start with.

[g_bambino]

If they believe they are being asked to do something illegal than its their obligation under Canadian, US, and International law to refuse the order, and they should tell the government to go fuck themselves.

When did they become judges of the International Court?

[CANADIEN]

When did they become judges of the International Court?

No need to be a judge to know the difference between right and wrong.

[g_bambino]

No need to be a judge to know the difference between right and wrong.

The point was in reference to what's legal and what's illegal, not what's right and what's wrong.

[CANADIEN]

The point was in reference to what's legal and what's illegal, not what's right and what's wrong.

No need to be a judge either to know that the legality of the Iraqi was doubtful.

[g_bambino]

No need to be a judge either to know that the legality of the Iraqi was doubtful.

Doubtful isn't good enough grounds on which to desert your post.

[CANADIEN]

Doubtful isn't good enough grounds on which to desert your post.

The doubts about the legailty of the Iraqi war are based on more than the personal opinion of the soldiers in question. Although the International Court of Justice has nver been asked to rule on the legality of the war, there is no lack of international law experts, such as the Internation Commission of Jurists, who have expressed the opinion that the war was not legal. Even legal opinions received by the British Government before the war questioned its legality.

More than enough to justify refusal of orders these soldiers had solid grounds to consider illegal.

Edited October 21, 2010 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

The doubts about the legailty of the Iraqi war are based on more than the personal opinion of the soldiers in question. Although the International Court of Justice has nver been asked to rule on the legality of the war, there is no lack of international law experts, such as the Internation Commission of Jurists, who have expressed the opinion that the war was not legal. Even legal opinions received by the British Government before the war questioned its legality.

More than enough to justify refusal of orders these soldiers had solid grounds to consider illegal.

It's not the job of a soldier to decide if a war is legal or illegal. It is up to a judge or panel of judges in a court, not human rights groups, to make that call.

If these asylum seekers we're talking about here had been ordered to do some blatantly unlawful things - like round up and execute civilians, or rape people, or kidnap and recruit children - and were threatened with punnishment if they disobeyed or told, or if the war was deemed illegal by the UN or the International Court of Justice, yet US soldiers were commanded to keep fighting or face punishment, then I'd accept their refugee claims without much issue (if it were up to me). But, none of that has taken place; most, if not all, of these individuals have merely stated, after volunteering to join the army, that they feel the Iraq War is wrong. The Canadian Forces won't even grant conscientious objector status on those grounds.

[bush_cheney2004]

....More than enough to justify refusal of orders these soldiers had solid grounds to consider illegal.

Utter nonsense....you just make this up as you go along? American military personnel do not have any such grounds or opportunity to decide if a war is legal or not, regardless of international legal opinions or ICC rulings.

Edited October 21, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Evening Star]

Iif the war was deemed illegal by the UN or the International Court of Justice, yet US soldiers were commanded to keep fighting or face punishment, then I'd accept their refugee claims without much issue (if it were up to me).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

[CANADIEN]

It's not the job of a soldier to decide if a war is legal or illegal. It is up to a judge or panel of judges in a court, not human rights groups, to make that call.

The job of a soldier is more than just obeying orders, especially when he/she believes, and has good reasons to believe, that an order is illegal.

For political reasons, noone would have dared bringing the issue of the legality of the Iraq war to the International Court of Justice. Had the issue been brought before the ICJ, the same Bush Government that found a way to make torture "legal" would likely have declared itself not bound by any decision made by the Court.

The lack of political will to tackle the issue does not make the war legal, and justifies the decisions made by these soldiers to follow their informed conscience.

Edited October 21, 2010 by CANADIEN