C 440 Sanctuary Bill Dies

[segnosaur]

Myself, I think the lies the US government told to justify the Iraq war constitute a break of good faith and this contingency should void the contractual obligations of the people that were sent there. I don't know if there are any clauses that spell out what should happen if something like this occurs but there should be.

Your suggestion is both unworkable and impractical.

Who exactly decides when a government is "lying through its teeth"? All governments have, at some point or another, made statements that are questionable. Bush did, Clinton did, Bush Sr. Did, Regan did. And what do you do about errors made in "good faith"?

If you allow individual soldiers to back out of conflicts because they personally feel 'lied to' then it would become impossible for the military to function.

[waldo]

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?

Anyone applying to join military forces should know at the outset that there is a possibility their country would ask them to deploy into conflict zones. Any recruits who object to war, regardless of the merits of said war, most probably held those objections before they applied. The fact that these objectors join anyway is a dead giveaway that they joined for the perks and not for a genuine desire to serve their country. What it amounts to is that conscientious objectors want the option of making the decision that some enemies are better than other enemies therefore they don't deserve to be killed. That's not their decision to make. You join, you're all in. If you run away from your initial commitment to your country's military, you're a deserter.

in regards conscientious objector status, as is your typical short-sighted, narrow mindset, you don't understand... or thankfully speak for... the Canadian Armed Forces. Apparently, battle induced situations have been known to awaken views that may not have been recognized/understood prior to engagement - go figure. Here... educate yourself: make sure you pay particular attention to the Obligatory Service section => 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.

- DAOD 5049-2, Conscientious Objection

- DAOD 5049-1, Obligatory Service

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.

"get religion"? Surely you're aware one doesn't need religion, or even to be spiritual. Most certainly, it's not something the Canadian Forces even recognizes... so... why would you? Feel free to offer the Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the following criteria - allowed objections and/or exceptions... it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification.

A CF member may request voluntary release on the basis of conscientious objection if the 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.

An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection:

* participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation;

* national policy;

* personal expediency; or

* political beliefs.

In your attempt to elevate yourself to the level of a superior being, what you fail to understand is that I don't give a crap about what your links say. I know what constitutes a conscientious objector and I posted my opinion of what I think of them, regardless of how the forces deal with the matter.

whaaa! Talk about your referenced "superior being" elevation... you say you don't give a crap about the DND-CF links provided... because you know more than the policy/provisions of the DND-CF. Hear me roar - I am capricorn... all knowing, all seeing! You were flat out wrong about everything you stated... but you know more than the policy/provisions of the DND-CF - right!

[bush_cheney2004]

Myself, I think the lies the US government told to justify the Iraq war constitute a break of good faith and this contingency should void the contractual obligations of the people that were sent there. I don't know if there are any clauses that spell out what should happen if something like this occurs but there should be.....

Irrelevant...the military commissions and contracts are based on an oath and service to the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution, not government.

FYI...the WW2 Allies also "lied" before and after D-Day.

[waldo]

Minor point... it seems like you've overlooked a couple of key sections of the "Conscientious Objection" rules. The first reference you provided clearly states:

A CF member may request voluntary release on the basis of conscientious objection if the 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.

An objection based primarily on one or more of the following does not permit voluntary release on the basis of a conscientious objection:

* participation or use of arms in a particular conflict or operation;

* national policy;

* personal expediency; or

* political beliefs.

Notice the parts that I have indicated in bold.

If those rules were applied to U.S. soldiers, they would have to illustrate that they are unwilling to fight in any and all wars. Refusal to participate in Iraq (regardless of what they think are "valid" reasons) would not classify them as "conscientious objectors" because the rule specifies that they cannot be released because they refuse to participate in a particular conflict.

nothing was overlooked... and the point you think you're making isn't particularly noteworthy either way... whether or not you deem it only a minor point. Are you suggesting there is a class of potential U.S. conscientious objector (or Canadian for that matter), that would have objections to one war/conflict, but not another? I expect if there is a chance of that subset existing, by at least the Canadian DND-CF policy, they would not be classified as CO's. If you have any insight into numbers of persons (real or estimated) that might fall into this speculative scenario, please provide - thanks in advance.

[eyeball]

Irrelevant...the military commissions and contracts are based on an oath and service to the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution, not government.

Especially irrelevant you mean...given a government that's elevated itself above the constitution.

FYI...the WW2 Allies also "lied" before and after D-Day.

I don't doubt it.

[eyeball]

Your suggestion is both unworkable and impractical.

Who exactly decides when a government is "lying through its teeth"? All governments have, at some point or another, made statements that are questionable. Bush did, Clinton did, Bush Sr. Did, Regan did. And what do you do about errors made in "good faith"?

If you allow individual soldiers to back out of conflicts because they personally feel 'lied to' then it would become impossible for the military to function.

Perhaps, but if you allow for some process to double check the facts, the wisdom and the measure of the people who are encouraging war, it would be a lot harder to start it on false pretences. Please note we are talking here about a military invasion of another people's country halfway around the planet not an immanent invasion by another. There is and always will be all the time any country or people need to think twice if not more before invading someone else.

The fact so many governments have lied in the past is why it's insane to not try to do something to prevent such debacles in the future. Who should decide when a government gets the authority it wants to invade and replace another countries government? I say the people the government is seeking support from should decide, in a referendum, and with no less than a super-majority.

Edited October 19, 2010 by eyeball

[Alta4ever]

I say the people the government is seeking support from should decide, in a referendum, and with no less than a super-majority.

How exactly do you propose to do this in a foreign dictatorship? I am sure that a foreign government would be happy to have a referendum on whether or not their people should be liberated.

[g_bambino]

Are you suggesting there is a class of potential U.S. conscientious objector (or Canadian for that matter), that would have objections to one war/conflict, but not another?

Of course he is, and of course that's exactly where most of these US army deserters seeking refuge in Canada fit:

While serving in Iraq, Mr. Watson saw the true nature of the illegal occupation and refused to return.

War Resister: Rodney Watson on 365 Days in Sanctuary

Jeremy Hinzman... did not believe the stated reasons for the Iraq war. In January 2004 he drove to Canada to seek asylum.

Brandon Hughey... left his Army unit before it shipped out to Iraq. It was, he says, his obligation to leave. "I feel that if a soldier is given an order that he knows to not only be illegal, but immoral as well, then it his responsibility to refuse that order..."

When Private First Class Joshua Key was shipped to Iraq, the US army combat engineer believed he was doing the right thing... He served eight months in Iraq before going AWOL... Asked what led him to desert, he says: "The atrocities that were happening to the innocent people of Iraq. I didn't want to be part of it no more. I came home and I deserted."

Robin Long... received orders in March 2005 to report to Iraq... "I still don't think that Bush has proven we have any reason to be over there, and I would be wrong to be a tool of destruction..."

While posted in North Carolina Christian [Kjar] decided he could not participate in the Iraq war...

Shortly after returning to his unit [Phil McDowell] made the decision not to take part in the illegal Iraq war and moved to Canada in October of 2006.

I, Kimberly Rivera... was shipped with my unit to Baghdad, Iraq... I was obligated to follow orders.... People losing their lives for greed of a nation, and still some people can't see the lies behind the media.... Me and my family left our little home in Mesquite, Texas and drove to Canada and crossed Rainbow Bridge on February 18th 2007...

War Resisters in Canada

Note: not an objection to war in general; objections specifically to the Iraq War according to their own personal standards.

[c/e]

Edited October 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[capricorn]

whaaa! Talk about your referenced "superior being" elevation... you say you don't give a crap about the DND-CF links provided... because you know more than the policy/provisions of the DND-CF.

Once again, I don't care what information the links provide. You are the one who invoked the policy position of DND on the matter of conscientious objectors after I tried to explain to you why I think these objectors are really malingering opportunists.

You were flat out wrong about everything you stated...

I didn't parrot the official line. Big deal.

[eyeball]

How exactly do you propose to do this in a foreign dictatorship?

I don't.

I am sure that a foreign government would be happy to have a referendum on whether or not their people should be liberated.

Really? That's pretty weird.

[dre]

Irrelevant...the military commissions and contracts are based on an oath and service to the highest law of the land, which is the US Constitution, not government.

FYI...the WW2 Allies also "lied" before and after D-Day.

The people who wrote the constitution didnt even want to have a standing national army. Never mind a multi trillion dollar global police and invasion force. They actually envisioned congress raising an army by organizing local militias in response to a foreign invasion. And the army had to be disbanded within two years of the cessation of hostilities.

In any case a soldier both under international law and US law cannot obey an order that he believes is unlawful. A soldier has the legal responsibility to refuse orders that he believes are unlawfull or immoral. This was established after WW2 at Neremburg. Its actually one of the Neremburg principles (IV).

Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

So youd need to look at these people and try to separate the ones that were true conscientious objectors with guys that just signed up for the free education, and never had any intention of doing the work. Canada should definately give safe haven to group A but probably not to group B. And our own self interest should be the biggest motivating factor... do these people have usefull skills? University degrees? Are they good immigrants that will make our society better?

Edited October 19, 2010 by dre

[waldo]

Note: not an objection to war in general; objections specifically to the Iraq War according to their own personal standards.

even if one accepted the out of context nature of the quotes you provided, quotes not in the context of an overall conscientious objection to war, for the most part, your assessment appears to simply be based on having the word Iraq appear within the quote... what... because the relevance of the question/interview/response happens to be the Iraq war? For the most part I would suggest you can't say the expressed sentiment of the various persons quoted wouldn't apply to a generalized opposition to war... how can you say otherwise/either way? The direct question isn't asked... isn't answered within the supplied quote snippets.

[bush_cheney2004]

The people who wrote the constitution didnt even want to have a standing national army. Never mind a multi trillion dollar global police and invasion force. They actually envisioned congress raising an army by organizing local militias in response to a foreign invasion. And the army had to be disbanded within two years of the cessation of hostilities.

Those people are now dead....for many years. Even their first order of business was to kick a king in his ass with military force.

In any case a soldier both under international law and US law cannot obey an order that he believes is unlawful. A soldier has the legal responsibility to refuse orders that he believes are unlawfull or immoral. This was established after WW2 at Neremburg. Its actually one of the Neremburg principles (IV).

Yes he/she can....better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. And in any event, you can't equate individual decisions to government policies which are constitutionally sanctioned by elected leadership.

[waldo]

Once again, I don't care what information the links provide. You are the one who invoked the policy position of DND on the matter of conscientious objectors after I tried to explain to you why I think these objectors are really malingering opportunists.

why do you bother to keep repeating the same thing... you're wrong and you're specifically wrong based on how the DND-CF respect and make allowance for military personnel seeking conscientious objector status. You are most emphatically wrong when you presumed to speak to opportunism (as you've now just done, once again)... as the links provided to you detail, there is no avenue for your specious claims of opportunism. Again, for your edification: "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."

I didn't parrot the official line. Big deal.

too bad you didn't - as a result, clearly, your personal statements and assessment are not factual/correct.

[g_bambino]

your assessment appears to simply be based on having the word Iraq

You're well aware that isn't the case and are just being disingenuous. I provided the link to the context, so you go read it and find where in either it's said those people have an objection to any other war besides the one in Iraq.

For the most part I would suggest you can't say the expressed sentiment of the various persons quoted wouldn't apply to a generalized opposition to war... how can you say otherwise/either way?

I would say that given their words, or the words written about them, plus the fact that they volunteered to join an army, would all-together indicate that they don't have a blanket objection to war.

[c/e]

Edited October 19, 2010 by g_bambino

[waldo]

You're well aware that isn't the case and are just being disingenuous. I provided the link to the context, so you go read it and find where in either it's said those people have an objection to any other war besides the one in Iraq.

I would say that given their words, or the words written about them, plus the fact that they volunteered to join an army, would all-together indicate that they don't have a blanket objection to war.

and if the topic of discussion is about Iraq, and the questions relate directly to Iraq, the response will be... about Iraq. You didn't provide any contextual quote associations that would allow for an overall assessment on objections to war. You're also now repeating the same incorrect capricorn statements that one can't raise a conscientious objector status after enlistment/deployment/engagement... the DND-CF links I provided state otherwise.

[segnosaur]

even if one accepted the out of context nature of the quotes you provided, quotes not in the context of an overall conscientious objection to war, for the most part, your assessment appears to simply be based on having the word Iraq appear within the quote... what... because the relevance of the question/interview/response happens to be the Iraq

Are you really so disingenuous that you would claim "Oh, multiple statements that refer only to illegality of war in Iraq are taken out of context"? Perhaps if your whole argument is based on "Oh, they were misquoted" then you should go back and reconsider your position. If all these deserters are against war in general, how come they spend so much time complaining about the "illegality" of the Iraq war? Someone truly against all war would not spend their time worrying about such technical issues.

The fact is, there have been multiple cases where people have specifically stated that they were willing to fight in Afghanistan or other wars, but not in Iraq. For example, from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article612898.ece

Many of the deserters are not pacifists, against war per se, but they view the Iraq war as wrong. First Lt Watada, for instance, said he would face prison rather than serve in Iraq, though he was prepared to pack his bags for Afghanistan to fight in a war that he considered just.

Or how about: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml

(Felushko) told Pelley it wasn't fighting that bothered him. In fact, he says he started basic training just weeks after al Qaeda attacked New York and Washington –- and he was prepared to get even for Sept. 11 in Afghanistan. But Felushko says he didn't see a connection between the attack on America and Saddam Hussein.

And then there's this case: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/192625/deserteurs-americains-cas-de-conscience-canadien (Translations done via google)

Chuck Wiley asked to be reassigned to a ship which will not be deployed off the coast of Iraq.... a lawyer for the U.S. Navy told him the bad news: he can not claim the status of conscientious objector to leave the army, since he does not oppose all wars, but only conflict in Iraq.

[g_bambino]

and if the topic of discussion is about Iraq, and the questions relate directly to Iraq, the response will be... about Iraq

And the topic would be the war in Iraq because the reason for these individuals' flight to Canada was their objection to the war in Iraq. The context you say isn't there is, and many of these deserters sound the same: 'I think the Iraq War is illegal,' 'I was lied to about the Iraq War,' 'I didn't like what I saw in Iraq,' not 'I hate war.'

[waldo]

Are you really so disingenuous that you would claim "Oh, multiple statements that refer only to illegality of war in Iraq are taken out of context"?

are you so disingenuous so as to ignore the initial context - that of overall conscientious objection. Did the earlier quote snippets have a question/answer series related to an overall generalized objection to war?

in this your latest post you offer up 3 additional quotes where, clearly, 2 of 3 individuals quoted wouldn't be eligible for claiming conscientious objector status... but the quotes say nothing about them even entertaining the thought/option. Your 3rd quote is the only quote offered (of the earlier quotes and these your latest quotes), where conscientious objection is even mentioned... where the quote advises a U.S. review denied conscientious objector status given the application and expressed opposition was (apparently) singular to the Iraq war.

so what? Even though I quoted that very delineated DND-CF criteria distinguishing between generalized and select opposition, verbatim, you were inclined to suggest I had overlooked something. The single quote snippet offered, the only one that specifically mentions conscientious objection and an application being made for it... that only quote would fall within the bounds of a statement I offered in reply... to you. Let me repeat that statement in our first exchange when you raised the distinction between generalized and select opposition to war... where you used the verbatim delineated DND-CF criteria I had previously quoted:

I expect if there is a chance of that subset existing, by at least the Canadian DND-CF policy, they would not be classified as CO's.

I clearly offered the DND-CF criteria for granting and denying conscientious objector status; the criteria that offers a precise distinction between generalized overall opposition versus specific opposition. You found a quote, the only one offered so far, that makes direct reference to conscientious objection... with the outcome of an apparent application being denied by the U.S. military. So... you found a quote to agree with both the clear DND-CF delineation I offered as well as the direct acknowledgment I made to you in that regard... where persons in that category of select opposition would not be eligible for conscientious objector status (at least by the Canadian DND-CF policy). You've taken it a step further, it would appear, to allow us to confirm the U.S. military stipulations must parallel what DND-CF have in place in regards generalized overall opposition versus select opposition. Well done... you found a quote that directly applied to something I clearly delineated and made an acknowledgment (to you) on. One can only surmise you missed my statement, the one I offered in reply... to you.

[waldo]

And the topic would be the war in Iraq because the reason for these individuals' flight to Canada was their objection to the war in Iraq. The context you say isn't there is, and many of these deserters sound the same: 'I think the Iraq War is illegal,' 'I was lied to about the Iraq War,' 'I didn't like what I saw in Iraq,' not 'I hate war.'

did your earlier quote snippets have a question/answer series related to an overall generalized objection to war? No... they did not. Before you go off on another quote pursuit, let me repeat the earlier statement that, apparently, both you and segnosaur missed... remembering that it was I that first offered the clear distinction between generalized overall opposition versus select opposition (where it was I that quoted, verbatim, the delineated DND-CF criteria):

I expect if there is a chance of that subset existing, by at least the Canadian DND-CF policy, they would not be classified as CO's.

[Evening Star]

Ha, that still doesn't deal with

being lied to by your government over the rationale for the Iraqi war

[William Ashley]

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.

nah I disagree with that statement.

People still don't know about the wars. The US government told lies and outright perverted the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The war is over two very simple reasons - 1 Sadam was a bad man to the US govt. and the campaigns against him started about the time George Bush Sr. lied to Sadam about allowing the invasion of Kuwait - after which Kuwait paid the US govt. to reverse their decision not to intervene. The US govt. destroyed all records etc.. on the status of Kuwait as well as oil debts and other monies owed, and reversed the situation after a genocide of over 1 million people over a 10 year period - then during the next 7 has killed an additional 100000 people. The official grounds were two fold failure to disarm medium range missel systems - and the potential for "weapons of mass destruction" based on fabricated or misinterpreted intelligence reports from the british govt.

Afghanistan was stated because Osama was an enemy of the state department for launching attacks against US foreign assets - his relations with the Saudi Royal family befor the forced change of Govt. king said and the Saudi intelligence - in 1999 the US lanched attacks against the Emir - meanwhile in 2001 events unfolded around sept 11th iincluding the breaking of the northern alliance to the Taliban in Afghanistan - forces were put in place - and the ground war initiated, around this time there were a number of events in the USA all of which have not come forward but revolve around plots by muslims - including potential attempted assasiantion of high profile people within the USA. HOWEVER this information is not totally clear due to a number of "conspiratonal issues" including US military involvement in protection of various US figures not directly tied into the US administration but rather secondary streams. The end of the story here is that it was a media war (and still is) without a "official state line" or official media line other than - Osama - who the FBI didn't blame or lay charges - instead they suspected a British American Intelligence agent within the ISI who was in Washington befor the senate foreign intelligence committee. The Osama angle is from George Tenet (someone who directed the cia after GBushSr. - GBushSr. is the one who went against his statements about nonintervention in Iraq - GBushSr. is also an oil baron whose industry was attacked by iraq and iran in the 1980's. None the less. the bottom line is removing the bathists, secureing oil, removing medium range missle systems prohibted by the UNSEC resolutions, WMD or what have you...

people really don't know why these wars are happening -- the bottom line is... there is a fog of war, and disaalusionment can happen during a fog of war.

The real answer: They wanted to, and did.

Slavery isn't legal - the real question is, should people go to jail for breach of contract? Is it a civil issue or a criminal one?

[M.Dancer]

"get religion"? Surely you're aware one doesn't need religion, or even to be spiritual. Most certainly, it's not something the Canadian Forces even recognizes... so... why would you? Feel free to offer the Dancer classification of cowardice to any of the following criteria - allowed objections and/or exceptions... it will be interesting to see whether the Canadian Forces are properly factoring the Dancer classification.

You seem to be under the impression that someone joins the Armed Forces without the prior knowledge they might be called upon to bear arms or *gasp* use them.

No Waldo, people join with full knowledge of the duties and responsibilities they will be obliged to bear. But people change...some "get religion". The forces defines it as..

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.

And quite frankly, that is the end of story.

[nicky10013]

You seem to be under the impression that someone joins the Armed Forces without the prior knowledge they might be called upon to bear arms or *gasp* use them.

No Waldo, people join with full knowledge of the duties and responsibilities they will be obliged to bear. But people change...some "get religion". The forces defines it as..

And quite frankly, that is the end of story.

I think the problem is (in the US) the rhetoric around the military. I think it's romanticised to a degree where a lot of people truly don't understand what they're signing up for. They're told they're signing up to defend America and Freedom but when they get to Iraq and find out the truth...well...a lot of them seem to have a change of heart.

[PIK]

neglect? mistreatment? specifics?

I can see he is about to some how blame the cons for the neglect over the years of the military.