American War Dodgers

[Drew Bedson]

Well this will be an unpopular opinion but it is an illegal war

Well, you may be wrong about that but right that it is an opinon. However, wrong in that thinking it is unpopular as many hold this mistaken viewpoint, one which is based on nothing other than opinion. When it truely is an illegal action then charges will be laid. Until the only world body capable of making that determination convenes (as the wordings of the resolutions that gave authority for it to occur legally are there) and clarifies their intent to mean other than what has occured, 'illegal' is a word of opinion rather than fact and no charges will be brought forward.

I do not see a problem with letting them stay here. It is the right thing to do.

I also don't see a real problem however, don't see an advantage either. If this guy were a man of conviction he would take his lumps like Cassius Clay and then move on. He doesn't seem to be a man of steadfast nature though, which is probably the main reason why he didn't adhere to his contract to begin with. Politics playing a distant second out of conveinience. A prison sentence is not grounds for refugee status and I don't see why you feel they or he would add anything but liability to our country given proof that he bolts when required to serve rather than go the route of facing up to his decisions when he doesn't like something. Therefore, question your rush to support such a person. Isn't this country rife with people who won't live up to their responsibilities already?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

His opinion while interesting, is no more valid than the lawyers for the 45 coalition heads of state that advised their leaders it was legal. Or, the over fifty other nations who gave support (Iran, Suadi Arabia etc) but did not wish to be publiclly named who figured the same?

I do believe that the lawyers (including those in the UK) said it was, at best, 'iffy'. Certainly not outright 'legal'. It actually relies on convoluted logic and leaps of faith to produce a 'maybe'.

PS. Welcome back, Krusty.

[moderateamericain]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

His opinion while interesting, is no more valid than the lawyers for the 45 coalition heads of state that advised their leaders it was legal. Or, the over fifty other nations who gave support (Iran, Suadi Arabia etc) but did not wish to be publiclly named who figured the same?

I do believe that the lawyers (including those in the UK) said it was, at best, 'iffy'. Certainly not outright 'legal'. It actually relies on convoluted logic and leaps of faith to produce a 'maybe'.

PS. Welcome back, Krusty.

Legality of the war aside, he signed a binding contract to serve the United states of America and to fight where he was told to, this isnt vietnam, he was not drafted into it. If he was really a man, he would refuse to fight and go to jail. As far as my personal opinion, hes a chicken shit little bastard, and if were in my platoon id have him busted out so fast his head would spin.

[Drew Bedson]

it was, at best, 'iffy'. Certainly not outright 'legal'. It actually relies on convoluted logic and leaps of faith to produce a 'maybe'.

Not even trying to stand up and say it was 100% legal. Simply countering that it has never been proved illegal and very likely ever will cross the agenda of the UNSC to debate if it was or was not. Hence, it is wrong to state that it was illegal.

And thank you for the welcome Lonius although this is a temporary visit as still pretty busy with my other site. (and couldn't remember the damm password hence having to hide behind my real name) This deserter issue was an interesting thread as those who were anti war automatically cited the war's percieved and not proven illegality as a basis for this guy to do something that is proven illegal. A hypocritical argument to say the least.

[Wilber]

Well this will be an unpopular opinion but it is an illegal war and occupation and we should allow draft dodgers to stay here, just like we did during Vietnam. Svend Robinson and Corky Evans are both draft dodgers and they have done a lot of good. I do not see a problem with letting them stay here. It is the right thing to do.

He's not a draft dodger, he's a deserter. There is no draft in the US any more. There hasn't been for years.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

This deserter issue was an interesting thread as those who were anti war automatically cited the war's percieved and not proven illegality as a basis for this guy to do something that is proven illegal. A hypocritical argument to say the least.

I suppose I should have actually read some of the rest of the thread before I shot my mouth off. (It's been up for a while, I forgot what the purpose was until now). Yes, desertion is illegal and this soldier should be aware of the consequences of his actions.

However, there should be exceptions, though they may not apply here. In 1941, German General Jodl tried to avoid Hitler's tyrannical orders that were to accompany Germany's advance into Russia. He said that the Army would concern itself with military matters only, and leave the Hitler's planned atrocities to the SD and SS, the Einsatzgruppen, and Reichskommisariat. Hitler was admant that the Army would carry out his orders, which included the liquidation of some 75% of the Russian populace, as they went (instead of using terror on the population after the invasions, as had been done previously). For a soldier who signed up to fight battles, this must have been something that not all could agree with.

If someone joins a military to defend their country, or even 'freedom and liberty', that is one thing. But what should he do if the country decides to use their military for an aggressive war of choice (which were, in the eyes of many, for the spoils and not for the reason given to the media)?

[Drew Bedson]

If someone joins a military to defend their country, or even 'freedom and liberty', that is one thing. But what should he do if the country decides to use their military for an aggressive war of choice (which were, in the eyes of many, for the spoils and not for the reason given to the media)?

Did they use their military for an 'aggressive war of choice?' It is hardly a 2 + 2= 4 forumula argument. And this shmuck is definitely not in the catagory of Rommel or your Jodl Lonius. He's a soldier, not privy to UNSC briefs and the inside scoop on governmental policies as well as top secret intelligence reports because he's supposed to be holding a rifle and carrying out orders. Hardly qualified to decide the intricate reasons, intentions and repercussions of this event. And, if he was that immersed that he did, he would be tried for spying and or deriliction of duty as his job is to honor his contract and follow orders, be they shooting people, handing out candy to kids or building a hospital, not go off in political protests the minute a new argument or hypothisis is introduced.

People the world over are still in debate over this so, to simply call it 'an aggressive war of choice' at this time is falacy and conjecture, wide open to debate probably for decades to come if ever at all to be able to be determined. To suddenly argue that this guy, hiding out in Canada has the inside skinny on all this with any certainty while the rest of the planet is still in debate (and has sat on this 'factual,' yet unheard of info for three years to boot) is laughable.

in the eyes of many

There we go with the opinons again trying to make a factual point. In the eyes of many is not a law, it is an argument that falls before fact. That fact being that he is a deserter who did not meet his responsibilities. Citing unfactual theory that has never been proven for his illegal lapse in service to his country, he now becomes a beacon to the anti war people in both our countries. Is this what some people rally behind? A guy who can't get it up? Did it ever occur to the anti war people that he is probably a coward who doesn't have the courage to either face his punishment, rreturn home and bring charges up against the so called 'war crimes comitters' he talks about or, just fulfil his obligation to his contract?

In any case, here are a couple of 'facts.' This guy broke his county's law and is afraid to go back. Meanwhile, we have thousands of Canadian guys over there getting killed, wounded and far from home. Why is he not protesting our actions in providing navy ships to allow US personel to persue their invasion? Why do we have air force, army and special forces people helping out in this operation killing and imprisoning people? Why is he not bemoaning the 'fact' that we have over two thousand guys in Afganistan, the place where he said horrendous crimes were commited who are commiting the same 'crimes'? How does he substanciate the 'fact' that others now have to take his place who have less expertise than he, and hence are in more danger? I'm willing to bet that he doesn't. Same as the concerned anti war people who only have one agenda - to distort reality, call conjecture fact and raise this irresponsible guy to hero status for running away from his 'legal' options of action, just so they can flog their message.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

I agree with you,

Yes, desertion is illegal and this soldier should be aware of the consequences of his actions.

However, there should be exceptions, though they may not apply here.

and I knew this was coming...

He's a soldier, not privy to UNSC briefs and the inside scoop on governmental policies as well as top secret intelligence reports because he's supposed to be holding a rifle and carrying out orders. Hardly qualified to decide the intricate reasons, intentions and repercussions of this event.

because it is true. Once orders get questioned, the authority of rank falls apart. The guy should be tried for desertion, and hope that he can prove his point in a legitimate way.

In any case, here are a couple of 'facts.' This guy broke his county's law and is afraid to go back. Meanwhile, we have thousands of Canadian guys over there getting killed, wounded and far from home.

Not fact here, Canada has not lost 'thousands'.

People the world over are still in debate over this so, to simply call it 'an aggressive war of choice' at this time is falacy and conjecture, wide open to debate probably for decades to come if ever at all to be able to be determined.

Not fallacy, really but fact. Both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal.

[Drew Bedson]

Drew: In any case, here are a couple of 'facts.' This guy broke his county's law and is afraid to go back. Meanwhile, we have thousands of Canadian guys over there getting killed, wounded and far from home.

Lonius:Not fact here, Canada has not lost 'thousands'.

True, think you read it wrong. We have thousands of people over in that area some of whom are getting killed, wounded and affected by this war.

Not fallacy, really but fact. Both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal.

When did the USNC decide this action was not what it intended with their wordings in 687 and 1441 and was in fact illegal? Who were the nations for, and against when they convened and voted in their comdenation? What was the action to be taken as a result of this supposed 'illegal' invasion that would have flown in the face of thier previous rulings?

There was no vote in the USNC as you know, there was no action to be taken, no official comdenation of any kind. Instead, there was lots of opinions from people who were not members engaging in the legal process at the UNSC but, no vote.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

There was no vote in the USNC as you know, there was no action to be taken, no official comdenation of any kind. Instead, there was lots of opinions from people who were not members engaging in the legal process at the UNSC but, no vote.

You are right, there was no vote. There need not be one for an action to be illegal. As I understand it, international law dictates that the violation of another country's soveriegnty (by invasion, in these cases) must be either from a formal declaration of war, (in which case certain rules apply, such as the conquering force becomes financially responsible for the conquered country, and also for an reasonably accurate body count) or from a UN mandate. Both of these remove the notion of 'illegality'.

There was no vote to go into Afghanistan, but there was tremendous sympathy throughout the world, so the US was given a 'wink and a nod' rather than a mandate, with the expectation that the paperwork would be filled out later.

Conversely, the USA was voted against, and condemned for it's 'illegal' invasion of Panama, which was called 'a flagrant violation of international law'. These same words have been applied to the Iraq invasion. Of course, the UN is powerless to stop the US, and if they tried, we'd see a pretty big frickin' war.

[Drew Bedson]

As I understand it, international law dictates that the violation of another country's soveriegnty (by invasion, in these cases) must be either from a formal declaration of war, (in which case certain rules apply, such as the conquering force becomes financially responsible for the conquered country, and also for an reasonably accurate body count) or from a UN mandate. Both of these remove the notion of 'illegality'.

Of course, as you understand it. That makes it all illegal then, because that's the way you understand it. Good logic. I can argue the wording of the USNC's resolutions and cross reference them to show how their ruling and mandate (which superceedes your criteria above by nature of their existance) allowed this to happen legally but you won't buy that. Instead, you will state that I am wrong and you are right. However, none of it will matter as the only people who can make this determination is the UNSC. And you are 9 of the voting members of the USNC or 10? Can I be Russia and the UK please? And is this a secret vote that you are holding or has it been held already?

Now, thank you for the Panama example which while not exact, does show what happens when the process to make something illegal goes into gear. First, there is condemnation and argument at the UN. In this case nineteen odd countries testified at the UNSC, only five favorably btw - the USA one of them (imagine). Then, it goes for a vote, and then, once done, and if sucessful, becomes defacto and punitive measures taken. Now, in the case of the Iraq invasion, when did this process take place? And, I assume that when it did, the US, Btitain or both vetoed it so it would not pass anyhow so, am wondering how you can say it is illegal when nobody has determined, much less convened to declare it so. Did they not do this because they had a pot of water boiling over on the stove or had to do some grocery shopping - for three years? Or maybe the holidays precluded this process? How about, they understood the wording to be just what the coalition member states interpreted them as or, realized it was legal or at the very least, due to the wording and circumstances, not illegal and therefore not do anything. We certainly know from past experience that even when sure of being defeated by veto, these resolutions are introduced anyhow, so they are on record yet one has not been in this case. In a democratic world, this would make the invasion legal until proven illegal woudn't it, not that I'm trying to press that point as I'm simply trying to keep people on a realistic keel.

Then again, it's illegal right? We can just 'feel it' in our bones. 'There oughtta be a law' sort of thing, one where there is no need to hold a quorum at the UNSC. It's illegal because everybody that isn't on the Security Council thinks it should be.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

Now, thank you for the Panama example which while not exact, does show what happens when the process to make something illegal goes into gear. First, there is condemnation and argument at the UN. In this case nineteen odd countries testified at the UNSC, only five favorably btw - the USA one of them (imagine). Then, it goes for a vote, and then, once done, and if sucessful, becomes defacto and punitive measures taken.

Are you saying that there actually aren't any laws, only votes of condemnation?

Most of the time, if a law is broken, the act itself is 'illegal', but the offender must be caught and punished. (In rare cases, an illegal act can occur without punishment, such as 'diplomatic immunity') Does trangression without a chance of punishment render void 'illegality'?

[Drew Bedson]

Are you saying that there actually aren't any laws, only votes of condemnation?

Most of the time, if a law is broken, the act itself is 'illegal', but the offender must be caught and punished. (In rare cases, an illegal act can occur without punishment, such as 'diplomatic immunity')

I think that it is pretty clear what I said. In order for certain groups and mistaken individuals to state accurately that this was an illegal action, they should have some backing of an official body that is qualified to rule on these things. We know that when matters such as this are thought illegal, the UNSC does rule, rather than simply provide 'votes of condemnation.' They hand out punishment and, if certain 'member states' have the gonands, take appropriate action (which can arguably be what the US did with the invasion of Iraq). This did not occur here and so, stating that it is an 'illegal invasion' is only a matter of individual opinion rather than fact. The facts being that the only body able to determine that it was, did not even table the matter yet, they have a history of doing such things when the USA and Israel are the target.

Does trangression without a chance of punishment render void 'illegality'?

Of course not. However, it does render stating that the 'illegality' as fact is voided and relegates it into the realm of conjecture, gossip, opinion and rumor. Hence my comments of 'feeling it in your bones' and 'there outta be a law.'

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

In order for certain groups and mistaken individuals to state accurately that this was an illegal action, they should have some backing of an official body that is qualified to rule on these things.

It seems that you are saying that only a judge can call a killer a 'murderer'. I guess I will have to believe this to be true. So...

The facts being that the only body able to determine that it was, did not even table the matter yet, they have a history of doing such things when the USA and Israel are the target

while someone can break the law, it is only technically illegal if a judge says it is? I sadly, stand corrected.

However, it does render stating that the 'illegality' as fact is voided and relegates it into the realm of conjecture, gossip, opinion and rumor. Hence my comments of 'feeling it in your bones' and 'there outta be a law.'

When the head of the UN says it is 'illegal', he would face possible slander/libel charges for making a such a statement in public if it were untrue.

However, I have to ask (as I cannot find or do not have the time to find) any 'stand alone' international laws? Were the 9/11 attacks or the USS Cole bombing 'not illegal'?

[Drew Bedson]

It seems that you are saying that only a judge can call a killer a 'murderer'. I guess I will have to believe this to be true. So...

Only a judge can decide his guilt or innocence. If you wish to be part of the mindless mob that is unqualified to interpret international law and information you are not privy to as a barrackroom lawyer, go right ahead and considere this illegal. You can just 'feel it' fight?

while someone can break the law, it is only technically illegal if a judge says it is? I sadly, stand corrected.

Well, without all the information, you have a 33 1/3% chance of being right in 'If Land.' You know the place, where dreams are made of. Where courts convene to decide matters if they feel there is a case.

When the head of the UN says it is 'illegal', he would face possible slander/libel charges for making a such a statement in public if it were untrue.

Possibly. I doubt it though. Just as I can say all sorts of bad things about people and things and unlikely to be held liable for it. I am sure however, that the US and others have noted this blathering and will file it away for a time that counts.

However, I have to ask (as I cannot find or do not have the time to find) any 'stand alone' international laws? Were the 9/11 attacks or the USS Cole bombing 'not illegal'?

Yes. I noted how the above head of the UN rushed to take care of that along with the UNSC both condeming it as well as holding a vote and deciding that action be taken. Funny how they do that when things are actually ruled illegal isn't it?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Bedson,

Yes. I noted how the above head of the UN rushed to take care of that along with the UNSC both condeming it as well as holding a vote and deciding that action be taken. Funny how they do that when things are actually ruled illegal isn't it?

Very funny. Funny also, juxtaposed to your above quote,

The facts being that the only body able to determine that it was, did not even table the matter yet, they have a history of doing such things when the USA and Israel are the target.

[Guest American Woman]

It seems that you are saying that only a judge can call a killer a 'murderer'. I guess I will have to believe this to be true. So...

Only a judge can decide his guilt or innocence. If you wish to be part of the mindless mob that is unqualified to interpret international law and information you are not privy to as a barrackroom lawyer, go right ahead and considere this illegal. You can just 'feel it' fight?

A judge doesn't decide guilt or innocence; a jury does. So we need a trial to determine 'officially' if the war in Iraq is illegal or not. We'd need a world court to do that, and guess who doesn't want one? To my understanding, the U.S. is opposed to it.

[Drew Bedson]

A judge doesn't decide guilt or innocence;

Fact. And, your Koffee Annan is no judge, nor is he part of the jury or the world judicial system known as the USNC. He is head administrator of the UN. Which renders his opinons pure conjecture.

A judge doesn't decide guilt or innocence; a jury does. So we need a trial to determine 'officially' if the war in Iraq is illegal or not. We'd need a world court to do that, and guess who doesn't want one?

Well, finally you admit that in order to run around saying it 'is illegal' rather than 'probably,' 'likely,' or 'possibly is' a body needs to covene.

To my understanding, the U.S. is opposed to it.

I'm sure they don't care as they know the outcome anyhow but, as seen by previous examples, the UNSC does convene to put forward anti US and Israeli resolutions even when they are sure they will be vetoed. In this case, they have not, even though they have a history of condeming things such as US invasions. Just luck of the draw, were they busy that day or do they have info that counters your theory that this is illegal and may in fact be legal?

[M.Dancer]

Bye Bye....

Nick Kyonka

Staff Reporter

The first American Iraq war resister to seek refugee status in Canada received a deportation order today after a pair of last-ditch applications to remain in the country failed.

Jeremy Hinzman, 29, had filed for a pre-removal risk assessment and permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds with Citizenship and Immigration Canada in January after several prior failed attempts to gain refugee status.

Today he was told that both of those applications had been rejected and he must leave the country by Sept. 23.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/477611

50/50 says he runs rabbit....

A native of Rapid City, N.D., Hinzman joined the U.S. Army in January 2001 and served with the 82nd Airborne Division.

He deserted to Canada in January 2004, shortly after learning that his parachute unit was deploying to Iraq to fight in a war he calls illegal and immoral.

3 years it was before given the order to go overseas and then he flees like a coward....if you link to the Star story and take a peek at the photo, by the look of the make up he is wearing, he might already be preparing his defence.

http://multimedia.thestar.com/images/24/a0...3358b595aa.jpeg

[guyser]

Section 8 ?

[Army Guy]

Is'nt he in BC....i mean don't you have to fit in....

[Topaz]

Some of the problem of the military is they create these dodgers by way of their recruiters. They should do away with the military going into the schools and if a person really wants to join they will find the military. Just recently, I read in the US, a recruiter talked a guy into signing then the kid changed his mind then so the recruiter told him if he couldn't refuse or he go to jail. Well, the truth is they have 3 days now to change their minds ans the military took this recruiter out of commission, and it was the second time of him doing this to young people. Besides , if the Prez and the VP can avoid Nam, why should the soldier of today be treated any different?

[Guest American Woman]

They should do away with the military going into the schools and if a person really wants to join they will find the military. ...

Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program makes it easy for recruiters to 'go into the schools' as it requires all schools to give names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all students to military recruiters.

[M.Dancer]

Some of the problem of the military is they create these dodgers by way of their recruiters. They should do away with the military going into the schools and if a person really wants to join they will find the military. Just recently, I read in the US, a recruiter talked a guy into signing then the kid changed his mind then so the recruiter told him if he couldn't refuse or he go to jail. Well, the truth is they have 3 days now to change their minds ans the military took this recruiter out of commission, and it was the second time of him doing this to young people. Besides , if the Prez and the VP can avoid Nam, why should the soldier of today be treated any different?

Where did you read it, he asked to nobody in particular....

[Army Guy]

If you are going to do this it should be universal, no fireman, or police recruiting, or for that matter any job that has unlimited liability....

But i guess it's ok to recruit for some of the other most dangerous jobs on the planet.