NationStates Jolt Archive

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.

Then they should have never joined the army in the first place. War is not moral or ethical.

These two probably figured they could get all the benefits(ie GI bill) and not have to fight.

But when a fight appears; all of a sudden they find "morality"

The armed forces understand people who are against violence and don't want to shoot people. They will usually move said people to the medical corp or what not.

Sorry but courage is not a word I would apply to these two.

I wish them every success.

Me too. Don't think they stand much off a chance to get away with it though.

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.

Then they should have never joined the army in the first place. War is not moral or ethical.

These two probably figured they could get all the benefits(ie GI bill) and not have to fight.

But when a fight appears; all of a sudden they find "morality"

The armed forces understand people who are against violence and don't want to shoot people. They will usually move said people to the medical corp or what not.

Sorry but courage is not a word I would apply to these two.
On one hand I agree with you, that if they did not want to fight, they should have not joined the army. However, in this instance it was about not fighting in Iraq. The position they are standing for is a valid one. After all, during the second world war, German soldiers were ordered to assist in the extermination of Jewish people, now according to what you said, do you think they should have engaged in war crimes of this sort?

The point is (I think) that just because you sign up for the miliatary, you do not give up all your deeply held moral and ethical beliefs. If you know what you are doing is wrong, then it takes courage to say No.

They weren't againt violence for a good cause, just against the bullshit war Bush is leading, which makes them very courageous because they risk being put in prison now dont they?

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success. hm, i dont believe it. sounds fabricated to me; anyways they should have never joined the fuckin army in the first place if they didnt want to fight. retards

Maybe these two would have fought if they believed in the war. Which is always possible. My biggest question is what "racial" group they are part of AND what were their economical standings. I only wonder because the U.S. has a history of sending the poor to fight rich man's wars.

I do wish them success, but I don't count on it. If teachers who were speaking out against Bush were getting fired, then I don't have much hope for deserting solidiers(which has never really been highly looked upon.)

If they were simply draft dodging then it would be a different story. They are deserters.

Even when Carter passed the pardon for the Viet Nam draft dodgers, it excluded the deserters.

However, I am starting to wonder if these 2 even exist. The only evidence(excluding the BBC) I find seem to be antiwar sites and groups.

Mind you it was simply a Net scan.....

i didnt know teachers speaking out against Bush were getting fired. This is disgraceful. the same thing happened in Nazi germany. teachers who were Jewish or who were not anti semitic were sacked. we all know what happened a few years after that happened............

i didnt know teachers speaking out against Bush were getting fired. This is disgraceful. the same thing happened in Nazi germany. teachers who were Jewish or who were not anti semitic were sacked. we all know what happened a few years after that happened............

i didnt know teachers speaking out against Bush were getting fired. This is disgraceful. the same thing happened in Nazi germany. teachers who were Jewish or who were not anti semitic were sacked. we all know what happened a few years after that happened............

shit
sorry i didnt mean to post that like 4 times :oops:

Til I see more then 2nd hand heresay I'll reserve comments, and I've not heard of it in any American papers, or media...doubtful that a British daily would have this information before I would here in my own country.

If they were simply draft dodging then it would be a different story. They are deserters.

Even when Carter passed the pardon for the Viet Nam draft dodgers, it excluded the deserters.

However, I am starting to wonder if these 2 even exist. The only evidence(excluding the BBC) I find seem to be antiwar sites and groups.

Mind you it was simply a Net scan.....
Here is a link to the guardian's web edition of todays newspaper report. if it was just a webscam, I don't think they would have printed it in a well respected British national newspaer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1190716,00.html

Til I see more then 2nd hand heresay I'll reserve comments, and I've not heard of it in any American papers, or media...doubtful that a British daily would have this information before I would here in my own country.

Maybe theres a learning experience here. It's no surprise that the US Government would not want a story like this to be made public. Is this not an example of the media in the USA being blocked from reporting alternative and more accurate details of the conflict in Iraq and it's consequences?

If they were simply draft dodging then it would be a different story. They are deserters.

Even when Carter passed the pardon for the Viet Nam draft dodgers, it excluded the deserters.

However, I am starting to wonder if these 2 even exist. The only evidence(excluding the BBC) I find seem to be antiwar sites and groups.

Mind you it was simply a Net scan.....
Here is a link to the guardian's web edition of todays newspaper report. if it was just a webscam, I don't think they would have printed it in a well respected British national newspaer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1190716,00.html

I just perused DoD websites..and the New York Times/Posts, nothing on either of these two...like I said..til I have corroboration it's heresay.

If they were simply draft dodging then it would be a different story. They are deserters.

Even when Carter passed the pardon for the Viet Nam draft dodgers, it excluded the deserters.

However, I am starting to wonder if these 2 even exist. The only evidence(excluding the BBC) I find seem to be antiwar sites and groups.

Mind you it was simply a Net scan.....
Here is a link to the guardian's web edition of todays newspaper report. if it was just a webscam, I don't think they would have printed it in a well respected British national newspaer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1190716,00.html

I just perused DoD websites..and the New York Times/Posts, nothing on either of these two...like I said..til I have corroboration it's heresay.
So, unless it's written by an American paper, you are not prepared to believe other reports. There's more than a little arrogance in that position. If you cannot find details of this story anywhere in the USA media, then that only makes my point for me.

Let them go, but first make them pay back all the money they fleeced from the US taxpayer. (Wages, food, ammo, transportation, ect.)

Links...

http://www.brandonhughey.org/

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040120.html#army

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/media/040309_awol.ram

Of course, these are only from Canada...not good enough for some people methinks.
:roll:

TP :shock:

DP

Wait...isn't our punishment to "shoot on sight" for deserters?

*tries to round up a mob*

But seriously. If they're soldiers, then they should KNOW that they must stand by and follow their Commander's orders. Illegal or not. If they didn't want to participate in an "illegal" ( :roll: ...wtf...) war, than they should NEVER have become soldiers in the first place.

And I do not see how it shows them taking part in "democracy" I DO see morons in our grand military though

Wait...isn't our punishment "shot on sight" for deserters?

*tries to round up a mob*

But seriously. If they're soldiers, then they should KNOW that they must stand by and follow their Commander's orders. Illegal or not. If they didn't want to participate in an "illegal" ( :roll: ...wtf...) war, than they should NEVER have become soldiers in the first place.
You seem to implying that the military should not be bound by codes of honour, morality, responsibility etc. What you are implying is that there should be no agreed code of behaviour for the military. So if a soldier is ordered to kill an innocent civilian, then that order must be carried out?

Even in the miliatry, there are rules of engagement etc. There is the Geneva convention. At the heart of everything is the fact that no one has to perform a function which the morally and ethically know to be illegal or inhumane. If they perform a function of illegality, to say "I was only following orders" is no defence. Many War crime tribunals in the past have proven this. The individual is responsible for their actions. Joining the army does not mean you lose your rights and responsibilities as a human being.

The person can object to whatever they want in the military, if they refuse to carry orders out thats their right, its also the military's right to court marshall them.

I wish all the best to these two young lads, and that Canada will grant them asylum. They don't deserve to die in a foreign country fighting an illegal, and immoral war.

Looking at the text from the article, they may get some support:

"House points out that in the US the maximum penalty for desertion during a time of war is death. He concedes that the death penalty hasn't been used since the second world war, and his clients are more likely to face five years in jail if they return home. "But there is no guarantee," he says. In Canada the courts have ruled that someone cannot be deported to another country where they face the death penalty."

Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976.

Wait...isn't our punishment "shot on sight" for deserters?

*tries to round up a mob*

But seriously. If they're soldiers, then they should KNOW that they must stand by and follow their Commander's orders. Illegal or not. If they didn't want to participate in an "illegal" ( :roll: ...wtf...) war, than they should NEVER have become soldiers in the first place.
You seem to implying that the military should not be bound by codes of honour, morality, responsibility etc. What you are implying is that there should be no agreed code of behaviour for the military. So if a soldier is ordered to kill an innocent civilian, then that order must be carried out?

Even in the miliatry, there are rules of engagement etc. There is the Geneva convention. At the heart of everything is the fact that no one has to perform a function which the morally and ethically know to be illegal or inhumane. If they perform a function of illegality, to say "I was only following orders" is no defence. Many War crime tribunals in the past have proven this. The individual is responsible for their actions. Joining the army does not mean you lose your rights and responsibilities as a human being.

I know of the Geneva Conventions. I'm saying that if a man enlists as a soldier, than he should be prepared to kill those that he may not agree with. If everyone defied orders, no one would have a military. Just a bunch of rednecks. Oh wait, we'd STILL have the strongest military :wink:

Now see, as a soldier, I really dont expect you to lose your morality. In fact, I hope you keep your sense of morality. Heck, I don't want to end up like the two guys who're now serving life because they tortured an Iraqi just for being "Iraqi"

Just that, you can't fight the battles only you want to fight.

I'll leave it at that

You don't get to choose what war you fight in.

And what is this garbage about democracy in a military? Does you folks know what insubordination is?

I'd love to see it in action.

"Men, I know that hill is heavily defended and we will take heavy casualties, but we need to take it in order to secure the supply lines and to help win this war."

"Uh, sir, we don't want to take any chances getting killed, so we all voted against this action."

There are people who called WW2 immoral (still do). The declaration against Japan was not unanimous. What would have happened if all the troops decided they didn't want to go?

They weren't drafted. Their racial and economic backgrounds make no difference. What matters is that they made a commitment and as soon as they were put in an uncomfortable spot, they ran.

I've seen this in the Village Voice, which is just an opinion rag but still is part of the media. Just because it isn't front page on every paper here, doesn't mean there is cencorship.

And I want to know who these teachers who were fired for their opinions were.

hm, i dont believe it. sounds fabricated to me;

Til I see more then 2nd hand heresay I'll reserve comments, and I've not heard of it in any American papers, or media...doubtful that a British daily would have this information before I would here in my own country.

Here's a video from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/media/040309_awol.ram

In case you missed it...

Links...

http://www.brandonhughey.org/

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040120.html#army

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/media/040309_awol.ram

Of course, these are only from Canada...not good enough for some people methinks.
:roll:

His own words damn him as a coward ""I was afraid I'd end up dead - if not killed by the enemy, I'd end up crazy and shoot myself."...cowardice in the field of battle is a treasonable offense..and he should be held under the strictest interpretation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The War is legal under US Constitutional grounds..so his statement that the war is illegal is flawed...the Canadian media should be understood that the boy didn't want to go to war, he expected the bennies of his military service but when it looked like he'd actually have to pay up with the obligation to serve in a combat enviroment he ran.

Like I said...a coward..

You don't get to choose what war you fight in.

And what is this garbage about democracy in a military? Does you folks know what insubordination is?

I'd love to see it in action.

"Men, I know that hill is heavily defended and we will take heavy casualties, but we need to take it in order to secure the supply lines and to help win this war."

"Uh, sir, we don't want to take any chances getting killed, so we all voted against this action."

There are people who called WW2 immoral (still do). The declaration against Japan was not unanimous. What would have happened if all the troops decided they didn't want to go?

They weren't drafted. Their racial and economic backgrounds make no difference. What matters is that they made a commitment and as soon as they were put in an uncomfortable spot, they ran.

I've seen this in the Village Voice, which is just an opinion rag but still is part of the media. Just because it isn't front page on every paper here, doesn't mean there is cencorship.

And I want to know who these teachers who were fired for their opinions were.
Hmmn, don't you know you've missed the point of this thread?

The War is legal under US Constitutional grounds..so his statement that the war is illegal is flawed...
Actually, under Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the war may in fact be illegal.

the Canadian media should be understood that the boy didn't want to go to war, he expected the bennies of his military service but when it looked like he'd actually have to pay up with the obligation to serve in a combat enviroment he ran.
What we need to understand is whether his actions were justified. The text according to his own words are:

"The Texas native thought joining the army would be a good career, and it was the only way he would be able to go to college. So he did.

The U.S. went to war with Iraq while he was in basic training, and he started seriously questioning his decision.

"I felt what was going on over there was immoral," he says.

He says he believes he had a responsibility to resist the illegal action.

Like I said...a coward..
Since he believes that the war is both immoral and illegal, he chose to follow the courage of his convictions and refused to participate. I don't believe that makes him a coward, but a hero for humanity.

I was addressing to points already brought up.

The way I see it, this topic can only have 2 points to argue:

1) A soldier's duty to follow orders (what extent that goes)

2) Canada's obligation to turn over the deserters as part of the extradition treaty (this was only tapped by one or two posters so far)

The U.S. went to war with Iraq while he was in basic training, and he started seriously questioning his decision.

"I felt what was going on over there was immoral," he says.

He says he believes he had a responsibility to resist the illegal action.

Give me a break. That means the earliest he could have possibly began basic was in January 2003. We had been debating going into Iraq for at least a year prior. To say he didn't think he could end up going makes him either a fool or a liar.

Since he believes that the war is both immoral and illegal, he chose to follow the courage of his convictions and refused to participate. I don't believe that makes him a coward, but a hero for humanity.

Then why run? If he really did believe in his convictions, he would have stayed and fought the case. Trying to build them as some sort of heros sickens me.

Wait...isn't our punishment to "shoot on sight" for deserters?

The last person who was executed for desertion was in WWII...I forget the name, but Hollywood made a movie out of it of course...

A couple of questions, though. Forgive my American ignorance. :P

Now, is this *technically* a war? Has congress passed a formal declaration of war on Iraq? Al-Qaeda? And is the punishment of execution acted upon only in war time, or is it desertion in general?

The War is legal under US Constitutional grounds..so his statement that the war is illegal is flawed...
Actually, under Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the war may in fact be illegal.

the Canadian media should be understood that the boy didn't want to go to war, he expected the bennies of his military service but when it looked like he'd actually have to pay up with the obligation to serve in a combat enviroment he ran.
What we need to understand is whether his actions were justified. The text according to his own words are:

"The Texas native thought joining the army would be a good career, and it was the only way he would be able to go to college. So he did.

The U.S. went to war with Iraq while he was in basic training, and he started seriously questioning his decision.

"I felt what was going on over there was immoral," he says.

He says he believes he had a responsibility to resist the illegal action.

Like I said...a coward..
Since he believes that the war is both immoral and illegal, he chose to follow the courage of his convictions and refused to participate. I don't believe that makes him a coward, but a hero for humanity.
Well said Canuck, it has to be acknowledged that it took great courage for him to refuse to fight, also in seeking Asylum in Canada, he is forced to leave his family, his friends, his community. I doubt that many people would be as true and concientious as those two soldiers. They deserve support from people, not accusations of cowardice.

The U.S. went to war with Iraq while he was in basic training, and he started seriously questioning his decision.

"I felt what was going on over there was immoral," he says.

He says he believes he had a responsibility to resist the illegal action.

Give me a break. That means the earliest he could have possibly began basic was in January 2003. We had been debating going into Iraq for at least a year prior. To say he didn't think he could end up going makes him either a fool or a liar.

Since he believes that the war is both immoral and illegal, he chose to follow the courage of his convictions and refused to participate. I don't believe that makes him a coward, but a hero for humanity.

Then why run? If he really did believe in his convictions, he would have stayed and fought the case. Trying to build them as some sort of heros sickens me.
This illegal/immoral war in Iraq has sickened many people worldwide. Besides, it is better for him to build his case outside the US so that he has more freedom to act, rather than from inside a US military prison, where his voice would unlikely be heard.

Oh, well, its too bad right and wrong aren't up to a vote, now isn't it.

When we find out what Saddam did with the WMD and the people of Iraq elect their leader freely for the first time in 20-some odd years, just remember that sick feeling and how you didn't want that to happen.

Of course, the opinions about the war are irrelevent, seeing as to how these two men took an oath and other men put their lives in these two cowards' hands.

The U.S. went to war with Iraq while he was in basic training, and he started seriously questioning his decision.

"I felt what was going on over there was immoral," he says.

He says he believes he had a responsibility to resist the illegal action.

Give me a break. That means the earliest he could have possibly began basic was in January 2003. We had been debating going into Iraq for at least a year prior. To say he didn't think he could end up going makes him either a fool or a liar.

Since he believes that the war is both immoral and illegal, he chose to follow the courage of his convictions and refused to participate. I don't believe that makes him a coward, but a hero for humanity.

Then why run? If he really did believe in his convictions, he would have stayed and fought the case. Trying to build them as some sort of heros sickens me.
This illegal/immoral war in Iraq has sickened many people worldwide. Besides, it is better for him to build his case outside the US so that he has more freedom to act, rather than from inside a US military prison, where his voice would unlikely be heard.

More freedom to act??...all he needs it that which is accorded him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that is a JAG lawyer and nothing else...that's all he is entitled too. If he had any courage he would have turned himself into the nearest Provost Marshal's office...that at least I respect...but by running..he showed his true colors.

Muhamid Ali, Martin Luther King Jr and Henry David Thoureau all made their cases from prison and were all able to eaise awareness of their causes from inside.

This isn't some sort of protest or civil disobedience, it is just plain cowardice.

I bet they got lost because they couldn't find where they were supposed to be going on a map and when they realized they were in Canada they were to embarased to tell how they got there and made up this story.

I bet they got lost because they couldn't find where they were supposed to be going on a map and when they realized they were in Canada they were to embarased to tell how they got there and made up this story.

I bet they got lost because they couldn't find where they were supposed to be going on a map and when they realized they were in Canada they were to embarased to tell how they got there and made up this story.

Trust me. ANYONE would be embarassed if they found themselves in Canada

The boy is a coward plain and simple. He refused to obey orders and deserted from the army. I live in Canada and I am part of the Armed Forces and I am disgusted by his actions. He betrayed his oath, his country and worst of all his unit. People that counted on him.

If he objected to war, then he should have applied for the conscious objector status and denounced ALL war. 60 American soldiers have applied and 30 have been accepted. If he had wanted to give up on war then THIS was the way to do it. Not run away to a foreign country expecting better treatment.

I say send him back and let him face the court martial that awaits him. He chose to not participate (good for him if it clears his conscience), but he agreed to a term of service and has failed to complete. Let him live with the consequences.

Oh, well, its too bad right and wrong aren't up to a vote, now isn't it.

When we find out what Saddam did with the WMD and the people of Iraq elect their leader freely for the first time in 20-some odd years, just remember that sick feeling and how you didn't want that to happen.

Of course, the opinions about the war are irrelevent, seeing as to how these two men took an oath and other men put their lives in these two cowards' hands.
Right and wrong aren't up for a vote at this time, but Britain might feel the sting of the ICC, which it is a signator to.

Sure everyone is glad that Saddam is in captivity. That is great. However, the fact remains that Iraq was never a threat to the US. As far as freely electing their leader, will they be allowed to maintain an Islamic state?

As far as this new "liberation", it appears to be a farce. The US is hijacking the NEW Iraqi economy, allowing everything but natural resources to be 100% foreign owned.

How could "other men" put their lives in these guys hands? They didn't go, and if they had, it might have cost those "other men" their lives? The conscientious objectors might have been doing the "other men", a favour?

Even in the miliatry, there are rules of engagement etc. There is the Geneva convention. At the heart of everything is the fact that no one has to perform a function which the morally and ethically know to be illegal or inhumane. If they perform a function of illegality, to say "I was only following orders" is no defence. Many War crime tribunals in the past have proven this. The individual is responsible for their actions. Joining the army does not mean you lose your rights and responsibilities as a human being.
Treaties can be broken and allies can become bitter enemies, there is no such thing as a war criminal except for the losers. In the end there has been only one rule of war that has always persisted through history. That is keeping the means within the reason. That is to say both national and personal reasons for waging war. If a person does not agree with a war, than it is their right to try to avoid war. However since they were in the military and they decided to desert, they themselves become enemies. If ever apprehended, then they should face any charge that comes to them. But right now they’re in the hands of Canada and the best we can do is seek extradition. Anything else might seem a little extreme. Considering the already bad reputation that we have, we don’t need it to get any worse.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

Right and wrong aren't up for a vote at this time, but Britain might feel the sting of the ICC, which it is a signator to.


Actually, I believe most of the countries that are part of the ICC signerd under the thr provision that their own national court systems take precedent over the ICC pertaining to their respective citizens.

Sure everyone is glad that Saddam is in captivity. That is great. However, the fact remains that Iraq was never a threat to the US.

Aside fromthe terrorist training camps and the fact that Saddam never proved he disposed of the WMDs?

As far as freely electing their leader, will they be allowed to maintain an Islamic state?

I have no idea. I don't hink anyone fully believes we will see a cecular US-style government anytime soon, though.

As far as this new "liberation", it appears to be a farce. The US is hijacking the NEW Iraqi economy, allowing everything but natural resources to be 100% foreign owned.

Give it time to be set up and then see how that deal is.

How could "other men" put their lives in these guys hands?

Their unit. Everyone has a job.

They didn't go, and if they had, it might have cost those "other men" their lives? The conscientious objectors might have been doing the "other men", a favour?

By being a conscientous objector, they could have been medics, engineers, clerks or some sort of other REMF that focused on rebuilding and saving lives rather than taking them,

Just up and running with no one knowing, they left their squad members no immediate back up.

He should be charged with the following under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the Armed Forces of the United States.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 85. DESERTION

(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;

is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT

Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY

Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--

(1) runs away;

(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;

shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct

These are the pertinent articles under the UCMJ he should be charged.

We judged Germans guilty of war crimes because they followed orders and did not resist even though they should have known what they were doing was wrong.

By that standard, theses soldiers are in the right.

A conscience is an inconvenient thing to have in the military, but it's important for basic human life.

If you or people you know are a CO in the military, or are AWOL or considering it, check this site; they can give concrete help:


http://girights.objector.org/

We judged Germans guilty of war crimes because they followed orders and did not resist even though they should have known what they were doing was wrong.

By that standard, theses soldiers are in the right.

A conscience is an inconvenient thing to have in the military, but it's important for basic human life.

If you or people you know are a CO in the military, or are AWOL or considering it, check this site; they can give concrete help:


http://girights.objector.org/

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.

I would be willing to bet these guys were in the national guard. If so then that is the exact reason I protest the whole national guard idea, they join never expecting to have to actually fight and hope to get a paycheck every month for nothing, then when they are called up to fight they run. Granted that is a small percentage, very small, but the fact that it happens is still startling.

Also, it seems wierd to me that we can not make churches pay taxes but yet Muslims and Jehovas Witness could dodge the draft by saying it violated their religious rights, well guess what people, your country gives you more than you will ever be able to understand, get off your fat ass and go do your civic duty.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.

Officers were held responsible who did not set [policy but only followed orders. The principle is the same. If you have a conscience, you need to use it.

I would be willing to bet these guys were in the national guard. If so then that is the exact reason I protest the whole national guard idea, they join never expecting to have to actually fight and hope to get a paycheck every month for nothing, then when they are called up to fight they run. Granted that is a small percentage, very small, but the fact that it happens is still startling.

Also, it seems wierd to me that we can not make churches pay taxes but yet Muslims and Jehovas Witness could dodge the draft by saying it violated their religious rights, well guess what people, your country gives you more than you will ever be able to understand, get off your fat ass and go do your civic duty.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.

We judged Germans guilty of war crimes because they followed orders and did not resist even though they should have known what they were doing was wrong.

By that standard, theses soldiers are in the right.

A conscience is an inconvenient thing to have in the military, but it's important for basic human life.

If you or people you know are a CO in the military, or are AWOL or considering it, check this site; they can give concrete help:


http://girights.objector.org/

The Germans put on trial were members of volunteer units such as the Gestapo and the SS (SS was composed of many foreigners). No soldier of the Wermarcht was put on trial to my knowledge. The allies didn't go after soldiers who simply followed orders in the field, they simply completed their soldier's duty and no one can expect them to do otherwise. Individuals in positions to choose what others do are held accountable.

The soldiers in this case are neither individuals in a command position nor are they part of special volunteer units having committed crimes. They have violated several parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and deserve to be sent back and put on trial for it.

Officers were held responsible who did not set [policy but only followed orders. The principle is the same. If you have a conscience, you need to use it.

They were the officers responsible for the holocaust, not the war itself.

Are you really going to try and equate the invasion to the Holocaust?

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.

Then they should have never joined the army in the first place. War is not moral or ethical.

These two probably figured they could get all the benefits(ie GI bill) and not have to fight.

But when a fight appears; all of a sudden they find "morality"

The armed forces understand people who are against violence and don't want to shoot people. They will usually move said people to the medical corp or what not.

Sorry but courage is not a word I would apply to these two.

I'm sorry to inform you, but the medical corp has not been an option since Viet Nam when the western anglo-saxon world had realized the signatories to the G, Conventions, with notable few exceptions, are lying sacks as in the league of nations and the united nations.

Til I see more then 2nd hand heresay I'll reserve comments, and I've not heard of it in any American papers, or media...doubtful that a British daily would have this information before I would here in my own country.

Maybe theres a learning experience here. It's no surprise that the US Government would not want a story like this to be made public. Is this not an example of the media in the USA being blocked from reporting alternative and more accurate details of the conflict in Iraq and it's consequences?

I understand your comment. joe stalin it is typical to throw up a what if and then require an opponent to prove a negative. in reality, not paranoia, you need corraboration.

We judged Germans guilty of war crimes because they followed orders and did not resist even though they should have known what they were doing was wrong.
100% TRUE

By that standard, theses soldiers are in the right.
The FACT that the US did not get a UN mandate to invade Iraq, makes this 100% TRUE

A conscience is an inconvenient thing to have in the military, but it's important for basic human life.
Many posters here have suggested leveling all of Iraq, others have used the term "glass parking lot", and the original concept of "shock and awe", are not the way to demonstrate to the world that the US is the world's champion of:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

So yeah if a guy has a consciousness not to be part of what he terms an "immoral and illegal" war, then he should be at least allowed his basic beliefs upon which his country was founded.

If you or people you know are a CO in the military, or are AWOL or considering it, check this site; they can give concrete help:


http://girights.objector.org/

Wait...isn't our punishment to "shoot on sight" for deserters?

*tries to round up a mob*

But seriously. If they're soldiers, then they should KNOW that they must stand by and follow their Commander's orders. Illegal or not. If they didn't want to participate in an "illegal" ( :roll: ...wtf...) war, than they should NEVER have become soldiers in the first place.

And I do not see how it shows them taking part in "democracy" I DO see morons in our grand military though

Sorry, but in the US military, no member is required to follow an illegal order or paticipate in an illegal war. The US was the first military to acknowledge and accept fragging as a defense. Name one other military that accepts the summary execution of the ruling elite. This has been an accepted practice since colonial times. Let them face directly, like any other citizen, the government they oppose.

We judged Germans guilty of war crimes because they followed orders and did not resist even though they should have known what they were doing was wrong.
100% TRUE

No, it has already been pointed out that the Germans put on trial were actually part of the Holocaust.


By that standard, theses soldiers are in the right.
The FACT that the US did not get a UN mandate to invade Iraq, makes this 100% TRUE

I have no idea what these soldiers deserting their post has to do with UN support.

A conscience is an inconvenient thing to have in the military, but it's important for basic human life.
Many posters here have suggested leveling all of Iraq, others have used the term "glass parking lot", and the original concept of "shock and awe", are not the way to demonstrate to the world that the US is the world's champion of:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

So yeah if a guy has a consciousness not to be part of what he terms an "immoral and illegal" war, then he should be at least allowed his basic beliefs upon which his country was founded.

Hahahaha Ya, its not like the Founding Fathers executed deserters during the Revolution or anything.

Seriously, this is not some violation of their Constitutional rights. They took an oath of their own free will to follow orders.

They had the option of conscientious objection. Their actions prove that all they were concerned about was saving their own hides.

Right and wrong aren't up for a vote at this time, but Britain might feel the sting of the ICC, which it is a signator to.


Actually, I believe most of the countries that are part of the ICC signerd under the thr provision that their own national court systems take precedent over the ICC pertaining to their respective citizens.

Sure everyone is glad that Saddam is in captivity. That is great. However, the fact remains that Iraq was never a threat to the US.

Aside fromthe terrorist training camps and the fact that Saddam never proved he disposed of the WMDs?

As far as freely electing their leader, will they be allowed to maintain an Islamic state?

I have no idea. I don't hink anyone fully believes we will see a cecular US-style government anytime soon, though.

As far as this new "liberation", it appears to be a farce. The US is hijacking the NEW Iraqi economy, allowing everything but natural resources to be 100% foreign owned.

Give it time to be set up and then see how that deal is.

How could "other men" put their lives in these guys hands?

Their unit. Everyone has a job.

They didn't go, and if they had, it might have cost those "other men" their lives? The conscientious objectors might have been doing the "other men", a favour?

By being a conscientous objector, they could have been medics, engineers, clerks or some sort of other REMF that focused on rebuilding and saving lives rather than taking them,

Just up and running with no one knowing, they left their squad members no immediate back up.


Engineers and medics are not remfs sir!!!!!

i believe it's pretty obvious, to those with eyes to see and ears to hear etc., that you need a PINCH or two of salt to swallow with the official line about Iraq. Due to the amount and quality of information available (well you do have to work for it) it's incumbent on each of us to investigate the issues that interest or concern us and take personal action to direct our leaders (compulsory democracy anyone?) rather than follow blindly.

rabble.ca

www.ciel.org

:tantrum:

Oops, you're right. I appologize to the brave men and women who fulfill these roles.

I meant basically anyone who doesn't handle a weapon of some sort.

Thank you, I personaly have a thing about the Finance corps.

Good night folks, this has been a very good thread.

:oops:
Sorry, 'twas not clear: www.rabble.ca
is an alternative news website. It also links to other alternative news.

If the story is indeed true, then these two persons are deserters.

There is nothing more to be said about it. They have not the courage to stand up for their beliefs (if that is the reason behind this) but have run away. They are cowards and deserters and IMO deserters in time of war and if found guilty in a military court should face the death sentence.

Joining the military is not mandatory. Anyone that joins the military without considering the potential of having to serve in harms way is foolish. I also resent the comment made in an earlier post about using the poor to fight a rich man's war. Obviously the poster has not a clue. Take that attitude to any military base and lay it out for the military personnel to get their opinion. I would strongly suggest that before you do you check your dental coverage to make sure it is up to date.

For Canada or any other nation to harbor a deserter is unconscionable. It is a slap in the face of every man and woman that serves in the armed forces of that nation.

If the story is indeed true, then these two persons are deserters.

There is nothing more to be said about it. They have not the courage to stand up for their beliefs (if that is the reason behind this) but have run away. They are cowards and deserters and IMO deserters in time of war and if found guilty in a military court should face the death sentence.

Joining the military is not mandatory. Anyone that joins the military without considering the potential of having to serve in harms way is foolish. I also resent the comment made in an earlier post about using the poor to fight a rich man's war. Obviously the poster has not a clue. Take that attitude to any military base and lay it out for the military personnel to get their opinion. I would strongly suggest that before you do you check your dental coverage to make sure it is up to date.

For Canada or any other nation to harbor a deserter is unconscionable. It is a slap in the face of every man and woman that serves in the armed forces of that nation.
Canada is a free country, and doesn't believe in the barbaric death penalty. Perhaps Canada fought for a different kind of freedom in WW 2 than the US? Canada did not support the war in Iraq, because it was not sanctioned by the UN. We can sympathize with those who would prefer not to take part in an illegal war, and I am sure that our armed forces would rather be elsewhere than promoting US style "freedom" in Iraq.

The War is legal under US Constitutional grounds..so his statement that the war is illegal is flawed...
Actually, under Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the war may in fact be illegal.

The rules of war are covered by the Hague and the Geneva Convention (which the U.S. is held to). U.S. law means nothing outside the borders of the U.S., so therefore it does not matter IF the war is legal under the U.S. Constitution because the U.S. Constitution does not apply to Iraq. That's why there are international laws.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.Because you're a traitor. ~ Michael.

Canada is a free country, and doesn't believe in the barbaric death penalty. Perhaps Canada fought for a different kind of freedom in WW 2 than the US? Canada did not support the war in Iraq, because it was not sanctioned by the UN. We can sympathize with those who would prefer not to take part in an illegal war, and I am sure that our armed forces would rather be elsewhere than promoting US style "freedom" in Iraq.
Canada had every right to fight for whatever they deemed appropriate in WW2 or any other conflict. Canada is not alone in not supporting the war in Iraq. I was not aware that Canada only followed UN sanctions in such matters, I had rather held to the thought that the Canadian government had actually made a decision on the matter themselves... pity. Of course your sympathies can be placed where desired. Canada does not believe in the 'barbaric death penalty'. Fine, then one could assume that murders and other cold blooded killers facing the death penalty should flee to Canada to escape such punishment or are such 'havens' offered only selectively?

However, none of the above applies to the situation being examined. If these two individuals have deserted for whatever reason, they should be returned for trial. I would tend to believe that if these were Canadian military personnel that deserted to the U.S. (for whatever reason); the Canadian government would rightfully expect that they be returned to face charges. Although American does apply the death penalty in certain cases, I am sure that Canada's lack of same would not be used as an excuse to allow themto stay in the U.S. until Canada adopted a penalty that was felt to be commensurate to the charges against the individuals (read that 'facing the death sentence'). That would be absurd.

They have broken the law in the U.S., are U.S. citizens and are subject to these laws. They are not Canadians in spite of whatever warm fuzzy feelings you may have for them (group hug).

I only wonder because the U.S. has a history of sending the poor to fight rich man's wars.
Give me one example of us sending poor peasants to fight wars. Besides our earlier times...we were all smelly peasants in the late 18th cent./early 19th cent.

Nice...rich man's war, poor man's fight....did you make that up yourself?

:lol:

Get your facts straight. This is an old saying from back in the American Civil War. In which the rich man was the slave owners, who had the poor men (regular Confederate soldiers) fight for their "right" to slavery while they attempt to manage their plantation.

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.

What happens when the system makes a mistake and kills an innocent person? Don't say it hasn't happened and won't happen because we all know the system is not perfect.

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.

What happens when the system makes a mistake and kills an innocent person? Don't say it hasn't happened and won't happen because we all know the system is not perfect.

Excuse me but what would the system be in this case?

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.

What happens when the system makes a mistake and kills an innocent person? Don't say it hasn't happened and won't happen because we all know the system is not perfect.

Excuse me but what would the system be in this case?

Your wonderful legal system which executes people as "rightful punishment."

double

Sure everyone is glad that Saddam is in captivity. That is great. However, the fact remains that Iraq was never a threat to the US. As far as freely electing their leader, will they be allowed to maintain an Islamic state?
Maintain? They didn't have one in the first place. Saddam was a largely secular leader and seeing how he was the state (for all intents and purposes), the state was secular.
You also have to remember that the country is composed of multiple factions Islam (and about a 6% christian minority) and that they don't all get along. Instituting an Islamic state may very well cause problems.

But, if that's what they want, then its what they should get.

I only wonder because the U.S. has a history of sending the poor to fight rich man's wars.
Give me one example of us sending poor peasants to fight wars. Besides our earlier times...we were all smelly peasants in the late 18th cent./early 19th cent.

Nice...rich man's war, poor man's fight....did you make that up yourself?

:lol:

Get your facts straight. This is an old saying from back in the American Civil War. In which the rich man was the slave owners, who had the poor men (regular Confederate soldiers) fight for their "right" to slavery while they attempt to manage their plantation.Actually, until a time it was possible to hire others (for about $500) to fill in for you if you were drafted. Few but the relatively well off could afford the $500.

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.

Then they should have never joined the army in the first place. War is not moral or ethical.

These two probably figured they could get all the benefits(ie GI bill) and not have to fight.

But when a fight appears; all of a sudden they find "morality"

The armed forces understand people who are against violence and don't want to shoot people. They will usually move said people to the medical corp or what not.

Sorry but courage is not a word I would apply to these two.

As much as I disagreed with the war in Iraq I still have to agree. If you join the army you do as you are told, there are other that put their lives in your hand, they can't be desserted cause you don't agree with what you are fighting for, to bad deal with it.

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.
To hell with those God damned traitorous scum. Both of them ought to be executed, and their lawyer ought to be imprisoned for at least a few decades. We ought to send a hit squad up there to give them their just desserts. Too bad the government won't do such a thing. :(
LONG LIVE AMERICA!

I have a lawyer friend from school who defends those charged with treason. I hope Mike is not on this case, but if he is, good luck to him. I'm glad I live in a country where even accuse traitors are entitled to a fair trial.


As for those who refuse to fight being executed in the American Revolution, I'm well aware of it. Our people were shot dead for refusing to fight. Their farms were burned and their families dispossessed because they acted on conscience.

People like this are not cowards. They are not popular, but they are brave.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.
Try explaining that point of view to the thousands of innocent Iraqii's who have lost members of their family through the USA using Weapons of Mass Destruction upon them. The fact is, for every innocent iraqi killed, it took an American or coalition soldier to press the trigger. There is a clear paralell here. You just can't see it.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.
Try explaining that point of view to the thousands of innocent Iraqii's who have lost members of their family through the USA using Weapons of Mass Destruction upon them. The fact is, for every innocent iraqi killed, it took an American or coalition soldier to press the trigger. There is a clear paralell here. You just can't see it.

That's bull..we did not deliberately target civilians..why on earth can't some of you people get that thru your damn heads..to try to equate US servicemembers defending themselves when fired on or the initial "liberation"...and it was liberation...ask the Kurds how they feel right bout now....they'll tell you straight up they love the Americans..and rejoice when the liberation occured.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.
Try explaining that point of view to the thousands of innocent Iraqii's who have lost members of their family through the USA using Weapons of Mass Destruction upon them. The fact is, for every innocent iraqi killed, it took an American or coalition soldier to press the trigger. There is a clear paralell here. You just can't see it.

That's bull..we did not deliberately target civilians..why on earth can't some of you people get that thru your damn heads..to try to equate US servicemembers defending themselves when fired on or the initial "liberation"...and it was liberation...ask the Kurds how they feel right bout now....they'll tell you straight up they love the Americans..and rejoice when the liberation occured.
The fact is that the USA used Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq such as depleted uranium bombs, they also engaged in carpet bombing. For any Iraqi killed in this invasion, it usually took an American soldier to press the trigger. In that action, they have assumed responsibnility for their individual actions, to say they were only following orders is no moral defence.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.
Try explaining that point of view to the thousands of innocent Iraqii's who have lost members of their family through the USA using Weapons of Mass Destruction upon them. The fact is, for every innocent iraqi killed, it took an American or coalition soldier to press the trigger. There is a clear paralell here. You just can't see it.

That's bull..we did not deliberately target civilians..why on earth can't some of you people get that thru your damn heads..to try to equate US servicemembers defending themselves when fired on or the initial "liberation"...and it was liberation...ask the Kurds how they feel right bout now....they'll tell you straight up they love the Americans..and rejoice when the liberation occured.
The fact is that the USA used Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq such as depleted uranium bombs, they also engaged in carpet bombing. For any Iraqi killed in this invasion, it usually took an American soldier to press the trigger. In that action, they have assumed responsibnility for their individual actions, to say they were only following orders is no moral defence.

The amount of UD in any weapon used by US Armed forces..actually many nations used UD rounds and its radioative nature has been scientifically argued by both sides, it is neglible or comparable to other life-destroy habits. Calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction is misleading at best..outright enemy propaganda at worst. And please point to me in Baghdad or any of the major cities in Iraq where combat was introduced that we engaged in carpet bombing?..

There is one HELLUVA HUGE difference in civilian casualties that may or may not result from combat actions and the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians..some of you people just can't get that thru your heads. I would certainly feel responsible if I DELIBERATELY TARGETED...DELIBERATELY TARGETED....DELIBERATELY TARGETED...innocent civilians..damn...but that is a hard concept for some of you to acknowledge.

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

If the story is indeed true, then these two persons are deserters.

There is nothing more to be said about it. They have not the courage to stand up for their beliefs (if that is the reason behind this) but have run away. They are cowards and deserters and IMO deserters in time of war and if found guilty in a military court should face the death sentence.

Joining the military is not mandatory. Anyone that joins the military without considering the potential of having to serve in harms way is foolish. I also resent the comment made in an earlier post about using the poor to fight a rich man's war. Obviously the poster has not a clue. Take that attitude to any military base and lay it out for the military personnel to get their opinion. I would strongly suggest that before you do you check your dental coverage to make sure it is up to date.

For Canada or any other nation to harbor a deserter is unconscionable. It is a slap in the face of every man and woman that serves in the armed forces of that nation.

Joining the military is indeed not mandatory. But how could they know they were going to be used in this war? if they did know there was going to be a war in iraq based on lies, against UN regulations, ... then you have all right to call them deserters.
If i had joined the army (in the hypothetical situation of me being a US citizen), i probably would have had the will to fight in order to defend the US or to fight a UN approved war that started for a good reason. But if they all of a sudden start to lie, use the nazi-style spinmachine (see the quote below), and then try to send me to a dirty war, i would tell them to f--- off.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leader. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them you're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.''
-- Herman Goering, Hitler's second in command

Illich Jackal, as a soldier you haven't the right to dictate national policy. It is not yours to decide whether or not a war is just. Soldiers join voluntarily, after all, the USA doesn't have conscription. Once you've signed those papers, you must follow all lawful (AMERICAN laws, not some bunch of stupid monkeys in the Hague or the UN) orders given by a superior. Desertion is one of the most serious crimes in the military. Any punishment less than death is not acceptable. These traitors ought to be brought back to the USA, and subsequently executed. Canada can go straight to hell for harboring our traitors. If Canada won't send these piece of sewer scum back to the United States, then we ought to capture them and bring them back to the USA ourselves, or send a hit squad to deliver bullets to the back of their heads (if y'all didn't know what I meant by just desserts). The next time Canada wants someone back, we ought to show them the same courtesy in this regard that they've shown to us.

But if they all of a sudden start to lie, use the nazi-style spinmachine (see the quote below), and then try to send me to a dirty war, i would tell them to f--- off.

I would hope that you'd be executed for such a thing. Don't ever join the military. If you do, you'll either end up being executed for treason or stuck in prison for the rest of your life.

No, Nuremburg judged the German officers guilty of attempting to systematically wiping out several races of human beings. Huge difference.

To try and equate soldiers fighting in a war you don't agree with to the Nazis is an insult to Holocaust survivors.
Try explaining that point of view to the thousands of innocent Iraqii's who have lost members of their family through the USA using Weapons of Mass Destruction upon them. The fact is, for every innocent iraqi killed, it took an American or coalition soldier to press the trigger. There is a clear paralell here. You just can't see it.

That's bull..we did not deliberately target civilians..why on earth can't some of you people get that thru your damn heads..to try to equate US servicemembers defending themselves when fired on or the initial "liberation"...and it was liberation...ask the Kurds how they feel right bout now....they'll tell you straight up they love the Americans..and rejoice when the liberation occured.
The fact is that the USA used Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq such as depleted uranium bombs, they also engaged in carpet bombing. For any Iraqi killed in this invasion, it usually took an American soldier to press the trigger. In that action, they have assumed responsibnility for their individual actions, to say they were only following orders is no moral defence.

The amount of UD in any weapon used by US Armed forces..actually many nations used UD rounds and its radioative nature has been scientifically argued by both sides, it is neglible or comparable to other life-destroy habits. Calling them Weapons of Mass Destruction is misleading at best..outright enemy propaganda at worst. And please point to me in Baghdad or any of the major cities in Iraq where combat was introduced that we engaged in carpet bombing?..

when a depleted uranium shell hits the target, it vapourises into dust. this dust then get's breathed in, or get's into the soil where it eventually reaches the ground water, two very dangerous ways of spreading a toxic substance that does not decay chemically. therefor the depleted uranium will kill for the nex thousands of years in those places by causing cancers. the number of deformed babies will also increase. considering that in places where depleted uranium has been used the cancer rates have gone up significantly (i don't know an exact number, but i believe it was over 25% at least, and i'm being careful as i think the actual number was a lot higher) and the fact that this effect will stay virtually forever, i dare say that the depleted uranium itself will kill more than the war itself and if given enough time it will kill more people than WWI, WWII and stalin's massacre combined.
therefor the use of depleted uranium is unhuman.

when a depleted uranium shell hits the target, it vapourises into dust. this dust then get's breathed in, or get's into the soil where it eventually reaches the ground water, two very dangerous ways of spreading a toxic substance that does not decay chemically. therefor the depleted uranium will kill for the nex thousands of years in those places by causing cancers. the number of deformed babies will also increase. considering that in places where depleted uranium has been used the cancer rates have gone up significantly (i don't know an exact number, but i believe it was over 25% at least, and i'm being careful as i think the actual number was a lot higher) and the fact that this effect will stay virtually forever, i dare say that the depleted uranium itself will kill more than the war itself and if given enough time it will kill more people than WWI, WWII and stalin's massacre combined.

therefor the use of depleted uranium is unhuman.
Jesus Christ, you're so full of bullshit it isn't even funny. It'll kill more than 150 million people eh? Wow, where'd you get the evidence, your ass? Probably. That seems to be where you get your other facts from as well.

Illich Jackal, as a soldier you haven't the right to dictate national policy. It is not yours to decide whether or not a war is just. Soldiers join voluntarily, after all, the USA doesn't have conscription. Once you've signed those papers, you must follow all lawful (AMERICAN laws, not some bunch of stupid monkeys in the Hague or the UN) orders given by a superior. Desertion is one of the most serious crimes in the military. Any punishment less than death is not acceptable. These traitors ought to be brought back to the USA, and subsequently executed. Canada can go straight to hell for harboring our traitors. If Canada won't send these piece of sewer scum back to the United States, then we ought to capture them and bring them back to the USA ourselves, or send a hit squad to deliver bullets to the back of their heads (if y'all didn't know what I meant by just desserts). The next time Canada wants someone back, we ought to show them the same courtesy in this regard that they've shown to us.

But if they all of a sudden start to lie, use the nazi-style spinmachine (see the quote below), and then try to send me to a dirty war, i would tell them to f--- off.

I would hope that you'd be executed for such a thing. Don't ever join the military. If you do, you'll either end up being executed for treason or stuck in prison for the rest of your life.

thanks for the advice, but it wasn't really needed as you probably figured out. and no, a soldier has no right to dictate national policy, but that doesn't mean he has to follow every order that comes from above. if you are ordered to shoot at american citizens in a riot, would you follow that order? if you were ordered to guard a train filled with jews that is on it's way to the gass chambers, would you follow that order? if you were ordered to get the same jews into the gasschamber, would you follow it?
according to your logic, people of the german SS that basicly followed orders can't be blamed for their actions. This extreme example shows that their are indeed situations in which the soldier has the moral duty to disobey his orders, and if he receives orders that he feels are injust all the time, he has the moral duty to desert. Now take this extreme case in which you would probably allow a soldier to desert, and make it less extreme, and less extreme. eventually there will be a situation in which you will find desertion immoral. call this the critical situation. in all situations that are more extreme, you would deem it needed for the soldier to desert, in all that are less extreme you would find desertion immoral. The problem is: the critical situations is persondependant, which means that 2 different persons have 2 different critical situations.

Therefor noone is allowed to judge others based on their own critical situation, as 2 different judges would judge differently.

when a depleted uranium shell hits the target, it vapourises into dust. this dust then get's breathed in, or get's into the soil where it eventually reaches the ground water, two very dangerous ways of spreading a toxic substance that does not decay chemically. therefor the depleted uranium will kill for the nex thousands of years in those places by causing cancers. the number of deformed babies will also increase. considering that in places where depleted uranium has been used the cancer rates have gone up significantly (i don't know an exact number, but i believe it was over 25% at least, and i'm being careful as i think the actual number was a lot higher) and the fact that this effect will stay virtually forever, i dare say that the depleted uranium itself will kill more than the war itself and if given enough time it will kill more people than WWI, WWII and stalin's massacre combined.

therefor the use of depleted uranium is unhuman.
Jesus Christ, you're so full of bullshit it isn't even funny. It'll kill more than 150 million people eh? Wow, where'd you get the evidence, your ass? Probably. That seems to be where you get your other facts from as well.

:p the number seems to be high, but think about it. depleted uranium contaminates the water, the air, the soil and remains there virtually forever. In a land that has been contaminated, the cancer rates go up, which leads to more deaths. the extra deaths are therefor caused by depleted uranium. now wait a few centuries and then make the sum. the deaths per year of depleted uranium aren't really extreme, allthough a shame, but the total sum will be high if given enough time.

OMG, How many people are just pulling stuff out of their asses?

DU is a shell with uranium that is depleted of most radioactivity (everything has radioactivity it is just levels that are so low to be calculated), so it is not harmful, it is just harder and more durable.

OMG, How many people are just pulling stuff out of their asses?

DU is a shell with uranium that is depleted of most radioactivity (everything has radioactivity it is just levels that are so low to be calculated), so it is not harmful, it is just harder and more durable.

saying that DU is harmless is a huge understatement:

try typing this in google: "depleted uranium"
The results will vary from heavy anti-depleted-uranium sites to US military sites that try to do everything to minimalise the effects of it, but one thing is for sure: all of them agree on the fact that depleted uranium, when ingested as dust (in the air, or in the water), is a threat to a person's health.

also take a look at this:

http://www.mint.gov.my/policy/treaty_nuclear/unhchr_sub_res9616.htm

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

Stephistan..if Canada truly cherished the concept of the Rule of Law, you'd extradite both these soldiers (and they're probably Guard who thought they'd make a quick buck and not go anywhere) and let the Chain of Command deal with what is essentially a military internal matter of law. If these kids want to make a statement..then face your accusers in a military court and answer for your actions..you sure as hell don't garner any respect from us veterans or those who wear the uniform currently by running like a yellow dog.

His own words damn him...he thought he might get shot or killed..well..gee that thought hadn't occured to you in the year or so you were on active duty? That implies he was a coward..nothing more..nothing less...anything else is a smokescreen to cover his cowardice..and if he'd done that in combat I would have shot him.

Look, if you join the military, you'd better damn well know that you are going to war. THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY DOES. If a soldier was caught deserting 100 years ago,l they would be shot on the spot. Maybe we need to relive those good old days? :twisted:


But seriously, we need to stop thinking of our own feelings and instead what's best for our country.

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

Stephistan..if Canada truly cherished the concept of the Rule of Law, you'd extradite both these soldiers (and they're probably Guard who thought they'd make a quick buck and not go anywhere) and let the Chain of Command deal with what is essentially a military internal matter of law. If these kids want to make a statement..then face your accusers in a military court and answer for your actions..you sure as hell don't garner any respect from us veterans or those who wear the uniform currently by running like a yellow dog.

His own words damn him...he thought he might get shot or killed..well..gee that thought hadn't occured to you in the year or so you were on active duty? That implies he was a coward..nothing more..nothing less...anything else is a smokescreen to cover his cowardice..and if he'd done that in combat I would have shot him.

It's because we do respect the rule of law that we probably won't. Believe me Salishe, don't you think our government knew that it would strain our relations with the US by not supporting the war in Iraq? Of course we knew, every great mind in the country probably tried to figure a way to get us in there to help. We count on the US as much as they count on us.

We are the worlds largest trading partners after all. Without the US we would have to find other markets for our goods and without Canada the US would have to find another country to buy their natural resources from and quite frankly no one has as much as we do. So we do depend on each other.

But no matter how much the government looked, they kept coming up empty, there was no way around it. It was against international law and we were not going to break international law for the Americans no matter what might happen as a result.

Canada if nothing else is a country built on integrity. So, to make a long story short, they probably will be fine here based on the fact that they don't want to fight in what we (Canada) views as an illegal war. Thus rule of law is on these solders side. At least in this country.

Our Supreme court has already ruled (on another matter) but that where international law was involved that it trumped Canadian law. Canadians view international law as the most sacred of laws in the world. We feel it is the very glue that has kept us together as a world since WWII. No amount of screaming from the American government is going to change that. If they had committed a clear criminal offense we would send them back. But to us, the war is illegal as far as this country is concerned. I'm sure they will be allowed to stay.

I watch every day a load of BS being fed to the American people on my TV set. They rationalize it, propagandize it. You name it they do it, right down to just lying about it. The law is quite clear. But you're not going to hear that on your American news. A lot of us Canadians wonder why your government is not respecting the rule of law to be honest. :?

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

Stephistan..if Canada truly cherished the concept of the Rule of Law, you'd extradite both these soldiers (and they're probably Guard who thought they'd make a quick buck and not go anywhere) and let the Chain of Command deal with what is essentially a military internal matter of law. If these kids want to make a statement..then face your accusers in a military court and answer for your actions..you sure as hell don't garner any respect from us veterans or those who wear the uniform currently by running like a yellow dog.

His own words damn him...he thought he might get shot or killed..well..gee that thought hadn't occured to you in the year or so you were on active duty? That implies he was a coward..nothing more..nothing less...anything else is a smokescreen to cover his cowardice..and if he'd done that in combat I would have shot him.

It's because we do respect the rule of law that we probably won't. Believe me Salishe, don't you think our government knew that it would strain our relations with the US by not supporting the war in Iraq? Of course we knew, every great mind in the country probably tried to figure a way to get us in there to help. We count on the US as much as they count on us.

We are the worlds largest trading partners after all. Without the US we would have to find other markets for our goods and without Canada the US would have to find another country to buy their natural resources from and quite frankly no one has as much as we do. So we do depend on each other.

But no matter how much the government looked, they kept coming up empty, there was no way around it. It was against international law and we were not going to break international law for the Americans no matter what might happen as a result.

Canada if nothing else is a country built on integrity. So, to make a long story short, they probably will be fine here based on the fact that they don't want to fight in what we (Canada) views as an illegal war. Thus rule of law is on these solders side. At least in this country.

Our Supreme court has already ruled (on another matter) but that where international law was involved that it trumped Canadian law. Canadians view international law as the most sacred of laws in the world. We feel it is the very glue that has kept us together as a world since WWII. No amount of screaming from the American government is going to change that. If they had committed a clear criminal offense we would send them back. But to us, the war is illegal as far as this country is concerned. I'm sure they will be allowed to stay.

I watch every day a load of BS being fed to the American people on my TV set. They rationalize it, propagandize it. You name it they do it, right down to just lying about it. The law is quite clear. But you're not going to hear that on your American news. A lot of us Canadians wonder why your government is not respecting the rule of law to be honest. :?

Sad day indeed when your own Supreme Courts is willing to cast aside your own sovereignity to belong to some World Government that doesn't exist. Here in America what guides us and the actions of our citizens is the US Constitution, and let's break this down to it's simplest form ok Steph?

We have two military personnel more then likely they were either Reserve or Guard who never figured on being called up for combat in Iraq but wanted the bennies of serving...hence even both of them admitted they enlisted for the college money..not to serve their nation, they were in it for pure self-interest. When called upon to actually fulfill the obligations of any US servicemember they ran for Canada.

The rest of this as I said is pure smokescreen for their cowardice...neither one in the entire time (one of them in for a year) never mentioned Iraq to the attention of their Commanding Officers. It was only upon learning they would be assigned combat duty in Iraq that they suddenly came to this "epiphany".

You're interferring in what is a matter of military law. These are American citizens in the US military....not some UN citizen of a military that doesn't exist. As I said..if you truly cherish the Rule of Law..the Law stipulates these men answer for their actions in a military court of law. If their actions vindicate themselves and are acquitted then fine..the Law has been served..but answer they must..they owe it to their comrades who are in..and they owe it to the memory of those who have gone before..including me. These are serious charges and they MUST answer them before a military court-martial...Desertion..Missing a Movement, Disobedience of a Lawful Order (if they believe the order to be unlawful they must dispute that in a court-martial, not run to Canada)..and a few others I could think of.

We Cherish the words on our Constitution..it guides us..molds us as citizens..send them back to answer the charges Steph.

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

Stephistan..if Canada truly cherished the concept of the Rule of Law, you'd extradite both these soldiers (and they're probably Guard who thought they'd make a quick buck and not go anywhere) and let the Chain of Command deal with what is essentially a military internal matter of law. If these kids want to make a statement..then face your accusers in a military court and answer for your actions..you sure as hell don't garner any respect from us veterans or those who wear the uniform currently by running like a yellow dog.

His own words damn him...he thought he might get shot or killed..well..gee that thought hadn't occured to you in the year or so you were on active duty? That implies he was a coward..nothing more..nothing less...anything else is a smokescreen to cover his cowardice..and if he'd done that in combat I would have shot him.

It's because we do respect the rule of law that we probably won't. Believe me Salishe, don't you think our government knew that it would strain our relations with the US by not supporting the war in Iraq? Of course we knew, every great mind in the country probably tried to figure a way to get us in there to help. We count on the US as much as they count on us.

We are the worlds largest trading partners after all. Without the US we would have to find other markets for our goods and without Canada the US would have to find another country to buy their natural resources from and quite frankly no one has as much as we do. So we do depend on each other.

But no matter how much the government looked, they kept coming up empty, there was no way around it. It was against international law and we were not going to break international law for the Americans no matter what might happen as a result.

Canada if nothing else is a country built on integrity. So, to make a long story short, they probably will be fine here based on the fact that they don't want to fight in what we (Canada) views as an illegal war. Thus rule of law is on these solders side. At least in this country.

Our Supreme court has already ruled (on another matter) but that where international law was involved that it trumped Canadian law. Canadians view international law as the most sacred of laws in the world. We feel it is the very glue that has kept us together as a world since WWII. No amount of screaming from the American government is going to change that. If they had committed a clear criminal offense we would send them back. But to us, the war is illegal as far as this country is concerned. I'm sure they will be allowed to stay.

I watch every day a load of BS being fed to the American people on my TV set. They rationalize it, propagandize it. You name it they do it, right down to just lying about it. The law is quite clear. But you're not going to hear that on your American news. A lot of us Canadians wonder why your government is not respecting the rule of law to be honest. :?

We Cherish the words on our Constitution..it guides us..molds us as citizens..send them back to answer the charges Steph.

Not to burst your bubble .. but the USA is also most certainly signatory members of the exact same International law that we are. This would be really one of the most notable cases since after WWII that a country seen as historically not a rouge nation has broken them. It strikes me as odd, that while the US remains signatory members they breach those laws and call them irrelevant.. and yet while they also call the UN irrelevant they have no problem lying about what UN resolution said such as 1441 and every one before that to justify this internationally illegal war. That is far more sad if you ask me.

Canada also refuses to turn over criminals to the United States if they face the death penalty. Because it's a violation of human rights under the Charter.. another thing you are signatory members to. In fact Amnesty International speaks out often about United States violations of human rights. Canada ought to know, we wrote the declaration of human rights to begin with.

If the constitution is so great, why did it need to be amended so many times?

If the constitution is so great, why did it need to be amended so many times?

It's a living document..and as such the Founder factored that in when they put in the concept of Amendments..but it's had less changes in it then some nations documentation.

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

Stephistan..if Canada truly cherished the concept of the Rule of Law, you'd extradite both these soldiers (and they're probably Guard who thought they'd make a quick buck and not go anywhere) and let the Chain of Command deal with what is essentially a military internal matter of law. If these kids want to make a statement..then face your accusers in a military court and answer for your actions..you sure as hell don't garner any respect from us veterans or those who wear the uniform currently by running like a yellow dog.

His own words damn him...he thought he might get shot or killed..well..gee that thought hadn't occured to you in the year or so you were on active duty? That implies he was a coward..nothing more..nothing less...anything else is a smokescreen to cover his cowardice..and if he'd done that in combat I would have shot him.

It's because we do respect the rule of law that we probably won't. Believe me Salishe, don't you think our government knew that it would strain our relations with the US by not supporting the war in Iraq? Of course we knew, every great mind in the country probably tried to figure a way to get us in there to help. We count on the US as much as they count on us.

We are the worlds largest trading partners after all. Without the US we would have to find other markets for our goods and without Canada the US would have to find another country to buy their natural resources from and quite frankly no one has as much as we do. So we do depend on each other.

But no matter how much the government looked, they kept coming up empty, there was no way around it. It was against international law and we were not going to break international law for the Americans no matter what might happen as a result.

Canada if nothing else is a country built on integrity. So, to make a long story short, they probably will be fine here based on the fact that they don't want to fight in what we (Canada) views as an illegal war. Thus rule of law is on these solders side. At least in this country.

Our Supreme court has already ruled (on another matter) but that where international law was involved that it trumped Canadian law. Canadians view international law as the most sacred of laws in the world. We feel it is the very glue that has kept us together as a world since WWII. No amount of screaming from the American government is going to change that. If they had committed a clear criminal offense we would send them back. But to us, the war is illegal as far as this country is concerned. I'm sure they will be allowed to stay.

I watch every day a load of BS being fed to the American people on my TV set. They rationalize it, propagandize it. You name it they do it, right down to just lying about it. The law is quite clear. But you're not going to hear that on your American news. A lot of us Canadians wonder why your government is not respecting the rule of law to be honest. :?

We Cherish the words on our Constitution..it guides us..molds us as citizens..send them back to answer the charges Steph.

Not to burst your bubble .. but the USA is also most certainly signatory members of the exact same International law that we are. This would be really one of the most notable cases since after WWII that a country seen as historically not a rouge nation has broken them. It strikes me as odd, that while the US remains signatory members they breach those laws and call them irrelevant.. and yet while they also call the UN irrelevant they have no problem lying about what UN resolution said such as 1441 and every one before that to justify this internationally illegal war. That is far more sad if you ask me.

Canada also refuses to turn over criminals to the United States if they face the death penalty. Because it's a violation of human rights under the Charter.. another thing you are signatory members to. In fact Amnesty International speaks out often about United States violations of human rights. Canada ought to know, we wrote the declaration of human rights to begin with.

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties. That being said..these are not World citizens..they are American citizens...there isn't one member of my American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, or Vietnam Veteran's of America chapter that isn't in agreement with me that these two need to answer these charges before their peers in a military court of law....Would you deny me the right to have these men brought before me to answer for their charges?

If the constitution is so great, why did it need to be amended so many times?

It's a living document..and as such the Founder factored that in when they put in the concept of Amendments..but it's had less changes in it then some nations documentation.
My point is, with the amount of amendments it already had, I don't see how people can be so absolutely certain that it is not in need of another one.

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties.
If the US doesn't like UN laws, fine. But then don't sign them. And don't declare war on other nations for (what you perceive to be) violations of same laws.

saying that DU is harmless is a huge understatement:

try typing this in google: "depleted uranium"
The results will vary from heavy anti-depleted-uranium sites to US military sites that try to do everything to minimalise the effects of it, but one thing is for sure: all of them agree on the fact that depleted uranium, when ingested as dust (in the air, or in the water), is a threat to a person's health.

also take a look at this:

http://www.mint.gov.my/policy/treaty_nuclear/unhchr_sub_res9616.htm

Ok, then try this site:
http://www.nato.int/du/docu/d010523e.htm

plus there are many activists who want the end to all radioactive materials and DU is misunderstood.

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties.
If the US doesn't like UN laws, fine. But then don't sign them. And don't declare war on other nations for (what you perceive to be) violations of same laws.

Didn't say that we didn't like UN law..just when it comes into conflict with US laws it states our Constitution is not trumped by it.

And we went to the UN with the information it required...they weren't convinced that continued inspections would not work..we thought otherwise, hence when it appeared the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own rulings in the matter, the current Administration took it's own path to achieve those goals..some of which relied on questionable intelligence, some of which were to get a sadistic thug off the backs of his people, or did you miss that whole scene where Iraqis were pulling down the statue of Saddam and hitting it with their shoes (a cultural thing indicating they are insulting him)

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties. That being said..these are not World citizens..they are American citizens...there isn't one member of my American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, or Vietnam Veteran's of America chapter that isn't in agreement with me that these two need to answer these charges before their peers in a military court of law....Would you deny me the right to have these men brought before me to answer for their charges?

The reality is though Salishe as I have sad many times, in fact a few times today. Your US Constitution means nothing outside of your own borders. This seems to be a problem that some Americans have trouble understanding. It's the American Constitution, not the world. Most of the world, that is not considered "rogue" very much do follow international law. It does supersede the US Constitution outside of your borders. Now, you may not like that and that's kewl. But it doesn't negate the fact.

I respect your opinions, I think you know that. Perhaps on this one we will just have to agree to disagree, no shame in that :)

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties. That being said..these are not World citizens..they are American citizens...there isn't one member of my American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, or Vietnam Veteran's of America chapter that isn't in agreement with me that these two need to answer these charges before their peers in a military court of law....Would you deny me the right to have these men brought before me to answer for their charges?

The reality is though Salishe as I have sad many times, in fact a few times today. Your US Constitution means nothing outside of your own borders. This seems to be a problem that some Americans have trouble understanding. It's the American Constitution, not the world. Most of the world, that is not considered "rogue" very much do follow international law. It does supersede the US Constitution outside of your borders. Now, you may not like that and that's kewl. But it doesn't negate the fact.

I respect your opinions, I think you know that. Perhaps on this one we will just have to agree to disagree, no shame in that :)

The reality is that the Canadian government is sheltering two American military personnel who have deserted their unit in time of war. The fact that Canada does not agree with that war is irrevelent. And if the US Constitution, nor any sovereign goverments documents mean nothing then, I'll just stroll across to Canada and vote in your next election.

SO I'M GONNA HAVE THE LAST WORD STEPH..NANANANANNANANANA

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties.
If the US doesn't like UN laws, fine. But then don't sign them. And don't declare war on other nations for (what you perceive to be) violations of same laws.
Didn't say that we didn't like UN law..just when it comes into conflict with US laws it states our Constitution is not trumped by it.
Translation to normal English: "we don't like UN laws that conflict with the constitution". Unfortunately, the UN laws come as a batch - sign them all or sign none of them. And if you sign them then you're expected to follow them. Period.

And we went to the UN with the information it required...they weren't convinced that continued inspections would not work..we thought otherwise, hence when it appeared the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own rulings in the matter, the current Administration took it's own path to achieve those goals..some of which relied on questionable intelligence, some of which were to get a sadistic thug off the backs of his people, or did you miss that whole scene where Iraqis were pulling down the statue of Saddam and hitting it with their shoes (a cultural thing indicating they are insulting him)
But by your logic, wouldn't the Iraqi laws trump the UN and thus make it wrong to invade them based on UN rulings (whether or not other countries acknowledge these rulings)?

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties.
If the US doesn't like UN laws, fine. But then don't sign them. And don't declare war on other nations for (what you perceive to be) violations of same laws.
Didn't say that we didn't like UN law..just when it comes into conflict with US laws it states our Constitution is not trumped by it.
Translation to normal English: "we don't like UN laws that conflict with the constitution". Unfortunately, the UN laws come as a batch - sign them all or sign none of them. And if you sign them then you're expected to follow them. Period.

And we went to the UN with the information it required...they weren't convinced that continued inspections would not work..we thought otherwise, hence when it appeared the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own rulings in the matter, the current Administration took it's own path to achieve those goals..some of which relied on questionable intelligence, some of which were to get a sadistic thug off the backs of his people, or did you miss that whole scene where Iraqis were pulling down the statue of Saddam and hitting it with their shoes (a cultural thing indicating they are insulting him)
But by your logic, wouldn't the Iraqi laws trump the UN and thus make it wrong to invade them based on UN rulings (whether or not other countries acknowledge these rulings)?

Signatory members or not...the US Constitution is quite explicit in that it is not trumped by any foreign alliances or treaties.
If the US doesn't like UN laws, fine. But then don't sign them. And don't declare war on other nations for (what you perceive to be) violations of same laws.
Didn't say that we didn't like UN law..just when it comes into conflict with US laws it states our Constitution is not trumped by it.
Translation to normal English: "we don't like UN laws that conflict with the constitution". Unfortunately, the UN laws come as a batch - sign them all or sign none of them. And if you sign them then you're expected to follow them. Period.

And we went to the UN with the information it required...they weren't convinced that continued inspections would not work..we thought otherwise, hence when it appeared the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own rulings in the matter, the current Administration took it's own path to achieve those goals..some of which relied on questionable intelligence, some of which were to get a sadistic thug off the backs of his people, or did you miss that whole scene where Iraqis were pulling down the statue of Saddam and hitting it with their shoes (a cultural thing indicating they are insulting him)
But by your logic, wouldn't the Iraqi laws trump the UN and thus make it wrong to invade them based on UN rulings (whether or not other countries acknowledge these rulings)?

I hope they win the legal battle. I have hopes that Canada will accept them.

They should be ok here. Canada didn't support the war based on it violated international law. We also let thousands in during the Vietnam war. Canada didn't support that war either. So, I am going to guess they should be ok. I wish them luck as well.

Stephistan..if Canada truly cherished the concept of the Rule of Law, you'd extradite both these soldiers (and they're probably Guard who thought they'd make a quick buck and not go anywhere) and let the Chain of Command deal with what is essentially a military internal matter of law. If these kids want to make a statement..then face your accusers in a military court and answer for your actions..you sure as hell don't garner any respect from us veterans or those who wear the uniform currently by running like a yellow dog.

His own words damn him...he thought he might get shot or killed..well..gee that thought hadn't occured to you in the year or so you were on active duty? That implies he was a coward..nothing more..nothing less...anything else is a smokescreen to cover his cowardice..and if he'd done that in combat I would have shot him.

It's because we do respect the rule of law that we probably won't. Believe me Salishe, don't you think our government knew that it would strain our relations with the US by not supporting the war in Iraq? Of course we knew, every great mind in the country probably tried to figure a way to get us in there to help. We count on the US as much as they count on us.

We are the worlds largest trading partners after all. Without the US we would have to find other markets for our goods and without Canada the US would have to find another country to buy their natural resources from and quite frankly no one has as much as we do. So we do depend on each other.

But no matter how much the government looked, they kept coming up empty, there was no way around it. It was against international law and we were not going to break international law for the Americans no matter what might happen as a result.

Canada if nothing else is a country built on integrity. So, to make a long story short, they probably will be fine here based on the fact that they don't want to fight in what we (Canada) views as an illegal war. Thus rule of law is on these solders side. At least in this country.

Our Supreme court has already ruled (on another matter) but that where international law was involved that it trumped Canadian law. Canadians view international law as the most sacred of laws in the world. We feel it is the very glue that has kept us together as a world since WWII. No amount of screaming from the American government is going to change that. If they had committed a clear criminal offense we would send them back. But to us, the war is illegal as far as this country is concerned. I'm sure they will be allowed to stay.

I watch every day a load of BS being fed to the American people on my TV set. They rationalize it, propagandize it. You name it they do it, right down to just lying about it. The law is quite clear. But you're not going to hear that on your American news. A lot of us Canadians wonder why your government is not respecting the rule of law to be honest. :?

We Cherish the words on our Constitution..it guides us..molds us as citizens..send them back to answer the charges Steph.

Not to burst your bubble .. but the USA is also most certainly signatory members of the exact same International law that we are. This would be really one of the most notable cases since after WWII that a country seen as historically not a rouge nation has broken them. It strikes me as odd, that while the US remains signatory members they breach those laws and call them irrelevant.. and yet while they also call the UN irrelevant they have no problem lying about what UN resolution said such as 1441 and every one before that to justify this internationally illegal war. That is far more sad if you ask me.

Canada also refuses to turn over criminals to the United States if they face the death penalty. Because it's a violation of human rights under the Charter.. another thing you are signatory members to. In fact Amnesty International speaks out often about United States violations of human rights. Canada ought to know, we wrote the declaration of human rights to begin with.

Stephistan do me a favor...STOP posting as if you speak for all Canadians. Understand?

I live in Canada. I joined the Armed Forces and I think what these 2 blokes did is treasonous and they should be sent back. If 2 Canadian soldiers dodged their duties becayse they didn't want to go to Haiti or Bosnia then I'd like to see them brought back here to face some justice.

Oh and being a signatory to a treaty and ratifying it are 2 completely different things. If it isn't ratified by a state legislature then it is NOT law in that state. International law is not binding. And point me out to the ruling by the SPC that ruled that Int'l trumped national law?

As for the DU ammunition....I sat on the stuff while I ate in the field on more than one occassion.

It all comes down to the fact that 2 National Guardsmen violated the Uniform Code and crossed into Canadian territory in order to avoid justice. They signed the papers to join, they stayed there and when they were called up refused to serve. They could have applied for conscientious objector status...but didn't. Instead they chose to run away in a most cowardly fashion. Send 'em home. Salishe is in the right.

International law is not binding. And point me out to the ruling by the SPC that ruled that Int'l trumped national law?
Umm... Do you know the meaning of the word "law"?

Hey, Steph, what about the extradition treaty between the US and Canada? Doesn't that come under international law?

Don't tell me you are going to advocate the picking and choosing of which international laws to follow.

These guys knew the invasion was coming. They were in bootcamp when it actually started. If I remember correctly, Army bootcamp is 11 weeks. That makes the absolute earliest they could have started late January.

We had beem debating this action for at least a year prior to 3/25/2003. In fact, President actually pushed the deadline for the invasion back a few times.

Can someone please explain to me how they didn't know they would probably end up in Iraq?

And we went to the UN with the information it required...they weren't convinced that continued inspections would not work..we thought otherwise, hence when it appeared the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own rulings in the matter, the current Administration took it's own path to achieve those goals..some of which relied on questionable intelligence, some of which were to get a sadistic thug off the backs of his people, or did you miss that whole scene where Iraqis were pulling down the statue of Saddam and hitting it with their shoes (a cultural thing indicating they are insulting him)
But by your logic, wouldn't the Iraqi laws trump the UN and thus make it wrong to invade them based on UN rulings (whether or not other countries acknowledge these rulings)?

Very good point indeed. Using this reasoning, we cannot allow any ONE state or country to claim its own laws supersedes international laws, because if we do they are laws no more.

This is by no means ment to be offending Salishe, I know you love your country. But the fact remains that the world community in general cannot accept ANY country disregarding its laws if it wants to have any credibility. They cannot have double standards. Saying "all poor countries must obey, but industrialized western countries don't need to" isn't an option. Neither is "Everyone must follow international law, except countries who inscribed in their constitutions that their national law supersedes ours should national and international laws come in conflict".

However, the point on the extradition treaty between Canada and the US is a valid one: should two international laws or obligation come into conflict with each other, what is the correct course of action?

In this case, my opinion would be that the UN laws(or rather lack of UN sanction of this war) takes precedence, since the UN is the regroupment of all nations of the world. It seems to me to convey more legal authority than a two-party signed treaty. However, this last part is only my personnal opinion, and as far as I know no jurisprudence had ever come to pass in this matter, so anything goes.

or did you miss that whole scene where Iraqis were pulling down the statue of Saddam and hitting it with their shoes (a cultural thing indicating they are insulting him)

Since you mentioned it:
The statue was yanked down by a U.S. armored vehicle with a crane pulling a heavy cable.

Not much of a crowd.
Reporters and soldiers with some Iraqi citizens...
http://www.counterpunch.org/baresquare.jpg
(Most news sources didn't pan back.)

And as an aside, I don't think this was a very good idea:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39076000/jpg/_39076091_flag_bodyafp5.jpg
They did take it down fairly quick, tho!

Hey, Steph, what about the extradition treaty between the US and Canada? Doesn't that come under international law?

Don't tell me you are going to advocate the picking and choosing of which international laws to follow.

These guys knew the invasion was coming. They were in bootcamp when it actually started. If I remember correctly, Army bootcamp is 11 weeks. That makes the absolute earliest they could have started late January.

We had beem debating this action for at least a year prior to 3/25/2003. In fact, President actually pushed the deadline for the invasion back a few times.

Can someone please explain to me how they didn't know they would probably end up in Iraq?

No, that is a treaty between Canada & the USA. Not international law. Canada is well known to not hand over people if they believe it's unjust. There are exceptions to the treaty. I can look it up if you like.. but I don't see what you can't google as easy as I can :P

Listen this isn't the first time Canada has sheltered people from the US in these type of situations. If it's against human rights such as the death penalty we never turn over any one without signed promises they won't be given the death penalty. Peoples opinions are fine. This is not going to change how our government does things. Some (I suspect few) Canadians maybe disagree with our laws and the way we do things. This won't stop Canada in all probability in not turning them over. You don't have to agree with it. It is possible for some deal to be struck between Canada and the US as long as assurances are given that they won't be sent to Iraq or face any serious punishment. That is the way Canada works. Sorry if some of my fellow Canadians are unaware of this.

No, that is a treaty between Canada & the USA. Not international law.

Anything between two or more nations is international. A treaty is a legally binding contract between nations, there for it is subject to international law.

I seriously don't get how you came to your conclusion that an extraditionary treaty doesn't coutn as part of international law.

There are exceptions to the treaty. I can look it up if you like.. but I don't see what you can't google as easy as I can

It irritates me when people do that. You make the claim, you back it up. I won't do your work for you.

If it's against human rights such as the death penalty we never turn over any one without signed promises they won't be given the death penalty.

So, you wouldn't mind if we gave you a signed promise, then executed them anyway? Seeing as to how you think signed documents between two nations don't really count.

And how can we know whether or not to pursue the death penalty if we don't get to interview the deserters and see why they ran (hint: it begins with "cow" and ends with "ards")?

This is far different from fugitive slaves high tailing to Canada.

No, that is a treaty between Canada & the USA. Not international law.

Anything between two or more nations is international. A treaty is a legally binding contract between nations, there for it is subject to international law.

Not so, because two nations agree on a treaty it does not fall under international law. It's simply an agreement between two countries. It doesn't cover international law. I think you may misunderstand what international law is.

There are exceptions to the treaty. I can look it up if you like.. but I don't see what you can't google as easy as I can

It irritates me when people do that. You make the claim, you back it up. I won't do your work for you.

No, I already know the law. You're asking me to do the work for you. I already know what the treaty says. I was simply saying you may look it up if you don't think so.

damn crappy server

No, that is a treaty between Canada & the USA. Not international law.

Anything between two or more nations is international. A treaty is a legally binding contract between nations, there for it is subject to international law.

Not so, because two nations agree on a treaty it does not fall under international law. It's simply an agreement between two countries. It doesn't cover international law. I think you may misunderstand what international law is.

International law accounts for treaties.



No, I already know the law. You're asking me to do the work for you. I already know what the treaty says. I was simply saying you may look it up if you don't think so.

No, you made a claim. You have to prove it, otherwise there is no point in saying anything at all. Why in the hell would I have to make your case for you?

I know this isn't an organized debate, but some of us do follow some standard.

International law is not binding. And point me out to the ruling by the SPC that ruled that Int'l trumped national law?
Umm... Do you know the meaning of the word "law"?

I think YOU fail to understand what international law is. There is no state to enforce international. It is non-binding by nature of being international. Don't believe me? Take the book; Principles of International Law by Ian Brownlie, Oxford Press. You need a state to enforce international laws, and if no one chooses to enforce them then they don't apply. There is no world police force, world government or world army.

Canada and the United States to have a treaty on extraditions which by the way is a Law-Making Treaty ratified by both states. It is part of the international law set. A statute contained within a treaty is binding only if it is recognized by the parliament which is the supreme arbiter of law. If we take the U.S. and Canada in an extradition case then if both states signed and ratified a treaty of extradition it becomes common law within those states. That is a piece of international which is made into common law. Some of you don't have a clue what you are talking about. One of the founding components of internation law are treaties, so stating that they are not is absolutely false.

And Stephistan, you failed to answer in which case the Supreme Court of Canada stated that Int'l trumped our national laws?

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.
Two questions for you:

1. If YOU were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and YOU did not in FACT commit the murder, should YOU be executed anyways?

2. Is it "rightful punishment" to execute an innocent person?

BTW, the death penalty does NOT deter murder by a huge margin:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

International law is not binding. And point me out to the ruling by the SPC that ruled that Int'l trumped national law?
Umm... Do you know the meaning of the word "law"?
I think YOU fail to understand what international law is. There is no state to enforce international. It is non-binding by nature of being international. Don't believe me? Take the book; Principles of International Law by Ian Brownlie, Oxford Press. You need a state to enforce international laws, and if no one chooses to enforce them then they don't apply. There is no world police force, world government or world army.
So by your logic, I can break the law as much as I want so long as there aren't any cops around to arrest me. Nifty.

I will not deny that, from what I see being done, this is indeed how the US regards international law. But it's not SUPPOSED to be that way.

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.
Two questions for you:

1. If YOU were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and YOU did not in FACT commit the murder, should YOU be executed anyways?

2. Is it "rightful punishment" to execute an innocent person?

I'll answer..with no remorse....better one innocent and a hundred guilty dead....the innocent will receive forgiveness in the afterlife..even if I was that one innocent...I know where my soul would go...I would feel no animosity...

And let's not forget...those on death row are not there with first time offenses on the whole...they may indeed be innocent of the murder placing them on death row..but that just means we didn't convict him/her on another we didn't know of.

dp

International law is not binding. And point me out to the ruling by the SPC that ruled that Int'l trumped national law?
Umm... Do you know the meaning of the word "law"?
I think YOU fail to understand what international law is. There is no state to enforce international. It is non-binding by nature of being international. Don't believe me? Take the book; Principles of International Law by Ian Brownlie, Oxford Press. You need a state to enforce international laws, and if no one chooses to enforce them then they don't apply. There is no world police force, world government or world army.
So by your logic, I can break the law as much as I want so long as there aren't any cops around to arrest me. Nifty.

I will not deny that, from what I see being done, this is indeed how the US regards international law. But it's not SUPPOSED to be that way.

No you can't break laws. Cops exist within a common law framework enforced by the state. If you break the law and you get caught, then you can expect a punishment.

The international scene is more like an anarchy. There is no cop. There are no laws. There are only guidelines. You shouldn't do so and so, but you can. There is no world government, with its own police force to enforce laws. That's up to individual members to decide. If you wanted an international system analogy it would be something like a community policed by its own members. Under this system, every citizen is like a policemen, with the same duties and powers.

And by the way, this isn't my logic, this is standard International Law discourse. I provided an excellent read. Use it.

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

when you join the military you give up your right to make decisions, because those decisions are made for you by higher ranking (ie. better qualified) people.

if they suddenly found Jesus, Allah, or whatever, and did not want to fight, going AWOL was not the right way to profess their objection to the war. when you enlist into the military you enter into a contract agreement with the US government. If they did not want to kill another person, they could have declared theirselves "conscience objectors" and they would be sent to an area where there would be no fighting.

because these two douchebags did not delcare themselves conscience objectors, i think they are just pussies.

No you can't break laws. Cops exist within a common law framework enforced by the state. If you break the law and you get caught, then you can expect a punishment.

You are right that there is no international police force. There are international courts however. The UN has one. The ICC is another. The OAS, the African regional court and the European regional court. These courts work in a common law framework enforced by their supporting bodies. There is a body of law in the form of treaties, interpretations, previous court decisions that is generally recognized as international law. Punishments have occured for people breaking international laws in the past. Traditionally, there have been economic sanctions, revoking of certain privelieges, animosity of nations, and even coalitions of the willing invading your nation and imprisoning you. And of course, if one nation breaks a treaty, all the other nations will break it to. You might say international law is stronger than national law because nations enter into treaties voluntarily. When was the last time a cop asked you which laws you wanted to obey and which you didn't? Wouldn't you be more likely to obey the laws that you had the ability to choose and were fully aware of?

And by the way, this isn't my logic, this is standard International Law discourse. I provided an excellent read. Use it.

Your interpretation is one of many.

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.
Two questions for you:

1. If YOU were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and YOU did not in FACT commit the murder, should YOU be executed anyways?

2. Is it "rightful punishment" to execute an innocent person?

BTW, the death penalty does NOT deter murder by a huge margin:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

What a crappy reason to ban the death penalty!

You KNOW what're the chances of you being sentenced to death if there was a slight reason you were innocent? Very litttle my friend.

Also, not all our murderers face death. Most of them are sentenced to lifetime in prison, I believe Canada does that same to their murderers.

I laugh if this is your only reason to ban the death penalty. "Because you may be innocent"!?!?!?! LMAO, I think Canada would have a problem with their crime investigation, not our punishments

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

when you join the military you give up your right to make decisions, because those decisions are made for you by higher ranking (ie. better qualified) people.

if they suddenly found Jesus, Allah, or whatever, and did not want to fight, going AWOL was not the right way to profess their objection to the war. when you enlist into the military you enter into a contract agreement with the US government. If they did not want to kill another person, they could have declared theirselves "conscience objectors" and they would be sent to an area where there would be no fighting.

because these two douchebags did not delcare themselves conscience objectors, i think they are just pussies.
very good point, there are other ways there two guys could have removed theirselves from Iraq (transfer, MOS school, medical reasons) than selling out their fellow soldiers and going AWOL.

is desertion punishable by death in a time of war?

is desertion punishable by death in a time of war?
Yes. Thank God yes!

DP

No you can't break laws. Cops exist within a common law framework enforced by the state. If you break the law and you get caught, then you can expect a punishment.

You are right that there is no international police force. There are international courts however. The UN has one. The ICC is another. The OAS, the African regional court and the European regional court. These courts work in a common law framework enforced by their supporting bodies. There is a body of law in the form of treaties, interpretations, previous court decisions that is generally recognized as international law. Punishments have occured for people breaking international laws in the past. Traditionally, there have been economic sanctions, revoking of certain privelieges, animosity of nations, and even coalitions of the willing invading your nation and imprisoning you. And of course, if one nation breaks a treaty, all the other nations will break it to. You might say international law is stronger than national law because nations enter into treaties voluntarily. When was the last time a cop asked you which laws you wanted to obey and which you didn't? Wouldn't you be more likely to obey the laws that you had the ability to choose and were fully aware of?


Very true on the international courts. However, as far as the ICC goes, several nations abstained from signing it and further nations have not ratified the treaty creating it. Nearly every treaty created to date has been broken at one time or another, sometimes with repercussions and sometimes without. Which unlike national laws, is sporadic. The fact is that these international bodies are non-binding, they can't enforce any rulings without the aid of national governments. Their power solely rests on national governments making their rulings into law.

International law is weaker than national laws because they rest on national laws to make them enforceable within states.

What is wrong with 2 people that live in a "so called democracy" that seek asylum because they don't agree with killing innocents. If this so called democracy wants them in jail , it prooves ones again that those 2 has to find democracy and honnest trials in the free world, wich is like most US citizens and of course the people in the real free world now: The EU and Canada!

What is wrong with 2 people that live in a "so called democracy" that seek asylum because they don't agree with killing innocents. If this so called democracy wants them in jail , it prooves ones again that those 2 has to find democracy and honnest trials in the free world, wich is like most US citizens and of course the people in the real free world now: The EU and Canada!

Them being Volunteered soldiers changes everything. Democracy shouldn't even touch this debate.
As someone earlier said, the soldiers cannot vote whether or not they should risk their lives in order to secure a supply route. Doing so would...be really sad...and be a slap in the face to all soldiers.

They made a commitment to the US Army and to their fellow soldiers and are now breaking it. It has nothing to do with violating some rights you percieve they have.

It has been illustrated over and over that they did not do this out of some rediculous moral conviction. They did it to avoid fighting. They didn't care about some imaginary targeting of innocents. They did it to save their own hides.

Why not let them stand trial and defend themselves before a court of military law?

They made a commitment to the US Army and to their fellow soldiers and are now breaking it. It has nothing to do with violating some rights you percieve they have.

It has been illustrated over and over that they did not do this out of some rediculous moral conviction. They did it to avoid fighting. They didn't care about some imaginary targeting of innocents. They did it to save their own hides.

Why not let them stand trial and defend themselves before a court of military law?

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.
Two questions for you:

1. If YOU were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and YOU did not in FACT commit the murder, should YOU be executed anyways?

2. Is it "rightful punishment" to execute an innocent person?

BTW, the death penalty does NOT deter murder by a huge margin:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

What a crappy reason to ban the death penalty!

You KNOW what're the chances of you being sentenced to death if there was a slight reason you were innocent? Very litttle my friend.

Also, not all our murderers face death. Most of them are sentenced to lifetime in prison, I believe Canada does that same to their murderers.

I laugh if this is your only reason to ban the death penalty. "Because you may be innocent"!?!?!?! LMAO, I think Canada would have a problem with their crime investigation, not our punishments
You perhaps have a strange sense of humour if you can laugh about such a serious subject as death, especially if it involves a person who is truly innocent. At any rate I notice that you avoided a direct answer to my very direct question, perhaps because you would be unable to give an honest answer?

At any rate, the death penalty, even in the US does not prove to be a deterrent to murderers. Have you even considered for a minute, that people might be less inclined to commit murder, if they were going to face life in prison?

The graph would seem to indicate that the States without the death penalty, actually have a lower murder rate, by a big margin. Why wouldn't civilized countries, or States be able to learn something from that?

Several web sites also suggest that execution may actually cost more than to imprison a murderer for life.

And please don't tell me that your legal system is infallible and that innocent people are NEVER executed.

Oh BTW, if you support the death penalty, and someone who is legally innocent of the crime is executed, then you are condoning legalized murder by the State, through your indifference.

What happened to the days when good generals like Andrew Jackson could court martial and then hang deserting *******s?

Very true on the international courts. However, as far as the ICC goes, several nations abstained from signing it and further nations have not ratified the treaty creating it. Nearly every treaty created to date has been broken at one time or another, sometimes with repercussions and sometimes without. Which unlike national laws, is sporadic. The fact is that these international bodies are non-binding, they can't enforce any rulings without the aid of national governments. Their power solely rests on national governments making their rulings into law.

International law is weaker than national laws because they rest on national laws to make them enforceable within states.

True the voluntary nature of international law is its weakness and its strength. The European Court is the only body I know of that has a good track record for getting governments to actually follow through on rulings. I would like to think that the bindingness of law is based on more than just a police force and the ability to punish but maybe I'm a hopeless idealist.

Deserting is not only a crime against your country, it is a crime against your fellow soldiers. Your brothers in arms, people you should never ever desert, not if you have the utmost rejection to the war.

Oh, and the death penalty isn't "barbaric" (I pity da foo who said such a thing!) but rather a nessecary means to give one their rightful punishment.
Two questions for you:

1. If YOU were convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, and YOU did not in FACT commit the murder, should YOU be executed anyways?

2. Is it "rightful punishment" to execute an innocent person?

BTW, the death penalty does NOT deter murder by a huge margin:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

What a crappy reason to ban the death penalty!

You KNOW what're the chances of you being sentenced to death if there was a slight reason you were innocent? Very litttle my friend.

Also, not all our murderers face death. Most of them are sentenced to lifetime in prison, I believe Canada does that same to their murderers.

I laugh if this is your only reason to ban the death penalty. "Because you may be innocent"!?!?!?! LMAO, I think Canada would have a problem with their crime investigation, not our punishments
You perhaps have a strange sense of humour if you can laugh about such a serious subject as death, especially if it involves a person who is truly innocent. At any rate I notice that you avoided a direct answer to my very direct question, perhaps because you would be unable to give an honest answer?

At any rate, the death penalty, even in the US does not prove to be a deterrent to murderers. Have you even considered for a minute, that people might be less inclined to commit murder, if they were going to face life in prison?

The graph would seem to indicate that the States without the death penalty, actually have a lower murder rate, by a big margin. Why wouldn't civilized countries, or States be able to learn something from that?

Several web sites also suggest that execution may actually cost more than to imprison a murderer for life.

And please don't tell me that your legal system is infallible and that innocent people are NEVER executed.

Oh BTW, if you support the death penalty, and someone who is legally innocent of the crime is executed, then you are condoning legalized murder by the State, through your indifference.

Ya wanna know how I'd feel? I'd feel terrible for getting executed for a crime I didn't commit. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't Parratoga, Max Barry, The Red Arrow?

It is not rightful punishment to execute an innocent person. It is murder. Now, executing an innocent without knowledge of his innocence is a whole different story.

Now that we got THAT out of the way...

And don't you think that someone would be less willing to commit murder if that person knew that he'd be getting life in jail or execution? WE DON'T EXECUTE ALL OUR MURDERERS!!!

And I do not see how any website can make graphs of "facts" that are not in fact "facts" if the facts HAVE NEVER HAPPENED! Don't you think that it's another "US is evil and I got 'proof'!!"???

And no, our legal system is not perfect, innocents DO get jailed, unusually. But do NOT tell me that your legal system is any better because we all know that it is not.

And I think I have also responded to your last paragraph

And don't you think that someone would be less willing to commit murder if that person knew that he'd be getting life in jail or execution? WE DON'T EXECUTE ALL OUR MURDERERS!!!
That is exactly what I am saying. Therefore the death penalty is not a deterrent for murders.

And I do not see how any website can make graphs of "facts" that are not in fact "facts" if the facts HAVE NEVER HAPPENED! Don't you think that it's another "US is evil and I got 'proof'!!"???
The fact here, is that they are indeed fact because they have happened. The statistical date is 1998:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

Here are some more goodies for you:

"Apparently, the U. S.'s use of the death penalty is not improving its standing in the world community when it comes to the deaths of children. In a February 7, 1997 Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (part of U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services), from 1950-1993 child homicide rates in the U. S. tripled. CDC compared the U.S. with 25 other industrialized countries and found that "the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries." Almost all of these other industrialized countries have stopped using the death penalty."

During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty.

Even police officers are safer in States without the death penalty, than those that do.

So why do you want to keep the death penalty? Seems like a no brainer to me.

And no, our legal system is not perfect, innocents DO get jailed, unusually.
Since it is not perfect, there should be NO death penalty?

But do NOT tell me that your legal system is any better because we all know that it is not.
No our legal system is not perfect, that is why we do not execute murderers.

So do you still think the death penalty is the "rightful punishment"?

Are you still laughing?

1. I do not see an explanation of WHAT the death penalty has to do with these "facts" of yours
2. You must take into fact that the U.S. has a higher population
3. The U.S. legalizes fire-arms, remember that as well
4. I haven't laughed since I was looking at Somethingawful's Photoshop Phriday 5 hours ago
5. Yes I DO have a sick sense of humor. But I am not laughing now because there's nothing funny going on now
6. The Death Penalty still stands as an equal punishment for the person that commited a murder. Yes, rarely an innocent may be killed. But take into account that the death penalty is not always used like mad around here.

There's my little comeback

DP

1. I do not see an explanation of WHAT the death penalty has to do with these "facts" of yours
2. You must take into fact that the U.S. has a higher population
3. The U.S. legalizes fire-arms, remember that as well
4. I haven't laughed since I was looking at Somethingawful's Photoshop Phriday 5 hours ago
5. Yes I DO have a sick sense of humor. But I am not laughing now because there's nothing funny going on now
6. The Death Penalty still stands as an equal punishment for the person that commited a murder. Yes, rarely an innocent may be killed. But take into account that the death penalty is not always used like mad around here.

There's my little comeback
1. Let me spell it out. THE STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY HAS A LOWER RATE OF MURDERS.
2. Higher population is taken into account, that is why it is referred to deaths per 100,000 people. That applies world wide.
3. Yup more firearms = more deaths, can't argue that. Is this a good thing?

FYI.....in 1998, there were more murders in Chicago [698] (population 2,896,016), then there was in ALL of Canada [555] (population 30,000,000)

Perhaps when you do a little research, you will be able to understand the facts (which are not my facts) and the numbers. The death penalty is NOT a deterent for murder.

1. I do not see an explanation of WHAT the death penalty has to do with these "facts" of yours
2. You must take into fact that the U.S. has a higher population
3. The U.S. legalizes fire-arms, remember that as well
4. I haven't laughed since I was looking at Somethingawful's Photoshop Phriday 5 hours ago
5. Yes I DO have a sick sense of humor. But I am not laughing now because there's nothing funny going on now
6. The Death Penalty still stands as an equal punishment for the person that commited a murder. Yes, rarely an innocent may be killed. But take into account that the death penalty is not always used like mad around here.

There's my little comeback
1. Let me spell it out. THE STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY HAS A LOWER RATE OF MURDERS.
2. Higher population is taken into account, that is why it is referred to deaths per 100,000 people. That applies world wide.
3. Yup more firearms = more deaths, can't argue that. Is this a good thing?

FYI.....in 1998, there were more murders in Chicago [698] (population 2,896,016), then there was in ALL of Canada [555] (population 30,000,000)

Perhaps when you do a little research, you will be able to understand the facts (which are not my facts) and the numbers. The death penalty is NOT a deterent for murder.

1. I'm talking about a DIRECT link. Is there some kind of MAGIC that bonds the death penalty and murder together?
2. Got me there...2 outta 3?
3. Yep, more firearms = more liberty. The same people who defeated the English in the American Revolution thought up this idea of letting us all have firearms. Then again, if we ban firearms, wouldn't they become a major smuggling item for smugglers, gangs, criminals, etc.? Thus creating more chaos. I think the Prohibition should be a good lesson for everyone...

1. I do not see an explanation of WHAT the death penalty has to do with these "facts" of yours
2. You must take into fact that the U.S. has a higher population
3. The U.S. legalizes fire-arms, remember that as well
4. I haven't laughed since I was looking at Somethingawful's Photoshop Phriday 5 hours ago
5. Yes I DO have a sick sense of humor. But I am not laughing now because there's nothing funny going on now
6. The Death Penalty still stands as an equal punishment for the person that commited a murder. Yes, rarely an innocent may be killed. But take into account that the death penalty is not always used like mad around here.

There's my little comeback
1. Let me spell it out. THE STATES THAT DO NOT HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY HAS A LOWER RATE OF MURDERS.
2. Higher population is taken into account, that is why it is referred to deaths per 100,000 people. That applies world wide.
3. Yup more firearms = more deaths, can't argue that. Is this a good thing?

FYI.....in 1998, there were more murders in Chicago [698] (population 2,896,016), then there was in ALL of Canada [555] (population 30,000,000)

Perhaps when you do a little research, you will be able to understand the facts (which are not my facts) and the numbers. The death penalty is NOT a deterent for murder.

1. I'm talking about a DIRECT link. Is there some kind of MAGIC that bonds the death penalty and murder together?
2. Got me there...2 outta 3?
3. Yep, more firearms = more liberty. The same people who defeated the English in the American Revolution thought up this idea of letting us all have firearms. Then again, if we ban firearms, wouldn't they become a major smuggling item for smugglers, gangs, criminals, etc.? Thus creating more chaos. I think the Prohibition should be a good lesson for everyone...
All I can do is plant seeds of reason. If you choose to ignore the relevance of the overwhelming evidence that the death penalty does not deter murders then I cannot help you.

Here is your magical bond?

The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.

BUT HOW WOULD IT DETER MURDERERS????

BUT HOW WOULD IT DETER MURDERERS????
I can think of two good reasons. Think about it for awhile and maybe you can come up with the same two. Good homework assignment?

BUT HOW WOULD IT DETER MURDERERS????
I can think of two good reasons. Think about it for awhile and maybe you can come up with the same two. Good homework assignment?

11:33 pm right now. Sue me

ummmm...becuz they're suicidal? OMG! MORE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HELP CLINICS!

About the legality of guns and if they should remain legal, think over this stat, about 1% of gun related crimes are commited with legal guns.

Oh and about that death penalty thing, i really think it it obvious, but if you are having trouble, think about death.

About the legality of guns and if they should remain legal, think over this stat, about 1% of gun related crimes are commited with legal guns.

Oh and about that death penalty thing, i really think it it obvious, but if you are having trouble, think about death.

like i said...suicidal?

I read a story in the Guardian today about 2 American soldiers who deserted from the US Army, rather than take part in what they say is an illegal conflict in Iraq. Their cases are currently being represented by an Ex American soldier, turned Lawyer, who himself fled the Draft during the Vietnam conflict.

I think this shows that just because you join the army, it does not mean you give up all right to make your own moral and ethical decisions. In their case, they choose to excerise their democratic and human rights and not be involved in what they see as an illegal war and occupation.

I don't know whether they will succeed or not but I admire their principled stand and their courage. I wish them every success.

Then they should have never joined the army in the first place. War is not moral or ethical.

These two probably figured they could get all the benefits(ie GI bill) and not have to fight.

But when a fight appears; all of a sudden they find "morality"

The armed forces understand people who are against violence and don't want to shoot people. They will usually move said people to the medical corp or what not.

Sorry but courage is not a word I would apply to these two.

You mirror my thoughts exactly. These two should be hanged.

well...I'm out for the night

The War is legal under US Constitutional grounds..so his statement that the war is illegal is flawed...
Actually, under Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, the war may in fact be illegal.

the Canadian media should be understood that the boy didn't want to go to war, he expected the bennies of his military service but when it looked like he'd actually have to pay up with the obligation to serve in a combat enviroment he ran.
What we need to understand is whether his actions were justified. The text according to his own words are:

"The Texas native thought joining the army would be a good career, and it was the only way he would be able to go to college. So he did.

The U.S. went to war with Iraq while he was in basic training, and he started seriously questioning his decision.

"I felt what was going on over there was immoral," he says.

He says he believes he had a responsibility to resist the illegal action.

Like I said...a coward..
Since he believes that the war is both immoral and illegal, he chose to follow the courage of his convictions and refused to participate. I don't believe that makes him a coward, but a hero for humanity.
Well said Canuck, it has to be acknowledged that it took great courage for him to refuse to fight, also in seeking Asylum in Canada, he is forced to leave his family, his friends, his community. I doubt that many people would be as true and concientious as those two soldiers. They deserve support from people, not accusations of cowardice.

Cowardice is not courage. If he went to the superiors and said he refused to fight and accepted his punishment then that is courage. The army is not the way it was in the past. They will not put a man in the lines that will freeze. He could end up getting a bunch of people killed.

They ran out on their obligations and they are liars(the oaths they took).

Canada wants them Canada can have them. They can't come home now. Even when Carter signed the pardons for the draft dodgers, the deserters were not included.

The last execuation by the army was I think WWII so I doubt it would have happened to them.

FYI.....in 1998, there were more murders in Chicago [698] (population 2,896,016), then there was in ALL of Canada [555] (population 30,000,000) how about you and Michael Moore go have a pow-wow, because the 2nd Amendent clearly gives citizens the right to own firearms.

FYI.....in 1998, there were more murders in Chicago [698] (population 2,896,016), then there was in ALL of Canada [555] (population 30,000,000) how about you and Michael Moore go have a pow-wow, because the 2nd Amendent clearly gives citizens the right to own firearms.
Congratulations on your 2nd Ammendment.

Canadians can also own firearms, yet our streets are obviously much safer.

Don't those numbers kinda shock you a tad?

I concur. As a Canadian, I am free to own a firearm. All I need is to be 18 and older and get a permit.

However, we don't usually hand out permits to anyone. So it's harder for thugs and criminals to get their hands on one. I can clearly see a direct correlation to our crime rates.

And as an added thought: here, guns are REQUIRED to be kept unloaded AND locked. Which means no angsty teenagers can steal daddy's gun who was being kept loaded in a shoebox and use it to kill his little comrades at school. This is one of our little quirks up here in the north: we actually prefer to keep our children safe.

Since this thread has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with desertion, I will start another thread with that quote. To discuss it.

Since this thread has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with desertion, I will start another thread with that quote. To discuss it.

I concur. As a Canadian, I am free to own a firearm. All I need is to be 18 and older and get a permit.

However, we don't usually hand out permits to anyone. So it's harder for thugs and criminals to get their hands on one. I can clearly see a direct correlation to our crime rates.

And as an added thought: here, guns are REQUIRED to be kept unloaded AND locked. Which means no angsty teenagers can steal daddy's gun who was being kept loaded in a shoebox and use it to kill his little comrades at school. This is one of our little quirks up here in the north: we actually prefer to keep our children safe.

It's no different here..I need a permit to have a weapon and be over 18, but I refuse to register my firearms...that is the first step in a government intrusion into my life and taking away my guns.

And while your guns are unloaded & locked.and some thug breaks into your house who already has his weapon out and at the ready, just what are your options eh? No thank you..if someone broke into my house I want them to know a .45 caliber is pointed at their chest and I will aim for center mast on the human body.

And while your guns are unloaded & locked.and some thug breaks into your house who already has his weapon out and at the ready, just what are your options eh? No thank you..if someone broke into my house I want them to know a .45 caliber is pointed at their chest and I will aim for center mast on the human body.

If a thug happens to get into my house with a gun, I'll happily raise my hands in the air, let him take my TV set and computer, and get out with the goods. I'd then call the police to chase him, and my insurance company to get my losses covered.

Seriously, pointing your .45 caliber is the best way to start a firefight between you and said thug. Is losing a couple of material possessions worth the threat of you possible death or injury? Or the possibility of stealing life from another human being, even if he is a thief(Of course he commits a crime, but death isn't a just punishement for theft.)?

I know you're a soldier, and therefore most certainly able to protect yourself with your gun without much risk of doing personnal harm to yourself or your family with it. However, you should realize that most poeple are not, and stand more chance of hurting themselves with the gun or killing someone with it than just put the thief out of commission.

That being said, gun control IS outside the range of this thread, so I'll discuss it no further here.

That's all fine and good. But what about those that have no good insurance? There's plenty of the lower class citizens in the US whose insurance doesn't cover such and such. And you'll be a lucky fool if that burgler gets caught.

And you do NOT know what it's like to get your house burglarized do you? Around here, if the theif found you in the house while he's in, he'd likely not do anything less than threaten to shoot you. AND WHAT IF HE DID SHOOT SOMEONE? Not like it doesn't happen.

Hey, if you wanna continue leaving topic range to get the last word, I'll do the same. But we really need to quit hijacking.

Anyways, these "soldiers" are cowards. END OF STORY.