NationStates Jolt Archive

Two U.S. Army soldiers deserted Iraq and fled to Canada to escape their sentence and a fight.

(Don't bother debating this. The big question is quite obvious. "Why the hell would you join the U.S. Army, of all armies, and not expect yourself to kill people you probably don't want to kill")

What's the latest news on these...bastards.

Isn't Canada considering extradition? Anyhow, anyone should know that this is an all volunteer military. If you aren't willing to die for your coutry, don't join. If you aren't willing to be tortured by the enemy, don't join. If you don't want to kill millions of innocent civilians for no appearant reason, don't join. If you don't want to be sent out into outer space on a rocket, landing on Mars with nothing but your birthday suit, don't join (okay, that one might be extreme). Because joining the military is pretty much like lending your soul to the devil, especially for volunteer militaries.

...landing on Mars with nothing but your birthday suit...

Really? I'm glad I went to university instead, then. :eek:

The courts up here in Canada are debating to send them back to the States or let them remain in Canada. I haven't heard much about that up here. Probably a court order not to say much...

Send them to France. That is where cowards are from.

I hope their dead. Deserters shot be hunted and shot NO matter where they are.

Or who they are. I'd be honoured to fight for my nation, just not if it was Canada.

Send them to France. That is where cowards are from.
Which is also were Canadians are from...

Where some Canadians are from. I AM not from France and there is no part of my family heritage from France.

I hope their dead. Deserters shot be hunted and shot NO matter where they are.

Go and fight a War in a country where the people hate you because of your Government's money fuelled policies.
Go and fight a War where your life hangs in the balance every day you wake up, and every night when you lay down to sleep.
Go and fight a War where you are constantly looking behind your shoulder, waiting for an unseen enemy.
Go and fight a War where half of your best friends face was ripped apart in an instant, and the same bomb left you with only a scratch.

Go and fight a War - And then say that.

Go and fight a War in a country where the people hate you because of your Government's money fuelled policies.
Go and fight a War where your life hangs in the balance every day you wake up, and every night when you lay down to sleep.
Go and fight a War where you are constantly looking behind your shoulder, waiting for an unseen enemy.
Go and fight a War where half of your best friends face was ripped apart in an instant, and the same bomb left you with only a scratch.

Go and fight a War - And then say that.


First of all the war was for the security of America because of Saddams ties to OBL not money. Their are 110,000 other soldiers doing it are you saying that those 2 should be allowed to leave. If you do not hunt and kill deserters it promotes disertion, war is terrible but it is a part of life and must be done if your army deserts your country will fall.

You truly have a sick mind.

And with the rhetoric about Saddam's links to Osama Bin Laden, could I expect any less?

Two U.S. Army soldiers deserted Iraq and fled to Canada to escape their sentence and a fight.

(Don't bother debating this. The big question is quite obvious. "Why the hell would you join the U.S. Army, of all armies, and not expect yourself to kill people you probably don't want to kill")

What's the latest news on these...bastards.

Im not american so i might just be confused but dont a lot of people join the US military to get cheap colege educations?

Go and fight a War in a country where the people hate you because of your Government's money fuelled policies.
Go and fight a War where your life hangs in the balance every day you wake up, and every night when you lay down to sleep.
Go and fight a War where you are constantly looking behind your shoulder, waiting for an unseen enemy.
Go and fight a War where half of your best friends face was ripped apart in an instant, and the same bomb left you with only a scratch.

Go and fight a War - And then say that.

These two are cowards. And yes I did fight in a war where I didn't know if I'd make it everyday. Sure I didn't see the people I may have killed, but I knew they wanted me dead (and almost did it) as I was an EWO in 1972 during Linebacker.

It is purely a volunteer military you have options. Why they ran isn't really important. The fact is they did, which means 2 more soldiers might take their place in harms way. Nice of them to think of their brothers in arms.

Im not american so i might just be confused but dont a lot of people join the US military to get cheap colege educations?
That's like saying people only join the KKK to wear a bedsheet.

Im not american so i might just be confused but dont a lot of people join the US military to get cheap colege educations?

Yep, terrible example of perfectly capable students being turned into killing machines for dollars.

America - Elitism at its pinnacle, a perfectly capable student in a ghetto who has fought to earn his right at College cannot get in unless he has sufficient spending power whereas the pampered millionaire's who may be less intelligent son gets in through the VIP lane, backed up by some of the green of course. :(

Yep, terrible example of perfectly capable students being turned into killing machines for dollars.

America - Elitism at its pinnacle, a perfectly capable student in a ghetto who has fought to earn his right at College cannot get in unless he has sufficient spending power whereas the pampered millionaire's who may be less intelligent son gets in through the VIP lane, backed up by some of the green of course. :(

So your saying the rich person should just let his son not go to college. The military is a good career there is nothing wrong with it. You talk about the military as if it was just a bunch of murder thieves who eat babies and burn chlidren at the stake, without a military we would all be dead. And the military is not just made up of poor people for example Pat Tillman.

So your saying the rich person should just let his son not go to college. The military is a good career there is nothing wrong with it. You talk about the military as if it was just a bunch of murder thieves who eat babies and burn chlidren at the stake, without a military we would all be dead. And the military is not just made up of poor people for example Pat Tillman.
....Your aargument is littered with exception examples and rhetoric, as well as doctoring of my own words. Did I ever say a rich person should not let his son go to college, I merely believe that Colleges should be Government funded and free.

....Your aargument is littered with exception examples and rhetoric, as well as doctoring of my own words. Did I ever say a rich person should not let his son go to college, I merely believe that Colleges should be Government funded and free.

Then the jobs that require college are useless, if everyone could go the money for being a doctor would be half of what it is now. If everyone had a college degree they would just make somthing else to give the people who can an edge and it is what must be done.

That's like saying people only join the KKK to wear a bedsheet.


No. Actually, the vast majority of people in the military are college aged kids who thought they could do two years service, and then get free college...They didn't join to go and kill people, they just wanted free edu.

First off, I don't agree with the deserters. I don't agree with any deserters. As the military is a career choice, if one doesn't like their job as a soldier, they can quit. If I get drafted, cause I can tell you I won't join (with one exception), I would have no problem walking to the reqruitment desk and saying "I quit".

The exception: If America is attacked on its own soil. I would give my life in a heartbeat if it meant that America would continue to be a free and benevolant nation...wait did I say continue...I mean strive to improve. Either way, if it's on home soil, I would fight.

However, I will not fight other nation's problems, or for oil, money or power. I won't give my life for that nonsense, and that's why I won't allow myself to be drafted.

I also don't think those deserter's should be killed. Perhaps a dishonourable discharge...but that's it!

No. Actually, the vast majority of people in the military are college aged kids who thought they could do two years service, and then get free college...They didn't join to go and kill people, they just wanted free edu.

I don't think most people who enlist are ignorant of the fact that they may have to kill or possibly be killed. Sure the military gives benefits, but in return you may have to really have to earn it. If someone is afraid of maybe being in harms way, then they shouldn't join.

PS:It isn't free college you get, its a certain amount of money for school. Sadly not enough to get into certain universities. In my day (1972) you received about $600 dollars a year for schooling.

Isn't Canada considering extradition? Anyhow, anyone should know that this is an all volunteer military. If you aren't willing to die for your coutry, don't join. If you aren't willing to be tortured by the enemy, don't join. If you don't want to kill millions of innocent civilians for no appearant reason, don't join. If you don't want to be sent out into outer space on a rocket, landing on Mars with nothing but your birthday suit, don't join (okay, that one might be extreme). Because joining the military is pretty much like lending your soul to the devil, especially for volunteer militaries.
For your interest:

In the summer of 2002, when I was 17, a military recruiter called my house to ask if I had thought about signing up for the military. He told me that if I was interested in going to college, I should stop by and talk to him. I gave it some thought and decided to sign up as it may have been the only way I could have afforded a college education. I signed up on the last day of July, 2002. My dad had to sign a form as well, as I was too young to enlist on my own accord.

I shipped out to basic training in the summer of 2003, just as the pre-emptive war against Iraq was taking place. It was hastily launched without the backing of the U.N. security council, and was declared a violation of the U.N. charter by Kofi Annan and Hans Blix. This act was justified by the Bush administration under the pretense of finding weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorist organizations.

As time wore on, no weapons of mass destruction could be found, nor could any connection to terrorism. I graduated basic training in November, 2003 and arrived at Ft. Hood in December. I had asked my superiors at Ft. Hood on more than one occasion to grant me a discharge from the military, but they refused saying it was not my choice. I was never informed on any route I could take to leave the military, such as applying for conscientious objector status. I had promised myself that under no circumstances would I allow myself to become complicit in the illegal occupation of Iraq. No contract or enlistment oath can be used as an excuse to participate in acts of aggression or crimes against humanity.

According to the Nurenburg Tribunal, which was adopted by the U.N. as law, a soldier has the responsibility to refuse an order that he knows to be wrong. Based on this law, I refused my order to deploy to Iraq, and came to Canada with the help of Carl Rising-Moore, a Vietnam-era veteran and peace activist. I will not allow myself to face persecution by the U.S. government for following the higher international and moral law.

I am currently staying with a Quaker family in Ontario until I am able to get back on my feet

Apprently he has applied for refugee status and that will be heard sometime in September, and if that is denied, there is an appeal process.

For your interest:

In the summer of 2002, when I was 17, a military recruiter called my house to ask if I had thought about signing up for the military. He told me that if I was interested in going to college, I should stop by and talk to him. I gave it some thought and decided to sign up as it may have been the only way I could have afforded a college education. I signed up on the last day of July, 2002. My dad had to sign a form as well, as I was too young to enlist on my own accord.

I shipped out to basic training in the summer of 2003, just as the pre-emptive war against Iraq was taking place. It was hastily launched without the backing of the U.N. security council, and was declared a violation of the U.N. charter by Kofi Annan and Hans Blix. This act was justified by the Bush administration under the pretense of finding weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorist organizations.

As time wore on, no weapons of mass destruction could be found, nor could any connection to terrorism. I graduated basic training in November, 2003 and arrived at Ft. Hood in December. I had asked my superiors at Ft. Hood on more than one occasion to grant me a discharge from the military, but they refused saying it was not my choice. I was never informed on any route I could take to leave the military, such as applying for conscientious objector status. I had promised myself that under no circumstances would I allow myself to become complicit in the illegal occupation of Iraq. No contract or enlistment oath can be used as an excuse to participate in acts of aggression or crimes against humanity.

According to the Nurenburg Tribunal, which was adopted by the U.N. as law, a soldier has the responsibility to refuse an order that he knows to be wrong. Based on this law, I refused my order to deploy to Iraq, and came to Canada with the help of Carl Rising-Moore, a Vietnam-era veteran and peace activist. I will not allow myself to face persecution by the U.S. government for following the higher international and moral law.

I am currently staying with a Quaker family in Ontario until I am able to get back on my feet

Apprently he has applied for refugee status and that will be heard sometime in September, and if that is denied, there is an appeal process.
That shouldn't be so. I mean, it sounds ideal, but why bother joining the military if anyone can refuse orders? That part of international law needs to be changed, pronto.

That shouldn't be so. I mean, it sounds ideal, but why bother joining the military if anyone can refuse orders? That part of international law needs to be changed, pronto.
Actually it should stay. If I was in the army and I was ordered to do something that was morally wrong, and/or against the Geneva Conventions then I would refuse, and rightly so.

I don't think most people who enlist are ignorant of the fact that they may have to kill or possibly be killed. Sure the military gives benefits, but in return you may have to really have to earn it. If someone is afraid of maybe being in harms way, then they shouldn't join.

PS:It isn't free college you get, its a certain amount of money for school. Sadly not enough to get into certain universities. In my day (1972) you received about $600 dollars a year for schooling.


My bad...I didn't mean to make them sound ignorant. It's more that they are hopeful that they can avoid anything like that, and then take the money and run! But the recent war may make a lot of soldiers reevaluate their decision to join!

That's like saying people only join the KKK to wear a bedsheet.


That's not true at all. My dad joined for the GI bill as he said "I could not pay for college"

A friend said the same thing. He is in Iraq now.

My college education is already paid for. I joined the reserves because I thought it was a good thing to do. The US has an extradition treaty with Canada, the soldiers should be returned and shot.

Actually it should stay. If I was in the army and I was ordered to do something that was morally wrong, and/or against the Geneva Conventions then I would refuse, and rightly so.


Well you are right in that the soldier should disobey an order to oh shoot that family of refugees.

However, signing up, go through training and all off a sudden decide you don't want to be involved in a shooting war?

Considering how many wars, police actions and what not, you have to be completely ignorant to think you won't have to fight.

I doubt the validity of the article. I ahve seen similar stuff that is pro-Iraq. Yet, I don't belive Marine speak includes "evil-doers"

If true what did he train for?

How can anyone say a war to free people from a dictator is unjustified? Regardless of whether or not oil is involved, the ends justify the means.

How can anyone say a war to free people from a dictator is unjustified? Regardless of whether or not oil is involved, the ends justify the means.

It sounds nice but in the case of Iraq its an attempt of an excuse.

If the shrub truely belives that then we have to attack North Korea right away. Especially when you consider the fact the civilians are starving or come close to it......

There is also Africa. How many 2 bit dictators are there?

We have to re-invade Afghanistan and Pakistan and deal with the war lords......

It sounds nice but in the case of Iraq its an attempt of an excuse.

If the shrub truely belives that then we have to attack North Korea right away. Especially when you consider the fact the civilians are starving or come close to it......

There is also Africa. How many 2 bit dictators are there?

We have to re-invade Afghanistan and Pakistan and deal with the war lords......
Like every idiot you deliberately misinterpret something and think you've made a point. I'm saying that deserters can't be morally against a war that saves millions of people. I'm not saying that deserters should have to fight every country on earth that abuses people.

My college education is already paid for. I joined the reserves because I thought it was a good thing to do. The US has an extradition treaty with Canada, the soldiers should be returned and shot.


Sorry, we haven't shot deserters in years. I think the last one was in WWII.

The UN rules of military conduct do not apply to the US military in matters of internal affairs. The US military is not controlled by the UN, nor should it be. If a soldier really wants to leave the military there are several ways to go about it. Some are legal and some aren't. He should have contacted his Col or General if his superior refused him. Also he could have wrote to his congressperson claiming whatever. If you complain enough sooner or later you make enough waves where they will discharge you just to get rid of you. I knew a few guys in Nam who did this and it worked. Plus you could pretend to be gay as well, which is a good way to be dishcharged.

Sorry, we haven't shot deserters in years. I think the last one was in WWII.

The UN rules of military conduct do not apply to the US military in matters of internal affairs. The US military is not controlled by the UN, nor should it be. If a soldier really wants to leave the military there are several ways to go about it. Some are legal and some aren't. He should have contacted his Col or General if his superior refused him. Also he could have wrote to his congressperson claiming whatever. If you complain enough sooner or later you make enough waves where they will discharge you just to get rid of you. I knew a few guys in Nam who did this and it worked. Plus you could pretend to be gay as well, which is a good way to be dishcharged.
I think you're right about WW2, but that doesn't mean we should stop the practice.

Like every idiot you deliberately misinterpret something and think you've made a point. I'm saying that deserters can't be morally against a war that saves millions of people. I'm not saying that deserters should have to fight every country on earth that abuses people.

Actually you said the war in Iraq was justified because of Sadaam.

Said logic says the others should be delt with as well.

Actually you said the war in Iraq was justified because of Sadaam.

Said logic says the others should be delt with as well.
It says others would be justified. Not that they have to be undertaken.

I think you're right about WW2, but that doesn't mean we should stop the practice.

Eddie Slovac was the last one to be shot.

Firing squards are used in cases where the desertion caused deaths.

In Slovacs case, many are starting to suggest he didn't deserve it and Ike used him to send a message.

Eddie Slovac was the last one to be shot.

Firing squards are used in cases where the desertion caused deaths.

In Slovacs case, many are starting to suggest he didn't deserve it and Ike used him to send a message.
But these deserters do deserve it. If a soldier deserts during a war, the penalty is death. Simple as that.

But these deserters do deserve it. If a soldier deserts during a war, the penalty is death. Simple as that.

It depends on the situation. A firefight where his action caused deaths. The Firing Squad is an option.

Peace time? It's prision.

Besides. Till we have a declared war, they can't use the fireing squads.

It depends on the situation. A firefight where his action caused deaths. The Firing Squad is an option.

Peace time? It's prision.

Besides. Till we have a declared war, they can't use the fireing squads.
And the war with Iraq isn't a declared war?

How can anyone say a war to free people from a dictator is unjustified? Regardless of whether or not oil is involved, the ends justify the means.
And the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis to capture Saddam is justifiable?

And the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis to capture Saddam is justifiable?
I wasn't aware civilians with machine guns shooting our soldiers were innocents...

Like every idiot you deliberately misinterpret something and think you've made a point. I'm saying that deserters can't be morally against a war that saves millions of people. I'm not saying that deserters should have to fight every country on earth that abuses people.
The war against Iraq is saving millions of people? Please explain.

I hope their dead. Deserters shot be hunted and shot NO matter where they are.


gee all sadaam did was cut their hands off, or break their legs, that old softy.

I wasn't aware civilians with machine guns shooting our soldiers were innocents...
You invaded a sovereign nation without invitation and against the wishes of the UN. There were thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the "Shock and Awe" bombings and the ensuing battles.

The war against Iraq is saving millions of people? Please explain.
I think the Kurd's are happier now that they aren't being gassed. Now that state-sanctioned rape is on the decline that's probably for the better. And hey, people have a say in who makes their laws, darned if that isn't a good thing.

gee all sadaam did was cut their hands off, or break their legs, that old softy.
Yeah and some American soldiers tortured and killed prisoners too. Your point?

I think the Kurd's are happier now that they aren't being gassed. Now that state-sanctioned rape is on the decline that's probably for the better. And hey, people have a say in who makes their laws, darned if that isn't a good thing.
Who has a say in making the laws? Currently, Bremer's Orders ARE the law.

Who has a say in making the laws? Currently, Bremer's Orders ARE the law.
He left Iraq, IIRC. He's not in charge at all.

I think the Kurd's are happier now that they aren't being gassed. Now that state-sanctioned rape is on the decline that's probably for the better. And hey, people have a say in who makes their laws, darned if that isn't a good thing.
The Kurd's were openly backing Iranian efforts during the Iraq/Iran War. What would you do in the US if a similar experience happened?

I think the Kurd's are happier now that they aren't being gassed. Now that state-sanctioned rape is on the decline that's probably for the better. And hey, people have a say in who makes their laws, darned if that isn't a good thing.
well the kurds might be a little happier but they haven't been being gassed in over a decade. the state sanctioned man raping seems to be holding steady under the occupation. the people of iraq are yet to have a say in who makes their laws, the us put one bunch of guys in then they put another group in to replace themselves, the iraqi people haven't had any more say as of yet than they did before.

The Kurd's were openly backing Iranian efforts during the Iraq/Iran War. What would you do in the US if a similar experience happened?
Arrest them, rather than summarily execute a few ten or hundred thousand.

He left Iraq, IIRC. He's not in charge at all.
Bremer's Orders ARE the law. Read all about it:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Iraqis are in control....yeah right.

And the war with Iraq isn't a declared war?

Did you hear congress issue a formal declaration of war?

If they did then there would not be any policitical talk about the draft....

Arrest them, rather than summarily execute a few ten or hundred thousand.
Sure you would. In the US Civil War, you killed them

Yeah and some American soldiers tortured and killed prisoners too. Your point?


that he would treat deserters worse than the king meany sadaam did. try to read the post in the context of the quote, that's why people include them, to give context.

Did you hear congress issue a formal declaration of war?

If they did then there would not be any policitical talk about the draft....
That was kind of the point of the resolution they passed giving that power to the President, who then declared war.

Sure you would. In the US Civil War, you killed them
Only those who raised guns up against you. Not people who weren't involved.

Only those who raised guns up against you. Not people who weren't involved.
How about carpet bombing in Cambodia and Viet Nam? and the use of Agent Orange?

How about carpet bombing in Cambodia and Viet Nam? and the use of Agent Orange?
They didn't know Agent Orange hurt people at the time, so that's irrelevant. And carpet bombing kills a few civilians accidentally, rather than thousands deliberately.

that he would treat deserters worse than the king meany sadaam did. try to read the post in the context of the quote, that's why people include them, to give context.
sorry old chum, I did missread your post. My humblest apologies!!

sorry old chum, I did missread your post. My humblest apologies!!
sorry for being snippy, i actually mistook you for the original poster i had responded to and had to edit my post.

In 1965 U.S.-backed General Suharto overthrew Sukarno in coup that killed about a million people. In the 1970s and '80s, the US -backed Guatemalan government killed more than 200,000, mainly indigenous, people.

Yup the US is different?

they fled to Canada??
I think I'd rather just die in Iraq :rolleyes:

They didn't know Agent Orange hurt people at the time, so that's irrelevant. And carpet bombing kills a few civilians accidentally, rather than thousands deliberately.
Kills a few civilians?? Your history recall is very short?

The U.S. carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, between 1969 and 1975, killed an estimated 1 million civilians. Another 1 million or so died due to the subsequent starvation following the devastation to Cambodian agriculture.

Oh you meant a few MILLION?

Here's my take on the whole situation.

Okay, the guy said he joined the military for a college education. That's all fine and dandy, but if he didn't want to kill anybody, or didn't think he could... why in sam hell did he join the ARMY? I mean come on, you join the army, you know damn well you're going to be handed a gun and told to shoot people, same as marines. He could have just as easily went to the navy, air force, or coast guard recruiter where he could have a job that didn't require him to leave the base and work on planes or even be a programmer. It's his own damn fault he joined the army, therefor he has no excuse.

I know, he shouldn't kill or fight in a war if he doesn't want to, but please, tell me why he joined the brunt of the fighting force if that's not what he wanted to do?

On another note about the americans torturing the iraqi prisoners... yes that was aweful, that's why they're being court marshalled, don't think we're letting them off scott-free because we aren't.

Yeah and some American soldiers tortured and killed prisoners too. Your point?

wow, it's a good thing the iraqis wouldn't stoop that low :rolleyes:

they fled to Canada??
I think I'd rather just die in Iraq :rolleyes:

heck i'd consider fleeing to canada for the national health care if i thought they'd let me stay and i could find a decent job.

Kills a few civilians?? Your history recall is very short?

The U.S. carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, between 1969 and 1975, killed an estimated 1 million civilians. Another 1 million or so died due to the subsequent starvation following the devastation to Cambodian agriculture.

Oh you meant a few MILION?
So hundreds of thousands of bombs dropped over a period of 6 years kill a million people? More people died in the Civil War from disease.

Eddie Slovac was the last one to be shot.

Firing squards are used in cases where the desertion caused deaths.

In Slovacs case, many are starting to suggest he didn't deserve it and Ike used him to send a message.

Thanks for that name, Slovac, he was the last one to be executed. He was shot to send a message because at the time the Bulge had just started and approx 10,000 Americans had already deserted by that time. (Most were AWOL) As an American in Europe during WWII, how the hell would you get home anyway if you deserted. He didn't deserve it and IKE was a sob for issueing his death warrent. All of the officers couldn't believe it themselves.

heck i'd consider fleeing to canada for the national health care if i thought they'd let me stay and i could find a decent job.

well, yeah, if you want to pay out of your ass for taxes :rolleyes:

well, yeah, if you want to pay out of your ass for taxes :rolleyes:
And then go to North Dakota anyway, because it takes 2 years to get a CAT scan.

well, yeah, if you want to pay out of your ass for taxes :rolleyes:

but but but it's free health care! forget that you have to pay just as much in taxes so everyone else can get better at your expense :)

So hundreds of thousands of bombs dropped over a period of 6 years kill a million people? More people died in the Civil War from disease.
Now you are trying to rationalize and justify but somehow, Saddam is just different? Saddam isn't a nice guy but neither is Mr. Bush?

Here's my take on the whole situation.

Okay, the guy said he joined the military for a college education. That's all fine and dandy, but if he didn't want to kill anybody, or didn't think he could... why in sam hell did he join the ARMY? I mean come on, you join the army, you know damn well you're going to be handed a gun and told to shoot people, same as marines. He could have just as easily went to the navy, air force, or coast guard recruiter where he could have a job that didn't require him to leave the base and work on planes or even be a programmer. It's his own damn fault he joined the army, therefor he has no excuse.

I know, he shouldn't kill or fight in a war if he doesn't want to, but please, tell me why he joined the brunt of the fighting force if that's not what he wanted to do?

On another note about the americans torturing the iraqi prisoners... yes that was aweful, that's why they're being court marshalled, don't think we're letting them off scott-free because we aren't.


i wonder if those Iraqis who sawed that guy's head off are in any trouble? :rolleyes: after all, he was screaming until they sawed through his vocal cords..

but but but it's free health care! forget that you have to pay just as much in taxes so everyone else can get better at your expense :)


well they can't tax me more than i make, which is about what decent health coverage in the us costs.

Now you are trying to rationalize and justify but somehow, Saddam is just different? Saddam isn't a nice guy but neither is Mr. Bush?
Bush didn't bomb Vietnam or Cambodia. The bombs were dropped against countries we were at war with. And generally, they were military targets with civilians around, not the other way around.

well they can't tax me more than i make, which is about what decent health coverage in the us costs.
Mine's free. Go Army. Thanks for your taxes by the way

but but but it's free health care! forget that you have to pay just as much in taxes so everyone else can get better at your expense :)

well, it's good if you get hurt a lot, bad if your neighbors do..

well, yeah, if you want to pay out of your ass for taxes :rolleyes:
Either you pay for health care through taxation or you buy insurance US style. I prefer paying one premium in the form of taxes to my government.

i wonder if those Iraqis who sawed that guy's head off are in any trouble? :rolleyes: after all, he was screaming until they sawed through his vocal cords..
which guy? There were at least three. The guys who did in the second guy were killed by Saudi authorities mere hours after they murdered him.

Either you pay for health care through taxation or you buy insurance US style. I prefer paying one premium in the form of taxes to my government.
For less coverage. How many Americans hop the border for Canadian health care?

Bush didn't bomb Vietnam or Cambodia. The bombs were dropped against countries we were at war with. And generally, they were military targets with civilians around, not the other way around.
You weren't at war with Cambodia.

And then go to North Dakota anyway, because it takes 2 years to get a CAT scan.
there is no north dakota :p

For less coverage. How many Americans hop the border for Canadian health care?
We get total coverage here.

well, it's good if you get hurt a lot, bad if your neighbors do..
well, yeah, true... but it's nice to still have a pay check left over after taxes :P

which guy? There were at least three. The guys who did in the second guy were killed by Saudi authorities mere hours after they murdered him.

oh, i didn't know that. there's a video circulating around the internet. it made me sick :(

bastards.. :headbang:

well, yeah, true... but it's nice to still have a pay check left over after taxes :P
The standard of living is pretty comparable to the US so what is your point?

You weren't at war with Cambodia.
technically, the us occupation of vietnam wasn't classified as an actual war either

The standard of living is pretty comparable to the US so what is your point?
no point really, just feel like ragging on canada

You weren't at war with Cambodia.
The Viet Cong were in there. Countries are just lines on a map anyway.

Mine's free. Go Army. Thanks for your taxes by the way
well if they don't give you free medical in the military it would really be a sucky deal... yeah if you're wounded in combat you'll need to get a waiver form from your hmo for first aid on the battlefeild then file form....

no point really, just feel like ragging on canada
Ok carry on then LOL!!

no point really, just feel like ragging on canada

who doesn't? :p
http://img32.exs.cx/img32/5210/Copyofinvadecanada.jpg

The Viet Cong were in there. Countries are just lines on a map anyway.


now you're starting to sound like an anarchist. "nations are just arbitrary constructs created by elitist power structures to dominate the... and countries are just lines on a map."

oh, i didn't know that. there's a video circulating around the internet. it made me sick :(

bastards.. :headbang:


It was probably Nick Berg, the first beheading... I saw that one too, made me sick as well. I saw photographs of the second one, and only heard a radio clip of the korean guy.

My friend went to the marine recruiter after seeing the nick berg video, he's now in tech school training to be a fighting machine.

I think the biggest reason I got so sick when I saw the video though is because my second cousin is over there as a contractor doing the same thing.

The Viet Cong were in there. Countries are just lines on a map anyway.
So you bombed them anyways? How nice. Is that worse than what Saddam did to the Kurds? I know Kissinger is not to proud of his decisions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/1952981.stm

It was probably Nick Berg, the first beheading... I saw that one too, made me sick as well. I saw photographs of the second one, and only heard a radio clip of the korean guy.

My friend went to the marine recruiter after seeing the nick berg video, he's now in tech school training to be a fighting machine.

I think the biggest reason I got so sick when I saw the video though is because my second cousin is over there as a contractor doing the same thing.

oh yikes, :( well, i hope your cousin stays safe

oh yikes, :( well, i hope your cousin stays safe
probably will, he's a former army ranger :P

So you bombed them anyways? How nice. Is that worse than what Saddam did to the Kurds? I know Kissinger is not to proud of his decisions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/1952981.stm

well, at least we won that one :rolleyes:
oh wait.....

probably will, he's a former army ranger :P

oh, that's good :)

well, at least we won that one :rolleyes:
oh wait.....


we won, the south vietnamese and the pro western cambodians and laoians just lost later.

The kids did not want to go to Iraq and partake of an unjust war, so they fled to Canada. Some of you want them back so you can execute them. It all seems to come down to death and dying huh?

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to Iraq under those circumstances.

The kids did not want to go to Iraq and partake of an unjust war, so they fled to Canada. Some of you want them back so you can execute them. It all seems to come down to death and dying huh?

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to Iraq under those circumstances.

yikes, i wouldn't want them executed :( they just need to have consequenses for pussying out.

The kids did not want to go to Iraq and partake of an unjust war, so they fled to Canada. Some of you want them back so you can execute them. It all seems to come down to death and dying huh?

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to Iraq under those circumstances.


better than fraggin the officers tent like that one guy did at the beginning of the war.

The kids did not want to go to Iraq and partake of an unjust war, so they fled to Canada. Some of you want them back so you can execute them. It all seems to come down to death and dying huh?

I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to Iraq under those circumstances.

these assholes want them executed... I just say a court marshall and dishonorable discharge... possibly some time in prison, but not necessarily.

Like I said in my earlier post, if they wanted to join the military for college and didn't want to partake in the war, they should have gone air force or navy, it would have been just as easy to go to those recruiters as the army and they could have gotten a job behind a desk or loading bombs or something that wasn't fought on the front lines.

yikes, i wouldn't want them executed :( they just need to have consequenses for pussying out.
Others have stated otherwise, They want them shot. Some right here in this post have stated as much.

better than fraggin the officers tent like that one guy did at the beginning of the war.

I concure

Others have stated otherwise, They want them shot. Some right here in this post have stated as much.
and they give the rest of us bad names

Others have stated otherwise, They want them shot. Some right here in this post have stated as much.

that's fucked up.
they need penalties, of course, but death? that's just crazy!

As much as I would love to carry on the banter here, my pillow is calling my name. Enjoy the rest of your day, unless you have made other plans?

and they give the rest of us bad names
exactly :(

As much as I would love to carry on the banter here, my pillow is calling my name. Enjoy the rest of your day, unless you have made other plans?

i think i shall stay another half hour.. till 4am :D

Send them to France. That is where cowards are from.

May I remind John Wayne that the 'cowards' you mentioned were fighting the Germans and their allies for four years during the First World War before the United States, having decided that the allies had gained the upper hand, entered the war.

Send them to France. That is where cowards are from.

Wich also happens to be where the creators of the US got the idea to the constitution from. ;)

First of all the war was for the security of America because of Saddams ties to OBL not money.

And where are the proofs of those ties? Pretty sure there haven't been a single one that is even slightly reliable.

That's like saying people only join the KKK to wear a bedsheet.

That point would be valid if he had said that they only joined because of this. But he didn't. Try read his whole post next time. It wasn't that long.

The Viet Cong were in there. Countries are just lines on a map anyway.

Then it happens to be that even the US are just a line on a map... or US er different?

Talking about atrocities.... for what I know the only one that let an atomic bomb fall was the US army.... or am I wrong?

That shouldn't be so. I mean, it sounds ideal, but why bother joining the military if anyone can refuse orders? That part of international law needs to be changed, pronto.

Refuse orders isn't the same as refusing any order. You really think that not beeing able to refuse the most stupid order you have ever heard is a good idea?

Besides, then soldiers can start tortueing prisoners and just claim they where following orders and pretty much get away whit it.

That's not a world i want to live in...

Then it happens to be that even the US are just a line on a map... or US er different?

Talking about atrocities.... for what I know the only one that let an atomic bomb fall was the US army.... or am I wrong?


yes you're right, but this was before it was considered an atrocity... and germany was using biological weapons in WWI.

what's your point?

Refuse orders isn't the same as refusing any order. You really think that not beeing able to refuse the most stupid order you have ever heard is a good idea?

Besides, then soldiers can start tortueing prisoners and just claim they where following orders and pretty much get away whit it.

That's not a world i want to live in...

agreed. Besides, you're only supposed to disobey "Unlawful orders" and that's according to military law. If you think going into another country and waging war is unlawful, they don't give a darn cause they'll court marshall your butt so fast bubba would have a hard time getting to it

Like I said in my earlier post, if they wanted to join the military for college and didn't want to partake in the war, they should have gone air force or navy, it would have been just as easy to go to those recruiters as the army and they could have gotten a job behind a desk or loading bombs or something that wasn't fought on the front lines.

Many say in the thread they pussied out and didn't have the balls to go to a war. That isn't 100% correct. The guy didn't wanna be a part of an illeagal war.

Actually it should stay. If I was in the army and I was ordered to do something that was morally wrong, and/or against the Geneva Conventions then I would refuse, and rightly so.

Then your Canadian form of government is useless..as is every other sovereign nations...if they believe that some "international treaty" is above the laws and statutes of their sovereign nation. My Constitution, my laws, my Criminal Codes would all be considered null and void because of "international" treaty, and they are treaties...Laws are something my representative puts forth into Congress and they vote, and a Law is something my President can Veto...

As for Conscientious Objector status..CO's have to have a bonafide history of non-violence toward ALL war...not just ones in which he feels is wrong, he's making a political statement..he's not saying he's against War or killing, just that he's against this war, that makes it a political statement and is not justification for release from active service.

You invaded a sovereign nation without invitation and against the wishes of the UN. There were thousands of innocent Iraqis killed in the "Shock and Awe" bombings and the ensuing battles.

Again..I wasn't aware we were deliberately targetting civilians?...Please show me the stats where I can find them that these "thousands" of people were innocent civilians and not insurgents with guns..or better yet..a verified list of dead Iraqis which were bonafide war participants and those who unfortunately were killed....our bombings were very precise..we did not carpet bomb Iraq...we bombed selective targets..this continued "we killed thousands" crap is starting to get old....

The Kurd's were openly backing Iranian efforts during the Iraq/Iran War. What would you do in the US if a similar experience happened?

You have got to be kidding me..you can't possibly be backing the deportations, the gassing of entire villages..please..please don't tell me you were just condoning Saddams actions? And they weren't so much as backing Iran as seeing an oppurtunity to be free of that psychopath.

Again..I wasn't aware we were deliberately targetting civilians?...Please show me the stats where I can find them that these "thousands" of people were innocent civilians and not insurgents with guns..or better yet..a verified list of dead Iraqis which were bonafide war participants and those who unfortunately were killed....our bombings were very precise..we did not carpet bomb Iraq...we bombed selective targets..this continued "we killed thousands" crap is starting to get old....

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

about 12 000 civilians dead.

And by the way, the congress(?) report of 9/11 clearly states, that Saddam/Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden/Al qaida, it's actually been showed before that the Bin laden and Hussein hated each others...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

about 12 000 civilians dead.

And by the way, the congress(?) report of 9/11 clearly states, that Saddam/Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden/Al qaida, it's actually been showed before that the Bin laden and Hussein hated each others...

Actually viewed the site...it uses primarily media reports...hardly what I'd called the best source..additionally....it has an agenda..nowhere in their rationale do they allow for the possibility that a percentage might be insurgents and were killed during combat operations..and there are error ratios?..

And everyone wants to keep bringing up Al-Queda..I just say he supported terrorism...and have you never heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

amended:One last thing..that site, nowhere does it stipulate that we intentionally and deliberately killed thousands...nowhere will you find military orders to that effect..nowhere will you find State Dept policy to the effect.

If you've been reading through, I'd just like to add a few points.

Canadian Healthcare: If we have to go to the States for special treatment we can't receive here in Canada, gov. pays for it. So that border hopping you see, it's still covered by our healthcare. Which rocks. Also, to whoever had the comment about not wanting his tax dollars paying for the health of other people, if you actually meant that, you are indeed a heartless, self-absorbed wanker. Patriotism only in hate.

If anyone gets on the airwaves and talks about shooting these kids, we're not going to give them back. If we do end up giving these kids back and they get shot, or even life sentences, don't expect us to return the next batch. Or the next batch.

Kids, people. Some of you were kids once, some of you still are.

Some of you American extremists scare the shit out of me.

If you've been reading through, I'd just like to add a few points.

Canadian Healthcare: If we have to go to the States for special treatment we can't receive here in Canada, gov. pays for it. So that border hopping you see, it's still covered by our healthcare. Which rocks. Also, to whoever had the comment about not wanting his tax dollars paying for the health of other people, if you actually meant that, you are indeed a heartless, self-absorbed wanker. Patriotism only in hate. patriotism has nothing to do with paying for someone else's healthcare

If anyone gets on the airwaves and talks about shooting these kids, we're not going to give them back. If we do end up giving these kids back and they get shot, or even life sentences, don't expect us to return the next batch. Or the next batch.

Kids, people. Some of you were kids once, some of you still are.

Some of you American extremists scare the shit out of me.

They are not children..they knew the risks when they stood before that Officer giving the Oath of Enlistment....they were soldiers in the United States Armed Forces, by enabling their desertion you are sending the message "We do not care that they have committed a criminal act"...and the message "We do not care for your military system of jurisprudence", and finally..."We do not care bout keeping friendly relations with the US"

we won, the south vietnamese and the pro western cambodians and laoians just lost later.


so you won the war... curious what was that scene i remember on TV where the Americans were being evacuated off the roof of their embassy during the fall of Saigon?

I am pretty sure that one counts as a loss... sorry.

You have got to be kidding me..you can't possibly be backing the deportations, the gassing of entire villages..please..please don't tell me you were just condoning Saddams actions? And they weren't so much as backing Iran as seeing an oppurtunity to be free of that psychopath.

Well the US was supplying the gas at the time... so obviously they were anti-american insurgents.


And everyone wants to keep bringing up Al-Queda..I just say he supported terrorism...and have you never heard the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
Saddam was anti-terrorists... he did not fund any action (well there is no documented evidence he did) and he did not like OBL at all... something he stated many times both before and after S11




They are not children..they knew the risks when they stood before that Officer giving the Oath of Enlistment....they were soldiers in the United States Armed Forces, by enabling their desertion you are sending the message "We do not care that they have committed a criminal act"...and the message "We do not care for your military system of jurisprudence", and finally..."We do not care bout keeping friendly relations with the US"
Well you dont seem to care for other nations soverign rights, or International Laws and Treaties... why should anyone else respect yours?

Finally, in response to the original question: I thought GWB declared the War over a year ago?

Doesn´t Canada punish deserters as well????
Every country does that. Many would actualy execute those. The US doesn´t do that. They receive their punishment for their action.
Every state has to keep the law and to maintain the order. That is especially important in the military. Therefore every state punishes deserters according to its national law.
The US has the right to do so such as any other state.
And as any other state it exercises jurisdiction about its citizens and their action wherever they are done as well as about all illegal actions committed on its territory, ships, planes, e.g.
Canada has no right to reject the extradition, since it enshures a lawful trial.

But Canada is known for its intrasigence in regard of the extradition of people.
You should really change your legal system and speed up the process of court review.

Doesn´t Canada punish deserters as well????
Every country does that. Many would actualy execute those. The US doesn´t do that. They receive their punishment for their action.
Every state has to keep the law and to maintain the order. That is especially important in the military. Therefore every state punishes deserters according to its national law.
The US has the right to do so such as any other state.
And as any other state it exercises jurisdiction about its citizens and their action wherever they are done as well as about all illegal actions committed on its territory, ships, planes, e.g.
Canada has no right to reject the extradition, since it enshures a lawful trial.

But Canada is known for its intrasigence in regard of the extradition of people.
You should really change your legal system and speed up the process of court review.
There is no death penalty in Canada. I believe that also applies to Canadian forces deserters.

According to what has been written in other threads regarding US deserters, the maximum penalty is death. Many posters in this thread and others have suggested that US deserters should be shot.

Canada is very reluctant to extradite people back to a country that advocates the death penalty. I fully endorse that decision.

At any rate you can read more here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3867481.stm

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/05/290467.html

Personally speaking, if they are going to face the death penalty in the US, then Canada should not extradite them.

CanuckHeaven,

according to the article they may only face a five-year prison sentence, probably even less.
That is not much for their crime,.
So, don´t make an elephant out of a fly regarding this issue.
Canada has unfortunately very slow trials regarding extradition. Other countries have also problems with Canada in that respect if they want the extradition of some of their nationals from Canada because they committed crimes over there.

Then your Canadian form of government is useless..as is every other sovereign nations...if they believe that some "international treaty" is above the laws and statutes of their sovereign nation. My Constitution, my laws, my Criminal Codes would all be considered null and void because of "international" treaty, and they are treaties...Laws are something my representative puts forth into Congress and they vote, and a Law is something my President can Veto...

As for Conscientious Objector status..CO's have to have a bonafide history of non-violence toward ALL war...not just ones in which he feels is wrong, he's making a political statement..he's not saying he's against War or killing, just that he's against this war, that makes it a political statement and is not justification for release from active service.
I believe that my country's respect for international laws is an admirable quality, and makes me proud as a Canadian. I have noticed that you have no respect for the sovereignity of nations of the world, nor the Geneva Conventions. The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions were designed to protect countries from people, such as yourself.

I lost a lot of respect for the US Government when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without consent from the UN, especially while the UN inspectors where in Iraq and looking for so called WMD.

Again..I wasn't aware we were deliberately targetting civilians?...Please show me the stats where I can find them that these "thousands" of people were innocent civilians and not insurgents with guns..or better yet..a verified list of dead Iraqis which were bonafide war participants and those who unfortunately were killed....our bombings were very precise..we did not carpet bomb Iraq...we bombed selective targets..this continued "we killed thousands" crap is starting to get old....
Speaking of getting old, so is your carte blanche defense of the US invasion of Iraq. The US had no right to invade Iraq, therefore 1 innocent death was 1 too many, and over 10,000 deaths is totally unacceptable.

WARNING!! Here is a web site that shows pictures of innocent Iraqi victims, men, women, and children:

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm

As far as "Shock and Awe" is concerned, it kinda debunks your argument about "selective targets", and anyone seeing the footage would agree, and of course the numbers of casualties:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-08.htm

Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples’ neurological systems, “to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."

When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman’s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon’s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That’s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So “you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Ullman is sure it will work as well in 2003 as it did in 1945: “You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes." "Super tools and weapons -- information-age equivalents of the atomic bomb -- have to be invented," he wrote in the Economic Times. "As the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome.”

When he first invented “rapid dominance,” Ullman talked about an “eight-level hierarchy of shock and awe,” with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the top. Now, it seems, that’s where he wants to start.

So you can get off the soap box, where all you do is parrot the "corporate" line/lies.

I believe that my country's respect for international laws is an admirable quality, and makes me proud as a Canadian. I have noticed that you have no respect for the sovereignity of nations of the world, nor the Geneva Conventions. The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions were designed to protect countries from people, such as yourself.

I lost a lot of respect for the US Government when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without consent from the UN, especially while the UN inspectors where in Iraq and looking for so called WMD.

It makes you proud that you believe International treaties are above the legal documents (I don't recall what the equivalent of our Constitution would be) that govern the Laws of your country?

Addendum:I have plenty of respect for sovereignity..if the Iraqis had truly been represented by Saddam's regime I would been against the war myself. But seeing as how he killed (ok, let's put the blame squarely on his regime, where it belongs not some psuedo-connections with arms dealers or previous US Administrations) over 300,000 of his people for no other reason then they defied his despotic regime...I think it'd be safe to say that he didn't represent the Iraqi people.

As for the Geneva Conventions..they were drawn up between honorable parties who admitted that sometimes their militaries might go overboard, and the Conventions were a tool to oversee military abuses, and protect prisoners of war...between honorable parties I do not believe the men who beheaded our people..burned their bodies alive, kill members of their own government with car bombs, bomb school buses...etc..etc. can be considered an honorable party I think the Geneva Conventions could never have imagined in their wildest imaginations the kind of enemy we now face, and as such need a serious revamp.

CanuckHeaven,

according to the article they may only face a five-year prison sentence, probably even less.
That is not much for their crime,.
So, don´t make an elephant out of a fly regarding this issue.
Canada has unfortunately very slow trials regarding extradition. Other countries have also problems with Canada in that respect if they want the extradition of some of their nationals from Canada because they committed crimes over there.
I suppose if the US could guarantee that the death penalty would NOT be imposed, then I would imagine that the two people in question will be returned to the US.

It makes you proud that you believe International treaties are above the legal documents (I don't recall what the equivalent of our Constitution would be) that govern the Laws of your country?
I didn't say that, so please don't twist my words to suit your argument. What I said:

"I believe that my country's respect for international laws is an admirable quality, and makes me proud as a Canadian."

If any of our laws violate International law, then I would have to seriously look to my country to change those laws as long as they don't infringe upon my rights as a Canadian.

Im not american so i might just be confused but dont a lot of people join the US military to get cheap colege educations?

If they do that, they're idiots. Going to college is not what a military does. A military protects its country and fights its wars. Anyone who cannot understand these fundamentals shouldn't be in college; they are not intelligent enough to be there.

The army is a volunteer army ? I beg to differ. When you are unepmployed and have no means of survival what are your options then ? Some choose the army, reluctant but they must. I am not saying that those who are in the army all have to because they have no choice but some do. Look at the percentages of people form lower class environments and ethnical 'minorities', some sick scientist would know say that non-whities are genetically more inclined to commit cruelty blablabla, hang those fucking weird KKK/white power-scientists

I didn't say that, so please don't twist my words to suit your argument. What I said:

"I believe that my country's respect for international laws is an admirable quality, and makes me proud as a Canadian."

If any of our laws violate International law, then I would have to seriously look to my country to change those laws as long as they don't infringe upon my rights as a Canadian.

If I misspoke then I apologize, but that is certainly what your statement implied..and if you would have any law changed as long as it didn't infringe on your rights as a Canadian, why would you expect we Americans to change our laws..as they certainly infringe on my right of due process in dealing with two deserters who should be tried in a military court..but you have no problem it appears with things that infringe on my rights as an American?

Yep, terrible example of perfectly capable students being turned into killing machines for dollars.

America - Elitism at its pinnacle, a perfectly capable student in a ghetto who has fought to earn his right at College cannot get in unless he has sufficient spending power whereas the pampered millionaire's who may be less intelligent son gets in through the VIP lane, backed up by some of the green of course. :(

Anyone who joins the military to go to college shouldn't be in college. They are not intelligent enough to know what a military is, and does.

The army is a volunteer army ? I beg to differ. When you are unepmployed and have no means of survival what are your options then ? Some choose the army, reluctant but they must. I am not saying that those who are in the army all have to because they have no choice but some do. Look at the percentages of people form lower class environments and ethnical 'minorities', some sick scientist would know say that non-whities are genetically more inclined to commit cruelty blablabla, hang those fucking weird KKK/white power-scientists

Please don't try to use that argument..we do have an all-volunteer military, no one forces anyone to sign an enlistment contract..there are always options. and on..btw..your stats are woefully wrong..in the Marine Corps, we are only 40% minority...the other branches have similar ratios..so that blows that statement out of the water.

I have plenty of respect for sovereignity..if the Iraqis had truly been represented by Saddam's regime I would been against the war myself. But seeing as how he killed (ok, let's put the blame squarely on his regime, where it belongs not some psuedo-connections with arms dealers or previous US Administrations) over 300,000 of his people for no other reason then they defied his despotic regime...I think it'd be safe to say that he didn't represent the Iraqi people.

The US should shoulder some of the blame for this and you neglect to mention that many Kurds were working with Iranians for the overthrow of Saddam. I know from your posts that you would have done exactly the same thing. Remember, it was you who stated:

"I say waste the friggin entire Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country is pretty much pacified..let the Shiites and Kurds argue over what is left. "

So your argument falls upon deaf ears here. Credibility counts and I can't see yours.

If I misspoke then I apologize, but that is certainly what your statement implied..and if you would have any law changed as long as it didn't infringe on your rights as a Canadian, why would you expect we Americans to change our laws..as they certainly infringe on my right of due process in dealing with two deserters who should be tried in a military court..but you have no problem it appears with things that infringe on my rights as an American?
Well for starters, I believe that the US law that allows for the death penalty is morally wrong and barbaric, but it is your country. However, since that law is on your books, I see no reason to extradite those prisoners back to the US, as long as they face the death penalty.

BTW, Salishe, you are one of the few that were calling for these two to be executed, if my memory serves me correctly.

If I misspoke then I apologize, but that is certainly what your statement implied..and if you would have any law changed as long as it didn't infringe on your rights as a Canadian, why would you expect we Americans to change our laws..as they certainly infringe on my right of due process in dealing with two deserters who should be tried in a military court..but you have no problem it appears with things that infringe on my rights as an American?

You have no right to process anyone. The US government has a right to process two desserters. But these desserters also have a right, according to international law, to present their case before a third country and try to get protection as refugees. The Canadian government will hear their case.

If they can't convince an Immigration and Refugee Board member that they will be unjustly persectuted in the US or that the punishment will be inhumane then they will be sent back (they have a recourse to appeal, but that only works in 1% of the cases) and the US can proceed with their trial.

Will they face unjust persecution and punishment in the US? I don't think so. The only reason the process takes so long is because there are many cases that the IRB has to hear.

No one's rights are being overstepped here.

The US should shoulder some of the blame for this and you neglect to mention that many Kurds were working with Iranians for the overthrow of Saddam. I know from your posts that you would have done exactly the same thing. Remember, it was you who stated:

"I say waste the friggin entire Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country is pretty much pacified..let the Shiites and Kurds argue over what is left. "

So your argument falls upon deaf ears here. Credibility counts and I can't see yours.

Nice CH how you pick and choose my statements..if you'll recall..that statement was done shortly after a mob in Fallujah had murdered 4 Americans, burned their bodies, finally mutilating them to the point their own mothers couldn't recognize them without a forensics lab, and as such I was understandably emotionally charged.

And no..I refuse to accept any blame, where is the sense of personal responsibility here?..We, that is the US never told Saddam to murder his own people..We never gave orders that the Kurds be gassed...put the blame squarely where it belongs for once...and quit trying to link us as if we had some personal hand it...

My Credibility is in the faces of the Kurds who are now prospering, in the faces of Shiites who now, despite everything that Saddam or the Occupation has done..don't feel like second class citizens behind the Sunnis that Saddam's regime favored.

...in the Marine Corps, we are only 40% minority...the other branches have similar ratios..so that blows that statement out of the water.

"Only 40%"? In a country where minorities are 23%. Hmmm... interesting.

You have no right to process anyone. The US government has a right to process two desserters. But these desserters also have a right, according to international law, to present their case before a third country and try to get protection as refugees. The Canadian government will hear their case.

If they can't convince an Immigration and Refugee Board member that they will be unjustly persectuted in the US or that the punishment will be inhumane then they will be sent back (they have a recourse to appeal, but that only works in 1% of the cases) and the US can proceed with their trial.

Will they face unjust persecution and punishment in the US? I don't think so. The only reason the process takes so long is because there are many cases that the IRB has to hear.

No one's rights are being overstepped here.

Of course rights are being overstepped here..this is a simple case of desertion, a case that a military court-martial should hear..without hindrance, they will be accorded counsel, and they can even opt for civilian representation if they so choose...and they can make their case there, not from a house in Canada with the Canadian media behind them.

Nice CH how you pick and choose my statements..if you'll recall..that statement was done shortly after a mob in Fallujah had murdered 4 Americans, burned their bodies, finally mutilating them to the point their own mothers couldn't recognize them without a forensics lab, and as such I was understandably emotionally charged.
The fact remains that it was YOUR statement and it doesn't matter when you said it. It is yours alone, and you own it. What that statement demonstrated to me was your hatred towards those people and your anger. Your answer was to destroy any and all Sunni Iraqis. Please tell me how this differentiates you from saddam?

When the terrorists flew into the WTC, I was shocked and angry, but I would be remiss if I wanted to kill innocent people for revenge. Seeking such retribution lowers me down to the level of the perpetrator and really accomplishes nothing but spreading more hate and violence.

Um, all you people claiming the point of the war was to 'free the Iraqi people'.... remember back at the beginning? WMD? The whole pathetic excuse that turned out to be a bunch of bullshit as far as the majority of the world is concerned currently?

I find it ever so amusing how pro-war people just suddenly switched, as if by concensus from "WMD! WE MUST PROTECT OURSELVES!" to "WE ARE THERE TO SAVE THE PEOPLE! WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS!". Suuuuure you are. Funny how the war is still raging, the people don't seem too 'free' or 'happy' and there's never any mention from the pro-side of these mysterious 'WMDs'. What? Aren't they important anymore, now that the forces have weaseled their way into Iraq? Or have you all accepted they don't exist?

And the means never justify the ends. If the ends are truly justifiable, there is a justifiable means too.

Um, all you people claiming the point of the war was to 'free the Iraqi people'.... remember back at the beginning? WMD? The whole pathetic excuse that turned out to be a bunch of bullshit as far as the majority of the world is concerned currently?

I find it ever so amusing how pro-war people just suddenly switched, as if by concensus from "WMD! WE MUST PROTECT OURSELVES!" to "WE ARE THERE TO SAVE THE PEOPLE! WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS!". Suuuuure you are. Funny how the war is still raging, the people don't seem too 'free' or 'happy' and there's never any mention from the pro-side of these mysterious 'WMDs'. What? Aren't they important anymore, now that the forces have weaseled their way into Iraq? Or have you all accepted they don't exist?

And the means never justify the ends. If the ends are truly justifiable, there is a justifiable means too.

Who has said we have to have only one reason to use military force?...There are least half a dozen good reasons why we should use military force....and your means to get rid of Saddam?..what..await old age...and how many more of his own people would he have killed...or started wars with his neighbors again?

I believe that my country's respect for international laws is an admirable quality, and makes me proud as a Canadian. I have noticed that you have no respect for the sovereignity of nations of the world, nor the Geneva Conventions. The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions were designed to protect countries from people, such as yourself.

I lost a lot of respect for the US Government when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq without consent from the UN, especially while the UN inspectors where in Iraq and looking for so called WMD.

Now replace the word Canadian with Swede and you have my thoughts.

However, sometimes Sweden isn't the best nation allways. But atleast it's imo better then the US on it.

"Only 40%"? In a country where minorities are 23%. Hmmm... interesting.

Come on: the French even have a foreigners legion. So: the US is really not having an overrepresentation of minorities in their military. After all: it is not a minority thing, it is to a certain degree a social class thing.
Lower classes are more likely to join the military. That´s the case everywhere in the world actually.
And many minority groups do socially belong to a higher percentage to this group - like in other countries as well.
But here comes the difference. The minorities in the US are US citizens while in other countries (Germany, Italy, Spain) they don´t have the citizenship. Furthernmore many countries failed to integrate the minorities in their societies or the minorities - especially the intrasigent muslim minorities - reject to integrate themself into the socities - like in France.
The fact that minorities in the US are ready to fight for their country and volunteer for the army shows how successful the US is in integrating its minority groups.

The fact remains that it was YOUR statement and it doesn't matter when you said it. It is yours alone, and you own it. What that statement demonstrated to me was your hatred towards those people and your anger. Your answer was to destroy any and all Sunni Iraqis. Please tell me how this differentiates you from saddam?

When the terrorists flew into the WTC, I was shocked and angry, but I would be remiss if I wanted to kill innocent people for revenge. I wonder if you would be make this statement if they had hit Ottowa or Ontario or Montreal?Seeking such retribution lowers me down to the level of the perpetrator and really accomplishes nothing but spreading more hate and violence.

So I said it..I own it..and your point being?..That was anger talking..how this differentiates me from Saddam....surely you can't be serious?...I know how you like to use metaphor, allegories, similies..etc...but this goes over the top. To compare normal anger in conjunction with stress and shock due to a horrific scen to the systematic killing with brutal efficiency that the Saddam regime did I find somewhat offensive that you would make such a statement.

If they do that, they're idiots. Going to college is not what a military does. A military protects its country and fights its wars. Anyone who cannot understand these fundamentals shouldn't be in college; they are not intelligent enough to be there.

Yes, ofc they cannot see that the militarys primary goal is to protect and defend it's country against it enemies. They only the $s and then don't think.

My Credibility is in the faces of the Kurds who are now prospering, in the faces of Shiites who now, despite everything that Saddam or the Occupation has done..don't feel like second class citizens behind the Sunnis that Saddam's regime favored.
As if you give a damn about Kurds and Sunnis when you don't even care about the impoverished people in your own country, or do you prefer those people over your own?

So I said it..I own it..and your point being?..That was anger talking..how this differentiates me from Saddam....surely you can't be serious?...I know how you like to use metaphor, allegories, similies..etc...but this goes over the top. To compare normal anger in conjunction with stress and shock due to a horrific scen to the systematic killing with brutal efficiency that the Saddam regime did I find somewhat offensive that you would make such a statement.
There is no such thing as "normal anger" when you are talking about wiping out a segment of Iraqi society, namely Sunnis. You wanted millions to pay for the death of 4 contractors. Nice.

In regards to an attack upon Canada, my first thoughts would be who and why.

If a person murdered one of my sons, I am not going to go and shoot the murder's spouse, if you get my drift, and I am not certainly going to wipeout his whole neighbourhood.

As if you give a damn about Kurds and Sunnis when you don't even care about the impoverished people in your own country, or do you prefer those people over your own?

There is a world of difference between people who have been mass slaughtered and people here in the states who can work but dont....and frankly the fact that you think you know me well enough or that you'd even compare the two models I think is frankly disgusting and unworthy of you.

Who has said we have to have only one reason to use military force?

Actually, you used 2. Or your goverment that is. And if there are more then those 2, why not state them?

It's like "Oops, that was clearly wrong, lets use this one instead then". Wich imo is kind of childish

There is no such thing as "normal anger" when you are talking about wiping out a segment of Iraqi society, namely Sunnis. You wanted millions to pay for the death of 4 contractors. Nice.

In regards to an attack upon Canada, my first thoughts would be who and why.

If a person murdered one of my sons, I am not going to go and shoot the murder's spouse, if you get my drift, and I am not certainly going to wipeout his whole neighbourhood.

If your first thoughts of an attack on Canada would be who and why instead of a need for anger then I applaud you..you're obviously a man in better control of his emotions then I..but the bottom line what I said in anger, abnormal or not...I would never act upon that.which is apparently what you thought I would do.

Then your Canadian form of government is useless..as is every other sovereign nations...if they believe that some "international treaty" is above the laws and statutes of their sovereign nation. My Constitution, my laws, my Criminal Codes would all be considered null and void because of "international" treaty, and they are treaties...Laws are something my representative puts forth into Congress and they vote, and a Law is something my President can Veto...

Interesting how the very lowest level of Army training includes learning how to comply with those very international laws that you do not care for.

http://smct.armystudyguide.com/Skill_Level_1/181-105-1001.htm

Conditions: You are a soldier in the U.S. Army. As a soldier, you are responsible for identifying, understanding, and complying with the provisions of the Law of War, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions. You are also responsible for identifying and notifying the appropriate authorities of any suspected or known violations of the Law of War.

Standards: Identify, understand, and comply with the Law of War. Identify problems or situations that violate the policies and take appropriate action, including notifying appropriate authorities, so that expedient action may be taken to correct the problem or situation.


The fact that the President does have a process to withdraw from an international treaty duly signed and ratified by the US government is completely irrelevant until such time as he actually does so.

So far that hasn't happened and so a soldier is indeed duty-bound to uphold those treaty requirements.


As for Conscientious Objector status..CO's have to have a bonafide history of non-violence toward ALL war...not just ones in which he feels is wrong, he's making a political statement..he's not saying he's against War or killing, just that he's against this war, that makes it a political statement and is not justification for release from active service.

The conscientious objector status i, I think, irrelevant in this case. They are claiming that the war in Iraq is illegal, therefore following orders to deploy violates the UCMJ regarding a soldier's duty to disobey an unlawful order.

I personally don't see that an order to deploy in and of itself represents an illegal order, but that is another area of discussion. Just pointing out that the discussion on CO status is not germaine to the legal position that they seem to be following.

I had the same conversation with this Republican dude my roomie is dating.

He had a friend die a year ago in a bus bombing and so his position now is to wipe out all of Palestine. That is what he said he would do if he had the power. And that in my eyes makes them just as bad as any murderer.

Actually, you used 2. Or your goverment that is. And if there are more then those 2, why not state them?

It's like "Oops, that was clearly wrong, lets use this one instead then". Wich imo is kind of childish


2..6..half a dozen or another..isn't it irrevelent?..12..17.....I'll give you a good one..like to keep bringing it up because some here just gloss over it apparently.....300,000.....

...people here in the states who can work but dont....

Refering to what you think are "lazy" people living on welfare? Or people who are rich enough so they don't need to work aswell(and also should be classed as "lazy")?

If it's the first, how many of that kind of persons do you actually know to pass such judgement on them? And do you even have enough education for it?

2..6..half a dozen or another..isn't it irrevelent?..12..17.....I'll give you a good one..like to keep bringing it up because some here just gloss over it apparently.....300,000.....


Except that it is becoming aparent that those claims were as inflated as the claims of WMD - and both were largely foisted on the world by the same ex-patriot groups.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0%2C12956%2C1263901%2C00.html

And given that the stated position by multiple administrations was that they didn't give a damn how many Iraqis died to preventable disease and malnutrition under sanctions - and those numbers have been estimated to aproach even the most inflated claims of Saddam's horrors - it is hypocritical to denigrate him for his treatment of the same people that our polititians were more than happy to sacrifice as well.

Back to the original question:
There was a preliminary hearing already and the full hearing is due for late september. There's a couple of lawyers (I believe one is a US lawyer) who work pro-bono on behalf of the would-be refugees.

The US government submited their intent of deportation and all the paperwork deemed necessary. So far, the US government has not declared that the death penalty will not be sought. This may help the deserters as the Canadian immigration law has clauses that states that deportees should not be sent where there is a danger to their lives. But, since it's an election year, the US gov. is probably doing this to appease their right-wing voters.

You will probably have to wait about a year before all is said and done.

Now as a Canadian, I prefer by far my taxation and healthcare systems than the US one. As to college education: I think it should be open to those who don't have the money to follow it. There is many a great mind that are wasted because they had the bad luck of being born poor while some spoiled rich kid get to become a lawyer. But this is why I am in a socialist country and that people like Salishe are in a capitalist country.

And as for your information, international treaties are a contract between two or more nations. It is legally binding unless it contradict the constitution and is proven so in a court of law same as every contract or law. If you think the Geneva convention is not applicable, kindly submit the question to the tribunals and prepare to go as high as the supreme court.

Back to the original question:
There was a preliminary hearing already and the full hearing is due for late september. There's a couple of lawyers (I believe one is a US lawyer) who work pro-bono on behalf of the would-be refugees.

The US government submited their intent of deportation and all the paperwork deemed necessary. So far, the US government has not declared that the death penalty will not be sought. This may help the deserters as the Canadian immigration law has clauses that states that deportees should not be sent where there is a danger to their lives. But, since it's an election year, the US gov. is probably doing this to appease their right-wing voters.

You will probably have to wait about a year before all is said and done.

Now as a Canadian, I prefer by far my taxation and healthcare systems than the US one. As to college education: I think it should be open to those who don't have the money to follow it. There is many a great mind that are wasted because they had the bad luck of being born poor while some spoiled rich kid get to become a lawyer. But this is why I am in a socialist country and that people like Salishe are in a capitalist country.

And as for your information, international treaties are a contract between two or more nations. It is legally binding unless it contradict the constitution and is proven so in a court of law same as every contract or law. If you think the Geneva convention is not applicable, kindly submit the question to the tribunals and prepare to go as high as the supreme court.

They are not would-be refugees..let's get their status correct..they are deserters from the Armed Forces of the United States of America that is their legal status.

and I think it's a slap in the face to every man whose worn the uniform or gone overseas to know that these two deserters are getting the treatment the do..and if as you say...have a year off to enjoy Canada instead of sitting in the brig of a mlitary prison awaiting their court-martial. If they had truly had the courage of their convictions, that is where they would be now.

If your first thoughts of an attack on Canada would be who and why instead of a need for anger then I applaud you..you're obviously a man in better control of his emotions then I..but the bottom line what I said in anger, abnormal or not...I would never act upon that.which is apparently what you thought I would do.
Salishe, I don't know you and I am not trying to judge you. However, you must realize that the words that you post in this forum paint a picture that helps define who you are, and what you are and demonstrates to other posters your beliefs, your actions, and reactions.

I respond to those characterizations that you display, nothing more and nothing less.

First of all the war was for the security of America because of Saddams ties to OBL not money.

That funny, then why do I keep reading about the 9/11 report saying that there was NO connection. What WAS the reason for the Iraq war? Ask the Carlysle group.

Their are 110,000 other soldiers doing it are you saying that those 2 should be allowed to leave. If you do not hunt and kill deserters it promotes disertion, war is terrible but it is a part of life and must be done if your army deserts your country will fall.

You sound like the Holy Roman Emperor. Hunt and kill deserters? Isn't that a little bit "dark ages" even for the US?

They are not would-be refugees..let's get their status correct..they are deserters from the Armed Forces of the United States of America that is their legal status.

and I think it's a slap in the face to every man whose worn the uniform or gone overseas to know that these two deserters are getting the treatment the do..and if as you say...have a year off to enjoy Canada instead of sitting in the brig of a mlitary prison awaiting their court-martial. If they had truly had the courage of their convictions, that is where they would be now.


No. That is their legal status in the US. In Canada they are asylumn seekers under the immigration laws of the country and are entitled to due process - exactly the same as anyone claiming asylum in the US.

I know - you hate it when other countries actually follow the precept of due process that you espouse as a cornerstone of your own democracy - but some of us are rather fond of actually adhering to the concept rather than just preaching it.

They are not would-be refugees..let's get their status correct..they are deserters from the Armed Forces of the United States of America that is their legal status.

and I think it's a slap in the face to every man whose worn the uniform or gone overseas to know that these two deserters are getting the treatment the do..and if as you say...have a year off to enjoy Canada instead of sitting in the brig of a mlitary prison awaiting their court-martial. If they had truly had the courage of their convictions, that is where they would be now.
You are one of the few that suggested that these people be executed, so no I don't think we should ship them post haste to the US without due process.

and I think it's a slap in the face to every man whose worn the uniform or gone overseas to know that these two deserters are getting the treatment the do..and if as you say...have a year off to enjoy Canada instead of sitting in the brig of a mlitary prison awaiting their court-martial. If they had truly had the courage of their convictions, that is where they would be now.


well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, i personally think its more like forcing every widow of every soldier who died in combat while serving with the american military since the revolutionary war drink satan's urine in hell, but that's just me.

No. That is their legal status in the US. In Canada they are asylumn seekers under the immigration laws of the country and are entitled to due process - exactly the same as anyone claiming asylum in the US.

I know - you hate it when other countries actually follow the precept of due process that you espouse as a cornerstone of your own democracy - but some of us are rather fond of actually adhering to the concept rather than just preaching it.

Horseshit Zep..you can play semantics all you want.you know they are deserters...I know they are deserters..if you want to play word games and call them something else..fine..but please just dont' try to snow me with the term refugee. I call em like I see em..and so would the other 110,000 US troops currently serving in Iraq..they are deserters..no other word leaves such a vile taste in my mouth as that word..to leave your buddies..your comrades to go in harms way while you run away....

I've said it before..if they truly had the courge of their convictions, they would have accepted being arrested and tried in a military court-martial which is in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a jury of their peers....That is the cornerstone of military jurisprudence...mebbe you'd like to overturn 2 centuries of military legal precedents..but not me.

Horseshit Zep..you can play semantics all you want.you know they are deserters...I know they are deserters..if you want to play word games and call them something else..fine..but please just dont' try to snow me with the term refugee. I call em like I see em..and so would the other 110,000 US troops currently serving in Iraq..they are deserters..no other word leaves such a vile taste in my mouth as that word..to leave your buddies..your comrades to go in harms way while you run away....

I've said it before..if they truly had the courge of their convictions, they would have accepted being arrested and tried in a military court-martial which is in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a jury of their peers....That is the cornerstone of military jurisprudence...mebbe you'd like to overturn 2 centuries of military legal precedents..but not me.
ref·u·gee [ rèffyə j ] (plural ref·u·gees)

noun

somebody seeking a safe place: somebody who is seeking or taking refuge, especially from war or persecution, by going to a foreign country ( often used before a noun )

I would rather call them asylum seeker.

However they obviously don´t have the right for asylum.
Since that is the case their request should be rejected and they should be extradited to the US.

Horseshit Zep..you can play semantics all you want.you know they are deserters...I know they are deserters..if you want to play word games and call them something else..fine..but please just dont' try to snow me with the term refugee. I call em like I see em..and so would the other 110,000 US troops currently serving in Iraq..they are deserters..no other word leaves such a vile taste in my mouth as that word..to leave your buddies..your comrades to go in harms way while you run away....

I've said it before..if they truly had the courge of their convictions, they would have accepted being arrested and tried in a military court-martial which is in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a jury of their peers....That is the cornerstone of military jurisprudence...mebbe you'd like to overturn 2 centuries of military legal precedents..but not me.

The point being Salishe that the moment a person enters Canada and applies as a refugee they are entitled to due process - exactly the same as anyone who reaches US soil and does the same.

You don't like it in this case because of the specific circumstances. That is a fair personal opinion. However our country does not summarily chuck it's laws on matters of opinion as to the basis of the asylumn claim.

Maybe yours does. If so that is a sad indictment as to the true application of your much vaunted Constitution for puropses of pandering to mob opinion.

Frankly, I think their application is without merit and that they should eventually be returned. And I assume that this is what will happen. It may not be as fast as you would like, however I'll make you a deal: Don't expect us to shit on our constitution and laws and we won't ask you to do the same if someday the situation is reversed.

Fair enough?

[QUOTE=Purly Euclid]Isn't Canada considering extradition? Anyhow, anyone should know that this is an all volunteer military. If you aren't willing to die for your coutry, don't join.[QUOTE]If you want a career, don't join. :)

ref·u·gee [ rèffyə j ] (plural ref·u·gees)

noun

somebody seeking a safe place: somebody who is seeking or taking refuge, especially from war or persecution, by going to a foreign country ( often used before a noun )


Guess what..none of those apply to a military member who is scheduled to deployment in a warzone....

There two men should be charge with the following Articles under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 the most important aspect here for a military jury to think bout

(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. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished 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. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct

ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.

Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or

(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

ART. 91. INSUBORDINATE CONDUCT TOWARD WARRANT OFFICER, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER, OR PETTY OFFICER

Any warrant officer or enlisted member who--

(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;

(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or

(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office; 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.

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 articles which they should answer for to a military judge and jury, it is the right thing to do..it is the legal thing to do, and the honorable thing to do.

but the us military code of justice has nothing to do with the definition of a refugee under canadian law.

Not as long as this article would apply:

"(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."

but the us military code of justice has nothing to do with the definition of a refugee under canadian law.

But it has everything to do with what these men are...deserters of the Armed Forces, and after the Canadian system gives them back as hoped..that is what they can and hopefully will be charged with.

Not as long as this article would apply:

"(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."

yup the canadian don't gotta send no one back to face the death penalty, i believe even common murders are only extradited with the understanding they won't face execution.

Like every idiot you deliberately misinterpret something and think you've made a point. I'm saying that deserters can't be morally against a war that saves millions of people. I'm not saying that deserters should have to fight every country on earth that abuses people.

Knock off the flames!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Apparently Canadian Military Law also backs up the claims of the US Military...from their own website.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/office/military_law/default_e.asp

The Supreme Court of Canada states in the case of R. v. Genereux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259 :


“The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs.”

It is paramount to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces that these men be promptly returned for trial.

But these deserters do deserve it. If a soldier deserts during a war, the penalty is death. Simple as that.

You have to remember, Canada deemed the war in Iraq against international law, that's why we didn't go. There have been very few wars since WWII that we have not fought along side with you. Vietnam being one, even though thousands of Canadians did go via the USA. However, these soldiers do have a case here in Canada. How can Canada deem the war illegal, then when these soldiers say they want protection from a war they felt was morally wrong disagree.

My feeling is Canada should grant them political asylum. Or whichever status that would allow them to stay in Canada, just like we did with all the people who flocked to Canada when they didn't want to go to Vietnam.

Also, another thing to point out. Canada has always refused to return any one to the USA if they faced the death penalty as it's against basic human rights.

@Salishe,

Canada is know for its intrasigence regarding the extradition of criminals. Germany for example is waiting since five years for the extradition of a man which was highly involved in the biggest party corruption scandal.
However: due to the lazieness of the Canadian courts they haven´t made a decision on the issue yet.
Canada obviously needs a reform of its legal system to avoid such incidents which are damaging diplomatic relations to other countries.

You have to remember, Canada deemed the war in Iraq against international law, that's why we didn't go. There have been very few wars since WWII that we have not fought along side with you. Vietnam being one, even though thousands of Canadians did go via the USA. However, these soldiers do have a case here in Canada. How can Canada deem the war illegal, then when these soldiers say they want protection from a war they felt was morally wrong disagree.

My feeling is Canada should grant them political asylum. Or whichever status that would allow them to stay in Canada, just like we did with all the people who flocked to Canada when they didn't want to go to Vietnam.

Also, another thing to point out. Canada has always refused to return any one to the USA if they faced the death penalty as it's against basic human rights.

Steph..please read my above post..that is unless you haven't already, your Supreme Court and Canadian Military Law would seem to back up our military's rights in this matter.

"Also, another thing to point out. Canada has always refused to return any one to the USA if they faced the death penalty."
Other countries don´t do that as well. However I wouldn´t see the death penalty as a violation of human rights. That is for example an opinion. It is not part of any law, even not international law, by the way.

But there would be a way to avoid this issue: if the US gives assurances that they are not facing the death penalty.
This is in this case as a matter of fact a purely theoretical options. According to military law experts they may face a five year prison sentence or even less.
So this argument doesn´t stand.

Steph..please read my above post..that is unless you haven't already, your Supreme Court and Canadian Military Law would seem to back up our military's rights in this matter.
i think they really only back up the canadian military's rights, i don't think that extends to foriegn military's codes of justice.

i think they really only back up the canadian military's rights, i don't think that extends to foriegn military's codes of justice.

It also wouldn't back it up if Canada has deemed the war illegal within our own country, which we have.

Steph..please read my above post..that is unless you haven't already, your Supreme Court and Canadian Military Law would seem to back up our military's rights in this matter.

Nonetheless, I think the point Steph is making is that although we Canadians also have a separate judicial system for servicemen and women, since Canada does not deem the invasion of Iraq to be a legal deployment, we are under no obligation to return these men. Does anyone know if anyone was extradited during the Vietnam war for desertion?

i think they really only back up the canadian military's rights, i don't think that extends to foriegn military's codes of justice.

The point I was trying to make was that the Canadian Military felt it was essential to have in place an independent means to deal with legal problems. It is no different with US military legal jurisprudence....if we had two Canadian soldiers who had deserted we wouldn't even be having this conversation...MP's would have put them in a Humvee and met them at any border crossing of their choosing....It's an internal military matter, let them answer for in a military setting.

You have to remember, Canada deemed the war in Iraq against international law, that's why we didn't go.

As far as I know Canada like any other NATO member supported the Kosovo war.
There was also no mandate from the UN Security Council as a matter of fact. This war was actually conducted on an even thiner legal basis, since the US can refer to 1441 and the past resolutions in the 1990s, especially the one authorising the use of force in 1991 and the one after the armistice (687) which explicitly stated that the armistice is only valid if Iraq is in compliance with its obligations. And Iraq wasn´t as a matter of fact.
In the case of Milosevics Jugoslavia there was no UN resolution, the US under Clinton even didn´t go to the UN because of it and still was backed by all NATO allies.

Steph..please read my above post..that is unless you haven't already, your Supreme Court and Canadian Military Law would seem to back up our military's rights in this matter.

Maybee our military law agree with your view of these two but since the decision is up to the immigration and refugee claims laws, the military has no saying in how these two people will be handled. So your point is moot.

Besides, they are just one case in a system with over 30 000 cases right now. So be patient and let the due process take it's court.

It also wouldn't back it up if Canada has deemed the war illegal within our own country, which we have.

From what I've read off that site..the Canadian Supreme Court would disagree with you.

Apparently Canadian Military Law also backs up the claims of the US Military...from their own website.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/office/military_law/default_e.asp

The Supreme Court of Canada states in the case of R. v. Genereux, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 259 :


“The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs.”

It is paramount to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces that these men be promptly returned for trial.
The point you raise is noted. However, look at these words:

"The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security."

You cannot tell me that Iraq was a threat to the US's security? You will also note that the wording is different from the US code?

Steph..please read my above post..that is unless you haven't already, your Supreme Court and Canadian Military Law would seem to back up our military's rights in this matter.

and if these men were in the Canadian Military you might have a point.....

"Also, another thing to point out. Canada has always refused to return any one to the USA if they faced the death penalty."
Other countries don´t do that as well. However I wouldn´t see the death penalty as a violation of human rights. That is for example an opinion. It is not part of any law, even not international law, by the way.

But there would be a way to avoid this issue: if the US gives assurances that they are not facing the death penalty.
This is in this case as a matter of fact a purely theoretical options. According to military law experts they may face a five year prison sentence or even less.
So this argument doesn´t stand.

Sorry...do you mean to say that the death penalty is not a violation of human rights and no international law sees it as such? Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Yeah, I know...the Declaration is not universally binding, and even signatory nations (the U.S) don't follow it all the time, but isn't it the ideal for international law?

The point you raise is noted. However, look at these words:

"The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation’s security."

You cannot tell me that Iraq was a threat to the US's security? You will also note that the wording is different from the US code?

It is irrevelent to the issue of our security...you took one bit out of that post and applied it to the political situation between Canada, the US, and the war in Iraq..this is a simple case of desertion from the military, it should be treated that way, our soldiers returned for court-martial..or don't you think we deserve the right to take care of own in our own way?

@CanuckHeaven

As far as I know Canada like any other NATO member supported the Kosovo war.
There was also no mandate from the UN Security Council as a matter of fact. This war was actually conducted on an even thiner legal basis, since the US can refer to 1441 and the past resolutions in the 1990s, especially the one authorising the use of force in 1991 and the one after the armistice (687) which explicitly stated that the armistice is only valid if Iraq is in compliance with its obligations. And Iraq wasn´t as a matter of fact.
In the case of Milosevics Jugoslavia there was no UN resolution, the US under Clinton even didn´t go to the UN because of it and still was backed by all NATO allies.

So your argument regarding international law is irrelevant.
The legal question is disputed and the only instituition which could make a binding judgement on it - the UN Security Council - will never ever declare that war and the presence of the coalition illegal. At least two countries in there would veto that.

The fact is: the war was legitimated according to US and British law and the highest legal representative of Britain also saw it as not in defiance of international law.

International law doesn´t ban wars, it only bans wars of agression. However: there isn´t a definition for that anyway and the only instituition who could make a legally binding definition - the Security Council - is not able to do so since 1945 and will never be be able to do so.

After all: Canada supported the actions against Jugoslavia without any UN mandate. The argumentation using international law therefore can only be called hypocritical

I think you've already proven that these soldiers probably wouldn't be executed if they were returned...but Canada also tries not to send people back to countries where they would be unduly punished (by our standards), so if in a Humanitarian and Compassionate Application for Permanent Residence Status in Canada these two can prove that they will be unduly persecuted, they probably will be granted permanent asylum. We don't always hold to this however, as can be seen in our involvement in the Arar case where the U.S deported a Syrian-born Canadian to Syria where he was tortured for a year (apparently we tipped the U.S off and let them do the dirty work). I deal with immigration a lot, and it's really going to depend on the mood of the immigration officer that day whether or not their application will be accepted or not.

Isn't it strange when you think a thread is about to die, gets bumped, nearly dies, gets bumped again, you post, go to sleep, come back 11 hours later and find 14 pages.

It is irrevelent to the issue of our security...you took one bit out of that post and applied it to the political situation between Canada, the US, and the war in Iraq..this is a simple case of desertion from the military, it should be treated that way, our soldiers returned for court-martial..or don't you think we deserve the right to take care of own in our own way?

You just can't get past the diference between their legal status in the US and that in Canada can you. It really is not a dificult concept.

There is a border.

They crossed it.

Their legal status in the US therefore means NOTHING at this moment. There is an extradition request. They are chosing to exercise their rights to follow due process to fight that extradition. And so process is being followed.

And, as mentioned - the same thing would be happening if the situation were reversed and you damn well know it.

Please poke just ONE hole in that statement of the situation - besides that fact that you really, really want these guys to be punished as soon as possible - which is hardly germaine to the argument at all.

-Z-

After all: Canada supported the actions against Jugoslavia without any UN mandate. The argumentation using international law therefore can only be called hypocritical

Actually, Canada didn't go to war, we sent in peace keepers. That was not a war of aggression, it was a peace keeping mission, bit of a difference. :rolleyes:

Anyone got a summary as to wtf we've been discussing on my thread?

You just can't get past the diference between their legal status in the US and that in Canada can you. It really is not a dificult concept.

There is a border.

They crossed it.

Their legal status in the US therefore means NOTHING at this moment. There is an extradition request. They are chosing to exercise their rights to follow due process to fight that extradition. And so process is being followed.

And, as mentioned - the same thing would be happening if the situation were reversed and you damn well know it.

Please poke just ONE hole in that statement of the situation - besides that fact that you really, really want these guys to be punished as soon as possible - which is hardly germaine to the argument at all.

-Z-

Zep...I honestly doubt it...if two Canadian soldiers up and deserted...it is entirely likely they would be handed to American military police who would promptly drive them to any border crossing the Canadian military authorities requested..

Sorry...do you mean to say that the death penalty is not a violation of human rights and no international law sees it as such? Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Yeah, I know...the Declaration is not universally binding, and even signatory nations (the U.S) don't follow it all the time, but isn't it the ideal for international law?

You can forfeit rights as a matter of fact. If someone commits a crime and is sentenced to a prison-sentence he loses his liberty. That´s a fact. And that is legal of course.

You have to interpret legal texts. For example: the garantee of liberty is a garantee for the law-abiding citizen not for the criminal. The criminal has to go to jail, of course.
And many countries use the death penalty as well. It is actually part of natural law. Who kills someone else forfeits the right to life. There is a clear logic in that. And it is clearly justifiable.

If someone wants to ban the death penalty he has to say so explicitly. This declaration is not at all banning the death penalty - even for the countries who signed it and even if it be legally binding.
International law banning the death penalty is for example the sixth additional protocoll of the European Council, which explicitly bans the execution of the death penalty (however not the verdict itself by the way).
That is binding. Or in national law article 102 of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany which states: The death penalty is abolished.

You can not interpret articles and laws in a different way as they were intended in order to suit your political views. That is simply not possible.
And this declaration doesn´t ban the death penalty as a matter of fact. It doesn´t say so.

technically, the us occupation of vietnam wasn't classified as an actual war either

You mean the US defence of South Vietnam... Cambodia was a major staging area for NVA invasions of the South during the war, tens of thousands of American soldiers died needlessly because we were never willing to make it an actual all out war and invade the North.

Zep...I honestly doubt it...if two Canadian soldiers up and deserted...it is entirely likely they would be handed to American military police who would promptly drive them to any border crossing the Canadian military authorities requested..


Ah, so due process is a myth in the US.



Interesting.


So much for the value of your Constitution, laws, and any consideration for being considered a bastion of freedom to the world.

You opinion in this case is both irrelvant and wrong, and if your government DID do such a thing I would lose all repsect for it whatsoever. As I hope would you.

You fought to defend something didn't you?

Aparently it was something that you don't even believe in.

well i just got home after a while and havent watched tv well news in like a week. anywaysi as a canadian think we should send those pussies back so they can be tried(sp?). i mean come on dont join the army if you dont wanna fight thats just retarted. oh and to the person who said some poeple just join for a free college education, whats wrong with that? I mean not everyone is rich and can afford an education.

anywho im just ranting but they should be sent back to the states and be delt with there.

Actually, Canada didn't go to war, we sent in peace keepers. That was not a war of aggression, it was a peace keeping mission, bit of a difference. :rolleyes:

I´m referring to the Cosovo war. Almost 100 days of bombing of serbian military targets in urban and rural arreas I wouldn´t call a peace keeping mission. There were after all several thousand casulties on the serbian side.
I don´t know whether canadian plains actively participated in the campaing (American (almost 80%), British, French, Italian and German military all flew attacks in this Nato operation, probably also other countries I don´t know), but it for shure backed the campaign. Nato decisions need to be unanimous. Without Canadian support this war - which was done against the will of the Security Council and without its authorisation (two permanent members would have vetoed it (Russia, China) would not have been conducted by Nato.
As a nato member Canada backed it and is therefore also responsible for it. And by doing so it ignored the right of the Security Council. I think that was the right thing to do. But you can´t switch your argument and say: well: this war which was done against the UN Security Council is ok, the other isn´t. This argument doesn`t stand.

That´s also why most countries have not commented on the legal issue and just say it is disputed.

Ah, so due process is a myth in the US.



Interesting.


So much for the value of your Constitution, laws, and any consideration for being considered a bastion of freedom to the world.

You opinion in this case is both irrelvant and wrong, and if your government DID do such a thing I would lose all repsect for it whatsoever. As I hope would you.

You fought to defend something didn't you?

Aparently it was something that you don't even believe in.

Please...let's not get into a "what America is"...the simple fact is we'd respect our Canadian Military system of Judicial prudence...they would be awarded counsel..of that I'm assuming...and given a fair trial under Canadian Military Law...I see no reason why we wouldn't hand over two Canadian deserters?

You can not interpret articles and laws in a different way as they were intended in order to suit your political views. That is simply not possible.
And this declaration doesn´t ban the death penalty as a matter of fact. It doesn´t say so.

I won't go into the whole death penalty debate, because that's fit for another thread and could be quite enjoyable:) However, I do want to address your statement here... OF COURSE you can interpret articles and laws in different ways in order to suit your political views (you say differently than how they were intended, but that would mean looking into the minds of the people who wrote it...we can only go by what was written)! "Abolition of the death penalty within a particular state has been the result of a domestic, rather than an international, INTERPRETATION of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Sibonile Khoza (caps added). You interpret Article 3 to mean that those rights are only for people who have NOT committed crimes... that's YOUR political view. Okay I'll stop there because I'm raring to go ranting on about the death penalty. My point is, all interpretations are based on a political viewpoint.

Please...let's not get into a "what America is"...the simple fact is we'd respect our Canadian Military system of Judicial prudence...they would be awarded counsel..of that I'm assuming...and given a fair trial under Canadian Military Law...I see no reason why we wouldn't hand over two Canadian deserters?

Except for that teensy-weensy little thing called the US laws regarding the absolute rights to hearings in the case of a request for asylum?

And except for the bilateral extradition agreement between Canada and the US?

http://www.usextradition.com/canada_bi.htm

I direct your attention to:

ARTICLE 8

The determination that extradition should or should not be granted shall be made in accordance with the law of the requested State and the person whose extradition is sought shall have the right to use all remedies and recourses provided by such law.



You are welcome to research your own laws regarding the asylum claim process on your own time. I think you will find that you actually DO have them, and that they do afford the rights of due process regarding the determination of their status under your own laws. In fact - I know that you will find that to be the case.

Obviously this particular case has not happened between us, but you can read up the legal twistings of an Albanian who deserted and claimed asylum in the US on that basis here:

http://www.visalaw.com/99jun/28jun99.html

Read the section on Selgeka vs Carol.

I'm not trying to show this as an exact paralel and I understand the diference between a volunteer and a conscript. Just pointing out that there is ample rights to hearings and apeals in the US under cases of extradition.

So take a deep breath and let due process take it's course. It's the lynchpin of both our countries for good reason - even if the wheels of justice seem a tad glacial in speed sometimes.

Dammit I asked to keep debating to a minimum and I get 16 pages in 12 hours.


I'd prefer not to read anything in my own thread now. Know why? Both sides here seem to be feeling superior to each other. As much as I'm leaning toward America's side, I hate it when people do that.

I bid thee farewell

or don't you think we deserve the right to take care of own in our own way?

when they happen to step into canadian territory it's not just that simple anymore.

Dammit I asked to keep debating to a minimum and I get 16 pages in 12 hours.


I'd prefer not to read anything in my own thread now. Know why? Both sides here seem to be feeling superior to each other. As much as I'm leaning toward America's side, I hate it when people do that.

I bid thee farewell

Oh.... so you want to post opinions.... but not have debate.

Might I suggest blogspot.com as a better avenue for your editorial outputs....

Dammit I asked to keep debating to a minimum and I get 16 pages in 12 hours.


Colodia,

I answered your question on what is happening in the 12th page. Anyway, to resume:
There has been a first preliminary hearing. It has been determined that they have a case and should be granted a full hearing. That will take place in late september.

Don't expect to see them back in the US for at least a year unless there's more political pressure than now.

Sinuhue,

you can´t interpret them that way.
It would just be nonsense to do so.
Because then you would need to ban prison sentences as well, following that insane logic.

"you say differently than how they were intended, but that would mean looking into the minds of the people who wrote it...we can only go by what was written"
That is unnecessary. You can use the comments they made, the intentions they stressed, the context in which the law was made. I don´t know Canadian law but I just no that in French law for example the even write the intentions and the considerations in a kind of preamble if they change laws.

We don´t need to guess them, we just have to read and research it. It is very simply. First you have to use a grammatical interpretation - looking to the wording.
It something is unclear you have to follow other methods. And the historical interpretation is one of them.


"Abolition of the death penalty within a particular state has been the result of a domestic, rather than an international, INTERPRETATION of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
I´m unaware that it played any role in any country. The reasons for the abolition were purely domestic and the believe that it just didn´t be effective deterrent against crime as the supporters claim.

Oh.... so you want to post opinions.... but not have debate.

Might I suggest blogspot.com as a better avenue for your editorial outputs....
not my kinda thing

Perhaps it's the fact that I only asked for the latest news

hell, I probably said something to spark a debate, but it's not my place to tell you guys to stop debating. Only that I wanted to say a mere thing.

Who kills someone else forfeits the right to life. There is a clear logic in that. And it is clearly justifiable.

Think this "eye for an eye" way of thinking is, or atleast should be, history. We should be better then that. You think a person who ends another ones life have forfeited it's right to life and you, as a part of your country, want to end his. Who are you to judge whiether who should live and not live?

And also, you can't take back a death penalty that is executed. The person is dead. But a life sentence on the other hand you can atleast end it. There has been more then one case of innocent people beeing judge to death penalty and after that founded that they where innocent without much doubt.

Sinuhue,

you can´t interpret them that way.
It would just be nonsense to do so.
Because then you would need to ban prison sentences as well, following that insane logic.

"you say differently than how they were intended, but that would mean looking into the minds of the people who wrote it...we can only go by what was written"
That is unnecessary. You can use the comments they made, the intentions they stressed, the context in which the law was made. I don´t know Canadian law but I just no that in French law for example the even write the intentions and the considerations in a kind of preamble if they change laws.

We don´t need to guess them, we just have to read and research it. It is very simply. First you have to use a grammatical interpretation - looking to the wording.
It something is unclear you have to follow other methods. And the historical interpretation is one of them.


"Abolition of the death penalty within a particular state has been the result of a domestic, rather than an international, INTERPRETATION of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
I´m unaware that it played any role in any country. The reasons for the abolition were purely domestic and the believe that it just didn´t be effective deterrent against crime as the supporters claim.

Hey, you know...you're really good at dismissing anyone's opinion but your own...insane logic...hmmm....I guess any logic that doesn't follow your own must be nuts. I seem to recall you in another thread complaining that people were taking your words out of context...and putting words in your mouth...well then don't do it to me. I never said that I my interpretation of Article 3 would ban prison sentences, but I don't really think this is the forum to discuss my entire interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you'd like to KNOW my opinion, instead of guessing it, I'd be happy to discuss it with you somewhere else.

As for banning the death penalty being a purely domestic decision... that would be nearly impossible unless you were living in a country completely cut off from the rest of the world. It is through mass citizen and NGO involvement that politicians decide to pass legislation. That includes groups like Amnesty International (emphasis on the international) who work hard to get rid of the death penalty, and citizens in concert with others around the world who try to influence their representatives to change domestic laws. Of course they are influenced by happenings abroad and Declarations made in an international context.

So..apparently according to Steph was it you?...these deserters are to granted a hearing..which according to more then one Canadian has indicated it might be up to a year before their case is heard...well..isn't that just sweet, a year of enjoying the cozy life up in Canada while their brethren have to face MRE's, cold showers, and 1 yr tours of duty..Ya know..I might have a different opinion of this whole damn thing if they could convince the men they left behind of their case..let those who served with them be their judge.

Of course waiting for the courts to decide something is frustrating...but that's the way our systems are set up. If we just allowed the U.S to come over and drag them home, we wouldn't be a very law-abiding nation. Just think that if they DO get sent back, their prison sentence is likely to make up for any "good life" they may have enjoyed here.

let those who served with them be their judge.

Don't think the Canadian courts of laws would find that to be a fair jury, hence, they'd stay permanent in Canada. So by doing it your ways you would never get them.

Rather get them at all, however you'd have to wait a while, then not getting them at all, right?

Don't think the Canadian courts of laws would find that to be a fair jury, hence, they'd stay permanent in Canada. So by doing it your ways you would never get them.

Rather get them at all, however you'd have to wait a while, then not getting them at all, right?

Why would you not think they'd make a fair jury?...if court-martials are convened..it is entirely likely that several members of the jury would be veterans of either the first Gulf War or the current one...

If I was going to desert...I'd want my buddies to know why I'm deserting that it's not them I'm leaving in the lurch....like I said..if he could convince them of their reasoning...I'd probably shut up about the whole thing.

Go and fight a War in a country where the people hate you because of your Government's money fuelled policies.
Go and fight a War where your life hangs in the balance every day you wake up, and every night when you lay down to sleep.
Go and fight a War where you are constantly looking behind your shoulder, waiting for an unseen enemy.
Go and fight a War where half of your best friends face was ripped apart in an instant, and the same bomb left you with only a scratch.

Go and fight a War - And then say that.

I did go fight that war and will be going back next year. And I still say the cowards should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The US military is ALL volunteer. There is only one purpose for any military-to fight wars. If you don't want to fight them then don't enlist. There is NO justification for desertion in the US military. Hell even if you are and and get called up there are still options, this running to Canada crap is self aggrandizing BS leaving their fellow soldiers to carry their weight because they are weak and pathetic and COWARDS.

Why would you not think they'd make a fair jury?...if court-martials are convened..it is entirely likely that several members of the jury would be veterans of either the first Gulf War or the current one...

If I was going to desert...I'd want my buddies to know why I'm deserting that it's not them I'm leaving in the lurch....like I said..if he could convince them of their reasoning...I'd probably shut up about the whole thing.

Cause they are from the start biased by the personality of the prosecuted fellow. They might like him and therefor likely vote for a lesser punishment then they should have if based on only on facts etc. And if they dislike him it's likely they vote for a harder punishment then it should be.

To make it go futher. Would it be right to have your mother as jury if you had been beaten up some guy and you where of legal age? Think you would get away with a much lesser punishment then any similair case.

I did go fight that war and will be going back next year. And I still say the cowards should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The US military is ALL volunteer. There is only one purpose for any military-to fight wars. If you don't want to fight them then don't enlist. There is NO justification for desertion in the US military. Hell even if you are and and get called up there are still options, this running to Canada crap is self aggrandizing BS leaving their fellow soldiers to carry their weight because they are weak and pathetic and COWARDS.

You have to admit however, it was better they ran while on leave rather on station or during a firefight.

As HannibalSmith pointed out, there is soooo many ways to get out of a combat role......

they are weak and pathetic and COWARDS.

Don't think they are weak, pathetic and COWARDs cause they believe in something.

Don't think they are weak, pathetic and COWARDs cause they believe in something.

If they truly believe in something..they would have submitted themselves for arrest..requested a court-martial, obtained counsel and stood before a jury of their peers and military judge and let the system determine if their cause was just....otherwise..I have nothing to go on but the facts as it is clear to me...they got orders to deploy to Iraq...both ran...simple.

Don't think they are weak, pathetic and COWARDs cause they believe in something.

Well, since the military is an all volunteer force, they knew what they were getting into before they joined. I served 20 years and I had the opportunity to be involved in several actions over those years. Was I afraid? Yes. Do I believe in something? Yes. These two are weak, not physically, but in integrity. If you volunteer and swear an oath to do something, which they did, then they should do their duty or not volunteer.

Don't think they are weak, pathetic and COWARDs cause they believe in something.

Sure they believed in self-preservation probably to the extent of sacrificing others to achieve it.

Cowardice is not courageous.

They took an oath. If they refused to fight and accepted their punishment, then few would think cowards.

The claim of execution is without merit. There has to be a declaration of war and they had to have ran during a fight to which their actions caused the deaths of fellow soldiers.

So..apparently according to Steph was it you?...these deserters are to granted a hearing..which according to more then one Canadian has indicated it might be up to a year before their case is heard...well..isn't that just sweet, a year of enjoying the cozy life up in Canada while their brethren have to face MRE's, cold showers, and 1 yr tours of duty..Ya know..I might have a different opinion of this whole damn thing if they could convince the men they left behind of their case..let those who served with them be their judge.

You have to understand.. this is Canada, not the United States, in our borders our laws trump yours. We tend to look at all sides and the process is fair and just. When we look outside of our and your borders we must take international law under review as well. In the end, they will probably send them back, not because it's the right thing to do but so we don't end up in a pissing contest over it. The fact of the matter is I won't understand how a war that Canada has deemed illegal can send troops back to a country sending them to said illegal war when they are following international law saying that if you're given an illegal order not only is it your responsibility to not accept that order, but your duty! You can argue the legality of the Iraq war all you like within your borders, this does not negate the fact that in our borders our legislative branch has already deemed it illegal, so why on earth would we send them back, it just doesn't make any common sense! If they are sent back it will be for political reasons, not just reasons.

You have to understand.. this is Canada, not the United States, in our borders our laws trump yours. We tend to look at all sides and the process is fair and just. When we look outside of our and your borders we must take international law under review as well. In the end, they will probably send them back, not because it's the right thing to do but so we don't end up in a pissing contest over it. The fact of the matter is I won't understand how a war that Canada has deemed illegal can send troops back to a country sending them to said illegal war when they are following international law saying that if you're given an illegal order not only is it your responsibility to not accept that order, but your duty! You can argue the legality of the Iraq war all you like within your borders, this does not negate the fact that in our borders our legislative branch has already deemed it illegal, so why on earth would we send them back, it just doesn't make any common sense! If they are sent back it will be for political reasons, not just reasons.

Ok, since they are in YOUR borders, but are NOT Canadian citizens, then how can you justify keeping them? Plus there is that little matter of the extradition treaty. I am sure there are times when Canadian criminals have crossed into the US and been sent back. These two will NOT face the death penalty, but they will go to prison for desertion. Of course Canada could just keep them there, but that would violate the extradition treaty. Which by the way does NOT specify WHICH crimes are covered, just anyone wated for violating ANY law of their home country.

Ok, since they are in YOUR borders, but are NOT Canadian citizens, then how can you justify keeping them? Plus there is that little matter of the extradition treaty. I am sure there are times when Canadian criminals have crossed into the US and been sent back. These two will NOT face the death penalty, but they will go to prison for desertion. Of course Canada could just keep them there, but that would violate the extradition treaty. Which by the way does NOT specify WHICH crimes are covered, just anyone wated for violating ANY law of their home country.

It is up to Canada to decide this issue, not the United States.. if Canada deems they were legal according to our laws and international laws, that trumps American law. They are here of free will and want to be here.. it will now be up to the Canadian government and the Canadian courts to decide. It's that simple. They are in our country now. Canadian law trumps American law.

You have to understand.. this is Canada, not the United States, in our borders our laws trump yours. We tend to look at all sides and the process is fair and just. When we look outside of our and your borders we must take international law under review as well. In the end, they will probably send them back, not because it's the right thing to do but so we don't end up in a pissing contest over it. The fact of the matter is I won't understand how a war that Canada has deemed illegal can send troops back to a country sending them to said illegal war when they are following international law saying that if you're given an illegal order not only is it your responsibility to not accept that order, but your duty! You can argue the legality of the Iraq war all you like within your borders, this does not negate the fact that in our borders our legislative branch has already deemed it illegal, so why on earth would we send them back, it just doesn't make any common sense! If they are sent back it will be for political reasons, not just reasons.

At the very least I think they should have to go to some type of detention center...I just don't want them to be able to take a trip up to Toronto, fish off Lake Ontario, go hang out in the niteclub set in Ontario...it's a mockery to what their buddies are going thru...it's downright cruel.

And it is the right thing to do....your government may have taken a political position..but that doesn't mean it's right..

At the very least I think they should have to go to some type of detention center...I just don't want them to be able to take a trip up to Toronto, fish off Lake Ontario, go hang out in the niteclub set in Ontario...it's a mockery to what their buddies are going thru...it's downright cruel.

And it is the right thing to do....your government may have taken a political position..but that doesn't mean it's right..

Well, again I will disagree, because Canada has not yet decided if they have committed any breach of Canadian law or international law.. no one is saying they killed any one or committed a crime and very well may not of committed any crime under our system. They are in our borders. Canada decides. Just like when we had a Canadian in Texas on death row, the Canadian government tried to put much pressure on the USA to not put him to death, as we know in Canada it's a basic violation of human rights.. Yet, Bush as Governor of Texas put him to death any way.. We understood that he was within your borders and the decision was basically yours to make no matter how much we deplored it.

So what do you tell the families of the soldiers who had to go to iraq because those two didn't want to go? As far as they knew, their daddy/husbands were able to stay home. Furthermore, what if those two got killed in action? That'd be fair justice. They get to die while the "refugees" get to go moose hunting. Nice.

They are in our country now. Canadian law trumps American law.

Except where treaties are concerned. Treaties trump national law when dealing with foreigners. Canadians in the US who are wanted can try to fight extradition, but will fail unless they can prove they fled persecution and not to avoid arrest for a crime. I think you will probably find the same is true in Canada. So in time, these AMERICANS who fled to avoid arrest for commiting a CRIME will be sent home to face justice.

Of course Canada can refuse and break the treaty which will not bode well in other areas down the line as governments tend to have long memories for such treachery.

Send them to France. That is where cowards are from.

they weren't cowards. one of them was talking about how he discovered buddhism after he joined the army and buddhism does have a policy about not killing people... so he applied for non-combattant status and he was denied. so he ran away rather than violate his principles.

i don't know what the other guy's story is though.

Ok, since they are in YOUR borders, but are NOT Canadian citizens, then how can you justify keeping them?

We aren't "keeping" them. What we are doing is determining if they should forced to leave. They have made an application under similar laws to what you have regarding asylum seekers and that process must be followed.

Then there is that little matter of the extradition treaty. I am sure there are times when Canadian criminals have crossed into the US and been sent back.

Yes. After due process in YOUR system. It all works the same in both directions althought the specifics of "due process" are slightly diferent.


These two will NOT face the death penalty, but they will go to prison for desertion. Of course Canada could just keep them there, but that would violate the extradition treaty. Which by the way does NOT specify WHICH crimes are covered, just anyone wated for violating ANY law of their home country.

Aparantly the reading of legal documents is not your forte.

For starters, the treaty clearly states that extradition under threat of death penalty may be summarily denied (Article 6). We agree that this is unlikely in this case, but it IS a possible legal penalty under the statute and so the US military will have to explicitely state intent to waive that option before proceedings will begin.

For the next item, which I hadn't noted before, the treaty clearly attaches a schedule of offenses covered by that treaty. Desertion from the military is not listed. I know that this treaty has been ammended since 71 but I do not know if this schedule was changed. At the time this was explicietly excluded due to the Vietnam situation.

And finally, ARTICLE 4

(1) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

...

(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing him for an offense of the above-mentioned character.

Although I do not know that he will be able to satisfy this requirement in this case.

Anyway - it's your treaty as much as ours. Excuse the hell out of us for living up to it - just the same as you would under the opposite circumstances.

:rolleyes:

-EDIT-

I just checked the '88 and '01 ammendments, indeed it has been ammended although not to ANY crime as you suggest, but rather to any crime punishable by a sentance of more than one year in BOTH countries. So yes - desertion would now be included.

Also, the "political" clause has been deleted after the original rational - Vietnam - became a non-issue.

So I will correct my statement on those.

Interestingly enough, for those that think that Clinton was not caring about terrorism - the stated reason for the broadening of the treaty was specifically to expidite extraditions of those charged in terrorism-related offenses.


Anyway - enough of this shit about "breaking treaties". All Canada is doing is following the proper procedures mandated by the various laws applicable to refugee applicants under our criminal code. Governments have an obligation to follow these laws, and to do it fairly and impartially for all whom are called before them.